The research questions asked what effects the learning pod had on the motivation, confidence and the general experience of the participants.
General Experience
The reactions from the participants were without exception, positive. All participants mentioned that the creative collaboration was a unique opportunity to get to know and make music with people from different departments, backgrounds and genres.
It’s a challenge to create something from scratch, to gather and work with people from different cultures and backgrounds; all the departments are (usually) so separated; It made me feel grateful and honoured to be part of this conservatory with its great musicians and this project.
Motivation
The three aspects of motivation addressed in this research – competence, autonomy and relatedness – were positively affected by the pod experience.
Effects on competence included learning new skills: two participants gained new experiences in improvisation, several members played in unfamiliar genres and the classical, jazz and early music students had new experiences of making music together with electronics. All participants reported having new creative musical experiences and insights.
I learned I can do a performance without sheet music; I learned from the feedback procedure. The way we gave feedback is quite like saying things more from what you feel rather than judgement. We learned from that.
The pod was structured in a way that demanded autonomy from the participants, and there was abundant evidence that they embraced their personal and artistic autonomy as individuals and as a group. Everyone participated in the sessions. Only one participant decided not to do the 2nd phase. Every member reported having space for their ideas and music, and the group project was expertly organized by the members.
Everyone was free and trusted by the others to do their own thing and make it work – in the end it worked ‘by itself’; What I found really fun in this project, everyone was in control of their expertise. At the beginning everything sounded a bit alike, then little by little every part of the performance started taking its own shape and in the end, every part was very full of personality. At first it was a big improvised ‘soup’ and then – thanks to everyone’ s expertise, everyone took care of his own part.
There was a great deal of evidence of how much the participants appreciated working together – in the duos, the discussions and in the group project.
Hanging out was really powerful – the group identity and people were cooperating; making music made it so much better for everyone – that's when I felt super connected with everyone; As energy went down, someone took it up again – it was a group project in a ‘whole’; Everyone was involved in some way and in the end it was nice that we had this sensation that we wanted to be together and to do this right and have a great video, great results- so everybody was trying to do their best, to add to the final result; It was surprising how easy it was to make the whole project happen, to work with people from different departments to make a music outcome that made sense … This was a melting pot where we didn't get to choose – you just make something. It was good to collaborate with people you wouldn't choose. You can collaborate with anyone!
Confidence and self-efficacy
Several participants reported that through having new artistic experiences and being out of their comfort zone they felt more confident as musicians and as learners.
I feel more confident - as a musician and a person. Being with someone you don’t know – brings up more confidence to connect with each other – especially good for shy people.
Challenges
The main challenges experienced by the participants and the group included time-management, dealing with not having a leader (especially for enforcing & organising logistics and scheduling) and being able to give constructive feedback. Challenges were also experienced positively – as learning, for instance the classical musicians learning to connect with jazz and a sonology musician working with people who depend on reading notes.
Participants’ personal insights
There were many striking examples of participants’ insights about themselves, how they see the world and what is important to them:
Communicating in a non-musical way can influence the music; I need to be more extroverted about the ideas I want to express; I learned to trust everyone and be flexible; I don’t need to be as perfectionistic as I usually am – it’s good to let go. Trusting intuition; I like doing things by myself. Here I did my things by myself in a group; Things are definitely easier if there’s one person who has a vision and knows what he needs; The leader could be the group – but we don't know how to do it.
1st Phase: Duo for a Day
16 April Introduction and group workshop with researchers
18 April Duo for a day: Duo 1
19 April Group feedback session 1
25 April Duo for a day: Duo 2
26 April Group feedback session 2
2 May Duo for a day: Duos 3 & 4
3 May Group feedback session 3
9 May Duo for a day: Duos 5 & 6
10 May Group feedback session 4
12 May Post-Duo Phase individual interviews
The research took place in 2021, much of which was during partial lockdown. Group meetings were online, but the students were able to meet in person for the duos and the group projects, all in compliance with the Corona rules at the time. The overview can be found below.
The CCPod (Creative Collaboration Pod) was designed to enable students to explore music making in a peer-learning environment. Participants were from different departments of the Royal Conservatoire of The Hague and were given space to create performances using any inspirations and resources they could find.
The research set out to see what effect the CCPod environment had on the participants’ learning experience and motivation.
The CCPod consisted of twelve students (9 male and 3 female and aged between 19 and 31) from 5 different departments of the Conservatoire (Classical, Early Music, Jazz, Art of Sound and Sonology). The participants were selected from an invitation by the researchers to selected students after asking for suggestions from heads of departments, and ranged from Bachelor 1 to Masters 2 level. Over a period of 8 weeks, they participated in a two-phase project.
In preparation for the first group meeting, each participant was invited to make a short ‘this is me’ video. In an introductory workshop, the participants introduced themselves with their video clip and were informed about the content and schedule of the project and given advice on how to give and receive feedback in a respectful way for the feedback sessions.
A discussion followed where they were asked what possible challenges could they imagine facing and what could help them. Each participant was asked to provide a ‘wildcard’ that could be of help to any Duo that felt stuck during their process.
The first phase was called Duo for a Day, and involved groups of two participants, chosen at random (they had to be from different departments). Each Duo was announced on a Saturday evening and met on the following day where they had a room and seven hours to collaborate and create a short performance, which they then recorded. The recording was shared with the group the next evening (Monday) during an online group meeting. The duo played their video, described their process after which the rest of the group were invited to give feedback according to questions from the performers. Each participant wrote a personal report describing what they experienced.
The second Phase involved the entire group. A studio outside the conservatoire was made available for 4 days for the group to design, rehearse and produce a concert that was video recorded and then streamed to the public. The participants had complete choice about the content and form of the presentation. The only stipulation was that everyone took part in some way.
Like the Duo phase, the Group Project phase was preceded by a workshop where the two coaches/researchers described the conditions and asked questions about what the participants need to take into account, including the various tasks and roles involved. The group had their own brainstorming day the following day, without the researchers. After 4 days of preparation the presentation was recorded and streamed to the public (due to the Corona Pandemic, no live audience was allowed at that time).
A debriefing session took place one day afterwards to get feedback from the group, as well as from each individual.
Data was collected in the form of an initial survey before the project began, recorded group workshops and feedback sessions, recordings of duos and group project, written reports and individual interviews. The data was first analysed using an open coding method to determine the main features and themes that emerged from the data. The data was coded again, but this time looking for signs of learning experiences, effects on motivation, challenges that came from the activities as well as any other extra striking elements.
Each of the materials is listed below in chronological order and described. They were all coded using an open coding method to determine the main features and themes that emerged from the data. On the right column the results from each one is described.
‘This is me’ video
The participants were asked to prepare a short ‘this is me’ video to share in the first meeting as a way of introducing themselves in a way that gave them artistic and creative freedom to show themselves in any way they want:
For this first meeting we want you to introduce yourself with a little video, maximum 2-3 minutes, in which you illustrate yourself and what you do. We call it "This is Me / This is my message". Feel free to put anything in that describes you as a person and/or artist. Please make sure that your main instrument also plays a role in it! See results
Pre-intervention survey
Before the first meeting, each student was asked to fill in a pre-project Questionnaire, the aim of which was to gather information about who they are, their motivation for joining the project, their musical experience and qualities, their self-confidence and self-efficacy, whether they enjoy challenge, and how much the project description fit their comfort zone.
The results reflected a very rich and diverse group of musicians who were largely open to and experienced in many types of music, were creative and curious, and extremely willing and eager to participate in the project. See results
Introductory group workshop for Phase 1
During the first online meeting of the project, the researchers introduced the idea of the ‘Duo for a Day’ phase and explained the concept behind their research to the participants. Each participant introduced themselves by showing a personal ‘This is Me’ video that they had prepared. The second part of the workshop involved a facilitated brainstorm about duo collaboration. The following questions were posed to the group regarding the project:
What is important?
What types of goals could you imagine?
What problems and pitfalls might there be?
The workshop was video recorded via Microsoft Teams
Wildcards
Each participant was asked to formulate a ‘wildcard’ for their peers in case a duo was stuck during their session and needed an idea or some inspiration for their creative process. All wildcards were collected by the researchers. On the Sundays that a duo was working Felix created the Wildcard hotline between 12-15h. If stuck, the duo could text him and ask for a wildcard, Felix would choose one (they were anonymous) by lottery and send it back to the students. See results
Duo for a Day videos
Each duo produced a short video presentation at the end of their day together, which was presented to the group the following evening.
Duo personal report
Each participant was asked to write a personal report after their duo day. The questions were:
Q1: Describe the process you went through throughout the day: what happened?
Q2: What was interesting, surprising, unexpected or intriguing: how did it effect you?
Q3: What challenges did you encounter?
Q4: With a score from 1-10 (where 10 is the highest) how satisfied were you with the process and the outcome?
Group feedback sessions
For four consecutive weeks, each Monday evening, the group met online together with the coaches/researchers to watch the duo session/s from the previous day. The feedback procedure followed the critical response process, where the ‘audience’ gave statements of meaning (how the performance struck/affected them), performers described how the day went and asked questions to the group, and the group members asked questions to the performers. The researchers also used these sessions to discuss any logistics and problems connected with the project and to plan the dates and production of the group project phase that would take place in June. All four feedback sessions were online and were recorded on Microsoft Teams. See results
Post-Duo phase individual interviews
At the end of the duo phase, each participant was interviewed separately, to find out what they learned from their experience and how valuable they found the experience. The researchers also asked for feedback about if they thought the activity should be in the curriculum in some way and whether the design of the project could be improved. The specific questions were:
Q1: What did you learn from this experience?
Q2: Would you like to do something like this again, and if so, why? If not, why not?
Q3: Should this be in any form in the curriculum?
Q4: Is there anything that could be different or added?
Q5: What is your own question: is there something important for you to add that we didn’t ask?
Workshop for the collaborative project
The second Phase involved an artistic collaboration that involved the whole group. It began with a workshop with the coaches/researchers. The workshop was intended to introduce the main purpose and guidelines of the performance project and provide a space for the participants to brainstorm over how they could go about it. Through doing the Duo Phase, the participants knew each other personally as well as artistically so were well equipped for the task of creating and executing their performance. All planning, preparing, rehearsing and marketing would be done by the participants.
The procedure of the workshop included stating the project aims, suggesting themes, rules and guidelines, discussing scheduling and procedure, brainstorming topics like: strengths and skillset of each participant, goals, potential problems, ideas and strategies.
The workshop took place online and was recorded in Microsoft Teams. See results
Group planning session
The following day the participants met for their own planning session, without the researchers. See results
Group Project Presentation
The aim of the group project was to work as a collective in order to produce, create and curate a concert of around 30-45 minutes. The only assistance given by the researchers was to book a studio (Studio Loos in the Hague) for the rehearsals and concert and organize assistance for the live streaming. Due to the corona pandemic a live audience was not possible, so the performance was recorded on the 22nd of June and streamed to the public on the following day. See results
Post Group-Phase Debriefing Session
At the end of the second ‘group’ phase of the intervention, the participants were asked about their experience. This took place on the 14th of June in two separate online sessions, where half of the group attended each. The aim of the meeting was to congratulate the group, find out how the participants experienced the group phase and to thank them for their engagement in the project. The questions that were asked were:
Q1: How did it go? The rehearsal process, the planning process … how did the whole period work? What happened?
Q2: To what extent was the time and space used – was there enough?
Q3: What aspects of the experience and outcome were striking?
Q4: How did the collective idea manifest in the project?
Q5: What did you learn?
Exit Interviews Group Phase
On 24 June each participant was interviewed separately in order to extract more detailed and personal information about their own role in the group project, how they experienced it and their satisfaction with both process and outcome. In addition they were asked to compare the two project phases, what they would do it differently if they were to do something similar in the future and what they learned about themselves as a result of the experience. The specific questions were:
Q1: Give a short description of your role in the project
Q2: How many of the days did you attend?
Q3: Do you think you were challenged enough in an artistic way? Was there enough space to bring in your own ideas?
Q4: From 1-10, how satisfied were you with the process and the outcome of the project?
Q5: If you compare the two phases – the duo and the group phase – for you personally, and especially in an artistic way, what was different?
Q6: If you did something like this in the future, what would you do differently?
Q7: What did you learn about yourself from this experience?
2nd Phase: Group Project
11 June Group workshop with the researchers
12 June Participants plan the project
15 June Rehearsal 1 in Studio Loos
16 June Rehearsal 2 in Studio Loos
21 June Rehearsal 3 in Studio Loos
22 June Final rehearsal and recording in Studio Loos
23 June Video is streamed to the public
24 June Debriefing: group meeting
Duo Personal Report
Q1: Each of the duos spent time getting to know each other, explored making music together and formulating ideas and strategies and then preparing and performing for the finished video. Most did several takes and then chose one. The musical content was mostly created and/or improvised and consisted of creating moods and textures as well as telling a story. Duos involving technology spent some time setting up. Three of the six duos experienced stress because of running out of time.
Q2: Each duo expressed surprise in how much they had in common with their partner in spite of coming from different genres, departments and countries, and how easy and enjoyable it was to collaborate. Most duos experienced a rich exchange of ideas, tools, techniques and approaches. Although producing something convincing in a short time was sometimes stressful, participants also mentioned that they enjoyed rising to the challenge. Everyone mentioned enjoyment and high engagement.
Q3: Challenges included logistical ones like setting up and solving technological issues and time management. The musical challenges mentioned were about making transitions between sections, finding common musical ground, and not getting lost in ‘jamming’.
Q4: The ratings for both the process and the results indicate that the participants were highly satisfied with the experience, with only one rating below 7. Ten of the twelve participants rated the outcome the same or higher than the process. See graph on the right.
Pre-intervention survey
Motivation: Why did you accept to be in this project and what do you hope/expect to get out of it?
The main motivation was to play with people from other departments. Many participants were hoping to develop skills and qualities, including social skills, composition skills and performance skills, and have a deeper understanding of themselves. Several mentioned excitement at being able to interact live with other musicians (after a long period of limited interaction due to the corona pandemic lockdown rules).
I was always interested in crossovers and to connect with artists who are not specialised in the same field as me. I hope that I and everyone else can really gain and learn new approaches on music and art through the collaboration
In which genres have you had experience?
There was a large melting pot of genres represented in the group – all but two of the participants had experience in more than two genres. These ranged from classical to rock and pop, jazz, baroque, contemporary and more.
What kinds of music do you like to listen to?
The preferences were very rich and diverse and reflected more than the genres already mentioned.
How familiar are you with improvisation and what type of improvisation?
Nine of the twelve participants were somewhat familiar with improvisation, whether it be jazz, free, baroque, connected with eastern music, or a mixture.
Have you done any crossover performances or involving other media/arts? Describe
All but two of the participants had been involved in performances involving e.g. visuals, dance, poetry, acting, narration and even circus acts.
What kinds of ensembles have you played in?
All but one participant had been involved in many different types of ensembles and genres.
What experience have you had with creating and organising a musical project?
Most of the participants had experience organising projects, many with their own group or ensemble.
What is challenging for you about this project?
The main challenge that was mentioned was working with someone very different to themselves, producing something of high quality in a short time, and improvising (for those who had little or no experience). In spite of the challenges, all expressed excitement.
Self-Ratings
The self-rating questions are listed below, and a table showing the results is displayed on the right-hand side.
On a scale from 1-10 (where 1 is low and 10 is high), how would you rate the following?
- I am confident about my ability to learn new skills and repertoire
- I am a confident performer
- I am expressive
- I am creative
- I am curious
- I enjoy challenge
- I have a clear idea of the musician I want to be
- Where does this project idea fit into your comfort zone?
Workshop for the collaborative project (2nd Phase)
In the brainstorming session, the participants made a collection of their skills and qualities in anticipation of the project. These included artistic, technical, cognitive, organizational and interpersonal themes. The full list can be viewed on the right-hand side. Some examples of participant comments and insights that came up in the discussion are: Make a vague framework, a basic concept which leaves still a lot of freedom; Keep in mind that it is a group project and that there is space for everybody’s ideas; 12 people can offer so much that it is not within a certain genre or style; Everybody has his or her own target group, brought together it’s a big audience; Create a file for a collective risk log (we write down all the risks that could appear) so we are aware; Too many ideas might appear. Choosing one is a challenge; Find a way to select ideas together in a democratic voting or so.
Group planning session
The planning of the project took place without the researchers and was documented by one of the participants. They discussed their goals & target audience, made an artistic plan, formulated sub-groups and created a detailed story for the theme of the concert that included nuanced qualities for each section. In addition, the group made a detailed delegation of tasks and a detailed rehearsal plan.
A transcript of the session can be found in Appendix D
Post Group-Phase Debriefing Session
Q1: The participants first had an online group meeting on the 12th of June, where they made a structure for the rehearsals, discussed what their theme would be and that it should have a ‘storytelling’ aspect. They decided upon The Seasons, as it was a universal theme and could be prepared by splitting the larger group into four smaller ones – this was done using a random distributer to decide who was in each season. Having sub-groups was expedient for planning rehearsals. All of the members felt there was a democratic and collaborative atmosphere and that everyone was involved and contributing: I was afraid that some people would express themselves less, but that didn’t happen – there was a distribution of ideas. As energy went down, someone took it up again – it was a group project in a ‘whole’.
In the initial planning phase, two of the members took the leading role. The group divided the tasks according to their artistic and technical skillsets. Over the two rehearsal days (15 and 16 June) each season rehearsed their part as well as being available for transition sections. Two members composed a choral to end the piece; other members took charge of cabling. On the performance day (22 June) the whole piece was put together, rehearsed and performed with video recording (there was no live audience due to the Corona pandemic restrictions). One member edited the finished video and it was streamed to the public on the following day (23 June, 2021).
Q2: Most of the participants felt there was adequate time. Apparently not all of the time was used, and there was space for ‘chilling and snacks’. Most felt that it went really easily, and that because of the initial brainstorming session everything worked efficiently. A few participants thought that the time management could have been more efficient. Everyone agreed that the members were very flexible and willing: I also think that everyone felt responsible for what we were doing – I think every individual felt ‘we have to contribute’ so I didn’t feel bad with someone not being there, I thought ‘we will figure it out’ – ‘It will work out in the end’. The group and the people were amazing.
Q3: The participants were surprised and impressed by the competencies, flexibility and willingness of all of the individuals to make the result as good as possible, and by how rich and satisfying the interdepartmental collaboration experience was. They were struck with their ability to work towards a good result in such a short time frame. It was surprising how easy it was to make the whole project happen, to work with people from different departments to make a music outcome that made sense […] This was a melting pot where we didn't get to choose, - you just make something. It was good to collaborate with people you wouldn't choose. You can collaborate with anyone!
Q4: Although the group worked mostly in sub-groups they were all present most of the time and felt like a collective. There were tutti sessions where they designed and performed transitions as well as gave the other sub-groups feedback and suggestions. There was a sense of camaraderie and enjoyment of each others’ company: The roles were quite evenly spread. We focused on our strengths. Some people were focussed on keeping the group together and keeping things moving forward. The group dynamic was healthy; we helped each other with not only musical but also technical things. Even with wrapping up cables, food – all trying to help each other.
Q5: The main things mentioned by the participants about what they learned were that is it possible to collaborate artistically with people from different genres and backgrounds, and that it is important to let go of control and expectations to some extent to let a process flow – even in a group setting: learning to trust one’s own intuition and to trust others. There was a big discussion about the pros and cons of having a leader and how it can be possible to ‘let the group lead: Things are definitely easier if there’s one person who has a vision and knows what he needs; The leader could be the group – but we don't know how to do it.
The challenges that were reported included: Connecting with jazz & improvisation (a classical participant); working with people who depend on reading music (a sonology participant); not having a director – especially for policing time management (several participants).
Exit Interviews Group Phase
Q1: Some people had single roles, some multiple roles, covereing artistic, logistical and social contexts. Some roles changed during the process of the project. In the planning session: I wanted to check that everyone was expressing themselves. There was clear leadership at the beginning. There were people about structure (leading) and people about expression.
Q2: Some of the participants (5) were there the whole time, and the others were there every day but not the whole time.
Q3: Nine of the eleven participants felt there were challenged enough in an artistic way, though not always in a way they expected or were used to. All thought there was space in the group process for their ideas.
Q4: See graph on the right
Q5: All participants recognised clear differences between the duo and group phases, as well as having similarities. The duo phase was reported by several to be more intimate, have more space for their own ideas and a clearer structure. Others found the group context to have more artistic possibilities: [In the group] There were so many people and I was free to do what I want. In the duo – with one other person – we were intertwined. I didn’t feel that in the group; For the organisation, the difference was – we needed to be more aware in the group phase – that it was a real performance; We had a lot more possibilities. In the 1st phase there were only two people and you have to deal with that. If you have incompatible ideas in a duo you have no choice, but in the bigger group you have a lot more possibilities.
Q6: When asked what they would do differently if they were in a similar project in the future, the main response was connected to organisation – for instance of equipment and clearer scheduling of rehearsals and attendance. Other things included working with a smaller group; having more time for improvising and jamming, as well as exploring the group dynamic. The group was divided over whether or not there should be a leader.
Q7: Participants were asked what they learned about themselves. Answers included:
That I need to be more extroverted about the ideas I want to express. Next time I would try to present it in a stronger way; I learned to trust everyone and be flexible; I don’t need to be as perfectionistic as I usually am – it’s good to let go. Trusting intuition; I like doing things by myself. Here I did my things by myself in a group; Learning to let go. Being aware of other people and not just in my own head. Listening to the ideas of others; I have more patience and can embrace whatever happens more in an open way, and that showed in this project: Make it work. It was ‘professional integration’ in a way; I learned to let things flow and not having control over everything and no expectations; I need to be more flexible; I learned to recognise when to step back. I have a leader personality and want to organise things, have control over things. I learned when to step back and let other people take over – that it’s beyond music. And within music – I learned I can do a performance without sheet music.
Introductory group workshop for Phase 1
In a constructive and active discussion, the participants brought in their issues and answers to the questions. They found the following things important: to define their audience; to get to know each other before starting to work; to discuss/create a story or scenario; to be non-judgmental about performances of others; to be able to let go and to embrace their musical differences. The possible pitfalls included: losing balance by imposing personal ideas; being passive by not taking action; not finding a structure for the process.
For the case that a duo might become stuck for ideas or inspiration during their duo of the day session, the researchers introduce the idea that everyone formulate a ‘wildcard’. At the end of the session, the group talked about the importance of balance between space and input as well as composition and improvisation.
Duo for a Day video presentations
All of the duo presentations exhibited creativity and were each different from the others, creating narratives, soundscapes and effects.
Four of the six duos combined existing compositions with original material and improvisation and two duos chose for improvisation only. All participants chose to use improvised dialogues and three duos chose to do a narrated storyline, one using visual objects as a storytelling tool. The musicians pushed their boundaries: in each of the duos, at least one member used their instrument in an unconventional way and/or made use of unfamiliar instruments. Two participants experienced improvising for the first time.
Detailed description and excerpts from each video can be found in Appendix C
Group feedback sessions
The participants' reactions to their peers showed maturity, respect and insight. Their observations were, on the whole, nuanced and genuine.
The reactions and analyses were grounded, constructive and thoughtful. It was striking how openly most of the group members were able to describe their feelings while hearing each other’s music. In many of the reactions metaphorical descriptions and comparisons were made to describe what the student felt and experienced.
The following metaphors and descriptions came up as key words during the feedback sessions:
- Like a dream / like on a beach / painting / story / travelling / journey / imaginary / painted fluid motion / cinematic / soundtrack / like cooking / choreography / movie / color
- Visual aspect / space / unexpected / imagination / script / structure / balance / flow / cultural background / deep connection / organic / naturally / flexibility
- relationship between different instruments / performers had fun / mix of two mediums / two perspectives combined / sounds matched / complete fusion / natural development / almost magical / new experience / diversity of the group / getting inspired by others
Over the course of the sessions, there was a noticeable development not only in the creative quality of the duo presentations, but also in the way the group constructively responded to it. The participants created and developed their skills in constructive feedback, and they inspired each other in how to give that feedback in an ordered and respectful way, just as they inspired each other artistically with their performances.
Using the critical response approach to feedback was challenging for the participants, as they were more used to giving opinions, criticism and advice. Most of the responses were positive and polite and some participants missed getting useful and more ‘critical’ comments. The only concrete example was a participant mentioning that they missed balance between the two players of the duo.
In every session it was evident that storytelling and imagination featured both in the performances and how they were received. All participants mentioned that this was the first time they did a project like this and all and found it exciting, challenging and especially artistically and socially inspiring. They recognized the importance of finding the balance and being flexible in such an inter-departmental and cross-over process.
Some of the duos needed to formulate and stick to a plan – e.g. a structure or a script, whilst others liked the idea of free-floating, to just play and follow some rough ideas or guidelines. This seemed to be due more to the personalities of the individuals rather than the musical background and genres they represented. The differing cultural and artistic backgrounds and genres the students come from, served in most of the cases as a main inspiration of the duo’s work.
Almost every duo suffered from problems due to time management. Even when they started the day constructively, most experienced time-pressure in the end. Some had to deal with a lot of equipment to build up, others just needed too long to find ‘their thing’. Most duos mentioned that they tried out ideas for too long, or started ‘doing’ too late, and in the end had to hurry to choose one, rehearse and record their final decision.
For a detailed list of participants' responses see Appendix B
Group Project Presentation
The theme of the concert was ‘The Seasons’. Subgroups were formed to create a musical fragment to represent each season, connective sections were added, and the performance ended with a choral was composed by two group members and performed by the whole group. The musical content consisted of compositions from several genres, improvisations, spoken elements and the composed choral. Participants moved out of their comfort zones by trying different genres, effects, new skills (e.g. improvisation) and unfamiliar musical interactions. The performance lasted 35 minutes. The main features of the artistic collaboration are listed in the table on the right.
Post-Duo Interviews
Q1: Some participants said they had doubts before and were pleasantly surprised. When asked what they learned, the most common answers were: learning how to work with someone from another field and finding new perspectives; dealing with logistical and musical challenges; having to make quick choices, trust intuition, let go of control and own ideas in order to find collaboration: to not have always everything planned in detail – this is not a bad thing. Two of the participants who had little experience in improvisation learned that they are able to improvise. Being flexible with others and getting to know the other was an insight shared by most participants: communicating in a non-musical way can influence the music.
Additional comments included learning to be more artistic and gaining confidence and the importance of working with motivated people.
Q2: When asked if they would do something like this in the future, the unanimous answer was an enthusiastic yes! The experience was for everyone a new and stimulating one. This is one of the things I like most in music. It’s a challenge to create something from scratch, to gather and work with people from different cultures and backgrounds
Q3: All participants thought a project like this should be offered in the curriculum: because all the departments are so separated. Most thought it should, however be voluntary and one said: Yes – to be forced to be creative. Should be much more often. I missed that in the 6 years I‘ve been here. Everyone needs that – it’s part of the professional practice.
Q4: When asked how the project could have been structured differently, there was some discrepancy in the answers. Some participants liked the excitement of not knowing who their duo partner would be until the evening before, whereas others would have liked more warning and time to prepare. The way of giving feedback – using the ‘critical response process’ was mentioned by several participants as being very beneficial: I learned from the feedback procedure. The way we gave feedback is quite like saying things more from what you feel rather than judgement. We learned from that. One participant thought the feedback should be more critical. Some would have liked more time for the group discussions and others wanted less time/more efficiency. Some people mentioned liking the freedom they were given: What I found really good was that you said ‘It’s up to you’ – everything is OK and there is no right and wrong: stressing that was really good – it is very important to feel safe. Some others thought it might be good to first have a stage where there was more structure.
Almost everyone would have liked more time for preparing the recording. Very few of the duos started ‘on time’ and all worked until the finish time.
Q5: There were not many additional comments. Some examples are:
You could ask something about how it was for us in the duo to connect personally and musically – before we started creating, and how that was reflected in the creative process
At the end after the duo a question that would be nice to ask: Do you feel more confident? As a musician and a person. Because I did! Being with someone you don’t know – brings up more confidence to connect with each other - especially good for shy people.
Maybe ask: If you could design this project – what would you have done?
‘This is Me’ Videos
The twelve “This is Me” videos that the participants of the group presented during the very first online meeting were very diverse. 9 male and 3 female students (ages 19-31) of the NAIP, Classical, Jazz, Art of Sound, Early Music and Sonology departments, representing 7 different nationalities and ranging from 1st year bachelor to 2nd year master presented themselves. Eleven of them give insightful 2 to 4-minute presentations, only one participant did not make much effort and just delivered a 20 second greeting (this student was the only participant who stepped out of the project after the first phase).
Four students filmed themselves telling the group about their playing, interest and motivation, without sharing impressions of their artistry or playing their instruments. Seven participants presented well produced videos containing personal texts, fragments of concert registrations, pictures of performances, family or hobbies, and live playing of a high artistic nature. One participant presented themself solely with a filmed live performance.
All participants showed their excitement to participate. Most of them mentioned interest and/or experience in several or other genres. Most exhibited a high personal and artistic confidence and a willingness to bring several competencies into the project, and all showed motivation and engagement for the project and a will to collaborate.
Wildcards
The wildcards included: advice about structure; imagery and story ideas; motivational comments, ways to explore their instrument or making of effects; ways to communicate with each other; ways to give meaning to their music; explorative devices. The ideas that the participants came up with showed considerable creativity and insight into creative processes.
To view the wildcards, see Appendix A
The SPLENDOR artist collective: inspiration for the CCP projects
Felix Schlarmann – jazz drummer, entrepreneur, and main subject teacher at the Royal Conservatoire – is also a member of an artist collective. Splendor is based in Amsterdam and comprises of enterprising musicians, composers, and visual artists from many backgrounds – including orchestral musicians, composers, classical improvisers, early music and jazz musicians, multi-media artists, tap dancers and more. Members work and play together, creating new music or re-arranging existing content. Or simply improvise. Here, in this musical laboratory, artistic challenge, stylistic experiment and cross-overs are the norm. Exploring new horizons, learning and experiencing together, is part of the philosophy.
The idea for the Duo for a Day project was born within Splendor during the first Corona lockdown when there were no public concerts allowed but the group wanted to create something new and special for an online stream, that deeply connects with the collective mindset, in a new, challenging and surprising way. The outcomes were remarkable.
Duo for a Day
What happens when a jazz drummer meets the principal flute player of the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra and they are assigned to create and prepare a 45-minute concert within only one day of rehearsal? The duo for a day process challenges the musicians to start looking at and hearing music differently: borders get widened and new parameters emerge. Creativity, flexibility, and an overall openness is triggered and required. Most importantly, the artistic outcome can be a one-time performance only. Even though the aim for high musical quality should be important at all times, in this case the process towards the final result and the experiences made along the way make it especially valuable.
Felix was deeply impressed and inspired by this project. His experiences form the main inspiration for this part of the research with the aim of finding out how students’ motivation and learning could gain would be affected from the use of such collective processes and experiments within a conservatoire.
Learn more about Splendor by visiting
www.splendoramsterdam.com
Features of the presentation
- Existing compositions from jazz, pop and classical music
- Original material of the group (jazz and classical)
- Improvisations / dialogue on chord changes and in more free contexts using effects
- Unconventional use of own instrument – done by most players creating sounds in interactions with students from Art of Sound or Sonolgy
- Use of unfamiliar instruments / voice was used as a tool for effects as well within compositions
- Non-musical elements were used in the form of narration (text elements leading through the parts)
- Way of communication: the message is a clear storytelling line introduced in the title, structured in narrative interludes, but mostly done musically
- New skills for some of the participants: improvisation, playing other genres, interaction with electronics and sound effects, creating sound effects with their own instrument
List of participants’ skills and qualities (self-reported)
Participant A:
Organising, planning
Artistic: recording team, audio, things we need/use/plan
Guitarist: creating textures, pedals, atmosphere
Participant B:
Technical problem solving
Dropping random words for the ignation of imagination in a creative process
Participant C:
Endless ideas, how to continue a composition or melody
Creative, out of the box ways of technical challenges, part of technical/recording team
Participant D:
Organising, planning
Theatrical things
Making things practical and concrete
Participant E:
Publicity, communication, online things
Create graphics
Organising, planning
Drawing & lettering
Writing lyrics & rearranging
Writing concert programs
Fashion, make-up, looks
Participant F:
Thinking about instrumentation, arranging
Giving everybody a voice to speak
Promotion, social media
Participant G:
Adding baselines
Give visual input (promotion group)
Occupied with esthetic details
Creative writing/story telling/connecting stories
Participant H:
Technology (not piano)
Live electronics, micing up everybody's instrument, big mixer on stage, sound reinforcement
Glueing ideas together and find connections
Poster design
Participant I:
Trumpet
Extended techniques: making different sounds
Coming up with ideas
Explore
Participant J:
Having lots of ideas
Piano: adjusting to whatever is needed
Extended techniques
Getting excited
|
Participant |
Self-efficacy learning |
Self-efficacy performing |
Expressive |
Creative |
Curious |
Enjoys challenge |
Long term vision |
Comfort zone |
|
1 |
9 |
7,5 |
9 |
10 |
8 |
7 |
5 |
6 |
|
2 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
4 |
|
3 |
7 |
6,5 |
8,5 |
8 |
10 |
8 |
5 |
6,5 |
|
4 |
5 |
7 |
8 |
7 |
10 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
|
5 |
9 |
7 |
4 |
8 |
8 |
5 |
9 |
7 |
|
6 |
7 |
7 |
9 |
10 |
10 |
9 |
9 |
4 |
|
7 |
9 |
8 |
7 |
6,5 |
9 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
|
8 |
8 |
7 |
9 |
9 |
10 |
8 |
9 |
7 |
|
9 |
7 |
7 |
7,5 |
7,5 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
5,5 |
|
10 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
9 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
6 |
|
11 |
10 |
7,5 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
7,5 |
9 |
7,5 |
|
12 |
10 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
10 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
|
Median |
8 |
7 |
8 |
8,5 |
9,5 |
7,25 |
8 |
6,25 |
