_
“We become what we behold. We shape our tools, and
thereafter our tools shape us.”
Marshall McLuhan
Marshall McLuhan
Introduction
_
My purpose here is to investigate how the established
cultural practice of choral singing and the emerging digital culture around the
use of YouTube have coalesced to give rise to a new way of participation in
choral performance namely the Virtual Choir. I am interested in which aspects
of traditional choral singing have been attenuated and which amplified, the extent
to which this digital instantiation of choral practice is accessible to all
choristers and the pedagogical possibilities revealed through new roles of
performer and audience.
_I will begin with a review of some of the literature relating
to video sharing practices on YouTube in
order to highlight key facets of YouTube culture. Moving on from this I will
develop an account of the culture of amateur choirs drawing again on the
literature but supplemented with evidence of how choral societies and community
choirs portray themselves on their websites. An analysis of the Virtual Choir
as an example of socio-technical co-evolution with follow.
_ YouTube Community and Culture
_ YouTube
is a video broadcasting and sharing platform with limited social networking capability
achieved through subscribing to other users channels. Communication between
YouTube users is facilitated by commenting or rating videos or by replying with
a response video. Using these mechanisms Harley and Fitzpatrick (2009) have
observed that a conversational context may be created between video bloggers
(vloggers). Taking this further Rotman
and Preece (2010) in their qualitative analysis of the videos posted by vloggers
suggest that this group sees itself as an online or virtual community. For them
the site is primarily for communication and interaction with like minded others
who share their interest in creating videos and express strong emotional ties
with the online community. Further more Rotman and Preece (ibid) claim that the
vlogger community on YouTube has its own culture identified by the terms it
uses (eg YouTuber, Hater etc.) and the positive or negative experiences generated
through shared interactions e.g. Video
fights or exchange of supportive response videos, that bind the community together. For Rotman
and Preece (ibid) culture is seen as a shared way of thinking and the beliefs
that shape behaviour engendering a sense of belonging.
Taking this further, Jenkins et al.(2009) highlight participation as key to acting in the new digital social spaces of which YouTube is one. Their participatory culture is:
“a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing creations and some informal mentorship whereby experienced participants pass along knowledge to the novices. A participatory culture is also one in which members believe their contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least they care what other people think about what they have created).” (p3)
The socio-technical platform provided by YouTube fulfils all five of Jenkins’ conditions for participatory culture (Chan, 2010). Firstly the site requires no registration to simply view video content and even at this minimal level of participation viewing contributes to the ‘popularity’ statistic for a video. Increased participation is achieved through registration which enables commenting and upload of video content. Secondly sharing is supported by the automatically generated, sharable link and embed code for each video as well as featured and most popular lists provided on the homepage. Thirdly informal mentorship is exemplified by a whole host of ‘how to’ videos some of which even show how to contribute to the YouTube community. Fourthly the prominent display of comments and view counts help to support the belief that contributions matter and finally social connection is achieved by conversations and group actions between and within YouTube channels.
Two further key aspects of YouTube culture are observed by Wecsh (2008) in his YouTube anthropology, namely anonymity and reflexivity. The asynchronicity of YouTube interactions can make this overtly public forum seem extremely private through the facility to watch others anonymously. “This anonymity combined with physical distance and rare ephemeral dialogue gives people freedom to experience humanity without fear or social anxiety. […] It allows [one] to watch other people without staring or making them feel uncomfortable” (Wesch 2009, quoted in Bloom and Johnson, 2010). Further more the work of refining and reworking a vlog arguably facilitates increased self awareness and reflection stimulated by the vlogger seeing themselves from the perspective of the other.
Taking this further, Jenkins et al.(2009) highlight participation as key to acting in the new digital social spaces of which YouTube is one. Their participatory culture is:
“a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing creations and some informal mentorship whereby experienced participants pass along knowledge to the novices. A participatory culture is also one in which members believe their contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least they care what other people think about what they have created).” (p3)
The socio-technical platform provided by YouTube fulfils all five of Jenkins’ conditions for participatory culture (Chan, 2010). Firstly the site requires no registration to simply view video content and even at this minimal level of participation viewing contributes to the ‘popularity’ statistic for a video. Increased participation is achieved through registration which enables commenting and upload of video content. Secondly sharing is supported by the automatically generated, sharable link and embed code for each video as well as featured and most popular lists provided on the homepage. Thirdly informal mentorship is exemplified by a whole host of ‘how to’ videos some of which even show how to contribute to the YouTube community. Fourthly the prominent display of comments and view counts help to support the belief that contributions matter and finally social connection is achieved by conversations and group actions between and within YouTube channels.
Two further key aspects of YouTube culture are observed by Wecsh (2008) in his YouTube anthropology, namely anonymity and reflexivity. The asynchronicity of YouTube interactions can make this overtly public forum seem extremely private through the facility to watch others anonymously. “This anonymity combined with physical distance and rare ephemeral dialogue gives people freedom to experience humanity without fear or social anxiety. […] It allows [one] to watch other people without staring or making them feel uncomfortable” (Wesch 2009, quoted in Bloom and Johnson, 2010). Further more the work of refining and reworking a vlog arguably facilitates increased self awareness and reflection stimulated by the vlogger seeing themselves from the perspective of the other.
Choral Singing and Performance Culture
_ The
increasing availability of high quality performances via CD or as radio or
television broadcasts, coupled with the elitist model of performance, some
would claim has led to a decline in amateur music making in Western cultures
(Bailey and Davidson, 2005). In addition the focus on the products of
performance rather than the process of participation in music making more
generally has tended to erode the self belief of the majority with regard to
their ability to make music (Small 1998 cited in Bailey and Davidson 2005).
Yet most medium sized towns in the U.K. support a choral society
(Choirs.org.uk n.d.) and the growth in community choirs indicates a resurgence
in informal group singing (Natural Voice Practitioners Network website n.d.). This
may be explained in part by the emotional, social, spiritual, physical (Clift and Hancox 2001) and
cognitive (Hallam 2010) benefits associated with singing in groups. Indeed
Bailey and Davidson (ibid.) conclude from their study on choirs from middle
class and marginalised groups that these benefits are “independent of formal
training or ability”.
_
Something
of the culture of amateur group singing can be gleaned from how a variety of
choirs present themselves on their websites. Drawing on a collection of quotes,
images and choir performance video I have collected into a Tumblr stream
denoted by the hash tag #choir (Jones 2011) it is evident that the community
choirs tend to ‘sing for themselves’ that is to say the audience is typically
of minimal importance. There seems to be a spectrum of value placed on the
performance to an audience, for example the Gurt Lush Choir could be
considered to be more audience oriented than the Bath Community Singers. In
general the need for formal musical skills is de-emphasised among the community
choirs, the mutual support offered by the group being given prominence. However
in the more traditional choral society choirs for example the Bel Canto Chorus
there is more emphasis on formal skills and the role of the individual
performer as well as the group comes to the fore as does the importance of
performance.
_ Bailey
and Davidson’s study (ibid.) also reveal some interesting differences in the
positive effects of group singing and performance as experienced by a choir of
middle class singers and choirs whose members came from marginalised groups.
The marginalised singers value the social support and camaraderie of the group
while the middle class singers put more emphasis on the safe environment
provided by the group for developing their voices. The marginalised singers
typically felt empowered and proud when performing for an audience seeing it as
an opportunity to share and make a contribution. Whereas the middle class
singers saw a performance as an opportunity to demonstrate skills and in some
cases experienced anxiety due to concerns over not achieving an appropriate
standard of musicality. Further differences were noted in this study with
respect to reported cognitive benefits of the two groups of singers. The marginalised
group reported more generic benefits such as increased concentration and more
ordered thought processes while the middle class group voiced the more specific
benefits of increased musical knowledge and improved skill set.
Clearly there are subtle differences in the practice of choral singing depending on the aims of the choir, the participants’ experience of singing and performing and their background and circumstances.
Clearly there are subtle differences in the practice of choral singing depending on the aims of the choir, the participants’ experience of singing and performing and their background and circumstances.
'Tubing' the choir
_ To draw attention to how the traditional choir has morphed
into the virtual choir through the adoption of participatory practices found in
online video sharing culture I propose to adopt Carter and Arroyo’s (2011)
term ‘tubing’. The Virtual Choir was born in the ‘tube’ as an idea sparked by a
fan video of one girl’s individual performance of a part from a choral
composition by the composer Eric Whitacre. The video had an immediate and
significant impact connected to the fact that it both carried a personal
message but was posted publicly. As such it shared the personal, emotionally
charged yet mildly exhibitionist qualities of many fan videos on YouTube.
_
An open invitation to participate in a Virtual Choir
followed in which singers were challenged with developing and presenting an
individual performance video of one part (soprano, alto, tenor or bass) of a
choral piece. This represents a significant shift from singing as a group
undertaking where individuals subsume their own performances to that of the
choir, to a ‘choir’ conceived as a collection of individual performances. Some
might argue that the Virtual Choir ceases to be a choir at all but merely
creates the illusion of a choir through the technological intervention of the YouTube
platform. However I would argue that the Virtual Choir still constitutes a
choir but with changed practices derived from the culture of online video sharing
which encourages a shift in attention to the collective of individuals each
with their own personal presence rather that the group.
_ Support for the singers was offered via a voice coaching
video, a technical ‘how to record yourself’ video and a sound track of the
performance piece to sing along to. However significant additional support came
from the connections singers made with each other through commenting on others
performances offering words of encouragement or hints for improvement. There is
evidence that singers used this feedback as well as their own self critique in
the context of others’ performances (also available for review and critique) to
revisit and rework their contributions several times. This focus on self
improving individual performance is rarely seen in the traditional choir where
the emphasis is on the collective sound of the singers voices, adjustments being
made as a result of real time feedback from the choir master and through
listening to the voices of others in the vicinity. While arguable the Virtual
Choir offers greater cognitive benefits than a traditional choir of any genre, I
suspect that the emotional and social benefits are lessened in comparison to
the traditional choir. In fact the Virtual Choir would seem to offer little for
the singer who’s aim is to discover their own voice in a ‘safe’ supported
context as provided by the community choirs. Arguably crafting an individual performance
and making it public requires courage to overcome anxieties associated with the
possibilities of exposing ones musical inadequacies.
_
The concept of audience too has evolved from that associated
with a traditional choir. Due to the asynchronicity of the Virtual Choir
performance(s) the audience can take a more active and participatory role in
that their comments and response become part of the individual and collective performance
event when viewed by subsequent audience members. Indeed the singers in the
Virtual Choir are free to participate on many levels as chorister, a mentor and
as audience. This YouTubesk conception of audience however is less likely to
fulfil the needs of some singers, such as novice singers from marginalised
groups who derive benefits from the
immediate collective audience response to a performance.
_
The ‘tubing’ of the choir may be considered to be achieved
through the appropriation and elaboration of
the one man band video meme, reworking it as a multi-contributor
performance video. This remix of many individually authored performances calls
into question the authorship of the Virtual Choir. The ‘performance’ is not
created by the co-operative action of singers and choir master but rather
manufactured by the video remixer. Furthermore value is added to the
performance through the embedding of a ‘message’ about the potential for
positive outcomes arising from global endeavours as such it becomes a symbol
and celebration of a global cultural achievement.
_
Echos of the Virtual Choir performance continue across
YouTube by stimulating further one man choir video memes and giving rise to a loosely
defined community or network of individuals (Wellman 2001) centred around this
meme. For Carter and Arroyo (2011)
participation in YouTube meme culture in this way is to critique and
perform simultaneously and represents what they term postpedagogy.
Conclusion
_
In my
view the Virtual Choir provides an interesting example of technogenisis (Hayles
1999). In this version of the choir the individual is amplified through YouTube
and becomes a site for personal improvement where singers are challenged, respond and
are challenged further by themselves and their peers. Although a cognitively
stimulating environment is created some singers may find it provides too great a challenge
and are thus excluded. The needs of the novice singer are arguably poorly met in
the Virtual Choir. This analysis of the Virtual Choir undoubtably offers lessons about the nature and future of learning within video mediated environments.