Post on 17-Oct-2020
1
Faculty of Arts & Philosophy
Winne Bats
Studio Brussel’s Dream Team and
Papa Was A Rolling Stone:
credibility and power in radio
interviews
Promotoren: Prof. dr. Stef Slembrouck
Vakgroep Engels
Decaan: Prof. dr. Freddy Mortier
Rector: Prof. dr. Paul Van Cauwenberge
2
3
4
5
Faculty of Arts & Philosophy
Winne Bats
Studio Brussel’s Dream Team and
Papa Was A Rolling Stone:
credibility and power in radio
interviews
Promotoren: Prof. dr. Stef Slembrouck
Vakgroep Engels
Decaan: Prof. dr. Freddy Mortier
Rector: Prof. dr. Paul Van Cauwenberge
6
7
Table of contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11
Transcription key ............................................................................................................ 15
Methodology ................................................................................................................... 17
1. Erving Goffman: frame analysis and theatricality......................................................... 20
2. Conversation Analysis................................................................................................. 30
2.1 Conversation analysis............................................................................................. 30
2.2 Storytelling.............................................................................................................. 47
3. Broadcast talk ............................................................................................................. 53
3.1 Broadcast talk....................................................................................................... 53
3.2 Studio Brussel’s Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone as kinds of broadcast
talk ............................................................................................................................. 55
4. General Overviews ..................................................................................................... 61
4.1 Dream Team ........................................................................................................ 61
4.1.1 Context ......................................................................................................... 61
4.1.2 The show’s course ........................................................................................ 63
4.2 Papa Was A Rolling Stone ................................................................................... 76
4.2.1 Context ......................................................................................................... 76
4.2.2 The show’s course ........................................................................................ 79
5. Credibility .................................................................................................................... 93
5.1 Dream Team ........................................................................................................ 94
5.2 Papa Was A Rolling Stone ................................................................................... 108
5.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 131
5.4 Credibility of the host ............................................................................................ 132
6. Power ......................................................................................................................... 135
6.1 Dream Team ........................................................................................................ 136
6.1.1 Institutional roles of questioner and answerer ............................................... 136
6.1.2 Topic initiation ............................................................................................... 143
6.1.3 Formulating ................................................................................................... 144
6.1.4 Turn allocation and interruption ..................................................................... 146
6.1.5 Dispreferred seconds .................................................................................... 151
6.1.6 Opening and closing the conversation .......................................................... 153
6.2 Papa Was A Rolling Stone ................................................................................... 155
6.2.1 Institutional roles of questioner and answerer ............................................... 155
6.2.2 Topic initiation................................................................................................. 162
6.2.3 Formulating ................................................................................................... 165
6.2.4 Turn allocation and interruption ..................................................................... 167
6.2.5 Dispreferred seconds……………………………………………………………… 171
6.2.6 Opening and closing the conversation............................................................ 173
6.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 174
7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 177
Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 188
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 348
8
9
List of diagrams
Adjacency pairs ................................................................................................ 39
Storytelling ................................................................................................ 49, 181
Dream Team .................................................................................................... 63
Dream Team conversations ..............................................................63, 137, 179
Papa Was A Rolling Stone ............................................................................... 80
Papa Was A Rolling Stone conversations ........................................................ 80
Diagram 1 ................................................................................................. 82, 180
Diagram 2 ..........................................................................................82, 171, 180
Diagram 3 ................................................................................................. 83, 180
10
11
Introduction
Some time ago, I decided to send in my Dream Team to Studio Brussel. With a bit of
luck they would call me, I would get to talk about my favourite music on air, and they
would play that music, too. A few days later, after the short phone call, little was left
of my dreams of fifteen minutes of fame. During those I would tell impressive
anecdotes about the songs of my choice and ensure that the world would finally
recognize what a music expert I really was. But the song about which I had the most
impressive anecdote had not been played and I had not been able to bring across
what the songs that had been featured really meant to me. I had not understood one
of the host’s questions and instead of asking him what he meant, I gave a vague
reply. I felt that I did not have the right to ask questions, even if they aimed to clarify
the host’s position. I also felt that I had to keep talking for a certain amount of time,
because silence on the radio would be ‘bad’. The conversation had not gone the way
I had imagined it would go.
This experience for me provoked a whole range of questions about the
relationships between radio hosts and their interviewees in interactions such as those
in Dream Team. First of all, who is allowed to appear on the show? Why are they
allowed to have their say on national radio, and about what are they required or
expected to be talking? Do the interviewees on both programmes come across as
credible? Is it the host or an interviewee that is in power during the interaction?
To answer these questions an investigation of the form and the constrictions of
these conversations is needed. What form does this (kind of) interaction take?
What are the restrictions on turns taken by both host and interviewee, and are there
any ways to bypass these restrictions? If interviewees come across as credible, how
have they achieved this? How is power brought about?
The aim of this paper is to deal with all of the questions above to come to a
conclusion about power in the Dream Team interactions. The results of the Dream
Team analysis will then be compared with those of Papa Was A Rolling Stone. This
is another Studio Brussel show, and it will be analyzed in the same way as Dream
Team. The reason for comparing these two programmes with each other is that the
general idea behind them is the same: to have someone other than the host or other
members of the radio station’s staff choose what songs should be played, and to
12
have this someone explain why they chose those particular songs. On Dream Team,
‘ordinary’ people choose songs and have their say on the radio via a short telephone
conversation. On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, two interviewees come to the studio to
talk about their choices during an hour long broadcast, and at least one of the two
interviewees is a local celebrity.
The theoretical principles underlying the analysis are those of conversation
analysis, complemented with insights from Erving Goffman. The first chapter is
therefore an chapter dedicated to Goffman’s insights with regards to frame analysis
and theatricality. The second chapter explains how conversation analysis came into
being, as well as going through conversation analysis’s most important insights. It
explains the conversation analysis methodology. At the end of the chapter, a
separate part is dedicated to storytelling and deals with the questions how and why
people come to tell stories and how they may be structured. The chapter after that
focuses on broadcast talk. This is a kind of institutional talk, and conversation
analysis is very useful for dealing with institutional data as well as the ‘everyday’
conversational data that it originally aimed to analyze. In the chapter on broadcast
talk, it is explained that Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone share
characteristics with other kinds of broadcast talk, but that they ultimately make up
their own kind. What the specifics of this kind of broadcast talk are is explained in
the two following chapters, which give general overviews of Dream Team and Papa
Was A Rolling Stone, respectively. The two programmes are contextualized and the
particular structures of each programme is described. After these two general
overviews, credibility is considered in detail. The chapter looks at the ways in which
participants can create credible, authentic identities for themselves, and how they
can enhance the credibility that has already been attributed to them. The host, it is
discussed, plays an important role when it comes to interviewee credibility. At the
end of the chapter, the credibility of the host is also briefly considered. This is not the
main concern of this thesis, though. The chapter on power follows that on credibility.
Six elements from the conversation analysis methodology are used to explore the
power balance between the host and the interviewee(s): the institutional roles of
questioner and answerer, topic initiation, turn allocation and interruption, the
production of dispreferred seconds, and the opening and closing of the conversation.
What is meant by these terms is by then clear to the reader, because they are
explained in earlier chapters. Why they are relevant to look at when dealing with
13
power in institutional conversations is explained in the power chapter itself. The
discussions in the general overviews and in the chapters on credibility and power are
illustrated with numerous examples, taken from my own transcribed data. Some
episodes may be quantitatively better represented than others. Most examples are
representational for the entire programme they appeared in, though; when this is not
the case, this has been mentioned explicitly. The final chapter of this thesis is the
conclusion, where the results of the analyses are brought together and final
conclusions are drawn.
Writing this thesis has made several things clear to me personally, as well as
academically. I now understand why I felt that I did not have the right to ask
questions, or that I had to keep talking for a certain amount of time. Even though I,
as an interviewee, could present myself as credible, the host was in charge of the
conversation. Whether the credibility and power situation is similar in every episode
of Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone is explored and described here.
14
15
Transcription key
The transcription conventions as they are used in this thesis are based on those
found in Hutchby (2006: xi - xii).
(.) A short pause in the speech
(1.2) A longer pause, measured in seconds
( ) Incomprehensible speech or sounds
[ The start of overlapping talk
::: A stretched sound
- A sound that is suddenly cut off
= Sounds that are produces straight after one another, without a
perceptible pause in between
(( )) Non-verbal sounds or activities, songs, jingles, speaker attitudes
.hhh Audible inward breathing or laughter, the number of h’s reflecting the
length of the sound
hhh Audible outward breathing, sighing or laughter, the number of h’s
reflecting the length of the sound
° ° The speech or sounds in between the degree signs is quieter than
the surrounding speech or sounds
CAPITALS Shouting or sounds that are significantly louder that the surrounding
speech or sounds
haha, Laughter
hehh,
hihihi
? Question intonation
→ Indicates turns or TCUs under discussion
16
17
Methodology
The aim of this thesis is to explore the credibility of interviewees and the power of
both the interviewees and the host that appear on Studio Brussel’s Dream Team and
Papa Was A Rolling Stone. These are subjects that could be approached from a
variety of theories within areas such as psychology, sociology, linguistics, … In this
paper, credibility and power are looked at from the perspective of conversation
analysis. Conversation analysis is a sociolinguistic discipline, and it is suitable here
because it looks at what is demonstrably going on in a conversation and how
participants orientate towards these goings-on. The methodology of conversation
analysis itself is explained in a separate chapter. Apart from insights from
conversation analysis, this thesis also discusses some other theoretical elements
that are useful to the analysis of the selected radio programmes. The work of Erving
Goffman is discussed, because much of conversation analysis’s insights find their
origins in Goffman’s sociological work. Some of his insights and theoretical concepts
about frame analysis and theatricality are used in the analysis of Dream Team and
Papa Was A Rolling Stone as well. Other helpful views were found in studies of
storytelling and broadcast and media talk. These views derive in their turn from
conversation analysis.
In order to analyse the data, it first had to be listened to carefully. Ten Dream
Team episodes and nine Papa Was A Rolling Stone episodes were selected, taped,
and listened to. All of the Dream Team data was subsequently transcribed. Because
of the length of the Papa Was A Rolling Stone conversations, it was impossible to
transcribe all those conversations in their entirety. The transcriptions that have been
made, however, are relevant and representational. Far from randomly selecting
fragments to transcribe, repeated close listening has made it possible to discern
important and/or recurrent elements; these have subsequently been transcribed.
After transcribing the necessary date, it was established what the general structure of
each radio programme was. The structures of each show are described in the
general overview chapters. They have been analyzed according to conversation
analysis, with additional insights from Goffman. Once the frameworks and their
respective patterns had been described, it was possible to move on to look at the
data and focus on elements of credibility. The study of storytelling and Goffman’s
18
insights in theatricality proved complementary to the elements that could be analysed
through conversation analysis. In the chapter on credibility, it is described in what
ways the radio programme participants may and do create credible identities for
themselves, as well as how the host may and does help them with this. The chapter
on power, finally, derives most of its conclusions from conversation analysis. Some
conversation analytic aspects were looked at, and it is explained how these may and
do construct powerful positions for the host and the interviewees.
In the Dream Team transcriptions, the participant that is not the host has been
indicated with the letters Ca, short for ‘caller’. However, as will become clear from
the general overview chapter, this participant is not actually a caller but rather a
‘called’. Since he or she is on the phone, though, he or she if referred to in the
analysis as the caller. Other terms that are used to refer to this participant are
‘interlocutor’, ‘lay participant’, and ‘interviewee’. Some of these terms are usually
used because they refer to a very specific role of the participant. However, these
roles more or less coincide for the Dream Team lay participant. This is explained
further in the chapter on broadcast talk. The Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants
that are not the host are called ‘guests’, ‘studio guests’, ‘expert participants’, and also
‘interviewees’.
19
20
1. Erving Goffman: frame analysis and theatricality
Erving Goffman’s work has influenced Harvey Sacks, the founder of conversation
analysis, and some of Goffman’s insights will be used for the analysis of radio
programmes in this paper. It is therefore only appropriate that his work should be
explained to some extent here. Two aspects will be focused on: frameworks for
dealing with social interaction with co-present participants, and theatricality or the
individual as a performer.
Goffman was, like Sacks, a sociologist. He “developed a dramaturgical
perspective on face-to-face interaction” (Slembrouck 2009: 4). Hutchby and Wooffitt
write that for doing so, “[h]is argument was that we ‘perform’ our social selves,
managing the ways we appear in everyday situations so as to affect […] how others
orient to us” (1998: 27). Goffman emphasized that, as interactants make certain
moves that show “aspects of social structure” (Slembrouck 2009: 24-25) and that
define situations (Slembrouck 2009: 25), the interactants frame “a particular
contextual understanding of the situation[,] and […] this comes with particular
qualifications about the nature and structure of participation” (Slembrouck 2009: 24 -
25). Key to a social situation is some form of “co-presence” (Slembrouck 2009: 27),
which means that “two or more persons find themselves in visual or aural range of
one another” (Goffman as quoted by Slembrouck 2009: 27).
A ‘frame’, ‘framework’ or ‘frame of reference’ is “the schematic knowledge
which language users possess about the organisation of an event or activity and the
significance of specific contributions within it” (Slembrouck 2009: 25). Goffman
introduced this term as a way of referring to “the structure of experience individuals
have at any moment of their social lives” (Goffman as quoted by Slembrouck 2009:
25). The study of this structure, then, is frame analysis. Frame analysis looks both
at “object-oriented conditions” (Slembrouck 2009: 25) and “subject-dependent
actions and moves” (ibid.); this means that if one wishes to analyse, say, a ballet
rehearsal, the room in which the rehearsal takes place and all the objects that are in
it are just as important to the analysis as the instructions that the choreographer
gives and the moves the dancers do as a result of these instructions. Frames are
often layered and multiple frames may be at work simultaneously (Slembrouck 2009:
29 - 30). For instance, government representatives may be present at the ballet
21
rehearsal in order to make a decision about government funding for the show. The
primary framework is the ballet rehearsal, while the representatives talking among
themselves while watching the dancers makes up a secondary framework, that of a
discussion about subsidization. These two frames are interdependent (Slembrouck
2009: 29); if there was no rehearsal, there would be no discussion about
subsidization. Frameworks may be disrupted temporarily or break down for longer
periods, and disruptions or breakdowns may be accidental or on purpose, tolerable
or intolerable (Slembrouck 2009: 30, 35). “Short and momentary frame breaks may
well be ignored or passed over with a brief show of irritation” (Slembrouck 2009: 35),
but sometimes
disruptive events occur [...] [and] the interaction itself may come to a confused and
embarrassed halt. [...] [A]ll the participants may come to feel ill at ease, nonplussed,
out of countenance, embarrassed, experiencing the kind of anomy that is generated
when the minute social system of face-to-face interaction breaks down.
(Goffman 1990: 12)
Within a certain framework, participants take up a specific position with regards to
“[them]selves and the others present” (Goffman as quoted by Slembrouck 2009: 42).
This position, or ‘footing’ as Goffman calls it, is “expressed [by participants] in the
way [they] manage the production or reception of an utterance” (ibid.). Participants
can change their footing, which basically means that they change their frame (ibid.);
so when the choreographer stops giving the dancers instructions and asks the
government representatives to talk more quietly, he or she temporarily leaves the
ballet rehearsal framework. He or she positions him- or herself differently towards
the representatives. The notion of footing puts the emphasis on “the analysis of
verbal interaction” (Slembrouck 2009: 42) rather than body language and the
physical setting of an interaction, both of which are crucial for frame analysis.
Attention for footing in frame analysis
directs the analysis towards recognising that for the participant in the situation, a
particular alignment is always at issue, a particular stance or projected relational self,
and that such an alignment may be durably extended over the span of an activity or, in
other circumstances, occur just for the duration of an utterance or even less. [...]
Modality and appraisal provide obvious linguistic resources for monitoring [...] subtle
changes in the speaker’s alignment to what is being said.
(Slembrouck 2009: 42 - 43)
22
Apart from introducing the terms ‘frame’ and ‘footing’, Goffman has also “developed a
taxonomy for examining how participants relate to frames” (Slembrouck 2009: 47).
This taxonomy is particularly useful because it refines “the traditional categories of
‘speaker’, ‘hearer’ and ‘conversational dyad’” (ibid.). Goffman states that there are
multiple ways in which participants can be co-present (ibid.). Participants may be
ratified or non-ratified, and addressed or non-addressed (Slembrouck 2009: 48).
Meyerhoff builds on Goffman’s categories and distinguishes between five different
kinds of participants: speaker, addressee, auditor, overhearer, and eavesdropper
(2010: 43). The latter four are distinguished on the basis of their presence being
known to the speaker, and whether or not they are ratified and/or addressed (ibid.).
An addressee is known, ratified and addressed; an auditor is known and ratified, but
not addressed; an overhearer is known, but neither ratified nor addressed; and an
eavesdropper is not known, not ratified and not addressed (Bell as quoted by
Meyerhoff 2010: 44).
The second idea of Goffman that will be discussed here is that of theatricality.
“For Goffman, the very fabric of the social is [...] stage-managed” (Slembrouck 2009:
53). Each individual is constantly putting up a particular pose to others. He or she
wishes to manage and channel the impressions that others create of him or her, and
Goffman looks at the way people pose and manage impressions (Goffman 1990: xi).
He writes that an individual is always posing, and not always being truthful in his or
her poses. “[W]hen an individual appears in the presence of others, there will usually
be some reason for him [or her] to mobilize his [or her] activity so that it will convey
an impression to others which it is in his [or her] interests to convey” (Goffman 1990:
4). A consequence of this is that every individual will try their hardest to control the
impressions he or she makes, both through their verbal and their non-verbal
behaviour (Goffman 1990: 7). In order to do this somewhat effectively, “the individual
projects a definition of the situation when he [or she] appears before others, [...] [and]
the others [...] will themselves effectively project a definition of the situation” (Goffman
1990: 9). This aspect of social interaction has been discussed above, in terms of
framing and footing. The actions, both verbal and non-verbal, that a participant
undertakes to shape the behaviour and the impressions of other participants, all fall
under the term “performance” (Goffman 1990: 15). The performer is “a particular
participant [...] [whose] performance [is taken] as a basic point of reference” (ibid.).
23
The performer may believe that his or her performance is real, i.e. that the way in
which they present reality is not just a presentation but reality itself. However,
performers may also be aware that their performance is just that: a performance.
They may even put up a performance merely for the sake of manipulating the
audience into doing or believing something (Goffman 1990: 17 - 18). Other
contributors to a performance are “the audience, observers, or co-participants”
(Goffman 1990: 16). A performance is typically made up of a “pre-established
pattern of action [...] which may be presented or played through on other occasions”
(ibid.). Goffman calls these repeatable patterns ‘parts’ or ‘routines’ (ibid.).
Performers wishing to influence their audience will want to control the framing
work that the audience does as much as possible. They will dramatize their actions,
and put up a ‘”front” (Goffman 1990: 22). Dramatization means that around others,
an individual will incorporate signs into his or her actions to foreground facts that
might have remained unnoticed or unclear had they not been dramatized (Goffman
1990: 30). The performer does this because he or she must ascertain that whatever
they wish to express is actually expressed in the interaction, or else it could never
become meaningful to others (ibid.). A front is a “part of the individual’s performance
which regularly functions in a general and fixed fashion to define the situation for
those who observe the performance” (Goffman 1990: 22). Parts may share (aspects
of) fronts with other parts, and fronts may be used for several, different parts
(Goffman 1990: 26 - 27).
In addition [...], it is to be noted that a given social front tends to become
institutionalized in terms of the abstract stereotyped expectations to which it gives rise,
and tends to take on a meaning and stability apart from the specific tasks which
happen at the time to be performed in its name.
(Goffman 1990: 27)
The notion of institutional interaction is an important one and will also be discussed in
the chapters on conversation analysis and broadcast talk. The chapter on broadcast
talk does not discuss institutional talk in Goffmanian terms, but the basic idea about
what institutional discourse means is the same.
Some of the aspects of front are more easily manageable than others, and
many “expect [...] some coherence among setting, appearance, and manner”
(Goffman 1990: 25). This expected coherence creates an idealistic expectation of
performers, and performers also aim to present their audience an idealised version of
24
their performed selves (Goffman 1990: 25, 35). To maintain this ideal impression, a
performer’s behaviour needs to be consistent with the ideal standards which he or
she appears to embody; actions that are likely to be interpreted by the audience as
inconsistent are often carried out surreptitiously (Goffman 1990: 41). Goffman also
adds that “[p]erformers may even attempt to give the impression that their present
poise and proficiency are something they have always had” (1990: 47), instead of
being the result of a learning process in which mistakes were made (ibid.).
Performers are aware that their audience may perceive even the slightest
cues as signalling “something important about [the performer’s] performance”
(Goffman 1990: 51). A performer will, then, try to avoid producing such minor,
unmeant cues (ibid.). In a similar view, performers will also try to avoid giving the
impression that they have something to hide. If it becomes apparent in the
interaction that there is something that performers would rather not talk about, the
audience tends to consider the performers as suspicious characters. Everything else
that performers have said and done will be viewed in this light as well, and the
performers will lose much of their legitimacy (Goffman 1990: 64 - 65). Fortunately for
the performer, however, the audience is generally inclined to have faith in the
performer and to give him or her the benefit of the doubt, at least at the beginning of
the performance (Goffman 1990: 10).
Performers may not be alone in carrying out a part. Goffman introduces “the
term ‘performance team’ or, in short, ‘team’ to refer to any set of individuals who co-
operate in staging a single routine” (1990: 79). A team, then, is not a group of people
linked together based on a social arrangement; it is a group of people linked together
“in order to sustain a given definition of the situation” (Goffman 1990: 104).
Technically speaking, teams need not consist of more than one individual, and teams
could even be their own audience, if the performer believes in the reality of his or her
own actions (Goffman 1990: 80). A team’s performance may be endangered by the
behaviour of single team members; each member has the power to jeopardize the
success of the performance by behaving inconsistently with regards to the behaviour
of the other team members (Goffman 1990: 82, 104). Goffman has also noticed that
in team performances, one team member often seems to have been “given the right
to direct and control the progress of the dramatic action” (1990: 97). If this is the
case, the team’s director is usually also the one to fulfil two functions that are
important for the smooth progress of a performance (Goffman 1990: 98). These two
25
functions are “bringing back into line any member of the team whose performance
becomes unsuitable” (ibid.), and “allocating the parts in the performance and the
personal front that is employed in each part” (Goffman 1990: 99). Members of each
team “are held together by a bond no member of the audience shares” (Goffman
1990: 104), and while the audience may and probably will be aware that such a bond
exists, the exact “extent and character of the co-operation [...] will be concealed and
kept secret” (ibid.). A team will also want to conceal certain other facts; Goffman
calls these facts “secrets” (1990: 141) and writes that these consist of “destructive
information” (ibid.). The inevitable existence of secrets asks for “information control”
(ibid.) on the part of the team. Teams will want to control access to this information
so the effectiveness of the performance, set up to produce and maintain a particular
definition of the situation, is not endangered (Goffman 1990: 104, 141).
Obviously, this kind of cooperation and concealment will often need some kind
of preparation, especially if the nature and the extent of the cooperation are to be
kept secret. This kind of preparation can be carried out in what Goffman calls the
“back region” (1990: 112) or “backstage” (ibid.) of a performance. The back region is
distinguished from the ‘front region’ (Goffman 1990: 107), which is “the place where
the performance is given” (ibid.). Both are regions, a notion which Goffman defines
as “any place that is bounded to some degree by barriers to perception” (1990: 106).
For instance, a radio studio is a region that is not visually perceivable by people who
are listening to the radio at home, but it is aurally available for anyone who bothers to
turn on their radio. While performing in the front region, individuals will pay attention
to “matters of politeness” (Goffman 1990: 107) and “decorum” (ibid.). Matters of
politeness are linked to a performer’s manner and decorum is related to his or her
appearance (Goffman 1990: 108). The front region is further defined by the setting in
which the performance takes place (Goffman 1990: 107). While in the front region,
individuals and teams will try to convey and maintain a particular impression of
themselves towards others (Goffman 1990: 111). In order to do this, certain facts will
be highlighted, while others will be subdued (ibid.). The latter will surface in the back
region (Goffman 1990: 112). A backstage, then, “may be defined as a place, relative
to a given performance, where the impression fostered by the performance is
knowingly contradicted as a matter of course” (ibid.). For radio broadcasts, this
means that anything that is said within range of a (functional) microphone can be
said to have been performed in the front region, while what is said out of this range or
26
within reach of a microphone that is switched off has been performed in the back
region (Goffman 1990: 119). Back region interaction is likely to be more familiar than
front region interaction because it is “out of bounds” (Goffman 1990: 128) or at least
supposed to be out of bounds to the audience (ibid.).
While team members usually do attempt to “maintain the line that they are
what they claim to be” (Goffman 1990: 167), a change in the situation may entail
different social alignment and members may no longer “stay in character” (ibid.). The
occurrence of “communication out of character” (ibid.) makes it clear that a team
performance is always to some extent premeditated, rather than “a spontaneous,
immediate response to the situation” (Goffman 1990: 207). Performers present
reality in a way that is different in each performance, and each team member is able
“to imagine or play out simultaneously other kinds of performances to other realities”
(ibid.) at each point in the performance.
So far it has been explained that teams are groups of interactants that are
joined in their attempts to create and sustain a particular definition of a situation for
the audience or for another team. That each team has secrets and that it needs to
control the information that it gives has been mentioned, as well as the importance of
the back region for this kind of management. Team members may also communicate
out of character. What has not yet been discussed are the steps that performers
may take to “sav[e] the show” (Goffman 1990: 212). Goffman writes that performers
have a number of “attributes and practices” (ibid.) at their disposal that function to
prevent the introduction of “well-kept dark secrets or negatively-valued
characteristics” (1990: 209) into the performance. They serve to save the performer
from embarrassment and losing face that are often the results of “unmeant gestures,
inopportune intrusions, faux pas, [...] scenes” (Goffman 1990: 212) and the like.
Goffman distinguishes between defensive and protective attributes and practices
(ibid.). The defensive attributes are further distinguished into dramaturgical loyalty,
discipline, and circumspection (Goffman 1990: 212, 216, 218). Dramaturgical loyalty
refers to the practice that team members cannot reveal the team’s secrets “when
between performances” (Goffman 1990: 212). The largest threat to dramaturgical
loyalty is sympathy for the audience. When a team member becomes too attached
to his or her audience, he or she may want to let the audience in on the performance
(Goffman 1990: 214). Dramaturgical discipline means that a team member needs to
appear wholly absorbed by his or her own actions, as if they were “spontaneous and
27
uncalculat[ed]” (Goffman 1990: 216). At the same time, however, the performer must
avoid “being carried away” (ibid.) in reality, “lest this destroy his involvement in the
task of putting on a successful performance” (ibid.). Dramaturgical circumspection
means that
in the interest of the team, performers will be required to exercise prudence and
circumspection in staging the show, preparing in advance for likely contingencies and
exploiting the opportunities that remain.
(Goffman 1990: 218)
Protective attributes and practices divide into two: protective practices that the
audience uses “to assist the performers in saving the performers’ show” (Goffman
1990: 212), also known as “tact” (Goffman 1990: 229), and “[t]act [r]egarding [t]act”
(Goffman 1990: 234). The latter are methods used by the performer in order to
enable his or her audience to be tactful in the first place (ibid.).
In conclusion, what an individual does when he or she “enters the presence of
others” (Goffman 1990: 249) is “to treat the others present on the basis of the
impression they give now about the past and the future” (ibid.). An individual does
this because he or she can never know all there is to know about others (ibid.). This
is why individuals will always put up a performance that tends to show themselves in
a positive light. The individual knows “that his [or her] audiences are capable of
forming bad impressions of him [or her]” (1990: 236), and for this reason, performers
can “devote their efforts to the creation of desired impressions” (Goffman 1990: 250),
instead of hoping that the impressions that they give off will paint a favourable picture
of themselves (ibid.).
At some point or other in the round of their activity [individuals] feel it is necessary to
band together and directly manipulate the impression that they give. The observed
become a performing team and the observers become the audience. Actions which
appear to be done on objects become gestures addressed to the audience. The round
of activity becomes dramatized.
(Goffman 1990: 251)
Performers are aware of the impression they foster and ordinarily also possess
destructive information about the show. The audience know what they have been
allowed to perceive, qualified by what they can glean unofficially by close observation.
In the main, they know the definition of the situation that the performance fosters but do
not have destructive information about it.
28
(Goffman 1990: 144)
In short, everyone is constantly performing. “To be a given kind of person, then, is
not merely to possess the required attributes, but also to sustain the standards of
conduct and appearance that one’s social grouping attaches thereto” (Goffman 1990:
75).
29
30
2. Conversation Analysis
2.1 Conversation analysis
Conversation analysis, or CA, was developed in the 1960s and early 1970s by
Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson (Slembrouck 2009: 55,
Liddicoat 2007: 4, Hutchby 2006: 18). Sacks, an American sociologist, is generally
considered to be the founder of the approach (wikipedia.org, Hutchby 2006: 18,
Liddicoat 2007: 4, Jeffries and McIntyre 2010: 101, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 17).
Schegloff and Jefferson frequently collaborated with Sacks and became his literary
executors after his death (Slembrouck 2009: 55, Liddicoat 2007: 4, Hutchby 2006:
18). Sacks died in a car crash in 1975, only 40 years old, and had not published
much (wikipedia.org, Slembrouck 2009: 55, Hutchby 2006: 18). Nonetheless, his
approach to the analysis of everyday conversation has become well-known among
sociologists and linguists (wikipedia.org). Hutchby considers Harvey Sacks to have
been one of the “great innovators in the study of language” (2006: 18) and places
him side by side with famous linguists such as Ferdinand de Saussure and Ludwig
Wittgenstein (ibid.). In contrast, Liddicoat does not call Sacks a linguist; rather,
Sacks was devoted to “the study of social action” (2007: 4). As language is an
important part of social action, these definitions do not contradict each other. They
merely illustrate the aim of CA: “to investigate social order as it [is] produced through
the practices of everyday talk” (Liddicoat 2007: 4). Hutchy and Wooffitt also
underline the interdisciplinary nature of CA (1998: 36), and Schegloff points out that
“’CA is at a point where linguistics and sociology (and several other disciplines [...])
meet” (Schegloff as quoted by Hutchy & Wooffitt 1998: 37).
The continuing relevance and versatility of CA is demonstrated by the fact that
contemporary works such as Ian Hutchby’s Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and
the Study of Broadcasting (2006) and Lesley Jeffries and Dan McIntyre’s Stylistics
(2010) still draw heavily upon insights from CA, even though these works have
completely different aims1; by the fact that academics continue to write introductory
1Hutchby’s Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting uses CA to come to
insights about the specific forms of conversation that occur in radio and television broadcasts,
31
works to the theory, such as An Introduction to Conversation Analysis by Anthony
Liddicoat (2007) and Conversation Analysis: An Introduction by Jack Sidnell (2010);
and by the fact that CA continues to be taught at universities.
Conversation analysis developed out of the belief “that human language has to
be seen as a form of social practice and that meaning is inevitably bound to specific
social contexts of use” (Hutchby 2006: 19). At the time of its development, this was a
relatively new approach in linguistics and in sociology. The dominant paradigm
within linguistics had developed out of Ferdinand de Saussure’s structural linguistics
and moved on to Noam Chomsky’s generative grammar (wikipedia.org, Hutchby
2006: 19). Both these men chose the abstract knowledge of language as the object
of their research and theories; Saussure called this abstract knowledge ‘langue’ and
Chomsky called it ‘competence’. The main argument for focusing on ‘langue’ or
‘competence’ was that actual utterances of language, Saussure’s ‘parole’ or
Chomsky’s ‘performance’, were considered imperfect and too disordered for scientific
study (Hutchby 2006: 19). Sacks opposed this argument by pointing out that
interaction certainly is ordered. The method he developed to study interaction makes
it possible to demonstrate and analyse the orderliness of interaction in a decidedly
scientific manner. This was in fact one of Sacks’s main aims: “’I take it that at least
some sociologists seek to make a science of the discipline; this is a concern I share’”,
he wrote in 1963 (Sacks as quoted by Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 34). This quote also
points out that Sacks’s work diverged from the dominant sociological paradigm of his
time. “In one of his earliest lectures, he put forward a powerful argument against the
prevailing notion in sociology that the phenomena most worthy of analysis were
unobservable – for instance, attitudes, class mobility, or the causes of deviance”
(Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 25). In concentrating on the aforementioned “social order
as it [is] produced through the practices of everyday talk” (Liddicoat 2007: 4), Sacks
turned towards the analysis of observable aspects of social order. How he did this
will be discussed in the next paragraph. First, however, it should be pointed out that
Sacks did rely on some earlier sociological work, notably that of Erving Goffman and
whereas Jeffries and McIntyre present CA as “an analytical method also appropriate for stylistic
analysis” (2010: 101), even of fictional texts.
32
Harold Garfinkel (Slembrouck 2009: 55, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 27, Liddicoat 2007:
2 - 3).
Goffman’s work and insights have been discussed at length above and will not
be explained again in this paragraph, but some explanation about Garfinkel is
required here. Harold Garfinkel is the developer of “the form of sociology which
became known as ethnomethodology” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 30).
“Ethnomethodology stresses that social order is produced, recognised and shared”
(Slembrouck 2009: 14), which CA also does, and it wishes to “describe the methods
that people use for accounting for their own actions and those of others” (Hutchby &
Wooffitt 1998: 31). Another original insight that ethnomethodology and CA share is
that talk should be looked at in its context. For instance, John Searle and John
Austin, two linguists who also published in the 1960s, had, like Sacks, opposed
Saussurian and Chomskyan linguistics. They had noticed that talk is used to perform
social actions, but described these actions by looking at decontextualized utterances
(Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 20, Hutchby 2006: 21). Ethnomethodology and CA point
out that the meaning of an utterance can never be analysed if the utterance is looked
at in isolation, because participants express and understand meaning in light of the
context in which that utterance is made (Slembrouck 2009: 15, Hutchby & Wooffitt
1998: 15, 35, Hutchby 2006: 21). What is more, how a participant understands a
particular utterance is displayed in that participant’s response to the utterance (ibid.).
As mentioned above, Sacks intended to turn his approach to observable
aspects of social order into a science. Garfinkel never shared this ambition. He felt
that the study of society can never produce “objective findings” (Hutchby & Wooffitt
1998: 34), since “interpretation and commonsense knowledge are necessary and
unavoidable aspects of social science” (ibid.). Despite these objections, Sacks has
managed to develop conversation analysis into a “distinctive methodology” (Liddicoat
2007: 12) that has long transcended his personal approach to interaction. “Although
the inception and, to some extent, the widespread adoption of the conversation
analytic perspective owed much to his individually brilliant cast of mind, his way of
working resulted in the development of a distinctive method which could be employed
by others” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 36). CA is now a scientific, widely used
approach to language as a socially contextualized form of social practice (Hutchby &
Wooffitt 1998: 7, Hutchby 2006: 19).
33
Conversation analysis is a somewhat deceptive name, because it is
concerned with much more than mere conversation in the usual definition of the word
(Liddicoat 2007: 6). Everyday conversation is certainly one area that is being studied
by conversation analysts, but it is not the only one. Talk in institutional contexts is
another large area of interest for CA (ibid.). Institutional contexts are contexts in
which a speaker’s turn length, turn form and turn context are not free to vary as much
as they are in everyday conversation (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 47); they include for
instance doctor- patient interviews and wedding ceremonies (ibid.). The two radio
programmes that this paper looks at are also in some way institutional. Because CA
does not exclusively study everyday or “mundane” (ibid.) conversation, its
practitioners prefer to refer to CA’s research topic as “talk-in-interaction” (Liddicoat
2007: 6, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 14). Here, though, ‘talk-in-interaction’ will be used
alongside ‘interaction’, ‘conversation’ and even ‘performance’. Since the data that is
looked at comes from radio programmes, all the information that is available is talk-
in-interaction anyway.
CA studies talk-in-interaction “[b]y concentrating on how utterances are
produced in turns in interactional sequences” (Hutchby 2006: 21). The use of the
word ‘sequences’ indicates that utterances produced in turns “are not just serially
ordered (that is, coming one after the other) [...] [but] that there are describable ways
in which turns are linked together into definite sequences” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998:
38). Talk-in-interaction is studied out of the following four principles, some of which
have been mentioned above:
1. Talk-in-interaction is a way to realize social actions.
2. Talk-in-interaction is systematically organized, methodic and ordered at all points. No
part of it is ever dismissible as accidental, disorderly or irrelevant. Order is internally
accomplished by the interactants.
3. Talk-in-interaction is produced in specific contexts, and participants orient to this
context. Turns produced by participants are at the same time context-renewing and
context-shaped. Talk is arranged sequentially and turns are linked together.
4. Analysis of talk-in-interaction should be based on (transcripts of) recordings of
naturally occurring data and not be restricted by a priori theoretical assumptions.
These principles are based on the principles listed by Liddicoat (2007: 5), Slembrouck (2009:
57), Hutchby (2006: 24) and Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998: 23).
The fourth principle indicates that CA wishes to study everyday conversation
as it really occurs, as opposed to Saussurian and Chomskyan linguistics (cf. supra).
34
To enable researchers to investigate this data again and again, it needs to be
recorded. To make research of the data more easily accessible and publishable,
these recordings are usually transcribed (Liddicoat 2007: 13). In CA, the
transcription system that is mostly used is that developed by Gail Jefferson (Liddicoat
2007: 14), but individual researchers may add or alter elements to their own
transcription methods if they feel that this better represents particular aspects of their
data. Transcripts are, however, never able to represent conversation in all its
complexity. They are also always subjective, since every researcher has different
research objects and will transcribe his or her data accordingly. Also, researchers
may not hear every sigh or clearing of the throat; invariably, some aspects of the
recording will not be represented in its transcription (Liddicoat 2007: 13). For this
reason, the recorded data and not its transcript remains the primary source for
analysis (ibid.).
Principle 3 mentions turns, a term that has also come up in the explanation of
Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson write that “[t]urn-
taking is used for the ordering of moves in games, for allocating political office, for
regulating traffic at intersections, for serving customers at business establishments,
and for talking in interviews, meetings, debates, ceremonies, conversations etc.”
(1974: 696). Different speakers take turns at speaking, and it is this fact that makes
talk ordered at all points (ibid.). Hutchby and Wooffitt stress that a concern with the
nature of turn-taking in talk-in-interaction is at the very heart of CA (1998: 38), and
sequential implicativeness, which is linked with the context-renewing and context-
shaped properties of turns, is often named as CA’s most important insight. It is the
principle that in producing a turn, each speaker shows how they have understood the
previous turn, while at the same time projecting expectations about the next turn
(Slembrouck 2009: 57). Because of this importance of turn-taking, it is hardly
surprising that CA focuses on the study of turn sequences and the nature of these:
“[a]n investigator interested in the sociology of a turn-organized activity will want to
determine, at least, the shape of the turn-taking organization device, and how it
affects the distribution of turns for the activities on which it operates” (Sacks et al.
1974: 696). Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson list fourteen “grossly apparent facts”
(1974: 700) about turn-taking in conversations:
(1) Speaker-change recurs, or at least occurs.
(2) Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time.
35
(3) Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are common, but brief.
(4) Transitions (from one turn to a next) with no gap and no overlap are common.
Together with transitions characterized by slight gap or slight overlap, they make up the
vast majority of transitions.
(5) Turn order is not fixed, but varies.
(6) Turn size is not fixed, but varies.
(7) Length of conversation is not specified in advance.
(8) What parties say is not specified in advance.
(9) Relative distribution of turns is not specified in advance.
(10) Number of parties can vary.
(11) Talk can be continuous or discontinuous.
(12) Turn-allocation techniques are obviously used. A current speaker may select a
next speaker (as when he addresses a question to another party); or parties may self -
select in starting to talk.
(13) Various 'turn-constructional units' are employed; e.g., turns can be projectedly 'one
word long', or they can be sentential in length.
(14) Repair mechanisms exist for dealing with turn-taking errors and violations; e.g., if
two parties find themselves talking at the same time, one of them will stop prematurely,
thus repairing the trouble.
(Sacks et al. 1974: 700 - 701)
Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson do note that these facts apply only to conversational
data (1974: 729). For institutional talk-in-interaction no completely different list of
facts exists. Sacks et al. propose a way of looking at institutional talk as placed on a
continuum, on which ‘conversation’ is at one end and ‘ceremony’ at the other (1974:
729 - 730). However, ‘ceremony’ should not be allocated equal status to
‘conversation’; rather, ‘ceremony’ ought to be viewed as a (number of)
transformation(s) to the ‘conversation’ type for which the fourteen facts are true.
Sacks et al. describe the turn-taking system for conversation as a system of
“two components and a set of rules” (1974: 702). These components are the turn
constructional component and the turn allocation component (Sacks et al. 1974: 702-
703, Liddicoat 2007: 54, 63). Turns are made up of turn constructional units, which
may take various grammatical forms and which are highly context dependent
(Liddicoat 2007: 54, Sacks et al. 1974: 702). These turn constructional units or TCUs
may be called units because within their context, the participants recognize them as
possibly complete and they display their recognition of this possible completeness.
36
In fact, recipients can even project the possible completion of a TCU (Liddicoat 2007:
56). If participants do not recognize “a piece of talk […] as possibly complete at a
particular point in the ongoing talk, then it is not a TCU” (ibid.). Note that the term
‘possible’ is crucial here:
Participants in conversation project possible completion not actual completion. Actual
completion can never be predicted as speakers can and do prolong their talk beyond
what is needed to complete a particular action under way. Participants cannot know in
advance where a turn will end, only when it could end.
(Liddicoat 2007: 60)
Possible completion may be achieved in three different ways: a TCU may be
complete grammatically, intonationally, and as an action (Liddicoat 2007: 57 - 58).
Grammatical completion means that a TCU is a syntactically independent unit, and
intonational completion means that a TCU’s intonation indicates the end of the TCU
(Liddicoat 2007: 57). A TCU is also possibly complete when “what needs to have
been done at this point in the conversation” (Liddicoat 2007: 58), is done. ‘Possible
completion’ is an important notion with regards to speaker transition. Whenever a
TCU is possibly completed, “speaker change is a possible next action” (Liddicoat
2007: 61). A place where speaker change can, but need not, occur, is called a
“transition-relevance place” (Sacks et al. 1974: 703). Transfer to the next speaker
can be managed by the second component of Sacks’s systematics: the turn
allocation component. According to Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, there are two
groups of “turn-allocational techniques” (ibid.): either the current speaker selects the
next speaker, or the next speaker self-selects (ibid.). The rules of the turn-taking
system for conversation link turn allocation to turn construction (Liddicoat 2007: 67),
“provid[e] for the allocation of a next turn to one party, and co-ordinat[e] transfer so
as to minimize gap and overlap” (Sacks et al. 1974: 704). These rules are the
following:
(1) For any turn, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn-constructional
unit:
(a) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as to involve the use of a 'current speaker
selects next' technique, then the party so selected has the right and is obliged to take
next turn to speak; no others have such rights or obligations, and transfer occurs at that
place.
37
(b) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as not to involve the use of a 'current speaker
selects next' technique, then self-selection for next speakership may, but need not, be
instituted; first starter acquires rights to a turn, and transfer occurs at that place.
(c) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as not to involve the use of a 'current speaker
selects next' technique, then current speaker may, but need not continue, unless
another self-selects.
(2) If, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn-constructional unit, neither
1a nor 1b has operated, and, following the provision of 1c, current speaker has
continued, then the rule-set a-c re-applies at the next transition-relevance place, and
recursively at each next transition-relevance place, until transfer is effected.
(Sacks et al. 1974: 704)
Sacks et al. and Liddicoat point out that these rules are ordered: “that is, rule 1(b)
applies if rule 1 (a) has not been applied, and rule 1 (c) applies if rules 1 (a) and 1 (b)
have not been applied” (Liddicoat 2007: 68).
According to Hutchby and Wooffitt, the use of the term ‘rules’ is somewhat
problematic (1998: 50). The rules that Sacks et al. provide make up “an oriented-to
set of normative practices which members use to accomplish orderly turn-taking”
(ibid.), rather than prescriptive or causal formulae (ibid.). Schegloff admits that the
term ‘rule’ is not ideal and that perhaps ‘practice’ or ‘usage’ would be better
alternatives (Schegloff as quoted by Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 50). He does insist,
however, that “[t]here is still an interrelated set of these, whatever we call them; they
are still followable, followed, practiced, employed – oriented to by the participants,
and not merely […] ‘extensionally equivalent descriptions of behaviour’” (Schegloff as
quoted by Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 50 - 51). Again, however, it should be remarked
that this ‘oriented-to set of normative practices’ is different for talk in institutional
settings. Participants in institutional talk are not free to construct their TCUs as freely
as participants in everyday conversation, and all turn allocational techniques may not
be used at all times. Like the fourteen facts listed above, the components and the
rules for institutional talk-in-interaction should be looked at as a transformation of
those of everyday conversation.
Sacks et al. are confident that their “characterization of turn-taking
organization for conversation” (1974: 699) has “the important twin features of being
context-free and capable of extraordinary context-sensitivity” (ibid.). The
conversational resources that Sacks and his colleagues have described are context-
free because “the techniques any set of conversationalists may use to get some
38
interactional work done are not tied to the local circumstances of that specific
occasion” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 35). Simultaneously, though, “the use of those
resources is context-sensitive in the sense that, on each specific occasion, these
participants in particular are designing their talk in the light of what has happened
before in this conversation” (ibid.). These linked features are clearly represented in
one of CA’s key notions: that of the adjacency pair.
The first principle of CA mentions that talk-in-interaction is a means for
“accomplishing social actions” (Hutchby 2006: 24), and according to the third
principle, “talk is organized sequentially [...] [and] turns are related together” (ibid.).
This means that “[t]urn-taking in conversation comes about in part because turns
often call for another turn in response” (Jeffries & McIntyre 2010: 102). Turns that
are paired because that is functionally appropriate are called adjacency pairs
(Slembrouck 2009: 61). “Examples include question/answer, complaint/apology,
greeting/greeting, goodbye/goodbye, accusation/denial, etc.” (ibid.). Liddicoat lists
five specific characteristics of adjacency pairs:
(1) Adjacency pairs consist of two turns.
(2) These two turns are produced by different speakers.
(3) The two turns are placed next to each other in their basic minimal form.
(4) The two turns are ordered.
(5) The two turns are differentiated into pair types.
(Liddicoat 2007: 106)
The first turn, “which initiate[s] actions” (ibid.), is called the first pair part (FPP)
(Liddicoat 2007: 106, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 39). The second turn, which should
be an appropriate reply to the action initiated in the first pair part, is called the second
pair part (SPP) (ibid.). Even though the sequences are called adjacency pairs, the
first pair part and the second pair part need not be adjacent (Liddicoat 2007: 106).
As Liddicoat’s third characteristic points out, they are only so in their most basic form.
Sequences can be extended for a number of reasons and by a range of techniques.
“Expansions may occur prior to the articulation of the base FPP (pre-expansion),
between the base FPP and the base SPP (insert expansion) and following the base
SPP (post-expansion)” (Liddicoat 2007: 125). Liddicoat uses the terms ‘base FPP’
and ‘base SPP’ because expansions often take the form of “sequences in their own
right made up of FPPs and SPPs” (ibid.); in other words, adjacency pairs can be
39
inserted into other adjacency pairs as expansions. Since the production of an FPP
requires the production of a particular SPP, expansions are not produced at random.
They serve to “clear the ground for established adjacency pairs” (Slembrouck 2009:
65), to avoid problems with regards to the production of an SPP, or to repair such
problems if they should occur (Liddicoat 2007: 169 - 170). Problems or difficulties
with the production of an SPP often have to do with the notion of preference. The
basic idea is that when a speaker produces an FPP, another speaker can produce
either a preferred second or a dispreferred second. “The concept of preference as it
is used in CA is not intended to refer to the psychological motives of individuals, but
rather to structural features of the design of turns associated with particular activities”
(Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 43 - 44). The following table lists some FPPs and their
respective preferred and dispreferred seconds (table based on Slembrouck 2009:
62):
FPP PREFERRED SPP DISPREFERRED SPP
Request Acceptance Refusal
Offer Acceptance Refusal
Invitation Acceptance Refusal
Assessment Agreement Disagreement
Compliment Acceptance Rejection
Question Expected answer Unexpected answer or non-
answer
Blame Denial Admission
Accusation Denial Admission
Preference is not entirely separate from “individual motivations or
psychological dispositions” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 45), but the decisive motivation
to classify an SPP as preferred or dispreferred is how the turn is designed (ibid.).
“[P]referred actions are characteristically performed straightforwardly and without
delay, while dispreferred actions are delayed, qualified and accounted for” (ibid.).
Hutchby and Wooffitt point out that the organization of preference structures forms an
important part of “the maintenance of social solidarity” (1998: 46); “’dispreferredness’
gives rise to social discord” (Slembrouck 2009: 63). One notable example that
shows the importance of the maintenance of social solidarity is the exception,
described by Pomerantz, to the rule that an agreement is a preferred second to an
assessment. As Pomerantz explained in a 1984 article, “in the case of self-
40
deprecating assessments, a disagreement counts as the preferred second.
Agreement would entail criticism of the other and work against the principle of social
solidarity” (ibid.).
Liddicoat writes that the organization of talk-in-interaction indicates a
“preference for agreement” (2007: 111) and a “preference for contiguity” (ibid.).
Preference for agreement entails that
some types of talk [...] are designed in such a way as to indicate what the expected
next action is likely to be. These types of talk have built into their design an
approximate trajectory for the sequence of which they are a part. This can be seen
very clearly with questions. The question That was a great film, wasn’t it? is designed
in such a way as to project a yes response, while a slightly different design The film
wasn’t very good, was it? projects a no response.
(Liddicoat 2007: 111 - 112)
Preference for contiguity is the phenomenon
that, while question or answer turns can contain other pieces of talk, there is a
preference for FPPs and SPPs [...] to occur immediately next to each other. [...]
[Q]uestions normally occur at the end of their turns, while answers normally occur at
the beginning of the turn.
(Liddicoat 2007: 112)
These are features of talk-in-interaction that Sacks described in an article published
in 1987 (ibid.).
Dispreferred seconds are marked structures, and often interactants undertake
steps to avoid these. “Speakers may initially dress up a dispreferred second as a
preferred one” (Slembrouck 2009: 63); if they do this, however, they will have to re-
orientate later and produce a dispreferred second after all (ibid.). Speakers may also
“[attenuate] [a] dispreferred second [...] to the point of almost vanishing” (Slembrouck
2009: 64).
Adjacency pairs and the notion of preference are important structural features
of any kind of talk-in-interaction. They have become central ideas in CA, and their
pertinence is demonstrated again and again as researchers look at talk.
It has already been mentioned that sequences can be extended in order to
repair problems with regards to the production of an SPP. The idea of repair is
another crucial notion to CA. Hutchby and Wooffitt explain that ‘repair’ is a “generic
term [...] used [...] to cover a wide range of phenomena” (1998: 57). This wide range
41
includes managing overlaps and turn allocation, problems of understanding (where
one or more participants may not even have realized that such a problem has
arisen), and the production of “substantive faults in the contents of what someone
has said” (ibid.). This means that “repair is relevant to all levels of talk from the turn-
taking system to sequence organization and preference” (Liddicoat 2007: 171).
‘Repair’ transcends mere correction, because “not all conversational repair actually
involves any factual error on the speaker’s part” (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson as
quoted by Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 57). That repair covers such a wide range of
occurrences entails that it makes use of a wide range of techniques to solve
problems where they occur. To determine the type of repair at hand, two dimensions
of the repair should be looked at (Slembrouck 2009: 66). One is who invites the
repair, and the other is who produces the repair (ibid.). Repair can be self-initiated or
other-initiated (ibid.). They may be produced by “the speaker of the trouble source”
(Hutchby & Wooffitt 2009: 61), in which case self-repair occurs (ibid.), or by someone
else, in which case other-repair occurs (ibid). The combination of these two
dimensions provides for four different repair types:
- Self-initiated self-repair
- Self-initiated other-repair
- Other-initiated self-repair
- Other-initiated other-repair
(Slembrouck 2009: 66 - 67, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 61, Liddicoat 2007: 173)
These types of repair may be produced at different points in the interaction:
1. First position repair: the repair is produced within the same turn as the trouble source
(same turn repair) or in the transition relevance space following the turn containing
the trouble source (transition space repair).
2. Second position repair: in the turn immediately following the trouble source.
3. Third position repair: in the speaker’s turn after the recipient’s response.
4. Fourth position repair: the trouble source is acknowledged and resolved in the fourth
position.
(Liddicoat 2007: 174, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 64-65)
Same turn repair and transition space repair are by definition forms of self-initiated
self-repair, and third position repair is very likely to be so as well; in conversations
with only two speakers present, this will definitely be the case. Liddicoat notes that
speakers who produce a trouble source thus have three positions at their disposal to
produce self-initiated self-repair, whereas other speakers only have two (2007: 175).
42
He adds that Schegloff et al. (1977) have noticed that even though other-initiated
repair could occur in first position, i.e. by interrupting the speaker, other-initiated
repair “typically occurs in the next turn after the trouble source” (2007: 176). This is
indicative of the preference for self-repair (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 66, Liddicoat
2007: 210, Slembrouck 2009: 66). Other indicators “for the dispreferredness of
other-repair [include] [...] the occurrence of modulation in the case of other-correction
[...] and the specific designs of other-initiation (e.g. often questions which locate the
trouble source [...])” (Slembrouck 2009: 67). Additional evidence for the preference
for self-repair is that the number of instances of self-repair far exceeds that of other-
repair (Liddicoat 2007: 210). This preference means that not all forms of repair are
“interactionally equal options” (ibid.). Note, however, that the preference for self-
repair does not discriminate amongst who initiates repair; other-initiated or self-
initiated, repair is organized interactionally to favour self-repair (ibid.). Other-initiated
repair that is constructed particularly to allow for self-repair, even though the other
could have done the repair just as easily as the producer of the trouble source, have
what Sacks and Schegloff call a “correction invitation format” (Sacks & Schegloff as
quoted by Liddicoat 2007: 211).
The notion of repair is an important element in CA, because it
is a fundamental part of conversation and reveals clearly the nature of conversation as
a self-organizing and self-righting system based on rules which operate and are
managed locally by participants.
(Liddicoat 2007: 211)
It provides a simple mechanism for participants in a conversation “to deal with
troubles as they emerge in talk” (Liddicoat 2007: 212), but while it is simple, it is also
very much organized, and provides solutions for problems in conversation at all
levels (ibid.).
So far, several characteristics of talk-in-interaction have been discussed. It is
also worth looking at how talk-in-interaction originates, i.e. how conversations are
opened, and how it is ended.
What is important in opening conversations is that one interactant gets hold of
at least one other interactant. This may be done by telephoning someone (Liddicoat
2007: 213), by knocking on someone’s door (Liddicoat 2007: 251), by addressing a
passer-by in the street, etc. Usual methods to do so is by producing the adjacency
43
pairs greeting/greeting (Liddicoat 2007: 239) or summons/answer (Liddicoat 2007:
220). It is crucial that the other interactant in some way displays availability, e.g. by
picking up the phone, opening the door or stopping on the street, because if the other
interactant appears unavailable in some way, the one who tries to open a
conversation will cease their attempts and no conversation will be started. Another
important aspect of opening a conversation is recognition (Liddicoat 2007: 252).
Whether or not interactants know each other, they will employ methods to recognize
the other as someone (e.g. “my close friend Ben”) or something (e.g. a Jehovah’s
Witness). These methods may be verbal, such as an introduction, or non-verbal,
such as looking through an open office door to see if the person one wishes to speak
to is in the office (Liddicoat 2007: 251-252). Hence, it can be said that the opening of
conversation is accompanied by “issues of recognition and securing availability”
(Liddicoat 2007: 253). The order of what is dealt with first, recognition or availability,
is not set in face-to-face conversations (ibid.).
Closing a conversation calls for a more complicated management of
interactional resources, because it needs to be done in such a way that social
solidarity is not threatened, and that all participants have had the chance “to talk
about all of the things which need to be dealt with in the conversation” (Liddicoat
2007: 255). This means that not only do speakers need resources to close a
conversation, they also need resources to move out of closure, in case not
everything that needed to be dealt with has been dealt with in the conversation. A
common way to close a conversation is through the production of the adjacency pair
goodbye/goodbye. These are particular “speech tokens which are used to perform
closing” (Liddicoat 2007: 256); they serve the purpose of closing a conversation and
cannot be produced legitimately at any point in a conversation (ibid.). The fact that
conversation is closed through the production of an adjacency pair is significant,
because
[t]he effect of such paired turns in conversational closings is that the first proposes the
end of the conversation and the second accepts this. Closing is achieved with the
production of the second component.
(ibid.)
Goodbye/goodbye is the adjacency pair that achieves closing, but this pair is often
preceded by what Liddicoat calls “pre-closing sequences” (2007: 257). These
sequences are usually short, consisting of single-word turns such as ‘okay’ and
44
‘right’, and are “designed to verify if all relevant mentionables for this conversation
have been mentioned” (ibid.). Adjacency pairs to close conversation and their
preceding pre-closing sequences cannot, as has been mentioned, legitimately be
produced at any point in the conversation. These sequences need to be produced in
so-called closing implicative environments in order to be heard as closing sequences
(Liddicoat 2007: 258-259). The term ‘closing implicative environment’ does not so
much refer to a specific location in conversations as to “sets of actions” (Liddicoat
2007: 259). After these actions, “closing may be a relevant next activity” (ibid.), but
closing is by no means obligatory (ibid.). Closing implicative environments create
places where speakers either introduce new mentionables to the conversation, or
pass up the opportunity to do this, thus effectuating closure (ibid.). Closing
implicative environments include among others the announcing of closure, the
formulating of summaries, and the voicing of appreciations. Announcement of
closure means that a speaker explicitly mentions “closure as a relevant next activity
at some point in the conversation” (ibid.). These announcements may be specific to
a greater or lesser degree and often refer to external circumstances as the cause for
seeking closure (ibid.). The larger part of closures, however, “do[es] not seem to
result from such announcements” (Liddicoat 2007: 261). Formulating summaries, or
formulations, means that speakers “formulate a summarized version of the talk which
characterizes what has been happening in the talk so far” (Garfinkel & Sacks as
quoted by Liddicoat 2007: 262-263). Formulating may fulfil different functions in
conversation; one of them “is to provide a possible conclusion to the topic in
progress” (Liddicoat 2007: 263). Talk has to be complete in some way in order for it
to be formulated, and if the formulation of the preceding talk is accepted by the other
conversationalist(s), “it can be treated as a proposal that the talk under way could be
concluded” (Button as quoted by Liddicoat 2007: 263). Liddicoat writes that in
telephone conversations, appreciations such as “Thanks for calling” make up closing
implicative environments as well (2007: 264). Appreciations are not only closing
implicative environments in telephone conversations, though. Utterances like “Thank
you for your visit” or “It was good to see you again” in face-to-face conversation
equally serve as closing implicative environments.
As the definition of closing implicative environments indicates, closure is not
necessarily achieved after those sequences. Participants in a conversation may also
take steps to move out of closure. The talk that follows moving out of closure may be
45
very short or very long; the moving out-talk may in itself be closing implicative, but if it
is not, more talk needs to be produced in order to establish a new closing implicative
environment (Liddicoat 2007: 267). “It is possible to move out of closing at any point
in a closing sequence” (ibid.), the earliest possibility being “after the first pre-closing
component” (ibid.). As for closing implicative environments, a number of typical
sequences are used to achieve moving out of closing. Topic initial elicitors, in-
conversation objects, solicitudes and appreciations are among those sequences.
Topic initial elicitors are “object[s] [...] designed to generate a new topic” (Button &
Casey as quoted by Liddicoat 2007: 271); they are not the introduction of a new topic
itself. “In-conversation objects are objects which are used to mark the receipt of prior
talk and to provide for the speaker to continue” (Button as quoted by Liddicoat 2007:
272). They are not exclusively produced in closing implicative environments, but
may also be produced at transition relevance places. In case of the latter,
recipients display that they are passing the opportunity to take the full turns at talk that
they might otherwise properly initiate, and thereby exhibit their understanding that a yet
to be completed extended unit of talk is currently in progress and leave the current
speaker free to continue.
(Greatbatch 1988: 411)
Greatbatch calls in-conversation objects “continuers” (ibid.). They are usually short
utterances such as “uhm”, “mhm”, and “yeah” (Greatbatch 1988: 411, Liddicoat 2007:
273). Like topic initial elicitors, continuers display that speakers are available for
further talk without making further talk obligatory (Liddicoat 2007: 273). Solicitudes,
as Liddicoat points out, occur frequently in closings (2007: 274). They achieve
moving out of closure because solicitudes conventionally require next speakers to
respond to them (ibid.). “This response is usually a minimal turn accepting the
solicitude” (ibid.). Closing is usually reinstalled quickly after the acceptance
(Liddicoat 2007: 275). Lastly, appreciations may also function as movements out of
closing. Appreciations may make up closing implicative environments (cf. supra), but
within other closing implicative environments, they may form a short moving out of
closing (Liddicoat 2007: 276). Since this kind of talk is itself closing implicative,
closure will be established shortly after its production (cf. supra). However,
appreciations may also refer to things that have come up earlier in the conversation
instead of to the conversation itself (ibid.). These appreciations are, then, back
46
references2, and “[produce] a moving out of closing, after which the closing must be
re-established” (ibid.).
As the case of appreciations shows, none of the resources mentioned above
are used only in the instances in which they have been discussed here. Each of
them needs to be considered in their context. All of them can fulfil different functions.
A conversation is opened when a participant takes steps to assert the
availability of at least one other participant, and when these participants recognize
each other as being someone or fulfilling a certain social role. Closing conversation
is more difficult because interactants need to consider the maintenance of social
solidarity, and each participant needs to have had the opportunity to say everything
he or she wished to say. Because it is harder to manage closing conversationally,
closing is often announced or implied through the use of particular sequences.
Participants also have a range of resources at their disposal to move out of closing.
When closing is achieved, participants in a conversation very often take their leave
by producing the goodbye/goodbye adjacency pair.
2 A back reference consists of “[m]aterial which has been a previous topic of this conversation […]
[that is] reintroduced” (Liddicoat 2007: 270).
47
2.2 Storytelling
Telling stories is a major resource for participants on Dream Team and Papa Was A
Rolling Stone to make themselves come across as credible, so it is useful to explore
first how storytelling actually works. Telling a story is something that interactants
may want to do at some point in an interaction. The following four propositions are
true for each instance of storytelling:
- Stories are “told in conversation” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 131)
- At least one speaker secures the attention of at least one listener (Ochs & Capps
2001: 114)
- At least one speaker takes an “extended, multi-unit [turn] at talk” (Hutchby & Wooffitt
1998: 131, Liddicoat 2007: 279)
- All interactants display their orientation towards and understanding of the talk-in-
interaction as a story that is being told (Ochs & Capps 2001: 23)
Sacks has observed that a teller, in order to launch a narrative, needs to “align their
co-interactant as a story recipient” (Sacks as quoted by Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998:
134). Because telling a story extends over more TCUs than would be the case in
non-narrative conversation, a teller needs to make sure that he or she will be able to
“[keep] possession of the conversational floor for longer than the basic rules of turn-
taking ordinarily allow” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 134). Very frequently this is done
by a story preface (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 134, Ochs & Capps 2001: 117). These
are similar to pre-closing sequences in that they also announce what conversational
action the speaker is planning to undertake. A story preface usually consists of two
parts, which could be considered a request/acceptance adjacency pair: “a teller
indicates his or her desire to tell a particular story and thus to dominate the floor
across a series of turns” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 117), after which “interlocutors [...]
either permit or do not permit the teller to continue” (ibid.). Hutchby and Wooffitt see
story prefaces as “a three-part structure” (1998: 134), in which a teller produces a
story preface, a recipient produces a request to hear the story, and finally the teller
produces the story (ibid.). Thornborrow (2001a: 119) and Liddicoat (2007: 283) also
make this three-part distinction. Even though Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998: 134)
indicate that the recipient’s request to hear the story may also be a request not to
hear the story, their three-part structure is not the most useful description because if
the recipient does not wish to hear the story, the story will not be told and the third
48
part of the structure is not validated. Ochs and Capps’s division is clearer. Common
story prefaces include “Did you know ...?” and “Guess what?” on the teller’s part,
often followed by “No, what?” or simply “What?” on the recipient’s part. The latter
examples grant the teller the opportunity to tell his or her story.
In connection to this, the notion of ‘launch control’ should be discussed. This
has to do with “the extent to which a person has control over when a narrative about
his or her experience gets launched and by whom” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 125). The
person who is the most knowledgeable about a certain experience is not necessarily
the one who launches the story, not even when he or she is present when someone
else begins to tell that particular story (ibid.). Launch control is linked to power, in
that someone who decides who tells which story when has to be authoritative to
make sure this decision is acted upon, especially when the story is not about him- or
herself. Launch control is discussed in the chapter on power, where it falls under the
broader term ‘topic initiation’.
Once the story is being told, listeners will often produce in-conversation
objects, to display that they are in fact listening and to urge the teller to go on with
narrating. Listeners may also produce a number of other responses to a narrative –
and to other kinds of talk, for that matter – to indicate not only that they heard what
the speaker said and to urge him or her to continue talking, but to express their own
feelings about or positions towards what has just been said. These include “ ’oh’
receipts, which propose a ‘change of state’ of knowledge or information (Heritage as
quoted by Greatbatch 1988: 406), “newsmarks, which, as assertions of ‘ritualised
disbelief’, treat a prior turn’s talk as news” (Jefferson as quoted by Greatbatch 1988:
406), and “assessments of a reported state of affairs” (Pomerantz as quoted by
Greatbatch 1988: 407). Newsmarks may be expected particularly after unexpected
turns in stories.
So far it has been explained what steps interactants need to take in order to
ensure that they can tell a story, and what listeners do to show that they are listening.
Now it is time to look at how the stories themselves are built up, and why people
would want to tell them in the first place. “[N]arratives ...tell about a series of events
which took place at specific unique moments in a unique past time world” (Polanyi as
quoted by Ochs & Capps 2001: 161). Each story, Ochs & Capps write, is located on
49
a continuum between two narrative proclivities (2001: 2, 4, 17). On the one end is
the proclivity that people want to tell a story about reality, about life as they really
experienced it (Ochs & Capps 2001: 4). Unfortunately, however, this reality is often
fragmented and incomprehensible; for instance, several things may be going on at
the same time, one may not be aware of everything that is happening, and if one is
aware of what goes on one may not be able to understand it (ibid.). So even if a
speaker intends to tell a perfectly truthful story, it may be difficult to express exactly
what it was that was going on. The proclivity on the other end of the continuum,
then, is that people want to tell a clear-structured story that has clear temporal
sequencing and causality (ibid.). The term ‘plot’, which stems from literature studies,
is an adequate term here as well (Ochs & Capps 2001: 19). However, as the first
proclivity indicates, “[s]tory is possible without plot” (Leitch as quoted by Ochs &
Capps 2001: 19).
Precisely because of the narrative proclivities, Ochs and Capps decided that
working with five narrative dimensions would be the most useful way to come to
insights about narratives. “Rather than identifying a set of distinctive features that
always characterize narrative, we stipulate dimensions that will be always relevant to
a narrative, even if not elaborately manifest” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 19). Ochs and
Capps have ordered their five dimensions like this:
- Dimensions Possibilities
- Tellership One active teller → Multiple active co-tellers
- Tellability High → Low
- Embeddedness Detached → Embedded
- Linearity Closed temporal and → Open temporal and
causal order causal order
- Moral stance Certain, constant → Uncertain, fluid
(Ochs & Capps 2001: 20)
Tellership, as is clear from the chart above, deals with which and how many speakers
tell a story, and in what way (Ochs & Capps 2001: 24). For instance, typical for
“[n]arratives of personal experience that emerge in formal interviews” (ibid.) is “low
involvement in co-telling” (ibid.). Tellability is “the extent to which [stories] convey a
sequence of reportable events and make a point in a rhetorically effective manner”
(Ochs & Capps 2001: 33). This means that the narrated events may be known or
unknown to the listener(s), and that the listener(s) may be familiar or unfamiliar with
50
the story (i.e. they may have heard the story told before, but it may still be highly
tellable because of the teller’s rhetorical skills) (Ochs & Capps 2001: 34).
Embeddedness has to do with the extent to which a story is linked to previous and
following elements in the conversation. A detached story is “[m]onologic” (lecture
slides Slembrouck 2012), whereas an embedded story is “[d]ialogic” (ibid.).
Embeddedness can also be looked at from thematic and rhetorical perspectives
(Ochs & Capps 2001: 39), and is not a strictly organisational feature. Linked to this is
the observation made by Gail Jefferson that tellers “go to great lengths to make their
stories appear relevant (even when they are not)” (Jefferson as quoted by Ochs &
Capps 2001: 39). Linearity, then, is, as explained above, about the way in which
elements of a story are ordered temporally and causally (lecture slides Slembrouck
2012, Ochs & Capps 2001: 20, 41). Lastly, moral stance is concerned with the moral
judgment that tellers inevitably form of the events they narrate and that is reflected in
how they tell their story (Ochs & Capps 2001: 45). Noticeable here is what Ochs,
Smith and Taylor have called the “’looking good’ principle” (Ochs, Smith & Taylor as
quoted by Ochs & Capps 2001: 47). This principle says that tellers frequently tell
their story in such a way as to make themselves look morally good or superior to the
persons or events in the story (Ochs & Capps 2001: 47). This, of course, ties in with
Goffman’s observation that performers want to present their audience with an
idealized version of themselves (Goffman 1990: 25, 35). A moral stance may be
certain and constant throughout a narrative, but it may also evolve, or be uncertain
(Ochs & Capps 2001: 50).
Earlier, it has been said that stories serve to tell about past events. However,
stories do not merely serve the past, but also the present and the future, and even
unreal events (Ochs & Capps 2001: 182). “[T]he past is often cast as a logical
warrant for tellers’ current and future states and actions” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 183 -
184). Past, present, future and unreal events may all be linked to each other through
storytelling (Ochs & Capps 2001: 199), and they often do so even within one and the
same story, “flow[ing] back and forth from moments remembered, to the unfolding
present, to moments imagined” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 200).
Stories are also told simply for the pleasure of conversation (Goffman and
Lambrou as quoted by lecture slides Slembrouck 2012).
51
Apart from dealing with past, present, future and unreal events and from
enjoying conversation, storytelling is also important for the process of identity
creation. The stories that people choose to tell create identities for themselves and
others to orient to (Bowles 2009: 58). Also, people create identities for other people
by telling a story about them (lecture slides Slembrouck 2012). This has already
been mentioned in the discussion of Goffman; Goffman speaks of “impressions”
(Goffman 1990: xi) that people try to control by staging different “performance[s]”
(Goffman 1990: 15) in different social situations. Of course, performances are not
simply made up of storytelling, but they definitely form an important part of the verbal
aspect of performing. “’[N]arrative is elevated to the very thing which guarantees us
the ability to have a self, at least as something we perceive as unified and whole’”
(Mattingly as quoted by Ochs & Capps 2001: 207). Remember the plot proclivity: by
emplotting one’s life one makes it more whole, temporally and causally linear, and
comprehensible. Mattingly also points out that this emplotment is rarely satisfactory;
narrative is some kind of “’trickster, a rhetorical ploy by which we disguise the
genuine nature of ourselves – as splintered and discontinuous’” (ibid.). This means
that, indeed, storytelling is very much necessary to give people an identity.
Aside from creating an identity, stories are also told to represent an evolution
in someone’s identity. These stories are commonly structured “around a turning
point” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 215). “First I was ..., now I am ...” is the basic structure
of this kind of story, and it once again illustrates the importance of storytelling for
individual identities.
That people use narratives to create identities for themselves also means that
they can create credible identities for themselves in this way. This and other ways in
which people can use talk to create credibility are discussed in the chapter on
credibility.
52
53
3. Broadcast talk
3.1 Broadcast talk
As mentioned earlier, Sacks et al. indicated that all talk-in-interaction may be situated
on a continuum ranging from ‘conversation’ to ‘ceremony’ (1974: 729 – 730).
‘Ceremony’ and all types of talk between ‘ceremony’ and ‘conversation’ are
transformations of the conversational type of talk-in-interaction, for which Sacks et al.
established a list containing fourteen “grossly apparent facts” (1974: 700).
Institutional talk is a kind of talk that has undergone such transformations. In other
words, everyday conversation is seen as the prototype of talk as it is studied by CA,
and institutional talk diverges from this prototype in some way.
As far as CA is concerned, what characterizes interaction as institutional is to do not
with theories of social structure, as in most sociology, but with the special character of
speech exchange systems to which participants can be found to orient themselves.
(Hutchby 2006: 25)
Taking institutional talk into consideration, then, is CA’s way of including broader
situational contexts, which it is often accused of ignoring, into account (Hutchby
2006: 24). In institutional talk, “the full scope of conversational practices” (Hutchby
2006: 25) has been “selectively reduc[ed] or otherwise transform[ed] [...],
concentrating on some and withholding others” (ibid.), and “participants can be seen
to display an orientation to specialized, non-conversational or ‘institutional’ contexts”
(ibid.).
Broadcast talk, or “talk on radio and television” (Hutchby 2006: 18) is a type of
institutional talk, characterized by “three key distinguishing features” (ibid.). These
are:
- Broadcast talk adopts elements of everyday conversation as part of its overarching
communicative ethos;
- Broadcast talk is nevertheless different from ordinary conversation by virtue of being
an institutional form of discourse that exists at the interface between public and
private domains of life (e.g. the studio settings in which the talk is produced and the
domestic settings in which it is received);
54
- Broadcast talk is a specific type of institutional discourse because it is directed at an
‘overhearing’ audience3 separated from the talk’s site of production by space and
also, frequently, by time.
(ibid.)
These three aspects are also outlined by Tolson (2001a: 27). He adds that
broadcast talk “is always oriented to an ‘overhearing audience’ whether or not a
studio audience is present” (Tolson 2001a: 29). According to Goffman’s definitions,
this overhearing audience can be seen as a “weakened addressee” (Slembrouck
2009: 48), or as consisting of “ratified overhearers” (ibid.). Meyerhoff would call the
members of the audience “auditors” (2010: 43). All these labels basically mean to
say that broadcast talk is intended for the audience, but the host and his
guests/interviewees talk to each other and are each other’s primary addressees. The
audience members become “ratified primary addressees” (Slembrouck 2009: 52) as
soon as a show is broadcast. “Television programmes remain incomplete until they
have been broadcast and watched” (ibid.), and for radio programmes it is equally true
that they remain incomplete until they have been broadcast and listened to. Tolson
remarks that because of this, “that talk is always, in a general sense, performed”
(2001a: 29). This last comment is perhaps redundant, as Goffman already pointed
out that interaction is always performed, whether the audience is an overhearing one
or not. Tolson points out, though, that “if that talk is to be performed in ways that are
acceptable to the audience, [...] the production of speech genres must be judged
both in terms of their appropriateness for the immediate context and for the intended
audience” (ibid.). Speech genres include “stories, jokes, sales talk, etc.” (Bakhtin as
quoted by Tolson 2001a: 29).
Broadcast talk is thus a form of institutional talk. In some ways it is similar to
everyday conversation but in other ways it is a transformation of conversation. It is
performed and destined for an overhearing audience.
3 Hutchby takes issue with the term ‘overhearing audience’. He feels that this term makes it appear
too much as if the audience is one unified group that more or less accidentally heard what
broadcasters were saying, rather than a differentiated group of individuals who are actually addressed
by the talk that is broadcast (2006: 14). He therefore proposes to use the term ‘distributed recipients’
instead (ibid.). However, Hutchby later returns to the term ‘overhearing audiences’. As most authors
use this term, this is the one that will be used here as well.
55
3.2 Studio Brussel’s Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone as
kinds of broadcast talk
The talk that is produced on Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone is,
obviously, broadcast talk. Both radio shows share characteristics with radio phone-
ins, talk shows and news interviews.
Turn-taking in news interview, for instance, is characterized by a dichotomy
between interviewer and interviewee. The interviewer, typically a journalist, “seeks to
elicit information [...] for the benefit of a radio or television audience” (Greatbatch
1988: 403). This dichotomy means that in terms of turn-taking organization,
participants may take up one of two interactionally available roles: that of interviewer
(IR), or that of interviewee (IE) (Greatbatch 1988: 404). These are “institutional
identities” (ibid.), and “the incumbents of these roles should confine themselves to
asking questions and providing answers, respectively” (ibid.). So far the news
interview is similar to the talk occurring in Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling
Stone, even though the nature of the information that is elicited is, of course, rather
different. Greatbatch further specifies the news interview as an interaction between
interviewers and interviewees by giving a list of seven “important ramifications for [its]
organisation” (ibid.). These ramifications are:
1. IRs and IEs systematically confine themselves to producing turns that are at least
minimally recognisable as questions and answers, respectively.
2. IRs systematically withhold a range of responses that are routinely produced by
questioners in mundane conversation.
3a. Although IRs regularly produce statement turn components, these are normally issued
prior to the production of questioning turn components.
3b. IEs routinely treat IR’s statement turns as preliminaries to questioning turn
components.
4. The allocation of turns in multiparty interviews is ordinarily managed by IRs.
5. Interviews are overwhelmingly opened by IRs.
6. Interviews are customarily closed by IRs.
7. Departures from the standard question-answer format are frequently attended to as
accountable and are characteristically repaired.
(Greatbatch 1988: 404)
56
As is explained in the following chapters, number one and consequently also number
seven are only partly true for both Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone;
interviewers and interviewees usually confine themselves to producing questions and
answers, but sometimes departures from this format are produced that do not show
explicit accountability. In other words, the confinement that is stipulated in number
one and the accountability and the repair of number seven are present in Dream
Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, but not as systematic, frequent or
characteristic as Greatbatch notices that these elements are in news interviews.
Number two is not true for both Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, and
number four is not true for Papa Was A Rolling Stone. The following chapters
discuss this in greater detail.
What characterizes radio phone-ins is, evidently, that “[p]eople call in to
[these] programmes” (Thornborrow 2001c: 119). Consequentially, “[a] radio phone-in
programme constitutes an occasion for lay participation in a mediated event”
(Thornborrow 2001c: 120 – 121). Even though radio phone-ins are also organized
around questioners and answerers (Thornborrow 2001c: 119), they do not fulfil the
roles of interviewer and interviewee; rather, they are those of host and caller. The
caller is normally the lay participant, calling the programme “to give opinions, to get
advice, and often to ask questions” (ibid.). In the analysis of radio phone-ins and talk
shows, lay participants are contrasted with experts that also may appear on the
show, especially if that show aims to give advice or answer lay participants’
questions. Lay participants are defined as “ordinary members of the public”
(Thornborrow 2001b: 461) and experts as “hav[ing] an institutionally inscribed,
professional area of expertise attributed to them” (ibid.). Lay participants, experts
and (the) host(s) together make up the possible participants of radio phone-ins and
talk shows. However, in the Studio Brussel data, these three different participants
are never present on the same show. More information about this will be provided in
the chapter on power.
Hutchby refers to the roles of questioner and answerer as the interactional first
and second position, and remarks on the asymmetry between these two positions
(2006: 90). The aspect of asymmetry will be returned to in the chapter about power.
Like in the news interview, first and second position are usually taken up by
interactants who continue to interact in first, respectively second position throughout
the largest part of the interaction. In practice, this means that the host manages the
57
show and that the caller only has a limited set of possible actions to undertake in his
or her turns (Thornborrow 2001c: 121). The very beginning of the call, for instance,
already limits the caller’s conversational options: a caller in an everyday telephone
conversation usually has the right to initiate the first topic that will be dealt with in the
conversation, but in radio phone-ins, the host quickly moves into this topic initiator
position (Thornborrow 2001c: 126). Dream Team is not a radio phone-in simply
because listeners do not call in to it. Instead, they fill in a form on Studio Brussel’s
website, and the host makes his selection based on the information that listeners
send in. After this selection, it is the host that calls the listener instead of the other
way around; and even then the call is not as spontaneous as it is in radio phone-ins,
because the call takes place at a prearranged date. Also, “callers” never call to ask
for advice, and there is never a third, expert party in the conversation. However, it is
useful to compare radio phone-ins with Dream Team, because the interactional work
that participants undertake to negotiate first and second positions is very similar.
Also true for Dream Team is that lay participants become part of a mediated event,
managed by the host. Papa Was A Rolling Stone does not involve telephone
conversations and it is therefore not relevant to compare this to the general
characteristics of radio phone-ins.
Lastly, the talk show is a kind of broadcast talk that also draws upon elements
from the news interview (Hutchby 2006: 4). Like talk in radio phone-ins, it sounds
more conversational than news interviews (Hutchby 2006: 27, Thornborrow 2001c:
120), yet it is still clearly institutional (Hutchby 2006: 27). Also like in radio phone-ins,
talk shows give “members of the public [...] the opportunity to speak on issues and
events in their own voices” (Hutchby 2006: 81). These lay participants, as mentioned
above, are contrasted with experts who may also appear on the show, and the host
manages the show. Unlike callers to phone-in programmes, however, lay
participants on talk shows have the advantage of being physically co-present with the
host and possible experts or other lay participants that make an appearance on the
show (Thornborrow 2001b: 462). This is an advantage because it gives the lay
participants more opportunities to shape or change the way in which the talk is set
up, rather than calling up and participating in an ongoing, already established
framework (Hutchby 2006: 100). Also, the sound quality of the speech of physically
co-present lay participants is equal to that of the host and potentially present experts,
instead of inferior as it is in radio phone-ins (ibid.). Why lay participants take part in
58
talk shows is also slightly different from radio phone-ins. Rather than calling in “to
give opinions, to get advice, and often to ask questions” (Thornborrow 2001c: 119),
lay participants take part in talk shows to “present their personal experiences,
construct their positions within a debate, and argue their points of view” (Thornborrow
2001a: 117). In order to achieve this, lay participants produce narratives, “personal
experience narratives [...] from brief anecdotes to personal accounts and reports”
(ibid.). These stories are always “locally produced and designed for the audience of
the moment” (Thornborrow 2001a: 118). As will be explained in the following
chapter, tellers of stories negotiate space to tell their story in a conversation, and
there may be other tellers contributing to different degrees to the telling of the story
(Ochs & Capps 20). In talk shows, the host often functions as some kind of co-teller
(Thornborrow 2001a: 120). The stories that a lay participant tells on a talk show are
already familiar to the host before the actual broadcast, or recording in case the show
is not broadcast live, takes place (ibid.). Lay participants, then, produce stories for
the overhearing audience rather than for their direct, co-present audience. The role
of the host is to secure a narrative slot for the lay participant, and to elicit the telling of
a story to fill that slot “at relevant moments” (ibid.). The narratives that lay
participants produce are thus “elicited narratives” (ibid.). Thornborrow notes that
there are different ways in which a host may move his or her guest to tell a particular
narrative (2001a: 120 – 121). Like an interviewer looking to elicit information from an
interviewee, however, these ways are usually questions or statements that are
understood as questions (Greatbatch 1988: 404, Thornborrow 2001a: 124). The host
may “[take] on the role of narrator” (Thornborrow 2001a: 122) if guests hesitate to
start telling a story (ibid.), but also when guests are telling their stories (ibid.). The
host may also let guests do all or most of the talking (ibid). In other words, the host
can either push lay participants to “[tell] [their] own story” (ibid.) or put him- or herself
in a position of “coproduction of stories” (Thornborrow 2001a: 130). Either way, the
lay participant who produces a “narrativization of lay experience” (Thornborrow
2001a: 136) is given “a public voice” (ibid.), but their experience is also “transform[ed]
[...] into a public performance” (ibid.); “host-elicited stories come to be produced as
performed narratives within their mediated context” (Thornborrow 2001a: 136 – 137).
Both Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone are very similar to the talk show: in
both programmes, the host incites the other participants to tell stories. On Dream
Team, these other participants are very obviously lay participants that have been
59
given a public voice and whose narrativized experiences become a public
performance. The status of the participants on Papa Was A Rolling Stone is more
ambiguous, though. As they are local celebrities that are supposed to be specialists
in music, one would be most likely to attribute them the status of experts. The
introduction at the beginning of each episode certainly puts them in that position;
Thornborrow indicates that “experts [...] are identified according to that status before
they start to talk” (2001b: 462). However, as experts are understood to often “[speak]
in defence of ‘expertise’ or ‘the profession’” (Livingstone & Lunt as quoted by Tolson
2001a: 17), Livingstone and Lunt conclude that “experts speak for others” (ibid.). In
Papa Was A Rolling Stone, what the guests say is not contrasted with what lay
participants say, as there simply are no lay participants present, and the guests do
speak for themselves. Therefore, speaking of the Papa Was A Rolling Stone
participants as experts is not entirely in accordance with the actual situation.
However, as will become clear in the general overview and certainly in the discussion
of credibility on Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the guests often do act and talk like
experts. For that reason it is probably best to consider them ‘experts talking for
themselves’. The guests’ more ambiguous status does not change the fact that the
host still elicits their stories of personal experience, and that the telling of these
stories becomes a public performance.
This chapter has provided a short introduction to institutional talk in general,
and a lengthier one to broadcast talk as a kind of institutional discourse. Dream
Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone are both programmes that share some
characteristics with other kinds of broadcast talk, namely news interviews, radio
phone-in programmes, and talk shows. Some of these aspects have been
discussed, and their relevance for the Studio Brussel shows has been pointed out.
The following chapters will give a general overview of the typical structural
organization of Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Some of the points
made above will be dealt with more specifically and the chapter will give a more
detailed description of the particularities of both shows. In the chapter after that, it
will be discussed how participants in broadcast talk in general and Dream Team and
Papa Was A Rolling Stone in particular can create credible, authentic identities for
themselves. Some of the resources that participants have to do this have already
been mentioned, such as host introduction and the production of personal narratives.
60
61
4. General Overviews
4.1 Dream Team
4.1.1 Context
Every morning on weekdays, Dream Team is a section of Music@Work, a radio
programme on Studio Brussel usually hosted by Christophe Lambrecht. According to
Stubru.be, the point of Dream Team is to have listeners send in a list containing their
five ultimate songs (stubru.be). These listeners may subsequently be called during
the show and asked to explain why these songs are special to them and why they
should be played on the radio. Out of the five songs the listeners send in, three
songs are selected. One of these is played before the phone call and two are played
afterwards.
The listener’s choice to be on the programme is a very conscious one. They
will presumably have heard a few Dream Teams on the radio, and on the basis
thereof they will have decided that they, too, would like to do this. Listeners wanting
to have their Dream Team played on the radio have to fill on a form on the radio
station’s website. Apart from five songs of their choice, listeners are asked (but this
field on the form is not obligatory) to provide some additional personal information
and a motivation of their choice. Furthermore, an email address and of course a
telephone number are required before the list can be sent in. The website does not
guarantee the listener will be called to appear on the show. Above all, Lambrecht
looks for an interesting musical mix (email Lambrecht 2011). Someone who does not
provide any additional information at all may still be called. On the other hand,
someone who writes a very strong motivational letter but does not choose songs that
comply with what the host sees as ‘an interesting musical mix’ is likely not to be
called at all. However, the listeners’ motivations should not be neglected entirely;
sometimes, the show’s host calls people for instance because it is their birthday, as
in the first example, or because they are going to have a baby, as in the second
example.
[1] (from 17/11):
62
Host Pascal (.)
.hh jij hebt een hele goeie reden (.) om (.)
drie platen te kiezen in het Dream Team (.)
vertel
Ca da klopt (.)
→ eu:h mijn vriendin Romy is vandaag verjaard
Host ja
→ Ca en: morgen verjaart euh onze:: zoon
de eerste verjaardag
[2] (from 28/10):
Host ja (.)
.hh goed en je wil muziek (.) of je hebt muziek
gekozen (.) ook
→ m m m ja ’t heeft wat met je zwangerschap te
maken toch leg ‘s uit
Ca ja euh klopt
dus eu::h (.)
in: (.) ik ga bevallen in Sint Jozef in Mortsel
en daar hebt ge in de verloskamer (.) euhm
(0.9) een eu:h (.) ja een cd-speler dus je mag
eigenlijk zelf muziek meebrengen
If it is decided that a listener’s Dream Team will be played on the radio, that person is
first called by the host. They then have the chance to confirm or to cancel, and host
and listener agree on a date and a time. Listeners take the initiative to be on the
show, but if they change their mind about making a radio appearance, they can still
pull out. Not one interviewee on Dream Team is there because of a sudden impulse
to call the radio and give them a piece of their mind.
During that second call, the host, who is in the radio studio, asks questions to
a listener, who is on the phone and may be anywhere. The Dream Team framework
63
is thus that of a radio interview4, with the host asking a lay participant, who is on the
phone, questions about his or her song selection. As mentioned in the chapter on
broadcast talk, the talk that is produced in these frameworks talk “is always oriented
to an ‘overhearing audience’” (Tolson 2001a: 29). What follows here is a general
overview of how the conversations in the Dream Team frameworks are typically
organized with recurrent elements.
4.1.2 The show’s course
A first observation about the Dream Team conversations is that they all follow a
certain pattern. The entire Dream Team follows this pattern:
Song 1
Dream Team jingle
Conversation opening
Discussion of song 1
Discussion of song 2
Discussion of song 3
Closing
Dream Team jingle
Song 2
Song 3
(Host comments)
The conversations themselves are set up like this:
Opening Greeting/greeting
(host/interviewee)
Discussion of song 1 Question/expected answer and/or
assessment/agreement
(host/interviewee)
4 See the chapter on broadcast talk for a discussion of Dream Team as a radio programme that shares
characteristics with the news interview, the talk show and the radio phone-in.
64
Discussion of song 2 Question/expected answer and/or
assessment/agreement
(host/interviewee)
Discussion of song 3 Question/expected answer and/or
assessment/agreement
(host/interviewee)
Closing Host announces songs 2 and 3
Thanks/thanks and/or
greeting/greeting
(host/interviewee and/or
interviewee/host)
As appears from the first diagram, the conversations are always preceded and
concluded by the Dream Team jingle. After the jingle, the host always takes the first
turn in the conversation. He5 greets his interviewee and is greeted by them in return.
After this reciprocal greeting, the host may introduce the interviewee or allow the
interviewee to introduce themselves at length (extract [3]), or hardly at all (extract [4]).
[3] (from 25/10):
Host Thomas De Smet
Thomas goeiemorge
Ca goeiemorgen
Host Thomas je bent werkstudent?
Ca ja hh
Host dat betekent dat je de twee combineert?
Ca euh (.) ja da probeer ik toch
Host wat doe je dan precies?
Ca euhm ik volg een::
5 The host is mostly referred to as ‘he’ in this text, because as mentioned, Christophe Lambrecht is
usually the host of the show. He is sometimes replaced by a female host, Leen De Ridder, who is his
‘sidekick’ on regular days and whose on air activity is usually limited to reading the traffic reports. The
host will only be referred to as ‘she’ in the discussion of particular instances in which Leen De Ridder
is the host.
65
ik volg Europese studies aan d’ unief van Gent
Host [ja
Ca [en ik werk tegelijk euhm: ben ik ook leerkracht
(.) in een middelbare school
Host aah ok
welke vakken geef je?
Ca euh alleen maar economie
Host ja
en euh studenten van hoe of of euh leerlingen
hoe oud zijn ze ongeveer?
Ca euhm tussen vijftien en achttien
Host en dat valt mee?
Ca .hh ja da valt mee [joa de een dag al meer dan
de ander natuurlijk
Host [hehehehehe
ja ‘t zal wel [‘t zal wel .hh
Ca [maar (.) over ‘t algemeen wel
Host ja
goed Queen en David Bowie Thomas
In this example, the host and the interviewee exchange greetings. Then, the host
starts asking questions about the interviewee’s professional background. In replying
to the host’s questions, the interviewee provides a relatively elaborate introduction of
himself, focusing on his professional activities. It takes some time before the host
begins the discussion of song one.
[4] (from 07/11):
Host Hans Strackx
Hans goeiemorgen
Ca (1.1) goeiemorgen Christophe
→ Host Hans (.) The Smiths (0.5) een [classic
Ca [ja
Host How Soon Is Now
.hhh euhm waarom dat nummer
66
en waarom The Smiths Hans
In this fragment, nothing is said about the interviewee’s background, unlike in the
previous fragment. After the reciprocal greetings, the host initiates the discussion of
the first song straightaway.
In case of a lengthy introduction, this may or may not be relevant to the discussion of
the interviewee’s choice of music. After the greeting or the introduction, the host
starts asking questions about the interviewee’s choice (cf. supra example [4]). These
questions may be formulated as actual questions or as statements (assessments).
The interviewee usually responds to the questions and assessments with a preferred
second: an affirmative or at least expected answer (extract [5]), an agreement
(extracts [6] and [7]).
[5] (from 20/10):
Host het was een leuk feest (.) na Nick Cave?
→ Ca het was een (.) super leuk [feest ja
[6] (from 26/10):
Host hehhh hja want het zijn
je zegt het zelf
euh een Belgische openingsdans maar ‘t zijn
sowieso ook allemaal Belgische platen
[in je Dream Team
→ Ca [ja klopt ja ja
[7] (from 07/11):
Host [euhm
ja (.)
maar een scheet in een fles is achteraf gebleken
he
(.) toch
67
→ Ca inderdaad
In his questions or statements, the host usually mentions the full title of the selected
song, as well as the artist’s name. This is for the interviewee’s sake as much as the
audience’s, because the interviewee does not know which of their songs have been
chosen to be played. The question/answer or statement/agreement-pattern can be
purposely suspended when the host directs himself at the overhearing audience
(general orientation, extract [8]) or very specifically at the interviewee (extract [9]), or
when the interviewee oversteps the boundaries of their narrative turn (extract [10]).
Usually these suspensions are short and both host and interviewee return to the
interview pattern without much trouble.
[8] (from 20/10):
Host =heb je ‘m ooit live gezien?
Ca (1.7) eu::hm da denk ik ni
Host nee
Ca nee
→ Host vraag mij ineens ook af of ‘ie ooit in België is
geweest
→ als mensen dat weten laat het [effe
Ca [ja
→ Host (.) weten
→ Ca ik heb er geen idee van
Host ja ja stuur ‘s effe (.) een berichtje
→ ma ‘t is goeie muziek he ‘t blijft
‘t is tijdloos en het blijft overeind
The host asks the interviewee if she has ever seen Elvis Presley live. When she
replies that she has not, the interviewee wonders if Presley has ever performed in
Belgium. He subsequently directs himself at the overhearing audience and asks if
anyone knows the answer, thereby suspending the interview pattern. Note that the
interviewee does provide an answer, even though she is not personally addressed
here. The host restores the interview pattern when he produces an assessment that
68
is clearly addressed at the interviewee. The suspension was short and the host
ended it without any difficulty.
[9] (from 28/10):
Host ja (.)
.hh goed en je wil muziek (.) of je hebt muziek
gekozen (.) ook
m m m ja ’t heeft wat met je zwangerschap te
maken toch leg ‘s uit
Ca ja euh klopt
dus eu::h (.)
in: (.) ik ga bevallen in Sint Jozef in Mortsel
en daar hebt ge in de verloskamer (.) euhm
(0.9) een eu:h (.) ja een cd-speler dus je mag
eigenlijk zelf muziek meebrengen
Host hmhm
Ca .hh en euhm (.) daarom was ik dus beginnen
nadenken welke muziek ik graag wou (.) euh
laten spelen
omda da toch wel een heel belangrijk moment is
[maar
Host [hm
Ca ni alleen da
dus (.) euh blijkbaar heeft muziek voor de
geboorte ook een heel .hh goeie invloed op u
kind hh
dus euh dan ben ik ook beginne nadenke van::
misschien kan ik al wa cds op voorhand maken
die ik dan ook al in de auto of thuis ne keer
kan afspele hh
[( )
→ Host [en weet je dat dat echt werkt (.) Kathleen?
→ ik [kan d’r over meespreken
69
Ca [euh nee da [weet ik ni zeker
Host [ja echt wel (.) [echt wel
Ca [JA?
Host er was een cd’tje (.) euh toen mijn eerste
dochter is geboren
een cd’tje dat we daarvoor (.) dus tijdens de
zwangerschap hebben afgespeeld
en als ze onrustig was (.) toen het kindje er
was he
Ca ja ja=
Host =hielp dat
echt waar
Ca [ah (.) allez hhh
[…]
→ Host .hh dus daarom bijvoorbeeld ook Nick Cave (.) en
the Bad Seeds (.)
In this example, the interviewee provides a long story about her selected songs. She
is soon to be a mother and has heard that playing music to an unborn child will in
some way benefit the child, and she explains that she plans to have music playing in
the delivery room as well. This story is provided in reply to the host’s question and
serves to legitimize the interviewee’s song selection. It is directed to the host and to
the overhearing audience. The host then suspends the interview system: he
personally addresses the interviewee, and instead of asking the next question, he
provides a story himself. The radio interview temporarily sounds more like a very
personal private conversation between two friends. Shortly after suspending the
interview pattern, the host restores it by initiating talk on a new topic, the next
selected song.
[10] (from 09/11):
Ca een euh voorstelling van euh een boek (.)
euh met betrekking tot het euh bestaan van
het negenhonderdjarig euh Heule
Host ja
70
Ca en euh ook euh (.) een: eh Highland games (.)
in de namiddag
→ Host ok=
Ca =dus waarin de verenigingen euh (.) elkaar
bekampen
→ Host ok ik wens jullie veel plezier (.)
dit [weekend in Heule
Ca [bedankt
→ Host en [nu nog Fun Loving Criminals en Billy Joel
In this example, the interviewee has just recounted how he used to dance to certain
songs at parties in his village. He suspends the statement/agreement pattern when
he sees an opportunity to promote festivities which will take place in his village that
weekend. He oversteps his turn space in doing so, because according to his role as
an interviewee, he is expected to answer questions. Initiating new topics is expected
to be the interviewer’s, i.e. the host’s, task. In this case, the host allows the
interviewee to speak for a short moment, but then takes steps to return to the
interview pattern. This can be seen in the indicated turns: the host makes a first
attempt to close this topic by saying “ok”, which according to Liddicoat is an often
used pre-closing first pair part (2007: 257 - 258). The interviewee, however, moves
out of closing by speaking right after the host’s “ok” (Liddicoat 2007: 266). The host
attempts for a second time to close this topic and produces another “ok”, announcing
closure again. This “ok” is followed by a solicitude (Liddicoat 2007: 274). Liddicoat
indicates that a solicitude is a typical utterance to move out of closure, but he also
writes that the next speaker can be expected to produce “a minimal turn accepting
the solicitude” (ibid.). The host anticipates that the interviewee will indeed produce
such an utterance, which he does: “Bedankt”. This ensures that the interviewee will
no longer be able to speak of the festivities in his village, and so closure is achieved.
The last turn shows that the host has managed to return to the interview pattern.
Interviewee-initiated suspensions such as the above are very rare, and in
these cases, the host gives the interviewee some form of permission to temporarily
break the pattern:
[12] (from 09/11):
71
Ca wij vieren het negenhonderdjarige bestaan van
onze gemeente
Host ok (.)
en wat gebeurt er allemaal (.)
kort (.) Pieter
The host, on the other hand, never asks his interviewees for permission( cf. extract
[8]). Suspensions may also be accidental, in which case the host addresses the
breakdown of the pattern and restores order (extract [12]).
[12] (from 07/11):
→ Ca [((geblaat))
Host ja (.) ja (.)
→ wat hoor ik?
Ca eu:h ’n berichtje (.)
m’n ontvangstgeluid
Host ahh hahaha[haha
Ca [iemand die waarschijnlijk mij (.)
mij hoort op de radio (.)
[en ja
Host [hhhja
(.) hahahjah (.)
leuke ringtone is dat
da’s een euh e- een geitje (1.0)
eh?
Ca ah eh mm da kan mm
da kan (.)
[‘k weet ’t niet
Host [ja
haja kee
→ [.hhh goed
Ca [ ( )
72
Host we luisteren naar nog naar Joy Division en euh
Oasis
Interviewees mostly, but not always, legitimize their song choices by witnessing
(Hutchby 2006: 83). “’[W]itnessing’ moves” (ibid.) are moves by which interviewees
“[make] claims to personal knowledge, personal experience, direct perceptual
access, or categorical membership in respect of an event or topic under discussion”
(ibid.) and which allows them to “justif[y] [...] claim[s] to authentic speakership” (ibid.).
This is more elaborately discussed in the chapter on credibility. The interviewees’
choices depend for a great deal on memories related to or some kind of emotional
significance of that particular music. The interviewees provide a story in which this
emotional significance is related and their choice is explained in greater detail. The
host usually does not tell the story himself, even though he knows at least part of it
already. He restricts himself to prompting the interviewees to tell their stories (extract
[13]), acting as a “story elicitor” (Thornborrow 2001a: 132). The host may provide
part of the story, after which the interviewee will ratify the host’s input and continue
the story. Mostly, the interviewees understand when they are being prompted to tell
something, and that they should keep talking for a while even though the host does
not encourage them further. That interviewees understand this is because of Grice’s
cooperative principle, that consists of four conversational maxims; that of quantity is
the maxim that deals with expectations about how much, and thus for how long,
someone should speak (Tolson 2001a: 29, Jeffries & McIntyre 2010: 105)6. Also,
Hutchby notes that “unplanned lapses in the stream of broadcast sound” (2006: 3)
are very “noticeable” (ibid.), and broadcasters usually do anything to prevent
prolonged silences. It is therefore not surprising that when interviewees talk too
much or too little, the host steps in (extract [14]).
6 The maxim of quantity actually states that participants’ contributions should be “as informative as is
required (for the current purpose of the exchange)” (Jeffries & McIntyre 2010: 105) and “not […] more
informative than is required” (ibid.). They point out that it is typical for interviewees to not “observe the
maxim of quantity, since one of the aims of this particular activity type is to convey as much
information about oneself as possible” (Jeffries & McIntyre 2010: 109). However, as this is the aim of
an interviewee, it could be said that interviewees do observe the maxim of quantity; they make their
contribution as informative as is required for the interview situation.
73
[13] (from 28/10):
Host hoe gaat het met jou Kathleen
Ca ja goed (.) heel goed (.) danku
Host want (.)
→ zeg het zelf maar [Kathleen
[14] (from 08/11):
Host ja
.hh Foo Fighters kies je ook
→ (1.2) met Wheels
→ Ca (1.3) ja
Host waarom (.) Koen?
This is an example of an interviewee who talks too little. When the interviewee does
not respond immediately to the host’s statement about choosing a Foo Fighters song,
the host goes on to name the song. Even then it takes a long time before the
interviewee replies, and when he does, his answer is so short that the host has to
ask another question to get him to talk.
During the conversation, responsive turns (Greatbatch 1988: 406) are
produced by the host. Because usually some of the information that the interviewee
provides is new to the host (as all the information is to the audience), the host uses
responsive turns to (re)mark (upon) this and to keep the conversation going.
However, the production of responsive turns is restricted mostly to the introduction.
Continuers (Greatbatch 1998: 411) are also produced by the host, but sometimes
ambiguously. During the actual discussion of the songs, what could be described as
continuers or responsive turns in everyday conversation are used by the host to
facilitate the transition to the next phase (next question, next song or closing). The
form that is used most often to accomplish this is “ja”.
[15] (from 03/11):
74
Ca maar op een gegeven moment vielen er zo’n
hagelbollen op de apparatuur
(0.8) ze moesten gewoon weggaan
→ Host ja (.)
.hh en euh ja verder is de de:: (.)
te zeggen de rode draad doorheen jouw Dream
Team vandaag
The host leads the conversation towards its closing by announcing songs two and
three. He often does this indirectly, and may do so in a variety of ways, as can be
seen in extracts [16] and [17]. The conversation is typically ended with a form of
thanks and/or goodbye coming from the host, the interviewee or both (cf. examples
[16] and [17]). The Dream Team jingle, which often starts while interviewees are still
voicing their goodbyes (cf. example [16]), makes the ending of the conversation
explicit and irrevocable.
[16] (from 25/10):
Host ok perfect
ik wens je ‘n fijne dag
→ maar geniet eerst nog maar van Adele en The
Human League
Ca ok ( ) bedankt [( )
Host [dag Tho[mas
Ca [daag
Host tot ziens
→ Ca [( )
→ Jingle [het Dream Team
Studio Brussel
The host announces closure (Liddicoat 2007: 259) by wishing the interviewee a
pleasant day, and by telling them to enjoy the remaining two songs of their selection.
The latter simultaneously serves as an announcement of songs two and three. The
final jingle is started when the interviewee is still speaking. He probably wants to
75
complete the second greeting/greeting adjacency pair, but the beginning of the jingle
drowns out his speech and the conversation is ended.
[17] (from 07/11):
Host we luisteren naar nog naar Joy Division en euh
Oasis Hans
[bedankt voor je:: (.) straffe keuzes
Ca [( )
Host [en tot binnenkort
Ca [ok
Host [dag Hans
Ca [( ) dag Christophe
[bedankt
Host [bye=
Jingle =het Dream Team
Studio Brussel
Closure is not announced as explicitly in this example as in the previous one. Songs
two and three are announced in the form of a first person plural imperative. It only
becomes apparent afterwards that the conversation is moving towards closure, when
the host thanks his interviewee for his selection and tells him “see you soon”. The
greeting/greeting adjacency pair is produced and the interviewee thanks the host. In
this example, the jingle is not started while the interviewee is still speaking, but
immediately after the host’s final goodbye. The jingle again solidifies the end of the
conversation.
After the jingle songs 2 and 3 are played, song 2 straight after song 3, and
when song 3 is finished the host may give some final comments on the recently
played songs and the preceding Dream Team conversation. These comments will
not be taken into consideration here, because they are no part of the actual
conversations.7
7 They can be categorized as utterances following songs, which are often produced by radio hosts to
clarify (again) for the audience which song was just played. There is a wide variation among these
utterances because hosts want to avoid repetitiveness.
76
4.2 Papa Was A Rolling Stone
4.2.1 Context
Papa Was A Rolling Stone is a radio programme aired on Studio Brussel. Ten
episodes were broadcast in the autumn of 2011, on Sunday afternoons between
twelve and one o’clock. Because of technical issues, however, only nine episodes
are taken into consideration here. The show’s first season was hosted by Otto-Jan
Ham. Currently, no new episodes are being broadcast. All episodes are Dutch-
spoken except for that with Gabriel Rios and his father Raúl. Raúl is Puerto Rican
and does not speak Dutch.
The design of the show is to have two guests, a father and his child, talk about
their taste in music and how they influenced each other in this. The Papa Was A
Rolling Stone is, like that of Dream Team, a radio interview8, with the host asking two
physically co-present guests questions. At least one of these two guests is a local
celebrity (a so-called ‘Bekende Vlaming’) and will have (had) something to do with
music during their career. This will be mentioned during the show, but the
conversation will usually not focus on the guests’ (musical) merits, even when they
are musicians themselves. Who appears on the show is probably selected by Otto-
Jan Ham and the radio channel’s crew9. Guests make a conscious decision to be on
8 See the chapter on broadcast talk for a discussion of Papa Was A Rolling Stone as a radio
programme that shares characteristics with the news interview and the talk show.
9 Why certain guests are selected is never explicitly mentioned on the show. However, since all guest
pairs include at least one person who is in some way professionally involved in music, this is likely an
important criterium. That more than one person (the host) deals with selecting and researching the
guests became clear when the host spoke about “we” when talking to Guy and Lee Swinnen:
(from Guy & Lee Swinnen)
Host ik zat ik zat te denken van euh
Guy Brian Eno
Host ja inderdaad en dan Mick daar kunnen w’ook wel euh genoeg
M- eh bekende Micks
→ en dan vroegen wij .hh ons af welke welke naar welke Lee
je zou vernoemd zijn
In “en dan vroegen wij ons af naar welke Lee je zou vernoemd zijn”, it is obvious that this ‘we’ does
not refer to the host and his guests. From this it can be inferred that the host and at least one other
person have researched their guests before they came to the studio.
77
the radio, because even though it is not clear if the process they have gone through
before making their radio appearance is similar to the one preceding Dream Team
appearances, they have to be physically present in the radio studio. The broadcast
appears to be live, because both the host and his guests frequently show that they
are aware of the setting of their conversation: a Sunday afternoon radio programme
on Studio Brussel.
[1] (from Bart & Nona Peeters):
Host Karma Police (.) van Radiohead (.)
voor Bart Peeters
Bart jij ook f:: van harte euh welkom hier in de
studio
Bart dag Otto-Jan
→ Host prachtige zondag (.)
References made by both host and guests to conversations they had before the
show started reinforce this impression.
[2] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen):
Guy da moet in dezelfde periode geweest zijn (.)
→ eu:::h w’ ‘ebben d’r daarstraks euh as- toen we
naar hier reden nog efkes over gebabbeld
.hh dat was euh we zijn naar de Rolling Stones
gaan kijken in Werchter (.)
Nonetheless, there may be a gap between the time of production and the time of
broadcast of the show. The show may be recorded beforehand in its entirety, or its
broadcast may be delayed a little to enable minor editing.
The tone of the show is overwhelmingly light and humorous.
Which music is played on the show seems to be decided through a complex
system of selection. The general idea is that father and child choose songs they can
link to a shared history. These (hi)stories are elicited by the host, who asks
78
questions. These questions are more or less the same on each show, and are asked
in more or less the same order. The host always first asks his younger guest which
song is a particular favourite of his or her father. He then usually asks which songs
or artists the ‘child guest’ has come to love as a result of the father’s influence, and
vice versa. The host wants to know if father and child have been to many concerts
together, and if so, what their opinions about these concerts were. When the guests
are musicians they are also asked if they ever performed together. The host also
asks if there are any songs or artists which the ‘father guest’ likes very much but his
child does not, and vice versa. The show comes to an end when the host asks his
guests which song they are both very fond of. In total, nine songs are played on the
show. The process of song selection is not simply one of ‘guests who are asked
questions and choose songs’, though. The host and his guests discuss some of the
questions that will come up during the show already before the show begins, as
extract [3] shows.
[3] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen):
Host hehehe hh hh
( ) je ver- je vertelde dat je euh
→ of tenminste (.) van tevoren had je gezegd dat
je euh vooral (.) vroeger thuis met de
koptelefoon naar muziek luisterde
Most of the songs that will be played are also decided on during the preliminary
conversation, but not all. At least part of the show’s playlist is thus set before the
show starts; guests do select songs in reply to the host’s questions, but this selection
is not made during the show. It also frequently occurs that guests have chosen a
certain artist in reply to the host’s questions (and they may have done so already
before the show’s start), but not a particular song.
[4] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe):
Host we sluiten deze (.) euh (.) gezellige
zondagmiddag graag af met een nummer .hh dat
79
jullie alle twee heel erg goed (.) euh vinden
(.)
→ vlak voor de uitzending hebben jullie geweldig
lang zitte:: nadenken want (.)
want er zijn zo veel dingen euh die jullie euh
wouden horen [eigenlijk
Luc [ja
[…]
Host .hhh maar uiteindelijk kwamen jullie terecht bij
→ Adam Green
→ ik vond dat een heel [goeie keuze
From this excerpt, it becomes apparent that the guests have discussed their song
choice during the preliminary conversation: “vlak voor de uitzending”. As the second
arrow indicates, they finally selected a certain artist, Adam Green. Since the host
does not mention a song title in this turn or in the one that follows, the guests have
apparently not selected any song in particular.
In these cases, the host may ask his guests during the show which song they
would like to hear, or he may select a song himself. When the show has already
started, guests can still debate which songs or artists they would like to hear later on
as well. When the actual question is asked, though, the guests have always already
decided at least which artist to select (cf. example [2]). They are never speechless or
unsure. The guests are able to prepare themselves better than Dream Team
interviewees: they know for sure that if they request a song it will be played, and they
know what kind of questions will be asked.
4.2.2 The show’s course
The show’s length, the greater number of questions asked, the fact that there are two
interviewees instead of one and the greater liberty they are allowed to take with their
responses makes it harder to recognize an obvious, fixed pattern in the construction
of Papa Was A Rolling Stone. The interactional pattern is more conversational than
the one in Dream Team. Because at least one of the guests on Papa Was A Rolling
Stone is a celebrity, he or she will have been interviewed several times before. He or
80
she may be expected to take charge of the interview to a certain degree in a way that
the Dream Team interviewees never could or would.
The first diagram below represents the general proceedings of the
programme, while the second provides further information about the show’s turn-
taking system. The middle part of the show (songs 2-8 and the discussions about
them) differs too greatly during each conversation to be able to specify this any
further. Possible scenarios for this part are represented in diagrams 1 - 3 in the text
below.
Papa Was A Rolling Stone jingle
Introduction by Aris Ham
Opening
Song 1
Opening (continued)
Songs 2 – 8 and discussions
Closing
Song 9
Opening Greeting/greeting (host/guest1)
Host may announce song 1
Song 1
Opening (continued) Greeting/greeting (host/guest2)
Songs 2 - 8 and discussions Question/answer/answer
Question1/answer1/question1/answer2
Assessment/(dis)agreement
Assessment/differentiated agreement
...
(host/guest1/(host)/guest2)
(see other diagrams)
Closing Host announces song 9
No greeting/greeting
No thanks/thanks
Song 9
81
The show always starts with the ‘Papa Was A Rolling Stone’-jingle, followed by an
introduction by Aris Ham. He is Otto-Jan’s father and explains who will be on the
show, provides some background information on each of the guests, and then shortly
explains the show’s central theme. After this introduction, the host is the first one to
speak. He addresses his ‘child guest’ first: he welcomes them to the show and asks
them which song, according to them, their father would like to hear. The guest
replies and this song is subsequently played. The host may or may not have
repeated the song’s title and/or executing artist by way of announcing the song. The
‘father guest’ is addressed once this first song has finished playing. He exchanges
greetings with the host.
[5] (from Bart & Nona Peeters):
→ Host Nona Peeters van harte welkom in de studio
laten we de de de:: deze uitzending beginnen
met een ode aan je vader
een plaat die hij erg graag (.) zal horen
wat zal het zijn
Nona euh Karma Police van Radiohead (.)
please
Host [perfecte keuze
→ [((Karma Police))
Host Karma Police (.) van Radiohead (.)
voor Bart Peeters
→ Bart jij ook f:: van harte euh welkom hier in de
studio
→ Bart dag Otto-Jan
The host first welcomes Nona Peeters, daughter of Bart Peeters, to the show. He
requests her to select a song that will please her father, and she obliges. After
Karma Police has been played, the host welcomes Bart to the show as well. Bart
greets the host in return.
The host then asks him if it is true that he likes this song, and why this is so.
This begins the bulk of the show, in which questions, answers, songs and
discussions follow one another. The discussion of a song occurs sometimes before,
82
sometimes after the song is played. Since there are two guests, the adjacency pair
of question/answer rarely occurs, as is apparent from diagram 1. A question
(host)/answer (guest 1)/answer (guest 2) sequence occurs sometimes. However, the
host can still direct his question to only one of the two guests. This often results in a
question1/answer1/question1/answer2 sequence, in which the host asks a guest a
question and gets a reply, then repeats the question and gets a reply from the other
guest. It is also worth noting that in Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the answer that the
host gets is less often an expected
answer than it is in Dream Team. The
host knows much of what his guests
will say beforehand, because they have
prepared the show together to a certain
extent beforehand. The actual show is
never just a repetition of what has
already been discussed, though. New
information is also provided by the
guests, and the host has the time to ask questions to which he does not know the
answer already as well. There is room for disagreement with the host’s statements,
or for differentiation; instead of “yes” or “no”, the guests can take their time to reply
with answers such as “Yes, but ...” and “No! However, ...”. Negative or unexpected
replies (dispreferred seconds)
often require a longer
elaboration than positive ones.
Since there is enough time for
this on Papa Was A Rolling
Stone, guests can give a
differentiated reply. This means
that pairings such as
assessment/disagreement,
assessment/differentiated
agreement and
question/unexpected answer
can occur. Because it is a
Diagram 1
Diagram 2
83
three-way conversation, however, the enacted sequences will often not be restricted
to two-turn pairings. Larger sequences in which the host and both his guests are
involved occur as well. As diagrams 2 and 3 show, the host’s questions and
assessments can be followed by a number of responses on the guests’ part: guest 1
may agree with the host’s assessment while guest 2 disagrees, guest 1 may
disagree while guest 2 partly agrees, guest 1 may produce an answer to a question
but guest 2 disagrees with this answer, ... This is illustrated in example [6].
[6] (from Bart & Nona Peeters):
Host inclusief de hotpants (.) dan ook (.)
[heb je die de:: ook euh
→ Bart [nee (.) nee
Host [ah nee dat niet
→ Bart [want ik ben (.) een (.) zwarte R’n’B zangeres
in het diepst van mijn gedachten en dromen
Host ja
Bart maar ik ben niet zo’n Guido Belcanto die zich
dan ook nog per se zo moet gaan [uitdossen
Host [met hoge
hakken (.) en
Bart neu::h neuh neuh
→ Nona spijtig eigenlijk
In this fragment, the guest replies negatively to the host’s question. Admittedly, this
question was asked in a joking manner, and the host probably did not expect his
interviewee to reply with an affirmative. However, the guest then goes on to explain
why his answer is “no”. After repeatedly asserting that he does not dress up as a
Diagram 3
84
black R’n’B singer, the daughter confirms that her father does not do this. She
expresses her regrets about this without being asked or told anything by the host.
Guests are not only given the chance to give longer and more differentiated
replies by the host, but they also have relatively more liberty as far as turn-allocation
is concerned. Guests can self-select as the next speaker, regardless of whether or
not they are the current speaker. A guest may also select the other guest as the next
speaker, as happens in extract [7]. The host, who asks his guests questions and
may therefore be expected to occupy the securest position to select the next
speaker, is not the exclusive holder of turn-allocation power. When the host does
select the next speaker he does so both explicitly and implicitly. To select explicitly
means that he addresses the next speaker by their name; to select implicitly means
that the host does not name anyone in particular, but that it is clear from the context
which guest is addressed.
[7] (from Jan & Ella Leyers):
Jan ze zat toen in Amerika net (.)
in in New York (.) eu::h (.)
en haar roommate
→ maar ze kan het misschien beter zelf vertellen
Ella Catherine (.)
Host hehehe
Ella ehehehe (.)
uit Nashville, Tennessee
oh my god yeah u::hm (0.6)
she went to school with them
The current speaker, Jan, starts to provide a narrative. Since he has not been part of
the experience he is narrating, he feels that his daughter should continue the
narrative. The narrative is about a situation she has experienced first-hand. Jan, a
guest and the current speaker, selects his daughter, the other guest, as the next
speaker.
85
There is a lot of overlapping speech. Interruptions also occur. These
interruptions may, but do not always lead to a departure from the interview turn-
taking system.
The interview system may be temporarily suspended, for instance when
guests take over the role of the interviewer or make general announcements (cf.
infra). These suspensions are not breakdowns. They are short and usually
permitted by the host. The return to the interview pattern is host-initiated, as it is in
extract [8].
[8] (from Bart & Nona Peeters):
Bart ge moet dit nummer (.)
That Look You Give That Guy (.)
opzoeken op YouTube (.)
en dan vooral (.)
die (.) die clip die hij heeft gemaakt met die
Indiase (.) euh actrice
→ weet jij dat?
Host nee die heb ik niet
[dat is nieuw
Bart [sjongejongejonge
[…]
.hhh en dat is echt grappig ( )
wete ook omdat dien Eels dus echt ongelooflijk
grappig is
→ Host hij is heel grappig
hij komt ook heel cool over op een podium
met zijn zonnebril en ‘et
[‘et ziet er ook heel erg (.) heel erg (.)
mooi uit allemaal he
Bart [hhh hahahaha
Nona [hehehehe
Host en hij houdt er denk ik ook vaak van om
86
om de mensen ’n beetje op een verkeerd been te
zetten
mensen verwachten altijd .hh een andere show
dan dat ze gaan krijgen bij Eels
→ heb je z’ al ’s live gezien?
In this example, Bart, a guest, starts talking about a video clip. The turn-taking
system is temporarily suspended as the guest is no longer responding to a question
asked by the host. Instead he is suddenly the one asking the host questions, and the
host becomes the interviewee. The host effectuates a return to the original system
by responding elaborately to the guest’s second question and affirming that he does
indeed know something about this particular artist, and then asking the next question.
The guests’ song selection is explained and authorized through witnessing
(Hutchby 2006: 83). On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, father and child witness about
how the father influenced his child with regards to musical taste and vice versa. The
guests have a relatively large amount of time to provide personal stories. They can
focus on the witnessing, unlike the Dream Team interviewees who are often called at
work or when occupied with other activities. This illustrates that physical co-presence
makes a real difference for the structure and development of the conversation. Even
if the Dream Team interviewees do have plenty of time, the host makes sure their
conversation lasts no longer than several minutes. Another difference from Dream
Team is that two guests can witness about the same matter in Papa Was A Rolling
Stone.
The host expresses opinions and sometimes does a little witnessing, too. He
never produces an extensive story like his guests, though, and what he says is
usually related to what is being discussed at that moment. He sometimes uses
witnessing to render a lengthier introduction to the next song or topic of discussion
(cf. extract [6]).
When guests provide a story in reply to a question, the host frequently uses
continuers. Responsive turns (Greatbatch 1988: 406) have already been mentioned
in the chapter on broadcast talk; like continuers, they are produced by the host,
though probably less often than in everyday conversation. The host overwhelmingly
uses “ja” as a continuer (cf. example [9]), but this same form is also used by the host
87
to indicate a kind of finality and to facilitate a transition to the next phase in the
conversation.
[9] (from Geert & Iwein Segers):
Geert maar hij brengt even ge- mooie liedjes
eu:hm wat anders natuurlijk eu:h
iets minder teksten van Lennaert Nijgh uiteraard
want die mens is overleden
→ Host ja
Geert maar euhm (.)
nee ik ben::: misschien een paar jaar terug naar
een concert geweest
twee jaar terug ofzo .hhh
en:: ja ik was toch ook van ge- aangedaan en (.)
‘k vind het heel (.) goed wat ‘ie doet en (.)
ja (.)
brengt een soort rust ook (.)
.hh
→ Host ja
Geert ja (.) mooi
This is an example of the host’s use of “ja” as a continuer.
It is the host who leads the conversation in a certain direction. He guides the
conversation towards the next song, but is remarkably inclusive in doing so. He uses
invitational forms such as “laten we” (first person plural imperative) and “zullen we”
(first person plural modal verb). “Misschien” is used by the host to hedge; he always
asks his guests for approval or confirmation. This is especially, but not exclusively,
the case when the host provides part of the guest’s story, which he may do to lead
the conversation in a certain direction or to prompt guests to tell a certain story. The
guests are asked to ratify the host’s claims; however, the host can be relatively
certain that they will do so, because he has already gone through this story with
them.
[10] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe):
88
Host weet je nog welk (.) welk nummer je gedaan hebt
toen van Brel?
Lenny euh Voir Un Ami Pleurer
Host °ah ja ok heel goed°
→ misschien moeten we daar nog ‘s naar luistere
dan
In this fragment, the host uses “misschien” as a hedging device to mitigate the verb
that follows. “Moeten we” expresses the modality of necessity in the first person
plural, but as the host does not mean that it is necessary that Voir Un Ami Pleurer is
played, he hedges to soften this expression. Simultaneously, the use of the first
person plural serves to include the guests and the overhearing audience in the action
for which the modal verb is used: listening to the song. The guests are given the
option to disagree, but it is expected that they will agree. The utterance indicated
with the arrow can be interpreted as meaning “since we have been talking about this
song, it would be appropriate to play it. Let’s listen to it”.
The host uses forms like “later” and “straks” to avoid elaborations (produced
by the guests) that would lead the conversation away from the question or discussion
at hand.
[11] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe):
Luc ja: ik denk wel allez (.) dat die dat ‘em die
plaat nog gekocht heeft [( )
Host [hah (.)
→ [we gaan daar zeker nog op terugkomen straks
Luc [terwijl ik die maar niks vond
During or after a guest’s narrative turn, the host may formulate. He can use
formulating as a continuer. He can also formulate as a means to summarize what
has just been said and to facilitate the transition to the next topic of discussion or
song that will be played. As the following example shows, the host can be very
creative in his formulations.
89
[12] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen):
Lee euh ja
(0.6) ’n couple jaar geleden is bij mij in ene
keer ‘et klikske gekome van da ‘k ‘et in ene
keer snapte Bob Dylan
da was zo van aah (.)
’t is toch goeie muziek [eigenlijk
→ Host [het is zoiets als
→ oesters eten ofzo
→ op een gegeven moment moet je dat ga je ga je
→ de- ga je dat [toch begrijpen
Lee [ja (.) ‘t is
Host of ga je dat toch lusten
Lee ja ja ja (.) ’t is gewoon (.) uit het niks
gekomen in ene keer
One of the guests, Lee, has been talking about Bob Dylan. He did not like the artist
at first but learned to appreciate him after a while. The host formulates Lee’s
narrative by comparing Bob Dylan to oysters. Lee ratifies the host’s unconventional
formulation by his repeated production of “ja”.
Formulating is also done by the host after a song has been played, to repeat
what has been discussed before the song was played. In such cases, the host is
clearly addressing the audience. Other instances in which the host addresses the
audience include saying full song titles and their performer’s names (to announce
these songs or to make it clear that these songs are being discussed), and repeating
the guests’ full names. The host and occasionally also the guests sometimes
describe what they see each other do during the conversation or while songs were
playing. This is not possible on Dream Team, because the host and his interviewee
are not in the same room. Guests can also address the audience by giving general
information that is not necessarily related to their witnessing or answering a question
(cf supra: turn-taking system suspensions). The host often asks this of his guests:
they are requested to explain, for instance, who a certain singer is or what kind of
90
music a certain band plays. Even if the host knows this himself (which he does not
always do!) he asks his guests to provide this kind of explanation. This means that
the guests are considered to be authoritative and be knowledgeable. Also, in this
way, the speaking turns are distributed in such a way so as to avoid domination of
the conversation by the host.
[13] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen):
→ Host Lee ‘s (.) leg ’s uit wie dat is voor mensen die
die niet kennen
Lee euhm Glenn Branca is een een New Wave composer
[eigenlijk
Host [ja
A completely different but also noticeable matter is that of the jingles. Jingles
are played throughout the show. The show starts with a jingle and when two songs
are played in a row they are separated by the Papa Was A Rolling Stone jingle, but
the further distribution of these jingles seems random. Which jingle is played when,
and if one will be played at all, is not clear. There is a great range of different jingles
that are used in the show at different times.
Another remarkable formal aspect of Papa Was A Rolling Stone is that no
advertisements or traffic reports interrupt the conversations. There are also no
advertisements during Dream Team, but this conversation is much shorter. Traffic
reports may, however, occur during Dream Team.
Before the last song is played, the host closes the conversation, and
consequently, the entire show. The host announces the last song, repeats the full
names of his guests and says goodbye to the audience (explicitly or implicitly), not
necessarily in that order.
[14] (from Guy & Jens Mortier):
→ Host daarom eindigen we met The Beatles (.) en
Happiness Is A Warm Gun ’s een .hh mooie plaat
voor euh een mooie zondag (.) middag (.)
91
→ heel hartelijk bedank G- bedankt liever (.) Guy
en Jens Mortier
→ Guy/Jens heel graag gedaan
((Happiness Is A Warm Gun))
The host closes the show by saying that he will do so: “eindigen”. He announces the
last song, thanks his guests and repeats their full names. One of the guests
completes the adjacency pair by replying “heel graag gedaan”. The conversation is
closed and the last song is played.
It is striking that even though the host may say goodbye and/or thank you to
his guests in some way, as in the above example, there are no clear reciprocal
greetings and/or thanks as there are in Dream Team.
Papa Was A Rolling Stone ends with a song that is a mutual favourite of the
‘father guest’ and his child.
92
93
5. Credibility
It is now time to address one of the main questions of this thesis. Do the
interviewees and guests that appear on Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone
speak with credibility? This chapter looks at the ways in which participants can
create credible, authentic identities for themselves, and how they can enhance the
credibility that has already been attributed to them.
The first question to ask, perhaps, is whether or not it is actually relevant to
consider credibility. The answer is yes, very much. It is clear from the data that
participants perform conversational activities to posit themselves as credible
contributors. It has already been mentioned in the part on storytelling that tellers “go
to great lengths to make their stories appear relevant (even when they are not)”
(Jefferson as quoted by Ochs & Capps 2001: 39). Thornborrow has noted that in
radio phone-ins, lay participants are not satisfied merely by ensuring a position as
participant in a public, mediated event, but that they also take steps in the interaction
to present “their participation [...] [as] relevant and warranted” (2001b: 461). Lay
participants want to build a credible, authentic identity for themselves in the course of
the programme, “through a concern to warrant the relevance of their public
participation at that moment” (Thornborrow 2001b: 465). Even though Thornborrow
has made these observations about radio phone-ins, they are pertinent especially for
the Dream Team data. To a lesser degree they are also useful for the consideration
of Papa Was A Rolling Stone; the participants on this show are not lay participants,
they are not on the phone and they have a more or less public, credible identity
ascribed to them already, but they still want to present themselves in a certain light
and confirm that they are warranted participants on the show. Thornborrow mentions
some aspects of credibility of expert participants in radio phone-ins as well; but see
the chapter on broadcast talk for a discussion of the ambiguous expert status of
Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants.
It is safe to say that participants want to appear credible, then. There are
many different ways in which a participant could create a credible identity for
themselves. Speaking with credibility and authority is often associated with speaking
standard language (email Slembrouck 2012). However, speakers can use other
linguistic resources to present themselves as credible; for instance, they may
94
deliberately not use standard language, or use particular lexical items. That this is
possible is linked to the mechanisms of the linguistic marketplace, as described by
Bourdieu. “Bourdieu had talked about the centralisation of power in the (upper)
middle class, and had linked the middle class’s control over a number of kinds of
different ‘capital’ to explain this.” (Meyerhoff 2010: 147) In addition to
control of material wealth [...], control of more evanescent resources, such as
language, is also [an] important [means of exercising social control]. [...] In this way,
the language itself acquires symbolic power. [...] If language can function as a form of
capital, we can talk about there being a linguistic marketplace where certain ways of
talking are more valuable ‘coin’ or have greater social capital than others. (ibid.)
Even though Bourdieu speaks of power, this quotation does belong here and not in
the chapter on power. The fact is that credibility is a negotiable commodity on this
marketplace, and it is flexible according to the requirements of the situation at hand
(email Slembrouck 2012, lecture slides Dumolyn 2011). For both Dream Team and
Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the use of non-standard language is a recurrent feature.
Participants use ‘tussentaal’ (in-between language, not standard language and not
dialect), which is suitable for the casual, informal style that characterizes Studio
Brussel. If speakers would use very formal, standard language, they would seem out
of tune with the radio station’s image and conventions and would therefore seem less
credible as knowledgeable, warranted participants of a show broadcast by that radio
station. The same goes for users of dialect.
Other ways that participants can create and enhance credibility for themselves
include identifying themselves as someone whose contribution to the conversation is
justified (Thornborrow 2001b: 477), by witnessing (Hutchby 2006: 82), and by
narrating remembered events (Ochs & Capps 2001: 284). The host can also
attribute credibility to the other participants, for instance by attributing them a
particular status when they are introduced (Thornborrow 2001b: 462, 463). The rest
of this chapter considers how participants on Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling
Stone create credible positions for themselves and how they are helped to do so by
the host.
5.1 Dream Team
Thornborrow describes how in radio phone-ins, “[l]ay speakers seem [...] to be
concerned to establish a relevant participatory status as soon as they are brought
95
into the interactional frame” (2001b: 470). Lay participants may do this “through a
process of self-identification according to social or professional categories” (ibid.), or
“through providing details which will function to ‘ground’ their talk and warrant their
status as participants at that moment” (ibid.). “When these are absent, [...] this is due
to the specific contextual features of the programme where a relevant identity for lay
participants has already been established” (Thornborrow 2001b: 477).
What can be seen in Dream Team is that callers, or interviewees, do not look
to establish “a relevant participatory status” (Thornborrow 2001b: 470) for themselves
at the very beginning of the conversation. The host introduces his interviewee and
tells them “good morning” at the beginning of the conversation, and before the host
asks his first question, the callers cannot do much else than returning the greeting.
This can be seen in the following extracts.
[1] (from 08/11):
Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team°
de drie favoriete platen van
Host Koen Smeekens
Koen goeiemorgen
Ca goeiemorgeh
Host Koen je nam de telefoon niet op (.)
[2] (from 26/10):
Jingle het Dream Team! °Dream Team°
de drie favoriete platen van
Host Els Van Den Heuvel
Els goeiemorge
Ca goeiemorge
Host Breakfast in Vegas van Praga Khan
[3] (from 17/11):
Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team°
96
de drie favoriete platen van
Host Pascal Michel
Pascal goeiemorgen
Ca goeiemorgen
Host ’t is niet Michel Pascal he
At the beginning of the conversation, then, it seems that no self-identification or
grounding is necessary, because it is already clear from the context why the people
on the phone are on the phone. Interestingly, it is after the host has asked the first
question that the callers start producing something like self-identification or grounding
talk. This talk is elicited by the host, which is something that Thornborrow also
noticed in her data (2001b: 471). In Dream Team, this kind of talk usually takes the
form of witnessing: “lay speakers tend to act as witnesses precisely in the sense of
being directly involved in the topics they are discussing” (Hutchby 2006: 82). This
involvement is expressed “in the lay speaker’s register of immediacy, experience and
authenticity” (Livingstone and Lunt as quoted by Hutchby 2006: 82) and does
effectively link the speaker “with the authenticity of experience, of emotion, and of the
speaker as a legitimate teller of particular kinds of stories” (Hutchby 2006: 83). The
actions that speakers undertake to “claim authentic speakership” (ibid.) are what
Hutchby calls “’witnessing’ moves” (ibid.). This has already been mentioned in the
general overview of Dream Team; here follow some additional examples.
[4] (from 03/11):
→ Ca [en eu:hm van ’t jaar heb ik ze dan voor ’t
laatst gezien op Pukkelpop (.)
en dat was ook het laatste concert van Pukkelpop
Host (1.2) ja ‘t was wel=
=dat was wel straf he
Ca (1.1) ja (.)
da was wel redelijk eu:hm:: (.)
spectaculair (.)
alles begon perfect (.)
lekker warme dag (.)
97
t-shirt weer
(1.2) .hh en tijdens ’t concert van Skunk
Anansie zag je de wolk afkomen (.)
en: (.)
ja toen hebben ze ’t concert moeten stilleggen
(.)
eerst (0.5) probeerden ze nog (.)
maar (.) ’t begon zo hevig (.)
.hh en toen was Pukkelpop gedaan
In this fragment, the caller is witnessing about an event he was physically present at:
a day which was supposed to be the first of a well-known three day music festival.
This makes him a credible, authentic lay speaker already: he was present at a
concert of the band he has requested to hear on the radio. What makes him an even
stronger credible speaker is that this band’s concert was stopped halfway through
because of a heavy storm that destroyed the festival site, killing five and injuring
hundreds of people. After the storm, which became known as the “Pukkelpop storm”,
the festival was cancelled. The caller is thus not only a witness who went to see a
band he likes, which makes him a valid but not an unusual speaker, but he is also a
witness of a unique, very dramatic event.
After the interviewee has made his witness move, this move is accepted and
confirmed by the host, who produces “an assessment of a reported state of affairs”
(Pomerantz as quoted by Greatbatch 1988: 407); the assessment is that the events
of that day at the festival were shocking, striking. The caller agrees with the host’s
assessment and treats it as a cue to continue talking. The interviewee has been
granted the floor and tells a story about the events he witnessed, and this narrative
further corroborates his status as a credible, warranted lay participant.
[5] (from 07/11):
Host ja
(0.5) heb je ‘m gezien ‘et eh fameuze concert
(.)voorbije zomer op de Lokerse [Feesten
Ca [ik ben euh de
→ Lokerse Feesten ben ik inderdaad geweest
98
In this extract, the host elicits the witnessing move. The caller confirms that he was
indeed a witness; he went to that particular concert.
[6] (from10/11):
Host [Kim
Alice Cooper (.)
→ leren kennen door je pa
Ca ja da’s waar eu::hm (.)
d’eh gewoon van vroeger en
ik vroeg mij af wie’n da da was en (.)
‘keh ne keer die LP gezien en da was eu:h (.)
oorspronkelijk de B-kant van e- van een
singletje
en (.) ja da wa- ‘k von da wel nog prachtig
The host elicits a witnessing move that is again confirmed by the interviewee.
Instead of being physically present at the scene of an event that is being discussed in
the conversation, this witnessing move has to do with the caller’s memories of the
past. The host can elicit this witnessing move, because as mentioned in the general
overview, the interviewee has filled in this bit of information on the registration form
on the Studio Brussel website. The host may then elicit witnessing moves or stories
“at relevant moments” (Thornborrow 2001a: 120). After the host has elicited the
witnessing move in this extract, the caller launches a narrative. This narrative is
more explanatory than the one in [4] and it serves a slightly different purpose. In [4],
the caller made the witnessing move himself (although he did this in response to a
question about his song choice); this was then assessed by the host, and after this
assessment, the caller talked more about what happened, making himself even more
credible as a witness. Because the witnessing move in [6] is elicited by the host and
not initiated by the interviewee, the interviewee produces a narrative to explain, to
prove why the host is right in attributing him the credibility that goes with witness
status. Also, this narrative is more about “I remember that when I was young …”
rather than “This summer I was there and … and … happened”. So the narrative in
[4] is a narrative that serves to enhance the credibility that a caller claimed by making
99
a witnessing move, while the narrative in [6] serves as a kind of credibility proof
mechanism.
[7] (from 17/11):
Host Skunk Anansie is dat een van haar favoriete
bands?
Ca da’s een van de favoriete bands van haar ja
Host ja=
→ Ca =en euh w’ebben ze ’n beetje gemist op Pukkelpop
dit jaar dus euh (.) vandaar
Host ja (.)
was j’op Pukkelpop (.) Pascal?
Ca ja:jajajaja
Host je was er
Ca ja (.)
wij allebei (.)
hehehe
The host asks if the artist that has just been played is one of the caller’s girlfriend’s
favourites, and he witnesses that this is in fact the case. The caller attributes his
girlfriend “categorical membership” (Hutchby 2006: 83) as a Skunk Anansie fan, and
he becomes a legitimate lay speaker on this band by extension. In the turn that is
marked with the arrow, though, the caller witnesses that he was in fact also present
at the band’s concert at Pukkelpop, and he becomes a legitimate speaker on the
topic of the Pukkelpop storm and an even more legitimate speaker on the band
Skunk Anansie; it is not just his girlfriend that is a fan, but he has been to one of their
concerts as well. In this case, though, the caller does not provide a story to explain
or reenforce his position as a witness.
[8] (from 20/10):
Host Inge (.) Elvis (.) the king of rock ‘n [roll
Ca [ja
→ Host leren kennen dankzij je papa
100
Ca ja da klopt (.)
da klopt mijn vader was een heel grote fan van
Elvis en
eh ik heb die platen dus heel veel gehoord als
ik kind was
This extract is similar to [6]. The host elicits a witnessing move, the caller confirms
and provides a narrative to prove her credibility; she remembers that she used to
listen to Elvis Presley a lot when she was little.
In [4], [6] and [8], the interviewees tell some kind of story after their witnessing
move. While [5] and [7] prove that this is not necessary to consolidate the
interviewees’ status as relevant participants on the show, storytelling is nonetheless
a noticeable recurrent feature. Some additional examples:
[9] (from 25/10):
Ca euhm
allez als ik
als Adele dan (.) allez euh eerst uitkwam
dan vooral me ni alleen me
euhm Chasing Pavements maar dan d’rna met euhm
hh met Rolling In The Deep .hhhh
had ik gans die cd dan gekocht en dan von’ ik
da een van de
van de straffere liedjes die der eigenlijk op
stond
en dan blijkt nu dan (.) euhm
Someone Like You eigenlijk vooral in de: in
de: hitlijsten is geraakt terwijl ik eigenlijk
Turning Tables even (.) minstens even goe vind
Extracts [4], [6], [8] and [9] feature narratives that are produced by the callers without
host interruption or intermission. In [10] and [11], the host produces continuers.
101
[10] (from 28/10):
Ca ja euh klopt
dus eu::h (.)
in: (.) ik ga bevallen in Sint Jozef in Mortsel
en daar hebt ge in de verloskamer (.) euhm
(0.9) een eu:h (.) ja een cd-speler dus je mag
eigenlijk zelf muziek meebrengen
Host hmhm
Ca .hh en euhm (.) daarom was ik dus beginnen
nadenken welke muziek ik graag wou (.) euh
laten spelen
omda da toch wel een heel belangrijk moment is
[maar
Host [hm
Ca ni alleen da
dus (.) euh blijkbaar heeft muziek voor de
geboorte ook een heel .hh goeie invloed op u
kind hh
dus euh dan ben ik ook beginne nadenke van::
misschien kan ik al wa cds op voorhand maken
die ik dan ook al in de auto of thuis ne keer
kan afspele hh
[11] (from 26/10):
Ca .hh ik ‘eb ‘m live gezien dankzij jullie
uiteraa- allez ja ( ) maar dankzij jullie
euh we hadden vrijkaarten ge::wonnen voor een
optreden in de Ancienne Belgiquehh
Host [mhmm
Ca [.hhh en dat was schitterend=
Host =ja=
Ca =echt (.) dat was schitterend (.)
102
.hh en het toeval wilde eigenlijk dat (.) euh
(.) als het ’s avonds het optreden was dat ik
die (.) dag zelf ‘m ook al in Leuven gezien
had .hhh
Host ja
Ca en dat was eigenlijk wel (.) fijn
There are probably two main reasons why callers tell stories. The first one has
already been mentioned in the general overview of Dream Team: interviewees need
to talk for a certain amount of time because of Grice’s maxim of quantity and to avoid
on air silences. The second reason is that “narratives, in the broadest definition of
the term, [...] form a rich discursive resource for talk show participants to present their
personal experiences” (Thornborrow 2001a: 117), and that these “reminiscences are
usually designed by the [teller] with credibility in mind” (Bowles 2009: 57). Ochs and
Capps also come to the conclusion that
[r]emembering [...] is an authenticating act: Rememberers publicly claim to have
brought to conscious awareness a state, event, or condition that is real in their eyes;
they believe it to be true. In this sense, acts of remembering are attempts to seize
authority with respect to a topic of concern. For the presupposed truths to become
recognized as such, however, these acts require validation by others.
(2001: 284)
In Dream Team, the host routinely validates his interviewees’ “presupposed truths”
(Ochs & Capps 2001: 284). He never openly doubts his interviewees’ stories, but
encourages them to continue talking with the continuer “ja” (see extracts [7] and [11]
above and [12], [13] and [19] below). Using the form “ja” is not merely saying “go
on”, but rather “go on, I believe you”. The host also produces “assessment[s] of a
reported state of affairs” (Pomerantz as quoted by Greatbatch 1988: 407), as in
extract [4], which implies that the host says “I believe you, and I feel ... and ... about
your story”.
As discussed above, interviewees often tell stories to enhance or prove the
credibility that they have created for themselves or that has been attributed to them
by the host through a witnessing move. This witnessing move and the subsequent
story may be self-initiated or elicited by the host. It seems that witnessing moves and
storytelling complement each other when it comes to creating a credible identity as a
103
lay participant on Dream Team. Recurring elements in witnessing moves and
authenticating stories include having been to concerts (see extracts [4], [5], [7] and
[11]), owning cds (see extract [9]), and remembering childhood or youth memories
(extracts [6] and [8]). Some more examples of remembering:
[12] (from 20/10):
Host euh dan kies je ook nog Robin S met Show Me Love
Ca inderdaad
euh Robin S (.) Show Me Love is voor mij de
ultieme dansplaat
Host [ja
→ Ca [heb ik ook heel goeie herinneringen aan
euhm begin jaren negentig als ik me ni vergis
[13] (from 9/11):
Host vind je dat ook van Fun Loving Criminals
met Scooby Snacks?
Ca ja dat heb ik gekozen eu::h
dat is eigenlijk euh van euh zesennegentig
denk ik
Host [ja
→ Ca [en dat heb ik gekozen omdat het nog euh
nogal veel wel werd gespeeld euh
op de fuiven van de plaatselijke verenigingen
euh .hh in onze gemeente Heule
104
[14] (from 26/10):
Host ‘t zijn sowieso ook allemaal Belgische platen
[in je Dream Team
Ca [ja klopt ja ja
→ shjaa (.)ik chjaa (.) ik heb mijn jeugd beleefd
in de jaren tachtig en en: (.) toen waren er
echt wel
.hh heel wat vind ik heel goede Belgische
groepen
A fourth recurring element in legitimizing moves is talking about personal, emotional
connections to a certain band or song. Callers often request their wedding’s opening
dance (extracts [15] and [16] below), or songs that for some reason remind them of
their current partners or children (extraxts [17] and [18] below).
[15] (from 20/10):
Host =dan Nick Cave met Into My Arms daar heb je ook
heel goeie herinneringen aan kan ik me
voorstellen
[Inge
Ca [ja dat klopt euh
da was de openingsdans van ons huwelijk
[16] (from 26/10):
Ca ‘k zal het zo zeggen: euh (.)
we hebben dat hh (.) ( ) laten inspireren vorige
week door de openingsdans wij hebben dat ook
als openingsdans genomen als wij getrouwd zijn
(.)
[17] (from 17/11):
105
Host .hhh Foo Fighters kies je ook met My Hero
→ is zij jouw held?
Ca (1.5) euh ook natuurlijk
→ en vooral de zoon ook he
[18] (from 28/10):
Ca .hhh en Nick Cave euh is een liedje da ik
→ eigenlijk via mijn vriend heb leren kennen
toen we mekaar (.) leerden kennen
en euh (.) ja da heb ik altijd een beetje aan
hem gelinkt
Another resource that interviewees use to present themselves as legitimate is factual
knowledge about the artists or songs that they have requested. This resource is a bit
different from the ones that have been discussed above, because being
knowledgeable about facts is something that is expected of experts, “who have an
institutionally inscribed, professional area of expertise attributed to them”
(Thornborrow 2001b: 461), rather than of lay participants. Lay participants on Dream
Team may thus attempt to present themselves as experts or as expert-like
participants in order to come across as credible, warranted speakers. This occurs
remarkably less often than the mechanisms described above. Extract [19] is an
example.
[19] (from 09/11):
→ Ca dit is toch al van euh negentien vijfentachentig
dat liedje
ook van de jaren tachentig dus
en euh ‘k vind het nog altijd (.) even euh
even tof en even leuk
Host ja
106
vind je dat ook van Fun Loving Criminals
met Scooby Snacks?
Ca ja dat heb ik gekozen eu::h
→ dat is eigenlijk euh van euh zesennegentig
denk ik
In this extract, the interviewee knows the exact years in which the songs he chose
were released. He even mentions the years before he goes on to explain why these
songs are special to him. He does this in a rather dry, matter-of-fact way. It is
unusual for interviewees to mention exactly when the songs of their choice were
released in this manner, especially when there seems to be little relevance to the
personal stories that they tell about the song(s) that has been or will be played.
Admittedly, the interviewee here is saying something along the lines of “Even though
this is an old song, I still enjoy listening to it very much”, which does make mentioning
the song’s release date relevant. However, it would have been sufficient to say that
the song is an eighties song to achieve this witnessing move. Instead, the caller
names the exact year in which the song was released. He thus puts facts before
feelings and positions himself as an expert by doing so; an expert who knows the
exact facts about the songs and not just its general background and/or the emotional
experience that he associates the song with.
Other factual knowledge that interviewees may use, but do not use as often as
witnessing moves and authenticating narratives, is knowledge about Studio Brussel
itself. They may use this knowledge to make it clear that they are loyal listeners; if
they are loyal listeners they must obviously know something about the music they
requested, and they have a right to talk during a broadcast of that radio station they
listen to so loyally. In the following extract, the caller makes it clear that he knows
about the radio station’s other programmes by referring to one. The “Top Wijftig” he
mentions is a list of 50 songs that the radio station broadcasts annually; it is
comprised of songs that are sung by female singers, and listeners may vote online
on songs that they think fit in the list. The caller in extract [20] knows that that list will
be broadcast sometime soon, and he takes the chance to express his personal
opinion on the topic as well.
107
[20] (from 03/811):
Host hh jouw eerste keuze is eh (.) Skunk Anansie met
Twisted
(0.4)waarom heb je daarvoor gekozen?
Ca e::uhm (.) Skunk Anansie is toch wel een van
mijn favoriete bands
→ en met de:: (.) Top Wijftig dat eraan komt wil
ik nu toch wel euh (.) efkes duidelijk make
dat zij d’r ook zeker mag instaan voor mij
In conclusion, then, it can be said that lay participants on Dream Team do not
undertake steps at the very beginning of the conversation to “establish a relevant
participatory status” (Thornborrow 2001b: 470). “[A] relevant identity for lay
participants has already been established” (Thornborrow 2001b: 477)) for them, “due
to the specific contextual features of the programme” (ibid.). After the exchange of
reciprocal greetings, the host starts to ask the interviewee questions, and these
questions do lead to talk that is meant to “establish a relevant participatory status”
(Thornborrow 2001b: 470) for the interviewees. Often, so-called witnessing moves
can be found in this talk: being a witness in some way strengthens claims to
authenticity and credibility. Witnessing moves may be elicited by the host or be self-
initiated. On Dream Team, witnessing moves are frequently expanded by stories, but
they may also occur on their own. Speakers that initiate their own witnessing moves
tell stories that serve to enhance their credibility, whereas stories that follow
witnessing moves that have been elicited by the host serve to prove that the lay
participant is indeed a legitimate contributor to the conversation, as the host
indicated. Remembering is crucial to the production of witnessing moves and
personal narratives, and the host validates the remembered stories of the
interviewees as truthful narratives. Elements that recur in witnessing moves and
stories include having been to concerts, owning cds, remembering childhood or youth
memories, and having emotional connections to a certain song or artist. In short, lay
participants want to present themselves as credible music fans. Lay speakers may
also mention facts they know about bands, songs, or the radio station itself. They do
this to present themselves as experts on the topics that are being discussed, rather
than as music fans. In Dream Team, presenting oneself as an expert happens
108
remarkably less often than producing lay witnessing moves and authenticating
stories.
5.2 Papa Was A Rolling Stone
Goffman’s concepts of performance and theatricality have already been discussed
above. Everyone is constantly performing. A Dream Team lay participant, however,
is freer to perform whatever identity he or she wants than a Papa Was A Rolling
Stone expert participant. The majority of audience members has no idea who the
Dream Team participant is, whereas they are likely to know who the Papa Was A
Rolling Stone participant is. That this is the case influences the performance that
each of these participants will put up, because
[t]he more information the audience has about the performer, the less likely it is that
anything they learn during the interaction will radically influence them. On the other
hand, where no prior information is possessed, it may be expected that the information
gleaned during the interaction will be relatively crucial.
(Goffman 1990: 222)
As mentioned in the discussion of Goffman, though, most performers usually aim to
present their audience with an idealised version of their performed selves (Goffman
1990: 25, 35); this kind of behaviour in storytelling was dubbed the “’looking good’
principle” by Ochs, Smith and Taylor (Ochs, Smith & Taylor as quoted by Ochs &
Capps 2001: 47). Since most performers aim to do this, it is probably so that most
Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants also do this. No matter
what kind of identity they want to create, they will probably want to create one that
makes themselves look good as a music fan or expert. They want to create “an
authentic and credible persona” (Livingstone & Lunt as quoted by Tolson 2001a: 17),
or, in other words, stage a “performance of a mediated identity which might be
perceived as ‘authentic’” (Tolson 2001b: 443).
The lay participant that appears on Dream Team is thus, as demonstrated
above, likely to attempt to make him- or herself seem a credible music fan, but is
otherwise relatively free to perform however he or she wants. A celebrity expert
participant on Papa Was A Rolling Stone does not have that freedom, because he or
she already has a public persona. This public persona comes with pre-established
109
credibility10, but also with boundaries within which the performer needs to act;
whatever the expert participant says or does must be consistent with his or her public
persona, or else they lose their credibility entirely (Goffman 1990: 64 – 65).
Tolson defines a celebrity’s persona as “the point at which the private life
becomes public, and where (in the melodramatic gaze) acting connects with the ‘real
person’” (2001b: 452). This ‘real person’, in as far as it exists, is typically seen to be
an authentic inner self (ibid.). However, “authenticity [...] is not so much an essential
inner self, as a credible public identity” (Tolson 2001b: 453). To create this credible
public identity, Tolson notes that celebrities are often “’being [themselves]’” (2001b:
444, 445). “[T]he public persona of the celebrity needs to project an aura of
‘authenticity’” (Tolson 2001b: 445) in order for the celebrity to come across as “’being
yourself’” (ibid.). ‘Being oneself’ is “a type of public performance [...] [that] is not
perceived as ‘acting’” (ibid.). Appearing on a talk show is a way in which celebrities
can do this: “’personal disclosure’ is a key focus for the talk show interview where
‘guests appear to be showing us their ‘real’ selves [and] where they can discuss how
they ‘feel’” (Langer as quoted by Tolson 2001b: 448). However, “[w]hat is revealed is
not so much the ‘real’ or ‘deep’ personality behind the mask of celebrity. It is, rather,
the fascination of the role of celebrity, both for the person who speaks about his/her
celebrity-induced experiences and for the slightly wide-eyed interviewer and
audience” (Bell & Van Leeuwen as quoted by Tolson 2001b: 448). This is certainly
true for Papa Was A Rolling Stone; see for instance extracts [40], [41] and [42]
below.
The local celebrities that appear on Papa Was A Rolling Stone, then, want to
make themselves look good, credible and authentic. They try to do so by being their
ordinary selves, and “’being ordinary’ is accomplished in the ways people tell stories
about their experiences” (Sacks as quoted by Tolson 2001b: 449). The “authentic
and credible persona” (Livingstone & Lunt as quoted by Tolson 2001a: 17) is created
10
CA would reject the notion of pre-established credibility if it is not apparent from the actual
conversation that is being analysed. That some of the participants on Papa Was A Rolling Stone do
have pre-established credibility is because of the public personae that they already have before the
conversation begins. It is relevant to mention the existence of this public persona and thus that of
some pre-established credibility because this is actually brought up in the conversation, viz. in the
introductions that are discussed below.
110
through a “performance of being ordinary” (Tolson 2001b: 450). For Papa Was A
Rolling Stone, this means in practice that the local celebrities will want to remind the
audience of their expert status, while at the same time acting in a way that is similar
to that of ‘ordinary’ people such as the lay participants on Dream Team. How this is
done is explained in detail below.
It is also the case that some of the participants on Papa Was A Rolling Stone
are not local celebrities. In these cases, the participants are still treated as expert
participants, but they do not need to act in accordance with an existing public
persona.
It has already been mentioned that hosts may “identif[y] [expert participants]
according to that status before they start to talk” (Thornborrow 2001b: 462), and that
“[t]his occurs usually by a host’s introduction” (ibid.). This is done “by naming [the
experts] and giving their profession” (Thornborrow 2001b: 463). The chapter on
broadcast talk discusses the more or less ambiguous status of the studio guests that
appear on Papa Was A Rolling Stone; it was indicated that these guests are best
considered ‘experts talking for themselves’. It is also mentioned in that chapter that
guests are introduced in the same way that, according to Thornborrow, expert radio
programme participants are introduced. As has been said in the general overview of
Papa Was A Rolling Stone, it is not the host who introduces his guests, but the host’s
father. This ties in with the programme’s theme of inviting fathers and children as
participants. Ultimately it does not matter much who does the introducing. What is
important is that the guests are introduced in a way that presents them as credible,
legitimate, warranted participants, before they have spoken one word themselves;
see for instance extracts [21], [22] and [23].
[21] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)
Aris Ham dames (.) en heren(0.5)
van harte welkom bij Papa Was A Rolling Stone
(.)
met vandaag te gast (.) vader Jan (.) en dochter
Ella Leyers (1.0)
111
Jan is 53 jaar (.) TV-maker (.) muzikant (.) en
een helft van Soul Sister (1.0)
Ella is 23 (.) en een beloftevolle actrice(8.0)
welke plaatjes (.) kent Ella via Jan (1.0)
en welk album (.) kocht Jan (.) dankzij Ella
(1.1)
delen ze wel een muzieksmaak (1.2)
u komt het allemaal te weten in
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
[22] (from Raúl & Gabriel Rios)
Aris Ham dames (.) en heren (.)
een goeie middag (0.8)
mijn naam (.) is Aris Ham (0.7)
ik ben de vader (.) van Otto-Jan
en ik heet u van harte welkom bij (.)
Papa Was A Rolling Stone (1.1)
met vandaag te gast (.)
vader Raúl en zoon (0.5) Gabriel Rios
Gabriel is drieëndertig (0.6) zanger (.) en
muzikant (0.9)
vader Raúl is drieënzestig (0.7)
woont nog steeds in Puerto Rico (0.6)
en is zelf ook muzikant (1.2)
voor het eerst zitten ze nu samen (.) in de
radiostudio (.)
en praten ze over hun favoriete plaatjes in
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
112
[23] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)
Aris Ham dames (.) en heren (0.8)
mijn naam (.) is Aris Ham (0.7)
vader (.) van Otto-Jan (0.6)
en ik heet u van harte welkom bij (.)
Papa Was A Rolling Stone (1.3)
met vandaag te gast (0.8)
vader Geert en zoon Iwein Segers (1.1)
Geert (.) was jarenlang radiopresentator (0.8)
en al is hij officieel met pensioen (.)
toch hoor je hem nog dagelijks (.)
als de stem van (.) Man (.) Bijt Hond
zijn jongste zoon Iwein (.) is zanger (.)
muzikant (.)
en cabaretier (1.3)
wat zijn hun favoriete plaatjes (0.8)
hebben ze een zelfde muzieksmaak (0.8)
je hoort het allemaal in (.)
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
The host may also treat his guests as credible in the course of the conversation by
reinforcing the identity already attributed to them by the introduction (extracts [24]
and [25]), or by mentioning new elements (extracts [30], [31], [32]). The host may
also let his guests announce songs (extract [35]) or, as mentioned in the general
overview, ask them to explain a certain band or song that not everyone in the
audience may know (extracts [33] and [34]).
[24] (from Raúl & Gabriel Rios)
Host eu:hm euh yeah whe- when I when I look at you
Raúl and and the way ye- you’re listening to
music you’re .h kind of directing the songs
along
113
euh is tha- is that [a typical thing=
Raúl [yes
Host =for a musician to do?
As can be seen in extract [22], it has already been said in the introduction that Raúl is
a musician. The host repeats this in this fragment, which takes place much later in
the conversation. At the same time, the host also describes the physical actions that
he saw Raúl do while listening to a song that had just been played. Apparently, Raúl
knows the song well enough to be conducting it (even though, of course, the song
that has been played was already recorded and there were no actual musicians that
needed conducting around). This is a new element, or rather an added element to
the fact that Raúl is a musician, and it helps portray Raúl as a credible participant.
[25] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)
Host ja ja ja
jij bent zelf muzikant
dus jij luistert ook als een muzikant (.) naar
naar nummers
The “jij” in this fragment is Bart Peeters. He was introduced as a singer. This extract
is similar to [24] because, in both extracts, the host repeats that the persons he is
talking to/about are musicians, and because he says something about the way they
listen to music, even though he does not describe the physical actions he saw Bart
do in this fragment. In each case Bart’s credibility is reaffirmed by this utterance of
the host.
[26] (from Guy & Jens Mortier)
Host euh euh
Guy Mortier euh zeer muzikale vader
altijd met muziek bezig
This extract is identity-reinforcing or credibility-creating, depending on one’s point of
view. The introduction of this episode does not literally mention that Guy Mortier is
professionally involved in music. However, it is said that he was the editor-in-chief of
the weekly magazine Humo for years. Most people that know Guy Mortier and Humo
114
will be aware of the fact that Humo claims to have some music experts as part of
their editorial staff. The magazine usually features interviews with bands or
musicians, cd reviews and its own weekly music charts. It also organizes a rock rally
every two years. This is information, though, that is not mentioned at all in the
introduction of this episode, and only referred to, not explained, in the rest of the
conversation. For this reason, the host’s assessment that Guy Mortier is a very
musical father, always dealing with music, should be considered a new element
rather than a reinforcement. That the host clearly considers Guy Mortier a very
musical person presents him as a legitimate participant either way.
The fact that the host repeats the full names of his guests from time to time is
also important in this aspect. The host only says the names of his guests, and
sometimes also whether they are father, daughter or son, but he does not repeat
their profession or why they are on the show. This can be seen in extracts [27], [28]
and [29] below. Simply naming the guests’ names is felt to be sufficient, because
many listeners will know who at least one of the guests is even without having heard
the introduction, and the relevance of the other guest becomes clear when their
relationship with the celebrity guest is specified. In other words, because of the
public persona that people associate with the names of public figures, merely
repeating these names is enough to make it clear to the audience that these guests
are warranted, legitimate, credible participants.
[27] (from Kamagurka & Sarah Zeebroek)
Host euh Sarah euh Zeebroek zit hier nog
samen met Kamagurka haar vader
[28] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)
Host uit 1988 .hhh euh The Way To Your Heart van Soul
Sister
fin meteen d- d- de grote doorbraak hit
eigelijk van Soul Sister
115
→ .hh en euh niet de enige worp van Jan Leyers dat
jaar want ook Ella Leyers was geboren
dus erges zal je dat nummer altijd misschien
een klein beetje aan Ella koppelen
[29] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen)
Host .hh je luistert naar Papa Was A Rolling Stone
en de papa in kwestie .hh is euh euh Scabs-
frontman euh Guy Swinnen
.hhh en zoon in kwestie is euh ja Tubelight-
frontman euh Lee Swinnen
The host may also introduce new elements in the conversation that will present his
guests as credible. Extract [26] may be considered an example of this; here follow
some other examples.
[30] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe)
Host euh (.) maar dan moete we ’t toch ook hebbe wa-
w’ebbe ’t er al heel even over gehad eu::h
daarnet
.hhh toch nog over Lou Reed hebben
want dat blijft een bijzonder verhaal
af- vert- vertel nog ’s één keer want die die
→ (.) die heeft met jullie samengewerkt
eigenlijk eh
Luc uhu
Even though Lou Reed had already been mentioned, the fact that one of the host’s
guests has actually collaborated with Reed is a new element in the conversation.
The host brings this up and it makes Luc a credible speaker where Lou Reed is
concerned, because he knows the man and has worked with him.
[31] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)
116
Host en dan moeten we ’t even over festivals ook
hebben jullie zijn ja jullie zijn kind aan
huis op zowa- euh euh zowat elk .h festival
Pukkelpop euh zowel Luc als Eppo jij stelt daar
nu de euh affiche samen ook
→ .hh op Werchter euh Luc jij hebt daar ja jij
presenteert daar je-
elk festival is euh eigenlijk euh zeer bekend en
vertrouwd terrein voor jullie beiden
That Eppo is involved in festivals was already clear from the introduction. New
information that makes Luc credible, however, is that he presents at Rock Werchter.
The host even goes so far as to say that both Luc and Eppo are very familiar with
every festival. In doing so, he certainly makes his guests appear credible: they must
know a lot about bands that play festivals.
Extracts [31] and [32] are from the same episode of Papa Was A Rolling
Stone. This does not mean that there are no other examples to be found in other
episodes, but it shows that the host frequently assigns his guests credibility by
invoking new elements, and that he may do so more than once in the same
conversation.
[32] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)
Host .hhh eu::h maar maar omgekeerd (.) is het nu ook
wel zo dat dat Eppo die rol (.) voor een stuk
ook wel euh op zich genomen heeft
door bijvoorbeeld (.) euh wat je voor Pukkelpop
doet een eh affiche samenstellen
maar ook wat je met Duyster euh doet
jij hebt daar .hh al jaren de plaatjes eh voor
gekozen
Previous to this extract, the host said that Luc, Eppo’s father, has determined many
people’s musical taste through his work as a radio host. In this extract, the host
points out that Eppo also works for the radio; he has taken over his father’s role as
117
someone who determines people’s musical taste by selecting songs for a radio
programme. In Eppo’s case, this programme is called Duyster, and apparently he
has been working for the programme for years. This was not mentioned in the
introduction or earlier in the conversation, so the host bringing this up is another
instance of the host attributing a credible status to his guests: someone who selects
songs for a radio programme is likely to know a lot of songs, and is thus a credible
speaker on music in general.
As explained in the general overview chapter, the host may ask his guests to
explain who a particular singer is exactly or what kind of music a particular band
plays, even if he knows or may know this himself. That the host lets his guests do
this kind of explanation means that the guests are considered to be authoritative and
be knowledgeable. This was the example given in the general overview:
[33] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen)
→ Host Lee ‘s (.) leg ’s uit wie dat is voor mensen die
die niet kennen
Lee euhm Glenn Branca is een een New Wave composer
[eigenlijk
Host [ja
An additional example:
[34] (from Raúl & Gabriel Rios)
→ Host Tom Zé euhm te- tell us who who is that guy
Raúl Brazilian
err from the:: er era err in the sixties (.)
err i- initially in ah in Brazil there was a
(.) a (.) dictatorship
so it was really i- involved in (.) in the: in
the political movement of that time he err
against the the government .hh
118
Host ja
Raúl so much of his music i::s .hhh e::rm ((Spanish
word)) °how do you say that in English eh°
Gabriel it’s erm it’s:: i:t’s challenging
Host challen-
that’s what I was [e- ( )
Gabriel [gedurfd
Lastly, the host may also treat his guests as credible contributors by asking or letting
them announce a song.
[35] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)
Host eh jij mag ‘m aankondigen Eppo
dat euh da’s eentje voor jou
Eppo hier is Sigur Rós met euh Svefn-g-englar
Jingle ((jingle Studio Brussel))
((Svefn-g-englar))
Even though the host may have asked his guest to announce this song because it
has a very difficult title, he still trusts Eppo to do the announcement well.
From the discussion of the four ways in which the host can help his guests
appear credible, it is clear that the host plays an important role in making his guests
seem legitimate. The host may repeat status-attributing elements that have been
priorly mentioned, or he may bring up new status-attributing elements. This is similar
to the host-initiated witnessing moves that can be found in the Dream Team data.
However, the two phenomena are different, because the information that the Dream
Team host has about his interviewees is not public information about a public
persona. In other words, the Dream Team host cannot know information about his
interviewees and bring this information up in the conversation, unless the
interviewees have provided this information via the online registration form. On Papa
Was A Rolling Stone, the host may start talking about information that is more or less
public; guests need not have given him this information before the beginning of the
programme. As mentioned in the general overview, the host and the radio channel’s
119
crew have probably researched their guests before they came to the studio. The
host has thus been looking for public information about his guests that he may use
for his show.
The host may also ask his guests to explain about some singers or bands, and
he may let guests announce a song. What the host says about his guests is thus an
important part of whether or not the guests are perceived by the audience as
credible.
The resources that lay participants on Dream Team used to create or enhance
their credibility may also be found in Papa Was A Rolling Stone. The guests also
produce witnessing moves and narratives, as well as using factual knowledge to
confirm their expert status. In addition to witnessing and telling stories about having
been to concerts, owning cds, remembering childhood or youth memories, and
having emotional connections to a certain song or artist, many guests on Papa Was
A Rolling Stone also tell stories about work-related events.
[36] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)
Ella nee maar ik heb inderdaad via via mijn pa ‘eel
veel lere kenne
en dan rond mijn vijftiende ‘eb ik de de pick-up
op mijn kamer gezet (.)
ben ik in alle plate gaan snuffele en dan vond
ik ja Elton John en The Modern Lovers (.)
euh Paul Simon Talking Heads
allemaal dinge die ik ook wel van naam kende
maar nog ni echt naar geluisterd had
In this extract, Ella witnesses that she knows a lot of music thanks to her father. She
then goes on to narrate how she put the gramophone in her room and listened to the
records she found at home. The witnessing move, the narrative and the names of
the artists she listened to all make her come across as someone who knows what
she is talking about.
120
[37] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe)
Host de klik is ’n beetje of e- e- ‘et ‘et grote
kantelpunt bij jou is (.) gekomen w’adden ’t
daarnet al even a- aangehaald
.hh over die die prachtige hoes met die vooral
die prachtige euh euh vrouwenkont erop
Lenny ja
Host .hh euh (.) Is This It van The Strokes
Lenny ja da was een k- een euh een kantelpunt bij mij
he
da was zo een beetje de ontdekking van van
eu::hm gitaarmuziek en zo die gans die nieuwe
vibe van groepen gelijk The Hives en The
Libertines en .hh The Strokes
ma die eerste plaat van The Strokes heeft da
echt getriggerd
ik ben daar naar beginne luistere en
.hh ‘k was daarvan zodanig in de ban da mij da
heeft opengestoten ervoor gezorgd da’k andere
dingen ben beginne luisteren en ontdekken
.hh en da’k eigenlijk uiteindelijk goesting
heb gekrege om zelf ne groep te beginne en
zelf muziek te beginne make en .hh gitaar te
spele en en nummers te schrijve .hhh
Host ja
Lenny daarom is da nog altijd: mijn favoriete plaat of
een van mijn: meest (.) beluisterde platen
ooit omdat die gewoon ‘eel .hh doorslaggevend
is geweest
In [37], Lenny, encouraged by the host, tells about his favourite record. Lenny is
credible because not only has he listened to that record so many times, it has also
inspired him to start his own band.
121
[38] (from Raúl & Gabriel Rios)
Gabriel I still I remember (.)e:r duh duh especially the
record Double Fantasy from (.)
.hh I think I was probably:: three years old
(.) and I sti- I have (.) I have that (.)
memory imprinted
we were living in California and
Host hmhm
Gabriel I think they had just bought the record so were
playing it constantly (.)
.h and I remember erm (.) a lot of songs in that
record (.)
.h just like starting over a bunch of songs from
that last John Lennon record
Witnessing and telling about owning cds and childhood memories are combined in
this extract. Gabriel narrates how his parents bought a John Lennon record and
played it non-stop when he was three. Since he has known John Lennon from such
an early age and remembers the songs very well, he is a credible speaker with
regards to John Lennon.
[39] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)
→ Nona ‘k ‘eb nog nooit zo’n (.) uitzinnig euh publiek
gezien
Host op Wer- op Werchter [bedoel je?
Nona [ja (.)
[op Werchter ( )
Host [ik ben ook gaan kijken
Nona ja (.) ja hhh
Host ‘k vond euh ik vond heel erg goed (.)
euh (.) daar was jij dus ook ni bij (.)
[Bart Peeters
Bart [ik was niet op op Ke$ha (.)
122
[op Werchter
Nona [ahahaha
Bart euh (.) we-
ik ben daar niet op betrapt (.)
→ werkelijk niet
In this extract, the host and his guests are discussing Ke$ha. Nona is a big fan, her
father Bart is not a fan at all. Nona is able to produce a witnessing move: she went
to see Ke$ha at the Rock Werchter festival and apparently, the crowd was wildly
enthusiastic about Ke$ha (first arrow). Earlier in the conversation, Nona was asked
to explain why she likes Ke$ha so much, and the fact that she has witnessed this
concert makes her explanation credible. On the other hand, precisely the fact that
Bart was not a witness and emphasises this so strongly (second arrow) makes him
credible as well; Nona is a credible Ke$ha fan, Bart is a credible fan of an entirely
different kind of music.
[40] (from Kamagurka & Sarah Zeebroek)
→ Kamagurka ja ‘k ‘eb ooit een: een strip gemaakt me Zappa
Host ja
→ Kamagurka dus eu:h da was in d’n tijd euh da’k (.)
ik zat nog op d’ academie in in in Gent denk
ik
.hh en euh ma ‘k begon ook wel voor den Humo te
werken en euhm Guy Mortier
euh .hhh w- w- waarom da’k dan eigenlijk voor
Humo werkte was omda Guy Mortier op Frank Zap-
Zappa leek
Sarah ahhhahaha
Kamagurka .hh en:
Host dat waren de enige:::
Kamagurka [nee nee hahaha .hh nee
Host [de enige argumenten om dat te doen ja
123
Kamagurka en eu:h dus dan gi- Guy had gezegd van ja ge moe
ne keer eu::h m- m- m- ge kunt misschien ne
keer proberen met euh iets doen me Zappa .h
want ‘ij wil zich ni laten interviewen
.hh en euh ik zeg ja ‘k zou ‘k ik da willen doen
[…]
en eu::h dan was ‘k naar Zappa gegaan (.)
→ in Vorst Nationaal .hh
da was in ’81 (.) 1981
°((onverstaanbaar gemompel))°
Host ja
Kamagurka en eu::h ‘k herinner mij dus da’k binnenkwam
eu::h om eu:h °((onverstaanbaar gemompel))
Sarah .hh hehe
Kamagurka en eu::h (.) ik werd tegengehouden door de
bodyguard van Zappa
da was een gigantische::: kale neger eigenlijk
van ‘k denk drie meter hoog en .hh die
vijfhonderd kilo woog euh
.hh en die zijn si- zijn brandende sigaretten
achter zijn oren stak tegen zijn schedel
[en die ni ni verbleekte
Host [°hehehehehe°
Kamagurka .hhhh en ik kom binnen in die: (.) in die
kleedkamer van Zappa en eu:h
ik (.) ben zo’n snotneus eh en (.) me m’n grote
tekenkaart
en Zappa zegt van oei (.) ‘ebde flu
‘k zeg ja haha
out! zei ‘m
[hehehe
Sarah [jhohhoh
Kamagurka ‘ij wou ni ziek worden hahaha
Host en dat was ‘et?
124
Kamagurka .hh nee nee [hehehe
Sarah [hehe
Kamagurka .hhh ma da was vo’ te lachen
Host ah ok hehehe gelukkig
Kamagurka ‘k stond alweer buiten aan Vorst Nationaal toen
stond Zappa wanhopig te zwaaien da’k nog zou
terugkomen
.hhh en eu::h dan ‘eeft ‘ij dus euh een uur lang
heel geconcentreerd euh op die op die op die
pagina geweest
want ik tekende toen ook gigantisch groot
denk da ‘k ik da ergens ge .hh hoord dat da
moest ‘k weet da ni meer ( )
en Zappa heeft daar dan euh een prachtige: tekst
op gemaakt eh
At the first arrow in this extract, Kamagurka produces a witnessing move: he is a
legitimate speaker about Frank Zappa because he has worked with him once. At the
second arrow, Kamagurka begins a rather long narrative about how it came to be
that he made a comic together with Zappa. At the third arrow, Kamagurka
remembers some facts about the situation: he met Frank Zappa in 1981 in Vorst
Nationaal. The witnessing move supplies Kamagurka “with the authenticity of
experience” (Hutchby 2006: 83), the narrative elaborates the witnessing move and
both the story and the facts mentioned in the story authenticate Kamagurka’s position
as a credible speaker even more.
[41] (from Guy & Jens Mortier)
Guy ik weet nog één ding ik stond daar als als een
gek wat ik normaal (.)
de meeste optredens heb ik nauwelijks meegemaakt
want ik was mijn (.) teksten al aan ’t
voorbereiden van euh voor de volgende artiest
.hh maar dan stond ik in de coulissen
125
.hh en het was dezelfde dag waarin euhm Borg en
McEnroe de finale speelden van Wimbledon
een historische finale die geweldig geweldig
lang duurde (.)
en waar Borg denk ik (.) tenslotte won want
(.) eu:hm Mink Deville (.) had gedaan (.) boog
(.) ging weg
en wij gingen rap tel- televisie kijken
.hh en ondertussen (.) eu::h (.) had hij gezegd
want hij wilde eigenlijk niet dat (.) dat hij
aangekondigd werd door (.) door iemand anders
dan zijn eigen band
.h en toen (.) zei hij (.) where is the Belgian
guy
Host hihi [hehehehe
Guy [want ik (.)
ik mocht dan zeggen (.) hij komt nog een
bisnummer doen
maar ik stond naar McEnroe te kijken
Host hhhahahahaha hahaha
Guy maar hij heeft mij nadien (.)
b- ben ik naar z’n caravan geweest en daar
heeft hij me een lepeltje coke aangeboden
Here, Guy Mortier tells a story about something that happened to him when he
worked as a presenter at festivals. He recollects one particular festival where Mink
Deville played, and relates what happened that day. The fact that he remembers that
Björn Borg and John McEnroe played tennis that day and that Mink Deville offered
him some drugs later on make his story even more credible, as well as entertaining.
Again, remembering works as an “[attempt] to seize authority with respect to a topic
of concern” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 284).
[42] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)
→ Luc euhm ik was naar ‘n concert geweest (.)
126
eerst in Amsterdam
eu:h ‘t alereerste concert dat de Pixies in
Europa gaven was in de Paradiso in Amsterdam
euhm (.) euh dat was eh speelden zij het
voorprogramma van de Throwing Muses
Host ach
→ Luc en de volgende dag ben ik eu::h naar het concert
gaan kijke: van euh de Pixies in de Effenaar
.hh en daar waren z’al meteen euh de
hoofdgroep
Host daar hadden ze:
Luc [ja
Host [Throwing Muses [al ingehaald
Luc [ma- wa-
dat was in Amsterdam ook duidelijk euh geworden
van dat de Pixies dat was iets apart
dat was dat was heel euh dat was heel speciaal
.hhh en eu::hm: de volgende dag was ik in eu:h
na ’t concert was ik in euh in Hilversum en
euh .hh euh d’r komt
we we zaten in de villa eu:h bij de VPRO
.hh en d’r komt euh vlak voor de uitzending
eu::h komt er een klein dik mannetje de trap
op euh [gehobbeld
Host [hehe
Luc en dat was euh Frank Black met achter hem euh
Kim Deal
.hh en die waren nog in Nederland en die kwamen
goeiedag zeggen (.)
.hh die hadden gezegd van ( )
→ ik had met hen een interview gedaan dan wel en
die eu:h ja die die vonden mij blijkbaar eu:h
.hhh sympathiek genoeg of (.) ik was de enige
waarschijnlijk die ze echt kenden daar
127
en die (.) die kwamen even goeiendag zeggen
Host ja
Luc en eh die zijn tijdens die uitzending gebleven
en achteraf is: telkens als euh Frank Black in
eh in de buurt is .hh dan belt ‘ie of dan laat
‘ie weten ik ben er of als jullie ’s willen
langskomen euhm
Host ja
Luc zo is dat gegroeid
In this extract, Luc witnesses about two Pixies concerts he has been to. He then
goes on to tell a story about how the Pixies suddenly appeared at his work place the
following day. Only in this narrative the audience finds out that Frank Black and Kim
Deal did not randomly go to the tv studio where Luc used to work, but that he had
met and interviewed them before. All this combined make Luc appear credible.
Extracts [40], [41] and [42] are all examples of work-related events that Papa
Was A Rolling Stone guests witness and tell stories about. These narratives and
witnessing moves are constant reminders of the guests’ status as music
professionals, and thus as expert participants.
The important role of the host as status-attributor has been discussed above.
On Dream Team, it is also the case that the host routinely validates the stories that
the lay participants tell. This happens on Papa Was A Rolling Stone as well. The
continuer “ja” is again the most frequent form the host uses to do this; see for
example extracts [33], [34], [37], [40] and [42]. Extract [34] is particularly interesting
in this respect: the host still says “ja” even though the conversation is predominantly
in English.
In addition to witnessing and storytelling, Papa Was A Rolling Stone guests
can also use factual knowledge for credibility. Because at least half of the guests are
experts, they know a lot more facts and they also mention facts a lot more often than
the lay speakers on Dream Team. Three kinds of factual knowledge may be
discerned in the Papa Was A Rolling Stone data: regular factual knowledge, lexical
items and name-dropping, and comparison. Example [8] in the general overview is
128
an example of guests who mention facts about a singer, band, cd, ... This is another
example from the same conversation:
[43] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)
Bart wete da (.) diejen beat (.)
die was eigenlijk dubbel zo traag he (.)
.hh dus (.) da da was eigenlijk de bedoeling
om da dubbel zo traag in te zingen (.)
en die hebben da dubbel zo rap ingezongen (.)
en zo is die Destiny’s Child (.) stijl
ontstaan
en als je dat weet (.) dan begrijp je dit
nummer ook beter
Bart is aware of the fact that originally, the beat of a Destiny’s Child song was
intended to be slower. He shares this fact with the audience, thus positioning himself
as someone who knows a lot about Destiny’s Child and is thus entitled to talk about
them on the radio.
Lexical items have already been mentioned above as resources for speakers
to create credible identities for themselves. Speakers may use specific lexical items
to display that they are knowledgeable about certain events or facts, and thus
present themselves as credible speakers on those topics that allow for such specific
lexical items to be used (email Slembrouck 2012). For instance, someone who
claims to be a horse lover will not come across as very credible when he or she
systematically refers to the legs of a horse as “paws”, and a linguistics student may
present him- or herself as an authority on language merely by dropping words such
as “pragmatics” and “deixis” even if he or she is not entirely sure what they mean
precisely. Lexical items that make a speaker credible in a radio programme about
music are usually linked to the more technical aspects of music. Some examples:
[44] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)
129
Iwein ik hou heel erg v- wel van die die jaren
negentig dingen die we (.) net ‘ebben g’oord
→ en ik hou heel erg van euh strofe refrein strofe
refre- dubbel refrein en euh (.) allemaal
meebrullen
Whereas “die jaren negentig dingen” is a rather vague description of the kind of song
structures that appeal to Iwein, he rephrases this in the TCU indicated with the arrow.
Songs that he likes are structured strophe – chorus – strophe – double chorus. This
is a much more technical description that makes Iwein sound more like a musician.
[45] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen)
Lee ik luister nog altij graag van:: euh van die
→ post-punk bands enzo
“Post-punk bands” is a lexical item that makes Lee come across as credible, because
it shows that he knows more about the genre of the bands he mentioned earlier in
the text. Instead of calling them something more general, such as “rock bands”, for
instance, he is able to pinpoint them as something more specific. Also, since he
uses the term “post-punk” and not just “punk”, it is clear that he is also able to
distinguish between the two.
Names are a special kind of lexical items that speakers on Papa Was A
Rolling Stone use to show that they know what they are talking about. Name-
dropping is an easy and very frequently used method that speakers employ to ensure
the audience that they are experts. Ella Leyers can be seen doing this in extract [36]
and Lenny Crabbe in [37]; another example is [46] below.
[46] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)
Iwein ‘k ‘eb daar heel veel door ontdekt
euh van Buffalo Tom tot Dinosaur Jr. tot euh
hh Stone Temple Pilots .hhh misschien spijtig
genoeg ook
130
maar da ’t heeft wel eu:h .hh mijn smaak mee
bepaald
denk Afghan Whigs zat daar ook tussen
dus euh ‘k heb daar de goei’ dingen uit
gedistilleerd
Iwein is discussing which bands he discovered via the Studio Brussel Afrekening-cds
his father used to give him for Christmas and his birthdays. Apparently he is no
longer a Stone Temple Pilots fan, but the list of names that he provides do make it
seem as if he knows a lot about music.
Last but not least, comparison is also a resource that Papa Was A Rolling
Stone guests often use. By comparing one artist, one record, one festival, … to
another, the guests show that they are not only knowledgeable about one artist, one
record, one festival and so on, but they also indicate that they have noticed
connections between that one artist, record, … and another. In other words, they
present themselves not just as someone who knows a few facts or names, but also
as someone who is capable of linking these to each other in a more or less logical
way. They thus come across as intelligent music experts.
[47] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)
Eppo in die periode kwamen er heel veel van die
platen uit
je had eu::h euh .hh Bonnie Prince Billy met
zijn eerste album
je had Songs: Ohia die kwame
je had Pinback
en die Sigur Rós
In this extract, Eppo compares a Sigur Rós record to apparently similar records by
different artists that came out at about the same time.
[48] (from Kamagurka & Sarah Zeebroek)
Sarah ‘k ben er ook wel zot van ma: (.)
131
’t is ook (.) allez ben ook Butthole Surfers
heel dankbaar want dankzij hen zijn ook euh h
.hh de Flaming Lips
Host kijk
Sarah waar ‘k ook vree fan van ben dus
Sarah compares one of her favourite bands, the Flaming Lips, to another band with
the very fascinating name Butthole Surfers. Apparently, the latter were some kind of
pioneers in the kind of music that Flaming Lips started making later on as well. That
Sarah knows both bands and is able to compare them, saying that the one would not
have existed without the other, makes her seem knowledgeable and credible.
5.3 Conclusion
The conclusion of the credibility research is thus that, unlike the lay participants on
Dream Team, guests on Papa Was A Rolling Stone do not have to “establish a
relevant participatory status” (Thornborrow 2001b: 470) for themselves. This status
is attributed to them at the beginning of the programme through the introduction: the
guests are introduced as experts. The host may further strengthen this expert status
by repeating elements that have been mentioned in the introduction, by mentioning
new elements that present the guests as experts, by asking the guests to explain a
certain artist or song to the audience, and/or by letting guests announce a song. The
guests also undertake actions to make it clear to the audience that they are credible
participants on the programme. This is often done in ways that are very similar to
those that lay participants on Dream Team use. Witnessing moves are made and
stories are told by the Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants as well. These are
mostly about the same topics, too, although the Papa Was A Rolling Stone stories
are also often related to the guest’s background as some kind of music professional.
The host again validates these stories. In addition, Papa Was A Rolling Stone
guests may also use factual knowledge, lexical items and name-dropping, and
comparison as a way of ascertaining their expert status.
132
5.4 Credibility of the host
Up until now, the discussion of credibility has focused on the participants of the two
radio programmes under discussion. The host has only been discussed insofar as
he was involved in attributing the participants credibility, or in validating the credibility
that they created for themselves, for instance through storytelling. It is not the aim of
this thesis to consider how hosts manage to come across as credible themselves. A
few remarks on this topic are useful, however, especially as the power position of the
host is something that will be considered in the next chapter. This is actually
something that most authors do: many speak of the host’s power position, but most
are silent with regards to his credibility.
That this is the case is not very surprising, though. The host does not need to
warrant his contributions to the radio programme he is hosting, simply because he is
the host. Firstly, the institutional role of the host, the fact that he works for the radio
station, provide him with all the credibility and legitimacy he needs. Secondly, the
programme he is hosting is not about him. He is not a lay participant who has been
given a public voice, who chooses three songs and talks about the radio, and whose
talk subsequently becomes a public, mediated performance (Thornborrow 2001a:
136) . Neither is he a local celebrity who has been invited to the studio along with
father or child, who talks about music and is careful to act accordingly to his or her
public persona, nor is he a non-celebrity who is nonetheless treated as an expert.
Because the show is not about him but about his interviewees or studio guests, it is
far less important to the host to be creating or reinforcing a credible identity for
himself.
However, the question of credibility is not entirely irrelevant. The hosts do
take care to perform in a way that makes them look competent radio hosts, and in a
way that accords with the general image of Studio Brussel. It has already been
mentioned above that using very formal, standard language, for instance, would
clash with the more casual image of the radio station. The hosts do pay attention to
their pronunciation, but their style remains very informal. Also, the hosts sometimes
mention facts or make witnessing moves; in extract [39], for example, the host says
that he, like his guest, saw the Ke$ha concert at the Rock Werchter festival.
133
As the objective of this thesis is to come to conclusions about the credibility
and the power situations of the Dream Team lay participants versus the Papa Was A
Rolling Stone expert participants, however, the subject of host credibility will not be
looked into any further.
134
135
6. Power
The previous chapter has explored the credibility of the participants on Dream Team
and Papa Was A Rolling Stone. This chapter will look at the power situations in
these two programmes. Who is in power at what point during the conversation, how
this power is brought about, and whether any general conclusions can be drawn
about this.
Conversation analysis is, contrary to what some critics say, suitable for
considerations of power situations in conversations (Hutchby 2006: 31, Hutchby &
Wooffitt 2008: 212). Hutchby quotes Norman Fairclough, a Critical Discourse
Analysis proponent who wants to look at “[c]onnections between the use of the
language and the exercise of power” (Fairclough as quoted by Hutchby 2006: 32 and
Hutchby & Wooffitt 2008: 209). Fairclough writes that in many kinds of interaction,
there are “a whole range of ideologically potent assumptions about rights,
relationships, knowledge and identities” (ibid.). What Hutchby takes issue with is that
Fairclough speaks of “the invisibility of [these] ideological assumptions, and of the
power relationships which underlie the practices” (ibid.) in which these assumptions
are to be found. According to Hutchby, this kind of reasoning “tends to lead to the
analytic assumption that power relations […] are pre-established features of the
context” (Hutchby 2006: 32). In other words, CDA assumes “that there are […]
factors, external to the situation the speakers are in, and of which the speakers may
not be aware, that impact on the production of their talk” (Hutchby 2006: 33). The
problem is then that it becomes very difficult for the analyst to prove that such factors
exist, that they influence the talk that a speaker produced, and that this happens at
(a) particular moment(s) in the conversation (ibid.). CA rather looks at the data and
at instances in which interlocutors demonstrably orientate themselves towards a
particular power situation.
CA is not in favour of the view that power relations somehow pre-exist and determine
the course of actual concrete encounters; but by focusing on the local management of
talk-in-interaction this approach can in fact provide compelling accounts of how power
comes to operate as a feature of, and is used as a resource in, institutional interaction.
(ibid.)
136
Focusing on the local management of talk-in-interaction is precisely what will be done
in this chapter. In order to find out more about the power situation in Dream Team
and in Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the following aspects will be looked at:
- Institutional roles of questioner and answerer
- Topic initiation
- Formulating
- Turn allocation and interruption
- Dispreferred seconds
- Opening & closing the conversation
Speaking with authority is also often associated with the use of standard language
(email Slembrouck 2012). In the previous chapter, it has already been explained why
that is not the case here. The aim of this thesis is also not to analyse whether the
participants on the radio programmes that are being looked at are using standard
language or not. This aspect will therefore not be considered here.
Another aspect that will not be considered here is turn length. According to
Jeffries and McIntyre,
the relative power of speakers in a conversation is often reflected in the turn
constructional components of the conversation. Short […] [explains] […] that powerful
speakers tend to dominate conversations and that this is reflected in their relative turn
lengths.
(Short as quoted by Jeffries & McIntyre 2010: 104)
However, also as explained above, in interviews it is understood that the interviewee
will talk more than strictly necessary in order to provide as complete an answer as
possible to the question of the interviewer, and the interviewer usually restricts him-
or herself to asking questions. Therefore, it is not relevant to consider turn length
here.
The above list of aspects that will be looked at is probably not an exhaustive
list of aspects that could be looked at in order to investigate the power situation in
Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone. However, a discussion of these
aspects should give a good idea of what the situation is like.
6.1 Dream Team
6.1.1 Institutional roles of questioner and answerer
137
The institutional roles of questioner and answerer have already been mentioned in
the chapter on broadcast talk. In institutional settings such as Dream Team,
participants “have institutionally inscribed identities which affect the asymmetrical
distribution of speaker rights and obligations in the talk” (Thornborrow 2001c: 119).
Thornborrow adds that this asymmetry is linked to power: “[i]n many institutional
contexts for talk […] the role of the questioner has been found to be a more powerful
interactional position than the role of answerer” (ibid.), and this is because “’anyone
in the position of answering is restricted to dealing with just what’s in the prior
question’” (Drew as quoted by Thornborrow 2001c: 120). If one assumes the role of
answerer, then, like the Dream Team lay participant does, one has a restricted set of
responsive activities available to oneself (Hutchby 2006: 33). This, however, does
not mean that as soon as the conversation starts and the host begins to ask
questions, the power situation is set in stone. The questioner is usually more
powerful in the conversation than the answerer, so if the lay participant wants to
reverse the power balance, he or she may “try and maneouvre [sic]” (Hutchby &
Wooffitt 2008: 213) the host into the position of the answerer. The host may also
assume this position himself. The following part discusses whether the host is
manoeuvred into the role of the answerer and/or whether he assumes this role
himself in Dream Team.
As mentioned in the general overview, Dream Team is overwhelmingly
structured according to a question/answer pattern: the host asks questions and the
caller replies, as indicated in this diagram.
Opening Greeting/greeting
(host/interviewee)
Discussion of song 1 Question/expected answer and/or
assessment/agreement
(host/interviewee)
Discussion of song 2 Question/expected answer and/or
assessment/agreement
(host/interviewee)
138
Discussion of song 3 Question/expected answer and/or
assessment/agreement
(host/interviewee)
Closing Host announces songs 2 and 3
Thanks/thanks and/or
greeting/greeting
(host/interviewee and/or
interviewee/host)
Some examples:
[1] (from 10/11)
Host hij was onlangs nog in ons land (.)
ben je toevallig geweest?
Ca nee
The host asks if the caller went to a particular concert that took place recently. The
caller replies to the question; it would seem strange if he did not.
It is also worth noting here that the caller’s reply is neither an expected nor an
unexpected answer. Interviewees usually reply with expected answers because
most of the questions that the host asks are based on what the caller filled in on the
registration form online. The host really does not know the answer to this question,
though, and from the construction of his question it is clear that he does not expect to
hear a “yes” rather than a “no” or vice versa.
[2] (from 25/10)
Host .hhh Adele kies je met Turning Tablesss
‘t is een leeftijdsgenote
z’ is drieëntwintig zeker he?
Ca ja
Host ja
en waarom (.) euh dat nummer (.) van Adele (.)
Thomas?
139
Ca euhm
((vertelt waarom))
The host asks questions, and the interviewee replies.
[3] (from 07/11)
Host welke groep vind je ’t beste (.)
van welke broer?=
Ca =Beady Eye (.)
[Beady Eye
[4] (from 20/10)
Host =dan Nick Cave met Into My Arms daar heb je ook
heel goeie herinneringen aan kan ik me
voorstellen
[Inge
Ca [ja dat klopt euh
da was de openingsdans van ons huwelijk
euh
Host (1.3) wie had m gekoze?
Ca wablieft?
Host wie had ‘m gekozen
[dat nummer?
Ca [euh we hebben ‘m eigenlijk (.) samen gekozen
This question/answer (or, alternatively, assessment/agreement) pattern indicates,
then, that the host usually assumes the more powerful position in the interaction.
However, also as mentioned in the general overview, this question/answer system
may sometimes be suspended. This actually happens relatively often, but it does not
always entail that the interviewee effectively takes up the role of questioner. Of
course, if the interviewee does not take up this role, the power situation is not
actually reversed.
140
[5] (from 28/10)
Ca ni alleen da
dus (.) euh blijkbaar heeft muziek voor de
geboorte ook een heel .hh goeie invloed op u
kind hh
dus euh dan ben ik ook beginne nadenke van::
misschien kan ik al wa cds op voorhand maken
die ik dan ook al in de auto of thuis ne keer
kan afspele hh
[( )
→ Host [en weet je dat dat echt werkt (.) Kathleen?
→ ik [kan d’r over meespreken
Ca [euh nee da [weet ik ni zeker
Host [ja echt wel (.) [echt wel
→ Ca [JA?
Host er was een cd’tje (.) euh toen mijn eerste
dochter is geboren
een cd’tje dat we daarvoor (.) dus tijdens de
zwangerschap hebben afgespeeld
en als ze onrustig was (.) toen het kindje er
was he
Ca ja ja=
Host =hielp dat
echt waar
Ca [ah (.) allez hhh
In this extract, for instance, the host suspends the interview system in order to tell a
personal story himself. This extract has also been discussed in the general overview
chapter; see example 9 for the longer extracts and additional comments. What is
noticeable here is not only that the host temporarily gives up the role of questioner,
but also that the caller does not take up that role even though it has been made
interactionally available to her. The only question she does ask is the loud “JA?”
indicated with the third arrow. The loudness and the prosody of this utterance,
141
however, make it clear that this is an indication of surprise rather than an actual
question.
[6] (from 07/11)
Ca euh prachtig optreden eh
Host ja
→ (0.5) er was heel want rond te doen (.)
he (.)
de: de: paardenworsten en het vlees
.hhh
→ Ca [ja da was
Host [euhm
ja (.)
→ maar een scheet in een fles is achteraf
gebleken he
(.) toch
Ca inderdaad
At the first arrow, the host again stops asking questions. His utterance could be seen
as an assessment, to which the caller replies with a suitable agreement. However, at
this point, the caller could also have interpreted this as the host sharing factual
knowledge, and he could have asked a question himself in his next turn. However, at
his arrow-indicated turn he produces an agreement, thus leaving the power to ask
questions with the host. The host takes up his role as questioner again, or in each
case more clearly, at the third arrow: this is clearly an assessment to which the
interviewee is expected to reply with an agreement.
This kind of system suspension is the only kind of interactional action that
comes close to a reversal of the roles of questioner and answerers in the Dream
Team data. Nowhere in the data does the answerer effectively become the
questioner. In this aspect, then, the host is always in the most powerful position.
Two more instances need to be mentioned in this regard, however: extracts [7] and
[8].
142
[7] (from 08/11)
Host ja (.)
en een fantastische groep ook he Koen
→ Ca (2.0) wablieft
Host ook een fantastische groep toch (.)
Radiohead?
This extract contains the only instance in all ten episodes of Dream Team in which an
interviewee asks the host a question. This question, though, is not really a question,
but other-initiated self-repair: the interviewee did not understand the host and asks to
repeat his question, which the host subsequently does.
[8] (from 09/11)
Host ja (.)
Tineke van Heule
Ca jah (.) inderdaad
→ en wij eh hebben trouwens ook een groot feest
vrijdag
[want eh
Host [ja
Ca wij vieren het negenhonderdjarige bestaan van
onze gemeente
Host ok (.)
en wat gebeurt er allemaal (.)
kort (.) Pieter
Ca een euh voorstelling van euh een boek (.)
euh met betrekking tot het euh bestaan van het
negenhonderdjarig euh Heule
Host ja
Ca en euh ook euh (.) een: eh Highland games (.)
in de namiddag
Host ok=
143
Ca =dus waarin de verenigingen euh (.) elkaar
bekampen
Host ok ik wens jullie veel plezier (.)
This extract has already been discussed in the general overview as well. As said
there, the interviewee sees an opportunity in the turn indicated with the arrow to
temporarily suspend the question/answer framework and to promote festivities that
will take place in his town that weekend. The host allows this suspension for a short
time. The caller has thus managed to temporarily escape the restrictions that have
been imposed on him as an answerer. He does not, though, take over the role of the
questioner; he merely tells what will be happening in Heule that weekend.
On Dream Team, then, the host typically takes up the role of questioner, and
his interviewee that of answerer. The host may suspend the question/answer pattern
himself, and on rare occasions, interviewees may do so as well, as in extract [8].
Interviewees never take on the role of questioner, though, even when the host
produces talk that makes it possible for them to do so. Even instances that look like
questions asked by the caller, such as in extracts [5] and [7], are not actual
questions. When it comes to the power of the questioner, then, it seems that the
host constantly possesses it.
6.1.2 Topic initiation
Another interesting aspect to look at when discussing power in institutional
conversations is the power to initiate new topics in the conversation. This has
already been mentioned in the discussion of storytelling in the chapter on credibility;
Ochs and Capps mentioned the aspect of ‘launch control’ (2001: 125), referring to
the fact that stories about someone’s experience are not always launched by the
person who has had the experience, and not always at a time chosen by this
experiencer (ibid.). Someone else may have the power to launch the experiencer’s
story. The notion of topic initiation is broader than mere launch control. One who
has the power to initiate topics does not only control which stories are told and when,
but also what the topic of these stories should be.
In regular conversations, it is normally the case that any participant may
introduce new topics. This is typically done at transition relevance places, and as
144
discussed in the chapter on storytelling, tellers may start telling a story after someone
else has told their story. Often, tellers will then present their stories as relevant, seen
in the context of the previous story, even when they are actually not relevant
(Jefferson as quoted by Ochs & Capps 2001: 39).
In the Dream Team data, however, the aspect of topic initiation does not lead
to any new insights. The right or the power to initiate new topics coincides
completely with the host’s institutional role of questioner. Through asking questions,
the host controls which topic will be dealt with at what point in the conversation. The
only exceptions are when the lay participants move away from their role as answerer,
as illustrated in extract [8]. This happens only on rare occasions, though, so the
power to initiate topics can be said to lie with the host.
6.1.3 Formulating
Formulating summaries (Liddicoat 2007: 259) may be used as a power resource in
institutional conversations. In radio programmes, this resource is again usually
available to the host (Hutchby 2006: 92). Heritage noticed a link between the role of
questioner and formulating: “formulating ‘is most commonly undertaken by
questioners’” (Heritage as quoted by Hutchby 2006: 92). “[T]he host [is enabled] [...]
to try and establish control over the agenda by selectively formulating the gist or
upshot” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 2008: 214) of what the caller has just said.
In the Dream Team data, it is indeed always the host that formulates. The
interviewee may be given the option to confirm or disagree with the host’s
formulation, but not always.
[9] (from 03/11)
Host een van je andere keuzes=
=eh Eminem en Rihanna met Love The Way You Lie
Ca (0.7) ja (.)
euhm Eminem is zeker ni een van mijn favoriete
bands
als die nu naar ’t Sportpaleis zou komen zou
ik nooit 50 euro betalen voor een ticket (.)
145
maar ik keek er wel enorm naar uit
omda da wel (.) waarschijnlijk een van de
enige kansen was (.)
om ‘m toch eens gezien te hebben
en: (.)
ja ik kan ni ontkenne dat ‘m toch wel (.)
euh (.) goeie muziek maakt in zijn genre (.)
dat da toch wel een maat is waar je ni omheen
kan
en eigenlijk die kans da je da kan zien op
zo’n festival
(0.9) toch spijtig da da ni is doorgegaan
→ Host ‘t is e- ‘t is een beetje jouw eh guilty
pleasure zo
[een een een
→ Ca [ja awel
Host een artiest die je stiekem wel goed vindt (.)
maar die [je eigenlijk niet zo goed wil vinden
→ Ca [ja
Host [hehhh
Ca [hehe
Host en dan heb je ook nog gekozen voor de Foo
Fighters
met All My Life
The host formulates the interviewee’s words at the turn indicated with the first arrow.
She does not truly give him the opportunity to refute or accept the formulation,
because she keeps talking. As indicated with the second and third arrows, the
interviewee does want to agree with the host’s formulation and he does so, but the
talk he produces overlaps with hers because she continues talking after every
transition relevance place.
[10] (from 09/11)
146
Ca en ik heb da liedje gekozen omdat het toch een
euh soort van mengvorm is tussen verschillende
genres van muziek
en het heeft ook wel een beetje een opzwepend
ritme
dus euh
ik vond dat wel euh (.)
een favorietje
→ Host ja en heel ve-
heel speciale sfeer zo he
→ Ca ja inderdaad
The host formulates at the first arrow. By ending his turn with “he”, he explicitly asks
if the interviewee agrees with this. At the turn indicated with the second arrow, the
interviewee does.
These are the only two instances of formulating found in the Dream Team
data. Formulating does not happen very often, then, and is always done by the host.
6.1.4 Turn allocation and interruption
Sacks et al. write that there are three ways in which a next speaker may be selected
(1974: 704): the current speaker may select the next speaker, the next speaker may
self-select if the current speaker has not selected the next speaker, or the current
speaker may continue speaking if neither of the two previous possibilities is fulfilled.
Because in Dream Team it is usually the host that asks an interviewee questions
(and there is only one host and one interviewee), it is also usually the host who
selects the interviewee as next speaker. At several transition relevance places, the
interviewee will then self-select as the next speaker, because he or she wants to tell
a story. At the transition relevance place at the end of the story, then, the host will
self-select as the next speaker, and ask a new question (see extracts [11] and [12]).
[11] (from 26/10)
147
Host Breakfast in Vegas van Praga Khan
→ je hebt Maurice ooit ontmoet Els
→ Ca hja (.)
dikwijls eigenlijk (.)
in Leuven (.)
he dus euh ik woon in het Leuvensen (.) hij
woont in eu::h Rotselaar
euh (.)
hja (.) laat ons zeggen dat dat wel een BV was
die we regelmatig tegenkwamen in het Leuvense
.hhh nu je kon er ook ni naast kijken
[natuurlijk hihihi
Host [hah heheh
→ neeneenee
.hhh j’ebt ‘m ook ooit live gezien?
At the first arrow, the host asks the interviewee a question, explicitly selecting her as
the next speaker by naming her name. At the second arrow, the interviewee replies.
She starts telling a story that has several transition relevance places, but these are
ignored by the host and the interviewee keeps telling her story. At the third arrow,
the host responds to the apparently finished narrative of the interviewee. He self-
selects as the next speaker and asks the next question.
[12] (from 25/10)
Host goed Queen en David Bowie Thomas
da’s van lang geleden
euh (.) eind jaren zeventig begin jaren tachtig
moet dat geweest zijn
hoe heb je dat nummer dan ontdekt
want je bent e- nog een euh een jonge kerel
Ca ja eigenlijk heel toevallig maar euh gewoon
via Youtube van ‘t een liedje naar ‘t ander
en dan uiteindelijk daar dan bij (.) terecht
gekomen en:
148
ja
( ) een hele tijd gewoon opgeslagen bij
favorieten
en (.) ja moest ik er gewoon terug aan denken
Host ja
‘t is een heel straf nummer he
The host names his interviewee at the beginning of his question. Here, the host
produces several transition relevance places, but the interviewee does not act on the
opportunity to start talking before it is clear that the host has finished asking his
question. When the interviewee starts talking, the host also waits until he is finished
before he makes another assessment.
Sometimes, as in extract [13], there will be overlapping talk at a TRP, but who
speaks next is usually resolved relatively quickly.
[13] (from 03/11)
Host ‘t is e- ‘t is een beetje jouw eh guilty
pleasure zo
→ [een een een
→ Ca [ja awel
Host een artiest die je stiekem wel goed vindt
Turn allocation, then, is connected with the institutional roles of questioner and
answerer. The host indicates when the interviewee should answer a question, and
the interviewee understands that the answer should be as informative as possible,
i.e. he or she will often provide a narrative. After this narrative, the host will move on
to the next question, to which the interviewee will give another answer, and so on.
That turn allocation is relatively straightforward on Dream Team is because of the
interview framework and because there are only two interlocutors. There are also
moments in which the host or the interviewee self-selects somewhat unexpectedly.
These cases have already been discussed above, in extracts [5], [6] and [8]. In
general, though, what can be concluded from the patterns of turn allocation on
Dream Team is that the host selects himself and the interviewee as next speaker,
149
while the interviewee only self-selects. Once they have finished speaking, they
generally do not select the host as next speaker, but the host self-selects to avoid
silence and to move on to the next question.
Then, there is a special kind of turn allocation that is also discussed here:
interruption. According to Jeffries and McIntyre, “[a] turn-overlap at any other point
than a TRP constitutes an interruption” (2010: 102). In other words, an interruption
occurs when a next speaker self-selects at a point in a conversation that is not a
transition relevance place. This is often done because according to Sacks et al., in
cases of “self-selection for next speakership […] first starter acquires rights to a turn”
(1974: 704): interrupting someone before they have come to a TRP definitely is a
way of making sure that one is the first starter and acquires rights to a next turn.
However, interrupting someone is often seen as impolite11. This is precisely why
interruptions are interesting to look at when dealing with power. Questions that will
be dealt with are whether interviewees interrupt the host and/or vice versa, and if
interruptions occur, whether the host or the interviewees allow these interruptions or
not. Or, in other words, whether interviewees and hosts have the power to be
impolite.
[14] (from 08/11)
Host ja (.)
en [euh Coldplay
→ Ca [en om
Host (1.1) [( )
Ca [omda ‘k die gezien ‘em op Werchter
Host en hoe vond je dat Koen?
11
That interrupting someone is seen as impolite has to do with the notion of “face” (Brown & Levinson
as quoted by Jeffries & McIntyre 2010: 110). “[E]veryone has both positive face needs […] and
negative face needs” (ibid.). Interrupting someone is a negative “face threatening act” (ibid.), because
it means that someone has prevented someone else “to go about one’s business unimpeded” (ibid.)
Interrupting someone means producing an unmitigated face threatening act, and that is why it comes
across as impolite (ibid.).
150
In this extract, the interviewee interrupts the host at the turn indicated with the arrow.
From the host’s prosody in the turn before, it is clear that it is not a transition
relevance place where the caller starts talking. After the host is interrupted, he
allows the caller the chance to go on talking. However, as is clear from the long
pause before the host talks again, the caller does not continue talking. Instead, the
host starts talking again, to avoid too-long silences. That the caller does not continue
talking even though he is given the opportunity to do so is probably because he has
realized he has interrupted the host and wants to give him the opportunity to finish
speaking. When the host starts talking again after a relatively long pause, the caller
starts speaking again at the same time. The host stops talking immediately and lets
the caller continue.
[15] (from 10/11)
Ca normaal gezien moe’k nu werken dus ’t is ‘t
‘open da m’n baas [ ( )
→ Host [a:h ok ok
ik ga je snel laten werken dan
At the turn indicated with the arrow, the host interrupts the caller, who clearly has not
reached a transition relevance place yet. Because the host interrupts, the rest of the
caller’s utterance becomes incomprehensible for the listener. The caller gives up his
speaker rights fairly quickly, and lets the host continue talking after he has come to a
TRP.
[16] (from 26/10)
Host hehhh hja want het zijn
je zegt het zelf
euh een Belgische openingsdans maar ‘t zijn
sowieso ook allemaal Belgische platen [in je
Dream Team
→ Ca [ja
klopt ja ja
151
shjaa (.) ik chjaa (.) ik heb mijn jeugd beleefd
in de jaren tachtig en en: (.) toen waren er
echt wel
.hh heel wat vind ik heel goede Belgische
groepen
The host asks the interviewee a question, but she begins to answer it before the host
has fully formulated it and thus before he has reached a TRP. The interviewee, it
seems, does not necessarily want to interrupt the host. Perhaps she is merely so
eager to agree with the host and tell her story that she starts talking before it is
strictly speaking her turn.
It can be concluded that both the host and the interviewee may interrupt each
other. This does not happen very often, though. It seems that the host and the
interviewees are usually very polite towards one another.
6.1.5 Dispreferred seconds
The production of dispreferred seconds in adjacency pairs is similar to that of
interruptions, because both are seen as impolite and as possible threats to “social
solidarity” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 46). As explained in the chapter on CA, the
organization of talk-in-interaction shows a “preference for agreement” (Liddicoat
2007: 111) and a “preference for contiguity” (ibid.). Dispreferred seconds are marked
structures, and interactants will often try to mitigate them, or even not produce them
at all but merely imply them (Slembrouck 2009: 63, 64). They are therefore
interesting to look at when considering power: do the Dream Team lay participants
feel confident enough to produce dispreferred seconds?12
The overwhelming majority of second pair parts that are produced on Dream
Team are preferred seconds. As described in the general overview, the interviewee
usually responds to the host’s questions and assessments with an affirmative or at
12
Because the host usually asks questions, he does not normally produce seconds. It is therefore not
useful to investigate whether he produces dispreferred seconds or not.
152
least expected answer or an agreement. For examples, see extracts [5] to [7] in the
general overview. One additional example:
[17] (from 03/11)
Host ma kijk Jens ik zal met jou meeduimen (.)
euh dat ze: dat ze binnenkort nog eens ons
land aandoen
want dat is altijd wel een:: heel gebeuren (.)
die mannen kunnen het wel he
→ Ca die kunnen het
On rare occasions, the lay participants will produce dispreferred seconds. When
they do, the dispreferred seconds are strongly mitigated.
[18] (from 28/10)
Host seg en ’t wordt een flinke dochter?
→ Ca euh ja da weet ik nog ni eh [hhh
Host [nee weet je ’t ni?
Ca aja ik weet ’et wel maar de anderen mogen het
nog ni weten
Host ah
dus toch blij dat het een zoon wordt (.) he
→ Ca (1.7) [( ) afwachten eh
Host [hh ‘k kan maar proberen he Kathleen
In this extract, the host is trying to find out whether the baby his interviewee is
expecting will be a boy or a girl. First, the host asks a question that projects the
preferred answer “yes, it will be a girl”. In the turn indicated with the first arrow,
however, the interviewee claims that she does not know her baby’s sex yet. In her
next turn she admits that she does know, but she does not want to tell. The host
then tries again, asking a question to which the expected answer would be “yes, I am
glad it will be a boy”. At the turn indicated with the second arrow, the interviewee
again refuses to say yes or no. The interviewee thus produces two mitigated
153
dispreferred seconds: she produces neither the expected nor unexpected answer to
the host’s question, but replies instead that she does not want to tell what her baby’s
sex will be. That she mitigates her responses, though, is probably not because she
does not want to risk breaking the social solidarity between the host and herself, but
rather because producing a straightforward unexpected answer to either of the
questions would mean revealing her baby’s sex.
[19] (from 17/11)
Host .hhh Foo Fighters kies je ook met My Hero
is zij jou held?
Ca (1.5) euh ook natuurlijk
→ en vooral de zoon ook he
The host asks the interviewee a question, to which he initially replies with a preferred
second. From the TCU indicated with the arrow, however, it is clear that he actually
meant the song under discussion to be a tribute to his son, rather than his girlfriend
(“zij”). He thus produces a dispreferred second disguised as a preferred second.
Lay participants on Dream Team, then, may produce dispreferred seconds,
but they only do so on rare occasions, and even then only mitigated. Power is not
the only explanation for the production, or lack thereof, of dispreferred seconds.
Other elements are important as well, such as the time that participants have to talk,
or the kind of questions asked by the host. On Dream Team, the host usually asks
two kinds of questions. One kind of question are questions that do not project some
kind of expected answer or agreement (as in extract [1]). The second kind are
questions that do project some kind of expectation, but these are based on the
information that the interviewee has filled in on the registration form. The host thus
knows what answer he will get. Even though looking at this aspect may not readily
lend itself to drawing any decisive conclusions about power, there is a remarkable
difference in the production of dispreferred seconds between Dream Team and Papa
Was A Rolling Stone. What these differences are and how they may be interpreted
is discussed in the Papa Was A Rolling Stone part below.
6.1.6 Opening and closing the conversation
154
How the host opens and closes each Dream Team conversation is described in the
general overview. The fact that the host does this is relevant for the discussion of
power. Thornborrow points out that for her data, “the call opening sequences bring
callers into the talk as ‘summoned parties’” (2001c: 140). This is also true for Dream
Team, as the interviewees only speak after the host has wished them a good
morning. Interviewees are thus dependent on the host for their initial production of
talk. Thornborrow also writes that “control of what gets heard on air in a phone-in
ultimately lies with the host, the institutional operator of technical equipment” (2001c:
137). This, again, is also true for Dream Team. The host has to take the necessary
technical steps to let a caller speak on air, putting the caller again in a dependent
position. The host also has the technical resources to end a caller’s on-air time. The
only options available to the callers are to not pick up the phone when the host calls
them or to end the conversation by hanging up the phone. The technical aspect,
then, is one in which the host is always more powerful than the interviewee, and the
interviewee has no chance of changing or even influencing this aspect.
The host is also the one who manages the end of each conversation. Closing
a conversation is, as mentioned in the conversation analysis chapter, a delicate
business, because it needs to be done in such a way that social solidarity is not
threatened, and that all participants have had the chance “to talk about all of the
things which need to be dealt with in the conversation” (Liddicoat 2007: 255). On
Dream Team it is even more delicate because the closing needs to be achieved after
a particular period of time. The host can thus not afford to let his interviewees talk for
too long. Extract [10] in the general overview is an example of how the host
manages the ending of a call when the interviewee is still talking. This proves that
the host does attempt to come to a coordinated closing, rather than just hanging up,
however this may be done in the radio studio. As described in the general overview,
the conversations always end with reciprocal greetings and/or thanks. The host,
then, does take the interviewee into account, but is ultimately the one who controls
the closing of the conversation.
Because he is the one person who manages and who has the possibility to
open and close the Dream Team conversations, the host is in this aspect more
powerful than the interviewee. The host has control over both the technical and the
155
conversational aspects of conversation openings and closings. The interviewee can
never take over control over these elements.
6.2 Papa Was A Rolling Stone
6.2.1 Institutional roles of questioner and answerer
As on Dream Team, it is usually the host who takes up the role of questioner on
Papa Was A Rolling Stone. It has been discussed in the general overview that the
system of questions or assessments and answers or agreements is more
complicated on Papa Was A Rolling Stone than on Dream Team; see the general
overview chapter for a more detailed discussion. Examples of the host asking
questions and the guests answering:
[20] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)
Host uit de favoriete plaat van eh Geert Segers
[…]
.hh hoorde je euh Boudewijn De Groot en
Testament
.hhh dat is toch je favoriete plaat he Geert?
Geert eu:h jawel hoor ja ja
dat is de top euh voor mij de euh
Voor De Overlevenden
de: (.) hele plaat staat vol prachtige nummers
vind ik
[21] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)
Host seg euhh hoe gebeurde dat vroeger Ella (.)
kreeg jij de muziek euh met de paplepel erin
gegoten zoals dat heet
156
of gebeurde dat echt zelfs met ijzeren vuist
zo
wat moet ik mij daar bij voorstellen
Ella nee in zekere zin wel
der sta ook bij ons thuis wel altijd iets op
radio TV euh MTV dan of zo als
achtergrondgeluid
hoewel het tegewoordig meer Pimp My Ride is
[22] (from Raúl & Gabriel Rios)
Host .hh do you remember getting that record from euh
from Gabriel
Raúl ya:h ya:h I think he had (.) been here seen them
live here
Host [ja
Raúl [in in e::rm in Holland I think
.hh and brought it e::r e:r to to summer when
(.) he came to: to Puerto Rico
Numerous similar examples could be given. It is clear that most of the time, the host
is the one asking questions, and the guests are the ones giving answers. In the
Papa Was A Rolling Stone data, there are also no instances where the host
voluntarily abandons his role as questioner in order to tell the audience or his
interviewee something, as in extracts [5] and [6]. What happens in extract [23] below
approaches this, but cannot be interpreted as the host giving his guests a chance to
start asking questions.
[23] (from Raúl & Gabriel Rios)
Host .hh euh Raúl die af en toe ook vroeger (.) mix
tapes maakte voor Gabriel om (.) dan toch wat
bij te brengen muzikaal
→ ’t is ‘m ook gelukt
157
.hhh euh i- was Billy Joel one of those
euh one of the people that were on those mix
tapes of yours
After the TCU that is indicated with the arrow, there is a transition relevance place
where either one of the guests could, theoretically, self-select as the next speaker
and start talking. However, from the prosody of the host in producing this TCU, it is
clear that he has in fact not said everything he wishes to say during his turn. His
guests let him speak and the host consequently asks another question.
There are, however, some instances where one of the answerers temporarily
stop answering questions and tell the audience something that is not necessarily a
personal narrative, as in extract [8], or that is not necessarily relevant for the ongoing
conversation.
[24] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)
Host zullen w’is luisteren naar Destiny’s Child
wat is een wat is een goeie om euh om om te
draaien
Nona ja (.)
Say My Name vin’k wel (.)
Bart [eej
Nona [’s wel tof eh
Bart wete da (.) diejen beat (.)
die was eigenlijk dubbel zo traag he (.)
.hh dus (.) da da was eigenlijk de bedoeling
om da dubbel zo traag in te zingen (.)
en die hebben da dubbel zo rap ingezongen (.)
en zo is die Destiny’s Child (.) stijl
ontstaan
en als je dat weet (.) dan begrijp je dit
nummer ook beter
hahaha
Nona hehehe
158
Host wel (.)
we gaan (.) we gaan er ’s rekening mee houden
dit is Destiny’s Child (.)
In this extract, Bart starts talking about Destiny’s Child even though the host has not
asked him anything and wants to start playing the song. The information that Bart
shares is not irrelevant, but it is unsolicited.
[25] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)
Jan ah ja ja ja ja Vara’s Pop Gala
Ella [ja
Host [och
Ella [dat
Jan [ja Vara’s Pop Gala
→ dat op zich was zo’n (.) werkelijk (.)
aandoenlijke uitzending
je zag dus de [voorbereiding
Ella [geweldig
Jan van een popconcert
.hhh da was in denk ik ’73 ofzo
maar (.) de (.) ‘et amateurisme (.) en ‘et
gewone aandoenlijke sympathieke geklungel en
de totale afwezigheid .hh van zo s- Duitse
schepers
.hh euh metaaldetectoren euh b- security
da was gewoon zo wete wel
.hhh euh (.) d’r werd iemand geïnterviewd en die
zei ja ik ik ik ging dan naar Rod Stewart in
de kleedkamer en ik vroeg blabla[bla
Host [hehhh
Jan ge kon dus in die dagen gewoon
en Rod Steward was een wereldster
.hhh en (0.6) ja
→ ma bon euh waar waren we gebleven?
159
Host [hehhhehe
Jan [bij Rory Gallagher
Host [ja
Jan [en die speelde daar dus ook op [Vara’s Pop Gala
Ella [ja
Previous to this extract, the host had asked Ella how she discovered Rory Gallagher.
She said she saw him on tv, but did not remember the name of the tv programme. At
the beginning of this extract, Jan remembers the name of the tv programme. This is
still a relevant contribution to the answer to the question of how Ella discovered Rory
Gallagher. At the TCU indicated with the first arrow, however, Jan starts to recall
how he felt about that particular tv programme and what else happened in it. This is
no relevant contribution to the answer asked by the host. In fact Jan loses track of
the conversation himself, as can be seen at the utterance indicated with the second
arrow. The talk that Jan produces in between these two arrows is unsolicited and
irrelevant.
What is remarkable from these two extracts is that even though guests Bart
and Jan do not actually become questioners, they do move away from their roles as
answerers, since the talk they produce is not a response to a question that was
asked. It is also noticeable that the host does not interrupt them, but lets them finish
talking. This kind of moving away from the role of the answerer does not occur very
often.
Lastly, there are also some instances in which an answerer becomes a
questioner for a brief moment. These also do not occur very often.
[26] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)
Bart is het misschien (.) ouwemensen (.) muziek
→ (0.9) .hh ge moogt soms tips geven he
(0.7) ge moet dit nummer (.)
That Look You Give That Guy (.)
opzoeken op YouTube (.)
en dan vooral (.)
160
die (.) die clip die hij heeft gemaakt met die
Indiase (.) euh actrice
→ weet jij dat?
Host nee die heb ik niet
[dat is nieuw
Bart [sjongejongejonge
Pak Mau (.) eeuh Rama weet ik veel wa (.)
‘et komt erop neer dat The Guy (.)
waar dat hij zo jaloers op is (.)
dat is zijnen eigen hond (.)
en daardoor heb je dat woord pedigree
In this extract, which in part has also been discussed in the general overview, Bart
first asks permission to temporarily abandon his role of answerer (first arrow). He
tells the audience to look for a music video on YouTube. At the second arrow, he
has not only abandoned his answerer role, but he even assumes that of questioner.
The host subsequently becomes the answerer. When it turns out the host has not
seen the video, Bart goes on to explain why it is so special. As discussed in the
general overview, a little later in the conversation the host skilfully moves back into
the questioner role.
[27] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)
Host ik moet toegeven ik had ’t nog nooit g’oord
maar ‘k vind het heel erg mooi
Lieven Coppieters .hh met euh Neerhof
→ Luc wat vind je d’r mooi aan Otto-Jan
Host ik vind (.) alles eigenlijk heel erg mooi
de sfeer
In this extract, the host repeats the name of the song that has just been played, as
well as the name of the song’s performing artist. Because he does not immediately
ask a question, Luc has the opportunity to ask a question at the next TRP. He asks a
question and selects the host as the answerer through naming his name. The host
subsequently replies to the question.
161
[28] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)
Iwein as we dan ietske meer rock ’n roll wille
we zijn (.) tenslotte op Studio Brussel
→ .hh euh ik (.) °ik hoop da je da beseft Otto-
Jan°
Host [ik ben eh (.) op de hoogte
Iwein [( ) Stanneke
In this extract, Iwein asks the host if he is aware he is part of a show that is broadcast
on Studio Brussel. The host replies that he is. Iwein very shortly becomes the
questioner in this extract. However, it is clear that he is asking this question as a
joke. His joke is actually part of an answer that he is giving, because the host has
previously asked him to choose a song:
Host ja ’t is moeilijk daar uit kieze
euh Iwein welke: welke gaan we doen
Iwein [ja ik ( )
Host [‘k ga jou de keuze laten
Iwein names practically all the record’s songs in reply, including ‘Stanneke’ as an
apparently more rock ‘n roll option. So Iwein asks the host a question, but this
question is actually a joke, part of a larger reply to a question asked to Iwein.
Nevertheless, the guest manages to ask the host a question in this extract, and he
gets a reply from the host; he has, thus, briefly but effectively assumed the role of
questioner.
The situation as far as questioner and answerer roles are concerned is, then,
a bit different in Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, but not much. In both
programmes, the host is most usually the questioner. On Dream Team, the host
sometimes steps aside from his role as a questioner to address the audience or the
interviewee, but the interviewee never uses the occasion to become the questioner
themselves. On one occasion, the Dream Team interviewee moved away from the
role of the answerer, but without becoming a questioner. On Papa Was A Rolling
Stone, the host does not move away from the role of questioner the way the Dream
Team host does. The guests do sometimes move away from their role as answerers,
and may or may not become questioners. However, this happens very infrequently.
162
It seems the host, then, is mostly the one in the most powerful role in both
programmes.
6.2.2 Topic initiation
On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the right to initiate topics is also linked to the
institutional role of the questioner. This means that it is usually the host who has this
power, except when guests move away from the role of the answerer, as discussed
above. The following extract is an example of the host overtly exercising his power
to initiate a new topic:
[29] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen)
Host ja ja ja dat dat dat euh dat dat euh
kan ik me iets bij voorstellen
? [hahaha
→ Host [.hh we moeten misschien even nog naar een .hh
euh naar iets heel anders
naar naar Sonic Youth (.)
een van jouw (.) favoriete bands
Lee ja dat is mijn: favoriete band
It has already been remarked that on Dream Team, the host has the power to decide
which topic is dealt with at what time because he is the one who asks the interviewee
questions. A topic about which the host does not ask a question is usually not
mentioned by the interviewee. On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, though, guests may
start talking about other topics when their witnessing moves or narratives lend
themselves to it. In such cases, the host may seize the next opportunity he has to
speak and perform actions to direct the course of the conversation. The fact that he
does this makes it clear that the host does have the power to initiate and manage
topics, and that he actively takes steps to control this power in order to be able to
direct the conversation.
[30] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe)
163
Luc euhm (.) ‘k denk dat hij een tijdje ook een euh
Eminem cool gevonden heeft enzo
[en al
Host [ja
Luc ja: ik denk wel allez (.) dat die dat ‘em die
plaat nog gekocht heeft [( )
→ Host [hah (.)
[we gaan daar zeker nog op terugkomen straks
Luc [terwijl ik die maar niks vond (.)
terwijl ik die maar niks vond
Host ja
In this extract, Luc, one of the guests, starts talking about Eminem. This is a topic
the host wants to deal with later. At the TCU indicated with the arrow, he seizes the
opportunity to speak, even while Luc is still talking. By then saying that they will
return to the topic of Eminem later, the host takes steps to ensure that the
conversation will still go as he intends. In this case it means that Eminem will be
discussed, but not until later. And indeed, later on the host does play an Eminem
song, and this topic is then dealt with in the conversation:
[((My Name Is))
Host [My Name Is euh van Eminem
euh euh ‘t is euh misschien ni meteen een
plaat die ik euh zou verwachten euh in euh
jullie platenkast hh (.) Lenny
Lenny euh da’s:: euh ja ik moet daar heel duidelijk
over [zijn ik was z::even
Host [ehhehehe
In the above example the host does not explicitly state that the topic in question, here
Eminem, had been touched upon before. Sometimes, though, he does do this.
When he does he is again overtly managing the conversational topics. An example
from the same conversation as the extract above:
[31] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe)
164
Host euh (.) maar dan moete we ’t toch ook hebbe wa-
→ w’ebbe ’t er al heel even over gehad eu::h
daarnet
.hhh toch nog over Lou Reed hebben
[32] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)
Bart maar natuurlijk ook Karma Police (.)
.hh omdat voor mij (.)
dat doet denken aan Sexy Sadie eh (.)
van den dubbele witte
van The Beatles eh (.)
.hh dus dan zijn we weer thuis
[hehehehehehe
Nona [hahaha
Host [hehe
→ ja euh gaan we ’t zeker ook straks nog over
hebben
The Beatles
want dat is ook dat is ook iets wat jullie
bindt eigenlijk wel die band natuurlijk (.)
→ iets euh wa- wat jullie ook beiden heel goed
vinden
en wat mij enigszins verbaasde was (.)
Destiny’s Child
In this extract, the host again says that the topic that one of the guests, Bart, had
come to, will be dealt with later in the conversation. The second arrow indicates the
TCU in which the host starts to introduce the topic that the host does want to discuss
at that time.
From these examples, it is clear that the host has the power not only to initiate
topics through the questions he asks, but also to manage the topics that his guests
initiate. The host may both initiate topics himself and postpone topics that are
initiated by others. Guests do not have this power.
165
6.2.3 Formulating
As in the Dream Team data, it is always the host who formulates in the Papa Was A
Rolling Stone data. He does this a lot more than the Dream Team host. This is not
necessarily because he wants to “establish control over the agenda” (Hutchby &
Wooffitt 2008: 214) more than the Dream Team host does, but is rather linked to the
length of the programme and the higher number and longer narratives that are told
on Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Formulating has already been discussed in the
general overview, including the extract in which the host very creatively formulates
starting to like Bob Dylan as learning to eat oysters (example [12] in the general
overview). Here are some additional examples.
[33] (from Kamagurka & Sarah Zeebroek)
Sarah nee maar da was echt (.)
ja da was ge-
‘k viel gewoon omver ei’lijk
da was ei’lijk ja
‘oe noemde da zo (.) een moment (.) verlichting
Host [ja
Sarah [hehe
→ Host Aha-Erlebnis op [’n bepaalde manier
Sarah [ja (.)
absoluut
The host formulates the description of Sarah’s feelings. She produces overlapping
talk during his formulation to agree with him, and is given the chance to agree again
after he has finished talking.
[34] (from Guy & Lee Swinnen)
Host .hh euh beste Lee Swinnen (.)
stond er bij jullie thuis vroeger altijd
muziek op?
Lee eu::hm da kunde wel zegge ja
166
’t ‘s toch altijd wel ne cd diejen op of op de
radio
of euh als Guy gewoon aan ’t spele was
Host ja
en wat was dat was dat dan altijd hetzelfde
of was er een ritueel op zondag moest er dat
op staan
of euh hoe hoe ging dat dan
Lee .hh euhm hehh gewoon stond gewoon altijd muziek
op ja ni echt een ritueel of niks::
Host nee
Guy nee nee
→ Host dus er was euh geen ontsnappen aan muziek bij
jullie thuis
Lee da kunde wel zegge ja
In this extract, the host asks one of hist guests a couple of questions. At the turn
indicated with the arrow, he formulates the gist of what his guest has answered to
these questions. The host produces this formulation in the form of a question, thus
explicitly asking his guest to corroborate the formulation. The guest subsequently
does this.
[35] (from Luc & Lenny Crabbe)
Host luister je nog veel naar hiphop euh Lenny
tegenwoordig?
Lenny ja old school stuff
eh Jurrassic 5 en zo van die [dingen wel nog
Host [ja
Lenny f- van allez heel af en toe maar ni echt euh
Host ja ja ja ja ja
Lenny ni zo veel
→ Host nee je volgt het ni helemaal meer
Lenny [nee
167
Host [.hhh de klik is ’n beetje of e- e- ‘et ‘et
grote kantelpunt bij jou is (.) gekomen
The host asks a question, the guest replies, and the host formulates the guest’s
answer. Here, the host does not give his guest the chance to accept or refute the
formulation. Lenny does say “nee” at a transition relevance place, but at the same
time, the host starts talking about something else and they produce overlapping talk.
There are many more examples of this kind of talk to be found in the Papa
Was A Rolling Stone data. The host, then, has the power to formulate, and uses this
power relatively often. He may or may not give his guests the opportunity to accept
or refute his formulation.
6.2.4 Turn allocation and interruption
As discussed in the general overview, the host is not the exclusive holder of turn-
allocation power. Whereas he is the one that selects the next speaker most
frequently, both explicitly and implicitly, his guests may also self-select, or select the
other guest or even the host as the next speaker.
[36] (from Guy & Jens Mortier)
Host en afgelopen Long Tall Sally
.hh euh ik ik zag je ik zag je meedoen euh euh
→ Guy
Guy ja ja fantastisch
The host selects the next speaker by naming him. Guy understands that it is his turn
to speak and does so.
[37] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)
Host met jouw goedvinden (.) Geert (.) ook?
Geert da’s ok
[((Ik Ga Naar Huis intro))
Host [( )
168
→ Iwein [doet een beetje denke aan Snow Patrol trouwens
(.) vind ik (.)
da gitarreken ‘ier
In this extract, the guest self-selects. The host or the other guest have not asked him
a question; in fact the song has already started playing, but Iwein still has something
to say.
For an example of a guest selecting an other guest as the next speaker, see
example 7 in the general overview. The next example, taken from the same
conversation, is one where one of the guests selects the host as the next speaker.
Another example is extract [27] above.
[38] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)
Host we- ze- jullie hebben ze ontmoet en da’s het
belangrijkste
[.hh maar dat euh
→ Ella [OJ (.)
je was anders ook wel serieus mee aan ’t dansen
hoor daarnet
Host ja maar dat ik dans op alle k- [euh alle muziek
natuurlijk
Ella [hehe
Host dat mag je mij niet kwalijk nemen=
→ Jan =dit (.)
dit nummer associeer ik ook met (.) bijna
verongelukken op de autostrade naar ‘t Zuiden
At the first arrow, one of the guests informally addresses the host with his nickname.
She self-selects as the next speaker after the host’s turn, which is possible because
the host has not selected a next speaker in his turn. By naming the host, she selects
him as the next speaker, and in the next turn the host does indeed speak.
The second arrow is not a case of ‘guest selects host as next speaker’, but is rather
another example of a guest who self-selects as the next speaker.
169
Interruptions occur on Papa Was A Rolling Stone as well. Guests interrupt other
guests relatively often, certainly in comparison with instances of guests interrupting
the host. Interestingly, the host does not intentionally interrupt his guests.
[39] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)
Geert [((keelgeluid))
ma (.) soit HEHE thh (.)
mja de de echtheid gaat [VOOR (.) voor alles bij
mij
→ Iwein [ja (.) ik vin da echt
ni
Geert [ja
Iwein [ja (.)
ik weet ni of da zo echt is
In this extract, one of the guests, Geert, is explaining something when the other
guest, Geert’s son, interrupts him.
[40] from Guy & Jens Mortier)
Jens ja ik heb een paar foto’s nog waar ik (.) als
als kind euh [ ( )
Guy [ ( )
Jens euhm::: en tutters en en: en::: een plaat van de
Beatles op schoot zat enzo
[ ( )
Guy [ ( ) (.)
en wij waren dan trots op als er bezoek kwam
dan moest hij dan dan vroegen wij hem
zeg noem de namen van de Beatles ’s en dan
.hh
In this extract, one of the guests, Jens, is talking, when the other guest, Jens’s father
Guy, interrupts him. Both men keep talking, which results in neither of them being
170
comprehensible anymore. In the end, Guy wins speaker rights, and continues his
story.
[41] (from Jan & Ella Leyers)
Host ik euh deel je je pijn Ella
[want ik heb ook geen extra naam
Jan [maar dus als ze dieje naam kwijt is heeft ze
d’r gene meer
Host nee (.)
maar dat kan misschien nog je kan het misschien
→ wel me[t eh terugwerkende kracht
Ella [maar wa ik heb ‘et nooit goe begrepe
‘oe ‘oe ‘oe ‘oe k- ‘oe kan je een naam
kwijtspelen
One of the guests interrupts the host to ask the other guest something. She then
gains speaker rights and asks her question.
[42] (from Bart & Nona Peeters)
Host en dan had je de (.) die drumster van euh
van Lenny Kravitz
en die speelde ook zo
[die speelde
→ Bart [Cindy Blackman
Host [ja e- ‘et lij-
Bart [Cindy Blackman
Host ‘et lijkt zo wat houterig eigenlijk te zijn
is dat is dat iets typisch?
Even though it may appear from the transcript that the host and his guest start talking
at the same time at a transition relevance place, this is not the case. From the host’s
prosody it is clear that he has not reached a TRP. The guest is so keen to display
his knowledge, though, that he excitedly exclaims the name of the woman under
discussion before the host has finished talking. The host does not want to give the
171
guest speaker rights, but as the host undertakes another attempt to produce the talk
he intended to produce, the guest speaks again. Only after this repetition can the
host continue talking and say what he wanted to say.
Turn allocation and interruption are interesting elements in the consideration of
the power situation on Papa Was A Rolling Stone. The Dream Team data suggest a
power asymmetry in favour of the host, albeit a rather subtle one. On Papa Was A
Rolling Stone, it is also usually the host who selects the next speaker, but the guests
self-select and other-select much more frequently than the lay participants on Dream
Team. Of course, this has to do with the fact that there are only two interlocutors on
the latter, whereas there are three physically co-present interlocutors on the former.
This is not the only explanation for the difference in turn allocation techniques
between the two radio programmes, though. Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants
handle their speaker rights more assertively, instead of consistently waiting for some
kind of summons from the host as the Dream Team participants do. The Papa Was
A Rolling Stone guests are confident enough even to address the host and select him
as the next speaker, and they regularly interrupt each other and even the host. The
host is always polite towards his guests and does not interrupt them.
6.2.5 Dispreferred seconds
In the general overview, it has already been described that Papa Was A Rolling
Stone guests may and do produce dispreferred seconds. This diagram presents the
different responsive possibilities for the guests to the host’s assessments:
Diagram 2
172
This diagram was followed by an example (extract [6] in the general overview). Here
are some additional examples of guests producing dispreferred seconds.
[43] (from Luc & Eppo Janssen)
Host van euh van euh en van dat nummer is het
eigenlijk maar een heel kleine stap naar euh
Sigur Rós he
met e:h sfeergewijs
→ Luc a::h jah ((sarcastisch))
Eppo [ehehehehehe
Host [nee maar ’t is eigenlijk wel [gra-
→ Eppo [met u lange benen
ja
Host ehheheh
.hh Luc Janssen toch van heel veel mensen
of toch iemand die van heel veel mensen euh de
muzieksmaak wat bepaald heeft denk ik
In this extract, the host makes an assessment. Luc, one of the guests, clearly
disagrees, because his response is very sarcastic. Sarcasm is something that does
not occur in the Dream Team data. When the host presumably attempts to defend
himself, Eppo, the second guest, jokingly expresses his disagreement as well. The
host’s assessment is obviously not agreed to by the two guests and when his attempt
at defending himself fails, he changes the subject.
[44] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)
Host en as je : as je : (.) The Smiths en Morrissey
ja we moeten ze toch even vergelijken
eh heb- hebbe ze (.) even
.hhh een even grote plek in je hart
ondertussen
→ of of euh heb je toch een lichte voorkeur nog
steeds voor de band
173
→ Iwein neuh ja be- ik denk zelfs da Morrissey een
lichte voorkeur heeft °dan The Smiths°
At the first arrow, the host asks a question that is constructed to have “yes, indeed I
still prefer the band” as the expected answer, and thus the preferred second. The
guest, however, does not particularly “prefer the band”, and thus produces an
unexpected answer. This is a dispreferred second, though a far less strong one than
the one in the previous extract.
On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, then, dispreferred seconds are produced much
more often by the guests than they are by the Dream Team lay participants. As
discussed in the Dream Team part, this does not necessarily mean that Papa Was A
Rolling Stone participants are much more powerful than their Dream Team
counterparts. Guests on Papa Was A Rolling Stone have more time to produce more
elaborate replies such as the one in example [6] in the general overview, and the
host also asks questions that are not based on information previously given to him by
the guests. However, it remains an observable fact that Papa Was A Rolling Stone
guests produce more dispreferred seconds than Dream Team interviewee. They are
in a position where they do not have to constantly agree with the host and may be
considered stronger, more confident answerers than those on Dream Team.
6.2.6 Opening and closing the conversation
How the host opens and closes each Papa Was A Rolling Stone conversation is
described in the general overview. It is again the host who speaks first, bringing not
callers but studio guests “into the talk as ‘summoned parties’” (Thornborrow 2001c:
140); see for instance example [5] in the general overview. Papa Was A Rolling
Stone participants are thus equally dependent on the host for their initial production
of talk as the Dream Team participants. The host is also still “the institutional
operator of technical equipment” (Thornborrow 2001c: 137). However, whereas the
only technical control that Dream Team participants have is being able to hang up
the phone in the middle of the conversation, Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants
are physically present in the radio studio and could, theoretically speaking, seize
control over the host’s technical equipment. The only way they could really take over
control over the equipment would probably be through using physical violence
174
against the host, or by destroying the equipment, though. Even if they did manage to
take over the host’s position, most of them would be unable to use the equipment. In
each case, the studio guests do have this option, even though it is highly unlikely
they would ever use it. Dream Team participants are on the phone and do not have
this option. Nevertheless, even on Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the host is the one
who controls the technical aspect of the broadcast.
On Papa Was A Rolling Stone it is, as mentioned in the general overview, also
the host who manages the end of each conversation. Even though Papa Was A
Rolling Stone is a one-hour broadcast and Dream Team only lasts several minutes,
the host needs to make sure the conversation is ended within that particular time slot.
Papa Was A Rolling Stone does not end with the same kind of exchange of greetings
and/or thanks as Dream Team does, but the closing is nevertheless carefully
coordinated and negotiated; see for instance example [14] in the general overview.
The host again does take the guests into account, but is ultimately the one who
controls the closing of the conversation.
The link between the power situation and the opening and closing of
conversations, then, is largely the same as it is for Dream Team. The host has the
possibility to open and close the conversations, both technically and conversationally,
and is in this aspect more powerful than the studio guests. Technically, the studio
guests have options that Dream Team participants do not have, but it is very unlikely
that they would ever use these options, and indeed they never do so in the Papa
Was A Rolling Stone data. Conversationally, the host is in charge.
6.3 Conclusion
Before summarizing and tying up the conclusions of the above discussion of the
power situation in Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, it is well worth
looking back even further for an instant. The previous chapter dealt with credibility.
Ways in which both lay and expert participants may create or enhance credibility
have been explored, as well as how the host may help to build or corroborate a
participant’s credibility. Ochs and Capps write that “[t]he rub is that standards of
credibility are typically controlled by more powerful interlocutors” (2001: 266). This is
an interesting remark. The one that controls standards of credibility on Dream Team
175
and Papa Was A Rolling Stone is the host. That he is able to do so is, apparently,
because he is the “more powerful [interlocutor]” (ibid.).
The discussion of the Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone data
shows that, indeed, the power balance generally heels over in the direction of the
host. Several insights from or inspired by conversation analysis have been used in
this chapter to come to this conclusion. The institutional roles of questioner and
answerer, topic initiation, formulating, turn allocation and interruption, dispreferred
seconds, and opening and closing of the conversation are the aspects that have
been looked at here, and from the investigation of these six aspects it has become
clear that on both radio programmes, the host is more powerful than the
interviewees. Taking control over standards of credibility also into account only
confirms this conclusion. Neither show’s host takes too much advantage of their
power over the other participants, though. On both programmes, the host is a
friendly and respectful conversation manager. Dream Team interviewees appear to
have less power and seem to change their position around less than Papa Was A
Rolling Stone guests. This difference exists because of the different conversational
structures and aims of Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Also, Papa
Was A Rolling Stone guests are likely to be more confident speakers because they
are physically present in the radio studio, because they have more time to speak,
and because they have been attributed expert status at the beginning of the
programme. Despite this, the treatment and the overall power situation is not hugely
different on the two programmes. It is rather the positions that each programme’s
participants take up for themselves that are different.
176
177
7. Conclusion
Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone are two radio programmes on Studio
Brussel. Do the interviewees on both programmes come across as credible, and if
so, how have they achieved this? Is it the host or one of the interviewee that is in
power during the interaction, and how is this power brought about? Is there any
difference in the treatment of the interviewees on the two shows? And can general
conclusions be drawn about credibility and power in the two programmes? Those
are the questions that have been dealt with above. Ten episodes of Dream Team
and nine episodes of Papa Was A Rolling Stone have been analyzed.
Predominantly, conversation analysis was used, with additional insights from
Goffman and CA-inspired theories to complete the analysis.
This paper started with a discussion of Goffman and his insights with regards
to frameworks of social interaction and theatricality. These insights are very useful
for the consideration of power and credibility on Dream Team and Papa Was A
Rolling Stone, and they will be discussed with regards to these programmes below.
First, conversation analysis itself should be dealt with.
The chapter on CA followed that on Goffman. This chapter discussed how CA
came into being and what its general principles are. Conversation analysis is a
versatile sociolinguistic method that can and has lead to interesting insights in
various disciplines, such as sociology, linguistics and sociolinguistics. CA has
demonstrated that interaction is ordered, and that the orderliness of interaction may
be studied and described in a scientific way (Sacks as quoted by Hutchby & Wooffitt
1998: 34). To do this, CA looks at observable aspects of social order in their
interactional contexts (Slembrouck 2009: 15, Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 15, 35,
Hutchby 2006: 21). One of the most important observable aspects of orderliness in
interaction is that of turn-taking. Sacks et al. have comprised a list of fourteen
“grossly apparent facts” (1974: 700) about turn-taking in conversations. This list is
featured in the conversation analysis chapter and will not be given here again.
Special about this list is that it has “the important twin features of being context-free
and capable of extraordinary context-sensitivity” (Sacks et al. 1974: 699). Because
of this, the list of fourteen facts is useful even for institutional interaction. Dream
Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone are both examples of institutional talk. The
178
fourteen facts do not apply to the two radio programmes as such, but a
transformation of the list does. Many observable features of conversational talk are
found in institutional talk also. The institutional talk that has been discussed here
also has a turn constructional component and a turn allocational component (Sacks
et al. 1974: 702-703, Liddicoat 2007: 54, 63). Turns are also made up of turn
constructional units (TCUs) (Liddicoat 2007: 54, Sacks et al. 1974: 702) and speaker-
change may occur at transition relevance places (TRPs) (Sacks et al. 1974: 703).
Speakers make use of a range of “turn-allocational techniques” (ibid.). In the data,
adjacency pairs may also be found, as well as various instances of repair and
opening and closing sequences. These are all conversation analytic categories that
have been important in the investigation of power and credibility in this thesis, with
the exception of repair.
As mentioned above, the talk that is produced on Dream Team and Papa Was
A Rolling Stone broadcasts is a form of institutional talk. More specifically, it is
broadcast talk. In the chapter on broadcast talk, it was explained that broadcast talk
distinguishes itself from other forms of institutional discourse because of three
features (Hutchby 2006: 18). These are:
- Broadcast talk adopts elements of everyday conversation as part of its overarching
communicative ethos;
- Broadcast talk is nevertheless different from ordinary conversation by virtue of being
an institutional form of discourse that exists at the interface between public and
private domains of life (e.g. the studio settings in which the talk is produced and the
domestic settings in which it is received);
- Broadcast talk is a specific type of institutional discourse because it is directed at an
‘overhearing’ audience separated from the talk’s site of production by space and also,
frequently, by time.
(ibid.)
Three kinds of broadcast talk are the news interview, the radio phone-in and the talk
show. The chapter on broadcast talk explained that Dream Team shares
characteristics with all three, whereas Papa Was A Rolling Stone shares
characteristics with the news interview and the talk show. For this reason, the
specific terms that are used for the institutional roles of these three kinds of
broadcast talk are used as synonyms in this thesis: ‘interviewee’, ‘caller’, ‘lay
participant’ and ‘interlocutor’ for the Dream Team lay participants and ‘interviewee’,
179
‘guest’, ‘studio guest’, and ‘expert participant’ for the Papa Was A Rolling Stone
expert participants. The most important difference between Dream Team and Papa
Was A Rolling Stone is the difference between a lay and an expert participant, even
though the expert status of the Papa Was A Rolling Stone participant is not
unambiguous. He or she is an expert talking for him- or herself. Ultimately, though,
the Goffmanian frameworks of the two programmes is the same. Dream Team and
Papa Was A Rolling Stone are both radio programme frameworks, and also interview
frameworks. The former is a framework without and the latter a framework with
physically co-present participants. Both programmes sometimes show temporary
framework disruptions or suspensions, and both are produced for an overhearing
audience.
How the two radio programmes are structured and what their specific
characteristics are was explained in the general overview chapters. Dream Team,
part of Music@Work, is aired on Studio Brussel every morning on weekdays. The
basic idea is that the host asks a Studio Brussel listener, who is on the phone,
questions about songs which the listener has previously selected and which he or
she likes very much. The listener takes the initiative to be on the radio, but the host
decides who will and who will not be on the radio based on the listener’s selected
songs. This results in an interview between a caller (who is actually a ‘called’) and
the host. It is always structured according to the same general principles:
Opening Greeting/greeting
(host/interviewee)
Discussion of song 1 Question/expected answer and/or
assessment/agreement
(host/interviewee)
Discussion of song 2 Question/expected answer and/or
assessment/agreement
(host/interviewee)
Discussion of song 3 Question/expected answer and/or
assessment/agreement
(host/interviewee)
Closing Host announces songs 2 and 3
Thanks/thanks and/or
180
greeting/greeting
(host/interviewee and/or
interviewee/host)
In the opening and closing of the interaction, adjacency pairs are always produced.
In the middle part, adjacency pairs are also produced, but departures from the
interview system may occur. This does not happen very often, though. In the middle
part, lay participants also produce witnessing moves, and they tell stories.
Papa Was A Rolling Stone was a weekly one-hour programme, aired on
Sundays. The host interviewed two physically co-present studio guests, at least one
of which was a local celebrity (Bekende Vlaming). They were also allowed to choose
the songs that were be played on the show. The structure of the Papa Was A Rolling
Stone conversations is certainly different from those of Dream Team: there are three
interlocutors instead of two, the broadcast time is one hour instead of a few minutes,
all interlocutors are physically co-present, and the interaction is more conversational.
Basically, though, the interaction is still an interview. Adjacency pairs are still
produced frequently, because the host asks questions and the guests reply. As
diagrams 1 – 3 demonstrate, the guests have a lot more responsive options, though.
Diagram 1 Diagram 2
Diagram 3
181
Again, departures from the interview frame may take place. The studio guests
also make witnessing moves and tell stories.
In the chapter on conversation analysis, it was also explained how stories
come to be told and how they are structured. These four propositions were listed as
true for every instance of storytelling:
- Stories are “told in conversation” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 131)
- At least one speaker secures the attention of at least one listener (Ochs & Capps
2001: 114)
- At least one speaker takes an “extended, multi-unit [turn] at talk” (Hutchby & Wooffitt
1998: 131, Liddicoat 2007: 279)
- All interactants display their orientation towards and understanding of the talk-in-
interaction as a story that is being told (Ochs & Capps 2001: 23)
Ochs and Capps distinguished five dimensions, each with the possibility of being
realized in some way that situates itself between two ends on a continuum.
- Dimensions Possibilities
- Tellership One active teller → Multiple active co-tellers
- Tellability High → Low
- Embeddedness Detached → Embedded
- Linearity Closed temporal and → Open temporal and
causal order causal order
- Moral stance Certain, constant → Uncertain, fluid
(Ochs & Capps 2001: 20)
Typical for the narratives on Dream Team is that they have one active teller and high
tellability, they are embedded rather than detached, have a more closed than an
open temporal and causal order and that the moral stance is constant. This remains
the same for Papa Was A Rolling Stone, except the dimension of tellership: there
may be multiple active co-tellers. Storytelling on Dream Team and Papa Was A
Rolling Stone is done for all the reasons why people tell stories: dealing with past,
present, future and unreal events, enjoying conversation, and creating identities.
It was pointed out that if people tell stories to create identities for themselves,
they can also do so to create credible identities for themselves. Storytelling is indeed
an important aspect of how the Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone
participants make themselves come across as legitimate and credible.
Stories are thus an important part of the performance that participants put up,
but they are not the only resource that participants may use to present themselves as
182
credible. As Goffman pointed out, individuals are always performing (1990: 15).
They want to present idealized versions of themselves (Goffman 1990: 25, 35) and
try to manage the impressions they create of themselves as well as possible
(Goffman 1990: 250). On Dream Team, the host asks questions that allow the lay
participant to make or confirm witnessing moves or to tell a story. Making witnessing
moves is important because they link the speaker “with the authenticity of
experience, of emotion, and of the speaker as a legitimate teller of particular kinds of
stories” (Hutchby 2006: 83). The stories that are told centre around the participant,
who remembers things that have happened to him or her. As “[r]emembering [...] is
an authenticating act” (Ochs & Capps 2001: 284), stories about personal memories
may obviously make a participant seem authentic and credible. The stories that are
told are usually about concerts, owning cds, remembering childhood or youth
memories, and personal, emotional connections to a certain band or song. On
Dream Team, the host routinely validates the “presupposed truths” (Ochs & Capps
2001: 284) of his interviewees. He never openly doubts his interviewees’ stories, but
encourages them to continue talking with the continuer “ja”. In addition to producing
witnessing moves and telling stories, lay participants may also use factual knowledge
about the artists or songs that they have requested, or about the radio channel itself,
to let the audience to their performance know that they are credible lay participants.
This resource is a bit different from witnessing moves and stories, because being
knowledgeable about facts is something that is expected of experts, “who have an
institutionally inscribed, professional area of expertise attributed to them”
(Thornborrow 2001b: 461), rather than of lay participants. Lay participants on Dream
Team may thus attempt to present themselves as experts or as expert-like
participants in order to come across as credible, warranted speakers. However, what
lay participants want to do, generally speaking, is present themselves as credible
music fans.
It was also remarked in the chapter on credibility that a Dream Team
participant is freer to perform whatever identity he or she wants than a Papa Was A
Rolling Stone participant. At least half of the Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants
already has a public persona and needs to behave accordingly, or else they lose
their credibility entirely (Goffman 1990: 64 – 65). The local celebrities that appear on
Papa Was A Rolling Stone want to make themselves look good, credible and
authentic, and they try to do so by being their ordinary selves. “’[B]eing ordinary’ is
183
accomplished in the ways people tell stories about their experiences” (Sacks as
quoted by Tolson 2001b: 449). The “authentic and credible persona” (Livingstone &
Lunt as quoted by Tolson 2001a: 17) of the local celebrity is created through a
“performance of being ordinary” (Tolson 2001b: 450). It was pointed out that for
Papa Was A Rolling Stone, this means in practice that the local celebrities will want
to remind the audience of their expert status, while at the same time acting in a way
that is similar to that of ‘ordinary’ people such as the lay participants on Dream Team.
Some of the Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants are not local celebrities, though.
They are still treated as expert participants by the host, but they do not need to act in
accordance with an existing public persona. That the Papa Was A Rolling Stone
host treats his guests as experts is an important difference between the two radio
programmes under discussion, because even though the Dream Team host does
validate his interviewees’ contributions, he does not treat them as experts. So, unlike
the lay participants on Dream Team, guests on Papa Was A Rolling Stone do not
have to “establish a relevant participatory status” (Thornborrow 2001b: 470) for
themselves. This status is attributed to them at the beginning of the programme
through the introduction: the guests are introduced as experts. The host
continuously treats his guests as experts throughout the conversation, and the
guests perform as credible participants in ways that are often similar to those used by
the Dream Team participants. It was discussed in the chapter on credibility that
Papa Was A Rolling Stone participants also make witnessing moves and tell stories,
but that these stories are often related to a guest’s professional background. Again,
the host validates these stories. In addition, Papa Was A Rolling Stone guests may
also use factual knowledge, lexical items and name-dropping, and comparison as a
way of ascertaining their expert status.
In conclusion, then, it is striking that the ways in which participants on both
Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone seek to build a credible identity for
themselves are very similar. Dream Team participants have to make a greater effort
to establish a credible identity for themselves because the host does not introduce
them as experts, but how this credibility is managed and strengthened in the
interaction is not radically different. The only significant difference that remains is
that between the status of the participants on each programme: those on Dream
Team may create credible identities for themselves but will always remain lay
participants, whereas those on Papa Was A Rolling Stone usually (though not
184
always) have the advantage of being or having been professionally involved in music.
They create a credible expert identity for themselves.
The last chapter of this thesis discussed the power situation in Dream Team
and Papa Was A Rolling Stone. The institutional roles of questioner and answerer,
topic initiation, formulating, turn allocation and interruption, dispreferred seconds, and
opening and closing of the conversation were the six aspects that were taken into
consideration to investigate power. On Dream Team, the host is usually the
questioner, which is the more powerful position. He may sometimes leave this role
temporarily, making it available for the interviewee. However, the interviewee does
not take up this role, and so the power asymmetry in favour of the host remains
unchanged. The interviewee abandons the role of answerer only very rarely. In this
aspect, the host is more powerful. Topic initiation is done by the host as well,
through his asking questions. The host has this power as well. Formulating is also
done by the host. This does not happen very often, though. In one of the two
instances in the Dream Team data, the interviewee was not given the chance to
accept or refute the host’s formulation. The host, then, is powerful because he has
the right and the possibility to formulate, which he may do without giving the
interviewee the chance to refute the formulation. The host does not formulate very
often, though, so in practice, he does not use his power to “establish control over the
agenda by selectively formulating the gist or upshot” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 2008: 214)
very often. Something he does do very frequently is allocating turns. Since the host
is the questioner, he selects the next speaker by asking them a question.
Interviewees are passive self-selecters, who only self-select once the host has
already allocated them a turn and has displayed that he will listen to their narratives.
At the end of their narrative, the interviewees stop talking, allowing the host to self-
select again as the next speaker. Interviewees do sometimes self-select when it is
not their turn to speak, though. They may interrupt the host. The host may also
interrupt the interviewee. Interruptions do not occur very often, which means that it is
generally the host who has the power to allocate turns. Dispreferred seconds are
produced by the interviewees only on rare occasions and even then only strongly
mitigated. This might mean that the lay participants do not feel confident or powerful
enough to produce dispreferred seconds, but it may also be for other reasons that
they do not produce them, such as lack of time or the host already knowing what the
interviewee’s answer will be. Lastly, the host has the technical power to open and
185
close the Dream Team conversations. Interviewees can do nothing about this except
not answer the phone or hang up before the end of the conversation. The host also
has the more powerful position when it comes to the conversational side of the
openings and closings. He must summon the interviewees before they can start
talking, and he decides when the conversation ends. This ending is negotiated,
though, and reciprocal greetings and/or thanks are exchanged.
On Papa Was A Rolling Stone, it is also the host who is usually the questioner.
Studio guests may abandon their role of answerer, even to become questioners.
This does not happen very often and never lasts very long. The power asymmetry is
still in favour of the host, but less so than on Dream Team. Comparatively, the host
does have a lot more power when it comes to topic initiation and, especially,
management. The host is not only the topic initiator because he asks his guests
questions. He also overtly manages the ‘flow’ of the topics during the conversation
through stepping in and directing his guests away from a certain topic, possibly to
return to that topic later on. This kind of management is not done so overtly and to
this extent on Dream Team. Another difference with Dream Team is that the host,
having the power to formulate, uses this power very often. He may or may not give
his guests the opportunity to accept or refute his formulation. As on Dream Team,
though, the Papa Was A Rolling Stone host does not necessarily formulate to
“establish control over the agenda” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 2008: 214). He may also
formulate to enable a smooth transition between two topics. That the host has the
power that comes with formulating, then, does not necessarily make him want to use
this power to enforce his own agenda on the guests, except if his agenda is to direct
the conversation along certain lines. Much more complicated on Papa Was A Rolling
Stone than on Dream Team is turn allocation and interruption. The host is still very
powerful, but in this case, the guests are, too. All participants may self-select and
select any of the other participants as the next speaker. Interestingly, the host does
not interrupt his guests, but the guests do sometimes interrupt him. Even though the
host is dominant when it comes to turn allocation, the power of the guests should not
be underestimated, and the host does not seem to have the power to be
disrespectful to his guests. The guests also produce more dispreferred seconds than
the Dream Team interviewees. As mentioned before, this does not lead to any
conclusive evidence about the power situation, but it could be an indication that the
Papa Was A Rolling Stone expert participants are more confident interviewees than
186
the Dream Team lay participants. When it comes to the opening and closing of the
conversation, the host again has the technical power for this aspect. Guests could,
theoretically speaking, intervene, but they do not. The host also has the
conversational power, because he also needs to summon guests before they can
start talking, and because he decides when to end the conversation. The closings
are less coordinated between host and interviewees than those on Dream Team, but
they are still negotiated.
Despite this, the treatment and the overall power situation is not hugely
different on the two programmes. It is rather the positions that each programme’s
participants take up for themselves that are different. Why, though, will a Dream
Team lay participant not take up a more powerful position even when given the
chance? And why does a non-famous Papa Was A Rolling Stone guest also perform
as an expert, even though he or she may not be one? Does this depend entirely on
the status attribution done by the host, or does something else play a role, too? For
two reasons, it is impossible to answer this here: firstly, these are not the questions
that this thesis set out to answer, and secondly, a different methodology would need
to be developed to address these issues.
For the last paragraph of this thesis, Erving Goffman will be given the final
word. On Dream Team and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, all the interactants form a
performance team. They are all “individuals who co-operate in staging a single
routine” (Goffman 1990: 79), this routine being the radio programmes in which each
of the participants appears. Goffman has noticed that on each team one team
member often seems to have been “given the right to direct and control the progress
of the dramatic action” (1990: 97). The host is clearly this person. He validates the
stories that participants tell and attributes them credibility. He occupies the more
powerful conversational position and is able to manage the course of the
conversation. Without the power of the host, there would be no Dream Team or
Papa Was A Rolling Stone conversations, and the participants would find it much
harder to appear credible.
187
188
Appendices
Dream Team 20/10/2011
Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team°
de drie favoriete platen van
Host Inge Van Den Broeck (.) Inge goeiemorgen
Ca goeiemorgen Christophe
Host Inge (.) Elvis (.) the king of rock ‘n [roll
Ca [ja
Host leren kennen dankzij je papa
Ca ja da klopt (.)
da klopt mijn vader was een heel grote fan van Elvis
en
eh ik heb die platen dus heel veel gehoord als ik
kind was
Host ja
Ca en vandaar (.) [euhm de keuze ( )
Host [ja (.) had je ook een vetkuif enzo
dan?
Ca nee (.) nee da ni heheh=
Host =heb je ‘m ooit live gezien?
Ca (1.7) eu::hm da denk ik ni
Host nee
Ca nee
Host vraag mij ineens ook af of ie ooit in België is
geweest
als mensen dat weten laat het [effe
Ca [ja
Host (.) weten
Ca ik heb er geen idee van
Host ja ja stuur ‘s effe (.) een berichtje
ma ‘t is goeie muziek he ‘t blijft
189
‘t is tijdloos en het blijft overeind
Ca ja zeker
Host ja (.) hij is ook niet voor niks de king of rock ‘n
roll natuurlijk .hh
Ca ja=
Host =dan Nick Cave met Into My Arms daar heb je ook heel
goeie herinneringen aan kan ik me voorstellen
[Inge
Ca [ja dat klopt euh
da was de openingsdans van ons huwelijk
euh
Host (1.3) wie had m gekoze?
Ca wablieft?
Host wie had ‘m gekozen
[dat nummer?
Ca [euh we hebben ‘m eigenlijk (.) samen gekozen
Host ah [ok
Ca [ja=
Host =goed [ja
Ca [da was [euh
Host [ja en er is=
Ca =redelijk snel overeengekome hhh=
Host =en er is weinig op de tene getrapt enzo
tijdens de openingsdans
Ca hh geen enkele keer [hahahahahaha
Host [hehe
het was een leuk feest (.) na Nick Cave?
Ca het was een (.) super leuk [feest ja
Host [ja
hoe lang is het geleden Inge?
Ca het is nu al eu:h (0.7) twaalf jaar geleden
Host WOW fantastisch=
Ca =[ja
Host [is dat
190
euh dan kies je ook nog Robin S met Show Me Love
Ca inderdaad
euh Robin S (.) Show Me Love is voor mij de ultieme
dansplaat
Host [ja
Ca [heb ik ook heel goeie herinneringen aan
euhm begin jaren negentig als ik me ni vergis
Host [ja
Ca [is ‘t van drieënnegentig
Host ja
Ca ook het jaar dat ik mijn man heb leren kennen dus (.)
jah
Host ja
en [dan zetten jullie ook wel is een stapje in de
wereld
Ca [ ( )
(1.5) [ja zeker
Host [waar
waar gebeurde dat? (.) bijvoorbeeld?
Ca eu::hm (0.4) voornamelijk in Copacabana in Kessel=
Host =de [Copa!
Ca [en in La Rocca
hh in de Copa ja [hahaha
Host [hah potverdorie
die bestaat ni meer he de Copa
Ca nee nee helaas ni
Host La Rocca nog wel eh da’s [euh
Ca [La Rocca nog wel
Host ja (.) da’s een blijvertje
.hhh [goed
Ca [ja
Host Robin S (.) herinneringen voor jou leuke
herinneringen euh
Ca [ja
191
Host [net als Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds met Into My Arms
Ca ( )
Host .hhh euh doe er nog minstens twaalf jaar bij (.)
euh (.) beste Inge [minstens eh
Ca [hh .hh
Host twintig dertig veertig jaar .hhhh (.) euhm
en laat eh vlug nog ‘s iets weten=
=stuur nog eens een euhm Dream Team door
of [misschien
Ca [absoluut
Host of misschien van je partner
da’s ook een goei idee (.) [he
Ca [ja
[hehe
Host [ok
dag Inge fijne dag
Ca bedankt he
Host bye
Ca [daag
Jingle [het Dream Team
Studio Brussel
192
Dream Team 25/10/2011
Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team°
de drie favoriete platen van
Host Thomas De Smet
Thomas goeiemorge
Ca goeiemorgen
Host Thomas je bent werkstudent?
Ca ja hh
Host dat betekent dat je de twee combineert?
Ca euh (.) ja da probeer ik toch
Host wat doe je dan precies?
Ca euhm ik volg een::
ik volg Europese studies aan d unief van Gent
Host [ja
Ca [en ik werk tegelijk euhm: ben ik ook leerkracht
(.) in een middelbare school
Host a:h ok
welke vakken geef je?
Ca euh alleen maar economie
Host ja
en euh studenten van hoe of of euh leerlingen
hoe oud zijn ze ongeveer?
Ca euhm tussen vijftien en achttien
Host en dat valt mee?
Ca .hh ja da valt mee [joa de een dag al meer dan de
ander natuurlijk
Host [hehehehehe
ja ‘t zal wel [‘t zal wel .hh
Ca [maar (.) over ‘t algemeen wel
Host ja
goed Queen en David Bowie Thomas
da’s van lang geleden
193
euh (.) eind jaren zeventig begin jaren tachtig moet
dat geweest zijn
hoe heb je dat nummer dan ontdekt
want je bent e- nog een euh een jonge kerel
Ca ja eigenlijk heel toevallig maar euh gewoon
via Youtube van ‘t een liedje naar ‘t ander
en dan uiteindelijk daar dan bij (.) terecht
gekomen en:
ja
( ) een hele tijd gewoon opgeslagen bij favorieten
en (.) ja moest ik er gewoon terug aan denken
Host ja
‘t is een heel straf nummer he
Ca ja
Host .hhh Adele kies je met Turning Tablesss
‘t is een leeftijdsgenote
z’ is drieëntwintig zeker he?
Ca ja
Host ja
en waarom (.) euh dat nummer (.) van Adele (.)
Thomas?
Ca euhm
allez als ik
als Adele dan (.) allez euh eerst uitkwam
dan vooral me ni alleen me
euhm Chasing Pavements maar dan d’rna met euhm
hh met Rolling In The Deep .hhhh
had ik gans die cd dan gekocht en dan von ik da een
van de
van de straffere liedjes die der eigenlijk op stond
en dan blijkt nu dan (.) euhm
Someone Like You eigenlijk vooral in deuh in deuh
hitlijsten is geraakt terwijl ik eigenlijk
Turning Tables even (.) minstens even goe vind
194
Host ja
want ‘t zit een beetje in ‘t zelfde register he
ook [ ( )
Ca [ ( ) ook natuurlijk wel een beetje heel triestig
maar [euhm
Host [ja (.) ja
maar ik vind ook allez ik vind ook supermooi
Host ja ‘t is prachtig gezongen absoluut
.hhh en dan een eh guilty pleasure van jou
The Human League
waar je wel eens eh uit volle borst durft mee
meezingen
Ca .hh ja o ff
tis een liedje da iedereen lijk wel kent=
=maar we zijn dan van de zomer op op kamp geweest
en en dan een der een karaoke geïnstalleerd en (.)
da liedje bleef zo lijk precies maar terugkeren
en (.) ja iedere keer als ik deraan moet denken
denk ik van allez da was echt wel (.) supertof (.)
en ja (.) dit was dus echt een guilty pleasure
Host ja
op kamp met?
Ca euhg (.) Open Jeugdwerk
da’s een jeugdbeweging
Host ah ok (.) perfect .hh
geef je vandaag nog les (.) Thomas
of moet je lessen [volgen?
Ca [ja ik heb vandaag maar een uur en
euh
tegen drie uur maar moet ik zijn
( ) school
Host ok perfect
ik wens je ‘n fijne dag
195
maar geniet eerst nog maar van Adele en The Human
League
Ca ok ( ) bedankt [ ( )
Host [dag Tho[mas
Ca [daag
Host tot ziens
Ca [ ( )
Jingle [het Dream Team
Studio Brussel
196
Dream Team 26/10/2011
Jingle het Dream Team! °Dream Team°
de drie favoriete platen van
Host Els Van Den Heuvel
Els goeiemorge
Ca goeiemorge
Host Breakfast in Vegas van Praga Khan
je hebt Maurice ooit ontmoet Els
Ca hja (.)
dikwijls eigenlijk (.)
in Leuven (.)
he dus euh ik woon in het Leuvensen (.) hij woont in
eu::h Rotselaar
euh (.)
hja (.) laat ons zeggen dat dat wel een BV was die we
regelmatig tegenkwamen in het Leuvense
.hhh nu je kon er ook ni naast kijken [natuurlijk
hihihi
Host [hah heheh
neeneenee
.hhh j’ebt ‘m ook ooit live gezien?
Ca .hh ik ‘eb ‘m live gezien dankzij jullie uiteraa-
allez ja ( ) maar dankzij jullie
euh we hadden vrijkaarten ge::wonnen voor een
optreden in de Ancienne Belgiquehh
Host [mhmm
Ca [.hhh en dat was schitterend=
Host =ja=
Ca =echt (.) dat was schitterend (.)
.hh en het toeval wilde eigenlijk dat (.) euh (.) als
het ’s avonds het optreden was dat ik die (.) dag
zelf ‘m ook al in Leuven gezien had .hhh
Host ja
197
Ca en dat was eigenlijk wel (.) fijn
[hhhh
Host [tweede keuze is eu:hm:: (.)
Hooverphonic
toen nog met Geike (.)
euhm [Mad About You
Ca [ja
.h goh dat is een beetje het lijflied euh van euh (.)
van ons als koppel
Host [ja
Ca [hehe
‘k zal het zo zeggenn euh (.)
we hebben dat hh (.) ( ) laten inspireren vorige week
door de openingsdans wij hebben dat ook als
openingsdans genomen als wij getrouwd zijn (.)
[.hhh=
Host [ja
Ca =euh ik vind het een fantastische song
Host ja
Ca ik vind ‘et ook een beetjen een (.) .hh een beetjen
een lijflied (.) eigenlijk ik ‘eb ( ) wat
tegendraads gedaan en (.) [dat blijft zohh hihihihi
Host [hh ja
hoe hoe lang is het geleden de openingsdans het
huwelijks[feest?
Ca [OOOOOH helemaal ni lang wij zijn nog maar
drie weken getrouwd [ahahahaha
Host [aah fantastisch proficiat Els
(.) proficiat [.hhh
Ca [hahaha danku
Host [en
en wie is de gelukkige?
Ca .h ja (.) Aldo (.) mijn (.) mijn echtgenoot hehehe
Host jaa (.) hoe heet ie?
198
Ca .hh euh Aldo Holsbeek hh
Host ja en euh hij was euh tevreden ook met die
openingsdans hebben jullie ‘m euh (.)
waren jullie akkoord allebei met het liedje?
Ca absoluut! [ik euh
Host [ja
Ca ik zei tegen hem gewoon van
euh ik wil iets Belgisch en hij zei meteen
Hooverphonic (.)
en
.hhh
ja m- met de keuze ook van de platen nu ik vertelde
‘m dat u zou belle
en (.) .hhh
euh hij zei ook meteen Hooverphonic zeker ik zeg ja
hahahaha
Host hehhh hja want het zijn
je zegt het zelf
euh een Belgische openingsdans maar ‘t zijn sowieso
ook allemaal Belgische platen [in je Dream Team
Ca [ja klopt ja ja
shjaa (.)ik chjaa (.) ik heb mijn jeugd beleefd in de
jaren tachtig en en: (.) toen waren er echt wel
.hh heel wat vind ik heel goede Belgische groepen
Host ja
Ca euh (.)
goh (.)
[ik ja
Host [ja want (.) TC Matic kies je ook nog he Els
Ca ja (.) ja
dus euh althans euh TC Matic ik heb eh Arno gezien
(.) .hhh op Suikerrock (.) in Tienen toen dat nog
allemaal gratis was
Host ja=
199
Ca =fantastisch gewoon .hhh
Host ja
Ca enneh euh
en (.) chjaa die man die is mij bijgebleven
echt euh
en vooral ‘t publiek is mij bijgebleven
dat was zo
.hhh dat vertaalde eigenlijk zowat die hele sfeer
van de jaren tachtig eigenlijk
.hh he die punk en dat zwart en en:
.h ja (.)
dat was echt wel de moeite
[hehhh
Host [ja nu je zegt de de de: (.) popmuziek (.)
de: Belgische pop uit de jaren tachtig
Ca [ja
Host [.hhh nu wordt er ook (.) nu worden er ook heel veel
goeie dingen [gemaakt he (0.3) in België (0.7) ja
(.) ja
Ca [absoluut (0.9) absoluut (0.3) ja (.)
ja
zeker en vast want ik volg da nog steeds
ik ben
.hhh goh ik heb bij jullie geboorte gestaan van
Studio Brussel [hahahhh
Host [jaha
Ca indertijd en wij (.) ja wij luisteren nog elke dag
[hehe
Host [da’s een prachtige afsluiter
.hh euh je mag nog genieten zometeen van Hooverphonic
en van TC Matic
en als je man in de buurt is (.) ik zou toch nog een
slowke wagen (.) he
Ca ja: absoluut [dat gaan we doen (.) hehe
200
Host [hh ok
.hh Els [bedankt (.) en euh tot de volgende keer
Ca [ ( ) ja
ja (.) daag
Jingle het Dream Team
[Studio Brussel
[muziek
201
Dream Team 28/10/2011
Jingle het Dream Team! °Dream Team°
de drie favoriete platen van
Host Kathleen Leemans
Kathleen goeiemorgen
Ca goeiemorgen
Host hoe gaat het met jou Kathleen
Ca ja goed (.) heel goed (.) danku
Host want (.)
zeg het zelf maar [Kathleen
Ca [ah ja ik euh (.)
wij verwachten ons eerste kindje in december
Host spannend eh Kathleen
Ca hh hehe [( )
Host [hoe is de zwangerschap verlopen (.) tot nu
toe?
Ca euh tot nu toe eigenlijk heel goed
Host ja
Ca ik heb euh (.) eigenlijk ni veel last gehad en euh
(.) alles verloopt eigenlijk heel goed
Host mhmm
Ca het goeit groe (.) groeit goed dus alles is in orde
Host heerlijk
seg en ’t wordt een flinke dochter?
Ca euh ja da weet ik nog ni eh [hhh
Host [nee weet je ’t ni?
Ca aja ik weet ’et wel maar de anderen mogen het nog ni
weten
Host ah
dus toch blij dat het een zoon wordt (.) he
Ca (1.7) [( ) afwachten eh
Host [hh ‘k kan maar proberen he Kathleen=
Ca =ja ‘k weet ‘et [‘k weet ‘et
202
Host [ja (.) ja ja
Ca eh hehehe
[ ( )
Host [.hhh voor wanneer euh
voor wanneer is hij of zij gepland?
Ca euh voor 21 december
Host vlak bij Kerst
Ca (0.8) ja
Host ja (.)
.hh goed en je wil muziek (.) of je hebt muziek
gekozen (.) ook
m m m ja ’t heeft wat met je zwangerschap te maken
toch leg ‘s uit
Ca ja euh klopt
dus eu::h (.)
in: (.) ik ga bevallen in Sint Jozef in Mortsel en
daar hebt ge in de verloskamer (.) euhm (0.9) een
eu:h (.) ja een cd-speler dus je mag eigenlijk zelf
muziek meebrengen
Host hmhm
Ca .hh en euhm (.) daarom was ik dus beginnen nadenken
welke muziek ik graag wou (.) euh laten spelen
omda da toch wel een heel belangrijk moment is
[maar
Host [hm
Ca ni alleen da
dus (.) euh blijkbaar heeft muziek voor de geboorte
ook een heel .hh goeie invloed op u kind hh
dus euh dan ben ik ook beginne nadenke van::
misschien kan ik al wa cds op voorhand maken die ik
dan ook al in de auto of thuis ne keer kan afspele
hh
[ ( )
Host [en weet je dat dat echt werkt (.) Kathleen?
203
ik [kan der over meespreken
Ca [euh nee da [weet ik ni zeker
Host [ja echt wel (.) [echt wel
Ca [JA?
Host er was een cd’tje (.) euh toen mijn eerste dochter is
geboren
een cd’tje dat we daarvoor (.) dus tijdens de
zwangerschap hebben afgespeeld
en als ze onrustig was (.) toen het kindje er was
he
Ca ja ja=
Host =hielp dat
echt waar
Ca [ah (.) allez hhh
Host [ja
werd ze helemaal rustig van
’t was geen death metal he (.) voor alle
duidelijkheid
’t was [ook euh rustige euh mooie muziek
Ca [hh nee
Host .hh dus daarom bijvoorbeeld ook Nick Cave (.) en the
Bad Seeds (.)
euhm (.) en Massive Attack (.) met [Teardrop
Ca [ja
Host dat laat je nu ook vaak horen
Ca (1.0) euh ja ik heb da liedje van Massive Attack
eigenlijk nog ni zo heel lang geleden (.) euh
ontdekt
Host hmhm
Ca en euh ik ‘k was daar eigenlijk direct verliefd op
Host [hmhm
Ca [dus vandaar da ik het er mee heb tusse gestoke
.hhh en Nick Cave euh is een liedje da ik eigenlijk
via mijn vriend heb leren kennen
204
toen we mekaar (.) leerden kennen
en euh (.) ja da heb ik altijd een beetje aan hem
gelinkt
dus [da was ook wel
Host [ja
ja
Ca hhh
Host en dan zijn er ook nog Kings of Leon met Sex On Fire
Ca ja da vind ik een beetje een kippevelnummer
eu::hm (.) ik ben ni (.) echt (.) een (.) gigantische
fan van Kings of Leon
maar da d is echt een nummer da mij (.)
elke keer als da op de radio komt ( )
vin ‘k echt (.) een heel goed nummer
Host ja (.)
en je hoopt later (.) .hh dat jullie kind euh meegaat
naar festival he (.)
en optredens
Ca ja absoluut
Host ja
Ca da doen wij allebei heel graag dus eu::h
(0.7) da zou heel fijn zijn
Host wie weet (.) gaat ie naar het Polonaisefestival of zo
ik zeg maar iets eh
Ca ja (.)
[ja
Host [hahahahaha ka-
Ca wij gaan proberen van het toch een iets andere
richting te geven maar uiteindelijk hhh
Host kan allemaal [he
Ca [smaken verschillen he dus
Host [kan allemaal he
Ca [ja ja
Host .hhh maar ik hoop het allerbeste
205
ik wens je een eh geweldige bevalling toe beste
Kathleen
Ca hmm
Host en laat ‘s weten wat het geworden is (.) eh
Ca ok da zal ik doen
Host ok
fijn weekend ook alvast=
=dag Kathleen
Ca ja
Host daag
Jingle het Dream Team
Studio Brussel
206
Dream Team 03/11/2011
Jingle het Dream Team! °Dream Team°
de drie favoriete platen van
Host Jens Joris
.hh een heel goeie morgen Jens
Ca (0.7) goeiemorgen Leen
Host hoe gaat het
Ca (0.9) perfect [( )
Host [ je-s-=
=.hh jouw eerste keuze is eh (.) Skunk Anansie met
Twisted
(0.4)waarom heb je daarvoor gekozen?
Ca eu::hm (.) Skunk Anansie is toch wel een van mijn
favoriete bands
en met de:: (.) Top Wijftig dat eraan komt wil ik
nu toch wel euh (.) efkes duidelijk make dat zij
der ook zeker mag instaan voor mij
Host (1.6) [h s-
Ca [en eu:hm van ’t jaar heb ik ze dan voor ’t
laatst gezien op Pukkelpop (.)
en dat was ook het laatste concert van Pukkelpop
Host (1.2) ja ‘t was wel=
=dat was wel straf he
Ca (1.1) ja (.)
da was wel redelijk eu:hm:: (.)
spectaculair (.)
alles begon perfect (.)
lekker warme dag (.)
t-shirt weer
(1.2) .hh en tijdens ’t concert van Skunk Anansie
zag je de wolk afkomen (.)
en: (.)
ja toen hebben ze ’t concert moeten stilleggen (.)
207
eerst (0.5) probeerden ze nog (.)
maar (.) ’t begon zo hevig (.)
.hh en toen was Pukkelpop gedaan
Host (0.7) ja en je (.)
stond je (.) stond je dan dichtbij ook?
Ca ja ik stond redelijk vooraan
euhm:
(1.0) ik heb het zeil zien openscheuren van het
hoofdpodium (.)
en eu:hm
(0.6) ne paal ( ) omvallen op de camion
en dan zijn w’ ook maar gaan lopen (.)
om euh
(0.5) heel de massa (.) zich te verplaatsen
je moest die eigenlijk gewoon volgen
Host (1.1) ja [’t heeft ook
Ca [ja
Host ’t heeft ook een tijdje geduurd voor euh Skunk
Anansie ook effectief wilde stoppen met optreden
Ca ja ik ging eu::h (.)
(1.0) ik ( ) en die kon er nog wel mee lachen en
dan ( )
maar op een gegeven moment vielen er zo’n hagelbollen
op de apparatuur
(0.8) ze moesten gewoon weggaan
Host ja (.)
.hh en euh ja verder is de de: (.)
te zeggen de rode draad doorheen jouw Dream Team
vandaag
(1.1) [dus j’ebt ook nog euh
Ca [ja (.) ‘k denk ‘et wel
Host een van je andere keuzes=
=eh Eminem en Rihanna met Love The Way You Lie
Ca (0.7) ja (.)
208
euhm Eminem is zeker ni een van mijn favoriete
bands
als die nu naar ’t Sportpaleis zou komen zou ik
nooit 50 euro betalen voor een ticket (.)
maar ik keek er wel enorm naar uit
omda da wel (.) waarschijnlijk een van de enige
kansen was (.)
om ‘m toch eens gezien te hebben
en: (.)
ja ik kan ni ontkenne dat ‘m toch wel (.)
euh (.) goeie muziek maakt in zijn genre (.)
dat da toch wel een maat is waar je ni omheen kan
en eigenlijk die kans da je da kan zien op zo’n
festival
(0.9) toch spijtig da da ni is doorgegaan
Host ‘t is e- ‘t is een beetje jouw eh guilty pleasure zo
[een een een
Ca [ja awel
Host een artiest die je stiekem wel goed vindt (.)
maar die [je eigenlijk niet zo goed wil vinden
Ca [ja
Host [hehhh
Ca [hehe
Host en dan heb je ook nog gekozen voor de Foo Fighters
met All My Life
Ca ja absoluut
da was toch wel voor mij euhm (.) de: band waarvoor
ik naar Pukkelpop ging
ik heb z’ al enkele keren gezien
euhm (.)
nu met de nieuwe plaat ik keek er enorm naar uit
(1.1)
ja en hopelijk komen ze nog (.) van ‘et voorjaar
euhm (0.7)
209
richting België voor een concert (.)
maar (.) ‘k vrees ervoor
Host je bent een vrij grote fan
Ca ja toch wel
Host ma kijk Jens ik zal met jou meeduimen (.)
euh dat ze: dat ze binnenkort nog eens ons land
aandoen
want dat is altijd wel een:: heel gebeuren (.)
die mannen kunnen het wel he
Ca die kunnen het
Host zeg Jens
.hh geniet nog van het Dream Team
je krijgt zometeen Eminem en Rihanna nog met Love
The Way You Lie
en daarna de Foo Fighters
Ca hartelijk bedankt
Host nog een fijne dag
daag
Ca [daag
Jingle [Studio Brussel
het Dream Team
210
Dream Team 07/11/2011
Jingle het Dream Team! °Dream Team°
de drie favoriete platen van
Host Hans Strackx
Hans goeiemorgen
Ca (1.1) goeiemorgen Christophe
Host Hans (.) The Smiths (0.5) een [classic
Ca [ja
Host How Soon Is Now
.hhh euhm waarom dat nummer
en waarom The Smiths Hans
Ca (1.1) euhm ohh ik ben gewoon fan van The Smiths
en ook tevens van Morrisey
maar als ik mag kiezen tussen de twee
dan kies ik toch wel voor The Smiths
Host dat gebeurt wel vaker he
Ca hmhm
[da klopt
Host [ja
ja
(0.5) heb je ‘m gezien ‘et eh fameuze concert (.)
voorbije zomer op de Lokerse [Feesten
Ca [ik ben euh de Lokerse
Feesten ben ik inderdaad geweest
[ja
Host [en?
Ca euh prachtig optreden eh
Host ja
(0.5) er was heel want rond te doen (.)
he (.)
de: de: paardenworsten en het vlees
.hhh
Ca [ja da was
211
Host [euhm
ja (.)
maar een scheet in een fles is achteraf gebleken he
(.) toch
Ca inderdaad
[ja ( )
Host [ja .hh
euh m- d-
is het toeval Hans
want de drie platen die euh
die we:: draaien
of de twee die er nog aankomen (.)
‘t is allemaal Britse muziek
is dat toeval
of heb je sowieso [iets met eh
Ca [ah nee da’s toevallig ja
Host [ja
Ca [ja
Host want je kiest ook Joy Division met Atmosphere
Ca ah ja inderdaad ja
Joy Division is ook een
een eenn band van de jaren tachtig die ik heel erg
apprecieer
Host ja
Ca en euh (.)
ook ja met de film Control van Anton Corbijn is da
alleen maar gegroeid he
met de: (.)
de liefde tussen euh (.)
ja van Joy Division en mij
Host ja (.)
en euh Ian Curtis
de betreurde Ian Curtis
vorige week ook nog hoog in de RIP 50 hier bij ons
212
.hhh (.)
en dan is er ook nog Oasis
Ca (1.0) eeuh ja
Oasis is ook nog een:
een band die ik (.) euh heel graag (.)
heel graag hoor
en ook (.) blijven kunnen bewonderen
en euh (.) prachtige band
ook jammer genoeg gestopt
Host ja
Ca dus euh (.) ma ja
Host [ ( )
Ca [ge-
ge- gelukkig leven ze nu verder
me Beady Eye en Noel Gallagher solo dus
[op die manier
Host [ja (.)
ja (.)
welke groep vind je ’t beste (.)
van welke broer?=
Ca =Beady Eye (.)
[Beady Eye
Host [ahh
ja
[ja
Ca [van Liam ja
Host ja (.)
euhm
maar met die twee weet j’ ook maar nooit he
er was zelfs eh
vorige week heeft een van de twee gezegd
ja een reünie (.) het zit er wel in
(.) wie weet
[he
213
Ca [ja?
Host [ja
Ca [((geblaat))
Host ja (.) ja (.)
wat hoor ik?
Ca eu:h ’n berichtje (.)
m’n ontvangstgeluid
Host ahh hahaha[haha
Ca [iemand die waarschijnlijk mij (.)
mij hoort op de radio (.)
[en ja
Host [hhhja
(.) hahahjah (.)
leuke ringtone is dat
da’s een euh e- een geitje (1.0)
eh?
Ca ah eh mm da kan mm
da kan (.)
[‘k weet ’t niet
Host [ja
haja kee
[.hhh goed
Ca [ ( )
Host we luisteren naar nog naar Joy Division en euh Oasis
Hans
[bedankt voor je: (.) straffe keuzes
Ca [ ( )
Host [en tot binnenkort
Ca [ok
Host [dag Hans
Ca [ ( ) dag Christophe
[bedankt
Host [bye=
Jingle =het Dream Team
214
Studio Brussel
215
Dream Team 08/11/2011
Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team°
de drie favoriete platen van
Host Koen Smeekens
Koen goeiemorgen
Ca goeiemorgeh
Host Koen je nam de telefoon niet op (.)
ik dacht waar zit ie
Ca (1.0) ja
Host was j’ aan ’t belleh?
Ca ma ‘k had nog een ander lijn
Host a::h (.)
drukbezet (.) drukbezet man (.)
beste Koen
.hhh seg j’ ebt Coldplay onder meer gekozen
waarom?
Ca (2.6) omda ‘k da een tof nummer vin
Host ja (.)
en [euh Coldplay
Ca [en om
Host (1.1) [( )
Ca [omda ‘k die gezien ‘em op Werchter
Host en hoe vond je dat Koen?
Ca (0.9) goed
Host ja?
goed of heel goed of fantastisch?
Ca heeleel fantastisch
Host ja
.hh Foo Fighters kies je ook
(1.2) met Wheels
Ca (1.3) ja
Host waarom (.) Koen?
Ca (2.1) die heb ik op Pukkelpop eh gemist
216
door de Pukkelpopstorm
Host ja
Ca ik was daar
Host je was er?
Ca (0.8) [ja
Host [op de bewuste Pukkelpop
Ca ja (.) jah
Host ja (.)
’t was de moeite daar he (.) Koen
Ca ja ja ja
Host ja (.) ja
en eh ’t zou de eerste keer geweest zijn dat je Foo
Fighters zag?
aan het werk zou zien?
Ca ja ja ja
Host ja (.)
ja [maar er komt
Ca [maar ‘opelijk kome ze naar Werchter
Host voila er komt een volgende keer
daar ben ik zeker van
.hh en dan [kies je nog een eh klassieker van formaat
Ca [( )
Host Radiohead met Creephhh
Ca (1.3) ja ook een fantastisch nummer
Host ja (.)
en een fantastische groep ook he Koen
Ca (2.0) wablieft
Host ook een fantastische groep toch (.)
Radiohead?
Ca ja ja
[ok
Host [voila
we gaan ‘m met veel plezier nog voor je draaien (.)
.hh wat ga je nog doen Koen vandaag?
217
Ca (2.4) euh werke
Host dan wens ik je een fijne werkdag
en geniet nu vooral nog van Foo Fighters en
Radiohead (.)
[beste Koen
Ca [ja ok bedankt
Host graag [gedaan
Ca [daag
Host de groeten [he
Ca [ja
Host dag Koen (.)
bye
Jingle Studio Brussel
het Dream Team
218
Dream Team 09/11/2011
Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team°
de drie favoriete platen van
Host Pieter Soens
Pieter goeiemorgen
Ca goeiemorgen
Host Pieter was jij iemand die euh vroeger luisterde naar
Vrijaf met Gust De Koster?
Ca (1.3) nee
Host [ah
Ca [(.) euh niet onmiddellijk
Host ik vraag dat omdat het euh
het nummer dat je net (.) vroeg
of gehoord hebt (.)
.hh was het eh begintunetje van dat programma
dus ik dacht dat dat daar misschien iets mee te
maken had
.hhh euhm maar waarom vroeg je ’t nummer Pieter?
Ca wel omdat ik ‘et euh toch wel euh (.) awel
vooreerst heb ik euh mijn Dream Team terug
samengesteld met euh liedjes van de jaren tachentig
Host ja
Ca de jaren tachentig blijven prachtig uiteraard (.)
Host ahahhh
Ca en ik heb da liedje gekozen omdat het toch een euh
soort van mengvorm is tussen verschillende genres
van muziek
en het heeft ook wel een beetje een opzwepend ritme
dus euh
ik vond dat wel euh (.)
een favorietje
Host ja en heel ve-
heel speciale sfeer zo he
219
Ca ja inderdaad
Host [ja
Ca [euh
ik ik vind het euh prachtig dat men daar men een zo
goed als instrumentaal deuntje toch euh veel emotie
kan euh opwekken
Host ja
iets heel anders is Billy Joel met You’re Only Human
Ca inderdaad
.hh euh da’s een zanger die uiteraard euh
zeer gekend is
die misschien wel iets euh bekendere songs heeft
dan dat
.hh maar ik vond het toch wel een euh een toffe
song om even door te sturen
omdat het toch het euh breed publiek aanspreekt
euh met (.) toegankelijke muziek
Host ja
en en ‘t is altijd leuk om een beetje vergeten
nummers nog eens terug te horen he Pieter
Ca ja uiteraard
[euh=
Host [ja
Ca =dit is toch al van euh negentien vijfentachentig dat
liedje
ook van de jaren tachentig dus
en euh ‘k vind het nog altijd (.) even euh
even tof en even leuk
Host ja
vind je dat ook van Fun Loving Criminals
met Scooby Snacks?
Ca ja dat heb ik gekozen eu::h
dat is eigenlijk euh van euh zesennegentig denk ik
Host [ja
220
Ca [en dat heb ik gekozen omdat het nog euh
nogal veel wel werd gespeeld euh
op de fuiven van de plaatselijke verenigingen euh
.hh in onze gemeente Heule
Host ja (.)
Tineke van Heule
Ca jah (.) inderdaad
en wij eh hebben trouwens ook een groot feest
vrijdag
[want eh
Host [ja
Ca wij vieren het negenhonderdjarige bestaan van onze
gemeente
Host ok (.)
en wat gebeurt er allemaal (.)
kort (.) Pieter
Ca een euh voorstelling van euh een boek (.)
euh met betrekking tot het euh bestaan van het
negenhonderdjarig euh Heule
Host ja
Ca en euh ook euh (.) een: eh Highland games (.)
in de namiddag
Host ok=
Ca =dus waarin de verenigingen euh (.) elkaar bekampen
Host ok ik wens jullie veel plezier (.)
dit [weekend in Heule
Ca [bedankt
Host en [nu nog Fun Loving Criminals en Billy Joel
Ca [ja
Host dag Pieter
Ca in orde (.)
tot de volgende
Host groetjes (.) daag
Ca [daag
221
Jingle [het Dream Team
Studio Brussel
222
Dream Team 10/11/2011
Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team°
de drie favoriete platen van
Host Kim (.) Hoste
Kim goeiemorgen
Ca goeiemorgen: (.)
[euh Christophe
Host [Kim
Alice Cooper (.)
leren kennen door je pa
Ca ja da’s waar eu::hm (.)
d’eh gewoon van vroeger en
ik vroeg mij af wie’n da da was en (.)
‘keh ne keer die LP gezien en da was eu:h (.)
oorspronkelijk de B-kant van e- van een singletje
en (.) ja da wa- ‘k von da wel nog prachtig
Host [ja
Ca [ja
‘k vin da wel nog de max
Host hij was onlangs nog in ons land (.)
ben je toevallig geweest?
Ca nee
[eu:hm
Host [nee (.) nee (.) nee
Ca [‘k ha’ geen tid hehehehe
Host .hhh Sheila Divine tweede keuze
met eh Country Man
Ca ja (.)
da’s eu:h (.) ook iets wa da’k ne keer g’oord ‘em (.)
.hhh en eu:hm
‘k ‘en dat dan beginnen dingen van euh opzoe’n
en ‘k von da echt e::h (.)
zo echt van eu:h
223
jammer genoeg da ze ni meer bestaan
mor z’en nog (.).hh onlangs geweest in België
geloof ik
Host is dat zo?
Ca ja
[‘k denk
Host [ah ja
Ca 2010 denk ik
Host [oh
Ca [ja
‘k [denk zoiets ja
Host [ja (.)
ja (.)
hun zanger heeft ook een aantal nummers meegezongen
op euh (.)
de vorige plaat geloof ik van euh (.) van Arsenal
.hh maar van The Sheila Divine is er inderdaad euhm
(.)
bijna of er zijn geen platen meer verschenen
geloof ik he recent nog van Sheila Divine
Ca [nee
Host [.hhh en [dan (.)
Ca [( )
Host en dan heb je ook nog Bas Lermon
met die eu:h (.)
Everybody’s Feet Wear Sunscreen
.hhh [da’s een levens-
Ca [ja
Host da’s een levensles he Kim
Ca ja da’s e:uh a’ j’e slecht voelt
gewoon na da luisteren en ’t komt al goed
Host ja hehe voila
Ca [haha
Host [hhh hoe voel je je op dit moment?
224
Ca bwa goed [goed
Host [aaaah ok (.)
[ok
Ca [normaal gezien moe’k nu werken dus ja
’t is ‘t ‘open da m’n baas ni boos ga zijn
Host wat zeg je?
Ca normaal gezien moe’k nu werken dus ’t is ‘t ‘open da
m’n baas [ ( )
Host [a:h ok ok
ik ga je snel laten werken dan
heb je morgen een dagje vrij trouwens?
Ca euh ja morgen ‘e ‘k vrij
Host ok (.)
dat wordt genieten
en nu nog euh (.) nog veel meer genieten
van je twee overige platen
Sheila Divine .hh en Bas Lermon
Kim bedankt voor de fijne keuzes
Ca ’t is niks (.)
dag eeh
Host groetjes eh (.)
bye=
Jingle =Studio [Brussel
Ca [daag
Jingle het Dream Team
225
Dream Team 17/11/2011
Jingle het Dream Team °Dream Team°
de drie favoriete platen van
Host Pascal Michel
Pascal goeiemorgen
Ca goeiemorgen
Host ’t is niet Michel Pascal he
Ca nee nee nee
Host nee (.) nee (.)
Pascal (.)
.hh jij hebt een hele goeie reden (.) om (.) drie
platen te kiezen in het Dream Team (.)
vertel
Ca da klopt (.)
eu:h mijn vriendin Romy is vandaag verjaard
Host ja
Ca en: morgen verjaart euh onze:: zoon
de eerste verjaardag
Host ja
Ca (1.5) en: da moet gevierd worden eh
Host dat moet zeker gevierd worden
maar ’t is ook zo (.) .hh dat ze ’n beetje bang was
dat haar verjaardag een beetje zou vergeten worden
he?
Ca da klopt
omdat de zoon (.) vlak na haar verjaardag (.)
de dag erna verjaart
Host ja
wanneer gaan jullie dan feestvieren
vandaag of morgen
of twee dagen?
Ca twee dagen he
Host groot gelijk
226
Ca [hehehe
Host [luister ze (.)
Pascal?
Ca jaja z’is aan ’t luisteren
[z’is aan ’t luisteren
Host [fantastisch
en wist ze ‘t (.)
dat je zou bellen?
Ca nee helemaal ni
Host da’s een mooi cadeau he
Ca (1.0) tuurlijk (.)
[hehehe
Host [ja (.)
Skunk Anansie is dat een van haar favoriete bands?
Ca da’s een van de favoriete bands van haar ja
Host ja=
Ca =en euh w’ebben ze ’n beetje gemist op Pukkelpop dit
jaar dus euh (.) vandaar
Host ja (.)
was j’op Pukkelpop (.) Pascal?
Ca ja:jajajaja
Host je was er
Ca ja (.)
wij allebei (.)
hehehe
Host en?
Ca (1.4) euh (.) ja (.)
spannend he
Host ja (.)
vanavond is er trouwens een euh uitzending in
Panorama
volledig gewijd (.) .hh aan die noodlottige dag op
euh Pukkelpop
.hhh Foo Fighters kies je ook met My Hero
227
is zij jou held?
Ca (1.5) euh ook natuurlijk
en vooral de zoon ook he
Host ja (0.8)
en dan nog AC/DC met Highway to Hell (.)
dat zijn de euh lekkere gitaren he Pascal
Ca ja ja
en da’s ook een beetje een binnenpretje van ons twee
denk ik
ik heb altij gezegd euhm (.)
dat da (.) eeuh (.) beetje cliché is maar euhm
ideale openingsdans voor euh (.) voor op nen trouw
eh
Host hhhhhahaha[hahahaha
Ca [hehehehe
Host zijn jullie getrouwd
nee want je zei ‘t is m’n vriendin eh
Ca ’t is m’n vriendin
[we zijn nog ni getrouwd nee
Host [ja (.) ja (.)
( )
gaan jullie trouwen
hebben jullie plannen in die richting
Ca neenee w’ebben nog geen plannen [nee
Host [nee
als ‘t ooit zover komt (.)
’k zou ’t een goeie vinden dat als openingsdans
.hhh goed ik wens jullie (.) euh leuke feesten
vandaag en morgen
geef euh een dikke knuffel (.) .hh aan je zoon en een
dikke kus aan je: vriendin Romy
.hh en geniet nog van de Foo Fighters en eh AC/DC he
dag Pascal
Ca dag ( )
228
dankuwel
Host graag gedaan
tot ziens he
Ca [daag
Traffic [((traffic jingle
229
Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Bart& Nona Peeters
Aris Ham dames (.) en heren (0.9)
mijn naam (.) is Aris Ham (1.0)
ik ben de vader (.) van Otto-Jan Ham (0.7)
en ik heet u van harte welkom bij (0.6)
Papa Was A Rolling Stone (1.6)
met vandaag te gast (0.6)
Bart (.) en Nona Peeters (1.1)
Bart is tweeënvijftig (.) zanger (.) presentator (.)
en media-fenomeen (1.2)
Nona is zijn oudste dochter (1.1)
en volgens vader (.) alvast een geweldige drumster
(0.9)
vader en dochter over hun favoriete plaatjes in
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
Host Nona Peeters van harte welkom in de studio
laten we de de de:: deze uitzending beginnen met
een ode aan je vader
een plaat die hij erg graag (.) zal horen
wat zal het zijn
Nona euh Karma Police van Radiohead (.)
please
Host [perfecte keuze
[((Karma Police))
Host Karma Police (.) van Radiohead (.)
voor Bart Peeters
Bart jij ook f:: van harte euh welkom hier in de
studio
Bart dag Otto-Jan
Host prachtige zondag (.)
een eh band die jij geweldig vindt
en (.) euh dat ben je eens met met met Nona he
zijn jullie alletwee heel grote fan van
230
Nona ja (.)
euh ’t is dan zo da (.)deh die plaat (.)
zeker OK Computer doet mij zo hard aan mijn papa
denke
omda hij die cd al vier keer van mij heeft gestole
[hhh
Host [vier keer al
Nona ja
Host da’s aardig wat
he- heb je euh je euh
kan je ni zelf naar een winkel gaan af en toe Bart
om [euh een cd te kopen?
Bart [dat is moeilijk
ik (.) ik heb daar weinig tijd voor hehhh
en (.) dat is dus blijkbaar iets in onzeuh (.)
muzikale smaak als wij met iets (1.1) overeen komen
(.)
.hhh dan jat ik het eigenlijk gewoon
Host ah ja
Bart maar (.) ik heb da me nen bepaalde van van de van
deuhm Black Eyed Peas ook gedaan (.)
maar bij Radiohead ja (.)
ligt vermoedelijk ergens in ons huis
Nona hhh echt vijf platen liggen ergens ja
Host [is ’t waar
Bart [en dezelfde he
dus dus dus gewoon dezel- Ok Computer he
wij hebben die vijf keer .h en mocht je nu vragen
waar ligt ‘m (.)
ik zou het ni weten
[hahaha
Host [maar dus da’s echt een probleem
jij raakt die dingen echt (.)
aan de lopende band kwijt ook gewoon
231
cd’s
Bart dingen waar ik van hou (0.6)
hhh dat is (.) e-e-e-
what you really love (0.4) you (.) you lose it
Host ja (.)
en jij bent dan zo braaf Nona
om telkens weer naar de winkel te gaan om een nieuw
exemplaar te [gaan halen
Nona [ja ik ben dus echt (.)
de brave dochter die da da dan gewoon doe (.)
[hehe
Bart [hhhh
Host kan je dan ni van tevoren gewoon meteen vijf
exemplaren per album kopen
dat zou misschien handiger zijn
dat bespaart je [heel wat tijd in elk geval
Nona [ja da’s misschien een goei idee
(.)
[ehhehe
Bart [ja (.)
misschien vind ik het dan (.)
[juist geen leuke plaat hehhh
Nona [hahaha
Host ja nee ja
Bart geen (.) geen steelfähige plaat (.)
[zo
Host [da- da- dat begrijp ik
seg euhm wa- wa- wat is er zo goed aan Radiohead
hoe ka- kan je dat uitleggen Nona?
Nona goh (.)
‘k vind gewoon (.)
heel die plaat is gewoon echt prachtige muziek
en ’t verveelt mij ook ni
‘k ‘eb (.)
232
allez ‘k ‘eb de plaat vijf keer gekocht (.)
allez (.)
en toch (.) blijft da echt goeie muziek
Host ja (.)
en specifiek deze plaat
is da bij jou ook zo Bart dat vooral deze (.)
euh Radiohead plaat is blijven hangen (.)
of vind je ze in hun (.) algemeenheid eh geweldig
Bart Paranoid Android van de eh enn de- deze plaat
maar dat zou ons ver leiden
want dat is echt e- van een soort Deep Purpleïaanse
lengte (.)
eh v- vind ik het absolute hoogtepunt van die plaat
maar natuurlijk ook Karma Police (.)
.hh omdat voor mij (.)
dat doet denken aan Sexy Sadie eh (.)
van den dubbele witte
van The Beatles eh (.)
.hh dus dan zijn we weer thuis
[hehehehehehe
Nona [hahaha
Host [hehe
ja euh gaan we ’t zeker ook straks nog over hebben
The Beatles
want dat is ook dat is ook iets wat jullie bindt
eigenlijk wel die band natuurlijk (.)
iets euh wa- wat jullie ook beiden heel goed vinden
en wat mij enigszins verbaasde was (.)
Destiny’s Child
want Nona (0.7)
ik zou denken dat is iets waar jij bent (.)
mee thuisgekomen en dat je dan hebt overgebracht
(.)
.hh naar vader toe
233
maar eigenlijk is ’t omgekeerd gegaan
Nona ja (.)
het is ons papa die (.) ( ) heeft ( )
een enorme fascinatie voor vrouwen die goe kunne
danse
Host [ja
Nona [dus (.) ik weet ni
ons papa zelf dieje kan ni goe danse
ik weet ni of dat er (.)
Bart [hahaha
Nona [mensen die zijne show al hebbe gezien
Host [dat zijn jouw woorden (.)
Nona [ja
Host dat zijn jouw woorden Nona
Nona .hh mense die zenne show al hebbe gezien (.)
die gaan da kunne beamen (.)
da dieje mens (.) graag is wa
R’n’B moves d’r tussen gooit (.)
maar da lukt ni altijd even vlot (.) dus (0.9)
ons papa heeft echt zo een paar live dvd’s van
Destiny’s Child
en ik (.) denk eigenlijk da da puur is (.)
[voor de dancemoves
Bart [hhh
Host voor die choreografie
is dat zo Bart
Bart dat klopt ja
dat is (.) lesmateriaal (.)
dus ik heb niet alleen (.)
Destiny’s Child euh live in Atlanta (.)
.hh maar ik heb ook bijvoorbeeld alle shows van
Beyonce .hhh
Host hhhh
Bart en da- hhhh en hahaha da-
234
daar gaat het niet over de liedjes maar ook (.)
en dan (.) moeten ons meisjes mij leren van (.)
ja kom (.) allez (.)
zo bijvoorbeeld (.) da van Crazy in Love (.)
eh (.) da moet de papa nu toch ook kunne (.)
da moet (.) .hh zo moeilijk kan da toch ni zijn (.)
en dan (.) Winnie en Nona l- leren mij dat (.)
en dus op vakantie zijn wij heel vaak bezig hh
met dat ik bijles neem
Nona [hhihihi
Bart [in Destiny’s Child (.) of Beyoncemoves
Host ja
Bart .hhh
euhm
Host inclusief de hotpants (.) dan ook (.)
[heb je die de:: ook euh
Bart [nee (.) nee
Host [ah nee dat niet
Bart [want ik ben (.) een (.) zwarte R’n’B zangeres
in het diepst van mijn gedachten en dromen
Host ja
Bart maar ik ben niet zo’n Guido Belcanto die zich dan ook
nog per se zo moet gaan [uitdossen
Host [met hoge hakken (.) en
Bart neu::h neuh neuh
Nona spijtig eigenlijk
Bart hahahahaha
Host ja (.)
’t is jammer
bestaat daar beeldmateriaal van Nona (.)
da jullie eigenlijk euh (.) je pa aan ’t leren zijn
(.)
[om die die moves euh
Nona [van die enorme dansinitiaties
235
Host [om de moves onder de knie te krijgen
Nona nee nee (.)
spijtig genoeg ni eigenlijk
Host [da’s heel jammer eigenlijk
Nona [ja (.) ’s jammer
Bart [hahahahaha
Host maar (.) wie weet duiken die ooit [nog ’s erges op
Nona [hahaha (.) na de
volgende
Bart [hahahaha
Host ik geef je zometeen wat geld dat je dat straks (.)
dat je dat vanavond toch nog ’s kunt doen
zullen w’is luisteren naar Destiny’s Child
wat is een wat is een goeie om euh om om te draaien
Nona ja (.)
Say My Name vin’k wel (.)
Bart [eej
Nona [’s wel tof eh
Bart wete da (.) diejen beat (.)
die was eigenlijk dubbel zo traag he (.)
.hh dus (.) da da was eigenlijk de bedoeling om da
dubbel zo traag in te zingen (.)
en die hebben da dubbel zo rap ingezongen (.)
en zo is die Destiny’s Child (.) stijl ontstaan
en als je dat weet (.) dan begrijp je dit nummer
ook beter
hahaha
Nona hehehe
Host wel (.)
we gaan (.) we gaan er ’s rekening mee houden
dit is Destiny’s Child (.)
twee keer zo snel dan oorspronkelijk de bedoeling
was met Say My Name
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
236
((Say My Name))
Bart paam pepe tiki tiki tampetauw
da moest eigenlijk zijn
dchang kiki chiri pape dieuw ni dauw
en ze maken d’r van
paam pepe tiki tiki tampetauw
dat en dat is het geniale van da nummer he
Host [wat ik ook
Bart [en dat is door een door een door een toeval gekomen
Host wat ik ook geniaal vond was (.)
terwijl euh Destiny’s Child bezig was
ben jij de hele tijd (.)
ben jij eigenlijk de hele tijd aan het aan het
meezingen (.)
me- met zo’n nummer (.)
doe jij dat
doet ‘ie dat thuis ook de hele tijd
Nona ja en dus (.)
allez ni aan het meezinge me de muziek=
=allez me- met den tekst
maar zo aan ‘t meezingen met de muziek
zo diejen
.hhh °pepetempete-°
.hh ‘eel den tijd (.)
[da’s echt
Host [wordt je
Nona en dan ook wijzen (.)
zo van nu (.) nu (.)
ja
Host wordt je daar niet soms krankzinnig van Nona
Nona ja(.)
allez (.)
dees valt nog mee (.) maar
Bart [hahahaha
237
Nona [al-
ja (.) nee (.) maar het allerergste is zeker (.)
allez hij doet dat dan ‘eel graag
als wij examens hebben ofzo
en boven aan ’t studeren zijn (.)
en dan hoorde da echt (.) tot twee verdiepen verder
(.)
.hhh als dieje zijn stemoefeningen aan ’t doen is
(.)
da’s echt verschrikkelijk
[allez (.) sorry he papa (.) ma-
Host [hoe (.) hoe hoe hoe klinkt dat dan Nona (.)
kan je da=
Nona =doe is
Bart nee (.)
da durf ik ni (.)
want (.) dan dan jaag ik gewoon (.) alle (.)
luisteraars van Studio Brussel weg
Nona [hihihihi
Bart [allez
Host ( )
pro- probeer jij ’s Nona
hoe klinkt het [on- ongeveer
Nona [goh (.)
ja (.) ’t is ’t is (.)
ja ik ka- ik kan het ni
maar ’t is echt enorm luid (.)
en zo toonaarden en zo van diejen operazang precies
(.)
allemaal dooreen (.)
echt
Host ik krijg een beetje medelijden [eigenlijk (.) met jou
Nona [jaa hhh
238
Host misschien moeten we ooit een Music For Life [ook een
klein beetje voor Nona Peeters doen
Bart [hhhehehe
Nona [hahahaha
Host kinderen die worden gekweld door euh door door door
door vaders die veel te veel euh (.)
ja lawaai maken [eigenlijk
Nona [ja
Host .hhh seg (.)
maar maar maar (.) is ’t sowieso een vader die die
die (.)
die ook met harde hand af en toe muziek probeerde
of hard euh is natuurlijk euh euh figu-
euh figuurlijk bedoeld (.)
maar (.) .hh die constant muziek probeerde euh euh
over te brengen aan jou
Nona [goh
Host [da- da- dat moet je ‘s horen (.)
of dat of euh
Nona (1.0) ja (.)
allez da was ni per se met harde hand (.)
ma bijvoorbeeld meeeh (.) de Beatles (.)
ik had zo (.) is gezegd van ah ja ik wil d’r wel
iets van horen (.)
da’s al een paar jaar geleden (.)
en dan had hij gezegd van ja ok (.) eh (.)
hier een aantal cd’s (.)
maar hij had dan exact opgeschreven welke nummers
van welke cd’s da ‘k moest beluisteren (.)
.hhh omda da de goei waren
en pas dan mocht ik (.) den hele cd aanvalle (.)
maar dus da was wel (.) grappig
[en (.) op zich
Host [dus je maakt er echt wel je werk van (.)
239
Bart (.)
op zo’n moment
je neemt dat wel serieus
Bart ah ja
je mag ook niet (.) mensen overvoederen (.)
dus als ge zegt van (.)
.hhh ik zeg altijd van (.) leer dit van buiten he
(.)
.hhh dus (.)
leer het oeuvre van de Beatles van buiten (.)
en kom terug en (.)
ge moet het allemaal kennen voor ’t exaam (.)
[.hhh dus ik vond het (.) heel (.) heel vaderlijk van
te zeggen
Nona [hahahaha
Bart ge moet (.) hoeveel waren ’t er?
Nona een stuk of [tien
Bart [tien?
Nona denk ik ja
Bart ja (.) ge moet tien nummers kennen voor ’t exaam (.)
.hhh en dan kunnen we nog eens praten over de
Beatles (.)
allez ja
Host ja (.)
maar je hebt er wel iets aan gehad dan uiteindelijk
Nona ja (.)
die- wa- euh (.)
‘k vind da nu nog altijd eigenlijk de beste (.)
vannn (.) alle platen
Host ja we-
weet je nog Bart welke je d’r op had gezet dan
of welke welke (.) je had aanbevolen (.)
ongeveer
Bart Nona?
240
Nona ja ik denk eigenlijk de beken- de bekendste nummers
(.)
goh (.) ja ik ben echt heel slecht in namen (.)
ma- (1.0)
‘k weet da (.) Norwegian Wood zat er zeker bij
en da vin’k nu nog altijd nen topper
Host ja
Bart ja maar dat is dat is ni zo’n super bekend zenne
[dat is (.) dat is eigenlijk
Nona [ja maar da’s echt ( )
Bart da’s eigenlijk gewoon een goed (.)
da’s eigenlijk (.) gewoon een goeie keuze
Host van Rubber Soul staat euh (.)
komt het nummer he
Bart ja en ik denk ook (.)
he- heel John Lennon geïnspireerd
Host ja (.)
weet je waarover het gaat
het nummer?
Nona goh (.)
oei
[hahahahahaha
Host [nee ja ‘kweeni
weet jij het Bart (.)
’t is eigenlijk een heel een een een heel (.)
ja een beetje een een een (.) een een (.)
klei- e- e- tragisch verhaaltje eigenlijk he
want know Lennon?
Bart ja maar ‘eel schoon (.)
en dat ‘eeft ‘m zeker gepikt van (.) van van Bob
Dylan (.)
dus (.) het gaat altijd terug over (.)
over Noors (0.4) hout (.) eh (.)
euh (.)
241
in een een (.) een wat tragisch (.) v- verhaal met
een met een meisje (.)
maar (0.8) dien truc (.)
van altijd terug te komen op dat Noors hout (.)
°dat heeft ie (.) zeker van Bob Dylan
dat weet ik zeker
Host ja (.)
maar laten we dat
dat dat blijft tussen ons he°
dat mag (.)
ja dat mag euh (.) niet naar [buiten gaan
natuurlijk
Bart [hehehehe
Nona hahahaha
Host een nummer dat op de deh (.)
bij de tien favoriete Beatlesongs (.)
van Bart Peeters stonden
en nu ook bij deuh (.)
bij deuh favorieten van jou (.) Nona?
Nona ja (.) zeker zeker
Host [laten we er eens naar luisteren
naar (.) .hh The Beatles en Norwegian Wood
[((Norwegian Wood))
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
((That Look You Give That Guy))
Host That Look You Give That Guy van Eels
je luistert (.) naar Papa Was A Rolling Stone
met vandaag te gast Nona Peeters en vader Bart
Peeters
(0.5) .hh wat een mooi nummer was dat he Bart
Bart amai seg
(0.8) hhhahahahaha
Nona ehhhhh [nee
Host [ma ik zie
242
ik zie aan de blik van Nona dat er ni helemaal (.)
euh euh sprake is van eensgezindheid hier
Nona ja (.) nee
ik vind (.) dees nummer dus echt prachtig he
ma- (0.5) ja ik wil euh (0.5)
Eels over ’t algemeen (.)
Eels (.)
‘k vind da (.) nogal veel (.) ’t zelfde
ik ben ook meer
ja ik luister ook vooral muziek als ‘k aan ’t
fietsen ben ofzo
[en dan is iets me nen
Bart [hhhh
Nona .hh iets snelleren beat
(0.7) meer euh (.) aangeweze
maa (0.6) ja (.) ‘kweeni (.)
‘k vin e- allez (.)
‘k ‘eb echt wel veel respect
’s echt schoon muziek en goe over nagedacht
ma ik denk da ‘k gewoon
‘k ‘eb de concentratie ni om een hele cd uit te
luisteren
Host ja
Bart ’t is niet om op te fitnessen he
[dat (.) dat geef ik wel toe
Nona [hehehe
Bart [dus
Host [‘et zou (.)
‘et zou heel weinig calorieën verbranden
[denk ik
Bart [in die zin is het
Nona [hahaha
Bart is het misschien (.) ouwemensen (.) muziek
(0.9) .hh ge moogt soms tips geven he
243
(0.7) ge moet dit nummer (.)
That Look You Give That Guy (.)
opzoeken op YouTube (.)
en dan vooral (.)
die (.) die clip die hij heeft gemaakt met die
Indiase (.) euh actrice
weet jij dat?
Host nee die heb ik niet
[dat is nieuw
Bart [sjongejongejonge
Pak Mau (.) eeuh Rama weet ik veel wa (.)
‘et komt erop neer dat The Guy (.)
waar dat hij zo jaloers op is (.)
dat is zijnen eigen hond (.)
en daardoor heb je dat woord pedigree
maar dus gewoon (.)
ge moet (.) That Look You Give That Guy opzoeken op
YouTube (.)
en dan (.) d- de clipvariant met die
met die wondermooie Indiase (.) actrice
.hhh en dat is echt grappig ( )
wete ook omdat dien Eels dus echt ongelooflijk
grappig is
Host hij is heel grappig
hij komt ook heel cool over op een podium
met zijn zonnebril en ‘et
[‘et ziet er ook heel erg (.) heel erg (.) mooi uit
allemaal he
Bart [hhh hahahaha
Nona [hehehehe
Host en hij houdt er denk ik ook vaak van om
om de mensen ’n beetje op een verkeerd been te
zetten
244
mensen verwachten altijd .hh een andere show dan
dat ze gaan krijgen bij Eels
heb je z’ al ’s live gezien?
Nona euh (.) jaja op Werchter zijn die komen spelen he
.hhh maar ja ik heb eigenlijk een een stukje (.)
live gezien hhh hehehe
Bart hahahahaha
Nona ma ja (.)
[.hhh ik denk da was ook
Host [een stukje maar
Nona ja da was ook den (.) derde vierden dag
‘k weet ni meer juist
en iedereen was dan zo goe moe en ik (.)
ja ‘kweeni
(0.6) .hhh dan moete ni naar Eels gaan luistere
als ge d’r als g’u toch ni echt op goe kunt op
concentreren dan
Host (0.8) nee (.)
dat heb je niet gedaan
Nona [nee
Host [dat heb je niet eh
Nona [wel ( )
Host [dat heb je thuis ook verzwegen dat je niet naar Eels
bent gaan kijken
Nona [jah hahaha
Bart [hahahaha
Nona ja sorry papa ( )
Host zien we jou nog veel op festivals
als je niet moet spelen Bart (.)
om om echt te gaan kijken euh naar naar naar=
Bart =ik=
Host =optredens
Bart ik ga eerder naar concerten (.)
245
du- dus als Costello (.) euh helemaal alleen en
akoestisch komt (.)
dannn zal ik daar wel zijn
Host ja
Bart euh of of ( )
de de première van Raymond Van ’t Groenewoud
binnenkort of Neil Young
.hhh euhm (.) dat eerder (.)
dan Werchter of Pukkelpop
daar ben ik een jaartje te oud voor (.)
eh Otto-Jan
Host hehhh dat is dat is je vergeven
zou je nog naar De Jeugd Van Tegenwoordig gaan
kijken?
Bart die wel (.)
maar (.) je hoeft ook in principe niet naar concerten
te gaan om echt (.) te zien hoe geweldig da ze zijn
(.)
overigens ik wist het ni he (.)
maar (1.0) N- Nona heeft ze me leren kennen
Host De Jeugd Van Tegenwoordig hebben we het dan over (.)
want (.) die hebben euh bij jou eigenlijk
opgetreden
Nona [eh hehe
Host [ongeveer
Nona ja euh (.)
in inn ( ) hebben wij zo een jeugdhuis (.)
[Trok
Host [ja
Nona .hhh en die zijn daar komen spelen
en ik stond daar toen (.)
eh ‘k was ook ve- verantwo- allez (.) zo inpa-
inkomverantwoordelijke denk ofzo
( ) inderdaad .hhh
246
en ik weet ‘t nog da was kei plezant want (.)
die week da wij zo aan ’t opbouwen waren was da ook
‘eel den tijd De Jeug Van Tegenwoordig da opstond
dus om den duur kon iedereen die (.) teksten mee
(.) rappen enzo
.hhh was echt (.) echt geweldig
ook echt een super optreden echt bangelijk
Host en ’t zijn nogal speciale mannen ook he
Nona jaa nogal
[hahaha
Host [ja ja ja ja
Nona beetje ja (.)
raar
[van tijd tot tijd
Host [ja
Nona maar ja heh
Host maar jij bent niet komen kijken maar je hebt het
achteraf dan via haar deuh
’t enthousiasme is overgebracht [ge- geworden
Bart [ja want ik (.)
ik wil het altijd eerst begrijpen (.)
en Holleleer of [of of
Host [Hollereer ja
Bart ja ja (.)
ik dacht gaat het dan over die Hollegeer of die
gijzel-
maar helemaal ni (.)
.hhh maar dan later (.)
‘eb ik er mij echt (.)
op gesmeten (.)
en was ik ook al (.)
ge- (.) ja hoe geteased door hun interviews die die
die bepaald grappig zijn (.)
247
en dan ben ik zo ennnnorm fan geworden van (.)
Sterrenstof en .hh Deze Donkere Jonge Komt Zo Hard
enzo
Host ja e- e-
Bart dus nu vind ik het nu vind ik het (.)
echt een soort ja hiphopversie van Het Leugenpaleis
eigenlijk hahahahaha
want zo serieus menen die mannen .hh
°da’s een geheim he°
.hh maar zo serieus menen die mannen da ni
Nona ja da’s eigenlijk wel heel veel
ons papa heeft nu zo deze zomer bij dieje Sterrenstof
zo wa den uitleg gegeven
van allez Nona da’s kei knap
da’s zo .hhh me muziekskes en da klopt allemaal
al ziet da d’r zo wa rommelig uit
.hhh en dan dan komt zo iets van
ja eigenlijk is da echt super (.) schone muziek ook
allez da’s:: da past echt perfect wel
da da soms echt zo (.)
[verknipt lijkt wel
Host [ze- z-
ja ze doen alsof het zeuh
dat het heel erg euh rommelig is enzo
maar uiteindelijk zit het sterker in elkaar dan
[dan je
Nona [ja
Host dan je: zou denken eigenlijk he
Bart en muzikaal ook (.)
echt echt euh (.) echt heel muzikaal
Host ja ja ja
.hhh e- ‘et Leugenpaleis van de hiphop (.) euh
Bart [hahahaha
Nona [hahahaha
248
Host [De Jeugd Van Tegenwo-
ik vond ’t een goeie omschrijving
De Jeugd Van Tegenwoordig en Sterrenstof
((Sterrenstof))
Host veel betere fitnessmuziek bestaat er niet denk ik
[De Jeugd Van Tegenwoordig en Sterrenstof
Bart [hahaha
Host dat is toch zo he Nona
Nona ja (.)
super he (.)
[hehe
Host [kun je perfect op gaan eigenlijk
.hh ja veel mensen zouden dat niet serieus nemen
De Jeugd Van Tegenwoordig
maar d- dit klinkt eigenlijk
’t is eigenlijk gewoon heel erg goed gemaakt
.hh
Bart m- ma tegelijk is het ook (.)
euh (.) zij nemen zichzelf ook ni au sérieux
dus (.) Deze Donkere Jongen Komt Zo Hard is echt
geen testosteron (.) song
dat is daar een grap op
°allez ja°
Host ja ja ja
Bart e- en dit zo van (.)
de stardust druggebruiker die dan uiteindelijk
verliefd wordt en dan de drugs [goodbye zegt
Nona [hehehe
Bart .hhh dat is allemaal voor te lachen natuurlijk
Nona ja ma dan toch muzikaal kei sterk eh
Bart amai (.)
zo (.) da [trompetteke zo
Nona [ja
Bart zo (.) nen trompettist laten komen voor drie noten
249
Host [hahahaha
Nona [ja dat is echt hahaha
Bart [da de die
en dan ‘m en dan ‘m (.)
terugpakken met een sampletje he d’rna
Host [ja
Bart [.hh
daar heb ik echt veel respect voor
dat is echt dat is (.)
dat is John Martin eige-
dat is dat is George Martin (.) eigenlijk (.) bij
de Beatles
Host ja ja ja
jij bent zelf muzikant
dus jij luistert ook als een muzikant (.) naar naar
nummers
Bart z- zelfs naar De Jeugd Van Tegenwoordig
[hahahahaha
Nona [hehehe
Host [hahaha
dan denk ik da je een van de enigen bent maar
he hehe
dat is wel dat is wel bewonderenswaardig
.hhh euh dat muzikale (.)
dat heb jij ook een beetje want jij speelt ook
muziek he Nona
Nona ja ja
.hh ik speel euh in een coverbandje
Host [ja
Nona [hehehe
Host en en wat speel je dan precies?
Nona eu:h ik drum (.)
[( )
Host [jij drumt
250
Nona ja da’s (.) allez (.) logisch
want wij hadden nog een drumstel staan thuis
van bij ons papa
Host ja
Nona en ’t is wel plezant (.)
allez vooral (.)
‘kweeni (.)
ik vind (.)
ik denk da het leuker is om als coverbandje te
spelen
dan (.) me uwen eigen muziek omda ge dan zo (.)
.hhh ja hhhh
ge wordt ni altijd overal geapprecieerd en ge moet
echt moeite doen om uw eigen muziek te verkopen
.hhh dus ik denk da da leuker is (.)
as ge gewoon wa vanalles speelt
dat er sowieso wel een paar mensen in het publiek
zeggen ja dees is echt een goei nummer (.)
allez
Host [ja
Nona [da vin ‘k altijd leuk
[om te zien
Host [o-
op welke leeftijd ben je beginnen drummen
Nona oh ik denk (.)
op mijn zestien zeventien?
Host ah ja ok dus toch (.) redelijk laat
want dat heeft er toch [altijd ( )
Nona [ja ja inderdaad ( )
Host het huis staat toch vol instrumenten
veronderstel ik of euh (.)
Bart [dat drumstel s-
Host [zie ik dat verkeerd
Bart dat drumstel stond al lang in een hoekje te pinken
251
ja ja
[hehe
Nona [ma-
Host ( ) wat vo- wat voor een drumster is ( )
want je ja je bent euh euh zelf ook een drummer
natuurlijk Bart
wat voor een drumster is Nona
Bart Nona is echt een Meg White
Nona hmm[heh
Bart [en echt zoals bij de White Stripes
en (.) wat er zo wonderlijk is
(0.6) misschien zijn haar haar fills (.) euh (.)
niet zo (.) speciaal (.)
maar wat ik in ieder geval als jonge drummer niet had
(.) dat was een echte groove (.)
dus als zij een ritme inzet
dvvv (.) tchh (.) dvvv (.) tchh (.)
dat is vertrokken (.)
en je denkt (.)
w- w- wie heeft dat ritme geprogrammeerd (.)
en (.) en het is ons Nona
Host [ja hahaha
Nona [hahaha
Bart allez da’s gewoon
die speelt gewoon live (.)
.hh echte strakke g- grooves
Host ja ik ken eigenlijk ni zo veel
ik ken d- d- inderdaad Meg White
en dan had je de (.) die drumster van euh
van Lenny Kravitz
en die speelde ook zo
[die speelde
Bart [Cindy Blackman
Host [ja e- ‘et lij-
252
Bart [Cindy Blackman
Host ‘et lijkt zo wat houterig eigenlijk te zijn
is dat is dat iets typisch?
Bart °nee°
Nona nee ik denk ’t ni (.)
[hehehe
Host [nee?
Nona ‘k denk da da hare stijl was
Host ja ja
[maar maar eh
Nona [( )
Host de de de de ’et is wel heel strak
maar het [lijkt eigenlijk heel erg
Nona [hm
Host euh houterig te zijn
maar dat is het dus helemaal niet
Nona (0.6) mm nee eigenlijk ni ni per se
hehehehe
Bart a- as je as je Nona ziet drummen da- dat dat ziet er
heel ontspannen [uit
Host [wa-
wanneer wanneer is je volgende optreden Nona
Bart [hehehe
Host [we- hoe heet de band eigenlijk
Nona euh True Cover
[mja hahahaha
Host [True eheheh
Bart [hahahahahahaha
Host en wanneer spelen jullie nog ‘s
Nona ik denk ergens in februari
da we nog ’s in Antwerpen spelen
Host dan kan ik
Bart [hahahahahaha
Nona [ja? (.) hehehe
253
Host [( ) z- zeker kome kijken (.)
naar eigenlijk de de m- de Meg White van van zo (.)
allez (.)
de Meg White van van België eigenlijk
Nona Peeters
Bart [hhhh
Host [zullen we ’s naar de echte Meg White [luistere?
Nona [ja (.)
ja ’s goe
Host .hh Seven Nation Army van de echte Meg (.) en Jack
White
dit zijn de White Stripes
Bart [hhhhh
Jingle [((jingle Studio Brussel))
[((Seven Nation Army))
Host Seven Nation Army (.)
.hh niet voor niks een een een een soort anthem he
eigenlijk geworden
van de White Stripes
.hhh en (.) jullie spelen dat dus ook [met True Cover
Nona [ja ja (.)
wij spelen het zelf (.)
maar dann ja (.) me- (.) me ’n zangeres (.)
en da klinkt ook wel goe
Host ja (.)
[aajj (.) Jack White
Nona [ja (.) hij zingt ook wa hoog hahaha
Bart [is een zangeres
Host is eigenlijk gewoon een euh (.)
ja heh (.)
ja ’t is een ‘t is een euh goeie bekentenis voor
deze zondag
Jack White is eigenlijk gewoon een een vrouw
en een heel sexy vrouw eigenlijk
254
Nona [ehehehe
Host [zeker (.)
als je ‘m als je ‘m hoort zingen
.hhh eeuhm (.) eeuh ’t is heel grappig
als als ik jullie bezig zie tijdens elk nummer
jullie zitten (.)
jullie zitten geweldig hard mee te .hh (.) te doen
en en en (.) elk euh instrumentje te analyseren
enzo (.)
euhm maar d’r d’r is één band (.)
beste Bart (.)
waar jij (.) helemaal gek van bent
en waar jij ni liever doet dan dat (.)
constant .hh aan je dochter euh euh tenminste (.)
proberen (.) over te maken of over te brengen dat
enthousiasme (.)
.hh en dat is redelijk vruchteloos
we hebben het over de Rolling Stones
Bart ja (.)
en dan vooral de Rolling Stones live
Host ja
Bart eigenlijk o- wa-
want ik begrijp dat (.) mensen van deze tijd
misschien ni zo gek zijn van euh
.hhhhh die oude opnames van Exile On Main Street
enzovoort
maar ik dacht (.)
bijvoorbeeld die Four Flicks (.) dvd’s
of of Shine A Light eh met (.) Martin Scorsese
.hhh dat dat toch (.) moet lukken
en iedere zomer terug
Nona [hehehe
Bart [hhh ’s avonds (.)
[’s avonds als de sfeer goed is in Frankrijk eh
255
Nona [hehehehe
Bart zeg ik manne (.)
zet ik er nog is euh (.) [ene in he
Host [hehhh
Bart laat ik nog is (.) zien hoe geniaal Mick Jagger
en en euh
.hhhh en da is altijd van
papa kunde da ni in u in u eigen ruimtes doen
hehhhh
Nona ja allez d’r is ne gre-
Destiny’s Child ok
ma de Rolling Stones
allez
(0.8) .hhh vooral live (.)
da is zo wa (.)
jaahh wa ouw manne (.)
dhhehehe
in te strakke broekjes
[hehehe
Host [hehehehe
Nona allez ik zie ons papa wel over twintig jaar d’r nog
altijd zo staan ze (.)
[ma (.)
Host [d-eh inderdaad in een in een leren (.)
Nona in een [te strakke broek ja ehehehe
Host [iets te strakke (.) broek
Bart ja (.) leer da- da- da- (.)
da denk ik ni
Nona pas op papa (.)
[allez
Bart [en een en een een strakke broek (.)
whhwghje ik ik
[( )
256
Nona [we spreken hier over ne groten tijd da d’r nog ga
verstrijke
[ik bedoel tegen da-
Host [jaja nee j- inderdaad euh
Bart d’r tegen is da misschien in de mode hhhhh
Nona [hahahahahaha
Host [waarschijnlijk waarschijnlijk
maar maar ja (.)
de- de Rolling Stones Nona (.)
ja (.)
ik ik ik snap het ook ergens wel een beetje
Nona .hhh ja allez ik zeg ni da
(0.7) de muziek is gewoon (.)
d’r zijn zeker wel een paar nummers da ‘k echt wel
knap vind (.)
en ook graag naar luister
maar op zich (.)
mwa
(0.7) hehe
[.hhhh
Host [ja (.)
ma- maar maar da’s misschien wel een goeie vraag Bart
zie je jezelf ook ook binnen (.)
laat ons zeggen binnen twintig jaar nog steeds (.)
euh .hh doen wat de Rolling Stones nu doen
Bart dat is on- onder meer (.) een van de redenen waarom
w’er (.)
eind euh november
(0.8) mee stoppen (.)
voor onafzienbare tijd
(1.4) .hh omdat dat schrikbeeld
want Mick Jagger is eigenlijk een held van mij (.)
en dat schrikbeeld
(1.1) d- dat zie je dan ook he
257
van oei oei (.)
.hh voor je ’t weet
(0.6) ga ik iedere dag naar de fitness (.)
en en dat is toch onmogelijk
(0.8) een mens mag niet te veel z’n best doen
Host ja (.)
[maar
Bart [.hhhh
Host maar vind je nu dat ‘ie
dat ‘ie te veel zijn best doet en dat het een klein
beetje (.)
.hh een beetje een beetje (.)
ja goh (.)
euh een beetje potsierlijk wordt
[of of of misschien zelfs wat gênant
Bart [nee nee nee ik (.)
nee ik vind da zelfs ni van Superheavy
en ik en ik vind da euh (.)
ik heb heel veel respect voor die mens
.hhh maar bijvoorbeeld bij Shine A Light (.)
was het absoluut zo
dat Scorsese duidelijk (.)
de de (.) opdracht heeft gekregen van
.hhh laat het er zo (.)
.hhh zo bewogen mogelijk uitzien
zo ambiant mogelijk uitzien
e- ‘et was niet erg muzikaal
e- e- dat niet (.)
.hhh maar op dieje Four Flicks eh (.)
[allez nu begin ik weer
Nona [hehehe
Bart Nona (.) da- d- (.)
daar staat dinge op he (.)
Gimme Shelter (.)
258
en dan (.) L- Lisa F- Fischer (.)
eh
Host leg ‘s uit wie is dat
Bart dat is d- al al eeuwenlang
ik denk al driehonderd jaar
de backing zangeres van de Rolling Stones
.hhh die die krijgt dan zo’n beetje
een een speciale (.) euh feature (.)
tijdens het liedje Gimme Shelter (.)
.hhh de opbouw is lang (.)
maar een fragment
daar zou je (.) mij en misschien hier en daar
[ook wel op deze
Nona [hehehehehehehehehe
Bart .hhhh op de z- op de op de zondagmiddag (.)
eh (.)
blij mee maken (.)
Otto-Jan
Host [ik ik denk dat dat weuh
Bart [echt waar (.) hhhhhahaha
Host we verplicht zijn om dat te doen
.hhh al was het maar omdat we nog één keer gaan
proberen om ook Nona zover [te krijgen
Bart [ja ja
Host Gimme Shelter een fragmentje daaruit
met hoe heet ze de backing vocalist
[Lisa
Bart [Lisa Fischer
Host Lisa Fischer
.hh de Rolling Stones
Jingle [((jingle Studio Brussel))
[((Gimme Shelter))
Host allez Nona
zo moeilijk was da nu toch allemaal [niet
259
Nona [nee (.)
allez (.) ok nee
ik zal (.) ik zal ‘ns een belofte maken (.)
eh ons papa is binnenkort terug jarig (.)
.hhh en dan (.) zal ik zien (.)
ik zal een (.) een soort van familieuitje regelen
en dan gaan we me z’n allen naar diejen dvd kijken
Bart mmt
Nona voor (.) speciaal voor u (.)
is da goe?
Bart ooooh (.)
dat is nu (.)
da zou de schoonste [ver-
Nona [hahaha
Bart da zou de mooiste verjaardag zijn (.)
die ik ooit zou gekregen hebben
[en normaal
Host [( )
Bart normaal (.) als wij met heel het gezin naar iets
kijken
wa da dat is
.hhh in ’t beste geval So You Think You Can Dance
[hahahaha
Nona [hehehehe
Host [haha (.)
kijk en dan kom je d’r nog goedkoop vanaf
[eigenlijk ook
Nona [ja eigenlijk wel he (.)
[hhehehehe
Host [want die dvd’s zijn er al
dus eigenlijk euh
da’s da’s da’s win-win situatie
.hhh heel heel eh heel goed
euhm (.)
260
.hh euh omgekeerd natuurlijk
want want (.) je vader kan jou op de kast jagen
misschien met met oude mannen in te strakke broeken
of met z’n eigen .hh euh stemoefeningen
.hhh omgekeerd (.)
heb jij d’r ook euh euh
of tenminste heb jij hem toch ook hier en daar al
(.) kunnen wegjagen met jouw muzieksmaak
Nona ja en eigenlijk ook een beetje met de strakke broeken
he
euh (.) Ke$ha (.) vind ‘m echt verschrikkelijk
Host Ke$ha
dat is dat is (.) euh
even voor de mensen die Ke$ha niet zo goed kennen
.hh °da’s een speciale [eigenlijk he°
Nona [ja ja ik denk e-
allez ja de zang is ook ni echt bangelijk
ma ik vind gewoon echt een hilarisch concept van zo
de zatte tiener die dan ook op ‘et podium bier
begint te drinken me live shows
allez (.) als dat er nu echt wel(.)
allez (.) wel of ni bier in zit da weet ik ni (.)
ma (.) .hh ‘k vind gewoon echt een bangelijk concept
en ‘t werkt ook duidelijk he want ‘k ‘eb nog nooit
zo’n (.) uitzinnig euh publiek gezien
Host op Wer- op Werchter [bedoel je?
Nona [ja (.)
[op Werchter ( )
Host [ik ben ook gaan kijken
Nona ja (.) ja hhh
Host ‘k vond euh ik vond heel erg goed (.)
euh (.) daar was jij dus ook ni bij (.)
[Bart Peeters
Bart [ik was niet op op Ke$ha (.)
261
[op Werchter
Nona [ahahaha
Bart euh (.) we-
ik ben daar niet op betrapt (.)
werkelijk niet
Nona ja ik wo-
ons papa vond vooral erg da (.)
tijdens (.) Ke$ha was eigenlijk ook Triggerfinger
bezig (.) op het hoofdpodium en (.)
hij vond da echt verschrikkelijk da’k (.) heh (.)
da had gemist (.) voor (.) Ke$ha .hhh
Host wat (.)
wat is er zo verschrikkelijk aan Ke$ha Bart
Bart hhh euhm ik denk (.)
dat ik (.) het concept niet helemaal begrijp (.)
eh (.)
en en (.)
haar stemtimbre en het gebruik daarvan ook niet (.)
haar melodieën ook [niet haar grooves eigenlijk ook
niet
Nona [hahahahahahahaha
Bart haar clips daar begrijp ik ook niets van
.hhh en ik vind het exploiteren van de lelijkheid
(.)
daar moet je Lady Gaga voor zijn om dat op hoog
niveau te kunnen
Host ja ja
Bart ben ik duidelijk?
hhehehe
Host [ik denk ’t wel (.) t- s-
Nona [hehehehehehe
Host redelijk duidelijk maar (.)
daar trek jij je geen geen (.)
geen [brol van aan eigenlijk (.) Nona
262
Nona [ha kunt er (.)
kunt er toch goe op danse (.)
tchhehe
Host voila
Nona ambiance
Bart i- ik dans niet zo goed (.)
[dus
Nona [hahahahahaha
Bart ik kan nergens goed op dansen (.)
hehahahahaha
Host misschien zit jij gewoon te weinig in de fitness Bart
Peeters (.)
Bart ja (.)
[of doe ik (.)
Host [ik denk dat dat gewoon het probleem is
Bart nog te weinig Destiny’s Child na (.)
[dat is mijn probleem
Host [‘k denk ‘et
‘k denk ‘et
Nona ehhhh
Host maar (.) j’ ‘ebt nu (.)
j’ ‘ebt nu enkele minuten de tijd want we gaan
luisteren naar Ke$ha
.hhh wel- welke
Bart hehhhh
Host welke wil je Nona (.)
[alles mag
Nona [euh
wacht eh (.)
We Are (.) Who We Are (.)
’s wel ne goeie (.)
hehh
Host ik weet zeker (.)
[ik weet zeker dat (.)
263
Bart [hhhhh
Host [we ’t hier allemaal roerend over eens zullen zijn
Nona [hehehehe (.) he papa? hehehehe
Host [We Are
Bart [da kan ik ni verzekeren hhhhh
Nona [hehehehe
Host [ ( )
We Are Who We Are van de (.) geniale Ke$ha
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
((We Are Who We Are))
Host We Are Who We Are van van Ke$ha (.)
een euh (.) een speciale madam
(0.8) [dat is
Bart [ja
Host ik blijf ehm diplomatisch eigenlijk in mijn euh (.)
in mijn omschrijving
Bart ja ge moet toch een beetje uitkijken met (.) allez
(.) met de taak van de openbare zender op
zondagmiddag enzo (.)
denk ik eh (.)
hhhhehe
Host ach (.) Nona laat maar praten
laat maar [praten
Nona [ja (.)
‘k wou ‘k wou juist zeggen (.)
‘k weet zeker dat ‘m onder die tafel hier z-
den beat heeft zitten meetikken me zenne voet (.)
[pffhehe
Host [sterker nog (.)
ik heb het [gemerkt (.) ik heb blauwe plekken op
m’n schenen van euh (.) van de heftigheid eigenlijk
Nona [hehehehehehehehehehehe .hhhh
Host euh we gaan wel we gaan wel met een soort van euh eh
eh eh een soort van .hh harmonische nooit eindigen
264
iets waar jullie het wel over eens zijn
want voor alle duidelijkheid (.)
.hh d’r zijn heel
d’r is heel veel muziek die jullie alletwee (.)
euh (.) heel erg goed vinden
Bart absoluut
Nona [ja
Host [dat ‘t gaat dat van de Beatles over Triggerfinger
waar we ’t net al [even over hadden
Bart [absoluut
Nona [ja ja (.) zeker
Host euh (.)d- d- dat is iets wat ju- wat jullie delen
Radiohead vonden jullie alletwee heel erg goed (.)
.hhh en (.) jullie hadden een speciaal verzoek nog
(.) om de uitzending af te sluiten met (.)
Ego Troopers (.)
.hh heel weinig mensen (.) die nu euh op deze mooie
euh zondagmiddag aan het luisteren zijn
gaan de Ego Troopers kennen
leg ‘ns even uit
leid ons in (.) in de wereld van de Ego Troopers
Bart .hhhhh
ze zijn (.) ze komen uit de schaduw (.) van de (.)
van de fucking Dewaele Brothers
hoe zeg ik dat proper
Nona eeuh
Soulwax zeker?
Bart s- s- ja (.) nee (.)
de- de-
[de Dewaele
Host [2manydjs (.) 2manydjs
Nona [2manydjs
Bart 2manydjs
Host [ja
265
Bart [va- van deuh (.)
2manydjs
.hhhhh (.) euhm (.)
‘et zijn (0.6) piepjonge (.) dj’s (.)
maar die maken ook echt eigen nummers (.)
.hh en daar zitten van die melodieën in
zoals in het nummer Polar (.)
iii dudu u u u iii u u (.)
.hh dat is (0.6) een nieuwe (0.6) richting (.)
die muziek uitgaat (.)
want (.) want (.) dat kan je in noten niet
uitschrijven
en toch is het een melodie
.hhh ‘et ‘et zijn piepjonge (.) Belgische dj’s (.)
maar die bijvoorbeeld ook ‘et ‘et voorprogramma van
(.) 2manydjs euh v- v- (.) doen °in euhm (.)
in in Parijs (.)
Barcelona°
Nona ja en dan ‘eel die club in Barcelona gewoon op ‘unne
kop ‘ebbe gezet eh
me allez (.)
d’s da’s (.) kei straf die mannen zijn vijftien
zestien (.)
ja?
Host ja (.) ja (.)
en d- dit plaatje dat Polar dat is zelfs eigenlijk
officieel nog niet (.) °nog niet° officieel uit
maar ’t wordt wel al in de clubs [gedraaid
Nona [ja
Host en jullie zijn natuurlijk fanatieke clubbers
Bart [euh (.) ik ik niet
Nona [ja ja zeker (.) hahaha
we gaan vooral zo met twee wa clubben (.)
[.hhh
266
Host [ja ja (.)
nee maar dat mag he
[( )
Bart [ik ben nog nooit in een club (.)
ik ben nog nooit in een club geweest
maar ons Nona wel die was (.)
die was gisteren
[hahahaha
Nona [hahahaha
Bart nog gaan clubben
Host jij bent nog gaan clubben inderdaad
maar misschien moeten we zo meteen gewoon de club
meer in de [studio
Nona [ja ja
[°((Polar))°
Host wa meer een klein beetje we we dimmen wat lichten en
en en we gooien wat bier op de grond en
Nona [hehehehe
Bart [hhhhhh
Host en we gaan wat (.) overmatig zweten en dan krijgen we
vanzelf euh die sfeer wel
en dan gaan we naar de Ego Troopers (.)
.hh jonge kerels dus uit deuh omgeving van?
Bart Antwerpen?
Host van Antwerpen he
(0.7) .hh euh we gaan d’r nog veel van horen
( )
de eerste keer dat je ’t gehoord hebt is
waarschijnlijk tijdens Papa Was A Rolling Stone
.hh met dank daarvoor aan euh euh Bart Peeters en
Nona Peeters (.)
het was een (.) heel gezellig onderonsje
.hhh en euh en (.) kom nog eens terug als het past
zouden we zeggen
267
Nona [ja (.) hehehe
Bart [graag (.) Otto-Jan
Jingle ((jingle Studio Brussel))
((Polar))
268
Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Raúl & Gabriel Rios (fragments)
Jingle ((jingle Studio Brussel))
Otto-Jan Ham
Aris Ham dames (.) en heren (.)
een goeie middag (0.8)
mijn naam (.) is Aris Ham (0.7)
ik ben de vader (.) van Otto-Jan
en ik heet u van harte welkom bij (.)
Papa Was A Rolling Stone (1.1)
met vandaag te gast (.)
vader Raúl en zoon (0.5) Gabriel Rios
Gabriel is drieëndertig (0.6) zanger (.) en muzikant
(0.9)
vader Raúl is drieënzestig (0.7)
woont nog steeds in Puerto Rico (0.6)
en is zelf ook muzikant (1.2)
voor het eerst zitten ze nu samen (.) in de
radiostudio (.)
en praten ze over hun favoriete plaatjes in
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
Host Gabriel Rios is ‘t waar dat je ooit (.) de cd van
Buena Vista Social Club aan je vader cadeau ‘ebt
gedaan
Gabriel eh ‘k ‘eb da meegenomen euh (.) naar euh Puerto Rico
ja hh
Host ja (.)
dus misschien zouden we ’t e-
zou ‘et een mooi cadeau zijn als we ’t aan ’t begin
van de show
.hh nog ’s euh bij wijze van cadeau die voor je
vader spelen
Gabriel [doe maar
Host [we gaan dat doen
269
[((Chan Chan))
Host [‘et was een cadeautje van Gabriel Rios .hh voor z’n
vader Raul Rios
Chan Chan van de Buena Vista Social Club
.hhh Buena Vista Social Club euh those are the only
four Spanish euh words I know
Raúl [hahaha
Host [so I’m gonna (.) try to speak English to you
is that okay mister Rios
Raúl great
[that’s great
Host [.hhh I can I- I’m gonna call you .h Raúl
from [now on
Raúl [please (.) please
Host [yes
.hh do you remember getting that record from euh from
Gabriel
Raúl ya:h ya:h I think he had (.) been here seen them live
here
Host [ja
Raúl [in in e::rm in Holland I think
.hh and brought it e::r e:r to to summer when (.) he
came to: to Puerto Rico
Host ja and did you know it already
did [d- er
Raúl [no
Host [huh
Raúl not (.) at all it it just hadn’t hadn’t arrived to
the US at at the time huh
Host ok ok so euh he he gave hah albums as as euh as a
present
did you ever .hh give him euh albums back as a
present (.)
Raúl er I [did yah
270
Host [did you buy records for him a lot
Raúl y- a lot (.)
actually more than buying records (.)
I used to do er all kinds of °you know°
compilations of music than I: enjoyed (.)
so it (.) he was always eh at that time when when
he was (.) small
.hhh e:::h there were no cds
so he what we (.) what we did was
er what I did (.) was turn him on to music by s-
selecting different (.)
different singles and different (.)
e::r you know included (.) integrated all all the
music that I that I (.)
that I loved [huh
Host [ja (.)
you made mix tapes [for him
Raúl [yes (.) yah
Host ja ja=
Raúl =yah=
Host =euh dat is euh behoorlijk euh Gabriel
jij kreeg echt echt euh toegespitste: muziekles
thuis al meteen
Gabriel ja ja (.)
eigenlijk wel ja
Host ja ja
Gabriel [°cassettejes°
Host [euh (.)
eu:h one of the first albums he heard (.) euh
because of you
Raúl [uhuh
Host [that’s what ‘e what ‘e told us
.hh was an album by: John Lennon
dat klopt toch eh Gabriel
271
Gabriel yes
Raúl yah
Gabriel °yes°
Host euh eu::h (0.7)
both you are (.) big John Lennon fans [now?
Raúl [yes
Gabriel I think so yeah (.) yeah (.)
ik eu:hm
Raúl ( )
Gabriel I still I remember (.)e:r duh duh especially the
record Double Fantasy from (.)
.hh I think I was probably:: three years old (.)
and I sti- I have (.) I have that (.) memory
imprinted
we were living in California and
Host hmhm
Gabriel I think they had just bought the record so were
playing it constantly (.)
.h and I remember erm (.) a lot of songs in that
record (.)
.h just like starting over a bunch of songs from that
last John Lennon record
Host so (.) you know (.)
you’re one of those p- people who know which song
which was the first song he ever heard in he- in
his life
Gabriel that’s the first one I remember (.) and I really I
really have eh memories that are linked to it so er
Host [ ( )
Gabriel [a lot of people don’t believe that you can: remember
that far back but actually (.)
[you can
Host [you can
Gabriel yeah yeah
272
Host you’re a superhero Gabriel
[what can I say
Gabriel [ehh hehe
Host what was your favourite song
what’s your fa- are you
do you agree on euh on on:
what’s: the best eh John Lennon song
Gabriel erm there’s a lot of them but [I think
Raúl [ ( )
Gabriel what we really like erm (.) is is erm (.) Mother (.)
because of the (.) intensity of that song
Host hmhm
Gabriel and how he actually recorded it and (.) .hh you know
especially the the the the emotional experience of
listening to it’s pretty
it’s pretty heavy (.) so
Host yeah (.)
maybe we should have a listen to .hh that very
special song for euh
zowel vader .h als zoon R:ios
dit is Mother van John [Lennon
Jingle [((jingle Papa Was A Rolling
Stone))
((Mother))
Host Mother eh van John Lennon
special voor .hh Raúl Rios vader (.) van Gabriel Rios
maar ze waren het eigenlijk .hh euh helemaal eens
over euh deze keuze
.hh euh Raúl die af en toe ook vroeger (.) mix tapes
maakte voor Gabriel om (.) dan toch wat bij te
brengen muzikaal
’t is ‘m ook gelukt
.hhh euh i- was Billy Joel one of those
273
euh one of the people that were on those mix tapes
of yours
Raúl I think so (.) I think so
I I always err (.) er liked him a lot
Host ja
en en en e- why because euh
wha- wha- what makes him so special to you=
Raúl = rhythm er he’s a he’s a good (.) songwriter
Host ja
Raúl I I always could could connect to the: to the words
of his songs
A:nd just the rhythm and the (.) enthusiasm that
he’d play with when I was younger
Host ja
Raúl I’ve seen him (.) live (.) in Puerto Rico twice
Host o[kay
Raúl [and I still like him huh
Host [ja en
Raúl [a lot
Host en did you immediately ‘m as well Gabriel?
Gabriel err no [hehehe
Host [oh heh
Gabriel but (.) but I think after a while I did
I think (.) that’s one of those artists that er you
grow up with you don’t really (.) ask yourself if
you like ‘em or not
it’s part of your your .hh collective .h you know
memory of °of° growing up with music
.hh but later on I realized it’s an incredible
songwriter
‘specially the early stuff and .hh you know er::m
pretty (.) pretty special guy
eh he could you know make these errm (.) songs that
seem so simple
274
you know
straightforward but really really well-crafted
songs and erm as you said as well as as a performer
he’s he’s pretty .hhh er pretty er::m pretty heavy
Host She’s Always A Woman To Me
dit is Billy Joel
Jingle [((jingle Studio Brussel))
[((She’s Always A Woman To Me))
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
Host eu::hm (0.5)
Raúl Rios [ehehehe
Gabriel [hahaha
Host that scared you a little didn’t it
Gabriel ehhh not really
Raúl no no ( )
Gabriel ‘s kinda funny
Raúl [hahaha
Host [he (.) he
Gabriel Papa Was A Rolling Stone
Host there you go
.hh eu:h Raúl euh you you you told us that you made
mix tapes in order to well educate your (.) son a
little bit
Raúl right
Host euh you also euh told him about
and I hope I pronounce this well
Tom Zé
Raúl Tom Zé
Host Tom Zé euhm te- tell us who who is that guy
Raúl Brazilian
err from the:: er era err in the sixties (.)
err i- initially in ah in Brazil there was a (.)
275
a (.) dictatorship so it was really i- involved in
(.) in the: in the political movement of that time
he err against the the government .hh
Host ja
Raúl so much of his music i::s .hhh e::rm ((Spanish word))
°how do you say that in English eh°
Gabriel it’s erm it’s:: i:t’s challenging
Host challen-
that’s what I was [e- ( )
Gabriel [gedurfd
Host ja z- z- zeer gedurfd challenging ehm
of zoals we in ’t Spaans zeggen [((Spaans woord))
Gabriel [ja
Deel 2 1:00
Deel 3 0:10
Host eu:hm euh yeah whe- when I when I look at you Raúl
and and the way ye- you’re listening to music
you’re .h kind of directing the songs along
euh is tha- is that [a typical thing=
Raúl [yes
Host =for a musician to do?
276
Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Guy & Jens Mortier (fragments)
Jingle ((jingle Stubio Brussel))
Aris dames en heren (0.6)
van harte welkom bij (.) Papa Was A Rolling Stone
(0.8) met vandaag te gast (0.7)
vader Guy en zoon Jens Mortier (1.3)
Guy is 68 jaar (0.8) journalist (.) tv-figuur (.)
en was jarenlang hoofdredacteur van Humo (1.0)
Jens is 42 (0.8) en staat aan het hoofd van het
toonaangevend reclamebureau De Mortierbrigade (1.0)
welke plaatjes kent Jens (.) dankzij Guy (0.7) en
welk album (.) kocht Guy (.) dankzij Jens?
(0.8) delen ze wel een zelfde muzieksmaak?
(0.9) je komt het allemaal te weten in
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
Host Jens Mortier als we ja me- ‘n beetje uit eerbied voor
grijze haren moeten beginnen met de favoriete plaat
aller tijden van je pa
welke zou dat dan zijn
Jens Long Tall Sally van Little Richard
Host °dan gaan we daar mee beginnen°
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
((Long Tall Sally))
Host en afgelopen Long Tall Sally
.hh euh ik ik zag je ik zag je meedoen euh euh Guy
Guy ja ja fantastisch
Host [ja
Guy [blijft fantastisch euh
echt een van de: allerbeste: rocknummers aller
tijden (.)
en nummers tout court dus
Host ja
277
hoe vaak heb je ’t euh heb je ’t gehoord al in je
leven
doe ’s een gok
Guy a:::h ik euh
op regelmatige basis laten we zeggen
deze week heb ik het nog ’n paar keer euh gespeeld
‘k had een (.) cd’tje in handen gekregen met euh
de favoriete (.) nummers van McCartney
die ‘m ge- beïnvloed hebben
daar stond ’t ook op nummer één
°verbaast me helemaal ni°
.hhh ‘k ‘eb ’t ook een aantal keren live mogen zien
(.) euh op Wembley de grote rock ’n roll show me
alle grote rockers
.hh ‘k ‘eb ‘m ook in euh ’t Sportpaleis gezien
ik heb ‘m ook in Vorst gezien
en ik heb ‘m ook gezien in (.) Peer
(0.8) waar hij een van de meest waanzinnige
concerten (.) aller tijden uit zijn broek schudde
Host ja
euh jouw favoriete plaat
euh Jens euh als euh als zoon van hoe vaak heb jij ‘m
moete hore
tegen wil en dank misschien?
Jens .hh eu:::h zoon van Little Richard?
Host [((gemompel))
Guy [hahahaha
Jens ja nee da’s (.)
ja hehehehehe
Host ik twijfel ’n beetje
ik weet je [hebt ( )
Jens [( )
Host ja
Jens ik heb euh ja ‘m vaak moete hore maar ik eu::h
278
ik vind da ook ni erg (.)
ik ben euh ‘k ben daar ook heel fier op dus euh en
en blij mee
eu:hm:::::: ’t is jammer voor al die andere zonen van
dat zij niet [de kinderen van Guy Mortier zijn .hhh
Guy [haha (.) dankuwel
Host [hahahahaha
Guy stonden lange rijen voor de deur
Jens [hehehehe
Guy [( )
Host [dat dat kan ik me goed voorstellen (.) echt goed
voorstellen
Jens ik heb gewonnen
Host heh .hh
seg euh ja muziek dat dat dat zal bij jou altijd
of tenminste dat zal een centrale plaats hebben
ingenomen in het euh in het huis Mortier
veronderstel ik h
Guy ja eigenlijk is het zo dat hh Jens heeft dat allemaal
moeten ondergaan
ik was heel veel bezig met muziek eu::h
toen had ik eerst een radioprogramma ( )
‘k heb nog wel in de jaren ’70 een euh .hh
rockprogramma gehad °op euh Antwerp°
Host hmhm
Guy eu:h maar (.) ik draaide al die platen ook voor mijn
werk voor euh voor Humo
en ik ( ) ook platen en ik luisterde heel veel naar
muziek ook om te weten wa we moesten brengen °in
den Humo°
.hhh dus bij ons stond er altijd een heel grote
platenkast en heel veel LPs
.hh hh en ik heb nooit hh aan de kinderen gevraagd
nu nog niet
279
[wa zal ik ’s opzetten
Host [hahaha
Guy ja nu wel
Jens .hh nu wel eh
ja ehehehe
Guy ( ) (.)
maar vroeger ja die die:: hoorden mee waar ik naar
luisterde en (.) ja (.)
zo hebben [die alles leren kennen
Jens [ja (.)
en gelukkig was ‘et (.) was da goeie muziek ja (.)
da was inderdaad eu::h (.) een zeer goeie muzikale
opvoeding die wij hebben kregen .hh
[euh
Host [va- vanaf welke leeftijd begon jij ook actief in die
platenkast euh euh [°euh°
Jens [goh (.)
ik denk in het begin was ik vooral gefascineerd door
die euh platenhoezen
die die (.) toen euh jah waar sommige heel heel mooie
dingen tussen zaten
.hh eu:h en ik (.)
ja ik heb een paar foto’s nog waar ik (.) als als
kind euh [ ( )
Guy [ ( )
Jens euhm::: en tutters en en: en::: een plaat van de
Beatles op schoot zat enzo
[ ( )
Guy [ ( ) (.)
en wij waren dan trots op als er bezoek kwam
dan moest hij dan dan vroegen wij hem
zeg noem de namen van de Beatles ’s en dan
.hh
Host [ja
280
Guy [zei hij dat
Host het zelfst- zelfs Ringo
Jens ja
Guy [ja ja
Jens [absoluut
nog voor papa
Host ehh hehehehehe
Jens eigenlijk was ’t Ringo of
Host die was er voor vader d’t ‘s schrijnend
maar ook wel weer heel erg mooi
.h ja euh Guy je bent een notoir Elvis euh euh
liefhebber dat dat
Guy [ja
Host [ik had eigenlijk ook verwacht dat je favoriet nummer
iets van Elvis ging zijn=
Guy =oh jawel (.)
eu:h da’s een van de (.) dat is de ( ) allerbeste
zanger aller tijden
als er per se met het pistool tegen het hoofd (.)
gekozen moet worden
want er zijn natuurlijk heel veel goeie zangers
[.hh maar
Host [jij was zelfs (.)
jij was zelfs zo’n grote fan dat je op ’t
geboortekaartje van Jens .hhh
Guy ja da klopt (.)
daar stond op euh a big hunk o’ love en dan
? [ja
Guy [een aansluitende zin
om te melden dat er (.) a big [hunk o’ love=
Jens [ja
Guy =in ons euh leven was gekomen
Jens hahaha (.)
en nog steeds
281
Guy en nog steeds ja:
Host atletische hunk of love kunnen we ook eh
Jens [ja
Host [in euh in deze context zeggen
Jens ehehehe
Host maar .hh Big Hunk Of Love
misschien moeten we d’r toch even naar luisteren
want ’t is dan toch het nummer waar waar .hh jouw
leven mee begonnen is [op een bepaalde manier he
Jens
Jens [’t zal wel zijn (.) ja
Host dus euh .hh vandaar [Big
Guy [da was nog een ander
‘k ben ‘s [benieuwd
Jens [hahahahahahahahahahaha[hahaha
Host [Big Hunk O’ Love
dit is ((lachend)) Elvis
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
((Big Hunk O’ Love))
Host ja de big hunk of love in kwestie zit euh in de
studio
Jens Mortier
.hh dat [euh stond op je:
Jens [dankuwel
Host op je: geboortekaartje
Elvis en euh Big Hunk Of Love
.hh euhm ja dat dat Elvis de grootste zanger zeg je
euh m- m-
Guy ‘k denk ‘et wel
Host ja
ben je ’t daarmee eens Jens?
Jens ja
‘k vind die die die kan heel veel verschillende
registers aan de de::::hm
282
heel snel heel traag euh
heel veel verschillende (.) .hh euh hoogtes (.) en
laagtes euh
Guy [ ( )
Jens [zeer veelzijdig
Host [ahhahahahaha
Jens hahaha
Guy [ ( )
Host [ja et cetera et cetera
Jens [euh ja wel eu::h
zo maken ze ze (.) toch niet echt meer
Host nee
Guy °eigenlijk een geweldig expressieve zanger he°
wat ‘ie
Jens [hh ja
Guy [ik heb dan ook in de studio gestaan in de Sun-studio
he
Jens inderdaad
Guy die mag dan zo goed zijn (.)
[je moet toch kunnen zingen
Jens [hahahahahahaha
Guy ( )
Host ik moet wel (.)
voor veel mensen zal Elvis toch altijd een beetje euh
s- synoniem zijn met oubolligheid
heb je nooit toen je klein was zo gedacht van hm=
Jens =( )=
Host =dit staat niet zo goed eu:::h op de speelplaats
Jens ooh (.)
nee want eu:::::::h ‘t was tegelijkertijd ook euh
heel origineel om niet mee te doen natuurlijk met
de m:eute
.hh en euh en ja ik von- ik vond dat oprecht ook wel
heel goed hoor
283
Host ja
Jens eu:hm
Guy ‘et is ook wel zo
als ik mag aanvullen
ik euh was ook ni voor de oubollige (.) Elvis
ik ben vrij (.) vrij snel gestopt met Elvis (.) euh
goed te vinden
euh er zijn ( ) hoe heet dat in ’t Engels
de Now Or Neverlands van [euh
Jens [ja (.) ja (.) ja
Guy de ontgoocheling
Jens [ja (.) ja
Guy [verschrikkelijke ontgoocheling
daarna een aantal jaar ( ) met name in ’68 denk ik
in die boxring enzo ( )
hij toch nog een paar (.) goei nummers gebracht
Burning Love (.) noem maar op
maar ( ) schouwende Elvis [daar moest ik allemaal
niks van hebben
Jens [ja:h
Guy ’t is de man van van Sun-studios
.hhh en ook van de allereerste: jarige ( )
al die fantastische ( ) dat is ‘m
Host ja
Guy maar ik ben heel selectief he
in in al mijn
Jens [ja
Guy [mijn eu:h voorkeuren euh van zang (.)
’t is goed of ’t is slecht
maar ge kunt ni alles is goe ( )
Host ne- e- uiteraard
Jens dat euh dat heb ik meegekregen zo
da’s goe- ‘k vind da ook een euh gezonde filter
[.hh en:
284
Host [ma- we w’adde
w’adde ’t net over de de platenkast die d’r stond
waar je niet omheen kon
.hh omgekeerd live muziek ook al van van jongs af aan
werd je meegesleurd euh o- eh [naar her en der
Jens [ja
Host euh ‘et ‘et ‘et allereerste concert waar je’m mee
hebt genomen heb je da-
weet je nog wat dat moet geweest zijn (.) Guy? (.)
of weet jij ’t nog Jens [ehehehe
Jens [ehehe
ja da was eh
Host hahaha
Guy d’r (.) d’r zijn foto’s van namelijk
Host euh euh
Guy Mortier euh zeer muzikale vader
altijd met muziek bezig
Guy ik weet nog één ding ik stond daar als als een gek
wat ik normaal (.)
de meeste optredens heb ik nauwelijks meegemaakt want
ik was mijn (.) teksten al aan ’t voorbereiden van
euh voor de volgende artiest
.hh maar dan stond ik in de coulissen
.hh en het was dezelfde dag waarin euhm Borg en
McEnroe de finale speelden van Wimbledon
een historische finale die geweldig geweldig lang
duurde (.)
285
en waar Borg denk ik (.) tenslotte won want (.)
eu:hm Mink Deville (.) had gedaan (.) boog (.) ging
weg
en wij gingen rap tel- televisie kijken
.hh en ondertussen (.) eu::h (.) had hij gezegd want
hij wilde eigenlijk niet dat (.) dat hij
aangekondigd werd door (.) door iemand anders dan
zijn eigen band
.h en toen (.) zei hij (.) where is the Belgian guy
Host hihi [hehehehe
Guy [want ik (.)
ik mocht dan zeggen (.) hij komt nog een bisnummer
doen
maar ik stond naar McEnroe te kijken
Host hhhahahahaha hahaha
Guy maar hij heeft mij nadien (.)
b- ben ik naar z’n caravan geweest en daar heeft
hij me een lepeltje coke aangeboden
Host AH dus [da’s
Guy [( )
Host mooie manier om ‘et te vergeven [eigenlijk
Guy [( ) eigenlijk
Host hahahahaha
Host daarom eindigen we met The Beatles (.) en Happiness
Is A Warm Gun ’s een .hh mooie plaat voor euh een
mooie zondag (.) middag (.)
heel hartelijk bedank G- bedankt liever (.) Guy en
Jens Mortier
Guy/Jens heel graag gedaan
((Happiness Is A Warm Gun))
286
Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Guy & Lee Swinnen (fragments)
Host .hh je luistert naar Papa Was A Rolling Stone
en de papa in kwestie .hh is euh euh Scabs-frontman
euh Guy Swinnen
.hhh en zoon in kwestie is euh ja Tubelight-
frontman euh Lee Swinnen
Lee ik luister nog altij graag van:: euh van die post-
punk bands enzo
Host .hh euh beste Lee Swinnen (.)
stond er bij jullie thuis vroeger altijd muziek op?
Lee eu::hm da kunde wel zegge ja
’t ‘s toch altijd wel ne cd diejen op of op de radio
of euh als Guy gewoon aan ’t spele was
Host ja
en wat was dat was dat dan altijd hetzelfde
of was er een ritueel op zondag moest er dat op
staan
of euh hoe hoe ging dat dan
Lee .hh euhm hehh gewoon stond gewoon altijd muziek op ja
ni echt een ritueel of niks::
Host nee
Guy nee nee
Host dus er was euh geen ontsnappen aan muziek bij jullie
thuis
Lee da kunde wel zegge ja
Host ik zat ik zat te denken van euh
Guy Brian Eno
Host ja inderdaad en dan Mick daar kunnen w’ook wel euh
genoeg M- eh bekende Micks
287
en dan vroegen wij .hh ons af welke welke naar welke
Lee je zou vernoemd zijn
Guy da moet in dezelfde periode geweest zijn (.)
eu:::h w’ ebben d’r daarstraks euh as- toen we naar
hier reden nog efkes over gebabbeld
.hh dat was euh we zijn naar de Rolling Stones gaan
kijken in Werchter (.)
omdat hij (.) in die periode ook echt gek was van:
van de Stones als ik iets van de Stones opzette
dan dan pakte n’ ‘ie zo z’n z’n akoestisch
gitaartje en dan begon ‘ie te playbacken en en (.)
wild rond te springe en
[.hhh
Host [mh hihihi
Lee euh ja
(0.6) ’n couple jaar geleden is bij mij in ene keer
‘et klikske gekome van da ‘k ‘et in ene keer snapte
Bob Dylan
da was zo van aah (.)
’t is toch goeie muziek [eigenlijk
Host [het is zoiets als oesters
eten ofzo
op een gegeven moment moet je dat ga je ga je de-
ga je dat [toch begrijpen
Lee [ja (.) ‘t is
Host of ga je dat toch lusten
Lee ja ja ja (.) ’t is gewoon (.) uit het niks gekomen in
ene keer
Host Sure Shot e- van e- de Beastie Boys
.hh een euh belan- of tenm-
288
‘k wou bijna zeggen mijlpaal [in
? [hahahaha
Host in de euh de: familie Swinne: geschiedenis
maar toch ook een euh een een een
.hh een mooi moment .hh euh vanuit Frankrijk
.hh eu:hm euh hiphop dat h euh hadden we nog niet
gehoord vandaag
dat hebben we bij deze gehoord
euhm .hh
is dat iets waar jullie veel euh naar luisteren Lee?
Lee eu::hm (.) veel ‘s (.) ja da’s veel gezegd maar ‘k
luister wel geregeld naar
ja ja
Host [ja
Lee [‘k hoor da wel graag
Host en en jij ook euh
[Guy ( )
Guy [ja ja ja ik ben: euh eigenlijk
allez ik was vroeger ook euh
ik ik kon heel veel naar rock en punk luistere ma
ik was bijvoorbeeld ook fan van van euh ouwe soul
en en van euh dingen als James Brown en euh .hh The
Jimmy Caster Bunch
en en dat is eigenlijk ook een beetje allemaal (.)
aanzet geweest naar hiphop toe
.hhh of iets: eu:h zoals Dr. Dre
dat vind ik
dat klinkt enorm goed dat swingt
eu::h ja daar kan ik mij echt wel euh (.)
dat dat kan ik echt wel appreciëren
Host ja hebben jullie daar een beetje dezelfde euh
want je je je lacht een beetje
s- Dr. Dre vind je dat dan ook goed
of of zit je in een andere hoek
289
Lee euhm ik zen meer een fan van Wu Tang Clan
zo aj- ‘k vind Dr. Dre ook nog wel goe
maar ik zen euh .h meer voor de Wu
Host ja ja ja dat dat dat euh dat dat euh
kan ik me iets bij voorstellen
? [hahaha
Host [.hh we moeten misschien even nog naar een .hh euh
naar iets heel anders
naar naar Sonic Youth (.)
een van jouw (.) favoriete bands
Lee ja dat is mijn: favoriete band
[ ( )
Host [ja?
kunnen we dat euh
dat is jouw favoriete band tout court
Lee dat is ja
ik zeg dat altijd als m’n standaard antwoord omda
(.) da’s de band dieje voor mij .hh euhm b- m-
sinds dat ik die heb leren kennen is muziek
eigenlijk begonnen voor mij
Host [ah ja
Lee [‘k luisterde d’r voor al wel naar muziek maar da was
zo mijn openbaring
en toen ben ‘k er helemaal in geraakt
Guy ‘k denk da je d’r ook ’t meeste cd’s van hebt ook
Lee ja ja ja ja ja
Host ja
maar dat zijn geen cd’s die je via (.) euh via vader
hebt leren kennen
Lee die heb ik euh allemaal zelf moete kope en zelf moete
ontdekke
Host ja (.)
[en euh
Guy [ ( )
290
Host ja wa- was dat iets wat je: begree- begreep
of is dat muziek waar je onmiddellijk mee mee was
me- jij zelf?
Guy dat is destijds een beetje aan mij voorbij gegaan
ik kende Sonic Youth wel en ik kende wel een aantal
nummers:
m:aar euh op da moment was ik toch naar andere dingen
aan ’t luistere .hh
en eu:h eigenlijk ook een beetje dankzij Lee eu:h
m- m- m- kan ik het zeker wel appreciëren ja
Host Lee ‘s (.) leg ’s uit wie dat is voor mensen die die
niet kennen
Lee euhm Glenn Branca is een een New Wave composer
[eigenlijk
Host [ja
Lee ja ja
291
Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Geert & Iwein Segers
Jingle life (.) is music
Studio Brussel
Otto-Jan Ham
Studio Brussel
Aris Ham dames (.) en heren (0.8)
mijn naam (.) is Aris Ham (0.7)
vader (.) van Otto-Jan (0.6)
en ik heet u van harte welkom bij (.)
Papa Was A Rolling Stone (1.3)
met vandaag te gast (0.8)
vader Geert en zoon Iwein Segers (1.1)
Geert (.) was jarenlang radiopresentator (0.8)
en al is hij officieel met pensioen (.)
toch hoor je hem nog dagelijks (.)
als de stem van (.) Man (.) Bijt Hond
zijn jongste zoon Iwein (.) is zanger (.)
muzikant (.)
en cabaretier (1.3)
wat zijn hun favoriete plaatjes (0.8)
hebben ze een zelfde muzieksmaak (0.8)
je hoort het allemaal in (.)
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
Host beste Iwein Segers
uit respect voor je vader moeten we beginnen met
een plaat die hij heel erg graag hoort
dus aan jou de de de verantwoordelijkheid
en de vraag .hhh welke dat dat mag wezen
Iwein wel z’ is vooral visueel op mijn euh lippen gebrand
da kan ni (.) da weet ik
maar toch (.) was het een uitleg
ik zie zeuh (.) zo voor mij
Boudewijn De Groot Voor De Overlevenden (.)
292
.hh de LP
Host en daaruit is dit (.) Testament
((Testament))
Host uit de favoriete plaat van eh Geert Segers
die hier vandaag .hh
op deze prachtige zondagmiddag te gast is
samen met eh zoon Iwein
.hh hoorde je euh Boudewijn De Groot en Testament
.hhh dat is toch je favoriete plaat he Geert?
Geert eu:h jawel hoor ja ja
dat is de top euh voor mij de euh
Voor De Overlevenden
de: (.) hele plaat staat vol prachtige nummers
vind ik
.hh die euh meestal denk ik door Lennaert Nijgh
zijn geschreven
.hh en euhm die Boudewijn De Groot eeuhm prachtig
vertolkt
.hh trouwens als je ‘m nu (.) nog hoort met z’n nieuw
repertoire enzo in concerten
.hh euh dat is nog altijd (.) bijna dezelfde
Boudewijn De Groot als vroeger en euh (.)
ja ik vind die fantastisch
Host [ja ma-
Geert [ben ermee opgegroeid en (.)
ja
Host hij is niet meer die
Geert [( )
Host [die protestzanger van vroeger
[natuurlijk eh
Geert [neen (.)
maar hij brengt even ge- mooie liedjes
eeuhm wat anders natuurlijk eeuh
293
iets minder teksten van Lennaert Nijgh uiteraard want
die mens is overleden
Host ja
Geert maar euhm (.)
nee ik ben::: misschien een paar jaar terug naar een
concert geweest
twee jaar terug ofzo .hhh
en:: ja ik was toch ook van ge- aangedaan en (.)
‘k vind het heel (.) goed wat ‘ie doet en (.)
ja (.)
brengt een soort rust ook (.)
.hh
Host ja
Geert ja (.) mooi
Host is dat dan iets dat heel erg vaak euh opstond bij
jullie thuis vroeger?
dat je daardoor euh hebt leren kennen Iwein?
Iwein ’t is een plaat die ik mij herinner van wel is op te
staan
en nogmaals zoals ik al in de euh geweldige intro heb
gezegd
Host hah
Iwein deuh deuh ‘et de albumhoes (.)
sta mij heel erg bij
eeuhm (.)
dus die stond wel (.)
dus de alle platen stonden in een kast
maar die hoes stond wel zo gedraaid dat moesten er
mensen op bezoek komen ofzo
of (.) wij zelf die daar rondliepen
.hh die constant zagen
Host dat jullie d’r altijd aan herinnerd werden
Iwein ja ja
en die stond wel euh euh vaak op euh
294
net als euh Jimmy de Eenzame Fietser
d- dus uit een andere plaat komteh.hh (.)
hhh ook wel eens opstond
Host ja
Iwein ( )
Host ja (.)
zijn jullie eigenlijk twee euh echte
muziekliefhebbers
kenners
hoe zouden jullie jezelf situeren daar?
Geert ik ben zelf gewoon een muziekliefhebber (.)
m- m- zeker geen muziekkenner (.)
ik (.) hou van alles (.)
va- alle soorten muziek (.)
°van pop tot klassiek en° (.)
zeer algemeen (.) breed spectrum
[( )
Iwein [( )
[oh (.) sorry
Geert [maar ik denk dat Iwein iets: ehm
een betere kenner is (.)
[van bepaalde za-
Iwein [een ke- (.)
een kenner ni (.)
maar ik ben wel een soort van sponsss
euh ’t is te zeggen hehe (.)
dat ik zowel als muziek als in andere: euh (0.7)
entertainment euh sectoren .hh
zoveel mogelijk probeer op te zuigen
Host ja
Iwein en da heb ik euhhh me muziek ook wel gedaan
en zeker euh rock en pop
Host waar heb jeuh Morrissey opgezogen? (0.6)
295
eheheheh om misschien een beetje vr- vreemde
beeldspraak te gaan gebruiken
Iwein eeeuhm da- mijn broers zijn eeuh zes en zeven jaar
ouder (.)
als ik me ni vergis
waarvan er eentje Lennaert heet (.)
genoemd naar Lennaert Nijgh vermoed ik
Host is dat zo?
Geert ja ja ja ja ja
Host ah kijk (.) euh goed
’s jammer dat jij niet Boudewijn heet dan Iwein
eigenlijk
Geert en (.)
[Iwein
Host [Boudiwei- Boudiwein
Iwein [komt toch wel al in de buurt Otto-Jan
Host kijk (.) goed hh (.)
Iwein ahahaha
Host maar j’ebt ‘et j’ebt et via je broer Lennaert dan euh
Iwein euh ja
Lennaert die luistert naar Joy Division
The Cure
en The Smiths hh (0.5)
.hh dus die platen stonden vrij hard op in een kamer
(.) euh een beetje verder van de mijne
.hh en da was Big Mouth (.)
da ik het eerst zo iets had van what the fuck is da
(0.5) da zei ik toen ni
want what the fuck werd [toen nog ni gebruikt
Host [dat wist je toen nog ni
Iwein ‘k ‘ad zo iets van euh
Host waren andere tijden
Iwein [warempel
Geert [verhip
296
Host [hahaha
Iwein ja verhip (.)
of de twee gecombineerd
verhip warempel plotsklaps hoorde ik daar (0.6)
.hh euh The Smiths en euhm
ik was direct verkocht (0.7)
.hhh en euhm (0.5)
ja ik want ‘et is (.) ni van mijnen tijd eh
euhm maar ik eh ( )
sinds dan (.) blijven naar luisteren
Host ja
Iwein [euh
Host [The Smiths (.)
en Big Mouth Strikes Again
((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
((Big Mouth Strikes Again))
Host het nummer waar het allemaal (.) mee begonnen is euh
voor euh heheh voor euh Iwein Segers
Big Mouth Strikes Again van euh The Smiths
.hh en dat je dus eigenlijk eerder via (.)
via je broer hebt leren kennen dan dan dan (.)
via vader
Iwein (0.5) klopt en die trouwens euh als ik heh (.)
°euh° ja ik ben aan ’t lachen omda mijn vader zijne
koptelefoon altijd maar op één oor zet
Host .hh hhhh dat dat dat staat [mooi
Iwein [ja
Host dat Michael Jackson deed dat ook tijdens
[euh We Are The World
Iwein [aah ja ja (.)
Host [( )
Iwein [da moet eh ( )
Geert [( ) origineel he (.)
ja
297
Host ja
[( )
Geert [je moet ’t eens proberen
Iwein ja (.) ‘k ga ’t ook ’s doen
Geert ja (.)
dan heb je de [zuivere klank
Iwein [aah ja
ee da’s gewoon veel beter
Host voila (.)
[kijk
Iwein [nu kunt ne keer opnieuw beginne?
Host van je vader kan je nog wat euh opsteken (.)
[Iwein .hh
Iwein [nee Big Mouth Strikes Again
eu::hm (.)
ja ‘et allereerste nummer van The Smiths da ’k heb
leren kennen
eigenlijk ook het beste nummer
een nummer da ni kapot te krijgen is:: (.)
.hh ee::n een nummer dat ik nu ook gebruik als
intro voor mijne nieuwe comedyshow (0.6)
voila
Host ja (.)
en as je : as je : (.) The Smiths en Morrissey
ja we moeten ze toch even vergelijken
eh heb- hebbe ze (.) even
.hhh een even grote plek in je hart ondertussen
of of euh heb je toch een lichte voorkeur nog
steeds voor de band
Iwein neuh ja be- ik denk zelfs da Morrissey een lichte
voorkeur heeft °dan The Smiths°
Host [ah ja
Iwein [euhm (.)
sja (.) ja
298
°meer kan ik ni zeggen°
[hahahaha
Host [dat hoeft ook niet
wat wat wat eh
is dat iets dan je dan thuis ook euh probeerde aan
vader euh euh duidelijk te maken
dat dat toch wel een heel grote artiest was
Morrissey?
Iwein ja ik heb ‘em
als ik ‘et al over muziek me mijn vader had
want da gebeurde eigenlijk ni zo veel
dan denk ik da de Morrissey wel ’s viel ja (.)
.hh allez (.) ‘k bedoel (.) de naam eh
Host ja (0.5)
[en en
Iwein [as em ge- zou gevallen zijn dan zout ge da wel (.)
[in ’t popnieuws ofzo gezegd van
Host [ehehehehe
Iwein Morrissey is gevallen
Host in de [huiskamer van de familie Segers
Iwein [gestruikeld (.)
gestruikeld over een spin
Host ja (.)
maar euh euh euh wat eh wat euh wat vind je: van van
The Smiths of van [Morrissey (.) Geert
Geert [ja ik heb (.)
ik heb die leren kennen (.) via Iwein (.)
dat is wel juist en (.)
euh (.) ik denk (.)
dat het in ’t begin niet direct in mijn smaak viel
.hhh ‘k vind ‘et nogal zagerig zingen
[.hh hh
Host [uhuh
Geert maar eu:h op de duur ja (.)
299
°euh° (0.5)
je aanvaardt alles op de duur [he en ehh
Host [ja ja
Iwein ’s wel voor of tegen he Morrissey (.)
ik hoor wel vaak van ja hij geeuwt (.)
in plaats van hij zingt
maar (.) ja
Geert maar ‘k ja ja (.) ik kan ‘m appreciëren (.)
Host ja (.)
[ka-
Geert [dat zeker (.)
zeker
Host kan hij je ontroeren ook?
Geert .hhh Morrissey? (.)
n- ‘k denk van niet (.) nee
Host nee
Geert nee dat niet
Host Iwein?
Geert heh
Iwein mij heeft hij ontroerd als puber (.) hehh
Host ja? hh
Iwein maar nu (.) nu (.) nu laat hij mij eerder lachen
allez op een euh op een euh
°een eh eh° goede manier ofzo .hhh
op een goeie manier lachen
ja hij laat mij gewoon lachen (.)
eu:hm en euhm (.)
ja nee ontroeren nee
maar (.) da doen nog weinig dingen eigenlijk hahaha
Host ja (.)
maar maar want want muz- muziek moet voor jou in de
eerste plaats ontroeren
Geert
of niet
300
Geert niet in de eerste plaats maar mag he (.)
m hm ja da’s fantastisch he (.)
a- als da kan (.) dannn euh is da goed in z’n (.)
kunstvorm he (.)
zoals een schilderij kan ontroerennn
of (.) een gedicht
Host ja
[( )
Geert dan kan een een (.) stukje muziek ook euh ontroerend
mooi zijn
Host ja bijvoorbeeld Chasing Cars van Snow Patrol
[dat vind jij een mooi ontroerend nummer
Geert [ja
Host .hh Iwein was e- jij bent ‘et daar niet mee eens zie
ik hh
Iwein (0.6) nee ik ben euh ik ben euh ja hh
misschien heb ‘k ‘t ook te veel gehoord het nummer
(0.7) en euhm (.) ‘et doet mij niks eigenlijk
Geert [ehehe
Host [ja
Iwein maar ‘et doet mij ook ni walgen
Host nee
Iwein maar euhm (0.7) ja (.) ik weet ‘et niet
Geert [ ( )
Host [Geert waar waar waar (.) waar gaat het fout bij
Iwein
Geert .hh euhm:: hij heeft te weinig gevoel denk ik
Iwein [maar
Geert [haha
Host [hehehe
Iwein ik vind in zo’n muziek eh (.)
°maar dat is natuurlijk° (.) smaken he
maar vind ik Morrissey de top (.)
‘et is ‘etzelfde soort muziek (.)
301
net zoals Keane (.) da ook probeert te doen
en dan vind ik dat Morrissey of The Smiths daar
alles al (.) hebben in gedaan (.)
.hhh eu:h maar dat is meer
da’s een andere (.) logica die ik gebruik die ook
totaal ni klopt en ‘et is eh een smaak (.)
.hh en euh maar ik vin ‘et meer voor jonge meisjes::
(.) Snow Patrol
Geert ja nochtans ik ben ni meer jo – ni zo jong
[en ik ben ook al geen meisje
Host [°en geen meisje° eh::ehehe
Geert .hh maar je moet ‘et ook een beetje in een context
plaatsen (.)
euh als je zo’n: lied hoort in bepaalde periode .hh
je::m da je ehh wat meemaakt of zo
en je hoort die song en je hoort van
.h laat ons allemaal gerust (.)
ik wil euh de vrijheid en de mensen moete: ons
allemaal gerust laten
.hh en ik wil eh gewoon m- mezelf zijn samen met
m’n lief
.hh eh ja dan: doet je dat wat en:
ma ook daarom heeft dat een: eigenlijk een beetje
gevoelens opgewekt of ontroering opgewekt
Host mja
Iwein ik vind die muziek die die die doet mij gewoon weinig
[°’k zal ’t zo zeggen°
Host [ja (.)
maar (.) ik moet zeggen dat ik je vader moet gelijk
geven
Iwein [ah ja
Host [want ‘t was ook zijn ontroerende woorden hebben er
een een een [nog mooier
Geert/Iwein [ah voila
302
Host ontroerend geheel van gemaakt
Iwein dan kan het weer wel natuurlijk
Host en misschien moet jij gewoon wat meer gevoelens
toelaten in je [leven Iwein Segers
Iwein [ah da kan ook
[da kan ook
Host [misschien is het dat ook een klein beetje
[.hh Snow Patrol is dit (.) en (.) Chasing Cars:
[((jingle Studio Brussel))
[((Chasing Cars))
((Papa Was A Rolling Stone jingle))
((Off The Record))
Host je luistert nog steeds naar Papa Was A Rolling Stone
met euh te gast Iwein Segers en vader Geert Segers
en (.) .hh je hoorde één van Iwein’s (.) favoriete
nummers euh misschien wel (.) aller tijden
euh uit (.) de plaat Z van My Morning Jacket .hh
was dat Off The Record
.hh Geert hat je dat al ’s gehoord dat nummer?
Geert nee (.) de de naam M- My Morning Jacket wel ma::
[nee
Iwein [’s ni mi- Mama’s Jasje he
Geert eh hhh ongeveer ‘tzelfden eh
Iwein [hahaha
Host [‘et ‘et ‘et eh schilt ni veel (.) ( )
Geert [maar euh nee nee nee nee (.)
ik ken ‘et niet eu::h
nee
Host nee (.)
maar het bevalde je we-
of het beviel je wel (.)
bevalde
‘et beviel je wel?
Geert (0.8) .hh joa::
303
[( )
Iwein [hohohohoho (.) ja hahaha
Host [ehhhehehe
Geert nee ik kan daar eigenlijk ni zo veel over zeggen
omdat ja ‘k ’t is: de eerste keer dat ik ’t hoorde
.hh dus eu:h (.)
ma ja ’t mag er zijn he
Host ja
Geert ik denk niet dat het eu::h
Host (0.5) [diplomatisch
Geert [d’r uit schiet of zo (.) als nummer (.)
maar (.) .hh tuurlijk als je die: groep (.)
.hh als je:: als die: tot je favorieten behoort dan
vind je dat fantastisch waarschijnlijk
Host ’t is da (.)
Iwein [euh (.)
Iwein [awe- ( )
Host di- dien je vader ’s van weerwoord
Iwein ‘et zijn één van mijn helden (.) My Morning Jacket
eu::h (.)
[en
Geert [ik dacht da’k ik da was
Iwein ja:::a
[ma (.) na u
Geert [ja één van ja (.)
en God (.)
[hehehe
Iwein [euh (.)
nee nee (.)
.hh maar euh en z’ ‘ebbe veel dinge uitgevonde
en da vin ‘k wel belangrijk om eve te me- mee te
geve hier op Studio Brussel
.hh dat want hier draaie ze vooral Fleet Foxes op
Studio Brussel he en dat is shit natuurlijk
304
tegenover My Morning Jacket zijn de uitvinders van
die muziek
doen da ook veel beter
.hhh hebben allemaal nen echten baard
die van Fleet Foxes zijn eigenlijk te jong om nen
echten baard te hebbe dus die hebbe da (.)
.hh beetje zoals euh (0.7) ja ch t sse Otto-Jan
maar da’s ook ni echt een baard
Host ‘et ‘s (.) super echt (.)
[eh
Iwein [ja: super echt (.)
eu::h die hebbe da opgeplakt of zo
maar euh My Morning Jacket was eerst DENK IK DAN
of o- o- pretendeer ik te (.) te denken of zou ik
graag hebben da ze eerst ware en euh (.)
da’s volledig mijn smaak van muziek .hh
eu::hm (.) voila (.)
en me- eu:::h ze spele- ik ga morge kijke
Host morge?
dat is in:?
(0.5) Amsterdam
Iwein ja (.) in Amsterdam in Paradiso
Host [goed
Iwein [.hh want vorige week (.)
.hh in den Trix was het uitverkocht dus ben ik ni
kunne gaan (.)
.hh maar euh morge zal ik er bij zijn
Host ok euh gelukzak zou ik bijna zegge
ja je- jij gaat niet mee Geert
Geert [nee
Host [euh maar (.)
.hh het is wel een mooi brug om eigenlijk te gaan
naar het allereerste concert dat jullie samen
beleefd hebben of eh één van de allereerste
305
dat moet (.) Hugo Matthysen geweest zijn
Geert ja (.)
vermoedelijk is dat eu:h Hugo Matthysen geweest
inderdaad ergens in Jezus-Eik in den Bosuil
Host [ja
Geert [.hh moet ‘et geweest zijn
ja (.)
eu:h toffe gast denk ‘k (.)
muzikaal ook heel: leuk eu:h (.)
.hh eenvoudige liedjes
Host oe- hoe oud was je toen Iwein?
Iwein ik denk toch twaalf of zo
euh dus nog eh vrij jong en wij ginge wel eu:::h
zowel op theater (0.5) als op muzikaal vlak af en
toe naar (.) naar °euh dinge kijke
zowel in Brussel° als bij ons in ’t dorp
in Jezus-Eik dan of Overijse
.hh en dus ik ‘erinner mij of eh zie ‘k nog zo voor
mij dat is: in theater dan Jan De Corte (.)
°me één van [zijn euh gekke stukke°
Host/Geert [hheh (.) ja (.) ja
Iwein .h euh en dan Hugo Matthyse en De Nieuwe Snaar
Geert [ja
Iwein [regelmatig gezien (.)
.hh en denk ik (.)
of ben ik zelfs zeker van
dat die alle drie dus ook ne Jan De Corte
een eh grote inspiratiebron zijn voor wa ik nu
probeer te doen
maar zeker Hugo Matthysen
Host ja (.)
en en kan je dat specifieke concert nog [herinneren?
306
Iwein [ja weh ik
zie ‘et voor mij euh ik denk da ‘k twaalf dertien
was
ik weet dat er (0.6) maximum vijftien man in de zaal
zat
.hh wa mij ook soms sterkt want daar doe ‘k
natuurlijk ook voor
Host hhhehehe[hehe
Iwein [euh ehehe (.)
ni ALTIJD maar soms heb ik da ook voor
.hh e:n euhm maar e- e- ja da was een enorme
inspiratie en eu:hm (1.0) ja nog altijd
Host ja
en wat wat wat bewonder je dan zo in een Hugo
Matthysen
Iwein .hh ja de vorm: (.) van de humor
eu:h °die die° gecombineerd met (.) heel goeie
(0.5) liedjes: (.)
.hh e::n een tragiek de- er o- er ook d’r in
en een eigen stijl (0.6) euhm (.)
die Hugo Matthyseniaans is geworden ondertussen die
je terugvindt in ook in zijn programma’s en ja (.)
in zijn radioprogramma’s bijvoorbeeld hier ook
.hhh maar ook op tv euhm (.)
voila (.)
ja
Host en vo- vo’ jou ook °een een een: .hh een een°
inspiratiebron misschien of of vooral wat vond je
wat vond je goed aan aan aan Hugo Matthysen
Geert mja echt inspiratie ni
maar ik vond die gewoon sowieso goed
eu::hm zijn liedjes eh spraken mij aan gewoon de
eenvoudige:: .hh Nederlandstalige songs .h en een
307
een eh soort ironie die d’r toch euh inzit in een
aantal nummers .hh (.)
°eu::h° ja dat is °eh° voor mij toch wel heel:
belangrijk
Host ja
hij heeft onder de naam Hugo Matthysen volgens mij
maar (.) maar twee platen gemaakt
.hhh euh twee platen die die:
ja ’t is moeilijk daar uit kieze
euh Iwein welke: welke gaan we doen
Iwein [ja ik ( )
Host [‘k ga jou de keuze laten
Iwein ik heb ‘ier Dankuwel ligge maar jij hebt Red Onze
Planeet (.)
euh Red Onze Planeet gaan w’ al NIET doen
[da’s al euhm maar dan=
Host [hhhehh
Iwein =en dan kunne we kieze tusse topnummers als Sabrina
(.) .h euh Blankenberge
maar da
Host °ja°
Iwein ‘eb ik nog gecoverd in ‘t lagere school
dus dan weet ik hoe oud ik was
dan was ik in e- exact elf of twaalf hh .hh
(0.7) want dat is ‘et eu:h zesde leerjaar (.)
[voila
Host [ja
Iwein daarmee weten we ’t ook weer
.hh Eddy Borremans prachtig: euh w’adden ook ne
vriend die e- die: die [Borremans heette
Host [hehhh (.) hhaha
Iwein ( ) ALCOHOL nee daar gaan we ni-
TROUW Met Mij vin’k eigelek nen ‘ele goeie
maar ook Tony De Zieke Pony
308
Host (0.5) eigenlijk keuze te over [als ik ‘et zo begr-
Iwein [EN (.) ma- en
as we dan ietske meer rock ’n roll wille
we zijn (.) tenslotte op Studio Brussel
.hh euh ik (.) °ik hoop da je da beseft Otto-Jan°
Host [ik ben eh (.) op de hoogte
Iwein [( ) Stanneke
Host ja ja ja
Iwein ((zingt)) Stanneke Stanneke Stanneke!
of natuurlijk De Jungle Boys
((zingt)) wij zijn de jungle bo::o:oys
.hh da we me de Chiro ook regelmatig opzette omda
wij ook de Jungle Party hadde [.hh
Host [voila
Iwein euh maar ‘et allerbeste nummer vind ik (.)
en dat is ‘et voorlaatste nummer
er staan wel NEEG’tien nummers op op die plaat
daarmee dat dat ook heel lang le- (.) duurt om het
te overlope
.hh w- is (.) Ik Ga Naar Huis:
Host ja
Iwein da vind ik ‘et MOOISTE nummer van Hugo Matthy[sen
Host [zullen
we dat dan gewoon doen?
Iwein °ok (.) bedankt°
Host met jouw goedvinden (.) Geert (.) ook?
Geert da’s ok
[((Ik Ga Naar Huis intro))
Host [( )
Iwein [doet een beetje denke aan Snow Patrol trouwens (.)
vind ik (.)
da gitarreken ‘ier
Host (0.7) eigenlijk heeft Snow Patrol misschien wel alles
gestolen van Hugo Matthys?
309
Iwein of is:: Snow Patrol Hugo Matthysen en Bart Peeters
Host we zullen ‘et euh waarschijnlijk °nooit weten°
((Ik Ga Naar Huis))
Host Ik Ga Naar Huis van Hugo (.) Matthysen voor hij euh
Clement Peerens euh werd euh onder meer
.hhh euh Nederlandstalige muziek w’ ‘ebben Bouwdewijn
De Groot al gehad (.)
eu:hm eu::h en als we ’t dan ja di- di- dit was (.)
.hh Vlaamse of Belgische muziek (.)
euh Geert (.) ben je ben je (.) liefhebber ook van
van .hhh werk van eigen bodem?
Geert j:::a: (.) ja maar da moet daarom n:iet per se:
Nederlandstalig zijn
maar het mag natuurlijk eh
‘k vind ook .hh euh mensen
ja °ja° als je nu: kijkt naar Bart Peeters
bijvoorbeeld
zijn nu ook in ’t Engels (.) begonnen
[.hh
Host [ja
Geert [eu::h mijn euh zoonlief is ook in ’t Engels begonnen
.hh maar ze gaan dan toch terug naar (.) °‘un° (.)
wat je wat je zou kunnen betitelen als eigenheid
weet ik veel
.hh en:: beginnen in ’t Nederlands en da valt toch
(.) best mee
.hh maar ‘et mag ook °event-° evengoed in een andere
taal natuurlijk
maar iets van (.) van: (.) eigen bodem: ja waarom ni
als da goed is dan: (.) moeten we dat zeker steunen
en::
Host iemand die jij ook heel goed vind is (.) Raymond van
het Groenewoud
Geert [ja:hh prachtig (.) prachtig
310
Host [da- da- da- die
die mening deel jij niet (.) euh Iwein?
Iwein [( )
Geert [prachtige man:: (.)
en m- m- prachtige [muzikant
Iwein [prachtige man weet ik zo ni
maar euhm
Geert ja (.) ik bedoel
(1.4) ja ja als mens he (.)
[ja
Iwein [ik vind da wel goe jawel ma ik v- ja
ik vind Twee Meisjes ook geniaal (.)
[en
Geert [ja
Iwein echt op één (.) bij [bij ( ) dan
Geert [voila
Iwein maar euh (.)
goh ik ‘eb da me alle dinge (.) euh
misschien da- zei ‘k daarjuist da ‘k da slecht von?
Host eh[ehehehe
Iwein [in de wandelgange? (.) ( )
Host in de wandelgange heb je dat even laten vallen
inder[daad ( )
Iwein [ah ah ja (.)
ja da neem ik dan nu terug=
Host ok
[goed zo
Iwein [ahaha (.) .hh
Host goed zo (.)
jullie zijn ‘et wel eens over (.)
euh en dat is ook niet euh in het Nederlands maar
wel heel hard van eigen bodem over (.) Jacques Brel
.hhh euh (.) da’s bij jullie ontroering dan misschien
euh Geert waar je ’t eerder over had hh
311
Geert ja: en:: voor mij is dat dan vooral: euh ni alleen
ontroering (.)
ja inderdaad ontroering als je dat i- een een een
song hoort
maar vooral de echtheid waarmee Jacques Brel euh
zijn: liedjes vertolkt en dan vind ik ook dat ze
daar allemaal moeten afblijven (.)
geen covers van Jacques Brel (.)
.hh Jacques Brel is puur (0.5) genot (.) en is
echtheid en .h euh dat is meer dan genoeg
dan ‘eb je::: ja dat (.) dat is voldoende
Host nochtans is die man ontelbare keren [gecoverd geweest
Geert [ja ik weet ‘et
wel ook hee
ja en in ‘et Engel- enzovoort zovoort (.)
en (0.8) dat mag he maar (0.7)
geef mij maar de echte pure Jacques Brel
en: (.) ja: dan:: dan ‘ebt ge genoeg e-
daar ‘ebt ge genoeg aan °vind° (.) vind ik toch
Host Iwein
Iwein ja euh ik vin’ da fantastisch en ik ‘eb da ook lere
kenne door mijn pa Jacques Brel euh
indertijd dat hij wel veel me chanson bezig was
.hhh ma:: ik e- in de echtheid daar geloof ik (.)
zelf ni in want (.)
allez ‘k ‘eb ‘em (.) op beelden enzo eh zien
performen ma natuurlijk nooit live
.hh en ik geloo:f d’r ni in in echthei- ik voel (.)
ik vind wel dat dat ’n heel goeien acteur is
.hhh
Host [mwaah
Iwein [en dat hij: heel goed eu:h (.)
da kan eu:h doen ofzo maar soit (.)
da’s misschien ‘n ander discussie
312
[ ( )
Geert [maar die die liedjes die hij brengt op zijn dvd
[euh
Iwein [ja
Geert die zijn toch fantastisch da- (.)
da kan niemand anders brengen zoals [hij: dat doet
Iwein [nee da’s waar
da’s [waar
Geert [((keelgeluid))
ma (.) soit HEHE thh (.)
mja de de echtheid gaat [VOOR (.) voor alles bij mij
Iwein [ja (.) ik vin da echt ni
Geert [ja
Iwein [ja (.)
ik weet ni of da zo echt is
Host .hh
of het nu echt is of niet [we
Iwein [‘k vind da ook ni zo
belangrijk
[( )
Host [WE KUNNEN BESLUITEN dat ‘et gewoon een heel [( )
Iwein [een
[ZEER GOED ja ja
Host [en mooie en mooie en mooi NUMMERS ook zijn
Iwein [ja ja
Geert [ja (.) ja
Host euh welke welke [uit uit uit (.) uit
Geert [( )
Host of tenminste uit het rijke oeuvre .hh van Jacques
Brel
misschien gewoon euh Le Plat Pays
[als we ’t dan toch over eigen bodem dan kunnen we
’t beter over die
Geert [ja ( )
313
Host .hh bodem hebben
dit is .h Jacques Brel
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
((Le Plat Pays))
Host ik moet altijd
((Frans accent))Mijn Vlakke Land
((gewoon accent)) d’rbij denken maar ‘t is de de
de: Franstalige versie .hh
Ce Plat Pays euh van euh van Jacques Brel
.hh voor Geert en Iwein Segers
nog steeds hier euh te gast bij Papa .hh Was A
Rolling Stone
ik ben even aan het kijken ah ja e- e- euh de:: euh
het klopt ‘et hhh beste Iwein dat je ooit .hh van
je vader euh euh Afrekening cd’s nog hebt gekregen
Iwein [ja
Host [als cadeau
Iwein absoluut absoluut dus (.)
misschien dat de mensen dat thuis nog ni goe weten
maar mijn papa heeft hier denk ik dertig
vijfendertig jaar gewerkt?
Geert ja
[zoiets
Iwein [Radio 1
.hhh en eu:hm dus eu::h kon die iets makkelijker aan
de:: de Studio Brussel stickers of de r-
ja vooral Studio Brussel
.hhhh euh en de cd’s ook van de Afrekening dus als
kind [ ( )
Geert [ja maar die cd’s moest ‘k wel betalen he
Iwein ja ja da weet ‘k
Geert [ehh hhhh hhh
Iwein [ja ja ma da ging nog kome
ma g’ebt ‘ier ne shop (.)
314
.hh waar da ze ook het Liegebeest enzo hadden in
boekvorm en plaatvorm dus die heb ‘k ik
.h die kon ik ook allemaal krijgen voor Kerst
meestal .hh
dus voor Kerst en mijn verjaardag die °die° volgt
op Kerstmis
.hh 12 januari is da (.)
.h eu:hm dan eh kreeg ik euh altijd Afrekening cd’s
en ik was daar altijd heel blij mee
Host [e-
Iwein [NU krijg ik ni meer (.)
die hoeven ook ni meer ma toen was da wel heel leuk
‘k ‘eb daar heel veel door ontdekt
euh van Buffalo Tom tot Dinosaur Jr. tot euh hh
Stone Temple Pilots .hhh misschien spijtig genoeg
ook
maar da ’t heeft wel eu:h .hh mijn smaak mee bepaald
denk Afghan Whigs zat daar ook tussen
dus euh ‘k heb daar de goei’ dingen uit
gedistilleerd
Host ja
Iwein danku papa
Host [ ( )
Iwein [maar hij zelf weet da ni denk ik wat daar op [stond
Geert [ehh
hehehe
Iwein [of
wel?
Geert nee natuurlijk ni
Iwein was gewoon goedkoper ook hier he dan in euh=
Geert =’t was eu::h m:: ja tien procent denk ik of
Host Iwei- °je° je bent echt een product van de VRT
eigenlijk geworden ook op die manier een [beetje
315
Iwein [ja
nochtans
mja ja (.)
ehehehehehe (.)
ik denk da wel da ik hier heel veel ben geweest als
kind (.)
maar da ’s misschien ook een ander verhaal alhoewel
Papa Was A Rolling Stone da mag daar ’s over gaan
he
Host [absoluut absoluut
Geert [heh °hehehe°
Host maar (.) a- s- je je raakt nu een periode aan euh eh
de: jaren negentig
de de muziek uit de jaren negentig de
[alternatievere muziek
Iwein [ja
Host .hhh euh wat wat wat (.) staat je daar nog van bij
wat wat wat (.) [is nog
Iwein [euh AH (.)
.hh wa ‘k ik heel belangrijk vind en en e- ik vroeg
me dat daarjuist nog af in het naar hier rijden of
zo ’n ding als MTV of da da nog eu:h
zo bepalen is als toen in de jaren negentig
want toen kregen we wel die 120 Minutes en de de live
sessies (.) he waar da Nirvana en zo:: in in
terecht kwam
.hh euh of dat da nog bestaat (.)
eu::h zo neen dan mogen ze da terug doen denk ik
.hhh euh en zo ja euh proficiat
Host [hahahaha
Geert [hahahaha
Iwein [ehehehe
eheh eh maar dan moet ik terug kijken
Host ja
316
Iwein .hhh eu::hm
Host ik ben bang dat ik je wat dat betreft een beetje moet
teleurstellen
maar (.) maar dat (.) maar je bent (.) je was wel ook
een MTV-kijker
net als dat je euh [Afrekeningen
Iwein [ja ja
Host en [ ( )
Iwein [ ( ) ja d’n tijd van Beavis en Butthead en eu:h
en en en °’n paar leukere euh dingen zo°
.hh maar ‘k weet ni heel goe meer wa de vraag was
Host de v- de: de vraag was welke je muziek je daar
[bijvoorbeeld van van
Iwein [A:H (.) ja da heb ik eigenlijk al ’n beetje gezegd
ma ‘k zal ’t nog ’s zegge
eu:h dus da’s voornamelijk Buffalo Tom Dinosaur Jr.
.hh en en af en toe euh blijkbaar ook van die one hit
wonders
want ik herinner mij daar euh .h een MT- MTV-
presentatrice da zelf een bandje had onder de naam
Salad
Host ja
Iwein (0.6).hh en die heeft een hitje gehad zeker ook op
Studio Brussel zo- zeker ook in de Afrekening
maar daarna heb ‘k er nooit meer iets van g’oord
[maar ‘k vond da wel ’n tof nummer
Host [ik denk dat we dat
je- je Salad en je bedoelt Drink The [Elixir
Iwein [ja ja
Host d- d- presentatrice was euh .hh de bijzonder euh
appetijtelijke Marijne Van der Vlugt ook [geloof ik
Iwein [ja ja
kan ik mij ook nog:: voor de geest halen ja ja ja
317
Host van die mooie staartjes had ze dat euh kan ik mij nog
euh ergens herinneren
.hh Drink The Elixir (.) inderdaad een one hit wonder
gebleven maar maar maar (.) maar wel iets waar je::
mee opgegroeid bent
Iwein ja en ik denk euh eu:::h herkenba- euh zeer
herkenbaar en voor die tijd dan toch ja
((Drink The Elixir))
Host het is bij die ene single gebleven voor Salad
je hoorde Drink The Elixir
.hhhh Iwein Segers en euh Geert Segers eu::h euh we
naderen een beetje ’t einde van de show
.hh w’ebben voor je: heel wat euh of tenminste
w’ebben al al al wat plaatjes kunnen terug euh hh
halen uit jullie: verleden
.hh eu:h eentje we- jij- die jij heel graag zou
willen horen Geert is is eh Nick Lowe
Geert uhuh
Host .hh dat draaien we niet al te vaak op Studio Brussel
dus misschien een klein woordje uitleg dat is euh
(.) van d- ‘t specifieke nummer is begin jaren
negentig gaan [we
Geert [ja
Host gaan we (.) heen
Geert ja dat specifiek nummer is The Beast (.) In Me geloof
ik
eu::h ik vind dat ook zo mooi in misschien: ben ik
dan eerder geneigd naar .hh euh de eenvoudige en
sobere nummers omdat dat euh het meeste kracht
geeft voor mij
.hhh dus euh daarom hou ik daar heel erg van dat is
hij die (.) die zingt met zijn gitaar
.hh en dat is alles en dat is ’n heel eenvoudige:
tekst over (.) het beest in hem natuurlijk
318
.hh en euhm (.) ik vind dat Iwein daar ooit ’s een
cover moet van maken in het Nederlands
.hh eu::h [ ( )
Host [he-
heb je ‘m die opdracht al specifiek gegeven
[want euh
Geert [eigenlijk wel maar hij luistert n:::iet eh (.)
[maar
Iwein [ik heb dat wel ‘ns in een mailtje gekregen
Host aha maar nu staat [het op
Iwein [euh da ligt bij m’n manager
Host ah eheh
[maar ’t staat
Iwein [we zijn er mee bezig (.) hehe
Host maar ’t staat nu wel op tape dus je kan het ni: eu:h
Iwein ja ma ‘k ga da zeker doen (.)
eu::h maar n- ni nu (.)
maar ik zal het ooit zeker doen
Host .hh merk ik hier trouwens misschien een een een euh
hoe zal ‘k het zeggen een fundamenteel .hh verschil
in muzieksmaak
dat dat dat jij Geert misschien toch net iets meer
van de .hh van de: rustigere:: euh nummers euh euh
ingetoge:: muziek houdt
.hhh waar waar Iwein toch wat wat wat euh:h
hoe zal ‘k ’t zeggen explicieter of misschien
extraverter is eh muzikaal dan
Iwein euh extraverter
ik hou heel erg v- wel van die die jaren negentig
dingen die we (.) net ‘ebben g’oord
en ik hou heel erg van euh strofe refrein strofe
refre- dubbel refrein en euh (.) allemaal
meebrullen
.hh vin’k wel leuk (.)
319
euhm en da ‘ebde bij die eenvoudige liedjes niet
altijd
maar ik hou ook eu::h van eenvoudige dingen zoals
eu:hm (0.7) Nick Lowe
(0.9) [bijvoorbeeld
Geert [ja
Iwein kan ik zeker euh smaken
°ook dat is al goe (.) .h ja°
Host [we gaan er
Geert [wa-
Host ja zeg maar hoor
Geert wat mij betreft ook
ik bedoel eenvoudige nummers ok omdat die het
m:eeste: hebben
.hh voor mij maar ik hou evengoed van ritmische
nummers en van soul en van funk en .hh
en:: ‘k ‘eb tamelijk eu::h veel euh variatie wat
mijn muzikaal genot betreft
Host hmhm
.hh we gaan ’s luisteren naar Nick Lowe
m: want we zijn wel heel benieuwd
Nick Lowe is dit en The Beast In Me
((The Beast In Me))
Host prachtig he [op zo’n euh zondag euh
Geert [ja
Host zo’n sacrale zondagmiddag als deze Iwein
Iwein absoluut eu::h ja doet mij denken aan een
eucharistieviering een [beetje maar
Host? [hehhh
Iwein loopt die nog op (.) op Radio 1?
Geert ja m- n- m-
°ja° maar die ’s voorbij he
Iwein ha ja die ’s al voorbij
Host [ ( )
320
Iwein [ja da’s een uur gelede
Host ja (.)
we wille die ook euh niet euh zeker niet dwarsbomen
in hun euh in hun plannen
.hhh euh dit programma eindigen we eigenlijk altijd
met met een een nummer waar we .hh zeker van zijn
dat we jullie allebei daar een geweldig groot
plezier (.) euh mee euh kunne:: doen
.hhh en Papa Was A Rolling Stone dat ‘et programma
dat dat vraagt ook om een Beatle
d’r is eigenlijk volgens mij nog geen enkele
aflevering geweest .hh waar we geen Beatle in (.)
in hebben gedraaid
en (.) bij jullie is dat niet anders
en bij jullie is dat ook .hh John Lennon
een een een cd-box die je trouwens [ooit gekregen
hebt van Iwein
Iwein [ ((lang, hard
gelach))
Geert [°ja ja°
Host [hij heeft gezegd dat hij je die ooit cadeau gedaan
heeft
Iwein ((lacht opnieuw))
Geert euhm ik geloof ‘et wel (.)
heeft hij ze nu nog altijd (0.6) bij hem ik weet ’t
ni [meer
Iwein [nee ik zal u het exacte verhaal vertelle
.hh e:jh ze stond in u platenkast
Geert ja
Iwein en ik ‘eb ze daar ’s weggenome
Geert gepikt dus
Iwein e:hm een vorm van stelen ja
Geert [ja
Iwein [allez maar
321
Host [een heel duidelijke vorm [van stelen
Iwein [een coole vorm van stelen
Host ah (.) sorry (.)
[ja
Iwein [dus euh en eu::hm (.)
.hh en euh ’t jaar daarop heb ik dan die ingepakt en
onder de kerstboom gelegd
Host heh
Iwein als cadeau
.hh en i- eu- eigenlijk (.) denk ni da je ’t direct
doorhad
Host hehhhh
Iwein dat eu:h (.) maar ja
Geert neuh
Host ah bij deze is het [eu::h is ’t uitgepraat eigenlijk
Iwein [maar ’t kan zijn da’k ‘m
ondertussen terug heb genomen
Geert da kan wel (.)
ja want ik heb ze ni meer
Iwein ha ja dan heb ik ‘m [terug
Geert [da moet bij jou zijn
Iwein dus bij deze weet ik wat ik met Kerstmis ga geven
Geert voila
Host ja (.)
euh [wa- e-
Iwein [haha
Host we zijn begonne (.) ‘et programma me- met Boudewijn
De Groot (.)
euh Geert waarvan je zegt dat is misschien wel de:
voor jou (.) jouw jouw jouw grootste euh i- idool
(.) [ik weet niet of ‘k ’t zo mag zeggen
Geert [ja:: ik zeg niet graag van (.) idool maar
inderdaad euh wel iemand die ik (.) waardeer
Host ja
322
en John Lennon hoe:: verhoudt die zich euh
Geert waardeer ik ook even::veel als euh Boudewijn De Groot
ja (.)
zeker weten
Host ja
Geert s- (.) die geeft ook zoiets:: van:
ja die geeft ontroering weer die geeft eu::h .hh
muzikaliteit weer die geeft (.) .h ja
diepzinnigheid ook w- weer (.) ontroering
heb ‘k al gezegd he (.) ja
Host ja maar dat [euh kan je niet euh genoeg z- euh
Geert [ja
Host genoeg zeggen
Iwein jij wilt daar nog iets aan toevoegen
Iwein nee ik was luidop aan het euh nee ‘k was ni luidop
aan ’t denke maar ‘k ga nu ze- euh zeggen wat ik
aan ’t denken was
ik ben meer ne fan van fake .hh en dus [eigenlijk
Geert [pah
Iwein ma- ma pas op eh
.hh bij (.) ik ben een grotere fan van de moordenaar
van John Lennon (.)
die die beschuldigde John Lennon van f:ake te zijn
.hh e::h vooral omdat ‘ij ‘ad nen boek bij he
The Catcher in the Rye
op ‘et moment dat hij die vermoorde
waar het (.) heel vaak euh gaat over fakers
.hhh en da von’k da vin’k ik nog interessanter
maar da neemt ni weg da John Lennon prachtige nummers
heeft gemaakt
.hh maar dan komen we terug op het feit da ik
daarjuist zei da da Jacques Brel volgens mij
.hh da af en toe wel fakete op een heel goeie
manier
323
.h en da denk ik da da effectief ook bij John
Lennon ook zo was en ((lachend)) hij is d’r ook
voor afgestraft (.)
ma [.hh ( )
Geert [ ( ) uw eige: uw eigen ja euh m:ening
waarschijnlijk maar daar geloof ik niks van
Host [nee
Iwein [ah ja (.) ja
Geert ’t was ook puur en echt
Iwein ja: da weet ik ni
Geert [allez
Iwein [da weet ik ni
da kan maar eu:hm (.)
ik heb het even graag fake want euh
‘k weet (.) al welk nummer we gaan (.) ho- horen
ik ga ’t nog ni verklappen
maar ik vind de versie .hh van Roxy Music misschien
nog beter (.)
.h ietske faker
Host ik wou ’et net zeggen
[dat is helemaal eu:h
Iwein [ja eu:h
ik ben ook ni zo voor covers daar moet ik mijn pa in
bijtreden
maar euhm dat is bijvoorbeeld een van de betere
covers
maar ik denk da we toch naar ‘et origineel gaan
luisteren
Host ja (.)
jullie zijn het over veel dingen euh eens en over euh
bepaalde dingen [ook wel oneens
Iwein [ja (.) ja
Host .hh maar ik denk wel dat we: kunnen zeggen dat
Jealous Guy (.) van euh van John Lennon misschien
324
wel .hh in jullie beider lijstjes hoog bovenaan zal
prijken
Geert [zeker weten
Iwein [absoluut
Host en vandaar
uitstekend het
[uitstekende keuze liever of uitstekend .hh moment
om die te draaien
.hhh John Lennon euh een van de Beatles maar
misschien wel de grootste ook meteen voor Geert en
Iwein Segers
.hhh is ‘m dit met Jealous Guy
[((Jealous Guy))
325
Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Jan & Ella Leyers (fragments)
Jingle ((jingle Studio Brussel))
Aris Ham dames (.) en heren(0.5)
van harte welkom bij Papa Was A Rolling Stone (.)
met vandaag te gast (.) vader Jan (.) en dochter
Ella Leyers (1.0)
Jan is 53 jaar (.) TV-maker (.) muzikant (.) en een
helft van Soul Sister (1.0)
Ella is 23 (.) en een beloftevolle actrice(8.0)
welke plaatjes (.) kent Ella via Jan (1.0)
en welk album (.) kocht Jan (.) dankzij Ella (1.1)
delen ze wel een muzieksmaak (1.2)
u komt het allemaal te weten in
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
Host beste Ella Leyers zullen we gewoon beginnen met een
plaat waarvan je zeker weet dat je pa hem erg graag
hoort (.) heb je een idee of euhh suggestie
Ella dan zou ik zegge Jonathan Jeremiah (.) Heart of Stone
Host perfect
[((Heart of Stone))
Host [Heart of Stone van Jonathan Jeremiah als euh (.)
cadeau van Ella voor vader Jan Leyers
dat euh wordt euh in dank euh aanvaard veronderstel
ik
Jan
Jan absoluut ik vind het een geweldig ummer (.) ik ken
het nog niet zo lang (1.0) we hebben euh eind juli
in Tienen me Soul Sister opgetrede vlak voor Tom
Jones (0.9) da was dus een geweldige ervaring om
die mens is euh (.) live bezig te zien die da is
dus echt nog altijd wereldklasse wa die me z’n stem
kan di- die zou zijn stembande aan de wetenschap
326
moeten schenken na zijn dood [om om da is te
onderzoeken
Host [eh
Jan .hhh maar euh ik zat een van de afgelope nachte (1.6)
in de auto en ik hoorde dit langskome en ik dacht
van a (.) Tom Jones heeft een nieuwe singel en ik
heb echt zeker een halve minuut efkes gedacht dat
is Tom Jones ma dan (.) bij de eerste uithaal na
boven (0.7) hoorde ik nee (.) Tom Jones zou da me
net iets meer zo (1.0) snik en en (.) pathos in
zijn stem doen
Host ja
Jan en toen hoorde ik ’t eu:::h (.) afkondige als
Jonathan Jeremiah en ik moet eerlijk toegeve dat da
ne nieuwe naam was
Host ja ma- maar dan weet ik wel meteen ook dat jij ook de
nieuwe muziek behoorlijk op de voet volgt nog
steeds
Jan eu::h (.) wel (.) da hangt er een beetje van het
genre af (.) e als ge nu bijvoorbeeld sp- spreekt
over singer-songwriters wat Jonathan Jeremiah toch
is dan zeker wel (.) om nu te zegge da ik helemaal
mee ben me alle nieuwste finesses in de dubstep
bijvoorbeeld (.) dat z- da zou overdreve [zijn
Host [ja
maar daarvoor heb je misschien euh je dochter Ella
euh Ella ook van harte welkom nog is
euh dubstep leer je dat aan je vader af en toe
Ella euh nee dank u
Host [hehehe
Ella [maar euh als em daar iets over wil wete kan em da
vrage aan Olga
Host ja
Ella da ’s de dertien jarige zus
327
Host ah de jongste (.) telg
Ella die is wa fan van stofzuigermuziek
Host ahaha ok alle goed seg euhh hoe gebeurde dat vroeger
Ella (.) kreeg jij de muziek euh met de paplepel
erin gegoten zoals dat heet of gebeurde dat echt
zelfs met ijzeren vuist zo wat moet ik mij daar bij
voorstellen
Ella nee in zekere zin wel der sta ook bij ons thuis wel
altijd iets op radio TV euh Mtv dan of zo als
achtergrondgeluid hoewel het tegewoordig meer Pimp
My Ride is
Host ja
Ella dan muziek euhm (.)
nee maar ik heb inderdaad via via mijn pa ‘eel veel
lere kenne
en dan rond mijn vijftiende eb ik de de pick-up op
mijn kamer gezet (.)
ben ik in alle plate gaan snuffele en dan vond ik
ja Elton John en The Modern Lovers (.)
euh Paul Simon Talking Heads
allemaal dinge die ik ook wel van naam kende maar
nog ni echt naar geluisterd had
Host [ja ( )
Jan [ik ik herinner mij het moment nog dat euh dat Ella
dus met de pick-up euh voor het eerst kennis maakte
Host ja
Jan en en [ da was echt alsof da er een archeologische
vondst was gedaan
Ella [aheheheheehe
Jan van dit is dus een pick-up ‘k zeg ja ja ja en ‘k zeg
ge legt er dus een plaat op ( ) da is de arm en dan
(.) en ze keek er naar en die plaat begon te draaie
en ze zei en wa wa doede nu (.) als ge na direct
naar ’t volgende liedje wilt gaan
328
Host hehhh
Jan ik zeg da dede wij ni
Ella mhehe
Jan wij legde wij koze ne kant (.) en dieje kant speelde
(.) ‘elemaal
Host ja
Jan en hee::l af en toe gingde weleens nar ’t vierde of
’t derde maar (.) ma zoals nu et et zappe van daar
naar daar (0.9) en da maakt wel et beluistere van
muziek helemaal anders
Host et euh absoluut waar ja
Jan nu- nummers di- die ni van de eerste beluistering der
meteen inginge (.) die leer je toch appreciëren
omdat je die elke keer op de tweede kant hoorde
voorbijkome
Host ja
Jan e::n (0.7)eu::h ja je zapte gewoon minder
Host ja (.) ma toen vanaf het moment dat zij die pick-up
naar bove mee euh heeft genomen en je hoorde dan
.hhh op haar kamer die muziek die euh ze via jou
euh te pakken had gekregen .hhh heb je dan even
opgelucht adem gehaald
Jan opgelucht adem et et ik vond da aangenaam
Host ja
Jan ik vond (.) ik vind da aangenamer om euh Stevie
Wonder euh te hore weergalmen door het huis dan
bijvoorbeeld hehe dubstep [hehe
Ella [hehe
Host [juist
[ja ja ja
Jan [om maar iets te noeme
euhm (0.9) maar euh (1.4) nee (.) et verwondert mij
gewoon da al die oude dinge euh e Stevie Wonder
Talking Heads euh The Doors (.) euh jah da is 40
329
jaar gelede en en en die vind da nog altijd eve
goed
Host [ja is
Jan [ergens vind ik da ook verontrustend (1.0) want want
dan denk ik van (0.6) is er wel wezelijke
vooruitgang geboekt ik ik toen The Doors uitkwame
eind jare ‘60 en en wij daar naar luisterde en dan
naar Credence enzovoort (.) ja wij konde ons ni
voorstelle da wij een plaat van ons vader zoude
oplegge want da was euhwete ook de Andrew Sisters
en en van die da was uit een echt andere
vooroorlogse tijd
Host ja
Jan en nu zitte we eigelijk nog altijd (0.7) in ’t zelfde
aquarium
Host ja
Jan en da ’s op zich aangenaam ma ergens ja geeft da ook
aan van van w- we blijve ergens ter plaatse
trappelen
Host et geuh inderdaad dat heeft euh [twee kanten
Jan [en dat moet je
dubstep nageve da is echt iets nieuws
Host [ehhhhhh
Ella [eheheheh
Host kijk we gaan het nog heel veel over dubstep hebben
maar we moeten misschien nog eerst eve naar 1989
een heel bijzonder jaar .hhh ik herinner mij vooral
dat Nederland Europees kampioen voetbal werd hehehe
dat jaar euh Ella Leyers werd [geboren en er was
ook dit moment
Ella [graag gedaan
Jingle ((Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
Host uit 1988 .hhheuh The Way To Your Heart van Soul
Sister fin meteen d-d-de grote doorbraak hit
330
eigelijk van Soul Sister .hh en euh niet de enige
worp van Jan Leyers dat jaar want ook Ella Leyers
was geboren dus erges zal je dat nummer altijd
misschien een klein beetje aan Ella koppelen
Jan absoluut (.) zeker omdat euhhh in aug- Ella is van
der- 31 augustus (0.4) 88 .hhh (0.8) en 1 augustus
hebbe we de eerste (0.8) lp van Soul Sister
afgemaakt opgenome en en gemixt (0.9) en The Way To
Your Heart stond daarop (.) da was n-ni meteen
duidelijk da da de eerste single ging worde
(0.7).hh maar euh dus de dede (0.6) .hh het water
brak [en en voila der kwam vanalles uit
Host [hhhahah
Ella [ehehe
Host der was een doorbraak en een waterbraak op hetzelfde
moment eigelijk een beetje dat moeten dan wel heel
hectische (.) dagen dan voor jou geweest zijn
Jan .hhh op het moment zelf heb ik da ni zo echt ervaren
mar ik heb onlangs bij een opruim (0.5) ben ik euh
nog is de prolenders tegegekome
prolenders da ware .hhh onze manager had zo zijn
eige systeem om onze da was eu programma kalender e
[een nieuw woord prolender
Host [hehe
Jan dus dan krijgde zo een stencilke me daar dan daar dan
(.) en dan die jaren ‘88 ‘89 ’90 da was gewoon
totaal van de pot gerukt dus elke dag zat je gewoon
.hh in Bristol en de volgende dag naar Keulen en
dan ‘s avonds in Rijkevorsel en dan vertrok de bus
naar München en en 2 jaar aan een stuk en in juni
weet ik nog eu::h ’89 dus toen was Ella (.) bijna
een jaar (.) hadden we ‘n tournee in Duitsland en
ik weet da ik thuis kwam in Boechout en ik liep de
trap op want wij woonde op de eerste verdieping en
331
mijn vrouw zat in de euh in de zetel in de living
me Ella op haar schoot en da kind had dan nog net
de windpokke gehad dus die zag er ni uit .hhh en ik
kwam binne en ik zag Ellake zo opkijke (.) en ik
zag aan die haren blik dat die echt (.) mij totaal
ni herkende da die echt zo iets van ja euh en wie
zijde gij en jah op da [moment
Ella [ehehehehe
Jan maakte goeie voornemens van dit mag nooit gebeure (.)
maja twee dage later zijde weg naar Milaan en en
Host jaja ocharme Ella
Host [in principe
Ella [alseblief
Host [ok dan ga ik da doen Ellake
Ella [da zou ( ) zijn (.)
[mijn vader
Jan [en (.) en d’r is nog iets speciaal-
sorry dat ik onderbreek maar er is nog iets speciaal
aan (.)
namelijk (.)
ik ging dus da kind aangeven zoals dat heet
Host ik euh deel je je pijn Ella
[want ik heb ook geen extra naam
Jan [maar dus als ze dieje naam kwijt is heeft ze d’r
gene meer
Host nee (.)
maar dat kan misschien nog je kan het misschien wel
me[t eh terugwerkende kracht
Ella [maar wa ik heb ‘et nooit goe begrepe
‘oe ‘oe ‘oe ‘oe k- ‘oe kan je een naam kwijtspelen
332
Host woord voor woord meegezongen met euh euh door (.)
door Ellake Leyers
.hh euh Wannabe van euh de Spice Girls (.)
en (.) als ik me niet vergis was dat het eerste
optreden waar jullie (.) samen heen zijn geweest
Host dat dat is een goed excuus
eigenlijk elk excuus is natuurlijk goed
[maar
Ella [haha
Host we- ze- jullie hebben ze ontmoet en da’s het
belangrijkste
[.hh maar dat euh
Ella [OJ (.)
je was anders ook wel serieus mee aan ’t dansen hoor
daarnet
Host ja maar dat ik dans op alle k- [euh alle muziek
natuurlijk
Ella [hehe
Host dat mag je mij niet kwalijk nemen=
Jan =dit (.)
dit nummer associeer ik ook met (.) bijna
verongelukken op de autostrade naar ‘t Zuiden
Jan .hhh ja (.)
en eigenlijk eeuh (.)
ze zat toen in Amerika net (.)
in in New York (.) eeeuh (.)
en haar roommate
maar ze kan het misschien beter zelf vertellen
Ella Catherine (.)
Host hehehe
Ella ehehehe (.)
uit Nashville, Tennessee
333
oh my god yeah u::hm (0.6)
she went to school with them
Jan ah ja ja ja ja Vara’s Pop Gala
Ella [ja
Host [och
Ella [dat
Jan [ja Vara’s Pop Gala
dat op zich was zo’n (.) werkelijk (.) aandoenlijke
uitzending
je zag dus de [voorbereiding
Ella [geweldig
Jan van een popconcert
.hhh da was in denk ik ’73 ofzo
maar (.) de (.) ‘et amateurisme (.) en ‘et gewone
aandoenlijke sympathieke geklungel en de totale
afwezigheid .hh van zo s- Duitse schepers
.hh euh metaaldetectoren euh b- security
da was gewoon zo wete wel
.hhh euh (.) d’r werd iemand geïnterviewd en die zei
ja ik ik ik ging dan naar Rod Stewart in de
kleedkamer en ik vroeg blabla[bla
Host [hehhh
Jan ge kon dus in die dagen gewoon
en Rod Steward was een wereldster
.hhh en (0.6) ja
ma bon euh waar waren we gebleven?
Host [hehhhehe
Jan [bij Rory Gallagher
Host [ja
Jan [en die speelde daar dus ook op [Vara’s Pop Gala
Ella [ja
334
Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Kamagurka & Sarah Zeebroek
(fragments)
Kamagurka ja ‘k ‘eb ooit een: een strip gemaakt me Zappa
Host ja
Kamagurka dus eu:h da was in d’n tijd euh da’k (.)
ik zat nog op d’ academie in in in Gent denk ik
.hh en euh ma ‘k begon ook wel voor den Humo te
werken en euhm Guy Mortier
euh .hhh w- w- waarom da’k dan eigenlijk voor Humo
werkte was omda Guy Mortier op Frank Zap- Zappa
leek
Sarah ahhhahaha
Kamagurka .hh en:
Host dat waren de enige:::
Kamagurka [nee nee hahaha .hh nee
Host [de enige argumenten om dat te doen ja
Kamagurka en eu:h dus dan gi- Guy had gezegd van ja ge moe ne
keer eu::h m- m- m- ge kunt misschien ne keer
proberen met euh iets doen me Zappa .h
want ‘ij wil zich ni laten interviewen
.hh en euh ik zeg ja ‘k zou ‘k ik da willen doen
°dus ( ) begonnen ( ) ‘k was daar eigenlijk echt nog
ni ((overstaanbaar gemompel))°
.hhh en eu::hm dan heb ik een: strip gemaakt in
potlood euh
°’k woonde dan in Oostende
((onverstaanbaar gemompel))°
‘k ‘ad dan eu:::h (0.8) die balonnen opengelaten
en eu::h dan was ‘k naar Zappa gegaan (.)
in Vorst Nationaal .hh
da was in ’81 (.) 1981
°((onverstaanbaar gemompel))°
Host ja
335
Kamagurka en eu::h ‘k herinner mij dus da’k binnenkwam eu::h om
eu:h °((onverstaanbaar gemompel))
Sarah .hh hehe
Kamagurka en eu::h (.) ik werd tegengehouden door de bodyguard
van Zappa
da was een gigantische::: kale neger eigenlijk van
‘k denk drie meter hoog en .hh die vijfhonderd kilo
woog euh
.hh en die zijn si- zijn brandende sigaretten
achter zijn oren stak tegen zijn schedel
[en die ni ni verbleekte
Host [°hehehehehe°
Kamagurka .hhhh en ik kom binnen in die: (.) in die kleedkamer
van Zappa en eu:h
ik (.) ben zo’n snotneus eh en (.) me m’n grote
tekenkaart
en Zappa zegt van oei (.) ‘ebde flu
‘k zeg ja haha
out! zei ‘m
[hehehe
Sarah [jhohhoh
Kamagurka ‘ij wou ni ziek worden hahaha
Host en dat was ‘et?
Kamagurka .hh nee nee [hehehe
Sarah [hehe
Kamagurka .hhh ma da was vo’ te lachen
Host ah ok hehehe gelukkig
Kamagurka ‘k stond alweer buiten aan Vorst Nationaal toen
stond Zappa wanhopig te zwaaien da’k nog zou
terugkomen
.hhh en eu::h dan ‘eeft ‘ij dus euh een uur lang heel
geconcentreerd euh op die op die op die pagina
geweest
want ik tekende toen ook gigantisch groot
336
denk da ‘k ik da ergens ge .hh hoord dat da moest
‘k weet da ni meer ( )
en Zappa heeft daar dan euh een prachtige: tekst op
gemaakt eh (.)
eu::hm over de:: (.) the conceptual continuity en euh
.hh over euh ( )
‘k zou ‘t een keer moeten terugvinden want
Host ‘et ‘et ‘et is niet dat het omhoog hangt ergens bij
jullie [thuis
Kamagurka [jawel jawel
Sarah [jawel bij Boris
Kamagurka het hing omhoog
Sarah nee maar da was echt (.)
ja da was ge-
‘k viel gewoon omver ei’lijk
da was ei’lijk ja
‘oe noemde da zo (.) een moment (.) verlichting
Host [ja
Sarah [hehe
Host Aha-Erlebnis op [’n bepaalde manier
Sarah [ja
absoluut
Host euh Sarah euh Zeebroek zit hier nog
samen met Kamagurka haar vader
Sarah ‘k ben er ook wel zot van ma: (.)
’t is ook (.) allez ben ook Butthole Surfers heel
dankbaar want dankzij hen zijn ook euh h .hh de
Flaming Lips
Host kijk
Sarah waar ‘k ook vree fan van ben dus
337
Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Luc & Lenny Crabbe (fragments)
Luc euhm (.) ‘k denk dat hij een tijdje ook een euh
Eminem cool gevonden heeft enzo
[en al
Host [ja
Luc ja: ik denk wel allez (.) dat die dat ‘em die plaat
nog gekocht heeft [( )
Host [hah (.)
[we gaan daar zeker nog op terugkomen straks
Luc [terwijl ik die maar niks vond (.)
terwijl ik die maar niks vond
Host ja
Host hahaha
weet je wat dan kiezen we deze keer niet voor een
live-opname maar gewoon een studio-opname van Some
euh Might Say .hh van Oasis
((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
Host weet je nog welk (.) welk nummer je gedaan hebt toen
van Brel?
Lenny euh Voir Un Ami Pleurer
Host °ah ja ok heel goed°
misschien moeten we daar nog is naar luistere dan
(.)
.hhh Voir Un Ami Pleurer
hier in de originele versie van Jacques Brel
((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
[((My Name Is))
Host [My Name Is euh van Eminem
338
euh euh ‘t is euh misschien ni meteen een plaat die
ik euh zou verwachten euh in euh jullie platenkast
hh (.) Lenny
Lenny euh da’s:: euh ja ik moet daar heel duidelijk over
[zijn ik was z::even
Host [ehhehehe
Lenny die- je- allez
da’s eind jaren negentig he
dus ik was misschien zeven of acht of negen jaar
als die eerste platen zijn uitgekomen
.hhh en da was waar da ‘k ik een beetje naar
luisterde voor da’k naar
voor da’k eigenlijk rockmuziek ‘eb ontdekt
Host uhu
Lenny dus eigenlijk de momenten da hij bezig was me Sonic
Youth in mijn handen te duwen en Jacques Brel was
‘k ik me zo’n dinge bezig
wete wel als klein manneke
.hhh eu::h [en:
Host [maar deze plaat die heb je ook nog van je
vader als cadeau gekregen
Lenny waarschijnlijk wel ja (.)
ja ja da kan ‘eel goe zijn
Host hehh dus ergens is de verantwoordelijkheid ligt bij
jou (.)
Luc Crabbe (.)
HE
Luc ja ma ja
bedoel euh
wa moet anders doen me ne kleine van zeven jaar
ja: nee ma ja ‘ij was daar euh
‘ij was daar gek van dus wa- waarom ni eh ja
Host ja
en [en ( )
339
Luc [ja en ik herinner mij ook dat ‘ij: (.) ‘eel die
plaat van buite kende (.)
‘k von’ da echt wel eu:h
[hehhh
Host [en en en ( )
en as ‘ie dan aan’t aan’t eh aan’t aan’t euh mee euh
brulle of meerappe was
.hh met welke oren luisterde jij daar dan naar
’s dat dan met euh (.) samengeknepen billen
of [euh
Luc [ja hh ‘k vi- ‘k was daar echt ni voor te vinde
ik ben echt allez ja euh ‘t euh (.)
ma bon ‘k zeg da zal wel passere
Host ehhehehe hehh heh
en ‘et is gepasseert
luister je nog veel naar hiphop euh Lenny
tegenwoordig?
Lenny ja old school stuff
eh Jurrassic 5 en zo van die [dingen wel nog
Host [ja
Lenny f- van allez heel af en toe maar ni echt euh
Host ja ja ja ja ja
Lenny ni zo veel
Host nee je volgt het ni helemaal meer
Lenny [nee
Host [.hhh de klik is ’n beetje of e- e- ‘et ‘et grote
kantelpunt bij jou is (.) gekomen w’adden ’t
daarnet al even a- aangehaald
.hh over die die prachtige hoes met die vooral die
prachtige euh euh vrouwenkont erop
Lenny ja
Host .hh euh (.) Is This It van The Strokes
Lenny ja da was een k- een euh een kantelpunt bij mij he
340
da was zo een beetje de ontdekking van van eu::hm
gitaarmuziek en zo die gans die nieuwe vibe van
groepen gelijk The Hives en The Libertines en .hh
The Strokes
ma die eerste plaat van The Strokes heeft da echt
getriggerd
ik ben daar naar beginne luistere en
.hh ‘k was daarvan zodanig in de ban da mij da
heeft opengestoten ervoor gezorgd da’k andere
dingen ben beginne luisteren en ontdekken
.hh en da’k eigenlijk uiteindelijk goesting heb
gekrege om zelf ne groep te beginne en zelf muziek
te beginne make en .hh gitaar te spele en en
nummers te schrijve .hhh
Host ja
Lenny daarom is da nog altijd: mijn favoriete plaat of een
van mijn: meest (.) beluisterde platen ooit omdat
die gewoon ‘eel .hh doorslaggevend is geweest
Jingle ((jingle Papa Was A Rolling Stone))
((New York City Cops))
Host New York City Cops .hh van The Strokes
euh dames en heren
.h euh een euh heel belangrijke plaat (.)
eu:h heel belangrijke artiest ook voor euh Lenny
Crabbe
maar .hh vader Luc euh sluit zich daar eigenlijk
ook bij aan
Luc ja
Host euh (.) maar dan moete we ’t toch ook hebbe wa-
w’ebbe ’t er al heel even over gehad eu::h daarnet
.hhh toch nog over Lou Reed hebben
want dat blijft een bijzonder verhaal
af- vert- vertel nog ’s één keer want die die (.)
die heeft met jullie samengewerkt eigenlijk eh
341
Luc uhu
Host vertel nog ’s dat verhaal kort
Host we [sluiten ap-
Lenny [( )
Host we sluiten deze (.) euh (.) gezellige zondagmiddag
graag af met een nummer .hh dat jullie alle twee
heel erg goed (.) euh vinden (.)
vlak voor de uitzending hebben jullie geweldig lang
zitte:: nadenken want (.)
want er zijn zo veel dingen euh die jullie euh
wouden horen [eigenlijk
Luc [ja
Host gaande van .hhh The Who tot euh The Velvet
Underground euh de:: de:: David Bowie
ja dat hebben we eigenlijk al gehad
Luc/Lenny [The Moons
Host [The Doors (.)
eh noem maar op inderdaad
Joy Division
.hhh maar uiteindelijk kwamen jullie terecht bij Adam
Green
ik vond dat een heel [goeie keuze
Luc [uhuh (.)
maar ik denk ook da da zo een plaat is euh ne:n
artiest is die ik (.) ehm via hem (.) ‘eb (.) lere
kenne
342
Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Luc & Eppo Janssen (fragments)
Host het is ook iets dat ik niet meteen zou associëren met
jouw favoriete platen
Luc (1.0) euh
(0.7) ja dat is één van mijn favoriete platen hoor
euh als je nu (.) de andere hoort
euh de Cabaret Voltaires en de:: (.)
en [de::
Host [ja
Luc vuile industriële:: (.) noise
.hh da’s ook (.) ook mijn favoriete muziek maar ’t
is (.) ’t is zondagmiddag
Host dat is (.) dat is heel chique [van je
Luc [euh (.) ja
Host hehehe hh hh
( ) je ver- je vertelde dat je euh
of tenminste (.) van tevoren had je gezegd dat je
euh vooral (.) vroeger thuis met de koptelefoon
naar muziek luisterde
.hh was dat dan vooral om euh om euh de rest van het
gezin niet te veel euh te kwellen met met die
moeilijke platen bijvoorbeeld?
Host en dan moeten we ’t even over festivals ook hebben
jullie zijn ja jullie zijn kind aan huis op zowa-
euh euh zowat elk .h festival
Pukkelpop euh zowel Luc als Eppo jij stelt daar nu de
euh affiche samen ook
.hh op Werchter euh Luc jij hebt daar ja jij
presenteert daar je-
elk festival is euh eigenlijk euh zeer bekend en
vertrouwd terrein voor jullie beiden
343
Host .hh wat vind jij eigenlijk van van kleinkunst en dat
soort dingen (.) Eppo?
Eppo goh ik heb het daar (.) dikwijls moeilijk mee
hahaha°haha° .hhh
Host want ‘et ve- want dat dat ‘t (.) verbaasde mij ook
want euh jij vertelde mij dat dat
euh dat euh dat euh Luc dat dat wel
euh bij momenten euh zeer euh weet te pruimen
Eppo ma- (.) dat was denk ik voor ‘ij: (.)
[ehhehehe
Host [hehehe
[( )
Luc [zij-
zijn jullie (.) een of andere vrucht of euh=
Host =nee nee nee
ja nee dat dat dat zeg ik verkeerd
nee maar euh
Host ik moet toegeven ik had ’t nog nooit g’oord
maar ‘k vind het heel erg mooi
Lieven Coppieters .hh met euh Neerhof
Luc wat vind je d’r mooi aan Otto-Jan
Host ik vind (.) alles eigenlijk heel erg mooi
de sfeer
Host van euh van euh en van dat nummer is het eigenlijk
maar een heel kleine stap naar euh Sigur Rós he
met e:h sfeergewijs
Luc a::h jah ((sarcastisch))
Eppo [ehehehehehe
Host [nee maar ’t is eigenlijk wel [gra-
Eppo [met u lange benen ja
Host ehheheh
.hh Luc Janssen toch van heel veel mensen
344
of toch iemand die van heel veel mensen euh de
muzieksmaak wat bepaald heeft denk ik
eu:h euh of ik weet niet of je ’t daarmee eens bent
Eppo?
Eppo absoluut (.)
‘k denk ‘et wel
Host .hhh eu::h maar maar omgekeerd (.) is het nu ook wel
zo dat dat Eppo die rol (.) voor een stuk ook wel
euh op zich genomen heeft
door bijvoorbeeld (.) euh wat je voor Pukkelpop doet
een eh affiche samenstellen
maar ook wat je met Duyster euh doet
jij hebt daar .hh al jaren de plaatjes eh voor
gekozen
hoeveel jaar is dat al [ondertussen?
Eppo [el- we
we zijn aan ons elfde jaar euh bezig
dus euh
Host je wordt oud
Eppo [hehhh
Host [°denk ik dan op zo’n moment
Eppo in die periode kwamen er heel veel van die platen uit
je had eu::h euh .hh Bonnie Prince Billy met zijn
eerste album
je had Songs: Ohia die kwame
je had Pinback
en die Sigur Rós
Host eh jij mag ‘m aankondigen Eppo
dat euh da’s eentje voor jou
Eppo hier is Sigur Rós met euh Svefn-g-englar
Jingle ((jingle Studio Brussel))
345
((Svefn-g-englar))
Luc euhm ik was naar ‘n concert geweest (.)
eerst in Amsterdam
eu:h ‘t alereerste concert dat de Pixies in Europa
gaven was in de Paradiso in Amsterdam
euhm (.) euh dat was eh speelden zij het
voorprogramma van de Throwing Muses
Host ach
Luc en de volgende dag ben ik eu::h naar het concert gaan
kijke: van euh de Pixies in de Effenaar
.hh en daar waren z’al meteen euh de hoofdgroep
Host daar hadden ze:
Luc [ja
Host [Throwing Muses [al ingehaald
Luc [ma- wa-
dat was in Amsterdam ook duidelijk euh geworden van
dat de Pixies dat was iets apart
dat was dat was heel euh dat was heel speciaal
.hhh en eu::hm: de volgende dag was ik in eu:h
na ’t concert was ik in euh in Hilversum en euh .hh
euh d’r komt
we we zaten in de villa eu:h bij de VPRO
.hh en d’r komt euh vlak voor de uitzending eu::h
komt er een klein dik mannetje de trap op euh
[gehobbeld
Host [hehe
Luc en dat was euh Frank Black met achter hem euh Kim
Deal
.hh en die waren nog in Nederland en die kwamen
goeiedag zeggen (.)
.hh die hadden gezegd van ( )
ik had met hen een interview gedaan dan wel en die
eu:h ja die die vonden mij blijkbaar eu:h
346
.hhh sympathiek genoeg of (.) ik was de enige
waarschijnlijk die ze echt kenden daar
en die (.) die kwamen even goeiendag zeggen
Host ja
Luc en eh die zijn tijdens die uitzending gebleven en
achteraf is: telkens als euh Frank Black in eh in
de buurt is .hh dan belt ‘ie of dan laat ‘ie weten
ik ben er of als jullie ’s willen langskomen euhm
Host ja
Luc zo is dat gegroeid
347
348
Bibliography
“Bart Peeters.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 6 November 2011.
Radio.
Bowles, Hugo. “Storytelling as interaction in The Homecoming.” Language and
Literature 18 (2009): 45 – 60. <http://lal.sagepub.com/content/18/1/45>. 22 March
2012.
“Dream Team.” Music@Work. Studio Brussel. 20 October 2011. Radio.
---, 25 October 2011. Radio.
---, 26 October 2011. Radio.
---, 28 October 2011. Radio.
---, 3 November 2011. Radio.
---, 7 November 2011. Radio.
---, 8 November 2011. Radio.
---, 9 November 2011. Radio.
---, 10 November 2011. Radio.
---, 17 November 2011. Radio.
Dumolyn, Jan. “Antropologie en New Cultural History: Tendenzen in de
Historiografie.” Ghent University. 12 May 2011. Lecture slides.
“Ferdinand de Saussure.” wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, n.d.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure>. 20 March 2012.
Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor
Books, Doubleday, 1990.
Greatbatch, David. “A Turn-Taking System for British News Interviews.” Language in
Society 17.3 (1988): 401 – 430. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/4167953>. 3 November
2011.
“Guy Mortier.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 25 September 2011.
Radio.
“Guy Swinnen.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 4 September 2011.
Radio.
“Harvey Sacks.” wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, n.d.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Sacks>. 20 March 2012.
349
Hutchby, Ian. Media talk : Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting.
Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 2006.
Hutchby, Ian and Robin Wooffitt. Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and
Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998.
---, Conversation Analysis: Second Edition. 2nd ed. Polity Press: Cambridge, 2008.
“Iwein Segers.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 13 November 2011.
Radio.
“Jan Leyers.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 18 September 2011. Radio.
Jeffries, Lesley and Dan McIntyre. Stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2010.
“Kamagurka.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 11 September 2011.
Radio.
Lambrecht, Christophe. “Re: [Music At Work] Masterthesis Dream Team.” Message
to the author. 8 December 2011. Email.
Liddicoat, Anthony J. An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum,
2007.
“Luc Crabbe.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 2 October 2011. Radio.
“Luc Janssen.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 16 October 2011. Radio.
Meyerhoff, Miriam. Introducing Sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge, 2010.
Ochs, Elinor and Lisa Capps. Living Narrative: Creating Lives in Everyday
Storytelling. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.
“Noam Chomsky: Generative grammar.” wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, n.d.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Generative_grammar>. 20 March
2012.
“Raul Rios.” Papa Was A Rolling Stone. Studio Brussel. 9 October 2011. Radio.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel E. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. “A Simplest Systematics for
the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50.4 (December 1974):
696 – 735. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/412243>. 22 March 2012.
Slembrouck, Stef. Analysis of Spoken Interaction. 3rd ed. Gent: Acco, 2009.
---, “Language & Literature: Chapter 2: Narrative.” Ghent University. Message to the
author. 23 February 2012. Lecture slides received via email.
---, “Re: Auteurs.” Message to the author. 12 June 2012. Email.
“Stuur Jouw Dream Team Door.” stubru.be. Studio Brussel, n.d.
<http://www.stubru.be/stuurjouwdreamteamdoor0>. 12 November 2011.
350
Thornborrow, Joanna. ‘”Has It Ever Happened to You?”: Talk Show Stories as
Mediated Performance.’ Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle.
By Andrew Tolson, ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001a. pp. 117 –
137.
---, “Authenticating Talk: Building Public Identities in Audience Participation
Broadcasting.” Discourse Studies 3 (2001b): 459 – 479.
<http://dis.sagepub.com/content/3/4/459>. 28 March 2012.
---, “Questions, Control and the Organization of Talk in Calls to a Radio Phone-In.”
Discourse Studies 3 (2001c): 119 – 143. <http://dis.sagepub.com/content/3/1/119>.
28 March 2012.
Tolson, Andrew. ‘Talking About Talk: The Academic Debates.’ Television Talk
Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. By Andrew Tolson, ed. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001a. pp. 7 – 30.
---, “’Being Yourself’: The Pursuit of Authentic Celebrity.” Discourse Studies 3
(2001b): 443 – 457. <http://dis.sagepub.com/content/3/4/443>. 28 March 2012.
351