In the above table I collected all my results from both research phases and
compared them with each other.
The right column also contains links to the videos and audios of my positive, practical results, listed according to the questions.
From these collected results I came across the following topics, which came up again and which I would like to deal with in more detail in the discussion:
The Chekhov method in jazz, what works, what doesn’t? What is the relationship between the three methods and what are differences between singers and instrumentalists in
relation to Chekhov? How do I see the future regarding the method in jazz?
As a second topic I would like to go into more detail about my work and experience
regarding the method, highlight differences between acting and singing, but also discuss what I learned through my research as a singer and teacher and how I see myself regarding the Chekhov method moving forward.
| Topics from all results | Endresults from Questionnaire 1 „Workshops | Endesults of all participants fromQuestionnaire 2 | My personal results ofQuestionnaire 2 in comparison acting-singing | Results from the Duo Partners Questionnaire 2 (strongly agree overlaps) | Some results from all the three studies |
| A001 Association with the Chekhov Method | Main words from this survey are sound and focus | Most common associations are: „Body awareness“(28,57%), „stimulation of imagination“(21,43%) and „focus“ (17,86%) | My associations are: Focus and Authentic artist | ||
| The answers for the emotional level were very low and only crossed by musicians (20%) „new idea“ 18% from the singers is „presence“ important. | |||||
| CO01 Through the concentration on the gesture, atmosphere or imaginary tool I could better: | Through the concentration the participants had a better expression and the message was clear (both had 93%). | New for me in contact in Jazz was that the sound get better and it feels more precise, open and free. | The method influenced them in their message of the song and thus also the emotional expression. | Gesture: Sebastian O.:Workshop 2 without gesture 01:15:33 1 physical g. 01:22:50. physical g. 01:25:03 psychological g. 01:27:50 | |
| Followed by two blue topics imagination 85,71 % more in the moment 78,57% that speak for the „focus“. | Through the focusing on the imagination I am in the moment. | The method extended theirimagination and their awareness of playing in the moment. | Atmosphere: Forrest Walk Video 03:00 | ||
| The method helped the singers to have a clearer message and let go of the inner critic | The singers „strongly agreed“ more an emotional experience,while the instrumentalists noticed more strongly the cognitive levels | I could discover new textures and sounds for me though the method | Imaginary Tool Ping-Pong Duo Andrew free impro 2.1 | ||
| TO01 The others | They recognized expression 28,57%, message 14,28% presence 14,28% | – The concentration is clearly the most mentioned effect (100% agreed from strongly 43%) followed by deeper emotional connection to a song(93% agreed from them 43% strongly ) . | Deeper emotional I saw that everyone found a better emotional connection to his/herself. Many new ideas came across, I could see clearly the connection to their imagination, especially in the atmosphere and imaginary tool . | Deeper emotional LeonieWorkshop 5(soft vibrato) 8:30 | |
| 29 % of the particepents recognizedbetter sound | The singers recognized from the outside more thecognitive and bodily changes (44%). The instrumentalists saw a biggest difference in the performance on the emotional level (80%). | For the singers I recognized that the sound and body awareness getting better through the method. This is for me a new realization because as an actor you are not so concentrated on the sound. | Sound Narim: Workshop 2 without 55:10:00 with the method: 02:02:06 | ||
| 100% of the participants said that there is happen a change when the others using the method. | Which clearly has no effect on the performing was the better „rhythm feel“ 86 % of the participants crossed neutral or disagree. More than the half of the participants 65% saw an effect on the phrasing, but it still not satisfying enough for my research. | The method had a clear impact on my natural rhythmical ideas of the phrasing. | Neither of them saw the method’s influence on rhythmic accuracy. | Message Marie:Workshop 4. Before 41:35 After 49:40 | |
| With the phrasing I was clearly convinced in context with the tool gave some good ideas. I guess the phrasing plays a more important role when you use the method in acting context. | Phrasing (img. tool) Workshop 6 you can see the difference betweenunprecise using 15:44 and precise connected with the body 15:48 | ||||
| EFO Effect to my three chosen methods form Chekhov | 57% mentioned the gesture as a useful exercise.This are the excersises that helped them the most awareness 28,57% andmeditation exercises : 28,57% | I think all the the techniques from Chekhov were a good choice according to the agree answers: 86% Gesture (79%): Atmosphere 86% Imaginary Tool (64%) | The gesture the imaginary tool and the atmosphere are a really good techniques for the music context, it’s a very open and flexible method. I could not hide 100% my inner critic, as I thought before. | They saw a strong effect on all the three techniques. | Gesture comparison before and after |
| UA 01&02 The Chekov Method had an impact on my artistic development and the uniqueness of an artist | 5 from 15 strongly; agree 9 from 15 agree. 60% musicians and 22% of the singers voted „strongly agree“ | The Chekhov-Method influenced the singers/musicians on three different levels also on the uniqueness of the artist. I strongly agree. Difference to the acting. | They found both ways for new ideas and expressions and they also think the method promotes the uniqueness of an artist. | Monbijou-Bridge | |
| SU01 I am still using the ideas | Yes: To define my message 14 %.Working with the gesture 57% for a warm-up 14%, to improve my imagination 14% | 79 % using the technique as I suggest it, or in their own way, or subconsciously. 21% don’t use the method or don’t know how. | I try to use it more constantly for myself and find some useful good regular exercises. For teaching and further research will this method be a main topic for me in the future. | Both continue working with the method either with the three techniques or in their own interpretation of the method. | |
| NO01 I am in need of… | For 21 % all the participants are “body-awareness“ and „uniqueness of expression“ a need right now. 33 % of the singers are „in need“ of more„focus / concentration“ exercises. | Focus and self-confidence | |||
| CU01 The Chekhov Method should have a regular place in a professional school of music | 86 % agreed (43% of them strongly) that the Chekhov Method should have a regular place in a curriculum of a professional school of music | I my opinion is this method is a great addition to the regular lessonsand useful for singers and musicians. | |||
| EF04 The Chekhov method is a useful tool for improvisation | 71% of all participants said that they agree, that the Method is a useful tool for improvisation in jazz (free-improvisation). When I look at the strong agreed answers the instrumentalists had 60% and the singers (22%) | For free improvisation I strongly agree that the method is a good helping tool finding ideas and be precise using them. For improvising over chord-changes I had too less experience but I’m not sure if it has the same effect as it does on the free improvisation. | This method is a good basis for free improvisation. | Improvisation: Duo Benjamin Session 3.1.26:30 3.2. iron 3:10 Duo-Andrew New York | |
| NT01 The Chekhov Method for composition | It was interesting to see that 100% of the instrumentalists agrees that they found the method interesting for getting ideas for compositions compared to the singers 44%. | Especially the atmosphere combined with the gesture and the tool gave me insides for compositions tunes. | Helen „A tree tells“ my work : Monbijou-bridge | ||
Sebastian Stert 