This is a horrible idea and nearly impossible and I cannot believe they didn't bother addressing the nearly insurmountable technical hurdles which face any group trying to synchronize a musical performance online.
Even using specialized software and hardware, it is difficult. Trying to (ab)use Zoom or Teams for simultaneous performance is an exercise in futility and frustration.
It is not merely latency that gets in your way, but that is a large part of it. It is also the nature of the codecs, and the nature of the processing. These videoconferencing apps are designed to spotlight one speaker with many spectators. They were never designed to accommodate everyone having a go all at once!
Many people found out, during the pandemic, that they needed to "fake it" if they were trying to record a choral performance. Record your piece one at a time. Send it over to the next person and they add to it; it's manually "touched up" and synced by an editor. And so forth.
"Virtual choirs" are divisive and ableist. Only those who have the "proper technology" can even consider admission to these groups. I have been a member of various choirs in my life. Sometimes this was even possible when I was living on the streets. I did not require a car, nor an iPad, nor an Internet connection to be a choir member. I only needed to bring myself and a positive attitude.
Membership in real choirs is a fulfilling and uplifting experience. There are no words for the way it makes me feel, to sing together with other people, in a room. Especially when we are fully rehearsed and we perform for an audience who applauds and appreciates our work. Choirs are the ultimate in collaborative and cooperative recreation. I've sung Disney songs, I've sung songs by Rogers & Hammerstein; I've sung ancient Greek hymns. The experience is simply unparalleled.
> "Virtual choirs" are divisive and ableist. Only those who have the "proper technology" can even consider admission to these groups.
I could not disagree more.
I play D&D, and I strongly prefer in-person games to online games, to the point where I won't really entertain an online one without exceptional circumstances.
But it feels silly to suggest that this is ableist. I'm glad you were able to find a community when you were homeless, but for a lot of people, a car is required to show up in person, and costs a hell of a lot more than a basic laptop, or a cellphone. (And that's before we get to the fact that this study seems to focus explicitly on people with dementia, for whom traveling anywhere is likely more difficult than it is for you!)
Yes, latency is an issue, but I don't think these people are trying to put on professional performances; they're just looking for something social to do together, and singing is that thing for them.
> It is abuse to rope people into an impossible activity. It would be crazymaking to me, if my church or our volunteer leadership, would force me into a virtual singing activity.
Then I suppose it's a good thing that nobody forced these people into it.
> They will not understand the technological limitations, and they will not understand that no matter what they do, they will not succeed in synchronizing their voices or instruments.
And yet, from the article:
> “We found virtual group singing could provide emotional, cognitive and social support through accessible, engaging music programs for diverse aging populations.”
> It is not merely latency that gets in your way, but that is a large part of it. It is also the nature of the codecs, and the nature of the processing. These videoconferencing apps are designed to spotlight one speaker with many spectators. They were never designed to accommodate everyone having a go all at once!
From the paper:
> > During the rehearsal, individual voice parts were rehearsed; the other 3 voice parts would wait and listen while fellow choir mates worked on their parts, as had been the practice during in-person rehearsals prior to the pandemic. Since all singers were asked to be muted, they were able to sing or hum along, when different voice parts rehearsed, without being a distraction.
So, for rehearsals, one person at a time is unmuted and receiving feedback, allegedly similar to how they did it in-person, and others can sing along muted if they wish.
I'd agree that in-person is better in this aspect, to have everyone sing together at the same time without having to sync it up through editing, but it does seem they've mostly avoided the latency and codec issue while still maintaining some social aspect.
> "Virtual choirs" are divisive and ableist. Only those who have the "proper technology" can even consider admission to these groups. I have been a member of various choirs in my life. Sometimes this was even possible when I was living on the streets. I did not require a car, nor an iPad, nor an Internet connection to be a choir member. I only needed to bring myself and a positive attitude.
I don't think most people have a choir within walking distance, especially when the focus of this is a demographic whose mobility and transport options may be limited, and especially given this took place during the pandemic.
Not to say that access to technology can't also be a barrier, but on average it seems less of one - particularly when support was provided as it was here. Or at the very least, the existence of virtual choirs providing an option for people with limited mobility does not take away options for people who have the means to go to physical choir practices.
This is lovely.
However, at first I read this as “Isolated older adults find joy and connection through virtue signaling”
I could not figure out for the longest time why you repeated the title exactly.
The isolated older adults - at least in my town - do that on Facebook.
Neat!
This is a horrible idea and nearly impossible and I cannot believe they didn't bother addressing the nearly insurmountable technical hurdles which face any group trying to synchronize a musical performance online.
Even using specialized software and hardware, it is difficult. Trying to (ab)use Zoom or Teams for simultaneous performance is an exercise in futility and frustration.
It is not merely latency that gets in your way, but that is a large part of it. It is also the nature of the codecs, and the nature of the processing. These videoconferencing apps are designed to spotlight one speaker with many spectators. They were never designed to accommodate everyone having a go all at once!
Many people found out, during the pandemic, that they needed to "fake it" if they were trying to record a choral performance. Record your piece one at a time. Send it over to the next person and they add to it; it's manually "touched up" and synced by an editor. And so forth.
"Virtual choirs" are divisive and ableist. Only those who have the "proper technology" can even consider admission to these groups. I have been a member of various choirs in my life. Sometimes this was even possible when I was living on the streets. I did not require a car, nor an iPad, nor an Internet connection to be a choir member. I only needed to bring myself and a positive attitude.
Membership in real choirs is a fulfilling and uplifting experience. There are no words for the way it makes me feel, to sing together with other people, in a room. Especially when we are fully rehearsed and we perform for an audience who applauds and appreciates our work. Choirs are the ultimate in collaborative and cooperative recreation. I've sung Disney songs, I've sung songs by Rogers & Hammerstein; I've sung ancient Greek hymns. The experience is simply unparalleled.
> "Virtual choirs" are divisive and ableist. Only those who have the "proper technology" can even consider admission to these groups.
I could not disagree more.
I play D&D, and I strongly prefer in-person games to online games, to the point where I won't really entertain an online one without exceptional circumstances.
But it feels silly to suggest that this is ableist. I'm glad you were able to find a community when you were homeless, but for a lot of people, a car is required to show up in person, and costs a hell of a lot more than a basic laptop, or a cellphone. (And that's before we get to the fact that this study seems to focus explicitly on people with dementia, for whom traveling anywhere is likely more difficult than it is for you!)
Yes, latency is an issue, but I don't think these people are trying to put on professional performances; they're just looking for something social to do together, and singing is that thing for them.
[flagged]
> It is abuse to rope people into an impossible activity. It would be crazymaking to me, if my church or our volunteer leadership, would force me into a virtual singing activity.
Then I suppose it's a good thing that nobody forced these people into it.
> They will not understand the technological limitations, and they will not understand that no matter what they do, they will not succeed in synchronizing their voices or instruments.
And yet, from the article:
> “We found virtual group singing could provide emotional, cognitive and social support through accessible, engaging music programs for diverse aging populations.”
[flagged]
> It is not merely latency that gets in your way, but that is a large part of it. It is also the nature of the codecs, and the nature of the processing. These videoconferencing apps are designed to spotlight one speaker with many spectators. They were never designed to accommodate everyone having a go all at once!
From the paper:
> > During the rehearsal, individual voice parts were rehearsed; the other 3 voice parts would wait and listen while fellow choir mates worked on their parts, as had been the practice during in-person rehearsals prior to the pandemic. Since all singers were asked to be muted, they were able to sing or hum along, when different voice parts rehearsed, without being a distraction.
So, for rehearsals, one person at a time is unmuted and receiving feedback, allegedly similar to how they did it in-person, and others can sing along muted if they wish.
I'd agree that in-person is better in this aspect, to have everyone sing together at the same time without having to sync it up through editing, but it does seem they've mostly avoided the latency and codec issue while still maintaining some social aspect.
> "Virtual choirs" are divisive and ableist. Only those who have the "proper technology" can even consider admission to these groups. I have been a member of various choirs in my life. Sometimes this was even possible when I was living on the streets. I did not require a car, nor an iPad, nor an Internet connection to be a choir member. I only needed to bring myself and a positive attitude.
I don't think most people have a choir within walking distance, especially when the focus of this is a demographic whose mobility and transport options may be limited, and especially given this took place during the pandemic.
Not to say that access to technology can't also be a barrier, but on average it seems less of one - particularly when support was provided as it was here. Or at the very least, the existence of virtual choirs providing an option for people with limited mobility does not take away options for people who have the means to go to physical choir practices.
Ableist? There are quite a few disabled people still taking full COVID precautions who would be most unlikely to join an in-person choir.
It seems like other folks who sing in choirs think it's feasible using Jamulus:
https://barbershop.de/en/content/soi-projekt
These people have dementia
[flagged]