Abstract
This position paper proposes a concept of Everyday Singing as a form of regular, free, embedded, and self-instigated caring activity for all. Framed as a form of Musical Care as developed and discussed by, this conception of Everyday Singing emerges from the longitudinal practice and research of the Music Engagement Program (MEP) based in Canberra, Australia. The MEP singing approach is a social-altruistic form of music making that encourages everyone to participate in musical activity, particularly singing, while supporting the musical activity of others. The approach has shown significant impacts in overcoming the documented singing anxiety of adults in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand as a means of enabling access to regular singing for those with less autonomy, such as children and the elderly.
Everyday Singing is interrogated by an interdisciplinary group of practitioners and researchers who also act as co-authors for this position paper. The aim was to help identify the barriers and facilitators to engagement, providing a starting definition for Everyday Singing that highlights its potential to support well-being both in and beyond Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand. Experienced discussants specifically discuss the MEP singing approach as a vehicle for encouraging Everyday Singing in a range of contexts viewing the concept through the lens of Musical Care as a form of social musical encouragement and sharing.
Everyday Singing is conceptualized as an umbrella term, including both formal and informal singing, and is designed to support higher levels of active engagement for the general community whilst at the same time providing a different way of approaching skill development and performance. Everyday Singing is thus positioned to provide a pathway for the anxious or reluctant singer to overcome personal barriers to engagement, to instead focus on supporting and encouraging those with less autonomy, towards a form of accessible, universal, free, and embedded Musical Care for all.
Introduction
The aim of this position paper is to conceptualize Everyday Singing as a form of Musical Care, identify potential barriers to engagement, and suggest potential solutions. It emerges from the longitudinal practice, theory, and research of the Music Engagement Program (MEP) in Canberra, Australia. The authors, a group of researchers and practitioners with experience in the MEP singing approach, convened specifically to discuss this approach, using the introductory paper on Musical Care (Spiro et al., 2023) as a methodological model and inspiration.
The MEP singing approach was inspired by the work of Dr John Diamond (Diamond, 2001; Garber, 2004; West, 2004). 1 It supports music making in all individuals, regardless of perceived requisite skill, expertise, or training, through an explicit social-altruistic philosophy that encourages the singer to use her singing to encourage the singing of others. The program has shown significant impacts to date in educational and residential aged care settings, most notably in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand. By encouraging adults to sing more regularly, it has enabled increased access to singing for those with less autonomy, such as children and the elderly. The aim of current research is to test the application of the approach more widely as a way of promoting singing in care situations, such as, for example, residential aged care (RAC) facilities. The concept of Everyday Singing, as defined in this paper, is proposed as a means of aiding this expansion.
Everyday Singing, as developed in the Australian and Aotearoa/New Zealand context, is an umbrella term that can encompass any type of singing and a mixture of different types and contexts for singing. As the name implies, a core component of the concept is its regularity, rather than its form or context: Everyday Singing is conceived as a form of regular, embedded, free, and self-instigated caring activity for all. We suggest that, at its most basic, it should include a range of informal, unaffected, unselfconscious singing that is available to, and encouraged for, everyone. Such a positioning does not preclude skill development or what are regarded as higher-level outcomes in music; rather it prioritizes engagement and musically caring as a first step in developing those skills and outcomes. Indeed, our experience of singing via the MEP singing approach suggests that the approach can increase the amount of singing and its quality. The MEP singing approach has operated with the agenda of altruistic sharing and caring for everyone's musicianship, and well-being in general, for many years; aligning this approach with the internationally discussed concept of Musical Care seems both appropriate and timely.
Singing is considered a complex phenomenon (Camlin et al., 2020; Pentikäinen et al., 2023) with positive outcomes that are difficult to isolate, creating difficulties with demonstrating causal links. Many writers suggest that singing is an early human musical adaptation (Bonnár, 2015; Cross & Morley, 2008; DeNora, 2000; Dissanayake, 2008; Dunbar, 2012; Hallam & Himonides, 2022; Hargreaves & North, 1999; Honing et al., 2018; Jan, 2022; Malloch & Trevarthen, 2018; Mithen, 2006) and there has been research into the spontaneous, individual, and self-directed singing behavior of young children (Dean, 2021).
Studies seeking to evaluate the well-being effects of singing include: mothers and babies (Bind et al., 2024; Fancourt & Perkins, 2017; Kostilainen et al., 2021; Perkins et al., 2018; Stewart et al., 2022); singing as mental health support (Shakespeare & Whieldon, 2018); reviews of singing and mental health studies (Williams et al., 2018); singing for specific health conditions (Thomas et al., 2015; van Selms et al., 2022); and singing for people living with dementia (Hammar et al., 2011; Monroe, 2023; Pentikäinen et al., 2023; Tamplin et al., 2018; Tible et al., 2017).
Jensen and Bonde (2018) note that “It is well-documented that [arts-based] activities can be used as non-medical interventions to promote public health and wellbeing” (p. 2). Studies promoting general well-being through singing include interventions for: international students (Han et al., 2025); older people (Irons et al., 2025); choir members (Livesey et al., 2012); children and/or young people (Milošević, 2024); and children after trauma (Rickson, Legg et al., 2018; Rickson, Reynolds et al., 2018). In one study focusing on older people, positive benefit was found for both well-being and cognition (Pentikäinen et al., 2023).
In health care settings, Schellenberg and Lima (2024) concluded that the most “promising findings … rely on the social and emotional powers of music,” factors which they agree are “undeniable and universal” (p. 113). Schellenberg makes a strong case for concentrating on these social benefits. A gap in the research remains concerning the potential well-being impacts of Everyday Singing as an embedded social practice in everyday life. The focus of developing Everyday Singing in this paper includes conceptualizing it as a social activity within the context of Musical Care.
The weighting of singing and well-being research towards the social does not imply that there is no benefit to be gained from singing alone as part of a healthy musical life, possibly a form of self-care. Singing alone, as noted below by discussants, can be a regular and often spontaneous and joyful activity, and may be the only way an individual chooses to sing, to avoid being heard. Our focus here is less on proving benefit in singing in whatever context, and more on providing a way of thinking about singing that gives “permission” (Rivera et al., 2024) for more individuals to engage in countries or contexts where singing anxiety is prevalent. Any well-being effects to arise from singing are more likely to occur where more singing happens.
Most studies considering singing and well-being focus on those who already sing. At the same time, there is considerable documentation focusing on the problem of singing anxiety or singing avoidance in countries like Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand (Carroll & Harris, 2022; Rivera et al., 2024; Ruddock, 2007; Ruddock & Leong, 2005; Swain & Bodkin-Allen, 2014; West, 2004, 2009b) and more broadly (Bento-Allpress, 2013; Bonnycastle, 2021; Hogle, 2021; Whidden, 2010). This avoidance can prevent groups with less autonomy, such as children and persons living in residential aged care (RAC), from accessing singing as a joyful and meaningful part of everyday activities.
Longitudinal research and practice in the MEP over some 25 years has developed the concept of singing as a means of reaching out to others. The MEP singing approach unites singing with its well-being possibilities, including the documented positive effects of helping behavior, or, as coined by Luks and Payne (1992), the “helper's high.” A typical manifestation of the MEP singing approach might involve a group of children visiting a residential aged care facility and interacting with the residents one-on-one while encouraging and sharing the singing of well-known songs together. This type of activity differs from the more common choral presentational performance, or sing-along. The aim is for all participants to facilitate the singing of others while at the same time receiving help and support in return. Thus, the children, accompanying carers or teachers and the residents, are all engaged in reaching out to others; everyone has the opportunity to become both “helped” and “helper” (West & Garber, 2004).
The MEP singing approach has been shown to help adult carers engage more freely with singing in a range of contexts, within and beyond health domains by shifting the priority from singing skill to encouraging everyone to use their musicianship to support the engagement of others (Bodkin-Allen et al., 2019; Bodkin-Allen et al., 2024; de Jong et al., 2020; Pike-Rowney, 2016; West, 2009a, 2016; West & Garber, 2004). It suggests that those who were perceived as in need of care have the capacity to help their carers with free, unselfconscious singing as a regular part of life. The MEP takes the position that there is a natural and useful connection between singing and compassionate caring for others, and that foregrounding the latter encourages the former.
There are a range of approaches in different countries that are designed to offer singing engagement to the wider public, for example the Natural Voice Network established in Britain (Bithell, 2014), and, in Australia, groups such as Sing Australia (Miller, 2025). The concept of Everyday Singing encompasses such groups, while highlighting and encouraging the type of singing that will naturally emerge in everyday situations that are informal, where singing by everyone is normalized.
Conceptualizing singing as a function of everyday well-being is ideally placed within Musical Care (Spiro & Sanfilippo, 2022), which focuses on: the role of music … in supporting any aspect of people's developmental or health needs: for example, physical and mental health, cognitive and behavioural development, and interpersonal relationships. The term Musical Care can be applied and be made more specific in particular contexts (p. 2).
Musical Care is a “negotiated concept” and explicitly provides an umbrella for different approaches whether “everyday musical interactions” or “more formal sets of practices” (Spiro & Sanfilippo, 2022, p. 2). Framed with reference to the conceptualization of Musical Care, Everyday Singing can remain a flexible construct which can be developed and sustained in a range of ways suitable to each context, while maintaining some core attributes that prioritize social-altruistic sharing.
Aim and Method
Framed as a form of Musical Care as developed and discussed by Spiro et al. (2023), this paper uses a similar method of discussion and summary to propose a concept that is flexible and open to interpretation by other users. Its principal aim is to position Everyday Singing primarily as a health and well-being modality. Thus, this interdisciplinary group of practitioners and researchers experienced in the MEP singing approach was convened as joint authors specifically to interrogate this social-altruistic approach as a facilitator of Everyday Singing. The aim is to provide a starting definition that accepts singing as a ubiquitous human behavior with a potential to support social cohesion and well-being. Such a positioning does not preclude or limit pathways to different or more advanced forms of music making but, rather, provides a foundation that has a track record in encouraging more music making amongst individuals reluctant to, or anxious about, singing.
The interdisciplinary group of discussants/authors (Table 1) was convened by the first author (West) as part of a larger study that considers ways of encouraging more singing by adults in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand while offering a model that might have applicability in other countries or contexts. The aim is to support musical and general well-being, particularly of adults in caring roles who may restrict the music-making opportunities of those with less autonomy such as children and persons in residential aged care (RACs). Through a series of initial conversations with group members, the concept of Everyday Singing was developed, defined, and shared with the group via a discussion paper. Four structured discussion groups were convened to interrogate the concept, develop the definition, and discuss barriers and facilitators to Everyday Singing, with follow-up conversations and further email discussions as needed.
List of discussants with areas of research and/or practice.
List of discussants with areas of research and/or practice.
Discussions from the semi-structured discussions were summarized by West, with additional aggregated notes provided by Pike-Rowney and an independent thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) undertaken by Bodkin-Allen, who was interviewed separately.
Guiding questions for the discussions are presented in the Appendix. Identified themes were categorized into four main themes, with a range of sub-themes, organized to develop the concept of Everyday Singing from the perspective of the MEP singing approach. The themes are presented in Table 2.
Themes and sub-themes summarized from discussions.
The following discussion and analysis follow the main and subsidiary themes as laid out in Table 2, with reference to relevant literature. The conclusion summarizes the conceptualization of Everyday Singing as a form of Musical Care.
Everyday Singing was described by the discussants as simple, uncomplicated, spontaneous, and, often, enacted in solitude. There was a sense that Everyday Singing was an embedded part of their lives, and that they saw examples of Everyday Singing in others’ lives. The words used by the discussants included: natural and unaffected, embedded in everyday activities, personalized, fluid, spontaneous, emotional, fun, low-demand, and even mundane. At the same time, their descriptions of what Everyday Singing was involved comparisons with what they considered it was not, including that it was not judged or based on an abstract assessment of the musical sound.
The theme of judgment indicated one major societal problem the discussants identified that prevented engagement in Everyday Singing in their contexts in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand. Everyday Singing does not necessarily feel “everyday” for most people in the same way as “everyday walking” or “everyday talking.” Pike-Rowney suggested that, for most people, Everyday Singing “is an extremely limited idea that usually requires some kind of formal situation and a lot of apologies.” It would be something done alone and preferably not heard by others, an opinion that three other discussants voiced independently. The distinction between singing and being heard to sing “alone” or “in public” was made repeatedly.
Cave liked to think of Everyday Singing on a spectrum, which included singing alone through to more organized situations, like the singing visits she attends as part of the MEP. The complexity of the concept was highlighted by McConnell, an ethnomusicologist and founding member of the Musical Care network, who felt that Everyday Singing “references those kinds of singing that are not necessarily always valued by society.” This idea of lack of value of the most basic types of Everyday Singing is supported by looking at how we collect data on singing in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand. As Pike-Rowney points out, much Everyday Singing goes unreported (2016, pp. 66–67).
McConnell contrasted the universality of singing with the “complex and interesting” culturally specific ways singing can manifest. This idea of complexity is noted in the literature (Camlin et al., 2020; Pentikäinen et al., 2023).
The discussants explored Everyday Singing in relation to presentational performance, and whether these were mutually exclusive or could be included in the “spectrum” suggested by Cave. Discussants’ commentary did not suggest any particular type of context for Everyday Singing was excluded from the term; rather, the focus was on what the discussants felt was more important and less “everyday” in the Australian and Aotearoa/New Zealand contexts, that is, regular singing by everyone in the community. The division between the participatory and the presentational forms of music (Turino, 2008), noted by discussants in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand, is not necessarily representative of all cultures, as noted by McConnell, or indeed all communities in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand.
Anyos suggested that those more willing to let their voices be heard were those who identified as being a “good singer” and therefore, according to societal norms, had a right to be heard. The need for permission to be heard is noted in the literature, as is the notion that we internalize whether or not we are labeled a “good singer” (Rivera et al., 2024; Ruddock, 2007, 2017; Ruddock & Leong, 2005).
Loudon described workers at a building site unselfconsciously singing along to recordings as they worked, but that she hesitated to voice her enthusiasm for their singing in case they stopped. This suggests that individuals might only feel unselfconscious when singing if no-one else is paying attention.
The examples of Everyday Singing provided by discussants emphasized a basic divide between freely singing, often alone, and feeling self-conscious in public if one thought one would be heard. While a general definition of Everyday Singing does not distinguish between individuals and how they feel about their own or others’ singing, a question remains whether Everyday Singing with the explicit intention of enhancing well-being is hampered by these social anxieties prevalent in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand and possibly more broadly. Such barriers to participation are discussed in more detail in the next main theme.
Barriers to Everyday Singing
Singing Shaming
Characterizing Everyday Singing immediately included comments that pointed to barriers to active singing engagement. Research conducted by and about the MEP has documented many instances where singers are impacted by their internal view of their singing which limits their engagement, and, in the case of carers, the engagement of others (Bodkin-Allen et al., 2019; West, 2004, 2009b).
The discussants’ perspective that many individuals feel ashamed or self-conscious about their singing in countries like Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand is acknowledged in the literature (Bodkin-Allen et al., 2019; Ruddock, 2017; Ruddock & Leong, 2005; West, 2009a). Anyos made a distinction between singing whilst alone, which she felt was “ordinary and familiar” to people, and “doing it in front of others … that is the thing that's not an everyday thing” and leads to frequent shaming and self-shaming: “If they have to sing … they then apologise in advance … I don’t think I’m a good singer, so I will put myself down before you have an opportunity to put me down.” She referenced television shows which advertise singing shaming in their promotions to attract audiences.
De Jong, an occupational therapist, described her family situation where she was labeled as a “not singer” when compared to other family members. She went on to note her initial dismay when first introduced to the idea of “singing in public” on a singing visit with the MEP, and how the outreach approach allowed her to overcome this feeling. De Jong's commentary suggests that this idea of who is allowed to sing is embedded within family relationships, not just a product of the wider culture. The MEP research documents similar comments from individuals who were encouraged to sing by not focusing on their own singing so much as its effect in encouraging the singing of someone else (West, 2003, 2004, 2009b).
In the educational context, Loudon said, “I know most teachers will sing with their class quite confidently … but … the moment another teacher walks in the room … Feeling embarrassed if they’re singing in front of another adult.” West suggested that “if you fear singing, at whatever level, that also transmits” a message that children can receive. She suggested that children who have not been given a fearful approach to singing “want their voice to be heard … this is … a deep part of our identity.” Children will sing confidently, and want to sing confidently, if adults sing confidently.
Performance and Judgment
There was an explicit link made by discussants between the nature of presentational performance in their observed and researched contexts and the notion of judgment. Gulliver explained that “A lot of my anxiety, discomfort, performing and singing comes from that concept of feeling like I’m being watched and evaluated. And I think the further you can kind of get away from that performance style, the more people are … able to engage in it without that sort of sense of feeling judged.”
Discussants felt that performance and judgment are closely linked by some individuals in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand, especially non-professional music makers, and that Everyday Singing, being “natural and unaffected,” as described by Pike-Rowney, was the opposite of performance.
McConnell, who has experience of different forms of performance in different cultures, suggested that there is a problematic attitude towards performance in Australia where “the sounds are seen as being more important than the humans involved in creating them … this idea of the art object … as being so precious that it's okay if humans sacrifice themselves in order to produce it.”
Two of the discussants, West and Pike-Rowney, have long-term experience facilitating MEP events and training others in the MEP singing approach. They reminded the discussants of performances within the Program, by young people familiar with the MEP singing approach, and how their lack of performance anxiety and obvious, genuine joy in singing was transmitted to the audience. One much-quoted incident mentioned in the discussion had involved a complaint from an audience member at an MEP outreach concert who said the singing was “too good” for the MEP.
This comment highlights a problem noted by discussants and discussed in the literature: there can be a divide seen or assumed between practices the prioritize maximum engagement and practices that prioritize excellence. As far back as 1973, Schafer was commenting on the “disappointing tendency … to substitute impossible standards with none at all” (Schafer, 1973, p. 4). Various writers suggest that we might need to accept a lowering of standards to support more engagement (Small, 1977, 1999; Wright, 1996). This attitude continues with some writers like Peggie (2004) going so far as to see it as part of a class struggle between working class instant gratification – “an endless loop of joining in activities which ultimately lead nowhere” or the middle-class ‘no pain, no gain’ attitude needed to attain mastery” (p. 25). More recently Hogle noted that issues of perfectionism can affect children more broadly than in just music making while noting in relation to singing that “By third grade (8–9 years), the grade in which ‘I feel like I can sing aloud’ dropped dramatically, learners pervasively connected a desire to sound good with accurate singing, a sociocultural understanding influenced by presentational goals” (Hogle, 2021, p. 12).
Everyday Singing, as suggested above, may be more fruitfully considered on a spectrum, rather than a choice between the few who are considered excellent and the many who feel anxious about being heard. To prioritize engagement does not automatically lead to a denigration of the concept of excellence. Normalizing singing as an everyday activity that can occur in, and be supported by, a range of situations can help those who, for whatever reason, feel anxious to be heard singing, or who do not believe they have the requisite skills or talent, or even permission (Rivera et al., 2024), to sing.
Social Factors Contributing to Singing Suppression
Just as isolating the positive effects of singing can be complex, so too can unraveling the factors that negatively affect the engagement of each individual. The discussants noted that changes in social conditions have taken away some of the “scaffolding” (Sloboda & Howe, 1999) that used to exist to support more everyday forms of singing. For example, Loudon described the loud, unabashed singing in some church services she attended as a child.
Various participants commented on how lack of singing can perpetuate further lack of singing. Anyos explained that, as a science educator, parental involvement was important, and applied the same logic to singing: “if parents aren’t doing it, it devalues it.” The MEP has documented cases of teachers enthusiastically embracing Everyday Singing with their classes. These same teachers then often report comments from their non-singing colleagues which represent singing shaming, often masquerading as attempts at humor (West, 2004).
Cave noted the barriers in institutional settings: “some people live in environments where their choice to engage in occupations [such as singing] is really restricted … people in prisons, people in nursing homes [RACs].” Several of the discussants have lived experience of seeing the effects of increasing singing amongst individuals in RACs that suggest it may be more important than we realize, not just musically, but in terms of the relationships between residents, and between residents and their carers.
Paradoxically, cases were cited that indicate that those trying to help can, perhaps unwittingly, have the opposite impact. McConnell mentioned her frustration with outside “experts” coming into a community to “teach” music, while neglecting to recognize the culturally significant musical practices already present in that community. The MEP singing approach can be misused, such as when those enthusiastic about the potential positive effects of encouraging singing increase the level of discomfort and embarrassment in groups that they were trying to help to sing. Discussants all emphasized the importance of embedding freedom and choice for potential singers, whatever the age or composition of the group. Encouraging individuals to sing was seen as different to forcing individuals to sing, which may well have the opposite effect to that intended. As Bodkin-Allen noted, her most recent research showed that children were acutely aware of teachers attempting to enforce singing in their classes while not participating themselves.
Another barrier reported in an MEP study found that some individuals feel that they do not have enough support, even where they see and understand the benefits of singing for those around them (Gulliver et al., 2021).
While the many barriers to singing can be daunting, developing concepts that offer support to those trying to overcome their own perceived barriers is one way of encouraging more singing. Just as lack of singing can encourage lack of singing, Everyday Singing, if promoted by carers, can encourage the opposite. Furthermore, as noted below, promoting singing in those we care for can promote singing in ourselves.
Music Education is not Always Musical Care
As part of its cultural milieu, music education practices may evidence, if not contribute to, social barriers to singing. Research emerging from the MEP has considered the ways that some music education practices might contribute to lack of regular music making in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand (Pike-Rowney, 2016, 2023; Rivera et al., 2024; West, 2009b), as have some writers more generally (Bartel, 2004; Bradley & Hess, 2021; Carroll & Harris, 2022; Hess, 2024a, 2024b; Ruddock, 2018; Ruddock & Leong, 2005; Sloboda & Howe, 1999; Swain & Bodkin-Allen, 2014). In relation to Musical Care, Spiro et al. (2023) noted more generally that we should “note what kinds of musical experiences should not be considered caring” (p. 4). One aim of placing Everyday Singing within the context of Musical Care is to focus the attention on what is valuable to well-being. Everyday Singing, as Musical Care, explicitly values engagement over those aspects that are often prioritized in music education: for example, correctness of technical detail. Prioritizing one thing, however, does not imply eschewing, or actively discouraging, another; the MEP singing approach takes the position that quality, however defined, should not always be sought at the expense of enjoyment and engagement.
Pike-Rowney suggested that, while we have moved away from physical punishment in music education, “a lot of psychological abuse is still there” and that “the amount of fear and stress involved in getting up and singing a song does not make sense unless you understand the extraordinary history of music in education” (Pike-Rowney, 2016, 2023). Viewing music education from a transdisciplinary perspective helps us to unpack the pathways by which this fear and stress becomes intertwined with music making in general and singing in particular (Pike-Rowney, 2016, 2024).
Cave discussed how events in childhood teach individuals to internalize views that are hard to shift: “I think all that comes from … being told not to sing in the choir … [being] told to lip-sync … to mouthe the words … and that stays with people, especially when it happens at a seminal … time of life.” McConnell noted that, in some cultures, singing can be seen as a way of expressing and releasing trauma, whereas some writers note the trauma that can be caused by music education (Bradley & Hess, 2021; Thomas-Durrell, 2022). The deep and problematic effect on young people of some common approaches in music education were reported by some discussants and noted in the literature (Spiro et al., 2023).
The confusion for carers around what is and is not acceptable in music education and some performance situations in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand was illuminated by the discussion with Bodkin-Allen. She described the case of young girls cast in a lead role in an amateur theatrical production who all experienced extreme stress leading, at times, to physical symptoms, caused by the nature of the rehearsal process and adult direction. When West expressed astonishment that the parents or carers of the girls allowed them to continue in the musical show, Bodkin-Allen discussed how difficult it can be for a parent to separate the perceived “opportunity” from the obvious abuse.
For these young performers the educational and performance opportunities that appeared to be on offer included experiences that affected them negatively in serious ways but seemed acceptable in the context.
Through a Musical Care lens, this type of situation can be viewed differently, and we might ask at what point, and for whom, we should be prioritizing musical or performative outcomes. As Spiro et al. (2023) noted: Some suggested that it is necessary not only to define what is meant by musical care but also to note what kinds of musical experiences should not be considered caring, and indeed examples of potential negative effects of musical activities in particular social contexts and from different historical perspectives (p. 5).
Everyday Singing as Musical Care
Everyday Singing as a Healing Modality
Everyday Singing is proposed here as a form of Musical Care to focus attention on what is often regarded as the most important feature of singing: its function as a form of social cohesiveness (Dissanayake, 2021; Livesey et al., 2012; Savage et al., 2021; Savage et al., 2024) or “social glue.”
The discussants included individuals with lived experience of various concepts of care including occupational therapy, parenthood, teaching, community arts engagement, and Musical Care. All discussants have experienced singing in health and well-being settings; several are musicians with experience in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand presentational contexts and multi-cultural music settings. The well-being perspective colored the commentary, emphasizing that singing could, and perhaps should, be a matter of “musically caring” about the health and well-being outcomes for participants. All noted the importance of sensitivity to context, linked to the common thread of empathetic understanding, both musically and personally. The definition of Musical Care can apply equally to Everyday Singing: “the term Musical Care might be adopted to describe everyday musical interactions or more formal sets of practices or approaches used to support specific needs of individuals or groups” (Spiro et al., 2023, p. 8). Indeed, if the term “Everyday Singing” supplanted “Musical Care” the rest of the sentence would stand.
Singing within the MEP has been shown to support individuals with diagnosed conditions (Garber, 2004; Gulliver et al., 2021) and those wishing to overcome singing anxiety (Bodkin-Allen et al., 2019; West, 2004, 2009b). One topic absent from MEP literature, and indeed literature in general, is the possible health impact of suppressing singing over a lifetime.
The discussants who are occupational therapists saw a strong connection between aspects of their discipline and Everyday Singing. Some terms used in occupational therapy align with the philosophy behind Everyday Singing as a form of Musical Care. For example, the idea of occupations being “the ordinary and familiar things people do every day” (Hasselkus, 2011, p. 20) relates to the descriptions the discussants gave of Everyday Singing, while noting that it was not “ordinary and familiar” for everyone. Hasselkus’s The Meaning of Everyday Occupation (2011) combines the idea of the everyday with the idea of meaning. The anxiety many people have around singing attests to its meaning in our lives, even if we seem unaware of it (Rivera et al., 2024).
De Jong related Everyday Singing to the idea of occupational meaning, where that meaning may differ for different people, thus encompassing a range of contexts and attitudes in what both de Jong and Cave referred to as “occupational form” (Nelson & Chapman, 2015). McConnell saw the singing itself “as a tool” assisting relationality rather than as an end in itself. In these cases, what Camlin et al. (2020, p. 2) refers to as the “paramusical” aspects of music are most apparent. It is these effects that are highlighted by seeing Everyday Singing through the Musical Care lens.
Another theme related to occupational justice (Bailliard et al., 2020; Serrata Malfitano et al., 2016). As we have suggested, the lack of singing amongst adults influences those for whom they care, at whatever life stage. Helping adults see singing as part of a caring role can assist with alleviating occupational deprivation which, in relation to singing, does not only affect residents in RACs.
De Jong spoke about her involvement in “the pedagogy of kindness” (Alison, 2021; Santovec, 2021) which for her involved thinking about singing from a humane perspective. This thought relates to the idea of “musically caring” and offers a contrast to some practices in music education and music performance. A pedagogy of kindness does not lend itself to using force to achieve a musical end, nor to prioritizing compliance over joyful engagement.
Everyday Singing, Musical Care, and the MEP Singing Approach
Everyday Singing can occur alone or with others in social situations. As we have noted, it is singing within the hearing of others that can lead to anxiety and avoidance. The MEP singing approach helps this problem by highlighting the social well-being effects of joint music making. It is described as an intent (West, 2009a; West & Pike, 2011) that works to encourage engagement in singing for and with others; the MEP singing approach explicitly encourages reciprocity
Pike-Rowney related the intent behind the MEP singing approach to meaning, as discussed by the occupational therapists. For example, by having an intent to help others through the shared act of singing, an individual may focus less on their own feelings of inadequacy in relationship to singing and be aware of the effect of their shared singing on another person. The MEP has documented numerous situations where individuals of all ages have found singing in this way meaningful to them in a range of ways. (Bodkin-Allen et al., 2024; Garber, 2004; West, 2003, 2004; West & Garber, 2004). As de Jong noted, this meaning may be specific to each individual.
The discussants agreed that the approach had value in offering a reason to sing that helped alleviate self-consciousness by focusing one's attention outwards to encourage the singing of others, rather than to internally monitor and critique oneself. This is supported by studies emerging from the MEP that focused on assisting the engagement of those lacking confidence in music making (Bodkin-Allen et al., 2019; Pike-Rowney, 2016; West, 2009b).
In one MEP-based study (Gulliver et al., 2021) on the effects of implementing the MEP singing approach with people living with dementia, one of the researchers with “a personal discomfort with singing in public,” (p. 8) who did not expect to participate in the singing, found themselves doing so. This engagement stemmed from the realization that “the intent of the approach was not about the technical quality of the singing, but instead the quality of the interactions, catalysed by the act of singing together” (p. 8). The same researcher reported an improvement in their own mood and feelings of warmth towards the residents after the singing session. As Pike-Rowney suggested, the MEP singing approach taps into the social importance of music as a means of bonding. She noted, “[the approach] is an extremely useful idea when helping our rather disabled society get back to Everyday Singing.” It represents an easy way for individuals of any age to help others.
De Jong noted her dismay at being asked to sing “in public.” She went on to note that her feeling was altered on an MEP singing visit and described how the experience “allowed me to unpack and to [see the] power of music … the music is the tool for connection.”
Cave felt that, though she already felt relatively comfortable with singing, the MEP singing approach allowed her to “exorcise those demons” she had around some aspects of singing, like harmonizing: “it just gave me freedom.” West suggested, from decades of experience helping adults re-engage through the MEP, that many people seemed to realize that the fear and anxiety around singing was actually “a paper tiger,” or social conditioning that could be overcome.
Cave talked about the sense of the MEP singing approach as “an electric charge” that served as a reminder to sing, and how singing helped her. This thought indicates the way singing can become lost in the plethora of other everyday events that have a more immediate call on our attention. For Cave, group singing with the MEP singing approach helped keep the idea of singing alive and seemed to contribute to the impulse to sing alone or spontaneously in informal situations.
A sense of agency and a recognition of the power of the MEP singing approach was expressed by Loudon, who said, “knowing that if I sing, it's giving other people permission to sing, and I can feel good about it, then they can feel good about it without words being spoken to that effect.” Gulliver, describing her own Everyday Singing exchanging song phrases with her partner said, “there’s something really … kind of beautiful about those types of engagements that don’t actually involve any talking or like it's communicating in a different way.”
The idea that one could use singing to “feel good by doing good” (Brooks, 2024) was part of its appeal, with West noting the many children who had chosen repeatedly to engage in singing via the MEP, along with their adult carers (Pike, 2008, 2011). Loudon expressed it as “[the singers] give joy and they get joy” and added that for adults, making the concept of singing as altruistic facilitation of others’ singing was helpful in overcoming singing reluctance and anxiety.
Pike-Rowney talked about the other side of the MEP singing approach, which, by making helping through music explicit, includes a sense of responsibility in knowing “they can impact others negatively … and how not to do that.”
McConnell referenced the idea, well documented in ethnomusicological scholarship, that “different kinds of musical practices have different aims.” She reflected: the aim [of the MEP singing approach] is really around that social engagement and helping others through music … that element of the social relationships as being more important than the musical sounds. So the sounds may be wonderful but that's not necessarily the point. The nice sounds will help out that relationship and often do go together. If one is good then the other one might be good too.
Everyday Singing can describe a range of ways of singing, but explicit in the idea behind the MEP singing approach is that there will be a freedom and ease to singing which works to sustain ongoing engagement. Everyday Singing, from this perspective, treats free and joyful engagement as a sign of musical health for the individual and their community.
As we have noted, Musical Care can help us consider what kinds of music or music making are caring, and what kinds might have negative impacts. Defining Everyday Singing as a form of Musical Care has the potential to provides a simple test to determine the musical health of each individual, and each society – how freely, and how often, does this individual feel able to sing in any setting, whether alone or with and for others?
Seeing Musical “Power” in a Different Way
Power was mentioned by discussants in two ways. First, in relation to power dynamics suppressing singing for those with less autonomy, and second, as the way in which the MEP singing approach can have a profound, positive effect on those engaged. De Jong and her students engaged with the MEP singing approach in an occupational therapy course she convened in which she partnered with the MEP. De Jong felt, as noted above, that they could “[see the] power of the music as a tool for connection,” an important point for therapists who might not think of singing as part of their toolkit. Cave said “you get reminded not just of how good is this but, wow, this is powerful … how enjoyable Everyday Singing is and also its power.” Loudon believed that “a lot of people don’t realise the power of [the MEP singing approach] and … probably therefore don’t use it enough.” Cave added, “for me as an OT it was like I was being given this secret, look at how this can be used, and it's so universal.”
West suggested, on the basis of experience with hundreds of MEP visits to care facilities with groups of children, that engaging with singing in thoughtful, altruistic and humane ways seems to encourage our empathy and compassion for others while strengthening our singing, and the bonds it creates; a valuable resource for any country troubled by “the death of empathy” (Perry, 2012). Early research in the MEP focused in part on showing how young people with anti-social behavior could change from being the “helped” to the “helper” through being supported to use singing to help someone else (Garber, 2004).
The majority of discussants spoke of the power of singing as a tool to enhance their own as well as others’ well-being. A principal aim of developing Everyday Singing is to help health professionals overcome any reluctance they have around singing so that they can experiment with how it might support their profession, as well as their personal lives.
Facilitators of Everyday Singing
The discussants suggested a range of practical ideas to facilitate Everyday Singing. No-one suggested specific methods or mandatory steps to be followed but instead focused on flexible ideas and principles that might support increased engagement.
The Importance of Choice and Freedom
The MEP singing approach represents a way of thinking outwards towards someone else to support their singing and, as a result, support their well-being as well as our own. If we believe singing matters for those in our care, of whatever age, our wish to help them sing cannot be expressed through any sort of pressure. The MEP singing approach helps actualize Everyday Singing in group contexts as an individual choice supported by reciprocity of intent.
Discussants noted that thinking of shared singing from this perspective allows us to express our desire to support the musicianship of someone else through our own musical expression. This type of singing is in marked contrast to situations where teachers expect active singing participation from students while the teachers themselves exercise their right not to sing. Bodkin-Allen mentioned some of her most recent research that involved talking to focus groups of students who expressed their dislike of teachers pressuring them to sing when the teachers refused to engage.
The idea of choice within the MEP influenced all aspects of its everyday practice.
The discussants were clear that values of choice and freedom were crucial, since most people eventually are likely to respond to pressure by disengaging.
While force was not considered appropriate by any discussant, the idea of adult responsibility was canvassed in various ways. McConnell did not see any problem with having an expectation that adult carers should sing, and Loudon talked about ways of helping encourage teachers, for example, to include singing as a part of their professional brief. The work of the MEP with occupational therapists and with carers in residential aged care are examples of showing health professionals how increasing their own singing can provide them with an additional “tool” in their caring role.
Pike-Rowney summed up various strands relating to how the choices adults make about singing affects others: I think choice and freedom are extraordinarily important. However, adults particularly … sometimes have to do some things that make them feel uncomfortable, not because we want them to feel uncomfortable, but because they have some things to overcome. And the people that they take care of, often older people or children, are hampered because adults feel so uncomfortable. But if adults let that discomfort stop all music making, then the people in their care don’t have the opportunity to engage in ways that would help. So instead, what we’re saying with [the MEP singing approach] is that not only can they just sing, even if they feel a bit uncomfortable, they might actually be helped by the people that they’re helping all the time.
Gulliver suggested that “uptake in different contexts is going to depend on whether people feel they can enact [the singing themselves].” Research in the MEP found carer staff lacked confidence to enact the singing alone and cited time and scheduling issues as further barriers to continuing the intervention (Gulliver et al., 2019; Gulliver et al., 2021). One aim of the current study, of which this paper forms a part, is to explore ways of helping those in health care situations use Everyday Singing as a sustainable caring resource that is embedded in and around other activities.
The Nature of Facilitation
There was general agreement that facilitators were necessary at least to instigate regular singing, and that the attitude of the facilitator was important. Everyday Singing, even within an explicit intent to support others’ singing, may not always achieve that goal. The most important qualities for a facilitator that are embedded in the idea of the MEP singing approach are empathy and sensitivity to the needs of all those involved.
McConnell referenced the MEP's support and training of generalist teachers to encourage more Everyday Singing as a useful model. The MEP's engagement with occupational therapists showed that a similar form of facilitation worked equally well with this group, since the problem of singing anxiety remained the same for the health worker.
Pike-Rowney compared facilitation as practiced in the MEP with more traditional forms of training, noting that “the training that has gone in to develop that musical skill has caused issues to the point where the impact on the ability of others to feel comfortable with their Everyday Singing around the trained person has been hampered.” Put another way, those with high levels of training may not be the best people to encourage Everyday Singing.
In discussing the complexity of Everyday Singing, Pike-Rowney, as a musician herself, noted that professional singers can often sound very stressed while singing and that “you sort of need to know how it feels to hear real freedom in singing, to really love that, to notice it, and after you have noticed it, it's really hard to hear unfree, stressed singing … .” On the other hand, Pike-Rowney felt that musicians who were aware of having suffered some degree of trauma in the learning process could make admirable facilitators precisely because they understood what others might feel.
West, based on experience with schools, felt that the involvement and support of the school Principal was an absolute necessity, suggesting that the head of any institution is an important part of the facilitation chain.
Experiencing the nature of the MEP singing approach was considered important to understand how it feels and operates. Cave felt that having “champions” or individuals that modeled Everyday Singing in different contexts can help to give people that “aha” moment to see singing differently. The MEP has documented a range of situations where this has occurred (Garber, 2004; West, 2004, 2011, 2020) but the discussants had their own memories.
De Jong discussed the “threshold concept,” or a new idea that transforms one's view (Davies, 2024), once one had seen singing differently. In a follow-up email exchange, de Jong highlighted the importance of such a change with a quote from Yerxa (2010): A mind is a precious thing. Once we have learned a certain way of looking at phenomena, a particular way of noticing what is important, it is difficult to change the lenses through which we view the world (p. 171).
De Jong went on to write: “once we see things through the idea of Everyday Singing, there's no way back!”
West instigated some discussion about being heard to sing in public, since this was what most people seemed to find frightening. This attitude was contrasted with how children seem to respond to opportunities to be heard. She suggested that just as one can pass on the will to sing through one's singing, one can transmit fear: “so a teacher who is singing with a group of kids and stops because another teacher walks past the room … they are giving a message … They’re saying that my voice doesn’t deserve to be heard by another adult.”
The idea of Everyday Singing as Musical Care is not complicated, but as conceived here, it does require those with musical training to think carefully and reflect upon the ways they approach and support others, despite the best of intentions.
Practical Support
The biggest barriers noted by discussants was many individuals’ general sense of disempowerment around singing. The MEP has supported singing in a range of contexts over many years. The question in promulgating Everyday Singing is how to support more individuals and institutions not just to engage in more singing events, but to sustain it as an embedded and self-instigated daily activity to support well-being.
A range of practical issues were discussed in this context. Having access to appropriate song repertoire was considered important, while stressing the need to take account of the needs and wishes of each community context.
Online resources or a “community hub” were suggested, with various opinions on whether an app designed to remind people to sing was a useful idea. Two words used repeatedly in terms of encouraging and sustaining Everyday Singing were “embed” and “context,” suggesting that having ways of including singing as part of other activities, and tailored to each environment were important. This idea mirrored the MEP's experience in embedding singing in school sites, where some members of staff, or often the children themselves, engaged in spontaneous singing alongside more formal singing in, for example, assemblies.
Cave, as noted, discussed institutional settings where “the context doesn’t let them [sing].” The idea of spontaneous singing – “the children sing, and the teachers let them” (West quoting a teacher) – is one mindset that can help singing in some settings like schools where the impetus often comes from the young. Sites like RACs might require more active input from staff to support Everyday Singing.
One recent innovation in the MEP came about through the shift to online singing support, instigated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Levels of engagement from teachers and care staff suggest that the amount of in-person facilitation needed to support Everyday Singing might be lower than previously imagined, if institutional leadership is actively supportive. Further studies are required to explore in detail the level, type and amount of support that might be required to sustain Everyday Singing as a means of Musical Care.
Conclusion
This paper conceptualizes Everyday Singing as a form of Musical Care to help overcome adult singing anxiety and singing avoidance that has been documented and observed in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand and that can impact the singing of those with less autonomy, such as children and seniors. Everyday Singing is conceived as a form of regular, embedded, free, and self-instigated caring activity for all. It is positioned as a basic human behavior which has the potential to enhance social cohesion and well-being for all those engaged. As the name implies, Everyday Singing is best seen as a common and regular activity for everyone; it occurs on a spectrum and may include a range of formal and informal contexts, often, though not exclusively, social in nature.
Everyday Singing emerges from the research and practice of the Music Engagement Program (MEP), which uses its social-altruistic singing approach to help all those involved benefit from the potential well-being effects of singing in a reciprocal way. The MEP singing approach allows all participants to be both givers and receivers of singing for well-being.
The concept of Everyday Singing as Musical Care was interrogated through a series of interdisciplinary discussions with researchers and practitioners familiar with singing in caring contexts. These discussions were synthesized into four main themes: Describing Everyday Singing; Barriers to Everyday Singing; Everyday Singing as Musical Care; and Facilitators of Everyday Singing.
Everyday Singing was described by discussants through examples from everyday life, and with descriptors involving feeling and intent, rather than a specific practice, such as it being frequent, unselfconscious, often spontaneous, freely chosen, and fun. This concept was further elucidated through comparisons with what Everyday Singing is not, or should not feel like, stemming from some of the barriers to Everyday Singing. Discussants highlighted the societal influences that stymied engagement in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand: the focus on judgment that can lead to singing shaming and judgment; music education practices that are deleterious; and depletion of social scaffolding.
The concept of Everyday Singing provides one solution to the problem of singing avoidance or anxiety for adults, with particularly relevance for those in caring roles whose lack of singing may impact the musical possibilities of those for whom they care. In prioritizing basic singing engagement, we do not eschew skill development or musical quality, however defined. Rather, we place active engagement as the top priority through which other benefits, social, personal, technical, or musical, can develop. We argue that, for the population in general, the most important singing is the most basic and everyday – thus “Everyday Singing.”
Placing Everyday Singing within the framework of Musical Care provides a meaning and focus. The documented concept of the MEP singing approach offers one effective way of thinking about group singing that focuses outwards and helps anxious singers help others with singing, thereby helping themselves. The MEP singing approach becomes a reciprocal act of Musical Care. The power of singing is demonstrated with an emotional immediacy that contrasts with enforced practices that diminish individual choice and negatively impact ongoing engagement.
In facilitating Everyday Singing as Musical Care, the priority is a concern for the well-being of everyone, their choices and their musical freedom. The approach can reduce the need for specialists and allows everyday singers to support the Everyday Singing of others. The amount and type of practical support needed is the subject of ongoing research, with the COVID-19 pandemic paradoxically opening avenues of remote support that may enhance the individual confidence and agency of those living, caring, and working in families, organizations, and institutions.
Everyday Singing, like Musical Care, can involve a wide range of activities and contexts: formal and informal, spontaneous and rehearsed, ranging from a hospital bed to a concert stage. It does not preclude presentational performance contexts but may lead to different outcome and priorities in those contexts, particularly in removing performance anxiety. Conceptualizing Everyday Singing as a form of Musical Care firmly entrenches the priority of care over the development of display of musical skill.
Everyday Singing as Musical Care prioritizes the freedom for all people to sing, whenever and wherever, as part of a socially connected and fulfilled life.
Footnotes
Author Contributions
Contributorship SW proposed the concept of Everyday Singing and presented to the author group for discussion. SW and GPR and SBA undertook analysis. SW and GPR wrote first draft for input from all authors. SW prepared final draft in consultation with GPR. All authors contributed to the ideas in the paper and commented on one or several drafts. BBMC read the final draft and offered specific comments.
Action Editor
Neta Spiro, Royal College of Music.
Peer Review
Dave Camlin, Royal College of Music; Mark Ettenberger, Music Therapy Service Clínica Colsanitas.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research or authorship of this article. Support for publication was provided by Author 1's institution.
Declaration of Conflicting Interest
The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: One of the authors, Bonnie McConnell is a guest editor for the special issue for which this paper is submitted namely: Interdisciplinary and Intercultural Perspectives on Musical Care.
Redundant Publication
No data reported in this submission has been published previously wholly or in part.
ORCID iDs
Notes
Appendix
The original set of questions used to structure the discussion were: