Sunday, April 19, 2009

Getting the best out of your choir 4: preparing for performance PART 1

Sometimes, no matter how much you’ve rehearsed or prepared your choir, the concert just doesn’t quite measure up to your expectations. What worked perfectly in rehearsal ends up sounding quite ropey. Those confident singers suddenly look like a bunch of startled rabbits in the headlights. That wonderful resonant sound you had comes across as thin and lacking in energy. What went wrong? Is there anything you can do to prevent this happening next time?

Of course, I don’t have all the answers, and every choir is a different beast. However, I’ll jot down a few musings here that may be of some use. I’d love to hear from all you silent readers out there if you have any useful tips that might help us get the best out of our choirs in performance.

As usual, I seem to have run away with myself and written a much longer post than I’d intended! Just so you don’t feel overloaded, I’m going to split the post in two so you can read Part 2 next week. There’s no obvious division into two parts, but it may give you time to absorb some of the ideas better.

the butterfly of nerves

Nerves are a good thing. A few butterflies in the tummy means that we care about what we’re doing. A bit of adrenaline raises our game and keeps us on our toes. The day we have no nerves at all before performing is the day that we have become complacent and aren’t really bothered about what happens.

But nerves can get out of control and turn into performance anxiety. Even at a low level, if a singer hasn’t performed much, then nerves can get in the way of a good performance. Inside flutterings and anxiety can:

  • produce quick, shallow breathing
  • make our mouths dry and our tongues stick
  • cause tension in our necks and throats
  • make us forget things (words, song structure, which part we sing, etc.)
  • focus our minds on the wrong thing (i.e. the mistakes that we might make)
  • stop us from noticing our surroundings and fellow singers
  • make things run much faster than we would like

One excellent way of countering these nerves is to simply take a big, deep, long breath. If you also raise your shoulders high when breathing in, and drop them on a sigh when you breathe out, it helps to release any tension in the neck and throat.

fear of failure

One of the reasons we get nerves in the first place is that we want to do good. We want to:

  • get things right and not make mistakes;
  • please and entertain the audience;
  • make everyone like us and think we’re wonderful;
  • support our fellow performers and not let them down;
  • please our choir leader and make them proud;
  • appear skilled, professional and in control — we don’t want to make fools of ourselves!

All good aims indeed. However, we must remember that we’re not in this alone. It’s team work. As long as you know you’ve put the work in, know what you’re supposed to be doing, then you can trust that the whole team will gel and you will carry it off. A large group has a force of its own. Although you’re a vital component of the choir, a minor mistake from one individual will go unnoticed. Prepare well and keep a perspective at all times. It’s only a concert after all!

be here now

When our nerves get the better of us it means that our mind ends up focusing on all the wrong things. We worry about remembering words that we spent all those weeks learning, we fear all the mistakes that we might make in the performance to come, we are concerned about what the audience will think when the concert is over. Instead, we should be focusing on the task at hand and staying in the moment.

Easier said than done, but if you focus on the here and now — how you are breathing, what your posture is like, preparing to sing the first note, being attentive to the conductor — then there will be no room in your head for any worries! You are just here to sing, so that is all you need to do. Stop holding onto the past (“It was better last time we did it”) or being concerned about the future (“I hope I remember to repeat the last verse”) and just be with the music as it arises.

When we see performers on stage and marvel at their ‘presence’ we think that it’s some kind of magic. But the word ‘presence’ simply means that the performers are totally in the present and only engaged on the task at hand. That’s what makes them so watchable.

expectations and beginner’s mind

It’s very hard just to stay with the present moment. We all anticipate and bring expectations with us. We remember that last concert when everything went pear-shaped, or the performance last year which was one of our best and everyone was firing on all cylinders. We know that the tickets have sold out so we expect a large and attentive audience. We are so proud of the complicated song that we’ve been working on for the last few months and are convinced that it will go down a storm.

Unfortunately, our expectations are seldom met! We are often disappointed when things don’t turn out as we had hoped, or are totally surprised when something goes extremely well. The way to avoid disappointment and to bring freshness to every performance is to imagine that this is the first time you’ve ever done a concert and the first time you’ve ever sung these particular songs. Have no expectations other than to do your best under the given circumstances. What will happen will happen regardless of what you expect. You have no control over it.

I’ve written before about this idea which Zen Bhuddism calls ‘beginner’s mind’ (Blame it on the weather). If you approach a song each time as if for the first time, it will be forever fresh and you will continue to discover new nuances in it.

be prepared

Although you don’t want to come to your performance with expectations, you do need to anticipate things that might happen as you don’t want to be thrown by the unexpected. The most obvious thing to anticipate is that you need to know what you’re doing! So be well-prepared and rehearsed. Know the words, know your part, know the structure of the songs and the order they will be sung in, know where you will be standing, know if you have an encore song and know how to bow at the end.

But this preparation may not be enough to cover all eventualities. There is a big difference, for example, between knowing your words at home and remembering them in a performance situation. You may think you are well-rehearsed, but you need to practice songs in many different circumstances, not just in the familiar rehearsal room set-up. Try remembering the lyrics whilst washing up, whilst driving, whilst walking along the street, whilst making the bed. The greater the range of contexts that you practice in, the more the song will be embedded in your memory.

Similarly for any song, don’t always stand next to the same person, or always face the same way in the rehearsal room. Find all the ways of doing the song in the ‘wrong’ style (as opera, as country and western, as reggae). Rehearse a song while the whole choir is walking around the room at random. Practice a harmony song in small groups not just in the whole choir. Work out a strange dance routine to practice whilst singing a familiar song. Sing a song in reverse order. Swap parts around. Play with songs in as many different ways as you can, then when you come to doing it ‘straight’ it will be much easier.

One important thing that you can’t ever really be prepared for is the audience’s reaction. Sometimes they will applaud every song loudly and jump to their feet at the end. Other times they may appear to be sleeping and applaud in a lacklustre way. This can have a huge effect on the singers. If the response isn’t as enthusiastic as we need, then we suddenly think they don’t like us and the whole performance becomes filled with doubt and lack of confidence.

On the other hand, you can just as easily be thrown by an over-enthusiastic response to a song that you think you didn’t perform well!

You have to sing the songs for yourselves more than for the audience. Go out there to have a good time, and if the audience like it too, that’s just an added bonus. It’s impossible to work out how an audience feel towards a performance just by how they applaud or appear to be paying attention (see What you feel, what they feel next week).

that’s all folks!

Well, that’s all I’ve got space for this week. Next week in Part 2 of preparing for performance I’ll look at stage time vs. real time, standing positions on stage, how new things affect us, and why people can have such different experiences at the same concert.

If you’d like to leave a comment on any post, but don’t know how,
or would like to subscribe to my blog so you get notified
whenever I post something new, then check out:
About blogs — comments, subscribing and feeds which should help.


go to Chris Rowbury's website

Continue reading ...

11 comments:

Tom Carter said...

Hey Chris,

I've enjoyed reading all your posts, and am so 'with you' when it comes to the director's temperament (what a critical issue that is!).

However, I must disagree with you, and strenuously, when it comes to this latest post and your words on "presence."

You wrote, "But the word ‘presence’ simply means that the performers are totally in the present and only engaged on the task at hand." And you mention lots of technical foci in the blog, things the "present" singer might be wise to think about. Things like focusing on the conductor, breathing, and posture.

Chris, with all due respect, focusing on those sorts of elements does not imbue a singer with "presence," at least if you're talking about "stage presence."

And "presence" is much more than just focusing "on the task at hand." Indeed, the SPECIFIC nature of the task makes all the difference, but it's not just that the singer is "focused" on something other than their internal monologue about how well they are doing.

A singer will have "presence" if they are connecting specifically with the meaning (passion, poignancy, power...) of the text and its musical expression -- while at the same time being free of all impediments to that presence. So, they are NOT standing still, but allowing their bodies to align themselves with their minds and their purpose within the story. They are NOT thinking mainly of technical elements like posture, vocal technique, et cetera. And they are NOT thinking about their affect on the audience.

When a singer does that, they are "present" to the heart and soul of the music, AND to the heart and soul of the audience. But a singer who is just "focused" on specific TECHNICAL elements that don't include their level of performance or how the audience is responding? That's a singer who actually LACKS "presence," at least the way I think of the term. And I've seen lots of those singers, by the way. They're the ones who have a sort of generic intensity about them, a sort of hyper focus ... but their intensity is very different than that of a textually connected singer who has created a specific story-based purpose for singing, and whose brain is focused in similar ways as a human who has reason to actually SPEAK the words.

All my best,

Tom

PS: A while back, you asked if I could recommend any videos or suggest choirs who sing this way. Alas, I can't, but will let you know if I come across any.

singingman said...

Hi Tom

Good to hear from you!

I'm afraid we'll just have to continue to disagree on this one! I maintain that presence is simply being entirely and fully engaged on the immediate task at hand. How you define that is up to you I guess. If you think that the "meaning of the text and its musical expression" are what you are supposed to be engaged with at the moment of singing, then so be it. I think we agree on this point! Don't attach to the inner monologue of doubts, but engage fully with the task at hand.

I didn't suggest that people stay still, but they should be completely present in their body and using it in the proper way to support their voice and the expression of the song. You're right also that they should not be thinking at all about technical issues nor the effect the song will have on the audience. We are in total agreement here!

Where we do differ completely is in the importance of the text and meaning of the song.

I really don't understand what you mean by the "heart and soul of the music". You seem to suggest that this is somehow connected with the "textually connected singer who has created a specific story-based purpose for singing". That seems to suppose that the text of the song has far more importance than I place on it. That the feeling of the song and its emotional charge somehow lie in the 'meaning' of the words.

I couldn't disagree with you more! What happens in songs with nonsense lyrics or simple 'ahs'? Do they not have feeling and expression? Also, what are singers doing whilst they are waiting for their part to come in? For example, if the altos don't come in until the second verse. What will they be engaged with at those moments? There is no 'story' going on, or words to be sung.

Many, many songs carry their expression through their harmonies and melodic structure and not through their words. Many Eastern European songs have banal or nonsense words since the meaning of the words is not important, it's the music that carries everything.

Anonymous said...

Great post, Chris, as usual.

In the ensuing discussion I have to passionately disagree with Tom and agree with Chris. Since starting a choir which sings mainly world music coming from cultures where singing in harmony is just part of daily life, the singers in my group are astonished that words don't actually mean much and are sometimes just ridiculous. They are just a vehicle for the harmony. It seems that the more the harmony is at the forefront, the less the words matter. There is one song from Africa that can go on for 10 minutes in a most joyful and exuberant manner, but the words mean "in the morning put the gravel over there". So Tom, when the texts mean nothing much in particular, I think that the "presence" derived from the story or the text that you are talking about is largely irrelevant.

- Jane

singingman said...

Hi Jane

Phew! I thought I was the only one out of step with Tom!

I was once told by an ethno musicologist that there are basically two types of singing: one which tells stories (ballads, etc.) and ones which have a rich musical and harmonic structure.

Storytelling songs are, of necessity, simple melodically and seldom have harmonies. We don't want anything much to get in the way of the story that's trying to be communicated.

On the other hand, songs which are predominantly complex harmonies can't have many words as they will disappear in the mix.

This distinction can carry across whole cultures. Some cultures have a strong ballad singing tradition, whilst others have a strong polyphonic tradition.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure I understand all the technicalities here, but in terms of "presence" I think you are actually discussing two different concepts with similar names.

Chris talked about presence in the sense of being present, one might perhaps call it immersion, a total engagement with the current activity. I guess for those of us who sing harmonies, necessarily in groups, there might even be some people who experience a temporary loss of individuality, immersion in the group.

Tom was talking about "stage presence", which I think of as rather different and hard to explain or define, but we know it when we see it - it's a bit like charisma I suppose. To me the singer with stage presence is one who stands out from a group, perhaps they do so even when they sing the same as everyone else. This person has stage presence, so they catch the eye, hold our attention, even though they might not be technically the best singer. Perhaps it's because they immerse themself in the song, I don't really know, I'm not sure a singer with such stage presence could necessarily explain what they do or how.

If you can bear it, I can give you an example: I remember the first time I saw the group called G4. They usually sing acapella. It was four young men, all nice looking and good singers, but as far as I was concerned one of them stood out, he had what I think of as stage presence, I remember thinking "he will be a star". In comparison, the others tended to fade into the background rather. It turned out that my choice was called Jonathon, and he was, as it happened, quite often their lead / soloist. I heard recently that G4 have broken up - and Jonathon is the one who is pursuing a solo career, so it will be interesting to see how that goes for him.

What do you think, could these be different concepts?
regards, Deb

Tom Carter said...

Hi All!

Chris, good to see that we agree on so much(!), and I'm wondering if we agree on the following.

Most (or at least "much") of the choral music out there has text and music. The music usually (or "often") attempts to communicate the sense of the text -- either through particular rhythms, harmonies, melodies, voice leading, chordal progressions, or textual settings. Thus, "Danny Boy" and "Loch Lomond" have a similar feel, but both are very different from a Mozart "Gloria" or a celebratory African "freedom song." And "Happy Birthday" is different from your usual "Requiem." Perhaps the clearest example would be the difference between "Weep, O Mine Eyes" and "In These Delightful Pleasant Groves." There are HUGE differences in the above, and they have mainly to do with the textual meaning and the musical communication of that meaning. (Or, if the music was written first, then the text attempts to fit the music.)

Do you agree with the above?

Your point about nonsense syllables doesn't change this -- nonsense syllables can be imbued with meaning, much as the "fa la la's" were oft imbued with a naughty sense of dalliance in the Renaissance.

RE what to do while waiting for your part to come in, I have singers think the thoughts (meaning, objective, and story-based) that fit with the text currently being sung. That way, they are still actively engaged.

As to your question about the meaning of "ah"s, absolutely! But an "ah" in a 'celebration of world peace' song is going to have an entirely different meaning than an "ah" in a 'mourning the dead in the Holocaust' song.

I think we might be actually agreeing more than we even know, because you might be just letting the music guide your 'interpretation,' while I let the words lead. However, since (I believe) they are intricately tied, in many songs it won't matter which you let lead since they're both "telling the same story."

RE complete nonsense syllables, sure -- I might let the music give me more of the contextual clues since the text might not give me any help at all! But even with nonsense songs, I try and make sense out of them so that I have something specific and concrete to grab onto.

By the way, you all might enjoy visiting world barbershop champion & coach Tom Metzger's blog -- he and I are on the exact same page. Perhaps his words will make more sense than mine ... or perhaps you'll enjoy discussing this stuff with him, too. That site is www.owningthestage.com.

I look forward to reading your responses.

Cheers!

Tom

Tom Carter said...

Hi again, Chris,

RE our conception of "presence," it occurs to me that your "presence" is my "full commitment." As Deb mentioned, my "presence" IS what I also call "stage presence" or "charisma." That requires full commitment, but it also requires a particular focus on the "human" elements of the performance (as in character, meaning, story, yada yada).

For example, if we transplant the discussion to the opera hall, take two singers performing the role of Carmen -- both are committed and not self-conscious, but singer A has a more technical focus, and singer B has a more "human" focus.

Singer A: Is focused like a laser beam on following the conductor, hitting her marks on the stage, and on creating her most beautiful sound. She's also allowing herself to enjoy the rhythms and cadences of the music.

Singer B: While a part of her is focused on technical elements, she is more dominantly focused on seducing, taunting, and teasing the men around her. Her thoughts are primarily "character" thoughts rather than "singer" thoughts -- when she successfully teases a man, she experiences a victory and that victory is clearly seen on her face and in her body. When she is done taunting one man, she looks around to see who looks like the next easy mark.

To me, only Singer B has "stage presence." The other singer's technical focus and commitment might make her more watchable than if she were self-conscious and self-doubting, but she lacks true charisma.

What are your thoughts?

All my best,

Tom

singingman said...

Tom, there's such a lot to debate here that I'm going to devote a whole post to stage presence and the 'meaning' in a song. If you don't mind, I'll quote your comments here and respond to them. Hopefully this will result in a fuller discussion of these fascinating topics! And it would be great to get more people to join in so it doesn't turn into a tennis match between you and me.

Tom Carter said...

Sounds fun, Chris! It's also fun to be "speaking with you" on ChoralNet!!

All my best,

Tom

Kerryn Cooper said...

Hi Chris,

I believe that the kind of presence you describe is important, and it should occur in rehearsals way before performance. In a way, performances are not essential to it.

However, Tom's kind of presence is the next layer - connecting emotionally with the meaning or feelings associated with the song, and thereby connecting with the audience. It's what makes a performance human - opening ourselves up to the emotional elements of a song simultaneously makes the performance likely to be more flawed and more captivating.

I would much rather listen to a singer who takes the risk of sharing some emotion, even if it costs them technically.

singingman said...

Hi Kerryn

I really believe that Tom and I are talking about the same thing! The trouble is, the explanation is all via the written word - it would be much easier if we could just get in a rehearsal room together!

Yes, often a singer will feel an emotion when singing, but we can't express emotions at will. At the end of the day in a performance it's what the audience experience that counts. If they have an emotional repsonse to the singing, then all well and good, but it won't necessarily be the same as what the singers are experiencing. I believe one can give a moving performance and be true to the spirit of a song without necessarily experiencing any strong emotions.

Chris

Post a Comment

Apture