MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH, 2018

VOL. 20, NO. 3, 360–376

https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2017.1383374

Connecting music education and virtual performance practices

from YouTube
Christopher Cayari
Music Education, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The Internet has inspired musicians to explore technologies to produce Received 6 December 2016
recorded music performances. Social media sites like YouTube provide Accepted 16 September 2017
spaces for musicians to share their works, and the advances of
KEYWORDS
technologies that afford venues and opportunities for performers to YouTube; virtual ensemble;
share their crafts. As amateur Internet musicians develop practices to informal music learning;
create and produce performances, educators may benefit by participatory culture;
understanding their processes so that music making practices from recording; video
outside of the classroom can be incorporated into formal educational
settings. This case study explores how David Wesley François, a virtual
ensemble creator who published arrangements on YouTube, acquired
the skills needed to become a productive virtual performer. A narrative
describes François’s formal music education, which was supplemented
by informal music and technological learning. By exploring cases such as
this, educators may be able to translate virtual performance practices to
the classroom, thus preparing students to create digital music within the
classroom and beyond.

The musical performance and listening landscape of society is constantly changing. The locus of
musical performance has shifted from the concert hall to physical recordings and now to digital
arenas (Thibeault 2012). Thibeault presented this evolution by describing that prior to the twentieth
century, audiences were only able to experience music in a space where performers were physically
and simultaneously congregated. Recording and playback technologies allowed for the listening of
music in a way that no longer required the performer to be physically present. The proliferation
of digital recordings affords listeners access to more music than ever before through the convenience
of portable devices; consequently, musical performance and listening are now considered ubiquitous
in the lives of many.
Tobias (2013) attests that incorporating the popular practices of adolescents found on the Internet
can help music educators connect classrooms with contemporary culture and implores his colleagues
to teach students the skills that online adolescent peers use, thus better situating them to continue
making music outside of the classroom or after they no longer participate in school music courses.
One such example is the practice of amateurs, professionals, and corporations creating video content
that incorporates musical performance on YouTube (Burgess and Green 2009; Cayari 2011; Lange
2014).1 YouTube’s website has become so popular that over 400 hours of content is uploaded to
their servers every minute (Statista 2016). As video creators develop content in innovative ways,
new performance practices will continue to emerge. The ubiquity of mediated and recorded
music practices beckons educators to ask: How can synchronic performance ensemble participants

CONTACT Christopher Cayari ccayari@purdue.edu Music Education, Purdue University, Yue-Kong Pao Hall, 552 W. Wood
Street, West Lafayette, IN 47909–2002, USA
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2017.1383374
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 361

expand their approaches beyond physical rehearsal rooms to mediated spaces? In what ways can the
traditions of performance-based ensembles be connected to the practices of recording and digital
artists? How might the practices that are part of synchronic ensembles offer support to mediated
creation? This study explores the virtual ensemble, an emergent mediated performance practice
that has become popular among classical and popular musicians by enmeshing modern technologies
with aspects of synchronic, space-specific performance that exists at one point in time, and how the
practice might answer these questions.

Review of literature
Participatory culture
Jenkins’s (1992) concept of participatory culture describes how fan communities display cultural and
social interactions that set them apart from spectators who only view content on Internet sites.
Online communities are often formed around topics in which people share user-generated content
that ranges from completely original works to repurposed commercially created artifacts (Jenkins
2006). Jenkins lays out how amateur authors, artists, and video makers connect their grassroots
movements to professional media producers in a phenomenon he calls convergence culture, result-
ing in the amalgamation of traditional values and contemporary practices. Social media require users
to reconsider the ways they communicate with others and the politics of their everyday lives (Meek
2012). Similarly, music educators should ponder the way they and their students might interact with,
learn from, and create music in response to participatory culture, social media, and contemporary
practices.
Green (2002) explored the way popular musicians learned and developed an informal music
learning pedagogy used to connect outside-of-school musical practices to the classroom. Her
informal music learning pedagogy (2008, 2013) shares similar elements with the ways people inter-
act and learn through the participatory culture practices discussed by Jenkins (1992, 2006). The
work of Janice Waldron expands upon Jenkins’s concepts to musical communities on the Internet.
Waldron (2013) explored how informal music learning practices on the Internet facilitated musical
learning, the formation of community, and online music making by comparing two online com-
munities revealing a complex tapestry of user-generated content, social media, and participatory
culture.
Waldron (2009) holds video sharing sites like YouTube as prime examples of cyberspaces that
allow communities to experience, create, and learn music. She believed that ‘combining school
music learning with the music learning culture of an online music [community of practice]
should produce richer and more meaningful musical experiences as the local becomes situated
in the global and vice versa’ (p. 108). Waldron (2016) augments Green’s work on informal
music learning practices in twentieth century by reconceptualizing it to incorporate the techno-
logical practices of participatory culture coining the term informal music learning 2.0. The con-
cept describes learning practices that allow Internet users to participate in online networks of
musicians that provide virtual meeting places and resources instead of or in addition to physical
spaces and hard artifacts.

Virtual music making and communities

Various online musical communities have emerged that allow people to interact through discussing,
learning, and performing music. Research regarding musical communities range from studies about
tutorial videos (Kruse and Veblen 2012) and fandoms (Baym 2007, 2012) to music sharing commu-
nities (Pinch and Athanasiades 2012; Salavuo 2006) and virtual performance (Cayari 2011, 2016a).
A better understanding of virtual music making might inspire music educators to equip
their students with the skills and tools for lifelong learning by combining informal music
362 C. CAYARI

learning with participatory culture. In a study of an undergraduate music education course, I

examined how participatory culture practices and informal music learning could be incorpor-
ated into the music classroom through music video creation (Cayari 2015). I found that the
combining participatory culture and informal music learning practices resulted in students
feeling a sense of accomplishment; allowed them to construct a stronger sense of identity,
community, and activism; and led to music making with others both in the class and beyond.
YouTube has become a performance venue for music to come alive on the Internet and
encourages participation with online communities. Because of the archival nature and perma-
nence of online content, Waldron (2009) suggests these communities transcends both time
and space.

Purpose and issues

By blending participatory media and social media musicianship with traditional music education
values, ‘teachers are looking to make in-school musical experiences more like their students’ musi-
cal experiences outside school by drawing on the music technologies that are an integral part of
youth culture’ (Ruthmann and Hebert 2012, 577). While the students in my classroom from the
aforementioned study (Cayari 2015) had largely positive experiences with making music videos
on their own, evidence of successful participatory culture practices and examples of effective pro-
jects remain mostly localised in a handful of classrooms led by educators who are willing to take
the risk to try something that may seem novel in music education. A major issue is that music edu-
cators do not know how to translate relevant and successful participatory culture practices to for-
mal instruction. Research may be able to aid in this translation and help music educators develop
curricula that incorporate virtual music making practices. By exploring the way virtual music
makers create and produce their art, this study asks: What skills acquired in music education trans-
late to the creation of virtual ensembles? and how might musicians expand their formal education
to become successful music creators and producers on social media websites? By understanding
these questions, I hope to provide educators with a study that can aid in the development of
instructional methods designed to foster the skills their students need to create virtual
performances.

Methodology
This case report is part of a larger multiple case study (Stake 2006), which was constructed to exam-
ine the social and educational implications of how YouTube musicians create and produce virtual
vocal ensembles and explored the medium that emerged as they shared their performances (Cayari
2016b). Case studies allow for inquiring about the particularity and complexity of a case and the
activities that surround it within important circumstances (Stake 1995). By understanding the
uniqueness of individual cases, researchers and readers can extrapolate information that can influ-
ence the way they see phenomena. Yin (2014) mentions that ‘contemporary electronic media and
archives open a whole vista of sources of evidence’ (p. 129). According to Hine (2009, 2015), quali-
tative methodologies can be adapted to provide insight for understanding how people use the Inter-
net, virtually interact with others, and create online identities. Therefore, case study has the potential
to inform the music education profession about the performance practices of virtual ensembles in
exploratory ways.
Research on YouTube brings with it risks to participants unique to online inquiry. Because of the
visibility of participants on YouTube, one could consider the video creator in this study famous, or at
least famous on YouTube. Participants of research studies like this one may wish to have their musi-
cal works linked to any publication, giving the creator proper credit (Baym 2012; Cayari 2011; Lange
2014). The participant in this study requested proper citation including his real name, a process that
was approved by my university’s Internal Review Board (IRB).
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 363

Participant
Success on YouTube and the entertainment-driven culture on social media has a tendency toward
the extraordinary. Studying ordinary video creators on websites like YouTube could conceptually
be uneventful (Lange 2008). Furthermore, Stake (1995) suggests that a case should be chosen because
it is ‘most likely to enhance our understanding[ and] highly atypical cases can sometimes contribute
to our understanding of other cases’ (p. 134). David François’s YouTube channel, David Wesley,2 was
selected because of its extraordinary qualities as they might contribute to our understanding of vir-
tual ensembles. His YouTube channel contained 14 one-take solos, 13 virtual bands, 13 a cappella
multitrack videos, and 21 blog or archive videos. These 61 videos earned him a total of 2,568,322
views, 32,657 likes, 368 dislikes, 4,346 comments, and over 20,000 subscribers in the four years
prior to this study,3 which situated him as an extraordinary YouTube creator, knowledgeable
about creating virtual ensembles.
At the time of this study, François was a 32-year-old, half Caucasian, half black, married, father of
one who worked as a paramedic and registered nurse in Cobourg, Ontario, Canada. He enjoyed per-
forming popular, contemporary Christian, and worship music on YouTube and live, by being an
active church musician. In addition to producing musical videos, François also kept his viewers
up to date on personal and musical matters by speaking openly on YouTube about significant events
and past experiences.

Data collection and analysis

To conceive of a YouTube channel as a case helps researchers identify a bounded virtual field site that
has a complexity requiring the consideration of both online and offline components that influence its
existence. For this study, YouTube provided three avenues for observation: analytics or quantified
data such as view counts, subscribers, and comments; videos, which were limited to the virtual per-
formances and vlogs published on the channel; and text comments by both François and visitors
contained within the channel’s videos.
Observations were recorded as I lurked4 on David Wesley, recording the analytics videos and
watching the videos through continuous and stop-and-go viewing. Continuous viewing involved
experiencing each video from start to finish while jotting observations, and stop-and-go viewing
allowed me to pause the recording as I wrote detailed notes about what I was hearing, seeing, and
thinking. Observations were recorded in a fieldnote template, a measure I created to help guide obser-
vations with a priori themes as well as spaces to record emergent themes, jottings, and inclinations.
The template was divided into two sections that allowed space for both objective observations and
subjective thoughts (Sunstein and Chiseri-Strater 2007). To increase the validity of this measure, I
shared my method and analysis process with a peer debriefer (Spall 1998) who was well-published
in similar research, and she affirmed that the template was well thought-out and provided valuable
data.
Text comments on the videos’ sites were also observed, and, in accordance with IRB approval,
commenters were not required to give permission for their inclusion in the study. A Waiver of
Informed Consent was approved, and a message was sent to the participants via YouTube’s messa-
ging service informing them that their likeness or text was going to be used in this study. Commen-
ters were given the option to choose their pseudonym and were also given the opportunity to opt out
of having their comment serve as data. However, none of the 84 commenters for the multiple case
study responded. This was deemed an appropriate course of action because (a) their involvement on
the creator’s YouTube channel was publicly available, (b) the risk of being included in this study was
minimal, and (c) it was impractical to have a large number of commenters sign forms giving their
approval.
Three 60 min semi-structured interviews were conducted on Skype with François. Each interview
was transcribed and member checked by François, who made small adjustments to clarify.5 Excerpts
364 C. CAYARI

were edited to aid in the readability of the study, and the reader should assume that any quotes found
in the findings below were spoken or typed by François unless otherwise noted. The final method of
data collection was the perusal of musical scores arranged by François.
Data for this study were coded in a three-step process including open and focused coding (Emer-
son, Fretz, and Shaw 2011). Open coding allowed for the identification and formulation of any and
all ideas, themes, and issues through a preliminary marking. Focused coding included a fine-grained
analysis based on the salient codes identified in the previous step. Both processes included a line-by-
line analysis, which offered new ideas, insight, and connections integrating previously separate pieces
of data. Finally, the data were grouped by themes that were used to guide the narrative to follow.

Findings
I am just a guy making music in my basement. I know that there are people that do what I do better than I do,
but I like to keep it real, and it keeps me grounded. (David François, personal communication, December 9,
2014)6

Many YouTube musicians consider creating videos a recreational activity that provides an outlet for
making music. David François considered himself an untrained amateur singer who produced music
videos on YouTube. This modesty, however, was accompanied by a rich musical and technological
background from his educational, recreational, and religious activities. In tandem, these experiences
contributed to his ability to create multitrack music videos on YouTube.

Musical learning and skill acquisition

Exploring music and technology as a child
As early as the age of three, François would hum and whistle complex melodies. His grandfather fos-
tered in him a love for classical music. François played simple songs by ear on an organ in his home.
This prompted his parents to provide him piano lessons taught by his neighbour, a certified The
Royal Conservatory® instructor. Strict regimentation was not inspirational to young François, and
he viewed piano practice as a chore. His neighbour moved when François was 10, and he ceased for-
mal piano tuition.
Relationships within his church inspired music exploration in François. He fell in love with a
12-string guitar owned by a music leader at his family church. He played with the instrument
when visiting his friend’s home. François’s curiosity drove him not only to play any instrument
he could get his hands on, but also toward an affinity with technology. François was drawn to his
family’s computer, which had three-voice sound capabilities on which he spent hours playing as
he listened to, arranged, and created classical music. The programme featured three-instrument
arrangements of works by composers like Clementi and Bach: ‘I could listen to these songs and
watch the notes as they played. That really helped to cement the music theory knowledge I
already had.’
Eventually, François started to input notes into the software programme and arrange music. A
four-part hymnal provided the base material for him to arrange three-part versions of his favourite
songs as three voices were the limits of the technology. ‘I quickly learned which notes were expend-
able for a given chord at any point in the chord sequence. That forced me to think of music like an
arranger.’

Expanding musical and technological skills as an adolescent

As an adolescent, François continued to play classical music by ear on his piano. He also expanded
his music learning to violin at the age of 12 when he joined his middle school orchestra programme.
François saw violin as an opportunity to learn a new instrument, practice reading music, and play
with others. Unfortunately, he soon moved to a high school with no string programme, so he joined
the band and played auxiliary percussion. During his sophomore year, he learned how to play
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 365

euphonium and joined a Sea Cadets marching band. That summer, he attended a music camp on the
Pacific coast, and eventually, he became an instructor at that camp, a memory he described as his
‘most formative musical experience in terms of knowing how to play with a group of people and
being disciplined in terms of practicing.’
While in high school, François was given the opportunity to arrange for his ensembles. He
described his high school concert band arrangements as simple; they allowed him to experiment
with instrumentation and harmony. As technology developed, François’s family purchased a
more advanced computer on which he installed a software programme he received from a Sea Cadets
mentor. Using this programme, François created marching band arrangements that were performed
by his high school and Sea Cadets marching bands.
From the ages of 15 to 17, I wrote arrangements for my marching band. At the summer camp I had gone to in
1996, we had done a suite of songs from Star Trek. When we were looking for music for competition, there were
compulsory styles that you had to perform: quick march, a slow march, and ten minutes of freestyle. Usually it’s
unified around some kind of theme, so we chose to do Star Trek. In our freestyle, there were some bits from the
commercial arrangements we were able to get a hold of, but we needed a couple more things to fill out that ten
minutes. We had [commercial] arrangements of Star Trek the Next Generation, the Deep Space 9 Theme, Voya-
ger, and the original Star Trek. To fill in the gaps, I made a full marching band arrangement for the theme for
Star Trek IV and The Klingon Battle Theme (François sings). That was the biggest arrangement that I had done
to date.

François’s initiative in musical arrangement was paralleled by his exploration of video and sound
editing for projects in science and English.7 With the money François made at summer camp, he
bought a video camera and digital video converter for his computer. François taught himself through
experimentation how to splice videos, add digital special effects, create background soundtracks, and
direct films before he reached adulthood.

Finding a community for music and video creation as a young adult

François’s musical endeavours as an adult were diverse and self-directed as he sought a degree in
English Language and Literature. During college, François continued to play the piano by pursuing
adult contemporary popular music. He volunteered with the Sea Cadets and taught local children
how to play brass instruments. His theory skills were kept sharp by transcribing and arranging wor-
ship songs for his church. François honed his technological skills by creating church videos for
recruitment, education, and advocacy. He also ran the soundboard and played brass at his church’s
Sunday morning services.
While François’s young adulthood was filled with technological and individualised musical activi-
ties, he desired to perform with others. He auditioned for a worship team as a keyboardist and voc-
alist when he was 22 years old. However, he was not accepted because his voice was unrefined and
untrained. François laments,
I was hurt. If I were to listen to myself back then, I’d probably say, ‘No.’ They didn’t have a developmental
approach to bring people onto the team. There was no way to grow to the level they needed me to be. They
said go take lessons for a couple of years and then come back.

Instead of taking lessons, François joined another church and became a member of their choir and
orchestra for which no audition was required. François’s abilities as vocalist and keyboardist
improved and eventually he directed the congregation as a worship leader, simultaneously singing
and playing backed by an orchestra.
In 2011, François was 30 years old, and he created a CD with musicians from his church. François
used his own money to purchase recording equipment and editing software so that he could produce
and master the album. To help his fellow church members learn their parts, François created practice
CDs containing a drum, keyboard, and other background instruments so vocalists could practice.
The church CD served as the catalyst that inspired François to experiment with multitrack record-
ings for YouTube.
366 C. CAYARI

Online performance on YouTube

François created the David Wesley YouTube channel on 14 March 2007. His first 14 videos – all
recorded in the year prior to the church CD production – featured one-track, live, unedited record-
ings in which he played piano and sang. These videos had the aesthetic of a coffeehouse perform-
ance, recorded in a darker room in which François sat at his keyboard with a microphone. François
visibly portrayed emotions through facial expressions and body movements, which appeared
appropriately somber, reverent, and sincere. While vocal tension was visible as he grimaced and
raised his chin during performance, he sang on either side of his passaggio with little to no audible
strain. François confessed in the description box of one of his videos that his vocal range limited his
repertoire.
In these early videos, François performed music by pop-rock groups that were piano- and voice-
centric. In his fourteenth video, François invited a virtual friend from the United Kingdom to play
drum set for a collaboration. To feature his colleague, François had to use sound and video editing
software to layer audio-visual tracks. The video featured three video panels: one with François sing-
ing, one with him playing piano, and one with a collaborator playing drum set. This virtual multi-
track whetted François’s appetite for what his YouTube channel would soon become known:
multitrack virtual ensembles including one-man bands and virtual a cappella ensembles.

Forming a one-man band

François found recruiting collaborators difficult and instead experimented with multitrack record-
ings of himself using the equipment he purchased for his church CD. By applying his sound master-
ing experiences, François developed a process of balancing multitrack audio, and his collaboration
inspired him to add video. He decided to create what he called a ‘one-man band,’ in which he incor-
porated guitar, electric bass, percussion, and several keyboards sounds including piano, synthesiser
pads, string, organ sounds, and solo instruments emulating cello, pad, or other melodic instrument
(Table 1).
François’s goal for each successive video was to outdo his previous videos by adding more instru-
ments and voice tracks. His one-man band videos often featured a soloist in a prominent video panel
with other panels superimposed. As he became more adept at producing virtual performances, he
upgraded software and explored how to visually and aurally represent what he conceived in his
head. For example, his first one-person virtual ensemble, Trouble, was created on an entry level pro-
gramme. By The Starting Line, his fourth one-person virtual ensemble, he upgraded to a profession
software programme, resulting in a drastic visual difference.
I realized [using Videowave] was taking lot of time. It wasn’t really designed to do multitrack videos. I had to do
a video within a video with embedding or layering. It was time to move on to something else. I did a trial of the
Adobe Premier Pro.

The earlier video featured four static panels (Figure 1) while the later had up to nine active panels
featuring a lead vocalist, two backup singers, a bass, an electric drum set, and four keyboards,
each with a different sound (Figure 2). The new software allowed for sophisticated video editing
such as key-frame animation or moving panels; the feathering of panels disappeared and gave
way to a crisper panel edge and frames; the layout of panels on the screen were also more complex
and balanced.
François’s later one-man band videos included three-part vocal harmonies backed by instru-
ments. After publishing seven one-man band videos, François decided to create an a cappella version
of One Thing Remains (Your Love Never Fails). The performance was arranged by ear, highlighting
the melody and two harmony singers, one higher and one lower. Another voice served as a call-and-
response which was featured half way through the song. François also included two other panels that
added beatboxing tracks.
Table 1. Instruments and number of tracks for David Wesley videos.
Vocal Backup Support Hand Aux Drum Keys Keys Keys Tin Total
Solo Vox Vox Beatbox drum perc set (Piano) (Synth) (solo) whistle Guitar Bass Tracks
Live recordings: V01; V03–04; X X 1
V06–14; V17
Live recordings: V02; V05 X 1
V15. Shiver (Collaboration) X X X 3
V16. Trouble X X X X 4
V18. Bedshaped X X X X X 5
V19. Us Against The World X X 2 X X 6
V20. The Starting Line X 2 X X 2 X X 9
V21. Beautiful Things X 2 X X X X 7
V22. Stars and Boulevards X 2 X X X X X 8
V23. One Thing Remains 2 3 3 2 10
V24. You Are Young X X X X X X 6
V25. Wonderful Merciful … X 3 4 8
V26. In Christ Alone X 3 4 8
V27. Speak, O Lord X 4 5
V28. Sovereign Light Cafe X X X X X X 6
V29. How Deep … X 2 4 7
V32. Whom Shall I Fear X 2 4 X 8
V36. Oceans X 3 2* X 2 X X 11
V38. Immanuel X 5 X 7
V41. Run to You 5^ 5

MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH

V48. 10,000 Reasons X 3 4
V50. Amazing Grace Medley 3^ 4 X 8
V51. Worlds Apart X 6 X X 9
V52. God of Wonders X 2 X X X X 7
V54. Here By The Water X 2 X X X X X 8
V55. Real Life Offering X 4 X 6
V61. The Stand X 2 X X X X X X 9
V62. Sinking Deep X 2 4 X 8
Notes: *an additional audio track is used to add claves which is symbolised by Wesley striking the side of his drum with his mallet; ^all parts are equal importance because of arrangement.

367
368 C. CAYARI

Figure 1. Screenshot from Trouble available at http://youtu.be/905P9NI0x9o.

Figure 2. Screenshot from The Starting Line available at http://youtu.be/4yRzS3Xla84.

Developing the David Wesley treatment

As François created more virtual a cappella vocal ensembles, he solidified a process he called the
David Wesley Treatment, a series of practices he developed for creating videos. First, François
selected a song, often one that was stuck in his head that he was excited to perform. Second, he
arranged the song. While all the songs discussed above were arranged by ear, François migrated
to notating his arrangements because it allowed him to create more complex performances. Fran-
çois’s arrangements evolved to seven-part harmony including a trio who sang the songs’ lyrics
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 369

and a quartet of support singers who filled out the sound by providing melodic and rhythmic support
on nonsense syllables. François likened their purpose to a guitar or piano in a worship band.
Preparation for recording came next. Regardless of whether he created his arrangements by ear or
made a score, François created MIDI files with a click track to guide his recording process. In the
earlier videos, this MIDI file contained block chords that kept him on pitch. Later, he used Sibelius
to arrange a score for his melody and support singers, still often opting to sing the harmonies of the
trio by ear. After creating a score, he exported MIDI files for each part, which were imported into Pro
Tools, a digital audio workstation (DAW) François described as the ‘industry standard for audio
engineering.’ François sang along with the MIDI tracks to make sure the arrangement was in an
appropriate tempo and all the notes were within his range. He also created markers in his DAW
so he could easily identify the song’s form. François then set up his recording equipment including
a backdrop curtain, video camera, microphone, and pop filter.
François simultaneously recorded his vocals on his laptop and video on his camera. He attempted
to capture each vocal part adequately in a continuous performance, a time consuming process that
was slowed down if he made a mistake with the lyrics or let his demeanour slip. After recording his
tracks, François moved his audio and video files to his desktop computer, which contained a power-
ful processor capable of handling multitrack audio and video editing.
François elegantly described his audio mastering process:
I attend to the fine tuning, the housekeeping things like fading out audio clips and making sure that there’s no
unnecessary noise. I reduce breath sounds if they are obtrusive, because if you’re singing falsetto and are near a
microphone, breath sounds are a lot more obvious. I’ll do processing of each individual channel. I’ll use a gate to
try to minimize any background noise and excessive breathing. Compression control to deal with excess volume
and keep things a little more level. Sometimes I can go in and manually edit the volume of a set of notes if com-
pression isn’t quite doing the trick, like with something really high, because I’m a very undisciplined singer.
Then there will be equalizing, because a recording is difficult to EQ when it’s all one person’s voice. It can
become like a wall of sound if I don’t change the EQ on different voices. You have to have the right frequency
ranges emphasized in the right vocal parts, otherwise it sounds like mush. There’s a bit of reverb to provide
space for the recording and how things stick together and sound more than the seven versions of me that
there are … .

In addition to these basic editing techniques, François also used more complex plugins with Pro
Tools, which gave his performances a more professionally mastered sound including pitch correction
and multiband compression, equalisation, saturation, stereo width, and limiting. After compiling the
audio tracks, François listened to his recording in various situations including headphones, car
stereos, headphones, and home speakers.
After the audio was mastered, François turned his attention to the visual portion of his virtual
performance. His goal was to fill up as much of the screen with video as possible. François preferred
to wear different colours for each recording to distinguish voice parts. The visual layout of singers
matched the audio stereo panorama. The lower-voice harmony singer wearing green in Figure 3
was panned to the left in the audio track and the higher harmony singer wearing blue was panned
to the right. In later videos, transitions such as fades, gradually appearing or disappearing, and key
animations, panels that slide from one destination to another, were used when singers were added or
removed from the arrangement. The videos ended with all of François’s clones walking away from
their microphones to turn off the camera.
François also added a coda to the end of each video; a tag that included the audio of one of his
performances, his brand’s logo, which had a clickable annotation that directed viewers to his Face-
book or to subscribe, and clips of past videos with clickable annotation links (Figure 4). The coda
served as a way for François to cross-reference his videos and encourage audiences to continue view-
ing or even purchase his content.
The final step in François’s process was producing his video. He uploaded his performances to
YouTube and wrote important information in the description box such as links, copyright infor-
mation, the arranger, composer, and announcements. He also posted on Google+ and Facebook
370 C. CAYARI

Figure 3. Screenshot from In Christ Alone.

Note: Labels were added to show position of singers

so his fans would be notified that the video was available. François adhered to copyright laws by
using YouTube’s content ID programme – sharing in revenue with YouTube, the copyright holder,
and the performing artist – and paying royalties when necessary since he made audio tracks of his
performances available via iTunes, CDbaby, and Amazon for purchase.8

Figure 4. Screenshot of a call to action.

Note: The following are clickable annotations: the grey borders link to previous David Wesley videos, the green box links to François’s iTunes dis-
cography, and the red box directs the viewer to a confirmation page which subscribes him or her to David Wesley
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 371

Arranging for a virtual a cappella ensemble

François’s virtual ensemble creation process was complex and often fluid. However, one thing
remained consistent: François used his YouTube channel to exercise his arranging abilities and
express himself creatively. In Christ Alone was adapted from a previous arrangement François cre-
ated. Years before producing the video, he orchestrated the song for a group of singers, violin soloist,
and rhythm instruments to lead his congregation. For the video, he converted the arrangement to
seven voices. He also changed the tonality of the third verse to minor and infused the last verse
with energy by adding a key change. His congregational arrangement was a guide as he adjusted
his harmonies by ear.
François also practiced his transcription skills when he created an arrangement of Pentato-
nix’s Run to You. François noted that the original was recorded with all five singers in a booth
at the same time instead of asynchronously like most of their recordings. He believed that ‘by
recording all the parts at the same time, they were able to maintain that organic quality when a
group sings together live.’ François desired to create a sound similar to Pentatonix, but knew he
could not because multiple tracks for a one-person virtual ensemble cannot be recorded syn-
chronously. Yet, he attempted to capture the harmonies and textures of the song. Decisions
made early in the recording process locked François into a musical interpretation, which
was exemplified when had recorded a crescendo on a held note where he later felt was in
appropriate.
Analysis of his arrangement and Pentatonix’s original score9 showed that they were nearly iden-
tical in regards to pitches with inverted chords and shifted octaves being the only differences. A few
notes at the extremes of François’s range were unattainable, – the co-ed ensemble had a vocal range
of C2 to C5. To deal with this challenge, François used pitch adjustment software to mediate his
performance.
I had to use Melodyne [pitch correction software] for the top two parts, and I had to cheat for the bottom parts,
too. [The bass] goes down to C2 at one part, so I had to sing it up an octave. At times, I had to sing the bass part
a full tone higher, and then pitch-shift it down, because I couldn’t get those low E’s, and I couldn’t move the
whole thing higher because the higher voices are so damn high.

François’s sentiment that he had to cheat accentuated the belief that pitch correction or pitch shifting
is thought of as inferior to a natural ability to produce sounds. The use of Melodyne was met with
mixed reviews from his audience ranging from claims that the technique diminished dynamic and
emotional contrast to not being able to hear the mediation after repeated listenings. Some of his fans
commented that his version was better than Pentatonix’s original.

Converging physical and virtual performance

After gaining popularity online, François was invited to perform live as a headliner for a fundraiser
concert. To facilitate his performance, François adjusted previous videos by stripping them of the
melody so virtual clones served as his backup group. The concert not only allowed him to explore
another way to arrange music for mediated performance, but also provided an opportunity for
him to network and expand his audience. Viewers came to David Wesley predominantly through
‘spreadable media,’ a phenomenon describing how Internet users share content across websites
(Jenkins, Ford, and Green 2013), and François’s platforms of choice were YouTube, Facebook, and
Google+. The convergence of physical and virtual musical spaces was exemplified as François
spoke directly to his viewers on YouTube about his live event, bringing financial support from
the Internet to a physical space and audiences from the concert to his social media as he offered vir-
tual fans mp3 downloads of his not-yet-released video for donations of $10 or more to the charity
sponsoring the concert.
372 C. CAYARI

Expanding beyond the David Wesley treatment

In our final interview, François shared his frustration about being in a ‘creative rut.’ The David
Wesley Treatment served him well. However, most of his videos at the time of this study featured
similar sounds with the same seven-voice formula applied to different songs, sometimes with a
drum or beatboxer. However, he diverged as he combined his singing trio with his one-man
band techniques and created one-man worship band videos. In Amazing Grace Medley, he per-
formed three well known songs and ended the video with a mashup, layering the melodies. He
also explored a cappella arrangement techniques in Sinking Deep, the most recent video at the
time of this study, by featuring support singers who sang broken chords in an arpeggio instead
of block chords.

Discussion and implications for practice

I’m a jack-of-all trades. What I do is only possible because of the culmination of all the musical experiences
I’ve had throughout my whole life. Everything from the video editing to the audio editing, knowing about
music, copyright law, and even computer programming. All those are things I’ve done in real life that
have come together magically so that I can do videos all by myself without having to have someone else
do things for me.

After the conclusion of gathering data, François contacted me multiple times to tell me about
new virtual performances, and he continues to publish years after the study concluded, each
video displaying new arranging and performing techniques. François found that creating multi-
track videos helped him develop skills as a video editor and producer; moreover, sustaining an
active YouTube channel allowed him to maintain his musical performance skills. Yet, he empha-
sised that producing virtual ensemble videos helped him develop his skills and style as an
arranger.
François’s self-identification as a jack-of-all-trades lent itself to his love for music, technology, and
production. As a musician, he expressed himself and shared the music he found meaningful. As a
technician, he created mediated performances that were visually and sonically dynamic. He con-
sidered how accessible his arrangements were for others who might want to replicate his perform-
ance. He also considered himself accessible to his fans on a personal level, always willing to answer
questions and give advice. As a producer, François watched his projects spread across the Internet via
social media and capitalised on his virtual connections. His knowledge of all three areas was eclectic,
and his self-directed learning served him well.
François’s experiences as a video creator were not without their drawbacks. Creating one-person
virtual ensembles is a time-consuming process for which a musician must accurately perform all
parts. François’s process required him to record each track in a continuous take. One simple mistake
and he would often have to start over. He used software to fix minor errors; however, mediating his
performances with pitch correction software often resulted in negative feedback from viewers. While
François was able to make all the decisions as to how to interpret a song, decisions made early on in
the recording process often locked him into a certain interpretation that was not easily fixed without
heavy editing or rerecording.
To respond to the research questions of this study, François used the skills he learned in
formal music education coupled with informal music learning to pursue his interests. Private
tuition, school-based ensembles, music camp experiences, and church community music
groups provided François with structured opportunities to hone his abilities as a music perfor-
mer. Tinkering with arrangement software, pursuing music he wanted to sing while accompa-
nying himself on piano, and the various arrangement and recording projects at his church
allowed him to explore music on his own terms. These experiences in tandem helped him
develop the skills necessary to successfully create and produce his own virtual performances
on YouTube.
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 373

Looking forward
By exploring the practices of virtual ensemble creators, music educators may better understand
which skills and practices might be beneficial to their students and classroom. Creation of vir-
tual ensembles comes with benefits, some of which are similar to being a part of a synchronic
ensemble. It is unknown how prevalent virtual ensembles are within educational institutions;
very little research has been written about virtual video performance and such literature has
been limited to research on Whitacre’s ensembles (Armstrong 2012; Konewko 2013; Paparo
and Talbot 2014) and my own work exploring amateur virtual ensemble creators (Cayari
2011, 2014, 2015, 2016a).10 However, the virtual ensemble practices used to create multitrack
videos are becoming abundant as creators publish informally on YouTube. This popularity
leads to the question of whether or not virtual vocal ensembles should be brought into formal-
ised music education.
This study looked at a successful video creator. However, there are channels with virtual vocal
ensembles that have received little attention, and no research to date has focused on these videos.
The experiences of students within a classroom, with the lack of a large audience may be much
less compelling than the case presented. Yet, class presentations of virtual performances can lead
to a sense of community and pride in work well done (Cayari 2015). While it is not yet known
how students participating in and creating virtual ensembles affect music education, educators
have an opportunity to help shape media through pedagogies and instructional strategies that utilise
virtual performance practices. By incorporating the practices of virtual ensemble creators, music
educators may be able to help students learn skills that allow them to make music outside of synchro-
nic classrooms and ensemble contexts.
Virtual ensembles can also provide opportunities to reinforce skills important to synchronic
music making. When producing a one-person virtual ensemble, the creator must conceive of
their own musical interpretation. As a musician performs multiple parts of an arrangement, they
see how musical lines fit together. As students record themselves, they should be encouraged to
self-reflect on their performances and decide if they should rerecord, edit, or adjust their tracks. Ana-
lyzing one’s own performance, discerning what is acceptable quality, and identifying what could be
improved are skills many educators desire for their students.
Recordings also can serve as an archive from which growth can be assessed. Collaborative projects
can encourage students to work with and assess each other. If it is not practical for students to record
their parts individually, students could record as sections or mini-ensembles, which could then be
combined. Recordings could be used instead of or in addition to live performance tests. Hybrid per-
formances could feature a double-ensemble as a group of musicians perform simultaneously on
screen and in a physical space (see Whitacre 2013; a TED presentation featuring a hybrid choir of
live and virtual musicians performing via Skype). There are copious possibilities as educators and
performers explore technologies and apply what has been learned from cases like the one presented
here.
As we explore making music in a society where recording technologies abound and social media
websites are ubiquitous, educators can respond to these movements by helping students discover
ways they can use virtual tools to become lifelong creative music makers. By connecting participatory
culture practices and synchronic musical traditions, the virtual ensemble is one of many ways tech-
nology can be used for meaningful musical experiences.

Notes
1. YouTube is a video sharing website that became the second most visited website on the Internet in 2016, sur-
passing Facebook and trailing its parent company, Google (Alexa 2017).
2. François chose to use his first and middle name as the title of his YouTube channel so that he could maintain a
sense of separation between his virtual and non-virtual lives, developing a slight buffer of identity differen-
tiation between the two. The YouTube channel and all subsequent videos at the time of writing this article
374 C. CAYARI

are still available on YouTube; however, it is important to note that François or YouTube could decide to take
them down at any time.
3. All analytics for David Wesley were gathered on 11 November 2014.
4. Lurking is a vernacular term meaning leaving ‘no observable traces’ (Hine 2000, 25) except for view count.
5. To further strengthen triangulation, François also member checked multiple versions of this article, offered
corrections, and attested to their accuracy.
6. Unless otherwise noted, all quotes are taken from personal interviews conducted with David François on 19
November 2014, 3 December 2014, and 7 January 2015.
7. His high school projects, which he eventually archived on his YouTube channel, feature short films that he and
his classmates created containing special audio and visual effects and extensive video editing. Examples are
available in Introduction to the High School Video Archive (1998–1999). All videos cited in this article are avail-
able before the reference section.
8. To adhere to copyright laws, François secured mechanical rights from Capitol Christian Music Group, Rights-
Flow Inc., ASCAP, BMI, or Loudr.
9. The original score to Run to You by Kevin Olusola, Avi Kaplan, Scott Hoying, Mitch Grassi, Kirstin Maldonado,
and Ben Bram was available for free at http://www.ptxofficial.com but has since become available for purchase.
10. This article is also condensed from a multiple case study (Cayari 2016b), which expands upon David François,
two other video creators and their YouTube channels, and a cross-case analysis focusing on virtual vocal
ensembles.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Christopher Cayari is an assistant professor of music education at Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN. He holds a
Ph.D. and M.M.E. in Music Education from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a bachelor’s degree in
music education from Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights, IL. Christopher’s research interests include mediated
musical performance, YouTube, informal music learning, virtual communities, and online identity. He is an avid You-
Tube video creator. Christopher regularly publishes online performances, tutorials, and vlogs. He enjoys collaborating
with his students to make user-generated content for YouTube.

Video references (in order of appearance in article)

Introduction to the High School Video Archive (1998–1999) published on November 17, 2013 avail-
able at https://youtu.be/3yMLAorxg8U.
Trouble published on June 25, 2011 available at https://youtu.be/905P9NI0×9o.
The Starting Line published on August 23, 2012 available at https://youtu.be/4yRzS3Xla84.
One Thing Remains (Your Love Never Fails) published on January 19, 2013 available at https://youtu.
be/FPxEYmk_zqg.
In Christ Alone published on June 7, 2013 available at https://youtu.be/oab9giH2cG0.
Run to You published on January 15, 2014 available at https://youtu.be/ubA-NdADX5w.
Amazing Grace Medley published on April 6, 2014 available at https://youtu.be/8plSomxS5Yo.
Sinking Deep published October 26, 2014 available at https://youtu.be/pJJ2vXC1nmA.

References
Alexa. 2017. “Alexa’s Top 500 Global Sites.” Accessed on 23 September 2017 http://www.alexa.com/topsites
Armstrong, M. 2012. “Musicking in Cyberspace: Creating Music and Fostering Global Community through a Virtual
Choir.” Masters thesis, Tufts University, Medford, MA. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global database.
(1512655).
Baym, N. K. 2007. “The New Shape of Online Community: The Example of Swedish Independent Music Fandom.”
First Monday. http://www.firstmonday.org/article/view/1978/1853 doi:10.5210/fm.v12i8.1978.
Baym, N. K. 2012. “Fans or Friends?: Seeing Social Media Audiences as Musicians Do.” Participations 9 (2): 286–316.
doi:10.11606/issn.1982-8160.v7i1p13-46.
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 375

Burgess, J., and J. Green. 2009. “The Entrepreneurial Vlogger: Participatory Culture beyond the Professional-amateur
Divide.” In The YouTube Reader, edited by P. Snickars, and P. Vonderau, 89–107. Stockholm, SE: National Library
of Sweden.
Cayari, C. 2011. “The YouTube Effect: How YouTube has Provided New Ways to Consume, Create, and Share Music.”
International Journal of Education & the Arts 12 (6): 1–28.
Cayari, C. 2014. “Using Informal Education through Music Video Creation.” General Music Today 27 (3): 17–22.
doi:10.1177/1048371313492537.
Cayari, C. 2015. “Participatory Culture and Informal Music Learning through Video Creation in the Curriculum.”
International Journal of Community Music 8 (1): 41–57. doi:10.1386/ijcm.8.1.41_1.
Cayari, C. 2016a. “Music Making on YouTube.” In The Oxford Handbook of Music Making and Leisure, edited by R.
Mantie, and G. D. Smith, 467–488. New York, NY: Oxford.
Cayari, C. 2016b. “Virtual Vocal Ensembles and the Mediation of Performance on YouTube.” Doctoral diss., University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/90478.
Emerson, R. M., R. I. Fretz, and L. L. Shaw. 2011. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. 2nd ed.Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Green, L. 2002. How Popular Musicians Learn: A Way Ahead for Music Education. Bodman: MPG Books.
Green, L. 2008. Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New Classroom Pedagogy. Bodman: Ashgate.
Green, L. 2013. Hear, Listen, Play!: How to Free Your Students’ Aural, Improvisation, and Performance Skills. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hine, C. 2000. Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
Hine, C. 2009. “Question One: How Can Qualitative Internet Researchers Define the Boundaries of their Projects?” In
Internet Inquiry: Conversations about Method, edited by A. N. Markham, and N. K. Baym, 1–20. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Hine, C. 2015. Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. London: Bloomsbury.
Jenkins, H. 1992. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/
9780203361917.
Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Jenkins, H., S. Ford, and J. Green. 2013. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture.
New York, NY: NYU Press.
Konewko, M. 2013. “The Phenomena of Eric Whitacre: Infusing New Energy in the Choral World?” Doctoral diss.,
Cardinal Stritch University, Ann Arbor, MI. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (3588746).
Kruse, N. B., and K. K. Veblen. 2012. “Music Teaching and Learning Online: Considering YouTube Instructional
Videos.” Journal of Music, Technology and Education 5 (1): 77–87. doi:10.1386/jmte.5.1.77_1.
Lange, P. G. 2008. “(Mis)conceptions about YouTube.” In Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube, edited by G.
Lovink, and S. Niederer, 87–100. Amsterdam, NL: Institute of Network Cultures.
Lange, P. G. 2014. Kids on YouTube: Technical Identities and Digital Literacies. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Meek, D. 2012. “YouTube and Social Movements: A Phenomenological Analysis of Participation, Events and
Cyberplace.” Antipode 44 (4): 1429–1448. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00942.x.
Paparo, S. A., and B. C. Talbot. 2014. “Meanings of Participation in Virtual Choirs and Implications for Music Teacher
Education.” Paper presented at the National Association for Music Education Biennial National Conference,
St. Louis, MO, March.
Pinch, T., and K. Athanasiades. 2012. “Online Music Sites as Sonic Sociotechnical Communities: Identity, Reputation,
and Technology at Acidplanet.com.” In The Oxford Handbook of Sound Studies, edited by T. Pinch, and K.
Bijsterveld, 480–502. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195388947.013.0101.
Ruthmann, S. A., and D. G. Hebert. 2012. “Music Learning and New Media in Virtual and Online Environments.” In
Oxford Handbook of Music Education, edited by G. E. McPherson, and G. F. Welch. Vol. 2, 567–583. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928019.013.0037.
Salavuo, M. 2006. “Open and Informal Online Communities as Forums of Collaborative Musical Activities and
Learning.” British Journal of Music Education 23 (3): 253–271. doi:10.1017/s0265051706007042.
Spall, S. 1998. “Peer Debriefing in Qualitative Research: Emerging Operational Models.” Qualitative Inquiry 4 (2): 280–
292. doi:10.1177/107780049800400208.
Stake, R. E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. 2006. Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Statista. 2016. “YouTube: Hours of Video Uploaded to YouTube Every Minute as of July 2015.” https://www.statista.
com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-uploaded-to-youtube-every-minute/.
Sunstein, B. S., and E. Chiseri-Strater. 2007. Fieldworking: Reading and Writing Research. 3rd ed.Boston, MA: Bedford/
St. Martin’s.
Thibeault, M. D. 2012. “Ubiquitous Music Learning in a Postperformance World.” Yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education 111 (1): 196–215.
Tobias, E. S. 2013. “Toward Convergence: Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory
Culture.” Music Educators Journal 99 (4): 29–36. doi:10.1177/0027432113483318.
376 C. CAYARI

Waldron, J. 2009. “Exploring a Virtual Music Community of Practice: Informal Music Learning on the Internet.”
Journal of Music, Technology and Education 2 (2–3): 97–112. doi:10.1386/jmte.2.2-3.97_1.
Waldron, J. 2013. “User-generated Content, YouTube and Participatory Culture on the Web: Music Learning and
Teaching in Two Contrasting Online Communities.” Music Education Research 15 (3): 257–274.
Waldron, J. 2016. “An Alternative Model of Music Learning and ‘Last Night’s Fun2’: Participatory Music Making in/as
Participatory Culture in Irish Traditional Music.” Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15: 3. doi:10.
1080/14613808.2013.772131.
Whitacre, E. 2013. “Virtual Choir Live.” TED2013 [Online video]. https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_whitacre_virtual_
choir_live.
Yin, R. K. 2014. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Vol. 5. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Copyright of Music Education Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.