Singers' Responses to Conducting Gestures, Piano Accompaniment, and Verbal Instructions

Article Research Perspectives in Music Education Singers’ Responses to 16(2), 50-59 © 2014 Florida Music Conducting Gestures, Educators’ Association Piano Accompaniment, and Verbal Instructions Jessica Nápoles1 Abstract The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine three forms of communication in the choral rehearsal (verbal instructions, conducting gestures, and piano accompaniment) and to evaluate message congruence—operationally defined as a treatment condition with at least two of the three simultaneous communication forms exhibiting the same message for crescendo, decrescendo, or neither (no change). An ad hoc chorus (N =1, with 9 singers) viewed a video recording that asked them to sing “God Bless America” in a variety of ways. Verbal instructions indicated that they were to: (1) sing with a crescendo during the first phrase and a decrescendo during the second phrase, (2) sing with a decrescendo during the first phrase and a crescendo during the second phrase, or (3) just to sing “God Bless America.” Verbal instruction, conducting gestures and piano accompaniment either sent the same message or a combination of same (congruent) or different (incongruent) messages. Results indicated that participants responded best to verbal instructions and executed dynamics best under that condition. When congruent messages were delivered, desired dynamics were most accurately performed. Keywords teacher talk, choral, teacher effectiveness, conducting Introduction Choral rehearsals are unique in that they employ piano accompaniment with more regularity than orchestra or band rehearsals. Shenenberger (1997) claims that accompanists influence many aspects of a choral rehearsal, as the singers learn to rely on them for pitches, tempo, dynamics, and intonation. Conductors, on the other hand, are responsible for correcting errors, adjusting balance, and building tone. Choral conductors and accompanists play different roles in an ensemble rehearsal, yet empirical research has not yielded insight as to how ensemble members respond to the varied cues received from these sources. Conductors give instructions both verbally and nonverbally (through conducting gestures), and accompanists attempt to assist the conductor with aural references. However, it is possible the messages between conductor and accompanist are incongruent; for example, a conductor may be showing a gesture to indicate a forte dynamic while the accompanist plays the passage softly. In these cases, it is unclear how singers respond best. Research is needed to examine responses to these mixed messages. Much of the research on accompaniment has centered on the ways in which accompaniment affects performers’ ability to sing or play in tune or match pitch. Studies 1 University of Utah Corresponding Author: Jessica Nápoles, University of Utah School of Music, 1375 East Presidents Circle, 204 David Gardner Hall, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, [email protected] Nápoles 51 conducted with children focused on the role of harmony and its perceived effects, and results have been mixed. Moog (1976) played six types of musical material (well known children’s songs, three combinations of words and rhythms, ‘pure’ rhythms, and ‘cacophonies’) and examined 500 preschool children’s tape recordings through observation and non-experimental procedures. He concluded that they could not experience harmony at all. When studying first and second graders, Stauffer (1985) found that students who received melodic echo- training with no harmonic context scored higher in singing ability than the students who had training with a harmonic accompaniment. In another study, first and third grade children sang familiar melodies better when accompanied by a melodic replication than when accompanied by a harmonic accompaniment (Sterling, 1984). Petzold (1966) was also interested in singing accuracy with varied forms of accompaniment. He concluded that simple harmonic accompaniment was more beneficial than complex harmonic accompaniments. Simple accompaniments also resulted in greater singing accuracy for children. Song acquisition seemed to be better for kindergarten students accompanied by a structured combination of melody and harmony when compared to harmonic accompaniment alone (Hale, 1977). Other researchers reported that accompaniment did not affect children’s tonal achievement or singing accuracy. Atterbury and Silcox (1993) had children sing with harmonic accompaniment or no accompaniment (singing alone) and reported that after a year of instruction, there were no differences between groups in singing accuracy. Similarly, in their study with second graders, Hedden and Baker (2010) discovered they were largely singing inaccurately irrespective of whether there was harmonic accompaniment or not. Guilbault (2004) experimented with the use of root melody accompaniment (playing the tonic of each chord as a bass line), and observed that, although kindergarten and first graders’ tonal achievement was not affected, children receiving this instruction were able to improvise better than those who did not receive the instruction. Studies with adult participants have also generated conflicting results with respect to intonation and singing accuracy, in performance and perception tasks. Music majors (Vorce, 1964), trained adult instrumentalists (Corso, 1954), and college vocalists (Small, 1977) matched pitch better and performed more in tune when accompanied than when unaccompanied, but Geringer and Madsen (1998) found that accompaniment did not affect ratings of intonation. When compared to no accompaniment or live accompaniment, intonation of solo instrumentalists was rated least favorably when using intelligent digital accompaniment and most favorably when not accompanied (Sheldon, Reese, & Grashel, 1999). Participants in Madsen, Geringer, and Heller’s (1991) study evaluated accompanied excerpts of string players and vocalists more in tune than unaccompanied examples. Geringer (1978) found that perceptual intonation was less accurate with unaccompanied scales, suggesting that accompaniment assisted with perceptions of intonation. Register placement and location of accompaniment also affected intonation of wind instrumentalists (Karrick, 1998), string players (Kantorski, 1986), and varied solo performers (Brittin, 1993). For string players, upper register performances with accompaniment below were significantly sharper than lower register performances. For instrumentalists, participants performed sharp more frequently and less in tune when performing below a stimulus pitch and more in tune when performing above it. In addition to intonation, accompaniment affected other musical ariables,v including tone quality (Geringer, Madsen, & Dunnigan, 2001; Madsen & Geringer, 1976; Madsen, Geringer, & Heller, 1993), ratings of phrasing/expression, rhythm, dynamics (Geringer & Madsen, 1998), and performance ratings (Brittin, 2002; Hamann & Banister, 1991). 52 Research Perspectives in Music Education Relatively little research exists regarding the role of the accompanist and how he/she functions in a choral rehearsal, including his/her contribution to intonation and singing accuracy. Pedagogues have provided advice to accompanists, largely advising them to defer to the conductor’s wishes and anticipate instructions (Griffith, 1998). Shenenberger (2007) relayed the ways in which accompanists are integral in choral rehearsals, in that they affect the musical environment, phrase direction, tension/release of harmonies, tempo, sound, color, literacy growth, intonation, timbre, and intonation of the choir. If this is true, then certainly more research is warranted to investigate this relationship between ensemble, conductor, and accompanist. Nonverbal behaviors of eye contact, facial expression, body movement (Johnson, Fredrickson, Achey, & Gentry, 2003) and pre-conducting behaviors (Fredrickson, Johnson, & Robinson, 1998) greatly affect perceptions of conductor competence. Some researchers investigated participants’ differential responses to nonverbal (conducting gesture) and verbal instructions (Napoles, 2014; Skadsem, 1997), and results suggested that choral students performed more accurately when given verbal instructions. However, given the influential role of an accompanist in rehearsal, it seems prudent to examine these three cues relative to each other, especially because researchers have not examined responses in combination. For example, verbal cues and conducting gestures have been compared, including when the two modes were congruent or incongruent, in choral settings, but the accompaniment (a vital element for choirs, as cited above) has not been explored relative to these other modes. The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine three forms of communication in the choral rehearsal (verbal instructions, conducting gestures, and piano accompaniment) and to evaluate message congruence— operationally defined as a treatment condition with at least two of the three simultaneous communication forms exhibiting the same message for crescendo, decrescendo, or neither (no change). Two research questions guided this study: (1) Do singers respond better to dynamic instructions across two musical phrases (<>, ><, or no change) delivered verbally, through conducting gestures, or piano accompaniment? and (2) Do singers respond better to dynamics through messages that are congruent or incongruent? Method Participants Participants were nine senior music education students, three females and six males, who had all taken

Load more