↓ Skip to main content

A Critical Ear: Analysis of Value Judgments in Reviews of Beethoven's Piano Sonata Recordings

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Critical Ear: Analysis of Value Judgments in Reviews of Beethoven's Piano Sonata Recordings
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00391
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena Alessandri, Victoria J. Williamson, Hubert Eiholzer, Aaron Williamon

Abstract

What sets a great music performance apart? In this study, we addressed this question through an examination of value judgments in written criticism of recorded performance. One hundred reviews of recordings of Beethoven's piano sonatas, published in the Gramophone between 1934 and 2010, were analyzed through a three-step qualitative analysis that identified the valence (positive/negative) expressed by critics' statements and the evaluation criteria that underpinned their judgments. The outcome is a model of the main evaluation criteria used by professional critics: aesthetic properties, including intensity, coherence, and complexity, and achievement-related properties, including sureness, comprehension, and endeavor. The model also emphasizes how critics consider the suitability and balance of these properties across the musical and cultural context of the performance. The findings relate directly to current discourses on the role of evaluation in music criticism and the generalizability of aesthetic principles. In particular, the perceived achievement of the performer stands out as a factor that drives appreciation of a recording.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Professor 1 6%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 5 29%
Psychology 2 12%
Neuroscience 2 12%
Social Sciences 2 12%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,007,574
of 25,027,251 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,057
of 33,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,492
of 306,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#76
of 465 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,027,251 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,814 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 465 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.