we can all make music

make show watch

Is there a sound if no-one is listening?

First up, music-making, even done alone, involves listening. It certainly can't be done in groups without listening, because making beautiful sounds together won't happen without the makers being aware of how their sounds mesh with each other. It's no wonder that most of the singologists talk about singing being as much about listening as it is about vocalising.

And ultimately, hearing the sounds the circle is making is as integral a part of the pleasure as the making itself.

So, singing together needs no audience. Indeed, it is the participants, rather than the listeners, who reap the most profound benefits. (This is not just rhetoric - there's a lot of serious scientific research that shows that the emotional impacts of singing are most powerfully felt by participants in group activity). Contemporary western society has only recently forgotten this truth.

Our culture seems determined to convince us that the effects of concert-going or CD-listening are just as profound and that ordinary folks would be best advised to ingest the art of the talented rather than have a go themselves.

And of course, isn't public performance the ultimate point of music making anyway? We believe not.

Don't get us wrong - many of us love performing and all of us enjoy a good concert. What's more, we recognise that many singing circles may, sooner or later, decide that they want to put on a show - and all power to them we say.

We also recognise that:

some leaders find that the most effective way to bring maximum focus, concentration and application to a group is to introduce the promise ('threat') of public performance at a specified time.
some singers feel that public performance is the peak of their art: that the energy flow that happens in a performance situation is what makes it all worthwhile (for them) - and that songs have a right to be heard.
there are those (many of whom work for arts funding agencies) who sincerely believe that the fundamental purpose of art is only achieved when the art is presented to others.
performing builds confidence and can inspire 'superhuman' acts - people do things they never imagined.
in a community context, the local singing group doing a show can be both uplifting and useful for participants and audience alike.
achieving a high degree of technical competence improves the 'value' of the work.

All these points of view contain elements of truth, but they all overlook the fundamental issue. The biggest buzz is in the making. We can all recall being at concerts where witnessing the dynamic between the musicians was at least as moving as the sounds they were making. We're sure that directly experiencing this dynamic (rather than witnessing it) is when the most profound effects of music-making impact on participants. And not only that. The effects of witnessing music-making, while obviously enjoyable, are simply not as intense as experienced when actually doing it. And, from the makers' perspectives, the buzz of public performance may be completely different from the buzz of music-making and, in all likelihood, swamp the latter.

Which adds up to the distinct possibility that not only does group singing need no audience but also that its impacts are far more intense without one.

Our perspective is also influenced by ideas about good entry points and journeys. If we start with doing it together, then everything else follows - appreciation, love, technique, dedication to whatever aspect of this joyful and fulfilling human attribute that may infiltrate the participant's desire - performance, recording, musicology, music therapy, music teaching ...

As far as we're concerned, making music with others is the first step.

we can all make music

make show watch

Is there a sound if no-one is listening?

making a sound world together