Daugherty (2003) International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, Vol. 1 (1) Choir Spacing 48

Choir Spacing and Formation: Choral Sound Preferencesin Random, Synergistic, and Gender-Specific Chamber Choir Placements

James F. DaughertyThe University of Kansas

Abstract

This investigation assessed preferences ofchoristers (N = 20) and auditors (N = 60) relative tothe choral sound of a university chamber choir andits male and female voice sections in three spacings(closed, lateral, circumambient) and two formations(random block sectional and synergistic). Fiveconditions of an SATB homophonic choral excerpt,and three conditions each of a male choir andfemale choir homophonic choral excerpt, were sungand recorded digitally. Auditors listened to 12 pairsof randomly ordered excerpts, expressingpreference for most pleasing choral sound.Choristers completed the Singer Evaluation Form.Results indicated significant singer and auditorpreference for spread spacing, and auditorpreference for the sound of the random rather thansynergistic choir formation. Auditors significantlyfavored circumambient spacing for female singersand lateral spacing for male singers. Choristers(100%) thought spacing exercised positive influenceupon the choir’s sound. Singers reported less vocaltension and better vocal production in spreadspacing. Results were discussed (a) in terms ofchoir spacing as onemeans of contributing to both ease of vocalproduction and a desirable choral sound, and (b) interms of the persistence of certain assumptions inchoral pedagogy materials that may confuse thedistributive and collective parameters of choralsound.

Where individual singers stand in choralensembles is a historied concern, particularly amongchoral music educators in North America. Choralmethods textbooks and materials throughout muchof the past century, for example, typically diagram

and endorse various sectional and mixed formationsto achieve desired choral sound. Empiricalinvestigations to date (Daugherty, 1999; Lambson,1961; Tocheff, 1990), however, find scant basisoverall for acoustic claims regarding mixed orsectional formations per se.

Some choral directors advocate "compatibility"placement of voices in choral ensemble, anapproach popularized by F. Melius Christiansen andthe St. Olaf College Choir in the 1920's (Decker andHerford, 1973). To achieve such placement, adirector listens to singers individually and in variouscombinations according to idiosyncratic, director-determined criteria.

Six studies (Folger, 2002; Woodruff, 2002;Ekholm, 2000; Giardinare, 1991; Lambson, 1961;Tocheff, 1990) sought to investigate thisphenomenon using both full ensembles and smallertrios. Yet, this placement perspective has not lentitself readily to objective, universal replication byother directors with other choral ensembles, andmany such investigations to date have evidenceddifficulties with methodology and data analysis.Daugherty (2000) suggested that this method ofplacement had pedagogical benefit, regardless ofwhether significant acoustical differences ensued,because it encouraged singers’ sensitivity to theirindividual contributions toward ensemble sound. Heproposed that this strategy might work wellpedagogically when the whole choir, not simply thedirector, had a voice in deciding where in theensemble individual choristers appeared to soundtheir best.

Choral methods textbooks have suggested stillother strategies for placing singers, among them:height, sight-reading skill, rhythmic ability, voicetimbre (“reed” vs. “flute), and whether a singer is“strong” or “weak” overall. While such criteria have

Daugherty (2003) International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, Vol. 1 (1) Choir Spacing 49

not been investigated empirically with respect toacoustical contributions, choral directors havecommonly reported using various synergisticcombinations of these ideas to arrive at pleasingchoral sound.

In two empirical studies that yielded significantdifferences in preference for choral soundattributable to replicable singer placement,Daugherty (1996, 1999) found that spacing ofsingers, not formation per se, engenderedperceptions of desirable choral sound among bothauditors and choristers. For sound clips fromDaugherty (1999) click here.

In a related vein, Ternström (1994, 1995, 1999)investigated what he termed "self to other ratio"(SOR) among singers. Results of Ternström’sstudies suggested that the reference sound of therest of the choir could overpower the airbornefeedback received from one's own voice, perhapsresulting in oversinging and poor intonation. Venueacoustics, of course, could exacerbate suchproblems still further. Ternström, moreover,suggested that SOR preferences may tend to differamong voice types and position within the choir.

The purpose of the present investigation was toassess preferences of choristers (N = 20) andauditors (N = 60) relative to choral sound of anSATB university chamber choir in three spacings(closed, lateral, circumambient) and two formations(random block sectional and synergistic), employingsung excerpts from both SATB and TTBB/SSAAantiphonal choral literature. To this end, thefollowing research questions were devised: (1) Arethere differences in choral sound perceived andpreferred by participants (auditors and choristers)when the physical position of choral singers onrisers varies from close to spread spacing amongsingers? (2) Are there differences in choral soundperceived and preferred by participants (auditors

and choristers) when the physical position of choralsingers on risers varies between random blocksectional formation and a conductor devisedsynergistic formation? (3) Are there differences inchoral sound perceived and preferred by participants(auditors and choristers) when gender specific(SSAA or TTBB) ensembles are employed? (4) Doperceptions and preferences of auditors differaccording to gender; and do perceptions andpreferences of choristers differ according to voicepart sung, gender, or acoustic environment(rehearsal room and auditorium)?

For purposes of this study a synergisticformation (from "synergy, the interaction of two ormore agents or forces so that their combined effectis greater than the sum of their individual effects,"American Heritage Dictionary) was defined as theaccustomed formation of choristers in the chamberchoir (N=20) participating in this study. According tothe choir’s director, singers were placed in thisformation using the following successive criteria: (a)grouping singers into ten couples by height, thoughnot necessarily by gender; (b) placing those coupleswith comparatively louder, more resonant voices (inthis case, four couples) toward the center; (c)putting the most rhythmically accurate voices stillavailable as the outside voice on the ends of rows(in this case each of the back two rows); and (d)arranging the ten couples in a windowedarrangement with approximately 18 inches betweencouples (though not between persons within acouple) in four rows that included the three riserrows and the stage floor. These criteria arepotentially replicable with choral ensembles ofsimilar size and composition. Moreover, they reflecta combination of measures often mentioned inchoral methods literature. The particular synergisticformation used in this study is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The synergistic chamber choir formation used in this study.

Daugherty (2003) International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, Vol. 1 (1) Choir Spacing 50

METHOD

Participants

Choristers. One concern of this study was toinvestigate choir spacing with a small, college-agechoir. Previous investigations of this type(Daugherty, 1996, 1999) focused on larger highschool choruses. The choir employed for this studywas a select undergraduate chamber ensemble froma university in the Midwestern United States.Members (N = 20) ranged in age from 19 to 27years, with most choristers (64%) at 21 years of age.Most choristers (80%) were juniors or seniors. All buttwo (n = 18) of these singers were music majors.There were 10 male and 10 female singers. Thischoir was chosen in part because its membershipconsisted of well-trained, experienced choral voices.All members had taken private voice lessons.

Auditors. Auditors for this study constituted ahaphazard array (N=60) of individuals with choralmusic experience. There were 30 female and 30male auditors. Choral music experience wasdefined as current membership in or leadership of achoral ensemble, as well as two or more years’continuous membership in a choral group since thefirst year of high school (following Daugherty, 1999).All auditors were music majors, most (n= 44) witheither under-graduate (n = 26) or graduate degrees(n = 8) in choral conducting or choral musiceducation.

Auditors ranged in age from 19-40 years. Uponrecommendation of an audiologist, individuals above40 years of age were excluded from this group as ageneral precaution against possible presence ofhearing loss. Otherwise, auditors were self-screened for hearing acuity by responding to twoquestions: (a) Have you ever been told you have ahearing loss? and (b)How would you evaluate yourhearing? (Responses could be chosen from:"normal, better than normal, slight hearing loss,moderate hearing loss, severe hearing loss.") Sinceresults of a previous study (Daugherty, 1999) foundalmost no significant differences overall betweenpreferences and perceptions of experienced andinexperienced auditors with reference to choralsound, auditors in this study were limited to thoseindividuals with choral experience.

Materials, Procedure, and Equipment

Choral music. Choral music was excerpted from"Adoramus Te" by Giovanni da Palestrina for SATBvoices, and "O Admirabile Commercium" by JacobHandl for SSAA/TTBB voices, edited by Ernest

White. These compositions were selected frommusic the choir was then rehearsing because theywere a cappella, largely homophonic, and had aLatin text. Daugherty (1996) reported that auditorsstated a foreign language facilitated concentrationon choral sound. For the SATB trials, the firstphrase of the Palestrina, "Adoramus te, Christe" wassung. Ex post facto analysis of the DAT from therecording session revealed that each sung excerptwas 18.5 seconds in duration. Ex post factoanalysis of the DAT from the recording sessionrevealed that the men's excerpt was 8 seconds induration in all trials, while the women's excerpt was12 seconds in all trials. Sung excerpts for both maleand female ensemble were taken from the Handl "OAdmirabile Commercium."

Placement of singers. Singers were placedrandomly in the three row sectional formation. Thismeasure controlled for possible variables that werenot concerns of this study, such as situating strongand weak singers, “compatibility” placement ofvoices, height, or voice quality.

For random sectional formation, choristers stoodin contiguous sectional blocks according to the voicepart sung; members of each of the choir's voicesections occupied all three rows of the riser units.Choristers stood on portable Wenger choralstanding risers. Each riser unit contained threesteps. Each step was 18 inches wide. Elevationbetween steps was eight inches. Seven contiguousunits were used, connected per manufacturerinstructions to form a modest semicircular curve.Each formation used a windowed arrangement,allowing singers a sight line to the conductorbetween the heads of singers in the row ahead.

Choir spacings employed for this study areillustrated in Figure 2. For close spacing, the upperarm of one singer was no farther than one inch fromthe upper arm of another singer. For lateral spacing,24-inch dowel rods were placed between the upperarm of singer and the upper arm of a neighboringsinger; dowels were collected before singing.

Circumambient spacing followed the sameprocedure for lateral spacing while adding a vacantrow's space between each row of singers. Thesecond riser step was left vacant, and the front rowof the choir stood 18 inches in front of thosechoristers on the first riser step. Circumambientspacing was achieved by leaving the front row ofsingers in place while moving the riser units back 18inches. Distance between the front row of the choirand the microphones was precisely the same in allrecordings to insure integrity of the choralsoundscape. For video clips of this choir as recordedin close and circumambient spacings, click here.

Daugherty (2003) International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, Vol. 1 (1) Choir Spacing 51

Close chamber choir spacing:

Lateral chamber choir spacing:

Circumambient chamber choir spacing:

Figure 2. Chamber choir spacings in a random block choir formation.

Spacing procedures for the male ensemble andfemale ensemble were the same as for the full choir,except that the gender-specific arrangements usedonly two riser-rows. Singers stood on the first tworiser rows for close and lateral spacing, and on thefirst and third riser rows for circumambient spacing.Gender specific spacings are illustrated in Figure 3.

The choir rehearsed a like amount of time in allthree spacings prior to the recording session.Choristers were aware only that the ensemble wouldsing in different positions for a recording session.The researcher asked choristers and conductor notto discuss or share non-verbally their perceptions ofvarious placements until after the recording session.

Consistency of tempo and conductor behavior.To insure consistency of both tempo and conductorbehavior in each condition, singers followed theconductor via pre-recorded videotape on a 21 inch

television monitor. The choir practiced with thevideotaped conducting prior to the recordingsession. The video monitor was centrally placed 8feet in front of the choir during recording. The backsof the monitor and the video playback device werecovered with thick material to eliminate anyequipment noise. A chorister controlled playback ofthe videotape.

Recording venue. The recording venue was arecital auditorium at a university school of music.Seating capacity of the hall was 600 persons. Theauditorium was 100 feet long with an average heightof 40 feet and a fanned width. Irregularly shapedsound diffusion panels were in place on side andback walls, and acoustical clouds were suspendedseveral inches from the ceiling. Reverberation timeswere measured at 2.7 seconds for higherfrequencies and 2.9 seconds for mid-range

Daugherty (2003) International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, Vol. 1 (1) Choir Spacing 52

Close gender-specific spacing:

Lateral gender-specific spacing:

Circumambient gender-specific spacing:

Figure 3. Gender specific chamber choir spacings in a random block choir formation.

frequencies. Verbal descriptors of the hall fromthose performers who used it frequently most oftenincluded adjectives such as “live” and “reverberant.”

Recording equipment and procedures. Twoidentical AKG C 414 B-ULS omni condensermicrophones were placed in a spaced pairconfiguration with a distance of 6 feet between them.Microphones were situated 15 feet from the lineformed between the ends of the semi-circular riserconfiguration at a height of 11 feet from the stagefloor. They were angled slightly upward. In alldetails, this arrangement followed expertrecommendations for recording choral ensembles asdescribed in Miller (1992). A professional recordingengineer monitored the entire process. Oncemicrophones were placed and the recording levelset, nothing was touched during the recordingprocess; only the positions of the choristers on therisers were changed.

Excerpts were recorded on a BASF DATmaster(R-64) Digital Audio Tape (DAT). Signals from themicrophones were brought directly into a TascamDA-P1 DAT Recorder. No EQ (frequencyequalization) was added. The recording engineermonitored the entire process with AKG 240headphones, the same headphones later used byauditors.

Survey instruments and auditor DAT.Immediately upon conclusion of the recordingsession, two survey instruments, the SingerEvaluation Form (SEF) and the Ensemble Director'sEvaluation Form, were completed. The SEF wasadapted from Daugherty (1996, 1999).

Research questions formulated for this studyaddressed spacing variables in three contexts: fullchoir, female ensemble, and male ensemble. Twelvepresentation pairs compared these variables,including two comparisons of synergistic andrandom formations and a randomly selectedidentical pair of excerpts. Following the first two pairsof excerpts, presentation order varied so that no twopairs featuring the same ensemble context wereheard in succession. Within that framework,excerpts for the auditor DAT were selectedrandomly, both with respect to the order in whichspecific research pairs would be heard and withrespect to which excerpt would be heard first in eachpair.

Excerpts were transferred directly from themaster tape to the auditor DAT using two identicalTascam DA-P1 DAT recorders, the same machineused for the recording session. No mixing orcompression of the electronic signal occurred.

Daugherty (2003) International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, Vol. 1 (1) Choir Spacing 53

The auditor DAT included auditor instructionsand announcements of pair numbers foradministrative consistency. Five seconds of silenceseparated excerpts in each pair. Twenty seconds ofsilence between each pair of excerpts allowed timefor marking responses.

The same Tascam DA-P1 DAT machine used torecord the study played the auditor DAT. Up to fourauditors at a time completed the listening task, usingfour identical professional AKG K-240 headphonesets. Three choral music professionals piloted thelistening process, and determined the volume levelset for the study. Auditors completed the listeningtask in an acoustically isolated university researchlaboratory.

For each of the 12 pairs of excerpts heard,auditors responded as follows:

1. Comparing the overall sound of the choir inthese two performances, I heard: a) Nodifference; (b) A Little difference; (c) Muchdifference; (d) Very Much difference; (e) Notsure.

2. I preferred the overall choral sound of the:(a) First Performance; (b) SecondPerformance; (c) Both sounded the same.

Auditors devoted approximately 17 minutes each tothis study.

RESULTS

Chorister Results

Among choristers overall, 100% (N=20) thoughtspacing exercised some degree of influence onchoral sound, with 60% (n=12) characterizing suchinfluence as "much effect" and 40% (n=8) describingsuch influence as "very much effect." Norespondents chose “some effect," "no effect," or "notsure." Among female singers, 80% (n = 1 8 )characterized the contribution of spacing to choirsound as "much effect," while 20% (n=2) described itas "very much effect." Among male singers, 30%(n=3) responded that spacing had "much effect" and70% (n=7) said that spacing had "very much effect."Most choristers (75%) thought that circumambientspacing had more influence upon the sound of thechoir than lateral spacing.

To what extent do you think spacing betweensingers influences your own vocal technique andproduction? “Much” (n=8) or “very much” (n=7) effectwas the response of 75% of choristers. Among malesingers, 70% (n=7) attributed “much” influence to

spacing on individual vocal technique, while 70% offemale singers thought there was “very much” effect.

In which spacing were you generally able tohear/monitor your own voice best? Ninety-five percent (n=19) of choristers thought spread spacingbest enabled hearing one’s one voice. Lateralspacing was preferred by 35% (n=7) of the singers,while 60% (n=12) preferred circumambient spacing.Sopranos (75%) and tenors (100%), those voicessinging at higher frequencies, thoughtcircumambient spacing was preferable for hearingone’s own voice.

In which spacing were you generally able tohear/monitor best the sound of the choir as a whole?Fifty-five per cent (n =11) of choristers preferredspread spacing, almost evenly divided in theirpreference for lateral or circumambient dimensions.Forty-five per cent (n=9) of singers thought theycould hear the choir as a whole best in closespacing.

Specific Formation Questions. In the full choirrandom formation, 85% (n=17) of choristers thoughtthey produced their best tone in spread spacing(lateral: 35% (n=7); circumambient: 50% (n=10)),while 75% of these singers thought the choir as awhole had the best sound with spread spacing(lateral: 35% (n=7); circumambient: 40% (n=8)). Insynergistic formation, the choir’s accustomedplacement, 95% (n=19) of choristers preferred theirusual spacing over closer spacing. In the genderspecific random formations, 80% (n=8) of womenand 90% (n=9) of men thought they produced theirbest tone in spread spacing. Women preferredcircumambient spacing (50%, n=5) over lateralspacing (30%, n =3), as did men (60%circumambient, 30% lateral). Similarly, 90% (n=9) ofmen and 70% (n=7) of women thought the ensembleas a whole had its best sound in spread spacing.Interestingly, 50% of women thought their ensemblesounded best in circumambient spacing, while 60%of men thought their ensemble sounded best inlateral spacing. Respondents were evenly divided intheir estimation of the comparative contribution ofspacing to gender specific and mixed choirplacements, with 50% (n=10) saying spacing hadthe same effect and 50% (n=10) stating that theythought spacing had more effect on the sound of thegender specific ensembles than the full choir.

Choristers were also asked in which formationthey thought the full choir produced its best soundfor the recording session. One-hundred per cent(n=20) of these singers thought the choir soundedbest in its accustomed synergistic formation ratherthan the random formation.

Rehearsal room questions. Eighty per cent(n=16) of choristers thought they personally sang

Daugherty (2003) International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, Vol. 1 (1) Choir Spacing 54

best with spread spacing in the rehearsal roomduring the week prior to the recording. Preferenceswere evenly divided between lateral andcircumambient spacing. Ninety-five per cent (n=19)of singers thought the choir as a whole had its bestsound in the rehearsal room with spread spacing,70% (n=14) favoring lateral space and 25% (n=5)favoring circumambient space.

Vocal tension questions. Four questionsaddressed tension in individual vocal production. (1)“I tended to experience more tension in my bodyand/or more tension in my voice in:” Close spacingwas the response of 80% (n=16) of singers,including 100% (n=10) of female singers. (2) “Iwould characterize such tension as:” Forty-five percent (n=9) of singers responded with “moderate”tension, while 35% (n=7) thought the tension was“minor” and 20% (n=4) described it as “negligible.”No singer thought close spacing produced “severe”or “somewhat severe” tension. (3) “I tended toexperience the least tension in my body and/or theleast strain in my voice when in:” Spread spacingwas the response of 90% (n=18) of choristers, with55% attributing the least tension to lateral spacingand 35% attributing it to circumambient spacing. (4)“I tended to push or sing louder:” A majority (85%,n=17) of choristers responded “when other singerswere close,” including 100% of sopranos and tenors.

Other. Choristers (95%) reported success withfollowing the conductor via a video monitor.Similarly, 95% of singers thought that the choirperformed the choral excerpts recorded for the studyin a consistent manner.

Director’s responses. The choir’s directorindicated strong preference for spread spacing in allplacements, and thought that spacing had “verymuch effect” on the sound of the ensemble. Hestrongly agreed that the choral excerpts wereperformed in a consistent manner throughout therecording session by attending to the videotapedconducting.

Auditor Results

Tables 1-5 present auditor results according tothe variables considered. As data are at the nominallevel, chi-square testing is used to determinesignificant relationships at a pre-determined alphalevel of .05.

Full choir spacing. Three pairs of performances(Pairs 1, 2, and 9) presented a random sectionalformation with contrasts in choir spacing. In eachcondition comparing close spacing with spreadspacing (Pairs 1 and 2), auditors overall significantlyfavored that excerpt performed with more spreadspacing, whether the spacing was lateral orcircumambient (see Table 1).

Table 1

Responses to Paired Choral Excerpts Among Experienced Auditors Overall (N=60)

Full Choir Spacing Comparisons __________________________________________

Pair 1: Random Close Random Circum. SameResponses: 15 45 0Percentage: 25.00 75.00 0.00

χ2 (2, N =60) = 32.50 p <.05

Pair 2: Random Lateral Random Close SameResponses: 41 12 7Percentage: 68.33 20.00 11.67

χ2 (2, N =60) = 33.70, p <.05

Pair 9: Random Lateral Random Circum. SameResponses: 16 26 18Percentage: 26.67 43.33 30.00

χ2 (2, N =60) = 2.80 p >.05

Note: Circum. = Circumambient, i.e., space on all sides provided by a vacant riser row between each row ofsingers in addition to lateral spaces between singers on each row.

Daugherty (2003) International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, Vol. 1 (1) Choir Spacing 55

However, distribution of auditor responses wasnot significant when the spread spacing dimensions,lateral and circumambient, were compared (Pair 9).Thirty per-cent (n=18) of auditors thought bothexcerpts in Pair 9 “sounded the same,” the secondhighest percentage of such responses obtained withany pair of excerpts. Crosstabulations revealed nosignificant differences in auditor preferences bygender when comparing close spacing to spreadspacing. A comparison of lateral and circumambient

spacings, however, found that male auditorpreferences were evenly divided while femaleauditors significantly preferred circumambientspacing.

Female ensemble spacing. Three pairs ofperformances (Pairs 3, 6, and 10) presented allfemale voices in a random sectional formation withcontrasts in choir spacing. In all conditions (seeTable 2), auditors significantly favored that excerptsung with more spread spacing.

Table 2

Responses to Paired Choral Excerpts Among Experienced Auditors Overall (N=60)

Female Ensemble Spacing Comparisons ___________________________________________

Pair 3: Female Lateral Female Circum. SameResponses: 7 43 10Percentage: 11.67 71.67 16.66

χ2 (2, N =60) = 21.90, p <.05

Pair 6: Female Close Female Lateral SameResponses: 7 45 8Percentage: 11.67 75.00 13.33

χ2 (2, N =60) = 26.90 p <.05

Pair 10: Female Circum. Female Close SameResponses: 41 14 5Percentage: 68.33 23.33 8.33

χ2 (2, N =60) = 19.10, p <.05

Note: Circum. = Circumambient, i.e., space on all sides provided by a vacant riser row between each row ofsingers in addition to lateral spaces between singers on each row.

Male ensemble spacing. Three pairs ofperformances (Pairs 4, 8, and 11) presented all malevoices in a random sectional formation withcontrasts in choir spacing. In each conditioncomparing close spacing with spread spacing (Pairs8 and 11), auditors overall significantly preferred thatexcerpt sung with more spread spacing. In a directcomparison between lateral and circumambientspacings with male voices (Pair 4), auditorssignificantly favored lateral spacing (see Table 3).

Full choir formation comparisons. Two pairs ofperformances (Pairs 5 and 11) presented contrasts

between random sectional and synergisticformations. A direct comparison between these twoformations at close spacing yielded a significantdistribution of auditor responses, with slightly moreauditors favoring the random formation. Significantdifferences also obtained in favor of the randomformation at lateral spacing when compared to thesynergistic formation at the choir’s usual spacing.Auditors overall appeared to prefer the randomformation over the synergistic formation in both trials(see Table 4).

Daugherty (2003) International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, Vol. 1 (1) Choir Spacing 56

Table 3

Responses to Paired Choral Excerpts Among Experienced Auditors Overall (N=60)

Male Ensemble Spacing Comparisons ______________________________________________

Pair 4: Male Circum. Male Lateral SameResponses: 12 42 6Percentage: 20.00 70.00 10.00

χ2 (2, N =60) = 37.20 p <.05

Pair 8: Male Close Male Lateral SameResponses: 8 41 11Percentage: 13.33 68.33 18.33

χ2 (2, N =60) = 17.30, p <.05

Pair 11: Male Close Male Circum. SameResponses: 13 38 9Percentage: 21.67 63.33 15.00

χ2 (2, N =60) = 24.70, p <.05

Note: Circum. = Circumambient, i.e., space on all sides provided by a vacant riser row between each row of singers inaddition to lateral spaces between singers on each row.

Table 4

Responses to Paired Choral Excerpts Among Experienced Auditors Overall (N=60)

Full Choir Formation Comparisons

Pair 5 Synergistic Close Random Close SameResponses: 23 26 11Percentage: 38.33 43.33 18.33

χ2 (2, N =60) = 6.30 p <.05

Pair 12: Synergistic Usual Random Lateral SameResponses: 15 36 9Percentage: 25.00 60.00 15.00

χ2 (2, N =60) = 20.10, p <.05

Synergistic Usual = This ensemble’s customary formation of couples arranged according to a combination of strategies oftenmentioned by choral methods literature. While there is spread spacing between couples in this formation, there is notnecessarily spread spacing between the members of each couple.

Identical pair. Results indicated that 63.33%(n=38) of all auditors correctly heard no differencebetween the identical pair of excerpts sung as Pair7. This percentage was significantly greater than

the frequency of “both sounded the same”responses obtained with any other pairing.Crosstabulations revealed no significant differencesaccording to gender (see Table 5).

Daugherty (2003) International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, Vol. 1 (1) Choir Spacing 57

Table 5

Responses to Paired Choral Excerpts Among Experienced Auditors Overall (N=60)

Identical Pair ______________________________________________

Pair 7: Synergistic Close Synergistic Close SameResponses: 14 8 38Percentage: 23.33 13.33 63.33

χ2 (2, N =60) = 21.20, p <.05

Characterizations of differences heard. Auditorsoverall reported hearing differences in all pairspresented, with the least frequency of perceiveddifference occurring in Pair 7 (Identical Pair) and thehighest frequency of perceived differences in Pair 1(Random Close vs Random Circumambient). Themean percentage of auditors reporting differenceson all items, excepting Pair 7 (Identical Pair), was85.36%. In those pairs soliciting full choir spacingcomparisons the mean percentage of auditorsperceiving differences was 86.11%. The meanpercentage of reported differences for maleensemble spacing comparisons was 85.56%; forfemale spacing comparisons it was 86.67%. Forpairs seeking formation comparisons, the meanpercentage of auditor perceived differences was83.13%.

Overall, most auditors characterized differencesthey heard as “A little difference.” Approximately 20-25% of auditors reported hearing “Much” or “VeryMuch difference” in all performance pairs, exceptingPair 7 (Identical Pair). The highest percentages of“Much” or “Very Much” difference responsesoccurred in Pairs 4 (Male Circumambient vs MaleLateral; 36.67%) and 10 (Female Circumambient vsFemale Close, 33.33%). The least occurrence ofsuch reported differences was in Pair 9 (RandomLateral vs Random Circumambient, 19.5%).

DISCUSSION

A primary finding of this investigation is thatspread spacing among choristers in this universitychoral ensemble yields significantly preferrednuances in choral sound for both singers andauditors. This result is in keeping with previousstudies (Daugherty 1996, 1999) that found similarpreferences for spread choir spacing among larger

high school ensembles and their auditors. Suchspacing preferences, moreover, tend to confirmTernström’s (1995, 1999) data with respect to self-to-other ratios among choir singers, notably withrespect to auditor preferences in this study fordifferent degrees of spread spacing among maleand female singers.

Choir spacing is a phenomenon that warrantscontinued investigation. It may be conjectured, forinstance, that spacing phenomena intuitively informpersistent beliefs among choral directors regardingpresumed benefits of mixed formation and voicecompatibility placement. At heart, both compatibilityplacement and mixed formation appear to aspire atclose level to what spread spacing may accomplisheven with random assignment of singers, i.e., adistancing of shared vocal frequencies and/orincompatible vocal characteristics.

A corollary conclusion of this study is thatrandom assignment of singer position in blocksectional formation at close spacing appears to bejust as preferable as a synergistic formation basedon recommendations from choral methods literature.Indeed, in more spread spacing, auditors expresssignificant preference for the random assignment.

Results of this study are not necessarilytransferable to other populations. Choirs differ, asdo the acoustic venues in which they perform andrehearse. Moreover, as Coleman (1994) finds,individual singers within the same choir, subject tothe same choral training, can vary greatly in theirvocal output power. These very factors raisephilosophic and empirical questions about acousticalclaims commonly made for various choir formations.Researchers potentially may find sociological,behavior management, or other practical benefits tosuch formations. Yet, the assumption that certainformations per se, be they mixed, sectional, or

Daugherty (2003) International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, Vol. 1 (1) Choir Spacing 58

synergistic, tend universally to yield favorable orpredictable changes in choral sound is problematic.

Suppositions regularly made about choirformations, moreover, often exhibit the logical fallacyof composition, i.e., the fallacious claim that thewhole is inevitably a simple sum of its constituentparts. In this case, diagrams and discussions inchoral methods material typically confuse thedistributive and collective parameters of choralsound, assuming that each voice or voice section isan equal and universal unit of measurement(Daugherty, 2001).

Data from this investigation raise otherquestions of import for choral pedagogy. Primaryamong these is the finding that 80% of choristers inthis investigation, including 100% of female singers,experienced moderate to minor body tension andstrain of vocal production when in close spacing.Choral directors who customarily pack singersclosely onto risers for performance or rehearsal maywant to reconsider such a strategy. Related issues,such as the economics and design of choral risersand choral performance venues, also meritreflection.

Another result of this study of practical interest isthat female singers in this ensemble likely requiremore spacing to achieve optimal vocal productionand desirable choral sound than male singers.Future investigations may wish to examine whetherchoirs might benefit from more individualizedspacing of singers, as opposed to a uniformdimension among all voices.

Though auditors clearly prefer spread spacing inthis choir, no significant preference for thedimensions of such spacing, i.e., lateral orcircumambient, raises unanswered questions.Perhaps such results are due, at least in part, to thereverberant nature of this performing venue and thevocal maturity of these choristers. Another possibilityis that fewer singers in fewer rows, as was the casewith the gender specific choral excerpts, yield moredefined spacing preferences.

Finally, chorister formation preferences in thisstudy mirror those of previous investigations(Daugherty, 1996, 1999) in that choir singers,though preferring spread spacing, also remain loyalto that formation into which their director placesthem. Given this factor, choral directors may want toexperiment with differing placement assignmentsand spacing in both rehearsal and performancevenues before consigning singers to rigid ensembleconfigurations that may not enable the choir torealize its best choral sound or healthiest vocalproduction.

REFERENCES

Coleman, R. F. (1994). Dynamic intensity variationsof individual choir singers. Journal of Voice, 8(3), 196-201.

Daugherty, J. F. (1996). Differences in choral soundas perceived by auditors and choristers relativeto physical positioning and spacing of singers ina high school choir: A pilot study. Poster sessionpresented at the National Biennial In-ServiceConference of the Music Educators NationalConference, Kansas City, MO.

Daugherty, J. F. (1999). Spacing, formation, andchoral sound: Preferences and perceptions ofauditors and choristers. Journal of Research inMusic Education, 47 (3), 224-238.

Daugherty, J. F. (2000). Choir spacing and choralsound: Physical, pedagogical, and philosophicaldimensions. In B.A. Roberts and A. Rose (Eds.),Conference Proceedings of the InternationalS y m p o s i u m Sharing the Voices: ThePhenomenon of Singing II (pp. 77-88). St.John’s, Newfoundland: Memorial University ofNewfoundland Press.

Daugherty, J. F. (2001). Rethinking how voices workin choral ensemble. Choral Journal, 42 (5), 69-75.

Decker, H.A. and Herford, J. (1973). C h o r a lconducting: A symposium. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Giardinare, D. C. (1991). Voice matching: Aperceptual study of vocal matches, effect onchoral sound, and procedures of inquiryconducted by Weston Noble. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, New York University.

Eckholm, E. (2000). The effect of singing mode andseating arrangement on choral blend and overallsound. Journal of Research in Music Education,48 (2), 123-135.

Folger, W.M. (2002). Unifying the choral soundthrough voice matching: An empirical study ofthe adjustments in vibrato frequency modulationand amplitude modulation. Disse r ta t i onAbstracts International, 63 (04a), 1179.

Daugherty (2003) International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, Vol. 1 (1) Choir Spacing 59

Lambson, A.R. (1961). An evaluation of variousseating plans used in choral singing. Journal ofResearch in Music Education, 9, 47-54.

Miller, A. W. (1992). Choral recordings as history: Astudy of the recording techniques of five choralorganizations. (Doctoral dissertation, FloridaState University). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 53, 2154A.

Tocheff, R.D. (1990). Acoustical placement ofvoices in choral formations (Doctoraldissertation, Ohio State University, 1990).Dissertation Abstracts International, 51,4055A.

Ternström, S. (1994). Hearing myself with others:Sound levels in choral performance with

separation of one’s own voice from the rest ofthe choir. Journal of Voice, 8 (4), 293-302.

Ternström, S. (1995). Self-to-other ratios measuredin choral performance. Proceedings of the 15th

International Congress on Acoustics,Trondheim, Norway, Vol. 2, 681-684.

Ternström, S. (1999). Preferred self-to-other ratiosin choir singing. Journal of the AcousticalSociety of America, 105 (6), 3563-3574

Woodruff, N.W. (2002). The acoustic interaction ofvoices in ensemble: An inquiry into thephenomenon of voice matching and theperception of unaltered vocal process.Unpublished DMA document, The University ofOklahoma.