The project involved teaching a group of classical voice students free vocal improvisation. The concept is based on a method developed by the Estonian singer and educator Anne-Liis Poll. She has designed a methodology aimed at classical voice students / singers where acoustics, classical singing techniques and the use of the voice are key. Using simple and comprehensible exercises, the participants build a repertoire of musical techniques to create a “toolbox”.

As well as improvisation being a genre in its own right, I also think that this method enriches the performer’s relationship with the repertoire. Classical musicians often have huge respect for what the notes on the page say and will ask themselves what the composer meant, how he/she wants it to sound etc.

Improvisation can help make singers feel freer and more confident in their instrument and dare interpret the piece in a more original and personal way. They develop their spontaneity, musical intuition, communication and listening skills.

There were four students in the group: three performance bachelor students in Years 2 (A), 3 (B) and 4 (C) respectively, as well as an external singer who had just completed her bachelor exams in music education. One of the students had done a fair bit of improvisation already; the other three very little. They all knew each other from before. C and D were particularly good friends and shared a flat. I was curious as to whether D would feel like an outsider since she was no longer an integral member of the NMH community, but I needed not have worried. I knew all of them fairly well. A, B and C had all been my voice students at some point. Sometimes we were joined by a composition student (E), who plays the piano and sings. He had done a great deal of improvisation already and became a highly valued addition to the group.

We held five seminars during the year. I had envisaged more than that, but it proved difficult to find a time when everyone could attend. The sessions usually lasted 90 minutes. I spent some time during the first seminar going through some of the principles of this type of improvisation. It is closely linked to speech sounds, and we worked systematically on voiced and unvoiced consonants, then vowels, then syllables. We did this in each session as a warm-up. I always took part in this as a sort of leader/tutor. Whenever I introduced new improvisation elements I would participate, before gradually stepping back over the course of the lesson. I usually gave them some parameters such as duration, affect, dynamics etc. Other times I left it to them to decide. After each improvisation I would first let the students comment on what had taken place before saying anything myself.

As they began to master the basic skills and had gained a certain overview of their “toolboxes” (something which happened surprisingly quickly), I introduced them to five factors that are important to be aware of when improvising in a group:

• Imitation
• Variation
• Contrast
• Solo/lead
• Silence

By consciously using these parameters it becomes easier to give the movements form, and it results in more variation. I stressed that for novices the last point is perhaps the most difficult: just listening, gathering your thoughts and actually waiting until you have something to say.

It was interesting to observe how the group dynamic changed during the course of the seminars. Each and every one of them made their mark on the improvisations and found their natural place in the group. D could be very expressive and enthusiastic. I could often see on her face what she was thinking before she even made a sound. C was proactive and never afraid to start an improvisation or introduce new elements. B was very open, attentive and reflective in respect of what took place in the lessons. She felt very comfortable improvising, especially when it drifted towards theatre/opera. A would frequently introduce new elements. He used his mother tongue (not Norwegian) when he improvised. He also liked to use melodies and lines to contrast with what was going on around him. E was very good at listening and being creative. He blended right in with the group and had a broad repertoire of improvisational elements. As a composer, he was of course familiar with structure and form. His improvisations reflected this. All in all, it was a group with good dynamics. It never became awkward or uncomfortable, and the communication was good.