Studio Brussel's Dream Team and Papa

Faculty of Arts & Philosophy

Winne Bats

Studio Brussel’s Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone: credibility and power in radio interviews

Promotoren: Prof. dr. Stef Slembrouck

Vakgroep Engels

Decaan: Prof. dr. Freddy Mortier

Rector: Prof. dr. Paul Van Cauwenberge

Faculty of Arts & Philosophy

Winne Bats

Studio Brussel’s Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone: credibility and power in radio interviews

Promotoren: Prof. dr. Stef Slembrouck

Vakgroep Engels

Decaan: Prof. dr. Freddy Mortier

Rector: Prof. dr. Paul Van Cauwenberge

Table of contents

Introduction ...... 11 Transcription key ...... 15 Methodology ...... 17 1. Erving Goffman: frame analysis and theatricality...... 20 2. Conversation Analysis...... 30 2.1 Conversation analysis...... 30 2.2 Storytelling...... 47 3. Broadcast talk ...... 53 3.1 Broadcast talk...... 53 3.2 Studio Brussel’s Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone as kinds of broadcast talk ...... 55 4. General Overviews ...... 61 4.1 Dream Team ...... 61 4.1.1 Context ...... 61 4.1.2 The show’s course ...... 63 4.2 Papa Was A Rolling Stone ...... 76 4.2.1 Context ...... 76 4.2.2 The show’s course ...... 79 5. Credibility ...... 93 5.1 Dream Team ...... 94 5.2 Papa Was A Rolling Stone ...... 108 5.3 Conclusion ...... 131 5.4 Credibility of the host ...... 132 6. Power ...... 135 6.1 Dream Team ...... 136 6.1.1 Institutional roles of questioner and answerer ...... 136 6.1.2 Topic initiation ...... 143 6.1.3 Formulating ...... 144 6.1.4 Turn allocation and interruption ...... 146 6.1.5 Dispreferred seconds ...... 151 6.1.6 Opening and closing the conversation ...... 153 6.2 Papa Was A Rolling Stone ...... 155 6.2.1 Institutional roles of questioner and answerer ...... 155 6.2.2 Topic initiation...... 162 6.2.3 Formulating ...... 165 6.2.4 Turn allocation and interruption ...... 167 6.2.5 Dispreferred seconds……………………………………………………………… 171 6.2.6 Opening and closing the conversation...... 173 6.3 Conclusion ...... 174 7. Conclusion ...... 177 Appendices ...... 188 Bibliography ...... 348

List of diagrams

Adjacency pairs ...... 39 Storytelling ...... 49, 181 Dream Team ...... 63 Dream Team conversations ...... 63, 137, 179 Papa Was A Rolling Stone ...... 80 Papa Was A Rolling Stone conversations ...... 80 Diagram 1 ...... 82, 180 Diagram 2 ...... 82, 171, 180 Diagram 3 ...... 83, 180

Introduction

Some time ago, I decided to send in my Dream Team to Studio Brussel. With a bit of luck they would call me, I would get to talk about my favourite music on air, and they would play that music, too. A few days later, after the short phone call, little was left of my dreams of fifteen minutes of fame. During those I would tell impressive anecdotes about the songs of my choice and ensure that the world would finally recognize what a music expert I really was. But the song about which I had the most impressive anecdote had not been played and I had not been able to bring across what the songs that had been featured really meant to me. I had not understood one of the host’s questions and instead of asking him what he meant, I gave a vague reply. I felt that I did not have the right to ask questions, even if they aimed to clarify the host’s position. I also felt that I had to keep talking for a certain amount of time, because silence on the radio would be ‘bad’. The conversation had not gone the way I had imagined it would go. This experience for me provoked a whole range of questions about the relationships between radio hosts and their interviewees in interactions such as those in Dream Team. First of all, who is allowed to appear on the show? Why are they allowed to have their say on national radio, and about what are they required or expected to be talking? Do the interviewees on both programmes come across as credible? Is it the host or an interviewee that is in power during the interaction? To answer these questions an investigation of the form and the constrictions of these conversations is needed. What form does this (kind of) interaction take? What are the restrictions on turns taken by both host and interviewee, and are there any ways to bypass these restrictions? If interviewees come across as credible, how have they achieved this? How is power brought about? The aim of this paper is to deal with all of the questions above to come to a conclusion about power in the Dream Team interactions. The results of the Dream Team analysis will then be compared with those of Papa Was A Rolling Stone. This is another Studio Brussel show, and it will be analyzed in the same way as Dream Team. The reason for comparing these two programmes with each other is that the general idea behind them is the same: to have someone other than the host or other members of the radio station’s staff choose what songs should be played, and to

11 have this someone explain why they chose those particular songs. On Dream Team, ‘ordinary’ people choose songs and have their say on the radio via a short telephone conversation. On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, two interviewees come to the studio to talk about their choices during an hour long broadcast, and at least one of the two interviewees is a local celebrity. The theoretical principles underlying the analysis are those of conversation analysis, complemented with insights from Erving Goffman. The first chapter is therefore an chapter dedicated to Goffman’s insights with regards to frame analysis and theatricality. The second chapter explains how conversation analysis came into being, as well as going through conversation analysis’s most important insights. It explains the conversation analysis methodology. At the end of the chapter, a separate part is dedicated to storytelling and deals with the questions how and why people come to tell stories and how they may be structured. The chapter after that focuses on broadcast talk. This is a kind of institutional talk, and conversation analysis is very useful for dealing with institutional data as well as the ‘everyday’ conversational data that it originally aimed to analyze. In the chapter on broadcast talk, it is explained that Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone share characteristics with other kinds of broadcast talk, but that they ultimately make up their own kind. What the specifics of this kind of broadcast talk are is explained in the two following chapters, which give general overviews of Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, respectively. The two programmes are contextualized and the particular structures of each programme is described. After these two general overviews, credibility is considered in detail. The chapter looks at the ways in which participants can create credible, authentic identities for themselves, and how they can enhance the credibility that has already been attributed to them. The host, it is discussed, plays an important role when it comes to interviewee credibility. At the end of the chapter, the credibility of the host is also briefly considered. This is not the main concern of this thesis, though. The chapter on power follows that on credibility. Six elements from the conversation analysis methodology are used to explore the power balance between the host and the interviewee(s): the institutional roles of questioner and answerer, topic initiation, turn allocation and interruption, the production of dispreferred seconds, and the opening and closing of the conversation. What is meant by these terms is by then clear to the reader, because they are explained in earlier chapters. Why they are relevant to look at when dealing with

12 power in institutional conversations is explained in the power chapter itself. The discussions in the general overviews and in the chapters on credibility and power are illustrated with numerous examples, taken from my own transcribed data. Some episodes may be quantitatively better represented than others. Most examples are representational for the entire programme they appeared in, though; when this is not the case, this has been mentioned explicitly. The final chapter of this thesis is the conclusion, where the results of the analyses are brought together and final conclusions are drawn.

Writing this thesis has made several things clear to me personally, as well as academically. I now understand why I felt that I did not have the right to ask questions, or that I had to keep talking for a certain amount of time. Even though I, as an interviewee, could present myself as credible, the host was in charge of the conversation. Whether the credibility and power situation is similar in every episode of Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone is explored and described here.

Transcription key

The transcription conventions as they are used in this thesis are based on those found in Hutchby (2006: xi - xii).

(.) A short pause in the speech (1.2) A longer pause, measured in seconds ( ) Incomprehensible speech or sounds [ The start of overlapping talk ::: A stretched sound - A sound that is suddenly cut off = Sounds that are produces straight after one another, without a perceptible pause in between (( )) Non-verbal sounds or activities, songs, jingles, speaker attitudes .hhh Audible inward breathing or laughter, the number of h’s reflecting the length of the sound hhh Audible outward breathing, sighing or laughter, the number of h’s reflecting the length of the sound ° ° The speech or sounds in between the degree signs is quieter than the surrounding speech or sounds CAPITALS Shouting or sounds that are significantly louder that the surrounding speech or sounds haha, Laughter hehh, hihihi ? Question intonation → Indicates turns or TCUs under discussion

Methodology

The aim of this thesis is to explore the credibility of interviewees and the power of both the interviewees and the host that appear on Studio Brussel’s Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone. These are subjects that could be approached from a variety of theories within areas such as psychology, sociology, linguistics, … In this paper, credibility and power are looked at from the perspective of conversation analysis. Conversation analysis is a sociolinguistic discipline, and it is suitable here because it looks at what is demonstrably going on in a conversation and how participants orientate towards these goings-on. The methodology of conversation analysis itself is explained in a separate chapter. Apart from insights from conversation analysis, this thesis also discusses some other theoretical elements that are useful to the analysis of the selected radio programmes. The work of Erving Goffman is discussed, because much of conversation analysis’s insights find their origins in Goffman’s sociological work. Some of his insights and theoretical concepts about frame analysis and theatricality are used in the analysis of Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone as well. Other helpful views were found in studies of storytelling and broadcast and media talk. These views derive in their turn from conversation analysis. In order to analyse the data, it first had to be listened to carefully. Ten Dream Team episodes and nine Papa Was A Rolling Stone episodes were selected, taped, and listened to. All of the Dream Team data was subsequently transcribed. Because of the length of the Papa Was A Rolling Stone conversations, it was impossible to transcribe all those conversations in their entirety. The transcriptions that have been made, however, are relevant and representational. Far from randomly selecting fragments to transcribe, repeated close listening has made it possible to discern important and/or recurrent elements; these have subsequently been transcribed. After transcribing the necessary date, it was established what the general structure of each radio programme was. The structures of each show are described in the general overview chapters. They have been analyzed according to conversation analysis, with additional insights from Goffman. Once the frameworks and their respective patterns had been described, it was possible to move on to look at the data and focus on elements of credibility. The study of storytelling and Goffman’s

17 insights in theatricality proved complementary to the elements that could be analysed through conversation analysis. In the chapter on credibility, it is described in what ways the radio programme participants may and do create credible identities for themselves, as well as how the host may and does help them with this. The chapter on power, finally, derives most of its conclusions from conversation analysis. Some conversation analytic aspects were looked at, and it is explained how these may and do construct powerful positions for the host and the interviewees. In the Dream Team transcriptions, the participant that is not the host has been indicated with the letters Ca, short for ‘caller’. However, as will become clear from the general overview chapter, this participant is not actually a caller but rather a ‘called’. Since he or she is on the phone, though, he or she if referred to in the analysis as the caller. Other terms that are used to refer to this participant are ‘interlocutor’, ‘lay participant’, and ‘interviewee’. Some of these terms are usually used because they refer to a very specific role of the participant. However, these roles more or less coincide for the Dream Team lay participant. This is explained further in the chapter on broadcast talk. The Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants that are not the host are called ‘guests’, ‘studio guests’, ‘expert participants’, and also ‘interviewees’.

1. Erving Goffman: frame analysis and theatricality

Erving Goffman’s work has influenced Harvey Sacks, the founder of conversation analysis, and some of Goffman’s insights will be used for the analysis of radio programmes in this paper. It is therefore only appropriate that his work should be explained to some extent here. Two aspects will be focused on: frameworks for dealing with social interaction with co-present participants, and theatricality or the individual as a performer. Goffman was, like Sacks, a sociologist. He “developed a dramaturgical perspective on face-to-face interaction” (Slembrouck 2009: 4). Hutchby and Wooffitt write that for doing so, “[h]is argument was that we ‘perform’ our social selves, managing the ways we appear in everyday situations so as to affect […] how others orient to us” (1998: 27). Goffman emphasized that, as interactants make certain moves that show “aspects of social structure” (Slembrouck 2009: 24-25) and that define situations (Slembrouck 2009: 25), the interactants frame “a particular contextual understanding of the situation[,] and […] this comes with particular qualifications about the nature and structure of participation” (Slembrouck 2009: 24 - 25). Key to a social situation is some form of “co-presence” (Slembrouck 2009: 27), which means that “two or more persons find themselves in visual or aural range of one another” (Goffman as quoted by Slembrouck 2009: 27). A ‘frame’, ‘framework’ or ‘frame of reference’ is “the schematic knowledge which language users possess about the organisation of an event or activity and the significance of specific contributions within it” (Slembrouck 2009: 25). Goffman introduced this term as a way of referring to “the structure of experience individuals have at any moment of their social lives” (Goffman as quoted by Slembrouck 2009: 25). The study of this structure, then, is frame analysis. Frame analysis looks both at “object-oriented conditions” (Slembrouck 2009: 25) and “subject-dependent actions and moves” (ibid.); this means that if one wishes to analyse, say, a ballet rehearsal, the room in which the rehearsal takes place and all the objects that are in it are just as important to the analysis as the instructions that the choreographer gives and the moves the dancers do as a result of these instructions. Frames are often layered and multiple frames may be at work simultaneously (Slembrouck 2009: 29 - 30). For instance, government representatives may be present at the ballet

20 rehearsal in order to make a decision about government funding for the show. The primary framework is the ballet rehearsal, while the representatives talking among themselves while watching the dancers makes up a secondary framework, that of a discussion about subsidization. These two frames are interdependent (Slembrouck 2009: 29); if there was no rehearsal, there would be no discussion about subsidization. Frameworks may be disrupted temporarily or break down for longer periods, and disruptions or breakdowns may be accidental or on purpose, tolerable or intolerable (Slembrouck 2009: 30, 35). “Short and momentary frame breaks may well be ignored or passed over with a brief show of irritation” (Slembrouck 2009: 35), but sometimes disruptive events occur [...] [and] the interaction itself may come to a confused and embarrassed halt. [...] [A]ll the participants may come to feel ill at ease, nonplussed, out of countenance, embarrassed, experiencing the kind of anomy that is generated when the minute social system of face-to-face interaction breaks down. (Goffman 1990: 12) Within a certain framework, participants take up a specific position with regards to “[them]selves and the others present” (Goffman as quoted by Slembrouck 2009: 42). This position, or ‘footing’ as Goffman calls it, is “expressed [by participants] in the way [they] manage the production or reception of an utterance” (ibid.). Participants can change their footing, which basically means that they change their frame (ibid.); so when the choreographer stops giving the dancers instructions and asks the government representatives to talk more quietly, he or she temporarily leaves the ballet rehearsal framework. He or she positions him- or herself differently towards the representatives. The notion of footing puts the emphasis on “the analysis of verbal interaction” (Slembrouck 2009: 42) rather than body language and the physical setting of an interaction, both of which are crucial for frame analysis. Attention for footing in frame analysis directs the analysis towards recognising that for the participant in the situation, a particular alignment is always at issue, a particular stance or projected relational self, and that such an alignment may be durably extended over the span of an activity or, in other circumstances, occur just for the duration of an utterance or even less. [...] Modality and appraisal provide obvious linguistic resources for monitoring [...] subtle changes in the speaker’s alignment to what is being said. (Slembrouck 2009: 42 - 43)

Apart from introducing the terms ‘frame’ and ‘footing’, Goffman has also “developed a taxonomy for examining how participants relate to frames” (Slembrouck 2009: 47). This taxonomy is particularly useful because it refines “the traditional categories of ‘speaker’, ‘hearer’ and ‘conversational dyad’” (ibid.). Goffman states that there are multiple ways in which participants can be co-present (ibid.). Participants may be ratified or non-ratified, and addressed or non-addressed (Slembrouck 2009: 48). Meyerhoff builds on Goffman’s categories and distinguishes between five different kinds of participants: speaker, addressee, auditor, overhearer, and eavesdropper (2010: 43). The latter four are distinguished on the basis of their presence being known to the speaker, and whether or not they are ratified and/or addressed (ibid.). An addressee is known, ratified and addressed; an auditor is known and ratified, but not addressed; an overhearer is known, but neither ratified nor addressed; and an eavesdropper is not known, not ratified and not addressed (Bell as quoted by Meyerhoff 2010: 44).

The second idea of Goffman that will be discussed here is that of theatricality. “For Goffman, the very fabric of the social is [...] stage-managed” (Slembrouck 2009: 53). Each individual is constantly putting up a particular pose to others. He or she wishes to manage and channel the impressions that others create of him or her, and Goffman looks at the way people pose and manage impressions (Goffman 1990: xi). He writes that an individual is always posing, and not always being truthful in his or her poses. “[W]hen an individual appears in the presence of others, there will usually be some reason for him [or her] to mobilize his [or her] activity so that it will convey an impression to others which it is in his [or her] interests to convey” (Goffman 1990: 4). A consequence of this is that every individual will try their hardest to control the impressions he or she makes, both through their verbal and their non-verbal behaviour (Goffman 1990: 7). In order to do this somewhat effectively, “the individual projects a definition of the situation when he [or she] appears before others, [...] [and] the others [...] will themselves effectively project a definition of the situation” (Goffman 1990: 9). This aspect of social interaction has been discussed above, in terms of framing and footing. The actions, both verbal and non-verbal, that a participant undertakes to shape the behaviour and the impressions of other participants, all fall under the term “performance” (Goffman 1990: 15). The performer is “a particular participant [...] [whose] performance [is taken] as a basic point of reference” (ibid.).

The performer may believe that his or her performance is real, i.e. that the way in which they present reality is not just a presentation but reality itself. However, performers may also be aware that their performance is just that: a performance. They may even put up a performance merely for the sake of manipulating the audience into doing or believing something (Goffman 1990: 17 - 18). Other contributors to a performance are “the audience, observers, or co-participants” (Goffman 1990: 16). A performance is typically made up of a “pre-established pattern of action [...] which may be presented or played through on other occasions” (ibid.). Goffman calls these repeatable patterns ‘parts’ or ‘routines’ (ibid.). Performers wishing to influence their audience will want to control the framing work that the audience does as much as possible. They will dramatize their actions, and put up a ‘”front” (Goffman 1990: 22). Dramatization means that around others, an individual will incorporate signs into his or her actions to foreground facts that might have remained unnoticed or unclear had they not been dramatized (Goffman 1990: 30). The performer does this because he or she must ascertain that whatever they wish to express is actually expressed in the interaction, or else it could never become meaningful to others (ibid.). A front is a “part of the individual’s performance which regularly functions in a general and fixed fashion to define the situation for those who observe the performance” (Goffman 1990: 22). Parts may share (aspects of) fronts with other parts, and fronts may be used for several, different parts (Goffman 1990: 26 - 27). In addition [...], it is to be noted that a given social front tends to become institutionalized in terms of the abstract stereotyped expectations to which it gives rise, and tends to take on a meaning and stability apart from the specific tasks which happen at the time to be performed in its name. (Goffman 1990: 27) The notion of institutional interaction is an important one and will also be discussed in the chapters on conversation analysis and broadcast talk. The chapter on broadcast talk does not discuss institutional talk in Goffmanian terms, but the basic idea about what institutional discourse means is the same. Some of the aspects of front are more easily manageable than others, and many “expect [...] some coherence among setting, appearance, and manner” (Goffman 1990: 25). This expected coherence creates an idealistic expectation of performers, and performers also aim to present their audience an idealised version of

23 their performed selves (Goffman 1990: 25, 35). To maintain this ideal impression, a performer’s behaviour needs to be consistent with the ideal standards which he or she appears to embody; actions that are likely to be interpreted by the audience as inconsistent are often carried out surreptitiously (Goffman 1990: 41). Goffman also adds that “[p]erformers may even attempt to give the impression that their present poise and proficiency are something they have always had” (1990: 47), instead of being the result of a learning process in which mistakes were made (ibid.). Performers are aware that their audience may perceive even the slightest cues as signalling “something important about [the performer’s] performance” (Goffman 1990: 51). A performer will, then, try to avoid producing such minor, unmeant cues (ibid.). In a similar view, performers will also try to avoid giving the impression that they have something to hide. If it becomes apparent in the interaction that there is something that performers would rather not talk about, the audience tends to consider the performers as suspicious characters. Everything else that performers have said and done will be viewed in this light as well, and the performers will lose much of their legitimacy (Goffman 1990: 64 - 65). Fortunately for the performer, however, the audience is generally inclined to have faith in the performer and to give him or her the benefit of the doubt, at least at the beginning of the performance (Goffman 1990: 10). Performers may not be alone in carrying out a part. Goffman introduces “the term ‘performance team’ or, in short, ‘team’ to refer to any set of individuals who co- operate in staging a single routine” (1990: 79). A team, then, is not a group of people linked together based on a social arrangement; it is a group of people linked together “in order to sustain a given definition of the situation” (Goffman 1990: 104). Technically speaking, teams need not consist of more than one individual, and teams could even be their own audience, if the performer believes in the reality of his or her own actions (Goffman 1990: 80). A team’s performance may be endangered by the behaviour of single team members; each member has the power to jeopardize the success of the performance by behaving inconsistently with regards to the behaviour of the other team members (Goffman 1990: 82, 104). Goffman has also noticed that in team performances, one team member often seems to have been “given the right to direct and control the progress of the dramatic action” (1990: 97). If this is the case, the team’s director is usually also the one to fulfil two functions that are important for the smooth progress of a performance (Goffman 1990: 98). These two

24 functions are “bringing back into line any member of the team whose performance becomes unsuitable” (ibid.), and “allocating the parts in the performance and the personal front that is employed in each part” (Goffman 1990: 99). Members of each team “are held together by a bond no member of the audience shares” (Goffman 1990: 104), and while the audience may and probably will be aware that such a bond exists, the exact “extent and character of the co-operation [...] will be concealed and kept secret” (ibid.). A team will also want to conceal certain other facts; Goffman calls these facts “secrets” (1990: 141) and writes that these consist of “destructive information” (ibid.). The inevitable existence of secrets asks for “information control” (ibid.) on the part of the team. Teams will want to control access to this information so the effectiveness of the performance, set up to produce and maintain a particular definition of the situation, is not endangered (Goffman 1990: 104, 141). Obviously, this kind of cooperation and concealment will often need some kind of preparation, especially if the nature and the extent of the cooperation are to be kept secret. This kind of preparation can be carried out in what Goffman calls the “back region” (1990: 112) or “backstage” (ibid.) of a performance. The back region is distinguished from the ‘front region’ (Goffman 1990: 107), which is “the place where the performance is given” (ibid.). Both are regions, a notion which Goffman defines as “any place that is bounded to some degree by barriers to perception” (1990: 106). For instance, a radio studio is a region that is not visually perceivable by people who are listening to the radio at home, but it is aurally available for anyone who bothers to turn on their radio. While performing in the front region, individuals will pay attention to “matters of politeness” (Goffman 1990: 107) and “decorum” (ibid.). Matters of politeness are linked to a performer’s manner and decorum is related to his or her appearance (Goffman 1990: 108). The front region is further defined by the setting in which the performance takes place (Goffman 1990: 107). While in the front region, individuals and teams will try to convey and maintain a particular impression of themselves towards others (Goffman 1990: 111). In order to do this, certain facts will be highlighted, while others will be subdued (ibid.). The latter will surface in the back region (Goffman 1990: 112). A backstage, then, “may be defined as a place, relative to a given performance, where the impression fostered by the performance is knowingly contradicted as a matter of course” (ibid.). For radio broadcasts, this means that anything that is said within range of a (functional) microphone can be said to have been performed in the front region, while what is said out of this range or

25 within reach of a microphone that is switched off has been performed in the back region (Goffman 1990: 119). Back region interaction is likely to be more familiar than front region interaction because it is “out of bounds” (Goffman 1990: 128) or at least supposed to be out of bounds to the audience (ibid.). While team members usually do attempt to “maintain the line that they are what they claim to be” (Goffman 1990: 167), a change in the situation may entail different social alignment and members may no longer “stay in character” (ibid.). The occurrence of “communication out of character” (ibid.) makes it clear that a team performance is always to some extent premeditated, rather than “a spontaneous, immediate response to the situation” (Goffman 1990: 207). Performers present reality in a way that is different in each performance, and each team member is able “to imagine or play out simultaneously other kinds of performances to other realities” (ibid.) at each point in the performance. So far it has been explained that teams are groups of interactants that are joined in their attempts to create and sustain a particular definition of a situation for the audience or for another team. That each team has secrets and that it needs to control the information that it gives has been mentioned, as well as the importance of the back region for this kind of management. Team members may also communicate out of character. What has not yet been discussed are the steps that performers may take to “sav[e] the show” (Goffman 1990: 212). Goffman writes that performers have a number of “attributes and practices” (ibid.) at their disposal that function to prevent the introduction of “well-kept dark secrets or negatively-valued characteristics” (1990: 209) into the performance. They serve to save the performer from embarrassment and losing face that are often the results of “unmeant gestures, inopportune intrusions, faux pas, [...] scenes” (Goffman 1990: 212) and the like. Goffman distinguishes between defensive and protective attributes and practices (ibid.). The defensive attributes are further distinguished into dramaturgical loyalty, discipline, and circumspection (Goffman 1990: 212, 216, 218). Dramaturgical loyalty refers to the practice that team members cannot reveal the team’s secrets “when between performances” (Goffman 1990: 212). The largest threat to dramaturgical loyalty is sympathy for the audience. When a team member becomes too attached to his or her audience, he or she may want to let the audience in on the performance (Goffman 1990: 214). Dramaturgical discipline means that a team member needs to appear wholly absorbed by his or her own actions, as if they were “spontaneous and

26 uncalculat[ed]” (Goffman 1990: 216). At the same time, however, the performer must avoid “being carried away” (ibid.) in reality, “lest this destroy his involvement in the task of putting on a successful performance” (ibid.). Dramaturgical circumspection means that in the interest of the team, performers will be required to exercise prudence and circumspection in staging the show, preparing in advance for likely contingencies and exploiting the opportunities that remain. (Goffman 1990: 218) Protective attributes and practices divide into two: protective practices that the audience uses “to assist the performers in saving the performers’ show” (Goffman 1990: 212), also known as “tact” (Goffman 1990: 229), and “[t]act [r]egarding [t]act” (Goffman 1990: 234). The latter are methods used by the performer in order to enable his or her audience to be tactful in the first place (ibid.).

In conclusion, what an individual does when he or she “enters the presence of others” (Goffman 1990: 249) is “to treat the others present on the basis of the impression they give now about the past and the future” (ibid.). An individual does this because he or she can never know all there is to know about others (ibid.). This is why individuals will always put up a performance that tends to show themselves in a positive light. The individual knows “that his [or her] audiences are capable of forming bad impressions of him [or her]” (1990: 236), and for this reason, performers can “devote their efforts to the creation of desired impressions” (Goffman 1990: 250), instead of hoping that the impressions that they give off will paint a favourable picture of themselves (ibid.). At some point or other in the round of their activity [individuals] feel it is necessary to band together and directly manipulate the impression that they give. The observed become a performing team and the observers become the audience. Actions which appear to be done on objects become gestures addressed to the audience. The round of activity becomes dramatized. (Goffman 1990: 251) Performers are aware of the impression they foster and ordinarily also possess destructive information about the show. The audience know what they have been allowed to perceive, qualified by what they can glean unofficially by close observation. In the main, they know the definition of the situation that the performance fosters but do not have destructive information about it.

(Goffman 1990: 144) In short, everyone is constantly performing. “To be a given kind of person, then, is not merely to possess the required attributes, but also to sustain the standards of conduct and appearance that one’s social grouping attaches thereto” (Goffman 1990: 75).

2. Conversation Analysis

2.1 Conversation analysis

Conversation analysis, or CA, was developed in the 1960s and early 1970s by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson (Slembrouck 2009: 55, Liddicoat 2007: 4, Hutchby 2006: 18). Sacks, an American sociologist, is generally considered to be the founder of the approach (wikipedia.org, Hutchby 2006: 18, Liddicoat 2007: 4, Jeffries and McIntyre 2010: 101, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 17). Schegloff and Jefferson frequently collaborated with Sacks and became his literary executors after his death (Slembrouck 2009: 55, Liddicoat 2007: 4, Hutchby 2006: 18). Sacks died in a car crash in 1975, only 40 years old, and had not published much (wikipedia.org, Slembrouck 2009: 55, Hutchby 2006: 18). Nonetheless, his approach to the analysis of everyday conversation has become well-known among sociologists and linguists (wikipedia.org). Hutchby considers Harvey Sacks to have been one of the “great innovators in the study of language” (2006: 18) and places him side by side with famous linguists such as Ferdinand de Saussure and Ludwig Wittgenstein (ibid.). In contrast, Liddicoat does not call Sacks a linguist; rather, Sacks was devoted to “the study of social action” (2007: 4). As language is an important part of social action, these definitions do not contradict each other. They merely illustrate the aim of CA: “to investigate social order as it [is] produced through the practices of everyday talk” (Liddicoat 2007: 4). Hutchy and Wooffitt also underline the interdisciplinary nature of CA (1998: 36), and Schegloff points out that “’CA is at a point where linguistics and sociology (and several other disciplines [...]) meet” (Schegloff as quoted by Hutchy & Wooffitt 1998: 37). The continuing relevance and versatility of CA is demonstrated by the fact that contemporary works such as Ian Hutchby’s Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting (2006) and Lesley Jeffries and Dan McIntyre’s Stylistics (2010) still draw heavily upon insights from CA, even though these works have completely different aims1; by the fact that academics continue to write introductory

1Hutchby’s Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting uses CA to come to insights about the specific forms of conversation that occur in radio and television broadcasts,

30 works to the theory, such as An Introduction to Conversation Analysis by Anthony Liddicoat (2007) and Conversation Analysis: An Introduction by Jack Sidnell (2010); and by the fact that CA continues to be taught at universities.

Conversation analysis developed out of the belief “that human language has to be seen as a form of social practice and that meaning is inevitably bound to specific social contexts of use” (Hutchby 2006: 19). At the time of its development, this was a relatively new approach in linguistics and in sociology. The dominant paradigm within linguistics had developed out of Ferdinand de Saussure’s structural linguistics and moved on to Noam Chomsky’s generative grammar (wikipedia.org, Hutchby 2006: 19). Both these men chose the abstract knowledge of language as the object of their research and theories; Saussure called this abstract knowledge ‘langue’ and Chomsky called it ‘competence’. The main argument for focusing on ‘langue’ or ‘competence’ was that actual utterances of language, Saussure’s ‘parole’ or Chomsky’s ‘performance’, were considered imperfect and too disordered for scientific study (Hutchby 2006: 19). Sacks opposed this argument by pointing out that interaction certainly is ordered. The method he developed to study interaction makes it possible to demonstrate and analyse the orderliness of interaction in a decidedly scientific manner. This was in fact one of Sacks’s main aims: “’I take it that at least some sociologists seek to make a science of the discipline; this is a concern I share’”, he wrote in 1963 (Sacks as quoted by Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 34). This quote also points out that Sacks’s work diverged from the dominant sociological paradigm of his time. “In one of his earliest lectures, he put forward a powerful argument against the prevailing notion in sociology that the phenomena most worthy of analysis were unobservable – for instance, attitudes, class mobility, or the causes of deviance” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 25). In concentrating on the aforementioned “social order as it [is] produced through the practices of everyday talk” (Liddicoat 2007: 4), Sacks turned towards the analysis of observable aspects of social order. How he did this will be discussed in the next paragraph. First, however, it should be pointed out that Sacks did rely on some earlier sociological work, notably that of Erving Goffman and

whereas Jeffries and McIntyre present CA as “an analytical method also appropriate for stylistic analysis” (2010: 101), even of fictional texts.

Harold Garfinkel (Slembrouck 2009: 55, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 27, Liddicoat 2007: 2 - 3). Goffman’s work and insights have been discussed at length above and will not be explained again in this paragraph, but some explanation about Garfinkel is required here. Harold Garfinkel is the developer of “the form of sociology which became known as ethnomethodology” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 30). “Ethnomethodology stresses that social order is produced, recognised and shared” (Slembrouck 2009: 14), which CA also does, and it wishes to “describe the methods that people use for accounting for their own actions and those of others” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 31). Another original insight that ethnomethodology and CA share is that talk should be looked at in its context. For instance, John Searle and John Austin, two linguists who also published in the 1960s, had, like Sacks, opposed Saussurian and Chomskyan linguistics. They had noticed that talk is used to perform social actions, but described these actions by looking at decontextualized utterances (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 20, Hutchby 2006: 21). Ethnomethodology and CA point out that the meaning of an utterance can never be analysed if the utterance is looked at in isolation, because participants express and understand meaning in light of the context in which that utterance is made (Slembrouck 2009: 15, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 15, 35, Hutchby 2006: 21). What is more, how a participant understands a particular utterance is displayed in that participant’s response to the utterance (ibid.). As mentioned above, Sacks intended to turn his approach to observable aspects of social order into a science. Garfinkel never shared this ambition. He felt that the study of society can never produce “objective findings” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 34), since “interpretation and commonsense knowledge are necessary and unavoidable aspects of social science” (ibid.). Despite these objections, Sacks has managed to develop conversation analysis into a “distinctive methodology” (Liddicoat 2007: 12) that has long transcended his personal approach to interaction. “Although the inception and, to some extent, the widespread adoption of the conversation analytic perspective owed much to his individually brilliant cast of mind, his way of working resulted in the development of a distinctive method which could be employed by others” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 36). CA is now a scientific, widely used approach to language as a socially contextualized form of social practice (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 7, Hutchby 2006: 19).

Conversation analysis is a somewhat deceptive name, because it is concerned with much more than mere conversation in the usual definition of the word (Liddicoat 2007: 6). Everyday conversation is certainly one area that is being studied by conversation analysts, but it is not the only one. Talk in institutional contexts is another large area of interest for CA (ibid.). Institutional contexts are contexts in which a speaker’s turn length, turn form and turn context are not free to vary as much as they are in everyday conversation (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 47); they include for instance doctor- patient interviews and wedding ceremonies (ibid.). The two radio programmes that this paper looks at are also in some way institutional. Because CA does not exclusively study everyday or “mundane” (ibid.) conversation, its practitioners prefer to refer to CA’s research topic as “talk-in-interaction” (Liddicoat 2007: 6, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 14). Here, though, ‘talk-in-interaction’ will be used alongside ‘interaction’, ‘conversation’ and even ‘performance’. Since the data that is looked at comes from radio programmes, all the information that is available is talk- in-interaction anyway. CA studies talk-in-interaction “[b]y concentrating on how utterances are produced in turns in interactional sequences” (Hutchby 2006: 21). The use of the word ‘sequences’ indicates that utterances produced in turns “are not just serially ordered (that is, coming one after the other) [...] [but] that there are describable ways in which turns are linked together into definite sequences” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 38). Talk-in-interaction is studied out of the following four principles, some of which have been mentioned above: 1. Talk-in-interaction is a way to realize social actions. 2. Talk-in-interaction is systematically organized, methodic and ordered at all points. No part of it is ever dismissible as accidental, disorderly or irrelevant. Order is internally accomplished by the interactants. 3. Talk-in-interaction is produced in specific contexts, and participants orient to this context. Turns produced by participants are at the same time context-renewing and context-shaped. Talk is arranged sequentially and turns are linked together. 4. Analysis of talk-in-interaction should be based on (transcripts of) recordings of naturally occurring data and not be restricted by a priori theoretical assumptions. These principles are based on the principles listed by Liddicoat (2007: 5), Slembrouck (2009: 57), Hutchby (2006: 24) and Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998: 23). The fourth principle indicates that CA wishes to study everyday conversation as it really occurs, as opposed to Saussurian and Chomskyan linguistics (cf. supra).

To enable researchers to investigate this data again and again, it needs to be recorded. To make research of the data more easily accessible and publishable, these recordings are usually transcribed (Liddicoat 2007: 13). In CA, the transcription system that is mostly used is that developed by Gail Jefferson (Liddicoat 2007: 14), but individual researchers may add or alter elements to their own transcription methods if they feel that this better represents particular aspects of their data. Transcripts are, however, never able to represent conversation in all its complexity. They are also always subjective, since every researcher has different research objects and will transcribe his or her data accordingly. Also, researchers may not hear every sigh or clearing of the throat; invariably, some aspects of the recording will not be represented in its transcription (Liddicoat 2007: 13). For this reason, the recorded data and not its transcript remains the primary source for analysis (ibid.). Principle 3 mentions turns, a term that has also come up in the explanation of Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson write that “[t]urn- taking is used for the ordering of moves in games, for allocating political office, for regulating traffic at intersections, for serving customers at business establishments, and for talking in interviews, meetings, debates, ceremonies, conversations etc.” (1974: 696). Different speakers take turns at speaking, and it is this fact that makes talk ordered at all points (ibid.). Hutchby and Wooffitt stress that a concern with the nature of turn-taking in talk-in-interaction is at the very heart of CA (1998: 38), and sequential implicativeness, which is linked with the context-renewing and context- shaped properties of turns, is often named as CA’s most important insight. It is the principle that in producing a turn, each speaker shows how they have understood the previous turn, while at the same time projecting expectations about the next turn (Slembrouck 2009: 57). Because of this importance of turn-taking, it is hardly surprising that CA focuses on the study of turn sequences and the nature of these: “[a]n investigator interested in the sociology of a turn-organized activity will want to determine, at least, the shape of the turn-taking organization device, and how it affects the distribution of turns for the activities on which it operates” (Sacks et al. 1974: 696). Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson list fourteen “grossly apparent facts” (1974: 700) about turn-taking in conversations: (1) Speaker-change recurs, or at least occurs. (2) Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time.

(3) Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are common, but brief. (4) Transitions (from one turn to a next) with no gap and no overlap are common. Together with transitions characterized by slight gap or slight overlap, they make up the vast majority of transitions. (5) Turn order is not fixed, but varies. (6) Turn size is not fixed, but varies. (7) Length of conversation is not specified in advance. (8) What parties say is not specified in advance. (9) Relative distribution of turns is not specified in advance. (10) Number of parties can vary. (11) Talk can be continuous or discontinuous. (12) Turn-allocation techniques are obviously used. A current speaker may select a next speaker (as when he addresses a question to another party); or parties may self- select in starting to talk. (13) Various 'turn-constructional units' are employed; e.g., turns can be projectedly 'one word long', or they can be sentential in length. (14) Repair mechanisms exist for dealing with turn-taking errors and violations; e.g., if two parties find themselves talking at the same time, one of them will stop prematurely, thus repairing the trouble. (Sacks et al. 1974: 700 - 701) Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson do note that these facts apply only to conversational data (1974: 729). For institutional talk-in-interaction no completely different list of facts exists. Sacks et al. propose a way of looking at institutional talk as placed on a continuum, on which ‘conversation’ is at one end and ‘ceremony’ at the other (1974: 729 - 730). However, ‘ceremony’ should not be allocated equal status to ‘conversation’; rather, ‘ceremony’ ought to be viewed as a (number of) transformation(s) to the ‘conversation’ type for which the fourteen facts are true. Sacks et al. describe the turn-taking system for conversation as a system of “two components and a set of rules” (1974: 702). These components are the turn constructional component and the turn allocation component (Sacks et al. 1974: 702- 703, Liddicoat 2007: 54, 63). Turns are made up of turn constructional units, which may take various grammatical forms and which are highly context dependent (Liddicoat 2007: 54, Sacks et al. 1974: 702). These turn constructional units or TCUs may be called units because within their context, the participants recognize them as possibly complete and they display their recognition of this possible completeness.

In fact, recipients can even project the possible completion of a TCU (Liddicoat 2007: 56). If participants do not recognize “a piece of talk […] as possibly complete at a particular point in the ongoing talk, then it is not a TCU” (ibid.). Note that the term ‘possible’ is crucial here: Participants in conversation project possible completion not actual completion. Actual completion can never be predicted as speakers can and do prolong their talk beyond what is needed to complete a particular action under way. Participants cannot know in advance where a turn will end, only when it could end. (Liddicoat 2007: 60) Possible completion may be achieved in three different ways: a TCU may be complete grammatically, intonationally, and as an action (Liddicoat 2007: 57 - 58). Grammatical completion means that a TCU is a syntactically independent unit, and intonational completion means that a TCU’s intonation indicates the end of the TCU (Liddicoat 2007: 57). A TCU is also possibly complete when “what needs to have been done at this point in the conversation” (Liddicoat 2007: 58), is done. ‘Possible completion’ is an important notion with regards to speaker transition. Whenever a TCU is possibly completed, “speaker change is a possible next action” (Liddicoat 2007: 61). A place where speaker change can, but need not, occur, is called a “transition-relevance place” (Sacks et al. 1974: 703). Transfer to the next speaker can be managed by the second component of Sacks’s systematics: the turn allocation component. According to Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, there are two groups of “turn-allocational techniques” (ibid.): either the current speaker selects the next speaker, or the next speaker self-selects (ibid.). The rules of the turn-taking system for conversation link turn allocation to turn construction (Liddicoat 2007: 67), “provid[e] for the allocation of a next turn to one party, and co-ordinat[e] transfer so as to minimize gap and overlap” (Sacks et al. 1974: 704). These rules are the following: (1) For any turn, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn-constructional unit: (a) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as to involve the use of a 'current speaker selects next' technique, then the party so selected has the right and is obliged to take next turn to speak; no others have such rights or obligations, and transfer occurs at that place.

(b) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as not to involve the use of a 'current speaker selects next' technique, then self-selection for next speakership may, but need not, be instituted; first starter acquires rights to a turn, and transfer occurs at that place. (c) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as not to involve the use of a 'current speaker selects next' technique, then current speaker may, but need not continue, unless another self-selects. (2) If, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn-constructional unit, neither 1a nor 1b has operated, and, following the provision of 1c, current speaker has continued, then the rule-set a-c re-applies at the next transition-relevance place, and recursively at each next transition-relevance place, until transfer is effected. (Sacks et al. 1974: 704) Sacks et al. and Liddicoat point out that these rules are ordered: “that is, rule 1(b) applies if rule 1 (a) has not been applied, and rule 1 (c) applies if rules 1 (a) and 1 (b) have not been applied” (Liddicoat 2007: 68). According to Hutchby and Wooffitt, the use of the term ‘rules’ is somewhat problematic (1998: 50). The rules that Sacks et al. provide make up “an oriented-to set of normative practices which members use to accomplish orderly turn-taking” (ibid.), rather than prescriptive or causal formulae (ibid.). Schegloff admits that the term ‘rule’ is not ideal and that perhaps ‘practice’ or ‘usage’ would be better alternatives (Schegloff as quoted by Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 50). He does insist, however, that “[t]here is still an interrelated set of these, whatever we call them; they are still followable, followed, practiced, employed – oriented to by the participants, and not merely […] ‘extensionally equivalent descriptions of behaviour’” (Schegloff as quoted by Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 50 - 51). Again, however, it should be remarked that this ‘oriented-to set of normative practices’ is different for talk in institutional settings. Participants in institutional talk are not free to construct their TCUs as freely as participants in everyday conversation, and all turn allocational techniques may not be used at all times. Like the fourteen facts listed above, the components and the rules for institutional talk-in-interaction should be looked at as a transformation of those of everyday conversation. Sacks et al. are confident that their “characterization of turn-taking organization for conversation” (1974: 699) has “the important twin features of being context-free and capable of extraordinary context-sensitivity” (ibid.). The conversational resources that Sacks and his colleagues have described are context- free because “the techniques any set of conversationalists may use to get some

37 interactional work done are not tied to the local circumstances of that specific occasion” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 35). Simultaneously, though, “the use of those resources is context-sensitive in the sense that, on each specific occasion, these participants in particular are designing their talk in the light of what has happened before in this conversation” (ibid.). These linked features are clearly represented in one of CA’s key notions: that of the adjacency pair.

The first principle of CA mentions that talk-in-interaction is a means for “accomplishing social actions” (Hutchby 2006: 24), and according to the third principle, “talk is organized sequentially [...] [and] turns are related together” (ibid.). This means that “[t]urn-taking in conversation comes about in part because turns often call for another turn in response” (Jeffries & McIntyre 2010: 102). Turns that are paired because that is functionally appropriate are called adjacency pairs (Slembrouck 2009: 61). “Examples include question/answer, complaint/apology, greeting/greeting, goodbye/goodbye, accusation/denial, etc.” (ibid.). Liddicoat lists five specific characteristics of adjacency pairs: (1) Adjacency pairs consist of two turns. (2) These two turns are produced by different speakers. (3) The two turns are placed next to each other in their basic minimal form. (4) The two turns are ordered. (5) The two turns are differentiated into pair types. (Liddicoat 2007: 106) The first turn, “which initiate[s] actions” (ibid.), is called the first pair part (FPP) (Liddicoat 2007: 106, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 39). The second turn, which should be an appropriate reply to the action initiated in the first pair part, is called the second pair part (SPP) (ibid.). Even though the sequences are called adjacency pairs, the first pair part and the second pair part need not be adjacent (Liddicoat 2007: 106). As Liddicoat’s third characteristic points out, they are only so in their most basic form. Sequences can be extended for a number of reasons and by a range of techniques. “Expansions may occur prior to the articulation of the base FPP (pre-expansion), between the base FPP and the base SPP (insert expansion) and following the base SPP (post-expansion)” (Liddicoat 2007: 125). Liddicoat uses the terms ‘base FPP’ and ‘base SPP’ because expansions often take the form of “sequences in their own right made up of FPPs and SPPs” (ibid.); in other words, adjacency pairs can be

38 inserted into other adjacency pairs as expansions. Since the production of an FPP requires the production of a particular SPP, expansions are not produced at random. They serve to “clear the ground for established adjacency pairs” (Slembrouck 2009: 65), to avoid problems with regards to the production of an SPP, or to repair such problems if they should occur (Liddicoat 2007: 169 - 170). Problems or difficulties with the production of an SPP often have to do with the notion of preference. The basic idea is that when a speaker produces an FPP, another speaker can produce either a preferred second or a dispreferred second. “The concept of preference as it is used in CA is not intended to refer to the psychological motives of individuals, but rather to structural features of the design of turns associated with particular activities” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 43 - 44). The following table lists some FPPs and their respective preferred and dispreferred seconds (table based on Slembrouck 2009: 62): FPP PREFERRED SPP DISPREFERRED SPP Request Acceptance Refusal Offer Acceptance Refusal Invitation Acceptance Refusal Assessment Agreement Disagreement Compliment Acceptance Rejection Question Expected answer Unexpected answer or non- answer Blame Denial Admission Accusation Denial Admission Preference is not entirely separate from “individual motivations or psychological dispositions” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 45), but the decisive motivation to classify an SPP as preferred or dispreferred is how the turn is designed (ibid.). “[P]referred actions are characteristically performed straightforwardly and without delay, while dispreferred actions are delayed, qualified and accounted for” (ibid.). Hutchby and Wooffitt point out that the organization of preference structures forms an important part of “the maintenance of social solidarity” (1998: 46); “’dispreferredness’ gives rise to social discord” (Slembrouck 2009: 63). One notable example that shows the importance of the maintenance of social solidarity is the exception, described by Pomerantz, to the rule that an agreement is a preferred second to an assessment. As Pomerantz explained in a 1984 article, “in the case of self-

39 deprecating assessments, a disagreement counts as the preferred second. Agreement would entail criticism of the other and work against the principle of social solidarity” (ibid.). Liddicoat writes that the organization of talk-in-interaction indicates a “preference for agreement” (2007: 111) and a “preference for contiguity” (ibid.). Preference for agreement entails that some types of talk [...] are designed in such a way as to indicate what the expected next action is likely to be. These types of talk have built into their design an approximate trajectory for the sequence of which they are a part. This can be seen very clearly with questions. The question That was a great film, wasn’t it? is designed in such a way as to project a yes response, while a slightly different design The film wasn’t very good, was it? projects a no response. (Liddicoat 2007: 111 - 112) Preference for contiguity is the phenomenon that, while question or answer turns can contain other pieces of talk, there is a preference for FPPs and SPPs [...] to occur immediately next to each other. [...] [Q]uestions normally occur at the end of their turns, while answers normally occur at the beginning of the turn. (Liddicoat 2007: 112) These are features of talk-in-interaction that Sacks described in an article published in 1987 (ibid.). Dispreferred seconds are marked structures, and often interactants undertake steps to avoid these. “Speakers may initially dress up a dispreferred second as a preferred one” (Slembrouck 2009: 63); if they do this, however, they will have to re- orientate later and produce a dispreferred second after all (ibid.). Speakers may also “[attenuate] [a] dispreferred second [...] to the point of almost vanishing” (Slembrouck 2009: 64). Adjacency pairs and the notion of preference are important structural features of any kind of talk-in-interaction. They have become central ideas in CA, and their pertinence is demonstrated again and again as researchers look at talk.

It has already been mentioned that sequences can be extended in order to repair problems with regards to the production of an SPP. The idea of repair is another crucial notion to CA. Hutchby and Wooffitt explain that ‘repair’ is a “generic term [...] used [...] to cover a wide range of phenomena” (1998: 57). This wide range

40 includes managing overlaps and turn allocation, problems of understanding (where one or more participants may not even have realized that such a problem has arisen), and the production of “substantive faults in the contents of what someone has said” (ibid.). This means that “repair is relevant to all levels of talk from the turn- taking system to sequence organization and preference” (Liddicoat 2007: 171). ‘Repair’ transcends mere correction, because “not all conversational repair actually involves any factual error on the speaker’s part” (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson as quoted by Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 57). That repair covers such a wide range of occurrences entails that it makes use of a wide range of techniques to solve problems where they occur. To determine the type of repair at hand, two dimensions of the repair should be looked at (Slembrouck 2009: 66). One is who invites the repair, and the other is who produces the repair (ibid.). Repair can be self-initiated or other-initiated (ibid.). They may be produced by “the speaker of the trouble source” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 2009: 61), in which case self-repair occurs (ibid.), or by someone else, in which case other-repair occurs (ibid). The combination of these two dimensions provides for four different repair types: - Self-initiated self-repair - Self-initiated other-repair - Other-initiated self-repair - Other-initiated other-repair (Slembrouck 2009: 66 - 67, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 61, Liddicoat 2007: 173) These types of repair may be produced at different points in the interaction: 1. First position repair: the repair is produced within the same turn as the trouble source (same turn repair) or in the transition relevance space following the turn containing the trouble source (transition space repair). 2. Second position repair: in the turn immediately following the trouble source. 3. Third position repair: in the speaker’s turn after the recipient’s response. 4. Fourth position repair: the trouble source is acknowledged and resolved in the fourth position. (Liddicoat 2007: 174, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 64-65) Same turn repair and transition space repair are by definition forms of self-initiated self-repair, and third position repair is very likely to be so as well; in conversations with only two speakers present, this will definitely be the case. Liddicoat notes that speakers who produce a trouble source thus have three positions at their disposal to produce self-initiated self-repair, whereas other speakers only have two (2007: 175).

He adds that Schegloff et al. (1977) have noticed that even though other-initiated repair could occur in first position, i.e. by interrupting the speaker, other-initiated repair “typically occurs in the next turn after the trouble source” (2007: 176). This is indicative of the preference for self-repair (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 66, Liddicoat 2007: 210, Slembrouck 2009: 66). Other indicators “for the dispreferredness of other-repair [include] [...] the occurrence of modulation in the case of other-correction [...] and the specific designs of other-initiation (e.g. often questions which locate the trouble source [...])” (Slembrouck 2009: 67). Additional evidence for the preference for self-repair is that the number of instances of self-repair far exceeds that of other- repair (Liddicoat 2007: 210). This preference means that not all forms of repair are “interactionally equal options” (ibid.). Note, however, that the preference for self- repair does not discriminate amongst who initiates repair; other-initiated or self- initiated, repair is organized interactionally to favour self-repair (ibid.). Other-initiated repair that is constructed particularly to allow for self-repair, even though the other could have done the repair just as easily as the producer of the trouble source, have what Sacks and Schegloff call a “correction invitation format” (Sacks & Schegloff as quoted by Liddicoat 2007: 211). The notion of repair is an important element in CA, because it is a fundamental part of conversation and reveals clearly the nature of conversation as a self-organizing and self-righting system based on rules which operate and are managed locally by participants. (Liddicoat 2007: 211) It provides a simple mechanism for participants in a conversation “to deal with troubles as they emerge in talk” (Liddicoat 2007: 212), but while it is simple, it is also very much organized, and provides solutions for problems in conversation at all levels (ibid.).

So far, several characteristics of talk-in-interaction have been discussed. It is also worth looking at how talk-in-interaction originates, i.e. how conversations are opened, and how it is ended. What is important in opening conversations is that one interactant gets hold of at least one other interactant. This may be done by telephoning someone (Liddicoat 2007: 213), by knocking on someone’s door (Liddicoat 2007: 251), by addressing a passer-by in the street, etc. Usual methods to do so is by producing the adjacency

42 pairs greeting/greeting (Liddicoat 2007: 239) or summons/answer (Liddicoat 2007: 220). It is crucial that the other interactant in some way displays availability, e.g. by picking up the phone, opening the door or stopping on the street, because if the other interactant appears unavailable in some way, the one who tries to open a conversation will cease their attempts and no conversation will be started. Another important aspect of opening a conversation is recognition (Liddicoat 2007: 252). Whether or not interactants know each other, they will employ methods to recognize the other as someone (e.g. “my close friend Ben”) or something (e.g. a Jehovah’s Witness). These methods may be verbal, such as an introduction, or non-verbal, such as looking through an open office door to see if the person one wishes to speak to is in the office (Liddicoat 2007: 251-252). Hence, it can be said that the opening of conversation is accompanied by “issues of recognition and securing availability” (Liddicoat 2007: 253). The order of what is dealt with first, recognition or availability, is not set in face-to-face conversations (ibid.). Closing a conversation calls for a more complicated management of interactional resources, because it needs to be done in such a way that social solidarity is not threatened, and that all participants have had the chance “to talk about all of the things which need to be dealt with in the conversation” (Liddicoat 2007: 255). This means that not only do speakers need resources to close a conversation, they also need resources to move out of closure, in case not everything that needed to be dealt with has been dealt with in the conversation. A common way to close a conversation is through the production of the adjacency pair goodbye/goodbye. These are particular “speech tokens which are used to perform closing” (Liddicoat 2007: 256); they serve the purpose of closing a conversation and cannot be produced legitimately at any point in a conversation (ibid.). The fact that conversation is closed through the production of an adjacency pair is significant, because [t]he effect of such paired turns in conversational closings is that the first proposes the end of the conversation and the second accepts this. Closing is achieved with the production of the second component. (ibid.) Goodbye/goodbye is the adjacency pair that achieves closing, but this pair is often preceded by what Liddicoat calls “pre-closing sequences” (2007: 257). These sequences are usually short, consisting of single-word turns such as ‘okay’ and

‘right’, and are “designed to verify if all relevant mentionables for this conversation have been mentioned” (ibid.). Adjacency pairs to close conversation and their preceding pre-closing sequences cannot, as has been mentioned, legitimately be produced at any point in the conversation. These sequences need to be produced in so-called closing implicative environments in order to be heard as closing sequences (Liddicoat 2007: 258-259). The term ‘closing implicative environment’ does not so much refer to a specific location in conversations as to “sets of actions” (Liddicoat 2007: 259). After these actions, “closing may be a relevant next activity” (ibid.), but closing is by no means obligatory (ibid.). Closing implicative environments create places where speakers either introduce new mentionables to the conversation, or pass up the opportunity to do this, thus effectuating closure (ibid.). Closing implicative environments include among others the announcing of closure, the formulating of summaries, and the voicing of appreciations. Announcement of closure means that a speaker explicitly mentions “closure as a relevant next activity at some point in the conversation” (ibid.). These announcements may be specific to a greater or lesser degree and often refer to external circumstances as the cause for seeking closure (ibid.). The larger part of closures, however, “do[es] not seem to result from such announcements” (Liddicoat 2007: 261). Formulating summaries, or formulations, means that speakers “formulate a summarized version of the talk which characterizes what has been happening in the talk so far” (Garfinkel & Sacks as quoted by Liddicoat 2007: 262-263). Formulating may fulfil different functions in conversation; one of them “is to provide a possible conclusion to the topic in progress” (Liddicoat 2007: 263). Talk has to be complete in some way in order for it to be formulated, and if the formulation of the preceding talk is accepted by the other conversationalist(s), “it can be treated as a proposal that the talk under way could be concluded” (Button as quoted by Liddicoat 2007: 263). Liddicoat writes that in telephone conversations, appreciations such as “Thanks for calling” make up closing implicative environments as well (2007: 264). Appreciations are not only closing implicative environments in telephone conversations, though. Utterances like “Thank you for your visit” or “It was good to see you again” in face-to-face conversation equally serve as closing implicative environments. As the definition of closing implicative environments indicates, closure is not necessarily achieved after those sequences. Participants in a conversation may also take steps to move out of closure. The talk that follows moving out of closure may be

44 very short or very long; the moving out-talk may in itself be closing implicative, but if it is not, more talk needs to be produced in order to establish a new closing implicative environment (Liddicoat 2007: 267). “It is possible to move out of closing at any point in a closing sequence” (ibid.), the earliest possibility being “after the first pre-closing component” (ibid.). As for closing implicative environments, a number of typical sequences are used to achieve moving out of closing. Topic initial elicitors, in- conversation objects, solicitudes and appreciations are among those sequences. Topic initial elicitors are “object[s] [...] designed to generate a new topic” (Button & Casey as quoted by Liddicoat 2007: 271); they are not the introduction of a new topic itself. “In-conversation objects are objects which are used to mark the receipt of prior talk and to provide for the speaker to continue” (Button as quoted by Liddicoat 2007: 272). They are not exclusively produced in closing implicative environments, but may also be produced at transition relevance places. In case of the latter, recipients display that they are passing the opportunity to take the full turns at talk that they might otherwise properly initiate, and thereby exhibit their understanding that a yet to be completed extended unit of talk is currently in progress and leave the current speaker free to continue. (Greatbatch 1988: 411) Greatbatch calls in-conversation objects “continuers” (ibid.). They are usually short utterances such as “uhm”, “mhm”, and “yeah” (Greatbatch 1988: 411, Liddicoat 2007: 273). Like topic initial elicitors, continuers display that speakers are available for further talk without making further talk obligatory (Liddicoat 2007: 273). Solicitudes, as Liddicoat points out, occur frequently in closings (2007: 274). They achieve moving out of closure because solicitudes conventionally require next speakers to respond to them (ibid.). “This response is usually a minimal turn accepting the solicitude” (ibid.). Closing is usually reinstalled quickly after the acceptance (Liddicoat 2007: 275). Lastly, appreciations may also function as movements out of closing. Appreciations may make up closing implicative environments (cf. supra), but within other closing implicative environments, they may form a short moving out of closing (Liddicoat 2007: 276). Since this kind of talk is itself closing implicative, closure will be established shortly after its production (cf. supra). However, appreciations may also refer to things that have come up earlier in the conversation instead of to the conversation itself (ibid.). These appreciations are, then, back

45 references2, and “[produce] a moving out of closing, after which the closing must be re-established” (ibid.). As the case of appreciations shows, none of the resources mentioned above are used only in the instances in which they have been discussed here. Each of them needs to be considered in their context. All of them can fulfil different functions. A conversation is opened when a participant takes steps to assert the availability of at least one other participant, and when these participants recognize each other as being someone or fulfilling a certain social role. Closing conversation is more difficult because interactants need to consider the maintenance of social solidarity, and each participant needs to have had the opportunity to say everything he or she wished to say. Because it is harder to manage closing conversationally, closing is often announced or implied through the use of particular sequences. Participants also have a range of resources at their disposal to move out of closing. When closing is achieved, participants in a conversation very often take their leave by producing the goodbye/goodbye adjacency pair.

2 A back reference consists of “[m]aterial which has been a previous topic of this conversation […] [that is] reintroduced” (Liddicoat 2007: 270).

2.2 Storytelling

Telling stories is a major resource for participants on Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone to make themselves come across as credible, so it is useful to explore first how storytelling actually works. Telling a story is something that interactants may want to do at some point in an interaction. The following four propositions are true for each instance of storytelling: - Stories are “told in conversation” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 131) - At least one speaker secures the attention of at least one listener (Ochs & Capps 2001: 114) - At least one speaker takes an “extended, multi-unit [turn] at talk” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 131, Liddicoat 2007: 279) - All interactants display their orientation towards and understanding of the talk-in- interaction as a story that is being told (Ochs & Capps 2001: 23) Sacks has observed that a teller, in order to launch a narrative, needs to “align their co-interactant as a story recipient” (Sacks as quoted by Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 134). Because telling a story extends over more TCUs than would be the case in non-narrative conversation, a teller needs to make sure that he or she will be able to “[keep] possession of the conversational floor for longer than the basic rules of turn- taking ordinarily allow” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 134). Very frequently this is done by a story preface (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 134, Ochs & Capps 2001: 117). These are similar to pre-closing sequences in that they also announce what conversational action the speaker is planning to undertake. A story preface usually consists of two parts, which could be considered a request/acceptance adjacency pair: “a teller indicates his or her desire to tell a particular story and thus to dominate the floor across a series of turns” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 117), after which “interlocutors [...] either permit or do not permit the teller to continue” (ibid.). Hutchby and Wooffitt see story prefaces as “a three-part structure” (1998: 134), in which a teller produces a story preface, a recipient produces a request to hear the story, and finally the teller produces the story (ibid.). Thornborrow (2001a: 119) and Liddicoat (2007: 283) also make this three-part distinction. Even though Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998: 134) indicate that the recipient’s request to hear the story may also be a request not to hear the story, their three-part structure is not the most useful description because if the recipient does not wish to hear the story, the story will not be told and the third

47 part of the structure is not validated. Ochs and Capps’s division is clearer. Common story prefaces include “Did you know ...?” and “Guess what?” on the teller’s part, often followed by “No, what?” or simply “What?” on the recipient’s part. The latter examples grant the teller the opportunity to tell his or her story. In connection to this, the notion of ‘launch control’ should be discussed. This has to do with “the extent to which a person has control over when a narrative about his or her experience gets launched and by whom” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 125). The person who is the most knowledgeable about a certain experience is not necessarily the one who launches the story, not even when he or she is present when someone else begins to tell that particular story (ibid.). Launch control is linked to power, in that someone who decides who tells which story when has to be authoritative to make sure this decision is acted upon, especially when the story is not about him- or herself. Launch control is discussed in the chapter on power, where it falls under the broader term ‘topic initiation’.

Once the story is being told, listeners will often produce in-conversation objects, to display that they are in fact listening and to urge the teller to go on with narrating. Listeners may also produce a number of other responses to a narrative – and to other kinds of talk, for that matter – to indicate not only that they heard what the speaker said and to urge him or her to continue talking, but to express their own feelings about or positions towards what has just been said. These include “’oh’ receipts, which propose a ‘change of state’ of knowledge or information (Heritage as quoted by Greatbatch 1988: 406), “newsmarks, which, as assertions of ‘ritualised disbelief’, treat a prior turn’s talk as news” (Jefferson as quoted by Greatbatch 1988: 406), and “assessments of a reported state of affairs” (Pomerantz as quoted by Greatbatch 1988: 407). Newsmarks may be expected particularly after unexpected turns in stories.

So far it has been explained what steps interactants need to take in order to ensure that they can tell a story, and what listeners do to show that they are listening. Now it is time to look at how the stories themselves are built up, and why people would want to tell them in the first place. “[N]arratives ...tell about a series of events which took place at specific unique moments in a unique past time world” (Polanyi as quoted by Ochs & Capps 2001: 161). Each story, Ochs & Capps write, is located on

48 a continuum between two narrative proclivities (2001: 2, 4, 17). On the one end is the proclivity that people want to tell a story about reality, about life as they really experienced it (Ochs & Capps 2001: 4). Unfortunately, however, this reality is often fragmented and incomprehensible; for instance, several things may be going on at the same time, one may not be aware of everything that is happening, and if one is aware of what goes on one may not be able to understand it (ibid.). So even if a speaker intends to tell a perfectly truthful story, it may be difficult to express exactly what it was that was going on. The proclivity on the other end of the continuum, then, is that people want to tell a clear-structured story that has clear temporal sequencing and causality (ibid.). The term ‘plot’, which stems from literature studies, is an adequate term here as well (Ochs & Capps 2001: 19). However, as the first proclivity indicates, “[s]tory is possible without plot” (Leitch as quoted by Ochs & Capps 2001: 19). Precisely because of the narrative proclivities, Ochs and Capps decided that working with five narrative dimensions would be the most useful way to come to insights about narratives. “Rather than identifying a set of distinctive features that always characterize narrative, we stipulate dimensions that will be always relevant to a narrative, even if not elaborately manifest” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 19). Ochs and Capps have ordered their five dimensions like this: - Dimensions Possibilities - Tellership One active teller → Multiple active co-tellers - Tellability High → Low - Embeddedness Detached → Embedded - Linearity Closed temporal and → Open temporal and causal order causal order - Moral stance Certain, constant → Uncertain, fluid (Ochs & Capps 2001: 20) Tellership, as is clear from the chart above, deals with which and how many speakers tell a story, and in what way (Ochs & Capps 2001: 24). For instance, typical for “[n]arratives of personal experience that emerge in formal interviews” (ibid.) is “low involvement in co-telling” (ibid.). Tellability is “the extent to which [stories] convey a sequence of reportable events and make a point in a rhetorically effective manner” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 33). This means that the narrated events may be known or unknown to the listener(s), and that the listener(s) may be familiar or unfamiliar with

49 the story (i.e. they may have heard the story told before, but it may still be highly tellable because of the teller’s rhetorical skills) (Ochs & Capps 2001: 34). Embeddedness has to do with the extent to which a story is linked to previous and following elements in the conversation. A detached story is “[m]onologic” (lecture slides Slembrouck 2012), whereas an embedded story is “[d]ialogic” (ibid.). Embeddedness can also be looked at from thematic and rhetorical perspectives (Ochs & Capps 2001: 39), and is not a strictly organisational feature. Linked to this is the observation made by Gail Jefferson that tellers “go to great lengths to make their stories appear relevant (even when they are not)” (Jefferson as quoted by Ochs & Capps 2001: 39). Linearity, then, is, as explained above, about the way in which elements of a story are ordered temporally and causally (lecture slides Slembrouck 2012, Ochs & Capps 2001: 20, 41). Lastly, moral stance is concerned with the moral judgment that tellers inevitably form of the events they narrate and that is reflected in how they tell their story (Ochs & Capps 2001: 45). Noticeable here is what Ochs, Smith and Taylor have called the “’looking good’ principle” (Ochs, Smith & Taylor as quoted by Ochs & Capps 2001: 47). This principle says that tellers frequently tell their story in such a way as to make themselves look morally good or superior to the persons or events in the story (Ochs & Capps 2001: 47). This, of course, ties in with Goffman’s observation that performers want to present their audience with an idealized version of themselves (Goffman 1990: 25, 35). A moral stance may be certain and constant throughout a narrative, but it may also evolve, or be uncertain (Ochs & Capps 2001: 50).

Earlier, it has been said that stories serve to tell about past events. However, stories do not merely serve the past, but also the present and the future, and even unreal events (Ochs & Capps 2001: 182). “[T]he past is often cast as a logical warrant for tellers’ current and future states and actions” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 183 - 184). Past, present, future and unreal events may all be linked to each other through storytelling (Ochs & Capps 2001: 199), and they often do so even within one and the same story, “flow[ing] back and forth from moments remembered, to the unfolding present, to moments imagined” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 200). Stories are also told simply for the pleasure of conversation (Goffman and Lambrou as quoted by lecture slides Slembrouck 2012).

Apart from dealing with past, present, future and unreal events and from enjoying conversation, storytelling is also important for the process of identity creation. The stories that people choose to tell create identities for themselves and others to orient to (Bowles 2009: 58). Also, people create identities for other people by telling a story about them (lecture slides Slembrouck 2012). This has already been mentioned in the discussion of Goffman; Goffman speaks of “impressions” (Goffman 1990: xi) that people try to control by staging different “performance[s]” (Goffman 1990: 15) in different social situations. Of course, performances are not simply made up of storytelling, but they definitely form an important part of the verbal aspect of performing. “’[N]arrative is elevated to the very thing which guarantees us the ability to have a self, at least as something we perceive as unified and whole’” (Mattingly as quoted by Ochs & Capps 2001: 207). Remember the plot proclivity: by emplotting one’s life one makes it more whole, temporally and causally linear, and comprehensible. Mattingly also points out that this emplotment is rarely satisfactory; narrative is some kind of “’trickster, a rhetorical ploy by which we disguise the genuine nature of ourselves – as splintered and discontinuous’” (ibid.). This means that, indeed, storytelling is very much necessary to give people an identity. Aside from creating an identity, stories are also told to represent an evolution in someone’s identity. These stories are commonly structured “around a turning point” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 215). “First I was ..., now I am ...” is the basic structure of this kind of story, and it once again illustrates the importance of storytelling for individual identities. That people use narratives to create identities for themselves also means that they can create credible identities for themselves in this way. This and other ways in which people can use talk to create credibility are discussed in the chapter on credibility.

3. Broadcast talk

3.1 Broadcast talk

As mentioned earlier, Sacks et al. indicated that all talk-in-interaction may be situated on a continuum ranging from ‘conversation’ to ‘ceremony’ (1974: 729 – 730). ‘Ceremony’ and all types of talk between ‘ceremony’ and ‘conversation’ are transformations of the conversational type of talk-in-interaction, for which Sacks et al. established a list containing fourteen “grossly apparent facts” (1974: 700). Institutional talk is a kind of talk that has undergone such transformations. In other words, everyday conversation is seen as the prototype of talk as it is studied by CA, and institutional talk diverges from this prototype in some way. As far as CA is concerned, what characterizes interaction as institutional is to do not with theories of social structure, as in most sociology, but with the special character of speech exchange systems to which participants can be found to orient themselves. (Hutchby 2006: 25) Taking institutional talk into consideration, then, is CA’s way of including broader situational contexts, which it is often accused of ignoring, into account (Hutchby 2006: 24). In institutional talk, “the full scope of conversational practices” (Hutchby 2006: 25) has been “selectively reduc[ed] or otherwise transform[ed] [...], concentrating on some and withholding others” (ibid.), and “participants can be seen to display an orientation to specialized, non-conversational or ‘institutional’ contexts” (ibid.). Broadcast talk, or “talk on radio and television” (Hutchby 2006: 18) is a type of institutional talk, characterized by “three key distinguishing features” (ibid.). These are: - Broadcast talk adopts elements of everyday conversation as part of its overarching communicative ethos; - Broadcast talk is nevertheless different from ordinary conversation by virtue of being an institutional form of discourse that exists at the interface between public and private domains of life (e.g. the studio settings in which the talk is produced and the domestic settings in which it is received);

- Broadcast talk is a specific type of institutional discourse because it is directed at an ‘overhearing’ audience3 separated from the talk’s site of production by space and also, frequently, by time. (ibid.) These three aspects are also outlined by Tolson (2001a: 27). He adds that broadcast talk “is always oriented to an ‘overhearing audience’ whether or not a studio audience is present” (Tolson 2001a: 29). According to Goffman’s definitions, this overhearing audience can be seen as a “weakened addressee” (Slembrouck 2009: 48), or as consisting of “ratified overhearers” (ibid.). Meyerhoff would call the members of the audience “auditors” (2010: 43). All these labels basically mean to say that broadcast talk is intended for the audience, but the host and his guests/interviewees talk to each other and are each other’s primary addressees. The audience members become “ratified primary addressees” (Slembrouck 2009: 52) as soon as a show is broadcast. “Television programmes remain incomplete until they have been broadcast and watched” (ibid.), and for radio programmes it is equally true that they remain incomplete until they have been broadcast and listened to. Tolson remarks that because of this, “that talk is always, in a general sense, performed” (2001a: 29). This last comment is perhaps redundant, as Goffman already pointed out that interaction is always performed, whether the audience is an overhearing one or not. Tolson points out, though, that “if that talk is to be performed in ways that are acceptable to the audience, [...] the production of speech genres must be judged both in terms of their appropriateness for the immediate context and for the intended audience” (ibid.). Speech genres include “stories, jokes, sales talk, etc.” (Bakhtin as quoted by Tolson 2001a: 29). Broadcast talk is thus a form of institutional talk. In some ways it is similar to everyday conversation but in other ways it is a transformation of conversation. It is performed and destined for an overhearing audience.

3 Hutchby takes issue with the term ‘overhearing audience’. He feels that this term makes it appear too much as if the audience is one unified group that more or less accidentally heard what broadcasters were saying, rather than a differentiated group of individuals who are actually addressed by the talk that is broadcast (2006: 14). He therefore proposes to use the term ‘distributed recipients’ instead (ibid.). However, Hutchby later returns to the term ‘overhearing audiences’. As most authors use this term, this is the one that will be used here as well.

3.2 Studio Brussel’s Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone as kinds of broadcast talk

The talk that is produced on Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone is, obviously, broadcast talk. Both radio shows share characteristics with radio phone- ins, talk shows and news interviews. Turn-taking in news interview, for instance, is characterized by a dichotomy between interviewer and interviewee. The interviewer, typically a journalist, “seeks to elicit information [...] for the benefit of a radio or television audience” (Greatbatch 1988: 403). This dichotomy means that in terms of turn-taking organization, participants may take up one of two interactionally available roles: that of interviewer (IR), or that of interviewee (IE) (Greatbatch 1988: 404). These are “institutional identities” (ibid.), and “the incumbents of these roles should confine themselves to asking questions and providing answers, respectively” (ibid.). So far the news interview is similar to the talk occurring in Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, even though the nature of the information that is elicited is, of course, rather different. Greatbatch further specifies the news interview as an interaction between interviewers and interviewees by giving a list of seven “important ramifications for [its] organisation” (ibid.). These ramifications are: 1. IRs and IEs systematically confine themselves to producing turns that are at least minimally recognisable as questions and answers, respectively. 2. IRs systematically withhold a range of responses that are routinely produced by questioners in mundane conversation. 3a. Although IRs regularly produce statement turn components, these are normally issued prior to the production of questioning turn components. 3b. IEs routinely treat IR’s statement turns as preliminaries to questioning turn components. 4. The allocation of turns in multiparty interviews is ordinarily managed by IRs. 5. Interviews are overwhelmingly opened by IRs. 6. Interviews are customarily closed by IRs. 7. Departures from the standard question-answer format are frequently attended to as accountable and are characteristically repaired. (Greatbatch 1988: 404)

As is explained in the following chapters, number one and consequently also number seven are only partly true for both Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone; interviewers and interviewees usually confine themselves to producing questions and answers, but sometimes departures from this format are produced that do not show explicit accountability. In other words, the confinement that is stipulated in number one and the accountability and the repair of number seven are present in Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, but not as systematic, frequent or characteristic as Greatbatch notices that these elements are in news interviews. Number two is not true for both Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, and number four is not true for Papa Was A Rolling Stone. The following chapters discuss this in greater detail. What characterizes radio phone-ins is, evidently, that “[p]eople call in to [these] programmes” (Thornborrow 2001c: 119). Consequentially, “[a] radio phone-in programme constitutes an occasion for lay participation in a mediated event” (Thornborrow 2001c: 120 – 121). Even though radio phone-ins are also organized around questioners and answerers (Thornborrow 2001c: 119), they do not fulfil the roles of interviewer and interviewee; rather, they are those of host and caller. The caller is normally the lay participant, calling the programme “to give opinions, to get advice, and often to ask questions” (ibid.). In the analysis of radio phone-ins and talk shows, lay participants are contrasted with experts that also may appear on the show, especially if that show aims to give advice or answer lay participants’ questions. Lay participants are defined as “ordinary members of the public” (Thornborrow 2001b: 461) and experts as “hav[ing] an institutionally inscribed, professional area of expertise attributed to them” (ibid.). Lay participants, experts and (the) host(s) together make up the possible participants of radio phone-ins and talk shows. However, in the Studio Brussel data, these three different participants are never present on the same show. More information about this will be provided in the chapter on power. Hutchby refers to the roles of questioner and answerer as the interactional first and second position, and remarks on the asymmetry between these two positions (2006: 90). The aspect of asymmetry will be returned to in the chapter about power. Like in the news interview, first and second position are usually taken up by interactants who continue to interact in first, respectively second position throughout the largest part of the interaction. In practice, this means that the host manages the

56 show and that the caller only has a limited set of possible actions to undertake in his or her turns (Thornborrow 2001c: 121). The very beginning of the call, for instance, already limits the caller’s conversational options: a caller in an everyday telephone conversation usually has the right to initiate the first topic that will be dealt with in the conversation, but in radio phone-ins, the host quickly moves into this topic initiator position (Thornborrow 2001c: 126). Dream Team is not a radio phone-in simply because listeners do not call in to it. Instead, they fill in a form on Studio Brussel’s website, and the host makes his selection based on the information that listeners send in. After this selection, it is the host that calls the listener instead of the other way around; and even then the call is not as spontaneous as it is in radio phone-ins, because the call takes place at a prearranged date. Also, “callers” never call to ask for advice, and there is never a third, expert party in the conversation. However, it is useful to compare radio phone-ins with Dream Team, because the interactional work that participants undertake to negotiate first and second positions is very similar. Also true for Dream Team is that lay participants become part of a mediated event, managed by the host. Papa Was A Rolling Stone does not involve telephone conversations and it is therefore not relevant to compare this to the general characteristics of radio phone-ins. Lastly, the talk show is a kind of broadcast talk that also draws upon elements from the news interview (Hutchby 2006: 4). Like talk in radio phone-ins, it sounds more conversational than news interviews (Hutchby 2006: 27, Thornborrow 2001c: 120), yet it is still clearly institutional (Hutchby 2006: 27). Also like in radio phone-ins, talk shows give “members of the public [...] the opportunity to speak on issues and events in their own voices” (Hutchby 2006: 81). These lay participants, as mentioned above, are contrasted with experts who may also appear on the show, and the host manages the show. Unlike callers to phone-in programmes, however, lay participants on talk shows have the advantage of being physically co-present with the host and possible experts or other lay participants that make an appearance on the show (Thornborrow 2001b: 462). This is an advantage because it gives the lay participants more opportunities to shape or change the way in which the talk is set up, rather than calling up and participating in an ongoing, already established framework (Hutchby 2006: 100). Also, the sound quality of the speech of physically co-present lay participants is equal to that of the host and potentially present experts, instead of inferior as it is in radio phone-ins (ibid.). Why lay participants take part in

57 talk shows is also slightly different from radio phone-ins. Rather than calling in “to give opinions, to get advice, and often to ask questions” (Thornborrow 2001c: 119), lay participants take part in talk shows to “present their personal experiences, construct their positions within a debate, and argue their points of view” (Thornborrow 2001a: 117). In order to achieve this, lay participants produce narratives, “personal experience narratives [...] from brief anecdotes to personal accounts and reports” (ibid.). These stories are always “locally produced and designed for the audience of the moment” (Thornborrow 2001a: 118). As will be explained in the following chapter, tellers of stories negotiate space to tell their story in a conversation, and there may be other tellers contributing to different degrees to the telling of the story (Ochs & Capps 20). In talk shows, the host often functions as some kind of co-teller (Thornborrow 2001a: 120). The stories that a lay participant tells on a talk show are already familiar to the host before the actual broadcast, or recording in case the show is not broadcast live, takes place (ibid.). Lay participants, then, produce stories for the overhearing audience rather than for their direct, co-present audience. The role of the host is to secure a narrative slot for the lay participant, and to elicit the telling of a story to fill that slot “at relevant moments” (ibid.). The narratives that lay participants produce are thus “elicited narratives” (ibid.). Thornborrow notes that there are different ways in which a host may move his or her guest to tell a particular narrative (2001a: 120 – 121). Like an interviewer looking to elicit information from an interviewee, however, these ways are usually questions or statements that are understood as questions (Greatbatch 1988: 404, Thornborrow 2001a: 124). The host may “[take] on the role of narrator” (Thornborrow 2001a: 122) if guests hesitate to start telling a story (ibid.), but also when guests are telling their stories (ibid.). The host may also let guests do all or most of the talking (ibid). In other words, the host can either push lay participants to “[tell] [their] own story” (ibid.) or put him- or herself in a position of “coproduction of stories” (Thornborrow 2001a: 130). Either way, the lay participant who produces a “narrativization of lay experience” (Thornborrow 2001a: 136) is given “a public voice” (ibid.), but their experience is also “transform[ed] [...] into a public performance” (ibid.); “host-elicited stories come to be produced as performed narratives within their mediated context” (Thornborrow 2001a: 136 – 137). Both Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone are very similar to the talk show: in both programmes, the host incites the other participants to tell stories. On Dream Team, these other participants are very obviously lay participants that have been

58 given a public voice and whose narrativized experiences become a public performance. The status of the participants on Papa Was A Rolling Stone is more ambiguous, though. As they are local celebrities that are supposed to be specialists in music, one would be most likely to attribute them the status of experts. The introduction at the beginning of each episode certainly puts them in that position; Thornborrow indicates that “experts [...] are identified according to that status before they start to talk” (2001b: 462). However, as experts are understood to often “[speak] in defence of ‘expertise’ or ‘the profession’” (Livingstone & Lunt as quoted by Tolson 2001a: 17), Livingstone and Lunt conclude that “experts speak for others” (ibid.). In Papa Was A Rolling Stone, what the guests say is not contrasted with what lay participants say, as there simply are no lay participants present, and the guests do speak for themselves. Therefore, speaking of the Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants as experts is not entirely in accordance with the actual situation. However, as will become clear in the general overview and certainly in the discussion of credibility on Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the guests often do act and talk like experts. For that reason it is probably best to consider them ‘experts talking for themselves’. The guests’ more ambiguous status does not change the fact that the host still elicits their stories of personal experience, and that the telling of these stories becomes a public performance.

This chapter has provided a short introduction to institutional talk in general, and a lengthier one to broadcast talk as a kind of institutional discourse. Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone are both programmes that share some characteristics with other kinds of broadcast talk, namely news interviews, radio phone-in programmes, and talk shows. Some of these aspects have been discussed, and their relevance for the Studio Brussel shows has been pointed out. The following chapters will give a general overview of the typical structural organization of Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Some of the points made above will be dealt with more specifically and the chapter will give a more detailed description of the particularities of both shows. In the chapter after that, it will be discussed how participants in broadcast talk in general and Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone in particular can create credible, authentic identities for themselves. Some of the resources that participants have to do this have already been mentioned, such as host introduction and the production of personal narratives.

4. General Overviews

4.1 Dream Team

4.1.1 Context

Every morning on weekdays, Dream Team is a section of Music@Work, a radio programme on Studio Brussel usually hosted by Christophe Lambrecht. According to Stubru.be, the point of Dream Team is to have listeners send in a list containing their five ultimate songs (stubru.be). These listeners may subsequently be called during the show and asked to explain why these songs are special to them and why they should be played on the radio. Out of the five songs the listeners send in, three songs are selected. One of these is played before the phone call and two are played afterwards. The listener’s choice to be on the programme is a very conscious one. They will presumably have heard a few Dream Teams on the radio, and on the basis thereof they will have decided that they, too, would like to do this. Listeners wanting to have their Dream Team played on the radio have to fill on a form on the radio station’s website. Apart from five songs of their choice, listeners are asked (but this field on the form is not obligatory) to provide some additional personal information and a motivation of their choice. Furthermore, an email address and of course a telephone number are required before the list can be sent in. The website does not guarantee the listener will be called to appear on the show. Above all, Lambrecht looks for an interesting musical mix (email Lambrecht 2011). Someone who does not provide any additional information at all may still be called. On the other hand, someone who writes a very strong motivational letter but does not choose songs that comply with what the host sees as ‘an interesting musical mix’ is likely not to be called at all. However, the listeners’ motivations should not be neglected entirely; sometimes, the show’s host calls people for instance because it is their birthday, as in the first example, or because they are going to have a baby, as in the second example.

[1] (from 17/11):

Host Pascal (.) .hh jij hebt een hele goeie reden (.) om (.) drie platen te kiezen in het Dream Team (.) vertel Ca da klopt (.) → eu:h mijn vriendin Romy is vandaag verjaard Host ja → Ca en: morgen verjaart euh onze:: zoon de eerste verjaardag

[2] (from 28/10): Host ja (.) .hh goed en je wil muziek (.) of je hebt muziek gekozen (.) ook → m m m ja ’t heeft wat met je zwangerschap te maken toch leg ‘s uit Ca ja euh klopt dus eu::h (.) in: (.) ik ga bevallen in Sint Jozef in Mortsel en daar hebt ge in de verloskamer (.) euhm (0.9) een eu:h (.) ja een cd-speler dus je mag eigenlijk zelf muziek meebrengen

If it is decided that a listener’s Dream Team will be played on the radio, that person is first called by the host. They then have the chance to confirm or to cancel, and host and listener agree on a date and a time. Listeners take the initiative to be on the show, but if they change their mind about making a radio appearance, they can still pull out. Not one interviewee on Dream Team is there because of a sudden impulse to call the radio and give them a piece of their mind. During that second call, the host, who is in the radio studio, asks questions to a listener, who is on the phone and may be anywhere. The Dream Team framework

62 is thus that of a radio interview4, with the host asking a lay participant, who is on the phone, questions about his or her song selection. As mentioned in the chapter on broadcast talk, the talk that is produced in these frameworks talk “is always oriented to an ‘overhearing audience’” (Tolson 2001a: 29). What follows here is a general overview of how the conversations in the Dream Team frameworks are typically organized with recurrent elements.

4.1.2 The show’s course

A first observation about the Dream Team conversations is that they all follow a certain pattern. The entire Dream Team follows this pattern:

Song 1 Dream Team jingle Conversation opening Discussion of song 1 Discussion of song 2 Discussion of song 3 Closing Dream Team jingle Song 2 Song 3 (Host comments)

The conversations themselves are set up like this:

Opening Greeting/greeting (host/interviewee) Discussion of song 1 Question/expected answer and/or assessment/agreement (host/interviewee)

4 See the chapter on broadcast talk for a discussion of Dream Team as a radio programme that shares characteristics with the news interview, the talk show and the radio phone-in.

Discussion of song 2 Question/expected answer and/or assessment/agreement (host/interviewee) Discussion of song 3 Question/expected answer and/or assessment/agreement (host/interviewee) Closing Host announces songs 2 and 3 Thanks/thanks and/or greeting/greeting (host/interviewee and/or interviewee/host)

As appears from the first diagram, the conversations are always preceded and concluded by the Dream Team jingle. After the jingle, the host always takes the first turn in the conversation. He5 greets his interviewee and is greeted by them in return. After this reciprocal greeting, the host may introduce the interviewee or allow the interviewee to introduce themselves at length (extract [3]), or hardly at all (extract [4]).

[3] (from 25/10):

Host Thomas De Smet Thomas goeiemorge Ca goeiemorgen Host Thomas je bent werkstudent? Ca ja hh Host dat betekent dat je de twee combineert? Ca euh (.) ja da probeer ik toch Host wat doe je dan precies? Ca euhm ik volg een::

5 The host is mostly referred to as ‘he’ in this text, because as mentioned, Christophe Lambrecht is usually the host of the show. He is sometimes replaced by a female host, Leen De Ridder, who is his ‘sidekick’ on regular days and whose on air activity is usually limited to reading the traffic reports. The host will only be referred to as ‘she’ in the discussion of particular instances in which Leen De Ridder is the host.

ik volg Europese studies aan d’ unief van Gent Host [ja Ca [en ik werk tegelijk euhm: ben ik ook leerkracht (.) in een middelbare school Host aah ok welke vakken geef je? Ca euh alleen maar economie Host ja en euh studenten van hoe of of euh leerlingen hoe oud zijn ze ongeveer? Ca euhm tussen vijftien en achttien Host en dat valt mee? Ca .hh ja da valt mee [joa de een dag al meer dan de ander natuurlijk Host [hehehehehe ja ‘t zal wel [‘t zal wel .hh Ca [maar (.) over ‘t algemeen wel Host ja goed Queen en David Bowie Thomas In this example, the host and the interviewee exchange greetings. Then, the host starts asking questions about the interviewee’s professional background. In replying to the host’s questions, the interviewee provides a relatively elaborate introduction of himself, focusing on his professional activities. It takes some time before the host begins the discussion of song one.

[4] (from 07/11):

Host Hans Strackx Hans goeiemorgen Ca (1.1) goeiemorgen Christophe → Host Hans (.) The Smiths (0.5) een [classic Ca [ja Host How Soon Is Now .hhh euhm waarom dat nummer

en waarom The Smiths Hans In this fragment, nothing is said about the interviewee’s background, unlike in the previous fragment. After the reciprocal greetings, the host initiates the discussion of the first song straightaway.

In case of a lengthy introduction, this may or may not be relevant to the discussion of the interviewee’s choice of music. After the greeting or the introduction, the host starts asking questions about the interviewee’s choice (cf. supra example [4]). These questions may be formulated as actual questions or as statements (assessments). The interviewee usually responds to the questions and assessments with a preferred second: an affirmative or at least expected answer (extract [5]), an agreement (extracts [6] and [7]).

[5] (from 20/10):

Host het was een leuk feest (.) na Nick Cave? → Ca het was een (.) super leuk [feest ja

[6] (from 26/10):

Host hehhh hja want het zijn je zegt het zelf euh een Belgische openingsdans maar ‘t zijn sowieso ook allemaal Belgische platen [in je Dream Team → Ca [ja klopt ja ja

[7] (from 07/11):

Host [euhm ja (.) maar een scheet in een fles is achteraf gebleken he (.) toch

→ Ca inderdaad

In his questions or statements, the host usually mentions the full title of the selected song, as well as the artist’s name. This is for the interviewee’s sake as much as the audience’s, because the interviewee does not know which of their songs have been chosen to be played. The question/answer or statement/agreement-pattern can be purposely suspended when the host directs himself at the overhearing audience (general orientation, extract [8]) or very specifically at the interviewee (extract [9]), or when the interviewee oversteps the boundaries of their narrative turn (extract [10]). Usually these suspensions are short and both host and interviewee return to the interview pattern without much trouble.

[8] (from 20/10):

Host =heb je ‘m ooit live gezien? Ca (1.7) eu::hm da denk ik ni Host nee Ca nee → Host vraag mij ineens ook af of ‘ie ooit in België is geweest → als mensen dat weten laat het [effe Ca [ja → Host (.) weten → Ca ik heb er geen idee van Host ja ja stuur ‘s effe (.) een berichtje → ma ‘t is goeie muziek he ‘t blijft ‘t is tijdloos en het blijft overeind The host asks the interviewee if she has ever seen Elvis Presley live. When she replies that she has not, the interviewee wonders if Presley has ever performed in Belgium. He subsequently directs himself at the overhearing audience and asks if anyone knows the answer, thereby suspending the interview pattern. Note that the interviewee does provide an answer, even though she is not personally addressed here. The host restores the interview pattern when he produces an assessment that

67 is clearly addressed at the interviewee. The suspension was short and the host ended it without any difficulty.

[9] (from 28/10):

Host ja (.) .hh goed en je wil muziek (.) of je hebt muziek gekozen (.) ook m m m ja ’t heeft wat met je zwangerschap te maken toch leg ‘s uit Ca ja euh klopt dus eu::h (.) in: (.) ik ga bevallen in Sint Jozef in Mortsel en daar hebt ge in de verloskamer (.) euhm (0.9) een eu:h (.) ja een cd-speler dus je mag eigenlijk zelf muziek meebrengen Host hmhm Ca .hh en euhm (.) daarom was ik dus beginnen nadenken welke muziek ik graag wou (.) euh laten spelen omda da toch wel een heel belangrijk moment is [maar Host [hm Ca ni alleen da dus (.) euh blijkbaar heeft muziek voor de geboorte ook een heel .hh goeie invloed op u kind hh dus euh dan ben ik ook beginne nadenke van:: misschien kan ik al wa cds op voorhand maken die ik dan ook al in de auto of thuis ne keer kan afspele hh [( ) → Host [en weet je dat dat echt werkt (.) Kathleen? → ik [kan d’r over meespreken

Ca [euh nee da [weet ik ni zeker Host [ja echt wel (.) [echt wel Ca [JA? Host er was een cd’tje (.) euh toen mijn eerste dochter is geboren een cd’tje dat we daarvoor (.) dus tijdens de zwangerschap hebben afgespeeld en als ze onrustig was (.) toen het kindje er was he Ca ja ja= Host =hielp dat echt waar Ca [ah (.) allez hhh […] → Host .hh dus daarom bijvoorbeeld ook Nick Cave (.) en the Bad Seeds (.) In this example, the interviewee provides a long story about her selected songs. She is soon to be a mother and has heard that playing music to an unborn child will in some way benefit the child, and she explains that she plans to have music playing in the delivery room as well. This story is provided in reply to the host’s question and serves to legitimize the interviewee’s song selection. It is directed to the host and to the overhearing audience. The host then suspends the interview system: he personally addresses the interviewee, and instead of asking the next question, he provides a story himself. The radio interview temporarily sounds more like a very personal private conversation between two friends. Shortly after suspending the interview pattern, the host restores it by initiating talk on a new topic, the next selected song.

[10] (from 09/11):

Ca een euh voorstelling van euh een boek (.) euh met betrekking tot het euh bestaan van het negenhonderdjarig euh Heule Host ja

Ca en euh ook euh (.) een: eh Highland games (.) in de namiddag → Host ok= Ca =dus waarin de verenigingen euh (.) elkaar bekampen → Host ok ik wens jullie veel plezier (.) dit [weekend in Heule Ca [bedankt → Host en [nu nog Fun Loving Criminals en Billy Joel In this example, the interviewee has just recounted how he used to dance to certain songs at parties in his village. He suspends the statement/agreement pattern when he sees an opportunity to promote festivities which will take place in his village that weekend. He oversteps his turn space in doing so, because according to his role as an interviewee, he is expected to answer questions. Initiating new topics is expected to be the interviewer’s, i.e. the host’s, task. In this case, the host allows the interviewee to speak for a short moment, but then takes steps to return to the interview pattern. This can be seen in the indicated turns: the host makes a first attempt to close this topic by saying “ok”, which according to Liddicoat is an often used pre-closing first pair part (2007: 257 - 258). The interviewee, however, moves out of closing by speaking right after the host’s “ok” (Liddicoat 2007: 266). The host attempts for a second time to close this topic and produces another “ok”, announcing closure again. This “ok” is followed by a solicitude (Liddicoat 2007: 274). Liddicoat indicates that a solicitude is a typical utterance to move out of closure, but he also writes that the next speaker can be expected to produce “a minimal turn accepting the solicitude” (ibid.). The host anticipates that the interviewee will indeed produce such an utterance, which he does: “Bedankt”. This ensures that the interviewee will no longer be able to speak of the festivities in his village, and so closure is achieved. The last turn shows that the host has managed to return to the interview pattern.

Interviewee-initiated suspensions such as the above are very rare, and in these cases, the host gives the interviewee some form of permission to temporarily break the pattern:

[12] (from 09/11):

Ca wij vieren het negenhonderdjarige bestaan van onze gemeente Host ok (.) en wat gebeurt er allemaal (.) kort (.) Pieter

The host, on the other hand, never asks his interviewees for permission( cf. extract [8]). Suspensions may also be accidental, in which case the host addresses the breakdown of the pattern and restores order (extract [12]).

[12] (from 07/11):

→ Ca [((geblaat)) Host ja (.) ja (.) → wat hoor ik? Ca eu:h ’n berichtje (.) m’n ontvangstgeluid Host ahh hahaha[haha Ca [iemand die waarschijnlijk mij (.) mij hoort op de radio (.) [en ja Host [hhhja (.) hahahjah (.) leuke ringtone is dat da’s een euh e- een geitje (1.0) eh? Ca ah eh mm da kan mm da kan (.) [‘k weet ’t niet Host [ja haja kee → [.hhh goed Ca [ ( )

Host we luisteren naar nog naar Joy Division en euh Oasis

Interviewees mostly, but not always, legitimize their song choices by witnessing (Hutchby 2006: 83). “’[W]itnessing’ moves” (ibid.) are moves by which interviewees “[make] claims to personal knowledge, personal experience, direct perceptual access, or categorical membership in respect of an event or topic under discussion” (ibid.) and which allows them to “justif[y] [...] claim[s] to authentic speakership” (ibid.). This is more elaborately discussed in the chapter on credibility. The interviewees’ choices depend for a great deal on memories related to or some kind of emotional significance of that particular music. The interviewees provide a story in which this emotional significance is related and their choice is explained in greater detail. The host usually does not tell the story himself, even though he knows at least part of it already. He restricts himself to prompting the interviewees to tell their stories (extract [13]), acting as a “story elicitor” (Thornborrow 2001a: 132). The host may provide part of the story, after which the interviewee will ratify the host’s input and continue the story. Mostly, the interviewees understand when they are being prompted to tell something, and that they should keep talking for a while even though the host does not encourage them further. That interviewees understand this is because of Grice’s cooperative principle, that consists of four conversational maxims; that of quantity is the maxim that deals with expectations about how much, and thus for how long, someone should speak (Tolson 2001a: 29, Jeffries & McIntyre 2010: 105)6. Also, Hutchby notes that “unplanned lapses in the stream of broadcast sound” (2006: 3) are very “noticeable” (ibid.), and broadcasters usually do anything to prevent prolonged silences. It is therefore not surprising that when interviewees talk too much or too little, the host steps in (extract [14]).

6 The maxim of quantity actually states that participants’ contributions should be “as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange)” (Jeffries & McIntyre 2010: 105) and “not […] more informative than is required” (ibid.). They point out that it is typical for interviewees to not “observe the maxim of quantity, since one of the aims of this particular activity type is to convey as much information about oneself as possible” (Jeffries & McIntyre 2010: 109). However, as this is the aim of an interviewee, it could be said that interviewees do observe the maxim of quantity; they make their contribution as informative as is required for the interview situation.

[13] (from 28/10):

Host hoe gaat het met jou Kathleen Ca ja goed (.) heel goed (.) danku Host want (.) → zeg het zelf maar [Kathleen

[14] (from 08/11):

Host ja .hh Foo Fighters kies je ook → (1.2) met Wheels → Ca (1.3) ja Host waarom (.) Koen? This is an example of an interviewee who talks too little. When the interviewee does not respond immediately to the host’s statement about choosing a Foo Fighters song, the host goes on to name the song. Even then it takes a long time before the interviewee replies, and when he does, his answer is so short that the host has to ask another question to get him to talk.

During the conversation, responsive turns (Greatbatch 1988: 406) are produced by the host. Because usually some of the information that the interviewee provides is new to the host (as all the information is to the audience), the host uses responsive turns to (re)mark (upon) this and to keep the conversation going. However, the production of responsive turns is restricted mostly to the introduction. Continuers (Greatbatch 1998: 411) are also produced by the host, but sometimes ambiguously. During the actual discussion of the songs, what could be described as continuers or responsive turns in everyday conversation are used by the host to facilitate the transition to the next phase (next question, next song or closing). The form that is used most often to accomplish this is “ja”.

[15] (from 03/11):

Ca maar op een gegeven moment vielen er zo’n hagelbollen op de apparatuur (0.8) ze moesten gewoon weggaan → Host ja (.) .hh en euh ja verder is de de:: (.) te zeggen de rode draad doorheen jouw Dream Team vandaag

The host leads the conversation towards its closing by announcing songs two and three. He often does this indirectly, and may do so in a variety of ways, as can be seen in extracts [16] and [17]. The conversation is typically ended with a form of thanks and/or goodbye coming from the host, the interviewee or both (cf. examples [16] and [17]). The Dream Team jingle, which often starts while interviewees are still voicing their goodbyes (cf. example [16]), makes the ending of the conversation explicit and irrevocable.

[16] (from 25/10):

Host ok perfect ik wens je ‘n fijne dag → maar geniet eerst nog maar van Adele en The Human League Ca ok ( ) bedankt [( ) Host [dag Tho[mas Ca [daag Host tot ziens → Ca [( ) → Jingle [het Dream Team Studio Brussel The host announces closure (Liddicoat 2007: 259) by wishing the interviewee a pleasant day, and by telling them to enjoy the remaining two songs of their selection. The latter simultaneously serves as an announcement of songs two and three. The final jingle is started when the interviewee is still speaking. He probably wants to

74 complete the second greeting/greeting adjacency pair, but the beginning of the jingle drowns out his speech and the conversation is ended.

[17] (from 07/11):

Host we luisteren naar nog naar Joy Division en euh Oasis Hans [bedankt voor je:: (.) straffe keuzes Ca [( ) Host [en tot binnenkort Ca [ok Host [dag Hans Ca [( ) dag Christophe [bedankt Host [bye= Jingle =het Dream Team Studio Brussel Closure is not announced as explicitly in this example as in the previous one. Songs two and three are announced in the form of a first person plural imperative. It only becomes apparent afterwards that the conversation is moving towards closure, when the host thanks his interviewee for his selection and tells him “see you soon”. The greeting/greeting adjacency pair is produced and the interviewee thanks the host. In this example, the jingle is not started while the interviewee is still speaking, but immediately after the host’s final goodbye. The jingle again solidifies the end of the conversation.

After the jingle songs 2 and 3 are played, song 2 straight after song 3, and when song 3 is finished the host may give some final comments on the recently played songs and the preceding Dream Team conversation. These comments will not be taken into consideration here, because they are no part of the actual conversations.7

7 They can be categorized as utterances following songs, which are often produced by radio hosts to clarify (again) for the audience which song was just played. There is a wide variation among these utterances because hosts want to avoid repetitiveness.

4.2 Papa Was A Rolling Stone

4.2.1 Context

Papa Was A Rolling Stone is a radio programme aired on Studio Brussel. Ten episodes were broadcast in the autumn of 2011, on Sunday afternoons between twelve and one o’clock. Because of technical issues, however, only nine episodes are taken into consideration here. The show’s first season was hosted by Otto-Jan Ham. Currently, no new episodes are being broadcast. All episodes are Dutch- spoken except for that with Gabriel Rios and his father Raúl. Raúl is Puerto Rican and does not speak Dutch. The design of the show is to have two guests, a father and his child, talk about their taste in music and how they influenced each other in this. The Papa Was A Rolling Stone is, like that of Dream Team, a radio interview8, with the host asking two physically co-present guests questions. At least one of these two guests is a local celebrity (a so-called ‘Bekende Vlaming’) and will have (had) something to do with music during their career. This will be mentioned during the show, but the conversation will usually not focus on the guests’ (musical) merits, even when they are musicians themselves. Who appears on the show is probably selected by Otto- Jan Ham and the radio channel’s crew9. Guests make a conscious decision to be on

8 See the chapter on broadcast talk for a discussion of Papa Was A Rolling Stone as a radio programme that shares characteristics with the news interview and the talk show. 9 Why certain guests are selected is never explicitly mentioned on the show. However, since all guest pairs include at least one person who is in some way professionally involved in music, this is likely an important criterium. That more than one person (the host) deals with selecting and researching the guests became clear when the host spoke about “we” when talking to Guy and Lee Swinnen: (from Guy & Lee Swinnen) Host ik zat ik zat te denken van euh Guy Brian Eno Host ja inderdaad en dan Mick daar kunnen w’ook wel euh genoeg M- eh bekende Micks → en dan vroegen wij .hh ons af welke welke naar welke Lee je zou vernoemd zijn In “en dan vroegen wij ons af naar welke Lee je zou vernoemd zijn”, it is obvious that this ‘we’ does not refer to the host and his guests. From this it can be inferred that the host and at least one other person have researched their guests before they came to the studio.

76 the radio, because even though it is not clear if the process they have gone through before making their radio appearance is similar to the one preceding Dream Team appearances, they have to be physically present in the radio studio. The broadcast appears to be live, because both the host and his guests frequently show that they are aware of the setting of their conversation: a Sunday afternoon radio programme on Studio Brussel.

[1] (from Bart & Nona Peeters):

Host Karma Police (.) van Radiohead (.) voor Bart Peeters Bart jij ook f:: van harte euh welkom hier in de studio Bart dag Otto-Jan → Host prachtige zondag (.)

References made by both host and guests to conversations they had before the show started reinforce this impression.

[2] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen):

Guy da moet in dezelfde periode geweest zijn (.) → eu:::h w’ ‘ebben d’r daarstraks euh as- toen we naar hier reden nog efkes over gebabbeld .hh dat was euh we zijn naar de Rolling Stones gaan kijken in Werchter (.)

Nonetheless, there may be a gap between the time of production and the time of broadcast of the show. The show may be recorded beforehand in its entirety, or its broadcast may be delayed a little to enable minor editing. The tone of the show is overwhelmingly light and humorous. Which music is played on the show seems to be decided through a complex system of selection. The general idea is that father and child choose songs they can link to a shared history. These (hi)stories are elicited by the host, who asks

77 questions. These questions are more or less the same on each show, and are asked in more or less the same order. The host always first asks his younger guest which song is a particular favourite of his or her father. He then usually asks which songs or artists the ‘child guest’ has come to love as a result of the father’s influence, and vice versa. The host wants to know if father and child have been to many concerts together, and if so, what their opinions about these concerts were. When the guests are musicians they are also asked if they ever performed together. The host also asks if there are any songs or artists which the ‘father guest’ likes very much but his child does not, and vice versa. The show comes to an end when the host asks his guests which song they are both very fond of. In total, nine songs are played on the show. The process of song selection is not simply one of ‘guests who are asked questions and choose songs’, though. The host and his guests discuss some of the questions that will come up during the show already before the show begins, as extract [3] shows.

[3] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen):

Host hehehe hh hh ( ) je ver- je vertelde dat je euh → of tenminste (.) van tevoren had je gezegd dat je euh vooral (.) vroeger thuis met de koptelefoon naar muziek luisterde

Most of the songs that will be played are also decided on during the preliminary conversation, but not all. At least part of the show’s playlist is thus set before the show starts; guests do select songs in reply to the host’s questions, but this selection is not made during the show. It also frequently occurs that guests have chosen a certain artist in reply to the host’s questions (and they may have done so already before the show’s start), but not a particular song.

[4] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe):

Host we sluiten deze (.) euh (.) gezellige zondagmiddag graag af met een nummer .hh dat

jullie alle twee heel erg goed (.) euh vinden (.) → vlak voor de uitzending hebben jullie geweldig lang zitte:: nadenken want (.) want er zijn zo veel dingen euh die jullie euh wouden horen [eigenlijk Luc [ja […] Host .hhh maar uiteindelijk kwamen jullie terecht bij → Adam Green → ik vond dat een heel [goeie keuze From this excerpt, it becomes apparent that the guests have discussed their song choice during the preliminary conversation: “vlak voor de uitzending”. As the second arrow indicates, they finally selected a certain artist, Adam Green. Since the host does not mention a song title in this turn or in the one that follows, the guests have apparently not selected any song in particular.

In these cases, the host may ask his guests during the show which song they would like to hear, or he may select a song himself. When the show has already started, guests can still debate which songs or artists they would like to hear later on as well. When the actual question is asked, though, the guests have always already decided at least which artist to select (cf. example [2]). They are never speechless or unsure. The guests are able to prepare themselves better than Dream Team interviewees: they know for sure that if they request a song it will be played, and they know what kind of questions will be asked.

4.2.2 The show’s course

The show’s length, the greater number of questions asked, the fact that there are two interviewees instead of one and the greater liberty they are allowed to take with their responses makes it harder to recognize an obvious, fixed pattern in the construction of Papa Was A Rolling Stone. The interactional pattern is more conversational than the one in Dream Team. Because at least one of the guests on Papa Was A Rolling Stone is a celebrity, he or she will have been interviewed several times before. He or

79 she may be expected to take charge of the interview to a certain degree in a way that the Dream Team interviewees never could or would. The first diagram below represents the general proceedings of the programme, while the second provides further information about the show’s turn- taking system. The middle part of the show (songs 2-8 and the discussions about them) differs too greatly during each conversation to be able to specify this any further. Possible scenarios for this part are represented in diagrams 1 - 3 in the text below.

Papa Was A Rolling Stone jingle Introduction by Aris Ham Opening Song 1 Opening (continued) Songs 2 – 8 and discussions Closing Song 9

Opening Greeting/greeting (host/guest1) Host may announce song 1 Song 1 Opening (continued) Greeting/greeting (host/guest2) Songs 2 - 8 and discussions Question/answer/answer Question1/answer1/question1/answer2 Assessment/(dis)agreement Assessment/differentiated agreement ... (host/guest1/(host)/guest2) (see other diagrams) Closing Host announces song 9 No greeting/greeting No thanks/thanks Song 9

The show always starts with the ‘Papa Was A Rolling Stone’-jingle, followed by an introduction by Aris Ham. He is Otto-Jan’s father and explains who will be on the show, provides some background information on each of the guests, and then shortly explains the show’s central theme. After this introduction, the host is the first one to speak. He addresses his ‘child guest’ first: he welcomes them to the show and asks them which song, according to them, their father would like to hear. The guest replies and this song is subsequently played. The host may or may not have repeated the song’s title and/or executing artist by way of announcing the song. The ‘father guest’ is addressed once this first song has finished playing. He exchanges greetings with the host.

[5] (from Bart & Nona Peeters):

→ Host Nona Peeters van harte welkom in de studio laten we de de de:: deze uitzending beginnen met een ode aan je vader een plaat die hij erg graag (.) zal horen wat zal het zijn Nona euh Karma Police van Radiohead (.) please Host [perfecte keuze → [((Karma Police)) Host Karma Police (.) van Radiohead (.) voor Bart Peeters → Bart jij ook f:: van harte euh welkom hier in de studio → Bart dag Otto-Jan The host first welcomes Nona Peeters, daughter of Bart Peeters, to the show. He requests her to select a song that will please her father, and she obliges. After Karma Police has been played, the host welcomes Bart to the show as well. Bart greets the host in return. The host then asks him if it is true that he likes this song, and why this is so. This begins the bulk of the show, in which questions, answers, songs and discussions follow one another. The discussion of a song occurs sometimes before,

81 sometimes after the song is played. Since there are two guests, the adjacency pair of question/answer rarely occurs, as is apparent from diagram 1. A question (host)/answer (guest 1)/answer (guest 2) sequence occurs sometimes. However, the host can still direct his question to only one of the two guests. This often results in a question1/answer1/question1/answer2 sequence, in which the host asks a guest a question and gets a reply, then repeats the question and gets a reply from the other guest. It is also worth noting that in Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the answer that the host gets is less often an expected Diagram 1 answer than it is in Dream Team. The host knows much of what his guests will say beforehand, because they have prepared the show together to a certain extent beforehand. The actual show is never just a repetition of what has already been discussed, though. New information is also provided by the guests, and the host has the time to ask questions to which he does not know the answer already as well. There is room for disagreement with the host’s statements, or for differentiation; instead of “yes” or “no”, the guests can take their time to reply with answers such as “Yes, but ...” and “No! However, ...”. Negative or unexpected replies (dispreferred seconds) Diagram 2 often require a longer elaboration than positive ones. Since there is enough time for this on Papa Was A Rolling Stone, guests can give a differentiated reply. This means that pairings such as assessment/disagreement, assessment/differentiated agreement and question/unexpected answer can occur. Because it is a

82 three-way conversation, however, the enacted sequences will often not be restricted to two-turn pairings. Larger sequences in which the host and both his guests are involved occur as well. As diagrams 2 and 3 show, the host’s questions and assessments can be followed by a number of responses on the guests’ part: guest 1 may agree with the host’s assessment while guest 2 disagrees, guest 1 may disagree while guest 2 partly agrees, guest 1 may produce an answer to a question but guest 2 disagrees with this answer, ... This is illustrated in example [6].

Diagram 3

[6] (from Bart & Nona Peeters):

Host inclusief de hotpants (.) dan ook (.) [heb je die de:: ook euh → Bart [nee (.) nee Host [ah nee dat niet → Bart [want ik ben (.) een (.) zwarte R’n’B zangeres in het diepst van mijn gedachten en dromen Host ja Bart maar ik ben niet zo’n Guido Belcanto die zich dan ook nog per se zo moet gaan [uitdossen Host [met hoge hakken (.) en Bart neu::h neuh neuh → Nona spijtig eigenlijk In this fragment, the guest replies negatively to the host’s question. Admittedly, this question was asked in a joking manner, and the host probably did not expect his interviewee to reply with an affirmative. However, the guest then goes on to explain why his answer is “no”. After repeatedly asserting that he does not dress up as a

83 black R’n’B singer, the daughter confirms that her father does not do this. She expresses her regrets about this without being asked or told anything by the host.

Guests are not only given the chance to give longer and more differentiated replies by the host, but they also have relatively more liberty as far as turn-allocation is concerned. Guests can self-select as the next speaker, regardless of whether or not they are the current speaker. A guest may also select the other guest as the next speaker, as happens in extract [7]. The host, who asks his guests questions and may therefore be expected to occupy the securest position to select the next speaker, is not the exclusive holder of turn-allocation power. When the host does select the next speaker he does so both explicitly and implicitly. To select explicitly means that he addresses the next speaker by their name; to select implicitly means that the host does not name anyone in particular, but that it is clear from the context which guest is addressed.

[7] (from Jan & Ella Leyers):

Jan ze zat toen in Amerika net (.) in in New York (.) eu::h (.) en haar roommate → maar ze kan het misschien beter zelf vertellen Ella Catherine (.) Host hehehe Ella ehehehe (.) uit Nashville, Tennessee oh my god yeah u::hm (0.6) she went to school with them The current speaker, Jan, starts to provide a narrative. Since he has not been part of the experience he is narrating, he feels that his daughter should continue the narrative. The narrative is about a situation she has experienced first-hand. Jan, a guest and the current speaker, selects his daughter, the other guest, as the next speaker.

There is a lot of overlapping speech. Interruptions also occur. These interruptions may, but do not always lead to a departure from the interview turn- taking system. The interview system may be temporarily suspended, for instance when guests take over the role of the interviewer or make general announcements (cf. infra). These suspensions are not breakdowns. They are short and usually permitted by the host. The return to the interview pattern is host-initiated, as it is in extract [8].

[8] (from Bart & Nona Peeters):

Bart ge moet dit nummer (.) That Look You Give That Guy (.) opzoeken op YouTube (.) en dan vooral (.) die (.) die clip die hij heeft gemaakt met die Indiase (.) euh actrice → weet jij dat? Host nee die heb ik niet [dat is nieuw Bart [sjongejongejonge […] .hhh en dat is echt grappig ( ) wete ook omdat dien Eels dus echt ongelooflijk grappig is → Host hij is heel grappig hij komt ook heel cool over op een podium met zijn zonnebril en ‘et [‘et ziet er ook heel erg (.) heel erg (.) mooi uit allemaal he Bart [hhh hahahaha Nona [hehehehe Host en hij houdt er denk ik ook vaak van om

om de mensen ’n beetje op een verkeerd been te zetten mensen verwachten altijd .hh een andere show dan dat ze gaan krijgen bij Eels → heb je z’ al ’s live gezien? In this example, Bart, a guest, starts talking about a video clip. The turn-taking system is temporarily suspended as the guest is no longer responding to a question asked by the host. Instead he is suddenly the one asking the host questions, and the host becomes the interviewee. The host effectuates a return to the original system by responding elaborately to the guest’s second question and affirming that he does indeed know something about this particular artist, and then asking the next question.

The guests’ song selection is explained and authorized through witnessing (Hutchby 2006: 83). On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, father and child witness about how the father influenced his child with regards to musical taste and vice versa. The guests have a relatively large amount of time to provide personal stories. They can focus on the witnessing, unlike the Dream Team interviewees who are often called at work or when occupied with other activities. This illustrates that physical co-presence makes a real difference for the structure and development of the conversation. Even if the Dream Team interviewees do have plenty of time, the host makes sure their conversation lasts no longer than several minutes. Another difference from Dream Team is that two guests can witness about the same matter in Papa Was A Rolling Stone. The host expresses opinions and sometimes does a little witnessing, too. He never produces an extensive story like his guests, though, and what he says is usually related to what is being discussed at that moment. He sometimes uses witnessing to render a lengthier introduction to the next song or topic of discussion (cf. extract [6]). When guests provide a story in reply to a question, the host frequently uses continuers. Responsive turns (Greatbatch 1988: 406) have already been mentioned in the chapter on broadcast talk; like continuers, they are produced by the host, though probably less often than in everyday conversation. The host overwhelmingly uses “ja” as a continuer (cf. example [9]), but this same form is also used by the host

86 to indicate a kind of finality and to facilitate a transition to the next phase in the conversation.

[9] (from Geert & Iwein Segers): Geert maar hij brengt even ge- mooie liedjes eu:hm wat anders natuurlijk eu:h iets minder teksten van Lennaert Nijgh uiteraard want die mens is overleden → Host ja Geert maar euhm (.) nee ik ben::: misschien een paar jaar terug naar een concert geweest twee jaar terug ofzo .hhh en:: ja ik was toch ook van ge- aangedaan en (.) ‘k vind het heel (.) goed wat ‘ie doet en (.) ja (.) brengt een soort rust ook (.) .hh → Host ja Geert ja (.) mooi This is an example of the host’s use of “ja” as a continuer.

It is the host who leads the conversation in a certain direction. He guides the conversation towards the next song, but is remarkably inclusive in doing so. He uses invitational forms such as “laten we” (first person plural imperative) and “zullen we” (first person plural modal verb). “Misschien” is used by the host to hedge; he always asks his guests for approval or confirmation. This is especially, but not exclusively, the case when the host provides part of the guest’s story, which he may do to lead the conversation in a certain direction or to prompt guests to tell a certain story. The guests are asked to ratify the host’s claims; however, the host can be relatively certain that they will do so, because he has already gone through this story with them.

[10] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe):

Host weet je nog welk (.) welk nummer je gedaan hebt toen van Brel? Lenny euh Voir Un Ami Pleurer Host °ah ja ok heel goed° → misschien moeten we daar nog ‘s naar luistere dan In this fragment, the host uses “misschien” as a hedging device to mitigate the verb that follows. “Moeten we” expresses the modality of necessity in the first person plural, but as the host does not mean that it is necessary that Voir Un Ami Pleurer is played, he hedges to soften this expression. Simultaneously, the use of the first person plural serves to include the guests and the overhearing audience in the action for which the modal verb is used: listening to the song. The guests are given the option to disagree, but it is expected that they will agree. The utterance indicated with the arrow can be interpreted as meaning “since we have been talking about this song, it would be appropriate to play it. Let’s listen to it”.

The host uses forms like “later” and “straks” to avoid elaborations (produced by the guests) that would lead the conversation away from the question or discussion at hand.

[11] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe):

Luc ja: ik denk wel allez (.) dat die dat ‘em die plaat nog gekocht heeft [( ) Host [hah (.) → [we gaan daar zeker nog op terugkomen straks Luc [terwijl ik die maar niks vond

During or after a guest’s narrative turn, the host may formulate. He can use formulating as a continuer. He can also formulate as a means to summarize what has just been said and to facilitate the transition to the next topic of discussion or song that will be played. As the following example shows, the host can be very creative in his formulations.

[12] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen):

Lee euh ja (0.6) ’n couple jaar geleden is bij mij in ene keer ‘et klikske gekome van da ‘k ‘et in ene keer snapte Bob Dylan da was zo van aah (.) ’t is toch goeie muziek [eigenlijk → Host [het is zoiets als → oesters eten ofzo → op een gegeven moment moet je dat ga je ga je → de- ga je dat [toch begrijpen Lee [ja (.) ‘t is Host of ga je dat toch lusten Lee ja ja ja (.) ’t is gewoon (.) uit het niks gekomen in ene keer One of the guests, Lee, has been talking about Bob Dylan. He did not like the artist at first but learned to appreciate him after a while. The host formulates Lee’s narrative by comparing Bob Dylan to oysters. Lee ratifies the host’s unconventional formulation by his repeated production of “ja”.

Formulating is also done by the host after a song has been played, to repeat what has been discussed before the song was played. In such cases, the host is clearly addressing the audience. Other instances in which the host addresses the audience include saying full song titles and their performer’s names (to announce these songs or to make it clear that these songs are being discussed), and repeating the guests’ full names. The host and occasionally also the guests sometimes describe what they see each other do during the conversation or while songs were playing. This is not possible on Dream Team, because the host and his interviewee are not in the same room. Guests can also address the audience by giving general information that is not necessarily related to their witnessing or answering a question (cf supra: turn-taking system suspensions). The host often asks this of his guests: they are requested to explain, for instance, who a certain singer is or what kind of

89 music a certain band plays. Even if the host knows this himself (which he does not always do!) he asks his guests to provide this kind of explanation. This means that the guests are considered to be authoritative and be knowledgeable. Also, in this way, the speaking turns are distributed in such a way so as to avoid domination of the conversation by the host.

[13] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen):

→ Host Lee ‘s (.) leg ’s uit wie dat is voor mensen die die niet kennen Lee euhm Glenn Branca is een een New Wave composer [eigenlijk Host [ja

A completely different but also noticeable matter is that of the jingles. Jingles are played throughout the show. The show starts with a jingle and when two songs are played in a row they are separated by the Papa Was A Rolling Stone jingle, but the further distribution of these jingles seems random. Which jingle is played when, and if one will be played at all, is not clear. There is a great range of different jingles that are used in the show at different times. Another remarkable formal aspect of Papa Was A Rolling Stone is that no advertisements or traffic reports interrupt the conversations. There are also no advertisements during Dream Team, but this conversation is much shorter. Traffic reports may, however, occur during Dream Team. Before the last song is played, the host closes the conversation, and consequently, the entire show. The host announces the last song, repeats the full names of his guests and says goodbye to the audience (explicitly or implicitly), not necessarily in that order.

[14] (from Guy & Jens Mortier):

→ Host daarom eindigen we met The Beatles (.) en Happiness Is A Warm Gun ’s een .hh mooie plaat voor euh een mooie zondag (.) middag (.)

→ heel hartelijk bedank G- bedankt liever (.) Guy en Jens Mortier → Guy/Jens heel graag gedaan ((Happiness Is A Warm Gun)) The host closes the show by saying that he will do so: “eindigen”. He announces the last song, thanks his guests and repeats their full names. One of the guests completes the adjacency pair by replying “heel graag gedaan”. The conversation is closed and the last song is played.

It is striking that even though the host may say goodbye and/or thank you to his guests in some way, as in the above example, there are no clear reciprocal greetings and/or thanks as there are in Dream Team. Papa Was A Rolling Stone ends with a song that is a mutual favourite of the ‘father guest’ and his child.

5. Credibility

It is now time to address one of the main questions of this thesis. Do the interviewees and guests that appear on Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone speak with credibility? This chapter looks at the ways in which participants can create credible, authentic identities for themselves, and how they can enhance the credibility that has already been attributed to them. The first question to ask, perhaps, is whether or not it is actually relevant to consider credibility. The answer is yes, very much. It is clear from the data that participants perform conversational activities to posit themselves as credible contributors. It has already been mentioned in the part on storytelling that tellers “go to great lengths to make their stories appear relevant (even when they are not)” (Jefferson as quoted by Ochs & Capps 2001: 39). Thornborrow has noted that in radio phone-ins, lay participants are not satisfied merely by ensuring a position as participant in a public, mediated event, but that they also take steps in the interaction to present “their participation [...] [as] relevant and warranted” (2001b: 461). Lay participants want to build a credible, authentic identity for themselves in the course of the programme, “through a concern to warrant the relevance of their public participation at that moment” (Thornborrow 2001b: 465). Even though Thornborrow has made these observations about radio phone-ins, they are pertinent especially for the Dream Team data. To a lesser degree they are also useful for the consideration of Papa Was A Rolling Stone; the participants on this show are not lay participants, they are not on the phone and they have a more or less public, credible identity ascribed to them already, but they still want to present themselves in a certain light and confirm that they are warranted participants on the show. Thornborrow mentions some aspects of credibility of expert participants in radio phone-ins as well; but see the chapter on broadcast talk for a discussion of the ambiguous expert status of Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants. It is safe to say that participants want to appear credible, then. There are many different ways in which a participant could create a credible identity for themselves. Speaking with credibility and authority is often associated with speaking standard language (email Slembrouck 2012). However, speakers can use other linguistic resources to present themselves as credible; for instance, they may

93 deliberately not use standard language, or use particular lexical items. That this is possible is linked to the mechanisms of the linguistic marketplace, as described by Bourdieu. “Bourdieu had talked about the centralisation of power in the (upper) middle class, and had linked the middle class’s control over a number of kinds of different ‘capital’ to explain this.” (Meyerhoff 2010: 147) In addition to control of material wealth [...], control of more evanescent resources, such as language, is also [an] important [means of exercising social control]. [...] In this way, the language itself acquires symbolic power. [...] If language can function as a form of capital, we can talk about there being a linguistic marketplace where certain ways of talking are more valuable ‘coin’ or have greater social capital than others. (ibid.) Even though Bourdieu speaks of power, this quotation does belong here and not in the chapter on power. The fact is that credibility is a negotiable commodity on this marketplace, and it is flexible according to the requirements of the situation at hand (email Slembrouck 2012, lecture slides Dumolyn 2011). For both Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the use of non-standard language is a recurrent feature. Participants use ‘tussentaal’ (in-between language, not standard language and not dialect), which is suitable for the casual, informal style that characterizes Studio Brussel. If speakers would use very formal, standard language, they would seem out of tune with the radio station’s image and conventions and would therefore seem less credible as knowledgeable, warranted participants of a show broadcast by that radio station. The same goes for users of dialect. Other ways that participants can create and enhance credibility for themselves include identifying themselves as someone whose contribution to the conversation is justified (Thornborrow 2001b: 477), by witnessing (Hutchby 2006: 82), and by narrating remembered events (Ochs & Capps 2001: 284). The host can also attribute credibility to the other participants, for instance by attributing them a particular status when they are introduced (Thornborrow 2001b: 462, 463). The rest of this chapter considers how participants on Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone create credible positions for themselves and how they are helped to do so by the host.

5.1 Dream Team Thornborrow describes how in radio phone-ins, “[l]ay speakers seem [...] to be concerned to establish a relevant participatory status as soon as they are brought

94 into the interactional frame” (2001b: 470). Lay participants may do this “through a process of self-identification according to social or professional categories” (ibid.), or “through providing details which will function to ‘ground’ their talk and warrant their status as participants at that moment” (ibid.). “When these are absent, [...] this is due to the specific contextual features of the programme where a relevant identity for lay participants has already been established” (Thornborrow 2001b: 477). What can be seen in Dream Team is that callers, or interviewees, do not look to establish “a relevant participatory status” (Thornborrow 2001b: 470) for themselves at the very beginning of the conversation. The host introduces his interviewee and tells them “good morning” at the beginning of the conversation, and before the host asks his first question, the callers cannot do much else than returning the greeting. This can be seen in the following extracts.

[1] (from 08/11):

Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team° de drie favoriete platen van Host Koen Smeekens Koen goeiemorgen Ca goeiemorgeh Host Koen je nam de telefoon niet op (.)

[2] (from 26/10):

Jingle het Dream Team! °Dream Team° de drie favoriete platen van Host Els Van Den Heuvel Els goeiemorge Ca goeiemorge Host Breakfast in Vegas van Praga Khan

[3] (from 17/11):

Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team°

de drie favoriete platen van Host Pascal Michel Pascal goeiemorgen Ca goeiemorgen Host ’t is niet Michel Pascal he

At the beginning of the conversation, then, it seems that no self-identification or grounding is necessary, because it is already clear from the context why the people on the phone are on the phone. Interestingly, it is after the host has asked the first question that the callers start producing something like self-identification or grounding talk. This talk is elicited by the host, which is something that Thornborrow also noticed in her data (2001b: 471). In Dream Team, this kind of talk usually takes the form of witnessing: “lay speakers tend to act as witnesses precisely in the sense of being directly involved in the topics they are discussing” (Hutchby 2006: 82). This involvement is expressed “in the lay speaker’s register of immediacy, experience and authenticity” (Livingstone and Lunt as quoted by Hutchby 2006: 82) and does effectively link the speaker “with the authenticity of experience, of emotion, and of the speaker as a legitimate teller of particular kinds of stories” (Hutchby 2006: 83). The actions that speakers undertake to “claim authentic speakership” (ibid.) are what Hutchby calls “’witnessing’ moves” (ibid.). This has already been mentioned in the general overview of Dream Team; here follow some additional examples.

[4] (from 03/11):

→ Ca [en eu:hm van ’t jaar heb ik ze dan voor ’t laatst gezien op Pukkelpop (.) en dat was ook het laatste concert van Pukkelpop Host (1.2) ja ‘t was wel= =dat was wel straf he Ca (1.1) ja (.) da was wel redelijk eu:hm:: (.) spectaculair (.) alles begon perfect (.) lekker warme dag (.)

t-shirt weer (1.2) .hh en tijdens ’t concert van Skunk Anansie zag je de wolk afkomen (.) en: (.) ja toen hebben ze ’t concert moeten stilleggen (.) eerst (0.5) probeerden ze nog (.) maar (.) ’t begon zo hevig (.) .hh en toen was Pukkelpop gedaan In this fragment, the caller is witnessing about an event he was physically present at: a day which was supposed to be the first of a well-known three day music festival. This makes him a credible, authentic lay speaker already: he was present at a concert of the band he has requested to hear on the radio. What makes him an even stronger credible speaker is that this band’s concert was stopped halfway through because of a heavy storm that destroyed the festival site, killing five and injuring hundreds of people. After the storm, which became known as the “Pukkelpop storm”, the festival was cancelled. The caller is thus not only a witness who went to see a band he likes, which makes him a valid but not an unusual speaker, but he is also a witness of a unique, very dramatic event. After the interviewee has made his witness move, this move is accepted and confirmed by the host, who produces “an assessment of a reported state of affairs” (Pomerantz as quoted by Greatbatch 1988: 407); the assessment is that the events of that day at the festival were shocking, striking. The caller agrees with the host’s assessment and treats it as a cue to continue talking. The interviewee has been granted the floor and tells a story about the events he witnessed, and this narrative further corroborates his status as a credible, warranted lay participant.

[5] (from 07/11):

Host ja (0.5) heb je ‘m gezien ‘et eh fameuze concert (.)voorbije zomer op de Lokerse [Feesten Ca [ik ben euh de → Lokerse Feesten ben ik inderdaad geweest

In this extract, the host elicits the witnessing move. The caller confirms that he was indeed a witness; he went to that particular concert.

[6] (from10/11):

Host [Kim Alice Cooper (.) → leren kennen door je pa Ca ja da’s waar eu::hm (.) d’eh gewoon van vroeger en ik vroeg mij af wie’n da da was en (.) ‘keh ne keer die LP gezien en da was eu:h (.) oorspronkelijk de B-kant van e- van een singletje en (.) ja da wa- ‘k von da wel nog prachtig The host elicits a witnessing move that is again confirmed by the interviewee. Instead of being physically present at the scene of an event that is being discussed in the conversation, this witnessing move has to do with the caller’s memories of the past. The host can elicit this witnessing move, because as mentioned in the general overview, the interviewee has filled in this bit of information on the registration form on the Studio Brussel website. The host may then elicit witnessing moves or stories “at relevant moments” (Thornborrow 2001a: 120). After the host has elicited the witnessing move in this extract, the caller launches a narrative. This narrative is more explanatory than the one in [4] and it serves a slightly different purpose. In [4], the caller made the witnessing move himself (although he did this in response to a question about his song choice); this was then assessed by the host, and after this assessment, the caller talked more about what happened, making himself even more credible as a witness. Because the witnessing move in [6] is elicited by the host and not initiated by the interviewee, the interviewee produces a narrative to explain, to prove why the host is right in attributing him the credibility that goes with witness status. Also, this narrative is more about “I remember that when I was young …” rather than “This summer I was there and … and … happened”. So the narrative in [4] is a narrative that serves to enhance the credibility that a caller claimed by making

98 a witnessing move, while the narrative in [6] serves as a kind of credibility proof mechanism.

[7] (from 17/11):

Host Skunk Anansie is dat een van haar favoriete bands? Ca da’s een van de favoriete bands van haar ja Host ja= → Ca =en euh w’ebben ze ’n beetje gemist op Pukkelpop dit jaar dus euh (.) vandaar Host ja (.) was j’op Pukkelpop (.) Pascal? Ca ja:jajajaja Host je was er Ca ja (.) wij allebei (.) hehehe The host asks if the artist that has just been played is one of the caller’s girlfriend’s favourites, and he witnesses that this is in fact the case. The caller attributes his girlfriend “categorical membership” (Hutchby 2006: 83) as a Skunk Anansie fan, and he becomes a legitimate lay speaker on this band by extension. In the turn that is marked with the arrow, though, the caller witnesses that he was in fact also present at the band’s concert at Pukkelpop, and he becomes a legitimate speaker on the topic of the Pukkelpop storm and an even more legitimate speaker on the band Skunk Anansie; it is not just his girlfriend that is a fan, but he has been to one of their concerts as well. In this case, though, the caller does not provide a story to explain or reenforce his position as a witness.

[8] (from 20/10):

Host Inge (.) Elvis (.) the king of rock ‘n [roll Ca [ja → Host leren kennen dankzij je papa

Ca ja da klopt (.) da klopt mijn vader was een heel grote fan van Elvis en eh ik heb die platen dus heel veel gehoord als ik kind was This extract is similar to [6]. The host elicits a witnessing move, the caller confirms and provides a narrative to prove her credibility; she remembers that she used to listen to Elvis Presley a lot when she was little.

In [4], [6] and [8], the interviewees tell some kind of story after their witnessing move. While [5] and [7] prove that this is not necessary to consolidate the interviewees’ status as relevant participants on the show, storytelling is nonetheless a noticeable recurrent feature. Some additional examples:

[9] (from 25/10):

Ca euhm allez als ik als Adele dan (.) allez euh eerst uitkwam dan vooral me ni alleen me euhm Chasing Pavements maar dan d’rna met euhm hh met Rolling In The Deep .hhhh had ik gans die cd dan gekocht en dan von’ ik da een van de van de straffere liedjes die der eigenlijk op stond en dan blijkt nu dan (.) euhm Someone Like You eigenlijk vooral in de: in de: hitlijsten is geraakt terwijl ik eigenlijk Turning Tables even (.) minstens even goe vind

Extracts [4], [6], [8] and [9] feature narratives that are produced by the callers without host interruption or intermission. In [10] and [11], the host produces continuers.

100

[10] (from 28/10):

Ca ja euh klopt dus eu::h (.) in: (.) ik ga bevallen in Sint Jozef in Mortsel en daar hebt ge in de verloskamer (.) euhm (0.9) een eu:h (.) ja een cd-speler dus je mag eigenlijk zelf muziek meebrengen Host hmhm Ca .hh en euhm (.) daarom was ik dus beginnen nadenken welke muziek ik graag wou (.) euh laten spelen omda da toch wel een heel belangrijk moment is [maar Host [hm Ca ni alleen da dus (.) euh blijkbaar heeft muziek voor de geboorte ook een heel .hh goeie invloed op u kind hh dus euh dan ben ik ook beginne nadenke van:: misschien kan ik al wa cds op voorhand maken die ik dan ook al in de auto of thuis ne keer kan afspele hh

[11] (from 26/10):

Ca .hh ik ‘eb ‘m live gezien dankzij jullie uiteraa- allez ja ( ) maar dankzij jullie euh we hadden vrijkaarten ge::wonnen voor een optreden in de Ancienne Belgiquehh Host [mhmm Ca [.hhh en dat was schitterend= Host =ja= Ca =echt (.) dat was schitterend (.)

101

.hh en het toeval wilde eigenlijk dat (.) euh (.) als het ’s avonds het optreden was dat ik die (.) dag zelf ‘m ook al in Leuven gezien had .hhh Host ja Ca en dat was eigenlijk wel (.) fijn

There are probably two main reasons why callers tell stories. The first one has already been mentioned in the general overview of Dream Team: interviewees need to talk for a certain amount of time because of Grice’s maxim of quantity and to avoid on air silences. The second reason is that “narratives, in the broadest definition of the term, [...] form a rich discursive resource for talk show participants to present their personal experiences” (Thornborrow 2001a: 117), and that these “reminiscences are usually designed by the [teller] with credibility in mind” (Bowles 2009: 57). Ochs and Capps also come to the conclusion that [r]emembering [...] is an authenticating act: Rememberers publicly claim to have brought to conscious awareness a state, event, or condition that is real in their eyes; they believe it to be true. In this sense, acts of remembering are attempts to seize authority with respect to a topic of concern. For the presupposed truths to become recognized as such, however, these acts require validation by others. (2001: 284) In Dream Team, the host routinely validates his interviewees’ “presupposed truths” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 284). He never openly doubts his interviewees’ stories, but encourages them to continue talking with the continuer “ja” (see extracts [7] and [11] above and [12], [13] and [19] below). Using the form “ja” is not merely saying “go on”, but rather “go on, I believe you”. The host also produces “assessment[s] of a reported state of affairs” (Pomerantz as quoted by Greatbatch 1988: 407), as in extract [4], which implies that the host says “I believe you, and I feel ... and ... about your story”. As discussed above, interviewees often tell stories to enhance or prove the credibility that they have created for themselves or that has been attributed to them by the host through a witnessing move. This witnessing move and the subsequent story may be self-initiated or elicited by the host. It seems that witnessing moves and storytelling complement each other when it comes to creating a credible identity as a

102 lay participant on Dream Team. Recurring elements in witnessing moves and authenticating stories include having been to concerts (see extracts [4], [5], [7] and [11]), owning cds (see extract [9]), and remembering childhood or youth memories (extracts [6] and [8]). Some more examples of remembering:

[12] (from 20/10):

Host euh dan kies je ook nog Robin S met Show Me Love Ca inderdaad euh Robin S (.) Show Me Love is voor mij de ultieme dansplaat Host [ja → Ca [heb ik ook heel goeie herinneringen aan euhm begin jaren negentig als ik me ni vergis

[13] (from 9/11):

Host vind je dat ook van Fun Loving Criminals met Scooby Snacks? Ca ja dat heb ik gekozen eu::h dat is eigenlijk euh van euh zesennegentig denk ik Host [ja → Ca [en dat heb ik gekozen omdat het nog euh nogal veel wel werd gespeeld euh op de fuiven van de plaatselijke verenigingen euh .hh in onze gemeente Heule

103

[14] (from 26/10):

Host ‘t zijn sowieso ook allemaal Belgische platen [in je Dream Team Ca [ja klopt ja ja → shjaa (.)ik chjaa (.) ik heb mijn jeugd beleefd in de jaren tachtig en en: (.) toen waren er echt wel .hh heel wat vind ik heel goede Belgische groepen

A fourth recurring element in legitimizing moves is talking about personal, emotional connections to a certain band or song. Callers often request their wedding’s opening dance (extracts [15] and [16] below), or songs that for some reason remind them of their current partners or children (extraxts [17] and [18] below).

[15] (from 20/10):

Host =dan Nick Cave met Into My Arms daar heb je ook heel goeie herinneringen aan kan ik me voorstellen [Inge Ca [ja dat klopt euh da was de openingsdans van ons huwelijk

[16] (from 26/10):

Ca ‘k zal het zo zeggen: euh (.) we hebben dat hh (.) ( ) laten inspireren vorige week door de openingsdans wij hebben dat ook als openingsdans genomen als wij getrouwd zijn (.)

[17] (from 17/11):

104

Host .hhh Foo Fighters kies je ook met My Hero → is zij jouw held? Ca (1.5) euh ook natuurlijk → en vooral de zoon ook he

[18] (from 28/10):

Ca .hhh en Nick Cave euh is een liedje da ik → eigenlijk via mijn vriend heb leren kennen toen we mekaar (.) leerden kennen en euh (.) ja da heb ik altijd een beetje aan hem gelinkt

Another resource that interviewees use to present themselves as legitimate is factual knowledge about the artists or songs that they have requested. This resource is a bit different from the ones that have been discussed above, because being knowledgeable about facts is something that is expected of experts, “who have an institutionally inscribed, professional area of expertise attributed to them” (Thornborrow 2001b: 461), rather than of lay participants. Lay participants on Dream Team may thus attempt to present themselves as experts or as expert-like participants in order to come across as credible, warranted speakers. This occurs remarkably less often than the mechanisms described above. Extract [19] is an example.

[19] (from 09/11): → Ca dit is toch al van euh negentien vijfentachentig dat liedje ook van de jaren tachentig dus en euh ‘k vind het nog altijd (.) even euh even tof en even leuk Host ja

105

vind je dat ook van Fun Loving Criminals met Scooby Snacks? Ca ja dat heb ik gekozen eu::h → dat is eigenlijk euh van euh zesennegentig denk ik

In this extract, the interviewee knows the exact years in which the songs he chose were released. He even mentions the years before he goes on to explain why these songs are special to him. He does this in a rather dry, matter-of-fact way. It is unusual for interviewees to mention exactly when the songs of their choice were released in this manner, especially when there seems to be little relevance to the personal stories that they tell about the song(s) that has been or will be played. Admittedly, the interviewee here is saying something along the lines of “Even though this is an old song, I still enjoy listening to it very much”, which does make mentioning the song’s release date relevant. However, it would have been sufficient to say that the song is an eighties song to achieve this witnessing move. Instead, the caller names the exact year in which the song was released. He thus puts facts before feelings and positions himself as an expert by doing so; an expert who knows the exact facts about the songs and not just its general background and/or the emotional experience that he associates the song with.

Other factual knowledge that interviewees may use, but do not use as often as witnessing moves and authenticating narratives, is knowledge about Studio Brussel itself. They may use this knowledge to make it clear that they are loyal listeners; if they are loyal listeners they must obviously know something about the music they requested, and they have a right to talk during a broadcast of that radio station they listen to so loyally. In the following extract, the caller makes it clear that he knows about the radio station’s other programmes by referring to one. The “Top Wijftig” he mentions is a list of 50 songs that the radio station broadcasts annually; it is comprised of songs that are sung by female singers, and listeners may vote online on songs that they think fit in the list. The caller in extract [20] knows that that list will be broadcast sometime soon, and he takes the chance to express his personal opinion on the topic as well.

106

[20] (from 03/811): Host hh jouw eerste keuze is eh (.) Skunk Anansie met Twisted (0.4)waarom heb je daarvoor gekozen? Ca e::uhm (.) Skunk Anansie is toch wel een van mijn favoriete bands → en met de:: (.) Top Wijftig dat eraan komt wil ik nu toch wel euh (.) efkes duidelijk make dat zij d’r ook zeker mag instaan voor mij

In conclusion, then, it can be said that lay participants on Dream Team do not undertake steps at the very beginning of the conversation to “establish a relevant participatory status” (Thornborrow 2001b: 470). “[A] relevant identity for lay participants has already been established” (Thornborrow 2001b: 477)) for them, “due to the specific contextual features of the programme” (ibid.). After the exchange of reciprocal greetings, the host starts to ask the interviewee questions, and these questions do lead to talk that is meant to “establish a relevant participatory status” (Thornborrow 2001b: 470) for the interviewees. Often, so-called witnessing moves can be found in this talk: being a witness in some way strengthens claims to authenticity and credibility. Witnessing moves may be elicited by the host or be self- initiated. On Dream Team, witnessing moves are frequently expanded by stories, but they may also occur on their own. Speakers that initiate their own witnessing moves tell stories that serve to enhance their credibility, whereas stories that follow witnessing moves that have been elicited by the host serve to prove that the lay participant is indeed a legitimate contributor to the conversation, as the host indicated. Remembering is crucial to the production of witnessing moves and personal narratives, and the host validates the remembered stories of the interviewees as truthful narratives. Elements that recur in witnessing moves and stories include having been to concerts, owning cds, remembering childhood or youth memories, and having emotional connections to a certain song or artist. In short, lay participants want to present themselves as credible music fans. Lay speakers may also mention facts they know about bands, songs, or the radio station itself. They do this to present themselves as experts on the topics that are being discussed, rather than as music fans. In Dream Team, presenting oneself as an expert happens

107 remarkably less often than producing lay witnessing moves and authenticating stories.

5.2 Papa Was A Rolling Stone

Goffman’s concepts of performance and theatricality have already been discussed above. Everyone is constantly performing. A Dream Team lay participant, however, is freer to perform whatever identity he or she wants than a Papa Was A Rolling Stone expert participant. The majority of audience members has no idea who the Dream Team participant is, whereas they are likely to know who the Papa Was A Rolling Stone participant is. That this is the case influences the performance that each of these participants will put up, because [t]he more information the audience has about the performer, the less likely it is that anything they learn during the interaction will radically influence them. On the other hand, where no prior information is possessed, it may be expected that the information gleaned during the interaction will be relatively crucial. (Goffman 1990: 222) As mentioned in the discussion of Goffman, though, most performers usually aim to present their audience with an idealised version of their performed selves (Goffman 1990: 25, 35); this kind of behaviour in storytelling was dubbed the “’looking good’ principle” by Ochs, Smith and Taylor (Ochs, Smith & Taylor as quoted by Ochs & Capps 2001: 47). Since most performers aim to do this, it is probably so that most Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants also do this. No matter what kind of identity they want to create, they will probably want to create one that makes themselves look good as a music fan or expert. They want to create “an authentic and credible persona” (Livingstone & Lunt as quoted by Tolson 2001a: 17), or, in other words, stage a “performance of a mediated identity which might be perceived as ‘authentic’” (Tolson 2001b: 443). The lay participant that appears on Dream Team is thus, as demonstrated above, likely to attempt to make him- or herself seem a credible music fan, but is otherwise relatively free to perform however he or she wants. A celebrity expert participant on Papa Was A Rolling Stone does not have that freedom, because he or she already has a public persona. This public persona comes with pre-established

108 credibility10, but also with boundaries within which the performer needs to act; whatever the expert participant says or does must be consistent with his or her public persona, or else they lose their credibility entirely (Goffman 1990: 64 – 65).

Tolson defines a celebrity’s persona as “the point at which the private life becomes public, and where (in the melodramatic gaze) acting connects with the ‘real person’” (2001b: 452). This ‘real person’, in as far as it exists, is typically seen to be an authentic inner self (ibid.). However, “authenticity [...] is not so much an essential inner self, as a credible public identity” (Tolson 2001b: 453). To create this credible public identity, Tolson notes that celebrities are often “’being [themselves]’” (2001b: 444, 445). “[T]he public persona of the celebrity needs to project an aura of ‘authenticity’” (Tolson 2001b: 445) in order for the celebrity to come across as “’being yourself’” (ibid.). ‘Being oneself’ is “a type of public performance [...] [that] is not perceived as ‘acting’” (ibid.). Appearing on a talk show is a way in which celebrities can do this: “’personal disclosure’ is a key focus for the talk show interview where ‘guests appear to be showing us their ‘real’ selves [and] where they can discuss how they ‘feel’” (Langer as quoted by Tolson 2001b: 448). However, “[w]hat is revealed is not so much the ‘real’ or ‘deep’ personality behind the mask of celebrity. It is, rather, the fascination of the role of celebrity, both for the person who speaks about his/her celebrity-induced experiences and for the slightly wide-eyed interviewer and audience” (Bell & Van Leeuwen as quoted by Tolson 2001b: 448). This is certainly true for Papa Was A Rolling Stone; see for instance extracts [40], [41] and [42] below. The local celebrities that appear on Papa Was A Rolling Stone, then, want to make themselves look good, credible and authentic. They try to do so by being their ordinary selves, and “’being ordinary’ is accomplished in the ways people tell stories about their experiences” (Sacks as quoted by Tolson 2001b: 449). The “authentic and credible persona” (Livingstone & Lunt as quoted by Tolson 2001a: 17) is created

10 CA would reject the notion of pre-established credibility if it is not apparent from the actual conversation that is being analysed. That some of the participants on Papa Was A Rolling Stone do have pre-established credibility is because of the public personae that they already have before the conversation begins. It is relevant to mention the existence of this public persona and thus that of some pre-established credibility because this is actually brought up in the conversation, viz. in the introductions that are discussed below.

109 through a “performance of being ordinary” (Tolson 2001b: 450). For Papa Was A Rolling Stone, this means in practice that the local celebrities will want to remind the audience of their expert status, while at the same time acting in a way that is similar to that of ‘ordinary’ people such as the lay participants on Dream Team. How this is done is explained in detail below. It is also the case that some of the participants on Papa Was A Rolling Stone are not local celebrities. In these cases, the participants are still treated as expert participants, but they do not need to act in accordance with an existing public persona.

It has already been mentioned that hosts may “identif[y] [expert participants] according to that status before they start to talk” (Thornborrow 2001b: 462), and that “[t]his occurs usually by a host’s introduction” (ibid.). This is done “by naming [the experts] and giving their profession” (Thornborrow 2001b: 463). The chapter on broadcast talk discusses the more or less ambiguous status of the studio guests that appear on Papa Was A Rolling Stone; it was indicated that these guests are best considered ‘experts talking for themselves’. It is also mentioned in that chapter that guests are introduced in the same way that, according to Thornborrow, expert radio programme participants are introduced. As has been said in the general overview of Papa Was A Rolling Stone, it is not the host who introduces his guests, but the host’s father. This ties in with the programme’s theme of inviting fathers and children as participants. Ultimately it does not matter much who does the introducing. What is important is that the guests are introduced in a way that presents them as credible, legitimate, warranted participants, before they have spoken one word themselves; see for instance extracts [21], [22] and [23].

[21] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)

Aris Ham dames (.) en heren(0.5) van harte welkom bij Papa Was A Rolling Stone (.) met vandaag te gast (.) vader Jan (.) en dochter Ella Leyers (1.0)

110

Jan is 53 jaar (.) TV-maker (.) muzikant (.) en een helft van Soul Sister (1.0) Ella is 23 (.) en een beloftevolle actrice(8.0) welke plaatjes (.) kent Ella via Jan (1.0) en welk album (.) kocht Jan (.) dankzij Ella (1.1) delen ze wel een muzieksmaak (1.2) u komt het allemaal te weten in Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))

[22] (from Raúl & Gabriel Rios)

Aris Ham dames (.) en heren (.) een goeie middag (0.8) mijn naam (.) is Aris Ham (0.7) ik ben de vader (.) van Otto-Jan en ik heet u van harte welkom bij (.) Papa Was A Rolling Stone (1.1) met vandaag te gast (.) vader Raúl en zoon (0.5) Gabriel Rios Gabriel is drieëndertig (0.6) zanger (.) en muzikant (0.9) vader Raúl is drieënzestig (0.7) woont nog steeds in Puerto Rico (0.6) en is zelf ook muzikant (1.2) voor het eerst zitten ze nu samen (.) in de radiostudio (.) en praten ze over hun favoriete plaatjes in Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))

111

[23] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)

Aris Ham dames (.) en heren (0.8) mijn naam (.) is Aris Ham (0.7) vader (.) van Otto-Jan (0.6) en ik heet u van harte welkom bij (.) Papa Was A Rolling Stone (1.3) met vandaag te gast (0.8) vader Geert en zoon Iwein Segers (1.1) Geert (.) was jarenlang radiopresentator (0.8) en al is hij officieel met pensioen (.) toch hoor je hem nog dagelijks (.) als de stem van (.) Man (.) Bijt Hond zijn jongste zoon Iwein (.) is zanger (.) muzikant (.) en cabaretier (1.3) wat zijn hun favoriete plaatjes (0.8) hebben ze een zelfde muzieksmaak (0.8) je hoort het allemaal in (.) Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))

The host may also treat his guests as credible in the course of the conversation by reinforcing the identity already attributed to them by the introduction (extracts [24] and [25]), or by mentioning new elements (extracts [30], [31], [32]). The host may also let his guests announce songs (extract [35]) or, as mentioned in the general overview, ask them to explain a certain band or song that not everyone in the audience may know (extracts [33] and [34]).

[24] (from Raúl & Gabriel Rios)

Host eu:hm euh yeah whe- when I when I look at you Raúl and and the way ye- you’re listening to music you’re .h kind of directing the songs along

112

euh is tha- is that [a typical thing= Raúl [yes Host =for a musician to do? As can be seen in extract [22], it has already been said in the introduction that Raúl is a musician. The host repeats this in this fragment, which takes place much later in the conversation. At the same time, the host also describes the physical actions that he saw Raúl do while listening to a song that had just been played. Apparently, Raúl knows the song well enough to be conducting it (even though, of course, the song that has been played was already recorded and there were no actual musicians that needed conducting around). This is a new element, or rather an added element to the fact that Raúl is a musician, and it helps portray Raúl as a credible participant.

[25] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)

Host ja ja ja jij bent zelf muzikant dus jij luistert ook als een muzikant (.) naar naar nummers The “jij” in this fragment is Bart Peeters. He was introduced as a singer. This extract is similar to [24] because, in both extracts, the host repeats that the persons he is talking to/about are musicians, and because he says something about the way they listen to music, even though he does not describe the physical actions he saw Bart do in this fragment. In each case Bart’s credibility is reaffirmed by this utterance of the host.

[26] (from Guy & Jens Mortier)

Host euh euh Guy Mortier euh zeer muzikale vader altijd met muziek bezig This extract is identity-reinforcing or credibility-creating, depending on one’s point of view. The introduction of this episode does not literally mention that Guy Mortier is professionally involved in music. However, it is said that he was the editor-in-chief of the weekly magazine Humo for years. Most people that know Guy Mortier and Humo

113 will be aware of the fact that Humo claims to have some music experts as part of their editorial staff. The magazine usually features interviews with bands or musicians, cd reviews and its own weekly music charts. It also organizes a rock rally every two years. This is information, though, that is not mentioned at all in the introduction of this episode, and only referred to, not explained, in the rest of the conversation. For this reason, the host’s assessment that Guy Mortier is a very musical father, always dealing with music, should be considered a new element rather than a reinforcement. That the host clearly considers Guy Mortier a very musical person presents him as a legitimate participant either way.

The fact that the host repeats the full names of his guests from time to time is also important in this aspect. The host only says the names of his guests, and sometimes also whether they are father, daughter or son, but he does not repeat their profession or why they are on the show. This can be seen in extracts [27], [28] and [29] below. Simply naming the guests’ names is felt to be sufficient, because many listeners will know who at least one of the guests is even without having heard the introduction, and the relevance of the other guest becomes clear when their relationship with the celebrity guest is specified. In other words, because of the public persona that people associate with the names of public figures, merely repeating these names is enough to make it clear to the audience that these guests are warranted, legitimate, credible participants.

[27] (from Kamagurka & Sarah Zeebroek)

Host euh Sarah euh Zeebroek zit hier nog samen met Kamagurka haar vader

[28] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)

Host uit 1988 .hhh euh The Way To Your Heart van Soul Sister fin meteen d- d- de grote doorbraak hit eigelijk van Soul Sister

114

→ .hh en euh niet de enige worp van Jan Leyers dat jaar want ook Ella Leyers was geboren dus erges zal je dat nummer altijd misschien een klein beetje aan Ella koppelen [29] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen)

Host .hh je luistert naar Papa Was A Rolling Stone en de papa in kwestie .hh is euh euh Scabs- frontman euh Guy Swinnen .hhh en zoon in kwestie is euh ja Tubelight- frontman euh Lee Swinnen

The host may also introduce new elements in the conversation that will present his guests as credible. Extract [26] may be considered an example of this; here follow some other examples.

[30] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe)

Host euh (.) maar dan moete we ’t toch ook hebbe wa- w’ebbe ’t er al heel even over gehad eu::h daarnet .hhh toch nog over Lou Reed hebben want dat blijft een bijzonder verhaal af- vert- vertel nog ’s één keer want die die → (.) die heeft met jullie samengewerkt eigenlijk eh Luc uhu Even though Lou Reed had already been mentioned, the fact that one of the host’s guests has actually collaborated with Reed is a new element in the conversation. The host brings this up and it makes Luc a credible speaker where Lou Reed is concerned, because he knows the man and has worked with him.

[31] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)

115

Host en dan moeten we ’t even over festivals ook hebben jullie zijn ja jullie zijn kind aan huis op zowa- euh euh zowat elk .h festival Pukkelpop euh zowel Luc als Eppo jij stelt daar nu de euh affiche samen ook → .hh op Werchter euh Luc jij hebt daar ja jij presenteert daar je- elk festival is euh eigenlijk euh zeer bekend en vertrouwd terrein voor jullie beiden That Eppo is involved in festivals was already clear from the introduction. New information that makes Luc credible, however, is that he presents at Rock Werchter. The host even goes so far as to say that both Luc and Eppo are very familiar with every festival. In doing so, he certainly makes his guests appear credible: they must know a lot about bands that play festivals.

Extracts [31] and [32] are from the same episode of Papa Was A Rolling Stone. This does not mean that there are no other examples to be found in other episodes, but it shows that the host frequently assigns his guests credibility by invoking new elements, and that he may do so more than once in the same conversation.

[32] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)

Host .hhh eu::h maar maar omgekeerd (.) is het nu ook wel zo dat dat Eppo die rol (.) voor een stuk ook wel euh op zich genomen heeft door bijvoorbeeld (.) euh wat je voor Pukkelpop doet een eh affiche samenstellen maar ook wat je met Duyster euh doet jij hebt daar .hh al jaren de plaatjes eh voor gekozen Previous to this extract, the host said that Luc, Eppo’s father, has determined many people’s musical taste through his work as a radio host. In this extract, the host points out that Eppo also works for the radio; he has taken over his father’s role as

116 someone who determines people’s musical taste by selecting songs for a radio programme. In Eppo’s case, this programme is called Duyster, and apparently he has been working for the programme for years. This was not mentioned in the introduction or earlier in the conversation, so the host bringing this up is another instance of the host attributing a credible status to his guests: someone who selects songs for a radio programme is likely to know a lot of songs, and is thus a credible speaker on music in general.

As explained in the general overview chapter, the host may ask his guests to explain who a particular singer is exactly or what kind of music a particular band plays, even if he knows or may know this himself. That the host lets his guests do this kind of explanation means that the guests are considered to be authoritative and be knowledgeable. This was the example given in the general overview:

[33] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen)

→ Host Lee ‘s (.) leg ’s uit wie dat is voor mensen die die niet kennen Lee euhm Glenn Branca is een een New Wave composer [eigenlijk Host [ja

An additional example:

[34] (from Raúl & Gabriel Rios)

→ Host Tom Zé euhm te- tell us who who is that guy Raúl Brazilian err from the:: er era err in the sixties (.) err i- initially in ah in Brazil there was a (.) a (.) dictatorship so it was really i- involved in (.) in the: in the political movement of that time he err against the the government .hh

117

Host ja Raúl so much of his music i::s .hhh e::rm ((Spanish word)) °how do you say that in English eh° Gabriel it’s erm it’s:: i:t’s challenging Host challen- that’s what I was [e- ( ) Gabriel [gedurfd

Lastly, the host may also treat his guests as credible contributors by asking or letting them announce a song.

[35] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)

Host eh jij mag ‘m aankondigen Eppo dat euh da’s eentje voor jou Eppo hier is Sigur Rós met euh Svefn-g-englar Jingle ((jingle Studio Brussel)) ((Svefn-g-englar)) Even though the host may have asked his guest to announce this song because it has a very difficult title, he still trusts Eppo to do the announcement well.

From the discussion of the four ways in which the host can help his guests appear credible, it is clear that the host plays an important role in making his guests seem legitimate. The host may repeat status-attributing elements that have been priorly mentioned, or he may bring up new status-attributing elements. This is similar to the host-initiated witnessing moves that can be found in the Dream Team data. However, the two phenomena are different, because the information that the Dream Team host has about his interviewees is not public information about a public persona. In other words, the Dream Team host cannot know information about his interviewees and bring this information up in the conversation, unless the interviewees have provided this information via the online registration form. On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the host may start talking about information that is more or less public; guests need not have given him this information before the beginning of the programme. As mentioned in the general overview, the host and the radio channel’s

118 crew have probably researched their guests before they came to the studio. The host has thus been looking for public information about his guests that he may use for his show. The host may also ask his guests to explain about some singers or bands, and he may let guests announce a song. What the host says about his guests is thus an important part of whether or not the guests are perceived by the audience as credible.

The resources that lay participants on Dream Team used to create or enhance their credibility may also be found in Papa Was A Rolling Stone. The guests also produce witnessing moves and narratives, as well as using factual knowledge to confirm their expert status. In addition to witnessing and telling stories about having been to concerts, owning cds, remembering childhood or youth memories, and having emotional connections to a certain song or artist, many guests on Papa Was A Rolling Stone also tell stories about work-related events.

[36] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)

Ella nee maar ik heb inderdaad via via mijn pa ‘eel veel lere kenne en dan rond mijn vijftiende ‘eb ik de de pick-up op mijn kamer gezet (.) ben ik in alle plate gaan snuffele en dan vond ik ja Elton John en The Modern Lovers (.) euh Paul Simon Talking Heads allemaal dinge die ik ook wel van naam kende maar nog ni echt naar geluisterd had In this extract, Ella witnesses that she knows a lot of music thanks to her father. She then goes on to narrate how she put the gramophone in her room and listened to the records she found at home. The witnessing move, the narrative and the names of the artists she listened to all make her come across as someone who knows what she is talking about.

119

[37] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe)

Host de klik is ’n beetje of e- e- ‘et ‘et grote kantelpunt bij jou is (.) gekomen w’adden ’t daarnet al even a- aangehaald .hh over die die prachtige hoes met die vooral die prachtige euh euh vrouwenkont erop Lenny ja Host .hh euh (.) Is This It van The Strokes Lenny ja da was een k- een euh een kantelpunt bij mij he da was zo een beetje de ontdekking van van eu::hm gitaarmuziek en zo die gans die nieuwe vibe van groepen gelijk The Hives en The Libertines en .hh The Strokes ma die eerste plaat van The Strokes heeft da echt getriggerd ik ben daar naar beginne luistere en .hh ‘k was daarvan zodanig in de ban da mij da heeft opengestoten ervoor gezorgd da’k andere dingen ben beginne luisteren en ontdekken .hh en da’k eigenlijk uiteindelijk goesting heb gekrege om zelf ne groep te beginne en zelf muziek te beginne make en .hh gitaar te spele en en nummers te schrijve .hhh Host ja Lenny daarom is da nog altijd: mijn favoriete plaat of een van mijn: meest (.) beluisterde platen ooit omdat die gewoon ‘eel .hh doorslaggevend is geweest In [37], Lenny, encouraged by the host, tells about his favourite record. Lenny is credible because not only has he listened to that record so many times, it has also inspired him to start his own band.

120

[38] (from Raúl & Gabriel Rios)

Gabriel I still I remember (.)e:r duh duh especially the record Double Fantasy from (.) .hh I think I was probably:: three years old (.) and I sti- I have (.) I have that (.) memory imprinted we were living in California and Host hmhm Gabriel I think they had just bought the record so were playing it constantly (.) .h and I remember erm (.) a lot of songs in that record (.) .h just like starting over a bunch of songs from that last John Lennon record Witnessing and telling about owning cds and childhood memories are combined in this extract. Gabriel narrates how his parents bought a John Lennon record and played it non-stop when he was three. Since he has known John Lennon from such an early age and remembers the songs very well, he is a credible speaker with regards to John Lennon.

[39] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)

→ Nona ‘k ‘eb nog nooit zo’n (.) uitzinnig euh publiek gezien Host op Wer- op Werchter [bedoel je? Nona [ja (.) [op Werchter ( ) Host [ik ben ook gaan kijken Nona ja (.) ja hhh Host ‘k vond euh ik vond heel erg goed (.) euh (.) daar was jij dus ook ni bij (.) [Bart Peeters Bart [ik was niet op op Ke$ha (.)

121

[op Werchter Nona [ahahaha Bart euh (.) we- ik ben daar niet op betrapt (.) → werkelijk niet In this extract, the host and his guests are discussing Ke$ha. Nona is a big fan, her father Bart is not a fan at all. Nona is able to produce a witnessing move: she went to see Ke$ha at the Rock Werchter festival and apparently, the crowd was wildly enthusiastic about Ke$ha (first arrow). Earlier in the conversation, Nona was asked to explain why she likes Ke$ha so much, and the fact that she has witnessed this concert makes her explanation credible. On the other hand, precisely the fact that Bart was not a witness and emphasises this so strongly (second arrow) makes him credible as well; Nona is a credible Ke$ha fan, Bart is a credible fan of an entirely different kind of music.

[40] (from Kamagurka & Sarah Zeebroek)

→ Kamagurka ja ‘k ‘eb ooit een: een strip gemaakt me Zappa Host ja → Kamagurka dus eu:h da was in d’n tijd euh da’k (.) ik zat nog op d’ academie in in in Gent denk ik .hh en euh ma ‘k begon ook wel voor den Humo te werken en euhm Guy Mortier euh .hhh w- w- waarom da’k dan eigenlijk voor Humo werkte was omda Guy Mortier op Frank Zap- Zappa leek Sarah ahhhahaha Kamagurka .hh en: Host dat waren de enige::: Kamagurka [nee nee hahaha .hh nee Host [de enige argumenten om dat te doen ja

122

Kamagurka en eu:h dus dan gi- Guy had gezegd van ja ge moe ne keer eu::h m- m- m- ge kunt misschien ne keer proberen met euh iets doen me Zappa .h want ‘ij wil zich ni laten interviewen .hh en euh ik zeg ja ‘k zou ‘k ik da willen doen […] en eu::h dan was ‘k naar Zappa gegaan (.) → in Vorst Nationaal .hh da was in ’81 (.) 1981 °((onverstaanbaar gemompel))° Host ja Kamagurka en eu::h ‘k herinner mij dus da’k binnenkwam eu::h om eu:h °((onverstaanbaar gemompel)) Sarah .hh hehe Kamagurka en eu::h (.) ik werd tegengehouden door de bodyguard van Zappa da was een gigantische::: kale neger eigenlijk van ‘k denk drie meter hoog en .hh die vijfhonderd kilo woog euh .hh en die zijn si- zijn brandende sigaretten achter zijn oren stak tegen zijn schedel [en die ni ni verbleekte Host [°hehehehehe° Kamagurka .hhhh en ik kom binnen in die: (.) in die kleedkamer van Zappa en eu:h ik (.) ben zo’n snotneus eh en (.) me m’n grote tekenkaart en Zappa zegt van oei (.) ‘ebde flu ‘k zeg ja haha out! zei ‘m [hehehe Sarah [jhohhoh Kamagurka ‘ij wou ni ziek worden hahaha Host en dat was ‘et?

123

Kamagurka .hh nee nee [hehehe Sarah [hehe Kamagurka .hhh ma da was vo’ te lachen Host ah ok hehehe gelukkig Kamagurka ‘k stond alweer buiten aan Vorst Nationaal toen stond Zappa wanhopig te zwaaien da’k nog zou terugkomen .hhh en eu::h dan ‘eeft ‘ij dus euh een uur lang heel geconcentreerd euh op die op die op die pagina geweest want ik tekende toen ook gigantisch groot denk da ‘k ik da ergens ge .hh hoord dat da moest ‘k weet da ni meer ( ) en Zappa heeft daar dan euh een prachtige: tekst op gemaakt eh At the first arrow in this extract, Kamagurka produces a witnessing move: he is a legitimate speaker about Frank Zappa because he has worked with him once. At the second arrow, Kamagurka begins a rather long narrative about how it came to be that he made a comic together with Zappa. At the third arrow, Kamagurka remembers some facts about the situation: he met Frank Zappa in 1981 in Vorst Nationaal. The witnessing move supplies Kamagurka “with the authenticity of experience” (Hutchby 2006: 83), the narrative elaborates the witnessing move and both the story and the facts mentioned in the story authenticate Kamagurka’s position as a credible speaker even more.

[41] (from Guy & Jens Mortier)

124

.hh en het was dezelfde dag waarin euhm Borg en McEnroe de finale speelden van Wimbledon een historische finale die geweldig geweldig lang duurde (.) en waar Borg denk ik (.) tenslotte won want (.) eu:hm Mink Deville (.) had gedaan (.) boog (.) ging weg en wij gingen rap tel- televisie kijken .hh en ondertussen (.) eu::h (.) had hij gezegd want hij wilde eigenlijk niet dat (.) dat hij aangekondigd werd door (.) door iemand anders dan zijn eigen band .h en toen (.) zei hij (.) where is the Belgian guy Host hihi [hehehehe Guy [want ik (.) ik mocht dan zeggen (.) hij komt nog een bisnummer doen maar ik stond naar McEnroe te kijken Host hhhahahahaha hahaha Guy maar hij heeft mij nadien (.) b- ben ik naar z’n caravan geweest en daar heeft hij me een lepeltje coke aangeboden Here, Guy Mortier tells a story about something that happened to him when he worked as a presenter at festivals. He recollects one particular festival where Mink Deville played, and relates what happened that day. The fact that he remembers that Björn Borg and John McEnroe played tennis that day and that Mink Deville offered him some drugs later on make his story even more credible, as well as entertaining. Again, remembering works as an “[attempt] to seize authority with respect to a topic of concern” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 284).

[42] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)

→ Luc euhm ik was naar ‘n concert geweest (.)

125

eerst in Amsterdam eu:h ‘t alereerste concert dat de Pixies in Europa gaven was in de Paradiso in Amsterdam euhm (.) euh dat was eh speelden zij het voorprogramma van de Throwing Muses Host ach → Luc en de volgende dag ben ik eu::h naar het concert gaan kijke: van euh de Pixies in de Effenaar .hh en daar waren z’al meteen euh de hoofdgroep Host daar hadden ze: Luc [ja Host [Throwing Muses [al ingehaald Luc [ma- wa- dat was in Amsterdam ook duidelijk euh geworden van dat de Pixies dat was iets apart dat was dat was heel euh dat was heel speciaal .hhh en eu::hm: de volgende dag was ik in eu:h na ’t concert was ik in euh in Hilversum en euh .hh euh d’r komt we we zaten in de villa eu:h bij de VPRO .hh en d’r komt euh vlak voor de uitzending eu::h komt er een klein dik mannetje de trap op euh [gehobbeld Host [hehe Luc en dat was euh Frank Black met achter hem euh Kim Deal .hh en die waren nog in Nederland en die kwamen goeiedag zeggen (.) .hh die hadden gezegd van ( ) → ik had met hen een interview gedaan dan wel en die eu:h ja die die vonden mij blijkbaar eu:h .hhh sympathiek genoeg of (.) ik was de enige waarschijnlijk die ze echt kenden daar

126

en die (.) die kwamen even goeiendag zeggen Host ja Luc en eh die zijn tijdens die uitzending gebleven en achteraf is: telkens als euh Frank Black in eh in de buurt is .hh dan belt ‘ie of dan laat ‘ie weten ik ben er of als jullie ’s willen langskomen euhm Host ja Luc zo is dat gegroeid In this extract, Luc witnesses about two Pixies concerts he has been to. He then goes on to tell a story about how the Pixies suddenly appeared at his work place the following day. Only in this narrative the audience finds out that Frank Black and Kim Deal did not randomly go to the tv studio where Luc used to work, but that he had met and interviewed them before. All this combined make Luc appear credible.

Extracts [40], [41] and [42] are all examples of work-related events that Papa Was A Rolling Stone guests witness and tell stories about. These narratives and witnessing moves are constant reminders of the guests’ status as music professionals, and thus as expert participants. The important role of the host as status-attributor has been discussed above. On Dream Team, it is also the case that the host routinely validates the stories that the lay participants tell. This happens on Papa Was A Rolling Stone as well. The continuer “ja” is again the most frequent form the host uses to do this; see for example extracts [33], [34], [37], [40] and [42]. Extract [34] is particularly interesting in this respect: the host still says “ja” even though the conversation is predominantly in English.

In addition to witnessing and storytelling, Papa Was A Rolling Stone guests can also use factual knowledge for credibility. Because at least half of the guests are experts, they know a lot more facts and they also mention facts a lot more often than the lay speakers on Dream Team. Three kinds of factual knowledge may be discerned in the Papa Was A Rolling Stone data: regular factual knowledge, lexical items and name-dropping, and comparison. Example [8] in the general overview is

127 an example of guests who mention facts about a singer, band, cd, ... This is another example from the same conversation:

[43] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)

Bart wete da (.) diejen beat (.) die was eigenlijk dubbel zo traag he (.) .hh dus (.) da da was eigenlijk de bedoeling om da dubbel zo traag in te zingen (.) en die hebben da dubbel zo rap ingezongen (.) en zo is die Destiny’s Child (.) stijl ontstaan en als je dat weet (.) dan begrijp je dit nummer ook beter Bart is aware of the fact that originally, the beat of a Destiny’s Child song was intended to be slower. He shares this fact with the audience, thus positioning himself as someone who knows a lot about Destiny’s Child and is thus entitled to talk about them on the radio.

Lexical items have already been mentioned above as resources for speakers to create credible identities for themselves. Speakers may use specific lexical items to display that they are knowledgeable about certain events or facts, and thus present themselves as credible speakers on those topics that allow for such specific lexical items to be used (email Slembrouck 2012). For instance, someone who claims to be a horse lover will not come across as very credible when he or she systematically refers to the legs of a horse as “paws”, and a linguistics student may present him- or herself as an authority on language merely by dropping words such as “pragmatics” and “deixis” even if he or she is not entirely sure what they mean precisely. Lexical items that make a speaker credible in a radio programme about music are usually linked to the more technical aspects of music. Some examples:

[44] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)

128

Iwein ik hou heel erg v- wel van die die jaren negentig dingen die we (.) net ‘ebben g’oord → en ik hou heel erg van euh strofe refrein strofe refre- dubbel refrein en euh (.) allemaal meebrullen Whereas “die jaren negentig dingen” is a rather vague description of the kind of song structures that appeal to Iwein, he rephrases this in the TCU indicated with the arrow. Songs that he likes are structured strophe – chorus – strophe – double chorus. This is a much more technical description that makes Iwein sound more like a musician.

[45] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen)

Lee ik luister nog altij graag van:: euh van die → post-punk bands enzo “Post-punk bands” is a lexical item that makes Lee come across as credible, because it shows that he knows more about the genre of the bands he mentioned earlier in the text. Instead of calling them something more general, such as “rock bands”, for instance, he is able to pinpoint them as something more specific. Also, since he uses the term “post-punk” and not just “punk”, it is clear that he is also able to distinguish between the two.

Names are a special kind of lexical items that speakers on Papa Was A Rolling Stone use to show that they know what they are talking about. Name- dropping is an easy and very frequently used method that speakers employ to ensure the audience that they are experts. Ella Leyers can be seen doing this in extract [36] and Lenny Crabbe in [37]; another example is [46] below.

[46] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)

Iwein ‘k ‘eb daar heel veel door ontdekt euh van Buffalo Tom tot Dinosaur Jr. tot euh hh Stone Temple Pilots .hhh misschien spijtig genoeg ook

129

maar da ’t heeft wel eu:h .hh mijn smaak mee bepaald denk Afghan Whigs zat daar ook tussen dus euh ‘k heb daar de goei’ dingen uit gedistilleerd Iwein is discussing which bands he discovered via the Studio Brussel Afrekening-cds his father used to give him for Christmas and his birthdays. Apparently he is no longer a Stone Temple Pilots fan, but the list of names that he provides do make it seem as if he knows a lot about music.

Last but not least, comparison is also a resource that Papa Was A Rolling Stone guests often use. By comparing one artist, one record, one festival, … to another, the guests show that they are not only knowledgeable about one artist, one record, one festival and so on, but they also indicate that they have noticed connections between that one artist, record, … and another. In other words, they present themselves not just as someone who knows a few facts or names, but also as someone who is capable of linking these to each other in a more or less logical way. They thus come across as intelligent music experts.

[47] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)

Eppo in die periode kwamen er heel veel van die platen uit je had eu::h euh .hh Bonnie Prince Billy met zijn eerste album je had Songs: Ohia die kwame je had Pinback en die Sigur Rós In this extract, Eppo compares a Sigur Rós record to apparently similar records by different artists that came out at about the same time.

[48] (from Kamagurka & Sarah Zeebroek)

Sarah ‘k ben er ook wel zot van ma: (.)

130

’t is ook (.) allez ben ook Butthole Surfers heel dankbaar want dankzij hen zijn ook euh h .hh de Flaming Lips Host kijk Sarah waar ‘k ook vree fan van ben dus Sarah compares one of her favourite bands, the Flaming Lips, to another band with the very fascinating name Butthole Surfers. Apparently, the latter were some kind of pioneers in the kind of music that Flaming Lips started making later on as well. That Sarah knows both bands and is able to compare them, saying that the one would not have existed without the other, makes her seem knowledgeable and credible.

5.3 Conclusion

The conclusion of the credibility research is thus that, unlike the lay participants on Dream Team, guests on Papa Was A Rolling Stone do not have to “establish a relevant participatory status” (Thornborrow 2001b: 470) for themselves. This status is attributed to them at the beginning of the programme through the introduction: the guests are introduced as experts. The host may further strengthen this expert status by repeating elements that have been mentioned in the introduction, by mentioning new elements that present the guests as experts, by asking the guests to explain a certain artist or song to the audience, and/or by letting guests announce a song. The guests also undertake actions to make it clear to the audience that they are credible participants on the programme. This is often done in ways that are very similar to those that lay participants on Dream Team use. Witnessing moves are made and stories are told by the Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants as well. These are mostly about the same topics, too, although the Papa Was A Rolling Stone stories are also often related to the guest’s background as some kind of music professional. The host again validates these stories. In addition, Papa Was A Rolling Stone guests may also use factual knowledge, lexical items and name-dropping, and comparison as a way of ascertaining their expert status.

131

5.4 Credibility of the host

Up until now, the discussion of credibility has focused on the participants of the two radio programmes under discussion. The host has only been discussed insofar as he was involved in attributing the participants credibility, or in validating the credibility that they created for themselves, for instance through storytelling. It is not the aim of this thesis to consider how hosts manage to come across as credible themselves. A few remarks on this topic are useful, however, especially as the power position of the host is something that will be considered in the next chapter. This is actually something that most authors do: many speak of the host’s power position, but most are silent with regards to his credibility. That this is the case is not very surprising, though. The host does not need to warrant his contributions to the radio programme he is hosting, simply because he is the host. Firstly, the institutional role of the host, the fact that he works for the radio station, provide him with all the credibility and legitimacy he needs. Secondly, the programme he is hosting is not about him. He is not a lay participant who has been given a public voice, who chooses three songs and talks about the radio, and whose talk subsequently becomes a public, mediated performance (Thornborrow 2001a: 136) . Neither is he a local celebrity who has been invited to the studio along with father or child, who talks about music and is careful to act accordingly to his or her public persona, nor is he a non-celebrity who is nonetheless treated as an expert. Because the show is not about him but about his interviewees or studio guests, it is far less important to the host to be creating or reinforcing a credible identity for himself. However, the question of credibility is not entirely irrelevant. The hosts do take care to perform in a way that makes them look competent radio hosts, and in a way that accords with the general image of Studio Brussel. It has already been mentioned above that using very formal, standard language, for instance, would clash with the more casual image of the radio station. The hosts do pay attention to their pronunciation, but their style remains very informal. Also, the hosts sometimes mention facts or make witnessing moves; in extract [39], for example, the host says that he, like his guest, saw the Ke$ha concert at the Rock Werchter festival.

132

As the objective of this thesis is to come to conclusions about the credibility and the power situations of the Dream Team lay participants versus the Papa Was A Rolling Stone expert participants, however, the subject of host credibility will not be looked into any further.

133

134

6. Power

The previous chapter has explored the credibility of the participants on Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone. This chapter will look at the power situations in these two programmes. Who is in power at what point during the conversation, how this power is brought about, and whether any general conclusions can be drawn about this. Conversation analysis is, contrary to what some critics say, suitable for considerations of power situations in conversations (Hutchby 2006: 31, Hutchby & Wooffitt 2008: 212). Hutchby quotes Norman Fairclough, a Critical Discourse Analysis proponent who wants to look at “[c]onnections between the use of the language and the exercise of power” (Fairclough as quoted by Hutchby 2006: 32 and Hutchby & Wooffitt 2008: 209). Fairclough writes that in many kinds of interaction, there are “a whole range of ideologically potent assumptions about rights, relationships, knowledge and identities” (ibid.). What Hutchby takes issue with is that Fairclough speaks of “the invisibility of [these] ideological assumptions, and of the power relationships which underlie the practices” (ibid.) in which these assumptions are to be found. According to Hutchby, this kind of reasoning “tends to lead to the analytic assumption that power relations […] are pre-established features of the context” (Hutchby 2006: 32). In other words, CDA assumes “that there are […] factors, external to the situation the speakers are in, and of which the speakers may not be aware, that impact on the production of their talk” (Hutchby 2006: 33). The problem is then that it becomes very difficult for the analyst to prove that such factors exist, that they influence the talk that a speaker produced, and that this happens at (a) particular moment(s) in the conversation (ibid.). CA rather looks at the data and at instances in which interlocutors demonstrably orientate themselves towards a particular power situation. CA is not in favour of the view that power relations somehow pre-exist and determine the course of actual concrete encounters; but by focusing on the local management of talk-in-interaction this approach can in fact provide compelling accounts of how power comes to operate as a feature of, and is used as a resource in, institutional interaction. (ibid.)

135

Focusing on the local management of talk-in-interaction is precisely what will be done in this chapter. In order to find out more about the power situation in Dream Team and in Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the following aspects will be looked at: - Institutional roles of questioner and answerer - Topic initiation - Formulating - Turn allocation and interruption - Dispreferred seconds - Opening & closing the conversation Speaking with authority is also often associated with the use of standard language (email Slembrouck 2012). In the previous chapter, it has already been explained why that is not the case here. The aim of this thesis is also not to analyse whether the participants on the radio programmes that are being looked at are using standard language or not. This aspect will therefore not be considered here. Another aspect that will not be considered here is turn length. According to Jeffries and McIntyre, the relative power of speakers in a conversation is often reflected in the turn constructional components of the conversation. Short […] [explains] […] that powerful speakers tend to dominate conversations and that this is reflected in their relative turn lengths. (Short as quoted by Jeffries & McIntyre 2010: 104) However, also as explained above, in interviews it is understood that the interviewee will talk more than strictly necessary in order to provide as complete an answer as possible to the question of the interviewer, and the interviewer usually restricts him- or herself to asking questions. Therefore, it is not relevant to consider turn length here. The above list of aspects that will be looked at is probably not an exhaustive list of aspects that could be looked at in order to investigate the power situation in Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone. However, a discussion of these aspects should give a good idea of what the situation is like.

6.1 Dream Team

6.1.1 Institutional roles of questioner and answerer

136

The institutional roles of questioner and answerer have already been mentioned in the chapter on broadcast talk. In institutional settings such as Dream Team, participants “have institutionally inscribed identities which affect the asymmetrical distribution of speaker rights and obligations in the talk” (Thornborrow 2001c: 119). Thornborrow adds that this asymmetry is linked to power: “[i]n many institutional contexts for talk […] the role of the questioner has been found to be a more powerful interactional position than the role of answerer” (ibid.), and this is because “’anyone in the position of answering is restricted to dealing with just what’s in the prior question’” (Drew as quoted by Thornborrow 2001c: 120). If one assumes the role of answerer, then, like the Dream Team lay participant does, one has a restricted set of responsive activities available to oneself (Hutchby 2006: 33). This, however, does not mean that as soon as the conversation starts and the host begins to ask questions, the power situation is set in stone. The questioner is usually more powerful in the conversation than the answerer, so if the lay participant wants to reverse the power balance, he or she may “try and maneouvre [sic]” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 2008: 213) the host into the position of the answerer. The host may also assume this position himself. The following part discusses whether the host is manoeuvred into the role of the answerer and/or whether he assumes this role himself in Dream Team.

As mentioned in the general overview, Dream Team is overwhelmingly structured according to a question/answer pattern: the host asks questions and the caller replies, as indicated in this diagram.

Opening Greeting/greeting (host/interviewee) Discussion of song 1 Question/expected answer and/or assessment/agreement (host/interviewee) Discussion of song 2 Question/expected answer and/or assessment/agreement (host/interviewee)

137

Discussion of song 3 Question/expected answer and/or assessment/agreement (host/interviewee) Closing Host announces songs 2 and 3 Thanks/thanks and/or greeting/greeting (host/interviewee and/or interviewee/host)

Some examples:

[1] (from 10/11)

Host hij was onlangs nog in ons land (.) ben je toevallig geweest? Ca nee The host asks if the caller went to a particular concert that took place recently. The caller replies to the question; it would seem strange if he did not. It is also worth noting here that the caller’s reply is neither an expected nor an unexpected answer. Interviewees usually reply with expected answers because most of the questions that the host asks are based on what the caller filled in on the registration form online. The host really does not know the answer to this question, though, and from the construction of his question it is clear that he does not expect to hear a “yes” rather than a “no” or vice versa.

[2] (from 25/10)

Host .hhh Adele kies je met Turning Tablesss ‘t is een leeftijdsgenote z’ is drieëntwintig zeker he? Ca ja Host ja en waarom (.) euh dat nummer (.) van Adele (.) Thomas?

138

Ca euhm ((vertelt waarom)) The host asks questions, and the interviewee replies.

[3] (from 07/11)

Host welke groep vind je ’t beste (.) van welke broer?= Ca =Beady Eye (.) [Beady Eye

[4] (from 20/10)

Host =dan Nick Cave met Into My Arms daar heb je ook heel goeie herinneringen aan kan ik me voorstellen [Inge Ca [ja dat klopt euh da was de openingsdans van ons huwelijk euh Host (1.3) wie had m gekoze? Ca wablieft? Host wie had ‘m gekozen [dat nummer? Ca [euh we hebben ‘m eigenlijk (.) samen gekozen

This question/answer (or, alternatively, assessment/agreement) pattern indicates, then, that the host usually assumes the more powerful position in the interaction. However, also as mentioned in the general overview, this question/answer system may sometimes be suspended. This actually happens relatively often, but it does not always entail that the interviewee effectively takes up the role of questioner. Of course, if the interviewee does not take up this role, the power situation is not actually reversed.

139

[5] (from 28/10)

Ca ni alleen da dus (.) euh blijkbaar heeft muziek voor de geboorte ook een heel .hh goeie invloed op u kind hh dus euh dan ben ik ook beginne nadenke van:: misschien kan ik al wa cds op voorhand maken die ik dan ook al in de auto of thuis ne keer kan afspele hh [( ) → Host [en weet je dat dat echt werkt (.) Kathleen? → ik [kan d’r over meespreken Ca [euh nee da [weet ik ni zeker Host [ja echt wel (.) [echt wel → Ca [JA? Host er was een cd’tje (.) euh toen mijn eerste dochter is geboren een cd’tje dat we daarvoor (.) dus tijdens de zwangerschap hebben afgespeeld en als ze onrustig was (.) toen het kindje er was he Ca ja ja= Host =hielp dat echt waar Ca [ah (.) allez hhh In this extract, for instance, the host suspends the interview system in order to tell a personal story himself. This extract has also been discussed in the general overview chapter; see example 9 for the longer extracts and additional comments. What is noticeable here is not only that the host temporarily gives up the role of questioner, but also that the caller does not take up that role even though it has been made interactionally available to her. The only question she does ask is the loud “JA?” indicated with the third arrow. The loudness and the prosody of this utterance,

140 however, make it clear that this is an indication of surprise rather than an actual question.

[6] (from 07/11)

Ca euh prachtig optreden eh Host ja → (0.5) er was heel want rond te doen (.) he (.) de: de: paardenworsten en het vlees .hhh → Ca [ja da was Host [euhm ja (.) → maar een scheet in een fles is achteraf gebleken he (.) toch Ca inderdaad At the first arrow, the host again stops asking questions. His utterance could be seen as an assessment, to which the caller replies with a suitable agreement. However, at this point, the caller could also have interpreted this as the host sharing factual knowledge, and he could have asked a question himself in his next turn. However, at his arrow-indicated turn he produces an agreement, thus leaving the power to ask questions with the host. The host takes up his role as questioner again, or in each case more clearly, at the third arrow: this is clearly an assessment to which the interviewee is expected to reply with an agreement.

This kind of system suspension is the only kind of interactional action that comes close to a reversal of the roles of questioner and answerers in the Dream Team data. Nowhere in the data does the answerer effectively become the questioner. In this aspect, then, the host is always in the most powerful position. Two more instances need to be mentioned in this regard, however: extracts [7] and [8].

141

[7] (from 08/11)

Host ja (.) en een fantastische groep ook he Koen → Ca (2.0) wablieft Host ook een fantastische groep toch (.) Radiohead? This extract contains the only instance in all ten episodes of Dream Team in which an interviewee asks the host a question. This question, though, is not really a question, but other-initiated self-repair: the interviewee did not understand the host and asks to repeat his question, which the host subsequently does.

[8] (from 09/11)

Host ja (.) Tineke van Heule Ca jah (.) inderdaad → en wij eh hebben trouwens ook een groot feest vrijdag [want eh Host [ja Ca wij vieren het negenhonderdjarige bestaan van onze gemeente Host ok (.) en wat gebeurt er allemaal (.) kort (.) Pieter Ca een euh voorstelling van euh een boek (.) euh met betrekking tot het euh bestaan van het negenhonderdjarig euh Heule Host ja Ca en euh ook euh (.) een: eh Highland games (.) in de namiddag Host ok=

142

Ca =dus waarin de verenigingen euh (.) elkaar bekampen Host ok ik wens jullie veel plezier (.) This extract has already been discussed in the general overview as well. As said there, the interviewee sees an opportunity in the turn indicated with the arrow to temporarily suspend the question/answer framework and to promote festivities that will take place in his town that weekend. The host allows this suspension for a short time. The caller has thus managed to temporarily escape the restrictions that have been imposed on him as an answerer. He does not, though, take over the role of the questioner; he merely tells what will be happening in Heule that weekend.

On Dream Team, then, the host typically takes up the role of questioner, and his interviewee that of answerer. The host may suspend the question/answer pattern himself, and on rare occasions, interviewees may do so as well, as in extract [8]. Interviewees never take on the role of questioner, though, even when the host produces talk that makes it possible for them to do so. Even instances that look like questions asked by the caller, such as in extracts [5] and [7], are not actual questions. When it comes to the power of the questioner, then, it seems that the host constantly possesses it.

6.1.2 Topic initiation

Another interesting aspect to look at when discussing power in institutional conversations is the power to initiate new topics in the conversation. This has already been mentioned in the discussion of storytelling in the chapter on credibility; Ochs and Capps mentioned the aspect of ‘launch control’ (2001: 125), referring to the fact that stories about someone’s experience are not always launched by the person who has had the experience, and not always at a time chosen by this experiencer (ibid.). Someone else may have the power to launch the experiencer’s story. The notion of topic initiation is broader than mere launch control. One who has the power to initiate topics does not only control which stories are told and when, but also what the topic of these stories should be. In regular conversations, it is normally the case that any participant may introduce new topics. This is typically done at transition relevance places, and as

143 discussed in the chapter on storytelling, tellers may start telling a story after someone else has told their story. Often, tellers will then present their stories as relevant, seen in the context of the previous story, even when they are actually not relevant (Jefferson as quoted by Ochs & Capps 2001: 39). In the Dream Team data, however, the aspect of topic initiation does not lead to any new insights. The right or the power to initiate new topics coincides completely with the host’s institutional role of questioner. Through asking questions, the host controls which topic will be dealt with at what point in the conversation. The only exceptions are when the lay participants move away from their role as answerer, as illustrated in extract [8]. This happens only on rare occasions, though, so the power to initiate topics can be said to lie with the host.

6.1.3 Formulating

Formulating summaries (Liddicoat 2007: 259) may be used as a power resource in institutional conversations. In radio programmes, this resource is again usually available to the host (Hutchby 2006: 92). Heritage noticed a link between the role of questioner and formulating: “formulating ‘is most commonly undertaken by questioners’” (Heritage as quoted by Hutchby 2006: 92). “[T]he host [is enabled] [...] to try and establish control over the agenda by selectively formulating the gist or upshot” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 2008: 214) of what the caller has just said. In the Dream Team data, it is indeed always the host that formulates. The interviewee may be given the option to confirm or disagree with the host’s formulation, but not always.

[9] (from 03/11)

Host een van je andere keuzes= =eh Eminem en Rihanna met Love The Way You Lie Ca (0.7) ja (.) euhm Eminem is zeker ni een van mijn favoriete bands als die nu naar ’t Sportpaleis zou komen zou ik nooit 50 euro betalen voor een ticket (.)

144

maar ik keek er wel enorm naar uit omda da wel (.) waarschijnlijk een van de enige kansen was (.) om ‘m toch eens gezien te hebben en: (.) ja ik kan ni ontkenne dat ‘m toch wel (.) euh (.) goeie muziek maakt in zijn genre (.) dat da toch wel een maat is waar je ni omheen kan en eigenlijk die kans da je da kan zien op zo’n festival (0.9) toch spijtig da da ni is doorgegaan → Host ‘t is e- ‘t is een beetje jouw eh guilty pleasure zo [een een een → Ca [ja awel Host een artiest die je stiekem wel goed vindt (.) maar die [je eigenlijk niet zo goed wil vinden → Ca [ja Host [hehhh Ca [hehe Host en dan heb je ook nog gekozen voor de Foo Fighters met All My Life The host formulates the interviewee’s words at the turn indicated with the first arrow. She does not truly give him the opportunity to refute or accept the formulation, because she keeps talking. As indicated with the second and third arrows, the interviewee does want to agree with the host’s formulation and he does so, but the talk he produces overlaps with hers because she continues talking after every transition relevance place.

[10] (from 09/11)

145

Ca en ik heb da liedje gekozen omdat het toch een euh soort van mengvorm is tussen verschillende genres van muziek en het heeft ook wel een beetje een opzwepend ritme dus euh ik vond dat wel euh (.) een favorietje → Host ja en heel ve- heel speciale sfeer zo he → Ca ja inderdaad

The host formulates at the first arrow. By ending his turn with “he”, he explicitly asks if the interviewee agrees with this. At the turn indicated with the second arrow, the interviewee does.

These are the only two instances of formulating found in the Dream Team data. Formulating does not happen very often, then, and is always done by the host.

6.1.4 Turn allocation and interruption

Sacks et al. write that there are three ways in which a next speaker may be selected (1974: 704): the current speaker may select the next speaker, the next speaker may self-select if the current speaker has not selected the next speaker, or the current speaker may continue speaking if neither of the two previous possibilities is fulfilled. Because in Dream Team it is usually the host that asks an interviewee questions (and there is only one host and one interviewee), it is also usually the host who selects the interviewee as next speaker. At several transition relevance places, the interviewee will then self-select as the next speaker, because he or she wants to tell a story. At the transition relevance place at the end of the story, then, the host will self-select as the next speaker, and ask a new question (see extracts [11] and [12]).

[11] (from 26/10)

146

Host Breakfast in Vegas van Praga Khan → je hebt Maurice ooit ontmoet Els → Ca hja (.) dikwijls eigenlijk (.) in Leuven (.) he dus euh ik woon in het Leuvensen (.) hij woont in eu::h Rotselaar euh (.) hja (.) laat ons zeggen dat dat wel een BV was die we regelmatig tegenkwamen in het Leuvense .hhh nu je kon er ook ni naast kijken [natuurlijk hihihi Host [hah heheh → neeneenee .hhh j’ebt ‘m ook ooit live gezien? At the first arrow, the host asks the interviewee a question, explicitly selecting her as the next speaker by naming her name. At the second arrow, the interviewee replies. She starts telling a story that has several transition relevance places, but these are ignored by the host and the interviewee keeps telling her story. At the third arrow, the host responds to the apparently finished narrative of the interviewee. He self- selects as the next speaker and asks the next question.

[12] (from 25/10)

Host goed Queen en David Bowie Thomas da’s van lang geleden euh (.) eind jaren zeventig begin jaren tachtig moet dat geweest zijn hoe heb je dat nummer dan ontdekt want je bent e- nog een euh een jonge kerel Ca ja eigenlijk heel toevallig maar euh gewoon via Youtube van ‘t een liedje naar ‘t ander en dan uiteindelijk daar dan bij (.) terecht gekomen en:

147

ja ( ) een hele tijd gewoon opgeslagen bij favorieten en (.) ja moest ik er gewoon terug aan denken Host ja ‘t is een heel straf nummer he The host names his interviewee at the beginning of his question. Here, the host produces several transition relevance places, but the interviewee does not act on the opportunity to start talking before it is clear that the host has finished asking his question. When the interviewee starts talking, the host also waits until he is finished before he makes another assessment.

Sometimes, as in extract [13], there will be overlapping talk at a TRP, but who speaks next is usually resolved relatively quickly.

[13] (from 03/11)

Host ‘t is e- ‘t is een beetje jouw eh guilty pleasure zo → [een een een → Ca [ja awel Host een artiest die je stiekem wel goed vindt

Turn allocation, then, is connected with the institutional roles of questioner and answerer. The host indicates when the interviewee should answer a question, and the interviewee understands that the answer should be as informative as possible, i.e. he or she will often provide a narrative. After this narrative, the host will move on to the next question, to which the interviewee will give another answer, and so on. That turn allocation is relatively straightforward on Dream Team is because of the interview framework and because there are only two interlocutors. There are also moments in which the host or the interviewee self-selects somewhat unexpectedly. These cases have already been discussed above, in extracts [5], [6] and [8]. In general, though, what can be concluded from the patterns of turn allocation on Dream Team is that the host selects himself and the interviewee as next speaker,

148 while the interviewee only self-selects. Once they have finished speaking, they generally do not select the host as next speaker, but the host self-selects to avoid silence and to move on to the next question.

Then, there is a special kind of turn allocation that is also discussed here: interruption. According to Jeffries and McIntyre, “[a] turn-overlap at any other point than a TRP constitutes an interruption” (2010: 102). In other words, an interruption occurs when a next speaker self-selects at a point in a conversation that is not a transition relevance place. This is often done because according to Sacks et al., in cases of “self-selection for next speakership […] first starter acquires rights to a turn” (1974: 704): interrupting someone before they have come to a TRP definitely is a way of making sure that one is the first starter and acquires rights to a next turn. However, interrupting someone is often seen as impolite11. This is precisely why interruptions are interesting to look at when dealing with power. Questions that will be dealt with are whether interviewees interrupt the host and/or vice versa, and if interruptions occur, whether the host or the interviewees allow these interruptions or not. Or, in other words, whether interviewees and hosts have the power to be impolite.

[14] (from 08/11)

Host ja (.) en [euh Coldplay → Ca [en om Host (1.1) [( ) Ca [omda ‘k die gezien ‘em op Werchter Host en hoe vond je dat Koen?

11 That interrupting someone is seen as impolite has to do with the notion of “face” (Brown & Levinson as quoted by Jeffries & McIntyre 2010: 110). “[E]veryone has both positive face needs […] and negative face needs” (ibid.). Interrupting someone is a negative “face threatening act” (ibid.), because it means that someone has prevented someone else “to go about one’s business unimpeded” (ibid.) Interrupting someone means producing an unmitigated face threatening act, and that is why it comes across as impolite (ibid.).

149

In this extract, the interviewee interrupts the host at the turn indicated with the arrow. From the host’s prosody in the turn before, it is clear that it is not a transition relevance place where the caller starts talking. After the host is interrupted, he allows the caller the chance to go on talking. However, as is clear from the long pause before the host talks again, the caller does not continue talking. Instead, the host starts talking again, to avoid too-long silences. That the caller does not continue talking even though he is given the opportunity to do so is probably because he has realized he has interrupted the host and wants to give him the opportunity to finish speaking. When the host starts talking again after a relatively long pause, the caller starts speaking again at the same time. The host stops talking immediately and lets the caller continue.

[15] (from 10/11)

Ca normaal gezien moe’k nu werken dus ’t is ‘t ‘open da m’n baas [ ( ) → Host [a:h ok ok ik ga je snel laten werken dan At the turn indicated with the arrow, the host interrupts the caller, who clearly has not reached a transition relevance place yet. Because the host interrupts, the rest of the caller’s utterance becomes incomprehensible for the listener. The caller gives up his speaker rights fairly quickly, and lets the host continue talking after he has come to a TRP.

[16] (from 26/10)

Host hehhh hja want het zijn je zegt het zelf euh een Belgische openingsdans maar ‘t zijn sowieso ook allemaal Belgische platen [in je Dream Team → Ca [ja klopt ja ja

150

shjaa (.) ik chjaa (.) ik heb mijn jeugd beleefd in de jaren tachtig en en: (.) toen waren er echt wel .hh heel wat vind ik heel goede Belgische groepen The host asks the interviewee a question, but she begins to answer it before the host has fully formulated it and thus before he has reached a TRP. The interviewee, it seems, does not necessarily want to interrupt the host. Perhaps she is merely so eager to agree with the host and tell her story that she starts talking before it is strictly speaking her turn.

It can be concluded that both the host and the interviewee may interrupt each other. This does not happen very often, though. It seems that the host and the interviewees are usually very polite towards one another.

6.1.5 Dispreferred seconds

The production of dispreferred seconds in adjacency pairs is similar to that of interruptions, because both are seen as impolite and as possible threats to “social solidarity” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 46). As explained in the chapter on CA, the organization of talk-in-interaction shows a “preference for agreement” (Liddicoat 2007: 111) and a “preference for contiguity” (ibid.). Dispreferred seconds are marked structures, and interactants will often try to mitigate them, or even not produce them at all but merely imply them (Slembrouck 2009: 63, 64). They are therefore interesting to look at when considering power: do the Dream Team lay participants feel confident enough to produce dispreferred seconds?12

The overwhelming majority of second pair parts that are produced on Dream Team are preferred seconds. As described in the general overview, the interviewee usually responds to the host’s questions and assessments with an affirmative or at

12 Because the host usually asks questions, he does not normally produce seconds. It is therefore not useful to investigate whether he produces dispreferred seconds or not.

151 least expected answer or an agreement. For examples, see extracts [5] to [7] in the general overview. One additional example:

[17] (from 03/11)

Host ma kijk Jens ik zal met jou meeduimen (.) euh dat ze: dat ze binnenkort nog eens ons land aandoen want dat is altijd wel een:: heel gebeuren (.) die mannen kunnen het wel he → Ca die kunnen het

On rare occasions, the lay participants will produce dispreferred seconds. When they do, the dispreferred seconds are strongly mitigated.

[18] (from 28/10)

Host seg en ’t wordt een flinke dochter? → Ca euh ja da weet ik nog ni eh [hhh Host [nee weet je ’t ni? Ca aja ik weet ’et wel maar de anderen mogen het nog ni weten Host ah dus toch blij dat het een zoon wordt (.) he → Ca (1.7) [( ) afwachten eh Host [hh ‘k kan maar proberen he Kathleen In this extract, the host is trying to find out whether the baby his interviewee is expecting will be a boy or a girl. First, the host asks a question that projects the preferred answer “yes, it will be a girl”. In the turn indicated with the first arrow, however, the interviewee claims that she does not know her baby’s sex yet. In her next turn she admits that she does know, but she does not want to tell. The host then tries again, asking a question to which the expected answer would be “yes, I am glad it will be a boy”. At the turn indicated with the second arrow, the interviewee again refuses to say yes or no. The interviewee thus produces two mitigated

152 dispreferred seconds: she produces neither the expected nor unexpected answer to the host’s question, but replies instead that she does not want to tell what her baby’s sex will be. That she mitigates her responses, though, is probably not because she does not want to risk breaking the social solidarity between the host and herself, but rather because producing a straightforward unexpected answer to either of the questions would mean revealing her baby’s sex.

[19] (from 17/11)

Host .hhh Foo Fighters kies je ook met My Hero is zij jou held? Ca (1.5) euh ook natuurlijk → en vooral de zoon ook he The host asks the interviewee a question, to which he initially replies with a preferred second. From the TCU indicated with the arrow, however, it is clear that he actually meant the song under discussion to be a tribute to his son, rather than his girlfriend (“zij”). He thus produces a dispreferred second disguised as a preferred second.

Lay participants on Dream Team, then, may produce dispreferred seconds, but they only do so on rare occasions, and even then only mitigated. Power is not the only explanation for the production, or lack thereof, of dispreferred seconds. Other elements are important as well, such as the time that participants have to talk, or the kind of questions asked by the host. On Dream Team, the host usually asks two kinds of questions. One kind of question are questions that do not project some kind of expected answer or agreement (as in extract [1]). The second kind are questions that do project some kind of expectation, but these are based on the information that the interviewee has filled in on the registration form. The host thus knows what answer he will get. Even though looking at this aspect may not readily lend itself to drawing any decisive conclusions about power, there is a remarkable difference in the production of dispreferred seconds between Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone. What these differences are and how they may be interpreted is discussed in the Papa Was A Rolling Stone part below.

6.1.6 Opening and closing the conversation

153

How the host opens and closes each Dream Team conversation is described in the general overview. The fact that the host does this is relevant for the discussion of power. Thornborrow points out that for her data, “the call opening sequences bring callers into the talk as ‘summoned parties’” (2001c: 140). This is also true for Dream Team, as the interviewees only speak after the host has wished them a good morning. Interviewees are thus dependent on the host for their initial production of talk. Thornborrow also writes that “control of what gets heard on air in a phone-in ultimately lies with the host, the institutional operator of technical equipment” (2001c: 137). This, again, is also true for Dream Team. The host has to take the necessary technical steps to let a caller speak on air, putting the caller again in a dependent position. The host also has the technical resources to end a caller’s on-air time. The only options available to the callers are to not pick up the phone when the host calls them or to end the conversation by hanging up the phone. The technical aspect, then, is one in which the host is always more powerful than the interviewee, and the interviewee has no chance of changing or even influencing this aspect. The host is also the one who manages the end of each conversation. Closing a conversation is, as mentioned in the conversation analysis chapter, a delicate business, because it needs to be done in such a way that social solidarity is not threatened, and that all participants have had the chance “to talk about all of the things which need to be dealt with in the conversation” (Liddicoat 2007: 255). On Dream Team it is even more delicate because the closing needs to be achieved after a particular period of time. The host can thus not afford to let his interviewees talk for too long. Extract [10] in the general overview is an example of how the host manages the ending of a call when the interviewee is still talking. This proves that the host does attempt to come to a coordinated closing, rather than just hanging up, however this may be done in the radio studio. As described in the general overview, the conversations always end with reciprocal greetings and/or thanks. The host, then, does take the interviewee into account, but is ultimately the one who controls the closing of the conversation. Because he is the one person who manages and who has the possibility to open and close the Dream Team conversations, the host is in this aspect more powerful than the interviewee. The host has control over both the technical and the

154 conversational aspects of conversation openings and closings. The interviewee can never take over control over these elements.

6.2 Papa Was A Rolling Stone

6.2.1 Institutional roles of questioner and answerer

As on Dream Team, it is usually the host who takes up the role of questioner on Papa Was A Rolling Stone. It has been discussed in the general overview that the system of questions or assessments and answers or agreements is more complicated on Papa Was A Rolling Stone than on Dream Team; see the general overview chapter for a more detailed discussion. Examples of the host asking questions and the guests answering:

[20] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)

Host uit de favoriete plaat van eh Geert Segers […] .hh hoorde je euh Boudewijn De Groot en Testament .hhh dat is toch je favoriete plaat he Geert? Geert eu:h jawel hoor ja ja dat is de top euh voor mij de euh Voor De Overlevenden de: (.) hele plaat staat vol prachtige nummers vind ik

[21] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)

Host seg euhh hoe gebeurde dat vroeger Ella (.) kreeg jij de muziek euh met de paplepel erin gegoten zoals dat heet

155

of gebeurde dat echt zelfs met ijzeren vuist zo wat moet ik mij daar bij voorstellen Ella nee in zekere zin wel der sta ook bij ons thuis wel altijd iets op radio TV euh MTV dan of zo als achtergrondgeluid hoewel het tegewoordig meer Pimp My Ride is

[22] (from Raúl & Gabriel Rios)

Host .hh do you remember getting that record from euh from Gabriel Raúl ya:h ya:h I think he had (.) been here seen them live here Host [ja Raúl [in in e::rm in Holland I think .hh and brought it e::r e:r to to summer when (.) he came to: to Puerto Rico

Numerous similar examples could be given. It is clear that most of the time, the host is the one asking questions, and the guests are the ones giving answers. In the Papa Was A Rolling Stone data, there are also no instances where the host voluntarily abandons his role as questioner in order to tell the audience or his interviewee something, as in extracts [5] and [6]. What happens in extract [23] below approaches this, but cannot be interpreted as the host giving his guests a chance to start asking questions.

[23] (from Raúl & Gabriel Rios)

Host .hh euh Raúl die af en toe ook vroeger (.) mix tapes maakte voor Gabriel om (.) dan toch wat bij te brengen muzikaal → ’t is ‘m ook gelukt

156

.hhh euh i- was Billy Joel one of those euh one of the people that were on those mix tapes of yours After the TCU that is indicated with the arrow, there is a transition relevance place where either one of the guests could, theoretically, self-select as the next speaker and start talking. However, from the prosody of the host in producing this TCU, it is clear that he has in fact not said everything he wishes to say during his turn. His guests let him speak and the host consequently asks another question.

There are, however, some instances where one of the answerers temporarily stop answering questions and tell the audience something that is not necessarily a personal narrative, as in extract [8], or that is not necessarily relevant for the ongoing conversation.

[24] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)

Host zullen w’is luisteren naar Destiny’s Child wat is een wat is een goeie om euh om om te draaien Nona ja (.) Say My Name vin’k wel (.) Bart [eej Nona [’s wel tof eh Bart wete da (.) diejen beat (.) die was eigenlijk dubbel zo traag he (.) .hh dus (.) da da was eigenlijk de bedoeling om da dubbel zo traag in te zingen (.) en die hebben da dubbel zo rap ingezongen (.) en zo is die Destiny’s Child (.) stijl ontstaan en als je dat weet (.) dan begrijp je dit nummer ook beter hahaha Nona hehehe

157

Host wel (.) we gaan (.) we gaan er ’s rekening mee houden dit is Destiny’s Child (.) In this extract, Bart starts talking about Destiny’s Child even though the host has not asked him anything and wants to start playing the song. The information that Bart shares is not irrelevant, but it is unsolicited.

[25] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)

Jan ah ja ja ja ja Vara’s Pop Gala Ella [ja Host [och Ella [dat Jan [ja Vara’s Pop Gala → dat op zich was zo’n (.) werkelijk (.) aandoenlijke uitzending je zag dus de [voorbereiding Ella [geweldig Jan van een popconcert .hhh da was in denk ik ’73 ofzo maar (.) de (.) ‘et amateurisme (.) en ‘et gewone aandoenlijke sympathieke geklungel en de totale afwezigheid .hh van zo s- Duitse schepers .hh euh metaaldetectoren euh b- security da was gewoon zo wete wel .hhh euh (.) d’r werd iemand geïnterviewd en die zei ja ik ik ik ging dan naar Rod Stewart in de kleedkamer en ik vroeg blabla[bla Host [hehhh Jan ge kon dus in die dagen gewoon en Rod Steward was een wereldster .hhh en (0.6) ja → ma bon euh waar waren we gebleven?

158

Host [hehhhehe Jan [bij Rory Gallagher Host [ja Jan [en die speelde daar dus ook op [Vara’s Pop Gala Ella [ja Previous to this extract, the host had asked Ella how she discovered Rory Gallagher. She said she saw him on tv, but did not remember the name of the tv programme. At the beginning of this extract, Jan remembers the name of the tv programme. This is still a relevant contribution to the answer to the question of how Ella discovered Rory Gallagher. At the TCU indicated with the first arrow, however, Jan starts to recall how he felt about that particular tv programme and what else happened in it. This is no relevant contribution to the answer asked by the host. In fact Jan loses track of the conversation himself, as can be seen at the utterance indicated with the second arrow. The talk that Jan produces in between these two arrows is unsolicited and irrelevant.

What is remarkable from these two extracts is that even though guests Bart and Jan do not actually become questioners, they do move away from their roles as answerers, since the talk they produce is not a response to a question that was asked. It is also noticeable that the host does not interrupt them, but lets them finish talking. This kind of moving away from the role of the answerer does not occur very often.

Lastly, there are also some instances in which an answerer becomes a questioner for a brief moment. These also do not occur very often.

[26] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)

Bart is het misschien (.) ouwemensen (.) muziek → (0.9) .hh ge moogt soms tips geven he (0.7) ge moet dit nummer (.) That Look You Give That Guy (.) opzoeken op YouTube (.) en dan vooral (.)

159

die (.) die clip die hij heeft gemaakt met die Indiase (.) euh actrice → weet jij dat? Host nee die heb ik niet [dat is nieuw Bart [sjongejongejonge Pak Mau (.) eeuh Rama weet ik veel wa (.) ‘et komt erop neer dat The Guy (.) waar dat hij zo jaloers op is (.) dat is zijnen eigen hond (.) en daardoor heb je dat woord pedigree In this extract, which in part has also been discussed in the general overview, Bart first asks permission to temporarily abandon his role of answerer (first arrow). He tells the audience to look for a music video on YouTube. At the second arrow, he has not only abandoned his answerer role, but he even assumes that of questioner. The host subsequently becomes the answerer. When it turns out the host has not seen the video, Bart goes on to explain why it is so special. As discussed in the general overview, a little later in the conversation the host skilfully moves back into the questioner role.

[27] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)

Host ik moet toegeven ik had ’t nog nooit g’oord maar ‘k vind het heel erg mooi Lieven Coppieters .hh met euh Neerhof → Luc wat vind je d’r mooi aan Otto-Jan Host ik vind (.) alles eigenlijk heel erg mooi de sfeer In this extract, the host repeats the name of the song that has just been played, as well as the name of the song’s performing artist. Because he does not immediately ask a question, Luc has the opportunity to ask a question at the next TRP. He asks a question and selects the host as the answerer through naming his name. The host subsequently replies to the question.

160

[28] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)

Iwein as we dan ietske meer rock ’n roll wille we zijn (.) tenslotte op Studio Brussel → .hh euh ik (.) °ik hoop da je da beseft Otto- Jan° Host [ik ben eh (.) op de hoogte Iwein [( ) Stanneke In this extract, Iwein asks the host if he is aware he is part of a show that is broadcast on Studio Brussel. The host replies that he is. Iwein very shortly becomes the questioner in this extract. However, it is clear that he is asking this question as a joke. His joke is actually part of an answer that he is giving, because the host has previously asked him to choose a song: Host ja ’t is moeilijk daar uit kieze euh Iwein welke: welke gaan we doen Iwein [ja ik ( ) Host [‘k ga jou de keuze laten Iwein names practically all the record’s songs in reply, including ‘Stanneke’ as an apparently more rock ‘n roll option. So Iwein asks the host a question, but this question is actually a joke, part of a larger reply to a question asked to Iwein. Nevertheless, the guest manages to ask the host a question in this extract, and he gets a reply from the host; he has, thus, briefly but effectively assumed the role of questioner.

The situation as far as questioner and answerer roles are concerned is, then, a bit different in Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, but not much. In both programmes, the host is most usually the questioner. On Dream Team, the host sometimes steps aside from his role as a questioner to address the audience or the interviewee, but the interviewee never uses the occasion to become the questioner themselves. On one occasion, the Dream Team interviewee moved away from the role of the answerer, but without becoming a questioner. On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the host does not move away from the role of questioner the way the Dream Team host does. The guests do sometimes move away from their role as answerers, and may or may not become questioners. However, this happens very infrequently.

161

It seems the host, then, is mostly the one in the most powerful role in both programmes.

6.2.2 Topic initiation

On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the right to initiate topics is also linked to the institutional role of the questioner. This means that it is usually the host who has this power, except when guests move away from the role of the answerer, as discussed above. The following extract is an example of the host overtly exercising his power to initiate a new topic:

[29] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen)

Host ja ja ja dat dat dat euh dat dat euh kan ik me iets bij voorstellen ? [hahaha → Host [.hh we moeten misschien even nog naar een .hh euh naar iets heel anders naar naar Sonic Youth (.) een van jouw (.) favoriete bands Lee ja dat is mijn: favoriete band

It has already been remarked that on Dream Team, the host has the power to decide which topic is dealt with at what time because he is the one who asks the interviewee questions. A topic about which the host does not ask a question is usually not mentioned by the interviewee. On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, though, guests may start talking about other topics when their witnessing moves or narratives lend themselves to it. In such cases, the host may seize the next opportunity he has to speak and perform actions to direct the course of the conversation. The fact that he does this makes it clear that the host does have the power to initiate and manage topics, and that he actively takes steps to control this power in order to be able to direct the conversation.

[30] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe)

162

Luc euhm (.) ‘k denk dat hij een tijdje ook een euh Eminem cool gevonden heeft enzo [en al Host [ja Luc ja: ik denk wel allez (.) dat die dat ‘em die plaat nog gekocht heeft [( ) → Host [hah (.) [we gaan daar zeker nog op terugkomen straks Luc [terwijl ik die maar niks vond (.) terwijl ik die maar niks vond Host ja In this extract, Luc, one of the guests, starts talking about Eminem. This is a topic the host wants to deal with later. At the TCU indicated with the arrow, he seizes the opportunity to speak, even while Luc is still talking. By then saying that they will return to the topic of Eminem later, the host takes steps to ensure that the conversation will still go as he intends. In this case it means that Eminem will be discussed, but not until later. And indeed, later on the host does play an Eminem song, and this topic is then dealt with in the conversation: [((My Name Is)) Host [My Name Is euh van Eminem euh euh ‘t is euh misschien ni meteen een plaat die ik euh zou verwachten euh in euh jullie platenkast hh (.) Lenny Lenny euh da’s:: euh ja ik moet daar heel duidelijk over [zijn ik was z::even Host [ehhehehe

In the above example the host does not explicitly state that the topic in question, here Eminem, had been touched upon before. Sometimes, though, he does do this. When he does he is again overtly managing the conversational topics. An example from the same conversation as the extract above:

[31] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe)

163

Host euh (.) maar dan moete we ’t toch ook hebbe wa- → w’ebbe ’t er al heel even over gehad eu::h daarnet .hhh toch nog over Lou Reed hebben

[32] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)

Bart maar natuurlijk ook Karma Police (.) .hh omdat voor mij (.) dat doet denken aan Sexy Sadie eh (.) van den dubbele witte van The Beatles eh (.) .hh dus dan zijn we weer thuis [hehehehehehe Nona [hahaha Host [hehe → ja euh gaan we ’t zeker ook straks nog over hebben The Beatles want dat is ook dat is ook iets wat jullie bindt eigenlijk wel die band natuurlijk (.) → iets euh wa- wat jullie ook beiden heel goed vinden en wat mij enigszins verbaasde was (.) Destiny’s Child In this extract, the host again says that the topic that one of the guests, Bart, had come to, will be dealt with later in the conversation. The second arrow indicates the TCU in which the host starts to introduce the topic that the host does want to discuss at that time.

From these examples, it is clear that the host has the power not only to initiate topics through the questions he asks, but also to manage the topics that his guests initiate. The host may both initiate topics himself and postpone topics that are initiated by others. Guests do not have this power.

164

6.2.3 Formulating

As in the Dream Team data, it is always the host who formulates in the Papa Was A Rolling Stone data. He does this a lot more than the Dream Team host. This is not necessarily because he wants to “establish control over the agenda” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 2008: 214) more than the Dream Team host does, but is rather linked to the length of the programme and the higher number and longer narratives that are told on Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Formulating has already been discussed in the general overview, including the extract in which the host very creatively formulates starting to like Bob Dylan as learning to eat oysters (example [12] in the general overview). Here are some additional examples.

[33] (from Kamagurka & Sarah Zeebroek)

Sarah nee maar da was echt (.) ja da was ge- ‘k viel gewoon omver ei’lijk da was ei’lijk ja ‘oe noemde da zo (.) een moment (.) verlichting Host [ja Sarah [hehe → Host Aha-Erlebnis op [’n bepaalde manier Sarah [ja (.) absoluut The host formulates the description of Sarah’s feelings. She produces overlapping talk during his formulation to agree with him, and is given the chance to agree again after he has finished talking.

[34] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen)

Host .hh euh beste Lee Swinnen (.) stond er bij jullie thuis vroeger altijd muziek op? Lee eu::hm da kunde wel zegge ja

165

’t ‘s toch altijd wel ne cd diejen op of op de radio of euh als Guy gewoon aan ’t spele was Host ja en wat was dat was dat dan altijd hetzelfde of was er een ritueel op zondag moest er dat op staan of euh hoe hoe ging dat dan Lee .hh euhm hehh gewoon stond gewoon altijd muziek op ja ni echt een ritueel of niks:: Host nee Guy nee nee → Host dus er was euh geen ontsnappen aan muziek bij jullie thuis Lee da kunde wel zegge ja In this extract, the host asks one of hist guests a couple of questions. At the turn indicated with the arrow, he formulates the gist of what his guest has answered to these questions. The host produces this formulation in the form of a question, thus explicitly asking his guest to corroborate the formulation. The guest subsequently does this.

[35] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe)

Host luister je nog veel naar hiphop euh Lenny tegenwoordig? Lenny ja old school stuff eh Jurrassic 5 en zo van die [dingen wel nog Host [ja Lenny f- van allez heel af en toe maar ni echt euh Host ja ja ja ja ja Lenny ni zo veel → Host nee je volgt het ni helemaal meer Lenny [nee

166

Host [.hhh de klik is ’n beetje of e- e- ‘et ‘et grote kantelpunt bij jou is (.) gekomen The host asks a question, the guest replies, and the host formulates the guest’s answer. Here, the host does not give his guest the chance to accept or refute the formulation. Lenny does say “nee” at a transition relevance place, but at the same time, the host starts talking about something else and they produce overlapping talk.

There are many more examples of this kind of talk to be found in the Papa Was A Rolling Stone data. The host, then, has the power to formulate, and uses this power relatively often. He may or may not give his guests the opportunity to accept or refute his formulation.

6.2.4 Turn allocation and interruption

As discussed in the general overview, the host is not the exclusive holder of turn- allocation power. Whereas he is the one that selects the next speaker most frequently, both explicitly and implicitly, his guests may also self-select, or select the other guest or even the host as the next speaker.

[36] (from Guy & Jens Mortier)

Host en afgelopen Long Tall Sally .hh euh ik ik zag je ik zag je meedoen euh euh → Guy Guy ja ja fantastisch The host selects the next speaker by naming him. Guy understands that it is his turn to speak and does so.

[37] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)

Host met jouw goedvinden (.) Geert (.) ook? Geert da’s ok [((Ik Ga Naar Huis intro)) Host [( )

167

→ Iwein [doet een beetje denke aan Snow Patrol trouwens (.) vind ik (.) da gitarreken ‘ier In this extract, the guest self-selects. The host or the other guest have not asked him a question; in fact the song has already started playing, but Iwein still has something to say.

For an example of a guest selecting an other guest as the next speaker, see example 7 in the general overview. The next example, taken from the same conversation, is one where one of the guests selects the host as the next speaker. Another example is extract [27] above.

[38] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)

Host we- ze- jullie hebben ze ontmoet en da’s het belangrijkste [.hh maar dat euh → Ella [OJ (.) je was anders ook wel serieus mee aan ’t dansen hoor daarnet Host ja maar dat ik dans op alle k- [euh alle muziek natuurlijk Ella [hehe Host dat mag je mij niet kwalijk nemen= → Jan =dit (.) dit nummer associeer ik ook met (.) bijna verongelukken op de autostrade naar ‘t Zuiden At the first arrow, one of the guests informally addresses the host with his nickname. She self-selects as the next speaker after the host’s turn, which is possible because the host has not selected a next speaker in his turn. By naming the host, she selects him as the next speaker, and in the next turn the host does indeed speak. The second arrow is not a case of ‘guest selects host as next speaker’, but is rather another example of a guest who self-selects as the next speaker.

168

Interruptions occur on Papa Was A Rolling Stone as well. Guests interrupt other guests relatively often, certainly in comparison with instances of guests interrupting the host. Interestingly, the host does not intentionally interrupt his guests.

[39] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)

Geert [((keelgeluid)) ma (.) soit HEHE thh (.) mja de de echtheid gaat [VOOR (.) voor alles bij mij → Iwein [ja (.) ik vin da echt ni Geert [ja Iwein [ja (.) ik weet ni of da zo echt is In this extract, one of the guests, Geert, is explaining something when the other guest, Geert’s son, interrupts him.

[40] from Guy & Jens Mortier)

Jens ja ik heb een paar foto’s nog waar ik (.) als als kind euh [ ( ) Guy [ ( ) Jens euhm::: en tutters en en: en::: een plaat van de Beatles op schoot zat enzo [ ( ) Guy [ ( ) (.) en wij waren dan trots op als er bezoek kwam dan moest hij dan dan vroegen wij hem zeg noem de namen van de Beatles ’s en dan .hh In this extract, one of the guests, Jens, is talking, when the other guest, Jens’s father Guy, interrupts him. Both men keep talking, which results in neither of them being

169 comprehensible anymore. In the end, Guy wins speaker rights, and continues his story.

[41] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)

Host ik euh deel je je pijn Ella [want ik heb ook geen extra naam Jan [maar dus als ze dieje naam kwijt is heeft ze d’r gene meer Host nee (.) maar dat kan misschien nog je kan het misschien → wel me[t eh terugwerkende kracht Ella [maar wa ik heb ‘et nooit goe begrepe ‘oe ‘oe ‘oe ‘oe k- ‘oe kan je een naam kwijtspelen One of the guests interrupts the host to ask the other guest something. She then gains speaker rights and asks her question.

[42] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)

Host en dan had je de (.) die drumster van euh van Lenny Kravitz en die speelde ook zo [die speelde → Bart [Cindy Blackman Host [ja e- ‘et lij- Bart [Cindy Blackman Host ‘et lijkt zo wat houterig eigenlijk te zijn is dat is dat iets typisch? Even though it may appear from the transcript that the host and his guest start talking at the same time at a transition relevance place, this is not the case. From the host’s prosody it is clear that he has not reached a TRP. The guest is so keen to display his knowledge, though, that he excitedly exclaims the name of the woman under discussion before the host has finished talking. The host does not want to give the

170 guest speaker rights, but as the host undertakes another attempt to produce the talk he intended to produce, the guest speaks again. Only after this repetition can the host continue talking and say what he wanted to say.

Turn allocation and interruption are interesting elements in the consideration of the power situation on Papa Was A Rolling Stone. The Dream Team data suggest a power asymmetry in favour of the host, albeit a rather subtle one. On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, it is also usually the host who selects the next speaker, but the guests self-select and other-select much more frequently than the lay participants on Dream Team. Of course, this has to do with the fact that there are only two interlocutors on the latter, whereas there are three physically co-present interlocutors on the former. This is not the only explanation for the difference in turn allocation techniques between the two radio programmes, though. Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants handle their speaker rights more assertively, instead of consistently waiting for some kind of summons from the host as the Dream Team participants do. The Papa Was A Rolling Stone guests are confident enough even to address the host and select him as the next speaker, and they regularly interrupt each other and even the host. The host is always polite towards his guests and does not interrupt them.

6.2.5 Dispreferred seconds

In the general overview, it has already been described that Papa Was A Rolling Stone guests may and do produce dispreferred seconds. This diagram presents the different responsive possibilities for the guests to the host’s assessments:

Diagram 2

171

This diagram was followed by an example (extract [6] in the general overview). Here are some additional examples of guests producing dispreferred seconds.

[43] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)

Host van euh van euh en van dat nummer is het eigenlijk maar een heel kleine stap naar euh Sigur Rós he met e:h sfeergewijs → Luc a::h jah ((sarcastisch)) Eppo [ehehehehehe Host [nee maar ’t is eigenlijk wel [gra- → Eppo [met u lange benen ja Host ehheheh .hh Luc Janssen toch van heel veel mensen of toch iemand die van heel veel mensen euh de muzieksmaak wat bepaald heeft denk ik In this extract, the host makes an assessment. Luc, one of the guests, clearly disagrees, because his response is very sarcastic. Sarcasm is something that does not occur in the Dream Team data. When the host presumably attempts to defend himself, Eppo, the second guest, jokingly expresses his disagreement as well. The host’s assessment is obviously not agreed to by the two guests and when his attempt at defending himself fails, he changes the subject.

[44] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)

Host en as je : as je : (.) The Smiths en Morrissey ja we moeten ze toch even vergelijken eh heb- hebbe ze (.) even .hhh een even grote plek in je hart ondertussen → of of euh heb je toch een lichte voorkeur nog steeds voor de band

172

→ Iwein neuh ja be- ik denk zelfs da Morrissey een lichte voorkeur heeft °dan The Smiths° At the first arrow, the host asks a question that is constructed to have “yes, indeed I still prefer the band” as the expected answer, and thus the preferred second. The guest, however, does not particularly “prefer the band”, and thus produces an unexpected answer. This is a dispreferred second, though a far less strong one than the one in the previous extract.

On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, then, dispreferred seconds are produced much more often by the guests than they are by the Dream Team lay participants. As discussed in the Dream Team part, this does not necessarily mean that Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants are much more powerful than their Dream Team counterparts. Guests on Papa Was A Rolling Stone have more time to produce more elaborate replies such as the one in example [6] in the general overview, and the host also asks questions that are not based on information previously given to him by the guests. However, it remains an observable fact that Papa Was A Rolling Stone guests produce more dispreferred seconds than Dream Team interviewee. They are in a position where they do not have to constantly agree with the host and may be considered stronger, more confident answerers than those on Dream Team.

6.2.6 Opening and closing the conversation

How the host opens and closes each Papa Was A Rolling Stone conversation is described in the general overview. It is again the host who speaks first, bringing not callers but studio guests “into the talk as ‘summoned parties’” (Thornborrow 2001c: 140); see for instance example [5] in the general overview. Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants are thus equally dependent on the host for their initial production of talk as the Dream Team participants. The host is also still “the institutional operator of technical equipment” (Thornborrow 2001c: 137). However, whereas the only technical control that Dream Team participants have is being able to hang up the phone in the middle of the conversation, Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants are physically present in the radio studio and could, theoretically speaking, seize control over the host’s technical equipment. The only way they could really take over control over the equipment would probably be through using physical violence

173 against the host, or by destroying the equipment, though. Even if they did manage to take over the host’s position, most of them would be unable to use the equipment. In each case, the studio guests do have this option, even though it is highly unlikely they would ever use it. Dream Team participants are on the phone and do not have this option. Nevertheless, even on Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the host is the one who controls the technical aspect of the broadcast. On Papa Was A Rolling Stone it is, as mentioned in the general overview, also the host who manages the end of each conversation. Even though Papa Was A Rolling Stone is a one-hour broadcast and Dream Team only lasts several minutes, the host needs to make sure the conversation is ended within that particular time slot. Papa Was A Rolling Stone does not end with the same kind of exchange of greetings and/or thanks as Dream Team does, but the closing is nevertheless carefully coordinated and negotiated; see for instance example [14] in the general overview. The host again does take the guests into account, but is ultimately the one who controls the closing of the conversation. The link between the power situation and the opening and closing of conversations, then, is largely the same as it is for Dream Team. The host has the possibility to open and close the conversations, both technically and conversationally, and is in this aspect more powerful than the studio guests. Technically, the studio guests have options that Dream Team participants do not have, but it is very unlikely that they would ever use these options, and indeed they never do so in the Papa Was A Rolling Stone data. Conversationally, the host is in charge.

6.3 Conclusion

Before summarizing and tying up the conclusions of the above discussion of the power situation in Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, it is well worth looking back even further for an instant. The previous chapter dealt with credibility. Ways in which both lay and expert participants may create or enhance credibility have been explored, as well as how the host may help to build or corroborate a participant’s credibility. Ochs and Capps write that “[t]he rub is that standards of credibility are typically controlled by more powerful interlocutors” (2001: 266). This is an interesting remark. The one that controls standards of credibility on Dream Team

174 and Papa Was A Rolling Stone is the host. That he is able to do so is, apparently, because he is the “more powerful [interlocutor]” (ibid.). The discussion of the Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone data shows that, indeed, the power balance generally heels over in the direction of the host. Several insights from or inspired by conversation analysis have been used in this chapter to come to this conclusion. The institutional roles of questioner and answerer, topic initiation, formulating, turn allocation and interruption, dispreferred seconds, and opening and closing of the conversation are the aspects that have been looked at here, and from the investigation of these six aspects it has become clear that on both radio programmes, the host is more powerful than the interviewees. Taking control over standards of credibility also into account only confirms this conclusion. Neither show’s host takes too much advantage of their power over the other participants, though. On both programmes, the host is a friendly and respectful conversation manager. Dream Team interviewees appear to have less power and seem to change their position around less than Papa Was A Rolling Stone guests. This difference exists because of the different conversational structures and aims of Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Also, Papa Was A Rolling Stone guests are likely to be more confident speakers because they are physically present in the radio studio, because they have more time to speak, and because they have been attributed expert status at the beginning of the programme. Despite this, the treatment and the overall power situation is not hugely different on the two programmes. It is rather the positions that each programme’s participants take up for themselves that are different.

175

176

7. Conclusion

Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone are two radio programmes on Studio Brussel. Do the interviewees on both programmes come across as credible, and if so, how have they achieved this? Is it the host or one of the interviewee that is in power during the interaction, and how is this power brought about? Is there any difference in the treatment of the interviewees on the two shows? And can general conclusions be drawn about credibility and power in the two programmes? Those are the questions that have been dealt with above. Ten episodes of Dream Team and nine episodes of Papa Was A Rolling Stone have been analyzed. Predominantly, conversation analysis was used, with additional insights from Goffman and CA-inspired theories to complete the analysis. This paper started with a discussion of Goffman and his insights with regards to frameworks of social interaction and theatricality. These insights are very useful for the consideration of power and credibility on Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, and they will be discussed with regards to these programmes below. First, conversation analysis itself should be dealt with. The chapter on CA followed that on Goffman. This chapter discussed how CA came into being and what its general principles are. Conversation analysis is a versatile sociolinguistic method that can and has lead to interesting insights in various disciplines, such as sociology, linguistics and sociolinguistics. CA has demonstrated that interaction is ordered, and that the orderliness of interaction may be studied and described in a scientific way (Sacks as quoted by Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 34). To do this, CA looks at observable aspects of social order in their interactional contexts (Slembrouck 2009: 15, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 15, 35, Hutchby 2006: 21). One of the most important observable aspects of orderliness in interaction is that of turn-taking. Sacks et al. have comprised a list of fourteen “grossly apparent facts” (1974: 700) about turn-taking in conversations. This list is featured in the conversation analysis chapter and will not be given here again. Special about this list is that it has “the important twin features of being context-free and capable of extraordinary context-sensitivity” (Sacks et al. 1974: 699). Because of this, the list of fourteen facts is useful even for institutional interaction. Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone are both examples of institutional talk. The

177 fourteen facts do not apply to the two radio programmes as such, but a transformation of the list does. Many observable features of conversational talk are found in institutional talk also. The institutional talk that has been discussed here also has a turn constructional component and a turn allocational component (Sacks et al. 1974: 702-703, Liddicoat 2007: 54, 63). Turns are also made up of turn constructional units (TCUs) (Liddicoat 2007: 54, Sacks et al. 1974: 702) and speaker- change may occur at transition relevance places (TRPs) (Sacks et al. 1974: 703). Speakers make use of a range of “turn-allocational techniques” (ibid.). In the data, adjacency pairs may also be found, as well as various instances of repair and opening and closing sequences. These are all conversation analytic categories that have been important in the investigation of power and credibility in this thesis, with the exception of repair. As mentioned above, the talk that is produced on Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone broadcasts is a form of institutional talk. More specifically, it is broadcast talk. In the chapter on broadcast talk, it was explained that broadcast talk distinguishes itself from other forms of institutional discourse because of three features (Hutchby 2006: 18). These are: - Broadcast talk adopts elements of everyday conversation as part of its overarching communicative ethos; - Broadcast talk is nevertheless different from ordinary conversation by virtue of being an institutional form of discourse that exists at the interface between public and private domains of life (e.g. the studio settings in which the talk is produced and the domestic settings in which it is received); - Broadcast talk is a specific type of institutional discourse because it is directed at an ‘overhearing’ audience separated from the talk’s site of production by space and also, frequently, by time. (ibid.) Three kinds of broadcast talk are the news interview, the radio phone-in and the talk show. The chapter on broadcast talk explained that Dream Team shares characteristics with all three, whereas Papa Was A Rolling Stone shares characteristics with the news interview and the talk show. For this reason, the specific terms that are used for the institutional roles of these three kinds of broadcast talk are used as synonyms in this thesis: ‘interviewee’, ‘caller’, ‘lay participant’ and ‘interlocutor’ for the Dream Team lay participants and ‘interviewee’,

178

‘guest’, ‘studio guest’, and ‘expert participant’ for the Papa Was A Rolling Stone expert participants. The most important difference between Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone is the difference between a lay and an expert participant, even though the expert status of the Papa Was A Rolling Stone participant is not unambiguous. He or she is an expert talking for him- or herself. Ultimately, though, the Goffmanian frameworks of the two programmes is the same. Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone are both radio programme frameworks, and also interview frameworks. The former is a framework without and the latter a framework with physically co-present participants. Both programmes sometimes show temporary framework disruptions or suspensions, and both are produced for an overhearing audience. How the two radio programmes are structured and what their specific characteristics are was explained in the general overview chapters. Dream Team, part of Music@Work, is aired on Studio Brussel every morning on weekdays. The basic idea is that the host asks a Studio Brussel listener, who is on the phone, questions about songs which the listener has previously selected and which he or she likes very much. The listener takes the initiative to be on the radio, but the host decides who will and who will not be on the radio based on the listener’s selected songs. This results in an interview between a caller (who is actually a ‘called’) and the host. It is always structured according to the same general principles: Opening Greeting/greeting (host/interviewee) Discussion of song 1 Question/expected answer and/or assessment/agreement (host/interviewee) Discussion of song 2 Question/expected answer and/or assessment/agreement (host/interviewee) Discussion of song 3 Question/expected answer and/or assessment/agreement (host/interviewee) Closing Host announces songs 2 and 3 Thanks/thanks and/or

179

greeting/greeting (host/interviewee and/or interviewee/host) In the opening and closing of the interaction, adjacency pairs are always produced. In the middle part, adjacency pairs are also produced, but departures from the interview system may occur. This does not happen very often, though. In the middle part, lay participants also produce witnessing moves, and they tell stories. Papa Was A Rolling Stone was a weekly one-hour programme, aired on Sundays. The host interviewed two physically co-present studio guests, at least one of which was a local celebrity (Bekende Vlaming). They were also allowed to choose the songs that were be played on the show. The structure of the Papa Was A Rolling Stone conversations is certainly different from those of Dream Team: there are three interlocutors instead of two, the broadcast time is one hour instead of a few minutes, all interlocutors are physically co-present, and the interaction is more conversational. Basically, though, the interaction is still an interview. Adjacency pairs are still produced frequently, because the host asks questions and the guests reply. As diagrams 1 – 3 demonstrate, the guests have a lot more responsive options, though.

Diagram 1 Diagram 2

Diagram 3

180

Again, departures from the interview frame may take place. The studio guests also make witnessing moves and tell stories. In the chapter on conversation analysis, it was also explained how stories come to be told and how they are structured. These four propositions were listed as true for every instance of storytelling: - Stories are “told in conversation” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 131) - At least one speaker secures the attention of at least one listener (Ochs & Capps 2001: 114) - At least one speaker takes an “extended, multi-unit [turn] at talk” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 131, Liddicoat 2007: 279) - All interactants display their orientation towards and understanding of the talk-in- interaction as a story that is being told (Ochs & Capps 2001: 23) Ochs and Capps distinguished five dimensions, each with the possibility of being realized in some way that situates itself between two ends on a continuum. - Dimensions Possibilities - Tellership One active teller → Multiple active co-tellers - Tellability High → Low - Embeddedness Detached → Embedded - Linearity Closed temporal and → Open temporal and causal order causal order - Moral stance Certain, constant → Uncertain, fluid (Ochs & Capps 2001: 20) Typical for the narratives on Dream Team is that they have one active teller and high tellability, they are embedded rather than detached, have a more closed than an open temporal and causal order and that the moral stance is constant. This remains the same for Papa Was A Rolling Stone, except the dimension of tellership: there may be multiple active co-tellers. Storytelling on Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone is done for all the reasons why people tell stories: dealing with past, present, future and unreal events, enjoying conversation, and creating identities. It was pointed out that if people tell stories to create identities for themselves, they can also do so to create credible identities for themselves. Storytelling is indeed an important aspect of how the Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants make themselves come across as legitimate and credible. Stories are thus an important part of the performance that participants put up, but they are not the only resource that participants may use to present themselves as

181 credible. As Goffman pointed out, individuals are always performing (1990: 15). They want to present idealized versions of themselves (Goffman 1990: 25, 35) and try to manage the impressions they create of themselves as well as possible (Goffman 1990: 250). On Dream Team, the host asks questions that allow the lay participant to make or confirm witnessing moves or to tell a story. Making witnessing moves is important because they link the speaker “with the authenticity of experience, of emotion, and of the speaker as a legitimate teller of particular kinds of stories” (Hutchby 2006: 83). The stories that are told centre around the participant, who remembers things that have happened to him or her. As “[r]emembering [...] is an authenticating act” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 284), stories about personal memories may obviously make a participant seem authentic and credible. The stories that are told are usually about concerts, owning cds, remembering childhood or youth memories, and personal, emotional connections to a certain band or song. On Dream Team, the host routinely validates the “presupposed truths” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 284) of his interviewees. He never openly doubts his interviewees’ stories, but encourages them to continue talking with the continuer “ja”. In addition to producing witnessing moves and telling stories, lay participants may also use factual knowledge about the artists or songs that they have requested, or about the radio channel itself, to let the audience to their performance know that they are credible lay participants. This resource is a bit different from witnessing moves and stories, because being knowledgeable about facts is something that is expected of experts, “who have an institutionally inscribed, professional area of expertise attributed to them” (Thornborrow 2001b: 461), rather than of lay participants. Lay participants on Dream Team may thus attempt to present themselves as experts or as expert-like participants in order to come across as credible, warranted speakers. However, what lay participants want to do, generally speaking, is present themselves as credible music fans. It was also remarked in the chapter on credibility that a Dream Team participant is freer to perform whatever identity he or she wants than a Papa Was A Rolling Stone participant. At least half of the Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants already has a public persona and needs to behave accordingly, or else they lose their credibility entirely (Goffman 1990: 64 – 65). The local celebrities that appear on Papa Was A Rolling Stone want to make themselves look good, credible and authentic, and they try to do so by being their ordinary selves. “’[B]eing ordinary’ is

182 accomplished in the ways people tell stories about their experiences” (Sacks as quoted by Tolson 2001b: 449). The “authentic and credible persona” (Livingstone & Lunt as quoted by Tolson 2001a: 17) of the local celebrity is created through a “performance of being ordinary” (Tolson 2001b: 450). It was pointed out that for Papa Was A Rolling Stone, this means in practice that the local celebrities will want to remind the audience of their expert status, while at the same time acting in a way that is similar to that of ‘ordinary’ people such as the lay participants on Dream Team. Some of the Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants are not local celebrities, though. They are still treated as expert participants by the host, but they do not need to act in accordance with an existing public persona. That the Papa Was A Rolling Stone host treats his guests as experts is an important difference between the two radio programmes under discussion, because even though the Dream Team host does validate his interviewees’ contributions, he does not treat them as experts. So, unlike the lay participants on Dream Team, guests on Papa Was A Rolling Stone do not have to “establish a relevant participatory status” (Thornborrow 2001b: 470) for themselves. This status is attributed to them at the beginning of the programme through the introduction: the guests are introduced as experts. The host continuously treats his guests as experts throughout the conversation, and the guests perform as credible participants in ways that are often similar to those used by the Dream Team participants. It was discussed in the chapter on credibility that Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants also make witnessing moves and tell stories, but that these stories are often related to a guest’s professional background. Again, the host validates these stories. In addition, Papa Was A Rolling Stone guests may also use factual knowledge, lexical items and name-dropping, and comparison as a way of ascertaining their expert status. In conclusion, then, it is striking that the ways in which participants on both Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone seek to build a credible identity for themselves are very similar. Dream Team participants have to make a greater effort to establish a credible identity for themselves because the host does not introduce them as experts, but how this credibility is managed and strengthened in the interaction is not radically different. The only significant difference that remains is that between the status of the participants on each programme: those on Dream Team may create credible identities for themselves but will always remain lay participants, whereas those on Papa Was A Rolling Stone usually (though not

183 always) have the advantage of being or having been professionally involved in music. They create a credible expert identity for themselves. The last chapter of this thesis discussed the power situation in Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone. The institutional roles of questioner and answerer, topic initiation, formulating, turn allocation and interruption, dispreferred seconds, and opening and closing of the conversation were the six aspects that were taken into consideration to investigate power. On Dream Team, the host is usually the questioner, which is the more powerful position. He may sometimes leave this role temporarily, making it available for the interviewee. However, the interviewee does not take up this role, and so the power asymmetry in favour of the host remains unchanged. The interviewee abandons the role of answerer only very rarely. In this aspect, the host is more powerful. Topic initiation is done by the host as well, through his asking questions. The host has this power as well. Formulating is also done by the host. This does not happen very often, though. In one of the two instances in the Dream Team data, the interviewee was not given the chance to accept or refute the host’s formulation. The host, then, is powerful because he has the right and the possibility to formulate, which he may do without giving the interviewee the chance to refute the formulation. The host does not formulate very often, though, so in practice, he does not use his power to “establish control over the agenda by selectively formulating the gist or upshot” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 2008: 214) very often. Something he does do very frequently is allocating turns. Since the host is the questioner, he selects the next speaker by asking them a question. Interviewees are passive self-selecters, who only self-select once the host has already allocated them a turn and has displayed that he will listen to their narratives. At the end of their narrative, the interviewees stop talking, allowing the host to self- select again as the next speaker. Interviewees do sometimes self-select when it is not their turn to speak, though. They may interrupt the host. The host may also interrupt the interviewee. Interruptions do not occur very often, which means that it is generally the host who has the power to allocate turns. Dispreferred seconds are produced by the interviewees only on rare occasions and even then only strongly mitigated. This might mean that the lay participants do not feel confident or powerful enough to produce dispreferred seconds, but it may also be for other reasons that they do not produce them, such as lack of time or the host already knowing what the interviewee’s answer will be. Lastly, the host has the technical power to open and

184 close the Dream Team conversations. Interviewees can do nothing about this except not answer the phone or hang up before the end of the conversation. The host also has the more powerful position when it comes to the conversational side of the openings and closings. He must summon the interviewees before they can start talking, and he decides when the conversation ends. This ending is negotiated, though, and reciprocal greetings and/or thanks are exchanged. On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, it is also the host who is usually the questioner. Studio guests may abandon their role of answerer, even to become questioners. This does not happen very often and never lasts very long. The power asymmetry is still in favour of the host, but less so than on Dream Team. Comparatively, the host does have a lot more power when it comes to topic initiation and, especially, management. The host is not only the topic initiator because he asks his guests questions. He also overtly manages the ‘flow’ of the topics during the conversation through stepping in and directing his guests away from a certain topic, possibly to return to that topic later on. This kind of management is not done so overtly and to this extent on Dream Team. Another difference with Dream Team is that the host, having the power to formulate, uses this power very often. He may or may not give his guests the opportunity to accept or refute his formulation. As on Dream Team, though, the Papa Was A Rolling Stone host does not necessarily formulate to “establish control over the agenda” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 2008: 214). He may also formulate to enable a smooth transition between two topics. That the host has the power that comes with formulating, then, does not necessarily make him want to use this power to enforce his own agenda on the guests, except if his agenda is to direct the conversation along certain lines. Much more complicated on Papa Was A Rolling Stone than on Dream Team is turn allocation and interruption. The host is still very powerful, but in this case, the guests are, too. All participants may self-select and select any of the other participants as the next speaker. Interestingly, the host does not interrupt his guests, but the guests do sometimes interrupt him. Even though the host is dominant when it comes to turn allocation, the power of the guests should not be underestimated, and the host does not seem to have the power to be disrespectful to his guests. The guests also produce more dispreferred seconds than the Dream Team interviewees. As mentioned before, this does not lead to any conclusive evidence about the power situation, but it could be an indication that the Papa Was A Rolling Stone expert participants are more confident interviewees than

185 the Dream Team lay participants. When it comes to the opening and closing of the conversation, the host again has the technical power for this aspect. Guests could, theoretically speaking, intervene, but they do not. The host also has the conversational power, because he also needs to summon guests before they can start talking, and because he decides when to end the conversation. The closings are less coordinated between host and interviewees than those on Dream Team, but they are still negotiated. Despite this, the treatment and the overall power situation is not hugely different on the two programmes. It is rather the positions that each programme’s participants take up for themselves that are different. Why, though, will a Dream Team lay participant not take up a more powerful position even when given the chance? And why does a non-famous Papa Was A Rolling Stone guest also perform as an expert, even though he or she may not be one? Does this depend entirely on the status attribution done by the host, or does something else play a role, too? For two reasons, it is impossible to answer this here: firstly, these are not the questions that this thesis set out to answer, and secondly, a different methodology would need to be developed to address these issues. For the last paragraph of this thesis, Erving Goffman will be given the final word. On Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, all the interactants form a performance team. They are all “individuals who co-operate in staging a single routine” (Goffman 1990: 79), this routine being the radio programmes in which each of the participants appears. Goffman has noticed that on each team one team member often seems to have been “given the right to direct and control the progress of the dramatic action” (1990: 97). The host is clearly this person. He validates the stories that participants tell and attributes them credibility. He occupies the more powerful conversational position and is able to manage the course of the conversation. Without the power of the host, there would be no Dream Team or Papa Was A Rolling Stone conversations, and the participants would find it much harder to appear credible.

186

187

Appendices

Dream Team 20/10/2011

Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team° de drie favoriete platen van Host Inge Van Den Broeck (.) Inge goeiemorgen Ca goeiemorgen Christophe Host Inge (.) Elvis (.) the king of rock ‘n [roll Ca [ja Host leren kennen dankzij je papa Ca ja da klopt (.) da klopt mijn vader was een heel grote fan van Elvis en eh ik heb die platen dus heel veel gehoord als ik kind was Host ja Ca en vandaar (.) [euhm de keuze ( ) Host [ja (.) had je ook een vetkuif enzo dan? Ca nee (.) nee da ni heheh= Host =heb je ‘m ooit live gezien? Ca (1.7) eu::hm da denk ik ni Host nee Ca nee Host vraag mij ineens ook af of ie ooit in België is geweest als mensen dat weten laat het [effe Ca [ja Host (.) weten Ca ik heb er geen idee van Host ja ja stuur ‘s effe (.) een berichtje ma ‘t is goeie muziek he ‘t blijft

188

‘t is tijdloos en het blijft overeind Ca ja zeker Host ja (.) hij is ook niet voor niks de king of rock ‘n roll natuurlijk .hh Ca ja= Host =dan Nick Cave met Into My Arms daar heb je ook heel goeie herinneringen aan kan ik me voorstellen [Inge Ca [ja dat klopt euh da was de openingsdans van ons huwelijk euh Host (1.3) wie had m gekoze? Ca wablieft? Host wie had ‘m gekozen [dat nummer? Ca [euh we hebben ‘m eigenlijk (.) samen gekozen Host ah [ok Ca [ja= Host =goed [ja Ca [da was [euh Host [ja en er is= Ca =redelijk snel overeengekome hhh= Host =en er is weinig op de tene getrapt enzo tijdens de openingsdans Ca hh geen enkele keer [hahahahahaha Host [hehe het was een leuk feest (.) na Nick Cave? Ca het was een (.) super leuk [feest ja Host [ja hoe lang is het geleden Inge? Ca het is nu al eu:h (0.7) twaalf jaar geleden Host WOW fantastisch= Ca =[ja Host [is dat

189

euh dan kies je ook nog Robin S met Show Me Love Ca inderdaad euh Robin S (.) Show Me Love is voor mij de ultieme dansplaat Host [ja Ca [heb ik ook heel goeie herinneringen aan euhm begin jaren negentig als ik me ni vergis Host [ja Ca [is ‘t van drieënnegentig Host ja Ca ook het jaar dat ik mijn man heb leren kennen dus (.) jah Host ja en [dan zetten jullie ook wel is een stapje in de wereld Ca [ ( ) (1.5) [ja zeker Host [waar waar gebeurde dat? (.) bijvoorbeeld? Ca eu::hm (0.4) voornamelijk in Copacabana in Kessel= Host =de [Copa! Ca [en in La Rocca hh in de Copa ja [hahaha Host [hah potverdorie die bestaat ni meer he de Copa Ca nee nee helaas ni Host La Rocca nog wel eh da’s [euh Ca [La Rocca nog wel Host ja (.) da’s een blijvertje .hhh [goed Ca [ja Host Robin S (.) herinneringen voor jou leuke herinneringen euh Ca [ja

190

Host [net als Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds met Into My Arms Ca ( ) Host .hhh euh doe er nog minstens twaalf jaar bij (.) euh (.) beste Inge [minstens eh Ca [hh .hh Host twintig dertig veertig jaar .hhhh (.) euhm en laat eh vlug nog ‘s iets weten= =stuur nog eens een euhm Dream Team door of [misschien Ca [absoluut Host of misschien van je partner da’s ook een goei idee (.) [he Ca [ja [hehe Host [ok dag Inge fijne dag Ca bedankt he Host bye Ca [daag Jingle [het Dream Team Studio Brussel

191

Dream Team 25/10/2011

Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team° de drie favoriete platen van Host Thomas De Smet Thomas goeiemorge Ca goeiemorgen Host Thomas je bent werkstudent? Ca ja hh Host dat betekent dat je de twee combineert? Ca euh (.) ja da probeer ik toch Host wat doe je dan precies? Ca euhm ik volg een:: ik volg Europese studies aan d unief van Gent Host [ja Ca [en ik werk tegelijk euhm: ben ik ook leerkracht (.) in een middelbare school Host a:h ok welke vakken geef je? Ca euh alleen maar economie Host ja en euh studenten van hoe of of euh leerlingen hoe oud zijn ze ongeveer? Ca euhm tussen vijftien en achttien Host en dat valt mee? Ca .hh ja da valt mee [joa de een dag al meer dan de ander natuurlijk Host [hehehehehe ja ‘t zal wel [‘t zal wel .hh Ca [maar (.) over ‘t algemeen wel Host ja goed Queen en David Bowie Thomas da’s van lang geleden

192

euh (.) eind jaren zeventig begin jaren tachtig moet dat geweest zijn hoe heb je dat nummer dan ontdekt want je bent e- nog een euh een jonge kerel Ca ja eigenlijk heel toevallig maar euh gewoon via Youtube van ‘t een liedje naar ‘t ander en dan uiteindelijk daar dan bij (.) terecht gekomen en: ja ( ) een hele tijd gewoon opgeslagen bij favorieten en (.) ja moest ik er gewoon terug aan denken Host ja ‘t is een heel straf nummer he Ca ja Host .hhh Adele kies je met Turning Tablesss ‘t is een leeftijdsgenote z’ is drieëntwintig zeker he? Ca ja Host ja en waarom (.) euh dat nummer (.) van Adele (.) Thomas? Ca euhm allez als ik als Adele dan (.) allez euh eerst uitkwam dan vooral me ni alleen me euhm Chasing Pavements maar dan d’rna met euhm hh met Rolling In The Deep .hhhh had ik gans die cd dan gekocht en dan von ik da een van de van de straffere liedjes die der eigenlijk op stond en dan blijkt nu dan (.) euhm Someone Like You eigenlijk vooral in deuh in deuh hitlijsten is geraakt terwijl ik eigenlijk Turning Tables even (.) minstens even goe vind

193

Host ja want ‘t zit een beetje in ‘t zelfde register he ook [ ( ) Ca [ ( ) ook natuurlijk wel een beetje heel triestig maar [euhm Host [ja (.) ja maar ik vind ook allez ik vind ook supermooi Host ja ‘t is prachtig gezongen absoluut .hhh en dan een eh guilty pleasure van jou The Human League waar je wel eens eh uit volle borst durft mee meezingen Ca .hh ja o ff tis een liedje da iedereen lijk wel kent= =maar we zijn dan van de zomer op op kamp geweest en en dan een der een karaoke geïnstalleerd en (.) da liedje bleef zo lijk precies maar terugkeren en (.) ja iedere keer als ik deraan moet denken denk ik van allez da was echt wel (.) supertof (.) en ja (.) dit was dus echt een guilty pleasure Host ja op kamp met? Ca euhg (.) Open Jeugdwerk da’s een jeugdbeweging Host ah ok (.) perfect .hh geef je vandaag nog les (.) Thomas of moet je lessen [volgen? Ca [ja ik heb vandaag maar een uur en euh tegen drie uur maar moet ik zijn ( ) school Host ok perfect ik wens je ‘n fijne dag

194

maar geniet eerst nog maar van Adele en The Human League Ca ok ( ) bedankt [ ( ) Host [dag Tho[mas Ca [daag Host tot ziens Ca [ ( ) Jingle [het Dream Team Studio Brussel

195

Dream Team 26/10/2011

Jingle het Dream Team! °Dream Team° de drie favoriete platen van Host Els Van Den Heuvel Els goeiemorge Ca goeiemorge Host Breakfast in Vegas van Praga Khan je hebt Maurice ooit ontmoet Els Ca hja (.) dikwijls eigenlijk (.) in Leuven (.) he dus euh ik woon in het Leuvensen (.) hij woont in eu::h Rotselaar euh (.) hja (.) laat ons zeggen dat dat wel een BV was die we regelmatig tegenkwamen in het Leuvense .hhh nu je kon er ook ni naast kijken [natuurlijk hihihi Host [hah heheh neeneenee .hhh j’ebt ‘m ook ooit live gezien? Ca .hh ik ‘eb ‘m live gezien dankzij jullie uiteraa- allez ja ( ) maar dankzij jullie euh we hadden vrijkaarten ge::wonnen voor een optreden in de Ancienne Belgiquehh Host [mhmm Ca [.hhh en dat was schitterend= Host =ja= Ca =echt (.) dat was schitterend (.) .hh en het toeval wilde eigenlijk dat (.) euh (.) als het ’s avonds het optreden was dat ik die (.) dag zelf ‘m ook al in Leuven gezien had .hhh Host ja

196

Ca en dat was eigenlijk wel (.) fijn [hhhh Host [tweede keuze is eu:hm:: (.) Hooverphonic toen nog met Geike (.) euhm [Mad About You Ca [ja .h goh dat is een beetje het lijflied euh van euh (.) van ons als koppel Host [ja Ca [hehe ‘k zal het zo zeggenn euh (.) we hebben dat hh (.) ( ) laten inspireren vorige week door de openingsdans wij hebben dat ook als openingsdans genomen als wij getrouwd zijn (.) [.hhh= Host [ja Ca =euh ik vind het een fantastische song Host ja Ca ik vind ‘et ook een beetjen een (.) .hh een beetjen een lijflied (.) eigenlijk ik ‘eb ( ) wat tegendraads gedaan en (.) [dat blijft zohh hihihihi Host [hh ja hoe hoe lang is het geleden de openingsdans het huwelijks[feest? Ca [OOOOOH helemaal ni lang wij zijn nog maar drie weken getrouwd [ahahahaha Host [aah fantastisch proficiat Els (.) proficiat [.hhh Ca [hahaha danku Host [en en wie is de gelukkige? Ca .h ja (.) Aldo (.) mijn (.) mijn echtgenoot hehehe Host jaa (.) hoe heet ie?

197

Ca .hh euh Aldo Holsbeek hh Host ja en euh hij was euh tevreden ook met die openingsdans hebben jullie ‘m euh (.) waren jullie akkoord allebei met het liedje? Ca absoluut! [ik euh Host [ja Ca ik zei tegen hem gewoon van euh ik wil iets Belgisch en hij zei meteen Hooverphonic (.) en .hhh ja m- met de keuze ook van de platen nu ik vertelde ‘m dat u zou belle en (.) .hhh euh hij zei ook meteen Hooverphonic zeker ik zeg ja hahahaha Host hehhh hja want het zijn je zegt het zelf euh een Belgische openingsdans maar ‘t zijn sowieso ook allemaal Belgische platen [in je Dream Team Ca [ja klopt ja ja shjaa (.)ik chjaa (.) ik heb mijn jeugd beleefd in de jaren tachtig en en: (.) toen waren er echt wel .hh heel wat vind ik heel goede Belgische groepen Host ja Ca euh (.) goh (.) [ik ja Host [ja want (.) TC Matic kies je ook nog he Els Ca ja (.) ja dus euh althans euh TC Matic ik heb eh Arno gezien (.) .hhh op Suikerrock (.) in Tienen toen dat nog allemaal gratis was Host ja=

198

Ca =fantastisch gewoon .hhh Host ja Ca enneh euh en (.) chjaa die man die is mij bijgebleven echt euh en vooral ‘t publiek is mij bijgebleven dat was zo .hhh dat vertaalde eigenlijk zowat die hele sfeer van de jaren tachtig eigenlijk .hh he die punk en dat zwart en en: .h ja (.) dat was echt wel de moeite [hehhh Host [ja nu je zegt de de de: (.) popmuziek (.) de: Belgische pop uit de jaren tachtig Ca [ja Host [.hhh nu wordt er ook (.) nu worden er ook heel veel goeie dingen [gemaakt he (0.3) in België (0.7) ja (.) ja Ca [absoluut (0.9) absoluut (0.3) ja (.) ja zeker en vast want ik volg da nog steeds ik ben .hhh goh ik heb bij jullie geboorte gestaan van Studio Brussel [hahahhh Host [jaha Ca indertijd en wij (.) ja wij luisteren nog elke dag [hehe Host [da’s een prachtige afsluiter .hh euh je mag nog genieten zometeen van Hooverphonic en van TC Matic en als je man in de buurt is (.) ik zou toch nog een slowke wagen (.) he Ca ja: absoluut [dat gaan we doen (.) hehe

199

Host [hh ok .hh Els [bedankt (.) en euh tot de volgende keer Ca [ ( ) ja ja (.) daag Jingle het Dream Team [Studio Brussel [muziek

200

Dream Team 28/10/2011

Jingle het Dream Team! °Dream Team° de drie favoriete platen van Host Kathleen Leemans Kathleen goeiemorgen Ca goeiemorgen Host hoe gaat het met jou Kathleen Ca ja goed (.) heel goed (.) danku Host want (.) zeg het zelf maar [Kathleen Ca [ah ja ik euh (.) wij verwachten ons eerste kindje in december Host spannend eh Kathleen Ca hh hehe [( ) Host [hoe is de zwangerschap verlopen (.) tot nu toe? Ca euh tot nu toe eigenlijk heel goed Host ja Ca ik heb euh (.) eigenlijk ni veel last gehad en euh (.) alles verloopt eigenlijk heel goed Host mhmm Ca het goeit groe (.) groeit goed dus alles is in orde Host heerlijk seg en ’t wordt een flinke dochter? Ca euh ja da weet ik nog ni eh [hhh Host [nee weet je ’t ni? Ca aja ik weet ’et wel maar de anderen mogen het nog ni weten Host ah dus toch blij dat het een zoon wordt (.) he Ca (1.7) [( ) afwachten eh Host [hh ‘k kan maar proberen he Kathleen= Ca =ja ‘k weet ‘et [‘k weet ‘et

201

Host [ja (.) ja ja Ca eh hehehe [ ( ) Host [.hhh voor wanneer euh voor wanneer is hij of zij gepland? Ca euh voor 21 december Host vlak bij Kerst Ca (0.8) ja Host ja (.) .hh goed en je wil muziek (.) of je hebt muziek gekozen (.) ook m m m ja ’t heeft wat met je zwangerschap te maken toch leg ‘s uit Ca ja euh klopt dus eu::h (.) in: (.) ik ga bevallen in Sint Jozef in Mortsel en daar hebt ge in de verloskamer (.) euhm (0.9) een eu:h (.) ja een cd-speler dus je mag eigenlijk zelf muziek meebrengen Host hmhm Ca .hh en euhm (.) daarom was ik dus beginnen nadenken welke muziek ik graag wou (.) euh laten spelen omda da toch wel een heel belangrijk moment is [maar Host [hm Ca ni alleen da dus (.) euh blijkbaar heeft muziek voor de geboorte ook een heel .hh goeie invloed op u kind hh dus euh dan ben ik ook beginne nadenke van:: misschien kan ik al wa cds op voorhand maken die ik dan ook al in de auto of thuis ne keer kan afspele hh [ ( ) Host [en weet je dat dat echt werkt (.) Kathleen?

202

ik [kan der over meespreken Ca [euh nee da [weet ik ni zeker Host [ja echt wel (.) [echt wel Ca [JA? Host er was een cd’tje (.) euh toen mijn eerste dochter is geboren een cd’tje dat we daarvoor (.) dus tijdens de zwangerschap hebben afgespeeld en als ze onrustig was (.) toen het kindje er was he Ca ja ja= Host =hielp dat echt waar Ca [ah (.) allez hhh Host [ja werd ze helemaal rustig van ’t was geen death metal he (.) voor alle duidelijkheid ’t was [ook euh rustige euh mooie muziek Ca [hh nee Host .hh dus daarom bijvoorbeeld ook Nick Cave (.) en the Bad Seeds (.) euhm (.) en Massive Attack (.) met [Teardrop Ca [ja Host dat laat je nu ook vaak horen Ca (1.0) euh ja ik heb da liedje van Massive Attack eigenlijk nog ni zo heel lang geleden (.) euh ontdekt Host hmhm Ca en euh ik ‘k was daar eigenlijk direct verliefd op Host [hmhm Ca [dus vandaar da ik het er mee heb tusse gestoke .hhh en Nick Cave euh is een liedje da ik eigenlijk via mijn vriend heb leren kennen

203

toen we mekaar (.) leerden kennen en euh (.) ja da heb ik altijd een beetje aan hem gelinkt dus [da was ook wel Host [ja ja Ca hhh Host en dan zijn er ook nog Kings of Leon met Sex On Fire Ca ja da vind ik een beetje een kippevelnummer eu::hm (.) ik ben ni (.) echt (.) een (.) gigantische fan van Kings of Leon maar da d is echt een nummer da mij (.) elke keer als da op de radio komt ( ) vin ‘k echt (.) een heel goed nummer Host ja (.) en je hoopt later (.) .hh dat jullie kind euh meegaat naar festival he (.) en optredens Ca ja absoluut Host ja Ca da doen wij allebei heel graag dus eu::h (0.7) da zou heel fijn zijn Host wie weet (.) gaat ie naar het Polonaisefestival of zo ik zeg maar iets eh Ca ja (.) [ja Host [hahahahaha ka- Ca wij gaan proberen van het toch een iets andere richting te geven maar uiteindelijk hhh Host kan allemaal [he Ca [smaken verschillen he dus Host [kan allemaal he Ca [ja ja Host .hhh maar ik hoop het allerbeste

204

ik wens je een eh geweldige bevalling toe beste Kathleen Ca hmm Host en laat ‘s weten wat het geworden is (.) eh Ca ok da zal ik doen Host ok fijn weekend ook alvast= =dag Kathleen Ca ja Host daag Jingle het Dream Team Studio Brussel

205

Dream Team 03/11/2011

Jingle het Dream Team! °Dream Team° de drie favoriete platen van Host Jens Joris .hh een heel goeie morgen Jens Ca (0.7) goeiemorgen Leen Host hoe gaat het Ca (0.9) perfect [( ) Host [ je-s-= =.hh jouw eerste keuze is eh (.) Skunk Anansie met Twisted (0.4)waarom heb je daarvoor gekozen? Ca eu::hm (.) Skunk Anansie is toch wel een van mijn favoriete bands en met de:: (.) Top Wijftig dat eraan komt wil ik nu toch wel euh (.) efkes duidelijk make dat zij der ook zeker mag instaan voor mij Host (1.6) [h s- Ca [en eu:hm van ’t jaar heb ik ze dan voor ’t laatst gezien op Pukkelpop (.) en dat was ook het laatste concert van Pukkelpop Host (1.2) ja ‘t was wel= =dat was wel straf he Ca (1.1) ja (.) da was wel redelijk eu:hm:: (.) spectaculair (.) alles begon perfect (.) lekker warme dag (.) t-shirt weer (1.2) .hh en tijdens ’t concert van Skunk Anansie zag je de wolk afkomen (.) en: (.) ja toen hebben ze ’t concert moeten stilleggen (.)

206

eerst (0.5) probeerden ze nog (.) maar (.) ’t begon zo hevig (.) .hh en toen was Pukkelpop gedaan Host (0.7) ja en je (.) stond je (.) stond je dan dichtbij ook? Ca ja ik stond redelijk vooraan euhm: (1.0) ik heb het zeil zien openscheuren van het hoofdpodium (.) en eu:hm (0.6) ne paal ( ) omvallen op de camion en dan zijn w’ ook maar gaan lopen (.) om euh (0.5) heel de massa (.) zich te verplaatsen je moest die eigenlijk gewoon volgen Host (1.1) ja [’t heeft ook Ca [ja Host ’t heeft ook een tijdje geduurd voor euh Skunk Anansie ook effectief wilde stoppen met optreden Ca ja ik ging eu::h (.) (1.0) ik ( ) en die kon er nog wel mee lachen en dan ( ) maar op een gegeven moment vielen er zo’n hagelbollen op de apparatuur (0.8) ze moesten gewoon weggaan Host ja (.) .hh en euh ja verder is de de: (.) te zeggen de rode draad doorheen jouw Dream Team vandaag (1.1) [dus j’ebt ook nog euh Ca [ja (.) ‘k denk ‘et wel Host een van je andere keuzes= =eh Eminem en Rihanna met Love The Way You Lie Ca (0.7) ja (.)

207

euhm Eminem is zeker ni een van mijn favoriete bands als die nu naar ’t Sportpaleis zou komen zou ik nooit 50 euro betalen voor een ticket (.) maar ik keek er wel enorm naar uit omda da wel (.) waarschijnlijk een van de enige kansen was (.) om ‘m toch eens gezien te hebben en: (.) ja ik kan ni ontkenne dat ‘m toch wel (.) euh (.) goeie muziek maakt in zijn genre (.) dat da toch wel een maat is waar je ni omheen kan en eigenlijk die kans da je da kan zien op zo’n festival (0.9) toch spijtig da da ni is doorgegaan Host ‘t is e- ‘t is een beetje jouw eh guilty pleasure zo [een een een Ca [ja awel Host een artiest die je stiekem wel goed vindt (.) maar die [je eigenlijk niet zo goed wil vinden Ca [ja Host [hehhh Ca [hehe Host en dan heb je ook nog gekozen voor de Foo Fighters met All My Life Ca ja absoluut da was toch wel voor mij euhm (.) de: band waarvoor ik naar Pukkelpop ging ik heb z’ al enkele keren gezien euhm (.) nu met de nieuwe plaat ik keek er enorm naar uit (1.1) ja en hopelijk komen ze nog (.) van ‘et voorjaar euhm (0.7)

208

richting België voor een concert (.) maar (.) ‘k vrees ervoor Host je bent een vrij grote fan Ca ja toch wel Host ma kijk Jens ik zal met jou meeduimen (.) euh dat ze: dat ze binnenkort nog eens ons land aandoen want dat is altijd wel een:: heel gebeuren (.) die mannen kunnen het wel he Ca die kunnen het Host zeg Jens .hh geniet nog van het Dream Team je krijgt zometeen Eminem en Rihanna nog met Love The Way You Lie en daarna de Foo Fighters Ca hartelijk bedankt Host nog een fijne dag daag Ca [daag Jingle [Studio Brussel het Dream Team

209

Dream Team 07/11/2011

Jingle het Dream Team! °Dream Team° de drie favoriete platen van Host Hans Strackx Hans goeiemorgen Ca (1.1) goeiemorgen Christophe Host Hans (.) The Smiths (0.5) een [classic Ca [ja Host How Soon Is Now .hhh euhm waarom dat nummer en waarom The Smiths Hans Ca (1.1) euhm ohh ik ben gewoon fan van The Smiths en ook tevens van Morrisey maar als ik mag kiezen tussen de twee dan kies ik toch wel voor The Smiths Host dat gebeurt wel vaker he Ca hmhm [da klopt Host [ja ja (0.5) heb je ‘m gezien ‘et eh fameuze concert (.) voorbije zomer op de Lokerse [Feesten Ca [ik ben euh de Lokerse Feesten ben ik inderdaad geweest [ja Host [en? Ca euh prachtig optreden eh Host ja (0.5) er was heel want rond te doen (.) he (.) de: de: paardenworsten en het vlees .hhh Ca [ja da was

210

Host [euhm ja (.) maar een scheet in een fles is achteraf gebleken he (.) toch Ca inderdaad [ja ( ) Host [ja .hh euh m- d- is het toeval Hans want de drie platen die euh die we:: draaien of de twee die er nog aankomen (.) ‘t is allemaal Britse muziek is dat toeval of heb je sowieso [iets met eh Ca [ah nee da’s toevallig ja Host [ja Ca [ja Host want je kiest ook Joy Division met Atmosphere Ca ah ja inderdaad ja Joy Division is ook een een eenn band van de jaren tachtig die ik heel erg apprecieer Host ja Ca en euh (.) ook ja met de film Control van Anton Corbijn is da alleen maar gegroeid he met de: (.) de liefde tussen euh (.) ja van Joy Division en mij Host ja (.) en euh Ian Curtis de betreurde Ian Curtis vorige week ook nog hoog in de RIP 50 hier bij ons

211

.hhh (.) en dan is er ook nog Oasis Ca (1.0) eeuh ja Oasis is ook nog een: een band die ik (.) euh heel graag (.) heel graag hoor en ook (.) blijven kunnen bewonderen en euh (.) prachtige band ook jammer genoeg gestopt Host ja Ca dus euh (.) ma ja Host [ ( ) Ca [ge- ge- gelukkig leven ze nu verder me Beady Eye en Noel Gallagher solo dus [op die manier Host [ja (.) ja (.) welke groep vind je ’t beste (.) van welke broer?= Ca =Beady Eye (.) [Beady Eye Host [ahh ja [ja Ca [van Liam ja Host ja (.) euhm maar met die twee weet j’ ook maar nooit he er was zelfs eh vorige week heeft een van de twee gezegd ja een reünie (.) het zit er wel in (.) wie weet [he

212

Ca [ja? Host [ja Ca [((geblaat)) Host ja (.) ja (.) wat hoor ik? Ca eu:h ’n berichtje (.) m’n ontvangstgeluid Host ahh hahaha[haha Ca [iemand die waarschijnlijk mij (.) mij hoort op de radio (.) [en ja Host [hhhja (.) hahahjah (.) leuke ringtone is dat da’s een euh e- een geitje (1.0) eh? Ca ah eh mm da kan mm da kan (.) [‘k weet ’t niet Host [ja haja kee [.hhh goed Ca [ ( ) Host we luisteren naar nog naar Joy Division en euh Oasis Hans [bedankt voor je: (.) straffe keuzes Ca [ ( ) Host [en tot binnenkort Ca [ok Host [dag Hans Ca [ ( ) dag Christophe [bedankt Host [bye= Jingle =het Dream Team

213

Studio Brussel

214

Dream Team 08/11/2011

Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team° de drie favoriete platen van Host Koen Smeekens Koen goeiemorgen Ca goeiemorgeh Host Koen je nam de telefoon niet op (.) ik dacht waar zit ie Ca (1.0) ja Host was j’ aan ’t belleh? Ca ma ‘k had nog een ander lijn Host a::h (.) drukbezet (.) drukbezet man (.) beste Koen .hhh seg j’ ebt Coldplay onder meer gekozen waarom? Ca (2.6) omda ‘k da een tof nummer vin Host ja (.) en [euh Coldplay Ca [en om Host (1.1) [( ) Ca [omda ‘k die gezien ‘em op Werchter Host en hoe vond je dat Koen? Ca (0.9) goed Host ja? goed of heel goed of fantastisch? Ca heeleel fantastisch Host ja .hh Foo Fighters kies je ook (1.2) met Wheels Ca (1.3) ja Host waarom (.) Koen? Ca (2.1) die heb ik op Pukkelpop eh gemist

215

door de Pukkelpopstorm Host ja Ca ik was daar Host je was er? Ca (0.8) [ja Host [op de bewuste Pukkelpop Ca ja (.) jah Host ja (.) ’t was de moeite daar he (.) Koen Ca ja ja ja Host ja (.) ja en eh ’t zou de eerste keer geweest zijn dat je Foo Fighters zag? aan het werk zou zien? Ca ja ja ja Host ja (.) ja [maar er komt Ca [maar ‘opelijk kome ze naar Werchter Host voila er komt een volgende keer daar ben ik zeker van .hh en dan [kies je nog een eh klassieker van formaat Ca [( ) Host Radiohead met Creephhh Ca (1.3) ja ook een fantastisch nummer Host ja (.) en een fantastische groep ook he Koen Ca (2.0) wablieft Host ook een fantastische groep toch (.) Radiohead? Ca ja ja [ok Host [voila we gaan ‘m met veel plezier nog voor je draaien (.) .hh wat ga je nog doen Koen vandaag?

216

Ca (2.4) euh werke Host dan wens ik je een fijne werkdag en geniet nu vooral nog van Foo Fighters en Radiohead (.) [beste Koen Ca [ja ok bedankt Host graag [gedaan Ca [daag Host de groeten [he Ca [ja Host dag Koen (.) bye Jingle Studio Brussel het Dream Team

217

Dream Team 09/11/2011

Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team° de drie favoriete platen van Host Pieter Soens Pieter goeiemorgen Ca goeiemorgen Host Pieter was jij iemand die euh vroeger luisterde naar Vrijaf met Gust De Koster? Ca (1.3) nee Host [ah Ca [(.) euh niet onmiddellijk Host ik vraag dat omdat het euh het nummer dat je net (.) vroeg of gehoord hebt (.) .hh was het eh begintunetje van dat programma dus ik dacht dat dat daar misschien iets mee te maken had .hhh euhm maar waarom vroeg je ’t nummer Pieter? Ca wel omdat ik ‘et euh toch wel euh (.) awel vooreerst heb ik euh mijn Dream Team terug samengesteld met euh liedjes van de jaren tachentig Host ja Ca de jaren tachentig blijven prachtig uiteraard (.) Host ahahhh Ca en ik heb da liedje gekozen omdat het toch een euh soort van mengvorm is tussen verschillende genres van muziek en het heeft ook wel een beetje een opzwepend ritme dus euh ik vond dat wel euh (.) een favorietje Host ja en heel ve- heel speciale sfeer zo he

218

Ca ja inderdaad Host [ja Ca [euh ik ik vind het euh prachtig dat men daar men een zo goed als instrumentaal deuntje toch euh veel emotie kan euh opwekken Host ja iets heel anders is Billy Joel met You’re Only Human Ca inderdaad .hh euh da’s een zanger die uiteraard euh zeer gekend is die misschien wel iets euh bekendere songs heeft dan dat .hh maar ik vond het toch wel een euh een toffe song om even door te sturen omdat het toch het euh breed publiek aanspreekt euh met (.) toegankelijke muziek Host ja en en ‘t is altijd leuk om een beetje vergeten nummers nog eens terug te horen he Pieter Ca ja uiteraard [euh= Host [ja Ca =dit is toch al van euh negentien vijfentachentig dat liedje ook van de jaren tachentig dus en euh ‘k vind het nog altijd (.) even euh even tof en even leuk Host ja vind je dat ook van Fun Loving Criminals met Scooby Snacks? Ca ja dat heb ik gekozen eu::h dat is eigenlijk euh van euh zesennegentig denk ik Host [ja

219

Ca [en dat heb ik gekozen omdat het nog euh nogal veel wel werd gespeeld euh op de fuiven van de plaatselijke verenigingen euh .hh in onze gemeente Heule Host ja (.) Tineke van Heule Ca jah (.) inderdaad en wij eh hebben trouwens ook een groot feest vrijdag [want eh Host [ja Ca wij vieren het negenhonderdjarige bestaan van onze gemeente Host ok (.) en wat gebeurt er allemaal (.) kort (.) Pieter Ca een euh voorstelling van euh een boek (.) euh met betrekking tot het euh bestaan van het negenhonderdjarig euh Heule Host ja Ca en euh ook euh (.) een: eh Highland games (.) in de namiddag Host ok= Ca =dus waarin de verenigingen euh (.) elkaar bekampen Host ok ik wens jullie veel plezier (.) dit [weekend in Heule Ca [bedankt Host en [nu nog Fun Loving Criminals en Billy Joel Ca [ja Host dag Pieter Ca in orde (.) tot de volgende Host groetjes (.) daag Ca [daag

220

Jingle [het Dream Team Studio Brussel

221

Dream Team 10/11/2011

Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team° de drie favoriete platen van Host Kim (.) Hoste Kim goeiemorgen Ca goeiemorgen: (.) [euh Christophe Host [Kim Alice Cooper (.) leren kennen door je pa Ca ja da’s waar eu::hm (.) d’eh gewoon van vroeger en ik vroeg mij af wie’n da da was en (.) ‘keh ne keer die LP gezien en da was eu:h (.) oorspronkelijk de B-kant van e- van een singletje en (.) ja da wa- ‘k von da wel nog prachtig Host [ja Ca [ja ‘k vin da wel nog de max Host hij was onlangs nog in ons land (.) ben je toevallig geweest? Ca nee [eu:hm Host [nee (.) nee (.) nee Ca [‘k ha’ geen tid hehehehe Host .hhh Sheila Divine tweede keuze met eh Country Man Ca ja (.) da’s eu:h (.) ook iets wa da’k ne keer g’oord ‘em (.) .hhh en eu:hm ‘k ‘en dat dan beginnen dingen van euh opzoe’n en ‘k von da echt e::h (.) zo echt van eu:h

222

jammer genoeg da ze ni meer bestaan mor z’en nog (.).hh onlangs geweest in België geloof ik Host is dat zo? Ca ja [‘k denk Host [ah ja Ca 2010 denk ik Host [oh Ca [ja ‘k [denk zoiets ja Host [ja (.) ja (.) hun zanger heeft ook een aantal nummers meegezongen op euh (.) de vorige plaat geloof ik van euh (.) van Arsenal .hh maar van The Sheila Divine is er inderdaad euhm (.) bijna of er zijn geen platen meer verschenen geloof ik he recent nog van Sheila Divine Ca [nee Host [.hhh en [dan (.) Ca [( ) Host en dan heb je ook nog Bas Lermon met die eu:h (.) Everybody’s Feet Wear Sunscreen .hhh [da’s een levens- Ca [ja Host da’s een levensles he Kim Ca ja da’s e:uh a’ j’e slecht voelt gewoon na da luisteren en ’t komt al goed Host ja hehe voila Ca [haha Host [hhh hoe voel je je op dit moment?

223

Ca bwa goed [goed Host [aaaah ok (.) [ok Ca [normaal gezien moe’k nu werken dus ja ’t is ‘t ‘open da m’n baas ni boos ga zijn Host wat zeg je? Ca normaal gezien moe’k nu werken dus ’t is ‘t ‘open da m’n baas [ ( ) Host [a:h ok ok ik ga je snel laten werken dan heb je morgen een dagje vrij trouwens? Ca euh ja morgen ‘e ‘k vrij Host ok (.) dat wordt genieten en nu nog euh (.) nog veel meer genieten van je twee overige platen Sheila Divine .hh en Bas Lermon Kim bedankt voor de fijne keuzes Ca ’t is niks (.) dag eeh Host groetjes eh (.) bye= Jingle =Studio [Brussel Ca [daag Jingle het Dream Team

224

Dream Team 17/11/2011

Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team° de drie favoriete platen van Host Pascal Michel Pascal goeiemorgen Ca goeiemorgen Host ’t is niet Michel Pascal he Ca nee nee nee Host nee (.) nee (.) Pascal (.) .hh jij hebt een hele goeie reden (.) om (.) drie platen te kiezen in het Dream Team (.) vertel Ca da klopt (.) eu:h mijn vriendin Romy is vandaag verjaard Host ja Ca en: morgen verjaart euh onze:: zoon de eerste verjaardag Host ja Ca (1.5) en: da moet gevierd worden eh Host dat moet zeker gevierd worden maar ’t is ook zo (.) .hh dat ze ’n beetje bang was dat haar verjaardag een beetje zou vergeten worden he? Ca da klopt omdat de zoon (.) vlak na haar verjaardag (.) de dag erna verjaart Host ja wanneer gaan jullie dan feestvieren vandaag of morgen of twee dagen? Ca twee dagen he Host groot gelijk

225

Ca [hehehe Host [luister ze (.) Pascal? Ca jaja z’is aan ’t luisteren [z’is aan ’t luisteren Host [fantastisch en wist ze ‘t (.) dat je zou bellen? Ca nee helemaal ni Host da’s een mooi cadeau he Ca (1.0) tuurlijk (.) [hehehe Host [ja (.) Skunk Anansie is dat een van haar favoriete bands? Ca da’s een van de favoriete bands van haar ja Host ja= Ca =en euh w’ebben ze ’n beetje gemist op Pukkelpop dit jaar dus euh (.) vandaar Host ja (.) was j’op Pukkelpop (.) Pascal? Ca ja:jajajaja Host je was er Ca ja (.) wij allebei (.) hehehe Host en? Ca (1.4) euh (.) ja (.) spannend he Host ja (.) vanavond is er trouwens een euh uitzending in Panorama volledig gewijd (.) .hh aan die noodlottige dag op euh Pukkelpop .hhh Foo Fighters kies je ook met My Hero

226

is zij jou held? Ca (1.5) euh ook natuurlijk en vooral de zoon ook he Host ja (0.8) en dan nog AC/DC met Highway to Hell (.) dat zijn de euh lekkere gitaren he Pascal Ca ja ja en da’s ook een beetje een binnenpretje van ons twee denk ik ik heb altij gezegd euhm (.) dat da (.) eeuh (.) beetje cliché is maar euhm ideale openingsdans voor euh (.) voor op nen trouw eh Host hhhhhahaha[hahahaha Ca [hehehehe Host zijn jullie getrouwd nee want je zei ‘t is m’n vriendin eh Ca ’t is m’n vriendin [we zijn nog ni getrouwd nee Host [ja (.) ja (.) ( ) gaan jullie trouwen hebben jullie plannen in die richting Ca neenee w’ebben nog geen plannen [nee Host [nee als ‘t ooit zover komt (.) ’k zou ’t een goeie vinden dat als openingsdans .hhh goed ik wens jullie (.) euh leuke feesten vandaag en morgen geef euh een dikke knuffel (.) .hh aan je zoon en een dikke kus aan je: vriendin Romy .hh en geniet nog van de Foo Fighters en eh AC/DC he dag Pascal Ca dag ( )

227

dankuwel Host graag gedaan tot ziens he Ca [daag Traffic [((traffic jingle

228

Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Bart& Nona Peeters

Aris Ham dames (.) en heren (0.9) mijn naam (.) is Aris Ham (1.0) ik ben de vader (.) van Otto-Jan Ham (0.7) en ik heet u van harte welkom bij (0.6) Papa Was A Rolling Stone (1.6) met vandaag te gast (0.6) Bart (.) en Nona Peeters (1.1) Bart is tweeënvijftig (.) zanger (.) presentator (.) en media-fenomeen (1.2) Nona is zijn oudste dochter (1.1) en volgens vader (.) alvast een geweldige drumster (0.9) vader en dochter over hun favoriete plaatjes in Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) Host Nona Peeters van harte welkom in de studio laten we de de de:: deze uitzending beginnen met een ode aan je vader een plaat die hij erg graag (.) zal horen wat zal het zijn Nona euh Karma Police van Radiohead (.) please Host [perfecte keuze [((Karma Police)) Host Karma Police (.) van Radiohead (.) voor Bart Peeters Bart jij ook f:: van harte euh welkom hier in de studio Bart dag Otto-Jan Host prachtige zondag (.) een eh band die jij geweldig vindt en (.) euh dat ben je eens met met met Nona he zijn jullie alletwee heel grote fan van

229

Nona ja (.) euh ’t is dan zo da (.)deh die plaat (.) zeker OK Computer doet mij zo hard aan mijn papa denke omda hij die cd al vier keer van mij heeft gestole [hhh Host [vier keer al Nona ja Host da’s aardig wat he- heb je euh je euh kan je ni zelf naar een winkel gaan af en toe Bart om [euh een cd te kopen? Bart [dat is moeilijk ik (.) ik heb daar weinig tijd voor hehhh en (.) dat is dus blijkbaar iets in onzeuh (.) muzikale smaak als wij met iets (1.1) overeen komen (.) .hhh dan jat ik het eigenlijk gewoon Host ah ja Bart maar (.) ik heb da me nen bepaalde van van de van deuhm Black Eyed Peas ook gedaan (.) maar bij Radiohead ja (.) ligt vermoedelijk ergens in ons huis Nona hhh echt vijf platen liggen ergens ja Host [is ’t waar Bart [en dezelfde he dus dus dus gewoon dezel- Ok Computer he wij hebben die vijf keer .h en mocht je nu vragen waar ligt ‘m (.) ik zou het ni weten [hahaha Host [maar dus da’s echt een probleem jij raakt die dingen echt (.) aan de lopende band kwijt ook gewoon

230

cd’s Bart dingen waar ik van hou (0.6) hhh dat is (.) e-e-e- what you really love (0.4) you (.) you lose it Host ja (.) en jij bent dan zo braaf Nona om telkens weer naar de winkel te gaan om een nieuw exemplaar te [gaan halen Nona [ja ik ben dus echt (.) de brave dochter die da da dan gewoon doe (.) [hehe Bart [hhhh Host kan je dan ni van tevoren gewoon meteen vijf exemplaren per album kopen dat zou misschien handiger zijn dat bespaart je [heel wat tijd in elk geval Nona [ja da’s misschien een goei idee (.) [ehhehe Bart [ja (.) misschien vind ik het dan (.) [juist geen leuke plaat hehhh Nona [hahaha Host ja nee ja Bart geen (.) geen steelfähige plaat (.) [zo Host [da- da- dat begrijp ik seg euhm wa- wa- wat is er zo goed aan Radiohead hoe ka- kan je dat uitleggen Nona? Nona goh (.) ‘k vind gewoon (.) heel die plaat is gewoon echt prachtige muziek en ’t verveelt mij ook ni ‘k ‘eb (.)

231

allez ‘k ‘eb de plaat vijf keer gekocht (.) allez (.) en toch (.) blijft da echt goeie muziek Host ja (.) en specifiek deze plaat is da bij jou ook zo Bart dat vooral deze (.) euh Radiohead plaat is blijven hangen (.) of vind je ze in hun (.) algemeenheid eh geweldig Bart Paranoid Android van de eh enn de- deze plaat maar dat zou ons ver leiden want dat is echt e- van een soort Deep Purpleïaanse lengte (.) eh v- vind ik het absolute hoogtepunt van die plaat maar natuurlijk ook Karma Police (.) .hh omdat voor mij (.) dat doet denken aan Sexy Sadie eh (.) van den dubbele witte van The Beatles eh (.) .hh dus dan zijn we weer thuis [hehehehehehe Nona [hahaha Host [hehe ja euh gaan we ’t zeker ook straks nog over hebben The Beatles want dat is ook dat is ook iets wat jullie bindt eigenlijk wel die band natuurlijk (.) iets euh wa- wat jullie ook beiden heel goed vinden en wat mij enigszins verbaasde was (.) Destiny’s Child want Nona (0.7) ik zou denken dat is iets waar jij bent (.) mee thuisgekomen en dat je dan hebt overgebracht (.) .hh naar vader toe

232

maar eigenlijk is ’t omgekeerd gegaan Nona ja (.) het is ons papa die (.) ( ) heeft ( ) een enorme fascinatie voor vrouwen die goe kunne danse Host [ja Nona [dus (.) ik weet ni ons papa zelf dieje kan ni goe danse ik weet ni of dat er (.) Bart [hahaha Nona [mensen die zijne show al hebbe gezien Host [dat zijn jouw woorden (.) Nona [ja Host dat zijn jouw woorden Nona Nona .hh mense die zenne show al hebbe gezien (.) die gaan da kunne beamen (.) da dieje mens (.) graag is wa R’n’B moves d’r tussen gooit (.) maar da lukt ni altijd even vlot (.) dus (0.9) ons papa heeft echt zo een paar live dvd’s van Destiny’s Child en ik (.) denk eigenlijk da da puur is (.) [voor de dancemoves Bart [hhh Host voor die choreografie is dat zo Bart Bart dat klopt ja dat is (.) lesmateriaal (.) dus ik heb niet alleen (.) Destiny’s Child euh live in Atlanta (.) .hh maar ik heb ook bijvoorbeeld alle shows van Beyonce .hhh Host hhhh Bart en da- hhhh en hahaha da-

233

daar gaat het niet over de liedjes maar ook (.) en dan (.) moeten ons meisjes mij leren van (.) ja kom (.) allez (.) zo bijvoorbeeld (.) da van Crazy in Love (.) eh (.) da moet de papa nu toch ook kunne (.) da moet (.) .hh zo moeilijk kan da toch ni zijn (.) en dan (.) Winnie en Nona l- leren mij dat (.) en dus op vakantie zijn wij heel vaak bezig hh met dat ik bijles neem Nona [hhihihi Bart [in Destiny’s Child (.) of Beyoncemoves Host ja Bart .hhh euhm Host inclusief de hotpants (.) dan ook (.) [heb je die de:: ook euh Bart [nee (.) nee Host [ah nee dat niet Bart [want ik ben (.) een (.) zwarte R’n’B zangeres in het diepst van mijn gedachten en dromen Host ja Bart maar ik ben niet zo’n Guido Belcanto die zich dan ook nog per se zo moet gaan [uitdossen Host [met hoge hakken (.) en Bart neu::h neuh neuh Nona spijtig eigenlijk Bart hahahahaha Host ja (.) ’t is jammer bestaat daar beeldmateriaal van Nona (.) da jullie eigenlijk euh (.) je pa aan ’t leren zijn (.) [om die die moves euh Nona [van die enorme dansinitiaties

234

Host [om de moves onder de knie te krijgen Nona nee nee (.) spijtig genoeg ni eigenlijk Host [da’s heel jammer eigenlijk Nona [ja (.) ’s jammer Bart [hahahahaha Host maar (.) wie weet duiken die ooit [nog ’s erges op Nona [hahaha (.) na de volgende Bart [hahahaha Host ik geef je zometeen wat geld dat je dat straks (.) dat je dat vanavond toch nog ’s kunt doen zullen w’is luisteren naar Destiny’s Child wat is een wat is een goeie om euh om om te draaien Nona ja (.) Say My Name vin’k wel (.) Bart [eej Nona [’s wel tof eh Bart wete da (.) diejen beat (.) die was eigenlijk dubbel zo traag he (.) .hh dus (.) da da was eigenlijk de bedoeling om da dubbel zo traag in te zingen (.) en die hebben da dubbel zo rap ingezongen (.) en zo is die Destiny’s Child (.) stijl ontstaan en als je dat weet (.) dan begrijp je dit nummer ook beter hahaha Nona hehehe Host wel (.) we gaan (.) we gaan er ’s rekening mee houden dit is Destiny’s Child (.) twee keer zo snel dan oorspronkelijk de bedoeling was met Say My Name Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))

235

((Say My Name)) Bart paam pepe tiki tiki tampetauw da moest eigenlijk zijn dchang kiki chiri pape dieuw ni dauw en ze maken d’r van paam pepe tiki tiki tampetauw dat en dat is het geniale van da nummer he Host [wat ik ook Bart [en dat is door een door een door een toeval gekomen Host wat ik ook geniaal vond was (.) terwijl euh Destiny’s Child bezig was ben jij de hele tijd (.) ben jij eigenlijk de hele tijd aan het aan het meezingen (.) me- met zo’n nummer (.) doe jij dat doet ‘ie dat thuis ook de hele tijd Nona ja en dus (.) allez ni aan het meezinge me de muziek= =allez me- met den tekst maar zo aan ‘t meezingen met de muziek zo diejen .hhh °pepetempete-° .hh ‘eel den tijd (.) [da’s echt Host [wordt je Nona en dan ook wijzen (.) zo van nu (.) nu (.) ja Host wordt je daar niet soms krankzinnig van Nona Nona ja(.) allez (.) dees valt nog mee (.) maar Bart [hahahaha

236

Nona [al- ja (.) nee (.) maar het allerergste is zeker (.) allez hij doet dat dan ‘eel graag als wij examens hebben ofzo en boven aan ’t studeren zijn (.) en dan hoorde da echt (.) tot twee verdiepen verder (.) .hhh als dieje zijn stemoefeningen aan ’t doen is (.) da’s echt verschrikkelijk [allez (.) sorry he papa (.) ma- Host [hoe (.) hoe hoe hoe klinkt dat dan Nona (.) kan je da= Nona =doe is Bart nee (.) da durf ik ni (.) want (.) dan dan jaag ik gewoon (.) alle (.) luisteraars van Studio Brussel weg Nona [hihihihi Bart [allez Host ( ) pro- probeer jij ’s Nona hoe klinkt het [on- ongeveer Nona [goh (.) ja (.) ’t is ’t is (.) ja ik ka- ik kan het ni maar ’t is echt enorm luid (.) en zo toonaarden en zo van diejen operazang precies (.) allemaal dooreen (.) echt Host ik krijg een beetje medelijden [eigenlijk (.) met jou Nona [jaa hhh

237

Host misschien moeten we ooit een Music For Life [ook een klein beetje voor Nona Peeters doen Bart [hhhehehe Nona [hahahaha Host kinderen die worden gekweld door euh door door door door vaders die veel te veel euh (.) ja lawaai maken [eigenlijk Nona [ja Host .hhh seg (.) maar maar maar (.) is ’t sowieso een vader die die die (.) die ook met harde hand af en toe muziek probeerde of hard euh is natuurlijk euh euh figu- euh figuurlijk bedoeld (.) maar (.) .hh die constant muziek probeerde euh euh over te brengen aan jou Nona [goh Host [da- da- dat moet je ‘s horen (.) of dat of euh Nona (1.0) ja (.) allez da was ni per se met harde hand (.) ma bijvoorbeeld meeeh (.) de Beatles (.) ik had zo (.) is gezegd van ah ja ik wil d’r wel iets van horen (.) da’s al een paar jaar geleden (.) en dan had hij gezegd van ja ok (.) eh (.) hier een aantal cd’s (.) maar hij had dan exact opgeschreven welke nummers van welke cd’s da ‘k moest beluisteren (.) .hhh omda da de goei waren en pas dan mocht ik (.) den hele cd aanvalle (.) maar dus da was wel (.) grappig [en (.) op zich Host [dus je maakt er echt wel je werk van (.)

238

Bart (.) op zo’n moment je neemt dat wel serieus Bart ah ja je mag ook niet (.) mensen overvoederen (.) dus als ge zegt van (.) .hhh ik zeg altijd van (.) leer dit van buiten he (.) .hhh dus (.) leer het oeuvre van de Beatles van buiten (.) en kom terug en (.) ge moet het allemaal kennen voor ’t exaam (.) [.hhh dus ik vond het (.) heel (.) heel vaderlijk van te zeggen Nona [hahahaha Bart ge moet (.) hoeveel waren ’t er? Nona een stuk of [tien Bart [tien? Nona denk ik ja Bart ja (.) ge moet tien nummers kennen voor ’t exaam (.) .hhh en dan kunnen we nog eens praten over de Beatles (.) allez ja Host ja (.) maar je hebt er wel iets aan gehad dan uiteindelijk Nona ja (.) die- wa- euh (.) ‘k vind da nu nog altijd eigenlijk de beste (.) vannn (.) alle platen Host ja we- weet je nog Bart welke je d’r op had gezet dan of welke welke (.) je had aanbevolen (.) ongeveer Bart Nona?

239

Nona ja ik denk eigenlijk de bekende bekendste nummers (.) goh (.) ja ik ben echt heel slecht in namen (.) ma- (1.0) ‘k weet da (.) Norwegian Wood zat er zeker bij en da vin’k nu nog altijd nen topper Host ja Bart ja maar dat is dat is ni zo’n super bekend zenne [dat is (.) dat is eigenlijk Nona [ja maar da’s echt ( ) Bart da’s eigenlijk gewoon een goed (.) da’s eigenlijk (.) gewoon een goeie keuze Host van Rubber Soul staat euh (.) komt het nummer he Bart ja en ik denk ook (.) he- heel John Lennon geïnspireerd Host ja (.) weet je waarover het gaat het nummer? Nona goh (.) oei [hahahahahaha Host [nee ja ‘kweeni weet jij het Bart (.) ’t is eigenlijk een heel een een een heel (.) ja een beetje een een een (.) een een (.) klei- e- e- tragisch verhaaltje eigenlijk he want know Lennon? Bart ja maar ‘eel schoon (.) en dat ‘eeft ‘m zeker gepikt van (.) van van Bob Dylan (.) dus (.) het gaat altijd terug over (.) over Noors (0.4) hout (.) eh (.) euh (.)

240

in een een (.) een wat tragisch (.) v- verhaal met een met een meisje (.) maar (0.8) dien truc (.) van altijd terug te komen op dat Noors hout (.) °dat heeft ie (.) zeker van Bob Dylan dat weet ik zeker Host ja (.) maar laten we dat dat dat blijft tussen ons he° dat mag (.) ja dat mag euh (.) niet naar [buiten gaan natuurlijk Bart [hehehehe Nona hahahaha Host een nummer dat op de deh (.) bij de tien favoriete Beatlesongs (.) van Bart Peeters stonden en nu ook bij deuh (.) bij deuh favorieten van jou (.) Nona? Nona ja (.) zeker zeker Host [laten we er eens naar luisteren naar (.) .hh The Beatles en Norwegian Wood [((Norwegian Wood)) Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) ((That Look You Give That Guy)) Host That Look You Give That Guy van Eels je luistert (.) naar Papa Was A Rolling Stone met vandaag te gast Nona Peeters en vader Bart Peeters (0.5) .hh wat een mooi nummer was dat he Bart Bart amai seg (0.8) hhhahahahaha Nona ehhhhh [nee Host [ma ik zie

241

ik zie aan de blik van Nona dat er ni helemaal (.) euh euh sprake is van eensgezindheid hier Nona ja (.) nee ik vind (.) dees nummer dus echt prachtig he ma- (0.5) ja ik wil euh (0.5) Eels over ’t algemeen (.) Eels (.) ‘k vind da (.) nogal veel (.) ’t zelfde ik ben ook meer ja ik luister ook vooral muziek als ‘k aan ’t fietsen ben ofzo [en dan is iets me nen Bart [hhhh Nona .hh iets snelleren beat (0.7) meer euh (.) aangeweze maa (0.6) ja (.) ‘kweeni (.) ‘k vin e- allez (.) ‘k ‘eb echt wel veel respect ’s echt schoon muziek en goe over nagedacht ma ik denk da ‘k gewoon ‘k ‘eb de concentratie ni om een hele cd uit te luisteren Host ja Bart ’t is niet om op te fitnessen he [dat (.) dat geef ik wel toe Nona [hehehe Bart [dus Host [‘et zou (.) ‘et zou heel weinig calorieën verbranden [denk ik Bart [in die zin is het Nona [hahaha Bart is het misschien (.) ouwemensen (.) muziek (0.9) .hh ge moogt soms tips geven he

242

(0.7) ge moet dit nummer (.) That Look You Give That Guy (.) opzoeken op YouTube (.) en dan vooral (.) die (.) die clip die hij heeft gemaakt met die Indiase (.) euh actrice weet jij dat? Host nee die heb ik niet [dat is nieuw Bart [sjongejongejonge Pak Mau (.) eeuh Rama weet ik veel wa (.) ‘et komt erop neer dat The Guy (.) waar dat hij zo jaloers op is (.) dat is zijnen eigen hond (.) en daardoor heb je dat woord pedigree maar dus gewoon (.) ge moet (.) That Look You Give That Guy opzoeken op YouTube (.) en dan (.) d- de clipvariant met die met die wondermooie Indiase (.) actrice .hhh en dat is echt grappig ( ) wete ook omdat dien Eels dus echt ongelooflijk grappig is Host hij is heel grappig hij komt ook heel cool over op een podium met zijn zonnebril en ‘et [‘et ziet er ook heel erg (.) heel erg (.) mooi uit allemaal he Bart [hhh hahahaha Nona [hehehehe Host en hij houdt er denk ik ook vaak van om om de mensen ’n beetje op een verkeerd been te zetten

243

mensen verwachten altijd .hh een andere show dan dat ze gaan krijgen bij Eels heb je z’ al ’s live gezien? Nona euh (.) jaja op Werchter zijn die komen spelen he .hhh maar ja ik heb eigenlijk een een stukje (.) live gezien hhh hehehe Bart hahahahaha Nona ma ja (.) [.hhh ik denk da was ook Host [een stukje maar Nona ja da was ook den (.) derde vierden dag ‘k weet ni meer juist en iedereen was dan zo goe moe en ik (.) ja ‘kweeni (0.6) .hhh dan moete ni naar Eels gaan luistere als ge d’r als g’u toch ni echt op goe kunt op concentreren dan Host (0.8) nee (.) dat heb je niet gedaan Nona [nee Host [dat heb je niet eh Nona [wel ( ) Host [dat heb je thuis ook verzwegen dat je niet naar Eels bent gaan kijken Nona [jah hahaha Bart [hahahaha Nona ja sorry papa ( ) Host zien we jou nog veel op festivals als je niet moet spelen Bart (.) om om echt te gaan kijken euh naar naar naar= Bart =ik= Host =optredens Bart ik ga eerder naar concerten (.)

244

du- dus als Costello (.) euh helemaal alleen en akoestisch komt (.) dannn zal ik daar wel zijn Host ja Bart euh of of ( ) de de première van Raymond Van ’t Groenewoud binnenkort of Neil Young .hhh euhm (.) dat eerder (.) dan Werchter of Pukkelpop daar ben ik een jaartje te oud voor (.) eh Otto-Jan Host hehhh dat is dat is je vergeven zou je nog naar De Jeugd Van Tegenwoordig gaan kijken? Bart die wel (.) maar (.) je hoeft ook in principe niet naar concerten te gaan om echt (.) te zien hoe geweldig da ze zijn (.) overigens ik wist het ni he (.) maar (1.0) N- Nona heeft ze me leren kennen Host De Jeugd Van Tegenwoordig hebben we het dan over (.) want (.) die hebben euh bij jou eigenlijk opgetreden Nona [eh hehe Host [ongeveer Nona ja euh (.) in inn ( ) hebben wij zo een jeugdhuis (.) [Trok Host [ja Nona .hhh en die zijn daar komen spelen en ik stond daar toen (.) eh ‘k was ook ve- verantwo- allez (.) zo inpa- inkomverantwoordelijke denk ofzo ( ) inderdaad .hhh

245

en ik weet ‘t nog da was kei plezant want (.) die week da wij zo aan ’t opbouwen waren was da ook ‘eel den tijd De Jeug Van Tegenwoordig da opstond dus om den duur kon iedereen die (.) teksten mee (.) rappen enzo .hhh was echt (.) echt geweldig ook echt een super optreden echt bangelijk Host en ’t zijn nogal speciale mannen ook he Nona jaa nogal [hahaha Host [ja ja ja ja Nona beetje ja (.) raar [van tijd tot tijd Host [ja Nona maar ja heh Host maar jij bent niet komen kijken maar je hebt het achteraf dan via haar deuh ’t enthousiasme is overgebracht [ge- geworden Bart [ja want ik (.) ik wil het altijd eerst begrijpen (.) en Holleleer of [of of Host [Hollereer ja Bart ja ja (.) ik dacht gaat het dan over die Hollegeer of die gijzel- maar helemaal ni (.) .hhh maar dan later (.) ‘eb ik er mij echt (.) op gesmeten (.) en was ik ook al (.) ge- (.) ja hoe geteased door hun interviews die die die bepaald grappig zijn (.)

246

en dan ben ik zo ennnnorm fan geworden van (.) Sterrenstof en .hh Deze Donkere Jonge Komt Zo Hard enzo Host ja e- e- Bart dus nu vind ik het nu vind ik het (.) echt een soort ja hiphopversie van Het Leugenpaleis eigenlijk hahahahaha want zo serieus menen die mannen .hh °da’s een geheim he° .hh maar zo serieus menen die mannen da ni Nona ja da’s eigenlijk wel heel veel ons papa heeft nu zo deze zomer bij dieje Sterrenstof zo wa den uitleg gegeven van allez Nona da’s kei knap da’s zo .hhh me muziekskes en da klopt allemaal al ziet da d’r zo wa rommelig uit .hhh en dan dan komt zo iets van ja eigenlijk is da echt super (.) schone muziek ook allez da’s:: da past echt perfect wel da da soms echt zo (.) [verknipt lijkt wel Host [ze- z- ja ze doen alsof het zeuh dat het heel erg euh rommelig is enzo maar uiteindelijk zit het sterker in elkaar dan [dan je Nona [ja Host dan je: zou denken eigenlijk he Bart en muzikaal ook (.) echt echt euh (.) echt heel muzikaal Host ja ja ja .hhh e- ‘et Leugenpaleis van de hiphop (.) euh Bart [hahahaha Nona [hahahaha

247

Host [De Jeugd Van Tegenwo- ik vond ’t een goeie omschrijving De Jeugd Van Tegenwoordig en Sterrenstof ((Sterrenstof)) Host veel betere fitnessmuziek bestaat er niet denk ik [De Jeugd Van Tegenwoordig en Sterrenstof Bart [hahaha Host dat is toch zo he Nona Nona ja (.) super he (.) [hehe Host [kun je perfect op gaan eigenlijk .hh ja veel mensen zouden dat niet serieus nemen De Jeugd Van Tegenwoordig maar d- dit klinkt eigenlijk ’t is eigenlijk gewoon heel erg goed gemaakt .hh Bart m- ma tegelijk is het ook (.) euh (.) zij nemen zichzelf ook ni au sérieux dus (.) Deze Donkere Jongen Komt Zo Hard is echt geen testosteron (.) song dat is daar een grap op °allez ja° Host ja ja ja Bart e- en dit zo van (.) de stardust druggebruiker die dan uiteindelijk verliefd wordt en dan de drugs [goodbye zegt Nona [hehehe Bart .hhh dat is allemaal voor te lachen natuurlijk Nona ja ma dan toch muzikaal kei sterk eh Bart amai (.) zo (.) da [trompetteke zo Nona [ja Bart zo (.) nen trompettist laten komen voor drie noten

248

Host [hahahaha Nona [ja dat is echt hahaha Bart [da de die en dan ‘m en dan ‘m (.) terugpakken met een sampletje he d’rna Host [ja Bart [.hh daar heb ik echt veel respect voor dat is echt dat is (.) dat is John Martin eige- dat is dat is George Martin (.) eigenlijk (.) bij de Beatles Host ja ja ja jij bent zelf muzikant dus jij luistert ook als een muzikant (.) naar naar nummers Bart z- zelfs naar De Jeugd Van Tegenwoordig [hahahahaha Nona [hehehe Host [hahaha dan denk ik da je een van de enigen bent maar he hehe dat is wel dat is wel bewonderenswaardig .hhh euh dat muzikale (.) dat heb jij ook een beetje want jij speelt ook muziek he Nona Nona ja ja .hh ik speel euh in een coverbandje Host [ja Nona [hehehe Host en en wat speel je dan precies? Nona eu:h ik drum (.) [( ) Host [jij drumt

249

Nona ja da’s (.) allez (.) logisch want wij hadden nog een drumstel staan thuis van bij ons papa Host ja Nona en ’t is wel plezant (.) allez vooral (.) ‘kweeni (.) ik vind (.) ik denk da het leuker is om als coverbandje te spelen dan (.) me uwen eigen muziek omda ge dan zo (.) .hhh ja hhhh ge wordt ni altijd overal geapprecieerd en ge moet echt moeite doen om uw eigen muziek te verkopen .hhh dus ik denk da da leuker is (.) as ge gewoon wa vanalles speelt dat er sowieso wel een paar mensen in het publiek zeggen ja dees is echt een goei nummer (.) allez Host [ja Nona [da vin ‘k altijd leuk [om te zien Host [o- op welke leeftijd ben je beginnen drummen Nona oh ik denk (.) op mijn zestien zeventien? Host ah ja ok dus toch (.) redelijk laat want dat heeft er toch [altijd ( ) Nona [ja ja inderdaad ( ) Host het huis staat toch vol instrumenten veronderstel ik of euh (.) Bart [dat drumstel s- Host [zie ik dat verkeerd Bart dat drumstel stond al lang in een hoekje te pinken

250

ja ja [hehe Nona [ma- Host ( ) wat vo- wat voor een drumster is ( ) want je ja je bent euh euh zelf ook een drummer natuurlijk Bart wat voor een drumster is Nona Bart Nona is echt een Meg White Nona hmm[heh Bart [en echt zoals bij de White Stripes en (.) wat er zo wonderlijk is (0.6) misschien zijn haar haar fills (.) euh (.) niet zo (.) speciaal (.) maar wat ik in ieder geval als jonge drummer niet had (.) dat was een echte groove (.) dus als zij een ritme inzet dvvv (.) tchh (.) dvvv (.) tchh (.) dat is vertrokken (.) en je denkt (.) w- w- wie heeft dat ritme geprogrammeerd (.) en (.) en het is ons Nona Host [ja hahaha Nona [hahaha Bart allez da’s gewoon die speelt gewoon live (.) .hh echte strakke g- grooves Host ja ik ken eigenlijk ni zo veel ik ken d- d- inderdaad Meg White en dan had je de (.) die drumster van euh van Lenny Kravitz en die speelde ook zo [die speelde Bart [Cindy Blackman Host [ja e- ‘et lij-

251

Bart [Cindy Blackman Host ‘et lijkt zo wat houterig eigenlijk te zijn is dat is dat iets typisch? Bart °nee° Nona nee ik denk ’t ni (.) [hehehe Host [nee? Nona ‘k denk da da hare stijl was Host ja ja [maar maar eh Nona [( ) Host de de de de ’et is wel heel strak maar het [lijkt eigenlijk heel erg Nona [hm Host euh houterig te zijn maar dat is het dus helemaal niet Nona (0.6) mm nee eigenlijk ni ni per se hehehehe Bart a- as je as je Nona ziet drummen da- dat dat ziet er heel ontspannen [uit Host [wa- wanneer wanneer is je volgende optreden Nona Bart [hehehe Host [we- hoe heet de band eigenlijk Nona euh True Cover [mja hahahaha Host [True eheheh Bart [hahahahahahaha Host en wanneer spelen jullie nog ‘s Nona ik denk ergens in februari da we nog ’s in Antwerpen spelen Host dan kan ik Bart [hahahahahaha Nona [ja? (.) hehehe

252

Host [( ) z- zeker kome kijken (.) naar eigenlijk de de m- de Meg White van van zo (.) allez (.) de Meg White van van België eigenlijk Nona Peeters Bart [hhhh Host [zullen we ’s naar de echte Meg White [luistere? Nona [ja (.) ja ’s goe Host .hh Seven Nation Army van de echte Meg (.) en Jack White dit zijn de White Stripes Bart [hhhhh Jingle [((jingle Studio Brussel)) [((Seven Nation Army)) Host Seven Nation Army (.) .hh niet voor niks een een een een soort anthem he eigenlijk geworden van de White Stripes .hhh en (.) jullie spelen dat dus ook [met True Cover Nona [ja ja (.) wij spelen het zelf (.) maar dann ja (.) me- (.) me ’n zangeres (.) en da klinkt ook wel goe Host ja (.) [aajj (.) Jack White Nona [ja (.) hij zingt ook wa hoog hahaha Bart [is een zangeres Host is eigenlijk gewoon een euh (.) ja heh (.) ja ’t is een ‘t is een euh goeie bekentenis voor deze zondag Jack White is eigenlijk gewoon een een vrouw en een heel sexy vrouw eigenlijk

253

Nona [ehehehe Host [zeker (.) als je ‘m als je ‘m hoort zingen .hhh eeuhm (.) eeuh ’t is heel grappig als als ik jullie bezig zie tijdens elk nummer jullie zitten (.) jullie zitten geweldig hard mee te .hh (.) te doen en en en (.) elk euh instrumentje te analyseren enzo (.) euhm maar d’r d’r is één band (.) beste Bart (.) waar jij (.) helemaal gek van bent en waar jij ni liever doet dan dat (.) constant .hh aan je dochter euh euh tenminste (.) proberen (.) over te maken of over te brengen dat enthousiasme (.) .hh en dat is redelijk vruchteloos we hebben het over de Rolling Stones Bart ja (.) en dan vooral de Rolling Stones live Host ja Bart eigenlijk o- wa- want ik begrijp dat (.) mensen van deze tijd misschien ni zo gek zijn van euh .hhhhh die oude opnames van Exile On Main Street enzovoort maar ik dacht (.) bijvoorbeeld die Four Flicks (.) dvd’s of of Shine A Light eh met (.) Martin Scorsese .hhh dat dat toch (.) moet lukken en iedere zomer terug Nona [hehehe Bart [hhh ’s avonds (.) [’s avonds als de sfeer goed is in Frankrijk eh

254

Nona [hehehehe Bart zeg ik manne (.) zet ik er nog is euh (.) [ene in he Host [hehhh Bart laat ik nog is (.) zien hoe geniaal Mick Jagger en en euh .hhhh en da is altijd van papa kunde da ni in u in u eigen ruimtes doen hehhhh Nona ja allez d’r is ne gre- Destiny’s Child ok ma de Rolling Stones allez (0.8) .hhh vooral live (.) da is zo wa (.) jaahh wa ouw manne (.) dhhehehe in te strakke broekjes [hehehe Host [hehehehe Nona allez ik zie ons papa wel over twintig jaar d’r nog altijd zo staan ze (.) [ma (.) Host [d-eh inderdaad in een in een leren (.) Nona in een [te strakke broek ja ehehehe Host [iets te strakke (.) broek Bart ja (.) leer da- da- da- (.) da denk ik ni Nona pas op papa (.) [allez Bart [en een en een een strakke broek (.) whhwghje ik ik [( )

255

Nona [we spreken hier over ne groten tijd da d’r nog ga verstrijke [ik bedoel tegen da- Host [jaja nee j- inderdaad euh Bart d’r tegen is da misschien in de mode hhhhh Nona [hahahahahaha Host [waarschijnlijk waarschijnlijk maar maar ja (.) dede Rolling Stones Nona (.) ja (.) ik ik ik snap het ook ergens wel een beetje Nona .hhh ja allez ik zeg ni da (0.7) de muziek is gewoon (.) d’r zijn zeker wel een paar nummers da ‘k echt wel knap vind (.) en ook graag naar luister maar op zich (.) mwa (0.7) hehe [.hhhh Host [ja (.) ma- maar maar da’s misschien wel een goeie vraag Bart zie je jezelf ook ook binnen (.) laat ons zeggen binnen twintig jaar nog steeds (.) euh .hh doen wat de Rolling Stones nu doen Bart dat is on- onder meer (.) een van de redenen waarom w’er (.) eind euh november (0.8) mee stoppen (.) voor onafzienbare tijd (1.4) .hh omdat dat schrikbeeld want Mick Jagger is eigenlijk een held van mij (.) en dat schrikbeeld (1.1) d- dat zie je dan ook he

256

van oei oei (.) .hh voor je ’t weet (0.6) ga ik iedere dag naar de fitness (.) en en dat is toch onmogelijk (0.8) een mens mag niet te veel z’n best doen Host ja (.) [maar Bart [.hhhh Host maar vind je nu dat ‘ie dat ‘ie te veel zijn best doet en dat het een klein beetje (.) .hh een beetje een beetje (.) ja goh (.) euh een beetje potsierlijk wordt [of of of misschien zelfs wat gênant Bart [nee nee nee ik (.) nee ik vind da zelfs ni van Superheavy en ik en ik vind da euh (.) ik heb heel veel respect voor die mens .hhh maar bijvoorbeeld bij Shine A Light (.) was het absoluut zo dat Scorsese duidelijk (.) de de (.) opdracht heeft gekregen van .hhh laat het er zo (.) .hhh zo bewogen mogelijk uitzien zo ambiant mogelijk uitzien e- ‘et was niet erg muzikaal e- e- dat niet (.) .hhh maar op dieje Four Flicks eh (.) [allez nu begin ik weer Nona [hehehe Bart Nona (.) da- d- (.) daar staat dinge op he (.) Gimme Shelter (.)

257

en dan (.) L- Lisa F- Fischer (.) eh Host leg ‘s uit wie is dat Bart dat is d- al al eeuwenlang ik denk al driehonderd jaar de backing zangeres van de Rolling Stones .hhh die die krijgt dan zo’n beetje een een speciale (.) euh feature (.) tijdens het liedje Gimme Shelter (.) .hhh de opbouw is lang (.) maar een fragment daar zou je (.) mij en misschien hier en daar [ook wel op deze Nona [hehehehehehehehehe Bart .hhhh op de z- op de op de zondagmiddag (.) eh (.) blij mee maken (.) Otto-Jan Host [ik ik denk dat dat weuh Bart [echt waar (.) hhhhhahaha Host we verplicht zijn om dat te doen .hhh al was het maar omdat we nog één keer gaan proberen om ook Nona zover [te krijgen Bart [ja ja Host Gimme Shelter een fragmentje daaruit met hoe heet ze de backing vocalist [Lisa Bart [Lisa Fischer Host Lisa Fischer .hh de Rolling Stones Jingle [((jingle Studio Brussel)) [((Gimme Shelter)) Host allez Nona zo moeilijk was da nu toch allemaal [niet

258

Nona [nee (.) allez (.) ok nee ik zal (.) ik zal ‘ns een belofte maken (.) eh ons papa is binnenkort terug jarig (.) .hhh en dan (.) zal ik zien (.) ik zal een (.) een soort van familieuitje regelen en dan gaan we me z’n allen naar diejen dvd kijken Bart mmt Nona voor (.) speciaal voor u (.) is da goe? Bart ooooh (.) dat is nu (.) da zou de schoonste [ver- Nona [hahaha Bart da zou de mooiste verjaardag zijn (.) die ik ooit zou gekregen hebben [en normaal Host [( ) Bart normaal (.) als wij met heel het gezin naar iets kijken wa da dat is .hhh in ’t beste geval So You Think You Can Dance [hahahaha Nona [hehehehe Host [haha (.) kijk en dan kom je d’r nog goedkoop vanaf [eigenlijk ook Nona [ja eigenlijk wel he (.) [hhehehehe Host [want die dvd’s zijn er al dus eigenlijk euh da’s da’s da’s win-win situatie .hhh heel heel eh heel goed euhm (.)

259

.hh euh omgekeerd natuurlijk want want (.) je vader kan jou op de kast jagen misschien met met oude mannen in te strakke broeken of met z’n eigen .hh euh stemoefeningen .hhh omgekeerd (.) heb jij d’r ook euh euh of tenminste heb jij hem toch ook hier en daar al (.) kunnen wegjagen met jouw muzieksmaak Nona ja en eigenlijk ook een beetje met de strakke broeken he euh (.) Ke$ha (.) vind ‘m echt verschrikkelijk Host Ke$ha dat is dat is (.) euh even voor de mensen die Ke$ha niet zo goed kennen .hh °da’s een speciale [eigenlijk he° Nona [ja ja ik denk e- allez ja de zang is ook ni echt bangelijk ma ik vind gewoon echt een hilarisch concept van zo de zatte tiener die dan ook op ‘et podium bier begint te drinken me live shows allez (.) als dat er nu echt wel(.) allez (.) wel of ni bier in zit da weet ik ni (.) ma (.) .hh ‘k vind gewoon echt een bangelijk concept en ‘t werkt ook duidelijk he want ‘k ‘eb nog nooit zo’n (.) uitzinnig euh publiek gezien Host op Wer- op Werchter [bedoel je? Nona [ja (.) [op Werchter ( ) Host [ik ben ook gaan kijken Nona ja (.) ja hhh Host ‘k vond euh ik vond heel erg goed (.) euh (.) daar was jij dus ook ni bij (.) [Bart Peeters Bart [ik was niet op op Ke$ha (.)

260

[op Werchter Nona [ahahaha Bart euh (.) we- ik ben daar niet op betrapt (.) werkelijk niet Nona ja ik wo- ons papa vond vooral erg da (.) tijdens (.) Ke$ha was eigenlijk ook Triggerfinger bezig (.) op het hoofdpodium en (.) hij vond da echt verschrikkelijk da’k (.) heh (.) da had gemist (.) voor (.) Ke$ha .hhh Host wat (.) wat is er zo verschrikkelijk aan Ke$ha Bart Bart hhh euhm ik denk (.) dat ik (.) het concept niet helemaal begrijp (.) eh (.) en en (.) haar stemtimbre en het gebruik daarvan ook niet (.) haar melodieën ook [niet haar grooves eigenlijk ook niet Nona [hahahahahahahaha Bart haar clips daar begrijp ik ook niets van .hhh en ik vind het exploiteren van de lelijkheid (.) daar moet je Lady Gaga voor zijn om dat op hoog niveau te kunnen Host ja ja Bart ben ik duidelijk? hhehehe Host [ik denk ’t wel (.) t- s- Nona [hehehehehehe Host redelijk duidelijk maar (.) daar trek jij je geen geen (.) geen [brol van aan eigenlijk (.) Nona

261

Nona [ha kunt er (.) kunt er toch goe op danse (.) tchhehe Host voila Nona ambiance Bart i- ik dans niet zo goed (.) [dus Nona [hahahahahaha Bart ik kan nergens goed op dansen (.) hehahahahaha Host misschien zit jij gewoon te weinig in de fitness Bart Peeters (.) Bart ja (.) [of doe ik (.) Host [ik denk dat dat gewoon het probleem is Bart nog te weinig Destiny’s Child na (.) [dat is mijn probleem Host [‘k denk ‘et ‘k denk ‘et Nona ehhhh Host maar (.) j’ ‘ebt nu (.) j’ ‘ebt nu enkele minuten de tijd want we gaan luisteren naar Ke$ha .hhh wel- welke Bart hehhhh Host welke wil je Nona (.) [alles mag Nona [euh wacht eh (.) We Are (.) Who We Are (.) ’s wel ne goeie (.) hehh Host ik weet zeker (.) [ik weet zeker dat (.)

262

Bart [hhhhh Host [we ’t hier allemaal roerend over eens zullen zijn Nona [hehehehe (.) he papa? hehehehe Host [We Are Bart [da kan ik ni verzekeren hhhhh Nona [hehehehe Host [ ( ) We Are Who We Are van de (.) geniale Ke$ha Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) ((We Are Who We Are)) Host We Are Who We Are van van Ke$ha (.) een euh (.) een speciale madam (0.8) [dat is Bart [ja Host ik blijf ehm diplomatisch eigenlijk in mijn euh (.) in mijn omschrijving Bart ja ge moet toch een beetje uitkijken met (.) allez (.) met de taak van de openbare zender op zondagmiddag enzo (.) denk ik eh (.) hhhhehe Host ach (.) Nona laat maar praten laat maar [praten Nona [ja (.) ‘k wou ‘k wou juist zeggen (.) ‘k weet zeker dat ‘m onder die tafel hier z- den beat heeft zitten meetikken me zenne voet (.) [pffhehe Host [sterker nog (.) ik heb het [gemerkt (.) ik heb blauwe plekken op m’n schenen van euh (.) van de heftigheid eigenlijk Nona [hehehehehehehehehehehe .hhhh Host euh we gaan wel we gaan wel met een soort van euh eh eh eh een soort van .hh harmonische nooit eindigen

263

iets waar jullie het wel over eens zijn want voor alle duidelijkheid (.) .hh d’r zijn heel d’r is heel veel muziek die jullie alletwee (.) euh (.) heel erg goed vinden Bart absoluut Nona [ja Host [dat ‘t gaat dat van de Beatles over Triggerfinger waar we ’t net al [even over hadden Bart [absoluut Nona [ja ja (.) zeker Host euh (.)d- d- dat is iets wat ju- wat jullie delen Radiohead vonden jullie alletwee heel erg goed (.) .hhh en (.) jullie hadden een speciaal verzoek nog (.) om de uitzending af te sluiten met (.) Ego Troopers (.) .hh heel weinig mensen (.) die nu euh op deze mooie euh zondagmiddag aan het luisteren zijn gaan de Ego Troopers kennen leg ‘ns even uit leid ons in (.) in de wereld van de Ego Troopers Bart .hhhhh ze zijn (.) ze komen uit de schaduw (.) van de (.) van de fucking Dewaele Brothers hoe zeg ik dat proper Nona eeuh Soulwax zeker? Bart s- s- ja (.) nee (.) dede- [de Dewaele Host [2manydjs (.) 2manydjs Nona [2manydjs Bart 2manydjs Host [ja

264

Bart [va- van deuh (.) 2manydjs .hhhhh (.) euhm (.) ‘et zijn (0.6) piepjonge (.) dj’s (.) maar die maken ook echt eigen nummers (.) .hh en daar zitten van die melodieën in zoals in het nummer Polar (.) iii dudu u u u iii u u (.) .hh dat is (0.6) een nieuwe (0.6) richting (.) die muziek uitgaat (.) want (.) want (.) dat kan je in noten niet uitschrijven en toch is het een melodie .hhh ‘et ‘et zijn piepjonge (.) Belgische dj’s (.) maar die bijvoorbeeld ook ‘et ‘et voorprogramma van (.) 2manydjs euh v- v- (.) doen °in euhm (.) in in Parijs (.) Barcelona° Nona ja en dan ‘eel die club in Barcelona gewoon op ‘unne kop ‘ebbe gezet eh me allez (.) d’s da’s (.) kei straf die mannen zijn vijftien zestien (.) ja? Host ja (.) ja (.) en d- dit plaatje dat Polar dat is zelfs eigenlijk officieel nog niet (.) °nog niet° officieel uit maar ’t wordt wel al in de clubs [gedraaid Nona [ja Host en jullie zijn natuurlijk fanatieke clubbers Bart [euh (.) ik ik niet Nona [ja ja zeker (.) hahaha we gaan vooral zo met twee wa clubben (.) [.hhh

265

Host [ja ja (.) nee maar dat mag he [( ) Bart [ik ben nog nooit in een club (.) ik ben nog nooit in een club geweest maar ons Nona wel die was (.) die was gisteren [hahahaha Nona [hahahaha Bart nog gaan clubben Host jij bent nog gaan clubben inderdaad maar misschien moeten we zo meteen gewoon de club meer in de [studio Nona [ja ja [°((Polar))° Host wa meer een klein beetje we we dimmen wat lichten en en en we gooien wat bier op de grond en Nona [hehehehe Bart [hhhhhh Host en we gaan wat (.) overmatig zweten en dan krijgen we vanzelf euh die sfeer wel en dan gaan we naar de Ego Troopers (.) .hh jonge kerels dus uit deuh omgeving van? Bart Antwerpen? Host van Antwerpen he (0.7) .hh euh we gaan d’r nog veel van horen ( ) de eerste keer dat je ’t gehoord hebt is waarschijnlijk tijdens Papa Was A Rolling Stone .hh met dank daarvoor aan euh euh Bart Peeters en Nona Peeters (.) het was een (.) heel gezellig onderonsje .hhh en euh en (.) kom nog eens terug als het past zouden we zeggen

266

Nona [ja (.) hehehe Bart [graag (.) Otto-Jan Jingle ((jingle Studio Brussel)) ((Polar))

267

Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Raúl & Gabriel Rios (fragments)

Jingle ((jingle Studio Brussel)) Otto-Jan Ham Aris Ham dames (.) en heren (.) een goeie middag (0.8) mijn naam (.) is Aris Ham (0.7) ik ben de vader (.) van Otto-Jan en ik heet u van harte welkom bij (.) Papa Was A Rolling Stone (1.1) met vandaag te gast (.) vader Raúl en zoon (0.5) Gabriel Rios Gabriel is drieëndertig (0.6) zanger (.) en muzikant (0.9) vader Raúl is drieënzestig (0.7) woont nog steeds in Puerto Rico (0.6) en is zelf ook muzikant (1.2) voor het eerst zitten ze nu samen (.) in de radiostudio (.) en praten ze over hun favoriete plaatjes in Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) Host Gabriel Rios is ‘t waar dat je ooit (.) de cd van Buena Vista Social Club aan je vader cadeau ‘ebt gedaan Gabriel eh ‘k ‘eb da meegenomen euh (.) naar euh Puerto Rico ja hh Host ja (.) dus misschien zouden we ’t e- zou ‘et een mooi cadeau zijn als we ’t aan ’t begin van de show .hh nog ’s euh bij wijze van cadeau die voor je vader spelen Gabriel [doe maar Host [we gaan dat doen

268

[((Chan Chan)) Host [‘et was een cadeautje van Gabriel Rios .hh voor z’n vader Raul Rios Chan Chan van de Buena Vista Social Club .hhh Buena Vista Social Club euh those are the only four Spanish euh words I know Raúl [hahaha Host [so I’m gonna (.) try to speak English to you is that okay mister Rios Raúl great [that’s great Host [.hhh I can I- I’m gonna call you .h Raúl from [now on Raúl [please (.) please Host [yes .hh do you remember getting that record from euh from Gabriel Raúl ya:h ya:h I think he had (.) been here seen them live here Host [ja Raúl [in in e::rm in Holland I think .hh and brought it e::r e:r to to summer when (.) he came to: to Puerto Rico Host ja and did you know it already did [d- er Raúl [no Host [huh Raúl not (.) at all it it just hadn’t hadn’t arrived to the US at at the time huh Host ok ok so euh he he gave hah albums as as euh as a present did you ever .hh give him euh albums back as a present (.) Raúl er I [did yah

269

Host [did you buy records for him a lot Raúl y- a lot (.) actually more than buying records (.) I used to do er all kinds of °you know° compilations of music than I: enjoyed (.) so it (.) he was always eh at that time when when he was (.) small .hhh e:::h there were no cds so he what we (.) what we did was er what I did (.) was turn him on to music by s- selecting different (.) different singles and different (.) e::r you know included (.) integrated all all the music that I that I (.) that I loved [huh Host [ja (.) you made mix tapes [for him Raúl [yes (.) yah Host ja ja= Raúl =yah= Host =euh dat is euh behoorlijk euh Gabriel jij kreeg echt echt euh toegespitste: muziekles thuis al meteen Gabriel ja ja (.) eigenlijk wel ja Host ja ja Gabriel [°cassettejes° Host [euh (.) eu:h one of the first albums he heard (.) euh because of you Raúl [uhuh Host [that’s what ‘e what ‘e told us .hh was an album by: John Lennon dat klopt toch eh Gabriel

270

Gabriel yes Raúl yah Gabriel °yes° Host euh eu::h (0.7) both you are (.) big John Lennon fans [now? Raúl [yes Gabriel I think so yeah (.) yeah (.) ik eu:hm Raúl ( ) Gabriel I still I remember (.)e:r duh duh especially the record Double Fantasy from (.) .hh I think I was probably:: three years old (.) and I sti- I have (.) I have that (.) memory imprinted we were living in California and Host hmhm Gabriel I think they had just bought the record so were playing it constantly (.) .h and I remember erm (.) a lot of songs in that record (.) .h just like starting over a bunch of songs from that last John Lennon record Host so (.) you know (.) you’re one of those p- people who know which song which was the first song he ever heard in he- in his life Gabriel that’s the first one I remember (.) and I really I really have eh memories that are linked to it so er Host [ ( ) Gabriel [a lot of people don’t believe that you can: remember that far back but actually (.) [you can Host [you can Gabriel yeah yeah

271

Host you’re a superhero Gabriel [what can I say Gabriel [ehh hehe Host what was your favourite song what’s your fa- are you do you agree on euh on on: what’s: the best eh John Lennon song Gabriel erm there’s a lot of them but [I think Raúl [ ( ) Gabriel what we really like erm (.) is is erm (.) Mother (.) because of the (.) intensity of that song Host hmhm Gabriel and how he actually recorded it and (.) .hh you know especially the the the the emotional experience of listening to it’s pretty it’s pretty heavy (.) so Host yeah (.) maybe we should have a listen to .hh that very special song for euh zowel vader .h als zoon R:ios dit is Mother van John [Lennon Jingle [((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) ((Mother)) Host Mother eh van John Lennon special voor .hh Raúl Rios vader (.) van Gabriel Rios maar ze waren het eigenlijk .hh euh helemaal eens over euh deze keuze .hh euh Raúl die af en toe ook vroeger (.) mix tapes maakte voor Gabriel om (.) dan toch wat bij te brengen muzikaal ’t is ‘m ook gelukt .hhh euh i- was Billy Joel one of those

272

euh one of the people that were on those mix tapes of yours Raúl I think so (.) I think so I I always err (.) er liked him a lot Host ja en en en e- why because euh wha- wha- what makes him so special to you= Raúl = rhythm er he’s a he’s a good (.) songwriter Host ja Raúl I I always could could connect to the: to the words of his songs A:nd just the rhythm and the (.) enthusiasm that he’d play with when I was younger Host ja Raúl I’ve seen him (.) live (.) in Puerto Rico twice Host o[kay Raúl [and I still like him huh Host [ja en Raúl [a lot Host en did you immediately ‘m as well Gabriel? Gabriel err no [hehehe Host [oh heh Gabriel but (.) but I think after a while I did I think (.) that’s one of those artists that er you grow up with you don’t really (.) ask yourself if you like ‘em or not it’s part of your your .hh collective .h you know memory of °of° growing up with music .hh but later on I realized it’s an incredible songwriter ‘specially the early stuff and .hh you know er::m pretty (.) pretty special guy eh he could you know make these errm (.) songs that seem so simple

273

you know straightforward but really really well-crafted songs and erm as you said as well as as a performer he’s he’s pretty .hhh er pretty er::m pretty heavy Host She’s Always A Woman To Me dit is Billy Joel Jingle [((jingle Studio Brussel)) [((She’s Always A Woman To Me)) Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) Host eu::hm (0.5) Raúl Rios [ehehehe Gabriel [hahaha Host that scared you a little didn’t it Gabriel ehhh not really Raúl no no ( ) Gabriel ‘s kinda funny Raúl [hahaha Host [he (.) he Gabriel Papa Was A Rolling Stone Host there you go .hh eu:h Raúl euh you you you told us that you made mix tapes in order to well educate your (.) son a little bit Raúl right Host euh you also euh told him about and I hope I pronounce this well Tom Zé Raúl Tom Zé Host Tom Zé euhm te- tell us who who is that guy Raúl Brazilian err from the:: er era err in the sixties (.) err i- initially in ah in Brazil there was a (.)

274

a (.) dictatorship so it was really i- involved in (.) in the: in the political movement of that time he err against the the government .hh Host ja Raúl so much of his music i::s .hhh e::rm ((Spanish word)) °how do you say that in English eh° Gabriel it’s erm it’s:: i:t’s challenging Host challen- that’s what I was [e- ( ) Gabriel [gedurfd Host ja z- z- zeer gedurfd challenging ehm of zoals we in ’t Spaans zeggen [((Spaans woord)) Gabriel [ja

Deel 2 1:00

Deel 3 0:10 Host eu:hm euh yeah whe- when I when I look at you Raúl and and the way ye- you’re listening to music you’re .h kind of directing the songs along euh is tha- is that [a typical thing= Raúl [yes Host =for a musician to do?

275

Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Guy & Jens Mortier (fragments)

Jingle ((jingle Stubio Brussel)) Aris dames en heren (0.6) van harte welkom bij (.) Papa Was A Rolling Stone (0.8) met vandaag te gast (0.7) vader Guy en zoon Jens Mortier (1.3) Guy is 68 jaar (0.8) journalist (.) tv-figuur (.) en was jarenlang hoofdredacteur van Humo (1.0) Jens is 42 (0.8) en staat aan het hoofd van het toonaangevend reclamebureau De Mortierbrigade (1.0) welke plaatjes kent Jens (.) dankzij Guy (0.7) en welk album (.) kocht Guy (.) dankzij Jens? (0.8) delen ze wel een zelfde muzieksmaak? (0.9) je komt het allemaal te weten in Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) Host Jens Mortier als we ja me- ‘n beetje uit eerbied voor grijze haren moeten beginnen met de favoriete plaat aller tijden van je pa welke zou dat dan zijn Jens Long Tall Sally van Little Richard Host °dan gaan we daar mee beginnen° Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) ((Long Tall Sally)) Host en afgelopen Long Tall Sally .hh euh ik ik zag je ik zag je meedoen euh euh Guy Guy ja ja fantastisch Host [ja Guy [blijft fantastisch euh echt een van de: allerbeste: rocknummers aller tijden (.) en nummers tout court dus Host ja

276

hoe vaak heb je ’t euh heb je ’t gehoord al in je leven doe ’s een gok Guy a:::h ik euh op regelmatige basis laten we zeggen deze week heb ik het nog ’n paar keer euh gespeeld ‘k had een (.) cd’tje in handen gekregen met euh de favoriete (.) nummers van McCartney die ‘m ge- beïnvloed hebben daar stond ’t ook op nummer één °verbaast me helemaal ni° .hhh ‘k ‘eb ’t ook een aantal keren live mogen zien (.) euh op Wembley de grote rock ’n roll show me alle grote rockers .hh ‘k ‘eb ‘m ook in euh ’t Sportpaleis gezien ik heb ‘m ook in Vorst gezien en ik heb ‘m ook gezien in (.) Peer (0.8) waar hij een van de meest waanzinnige concerten (.) aller tijden uit zijn broek schudde Host ja euh jouw favoriete plaat euh Jens euh als euh als zoon van hoe vaak heb jij ‘m moete hore tegen wil en dank misschien? Jens .hh eu:::h zoon van Little Richard? Host [((gemompel)) Guy [hahahaha Jens ja nee da’s (.) ja hehehehehe Host ik twijfel ’n beetje ik weet je [hebt ( ) Jens [( ) Host ja Jens ik heb euh ja ‘m vaak moete hore maar ik eu::h

277

ik vind da ook ni erg (.) ik ben euh ‘k ben daar ook heel fier op dus euh en en blij mee eu:hm:::::: ’t is jammer voor al die andere zonen van dat zij niet [de kinderen van Guy Mortier zijn .hhh Guy [haha (.) dankuwel Host [hahahahaha Guy stonden lange rijen voor de deur Jens [hehehehe Guy [( ) Host [dat dat kan ik me goed voorstellen (.) echt goed voorstellen Jens ik heb gewonnen Host heh .hh seg euh ja muziek dat dat dat zal bij jou altijd of tenminste dat zal een centrale plaats hebben ingenomen in het euh in het huis Mortier veronderstel ik h Guy ja eigenlijk is het zo dat hh Jens heeft dat allemaal moeten ondergaan ik was heel veel bezig met muziek eu::h toen had ik eerst een radioprogramma ( ) ‘k heb nog wel in de jaren ’70 een euh .hh rockprogramma gehad °op euh Antwerp° Host hmhm Guy eu:h maar (.) ik draaide al die platen ook voor mijn werk voor euh voor Humo en ik ( ) ook platen en ik luisterde heel veel naar muziek ook om te weten wa we moesten brengen °in den Humo° .hhh dus bij ons stond er altijd een heel grote platenkast en heel veel LPs .hh hh en ik heb nooit hh aan de kinderen gevraagd nu nog niet

278

[wa zal ik ’s opzetten Host [hahaha Guy ja nu wel Jens .hh nu wel eh ja ehehehe Guy ( ) (.) maar vroeger ja die die:: hoorden mee waar ik naar luisterde en (.) ja (.) zo hebben [die alles leren kennen Jens [ja (.) en gelukkig was ‘et (.) was da goeie muziek ja (.) da was inderdaad eu::h (.) een zeer goeie muzikale opvoeding die wij hebben kregen .hh [euh Host [va- vanaf welke leeftijd begon jij ook actief in die platenkast euh euh [°euh° Jens [goh (.) ik denk in het begin was ik vooral gefascineerd door die euh platenhoezen die die (.) toen euh jah waar sommige heel heel mooie dingen tussen zaten .hh eu:h en ik (.) ja ik heb een paar foto’s nog waar ik (.) als als kind euh [ ( ) Guy [ ( ) Jens euhm::: en tutters en en: en::: een plaat van de Beatles op schoot zat enzo [ ( ) Guy [ ( ) (.) en wij waren dan trots op als er bezoek kwam dan moest hij dan dan vroegen wij hem zeg noem de namen van de Beatles ’s en dan .hh Host [ja

279

Guy [zei hij dat Host het zelfst- zelfs Ringo Jens ja Guy [ja ja Jens [absoluut nog voor papa Host ehh hehehehehe Jens eigenlijk was ’t Ringo of Host die was er voor vader d’t ‘s schrijnend maar ook wel weer heel erg mooi .h ja euh Guy je bent een notoir Elvis euh euh liefhebber dat dat Guy [ja Host [ik had eigenlijk ook verwacht dat je favoriet nummer iets van Elvis ging zijn= Guy =oh jawel (.) eu:h da’s een van de (.) dat is de ( ) allerbeste zanger aller tijden als er per se met het pistool tegen het hoofd (.) gekozen moet worden want er zijn natuurlijk heel veel goeie zangers [.hh maar Host [jij was zelfs (.) jij was zelfs zo’n grote fan dat je op ’t geboortekaartje van Jens .hhh Guy ja da klopt (.) daar stond op euh a big hunk o’ love en dan ? [ja Guy [een aansluitende zin om te melden dat er (.) a big [hunk o’ love= Jens [ja Guy =in ons euh leven was gekomen Jens hahaha (.) en nog steeds

280

Guy en nog steeds ja: Host atletische hunk of love kunnen we ook eh Jens [ja Host [in euh in deze context zeggen Jens ehehehe Host maar .hh Big Hunk Of Love misschien moeten we d’r toch even naar luisteren want ’t is dan toch het nummer waar waar .hh jouw leven mee begonnen is [op een bepaalde manier he Jens Jens [’t zal wel zijn (.) ja Host dus euh .hh vandaar [Big Guy [da was nog een ander ‘k ben ‘s [benieuwd Jens [hahahahahahahahahahaha[hahaha Host [Big Hunk O’ Love dit is ((lachend)) Elvis Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) ((Big Hunk O’ Love)) Host ja de big hunk of love in kwestie zit euh in de studio Jens Mortier .hh dat [euh stond op je: Jens [dankuwel Host op je: geboortekaartje Elvis en euh Big Hunk Of Love .hh euhm ja dat dat Elvis de grootste zanger zeg je euh m- m- Guy ‘k denk ‘et wel Host ja ben je ’t daarmee eens Jens? Jens ja ‘k vind die die die kan heel veel verschillende registers aan de de::::hm

281

heel snel heel traag euh heel veel verschillende (.) .hh euh hoogtes (.) en laagtes euh Guy [ ( ) Jens [zeer veelzijdig Host [ahhahahahaha Jens hahaha Guy [ ( ) Host [ja et cetera et cetera Jens [euh ja wel eu::h zo maken ze ze (.) toch niet echt meer Host nee Guy °eigenlijk een geweldig expressieve zanger he° wat ‘ie Jens [hh ja Guy [ik heb dan ook in de studio gestaan in de Sun-studio he Jens inderdaad Guy die mag dan zo goed zijn (.) [je moet toch kunnen zingen Jens [hahahahahahaha Guy ( ) Host ik moet wel (.) voor veel mensen zal Elvis toch altijd een beetje euh s- synoniem zijn met oubolligheid heb je nooit toen je klein was zo gedacht van hm= Jens =( )= Host =dit staat niet zo goed eu:::h op de speelplaats Jens ooh (.) nee want eu:::::::h ‘t was tegelijkertijd ook euh heel origineel om niet mee te doen natuurlijk met de m:eute .hh en euh en ja ik von- ik vond dat oprecht ook wel heel goed hoor

282

Host ja Jens eu:hm Guy ‘et is ook wel zo als ik mag aanvullen ik euh was ook ni voor de oubollige (.) Elvis ik ben vrij (.) vrij snel gestopt met Elvis (.) euh goed te vinden euh er zijn ( ) hoe heet dat in ’t Engels de Now Or Neverlands van [euh Jens [ja (.) ja (.) ja Guy de ontgoocheling Jens [ja (.) ja Guy [verschrikkelijke ontgoocheling daarna een aantal jaar ( ) met name in ’68 denk ik in die boxring enzo ( ) hij toch nog een paar (.) goei nummers gebracht Burning Love (.) noem maar op maar ( ) schouwende Elvis [daar moest ik allemaal niks van hebben Jens [ja:h Guy ’t is de man van van Sun-studios .hhh en ook van de allereerste: jarige ( ) al die fantastische ( ) dat is ‘m Host ja Guy maar ik ben heel selectief he in in al mijn Jens [ja Guy [mijn eu:h voorkeuren euh van zang (.) ’t is goed of ’t is slecht maar ge kunt ni alles is goe ( ) Host ne- e- uiteraard Jens dat euh dat heb ik meegekregen zo da’s goe- ‘k vind da ook een euh gezonde filter [.hh en:

283

Host [ma- we w’adde w’adde ’t net over de de platenkast die d’r stond waar je niet omheen kon .hh omgekeerd live muziek ook al van van jongs af aan werd je meegesleurd euh o- eh [naar her en der Jens [ja Host euh ‘et ‘et ‘et allereerste concert waar je’m mee hebt genomen heb je da- weet je nog wat dat moet geweest zijn (.) Guy? (.) of weet jij ’t nog Jens [ehehehe Jens [ehehe ja da was eh Host hahaha Guy d’r (.) d’r zijn foto’s van namelijk

Host euh euh Guy Mortier euh zeer muzikale vader altijd met muziek bezig

Guy ik weet nog één ding ik stond daar als als een gek wat ik normaal (.) de meeste optredens heb ik nauwelijks meegemaakt want ik was mijn (.) teksten al aan ’t voorbereiden van euh voor de volgende artiest .hh maar dan stond ik in de coulissen .hh en het was dezelfde dag waarin euhm Borg en McEnroe de finale speelden van Wimbledon een historische finale die geweldig geweldig lang duurde (.)

284

en waar Borg denk ik (.) tenslotte won want (.) eu:hm Mink Deville (.) had gedaan (.) boog (.) ging weg en wij gingen rap tel- televisie kijken .hh en ondertussen (.) eu::h (.) had hij gezegd want hij wilde eigenlijk niet dat (.) dat hij aangekondigd werd door (.) door iemand anders dan zijn eigen band .h en toen (.) zei hij (.) where is the Belgian guy Host hihi [hehehehe Guy [want ik (.) ik mocht dan zeggen (.) hij komt nog een bisnummer doen maar ik stond naar McEnroe te kijken Host hhhahahahaha hahaha Guy maar hij heeft mij nadien (.) b- ben ik naar z’n caravan geweest en daar heeft hij me een lepeltje coke aangeboden Host AH dus [da’s Guy [( ) Host mooie manier om ‘et te vergeven [eigenlijk Guy [( ) eigenlijk Host hahahahaha

Host daarom eindigen we met The Beatles (.) en Happiness Is A Warm Gun ’s een .hh mooie plaat voor euh een mooie zondag (.) middag (.) heel hartelijk bedank G- bedankt liever (.) Guy en Jens Mortier Guy/Jens heel graag gedaan ((Happiness Is A Warm Gun))

285

Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Guy & Lee Swinnen (fragments)

Host .hh je luistert naar Papa Was A Rolling Stone en de papa in kwestie .hh is euh euh Scabs-frontman euh Guy Swinnen .hhh en zoon in kwestie is euh ja Tubelight- frontman euh Lee Swinnen

Lee ik luister nog altij graag van:: euh van die post- punk bands enzo

Host .hh euh beste Lee Swinnen (.) stond er bij jullie thuis vroeger altijd muziek op? Lee eu::hm da kunde wel zegge ja ’t ‘s toch altijd wel ne cd diejen op of op de radio of euh als Guy gewoon aan ’t spele was Host ja en wat was dat was dat dan altijd hetzelfde of was er een ritueel op zondag moest er dat op staan of euh hoe hoe ging dat dan Lee .hh euhm hehh gewoon stond gewoon altijd muziek op ja ni echt een ritueel of niks:: Host nee Guy nee nee Host dus er was euh geen ontsnappen aan muziek bij jullie thuis Lee da kunde wel zegge ja

Host ik zat ik zat te denken van euh Guy Brian Eno Host ja inderdaad en dan Mick daar kunnen w’ook wel euh genoeg M- eh bekende Micks

286

en dan vroegen wij .hh ons af welke welke naar welke Lee je zou vernoemd zijn

Guy da moet in dezelfde periode geweest zijn (.) eu:::h w’ ebben d’r daarstraks euh as- toen we naar hier reden nog efkes over gebabbeld .hh dat was euh we zijn naar de Rolling Stones gaan kijken in Werchter (.) omdat hij (.) in die periode ook echt gek was van: van de Stones als ik iets van de Stones opzette dan dan pakte n’ ‘ie zo z’n z’n akoestisch gitaartje en dan begon ‘ie te playbacken en en (.) wild rond te springe en [.hhh Host [mh hihihi

Lee euh ja (0.6) ’n couple jaar geleden is bij mij in ene keer ‘et klikske gekome van da ‘k ‘et in ene keer snapte Bob Dylan da was zo van aah (.) ’t is toch goeie muziek [eigenlijk Host [het is zoiets als oesters eten ofzo op een gegeven moment moet je dat ga je ga je de- ga je dat [toch begrijpen Lee [ja (.) ‘t is Host of ga je dat toch lusten Lee ja ja ja (.) ’t is gewoon (.) uit het niks gekomen in ene keer

Host Sure Shot e- van e- de Beastie Boys .hh een euh belan- of tenm-

287

‘k wou bijna zeggen mijlpaal [in ? [hahahaha Host in de euh de: familie Swinne: geschiedenis maar toch ook een euh een een een .hh een mooi moment .hh euh vanuit Frankrijk .hh eu:hm euh hiphop dat h euh hadden we nog niet gehoord vandaag dat hebben we bij deze gehoord euhm .hh is dat iets waar jullie veel euh naar luisteren Lee? Lee eu::hm (.) veel ‘s (.) ja da’s veel gezegd maar ‘k luister wel geregeld naar ja ja Host [ja Lee [‘k hoor da wel graag Host en en jij ook euh [Guy ( ) Guy [ja ja ja ik ben: euh eigenlijk allez ik was vroeger ook euh ik ik kon heel veel naar rock en punk luistere ma ik was bijvoorbeeld ook fan van van euh ouwe soul en en van euh dingen als James Brown en euh .hh The Jimmy Caster Bunch en en dat is eigenlijk ook een beetje allemaal (.) aanzet geweest naar hiphop toe .hhh of iets: eu:h zoals Dr. Dre dat vind ik dat klinkt enorm goed dat swingt eu::h ja daar kan ik mij echt wel euh (.) dat dat kan ik echt wel appreciëren Host ja hebben jullie daar een beetje dezelfde euh want je je je lacht een beetje s- Dr. Dre vind je dat dan ook goed of of zit je in een andere hoek

288

Lee euhm ik zen meer een fan van Wu Tang Clan zo aj- ‘k vind Dr. Dre ook nog wel goe maar ik zen euh .h meer voor de Wu Host ja ja ja dat dat dat euh dat dat euh kan ik me iets bij voorstellen ? [hahaha Host [.hh we moeten misschien even nog naar een .hh euh naar iets heel anders naar naar Sonic Youth (.) een van jouw (.) favoriete bands Lee ja dat is mijn: favoriete band [ ( ) Host [ja? kunnen we dat euh dat is jouw favoriete band tout court Lee dat is ja ik zeg dat altijd als m’n standaard antwoord omda (.) da’s de band dieje voor mij .hh euhm b- m- sinds dat ik die heb leren kennen is muziek eigenlijk begonnen voor mij Host [ah ja Lee [‘k luisterde d’r voor al wel naar muziek maar da was zo mijn openbaring en toen ben ‘k er helemaal in geraakt Guy ‘k denk da je d’r ook ’t meeste cd’s van hebt ook Lee ja ja ja ja ja Host ja maar dat zijn geen cd’s die je via (.) euh via vader hebt leren kennen Lee die heb ik euh allemaal zelf moete kope en zelf moete ontdekke Host ja (.) [en euh Guy [ ( )

289

Host ja wa- was dat iets wat je: begree- begreep of is dat muziek waar je onmiddellijk mee mee was me- jij zelf? Guy dat is destijds een beetje aan mij voorbij gegaan ik kende Sonic Youth wel en ik kende wel een aantal nummers: m:aar euh op da moment was ik toch naar andere dingen aan ’t luistere .hh en eu:h eigenlijk ook een beetje dankzij Lee eu:h m- m- m- kan ik het zeker wel appreciëren ja

Host Lee ‘s (.) leg ’s uit wie dat is voor mensen die die niet kennen Lee euhm Glenn Branca is een een New Wave composer [eigenlijk Host [ja Lee ja ja

290

Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Geert & Iwein Segers

Jingle life (.) is music Studio Brussel Otto-Jan Ham Studio Brussel Aris Ham dames (.) en heren (0.8) mijn naam (.) is Aris Ham (0.7) vader (.) van Otto-Jan (0.6) en ik heet u van harte welkom bij (.) Papa Was A Rolling Stone (1.3) met vandaag te gast (0.8) vader Geert en zoon Iwein Segers (1.1) Geert (.) was jarenlang radiopresentator (0.8) en al is hij officieel met pensioen (.) toch hoor je hem nog dagelijks (.) als de stem van (.) Man (.) Bijt Hond zijn jongste zoon Iwein (.) is zanger (.) muzikant (.) en cabaretier (1.3) wat zijn hun favoriete plaatjes (0.8) hebben ze een zelfde muzieksmaak (0.8) je hoort het allemaal in (.) Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) Host beste Iwein Segers uit respect voor je vader moeten we beginnen met een plaat die hij heel erg graag hoort dus aan jou de de de verantwoordelijkheid en de vraag .hhh welke dat dat mag wezen Iwein wel z’ is vooral visueel op mijn euh lippen gebrand da kan ni (.) da weet ik maar toch (.) was het een uitleg ik zie zeuh (.) zo voor mij Boudewijn De Groot Voor De Overlevenden (.)

291

.hh de LP Host en daaruit is dit (.) Testament ((Testament)) Host uit de favoriete plaat van eh Geert Segers die hier vandaag .hh op deze prachtige zondagmiddag te gast is samen met eh zoon Iwein .hh hoorde je euh Boudewijn De Groot en Testament .hhh dat is toch je favoriete plaat he Geert? Geert eu:h jawel hoor ja ja dat is de top euh voor mij de euh Voor De Overlevenden de: (.) hele plaat staat vol prachtige nummers vind ik .hh die euh meestal denk ik door Lennaert Nijgh zijn geschreven .hh en euhm die Boudewijn De Groot eeuhm prachtig vertolkt .hh trouwens als je ‘m nu (.) nog hoort met z’n nieuw repertoire enzo in concerten .hh euh dat is nog altijd (.) bijna dezelfde Boudewijn De Groot als vroeger en euh (.) ja ik vind die fantastisch Host [ja ma- Geert [ben ermee opgegroeid en (.) ja Host hij is niet meer die Geert [( ) Host [die protestzanger van vroeger [natuurlijk eh Geert [neen (.) maar hij brengt even ge- mooie liedjes eeuhm wat anders natuurlijk eeuh

292

iets minder teksten van Lennaert Nijgh uiteraard want die mens is overleden Host ja Geert maar euhm (.) nee ik ben::: misschien een paar jaar terug naar een concert geweest twee jaar terug ofzo .hhh en:: ja ik was toch ook van ge- aangedaan en (.) ‘k vind het heel (.) goed wat ‘ie doet en (.) ja (.) brengt een soort rust ook (.) .hh Host ja Geert ja (.) mooi Host is dat dan iets dat heel erg vaak euh opstond bij jullie thuis vroeger? dat je daardoor euh hebt leren kennen Iwein? Iwein ’t is een plaat die ik mij herinner van wel is op te staan en nogmaals zoals ik al in de euh geweldige intro heb gezegd Host hah Iwein deuh deuh ‘et de albumhoes (.) sta mij heel erg bij eeuhm (.) dus die stond wel (.) dus de alle platen stonden in een kast maar die hoes stond wel zo gedraaid dat moesten er mensen op bezoek komen ofzo of (.) wij zelf die daar rondliepen .hh die constant zagen Host dat jullie d’r altijd aan herinnerd werden Iwein ja ja en die stond wel euh euh vaak op euh

293

net als euh Jimmy de Eenzame Fietser d- dus uit een andere plaat komteh.hh (.) hhh ook wel eens opstond Host ja Iwein ( ) Host ja (.) zijn jullie eigenlijk twee euh echte muziekliefhebbers kenners hoe zouden jullie jezelf situeren daar? Geert ik ben zelf gewoon een muziekliefhebber (.) m- m- zeker geen muziekkenner (.) ik (.) hou van alles (.) va- alle soorten muziek (.) °van pop tot klassiek en° (.) zeer algemeen (.) breed spectrum [( ) Iwein [( ) [oh (.) sorry Geert [maar ik denk dat Iwein iets: ehm een betere kenner is (.) [van bepaalde za- Iwein [een ke- (.) een kenner ni (.) maar ik ben wel een soort van sponsss euh ’t is te zeggen hehe (.) dat ik zowel als muziek als in andere: euh (0.7) entertainment euh sectoren .hh zoveel mogelijk probeer op te zuigen Host ja Iwein en da heb ik euhhh me muziek ook wel gedaan en zeker euh rock en pop Host waar heb jeuh Morrissey opgezogen? (0.6)

294

eheheheh om misschien een beetje vr- vreemde beeldspraak te gaan gebruiken Iwein eeeuhm da- mijn broers zijn eeuh zes en zeven jaar ouder (.) als ik me ni vergis waarvan er eentje Lennaert heet (.) genoemd naar Lennaert Nijgh vermoed ik Host is dat zo? Geert ja ja ja ja ja Host ah kijk (.) euh goed ’s jammer dat jij niet Boudewijn heet dan Iwein eigenlijk Geert en (.) [Iwein Host [Boudiwei- Boudiwein Iwein [komt toch wel al in de buurt Otto-Jan Host kijk (.) goed hh (.) Iwein ahahaha Host maar j’ebt ‘et j’ebt et via je broer Lennaert dan euh Iwein euh ja Lennaert die luistert naar Joy Division The Cure en The Smiths hh (0.5) .hh dus die platen stonden vrij hard op in een kamer (.) euh een beetje verder van de mijne .hh en da was Big Mouth (.) da ik het eerst zo iets had van what the fuck is da (0.5) da zei ik toen ni want what the fuck werd [toen nog ni gebruikt Host [dat wist je toen nog ni Iwein ‘k ‘ad zo iets van euh Host waren andere tijden Iwein [warempel Geert [verhip

295

Host [hahaha Iwein ja verhip (.) of de twee gecombineerd verhip warempel plotsklaps hoorde ik daar (0.6) .hh euh The Smiths en euhm ik was direct verkocht (0.7) .hhh en euhm (0.5) ja ik want ‘et is (.) ni van mijnen tijd eh euhm maar ik eh ( ) sinds dan (.) blijven naar luisteren Host ja Iwein [euh Host [The Smiths (.) en Big Mouth Strikes Again ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) ((Big Mouth Strikes Again)) Host het nummer waar het allemaal (.) mee begonnen is euh voor euh heheh voor euh Iwein Segers Big Mouth Strikes Again van euh The Smiths .hh en dat je dus eigenlijk eerder via (.) via je broer hebt leren kennen dan dan dan (.) via vader Iwein (0.5) klopt en die trouwens euh als ik heh (.) °euh° ja ik ben aan ’t lachen omda mijn vader zijne koptelefoon altijd maar op één oor zet Host .hh hhhh dat dat dat staat [mooi Iwein [ja Host dat Michael Jackson deed dat ook tijdens [euh We Are The World Iwein [aah ja ja (.) Host [( ) Iwein [da moet eh ( ) Geert [( ) origineel he (.) ja

296

Host ja [( ) Geert [je moet ’t eens proberen Iwein ja (.) ‘k ga ’t ook ’s doen Geert ja (.) dan heb je de [zuivere klank Iwein [aah ja ee da’s gewoon veel beter Host voila (.) [kijk Iwein [nu kunt ne keer opnieuw beginne? Host van je vader kan je nog wat euh opsteken (.) [Iwein .hh Iwein [nee Big Mouth Strikes Again eu::hm (.) ja ‘et allereerste nummer van The Smiths da ’k heb leren kennen eigenlijk ook het beste nummer een nummer da ni kapot te krijgen is:: (.) .hh ee::n een nummer dat ik nu ook gebruik als intro voor mijne nieuwe comedyshow (0.6) voila Host ja (.) en as je : as je : (.) The Smiths en Morrissey ja we moeten ze toch even vergelijken eh heb- hebbe ze (.) even .hhh een even grote plek in je hart ondertussen of of euh heb je toch een lichte voorkeur nog steeds voor de band Iwein neuh ja be- ik denk zelfs da Morrissey een lichte voorkeur heeft °dan The Smiths° Host [ah ja Iwein [euhm (.) sja (.) ja

297

°meer kan ik ni zeggen° [hahahaha Host [dat hoeft ook niet wat wat wat eh is dat iets dan je dan thuis ook euh probeerde aan vader euh euh duidelijk te maken dat dat toch wel een heel grote artiest was Morrissey? Iwein ja ik heb ‘em als ik ‘et al over muziek me mijn vader had want da gebeurde eigenlijk ni zo veel dan denk ik da de Morrissey wel ’s viel ja (.) .hh allez (.) ‘k bedoel (.) de naam eh Host ja (0.5) [en en Iwein [as em ge- zou gevallen zijn dan zout ge da wel (.) [in ’t popnieuws ofzo gezegd van Host [ehehehehe Iwein Morrissey is gevallen Host in de [huiskamer van de familie Segers Iwein [gestruikeld (.) gestruikeld over een spin Host ja (.) maar euh euh euh wat eh wat euh wat vind je: van van The Smiths of van [Morrissey (.) Geert Geert [ja ik heb (.) ik heb die leren kennen (.) via Iwein (.) dat is wel juist en (.) euh (.) ik denk (.) dat het in ’t begin niet direct in mijn smaak viel .hhh ‘k vind ‘et nogal zagerig zingen [.hh hh Host [uhuh Geert maar eu:h op de duur ja (.)

298

°euh° (0.5) je aanvaardt alles op de duur [he en ehh Host [ja ja Iwein ’s wel voor of tegen he Morrissey (.) ik hoor wel vaak van ja hij geeuwt (.) in plaats van hij zingt maar (.) ja Geert maar ‘k ja ja (.) ik kan ‘m appreciëren (.) Host ja (.) [ka- Geert [dat zeker (.) zeker Host kan hij je ontroeren ook? Geert .hhh Morrissey? (.) n- ‘k denk van niet (.) nee Host nee Geert nee dat niet Host Iwein? Geert heh Iwein mij heeft hij ontroerd als puber (.) hehh Host ja? hh Iwein maar nu (.) nu (.) nu laat hij mij eerder lachen allez op een euh op een euh °een eh eh° goede manier ofzo .hhh op een goeie manier lachen ja hij laat mij gewoon lachen (.) eu:hm en euhm (.) ja nee ontroeren nee maar (.) da doen nog weinig dingen eigenlijk hahaha Host ja (.) maar maar want want muz- muziek moet voor jou in de eerste plaats ontroeren Geert of niet

299

Geert niet in de eerste plaats maar mag he (.) m hm ja da’s fantastisch he (.) a- als da kan (.) dannn euh is da goed in z’n (.) kunstvorm he (.) zoals een schilderij kan ontroerennn of (.) een gedicht Host ja [( ) Geert dan kan een een (.) stukje muziek ook euh ontroerend mooi zijn Host ja bijvoorbeeld Chasing Cars van Snow Patrol [dat vind jij een mooi ontroerend nummer Geert [ja Host .hh Iwein was e- jij bent ‘et daar niet mee eens zie ik hh Iwein (0.6) nee ik ben euh ik ben euh ja hh misschien heb ‘k ‘t ook te veel gehoord het nummer (0.7) en euhm (.) ‘et doet mij niks eigenlijk Geert [ehehe Host [ja Iwein maar ‘et doet mij ook ni walgen Host nee Iwein maar euhm (0.7) ja (.) ik weet ‘et niet Geert [ ( ) Host [Geert waar waar waar (.) waar gaat het fout bij Iwein Geert .hh euhm:: hij heeft te weinig gevoel denk ik Iwein [maar Geert [haha Host [hehehe Iwein ik vind in zo’n muziek eh (.) °maar dat is natuurlijk° (.) smaken he maar vind ik Morrissey de top (.) ‘et is ‘etzelfde soort muziek (.)

300

net zoals Keane (.) da ook probeert te doen en dan vind ik dat Morrissey of The Smiths daar alles al (.) hebben in gedaan (.) .hhh eu:h maar dat is meer da’s een andere (.) logica die ik gebruik die ook totaal ni klopt en ‘et is eh een smaak (.) .hh en euh maar ik vin ‘et meer voor jonge meisjes:: (.) Snow Patrol Geert ja nochtans ik ben ni meer jo – ni zo jong [en ik ben ook al geen meisje Host [°en geen meisje° eh::ehehe Geert .hh maar je moet ‘et ook een beetje in een context plaatsen (.) euh als je zo’n: lied hoort in bepaalde periode .hh je::m da je ehh wat meemaakt of zo en je hoort die song en je hoort van .h laat ons allemaal gerust (.) ik wil euh de vrijheid en de mensen moete: ons allemaal gerust laten .hh en ik wil eh gewoon m- mezelf zijn samen met m’n lief .hh eh ja dan: doet je dat wat en: ma ook daarom heeft dat een: eigenlijk een beetje gevoelens opgewekt of ontroering opgewekt Host mja Iwein ik vind die muziek die die die doet mij gewoon weinig [°’k zal ’t zo zeggen° Host [ja (.) maar (.) ik moet zeggen dat ik je vader moet gelijk geven Iwein [ah ja Host [want ‘t was ook zijn ontroerende woorden hebben er een een een [nog mooier Geert/Iwein [ah voila

301

Host ontroerend geheel van gemaakt Iwein dan kan het weer wel natuurlijk Host en misschien moet jij gewoon wat meer gevoelens toelaten in je [leven Iwein Segers Iwein [ah da kan ook [da kan ook Host [misschien is het dat ook een klein beetje [.hh Snow Patrol is dit (.) en (.) Chasing Cars: [((jingle Studio Brussel)) [((Chasing Cars)) ((Papa Was A Rolling Stone jingle)) ((Off The Record)) Host je luistert nog steeds naar Papa Was A Rolling Stone met euh te gast Iwein Segers en vader Geert Segers en (.) .hh je hoorde één van Iwein’s (.) favoriete nummers euh misschien wel (.) aller tijden euh uit (.) de plaat Z van My Morning Jacket .hh was dat Off The Record .hh Geert hat je dat al ’s gehoord dat nummer? Geert nee (.) de de naam M- My Morning Jacket wel ma:: [nee Iwein [’s ni mi- Mama’s Jasje he Geert eh hhh ongeveer ‘tzelfden eh Iwein [hahaha Host [‘et ‘et ‘et eh schilt ni veel (.) ( ) Geert [maar euh nee nee nee nee (.) ik ken ‘et niet eu::h nee Host nee (.) maar het bevalde je we- of het beviel je wel (.) bevalde ‘et beviel je wel? Geert (0.8) .hh joa::

302

[( ) Iwein [hohohohoho (.) ja hahaha Host [ehhhehehe Geert nee ik kan daar eigenlijk ni zo veel over zeggen omdat ja ‘k ’t is: de eerste keer dat ik ’t hoorde .hh dus eu:h (.) ma ja ’t mag er zijn he Host ja Geert ik denk niet dat het eu::h Host (0.5) [diplomatisch Geert [d’r uit schiet of zo (.) als nummer (.) maar (.) .hh tuurlijk als je die: groep (.) .hh als je:: als die: tot je favorieten behoort dan vind je dat fantastisch waarschijnlijk Host ’t is da (.) Iwein [euh (.) Iwein [awe- ( ) Host di- dien je vader ’s van weerwoord Iwein ‘et zijn één van mijn helden (.) My Morning Jacket eu::h (.) [en Geert [ik dacht da’k ik da was Iwein ja:::a [ma (.) na u Geert [ja één van ja (.) en God (.) [hehehe Iwein [euh (.) nee nee (.) .hh maar euh en z’ ‘ebbe veel dinge uitgevonde en da vin ‘k wel belangrijk om eve te me- mee te geve hier op Studio Brussel .hh dat want hier draaie ze vooral Fleet Foxes op Studio Brussel he en dat is shit natuurlijk

303

tegenover My Morning Jacket zijn de uitvinders van die muziek doen da ook veel beter .hhh hebben allemaal nen echten baard die van Fleet Foxes zijn eigenlijk te jong om nen echten baard te hebbe dus die hebbe da (.) .hh beetje zoals euh (0.7) ja ch t sse Otto-Jan maar da’s ook ni echt een baard Host ‘et ‘s (.) super echt (.) [eh Iwein [ja: super echt (.) eu::h die hebbe da opgeplakt of zo maar euh My Morning Jacket was eerst DENK IK DAN of o- o- pretendeer ik te (.) te denken of zou ik graag hebben da ze eerst ware en euh (.) da’s volledig mijn smaak van muziek .hh eu::hm (.) voila (.) en me- eu:::h ze spele- ik ga morge kijke Host morge? dat is in:? (0.5) Amsterdam Iwein ja (.) in Amsterdam in Paradiso Host [goed Iwein [.hh want vorige week (.) .hh in den Trix was het uitverkocht dus ben ik ni kunne gaan (.) .hh maar euh morge zal ik er bij zijn Host ok euh gelukzak zou ik bijna zegge ja je- jij gaat niet mee Geert Geert [nee Host [euh maar (.) .hh het is wel een mooi brug om eigenlijk te gaan naar het allereerste concert dat jullie samen beleefd hebben of eh één van de allereerste

304

dat moet (.) Hugo Matthysen geweest zijn Geert ja (.) vermoedelijk is dat eu:h Hugo Matthysen geweest inderdaad ergens in Jezus-Eik in den Bosuil Host [ja Geert [.hh moet ‘et geweest zijn ja (.) eu:h toffe gast denk ‘k (.) muzikaal ook heel: leuk eu:h (.) .hh eenvoudige liedjes Host oe- hoe oud was je toen Iwein? Iwein ik denk toch twaalf of zo euh dus nog eh vrij jong en wij ginge wel eu:::h zowel op theater (0.5) als op muzikaal vlak af en toe naar (.) naar °euh dinge kijke zowel in Brussel° als bij ons in ’t dorp in Jezus-Eik dan of Overijse .hh en dus ik ‘erinner mij of eh zie ‘k nog zo voor mij dat is: in theater dan Jan De Corte (.) °me één van [zijn euh gekke stukke° Host/Geert [hheh (.) ja (.) ja Iwein .h euh en dan Hugo Matthyse en De Nieuwe Snaar Geert [ja Iwein [regelmatig gezien (.) .hh en denk ik (.) of ben ik zelfs zeker van dat die alle drie dus ook ne Jan De Corte een eh grote inspiratiebron zijn voor wa ik nu probeer te doen maar zeker Hugo Matthysen Host ja (.) en en kan je dat specifieke concert nog [herinneren?

305

Iwein [ja weh ik zie ‘et voor mij euh ik denk da ‘k twaalf dertien was ik weet dat er (0.6) maximum vijftien man in de zaal zat .hh wa mij ook soms sterkt want daar doe ‘k natuurlijk ook voor Host hhhehehe[hehe Iwein [euh ehehe (.) ni ALTIJD maar soms heb ik da ook voor .hh e:n euhm maar e- e- ja da was een enorme inspiratie en eu:hm (1.0) ja nog altijd Host ja en wat wat wat bewonder je dan zo in een Hugo Matthysen Iwein .hh ja de vorm: (.) van de humor eu:h °die die° gecombineerd met (.) heel goeie (0.5) liedjes: (.) .hh e::n een tragiek de- er o- er ook d’r in en een eigen stijl (0.6) euhm (.) die Hugo Matthyseniaans is geworden ondertussen die je terugvindt in ook in zijn programma’s en ja (.) in zijn radioprogramma’s bijvoorbeeld hier ook .hhh maar ook op tv euhm (.) voila (.) ja Host en vo- vo’ jou ook °een een een: .hh een een° inspiratiebron misschien of of vooral wat vond je wat vond je goed aan aan aan Hugo Matthysen Geert mja echt inspiratie ni maar ik vond die gewoon sowieso goed eu::hm zijn liedjes eh spraken mij aan gewoon de eenvoudige:: .hh Nederlandstalige songs .h en een

306

een eh soort ironie die d’r toch euh inzit in een aantal nummers .hh (.) °eu::h° ja dat is °eh° voor mij toch wel heel: belangrijk Host ja hij heeft onder de naam Hugo Matthysen volgens mij maar (.) maar twee platen gemaakt .hhh euh twee platen die die: ja ’t is moeilijk daar uit kieze euh Iwein welke: welke gaan we doen Iwein [ja ik ( ) Host [‘k ga jou de keuze laten Iwein ik heb ‘ier Dankuwel ligge maar jij hebt Red Onze Planeet (.) euh Red Onze Planeet gaan w’ al NIET doen [da’s al euhm maar dan= Host [hhhehh Iwein =en dan kunne we kieze tusse topnummers als Sabrina (.) .h euh Blankenberge maar da Host °ja° Iwein ‘eb ik nog gecoverd in ‘t lagere school dus dan weet ik hoe oud ik was dan was ik in e- exact elf of twaalf hh .hh (0.7) want dat is ‘et eu:h zesde leerjaar (.) [voila Host [ja Iwein daarmee weten we ’t ook weer .hh Eddy Borremans prachtig: euh w’adden ook ne vriend die e- die: die [Borremans heette Host [hehhh (.) hhaha Iwein ( ) ALCOHOL nee daar gaan we ni- TROUW Met Mij vin’k eigelek nen ‘ele goeie maar ook Tony De Zieke Pony

307

Host (0.5) eigenlijk keuze te over [als ik ‘et zo begr- Iwein [EN (.) ma- en as we dan ietske meer rock ’n roll wille we zijn (.) tenslotte op Studio Brussel .hh euh ik (.) °ik hoop da je da beseft Otto-Jan° Host [ik ben eh (.) op de hoogte Iwein [( ) Stanneke Host ja ja ja Iwein ((zingt)) Stanneke Stanneke Stanneke! of natuurlijk De Jungle Boys ((zingt)) wij zijn de jungle bo::o:oys .hh da we me de Chiro ook regelmatig opzette omda wij ook de Jungle Party hadde [.hh Host [voila Iwein euh maar ‘et allerbeste nummer vind ik (.) en dat is ‘et voorlaatste nummer er staan wel NEEG’tien nummers op op die plaat daarmee dat dat ook heel lang le- (.) duurt om het te overlope .hh w- is (.) Ik Ga Naar Huis: Host ja Iwein da vind ik ‘et MOOISTE nummer van Hugo Matthy[sen Host [zullen we dat dan gewoon doen? Iwein °ok (.) bedankt° Host met jouw goedvinden (.) Geert (.) ook? Geert da’s ok [((Ik Ga Naar Huis intro)) Host [( ) Iwein [doet een beetje denke aan Snow Patrol trouwens (.) vind ik (.) da gitarreken ‘ier Host (0.7) eigenlijk heeft Snow Patrol misschien wel alles gestolen van Hugo Matthys?

308

Iwein of is:: Snow Patrol Hugo Matthysen en Bart Peeters Host we zullen ‘et euh waarschijnlijk °nooit weten° ((Ik Ga Naar Huis)) Host Ik Ga Naar Huis van Hugo (.) Matthysen voor hij euh Clement Peerens euh werd euh onder meer .hhh euh Nederlandstalige muziek w’ ‘ebben Bouwdewijn De Groot al gehad (.) eu:hm eu::h en als we ’t dan ja di- di- dit was (.) .hh Vlaamse of Belgische muziek (.) euh Geert (.) ben je ben je (.) liefhebber ook van van .hhh werk van eigen bodem? Geert j:::a: (.) ja maar da moet daarom n:iet per se: Nederlandstalig zijn maar het mag natuurlijk eh ‘k vind ook .hh euh mensen ja °ja° als je nu: kijkt naar Bart Peeters bijvoorbeeld zijn nu ook in ’t Engels (.) begonnen [.hh Host [ja Geert [eu::h mijn euh zoonlief is ook in ’t Engels begonnen .hh maar ze gaan dan toch terug naar (.) °‘un° (.) wat je wat je zou kunnen betitelen als eigenheid weet ik veel .hh en:: beginnen in ’t Nederlands en da valt toch (.) best mee .hh maar ‘et mag ook °event-° evengoed in een andere taal natuurlijk maar iets van (.) van: (.) eigen bodem: ja waarom ni als da goed is dan: (.) moeten we dat zeker steunen en:: Host iemand die jij ook heel goed vind is (.) Raymond van het Groenewoud Geert [ja:hh prachtig (.) prachtig

309

Host [da- da- da- die die mening deel jij niet (.) euh Iwein? Iwein [( ) Geert [prachtige man:: (.) en m- m- prachtige [muzikant Iwein [prachtige man weet ik zo ni maar euhm Geert ja (.) ik bedoel (1.4) ja ja als mens he (.) [ja Iwein [ik vind da wel goe jawel ma ik v- ja ik vind Twee Meisjes ook geniaal (.) [en Geert [ja Iwein echt op één (.) bij [bij ( ) dan Geert [voila Iwein maar euh (.) goh ik ‘eb da me alle dinge (.) euh misschien da- zei ‘k daarjuist da ‘k da slecht von? Host eh[ehehehe Iwein [in de wandelgange? (.) ( ) Host in de wandelgange heb je dat even laten vallen inder[daad ( ) Iwein [ah ah ja (.) ja da neem ik dan nu terug= Host ok [goed zo Iwein [ahaha (.) .hh Host goed zo (.) jullie zijn ‘et wel eens over (.) euh en dat is ook niet euh in het Nederlands maar wel heel hard van eigen bodem over (.) Jacques Brel .hhh euh (.) da’s bij jullie ontroering dan misschien euh Geert waar je ’t eerder over had hh

310

Geert ja: en:: voor mij is dat dan vooral: euh ni alleen ontroering (.) ja inderdaad ontroering als je dat i- een een een song hoort maar vooral de echtheid waarmee Jacques Brel euh zijn: liedjes vertolkt en dan vind ik ook dat ze daar allemaal moeten afblijven (.) geen covers van Jacques Brel (.) .hh Jacques Brel is puur (0.5) genot (.) en is echtheid en .h euh dat is meer dan genoeg dan ‘eb je::: ja dat (.) dat is voldoende Host nochtans is die man ontelbare keren [gecoverd geweest Geert [ja ik weet ‘et wel ook hee ja en in ‘et Engel- enzovoort zovoort (.) en (0.8) dat mag he maar (0.7) geef mij maar de echte pure Jacques Brel en: (.) ja: dan:: dan ‘ebt ge genoeg e- daar ‘ebt ge genoeg aan °vind° (.) vind ik toch Host Iwein Iwein ja euh ik vin’ da fantastisch en ik ‘eb da ook lere kenne door mijn pa Jacques Brel euh indertijd dat hij wel veel me chanson bezig was .hhh ma:: ik e- in de echtheid daar geloof ik (.) zelf ni in want (.) allez ‘k ‘eb ‘em (.) op beelden enzo eh zien performen ma natuurlijk nooit live .hh en ik geloo:f d’r ni in in echthei- ik voel (.) ik vind wel dat dat ’n heel goeien acteur is .hhh Host [mwaah Iwein [en dat hij: heel goed eu:h (.) da kan eu:h doen ofzo maar soit (.) da’s misschien ‘n ander discussie

311

[ ( ) Geert [maar die die liedjes die hij brengt op zijn dvd [euh Iwein [ja Geert die zijn toch fantastisch da- (.) da kan niemand anders brengen zoals [hij: dat doet Iwein [nee da’s waar da’s [waar Geert [((keelgeluid)) ma (.) soit HEHE thh (.) mja de de echtheid gaat [VOOR (.) voor alles bij mij Iwein [ja (.) ik vin da echt ni Geert [ja Iwein [ja (.) ik weet ni of da zo echt is Host .hh of het nu echt is of niet [we Iwein [‘k vind da ook ni zo belangrijk [( ) Host [WE KUNNEN BESLUITEN dat ‘et gewoon een heel [( ) Iwein [een [ZEER GOED ja ja Host [en mooie en mooie en mooi NUMMERS ook zijn Iwein [ja ja Geert [ja (.) ja Host euh welke welke [uit uit uit (.) uit Geert [( ) Host of tenminste uit het rijke oeuvre .hh van Jacques Brel misschien gewoon euh Le Plat Pays [als we ’t dan toch over eigen bodem dan kunnen we ’t beter over die Geert [ja ( )

312

Host .hh bodem hebben dit is .h Jacques Brel Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) ((Le Plat Pays)) Host ik moet altijd ((Frans accent))Mijn Vlakke Land ((gewoon accent)) d’rbij denken maar ‘t is de de de: Franstalige versie .hh Ce Plat Pays euh van euh van Jacques Brel .hh voor Geert en Iwein Segers nog steeds hier euh te gast bij Papa .hh Was A Rolling Stone ik ben even aan het kijken ah ja e- e- euh de:: euh het klopt ‘et hhh beste Iwein dat je ooit .hh van je vader euh euh Afrekening cd’s nog hebt gekregen Iwein [ja Host [als cadeau Iwein absoluut absoluut dus (.) misschien dat de mensen dat thuis nog ni goe weten maar mijn papa heeft hier denk ik dertig vijfendertig jaar gewerkt? Geert ja [zoiets Iwein [Radio 1 .hhh en eu:hm dus eu::h kon die iets makkelijker aan de:: de Studio Brussel stickers of de r- ja vooral Studio Brussel .hhhh euh en de cd’s ook van de Afrekening dus als kind [ ( ) Geert [ja maar die cd’s moest ‘k wel betalen he Iwein ja ja da weet ‘k Geert [ehh hhhh hhh Iwein [ja ja ma da ging nog kome ma g’ebt ‘ier ne shop (.)

313

.hh waar da ze ook het Liegebeest enzo hadden in boekvorm en plaatvorm dus die heb ‘k ik .h die kon ik ook allemaal krijgen voor Kerst meestal .hh dus voor Kerst en mijn verjaardag die °die° volgt op Kerstmis .hh 12 januari is da (.) .h eu:hm dan eh kreeg ik euh altijd Afrekening cd’s en ik was daar altijd heel blij mee Host [e- Iwein [NU krijg ik ni meer (.) die hoeven ook ni meer ma toen was da wel heel leuk ‘k ‘eb daar heel veel door ontdekt euh van Buffalo Tom tot Dinosaur Jr. tot euh hh Stone Temple Pilots .hhh misschien spijtig genoeg ook maar da ’t heeft wel eu:h .hh mijn smaak mee bepaald denk Afghan Whigs zat daar ook tussen dus euh ‘k heb daar de goei’ dingen uit gedistilleerd Host ja Iwein danku papa Host [ ( ) Iwein [maar hij zelf weet da ni denk ik wat daar op [stond Geert [ehh hehehe Iwein [of wel? Geert nee natuurlijk ni Iwein was gewoon goedkoper ook hier he dan in euh= Geert =’t was eu::h m:: ja tien procent denk ik of Host Iwei- °je° je bent echt een product van de VRT eigenlijk geworden ook op die manier een [beetje

314

Iwein [ja nochtans mja ja (.) ehehehehehe (.) ik denk da wel da ik hier heel veel ben geweest als kind (.) maar da ’s misschien ook een ander verhaal alhoewel Papa Was A Rolling Stone da mag daar ’s over gaan he Host [absoluut absoluut Geert [heh °hehehe° Host maar (.) a- s- je je raakt nu een periode aan euh eh de: jaren negentig de de muziek uit de jaren negentig de [alternatievere muziek Iwein [ja Host .hhh euh wat wat wat (.) staat je daar nog van bij wat wat wat (.) [is nog Iwein [euh AH (.) .hh wa ‘k ik heel belangrijk vind en en e- ik vroeg me dat daarjuist nog af in het naar hier rijden of zo ’n ding als MTV of da da nog eu:h zo bepalen is als toen in de jaren negentig want toen kregen we wel die 120 Minutes en de de live sessies (.) he waar da Nirvana en zo:: in in terecht kwam .hh euh of dat da nog bestaat (.) eu::h zo neen dan mogen ze da terug doen denk ik .hhh euh en zo ja euh proficiat Host [hahahaha Geert [hahahaha Iwein [ehehehe eheh eh maar dan moet ik terug kijken Host ja

315

Iwein .hhh eu::hm Host ik ben bang dat ik je wat dat betreft een beetje moet teleurstellen maar (.) maar dat (.) maar je bent (.) je was wel ook een MTV-kijker net als dat je euh [Afrekeningen Iwein [ja ja Host en [ ( ) Iwein [ ( ) ja d’n tijd van Beavis en Butthead en eu:h en en en °’n paar leukere euh dingen zo° .hh maar ‘k weet ni heel goe meer wa de vraag was Host de v- de: de vraag was welke je muziek je daar [bijvoorbeeld van van Iwein [A:H (.) ja da heb ik eigenlijk al ’n beetje gezegd ma ‘k zal ’t nog ’s zegge eu:h dus da’s voornamelijk Buffalo Tom Dinosaur Jr. .hh en en af en toe euh blijkbaar ook van die one hit wonders want ik herinner mij daar euh .h een MT- MTV- presentatrice da zelf een bandje had onder de naam Salad Host ja Iwein (0.6).hh en die heeft een hitje gehad zeker ook op Studio Brussel zo- zeker ook in de Afrekening maar daarna heb ‘k er nooit meer iets van g’oord [maar ‘k vond da wel ’n tof nummer Host [ik denk dat we dat je- je Salad en je bedoelt Drink The [Elixir Iwein [ja ja Host d- d- presentatrice was euh .hh de bijzonder euh appetijtelijke Marijne Van der Vlugt ook [geloof ik Iwein [ja ja kan ik mij ook nog:: voor de geest halen ja ja ja

316

Host van die mooie staartjes had ze dat euh kan ik mij nog euh ergens herinneren .hh Drink The Elixir (.) inderdaad een one hit wonder gebleven maar maar maar (.) maar wel iets waar je:: mee opgegroeid bent Iwein ja en ik denk euh eu:::h herkenba- euh zeer herkenbaar en voor die tijd dan toch ja ((Drink The Elixir)) Host het is bij die ene single gebleven voor Salad je hoorde Drink The Elixir .hhhh Iwein Segers en euh Geert Segers eu::h euh we naderen een beetje ’t einde van de show .hh w’ebben voor je: heel wat euh of tenminste w’ebben al al al wat plaatjes kunnen terug euh hh halen uit jullie: verleden .hh eu:h eentje we- jij- die jij heel graag zou willen horen Geert is is eh Nick Lowe Geert uhuh Host .hh dat draaien we niet al te vaak op Studio Brussel dus misschien een klein woordje uitleg dat is euh (.) van d- ‘t specifieke nummer is begin jaren negentig gaan [we Geert [ja Host gaan we (.) heen Geert ja dat specifiek nummer is The Beast (.) In Me geloof ik eu::h ik vind dat ook zo mooi in misschien: ben ik dan eerder geneigd naar .hh euh de eenvoudige en sobere nummers omdat dat euh het meeste kracht geeft voor mij .hhh dus euh daarom hou ik daar heel erg van dat is hij die (.) die zingt met zijn gitaar .hh en dat is alles en dat is ’n heel eenvoudige: tekst over (.) het beest in hem natuurlijk

317

.hh en euhm (.) ik vind dat Iwein daar ooit ’s een cover moet van maken in het Nederlands .hh eu::h [ ( ) Host [he- heb je ‘m die opdracht al specifiek gegeven [want euh Geert [eigenlijk wel maar hij luistert n:::iet eh (.) [maar Iwein [ik heb dat wel ‘ns in een mailtje gekregen Host aha maar nu staat [het op Iwein [euh da ligt bij m’n manager Host ah eheh [maar ’t staat Iwein [we zijn er mee bezig (.) hehe Host maar ’t staat nu wel op tape dus je kan het ni: eu:h Iwein ja ma ‘k ga da zeker doen (.) eu::h maar n- ni nu (.) maar ik zal het ooit zeker doen Host .hh merk ik hier trouwens misschien een een een euh hoe zal ‘k het zeggen een fundamenteel .hh verschil in muzieksmaak dat dat dat jij Geert misschien toch net iets meer van de .hh van de: rustigere:: euh nummers euh euh ingetoge:: muziek houdt .hhh waar waar Iwein toch wat wat wat euh:h hoe zal ‘k ’t zeggen explicieter of misschien extraverter is eh muzikaal dan Iwein euh extraverter ik hou heel erg v- wel van die die jaren negentig dingen die we (.) net ‘ebben g’oord en ik hou heel erg van euh strofe refrein strofe refre- dubbel refrein en euh (.) allemaal meebrullen .hh vin’k wel leuk (.)

318

euhm en da ‘ebde bij die eenvoudige liedjes niet altijd maar ik hou ook eu::h van eenvoudige dingen zoals eu:hm (0.7) Nick Lowe (0.9) [bijvoorbeeld Geert [ja Iwein kan ik zeker euh smaken °ook dat is al goe (.) .h ja° Host [we gaan er Geert [wa- Host ja zeg maar hoor Geert wat mij betreft ook ik bedoel eenvoudige nummers ok omdat die het m:eeste: hebben .hh voor mij maar ik hou evengoed van ritmische nummers en van soul en van funk en .hh en:: ‘k ‘eb tamelijk eu::h veel euh variatie wat mijn muzikaal genot betreft Host hmhm .hh we gaan ’s luisteren naar Nick Lowe m: want we zijn wel heel benieuwd Nick Lowe is dit en The Beast In Me ((The Beast In Me)) Host prachtig he [op zo’n euh zondag euh Geert [ja Host zo’n sacrale zondagmiddag als deze Iwein Iwein absoluut eu::h ja doet mij denken aan een eucharistieviering een [beetje maar Host? [hehhh Iwein loopt die nog op (.) op Radio 1? Geert ja m- n- m- °ja° maar die ’s voorbij he Iwein ha ja die ’s al voorbij Host [ ( )

319

Iwein [ja da’s een uur gelede Host ja (.) we wille die ook euh niet euh zeker niet dwarsbomen in hun euh in hun plannen .hhh euh dit programma eindigen we eigenlijk altijd met met een een nummer waar we .hh zeker van zijn dat we jullie allebei daar een geweldig groot plezier (.) euh mee euh kunne:: doen .hhh en Papa Was A Rolling Stone dat ‘et programma dat dat vraagt ook om een Beatle d’r is eigenlijk volgens mij nog geen enkele aflevering geweest .hh waar we geen Beatle in (.) in hebben gedraaid en (.) bij jullie is dat niet anders en bij jullie is dat ook .hh John Lennon een een een cd-box die je trouwens [ooit gekregen hebt van Iwein Iwein [ ((lang, hard gelach)) Geert [°ja ja° Host [hij heeft gezegd dat hij je die ooit cadeau gedaan heeft Iwein ((lacht opnieuw)) Geert euhm ik geloof ‘et wel (.) heeft hij ze nu nog altijd (0.6) bij hem ik weet ’t ni [meer Iwein [nee ik zal u het exacte verhaal vertelle .hh e:jh ze stond in u platenkast Geert ja Iwein en ik ‘eb ze daar ’s weggenome Geert gepikt dus Iwein e:hm een vorm van stelen ja Geert [ja Iwein [allez maar

320

Host [een heel duidelijke vorm [van stelen Iwein [een coole vorm van stelen Host ah (.) sorry (.) [ja Iwein [dus euh en eu::hm (.) .hh en euh ’t jaar daarop heb ik dan die ingepakt en onder de kerstboom gelegd Host heh Iwein als cadeau .hh en i- eu- eigenlijk (.) denk ni da je ’t direct doorhad Host hehhhh Iwein dat eu:h (.) maar ja Geert neuh Host ah bij deze is het [eu::h is ’t uitgepraat eigenlijk Iwein [maar ’t kan zijn da’k ‘m ondertussen terug heb genomen Geert da kan wel (.) ja want ik heb ze ni meer Iwein ha ja dan heb ik ‘m [terug Geert [da moet bij jou zijn Iwein dus bij deze weet ik wat ik met Kerstmis ga geven Geert voila Host ja (.) euh [wa- e- Iwein [haha Host we zijn begonne (.) ‘et programma me- met Boudewijn De Groot (.) euh Geert waarvan je zegt dat is misschien wel de: voor jou (.) jouw jouw jouw grootste euh i- idool (.) [ik weet niet of ‘k ’t zo mag zeggen Geert [ja:: ik zeg niet graag van (.) idool maar inderdaad euh wel iemand die ik (.) waardeer Host ja

321

en John Lennon hoe:: verhoudt die zich euh Geert waardeer ik ook even::veel als euh Boudewijn De Groot ja (.) zeker weten Host ja Geert s- (.) die geeft ook zoiets:: van: ja die geeft ontroering weer die geeft eu::h .hh muzikaliteit weer die geeft (.) .h ja diepzinnigheid ook w- weer (.) ontroering heb ‘k al gezegd he (.) ja Host ja maar dat [euh kan je niet euh genoeg z- euh Geert [ja Host genoeg zeggen Iwein jij wilt daar nog iets aan toevoegen Iwein nee ik was luidop aan het euh nee ‘k was ni luidop aan ’t denke maar ‘k ga nu ze- euh zeggen wat ik aan ’t denken was ik ben meer ne fan van fake .hh en dus [eigenlijk Geert [pah Iwein mama pas op eh .hh bij (.) ik ben een grotere fan van de moordenaar van John Lennon (.) die die beschuldigde John Lennon van f:ake te zijn .hh e::h vooral omdat ‘ij ‘ad nen boek bij he The Catcher in the Rye op ‘et moment dat hij die vermoorde waar het (.) heel vaak euh gaat over fakers .hhh en da von’k da vin’k ik nog interessanter maar da neemt ni weg da John Lennon prachtige nummers heeft gemaakt .hh maar dan komen we terug op het feit da ik daarjuist zei da da Jacques Brel volgens mij .hh da af en toe wel fakete op een heel goeie manier

322

.h en da denk ik da da effectief ook bij John Lennon ook zo was en ((lachend)) hij is d’r ook voor afgestraft (.) ma [.hh ( ) Geert [ ( ) uw eige: uw eigen ja euh m:ening waarschijnlijk maar daar geloof ik niks van Host [nee Iwein [ah ja (.) ja Geert ’t was ook puur en echt Iwein ja: da weet ik ni Geert [allez Iwein [da weet ik ni da kan maar eu:hm (.) ik heb het even graag fake want euh ‘k weet (.) al welk nummer we gaan (.) ho- horen ik ga ’t nog ni verklappen maar ik vind de versie .hh van Roxy Music misschien nog beter (.) .h ietske faker Host ik wou ’et net zeggen [dat is helemaal eu:h Iwein [ja eu:h ik ben ook ni zo voor covers daar moet ik mijn pa in bijtreden maar euhm dat is bijvoorbeeld een van de betere covers maar ik denk da we toch naar ‘et origineel gaan luisteren Host ja (.) jullie zijn het over veel dingen euh eens en over euh bepaalde dingen [ook wel oneens Iwein [ja (.) ja Host .hh maar ik denk wel dat we: kunnen zeggen dat Jealous Guy (.) van euh van John Lennon misschien

323

wel .hh in jullie beider lijstjes hoog bovenaan zal prijken Geert [zeker weten Iwein [absoluut Host en vandaar uitstekend het [uitstekende keuze liever of uitstekend .hh moment om die te draaien .hhh John Lennon euh een van de Beatles maar misschien wel de grootste ook meteen voor Geert en Iwein Segers .hhh is ‘m dit met Jealous Guy [((Jealous Guy))

324

Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Jan & Ella Leyers (fragments)

Jingle ((jingle Studio Brussel)) Aris Ham dames (.) en heren(0.5) van harte welkom bij Papa Was A Rolling Stone (.) met vandaag te gast (.) vader Jan (.) en dochter Ella Leyers (1.0) Jan is 53 jaar (.) TV-maker (.) muzikant (.) en een helft van Soul Sister (1.0) Ella is 23 (.) en een beloftevolle actrice(8.0) welke plaatjes (.) kent Ella via Jan (1.0) en welk album (.) kocht Jan (.) dankzij Ella (1.1) delen ze wel een muzieksmaak (1.2) u komt het allemaal te weten in Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) Host beste Ella Leyers zullen we gewoon beginnen met een plaat waarvan je zeker weet dat je pa hem erg graag hoort (.) heb je een idee of euhh suggestie Ella dan zou ik zegge Jonathan Jeremiah (.) Heart of Stone Host perfect [((Heart of Stone)) Host [Heart of Stone van Jonathan Jeremiah als euh (.) cadeau van Ella voor vader Jan Leyers dat euh wordt euh in dank euh aanvaard veronderstel ik Jan Jan absoluut ik vind het een geweldig ummer (.) ik ken het nog niet zo lang (1.0) we hebben euh eind juli in Tienen me Soul Sister opgetrede vlak voor Tom Jones (0.9) da was dus een geweldige ervaring om die mens is euh (.) live bezig te zien die da is dus echt nog altijd wereldklasse wa die me z’n stem kan di- die zou zijn stembande aan de wetenschap

325

moeten schenken na zijn dood [om om da is te onderzoeken Host [eh Jan .hhh maar euh ik zat een van de afgelope nachte (1.6) in de auto en ik hoorde dit langskome en ik dacht van a (.) Tom Jones heeft een nieuwe singel en ik heb echt zeker een halve minuut efkes gedacht dat is Tom Jones ma dan (.) bij de eerste uithaal na boven (0.7) hoorde ik nee (.) Tom Jones zou da me net iets meer zo (1.0) snik en en (.) pathos in zijn stem doen Host ja Jan en toen hoorde ik ’t eu:::h (.) afkondige als Jonathan Jeremiah en ik moet eerlijk toegeve dat da ne nieuwe naam was Host ja ma- maar dan weet ik wel meteen ook dat jij ook de nieuwe muziek behoorlijk op de voet volgt nog steeds Jan eu::h (.) wel (.) da hangt er een beetje van het genre af (.) e als ge nu bijvoorbeeld sp- spreekt over singer-songwriters wat Jonathan Jeremiah toch is dan zeker wel (.) om nu te zegge da ik helemaal mee ben me alle nieuwste finesses in de dubstep bijvoorbeeld (.) dat z- da zou overdreve [zijn Host [ja maar daarvoor heb je misschien euh je dochter Ella euh Ella ook van harte welkom nog is euh dubstep leer je dat aan je vader af en toe Ella euh nee dank u Host [hehehe Ella [maar euh als em daar iets over wil wete kan em da vrage aan Olga Host ja Ella da ’s de dertien jarige zus

326

Host ah de jongste (.) telg Ella die is wa fan van stofzuigermuziek Host ahaha ok alle goed seg euhh hoe gebeurde dat vroeger Ella (.) kreeg jij de muziek euh met de paplepel erin gegoten zoals dat heet of gebeurde dat echt zelfs met ijzeren vuist zo wat moet ik mij daar bij voorstellen Ella nee in zekere zin wel der sta ook bij ons thuis wel altijd iets op radio TV euh Mtv dan of zo als achtergrondgeluid hoewel het tegewoordig meer Pimp My Ride is Host ja Ella dan muziek euhm (.) nee maar ik heb inderdaad via via mijn pa ‘eel veel lere kenne en dan rond mijn vijftiende eb ik de de pick-up op mijn kamer gezet (.) ben ik in alle plate gaan snuffele en dan vond ik ja Elton John en The Modern Lovers (.) euh Paul Simon Talking Heads allemaal dinge die ik ook wel van naam kende maar nog ni echt naar geluisterd had Host [ja ( ) Jan [ik ik herinner mij het moment nog dat euh dat Ella dus met de pick-up euh voor het eerst kennis maakte Host ja Jan en en [ da was echt alsof da er een archeologische vondst was gedaan Ella [aheheheheehe Jan van dit is dus een pick-up ‘k zeg ja ja ja en ‘k zeg ge legt er dus een plaat op ( ) da is de arm en dan (.) en ze keek er naar en die plaat begon te draaie en ze zei en wa wa doede nu (.) als ge na direct naar ’t volgende liedje wilt gaan

327

Host hehhh Jan ik zeg da dede wij ni Ella mhehe Jan wij legde wij koze ne kant (.) en dieje kant speelde (.) ‘elemaal Host ja Jan en hee::l af en toe gingde weleens nar ’t vierde of ’t derde maar (.) ma zoals nu et et zappe van daar naar daar (0.9) en da maakt wel et beluistere van muziek helemaal anders Host et euh absoluut waar ja Jan nu- nummers di- die ni van de eerste beluistering der meteen inginge (.) die leer je toch appreciëren omdat je die elke keer op de tweede kant hoorde voorbijkome Host ja Jan e::n (0.7)eu::h ja je zapte gewoon minder Host ja (.) ma toen vanaf het moment dat zij die pick-up naar bove mee euh heeft genomen en je hoorde dan .hhh op haar kamer die muziek die euh ze via jou euh te pakken had gekregen .hhh heb je dan even opgelucht adem gehaald Jan opgelucht adem et et ik vond da aangenaam Host ja Jan ik vond (.) ik vind da aangenamer om euh Stevie Wonder euh te hore weergalmen door het huis dan bijvoorbeeld hehe dubstep [hehe Ella [hehe Host [juist [ja ja ja Jan [om maar iets te noeme euhm (0.9) maar euh (1.4) nee (.) et verwondert mij gewoon da al die oude dinge euh e Stevie Wonder Talking Heads euh The Doors (.) euh jah da is 40

328

jaar gelede en en en die vind da nog altijd eve goed Host [ja is Jan [ergens vind ik da ook verontrustend (1.0) want want dan denk ik van (0.6) is er wel wezelijke vooruitgang geboekt ik ik toen The Doors uitkwame eind jare ‘60 en en wij daar naar luisterde en dan naar Credence enzovoort (.) ja wij konde ons ni voorstelle da wij een plaat van ons vader zoude oplegge want da was euhwete ook de Andrew Sisters en en van die da was uit een echt andere vooroorlogse tijd Host ja Jan en nu zitte we eigelijk nog altijd (0.7) in ’t zelfde aquarium Host ja Jan en da ’s op zich aangenaam ma ergens ja geeft da ook aan van van w- we blijve ergens ter plaatse trappelen Host et geuh inderdaad dat heeft euh [twee kanten Jan [en dat moet je dubstep nageve da is echt iets nieuws Host [ehhhhhh Ella [eheheheh Host kijk we gaan het nog heel veel over dubstep hebben maar we moeten misschien nog eerst eve naar 1989 een heel bijzonder jaar .hhh ik herinner mij vooral dat Nederland Europees kampioen voetbal werd hehehe dat jaar euh Ella Leyers werd [geboren en er was ook dit moment Ella [graag gedaan Jingle ((Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) Host uit 1988 .hhheuh The Way To Your Heart van Soul Sister fin meteen d-d-de grote doorbraak hit

329

eigelijk van Soul Sister .hh en euh niet de enige worp van Jan Leyers dat jaar want ook Ella Leyers was geboren dus erges zal je dat nummer altijd misschien een klein beetje aan Ella koppelen Jan absoluut (.) zeker omdat euhhh in aug- Ella is van der- 31 augustus (0.4) 88 .hhh (0.8) en 1 augustus hebbe we de eerste (0.8) lp van Soul Sister afgemaakt opgenome en en gemixt (0.9) en The Way To Your Heart stond daarop (.) da was n-ni meteen duidelijk da da de eerste single ging worde (0.7).hh maar euh dus de dede (0.6) .hh het water brak [en en voila der kwam vanalles uit Host [hhhahah Ella [ehehe Host der was een doorbraak en een waterbraak op hetzelfde moment eigelijk een beetje dat moeten dan wel heel hectische (.) dagen dan voor jou geweest zijn Jan .hhh op het moment zelf heb ik da ni zo echt ervaren mar ik heb onlangs bij een opruim (0.5) ben ik euh nog is de prolenders tegegekome prolenders da ware .hhh onze manager had zo zijn eige systeem om onze da was eu programma kalender e [een nieuw woord prolender Host [hehe Jan dus dan krijgde zo een stencilke me daar dan daar dan (.) en dan die jaren ‘88 ‘89 ’90 da was gewoon totaal van de pot gerukt dus elke dag zat je gewoon .hh in Bristol en de volgende dag naar Keulen en dan ‘s avonds in Rijkevorsel en dan vertrok de bus naar München en en 2 jaar aan een stuk en in juni weet ik nog eu::h ’89 dus toen was Ella (.) bijna een jaar (.) hadden we ‘n tournee in Duitsland en ik weet da ik thuis kwam in Boechout en ik liep de trap op want wij woonde op de eerste verdieping en

330

mijn vrouw zat in de euh in de zetel in de living me Ella op haar schoot en da kind had dan nog net de windpokke gehad dus die zag er ni uit .hhh en ik kwam binne en ik zag Ellake zo opkijke (.) en ik zag aan die haren blik dat die echt (.) mij totaal ni herkende da die echt zo iets van ja euh en wie zijde gij en jah op da [moment Ella [ehehehehe Jan maakte goeie voornemens van dit mag nooit gebeure (.) maja twee dage later zijde weg naar Milaan en en Host jaja ocharme Ella

Host [in principe Ella [alseblief Host [ok dan ga ik da doen Ellake Ella [da zou ( ) zijn (.) [mijn vader Jan [en (.) en d’r is nog iets speciaal- sorry dat ik onderbreek maar er is nog iets speciaal aan (.) namelijk (.) ik ging dus da kind aangeven zoals dat heet

Host ik euh deel je je pijn Ella [want ik heb ook geen extra naam Jan [maar dus als ze dieje naam kwijt is heeft ze d’r gene meer Host nee (.) maar dat kan misschien nog je kan het misschien wel me[t eh terugwerkende kracht Ella [maar wa ik heb ‘et nooit goe begrepe ‘oe ‘oe ‘oe ‘oe k- ‘oe kan je een naam kwijtspelen

331

Host woord voor woord meegezongen met euh euh door (.) door Ellake Leyers .hh euh Wannabe van euh de Spice Girls (.) en (.) als ik me niet vergis was dat het eerste optreden waar jullie (.) samen heen zijn geweest

Host dat dat is een goed excuus eigenlijk elk excuus is natuurlijk goed [maar Ella [haha Host we- ze- jullie hebben ze ontmoet en da’s het belangrijkste [.hh maar dat euh Ella [OJ (.) je was anders ook wel serieus mee aan ’t dansen hoor daarnet Host ja maar dat ik dans op alle k- [euh alle muziek natuurlijk Ella [hehe Host dat mag je mij niet kwalijk nemen= Jan =dit (.) dit nummer associeer ik ook met (.) bijna verongelukken op de autostrade naar ‘t Zuiden

Jan .hhh ja (.) en eigenlijk eeuh (.) ze zat toen in Amerika net (.) in in New York (.) eeeuh (.) en haar roommate maar ze kan het misschien beter zelf vertellen Ella Catherine (.) Host hehehe Ella ehehehe (.) uit Nashville, Tennessee

332

oh my god yeah u::hm (0.6) she went to school with them

Jan ah ja ja ja ja Vara’s Pop Gala Ella [ja Host [och Ella [dat Jan [ja Vara’s Pop Gala dat op zich was zo’n (.) werkelijk (.) aandoenlijke uitzending je zag dus de [voorbereiding Ella [geweldig Jan van een popconcert .hhh da was in denk ik ’73 ofzo maar (.) de (.) ‘et amateurisme (.) en ‘et gewone aandoenlijke sympathieke geklungel en de totale afwezigheid .hh van zo s- Duitse schepers .hh euh metaaldetectoren euh b- security da was gewoon zo wete wel .hhh euh (.) d’r werd iemand geïnterviewd en die zei ja ik ik ik ging dan naar Rod Stewart in de kleedkamer en ik vroeg blabla[bla Host [hehhh Jan ge kon dus in die dagen gewoon en Rod Steward was een wereldster .hhh en (0.6) ja ma bon euh waar waren we gebleven? Host [hehhhehe Jan [bij Rory Gallagher Host [ja Jan [en die speelde daar dus ook op [Vara’s Pop Gala Ella [ja

333

Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Kamagurka & Sarah Zeebroek (fragments)

Kamagurka ja ‘k ‘eb ooit een: een strip gemaakt me Zappa Host ja Kamagurka dus eu:h da was in d’n tijd euh da’k (.) ik zat nog op d’ academie in in in Gent denk ik .hh en euh ma ‘k begon ook wel voor den Humo te werken en euhm Guy Mortier euh .hhh w- w- waarom da’k dan eigenlijk voor Humo werkte was omda Guy Mortier op Frank Zap- Zappa leek Sarah ahhhahaha Kamagurka .hh en: Host dat waren de enige::: Kamagurka [nee nee hahaha .hh nee Host [de enige argumenten om dat te doen ja Kamagurka en eu:h dus dan gi- Guy had gezegd van ja ge moe ne keer eu::h m- m- m- ge kunt misschien ne keer proberen met euh iets doen me Zappa .h want ‘ij wil zich ni laten interviewen .hh en euh ik zeg ja ‘k zou ‘k ik da willen doen °dus ( ) begonnen ( ) ‘k was daar eigenlijk echt nog ni ((overstaanbaar gemompel))° .hhh en eu::hm dan heb ik een: strip gemaakt in potlood euh °’k woonde dan in Oostende ((onverstaanbaar gemompel))° ‘k ‘ad dan eu:::h (0.8) die balonnen opengelaten en eu::h dan was ‘k naar Zappa gegaan (.) in Vorst Nationaal .hh da was in ’81 (.) 1981 °((onverstaanbaar gemompel))° Host ja

334

Kamagurka en eu::h ‘k herinner mij dus da’k binnenkwam eu::h om eu:h °((onverstaanbaar gemompel)) Sarah .hh hehe Kamagurka en eu::h (.) ik werd tegengehouden door de bodyguard van Zappa da was een gigantische::: kale neger eigenlijk van ‘k denk drie meter hoog en .hh die vijfhonderd kilo woog euh .hh en die zijn si- zijn brandende sigaretten achter zijn oren stak tegen zijn schedel [en die ni ni verbleekte Host [°hehehehehe° Kamagurka .hhhh en ik kom binnen in die: (.) in die kleedkamer van Zappa en eu:h ik (.) ben zo’n snotneus eh en (.) me m’n grote tekenkaart en Zappa zegt van oei (.) ‘ebde flu ‘k zeg ja haha out! zei ‘m [hehehe Sarah [jhohhoh Kamagurka ‘ij wou ni ziek worden hahaha Host en dat was ‘et? Kamagurka .hh nee nee [hehehe Sarah [hehe Kamagurka .hhh ma da was vo’ te lachen Host ah ok hehehe gelukkig Kamagurka ‘k stond alweer buiten aan Vorst Nationaal toen stond Zappa wanhopig te zwaaien da’k nog zou terugkomen .hhh en eu::h dan ‘eeft ‘ij dus euh een uur lang heel geconcentreerd euh op die op die op die pagina geweest want ik tekende toen ook gigantisch groot

335

denk da ‘k ik da ergens ge .hh hoord dat da moest ‘k weet da ni meer ( ) en Zappa heeft daar dan euh een prachtige: tekst op gemaakt eh (.) eu::hm over de:: (.) the conceptual continuity en euh .hh over euh ( ) ‘k zou ‘t een keer moeten terugvinden want Host ‘et ‘et ‘et is niet dat het omhoog hangt ergens bij jullie [thuis Kamagurka [jawel jawel Sarah [jawel bij Boris Kamagurka het hing omhoog

Sarah nee maar da was echt (.) ja da was ge- ‘k viel gewoon omver ei’lijk da was ei’lijk ja ‘oe noemde da zo (.) een moment (.) verlichting Host [ja Sarah [hehe Host Aha-Erlebnis op [’n bepaalde manier Sarah [ja absoluut

Host euh Sarah euh Zeebroek zit hier nog samen met Kamagurka haar vader

Sarah ‘k ben er ook wel zot van ma: (.) ’t is ook (.) allez ben ook Butthole Surfers heel dankbaar want dankzij hen zijn ook euh h .hh de Flaming Lips Host kijk Sarah waar ‘k ook vree fan van ben dus

336

Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Luc & Lenny Crabbe (fragments)

Luc euhm (.) ‘k denk dat hij een tijdje ook een euh Eminem cool gevonden heeft enzo [en al Host [ja Luc ja: ik denk wel allez (.) dat die dat ‘em die plaat nog gekocht heeft [( ) Host [hah (.) [we gaan daar zeker nog op terugkomen straks Luc [terwijl ik die maar niks vond (.) terwijl ik die maar niks vond Host ja

Host hahaha weet je wat dan kiezen we deze keer niet voor een live-opname maar gewoon een studio-opname van Some euh Might Say .hh van Oasis ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))

Host weet je nog welk (.) welk nummer je gedaan hebt toen van Brel? Lenny euh Voir Un Ami Pleurer Host °ah ja ok heel goed° misschien moeten we daar nog is naar luistere dan (.) .hhh Voir Un Ami Pleurer hier in de originele versie van Jacques Brel ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))

[((My Name Is)) Host [My Name Is euh van Eminem

337

euh euh ‘t is euh misschien ni meteen een plaat die ik euh zou verwachten euh in euh jullie platenkast hh (.) Lenny Lenny euh da’s:: euh ja ik moet daar heel duidelijk over [zijn ik was z::even Host [ehhehehe Lenny dieje- allez da’s eind jaren negentig he dus ik was misschien zeven of acht of negen jaar als die eerste platen zijn uitgekomen .hhh en da was waar da ‘k ik een beetje naar luisterde voor da’k naar voor da’k eigenlijk rockmuziek ‘eb ontdekt Host uhu Lenny dus eigenlijk de momenten da hij bezig was me Sonic Youth in mijn handen te duwen en Jacques Brel was ‘k ik me zo’n dinge bezig wete wel als klein manneke .hhh eu::h [en: Host [maar deze plaat die heb je ook nog van je vader als cadeau gekregen Lenny waarschijnlijk wel ja (.) ja ja da kan ‘eel goe zijn Host hehh dus ergens is de verantwoordelijkheid ligt bij jou (.) Luc Crabbe (.) HE Luc ja ma ja bedoel euh wa moet anders doen me ne kleine van zeven jaar ja: nee ma ja ‘ij was daar euh ‘ij was daar gek van dus wa- waarom ni eh ja Host ja en [en ( )

338

Luc [ja en ik herinner mij ook dat ‘ij: (.) ‘eel die plaat van buite kende (.) ‘k von’ da echt wel eu:h [hehhh Host [en en en ( ) en as ‘ie dan aan’t aan’t eh aan’t aan’t euh mee euh brulle of meerappe was .hh met welke oren luisterde jij daar dan naar ’s dat dan met euh (.) samengeknepen billen of [euh Luc [ja hh ‘k vi- ‘k was daar echt ni voor te vinde ik ben echt allez ja euh ‘t euh (.) ma bon ‘k zeg da zal wel passere Host ehhehehe hehh heh en ‘et is gepasseert luister je nog veel naar hiphop euh Lenny tegenwoordig? Lenny ja old school stuff eh Jurrassic 5 en zo van die [dingen wel nog Host [ja Lenny f- van allez heel af en toe maar ni echt euh Host ja ja ja ja ja Lenny ni zo veel Host nee je volgt het ni helemaal meer Lenny [nee Host [.hhh de klik is ’n beetje of e- e- ‘et ‘et grote kantelpunt bij jou is (.) gekomen w’adden ’t daarnet al even a- aangehaald .hh over die die prachtige hoes met die vooral die prachtige euh euh vrouwenkont erop Lenny ja Host .hh euh (.) Is This It van The Strokes Lenny ja da was een k- een euh een kantelpunt bij mij he

339

da was zo een beetje de ontdekking van van eu::hm gitaarmuziek en zo die gans die nieuwe vibe van groepen gelijk The Hives en The Libertines en .hh The Strokes ma die eerste plaat van The Strokes heeft da echt getriggerd ik ben daar naar beginne luistere en .hh ‘k was daarvan zodanig in de ban da mij da heeft opengestoten ervoor gezorgd da’k andere dingen ben beginne luisteren en ontdekken .hh en da’k eigenlijk uiteindelijk goesting heb gekrege om zelf ne groep te beginne en zelf muziek te beginne make en .hh gitaar te spele en en nummers te schrijve .hhh Host ja Lenny daarom is da nog altijd: mijn favoriete plaat of een van mijn: meest (.) beluisterde platen ooit omdat die gewoon ‘eel .hh doorslaggevend is geweest Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone)) ((New York City Cops)) Host New York City Cops .hh van The Strokes euh dames en heren .h euh een euh heel belangrijke plaat (.) eu:h heel belangrijke artiest ook voor euh Lenny Crabbe maar .hh vader Luc euh sluit zich daar eigenlijk ook bij aan Luc ja Host euh (.) maar dan moete we ’t toch ook hebbe wa- w’ebbe ’t er al heel even over gehad eu::h daarnet .hhh toch nog over Lou Reed hebben want dat blijft een bijzonder verhaal af- vert- vertel nog ’s één keer want die die (.) die heeft met jullie samengewerkt eigenlijk eh

340

Luc uhu Host vertel nog ’s dat verhaal kort

Host we [sluiten ap- Lenny [( ) Host we sluiten deze (.) euh (.) gezellige zondagmiddag graag af met een nummer .hh dat jullie alle twee heel erg goed (.) euh vinden (.) vlak voor de uitzending hebben jullie geweldig lang zitte:: nadenken want (.) want er zijn zo veel dingen euh die jullie euh wouden horen [eigenlijk Luc [ja Host gaande van .hhh The Who tot euh The Velvet Underground euh de:: de:: David Bowie ja dat hebben we eigenlijk al gehad Luc/Lenny [The Moons Host [The Doors (.) eh noem maar op inderdaad Joy Division .hhh maar uiteindelijk kwamen jullie terecht bij Adam Green ik vond dat een heel [goeie keuze Luc [uhuh (.) maar ik denk ook da da zo een plaat is euh ne:n artiest is die ik (.) ehm via hem (.) ‘eb (.) lere kenne

341

Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Luc & Eppo Janssen (fragments)

Host het is ook iets dat ik niet meteen zou associëren met jouw favoriete platen Luc (1.0) euh (0.7) ja dat is één van mijn favoriete platen hoor euh als je nu (.) de andere hoort euh de Cabaret Voltaires en de:: (.) en [de:: Host [ja Luc vuile industriële:: (.) noise .hh da’s ook (.) ook mijn favoriete muziek maar ’t is (.) ’t is zondagmiddag Host dat is (.) dat is heel chique [van je Luc [euh (.) ja Host hehehe hh hh ( ) je ver- je vertelde dat je euh of tenminste (.) van tevoren had je gezegd dat je euh vooral (.) vroeger thuis met de koptelefoon naar muziek luisterde .hh was dat dan vooral om euh om euh de rest van het gezin niet te veel euh te kwellen met met die moeilijke platen bijvoorbeeld?

342

Host .hh wat vind jij eigenlijk van van kleinkunst en dat soort dingen (.) Eppo? Eppo goh ik heb het daar (.) dikwijls moeilijk mee hahaha°haha° .hhh Host want ‘et ve- want dat dat ‘t (.) verbaasde mij ook want euh jij vertelde mij dat dat euh dat euh dat euh Luc dat dat wel euh bij momenten euh zeer euh weet te pruimen Eppo ma- (.) dat was denk ik voor ‘ij: (.) [ehhehehe Host [hehehe [( ) Luc [zij- zijn jullie (.) een of andere vrucht of euh= Host =nee nee nee ja nee dat dat dat zeg ik verkeerd nee maar euh

Host ik moet toegeven ik had ’t nog nooit g’oord maar ‘k vind het heel erg mooi Lieven Coppieters .hh met euh Neerhof Luc wat vind je d’r mooi aan Otto-Jan Host ik vind (.) alles eigenlijk heel erg mooi de sfeer

Host van euh van euh en van dat nummer is het eigenlijk maar een heel kleine stap naar euh Sigur Rós he met e:h sfeergewijs Luc a::h jah ((sarcastisch)) Eppo [ehehehehehe Host [nee maar ’t is eigenlijk wel [gra- Eppo [met u lange benen ja Host ehheheh .hh Luc Janssen toch van heel veel mensen

343

of toch iemand die van heel veel mensen euh de muzieksmaak wat bepaald heeft denk ik eu:h euh of ik weet niet of je ’t daarmee eens bent Eppo? Eppo absoluut (.) ‘k denk ‘et wel

Host .hhh eu::h maar maar omgekeerd (.) is het nu ook wel zo dat dat Eppo die rol (.) voor een stuk ook wel euh op zich genomen heeft door bijvoorbeeld (.) euh wat je voor Pukkelpop doet een eh affiche samenstellen maar ook wat je met Duyster euh doet jij hebt daar .hh al jaren de plaatjes eh voor gekozen hoeveel jaar is dat al [ondertussen? Eppo [el- we we zijn aan ons elfde jaar euh bezig dus euh Host je wordt oud Eppo [hehhh Host [°denk ik dan op zo’n moment

Eppo in die periode kwamen er heel veel van die platen uit je had eu::h euh .hh Bonnie Prince Billy met zijn eerste album je had Songs: Ohia die kwame je had Pinback en die Sigur Rós

Host eh jij mag ‘m aankondigen Eppo dat euh da’s eentje voor jou Eppo hier is Sigur Rós met euh Svefn-g-englar Jingle ((jingle Studio Brussel))

344

((Svefn-g-englar))

Luc euhm ik was naar ‘n concert geweest (.) eerst in Amsterdam eu:h ‘t alereerste concert dat de Pixies in Europa gaven was in de Paradiso in Amsterdam euhm (.) euh dat was eh speelden zij het voorprogramma van de Throwing Muses Host ach Luc en de volgende dag ben ik eu::h naar het concert gaan kijke: van euh de Pixies in de Effenaar .hh en daar waren z’al meteen euh de hoofdgroep Host daar hadden ze: Luc [ja Host [Throwing Muses [al ingehaald Luc [ma- wa- dat was in Amsterdam ook duidelijk euh geworden van dat de Pixies dat was iets apart dat was dat was heel euh dat was heel speciaal .hhh en eu::hm: de volgende dag was ik in eu:h na ’t concert was ik in euh in Hilversum en euh .hh euh d’r komt we we zaten in de villa eu:h bij de VPRO .hh en d’r komt euh vlak voor de uitzending eu::h komt er een klein dik mannetje de trap op euh [gehobbeld Host [hehe Luc en dat was euh Frank Black met achter hem euh Kim Deal .hh en die waren nog in Nederland en die kwamen goeiedag zeggen (.) .hh die hadden gezegd van ( ) ik had met hen een interview gedaan dan wel en die eu:h ja die die vonden mij blijkbaar eu:h

345

.hhh sympathiek genoeg of (.) ik was de enige waarschijnlijk die ze echt kenden daar en die (.) die kwamen even goeiendag zeggen Host ja Luc en eh die zijn tijdens die uitzending gebleven en achteraf is: telkens als euh Frank Black in eh in de buurt is .hh dan belt ‘ie of dan laat ‘ie weten ik ben er of als jullie ’s willen langskomen euhm Host ja Luc zo is dat gegroeid

346

347

Bibliography

“Bart Peeters.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 6 November 2011. Radio. Bowles, Hugo. “Storytelling as interaction in The Homecoming.” Language and Literature 18 (2009): 45 – 60. . 22 March 2012. “Dream Team.” Music@Work. Studio Brussel. 20 October 2011. Radio. ---, 25 October 2011. Radio. ---, 26 October 2011. Radio. ---, 28 October 2011. Radio. ---, 3 November 2011. Radio. ---, 7 November 2011. Radio. ---, 8 November 2011. Radio. ---, 9 November 2011. Radio. ---, 10 November 2011. Radio. ---, 17 November 2011. Radio. Dumolyn, Jan. “Antropologie en New Cultural History: Tendenzen in de Historiografie.” Ghent University. 12 May 2011. Lecture slides. “Ferdinand de Saussure.” wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, n.d. . 20 March 2012. Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1990. Greatbatch, David. “A Turn-Taking System for British News Interviews.” Language in Society 17.3 (1988): 401 – 430. . 3 November 2011. “Guy Mortier.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 25 September 2011. Radio. “Guy Swinnen.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 4 September 2011. Radio. “Harvey Sacks.” wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, n.d. . 20 March 2012.

348

Hutchby, Ian. Media talk : Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 2006. Hutchby, Ian and Robin Wooffitt. Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998. ---, Conversation Analysis: Second Edition. 2nd ed. Polity Press: Cambridge, 2008. “Iwein Segers.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 13 November 2011. Radio. “Jan Leyers.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 18 September 2011. Radio. Jeffries, Lesley and Dan McIntyre. Stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. “Kamagurka.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 11 September 2011. Radio. Lambrecht, Christophe. “Re: [Music At Work] Masterthesis Dream Team.” Message to the author. 8 December 2011. Email. Liddicoat, Anthony J. An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum, 2007. “Luc Crabbe.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 2 October 2011. Radio. “Luc Janssen.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 16 October 2011. Radio. Meyerhoff, Miriam. Introducing Sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge, 2010. Ochs, Elinor and Lisa Capps. Living Narrative: Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. “Noam Chomsky: Generative grammar.” wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, n.d. . 20 March 2012. “Raul Rios.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 9 October 2011. Radio. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel E. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50.4 (December 1974): 696 – 735. . 22 March 2012. Slembrouck, Stef. Analysis of Spoken Interaction. 3rd ed. Gent: Acco, 2009. ---, “Language & Literature: Chapter 2: Narrative.” Ghent University. Message to the author. 23 February 2012. Lecture slides received via email. ---, “Re: Auteurs.” Message to the author. 12 June 2012. Email. “Stuur Jouw Dream Team Door.” stubru.be. Studio Brussel, n.d. . 12 November 2011.

349

Thornborrow, Joanna. ‘”Has It Ever Happened to You?”: Talk Show Stories as Mediated Performance.’ Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. By Andrew Tolson, ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001a. pp. 117 – 137. ---, “Authenticating Talk: Building Public Identities in Audience Participation Broadcasting.” Discourse Studies 3 (2001b): 459 – 479. . 28 March 2012. ---, “Questions, Control and the Organization of Talk in Calls to a Radio Phone-In.” Discourse Studies 3 (2001c): 119 – 143. . 28 March 2012. Tolson, Andrew. ‘Talking About Talk: The Academic Debates.’ Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. By Andrew Tolson, ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001a. pp. 7 – 30. ---, “’Being Yourself’: The Pursuit of Authentic Celebrity.” Discourse Studies 3 (2001b): 443 – 457. . 28 March 2012.

350

351