Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Factors Predicting Singers’ Work Efficiency and Singers’ Singing Peak Cover

Factors Predicting Singers’ Work Efficiency and Singers’ Singing Peak

International Journal of Music Business Research
Volume 13 (2024): Issue 1 (April 2024)
By:  and    
Open Access
|Mar 2024
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

The singing efficiency prediction model. RwT: rework times; SinD: singing duration; DR: dynamic range.

Figure 2.

A qualified wave diagram.

Table 1.

RwT correlated with the acoustic variables.

RSinDIntensityPPronunDRVqualVib
RwT−0.398**−0.384**−0.563**0.181**−0.116*−0.230**−0.059−0.152**
R0.148**0.319**−0.0920.0270.178**0.003−0.005
SinD0.193**0.261**0.103*0.429**−0.0980.101*
Intensity0.139**0.0450.199**0.0090.093
P−0.041−0.109*0.033−0.069
Pronoun0.019−0.0230.125*
DR−0.0930.184**
Vqual0.058

P, pitch; Pronun: Pronunciation; R, rhythm consistency; RwT: rework times; SinD: singing duration; Vqual, voice quality.

* p < 0.05;

** p < 0.01.

Table 2.

Linear regression analysis examining the relationship between predictive variables and SinD.

Model VariablesBS.Eβ95% CIAICR2∆R2
LLUL
Step 11,633.490.24***0.23
R−0.6010.097−0.27***−0.075−0.039
P0.0120.0070.072**−0.936−0.626
DR−0.0380.017−0.09**−0.0100.016
Pronun−0.1680.110−0.06−0.0320.035
Vib−0.0010.000−0.053−0.4290.099
Vqual−0.0870.140−0.025−0.0010.000
Step 21,542.070.40***0.40
Intensity−0.8260.082−0.44***−0.988−0.664
Step 31,163.110.45***0.45
SinD−0.0570.009−0.27***−0.075−0.039

AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; CI, confidence interval; LL, lower limit; Pronun: Pronunciation; S.E., Standard Error; UL, upper limit.

** p < 0.01;

*** p < 0.001.

Table 3.

Mediation effect test of SinD.

Outcome variablePredictive variableR2S.EF95% CI
LLUL
SinDIntensity0.036***0.4614.150.822.61
RwTIntensity0.39***0.08121.43−1.11−0.80
SinD0.01−1.08−0.04
RwTIntensity0.31***0.08169.31−1.22−0.90

CI, confidence interval; LL, lower limit; RwT: rework times; S.E., Standard Error; SinD: singing duration; UL, upper limit.

Note:

*** p < 0.001. n = 380.

Table 4.

Mediation effect size of SinD.

VariableEffect typeCoefficientS.E95% CI
LLUL
SinDTotal effect−1.06***0.081−1.22−0.90
Indirect effect−0.11***0.034−0.18−0.04
Direct effect−0.95***0.078−1.11−0.80

CI, confidence interval; LL, lower limit; S.E., Standard Error; SinD: singing duration; UL, upper limit.

Note:

*** p < 0.001. n = 380.

Figure 3.

Mean RwT changed by SinD. RwT: rework times; SinD: singing duration.

Table 5.

Frequency of the acoustic best performance in each part of the song.

DurationVariable
RwT = 0Intensity 3 75R = 6P £ 50
Verse 112 (15.0%)26 (32.5%)30 (37.5%)77 (96.25%)
Chorus 111 (13.75%)28.75 (35.94%)55 (68.75%)78 (97.5%)
Verse 213 (16.25%)11 (27.5%)21 (52.5%)38 (95.0%)
Chorus 240 (50.0%)43 (53.75%)51 (63.75%)80 (100%)
Post-chorus38 (47.5%)45 (56.25%)58 (72.5%)79 (98.75%)
Outro6 (30.0%)8 (40.0%)10 (25.0%)18 (90.0%)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijmbr-2024-0004 | Journal eISSN: 2227-5789
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 17 - 26
Submitted on: Nov 14, 2023
Accepted on: Jan 25, 2024
Published on: Mar 30, 2024
Published by: International Music Business Research Association
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
music content,
recording,
singer,
singing peak,
work efficiency
Related subjects:
Cultural studies,
Media studies,
Media theory,
Business and economics,
Business management,
Industries,
Entertainment industry, media, publishing companies,
Cultural management,
Social sciences,
Sociology,
Sociology of economy, organizations, and industry

© 2024 Xuejie Huang, Mei Foong Ang, published by International Music Business Research Association
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 13 (2024): Issue 1 (April 2024)
Previous article
Next article