Undoing errors: re-establishing joint action in a live music performance Acknowledgements The research is funded by the Academy of Finland (SA140352) project ”Corporeal Choreography and Articulations of Event(ual)”. Dr. Samu Pehkonen Research Group on Corporeality, Movement and Politics (COMPORE) School of Social Sciences and Humanities 33014 University of Tampere FINLAND samu.pehkonen@uta.fi Aims When playing live music, interruptions and restarts are generally avoided at all cost. If mistakes do occur, musicians aim to restore synchrony in the flow of music. A single deviant case video analysis was conducted to show what happens when an exceptional interruption and a restart occur. Samu Pehkonen References Clark, H. H. (2006). Social Actions, Social Commitments. In: N.J. Enfield & S.C. Levinson (eds.) Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction. Oxford: Berg, 126-150. Jefferson, G. (2007). Preliminary Notes on Abdicated Other-Correction. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 445-461. Keevallik, L. (2010). Bodily Quoting in Dance Correction. Research on Language and Social Interaction43:4, 401-426. Weeks, P. (1996). Synchrony Lost, Synchrony Regained: The Achievement of Musical Co-ordination. Human Studies 19: 199- 228. Weeks, P. (2002). Performative Error-Correction in Music: A Problem for Ethnomethodological Description. Human Studies25: 359-385. Previous research On rehearsals vs final live performance: ‚ conductor/band leader interrupting and highlighting the mistakes vs collectively avoiding interruptions (Weeks 1996, 2002) On corrections: • immediate other-correction vs self-correction/post-self-correction repeat (Jefferson 2007) • verbal corrections vs non-verbal cues and bodily quoting (Keevallik 2010) On joint action, joint projects: • entries and activity roles (Clark 2006) Data and methods • A deviant case analysis of a live performance by a pop duo (singer & guitarist) Kings of Convenience playing their song “I’d Rather Dance with You” together with local guest musicians (Mexico City, 2011). • Video data collected from YouTube (posted by audience members) analysed using conversation and multimodal interaction analysis. Discussion The restart is offered to capitalise on the skills of the performers and for the benefit of the performance rather than to highlight and correct the mistakes. Interruption and restart can be used for the benefit of multiple projects: ‚ to regain the musical flow ‚ to provide leadership ‚ to solicit heightened audience participation All aim “to produce a performance situationally adequate for the bulk of audience” (W eeks 1996: 200). Description and analysis During the song’s intro, a guest trumpeter produces several faulty notes, after which the lead singer interrupts the play (bodily and verbally). Then he immediately counts in a re-start to the song. The replayed intro proves to be adequate (though not completely faultless) and the song is performed until the end. Are we witnessing an other-correction and the breach of the rule “don’t stop the music”? A sequential analysis shows that this is NOT the case. Noticing “the problem” • The lead singer finds a centre stage spot and stops moving even before the faulty notes are audible • He gazes at the trumpeters and the guitarist • He makes repeated ‘stop’ gestures and says ‘No-no- no-no!’ Reactions to the problem ‚ Musicians interrupt their playing, but not in synchrony ‚ The singer, together with the audience, counts a 1-2- 1-2-3-4 to restart Corrective monitoring ‚ Body positions and gaze are modified to turn the focus away from the trumpeters ‚ Audible audience reaction when solving the problematic sequence Comparing the two starts Faulty notes serve as an excuse for the singer to restart the song and to provide the leadership absent in the first attempt. Initial start Restart Count in 1 (-2) 1-2-1-2-3-4 Synchronic start No Yes Clear leadership No Yes Body alignment Towards the band Towards the audience Audience response ”Normal” Heightened Initial start Restart