Choral Configuration: An Overview of Research and Implications for the Choral Music Educator

Abstract

Choral configuration, an umbrella term that refers to acoustical placement, formation, or spacing among singers, may cause noticeable transformations to the sound of a choir and the vocal production of ensemble members. Researchers have sought to discover how and to what extent these variables affect the choral sound. The purpose of this article is to examine published research in the area of choral configuration. This article concludes with implications for how choral music educators might apply research to create an optimal configuration for their ensembles.

Keywords

acoustical placement choir configuration formation spacing

Choral configuration and its effect is a source of much discussion and debate within the choral community. The term configuration may refer to acoustical placement of singers, formation of the ensemble, or spacing among singers. Choral method books often provide various formations for use in rehearsal and performance and suggest that changes to the formation alone will elicit different aural effects from the ensemble (Brinson, 1996; Brinson & Demorest, 2014; Decker & Herford, 1973; Phillips, 2016). Many conductors also believe that changes to formation may resolve a variety of issues such as intonation and blend (Collins, 1999; Roe, 1983; Smith & Sataloff, 2013; Webb, 1993). However, these suggestions are not always based on empirical evidence.

Several researchers have explored the elements of choral configuration in an endeavor to determine their importance, magnitude, and impact. The purpose of this literature review is to examine the published research and provide useful applications for practitioners. Choral music educators can choose to use suggestions from the research literature that align with their personal preferences and the needs of their students to make informed decisions concerning changes to configuration for both rehearsal and performance.

Acoustical Placement

Acoustical placement, also called voice matching, is associated closely the work of F. Melius Christiansen (Decker & Herford, 1973), Robert Shaw, and Weston Noble (Giardineire, 1991). These pedagogues have suggested that the placement of individual singers within the ensemble based on voice color and weight can enhance blend and reduce intonation issues. Several empirical studies have provided evidence in support of this theory (Ekholm, 2000; Folger, 2002; Giardineire, 1991; Killian & Basinger, 2007; Tocheff, 1990; Woodruff, 2002), although procedural inaccuracies bring some of these findings into question (Ternström, 2003).

Some researchers have found that acoustical placement makes a perceptible difference in choral blend and tone. Killian and Basinger (2007) discovered that collegiate music majors (vocal and instrumental), and collegiate nonmusic majors were largely able to perceive a difference in blend between matched (acoustically placed) and unmatched (randomly placed) choral configurations in a collegiate choir. Most participants indicated a preference for blend when the ensemble was in acoustical placement. In another study investigating acoustical placement with collegiate choirs, Tocheff (1990) asked experienced choral conductors to rate a variety of aspects of choral tone in matched and unmatched placements. Based on the preferences of the adjudicators, he concluded that multiple aspects of choral tone were positively affected by acoustical placement, including intonation, blend, rhythmic accuracy, and diction. However, Ternström (2003) noted that, given that adjudicators were asked to rate 6 variables over a total of 32 trials using a complex system, there may be reason to question the validity of these results.

Giardineire (1991) further analyzed the process of acoustical placement. He closely observed and recorded Weston Noble’s process in voice matching a choir at Luther College. He then provided over 100 choral experts with the recordings, but not with Noble’s final decisions, and asked them to rate the recordings and answer questions on how they might place the singers. Giardineire not only recognized that many elements of the process were subjective in nature but also found that the majority of the choral experts who participated in his study agreed with Noble’s decisions. His in-depth study of Noble’s process also provided some insight into the elements of voice matching through both similar matches (voices of similar quality placed together) and complementary matches (voice of contrasting quality placed together to complement one another). He additionally outlined the process of identifying a core trio within the section and adding one singer at a time until the optimal placement was found for each singer.

Other researchers have examined the effect of acoustical placement on individual vocal production. Folger (2002) moved undergraduate sopranos and basses into multiple positions and measured their individual vibrato rates. He found that vibrato rates changed as the positions changed and suggested that this finding may lend credence to the idea that placement affects the vocal production of each member of the ensemble. Individual undergraduate performers were recorded within a choir arranged in both random and acoustical placements in Ekholm’s (2000) study. The recordings were then evaluated by choral conductors, voice teachers, and nonvocal musicians, who were asked to rate the quality of the individual voices. Voice teachers expressed a consistent preference for individual vocal production in acoustical placement. Taken together, findings from these studies appear to support the claim that acoustical placement may affect the overall choral sound as well as individual vocal production.

Formation and Spacing

Additional factors of choral configuration include formation and spacing among singers. Lambson (1961) examined four choral formations: section blocks, mixed quartets, scatter (placement based on voice matching with no regard to part), and random (no consideration for voice part, acoustical placement, or any other relationship). In each formation, adjudicators were asked to rank their preference for a homophonic and a polyphonic piece in a live performance and in a recording of a collegiate choir. For homophonic music, his participants expressed a preference for mixed quartets in both the live performances and the recording. For polyphonic music, however, participants preferred section blocks in the live performance and mixed formation in the recording. Based on this information, he proposed that conductors consider mixed formations, especially for homophonic music and with advanced choirs that can sing independently. However, he suggested that changes to formation may have less of an effect on choral sound than had been previously thought.

Daugherty (1999) conducted an experiment similar to Lambson’s, but with high school singers. He limited his configurations to section blocks and mixed formations but added the variable of spacing. He used close spacing (approximately 1 inch shoulder to shoulder), lateral spacing (approximately 24 inches shoulder to shoulder), and circumambient spacing (lateral spacing with a vacant row between singers) with each configuration. Auditors then listened to matched pairs of recordings and chose their preference from each combination. Choir members and auditors both preferred the overall choral sound in mixed formation. Both groups also expressed a preference for increased spacing, independent of formation. Most participants preferred lateral spacing over close spacing and circumambient over other options.

The Lombard effect is central to the discussion of spacing and its impact on choral sound. This term refers to the tendency for speakers to increase their volume or intensity when in noisy surroundings. It can also cause over-singing as individual singers increase their volume or intensity to hear themselves within the ensemble. Tonkinson (1994) found that, through verbal instructions, singers could be trained to resist the Lombard effect. Other researchers have proposed that proper spacing may prevent it altogether. In her examination of the effect of acoustical placement on blend, Ekholm (2000) noted that the Lombard effect caused singers using soloistic tone to over-sing. She hoped that acoustical seating would provide the solution but discovered that the problem persisted regardless of formation. She suggested that spacing was the best option for dealing with this tendency.

Other researchers have supported Ekholm’s suggestion to counteract the Lombard effect with optimal spacing so that singers can monitor their own voices in relation to the ensemble. Ternström (1999) examined this effect of spacing and referred to it as the self-to-others ratio (SOR). This term refers to the singers’ ability to hear themselves and other members of the ensemble at the correct ratio for the optimal sound. If singers are unable to adequately hear themselves, issues of intonation, vowel shape, and over-singing can occur. This inability to hear oneself (i.e., low SOR) can be caused by the acoustics of the room or by a choral formation that is too tightly spaced. Ternström also found that the optimal ratio is not the same for all singers or voice types. For example, he observed that sopranos generally had a higher preferred SOR than basses. Typically, the SOR will go up with an increase in the absorption of the room, an increase in spacing, or a decrease in the number of singers. Therefore, choral music educators should take into consideration the performance or rehearsal space and the number of singers in the ensemble when making decisions about spacing. Based on these data, Ternström inferred that a large ensemble should use more floor space for each individual singer, and an ensemble moving into a room that has a higher absorption rate should decrease their normal spacing.

Spacing and formation can also affect singers’ perceptions of their own sound. Atkinson’s (2010) participants showed preference for their individual tone production in mixed formation and spread spacing. In this study, Atkinson had a collegiate choir sing excerpts using both mixed and sectional formation with both close (1 inch between shoulders) and spread (24 inches between shoulders) spacing. She then had singers of that choir rank their preference in five areas: ease of singing, ease of hearing and blending with section, ease of hearing others, choral sound preference, and preference for singing. In all but one category, ease of hearing and blending with section, singers noted a preference for mixed formation. In every single category, singers noted a preference for spread spacing. It appears that spacing and formation have important implications for singer performance perceptions.

Daugherty, Manternach, and Brunkan (2012) investigated choral spacing with the addition of changes to riser height. They used close, spread, and circumambient spacing on risers of two heights (8 and 12 inches). University choir members were asked to select their preference in the categories of hearing self, hearing the choir, most comfortable vocal production, and best overall choral sound. In three of the four categories, choir members overwhelmingly preferred the condition resulting from standing on tall risers and in spread spacing. There was only one category in which the majority chose regular riser height and close spacing: hearing other members of the choir. Auditors similarly preferred tall risers and spread spacing. Consistent with Atkinson’s (2010) findings, having more space between singers positively affected singers’ perceptions and performance. Daugherty (2003) suggested that spacing may be the most impactful change to choral configuration. He speculated that spacing alone may address many of the issues that alterations to formation and acoustical placement attempt to address.

Some conductors have argued that formation has a significant impact on the tone quality, balance, and blend of the ensemble. Archibeque (2005) recommended using a variety of formations in rehearsal and in performance depending on the desired aural effect. She argued that different formations can adjust the ensemble balance by highlighting sections that are brought to the front and middle of the ensemble. She also proposed that the tone quality of the ensemble can be affected by increasing the influence of certain voice types on others. For example, she posited that placing the tenors behind the basses allowed the characteristically lighter tenor tone to affect the weight and color of the bass tone. Furthermore, she stated that different formations may recalibrate the way the choir listens, which in turn can affect blend in a performance and the attention of the ensemble during rehearsal. These thoughts echo those of other choral conductors and pedagogues (Brinson, 1996; Collins, 1999; Decker & Herford, 1973; Roe, 1983; Webb, 1993), but a paucity of empirical evidence leave these claims unconfirmed. There are certainly pedagogical benefits to the multiple formations proposed by these educators, but their perceived acoustical benefits may be subjective in nature.

Considerations for the Choral Music Educator

The wealth of knowledge available for choral music educators related to choral configuration, both empirical and anecdotal, can be used in a number of ways. Rehearsing in a variety of formations and spacing options can prepare students for the unexpected changes that may occur once the ensemble is in the performance space. Different configurations may be used based on the venue, ensemble, desired sound, and audience experience. Some of these decisions may be based on empirical research and others based on the personal preference of the conductor or ensemble members. Below are some considerations for conductors as they make decisions on configuration in rehearsal and performance.

Consider the Performance Space

The acoustical property of the performance space can have a considerable impact on choral sound. When deciding on the best formation and spacing for performance, choral music educators may consider the type of space in which the choir will be singing. Choirs may be required to sing in a variety of spaces, from beautifully constructed performance halls to school gymnasiums. Using the same configuration for such vastly different spaces will not serve the choir’s overall sound. While the optimal solution to this issue would be to have multiple rehearsals in the space and find the ideal formation and spacing for that particular venue, this option is rarely available. Instead, it is advantageous to acquire as much information about the space as possible prior to rehearsals and performance and select the best option based on available research. Primarily, choral music educators could consider how the acoustical properties of the space will change singers’ ability to hear one another. Conductors can then use Ternström’s (1999) work with SOR and what they know about the performance venue to anticipate which spacing adjustments will best serve the ensemble. Once in the space, it would be beneficial for conductors to garner feedback from singers before making adjustments. Configuration affects the singers, which in turn, affects the overall sound; therefore, decisions based entirely on the sound from the audience point of view rather than that of the singers may not yield the desired result. Since the work of several researchers (Daugherty, 1999; Lambson, 1961) has illustrated that formation has less impact on the sound than other factors, directors can make decisions on formation before entering the performance area, and there will likely be no adjustments needed.

Consider the Size of the Ensemble

Ensembles of varying size will have varying needs when it comes to configuration. Acoustical placement may prove more difficult within an ensemble that contains sections of only two or three singers each. Ternström (1999) implied that small ensembles may benefit from closer spacing to feel secure in their part. Other small ensembles may benefit from increased spacing to use the full voice without succumbing to the Lombard effect. For larger ensembles, Ternström (1999) suggested an increase in spacing while also acknowledging that this may not always be practical. Choral music educators may need to think creatively to achieve the optimal spacing. This adjustment might mean using more rows to allow singers more lateral space or using floor space off the risers. Multiple researchers (Atkinson, 2010; Daugherty, 1999, 2003; Daugherty et al., 2012; Ternström, 1999; Tonkinson 1994) have provided evidence that spacing may be the most important factor in configuration both in audience perception and individual vocal production. Based on this evidence, perhaps choral music educators should make optimal spacing their highest priority in their considerations of configuration.

Consider Music Goals and Desired Sound

Although empirical evidence seems to be lacking, many conductors believe that changes to formation cause a shift in the aural effect of the ensemble. Several resources (Archibeque, 2005; Brinson, 1996; Collins, 1999; Decker & Herford, 1973; Roe, 1983; Smith & Sataloff, 2013; Webb, 1993) offer a plethora of configuration options with the suggestion that these changes cause certain shifts to the aural effect. Even though these claims may be subjective, choral music educators could explore multiple options both in rehearsal and performance. Conductors may also consider the effect that various formations have on the audience listening experience. Exciting and innovative formations can engage the audience by adding variety to the performance. Formations that allow the choir to encircle or be among the audience may elicit a different performance effect for both the singers and the listeners. Considerations related to formation changes can add to the audience experience as well as the sound of the choir.

Experiment With Multiple Configurations

The best way to know if a configuration will work for an ensemble or whether it will create a different aural effect is experimentation. Even if the new configuration does not affect the overall sound in an impactful way, rehearsing in a new configuration adds variety to rehearsal and may change the way singers listen. Singers in one study reported hearing a difference in their sound in various formations, even though acoustical measures showed no real change (Aspaas, McCrea, Morris, & Fowler, 2004). Conductors might consider experimenting with multiple configurations and asking for student feedback. If configuration changes do not affect the overall sound but do affect the experience of the singers, choral music educators should use the configuration that best serves their students.

Additionally, using a variety of configurations in rehearsal can aid in building independence among singers and can prepare them for the shift to a performance venue. In a qualitative study of an amateur community choir, Bonshor (2017) learned that choir members often found the shift to the performance space difficult because of their dependence on using the exact same configuration at every rehearsal. Many singers reported difficulty in hearing the voices they normally relied on when in rehearsal. If singers consistently sing in the same room and in the same formation, a sudden shift to a new performance space may be a difficult adjustment. Singers who are accustomed to changes may find the adjustment easier when they move into a new space.

Use Acoustical Placement

Although acoustical placement relies primarily on subjective decisions, researchers have found varied benefits to using it for individual singers and overall ensemble sound (Ekholm, 2000; Folger, 2002; Giardineire, 1991; Killian & Basinger, 2007; Tocheff, 1990). The process of acoustical placement involves listening to a section singing a simple melody in unison and identifying a pair or trio that blends well together and can act as the baseline aural referent. From this pair or trio, individual singers are added in one at a time in each possible placement until the desired sound is reached. Additional information about the process of acoustical placement is available in Warren’s outline (2016) or Noble’s video Achieving Choral Blend Through Standing Position (2005).

In addition to the vocal benefits of using acoustical placement, there are also pedagogical benefits when students are an active part of the process. Choral music educators should ensure that all students understand that voice matching is not a process designed to rate singers as better or worse. Instead, acoustical placement is about finding voices that fit together and that make all singers the most comfortable when producing sound. Freer (2015) found that adolescent boys value and enjoy learning about the mechanics of the voice and of choral singing. If a choral music educator’s goal is to lay a foundation for independent musicianship, students must understand what they are doing and why.

Consider Sectional and Individual Needs

Individual singers will have differing needs when it comes to acoustical placement, formation, and spacing. Some of those needs must, by necessity, conform to the needs of the group. Other needs can be addressed for individuals and sections. If members of a section are struggling to hear themselves, an adjustment to their spacing or their placement in the ensemble may be beneficial. Ternström (1999) concluded that the outside of the risers offers a higher SOR than the inside, so singers who are struggling to hear themselves might benefit from a simple shift toward the ends of their respective rows. If a section is struggling to achieve blend, Giardineire (1991) might suggest that the choral music educator examine that section’s acoustical placement. Placement may need to be modified as voices grow and change, especially with young or developing choirs. Choral music educators must be aware of the individual needs of their singers to create the optimal positioning.

Get Feedback From Students

Based on the published research, it appears that many aspects of choral configuration are subjective in nature. Singers differ in their spacing needs based on voice type, experience level, and confidence. Choral music educators will find it difficult to make decisions based on these needs if they do not solicit student feedback. Sometimes, students may experience discomfort from a less than optimal SOR or from a poor acoustical placement but will not have the necessary language to accurately pinpoint the problem. Teaching students to identify these issues, giving them the language to label possible challenges, and asking them for their feedback gives them a role in the process and input over their vocal health in the ensemble. Choral music educators could ask students for feedback regularly about what they like or dislike about a certain configuration and could allow them to help make decisions. Allowing students to hear the various configurations by involving them in the acoustical placement process or giving them opportunities to listen to the ensemble in multiple configurations could be empowering and educational. Involving students in the process and garnering their feedback has many benefits, including teaching them valuable concepts concerning choral music, increasing their level of commitment to the ensemble, and allowing them to understand their role as valuable contributors to the group.

Conclusion

The way in which choral music educators place their singers in the ensemble can have varied effects on the overall sound of the ensemble and on individual vocal production, and multiple researchers have provided evidence of this assertion. Configuration affects ensemble members, whether in rehearsal or performance. Proper configuration can lead to better vocal health for each singer by guarding against over-singing and addressing blend without altering individual vocal production. Most choral music educators would agree that they want students in their ensembles to enjoy singing and to use their voices in a healthy way. Applying knowledge gained through research into these aspects of choral configuration can help improve the experience of each singer and the sound of the choir.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kari Adams

References

Archibeque

(Producer). (2005). How to make a good choir sound great [DVD]. Retrieved from https://www.giamusic.com/store/resource/how-to-make-a-good-choir-sound-great-dvd-recording-dvd949

Aspaas

McCrea

C. R.

Morris

R. J.

Fowler

(2004). Select acoustic and perceptual measures of choral formation. International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, 2(1), 11–26.

Atkinson

D. S.

(2010). The effects of choral formation on the singing voice. Choral Journal, 50(8), 24–33.

Bonshor

M. J.

(2017). Confidence and choral configuration: The affective impact of situational and acoustic factors in amateur choirs. Psychology of Music, 45, 628–644. doi:10.1177/030573561669996

Brinson

B. A.

(1996). Choral music methods and materials. New York, NY: Schirmer Books.

Brinson

B. A.

Demorest

S. M.

(2014). Choral music methods and materials. Belmont, CA: Schirmer Books.

Collins

D. L.

(1999). Teaching choral music (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Daugherty

J. F.

(1999). Spacing, formation, and choral sound: Preferences and perceptions of auditors and choristers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 224–238. doi:10.2307/3345781

Daugherty

J. F.

(2003). Choir spacing and formation: Choral sound preferences in random, synergistic, and gender-specific chamber choir placements. International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, 1(1), 48–59.

10.

Daugherty

J. F.

Manternach

J. N.

Brunkan

M. C.

(2012). Acoustic and perceptual measures of SATB choir performances on two types of portable choral riser units in three singer-spacing conditions. International Journal of Music Education, 31, 359–375. doi:10.1177/0255761411434499

11.

Decker

H. A.

Herford

(Eds.). (1973). Choral conducting: A symposium. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

12.

Ekholm

(2000). The effect of singing mode and seating arrangement on choral blend and overall sound. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 123–135. doi:10.2307/3345571

13.

Folger

W. M.

(2002). Unifying the choral sound through voice matching: An empirical study of the adjustments in vibrato frequency modulation and amplitude modulation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3049163)

14.

Freer

P. K.

(2015). Perspectives of European boys about their voice change and school choral singing: Developing the possible selves of adolescent male singers. British Journal of Music Education, 32(1), 87–106. doi:10.1017/S026505171400031X

15.

Giardineire

D. C.

(1991). Voice matching: A perceptual study of vocal matches, effect on choral sound, and procedures of inquiry conducted by Weston Noble (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York.

16.

Killian

J. N.

Basinger

(2007). Perception of choral blend among choral, instrumental, and nonmusic majors using the continuous response digital interface. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 313–325. doi:10.1177/0022429408317373

17.

Lambson

A. R.

(1961). An evaluation of various seating plans used in choral singing. Journal of Research in Music Education, 9, 47–54. doi:10.2307/3344394

18.

Noble

(Producer). (2005). Achieving choral blend through standing position [DVD]. Retrieved from https://www.giamusic.com/products/P-628.cfm

19.

Phillips

K. H.

(2016). Directing the choral music program (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University.

20.

Roe

P. F.

(1983). Choral music education (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

21.

Smith

Sataloff

R. T.

(2013). Choral pedagogy (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Plural.

22.

Ternström

(1999). Preferred self-to-other ratios in choir singing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 3563–3574. doi:10.1121/1.424680

23.

Ternström

(2003). Choir acoustics: An overview of scientific research published to date. International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, 1(1), 3–12.

24.

Tocheff

R. D.

(1990). Acoustical placement of voices in choral formations (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9111807)

25.

Tonkinson

(1994). The Lombard effect in choral singing. Journal of Voice, 8(1), 24–29. doi:10.1016/s0892-1997(05)80316–9

26.

Warren

(2016, January 1). Positioning singers for optimal sound. The IFCM Magazine. Retrieved from http://icb.ifcm.net/en_US/positioning-singers-for-optimal-sound/

27.

Webb

G. B.

(Ed.). (1993). Up front! Becoming the complete choral conductor. Boston, MA: E. C. Schirmer Music.

28.

Woodruff

N. W.

(2002). The acoustic interaction of voices in ensemble: An inquiry into the phenomenon of voice matching and the perception of unaltered vocal process (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3075332)