As discussed in Chapter 2, the narratives that shape emotions are co-authored by the individuals and the social groups to which they belong (Bruner, 2000, 2009; Echeverria, 2001; Hammack, 2008; McAdams, 2001). Accordingly, the performers’ narratives should be viewed as being shaped by the hierarchy of goals and values their group prescribes. While most research on emotion in performance centres on the individual and disregards the impact of culture on emotion, some studies are starting to pay attention to the influence that socio-cultural factors have on individuals’ musical
identities, and to the claim that ‘we become ourselves through others’ (MacDonald, Hargreaves & Miell, 2012; Vygotsky, 1931).
For instance, music genre is recognised as a ‘cultural system’ that reproduces particular ideologies, which in turn affect musicians’ attitudes, practices and priorities (Kingsbury, 1988). In Creech et al.’s (2008) study on differences and commonalities between
classical and non-classical musicians, it appeared that the former emphasised the drive to excel musically and technically, while the latter emphasised memorising, improvising and making music for fun. The practices within both environments (classical and non- classical) differ hugely, and these differences may be observed from the very start of musical learning. While popular performers acquire their skills outside any formal context, classical musicians learn in formal settings; while the former mainly learn the songs they want to learn, the latter learn exercises and pieces assigned by teachers; while the former usually ‘practice’ with peers, the latter practice alone (Green, 2002; Woody & McPherson, 2010). And from the very start of their musical learning, popular musicians enjoy the process significantly more than classical musicians do (Green, 2002).
Green points to some differences in the attitudes and values of performers from both cultures. She suggests that, contrary to classical music students, non-classical musicians view their music learning as highly enjoyable and voluntary; while they respect
technical proficiency, they primarily value the ability to play with ‘feel’; they particularly value empathetic relationships involving cooperation, reliability,
commitment, tolerance and shared tastes, along with a shared passion for music, and, most importantly, in addition to the above, Green found that the popular musicians’ activities raised their self-esteem and the esteem that they considered their peers had for them (2002). The cultural system within which these individuals make music appears to be very different from that of classical musicians, characterised as it is by a teacher- centred approach, competition and the minimal autonomy that is conferred on music students (Jørgensen, 2000; Kingsbury, 1988; Persson, 1996; Roberts, 1991).
The findings of this study suggest that the classical music milieu, rather than
encouraging self-transcendent narratives about performance, particularly encourages self-centredness (Scherer & Brosch, 2009). In fact, it is amongst classical music
students that self-centredness was found to be at its highest. This suggests that music institutions may be so preoccupied with increasing the performers’ competence and preparing them for passing exams and winning competitions that essential aspects related to music and performance (i.e. connectedness and contribution) may be being neglected. The lack of meaningful, self-transcendent reasons to perform appears to partly explain why classical performers report less joy than non-classical performers, and why performance-related joy is at its lowest amongst classical students.
Classical and non-classical performers appear to think about performance through different metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson,1980). For instance, the findings of the
Exploratory Study suggest that the classical music milieu implicitly leads performers to conceptualise performance primarily as a way to measure value or competence (this is suggested by the high focus on achievement found in this study), while the non-classical milieu encourages conceiving performance through metaphors of connection. The very way in which music students are introduced to performance may reinforce an
association between performance and evaluation. For instance, in most western music institutions, the first performances take place in the form of exams, competitions, or other kinds of auditions whose main raison d’être is to assess whether an individual’s performance is or is not ‘good enough’, according to some predetermined and often unrealistic standard or criteria (i.e. perfection). These early associations may be easily generalised, with novice performers quickly ending up viewing any kind of
performance as a means to evaluate whether their performance is, or even worse, whether ‘they’, are ‘good enough’. Such a metaphor about performance may create anxiety, and deprive music students of the joy that comes from sharing and connecting. Reflecting on the link found in this study between joy and ‘people-orientedness’, I wonder whether narratives that are exclusively self-centred (not including any metaphor of connection) might be responsible for the fact that so many performers in this study assessed their performances as only ‘moderately enjoyable’. Is the lack of self-
transcendent meaning the ‘something that is lacking’ in the experience of these performers?
In addition, the study showed that classical and non-classical performers differed in terms of their emotional profiles, that is, the emotional pattern shown by the emotions reported in three different settings: performance, practice and daily life. Classical
performers scored significantly higher than their counterparts in Emotional Profile 2 (EP2) – the emotional profile in which enjoyment occurs only during practice and not in performance. Perhaps, through its emphasis on achievement and its neglect of the connection dimension of performance, the classical music milieu may be
unintentionally promoting an approach to music-making that has been called ‘holicipation’ (Killick, 2006).
The term ‘holicipation’ was used to describe the rewarding experience of individuals who spend a considerable amount of time making music on their own without the need of, or interest in, performing for others (Killick, 2006). These performers
(‘holicipators’) make music ‘just for themselves’. Based on an extensive review of scientific and non-scientific literature, Killick suggests that holicipation is one of the least discussed and most widespread forms of musical activities, and argues that ‘certain kinds of social and cultural environment promote holicipation more than others’
(Killick, 2006: 291). He states that holicipation may be particularly prevalent within the classical music tradition. This raises the question: is the classical music tradition
fostering holicipation and, as a consequence, producing performers who enjoy
practicing but who do not view performance as a meaningful activity? In the case of my study, are performers who score high in EP2 ‘holicipators’?
When performance experiences were explored in isolation from the performers’ experience during practice, and in isolation from their musical genre, performers who scored high in EP2 appeared to feel the characteristic emotions of MPA (high levels of anxiety and absence of positive emotions during performances). Such performance experiences possibly resulted from the interplay of factors that researchers have previously identified as promoting MPA. However, when the performers’ negative emotions during performance were considered in the context of the positive emotions they reported during practice, and in the context of the musical genre to which they belonged, it became evident that the emotions they reported in the two settings were shaped by socio-cultural factors. The fact that classical performers scored higher than their counterparts in EP2, as well as in self-orientedness, suggests that the concerns highlighted by the classical music milieu might be so focused on the means to achieving musical excellence, namely practice, that the joys of sharing and reaching out that performance affords are overshadowed and become irrelevant. In this case, anxiety
could possibly result from feeling compelled to do something they have not come to view as meaningful and purposeful, namely, to perform for others.
Studying performers’ performance-related emotions within the context of their emotional experiences in other settings may broaden our understanding of MPA, as these findings suggest that some performers might just not view performance as the ultimate goal of their involvement with music; they might not have meaningful reasons to share their music with others, and they might feel uncomfortable or anxious when they need to do so. Moreover, studying MPA within the context of the performers’ socio-cultural milieu shows that this is not just a personal problem, and that the narratives and practices of certain music milieu (i.e. the classical music institutions) may have an on-going, detrimental impact on the performers’ performance experiences. If such pervasive determinants of anxiety exist, they should also be considered,
investigated and, ideally, changed.
In summary, the results of this Exploratory Study show that many classical performers make sense of their performances exclusively in terms of self-centred concerns. It seems that this narrow way of viewing performance might prevent them from experiencing much of the joy that results from connection and contribution. I hypothesise that an intervention could help performers to develop healthier, more self-transcendent, meaningful and inspiring narratives about performance that would allow them to enjoy their performances more fully. The next chapter describes the design of such an
intervention, but first I will discuss some methodological considerations and the contributions of this research.