“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” – George Bernard Shaw
Throughout history, those who were able to communicate effectively have often been the people most likely to experience personal and professional success. Witness Barack Obama ascending to the presidency of the United States with little in the way of practical executive governing experience. When we he was elected, nobody knew whether Mr. Obama would be an effective president, yet he was able to convince much of the electorate to give him a chance largely due to his considerable oratorical gifts.
Choral directors who share these same skills also go far. Like many of you in your educational journey, I have had a front row seat to watching some of the best conductors communicate with their ensembles. At St. Olaf College, I watched Anton Armstrong operate like a surgeon for an hour and a half every day, turning the St. Olaf Choir into an expressive, heartfelt ensemble of exacting musical precision through clear, effective, and sincere verbiage. At Florida State University, I observed André Thomas hold 250 Tallahassee Community Chorus members in the palm of his hand, waiting on the edge of their seat to hear the next nugget of wisdom that would come out of his mouth. Both of these gentlemen possess great musical skills that engender great respect from their choirs, but their ability to share their musical ideas in a clear, heartfelt, or humorous fashion is what makes people love to sing for them.
Proper communication stems from a fundamental cycle of instruction. This cycle, which I call the “circle of success,” begins with the conductor giving instruction to his or her choir. The ensemble is then given an opportunity to demonstrate what the conductor has asked, called a trial. Finally, the conductor offers the choir feedback about whether they were successful or unsuccessful during the trial. This three-step cycle repeats itself continually throughout the rehearsal process, and much of the conductor’s success is determined by how articulately he or she can communicate throughout the course of these three steps.
Conductor Instruction — Choir Trial — Conductor Feedback
Conductor Instruction
Conductor instruction largely comes down to one significant concept. David Elliott, in his book, Music Matters, advocates for a philosophy of music as a human activity, something that he terms “musicking” and by noting, “Fundamentally, music is something that people do.” (Elliott, 1995). This philosophy is best exemplified in the choral rehearsal where the choir is kept singing (musicking) for a high percentage of the rehearsal and conductor instruction is kept to a minimum.
The research shows that students are more attentive during rehearsals where teacher talking is reduced, maximizing student singing time. Naples (2006) found that students were significantly less attentive during teacher talk intervals than during performance intervals, and that low teacher talking rates (20% of the rehearsal time) yielded higher overall student attentiveness levels than high teacher talk rates (60% of the time). The implications are clear: if a conductor wants to have a productive rehearsal in which attentive students are absorbing the experience and moving towards musical excellence, verbal instruction must be kept to a minimum.
In order to achieve this, I advocate for the employment of three rules, to which conductors should adhere as often as possible. First, keep verbal instruction timed to fifteen seconds or less from the time the choir stops singing to when it restarts. To do this, make certain you always know exactly what it is that you are going to say before the choir stops singing. Wasted time figuring out instructional language means the loss of valuable rehearsal seconds. Second, be systematic and specific with your instruction and have a protocol for how you verbally address musical issues that need attention. Trying using the “section, measure, instruction” method; in other words, the first thing out of your mouth when stopping the choir to give instruction should be, “Altos, measure five, make sure that ‘o’ vowel is pure and closed.” This way, the students to whom the instruction is being directed are first put on alert, they next discover where in the music the issue is taking place, and are lastly told what needs to be fixed. This system allows information to flow in a logical manner, creating maximum opportunity for singer comprehension. Finally, use vocal modeling whenever possible as a substitute for verbal instruction. The old saying, “A picture is worth a thousand words,” aptly applies here, as a conductor’s effective vocal demonstration can show in five seconds what would take thirty or more to verbally describe.
Choir Trial
The ensemble trial portion of the cycle does not involve externalization of communication, but rather preparation for effective communication. The goal of the conductor during this time should be to organize one’s thoughts so that the resultant instruction is clear. To this end, conductors should make certain they actively listen to the trial with the goal of ascertaining the success of the specific instruction they just gave. In other words, if you give the altos a comment about their “o” vowel, make sure you’re listening specifically for that vowel so that you’re prepared to comment on their success or failure when the trial ends. All too often, conductors get sidetracked by something else that they hear during the trial and move on to that other issue without ever giving closure to the initial instruction. To help alleviate these compounding directives, make a mental “to do” list of other issues you hear, and address them after the current issue is resolved. This systematic approach keeps each instructional cycle clear and makes certain the verbal waters do not get muddied with unsystematic directions.
Conductor Feedback
The feedback that the choir receives after a trial is just as important as the initial instruction, yet many conductors don’t often think about this portion of the cycle. In fact, some neglect to give any feedback at all. A choir that receives no feedback (typically because the conductor has moved on to a different issue before finishing the cycle) has no idea whether or not their trial was a success. If choir members are left to assume something on their own, the variation of assumptions in a fifty voice choir will likely be so diverse as to completely dilute the effect of the initial instruction. Thus, an essential first step for many conductors may simply be to actually give feedback in some form or another.
For those who are already giving consistent feedback, there are a couple of issues to consider, the first of which is the ratio of positive to negative feedback, which can have a huge effect on the morale of the ensemble. Clifford Madsen has suggested that positives come and go, but negatives accumulate (Grashel, Asmus, Webster, Madsen, & Swanwick, 1994), meaning positive feedback might have a more fleeting effect on students’ emotional state than negative feedback, which tends to linger. This raises the question: what is the proper ratio of positive to negative feedback, allowing for constructive criticism that holds an ensemble to a high standard, while still keeping choir morale at a level where they are open to instruction and are able to receive it? In their research, Yarbrough & Madsen (1998) suggested that a ratio of 4:1 positive to negative feedback is an ideal number. While this might be useful as a guide, the actual ratio likely varies from conductor to conductor, depending on their demeanor, persona, appearance, and verbal phrasing. In other words, a generally cheerful conductor could likely get away with more negative feedback, as it might be phrased in a way or backed up by nonverbal cues that soften its effect. Conversely, a dour conductor might not be able to espouse as much negative feedback, as his or her comments might be in danger of being taken with too much severity. Personal awareness of your own persona and demeanor is likely necessary to achieve your own optimal ratio.
Another feedback issue to consider is that of specificity. The research on instructional specificity shows that conductors tend to be much more specific with their positive feedback than their negative feedback (Biddlecombe, 2012). We all know conductors who go on in great detail about why something wasn’t correct: “That ‘o’ vowel is still not closed enough,” “I could drive a freight train through that open ‘o’ vowel,” “That vowel sounds more like ‘ah’ than an ‘oh’.” Conversely, much of the positive feedback is given more generally: “Great,” “Nice work,” “Fine singing,” none of which specifically address the issue initially raised. The goal of the conductor should be to make positive feedback as specific as negative feedback: “I loved the closed quality of that ‘o’ vowel.” While general comments might leave a choir wondering, “What was good?” or “What was fine about our singing?” specific feedback will cement in their minds exactly what they did correctly, thus giving a higher probability that they’ll be able to replicate the success the next time that section of music is rehearsed.
“Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care, for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill.” – Gautama Buddha
A conductor who is able to master the communicative aspects of this fundamental cycle of instruction has a higher likelihood of musical success than one who doesn’t. Completing successful cycles repeatedly throughout the rehearsal process ensures that tasks are presented, attempted, and affirmed in a clear and systematic manner, resulting in increased comprehension and retention among singers. Furthermore, each cycle that is completed to the satisfaction of the conductor creates a small moment of celebration within the rehearsal process, and the cumulative effect of these small successes can produce a significant sense of accomplishment among choir members. This is why I refer to these cycles as “circles of success” when teaching conducting students. These small building blocks, which provide the foundation of a successful choral rehearsal, can be a powerful tool if communicated effectively, resulting in substantial rehearsal momentum and perpetual musical improvement.
References
Biddlecombe, T. (2012). Assessing and enhancing feedback of teacher conductors through analysis and training. International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, 4(1), 2-18.
Elliot, D. (1995). Music Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grashel, J., Asmus, E., Webster, P., Madsen, C., Swanwick, K. (1994). Qualitative Methodologies in Music Education Research Conference final session: Reflections and predictions. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 122, 104.
Napoles, J. (2006). The effect of duration of teacher talk on the attitude, attentiveness, and performance achievement of high school choral students (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Yarbrough, C., & Madsen, K. (1998). The evaluation of teaching in choral rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 469-481.
