Abstract
This study investigated the social, cultural, cognitive, affective, and physical byproducts that occur when people gather together to make music in an amateur setting. Using a theoretical framework derived from the works of ethnomusicologist Blacking and sociologist Martin, the paper also draws inspiration from other seminal authors including theorist Wenger and sociomusicologist Russell. Participants included members of a jazz combo and community concert choir in a large urban Canadian city. Structured observation, semi-structured interviews with individuals, and focus groups were used to gather the data. Regardless of the participants’ background music training (formal or informal), results suggest that all were able to express their musicality within the group and the community setting through activities that encompass the secondary aspects of the groups’ musical practice. The article concludes with a call for professionals who interact with people through music to consider the nature and value of the secondary aspects of collective music-making.
Keywords
Introduction
What do amateur musicians 1 who gather to make music together say and think about their practice? The motivating factor for this research was the deep desire to listen to groups of people who dedicate part of their weekly routine to making music with others. Specifically, the purpose of the study was to describe and discuss secondary effects occurring as a result of the collective music-making process. The starting point of the research was the belief that, regardless of context and objectives that determine the musical group process, collective practices stimulate actions, feelings, and thoughts by group members that go beyond the music itself. Social, cultural, cognitive, affective, and physical expressions that develop naturally as groups interact through music expand the possibilities of learning and human development, and might be viewed more as parallel than secondary in nature. For the purposes of this discussion, the term “secondary” will be retained.
The expression of musicality is the main result of learning and playing music; however, being part of a musical group means more than playing together. When musical groups practise they create learning and teaching experiences while simultaneously facing and managing conflict and situations of living together. Playing music with others is therefore a collective action that can generate emotion and stimulate creativity. It can also develop skills such as attention, concentration, listening to one another, and sharing ideas. The very act of musical performance, therefore, involves a collaborative relationship irrespective of one’s music education.
Alfano (2008) made clear references to the “byproducts” of making music together in his study of an intergenerational band programme. Inspired by his study, we propose that awareness of these manifestations is an important factor in the promotion of a healthy environment of playing, learning, and expressing our musicality. We believe that the study of the educational and political potentials inherent to playing music can assist music educators, music therapists, and musicians in their discussions of pedagogical initiatives, ultimately leading to a truly democratic musical education or musical interaction (Freire, 2005).
Definition of terms
This study takes as a point of departure the concept that music is a human action (Blacking, 1969; Small, 1998). From this perspective, music-making has more to do with process rather than product; music making is akin to “performing” which is an applied, observable, recordable musical behaviour (Russell, 2002). As such, performance is connected with musical activity regardless of the level of its quality; performance is the product of music-making that occurs, for instance, in rehearsals and concerts when individuals make music together. And yet, music-making and performance are bounded in the sense that one does not occur without the other.
In the context of the present study, the expression “secondary aspects of collective music-making” indicates the social, cultural, cognitive, affective, and physical expressions that occur when people come to make music together. Even though similar to the expression “by-product” Alfano (2009) and Fitch (2006) have used, here the term “secondary aspects” is connected with the notion of process, which is the grounded concept for musical activities in the context of music therapy and community gatherings.
Review of literature
The study of music as a sociocultural event present in everyday life is not a novelty in music research. Among others, this theme is currently of interest to ethnologists, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and music therapists. A review of literature has revealed an extensive body of knowledge that can be divided into four interrelated areas:
music, culture and society;
collective music making;
secondary aspects of making music together; and
meaning and musicality.
Facing so many perspectives of understanding music as a human practice makes it difficult for music educators, music therapists, and musicians to understand the whole dynamics of the secondary aspects of collective music-making (Small, 1998). In this sense, researchers have investigated the functions of music in society but Blacking’s (1969, 1985, 1995) interdisciplinary approach to understanding the value of music in human experience is of paramount importance. Consequently, this article is framed by Blacking’s pluralist theoretical perspective based on the concept that music making “is a way of knowing” (1985, p. 65).
Recent studies have articulated the need to think of music as a result of multiple contexts (Blacking, 1969, 1995; Campbell, 2000; Martin, 1995). Blacking, the seminal author to maintain this position, stated that the same processes societies use to organize human relations might be used to build musical sounds. Although his interdisciplinary approach incorporated music as a human action, he stated that music has been studied as a product of societies or individuals, but rarely as a result of the action of individuals in society.
More focused on the extent to which people internalize music as an element from their societies, Martin (1995) stated that the ways of thinking, acting, and feeling are related to the process of socialization. In addition, music is “a socially constructed convention” (p. 7). In his point of view, music is not a consensus; various styles and genres reflect social organization—classes, ages, ethnicity, and geography. These principles have profoundly influenced researchers in music education (Alfano, 2008; Bell, 2008; Hendrix & McPherson, 2010; Silverman, 2010) to the point of “rethinking music” (Ansdell, 2004, p. 66). They have also contributed to understanding aspects of the music-making process “at the level of the individual in the context of the group setting” (McCarthy, 2002, p. 3).
Music-making, according to Blacking (1969), depends on individual action, and, at the same time, is held by a collective relationship that involves face-to-face communication and possibilities of experiencing power relation or freedom sensation. Martin (1995) presented the idea of collective music-making as organized musical activities whose characteristics and identity are assumed by group members in collaborative musical practices. Making-music together requires human communication, sharing experiences, and synchrony.
When people share music it becomes a social experience; participants become members of a community of musicians and listeners (Campbell, 2004). Thus, music learning occurs when teachers and musicians share musical techniques and meanings in live performances. Learning music is an action that occurs in formal and informal settings from watching, imitating, listening to, and playing with experienced performers. Finnegan (1997), following Becker’s work Art Worlds (1982), defined group musical dynamics as a network of ordinary people interacting in their daily practices. In addition, music-making is regarded as a powerful idea for self-formation, expressive communication, and promoting social inclusion (Barbu-Iurascu, 2010).
Being part of a musical group, therefore, means more than playing music collectively (Pavlicevic, 2006). As a music therapist in South Africa, Pavlicevic’s collective musical experiences led her to consider “group music as meaning something more vast … than listening or making music together” (p. 14). A group is a collection of persons with common focus and purpose, constantly emerging and shifting sub-groups within the original group, so this group process consists of interpersonal alliances that emerge when people come together.
Martin (1995) and Blacking (1995) have outlined the cognitive and affective aspects involved in making music. Both considered music as a human capability, a mode of thought and action, produced by an intense dynamic that encompasses cognitive, affective, and physical activity of the body. According to Blacking, the sounds of music are best understood through awareness of its intrinsic hidden aspects that are “the deep structure of which they are external manifestations” (1995, p. 12).
Thus, listening, singing, and playing music are all pathways to making people more aware of feelings and values they have experienced because music can reflect situations that have already occurred. Furthering this viewpoint, Elliot (2005), has centred on a praxial philosophy that demands active participation in music-making. He considered this action a “process and a product in which multidimensional aspects are engaged” (p. 9). The process encompasses attention, cognition, emotion, intention, memory, and interconnects expressions of personal meanings as well as personal feelings.
Studies from the field of music biology connect the fields of social and biological sciences (Ansdell, 2004). Fitch (2006) has stressed that music integrates cognitive, emotional, perceptual, and motor domains. Music is part of a group’s identity maintaining group cohesion via coordination between multiple individuals and synchronization of body movements and blending voices. Furthermore, Barbu-Iurascu (2010) has pointed to music’s time dependence, which adds a dimension of cognitive complexity and challenge to musical experiences. Making music supports maintenance of social bonds and pro-social commitment among group members.
Studying an intergenerational group where seniors and adolescents work together in music performance, Alfano (2009) concluded that while participating in making-music, group individuals can share ideas, increase social contact, and develop caring relationships. Moreover, music as a group activity demands mental energy, dedication, concentration and focus, coordination of movements, body posture, space and temporal notion, generated from mental and physical stimuli.
According to Blacking (1995), musicality is inherent in all human beings, and all humans, whatever their age and experience, possess the skills necessary to participate in musical activities. The sounds and melodies of our cultural environment are “internalized” through everyday life routine, and these “come to sound natural, even though we may subsequently realize that the conventions which organize [music] are arbitrary” (Martin, 1995, p. 8). The meaning of music, therefore, emerges as a consequence of the activities of groups of people in a particular cultural context. According to Martin, making music together is a process of sharing meaningful experiences through the collaborative work of individuals. Making music is an activity based on organized human communication that enables groups of people to make sense of the sounds they produce and hear according to their conventions.
In the same sense, Small (1998) observed that music embodies a communicative web that stretches itself from the musical structure through people’s physical, cognitive and emotional dynamics, so that all involved contribute to what is being generated. Following this concept, music is considered an activity, something that people do as an essence of their lives. Grounded in this point of view, Small defined “musicking” as “participation in a musical performance, whether it takes place actively or passively” (p. 9). Musicking means an activity in which the people involved—performers, listeners, composers, dancers, ticket collectors, cleaners—are doing something together and sharing responsibilities. Musicality can be developed through deep listening, performance-based activities, ensemble training, creative improvisation, and composition, but people make music that is meaningful and useful for their lives (Campbell, 2000; Schippers, 2010).
The studies above presented music as part of human existence. More than this, they pointed out the collective relationship (Blacking, 1969; Martin, 1995; Russell, 2002; Small, 1998), and the expressive communication (Ansdell, 2004; Campbell, 2000; Schippers, 2010) inherent to making music together. However, beyond these common concepts, the study of collective music-making dynamics and interactions is still somewhat neglected in the literature. While theoretical aspects have provided a wide range of interpretations about musical activities, research has not focused specifically on groups’ practices. Therefore, research centred on group members’ opinions is necessary in order to clarify exactly what people think about making music together.
Methodology: Research design, subject solicitation, and theoretical framework
The adoption of a qualitative approach was deemed appropriate for this study. Such an approach allows for interaction between researcher and participants in naturalistic settings where detailed description and attention to context could unfold (Maxwell & Loomis, 2003). Employing these principles, a community choir, and a university jazz combo from an urban Canadian city were recruited for involvement in the study. Participation was restricted to groups of amateur musicians with a minimum of five members over the age of 18 years. Groups were recruited from a university and from the community in an effort to solicit participants with both formal and informal musical education.
Initial contact with the groups was made via the telephone to either the conductor or governing body of the group, after which a meeting was scheduled with both groups to provide additional information. A letter outlining the goals of the project was subsequently forwarded to members of the choir asking for consent to be involved in the project at the request of the director. The groups were as follows:
The two groups participating in the study possessed the interactive characteristics as outlined by Russell (2002). Based on Wenger’s (1998) social theory of learning and notion of community of practice, Russell (2002) developed the concept of “communities of musical practice” through her research of Fijian singers. According to Russell:
communities of musical practice include any organized groups of musicians who find music performance a meaningful way to experience the world, who share historical and social resources in an enterprise that is defined as having value, in which participation is recognized as competence, and through which the personal histories of individuals in their communities are created. (p. 32)
Both the jazz band and the choir were observed in their natural sites of making-music, where each has a distinct history, social resources, and life experience. Within these musical settings, each group had its own social configuration in which its enterprises and participation were defined as worth pursuing and competent. Moreover, each group featured personal histories, mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire. Thus, the groups were recognized as two different communities based upon collective musical practice.
In order to study the secondary aspects of music-making in real life contexts, this research combined three research strategies: structured observation, semi-structured interview, and focus groups. Figure 1 outlines the process of data collection and analysis for each stage of the study.
Diagrammatic representation of the data collection and coding process
In this research each data collection strategy was considered prerequisite for the subsequent phase. First, Part 1 of data collection involved observing three rehearsals of each of the participating groups. Observation was considered a way of witnessing the dynamics that occurred during the groups’ rehearsals. Structured observation (Gibson & Brown, 2009) was employed because features and behaviours such as participants’ body language, verbal communication, eye contact, and musical instructions were pre-determined as manifestations we were interested in studying. Written observations in the form of field notes were collected during two rehearsals of each group, whereas the final rehearsal was videotaped so as to obtain audiovisual data.
Then, in Part 2, participants took part in a semi-structured interview that allowed investigators to determine areas of interest and generate further questions to pursue (Smith, 1995). The interviews aided in developing rapport, and allowed participants the opportunity to speak about their involvement and musical experience in the group. On average, interviews with participants lasted 60–70 minutes. Following Schippers (2010), a set of open-ended questions was formulated. They included:
Tell me something about yourself and your musical history.
How and why did you become part of this group?
How was the group formed and is someone musically in charge?
How are decisions made in this group?
What is your perception of your contribution to the group?
What is the meaning of “making music together” in your life and how does this group fit with this definition?
What are the strengths and struggles of this group?
Finally, Part 3 consisted of a focus group session arranged for each group for the purpose of re-visiting the emerging themes with the participants and as a means to enhancing credibility and authenticity. As a research strategy, the focus group provided a social framework for discussion among the participants. Furthermore, this collective interview provided better understanding of the opinions participants had about their musical activities through dialogical relations (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2005).
The collective interviews were held at the university where The Rota Band members were attending classes. The La Vitrine Choir collective interview lasted 2 hours whilst that of the Rota Band lasted 90 minutes.
First of all, themes raised during the individual interviews were summarized and presented for participants to confirm or alter their responses. After that, two primary topics that synthesized the semi-structured interviews were discussed in the focus groups: (1) What keeps you coming back every rehearsal? and (2) What is the meaning of “making music” in your life? Interviews and focus group discussions were audio recorded and transcribed. A Canadian English teacher assisted in the transcription of the data, over 15 hours of recorded material.
In order to confirm and clarify findings, analysis was managed through immersion in the transcript material in order to develop emergent themes additional to those themes that were pre-determined. A thematic analysis was developed across the data set searching for commonalities, relationships, and differences (Gibson & Brown, 2009).
Data analysis involved a hybrid approach of thematic analysis, both deductive and inductive, as suggested by Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006). The deductive approach incorporates a code-book or a template “defined by the researcher before commencing an in-depth analysis of data” (p. 6). In contrast, the inductive approach is a form of pattern recognition in which emerging themes become the categories for analysis. For this study, a template of codes was developed a priori, based on the research questions and the theoretical framework.
The coding process involved recognizing themes raised in the interviews, as well as in the written observations. They were manually delineated via identification of concepts and key words. The relationship among elements of the analysis followed a process of coding categories through extensive reading, colouring the codes, highlighting key words, and organizing a chart that displayed the participants’ answers according to the categories. The co-author served as a second evaluator of the analysis, reading the interview transcripts and verifying the coding system. Results of the co-author were compared with that of the primary author for purposes of credibility. It was an interactive and reflexive process in which both authors discussed each stage of the coding process before undertaking further analysis to make sure that the developing themes were grounded on the original data.
Results
Musical effect of the collective music-making
I am thankful to have music in my life. (Louise)
The musical effect is the ultimate result of a group’s action and the phenomenon that triggers other effects of the collective production. From this perspective, in this article, music was considered an effect of both groups’ activity that opened up ways for secondary expressions of collective music-making. Music is a meaningful human activity; it is a product of individuals in society (Blacking, 1995; Small, 1998) that reflects the way music has been learned and the way music-makers live their lives (Campbell, 2000). Consequently, making-music is always a social activity that emerges from cooperative interpersonal interaction, the main goal of which is the expression of musicality.
An important part of the participants’ lives was focused on learning and producing music. Mary said that in the choir they were always challenged to “work with a group of people with a wide variety of skills and experience with music,” as some people “did not read music, and some had not sung in a choir before.” To be part of a group of singers who wanted to improve their musical skills was the part John enjoyed the most. He was proud of the group’s work as they could “often create something that was beautiful and expressive together.”
John was aware of the challenges the choir faced, as singing was “a challenge which they experienced collectively.” It wasn’t “always easy” for them “because sometimes the pieces were difficult …” but he was convinced that it was meaningful for the group since they were able “to get the point where they sing well, creatively, and artistically.” He enjoyed “the fact that by working together [they] created something that was beautiful and expressive together.” Connected with her colleagues’ opinions, Betty said the choir was not only about singing together but it was “all about making music.” Josie felt that “together they were more than the individual pieces”; in her opinion the sum was “bigger than the parts.” For these singers the choir was an opportunity for “coming together and making music …”
Within the jazz combo, Jim noted that the group’s capability to listen to each other was unique, and Paul found the ability “to work well together as the strength of the group.” Jim said he was there to “improve his education,” but he perceived that his “colleagues were helpful … which was a good thing since they were struggling to do something together.” In this situation they were able “to help each other.” Tom said he was learning from the experience of “colleagues who know more,” which he considered the best way to learn how to play music. He perceived that “everyone’s goal in the combo was to make everyone sound better … because people who isolate themselves were not really going to go anywhere in the music community.”
The participants recognized that their collective musical activities demanded personal commitment, increased social contact, opened opportunities to share experiences, and promoted peer teaching experiences. Moreover, the supportive attitude they had from teachers and the conductor made them proud of their musical activities. They also valued the aesthetical aspect they were able to perceive as a result of their own work. Lorenzino (in press), in studying teacher’s professional motivation, explained that the environment acts on people, and meaningful relationships give rise to personal development in students and in turn professional satisfaction for teachers.
Social aspects of collective music-making
So, I don’t know if that’s social or cultural but I guess it’s definitely a social aspect, as much as being a great musician is important, it’s also important to be a likeable human. (Tom)
Playing music together is a collaborative work (Becker, 1997) that involves member groups and community. The group formation is the external result of the “deep structures” (Blacking, 1995) musicians find in their society: public policies, educational philosophy, social structures, and personal values. Under this perspective, the social aspects of music-making depend on individual action and collective relationship.
The group members from the jazz combo referred to the relationship they had as something nice “to be part of.” Joe recognized that it was “nice to be part of something collective and to have common goals in mind.” Being solitary was not interesting to him. In Paul’s opinion the combo “came together to make music together and not to overpower each other.” They agreed that most communication they undertook was musical, even though discussion was inherent to practising music together. The climate they had within the group was friendly, they listened to each other’s opinions, and “shared ideas in a democratic context.” Tom perceived that through making music together he (and the group) was able “to make sure that they were giving enough of themselves to the group.”
The singers’ answers were more focused on the “deep structure” upon which making music in a group depends. John said that when people come to the La Vitrine Choir concerts it was a way for them “to reach out to our own communities and bring them together in a community.” Regarding the sound the choir was able to produce, Josie said that they were focused on “the idea of being part of a group that was all working together.” More interested in the community aspect of the choir, Mary wished that people could come together to make their voices heard like they did within the group. She thought that people could “speak to each other, talk to their neighbour,” in a similar way to which they blended voices and instruments. The choir also was a space that they felt “part of,” felt “safe in,” according to her words.
The participants were aware of the web they were weaving through their musical practices. The social aspects they mentioned emphasized verbal, musical, and personal interaction among the group members. Moreover, this social web facilitated learning and sharing relations among themselves and extended its results to the community.
Power relations in making music together
Why not sing for a cause, right? (Mary)
When people come together to achieve a common goal, hierarchical relationships may be established. Similar circumstances may occur within musical groups. Music is not a neutral element; on the contrary, music also has been used in situations of power and protest. The development of music, and the uses to which music is linked, indicate that musical sound may be heard as a sign of socioeconomic situation (Randall, 2005). There are songs historically associated with changes in the civil rights movement. The lyrics, the structure, and the way in which such songs are performed show people’s desire to “liberate themselves from subjugation” (Blacking, 1995, p. 217).
Mary’s strong political involvement as a human rights activist outside of the choir was mirrored in her responses. Her statements highlighted the role of music in creating power relations within the groups. “We all have a voice,” she said, “and singing is a way to announce people’s rights as the voice is something everybody carries.” That was what she loved about vocal music. Furthermore, it was important for some of the singers (though much more so in Mary’s case) that the choir had a community-based action. They were proud of singing “for a cause” in this particular choir.
Within the jazz combo members, the group relationship was “more a collective thing” where everybody had their say, and “obviously there are times a person might have more input than another” in Carol’s opinion. Joe observed that to address some problems in the ensemble they had “to be diplomatic about it and respectful.” He said they were democratic about how they approach music, so that fitted into how he thought “groups should work.” He explained that they were “not offending anybody or stepping on anybody’s toes.” Joe was convinced about the equalitarian relationship they were establishing within the group where “decisions were mostly made upon common consensus.” He said that music was “something that we all have to share, I do not think anybody can take it.”
Within the group dynamics, participants experienced power conflicts similar to those faced in everyday life. Hierarchical relations were established in the organization of both groups. A conductor and a governing body were in charge of the choir. Although the jazz combo had no conductor, a teacher was supervising the combo’s development. Regardless of this hierarchical organization, participants’ responses focused on relations between the group’s members.
In the choir, John was struggling to be heard in decision-making situations, and Louise knew that her colleagues “did not always agree” with her opinions. The musicians from The Rota Band were used to exchanging ideas and respecting each other’s preferences. Tom was aware that “some people were more performance focused, and some people were more composition focused.” As a result, Joe noted that playing music within the group was a way to share the “responsibilities for the end product”—their music. For these groups, making music was the resource they used to explore power relations they faced in their realities.
Cultural aspects of making music together
When you get any group of people working together for a common goal, a cultural aspect sort of develops. (Mary)
Cultural manifestations consist of common modes of thought and action shared by members of communities (Blacking, 1969). In this viewpoint, music is a learned behaviour organized into “socially accepted patterns” in a meaningful way (p. 36). Related to the cultural aspect, Mary stated that “our culture is a space that those of us feel part of, feel safe in …” John noticed that “the same tune could be sung in a different ways in different countries, and people would attribute distinct meanings to this same tune.”
People are inclined to perceive musical meaning with reference to their personal experiences in different cultural contexts, according to Blacking (1995). Every culture has its own values and beliefs or other features to which people give meaning. Musical structure is shaped by forms that have meaning in culture, leading individuals to make sense of songs and melodies based on cultural conventions. Besides, music is common in daily life; music is heard in spaces where cultural contexts are shared (Campbell, 2004; Martin, 1995).
The cultural aspects of making music together were the least mentioned by the participants. Perhaps the lack of discussion about this topic could be connected to people’s unconscious cultural immersion. Music comes to sound natural as it is present in the environment (Campbell, 2004), even though its organization is arbitrary, and the way melody, harmony, and rhythm are combined are not shared by all cultures (Martin, 1995). In other words, music is culturally agreed (Finnegan, 1997).
The way the participants interconnected their daily activities with their musical expression displayed cultural issues involved in their practices. Jim perceived that there was a slight connection within the jazz combo “besides just music itself: geographical similarities, education somewhere.” He was sure that the jazz music, the element that connected the group, “was a common sound that they found within their culture.”
In Joe’s opinion making music together was a way “to express larger parts of the culture to other people.” Jim and Joe understood that they were interrelated by educational principles, musical structures, and musical ideology, which were part of the collective reality-construction (Martin, 1995) from their cultural context. They were thinking about music “as a product of individuals in society” (Blacking, 1969), and interpreting the ways in which individuals make sense of musical practices in a particular cultural context.
Affective aspects of collective music-making
I sing for my own satisfaction. I sing to express my feelings. (Josie)
Although the participants connected feelings with songs and sounds in their responses, this topic warrants deeper comprehension. Kronish (2004) made references to interpersonal experiences such as feeling and emotion in her study about students’ motivation. She explained that emotion is a socially defined feeling that involves bodily reaction and displays socially designed signals such as voice qualities and facial gestures. Based on a social and historical perspective, Kronish stressed that affects are the expressions of feelings generated by stimuli in the environment that enable individuals to regulate their behaviour. In this viewpoint, affective experiences are part of the emotional dynamic music can develop. The individuals’ affective experiences emerge as responses to music “as a result of a desire” to express personal feelings (Meyer, 1956, p.21).
The choristers connected affective experiences with their musical practices. Betty maintained that “certain songs became our signature songs … they are part of us. They became part of our memories.” Josie said that “singing is a way to express my feelings,” and music made Louise “feel so much better” when she was sad or in pain.
Playing music was “fun for me,” said Joe. He agreed with Betty that playing music was a “way to experience and express feelings.” He explained that “we can’t really separate music from the person … it’s all so personal.” Tom echoed Joe’s opinion about the emotional connection the combo had while playing music together. He suggested they “were sharing that connection with the group.” In his opinion, they were “responsive to each other as a unit, and really respecting each other and what each one was trying to express.” Carol agreed with her colleagues. She said that when she was playing with somebody she was able to notice “how they were feeling through their playing.”
According to Blacking (1969), the world of music is the world of human experience, so emotive powers arise from what music says about human experience. Particular patterns of sound are connected with particular social situations and “arouse in different people the feelings that they associate with those events” (p. 44). Collective music-making makes people more aware of feelings and values, which means, in the context of Blacking’s theory, making people less alienated and more human (p. 61).
For the participants, making music together was a pleasurable activity. John enjoyed singing because it took him “out of the stresses and struggles of work and family, and day to day life.” Singing made Mary “feel better.” She declared that “without music [she] would ‘go crazy’.” She “could be in a terrible mood walking into choir, tired and feeling awful. But after singing everything was right with the world!” Singing together changed Betty’s “bad mood” into a “happy feeling.” For Jim, music was a way to express who he was. Music kept him “going through life.”
The participants’ responses reflected their love of, and their desire to be involved with, music practice. Music had value in their lives; they were aware of their feelings, and they “used” music to maintain emotional balance because they were “musically connected.” Josie summarized their thoughts as she observed that singing was a way “to express my feelings.” She said that “singing is a way to express my emotions.”
Cognitive aspects of making music together
God, that was hard to learn, that was unbelievably difficult … (Josie)
Blacking (1969) stated that making music is a form of thought in action. Collective music-making is an activity that encompasses different levels of cognitive and neural function (Fitch, 2006) as intention, expression of meanings, and dealing with difficulties. In this sense, it is difficult to take intellectual action apart from emotional dynamics in musical expression (Elliot, 2005). To be involved in music-making was recognized as a cognitive challenge by participants. John thought that the desire for learning would help the singers achieve their goals as long as they faced “our musical weaknesses” as amateur musicians. Mary said that “difficult pieces were difficult,” “moderate pieces were difficult,” but their strength was in pulling it together; “we were definitely good at rising to the challenge.”
Focused on the neurological process, Betty expressed that “every time you learn a new song you’re actually creating new synapses and connections in your brain.” She believed that singing was a stimulus to “learn in different ways, activating parts of the brain.” In contrast, Josie’s responses were connected with her feelings. She said she learned “things that interested” her as she liked “to learn new things.” Despite her desire she stated that learning music “was hard, that it is unbelievably difficult.”
Making music together was considered a way to develop cognitive skills. Betty stated that “there was a lot of cognition in the fact of learning different styles of music and different ideas behind that music.” She thought “cognition came in when learning different ideologies and philosophies.” John was concerned about knowing how to make music. He explained that “if there was a particularly difficult part they tried to help one another out … there is no need to read music, there is was a need to have a desire to learn.”
Related to the cognitive aspects, Jim said that “one of the strengths of the group was musicianship.” He observed that they were able to “listen to each other, to what each one was doing.” Peer-teaching occurred frequently throughout the rehearsals. Supporting each other’s difficulties was a key component of the participants’ musical interaction. They were so interested in improving musical skills that the difficulties they faced seemed to be interconnected to caring relationships (Alfano, 2008). As Jim observed, they listened to each other, to what each other was doing. “Constantly listening … there are always intellectual things happening. It is a learning process …”
Physical aspects
I have to play for so long … (Carol)
The body is the first support for dancing, singing, or performing on musical instruments, even though these kinds of activities integrate the whole being (Blacking, 1969). Producing collective music yields several interconnected dimensions of physical challenges: listening to each other, looking at scores, synchronizing movements, standing or sitting for hours, holding instruments in a specified, un-natural position. In addition, other specific techniques, related to individual instruments, are acquired through hours of practising and extensive repetition of muscular movement (Cossette, Fabre, Freour, Montgermont, & Monaco, 2010).
Besides this technical dynamic, spontaneous corporal movements occur while people are making music: clapping, tapping, making eye contact, nodding, and hearing. According to Small (1998), people initiate these actions to include themselves in musical creation. Campbell (2003) stressed that making music is a stimulus to move, bounce, sway, dance, to express musicality.
The choristers were focused on breathing. Essentially, they had to breathe properly in order to make their voices sound. Although they remained sitting during rehearsal, and their body movements were restricted to nodding and tapping, they felt positive effects from breath techniques they learned to apply while singing: “a good posture, breathing really deeply … expanding abdomen, and that’s good for your body,” John observed. Mary also recognized that “the breathing was huge in terms of physicality … after every rehearsal we had more energy.”
The musicians from the jazz combo described their physical challenges related to adapting their bodies to their musical instruments. For Jim, Paul, and Carol, practising was connected with physical effort and pain. Tom took care of his posture because “as a bass player, the physical part of it is huge … and even something as simple as standing with the instrument is something that I’ve spent many lessons on …” Both Tom and Joe recognized that body expression and physical reaction were essential for communication within the group during music-making. Although participants expressed the physical dynamics they experienced while playing or singing, few corporal movements were observed in rehearsals.
Conclusion
Studying both La Vitrine Choir and The Rota Band afforded an opportunity to investigate the dynamics these specific groups developed to maintain members’ unity and focus on the same goals. The main objective of these group members was to make music together. The existential dimension of the music they performed was surprising. Although both groups pursued performances as the end product of their musical behaviour, this pursuit embodied the secondary aspects of the groups’ musical actions. The “music” they made was not a musical object occurring in a vacuum; it was the ultimate result of their social, cultural, affective, cognitive, physical, and musical interactions. Embedded in the vocal or instrumental music they produced was the presence of this invisible cluster of factors.
The participants had no difficulty speaking about the secondary aspects of their musical practices. Analysing the discussions about their musical experiences, it appeared as if the conversation gave them a welcome opportunity to voice issues of importance to them. Their answers were full of life, wisdom, and emotion when talking about the aspects of their collective music-making experience.
More than this, their discourses included the impact socioeconomic events had on their musical practices and the influence of these factors on their social relationships, physical welfare, and mental health. In the light of this interest in discussing these issues, we must question why such discourse is so visibly absent from music education research.
Given the complexity that surrounds collective music-making, it is difficult to determine the extent to which these secondary aspects profoundly influence the participants’ lives. Professionals’ practices would be empty of meaning and value without considering the secondary aspects of making music together. The historical viewpoint that playing music is an activity just for leisure is no longer recognized. When people are playing or singing, they are engaged in strong physical, cognitive, and emotional activity, they are dealing with power relations, they are expressing their social and cultural background, and who they are. To articulate these factors and better understand their nature and value presents educational and political challenges for music educators, music therapist, and musicians. The call for addressing these issues is not new, as Dykema (1927) so profoundly stated, nearly a century ago:
Most of us seem to be content to do our work with a supreme indifference as to the effects it will produce upon children … It is time that we started to study what music is doing to affect life. (cited by McCarthy, 2002, p. 3)
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the CAPES Foundation (Ministry of Education of Brazil) for their support in developing this research. We are also grateful to Joan Russell and Christopher Alfano for their interest in and support of this project. Finally, we would also like to thank those directly involved including the teachers, students, and members of the choir. Thank you also to the anonymous reviewers for their comments on the preliminary version of this article.