The group met every three weeks for a two-hour seminar. Not all the students knew each other at the start of the project. The three first-year students, who do not have mandatory master classes during their first year of study, met many of their fellow students for the first time.

These sessions were not singing classes since the students have different vocal teachers, and only one of the students in the group had me as their principal instrument teacher. However, all the students were or would soon be in my vocal pedagogy class – a key topic when training to become a vocal teacher – and I therefore knew all of them. I was conscious that I was not to assume the role of vocal teacher in this group but that of a CRP facilitator. At the first seminar we spent some time learning the basic principles of CRP by introducing each of the four steps.

The process began with one artist performing a song. Next, the artist would sit down next to me (the facilitator) while the responders sat in a circle around us. One of the responders acted as secretary and wrote down everything that happened during the process. We then went through each of the four steps – sometimes linearly, although we often also slided dynamically back and forth between the different steps. We would sometimes spend most of the time on a single step, which meant that we had less time to spend on the other steps.

Thus, step 1 of the process begins with the artist performing his or her artistic material. During the performance the responders listen and try to engage in a dialogue with the artistic material so that they can give feedback with depth and sincerity afterwards. Their task is to give the artist feedback on what was meaningful to them. The aim is to go beyond vague descriptions such as good, beautiful, nice, well played etc. Meaningful means being able to describe rather than simply judge something as being good or bad. One can describe the meaningfulness of a performance in a variety of ways, such as inspiring, engaging, surprising, interesting, different, thought-provoking or provocative, and the audience are asked to justify their responses. The value of such feedback lies in the fact that the artist gains new perspectives and a deeper understanding of the effect the performance had on the responders. This step creates a platform of confidence and trust. The responders must ensure that they do not make the type of statements that are all too common when making assessments: “It’s nice, but…” By avoiding the but word – which implies direct or indirect criticism – the artist is in a better place to take on board, trust and remember the descriptions of meaningfulness. Potential alterations should only be suggested later in the process.

At step 1 the students found themselves having to dig deep in their own experiences to describe things that gave meaning to themselves. In the beginning we would hear phrases such as: “Your sound is really nice”, “I love the brightness in your voice”, or “I thought it was a really musical performance”. Eventually the students were able to give feedback that described how the artist touched them, created or expressed something, or managed to convey a mood. At one of the sessions a student performed a folk tune a cappella, and the responders gave feedback addressing the artist’s presence during the performance:

Responder 1: It was as if you were absorbed by the mood. And then you looked up, took a breath, and started singing. And that was just perfect. The length of time between that [the responder mimics the in-breath] and when you started singing. And it meant that when you started you had really … [long pause] uhhh… I was really moved by that. When I start talking about it… well, it was so incredibly touching. I don’t quite know what it is, I can’t put my finger on it, it was just so… so genuine in a way. And natural – both in terms of the characters and the use of the voice.

Responder 2: I want to pick up on it being so natural. I felt as if I were in a church; that I could hear the church acoustics when you sang.

Responder 3: You looked down at one point. Looking down can often seem a bit negative, but in this case it felt as if you just withdrew thoughtfully, and it worked really well.

Responder 4: A voice issue I was thinking about before I got lost in my own emotions… I noticed there were some phrases starting with “awww”. It was so sorrowful. Your attack had a sort of creakiness about it, and that really gave it a lot of meaning.

As the quotes above illustrate, when talking the responders would take long pauses in order to try to be precise in their feedback. They looked for the phrases that best described the feeling or thoughts they had during the performance. With practise it became easier to describe meaningful elements of a performance. According to the students, this was because they started feeling confident that they had something to contribute. Many of them said that they had often been wary of saying what they thought about a performance because they were uncertain whether their opinions were right. As we began to move away from the right/wrong way of thinking towards a line of thought that allows for different possibilities, they began trusting their own experiences. When in the role of the artist the students said that this step was greatly beneficial. Although the feedback at this stage was about being positive, it was perceived as being heartfelt. The fact that the responders made great efforts to articulate themselves and justify what they found meaningful meant that the artist began to believe that the feedback was more than just dutiful praise.

At step 2 it is the artist’s turn to ask artistic questions. These can be questions or issues that have arisen during practise, during the performance, or as a result of the feedback during step 1. The responders must give honest answers to the questions, but they must also stay on topic and not give feedback on anything other than what the artist is asking about. It is important that the artist practises how to ask specific questions and that he or she prepares questions with a clear focus. This will give them constructive feedback that can help them make progress. The facilitator can help rephrase unclear questions, make the artist be more straightforward about the questions he or she wants answered, and help “translate” between artist and responders. At this step there is room for follow-up questions from the artist in order to drill down even deeper into an issue. The responders become the artist’s tool for broadening his or her understanding and insight.

The artists had few artistic questions during the first sessions. It seemed that they did not trust their own ideas. This was confirmed during the group interviews:

«I feel uncomfortable when I have to make decisions. I’m so used to being told what to do that when somebody asks me what I want, I become uncertain. I don’t know what to say.»

This eventually began to change, and when in the artist role the students became more conscious of their choice of repertoire for the seminars and of what they wanted to get out of the process. They said they appreciated having a forum that allowed them to put forward their own ideas, as illustrated by one of the students:

«As a student I don’t think I’ve ever been in a situation where I’ve had such an opportunity to discover my own tacit musical knowledge. Here I’ve been able to show how capable I actually am.»

The artists asked questions about ensemble play and interpretation. Many of them performed music they had arranged or developed into personal versions. This led to discussions about issues concerning musical arrangements, finding your own personal version of a song, and liberating yourself from other people’s versions.

Since the students were accompanied by their peers rather than their regular teacher accompanists, issues surrounding ensemble play also became a topic for the participants in the process. As a response to the artist’s questions about ensemble play and chamber music, they were encouraged to take on a bigger role in the soundscape. They got feedback on how to listen to each other and how to give and take during a performance. Other issues brought up by the artist – and which were also topics addressed at step 3 – related to communication, e.g. presence, style of presentation, body language and use of the eyes.

Step 3 also involves questions, but it is now the responders’ turn to ask them. The questions must be open and/or neutral. Open and neutral questions are questions that cannot be answered by yes or no, instead opening up for different answers and solutions. Good interrogatives and formulations include what, how, in what way, what is the connection between and which, while questions starting with why or have you thought about may make the artist feel insecure or embarrassed, or it may cause them to feel a need to defend themselves, as pointed out by Lerman and Borstel in their book: «When defensiveness starts, learning stops.»(Lerman & Borstel, 2003, s. 21)

The responders often had ideas for improvements that they wanted to offer the artist. The questions at step 3 will often be based on the responders’ having a particular opinion on the performance, but they must take care not to dress up their questions as suggested changes. Initially the students found asking open and neutral questions somewhat laborious and difficult, while the closed questions asked at the beginning of the process were considered to be more straightforward in terms of meaningful content. The closed questions were specific and to the point, but eventually the students came to realise that these types of questions could be seen to exert influence on the artist. They found that questions such as “Have you understood the German lyrics of this song?”, “Why did you choose to sing pianissimo in that section?”, or “Could you sing with a more open sound?” gave the artist the feeling that there was something he or she had failed to understand or master. Thoughts such as “I should’ve thought about that myself” or “it’s so embarrassing not to be able to do this” created an imbalance in the relationship and dialogue. The responders could come across as knowing better than the artist.

According to the students, the reactions to the closed questions could sometimes compel the artist to try to solve the problems implied in the questions, since music students are so used to have to deal with closed questioning in their training. As the issues were discussed in more detail, and the students became clearer about what artistic identity can involve, many of them adopted Liz Lerman’s view that closed questions can cause embarrassment or shame to get in the way of motivation and learning.

If the questions were to encourage reflection and help the artist develop the performance further, we found that it was often not enough to ask wondering and neutral questions such as “What is the song about?” or “How did you work on the phrasing?”. This line of questioning usually just made the artist account for their choices, and the answers became more narrative than wondering. We therefore set out to find ways of phrasing open questions that went into more depth. Examples of such questions were: “Which different interpretations could be applied to these lyrics?”, “What is behind your choice of dynamics in this song?”, “Which choices did you make in terms of sound?”, or “How can you work to fulfil your intentions with this song?” These questions posed opportunities and allowed the artist to explore his or her tacit knowledge.

During the first session we also worked on asking open questions containing opportunities and challenges. The responders would often ask for a time-out from the process in order to discuss the essence of their questions before rephrasing them. They sought to ask questions that challenged the artist to find trigger points. We noted that the best questions meant the artist was unable to find answers there and then, instead saying that this was something they wanted to take on board as they continued to practise.

Topics such as ensemble play, interpretation and communication were also subject to questioning at step 3. The students asked questions about the positioning in the room, body language and eyes, and they addressed issues such as creating something in the moment, finding one’s presence and touching the responders. The artist received direct feedback when they managed to create something particularly interesting – something that is difficult to both achieve and to notice yourself in the practise room.

In the group interviews it emerged that the students found discussing these issues less scary than discussing sound and singing technique, for example. They felt that issues surrounding communication are based on right/wrong thinking to a lesser extent than singing technique. They avoided technical issues since they felt they did not possess an adequate vocabulary to discuss it in detail. They also considered singing technique to be something highly personal. The students worried about talking about each other’s techniques and could not find a way to create a dialogue about technique without it coming across as criticism.

Specific suggestions and opinions on the performance are presented at step 4. But even here it is the artist who defines what kind of input should be given. Most trained musicians have experienced being given feedback or direct instructions at inappropriate times. Perhaps they were not in a position to act on the instructions and make progress at that particular point in time, or maybe the suggestions were subjective and therefore less constructive at the time. Lerman allows the participants to reserve themselves against suggestions or opinions to an extent. The responder must make it clear what the opinion is about, so that the artist can decide whether or not to hear it. This serves as a kind of ritual which on one hand makes the responders focused and unambiguous in their suggestions, and on the other prepares the artist for what is to come: “I have an opinion on/suggestion for… Do you want to hear it?” Usually the artist wants to hear it, because it has been presented in a respectful manner. Still, being able to say no creates a feeling of having control of one’s own development.

This step is more similar of the working processes that the students are used to. It often feels good to finally get to a point where you can make concrete suggestions. The questions at step 3 could often be a bit unclear, which meant that both responders and artist needed to seek clarification. The artist was keen to receive suggestions on working methods or solutions and would ask for the experiences and knowledge of the other students. The different approaches at the first three steps along with the descriptions, questions and answers from both artist and responders meant that the responders developed good and relevant ways of presenting their solutions. They never assumed but were aware of the artist’s mindset and had respect for the artist’s ownership. The artist, on the other hand, had gained confidence and self-assurance through the first three steps of the process. This meant that he or she was motivated to be challenged even further.

However, there was not always a need for the responders to present their suggestions, and step 4 was therefore not necessary. Many issues could be discussed at step 2 or 3 because the artist used the questioning to identify challenges that he or she had not previously been aware of. One of the students said it felt good to not always have to say something or impose your opinions on others. The dialogues and open questions could result in change processes and outcomes that were unexpected or that took a different turn than anticipated. These were fascinating discoveries.

The students eventually became adept at executing the process. Their feedback early in the project suggested that they found CRP to be very technical and somewhat rigid. The processes were slower than they were comfortable with in the beginning, since they had to think carefully before being able to formulate relevant questions. However, one of the students also said it was good that they were working slowly, because that helped her structure her thoughts:

«It’s easy to try to focus on too many things at the same time. That can quickly trigger five or six processes simultaneously. This process allows me to practise discipline and concentrate on one thing at a time.»

During the interviews we heard that CRP allowed issues to be discussed in a different way than the students were used to elsewhere on their course. They were able to put into words things they had not thought about before but that they felt they had encountered on a non-verbal level. This made them conscious of new and different aspects of music-making and communication. They pointed out that this allowed them to gain a deeper understanding of what quality can entail, and they greatly appreciated how their fellow students highlighted qualities in their own playing that they had not been aware of themselves. This way CRP became a supplement to conventional performance studies at the Academy.

Often the process would not be linear: we slided back and forth between the different steps. As the facilitator, I might suggest going from step 3 back to step 2, or the artist, or responders would ask me to do so. This made the process dynamic. We worked on what we found conducive to the artist’s artistic development.

In their book, Lerman and Borstel recommend that the artistic product be performed before starting the dialogue. Many of the students wanted to be able to try out the suggestions several times during the process. Although the book does not suggest such an approach, I discussed it in a meeting with Liz Lerman halfway through the project. I wanted to investigate the possibility of expanding or adjusting the process to make more room for musical exploration. Lerman was open for us to experiment and add elements. The group therefore tried out different ways of working in order to let the artist dig even deeper into the issues that arose during the process.

This made the process more varied in form. We might concentrate on steps 1 and 2 and go back and forth between the two several times, or we might merge steps 3 and 4 and let the open questions sit side by side with the suggestions. Once a certain number of issues had been raised we might also let the artist decide which of them to address in more detail. We would then work on that particular issue and cover all steps at once by providing descriptions of meaning, open questioning and suggested changes, all relating directly to the artist’s own artistic questions. This way the artist controlled most of the process and received different kinds of feedback that could be tried out.