Abstract
Expert Western classical performers understand how to achieve stage mastery. Expert performers harness extramusical performance elements, including body language, facial expression, and even concert dress, to maximize their audiovisual impact (Urbaniak & Mitchell, 2024b). Learning to professionalize stage performances presents a challenge for music students embarking on professional careers (Creech et al., 2008), and they could benefit from expert insights into performance preparation for enhanced stagecraft (Ford & Sloboda, 2016). In general, tertiary students favor active learning over passive instruction (Daouk et al., 2016; Miller & Metz, 2014), and in music, students have benefitted from experiential learning to develop performance skills (Clark & Williamon, 2022; Rea, 2015). This study developed and trialed a “mock concert” as experiential learning to professionalize students’ approach to stage mastery.
Learning from Liszt
Franz Liszt revolutionized the role of the performer-soloist (Hilmes, 2016). He set the standard for modern-day performers by championing his magnetic personality as the focal point of the concert, proclaiming
Professional performers possess a wealth of tacit knowledge (Biggs, 2004) on performance mastery. Modern-day experts have alluded to their use of gesture to convey interpretation to the audience (Barenboim et al., 2002). The best performers created distinctive and unique stage personas that left striking impressions on their audiences and the public (Curtin, 2015). Video analysis of expert performers revealed nonverbal communication, such as facial expression and gesture, are key to projecting the performance for the concert stage, a concept termed “performativity” (Davidson, 2014). In this case, a performance may be considered as the presentation of the self and an action with an intention to provide something to someone. Performativity, on the contrary, is more of an expression that creates a transaction or an exchange between the performer and the audience. Performative intentions deepen audiences’ appreciation of performers’ musical communication. Expert performers have decoded key elements of performativity through the lens of Liszt’s legacy, for their own practical use (Urbaniak & Mitchell, 2024b). Their distinctive performance identities communicate their role as creators of the music experience, rather than conduits for composers’ intentions (Cook, 2012). Deconstructing Lisztian showmanship is key to understanding Western classical performance conventions.
Empirical investigations have identified key extramusical aspects that contribute to successful performances (Platz & Kopiez, 2022; Tsay, 2013). Audiences prefer performers who enter the stage with appropriate body language, including long strides, direct eye contact, and a confident expression (Platz & Kopiez, 2013). Audiences rate performers wearing conventional concert attire higher than those in less-conventional clothing (Urbaniak & Mitchell, 2022), and even form impressions based on performers’ attractiveness (Wapnick et al., 2000). Performers who are able to maintain composed facial expressions when making obvious mistakes are ultimately not penalized for their mishaps, while those who grimace are penalized harshly (Waddell & Williamon, 2017). Body language is essential to audience perceptions of musicality and expressivity, and performances featuring exaggerated gestures are perceived to be more expressive than a deadpan manner (Davidson, 1993). Performers who behave like soloists with exaggerated movements and demeanour control their audience’s gaze, who watch them for longer amounts of time than their co-performers (Kawase, 2014; Küssner et al., 2020). These studies decipher key aspects of the Lisztian tradition of showmanship, and demonstrate that visual prowess is critical to audience enjoyment.
Learning how to watch
Music students can decipher music performance skills through observation. Watching their peers learn in masterclasses can be a valuable learning experience for students who can interpret new concepts to apply to their own performances (Love & Barrett, 2016). Masterclasses are understood universally to be beneficial to developing professional skills, but students can feel confused as to how to engage effectively from the audience (Creech et al., 2009). Active observation is the key to learning from others, and tertiary students who observe masterclasses can learn practical skills to better focus their attention (Haddon, 2014; Hanken, 2015). They extrapolate instruction by actively engaging with the content, analyzing methods of correction, and evaluating the learning process itself (Haddon, 2014). Experienced students are more receptive to learning through observation (Long et al., 2012) and all students can benefit when they can translate instruction through observation.
Future music professionals must be equipped to evaluate performances effectively (Waddell et al., 2019). Students who roleplay as examiners can learn to assess peers’ auditions critically and articulate differences between performances (Mitchell & Benedict, 2017). By roleplaying as adjudicators, students can even learn to identify unconscious biases that can affect their evaluations, such as performers’ attire (Urbaniak & Mitchell, 2022). Music students respond well to watching videos of their performances (Boucher et al., 2021), and learn to recognize physical indicators of performance nerves by watching videos of their performances (Spahn et al., 2016). Hands-on performance trials provide opportunities for self-reflection and performance enhancement (Clark & Williamon, 2022).
Learning from others
Informal learning and group learning offer students the opportunity to consider learning in novel ways (Smart & Green, 2017). Learning from other students encourages self-reflection as they can explore new ideas together and reach deeper insights as a team (Creech & Hallam, 2017), and engage with the entire process of learning rather than just the content. Peer-to-peer learning leads to self-reflection and self-improvement (Latukefu, 2010; Latukefu & Verenikina, 2013). Students generally appreciate peer feedback (Lebler, 2008), though for sensitive student performers, criticism may lead to decreases in confidence and enjoyment (Atlas et al., 2004).
University educators view informal learning as a way to contextualize formal learning through real-life scenarios (Lai & Smith, 2018). Facilitating group learning requires facilitators to manage the activities, the group, and the learning, and promote a supportive environment where discussion and active listening are valued (Burgess et al., 2020). Experienced facilitators combined three different styles of teaching: “gatekeeper,” where the instructor provides information to students in a hierarchical way, “midwife,” where learning is student-centred, but still directed by the teacher, and “fellow traveller,” where students and teacher discover new material together (Jones, 2005). When organizing learning experiences in music, such as music ensembles, facilitators are able to switch between all three types of facilitation to maximize group engagement and cohesion (Creech & Hallam, 2017; Gaunt et al., 2012).
Learning by doing
Traditionally, tertiary classical performance students are expected to develop stage strategies without teacher guidance (Ford, 2013), and struggle with confidence on the concert stage (Sinnamon et al., 2012). Students flourish when they engage hands-on with new performance concepts. Performance students grasp learning complex ideas in ways related to performance, rather than learn abstract concepts in a solely academic context (Duffy & Harrop, 2017). When students had the opportunity to learn performance skills, they reported lower levels of anxiety and displayed fewer physical indicators of anxiety in body language (Cohen & Bodner, 2019). Students believe that hands-on experience and group discussion are the most effective ways to learn performance skills, and decrease levels of performance anxiety (Hoffman & Hanrahan, 2012).
Music students benefit from experiencing realistic performance scenarios, with none of the associated risks of a genuine live performance (Bissonnette et al., 2016). Successful performance simulations are interactive and contain realistic performance elements such as a backstage environment, stage entrance, a bright spotlight, and aural cues such as people talking (Williamon et al., 2014). These activities can form a stepping stone between practice room and real concert environment (Aufegger et al., 2017). Music students can learn from theatre students to exaggerate stage demeanour and develop stage presence (Ford & Sloboda, 2016; Rea, 2015), and respond well to experiential learning to learn expert methods for stage presence and performativity (Urbaniak & Mitchell, 2024a).
The mock concert
Early-career performers seek to professionalize their stage approach and achieve stage mastery. The challenge for music educators is to translate theoretical knowledge on sight and sound (e.g. Platz & Kopiez, 2022; Tsay, 2013) and expert concepts of performativity (Davidson, 2014; Urbaniak & Mitchell, 2024b, in preparation) into educational strategies for early-career performers. The mock concert was designed to develop students’ awareness of performativity and the impact of nonverbal communication on music perception. The aim of this study was to develop and trial a mock concert as experiential learning for professional stagecraft.
Method
Study design
Early-career musicians were invited as participants to roleplay as audience members or provide stimuli as performers. Performers were introduced to expert methods for stagecraft and concert preparation and trialed these strategies in the mock concert, while audience members observed their peers’ performances critically. Each performer performed a 30-minute recital program and the audience wrote down their impression on feedback sheets. Performers and observers participated in a 1-hr focus group discussion including peer feedback, self-reflection, and concepts of professional performativity.
Demographics
Eight (
Materials
Performance program
Pianists were asked to prepare a recital-length program comprising of major works. They performed staple piano recital repertoire that represented the peak of pianistic achievement. All performed from memory:
Claudia—Prokofiev Sonata No. 2, Op. 14, Liszt Années de Pèlerinage Deuxième année: Italie, S. 161: VI Sonnetto 123 del Petrarca.
Michael—J.S. Bach French Suite No 3 in B minor BWV 814, Liszt Après une Lecture de Dante: Fantasia quasi Sonata.
George—Beethoven Piano Sonata No. 21, Op.53 “Waldstein.”
Feedback booklet
Audience members were given a feedback booklet to note their impressions of each performer. The feedback booklet included four prompts which aimed to focus participants’ attention on the entire performance (Davidson, 2014), including first impressions and performance manner (Platz & Kopiez, 2013). They were free to use the prompts as they wanted, and were not required to answer every question:
What were your first impressions of the performer?
What do you think about this performance?
How would you describe their performance manner?
How do you think this performer is feeling?
Focus group discussion
After the workshop, a semi-structured focus group discussion explored performers’ impressions of their own performances, and the audience’s feedback. Audience members were asked to give feedback on each performer’s performance style, and performers were invited to share their preparation strategies. The group discussed performance style more broadly. All participants were given an opportunity to share their opinions within a supportive environment (Williamon et al., 2021). The first author provided structure to the discussion (Robson, 2002) by inviting feedback to specific performers, but participants were able to talk freely, and the conversation unfolded naturally.
Procedure
Ethical approval was granted by the institutional Human Ethics Committee. Participants took part in a 2-hr performance at a tertiary music institution, followed by a 1-hr focus group. The concert hall had a capacity of around 200 people and a separate green room. The stage was set up to mimic an evening recital, with the audience lighting slightly dimmed and the concert grand piano in the middle of the stage.
Audience members entered the hall and were given feedback booklets. Each performer walked on, bowed, sat at the piano, and then performed their repertoire. During the performance, the audience had the choice to fill out their feedback booklets. The performance was recorded audio-visually.
After the performance, the audience and performers participated in a focus group, where they discussed the performances and shared their observations. The focus group followed a semi-structured design, where the first author initially prompted audience feedback for each performer, then invited the performers to share their thoughts. Afterward, the conversation was led by participants and unfolded organically to topics of concert preparation and performance education more broadly. The focus group lasted about 1 hr and was recorded for transcription.
Analysis
The focus group was transcribed and considered alongside the performance recording. An inductive approach was undertaken in the reflexive thematic analysis to identify patterns and common themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In the first coding cycle, 23 codes were derived from the transcripts (Saldaña, 2012) which were discussed by the first and second authors. In the second cycle coding, preliminary categories were consolidated into three broader themes (Grbich, 2007): “Learning through observation—the audience’s impressions,” “Learning by doing—performers’ perspectives,” and “Learning from experts—stage training in practice.” Codes, categories, and themes were discussed between Authors 1 and 2. This analysis produced the final code list (Table 1).
Themes, Categories, and Codes Resulting From Reflexive Thematic Analysis.
Results
Learning through observation—the audience’s impressions
Critical analysis of stagecraft
Early-career performers were keen observers and analyzed performances critically. They were able to identify key elements of professional stage presence, including unique and convincing showmanship, as “each [performer] had such a distinct persona or character as they were playing” (P1). They identified (correctly) that performers had made intentional choices about their stage entrance and bow: “I feel like all the performers have thought about what they were going to look like as they walked on and bowed” (P4). They observed that this level of stage planning resulted in distinctive and memorable performativity, “across the three performers, there’s a very strong sense of individuality” (P1). Visual and aural elements combined to create stage persona: I was kind of blown away by how each one of you just felt like this very cohesive kind of character or ambience or atmosphere about it. It was really, really particular. (P3)
The group identified elements of stagecraft that shaped their perceptions of performers. George appeared “very, very humble, and very, very genuine” and “sermon-like,” “even from when you walked out, like how you sort of carried yourself” (P3). The audience agreed that he appeared to have “put effort into how he was going to walk on, how he was presenting himself” (P4). While playing, his body language showed “reverence” for the music, with his head “bowed as [he] played [ . . . ], it was effective with the music” (P3). His signature performance attire created a “really, really cohesive sense of character” (P3). George was delighted to find that his intentions for stage presence were successful, based on the audience’s feedback: the “vibe I was giving off, [it] was something that I tried consciously to do, and you all responded exactly how I hoped.”
Claudia adopted a serene stage persona. She presented a “very friendly, open vibe [ . . . ] from the moment she walked on” (P2), though some audience members thought she appeared “serious when she came on” (P1) which resonated with the “solemnity [of] the first piece” (P4). Claudia’s concert gown directed attention, and the audience “love[d] seeing a beautiful dress, that’s a nice colour with sparkles on the shoulder” (P5). The audience agreed that “had [the dress] been informal, I think I would have reacted negatively” (P2), as it would appear unprofessional. While Claudia performed, her earrings complemented the musical character, as they were “sparkling during the performance, it’s like the notes sparkling with the sound, sparkling on the earrings, sparkling, everything’s resonating each other” (P5).
Michael presented a professional stage presence. His stage entrance looked “very excited but also very formal” (P1) and “came off as very meticulous in your attention to detail” (P1). The audience was “struck” (P1) by the formality of his attire like “full regalia” (P3), particularly his “bow tie” (P5). They felt welcomed by his “big smile,” which “immediately set the tone and immediately draw my attention to what you’re going to play” (P5). His performance “seemed super professional, which is not something that you normally see at a conservatory, more like a concert hall” (P2).
Audiovisual expressivity
Observers described the effect of performers’ expressivity. They articulated the effect of certain expressive choices and how these related to stage presence and performativity. George’s playing was “impassioned” (P4) and “energetic—[he] played with abandon (P2).” Observers felt transported, “like entering into another space, so beautiful” (P5). He was resilient, and the audience felt him “keeping the music going, regardless of if anything happened” (P1). George was able to marry “gesture and sound” (P5) to create an emotional and evocative performance.
Claudia combined gesture and sound to “portray the story” (P5). Claudia’s playing was “very gentle and sensitive and very thoughtful and sincere, [ . . . ] dreamy” (P2). Visually, the audience could “tell she was very taken in by the music” (P1) and they considered her introspective persona as “monologing like you were by yourself and we were just observing you from [behind] a screen” (P3). In particular, she “looked ahead [away from her hands] a lot,” which when combined with the “profoundness” of the repertoire, gave the impression she was looking ahead “at the rest of [her] life” (P3).
Michael’s performance was “impressive, yes, it was awesome” (P4). Observers described the visual effect of his “very strong sense of immersion within the music” (P1). Michael played two contrasting pieces, the Bach was described as “exact and precise [ . . . ] meticulous” (P1), and the Liszt which was described as “reckless” (P2) and compelled the audience with “drama and captivation” (Claudia). His playing held “gravitas” (P3), like a “performance at a theatre with drama” (P5). His stage persona and expressive choices changed drastically between the two pieces, so much so that it “felt like a different person playing the two” (P2), almost “like time travelling” (Claudia). His nonverbal communication maintained audience interest, even between pieces, so that “[the break] wouldn’t ruin the atmosphere that you created, and then segue into the next one without any awkwardness” (P2). Michael’s use of gesture was reminiscent “of a conductor” (Claudia) who presented a compelling audiovisual package: It was like a really well-crafted drama, it was epic. I think I said Shakespearean at one point. Because that’s what it felt like [ . . . ], especially [being] like suited up, it was kind of like a Laurence Olivier performance! (P3)
Learning by doing—performers’ perspectives
Visualizing the concert
For several weeks before the performance, performers began to “build an idea of what the hall will be like, what the space might feel like, like how I might be feeling on the day” (George). They prepared every aspect of the performance so that “you don’t just walk on and then sit down and start—all of that is sort of planned” (George). They used all their senses to build a realistic impression of the concert: Imagining what it’s going to be like when I’m in a sound lock type area, regardless of what the performance venue is. And just imagining just that moment of walking on, because it’s a shock to the senses and it’s a shock to your mental state as well. [ . . . ] Observing, using all my senses, and [imagining] what it was going to be like the moment that I walked on. Having that to focus on was really helpful. (Claudia)
Performers used visualization to achieve confidence, by “imagining myself in quite specific visual detail as a legendary pianist playing at the Opera House.” Performers visualized the scene in “great detail” (Michael), both before the performance and while actually on stage: I was thinking about the tunnel that goes down to the stage door at the Opera House and the stage door. And I was thinking of the room that I was practising in is actually the dressing room they have at the Opera House [. . .], and I was imagining a guy with a beer gut in a black T-shirt saying “We’re ready for you” and opening the door. Imagining all of that, imagining the audience. And when I walked out [in the mock concert performance], imagining [it was a] full hall. (Michael)
“Kings” of the stage
Performers revealed that they had taken time to imagine the ideal concert persona, “how we want to be seen by the audience, or what kind of performer we want to be to the audience” (Claudia). Before the mock concert, performers used positive mantras and self-talk to “make that persona” (Claudia). Claudia imagined herself as “king or queen” of the concert stage, “inflating [her] ego” to boost her stage confidence. Claudia revealed an immediate and positive impact on her mental state and performance quality, as “thinking of yourself as more important gives a better performance because you put yourself in the role of [ . . . ] the
Physical appearance
Wearing formal attire made a “profound difference” on performers’ mindsets. For Michael, wearing a black tuxedo promoted positive comparisons with great performers: The outfit really helped me, I really found it so much easier to imagine [myself as a king of the stage]. You know, I was sitting in that room over there, having my banana sandwich [ . . . ] and I saw myself in the mirror there with the shirt on and the white bow tie, “Wow, I really look like Perahia.” [ . . . ] Seriously, it actually really helped.
For Claudia, choosing a formal, full-length gown allowed her to celebrate her role as concert soloist, as “having a proper concert dress [a full-length gown] on helps me think of myself more in the role of performer as well.”
Gesture
Performers became aware of their physical gesture on audience’s perceptions, and for the first time, began “concentrating on gesture” (Claudia) as an expressive tool. They tried to create a “theatre[ical]” aspect to the performance, as “people are actually looking at me when I play so I should do something more to entertain the visual aspect” (Claudia).
Learning from experts—stage training in practice
The need for professional training
The focus group agreed that tertiary training would benefit from further professional training. They were able to identify elements of performativity and stagecraft that had not been taught explicitly in undergraduate performance training: Only, in the rarest of cases, [. . .] do you get comments about anything apart from just the piano playing. [. . .] No-one’s going to say the way you walked on could be enhanced in this way or that way, it’ll just be “Oh, you know the development rushed and the pedal wasn’t well controlled.” (Michael)
They reflected on the differences in attitude between instrumental training and vocal training, where performativity, stage presence, and acting training is the norm. In vocal training, “singers get commented on the way they walk in, and that is part of their actual performance class” (P3). They suggested instrumental training could benefit from a similar commitment to stagecraft.
Professionalizing student experience
The audience agreed that the three performers appeared professional on the stage, due to their command of performativity and nonverbal communication: “the way you presented yourselves tonight pushed it in a direction of full-on professionalism” (P1). For performers, professionalizing their approach to the stage required consistent practice, planning, and self-reflection: We weren’t really taught how to do the performance side of it [during piano training]. So, I was kind of just copying people all the time so [this experience] has made me know exactly what works for me. And it sounds cliché, but being true to myself always comes out better to the audience, because you’re being genuine. (Michael)
Performers began to question the perception of performers as conduit for composers’ intentions. They understood the need to respect themselves as focal points of performance in order to adopt a professional attitude to the stage: [I used to think that] the music is so much bigger than me and I’m just like a little person who has to perform this and I’m, like, one of many people who has to perform this music. So, in a way, I wasn’t hyping myself enough to play the works. (Claudia)
The group agreed that tertiary students would benefit from an approach that promoted professionalism, especially in developing a unique performance persona, “during my undergrad, I remember [ . . . ] everyone was wearing black [to perform], I was like ‘how boring is that?’” (P5). They agreed that clothing signaled professionalism that was perceived to be out of place in the tertiary context: “it’s such a pity, that if you rocked up like this [in black tie performance attire], you’d be laughed off the stage in [university] contexts, but yet, clearly, it makes a difference” (Michael). The group reflected on tertiary education as a period of transition from student to professional, and that universities were “a context where initially they are students, but at a certain point they become performers” (P1). Navigating the change from student to professional was difficult, and many of the group agreed that “personally, I feel like we weren’t really prepared for [the transition]” (Claudia). They began to imagine ways tertiary institutions could support students’ transitions to professional music practice, including the professional demands of performance: At a certain point, you need to become a performer. And if you don’t [help] navigate students through that transition, they might struggle to make that shift. [. . .] You can’t go straight from here to the Opera House. There’s going to be a kind of intermediate stage, but you need to be thinking about that transition. (P1)
Discussion
This study developed and trialed a mock concert as experiential learning for professional stagecraft. Eight early-career musicians participated in a mock concert, where three of the group provided stimuli as performers. Participants observed their peers’ performances critically. Their observations reflected a critical awareness of stage presence and the impact of nonverbal communication on audiences’ perceptions of the performance. By acting as critical observers, participants developed skills in audiovisual performance appraisal, and gained insight into their own performance practice. The three performers confirmed that adopting experts’ methods had boosted their confidence and professionalized their approach to stagecraft. The group advocated for the inclusion of performativity training into tertiary performance education.
For the audience, this experiential learning workshop was a novel opportunity to learn about performativity (Davidson, 2014) through observation. Within the tertiary music education system, there may be limited opportunities for critical discussion of stagecraft and students may be unaware of strategies to professionalize their approach to stage preparation (Ford, 2013). Here, early-career performers were able to trial, observe, and critically evaluate expert strategies for the stage. Traditionally, music students are often encouraged to develop an intense focus on the score, often at the expense of considering performers’ autonomy (Cook, 2012). The prompts in the feedback booklet primed participants for active observation of performers, by focusing their attention away from purely musical analysis. Participants were able to identify key elements that contributed to performers’ unique stage persona and evaluate the effect of performativity on their performances (Davidson, 2014). This group of early-career performers was well-placed to learn through observation (Long et al., 2012) and relished the novel experience of learning about stagecraft. The mock concert formed a successful exercise in critical observation and reflection (Waddell et al., 2019).
Performance students must be encouraged to learn musicological concepts in ways that benefit them directly (Duffy & Harrop, 2017) and the mock concert was an efficient way to introduce research on sight and sound on performers’ own terms. By roleplaying as critical audience members, these participants were able to witness firsthand the impact of sight and sound on audience perceptions (Tsay, 2013). Key aspects of perceptual research (Platz & Kopiez, 2022) were distilled into practical examples. Participants observed the positive impacts of professional stage entrance styles (Platz & Kopiez, 2013) and compelling nonverbal communication and facial expressions (Waddell & Williamon, 2017) on audience perceptions. Formal attire was praised as an indicator of skill and professionalism (Urbaniak & Mitchell, 2022) and performers agreed that wearing formal attire amplified their confidence to perform on stage. Gesture was an effective form of nonverbal communication that enhanced performers’ expressive choices (Davidson, 1993). A soloistic approach, with exaggerated gestures and palpable confidence gripped the audience’s attention (Kawase, 2014; Küssner et al., 2020).
Students flourished through peer-to-peer learning, where all participants were treated as equals in the discussion (Creech & Hallam, 2017). The focus group initially focused on a “midwife” approach to facilitation, where the first author led the group through peer feedback and peer reflection (Jones, 2005). Performers appreciated feedback from trusted and knowledgeable peers (Lebler, 2008), who confirmed that their efforts to professionalize stagecraft were successful. Peer feedback led organically to self-reflection, and prompted participants’ interest in translating their observations into their own practice (Love & Barrett, 2016). As participants grew more comfortable voicing their opinions, the focus group adopted a “fellow traveller” approach, where participants took a leading role in shaping the discussion (Jones, 2005).
For performers, the mock concert was an opportunity to trial expert strategies for developing a professional approach to performativity (Urbaniak & Mitchell, 2024b). They visualized all aspects of the concert, including performance visuals, and tailored their approach to the specific hall (Sinnamon et al., 2012). Like experts, they planned physical appearance, in particular their dress, and familiarized themselves with the backstage environment ahead of time (Urbaniak & Mitchell, 2024b, in preparation). Performers used positive mantras by imagining themselves as “kings” of the concert stage (Urbaniak & Mitchell, in preparation) to access a Lisztian sense of showmanship and stagecraft (Hilmes, 2016). Performers choreographed nonverbal cues to transmit their intentions to the audience (Barenboim et al., 2002). In the mock concert, performers were successful in consolidating many individual elements of expert showmanship and concert preparation (Urbaniak & Mitchell, 2024b). It appears that early-career performers can decipher, discuss, and learn how to achieve performativity on the concert stage (Davidson, 2014).
Limitations and future directions
It was a benefit and a limitation of this study that participants were already known to each other, and comfortable critiquing others’ performances respectfully (Creech & Hallam, 2017). All students had completed an undergraduate degree and so had more experience of evaluating performances and working with others (Long et al., 2012). Less experienced students may find discussing performances face-to-face more challenging, and some may be less willing to share some of the weaker or negative aspects of the performances if they could be identified for their comments. It was beyond the scope of this study to follow-up participants on their experiences of the mock concert to understand if and how it impacted their subsequent performances. Future studies should evaluate students’ mock concert experiences to discover how the scenarios could be improved, and which aspects were most impactful to their ongoing performance preparation.
Conclusion
This study developed and trialed a mock concert as experiential learning for professional stagecraft. Roleplaying as audience members was an effective way to contextualize musicological research on sight and sound (e.g., Tsay, 2013) in practice (Mitchell & Benedict, 2017). For the three performers, the mock concert was an effective way to trial expert strategies for the stage in a low-risk yet realistic performance trial (Williamon et al., 2014). Participants were able to learn how to assess performances and provide peer feedback (Waddell et al., 2019) and observe the effect of performativity and soloistic behavior on audience perceptions (Küssner et al., 2020). The mock concert presents a novel framework to translate music performance research into authentic training exercises for tertiary training. Future studies will explore and evaluate the mock concert as a pedagogical tool. Emerging music professionals benefit from learning by doing, which equips them to excel in their future performance careers.
