INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UME films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Kgher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Beil & Howell Infonnation Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

TALKING WITHIN MUSIC; AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY OF CHORAL INSTRUCTION, VERBAL INTERACTIONS AND THE RESULTING ENSEMBLE SOUNDS WITHIN A HIGH SCHOOL CHORAL REHEARSAL

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Mark Edward Rohwer, B.M., M.M.

*****

The Ohio State University 1997

Dissertation Committee: Approved by

Dr. Patricia I. Flowers, Adviser

Dr. Hilary Apfelstadt '^'''oStKuLL. A-yV xQ

Dr. David Butler Adviser

Dr. Douglas Macbeth School of Music UMI Number; 9801776

UMI Microform 9801776 Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT

This study explored the pedagogy of the musical preparations of a

high school chorus and its director in rehearsal. The rehearsals of a high school chorus were observed over a two-month period. All of the interactions of the director and students, and the resulting ensemble sounds that occurred, were recorded. The resulting observational data were used to explore the ways in which instruction and interaction helped create and refine ensemble sound in a classroom context. This analysis was built on observations of twenty chorus rehearsals, and upon the framework provided by conversational analysis and ethnomethodology.

Ten students were also interviewed, and selected choral ensemble sounds were analyzed spectrally. The ethnographic task was to explore the pedagogy of the choir's preparations. More specifically, how was rehearsal interaction, choral instruction and ensemble sound organized in this choral ensemble as it prepared for its contest performance?

II The observed interactions initiated by the teacher consisted of

questions with an already known answer, and questions and comments that had no known answer. Many questions indexed issues of musical competence of both the teacher and the students. Student-initiated questions focused on how ensemble sound was created in a given setting, as well as the circumstances surrounding the instruction. Other questions showed students and the teacher as collaborators in the delicate matter of creating both ensemble sound and social space together.

It was found that the majority of instructing in rehearsal consisted of teacher-initiated directives while the ensemble was not singing.

Instructions were also used by the teacher while the ensemble was in the midst of singing. In both cases, musical jargon, analogy and modeling were used, both separately and together. Both instruction and interaction were very temporal, tied to just-past events and almost-occurring events.

It is suggested that the ensemble sounds that were the focus of the instruction and interaction in this study were purposefully and thoughtfully crafted and re-crafted by the choir members, with direction and collaboration of the teacher. Both the verbal reports of the members and the physical sounds themselves contribute to this conclusion.

Ill Dedicated to Mr. Jacobsen and the students of the Symphonic Choir.

IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank my adviser, Patricia Flowers, for her unwavering

support, honest advice, and challenging suggestions.

1 thank Hilary Apfelstadt, dissertation committee member, for

guidance as an expert practitioner in the area of choral music.

I thank David Butler, dissertation committee member, for his expertise

in the area of musical perception and the acoustics of sound.

I thank Doug Macbeth, dissertation committee member, for his

expertise in the area of classroom interaction and conversation.

I am grateful to Pete Tender and James Pyne for their assistance with

the spectral analysis in this study; it was invaluable.

I am also grateful to Robert Duke at the University of Texas-Austin for

his allowing me to utilize the Scribe software program in my analysis.

1 am most grateful to my family for their support when it was needed.

Last, and most, I thank my wife, Debbie, for her critical insight, honest opinions, and unceasing support.

This research was supported by a Graduate Student Alumni Research

Award, provided by The Ohio State University Graduate School. VITA

March 10, 1967...... Born - Waukesha, Wisconsin

1989 ...... B.M., Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

1989-1995 ...... Director of Choral Activities, McHenry Community High School, McHenry, Illinois

1994 ...... M.M., Eastman School of Music, Rochester, New York

1995-199 6 ...... University Fellowship, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1996-199 7 ...... Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS

1. (1997). Choral students self-evaluation of musical performance, journal of Music Teacher Education, 6(2), 15-18.

2. (1996). The effect of listening to a concert recording on singers' self- evaluation of choral performance. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 33.10-27.

3. (1995). Popular music and music education: Pedagogical and philosophical issues. Dialogue in Instrumental Music, 19,27-42.

4. (1992). Collaborating for success. The Conductor's Podium, 18,17.

VI FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Music Education

Studies in Music Education. Professors Patricia Flowers, Robert Gillespie and Timothy Gerber.

Studies in Choral Conducting and Performance. Professors Hilary Apfelstadt and James Gallagher.

Studies in Classroom Interaction. Professor Douglas Macbeth.

Studies in Music Perception. Professor David Butler.

Studies in Research Methods. Professor J. David McCracken.

Studies in Music History. Professor Margarita Mazo.

vti TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Abstract...... i i

Dedication i v

Acknowledgments ...... v

Vita...... V i

List of Tables ...... xi

List of Figures ...... xii

Chapters;

1. Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Background of the study ...... 2 1.2 Description of the setting and subjects ...... 6 1.3 Statement of the phenomenon ...... 8 1.4 Area of inquiry ...... 9 1.5 Definitions ...... 9 1.6 Assumptions and limitations ...... 11

2. Review of the Literature...... 12

2.1 Classroom interaction ...... 12 2.2 Choral instruction ...... 20 2.2.1 Music and language ...... 21 2.2.2 Issues of so u n d ...... 25 2.3 A common theme: Temporality ...... 29

3. Methodology ...... 36

3.1 Procedure ...... 36

viii 3.1.1 Development of strategies ...... 37 3.1.2 Data collection ...... 38 3.2 Data analysis...... 43 3.2.1 Rehearsal observations ...... 44 3.2.2 Spectral analysis...... 45 3.2.3 Interview m aterials ...... 47 3.3 Establishment of trustworthiness ...... 49

4. Interaction ...... 54

4.1 Teacher-initiated interactions ...... 54 4.1.1 Questions with the known answer ...... 55 4.1.2 Questions with no known answer...... 67 4.1.3 Questions of musical competence ...... 69 4.1.4 Collaborative efforts: The processional ...... 76 4.2 Student-initiated interactions ...... 81 4.2.1 Questions about how music sounds ...... 82 4.2.2 Questions of who is making the sounds, under what circumstances ...... 99 4.2.3 Questions of joint production ...... 109 4.3 Where instruction and perception meet: One detailed case ...... 116 4.4 C onclusions ...... 121

5. Instruction and Ensemble Sound ...... 124

5.1 Stopped instruction ...... 125 5.1.1 Stopped jargon ...... 125 5.1.2 Stopped analogy and m odeling ...... 139 5.2 Real-time instruction ...... 157 5.2.1 Real-time jargon ...... 157 5.2.2 Real-time analogy ...... 162 5.2.3 Real-time m odeling ...... 166 5.2.4 Transition-relevant instruction ...... 168 5.3 Instruction over time: Two detailed cases ...... 176 5.3.1 Case study: The "womanly" sound ...... 176 5.3.2 Case study: The bass part in the third measure of Mozart's "Laudate Pueri" ...... 181 5.4 C onclusions ...... 185

6. Simulations and Local Histories ...... 188

6.1 Simulations ...... 188 6.1.1 Contest sight-reading ...... 189

ix 6.1.2 Performance simulations ...... 201 6.1.3 Processional sim ulations ...... 211 6.2 Local histories ...... 215 6.3 Conclusions ...... 220

7. The Shape of Preparation: Three Case Studies...... 222

7.1 The shape of pedagogy: Case study of "Laudate Pueri" over tim e ...... 223 7.2 Conclusions ...... 260 7.3 The shape of instruction: Case study of rehearsal on January 24th...... 262 7.4 Conclusions ...... 288 7.5 The shape of interaction: Case study of one sequence of interaction ...... 290 7.6 Conclusions ...... 299

8. A Compiled Analysis of Interaction, Instruction, Temporality and Ensemble Sound in One Rehearsal Segment ...... 301

9. Summary Conclusions, Professional Implications, and Directions for Further Research ...... 327

9.1 Summary Conclusions ...... 328 9.1.1 Interaction ...... 328 9.1.2 Instruction ...... 331 9.1.3 Ensemble sound ...... 332 9.1.4 Tem porality within rehearsal...... 335 9.1.5 Temporality beyond rehearsal: Sim ulations and local histories ...... 340 9.2 Implications for the profession ...... 341 9.3 Directions for further research ...... 345

Bibliography...... 347

Appendices:

A: Explanation of transcript markings ...... 356 B: Titles and publishers of music rehearsed by the symphonic choir...... 358 C: Collected spectral analyses ...... 360 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3.1 Dates of field observations ...... 40

3.2 Names, ages, voice parts and class status of interviewees 42

XI LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

3.1 Layout of classroom arrangement, videocamera and DAT recorder positioning ...... 39

4.1 Piano performance of F3 in line 4 and line 6 of Excerpt #8 .....361

4.2 Measures 24-25 of "Een So Lord Jesus, Quickly Come," rhythms A and B...... 89

5.1 Soprano performance of Bb5 before and after the instruction in lines 18-19 of Excerpt #122 ...... 362

5.2 Chorus performance of "ee" from "Jesus," in line 100 and line 103 of Excerpt #141...... 363

5.3 Bass performance of A3 before and after lines 151-153 of Excerpt #152...... 364

5.4 Chorus performance before and after lines 72-75 of Excerpt #134...... 365

5.5 Chorus performance before and after lines 87-88 of Excerpt #137...... 366

5.6 Chorus performance in line 184 and line 190 of Excerpt #163...... 367

5.7 A comparison of the chorus part with Mr. Jacobsen's real-time instruction in "Laudate Pueri," measures 170-173 ..154

5.8 Spoken "jaw" of "rejoice" (Mr. Jacobsen) in line 19 of Excerpt #168...... 368

XU 5.9 Spoken "jaw" of "rejoice" (Chorus) in line 20 of Excerpt #168...... 368

5.10 fntoned "jaw" of "rejoice" (Mr. Jacobsen) in line 21 of Excerpt #168...... 369

5.11 Intoned "jaw" of "rejoice" (Chorus) in line 22 of Excerpt #168...... 369

5.12 Intoned "ih" of "therein" (Mr. Jacobsen) in line 23 of Excerpt #168...... 370

5.13 Intoned "ih" of "therein" (Chorus) in line 24 of Excerpt #168...... 370

5.14 Mr. Jacobsen's modeling of D4 on "bum" and "hyuh" in excerpt #169...... 371

5.15 Chorus performance before and after the instruction in lines 30-34 of Excerpt #169 ...... 372

5.16 Bass performance of D4 in line 38 and line 45 of Excerpt #169...... 373

5.17 Chorus performance of an "ah" vowel before and after the instruction in lines 21 of Excerpt #205 ...... 374

5.18 Chorus performance of an "ah" vowel before and after the instruction in lines 23 of Excerpt #205 ...... 375

5.19 Soprano performance of F5 in lines 3, 6, and 9 of Excerpt #224...... 376

5.20 Chorus performance before and after the instruction in lines 11-12 of Excerpt #225...... 378

5.21 Chorus performance before and after the instruction in lines 11-12 of Excerpt #225 (closer view ) ...... 379

5.22 Alto performance before and after the instruction in lines 19 of Excerpt #227 ...... 380

5.23 Alto performance before and after the instruction in lines 19 of Excerpt #227 (closer view) ...... 381

xiii 6.1 A comparison of Mr. Jacobsen's inslrumenlal simulation with the sung bass part and the written piano part in "Laudate Pueri," measures 70-71 ...... 203

6.2 A comparison of Mr. Jacobsen's instrumental simulation with the sung bass part and the written piano part in "Laudate Pueri," measures 150-151 ...... 203

6.3 A comparison of Mr. Jacobsen's instrumental simulation with the chorus part and the written piano part in "If Love Should Count You Worthy," measure 52 and measures 57-60 ...... 204

7.1 Rhythmic notation of Excerpt #270, lines 40-41...... 273

7.2 Soprano part of "Een So Lord Jesus," m easures 24-28 ...... 293

8.1 Sung performances of C3 and C4 in line 20 of Excerpt #281....382

8.2 Mr. Jacobsen's model of C3 in line 21 of Excerpt #281 ...... 382

8.3 Sung performances of C3 and C4 in line 24 of Excerpt #281 ....383

8.4 Mr. Jacobsen's model of C3 in line 25 of Excerpt #281 ...... 383

8.5 Sung performances of C3 and C4 in line 27 of Excerpt #281....384

8.6 Mr. Jacobsen's utterance in lines 33-35, looking forward and backward ...... 313

8.7 Sung performances of the first pitch of line 115 of Excerpt #281...... 384

8.8 Mr. Jacobsen's model of "coh" in line 119 of Excerpt #281 ...... 385

8.9 Sung performances of the first pitch of line 121 of Excerpt #281...... 385

XIV CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This study explored the pedagogy of the musical preparations of a high school choral ensemble and its director in rehearsal. The rehearsals of a high school choral ensemble were observed over a two-month period.

Within that period, the interactions of the ensemble director and students, and the resulting ensemble sounds that occurred, were recorded. The observational data that resulted were used to explore the ways in which choral instruction and social interaction produced ensemble sound in a classroom context.

The first chapter gives a brief background of the study. The following will be discussed: Music as a community of practice, interaction in the music classroom among members and prospective members of the musical community, and the ensemble sounds that result from the interactions. A description of the setting and subjects follow. The chapter

concludes with a statement of the phenomenon and the specific area of

inquiry in the study.

Background of the Study

One of the most noticeable examples of the interplay between the

physical properties of sound and the social settings in which they exist is a

rehearsal of a musical performance ensemble. Here, through the meaning

supplied within the social context, sound becomes music.

A further interplay exists in the music classroom between students

and their teacher. The continual teacher-student interaction within a

musical rehearsal is both important and inescapable. Through this

interaction, issues such as musicality, aesthetic judgment, and artistic

meaning are determined. Becker suggested that an art world consists of

"all the people whose activities are necessary to the production of the characteristic works which that world, and perhaps others as well, define as a r t" (1982, p. 34). It is the interchange with the teacher that binds the students to the "art world" of the music classroom; as Kennell (1989) stated, "we make music wif/z our students" (p. 85).

Interaction within a musical environment, however, can be

problematic. Although the sonic composition of music can be carefully and empirically measured, it Is still difficult to put into meaningful terms,

even among musicians. As Cogan (1984) noted, "sound in music has for

millennia proved to be inscrutable—beyond description and analysis in almost every musical tradition." Further, "the very essence of a musical culture, epoch, or style is embodied in its unique sound" (p. I).

Learning to be a musician requires more than learning note-reading skills and vocal agility. It requires one to become familiar with a culture, a

way of doing things that is understood without question by experts, yet is strange and unfamiliar to novices. This may be why many aspects of music are "inscrutable" (using Cogan's term) to so many people, or even to people familiar with a musical culture who are in unfamiliar situations. This process bears more than a passing resemblance to Schütz's description of being a cultural stranger:

In other words, the cultural pattern of the approached group is to the stranger not a shelter but a field of adventure, not a matter of course but a questionable topic of investigation, not an Instrument for disentangling problematic situations but a problematic situation itself and one hard to master (1976, p. 104).

Swain (1994) called the culture of music a "musical community"; members of a musical community are those "for whom a perceptual object of music is real and has practical value " (p. 311). For members of a musical community, a "hearing" of music is "both creative and responsive, a conversation back and forth between the music, as material,

and the hearer as he or she shapes its meaning and form in some

particular way" (Bamberger, 1994, p. 134).

For novice or non-musicians, the same perceptual object of music is

less meaningful, since they do not necessarily "hear" what members of the

musical community hear. A principal achievement of any music teacher

is to show novice musicians what to listen for, and how to hear whatever

that is. In time, the novice musician becomes "an independent musician capable of solving musical problems" (Apfelstadt, 1989, p. 75), and will be a

more competent member of the musical community. Through this developing competence, the expert's culture becomes transparent to the students, in that "the inner workings...are available for the learner's

inspection: the black box can be opened, it can become a 'glass box'" (Lave

& Wenger, 1991, p. 102).

The musical culture is most often communicated through teacher-directed talk in the classroom. Rowers (1990) noted that teachers spend a large amount of time talking in music class. Other studies, as well, have found that verbal interaction takes up a large part of musical rehearsal time (Caldwell, 1980; Watkins, 1986). Yet, "much of what is said may have little to do with the presentation of musical information or description of music" (Flowers, 1990, p. 4). Lave and Wenger (1991) suggested an important distinction between talking w ithin a practice (exchanging information central to the process of the activity) and talking flboi/t a practice (stories, lore, and other things not central to the process of the activity). Serafine (1988), a music theorist, is even more exclusive than Lave and Wenger:

I insist on a distinction between music-as-such—the stuff in the interchange between music-makers and listeners—and the analytic artifacts that follow from reflection on it that are transmitted educationally, however powerful they may be. (p. 55)

While it is relatively easy to discuss music educators' talk "about music," the talk "within music"—talk which concerns the "stuff in the interchange between music-makers and listeners" (Serafine, 1982, p. 55)— is much more difficult to describe. As music making becomes the focus of instruction, the use of language becomes analogous and vague. But it is talk within music that novice musicians must learn to use and participate in as they become members of the musical community. Talk within music is therefore central to musical learning and teaching.

Becker noted that "the interaction of all involved parties produces a shared sense of the worth of what they collectively produce" (1982, p. 39).

In music, as in other realms of social science, "meaning is what we can agree upon or at least accept as a working basis for seeking agreement about the concept at hand" (Bruner, 1986, p. 122). It is largely through the verbal interaction of expert and novice musician that a sense of worth and a sense of meaning are collaboratively achieved. Description of the Setting and Subjects

The setting chosen for this study was that of a medium-sized high school in a suburb of a large midwestem city. The school district was relatively affluent. The per pupil expenditures in this six-year-old, well- kept high school are comfortably above the state average, and the teacher salaries are competitive with other suburban schools in the area. Over half of the teachers at the school have at least a masters' degree.

Minorities make up 14% of the student body, which numbers just over

1500 students. The students at this school are mostly college-bound, with 3 out of 4 seniors planning to attend a college or university.

The school's symphonic choir consisted of mainly of juniors and seniors, with a few sophomores sprinkled in. Each student had at least one year of experience in a different choral ensemble at the high school.

The group had a total of 54 members: 15 sopranos, 16 altos, 9 tenors and 14 basses. The symphonic choir was chosen for its placement at the top of the ensemble hierarchy, through which the students would proceed as they gained experience and ability. There were other ensembles, consisting of less able and experienced singers, that fed into the advanced group. The students who had been placed into the symphonic choir were considered to be among the strongest singers in the school. The ensemble's literature was chosen with the students' advanced ability level in mind, and a preponderance of the music was appropriate for a choral festival or contest.

It was the appearance by the symphonic choir at a rated choral festival in mid-March, just after the conclusion of my observations of this choir, that was a major determining factor in the timing of the study.

Observations of the chorus began in mid-January, at a time in the year where the chorus was oriented to the impending festival. The chorus had completed its second major performance just prior to their break for the

December holidays. The students were fresh from the time off, but also experienced as a performing group, as they began to prepare for their only performance of the school year in which they were given a rating by an outside party.

The director of the chorus, and an important focus of study, was Mr.

Jacobsen, the director of choral activities. Mr. Jacobsen had taught at the high school since its opening; he also had eight years of teaching experience in a small, rural school district prior to being hired. He was also pursuing a masters' degree in choral conducting through evening and summer study. His degree of experience and training made him not unlike many other choral directors who work in the public schools every day. This site was selected based upon the fact that both Mr. Jacobsen and the high school were not unlike many other directors and schools in the region, as well as upon Mr. Jacobsen's willingness to participate in this study.

Statement of the Phenomenon

Music-making is about acquiring a specific, local set of competencies. Within the community of choral music, these competencies come together in the act of forming and altering ensemble sound; that is, giving musical meaning to the physical sound. This aspect of choral music making is seldom explored, due in no small part to the difficulty involved in defining or explaining either the process or the resulting sounds in any universal way.

This difficulty does not stop choral music educators from teaching students to make music. Choral educators "know" when the choral ensemble sound is "good"; they can "hear" it. This is an acquired and necessary competency, and the choral director needs to help the novice members (the students) hear it. Students in the choir are, in effect, apprentices to the practice of singing and hearing; the expert is their teacher. In what is a profound dilemma, students are unable to hear what the director hears, and the director must show them how to hear it.

This is a particularly difficult problem with respect to ensemble sounds, as they are themselves situationally organized. Yet, ensemble sound is described and addressed by the director in rehearsal with a

fascinating degree of sophistication, with the participants actively making

meaning "in real time as the sound/time phenomena are occurring"

(Bamberger, 1994, p. 134). Moreover, the instruction given by the director

in rehearsal is accomplished through exchanges that can only indirectly

relate to the physical sound being created. The achievement of using

interaction to construct meaning central to music making has been referred to above as "talking within music." This study attempts to explore some of the ways in which talking within music occurs.

Area of Inquiry

This study focuses of the connections among interaction, instruction and the resulting ensemble sounds as a high school chorus prepares for a competitive performance. The ethnographic task is to explore the pedagogy of the rehearsal. More specifically, how is rehearsal interaction, choral instruction and ensemble sound organized in this choral ensemble while it prepares for its contest performance?

Definitions

"Interaction" is operationally defined in this study as any verbal exchange among Mr. Jacobsen and other individual students or student cohorts. "Instruction" is seen as any turn of talk in which the purpose is

to give directions regarding the creation or refinement of ensemble sound.

Defined as such, moments of instruction can (and often do) occur within

moments of interaction.

"Stopped instruction" is defined for this study as instruction that

occurs between musical attempts by students; the music making is

"stopped" in order to give instruction. This is contrasted with "real-time

instruction," which is operationally defined as instruction given while

students are in the midst of a musical attempt.

"Ensemble sound" is operationally defined in this study as any

musical sound made together by an entire ensemble or a part of an

ensemble, within rehearsal or performance. "Choral ensemble sound" is

operationally defined as any musical sound made together by an entire

choral ensemble or a part of a choral ensemble, within rehearsal or

performance.

Musical sounds made together by the ensemble are, of course, a

central feature in choral music making. What characterizes any particular sound as musical is a matter for the participants in the study to determine,

through their actions within the classroom context.

10 Assumptions and Limitations

For the purposes of this study, classroom interaction is considered primarily as a verbal phenomenon. This is not to suggest that classroom interaction is strictly a verbal phenomenon; research has found that visual and other nonverbal phenomena play an important part in the interaction of teacher and students within a classroom (Cuba & Lincoln,

1981; Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995; Patton, 1990), as well as in social settings in general (Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 1966). Verbal interchange is the predominant feature of a classroom, however, and a primary method with which teachers and students convey meaning to each other. Therefore, focusing on verbal interaction allows for the exploration of a vital, and common, method of producing meaning.

As the study is of a certain type of ensemble—an advanced, high school, mixed gender concert choir which focuses on Western art music— any observations will be more applicable to similar ensembles than those that differ radically. Finally, based on literature reviewed (McNeill, 1985;

Mehan, 1979; Weeks, 1983), it is assumed that the students' interactions and musical offerings are evident displays of their understanding of both the musical and social environments in which they are participating.

II CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter is a review of literature related to classroom interaction and choral instruction. Classroom interaction and choral instruction share an important common theme pertinent to this study:

The issue of temporality, or how the organization of both meaning-in- interaction and choral music production rely upon temporal organizations of sounded durations.

Classroom Interaction

For participants, social interaction seems to be uncomplicated; participants appear simply to be "doing it." Interaction and language use seem simple only as they are occurring, however. Analytically, social interaction is extraordinarily complex and sophisticated:

12 The forms of verbal and nonverbal behavior human beings can produce interactionally are myriad; the permutations and combinations of those forms are infinite. Yet, only certain of these behavior forms, put together in a limited range of ways, result in a particular social occasion. (Bremme & Erickson, 1977, p.l53)

Language has a primary role in most social occasions; ordinary

language is a "central feature of members' ability to make sense of the actions they and others produce in relation to each other" (Watson, 1992, p. 259). Further, formal education is an institution in which language is incessant. Teaching is a conversational process. It is through language that teaching is organized. Therefore, it is through verbal interchange that classroom interaction is best studied; "to understand teaching we must look at talking" (Sharrock & Anderson, 1986, p. 171).

There is a considerable history of scholarly work in the area of interaction analysis. Flanders (1970) developed a system that divided both teacher and student discourse into a set of categories: Seven categories of possible interaction for the teacher, two for the students, and one category for silence. A different system was developed by Sinclair and Coulthard

(1975), which served, as did linguistic scales, to structure types of utterances. Sinclair and Coulthard categorized discourse into a series of levels and ranks; for example, within the level of discourse, ranks such as lesson, transaction, or exchange could be assigned to various kinds of talk.

13 Published literature reviews (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Lindsay, 1990)

give a more detailed account of the history leading up to these systems of

analysis.

Coding systems like Flanders' "seek to abstract communication by

ignoring most of its characteristics" (Flanders, 1970, p. 29). Such systems

have been criticized as "dealing with only small discourse units and never developing beyond a two-part stimulus-response paradigm" (Lindsay,

1990, p. 109). Heap (1982) believed that interaction analysis systems "have flawed assumptions, unduly constrain what we can discover and produce a distorted data base for analysis" (p. 391). Flanders' system, in particular, has been argued to be an ineffective research device (Langer, 1972), and has been accused of being "limited by its inherent conception of talk" (Walker

& Adelman, 1975):

It does not concern itself with talk as the expression and negotiation of meanings; as the medium through which people see themselves as others see them. There is no attempt to account for, or to explore the alternative perspectives available to teachers or students—to take their realities as an essential element of the situation, (p. 75)

Walker and Adelman (1975) concluded their critique of Flanders' system by suggesting that there is a demand for "viewing talk within its context; for substituting a more complex reality for the 'verbal behavioK studied by interaction analysis" (p. 76).

This "more complex reality" requires, by its nature, a close relationship with the situated context that Flanders sought to avoid; it is

14 necessary to study "the processes of organization by which contexts change for moment to moment" (Erickson & Schultz, 1981, p. 158). Critical verbal interactions are indexed to the changing contexts; in other words, the sense of utterances and exchanges are tied to the circumstances of their production.

A central theme of ethnomethodology is indexicality, where all conversations refer to local details, creating unique meanings in each setting; the question "Can you sing it like this!" can have as many meanings as those to which "this" can refer. Ethnomethodologists would argue that language comprises a wide array of social practices and social actions, and that analytically, the problem is to inspect the production and organization of these activities as each specific occasion is put together, instead of searching for abstract generalizations (Sharrock & Anderson,

1986; Heap, 1990; Watson, 1992). As Macbeth (1994a) noted, "insofar as instruction is built of the ordered properties of talk, we recover the construction of common understandings in indexical worlds as actual, serious, and technical achievements of teachers and students" (p. 332).

The "irreducible indexicality" (p. 322) of instruction does not mean, however, that there is no way to frame analytically the verbal interaction that occurs. Though Mehan (1979, 1982) developed a system that in some ways is similar to that of Sinclair and Coulthard, his discussions of the

15 three-part instructional sequence (initiation-reply-evaluation) were part of a pivotal move toward an analysis of the sequential organization of classroom interaction.

Through sequential verbal discourse in the classroom, participants orient themselves to what is happening as events unfold. For the researcher, "by looking inside the organization of the talk, it is possible to find and describe classroom members' resources for producing classroom knowledge, classroom relations and classroom order" (Baker, 1992, pp. 13-

14). Heap found clues to instructional success in sequential organization, arguing that "the success of instruction depends on the organization of sequential interactions and the competent use of interactional formats (e.g. question-answer-comment sequences) by both teachers and students"

(1992, p. 26).

Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson founded conversational analysis (CA); their studies (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974; Schegloff, Jefferson &

Sacks, 1977) formed the foundation of the field. The central tenant of conversational analysis is that conversation occurs sequentially and is organized in turns. This turn-taking organization is both context-free and yet also is context-sensitive:

Turn-taking seems a basic form of organization for conversation—'basic', in that it would be invariant to parties, such that whatever variations the parties brought to bear in the conversation would be accommodated without change in the system, and such that it could be selectively and locally affected by social aspects of context. (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974, p. 700)

16 The tum-taking system is thus "locally managed"; that is, "it operates on a turn-by-tum basis, organizing just the transition from current speaker to next" (1983, p. 300). In other words, interactional coherence is constructed across turns as they develop by the collaboration of the participants in that conversation.

McHoul (1978) argued that although issues of tum-taking are present and analyzable in the classroom, the local management of the tum-taking system is primarily left up to the teacher; "only teachers can direct speakership in any creative way" (p. 188). This is so because of the formal nature of the classroom talk structure, where one participant (the teacher) has maximized speaking rights, while another participant (the student) has minimized speaking rights. The formal structure of talk in the classroom, with its inherently unbalanced speaking rights, strongly influences the ways in which turns of talk progress.

McHoul's conclusion is supported by Mehan (1979), who found that the basic instructional sequence in the classroom is composed of individual nomination, invitations to bid, or invitations to reply, all of these being instigated by the teacher. Mehan found in his study "the overwhelming presence of sequences In which the teacher selects next speakers" (p. 193) as a distinguishing feature of classroom conversation.

Classroom studies informed with conventions of conversational analysis and ethnomethodology have also looked at the interactional

17 production of classroom order and management, (Macbeth, 1994b; Payne &

Hustler, 1980), as well as the awareness by students of appropriate or permissible actions (Heap, 1992). Additionally, studies have focused on instruction within academic disciplines, such as reading (Heap, 1990), science (Atkinson & Delamont, 1977), and mathematics (Cobb, Yackel, &

Wood, 1992); studies within music have focused on orchestra rehearsals

(Weeks, 1990, 1996) and improvising at the piano (Sudnow, 1978).

Critiques of conversational analysis and ethnomethodology include concerns regarding the variety of meanings possible from a collection of utterances, and the lack of analysis given to a speaker's intent, instead of what the speaker actually said (Olson, 1983). Also criticized is a suggested lack of generalizability in ethnomethodological studies, and therefore a prevention of broad or general understandings of teaching from the analysis (Munby, 1983).

Proponents counter that their findings are regular and recurrent, and that the organization of conversation is central for understanding a world where meaning is constructed in interaction. Further, since the intent of a speaker is not available for inspection, it is more reasonable to work with what is available and apparent to both researchers and participants: their public verbal interaction. An analysis of intent made visible is more useful than asking the participant for his intent.

18 Regarding issues of generalizability, one is reminded that Sacks,

Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) felt that conversational analysis offered a simplest systematics for how people produce verbal interaction, as well as how they orient themselves within interaction. Levinson agreed, arguing that local management systems such as tum-taking, the organization of talk in adjacent pairs, and systems which repair problems in conversation

"have a universal basis" (1983, p. 369).

Heyman (1983) noted that such generalizability also has its own restrictions:

We can say that when people do conversation, they do it using these structures of talk. However, from this structural observation we are unable to make any predictions as to what will be said in the conversation, or to make any other predictions about those features which are tied to the context of the interaction. (1983, p. 431)

The sensitivity of the interactional context provides each setting with unique characteristics. Rather than "directing the attention of researchers to the organization of classrooms only insofar as they resemble one another" (Sharrock & Anderson, 1986, p. 173), conversational analysis and ethnomethodology focus on the interactional production of each setting and occasion.

In the setting of a music classroom, as in many other settings, classroom interaction is an important part of the organization and developing meaning of the setting. As Lynch (1985) noted in a review of studies of work, "conversation is ubiquitous wherever persons in society

19 perform concerted actions in each others' verbal presence. Because of this

fact, studies of conversational structures offer a general relevance to

varieties of specific work situations" (p. 9), including choral ensemble

rehearsals.

Choral Instruction

The production of a musical classroom setting is similar to that of

other classrooms, in that meaning is built collaboratively within

interaction and instruction by the participants. Musical settings differ

from many other settings, however, because members' interpretations of

interactive events are enmeshed with members' interpretations of

musical events, events that are described or pointed out through

instruction.

For participants in a music rehearsal, the continuous work of

interpreting interactional episodes transpires together with the continuous work of interpreting musical episodes. And, although verbal

interaction and musical interaction are not identical, there is a strong connection of the two in a musical setting. Weeks (1983) stated:

We have noted the detailed ways in which the conductor's articulations of his/her interpretations of the text themselves in turn require specific interpretive practices on the part of the musicians. In turn, these musical embodiments are the subject of much of the conductor's corrective work. (p. 300)

20 Within the setting of a choral rehearsal, participants create meaning both as they speak and as they sing. It is therefore important to consider the interplay of music and language in choral instruction, as well as the sounds that occur as a result of choral instruction.

Music and language.

A choral rehearsal is an event that is carefully structured by the instructor. In a series of observations of junior and high school choirs deemed "exemplary" by the researcher, Fiocca (1986) found that exemplary teachers begin rehearsals with warm-ups, thoroughly prepare for class, and project a serious but positive image while talking to the choir. In a study similar in design to the Fiocca study, Rhoads (1990) found that choral directors felt that achievement of musical goals was not possible unless favorable rehearsal conditions were maintained.

Cox, noting that "without exception, successful directors use a rehearsal organizational structure" (1989, p. 215), argued that choral directors all structured their rehearsal into segments of instruction, segments that are in some ways similar to what Mehan (1982) describes as

"phases." However, that is not to say that all choral directors use the same structure; Cox (1989) pointed out that although many directors favored a specific rehearsal structure, many other directors structured rehearsal in different ways.

21 The structure of verbal interaction in the classroom has not been

ignored by music educators. Erbes (1972) designed a categorical scheme to

identify interactions, after deciding that the system designed by Flanders

(1970) was not relevant for the music classroom; Erbes^ system allowed for

such music-specific episodes as those in which the director spoke to the students as they were performing. Other research has noted sequential

patterns of instruction in music (Yarbrough & Price, 1989; Price, 1992) which consist of "task presentation, student response, and reinforcement"

(Yarbrough & Price, 1989, p. 84). This sequential look at the structure of instruction in the music classroom has strong similarities to Mehan's

(1979,1982) work.

At a different level, structure plays an important role in the similarity between music and language. As Sloboda (1985) and Aiello

(1994) pointed out, Chomsky's views of language and Schenker's views of music are striking in their similarities. The most fundamental of these similarities is a differentiation by the theorists between surface and deep structure in a sequence. Both Chomsky and Schenker felt that, within their respective fields, surface structure (the form taken by a sequence as it is uttered) is representative of a deep structure (the meaning that is intended by the sequence); the idea of a deep structure in musical melody has been theorized by Narmour (1992), as well. Both a sentence fragment and a melodic fragment could be formed in a number of different ways—

on "Jane went to the store" and "Jane has gone to the store" are verbal examples—and yet those differently formed surface structures could represent a similar deep structure.

Meyer (1996) has taken issue with such structures in music, saying that "what is profound about the experience of a listener is not the 'deep structure' of a piece of music, but the power of the rich interaction of sound and silence to engage our minds and bodies, to give rise to feelings and to evoke associations" (p. 462). Rosner (1984), in agreement with

Meyer, suggested that listeners do not perceive of music as a static hierarchical object, since listening "necessarily occurs across time" (p. 290).

The argument is analogous to that concerning the categorizing of interaction (Flanders, 1970) vs. the sequential analysis of interaction

(Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974).

Sloboda suggested that there are several other parallels between language and music. Both language and music are capable of generating a number of novel sequences, both use the auditory environment as a natural medium, and both have universal features, although form may differ across context and culture. Both language and music can be learned by children through exposure to examples, and in both cases, receptive skills precede productive skills in development (Sloboda, 1985). Gordon

(1989) theorized about the similarities between language learning and musical learning, and developed a music learning theory that mirrors the

23 way language is learned. Suzuki believed that children are "brought up by a perfect educational method: their mother tongue" (Suzuki, 1983, p. 3), and that this method of language learning could be applied to musical instruction. Again, some do not see music and language as being perfect companions. Schütz (1976), noted that terms such as meaning, context, understanding and interpretation, when applied to music, "are used in a specific way which is different from other meaningful systems such as languages" (p. 23). But Schütz also notes that "there is, nevertheless, an analogue in music to the syntax of language" (p. 24).

Language is used to teach music, as well as being analogous to it; verbal behavior is a central part of a choir rehearsal, and with it teachers have power to affect the values, self-perceptions and peer-perceptions of their students (Morgan, 1992; Watkins, 1986). Directors often spend as much time speaking as they do having the ensemble sing, and use their verbal behavior largely to attend to technical and aesthetic details of the music at hand, either through description or modeling. Giving direction accounts for a vast majority of verbal behaviors from choral directors

(Caldwell, 1980; Tyson, 1988).

The use of language in musical instruction can be confusing, however. Often, the meanings of musical terms used by expert musicians

24 vary, depending on musical and cultural contexts (Flowers, 1983; Flowers,

1984; Umemoto, 1990). Some musical language is more easily understood by older musicians than by younger ones (Hair, 1981).

The interplay between language and music is indeed complex. To a choral conductor leading a rehearsal, however, this interplay is only a means to an end. As Moore (1996) suggested after interviewing professional choral conductors, the most important part of a rehearsal is the communication of the conductor's musical ideas in creating a choral ensemble sound, rather than the way in which those ideas are communicated.

Issues of sound.

Given that an ensemble rehearsal is centered on the production of sound, as well as the importance of sound in creating both style and emotion (Eisenhower, 1991; Murray & Arnott, 1993), the confusion and vagueness surrounding sound is puzzling. For example, Murray and

Amott described various vocal sounds using such indirect terms as

"blazing," "resonant," "blaring," "creaky," and "breathy" (p. 1103-1105).

Not only is it difficult to put a verbal label on musical sounds, it is not clear that even expert members of the musical community agree on what comprises a "good" musical sound. Fiocca noted that the pedagogical concept of a particular tone "is not universally shared by all directors"

25 (1986, p. 80). Madsen, Geringer and Heller (1993/1994) found that, when asked to alter a "good" tone quality to become a "bad" tone quality, expert musicians did so by altering acoustic parameters in entirely different ways.

Spectrographic analyses found no similarities among methods used by the expert musicians involved.

M adsen and Geringer (1981) suggested that when trained musicians were confronted with a musical performance which they heard as either containing poor intonation or poor tone quality, they were generally unable to determine which musical aspect was problematic, even though they knew that a problem existed. Further, research by Madsen and

Geringer (1981) suggested that neither musically-trained nor untrained listeners could identify a performer's best or worst tone qualities within a musical context. This lack of ability to identify differing tone qualities is important, considering that, according to spectrographic analysis, the differences between the "best" and "worst" tone qualities (as determined by a panel of expert musicians) in the study were extreme.

In both studies, an important connection is the lack of corroboration between sound analysis via acoustic measurement and sound analysis via the perception of the listeners. A similar lack of corroboration was found by Figgs (1978) in an analysis of trumpet tone quality. Figgs concluded that

26 experts could consistently choose a favored tone, but that nothing could be perceived in a spectral analysis as a reason for subjective like or dislike of the sound.

The temporal nature of musical sound is an important factor in the perception of listeners. Smoot determined that "it is apparent from the literature dealing with timbre that individual tones, produced by acoustical instruments, are in no way stable entities"(1986, p. 16). Erickson

(1975) noted that sounds "exist in time, have a shape in time, exhibit changes during their time course, and still retain their identity" (p. 58).

Balzano concurred:

The fact is that the spectrum of an instrument sound—even the time-varying spectrum—is not invariant over either the intensity or frequency range of an instrument, and the extent and nature of variation itself varies from instrument to instrument. (1986, p. 308)

Again, the way sound is considered acoustically and the way it is considered by musicians as they involve themselves in it differ. To the performer, the music's sonic complexity is not of great concern; the musician performs in a way that is natural and adequate to him or her.

"On the other hand," noted Gabrielsson:

It is definitely unnatural and difficult, even impossible, for a performer to play in a way that the resulting sound sequences would be 'simple'—for instance, to play with constant amplitude, no frequency deviations, absolutely constant tempo, or exact ratio between durations. (1985, p. 82)

27 Gabrielsson suggested that this kind of relationship between performance simplicity and sonic complexity indicates that "a traditional description in terms of frequencies, amplitudes, etc. for the single sounds in musical sound sequences is not quite adequate" (1985, p. 82).

Spectrographic analyses do not mean much, after all, to musicians.

Such an analysis by itself assumes that musical sound exists independent of the actions of those surrounding it, an assumption Sera fine is not willing to make:

A conception of the artwork as a clearly specified object external to the human knower is untenable. Further, the artwork must be defined in terms of the human processes that give rise to it, from both the productive and receptive points of view. (1988, p. 67)

Weeks suggests:

The underlying question as to whether we are able to retrieve members' practices from a close description of the musical sounds as final product presupposes an analytical distinction between what might be roughly called 'surface features' (such as the sonic sequence, the recording, or the transcribed text) and the in situ embodied moment by moment processes and practices which give rise to them. (1996, p. 216)

Serafine added that "however necessary sound is as the carrier of music, it is by itself an insufficient definition of the artform" (1988, p. 69). While a sound has an attack transient, spectral envelope, and decay—all "surface features" which have meaning to an acoustician—it may be the "moment by moment processes and practices" (Weeks, 1996, p. 216) of the sound within the rehearsal context that are essential to the director.

28 A Common Theme: Temporality

A central feature of meaning developed through interaction is its temporal organization. An analysis of actions and interactions has an unavoidably temporal component; temporality may be the pervasive component of classroom interaction, and of everyday classroom life

(Mehan, 1982). As Heap (1982) notes, "sequential placement is always and everywhere consequential for the achievement and identification of event functions" (p. 401).

An example of the consequences of sequential placement can be found in the analysis of a teacher's snub of a student (Heap, 1992). In this case, multiple turns had to be examined in order to determine "whether the person who is being ignored had been furnished earlier with any right to speak" (p. 28). In and of itself, "right to speak" is not necessarily a temporal matter. But in Heap's case study, right to speak became a temporal matter as the classroom interaction progressed. The denial of a student's right to speak one time allowed for a number of meanings by the class participants. As multiple turns passed, the denial of the student's speaking rights evolved further; the number of possible interpretations by the participants decreased. Eventually, it was to be heard (or, rather, not heard) that the student was being snubbed by the teacher.

To the researcher, this kind of after-the-fact analysis was possible, but to the participants in the classroom, the overall coherence of the

2 9 interaction was not available for viewing. For them, the turns developed collaboratively, based both on what has come before and on the students' projections of what was to come. In this specific case, for the participants, the teacher's snub became apparent only as the class progressed. In general, meaning becomes apparent through conversational structures such as adjacency of turns of talk and the repair of talk, through which sequences of talk are created. All of these structures are temporal in nature.

Moerman and Sacks (1988) argued that aspects of tum-taking, such as speaker transition without gap or overlap, are "achieved always then and there" (p. 183); "participants therefore are never relieved from current and future listening and analysis for the utterance completeness they must locate for that transition" (p. 184). The understandings required of conversational sequencing are done locally, continually and temporally.

The acknowledgment of the temporal nature of classroom interaction is found throughout the literature. Heap noted the importance of temporality in his critique of coded interactional analysis;

"sequential placement is always and everywhere consequential for the achievement and identification of event functions" (1982, p. 401). Green and Wallat (1981) argued that "in a conversation, a message can be defined only after it has occurred" (p. 164). Meaning is unavoidably tied to this temporal component.

30 Ideas of temporality can be found in the musical literature, as well.

Sloboda suggested that "musical skill is acquired through interaction with

a musical environment" (1985, p. 194). Serafine stated that "the

temporality of music is its defining feature, and the role of specific pitch, duration, loudness, and timbrai characteristics of sound events is of only secondary importance" (1988, p. 69), in agreement with Weeks (1990) who

noted that "with an extraordinary degree of fine timing, musical activities continuously change the temporal context for their prospective successors" (p. 353). M eyer (1996) argued that temporality supersedes hierarchical structures, such as those advocated by Narmour (1992).

Gabrielsson noted that while a musician is performing, "he also listens to the sounds he is producing to check that they corresponds to his intentions—a feedback similar to that we use to check our own speech"

(1985, p. 59).

The use of feedback in corresponding musical sound as it occurs with a musician's intentions is similar to the way conversation is repaired by its participants. Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks (1977) suggested in research on conversational repair:

The organization of repair is the self-righting mechanism for the organization of language use in social interaction. If language is composed of systems of rules which are integrated, then it will have sources of trouble related to the modes of their integration. And if it has intrinsic sources of trouble, then it will have a mechanism for dealing with them intrinsically, (p. 381)

31 It may be, using the above statement as a guide, that if music is composed

of systems of rules which are integrated, then it will have sources of

trouble related to the modes of their integration. A musician would then

use feedback occurring as the music unfolds—what Weeks (1996) calls "in-

course listening" (p. 216), and many musicians call "thinking on the fly"—

as a mechanism for dealing with the trouble sources intrinsically.

Drawing a similarity between musical and verbal repair is even

more tempting when one considers the similarities between the unfolding

of a conversation and that of a musical event. Conversation is built upon

adjacent turns of talk, which are experienced as they occur. When an

utterance has just occurred, the next utterance will be shaped by what has just been said, as well as on the speaker's projection of what might come

next. Like a conversation, an individual experiences music as it unfolds;

the moment just heard is gone, giving context to the moment about to come, still hidden away. Yet, both in music and conversation, participants anticipate what is to come based on both what has just occurred and on other previous experience. Butler (1992) suggested that

"we compare ongoing musical events with our memories of what we have already heard in the piece, making connections with earlier listening experience and making tacit predictions about what we will hear" (p. 146).

A performer must "not only interpret his own part which as such remains

32 necessarily fragmentary, but he has also to anticipate the other player's interpretation of his, and, even more the other's anticipations of his own execution" (Schütz, 1964, p. 176).

Performers are able to adjust musically as a performance evolves; musical changes within a performance are accomplished "through the in-course listening of the musicians themselves" (Weeks, 1996, p. 216).

This is often (and artfully) done in such a way that listeners have no idea that the music and its meaning have been altered within the performance.

This is striking in its similarity to methods used for repair of conversation

(Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977), where participants in talk adjust the conversation through the in-course listening of the speakers themselves.

In both musical performance and conversation, these adjustments are a part of the ongoing production of the coherence of the event, and not a pause from the activity at hand.

The reaction of listeners is as central to a musical experience as the action of performers, for music is "both a product of human expressive behavior and an object of human receptive behavior" (Umemoto, 1990, p.

116). The temporal quality of musical performance obviously applies to listeners as well, as does their own social context and level of musical and educational experience (Gabrielsson, 1985). Listening to music, according to Aiello (1994), "is like looking into a prism: to appreciate its light, we view it from different angles since we may only observe the prism's light

33 one way at a time" (p. 56). "As long as a piece of music lasts," stated

Schütz, "and as long as we are listening, we participate in its flux; we swim, so to speak, in this stream " (1976, p. 31). Both listeners and performers are aware of the uniqueness, and developing coherence, of each individual musical event.

Performers are able to communicate their interpretations of the developing coherence of a musical event to each other, even during musical performances where no verbal interaction occurs. In a study of a chamber ensemble. Weeks (1996) found instances where synchrony was collectively restored in performance after a mistake was made, requiring an ability by the performers to communicate via the results of musical decisions made both collectively and by others. The communication

Weeks described allowed the performers to collaboratively "hide" any errors made, in essence "re-creating" the music being performed:

In these cases, the restoration of synchrony and the routine performance of the piece thereafter are accomplished successfully in the sense that those listening to the tape of it generally fail to notice any problem. (Weeks, 1996, p. 200)

Weeks argued that interaction within a music rehearsal is both heavily indexical and temporal; "corrections are always to indexical particulars, that is, only to sounded-notes and other musical features inappropriate at-that-point-in-the-text, this 'local production' and none other" (1983, p. 300). A study exploring a musical context m ust consider the constant motion of these temporal qualities.

34 This ethnographic study of a choral rehearsal describes how students and their teacher interacted while ensemble sounds were produced, as well as how instruction occurred through interaction and sound. As the above research suggests, the moment-by-moment nature of meaning's collaborative achievement—musically and interactionally- plays an important role in the exploration of this study's primary issues.

35 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

As already noted, this study focuses of the connections among interaction, instruction and the resulting ensemble sounds as the symphonic choir prepared for a competitive performance. The ethnographic task was to explore the pedagogy of the choir's preparations.

More specifically, how was rehearsal interaction, choral instruction and ensemble sound organized in this choral ensemble as it prepared for its contest performance?

Procedure

The following section describes the strategies developed for observation and the methods of data collection used.

36 Development of strategies.

The principle strategy used in this study was an interactional

analysis of choral instruction. This analysis was built on my observations

of twenty 50-minute rehearsals of the symphonic choir, as well as upon

the framework provided by conversational analysis and

ethnomethodology. The choral instruction, verbal interactions and

resulting ensemble sounds of the members of the high school symphonic

choir were audio- and video-recorded. In this way, both the ensemble

sounds within rehearsal and the instructions that shape them could be

studied.

Another strategy used for this study was that of interviewing Mr.

Jacobsen, the director, as well as ten students. Such interviews allowed the

subjects to reflect on and give their perspective on their talk within music,

both in the context of class and outside of it.

Lincoln and Cuba (1985) have noted that, in using such strategies as

those just mentioned, a researcher should adhere to two "prime

directives" (p. 5): "First, no manipulation on the part of the inquirer is

implied, and second, the inquirer imposes no a priori units on the

outcome" (p. 8). In the reality of field-work, both hurdles were difficult to avoid. While, as the inquirer, I did not intentionally manipulate the setting, as an involved party—either in a classroom observation or in an interview—I could not help but shape the setting in ways that may not

37 have occurred were I not there. Further, any judgments I made regarding

the materials chosen for detailed analysis were, in some way, an

imposition on the outcome of the study. Therefore, the two tenets served

primarily as reminders that the class would be allowed to evolve as it was observed, free of any intentional manipulation.

Data collection.

Figure 3.1 is a diagram of the classroom as it was arranged during a six-day period in the Fail of 1996 when the class was informally observed.

These observations allowed me to get an overall sense of the format of the classroom activities, as well as to enable both Mr. Jacobsen and the students to adapt to my presence.

Using both videotape and Digital Audio Tape (DAT) recording, I recorded twenty rehearsals of the symphonic choir, with observations occurring either two or three times each week over a period of eight weeks. Observations began in mid-January, ending in mid-March. The exact observation schedule is detailed in Table 3.1.

38 ionic Choir Members

Piano

Mr. Jacobsen' DAT

Video

Figure 3.1: Layout of classroom arrangement, videocamera and DAT recorder positioning

39 Observation Date Observation Date

1 1/14 11 2/13

2 1/14 12 2/14

3 1/23 13 2/15

4 1/24 14 2/18

5 1/27 15 2/20

6 1/28 16 3/3

7 1/30 17 3/5

8 2/4 18 3/10

9 2/7 19 3/11

10 2/11 20 3/13

Table 3.1: Dates of field observations

4 0 The determination of this schedule was influenced by a number of circumstances, the most important of which was the contest performance scheduled for the middle of March. Additionally, the consistency of observations of the symphonic choir was affected by occasional interruptions in the school schedule (such as government holidays), from within the school day (such as assemblies and state-mandated testing), and from other events beyond my control (such as illness of the director). As of January, the ensemble had been together for over four months, and the ensemble had settled into a stable daily format, both as musicians and as participants in the social organization of the ensemble.

The videocamera and microphone placement in the classroom is also shown in Figure 3.1. The audio recordings of the ensemble rehearsals were made with a Sony TCD-D7 Digital Audio Tape Recorder and a

Sennheiser MD 735 Microphone. A Sony CCD-TR44 videocamera was also used in order to corroborate the classroom discourse recorded by the audio recorder set-up, as well as to allow for a visual record of what occurred in class.

Mr. Jacobsen was interviewed five times, with the questions based on events which unfolded in the rehearsals. 1 also chose ten students from the ensemble randomly and interviewed each of them individually.

After the students had all been interviewed, I conducted a follow-up interview in order to allow the students to elaborate or change their

41 Name Age Voice Status

Betty 16 Alto Junior

Bob 17 Bass Senior

Bobbie 17 Soprano Senior

Erica 16 Alto Junior

James 16 Tenor Junior

Jeff 16 Bass Junior

Jill 18 Alto Senior

Lynne 17 Soprano Junior

Miles 16 T enor Junior

N atalie 17 Soprano Senior

Table 3.2: Marnes, ages, voice parts and class status of interviewees.

42 responses to issues brought to light in the first interview. Table 3.2 shows the names of the students (which have been changed in the interests of the students' confidentiality), as well as their ages, voice parts and their student status.

Data Analysis

As in other types of research, the analysis of data is crucial, since

"the descriptive data generated by the study becomes the ultimate source of new interpretation" (Krueger, 1987, p. 73). In order to separate data that would serve as the "source of new interpretation," those moments of rehearsal that concerned the refining or creating of ensemble sound were collected and separated into groupings of similar materials: Student- teacher interactions, modeling by Mr. Jacobsen, instruction while the ensemble was singing, etc; I was aided in this organization by Scribe software, designed by Dr. Robert Duke at The University of Texas-Austin.

Scribe helped to organize and catalogue the moments of rehearsal in which 1 was interested.

Within those similar groupings, moments of rehearsal were again filtered into more similar collections. These segments of rehearsal were then analyzed using a combination of the following three methods:

Rehearsal observations, spectral analyses, and interview materials.

43 Rehearsal observations.

I viewed the rehearsal videotapes repeatedly, and collected every

segment of rehearsal where ensemble sound was created and refined

through verbal interaction and instruction. From those collected

segments, I then organized examples of the pedagogy of the preparation of

the choral ensemble into collections, with issues of interaction, instruction

and ensemble sound all considered in regard to each other.

Segments of rehearsal chosen for detailed analysis were transcribed

in the style developed by Schegloff, Sacks and Jefferson (1974). These

segments were then examined both ethnographically, based on my

observations, and for their sequential organization, using strategies

formulated by Sacks and others (McHoul, 1978; Mehan, 1982; Sacks, et al.,

1974). An explanation of transcript markings can be found in Appendix

A. The segments are built on a number of musical pieces, and to a much

lesser extent on warm-up exercises and sight-reading exercises. The titles of the pieces at the core of the rehearsals can be found in Appendix B.

The musical results of the interaction in the classroom were considered as part of the rehearsal transcripts, as well. These musical results are sometimes shown in standard musical notation (such as that of given piano pitches and students sung pitches in a certain part of the music, for example) where appropriate; this type of transcription has been used successfully in other musical interaction research (Weeks, 1990). The

44 purpose of this was to show both the verbal and musical efforts of the

participants in rehearsal as they occur, enmeshed in each other. Just as

Lynch (1985) discovered, in his analysis of laboratory shop talk, that

"'social' conduct and 'scientific' conduct do not neatly discriminate

themselves in the setting of their production" (p. 25), so too are social and

musical efforts seldom cleanly distinct from one another.

Interestingly, the same issues of talking within music that are the

focus of this study were also a stumbling block in any descriptions

attempted of the joint interactive-musical classroom rehearsal segments

that may occur. Much of what Is important may not be directly defined,

but only pointed at or described. It is hoped that, through both verbal

transcription and musical notation, an accurate picture of rehearsal interactions has been given that clearly describes the features of any particular interactional moment, including the manner in which interaction and instruction are used to create ensemble sounds.

Spectral analysis.

Literature suggests that sound viewed via acoustical analysis and sound viewed via the meaning created as it is built through interaction are often distinct from each other (Serafine, 1982; Weeks, 1996). As a

45 commentary on the interactions and the ensemble sounds that result, the

ensemble sounds from the analyzed segments chosen above were made

available for spectral analysis.

In order to accomplish such an analysis in the context of this study,

the DAT recordings of the observed rehearsals were digitally resampled,

and then analyzed spectrally using Labview software, manufactured by

National Instruments. This spectral analysis allowed for an observation of a sound's spectral envelope over a short (less than 2 seconds) period of time, and serves as a kind of acoustical transcript of the sounds sung during the observed rehearsals. The spectral transcriptions utilized in this study can be found in Appendix C. Such kinds of analysis tend to be poor companions to a rehearsal context, and only certain instances within a rehearsal segment can be expected to provide an appropriate setting (long held vowel sounds, for example).

Nonetheless, the spectral analyses has an important purpose, giving a different analytical perspective on certain observed rehearsals and how music is made in them by the members of the symphonic choir. They serve as tools for looking acoustically at both ensemble sounds and instructional interaction, such as modeling of sound by the director. If looked upon as alternative measures of what is "truthfully" going on in the classroom, such transcripts of sound could confuse the observational data, and obscure the sense of meaning which is determined by the

46 participants in the study. For my purposes, however, spectral analysis is simply another way of looking at what the members' ensemble sound does from time to time, in a way that musical notation or thick description cannot accommodate.

Like the verbal interactions of director and choir members, the sounds made are a public display of the participants' sense of understanding and meaning; Lynch (1985) noted that work, such as collectively created ensemble sounds, can be viewed "as a practical accomplishment of those persons in the organizational setting whose work involves the design of the documents" (p. 7). Spectral analysis provides a means with which to explore this accomplishment, and, in conjunction with the rehearsal interactions, gives the most possible detail about the sounds that the members of the symphonic choir created, as well as how those sounds were refined through interaction and instruction with Mr. Jacobsen.

Interview materials.

The interviews of both teacher and students were designed as opportunities for the subjects to explain and clarify segments of rehearsal afterwards. The interviews took place immediately before or during rehearsals; each lasted for 8-12 minutes. The design of the questions was dependent both on recent rehearsal events and on responses that other

47 students had given in previous interviews. Questions were open-ended,

focusing upon broad topics within the symphonic choir rehearsals, such as

the use of talking during the ensemble's singing by Mr. Jacobsen, the

importance of standing and sitting, etc. In each case, I attempted to ask a

question to more than one individual. The shape of the students'

responses, however, shaped any subsequent questions, to the point that

each interview was unique.

These interviews were viewed repeatedly, and dialogue that added

insight to the observed rehearsals was examined along with the rehearsal segments to which it refers. The interviews help to give some meaning to

the observed rehearsals from the perspective of the students. They were

learning to be musicians, and they used what was said in class to help create the choral ensemble sounds that were the topic of instruction in this choir. The students' perspective is just as integral to the developing rehearsal picture as any of the other materials, particularly in regards to the instruction of ensemble sound by the choral director, and how it is that such instruction is understood and learned.

In order to most fully describe the pedagogy of the preparations of

Mr. Jacobsen and the members of the symphonic choir as they prepare for the March contest performance, rehearsal observations, spectral analyses and participant interviews all needed to be used. While rehearsal observations are the primary means with which to understand the use of

48 instruction and interaction, the use of spectral analysis is a useful means with which to view the ensemble sounds which were the results of the instruction and interaction. Neither observations nor spectral analysis are sure to offer the participants' perspective, however. Clues to the participants' sense of meaning may be found in interviews. It is through the combining of the rehearsal interactions, spectral analyses, and interviews that a holistic description can be made of the organization of interaction, instruction and ensemble sound in the symphonic choir as its members prepared for the March contest performance.

Establishment of Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness is of central importance in a qualitative study;

Lincoln and Cuba (1985) noted that a trustworthy study effectively resolves the issue of whether the findings are worth taking into account. In order to establish trustworthiness in this study, 1 have addressed concerns regarding credibility, transferability and dependability, in a way roughly similar to that in which a quantitative study would address concerns of internal validity, external validity and reliability.

A number of strategies in the study's design enhance its credibility.

First, by observing the ensemble periodically over a lengthy period of time, and by observing the ensemble for a brief period prior to the beginning of

49 the study, I became a more regular part of the classroom. This served to minimize the students' sensitivity to my presence, as well as to give me a better understanding of the class routine.

A more central method of enhancing credibility was the use of triangulation, which has been identified as an important means of establishing trustworthiness by proponents of qualitative inquiry (Cuba &

Lincoln, 1981; Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995; Patton, 1990). By employing different data collection techniques to investigate the same phenomena— in this case, my observations of classroom activity and interviews of the teacher and students—the resulting information served to reduce the uncertainty of its interpretation.

Last, by taking observed data and interpretations to the sources from which they were drawn and discussing their accuracy, I allowed for the possibility of misrepresenting those sources. This technique is also known as "member checking" (Cuba & Lincoln, 1981) or "respondent validation"

(Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995).

Regarding the transferability of this study, I have supplied an extended base of information which should allow those interested to make transferability judgments relative to their interests. It is in a "more intuitive" sense that this study can also be argued to be generalizable,

"based on personal direct and vicarious experience"; what Lincoln and

Cuba have called "naturalistic generalization" (1985, p. 120).

50 Finally, the use of triangulation, extended observation and member

checking also served to strengthen the study's dependability. In much the

same way that a quantitative study with internal validity simultaneously

enhances its reliability (Cuba & Lincoln, 1981), so too does the credibility of

this study enhance its dependability. Further, the participants in the study serve as their own "panel of experts"; after all, the director and his students are the experts within this specific setting. Their regular and

recurrent responses in specific situations show their understanding that an individual event is t/iis-kind-of-situation and not tiiaf-kind-of- situation. If an event really were f/iaf-kind-of-situation, an analysis of the observational data would show that the participants orient to the event in a different way, on a remarkably regular basis.

The practices used to build trustworthiness are not foolproof safeguards. Interviews, for example, are not simply question-and-answer sessions, devoid of the context of the meeting, as Mischler noted:

A question may more usefully be thought of as part of a circular process through which its meaning and that of its answer are created in the discourse between interviewer and respondent as they try to make continuing sense of what they are saying to each other. (1986, p. 53)

Others find cause for concern regarding member checking. It has been suggested that respondent validation is not merely a matter of juxtaposing the accounts of researcher and member, since "the two sets of accounts will normally differ too greatly in character to admit direct

51 comparison of their content" (Bloor, 1988, p. 157). Emerson and PoUner

(1988) argued that (1) researchers cannot take for granted that members will actually engage the materials, (2) researcher-member interaction is subject to the same indexical or situated features that characterize all communication, (3) the relational context of researcher to member may impact the nature of the members selected to respond, as well as the nature of their response, and (4) the interactional and organization contexts of the procedure may affect the nature of the members' responses.

Such concerns do not preclude the use of techniques to build trustworthiness. Instead, they serve as a reminder that there is no escaping the context of the local environment. As Deutscher wrote:

Overt action can be understood and interpreted only within the context of its meaning to the actors, just as verbal reports can be understood and interpreted only within the context of their meaning to the respondents. (1966, p. 243)

Emerson and Pollner (1988) agreed, noting that although validation "is hardly one in which a veil of micropolitical and interpretive processes is lifted and the researcher is finally given access to truth" (p. 195), member checking is still important, as "the ways in which the responses to a researcher's representation are constructed and expressed reveal a setting in new depth and dimension" (p. 190). Bloor (1988) suggested that the new material be examined, with the original data reexamined in light of the new material.

52 There is no way to avoid interpretations of events, even by asking the participants in those events; the participants' responses are still interpretations. The above techniques were used with the understanding that the interpretations in this study are made more credible, transferable, and dependable by their presence.

I noticed that a number of themes emerged after applying the methods described above to the observed rehearsals of Mr. Jacobsen and the symphonic choir. Chapter 4 explores ways in which Mr. Jacobsen initiates interaction with his students, as well as the circumstances under which his students initiate interaction. Mr. Jacobsen issues various kinds of instruction, in a variety of combinations; this is analyzed in Chapter 5. Mr. Jacobsen's use of instruction to index upcoming or previous experience is described in Chapter

6. In Chapters 7-8, I present a number of case studies, in order to analyze and give depth to the temporality and context of the interactions and instruction found in Chapters 4-6. Throughout the following chapters, choral ensemble sound is the focus of the students' work; spectral exploration of some of these sounds can be found in Chapters 4 and 8, with the primary spectral focus occurring in Chapter 5. Following the exposition of results and discussion in

Chapters 4-8, 1 summarize my findings in Chapter 9.

53 C H A P T E R 4

INTERACTION

The interactions relating to the creating and refining of choral

ensemble sound by the symphonic choir students and Mr. Jacobsen can be

placed into two broad collections teacher-initiated interactions (23 excerpts)

and student-initiated interactions (32 excerpts). The teacher-initiated

interactions show questions with a known answer, as well as a number of

questions that defy this type. The student-initiated interactions focus on

issues of music making: How a sound is created to Mr. Jacobsen's satisfaction,

what are the circumstances surrounding a sound's production, when does the collaborative effort of music making break down (and who is at fault).

Teacher-Initiated Interactions

It is no surprise that a large portion of the teacher-student interactions observed in the symphonic choir rehearsals involved questions initiated by the teacher. Nor was it surprising that many of those questions were asked

54 with the answer already known by the teacher. Whatwas surprising,

however, was the rich body of teacher-initiated questions which had no predetermined known answer.

Questions with the known answer.

In their studies of classroom talk, McHoul (1978) and Mehan (1979,

1982) noted the occurrence of questions initiated by the teacher to which the teacher already knew the answer. The evaluation component of the three turn sequence relies on the known answer, in that the evaluation shows the correctness or incorrectness of the student answer in light of the "already known" one. Many of the teacher-initiated interactions in the preparation of the symphonic choir confirm these studies, both in the presentation of the question with the known answer, and in the responses of the students.

EX. #1 1 J: Think about it ladies, which is more important, the vowel or the word up there? [ 2 Ss: The vowel.

3 J: The vowel. OK cause think about it, when you start getting up at (makes a high 4 screeching noise vaguely reminiscent of the soprano part; the students laugh). 5 Just give me a nice beautiful sound, and let the people (gestures at the other 6 voice parts) sing the words. Let them sing the words, you just keep the pitches 7 up there, nice and relaxed.

EX. #2 (to tenors, who have Just completed singing) 8 J: Yeah, you’re moving mainly in half steps (.) up and down, right? 9 St; Yeah

10 J: Markem. K?

55 EX. #3 11 J: Lookin’ at B. Here we go. We’re in unison. (2.0) Scan it through, real quick, 12 shh. don’t talk lust scan. Your syllables for yourself. When wc go into the 13 sight-reading room section leaders will be in charge of this, I will sit down and 14 ateolutely do nothing. So I’m hopin’ you know iL (3.5) Here we go. (plays 15 do mi sol on piano) Sing the first note so I know you’re on it, ready, and.

16 C: Do:::::

17 J: Do to sol right? 18 Ss: Fa:: = [ 19 Ss: Do to la:: =

20 J: = Thank you. One, two, ready, and.

EX. #4

21 J: You know the tune. Basses, what’re you starting on?

22 Sb: La

23 J: Two, ready, and.

EX. #5 24 J: Sopranos what can you help you on that upper register that you’re kind of 25 choking off those notes?

26 (1.0)

27 S: Breathing? 28 J: Breathing and raising your soft palate.

Each of the above excerpts is a different variation of a typical initiation- response-evaluation sequence. Each contains an initiation by the teacher

5 6 (lines 1, 8,17, 21 and 24-25), a response by a student or students (lines 2, 9,18-

19, 22 and 27), and an evaluation by the teacher (lines 3, 10, 20, 23 and 28).

The types of initiations are not the same, however, in that the

parameters of the possible responses are defined differently in each one. In

excerpt #1, the initiation is posed in such a way as to allow for only two

possible answers: the consonant or the vowel. Excerpt #2 is hardly an

initiation at all. Instead, Mr. Jacobsen points out the movement of pitches as

it is written in the score, and then adds "right?" (line 8). The initiation in

Excerpt # 3 is delivered in a way very similar to that of excerpt #2. The

difference lies in the fact that the information that is purported to be "right"

(line 17; "do to sol right"?) actually is wrong. As a professional musician

comfortable with solfege, Mr. Jacobsen surely knows this. Further, this

incorrect information is set up in a manner very similar to that of excerpt #2,

in which correct information was given. By setting up incorrect information

in a way that correct information is normally presented, the students could

easily give an incorrect answer if they are focusing on the way in which the

question is asked, rather than the content of the question. However, they do

not; without pause or gap, they correct Mr. Jacobsen.

Although excerpt #4 is asked in an open-ended way, the question asked

(line 21; "basses, what are you starting on?") requires an answer in solfege. As there are only a finite number of solfege syllables, there are only certain answers that the basses could give, assuming that the students were

57 competent in solfege use. Finally, the initiation in excerpt #5 really is open-

ended, allowing for a variety of responses, but also requiring adjustments to

incomplete or not-quite-correct responses (as occurs in line 28).

The initiation in excerpt #5 is the only of the above where there is a

pause before an answer is delivered. Each response to the above initiations in

excerpts #1-4 is given quickly, without a pause for thought or reflection. The

responses to these evaluations were delivered with equal precision. The

response to the initiation in excerpt #4 is evaluated simply by Mr. Jacobsen

counting off the beginning of the next section to be sung. In other words,

after an apparently satisfactory answer, the evaluation is the continuation of

the rehearsal.

Other examples of teacher-initiated questions with the known answer

show the same structure, with other subtle nuances.

EX. #6 1 J: Yeah, and how many times does that entrance come in? 2 (1.5)

3 J: How many times? How many times we comin in? (.) Four. We need those 4 marked.

Excerpt #6 bears much in common with excerpts #1-5. Where a student response would be forthcoming, however (line 2), instead there is a

1.5 second pause. The initiation is given again in line 3, with the briefest of

58 opportunities for a student to respond. No answer is forthcoming, and Mr.

Jacobsen aborts the question, delivering both a response ("four'') and an instruction ("We need those marked") himself.

While this is unique in the observed symphonic choir rehearsals, the way in which this sequence plays out is not unique in the literature. McHouI

(1978) notes that pauses between initiation and response are not uncommon, and notes that, when pauses are too long, teachers often repeat or rephrase the question, deciding that the students did not understand the original question. A pause (line 2), two rephrasings of the question (line 3; "how many times?" and "how many times we comin in?") and another brief pause

(line 3) are found in this excerpt. At that point, the query still unanswered,

Mr. Jacobsen takes the fastest route available to him, answering himself. This decision, along with the short amount of time allowed of the students to respond, suggests that the interaction was paced too quickly for the sequence to develop as fully as excerpts #1-4 did. Excerpts #7-9 show sequences that are much more fully developed.

EX. #1 5 J: Sopranos, OK. Basses, where do you get your pitch? 6 (3.0)

7 J; Matter of fact, who are you directly eopv? Who do you copy?

8 81: The altos.

9 J: The altos, please mark it. If you haven’t. Please mark it. U:::h. let’s do this 10 one now. Sopranos who do you copy? 11 Ss: Altos =

59 12 J: = wanna look at that again?

13 (2.0)

14 S2: (a tenor) Tenors. 15 S3: (a soprano) Tenors.

16 J: The tenor. You start off with the tenors, correct? 17 84: No::: =

18 J: = At top of four?

19 (.5) 20 84: Oh, yeah.

21 J: Oh vea::::h. 22 84: Well but//

23 J: OK, 1 know. Mark that please. I’ll mark it too. We’ll all mark it.

Excerpt #7 actually contains three initiations: Lines 5-7, line 10 and line

16. The first initiation ("Basses, where do you get your pitch?" in line 5) is met with silence. As a response, Mr. Jacobsen rephrases the question, much as he does in excerpt #6. The re-spoken initiation in line 7 gets a response by a student in line 8, which then is followed by an evaluation in line 9 ("please mark it"). This brief sequence is nearly identical to those of excerpts #1-5.

The initiation in line 10 is much like the initiation in line 5, and the response is equally prompt in forthcoming, and this response requires to rephrasing of the initiation.

Equally prompt, however, is an evaluation suggesting that the response was incorrect ("wanna look at that again" in line 12), delivered without gap or overlap. The lack of pause between line 11 and line 12 is

60 unusual, given that negative evaluations are usually preceded by pauses

(McHoul, 1978; Mehan, 1979). After a two second pause, two students each offer an answer (lines 13 and 14). This answer is reiterated by Mr. Jacobsen, occurring as an evaluation, just as occurred in excerpt #1. This is followed by the third initiation ("you start off with the tenors, right?"). Again, as in excerpt #2, this question is hardly as question. Elaborating on the answer provided by the students in lines 14-15, the question is as much an instruction with a tagged "correct?" than an initiation.

In light of the instructive nature of line 16, it is surprising that a student responds (line 17) by answering "no." At that point, Mr. Jacobsen asks if the student is in the same place in the music as he ("at the top of four" in line 17); a misunderstanding about musical placement could explain the student response. The student's "oh yeah" in line 19 following a brief pause

(line 18), as well as the beginnings of some kind of explanation (line 21), together point to the resolution of any current misunderstanding about either the place in the music or the original question in line 9. Mr. Jacobsen then comments "mark that please" (line 23); comments about marking the music can also be found in the evaluation position in excerpts #2, #6, and line 8 of

#7, after an initiation has been resolved to Mr. Jacobsen's satisfaction.

EX. #8 1 C: Tenors and basses sing in “Laudate F*ueri" //

2 J: Listen, listen. This is the benefit of 3 havin (.) a wonderful accompanist. Listen to what she’s doin, ready, and, go. A plays from m. 50 to m. 55 // 61 5 J: Yeah, play that as if you were tryingto dig a hole.

6 Ac plays from m. 50 to m. 57 //

7 J: (to the basses) Now, which one are you closer to?

8 Sb: That one.

9 J: This one. K? Which one are we striving to get to?

10 Sb: The first one.

11 J: Thank you.

Excerpt #8 is similar in some ways to excerpt #1. The students are given a choice of two possible responses, and asked to choose one (lines 7 and

9). In this excerpt, however, what it is that "the first one" (line 10) or "that one" (line 8) actually are is a matter that words do not easily get to; they are within the music. As such, Mr. Jacobsen asks the students to listen to two renditions of the accompaniment. The first one (line 4) is articulated much differently on the piano than the second one (line 6) which is played "like you're trying to dig a hole." As nebulous as that analogy is, the students need no pause to consider the answer to either initiation. They know that Mr.

Jacobsen feels that their sound is closer to the piano accompaniment played in line 6 and they need to get closer to that played in line 4.

Spectral analysis of one note chosen from each piano performance shows that, whatever "digging a hole" means, the resulting piano notes appear to be different from the model first played in line 4 (Figure 4.1 in

Appendix C). The spikes of non-harmonic partials that are present in the first

62 example are more muted in the second, particularly at higher frequencies.

Further, there are generally more "valleys" in the spectral landscape of the second example, than in the first. The term "digging a hole" may not be a particularly detailed label, but the pianist made detailed changes in the sound.

She is a paid professional; her level of expertise makes it unlikely that such change is a result of imprecision or chance.

The sound models given, Mr. Jacobsen offers no further detail as to what he means. No additional instruction is forthcoming. Mr. Jacobsen has apparently shown what he feels he needs to, and the speed of the students' responses would seem to back that up. The act of describing and showing of sound sets excerpt #8 apart from excerpts #1-7, in that the working within the music does not lend itself as well as a question with a known answer.

The same could be said of excerpt #9, which occurs just a moment later in rehearsal;

EX. #9 (J. cuts the group off in mid-phrase)

1 J: Y eah, yeah. What did you what did you do, John, that- that changed it, the 2 sound?

3 J; I brought it forward.

4 J: You brought it forward and what else did you do? What did you do with your 5 face?

6 J; (.5) raised my eyebrows?

7 J: You raised your eyebrows, and you lifted your, you were having fun too. Bum 8 bum bum bum bum bum bum bum, and it all came forward, and and everyone 9 else was like, “Oh”. Be John.

63 What makes this excerpt stand apart is the source material of the already-

known-answer. Whereas the initiations in the other excerpts of this section

are built upon musical knowledge found either in the actual written score or

in musical knowledge available to expert musicians, the initiation in excerpt

#9 is based on a temporal event occurring within the ranks of the ensemble,

just like excerpt #8. Mr. Jacobsen's initiation ("what did you do, John" in line

1) could easily be interpreted as a question that does n o t have an already-

known-answer. As will be demonstrated below, there is a rich catalogue of

questions of this type. And, like those questions with no predetermined

answer, John responds to the question in line 3 by telling what he did. He

"brought it forward."

The excerpt changes in lines 4-5, when Mr. Jacobsen acknowledges his

response with a reiteration, but then continues with a revised initiation

("What else did you do? What did you do with your face?"). The revision

calls for a different answer, or a more complete answer, than was originally

given in line 3. Such revising of initiations is an indication that Mr. Jacobsen

is leading John toward a specific answer. After a pause, he responds with something that he did with his face ("raised my eyebrows?" in line 6). The

raising of intonation suggests that he is also asking a type of question, an "is

this the answer" type of question.

Mr. Jacobsen firmly establishes the already-known nature of this sequence in line 7, where in addition to reiterating John's response, elaborates

64 on other things that John did that John did not mention, including a model of what John looked and sounded like. After tJiis lengthy sequence of interaction, the instruction that follows is only two words: "Be John" (line 9).

Two important temporal components come into play in this excerpt.

The first is the evolving understanding of the kind of question that is being asked. While the excerpt resolves as a question to which Mr. Jacobsen had an answer, the excerpt began as a question that only John could answer.

Through the developing exchange, what began as a question to John became an instruction about John to the ensemble, in which John as an exemplar.

Second, the fact that there was a known answer was a result of the music. Rather than a long-term base of musical know-how or a static musical score, the source of the question came into existence only seconds before it was used as source material for a question. The issue of what John did right there could only be asked after just the right kind of there actually occurred in real musical time. This would only be possible if Mr. Jacobsen and John were both extraordinarily in-tune with the musical and social goings on of the ensemble.

What excerpts #1-7 (and, to a more limited extent, excerpts #8-9) share is the sequential structure of interaction where an initiation with a predetermined answer is asked, followed by a response, followed by an evaluation; similar sequences occur in the work of McHoul (1978), Mehan

(1979,1982), and Yarbrough and Price (1989).

65 These excerpts have similarities within themselves, as well, that can be used to suggest parameters of their use. Seven of the nine excerpts have topics that sure about the music (using the definition developed in the first chapter): Solfege names, number of recurring themes, similarities of entering parts, vocal pedagogy and so on. The two excerpts that dealt with the topics within the music were also the most multi-faceted of those presented here.

Mr. Jacobsen had very assured, specific answers in each of the excerpts. Even in those excerpts dealing within the music, his idea of what was correct was clear.

This could be because the topics expressed in these excerpts are very clearly delineated. Issues of "half-steps or whole-steps" and "forward sound or not-forward sound" are clearly understood by expert musicians, and often by students as well (which could explain the speed of the responses).

Moreover, the style of music often determines a clear answer. The style of the

Mozart "Laudate Pueri" may be such that a sound "like digging a hole" is clearly incorrect, as obviously incorrect as wrong solfege syllables.

With that in mind, it appears as though these teacher-initiated questions with a known answer relate to issues, often about instead of within the music; where, through a combination of musical expertise, convention, and style, the known answer is seen by Mr. Jacobsen (and often the students) to be clearly correct.

6 6 Questions with no known answer.

In the observations of the symphonic choir's concert preparations, there were a surprising number of teacher-initiated questions to which the answer was not known in advance by Mr. Jacobsen. The structure of the turns taken below seem to conform less to those argued by McHoul (1978) and more to those noted by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974).

EX. #10 1 C: ...and should deign.

2 J: Is it “dayn”? =

3 Ss: = (a cacophony of answers begins) //

4 J: It’s “dine ” isn’t it?

5 (through the cloud of responses, which continue) 6 81: Dayn in Spain falls f 7 S2: Dayn like rain II

8 S3: Dayn II

9 S4: It’s dayn. Like 1 will reign over your dayn //

10 J: OK, shh, thank 11 you, shh, thank you (the students fall quiet). OK, “dayn”. “Dayn”.

EX. #11 12 J: Een So Lord Jesus, please. Did you run this while I was gone? 13 Ss: Yeah.

14 J: Was it good?

15 Sl:Yeah = 16 S2: = wc rocked.

17 J: OK. it rocked? ((laughs))

67 EX. #12 18 (J. has reassigned some singers to other parts, then rehearsed the section) 19 J: Now, arc we still covered?

20 SI: I guess. [ 21 82: ( // )

22 S3: There are only two people on that.

23 J: Who’s on the what?

24 S4: The split on the, the altos there’s three (.) part and we have three pcop- //

25 J: OK, 26 do this, ladies, ladies, listen very carefully. Who had the- the top alto part (J. 27 intones) stand on the rock, where and a D, D, A. Just three of you? Oh, you 28 (.) Oh, OK. Just-just make sure I get all the parts covered.

EX. #13 29 (J. starts “If Love Should Count You Worthy,” then stops)

30 S: Words, or.

3 1 J: Words, let’s do words. Do you have syllables?

32 Ss: No. 33 52: Wc always do words.

34 J: Oh. Put, put syllables in this one for tomorrow too.

The initiations in excerpts #10-13 are questions that Mr. Jacobsen has no answer to; they are simply questions, as opposed to the initiations in excerpts #1-9. In excerpt #10, the issue at hand is pronunciation; whether or not the word deign is pronounced "dine" or "dayn". Excerpt #13 is built upon a completed assignment or lack thereof ("do you have syllables" in line

31). In excerpt #11, the questions concern two different issues: "Did you run

68 this while I was gone" (line 12) and "was it good" (line 14). Neither initiation has an apparent known answer, but the questions are completely different.

The initiation in line 12 is a closer relative of the excerpts above, in that the purpose of the question is to gather information. While that may also be true of the initiation in line 14, the assumption of student musical competence in

line 14 is more akin to the excerpts discussed just below.

The initiation in excerpts #12 (line 19) is also wrapped with an assumption of musical competence. In asking "now are we still covered" after having re assigned students' voice parts, Mr. Jacobsen is requesting important information (whether or not there are still students assigned to each voice part) from the students. It is only after the barrage of answers, leading off with the "I guess" in line 20, that Mr. Jacobsen reposes the question (line 23). His final instruction (line 28) to "make sure I get all the parts covered," in essence leaves that decision up to the students.

Questions of musical competence.

Mr. Jacobsen believes that giving the students leadership in making musical decisions is important, both for him and for the ensemble.

Uh, - if someone needs to work spots, seldom I’ll go over it and play someone’s spot, like “OK, here’s your note” that’s not my job; my Job is to make music, your job is to learn the notes, and then get in here, so what I try to do is three rehearsals. I’ll help them out as much as possible, then I’ll tell the section leaders, check that spot. Check that spot, measure 32 to 40. Section leaders will call the rehearsal, and they will go over the spot and then they’ll come to me “Mr. Jacobsen we know measure 35 to 40 we’ve got a solo in there, we’re still shaky on this” so when they do it, when we hit that spot. I’m like, “OK we’ll touch it a little bit more, cause the section leaders are havin some problems, (l.O) let’s work it.”

6 9 Mr. Jacobsen's faith in his students' musical potential, along with his commentary regarding his own limitations, bring issues of musical competence into the forefront. The excerpts below show issues of student musical competence in more detail.

EX. # 14 1 C: sings from the coda to E

2 S: Oh my // God.

3 J: OK, someone got it. What was that? Was that you two?

4 Ss: (a couple of students raise their hands)

5 J: OK, can I have you tw-, you three (J. points out three students)? ((laughs)) 6 Who- whoever got, K, whoever got that top, stav there, K? Alright, let’s try it 7 again. Comin up Lawdy. One, two, ready, go.

EX. # 15 8 (tenors are singing alone) 9 J: Y eah. can we get that all in one breath or do we need a break? 10 SI: Wc need a break.

11 S2:Ahh(hh)

12 J: OK, breathe after uh:: (.)the veelay, vcclay (.) K? Lau-^-te. OK, breathe after 13 that there’s a pickup breath, pleaseLa la la la, so don’t breathe after that

EX. # 16 13 J: How many of you up there?

14 (some students raise their hands)

15 J: K, how many on the high high, high, top? OK (1.0) OK, OK (3.0) can I get 16 two, can I get uhhh (3.0) uhhhh (2.4) who else can get up there without 17 choidng to death? Carly can you get up there? Not the high high, but the 18 second one. (Carly nods) Go on up, stand.

19 S: 1 can get the second one. 70 20 J: On the second one? 21 S: I can get the second one.

22 J: OK, stand on the second one. Y eah, no the soprano one, the soprano one part 23 split The soprano one split

24 S2: Oh::: (stands)

25 J: OK, let’s see what we got.

EX. # 17 26 J: Now, if you do not have that Bb (.) don’t sing. K? The Bb, if you don’t have 27 it, please, shh (.) sing the altos there; sing with the altos there. OK? So sing 28 the D, the Db C B. How many of you have the, the Bb Ab? Raise your hands 29 (students raise hands). OK. and if. and if vou don’t just sing the Wto part.

EX.# 18 30 J: Huh? You wanna change it? Dah? Cool, (sings the starting pitch) Da/i.

31 S: Dah instead of doo? 32 C: (sings the section of Laudate)

33 J: Yeah, now you just need to count in there. K? Question.

34 82: Urn, can we go over the second system before we (.) like, do it with everyone 35 else? On, on // page fifteen.

36 J: OK (K. plays the soprano part on page fifteen as he speaks) OK. 37 Sure. OK? Ready?

EX. # 19 38 J: Shh, can I have (.) altos, how many of you have a high F? = 39 S: = What’s a //

40 J: (points) Over in here. Like (plays the high F). Can you hit that? 41 (Points of a student) You’ve got it (student nods). (Points to another student) 42 You’ve got it. One, two (.) u::::h (.) anybody else wanna do that?

43 S: What is it?

44 J: (plays the note again)

71 In each of the above six excerpts there is an initiation which requires an

estimation of musical accountability from the students (lines 3, 9, 16, 28, 30

and 38). In excerpts #14, #15, #17 and #19, these initiations revolve around

the students' ability or inability to find and sing in a certain part of their vocal

range. This type of question could possibly be resolved by Mr. Jacobsen (as he does in a limited way in lines 40-42), but doing so would require him to have an acoustical awareness of fifty-four changing voices. And Mr. Jacobsen shows that this is (quite understandably) beyond him when he tells the students in line 6 "whoever got that top, stay there."

Instead, he opens up an opportunity for students to evaluate their own abilities. Who "whoever" is (line 6) becomes a problem for the students to resolve, just as the decision about taking a breath in line 10 is a student's decision. Far from being an academic or educational exercise, however, these opportunities for student self-evaluation are directly tied to seeing the organization of the music making of the ensemble as the rehearsal unfolds.

They are opportunities that the students take seriously. In each case, the students select themselves or do not select themselves, and decide whether or not they need to breathe, quickly and without gaps or long silences. And in one case (lines 39 and 43) a student who was unsure asked for further information ("what is it") in order to make a decision.

It is important to note that these opportunities for musical decision­ making are limited in their scope. In excerpt #15, the tenors decide for

72 themselves i f they need a breath, but not w here ; that is a decision for Mr.

Jacobsen (lines 12-13). Similarly, sopranos who do not select themselves for the high note in excerpt #17 do not decide for themselves what they wilt do instead. Mr. Jacobsen does that ("the rest of you sing the alto part" in line 29).

And, while the students responses are similar in many ways to those following questions with known answers, there is no evaluation position as such. Instead, Mr. Jacobsen acknowledges that an answer has been given (as with the "OK" in line 12). This kind of response is typical of the turn-taking analyzed by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974).

The issue of musical competency has purchase for Mr. Jacobsen, too.

Excerpts #20 and #21 bring the competency of the director into the fore.

EX. #20 1 J; Now look at top of six. Sopranos start and you just kind of repeat it. Ready, 2 and, one.

3 C: (no one sings) 4 J: Rm sorry. (2.0) Did I just b>oobv?

5 Ss: Yes.

6 J: I ^ booby.

7 (the choir begins talking all at once)

8 J: Oh. Oh, it switches. OK, someone beat me. Sopranos stand up. basses altos 9 sit. (The sopranos stand while the basses and altos sit).

10 (3.0)

11 J: Did I just booboo? (2.0) Oh. I didn’t booboo. I went on. OK, I was right. I’m 12 right. I’m back again, (points a sopranos) Sit down (points at basses), stay up 13 (points at altos) stand up. Bbbbbbbbbbbb.

73 EX. #21 1 (the choir stops singing and releases together at a spot where that should not occur) 2 J: I’m sorry. A::h, I’m sorry, I messed up, didn’t I.

3 (3.5) 4 J: What’d I mess ug ?

5 SI: They messed up =

6 J: = Oh, OK. [ 7 52: Wc messed up.

8 J: Oh, OK. You all messed up.

Lines 1-3 of excerpt #20 give a preliminary set of musical instructions to the students and, on the downbeat, receives no musical response whatsoever. Mr. Jacobsen's comment in line 4, which is both evaluation and new question, is "did 1 just booby?," after which both Mr. Jacobsen (line 6) and a student (line 5) confirm that the breakdown of lines 1-3 was due to a misunderstanding of the instructions.

The issues of what exactly was "boobied" has yet to be resolved, however, and Mr. Jacobsen goes on after noting "oh, it switches" (line 8).

Then, after asking a different group of singers to prepare to sing (line 9), he is again ready to rehearse. However, after a lengthy pause, Mr. Jacobsen asks

"did I just booboo?" in line 11. After a pause, he declares that "Oh I didn't booboo" and "1 was right" (line 11), and has the sections that had just stood up sit, and the original sections stand again. The "booboo" is resolved, although the "booby" is still unexplained.

7 4 There are two points in excerpt #20 that have issues of musical

competence wrapped around them. The first deals with the '^ooby" (line 4).

Mr. Jacobsen's comment was positioned in order to deal with the lack of singing in line 3, which may have occurred as the result of a mistake on his

part. The second issue relates to the "booboo" (Une 11), which points to the changing of the sections that are preparing to sing, not the original "booby."

In both cases, Mr. Jacobsen offers to the ensemble the possibility of a competence breakdown as an explanation. Of course, for the ensemble to give him any kind of response requires musical skill and perception; like excerpts

#14-19, Mr. Jacobsen is asking the students to use musical skills to arrive at an answer that he (at least, as of the asking) had no answer to.

Excerpt #21 is similar in some ways to excerpt #20, but it is more compact. After another singing breakdown, Mr. Jacobsen offers an apology to the ensemble ("I'm sorry. 1 messed that up, didn't 1" in line 2). The question remains unanswered for over three seconds, in contrast to the immediate judgment of the students in excerpt #20 (line 5). This results in a second question; "what'd 1 mess up?" which is quickly responded to ("we/they messed up" in lines 3 and 5), which is evaluated by Mr. Jacobsen in line 6. It turns out that there indeed was a competency issue, but it was the students' competency issue, not Mr. Jacobsen's.

7 5 The offering of competency judgments to the students would seem to

indicate that Mr. Jacobsen holds the students as equal musicians or as musical

peers of a type, at least at times. In conversation, he noted that this was

indeed the case.

M: What kinds of musical things do vou hear that you think even your best kids (.) aren’t quite able to?

J: Oooh. (3.0) Wc (hhh) I don’t know, that’s a hard one. Umm, let’s secc (.) that 1 hear. (1.0) 1 (.) I don't know, I don’t know. 1-1 sometimes 1 think (.) is it- it’s not that they can’t ^ it it’s or maybe it’s the point that I can’t do it or I don’t feel comfortable trying to get, umm. Uhh (1.0) I don’t know cause 1 think they can do almost anything. I-1-1-1 don’t know (.) umm I-1 think they can they can if it’s laid out there for them correctly I think they can do it. I thirik (.) mmy some of my limitations I mean I as far as (.) uhh or lack of knowledge there of of a piece of music you know, some of the style some of the the history background I think that has some. But but that (.) you Imow hopefully what I do is that’s why 1 buy every recording I can get my hands on and and sit there and, try to try to listen and try to hear and try to do some things, but I think it it’s I think they can do what you’re capable of teaching them, you know. So I don’t I don’t think that (.) I-1 think they can do almost anvthine. I think the the limitations come with me. It’s like 1 (.) like I don’t feel comfortable or or or or did I do this right or sometimes my or did 1 do my Latin correctly or that kind of thing but 1 think they can do almost anything. You know, I think it’s just 1 think it’s the director.

In a way, the question "whose competency is it?" is moot. When all is

said and done, competence must be shown by both teacher and student

collaboratively in order to organize the rehearsal and accomplish music

making. No where is this collaboration more apparent than in rehearsals for

the student processional.

Collaborative efforts: The processional.

EX. #22 1 J: Now, listen. Listen (.) don’t talk. We’re gonna process, 1 know you’re not 2 used to doing it like this, K, but you’re going to. So it’s gonna go two rows, 3 two rows, the same way you always do it, the same way you always go. (.) 4 How do we ^ this anyway? 7 6 5(a cacophony of answers from members of the ensemble)

6 J: We’re gonna go by rows this time, eause it’s a lot easier. Can vou (points to 7 the back row) go, you lead up to the top and see if we have enough room =

8 S; = Nno, the first II row.

9 Ss: First row.

10 J: No no. K. first row (J. turns to back row) never mind.Go on back on up 11 there, honey. Go on up.

EX. #23 12 J; Alright, this is what I want to try. Shh, close your, close your ^ lo c k for a 13 second. I want // 14 SI: ( )

15 J: Guys, if you can scoot down then everybody can get on that row, can’t they. 16 (2.0) Ain’t that amazing how that works. Are we missing somebody there? 17 SI: No, because ( )

18 J: Oh. Well then, who are we missing up there, my man?

19 S2: Julie.

20 J: OEC Did we know how to do this?

21 (an argument is building in the auditorium among the ensemble)

22 J: Why- Scoot down children, there- there’s empty chai-

23 (10 seconds pass as the students find their seats; J. puts his hand on his head, 24 covering his eyes) 25 S3: Is Betty Kensington here? (1.5) OK.

26 J: They’re giving me a headaehe. AJrighL Alright, listen very carefully. If wc 27 start, (1.0) like when I haye you get up, could you come all the way down to 28 the lx)ttom of that step (.) like, sec and then work your way back ug? And then 29 you’re you’re not coming- would that be hard? 30 S4: Yes.

31 S5: Yes.

32 J: How hard would that te to walk down some steps?

77 33 S4: ( ) =

34 J: = Oh, giramic a break. AlrighL Stand. (.) This is what I would like you to 35 End people. You’re going to come to that bottom step. Do it now.

Excerpts #22 and #23 occur in the midst of preparing to rehearse the processional used at the beginnings of most concerts by the symphonic choir.

The physical specifics of the processional are an area of instruction where Mr.

Jacobsen is less controlling, especially given that the students, not he, are the ones who actually process. More so than excerpts #14-21, where students were allowed to make individual musical decisions, these questions are asked in order to accomplish the very practical matter of accomplishing the processional. As such, the questions asked by Mr. Jacobsen often allow the students great latitude. The clearest example of this is in lines 3-4 when, after instructing the students to process "the same way we always do," Mr. Jacobsen asks "how do we do this anyway?" The students' answers come out all at once, making them all unintelligible. Mr. Jacobsen then proceeds as best he knows how, instructing the top row to leave first. He is immediately, and without having been asked permission, interrupted and told that "the first row" (lines 8-9) goes first. Without question, Mr. Jacobsen amends his instructions and sends the top row back.

The last excerpt, #23, begins with the students setting up to process on their own. This is time-consuming and noisy, and because of the space between Mr. Jacobsen and his students, it is difficult to communicate. In fact, the students have, to a degree, tuned the director out and are preparing the

78 processional themselves. This is being done at the expense of Mr. Jacobsen's patience, who puts his hand over his eyes and then rubs his temples. This procedure was similar to what Kushner (1991) noted in her ethnography of students and professional musicians. In both cases, the students achieved an objective (in this case, the processional preparations), but did so in a way that was very different than how a professional educator would have gone about it.

The excerpt ends with a transition much like the transition between unknown answer and known answer in excerpt #9. Mr. Jacobsen gives instruction about an alteration he would like to make to the processional in lines 26-29, finishing the instruction with "would that be hard?" The students immediately respond that "yes" (lines 30 and 31) it would be hard.

The students' response is well within the domain of participants deciding together that the processional, as altered, would be more difficult. Mr.

Jacobsen's retort/ initiation "how hard would that be to walk down some steps?" (line 32) is an indication that what is occurring is not a simple matter of participants deciding practical matters together.

Still, a student responds to the retort (line 33), at which point Mr.

Jacobsen appears to have had enough. In lines 33 - 34, he explains that the processional alterations are not something for student consideration, but instead "w hat I would like you to do. Do it now." At this point, in looking at the initiation in line 29, it seems as though this question was not an actual

79 question. But the unusual nature of the competency at hand, with both Mr.

Jacobsen and the students collaboratively working to accomplish the

processional, led to differing interpretations of the question. By the end,

however, there is no doubt, and the instruction is firmly and clearly phrased.

The interactive climate in excerpts #22 and #23 is clearly different from

that of questions with a known answer, both in terms of the questions asked

and in terms of the responses given by the students. Yet, such a climate

serves the students in the symphonic choir well in these instances. Mr.

Jacobsen had mentioned to me that he felt himself to be less effective in

matters such as the processional, and therefore gave the students great

autonomy in the area. The students used their autonomy; the student

responses in excerpts #22-23 are very different than in other excerpts.

Issues of competency and community are woven throughout the

teacher-initiated questions with no known answer. In many cases, the students' musical competency is called on to supply an answer that otherwise will not be supplied; in others director and students work together. As already mentioned, this is serious business to the ensemble, as they are the ones who live with the results, say, of which students have selected themselves to sing the highest part. Mr. Jacobsen, through all of his questions, directed the organization of the chorus to the music.

The teacher-initiated interactions consisted of questions with a known answer (excerpts #1-9), questions with no known answer (excerpts #10-13),

8 0 questions that focus on issues of musical competence (excerpts #14-21) and

questions which are a part of a collaborative effort toward a practical goal

(excerpts #22-23). While there were a number of questions that confirmed the

research of Mehan (1979, 1982) and McHoul (1982), notable is the number of

teacher initiations that do not, instead following the casual conversation

rules noted by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974).

Student-Initiated Interaction

In the observed symphonic choir rehearsals, I noticed the students

initiating interactional sequences with some frequency. There are "rules"

relating to student initiations, though, as one student noted.

J: I think questions like “where do we breathe,” those kind of things, we should be asking, we should be finding out. Questions (.) I can’t think of anything right now but (.)inelevant like “what’s do”? I:; uh you know you’re in symphonic choir you should know how to find do and if not whisper to your neightx> neighbor very quietly and- and ask them because (.) you don’t ask what’s do. Yeah it’s that kind of thing, umm. There’s- there’s appropriate things that should be saved for sectionals. And that’s why I wish we had like every, you know Tuesday and Thursday we hold sectionds just just in general all the time. Umm ( L.O) but (.) so there’s questions that should be reserve- reserved for sectionals and reserved to ask your section leader as opposed to asking Mr. Jacobsen and wasting all of our time. Umm (.) I don’t know just I can’t think of anything else like specifically but // M: OK =

J: = Specific questions like that I mean don’t waste Mr. Jacobsen’s time (1.0) is basically the common rule.

M: Where did you pick up which questions where OK to ask and which ones weren’t?

J: When you ask it Mr. Jacobsen kinda looks at you and (.) like the whole everyone else in the choir cringes ((laughs)). I don’t know how else to describe it, it’s just kinda like “ooh. don’t ask that question.” But um (.) it’s a, it’s a matter of, I think it- it’s taken me four years to really get to know Mr. Jacobsen, umm. I (.) we had a freshman in in symphonic and (.) he would be allowed to ask stupid questions not stup- not stupid but like, questions (.) but, you would never expect a senior or even a second year member to ever ask “where’s do”. Umm, it it comes with, it comes 81 with learning, and I’ve sal in on uh his his uh SSA choir and his, you know concert choir and I’ve sat in of those and I’m just like (.) “wow”. I cause I-1 remember when I was there. I remember when I was there and I thought I knew it all and (.) it was stuff like he:; switched me from a soprano to an alto in my freshman year and oh:::: my gosh I was livid, cause I loved being a soprano and it was so ^ y , and I was switched to being a alto and I was like “rrr rrr rrr” I gave th- copped the biggest attitude and (.) uh uh. It it just it’s taken four years for me to get to know him and know what you do and what (.) what’s crossing the line.

M: And so the new members when they come into symphonic for the first time, they just it’s like learning on the job. J: Yeah, yeah. It- it’s just better keep quiet (.) just you know if you’re a you’re a new member keep quiet leam the ropes before you make a fool out of yourself ((laughs)).

Jill, the student interviewed above, knew exactly what she was saying.

A majority of the questions asked by students were asked by a core of people, most all of whom were recognizable as "tenured" members of the symphonic choir.

The student questions were asked in a number of situations: In the midst of determining how the music should sound, in the determination of who is involved in singing at a particular moment, as well as in situations where a joint production of music-making has gone awry. I discuss each of these below.

Questions about how music sounds.

As strangers to the expert musical community, and as students in a typical classroom setting, it should be no surprise that a great many of the student-initiated questions index very specific ways how an sound is sung to

Mr. Jacobsen's satisfaction.

8 2 EX. #24 1 J: What? I can’t hear you. 2 S: It may not matter but at the end of the song, on the, when the tenors come in on 3 “I’m,” do you want us to hold the I or do you want us to close to the m?

4 (1.5)

5 J: Go straight to the m. rmmmmm. [ 6 S: OK.

7 S2: Is that for all the parts?

8 J; Yeah, close to the ending consonants on com, in, and I’m.

EX. #25 9 S: Mr. Jacobsen?

10 J: Yes, question.

11 S: Would Een be “on” or “een”?

12 ( 1.0)

13 J; Wait a minute. What’d you, what’d you say?

14 S: Een so //

15 J: “een” =

16 S2; = sposcd to be “een”. 17 J; Een so. Een so.

EX. #26 18 J: Ready? Ready basses. =

19 E: = Mr. Jacobsen = 20 J: = One, Yes?

21 E On the word “I’m” do you want us to close to the “m” right away or arc we 22 holding out the “1”?

23 J: I’mmmmm , close straight to the “m”. 24 E OK. 83 EX. #27 25 J; One more time on that section please.

26 S: Do you want us going right to the “n”?

27 J: Go straight to the “n”. Only people that do not go to the “n,” uhh, right away is 28 “comin up Lord,” just sing those. K?

EX. #28 29 J: Yes?

30 S: On page thirteen, second measure? Do you want us to sin::g, uh, two half 3 1 notes or ( )

32 J; At thirteen? =

33 S: = yeah.

34 J: Second measure? (3.0) Where you at, where you at Brad? 35 S: S- (.) II second measure first staff, spee.

36 82: Forty-six.

37 (1.0)

38 J: Uh, no it’s a whole note.K, cause of the spiri. Spiritu. K?

EX. #29 39 J: Shh, thank you. // K.

40 SI: Second system, measure three. What’s that word? che- 41 J: Second system, measure three. Lau-, lau^te? 42 S2: Page five. 43 (2.0)

44 S1 : Et (.) een chelor?

45 (1.0)

46 J: Where are you?

47 SI: Bottom of page five, // measure three. 84 48 S2: Second system. [ 49 S3: bottom of third measure.

50 J: Een chelor. 51 SI : Een chelor.

52 J: Een che lor. K?

EX. #30 53 J: We’ve still got some notes (.) I need to double check wi:::th the l^ n teacher, 54 for myself. There’s a lot of words, que-. Crystal?

55 C: Yeah, on page seven, the-at the .second, like althe bottom of the page. It, CO-

56 J: Colochet? Colochet. Colochet, OK. colochet. Yes?

57 S: Top of page four, the very first word? A-oos? 58 (1.0)

59 J: A, eh-oos, no A, ch.

Excerpts #24-30 all contain initiations by a student, to which Mr.

Jacobsen provides an answer. The subject of these questions range from pronunciation, to articulation, to concert programming, with other issues thrown in as well.

Although they vary topically, excerpts #24-30 do not vary much in substance—in each excerpt, the concern is how a sound is crafted—nor do they very much in sequence. A student usually raises a hand or verbally gets

Mr. Jacobsen's attention (lines 9 and 19 for example), an indication that a student wants to "get the floor" (to use Mehan's terms). While this occurrence is not without exceptions (for example, in line 26), it happens

85 frequently enough to be considered the "accepted" way of doing things. And it is supported in research by McHoul (1978) who noted that "only teachers can direct speakership in any creative way" (p. 188).

Mr. Jacobsen's response is often an announcement that there is now a question on the floor (such as the use of "question" in line 10; "yes?" in lines

20 and 29). This is roughly similar to the second component Mehan (1982) mentioned in his analysis of student contributions to class lessons: that of

"holding the floor." Through Mr. Jacobsen's recognition and announcement of a student question, the student then has the interactive space needed to ask it.

In this space, the questions are asked, which "deliver news," the third component of Mehan's analysis. Actually, the students' questions do not so much deliver news as ask Mr. Jacobsen to deliver it (lines 2-3,11, 21-22, 26, 30-

31, 40 and 55).

Excerpts #24-30 are each asked by the students and answered by Mr.

Jacobsen in relatively short order. This is not true of the following excerpts, in which the students' questions lack the uniform quality of the excerpts above.

EX. #31 1 C: sorrow and life's immemorial pain.

2 J: K? Now = 3 S: =Mr. Jacobsen =

4 J: = yeah, question =

5 S: = How do you want us to say “the,” “the” or, like cause I’m hearing Afferent // 86 6 J: It’s 7 “the” moment.

8 S: ‘The” ?

9 J: ‘The” moment, yeah. Consonant, “the”. Vowels “thee”. K? ‘The” =

10 S2; = Erica’s got a question.

11 E' The same // in dreams of “thee” or “the” unfulfilled? 12 J: Question.

13 J: Thee unfulfilled. Yeah, there’s a vowel. Thee unfulfilled. Thee unfulfilled. 14 The before a consonant. Thee, vowel. Good questions.

EX. #32 15 J: Look at the vowel. “Foh Christ”? What is the vowel? Fo/i, K? Not Fon;, K, 16 don’t sing Forr. We’ re in a herd of trouble if you do that, K? One more time :

17 S: = Mr. Jacobsen =

18 J: = Question.

19 S: On the bottom of page six, umm, where it goes “Christ is com-i-ing,” is it “1- 20 ing” o r“co-oh-ming;?

21 J: “co-oh-ming,” K? “Co-oh- // ming,” K? 22 S: It’s not written that way.

23 J: 1 know. Don’t sing it that way. “Co-oh-ming,” here we go.

EX. #33 24 S: 1 have a question, Mr. Jacobsen.

25 J; Yes, question.

26 S: Uhh, when everyone is singing “For Christ is coming,” do we sing “co-oh- 27 ming” or “com-i // ing”? 28 J: No, “co-oh-ming,” yes, not the //

29 S2: Even though it’s written the other 30 wav?

31 J: Yes, we will say “co-oh-ming,” not “com-i-ing”. OK?

87 Excerpts #31-33 each stem from confusing and contradictory messages.

The student initiation in excerpt #31 (line 5) is coupled with a little bit of local history (which is discussed in Chapter 6). The question, "how do you want us to say 'the'" is asked because the student was "hearing different" things, probably different pronunciations of the 'the', given both the context and the answer. The local history serves two purposes in this excerpt. First, it shows that there is a specific occurrence upon which the student's question is being asked. Second, it shows there are multiple hearings of something that ought to only have one hearing. Mr. Jacobsen's response covers the use of "the" in the broadest possible, and very clear, terms.

Excerpts #31 and #32 raise a thorny issue relating to the source of what is ultimately "correct" in a musical performance. At issue is the rhythm and pronunciation of the word "coming," based on the two possibilities shown in

Figure 4.2.

8 8 Rhythm A:

l>i " ~ f l ' ----- ^ f -----m------h r ------1 ■— -1 > > For Christ 3 com - ing_

Rhythm B:

For Christ is com - ing

Figure 4.2: Measures 24-25 of "Een So Lord Jesus, Quickly Come," rhythms A and B

The questions in lines 19-20 and 26-27 (which are asked on completely different days) refer to a discrepancy between what is being heard (both rhythm A and B, each from some members of the chorus) and what is in the score of the song (which is rhythm A). Mr. Jacobsen's response (lines 21 and

28) indicates that the "correct" rhythm is rhythm B. Rhythms A and B are different, however, and the students point this out (lines 22 and 29-30).

These comments in lines 22 and 29-30, while fitting perfectly well under normal conventions of conversation, are highly unusual in

89 comparison to any other excerpt in this chapter. They are, in effect, a questioning of Mr. Jacobsen's answers in lines 21 and 28, and they point out an inconsistency in his response with that of the written page. Mr. Jacobsen responds to the evaluations with an acknowledgment of the students' points

("I know" in line 23 and "yes" in line 31), and then proceeds to insist upon his original line 21 and 28 responses.

What this means for the students is that there is a correct-according-to-

Mr.-Jacobsen-in-rehearsal and a correct-according-to-the-written-score, and the two must be brought into alignment, the difficulty of which both students and director are aware.

M: Are there ever spots where Mr. Jacobsen does something musically that is in conflict with what is printed on the page?

(3.5)

E: Umm, (2.5) sometimes. (1.0) Sometimes it’s hard, (2.0) yeah. Sometimes he like puts breath marks where, I mean most of the time I agree with like he says lake a breath here and I’d be like yeah that’s where I would have put it, and other times he says take a breath here and I’ll be like (.) that may be not where I’d put it, but we go with it anyway. Umm, (.) other things like one of our songs we had the word coming and you know it was written one way (.) but (.) he told us to sing it another way but then he switched it back to the original way so he just kinda I mean he doesn’t usually change too much, but sometimes.

M: So, if if there is an, if- if he says sing it this way and on the page its not written that way, you go with? E- We usually like if its something big we’ll ask him about it we’ll be like, you know well they’ve written it in this way we’ll ask him a question you know maybe he didn’t realize what he was saying or sometimes he does. I mean sometimes he knows that he’s (.) you know changing it and other times he’s not aware of it at all, (1.0) so. We usually just ask him, we say “well you know it’s written this way did you really want- want us to sing it the way you just told us or you know did you just kind of not notice that?” And usually he tells us either way. So we go with what he says, you know whatever he tells us, because he’s the director and that the way he wants iL (ERICA)

90 The following excerpt occurred during an alto sectional, which was run by a student, while Mr. Jacobsen was out of town. Erica backs up her comments in the above interview by her comments below, which occurred before the interview.

EX. #34 1 SI: One thing. After, before like, the fermata? He has been breaking us off for a 2 breath but, it says no breath.

3 E Well if he breaks us off, then take a breath, because (.) you want to follow your 4 conductor. I mean, he’ll take whatever he wants in there. ( 1.5) Right now, 5 take a breath in there because I don’t know where he wants us breathing cause 6 he hasn’t gone over this? Go ahead, take a breath if you need one.

The first student clearly has noted the gap between two definitions of

"correct." Erica has resolved this issue so that there is only one kind of

"correct" response; "if he breaks us off, then take a breath, because you want to follow your conductor" (lines 3-4). To Erica, in the case of conflicting reports,

Mr. Jacobsen's rule is final.

Other students are aware of this dilemma, but do not find it difficult to determine what "correct" is for them.

M: Are there ever any times when in rehearsal Mr. Jacobsen does something that’s in conflict with what’s written on the page? (2.5)

L His piano playing sometimes (.) has problems ((laughs)). Umm, not too much that I can think of though, no. I mean he realizes if he gets it wrong, so. And occasionally he’ll tell us “it’s written this way, but 1 want to do it somehow.” (during a follow-up interview, two weeks later)

M: Mr. Jacobsen doesn’t change the music much =

91 L: = Nno =

M: = from- from what’s on the written page. L: No, although actually he just did, because of- [ M: Did he?

L‘ Yeah, there’s, we have a whole note and everybody else has a hal-1 ^ note so he told us “cut it off, it it’s probably a (.) mm- misprint”. But no, he usually sticks pretty much with (.) what’s written. (LYNNE)

M: Are there are there ever times when (.) uhh Mr. Jacobsen will give a directive or play something on the piano or such that (.) is different from what’s on the page?

(2.5)

B: Like he’ll play the wrong part?

M: Well or he’ll say I want (.) umm he’ll- he’ll conduct a breath and say “1 want you to breathe there” and it’ll say no breath. Does I mean // is he pretty much literal or does

B: Umm M: he go ahead // and make his interpretations?

B: He’s He docs a little bit of both (.) I think sometimes it (.) like in a couple of songs it’s been (.) he fights us when we want to breathe (.) because he knows we’re not supposed to. Like he does a lot of literal interpretation I guess he agrees with the composer ( 1.5) a lot of the time but there arc some times he takes liberties. (BETTY)

The difficulties in resolving Mr. Jacobsen's music with the music on the page is not lost on Mr. Jacobsen, either.

M: How literally do you follow the printed page, in general? (4.5)

J: Some ((laughs thoroughly)) some. 1,1 think 1 do it pretty much. 1 think what I-1 do is I look at it and I go (.) a and you try to think about what was the composer trying to say (.) other and like some of them like the Mozart I mean that you know were were those actually his markings or did someone put those in at the time or when we do some Renaissance well you get all the editorial stuff and you go (.) well that may not, that doesn’t fit. Umm (2.0) (hhh)oooh. I-1 mean I pretty I stay close to it but 1 don’t I don’t think I-1 go I don’t think I’m I’m (.) I’m just kinda like I live by it. Uhh I think it goes on ah the (.) the choir. Some pieces like for example we’re doing a piece that’s a, with my well my ninth grade choir it’s a the 92 “Agnus Dei” of Sandra [sic. Sherri] Porterfield it’s it’s very slow and with lots of rubato and everything, well (.) I don’t think freshman can sing, can control their breath that (.) so I try to I try to move things a bit more. I don’t know, I mean I-1 try to do pretty c-1 try to s ^ (.) I mean, then I then I look at things and I go “I would do it way” and it also depends on what I’m doing if I Imow we’re going to contest then I probably I stay pretty close cause I know the judges they’re going to sit there and go “well that was pianissimo”. But, my thing is if it’s musical and it’s and it’s in taste with within the style of the piece, (.) you know what is, what is piano and what is forte? To me that’s all relative I mean it’s kinda like, like (.) I mean someone else’s forte is not the same as my choir’s forte. And and or someone’s forte listening to it, you know I’ve had people say “well, you need to give more, more, more” and I’m going “well, if we give more, it- it’s not musical” and and f- for me music being musical has to be the utmost important I mean I’d rather, I mean I-1 can deal with wrong notes if it it’s musical. You know, at lea- least, OK you can say something nice about it, it was very musical. You didn’t sing it correctly but it you know was musical. So, I mean I-1 (.) you know it I- I guess that’s one of those taste things and it just depends on what (.) what’s happenin at the time.

There is, in the case of written score versus director, no clear universal

answer for Mr. Jacobsen, nor for many of the students. Most, however (as

Erica's responses above show), find the decision easy enough to make. In all

of the cases I observed, the final decision rests with Mr. Jacobsen. However,

on occasion, Mr. Jacobsen is steered to an answer by a student.

EX. #35 1 SI: Where the altos come in on the last page. 2 J: Shhh.

3 SI: ‘The” door or “your” door? 4 J: Which page, it- it’s “the” door.

5 SI: “The” door. 6 J: Please say “the door”. Question?

7 S2: On the “open not” where do you want the “t” because everyone is still // saying 8 it at different times.

9 S3: ttttttL

93 10 J: Oh, shh, on four. On four.

11 S2: On four ?

12 J: Yeah, uh (intones) How wise you were to o- listen, shhh, listen, (intones and 13 gestures) How wise you were to open no::::::t. And, cause you need that and = 14 S2: = So you want it on four and.

15 J: Yeah, it’s just- it’s it’s not, yeah on the and of four. We really need a break in 16 there, so. Four.

17 52; So not right on four = 18 J: = No =

19 S2: = But four and =

20 J: Yeah. Somewhere in there.

Excerpt #35 consists of three student-initiated questions, each slightly different. The first question (line 3) is consistent with the questions found in excerpts #24-30, in that the question regards how a particular musical moment should sound; Mr. Jacobsen's response in line 4 is equally consistent.

The second question (line 7-8) bears strong similarities to that in excerpt #31 (line 5). The question is based on an inconsistency, which is built upon a local history of hearing the inconsistency in a previous singing of the piece. Mr. Jacobsen answers the question in line 10 ("on four").

The third question (line 11; "on four?") is different from any of the others. It is, in effect, a request that Mr. Jacobsen take an opportunity to be certain of his response. Carried with this request is another inconsistency, although what that would be cannot be seen in the transcript. A cutoff on beat four is inconsistent with something, and as a result of the line 11

9 4 question, Mr. Jacobsen elaborates more on his decision. In the singing of the

music in question, Mr. Jacobsen cuts off just after beat four. This is not lost on

the student, who states in line 14, "so you want it on four and." Mr. Jacobsen

replies by saying (lines 15-16), "yeah, it's just- it's it's not, yeah on the and of

four. We really need a break in there, so. Four." This is a different, and more

confusing, response than the one given in line 10. It seems to confirm the

student's line 14 comment ("yeah, on the and of four"), and yet also restate

the answer in line 11 ("Four").

The question is resolved jointly, mutually, like a pas de deux. Mr.

Jacobsen and the student complete two adjacency pairs of talk without any gap

or overlap (lines 17 - 20). As a result, it is clear that the cutoff is not on "four,"

but instead on "four and," and the question is answered. The timing of the

release of the sound was the overriding issue, and the student knew that

there was both a problem with the release in practice (evidenced by lines 7-8), and that Mr. Jacobsen's declaration that the release should be "on four"

needed further explanation (line 11). The student gradually steered Mr.

Jacobsen into an agreed point of release; the issue of how the music should sound has been resolved.

An important part of excerpt #35 is the participation of a student in finding a problem in the production of ensemble sound. The excerpts below show student collaboration in sound crafting, as well.

95 EX. #36 1 J: Ten, top of ten. Top of ten, stand please = 2 S: = Mr. Jacobsen?

3 J: Yes.

4 S: The “I’m” on the bottom sounds weird.

5 J: Yeah, it’s ahhh. You gotta sing ah. Ah vowel, then close to “m,” A/immm, 6 Ahm, Ahm. ts “ahm”. Not “I’m”. Don’t try to say “I” because it won’t, it’s 7 not a vowel. Ahmmmm.

EX. #37 8 (J. is speaking to the choir about the performability of “Elijah Rock”. The students 9 are sitting, and it’s a very casual time.A flower has just been delivered to J. and 10 placed on the piano)

11 J: Yeah?

12 S: For “If Love Should Count Y ou Worthy” the consonants are so::: tricky (.) the 13 umm “how wise you were to open not” that one “not” we’re all like ttttttttt 14 that’s all you hear trailing t’s for most of em. 15 (.5)

16 J: OK, well I’m sorry.

17 ((much laughter from the choir))

18 J: Sorry. Well, I- I know the conson //

19 S: Never mind me. I’m just trying to //

20 J: What she’s saying is, shh, 1 know, 1 got cha. Bring out the consonants in other 21 words, right?

22 S: Well, it’s just the fact that we don’t know, no one, everybody ends the “t” in //

23 J: Yeah, if vou watch, veah. listen, shh. 1 alot of it was mv fault too. If- if you 24 watch, listen, if you watch for the release 1 promise 1 will give it to you in the 25 right soot. And if 1 don’t (2.5) 1 will. OK, so make sure you watch for the 26 cutoff and watch me for the cutoff, don’t put off where it feels good. So that we 27 don’t get 1111, that kind of effect Which is what she’s // trying to say.

28 52: Who gave you the flower? 29 J: 1 don’t know...

9 6 EX. #38 30 J: Sopranos two spots I would love for you to check (.) u:;h, yes?

31 S: I was just going to say at the top of page seven we never hold the la // long 32 enou^?

33 J: K. Can 34 we (.) start it, can we start through, can we start at B with the ladies? [ 34 S: We need to hold on.

Each of the student initiated comments in excerpts #36-38 report a mistake the ensemble is making (lines 4, 12-14 and 31-32). This is rehearsal work; each student has something to offer regarding how it is that a sound is crafted. The question is, to whom are these reports addressed?

Given the students' treatment of Mr. Jacobsen as the expert in the classroom (except in matters of non-music, i.e. the processionals), it is unlikely that they would tell him what is wrong with the music. After all, they are learning from him, not he from them. So, since they asked for, and received, permission to get the floor from Mr. Jacobsen, it is unlikely that the students are passing along information for his benefit, as in excerpts #10-13.

Rather, the student evaluations in lines 4, 12-14 and 31-32 are less comments to Mr. Jacobsen than they are comments through Mr. Jacobsen. If they are not directed at him, then they are directed at those who would be able to have a musical impact on whatever they address: the other students in the ensemble. While the comments range from vague ("the 'I'm' on the bottom

9 7 sounds weird" in line 4) to very specific ("on the top of page seven we never hold the la long enough" in lines 31-32), they are each aimed at shaping the music of the symphonic choir.

Then why not simply address the symphonic choir? The major studies of classroom interaction mention very little about student to student interaction. McHoul (1978) suggested that classroom talk runs in such a way that student to student direct talk is extraordinarily unusual. In excerpts #36-

38, the comments from students to students are routed through the channels of interaction that are common and well worn in the symphonic choir. Only after getting the floor, and addressing the talk through Mr. Jacobsen, does the comment reach the other students.

Mr. Jacobsen deals with these comments by either explaining what the cause of the problem is (lines 5-7) or trying to keep his instructional plan intact (lines 33-34). In excerpt #37, however, we see quite a different response from Mr. Jacobsen. After the student comment (lines 12-14), Mr. Jacobsen says

"OK, well, I'm sorry" (line 16), to much laughter among the other singers.

Only after this exchange do teacher and student discuss the problem.

This exchange in lines 12-16 differs from the other exchanges, in that

Mr. Jacobsen makes no effort to incorporate the comment into conversation.

His use of "I'm sorry," if left alone, would have effectively ended this line of conversation. The students' laughter, along with Mr. Jacobsen's apology for his comment (line 18), indicate that Mr. Jacobsen's reaction was not the usual.

98 In the rehearsals I observed, comments or questions about a musical issue seldom took place too far from the performance of that piece. Questions about Latin pronunciation, for example, only occurred within the midst of singing the "Laudate Pueri" instead of, say, during warm-ups. The line 12-14 student comment, however, comes at the end of a rehearsal, during announcements concerning logistics. Based on both Mr. Jacobsen's reaction and my observations, this is simply the "wrong place" for the comment; it is the only occurrence of this in my observations of the symphonic choir.

What Mr. Jacobsen's intentions were are impossible to ascertain. Had the students not laughed (showing a pretty solid awareness of Mr. Jacobsen's comment and its implications), Mr. Jacobsen could have continued with his instruction, which was not related to the student comment. The unusual nature of the comment, and the resulting ensemble behavior, may have pointed to the question as being inappropriate. It is only after the classroom erupts that Mr. Jacobsen apologizes and tries to summarize the problem; while the summary of the problem is not unlike that of excerpt #36 (lines 5-

7), the "I'm sorry" comment serves to set the two excerpts apart.

Questions of who is making the sounds, under what circumstances.

1 found there to be a number of student-initiated interactions where the enterprise involved was that of getting information about who was to sing next, and under what circumstances (which piece was to be sung, was the

99 music to be memorized, etc.). This confirms research by Yarbrough and Price

(1989), who noted that such interactions take up a substantial part of

rehearsal.

EX. #39 1 J: Can I have tenors alone please? I still feel like you’re pushing. K? Don’t push. 2 Ready. 3 S: (a baritone) Do you want us to sing with them? =

4 J: = No, just tenors. Fif- fifty-three. No I don’t I d- a;:hhh (.) yes, go ahead. 5 The- the baritones are supposed to sing here.

EX. # 4 0 6 J: Can I have the altos alone, K? One (4.5) 7 (everyone sits but the altos)

8 J: One, two, one (.) and tenors. And tenors. Altos and tenors.

9 (2.0; tenors stand)

10 J; One, two, baritones are singing too.

11 (baritones stand)

12 S: (a baritone) Y ou said altos // alone. 13 J: One, I said altos, baritones and tenors. Basses you 14 Join em, (basses stand) one, two, ready, and.

Excerpt #39-40 show two different approaches to the work of

determining just who is teaching. Excerpt #39 shows a standard approach of clarifying who is to sing: that of asking Mr. Jacobsen ("Do you want us to sing with them" in line 3).

In excerpt #40, Mr. Jacobsen asks for the altos alone (line 6). At this,

the other students sit down, a move with serious structural implications, as

100 will be shown in Chapter 7. In line 8, Mr. Jacobsen directs the tenors to stand,

indicating he wishes to hear "altos and tenors." After the tenors stand, Mr.

Jacobsen begins to count off, then says "baritones are singing too" (line 10).

The baritones stand, and a baritone then says "you said altos alone" (line 12).

This comment is more direct than the question in line 3 of excerpt #39, even

as it serves the same purpose; it also lacks the common floor getting

courtesies consistent with other student initiations in these observed

rehearsals. Mr. Jacobsen's response to the student (cutting him off in the

process) is "I said altos, baritones and tenors" (line 13) and then, revising

himself one more time, he adds the basses (lines 13-14), who stand without

comment. The rehearsing then begins.

Clearly, Mr. Jacobsen never said "altos, baritones and tenors," at least

not originally; line 6 asks "can 1 have the altos alone." However, when a

student pointedly says this, he is cut off and told "1 said altos, baritones and

tenors." Looking at each comment in lines 8 and 10 as revisions to

instruction, and not forgetfulness, Mr. Jacobsen did say "altos" (line 6),

"baritones" (line 8) and "tenors" (line 10). So there are two possible

interpretations, that is, until line 13. Then, Mr. Jacobsen pointedly notes that

he was correct, and the student was incorrect.

This kind of "no, 1 am correct" response in line 13 is very different

from the "oh, 1 am incorrect" kinds of responses seen above in Mr. Jacobsen's comments. A possibility of this is that at least part of Mr. Jacobsen's unique

101 self-evaluation is a result of the sequential manner of the student comment in line 12. The line 12 comment, lacking either the intonation of a query or the routine of getting the floor, is cut off by Mr. Jacobsen, which is just as unusual as the fimmess of his reply. It seems reasonable to assume that Mr.

Jacobsen's response is more a result of an improperly placed comment than of the content of the comment itself. Perhaps Mr. Jacobsen is discovering what will happen next as he formulates it; the student response addresses the direction as a static object, while Mr. Jacobsen's comments in lines 6, 8, 10 and

13-14 are built temporally.

At any rate, through the firmness of his comment in line 13, Mr.

Jacobsen is getting on with the rehearsal. If there is a time to discuss who he had originally asked to sing, it has most definitely passed. The basses seem to know this, and they stand without comment when asked in line 14.

In addition to the work of finding out who is to sing, other student- initiated interactions serve to determine under what circumstances the singing Is to occur.

EX. #41 1 J: Touch some spots, first. Yes, question.

2 S: Should we start going by memory today? 3 J: Yes. Right now I just wanna touch some spots so don’t go by memory.

EX. #42 4 J; Push comes to shove we’ll do it from (.) // 5 S: here. 6 J: Yeah. Yes, question, 102 7 S: Arc wo gonna like practice where we’re sitting before we //

8 J: Yeah what we’re 9 gonna do is we’re gonna go (.) we’re back there, and we’re gonna go back 10 there and see what happens.

EX. #43 11 J: Stand still for a second and let me see, yes?

12 SI: Uh, is our, what is our program exactly?

13 J: I’ll tell you as soon as soon as I can finish the processional. What’s gonna, 14 well I’ll tgU you it’s Come to the Water (.) Alleluia (.) uh, Een So Lord Jesus 15 (.) If Love Should Count You Worthy. That’s our program. Now //

16 S2: Elijah?

17 S3: Elijah? = 18 S4: = Calm down // y’all.

19 S2: Elijah?

20 J: No, we’re not doing Elijah Rock. 21 Ss: Aawww

22 J: No.

EX. #44 23 J: Let’s touch, uhh, (.) the Alleluia. 24 S: Are we singing Elijah?

25 J: No, you are not singing Elijah.

26 S2: Can we try it Mr. II 27 J: (to another student) Yes?

These excerpts show student questions which serve to give added detail to the conditions under which the students are rehearsing: Such detail as the order of the concert (excerpt #43), the use of music from memory (excerpt

103 #41), and the practicing of the seating arrangement (excerpt #42) is all asked

for, and elaborated upon. Also elaborated upon is whether or not the

students will perform "Elijah Rock," which is a student favorite (excerpts #43-

44). The students ask this twice. In excerpt #44, this is asked in a straight­

forward way ("are we singing Elijah" in line 24).

In excerpt #43, however, the question originally asked has no specific

mention of "Elijah Rock," it simply asks for the concert order. Once the order

is listed by Mr. Jacobsen (lines 13-15), and it becomes clear that "Elijah Rock" is

not on the list, the students ask for the piece by name (lines 16-19),

interrupting Mr. Jacobsen in order to do so. This "Elijah Rebellion" is

squashed in line 20, as Mr. Jacobsen states, "we are not doing 'Elijah Rock',"

adding an emphatic "no" after the students whine in protest.

There is an interesting issue of balance in the collaborative music-

making of Mr. Jacobsen and the members of the symphonic choir in excerpt

#43. The following excerpt shows this sparring over collaborative balance to

not be unique.

EX. #45 1 J: Don't do anything vet. We Te gonna start the music. I just wanna see if this 2 works =

3 SI: Mr. Jacobsen.

4 J: What?

5 82: Y ou can’t // do it on these steps.

6 81: You can’t do it on these steps cause we’re gonna be walking //

7 J: Guys all 8 you have to do is go “one, two, one, // two, one” 104 9 S3: You don’t understand. 10 84: No.

11 82: Y ou don’t understand // these steps aresmall.

12 81: These steps are small and // when you walk down 13 you’re right there on the person in front of you.

14 84: You’ll step on the person in 15 front of you. 16 J: All you have to do is walk down.

17 (The voices dissolve into cacophony) //

18 85: Y ou have to go every other step or you’ll step on 19 the heels of the person in front of you.

20 J: Oh, OK. OK. Well then don’t leave until he gets off the step. Until th- then 21 go down. ( 1.0) OK, let’s see what happens. Make it work.

Excerpt #45, like excerpts #39-44, shows an issue of pre-singing organization. Unlike those excerpts, however, excerpt #45 shows the students engaged as active collaborators in that organization. Excerpt #45, which concerns the student processional—which, as a reminder, is an area in which

Mr. Jacobsen and the students work on a more equal footing—contains at least a fragment of the type of "floor getting" behavior found in almost all of the student initiations (line 3). Once the floor is given, a conversation ensues which is reminiscent of those in excerpt #22-23. The conversation ends in a manner much like that of excerpt #23. Mr. Jacobsen, indicating through the direct instruction that he is the one who is in the position to give such

105 instruction, says "make it work" (line 21). The balance of collaboration is now defined in the clearest possible terms. The "how^' part of making it work is left to the students, not surprising in the case of the processional.

The last two excerpts in this collection concern the harmonic basis of music making. Their difference is striking, especially given the similarity of topic and of substance between the two excerpts.

EX. #46 1 SI: What song arc we singin?

2 (2.0)

3 J: (Holds up the copy) Basket. (2.5, students chatter) Let’s go. 4 S2: We are ready.

5 (1.0)

6 J: You’re ready? (.) Thank you altos. Altos are always ready.

7 (J. prepares to begin)

8 J: Thank you. Thank//you.

9 S3: Mr. Jacobsen is this in A minor or C major? 10 J: (1.0) Y ou tell me.

11 (over a gradually rising amount of cohort talking)

12 S4: Go ahead Vince. 13 S5: A minor =

14 S3: = I’m gonna go with A minor on that one. 15 J: ?

16 S6: ((laughs)) // [ 17 S5: K.

18 S3: Because it ends on a la syllable. 19 (1.0) 106 20 S5: Wrong.

21 J: No. No but that- that’s not the only reason, though. I’ll ^ ya. [ 22 S5: It’s “What is”.

23 S7: It’s an E flat seven.

24 (.5)

25 S3: A minor?

26 57: E flat seven. 27 (3.0)

28 S3:1-1 should //

29 J: Go ahead ( ). You’ve got the right-right answer though. But- 30 but, he’s like, “Bbut-but,” you’re OK. You’re OK. 31 S4:1 know not to ask those questions //

32 J: But (.) it also does a lot of modulations in 33 there loo. OK? A lot of key changes.

34 (the song is rehearsed, and after the final chord is released...)

35 J: Well what does it end up there:: (.) peanut? 36 (3.0) 37 S8:C.

38 S3:1 don know.

39 J: Look at it, what’s the chord? 40 (4.0)

41 S8:C!

42 (There is a cacophony of “Cmon, Peanut” from the ensemble) 43 S3: I’m analyzing the chord.

44 J: Let’s go. One, vou had it. One, two.

107 EX. #47 45 J: Huh?

46 S: s’ do. Where’s do? (louder) Where’s do?

47 J: Where’s do? We’re in F, is do. F is do. In this key, F is do.

Lines 1-3 contain a question sequence just like those in excerpts #24-30.

The direction of the excerpt is that much more surprising when, after the question in line 9 ("Mr. Jacobsen is this in A minor or C major?"), Mr.

Jacobsen responds with "you tell me" (line 10). The question relates to key center in the piece, and it is a question that Mr. Jacobsen knows the answer to, which is evidenced by his response in line 29. Rather than respond to the student initiation, Mr. Jacobsen uses the question as his own teacher-initiated question with the known answer, and the sequence now plays out as such beginning with a response by the asker-tumed-respondant (line 14). This response is followed by an initiation "why?" in line 15.

There then follows an intermingling of elapsed time and interaction which the students read like the experts of the setting that they are. The line

15 initiation is placed in the evaluation position, and yields a response (line

18). The seconds that go by afterward, are read as a negative evaluation (line

20), and a competing answer even appears (lines 23 and 26). Mr. Jacobsen eventually evaluates the initiation positively in line 29; the student who had the question also had the correct answer, and Mr. Jacobsen managed to throw both question and answer off kilter, in order to assure the student an opportunity to attempt an answer. As expert as the students were at reading

1 0 8 the elapsing space, Mr. Jacobsen showed even more mastery in setting it up.

In this case, the observed lesson is that of an attempt by Mr. Jacobsen to encourage attempts at answering of questions by students, rather than just asking them.

Excerpt #47 is a concentrated excerpt #46. In asking "where's do" (line

19), the student is in fact asking for the tonality of the piece. Topically, this is the same question the student asked in excerpt #46 ("is this in a minor or C major" in line 46). Rather than any extended sequence, however, Mr.

Jacobsen says "F is do" in line 47. Instead of 44 lines, excerpt #47 takes three lines.

Like excerpts #24-38, the work of these interactions in excerpts #39-47 is to organize the music making. Unlike excerpts #24-38, however, these interactions do not work within the music itself.

Questions of joint production.

One unusual feature of excerpt #45 above is that the students are as active as Mr. Jacobsen in the work at hand. The excerpts that follow show students and Mr. Jacobsen as collaborators in the delicate matter of creating both ensemble sound and social space with and for one another,

EX. #48 1 (after the release 3 after E in Elijah)

2 S: Mr. Jacobsen? 3 J: Yes.

109 4 S: Can you cue in the seconds? 5 J: I sure can. And I didn’t.

EX. #49 9 J: Question? 10 S: Are you still taking that big of a pause in there? 11 J: it should not be, and that’s my fault.

12 S: OK, well I was just wondering. I knew you were ( )

13 J: No, it was my mistake.

EX. #50 14 C: Oh, Elijah.

15 (1.5)

16 J: K, one more time please, // Oh. 17 S: You forgot to cue us in there =

18 J: Yes.

EX. #51 19 (the students are conferring with J. after rehearsal. Their tlrst comments cannot be 20 heard)

21 J: Oh, Elijah.There’s no breath. My fault.Oh, Elijah, carry it through. 22 S: Cause we’ve been like, you always break. 23 J: I know. Well, yeah. My fault. I’ll fix it.

Excerpts #48 and #49 (and perhaps #51, which will be discussed below) each are put into motion by a student initiated question (lines 4 and 10). Both questions appear to be identical in shape to those of excerpts #24-30. What differs, however, is the response by Mr. Jacobsen. In both excerpts, his

110 response also contains a self-evaluation of the action that brought about the initiation. With his "I sure can, and I didn't" (line 5), Mr. Jacobsen evaluates his own work, that of cueing the second sopranos. The student's initiation did not specifically state that he had not done so, it merely asked if he could.

Since Mr. Jacobsen's competence as a conductor was displayed hundreds (if not thousands) of times in my observations, it makes little sense to literally assume that the point of the question was to ask if Mr. Jacobsen could cue the second sopranos.

A detailed discussion of the student's intent would be conjecture.

However, the question does point to the very spot that Mr. Jacobsen himself admits to have been flawed. The student likely was just as aware of the spot and the flaw, and therefore also knew what the "correct" gesture would have been.

A very similar type of sequence is seen in excerpt #49, with one added feature, that of the student's comment "OK, well I was just wondering" in line 12. This comes immediately after Mr. Jacobsen's response/ self- evaluation in line 11, and it serves an important purpose. Both Mehan (1979,

1982) and McHoul (1978) have noted that questions with the known answer are normally asked by teachers, not by students. The comment "I was just wondering" points away from a predetermined known answer, and points toward a simple question, which would be much like that found in excerpts

#24-30. Given the close similarity, and an equal precision in pointing a

III question at a location which Mr. Jacobsen admits was faulty, it is unclear whether the student really was "just wondering" or using the comment to downgrade what could be heard as a complaint or critique. In the case of excerpt #49, the latter results ("no, it was my mistake" by Mr. Jacobsen in line

13).

Regarding excerpt #51, the question or comment made by the student was unheard, and therefore any discussion of what it might have been would be supposition. However, if the rest of the sequence and structure is considered, then we can at least establish what could have been said, somewhat like an archeologist does at a dig site. Mr. Jacobsen's response to the unheard question (line 21) is just like those response/self-evaluations in lines 5 and 11, in that he responds to and admits guilt about an issue in a specific musical place. The student's next comment (line 22) that "well, you always break" is much less subtle than the sequentially similar student comment in Une 12. The student, rather than suggesting an alternative interpretation for asking the question, justifies it in terms of clarifying what

Mr. Jacobsen has done to confuse her.

Given this structure, and its similarity to excerpts #48 and #49, it is quite possible that the student asked a question pointing to a spot where a director error was present. The similarity of the positioning of the student

112 comment in line 22 to that of line 12 add credence to the possibility that in the

case of excerpt #25 the student's question had a pre determined known

answer.

Of the above excerpts, #49 is certainly the clearest, from the initiating

student's perspective. Excerpt #50 has an interesting sequential anomaly,

though, which is best described in comparison to the excerpts #49 and #51.

The student's direct comment "you forgot to cue us there" (line 17) is striking

in its similarity to those explanatory student statements in lines 12 and 22.

What differs is the absence of a question. This makes it very unusual; out of

the 56 excerpts of interaction explored in this chapter, it is one of only five

that lack a method of getting the floor to speak (raising hands, asking "Mr.

Jacobsen?", etc.). The accomplished result of the sequence is identical to that

of excerpts #49 and #51, in that Mr. Jacobsen admits to making an error that

the students who asked the question were likely aware of. Excerpt #50 is

certainly more compressed than its relatives, in that the entire act of

sequencing into the student asked question (not to mention the tricky act of sequencing back into the accepted classroom interactional format) is missing completely.

EX. #52 1 (after a series of “what time will webe home from the field-trip” type questions) 2 S: I have a question. 3 J: (nods)

4 S: Since section leaders are pretty much doing (.) sing-a-grams, how are we going 113 5 to have sectionals (.) during sing-a-grams? 6 J: Don’t have sectionals.

7 S: Are you sure?

8 J: Weil. I mean, yeah, we just have to, I ’11 just have to rely on you.

In this excerpt, the student's second question ("are you sure?" in line 7) serves much the same purpose as that of excerpt #42, in that the student offered Mr. Jacobsen an opportunity to recant his response, if he wished to do so. Again, the student's interest in doing so indicates that there could be a reason that Mr. Jacobsen might n o t be sure, allowing for some other answer of which the student may have been aware. This interaction was produced jointly, just as those in excerpts #48-51.

In excerpt #52, Mr. Jacobsen's instruction was produced with the assistance of a student. It would seem to be a small step to instructions by a student, produced with the assistance of Mr. Jacobsen. The difference is subtle but important. There are few examples of jointly-produced interaction with the student cast as the lead.

EX. #53 1 (J. is clowning around with the basses and tenors) 2 J: Alright, we gotta get //

3 S: Fool y’all. 4 82: C’mon lets go.

5 J: I’m sorry. One, thank you, one, two, ready, go.

114 EX. #54 6 (students are using music for the concert)

7 J; I know.

8 S: Hey guys? Don’t forget to hole punch it and put it in your folder.

EX. #55 9 S: C’mon guys we don’t have much time.

10 J: Yes indeed.

Excerpts #53-55 are the most unusual of the collection. In these cases, the students comment to the other cohort in the ensemble, directly and without using the common format of getting the floor. Excerpts #53 and #55 relate to issues of management; excerpt #54 relates to a logistical concern.

It is important to note that this student-directly-to-student kind of interaction is both unusual (three occurrences out of fifty-six musical interactions, in my observations) and topically mundane (issues within music are not addressed, only issues about music). Still, the excerpts did occur. Particularly strong is excerpt #53, where the student's “d mon let's go"

(line 4) addresses both the students and Mr. Jacobsen. Mr. Jacobsen even apologizes, saying "I'm sorry" in line 5.

1 am least comfortable making summary statements with these excerpts. This is so mainly because of the infrequency of their occurrence, but also because they are topically different (management versus logistics). The unusual nature of these excerpts, however, makes them important to note;

115 such student-to-student interaction could be a rare, but recurring feature of

the symphonic choir rehearsals. They are at the edge of interactions that are

jointly produced, but are probably as far as students can go.

Student initiations are asked concerning a number of enterprises

within rehearsal: How are ensemble sounds made (excerpts #24-38), what are

the circumstances surrounding any given "performance" of music (excerpts

#39-47), when does the joint production of music making break down

between students and Mr. Jacobsen, and what is the result (excerpts #48-55).

These questions are tied directly and unavoidably to the situation at hand, as

are the answers to the questions.

Where Interaction and Perception Meet: One Detailed Case

EX. #56

1 J: (plays) Ready.

2 (1.5) 3 S: Huh?

4 J: Oh, I’m sorry, (plays)

5 S: Thank you.

116 Excerpt #56 is an exemplar of the interactive issues shown in this chapter. Mr. Jacobsen plays the notes in line 1 on the piano just before beginning, in a spot where he normally would play a starting pitch, starting chord, or the first few notes of one or two parts. Musically, what he plays matches none of these. A student, after a brief pause, asks "huh?" (line 2).

The "huh?" elicits an apology from Mr. Jacobsen, who then plays the notes in line 4 on the piano. These "match" one of the options mentioned above. In fact, they are the bass (1st note) and baritone (2nd - 5th notes) parts where Mr.

Jacobsen was going to begin. The "thank you" from the student identifies that any misunderstandings have now been cleared up.

This is a fascinating excerpt, and it is possible to see both perceptual issues and interactional issues within it. The student could not perceive the pitches as allowing him to acceptably begin; there was a problem in "hearing" what was played, in the context of what should come next. After playing a different set of pitches, the student understood.

Within the observations of the symphonic choir, there were a number of perceptual interactions with the piano.

EX. #57

M

SC

117 Excerpt #57, which occurs early in the observations, is a sample of the sopranos (SP) "correctly"' following what is played on the piano (PN), but

"incorrectly" singing the part as it is written in the score (SC).

EX. #58

m

sc

EX. #59

s c

Excerpt #58 and #59, which occur much later in the observations, are instances where the opposite occurs. The tenors (TN) sing the part as it is written in the score (SC), ignoring the differing piano part (PN).

In these cases, the singers have two options to follow: The piano part being played, or the written music in the score. In excerpt #57 the piano is followed, even as it deviates from the score. When this deviation occurs in excerpts #58 and #59, the part-as-written remains sung, and the singers do not follow the piano.

118 The importance of piano assistance, then, changes over time. Some of

this has to do with Mr. Jacobsen's occasional difficulties with playing piano

while rehearsing. This is noted by a number of students.

M: Are there ever any times when in rehearsal Mr. Jacobsen does something that’s in conflict with what’s written on the page? (2.5)

L: His piano playing sometimes (.) has problems ((laughs)). (LYNNE)

M: Are there are there ever times when (.) uhh Mr. Jacobsen will give a directive or play something on the piano or such that (.) is different from what’s on the page? (2.5)

B: Like he’ll play the wrong part? (BETTY)

More importantly, the reliance of the students on the piano for cues, accompaniment, etc., seems to have temporal components, as well. Once students are intimate with a particular part, they know to sing it as they know it, despite glitches from the piano. Much earlier, with nothing to hold on to, they follow the piano part, even if it means singing notes that are absent from the score.

The students eventually know what they should hear. And, in line 1 of excerpt #56, the student does not hear it. The piano notes do not "mean" anything that he understands, as evidenced by his "huh?" (line 3). When Mr.

Jacobsen replays the pitches, they then are meaningful to the student; they are the starting bass and baritone parts. The student thanks Mr. Jacobsen, and all participants are back on the same page.

119 From an interactional standpoint, excerpt #56 is a very tightly- compressed turn-taking sequence. Line 1 of excerpt #56 is a musical comment by Mr. Jacobsen. The effect of the played pitches are that of both giving a location ("sing where these pitches occur") and a starting pitch ("sing starting with these notes"). Some component of this effect is not understood by the student. After a pause, which allows time for thought, the student responds with "huh?" in line 3. The "huh?" is a way of saying "I don't understand."

There could be a number of things that the student doesn't understand: He did not hear the notes, he was unclear of the instruction, etc.

Mr. Jacobsen hears it as a problem at the piano, and quickly says "oh.

I'm sorry" and replays the notes on the piano (line 4). These notes are pitches that the student has no problems understanding, and he acknowledges this with a "thank you" (line 5). Line 4, then, is a musical repair, much like those repairs found within normal conversation (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977)

Line 3, a request for further instruction, is the catalyst for the line 4 repair.

It is unclear whether the student who asked the question had an awareness of what Mr. Jacobsen had done incorrectly or not. It does not really matter; the student initiation is more correctly looked at as a request for clarification, which is followed by a repair in line 4, and an acknowledgment of such in line 6. At least in the one case of excerpt #56, musical responses

(like the playing of the piano) seem to serve the same interactional purposes as conversation, all the while tying in to central issues of musical perception.

120 Conclusions

What can be said about the interactions of the symphonic choir? The recurring interactions initiated by Mr. Jacobsen consisted of questions and comments with an already known answer, as well as questions and comments that had no known answer. Many of these questions were positioned around issues of musical familiarity and competence for both Mr.

Jacobsen and the students.

The teacher-initiated questions with a known answer (excerpts #1-9) were each based on topics of instruction where Mr. Jacobsen was the clear expert, and the questions were asked in order to further detail or change an aspect of the choral ensemble sound. In only two excerpts, though, were the questions related to issues within the sound. In all the others, the questions dealt with details about the sound, such as diction. These excerpts show an interactive form at sim ilar to those noted by M cHoul (1978) and Mehan (1979,

1982). The teacher-initiated questions with no know n answer (excerpts #10-

13) resembled questions asked in casual conversation (Sacks, Schegloff &

Jefferson, 1974) instead of questions with a known answer.

Other teacher-initiated questions (excerpts #14-21) related to issues of either musical or instructional competency. These questions either were built around musical disagreements, or they asked the students to make assessments about their own musical competencies that Mr. Jacobsen was

121 either unwilling or unable to make. A few questions (excerpts #22-23) took

the allowance of student evaluation to the point that Mr. Jacobsen

participated more or less as an equal member with the students, where everyone worked coUaboratively toward a practical goal. This occurred when the student processional was the topic of interaction.

Student-initiated questions which focus on how an ensemble sound is made in a given setting (excerpts #24-38) make up the bulk of the student- initiated interactions. These questions run along a continuum, from questions in which the student requests information to those in which the student needs clarification due to multiple and contradictory "correct" answers, to those in which the student is leading Mr. Jacobsen into certain musical instructions. Nevertheless, most all of these student questions follow McHoul's components of student talk; Getting the floor, holding the floor, and delivering news (actually, requesting that Mr. Jacobsen deliver news).

Student-initiated questions which focus on who is the topic of instruction, as well as the circumstances surrounding the instruction

(excerpts #39-47) are the most varied questions of all the interactions studied.

Like excerpts #24-38, the w ork of these interactions in excerpts #39-47 is to organize the music making. Unlike excerpts #24-38, however, these interactions do not work within the music itself. To that end, these interactions fix on topics around and about the music, such as which pieces

122 are on the concert program, which section is supposed to be singing at a particular time, in what tonal center is the piece currently being sung, and whether or not the music should be sung by memory.

Another set of student-interactions (excerpts #48-55) show students and

Mr. Jacobsen as collaborators in the delicate matter of creating both ensemble sound and social space with and for one another. Included are matters of correcting one another in an acceptable way, as well as of jointly producing the interactional scenes that are the focus of these excerpts. The make up of this collaboration is a very sensitive and turbulent issue; both the sensitivity and the turbulence of the students and Mr. Jacobsen is evident.

Finally, one instance within teacher and student interactions is analyzed, where both verbal interaction and musical understanding are entangled. Within the one detailed case analyzed in this chapter, the musical act of playing the piano served both perceptual purposes and interactive ones.

This leads to the possibility that musical accomplishments can serve interactive purposes, all the while standing alongside verbal accomplishments.

1 23 CHAPTERS

INSTRUCTION AND ENSEMBLE SOUND

Instruction from Mr. Jacobsen to the students in the symphonic choir is a central part of the students' dawning abilities to make musical meaning as they sing. And, as noted above, teacher-initiated directives account for a vast majority of utterances in the classroom.

Mr. Jacobsen's classroom is no exception. In order to best explore the instruction given to the students in the symphonic choir, it is necessary to parse the instructions given into two different groupings: Those instructions given after the symphonic choir has stopped singing (stopped instruction), and those instructions given to the symphonic choir as they sing (real-time instruction).

124 Stopped Instruction

Stopped instruction accounted for the majority of instruction observed by Mr. Jacobsen. In any particular stopped instruction, Mr. Jacobsen would first get the ensemble to stop singing, either through a gestural cut-off of the ensemble's singing, a verbal cut-off of the ensemble's singing ("yeah," or

"thank you," for example), or by simply beginning to talk over them. The actual instruction is then given by Mr. Jacobsen, either through the use of musical jargon, through analogies, or through modeling.

Stopped jargon.

The use of technical terms specific to singing a particular way in a particular piece of music—which I am calling "jargon"—accounts for a large amount of the stopped instruction used by Mr. Jacobsen with the symphonic choir. While the use of instruction by analogy by itself is less usual, and the use of modeling by itself unusual, the instructing of music making by jargon alone is more frequent.

EX. #60 1 J: Can you sing? Forget the dynamic markings, and just give me notes? Mezzo 2 pian- mezzo forte, give me some notes. Worry about the shaping later, just give 3 me pitches.

EX. #61 4 J: Can I have the sopranos? K? (1.0) Alone.

5 C: For not alone he enters H 6 J: Yeah, guys? Mezzo forte, sing it out

125 EX. #62 7 C: sings at E in “Elijah Rock”

8 J: Yeah, triplet triplet Tri-ple-tee, K? (sings a triplet) Make sure you get that.

EX. #63 9 Cb: sings mm. 9 - II (5 sec)

10 J: Yeah, stay high on the B natural (sings the first two notes of m. 10, out of 11 rhythm). Get it up there.Ready, and, one.

12 Cb: sings mm. 9 -15 (II sec)

EX. #64 13 C: immemorial pain 14 J: Can I get the altos doing that same thing? And guys, if you would take about a 15 second of your time and put (.) mark the unison notes, you’ll find one you’ve 16 got one at measure 38, you’ve got another one u:::h, (.) where you hold, 17 sopranos hold the D? And tenors you go to a G at measu:::re, what is that (.) 18 37,38,39, forty. The end of forty. So mark those unisons so you have 19 something to give yourself some reference.

EX. #65 20 C: How wise you were to open not and H

21 J: Yeah, shh, let’s all put that “t” right where 22 it’s supposed to be, on the and of four. One, two, go.

EX. #66 23 C: door!

24 J: Now, remember. Yes, you may have to stagger breathe, but all of you cannot 25 breathe together. OK? That’s ^ on one breathe, please, all on one breath.

EX. #67 26 J: Please make sure ( 1.0), this is growing all the way to forte then it’s coming back 27 down to piano. Please make sure you don’t over^ that, cause the next time we 28 do this to for- it goes to double forte and I want the difference. I’d like to have a 29 change (.) of dynamics there.

126 EX. #68 30 C: never will forget //

31 J: It’s like never will forget, let the consonants work for you. Let cm go.

EX. #69 32 J: Can you hit (.) on the word “rock.” u::h (.) where, can you hit that and get off 33 that on the fermata? Specially you all (to the sopranos). You all (to the altos) 34 just keep the pitches coming, cause it’s so low.

EX. #70 35 J: I feel like, shh, it goes (.) forte, double forte, triple forte, which is kinda weird. 36 OK, but it’s gotta keep growing and we’re kinda losing, losing it’s spunk, can 37 we start it a little bit softer so that is grows into that? Start it a hair softer.

EX. #71 38 C: door!

39 J: Basses, give me more. And second, altos give me more. Sopranos and tenors, 40 keep it (.) keep it (.) comin but not like that (points to the basses and altos) vou 41 all give me dynamic contrast, please.

EX. #72 42 J: Guys, guys, no no no no no, you can’t breathe where it feels good. K, no, you 43 gotta count.

EX. #73 44 J: This is one of those, if you don’t spit the consonants out. I don’t hear it? So we 45 must spit them out, please?

EX. #74 46 J: When we get to the, the double forte (.) let it come from (.) the, the inner parts, 47 not the top?

127 EX. #75 48 C: sings to tn. 178 //

49 J: Yeah. The attacks need to be clean there. Because he’s giving 50 you the little false ending effecL K? Here we go. One, two, ready, and.

51 C: sings from m. 171 to the end

EX. #76 52 C: sings mm. 26-28 //

53 J: Basses and tenors, you gotta prepare for that. Shhh.

EX. #77 54 C: sings mm. 26-28 in “If Love Should Count You Worthy” //

55 J: Basses and tenors, 56 you- you’re not hearing that A flat. If you can listen to the, the ladies sing and? 57 And? You’ll hit that A Hat, and also (.) the the piano played a low A flat

EX. #78 58 J: Che, che, chelor. chelor, chelor.

EX. #79 59 J: Yeah, yeah. You gotta- you gotta hold that out. The “I” has to go on the and of 60 of four, otherwise Leah can’t play her D.

EX. #80 61 C: ends “Een So Lord Jesus”

62 J: I just want more of the final consonant, not feel as if we (.) we’re we’re being 63 rushed to go on. If if if if if think of the phrase, you’re telling a message. 64 And ladies, for Christ is coming, let it open.

EX. #81 65 C: singing “Laudate Pueri” // 66 J: Yeah, I need that cum, thank you don’t discuss it, we don’t have time, we 67 need more of the “k”. Cum, cum, so that those entrances are nice and clean.

128 EX. #82 68 J: Et ^ saecula, please make sure you say “een” and not “in,” like half of you 69 were doing yesterday. It’s “een,” not “in”. Ready one, two, ready, and.

EX. #83 70 C: sing up to m. 170

71 J: Yeah, OK, you just forgot to hold that A =

72 S: = Yeah.

EX. #84 73 J: Start at six. Basses, if you listen very close to the sopranos, they give you your 74 starting pitch. K, they give you your starting pitch.

75 C: sings mm. 20-25

Excerpts #60-84 are examples of stopped jargon used alone in instructing the symphonic choir. The topics of instruction vary, from details in the score of a particular piece (when to breathe, what pitches to sing, dynamics) to issues relating to the text (Latin prommdation, emphasis of certain consonants or vowels, releasing of consonants at spedfic times), to concerns with group performance apart from the score (balance, intonation).

These instructions come in short, concise bursts from Mr. Jacobsen.

One exception to this is excerpt #76. In line 53, Mr. Jacobsen, after stopping the choir, tells the tenors and basses, "you gotta prepare for that." The comment only makes sense in light of the performance of that, which was the

129 singing in line 52. In order for the tenors and basses to prepare for the singing of line 52, they must do some musical things that Mr. Jacobsen does not discuss.

While many of the examples of stopped jargon are precise, there are others that, for a number of reasons, are quite lengthy.

EX. #85 1 J: Notice basses, vou have the same as them just a octave tower this time. Kean I 2 get the tenors? K, add the tenor. Make sure you breathe after::::: quest, K? You 3 might have to breathe before it, but I kinda like it after quest. Quest a:::nd uh, 4 possessed? Unpossessed, we may take a breath there, then after ping.

EX. #86 5 J: l^ ie s , OK, I’m I’m on a s- soprano kick today. K? Can you, can we just make 6 sure that that we’re supporting that upper register, please? Lots of space and lots 7 of breath? K? That doesn’t mean loudness, it just mean support.

EX. #87 8 J: Ladies, shh, make sure that we don’t, we’re not forcing we’re not pushing that. 9 Just relax (.) and support it. (1.5) Breath management is the word these days. 10 Ready, thank you, rejoice, (gives starting pitches) Ready? Basses make sure you 11 down to that E flat. Ready, and, go.

EX. #88 12 J: Better better better, still not (.) quite there, from the beginning though. Sopranos, 13 how many of you (.) are comfortable? K, make sure that only you:::: (.) how 14 many of you raised your hands? (students raise their hands). Alright, one more 15 time, peace, (plays the starting pitch) Thank you. Basses? Make sure you keep a 16 lot of breath imder there so that you keep the pitch? (gives the starting pitch) One 17 ( 1.0) I’ll probably do this in two. Peace be to you, but I’ll start in four.

EX. #89 18 J: Tenors, shh? (one by one, students begin to sit down) Shh, tenors, shh, thank 19 you, thank you, top of five, top of five, the descending, descending pattern? 20 Make sure (.) that you have enough breath, breath management under that 21 so that it the pitch doesn’t ( 1.0) doesn’t go under? Doesn’t go under the 22 pitch, rather. K? (about half of the students are seated) Cause you’re the 130 23 only ones moving there, the only ones moving at the top of five (.) you’re 24 standing, here we go.

25 (The students all stand)

26 J: K? K? Everyone, shh, (.) everyone where it has, where someone is during 27 a holding, and you’re moving, please make sure that you give enough 28 breath management under that so that the pitch does not go under. K, every 29 time I’ve heard those, and I, I took it home last night and I looked at my music at 30 home (.) but, that is what I was kinda worried about (smears notes together) 31 NahNahNah, K? Keep those pitches up, keep the elevator rising.

EX. #90 32 C: Sings from m. 37 to m. 44 in “If Love Should Count You Worthy” 33 J: Can you do me a, do me a favor and put some breath marks in? Breathe after 34 quest (4.5) and then we’re gonna do a little cheat action here, breathe after pos- 35 unpossessed (.) K (2.5) and then we’ll breathe after pain, so that you’ll have 36 energy to get to pain, otherwise you will die before you get to pain, and it will 37 sound like pain. OK?

EX. #91 38 J: Do this. Breathe after the word enters (.) breathe after “in his train are angels of 39 the mists,” breathe (.) No, the lonely que- quest, breathe after quest (.) and 40 “dreams of the unfulfilled and unpossessed,” breathe, “and sorrow and life’s 41 immemorial pain” breathe.

EX. #92 42 J: This time please make sure you put the breath markings (.) shh. I’ll make sure 1 do 43 it too, after “enters” please, K? Please mak- put a breath ^ter “quest” (1.5) K? 44 And then “dreams of the unfulfilled and unpossessed,” breathe. Make sure you 45 have those.

EX. #93 46 J: This is purely me, OK? Singing-wise, it- it’s not a problem. I feel like, 1 feel like 47 we’re rushing (2.0) right before you have the little break? I feel like we’re rushing 48 to put the consonant on. OK? And then, when we put the consonant on, it’s too 49 much (.) space before we go on, so it’s not a continuous, not a flowing (2.0) it 50 doesn’t flow. And it- it- it’s bothering me. (.) A lot. Try to put the “m” right on 51 count (3.5) place the “m” right on coimt three (1.0) of him, K? And it’s, most of- 52 most of those are on count three. Just try it

131 EX. #94 53 J: Now, could you do me a favor? Could you, you you know that you’re not going 54 to get to breathe until after the word “quest” Can you plan yourself so that, so 55 that you’re not breathing with your neighbor there, but so that you can lake some 56 breath so that you can get to that note? Get to that A? With some energy? Alright, 57 here we go.

EX. #95 58 J: Now we must keep the energy, shh thank you, especially at the beginning of the 59 piece, because that’s where we’re going sharp. I mean we re, well it’s not goin 60 sharp it’s goin flat U::h. but that’s where we’re out of key. Basses, I think 61 you’re helping us (.) change the key. You’ve gotta keep it up, K? Keep it nice 62 and high, keep it nice and high. Lift the eyebrows, keep it nice and high.

EX. #96 63 J: = And, stop there cause the rest of it just kinda repeats again. Look at the 64 beginning again, ladies make sure that you make it up to Ik K? Basses, make 65 sure that you count? whole note, OK, half notes still get two beats these days? 66 OK, make sure that you hold them (.) ouL Uhh, guys can you all get another 67 book so that you’re not three to a copy? Here you go. OK, here we go, one. 68 Second time. Make sure the repeat, this is what’s happening, and try to read 69 dynamics and the shaping of the phrase, please?

EX. #97 70 J: Bottom of six? Sing your syllables, thank you. And the rest of you, could you 7 1 make sure you’re looking at your part without talking, and you loiow exactly what 72 syllables you’re doing? Check your wholes and your half steps? Your whole 73 steps and your half steps, and mark them (.) accordingly, please.

EX. #98 74 J: Folks there’s gotta be a difference between the half note (.) and the quarter. K, 75 gotta be that difference, this distinction between that. Sopranos (.) u::h, and and 76 basses too at fifteen, that- you have that little run bum bum bum bum bum, listen 77 very closely because the piano’s playing that with you. K, and, and tune (.) with 78 that. Now, Gloria, and then the final consonants? Beginnings and endings of 79 consonants, please put them on and off and release them together? There are limes 80 I’ve got, specially with- with this, with this ocm arrangement. I’ll get some 81 soprano or some tenor s- (.) coming in just a h- (.) like ahh, that kind of thing, 82 ahh, that kind of effect We need it all together and I’ll try to be as (.) dry as I 83 possibly can, OK? I’ll be very dry.

132 There are three kinds of stopped jargon at w ork in excerpts #85-98:

Issues of breathing, such as supporting the vocal sound or determining where

to breathe (excerpts #85-92 and 94), collections of smaller segments of jargon

(excerpts #96-98), and statements difficult to put into words (excerpts #93 and

#95). Regarding the breathing jargon, or (to use Mr. Jacobsen's phrase)

"breath management," the amount of detail necessary to accomplish an

understanding of where everyone should breathe could account for the

greater length of instruction.

Excerpts #93 and #95, dealing with "continuous flow" and "energy"

respectively, are within the music and more ambiguous. The terms, as well

as Mr. Jacobsen's instructional wishes, are much more difficult to pinpoint

than, say, after which word to breathe. For example, it takes Mr. Jacobsen a

relatively long period of time to describe the problem in excerpt #93 (lines 46-

50). He finds a statement of the problem difficult to exactly produce, even though it "bothers" him "a lot." These kinds of examples, where details within the music are discussed in stopped instruction using only jargon, are quite rare.

As the next set of excerpts illustrates, examples of instances where musical detail is discussed through a combination of jargon and analogy or modeling are quite common.

EX. #99 1 C: sings mm. 20-23 in “If Love...”//

2 J: Yeah you need that breath. Seek your door, you 3 need that breath. Seek your door (.) and be your, cause you need that break. 133 EX. #100 4 C; Tenors and sopranos sing their parts as written from m. 26 to ra. 38 ( 18 5 sec) //

6 J: Nab, look at the-look at where you’re going you’ve got a little sequence there. 7 Look at the F, C, D, F, please put brackets around that. Put brackets around that 8 cause you’re coming back to the F (plays F-C-D-F-C), K? (sings the notes) Ba da 9 dee da da, or Do sol la do sol, right? (1.5) Say yes. 10 S: Yes.

11 J: Thank you. Just gimme that OK, Alright. One more time, please. One more 12 time, just the tenors and bass- you (points to the sopranos) sopranos. Ready, and, 13 one.

EX. #101 14 C: Alll (m. 38 - held over)

15 *J: (on the tenor note) alll

16 J: Can I have the tenor comin through there too, on the F sharp? K? And the D? 17 Ready? And.

18 C: Alll (m. 38 - held over)

19 J: Yeah could you not (models here) cover over that so 1 get Awwww, Allllll. 20 Ready, and. 21 C: A///(m. 38 - held over)

22 J: Tenors, can I get you alone just your D? Just the D, ready and.

23 CL Alll (m. 38 - held over)

24 J: K? (1.5) Or the f sharp. I’m sorry. Again, everyone, with the D, ready, and. 25 C: Alll (m. 38 - held over)

EX. #102 26 C: sings mm. 1-2 //

27 J: Yeah, can you give me the accents? Oh E - li, think of üûs for me, think 28 of singing ( 1.0) we like to place everything on an ah. B ut this one, could you 29 place it on a, on an ooh? OhE-U- jah, so it gets a little bit dark- as if you were 30 doin a German? Oh E - li - jah, O hE- li - jah. More ahh, and only when you 31 start gettin up into the real (.) upper registers? Start thinking ah shape. Ah. K. 32 K, think of more ooh. keep an ooh inside it Keep an ooh inside it.

134 EX. 33 C:

34 J: You know ladies you had that high B flat, you just sang the wrong note? Can you 35 sing that for me, please, for Christ? Ready, I think you can do iL Whatever you 36 did, do it again. A::::nd, go.

37 Cs: For Christ is coming H

38 J: Yeah that’s the one, that G flat Ready, a;::nd go.

39 Cs:

40 J: Yeah and don’t let up on coming soon. Don’t let on iL

EX. #104 41 C: Rejoice in heaven H

42 J: Y eah., yeah. Rejoice in Hea-ea~ven, there’s gotta be a little 43 slight break to get down to that E. Otherwise, we start sliding and picking up (.) 44 other notes. Hea-ea-ven, K? Don’t pick up the other notes. Ready, and.

45 C: Rejoice in heaven, all ye that dwell therein

46 J: Y eah, yeah. Think about it. Rejoice in heaven all ye that dwell. Rejoice in heaven 47 all ye that dwell therein. And we got Rejoice in hea-ea-ven, all ye that dwell, make 48 it go somewhere, make it go- as if you were speaking this to someone.

EX. #105 49 Ca; Sings at B in “Elijah Rock” //

50 J: Oh. 1 said I wasn’t gorma stop, but 1 am. (to the 51 altos; some tenors talk amongst themselves quietly) Can I can the consonant, the 52 come? Tell? (in rhythm) Come on sis-tah, help me ta pray, teU me my Lord done 53 pass, here we go? Good

EX. #106 54 C: sings to m. 4 //

55 J: Basses, shh, assume that the dotted quarter’s a crescendo (.) K, with 56 a slight (.) break in it. (sung to Jv j)J ) dee dee dee, dee dee dee, knécyeryone

57 has that crescendo, with a slight break, and a lifted accent A lifted accent So it 58 goes into the next phrase (.) 1 hope. Ready?

59 C: sings from the beginning to A (51 seconds) 135 EX. #107 60 C: sings through m. 56

61 J: Ycah, but can you do that the first time? Y’ all gave me a nice little double forte at 62 the end, (imitates) BRAHHHHHH, but can you build up to that? Build up to iL

EX. #108 63 C: Sings at A in “Laudate Pueri”

64 J: Crescendo the dotted quarter. Lifted accent to the next (sings the soprano part) 65 dee dee dee dee dee, bring it down. Ready, and.

EX. #109 66 J: Thank you don’t talk. In Elijah please, could you turn to page, page ten? Page 67 ten? And let’s, let’s just ^ it (plays starting pitch). K? We’re gonna break 68 there, (intones) Oh-oh-oh E-li-jah (.) Oh-oh-oh-oh E-U-jah release on two of that 69 OK? Ready? Ready, and. 70 C; Oh Elijah

EX. #110 71 C: divine regret =

72 J: = Y eah but you’ re under pitch there (plays two notes at once on the piano) //

73 S: I think 74 that’s the part where we go // back. 75 82: We go back to sing baritone =

76 J: =K? You’re still under pitch.

EX. #111 77 C: sings mm. 60 - 63 of “Laudate Pueri”

78 J: Y eah, you gotta count the rhythm, though (sings the tenor part) ba baba baba.

EX. #112 79 J: Yeah, guys, guys, shape the phrase.For not alone he eraers, shape the phrase 80 some more.

136 EX. #113 81 J: Can ya think (.) listen very carefully. Risin- (.) rise and fall to the line (2.0) K, 82 and be sure to get final consonants (.) on words, please? Thank you, final 83 consonants, and not so much of a break (.) OK, not so much of a break, like 84 (intones) Him (.) who freed us from.

EX. #114 85 C: sings to m. 9 //

86 J: Yeah, can you make sure 6/o-o/z-odf/zgf wg, so you don't 1 feel like 87 you’ re trying to take a breath there and I don’t want one.

EX. #115 88 J: Now basses, or, and and that’s all of you, the last syllable (.) of of latin? You 89 back off. OK. y o u taper. Laudate. Dominum. K? It’s not dominum K? Uh and 90 it-it’s also nuns, there’re some “k”s in there. Uh. Nomen, domini. as in doh. 91 Domini, domini, K? Domini. Uh, I’m gettin dohoomeni. And I’m gettin a bad 92 dohoo at that

EX. #116 93 C: sings m. 1 - 4 of “Laudate Pueri”

94 J: Yeah, do me a lavor? Would you fliE the “r”? Pu-en, Pu-en saecula . Flip the 95 “r” and everyone can you you “gloria”? Sav that with me, and. 96 C: Gloria

97 J: Uh, can you say, uh pueri. 98 C: Pueri

99 J: Now (.) if you will say a soft “d” that will help you with uh, “pueri,” K, instead 100 of, or- or “gloria,” “gloria” OK, if you can’t flip the “r”.

EX. #117 101 J: A soft flipped “r” would be really nice. Rejoice. Not a, not a Rmrree, but just a 102 Rejoice. Can we hear just a flipped “r”? Just a flipped “r”.

EX. #118 103 J: Y eah, can you let that‘T’ work for you? For Christ is coming, for Christ. 104 C: sings from the beginning to m. 24

137 105 *J: Clean. Stronger tenor, support tenor (plays the tenor part for 2 measures; m. 5)

106 *J: Strong (m. 10)

107 *J: Cmon ladies. I need you strong, (m. 17)

108 J; Stop. Stop, could you please mark who has (plays the theme on the piano) The 109 basses have it first, please mark that Wies (.) and tenors, then the tenors have iL 110 And once you’ve established thaL please back off (plays the theme on the piano). 111 OK, bring it back then, bring it back so that the other isnt- other voices can come 112 in. Then the altos have it, then the sopranos have iL then the basses come back 113 with iL I need those brought ouL please listen for all those different entrances in 114 there, listen for all those entrances. Try that again please, one, two, ready, and.

Excerpts #99-118 are examples of stopped instruction which combine

jargon with analogy and/or modeling. They are collected here based on the

use of jargon to originate or predominate a specific instruction, with the use

of either analogy or modeling as an exemplar.

A dissection of excerpt #102 will serve to illustrate how this instruction

works within the symphonic choir rehearsal. The stopped jargon Is "can you

give me the accents?" (line 27). This is immediately followed by a model of

Mr. Jacobsen singing, whereupon he interrupts himself and uses an analogy

of placing the sound an "ooh," "so it gets a little bit dark- as if you were doing a German" ooh (lines 29-30). After the analogy, he re-models. Then (line 31)

he returns to jargon, mentioning detail about using ahh only in the "real

upper registers," Mr. Jacobsen closes out the instruction with another analogy, telling the students to "keep an 'ooh' inside it" (line 32).

While the stopped instruction began with jargon, through Mr.

Jacobsen's modeling and analogy it becomes apparent that the jargon was not sufficient to explain what he was trying to say. As in each of excerpts #99-118,

138 while jargon may be used to begin an instruction, or may be a primary vehicle of instruction, much of what is within the music is beyond the use of a specific verbal vocabulary.

Stopped analogy and modeling.

As just noted, detail within the music often eluded convenient, quick uses of jargon in Mr. Jacobsen's stopped instruction. In many cases, Mr.

Jacobsen chose to instruct the symphonic choir through the use of analogy and modeling. Although analogy and modeling are not the same thing, they are grouped together here because they are grouped together in Mr. Jacobsen's instruction. Overwhelmingly, the two are used together, partners in an effort to point within the music to locations that jargon either does not quite get to, or to locations that jargon cannot even begin to address.

EX. #119 1 J: Y eah, yeah, yeah relax. Relax.Just let it float up there, don’t try to loll it. (sings 2 the soprano part, down an octave) Ohhhhh. Yeah, one, two, ready comin up 3 Lawdy, just relax. Ready, and.

EX. #120 4 J: Yeah, guys, guys. You give too much air on the first “ah”. Too much on the 5 first one, and then you have nowhere to go but AHHHHHH, K, then you poot 6 out. K? Save some.

EX. #121 7 J: (plays 123454321) Can I get (sings and plays on 123454321) e-e-e-e-ah-ah-ah- 8 oh-fl/i. C, and.

9 C: e-e-e-e-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah. = 10 J: = Make sure you support goin down. 139 11 C: e-e-e-e-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah.

12 J: Y cah. As you descend on il but um e-e-e-e-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah. Make sure the 13 elevator's raising please. Ready, and.

EX. #122 14 J: K, can you hear coming sac - now, take the upper octave and try those 15 pitches, OK?

16 (One by one, altos, tenors and basses sit down)

17 C: For Christ - II

18 J: Yeah. I know it’s up there. Just let it go like you’re just kinda 19 throwin’ up.

EX. #123 20 C: The basses begin to sing “Laudate Pueri”.

21 J: Yeah, guys, guys, not heavy, but but still like you’re making a statement. 22 (sings the bass part) Da da da da da, K, ready? Not heavy though. 23 Ready, and.

EX. #124 24 J; Alright, shh. Thank you. On dee please. Basses, keep it nice and forward don’t 25 let it go (imitates “not forward”) dee. (models “forward”) Dee dee dee dee , K? 26 (piano gives starting pitch and tonality).

EX. #125 27 J: Instead of going into that high G ( 1.0) can we land on top of it? Instead of going 28 (imitates a slide between notes in m. 159) instead of go- (models the two notes 29 with a separation between them) = 30 S5: = ( )

EX. #126 31 C: begins “Een So Lord Jesus” //

32 J: Y eah, yeah. Can we chip that? Can we get to him?Hi-i-im, not “him”

33 C: begins “Een So Lord Jesus,” to m. 10

140 34 J: Do that again, please. Make it nice and high and tall, don’t oversing this piece. 35 K? Don’t oversing it. (gives starting pitches) Ready, ladies, and, peace be. 36 Keep everything going forward. Keep it goin forward.

37 C; Peace be to you II 38 J: Yeah, make the entrances clean. Entrances clean.

39 C: sings from the beginning to m. 10

EX. #127 40 Ct The Lord almightly God 41 J: Yeah can I do that one more time, and get some more space there, (sings tenor 42 part in ra. 14) Baba baba. Nice W1 vowels, a lot of “ah”. A::nd, go.

43 C: The Lord almightly God

EX. #128 44 C: Begin at mm. 10-11 // 45 J: Yeah, listen to the, the men. (1.0) Cause they’re filling up 46 each note. Ready, one, go.

47 C: Sing Holy Holy to our Lord.

48 J: to our Lord, and let the Ho::;::: crescendo. K? Again, and sing it just like that 49 ladies.

EX. #129 50 C: sings through m. 56 =

51 J: = Yeah but don’t slide iL Buh-dah not Baaahhhhhh, K?

EX. #130 52 J: Starts of unison (.) then it changes.

53 C: How wise II

54 J: How wise, not “hahw wise”

55 C: How wise

141 EX. #131 56 C: sings “Een So Lord Jesus” from the beginning to m. 7 //

57 J: I-1 feel like that that’s 58 being chipped. I really and I and I think if I feel that, I know I’m right, (sings 59 then tenor part in m. 5) Sins, who love, gimraie that break. K? Take your time.

EX. #132 60 C: sings from m. 20 through m. 23

61 J: Can I, can I get (intones) dwell there-innuh (.) rejoice, dwell there-innuh (.) 62 rejoice. That- that’s kinda just chipped I feel like (rushes) dwell there in rejoice. I 63 feel like we’re rushing, OK? And s- alot me because I’m not sure what we want. 64 what I want

EX. #133 65 C: divine regret

6 6 (2 .0 )

67 J: K Basses. Can we create (.) even more space (.) inta-1 still, I feel like the vowel 68 is not locking for us, therefore, it just is not, if s already clashing as it is, just 69 because of the, the closeness of the, the chord. I need you to open just a little bit 70 more. He makes desi -, lots of Dracula inside there.

EX. #134 71 C: door!

72 J: Yeah, make sure you have somewhere to go. Now don’t get any louder than 73 beautiful. Do not get any louder than beautiful. So in other words if it starts gettin 74 ugly (1.0) it’s too loud. And this will probably pick up faster than 84, but I’ 11 go 75 as strict to 84 as much as possible. One, two, go.

EX. #135 76 C: How wise H

77 J: No do not slide there, don’t (imitates) Howwwise. It’s not “Elijah 78 Rock”. One, two, ready (.).

79 C: How wise you were to ...

142 EX. #136 80 C: immemorial pain

81 J: Y eah, and ladies, he’s helping you with the crescendos to get to those G’s. Really 82 so use them, please use them. One more time, please. Even taUer vowels, more 83 vertical space, K? (2.0) Think Dracula all the way through this section.

84 C: sings from mm. 37-49

85 J: Basses, basses (plays the bass part in m. 49).

EX. #137 86 C: divine regret

87 J: Yeah, but can we, can we grow to that double forte instead of havin (.) here it 88 come. K? Do that again please. I need that growth, we’ve gotta grow there.

EX. #138 89 C: turn him from your door!

90 J: Ladies, notice I’m not giving you the extra push on the, on the (.) the the loudness 91 or the, the growth, I’m goin in here (motions to the tenors and basses), just keep 92 the note flowing, nice and beautiful. Don’t try to ^ i^ just keep it nice and solid 93 and we’ll let the dynamics happen right in here. Right in here, we’ll do it.

EX. #139 94 J: Yeah, yeah, the Elijah.Elijah rock. Oh Elijah rock Elijah, Elijah. Elijah’s 95 important, Mjah, Elijah rock. Oh Elijah rock j^jah.

EX. #140 96 C: Alllllll

97 J: Can you, the second time of the prayer, listen, please, K.Even though it’s piano 98 and goes back to the beginning and ends the same way (1.5) I need a more of a 99 final statement. Een so lord Jesus.

EX. #141 100 C: Een so lord Jesus H

101 J: Do me a favor. (1.5) Think ooh. Think ooh. Think an ooh 102 vowel. Think an ooh vowel.

103 C: Een so lord Jesus quickly come.... 143 EX. #142 104 C: (speaking) stand on the rock, where Moses stood.

105 J: Think about it, there’s power in that rock. So give me that power.

EX. #143 106 C: If I could I surely would II 107 J: Seconds can 1 get more from you? (plays and sings the 108 second sop. part) Yeah, lots more. More’ll give me a little of a moanin feel.

109 C: If I could I surely would

EX. #144 110 C: singing “Bijah Rock”/

111 J: (plays the part on the piano)£/o do la si fa mi re -(.) fa mi di, ree, whatever it is.

112 S: Ra =

113 J: = ready((Iaughs)), ready, if 1 could, and.

EX. #145 114 C: Al

115 J: Do me a favor. Think of an “ooh” inside the piece. Think of an ooh inside it. 116 Ahhh, Ooooh, ahhh. Maybe that’ll keep it from goin sharp.

117 C; Alleluia

EX. #146 118 C: sings m. 4-5 of “Een So Lord Jesus” 119 J; Yes can we get Si-ih-ins can you shape that a little bit more? Shape that a little 120 more?

EX. #147 121 C: starts the bridge of “Een So Lord Jesus”

122 J: Yeah, yeah. And and and 1 think it’s me. 1 think it’s me. The, the rejoice 1 feel 144 123 like that’s being clipped off, OK. Could we start rejoice in heaven and kinda 124 finish up the phrase? It- it’s a cappella? (intones) Dwell therein (.) rejoice, finish 125 up the phrase, I feel like we’ re we’ re just clipping it off and a lot of it has to do 126 with what 1’ m doing.

127 C: Rejoice in heaven, all ye that dwell therein

128 J: Yeah, yeah yeah. Bring that out,dwell therein, dwell therein, bring that back.

129 C: sings from mm. 20-25 //

EX. #148 130 C: Sings from m. 50 to m. 54 //

131 J: Yeah, can you ^ those, yeah (.) the running quarter 132 notes with a purpose instead of just going (sings the bass part in mm. 52-53) 133 yah-da-da-da, ready? One, two, ready, and.

134 C: Sings from m. 50 to m. 54 //

135 J: Y eah, basses it’s loo heavy. Do ti la sol fa mi re do, 136 not so heavy. Not so, so big there, (gives starting pitch) One, two, ready, and. 137 C: Sings from m. 50 to m. 71 (34 seconds)

EX. #149 138 C: sings from m. 140 to m. 170 (40 seconds) // 139 *J: It’s forte (m. 152)

140 J: Can we do that one more 141 time? Cause it got kinda muddy? It got kind muddy? F? F again. F again. Shh, 142 yeah it was just a little bit schloppv. One, nice and clear attack, ready, and.

EX. #150 143 J: Tenors, make sure you have “sid nomine,” nomine. Naw, naw, n-a-w. Be 144 aggressive with it. 145 C: Lau-da-te pueri II

146 J: Laudate pooh, K, lean into the pooh. OK, lean into the downbeat of 147 pooh. Back off on the third.

145 EX. #151 148 J: Yeah, guys, guys, dance with that, qui sicut bum bum bum bum bum, K? Nice 149 and clean, nice and clean. Separate it just a little bit more, but make sure it’s a 150 clean attachment

EX. #152 151 J: Y eah, that’s clean. And basses, any time you have those runs they need to be 152 bouncy. Very buoyant Not- not like you’ re tryin to dig Stay on tog of it 153 Stay on top of it

EX. #153 154 C: sings to m. 172 in “Laudate Pueri” //

155 J: Stop for a second. 1 want more stretch. A (.) 156 men as if you take the full bow (intones rhythm from m. 170-177) bum, bum, 157 bum, bum, bum bum bum bum OK? That kind of effect, just don’t chip cm.

EX. #154 158 C: sings the bridge

159 J: Yes, we wiU say “co-oh-ming,” not “com-i-ing”. OK? OK? Can we start 160 that again? And sopranos? (plays the high phrase the sopranos just sang) 161 K? It’s just goin down there. Ready (plays starting two soprano notes). 162 Another thing. Shh, anytime there’s a long note ladies, can we let it go 163 somewhere? Let Peace be to you, and grace from hi- K? Break that 164 out, even though it’s mezzo piano. K, here we go, try it again (gives 165 starting two soprano pitches).

EX. #155 166 C; singing “Laudate Pueri” //

167 J: Not so much of the E, bring that Sui, bring it k- caress iL caress the E

EX. #156 168 J; Now, that’s a better attack comin up there. Can we get even more, coming from, 169 at C coming from the tenor (.) u:h, at C? Also, when we come in at D, the qui 170 habitare, make sure those are nice solid attacks? Once you’ve established iL get 171 out of the wav? That buh buh buh buh buh, that’s just nice, bouncy and play? 172 OK? Fruitful.

146 EX. #157 173 C: sings from the beginning to the end (4:11 minutes) =

174 J: = Now I need the nnnuuh. mennuh. K?

EX. #158 175 C: sings mm. 35-36 in “Een So Lord Jesus”

176 J: Y eah. Act like you don’t wanna give it ug. (intones) Light nor lamp nor sun, 177 thafll lengthen. K, don’t give it up.

EX. #159 178 J: Ahh shaped ooh? Mm mm mm mm mm. One, two, and not so much, not a tight 179 ooh. Kinda loose ligs there? Mm mm mm mm mm.

EX. #160 180 J: More (.) if love, (sings the theme) Bring those consonants out.

EX. #161 181 J: Dodo ti la sol fa mi re do. Sopranos you just have a (.) a scale right there.

EX. #162 182 J: Yeah, shh. Can we, can we take a nice low breath?Al, al. One, keep the energy 183 moving ladies

EX. #163 184 C: sings from the beginning to 17 (23 seconds)

185 J: Yeah, yeah, stop, stop. I feel like, I feel like instead of the interest comin (.) nice 186 and solid forte. I feel like you sneak your way in (.) instead of just (.) making the 187 statement. K? And I don’t want thaL (.) We don’t want that. So, let’s do that 188 again. Let’s make our statement. Here I am, we’re gonna praise him. One, two, 189 ready, and.

190 C: sings from the beginning to A (23 seconds)

EX. #164 191 J: Yeah, guys. Guys, Mozart was a hip dude. Let it dance, (sings the theme, while 192 snapping on the offbeats), and I probably won’t do as much with it, but I’d rather 147 193 have it move a little than (.5) ^ on us. One, two, ready, and.

194 C: sings from beginning to B (1:11 minutes)

195 *J: snaps on offbeats (mm. 1 - 16)

Excerpts #119-164 all have instances of either analogy or modeling in

them; in a majority of instances, each excerpt has both. Of the minority that

do not contain both, or do not contain jargon and analogy or modeling, the

use of analogy alone (excerpts 122,134,136,137,138,140,141,149,152,163 and

164) far outdistances the use of modeling alone (excerpts 130 and 157).

Excerpt #144 is a special case, and it is worth taking a more detailed

look at. The excerpt begins with a section of the choir singing their parts to

"Elijah Rock." Mr. Jacobsen then gives a stopped instruction, consisting of

two components. First, he plays the correct part on the piano. Next, he sings

the correct part on solfege.

The playing of the part on the piano served as a model of the correct

notes, as did the singing of the solfege. The use of solfege served another

purpose, however, in that the solfege was a substitute for the text, used in

order to give the students a sense of the tonality of the piece (or, to the

students, "where 'do' is"). Thought of in that sense, the solfege was less a

model than it was an analogy for how the piece should go tonally. In this

excerpt, the solfege was available to serve as model and analogy simultaneously, depending on the perceptions of the students.

148 It should be noted that Mr. Jacobsen, unsure as to the correct name of

the last solfege syllable, attempts two different "correct" answers before

moving on ("whatever it is" in line 111). It is a student who comes to his

rescue, singing the correct note on the correct syllable in line 112, which elicits

laughter from Mr. Jacobsen. The problem-solving accomplished in this

excerpt is done collaboratively among teacher and students, without a pre­

determined understanding of the outcome.

Given the relative infrequency of stopped instruction which uses

analogy or modeling alone, a selected few of these examples were analyzed

spectrally, in order to get a tonal "transcript" of the sounds before and after

each instruction. One particularly interesting stopped analogy occurs in excerpt #122, w here Mr. Jacobsen tells the sopranos to "just let it go like you're

kinda throwin' up." Figure 5.1 (found in Appendix C) shows a comparison of

the B flat that is the subject of the analogy. In looking at the spectral analysis, two differences can be noticed. First, the acoustical peaks of the fundamental pitch and second partial are less jagged after the instruction; the rise to the peak and the descent of the peak are more consistent and gradual. Second, the response shows acoustical peaks beyond the second partial. These peaks are present, but much more difficult to distinguish, in the pre-instruction response. From a musicians perspective, the difference of the sound after Mr.

Jacobsen's instruction could be heard; less like a squeak and more like a sung pitch.

149 An opposite, but much more subtle, effect can be found in excerpt #141

(Figure 5.2), where the instruction separating the sung attempts is "think

ooh." Noticeable in the post-instruction response is a clearer, more pointed

fundamental and second partial of the soprano pitch. The other acoustical

peaks are slightly more pointed, as well. An equally subtle change can be

noticed in the spectral analyses of two sounds before and after the instruction

in excerpt #152 (Figure 5.3). The sung response which follows the instruction,

"very buoyant, not like you're trying to dig dirt" shows an increase in

volume, especially in the fundamental. Further, the acoustical peaks are

narrower in the post-instruction response, involving fewer frequencies.

As often as not, however, the spectral analyses of these examples fail to

shed any light on the effect of the analogies used by Mr. Jacobsen. A careful

look at Figures S.4-5.6 will show a remarkable spectral similarity between sung attempts before and after instruction; to my ear, the sounds are

practically identical. Actually, this shows consistency in a sound's spectral components over time. For example, the point of the instruction in excerpt

#134 (shown in Figure 5.4) is a change in volume, not the sonic acoustics.

This can be seen in the spectral analysis, as far as relative energy is concerned; the actual spectral make-up of the sounds, however, are indistinguishable.

To that end, spectral analysis sometimes is not an effective way to determine differences and similarities of sound.

150 Some analogies and models in stopped instruction are complex, and approach the idea of simulations and real-time instruction, which are discussed below.

EX. #165 1 C: ispokcn)Soft and rounded checks and eyes as bright = 2 J: = With a slight break, (spoken) eyes (.) as bright. Ready, and.

3 C.With soft and round ( J J J J ) //

4 J : No,no no no no. With sof-t and rounded

EX. #166 5 J: Try it again w ith the rhvttim please, (intones) With sof-t and rounded cheeks and 6 eye-s as bright.

7 C; With soft and rounded cheeks and ey-s as bright. =

8 J: = Canyon say, sof-t and round Ready, and.

9 C: Soft and round.

10 J: Now can 1 get eye-s_ as bright ( J J)

11 C; Eyes as briglu

EX. #167 12 C: sings from F to the end (43 seconds)

13 *J; Stretch it (m. 172)

14 *J: O neandoff(JJJ)(mm. 170, 171, 173)

15 J: Off. Now, make sure that that lengthen, please listen, that that you’re Icngthen- 151 16 “one and off’ (Jj J ), it’s like putting that and in there so you’re not clipping it

17 off. K, cause I’m getting “one uop” ( J J )instead of that little One and off (Jj J ),

18 One and off (J J J ) .

EX. #168 19 J: Would you do this for me please (intones) Rejawce in heaven

20 C: Rejawce in heaven

21 J: Now put it up, (up much higher) Rejawce in heaven

22 C: Rejawce in heaven

23 J: All ye that dwell therein

24 C; All ye that dwell therein

25 J: Now, “think about the space ( ). Rejawce” raise the soft palate. 26 Keep the soft palate raised. And get the pitches this time, please, and think about 27 the soft palate being raised.

28 C: sings the bridge

EX. #169 29 C: sings from F to m. 162

30 J: Yeah, guys. Guys, can you act like a, like a bass (pretends to play a string bass, 31 singing the bass part in mm. 60-62). Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum 32 bum bum bum bum bum it’s like you’re iaughin at me, (sings the bass part in 33 mm. 60-61) bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum instead of goin (sings 34 the bass part in mm. 60-61) heuh heuh heuh heuh heuh. One, two, ready, and. 35 C: sings from F to m. 171 (27 seconds)

36 *J: (claps on offbeats) (mm. 156-158)

37 *J: bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum (mm. 162-163)

EX. #170 38 Cb: Singing “Laudate Pueri”

39 J: Yeah, now when you do those those those those (.) those quarter notes? Bum 152 40 bum bum bum bum bum bum, can you act like you’re the string bass player at, 41 and their kinda detached not like lukluhluhluh like you’re in mud? You’re not, 42 you’re in mud and you’re going it’s like real sloppy luhluhluhluhluh, K I feel like 43 I’ve got (.) the ghosts of Frankenstein around. K, bum bum bum bum bum bum 44 bum bum bum bum bum bum bum (1.0) and it’s light, it bounces.

45 C: Laudate pu //

46 J: Yeah, Lau, da, te. T-e-h, te. Not“tay”.

Excerpts #165-170 show the use of analogy and modeling in richer settings. Excerpts #165-166 are instances where the students are speaking their text out loud, instead of singing the notes. This has the instructional effect of removing the pitch from the learning process, just as practicing a teenager's driving skills in a parking lot removes traffic from the learning process. It is a way to simulate singing, to work on one aspect of music making while keeping other aspects from interfering. There are also aspects of modeling in these excerpts; it is not enough to speak the rhythm, but Mr. Jacobsen is instructing the student to speak the rhythm this way (lines 2, 4,8 and 10).

In excerpt #167, Mr. Jacobsen used the words "one and off" to designate a sung word and the word's release (Figure 5.7). The "one and off" verbahzed both the length of the sung pitch and the release. The instruction is part simulation and part analogy, but it is also something more; it is to be thought of and heard inside the text of the piece as it is being sung.

153 CH É É ê men. m en.

Qhe «nd off, Ohe « n i off, Che «nd off, Ohe off,

Figure 5.7: A comparison of the chorus part (CH; soprano shown only) with

Mr. Jacobsen's real-time instruction (MJ) in "Laudate Pueri/' m easures 170-

173

The intonations in excerpt #168 (lines 19-24) are models that pre-date the instruction given in lines 25-28. After the students have echoed back Mr.

Jacobsen, the instruction is given. The use of modeling and experience before instruction is the basis for both language and musical learning theories

(Gordon, 1989; Sloboda, 1985; Suzuki, 1983). Figures 5.8, 5.10 and 5.12 (all found in Appendix C) show spectral analyses of Mr. Jacobsen's models; the students' responses are in Figures 5.9, 5.11 and 5.13, respectively. The spectral analyses show that, two out of three times, the students' echoes of Mr.

Jacobsen look remarkably like Mr. Jacobsen's models. The students are less successful in echoing the m odel in Figure 5.10 (line 21); their response in

154 Figure 5.11 (line 22) is not very sim ilar to the model presented them.

Modeling and echoing appears to have failures as well as successes. However, thought of another way, the entire issue of the outcome of echoing is interesting but irrelevant; what is important in the local setting is that the students practice the attempt.

Excerpts #169-170 both show Mr. Jacobsen using analogies of a string bass with the basses in a phrase in the "Laudate Pueri." Excerpt #169 has three different models/analogies of sound: The string bass (line 30), laughter (line

32), and a third, unspecified, and decidedly unpleasant sound (line 34).

Further, the string bass analogy is reinforced in the performance of the phrase by Mr. Jacobsen as he snaps his fingers on the offbeats of the measure (line 36) and mimics a string bass while the basses sing the same pitches (line 37).

These two real-time instructions, both models of sound, carry with them a requirement to understand them as representatives of a string bass sound, or of a musical setting where a string bass would be used (as in a jazz setting, where the beat is kept on offbeats just as Mr. Jacobsen was doing in line 36).

In this short space, Mr. Jacobsen has used five different approaches to the sound he is trying to get. A similar sequence can be seen in excerpt #170, where Mr. Jacobsen models four different times and gives six different analogies in his instruction to the singers.

Spectrally, there are clear and obvious differences in the "good" model of excerpt #169 and the "bad" model (Figure 5.14). The difference in the

155 basses' response after the modeling sequence in lines 130-134 is also

noticeable, if not nearly as obvious as Mr. Jacobsen's modeling. The spectral

analysis of the line 35 response shows the fundamental peak to be sharper

and more clearly defined in comparison to the line 29 attempt (Figure 5.15);

the same could be said for the second partial.

As for the bass sound in excerpt #170, there is a clear difference between

the sound in line 38 and the sound in line 45, after a lengthy stopped

instruction (Figure 5.16). The line 45 sound has a much more pronounced

and recurrent set of harmonic peaks and non-harmonic valleys than does the

line 38 sound. The excerpt #170 sounds are easier to analyze, as the basses are

singing alone, while the entire ensemble is involved in the excerpt #169

sounds. Still, in both cases, the harmonic peaks became sharper and more

pronounced after the instruction about singing "like a string bass."

Stopped instruction (excerpts #60-170) is prevalent in the observed

rehearsals of the symphonic choir. Much of the stopped instruction consists

primarily of musical jargon (excerpts #60-98); some stopped instruction consists of analogy, modeling or a combination of these (excerpts #119-164).

Finally, there are stopped instructions that have both elements of jargon and modeling/analogy in them (excerpts #99-118); often stopped instruction combines jargon, modeling and analogy, mixing in real-time instruction

156 (excerpts #165-170), as well. Some spectral analysis shows the sounds that result from these sections to gradually move from one acoustical shape to another, while other analysis show no such change.

Real-Time Instruction

One of the more striking things about excerpts #167 and 169 is the use of instruction in real-time, as the singers are singing. In my observations of the symphonic choir, the uses of real-time instruction were many and varied, supporting Erbes' (1972) findings.

Real-time jargon.

Of the instruction given to the symphonic choir in real-time, much of it comprised jargon and directions given about the music. These instructions were given either immediately before or immediately after a musical event.

Please see Appendix B for a translation of the abbreviations of the songs sung below, as well as the publishing information.

EX. #171 (IF) 1 *J: Just don’t breathe with your neighbor, (m. 8) 2 *J: Words (m. 16)

3 *J: Deyn (m. 19)

EX. #172 (ER) 4 *J: No slide there (m. 4)

5 *J: Ss- slide on the fourth beat (m. 8) 157 EX. #173 (LP) 6 *J: Tenor, strong (m. 96)

7 *J: Just like the altos ladies (m. 103)

EX. #174 (IF) 8 *J: Crescendo this (m. 6)

9 *J: ThereTl be a pause there (m. 46)

EX.#175(AL) 10 *J: Go to the “loo” (m. 4)

11 *J: Faces up (m. 8)

12 *J: We’re under pitch already (m. 10)

EX. #176 (IF) 13 *J: Consonants now (m. 36)

EX. #177 (EEN) 14 *J: Prepare it, basses (tn. 18)

EX. #178 (LP) 15 *J: Don’t get under the pitch. Get on top of it. (mm. 68-69)

16 *J: Off. Ready, and (mm. 80-81)

17 *J: Bring out the theme (m. 83)

EX. #179 (LP) 18 *J; Need to bring out the theme (m. 67)

EX. #180 (LP) 19 *J; Circle that, some of you. (m. 57)

20 *J: There it goes again (m. 59)

158 EX. #181 (LP) 21 *J: Forte (m. 131)

22 *J: Cmon its forte guys (m. 132)

23 *J: Off (m. 170)

24 *J: Shhhand (m. 171) 25 *J: Another chord (m. 172)

EX. #182 (LP) 26 *J: Don’t drag it tenor (m. 26) 27 *J: Don’t drag it (m. 29)

28 *J: Shh (m. 171)

29 *J: Get the right notes though (m. 173)

EX. #183 (LP) 30 *J: Off on the soprano (m. 29) 31 *J: Separate em (m. 51)

32 *J: Don’t slide those (m. 49) 33 *J: Together (m. 127)

EX. #184 (LP) 34 *J: Cmon basses you can bring it out (m. 86-87)

35 *J: Consonants (m. 102)

EX. #185 (LP) 36 *J; Tenor, one, (m. 75-76)

EX. #186 (EEN) 37 *J: Now, crescendo (m. 23)

159 EX. #187 (IF) 38 *J: Yeah make sure you get that attack clean. Off on one, basses and tenors (m. 77)

These instructions and directions in excerpts #171-187 occurred either

to prepare the students to do something (as in excerpts #173, 175-lines 10 and

11,176, 185 and 186) or to evaluate something the students had already done or were in the process of doing (as in excerpts #171,172,174,175-line 12,177,

178,179, 180,181,182,183,184 and 187). The instructions are curt and precise; there is not much time to do them. In fact, the few cases of extended real­ time instructions, shown below, have little to do with making choral ensemble sound.

EX. #188 1 *J: Walk with me. Walk. Walk. Walk. Walk. Don’t make noise, just move your 2 knees.

EX. #189 3 (students are walking in place throughout..) 4 *J: Watch your shoes there or you’ 11 trip

5 *Ss: (sts look at their shoes) 6 *J: ( ), Colleen.

7 *C: (gives a thumbs-up sign to J.)

EX. #190 8 *J: Fhrt yourself in four rows. So 1 mean if the back row, you come down one. (.5) 9 K, guys, children? Yeah, back row, would you come down some, make sure 10 you’re in four rows. Make sure you’re mixed though (.) cause you look very 11 crowded back row, come down. Yeah, some of y’aJl can come down, third row 12 come down, back row go down, ain’t that amazing how that works, (uses his 13 baton to point out individuals) Come down, and one of the girls in here can go 14 up.

160 EX. #191 15 *J: Make sure your music is in your left hand (some students change hands). Thank 16 you::: (.) or your folder.

EX. #192 17 C: Oo:::::h. (repeated seven times, one half-step higher each time)

18 *J: Please make sure you double check your tuxedo. Also, double check (.) 19 we’re still missing a coat and keys I think. I don’t know where she’s at.

20 *S 1 : There’s a ( ) over there but I’m not sure //

21 *J: What was it. was it Gap?

22 *S1:( )

23 *J: Blue, oh. (.) Did you find it ( ) or anything? Oh, and.

24 C: Oo:::::h (one half-step higher)

25 J: Toahh

26 C: A:::::h. (one half-step higher) 27 * J: What does it look like?

28 C: A:::::h. (one half-step higher) = [ 29 *82: ( ) 30 J: = Stop for a second, just listen. Go.

31 82: It’s a blue pullover, s’ ( )

In excerpts #188-192, the real-time instruction concerns issues that are extra-musical: Walking in place (#188 and 189), physical placement of students on the risers (#190), the correct hand in which to hold the music

(#191), and a student's missing clothing (#192). In these cases, particularly in the longer segments, the real-time instruction is serving to conduct separate.

161 parallel business, rather than index the business of making music. These two separate concerns go on simultaneously. In excerpt #192, this continues for quite some time. Only when the student whose clothing is lost can no longer be heard over the ensemble's warm-ups (line 29) does Mr. Jacobsen take action, ceasing the warm-up business so that the missing clothing business can continue. This kind of activity suggests more than pedagogical purposes to the symphonic choir's warm-ups, which will be discussed below.

Real-time analogy.

Unlike stopped instruction, the real-time instructions observed in the symphonic choir lacked the type of symbiotic relationship between analogy and modeling described above. Instead, analogy is employed in real-time much the same way as the jargon just discussed.

EX. #193 (EEN) 1 *J: Shape (m. 2)

2 *J: Stretch (m. 4)

EX. #194 (IF) 3 *J: Keep floating, keep the air moving, (m. 74) 4 *J: Grow (m. 75)

EX. #195 (IF) 5 *J: Keep the energy in it, guys (m. 74) 6 *J: Grow with it (m. 75)

162 EX. #196 (ER) 7 *J: Hit it and get ofT of it. (m. 4)

EX. #197 (EEN) 8 *J: Let it grow

9 *J: Shape the phra;:::se

EX. #198 (EEN) 10 *J: Move there (m. 23)

EX. #199 (IF) 11 *J: You almost have to sing that with em (m. 79)

12 *J: Tall vowels (m.83)

13 *J: Space. Do not close the mouth (m. 86)

EX. #200 (LP) 14 *J: Shape the phrase (m. 28)

EX. #201 (LP) 15 *J; Stretch (m. 18)

16 *J: Stretch (m. 20)

EX. #202 (LP) 17 *J: Make sure there’s some space in there (m. 9)

EX. #203 (LP) 18 *J: Grow with it, move with it 1+ 2+ t + (m. 75-76)

EX. #204 (EEN) 19 *J: Spin the note. Spin the vowel. Thank you. (m. 38)

163 EX. #205 20 C: Ee ay ah oh ooh 21 *J: Put some air behind iL (during “ah”)

22 C: Ee ay ah oh ooh

23 *J: Grow with it (during “ah”)

The analogies used in excerpts #193-205 are even more spartan than

the jargon used in excerpts #171-187. The use of the words "grow," "shape,"

"space" and "stretch" is frequent. These are terms Mr. Jacobsen seems to use

often (as he does with the phrase "womanly sound," which is analyzed in

detail below). They could serve as keys, reminding students of information

that could not be said so compactly; such key phrases have been noted in

other descriptions of musical effort (Sudnow, 1978), as well.

It should be noted that there is no such compactness of analogy in

stopped instruction. Also worth noting is that of the above excerpts, only

excerpt #203 combines analogy with modeling, making the analogy/modeling

combination as rare in real-time instruction as it is common in stopped

instruction.

Excerpt #205 is an example of some very compact instruction, in that

the students are singing on a single pitch throughout the real-time

instruction. Such a lack of extra-instructional "clutter" makes this excerpt a

worthwhile candidate for spectral investigation. In excerpt #205, the students sing the vowel "ah" throughout two instructions by Mr. Jacobsen (lines 20-

23). Figure 5.17 shows the "ah" sound both before and after the line 21

164 instruction, "put some air behind it." After the instruction, there is a corresponding increase in the frequencies of the fundamental pitches in the bass, tenor and alto (each found between the two cursors in Figure 5.17), although the actual soprano fundamental is weaker than before the instruction. Further, there is an evenness in the growth of the frequencies of each fundamental after the instruction, whereas before the instruction, the fundamental frequencies are more sporadic.

The "ah" sound before and after the instruction "grow with it" can be found in Figure 5.18 (in Appendix C). Interestingly, the fundamentals after the instruction are no louder than those before. Instead, the acoustical peaks and valleys are broader and more pronounced. In general, the "ah" sound after the instruction seems to be more even, but contains much more energy throughout the sound. The spacing of the spikes after the instruction also suggests greater strength in the harmonic partials, and less strength in the non-harmonic partials. This is a subtle shift; while it is worth noting, it is impossible to say whether there is a considerable difference in the sound. Mr.

Jacobsen has nothing to say about the new sound, which means either the new sound satisfies him or that he is simply going on, ignoring the sung result of his instruction. My observations of Mr. Jacobsen lead me to believe that if the sound did not change to his satisfaction, he would have further addressed the issue. To him, the students did "grow w ith it" as they sang following his instruction.

165 Real-time modeling.

As already mentioned, the combination of analogy and modeling is

very rare in the observed real-time instructions of Mr. Jacobsen. One

rationale could be that real-time modeling would be uncommon, as the

students would find it difficult to perceive or understand while they

themselves are singing. However, there were several instances of real-time

modeling.

EX. #206 (LP) I *J: Een. Een. Een saecula (m. 156-157)

EX. #207 (LP) 2 *J: Doh. Doh. Not Do. 3 *J: Een saecula. Notin.

EX. #208 (LP) 4 *J: “Doh” (m. 13) 5 *J; Co-lo-chet (m. 76)

EX. #209 (AL) 6 *J: “Leh” lu-ia, not “lay” (bridge)

EX. #210 (LP) 7 *J: (claps) JvJ)J (m. 3)

EX. #211 (ER) 8 *J: (claps the beat) (letter C)

166 EX. #212 (SR) 9 *J: Guys, guys, (snaps his fingers to the pulse) (mm. 10-II)

EX. #213 (SR) 10 *E: (snaps fingers to the pulse) (mm. 5-8)

EX. #214 (LP) 11 *J: Short short, long long, long (mm. 174- 176)

t? 1" :■ - 1— ^ t:'— ^ -zzz--= 4 ^ ------é------«i------»------9 - ' ■ ------a rt*n, % rr»n n i pm---- >----i---- >------J -' ---- f f f f --- ■f------F------f------1 1 1 1 1 short short long long long

EX. #215 (LP) 12 *J: (intones) Mennuh. Ah (m. 170-171) $!■ ci J men, A

J -

me nuh

EX. #216 (IF) 13 *J: Grow with it, move with it. 1+ 2+ t + (m. 75-76)

not

grow wih it work mih it 1 2 and tr*

167 Excerpts #206-216 show examples of modeling as the ensemble sings in

real-time. Excerpts #206-209 are models of correct Latin pronunciation;

excerpts #210-216 concern issues of tempo and rhythm. In the latter, the

correct rhythm or tempo is modeling exactly as it is being performed by the

students. This is particularly noticeable in excerpts #214-216, where the altos

(A), sopranos (S) and basses (B) share temporal space with Mr. Jacobsen (J) as

he gives instruction. In these cases, the students are performing w ith Mr.

Jacobsen, not for him.

Transition-relevant instruction.

Such kinds of real-time instruction as those observed in this study

show Mr. Jacobsen to be a master of understanding the temporal component

in which he teaches. The depth of his understanding is best shown in the

excerpts below, which show clearly a temporal awareness of Mr. Jacobsen's

real-time instruction.

EX. #217 (IF) 1 C: sings m. 37-44 2 *J: Breathe (m. 40)

3 *J; Breathe (m.42)

4 J: Y eah and could you please mark those breaths where I gave em to you?

EX. #218 (IF) 5 *J: Breathe (m. 37)

6 *J; Carry through the phra;::se (m. 38)

168 7 *J: Breathe (m. 40)

8 *J: Breathe (m.42)

EX. #219 (IF) 9 *J: Breathe (m. 22)

10 *J: Do not breathe. Stagger, (m. 4)

11 *J: Let it grow, no breath here (m. 17-18)

EX. #220 (EEN) 12 *J: (nods at sopranos) (m. 24)

13 *J; I know, we aren’t warmed-up (m. 25)

14 * J; We just got off a bus (m. 26)

EX. #221 (ER) 15 1 >• > > - > ■ Oh E-li-jah. Oh E- li-jah

u/ Ill'll ~ ' 1

Don't rush

16

E- li-jah rock. Oh E - 1i - jah rock, E - li- jah

Don't rush

169 EX. #222 17 J: (plays 58531) 1 know thee not Ready, and.

18 C: / know thee not ( up 5)

19 J: A lot of space, think about what’s goin on.

20 C: I know thee not (up 1)

21 J: Posture?

22 C; / know thee not (up 1) 23 J: Embouchure?

24 (A rhythmic sequence has been formed, with J.’s last word falling on downbeats)

25 C: I know thee not (up 1) 26 J: Relaxed jaw.

27 C; I know thee not (up 1)

28 J: Vertical space.

29 C: I know thee not (down 3)

30 J: Rib cage up. 31 C: / know thee not (down 5)

32 J: Good...

EX. #223 33 C: ooh eee eeeh ahh ohhh (5 times)

34 *J: Cmon

35 * J; Round the ohhh, I want to get a ohhh, and. 36 *J: Support.

37 *J: Only a half-step.

38 C: ooh eee eeeh ahh ohhh =

39 J: = last one.

40 C: ooh eee eeeh ahh ohhh

170 In each of the above excerpts, Mr. Jacobsen's real-time instructions are

placed, expertly and precisely, in spots where the students would be not

singing, due to a group breath or musical phrase ending. They are locations

which Mr. Jacobsen knows are coming, much like similar locations in formal

language settings, such as "Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory

forever," (transitional location) "Amen." Transitions in conversation are

called "transitional-relevant places" (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974). These

are locations where the end of a turn of talk can be projected or anticipated by

a listener, who then responds. This is what Mr. Jacobsen is doing, only in a

musical sense; he anticipates the transition-relevant place in the musical

phrase, and inserts instruction there.

Although the transitional-relevant places (hereafter called TRP's) in

excerpts #217-223 are more scripted than casual conversation, due to the

musical script that they are following, they are nonetheless the only places

where instruction could fall in real-time where the students are not actually performing. As such, they are rich locations for instruction. They are small

targets, however; such locations are very brief. Still, Mr. Jacobsen shows his ability in using these targets. Excerpts #217-219 show precisely where the students should breathe, and (in the case of line 10) where not to breathe, exactly as the students arrive in that location.

In excerpt #220, after the sopranos sing a high note poorly, Mr. Jacobsen gives a three-part evaluation of the note. First, (line 12) he nods at the

171 sopranos, who are struggling without the benefit of a warm-up. Then (line

13), where the sopranos breathe, he continues his evaluation, saying "I know, we aren't warmed up." The choir continues to sing, and at their next breath,

Mr. Jacobsen finished his line 13 comment, adding "we just got of a bus" (line

14). Again, as in excerpts #188-192, there is parallel business here. However, unlike excerpts #188-192, the two businesses are interpolated, rather than accomplished simultaneously. As a result, there is no competition with the students' performing of the piece. As the students were singing at a dress rehearsal, this interpolation continued the "run through" that talking over the singers could have compromised.

Multiple actions are also accomplished in excerpt #221. Mr. Jacobsen's

(J) comment "don't rush," while the basses (B) and tenors (T) sing in both lines 15 and 16, accomplishes a number of things. The placement of the comment in a TRP allows the students to concentrate on the tempo from the beginning of a phrase, instead of in the midst of one. The instruction is also a model of sorts. The students' were singing at a tempo of 84 beats per minute before the line 15 comment. The comment itself, delivered in two even pulses, was given at a tempo of 78 beats per minute. In doing so both the instruction (slow down), and a model {this much) are given, in a two word utterance less than a second in length. A similar chain of events occurs around line 16.

172 Last, the instructions placed in the TRPs of the warm-up exercises in

excerpts #222-223 allow the pacing of the warm-ups to continue without

interruption, while also allowing for Mr. Jacobsen to instruct the choir. This

is particularly interesting in excerpt #222, where the pace of instruction

increases from the stopped instruction in line 19 to the collaborative

rhythmic sequence shown in the remainder of the transcript.

Transition-relevant instruction is an example of a very detailed, awareness of temporal place within the music. But in all of the cases of real­ time instruction, the directives were indexed directly to the very next or most recent musical event the students had created. Few of the instructions are longer than a full sentence and none of them contain any of the verbiage required to locate a spot in the music, unlike stopped instructions. And as far as pointing to a specific location is concerned, real-time instructions are infinitely more precise.

This is not lost on the students or on Mr. Jacobsen.

M: Mr. Jacobsen talks a lot over the choir while you're singing. What does that do for you?

( 1.0) N: Umm, it lets us know what he’s thinking while he’s doing it because knowing him he might forget by the time we get to the song ((laughs)) but also, when we go through it we can (,) we can hear a- as it’s happening we can hear the problem. And (.) usually you know there are parts that repeat or that part will Ç) come up again, we’ll have that problem again and we try to fix i t . And we m i^t try to fix it, and it’s still not good, so we try to fix it a different way, later when we come on it again. But I think that’s like the only way.

(we are interrupted by Mr. Jacobsen and a rush of students entering the room)

1 forgot what I was saying (1.5) umm.

173 M; About his //

N: Oh yeah. So we usually try to fix the problem and see what comes up (.) and then (.) if we correct it wrong he’ll say something again and we’ll go back to the part that we corrected like the way he wants iL But at least if we have an idea of where the problem is, we’re thinking about it as we sing it, as we hear it and correct it like, especially if it’s on the (.) umm, like a spot where you know like, something where we repeat it again, we usually change it (.) by the next time. (NATALIE)

M: Umm, Mr. Jacobsen talks over you guys as you sing a lot. = B: = Mm Hm M: How does that help you?

( 1.0)

B: It- it helps us (.) it reminds us what were doing wrong so we can fix it and (.) it just reminds us what were supposed to be doing at the lime instead of (.) you know he’ll tell us at the end of die piece or at the beginning but you don’t always remember cause there’s so much other stuff going on. (BETTY)

M; Mr. Jacobsen talks over you guys while you’re singing (.) a loL How does that help you?

( 1.0)

J: Mmm (.) reminds us what we’re supposed to be doing. Like, uhh (.) dynamic stuff like crescendos and (.) bring this out and bring this out and (.) pull back stuff like that and uhh (.) because most of us don’t figure that out ourselves and it helps remind us. (JEFF)

M: Mr. Jacobsen talks over you guys while you sing (.)a lot. How does that help you?

( 1.0)

J: Umm Ç) little things like breath support you can, I mean he points out if- if the sound is getting weak and it’s just little the real little detailed changes you can make in the middle of the song like just using more breath or making a roimded fuller sound. (JAMES)

174 M: Y::ou (1.5) talk a lot (.) while they sing. Umm (.) how do you think that helps them?

J: I-1 think 1- it gives them, ww- with high school students, you’re always giving direction. I-1-1 guess 1 consider myself (1.0) the (.) a coach trying ta get everything done and and coaches talk to their players while their out there doin and and and they respond to it uhhh (.) you know uh some people can gesturally (.) do all the things they want, well m- my kids don’t necessarily respond ge- gesturally to to to what I’m tryin to get done you know so I go “OK, this is what I want” and then, I throw in the gesture to to match it, but usually I-1 verbally tell them exactly what I want what I’m trying t- or show them and uh, and I used, like I used to be all over the the stage 1 mean we I mean I would be I’d go over to the sopranos and I’d be conducting them and I’d be in front of their face doing vertical space and then I’d run over to the altos and I’d ((laughs)) you know and then with with with with with after working on my masters I that is. I’m I’m behind the podium pretty much and and 1 kinda watch, I still do some of it but 11 (.) my kids have noticed that that I’ve I’ve kinda held back =

M: = Reigned it in =

J: = Y eah. So, and I think they like that because it you get to a point where it’s like, who’re they watching who, well are they watching the director or are they watching (.) th- the group, so it’s like (in a very nasal tone) “what’s Jacobsen gonna do? He’s gonna jump all over” ((laughs)). (MR. JACOBSEN)

To the students, real-time instruction (excerpts #171-223) helps remind them what to do "as it's happening" so that they can make "the detailed changes in the middle of the song." Such real-time instruction includes utterances of musical and performance jargon (#171-192), analogy (#193-205) and modeling (#206-216); combinations of different kinds of real-time analogy were much more unusual than within stopped instruction. The temporal space of music is a crucial part of real-time instruction, and Mr. Jacobsen uses spaces between musical events as locations from which to give instruction

(#217-223). Mr. Jacobsen sees real-time instruction as "coaching," and a

175 necessary format in case the students are not responding to his gesture.

Whatever the focus, it is apparent that such instruction-in-the-moment is hardly capricious, and is heard and acted on by the students.

Instruction Over Time: Two Detailed Cases

In order to give some vertical sense to these collections, two recurrent topics of instruction are analyzed below. The choice of collecting excerpts by topic, as opposed to by type of instruction, gives a fuller picture of how different styles of instruction are used together, as well as how similar instructions recur over different rehearsals.

Case study: The womanly sound.

As noted in excerpts #193-205, Mr. Jacobsen repeated certain analogies over the time 1 spent observing the symphonic choir. Perhaps the most recurrent analogy was the "womanly" sound.

EX. #224 1 Cs: sings after E

2 J: Can wc, can we gel somethin in- in there? Like a woman? Put some woman.

3 Cs: sings after E

4 J: Yeah (sings the part down an octave). Put a little woman in there. (1.0) How 5 bout a big woman?

6 Cs: sings after E

7 J: Now, if you would open your mouth up and give you some (.) breath up under 8 it, that’ll help. Ready? One more time, last time, ready, and. 9 Cs: sings after E 176 EX. #225 10 C: sings “Laudato Pueri” //

11 J: Now ladies, don’t sound like little, little chipmunks up there. 12 Give me a little woman.

EX. #226 13 Cs: immemorial pain.

14 J: K, is that all the woman I can get? (1.0) Or can you muster any more? That’s 15 up to you.

16 S: Yeah.

17 J: If you can muster some more give it to me. Here we go.

EX. #227 18 Cs: sings from m. 154 to ra. 160 ( 10 sec) //

19 *J: Give me woman (m. 155)

20 J: Yeah. Yeah, but he helps you. He 21 really docs. He- he gives you a, the- the- the G tied together, so you can 22 crescendo (.) and and get support for that, dee. (2.0) Yeah, except, ccpt you 23 can’t breathe. K? So t^ e a big one. One, two, ready, and.

Excerpts #224-227 each contain references to the "womanly" sound, found in lines 2,4-5, 12,14 and 19, Mr. Jacobsen's use of the term crosses boundaries of time (excerpts come from early and late in the observation process) and literature (excerpts come from two different pieces). While sometimes the term is matched with another bit of instruction—for example, it seems safe to say a womanly sound does not sound like little chipmunks

(lines 11-12)—in other cases, the term is used alone, as in lines 14 and 19.

177 So what does the symphonic choir do to an ensemble sound when this analogy is used? Figures 5.19-5.23 show spectral transcripts of segments of ensemble sound both before the analogy and afterwards in excerpts #224, 225 and 227. In excerpt #224, a gradual change can be seen in the spectral transcripts, where the acoustical peaks of the sound become both more pronounced and broaden, covering more frequencies. In excerpt #225, the sung result of the comment, "don't sound like little chipmunks up there.

Give me a little woman," is a strengthening of the fundamental and second partial, as well as a broadening of the frequencies involved in those peaks.

This can be seen both in Figure 5.20, and more clearly in Figure 5.21 (which is a close-up of Figure 5.20).

It is difficult to compare the two spectral transcripts in Figure 5.22 (and in the close-up. Figure 5.23), since the analyses are of different pitches from w ithin excerpt #227. What can be noted, however, is a "rounding off" of the harmonic peaks in the sung response after the "give me woman" real-time instruction (line 19). The sung response before the instruction, in contrast, has much more pointed harmonic peaks. The same "rounding off" of harmonic peaks can be seen after "womanly sound" instructions in excerpts

#224 and 255, as well. Consistently across these spectral examples, the result of a "womanly" sound analogy is the strengthening of harmonic peaks, accompanied by the broadening and rounding-off of those peaks. This gives the post-instruction analyses a different look, and a different sound.

178 Such uniformity is enlightening, considering the words of the members of the symphonic choir in describing what a "womanly" sound is.

L: Umm, (.) its the f- full (.) using your breath I think we tend to get really pinched up there at least I do (.) I don’t breath enou^ and I think what he’s hying to get us to do is to use oiu* breath in- instead of being timid in hitting high notes just go and hit them. (1.0) Almost for us it seems like “oh, we’re doing it” but probably we’re not. (LYNNE)

N: Well, it’s kind of funny because for him, umm, when he (.) it’s funny like we were talking yesterday. Mrs. Jacobsen’s in charge of the house, Mrs. Jacobsen’s in control, his son even admits to that So I think that when he thinks of a woman he thinks of some (.) strong, dynamic voice 1 mean, he always- he said yesterday, you know (mimics Mr. Jacobsen’s voice) “you can’t win a fight with a woman” it’s just that kind of a mentality, like women are stronger, women, you know (.) powerful. I think and that’s what he wants from his sound.

M: So how do you go about producing that?

( 1.0)

N: (hhhh) it’s hard. Because it’s hard (.) because sometimes it doesn’t (.) mean louder it means (2.0) it- it doesn’t necess^ just mean louder. 1 think it’s just more focused (.) than, you know, like, just a louder dynamic. A lot of it is (1.5) 1 don’t know it’s hard. (1.0) Umm, (1.5) 1 think a lot of it is just (.) umm (1.0) having more air behind it and more of a constant sound as opposed to a strong sound at first and then dying off. (NATALIE)

B: Umm, trying not to screech at the top of your lungs, trying to get up to the notes trying to put a lot of air behind it, and umm make it a little fuller of a sound(.) than just sort of an airy sound up in the you know (.) rafters up there =

M: OK//

B: It’s really hard, once you get up there it’s hard to make it sound decent M; So what do you have to do to make it sound decent? =

B: = Umm, I have to, well I always get up on my toes a little bit cause sort of I’m a visualization type person so if I you know f ^ that going up I get up a little higher it gets my voice to go up a little higher and then 1 put more air behind it, just because the (.) if you push with your diaphragm it kinda (.) helps. (BOBBIE)

179 The three students' conceptions of the "womanly" sound are very distinct from one another. One similarity, though, is the focus on the use of air support or breath. What is interesting about the similarity is that the use of air support is a component of h o w to make a womanly sound; the diversity of response seems to stem from the question of w hat a womanly sound is.

The students are in basic agreement concerning what they are to do. What it means to them is a completely different matter.

This is particularly revealing in light of Mr. Jacobsen's description of a womanly sound.

J: A womanlv sound is just uh wc- some more warmth. More warmth and so to them they look at it they think of it as um (.) as an an opera classical trained singing, well, to me it means (.) soft palate being raised. And for some reason, if 1 say that and they they raise their soft palate and get things out of the way. I don’t know whv that (.) I mean it’s just that I’ll go “give me more womanly sound” and they’ll they’ll do things and and and it just raises the soft pdate. I’m going “OK,” it’s like when 1 do Dracula. Uhh, Dracula they know like specifically “he wants the soft palate raised, he wants more vertical space,” uh when 1 go woman, it’s usually getting the more, the air moving s- some more more ooh type (.) quai- a little darker c- cause sometimes it gels a little bright for my taste. You know but uhh that’s the main thing.

Mr. Jacobsen makes little mention of air support. Instead, the focus on

Mr. Jacobsen's answer is the raising of the soft palate. Further, his conception of his students' conception is that of "an opera classical trained singing," while none of the three students' responses mention anything similar to this.

Mr. Jacobsen also begins and ends his comment with what the womanly sound is to him; it has "some more warmth," with a "more ooh type" quality that is "a little darker, cause sometimes it gets a little bright" for his taste.

1 80 What is perhaps most compelling in this data is that the ensemble capably effects change, in that the students alter the sound to Mr. Jacobsen's satisfaction. Further, Mr. Jacobsen is confident that the students have a clear idea of how a womanly sound is made. Based on the student comments, he would appear to be right; what they do not have is his clear idea of how a womanly sound is made. Pedagogically, the breath and the soft palate are not automatically connected motions. Mr. Jacobsen's "how" and the students'

"how" all differ considerably from each other. Nonetheless, change is effected on the sound that satisfies Mr. Jacobsen to the point that he refers to the analogy over and over again.

Case study: The bass part in the third measure of Mozart's "Laudate

Pueri."

Throughout the observations of the symphonic choir, one specific spot receiving a great deal of attention was the third measure of the "Laudate

Pueri," in which the basses sing alone. Figure 5.24 shows the bass part over the first four measures of the piece.

181 r-DT- Id' J Lau da - te pu - e - n Do mi

Figure 5.24: The bass part in "Laudate Pueri/' measures 1-4

Mr, Jacobsen used a variety of instruction attuned specifically to this location.

EX. #228 1 C: sings mm. 1 - 4

2 J: Y eah, yeah can I get Laudate (sung to J v J) J ) Pu-eri, not (sung to v./) J ) Pu-

3 eri, (sung to Jv j) j ) Pu-eri.

EX. #229 4 Cb: Basses sing the first notes of “Laudate Pueri” //

5 J: Yeah, basses, (sung to JvJij ) dee

6 dee dee , dee dee dee , a slight separation there. One, two, ready, and.

7 Cb: Basses sing the first seven notes//

8 J: It’s still not getting daylight for some of 9 you. (sung to Jv J'/J ) dee dee dee , dee dee dee, not (sungto J .j)J ) dee-dee

10 dee, dee-dee dee ‘s what your doin. Ready, and.

182 11 Cb: Basses sing from the beginning to ra. 15.

12 *J: (claps in ra. 3) JvJ)J

EX. #230 13 71 C: sings from the beginning to m. 4 //

14 J: No no no but don’t chip it. (sung to Jv J )

15 dee dee dee, it’s still a quarter, dee dee dee. Ready, and.

EX. #231 16 C: sings from the beginning to m. 4 //

17 J: No no, (sung to J v ^ j ) dee dee dee, don’t

18 go (sung to (sung to JvJ'J ) deedeedee. Wc want a little

19 daylight. Not a who:::::::lc day. Again, and.

EX. #232 20 C: sings from the beginning to m. 3 //

21 J: No no, (sung to Jv J ) dee dee dee, dee-

22 long short long, ready, ^ that. Long short long, ready, go.

23 Cb: (sung to Jv ) long short long

24 J: Do that again, and.

25 Cb: (sungtojvjij ) long short long

26 J: Crescendo with the long, (sung to Jv J) long short long, put the “t” on it long

37 short long, ready, go.

183 28 Cb: (sung to Jv j ) long short long

29 J: Don’t let it go/ng. (gives starting pitch) One, two, ready, and. 30 C: sings from beginning to m. 7

31 *L (claps Jy j ), thank you. (mm. 3-4)

EX. #233 32 C: sings mm. 1-3 // 33 J: Yeah, I don’t want so much (.5) it’s it’s too much of a break.

34 (sung to J y j ) dah dah dak (sung to J v J ) dah dah dah, make sure you’ ve got

35 the length of it (sung to J v J J) dah dah dah dah. Ready, and.

36 C: sings mm. l-4of “Laudate Pueri” 37 *J: Thank you (m. 4)

EX. #234 38 C: sings from beginning to m. 4 // 39 J: Basses, shhh, can I get (.) assume that the

40 dotted quarter’s a crescendo (.) K, with a slight (.) break in it, (sung to Jvi>J )

41 dee dee dee, dee dee dee. And everyone has that crescendo, with a slight break. 42 and a lifted accent A lifted accent So it goes into the next phrase (.) I hope. 43 Ready?

44 C: sings from the beginning to A

Excerpts #228-234 show an impressive variety of instruction used, given that the subject of this instruction is the articulation given to three notes. Mr. Jacobsen uses stopped jargon (lines 6, 33,35, 40-42), stopped

184 analogy and modeling (lines 2, 5, 8-10, 17-19, 21-25, 29, 33), and combinations

of all of these (as in lines 14-15). Real-time direction (lines 31 and 37) and

real-time modeling (line 31) are also present.

The primary instructional obstacle, the space between the second and

third notes of the measure, is referred to as a 'T>reak," "slight separation" and

a 'little daylight" (but not, as noted in line 19, "a whole day"). The space Is

modeled through clapping in real-time, through singing demonstrations, and

through a model/analogy of giving the notes the names "long, short, long"

and singing those in rhythm. Concerns are voiced about "chipping," about

too much and too little of a break, and the basses sing and re-sing the phrase

countless times.

At issue is a matter within the music that Mr. Jacobsen can hear, but

which the basses seem unable to replicate consistently. In order to get them to

do so, Mr. Jacobsen provides a summary collection of excerpts which show in

a clear way how many different instructional cues are used with the same

segments of music. This is something that can missed if one looks too hard at

the collections of excerpts above, forgetting about the overall contexts from

which the above excerpts came.

Conclusions

The majority of instructing that went on in the observed symphonic choir rehearsals consisted of teacher-initiated directives between episodes of

185 ensemble singing. This is consistent with the literature (Caldwell, 1980;

Flowers, 1990; Watkins, 1986), and suggests that stopped instruction is a primary method of refining the ensemble sound. In fact, both Mr. Jacobsen's evaluations of the students and some of the spectral analysis indicate the students make changes to the sound as a result of even the more vague analogies and models.

Of the stopped instruction used (excerpts #60-170), it was relatively rare for Mr. Jacobsen to use analogy or modeling by themselves. This supports research into learning styles (Gardner, 1993; McCarthy, 1987), which indicate that students leam things in different ways; Mr. Jacobsen's mixing of instruction allowed for a number of interpretations of the same goal.

The variety of student meaning derived from stopped instruction was thrown into relief in the analysis of the "womanly sound" analogy (excerpts

#224-227). Students and Mr. Jacobsen approached both what a womanly sound was and how such a sound was produced differently. Despite this, the analogy and the results of the analogy were effective enough for Mr. Jacobsen to use it a number of times during my observations.

Real-time instructions were also used frequently by Mr. Jacobsen

(excerpts #171-223). In addition to using jargon, analogy, and modeling in real-time, Mr. Jacobsen also showed a masterful use of musical transitional-

186 relevant places (TRP), into which instruction could be precisely placed. The advantage of real-time instruction is its detail in indexing a specific spot in the music ju st then, as was noted by students and Mr. Jacobsen alike.

In the fullness of instruction, all of the variations of stopped and real­ time instruction were intermingled, as the case study of the Mozart "Laudate

Pueri" indicated (excerpts #228-234). The sequencing of these kinds of instruction as rehearsal moves through its temporal space is a closely related issue, which is explored in Chapter 7.

187 CHAPTER 6

SIMULATIONS AND LOCAL HISTORIES

Temporality is a central part of the preparation of the symphonic choir for their contest performance, and it plays an important role in participant interaction and in the use of instruction. This is considered in detail in

Chapter 7. A more extended sense of time in rehearsal comes into play in two kinds of instruction, which are explored in this chapter: Simulations, which look forward to events about to come; and local histories, which look back at events which have already occurred.

Simulations

In my observations of the symphonic choir, I noticed three contexts in which the instruction simulated a future event. They were contest sight- reading, performance of repertoire, and accomplishing the processional.

188 Contest sight-reading.

On several occasions, Mr. Jacobsen led the students in simulations of the sight-reading exercise at contest.

EX. #235 1 J: Turn to page (.) 20. We’ve done this one before. K? (Plays do, mi, sol, mi, do) 2 Bb major, ready, and.

3 C; Do mi sol mi do sol do 4 J: Three eight. One, two, three, one, ready, and. 5 C: (Sight-reads the example)

6 J: Hello? K? K? I feel like I’ve got freshman choir. OK, one, tw-except they 7 read it a tad bit better than that. 8 Ss: Oooh.

9 J: Ready one, two, three, one, ready, and.

10 C: (Sight-reads the example)

11 J: Yeah, let’s try to be a little more aggressive. Look at B. B? Here’s your pitch? 12 If you’ re gonna share please make sure that you’ re holding the book too. (.) 13 One, ready, and.

14 C: (Sight-reads the example)

15 J: Can you please scan one time? ( 1.0) Just- just look it oyer. (2.5) Look it over. 16 Now this time put the syllables with it, don’t sing anything, just speak the 17 syllables. In rhythm one, ready, and.

18 C: (intoning together) Do mi sol la fa re mi ti do. Do fa la sol mi do sol la li do. 19 J; Can you speak (.) measure two for me please, one, ready, sing. 20 C: La fa rc =

21 J: = That’s all I want, do it again please ready and. 22 C: La fa r e= 23 J: = Speak measure six for me please, ready and. 24 C: Sol mi do =

25 J: = Then go to 1^ ready and.

189 26 C: Do fa la

27 (.5)

28 J: Wanna look at that again? K, one, ready- cause some of y’all are not sure, ready, 29 and. 30 C: Do la la =

31 J: = No:::w. now could you do::: the whole nine years, and sing it this time. 32 (plays the starting pitch) One, tall (.) vertical space, sound like you belong in 33 symphonic. One, ready, and. 34 C: (Sight-reads the example)

EX. #236 35 J: Let’s look at Ab major. Pdge 25 (students turn to the page). 25. Let’s look at B. 36 (plays Do mi sol mi do sol do) Do mi sol, all I want to do is three of em. And.

37 C: Do mi sol mi do sol do = 38 J: = Can you do that again so that it sounds like a triad? Ready, and.

39 C: Do mi sol mi do sol do

40 J: Lookin’ at B. Here we go. We’re in unison. (2.0) Scan it through, real quick. 41 shh, don’t talk just scan. Your syllables for yourself. When we go into the sight- 42 reading room section leaders will be in charge of this, I will sit down and 43 absolutely do nothing. So I’m hopin’ you know it. (3.5) Here we go. (plays do 44 mi sol on piano) Sing the first note so I know you’re ot it, ready, and.

45 C: Do::::: 46 J: Do to sol right? 47 Ss: Fa:: = [ 48 Ss: Do to la:: =

49 J: = Thank you. One, two, ready, and. 50 C: (Sight-reads the example)

51 J: Yeah, looks like an eighth note last time I checked. (Corrects final rhythm) 52 bum bum bum bum. Don’t discuss it. Don’t discuss it, don’t discuss it, OK? In 53 seven, you messed up the rhythm, K? Four five and six, you messed up the 54 counting. Make sure you fix that, and you’re missing (.) do to fa. (Plays do fa 55 twice, then do mi sol) K? K? Second time. One, two, ready, and. 56 C: (Sight-reads the example)

57 J: OK, you fixed four and five, you messed up seven. OK? Goin on, fixed four 190 58 and five, messed up seven. Turn to:: (3.0) turn to seventy. But this time, section 59 leaders, K? Come down, as if we were at contesL Go. You have (.) two 60 seconds. Well, thirty seconds. For (2.0) Shh, go.

61 (Students form in four groups; section leaders get each group intoning their own 62 solfege, at their own pace. J. stands apart from the four groups. 80 seconds go by) 63 J: Time. (Students take their original places) Any questions? (2.0) Good. (Plays 64 starting pitches). One, two, three, four. 65 C: (Sight-reads the example; J. says nothing) =

66 J: = Off. Section leaders quickly you go:::t ten seconds, fix vour problems.

67 (Groups reform, with section leaders giving directives to their groups. 20 seconds go 68 by)

69 J: Time. (Students take their original places. J. plays starting pitches, and conducts 70 four beats, saying nothing).

71 C: (Sight-reads the example; J. says nothing) 72 J: Alright, sopranos as you got- started going along you got stronger. K, you 73 missed that sol. K in the (.) first measure, K, but you ^ clean it up, second part. 74 Tenors, please make sure that you don’t rush (.) at the end (.) of the four meas- 75 of the fourth measure I think you started rushing there, cause if you do you’ re 76 gonna throw us (.5) off there. OK? Alto::::s (.) good job. OK. ((laughs)) K, 77 they’re goin “well yeah.” Uh, basses very nice and I cou- can even use more 78 foundation there. Even more, very nice. Very nice, put it away.

EX. #237 79 J: Try something, please, section leaders (.) go:::. You have three minutes, go.

80 (Students form in four groups, section leaders get each group intoning their own 81 solfege, at their own pace. When they Fnish, the section leaders make comments, 82 and the group intones again. J. stands apart from the tour groups, making one 83 comment to the sopranos. 1:45 minutes go by)

84 J: Five seconds (5.0) Time. (Students take their original places. J. plays do mi sol 85 mi do sol so). Do mi sol mi, and. 86 C: Do mi sol mi do sol do

87 J: K? Please look at circle ten. The dotted eighth followed by the sixteenth? (2.3) 88 K? (intoned on A A sol fa sol la sol sol la ti do, K? Make sure

89 there’s a slight little separation on that dotted eighth followed by the sixteenth. 90 (intoned on A J'J) Ba ba ba. Ba ba ba. Here’s our tempo (conducts one

91 measure, then plays starting pitch), one, two, ready, go. 191 92 C: (Sight-reads the example; J. says a few things in real time while they sing, also 93 clapping the rhythm)

EX. #238 94 J: Page 23. Shh, thank you, quickly, little time, no talking, let’s go stand.

95 (students stand up and get ready to sing)

96 J: Thank you, shhh. One sharp in the key. Basses (.) you’re talking. Section 97 leaders, page 23 = 98 S: = Mr. Jacobsen? 99 J: Yeah?

100 S: We don’t have ( ) 101 J: What happened? (.) Ohh (J. gets books from the piano and gives them to S.) 102 Here you go. Everybody get one? (2.0) Alright. (.) Section leaders come down, 103 real quick. You have two:::, you have a minute. (3.0) Go all the way to the end 104 of the piece, and repeat. We read this one once, though so don’t spend a long 105 time on iL (7.5, as students begin) quickly.

106 (Students form in four groups, section leaders get each group intoning their own 107 solfege, at their own pace. When they finish, the section leaders make comments, 108 and the group intones again. J. stands apart from the four groups. 1:20 minutes go 109 by)

110 J: Four seconds (4.0). Time. Alright

111 (Students take their original places. J. plays starting pitch of sopranos).

112 J: Don't talk. Once you get up there you know the drill. He talks to you, the judge 113 or she talks to you (1.0) all that stirff. I don’t do anything, (plays do mi sol mi 114 do sol do). Do, mi, sol, and.

115 C: do mi sol mi do sol do

116 J: Make sure both of you arc holding the book if you’ re sharing books. Make sure 117 two people are holding the book, don’t- this is not the time to mess around. One, 118 two, ready, sing.

119 C: (Sight-reads the example; J. says things in real time while they sing, particularly 120 giving breathing cues) 121 J: Yeah can we just do d- down to measure sixteen (.) could you shape the phrases 122 into four measures? Four measures instead of every two phrases? K, every two 123 measures? Shape, rise and fall to the line? Here we go, the notes are not a 124 problem (plays the tonic chord) just breathing every note drives me crazy. One, 125 two, ready, sing. 1 9 2 EX. #239 126 J: Uhh, so if you can go every other person with the book. Every other individual.

127 SI: I'm scared.

128 S2: Every other II

129 J: Shh, every other (.) person. (1.0) OK do not cause you got- gotta ISO share it ( 1.5) in the sight reading, you’re sharing it in the sight reading room, so 131 you need to get used to sharing it here. OK //

132 S3: Crazy cover.

133 J: I don’t necessarily like the sharing, but at $7.95 a pop ( I.O) I can understand. K? 134 Shh, sooo, we spend about $300 on sight-reading, OK (passes books out). 135 Alright. Mouth is closed. Please stand, (students stand) Turn to page five. 136 Shh. Page five. (3.0) Mouth is closed, shh. In G, one sharp. Basses on do, 137 sopra-tenors on sol, altos on do, sopranos on mi. Scan it through. Also looking 138 through and finding out what’s familiar. Shh. If you look down very carefully 139 you’ II find one that (.) measure one and meas- the first measure second system 140 kind of repeat a little bit. (1.0) OK? Very similar? Scan through both of you need 141 to look not just one pers- you too Jason. Jason? Jason, use- use part of your 142 brain cell. Here we go, shh, yes. Here we go, shh. (1.5) Peter? 143 P: Sorry.

144 J: Don’t be sorry just shut up and do what you’ rc supposed to. Here we go, shh. 145 Here we go. Let’s go. (2.0) Section leaders could you come down because they 146 can’t, they won’t do it on Üieir own. Some of them won’ L Come down and go 147 over things please, especially basses and baritones, especially baritones. OK, 148 shh.

149 (students begin to reform into sections)

150 J: Section leaders, sopranos come down.

151 S: Circle up. = 152 J: = yeah.

153 (Students form in four groups, section leaders get each group intoning their own 154 solfege, at their own pace. When they finish, the section leaders make comments, 155 and the group intones again. J. stands apart from the four groups, commenting to the 156 whole group “quickly” and “slow it down.” 25 seconds go by)

157 J: Alright. Time. Here we go, that’s probably shorter than you’ II get but (.) we’ re 158 doin it on short time. K? (plays starting pitches). Sing the first chord so I know 159 what’s happening, and.

160 C: (sings the first chord) 193 161 J: One, two, three.

162 C: (Sight-reads the example; J. says things in real time while they sing, correcting 163 the basses when they fall behind, etc.) =

164 J: = And, stop there cause the rest of it just kinda repeats again. Look at the 165 beginning again, ladies make sure that you make it up to la K? Basses, make 166 sure that you count? whole note, OK, half notes still get two beats these days? 167 OK, make sure that you hold them (.) out. Uhh, guys can you all get another 168 book so that you’ re not three to a copy? Here you go. OK, here we go, one.

EX. #240 169 J: We Just finished our performance (.) we’ re now in the sight-reading room. 170 S: Yea;::h.

171 J; It’s ta hand it to you every other pets- now (2.0) 0;::h, read it mixed. [ 172 S: In sections? 173 Ss; Oo:::h.

174 S2: What about the sectional time then? = 175 S3; = That is really harsh.

176 S4; That’s// 177 S2; Mr. Jacobsen?

178 J; Yeah?

179 S2; What happens when the section leaders arc supposed to talk to us? 180 J; Don’t worry. For- for- for tomorrow you’ll go into sections. For today I just, 181 read mixed. (2.5) Tomorrow. I’ll do the right thing tomorrow. Don’t worry. 182 (3.0) OK, would you stand, you share, boy girl whatever it is, just two to a 183 copy. Share. This, uh, separates the (.) those who (.) from those who don’L 184 S3; I am one of those who don’t

185 J; K, yeah? You gotta leam to be those who. OK, let’s look. Shh, thank you very 186 mueh, shh, let’s turn to page ( 1.5) let’s turn to page twenty, no I’m sorry I’m 187 sorry, page twelve. I’ll give you an easy one. Shh, you are sharing. Please 188 make sure you’ re- both of you are holding a piece of music. Not one person both 189 of you are sharing the music, shh. In D major (.) K, two sharps? Basses on do, 190 tenors on sol, altos on do, sopranos on mi. Sopranos on mi. Scan it through, if 191 I were you I’d think of it in four measure phrases. Think in four measure 192 phrases, but this one happens to be in eight measure phrases. 123 4 56 7 8. 193 So, think in eight measure phrases here, scan it through. Some of you have read 194 this one before (.) K? See if you can find anything familiar. Like basses, look at 194 195 the beginning and look at the bottom of thirteen? You might find find something 196 that’s similar. Somethin similar. Turn the page, find things that are familiar. 197 Twenty-five, maybe twenty-five. (3.5). Scan that through. There are no 198 accidentals, basses and tenors it moves, well tenors you have a couple of skips in 199 there, but it’s pretty much primarily moves in steps (1.5), K. And then I want 200 you to stop on the top of sixteen. On the, on the (.) everyone end on do. 201 Stop on the top of sixteen, let’s see what happens. (J. gives the starting pitches). 202 Can I have your first, can I get do mi sol mi do sol do. And ready, and.

203 C: do mi sol mi do sol do

204 J: Here we go, sing the first chord for me please (plays starting pitches), and. 205 C: (sing the chord)

206 J: Ready, one, two, three, one, ready, sing.

207 C: (sight-reads the example; J. gives directives in real-time as the choir sings, 208 relating to dynamics, page turns, breathing etc.)

209 J: Thank you. Not bad reading, not bad reading, let’s just change it up a little bit, 210 can you turn to page 32? (I.O) Page 32, that one’s a little bit gsy. This one’s 211 not, K? Check out the rhythrns, please. A dotted quarter followed by an eighth, 212 shh. (intones in an even tempo) One, two and tee and four, one and two and tee 213 four. Scan it through, take a second just scan it through. ( 1.0) Here we go, 214 we’ re in G major now. (1.0) There are no accidentals but look at the, look at the 215 dynamic markings please. Basses start on do. Do ti la (.) sol do re mi (1.0) la sol 216 mi re do. (4.0) Hnd things that are familiar. (2.0) Make sure you breath after E, 217 or before five, it’s a four measure phrase. (3.^ Scan it through. (6.0) Find 218 things as well, you got unison sounds up here at top of ten except tenors are a 219 little bit, uh tenors are an octave higher tiian the basses but the same note, same 220 syllable. Sol. (4.0) Watch the fermata at measure sixteen it is, end of sixteen. 221 (5.0) OK (2.0) Alright // you ready?

222 S5: Is this repeated?

223 J: Yes, please repeat K, try to sing better the second time (plays do mi sol mi do 224 sol do). Thank you, tharik you, please don’t discuss. Don’t discuss, we don’t 225 have time to discuss. Do mi sol, and.

226 C: do mi sol mi do sol do

227 J: Please don’t drop the octave, (plays the starting pitch, and then the first three 228 notes of the bass part). Ready? One, two, I’m sorry. One, two, tec.

229 C: (sight-reads the example; J. gives directives in real-time as the choir sings, 230 relating to dynamics, page turns, breathing etc.)

231 J: Not bad. Pass those down there. (2.0) Do y’all wanna read mixed? 232 Ss: No.

233 86: We’ve read that one before. 195 234 J: O h ^ ja ?

235 Ss: (comments of affirmation)

236 J: Oh, OK, good, OK OK. I we didn’ L OK. well then we won’t go mixed. I 237 thought it was goin kinda pretty, I was like “Weil look at them go.”

There are a number of comments made by Mr. Jacobsen in excerpts

#235-240 that specifically point toward what will happen when the sight- reading is done "for real/' such as in lines 41-43,112-113,129-131,157-158 and line 169. These comments each point toward how things will be when the group sight-reads at contest ("you're sharing it in the sight reading room, so you need to get used to sharing it here") or how contest sight-reading will be subtly different ("that's probably shorter than you'll get, but we're doin it on short time").

Further, the instructional architecture of each excerpt is similar in ways that differs from other instruction observed—such as the singing of "do mi sol mi do sol do" by the choir prior to the beginning of a sight-reading performance—leading me to the conclusion that this architecture simulates the contest sight-reading experience, as well. The most novel of these is the dividing of the ensemble into four cohorts (soprano, alto, tenor, and bass), with students serving as the cohort leaders. In these cases (lines 61-62, 67-68,

80-83, 106-109, and 153-156), the instruction of the individual voice part is left to the student leaders of each cohort.

196 This break-down into simultaneous, student-led cohorts is unique to

simulations of contest sight-reading in the rehearsals I observed. It is

analogous to the occasional days where there are student-run sectional

rehearsals. In those, however, each section rehearses in a different location in

the building, uses the full class period, and works on the correct singing of

that particular part. Having observed two sectionals, I am comfortable saying

they are nothing like the efficient, singular purpose found in the

simultaneous student cohorts during sight-reading.

In fact, the cohorts are important enough for a student to note their

absence, and draw attention to it (line 179 of excerpt #240) when the ritual was

being performed differently (in mixed formation instead of in sections). Mr.

Jacobsen acknowledged the difference, noting that "ITl do the right thing

tomorrow" (line 181), when he would run the sight-reading simulation in sections.

Another change of structure is the detailed, jargonistic stopped

instruction Just prior to or following sight-reading performances, as well as the comparative lack of real-time instruction. While examples of lengthy stopped instruction can be found in transcripts of other parts of rehearsal, the use of such as an instructional technique is uniformly similar in the above excerpts. In speaking with Mr. Jacobsen, 1 discovered that directors are not allowed to speak over the choir during the actual contest sight-reading performance, and are not allowed to sing parts to the students, either. This

197 explains the almost exclusive use of stopped jargon in these examples. In a simulation, there is no real penalty for violating these procedures, and Mr.

Jacobsen occasionally does so (as in lines 207-208 of excerpt #240). Still, given

Mr. Jacobsen's comfort with the use of modeling, analogy and real-time instruction, it is a striking difference when those instructional strategies are absent.

It is important to note that "contest sight-reading" and "sight-reading for us" are different instructionally, although both require students' ability to sing at first sight. Consider the two excerpts below, in which the students sight-read selections within the confines of rehearsal.

EX. #241 1 (students are preparing to read “Come to Me”)

2 J; Stand please, (students stand) Thank you. Let’s, shh, let’s see how well we can 3 read. K? Look at the first thing, please. At top of four? Sopranos and tenors? 4 Top of four page four? Y ou’ re in unison there for the first three measures. K? 5 Then it changes at the hot- oh scuse me for the first two measures at the top. OK 6 and the sopranos, I’m sorry. The altos and basses? You also have the first two 7 measures at the top of four (.) that are the same. That are the same then it changes 8 again. OK? Look is throu^ stare it through. Then it goes to a five four measure, 9 shh thank you, a five four measure which I will conduct in five, probably (intones 10 in rhythm)With, soft and rounded cheeks the eyes as bright, like sunlight on a 11 stream. Ohh now we did this like three, four years ago =

12 S: = Two years ago.

13 J: Who- how many of you did it in here? 14 (three students, all basses, raise their hands) 15 J; Oh.

16 S2: Yes.

17 J; Oh. Great. OK. Three people. OK. Let’s just see what happens, use words. So 18 basses have somebody to (gives starting pitches) OK? One, basses tenors, three, 19 four, one.

198 20 C: (sight reads the first section. It is not good) 21 J: Y eah, let’s go back. Let’s go back. Can I just do two parts at a time please, 22 tenors and basses. K, tenors and basses, (gives starting pitches) If you have 23 syllables in there you might wanna use em. (I.O) Two, ready, and, one.

EX. #242 24 J: Put it on a neutral syllable for me? Put it on nah? Nah. Thank you. (piano gives 25 starting pitch) Ready basses? I’m doin it in four four. One (.) one, two, ready, 26 and.

27 (the piano begins, but no one sings. J. stops) 28 J: Let’s go basses. Nah. Ready, she’s plavin double, it’s not a cappella piece.

29 (the ensemble sings in a very slow 4: beginning to end)

30 *J: Tenors, (m. 3)

31 *J: Bass. Just passin it back and forth, (m. 60)

32 *J: Come on tenors, be ready, (m. 67)

33 *J: Together, (m. 72)

34 *J: C(m. 80)

35 *J: Cmon ladies, (m. 82)

36 *J: Cmon basses. Sing your part guys. (m. 93)

37 *J: Bring it back, then let it grow (m. 117)

38 *J: Together, (m. 155)

39 *J: I and 2 and (slowing down) (m. 183)

40 (Every major section ends with J. saying, “Off’ on the third beat: mm. 40,49,90, 41 114, 123, 150. Where parts are faltering, J. sings the part in his own range 42 throughout)

In excerpt #241, there is a lengthy pre-singing instruction (lines 2-11) which is similar to those found in excerpts #235-240. Lacking, however, is the cohorting by sections; instead, Mr. Jacobsen launches right into an attempt of

199 the piece. It does not go well, and after cutting the ensemble off, Mr. Jacobsen

rehearses only two of the four parts. While this kind of cohort reduction is

common in my observations of rehearsals of a piece of music, it never occurs

in the "contest sight-reading" episodes. What is normally found at this point,

a summary (often, stopped jargon evaluating the just-completed

performance, with instruction on how to improve it the next time), is

entirely absent. Moreover, instead of singing on solfege, as is always done in

excerpts #235-240, Mr. Jacobsen begins in line 17 on text.

Excerpt #242 is equally different from the "contest sight-reading"

episodes. After a false-start of sorts (lines 24-28), Mr. Jacobsen has the students

sing the entire piece on the neutral syllable "nah." Then, in lines 30-42, Mr.

Jacobsen gives a number of real-time instructions, including the use of

analogy (line 37) and modeling (line 39). As with excerpt #241, this excerpt is

an example that "sight-reading for us" is done differently than "contest sight-

reading." And, while differences do exist in the actual sight-reading (such as

the use of a neutral syllable or words instead of solfege), the important

difference is in instructional strategy and format. The simulations of contest sight-reading are simulations of sequence and format more than of music

reading.

At first glance, the differences in the two kinds of sight-reading are similar to the description of "hot" and "cold" science by Atkinson and

Delamont (1977), where cold science is designed to simulate hot science.

200 which results from actual events. The "sight-reading for us" is like the hot science; each episode is a "performance" of sight-reading. In the cold science of "contest sight-reading," the episodes are practice for a future day.

However, it should be noted that Mr. Jacobsen makes no attempt to pass off "contest sight-reading" as a way to get to better "sight-reading for us."

Instead, the two are considered independent of each other, for use in completely different contexts. The only time "contest sight-reading" is used is in participation (or simulated participation) of the contest itself. It is nothing like "sight-reading for us," but was never intended to be.

Performance simulations.

In rehearsal, as could be expected, the students' interactions and behavior differed from performance. A number of times, however, the behavior within rehearsal approximated or simulated performance conditions.

EX. #243 1 C: Turn him from your door (mm. 79-81)

2 (During fermata, no one talks, no one moves)

3 C: If love should count you worthy (mm. 82 - 85) 4 J: (mimicking horn part in mm. 86-87, in rhythm) Bum, bum, bum.

EX. #244 5 J: Not t)ad, folks. Put your music down this time, ready, one, OK?

201 EX. #245 6 C: ...if you should turn him from your door.

I (After the release, no one talks. J. conducts the measure for the piano; the pianist is 8 absent this day)

9 S: Ho - H

10 J: Pon’L (.) Ready, and.

II C: How wise you were...

EX. #246 12 C: If love should count you worthy, (with horn) 13 (no one moves or speaks for 5.5 seconds)

EX. #247 14 (A run-through without music, which does not go well) =

15 J: = Thank you, grab your music. (2.0) You are singing it with no music. 16 S: Mr. Jacobsen, tomorrow?

17 J: Yes. (3.0) OK, now (.) it may may eat We eat crow, but we’ re gonna do it. 18 (2.5) OK. (3.5) There’ 11 be no pieces of music on the stage. (2.0) I ain’t lookin 19 at it. (3.5) I’ve been sick. One, two, ready, and.

EX. #248 20 J: (sings the piano part in mm. 70-71; the pianist is absent See Figure 6.1)

202 B - ; —e ------h Qui A _------*—4*— h—p----— ■ ------■------J .uT. lé , :— bum bum bum bum bum b6m

------i T T f r 1~ o ~ "

Figure 6.1: A comparison of Mr. Jacobsen's instrumental simulation (J) with the sung bass part (B) and the written piano part (P; left-hand shown) in "Laudate Pueri," measures 70-71

21 J: (sings the piano part mm. 150-151; the pianist is absent. See Figure 6.2)

B per et_

J bum bum bum bum bumm bum ii —# é

Figure 6.2: A comparison of Mr. Jacobsen's instrumental simulation (J) with the sung bass part (B) and the written piano part (P; left-hand shown) in "Laudate Pueri," measures 150-151 2 0 3 EX. #249 22 J: (rhythm-counts piano in mm. 52, and again in mm. 57-60. See Figure 6.3)

23 C: ...turn him from your door.

24 (choir and J. hold pose, as if in a performance) 25 J: (conducts through the silence of mm. 70-71)

J

dee dah dah dee dah dah dah

3

w

Rmh 4wfi 4mii Crsh cJun dwn ^un bun 4Jun tfMii Kfwn tfRfn cfmi i

Figure 6.3: A comparison of Mr, Jacobsen's instrumental simulation G) with the chorus part (C; soprano shown) and the written piano part (P; left-hand shown) in "If Love Should Count You Worthy/' measure 52 (above) and measures 57-60 (below)

204 In excerpts #243-249, Mr. Jacobsen attempts to simulate aspects found within actual performances. There are three aspects noted from the above excerpts: Singing without the written music (excerpts #244 and 247), the use of performance-appropriate space within a piece (excerpts #243, 246 and 249) and instrumental accompaniment simulations (excerpts #243, 245, 248 and

249).

The determining factor in these simulations, as with the contest sight- reading simulations, is their consistency within the episode, alongside their discontinuity with other episodes. In the case of the excerpts where the students sing without their music, both excerpts are treated much like the contest sight-reading excerpts. At a point in the rehearsal, the students are told to not use their music (line 5, for example), they sing without the music, and then their ability to sing from memory is evaluated (as in lines 17-19).

Music was not sung from memory until just prior to a performance. Excerpts

#244 and 247 simulate that experience.

The same is true of Mr. Jacobsen's attempts to create performance- appropriate space in a rehearsal of a piece (excerpts #243, 246 and 249). In each of these cases, a space within performance, be it a fermata or the space immediately concluding a piece, is held for a length of time appropriate for a performance; in one case, almost six seconds of time elapses silently as the director and students stand motionless and silent. Although such pauses are performance-appropriate, they are almost never found within rehearsals,

205 especially early ones; for example, the students' talking in line 9 of excerpt

#258 below occurs in the exact same musical place where theydo n o t talk in

line 24 of excerpt #249. Also, Mr. Jacobsen would usually give instruction

immediately following a piece's conclusion, and truncate rests or pauses after

fermati. Effective instructionally, Mr. Jacobsen's cutting of performance-

appropriate spaces nevertheless changes how a piece would sound in

performance. Their occurrence here serves to show how a piece could sound

within an actual performance.

The most apparent performance simulation is Mr. Jacobsen's vocal simulations of instrumental accompaniment parts. In these cases (excerpts

#243, 245, 248 and 249), Mr. Jacobsen's sings either the solo horn part or a line

from the piano part in spaces between the students singing or at the end of a

piece. As this singing is in real-time, just like how the instruments would sound, these excerpts also create performance-appropriate space as well. They are the most performance-like of the performance simulations.

In addition to performance-appropriate space, an instrumental accompaniment and singing from memory, there are behavioral indicators

that rehearsals and simulations of performance differ. In my observations,

the symphonic choir was actually a fairly talkative bunch; there was usually assorted student mumbling and talking right up to the start of a piece, in the gaps between singing, and right after a piece was finished. This talking

206 seemed to not be a major concern of Mr. Jacobsen, and he seldom allowed it to disrupt either music making or instruction. However, as concerts neared, this all changed.

EX. #250 1 C; (transition from talking to hieing still, and looking at Mr. Jacobsen)

2 (Performance like. Piano and horn begin. No movement in choir, no talking, 3 students are very still at points of musical quiet, students are all looking directly at 4 Mr. Jacobsen)

5 (In the middle of a piano and hom interlude, a student turns and appears to talk to his 6 neighbor, although his words cannot be heard) II

7 J; OH::: DON’ T TALK.

8 (The music stops; the room is absolutely still)

9 (3.5)

10 J: Do it again. 11 (4.0)

12 J: I ain’t lauehin. 13 (3.0)

14 (J. begins the piece again)

EX. #251 15 (a student appears to talk while the choir is singing)

16 C: and should deign II

17 J: (cuts-off choir) scuse me. Who-who’s choir do you belong to? 18 S: I’m sorry.

19 J: N- no you don’t have to be sorry, I asked you who’s choir you // belong to?

20 S: Yours.

22 J: Thank you.

207 23 S: Y our welcome.

24 (9.5)

25 (J. begins the piece again)

Episodes of management are a rare find in the symphonic choir; I observed only a few in twenty class periods of observation. Again, there are similarities between them, and dissimilarities to other observed instruction, that suggest that simulations are involved.

In both cases, the instigation of the management was a student who could be seen to be talking, although not heard, at least from my vantage point (lines 5-6 and 15). Such quiet asides littered my observations of the symphonic choir; they were unremarkably ordinary. For this reason, Mr.

Jacobsen's management—particularly the line 7 comment, which would require a decibel reading to give it justice—surprised me.

In that there are only two excerpts to compare, of course, there are a number of possible explanations for his comments. The performance- appropriate spaces, however, suggest elements of performance simulation. If excerpts #250 and 251 were serving as performance simulations, then student talking would certainly be unacceptable, whereas Mr. Jacobsen found it to be less so in rehearsal instruction. This is a plausible explanation for Mr.

Jacobsen's comments, which are clearly management related.

The above excerpts show examples of recurring and systematic changes in music use, in use of silence, in mimicking of instrumental

2 0 8 accompaniment, and in student behavior, for the purpose of simulating how

a performance feels. But can one really make a rehearsal feel or sound just

like a performance? The students had a variety of opinions about this.

M: How does a performance of a piece ffor an audience compare to a run-through of the piece in rehearsal?

B: Umm (.) I think we have a little bit of nerves behind it (.) when we go for the audience and we’re trying harder to impress them (.) than in a reheard.

M: Is that a good thing or a bad thing? B: Umm, it g n be good and it gm be t)ad, cause sometimes the nerves can do a bad thing for you and (.) you know make you too nervous and then you end up messing up all over the place. Sometimes nerves can be a good thing and it pushes you to that next level (.) that yyou can’t quite achieve in a rehearsal. (BOBBIE)

M: OK. How does the performance of a piece for an audience compare to a run- through of a piece, say, in rehearsal?

B: I think we are more intense when we do it for an audience. Umm (.) for me, like in practice (1.5) practice is like for me and I think as far as performing for an audience it’s for the audience it s- stops being for you. (BETTY)

M: How does, how do you think a performance of a piece in front of an audience (.) differs from a run-through of a piece in rehearsal?

( 1.0)

J: Umm (1.0) 1 don’t know if the way we sing physicalIv is much different, 1 think mentally (.) it- it’s just kind of a different attitude in the sense that you know you have a Job to do and that you know people are watching and you want (.) mentally you want it to be absolutely perfect And 1 think, I think the nm-throu^s are a lot more laid back knowing that it does- it doesn’t have to be perfect (.) and 1 think that the mental attitude is just a lot different

M: Is there a way to get that attitude in the rehearsal, or is there just no way to really get it like it is (.) when there is an audience in front?

J: I don’t think you can ever (.) really get it that way. I mean I think there are, there are days when we have good mental days and bad mental days and I think that the bad days could be improved to be better so we can get more work done but I don’t (.) I don’t think you can ever really get the same effect that you have during a performance. (JAMES)

209 M: You’d mentioned that (.) it’s different in front of an audience. Is there a way that (.) that gtitude, that excitement can be recreated in rehearsal? Or is there no way to really get- get to that?

B: Well, I think mostly that’s just everybody in the choir, cause some days it’s really there and ( 1.5) it Idnda feels the same (.) and other days (.) umm, the week before the concert I was (.) kinda wondering how the (.) uhh, actual (.) performance was gonna go cause (.) we were singing everything but it was kinda just going through it and (1.0) the excitement wasn’t there and even like the volume (.) uhh, was way down from where it usually was. (BOB)

Mr. Jacobsen noted a difference between rehearsal and performance, as well.

M: How is (2.0) conducting a piece with this group in front of an audience different than doing a run through of the same piece, in here?

J: (hhh) 1 (hhh) 1 think you do show. I-1 think showmanship comes out too 1 think an audience wants to see (1.0) 1 mean yeah the music’s (.) yeah, they want the music but they also want to see (.) something that you you you’re emotionally involved in a piece and not just, OK now listen to us and and here’s the little nice little thing happening here and Ç) I don’t know, 1-1 like giving the total picture 1 like saying “OK, yeah. I’m I’m into it too, just like them” and and and the kids hopefully wi- with my high school students they give me (.) the face that 1 give them hopefully comes back Now hopefully not all the faces that 1 give them come back to the audience but usually if if 1 want it to be warm or 1 want them to think more from here (gestures to his sternum), and and I’ll I’ll do that and I’ll I’ll conduct that way and I’ll give cm that gesture if I can, and and if I want (.) 1 don’t know 1 try to do try to give them everything and and and sometimes ih there you you know üiere you you’re mainly just kinda goin “OK, this needs to happen here” and (.) y- you touch here you know this kind of thinkin but 1-1 don’t 1 don’t know, 1 think the picture I-1 think an audience, yy- you you give a little bit of everything I think there’s gotta be some show, a little show. It’s kinda like doin the (.) umm (1.0) well it’s like it’s like watching a base- basketball game. If if if Jordan didn’t dunk it a few times. I’m sorry. Didn’t matter how many points he score y- y- you know he he he has to do a 360-tum and in. And you sit there and you go “v e ^ !” Yeah, and th- then you feel like it’s a great game. And they could it doesn’t matter (.) 1 mean, they could still have the same amount of points on on on the board. But you wanna s ^ somthin, you know and 1 think an audience wants to see somethin I think the parents want to see somethin. So (.) 1 give em somethin ((laughs)). You know and that can be you know people say “well you shouldn’t do that” and and 1 think 1 think choir people get a little more (1.5) 1 think we get snooty. Y ou know and and 1 think we almost get too snooty. It’s like (.) it’s fun you Imow to me it’s a it’s a fun thing you know it’s like it it’s over you’ve done all this work (1.0) have fun cause you’ve already done the to- the teaching the teaching hopefully was done in class. So 1 can have fun there’re times when 1 just have a great time. And I’m sittin there my kids ((gestures)) conducting means nothing audience loves iL Kids know exactly what’s goin on “he’s show in off.” “He’s showin off’ ((laughs)). If I have freshman kids coming in, eighth graders coming in, then I’m gonna show 210 off. You know I want them to see yeah this is fun, we can make music and have a good time. So yeah, yeah it a little show ( l.O) not a whole lot of show.

M; But enough.

J: But enough show.

The most important difference between performing and rehearsing,

according to both the students and Mr. Jacobsen, lies in the one element

impossible to really simulate: the audience. Mr. Jacobsen in particular keyed

in on the changes that an audience brings to the ensemble's singing. The

audience is an interactive item, changing the focus of the ensemble as a

fundamental level. As one student noted, "as far as performing for an audience, it's for the audience, it stops being for you."

Processional simulations.

As noted in Chapter 4, Mr. Jacobsen and the students share a unique balance of instructional power where the processional is concerned. The simulations of the processional share unique characteristics, as well.

EX. #252 1 J: (gives starting pitches) Come to the Water. One, two, three.

2 (Halfway through the first verse, J. points to the right Students begin to walk in 3 place) 4 J: (over singing) You gotta go the right wav, guys.

5 (After each verse, there is nothing; the piano and oboe players are absent. J. quietly 6 counts each beat anyway, and the students step through them)

7 (In the fourth verse, J. lines out the text in the middle of the verse)

211 EX. #253 8 J: Let’s go, go. Let’s go. Come to the water (cues the pianist). (Over the 9 introduction) Is’ warming up. It’s a mess we’ve got (.) three things going on.

10 (Students begin to walk in place, ala processional, without a cue. They walk in place 11 for the entire piece)

12 *J: (Over first verse) If you are not going to EKU, will you please sit over here? 13 (4.0) Stop talking though.

14 (The oboe is getting ready to play during this verse)

15 (At the end of the second verse, the oboe begins to play, but makes a mistake. The 16 students sing, in their best oboe imitations, the remainder of the solo line.) 17 (The oboe is playing by the end of the third verse)

18 (All students stop together on the oboe’s last entrance)

19 (2.0)

20 J: OK? From there, I ’11 give her a time to get her instrument put away. A little time. 21 (The oboist moves to put her instrument away), then. Alleluia.

EX. #254 22 J: Well guys, why don’t you do this? If you- listen very carefully, guys (.) listen. If 23 ya know you’re gonna be going out tW way, finish up the row Aat way. If you 24 know you’re gonna come out this way, then finish out the row that way. So that 25 (1.0) so that we’re not having big delays. Concert’s already an hour and fifteen 26 minutes long, let’s not make it any longer. Alright. Here we go, and.

27 (J. cues piano, cues students to begin processing and to begin singing)

28 *J: (Over singing) 1 should have two rows moving. Oh. (3.0) Yeah stop, can we go 29 back? (choir stops) Can we go back, so that, yeah. Uh (1,5) second row, 30 Erica, can you move out like ahead? Cause she’s got like three steps on you. 31 E Uh yeah, cause 1 wasn’t sure 1 didn’t know //

32 J: That’s OK. Never mind. Ready, and. 33 (the procession begins again, with no oboe)

34 *J: (over first verse) Will you put some energy Inside that, please? It’s goin just a 35 hair fiat.

36 *J: (over second verse) Consonants...Look tall, look proud (3.5) sing it that way... 37 “Moh-ney” not “munny” (1.5) you’re not from Kentucky.

212 38 *J: (over third verse) Forte...yeah, you gotta adjust it.

39 *J: (over Fourth verse, J. starts pointing and telling students to move into various 40 riser positions)

EX. #255 41 *J: (as the choir stops moving, before the coda of the processional). No no don’t 42 discuss it till we finish the song.

43 (the song ends) 44 J: During the applause, adjust.

In each of excerpts #252-255, the stopped and real-time instruction

concerns the simulation of the processional spectacle itself: The actual

walking, the placement and performance of the oboe interludes, and the

placement of the students on the risers are all discussed. Only in lines 34-35 and 36-37 are instructions directly related to the music making. Sometimes

the actual physical processing is approximated by the students' stepping in

place (as in excerpts #252 and 253), but in each simulation the students step in

time to the beat of the song, as they ultimately would in performance of the processional.

Much of the processional required almost constant, hands-on attention by either Mr. Jacobsen or the students, such as the placement of students on the risers after they had processed to their spots. The one aspect of the processional simulation that Mr. Jacobsen did not control was the performance of the oboe player. According to Bobbie, the senior who played

213 the oboe, this particular aspect of the processional simulations had been left to her own judgment; her comments underscore the point that her judgment is anything but random.

M: Sometimes, when Mr. Jacobsen works on (.) umm “Come to the Water” he has you play (.) the oboe and sometimes he doesn’t Is there some kind of rhyme or reason to when he says “yeah I want to you play today,” are there certain times when he says “play” and other times he says “ no just don’t bother”?

B: Umm, just depends how big the run through is, if it’s with the piano player for the most part I normally play. If it’s not with the piano player they normally go too flat and by the time I come in is sounds really really (.) nasty, so. And some days 1 just, you know if 1 don’t feel like 1 need it 1 don’t have to play it because I’ve been playing it for ( 1.5) a year and a half, two years now? fvt He just leaves it up to you sometimes?

B: He just lets me decide whether 1 want to play it or not.

Again, these aspects of excerpts #252-255 that are similar to one another are just as different from most observed rehearsals. The musical selection chosen for the processional, "Come to the Water," was never sung without stepping in place, and the students never stepped in place to any other musical selection. The students' riser placement was never addressed in non­ simulated rehearsal settings. These things point to the rehearsal of "Come to the Water" as a simulation of the upcoming processional, instead of musical instruction.

Throughout excerpts #235-255, the common thread is that collections of episodes bear striking similarities to future performances, be they contest sight-reading, performances of repertoire, or performances of the processional. These same collections differ from the instructional formats

214 commonly used in rehearsal by Mr. Jacobsen and the members of the symphonic choir. The excerpts explored above "look forward"; they help the students see, hear and feel what future performances will feel like.

Local Histories

While simulations served to give the students a feel for future events,

Mr. Jacobsen also referenced past occasions, both in terms of specific musical events and in terms of previous episodes of rehearsal. These "local histories" were, to me, like a joke where I did not understand the punch line, while all other parties present did. Like Schütz' stranger (1976), 1 lacked the necessary understanding and local knowledge to feel at ease with these instructions.

EX. #256 1 (The ensemble stops after m. 37 in “If Love Should Count Y ou Worthy”)

2 J: Mezzo forte, is’ typical life has loveliness to sell, just typical thing that we it’s (.) 3 OK? It’s same stuff. Ready?

EX. #257 4 J: 53. 53. Pick a note, OK? He, two, th- it’s topical, r- remember life has 5 loveliness especially ladies. It’s the same kind of plan. He gets it a nice and 6 simple, then it gets nice and big, he brings it and brushes it a little bit and slows it 7 down and he puts it, it’s just (.) typical ( 1.0) that’s why everybody likes it.

EX. #258 8 J: One, two, go.

9 C: (sings mm. 61-69. At the pause, some students talk) 10 S: Shhhhh

11 (The piano continues at m. 70)

12 J: (over the music) Typical. Life has loveliness to sell. 215 EX. #259 13 C: (Tenors and Basses sing mm. 12-15 in Elijah Rock)

14 J: Guys, shh, this is where Jacksonville works. Kay “Elijah rock” that little pulse 15 action don’t go crazy with it, but just a nice (.) little bounce. That helps. lOiy? 16 Just keep a nice bounce, Elijah rock. Oh, Elijah rock Elijah. It helps.

EX. #260 17 J: Hold on, OK? Start it at Elijah rock.

18 (.5) 19 Sb:Oh, that one =

20 J: = Yeah.

21 Ss: ((light laughter))

22 J: Start it at, uh (2.0) Ç. Ready guys? And ladies, can you get hip? ((sung in the 23 ladies octave)) Elijah rock, oh, Elijah rock Elijah. Just do a little hip action (.) 24 OK? ( 1.5) Get to the hip. Act like you’re in the Pacific South Pacific goin’ 25 ((shakes his hips)) OK?

EX. #261 26 Cb: How wise II

27 J: No do not slide there, don’t (imitates) Howwwise. It’s not “Elijah 28 Rock.” One, two, ready (.). 29 Ch: How wise you were to ...

EX. #262 30 Ch'.How wise II

31 J: Nahhh. Someone said Howwwise, this is not Elijah Rock. One, two, 32 ready, and.

EX. #263 33 C: (mm. 11 - 13) Mm-mm-mm-ntm-mm

34 J: Off. Everyone standing, ready.

216 35 C: If love should H count you worthy 36 J: (Cuts of choir) Yeah. Now this time, what bothered me on at- at 37 EKU, was not enough consonants.

EX. #264 38 J: Where it’s real soft? I really need to liv- (.) you need to almost (1.0) the way we 39 just did the last part of “Een So Lord Jesus,” is how we need to do that, so that 40 we understand.

EX. #265 41 J: The entrances (.) have gotta be clean and also, your mind’s not on what you’re 42 supposed to be doing. K? It ain’t there. It ain’t there, it ain’t a one yeL You’re 43 close. (l.O) But it ain’t a cookie ycL (2.0) But it’s a close cookie.

Excerpts #256-265 contain historical references that are only available to

those students who have been involved with the ensemble long enough to

make sense of them. Without this understanding, these references are vague

at best, and worthless at worst.

The musical aspect described as "typical" in excerpts #256-258 is the

musical style of com poser James MulhoUand. During the 1995-1996 school year, the symphonic choir performed "Life Has Loveliness to Sell," and Mr.

Jacobsen was pointing to musical characteristics of the piece the symphonic choir was reading, "If Love Should Count You Worthy," which were like the earlier piece, and "typical" of Mulholland's style. Not having been familiar with either the piece or the symphonic choir's 1995-1996 repertoire, it took an informal discussion with Mr. Jacobsen after rehearsal to determine what was so typical.

217 The referencing of the Jacksonville choir (excerpt #259) or of the hip- action from the student production of South Pacific (excerpt #260) also require a knowledge of those two musical entities in order to make sense of Mr.

Jacobsen's instruction. In both cases, the topic played a role in the recent musical lives of the students. If one was not present (as I was not for the

Jacksonville choir performance), then a serious bit of context is missing, making a complete understanding of the instruction all but impossible.

Excerpts #261-264 contain references to events happening within recent rehearsals. In excerpts #261-262, Mr. Jacobsen cuts off the singers and notes a sUde in the voices (through jargon in #261, through modeling in #262) and then states that "this is not 'Elijah Rock'" in lines 27 and 31. The students, who have been rehearsing "Elijah Rock" as well as this piece, know that there are spots in "Elijah Rock" that call for vocal slides. These historical references point out that, while some pieces they are singing do call for such a vocal skill, this current piece is not one of them. Excerpt #263 contains a reference to a recent performance at Eastern Kentucky University; Mr. Jacobsen uses that recent experience to note musical concerns, which the students can also recall. Compared to that, excerpt #264 is much more recent. After a conclusion of a piece, Mr. Jacobsen asks the students to sing "the way we just did the last part of 'Een So Lord Jesus'" (lines 38-39), which occurred some ten minutes earlier. This was a compact historical reference, but it nevertheless indexed a previous moment in the ensemble's local history, in order to

2 1 8 advance instruction and make music according to Mr. Jacobsen's wishes.

Such indexing has at least some place in most of the rehearsals observed.

Excerpt #265 revolves around the evaluative comment "it ain't a one yet" (line 42). The choir is "close/' but not "a cookie yet." The "one" to which

Mr. Jacobsen refers is the rating that the ensemble hopes to achieve at the contest performance. Mr. Jacobsen uses his own history as an experienced participant and occasional judge of contest to assess how close the choir is to the preferred rating, surmising that the choir is almost where he thinks they need to be, but not quite. The choir is also aware of the history of the rating scheme, and Mr. Jacobsen gives no further evaluation or instruction in this excerpt. This update of Mr. Jacobsen's contest grade estimate is all that is given.

The history of contest rules and regulations put Mr. Jacobsen in an interesting bind. He brought in a college professor to critique the ensemble, and she brought with her a copy of a different (but more authentic) accompaniment to one of the pieces. To use this music, even though it is the authentic accompaniment, is to not play what is written in the score that will be given to the judges. The significance of this weighed upon Mr. Jacobsen.

EX. #266 1 J: And I still gotta call to ask permission, shh listen ver- to use (.) thank you, to use 2 the accompaniment that’s not written (.) for that Amen. Cause I won’t dare use it 3 if I know üiey’re gonna cut us for iL (J. models theaccompanimenL singing an 4 approximation of what it would sound like) which is cool (1.0) but (.) it may not 5 work.

EX. #267 6 J: That is gonna be nice (.) I think. Now I-like I said I’m rea::lly don’t know if 219 7 wc’rc gonna get to use that accompaniment. I rca;:lly am um, some judges will 8 go “oh::: (.) that’s cool,” some judges get real stupid, and go (.) “I’m sorry that 9 was not written in the score.” And I’m goin, it is (.) it’s just not written in this 10 score.

11 Ss: ((laughter))

12 S: ( ) a cool judge.

13 J: Huh?

14 S: Get a cool judge.

15 J: We::ll (.) you // don’t gjl it. Judges get finicky.

16 82: Make copies of that score and give it to im.

17 S3: Give em that score.

18 S4: Rewrite it.

The issue that gives Mr. Jacobsen pause is not a musical one; the concern is what the judges will make of the non-written accompaniment.

His own history with contest judges plays into his indecision. This is a situation where the historical references are important (he knows that the ensemble's rating could suffer) but not necessarily decisive (some judges will care about the different accompaniment, some will not). As a result, while the local history of contest perhaps helps Mr. Jacobsen avoid an unforeseen disaster, the history does not clear a way to easier instruction or decision­ making.

Conclusions

Even as the rehearsals I observed operated with temporal detail, indexing events that just occurred, and preparing events that are just about to

220 occur, so to was instruction based upon long-term ideas of temporality.

Through instructional simulations, Mr. Jacobsen and the students in the symphonic choir were able to look forward at future events such as the sight- reading experience at contest, the performance of repertoire, and the performance of the processional. Although these simulations were not exactly like the performances, they were similar to each other in design, and different in design from other episodes of rehearsal. Issues such as the architecture and type of instruction, the design of the cohorts which were instructed, the creation of performance-appropriate space, and the physical positioning of students were uniquely used in simulations; the behavior of students differed on occasion, as well.

While simulations looked forward, Mr. Jacobsen used the local history of the symphonic choir experience to look back, and use previous events to aid in his own instruction. Previous repertoire, earlier concerts, recent rehearsals of other pieces, and Mr. Jacobsen's own history with regards to the choral contest all served as a base on which instruction, interaction, and the making of musical ensemble sound was built.

221 CHAPTER?

THE SPIAPE OF PREPARATION: THJREE CASE STUDIES

While the collected examples of interaction and instruction in the refining of ensemble sound (Chapters 4-5) help give a detailed picture of how interaction and instruction were used in the symphonic choir as the participants prepare for their contest performance, such collections lack a sense of sequence or temporality. A sense of time can be noticed in the collected examples of simulation and local history in these preparations

(Chapter 6), but those examples deal with extended time, beyond the sense of time that connects the students and Mr. Jacobsen within rehearsals.

To that end, in this chapter, 1 look at some of the observed rehearsals sequentially, in order to get a feel for the shape of the ensemble's preparations over time. These case studies also show applications of findings noted in

Chapters 4-6. To examine the shape of pedagogy, 1 look at the preparation of a single piece over a number of rehearsals. To examine the shape of

222 instruction, I look at a single day's rehearsal, from bell to bell. In order to

examine the shape of interaction, I look at a sequence of instruction from the

middle of a rehearsal.

The Shape of Pedagogy: Case Study of "Laudate Pueri" Over Time

This first case study examines the shape of the pedagogy used in the

preparation of a single piece, the Mozart "Laudate Pueri." The piece was

chosen randomly for the case study; then, five rehearsals were selected from

the total observations and transcribed. The rehearsals were selected based on their more or less even spacing over the twenty total rehearsals, in order to get a feel for the pedagogy of the preparations of the Mozart as time

progressed and the performance drew nearer.

EX. #268 (1/15) 1 J: Put it on a neutral syllable for me? Put it on nah? Nah. Thank you. (piano 2 gives starting pitch) Ready basses? I’m doin it in four four. One (.) one, two, 3 ready, and.

4 (the piano begins, but no one sings. J. stops)

5 J: Let’s go basses. Nah. Ready, she’s plavin double, it’s not a cappella piece.

6 (the ensemble sings in a very slow 4; beginning to end) 7 *J; Tenors, (m. 3)

8 *J: Bass. Just passin it back and forth, (m. 60)

9 *J: Come on tenors, be readv. (m. 67)

10 *J: Together, (m. 72) 11 *J: C (m. 80)

12 *J: Cmon ladies, (m. 82)

223 13 *J: Cmon basses. Sing your gart guys. (m. 93)

14 *J: Bring it back, then let it grow (m. 117)

15 *J: Together, (m. 155)

16 *J: 1 and 2 and (slowing down) (m. 183)

17 (Every major section ends with J. saying, “Oft” on the third beat mm. 40,49,90, 18 114,123, 150. Where parts are faltering, J. sings the part in his own range 19 throughout)

20 (Elapsed time = 6:45)

21 C: (once on the last chord, the choir crescendos powerfully) 22 (J. cuts the ensemble off)

23 J: (to the pianist) They really do that last chord ts’ like “RRRAAAAAAAGHHHH” 24 S: We know it though.

25 (the students put the music away)

This very first rehearsal has almost no stopped instruction involved.

As has already been shown in Chapter 6, on this particular day the focus was on "sight-reading for us." As such, the focus is on the entire ensemble for the entire duration of the excerpt. Structurally, there is an introduction (lines 1-

3), the sight-reading of the piece (lines 4-22) and a brief summary conclusion

(lines 23-25). The introduction includes a substitute for the Latin text (the neutral syllable "nah"), a starting pitch, information about the meter of the piece, and a count-off.

The students do not enter after the count-off, however; the piano begins alone. This leads Mr. Jacobsen to give the only stopped instruction of the excerpt (line 5), using jargon to explain to the basses that the piano is playing their part ("she's play in double, it's not a cappella piece"). This

224 absence of stopped instruction is unusual, even for pieces that are being sight- read. The rest of the instruction in excerpt #268 is real-time instruction, and there is a lot of it. In fact, real-time instruction easily is the predominant pedagogy of instruction in this excerpt, used more than a dozen times as the ensemble sight-reads through the piece.

There are no real conversational interactions; there is no room for them. The ensemble begins singing only twice, and the second start is a correction of the errant first start. Once started, the ensemble sings the

"Laudate Pueri" straight through, taking six minutes and 45 seconds to do so.

They struggle throughout, right up until the last chord. Once secure on the final chord, the ensemble crescendos dramatically, right up to Mr. Jacobsen's cut-off. The summary that follows illustrates the students' musical attack of the one chord that they could sing really well, a fact that was noticed by Mr.

Jacobsen (line 23) and a student (line 24) alike.

EX. #269(1/27) 1 J. gives announcements about future rehearsals.

2 J: Here we go. (2.0) Put it on dee (.) no. do you syllabi- do you have syllables?

3 SI: No. 4 J: No yet?

5 Ss: No.

6 J: Can you have em by tomorrow?

7 S2: Yes r 8 S3: I have em. 9 (1.0) 225 10 J: I’ll be nice today. 1 don’t know why I’m being nice today. I’m workin. 11 Alright, shh. Thank you. On dee please. Basses, keep it nice and forward 12 don’t let it go (imitates “not forward”) dee. (models “forward”) Dee dee dee 13 dee K? (piano gives starting pitch and tonality).

14 Choir begins singing, stops once for J., then begins again, (beginning to m. 30/ 15 46 seconds. J. cuts choir off).

16 J: Thank you, thank you. Thank you, shh, let’s so back, good thing Mozart 17 wasn’t in the room. K? ts like “whew.” Basses, can I have you alone? (2.0) 18 Basses alone (.) we’re gonna slow it down. One, two, ready, and.

19 Basses sing the first seven notes (4 seconds) //

20 J: Yeah, basses, (sung to JvJlJ ) dee dee

21 dee , dee dee dee , a slight separation there. One, two, ready, and.

22 Cb: Basses sing the first seven notes (4 seconds) //

23 J: No. It’s still not getting daylight

24 for some of you. (sung to Jv J ) dee dee dee , dee dee dee, not (sung to

25 J. ) dee-dee dee, dee-dee dee ‘s what your doin. Ready, and.

26 Cb: Basses sing from the beginning to m. 15 (24 seconds).

27 *J: (claps) JvJ^J

28 J: K? That’s all I want. That’s all 1 want. Make can I have, that little run section 29 starting on (.) the bottom system second measure, can 1 get an E? =

30 P: = (pianist plays an E)

31 J: (sings an E) Dee. Ready basses, and, one. 32 Cb: sings measure 9(1 sec)

33 J: Yeah, can you come out of the end of the beat? (sings m. 9) One, Dee dee 34 dee. And, one.

35 Cb: sings mm. 9 - II (5 sec)

36 J: Yeah, stay high on the B natural (sings the first two notes of m. 10, out of 37 rhythm). Get it up there. Ready, and, one. 38 Cb: sings mm. 9-15 (11 sec) 226 39 J: One more time? Ready, and, one.

40 Cb: sings mm. 9-15 (11 sec)

41 J: Can 1 add the tenors with that too? Starting at the very beginning of iL (tenors 42 stand). One, two, ready, and.

43 C: sings beginning-15 (23 sec)

44 *J: Be aggressive with it (m. 5)

45 J. asks for altos, then asks for basses and altos 46 C: sings from beginning to A (1:04 minutes)

47 *J: Listen carefully ladies (m. 7)

48 J: Altos and sopranos. Sorry, tenors and sopranos. One, readytenors, ready, and.

49 Ct sings mm. 5 - 7 (3 seconds) //

50 J: Yeah, can you, can you come in like you’re in 51 command of the piece, so the piece is in command of you. Ready, and.

52 Ct sings mm. 5 - 8 (4 seconds) //

53 J: No, no (sung to J v J ) dee dee dee , dee dee

54 dee, not (sung to j J ) dee dee, (sung to Jv^J ) dee-dee dee ,

55 ready, and.

56 (piano plays, but no one sings) 57 J: K? Ready, and.

58 C: sings mm. 5 - A (55 seconds)

59 *J: Keep it goin tenors, (m. 32)

60 J: Put everybody. Everybody, fright. Keep it movin. Keep it goin forward. 61 keep it drivin.

62 C: sings from beginning to m. 4 (7 seconds)//

63 J: Basses, shhh, can I get (.) assume 64 that the dotted quarter’s a crescendo (.) K, with a slight (.) break in it, (sung to 65 JvJî J ) dee dee dee, dee dee dee. And everyone has that crescendo, with a

227 66 slight break, and a lifted accent. A lifted accent. So it goes into the next phrase 67 (.) 1 hope. Ready?

68 C; sings from the beginning to A (51 seconds)

69 Come in (m. 5)

70 Break (m. 8)

71 Ladies (m. 15)

72 Make a note of that, circle that (mm. 19-20)

73 J: Thank you. Sit for a second, (students sit) Please, and I think 1 told you to do 74 this, put brackets around (sings the theme). Put brackets around that Cause 75 everyone does it. K? Different notes, but everyone does if Correct? K? 76 Sopranos do it a little bit different, but they still do iL K? Now, every time we 77 have that little moving thing (sings the bass part in mm. 30-31) those have to 78 be brought out Please. Please. And the right notes would be nice, that’d be 79 novel, especially the sopranos (5.0). One more time. One more time, then 1 80 wanna put this away. I just wanna touch it. Stand. 81 (the

82 84:

83 J: Huh? 84 84:

85 J: Where’s do? We’re in F, is do. F is do. In this key, F is do. K. Alright, 86 here we go. And bring those those areas where you have brackets. Bring em 87 out. One, two, ready basses, and.

88 C: sings from the beginning to 17 (23 seconds) 89 *J: Cmon tenor (m. 5)

90 *J: Cmon ladies (m. 15)

91 J: Yeah, yeah, stop, stop. I feel like, I feel like instead of the interest comin (.) 92 nice and solid forte. I feel like you sneak your way in (.) instead of just (.) 93 making the statement. K? And 1 don’t want that (.) ^ don’t want thaL So, 94 let’s do that again. Let’s make our statement Here 1 am, we’re gonna praise 95 him. One, two, ready, and.

96 C: sings from the beginning to A (23 seconds) 97 *J: that one’s better (m. 4)

98 *J: better (m. 15)

99 *J: behind (m. 21) 228 100 *J: go alto (m. 28)

101 *J: basses, one (m. 30)

102 *J: sopranos (m. 32) 103 *J: alto, and (m. 34)

104 J: Off. (the choir continues trailing into letter A). Yes. And I want it (sings the 105 bass part in mm. 38-40). Thank you.

106 J. and choir go to letter D.

107 C: sings from D to m. 114 (32 seconds)

108 J: Stop. No, you’re not there, he does it different this time. Does it different this 109 time. Do it again. Basses, totally different. The statement’s the same (.) the 110 rest of it isn’t. Here we go. One, two, ready, and.

111 C: sings from D to m. 114 (33 seconds)

112 *J: Tenor, strong (m. 96)

113 *J: Just like the altos ladies (m. 103) 114 J: Off.

115 C; (continues to trail into mm. 115-116) 116 J: Thank you, thank you. I wanna sing that part too. Just not vet

117 J. and choir go to letter F.

118 C: sings from F to m. 157 ( 8 sec) //

119 J: Yeah. Can you feel that just growing, getting 120 bigger? I mean without even looking at a dynamic maiking, getting Idler? It’s 121 just like you have the first one (quickly sings the theme)dee dee dee dee dee dee 122 dee dee, and then it and kind of develops some more, and then all of a sudden 123 we get into this nice (.) we’ve got both, two parts going at the same time instead 124 of it being one part at a time, and it’s nice and full. Nice and full, (piano gives 125 starting pitch) Do thaL One, two, ready, and.

126 C: sings from F to m. 170 ( 27 sec) 127 *J: Together (m. 153)

128 *J: (to sopranos) Have to get that one (m. 160)

129 (on J.’s cut-off, several sopranos and J. share a laugh)

130 J: Yeah. Sit for a second, (the students sit) Shh, thank you (1.0). That was 229 131 differcnL Can I have sopranos alone? Let’s just work it, shall we? If you can, 132 if you can sit- well you might get those high notes. OK, let’s stand (the 133 sopranos stand). You need to modify up there, (sings the starting pitch in the 134 sopranos octave). Bahh. (piano plays the starting tonality) Ready, ladies? 135 (2.0) One, two, ready, and.

136 Cs:

137 Give me woman (m. 155)

138 J: Yeah. Yeah, but he helps you. He 139 really does. He- he gives you a, the- the- the G tied together, so you can 140 crescendo (.) and and get support for that, dee. (2.0) Yeah, except, cept you 141 can’t breathe. K? So take a big one. One, two, ready, and.

142 Cs: 143 *J: Let it grow (m. 157)

144 *J: Better (m. 159)

145 J: I bet chu got that good in you. One more time. I bet you do. One, two, ready, 146 and.

147 Cs:

148 *J: Let it grow (m. 158)

149 J: Instead of going into that high G ( 1.0) can we land on top of it? Instead of 150 going (imitates a slide between notes in m. 159) instead of go- (models the 151 two notes with a separation between them) =

152 S5: = ( ) 153 J: Huh? You wanna change it? Dah? Cool, (sings the starting pitch) Dah. [ 154 S5: Dah instead oi doo?

155 C: sings from m. 154 to m. 164 ( 15 sec)

156 *J: Here we go (m. 157)

157 J: Yeah, now you just need to cotmt in there. K? Question.

158 86:S6: Um, can we go over the second system before we (.) like, do it with everyone 159 else? On, on //page fifteen.

160 J: OK (K. plays the soprano part on page fifteen as he speaks) OK. 161 Sure. OK? Ready? Let’s just start it a::::::::t (.) let’s just start there, (sings the 162 soprano part in mm. 166-167 in their octave) Baba baba. Ready, and, one.

163 Cs: sings from m. 166 to m. 168 (3 sec)

230 164 *J: Bigger (m. 157)

165 J: Yeah (sings sopranos first pitch in their octave). Ready, and, one.

166 Cs: sings from m. 154 to m. 170 (7 sec)

167 J. adds the altos

168 C: sings from F to m. 170 (27 sec)

169 *J: Better (m. 165)

170 J: Now, can you also be singing that with them in your brain? So that when you 171 come in it doesn’t feel like this kind of shock (.) shock to the system on that D?

172 J. adds the tenors 173 C: sings from F to m. 170 (28 sec)

174 J: K? (to tenors) Y ou gotXa. mosfc ba-dee ba-dee ba-dee ba-dee. (1.0) Little lifted 175 accents.

176 J. adds the basses. The whole ensemble is now singing. 177 C: sings from F to m. 170 (28 sec)

178 *J: Basses, strong (m. 155)

179 J: Now tenors, I kinda lost you.

180 SI: Yes.

181 SB: Yeah. [ 182 89: ( ) 183 J: Yeah. OK? I’ll give you another chance. Notes aren’t the problem, it’s the 184 rhythm. Last time. Last time, then we’ll put this away. One, two, ready, and.

185 C: sings from F to m. 170 (28 see)

186 J: Off. K? Better. Better. (2.0) One more time? 187 56: Yah. Yah. [ 188 J: Last time. Last time. K? I think we can get iL I really =

189 S10: = (an aside to another student) The last time wa- //

190 J: I think what’s happening is (.) 191 there’s all this polyphony goin on and you have to cotmt? K, you don’t have, 192 you’re not moving, K thank you? You’re not moving together, you’re not 193 moving, it’s not like you’re going (sings the theme) Da da, all together, it’s like 231 194 everything’s happening? We’re making scrambled eggs? (2.5) One, two, 195 ready, and.

196 C; sings from F to m. 170 (28 sec)

197 J: Now tenors if you would do me a favor (many students drop the music to their 198 sides and move around in place) and you would drcle (.) last measure (.) =

199 S11: = (slaps his music loudly against his legs)

200 J: of the, of the first system p- page fifteen, and the s- the first and second 201 measures, (there is quite a bit of mumbling from the ensemble) Those are are 202 the problem spots. K? Just checking that out? Let’s go on, please.

This is a far more complicated and lengthy excerpt than excerpt #268.

This increased complexity can be seen in the type of instruction used, the structure of the instruction, the change in the amount of times and length of student singing, and in the increased interactional activity.

Structurally, the rehearsal begins with a brief introduction (line 2-10), which contains the direction to sing on a neutral syllable, as well as a brief sequence of questions by Mr. Jacobsen, concerning solfege. This is followed by the ensemble's singing from the beginning of the piece to rehearsal letter A

(lines 14-16).

Once completed, the instruction shifts to the bass section, concentrating on the articulation of the rhythm in the third measure of the piece. Within this episode of instruction, the basses sing from the beginning seven different times, getting no farther than 15 measures (24 seconds), and often doing much less. The focus of the instruction is the articulation of a rhythm, which

Mr. Jacobsen attempts to fix through a variety of instruction: Jargon ("a slight

232 separation" in line 21), modeling (the most cogent of which is in lines 24-25, where he suggests this instead of that ), analogy ("it's still not getting daylight for some of you" in line 23) and real-time instruction (line 27). This instruction is all mixed together, differently each time.

After this lengthy bit of instruction, Mr. Jacobsen goes through a series of changes in the cohort receiving instruction (lines 41-60). First, the tenors are added to the basses. Then, the altos and basses are instructed, followed by the sopranos and tenors.

Finally, the entire ensemble is again the focus of instruction, and they sing together (with one more brief address to the basses alone) to rehearsal letter A, accompanied by a number of real-time instructions by Mr. Jacobsen.

After the students finish, there is a brief interlude where the students sit down and are instructed to mark the thematic material with a pencil, followed by a student question. Then, the students stand again and sing from the beginning to rehearsal letter A. The ensemble begins twice, and there is again a lot of real-time instruction as the ensemble sings.

Mr. Jacobsen then focuses the students' attention on rehearsal letter D

(lines 106-116). The students sing from letter D to measure 114 several times, between which is mostly stopped instruction. After doing this a number of times, the instruction then shifts to rehearsal letter F. The ensemble attempts this section twice, with one stopped instruction between them.

233 The students are then told to sit down, and Mr. Jacobsen works with

the sopranos alone (line 131-167). Much as he did with the basses, Mr.

Jacobsen has the sopranos sing short segments, six in all, none of which lasts

more than 17 seconds. They are interspersed with a variety of types of

instruction, both stopped and in real-time.

After he has finished, Mr. Jacobsen goes through a series of cohort

changes (lines 167-176), much as he did after working with the basses earlier

in the excerpt. The ensemble then sings together twice, separated by Mr.

Jacobsen's comment to the tenors, "I kinda lost you" (line 179).

Mr. Jacobsen warns of the end of instruction by noting "last time" (line

184). There are a number of "one m ore times," however (lines 186 and 188),

which is not lost on the students, who make note of this discrepancy (line

189). Eventually, Mr. Jacobsen gives some concluding remarks, ending the

excerpt

A number of things have changed between excerpt #268 and #269. The

most significant of these, the length of the transcript, makes it difficult to read

too much into the other changes. Still, the instructional movement has been

from that of a "run through" to that of breaking the music apart in a number of ways.

The changing cohorts, and particularly the detailed work with the basses and sopranos, are not present in excerpt #268. The music serves as a social organizer of the students; the instructed cohort depends on who is

234 singing at a particular spot in the music, or who is singing the most

important part at a particular time. This kind of shifting is a common feature

of excerpt #269.

While the students begin to sing twice in excerpt #268, the students

begin singing dozens of times in excerpt #269, and their singing efforts are

much shorter. This change is similar to the increase in shifts of cohort noted

above. Also, while real-time instruction predominates in excerpt #268,

stopped instruction is much more present in #269. In fact, all kinds of

instruction occur in excerpt #269, mixed together in a variety of

combinations.

As for student interaction, while there are none in excerpt #268, there

are a number of interactions in excerpt #269. They concern questions with no

known answer ("where's do"), as well as de facto self-evaluations ("can we go

over the second system before we do it with everyone else"). There are, as of

excerpt #269, a fairly wide array of differing contexts, with involvement by

both director and students.

EX. #270 (2/4) 1 J. asks tenors and basses to sing “dee”, sopranos and altos to sing “dah” 2 C: sings from the tx;ginning to A ( 1:08 minutes)

3 J: Can 1 just have only (.) the running quarter notes. Running quarter notes. 4 Starting at the beginning of the page, beginning of- of, beginning. So it goes 5 dee dee dee (plays the t ^ s part in mm. 5-7) K? Just the ruiming notes, ready, 6 Lau^te. Ready, and, one.

7 C: attempts to sing as instructed, but almost no one sings

8 J: and OK, that’s hard to do. Do the whole thing again, that’s hard. That’s hard 9 to do, do the whole nine yards. One, two, again, and. 235 10 C: sings from the beginning to m. 4 (5 seconds) //

11 J: No no no but don’t chip it. 12 (sung to Jv j)J ) dee dee dee, it’s still a quarter, dee dee dee. Ready, and.

13 C: sings from the beginning to m. 24 (40 seconds) //

14 *J: Clean. Stronger tenor, 15 support tenor (plays the tenor part for 2 measures), (m. 5)

16 *S:

17 *S:

18 J: Stop. Stop, could you please mark who has (plays the theme on the piano) 19 The basses have it first, please mark that la^es (.) and tenors, then the tenors 20 have it. And once you’ve established that, please back off (plays the theme on 21 the piano). OK, bring it back then, bring it back so that the other isn’t- other 22 voices can come in. Then the altos have it, then the sopranos have it, then the 23 basses come back with iL I need those brought out, please listen for all those 24 different entrances in there, listen for all those entrances. Try that again please, 25 one, two, ready, and.

26 C: sings from the beginning to m. 4 (5 seconds) //

27 J: No no, (sung to J v J ) dee

28 dee dee, don’t go (sung to J^v.J^J) dee dee dee, (sung to J v J ) dee dee dee.

29 We want a little daylight. Not a who:::::::le day. Again, and. 30 C: sings from the beginning to A (1:08 minutes) =

31 J: = Yeah, and how many times does that entrance come in?

32 (1.5) 33 J: How many times? How many times we comin in? (.) Four. We need those 34 marked, so that we hear those nice and clean. Nice and clean. And I think we 35 can, do that again. Do that again, a little faster. (3.0) Just like that, that’s what 36 we need. Dee, and it makes it dee dee dee dee dee and those other parts the 37 running quarter notes? They need to dance, dee dee dee dee dee. (1.0) Nice 38 and clean. One, two, ready, and. 39 C: Sings the first two notes //

40 J: Try that again. Dee, ready, and.

236 41 C; sings from ihc beginning to m. 6 (10 seconds)//

42 J: Yeah, tenors? Tenors, stay 43 with it though. Stay with it (sings the first three pitches)dee dee dee and I 44 might be goin faster than I probably will (.) but I want you to stay with me. 45 One, two, ready, and.

46 C: sings from the beginning to m. 34 (52 seconds) //

47 *J: (counts I + 2 +) (mm. 5-9) 48 *J: strong in the basses, and. (m. 22)

49 *J: Not heavy, lighten up (m. 27)

50 J: Stop. Sopranos, OK. Basses, where do you get your pitch? (3.0) Matter of 51 fact, who are you directly copy? Who do you copy? 52 SI: The altos.

53 J: The altos, please mark iL If you haven’t Please mark it U:::h. let’s do this 54 one now. Tenors?

55 S2: Yeah, OK. 56 S3: Yeah.

57 J: K, you start off again you start off at four. And sopranos who do you copy? 58 Ss: Altos =

59 J: = wanna look at that again? 60 (2.0)

61 84: (a tenor) Tenors.

62 85: (a soprano) Tenors.

63 J: The tenor. You start off with the tenors, correct? 64 86: No::: =

65 J: = At top of four?

66 (.5) 67 86: Oh, yeah.

68 J: Oh vea::::h. 69 86: Well but//

237 70 J: OK, OK, I know. Mark that please. And I'll mark it too. We’ll all 71 mark iL (5.0).

72 J. works with tenor and sopranos at the top of page four, singing their parts at the 73 same time.

74 C; Dee dee dee dee dee dee dee dee.

75 J: And then you up to the F. Do it again please, cause it’s where we are together. 76 Ready, and, one.

77 C: Dee dee dee dee dee dee dee dee.

78 J: Now let’s go on this time. And also ladies, well that can’t help you, but (.) 79 you’re on your own. Ready tenor, two, ready, and one.

80 C: Tenors and sopranos sing their parts as written from m. 26 to m. 38 81 (18 seconds)//

82 J: Nah, look at the-look at where you’re going you’ve got a little 83 sequence there. Look at the F, C, D, F, please put brackets around that Put 84 brackets around that cause you’re coming back to the F (plays F-C-D-F-Q, K? 85 (sings the notes) Ba da dee da da, or Do sol la do sol, right? (1.5) Say yes. 86 S: Yes.

87 J: Thank you. Just gimme that. OK, Alright One more time, please. One more 88 time, just the tenors and bass- you (points to the sopranos) sopranos. Ready, 89 and, one.

90 C: Tenors and sopranos sing their parts as written from m. 26 to A (22 9 1 seconds)

92 J: Thank y o u . N o w , put the soprano and the b-basses together. You may be 93 seated, thank you.

94 (the tenors sit, the sopranos remain standing, the basses and most all of the altos 95 stand)

96 J: Here we go.

97 S: Alto

98 (the sopranos begin to sit)

99 S7: We know it’s us.

100 J: Yeah, you all (he points to the altos).

101 J. works with the altos and basses from letter B, singing their parts at the same time.

102 J: Now look at top of six. Sopranos start and you just kind of repeat it. Ready, 103 and, one. 2 3 8 104 C; (no one sings)

105 J: I’m sorry. (2.0) Did I just booby?

106 Ss: Yes.

107 J: I ^ booby.

108 (the choir begins talking all at once)

109 J: Oh. Oh. it switches. OK, someone beat me. Sopranos stand up. basses altos 110 siL (The sopranos stand while the basses and altos sit). 111 (4.0)

112 J: Did 1 just booboo?

113 S: You boobood big.

114 J: (2.0) Oh. I didn’t booboo. 1 went on. OK, I was right. I’m right. I’m back 115 again, (points a sopranos) Sit down (points at basses), stay up (points at altos) 116 stand up. Bbbbbbbbbbbb. Ready? I knew I was ri^ t, I was like “wait a 117 minute.” ( 1.0) I turned the page. I’m sorry. Ready, two, ready and, one.

118 C: Altos and basses sing from m. 28 to A (20 seconds)

119 J: Thank you. I was right but wrong. Stand. I was right and wrong. Both of 120 you together.

121 C: The whole ensemble sings from m. 26 to B (37 seconds) 122 *J: Watch that B flat (m. 39)

123 *J: Break (m. 45) 124 J. goes back to the beginning

125 C: sings from the beginning to m. 3 //

126 J: No no, (sung to J ) dee dee dee, dee-

121 long short long, ready, ^ that Long short long, ready, go.

128 Cb: (sung to Jv ) long short long

129 J: Do that again, and.

239 130 Cb: (sung to Jv j) j ) long short long

131 J: Crescendo with the long, (sung to J v J) J ) long short long, put the “t” on it

132 long short long, ready, go.

133 Cb: (sungtojvj^j ) long short long

134 J: Don’t let it go Ing. (gives starting pitch) One, two, ready, and. 135 C: sings from beginning to m. 7 (10 seconds) //

136 *J: (claps Jvj^J ), thank you. (mm. 3-4)

137 J: Yeah, guys. Guys, Mozart was a 138 hip dude. Let it dance, (sings the theme, while snapping on the offbeats), and 139 I probably won’t do as much with it, but I’d rather have it move a little th ^ (.5) 140 ^ on us. One, two, ready, and.

141 C: sings from beginning to B (1:11 minutes) 142 *J: snaps on offbeats (mm. 1-16)

143 *J: Oh come on! (plays the soprano part) (mm. 33-38) 144 *J: Shhh (m. 41)

145 *J: Break (m. 45) 146 J: Stop. SiL

Excerpt #270 has interesting combinations of elements from both excerpts #268 and #269, but is more like excerpt #269. The excerpt begins structurally with a introduction to the ensemble regarding the neutral syllable to be used. Then the ensemble as a whole sings from the beginning to rehearsal letter A.

240 Mr. Jacobsen attempts to change the cohort being instructed, asking for

"just the running notes" in line 5. This kind of cohort reduction was used in detail in excerpt #269, with no misunderstanding of who was included in the instructed cohort; in these cases, the music serves as social organization. In this case, however, almost no students sing, indicating either a misunderstanding by the students of who was to sing or an inability by the students to sing the parts Mr. Jacobsen wishes. Mr. Jacobsen acknowledges the problem with "OK, thaf s hard to do" (line 8), and changes the focus of instruction, asking the students to "do the whole thirig a^ain" in line 8.

The choir does not get far; just four measures in, Mr. Jacobsen stops to give yet another instruction to the basses. After this instruction—jargon, modeling and analogy are all used in the short stopped instruction—the ensemble continues ahead, accompanied by some real-time instruction (lines

14-17). At measure 24, Mr. Jacobsen cuts the choir off, and gives a detailed stopped instruction regarding the thematic material in the section.

This pattern that was just completed (singing attempt, stopped instruction to a specific section, longer singing attempt, long stopped instruction to the entire ensemble) occurs two m ore times in lines 26-38 and lines 39-71. Where stopped instruction occurs, jargon, modeling and analogy are all mixed together. Also mixed among the instruction are two questions initiated by Mr. Jacobsen that fit the accepted question-with-the-known answer sequence documented in Chapter 4.

241 After the last of these teacher-initiatiens plays itself out, Mr. Jacobsen changes the focus of the instruction to the tenors and sopranos, alternating brief singing attem pts with short stopped instruction (lines 72-91). At this point, the issue of just who is the focus of instruction becomes problematic.

Mr. Jacobsen asks for the sopranos and basses (line 92-93) even though the sopranos have already sung. The tenors sit down, and all of the other sections, including the altos (who have not been mentioned) stand. At this point a student says "alto" (line 97), and most of the sopranos sit. That Mr.

Jacobsen made a mistake in asking for the sopranos and basses is evident by an alto's comment that "we know it's us" (line 99), and then by Mr. Jacobsen's

"yeah, you all" in line 100, as he points to the altos.

A student noted to me that, in cases such as this, it is clear to the students what Mr. Jacobsen wants, even if what he wants is not what he says:

M: On Tuesday, (.) he was working with the sopranos and the tenors. And then he quit working with the sopranos and tenors and said, “OK, sopranos and basses, let’s sing,” but the altos stood up anyway and he, and then, that’s what he wanted but he said sopranos but all the altos all seemed to know that he meant them anyway. =

E = ((laughs)) Yeah.

M: Do you just get to a point where he might say something but you know that’s not what he meant, this is what he meant?

E Yeah, because usually he tends to, like take certain sections together, like he’U make he may say, “OK 1 want sopranos and tenors” and usually its basses and altos so when he said sopranos and basses I mean (.) usually we won’t (.) I mean sometimes we won’t really react to it but when he says you know when he said basses aand (1.0) or when he said basses and sopranos we kinda knew he meant altos too because we had like the same part, so. (ERICA)

242 After working with the altos and basses, Mr. Jacobsen takes a substantial amount of rehearsal time (lines 102-117) determining just who is the focus of instruction. He eventually returns to the altos and basses briefly, and then focuses on the entire ensemble. The full ensemble sings from measure 26 to rehearsal letter B, with Mr. Jacobsen providing some real-time instruction along the way.

The ensemble is then instructed to return to the beginning. As in a number of cases already noted, they get no further than measure three, and are then stopped by Mr. Jacobsen. The basses are again focused upon, and a detailed use of analogy ensues, where the words "long, short, long" are actually sung on the notes with the still-unacceptable articulation. After the analogy is removed, the choir gets as far as measure seven.

At this point, Mr. Jacobsen stops the ensemble and gives an analogy about Mozart's being a "hip dude," and models how the music should

"dance" in lines 137-138. After the instruction, the ensemble sings uninterrupted, except for Mr. Jacobsen's real-time instructions, up to rehearsal letter B, one minute and eleven seconds later. With the instructions "Stop. Sit." the excerpt ends.

As far the changing of the cohorts that are the focus of instruction are concerned, there is less intensive focus on single sections, as was found in excerpt #269. There is more attention to the entire ensemble, although not to the extent of excerpt #268. What is unique in this excerpt is the confusion

243 that occurs, both in lines 3-9 and 102-117, concerning issues of selecting a

cohort to instruct. Interestingly, the cohorts that were the subject of these

episodes of instruction were much more difficult to note than either a single

section or the entire ensemble. The students are able observers and, in this

excerpt at least, were able to select themselves correctly, even when that

selection was contrary to the spoken instructions (lines 92-100). Even so, the

selection of "nmning quarter notes" was far more difficult than just a

combination of sections. The ability to determine whether or not one should

be singing is a central part of both excerpts #269 and #270.

The students' singing efforts occurred much like excerpt #269; a large

singing segment, followed by a series of much shorter segments, followed

again by a large singing segment In this excerpt, however, the shorter

segments were longer in length than those in excerpt #269. And, as a result of

the change in structure, the entire ensemble sang together more frequently in

excerpt #270. The instruction driving this singing was again a potent mix of

stopped and real-time instruction, and of jargon, analogy and modeling.

The interactions in this segment were all teacher-initiated. Of the three

major initiations, two were questions with already known answers. The

third (beginning with "did 1 just booboo?" in line 112), did not have such a

known answer.

EX. #271 (3/3) 1 J. gives announcements regarding the timetable for learning the Latin text The 2 ensemble begins at one measure after B. 3 J: On syllables please? One, two (.) one, two ready and. 244 4 C; Sings from m. 50 to m. 54 (7 seconds) Il

5 J: Y eah, can you ^ those, yeah (.) the 6 running quarter notes with a purpose instead of just going (sings the bass part 7 in mm. 52-53) yah-da-da-da^ ready? One, two, ready, and. 8 C: Sings from m. 50 to m. 54 (7 seconds) II

9 J: Yeah, basses it’s too heavy. Dotila 10 sol fa mi re do, not so heavy. Not so, so big there, (gives starting pitch) One, 11 two, ready, and.

12 C: Sings from m. 50 to m. 71 (34 seconds) //

13 J: Stop. Thank you, may I have 14 tenors alone? Be seated. (S, A, B sit) Tenors alone, thank you, don’t 15 discuss. Thank you, thank you for your patience and kindness. fC, tenors 16 (plays the first four notes of the tenor part)? K? One, two, ready, and.

17 Ct Tenors sing from m. 50 to C (49 seconds) 18 *J: Don’t get under the pitch. Get on top of iL (mm. 68-69)

19 (J. plays the part incorrectly, but the tenors sing as written)

20 J. asks the tenors to sing it again “for my bad note”

21 J: Start at the rest, after the rest, and, one.

22 Ct sings from m. 76 to D (21 seconds)

23 *J: Off. Ready, and (mm. 80-81)

24 *J: Bring out the theme (m. 83) 25 J. adds the basses

26 J: Page six. One, two, ready, and.

27 C: sings from m. 50 to C (44 seconds) = 28 *J: Don’t dig dirt (m. 54)

29 *J: (J. plays the piano part incorrectly, but the tenors sing as written)-m. 75

30 J: = yeah. Make sure that when we go over that leap tenors, that (plays tenor part 31 in m. 79) K, and I know you’re doing it on syllables, but make sure your 32 supporting that with the breath? (sings the part) Bum ba da dee. So we’re not 33 overidll?

34 J. adds the altos and sopranos

2 4 5 35 J: Keep it nice and dancv. Nice and dancy. Ready tenor? One, two, ready, and.

36 C: sings from m. 50 to m. 51 (2 seconds) II

37 J: Gotta get, sopranos? Gotta get up 38 there (plays the soprano starting pitch). Ready, and. 39 C: sings from m. 50 to 61 (17 seconds) //

40 J: Yeah, tenors? (the ensemble continues to 41 sing). Thank you, thank you (the ensemble grinds to a halt). 1 feel like, I feel 42 like Tm losing you (.) on the whole note. Or like some of you are not sure of 43 the counting. 44 (1.0)

45 SI: On the::::::

46 J: At the- the, at the bottom system, first two measures there? We’re holding that 47 A? K? Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it’s me. (Gives starting pitch) One, two, 48 ready, and.

49 C: sings from m. 50 to 60 (15 seconds) II

50 J: Yeah, yeah. Sopranos, sopranos? But 51 this is a D to an E flat (plays D, Eb, F sharp - on the piano). K, one more time 52 please? One, two, ready, and.

53 C: sings from m. 50 to C (44 seconds) //

54 *J: Need to bring out the theme (m. 67)

55 J: Thank you, thank you. Don’t go on yet. 56 Sopranos two spots I would love for you to check (.) u::h, yes?

57 S2: 1 was just going to say at the top of page seven we never hold the la // 58 long enough?

59 J: K. Can we 60 (.) start it, can we start through, can we start at B with the ladies? [ 61 S2: We need to hold on.

62 Cs: The sopranos sing from m. 50 to C (45 seconds) 63 *J: Circle that, some of you. (m. 57)

64 *J: There it goes again (m. 59)

65 J. asks the entire ensemble to sing.

66 J: Bring out the theme. One, two, ready, and.

246 67 C: sings from m. 50 to m. 146 (2:14 minutes) // 68 Basses you’re pressing with iL (m. 98)

69 (snaps on offbeat) (m. 120-123)

70 Shhh (m. 124)

71 Together. Duet (m. 128)

72 Together, fm. 1331

73 (by this point, some are singing Latin text, some solfege. J. cuts them off) 74 J: Y eah, yeah you just kinda stopped //

75 S3: Words? =

76 84: = Words? =

77 85: = Words or syllables? 78 J: Uh, syllables.

79 8s: ((laughter)) //

80 83: The tenors were ( )

81 J: OK, Syllables are (inc. K? E again, please. E, thank you, keep that duet 82 together, piano? (plays starting pitch) Thank you, thank you, thank you. 83 We’ll discuss it ]ater. One, E, ready, and.

84 C: sings from E to m. 126 (3 seconds) //

85 J: Yeah, please make sure you don’t slide, 86 don’t pick up extra notes with that one. One, two, ready, and.

87 C: sings from E to F (37 seconds) 88 *J: Be aggressive tenor (m. 135)

89 J: Yeah, I feel like it takes basses just a little bit longer to come in there (.) OK, 90 is- are you not hearing that or is it just me? 91 86: We’re not hearing that, it’s hard to find the note. [ 92 J: OK.

93 J: Well, it- it shouldn’t be because you’re also hearing the same note. 94 Everybody’s singing the same note, hopefully.

95 86: I was tryin ta find the ( ) 247 96 J: B-but listen very carefully, the altos (plays the alto note) are, the altos are 97 singing your note.

98 J. directs the ensemble to m. 140

99 C: sings from m. 140 to F ( 14 seconds)

100 *J: Be aggressive basses (m. 146)

101 J. works with basses alone 102 Cb: sings from m. 143 to F (10 seconds)

103 J: Yeah, just a lesson in octaves, do it one more time. One, two, ready, sing.

104 Cb: sings from m. 143 to F (10 seconds) 105 J. adds the tenors

106 C: sings from m. 142 to F (11 seconds) 107 J. adds the altos

108 C: sings from m. 141 to F (13 seconds)

109 J: Yeah (sings the last three tenor pitches) Make sure it’s a beautiful tenor quality 110 up there.

111 J. adds the sopranos

112 C: sings from m. 140 to m. 170 (40 seconds) //

113 *J: It’s forte (m. 152)

114 J: Can we do that one more 115 time? Cause it got kinda muddy? It got kinda muddy? F? F again. Shh, yeah 116 it was just a little bit schloppv. One, nice and clear attacks, ready, and.

117 C: sings from F to m. 154 (3 seconds) //

118 J: Can,C- Can we keep that forte, because 119 the piano is doing double octaves, like (plays heavily on the piano) that kind of 120 stuff. One, two, ready, and.

121 C: sings from F to m. 166 (20 seconds) //

122 J: Yeah, yeah. 1 kinda feel it slowing up 123 there. K? Are you, or is it just me? 124 S: Yes. 125 J: K?

2 48 126 J. works with altos and basses at F

127 C: sings from F to m. 162 ( 14 seconds) //

128 J: Yeah, guys. Guys, can you act like a, 129 like a bass (pretends to play a string bass, singing the b ^ part in mm. 60-62). 130 Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum it’s like 131 you’re laughin at me, (sings the bass p ^ in mm. 60-61) bum bum bum bum 132 bum bum bum bum bum instead of goin (sings the bass part in mm. 60-61) 133 heuh heuh heuh heuh heuh. One, two, ready, and.

134 C: sings from F to m. 171 (27 seconds)

135 *J: (claps on offbeats) (mm. 156-158) 136 *J: bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum {mm. \62-\63)

137 J.has the sopranos and tenors stand and the altos/basses siL

138 C: sings from m. 154 to m. 166 (17 seconds)

139 J: Yes. I feel like, that- that- that when the b- when the tenors are moving, the 140 sopranos are thinking about it (.) but are kind of like on a delayed schedule. 141 (1.0) Ya know, can we go with em? Go with cm. Ready, K? Ready, and. 142 C: sings from m. 154 to m. 176 (30 seconds)

143 *J: (singing with sopranos on “ 1 and 2 and”) (mm. 169-170)

144 *J: Get the right notes though (m. 173)

145 J: Y eah, yeah those aren’t cute when you get those wrong, though.

146 J. adds everyone

147 C: sings from F to the end (43 seconds)

148 *J: Stretch it (m. 172)

149 *J: One and off (JJJ)(mm., 170, 171, 173)

150 J: Off. Now, make sure that that lengthen, please listen, that that you’re lengthen- 151 “one and off” (JJJ), it’s like putting that and in there so you’re not clipping

152 it off. K, cause I’m getting “one uop” (JJ ) instead of that little One and off

153 (JJJ),One and off (JJJ ).

249 154 J. goes back to m. 171

155 C: sings m. 171 //

156 J: Yeah. Get the note, (sings the soprano note) Bahh. Doit 157 again, thank you. One, two, think one and off (JJJ), one and off (JJJ ), one

158 and off (JJJ), one off one off (J)J)J)J) ) that one? One, two, ready, and.

159 C; sings from m. 171 to m. 178 (13 seconds) II

160 *J: Off (m. 171, beats)

161 *J: And (m. 172, beat 3)

162 *J: Off (m. 173, beats)

163 J: Y eah. The attacks need to be 164 clean there. Because he’s giving you the little false ending effect. K? Here we 165 go. (gives starting pitches) One, two, ready, and.

166 C: sings from m. 171 to the end (19 seconds)

167 J. has the choir sing it again

168 C: sings from m. 171 to the end (19 seconds)

169 J: K? Sit.

170 The students sit, and announcements are made about the schedule, and about learning 171 the Latin.

Excerpt #271 is easily the most varied of the five excerpts chosen for this case study. The structure (both in terms of what and whom is the focus of instruction), the type of instruction, and the students involvement as singers and as partners in interaction, have all evolved and are more varied.

The excerpt begins with instructions concerning the learning of the

Latin text, as well as the directive to sing on solfege syllables. The full ensemble begins singing at measure 50; this is the first time that Mr. Jacobsen

250 has not started at the beginning. The ensemble is then stopped and given instruction (an analogy and a model). This sequence of singing followed by stopped instruction happens two additional times, with the full ensemble the focus the entire time. Unhhe previous excerpts, the longest sung passage does not occur at the beginning of instruction, but on the third singing attempt, in line 12.

After the third singing attempt, Mr. Jacobsen changes the instructed cohort to the tenor section. The little instruction occurring does so in real­ time as the tenors perform their line. There is a sense of leveling of musical abilities in this segment; the tenors ignore an incorrect note played by Mr.

Jacobsen, singing the correct tenor part anyway. Afterwards, Mr. Jacobsen apologizes by asking to sing it again "for my bad note" (line 20).

The basses are then added to the instructed cohort. After a lengthy amount of singing (44 seconds worth) with some real-time instruction, Mr.

Jacobsen gives a stopped instruction, and then adds the remaining sections so that all are once again singing.

Mr. Jacobsen focuses on a specific section a third time, and then a new interactional twist makes itself evident. A student gets and holds the floor, and delivers instruction to the ensemble through Mr. Jacobsen (this type of interaction is discussed in Chapter 4). Her comment is interrupted by Mr.

Jacobsen, who begins his own instruction. The student does not stop when interrupted, finishing her comment in a pause of Mr. Jacobsen's instruction.

251 The effect is that of dueling instructions, the student's concerning the length of the last soprano note (lines 57-58 and 61), and Mr. Jacobsen's concerning his change of instructed cohort from full ensemble to just the soprano section

(lines 59-60).

After the sopranos sing alone, accompanied by Mr. Jacobsen's real-time instruction (lines 63-64), the focus of instruction is changed to the full ensemble again. At this point (line 67), the ensemble sings for the longest time since the first run-through of the piece in excerpt #268, two minutes and fourteen seconds.

At some point in the singing, some students switch to Latin, while others continue to sing on solfege. The ensemble begins to falter, and Mr.

Jacobsen cuts them off, and he and the ensemble together determine that the students should be singing on solfege.

Mr. Jacobsen begins the ensemble where they left off. The ensemble then sings twice, each time followed by stopped instruction. The second of these instructions (lines 89-90) is followed by a student concern that "we're not hearing that," in line 91. An interaction follows (lines 92-97), in which

Mr. Jacobsen explains how to best hear the basses' first pitch, giving matter-of- fact methods for hearing the pitch ("the altos are singing your note" and

"everybody's singing the same note, hopefully").

252 The full ensemble is then directed to measure 140, where they begin singing. After this, Mr. Jacobsen has the basses sing the same section alone twice, with a brief stopped instruction in between. The other sections are added, one at a time, until the full ensemble is again singing.

The ensemble sings twice, beginning at measure 140, each time followed by a short stopped instruction, a mix of analogy and jargon. After the ensemble's third attempt, Mr. Jacobsen changes the instructed cohort to just the altos and basses. After the basses and altos briefly sing, Mr. Jacobsen makes an extended analogy about a string bass (lines 128-133). This analogy is carried into real-time (lines 135-136) as the basses sing. Next, the tenors and sopranos sing, interrupted with sporadic stopped instruction.

Finally, the ensemble is joined again, and the students sing from rehearsal letter F to the end of the piece, while Mr. Jacobsen gives a little real­ time instruction. At this point (lines 150-153) Mr. Jacobsen gives a combination of jargon, model and analogy in describing the length of the chords in measures 171-174. This ending is attempted four more times by the students, interspersed with modeling, jargon and real-time instruction. The students then sit, and the excerpt ends.

The changes of cohorts that are the focus of instruction reach a new level here, as the does the amount of time spent on the end of the piece.

There are more changes of instructed cohort in this excerpt (for shorter

253 periods) than any other. Like other excerpts however, once Mr. Jacobsen reduces the instructed cohort to one section, he adds the others gradually, often one at a time. An example of this can be seen in lines 101-112.

The type of instruction used does not vary much from either excerpt

#269 or #270. Real-time and stopped instruction are both used, and jargon, analogy and modeling can aU be found, usually mixed together. There is a lengthy segment (lines 68-72) where the predomination of real-time instruction is reminiscent of excerpt #268, however.

This could be a result of longer student singing. Although the students still sing in bits and pieces, these bits and pieces are quite a bit longer than in either excerpts #269 or #270. Since the students are singing for longer bits of time, it would stand to reason that there is a greater opportunity for real-time instruction to occur.

There is an important shift in interaction. The student-initiated interactions (lines 57-61 and 75-80) show an increase in musical understanding, and are either asked because there was something causing confusion (as in the use of Latin vs. solfege) or were actually comments-with- a-known-answer. Mr. Jacobsen's questions allow for more student musical decision making, as when he asked "or is it just me," allowing for the possibility that the students could have the musical answer to the question.

These questions illustrate the students' raising level of musical understanding, and perhaps even Mr. Jacobsen's acceptance of that fact.

25 4 EX. #272 (3/13) 1 J. reminder of the importance of bringing out the themes, as per yesterday’s 2 discussion.

3 J: And if you flip that “r” that also helps? Pu en ? One, two, ready (2.0)

4 C; Lau II

5 J: Do it again, my fault. My fault Lau. be aggressive. (3.0)

6 C; sings from the beginning to m. 22 (32 seconds) //

7 J: Yeah, yeah, no no no no no 8 no no. Yeah, no no no no no. The entrances (.) have gotta be clean and also, 9 your mind’snot on what you’re supposed to be doing. K? It ain’t there. It 10 ain’t there, it ain’t a one yet. You’re close. (1.0) But it ain’t a cookie yet (2.0) 11 But it’s a close cookie. One, two, ready, (.)

12 C: sings from the beginning to the end (4:11 minutes) =

13 *J: Don’t drag it tenor (m. 7)

14 *J: Half note get away from it (m. 102)

15 *J: Don’t drag it (m. 135) 16 J: = Now 1 need the nnnuuh. mennuh. K?

17 J. discusses going back to a spot with basses

18 J: And 1 still gotta call to ask permission, shh listen ver- to use (.) thank you, to 19 use the accompaniment that’s not written (.) for that Amen. Cause 1 won’t dare 20 use it if 1 know they’ re gonna cut us for it. (J. models the accompaniment, 21 singing an approximation of what it would sound like) which is cool (1.0) but 22 (.) it may not work.

23 J. goes back with basses to m. 160

24 Cb: sings from m. 160 to m. 170 ( 14 seconds) 25 J. has the basses do the section again

26 Cb: sings from m. 160 to m. 171 (15 seconds)

27 J: OK, now can 1 have the tenor? And use that springboard effect? (sings the tenor 28 part of mm. 160-161). Ready, tenors, (plays the tenors starting pitch). One, 29 two, ready, and.

30 Ct sings from m. 160 to to m. 171 (15 seconds)

31 (J. plays the piano part incorrectly, but the tenors sing correctly anyway)

32 J. works with the sopranos and altos at F. 255 33 J: Et een saecula, please make sure you say “een” and not “in,” like half of you 34 were doing yesterday. It’s “een,” not “in.” Ready one, two, ready, and.

35 C: sings from F to m. 156 (6 seconds) //

36 J: Yeah, yeah I think that’s that’s forte (.) 37 isn’t it?

38 SI: We didn’t know where you were.

39 J: OK, r m sorry (gives the starting pitch). =

40 82: = Everyone?

41 J: One, eyeryone please, so it should be secon- altos and basses. One, two ready, 42 and.

43 C: sings from F to the end (42 seconds) 44 *J: Consonants (m. 157) 45 (1.0)

46 J: Cool beans. K? That is gonna be nice (.) 1 think. Now 1- like 1 said I’m rea::Ily 47 don’t know if we’re gonna get to use that accompaniment. I rea::lly am um, 48 some judges will go “oh::: (.) thaf s cool,” some judges get real stupid, and go 49 (.) “Fm sorry that was not written in the score.” And I’m goin, it is (.) it’s just 50 not written in this score.

51 Ss: ((laughter))

52 S3: ( ) a cool judge. 53 J: Huh?

54 S3: Get a coot judge.

55 J: We::ll (.) you // don’t git it. Judges get finicky.

56 SI: Make copies of that score and give it to im.

57 S3: Give em that score.

58 84: Rewrite it.

2 5 6 Excerpt #272 shows Mr. Jacobsen and the students coming full circle.

This final rehearsal of the 'Xaudate Pueri," while containing elements similar to those in excerpts #269-271, is a close relative in many ways of excerpt #268, when the piece was sung for the very first time.

This is especially true with regard to structure. An introduction is given, and then the full ensemble begins, after a miscommunicated entrance, and sings for 32 seconds. They are cut off by Mr. Jacobsen who gives a stopped instruction that borrows from the ensemble's history of contest to point out that the piece is not performance ready yet.

The ensemble begins again, singing the piece without interruption, which takes four minutes and eleven seconds (as opposed to the much slower run-through in excerpt #268, which took almost seven minutes). There are only three real-time instructions (lines 13-15), which is more performance­ like than the sixteen real-time instructions in the excerpt #268 run through.

After the choir has finished, Mr. Jacobsen works briefly with the basses, the tenors, and the altos and sopranos together. In each case, the section sings a complete section, followed by a brief stopped instruction. Mr. Jacobsen then asks for the complete ensemble again, and, after a miscommunication about the starting point (lines 36-39), the ensemble sings from rehearsal letter F to the end of the piece. This is followed by a lengthy summary, concerning the

257 viability of changing the accompaniment part in the piano, and the impact

that such a change would have on the ensemble's contest rating. Then the

excerpt ends.

The focus of instruction in excerpt #272 is almost completely on the

entire ensemble. There is a brief amount of cohort shifting in lines 23-34, but

they are short diversions from the business of singing the piece as a full

ensemble. There is much less instruction used than in excerpts #269-271, and

most of it (other than the comments about the new accompaniment), uses

musical jargon, is short, and to the point.

The exception to this is the history-laden comment about the

performance, "it ain't a one yet" (line 10). In addition to relying on the

awareness of what a "one" is, it accesses a larger question, namely: How does

one know when a piece is performance-ready? This question elicited a

variety of responses from students and Mr. Jacobsen alike.

J: Well, umm (.) with that group it’s- it’s- it’s uh (3.^, you know (.) it’s it’s kind of uh ( 1.5) well (.) I-1 think the light bulb goes off with the entire choir (.) uh and- and we know. We know if we’ve rehearsed it too long, we know when- when it’s time to perform iL Uh, with the H- “Hijah,” we know that there’s (.) a section, page 10 and to the end, we know there’s problems there and so they don’t feel comfortable. I don’t feel comfortable, and the choir’s not comfortable. It got a little better yesterday, uh, but it’s still not (.) quite solid. With the Mulholland. that is more performable than any of them right now, I think, it’s- it’s that one we could probably sing today and get away with it (.), uh, knowing that its (.) a performance but there’s still work we still need work on iL Uh, I think all the pieces are- are, I think every piece, you’re still in progress. S’ works in progress. I don’t think you ever really (.) get a piece, um I think you always just have bits and pieces you- you just (.) bite off, “kay. I’ve got this much today,” and that’s sinkable, but boy if I ever get a chance I can go back and touch this. I-1 don’t, I think you’re always working on something; it’s just nonstop. (MR. JACOBSEN)

258 E; Well, 1 think when we can consistently sing it, like a you know sing it a few times, I mean the whole choir not just my section, sing it a few times through and we all, I mean it’s just that feeling you know when the song was good and you know when you were really into the song and you know it’s at that emotional high point, and (1.0) when you know that your section all has their notes I mean he, when I go to sectionals and people are not asking questions they’ re, you know, understanding all their notes and I think it’s that point where everything just fits together, you didn’t have any big mess ups, you didn’t have any stops during the song, you know you could run through it a couple of times and it goes really well. (ERICA)

J: Mm. (3.5) you it I mean it (.) uhh, if s hard to describe like (1.0) you know that you’re singing exactly what you’re supposed to do and you know that the other sections are singing exacdy what they’re supposed to do and Mr. Jacobsen he’s (.) you know he’s egging you and he’s like “yeah, c’mon give me more of this that’s it that’s it that’s it” and uhh (.) I mean it just feels like you know that it’s ready to go. (2.0) Yeah, it it’s just not really something you can describe, really, it’s just not. (JEFF)

J: I think you can just it I mean we- we’ve had pieces before where you’ 11 sing it and (.) at the end of the piece you’ 11 just kinda say “yeah” you know that- that- that worked and you- you can just kinda (JAMES)

M: How is the rehearsal of a piece thaf s performance ready (.) different from that of a piece thaf s not so far along?

J: Um (.) if I can compare this with a piece, say umm “Een So Lord Jesus.” This piece, we’re singing notes and it’s- there’s no, there’s no uh (.) dynamics there’s no (.) feeling behind it if you will. Um and with a- with a piece that’s ready like “Een So Lord Jesus” it was all heart And with- with “Alleluia” and with our “Come to the Water” it is so (.) 1-1 don’t know if- if I can speak for the choiras a whole I can only speak for myself but, there’s so much heart and passion in it. And you’re not singing the notes anymore, you’re singing a song you’re singing (.) you’ re not singing just phrases or just a section or a measure or- or a note or two it it’s the passion it’s the (.) this is what the, this is what the (.) writer was trying to say. And I uh you know of course I don’t even know what this is cause ail in Latin anyuh I don’t know Latin, but (.) even when we get it, once we get it if s gonna be just- just this well of music and, if s not gonna te notes, if s not gonna te the alto part, if s gonna be how docs the alto part compliment the uh soprano and the other sections, and it- it’s no longer just notes. It’s- it’s a piece of art, and uh (.) like right now you know you can hear in the background they’re doing this, all these different kind- trying to pull that sound together and and trying to pull those dynamics out but it’s not quite there, but with a piece like (.) iih “Alleluia” where you can just close your eyes and sing it, and and there’s no (.) there’s no (.) question as to whaf s the right note cause if s just there, and if s just if s performance ready and the audience senses that If we perform this right now, even with our music in our hand, the audience wouldn’t sense (.) what we were trying to bring across. “Alleluia” is very set out; “Een So Lord Jesus” is very much (.) this is what we’re trying to say. And so there there’s more ^ s i o n and there’s more desire and there’s more depth into it (JILL)

259 M: Arc any of the pieces that you’ re working on right now what you’d call to be performance ready? (4.0)

L: Umm, (3.0) well, (1.5) I mean I spose there are some of em we could pull ofï, but I don’t (1 .^ think (.) that (.) they’re up to where they should be yet. I mean (.) we- we’ll pull it off, we could pull it off, but (.) I think they all have somewhere to go.

M: So being able to perform it and being performance ready are two different things?

U Yeah. (LYNNE)

The students' involvement in excerpt #272 was as singers, and not as

interactive partners. Other than the misunderstanding about where they

were starting and who was to be singing, the students said nothing until well

into the siunmary (lines 52-58). As singers, however, they were very

involved. The students began singing only seven times in the entire sequence, one of which was cut-off and restarted almost immediately. The singing episodes were lengthy, particularly the run through, which lasted for more than four minutes.

Conclusions

Teaching the "Laudate Pueri" to the students was an organic process.

As the rehearsals progressed, the students' and Mr. Jacobsen's collaborative work became more and more intricate. While no one would be surprised at the growing musical intricacy, a pedagogical growth was intertwined, as well.

Just as the music was considered from an increasingly complex and detailed

260 perspective, so too was the pedagogy used to teach that music. Although the structure of the last excerpt matches the structure of the first in many ways, they are completely different episodes of instruction. The ensemble and director, like the music being rehearsed, has grown considerably.

The structure of the pedagogy has grown from an exclusive focus on the complete ensemble in excerpt #268, through a complex (and sometimes confusing) series of cohort shifts in excerpts #269-271, to a mostly full- ensemble-based focus with brief asides to smaller cohorts in excerpt #272.

Both stopped and real-time instruction are used, except for excerpt #268, where real-time instruction is almost exclusively used. When stopped instruction is used, jargon, analogy and modeling can all be found, often together in the same utterance.

The organic growth of the pedagogy of the "Laudate Pueri" can be most clearly seen in the students' responses to instruction, both as singers and as partners within interactive sequences. Excerpts #268 and #272 were both run-throughs, placed at the beginning and at the end of the instruction over time. In those excerpts, the students sang comparatively few segments; those segments, however were lengthy. The only two observed complete performances of the piece occurred in these two excerpts.

261 The students sang far more frequently in excerpts #269-271; these

segments were considerably shorter, though. Also worth noting is that,

between excerpt #269 and #271, the length of the sung segments gradually

lengthened. As the students got better, they had more to sing.

Concerning interaction, an interesting trend can be traced. As the

excerpts progress, Mr. Jacobsen's questions became less likely to have a pre­ determined known answer. Moreover, the students gradually began to ask

questions to get information, then ask questions because of inconsistencies either in the music, in the students' performance, or in Mr. Jacobsen. Finally, questions were asked which served as de facto instructions. As the excerpts

progress, the students' increasing ability allows for a stronger role in music making, and in talking within music.

The Shape of Instruction: Case Study of Rehearsal on lanuary 24th

In order to examine some of the observations of the above case study in more detail, one complete class period (1/24/97) has been transcribed. In looking at the rehearsal, the ways in which Mr. Jacobsen directed instruction are detailed. Of interest are issues relating to just who is being instructed at any given moment, and what exactly is the goal of the instruction. As

Sharrock and Anderson (1986) noted, "in a classroom it may be that there is

262 something which can be pointed to as 'the business' of that class, i.e. what it

has been organized to do" (p. 181). This is a case study of the business being conducted in one class, and of whom the subjects of that business are.

The selection of this rehearsal is built upon the results of the "Laudate

Pueri" case study. In that rehearsals in the middle of that piece's preparation were more complex, I chose a rehearsal where each piece rehearsed was in the middle of its preparatory cycle.

EX. #273 1 Whole ensemble. Seated. J. talks from behind the piano. 2 J: And if you have gum please get rid of it.

3 (4 students get up and take their gum to the trash can)

4 J: Do you know what we* re going to start doing? Section leaders, this is what 5 1 want. Anybody caught chewing gum 1 want fifty cents from em.

6 J: Alright. This is what I need. Real quick overview. (Back to whole ensemble)

7 Sight-reading books are being passed out to every other student 8 J: Stand, please.

9 (J. plays a pitch on the piano; the students are talking)

10 J: Thank you (J. plays the pitch again)

11 J: Ooh eeh aay ahh ooh.

12 C: (sings a number of vowels, while handing out the sight-reading books) 13 J: I want ooh ece ceeh ahh ohhh

14 C: ooh eee eeeh ahh ohhh (5 times) 15 *J: Cmon

16 *J: Round the ohhh, I want to get an ohhh, and.

17 *J: Support.

263 18 *J: Only a half-step.

19 C; ooh eee eeeh ahh ohhh = 20 J: = last one.

21 C: ooh eee eeeh ahh ohhh

22 J: (plays 123454321) Can I get (sings and plays on 123454321) e-e-e-e-ah- 23 ah-i^-ah-ah. C, and.

24 C: e-e-e-e-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah. = 25 J: = Make sure you support goin down.

26 C: e-e-e-e-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah. 27 J: Yeah. As you descend on it but um e-e-e-e-oA-a/i-a/i-aA-a/i. Make sure the 28 elevator's raising please. Ready, and.

29 C: e-e-e-e-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah. ( 14 times, picking up gradual speed after the 8th)

30 J: (plays 58531) I know thee not. Ready, and.

31 C: I know thee not ( up 5) 32 J: A lot of space, think about what’s goin on.

33 C: I know thee not (up 1)

34 J: Posture?

35 C: I know thee not i}xp \) 36 J: Embouchure?

37 (A rhythmic sequence has been formed, with J.’s last word falling on downbeats)

38 C: I know thee not {wp \) 39 J; Relaxed jaw.

40 C: / know thee not (up 1)

41 J: Vertical space.

42 C: I know thee not (down 3)

43 J: Rib cage up.

44 C: / know thee not (down 5) 45 J: Good. Please (.) u:::h, let’s look at the sight-reading while we have it up. 264 46 Let’s do a couple of em today. OK, everyone should have a high school 47 doohiclde. I’m gonna buy one more that we haven’t done so that //

48 S; Gooh.

49 J: Yeah.

50 (3.0)

51 J: Alright. Let’s do (.) turn to page 26. OK, shh, try something, please, 52 section leaders (.) go:::. You have four, three minutes, go.

53 (Students form in four groups, section leaders get each group intoning their 54 own solfege, at their own pace. When they finish, the section leaders make 55 comments, and the group intones again. J. stands apart from the four 56 groups, making one comment to the sopranos. 1:45 minutes go by)

57 J: Five seconds (5.0) Time. (Students take their original places. J. plays do 58 mi sol mi do sol do). Do mi sol mi, and. 59 C: Do mi sol mi do sol do.

60 J: K? Please look at circle ten. The dotted eighth followed by the sixteenth? 61 (2.3) K? (intoned on A j) j>) sol fa sol la sol sol la ti do, K? Make

62 sure there’s a slight little separation on that dotted eighth followed by the 63 sixteenth, (intoned on A j^J) Ba ba ba. Ba ba ba. Here’s our tempo

64 (conducts one measure, then plays starting pitch), one, two, ready, go.

65 C: (Sight-reads the example; J. says a few things in real time while they sing, 66 also clapping the J>. rhythm)

67 J: Thank you, let’s go on. Like that rhythm you got the second time, that was 68 one of the best. (2.0) Tum to::: (.) page thirty-six, you have two minutes, 69 go.

70 (Students form in four groups, section leaders get each group intoning their 71 own solfege, at their own pace. When they finish, the section leaders make 72 comments, and the group intones again. J. stands apart from the four 73 groups, making one comment to the sopranos. 1:11 minutes go by)

74 J: Time. (Students take their original places). Alright, here we go, shh. Don’t 75 discuss straight through. Remember. ( J. plays Do mi sol mi do sol do). 76 Do mi sol mi, and. 77 C: Do mi sol mi do sol do.

78 After some brief instructions, the ensemble reads the exercise like the one before. 79 There is one important Real-time instruction with the basses 265 80 *J: Guvs, guvs? (snaps fingers to beat)

81 The piece finishes as the other piece did.

82 J: Off. Thank you put those away, pass era down to your left Don’t 83 discuss, shh, thaiik you, Een So Lord Jesus. Pass em down. (The 84 students, still standing, are passing the sight-reading books in). Tenors, 85 shh? (one by one, students begin to sit down) Shh, tenors, shh, thank you, 86 thank you, top of five, top of five, the descending, descending pattern? 87 Make sure (.) that you have enough breath, breath management under that 88 so that it the pitch doesn’t (1.0) doesn’t go under? Doesn’t go under the 89 pitch, rather. K? (about half of the students are seated) Cause you’ re the 90 only ones moving there, the only ones moving at the top of five (.) you’ re 91 standing, here we go.

92 (The students all stand)

93 J: K? K? Everyone, shh, (.) everyone where it has, where someone is during 94 a holding, and you’ re moving, please make sure that you give enough 95 breath management under that so that the pitch does not go under. K, every 96 time F ve h e ^ those, and I, I took it home last night....

97 J. finished his pre-insL and begins the piece with the entire group singing. J. 98 stops at the end of the bridge.

99 J: Lef s try that again.

100 SI: I have a question, Mr. Jacobsen.

101 J: Yes, question.

102 SI: Uhh, when everyone is singing “For Christ is coming,” do we sing “co-oh- 103 ming” or “com-i // ing”? 104 J: No, “co-oh-ming,” yes, not the //

105 S2; Even though it’s written 106 the other way?

107 J: Yes, we will say “co-oh-ming,” not “com-i-ing.” OK? OK? Can we start 108 that again? And sopranos? (plays the high phrase the sopranos just sang) 109 K? It’s just goin down there. Ready (plays starting two soprano notes). 110 Another thing. Shh, anytime there’s a long note ladies, can we let it go 111 somewhere? Let it go? Peace be to you, and grace from hi - K? Break that 112 out, even though if s mezzo piano. K, here we go, try it again (gives 113 starting two soprano pitches).

114 The ensemble begins again, with one stop from J., regarding phrasing and diction. 115 Some real-time instruction in the run-through. 116 J; Now, I wann tune to the low D flat? So it needs to get soft enough for that, 117 can we start (.)shh, ( 1.0) at uh, o:::::h (1.5) rejoice in heaven, bottom of 266 118 five? (.) Rejoice in heav- and can you get mo-, more of a vertical space, 119 (intones) Rejoice in heaven, especially soprano? K?

120 S3: Mr. Jacobsen?

121 J: Y es. question.

122 S3: Would Een be “on” or “een”?

123 (1.0)

124 J: Wait a minute. What’d you, what’d you say?

125 S3: Een so //

126 J: “een” =

127 S2: = sposed to be “een.”

128 J: Een so. Een so. (gives starting pitches). Ready? Thank you but you’re 129 talking. Stop talking =

130 S: = Shhh.

131 J: (gives starting pitches again) Nice tall vowels. Standstill. Ready, and.

132 The ensemble sings in the bridge, and is stopped twice in the bridge. Comments 133 are brief and addressed to the entire ensemble.

134 C: For Christ is coming H 135 J: Ladies, ladies, shh, just listen to this one time. No, 136 don’t listen, sing it with me, BC?. And sing it an octave low, (plays it an 137 octave low). Ready, and, go.

138 Cs: For Christ is coming, is coming soon, for Christ is coming soon. [ 139 (Altos, tenors and basses have put their music down and are looking away)

140 J: K, can you hear coming soo - now, take the upper octave and try those 141 pitches, OK?

142 (One by one, altos, tenors and basses sit down)

143 Cs: For Christ - //

144 J: Yeah. I know it’s up there. Just let it go like you’ re just kinda 145 throwin’ up.

146 (Half of the altos, tenors and basses are now seated, and none have their music up) 147 J. continues to work with the sopranos

267 148 J: (to sopranos) If I put everybody up there, will you get it? (turns to full 149 ensemble) Stand, please, (those seated students now stand) Rejoice? 150 Rejoice. Bottom of five, ready, rejoice, and.

151 The ensemble sings the bridge.

152 J: (to sopranos) Can I do it one more time, do you got one more in you? 153 (sopranos nod) K? And I promise that I won’t (.) keep doin it

154 The ensemble sings from the bridge to the end of the piece, with an real-time 155 instruction to the sopranos (“missed it”) in the breath spot after the area where they 156 were just working. 157 J: Watch the end. K? Sit. Lau^te.

158 (8.0 seconds go by. The students sit, put “Een So” away and take “Laudate” out)

159 J: Can we start work our way just a little bit (5.5, one by one the students 160 stand). Basses and tenors. (.) oh not basses and tenors. Let’s just start 161 everyone. (3.5) Shh. At D, page nine. D? (6.0) Is this familiar? Is this 162 familiar (1.0) music, I hope. OK? (gives the tenor and bass starting pitch; 163 all students are now standing) K? See if we can nail it On syllables this 164 time may-, you got the syllables in now? Put it on::: doo. (1.5) Um:::, not 165 doo (.) //

166 Ss; DahII

167 Sa: Dah. r 168 J: Dah. One, two, ready, and.

169 The basses begin to sing.

170 J: Yeah, guys, guys, not heavy, but but still like you’ re making a statement 171 (sings the bass part) Dadadadada, K, ready? Not heavy though. 172 Ready, and.

173 The basses and tenors sing page 9; it collapses. They restart When J. plays 174 incorrect notes on the piano, the tenors follow. Each theme is ok, and then the 175 section is lost into mumbling. J. cuts off the ensemble at the top of page 10. 176 J: Tenors alone. Tenors alone for a second (sopranos, altos and basses sit). 177 Na. Don’t talk though. One, two, ready go. 178 Tenors sing from D to E

179 J: K? (sings last tenor phrase) na na na na na na. Basses alone. Standing? 180 (the basses stand, the tenors sit). One, two, ready, sing.

181 Basses sing from D to E; When J. plays incorrect notes on the piano, the basses 182 follow.

183 J: K? K, tenors and basses together. See what happens (The tenors stand). 268 184 One, two, ready, and.

185 Basses and tenors sing from D to E

186 J: Altos, stand please (they do so). Sing it with the men. With the men. With 187 the men. Ready guys? One (.) one, two, ready, sing.

188 Basses, tenors and altos sing from D to E

189 J: Æto, come in (.) I mean soprano (the sopranos stand). (4.0) Alright. All 190 the entrances need to be nice and solid, nice and solid. Here we go. One, 191 two, ready, sing. 192 The ensemble sings. J. plays incorrect notes on the piano; the sopranos follow.

193 J; r m sonry I played an A. Don’t you like that? But you hit it though. One 194 more time. I’m sorry, it was like (plays the G, then the A) but y’all just get 195 on up there. One more time, one more time. Basses, this time be sure that 196 you don’t oversing this, this part, OK? (other singers have put their music 197 down) Baba- it’s like “praise him whose love have made,” OK? It- it- it’s 198 strong, but not overlv strong (.) OK? Here we go. (plays the basses first 199 pitch) Ready guys? One, two, ready, and.

200 The ensemble sings to the end; there is some real-time instruction from J.

201 J: Alright, sit. (the choir sits, among much mumbling) Now, our challenge. 202 our challenge. We’ve got three days next week...

203 J. outlines the rehearsal schedule for the next week, regarding the learning of 204 Laudate Pueri.

205 J: OK, Bijah please, (the students take out “Elijah Rock”, and a few stand, 206 many are talking. J. plays the bass and baritone starting pitch, and the 207 remainder of students promptly stand) I wanna run it straight through, then 208 r m going back. Shh, strai^t through. Get a recording. (2.0) Sopranos? 209 Y ou’ re up there in high B fiats this year, so (1.0) get a little piece of iL 210 (plays the bass and b^tone starting pitch, and preps gestuially).

211 Bass/Baritones begin, are stopped. And restart. Tenors enter, real-time instruction 212 to the basses. Altos enter. J. cuts the group off.

213 J: Oh. I said I wasn’t gonna stop, but I am. (to the altos; some tenors talk 214 amongst themselves quietly) Can I hear the consonant, the come? Tell? (in 215 rhythm) Come on sis-tah, help me ta pray, ^ me my Lord done pass, here 216 we go? Good =

217 S: = shhh.

218 J: Here we go. One more time guys, thank you. Very nice, thank you. K? 219 Nice tenor- nice everybody (all students are paying attention again). And 220 thank you for doing Üiat (.) on the and of four. One, two, ready, and.

221 Students begin to sing. J. cuts off the ensemble and gives instruction... 269 222 J: Hold on, OK? Start it at £7/yo/i rocA:.

223 (.5)

224 84: Oh, that one =

225 J: = Yeah.

226 Ss: ((light laughter))

227 J: Start it at, uh (2.0) Ç Ready guys? And ladies, can you get hip? ((sung in 228 the ladies octave)) Elijah rock, oh, Elijah rock elijah. Just do a little hip 229 action (.) OK? (1.5) Get to the hip. Act like you’re in the Pacific South 230 Pacific goin’ ((shakes his hips)) OK?

231 Students sing at C, and are stopped briefly. Students sing at C again, and are 232 stopped at the coda, briefly. The students begin at the coda again.

233 J: Guys, can I get just my ladies? Just mv ladies? K? I f I could I su-, yesl 234 S5: Do you think you could play the seconds part?

235 J: (plays the second soprano part). K? I’ll play it with you. Ready? Ready, 236 ladies? I f I could I surely would, ready, and.

237 Sopranos and altos begin at the coda, and arc stopped, and start over. They then 238 begin it a third time, and stop.

239 J: Who’s singing the G shyp (.5) over there? Just split it? Can I get (.) u::::m 240 ( 1.0) see, I’ve got five girls on the upper registers, right? 241 S6: Right.

242 J. chooses five students.

243 J: You five sing the, the middle note. The rest of you //

244 SI: Mr. Jacobsen = 245 J: Yes? 246 Sl:( )

247 J: Am I time? (claps) Thank you. Sorry, (the students stand and stream out 248 the door)

270 The rehearsal begins with the whole ensemble taking their seats and receiving instructions from Mr. Jacobsen. These instructions concern a number of topics: The plans for the next two weeks, permission slips, off- campus performances. Next, Mr. Jacobsen asks the students to get rid of any gum they are chewing (line 2). As four students move to throw their gum away, Mr. Jacobsen addresses the full ensemble in the third person, speaking directly to only the section leaders, those students who Mr. Jacobsen has told me are his "academic assistants." Then just as briefly, Mr. Jacobsen attends to the entire ensemble, giving an overview of the day's activities and handing out the sight-reading materials. This whole sequence (from lines 1-7) could be called "Getting Prepared." The enterprise being undertaken is the delivery of information concerning upcoming rehearsals by Mr. Jacobsen, to the students of the symphonic choir. The brief episode of gum management

(lines 2-5) is delivered only to the section leaders, although the directive impacts the entire ensemble.

With "stand, please" (line 8) the sequence undergoes a transition to the next section, which could be called "Becoming a Choir." As the students stand, Mr. Jacobsen plays the starting pitch, but the students talk over it. Mr.

Jacobsen again plays a pitch on the piano, and models the first warm-up. The students are unsynchronized, however, and are also singing while still handing out the sight-reading materials. Mr. Jacobsen gives the directions again, and this time the students sing correctly.

271 starting in line 15, the placement and timing of Mr. Jacobsen's instructions are such that the pace and focus of the ensemble gradually changes. Throughout this first warm-up, Mr. Jacobsen gives instruction in real-time (lines 15-18), and places stopped instruction in transition-relevant places, where the students pause to breathe (lines 19-20). This is as opposed to his use of stopped instruction in line 13, and the effect is that Mr. Jacobsen's instruction occurs as the ensemble is singing, instead of in between singing episodes.

The use of transition-relevant places for instruction continues into the second warm-up (lines 24-25), with an interruption of the students' singing for a stopped instruction (lines 27-28), as well. This stopped instruction is the first interruption, except to model a new warm-up, since line 13. By this point, any talking has subsided, and the students have completed passing out the sight-reading materials and are all focused on Mr. Jacobsen.

The instruction for the third warm-up is given, and the students begin to sing (lines 30-31). Mr. Jacobsen's comments in lines 32, 32 and 36 are placed in between each attempt at the warm-up, as the students are breathing.

Gradually, almost imperceptibly, the instructions are shortened, and placed so that the stressed syllable of the instructions are placed in rhythm, on the downbeat of the measure in which the students attempt the next warm-up.

An example of this, from lines 40-41, can be seen in Figure 7.1.

272 I know thee not. J %

Ver-ti- cel space

Figure 7.1: Rhythmic notation of Excerpt #270, lines 40-41

This complete sequence shows a gradual accelerando of instruction, so that, by the time the warm-ups have ended, the ensemble is completely focused on singing. They have 'T>ecome a choir," instead of a group of students. Mr. Jacobsen stated to me that this formation of a choir is the most important part of the warm-up sequence.

M By the time (.) the students have finished with the day’s warm-ups (.) = J: = Mm Hm.

M Wwhat (.) have you tried to accomplish? =

J: = With the warm-ups? =

M = In like that first five minutes of rehearsal?

J: In the first five minutes (.) dep- depending on if if (.) sometime when when I come in it’s just wanning up the voice, just getting them singing, getting em. Umm, I 273 think with with with a high school choir, you first want to get them in a frame of mind of (.) of getting away from the day, and for forty-five fifty minutes only thing coneentrating on singing, which is im- almost impossible to do, but (.) I think for the first thing is is I just want to get them (.) there. Get em seated, ready to go and ready to sing, and and ready for the day’s rehearsal. Then, I may go into something that, that fits a partieular picee or or or I may do a warm-up that says OK I want “Een So Lord Jesus” we’re working on these long phrases I may do something that that has something like that Or uh (.) I like doing rounds. And and I may have them just sing a round just to get the the choral sound (.) in in their brain because they’ve been doin so much, uhh, I know the kids that once they’ve gone through all Üiat they wanna sing. Uhh, and and my job is is like to teach what I want but also (1.0) let them sing. You know it it’s like you like well we can do (.) you gotta be p ie ^ you hav- you know you have to get it right but I also want them to have them feel like “y e ^ we’ve we’ve aceomplished something today, this really sounded good today” or or (.) you know you al- they come with so much baggage with them and I keep thinMng that’s also part of my job to let them (1.5) leave their baggage at the door kinda thing. Umm so, I think we have we have so manvjobs. I diink you know I think the job is is (.) yeah this is a- a- a- a release for them. Granted, you want to teach em everything vocally possible, humanly possible cause you want them to sing and continue singing and learn how to do. But I also have to have to sit and put my my (.) put on their shoes and go what do they want, too. I mean you know do I get so picky, so bogged down on the music that it’s just a chore to come in here? And it I used to do that, where it was just, it’s like ((nasal tone)) “we’re gonna work on this” and we’d spend twenty, we’d spend thirty minutes on one section (.) and never go anywhere. And I’d go, this is not right. Well what’re we doing? You know we we we yeah, we nailed the piece I mean the piece was wonderful. They were bored to tears. I mean, it it just had no life because they drilled it to death. And it was like, “OK, we did it” they did it on autopilot. They did it because I beat it into them almost you know and uh, and so now I-1- I keep thinkin I’m going, is is is the person, the little shy girl on the end, does she feel like she’s accomplished something? Or or the little shy boy that that, 1 mean cause we have em up there that just kinda withdrawn into themselves, why are they here? Well they’re here be- they’re here for some reason, and it’s not just, yeah they wanna learn how to sing and they waima do well but they also it’s it’s a- a release for them or it’s a chance to open up.

Looking at other warm-ups shows excerpt #273 not to be an isolated case.

EX. #274 1 (singers are all in place on the risers, and focused on J.) 2 J: On, ooh, and

3 C: Ooh ( 13531, up 3 and down 9 )

4 *J: Could you scoot it over to your (.) left? It’s a little congested over here.

5 *Ss: (some mumbling as the students move left) 6 *J: Basses, do not go with a splat.

274 7 J: Agai:::n. (plays 58531) I know thee not, a:nd.

8 C: / know thee not (up 2)

9 J: Yeah, you can scoot ov- scoot over, just scoot over there =

10 81: = Third row move // over.

11 82: I am over. 12 83: Can the third row //

13 J: Third row, scoot over, go ahead, scoot over. OK, I don’t 14 want here to fall and break her neck. (.) I love you. (plays 58531) 15 (the third row continues to move to it’s left)

16 J: Ready, I know thee now, everybody comfy now?

17 84: Comfv. 18 J: Good, and.

19 C: I know thee not (up 4 more)

EX. #275 20 J: Let’s go. (the boil rings) Come children, come.

21 (8 .0)

22 (J. walks over and greets someone he has not seen in a while)

23 (students sit and stand, engaged In dozens of separate, simultaneous conversations; 24 31 seconds go by)

25 J: Stand, please (motions with his hand). I know thee not, and. 26 (student talking is at a mf)

27 C: I know thee not {wp 4, down 11) 4 people join into the ensemble

28 (student talking is at a mp)

29 J: (plays 131) Dohmehneepohtulabehneepoh, and 1 more

30 C: Doh meh nee poh tu la beh nee poh (up 6) 2 more 31 (there is no talking)

32 J: Can I get (plays 12321) Sooh. tall ooh, and.

275 33 C: Soooh = 34 J: Five of cm, and.

35 C: Soooh (sung on 123454321; the complete vocalese is sung up 5)

36 J: AlrighL listen very carefullv. sit down for a second....

EX. #276 37 J: (plays 132435421) on ooh.

38 C: Oooooooooh (8 up) S more, many sts

39 J: Can we get (plays 58531). I love to sing, and.

40 C: I love to sing (down 6)

41 *J: Quit talking.

42 C: I love to sing =

43 J: = Last one

44 C: I love to sing

45 J: (plays 58531) I know thee not, and.

46 C: I know thee not ( 1 up)

47 J: Face nice and alive.

48 C: I know thee not ( 1 up)

49 J: Vertical space, nice and tall.

50 C: I know thee not up)

51 J: Make sure you’re all taking that space. 52 C: / know thee not (4 up)

53 J: (plays an open position major chord in four parts) On nooh, and.

54 C: 55 J: Can 1 get. mee mav mah moh moo- mee mav mah moh moo. and.

2 76 EX. #277 56 (student talking is a 0 57 J: Stand, please, let’s go. (Plays chord) Thank you, shh. (Plays a harmonic 58 progression). Ready ladies, and.

59 (student talking is a mf)

60 C: (sings the progression) 3 more

61 *J: Support it.

62 (student talking is a mp)

63 J: K, we’ll do that one more time, please. Warming ug, slowly, and.

64 C: (sings the progression)

65 (there is no talking)

66 J: Take is up a half-step (gives starting pitch). One, two, ready, and.

67 C: (sings the progression) 2 more 68 *J: Shhh

69 J: Sitting tall, please. Sitting tall, hands areto your side, facing front, can we 70 fill up that (.) (or some reason?

71 (student move to close the gap in the center of the ensemble) 1 more

72 J: (J. gives a pitch a half-step higher) One, two, ready, and.

73 C; (sings the progression) 1 more

74 J: Tenor, can you get higher? (sings the tenor part) do do do do. Last one. 75 please.

76 C: (sings the progression)

77 J: Can I get (plays 58531) I know thee not, and. 78 C: / know thee not.

79 J: Make sure you support it, keep it goin.

80 C: / know thee not. (up 12)

EX. #278 81 (the bell rings; seats are about a third full, and J. can barely be heard over the 82 many students talking) 277 83 J: (plays mi sol do) Come to the Water.

84 (gives four beats of prep; his coimting off, if he is doing so, cannot be heard above 85 the din)

86 C: (sings the first phrase) 10 more

87 C: (sings the second phrase) 7 more

88 C: (sings the third phrase) 6 more

89 J: (J. plavs the last pitch on the piano: the students are quite flat). Oo::h. Try 90 that again, try and tune iL It’s amazing what happens when you’re not 91 ready. Try it again.

92 (There is much less talking)

EX. #279 93 J: Can I get (plays 123454321) and.

94 C: Oo:::::h. (up 7)

95 *J: Please make sure you double check your tuxedo. Also, double check (.) 96 we’re still missing a coat and kevs 1 think. 1 don’t know where she’s at.

97 *S 1 : There’s a ( ) over there but 1’ m not sure //

98 *J: What was iL was it Gap?

99 *S1: ( )

100 *J: Blue, oh. (.) Did you find it ( ) or anything? Oh, and.

101 C: Oo:::::h (up 1)

102 J: To ahh

103 C: A:::::h. (up 1)

104 *J: What does it look like?

105 C; A:::::h. (up 1) = [ 106 *S2:( )

107 J: = Stop for a second, just listen. Go.

108 82: It’s a blue pullover, s’ ( )

109 J: Is it, what, is it Gap? 278 n o 52: Yeah, extra-large. 111 J: OK, because I’ve got a blue coat over here that. I’ve had over here for a 112 hundred years.

113 82: 1 know, there’s a house kev in there =

114 J: = That’s not it.

115 82: Uh uh. there’s a houseII kev in iL

116 J: There’s a house kev in it. OK. (plavs the starting 117 pitch of where the warm up left off). K? I’m sorry, (plays 123454321) 118 Then I’m eonna take it home. Readv. on ah. and. Readv. and.

119 C: A:::::h. (down 6)

120 J; Thank you. 8tay up please....

Excerpts #274-279 show variations of the same theme, that of forming together as a choir. Students can be noted walking into their places as warm­ ups progress (shown in bold print in excerpts #274-279); talking gradually diminishes as warm-ups progress. Perhaps the most potent example of the former is excerpt #278, where 23 students find their places and join the group as the warm-ups progress, almost half of the ensemble. A good example of the latter can be found in excerpt #277, where the talking goes from the conversational forte to silence in the first portion of the warm-up.

Excerpts #274 and #277 also show the same types of gradual changes of instruction noted as the choir "forms" in excerpt #273: Stopped instruction, instruction delivered in transition-relevant places, and real-time instruction

279 are all present. These excerpts also contain features used to save instructional

time, such as the use of "real-time announcements" in excerpt #279 (lines 4-5)

and "real-time physical positioning" in excerpt #274 (lines 95-106).

Excerpts #274-279 help to illustrate that the symphonic choir warm-ups

are far from static. As in the case of excerpt #273, the warm-ups help form a

choir which is ready to sing; being musically prepared is only one component

of that readiness.

Beginning in line 45, a new focus of instruction, which could be called

"Sight-Reading," occurs. Mr. Jacobsen instructs the entire ensemble to get the

books out and turn to page 26. The instruction that then follows is "try

something, please, section leaders (.) go. You have four, three minutes, go"

(lines 51-52). At this point, the students form into four separate cohorts, each

one intoning a separate set of solfege syllables, led by a section leader. As

noted in Chapter 6, this is not an uncommon format, so the students were

able to make sense out of Mr. Jacobsen's opaque instruction. The students

work this way for almost two minutes.

The impending cohort reassembling is warned of by Mr. Jacobsen, who

gives a warning ("five seconds") in line 57. With the announcement, "time,"

the students reform into a single ensemble. The ensemble then is given an

elaborate pre-singing instruction by Mr. Jacobsen.

With a count off by Mr. Jacobsen, the ensemble sight-reads the example, complete with a real-time instruction (clapping of the rhythm) as a

280 problem spot is negotiated in actual performance. Once the exercise is

completed, Mr. Jacobsen gives a brief evaluation of the musical effort ("like

that rhythm you got the second time, that was one of the best"), and then

selects another sight-reading example. This example is performed like the

one just completed, with (1) a breakdown into smaller, student-led cohorts,

then (2) an introduction, followed by (3) sight-reading the example.

After the second sight-reading example, Mr. Jacobsen asks the students

to hand in the sight-reading materials and announces 'Ten So Lord Jesus"

(line 82-83). As Mr. Jacobsen introduces the plans for "Een So Lord Jesus," the

students begin to sit down, one by one. By the time he is finished, only half of

the students remain standing.

Mr. Jacobsen finishes his comment to the tenors with "you're standing,

here we go" in line 90-91. In response, the entire ensemble stands. More

instructions are given (lines 93-96), this time to the entire ensemble, instead

of just the tenors. Mr. Jacobsen then begins the piece, stopping in measure 98,

and saying "let's try that again" (line 99).

At that point, a student gets and holds the floor in lines 100 and 101

respectively. The student's question is answered by Mr. Jacobsen, who then quickly returns his attention back to the full ensemble with "OK? Can we start that again" (line 107-108). Before singing it again, however, Mr. Jacobsen gives a brief instructional aside to the sopranos in lines 108-112. This brief aside to a single section while preparing the entire ensemble to sing is similar

2 8 1 to that in lines 84-90 with the tenors. The soprano instructions given, Mr.

Jacobsen says, "K, here we go, try it again" (line 112), gives the starting pitches, and the ensemble begins to sing. They sing the entire piece, with one brief stopped instruction and some real-time instruction from Mr. Jacobsen.

Mr. Jacobsen then gives two instructions: One focused on the just completed last chord ("I wanna tune to the low D flat? So it needs to get soft enough for that"), and one focusing on the next rehearsal instruction ("Can we start at uh rejoice in heaven, bottom of five?").

The ensemble then begins singing on the bottom of page five, and is stopped twice, with brief instruction given to the entire ensemble. The third time the ensemble is stopped, Mr. Jacobsen reduces the instructed cohort, giving instruction to the sopranos alone in lines 135-137. A sequence of singing attempt (sopranos) followed by stopped instruction (Mr. Jacobsen) develops occurring from lines 135-147. As this moves along, the altos, tenors and basses gradually put their music to their sides and look away, one by one.

Then, some begin to sit. By the last instruction to the sopranos (lines 148-149), half of the altos, tenors and basses are seated, and none are holding their music up.

The end of soprano-only instruction is marked with Mr. Jacobsen's

"stand, please" in line 149, and the seated students now stand. Then, the entire ensemble sings at the bottom of page five. The ensemble does so twice, singing to the end of the piece the second time, with a real-time evaluation

282 ("missed it") of the sopranos' attempt at the spot that had just been the focus of instruction in lines 135-148. Mr. Jacobsen gives an evaluative comment

("watch the end, K?"), then closes the sequence with "Sit. Laudate." The students sit down, put "Een So Lord Jesus" away, and take out "Laudate

Pueri."

The "Een So Lord Jesus" sequence is a significant part of this rehearsal

(lines 83-157). Within this sequence, there are a number of shifts of instructed cohort. These come in two sizes. Some, as in the shift from full ensemble to sopranos only (lines 135-149) are quite large, and take up large parts of the sequence. Others, such as the brief asides to the tenors in lines 84-90 and the sopranos in lines 108-112 are much smaller, and do not seem to require significant shifts in the instructed character of the sequence.

One of the most visible indicators of a large shift in terms of instructed cohort is the sitting and standing of the students. These cues, when announced by Mr. Jacobsen, appear in transition areas between either topics of instruction or changes in instructed cohort (see lines 8, 91, 149 and 157 as examples of this). When unannounced, the students often sense these transitions and take appropriate action (as in lines 85-89 and 139-149). My observations lead me to conclude that those people in the instructed cohort at the time stand, and those not in the instructed cohort at the time sit.

This seems basic to the rehearsals, so basic that 1 wondered if there was an actual policy about it. The students assured me this was not the case.

2 8 3 M: Is there some kind of rule about when you sit and when you stand?

L: Uh uh, I don’t think so.

M: You ail ^ it together =

L: = Yeah. Well we all want to sit. No, 1 mean he’s never said anything, he’ll tell us to stand up and every so often he’ 11 tell us we can sit, but pretty much if he says “1 want to work basses” then the rest of us sit down, because (.) we don’t want to stand anymore. (LYNNE)

M: Is there any kind of rule in rehearsal about (.) when you’ re supposed to sit and when you’re supposed to stand because you all do it together.

J: Yeah, uhh there’s no set rule usually (1.0) hmm (.) usually when he’s working with one section everyone else’ 11 just sit down but ( 1.0) umm if it’s just by myself we’re usually like (.) we stand up, we stay standing, uh because (.) we don’t want to give Mr. Jacobsen the impression that we’re sladdn off or not paying attention, stuff like that (1.0) but umm (.) veah when- when other sections, when he’s concentrating on one specific section then generally everyone else will sit down. (JEFF)

With the music for "Laudate Pueri" now out, Mr. Jacobsen introduces the piece. As noted in other parts of rehearsal, within the introduction are comments for a smaller cohort, in this case the tenors and basses (line 160-

162). As the instructions progress, one by one, the students stand, so that they are all standing by the time Mr. Jacobsen has given the starting pitch. A neutral syllable is chosen by consensus, and the basses (who start this piece alone) begin to sing.

The basses are stopped and instructed once, and then they begin again.

This time, the entire ensemble gets to sing some, and it does not go well.

Each section sings well for a measure or two, then falls into a sort of pitched m um bling.

2 84 After cutting oft the ensemble, Mr. Jacobsen puts into motion a series

of cohort shifts. First he asks for the tenors alone (line 176); the sopranos,

altos and basses sit. After the tenors sing, Mr. Jacobsen asks for

the basses alone; the basses stand, and the tenors sit. Like the tenors, when

Mr. Jacobsen plays incorrect pitches on the piano, the basses follow the piano

instead of the score.

Mr. Jacobsen then says, "tenors and basses together. See what happens"

(Une 183). Those sections stand, and they sing together. Following this, Mr.

Jacobsen adds the altos, who also stand (line 186). Finally, the sopranos are

added in line 189; the entire ensemble is again singing. They sing the

complete section, with the sopranos singing along with an incorrect piano

pitch.

Mr. Jacobsen then apologizes for the incorrect piano pitch ("I'm sorry I

played an A") in line 193, and then asks the ensemble to sing the section one

more time. The basses receive a brief instructional aside, and then the

ensemble sings the section together. After they finish, Mr. Jacobsen says

"alright, sit" in line 201. The ensemble sits, and Mr. Jacobsen summarizes,

outlining the rehearsal schedule for the next week, and explaining which

parts of "Laudate Pueri" need the most work, ending the sequence.

Within the "Laudate Pueri" sequence, a clear instructional order can be seen: Introduction, full ensemble singing, reduced instructed cohort singing,

gradual building of the cohort, full ensemble singing, summary. This is a

285 classic example of "synthesis-analysis-synthesis" as advocated by Leonhard

and House (1972). The interesting thing about this structuring is that, while

Leonhard and House were focusing on the instruction, Mr. Jacobsen's use of

structure includes cohort structure. The "synthesis" was of ensemble as well

as of instructional objective, and the "analysis" contains a breakdown of

cohort as well as of instruction. Also noticeable is a continuation of both

large and small shifts of cohort, as well as the continuation of standing and sitting to define structure.

The final sequence, "Elijah Rock," begins in line 205. Mr. Jacobsen says

"OK, Elijah please"; the students take the piece out, talking to each other as they do so. A few stand immediately. Once the first pitches are played by Mr.

Jacobsen, the remainder of students seated promptly stand. Following what now appears to be the local format, an introduction is given to the ensemble

(lines 205-210), within which is a brief instructional aside to the sopranos.

The pitch is given again, and Mr. Jacobsen cues the singers gesturally.

The basses and baritones begin, and are cut-off and given instruction.

They begin again; this time, the tenors and altos also enter before Mr. Jacobsen stops the ensemble. There has been a change of plan, which Mr. Jacobsen now articulates; "1 said I wasn't gonna stop, but I am" (line 213). The focus then changes as Mr. Jacobsen gives instruction to the altos. As he does so, some tenors talk amongst themselves, now that the instructed cohort does not include them.

286 With the com m ent, "here we go. One more time guys" (line 218), Mr.

Jacobsen returns his focus to the entire ensemble. He gives a brief evaluation of the previous attempt in line 219 ("nice tenor- nice everybody"), and starts the piece again. There is a series of attempts by the entire ensemble, each followed by some stopped instruction by Mr. Jacobsen (lines 221-232).

The sequence (and the class period) ends with a number of shifts in the instructed cohort. This begins with Mr. Jacobsen's comment "can 1 get just my ladies?" in line 233. As he is explaining where he wished to start, he interrupts himself to acknowledge a student question. The student asks to hear only the second soprano part. Mr. Jacobsen plays it on the piano, then shifts the instructed cohort back to include all the sopranos and altos with,

"ready, ladies?" in lines 235-236. The sopranos and altos twice sing, and are twice stopped and given instruction.

They sing a third time, and are stopped yet again. This time, Mr.

Jacobsen asks, "who's singing the G sharp over there? I've got five girls on the upper registers, right?" (lines 239-240). These questions, which are answered by students, will define the next instructed cohort. Mr. Jacobsen chooses the five students that raised their hands as an answer to his line 239 question. They are the next cohort.

He begins to give instruction, then is interrupted by a student, who gets the floor forcibly (Une 244). Mr. Jacobsen acknowledges her request (line 245),

287 and discovers that his is out of time. With a clap and a "thank you" (line

247), he ends rehearsal, and the students stand and stream out of the room.

This ending makes the "Elijah Rock" sequence (lines 205-248) feel

incomplete. A likely culprit is Mr. Jacobsen's time management; he was

unaware that he was out of time, and it is possible that, with a few extra

minutes, the full cohort synthesis noted in the "Een So Lord Jesus" and

"Laudate Pueri" sequences would have been included here as well.

Conclusions

Payne and Hustler (1980) wrote that "experienced teachers may well

manage their classes such taken for granted ways that they are not consciously

aware of the nature of their accomplishment" (p. 49). This could certainly be said for the finesse with which Mr. Jacobsen moves through both

instructional topics and instructed cohorts.

Within this one rehearsal, there was a number of changes regarding

who was being instructed and what it was that they were doing. These changes were not random or abrupt, however; they happened in regular and consistent ways throughout the rehearsal. Such consistency points to a local format of instructional shape that is familiar and understood by both students and Mr. Jacobsen.

The use of instructional focus in the "Becoming a Choir" sequence serves a different instructional purpose than that in the other sequences. Its

288 design, which is consistent with other rehearsals observed, serves to gradually

focus the students on being members of a singing ensemble. This is

accomplished by the students (moving into place, facing forward, talking less)

and well as by Mr, Jacobsen (accelerating instruction). It is the most

collaborative of achievements; without both parties cooperation, the students

cannot become a choir.

The use of both large and small shifts in the instructional cohort is a

recurring feature of this case study. While some shifts seem part of a pre- established formal routine—primarily the cohort shifts in lines 53-56 and 70-

73 of the "sight-reading" sequence—most others occurred as instruction warranted it. As in other instances noted in my observations of the symphonic choir, the instruction was only conceivable after a musical event ju st occurred. The larger shifts of instructed cohort result in a change of the direction of instruction. The smaller shifts of cohort are merely asides; the instruction at hand is paused before theses shifts, and resumed thereafter.

These larger shifts of instructed cohort are most clearly seen by standing and sitting cues, which are often given by Mr. Jacobsen. When these cues are not given, the students sometimes accomplish the sit/stand cue themselves, showing an awareness both of the shift of cohort and of the use of sitting or standing within that shift. Occasionally, other cues, such as talking or avoiding contact with the music among the members not in the instructed cohort, can also be seen.

289 Finally, the idea of "synthesis-analysis-synthesis" seems to apply to the

use of the instructed cohort, as well. In both the "Een So Lord Jesus" and

"Laudate Pueri" sequences, instruction began and ended with the full

ensemble, while the sections in between had a number of shifts of instructed

cohort. The "Elijah Rock" sequence also supports this idea, as the ending of

the sequence is the end of the rehearsal, not any kind of instructional end to

the sequence.

Shifts of instructed cohort and the manner of their execution are easily

seen in this case study of a single class. Episodes of instruction are tied

together sequentially, sometimes in obvious transitions, other times in brief

asides. Both Mr. Jacobsen and the students are keenly aware of this important

component of rehearsal, and respond consistently to each other's actions.

The Shape of Interaction: Case Study of One Sequence of Interaction

This case study continues the process begun by the previous two case

studies, that of focusing in on the temporal order of the observed symphonic

choir rehearsals in greater detail. In this case, one brief sequence of

instruction and interaction are examined, focusing on its sequential order.

The selection of this section for use is based on the previous two case studies. It comes from a rehearsal in the midst of preparation for the contest

performance, not too close to the beginning or the end. The excerpt is a

290 portion of a sequence of rehearsing "Een So Lord Jesus/' in the "analysis" position, where both musical instruction and instructed cohort are most prone to changes.

EX. #280 1 C: (Sings the bridge)

2 J: Can you sing that an octave down for me ladies? Sit down, just the ones that 3 are singing the f-the Bb, should only be like five of you. OK? Not 4 everybody. K? Here we go, for Christ is coming, sing it down (plays the part 5 in the lower octave). Ready ladies, sing an octave down, ready, go.

6 Cs:

7 J: One more time an octave down, (plays the starting pitch) For Christ, and, go. 8 Cs:

9 J: Yeah, can I get everything nice and tall 10 with a vertical face- space? For Christ is coming. A:;nd, go.

11 Cs:Cs; (an octave down) For Christ is coming, II

12 J: Yeah gimme the ^ e n t too. Comine. 13 Let the m help you.Coming. With a k and an m. And go, and.

14 Cs: (Sings mm. 24-28 in “Een So Lord Jesus,” an octave low)

15 J: Now, can we try the upper octave please, and sing those right notes? (plays the 16 starting pitch) Ready, and, go.

17 Cs:

18 J: Y eah. Can you- can you do me a favor, and not 19 breathe? For Christ is comi:::ng is coming soon. Not for Christ is coming ( 1.0) 20 is coming soon. K? Here we go, carry that phrase out (plays the starting 21 pitch). Ready, go. 22 Cs:

23 J: = carry through::: = 24 Cs: = is coming soon =

25 J: = Now breathe = 26Cs: for Christ is coming soon.

291 27 (3.5) 28 J: Oo::h. Can I have (3.5) one two three (l.O) four (.5) just fora second. For 29 Christ is coming. Ready, and go.

30 Cs; For Christ is com II ing

31 J: No no. Sing the right notes though (in soprano’s range) Ba 32 bee ba ba bee. Ready // two 33 S: Half step.

34 (1.0) 35 J: Ye::s. K? (plays the starting pitch) Ready, for Christ, and go.

36 Cs: For Christ is coming (J. plays the part with them incorrectly)

37 J: Smack me sometime (a student gets up in the alto section) Stay. Ready, a:nd.

38 Cs: For Christ is coming (.) is coming soon = 39 J: = Now, I’ll need more space in there and I’ll love you even more. Ready;::, go.

40 Cs: For Christ is com II ing

41 J: No no. It’s whole steps (plays the three notes in question).

42 S: Whole steps (erases an earlier marking made with a pencil)

43 J: Whole steps, (plays the three notes in question, then mimics the sopranos) Nah 44 nah nah. (Hays the starting pitch)Ready, and, go.

45 Cs: For Christ is coming = 46 J: = There’s your half-step =

47 Cs: = is coming soon =

48 J: = and =

49 Cs: = for Christ is coming soon. 50 J: Can I have vou five (1.0) how many of you, four? 51 Ss: Four =

52 J: = you four on that top, a::nd (.) can I get you two (.) switched. Candice and 53 Gertrude? K?

54 (One of the students in the front row switches with a student in the second row. As a 55 result, the four students singing the top part are now clustered together) 56 J: Alright. Everybody stand. Everybody stand. 292 Excerpt #280 can be broken down into two completed sequences, and the beginning of a third. The first sequence (lines 1-27), likewise can be broken down into two sub-sequences. The first of these begins in line 2, after the full ensemble has just sung measures 24-28 of '^en So Lord Jesus." Figure

7.2 shows the soprano part of this section, as written in the score.

t m For Christ is com-ing. is com-ing soon. For Christ is

tVi. ? ["f

com - ing soon! E»n

Figure 7.2. Soprano part of "Een So Lord Jesus," measures 24-28

293 Mr. Jacobsen has an initiation in lines 2-5, the purpose of which is an

instruction to the sopranos to sing their part one octave lower than written.

This instruction is elaborated upon; it is not for every soprano, "just the ones that are singing the B flat, should only be like five of you. Not everybody"

(lines 2-3). This instruction, like those interactions in excerpts #14rl9 of

Chapter 4, require the students to self-select themselves as either "in" or

"out" of the instructed cohort. While Mr. Jacobsen is aware of approximately how many students that should be, at this point he is asking the students to make that decision. The initiation completed, Mr. Jacobsen plays the starting pitch and cues the students.

The students sing m easures 24-28. Mr. Jacobsen delivers an instruction, asking in line 7 to hear it "one more time an octave down." The students respond, singing the phrase "For Christ is coming" (line 8). They are interrupted by Mr. Jacobsen at this point. This interruption, as well as the following one in line 12, occurs in a transition-relevant place, where the students would breathe to begin singing the next phrase. Mr. Jacobsen evaluates the students' musical response with a new, more detailed initiation, "can I get everything nice and tall with a vertical space?" (lines 9-

10), followed by a model of how that would look and sound.

The chosen sopranos respond to the lines 9-10 initiation with a musical response (line 11), which is also interrupted in the first available transition­ relevant place by Mr. Jacobsen. Again, Mr. Jacobsen updates his initiation.

294 saying "gimme the accent too" and modeling "Coming" (lines 12-13). The sopranos respond to the lines 12-13 initiation by singing the complete section, from measure 24-28,

The length of the sung response (the longest since the beginning of the sub-sequence), as well as the following comment, which returns the sung pitches to their correct octave (line 15-16) signals a transition into the second sub-sequence. Mr. Jacobsen's initiation in line 15 instructs the students to sing "those right notes" in the appropriate octave. The students give a musical response in line 17; they are interrupted again, this time after the transition-relevant place. This is unusual, in that interruptions had occurred in the TRP prior to this.

There turns out to be a good reason for this; Mr. Jacobsen's evaluation/initiation of the line 17 response focuses on the transition­ relevant place itself. Mr. Jacobsen asks, "can you do me a favor and not breathe?," and follows the request with a spoken model of what he wants, as well as a spoken model of what he does n o t want, followed by a summary of the instruction "carry that phrase out." Although the spot is transition­ relevant (as noted both by Mr. Jacobsen's instruction there and by the students' breathing there), musically, Mr. Jacobsen wants the students to sing through it.

The students respond musically in line 22, as the space in question appears, Mr. Jacobsen gives a real-time instruction to "carry through," while

2 9 5 the students do as he has asked. The students continue on, singing the next

phrase (line 24). As the next transition-relevant place occurs, Mr. Jacobsen

says in real-time, "now breathe" (line 25), which the students do. The

students continue through the next phrase, stopping at the end of the section.

The pause in line 27 that follows serves like cartilage, connecting two

bones, and being adjacent to both, but belonging fully to neither. On one

hand, the pause is reflective. Sitting where an evaluation would normally be

forthcoming (as a result of the sung response by the sopranos in line 26), the

pause looks back at the second sub-sequence, or could even look back at the

entire first major sequence. The growing length of the pause makes it

unlikely that it will lead to a positive evaluation, as McHoul (1978) noted that

pauses before evaluations are likely to lead to negative evaluations.

As the pause lengthens, its meaning begins to change beyond that of a

pre-evaluation pause. This pause, on the other hand, is projectable. While it

could serve as thought by Mr. Jacobsen before an evaluation of lines 22-26, it

could also serve as thought by Mr. Jacobsen prior to a new initiation,

beginning in line 28. The pause may be due to his "thinking through" a new

instruction. The line 27 pause reflects on the actions preceding it; the pause also projects toward the actions following it. This is where the two major sequences of excerpt #270 are joined.

The second major sequence begins in line 28 with Mr. Jacobsen's exclamation, "Ooh," said as he is looking up at the sopranos. Following this.

2 9 6 he divides the cohort of self-selected sopranos up himself, picking four and

instructing them to begin in measure 24. The singers respond, beginning to

sing in line 30.

They are interrupted by Mr. Jacobsen, who evaluates their attempt with

"sing the right notes, though" followed by a model of the correct pitches, in

line 31-32. As he begins to count the singers in, a student interrupts him in

lines 33, saying "half-step" while looking down at her music. After a pause

(perhaps to understand just which half-step the student is talking about), Mr.

Jacobsen answers with "yes" in line 35.

Mr. Jacobsen then asks, "ready?" (line 35) and counts the students in

again. As a response, the students sing the requested line, and Mr. Jacobsen

simultaneously plays along. In the course of doing so, he plays the soprano

part incorrectly. His next comment, "smack me sometime" in line 37, is an

evaluation of his playing error. An alto member jokingly gets up and starts

toward him, and he jokingly says "stay." Then Mr. Jacobsen asks, "ready"

again, and counts the students in as before.

The sopranos sing, beginning in measure 38, and at the transition­

relevant place after the phrase "is coming soon," Mr. Jacobsen interjects an

instruction, stopping the singers. The instruction asks the students for "more

space in there and I'll love you even more" (line 39).

The sopranos sing a response, and are quickly cut-off in progress by Mr.

Jacobsen, who says, "it's whole steps" and then models the whole steps in

297 question on the piano. The student who had uttered "half step" in line 33, then says "whole steps" and erases her mark in that measure made earlier.

Mr. Jacobsen confirms her latest comment with a reiteration, "whole steps," followed by modeling the notes in question, both vocally and on the piano

(lines 43-44). Then, after playing the starting pitch, Mr. Jacobsen counts the students off.

The students begin to sing again (line 45). At the transition-relevant place after the phrase "for Christ is coming," Mr. Jacobsen instructs, "there's your half step" (line 46). Expertly, he places the comment "and" exactly where the students breathe, in the transition-relevant place after the phrase "is coming soon" (lines 47-48). The students continue on, finishing the phrase.

Mr. Jacobsen then begins a new instruction, first asking the students to tell him how many of them are in this instructional cohort. The students respond that there are "four" of them (line 51). He then instructs the students to stand near each other, which they do. The sequence, and this excerpt, end with a large change of instructed cohort, as Mr. Jacobsen asks, "everybody stand" (line 56).

Temporally, the half-steps vs. whole-steps interactions can be seen as an issue of misunderstanding, correction and repair. The student noted a

"half-step" in line 33, and Mr. Jacobsen agreed that "yes" (line 35) there was a half-step. It turns out that, where the student saw a half-step, Mr. Jacobsen later insisted that there was a whole step (line 41). The student's repeat of the

298 phrase "whole steps," along with Mr. Jacobsen's reiteration, confirm that the interval in question has been corrected to be identified as a whole step.

Finally, when the half-step in the phraseis sung, Mr. Jacobsen points it out in real-time, as it goes by ("there's your half-step" in line 46). In this way, Mr.

Jacobsen shows just where the half-step is.

Conclusions

The intertwining of verbal instruction and musical responses seems to fit in with the initiation-response-evaluation sequence as noted by Me ban

(1979, 1982). Verbal initiations are followed by musical responses by the choir, which are followed by the verbal evaluations of Mr. Jacobsen. The evaluations, however, are often combined with the subsequent initiation, or are missing entirely.

When instruction is given in real-time, it is almost exclusively delivered in the transition-relevant places in the music, where a phrase comes to an end and the students would be likely to breathe. While this shows sensitivity to those places, it does not necessarily mean that Mr.

Jacobsen is interactionally sagacious. After all, the music is like a script; the transition-relevant places will occur in the same places, each time. This is unlike casual conversation, or even classroom conversation, where such places evolve temporally as the conversation progresses. Comparatively, music making is much more ritualized.

299 This is not to say that temporal elements do not find their way into this

excerpt. The whoie-step/half-step episode is an example of an instance where

just what the topic of discussion is can only be determined as instruction

progresses, and after the music is made. It takes the unfolding of teacher and

student interaction to determine precisely which interval is being discussed,

as well as whether that specific interval is a whole- or half-step. This

reflexivity can be seen in the use of the pause in line 27, as well.

This case study, as well as the two that precede it, show how interaction and instruction cannot just be discussed as types or collections. Each

utterance has a context; there is a temporal flow that runs through the observed rehearsals, involving transitions of cohort, changes of instructive style over time, and interactions between teacher and students. In these case studies, this temporal flow can be seen, and the interactions, instruction and ensemble sound of Mr. Jacobsen and the symphonic choir put into context.

3 0 0 C FIA PT E R 8

A COMPILED ANALYSIS OF INTERACTION, INSTRUCTION,

TEMPORALITY AND ENSEMBLE SOUND IN ONE REHEARSAL SEGMENT

As a way of bringing each of the collections of interaction and instruction together, I have chosen one sequence of transcript from a rehearsal. From this sequence, I have considered issues of interaction, types of instruction used, the use of simulations or local histories, and the effects of temporal order or sequence together, to they extent that they come into play.

It is because of a sense of its rich possibilities that this particular segment, the rehearsing of "Elijah Rock" in the first third of observed classes, was chosen. The purpose of this case is to consider the findings of Chapter 4-8 together as they occur in sequence; this helps lead to an understanding of how all of the parts of the symphonic choir's contest preparations work simultaneously, and in synchronization with one another.

301 EX. #281 1 (The students are getting out copies of Elijah Rock; they are all standing, while J. is 2 seated at the piano) 3 J: Thank you don’t talk. In Elijah please, could you turn to page, page ten? Plage 4 ten? And let’s (plays starting pitches) let’s just ^ it (plays them again). K? 5 We’re gonna break there, (intones) Oh-oh-oh E-li-jah (.) Oh-oh-oh-oh E-U-jah 6 release on two of that OK? Ready? Ready, and. 7 C: (sings at E)

8 J; Y eah. Y eah ladies don’t, sing that an octave down please don’t, don’t go up 9 there. K? Yeah just keep it down. There’s no need to (.) kill ourselves on a high 10 Bb today (.) yet. Ready again? You will though. Ready, again? Make sure you 11 get that (plays the first entrance on the piano) K, Oh? And.

12 C: (sings at E)

13 (1.5) 14 J: K, one more time please, // Oh. 15 SI: You forgot to cue us in there =

16 S2: = yeah = [ 17 S: (mimicking the soprano part) Ohhh

18 J: = Yeah 1 will. I will. Try to do a left handed thing (plays) OK? 1 can’t 19 handle three things at once. Ready? Softly, ready, and.

20 C: (sings at E)

21 J: Y eah can we move that Oh Elijah, think of Jaws. When it goes bm bm bm 22 bm Oh Elijah, Oh Elijah. That wasn’t ( ) Ready? One, two 23 Jaws is corain, two, ready, and.

24 C; (sings at E)

25 J: Jaws is a big mouth goin OAE/f/o/z. He’s going to catch you, one, two, ready, 26 and. 27 C: (sings at E)

28 J: A::h screwed up. I messed up. Ready one, two, ready, and.

29 C: (sings at E)

30 J: (to 2nd sopranos) Yeah, yeah you don’t need to go down. (1.0) Just the high B. 31 K, yeah, you all stay ug there, just the high Bb. 32 S3:1 can’t ^ the low Bb =

33 J: = OK, OK, OK, go up. I’m iryin ta help ya an (1.0) OK. OK, one, y’all just 302 34 wanna show everybody that you can sing a high B flat. Y ou braggarts, one, two, 35 showoffs, and.

36 C: (sings at E)

37 (J. stands without conducting) 38 (2.5) 39 Ss: ((giggling)) [ 40 Ss: Ohhh II 41 J: Shh, can I have (1.0) altos, how many of you have a high F? =

42 S4: = What’s a//

43 J: (points) Over in here. Like (plays the high F). Can you hit that? 44 (Points of a student) You’ve got it (student nods). (Points to another student) 45 You’ve got it. One, two (.) u::::h (.) anybody else wanna do that? 46 S4: What is it?

47 J: (plays the note again) La (on the F) sing it for me ladies.

48 Ca: (Sings 3 after E) [ 49 J: (Sings 3 after E) Ready uh again, ready and.

50 Ca: (sings 3 after E)

51 J: Oh Ja-ah is what it is, ready and again.

52 Ca: (sings 3 after E) 53 (1.5) 54 S: Whoo! 55 (1.5) 56 J: Do it this time and see what happens. 1 may have to change the (.) where you are 57 but (.) here we go (plays the starting pitch). One, everyone and.

58 C: (sings at E, two basses arc talking) // 59 J: Yeah, I didn’t mean to interrupt your conversation. You ready, may 1 start?

60 S5: Yeah. 61 J: Thank you. Ready, and.

62 C: (sings at E, there is a miscue between director and student; the students get 63 ahead of L, and he cuts them off)

303 64 J: I didn’t give that to you. OK, ready again, ready, and.

65 C: (sings at E)

66 J; Yeah, guys, I need, I need “K’s” there. Shh, thank you, thank you, basses. 67 basses you stay there, comm, comm-inn and close the “m,” close the “m.” Here 68 we go basses (plays the starting pitch), baritone (plays their first two 69 pitches) comm-inn, accent one, two, ready, and.

70 C: (begins to sing the last 4 measures, J. is playing with them) 71 J: A::h, sorry. Ready and.

72 C: (begins to sing the last 4 measures, J. is playing with them) 73 J: Get the right notes. Shh, com-in, one, two, ready- I get the (.) open score, shh, 74 ready? One, two, ready, and.

75 C: (sing the last 4 measures) 76 J: Comin again. II

77 Ss: ((talking)) //

78 J: And use the “k.” No, don’t talk, don’t talk cause 1 only 79 got a little time. ( 1.0, students quiet down). Com-in, comin, k k k k (spoken in 80 steady quarter notes). Say that for me k. And. 81 Ss: Kk

82 J: Go, comin. Go.

83 Ss: Comin. 84 J: And go straight to the “n.”

85 Ss: Comin. [ 86 J: Comin. (1.0) Ready (.) basses? Com, ready and.

87 C: (basses and a couple tenors begin to sing the last 4 measures)

88 J: Tenor 1 need you too. Baritone I need you too (sings the first two notes of the 89 baritone part) Ready, two, ready, and.

90 C: (sings the last 4 measures)

91 J: Now, can we start (.) RocA:, Elijah rock ready? Shh, (gives starting bass 92 pitch) ready basses =

93 S6: = Mr. Jacobsen? = 94 J: = one, yes? 304 95 E: On that word “F m” do you want us to close to the “m” right away or arc we 96 holding out the “I”?

97 J: Fmmm, close straight to the “m.”

98 E OK.

99 J: I ’mmmmm, (.) K? (1.0) Comin. Here we go. Rock Elijah rock, tenors 1 ICO need to start right on the Elijah rock (.) right on the octave. Here we go. 101 (plays pitches)Rock, two, ready, and. 102 C: (begins to sing the last 5 measures)

103 J: Yeah, that’s where we’re goin now, the bottom of the page, shh. Don’t worry 104 about the A ladies. We’ll get that later. One, two, rock (plays a pitch), ready, 105 one, two.

106 C; (sings the last 5 measures)

107 J: Yeah, ladies you d o /’mmm, you don’t hum iL K, don’t just go mmmm/n, (.) 108 cut it off. Shh, last time. Shh, K, here we go, let’s see if we can ^ this. I 109 would love to run this today (.) sometime, (plays wrong starting pitches) Ready. 110 (1.5)

111 57; Huh?

112 J: Oh, I’m sorry, (plays correct starting pitches) 113 57: Thank you.

114 J: One (.) one, two. 115 C: (begins to sing the last 5 measures)

116 *J: C’mon. c’mon guys (cuts off choir), guys, guys, you’ve got to get the note 117 in there, Com-in, get to the vowel (.) before you go to the “m,” com-in. Yeah, 118 don’t cmmn/z/i, (.) it’s kinda hard to ^ that Get to the vowel. Ready? (J. gives 119 starting pitch) One, gonna choke yourself off, there, one. Coh-min, coh-min, 120 coh-min, gimmie the vowel. One, two, ready. 121 C: (begins to sing the last 5 measures)

122 58: My fault =

123 J: = can I just hear, shhh, (.) sit for a second, (sts sit) Do this for me, go (.) on this 124 pitch here (gives a single pitch)commmm y’all go commmm sit tall please. 125 Ready, commmmm, and. [ 126 5s: comm

127 C: Commmmm 305 128 J: Now go (hhh) comm-inn, and.

129 C: Comm-innnn

130 J: Do come again, and.

131 Ss: Commmmm II mmmm [ 132 Ss: Comm-innn H nnnnnn

133 J: Now basses have come, basses vou do come. Ready, and we’re 134 gonna do it in rhythm, cept on the same note (gives single pitch), (on single 135 pitch)com-in I ’mmmm, K? One, two (imitates other parts) com-in I'm com-in 136 up Lord. Ready one, two, ready, and.

137 C: (sings last 4 measures on single pitch) //

138 J: (to sopranos) And vou have notes, com-in 139 up lord, K? So your’s is com-in up lord, don’t try to go cmm-nn up lord, cause 140 you can’t ^ it. Com-in up lord. Ready, comin? One, tw- com, two, ready and.

141 C: (sings last 4 measures on single pitch)

142 J: Now, sing the gitches please (gives pitches) see what happens (gives more 143 pitches). Ready bass? One, two, ready, and.

144 C: (sings last 4 measures)

145 (5.0; the choir waits) 146 J: I don’t like iL (.) But I don’t know what to do to it yet, OK?

147 S8:1 don’t like it either. 148 J: Ten. Ten, top of ten. Top of ten, stand please =

149 S9: = Mr. Jacobsen? 150 J: Yes.

151 S9: The “I’m” on the bottom sounds weird.

152 J: Yeah, it’s atMi. You gotta sing ah. Ah vowel, then close to “m,” Ahmmm, 153 Ahmm, Ahm. ts “ah.” Not “I’m.” Don’t try to say “I” because it won’t, it’s not 154 a vowel. Ahmmmm. Ahmmm comm-inn, ahm-a comin. I hope. Ready, oh. 155 (gives the starting pitch for sopranos) Shh, ready? (plays the first six notes at E) 156 One (.) one, two, ready, and. 157 C: (sings at E, at two different speeds) //

158 J: Pm sorry. One, two, and, and.

306 159 C: (sings al E, 6 from the end, choir and director become unsynchroni/ed)

160 J: A:::h, toilet water. Oh, ready, oh, ready, shh, oh, ready, and.

161 C: (sings the last six measures) =

162 J: = Put that away, (the students do so, and sit)

The first major sequence of excerpt #281 could be called, "Singing at

Rehearsal Letter E," comprising lines 1-40. The business at hand in the

section is the singing by the ensemble of "Elijah Rock," beginning at rehearsal

letter E.

The first focus of rehearsal is the entire ensemble; they are all standing

while Mr. Jacobsen gives introductory directions (lines 1-6). Within the

directions can be found both jargon ("release on two of that") and modeling

(the intoning of "Oh-oh-oh Elijah"). This also serves as an initiation.

Following the count-off, the students give a musical response, in line 7.

This is evaluated by Mr. Jacobsen by way of further instruction. In lines 8-10,

he informs the sopranos that they can sing their part "an octave down.

There's no need to kill ourselves on a high B flat today." A further

evaluation is forthcoming in lines 10-11, when he asks the sopranos to "make sure you get..." and then plays on the piano a model of what he wants them

to get. No further instruction follows; the sopranos are instructed by the model alone, an unusual occurrence.

Mr. Jacobsen re initiates the singers in his evaluation statement

("Ready, again?" in line 10), and the singers respond in line 12. Mr. Jacobsen

307 asks the students to sing it again, and is cut-off by a student in line 15. Here, a sub-sequence, which I would call "Correcting Mr. Jacobsen" develops in lines

15-19. The student's comment, "you forgot to cue us in there" (along with the accompanying "yeah" in line 16 by another student) is an comment on Mr.

Jacobsen's gestural work during the sung response in line 12. As Mr. Jacobsen was evaluating the students' work, they were apparently also evaluating his.

The line 15 comment is also unusual, given the absence of "floor getting" behavior that is so common in other research (Mehan; 1977, 1982), as well as in my observations of this specific setting.

The mimicking of the soprano part in line 17 is a completion of the music that was sung in line 12; after a musical pause (taken in line 13), the sung soprano part is the next musical occurrence in the piece. This student, reading the line 13 pause as a rest in musical time, was going on. The pause could also be looked at as a "thought pause," where Mr. Jacobsen follows a pause with an evaluation or initiation. A more dramatic "thought pause" occurs later, in line 145.

The line 12 pause is an example of the number of interpretations which pauses receive in my observations of the symphonic choir. Just as the pause in excerpt #280 (line 27) of Chapter 7 was both reflective and projected, so too is this one. This pause is also both musical (according to the student in line 17) and verbal-interactive (according to Mr. Jacobsen, based on his response in line 14).

3 0 8 The next utterance is a response by Mr. Jacobsen to the student evaluations of his conducting in lines 18-19, in which he gives an explanation for his "incorrect" response. This completes a standard format of response, evaluation, and explanation that is often observed in educational settings, and can be observed in excerpts #44-47 (Chapter 4). What is not standard is the placement of a student in the evaluative position, and the placement of a teacher in the response and explanation positions. Nor does Mr. Jacobsen appear to show any affront.

Instead, he just counts the students off again, after a brief initiation

("ready?" in line 19). This ends the "Correcting Mr. Jacobsen" sub-sequence, and the business at hand returns to "Singing at Rehearsal Letter E."

The interactive cohorts return to full ensemble and Mr. Jacobsen; teacher and students assume the understood roles again. The students sing again, beginning at rehearsal letter E; a spectral analysis of the third note of that sequence can be seen in Figure 8.1.

Following the sung response, Mr. Jacobsen presents a combination of analogy and modeling as a evaluation/initiation (lines 21-23). The students are asked to think of "Jaws," and then models the material in the theme from the movie, followed by a model of the section he wishes for them to sing. He follows this by counting the ensemble off, with a brief reminder of the analogy ("Jaws is comin" in line 23).

309 The "Jaws" reference is not an issue specific to this ensemble's local history, at least as far as 1 could tell. A history of the movie is required for the analogy to be effective, however. In this way, the reference in lines 21-23 is akin to those historical references noted in Chapter 6.

A spectral analysis of Mr. Jacobsen's model of the third note of the musical sequence (Figure 8.2 in Appendix C) shows a much more pronounced set of acoustical peaks than is seen in the analysis of the students' singing in line 20, particularly in the third partial (marked by a white cursor in Figure 8.2). The peaks, which correspond to the partials of the pitch, are accompanied by acoustical "valleys" between them, which are much more pronounced than those in the students' line 20 response. A spectral analysis of the students' response to the "Jaws" model (line 24), when compared to the sung response in line 20, shows a change to a more pronounced set of peaks and valleys—especially in the first four partials of the tone (Figure 8.3)— similar to that of Mr. Jacobsen's example.

Following the line 24 response, Mr. Jacobsen further specifies his instruction, saying "Jaws is a big mouth goin..." followed by a model (Figure 8.4) of the sung spot in question. In looking at the model spectrally, the line 24 model can be seen to be similar to the line 21 model, except for the lack of peak activity beyond the fifth partial. The evaluation could be seen as a more detailed explanation of the initiation in lines 21-23. In line 25, Mr. Jacobsen explains vocally what "Jaws" is.

310 Following one last analogous comment ("he's going to catch you"), Mr.

Jacobsen counts the ensemble in. There is no initiation as such; nonetheless, the students commit to a musical response in line 27. Given the regularity of the use of "counting off" by Mr. Jacobsen, the students can easily determine what is wanted of them. The count-off serves as a de facto initiation.

Looking at the students' response spectrally (Figure 8.5), it should be noted that the analysis of the singing shows a natural progression of the response in lines 20 and 24. What is not explained is how the upper partials in the student response continue to expand, given the lack of peaks in the upper partials of Mr. Jacobsen's model in line 25. This apparent contradiction is not really surprising; the overall direction of instruction, including the verbalizations surrounding the models, is toward a "jaws" sound, and the students' singing appears to have been steadily moving in a particular direction, one that could perhaps be considered "jaws-like."

As the ensemble sings in line 27, something begins to go awry, and the ensemble sound begins to dissolve into two or three separate strands. Mr.

Jacobsen's next comment ("Ah screwed up. 1 messed up" in line 28) is a self-

evaluation of gesture in line 27, much as the student in line 15 evaluated his gesture in line 12. A count-off follows the self-evaluation, and the students sing again (line 29).

The next sub-sequence, which I call "Arranging B flats," begins with

Mr. Jacobsen's evaluation (lines 30-31) of the students' singing in line 29. This

311 instruction is a reinforcement of comments already made by Mr. Jacobsen in

lines 8-10, to the effect that only the sopranos singing the highest notes ("just

the high B flat") can drop the notes an octave, where they are more

comfortable to sing. The other parts are instructed to "stay up there," where

the parts are written.

One high soprano protests the dropping of an octave, however, stating,

"I can't do the low B flat" (line 32). Singing a pitch down an octave changes both the part and the surrounding parts significantly; it can be difficult to accomplish. For the student, it requires more musical competency than she has, and she says so.

Mr. Jacobsen responds by allowing her to sing the pitch where written, noting, "I'm tryin ta help ya an (1.0) OK" (line 33). The next statement serves as a transition between the just-ended "Arranging B flats" sub-sequence and the almost-beginning return to the "Singing at Rehearsal Letter E" major sequence. The utterance, in lines 33-35, contains elements that look both forward and backward. The words, "OK," "one," "two," and "and," recur constantly as count-off words. These words point forward. The other comments are related to the singing of high B flats; they point backward. The two kinds of comments are expertly intermixed, exactly where the two sequences meet. It leaves a smooth and easy transition in its wake (see Figure

8.6), directing forward and back, speaking to two separate cohorts (and commenting on two separate sequences) in one utterance.

312 OK, one, y'all just wanna show everybody that you can sing a high B flat.

You braggarts, one, two, showoffs, and.

Figure 8.6: Mr. Jacobsen's utterance in lines 33-35, looking forward (in bold print) and backward (in italics)

The students respond to Mr. Jacobsen's new initiation with a sung response in lines 36. Then, at the same musical place where the line 13 pause occurred, the ensemble stops singing, and another pause that is both musical and evaluative occurs. This pause (line 38) is even longer, and in addition to several students reading the pause as a musical occurrence (based on their continuation in line 40), other students find in the lengthy pause reason to giggle (line 39). Certainly, Mr. Jacobsen's physical response—that is, nothing at all—does not give any clues as to the meaning of the pause as it grows.

The result of the evaluative/musical pause is a new initiation, which begins a new major sequence, and ends the first major sequence. This new sequence could be titled, "Adding Altos," and it begins with a question without a known answer, directed to the alto section ("altos, how many of you have a high F" in line 41). This is a question for the students to answer;

313 only they will know if they can sing a high F or not. One student is not sure;

in line 42, she responds to the question by beginning a question of her own,

"what's a."

Mr. Jacobsen cuts her question off, and points to the middle of the

section, ignoring the student for a moment. He plays a high F on the piano,

and asks again, "Can you hit that?" of a particular student (line 43). The

students nods in the affirmative. Mr. Jacobsen then changes the question to a

statement. Pointing at another alto, he says "you've got it"; the student nods

again. The pattern is repeated with another student. He begins a tally of the

students selected, then asks "anybody else wanna do that?" (line 45). At this

point, the ignored student again asks, "what is it" in line 46, and Mr. Jacobsen

plays the note again.

Taken by itself, line 41 allows the students to self-select. But, in the

course of self-selection, one alto is asked if she can sing the note, two altos

only confirm Mr. Jacobsen's statement that they can sing the note, and one

alto is ignored until it is no longer possible to do so. This series of events

shows Mr. Jacobsen to have had som e idea of who may or may not have the

range to sing a high F, even if he was not absolutely certain. Students self­

selected themselves, but only with Mr. Jacobsen's assistance. The ignored alto

was only selected because of her persistence.

The new cohort selected, Mr. Jacobsen gives an initiation in line 47.

The selected students respond; Mr. Jacobsen asks them to sing it again (line

314 49), which they do. After the second sung response (line 50), Mr. Jacobsen gives an evaluation, "Oh Ja-ah is what it is" (line 51), followed by a re­ initiation ("ready and again"). The students respond by sing the phrase again, with the diction problem Mr. Jacobsen noted in line 51 corrected.

A pause (lines 53 and 55) follows, which is used as a "thought pause" by

Mr. Jacobsen, prior to his evaluation ("do it this time and see what happens"), which occurs in line 56. A student who is not in the cohort reads the pause as leading to evaluation too, and says "whoo!" after the first half of the pause has occurred, in line 53. After the evaluation by Mr. Jacobsen, with his comment "here we go" and "everyone," the focus of instruction changes from the selected student cohort to the entire ensemble again, and the

"Adding Altos" sequence ends.

The new major sequence is much like the "Singing at Rehearsal Letter

E" sequence. In fact, the new sequence (which I will call "Singing at the End of the Piece") begins in much the same way. It begins with the students' sung response to Mr. Jacobsen's line 56-57 initiation, in which all but two students are participating.

Mr. Jacobsen begins a very brief management sub-sequence, interrupting the ensemble and directly addressing the two students not participating. The comment, "1 didn't mean to interrupt your conversation.

You ready, may 1 start?," ends with a question that really is no question. It is classroom management; one student answers the only really permissible

315 answer ("yeah" in line 60). Mr. Jacobsen then (after a return comment of

"thank you") returns directly to the same cohort and same instructional topic as in line 56-57. The entire managing aside takes only lines 59-61, and less than five seconds of class time. The sarcastic comment "I didn't mean to interrupt your conversation," with the following reversal of normal and accepted question-answer patterns, along with the directness of the cohort shift, serves to quickly and effectively squelch the student talking.

After Mr. Jacobsen's succinct count off, the ensemble responds by singing, beginning at rehearsal letter E and going well past the spot that is the focus of instruction in the "Singing at Rehearsal Letter E" sequence. At some point, there is a miscue between Mr. Jacobsen and the ensemble, and they sing on without him. He cuts them off, and evaluates their effort, by noting "1 didn't give that to you" (Une 64). This is true; the singers continued in the last section prior to the ensemble's cut off without a starting cue from Mr.

Jacobsen. A re-initiation ("ready, again") follows the evaluation, and the ensemble responds by singing the same section again.

Mr. Jacobsen stops the ensemble, and gives a lengthy evaluation (lines

66-69) of the students' sung response. The evaluative instruction contains elements of jargon ("close the'm'"), analogy ("I need 'K's' there") and modeling (both of the 'o' in "comin" and of the entire word). Following the instruction, Mr. Jacobsen gives the starting pitches and counts the singers off again.

316 The singers respond, beginning four measures from the end of the

piece. Mr. Jacobsen plays along with them; although the students sing correctly, Mr. Jacobsen plays incorrectly. The student sing the correct pitches anyway, and are not swayed by the mistake in the piano; this would indicate an advanced perception of what the "correct" notes are, as was noted in excerpts #58-59 (Chapter 4).

Mr. Jacobsen's next comment, "Ah, sorry," serves as an evaluation of this piano error. He then brings the students in again, and they again begin in the same place as before. Once more, the students are stopped by Mr.

Jacobsen, and are given a direct and basic evaluation/ instruction, "get the right notes" (line 73). A re-initiation follows, and the students sing the last four measures once again.

The instruction that Mr. Jacobsen gives next, in lines 76-80, serves as a transition to a sub-sequence, which could be called "Diction Practice." Mr.

Jacobsen starts with a re initiation, similar to those in lines 66-69 and 73-74.

The comment, which is difficult to hear over an upsurge of student talking— accompanying the completion of the sung phrase, which ends the piece—also contains an evaluation of the students' line 75 singing, "use the 'k'." The comment immediately afterward is related to the increased talking; the students respond by quieting down. Once the students are quiet, Mr. Jacobsen

317 gives a number of models of the instruction "use the 'k'" (line 79). He then gives a new initiation, "say that for me 'k'," in line 80. The students respond,

returning the model offered to them (line 81).

Without an evaluation, Mr. Jacobsen gives a new initiation, "Go, comin," in line 82. The students respond to his initiation (line 83). In the evaluation position, Mr. Jacobsen gives a more detailed initiation, "and go straight to the 'n'" (line 84). The students respond, and Mr. Jacobsen models with them simultaneously. The next utterance ("Ready basses? Com , ready and" in line 86) serves to initiate the students singing ("ready basses"), give the starting pitch and word ("Com"), and count the singers off ("ready and"), all in a very compact way.

The basses respond, singing at the appropriate place; only a few tenors come in on their entrance, however. This may be due to Mr. Jacobsen's comment, "ready basses," in line 86. In that the basses start the section, the comment was geared toward the first students to sing. However, the comment could also have been read as a switch in instructed cohort, as well; examples of this can be noted in excerpt #273. Whatever the reason, Mr.

Jacobsen's evaluation and re-initiation (lines 88-89) points out the need of the tenors and baritones in this section. In response, the full ensemble sings the last four measures of the piece, which ends the "Diction Practice" sub­ sequence.

318 The "Singing at the End of the Piece" sequence is returned to in line 91, where Mr. Jacobsen gives a new initiation, "can we start Rock, Elijah Rock, ready?" After giving the starting pitch, Mr. Jacobsen says, "ready basses"; perfectly finding the gap between the "ready basses" (line 92) and the beginning of the count off ("one" in line 94), a student asks, "Mr. Jacobsen?," attempting to get the floor. The student's timing is so good that Mr. Jacobsen charges ahead, and has to halt the momentum of his count off routine, stopping in the middle of the count off to answer, "yes?" This holds the floor for the student.

The student asks a question without a known answer, concerning the diction of the word "I'm." Mr. Jacobsen responds with a model ("I'mmm"), followed by an analysis of the model in jargon ("close straight to the 'n'").

After the student's "OK" (line 98), Mr. Jacobsen gives a sung model, as opposed to the spoken model in line 99. With the phrase, "here we go," Mr.

Jacobsen returns to the business at hand. The starting place is given {"Rock,

Elijah Rock"), a small cohort shift to the tenors is negotiated ("tenors, I need to you start right on the Elijah Rock, right on the octave"), the focus is brought back to the entire ensemble ("here we go"), the starting pitches are played on the piano, and the students are counted off.

When broken down this way, the amount of information presented in lines 97-101 is bewildering. The ensemble stays right with Mr. Jacobsen, however, and responds by singing at the appropriate spot in the music (line

319 102). Actually, most of the students sing at the appropriate spot, but a few start in other spots instead. Mr. Jacobsen stops the ensemble, and explains where it is that he wishes to begin. Another brief shift of cohort occurs, and the sopranos are informed that it is not necessary to sing the high A if they do not wish to. The ensemble is then counted off, and sings together in the same place.

They complete the phrase (and the piece). Mr. Jacobsen evaluates the students' sung response in lines 107-109 by addressing the'm ' as sung by the sopranos and altos. The correct sound is first modeled by Mr. Jacobsen ("you do I'm m m !’). Next, Mr. Jacobsen explains what they should not do ("you don't hum it"), followed by a model of the incorrect sound ("don't just go m m m m m"). Last, another explanation appears as a summary ("cut it off").

The "here we go" signals a return to the entire ensemble as the focus of instruction. Following a fascinating interaction that occurs as a result of a miscommunication of the starting pitches (excerpt #56, detailed in Chapter 4),

Mr. Jacobsen counts the ensemble off, and they begin to sing the last five measures of the piece (Une 115); a spectral analysis of the first note of this response can be seen in Figure 8.7.

A lengthy bit of stopped instruction occurs next (line 116-120). First, the students sung response is evaluated, using jargon ("you've got to get the note in there," "get to the vowel before you go to the'm '"), analogy ("gonna choke yourself ofF'), and modeling ("com-in," " c m m n n n " "coh-min"). A spectral

320 analysis of the spoken "coh" of "coh-min" (Figure 8.8) has a very different

look from the students' sung response in line 115. This is especially true in

the width of the peak frequencies, which, given that Mr. Jacobsen's model was

spoken, are more important than the actual frequencies themselves.

Wedged within the evaluation in lines 116-120 is a re initiation

("Ready?" and the giving of starting pitches) in lines 118-119. The instruction

ends with a count off. The students respond to the line 118 re-initiation, but

are stopped by Mr. Jacobsen. A student offers a self-evaluation of the response

("my fault" in line 122), but Mr. Jacobsen does not appear to notice. Instead he

asks the students to "sit for a second," which they do.

Spectrally, the line 121 response (Figure 8.9) seems to have more in

common with Mr. Jacobsen's model than the students' response in line 115.

The peak frequencies in line 121 are considerably wider, similar to Mr.

Jacobsen's model. Further, the non-harmonic frequencies of the pitch in line

121 are noted by "valleys," in a way like those in the "Jaws" sounds earlier in

the excerpt. The lengthy set of instructions in lines 116-120 (of which Mr.

Jacobsen's modeling was only a part), appeared to have an impact.

The students' sitting down after the sung response serves notice of an

instructional transition, and a sub-sequence begins in line 123, which could be called '"Cornin' Modeling." Mr. Jacobsen gives a new and different initiation in lines 123-125, asking the students to sing the first syllable of the word

"comin" on a single pitch. The initiation is only a model; "do this for me, go

321 com m m m." A few students enter during his count off (line 126), and then

the majority of the ensemble models his sound. In the evaluation position,

Mr. Jacobsen gives the next initiation, another model ("now go co m m -in n "

in line 128). The students again model his sound.

As in line 128, Mr. Jacobsen gives an initiation in the evaluation

position, "do come again" (line 130). In the response, some students model

the line 130 initiation (“commmmmmm" in line 131), while some others

model the line 128 initiation {"comm-innn" in line 132). Mr. Jacobsen

evaluates this response, noting that most of the choir has the word "comin"

at the spot which was being rehearsed; the basses only hold on to the first

syllable, "com." This helps explain the simultaneous modeling in lines 131-

132.

The next initiation by Mr. Jacobsen instructs the students to "do it in

rhythm, cept on the same note," followed by a model of how that will sound

(lines 135-136). He then begins the count off, interrupts himself to again

model what the response should sound like, and finishes the count off. The students respond, singing the last four measures of the piece in rhythm on a single pitch.

Mr. Jacobsen interrupts the students just as they finish, and turns to the sopranos. This serves to select them as the focus of his next comment, "and you have notes" (line 138). He models the sound again, as in lines 135-136, and follows the model with, "don't try to go cmm-nn up lord" which is a

322 model of what he does not want to hear. Other than the "you have notes" comment, the evaluation of the students line 137 response is made up completely of models; sing like this (line 138), not like that (line 139).

The instruction given to the sopranos, Mr. Jacobsen turns back to the full ensemble, says "ready, comin?," and counts off. The students respond, singing the last four measures of the piece again. In the evaluation space, Mr.

Jacobsen gives the last initiation of the sub-sequence, "sing the pitches please"

(line 142). The starting pitches are given, a count off follows, and the ensemble responds, singing the last four measures as written.

A long pause ensues in line 145. The choir waits silently; no one moves, including Mr. Jacobsen. This is another example of a space that is both evaluative and musical. Musically, there traditionally is a pause immediately following the completion of a performance. Such performance- simulating pauses can be found in Chapter 7. None are five seconds long, however; that is a long time in the classroom, as well in music. From an evaluative standpoint, the pause is placed where other "thought pauses" have occurred throughout my observations of the symphonic choir. And indeed, Mr. Jacobsen's next comment (line 146), is an evaluation. The pause functions both as the musical end-of-piece pause and as the pause where Mr.

Jacobsen evaluates the students' response to his instruction.

Mr. Jacobsen's candid evaluation, "I don't like it. But I don't know what to do yet," is followed by a student evaluation, "I don't like it either" in

323 line 147. These comments mark the end of the "'Cornin' Modeling" sub­

sequence. Abruptly, Mr. Jacobsen shifts instructional location, going back to

rehearsal letter E, at the "top of ten" (line 148). The students are asked to

stand, illustrating the return to the "Singing at the End of the Piece" sequence.

No sooner have the students stood, however, than a student gets the

floor, asking "Mr. Jacobsen" immediately after the instruction to stand. It is

the earliest opportunity in the sequence to do so. Mr. Jacobsen's "yes" (line

150) holds the floor for her news, "the 'I'm on the bottom sounds weird." The

student initiation has a known quality to it, in that the student is aware

something is amiss. She does not say luhat is amiss, though; that is the

unknown quality of the initiation.

Mr. Jacobsen responds to the student initiation, describing the vocal

sound of the word "I'm" in detail. First, the vowel is modeled ("ahhh"), with

an accompanying explanation of the model ("you gotta sing ah'). Next, the

word is described using jargon ("ah vowel, then close to 'm'"), followed by

more modeling of the complete word ("afimm, ahm. ts 'ah'. Not 'Tm'").

Last, a further explanation concerning the use of the incorrect sound occurs

("don't try to say 'T because it's not a vowel"), followed by even more

modeling of the correct sound.

After this fairly exhaustive answer to the student initiation in line 151,

Mr. Jacobsen says, "Ready?" and gives the starting pitch, initiating the final segment of the excerpt. Once the count off occurs, the students give their

324 musical response. They sing at two different speeds, however, and Mr.

Jacobsen interrupts them, cutting them off gesturaliy and saying, "I'm sorry"

(line 158). This self-evaluation of gesture is similar both to that of line 28, as

well as to those in excerpts #20-21 and 44-45 of Chapter 4, where Mr. Jacobsen

evaluates the ensemble's ineffectiveness in terms of his own competence.

Mr. Jacobsen gives a count off, and the ensemble responds again (line

159). This time, the ensemble and director become unsynchronized as the

piece reaches its conclusion. Again, as in line 158, Mr. Jacobsen sees this

problem as a gestural issue, and after a tame curse ("ah, toilet water" in line

160), counts the ensemble off one last time. They respond, completing the

piece. Mr. Jacobsen instructs the students to "put that away" (line 162). They

do so, and sit down, ending both the sequence and the excerpt.

There are numerous examples of issues described in Chapters 4-7

within excerpt #281. The sequential organization of the instruction and

instructed cohorts, the manner in which students and Mr. Jacobsen interact,

the design and temporal order of the instruction used by Mr. Jacobsen, and

the use of the members' collective history can all be noted within this brief

excerpt. The most important point to be gleaned from this final case study is

that interaction, instruction, temporal and sequential order, and the

production of ensemble sound are intertwined, often to an astonishing degree.

325 The use of interaction and instruction over time as the symphonic choir creates and refines ensemble sound is not astonishing to Mr. Jacobsen, nor to the symphonic choir's members, of course. Nor is it confusing or random; it is just the "way things are done," systematically and reliably.

In the next, final chapter, the "way things are done" as the choir prepared for its contest performance are summarized, with consideration given to the implications of these accomplishments, within as well as beyond

Mr. Jacobsen's classroom. Finally, I present future directions in which this exploration may lead.

326 CHAPTER 9

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS, PROFESSIONAL IMPLICATIONS, AND

DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This study focused of the connections among interaction, instruction and the resulting ensemble sounds as a high school chorus prepared for a competitive performance. The ethnographic task was to explore the pedagogy of the preparations. More specifically, how was rehearsal interaction, choral instruction and ensemble sound organized in this choral ensemble while it prepared for its contest performance?

The purpose of this final chapter is to give a summary of the conclusions reached in the study. Additionally, I suggest implications of the conclusions in the music education profession, as well as directions for further research.

327 Summary Conclusions

The results of this observational study have been placed into five categories. They are: Interaction, instruction, ensemble sound, temporality within rehearsal, and temporality beyond rehearsal.

Interaction.

The recurring interactions initiated by Mr. Jacobsen consisted of questions and comments with an already known answer, as well as questions and comments that had no known answer. Many of these questions were positioned around issues of musical familiarity and competence for both Mr.

Jacobsen and the students.

The teacher-initiated questions with a known answer (excerpts #1-9) were each based on topics of instruction where Mr. Jacobsen was the clear expert, and the questions were asked in order to further detail or change an aspect of the choral ensemble sound. In only two excerpts, though, were the questions related to issues within the sound. In all the others, the questions dealt with details about the sound, such as diction. These excerpts show an interactive format similar to those noted by McHoul (1978) and Mehan (1979,

1982). The teacher-initiated questions with no known answer (excerpts #10-

13) resembled questions asked in casual conversation (Sacks, Schegloff &

Jefferson, 1974) instead of questions with a known answer.

328 Other teacher-initiated questions (excerpts #14-21) related to issues of either musical or instructional competency. These questions either were built around musical disagreements, or they asked the students to make assessments about their own musical competencies that Mr. Jacobsen was either unwilling or unable to make. A few questions (excerpts #22-23) took the allowance of student evaluation to the point that Mr. Jacobsen participated more or less as an equal member with the students, where everyone worked collaboratively toward a practical goal. This occurred when the student processional was the topic of interaction.

Student-initiated questions which focus on how an ensemble sound is made in a given setting (excerpts #24-38) make up the bulk of the student- initiated interactions. These questions run along a continuum, from questions in which the student requests information to those in which the student needs clarification due to multiple and contradictory "correct" answers, to those in which the student is leading Mr. Jacobsen into certain musical instructions. Nevertheless, most all of these student questions follow McHoul's components of student talk: Getting the floor, holding the floor, and delivering news (actually, requesting that Mr. Jacobsen deliver news).

Student-initiated questions which focus on who is the topic of instruction, as well as the circumstances surrounding the instruction

(excerpts #39-47) are the most varied questions of all the interactions studied.

329 Like excerpts #24-38, the work of these interactions in excerpts #39-47 is to organize the music making. Unlike excerpts #24-38, however, these interactions do not work within the music itself. To that end, these interactions fix on topics around and about the music, such as which pieces are on the concert program, which section is supposed to be singing at a particular time, in what tonal center is the piece currently being sung, and whether or not the music should be sung by memory.

A.nother set of student-interactions (excerpts #48-55) show students and

Mr. Jacobsen as collaborators in the delicate matter of creating both ensemble sound and social space with and for one another. Included are matters of correcting one another in an acceptable way, as well as of jointly producing the interactional scenes that are the focus of these excerpts. The make up of this collaboration is a very sensitive and turbulent issue; both the sensitivity and the turbulence of the students and Mr. Jacobsen is evident.

Finally, one instance within teacher and student interactions is analyzed, where both verbal interaction and musical understanding are entangled. Within the one detailed case analyzed in Chapter 4, the musical act of playing the piano served both perceptual purposes and interactive ones.

This leads to the possibility that musical accomplishments can serve interactive purposes, all the while standing alongside verbal accomplishments.

330 Instruction.

The majority of instructing that went on in the observed symphonic choir rehearsals consisted of teacher-initiated directives delivered between episodes of ensemble singing. This is consistent with the literature (Caldwell,

1980; Flowers, 1990; Watkins, 1986), and suggests that stopped instruction is a primary method of refining the ensemble sound. In fact, both Mr. Jacobsen's evaluations of the students and the spectral analysis indicate the students make changes to the sound as a result of even the more vague analogies and models.

Of the stopped instruction used, it was a relatively rare occurrence for

Mr. Jacobsen to use analogy or modeling by themselves. This makes great pedagogical sense; research into learning styles (Gardner, 1993; McCarthy,

1987) indicates that students leam things in completely different ways, and

Mr. Jacobsen's ability to mix up jargon, analogy, and modeling allow for a number of interpretations of the same goal.

The variety of student meaning derived from stopped instruction was thrown into relief in the analysis of the "womanly sound" analogy. Students and Mr. Jacobsen approached both w h a t a womanly sound was and ho w such a sound was produced differently. Despite this, the analogy and the results of the analogy were effective enough for Mr. Jacobsen to use it a number of times during my observations.

331 Real-time instructions were also used frequently by Mr. Jacobsen. In

addition to using jargon, analogy, and modeling in real-time, Mr. Jacobsen

also showed a masterful use of musical transitional-relevant places (TRP),

into which instruction could be precisely placed. The advantage of real-time

instruction is its detail in indexing a specific spot in the music just then, as

was noted by students and Mr. Jacobsen alike. In the fullness of instruction,

all of the variations of stopped and real-time instruction were intermingled,

as the analysis of the different methods of teaching a single musical problem

in the Mozart "Laudate Pueri" indicated.

Ensemble sound.

The ensemble sounds that were the focus of the instruction and

interaction in this study were purposefully and thoughtfully crafted and re­ crafted by the students of the Symphonic Choir, with direction and collaboration of Mr. Jacobsen. Both the perceptions of the members (viewed

through their verbal utterances) and the physical sounds themselves (viewed through spectral analysis) contribute to this conclusion.

Concerning the spectral analysis, the results are mixed. Some analyses are useful indicators of sounds that, gradually and consistently, change over time as the result of instruction and interaction. Other analyses show sounds that are remarkably similar in their acoustical make-up, regardless of

332 instruction. These analyses can be considered as (1) indicators of the students' consistency as they create sounds over and over again, and/or (2) suggestions that the analyses were not able to pick up changes in sound every time.

The latter comes as no surprise, and supports other research (Figgs,

1978; Serafine, 1982; Weeks, 1996) which indicates a distinction between musical sound as it is created in context and musical sound as a physical, but static, entity. More important in terms of this study, 1 think, is the conclusion that spectral analysis was useful in indicating what the sonic results of students attempts were, as well as in comparing attempts to each other when acoustical properties of sound were changing. What spectral analysis fails to do is show either why orhozv any such changes occurred. Further, spectral analysis only explores the acoustical element of a sound. Any changes of rhythm, articulation, etc., would not necessarily be represented in the sound transcript that spectral analysis provides. In other words, this study provides support for Weeks (1996) and Serafine (1982), when they draw clear lines between music-as-acoustical-object and music-as-meaning-through- interaction. The two may be closely related, and at times are complementary, but they are not physically the same.

Because of this unresolved distinction, the distinction between music making as a process of sonic sculpture and music making as a more complicated form of conversational interaction is also left unresolved. From one perspective, the observed rehearsals indicate that both musical utterances

333 and verbal utterances can fit together in conversational sequences (verbal initiation-sung response-verba I evaluation, for example). Further, both musical utterances and verbal utterances can fit together in musical sequences

(as in the use of transition-relevant places in real-time instruction).

There is another perspective, in which Mr. Jacobsen crafts the sound much as a sculptor crafts a lump of clay, with the students serving as the clay, and voicing the musical result of his instruction. Such a view is supported by many of the spectral analyses in which the sound evolves over different attempts.

The distinction lies in the role of the students' singing. From one perspective, the students sing as a partner-in-interaction; they are making music with the teacher, collaboratively. From another perspective, the students are making audible the teacher's wishes; the emphasis is on the sound, not the students' making of the sound. Such a distinction is easy to find in this study, and a resolution of this distinction is beside the point, and probably not possible. In fact, both perspectives can (and perhaps mmsf) exist simultaneously. My point is to emphasize the existence of this distinction between art-makers and artifact that both Serafine (1982) and Weeks (1996) have noted.

334 Temporality within rehearsal.

To carefully examine the sense of temporality within the symphonic

choir's rehearsals, I looked at some of the observed rehearsals sequentially, in

order to get a feel for the shape of the ensemble's preparations over time.

To examine the shape of pedagogy, I looked at the preparation of the

"Laudate Pueri" over a number of rehearsals. Teaching the "Laudate Pueri" to

the students was an organic process. As the rehearsals progressed, the students' and Mr. Jacobsen's collaborative work became more and more

intricate. While no one would be surprised at the growing musical intricacy, a pedagogical growth was intertwined, as well. Just as the music was considered from an increasingly complex and detailed perspective, so too was the pedagogy used to teach that music. The ensemble and director, like the music being rehearsed, grew considerably.

The structure of the pedagogy grew from an exclusive focus on the complete ensemble, through a complex (and sometimes confusing) series of cohort shifts, to a mostly full-ensemble-based focus with brief asides to smaller cohorts. Both stopped and real-time instruction are used, except for excerpt #268, where real-time instruction is almost exclusively used. When stopped instruction is used, jargon, analogy and modeling can all be found, often together in the same utterance.

The organic growth of the pedagogy of the "Laudate Pueri" can be most clearly seen in the students' responses to instruction, both as singers and as

3 3 5 partners within interactive sequences. Excerpts #268 and #272 were both run-throughs, placed at the beginning and at the end of the instruction over time. In those excerpts, the students sang comparatively few segments; those segments, however were lengthy. The only two observed complete performances of the piece occurred in these two excerpts.

The students sang far m ore frequently in excerpts #269-271; these segments were considerably shorter, though. Also worth noting is that, between excerpt #269 and #271, the length of the sung segments gradually lengthened. As the students got better, they had more to sing.

Concerning interaction, an interesting trend can be traced. As the excerpts progress, Mr. Jacobsen's questions became less likely to have a pre­ determined known answer. Moreover, the students gradually began to ask questions to get information, then ask questions because of inconsistencies either in the music, in the students' performance, or in Mr. Jacobsen. Finally, questions were asked which served as de facto instructions. As the excerpts progress, the students' increasing ability allows for a stronger role in music making, and in talking within music.

To examine the shape of instruction, 1 looked at a single day's rehearsal, from bell to bell. Within this one rehearsal, there were a number of changes regarding who was being instructed and what it was that they were doing. These changes were not random or abrupt, however; they happened

336 in regular and consistent ways throughout the rehearsal. Such consistency

points to a local format of instructional shape that is familiar and understood

by both students and Mr. Jacobsen.

The use of instructional focus in the "Becoming a Choir" sequence

serves a different instructional purpose than that in the other sequences. Its

design, which is consistent with other rehearsals observed, serves to gradually

focus the students on being members of a singing ensemble. This is

accomplished by the students (moving into place, facing forward, talking less)

and well as by Mr. Jacobsen (accelerating instruction). It is the most

collaborative of achievements; without both parties' cooperation, the students

cannot become a choir.

The use of both large and small shifts in the instructional cohort is a

recurring feature of this case study. While some shifts seem part of a pre-

established formal routine, most others occurred as instruction warranted it.

As in other instances noted in my observations of the symphonic choir, the

instruction was only conceivable after a musical event just occurred. The

larger shifts of instructed cohort result in a change of the direction of

instruction. The smaller shifts of cohort are merely asides; the instruction at

hand is paused before theses shifts, and resumed thereafter.

These larger shifts of instructed cohort are most clearly seen by standing and sitting cues, which are often given by Mr. Jacobsen. When these

337 cues are not given, the students sometimes accomplish the sit/stand cue themselves, showing an awareness both of the shift of cohort and of the use of sitting or standing within that shift. Occasionally, other cues, such as talking or avoiding contact with the music among the members not in the instructed cohort, can also be seen.

Last, the idea of "synthesis-analysis-synthesis" seems to apply to the use of the instructed cohort, as well. In both the "Een So Lord Jesus" and

"Laudate Pueri" sequences, instruction began and ended with the full ensemble, while the sections in between had a number of shifts of instructed cohort. The "Elijah Rock" sequence also supports this idea, as the ending of the sequence is the end of the rehearsal, not any kind of instructional end to the sequence.

Shifts of instructed cohort and the manner of their execution are easily seen in this case study of a single class. Episodes of instruction are tied together sequentially, sometimes in obvious transitions, other times in brief asides. Both Mr. Jacobsen and the students are keenly aware of this important component of rehearsal, and respond consistently to each other's actions.

Finally, in order to examine the shape of interaction, 1 looked at a sequence of instruction from the middle of a rehearsal. The intertwining of verbal instruction and musical responses seems to fit in with the initiation- response-evaluation sequence as noted by Mehan (1979, 1982). Verbal

3 3 8 initiations are followed by musical responses by the choir, which are followed by the verbal evaluations of Mr. Jacobsen, The evaluations, however, are often combined with the subsequent initiation, or are missing entirely.

When instruction is given in real-time, it is almost exclusively delivered in the transition-relevant places in the music, where a phrase comes to an end and the students would be likely to breathe. While this shows sensitivity to those places, it does not necessarily mean that Mr.

Jacobsen is interactionally sagacious. After all, the music is like a script; the transition-relevant places will occur in the same places, each time. This is unlike casual conversation, or even classroom conversation, where such places evolve temporally as the conversation progresses. Comparatively, music making is much more ritualized.

This is not to say that temporal elements do not find their way into this excerpt. The whole-step/ half-step episode is an example of an instance where just what the topic of discussion is can only be determined as instruction progresses, and after the music is made. It takes the unfolding of teacher and student interaction to determine precisely which interval is being discussed, as well as whether that specific interval is a whole- or half-step.

The above case studies show how interaction and instruction cannot just be discussed as types or collections. Each utterance has a context; there is a temporal flow that runs through the observed rehearsals, involving transitions of cohort, changes of instructive style over time, and interactions

339 between teacher and students. In these case studies, this temporal flow can be

seen, and the interactions, instruction and ensemble sound of Mr. Jacobsen

and the symphonic choir put into context.

Temporality beyond rehearsal: Simulations and local histories.

Even as the rehearsals 1 observed operated with temporal detail,

indexing events that just occurred, and preparing events that are just about to

occur, so to did instruction use long-term ideas of temporality. Through

instructional simulations, Mr. Jacobsen and the students in the symphonic

choir were able to look forward at future events such as the sight-reading

experience at contest, the performance of repertoire, and the performance of

the processional. Although these simulations were not exactly like the

performances, they were similar to each other in design, and different in

design from other episodes of rehearsal. Issues such as the architecture and

type of instruction, the design of the cohorts which were instructed, the

creation of performance-appropriate space, and the physical positioning of

students were uniquely used in simulations; the behavior of students differed

on occasion, as well.

While simulations looked forward, Mr. Jacobsen used the local history of the symphonic choir experience to look back, and use previous events to aid in his own instruction. Previous repertoire, earlier concerts, recent

3 4 0 rehearsals of other pieces, and Mr. Jacobsen's own history with regards to the choral contest all served as a base on which instruction, interaction, and the making of musical ensemble sound was built.

Implications for the Profession

Some implications relate to specific findings within the study. The students' initiations were surprising to me, both in terms of the vantage point of the question—as more-or-less-partners in the music making process, instead of as obvious novices—and in terms of the quantity of questions.

Also surprising was the number of initiations by Mr. Jacobsen to which there was no predetermined known answer. This suggests a more complex teacher- student interactive relationship than perhaps seen in other classrooms.

Kennell's comment, "we work with our students" (1989, p. 85) seems particularly pertinent here. My observations show that such cooperative work can lead to effective performance; the lines between teacher-with-the- known-answer and student-with-no-known-answer can be blurred, with effective results.

Such teacher-student togetherness leads me away from a common misconception of the music creating experience, that of viewing the director as a sculptor, and of viewing the ensemble as the mass of clay. Spectrally, the analogy is apt; sounds clearly change as instruction progresses, as the analysis

341 shows. However, the "clay" in the classroom talks back to the "sculptor,"

making suggestions and ultimately collaborating with the sculptor to remake

itself. The best music educator still makes no sound in performance.

Regarding instruction, it would perhaps be wise to reconsider some

notions about instruction as an ensemble is performing. While there are

some understandable concerns (such as the impact of the students' listening

to instruction while performing upon their attention spans), the students and

Mr. Jacobsen both found such instruction to be both useful and time-saving.

The real-time instruction observed in this study was strongly temporal,

indexing an event that occurred just there. Used in this specific fashion, real­

time instruction is an interactional tool that should not be unjustly ignored.

On the other hand, it is important to note that benefit of real-time instruction

was interactional, and not necessary pedagogical.

Mr. Jacobsen mixed up types of instruction; jargon, analogy and

modeling were stirred together to the point that they were inseparable. This

is good for his students, and such instructional diversity could also be good

for the profession. There are a number of ways to say the same thing, and

sometimes it takes all of them to get the point across (witness the myriad

ways Mr. Jacobsen approaches the articulation of the basses in measure three

of "Laudate Pueri").

In a previous chapter, I quoted Payne and Hustler (1980), who wrote that "experienced teachers may well manage their classes in such taken for

342 granted ways that they are not consciously aware of the nature of their accomplishment" (p. 49). It is worth citing again; the idea that astounding and complex systems of interaction and instructional pedagogy occurred every day in completely matter-of-fact, taken-for-granted ways is one of the central finding of the study. As Chapter 8 shows, interaction, instruction, the creating of ensemble sounds, temporality within rehearsal, and temporality beyond rehearsals all take place beside (and occasionally inside) each other.

There is no script, outside of the scaffolding of the ritualistic and formal structure that any classroom provides. Yet the variety of goings on is not a melee; there are rules and systems for dealing with each instance, such that almost everything goes off without a hitch.

The implications of this are profound, more so than any specific system or set of rules. Mr. Jacobsen is, by the accounts of the singers in his care as well as by the community of experts of which he is a member, a fine musician and a good teacher. When such teachers are observed in action, often non­ educators praise them by admitting that teachers like Mr. Jacobsen have a special "something" in the classroom that novice- or non-educators lack.

1 suggest that this ability to thrive in and utilize such a complex and changing climate of interaction and instruction as a classroom could be an important part of that special "something." If this is the case, then an important part of teaching (and learning) success concerns the ability of a teacher to communicate in the local classroom setting with an intuitive

343 awareness of what is going on. Interactional knowing is a far cry from content and instructional knowledge. The systems and rules that I observed could be the delivery systems through which content and instructional knowledge are put to good use.

This is complicated by the apparently unique nature of instruction in music. Music's own temporal nature, as well as the constant recurrence of music-making—in a way, e v e ry musical effort is a performance—allows for interactions that are common in a musical setting but uncommon in other settings, such as the opportunities for students to be equal partners in the final product of the classroom, as in the processional. If music classrooms are unique due to the presence of music, then music educators would be well served to be comfortable musicians themselves. After all, much of what 1 observed could only be reached by Mr. Jacobsen through modeling and analogy. Modeling and analogy are hard work; Mr. Jacobsen often recycled analogies that were particularly useful to him, but more often than not, was constantly suggesting new analogies, saying the same thing in a different way.

Both what an educator says and how it is said is an important part of teaching.

Just as important as what and how one instructs is the matter oi when.

Mr. Jacobsen's pinpoint accuracy in the use of real-time instruction and transition-relevant space, as well as the commonalities of music instruction with the initiation-response-evaluation sequence, suggests that the temporal placement of instruction and interaction is every bit as important to the

344 creation of ensemble sound as what that instruction is and how it is placed.

This is a point not to be ignored in preparing and improving music educators.

The issue of when has long-term purchase, as well. The types of instruction and interaction found in a rehearsal of the symphonic choir was to a large degree dependent on the place of the rehearsal within the preparation cycle. Again, this may be something that is an "intangible" part of an accomplished teacher, as the effective use of an ensemble's shared local history may be. At any rate, the sense of place within the broader timescape of an ensemble's preparations and experiences is an important consideration.

Directions for Further Research

I have suggested above that a teacher's ability to easily negotiate the web of interaction and instruction in a music classroom as time evolves may be a central "something" that accomplished teachers have, while novice or unsuccessful teachers lack. By this, I mean "unsuccessful" in terms of interactional competence, and not musical competence.

Following from this, it would be sensible to pursue this by investigating interaction and instruction among novice teachers, perhaps among student teachers. If the above suggestion has any bearing, than it would be important to explore how inexperienced teachers fare in the interactional world of a classroom. Moreover, it would be interesting to

345 observe how they learn to become competent; the process may be similar to

the symphonic choir members' learning to become competent musicians.

Another topic worthy of further consideration is the relationship

between the music classroom and an "academic" classroom in terms of the

initiation-response-evaluation sequence. Given the lack of consensus

regarding the similarities of music and language, it is anything but a given

that the fit is a comfortable one. Still, there are parallels and similarities,

which this study shows. An important consideration would be the format of

the setting. While a choral ensemble is a formal, scripted musical setting,

perhaps a more improvisitory setting (such as a jazz choir) would allow for a

fair comparison between settings.

Finally, there is the question of the competence of the ensemble within

the processes observed in this study. Would a less competent ensemble

respond to instruction and interaction in a similar, or completely different,

way? How would a more competent ensemble respond?

Mr. Jacobsen and the students of the symphonic choir brought

meaning to their choral sounds, making them into music. This was not

accomplished through sleight-of-hand or through inspirational and ethereal

disclosures. It was accomplished by talking within the music, each minute of each rehearsal. A great deal can be learned by paying attention to those things which are so familiar that they almost escape notice.

346 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aiello, R.. (1994). Music and language: Parallels and contrasts. In R. Aiello (Ed.), Musical perceptions (pp. 40-63). New York: Oxford University Press.

Apfelstadt, H. (1989). Musical thinking in the choral rehearsal. In E. Boardman (Ed.), Dimensions of musical thinking (pp. 73-81). Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.

Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (1977). Mock-ups and cock-ups: The stage- management of guided discovery instruction. In P. Woods & M. Hammersley (Eds.), School experience: Explorations in the sociology of education (p. 87- 108). London: Groom Helm.

Baker, C. (1982). Adolescent-adult talk as a practical interpretive problem. In G. Payne & E. Cuff (Eds.), Doing teaching: The practical management of classrooms (pp. 104-125). London: Batsford Academic and Educational Ltd.

Baker, C. (1992). Description and analysis in classroom talk and interaction. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27(2), 9-14.

Balzano, G. (1986). What are musical pitch and timbre? Music Perception, 3, 297-314.

Bamberger, J. (1994). Coming to hear in a new way. In R. Aiello (Ed.), Musical perceptions (pp. 131-151). New York: Oxford University Press.

Becker, H. (1982). Art worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

347 Bloor, M. (1988). Notes on member validation. In R. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: A collection of readings. Prospect Heights, IJ: Waveland Press.

Bremme, D., & Erickson, F. (1977). Relationships among verbal and nonverbal classroom behaviors. Theory Into Practice, 16,153-161.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Butler, D. (1992). The musician's guide to perception and cognition. New York: Schirmer Books.

Caldwell, W. (1980). A time analysis of selected musical elements and leadership behaviors of successful high school conductors (Doctoral dissertation. The Florida State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 976A.

Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education, journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23,2-33.

Cogan, R. (1984). New images in musical sound. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cox, J. (1989). Rehearsal organization structures used by successful high school choral directors, journal of Research in Music Education, 37, 201-218.

Eisenhower, E. (1991). An approach to achieving the impressionistic effect in the choral music of Claude Debussy (Doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 1123A.

Emerson, R., & Pollner, M. (1988). On the uses of members' responses to researchers' accounts. Human Organization, 47,189-197.

Erbes, R. (1972). The development of an observational system for the analysis of interaction in the rehearsal of musical organizations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).

Erickson, R. (1975). Sound structure in music. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

3 4 8 Erickson, F., & Shultz, J, (1981). When is a context? Some issues and m ethods in the analysis of social competence. In J. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 147-160). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Figgs, L. (1978). Q ualitative differences in trum pet tones as perceived by listeners and by acoustical analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas).

Fiocca, P. (1986). A descriptive analysis of the rehearsal behaviors of selected exemplary junior high and middle school choir directors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University).

Flanders, N. (1970). A nalyzing teaching behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Flowers, P. (1983). The effect of instruction in vocabulary and listening on nonmusicians' descriptions of changes in music, journal of Research in Music Education, 31,179-189.

Flowers, P. (1984). A ttention to elements of music and effect of instruction in vocabulary on written descriptions of music by children and undergraduates. Psychology of Music, 12(1), 17-24.

Flowers, P. (1990, March). Verbalization about music Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Music Educators National Conference, Washington, DC.

Funk, C. (1982). Verbal Imagery: Illuminator of the expressive content in choral music (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 1339A.

Cabrielsson, A. (1985). Interplay between analysis and synthesis in studies of music performance and music experience. Music Perception, 3, 59-86.

Gardner, H. (1993). M ultiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.

Cordon, E. (1989). Learning sequences in music Chicago: C.l.A.

Green, J., & Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional conversations—A sociolinguistic ethnography. In J. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 161-205). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

349 Cuba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hair, H. (1981). Verbal identification of music concepts, journal of Research in Music Education, 29,11-21.

Heap, J. (1982). Understanding classroom events: A critique of Durkin, with an alternative, journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 391-411.

Heap, J. (1990). Applied ethnomethodology: Looking for the local rationality of reading activities. Human Studies, 13, 39-72.

Heap, J. (1992). Seeing snubs: An introduction to sequential analysis of classroom interaction. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27(2), 23-28.

Heyman, R. (1983). Basic issues in the interpretive paradigm: A response to Messrs. Heap, Munby, and Olson. Curriculum Inquiry, 13,429-433.

Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction to school-based research (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Kennell, R. (1989). Musical thinking in the instrumental rehearsal. In E. Boardman (Ed.), Dimensions of musical thinking (pp. 83-89). Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.

Krueger, P. (1987). Ethnographic research methodology in music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35,69-77.

Kushner, S. (1991). Musicians go to schooj: A case of knowledge, control, and cross-professional action. American Educational Research Journal, 28,275-296.

Langer, P. (1972). Some observations on Flanders' system of interaction analysis. College Student Journal, 6,10-14.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Leonhard, C , & House, R. (1972). Foundations and principles of music education (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

350 Lincoln, Y., & Cuba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Lindsay, J. (1990). Classroom discourse analysis: A review of the literature with implications for educational evaluation, loumal of Research and Development in Education, 23,107-116.

Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Macbeth, D. (1994a). Classroom encounters with the unspeakable: "Do you see, Danelle?." Discourse Processes, 17, 311-335.

Macbeth, D. (1994b). Resuming: The final contingency of reproach. Qualitative Studies in Education, 7,135-154.

Madsen, C., & Ceringer, J. (1990). Differential patterns of music listening: Focus of attention of musicians versus nonmusicians. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 105,45-57.

Madsen, C., & Ceringer, J. (1981). Discrimination between tone quality and intonation in unaccompanied flute/oboe duets, journal of Research in Music Education, 29, 305-313.

Madsen, C., Ceringer, J., & Heller, J. (1993/1994). Comparison of good versus bad tone quality of accompanied and unaccompanied vocal and string performances. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 119, 93-100.

McCarthy, B. (1987). The 4mat system: Teaching to learning styles with right/ left mode techniques. Barrington, IJ: EXCEL, Inc.

McHouI, A. (1978). The organization of turns of formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7,183-213.

McNeill, D. (1985). Language viewed as action. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 258- 270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

351 Mehan, H. (1982). The structure of classroom events and their consequences for student performance. In P. Gilmore & A. Clatthom (Eds.), Children in and out of school (pp. 59-87). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Meyer, L. B. (1996). Com mentary. Music Perception, 13,455-483.

Meyer, L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Mischler, E. (1986). Research interviewing. Cambridge, MA: H arvard University Press.

Moerman, M., & Sacks, H. (1988). On "understanding" in the analysis of natural conversation. In M. Moerman (Ed.), Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis (pp. 180-186). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Moore, R. (1996). Aspects of choral ensemble: Definitions and applications of selected outstanding university choral conductors (Doctoral dissertation. The University of Missouri-Kansas City). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 508A.

Morgan, R. (1992). A study of a director’s behaviors and his students’ perceptions in a high school choral ensemble (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 1836A.

Munby, H. (1983). A perspective for analyzing the significance of qualitative research. Curriculum Inquiry, 13,423-427.

Murray, L, & Amott, J. (1993). Toward simulation of emotion in synthetic speech: A review of the literature on human vocal emotion. loumal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93,1097-1108.

Nannour, E. (1992). The analysis and cognition of melodic com plexity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Olson, J. (1983). Comments on "clarifying meaning through classroom talk’. Curriculum Inquiry, 13,419-422.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Q ualitative evaluation and research m ethods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

352 Payne, G., & Cuff, E. (1982). Introduction: Some theoretical considerations for practical research. In G. Payne & E. Cuff (Eds.), Doing teaching: The practical management of classrooms (pp. 1-13). London: Batsford Academic and Educational Ltd.

Payne, G., & Hustler, D. (1980). Teaching the class: The practical management of a cohort. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1,49-66.

Price, H. (1992). Sequential patterns of music instruction and learning to use them, journal of Research in Music Education, 40,14-29.

Rhoads, M. (1990). Decision-making in the choral rehearsaj: A study of five outstanding high school choral directors using stimulated recall (Doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 2674A.

Rosner, 8. (1984) A generative theory of tonal music by Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff [book review). Music Perception, 2, 275-290.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50,696-735.

Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self­ correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361- 382.

Schütz, A. (1964). Making music together A study in social relationship. In A. Broderssen (Ed.), Collected papers, studies in social theory (pp. 159-178). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Schütz, A. (1976). Collected papers II. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Schütz, A. (1976). Fragments on the phenomenology of music. Music and Man, 2 ,5-71.

Serafine, M. L. (1988). Music as cognition. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1986). Talking and teaching: Reflective comments on in-classroom activities. In G. Payne & D. Hustler (Eds.), Doing teaching. London: Batsford Academic Press.

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press.

3 5 3 Sloboda, J. (1985). The musical mind: The cognitive psychology of music. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Smoot, R. (1986). The synthesis and manipulation of fused ensemble timbres and sound masses by means of digital signal processing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University).

Sudnow, D. (1978). Ways of the hand: The organization of improvised conduct. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Suzuki, S. (1983). Nurtured by love: The classic approach to talent education (2nd ed.). Smithtown, NY: Exposition Press.

Swain, J. (1994). Music perception and musical com m unities. Music Perception, 11, 307-320.

Tyson, T. (1988). A descriptive case study of a m aster teacher's verbal behavior in a high school choral rehearsal (Doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 299A.

U memo to, T. (1990). The psychological structure of music. Music Perception, 8 ,115-128.

Walker, R., & Adelman, C. (1975). Interaction analysis in informal classrooms: A critical comment on the Flanders' system. British journal of Educational Psyctvalogv, 45,73r75.

Watkins, R. (1986). A descriptive study of high school choral directors' use of modeling, metaphorical language, and musical/technical language related to student attentiveness (Doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1644A.

Watson, D. R. (1992). Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and education: An overview. International Review of Education, 38, 257-274.

Webb, E., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Weeks, P. (1983). An ethnomethodologicai study of collective music- making (Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, 1982).

Weeks, P. (1990). Musical time as a practical accomplishment: A change in tempo. Human Studies, 13,323-359. 354 Weeks, P. (1996). Synchrony lost, synchrony regained: The achievement of musical co-ordination. Human Studies, 19,199-228.

Yarbrough, C., & Price, H. (1989). Sequential patterns of instruction in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 3 7 ,179-187.

355 APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF TRANSCRIPT MARKINGS

356 / / Interruption of current speaker by next speaker.

[ Speakers begin simultaneously.

= Latching; no interval between the end of a prior piece and start of a next piece of talk.

(N.n) Elapsed time without talk, in tenths of seconds.

(.) Micropause (less than .5 seconds).

(hhh) Audible breathing.

( ) Inaudible talk; quiet talk is also found in parentheses.

- A 'cut-off of a prior word or sound.

::: A drawing out of a sound.

Text is written as heard, not according to grammatical convention.

Punctuation markers are used as phrasing and intonation, not according to grammatical convention.

Stressed words and word portions are underlined.

Italicized comments were sung, and not spoken; utterances spoken over singing are marked with an asterisk.

Source: Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974); Schegloff, Sacks & Jefferson (1977)

357 APPENDIX B

TITLES AND PUBLISHERS OF MUSIC REHEARSED BY THE SYMPHONIC CHOIR

358 Abbreviation Title C om poser ______Publisher

ER Elijah Rock M. Hogan Hal Leonard

AL Alleluia R. Manuel Hinshaw

EEN Een So, Lord Jesus P. Manz Mornings tar Quickly Come

LP Laudate Pueri W. A. Mozart Lawson-Could

IF If Love Should j. Mullholland Plymouth Count You Worthy

359 APPENDIX C

COLLECTED SPECTRAL ANALYSES

360 N . / i . All spectral analyses are nieasnred in Jhujiienlly (horizontal axis; Hz) and in intensity (vertical axis; DbVnns).

Line 4

-7 0 .0 -ÇO.Q

iCO.O

1 0 * 5 I ■ - { . 500 C 5000.0 1500.0 MOO.O 2500.0 5000.0 3500.0 - 4000

' Line 6

-3 0 .U-

-4 0 .0 -5 0 .0 -6 0 .0 -

-7 0 0 -

000 c

Figure 4 .1 : Piano performance of F3 in line 4 (above) and line 6 (below) of Excerpt #8 . Cursors mark the fundamental (grey) and second partial (white).

361 Before lines 18-19

••iu.O

-30.0

-9 0 ,0

!tQ.Or 15:3

After lines 18-19

-30.7 ^ 0:0-

-6o:cr;

80.CF lOO'.O.f

420.0-

■137.7 0.0 500.0 1030.0 1 500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000

Figure 5.1: Soprano performance of Bbg before (above) and after (below) the instruction in lines 18-19 of Excerpt #122. Cursors mark the fundamental (grey) and second partial (white).

3 6 2 Line 100

-40.0 5 0 .0 -

- 6 0 .0 -

-7 0 .0 —

8 0 .0 -

-9 0 .0

;ocjo '

If6.3:.. ... 0.0 -200.0*-^ 400.Ô'.ïr.60Ô.O 800JO - todo.O'W2ÙG±i%f400l6

Line 103

-30.0% -40:0? -50.Π- 6 0 .0

- 7 0 .0 80.0- -9Q.0 ;oo.o 110.0-j 118.0 0,0 200.0 400 0 800.0 800.0 SQCO.O 1200.0 1400 0 1600.0 1800.0 20»:'

Figure 5.2: Chorus performance of "ee" from "jesus", in line 100 (above) and line 103 (below) of Excerpt #141. Cursors mark the soprano Dbg fundamental (grey) and second partial (white).

3 6 3 Bol ore linos 151-153

-4 0 0

60 0 -

7 0 .0 -

-80.0^ -86 .8 -f 0.0 - 20Ô.Ô -400.0 60Ô.0 000.0 '1000:0 (200:0

After lines 151-153

-17.6-1

- 3 0 .0 4

5 0 0 -

6 0 .0 -

rc .G -

?C.-3=« 200.0 400 0 600 0 SOO 0 1000 .0 1200 0 UODO 1600 0 1800

Figure 5.3: Bass performance of A 3 before (above) and after (below) lines 151- 153 of Excerpl #152. Cursors mark the fundamental (grey) and second partial (white).

364 I’loforc lines 72-75

îO.O- -4 0 .0 -

-»iO0 — -7 0 U - à -30.0

-9 0 .0 -

100.0 - t0 6 .5 - 500.0 .1000.8 1500.0 2000.0'' :2SOOa - SIOŒOx 35^ ' 4000

After lines 72-75

- 1 5 .3 -,

-4 0 .0 -5 0 .0

-3 0 .0

-30.0

100.0

, 000 Ü 150 0 I 2000 0 3 0 0 0 0 S500 0

Figure 5.4: Chorus performance before (above) and after (below) lines 72-75 of Excerpt #134. Cursors mark the bass Abg fundamental (grey) and soprano Abg fundamental (white).

365 [k'lore lines 87-88

-4 0 .0

-50 .G

6 0 .0 -

r8 0 .0

90 0 -

- 9 7 .9 - ' ; 5 0 0 :0 iso o a ' zssoa

After lines 87-88

-27.0-1 Ü I ; In -4 0 .0

-5 0 .0

-6 0 .0

-7 0 .0 I'M’

-911.0

50 0 0 ICOO.G iOO.O 2 0 0 0 0 2500.0 3 0 0 0 C 3 5 0 0

Figure 5.5: Chorus performance before (above) and after (below) lines 87-88 of Excerpt #137. Cursors mark the bass Ag fundamental (grey) and soprano Eg fundamental (white). 366 Lino 184

-•sO.O-

-40.0

5 0 .0 -

801)- f i

5 0 0 .0 - 1000.0 «tîS0îfâfê^i:-2d&bi ■

Line 190

-2 5 .5

5 0 .0 - cXj'XSr-

-7 0 .0 -

-:30.0-

-SOJO-

lOO.U-

■500 0 iOGC 0 1500 0 2000.0 250C.0 3 0 0 0

Figure 5.6: Chorus performance in line 184 (above) and line 190 (below) of Excerpt #163. Cursors mark the soprano Dg fundamental (grey) and second partial (white).

367 -50.Ü - -'Ü3.0 U i ;0.0~

90.0-

tio.o •117.8 0.0: ?%5 0 0 0 . -rood .0 :àJOü?o.^2aradlo^'^SQoaia"^

Figure 5.8: Spoken "jaw" of "rejoice" (Mr. Jacobsen) in line 19 of Excerpt #168. Cursors mark the first (grey) and second (white) peak frequency.

-70.0

- s o .a -

■90.0

ICO.O

! .%] 0 co-oo _"5ao u c'jC!

Figure 5.9: Spoken "jaw" of "rejoice" (Chorus) in line 20 of Excerpt #168. Cursors mark the first (grey) and second (white) peak frequency.

368 -tïOO-

-9 0 .0 - iCO.O-

500B • fO00J3'rlk5Ô3i'?'2àoaÆ '35CÔlO -"'*45C^ijr-ïS000

Figure 5.10: Intoned "jaw" of "rejoice" (Mr. Jacobsen) in line 21 of Excerpt #168. Cursors mark the first (grey) and second (white) peak frequency.

-4 0 .0 ■

-70.0

-«00

;co.o

!07.3-« I I ' I I t I I t i I =:ncn icpoo ! 5 0 0 .0 ST'CtOC 050-Ô n 3000.0 35G0 0 400:0 0 -4500.0 500C

Figure 5.11: Intoned "jaw" of "rejoice" (Chorus) in line 22 of Excerpt #168. Cursors mark the first (grey) and second (white) peak frequency. 369 - 5 0 .0 -

- 6 0 .0 -

- 7 0 .0 -

- 3 0 .0 -

-5 0 .0 - 1013.0. 107 .S Oil " 500.0 îœ oii tàKlJO . 2000:0 :2S0d!ô' 3 ^ 3500:0 4000.0 4500.0 9DbO

Figure 5.12: Intoned "ih" of "therein" (Mr. Jacobsen) in line 23 of Excerpt #168. Cursors mark the first (grey) and second (white) peak frequency.

-son

-60.0!

- 7 0 .0 -

- 8 0 0 -

-5 0 0 -

‘.OCO.O '5 0 0 .0 2 0 0 0 0 25D3 0 5000 Û

Figure 5.13: Intoned "ih" of "therein" (Chorus) in line 24 of Excerpt #168. Cursors mark the first (grey) and second (white) peak frequency. 370 ‘b II m"

- 4 0 .0 -

-5 0 .0

- 6 0 .0 - -70.0^ 00:0.4

9 0 .0 - -97.0 0:0 -500.0 '.fobOjo fSbdb ■'23oo:o’‘

"hyulf

-2S .I.-I

-4o.cr

-60.U

-90 0- ‘OCO G

Figure 5.14: Mr. Jacobsen's modeling of D 4 on "bum" (above) and "hyuh" below in excerpt #169. Cursors mark the fundamental (grey) and second partial (white). 371 Before lines 30-34

- 4 0 .0 - -3U.0 -ÔO.O-T -7d3fci i iff! ' :

■- 50 0 .0 iOoo.o f5oo:o :::;20000 ' ' 2500:0

After lines 30-34

-2r:8 T -3 0 .0 -40»

-5 0 .0 ?

-6 0 .0 ?

- 7 0 .0 -

"S0.0*~

, 00.0—

•000 0 :5ijO 0

Figure 5.15: Chorus performance before (above) and after (below) the instruction in lines 30-34 of Excerpt #169. Cursors mark the bass D 4 fundamental (grey) and second partial (white). 372 Line 38

-4 0 .0 -

- 5 0 .0 -

- 7 0 .0 -

fSQ.Or

-9 0 .0

i*)]):: 22S0.G:

Line 45

-3 0 .0 -DOXFr j i y - 6 0 0

-9 0 .0

t I I I I "T i ... I 500 0 750.0 lOCOO ' :50 0 I50i:'.0 1750 0 2000 .: 0250.0 25i3]

Figure 5.16: Bass performance of in line 38(above) and line 45 (below) of Excerpl #169. Cursors mark the fundamental (grey) and second partial (white). 373 Before line 21

-5 0 .0 r

- 6 0 .0 -

SU.Ot:

too»- 105.2^i 0.0 ■;^KSi!53fja'''"^oôboïr'y

After line 21

-3 0 .9 TË

-40.G

s o n .- -bG.uV

-/O.O.-

00.0 -

-9 0 .0 -

500 0 1 000 0 ) 500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3Ü00.Ü 55000 4000 0 4500

Figure 5.17; Chorus performance of an "ah" vowel before (above) and after (below) the instruction in lines 21 of Excerpt #205. Cursors mark the bass Cg (grey) and soprano Cg (white). Tenors sing G3; altos sing E4-

374 Before line 23

-5 0 .0

-6 0 .0

-7 0 .0

After line 23

-70:6-

00 :0 -

ttO.O I ; 5.4-1 500 0 1000 0 1500 0 2000 0 2500 0 3000 C 5500 0 4000 0 450

Figure 5.18: Chorus performance of an "ah" vowel before (above) and after (below) the instruction in lines 23 of Excerpt #205. Cursors mark the bass C 3 (grey) and soprano Cc^ (white). Tenors sing G3; altos sing E4.

375 Line 3

-50 .a

-60 Jj -70.0

-90.Q-

500.0 1000 0

Line 6

-3 4 .5

-80.0

»Ui3.0

, 10.0

;5cco :eoo.c csoc.o a : 3500 0 -0 0 0 o

376 Line 9

-4 0 .0 -

ÏO.O-

-bO.O-

-7 0 .0 -

- æ . 0 -

-9 0 .0 - lQO.Or

500.0 ^ iODOXÏ^-fsboî): 20btf0 3000.Ô 3500:0 ' 40i30.0-^500

Figure 5.19; Soprano performance of F 5 in lines 3, 6, and 9 of Excerpt #224. Cursors mark the fundamental (grey) and second partial (white).

377 lîcforc lines 11-12

- = 0.0

4 0 .0 -

-m.Or- -eo.aT

=90.0;

fOO.5- '500:0 : 'ibo(^:o t50O.O-®

After lines 11-12

- 3 0 .0

-4 0 .0 -50:0

60.0-

-7 0 J 3 -

.-■50.0-

100.0 -

:ocor. :=.:n?o :ooo.o 230C":- =coo

Figure 5.20: Chorus performance before (above) and after (below) the instruction in lines 11-12 of Excerpt #225. Cursors mark the fundamental (grey) and second partial (white) of the soprano F5.

378 Before lines 11-12

-;00

-50.0--^

60.0^

82%T S:J^25CK8 i5ao:o

After lines 11-12

-S0.0

-4 0 .0

5 D Æ -

-6 0 :(K

70.O-r

- 8 0 .0 -

9 0 .0 -

iOO.O-

lOOO Q 1250.0 1500

Figure 5.21: Chorus performance before (above) and after (below) the instruction in lines 11-12 of Excerpt #225. Cursors mark the fundamental (grey) and second partial (white) of the soprano F5.

379 Before line 19 (A4)

-40.0

-50.0- -60.0-

-70.0-

-80.0-

100.0 106.8

After line 19 (Bb 4)

-23.2 -30.0,-I -40.0-

50j0 - 60.0- 70.0- -30.0- -90.0

= 0 0 .0 - 110.0-

124 2 5C0.0 1003 0 1500 0 20COO !500.0 3000 0 3700

Figure 5.22; Alto performance before (above) and after (below) the instruction in lines 19 of Excerpt #227. Cursors mark the fundamental (grey) and second partial (white).

380 Before line 19 (A4)

-40 0-^

- 5 0 .0 -

-60.0

-93.5-

After line 19 (Bb 4)

t2o .2

- 20,0 -400

-S0.0:

-60.0

-910.0

5.;C 0 yOLU :)nn : ?00 c:

Figure 5.23: Alto performance before (above) and after (below) the instruction in lines 19 of Excerpt #227. Cursors mark the fundamental (grey) and second partial (white). 381 -50.0-

-60.0

-7U.Q-

-8 0 .0 -

::8OO:0/#

Figure 8.1: Sung performances of C 3 and C4 in line 20 of Excerpt #281. Cursors mark the tenor/bass pitch (grey) and soprano/alto pitch (white).

■rWSS

-80.0

100.0

200 0 401 ! 17

Figure 8.2; Mr. Jacobsen's model of C 3 in line 21 of Excerpt #281. Cursors mark the fundamental (grey) and third partial (white).

382 -6 0 .0

7 0 .0 -

-5SU .U

'9 0 .0 -

Figure 8.3: Sung performances of C 3 and C4 in line 24 of Excerpt #281. Cursors mark the tenor/bass pitch (grey) and soprano/alto pitch (white).

7 0 .0 -

- 8 0 .0 -

-3 0 .0

0 0 .0 - r

!0 3 .4 - ' 200 0 400 0 oCO.'j 300 0 1000.0 1200C 1400 0 !Ô00

Figure 8.4: Mr. Jacobsen's model of C3 in line 25 of Excerpt #281. Cursors mark the fundamental (grey) and third partial (white).

383 -ÜCO

-7 0 .0 -

-.2 0 .0 -

!00.0f 104.4- K j - # . 0 fSOO

Figure 8.5: Sung performances of C 3 and C 4 in line 27 of Excerpt #281. Cursors mark the tenor/bass pitch (grey) and soprano/alto pitch (white).

-37.3

-50.a-

-60;Q-

-70.0-

800 -

-90.0-

400 C i?GC.O îO O C .îj

Figure 8.7 Sung performances of the first pitch of line 115 of Excerpt #281. Cursors mark the bass A2 (grey) and tenor E 3 (white) fundamentals. 384 60 .G-

0.0 200.0 '400:0 -OOO OT- ;vlOCÏk0F'• ‘ "-^■"îsàü

Figure 8 .8 : Mr. Jacobsen's model of "coh" in line 119 of Excerpt #281. Cursors mark the fundamental (grey) and second partial (white).

-2 5 .0 .-3 0 .0

- 4 0 0

-7 0 .0

-3 0 U

“iDO-O ÔC0.0 U'JC.I

Figure 8.9: Sung performances of the first pitch of line 121 of Excerpt #281. Cursors mark the bass A2 (grey) and tenor E 3 (white) fundamentals.

385