My presence on stage:
It does not seem casual that the best evaluated extramusical items were related almost always to the visual aspect. When I perform, one of the usual comments about my playing is that my body language or presence on stage is not always sufficiently suited for such playing, and therefore not engaging enough for the audience. Both listening without looking and with the lights off force the audience to take care of other musical elements. But this also means, although I would prefer that it was not like this, that the visual aspect of my standard playing could affect negatively the audience as well. The research results 'invite' me to pay more attention on this.
Set-ups: distances:
Suppose we attend to the settings that had the most promising results (semicircle, isolated listeners, and a circle in which I walk and get closer to each listener) and compare them to the ones that worked the least (sitting on the floor and doing a complete circle). In that case, the conclusion could be that the most radical set-ups in terms of distances are the most effective ones. The semicircle setting could be related to the idea of connection between performer and listener, proximity, interaction, etc.; while the 'isolated' system could let each listener explore its more intimate character.
The most revealing factor:
Perhaps the most easy question brought out the most valuable conclusion, which I have kept until now. The factor that seems to most affect and clearly improve the engagement of a piece or performance is whether or not it is recognised or already familiar to the listener. I calculated the average of all the engagement-level answers of the music-knowledgeable listeners that responded 'Yes' to the question 'Did you already know the piece?'. Such global average amounts to 8.5, a figure much higher than the ones that took into account extramusical elements or philosophical approaches1. However, I found a possible contradiction here, since the engagement of Saariaho (especially with non-musicians) was above the average. In this case, the fact that Saariaho's language focuses on sound textures (close to spectral music) could take this piece out of the comparison.
Analyzing this conclusion, I can state that in order to get a better emotional engagement of most of the listeners, including the ones that do not know the music of the program, a basic approximation to the pieces (some explanations with musical examples for instance) before the performance or concert in terms of musical composition, context or language seems to be worthwhile. Then, all the 'seasoning' or 'dressing' (like the extramusical elements, the setting, or the mindsets) would work better and stimulate the engagement more. This sounds consistent, as it is understandable that asking to step out of the comfort zone for a listener who is still getting used to the flow of a piece they are not yet familiar with may be very demanding.
Demanding (or not demanding) mental paths:
The results aligned with my expectations, since Levinson's imagination was the most comfortable look for both musicians and non musicians, but not always the most satisfactory. Kivy's beauty of music was simultaneously the most challenging and the most satisfactory approach for non musicians. I wonder, is this not such a typical situation in art?
Thinking (or not) in music:
Appealing to the audience to think about the beauty of music or the music itself is a quite abstract request. First of all, musicians' thoughts may differ greatly from those of non-musicians, and each listener can focus on a different element, in a completely distinct way. However, the only thing I can deduce is that thinking in the music itself seems to be more satisfactory for non-musicians, possibly because their mindset is less 'technical'. In other words, a musician, in order to feel more engaged or touched, probably needs more than solely a high concentration on a language they are handling every day. That is why other paths like imagination or emotional contagion could be more rewarding.