student singers' development and use of performance cues

Student singers' development

and use of performance cues

Jane Ginsborg

Centre for Music Performance Research

Outline of presentation

• Theoretical context: memorising and ‘content-

addressable’ memory for music; performance cues

• Initial and subsequent studies, hypotheses and

results

• Rationale and aim of present study

• Methods

• Results

• Discussion

• Participants’ reflections

• Conclusions

Memorizing: two processes

1. Spontaneous learning

• Produces associative chain to cue motor

processes and auditory imagery (Chaffin, Logan &

Begosh, 2009)

2. Deliberate memorization

• Motor and auditory chain becomes content

addressable

• The musician can start playing or singing at the

beginning of a passage just by thinking of it

Stephen Emmerson – To bE: A contemplation

Content-addressable memory

• Longitudinal case study research with professional

musicians and students (Chaffin and colleagues,

1994-2012; Ginsborg and colleagues, 2006-2014;

Lisboa and colleagues, 2010-2012; Noice et al.,

2008; Williamon & Valentine, 2002)

• During practice/rehearsal: attention to basic,

interpretive, expressive, structural features of

music

• By time of performance: many of these features

unimportant or automatic

• The remainder, to which the musician attends in

performance = performance cues (PCs)

PCs: landmarks in musicians’

mental representations

• Continue to affect subsequent recall even years

after the performance

• Often located at boundaries between sections and

phrases

• Starts and stops make them landmarks

• Beginnings of sections and phrases recalled better

than other locations when musicians write out the

score from memory (Chaffin & Imreh, 2002;

Chaffin et al., 2010; Ginsborg & Chaffin, 2011a)

Initial studies

• Between 1994 and 2009 musicians recorded

practice while preparing a new piece for

performance

• Gabriela Imreh: Presto from Bach’s Italian Concerto

(Chaffin and Imreh, 1994; Chaffin et al., 2002)

Subsequent studies (1)

Chaffin, Gerling, Demos,

& Melms (2013)

Noice, John, Noice, &

Chaffin (2008) – jazz

Lisboa, Chaffin,

& Logan (2012)

Subsequent studies (2)

• Shared performance cues (Ginsborg, Chaffin &

Nicholson, 2006)

• Performance cues in singing: Evidence from practice

and recall (Ginsborg and Chaffin, 2011a)

First Ricercar from

Stravinsky’s Cantata

(1951-1952)

Overview of method

• Longitudinal case study method

• Tracks musician’s engagement with music from

first sight to performance and beyond

• One musician at a time rather than groups of

musicians

• Important feature: psychologist and musician are

equal partners

• Combining objective “outsider” view point of

scientist with subjective “insider” expertise of

performer

• Practice-led research

Procedure, analysis and key

findings

• Musicians report performance cues on score

immediately after the performance (cf. Ericsson

1995: verbal protocol method)

• Analysis of practice behaviour (starts and

stops) using locations of PCs as predictors

• Key findings: PCs are prepared in practice:

significant relationships identified between

practice behaviour (and locations of PCs

Other thoughts?

• Previously un-noticed features of the music

• Their own reactions to the music as they are

performing it

• Distractions such as unwelcome / unhelpful

thoughts (cf. Anthony Gritten:

Underneath/Creative/Performance)

• Theory does not account for spontaneity in

performance (e.g. creative use of external sounds)

The “Schoenberg studies”

• Preparation and spontaneity in performance

(Ginsborg & Chaffin, 2011b)

• Different roles for prepared and spontaneous

thoughts (Ginsborg, Chaffin & Demos, 2014)

Schoenberg

Two Songs,

Op. 14

Hypotheses

1. Prepared PCs (musical features retained as PCs)

in Performance 1 (P1) would be retained in

Performance 2 (P2) following reconstruction from

memory

2. Other PCs would occur in either P1 or P2 but not

both

3. Spontaneous PCs would recur in P2

4. Extraneous thoughts (“fog in throat”) would not

recur in P2

5. Starts and stops during reconstruction would

occur at structural boundaries and PCs

A

B C

AB

ABC

BC

AC

Prepared

PCs

Prepared

PCs Prepared

PCs

Spontaneous PCs

Practice

features

Spont - aneous thoughts

Spont - aneous thoughts

Ich darf nicht dankend In diesen Wintertagen

Practice

68 Thoughts

Public Performance 53 Thoughts

Reconstruction 35 Thoughts

AB 20*** 19.6%

ABC 11*** 10.8%

AC 10*** 9.8%

BC 2

2.0%

B 20

19.6%

A 27

26.5%

C 12

11.8%

Results: Performance cues

Practice

35 Thoughts

C

19

30.2%

A

10

15.9%

B

8

12.7%

AC

5**

7.9%

ABC

6**

9.5% BC

1

1.6%

AB

14***

22.2%

Public

Performance

29 Thoughts

Reconstruction

31 Thoughts

***p<.001

**p<.01

*p<.05


Practice

68 Thoughts



AB 20*** 19.6%

ABC 11*** 10.8%

AC 10*** 9.8%

BC 2

2.0%

B 20

19.6%

A 27

26.5%

C 12

11.8%

Spontaneous thoughts

Practice

35 Thoughts

C

19

30.2%

A

10

15.9%

B

8

12.7%

AC

5**

7.9%

ABC

6**

9.5% BC

1

1.6%

AB

14***

22.2%

Public

Performance

29 Thoughts

Reconstruction

31 Thoughts

***p<.001

**p<.01

*p<.05


Practice

68 Thoughts



AB 20*** 19.6%

ABC 11*** 10.8%

AC 10*** 9.8%

BC 2

2.0%

B 20

19.6%

A 27

26.5%

C 12

11.8%

Core performance cues

Practice

35 Thoughts

C

19

30.2%

A

10

15.9%

B

8

12.7%

AC

5**

7.9%

ABC

6**

9.5% BC

1

1.6%

AB

14***

22.2%

Public

Performance

29 Thoughts

Reconstruction

31 Thoughts

***p<.001

**p<.01

*p<.05

PCs in first, second and both

performances

PCs (total = 66)

First (B) only

Second (C) only

Both (B and C)

17 (25.7%)

34 (51.6%)

15 (22.7%)

Rationale and aims

• Only one longitudinal case study has involved

students (Chaffin, Demos, & Crawford, 2009), both

pianists

• Opportunity for singers of different levels of

expertise to track their own practice and

performance of one song each

• Nature of practice features, PCs and spontaneous

thoughts

• Compare approaches with those of other musicians

• Reflect on experience of undertaking project in

relation to other practice and performance

Method / Participants

Emile – 4th year undergraduate student

researcher

Chloe – 2nd year

undergraduate

Vic – graduate student

Method / Materials

• Chloe: The Light That is Felt by Charles Ives

• Vic: No. 1 of Five Am’rous Sighs by Jonathan Dove

(English, b. 1959)

• Both songs short, with texts in English, composed

during the 20th century using tonal harmony

Method / Procedure

• Both singers audio-recorded practice sessions and

performances

• At the end of the last practice session before the

performance each singer annotated multiple copies

of the score indicating structural, basic, interpretive,

expressive and ensemble features

• Immediately after the performance they annotated

another copy of the score to indicate PCs and

spontaneous thoughts in the same categories

• Noted first and last beats of practice segments

• Singers (and researcher) participated in interviews

Results: Chloe’s practice journal

Practice/rehearsal (3 h 12 m) – first half

No. Mins. Purpose

1 25 General overview; read through poem; played

through piano part; played vocal line to learn

the notes

2 40 Note-learning, aspirated vowels to get melody

on body and engaged; projected speech/rolled

‘r’ to avoid driving; focus on chromatic sections

3 29 Transposed key so singing in; further note-

learning particularly in chromatic sections

4 12 Lesson on piece with teacher

Chloe’s journal (continued)

Practice/rehearsal (3 h 12 m) second half

5 18 Working with straw to get clarity of vowels, reduce

tongue tension and focus on breath/sound; focus

on combining with piano (particularly chromatic

sections) [technical]

6 16 Working-in larger intervals with yodelling

7 Rehearsing with pianist for first time

8 41 Further technical work; focus on intervals, using

straw for vowels; memorisation

9 11 Consistency of tone – rolled ‘r’ – scalic exercises,

memorisation and interpretation

10 Pre-performance run-through, focus on

memorisation and interpretation

Chloe’s practice behaviour

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

Beats

Ses

sio

ns

Vic’s practice behaviour (3h 30m)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140

11

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

111213

Beats

Ses

sion

s

Vic’s practice journal

Practice/rehearsal (3 h 30 m) – first

No. Mins. Purpose

1 19 Learn the outline of the melody

2 31 Build on S1, sing entire melody without piano

3 27 To consolidate melody and develop muscle

memory for longer phrases

4 10 In coaching session with pianist – go through

song with accompaniment

5 15 Work on phrasing and consistency of sound

6 20 Refamiliarise, work specifically on 2nd half

Vic’s practice journal (continued)

Practice/rehearsal (3 h 30 m) second half

7 12 Work on dynamics (low) and note-lengths

(especially at ends of phrases)

8 11 Focusing on ‘line’ and vocal consistency through

ascending phrases (sections A/A1)

9 14 Work on end of piece in isolation

10 12 Focus on energy needed for phrases and ie

decisions in 2nd half

11 11 Memorising words/lengths of different notes esp.

ends of phrases, differentiating sections

12 16 Sections A/A1 memorising differences, think about

overall ‘story’ of song

13 12 Fine-tune dynamics/decisions re breaths in B/B1

Vic’s practice behaviour

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140

11

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

111213

Beats

Ses

sion

s

Post-rehearsal/performance reports

Features/PCs Chloe Vic

Structural Section

Switch

Basic Clear vowels Intonation

Engagement / connection Support

Breathing / onset

Interpretive Tempo Legato

Phrasing Word meaning

Sound quality

Expressive Convey understanding of composer’s

intentions to audience

Ensemble Co-ordinate with pianist

Chloe: The Light that is Felt

(100 beats)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Features

PCs

Spontaneous thoughts

Ensemble PC “predicted” starts B=29.8, SE B=8.24, t=13***

0

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

Beats

Ses

sio

ns

Significant model (F[10,89]=18.84***) explains 64.3% variance

Structure (Feature)“predicted” stops B=40.88, SE B=2.35, t=17.35***

0

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

Beats

Ses

sion

s


Vic: [First] Am’rous Sigh

(142 beats/100)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Features

PCs

Spontaneousthoughts

Structure (F): B=49.43, SE B=8.92, t=5.54***

Basic (F): B=7.79, SE B=3.59, t=2.17*


0

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140

11

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

111213

Beats

Ses

sion

s

Structure (F): B=21.24, SE B=5.87, t=3.62***

Basic (F): B=9.23, SE B=2.36, t=3.91***


0

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140

11

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

111213

Beats

Ses

sion

s

Discussion

• Findings challenge two conclusions drawn by

Chaffin et al. (2009)

1. Number of PCs increase with

• musician’s experience

• level of difficulty of piece

2. Nature of PCs

Comparison with expert’s PCs

(Ricercar 1 – Stravinsky’s Cantata)

Participants’ reflections: Chloe

“I now start off by looking at the piece as a whole, read

through the text and play through the music on the piano.

Then… I strip away the text, use basic vowel sounds to learn

the notes and see where technical issues arise, and use an

appropriate exercise to deal with them. The important thing is

that I extricate those parts and put them into a scalic or

arpeggio exercise to get it really into my body. Once [the

song] is technically secure I bring the text in again and so

obviously then I think about the text, which illuminates the

music for me and I can then look at it more expressively. The

difference between before and after is that I now do it in a

more structured way, it’s more analytical and I’m aware of

the individual processes that make up the whole.”

Participants’ reflections: Vic

“Particularly when I was listening to my practice

sessions … I didn’t realise there was so much

repetition in my practice. I practise in quite a

systematic way. When I was learning my next piece

for my recital – I [paid] the same attention to detail …

before going on to look at the interpretive and

expressive aspects of the music. I know that I’m

always concerned with the text regardless of what I’m

singing, so attention to … ways in which I could make

it more intense and dramatic, that’s what I would have

expected.”

Participants’ reflections: Emile

(student researcher)

“Deconstructing the music to a point such as this

where it is analysed for a study leads to questions in

my own practice. Why is one passage easier to

memorise than another? Because of the type of

feature in the piece – a technical corner as opposed

to an interpretive corner. A technical corner is easier

to remember because I practise it a lot more. So for

me it’s about repetition. Being able to notice these

differences makes practising more interesting.”

Conclusions

• Limitations

Discrepancy between reports in journal and

post-rehearsal ( / performance?) – potentially

less than ideally detailed

• Future research:

Different singers’ approaches to the same piece

Same singers’ approaches to different pieces (as

in Ginsborg & Chaffin, 2011b)

Acknowledgements

• Vic, Chloe and Emile for their participation

• Alexander Demos for statistical analyses

Thank you for your attention

• Any questions?

• [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

SELECTED REFERENCES

Chaffin, R., Imreh, G., & Crawford, M. (2002). Practicing perfection: Memory and piano performance. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Chaffin, R., Logan, T.R., & Begosh, K.T. (2009). Performing from memory. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology (pp. 352-363). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chaffin, R., Lisboa, T., Logan, T., & Begosh, K.T. (2010). Preparing for memorized cello performance: The role of performance cues. Psychology of Music, 38, 3-30.

Ginsborg, J. & Chaffin, R. (2011a). Performance cues in singing: evidence from practice and recall. In I. Deliège & J. Davidson (Eds.), Music and the mind: Investigating the functions and processes of music (a book in honour of John Sloboda) (pp. 339-360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ginsborg, J. & Chaffin, R. (2011b). Preparation and spontaneity in performance: A singer’s thoughts while singing Schoenberg. Psychomusicology, 21, 137-158.

Ginsborg, J., Chaffin, R., & Demos, A. P. (2014). Different roles for prepared and spontaneous thoughts: A practice-based study of musical performance from memory. Journal of Interdisciplinary Music Studies, 6 (2), 201-232.

Ginsborg, J., Chaffin, R., & Nicholson, G. (2006a). Shared performance cues in singing and conducting: A content analysis of talk during practice. Psychology of Music, 34, 167-194.

Ginsborg, J., Chaffin, R., & Nicholson, G. (2006b, August). Shared performance cues: Predictors of expert individual practice and ensemble rehearsal. In M. Baroni et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, Bologna, Italy.

Lisboa, T., Chaffin, R., Demos, A., & Aufegger, L. (2012). Preparing memorised performance: the transition between childhood and expertise. International Symposium on Music Education, Thessaloniki, Greece, July.

Noice, H., John, J., Noice, T., & Chaffin, R. (2008). Memorization by a jazz pianist: A case study. Psychology of Music, 36(1), 63-79.

Williamon, A. & Valentine, E. (2002). The role of retrieval structures in memorizing music, Cognitive Psychology, 44, 1-32.

student singers' development and use of performance cues

Documents