Studio Brussel’s Dream Team Papa Was A Rolling...

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

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

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


5.3 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


6.2.1 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

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

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.

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

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’.

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).

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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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



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



(host/interviewee)



(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 (.)


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 (.)





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.


→ 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))


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].


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].


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.


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.


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


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.


→ 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.

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°


Host Els Van Den Heuvel

Els goeiemorge

Ca goeiemorge

Host Breakfast in Vegas van Praga Khan

[3] (from 17/11):


96


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 (.)





Host hmhm

Ca .hh en euhm (.) daarom was ik dus beginnen

nadenken welke muziek ik graag wou (.) euh

laten spelen


[maar

Host [hm

Ca ni alleen da



kind hh




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?


→ 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.


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


112

[23] (from Geert & Iwein Segers)

Aris Ham dames (.) en heren (0.8)


vader (.) van Otto-Jan (0.6)



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 (.)


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]).


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


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.


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:


→ Host Lee ‘s (.) leg ’s uit wie dat is voor mensen die

die niet kennen


[eigenlijk

Host [ja

An additional example:


→ 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.


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.


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


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


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.


→ 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.


→ 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.


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).


→ 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:


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:


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.


(host/interviewee)



(host/interviewee)



(host/interviewee)

138



(host/interviewee)



greeting/greeting


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



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



kind hh




kan afspele hh

[( )

→ Host [en weet je dat dat echt werkt (.) Kathleen?

→ ik [kan d’r over meespreken



→ Ca [JA?

Host er was een cd’tje (.) euh toen mijn eerste

dochter is geboren



en als ze onrustig was (.) toen het kindje er

was he

Ca ja ja=

Host =hielp dat

echt waar


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 (.)


kort (.) Pieter


euh met betrekking tot het euh bestaan van het

negenhonderdjarig euh Heule

Host ja


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


→ 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)


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?


→ 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.


6.2.1 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:


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


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


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.


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.


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



.hh dus (.) da da was eigenlijk de bedoeling

om da dubbel zo traag in te zingen (.)


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.


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.


Bart is het misschien (.) ouwemensen (.) muziek

→ (0.9) .hh ge moogt soms tips geven he

(0.7) ge moet dit nummer (.)



en dan vooral (.)

160



→ weet jij dat?


[dat is nieuw


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.


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


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:


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.


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:


164


→ w’ebbe ’t er al heel even over gehad eu::h

daarnet



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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:


(host/interviewee)



(host/interviewee)



(host/interviewee)



(host/interviewee)



180

greeting/greeting


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.

188

Appendices

Dream Team 20/10/2011



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



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




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 [ ( )


Studio Brussel

196




Host Els Van Den Heuvel

Els goeiemorge

Ca goeiemorge


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


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




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 (.)


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


[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


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 [JA?

Host er was een cd’tje (.) euh toen mijn eerste dochter is

geboren



en als ze onrustig was (.) toen het kindje er was

he

Ca ja ja=

Host =hielp dat

echt waar


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


Studio Brussel

206




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




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




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




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?


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 (.)


kort (.) Pieter


euh met betrekking tot het euh bestaan van het

negenhonderdjarig euh Heule

Host ja


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


Studio Brussel

222




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


225




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?


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



ik ben de vader (.) van Otto-Jan Ham (0.7)

en ik heet u van harte welkom bij (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


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))


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



.hh dus (.) da da was eigenlijk de bedoeling om da

dubbel zo traag in te zingen (.)


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


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 bekende 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))


((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 (.)



en dan vooral (.)



weet jij dat?


[dat is nieuw


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


Host [ja e- ‘et lij-

252


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 (.)

dede 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


[((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


((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 (.)

dede-

[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


((Polar))

268

Papa Was A Rolling Stone: Raúl & Gabriel Rios (fragments)


Otto-Jan Ham

Aris Ham dames (.) en heren (.)

een goeie middag (0.8)


ik ben de vader (.) van Otto-Jan



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


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


[((She’s Always A Woman To Me))


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


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°


((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


((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


[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



vader (.) van Otto-Jan (0.6)




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 (.)


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


((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 mama 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)


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


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


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


[((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 dieje- 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


((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


w’ebbe ’t er al heel even over gehad eu::h daarnet


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


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

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.



---, 3 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.

Studio Brussel’s Dream Team Papa Was A Rolling...

Documents

Transcript of Studio Brussel’s Dream Team Papa Was A Rolling...