This writing is about my first doctoral concert in last October where the concert audience was invited to improvise together with the performers, me singing and other musicians performing with me were a trumpet player and a lutist. The music of the concert was based on old hymns and songs as well as contemporary improvisation. Participants joined in the improvisations by playing the five-string kantele which is a traditional Finnish string instrument.[1] Participants also joined in singing and making soundscapes. If someone just wanted to listen, it was a perfect choice as well. I guided the audience in the concert in addition to improvising with them.

For me, singing has always been a bridge to connect with others. Sometimes I identify myself as a teacher, other times as a singer or community musician.

The need for interaction is permeating my artmaking, driving my artistic doctoral studies.  

The quote from visual artist Dan Graham resonates with me:

“All artists are alike. They dream of doing something that’s more social, more collaborative, and more real than art.” [i]

My doctoral research is not just about social change or the wellbeing effects of art, but about forging deeper connections with audiences. Connections will also be formed between participants and within everyone, encompassing the internal experiences that are invisible to others.

Have you ever thought of classical music concerts where you can dance, or move?

I am! I often get a seat in the last row and so that I can stand behind the seats, so that I can move to experience, to hear the music in a more holistic and bodily way.

I have been observing different concerts and their practices and wondered why classical music concerts have such a strict code of conduct. In the words of Finnish composer, Eero Hämeenniemi: [ii]

The whole concert institution, concert etiquette, even the structure of the concert hall and the room structure support the idea that only the performers and the music are important in a concert. The listener can be present but should not be seen or heard.

I believe that singing, playing and dancing along to the music could be part of classical music concerts just as much as they are in children’s concerts or pop and folk music concerts. I don’t deny that sometimes sitting and listening are the best. I don’t want to discard traditional classical music concerts, as they are still needed, but I do want to introduce other forms of performance and participation alongside them for the new generation of musicians.

What if classical music concerts have some music for the audience to play or sing a part?

In this context, Jutta Toelle and John A. Sloboda[iii] have carried out an interesting study in which two contemporary composers were commissioned to compose music in which audience participation was integrated. From the participants responses the following key themes were identified: special group experience, interactive musical experience and experiencing shifting power. Toelle and Sloboda note that these were essentially related to the concepts of ‘activity’ and ‘passivity’, ’empowerment’ and ‘community’.

This study was about composed music, but I claim that improvising together can be one possibility to reform concert practices: to invite and encourage the audience to participate in the music-making.

My aim is to develop new concert practices that are both performer- and audience-friendly, to complement traditional classical music concerts, foster community and inclusion and to give a voice to listeners who have so far perhaps unwittingly been “just” listeners.

My research focuses not on the improvisations or music itself, but on how audience involvement and participation are built and implemented. I explore and document my experience as a performer in participatory concerts, identifying the key considerations and strategies required to manage multiple roles simultaneously and to clarify for myself and through that for others the requirements of this kind of artistic practice.

Theoretical framework and concepts

In arts organizations, audience engagement  [iv] involves not only producing art but also creatively, diversely, and interactively collaborating with the audience. Audience engagement can deepen the experience of an artwork, enhance the capacity to appreciate art, and reach new audiences. It is mostly carried out in separate workshops before or after a concert, but rarely as part of a concert, in a concert.

I believe this aligns with Christopher Small’s [v]concept of “musicking,” which encompasses any activity involving or related to music performance. Musicking provides my research with an opportunity to examine and describe all the activities involved in making music, where the emphasis is on people making music, not on the object, the music itself.

Third theoretical framework is socially engaged art practices (SEA) [vi]. SEA practices have diversified to encompass inclusion, equity, dialogue, and well-being in communities and organizations.

Inclusion has lot of meanings. Finnish researchers from the Department of Health and Welfare [vii]have described it as follows:

                      Inclusion is joining, being in a relationship, belonging to something, is community based. It is compatibility and integration. It is participation and, by implication, representation and democracy. It is also the organization and governance of all the above.

The starting point in audience participation must always be volunteering. Brian Arao and Kristi Clemens[viii] write about a safe and at the same time brave space. Creating a safe environment and encouraging braveness in participation and improvisations are key elements in my concerts.

Research methods

As an artistic researcher, my own art practice is one of my research methods. I approach and explore my own experience with autoethnographic[ix]methods such as writing a reflective diary.

Music education studies are often multidisciplinary as in my research. The audience or participants and their experiences play a significant role. I employ three methods to collect data from participants and I use thematic analysis [x] to work through it:

anonymous written feedback, audience discussions, and reflection group discussions. Thematic analyses from participants and the reflection group is still being processed and continues.

Audience Feedback

Summary of the feedback was the enthusiasm and gratitude shared by the audience. The concept of the concert was transformed, with listeners becoming active participants. One participant joyfully and proudly said upon returning the kantele:

Ja niin vain osattiin, tämmösiä piileviä kykyjä meissä on!

And so we did! This is the kind of hidden talent we have!

 And one written feedback:

It was reassuring to read in the program leaflet that you cannot go wrong here. I cannot play the kantele, but I was still able to participate wholeheartedly. I felt the music in my gut. It was a mystical, magical, enchanting, miraculous, moving experience.

I could well identify with the central themes like ‘activity’ and ’empowerment’ from feedback like Toelle´s and Sloboda’s research.

My own experiences and reflections

My mantra: I deliberately place myself in a vulnerable space, accepting the uncontrollable. I trust the moment’s possibilities, surrendering to misjudgements, and dealing with them with grace is crucial. I remain open, avoiding rigid expectations, I navigate each situation with an awareness of the many potential paths forward.

Teaching and performing are intertwined for me. When I perform, I can’t forget that I am a teacher as well. I’m constantly looking for opportunities for connection and dialogue with the audience as I do when I teach.

Performing in concerts traditionally there is a gap between the audience and myself. Operating in the public communication zone feels too distant for genuine interaction. I could bridge this gap by having a small hall and people in a circle near me and by moving closer during the concert. I resolved this distance by greeting attendees at the church door, establishing a connection that it stayed even physical distance increased during the performance.

How did I manage to balance being an improvising singer and leading an audience at the same time? From an external perspective, it seemed fine. But I find that the musician in me tends to take a back seat when a moment requires a very holistic capacity with the people. The musical idea forming in my mind may recede or disappear altogether, leading me to make an unexpected change that leaves my fellow musicians wondering what happened. This is not a mistake, of course; it just happens and is very typical of improvisation.

The significant difference for me personally is that this sense of being in a shared space of communal artistic process diminishes my own performance anxiety,which I still sometimes feel backstage before “normal” concerts.

My feeling after the concert was one of deep gratitude. The audience engaged easily and enthusiastically; playfulness and a desire to experiment captured 95% of audience. I feel that there is no going back to the old ways; the concert created so much meaningfulness for me.  

Bringing kanteles to the concert became a hit concept, I must say! The 5-string kantele is simple and limited enough for anyone to play, yet versatile enough to create varied music. The beauty of playing the kantele, with its “less is more” philosophy, helps people achieve a meditative connection with themselves. It’s both a communal and a personal experience at the same time.

I experienced that when audiences are invited into the art-making process, the quality of the art does not decrease; it changes, expands and deepens. Participants have the freedom to engage or simply listen, ensuring that no one is excluded or left out.

---

[1] Kantele is highly valued as part of Finnish folk music. According to Finland’s national epic, the Kalevala, the kantele was originally made from a pike’s jawbone and later from birch wood. In mythology, the kantele’s sound is enchanting and fascinating, drawing people towards the instrument. The five-string kantele has preserved its unique status and remains an integral part of Finland’s cultural history. Its delicate timbre and approachability have also made it a widely used instrument in education.

---

[i] See, among others: Bishop, C. (2012). Artificial Hells. Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship, New York: Verso. p.1.

[ii] Hämeenniemi, E. (2007). Tulevaisuuden musiikin historia. Helsinki: Basam Books. 2007. p.14.

[iii]  Toelle, J. & Sloboda, J. A. (2019). The Audience as Artist? The Audience’s Experience of Participatory Music. Musicae Scientiae 25 (1), 67–91. p. 67.

[iv] Sorjonen, H. & Sivonen, O. (2015). Taide- ja kulttuurilaitosten yleisötyön muodot, laajuus ja tuloksellisuus. Cuporen verkkojulkaisuja 27: Kulttuuripoliittisen tutkimuksen edistämissäätiö.

[v] Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.

[vi] Lehikoinen, K & Siljamäki, E. (2023). Socially Engaged Arts (SEA) practices: Key Skills and Capabilities. Research in Arts and Education 3/2023. p.8-22.

[vii] Isola, A.-M., Kaartinen, H., Leemann, L., Lääperi, R., Valtari, S. & Keto-Tokoi, A. 2017. Mitä osallisuus on? Osallisuuden viitekehystä rakentamassa. Työpapereita 33/2017. Helsinki: Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos.

[viii] Arao, B. & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces. A New Way to Frame Dialogue Around Diversity and Social Justice. 135-150. The Art of Effective Facilitation. Landerman, L.M. (Edit.): Taylor & Francis Group.

[ix] Davies, C. (2002): Reflexive Ethnography. A Guide to Researching Selves and Others. London and New York: Routledge. 

[x] Maguire M. & Delahunt B. (2017). Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical, Step-by-Step Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars. AISHE-J Volume, Number 3.