4:33
9:23. .. . J2...)
1.: :0“... ‘

3M5

 

:.
1:52: . t... .
“vow; inch?

x A...

. X!

S. 1'”:er
! i

 

 

, u. at. u , la:
3 f. .1. x. , ‘ ‘ . , ‘ . 3. , . . I
, a $3.; H_fimfln.m3_ .Nufimfim, “Egg

THE 313

{- 1

 

IlllILHIIHHIIHIIHUIJllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIllllll

L'PRARY 33129 01780 6658
Mlehlgan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION IN EAR-TRAINING

AND ITS INTEGRATION INTO UNDERGRADUATE MUSIC PROGRAMS
DURING THE 1998-99 ACADEMIC YEAR

presented by

Douglas Raymond Spangler

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters degree in Music

  

 

 

MaSogEofessor

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION IN EAR-TRAINING AND ITS
INTEGRATION INTO UNDERGRADUATE MUSIC PROGRAMS
DURING THE 1998-99 ACADEMIC YEAR.

By

Douglas Raymond Spangler

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF MUSIC
Department of Music

1999

ABSTRACT

COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION IN EAR-TRAINING AND ITS
INTEGRATION INTO UNDERGRADUATE MUSIC PROGRAMS
DURING THE 1998-99 ACADEMIC YEAR.

BY

Douglas Raymond Spangler

As computer use has become more widespread, with both better technology
and lower prices, a growing number of undergraduate institutions are integrating
ear-training CAI (Computer-assisted instruction) into their music theory programs.
New ear-training programs are becoming available, and many Older programs are
being updated to include more and better features. With more than thirty
commercial ear-training programs currently available, music instructors face an
increasingly daunting task when asked to choose software for undergraduate ear-
training.

This work identifies more than sixty ear-training CAI programs and reviews
thirty programs using a two-page review form. It also provides results from a survey
representing 209 undergraduate institutions and their integration of ear-training CAI
during the 1998-99 academic year. The thesis research and software reviews were
published on the World Wide Web at http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9. This

Home Page was also referenced on the Society for Music Theory Web Site.

This work is dedicate to my parents, Doug and Carol Spangler Jr.,

whose love and support made this project possible.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A project such as this would be incomplete without thanking those people
who helped make it possible.

The professors at Michigan State University have been a wonderful source
of guidance and encouragement. Dr. Gordon Sly, my thesis adviser, has offered
many helpful suggestions regarding the researching and writing of a master’s thesis.
Dr. Bruce Taggart, Instructor of Music Theory and a member of my thesis
committee, offered recommendations regarding the software review form and
suggestions for evaluating the survey data. Professor Deborah Moriarty, Chair
of the Keyboard Area, offered many insights into piano performance, music
pedagogy, and ear-training CAI. Dr. Mark Sullivan, Chair of Composition, allowed
me to work in the Computer Music Lab for nearly five years and offered many
suggestions on how to improve the webpage version of the thesis. Dr. Cynthia
Taggart, Associate Director for Graduate Studies, was a wonderful academic
adviser and offered many useful suggestions regarding the survey.

My Sincere thanks to Ann Blombach, a Professor at Ohio State University
and author of the ear-training program, MacGAM UT, for providing an e-mail list of
instructors who used MacGAMUT software.

Finally, my sincerest thanks go to the many software developers and
distributors who provided evaluation copies of various ear-training programs as well

as the more than 209 music instructors who responded to the e-mail survey.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................. vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................... ix
INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1
BEGINNINGS AND PURPOSE ................................. 1
CHAPTER 1 ..................................................... 2
THE CAI SURVEY ................................................ 2
PURPOSE OF THE CAI SURVEY ............................... 2
METHODS ................................................. 2
THE SAMPLE SIZE AND RESPONSE RATE ...................... 3
DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................... 5
BIASES OF THE SURVEY METHOD ............................ 6
SURVEY RESULTS .......................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 ..................................................... 18
THE SOFTWARE REVIEW FORM ................................... 18
PURPOSE ............................................... 18
FORMAT .................................................. 18
GENERAL INFORMATION .................................... 20
AVAILABLE EXERCISES ...................................... 21
INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES .................................... 24
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND SETUP INFORMATION ............ 3O
PRICING AND PRODUCT INFORMATION ........................ 31
CHAPTER 3 ..................................................... 32
DIRECTIONS FOR CAI DEVELOPMENT ............................... 32
SOURCES OF INFORMATION ................................. 32
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ................................. 32
SURVEY COMMENTS ....................................... 33
THE MOST COMMON COMMENTS ............................. 33
CAI USEFULNESS ........................................... 35
STUDENT USAGE .......................................... 36
LAB ACCESSIBILITY AND PLATFORM AVAILABILITY .............. 36
EXERCISES AND SOUND QUALITY ............................ 37
SCORING ISSUES AND GENERAL PROGRAM BUGS ............. 39
COURSE INTEGRATION AND CAI CUSTOMIZATION ............... 40
CONCLUSIONS .................................................. 42

APPENDIX A .................................................... 44

THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT ....................................... 44
APPENDIX B .................................................... 47
ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF RESPONDING INSTITUTIONS .............. 47
APPENDIX C .................................................... 55
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ....................... 55
APPENDIX D .................................................... 58
LISTING OF PROGRAMS USED IN RESPONDING INSTITUTIONS ......... 58
APPENDIX E ..................................................... 6O
THIRTY-THREE PROGRAMS NOT REVIEWED ......................... 60
APPENDIX F ..................................................... 62
SOFTWARE REVIEW FORM ........................................ 62
APPENDIX G .................................................... 65
REVIEWS OF THIRTY EAR-TRAINING CAI PROGRAMS ................. 65
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THIRTY PROGRAM REVIEWS ............... 65

vi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF INSTITUTIONS ..................... 6
TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE OF INSTITUTIONS USING CAI ................ 8
TABLE 3 NUMBER OF PROGRAMS USED ........................... 9
TABLE 4 PLATFORMS USED FOR CAI ............................. 9
TABLE 5 PERCENTAGES OF GRADE BASED ON CAI USE .............. 10
TABLE 6 METHODS OF INTEGRATING CAI ......................... 11
TABLE 7 ACCESS TO CAI SOFTWARE ............................. 12
TABLE 8 NUMBER OF COMPUTERS AVAILABLE FOR CAI .............. 12
TABLE 9 INTERNET ACCESSIBILITY OF COMPUTER LABS .............. 13
TABLE 10 SOFTWARE AT SCHOOLS USING ONLY ONE PROGRAM ..... 14
TABLE 11 PROGRAMS USED FOR 10% OR MORE OF GRADE ......... 15
TABLE 12 INSTRUCTOR RATINGS OF VARIOUS CAI SOFTWARE ........ 15
TABLE 13 STUDENT RATINGS OF CAI HELPFULNESS ................. 16
TABLE 14 EXCERPT FROM A BLANK REVIEW FORM .................. 19
TABLE 15 EXCERPT FROM A COMPLETED REVIEW FORM ............ 19
TABLE 16 GENERAL CATEGORIES OF COMMENTS ................... 33
TABLE 17 “TOP TEN” COMMENTS ................................. 34
TABLE 18 CAI USEFULNESS ..................................... 35
TABLE 19 STUDENT USAGE ....................................... 36
TABLE 20 LAB ACCESSIBILITY AND PLATFORM AVAILABILITY ......... 37

TABLE 21 EXERCISES AND SOUND QUALITY ....................... 39

vii

TABLE 22 SCORING ISSUES AND GENERAL PROGRAM BUGS ......... 40

TABLE 23 COURSE INTEGRATION AND CAI CUSTOMIZATION ........... 41

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ATMI The Association for Technology in Music Instruction.

CAI Computer-assisted instruction.

CMS College Music Society.

K Kilobytes.

LAN Local Area Network.

MB Megabytes.

MG + SMT/ATMI The combination of all survey responses.

MG list A list of 103 e-mail addresses of instructors using MacGAMUT ear-
training software. It was provided by Ann Blombach, the developer of
MacGAMUT.

MG sample The seventy survey responses generated from the MG list.

mHz Megahertz.

MIDI Musical Instrument Digital Interface.

MSU Michigan State University.

O/S Operating System.

RAM Random Access Memory.

SMT The Society for Music Theory.

SMT/ATMI list A combination of two music e-mail lists representing an estimated
550 undergraduate institutions.

SMT/ATMI sample The 139 responses generated from the SMT/ATMI list.

URL Uniform Resource Locator.

INTRODUCTION

BEGINNINGS AND PURPOSE

This thesis had its beginnings in the Michigan State University School of
Music computer labs. The author worked from September 1995 to May 1999 as a
lab monitor in the Computer Music Lab—a public lab devoted to programs for music
sequencing, notation, sound editing, programming, and ear-training. The author
also worked in the MSU ear-training lab from its opening in September 1997, until
December 1998. This close contact with ear-training software sparked an interest
in the subject and led to the decision to do a master’s thesis in Music Theory on the
current state of ear-training software.

The project began as a study of ear-training software used in Big Ten
schools. As countless web searches were done to discover ear-training programs,
the topic of ear-training appeared to be a chaotic field of information ripe for
research. Ear-training programs were discovered on an almost weekly basis, yet
very little literature on the current use of CAI was discovered. This thesis attempts
to bring some order to the field of ear-training CAI by addressing which programs
are currently available and how they are used in undergraduate institutions. It
provides reviews of thirty ear-training programs and gives results from a survey
representing 209 undergraduate institutions. It is hoped that this work will make
future research into ear-training CAI more profitable and serve as a reference for

music instructors seeking to integrate ear-training CAI into their classes.

CHAPTER ‘I

THE CAI SURVEY

PURPOSE OF THE CAI SURVEY

The survey was designed to provide general information about how ear-
training CAI software was integrated into undergraduate music theory instruction
during the 1998-99 academic year. The questions asked pertained to which
programs were used, how CAI use was integrated, how CAI was graded, and how

the instructor rated the software.

METHODS

The method chosen was a convenience sample using a ten-question e-mail
survey that required approximately four minutes to complete. Eight of the ten
questions were multiple choice, and one question (regarding the respondent’s rating
of the software) was optional. In addition, Optional comments were requested at the
end of the survey. After pretestS of the survey instrument were completed in the fall
of 1998 it was decided to use three email lists to obtain a sampling of
undergraduate institutions. Two of the lists chosen were the SMT (Society for Music
Theory) list, and the ATMI (Association for Technology in Music Instruction) list.
The third source, referred to as the MG sample, was a list of e-mail addresses which
were graciously provided by Ann Blombach, a professor at Ohio State University
and author of the ear-training software, MacGAMUT. The SMT list contained 853

addresses, the ATMI list contained 282 addresses, and the MG list contained 103

addresses. The instrument, which is shown in Appendix A, was sent to the SMT
and ATMI lists on February 2, 1999 and again on February 12, 1999. It was sent
to the MG sample on February 15, 1999, February 23, 1999, and finally on March
6, 1999.

The SMT and ATMI samples were intended to provide a random sampling
of undergraduate institutions; they generated 134 responses. The MG sample was
intended to provide a closer look at institutions using MacGAMUT software; it
generated seventy responses. Five additional responses arose from contact with
various people while research for the thesis was being conducted; these included
software developers, instructors who were consulted via e-mail, and responses to
a copy of the survey posted on my webpage between February 2, 1999, and March
15, 1999. These five responses were counted towards the SMT/ATMI sample

bringing the number for the SMT/ATMI sample up to 139 responses.

THE SAMPLE SIZE AND RESPONSE RATE

The actual sample size represented by the SMT and ATMI lists was difficult
to determine. Membership lists of the SMT and ATMI lists were obtained on March
4, 1999. The SMT list had 847 subscribers with 843 of these listed as unconcealed
e-mail addresses. The ATMI list had 282 subscribers. Although this indicates a
population of about 1125 subscribers, the number of institutions represented in the
sample is considerably lower—possibly as low as 450 undergraduate institutions.

The 1125 available e-mail addresses were combined into a database to
determine a closer approximation of the sample Size. This number was reduced to
1066 addresses simply by discounting for duplication between the two lists. This

3

number was further reduced to 1030 by discounting thirty-Six addresses that
indicated publishers or news organizations. Often, there were ten or more people
from the same academic institution subscribed to one of the lists. Because only one
response from each institution was counted in the survey results, multiple
subscribers were removed so that each institution was represented only once by an
academic e-mail address. There were 456 duplicate institutional addresses which
further reduced the sample size to 574 possible institutions. Using the SMT
research profiles database it was determined that an additional twenty-four of these
addresses had no academic affiliation. Of the 550 possible academic institutions
remaining in the SMT/ATMI sample, 191 of these addresses lacked any indication
of academic affiliation; for instance, there were sixty-four AOL (America Online)
subscribers. Of the 550 possible institutional addresses, 134 responded. This
indicates a response rate of about twenty-four percent. Even if 100 of the 191 non-
academic address are discounted, the response rate is still very low at about thirty
percent. One possible reason for such a low response rate may be that the use of
the word “survey" in the subject line of the e—mail may have prompted many
subscribers to skip the message. In addition, many persons subscribed to the SMT
or ATMI lists were undoubtably students or instructors not directly associated with
any undergraduate aural skills classes.

The response rate of the MG sample was sixty-eight percent. Although the
MG sample contained more than 150 addresses representing 145 institutions, a few
of the addresses were of students or secretaries at music schools, and twenty of the
institutions were already represented in the random sample. The instrument was
sent to instructors at 123 institutions; however, eighteen were immediately returned

4

as undeliverable. Two working addresses represented instructors no longer on the
faculty at the indicated institutions. The sample size represented 103 institutions,
and generated seventy responses. This higher response rate of sixty-eight percent
may be due to the fact that the instrument was e-mailed privately to each individual.
MacGAMUT users may also have been more inclined to fill out surveys and more

likely to speak favorably about the ear-training program.

DEMOGRAPHICS

The survey represents seven countries in addition to the United States; forty-
three of the fifty states are represented, as are Puerto Rico and the District of
Columbia. The survey includes responses from 194 four-year colleges and fifteen
two-year colleges. Ten of the responding institutions were not listed in the College
Music Society Directory of Music Schools; however, the survey represents fifteen
percent of the four-year undergraduate institutions listed in the 1999 CMS
Directory—or 184 of the 1213 listed four-year schools. Appendix B lists
alphabetically the 209 institutions represented in the survey. Appendix C lists the
geographic distribution for the 209 survey responses along with the subset of
seventy responses generated by the MG sample. The geographic distribution Of
the1817 institutions represented in the CMS directory are also listed. In order to
maintain the confidentiality Of the responses, the numbers for the seventy
institutions in the MG sample are indicated only as a subset of the 209 responses.
In cases where the survey represents only one institution from a geographic region

in the US, the listing for the MG sample is indicated as not applicable.

The SMT/ATMI sample tends to represent larger institutions with fifty-nine
percent of the responses coming from institutions with 100 or more music students.
This may be due to a bias in the survey method that would favor larger schools.
The MG sample tends to represent smaller schools, and serves well in
complementing the SMT/ATMI sample. The size distribution of undergraduate
institutions represented in the survey is show in Table 1 below and indicates that
institutions of all sizes are well represented. The smaller number (139) represents
results from the SMT/ATMI sample only, while the larger number (209) includes

results from the MG sample.

TABLE 1 SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF INSTITUTIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Music Majors SMT/ATMI MG + SMT/ATMI
n=139 % n = 209 %
O to 19 21 15% 33 1 6%
20 to 49 1 6 12% 32 1 5%
50 to 99 19 14% 33 1 6%
1 00 to 199 24 1 7% 42 20%
200 or more 59 42% 69 33%

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIASES OF THE SURVEY METHOD

The SMT and ATMI lists provided a convenience sample that represents a
random sampling of schools of differing sizes, but there is a pronounced technology
bias in the type of individual who was able to respond to the survey. Only

instructors regularly using e-mail and subscribing to one of two e-mail lists were

even likely to see the survey. There may also have been a reluctance on the part
of instructors to respond at all if their institution was not using ear-training CAI.
Institutions not using ear-training CAI are therefore likely to be under-represented
in the survey results.

There is also a bias toward the type of undergraduate institution, whether
four-year or two-year, that was likely to respond to the survey. While the CMS
directory lists 1213 four-year schools and 506 two-year schools, the 209 responses
represent only fifteen two-year schools. One possible reason may be the phrasing
of the second question in the survey which asked for an indication of the number of
undergraduate “music majors”. A second possibility is that the above mentioned
technology bias may be even more pronounced with regard to smaller two-year
institutions. The technology bias, as well as the low response rate of about 24%,
prevent the SMT/ATMI sample from being a truly random sample which can be used
to make generalizations regarding the state of ear-training; however, a descriptive

analysis of the survey results follows.

SURVEY RESULTS

Many of the tables used below will provide results from the SMT/ATMI
sample followed by the results from the SMT/ATMI and MG samples combined.
This is done to provide as much information as possible and to allow for comparison
between the responses from the various samples. Table 2 shows that twelve of the
139 responses from the SMT/ATMI sample reported that they did not use ear-
training CAI. Of these, one respondent reported having used CAI in the past but

had since discontinued its use. Others mentioned that they were currently looking

7

into CAI for ear-training. Considering the technology bias of the survey, one could
infer that the actual percentage of undergraduate institutions using ear-training CAI
is Significantly less than the 91% indicated below. One response from the MG

sample indicated that ear-training CAI was no longer being used.

TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE OF INSTITUTIONS USING CAI

 

 

CAI usage SMT/ATMI MG + SMT/ATMI
n=139 % n=209 %
None 12 9% 13 6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAI used 127 91 % 196 94%

 

Appendix D lists more than twenty-five commercial programs along with a
number of the 22 “homegrown” CAI programs used in the responding institutions.
The number of institutions that reported using each program is also indicated. Many
schools reported using two or three different software programs. While the use of
multiple ear-training programs may imply a search for variety, it may also indicate
a level of dissatisfaction with the software currently being used. Conversely, the use
of a single program may indicate a greater level of satisfaction with the CAI
software. The SMT/ATMI sample indicates that forty-six percent of institutions
using CAI use two or more programs. Table 3 shows the rates at which multiple CAI

programs are used in the responding institutions.

TABLE 3 NUMBER OF PROGRAMS USED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of programs used SMT/ATMI MG + SMT/ATMI
n=1 27 % n=1 96 %
1 program 69 54% 113 58%
2 programs 32 25% 47 24%
3 programs 16 13% 21 1 1%
4 or more programs 10 8% 15 8%

 

 

The Macintosh platform was by far the most widely used platform for ear-
training CAI. At least eighty-seven percent of the institutions from the SMT/ATMI
sample reported using Macintosh computers for ear-training. IBM-compatible
computers were used for ear-training at about sixteen percent of the institutions from

the SMT/ATMI sample. Table 4 shows the computer platforms used for ear-training

CAI.

TABLE 4 PLATFORMS USED FOR CAI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Platforms used for CAI SMT/ATMI MG + SMT/ATMI
n=127 % n=196 %
Macintosh 1 05 83% 1 73 88%
IBM-compatible 1 6 1 2% 1 6 8%
Both Mac and IBM 5 4% 6 3%
NeXT 1 1% 1%

 

The percentage of course grade determined by CAI use ranges from nothing

 

to more than eighty percent. The SMT/ATMI sample shows that three percent of the
schools reported using CAI for fifty percent or more of the grade, but that forty
percent of the schools used CAI for ten percent or more of the grade. Similarly, forty
percent of the schools used CAI only for ungraded practice. The MG sample
indicates that institutions using MacGAM UT are more likely to grade the use of ear-
training CAI. Table 5 shows the percentage of the grade based on CAI usage in the

responding institutions.

TABLE 5 PERCENTAGES OF GRADE BASED ON CAI USE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade evaluation based on CAI use SMT/ATMI MG + SMT/ATMI
n=127 % n=196 %
Ungraded Practice 51 40% 66 34%
Extra credit 8 6% 11 6%
1% to 9% of the grade 15 12% 25 13%
10% to 19% of the grade 30 24% 54 28%
20% to 29% of the grade 12 9% 18 9%
30% to 39% of the grade 2 2% 10 5%
40% to 49% of the grade 3 2% 3 1%
50% or more of the grade 4 3% 4 2%
Other 2 2% 5 3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many different methods of integrating the CAI software were reported. The
most common use for CAI in both samples was some form of graded practice. The
SMT/ATMI sample indicated that thirty-four percent of the responding institutions

used CAI only for ungraded practice. Grades were based on passing levels or

10

completing tests at twenty-one percent of the institutions. Recording of practice
time along with completing levels accounted for CAI use in another twenty-one
percent of the institutions. Approximately eleven percent of the institutions included
CAI as lab work during part of a class period, and nine percent of the institutions
based the grade only on the amount of time spent with CAI. Table 6 shows the

various methods of integrating CAI into undergraduate aural skills classes.

TABLE 6 METHODS OF INTEGRATING CAI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Integration SMT/ATMI MG + SMT/ATMI
n=1 27 % n=196 %
Ungraded practice 43 34% 54 27%
Testing (Passing Levels) Only 27 21% 40 20%
Testing + Time 27 21% 40 20%
Testing + Lab work 3 2% 5 3%
Testing + Time + Lab work 6 5% 17 9%
Time Only 1 1 9% 22 1 1%
Time + Lab work 3 2% 5 3%
Lab work 2 2% 5 3%
Extra credit practice 5 4% 8 4%

 

 

 

 

 

The most common method for students to access the CAI was in a single
computer lab. Nearly eighty percent of schools indicated the use of a primary ear-
training lab. About eleven percent added that the CAI could be accessed through
a campus network. The limited access to ear-training software in computer labs

was mentioned often in the optional instructor comments.

11

TABLE 7 ACCESS TO CAI SOFTWARE

 

 

 

 

 

Software Access SMT/ATMI MG + SMT/ATMI
n=127 % n=196 %
One Lab 102 80% 147 75%
Many Labs 23 18% 37 19%
Personal Copies (at least one lab) 2 2% 12 6%
Through Campus Network (14) (1 1%) (16) (8%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The limited number of computers for students to do CAI work was also a
frequent comment in the survey responses. Many schools required the students to
purchase personal copies of CAI which were not dependent on the use of a single
computer lab. Other schools used a campus network to address the accessibility
problem. Table 1 previously showed that more than half of the 209 schools in the
survey have 100 or more students. Table 8 below indicates that forty-six percent
of the schools have fewer than nine computers in a music lab that can access ear-
training CAI. Only twenty percent of the institutions have twenty or more computers

available in a music lab.

TABLE 8 NUMBER OF COMPUTERS AVAILABLE FOR CAI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Computers available in music lab(s) SMT/ATMI MG + SMT/ATMI
_ n=127 % n=196 %
1 to 9 59 46% 90 46%
10 to 19 43 34% 69 35%
20to 29 16 13% 22 11%
30 or more 9 7% 15 8%

 

12

 

Nearly Sixty-six percent of the institutions using CAI reported that their ear-
training computer labs were connected to the internet. Three instructors from the
SMT/ATMI sample responded that the computer labs were intentionally not
connected to the internet so that students would not waste time surfing the web.
Although a few instructors in the SMT/ATMI sample did not respond to this question,
Table 9 shows the breakdown of internet accessibility of the labs in the responding

institutions.

TABLE 9 INTERNET ACCESSIBILITY OF COMPUTER LABS

 

 

 

 

Internet Accessibility SMT/ATMI MG + SMT/ATMI
n=1 27 % n=196 %
Yes 80 63% 1 29 66%
No 39 31% 59 30%
Not available 8 6% 8 4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In order to identify some of the more useful CAI programs, the institutions
reporting the use of one CAI program will be further examined. The SMT/ATMI
sample contained Sixty-nine institutions which reported using a single CAI program.
Practica Musica led the list and was reported at forty-three percent of these
institutions. MacGAMUT was second and was reported at thirty-two percent of
these institutions. Most of the programs listed had been available for five to ten
years; however, Auralia, which was first released in 1998, posted a relatively strong
showing despite its IBM platform and recent release date. Four commercial

programs are represented by a single responding institution. These four programs

13

are: Computerkolleg Musik, Guido, teoria, and Musique. The three “homegrown”
software programs include: Audio Challenger written by Anthony Holland, a
professor at Skidmore College; Harmonic Idioms written by Edward Chudacoff, a
professor at the University of Michigan, and; a set of custom MIDI sequences used
for melodic dictations. Table 10 lists the programs used by sixty-nine institutions

reporting only a single CAI package.

TABLE 10 SOFTWARE AT SCHOOLS USING ONLY ONE PROGRAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Programs reported SMT/ATMI
n=69 %
Practica Musica 30 43%
MacGAMUT 22 32%
Music Lab Melody 4 6%
Auralia 2 3%
CAT. 2 3%
ET Drill 2 3%
Other “Homegrown” programs 3 4%
Other commercially available programs 4 6%

 

 

Of the sixty-nine institutions reporting only one CAI program, twenty-six
reported using CAI for ten percent or more of the grade. Table 11 lists the
programs used at institutions integrating CAI as ten percent or more of the grade
and using only one CAI program. Practica Musica again tops the list, but

MacGAMUT follows as a close second.

14

TABLE 11 PROGRAMS USED FOR 10% OR MORE OF GRADE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Software titles used for 10% or more of grade SMT/ATMI
n=26 %

Practica Musica 10 38%

MacGAMUT 9 35%

Music Lab Melody 3 12%

Curriculum for Aural Training (CAT) 2 8%
Computerkolleg Musik 1 4%

Musique 1 4%

 

Nearly Sixty percent of the instructors rated the various ear-training programs

as good. About 20% of the instructors rated the software as only fair or poor, and

two instructors discontinued using ear-training CAI altogether.

A number of

instructors did not rate the software. In the few cases where an instructor indicated

a rating between two categories, the lower of the two categories was counted.

Table 12 shows the approximate instructor ratings of various CAI packages.

TABLE 12 INSTRUCTOR RATINGS OF VARIOUS CAI SOFTWARE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating categories SMT/ATMI MG + SMT/ATMI
n=1 27 % n=196 %
Excellent 19 1 5% 35 1 8%
Good 76 60% 1 14 58%
Fair 24 19% 34 17%
Poor 3 2% 4 2%
Not available 5 4% 5%

 

15

 

 

The final question on the survey instrument asked whether the students
seemed to find the CAI helpful. More than seventy percent of the instructors
responded that students did find the programs helpful. Some instructors at
institutions where CAI was used for ungraded practice commented that although

students found the CAI helpful, only a few students actually used the programs.

TABLE 13 STUDENT RATINGS OF CAI HELPFULNESS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did students find the CAI helpful? SMT/ATMI MG + SMT/ATMI
n=1 27 % n=1 96 %
Yes 97 72% 155 77%
Indifferent 15 12% 21 1 1%
Varies 8 6% 1 1 6%
No 3 2% 5 3%
Not available 5 4% 5 3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BRIEF SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS

Of the 209 survey responses, fifty-three percent of the schools had 100 or
more music majors. The following comments refer to the 196 institutions that used
ear-training CAI. Approximately forty-five percent of the institutions used two or
more ear-training programs. The Macintosh platform was used at well over eighty-
five percent of the institutions. CAI use was evaluated as part of the course grade
at more than fifty-two percent of the institutions. At nearly fifty percent of the
institutions, the most common method of integrating CAI software included testing

or the passing of levels. Eighty percent of the institutions reported using only one

16

computer lab for the ear-training CAI, and forty-six percent of the institutions had
fewer than nine computers in music labs for use with ear-training software. Nearly
seventy-five percent of instructors rated the software as good, and seventy-seven
percent said that students seemed to find the software helpful. There were sixty-
nine institutions from the SMT/ATMI sample that used only one ear-training CAI
program. Practica Musica and MacGAMUT appear as the most used programs in
this category and when combined were used at seventy-five percent of these
institutions. These two programs were also used in seventy-four percent of the 127
institutions that used CAI and were from the SMT/ATMI sample. While thirty of
these institutions reported using both programs, Practica Musica was used at

seventy-two institutions, and MacGAMUT was used at fifty-two institutions.

17

CHAPTER 2

THE SOFTWARE REVIEW FORM

PURPOSE

The software reviews offered here do not provide a comparative rating or
judgement of each program’s design features or effectiveness in various activities.
Rather, the reviews provide a brief overview of each program’s available features
and an indication of each program's limitations. To this end, it was decided to use
a consistent form for each review but to attempt to give the form a degree of
flexibility to accommodate the unique characteristics of each program. The form
was designed primarily to address the needs of undergraduate music instructors,
but every effort was made to make the reviews useful for elementary school
teachers, college students, or parents looking for music instruction programs.
Perhaps the greatest advantage of the form is the ease with which readers can
identify those programs that may fit their particular needs. The reviews were also
published on the World Wide Web and were designed for ease of updating by the
author so that they could be kept current in the fast-changing world of computer

technology.

FORMAT

The two page review takes the form of an extended table with the first column
giving the main categories in bold, capitalized lettering. The other columns list
possible program features or are left blank. Blank cells may be filled in with general

information or optional commentary. Listed features or options that do not apply to

18

the software being reviewed will have their text struck through with a single line.
This at once indicates that the feature in question is not present in the software, and
it makes that feature less readable for anyone searching quickly through the form
for a program’s general qualities. Optional commentary written into the blank cells
on the form will appear in italics. The following two examples illustrate an excerpt

from a blank form, and that same excerpt as it might appear in a completed review.

TABLE 14 EXCERPT FROM A BLANK REVIEW FORM

 

 

HARMONIC Inversions +6 Chords

 

PROGRESSIONS: Single-click Response Secondary Dominants

 

MELODIES: Computer-generated

Libraries of Melodies Melodies Include Rhythm

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 15 EXCERPT FROM A COMPLETED REVIEW FORM

 

 

HARMONIC- lnversions *G-Ghords
. S' I l' I R S l B . I
MELODIES: Computer-generated MIDI Entry Of Answers
tibraries-of—Melodies- Melodies Include Rhythm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The completed excerpt indicates that the program does not contain harmonic
progression exercises but that it does contain melodic exercises. The excerpt also
indicates that there are no pre-entered libraries of melodies but that the melodies

are computer-generated (usually from a list of parameters chosen by the user) and

19

include rhythm. There is optional commentary, in italics, indicating that answers can
be entered using the MIDI keyboard.
The review form is divided into five main sections:
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
2. AVAILABLE EXERCISES
3. INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES
4. SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND SETUP INFORMATION
5. PRICING AND PRODUCT INFORMATION
Each of these sections is discussed below in greater detail. Explanations are
given for terms used on the review form, and observations are made regarding

the various exercises and options available in the thirty programs reviewed.

GENERAL INFORMATION

The first section of the review form begins with the program name appearing
at the top of the form, and presents basic information about the software being
reviewed. Information is given regarding the version of the software being reviewed,
the reviewer name, and the webpage URL. The review date is given and is followed
by information about the platforms and operating systems on which the software
runs. The first section closes with information about the intended uses for the
software. It indicates whether a program is intended primarily for user-directed
individual practice or whether it is also designed for use in educational
institutions—where tracking of student progress and instructor customization are
often considered as desirable features. Subcategories of individual practice indicate

whether the program includes games or tutorials. Games and game-like elements

20

are found most often in programs for younger students. Tutorials are often found
in programs for self-motivated individuals wishing to learn or review basic music
theory terminology in addition to aural skills. The final subcategory indicates the
approximate target audience of the program as kindergarten to 6th grade, 7th to

12th grade, or college level students.

AVAILABLE EXERCISES

Interval exercises are the most common type of exercise found in the current
generation of ear-training programs. Users are often given total control in selecting
the intervals to be practiced as well as the response methods. Response methods
can include a single mouse-click, playing on a MIDI keyboard, clicking notes of an
on-screen keyboard, notating the pitches on an on-screen staff, or singing. Melodic
intervals are listed on the form as ascending and descending intervals. This is done
because a few programs do not allow for practice of descending intervals. Listings
for harmonic intervals and compound intervals close out the interval section of the
review form.

Chord identification exercises are also a common feature of many ear-
training programs, although some programs are limited to the use of chords in root
position. The form addresses this issue by specifying whether or not the program
includes chord inversions. Separate listings are given for triads and seventh chords.
One issue that can frustrate students is the open voicing of seventh chords in some
programs; the spacing in some instances places the outer voices more than two
octaves apart. Many programs address this issue by allowing users to choose an

option for open or closed spacing of chords or by allowing the user to specify the

21

range of the pitches to be used for the exercise. A blank space is provided for
optional features such as custom chords which can be entered and labeled by the
user. Other optional features may include extensive listings of jazz chords (9ths
11ths and 13ths), chord clusters, suspensions, or augmented sixth chords. A
problem with the more advanced Single-chord identification exercises can be their
limited usefulness when there is no harmonic context. One example of this is the
identification of an isolated German Augmented Sixth chord, which is the
enharmonic equivalent of, and therefore indistinguishable from, a V7 chord. Few
programs precede their single-chord identification exercises with a tonal context.
Harmonic progression exercises are not as widespread as the previous two
exercises but are available in nearly half of the programs reviewed. Most of the
programs feature only basic diatonic progressions in major and minor keys. Some
programs include augmented sixth chords and secondary dominants. A few
programs feature extensive libraries ofjazz progressions. Augmented Sixth chords,
indicated by +6 on the form, are a listed feature along with inversions. Secondary
dominants are also listed, and space is left for optional features. These features
may include instructor customization of progressions either by direct entry, by
selecting from a menu of options, or by entering progression elements which are
then recombined by the program. This latter method can sometimes produce poor
voice-leading and unintended chord progressions. Some programs use simple
progressions that sound like an academic harmony exercise, but other programs
use excerpts from classical music or popular music—helping to create a connection
between ear-training and music appreciation. None of the reviewed programs used

actual recorded performances of musical excerpts, but some programs featured a

22

MIDI playback of an actual performance. The methods used for answering some
progression exercises are rather tedious: The user selects a Roman numeral, an
inversion symbol, and then clicks on the box representing the chosen chord. Some
programs even allow for optional notation of the bass and soprano lines. While
these methods may reinforce basic music theory concepts, they may also take away
from the actual amount of time spent on aural practice. The one response method
listed on the review form in this category is that of answering with a single-click of
the mouse. Cadences or cadence formulas are a related category of exercise that
sometimes feature a very quick multiple-choice response method. Very few of the
reviewed programs employ a single-click answer method for harmonic progressions
or cadence exercises. There is still much room for improvement in this type of ear-
training exercise with more musical progressions and quicker response methods.
Melodic dictation exercises take many forms. Some programs include rhythm
with the melody—although the user may not have to include the rhythm as part of the
answer—while other programs merely play melodic patterns or pitch patterns that
lack any rhythmic variation. There are two primary methods of creating melodies.
In one method, melodies come with the program and are saved in libraries which the
program can access as needed. This method often allows instructors to enter their
own custom melodies. While this can be added work, it allows the computer
program to become more integrated with the classroom work. In another method
of melodic dictation, the user or instructor enters parameters such as melody length,
range, size of largest leaps, and even rhythmic values into a dialog box; and the
program generates an endless string of melodies. This “computer-generated”

method of creating melodies offers ease of use and variety in melodies, but the

23

product often sounds more like a string of random intervals than a real melody. The
response methods for this type of exercise can include complete notation, playback
on an on-screen keyboard, MIDI playback, or mouse-clicks on an on-screen staff.
A related form of melodic dictation is melodic error-detection. In one implementation
of this type of exercise, the user views the notation, hears the melody played, then
indicates the spot in the notation where there is an error.

Scale recognition is a common element of most ear-training programs.
Usually the computer plays a scale and the user clicks on the name Of proper scale,
but sometimes the answer is given by notation. Major, minor, and modal scales are
listed on the form. Space is provided for optional information about pentatonic,
octatonic, whole tone, and various types of jazz scales. Some programs give the
user an option to create customized scales or pitch sets, and many programs offer
at least a modest tutorial explaining the different scales. A closely related exercise
is that of scale degree recognition. In this type of exercise a tonic is established, a
pitch follows, and the user indicates the scale degree of the pitch. The scale degree
can be indicated either by solfege or by number. Another issue related to scales is
the use of different temperaments for the ear-training exercises. While some
programs are starting to include options for use of alternate tuning systems, the vast
majority of programs only use equal-temperament.

Rhythmic dictation is not as widespread as the previous exercises, but it is
being incorporated into more and more ear-training programs. One type of rhythmic
dictation exercises, referred to as “hear/notate” on the form, has the computer play
the rhythm and user notate the answer on the screen. The most common method

of rhythmic dictation, referred to as “hear/tap” on the form, has the computer play

24

the rhythm and the user answer by clicking the mouse or tapping a key such as the
space bar. There are at least two variations of this type of response method. The
rhythm can be indicated when the user presses down on the key or when the user
lets up on the key. A few programs use the first method and also record the length
of time for which a note is held. In another type of rhythmic exercise, the computer
shows the notation, and the user taps the answer. This method brings up a subtle
point about some ear-training exercises; namely, that they tend to reinforce basic
music theory reading and notational skills more than aural perception. While this
type of exercise may be useful, it is not listed as a review category. Yet another
method for rhythmic dictation exercises has the computer play the rhythm and the
user respond by selecting from a number of boxes displaying different rhythmic
patterns. The rhythmic patterns or “elements” are placed in the appropriate order
to provide a quick method of notating the answer. This multiple-choice method
reinforces the notation of answers (basic music theory) while still focusing on the
listening part of the exercise.

Singing (or audio input of answers) is being incorporated into many
programs—especially the newer titles. While this can be an impractical option for
large school music labs where the singing would be distracting to other students, it
can be a useful option for individual practice at home or in a dormitory. The level
of feedback and number of different exercises varies from program to program. The
most common exercises are pitch matching and the singing of simple intervals,
melodies, and scales. Some programs feature an exercise in which a chord is
played and the user sings one of the pitches. Most programs currently using a

microphone for audio input are aimed at the analysis of vocal singing and are not

25

intended for use with acoustic instruments. The ability to use acoustic instruments
to respond to questions would open the door for musical participation of the users
without forcing them to sing or to learn keyboard skills in order to respond via MIDI.
One program currently features a “hands off" mode where the program plays an
example, waits, gives the answer, then plays another example. While there is no
direct feedback given by this particular program, other programs do provide
graphical feedback of the respondent’s intonation. As audio input response
methods continue to develop, there is the potential that someday programs will offer
a totally “hands free” approach to ear-training.

Addressing additional exercises or features, the last section allows for
descriptions of exercises or features that may not fit into the above-mentioned
categories of the review form. Occasionally these three lines are used for in-depth
descriptions of features already mentioned or to provide optional comments about

the program in general.

INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES

This section addresses the elements of record keeping and program
customization as it applies to both the user and the instructor. There are three basic
options for customizing or structuring exercises: 1) The user defines the settings;
2) The programmer defines the settings (as preset levels or parameters), or; 3) The
instructor defines the settings.

User-defined settings are found in all ear-training programs to some
extent—from simple volume and tempo control to choosing the intervals or chord

progressions to be practiced. One method is to allow the user to define the setup

26

of each exercise such as the materials, the method of response, and the types of
feedback provided by the computer. Another method, indicated by the word,
“Levels” on the form, allows the user to choose from various preset levels. This
arrangement is especially useful for individuals who are learning on their own and
may not know where to start. The form lists two additional categories indicating
whether a user can change settings for both the practice modes and any available
test modes.

Instructor customization is only available in about twenty percent of the
programs reviewed. Some programs have limited customization, while others allow
so much room for customization that the instructor could become overwhelmed with
work trying to create custom melodic and harmonic dictation exercises for various
classes! Among the multitude of possible options, three are listed on the form. The
first two options refer to whether the instructor can make custom tests or define
various settings for different classes. The third option refers to whether the
instructor can modify the scoring parameters that the program uses to determine
whether a student passes a test or a level. Other options for instructor
customization include keeping detailed records of each student, or the ability to
create databases of student records to assist with the evaluation of student
progress, as well as overall class progress.

Response options vary greatly from program to program. Single mouse-click
identification is often the simplest and quickest response method—although many
programs require multiple mouse-clicks for each answer. On-screen keyboards are
a popular and flexible response method, and they are especially handy on a

computer that is not hooked up to a MIDI keyboard. Some programs offer MIDI

27

input or allow the user to Sing the answer into a microphone. Other programs Offer
on-screen notation which, depending on the program, can be a rather tedious
method of response. In order to save time, some programs offer the useful features
of automatically checking the answer and automatically skipping to the next
question. Optional methods of response may include an on-screen guitar fret-board,
the use of the computer keyboard as a keyboard instrument, or the selection of
numbers representing different choices of a multiple-choice question.

User feedback is generally very limited in the current generation of ear-
training programs. The user feedback most commonly seen is the positive
reinforcement of correct responses with phrases like “Way to go!” accompanied by
sounds such as clapping. This feedback is so common that there is not a category
for it on the review form; in addition, most programs allow the accompanying sounds
to be turned off. Some useful feedback can occur when the number of correct and
incorrect answers are given, or when the responses are displayed as
statistics—especially in a visual graph or in such a way that it creates a game-like
atmosphere. Hints are few and usually limited to “Try again!”, but some programs
offer more useful feedback, such as indicating whether a note was too high or too
low when answering via MIDI. A number of programs allow the student to view the
answer upon request. Some programs offer an analysis of the responses given by
the user so that the user can discover potential weaknesses. Other programs go
one step further and include the use of a diagnostic test that grades a user’s
performance then suggests appropriate levels or settings for each exercise. An
indirect, and as yet unmeasured, type of feedback can occur in the practice modes

of some programs where the student can play along on a MIDI keyboard while an

28

exercise such as melodic dictation is being played. While this may in fact be a very
useful exercise it is not utilized in many programs. One reason for this may be that
the response cannot be readily analyzed and graded by the program. When
sufficiently detailed records are kept and analyzed, it would be useful to know not
only which questions a student answered incorrectly, but also what the student gave
as the wrong answer so that patterns of incorrect answers can be established— and
potentially corrected with targeted exercises.

Records and the tracking of student progress are often a consideration in
classroom situations. This section of the form deals with what kinds of records are
maintained, and the following section of the form deals with what can be done with
the records. Some programs only maintain records for the current session, and all
information is lost once the program is closed. Other programs save information
about the number of correct answers as well as information about completed levels
or tests. Many programs give a running total of the time spent using the program.
Some programs list the individual times Spent on each exercise, and a number of
programs even list the day and time each exercise was completed. Optional
information might include more detailed statistical data, or provisions for the
instructor to combine records into large class lists to compare student scores.

Records can be saved in different locations and used for various purposes.
The form lists a computer hard drive, a network, or a student disk as places where
the records can be automatically saved. This brings up the related issue of how the
records are saved. If students must manually save records, they will likely forget
and become frustrated if the program crashes—causing them to lose their unsaved

scores. Secure records may be important for a number of reasons: they are often

29

tied to the program in such a way that when the program opens, a user’s records
are called upon to determine which settings and tests the user can access; and, of
course, they may determine a grade for the class. While a floppy disk is extremely
convenient for students—allowing them to work in different labs or on different
computers—they are not secure enough to be the only copy of the student’s records.
When student information on a floppy disk is lost or corrupted, some programs
provide methods to restore the records from a back-up on a local hard drive or a
network. Records can often be saved in a text format to be printed or e-mailed.
Some programs allow records to be put into an instructor database and used to
provide information about each student’s performances. Future databases may be
able to provide useful information not only to an instructor but also to the program
itself—thereby allowing the program to customize itself to the perceived weaknesses
of the user. Some programs allow records to be viewed in the form of a graph or

Chan.

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND SETUP INFORMATION

This section of the form provides information about the minimum system
requirements to run the software. The form lists the program size (when installed
on the hard drive) and provides space that can be used to list additional information
such as the amount of RAM required to run the program. The hardware section
specifies whether a sound card, microphone, or MIDI keyboard are required to use
the program. Space is provided for optional information such as the need for a CD-
ROM drive or other peripherals. The software category provides information about

whether additional software is required to run the program. Some Macintosh

3O

programs require the use of Hypercard or OuickTime. Other programs require
additional software for the instructor to enter custom exercises or to work with
databases of student records. One program currently requires additional software

to use a microphone for audio input of answers.

PRICING AND PRODUCT INFORMATION

This section begins by listing the approximate price of the software in US.
dollars. The price is given for a single copy as well as a lab-pack, and information
is provided regarding whether a site license is available. Optional information might
include pricing for a student access disk at an institution with a Site license. The
form also indicates whether a downloadable demo of the software is available.
Optional information might include whether a demo is available through the mail or
whether a preview policy exists for music instructors. The webpage URL is given
for the software company or the software distributor. Additional contact information
includes an e-mail address, a phone number, and the company name and mailing

address.

31

CHAPTER 3
DIRECTIONS FOR CAI DEVELOPMENT:
ISSUES REGARDING THE INTEGRATION OF EAR-TRAINING SOFTWARE

IN UNDERGRADUATE MUSIC PROGRAMS

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

This chapter draws upon the author’s personal experiences as computer lab
monitor as well as the optional comments from instructors responding to the CAI
survey. Because the survey stated that all respondent’s names would be treated
with anonymity, no citations shall be given for the commentary referred to below.
Instructor comments will be paraphrased and are used primarily to give an indication
of the types Of problems encountered by music instructors currently using ear-

training CAI.

PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS

Michigan State University Opened a twenty-station PowerMac ear-training lab
in September 1997, that included eighteen Kurzweil P088 MIDI keyboards. This lab
and the undergraduate ear-training program were supervised by Dr. Bruce Taggart.
Practica Musica (3.0 to 3.82) was used during the 1997-98 academic year, and
MacGAMUT 3.8 was used during the 1998-99 academic year. The personal
observations made below are based in large part on three semesters of work as a
monitor in this lab. This work varied from four to eighteen hours per week, and

included the observation of up to four sections of freshman ear-training classes.

32

SURVEY COMMENTS

Of the 209 undergraduate music instructors responding to the CAI survey,
106 provided optional commentary. Many professors provided two or three
comments, raising the number to 176 comments. All but seven of the comments
addressed a shortcoming or limitation of the CAI software. The 176 comments were
arranged into the six broad categories Shown below in Table 16. Issues pertaining
to each of these categories will be discussed in detail, with the anonymous

comments being combined with the author’s personal observations.

TABLE 16 GENERAL CATEGORIES OF COMMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories of Instructor Comments n = 176 %
CAI usefulness 40 23%
Student usage 30 17%
Lab accessibility and platform availability 25 14%
Exercises and sound quality 35 20%
Scoring issues and general program bugs 24 14%
Course integration and CAI customization 22 13%

 

THE MOST COMMON COMMENTS
Interestingly, the three most commonly made comments did not refer to the
ear-training software but rather mentioned instructor attitudes, student usage, and

computer lab availability. The “Top Ten” comments are shown in Table 17 below.

33

TABLE 17 “TOP TEN” COMMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Top Ten” Comments n = 81 %
Success depends on instructor attitudes 12 15%
Difficulty getting students to do required work 10 12%
Limited student access to computer labs 10 12%
Platform availability (needs windows version) 9 11%
General program bugginess 9 11%
Different learning methods among students 7 9%
CAI lacks mOre advanced exercises 7 9%
Lack of flexibility for customization of exercises 7 9%
Lost student scores (floppy disk malfunction) 5 6%
CAI needs better record-keeping ability 5 6%

 

CAI USEFULNESS

The single most frequently made comment, occurring twelve times out of 176,
was that the effectiveness of CAI use depends on the attitudes and guidance of the
instructor. Many respondents were referring to the fact that some instructors at their
institution supported the integration of computers in music instruction, while other
instructors were against the use of computers. Many of these comments also made
reference to the necessity of familiarizing the students with the operations of the
software and giving them suggestions for approaching the exercises. There were
four comments that CAI use was not as effective as in-class work, three comments
that it was not as effective as partner practice, and two comments that it was not as
effective as human mentoring. Three comments mentioned that CAI use had been

discontinued due to dissatisfaction with the software, three comments mentioned

34

 

unspecified limitations of existing software, and two comments stated that the initial
enthusiasm of using computers wore off quickly. One comment mentioned that CAI
was not cost-effective and another that CAI was promoted because of its
technological implications rather than its proven pedagogical effectiveness. Of the
seven comments that mentioned successes, two stated that the sight-singing and
melodic dictation abilities of the students were greatly improved by the software.
Two comments mentioned that the software saved class time from tedious drill and

practice, and two comments mentioned increased student motivation and self-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

confidence.
TABLE 18 CAI USEFULNESS
CAI Usefulness n = 40 %

Success depends on instructor attitudes 12 30%

Not as effective as classroom instruction 4 10%

Not as effective as partner practice 3 7.5%
Discontinued use of CAI due to dissatisfaction 3 7.5%
CAI very limited 3 7.5%

Not as effective as human mentoring 2 5%

Enthusiasm for software Short-lived 2 5%

Saves class-time from tedious drills 2 5%

Motivation and confidence are much improved 2 5%

Improved Sight-singing and dictation abilities 2 5%
Various comments 5 12.5%

 

 

 

 

 

35

STUDENT USAGE

Even among institutions that required CAI use as part of the grade, getting
the students to spend time with the ear-training software was a major difficulty
reported in ten of the comments. Three instructors using CAI as ungraded practice
reported that students don’t realize the helpfulness of the program, and two
instructors mentioned that students simply do not use the CAI. Regarding different
learning methods of individual students, four comments mentioned CAI does not
work for some students, three comments mentioned CAI is a time-consuming hoop

for some students, and two mentioned that CAI does not work well with computer-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

phobes.
TABLE 19 STUDENT USAGE

Student Usage n = 30 %
Difficult to get the students to work with the CAI 10 33%
Different learning methods of students 7 23%
Time-consuming hoop for some students 3 10%
Student do levels but don’t focus on learning 3 10%
Students do not realize the usefulness of CAI 3 10%
Students do not use the CAI 2 7%

Does not work well with computer-phobes 2 7%

 

 

 

 

 

LAB ACCESSIBILITY AND PLATFORM AVAILABILITY
One of the most frequently mentioned comments is that of the lack of

computer lab accessibility for students to work on their ear-training assignments.

36

The limited hours of lab operation was the primary reason given, although some
instructors also mentioned that it was inconvenient for the students to come to a
music lab. The ear-training lab at Michigan State University was used for many
sections of ear-training classes as well as other music technology classes.
Students complained that this use of the lab limited their access; however, the
author observed many hours when there were very few students using the lab or
when students spent hours checking their e-mail and surfing the web. The issues
of lab accessibility and platform availability are tied together for two reasons. PC
(IBM-compatible) computers are becoming increasingly availabl%ven replacing
Macintosh computers as the predominant computer in many campus labs—and
students are increasingly likely to have a PC of their own. This trend means that
instructors are currently looking at IBM-compatible CAI as one way to help solve the

accessibility problem.

TABLE 20 LAB ACCESSIBILITY AND PLATFORM AVAILABILITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lab accessibility and platform availability n = 25 %
Limited access to computer lab(s) 10 40%
Limited number of computers 4 16%
Windows version of CAI needed 9 36%
Various comments 2 8%

 

EXERCISES AND SOUND QUALITY
Seven instructors commented that more advanced exercises, appropriate

for the sophomore level or beyond, were lacking in some programs. In a similar

37

vein, three instructors commented that CAI worked better with Simpler, less
contextual exercises such as interval identification. Four instructors commented
that exercises such as melodic dictation need to have quicker response options, and
comments by students at MSU confirmed that one of the most time-consuming parts
of CAI was the on-screen notation of melodic dictation exercises. Three survey
comments referred to the poor quality and quantity of dictation melodies, and three
comments stated that the difficulty between levels was too great in some exercises.

Blurring the distinction between exercises and sound quality, three instructors
stated that the exercises lacked musicality. Two comments indicated that the
quality of computer-generated sound was a weakness, and two comments referred
to the difficulty of discerning multiple voices in harmonic dictation exercises despite
the use of MIDI instruments. A related observation from the MSU computer lab
regards the open spacing of isolated chords which can increase the difficulty of
identifying the chord. Harmonic progressions that have a simultaneous attack of the
voices and no independent volume control for each voice can make for dictations
which are both unmusical and hard to hear as independent lines. Some instructors
worked around these weaknesses by recording performances of harmonic
progressions on a MIDI sequencer.

Regarding the types of exercises that should be included in CAI, two
comments noted the lack of rhythmic exercises as a major weakness. One
comment suggested the use of harmonic context for single chord identification, and
another comment suggested the use of harmonic context for scale degree
exercises. One instructor suggested a contextual approach to melodic dictation,

and noted that most melodic dictation exercises force a linear approach to hearing

38

and notating the melody. Other comments noted the need for more student

feedback as well as larger libraries of harmonic progressions.

TABLE 21 EXERCISES AND SOUND QUALITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exercises and Sound Quality n = 35 %
CAI lacks more advanced exercises 7 20%
Exercises need quicker response methods 4 11%
Dictation melodies are too few and lack quality 3 8.5%
Difficulty between levels too great 3 8.5%
Simpler exercises (less contextual) work best 3 8.5%
Exercises lack musicality 3 8.5%
Sound quality (computer-generated) is lacking 2 6%
Multiple voices difficult to hear even with MIDI 2 6%
Rhythm exercises are lacking 2 6%
Various comments 6 17%

 

 

 

 

 

SCORING ISSUES AND GENERAL PROGRAM BUGS

Nine comments expressed frustration with unspecified bugginess of the
programs. Five comments made specific reference to problems with records kept
on a floppy disk, and five more referred to the need for better record-keeping ability
in the programs. Three comments mentioned lack of easy access to the records
and one comment mentioned a move towards using the program only for ungraded
practice due to various frustration with records. One instructor noted that the
scoring system of some exercises was very frustrating for the student because a

single error at the end of a test would dramatically decrease the student’s score and

39

force the student to practice again on material on which the student had no

problems.

TABLE 22 SCORING ISSUES AND GENERAL PROGRAM BUGS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scoring issues and general program bugs n = 24 %
General program bugginess 9 38%
Lost student scores (floppy disk malfunction) 5 21 %
CAI needs better record-keeping ability 5 21%
CAI lacks easy access to student records 3 12%
Various comments 2 8%

 

 

 

 

 

COURSE INTEGRATION AND CAI CUSTOMIZATION

Two primary methods were used for integrating CAI with classroom
instruction: Either the instructor could customized the computer program to fit into
the course, or the course could be built around the computer program. Many
instructors observed that their approach to various aspects of ear-training often
differed from the approach of the ear-training program. Although some instructors
noted that customizable exercises allowed them to integrate their own material into
the course, others complained that the program influenced both the materials
covered as well as their ordering. Some features, such as the choice of a solfege
system, could not be changed by the instructor. Seven comments referred to lack
of flexibility for instructor customization, and three comments referred to lack of
good accompanying textbooks. Two instructors mentioned that they employed

different instructional models than the ones reflected in the design of most CAI

40

software. Two instructors mentioned that customization of the CAI was a time-
consuming operation. Table 23 lists the comments regarding course integration and

instructor customization.

TABLE 23 COURSE INTEGRATION AND CAI CUSTOMIZATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Course integration and CAI customization n = 22 %
CAI lacks flexibility for instructor customization 7 32%
CAI lacks good accompanying textbooks 3 14%
Instructors not utilizing CAI to its full potential 2 9%
Requires lots of time to customize CAI 2 9%
Custom exercises using MIDI sequencer 2 9%

CAI does not fit cognitive model for learning 2 9%
Various comments 4 18%

 

 

 

 

 

41

CONCLUSIONS
This study has focused on the current generation of ear-training software and
its integration into undergraduate music instruction. Although numerous instructors
reported success with various programs, there were many observations regarding
weaknesses of the available software. The following list, based on the thirty
software reviews and the 209 survey responses, identifies the aspects of CAI most

in need of improvement.

1. More secure and detailed student records (scores) are needed.
2. More instructor customization Options are needed to accommodate different

teaching methods and approaches.

3. More useful feedback for the students is needed.
4. More advanced exercises are needed.
5. Quicker response methods are needed to keep the focus on aural Skills.

There are other types of music software that contain ear-training exercises
or that can be used for ear-training. These categories of software include music
theory CAI, keyboard skills CAI, MIDI sequencers, notation software, and
accompaniment software. CAI focusing on music theory writing skills or on
keyboard Skills often contains elementary ear-training exercises. MIDI sequencing
software and notation software can also be used to create ear-training exercises.
A number of instructors reported that they used a MIDI sequencer to create melodic
or harmonic dictation exercises. One instructor reported having each student work

at a computer with sequenced dictations during class periods. The students worked

42

at their own pace notating the answers on paper, and the instructor was free to walk
around the room Offering help where needed. A number of instructors also
maintained Web Pages with downloadable music files for their classes. These files
could be accessed by students and used with the appropriate sequencing or
notation program to practice ear-training.

The development of accompaniment software also has great potential for ear-
training. This type of software provides a “music minus one” approach and allows
students to practice accompanied pieces without a human accompanist or
orchestra. This type of software uses a microphone to detect what the student
plays, and it can adjust to subtle tempo changes by the performer. As this type of
software develops and becomes more widely available, its ear-training potential may
increase. Students may someday be able to do their ear-training in practice rooms
and use their own instruments to play the answers.

Ear—training CAI is still in an early stage of development, and more research
needs to be done regarding its effectiveness. However, despite its present
limitations, there are currently more than sixty ear-training CAI programs available
for Macintosh and Windows computers. The distinction among different types of
music programs continues to blur as many ear-training programs incorporate better
notation and sequencing abilities as well as tutorials covering basic music theory.
With the increasing availability of more powerful and less expensive computers, ear-
training CAI will likely continue its development into an even more useful and flexible

educational tool.

43

APPENDIX A

THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Dear List Subscriber,
This is a 4-MINUTE SURVEY of undergraduate music theory instructors.

PURPOSE-to evaluate the use of CAI (Computer-Assisted Instruction) in
undergraduate Ear-Training during the 1998-99 academic year as part of a
Master's Thesis in Music Theory.

YOUR CONSENT--you indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by
completing and returning this questionnaire.

CONFIDENTIALITY--all results will be treated with strict confidence and the
respondents’ names along with their institutions will remain anonymous in any
report of research findings.

FORMAT-~You may checkmark (with a = or some other character)
the answers that apply, or you may delete the answers that
do not apply.
0. SAMPLE QUESTION?
===Yes SEND RESPONSE TO: spangle9@pilot.msu.edu
No

 

1. Name of Institution:

2. Approximate number of Undergraduate Music Majors?
1 to 19
20 to 49
50 to 99
100 to 1 99
200+

3. Which CAI Programs are used (more than one may apply)?
NONE-(PLEASE SEND RESPONSE TO:spangle9@pilot.msu.edu)
MacGAMUT
Practica Musica
OTHER (Please specify)

44

4. How do students access CAI Software (more than one may apply)?
In ONE computer lab
From MANY computer labs
Personal copies of CAI Software
Through a campus NETWORK
OTHER MEANS OF DISTRIBUTION (Please Specify)

5. How many computers in labs have access to CAI Software?
NONE
1 to 9
1 0 to 1 9
20 to 29
30+

6. Are your lab computers connected to the internet?
YES
NO
Does not apply

7. How is CAI integrated (more than one may apply)?
PRACTICE—ONLY individual student practice
TIME-Tracking of time spent on CAI
TESTING-Students pass levels or complete exercises
LAB WORK-Students use CAI during part of a CLASS PERIOD

8. How is CAI work evaluated in the various classes of Freshman and
Sophomore aural skills? (If classes or sections differ in grading policy please
elaborate)

UNGRADED PRACTICE

EXTRA CREDIT

1 to 9% of the GRADE

10% to 19% of the GRADE

20% to 29% of the GRADE

30% to 39% of the GRADE

OTHER (Please specify)

9. How would you rate the CAI software (OPTIONAL)?

Excellent --Highly successful

Good --Moderately successful
Fair --Workable, slight flaws
Poor --Unworkable, major flaws

10. Do students seem to find the CAI helpful?
Yes
No
Indifferent

45

OPTIONAL COMMENTS: include any additional observations.
(shortcomings, problems, successes)

 

SEND YOUR RESPONSE TO: Spangle9@pilot.msu.edu

46

APPENDIX B

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF 209 RESPONDING INSTITUTIONS

 

INSTITUTIONS STATE/COUNTRY

Adams State College Colorado
Albertson College Idaho
Arizona State University Arizona
Arkansas State University Arkansas
Augusta State University Georgia
Ball State University Indiana
Baylor University Texas
Belmont University Tennessee

Bob Jones University

Bowling Green State University

Bradley University

Bucks County Community College
Butler University, Jordan College of Fine Arts
California State Polytechnic University
California State University, Chico
California State University, Northridge
California State University, Sacramento
Calvin College

Capital University Conservatory of Music
Carleton College

Carthage College

Casper College

Catawba College

47

South Carolina
Ohio

Illinois
Pennsylvania
Indiana
California
California
California
California
Michigan

Ohio
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Wyoming
North Carolina

Catholic University of America
Central Michigan University

Central Missouri State University
Central Washington University
Chapman University

College of Marin

College of Notre Dame

College of Staten Island, CUNY
Colorado College

Community College of Southern Nevada
Concordia University

Conservatory of Music, Puerto Rico
Cornell College

Crane School of Music, SUNY—Potsdam
Crowder College

Dana College

Davidson College

De Anza College

DePauw University

Dickinson College

Dordt College

Drake University

Duquesne University School of Music
East Carolina University

Eastern Kentucky University

Eastern New Mexico University
Eastman School of Music

Elmhurst College

48

District of Columbia
Michigan
Missouri
Washington
California
California
California
New York
Colorado
Nevada
Canada
Puerto Rico
Iowa

New York
Missouri
Nebraska
North Carolina
California
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Iowa

Iowa
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
Kentucky

New Mexico
New York

Illinois

Elmira College

Emory University

Florida State University

Franciscan University of Steubenville
Harding University

Heidelberg College

Hillsdale College

Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts
Houston Baptist University

Hunter College

Huntington College

Idaho State University

Illinois State University

Indiana University

James Cook University

James Madison University

Kellogg Community College
Kennesaw State University

Kent State University

Kenyon College

Lake Forest College

Lakehead University, Ontario
Lansing Community College
Lawrence University Conservatory of Music
Lee University

Louisiana College, Alexandria
Louisiana State University

Loyola Marymount University

49

New York
Georgia
Florida
Ohio
Arkansas
Ohio
Michigan
Hong Kong
Texas
New York
Indiana
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Australia
Virginia
Michigan
Georgia
Ohio

Ohio
Illinois
Canada
Michigan
Wisconsin
Tennessee
Louisiana
Louisiana

California

Luther College

Lynchburg College

Macalester College

Mansfield University

Maranathe Baptist Bible College
Mary Washington College

McGill University

McPherson College

Memorial University of Newfoundland
Michigan State University
Mississippi Valley State University
Montclair State University
Morehead State University

Morris Brown College

Mount Union College

Mount Vernon Nazarene College
New England Conservatory
Northern Arizona University
Northern Kentucky University
Northern Michigan University
Northwestern University

Oberlin College Conservatory of Music
Ohio State University

Ohio University

Ohlone College

Oklahoma Baptist University
Oklahoma Christian University

Oklahoma State University

50

Iowa

Virginia
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Virginia
Canada
Kansas
Newfoundland
Michigan
Mississippi
New Jersey
Minnesota
Georgia
Ohio

Ohio
Massachusetts
Arizona
Kentucky
Michigan
Illinois

Ohio

Ohio

Ohio
California
Oklahoma
Oklahoma

Oklahoma

Pima College, The Center for the Arts
Plymouth State College

Prairie Bible College

Purdue University, West Lafayette

Rhodes College

Rice Universiy

Ricks College

Roanoke College

Roosevelt University, Chicago Musical College
Rutgers The State University, New Brunswick
Saint Mary's College

Salisbury State University

San Jose State University

Seattle Pacific University

Shepherd College

Siena Heights University

Silver Lake College

Simpson College

Skidmore College

Southern Oregon University

Southern University, New Orleans
Southwestern Oklahoma State University
Southwestern University

Spring Arbor College

St. Cloud State University

St. John's University, College of St. Benedict
St. Louis University

St. Mary's College of Maryland

51

Arizona
New Hampshire
Canada
Indiana
Tennessee
Texas
Idaho
Virginia
Illinois

New Jersey
Indiana
Maryland
California
Washington
West Virginia
Michigan
Wisconsin
Iowa

New York
Oregon
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Michigan
Minnesota
Minnesota
Missouri

Maryland

SUNY, Fredonia

Susquehanna University

Temple University, Esther Boyer College
Towson University

Tulane University

Universite' de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV)
University of Alabama, Birmingham

University of Alabama, Huntsville

University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Music
University of Arizona

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

University of Arkansas, Little Rock

University of British Columbia

University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB)
University of Central Florida

University of Central Arkansas

University of Cincinnati

University of Colorado, Boulder

University of Dayton

University of Florida, Gainesville

University of Hamburg, Institute of Musicology
University of Houston, Moores School of Music
University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
University of Iowa

University of Kansas

University of Kentucky

University of Maine, Augusta

University of Manitoba

52

New York
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania

Maryland

Louisiana

France
Alabama
Alabama

Alaska

Arizona
Arkansas
Arkansas
Canada

California

Florida

Arkansas

Ohio
Colorado
Ohio

Florida

Germany
Texas
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine

Canada

University of Massachusetts, Amherst
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
University of Miami School of Music
University of Michigan

University of Minnesota

University of Missouri, Columbia
University of Nebraska, Omaha
University of North Carolina, Greensburo
University of North Carolina, Pembroke
University of North Dakota

University of North Texas

University of Oklahoma

University of Oregon

University of Oslo, Norway

University of Osnabrueck, Germany
University of Richmond

University of Rio Grande

University of Tennessee, Chattanooga
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
University of Tennessee, Martin
University of Texas, Arlington
University of Texas, Austin

University of Texas, San Antonio
University of the Pacific, Conservatory of Music
University of Utah, Salt Lake City
University of Victoria

University of Washington

University of Western Ontario

53

Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Florida
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Dakota
Texas
Oklahoma
Oregon
Norway
Germany
Virginia

Ohio
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Texas

Texas

Texas
California
Utah

Canada
Washington

Canada

University of Wisconsin, La Crosse
University of Wisconsin, Madison
University of Wisconsin, W.C.
University of Wisconsin, Whitewater
Valley City State University
Vanderbilt University

Virginia Tech

Wartburg College

West Chester University

West Virginia University

Western Baptist College

Wichita State University

Wilfrid Laurier University

William Rainey Harper College
Wingate University

Winthrop University

Yavapai College

York University, Toronto

54

Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
North Dakota
Tennessee
Virginia

Iowa
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Oregon
Kansas
Canada
Illinois

North Carolina
South Carolina
Arizona

Canada

CMS
Survey
MG list

APPENDIX C

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES

= The 1830 institutions listed in the 1997-98 CMS Directory.
= The 209 total responses to the Survey.
= The 70 responses from MacGAMUT list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geographic Regions CMS Survey MG list
(n=70 represents a subset of n=209) n=1830 n=209 n=70

Canada 60 10 4

Alabama 67 2 1

Alaska 2 1 N/A

Arizona 16 5 0

Arkansas 21 5 2

California 1 68 1 3 6

Colorado 23 3 2

Connecticut 22 0 0

Delaware 4 0 0

District of Columbia 1 N/A

Florida 56 4 1

Georgia 52 4 2

Hawaii 1 1 0 0

Idaho 9 3 1

Illinois 86 8 3

Indiana 36 7 2

Iowa 43 7 2

Kansas 37 3 1

55

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada

New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee

Texas

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33 3 2
21 4 0
1 2 1 N/A
30 3 1
51 3 O
52 1O 2
41 6 3
24 1 N/A
41 4
9 0
21 2
3 1 N/A
9 1 N/A
31 2 1
1 1 1 N/A
1 02 7 2
65 6 1
9 2 1
59 14 6
30 5 3
27 3 2
80 7 2
4 1 N/A
7 O O
26 2 0
1 1 O O
41 7 2
99 9 1

 

 

Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Hong Kong
Australia
Newfoundland
France
Germany

Norway

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 1 N/A
1 O O O
39 6 2
33 3 1
1 8 2 O
45 8 3

7 1 N/A

1 O
1 O
1 O
1 O
2 O
1 O

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

LISTING OF PROGRAMS USED IN RESPONDING INSTITUTIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAI used in Responding Institutions Platform If of Schools
Audio Challenger (In-house CAI) NeXT 1
Auralia 2.0 Win 5
Aural Skills Trainer (ECS media) Mac/Win 1
Benward Eartraining: A Technique for Listening Mac 13
CAT. (Curriculum for Aural Training) Mac 4
Claire A Personal Music Coach (discontinued) Mac
Computerkolleg Musik Ear-Training Win 1
CUSTOM “UNPUBLISHED” CAI Various 20
Das Ohr (discontinued) Atari 1
Dolphin Don’s Music School Win 1
EarTraining 2.5 (Lars Peters) Mac 2
ETDrill Win 3
Explorations (mostly written theory) Mac 5
Guido DOS 1
Harmonic Idioms Mac 1
Hearing Harmony (In-house CAI) Mac 1
Hearing Tonal Harmony Mac 1
HearMaster MacNVin 1
Joseph Bloom Ear Training (discontinued) DOS 1
Listen MacNVIn 9
MacGAMUT Mac 121
MiBAC Music Lessons MacNVin 10
Music Lab Melody Mac/Win 13

58

 

 

 

 

Music Lab Harmony

Music Theory Tutor

Musique (ECS Media)

NoteWell

Play it by Ear

Practica Musica

teoria

The Music Kit (written theory)

Tim Smith’s 4-part Dictation (Hypercard 2.2)
Well-tempered Ear

59

 

Win

 

Mac

 

MacNVin

 

Mac

 

Win

-L

 

Mac

 

Win

 

Mac

 

Mac

 

 

Mac

 

NNOJN

 

 

APPENDIX E

THIRTY-THREE PROGRAMS NOT REVIEWED

A Musical Tutorial (1999)

AudioChallenger (NeXT program by Anthony Holland)
Aural (1994, Atari program by Mark Grimshaw)
BigEarS (Web-based Java program)

CAET S (1996)

CALMA (Upcoming program)

Chordtrainer (1996, Kjetil Eide)

Curriculum for Aural Training (1994, Hypercard)

Ear Challenger (ECS media)

EARTEST (1995)

Ear Trainer (1989, by Lawrence Gallagher)

Ear Training: A Technique for Listening (1995)

El' drills (1996, Quicktime drills)

E-Train (1997, Free DOS melody game by Victor Grauer)
GUIDO 2.1 (1989)

Halves/Not Halves (1998)

Hearing Tonal Harmony (Upcoming program)

Ike's Ear Tuner 1.1 (1998, Jason Stracner)

Just Intonation Ear Trainer (1996, Hypercard)
Listenl-A Music Skills Program (ECS media)

60

Melodic Ear (May 1999, NEW freeware)

Music Ace (1996, Award-winning children's program)
NoteWell (Upcoming program)

Patterns in Pitch (ECS media)

Play it by Ear (ca.1995, now owned by Alfred Publishing)
Rhythm Ace (ca.1995, now owned by Alfred Publishing)
Rhythmaticity Advanced (ca.1995)

Rhythmaticity Basic (ca.1995)

Super Ear Challenger (ECS media)

Take Note (1997)

Toon Up (ECS media)

Tune-it ll (ECS media)

WinOye (Now teoria)

61

APPENDIX F

THE SOFTWARE REVIEW FORM

A copy of the two-page review form begins on the next page. The review form is
discussed in the second chapter, and page nineteen contains a detailed legend for

reading the review form.

62

 

----(Software Title) REVIEW-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VERSION:
REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE:
PLATFORM - O/S:
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions
User-directed Practice Tracking of User Progress
Games Music Tutorials K - 6 7 - 12 College
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----
INTERVAIS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions
IDENTIFICATION: (h _ , ,
7 Chords wrth Inversrons Open /Closed Spacrng
HARMONIC Inversions +6 Chords
PROGRESSIONS: , , ,
Single-click Response Secondary Dominants
MELODIES: Computer-generated
Libraries of Melodies Melodies Include Rhythm
SCALES: Major Minor Modal
RHYTHMS: Hear/Notate Hear/Tap
SINGING (AUDIO IN): Pitch Matching Intervals
ADDITIONAL
EXERCISES OR
FEATURES:

 

 

#====I===l==
----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS:
INSTRUCTOR- Custom Tests Settings Scoring Parameters
DEFINED SETTINGS:

 

 

 

 

 

----(Software Title) REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen Notation Screen Keyboard Mouse-click I.D.

 

 

MIDI Input Singing

 

Auto-checking of Answers Auto-skip to next Question

 

 

USER FEEDBACK: Diagnostic Testing Statistics of Responses

 

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses Hints

 

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR: Current Session Only # of Correct Answers

 

 

Total Times Individual Times Levels Passed

 

 

 

 

 

RECORDS CAN BE: Auto-saved to: Hard Drive / Network / Student Disk

 

 

 

Printed E-mailed Backed-up Restored

 

 

Viewed in a Database Viewed as a Graph

 

 

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM:

 

PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size:

 

 

 

HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

 

 

SOFTWARE:
----PRICING and PRODUCT INF ORMATION----

 

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $
COST (in US $):

 

Lab-pack: X for $ Site License Available

 

 

DEMO: Downloadable Demo

 

WEBPAGE:

 

E-MAIL / PHONE:

 

 

 

COMPANY INFO:

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX G

REVIEWS OF THIRTY EAR-TRAINING CAI PROGRAMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THIRTY PROGRAM REVIEWS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mac = Macintosh platform
Win = Windows platform
Records = Scorekeeping component
Mac Win Records Reviewed Software Page Number
W Anvil Studio MIDI sequencer/ear—trainer ........ 67
W R Aural Skills Trainer ........................ 69
W R Auralia .................................. 71
W Chord ID ................................ 73
W R Computerkolleg Musik ...................... 75
W Dolphin Don’s Music School ................. 77
W R Ear Trainer .............................. 79
W R EarMaster School ......................... 81
W Earobics ................................ 83
W Earpower ................................ 85
M Eartraining 2.6.1 .......................... 87
W ET Drill .................................. 89
W Fanfare ................................. 91
M Four-Part Dictation 5.1 .................... 93
M R Harmonic Hearing I & II ..................... 95
M W R Harmonic Progressions ................... 97
W R HearMaster ......................... 99
M W R Inner Hearing I & |l ....................... 101
M Listen ................................. 103

 

 

 

 

 

65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

M W

M W
W

M W
W
W

M
W
W
W

 

 

 

 

MacGAMUT ............................. 105
MiBAC ................................. 107
Musianship Basics ........................ 109
Music Lab Harmony ....................... 111
Music Lab Melody ........................ 113
PET (Personal Ear Trainer) ................. 1 15
Pitch ID ................................ 117
Practica Musica .......................... 119
teoria .................................. 121
The Music Box ........................... 123
Thought Sauce Ear Training Method .......... 125

66

 

----Anvil Studio—Ear-training Accessory REVIEW----

 

VERSION:

1999.03.02 [Full copy reviewed on Windows 95]

 

REVIEWER:

Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9

 

REVIEW DATE:

May 2, 1999

 

PLATFORM - 0/ S:

Windows 95/98/NT

 

INTENDED USES:

Individual Practice

Educational Institutions

 

User-directed Practice

Tracking-of-Userl’mgrcss

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Games Music-Tutorials H 7 - 12 College
I: JL
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----
INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Gomponnd
CHORD Triads with Inversions Volume Control of Bass
IDENTIFICATION: u, , , ,
7 Chords wrth lnversrons Open /Closed Spacmg
WON-IE Inversions +6-ehords
PROGRESSIONS:
MELODIES: Computer-generated Rhythm not evaluated
Libraries-Melodies- Melodies Include Rhythm
RHYTHMS: Hear/Notate Hcan‘Fap See/Play
SINGING (AUDIO IN): Pitch Matching Intervals
ADDITIONAL Anvil Studio is a freeware MIDI sequencer with optional
EXERCISES OR , . ,
FE ATURES° accessories (such as ear-training) that can be purchased
separately.
==== m.
----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----
USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup bards Practice Test-Modes
SETTINGS: ,
Parameters for Melody and Chord exerczses
H’l-S‘I‘RUG'POR1 Gum-"Fests Settings Scoring-Parameters
DEFINED-SETTINGS:

 

 

 

 

 

67

 

----Anvil Studio-Ear-training Accessory REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen Notation Screen Keyboard Mouse-click I.D.
MIDI Input Singing
Auto-checking of Answers Auto-skip to next Question
USER FEEDBACK: Diagnostic-Testing- Statistics of Responses
#rof-{Eorrect-and-Incorrect-Responses Hints
REEORBS-KEP‘FFOR: Gurmanession—Only #ofemmct-Answm
5F Hg. ll' .1 IF I IP I
P' l E- .1 l E l l- R l
I”. l’ E l a? l S l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: Windows 95 (100 mHz Pentium with 16 MB of RAM)
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size:1.2 MB Disk Space: 1.9 MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)
SOFTWARE:
= =3
----PRICING and PRODUCT INF ORMATION----
APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $19
COST (in US $): . . .
bab=pack.-X-for$ Srte-trccnscfivaflablc
DEMO: Downloadable Demo
WEBPAGE: http://www.anvilstudio.com
E-MAIL/ PHONE: support@anvilstudio.com
COMPANY INFO: Willow Software, PO. Box 60122

 

 

Shoreline, WA 98160-0122

 

 

68

 

----Aural Skills Trainer REVIEW----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VERSION: 1.82 (1998) [Demo copy reviewed on Windows 95]
REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: April 18, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Windows 3.1/95, Macintosh
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions
User-directed Practice Tracking of User Progress
a: Games Music Tutorials K - 6 7 - 12 College
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----
INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonie Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions
IDENTIFICATION: 7th Chords with Inversions Open-felosed-Spaeing
meme inversrons' +6-6hords
PROGRESSIONS: , - , ,
MEEOBIES: Gomputefigenerated
RH’FHIMS: HearfNotate Hea-rfFap
ADDITIONAL
EXERCISES OR
FEATURES:
= =—-—-—=¥
Fm ----INSTRUCTIONALISSUES----
USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup bevels Practice =liest-ilvh'rdes
SETTINGS:
INSTRUGPOR- Enstom-Tests Settings Scoring-Parameters
BEHN-E-B-SE‘FHNGS:

 

 

 

 

69

 

 

----Aural Skills Trainer REVIEW CONTINUED-«-

 

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen-Notation Screen-Keyboard- Mouse-clickI.D.

MIBII I S' .
Auto-checking of Answers Anto=skip-to-ncxt-anstion

 

 

 

 

 

USER FEEDBACK: Biagnostic‘l’csting- Statistics of Responses

 

 

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses Hints

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR: Enfient-Session-On’ry #cf-Gorrectfinswers
$1112. Il"ll¥' I IP I

 

 

 

 

 

% scores for first, last, and best sessions.

 

RECORDS CAN BE: Auto-saved to: Hard Drive fNetwork-I-Student-Bisk
Printed E=1naiied Backed-11p Restored
:z' I . E l a l. l S I

Used to see first, last and high scores in each category.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: IBM 486, Windows 3.1; or Macintosh System 6.0.7

 

PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size:187 K Disk Space: 715 K

 

HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOFTWARE:
==
----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION-«-
APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $99 Network: $500
COST (in US $):

Izab=pack:-X-for$ Site License: $700

 

DEMO: Downloadable Demo

 

 

WEBPAGE: http://www.ecsmedia.com

 

E-MAIL / PHONE: sales@ecsmedia.com 1-800-832-4965

 

 

 

COMPANY INFO: ECS (Electronic Courseware Systems, Inc.)
1210 Lancaster Drive, Champaign, IL 61821

 

 

 

 

70

 

----Auralia 2.0 REVIEW----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VERSION: 2.0.4 (1998) [Full copy reviewed on Windows 95]
REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: April 24, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Windows 95/98/NT
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions
User-directed Practice Tracking of User Progress
Games Tutorials K - 6 7 - 12 College
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----
INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions Jazz and Cluster Chords
IDENTIFICATION: u, , , ,
7 Chords W1th Inversrons Open-felosed-Spactng
HARMONIC Inversions +6 Chords Jazz Progressions
PROGRESSIONS: . , ,
Smgle-chck Response Secondary Dommants
MELODIES: €0mpnte1=generatcd Answer by Notation
Libraries of Melodies Melodies Include Rhythm
SCALES: Major Minor Modal Jazz Scales, Whole Tone
RHYTHMS: Hear/Notate Hear/Tap Rhythm-element ID
SINGING (AUDIO IN): Pitch Matching Intervals Chords, Melodies, Scales
ADDITIONAL 26 exercises including Rhythm Styles, Meter Recognition,
EXERCISES OR , .
FEATURES: Interval Comparison, Cadences, Tuning, and many
Singing exercises.

@
----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS:
Password protected user records.
IN STRUCTOR- Custom Tests Settings Scoring-Parameters
DEFINED SETTINGS:

Password-protected administration option including

 

 

the ability to create tests and track class scores.

 

71

 

 

----Auralia 2.0 REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

Screen Notation

Screen Keyboard

 

Mouse-click I.D.

 

 

MIDI Input Singing

 

Mmchecknrg-offinswers

!-I' 8’

 

USER FEEDBACK:

E' '=F'

 

Statistics of Responses

 

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses

Hints

 

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR:

Enrrent-Session-Only

 

# of Correct Answers

 

Total Times

 

Individual Times

 

Levels Passed

 

 

RECORDS CAN BE:

Auto-saved to: Hard Drive / Network / Student-Disk

 

 

Printed Emailed

 

Backed-mpRestored

 

Viewed in a Database

 

Viewed as a Graph

 

 

 

Fm =
----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SE

 

 

TUP INFORMATION-«-

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM:

IBM 486, 66 mHz or better required for microphone input

 

PROGRAM SPECS:

Program Size: 3.2 MB

Disk Space: 6.5 MB

 

HARDWARE:

 

Soundcard Microphone

 

MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

SOFTWARE:

 

 

m

----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $149 Student Copy: $49
COST (in US $): . .
Lab-pack: 5 for $395 Site License: $995
DEMO: Downloadable Demo
WEBPAGE: http://www.risingsoftware.com
E-MAIL/ PHONE: rising@risingsoftware.com US toll free: 888-667-7839
COMPANY INFO: Rising Software, 31 Elmhurst Road, Blackburn,

 

 

Victoria, Australia 3130

 

 

72

 

----Chord ID REVIEW-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VERSION: 1997 [Full copy reviewed on Windows 95]
REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: May 2, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Windows 95/98/NT
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions
User-directed Practice Trackingof-User-Progress
Games Music Tutorials H 7 - 12 College

 

 

 

 

 

----AVAILABLE EXERCISES-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W
#61 El I . I i . e ‘EI I s .
HARMONIC Inversions #G-Ghords 20 levels
PROGRESSIONS: , , _
SIDgIC-CIICK Response Secondary-Dominants
MEEOBIES: €0mpnter=generated
i'l . Fllll' lIll'IIIRII
RHYTHMS: Hcan‘Notatc Hearffap
ADDITIONAL Chord progressions are 8 bars long—one chord per bar.
EXERCISES OR . , , _ “ ”
FEATURES: Features libraries of progresszons m a pop style.
Users compare their response with the correct answer.
HE: E —
----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----
USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test-Modes
SETTINGS:
INSTRUGPORI Custom-Tests Settings ScoringParameters
BEF-I-NED-SE‘FH-NGS:

 

 

 

 

73

 

----Chord ID REVIEW CONTINUED----
RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen-Notation Screen-Keyboard- Mouse-click I.D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#oonrrect-and-Incorrect-Responses Hints
REEORBSiEEP‘ILFORrEorrent-Session-Oniy #-of-€orrect-Answers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----
SYSTEM MINIMUM: Windows 95 (IBM 486 or better)
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 293 K Disk Space: 1.3 MB

HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MiBHéey‘board-(Optionai)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOFTWARE:

----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION-«-

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $14.95
COST (in US $): . . .

bab=paek:-X-for-$ Srte-hcenseAvarlabie

DEMO: Downloadable Demo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WEBPAGE: http://www.musicstudy.com
E-MAIL/ PHONE: htrythal@yahoo.com
COMPANY INFO: Dr. Gil Trythall, KBA Software, 41 West Main St.
Morgantown, WV 26505

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

74

 

----Computerkolleg Musik REVIEW-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VERSION: (1999) [Full German Copy reviewed on Windows 95]
REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: May 10, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Windows 95/98/NT
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions
User-directed Practice Tracking of User Progress
L Games Music Tutorials K - 6 7 - 12 College
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----
INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions Jazz Chords
IDENTIFICATION: a, , , ,
7 Chords w1th Inversrons Open /Closed Spacmg
HARMONIC Inversions +6-ehords Cadence Patterns
PROGRESSIONS: , , ,
Single-click Response Secondary-Dormant:
MELODIES: Gompntcr-rgcnerated Pop, Classical, 12-Tone
Libraries of Melodies Melodies Include Rhythm
SCALES: Major Minor Modal Pentatonic, Blues
RHYTHMS: Hear/Notate Heat-Hap Rhythm Elements
ADDITIONAL Includes tonality exercises and Jazz cadences as well as
EXERCISES OR . _
FEATURES, many written theory exercrses.
----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES-m
USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS:
INSTRUG'POR- €nstom-Tests Settings Scoring-Parameters
913mm

 

 

 

75

 

 

----Computerkolleg Musik REVIEW CONTINUED-u—

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

Screen Notation

Screen Keyboard

Mouse-click I.D.

 

 

 

MIDI Input Singing-

 

Anto=chccking~of+mswers

!-I' 8'

 

USER FEEDBACK:

E“ 'T'

 

5.. FR

 

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses

Hints

 

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR:

Current-Session-Orrly

 

# of Correct Answers

 

Total Times

 

Individual Times

Levels Passed

 

 

Number of sessions worked and the age of the user.

 

RECORDS CAN BE:

Auto-saved to: Hard Drive f-thwork-f-Stndenrfiisk

 

 

Printed Emailed

 

BackedmpRestored

 

Viewed in a Database

 

Viewedasa-Graph

 

 

:

i
—

======A
----SYSTEM REQ IREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: Windows 95 (IBM 486 or better)
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size:872K Disk Space: 52 MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)
CD-ROM Drive
~=== SOFTWARE:

 

----PRICING and PRODUCT INF ORMATION----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $ N/A English release late 1999
COST (in US $): . . .
Lab-pack: X for $ N/A Site-hcensefivadabie
DEMO: Bowntoadabic-Bemo
WEBPAGE: http://www.schott-music.com/ckm.htm
E-MAIL / PHONE: eamdc@eamdc.com 1-610-648-0506
COMPANY INFO: Schott Music Corp. NY, c/o European American Music

 

 

 

Distribution Corp. Po Box 850, Valley Forge, PA 19482

 

76

 

 

----Dolphin Don’s Music School REVIEW-m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VERSION: 3.0 (1998) [Full Copy reviewed on Windows 95]
REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: May 10, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Windows 3.1/95/98/NT
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions
User-directed Practice Tracking of User Progress
Games Music Tutorials K - 6 7 - 12 College
FE ----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----
INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Eornponnd
CHORD Triads with-Inversions
IDENTIFICATION: 7‘h Chords mm Open /Closed Spacing
HARMONiC— Inversions W
MEbOB-IES: €ompnter=gcnerated
RHYTHMS: HearfNotate HcarfPap
ADDITIONAL Many other fun music theory games. A wonderful game
EXERCISES OR , . . .
FEATURES: for children. Features the talking vozce of Dolphin Don.
----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES---- _
USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test-Modes
SETTINGS:
iNS‘PRHGPGR- Eastern—”Fests Settings ScofingParamctei-s
BEHN-EB—SE‘FH-NGS:

 

 

 

77

 

 

----Dolphin Don’s Music School REVIEW CONTINUED-u—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen Notation Screen-Keyboard- Mouse-click I.D.
W surging
Auto—checking of Answers Auto-skip to next Question
USER FEEDBACK: Diagnostic-Testing- Statistics of Responses
#-of€oncct-and~incorrect-Responses Hints
RECORDS KEPT FOR: Garrent-Scssion-Oniy ”Correct-Answers
Tomi-Times IndividuaI-Times Levels Passed
Levels of achievement.
RECORDS CAN BE: Auto-saved to: Hard Drive f'thWUfk'f'Sttrdmt'Bisk

 

Printed Emailed

 

Backed=npRestored

 

 

Viewed in a Database

 

Viewedas-a-Graph

 

 

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: Windows 3.1 with 8 MB of RAM
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Sizezl MB Disk Space: 5.2 MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MiBI-Keyboard-(Optiona-l)
SOFTWARE:

 

----PRICING and PRODUCT INF ORMATION----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $49
COST (in US $): . . .
bab=pack:-)Hor$ Site-bicenscaérvaiiable
DEMO: Downloadable Demo
WEBPAGE: http://www.dolphindon.com
r E-MAIL/ PHONE: ddon@dolphindon.com 1-256-721-2537

 

 

/ COMPANY INFO:

Don Bowyer, Dolphin Don’s Music School

 

 

5041 Galaxy Way #212, Huntsville AL 35816

 

78

 

 

----Eartrainer REVIEW-«-

 

VERSION:

(1997) [Full Copy reviewed on Windows 3.1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: May 6, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: DOS (Windows 3.1/95/98)
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions
User-directed Practice Tracking of User Progress
an: Games Music Tutorials H 7 - 12 College
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES-«-
INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound
I-BE-N‘PifiGA‘HON: :7“, , , ,
W inversrons' -r6-€hords
PROGRESSIONS: , _ , ,
MEbODIES: €0mpnter=generated
RHYTHMS: Hcan‘Notatc HearfFap
ADDITIONAL
EXERCISES OR
FEATURES:
m

 

 

----INSTRUCTIONAL—ISSUES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS: _ . , , ,
User cannot speczfy direction of intervals to practice
INSTRUCTOR- Custom Tests Settings Scoring Parameters
DEFINED SETTINGS:

 

 

 

79

 

 

----Eartrainer REVIEW CONTINUED-u—

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

 

 

MiBI-Inpnt- Singing- Arrow Keys or Letter Keys

 

 

Auto-checking of Answers Auto-skip to next Question

 

USER FEEDBACK:

 

Diagnostic Testing Statistics of Responses

 

 

#oonrrect-and-Incorrect-Responses Hints

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR:

 

€urrent-Sessiorr6niy #cf-eorrectaknswers

 

 

 

T 1‘? I 1.1 I‘F' i IP I

 

% correct and average response time for each interval.

 

RECORDS CAN BE:

Auto-saved to: Hard Drive-f-Network-f-Stndent-Bisk

 

Printed E=maiied BackcdmpRestored

 

 

 

Viewed in a Database Viewed-asafiraph

 

 

 

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: DOS 5.0 or higher, 640K of RAM
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 168 K Disk Space: 172 K
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone Ward-(Optional)
SOFTWARE:

 

 

----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION----

 

APPROXIMATE
COST (in US $):

Single-User Copy: $9.95

 

 

DEMO:

 

Bownioadabie—Bemo

 

 

WEBPAGE:

http://www.ilovemusic.com

 

E-MAIL/ PHONE:

ear@ilovemusic.com 1-415-665-8933

 

 

f
[

COMPANY INFO:

Forest Hill Music, 25 Balceta Ave,

 

 

San Francisco, CA 94127

 

80

 

 

----EarMasterSchool REVIEW-u—
VERSION: 2.5 (1998) [Demo Copy reviewed on Windows 95]

 

 

REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler httpz/lwww.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: April 21, 1999

 

 

PLATFORM - O/S: Windows 3.1/95/98/NT

 

INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions

 

User-directed Practice Tracking of User Progress
Games Mnsic-"Fntoriais K - 6 7 - 12 College
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----

INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound

CHORD Triads with Inversions Custom Chords
IDENTIFICATION:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7th Chords with Inversions Open /Closed Spacing
HARMONiG- inversions -r6€hords
PROGRESSIONS:
S' I _ l' l R S l E .
MELODIES: Computer-generated
SCALES: Major Minor Modal Custom Scales
RHYTHMS: Hearchtatc Hear/Tap Error Detection

ADDITIONAL
EXERCISES OR
FEATURES:

m
; ----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INSTRUCTOR- Custom Tests Settings Scoring Parameters
DEFINED SETTINGS:

 

Detailed class records via computer network with

 

password protection.

 

 

 

81

 

----EarMasterSchool 2.5 REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen Notation Screen Keyboard Mouse-click I.D.
MIDI Input Singing
Auto-checking of Answers Auto-skip to next Question
USER FEEDBACK: Diagnostic Testing Statistics of Responses
# of Correct and Incorrect Responses Hints
RECORDS KEPT FOR: Current-Session-On-ly # of Correct Answers
‘Fotai-‘Fimes Individual Times Levels Passed
Dates, times worked, levels completed, percentage scores.
RECORDS CAN BE: Auto-saved to: Hard Drive / Network / Student-Disk
Printed E=maiied Backed-up Restored
Saved to floppy disk.

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: Windows 3.1 (IBM 486)
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 1.4 MB Disk Space: 3.3 MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)
SOFTWARE:

 

----PRICIN G and PRODUCT INFORMATION----

 

APPROXIMATE
COST (in US 3):

Single-User Copy: $118

 

Lab-pack: 5 for $355

Site License: $770

 

DEMO:

Downloadable Demo

 

 

 

WEBPAGE:

http://www.miditec.com

 

E-MAIL/ PHONE:

info@miditec.com

 

(+45) 43-6464-49

 

COMPANY INFO:

[\i‘r

MidiTec

 

 

Vegavaenget 26, DK - 2620 Albertslund, Denmark

 

82

 

 

----Earobics REVIEW-«-

 

VERSION:

1.5 (1998) [Demo Copy reviewed on Windows 95]

 

REVIEWER:

Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9

 

REVIEW DATE:

April 17, 1999

 

PLATFORM - O/S:

Windows 95/98

 

 

INTENDED USES:

Individual Practice

Educational Institutions

 

Tracking-oPUser-Progress

 

User-directed Practice

 

 

H 7- 12 College

m

----AVAILABLE EXERCISES-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions 9””, 11””, Suspensions
IDENTIFICATION: th . , ,
7 Chords wrth lnversrons Open-felosed-Spactng
HARMONIC Inversions -t-6-€hords
PROGRESSIONS: , , ,
Single-click Response Secondary Dominants
MELODIES: Computer-generated
SCALES: Major Minor Modal Whole Tone, Pentatonic
RHYTHMS: Hear/Notate Hear/Tap See/ Tap
ADDITIONAL Single-click chord inversion identification exercises.
EXERCISES OR , .
FEATURES: Quick and Simple screen notation entry method.

 

 

 

 

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS: . .
Savmg and loading of custom user profiles (settings).
INSTRUGTORv €nstom-"Fests Settings Scoring-Parameters
BEHN‘EB-SE‘FH-NGS:

 

 

 

83

 

 

----Earobics REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen Notation Screen Keyboard Mouse-click I.D.
MIDI Input Singing

Auto-checking of Answers Auto-skip to next Question

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER FEEDBACK: Diagnostic Testing Statistics of Responses

 

 

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses Hints

 

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR: Current Session Only #cf-Eorrcct-Answers

 

T I‘F' I I"! I? I IP I

 

 

 

User-defined profiles of settings

 

Printed E=maiicd Backcd=np Restored
II. I. E I II. I S I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: Windows 95 (IBM 486 or better)

 

PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 882 K Disk Space: 2.7 MB

 

HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOFTWARE:
----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION-«-
APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $69 Sliding Price Scale
COST (in US $):

Lab-pack: 10 for $500 Site License Available

 

DEMO: Downloadable Demo

 

 

WEBPAGE: http://www.cope.dk

 

E-MAIL/ PHONE: info@cope.dk (+45) 3312-0747

 

 

 

COMPANY INFO: Cope Media

 

 

 

N¢ITC Sogade 25c, DK-1370 Kobenhavn K, Denmark

 

84

 

----EarPower 3.0 REVIEW-m

 

VERSION:

3.0 (1999) [Demo copy reviewed on Windows 95]

 

REVIEWER:

Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9

 

REVIEW DATE:

April 20, 1999

 

PLATFORM - O/S:

Windows 3.1/95/98/NT

 

INTENDED USES:

Individual Practice

Educational Institutions

 

Trackingof-User-Progress

 

 

User-directed Practice

----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----

 

H 7 - 12 College

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions Customizable Chords
IDENTIFICATION: th , . ,
7 Chords wrth InverSlons Open /Closed Spacrng
HARMONiC— Inversions 145-Chords
PROGRESSiONS:
MELODIES: Computer-generated Customizable Melodies
RHYTHMS: Hear/Notate Hear/Tap Customizable Rhythms
SINGING (AUDIO IN): Pitch Matching Intervals Melodies, Chords
ADDITIONAL Rhythm exercises also include the option of notating the
EXERCISES OR , , . .
FEATURES’ answer by clicking on “rhythmic unit” boxes.

 

 

Microphone input can be used to respond to all exercises.

 

 

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS: , ,
User can save custom configurations and exerczses.
INSTRBGPORv Custom-"Fests Settings Scoring-Parameters
BEHNEB—SE—FHNGS:

 

 

 

 

85

 

 

----EarPower 3.0 REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen Notation Screen Keyboard Mouse-click I.D.
MIDI Input Singing Guitar F ret-board
Auto-checking of Answers Auto-skip to next Question
USER FEEDBACK: Diagnostic Testing Statistics of Responses
# of Correct and Incorrect Responses Hints
RECORDS KEPT FOR: Current Session Only # of Correct Answers
‘P 113' I l"l IT' I IP I
Printed E-maried— ' Backed-np— Restored
II. I . E I II. I S l

 

 

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-«-

 

 

 

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: IBM 386, Windows 3.1 (486 or better recommended)
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 478 K Disk Space: 813 K
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE
COST (in US $):

Single-User Copy: $25

 

bab=paek.-)(-for$

Site License Available

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEMO: Downloadable Demo
WEBPAGE: http://www.earpower.com
E-MAIL / PHONE: sheep13@aol.com 1—800-2424-775 x 14915
COMPANY INFO: Fast and Soft Author: Nick Baciu

 

 

402 Onderdonk Ave. #1R, Ridgewood, NY 11385

 

86

 

 

 

----Eartraining 2.6.1 REVIEW-«-

 

VERSION:

2.6.] (1998) [Demo reviewed on PowerMac, OS 8]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: March 14, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Macintosh
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational-Institutions
User-directed Practice Tracking-of-Bser-Progress
a Games Tutorials H 7 - 12 College
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES-«-
INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions Suspensions
IDENTIFICATION: 7th Chords with Inversions Open-fClosed-Spacing
HARMONIC- lnversions #6‘eh01'ds
MEEOBHES: Computer=gencratcd
SCALES: Major Minor Modal Custom Scales
RHYTHMS: Healfl‘htatc HearfPap
ADDITIONAL Pitch Practice: exercises absolute pitch by playing
EXERCISES OR , .
FEATURES: random notes--an alternate form of interval exerczse.

 

 

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

 

USER-DEFINED
SETTINGS:

 

Exercise Setup bevcls

 

 

Practice

 

Ofi’ers flexible user-defined exercises and settings.

 

 

INSTRUCTOR-
BEHNE—B—SE‘FPINGS:

 

Custom-TestsScttings

 

Scoring-Parameters

 

 

 

 

 

87

 

----Eartraining 2.6.1 REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen-Notation Screen—Keyboard- Mouse-click I.D.
IHEII S' .
Auto—checking of Answers Auto-skip to next Question
USER FEEDBACK: Diagnostic-Testing- Statistics of Responses

 

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses

Hints

 

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR:

Current Session Only

 

# of Correct Answers

 

 

Total-Times

I I. .I I‘F'

 

bevels-Passed

 

 

RECORDS CAN BE:

 

 

Printed E=mailed

Backed=upRestored

 

 

II. I. E I

 

Viewed as a Graph

 

 

m

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM:

Macintosh System 7.1.3 to OS 8

 

PROGRAM SPECS:

Program Size: 554 K

RAM: 400 K

 

HARDWARE:

 

SoundcardMicrophone

 

MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

SOFTWARE:

E

 

 

OMS 2.0 or higher required to use MIDI
@

----PRICING and PRODUCT IN FORMATION----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $20 Shareware
COST (in US $): . .
bab=packr96for$ Slte Llcense: $130
DEMO: Downloadable Demo
WEBPAGE: http://members.aol.com/LarsPeters/
E-MAIL/ PHONE: LarsPeters@aol.com
COMPANY INFO: Lars Peters

 

 

Leibnizstrasse 9, 22089 Hamburg, Germany

 

88

 

 

----ETDrill REVIEW----

 

VERSION:

3.0 (1999) [Full copy reviewed on Windows 95]

 

REVIEWER:

Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9

 

REVIEW DATE:

April 10, 1999

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

PLATFORM - O/S: Windows 95/98/NT (DOS version also available)
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions
User-directed Practice Trackingcfb‘serPl-ogress
Games gTutorials H i7-12§College
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES-u—
INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions Volume control--bass voice
IDENTIFICATION: .h . , ,
7 Chords wrth InverSlons Cpen-fCIosed-Spacnrg
HARMONIC Inversions +6 Chords Borrowed Chords
PROGRESSIONS: , , ,
Smgle=chck~Response Secondary Domlnants
MELODIES: Computcr=gcneratcd Rhythm not evaluated
Libraries of Melodies Melodies Include Rhythm
RHYTHMS: llean‘Notate HcarfFap
ADDITIONAL Pitch Patterns—user indicates solfege, scale degrees, or
EXERCISES OR , , ,
FEATURES° answers Vla MIDI to melodies Without rhythm.

 

 

 

Melodic dictations are answered exclusively via MIDI.

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test-Modes
SETTINGS: . . _ ,
Volume control for each vaice in harmonic progresswns.
INSTRUCTOR- Cnstonr-Tests Settings ScoringPararnetcrs
DEFINED-SETTINGS:

 

 

 

 

89

 

----ETDrill REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

ScreenNotation

Screen-Keyboard—

Mouse-click I.D.

 

 

 

MIDI Input Singing-

Solfege or Scale Degree #

 

Auto=cheekingvffinswerr

Auto-skip to next Question

 

USER FEEDBACK:

E' 'T‘

 

Statistics of Responses

 

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses

Hints

 

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR:

Current Session Only

 

# of Correct Answers

 

cFowl-Times

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-«-

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM:

Windows 95 (IBM 486 or better)

 

PROGRAM SPECS:

Program Size: 544K

Disk Space: 800 K

 

HARDWARE:

 

Soundcard

Microphone

 

MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

SOFTWARE:
#—=l=

 

 

w
----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $50 Schools-sliding price scale
COST (in US $): . . .
Lab-pack: 11 for $440 Site-breensefivarlablc
DEMO: Downloadable Demo (free) Mail order demo: $5
WEBPAGE: http://theory.music.indiana.edu/etdrill/
E-MAIL/ PHONE: etdrill@indiana.edu

 

COMPANY INFO:

 

Indiana University

 

 

Project Directors: Eric Isaacson and Gary Wittlich

 

90

 

 

----Fanfare REVIEW----
VERSION: 1.1 (1997) [Full copy reviewed on Windows 95]

 

 

REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: April 23, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Windows 3.1/95/NT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions
User-directed Practice Tracking of User Progress
Games cFutorials Er6 7 - 12 College

 

 

 

f== ===l=fl===
---AVAILABLE EXERCISES----

 

INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound

 

 

 

CHORD Triads with Inversions Keyboard Range
IDENTIFICATION: th . , ,
7 Chords wrth Inversrons Open-ICIosed-Spacmg
HARMONIC Inversions +6-ehords Cadences

PROGRESSIONS: , , ,
Single-click Response Secondary—Bonunants
MELODIES: Computer-generated

SCALES: Major Minor Modal Whole Tone

RHYTHMS: Hear/Notate Hear/Tap

ADDITIONAL Tuning exercise and general music reading exercises.
EXERCISES OR
FEATURES:

£==========l===
----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup bevels Practice cFest-Modes
SETTINGS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INSTRUCTOR- Custom-Tests Settings Scoring-Parameters
DEFINED SETTINGS:

 

 

 

Instructor has sole access to the password-protected

 

student records.

 

 

 

 

91

 

----Fanfare REVIEW CONTINUED-«-

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

Screen Notation

Screen Keyboard

 

Mouse-click I.D.

 

 

”"3” S' .

 

Auto=cheeking-of-Answers-

,4. 5'

 

USER FEEDBACK:

E' 'T'

 

Statistics of Responses

 

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses

Hints

 

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR:

Current Session Only

 

# of Correct Answers

 

 

Total Times

Individual Times

 

Levels Passed

 

Text document of Names, Dates, Exercises, % Correct.

 

RECORDS CAN BE:

Auto-saved to: Hard Drive fNetwork-f-Student-Bisk

 

 

Printed E=maiied

 

Backed=upRestored

 

n. l' E l

 

Viewed-as-afiraph

 

 

Accessed with a password (by the instructor)

 

F=====
----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: Windows 3.1 (IBM 386 or better)
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 2.7 MB Hard Drive: 4.5 MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)
SOFTWARE

----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION----

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $99 Student Price: $79
COST 6" US 3): W Site-bieense-Avafiable
DEMO: Downloadable Demo
WEBPAGE: http://www.stardock.com
E-MAIL/ PHONE: sales@stardock.com 1-734-762-0687
COMPANY INFO: Stardock Systems, Inc. 17292 Fannington Road

 

 

Livonia, MI 48152 (Author: Jerry Wyrick)

 

 

92

 

----Four-Part Dictation 5.1 REVIEW----

 

VERSION:

5.1 (1990) [Full Copy reviewed on PowerMac, O/S 7.5.3]

 

REVIEWER:

Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9

 

REVIEW DATE:

April 18, 1999

 

PLATFORM - O/S:

Macintosh

 

INTENDED USES:

Individual Practice

Educational Institutions

 

 

 

User-directed Practice

     

 

Tracking of User Progress

College

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mgmmmueu' 7*"va 9W
HARMONIC Inversions +6 Chords Altered Dominants
PROGRESSIONS: , , .
Single-click Response Secondary Dominants
MELODIES: €ornputer=generated 5 -note Melodies
Libraries of Melodies Mciodies-Include-Rhythm
RHYTHMS: Hezm‘Notate I-Iean‘Fap
ADDITIONAL Each line of the harmonic dictations can be answered
EXERCISES OR _ , , _ . _ .
FEATURES: indiVidually and used as melodic dictation practice.

   

 

 

 

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS: , .
Test mode requires full version of Hypercard 2.2
INSTRUCTOR- Custom Tests Settings Scoring Parameters
DEFINED SETTINGS:

 

 

 

Instructor can enter progressions and obtain scores

 

 

(shown as a percentage) of student tests.

 

 

93

 

----Four-Part Dictation 5.1 REVIEW CONTINUED----
RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen Notation Screen-Keyboard Mouse-click I.D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#of-eorrectnndincorrect-Responses Hints
RECORDS KEPT FOR: Current-Session-Only #cf-Gorreet-Answers

 

 

5F H" I l' 'l I? I I? l

 

 

 

Percentage scored on tests.

RECORDS CAN BE: Auto-saved-trr-Hard-ane-ffietwork-f-Student-Brsk
Printed E-mailed Backed=up Restored
I l. l . E l a ,. l S l

Viewed by instructor only.
w

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-«-
SYSTEM MINIMUM: Macintosh System 6.0.3
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 430 K

HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOFTWARE: H ypercard 2.2 for scores (Hypercard Player 2.2)
E——==

----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION----

APPROXIMATE Singie=User€opyr$ Freeware
COST (in US $): . . .
bab=paek:-X-for-$ Site-Incensefivarlable

DEMO: Downloadable Demo

 

 

 

 

 

WEBPAGE: http://www.jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/courseindex.html
E-MAIL/ PHONE: tim.smith@nau.edu
COMPANY INFO: Dr. Timothy Simth, 3353 S. Carol Dr.
Flagstaff, AZ. 86001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

94

 

----Harmonic Hearing 1 & 11 REVIEW----

 

VERSION:

Units I & II (1999) [Demo reviewed on PowerMac, OS 8]

 

 

 

 

REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: April 11, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Macintosh
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions

 

User-directed Practice

Tracking of User Progress

 

 

 

K-=-6 7- 12 College

----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----

 

{NW

 

! l’ E l'

 

Harmonic€ompound

 

CHORD-
WON:

512.11} .

 

7618] I 'II .

Opem‘Gloscd-Spacing

 

HARMONIC
PROGRESSIONS:

Inversions +6 Chords

 

 

Single-click Response

Secondary Dominants

 

M-EbOBI-E-S:

€0mputer=gencrated

 

Meiodierhrclude-Rhythm

 

Minor

 

Major

 

RHYTHMS:

Hear/Notate

Included in the Melodies

 

SINGING-(AWN):

 

I" Hi I“

 

 

ADDITIONAL
EXERCISES OR
FEATURES:

 

 

 

é===============

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES-m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup beveis Practice Test-Modes
SETTINGS:
INS‘PRUGFORI Custom-Tests Settings Scoring-Parameters
DEFINED-SETTINGS:

 

 

 

95

 

 

----Harmonic Hearing I & II REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

Screen Notation

Mouse-click I.D.

 

 

 

 

 

USER FEEDBACK:

 

 

 

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR:

 

 

Tomi-Times

 

Individual Times

levels Passed

 

 

Class, Name, Dates, Minutes, and Scores are indicated

 

RECORDS CAN BE:

Auto-saved to: Hard Drive fNetwork-f-Studcnt-Bisk

 

 

Printed E=mailcd

 

BackedmpRestored

 

Viewed in a Database

 

Viewed-as-a-Graph

 

 

Sorted by categories such as student name or class.

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: Macintosh System 6.0.3
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 662 K Disk Space: 1.1 MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MI-BI-Keyboard-(Gptional)
SOFTWARE: Requires OMS for sound

----PRICING and PRODUCT IN FORMATION----

 

APPROXIMATE
COST (in US $):

Single-User Copy: $55

Units I & II sold separately

 

Isab=pack.—X-for$

5.1. ! .1”

 

DEMO:

Downloadable Demo

 

 

WEBPAGE:

http://www.musicalhearing.com

 

E-MAIL/ PHONE:

scott@musicalhearing.com

 

1-508-643-9122

 

COMPANY INFO:

 

Musical Hearing, 6 Shepard Street

 

 

Plainville, MA 02762

 

96

 

 

----Harmonic Progressions REVIEW----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VERSION: 3.0 (1999) [Demo copy reviewed on Windows 95]
REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: May 7, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Windows 3.1/95/98/NT, Macintosh
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions
User-directed Practice Tracking of User Progress
Games gMusic-T‘uturiais Ififi g7-123College

 

 

 

----AVAILABLE EXERCISES-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hm ”mama!" 91*me Open-recscdSpacing
HARMONIC Inversions *6-ehords Embellishing 6/4 Chords
PROGRESSION S: , , .
Single-click Response Seeondary-Bomrnants
MEEOBIES: €0mputcr=gencrated
RIHEPHMS: HearfNotate Hear/Tap
ADDITIONAL Cadence patterns, and recognition of notated harmonic
EXERCISES OR , ,
FEATURES: progresswns. Features a summary (after each exerCise)
of the number of times each chord type was missed.

 

 

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup bevels Practice Test—Modes
SETTINGS:
INSTRUGI-‘OR- Custom-Tests Settings Scoring-Parameters
DEFINED-SETTINGS:

 

 

 

97

 

 

 

----Harmonic Progressions REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

Screen-Notation Screen-Keyboard— Mouse-click I.D.

 

 

 

HIE” S' .

 

Auto-checking of Answers

!-I' 8'

 

USER FEEDBACK:

E' ‘=F'

 

Statistics of Responses

 

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses Hints

 

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR:

Current-Sessiorreniy

 

#of-Gorrecfiknswers

 

T FF II"! I? I IP I

 

 

 

First, Last and Best scores for each type of exercise.

 

RECORDS CAN BE:

Auto-saved to: Hard Drive f-Network-f-Studcnt-Bisk

 

 

Printed E=maiied

 

BackedmpRestored

 

H“ l' E 1

 

Wewed-as-a-Graph

 

 

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: IBM 486, Windows 3.1; Macintosh System 6.0.3
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 495 K Disk Space: 1.5 MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)
SOFTWARE:

 

----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $200 Network: $1000
COST (in US $): . .
tab=pack.—X-for$ Site License: $1400
DEMO: Downloadable Demo
WEBPAGE: http://www.ecsmedia.com
E-MAIL/ PHONE: sales@ecsmedia.com 1-800—832-4965
COMPANY INFO: ECS (Electronic Courseware Systems, Inc.)

 

 

1210 Lancaster Drive, Champaign, IL 61821

 

 

98

 

----HearMaster REVIEW-u—

 

 

 

 

 

VERSION: 2.0 (1997) [Full copy reviewed on Windows 95]
REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: April 17, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Windows 95/98, Macintosh, Atari
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions

 

User-directed Practice

Tracking of User Progress

 

 

 

H 7--—12 College

w
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions Custom Chord Entry
IDENTIFICATION: th , , ,
7 Chords wrth Inversrons GpeniEIosedSpacrng
HARMONIG Inversions +6-€hords
PROGRESSIONS:
MELODIES: Computer-generated Short Custom Melodies
SCALES: Major Minor Modal Custom Scales, Jazz
RHYTHMS: HearfNotatc Hear/Tap
ADDITIONAL Extensive user manual suggesting uses and approaches.
EXERCISES OR “ n ,
FEATURES: Use of MIDI notes as remote controllers for exerczses.

 

 

 

 

 

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

Can analyze any chord played on the MIDI keyboard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test-Modes
SETTINGS: . . .
ExtenSive customizable settings can be saved.
INSTRUCTOR- Custom Tests Settings ScoringParameters
DEFINED SETTINGS:

No separate instructor access, but an instructor can

 

 

create and load custom lessons or exercises.

 

99

 

 

----HearMaster REVIEW CONTINUED-u-

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

Screen Notation

Screen Keyboard

 

Mouse-click I.D.

 

MIDI Input Singing

 

 

Auto-checking of Answers

Auto-skip to next Question

 

USER FEEDBACK:

E‘ '=F'

 

Statistics of Responses

 

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses

Hints

 

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR:

Current Session Only

 

# of Correct Answers

 

 

TotaFFimes

I 1.1 I?

 

bevels-Passed

 

Questions Attempted, # of Repeats, Percentage Correct

 

RECORDS CAN BE:

 

Printed E—mailed

 

 

Backed=upRestored

 

H' I' E l

 

Viewed-as-a-Graph

 

 

Saved as individual text files to Hard Drive or Floppy.
----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----

 

 

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: Windows 95; or Macintosh Plus, System 6.0.4 or higher
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 1.2 MB Disk Space: 1.6 MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE
COST (in US $):

Single-User Copy: MSRP $99

 

bab=pack:-)Hor-$

S' I' ! 'lll

 

DEMO:

Bomrloadabie-Bemo

 

 

WEBPAGE:

http://www.emagic.de

 

E-MAIL/ PHONE:

info@emagic.com

 

 

 

COMPANY INFO:

Emagic Soft- und Hardware GmbH,

 

 

Halstenbeker Weg 96, D-25462 Rellingen, Germany

 

100

 

 

----Inner Hearing I & 11 REVIEW-«-

 

VERSION:

Units I & II (1999) [Demos reviewed on Windows 95]

 

REVIEWER:

Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9

 

REVIEW DATE:

April 11, 1999

 

PLATFORM - O/S:

Windows 95/98, Macintosh

 

INTENDED USES:

Individual Practice

Educational Institutions

 

User-directed Practice

Tracking of User Progress

 

 

 

H $7-12 College

M
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHORD- 5F . l . l I .
IDENTIFICATION: 7th , , ,
HARMONIC- Irrvcrsrons' #6-Ghords
PROGRESSiONS: , _ , ,
MELODIES: €0mputer=generated 230 different melodies
Libraries of Melodies Melodies Include Rhythm
RHYTHMS: Hear/Notate Hear/Tap Included in the Melodies
ADDITIONAL Unit I contains 130 folk melodies; Unit II contains
EXERCISES OR ,
FEATURES: 100 melodies of Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven.

 

 

Quick method of screen notation to answer each phrase.

m
----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup bevels Practice Test-Modes
SETTINGS: . ,
User can choose dictation of rhythm, melody, or both.
INSTRUGPORv Gustom-Tests Settings Scoring-Parameters
BEHNEBSETHNGS:

 

 

 

101

 

 

----Inner Hearing I & II REVIEW CONTINUED----
RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen Notation Screen-Keyboard Mouse-click I.D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER FEEDBACK: Diagnostic-Testing- Statisticsof-Rcsponscs-
#of-eorreet-and-Incorrect-Responses Hmts
RECORDS KEPT FOR: Eunent-Session-On-ly thorrectfimwers

 

 

 

 

Tomi-Times Individual Times Levels Passed

 

Class, Name, Dates, Minutes, and Scores are indicated
RECORDS CAN BE: Auto-saved to: Hard Drive i—Network-fStudent-Bisk
Printed E=maiied Backcd=up Restored
Viewed in a Database Viewed-asaGraph

Sorted by categories such as student name or class

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: Windows 95 (IBM 486 or better); Macintosh O/S 6.0.3
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 815 K Disk Space: 978 K

HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MiBI—Key’ooard-(Optional)

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOFTWARE: Mac requires OMS for sound
----PRICING and PRODUCT INF ORMATION----
APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $55 Units I & II sold separately
COST (in US $): . . .
bab=pack:*for-$ Srte-bcense-Avadabie
DEMO: Downloadable Demo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WEBPAGE: http://www.musicalhearing.com
E-MAIL/ PHONE: scott@musicalhearing.com 1-508-643-9122
COMPANY INFO: Musical Hearing, 6 Shepard Street
Plainville, MA 02762

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

102

 

----Listen REVIEW-«-

 

VERSION:

2.4 (1998) [Demo reviewed on PowerMac, OS 8]

 

REVIEWER:

Douglas Spangler httpz/lwww.msu.edu/user/spangle9

 

REVIEW DATE:

March 11, 1999

 

PLATFORM - O/S:

Macintosh (System 6 to OS 8)

 

INTENDED USES:

 

----AVAILABLE EXERCISES-u—

Individual Practice Educational Institutions

 

User-directed Practice =Fraciting-offlser-Progress

 

 

 

 

Games Tutorials H $7-12 College

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions 91h, 11m, and 13th chords
IDENTIFICATION: 7th Chords with Inversions Open-[Closed-Spacing
HARMONIC— Invcrsions +6-Chords
MELODIES: Computer-generated
RIPFPHMS: Hear/Notatc i-Iean‘Fap
ADDITIONAL Setting for “beat the timer” mode where a specified
EXEFIEilggigg number of seconds are allowed in which to input each

 

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup beveis Practice Test-Modes
SETTINGS: . .
MIDI notes can be used to replay or skip questions.
INSTRUG'PORv Custom—Tests Settings SeoringParameters
BEFI-NE-D-SE‘FHNGS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

103

 

----Listen REVIEW CONTINUED----
RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen-Notation Screen Keyboard Mouse-click I.D.
MiBanut- Singing Screen Guitar

Auto-checking of Answers Auto-skip to next Question

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER FEEDBACK: Biagnostie-Testing- Statisticrof-Responses—
# of Correct and Incorrect Responses Hints
RECORDS-KEP‘FFOR: Current-Session-Oniy #of€orrectfinswers

 

 

 

 

5F I? II"! FF 1 IP I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L_==== _

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----
SYSTEM MINIMUM: Mac Classic or higher (System 6 or above)
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 800 K RAM: 500 K
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $99
COST (in US 9: Lab-pack: 5 for $249 Site License Available
DEMO: Downloadable Demo
WEBPAGE: http://www.imaja.com/listen/index.html
E-MAIL/ PHONE: software@imaja.com 1-510-526-4621
COMPANY INFO: Listen, PO. Box 6386
Albany, CA 94706

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

 

----MacGAMUT REVIEW----
VERSION: 3.8] (1998) [Full copy evaluated on PowerMac, OS 8]

 

 

REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: March 14, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Macintosh (System 7 or higher)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions
User-directed Practice Tracking of User Progress
Games Erotorials H §7-1z§College

r=============$===i

----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----
INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions
IDENTIFICATION: th , , ,
7 Chords wrth Inversmns Open-lCIosed-Spacrng
HARMONIC Inversions +6 Chords Borrowed Chords

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROGRESSIONS: , , ,
Slngle-cllck Response Secondary Dominants
MELODIES: €0mputer=generated MIDI entry of answers
Libraries of Melodies Melodies Include Rhythm

 

 

SCALES: Major Minor Modal Octatonic, Pentatonic
RH-YEPHMS: HcarfNotatc HearfFap
ADDITIONAL Includes exercises for written music theory.

EXERCISES OR
FEATURES: Music reading / keyboard drill where students sight-read

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

notated pitches by playing them on a MIDI keyboard.

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS:

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students can choose exercise materials in practice mode.

 

 

 

INSTRUCTOR- Custom Tests Settings Scoring Parameters
DEFINED SETTINGS:

 

Separate instructor disk enables the ordering of units and

 

the entry of custom melodic and harmonic exercises.

 

 

 

 

105

 

----MacGAMUT REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen Notation Screen-Keyboard Mouse-click I.D.

MIDI Input Singing
USER FEEDBACK: Diagnostic-Testing- Statistics of Responses

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses Hints

RECORDS KEPT FOR: Current-Session-Only # of Correct Answers
Total-Times Individual Times Levels Passed
Dates and Minutes worked.

RECORDS CAN BE: Auto-saved to: Hard-Brive-chtwork-r‘ Student Disk

Printed E-mailed Backed-up Restored

 

 

 

m
----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-u-

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM:

Macintosh System 7 or higher,

 

PROGRAM SPECS:

Program Size: 471 K

RAM: 1250 K

 

HARDWARE:

SoundcardMicrophone

 

 

MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

1.44 floppy drive

 

SOFTWARE:

 

 

QuickTime recommended if MIDI is not available.

 

 

----PRICING and PRODUCT INF ORMATION----

 

APPROXIMATE
COST (in US $):

Single-User Copy: $35

 

Lab-pack: 5 for $140

5.1. g .1”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEMO: Downloadable Demo Also available via mail
WEBPAGE: http://www.macgamut.com
E-MAIL/ PHONE: info@macgamut.com 1-800-305-8731
COMPANY INFO: MacGAMUT Music Software International

 

 

98 Brevoort Road, Columbus, OH, 43124

 

106

 

 

----MiBAC 3.0 REVIEW----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VERSION: 3.0 (1996) [Full copy reviewed on PowerMac, OS 8]
REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: April 23, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Macintosh System 7 or higher, (or Windows 3.1/95/NT)
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions
User-directed Practice Tracking of User Progress
Games Music Tutorials K--—6 7 - 12 College
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----
INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound
CHORD- ‘F . l . l I .
IBEN‘HFIGBOEPION: 7th , , ,
HARMONIG Inversions +6-Chords
ME-bODHES: WW
SCALES: Major Minor Modal Jazz Scales
RHYTHMS: HearfNotate HearfFap
ADDITIONAL Features many exercises pertaining to written music
EXERCISES OR , , ,
FEATURES: theory and keyboard playing skills. Detailed records

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test-Modes
SETTINGS: .
MIDI shortcut keys are available.
INSTRHGPOR- Custom-Tests Settings Scoring-Parameters
DEHNEB-SE‘FFINGS:

 

 

 

 

107

 

----MiBAC 3.0 REVIEW CONTINUED----
RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen-Notation Screen-Keyboard- Mouse-click I.D.
IHEII S' .

Auto-checking of Answers Auto-skip to next Question

USER FEEDBACK: BiagnostieTesthrg- Statistics of Responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses Hints

RECORDS KEPT FOR: Current-Session-Oniy # of Correct Answers

 

 

 

 

5F 131' 1!. '1 IT' I IP I

 

 

 

Percentages and types of questions answered incorrectly.

RECORDS CAN BE: Auto-saved-tor—Hard-Brrve-l-Network-f-Student-Brsk
Printed E=maiied Backed-up Restored

Viewed in a Database Viewed-as-a-Graph

Manually saved to Hard Drive or Floppy Disk.
----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----

SYSTEM MINIMUM: Macintosh System 7 or higher
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 2.2 MB Disk Space: 4.4 MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

SOFTWARE: QuickTime recommended if MIDI is not available.
----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION ----
APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $123 (IBM version 1.2: $99)

COST (in US $): . .
Lab-pack: X for $447 Slte Llcense: $999

DEMO: Downloadable Demo
WEBPAGE: http://www.mibac.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E-MAIL / PHONE: info@mibac.com 1-507-654-5851
COMPANY INFO: MiBAC Music Software, PO. BOX 486
Northfield, MN 55057

 

108

 

----Musicianship Basics REVIEW----

 

VERSION :

Windows 1.0.3 [Full copy reviewed on Windows 95]

 

REVIEWER:

Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9

 

REVIEW DATE:

March 22, 1999

 

PLATFORM - O/S:

Windows 3.1 /95/98 , Macintosh

 

INTENDED USES:

Individual Practice

Educational Institutions

 

User-directed Practice

Tracking-of-User-Progress

 

 

     

 

K-6 7—-1-2Col-lege

----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Hanuonic Compound
CHORD Triads with-Inversions All chords are arpeggiated
IDENTIFICATION: [h , , ,
7 Chords With-Inversions Open-iClosed-Spacmg
HARMONIC- Inversions alto-Chords
PROGRESSIONS:
S' l _ I. l R S l E .
MELODIES: Computer=generated Multiple-choice response
Libraries of Melodies Melodies Include Rhythm
SCALES: Major Minor Modal- Whole Tone, Pentatonic
RHYTHMS: Hear/Notate Hear/Tap Multiple-choice response
ADDITIONAL Many useful theory and keyboard drills.
EXERCISES OR . . . .
FEATURES: Interval practice does not include minor intervals.

 

 

Rhythm tapping available in Macintosh version.

m

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercieret-up Levels Practice Test-Modes
SETTINGS: , . .
Very Simple and comment interface for young users.
INSTRUCTOR= Custom-Tests Settings Scoring-Parameters
DEFINEBSE‘FHNGS:

 

 

 

109

 

 

----Musicianship Basics REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen~Notation Screen Keyboard Mouse-Click I.D.
MiBanut Singing- Multiple-choice
Auto-Checking of Answers Auto-skip to next Question
USER FEEDBACK: Diagnostic-Testing- Statistidrof-Responses
# of Correct and-Incorrect Responses Hints
RECORDS KEPT FOR: Current Session Only #‘of-Correct-Answers
T l‘F' I I..I IT I II“ I
Printed E-maried- ' Backed-up- Restored
I I. I . E l I I. l S I
g====lgi

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-«-

 

 

 

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: Windows 3.1 or Macintosh System 6.03
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 5.4 MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MiBI-Keyboard-(Optional)

 

Uses internal speaker or headphones.

 

 

SOF-FWARE:
----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $44
COST (in US $): . . .
Lab—pack: 50 for $97 Slte Llcense Available
DEMO: Downloadable Demo
WEBPAGE: www.dragnet.com.au/~donovan/mb/music.html
E-MAIL/ PHONE: greglewis@nexus.edu.au 1-800-023-069
COMPANY INFO: New Horizons

 

 

PO. Box 658, Annidale, NSW 2350 Australia

 

110

 

 

----Music Lab—Harmony REVIEW----

 

VERSION:

3.1 (1999) [Student copy reviewed on Windows 95]

 

REVIEWER:

Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9

 

REVIEW DATE:

April 12, 1999

 

PLATFORM - O/S:

Windows 3.1 /95/98/NT

 

INTENDED USES:

Individual Practice

Educational Institutions

 

User-directed Practice

Tracking of User Progress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Games gTutoriais H g7-12gCollege
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----
INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Hanuonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions MIDI Entry of Chords
IDENTIFICATION: fl, , , ,
7 Chords wrth InverSlons Open-fClosed-Spacmg
HARMONIC Inversions +6 Chords MIDI Entry of Chords
PROGRESSIONS: , , ,
Srngie=clrck~Response Secondary Domlnants
ME-bODIES: Computer=generated
RH-FPHMS: Hearchtate HcarfFap
SINGING (AUDIO IN): Pitch Matching Intervals
ADDITIONAL Features written theory exercises and 20 graded levels
EXERCISES OR .
FEATURES: for each type of exerCise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise-Setup Levels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS: , , ,
Student can adjust Size of on-screen notation.
INSTRUCTOR- Custom-Tests Settings Scoring-Parameters
DEFINED SETTINGS:

Instructor can set up classes and access class records.

 

 

Set up MIDI patches for a class, backup student records.

 

111

 

 

----Music Lab—Harmony REVIEW CONTINUED-n—
RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen Notation Screen-Keyboard Mouse-click I.D.

 

 

 

MIDI Input Singing

 

 

Auto-checking of Answers Auto-skip to next Question
USER FEEDBACK: Diagnostic-Testing Statistics of Responses

# of Correct anddncorrect-‘Responses Hints
RECORDS KEPT FOR: CurrentSession-Only # of Correct Answers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Times Individual Times Levels Passed

 

Class averages for quizzes and practice time.
RECORDS CAN BE: Auto-saved to: Hard Drive fNetwork+Student-Disk
Printed Emailed Backed-up Restored
Viewed in a Database Viewed-as-a-Craph
Saved to lab computers via LAN.
----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----
SYSTEM MINIMUM: IBM 486 or better

PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 1.2 MB Disk Space: 2 MB

HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOFTWARE:
m

----PRICING and PRODUCT INF ORMATION----

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $49
COST (in US $): . . .

Lab-pack: X for $199 Slte Llcense Available

DEMO: Downloadable-Demo

 

 

 

 

 

 

WEBPAGE: www.musicwareinc.com
E-MAIL/ PHONE: sales@musicwareinc.com 1-800-99PIANO
COMPANY INFO: Musicware, 8654 154th Avenue, NE
Redmond, WA 98052

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

112

 

----Music Lab—Melody REVIEW----

 

VERSION:

3.0 (1999) [Student copy reviewed on Windows 95]

 

REVIEWER:

Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9

 

REVIEW DATE:

March 14, 1999

 

PLATFORM - O/S:

Windows 3.1 /95/98/NT, Macintosh

 

INTENDED USES:

Individual Practice

Educational Institutions

 

User-directed Practice

Tracking of User Progress

 

 

 

H 7 - 12 College

w
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Hammnic Compound
wanmama” 7th-Chordswith-Imrersions Open-fCl-osed-Spacing
HARMONIC- lnversions +6-Chords
PROGRESSIONS:
MELODIES: Computer=gencrated Response: Rhythm/Melody
Libraries of Melodies Melodies Include Rhythm
RHYTHMS: Hear/Notate Hear/Tap See/Play
SINGING (AUDIO IN): Pitch Matching Intervals Melodies
ADDITIONAL Interval exercises are implemented by playing a tonic
EXERCISES OR . , .
FEATURES’ chord followed by the interval. The answer is given by

 

 

clicking on the solfege syllables for the interval.

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise-Setup Levels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS: . . .
Student can adjust Size of on-screen notation.
IN STRUCTOR- Custom-Tests Settings ScoringParameters
DEFINED SETTINGS:

Instructor can set up classes and access class records.

 

 

Set up MIDI patches for a class, backup student records.

 

113

 

 

----Music Lab—Melody REVIEW CONTINUED-«-

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

Screen Notation

Screen-Keyboard

 

Mouse-click I.D.

 

MlDanut Singing

 

Solfege “Keyboard ”

 

Auto-checking of Answers

Auto-skip to next Question

 

USER FEEDBACK:

E' '=F'

 

Statistics of Responses

 

# of Correct and-hrcorrect-Responses

Hints

 

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR:

Current-Session—Only

 

# of Correct Answers

 

 

Total Times

Individual Times

 

Levels Passed

 

Class averages for quizzes and practice time.

 

RECORDS CAN BE:

Auto-saved to: Hard Drive f-Networlc-l-Studcnt-Disk

 

Printed E=mailed

 

Backed-up Restored

 

 

Viewed in a Database

 

Viewed-as-a-Craph

 

 

Saved to lab computers via LAN.

 

FE:
----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-u-

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: Windows 3.1 (IBM 386 or higher)
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 775 K Disk Space: 1.4 MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

MIDI keyboard is not used for responding to questions

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE
COST (in US $):

Single-User Copy: $49

 

Lab-pack: X for $199

Site License Available

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEMO: Downloadable Demo
WEBPAGE: www.musicwareinc.com
E-MAIL/ PHONE: sales@musicwareinc.com 1-800-99PIANO
COMPANY INFO: Musicware, 8654 154th Avenue, NE

 

 

Redmond, WA 98052

 

114

 

 

----PET (Personal Ear Trainer) REVIEW----

 

VERSION:

1.04 (1998) [Full copy reviewed on Windows 95]

 

REVIEWER:

Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9

 

REVIEW DATE:

April 12,1999

 

PLATFORM - O/ S:

Windows 95/98/NT

 

INTENDED USES:

Individual Practice

Educational Institutions

 

User-directed Practice

Tracking-of-Uscr-Progress

 

 

 

Games Tutorials

 

 

H 7 - 12 College

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

h==l===
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----
INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Hanuonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions 9m, 11"”, and Suspensions
IDENTIFICATION: m , , ,
7 Chords Wlth Inversmns Open /Closed SpaClng
HARMONlC Inversions +6-Chords
PROGRESSIONS:
MELODIES: Computer-generated Respond via screen piano
SCALES: Major Minor Modal Jazz Scales
RHYTHMS: Hear/Notate HearfFap Rhythmic Elements Entry
ADDITIONAL Features a “Hands-F ree ”mode that plays a question,
EXERCISES OR ,
FEATURES, pauses, shows the answer, then proceeds to next question.

 

 

Brief music tutorials termed “Show me...

 

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

” are provided.

  
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS: ,
User can create and save custom setting profiles.
INSTRUCTOR- Custom-Tests Settings Scoring-Parameters
DEFINEDSE‘FHNGS:

 

 

 

 

115

 

----PET (Personal Ear Trainer) REVIEW CONTINUED-«-
RESPONSE OPTIONS: Screen Notation Screen Keyboard Mouse-click I.D.

MlDanut Singing “Hands-Free ” Mode
Auto=checkingof+mswers Auto-skip to next Question

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER FEEDBACK: Diagnostic-Testing Statistics of Responses
#of-Correetand-IncorrectResponses Hints
RECORDS KEPT FOR: Current Session Only #efCorrect-Answers

 

 

 

 

T I? II..I l‘F' I 11’ I

 

User-defined custom setup of practice sessions.

RECORDS CAN BE: Auto-saved-tm—I-lard-Drive-l-thworkf'Student-Disk

 

 

Printed E=mailcd Backed-mp Restored
II. I. D I II. I S I

 

 

 

 

 

 

Used to automatically launch customized user settings.

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----
SYSTEM MINIMUM: Windows 95 (IBM 486 or better)
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 975 K Disk Space: 1.7MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $50 Sliding Price Scale

 

COST ' US :
(Ill 3) W3 Site License Available

DEMO: Downloadable Demo
WEBPAGE: http://www.janasoftware.co.uk
E-MAIL/ PHONE: info@janasoftware.co.uk
COMPANY INFO: Jana Software, 31 Hall Cliffe Crescent
Horbury, Wakefield, WF4 6DG United Kingdom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116

 

----Pitch ID REVIEW-«-

 

VERSION: 1998 [Full copy reviewed on Windows 95]

 

REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9

 

REVIEW DATE: May 2, 1999

 

PLATFORM - O/S: Windows 95/98/NT

 

INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions

 

User-directed Practice Tracking-oPUschrogress

 

 

 

Games Music Tutorials H 7 - 12 College
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES-m

 

 

INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound

 

 

 

 

IDENTIHGA‘HON:
?thEI I .II . a IEI Is .

 

HARMONlClnversions-rG—Chords

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WW Heal-Hap

 

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL User hears a pitch then responds using the on-screen

 

EXERCISES OR . .
FEATURES: keyboard. If correct, the pitch is repeated and a new one

 

 

played. Uses pitches from major or minor scales.

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES-«-

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test-Modes

 

 

 

 

SETTINGS: .
User selects the key and the scale degrees to practice.

 

 

 

INSTRUCTOR-Custom-TestsSettingsScoring-Paramcters

 

DEFINED-SW:

 

 

 

 

 

117

 

----Pitch ID REVIEW CONTINUED-n—

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

Screen-Notation

Screen Keyboard

 

 

HIE” S‘ .

 

 

Auto-checking of Answers

Auto-skip to next Question

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-u-

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM:

Windows 95 (IBM 486 or better)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 294 K Disk Space: 1.2 MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MleKcyboard-(Optional)
SOFTWARE:

----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION----

 

APPROXIMATE
COST (in US $):

Single-User Copy: $14.95

 

bab=paclc.—X-for$

 

DEMO:

Downloadable Demo

 

 

WEBPAGE:

http://www.musicstudy.com

 

E-MAIL/ PHONE:

htrythal@yahoo.com

 

 

COMPANY INFO:

 

Dr. Gil Trythall, KBA Software, 41 West Main St.

 

 

Morgantown, WV 26505

 

118

 

 

----Practica Musica 3.92 REVIEW----

 

 

 

 

 

   

VERSION: 3.92 (1999) [Full Copy reviewed using Macintosh OS 8]
REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: April 26, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Macintosh
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions

 

 

 

User-directed Practice

Games Music Tutorials

 

 

----AVAILABLE EXERCISES-«-

 

Tracking of User Progress

7- 12 College

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Hanuonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions
IDENTIFICATION: th , , ,
7 Chords wrth Inversrons Opm-fGloscd—Spacmg
HARMONIC Inversions +6 Chords Custom Progressions
PROGRESSIONS: , , ,
Single-click Response Secondary Dominants
MELODIES: Computer-generated Custom Melodies
Libraries of Melodies Melodies Include Rhythm
SCALES: Major Minor Modal Pentatonic
RHYTHMS: i-lcarfNotate Hear/Tap See/Play
ADDITIONAL Many sight-reading exercises and other theory exercises.
EXERCISES OR . . . .
FEATURES: Comes With an extenswe printed music theory manual

 

 

 

 

which suggests learning approaches.

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES-u—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test-Modes
SETTINGS:
INSTRUCTOR- Custom Tests Settings Scoring-Parameters
DEFINED SETTINGS:

 

 

 

IIISD’UCIOI' can enter custom exercises.

 

 

 

 

119

 

----Practica Musica 3.92 REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

Screen Notation

Screen Keyboard

 

Mouse-click I.D.

 

MIDI Input Singing-

 

 

Auto-checking of Answers

I-I‘ 8'

 

USER FEEDBACK:

E' 'T'

 

Statistics of Responses

 

#of-Eorrect-andincorrcct-Rcsponses

Hints

 

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR:

€urrcnt-Scssion-Only

 

#-of€orrect-Answers

 

 

Total Times

I l' 'l 15F

 

Levels Passed

 

First use, Last use, and total minutes logged.

 

RECORDS CAN BE:

Auto-saved to: Hard Drive f-Network-l Student Disk

 

Printed E=maiicd

 

Backed-up Restored

 

 

u. l' E l

 

Viewed-ara-Graph

 

 

 

Viewed as the start-up screen when program is launched.
----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION-«-

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM:

Mac Plus or better, System 6.0.7 or higher

 

PROGRAM SPECS:

Program Size:1.2 MB

Disk Space: 4.5 MB

 

HARDWARE:

SoundcardMicrophone

 

 

MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

SOFTWARE:

 

Songworks (notation program) to create custom exercises.

 

E

 

 

----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $99 Student Disk: $15
COST (in US $): . . .
Lab-pack: 4 for $140 Site License Available
DEMO: Bownioadable-cho
WEBPAGE: http://www.ars-nova.com
E-MAIL/ PHONE: info@ars-nova.com 1-800-445-4866
COMPANY INFO: Ars Nova Software, Box 637, Kirkland, WA 98083-0637

 

 

Developer: Jeffrey Evans

 

120

 

 

----teoria REVIEW-«-

 

 

 

 

 

VERSION: 1.3.4 (1997) [full version reviewed on Windows 95]
REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: April 11, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Windows 95/98/NT
INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational Institutions

 

 

 

 

User-directed Practice

Games Tutorials

 

----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----

 

Tracking of User Progress

H §7- 12 College

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Hanuonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions Augmented Sixth Chords
IDENTIFICATION: m , , ,
7 Chords wrth Inversrons Open-feloscd-Spacrng
HARMONIC- Inversions -t-6-€hords
PROGRESSIONS:
S' l _ l' l R S l E .
MELODIES: Computer-generated Rhythm not evaluated
Isrbrarrcs-of-Meiodres- Melodies Include Rhythm
SCALES: Major Minor Modal Gregorian modes
RHYTHMS: Hcan‘Notate Hean‘Pap
ADDITIONAL Extensive tutorials included with the program cover
EXERCISES OR .
FEATURES° intervals, scales, and chords. Also features many

 

 

exercises which focus on written theory.

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup bevels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS:
User can load custom user-defined presets.
INSTRUCTOR- Custom Tests Settings Scoring Parameters
DEFINED SETTINGS:

 

 

 

Extensive record tracking abilities-although there is no

 

 

separate instructor access with password protection.

 

121

 

 

 

----teoria REVIEW CONTINUED-«-

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

Screen-Notation Screen Keyboard Mouse-click l.D.

 

 

HtEH S' .

 

 

Auto-checking of Answers Auto-skip to next Question

 

USER FEEDBACK:

 

Diagnostic-Testing- Statistics of Responses

 

 

#ofEmmctandinmmd—Rcsponscsifints

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR:

 

Current-Session-Only #‘ofCorrcctfirswcrs

 

 

 

Total Times Individual Times bowls-Passed

 

Date, Time, Minutes, # of Questions Answered, Score

 

RECORDS CAN BE:

Auto-saved to: Hard Drive f-Network-l-Studcnt-Bisk

 

 

 

Printed Emailed Backed-up Restored

 

 

Viewed in a Database Viewed as a Graph

 

 

E========

Records can be deleted by any user

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----

w

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM:

Windows 95 (IBM 486 or better)

 

PROGRAM SPECS:

Program Size: 841 K Disk space: 1.6 MB

 

HARDWARE:

Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)

 

 

 

 

 

   

----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION----

 

APPROXIMATE

Single-User Copy: $32

 

COST (in US S):

 

DEMO:

Downloadable Demo

 

 

WEBPAGE:

http://www.teoria.com

 

E-MAIL/ PHONE:

 

teoria@teoria.com

 

COMPANY INFO:

.1086 Rodriguez Alvira, Cond Monte Sur, 190 Ave Hostos,

 

 

 

 

Apt. B-342, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-4236

 

122

 

----The Music Box 2.6 -A Personal Ear Trainer REVIEW-u—
VERSION: 2.6 (1999) [Full copy reviewed on Windows 95]

 

 

REVIEWER: Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9
REVIEW DATE: February 07, 1999
PLATFORM - O/S: Windows 95/98/NT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTENDED USES: Individual Practice Educational-Institutions
User-directed Practice Tracking-of-Uschrogress
Games Tutorials K—-6 7 - 12 College

----AVAILABLE EXERCISES----

INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Harmonic Compound
CHORD Triads with-Inversions

IDENTIFICATION: th . . .
7 Chords mth-Invcrsrons Open-felosed-Spacmg
HARMONIG Inversions +6€hords

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROGRESSIONS:
S' l _ l' l R S l E .
MELODIES: Computer-generated Quick response method
tibraries-of-Meiodics- Melodies Include Rhythm

 

SCALES: Major Minor Modal Whole tone, Pentatonic
RHYTHMS: HearfNotate HearfFap Hear/Write on Paper
ADDITIONAL Simulates classroom testing by giving melodic, rhythmic,

EXERCISES OR . . . . . .
FEATURES: interval, and chord dictation exerczses which are written

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

down on paper then compared with the screen notation.
w

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup bevels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS:

 

 

 

 

 

Other: Mouse-click answering of melodic dictations.

INSTRUGFOR-Gustom-TestsSettmgsScofing-Parameters
DEFINED-SETTINGS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

123

 

----The Music Box 2.6 REVIEW CONTINUED-m

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

Screen Notation

Screw-Keyboard-

 

Mouse-click l.D.

 

 

“IE” 5' .

 

Auto-checking of Answers

!-1° 8'

 

USER FEEDBACK:

E' .13.

 

5.. FR

 

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses

Hints

 

 

Current-Session-Only

 

#of-Gorrect-Answcrs

 

Total-Times

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----

 

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM:

Windows 95 (IBM 486 or better)

 

 

PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 632 K Disk Space: 800 K
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MiBI-Iécyboard-(Optional)

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

----PRICING and PRODUCT INFORMATION-«-

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATE Single-User Copy: $26 Shareware
COST (in US $): . . .
bab=packTX-for-$ Site-twensefivariabic
DEMO: Downloadable Demo
WEBPAGE: http://tscnet.com/pages/carner
E-MAIL/ PHONE: camer@tscnet.com

 

 

 

COMPANY INFO:

Camer Enterprises, 13298 Rocky Ridge Road

 

 

Silverdale, WA 98383

 

 

124

 

----ThoughtSauce Eartraining REVIEW-«-

 

VERSION:

1.0 (1999) [Full Copy reviewed on Windows 95]

 

REVIEWER:

Douglas Spangler http://www.msu.edu/user/spangle9

 

REVIEW DATE:

May 10,1999

 

PLATFORM - O/S:

Windows 3.1/95

 

INTENDED USES:

 

Individual Practice

Educational Institutions

 

User-directed Practice

 

 

Games Music Tutorials

 

 

 

Em
----AVAILABLE EXERCISES-m

Tracking of User Progress

H 7 - 12 College

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERVALS: Ascending Descending Hanuonic Compound
CHORD Triads with Inversions
IDENTIFICATION: u, , , ,
7 Chords wrth InverSlons Open /Closed Spacrng
HARMONIC Inversions +6-€hords
PROGRESSIONS: , , .
Single-cllck Response Secondary-Dominants
MELODIES: €ompnter=generated Melody Comparison
Libraries of Melodies Melodies Include Rhythm
SCALES: Major Minor Modal- Whole-tone, Chromatic
RHYTHMS: Hear/Notate Hean‘I-‘ap Hear/Compare
ADDITIONAL More than 800 different lessons or topics. There are
EXERCISES OR , , . . , .
FEATURES: Singing exerCises, but there is no microphone input.

 

 

 

 

----INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USER-DEFINED Exercise Setup Levels Practice Test Modes
SETTINGS: , , , _ ,
User must “Sign in ” if recordkeeping is desired.
INSTRUGFOR- Custom-Tests Settings Scoring-Parameters
BEFINEB-SE‘FHNGS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

125

 

----ThoughtSauce Eartraining REVIEW CONTINUED----

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS:

Screen-Notation

Screen-Keyboard-

 

 

MIDl Input Singing-

 

Numbers Keys /Letter Keys

 

Auto-checking of Answers

Auto-skip to next Question

 

USER FEEDBACK:

 

E' .12.

Statistics of Responses

 

# of Correct and Incorrect Responses

 

Hints

 

RECORDS KEPT FOR:

 

CurrentScssion-Oniy

#ofGorrechkrrswcrs

 

 

Total-Times

11.11512.

 

Levels Passed

 

User must “sign in ” if recordkeeping is desired.

 

RECORDS CAN BE:

#

 

Auto-saved to: Hard Drive f-Network-l-Student-Disk

 

Printed B=maiied

 

 

BackedmpRestored

 

Viewed in a Database

 

Viewed-asa-Graph

 

 

Viewed for all exercises or by individual exercise

 

----SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS and SETUP INFORMATION----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

SYSTEM MINIMUM: Windows 3.1, (IBM 386 or better)
PROGRAM SPECS: Program Size: 420K Disk Space: 3 MB
HARDWARE: Soundcard Microphone MIDI Keyboard (Optional)
SOFTWARE

----PRICIN G and PRODUCT INFORMATION----

 

APPROXIMATE
COST (in US $):

Single-User Copy: $79

Release set for late 1999

 

bab=pack:*for$

S' I' a .1”

 

DEMO:

Bownioadabie-Bemo

 

 

WEBPAGE:

http://www.thoughtsauce.com

 

E-MAIL/ PHONE:

open-ear@thoughtsauce.com

 

COMPANY INFO:

 

ThoughtSauce.com (Begun in 1998 on the WWW)

 

 

 

126