Preparation and spontaneity in performance: A singer's thoughts while singing Schoenberg.

Abstract

ABSTRACT - The longitudinal case study method has been used far over a decade to study professional musicians' preparation for performance from memory. This research suggests that a subset of the features to which the performer attends during practice and rehearsal is retained as performance cues (PCs). PCs guide the performer's attention and serve as cues far memory retrieval during performance. The present study asked if PCs can also emerge spontaneously during live performance. A singer reported the features that she attended to during practice of Schoenberg's two songs Op. 14 (1907-1908). Immediately after the performance she recalled au the thoughts she remembered having about the piece during the performance. Comparison of the two sets of reports showed that although many of the singer's thoughts during performance were about features that she had attended to in practice (prepared PCs), a substantial number were about features that acquired new musical or expressive significance during the performance (spontaneous PCs). The reports were compared with those from an earlier study of a performance by the same singer of the first Ricercar from Stravinsky's Cantata (1952). The proportions of reports about various aspects of the music (basic technique, interpretation, and expression) reflected differences between the works by the two composers. KEYWORDS - cues, features, memory, practice, recall What do musicians think about while performing? On the one hand, performances in the Western art music tradition are usually highly prepared, and thinking too closely about a highly practiced skill is a sure way to disrupt it (Beilock & Carr, 2001). On the other hand, to perform mindlessly, relying on the automaticity of well-practiced motor sequences, is both risky and unlikely to produce an aesthetically satisfying performance (Chaffin, Lemieux, & Chen, 2006; Ericsson, 2002). To avoid this dilemma, experienced performers train themselves during practice to attend to specific features of the music. These performance cues (PCs) come to mind automatically during the performance, providing a series of landmarks that the performer can use to monitor progress through the piece, and directing attention as needed to technical issues, interpretation, and expressive gestures. Evidence that experienced musicians use PCs comes from longitudinal case studies in which experienced soloists recorded their practice as they learned new works for public performance. Each musician reported the features of the music that they made decisions about or otherwise paid attention to during practice and the PCs that they attended to during performance, marking them on copies of the score. The musicians' spontaneous comments during practice explained the function of particular PCs (Chaffin, Imreh, & Crawford, 2002; Chaffin, Lisboa, Logan, & Begosh, 2010; Ginsborg, Chaffin, & Nicholson, 2006a). Written recall of the score showed that section boundaries and expressive PCs persisted as landmarks in memory months and years after the performance (Chaffin & Imreh, 2002; Chaffin et al, 2010; Ginsborg & Chaffin, 2011). Tempo fluctuations at PCs, during both practice and public performances, indicated their significance (Chaffin et al., 2006; Lisboa, Chaffin, Logan, & Begosh 2007). Most important, for present purposes, was evidence that the musicians had paid attention to particular features of the music during practice, thus establishing them as cues (Chaffin, 2007; Chaffin et al., 2002, 2010; Ginsborg et al., 2006a,b; Noice, Jeffrey, Noice, & Chaffin, 2008). In the present study, an experienced soprano soloist (the first author) reported the features that she attended to during practice and the PCs that she attended to during a public performance, from memory, of two songs by Arnold Schoenberg. Most of the case studies of PCs conducted to date have not compared the use of PCs by different performers or by the same performer for different pieces (Chaffin, 2007, is the one exception). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.