Creativity, collaboration and development in Jeremy …eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/95648/1/Clarke...
Transcript of Creativity, collaboration and development in Jeremy …eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/95648/1/Clarke...
This is a repository copy of Creativity, collaboration and development in Jeremy Thurlow's Ouija for Peter Sheppard Skaerved.
White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/95648/
Version: Accepted Version
Article:
Clarke, E., Doffman, M. and Timmers, R. (2016) Creativity, collaboration and development in Jeremy Thurlow's Ouija for Peter Sheppard Skaerved. Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 141 (1). pp. 113-165. ISSN 0269-0403
https://doi.org/10.1080/02690403.2016.1151240
[email protected]://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
Reuse
Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website.
Takedown
If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.
P a g e |1
Creativity,CollaborationandDevelopmentinJeremy
Thurlow’sOuijaforPeterSheppardSkærved
ERICCLARKE,MARKDOFFMANANDRENEETIMMERS
P a g e |2
Abstract
Thispaperdocumentsandanalysesacreativecollaborationbetweenthe
composerJeremyThurlowandtheviolinistPeterSheppardSkærvedinthe
productionofOuija,aworkforsoloviolinandlaptopcomputer.Thepaper
situatestheaccountofthiscreativeprocesswithinrecentliteratureon
distributedandcollaborativecreativity,andfocusesonthreeaspectsofthe
project:verbalinteractionbetweenthetwomusicians,analysedintermsof
‘creative-talk’and‘face-talk’,andtherelationshipbetweenimmediateandmore
contextualconcerns(‘inside/outsidetheroom’);aquantitativeanalysisof
changesinthemusicalmaterial,focusingontiming;andaqualitativeanalysisof
theroleoftheviolinist’sembodiedandinstrumentalengagementwiththemusic.
Thepaperdiscussesthefindingsinrelationtoforward-oriented(process)and
backward-oriented(product)conceptionsofcreativity,theoperationofdifferent
socialcomponentsincreativecollaboration,andtherelationshipbetweencraft,
historyandembodiment.
Keywords
Creativity,collaboration,discourse,timing,embodiment
P a g e |3
IntroductionInthecontextofincreasedinterestinmusicalcreativity,1anditssocialand
distributedcharacter,contemporarymusicoffersparticularlyfruitful
opportunitiestoinvestigatethedetailedfabricofcreativework.Thechanceto
observetheliveinteractionsbetweencomposers,performers,producers,and
technologistsoffersadirectinsightintocreativeprocessesatatimewhenthe
rolesoftheseprincipalcreativeagentshavebecomemorefluidinmuch
contemporarymusicalproduction.2Thispaperfocusesonacollaboration
betweenthecomposerJeremyThurlow(henceforthJeremy)andtheviolinist
PeterSheppardSkærved(Peter)inthemakingofOuija,aworkthatcomprises
fivemovementsforsoloviolinandpre-composedsoundfiles.Theapproachthat
wetakebringstogetheranalysesofthediscursiveinteractionbetweenthe
participantsastheyworkedonthepiecetogether,andofthedevelopmentof
musicalmaterialsoverthecourseofthecollaboration;andaconsiderationofthe
embodiedcharacteroftheperformer’sdevelopingrelationshipwiththemusic.
Togethertheseperspectivesprovideawaytoinvestigateandunderstandthe
intertwiningofcollaborativeinteractionwithmusicaldevelopment.
Theintimate,relativelycompressedcollaborationwitnessedhere,
centredonapiecethatcontainsasignificantamountofguidedimprovisation
andsemi-indeterminatenotation,bringsintofocusquestionsaboutcreative
developmentandthewaythatcollaboratingmusicianssetuptheconditionsfor
itsgenesis.Indiscussingjointworkandcreativedevelopment,wesituatethis
studyinrelationtotwodistinctareasofresearch:anumberofrecentstudiesof
composer/performercollaborations;andabroadercategoryofresearchthat
investigatesthepsycho-socialconditionsofcreativitywithingroups.Whileour
focushereisonthecollaborativeelementsoftheworkandtheirsignificance,the
genesisofthepiecealsoinvolvedaconsiderableamountofindividuallabour.
Ourintentioninthisstudyisnottodownplayordenythecontributionofsolitary
work,buttodrawattentiontoandanalyzethesubtle,transformationaleffectsof
whatmightbetermed‘sociablecreativity’.
Thedominantmodelacrosscreativityresearchofthelastsixtyyearshas
tendedtoadoptasingular,individualised,andcognitiveapproach,withan
emphasisonproblemsolving.3Animportantrecentextensiontothiscognitive
1Someindicatorsofthisinterestaretheeditedvolumes,MusicalCreativity.Multidisciplinary
ResearchinTheoryandPractice,ed.IrèneDeliègeandGeraintWiggins(HoveandNewYork,
2006),andMusicalImaginations:MultidisciplinaryPerspectivesonCreativity,Performance,and
Perception,ed.DavidHargreaves,DorothyMiellandRayMacDonald(Oxford,2012);thetwo
internationalconferenceson‘TrackingtheCreativeProcessinMusic’heldinLilleandMontreal
in2011and2013respectively(seehttp://tcpm2011.meshs.fr/?lang=enand
http://tcpm2013.oicrm.org/?lang=en);andthelarge-scaleEuropeanResearchCouncil–funded
projectMusic,DigitizationandMediation(seehttp://musdig.music.ox.ac.uk/)2Thoughnotall:manymusicianscontinuetofindclearlydemarcatedandestablishedrolesa
highlyproductivewayofworking.See,forexample,JohnCroft,‘OnWorkingAlone’,Creativity,
ImprovisationandCollaboration:perspectivesontheperformanceofcontemporarymusic,ed.Eric
ClarkeandMarkDoffman,(NewYork,forthcoming).3Creativityasproblem-solvingusingdomainspecificexpert-knowledgehasbecomeadominant
modelwithincreativityresearch;seeRobertW.Weisberg,Creativity:Understandinginnovationin
problemsolving,science,invention,andthearts(Hoboken,NJ,2006),orK.AndersEricsson,
‘Creativeexpertiseassuperiorreproducibleperformance:Innovativeandflexibleaspectsof
expertperformance’,PsychologicalInquiry,10/4(1999),329–333.Foranoverviewofthestateof
creativityresearch,seeHandbookofCreativity,ed.RobertJ.Sternberg(Cambridge,1999)or
P a g e |4
framingofcreativityhascomefromresearchwithafocusongroupworkandthe
groupitselfasacreativeforce.4Intandemwithsociologicalstudiesofcreativity
thatemphasisethedistributionoflabourwithindifferentartworlds,thishas
substantiallyreframedthequestionsthatareposedinrelationtocreativity,
awayfromwhathappenswithincreativeagentstowhatgoesonbetweenthem.
Thereisnosinglemodelof‘between’,andasHowardBeckerhaswritten,the
divisionoflabourwithinagroupcantakemanyforms:itneednotbe
simultaneousorunderthesameroof,andmanyinstancesofcollaborativework
dependonadistributedsuccessionofindividualisedcontributions.5Much
Westernartmusicappearstofollowamodelofcollaborationthatissuccessive
andlinear,acompositiondevelopingastheautonomousworkofacomposer
thatisthenpassedontotheperformer(s),withwhomtheremaybeonlyvery
limitedexchange.Theperformersthemselvesmay,andusuallydo,workina
highlycollaborativefashion,butsuchcollaborationisoftencharacterisedas
realisationorre-creation,ratherthanacontributionto,orinvolvementin,what
isregardedasthe‘primary’creativeprocess.
Inthisstudy,however,welookatco-presentcollaborationaspartofthe
shapingofthework–aswellasacknowledgingthesignificantinvolvementof
sequentialdevelopment–anditisintheexaminationofsuchface-to-face
creativepracticesthatKeithSawyer’sworkhasbeenparticularlyinfluential,
adoptingamoresocialandinteractionalapproachtocreativity.6Acrossa
numberofwritings,Sawyerhasexploredtheimprovisational,collaborative,and
emergentqualitiesthatareinherentingroupcreativity.Indoingso,heargues
thatmostformsofgroupcreativityhappen‘inthemomentoftheencounter’and
thereforearenecessarilyimprovisatory;that‘creativitycannotbeassociated
withanyoneperson’andisthereforenecessarilycollaborative;andthat
collectivephenomena–beingirreducibletothesumoftheirpartsandinherently
unpredictableinoutcome–mustberegardedasemergent.7
Withinthiswiderexplorationofcreativity,ourworkrelatestoamore
targetedagenda–adevelopingbodyofresearchthatsince2005hasexamined
musicalcollaborationsbetweencomposersandperformersfrompsychological,
sociological/anthropological,andpractice-ledperspectives.Inapaperthat
constitutesaprecursortothecurrentstudy,Clarke,Cook,HarrisonandThomas,
presentananalysisoftherehearsal,andfirstperformanceofanewworkforsolo
piano(être-temps,composedbyBrynHarrison,andperformedbyPhilip
Thomas),focusingonanumberofcollaborativeanddistributedattributesofthe
project.8TheseincludeparticularfeaturesofthewaythatThomasengageswith morerecently,TheCambridgeHandbookofCreativity,ed.JamesC.KaufmanandRobertJ.
Sternberg(Cambridge,2010).4See,CollaborativeCreativity:contemporaryperspectives,ed.DorothyMiellandKarenLittleton
(London,2004).5HowardBecker,ArtWorlds(Berkeley,CA,1982),13.Thecollaborationdiscussedinthispaper
itselfhasasignificantlysequentialcharacter,inadditiontoimportantmoments/periodsof
simultaneousengagement6Seeforexample,R.KeithSawyer,GroupCreativity:Music,Theater,Collaboration(Mahwah,NJ,
2003);R.KeithSawyer,TheCreativePowerofCollaboration(NewYork,2007);R.KeithSawyer,
ExplainingCreativity:TheScienceofHumanInnovation,2ndedition(NewYork,2012).7R.KeithSawyer,‘GroupCreativity:musicalperformanceandcollaboration’,PsychologyofMusic,
34/2(2006)148.8EricClarke,NicholasCook,BrynHarrisonandPhilipThomas,‘Interpretationandperformance
inBrynHarrison’sêtre-temps’,MusicaeScientiae,9(2005),31-74.
P a g e |5
thepieceandpreparesitforperformance;thedevelopmentofvarious
interpretativestrategiesthroughtherehearsalperiod(particularlythose
concernedwithrhythmandtiming);questionsofflexibilityandfixityinthe
performance;andtherelationshipbetweennotation,actionandsound.Harrison
describesThomasasa‘performerwho…seesquestionsasaproductiverather
thanrestrictivepartofthelearningprocess,’9andacreativecollaborator.A
themetowhichThomasreturnsonanumberofoccasionsishowhecan
maintainanopenandinventiverelationshipwiththepieceanditsnotation,
whenhealsohastospendlonghoursworkingpainstakinglyondetailedaspects
ofthematerial–asisvividlyillustratedinanexchangebetweenThomasand
Harrisonduringtherehearsalperiod:
Thomas:Youkindofdoitsomuch,I’vepractisedit,andthenyougetused
toit,anditgetscompromisedagain,soI’vegottokeepkickingmyselfin
thearsetokindoftakeitapartagain,Ithinkthat’stheproblem,I’vegotto
keepunravellingit.
Harrison:Otherwiseyougetusedtothesoundandkeepimitatingyourself
inaslightlyinaccuratewayreally.10
Thomas’scommitmenttoadeliberateprovisionality,andtothesenseof
‘liveness’thatheaimstocreatefromthat,ismirroredinHarrison’ssimilarly
unfixedandenquiringattitudetowardsnotation.Heacknowledgesthe
formalisedcharacterofthenotation,whichisbasedonanunusualuseof
metricalgrids,butregardsthisneitherastheimageofanauthoritativesoundin
hishead,norasdeterministicinitsaimsorconsequences,butasastartingpoint
fortheperformer’sexplorationandimagination:‘I’mwritingittohearitasmuch
asI’mhearingittowriteit.’11
Asimilarstudyofcomposer-performercollaboration,involvingthe
composerFabriceFitchandthecellistNeilHeydeinvestigatesanalogousissues,
butwithagreaterfocusoninstrumentality,sound,andtheaffordancesof
particulartechnicalfeaturesofthecello.12Whileêtre-tempswasafinishedscore
whenThomasreceivedit,thescoreforFitch’spieceforspeakingcellistentitled
PerSerafinoCalbarsiII:LeSongedePanurge(henceforthPSCII)evolvedovera
periodfrom2002toitsfirstfullperformancein2006throughanintermittent
dialoguebetweenFitchandHeyde.ForreasonsthatareconnectedwithPSCII’s
particularscordaturatuning,thepieceplaysparticularlywiththepitch
relationshipsbetweendifferentharmonics,andinexploringthosepossibilities
HeydeandFitchchanceduponaparticularcombinationofharmonicswitha
specificpizzicatotechniquethatsubsequentlybecomesacentralelementinthe
furthercompositionaldevelopmentofthepiece.FitchandHeydemakereference
toHelmutLachenmann’sdescriptionofcompositionas‘buildinganinstrument’,
entailing‘thebuildingof“animaginaryinstrument”,theexplorationofwhose
9Clarkeetal,Interpretation,34.10Clarkeetal.,Interpretation,45.11HarrisoninClarkeetal.,Interpretation,43.Thomas,too,regardsthenotationas‘aprescription
foractionratherthanadescriptionofsound.’(ThomasinClarkeetal.,Interpretation,39).12FabriceFitchandNeilHeyde,‘“Recercar”–Thecollaborativeprocessasinvention’,twentieth-
centurymusic,4(2007),71-95.
P a g e |6
properties(bythecomposer)bringsaboutthepieceitself.’13ItisclearthatPSCII
indeedinvolvesakindofmutualtuningoftheinstrumentandperformer-both
literallythroughtheexplorationofaparticularscordatura,andmore
metaphoricallyinthediscoveryanddevelopmentofplayingtechniques.But
morethanthat,the‘instrument’thatisbuiltcrossesoverbetweentheFitchand
Heyde’sapparentrolesascomposerandperformer:
TakingLachenmann’sideasintothecollaborativecontext,onecanobserve
theblurringoftraditionallyclearlinesofdemarcationbetweenperformer
andcomposer.Mostobviously,thecomposerbecomes,accordingto
Lachenmann,notonlyanorganologist,butalsoaninstrumentalist(albeit
onanimaginaryinstrument).Buttheconverseisalsotrue:intheprocess
ofreshapingtheinstrument,theperformertakesonsomeoftheattributes
ofthecomposerinLachenmann’smodel.Thiswouldseemparticularlytrue
inthecaseofthepresentcollaboration,inwhichtheperformerhastaken
anequalroleindefiningthe‘problems’wehavemadeitourtasktosolve.14
InastatementthatbothpaystributetothecrucialcreativeroleofHeydeasthe
performer,andatthesametimere-inscribeshispositionastheoriginal‘source’
ofthecomposition,Fitchwrites:
Perhapsthisinflectedviewoftheroleofeachparticipanthelpstoexplaina
curiouspersonalsentimentconcerningthepieceattheendoftheprocess.
Forthecomposer,paradoxically,thereisnodoubtthatthepieceinitsfinal
formwouldbeunthinkablewithouttheinputofthisparticularperformer.
Atthesametime,Iamequallycertainthatthepiececoncretizesvery
preciselythosesensationsorimpressions(admittedlyasinchoateasthey
werevivid)experiencedwhentheideaforthispiecefirstarosemanyyears
ago.15
Aspiecesforsoloperformer,neitherêtre-tempsnorPSCIIengagewiththat
verydirectformofcreativecollaborationthatisnecessarilytrueofanensemble.
Intworatherdifferentprojects,bothofwhichinvolvenewmusicforstring
quartet,AmandaBayleyandPaulArchboldhavestudiedtheinteractions
betweencomposersandensembles.Bayley’sprojecthasbeenconcernedwith
therehearsalofMichaelFinnissy’sSecondStringQuartet,andthecommissioning
andrehearsalofhisThirdStringQuartet,bothfortheKreutzerQuartet.16Using
audioandvideodocumentation,andanumberofinterviewswiththecomposer,
Bayleyprovidesanaccountofrehearsals,threepublicperformances,and
reflectionsbythecomposerandmembersofthequartetontheperformances.
Bayley’sexaminationofthiscollaborationprovidesoneofthemostdetailed
13SeeHelmutLachenmann,MusikalsexistentielleErfahrung,ed.withanintroductionbyJoseph
Häusler(Wiesbaden,1996)forthenotionof‘buildinganinstrument’asencapsulatingthe
compositionalprocess;citedinFitchandHeyde,Recercar,92.14FitchandHeyde,Recercar,92-3.15FitchandHeyde,Recercar,93.16AmandaBayley,‘Multipletakes:usingrecordingstodocumentcreativeprocess’,Recorded
Music:Performance,CultureandTechnology,ed.AmandaBayley(Cambridge,2010),206-224.
PaulArchbold,ClimbingaMountain:ArdittiQuartetrehearseFerneyhough6thStringQuartet
(London,2011)[DVD].
P a g e |7
descriptionsandanalysesofdiscourseandinteractioninrehearsal.17The
rehearsalprocessisexploredthroughamixtureofcontentanalysis(outlining
theproportionoftimeengagedinvariousformsofrehearsalactivitysuchas
playingandtalking,withabreakdownofthetopicsfordiscussionbetweenthe
composerandquartetmemberssuchassoundquality,co-ordination,andsocial
conversation),andmorequalitativeattentiontowhatissaid.Theapproachis
developedfromsocialpsychologicalstudiesofrehearsals,18andfrom
ethnomusicologicalwritingsthatcovernotonlytheprocessofmakingmusicbut
alsotherelationshipofsoundtodiscourse.19Whiletherolesofcomposerand
performersaredistinctlyseparatehere,and‘thecompositionisinnosense
collaborative’,20itisclearthatthereisasignificantlycollaborativecreativeeffort
involvedinbringingthepiecetoperformance.Asubsequentpaperarisingoutof
thesameprojectdemonstratesthatFinnissyandtheleaderoftheKreutzer
Quartet(PeterSheppardSkærved)engageinverymuchthesamekindof
creativeinteractionasthatbetweenHarrisonandThomasmentionedabove:
MF:Itshouldhavethatfeelingofinitiallynotreallybeingwithinreach,asif
anunattainableplateauthatthey’reonandyou’redesperatetoreachitbut
...Andthenyouseeitgraduallybecomemorepossible.
PSS:Weactuallyhavetogothroughthecurveoflearningwhattheother
personisdoingandthende-learningit.Becausewhathappened,thattime,
nowwehavetoomuchknowledge.Sowenowactuallyhavetode-skilla
littlebitinorderforthattohappen.Thenwecannotobservebecausewhat
happensiswe’vestartedco-ordinating,notdeliberatelybutbecausewe
haveakindofideaofwhat’shappening,sowehavetode-learnit...
MF:Youhavetoadjustitsothatit’snotintherightplace.21
Ifadeliberately‘unattained’quality,projectedthroughadegreeof
asynchrony,isoneoftheaimsintheFinnissyquartet,aseriousanddetailed
attentiontoachievingfinelytunedcoordinationinthecontextofgreat
complexityisacentralfeatureofthecollaborationbetweenBrianFerneyhough
andtheArdittiStringQuartetinPaulArchbold’sdocumentaryfilmofthe
rehearsalandperformanceofFerneyhough’sSixthStringQuartet.22Thefilm
documentsthequartet’sdetailedpreparatoryworkonthescoreandparts
17Bayley,A.(2011).Ethnographicresearchintocontemporarystringquartetrehearsal.
EthnomusicologyForum,20(3),385-411.18JaneW.DavidsonandJamesM.Good,‘Socialandmusicalco-ordinationbetweenmembersofa
stringquartet:anexploratorystudy’,PsychologyofMusic,30(2002),186-201.19BayleydrawsheavilyonStevenFeld’snotionof‘interpretivemoves’,theactiveandmultiple
sense-makingthatlistenersmakeuseofwhenengagingwithwhathedescribesasthe‘dialectic
musicalobject’.Feld’sanalysisattemptstomoveawayfromtheoverly-psychological‘billiard
ball’approachtomusicalmeaninggenerationandtowardsadynamicunderstandingofthe
relationshipbetweenlistenersandsound.Bayleytransfershismodelintothedomainofmusical
practice–how‘interpretivemoves’maytakeplacewithintheframeofarehearsal;seeSteven
Feld,‘Communication,MusicandSpeechaboutMusic’,MusicGrooves,ed.CharlesKeilandSteven
Feld.2ndedition.(Tucson,Arizona,2005),77–95.20Bayley,MultipleTakes,213.21AmandaBayley,Ethnographicresearchintocontemporarystringquartetrehearsal
EthnomusicologyForum,20(2012),385–411(p.399).22PaulArchbold,ClimbingaMountain:ArdittiQuartetrehearseFerneyhough6thStringQuartet
(London,2011)[DVD].
P a g e |8
beforethefirstrehearsal;andtheinterplaybetweenthecomposerandthefour
performersduringtherehearsalperiodthatimmediatelyprecedesthepremière
attheDonaueschingenFestival.Thequartetclearlyenjoysandvaluesworking
withFerneyhough,asithasdoneovermanyyears,buttherelationshipcomes
withitsowninternaldynamics,arisingfromunderlyingattitudesabouttheroles
andresponsibilitiesofcomposersandperformers.Oneoftherehearsalswiththe
composerexemplifiesthiswhen,inthemiddleofapassageofcomplexrhythmic
interaction,Ferneyhough(BF)–whoisdirectingthequartetinquasi-conducting
fashion–goes‘shhh’toIrvineArditti(IA),sittingjusttohisleft.Thequartet
comestoastop,andthefollowingexchangetakesplace:
IA:Shhh?Whyareweshhh?Yousaidshhhrightonthewordofthe
diminuendo:I’mstillfff!Shhh?
BF:Ihavethispredictivementality,Irvine.WhichlikethearrowofEros
plantsitselfstraightintheforeheadsofallthosewhodaretocontravene
myinstructions.
IA:Alrightthen,I’llgoforacupoftea(laughs).Timeforacupoftea:Idon’t
wantnobleedingarrowsinmyhead.
BF:[…]LikeIrvine’sdadadadadadadadada–we’vejustgottoestimate
it…
IA:AmInotdoingthat?
BF:It’sOK.I’mmakingthisjustasageneralcomment…
IA:WhatdoyoumeanitwasOK:itwasgood!
BF:Itwasfine.Iwasjustsayingitasageneralcomment…
IA:Whatdoyoumeanitwasfine?
BF:ItwasabsolutelyperfectandbrilliantIrvine!!
IA:Ahhhhh!!!ThenI’mdefinitelygoingtohaveacupoftea(laughter).23
Behindthelaughterandteasingliethedynamicsofauthorityandcompliance,
competenceandintelligibility,andindependenceandcooperationbetween
composerandperformers,andthedelicatenegotiationsthatareinvolved.Inthe
prevailingassumptionthatcomposerssitatthetopofthepyramidofcreativity,
withperformersbelowthem,liesthesourceofthetensionsthatbrieflypoke
throughthesurfaceofthisinteraction.Thecomposer’srelianceonthe
performerstobringhismusictolife;theperformer’sprideinfidelitytothescore
(‘I’mstillfff!’)againstthecomposer’sauthority(‘…thosewhodaretocontravene
myinstructions’);andtheunderlyinganxietythatthecomposermightnotreally
beabletohearhisownmusic,orthattheperformermightbetooliteralinhis
readingofthenotation.Collaborationsbetweencomposersandperformersare
inevitablyasmuchaboutthesociallyconstructedrolesthatindividualsinhabit
moreorlesswillinglyandcomfortablyastheyareaboutcreativeimagination
and‘freeplay’.
Inapaperthatconsidersthecollaborativeworkofaconsiderablylarger
ensembleanditsconductorwiththecomposerofanewlycommissionedwork,
Clarke,DoffmanandLimanalyzedanumberofcriticalrehearsalepisodesthat
exposedsimilarinterweavingsofinstitutional,social,notational,instrumental
andcircumstantialfactorsinthecreativeprocess.24Buildingonanincreasing 23ArchboldClimbing,DVD1,13:11.24EricClarke,MarkDoffmanandLizaLim,‘Distributedcreativityandecological
P a g e |9
volumeofrecentpublications,25theyofferaviewofthedistributedand
ecologicalcharacterofaestheticproduction,pointingbothtothewaysinwhich
peoplearedeeplyintertwinedwithopportunitiesandtechnologies,andtothe
differentscalesofhistoryandsocialorderwithinwhichmusicalproduction
takesplace.Usingvideorecordingsofrehearsalsandtwoperformances,and
interviewsanddiscussionswiththecomposer,conductorandmembersofthe
ensemble,theresearchfocusesonthreeepisodesinrehearsalandperformance
thatrevealthenetworkofcreativeforcesthatmuchofthetimeoperateinrather
hiddenwaysinthecomparatively‘seamless’workingpracticesofaprofessional
ensemblewithitsconductorandattendantcomposer.Allthreeepisodesinvolve
opportunitiesandtensionsthatariseoutoftheinterplaybetweenfixedand
improvisedelements,andallthreealsoexposetheinfluenceofmicro-social
forces(immediateinteractionsbetweenco-presentindividuals)andmacro-
socialforces(largerandmorelong-termsocialfactorsthatrelatetoroles,
institutionsandtraditions)onthedirectmaterialityofmusic-makingand
creativedecisions.Inonecase,distinctlydifferentviewsofthemusicalvirtuesof
deliberateplanningandspontaneousemergenceshapetherealizationofa
passageofsemi-indeterminatenotation.Inasecondcase,aninformalprocessof
‘rulemaking’and‘rulebreaking’thatrelatestoasustainedpassageof
improvisedensembleaccompanimentiscalledintoquestion,andentangledwith
prevailingassumptionsaboutinstrumentalrolesandcreativeprerogatives.And
inathirdcase,acombinationofserendipitouspersonalhistory(thebirthdayofa
keyplayer),therelationshipbetweenpermanentensemblemembersas‘hosts’
andasoloistas‘guest’,andthespecificaffordancesofthemusicalmaterialgive
risetoastrikingmomentofcomplexsocialcommunicationexpressedthrough
music.Thecreativeecosystemthatthepaperexploresisthereforerevealedasa
heterogeneousmeshofmaterial,historical,ideologicaland‘memorial’forces
operatingatavarietyofscales.
Thecurrentpaperalsoconsiderstheecologyofcollaborativecreationin
thespecificcontextofapieceofcontemporaryconcertmusic,butis
complementarytothepreviousstudyintworespects:itfocusesonthe
concentratedinteractionofacomposerwithasinglecommissionedperformer;
anditcombinesqualitativeandquantitativemethodsinanalyzingthecreative
developmentofthepieceovertherehearsalperiod,andacrossrepeated
performances.Ourapproachrangesacrossthephysicalityofanindividual
musician’screativeengagementswithhisinstrument;practicalandconceptual
aspectsofnotation;thediscursiveandsocialengagementofthecomposerand
performerworkingtogether;andthehistoricalandbiographicalthreadsthat
theyweave.Asintheearlierpaper,wearguethatanecologicalperspective
providesaproductiveframeworkforsuchanaccountbydrawingtogetherwhat
mightotherwiseremainseparatedomainsofmaterialculture,psychological
process,andlinguisticandsocialinteraction.Withinthebroadcontextofthat
ecologicalmesh,wemakeuseofadeliberatelysimplifieddistinctionbetween
dynamics:acasestudyofLizaLim’s“TongueoftheInvisible”’,Music&Letters,94/4(2013),628
–663.25Forexample,seeGeorginaBorn‘OnMusicalMediation:Ontology,TechnologyandCreativity’,
twentieth-centurymusic,2(2005),7–36;TimIngoldandElizabethHallam,‘Creativityand
CulturalImprovisation:AnIntroduction’,CreativityandCulturalImprovisation,ed.Elizabeth
HallamandTimIngold(Oxford,2007),1-24.
P a g e |10
processesthatare‘insidetheroom’–theimmediatemattersofnotation,
instrument,sound–andprocessesthatextend‘outsidetheroom’,encompassing
theinfluences,historiesandaestheticattitudesthatthemusiciansbringwith
themtotheircreativeencounter.Andwithinthisframework,wealso
acknowledgethatthisisanecologywithatangibleoutcome:apieceofmusic
emergedfromthiscollaboration,andourprimaryresearchquestionsreflectour
concerntounderstandnotjustthedetailsofthisveryparticularecologybutits
relationshiptoandeffectsonthemusicaloutcome:1)Howdoacomposerand
performerworktogetherintheproductionofanewpieceofmusic?2)Howis
creativityenactedinface-to-facecollaboration?3)Howisthecollaborativeeffort
reflectedinmaterialchangesinthemusic?
TheMaterialMusicalmaterial
FollowingachancemeetingwithPeterin2009,Jeremywaskeentowriteapiece
forhimwhentheopportunityandcommissioningfundsbecameavailablein
early2010.26DrawingontheexperienceofapreviouspieceentitledEndlessly
enmeshedfrom2007,whichcombinedWesternclassicalmusiciansusing
conventionalnotationwithtwoimprovisingIndianclassicalmusicians,Jeremy’s
explicitaimwasagaintomakeuseoffullynotatedandmoreimprovised
materials,buttopushhisowncompositionalpracticeinanewdirectionby
incorporatingcomputer-generatedorcomputer-controlledsounds.
Despitetheintegrationofimprovisedelementsintothepiece,Jeremy
‘verymuchwantedtowriteapiecewhichwouldfeellikeithadacharacter,a
shape,adesign,everytimeitwasplayed,eventhoughthere’simprovisationinit
andthereforeit’sdifferenteverytime.SoIwantedthepiecetobeaspacethat
youcouldinhabitinlotsofdifferentways,butitwasstilla[particular]space.’27
Thisthereforeposedaproblem:howcouldthepiecebothincorporatethe
flexibilityofimprovisationandatthesametimeretainasenseofitsownshape?
‘Therehadtobesomelooseness,andsomesensethatallsortsofdifferent
possibilitiescouldwork,andforawhileIjustfoundthatanimpossible
conundrum.Ifeltlikeapoetbeingaskedtowriteapoem,butalsobeingtold
“Youcan’tactuallyspecifywhatthewordsareinthepoem.”AndIjustthought:
HowcanIdothat?HowcanImakeapoemifIcan’tspecifywhichwordstheyare
andwhichordertheygoin?Ireallygotstuck.’28
ThesolutiontothiscreativeimpassecamewhenJeremycameacrossan
accountoftheearlytwentiethcenturyHungarianviolinistJellyd’Arányion
Peter’sownwebsite.Fromthishelearnedthatd’Arányihadbeenamedium,
andspoketospirits,andespeciallymusicalspirits,andthatgaveme
theideathatitmightbeinterestingfortheviolinisttobeamedium,
anditwouldsolveorhelpwithtwoproblems.Oneis:‘whyarethere
thesedisembodiedsoundscomingoutofloudspeakers?’whichIoften
findveryproblematicinelectroacousticmusic…ButinthiscaseI
26ThecommissionwasmadepossiblebyfundingfromtheArtsandHumanitiesResearchCouncil
aspartoftheCentreforMusicalPerformanceasCreativePractice.27ECinterviewwithJeremyThurlow,6August2012.28ECinterviewwithJeremyThurlow,6August2012.
P a g e |11
thoughtyouhavegotaliveviolinistactingandmoving,andthereisa
reasonwhytherearevoices,asitwere–soundsthataredisembodied.
Andwecanrelatetowhythey’redisembodiedbecauseit’slikewhat
wouldhappeninaséanceorinameetingwithother-worldlyspirits.
Soithelpedwiththat,anditalsogavearationaleforthe
improvisatoryaspect,becauseamediumofcoursedoesn’tgoinwitha
book,aplay-scriptandsaywhathehastosay:hehasaconversation
whichevolvesdependingonwhathappens.…AndalmostassoonasI
readthebitaboutJellyd’ArányiIhadtheidea.Itjustfellintoplace,so
IwasabletoemailPeterbackquitequicklyandsay“IthinkI’vegotan
idea.Whydon’twecallitOuija?”…AndinhisperformancesPeter’s
talkedaboutJellyd’Arányiand…howsheisconnectedtoasortof
livingtraditionofpastmusicians,andmemoriesofthem,andfeeling
thattheywerestillwithherwhensheplayed,mostofwhichIdidn’t
know.Soitworkedoutwonderfully.Ijustknewthislittlethingabout
Jellyd’Arányibutitwasenough.29
Havinghituponthiscreativesolutiontotheproblemofhowthelaptopmusic
mightbe‘motivated’,andhowtoconceiveoftherelationshipbetween
composer-definedandflexibleorimprovisedelements,Jeremydecidedto
organizethematerialsofOuijainthemannerofaséance–asreflectedinthe
titlesofthemovements:‘Invocation’,‘Amongvoices’,‘Sprite’,‘Undertheshadow
ofwings’,and‘Amongvoicesii’.BythetimeofthefirstworkshopinFebruary
2012,Jeremyhadpreparedinitialscoredversionsof‘Invocation’,‘Amongvoices’
and‘Undertheshadowofwings’basedonworkthathehadbeendoingsince
November2011,andwasintheprocessofwritingfurthermaterialthatbecame
‘Amongvoicesii’and‘Sprite’.InanemailtoPeterandMarkshortlyafterthefirst
workshopJeremycommentedthatthepiecewouldconsistofsevenmovements:
Aswellasthemovementswetriedyesterday,therecouldalsobea)anew
mvtdrawnfromPaganiniinthesamewaythatUndertheshadowisdrawn
fromBach[thisbecame‘Sprite’]b)anewmvtbasedontheideaofPeter
'catching'thetempoofthetapepart,whichsuddenlychangeseverynow
andthenlikeawillo'thewispc)anewfinalmovementexploringthe
higherregistersoftheinstrument,sofarneglected[thisbecameAmong
voicesii].Notallofthesewillnecessarilycometofruition,butifwe
considerallofthemfornow,theordermightbe:Invocation-Willo'the
wisp-Paganini-Amongvoices-Bach-newrepartee-finalmvt30
BythemiddleofMarch,atthesecondworkshop,thematerialsandoverallshape
ofthepiecewereclosetotheirfinalformandnarroweddowntofive
movements.Intheinterim,Peterhadworkedontechnicalaspectsofthemusic,
29ECinterviewwithJeremyThurlow,6August2012.Aouijaboardisadeviceusedatséancesto
communicatewiththespiritsofdeadpeople.30EmailcorrespondencefromJeremyThurlowtoPeterSheppardSkærvedandMarkDoffman,15
February2012.‘Newrepartee’referstoamovementprovisionallyentitled‘Repartee’whichPeter
andJeremytriedoutatthefirstworkshop,butsubsequentlyabandoned.
P a g e |12
wasnolongersight-readingthenotatedmaterial,andwascomfortablewiththe
kindsofimprovisationthatthepieceentailed.
Inbroadterms,Ouijaemploysthreeapproachestomusicalmaterial,and
therelationshipbetweennotationandimprovisation.‘Invocation’(seeExample
1)isthemostconventionallyandfullynotatedofthemovements,withonlythe
durationofthepauseattheendofeachphraseleftunspecified–thesepausesat
firstbeingfilledwithsilence,andlaterwiththeinitiallyghostlysoundsofother
musicemanatingfromthelaptop.‘Amongvoices’(seeExample2)usesasemi-
indeterminatenotationinwhichthepitchesarespecified,butlittleornothingof
therhythm–althoughthescoreprovidesapassageofsuggestivecomments
abouthowtherhythmofthemovementmightbeapproached.Themovement
involvesaconstantinterplaybetweentheviolinandlaptop,withtheviolinline
swimminginwhatJeremydescribesas‘ashoal’ofothermusicallines.Asitstitle
implies,thefifthmovement‘Amongvoicesii’adoptsthesamegeneralapproach.
Finally,movements3and4,entitled‘Sprite’and‘Undertheshadowofwings’
respectively,makeuseofmaterialthathasaspecificcompositionalreference:
Paganiniinthecaseof‘Sprite’,andJ.S.Bachinthecaseof‘Undertheshadowof
wings’(seeExample3).In‘Undertheshadowofwings’,whichwefocusuponin
thispaper,thelaptopmusictookasitssourcetheSicilianomovementofthe
BachunaccompaniedviolinsonatainGminor(BWV1001),whiletheviolinist’s
musicconsistsofashortphrase,looselymodeledontheopeningofthefirst
movementofthatsamesonata,followedbytheinstructionto‘continue,
improvising’.Thescoregivesbriefadviceabouttherelationshipbetweenthe
violinand‘tape’(=laptop)31parts–mostlyintermsoftheflexibleco-ordination
ofthetwo,includingthestatementthat‘theimprovisationshouldfeel,insome
broadsense,insympathywiththemusicofthetape(thoughthiscanbedefined
asfreelyastheplayerwishes:itcertainlydoesn'truleoutplayingnoteswhich
aredissonantwiththetapepart).’
31Jeremyconsistentlyreferstothelaptopmusicasthe‘tapepart’.
P a g e |14
Example2:Scoreof‘Amongvoices’,p.1.
1II. Among voices
Violin
5
9
™™
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
™™
53
&
&
&
& 2nd time: 8va (up to )
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& r
&
&
œ œ œ# œ œ ˙ œ# œ œ œ œ ˙n œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ# ˙b
œ œ œ œ œb ˙ œ œ œb œ œ ˙ œ œb œ œ ˙b œ œ œ œ œb œ œ ˙#
œ œ œ œb œ# ˙ œ œb œ# œ œ ˙n œb œ# œ œn ˙# œ œ œ œb œ# œ œ œ ˙#
œ œ œ# œ# œ# ˙ œ# œ# œ# œ œ ˙n œ# œ# œ œn ˙# œ œ œ œ# œ# œ# œ ˙n
œ œ œ# œ# œ ˙n œ# œ# œ œ œn ˙ œ# œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ# œ œ# ˙
œ œ œ# œ œ ˙ œ# œ œ œ œ˙n
œ œ œœ ˙ œ œ
œœ œ œ#
˙b
œœœ œ
œb ˙œ œ
œb œœ ˙ œ œb œ
œ ˙b œœ œ œ œb œ
œ˙#
œ œ œ œb œb ˙ œ œb œb œ œ ˙n œb œ# œ œn ˙# œ œ œ œ# œ# œ œ œ ˙#
œ œ œ# œ# œ# ˙ œ# œ# œ# œ œ ˙n œ# œ# œ œn ˙# œ œ œ œ# œ# œ# œ ˙n
œ œ œ# œ# œ ˙n œ# œ# œ œ œn ˙ œ# œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ# œ œ# ˙
œ œ œ# œ œ ˙ œ# œ œ œ œ ˙n œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ# ˙bœ œ œ œ œb ˙ œ œ œb
œ œ ˙ œ œbœ œ ˙b
œ œ œ œ œb œ œ ˙#
œ œ œ œb œ# ˙ œ œb œ# œ œ ˙n œb œ# œ œn ˙# œ œ œ œb œ# œ œ œ ˙#
œ œ œ# œ# œ# ˙ œ# œ# œ# œ œ ˙n œ# œ# œ œn ˙# œ œ œ œ# œ# œ# œ ˙n
P a g e |15
Example2(contd.)Scoreof‘Amongvoices’,p.2.
Scorrevole, senza rigore
&
successive bars flow one into another to make longer phrases. (The floating semibreves indicate the notes which correspond with the open notes in the score.) This example is given to prompt the imagination, not to be copied literally.
w w w w
&w w w w
&
Despite the neutral appearance of the 'score', the player should give plenty of imagination to dynamics, phrase-shape, character, and changes of tone-colour, all of which are entirely at their discretion.
The player can decide (ideally, in mid-performance) either to observe the repeat, or not.Either way, they should end the piece on one of the open notes from the symbol on. This means that the last few bars may not get played.
Together with the solo line there is a tape part which starts a few seconds after the violinist has begun. During the player's final phrase the tape part should be cued to move seamlessly into its final phase, which ends shortly afterwards.
w Œ Œ w
r
w w
œ œ œ œ œ œ ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ ™j œr œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙
Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ≈ œ. œ œ œ ™ œ œ œ œ œ. œ ™j œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ ˙ ™ Œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ™
P a g e |16
Example3:Scoreof‘Undertheshadowofwings’.
Thelaptopmusicforeachofthethreemovementswasdevelopedin
ratherdifferentways.Inthefirstmovement(‘Invocation’),Jeremy’sideawasto
usethelaptoptoproducefaintwispsofsound/musicduringthepauses
followingthesecondorthirdviolinphrase(seeEx.1)–asif‘calledforth’bythe
violinist’smusicalappeals.Atthefirstandsecondworkshops,Jeremyhadnotyet
madethesesoundfiles,andPeterworkedonthemusicintheabsenceofany
answering‘voice’.Shortlybeforethepremière,Jeremyputtogetherasuccession
ofsoundfiles(frombarelytodistinctlyaudible),madeoutofsnatchesof
recordedorchestraltextures,transformedwithgranularsynthesis,andmixed
withbriefrecordedextractsofPeter’sownviolinmusicfromthatmovement.
Thiswasintendedasnomorethanafirstattemptatthismusic,toprovide
somethingforthepremièreandlikelytobesuperseded–butatthepre-
performancerehearsal,andtheninthepremièreitself,bothJeremyandPeter
agreedthatithadworkedsowellthattherewasnoneedtoconsiderany
replacement.
Bycontrast,thelaptopmusicfor‘Amongvoices’formsamuchmore
substantialandcloselyintegratedcomponentofthemovement,givingasenseof
theviolinistbeingimmersedwithinlinesofmusic(‘amongvoices’)thatarea
The tape begins the piece alone. After the cue indicated above, which lasts 8 seconds, the soloistenters with the phrase notated, and then after a short pause, continues to play, improvising. The key is to keep listening to the tape; the improvisation should feel, in some broad sense, in sympathy with the music of the tape (though this can be defined as freely as the player wishes: it certainly doesn't rule out playing notes which are dissonant with the tape part). It is recommended that, by way of preparation, the soloist listens to the tape part several times without playing at all, to get to know it.
In addition to the basic principle of listening and playing in sympathy, there are three 'rules':
- The soloist should leave two or three large rests during the piece, of around 20 seconds each. (The whole piece lasts about 6 minutes. By getting to know the tape part well, it's possible to recognise the closing stages of the tape part and know when to draw to a close.)
- The soloist should finish about 10-15 seconds before the tape finishes.
- While the tape part mostly consists of sustained, expressive melodic and harmonic music, it also includes occasional strands of very fast notes. While the soloist is free to echo, imitate or develop anything else that they hear in the tape part, in whatever way they wish, they should not imitate the very fast passage-work in the tape part. These fast passages are intended only to be heard in the distance, and should never form part of the soloist's music.
P a g e |17
partialechoofthesoloist’sownmaterial,andarethereforederiveddeliberately
andquitedirectlyfromtheviolinpart.Thelaptopmusicwasgeneratedby
layeringtogetheranumberofseparatestrands,eachofwhichconsistedofa
rhythmicrealizationoftheviolinist’snotatedmaterialincorporatingfrequent
temposhifts,andapartialfragmentationofthescoredmaterial,soastoavoid
anddisguiseanydirectmirroringoftheperformer’sline.Jeremyscoredthese
layersusingtheSibeliusnotationsoftware,andPeterthenmadedigital
recordingsoftheseseparatelines,32whichinthefinalversionofthelaptop
musicwerecombinedwithsampledstringsoundscontrolleddirectlybythe
Sibelius-basedMIDIfiles.33
Finally,‘Undertheshadowofwings’usedyetanotherapproach.Starting
withafortuitouslyavailablecommercialrecordingoftheSicilianomovementof
theBachunaccompaniedViolinSonataBWV1001,Jeremyidentifiedsome
relativelybriefextractsthatfeatureddouble-stopping,andusingpitch
transpositionandtemposhifts,coupledwithgranularsynthesis,layeredthese
elementstoformaslow-movinghomophonictexture,startingratherdiatonically
andbecomingsomewhatmorechromaticasthemovementprogressed.Although
therecordedsourceisaviolin,theeffectofthegranularsynthesisistoproducea
texturethathasthecharacterofaninstrumentallyindeterminateharmonic
wash.Theremainderofthispaperfocuseson‘Invocation’,‘Amongvoices’,and
‘Undertheshadowofwings’,representingastheydothethreebroadmusical
strategiesoftheworkasawhole,andconstitutingthemovementsonwhichthe
mostrehearsalanddiscussiontookplace.
Empiricalmaterial
Theprimarymaterialonwhichthispaperisbasedconsistsofaroundseven
hoursofvideorecordingsdocumentingalloftheworkshopsandrehearsals
involvedinmakingthepiece,fromJeremy’sfirstmeetingwithPeterinFebruary
2012tothefirstperformanceinMay;34videoandaudiorecordingsoffourpublic
performancesbetweenMayandNovember2012;andaroundsixhoursof
recordedinterviewsandretrospectiveverbalprotocolsessions35withJeremy
andPeter(seeTable1).Thevideomaterialwascapturedusingasingledigital
videocamerapositionedwhereverwasconvenientinthevariousworkshop,
32TheserecordingsweremadebyPeterSheppardSkærvedonviolinandviola,andbyhis
KreutzerQuartetcolleagueNeilHeydeoncello.33Thecombinationenabledthemostsuccessfulcombinationofsonicrealism(byusingthe
recordedstringsoundsatthestartoflines,wheretheinstrumentalsoundofthelineismost
exposedandnoticeable)withoptimallycontrolledcontrapuntalrelationshipsbetweenthelines.34Ineffecttheentirecollaborativecreativeprocess(i.e.allofthecreativeworkthatwasnot
Jeremy’s‘private’compositionalactivity)wasrecordedonvideo.35TheRetrospectiveVerbalProtocolmethodpresentsparticipantswithpreviouslyrecorded
(audio,oraudiovisual)materialandinvitesthemtocommentonanythingthatsee/heargoingon
thatstrikesthemasworthmentioning.Ithasbeenusedingeneralsocialscienceresearch(see
e.g.K.AndersEricssonandHerbertA.Simon,ProtocolAnalysis.VerbalReportsasData,revised
edition(Cambridge,MA,1993),andinsomepreviousmusicresearch:e.g.MatthewSansom,
‘MusicalMeaning:AQualitativeInvestigationofFreeImprovisation’(PhDdissertation,
UniversityofSheffield,1997);MirjamJames,KarenWise,andJohnRink,‘Exploringcreativityin
musicalperformancethroughlessonobservationwithvideo-recallinterviews’,Scientia
PaedagogicaExperimentalis,47(2010),219-250.
P a g e |18
rehearsalandperformancecircumstances.36Audiorecordingsweremadeusing
ZoomandRolandportabledigitalaudiorecorders.
Date Event Location Data Personnel EventCode
14.02.12 Workshop1 Jeremy’sroom,
Robinson
College,
Cambridge
Audio-
visual
Jeremy,
Peter,MD
W1
15.03.12 Workshop2 Jeremy’sroom,
Robinson
College,
Cambridge
Audio-
visual
Jeremy,
Peter,MD
W2.1
15.03.12 Workshop2
contd.
Chapel,Robinson
College,
Cambridge
Audio-
visual
Jeremy,
Peter,MD
W2.2
23.05.12 Pre-concert
rehearsal
Chapel,Sidney
SussexCollege,
Cambridge
Audio-
visual
Jeremy,
Peter,MD,
EC
P1R
23.05.12 Première
performance
Chapel,Sidney
SussexCollege,
Cambridge
Audio-
visual
Jeremy,
Peter,MD,
EC,
audience
P1
06.07.12 Performance Chapel,Robinson
College,
Cambridge
Audioonly Jeremy,
Peter,MD,
audience
P2
19.07.12 Interview1 FacultyofMusic,
Oxford
Audioonly Peter,EC I1
23.07.12 Performance Wilton’sMusic
Hall,London
Audioonly Jeremy,
Peter,EP,
audience
P3
06.08.12 Interview2 Robinson
College,
Cambridge
Audioonly Jeremy,EC I2
02.11.12 Performance HolywellMusic
Room,Oxford
Audio-
visual
Jeremy,
Peter,MD,
EC,
audience
P4
03.11.12 Interview3
(RVP)
FacultyofMusic,
Oxford
Audioonly Jeremy,
MD
I3
01.02.13 Interview4
(RVP)
FacultyofMusic,
Oxford
Audioonly Peter,EC I4
Table1.Overviewofvideoandaudiorecordings.RVP=RetrospectiveVerbalProtocol.
PersonnelareEricClarke(EC),MarkDoffman(MD),EmilyPayne(EP),PeterSheppard
Skærved(Peter)andJeremyThurlow(Jeremy)
Therecordingsoftheworkshops,rehearsalandperformancesareself-
explanatory,buttheinterviewsrequireabriefcomment.Thefirsttwo
interviews(July19andAugust6)werestandardsemi-structuredinterviews,
eachlastingforaround90minutes.Interviews3and4weredesignedtoelicit
thetwomusicians’reflectionsonthedevelopmentofOuijafromitsorigins
36VideowascapturedinHDusingaSonyHDHDR-XR200AVCHDHandycam(4Megapixels).
P a g e |19
throughtothefourth(Oxford)performanceon2November2012.Followingon
fromsomeinitialmoregeneralquestions,theinterviewsmadeuseofa
RetrospectiveVerbalProtocol,presentingeachmusicianwithaudiovisual
extractsdocumentingvariousstagesofOuija’sdevelopment,andinvitingtheir
commentsonthemusic’sevolution.Theextractstookfoursignificantmoments
foreachofthethreetargetmovements:i)thefirstread-throughon14/02/12;ii)
thefirstplay-throughinthemoreappropriatespace/acousticofRobinson
Collegechapel,aspartofthesecondworkshopon15/03/12;iii)thepre-
performancerehearsalinSidneySussexchapelon23/05/12;iv)thepremière
performanceinSidneySussexchapelon23/05/12.
Fromtheoriginalcommissioningdiscussionsonwards,itwasexplicitly
agreedwithJeremyandPeterthattheircollaborationwouldbetheobjectof
systematicrecordinganddetailedanalysis,butthatthiswouldbedoneinsucha
waythatithadaslittleimpactaspossibleoneitherthecreativeprocessorthe
creativeoutcome.Thenumber,duration,dateandlocationofthecollaborative
workshopsweredecidedentirelybyJeremyandPeter,andthesuccessofthe
threeperformancesinCambridge,LondonandOxfordthatwereplannedfrom
theoutset,wereunderstoodastheprimaryconsideration:allparticipants
agreedthatifanyaspectoftheresearchprocessinterferedwiththataim,that
activitywouldbediscontinued.Nonetheless,theconsequencesofoneorbothof
thefirsttwoauthorsbeingpresentatworkshops,rehearsalsandperformances
mustberecognized.Informalterms,thestandardethicalrequirementsfor
projectsinvolvinghumanparticipantsweremetinfull,bothJeremyandPeter
signinginformedconsentforms.Moresignificantly,bothJeremyandPeterwere
directlyandactivelyinvolvedintheresearchprocessitselfthroughthe
interviewsandRVPprocessesdescribedabove,andwereinvitedtocommenton
afulldraftofthepaper.37
Analysisofvideomaterial
Allverbalinteractionduringtheworkshopswastranscribed,andperformances
ofthemusicwereloggedwithinthetranscription.Similarlytheinterviewsand
RVPrecordingsweretranscribedinfull.Intheanalysespresentedbelow,we
focusoncharacterizingtheinteractionduringtheworkshopssincethis
constitutedtheprimarylocusofcollaborativecreativedevelopment.Datafrom
theinterviewsandRVPrecordingsareusedtoprovideinsightintothe
musicians’understandingsofthemusic,thecollaborationandthecreative
process,andcitationsareidentifiedusingtheeventcodinglistedinTable1(final
column).
37BothJeremyandPetersentcommentsonthefulldraft,andalsocommentedontheimpactof
theinvolvementandpresenceofthefirsttwoauthorsintheproject.Bothmusiciansexpressed
theviewthatthishadbeenentirelypositive.Peter(interview,19July2012)observedthatithad
‘enhancedithugely,becausewe’vebeenthinkingabouthowwecollaboratefromtheget-go.And
that’sbeenvery,verynice.Italsomeantthatithashelpedwiththeintensitylevelfromthe
beginning,whichwasbrilliant;’andlaterstatingthat‘ThepresenceofMarkDoffmanandEric
Clarkeatthevariousstagesofthisprojecthasbeenanenabling,benevolentone.Atnostagedid
theyinterferewiththetrajectoryofthework,butprovidedaspaceforreflection’(emailtofirst
author,8February2014).Likewise,Jeremy(interview,3November2012)stated:‘Iquickly
foundthatthiswasaveryniceworkingrelationshipwithPeterandindeedwithyou[Mark
Doffman]becauseyouweretherethewholetimeaswell…Soitwasaverynicesupportive
relationship…’
P a g e |20
Analysisofperformancedatafromaudio
Toanalysethedevelopmentofthemusicalmaterialovertime,aquantitative
analysisofthetimingofmusicaleventswasundertakenusingasampleof
material(seeTable2).Thesamplefocusedonearlydevelopmentincludingthe
firstencounterwiththemusicduringthefirstworkshop(W1),arun-throughof
themusicduringthesecondworkshop(W2),thepremière(P1),andthefourth
(Oxford)performance(P4).OnsettimingwasmeasuredmanuallyusingPRAAT
forthedetailedtiminganalysisof‘Invocation’and‘Amongvoice’.38Thetimingof
noteonsetsin‘Undertheshadowofwings’wasextractedbytappingalongwith
therhythmoftheimprovisationusingSonicVisualiser.39Themethodinvolved
takingshortexcerptsand,afterrepeatedlisteningtotheseexcerpts,firsttotap
alongtothesuccessionofnoteonsets,andsubsequentlytocorrectandadjust
thepositionoftherecordedtapsuntiltheycoincidedexactlywiththerhythmof
theimprovisedviolinpart.
Type EventCoding
Workshop1:firstrunthroughof‘Invocation’,
‘Amongvoices’,and‘Undertheshadowof
wings’.
W1
Workshop2:
‘Invocation’:Fifthrun-through
‘Amongvoices’:Sixthrun-through
‘Undertheshadowofwings’:Thirdrun-through
W2
FirstConcertPerformance P1
FourthConcertPerformance P4
Table2.Listofextractsforquantitativetiminganalysis.
Inthefollowingsections,weanalysethecollaborativeprocessfromthree
standpoints:thediscursiveinteractionofthemusiciansinthecollaboration;the
developmentofthemusicalmaterialsoverthecourseofthecollaboration;and
theembodiedengagementoftheperformer.
TalkandCollaborationJeremyandPeterestablishedthecollaborativemomentumofOuijaoverthe
courseoftwoworkshopdays,separatedbyamonth’sinterval.Asalreadynoted,
priortothefirstworkshopJeremyhadpreparedfourmovementstoworkon–
‘Invocation’,‘Amongvoices’,‘Undertheshadowofwings’,and‘Repartee’(which
wassubsequentlydropped).Petercametothefirstworkshophavingseensmall
snippetsofsomeofthepiecesbutwaseffectivelysight-readingthematerial,and
althoughmanyofthefinalconstituentelementswererecognizableatthefirst
workshop,therewasstillconsiderableuncertaintyaboutthecomponent
movementsandoverallshapethatthepiecewouldtake..JeremyandPeter’s
creativeworkonOuijathereforeoccupiesacollaborativemiddle-ground,inthat
whiletheoverallframeworkandasignificantproportionofthemusicalmaterial
38PRAATisaprogramdevelopedforspeechanalysisbyPaulBoersmaandDavidWeenink,andis
usedwidelyinmusicperformanceresearch.Seehttp://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/.39SonicVisualiserisanaudioanalysisprogramwithanumberofpurpose-designedfunctionsto
assistwiththedetailedanalysisofrecordedmusic.Seehttp://www.sonicvisualiser.org/.
P a g e |21
isattributabletoJeremy’scompositionalperspective,theimprovisednatureof
someofthemovements,andtherelativelysparseviolinpartinothers,leftmuch
moretoshareddecision-makingthanwouldbethecaseinafullythrough-
composedpiece.Butthepiecewasalsoataconsiderableremovefroma
completelyimprovisedapproach,inwhichallparticipantssharesimilarcreative
authority.TheknowledgeandtechniquesevidentinthecreationofOuijaspecify
amuchmoreporousrelationshipbetweenpre-givenmaterialandthein-the-
momentqualitiesofimprovisedperformance.Inlookingatthetwodaysof
workshops,ourpointofdepartureistoexaminethedialoguebetweenthe
participantsandthewaysinwhichtheirdiscourseparticipatedinthe
collaborativeprocess.
Althoughresearchershavelookedatlanguageuseasacollaborativeoutcome,for
instanceinimprovisedtheatreperformance,40therehasbeenrelativelylittle
detailedworkonthedialogiccomponentofcreativityleadinguptothemoment
ofperformance.41Inposingthequestion‘Howiscreativityenactedinface-to-
facecollaboration?’,welookatthewaysinwhichdialogueisusedbythetwo
musiciansoverthecourseofthecollaboration.Thestartingpointforour
analysisisasetoffiguresthatdisplaytheamountoftimespentwithinthe
workshopsonplayinganddiscussingthepieceanditsperformance.Figure1
givesanoverviewoftheproportionofplayinganddiscussioninthethree
workshopsessions(overtwodays-W1,W2.1andW2.2),providingapanoptic
viewofwhattookplaceratherthanadetailedcontentanalysis.
PLAYING COMPOSITION-TALK PLAYING-TALKMAKING-TALK SOCIAL-TALK
Figure1.Piechartsshowingthepercentageofeachworkshoptakenupwithplayingand
talkaboutthecomposition,performance(playing-talk),practicalitiesoftherehearsal
(making-talk),andgeneralconversation(social-talk).
40R.KeithSawyerandStacyDeZutter,‘DistributedCreativity:howcollectivecreationsemerge
fromcollaboration’,PsychologyofAesthetics,CreativityandtheArts3/2(2009),81-92.41ThoughseeBayley‘Multipletakes’and‘Ethnographicresearch’,andFredSeddon,‘Empathetic
Creativity:theproductofempatheticattunement’,CollaborativeCreativity:contemporary
perspectives,ed.DorothyMiellandKarenLittlejohn(London,2004),65-78.Foracontentanalytic
approachtorehearsalseeJaneGinsborg,RogerChaffinandGeorgeNicholson,‘Shared
performancecuesinsingingandconducting:acontentanalysisoftalkduringpractice’,
PsychologyofMusic,34/2(2006),167-194.
31%
39%
20%
10%
W1
24%
31%9%
30%
6%
W2.1
47%
4%17%
23%
9%
W2.2
P a g e |22
Inadditiontoplayinglongerorshorterstretchesofthemusic(‘playing’),the
majorpartofeachworkshopwasdevotedtodiscussionaboutthepieceandits
realisation,andwehavethematizedthisasfollows:‘composition-talk’was
conversationaboutthecomposition;‘playing-talk’centredonperformance;and
‘making-talk’wasoftenaboutpragmaticaspectsoftherealisationofthepiece,
includingtherehearsalprocessitself.Thischaracterisationissummativerather
thananalyticallydetailed,andwascodedatthelevelofpair-wiseexchanges
ratherthanatthesentenceorphraselevel,soastoconveyageneralsenseof
whatwasgoingonthroughastretchofdialogueratherthantoproducea
detailedcontentanalysis.Inadditiontothesethreecategories,therewere
periodsduringthesessionswhentheconversationturnedtotopicsthatwereof
norelevancetotheworkshoppingofthepieceandwehavecodedtheseperiods
as‘social-talk’.
Theinterestinthesesummarychartsliesinthechangingproportionsof
playingandtalkingoverthecourseoftheworkshops.Bytheafternoonsession
ofthesecondworkshop(W2.2),whichtookplaceintheresonantand
atmosphericspaceofRobinsonCollegeChapel,playinghadbecomethe
dominantmodeofwork,followingonfromtheearlierpreponderanceof
discussion(W1andW2.1).Bycontrastwiththeproximityandintimacyof
Jeremy’srelativelysmallandacousticallydrycollegeroom(wherebothW1and
W2.1tookplace),thesize,resonantacousticandarchitecturalcharacterofthe
chapelpowerfullyaffordplayingratherthantalking.Notsurprisingly,asFigure1
illustrates,composition-focusedtalkbecomeslessafeatureoftheworkshopsas
theyprogress,sinceitisatthebeginningoftheworkshopprocessthatJeremy
explainstheorganisationandideasbehindthework.Forexample,atthe
beginningofthefirstrehearsalbeforethefirstplay-throughof‘Invocation’,the
conversationislargelygivenovertoanexplanationoftheoriginsofthepiece
andtherationaleforthephrasestructureofthemovement.
Jeremy:Sotherewillinfactbesilencesmostly,but…graduallythose
silenceswillhavetheveryquietestsoundsinthem,whichwillinfactbe
sortoftraceechoesofsomeofthepitchesthatyouhaveplayed…42
Andasmightbeexpected,stretchesofplayingthroughthemovementswere
oftenfollowedbytalkthatcentredoninterpretativeaspectsofthework.
Followingonfromthefirstplay-throughof‘Undertheshadowofwings’,the
conversationturnstoPeter’sgettingtoknowthe(unnotated)soundfile:
Peter:…Thetroubleis,Iwasbasicallyfivesecondsbehindthewholetime,
butnowIunderstandwhatthestructureis.
Jeremy:Imean,wecouldtryitagain.
Peter:Yes.
Jeremy:…Therewillstillbelotsofthingsyouhaven’tmanagedtocatch
becauseyouareverybusy[withyourownplaying]butyouwillhave
somesenseof…
Peter:Icanpromiseyouthatbasicallynothingisgoingtohappenthe
sameagain…43 42FromW1.43FromW1.
P a g e |23
Thiscategoryof‘playing-talk’wasdemonstrablygreaterinthesecondworkshop
(bothmorningandafternoon)thaninthefirstsession,whencomposition-talk
predominated
Thethirdtypeofcontentthatwehavedesignated‘making-talk’consisted
ofconversationdirectedtothemanypracticalissuesofthepiecewithoutbeing
directlyfocusedoneitherthecompositionoritsperformance,andthisbecame
morenoticeableinthesecondandthirdsessions:
Peter:Yourealisethiswouldworkverywellasaviolinduothisone.
Jeremy:Yes,itwouldwouldn’tit.
Peter:I’llsitdownwithMihailo44andwe’llrecordaversionofitforviolin
duoforyoubecauseyoushouldhavethat.
Jeremy:Yes,fine.
Peter:Becausethatmightaddsomethingquiteinteresting.
…
Peter:MyonlyproblemiswhenIcan’thear[thesoundfile].
Jeremy:Yes,Isee.
Peter:Sowhenwe’vegotthatgoodandloud,that’llbenoproblematall.
Jeremy:Good,Ithinkit’sgoingtowork.45
Figure2isbasedonthesamedataasFigure1,butindicatesthemoment-to-
momentdistributionoftalkandperformanceacrosstheworkshops.Itshows
relativelylongpassagesofcomposition-talkinthefirstworkshopalternating
withpassagesofplayingthroughmovements.Stretchesofplayingareoften
directlyfollowedbyconversationsabouttheplaying,andtalkaboutthe
compositionoftenreturnsoncetheinterpretationorimprovisatoryplayinghas
beendiscussed.Withinthesecondworkshop,thereisachangetowardslesstalk
aboutthecomposition,andmoreabouttheplayingandthemakingofthe
music.46Thesedifferentcategoriesofexchange(excluding‘social-talk’)together
formadiscursiveregisterthatwesummariseascreative-talk,representing
dialoguewhosecentralfocuswasonthemakingofthepiece.
44MihailoTrandafilovskiistheSecondViolinistoftheKreutzerQuartet,ofwhich
PeteristheLeader.
45FromW2.1.46Inthesecondworkshop,afewmomentsofpurelysocialintercourseare
indicated,whichwereprimarilyrelatedtoavisitingcomposer,well-knownto
bothPeterandJeremy,whowaspresentforsomeoftherehearsal.
P a g e |24
Figure2.Timelineoftheworkshops,showingperiodsoftalkingandplaying,andan
indicationofthefocusofthetalk.Categoriesare:Playing(P),composition-talk(CT),
playing-talk(PT),making-talk(MT)andsocial-talk(ST).
Creative-talkanditsfunctions
Ourinitialexplorationofdiscourseintheworkshopscentresonconversational
topicsusingthethreebroadcategoriesalreadyidentified.However,although
thisexaminationofthecontentofrehearsaldiscourseprovidesauseful
breakdownofthetopicsofconversation,itcontributeslesstoourunderstanding
ofhowcreativityisenactedthroughdiscourse–thefunctionaleffectsof
languageinshapingtheperformance.Itisclearthatdialoguebetweenthe
musiciansgaverisetochangesinthemusicalmaterialanddecisionsconcerning
itsrealisationinperformance:thelanguageintherehearsalisnotjust‘about’
compositionorplaying,butisfunctional–itispartofthecreativeprocess.
Thefollowinginterchangefromthefirstworkshopprovidesonesuch
example,theshortdialoguetakingplaceasthemusicianslookattheguidance
notesfortheperformerthataccompanythescoreof‘Amongvoices’(seeabove,
Example2).TheextractofconversationbeginswithPeternoticingthemarking
Scorrevole,senzarigoreinconnectionwiththerhythmicexamplegivenbythe
composerinthenotestothescore(Example2).Themusiciansgetintoa
discussionthatbeginswiththemeaningofthemarking:
Peter:Butinteresting,scorrevolesenzarigore,Iamnotquiteentirelyclear
whatkindofspeedthisis…
Jeremy:NoIamnotentirelyclear,IthinkIamactuallysteppingback
fromthatone[laughter],butthereisatapepartandyoudon’thave
to…wellthereisnoonetempo,butitmaysuggestsome…
Peter:Doesitstart?Interestingthing,Iamnotclearfromhere,does….?
Aah,thetapeisstartedimmediatelybeforetheplayerbegins,that’sasort
P a g e |25
ofvisualcue,that’saninterestingthing,thatmeansintermsofoperator
wehavetohavevisual…
Jeremy:Orinfactyoucould…Icouldredoit:youcouldsimplystart.The
personinthewingswillseeyoustartandpressthebutton,youdon’t
needtoworryaboutthat…47
Intheturn-takingbetweenthemusicians,alooselydirectivedialogueestablishes
asharedunderstandingofthepiece.48Inthefourturns,theconversationmoves
betweenaseriesofclarifications,questionsandanswersthatleadtoa‘solution’.
Whatseemed,priortothisconversation,tohavebeenasettleddecisionforthe
composerabouthowtostartthemovement,becomesadecisionthatarisesfrom
in-the-momentquestioningandanswering.Theambivalenceandindirectnessin
thisinteractionisimportantinallowingarelativelyimprovisedflowofdialogue
tosetupanoutcomepreviouslyunanticipatedbyeitheroftheparticipants,the
creativeresponsibilityforwhichcannoteasilybeascribedtoeitherindividual:
althoughJeremysuggeststhechange(theviolinratherthanthecomputer
startingthepiece)bysaying‘Icouldredoit’,thisonlyemergesfromPeter’s
promptingandquestioning.Thecreativeideaemergesfromaseriesofnotquite
formedopportunitiesfordecision-makingoraction.
Theambivalenceorhalf-formednessthatpervadesthisinteractionallows
foraproductiveindeterminacyintheflowoftheconversation,andpointstothe
valueofindirectspeechinsuchaworkingrelationship.Jeremyspecifically
commentedonhowincertaincircumstancesitisvaluabletobesomewhat
circumspectwhenmakingcomments:
[I]fyousay‘Don’tdoitlikethat,doitlikethis’thereisalwaysariskthat
theresultwillbeaslightlyartificialoranovercompensatedthing.For
example,withachoir,ifsomethingisabittooloudlet’ssay,andyousay
‘Canyoudothatabitquieter?’,ifyoudon’tfindtherightwayofsayingit,
veryoftenyoufindthatit’sthenpianissimowhichisnotwhatyouwanted
atall;youjustwantedit‘atinybitquieter’.49
Thecollaborativecharacteroftheconversationisassistedbythewayinwhich
Jeremyrefrainsfrommakinganystrongstatementsabouthowthepieceshould
go,thoughenoughisdonetomaintainasenseofdirectionandcontrol;andthe
interchangeillustratesPeterandJeremy’swillingnesstobeflexibleintheirroles
inordertomakethemostofthejointmusicalproject.
Thisdesiretobeflexibleandyettomakesenseoftheirrolesasperformer
andcomposerinthiscreativeinteractionisfurtherexemplifiedbythefollowing
stretchofdialoguetowardtheendofthefirstworkshop,whichalsoresultedina
significantchangetothepiece.
47FromW1.48WeusethetermdirectivehereverybroadlyfollowingSearle’stypologyofspeechacts–
assertives,directives,commissives,expressivesanddeclaratives.Directivesarethosetypesof
speechinwhichthespeakerexpressesthedesirefortheaddresseetodosomething.Thissortof
speechincludesadvice,questions,requestsaswellasdirectorders.SeeJohnR.Searle,‘A
TaxonomyofIllocutionaryActs’,MinnesotaStudiesinthePhilosophyofScience7:Language,Mind
andKnowledge,ed.KeithGunderson(Minnesota,1975),344-369.49FromI3.
P a g e |26
Jeremy:Good,wellIhaveaquestionwhichishowdoesthiswholepiece,
thewholesetofmovementsend?Moregenerally,doyouhaveanidea
abouttheorder?IthinkIamgettinganideaabouttheorderofthingsbut
howisitgoingtoend?
Peter:Idon’tthinkweknowyet,dowe,becausetheinterestingthing[is],
whatwehavegothereisthisideaofthe‘breathbeforetheplunge’thing,
oftheinvocation…Iamnotsurewhichofthevoicesaregoingtoendup
speakingorwhetherweneedtofindawayofbringingitalltogetherinto
asortofthingwhichdriftsoffintotheether;itdependswhetherit’s
earth-boundorwhichdirectionitisgoing.
Jeremy:True,true.
Peter:It’salwayswhetheryouwanttodoakindof‘closethedoorwitha
thud’orwhetheryouwanttoleaveitdriftingbecauseonethingisdoesn’t
doyet,it’sworththinkingabout,isintermsoftessitura–it’sabitnarrow
atthemoment.
Jeremy:True,it’salllow.50
Byposingthequestion‘howdoesthiswholepiece…end?’Jeremyopenedoutthe
compositionaldecision-makingandsolicitedideasfromPeter.AsaresultJeremy
madesubsequentrefinementstothefinalmovementofthepiece(‘Amongvoices
ii’),movingtheviolintoahigherregisterasPetersuggested.Thedirectionofthe
questioninginthisexampleistheconverseofthepreviousexchange,where
Peterhadaskedmoretargetedquestionsabouttempoandthepracticalitiesof
performance.Inthissecondexample,changeoccursthroughamorespeculative
processthatisledbyPeter,andwhilebothJeremyandPeterareclearlyawareof
theirrolesascomposerandperformer,thecollaborationatthispointseemsto
enactahighlevelofparticipation:indeed,afewmomentslaterPetercomments
onthisandtheconventionaliseddivisionoflabourinmusic:
Peter:AslongasIhavegotthismaterialandifyoudon’tmindmemaking
suggestions.
Jeremy:NoofcourseIdon’t.
Peter:Becausethatisthethresholdthing,ofcourse,therearelotsof
composerswhogononononono…51
Theseinstancesareexamplesofthetypeofdialoguethroughwhich
changesinthepieceareactualisedthroughcollaborationbetweenthepartners,
andinaninterviewfollowingthepremièreJeremydescribedPeter’srolein
helpingtoestablishtheoverallshapeofthepieceinthefollowingterms:
Peterismakingdifferentkindsofconnectionseverytime;makingphrases
soundlikeeachotherorrefertoeachotherbetweendifferentmovements
andgettingasenseofthearchitectureofthewholething,whichcame
togetherinafairlyadhocwaybutIthinkhasdefinitelyfounditsright
shape.….It’sashapewhichnowfeelsverycomposedtome,eventhough
50FromW1.51FromW1.
P a g e |27
itwasn’tplanned;itwasmorejustevolvedandworkedoutaccordingto
whatseemedlikeasensibleidea.52
Thisdoesnotimplythatcreative-talknecessarilyresultsinchange,northatitis
overwhelminglydirectedtowards‘problemsolving’.Itssignificanceliesin
settingupafieldofpossibilities,whichmightormightnotresultintangible
differenceswithinthepiece.Fromthisperspective,andinthelightofwhat
IngoldandHallamrefertoasa‘forwardslooking’approachtocreativity,the
significanceoftheinteractionsliesmuchmoreinincrementalmovestowardsa
sharedunderstandingthanininnovation.53
Face-talk
Ourunderstandingofcreative-talk,isnotthatitisjustaboutthework,butthatit
isintendedtoenactchangeandmovementinthecollaboration.However,
collaborationalsoinvolvesthedevelopmentofarelationship.Collaboratorshave
togainoneanother’strustandrespect,asJeremyrecognizedinaninterview
ninemonthsaftertheinitialworkshop.
Sometimesthereisthisslightlydefensiveandtensestarttoarelationship
whereyou’rethinkingpeopleareassessingyou,thinking‘Canthey
actuallydotheirjob?’,andthereforeyouwanttopresentsomethingthat
showsthatyoucandoyourjob.Andthereforeit’sreasonabletoexpect
thattheytheplayerswilldotheirjobinreturn.Soyouhavetoshowthat
professionalfrontonlywhenthereisthat;Imean,veryoftenitisfriendly
andinthatcaseIwouldnotwanttomakeabigfussaboutthisatall.But
sometimesthereisalittlebitofafeelingatthebeginning,andsothere’s
that.Butalsotakingthatslightlyawkwardthingoutoftheequation,Ifeel
asacomposerthereisakindofobligationbothtotheplayersand
ultimatelytothelisteners,thepublic,thatyoushouldgivethem
somethingthatisworthhearing.That’sacrucialthingreally.54
Languageisusednotonlytomovetheworktowardsanoutcome,asdiscussed
earlier,butalsofortheconstructionandmaintenanceofthecollaborative
relationshipitself.HereweborrowfromErvingGoffman’sworkon‘face’tolook
athowtheprotagonistsachieveanecessarysocialunderstandingintheir
interacting,whichwedescribeasface-talk.55Incontrasttothe‘social-talk’that
occupiedsomeoftheworkshoptimeandwhoselocutionarycontentisexplicitly
notaboutthework,face-talkistemporallyco-existentwithcreative-talk–itis
wovenintotheconversationalexchangesasanadditionallaminationorplane.
Thenotionsoffaceandface-workwithinsocialinteractiondescribethe
seeminglyuniversalneed(althoughitmaybeaccomplishedinculturallydiverse
ways)tocreateconditionsofmutualesteem,manageimpressionsofselfto
others,andpreserveinteractionalcohesionthroughformsofpolitenessandthe
52FromI2.53IngoldandHallam,Introduction,CreativityandCulturalImprovisation.54FromI3.55Foranintroductionoftheideaofface-work,seeErvingGoffman,‘OnFace-work:ananalysisof
ritualelementsinsocialinteraction’,Psychiatry,18/3(1955),213-231.
P a g e |28
useofdisclaimersandjustificationsthatpreserveselfimageinpublic.56Face-
workhasbeendefinedvariouslyas‘asetofcoordinatedpracticesinwhich
communicatorsbuild,maintain,protect,orthreatenpersonaldignity,honor,and
respect’,57andthe‘communicativestrategiesoneusestoenactself-faceandto
uphold,support,orchallengeanotherperson'sface’.58Facecanthereforebe
broadlydefinedastheco-constructedpublicself-imagethatisintendedtoafford
smoothrunningsocialinteraction.
Inanintimateencountersuchasthis,thereisaconsiderableneedforthe
participantstoattendtofaceandtheeffectsoffaceonthecourseofthe
interaction.Theinhabitingofroleisparticularlysalienthere:composersand
performersoperatewithinwell-defined,historically-weightedworking
relationships,andyetwithinacollaborationtheseboundariesmaybetestedin
differentways,andthemomentaryconductbetweenthemusiciansmay
reinforceorchallengetheseconventionalisedroles.Thereareanumberofways
inwhichtheface-to-faceinteractionbetweenJeremyandPetershowsthem
fulfillingtheneedtomaintainaproductiveenvironmentfortheworktotake
place.Throughouttheirconversations,therearenumerousinterjectionsbyone
ortheotherthatservenottoisolateoranalysespecificcreativeconcerns,but
themoreglobalpurposeofallowingthecreativeengagementtobeaccomplished
withouttoomuchemotionalcostoranxiety.Expressionsofthanks,praise,and
interestallappearthroughoutthedialogueandsetupconditionsinwhichboth
partiescanestablishmutualconfidenceandtrust.
Peter:It’sgoingtobeveryinterestingtoworkwiththis,Iamreally
enjoyingit…59
Jeremy:Howaboutthat?Fantastic,thankyou…Yeahsuperb,absolutely
superb,yeah,andthephraseswiththepauseswiththem,meanthatthe
timingworks.60
Butface-talkintheregulatedcreativemilieuofcontemporaryconcert
musicnotonlyinvolvesreciprocalgestures–compliments,encouragementsand
expressionsofthanks–importantthoughtheseareinanyworkingrelationship;
italsodemandstheactivepresentationofcompetenceinone’scraft,vitaltothe
developmentofaworkingrelationship,asJeremymakesclear.‘Youwanttoget
tothepointthat[theperformers]starttofeel“Thisisgoodmusic.Thisisworth
mywhile.I’mactuallyenjoyingitabit.”Youwanttogettothatpointasquickly
aspossible,becausethenofcoursetheirgenerositykicksin…’61Jeremypoints
56PenelopeBrownandStephenLevinson,Politeness:someuniversalsinlanguageusage
(Cambridge,1987);ErvingGoffman,InteractionRitual:essaysonface-to-facebehaviour,(Garden
City,NY,1967);Hsien-ChinHu,‘TheChineseConceptof‘Face’,AmericanAnthropologist,46
(1944),45-64.57KathyDomeniciandStephenW.Littlejohn,Facework:bridgingtheoryandpractice(Thousand
Oaks,CAandLondon,2006),p10.58JohnG.Oetzel,StellaTing-Toomey,YumikoYokochi,TomokoMasumoto
andJiroTakai,‘Atypologyoffaceworkbehaviorsinconflictswithbestfriendsandrelative
strangers’,CommunicationQuarterly,48/4(2000),397-419,p.398.59FromW1.60FromW2.2.61FromI3.
P a g e |29
outthatitisimportantforhimtoestablishhiscompetenceandasenseofmutual
trustatanearlystageinacollaborativeproject,manifestnotonlyintalkbutin
thepresentationofmusicalmaterials.HewasconcernedtoensurethatPeter
hadasenseofhiscompositionalcredentialsbeforehetackled‘Amongvoices’,a
movementaboutwhichJeremyinitiallyhadasignificantdegreeofanxiety.
Inasense,writing‘Invocation’wasasortofcomfortandsafetynetfor
me,becauseit’satraditionalpieceofunaccompaniedviolinmusicreally.
It’sanormalscore;Iwritetherhythms,thedynamics,thephrases,andI
leavepauses.AndatthatfirstworkshopIhadn’tfilledinanyofthepauses
…sowejusthadsilenceswhenweranitthroughintheworkshop.ButI
didthatfirst,becauseIneededtheconfidence.Ihadn’tyetgotthe
confidencetoknowthattheotherbitsweregoingtowork,andIthought
‘TostartwithIcangivePeteraproperbitofmusic,andhecanseethatI
knowhowtoputnotesoneaftertheother.’Iwasfairlysureitwould
workinastraightforwardwayandthereforethathewouldstarttotrust
me,andIthought‘Actuallythat’squiteimportant.’Iwasn’texpectingit
[‘Amongvoices’]toworkandIhelditbackonthefirstworkshopuntil
afteracoupleofotherswhichIthoughtweresafer,justsothathe[Peter]
wouldn’tthinkIwasacompleteidiot…Iwasreallyembarrassedabout
handinghimthepagebecauseitlookedlikethemusicalequivalentofa
telephonedirectory.Itwasjustaseriesofblackpitcheswithatrebleclef.
Ithoughthewouldbeswitchedoffbyit.62
‘Invocation’ontheotherhandwasfullywritten,andincontrasttothemuch
moreimprovisedqualityofmostoftherestofthepiece,laymostwithinJeremy’s
compositionalcontrol.ForJeremy,theoriginaldecisiontowriteaworkthat
incorporatedasignificantelementofimprovisationrepresentedachallengeto
hiscraft,notonlyintermsofthedifficultyofmakingthatwork,butalsothe
relinquishingofcontroltotheperformer.‘Invocation’thereforeservednotonly
asademonstrationofcompetencetoPeter,butalsoaremindertoJeremy
himselfofhiscompetenceandcraft.Face-workhereisnotonlyamatteroftalk
butofthepresentationofselfthroughcraftedmaterialsandpractices.
RichardSennettpointsoutthat‘craft’emphasisesthepersonal
judgement,skillandmaterialconsciousnessthatgoesintoproducinggoods;63
butincollaborativework,craftassumesamorerhetorical,persuasivecharacter
ascollaboratorstrytounderstandoneanotherthroughthesharedcraftingofa
pieceofwork.Competenceconstitutesthepublicassertionofone’sright‘tobe
there’aswellastheincrementaldevelopmentandmaintenanceofcraft,and
competentworkisnotonlyamatterofself-satisfactionbutofacquiringsocial
capitalwithinaworkingrelationship.Face-talkinthiskindofencounter
thereforefunctionsnotonlytopreserveacertainmutualrespect,butalsoto
promotethesenseofcompetencethatisvitaltothesuccessnotonlyofthe
personalinteractionbutalsoofthecreativeoutcome.
Asastrikingexampleofthiscomplexintertwiningof‘competence’,a
senseofpersonalanddisciplinaryhistory,andthematerialityofhisprofession,
62FromI2.63SeeRichardSennett,TheCraftsman(London,2008).
P a g e |30
considerthiscommentonthenatureofcraftfromPeter’sinterviewafterthe
firstperformanceofOuija:
[Craftis]thepassingonofbothanoralandatactiletradition…,literally
thelayingonofhands.Youpasssomethingon…MyteacherwasLouis
KrasnerwhocommissionedtheBergconcertoandpremièredthe
Schoenbergconcerto;andhisteacherwasLucienCapetwhoworkedwith
RavelandDebussy;andhisteacherwasJean-PierreMaurinwhoinvited
WagnertocoachhisquartetplayingBeethoven.HisteacherwasPierre
Baillot,oneofthetroikaofviolinistswhofoundedtheParis
Conservatoire;whoseteacherwasViotti,whowasMarie-Antoinette’s
violinist;whoseteacherwasPugnani;whoseteacherwasCorelli.And
thenyousay‘Where’stheevidenceofthecraft?’AndIwouldsay‘Oneof
theevidencesofthecraft?What’sthethingwespendallofourtime(if
youteachchildren–whichIdon’t)tryingtostopthemdoing?Itismaking
thedown-bowlouderthantheup-bow.’Andthenwhenpeoplestart
playingseventeenth-andeighteenth-centurymusicwehavetore-train
themtodoit,becausethat’sabsolutelyfundamental,thatisthenatureof
thebeast.That’sthecraft.64
Containedwithinthisrichstatementisbothadeclarationofa‘lineage’,andan
expressionoftheembodied(‘oral’,‘tactile’),practical(bowings)andeven
spiritual(‘thelayingonofhands’)componentsofPeter’sviolinisticidentity.Just
asitiscommonpracticeforaperformers’biographiestolisttheirteachers,so
herePeterprovidesaglimpseofthehugelyramifiednetworkof
players/teachers,andassociatedcomposersandinstitutionsthatinformsand
animateshisownplaying.Thissenseofhisownpositioninawebofhistoryand
praxisconstitutesacentralfeatureofhisverbalandmusicalinteractionwith
Jeremy–withreferencesrangingfromthefilm-makerEisensteintoRenaissance
paintingandawholecatalogueofcomposersandpiecesthat,forhim,make
someconnectiontoOuija.Thesereferencesattimesinformstrategiesforvery
immediateaspectsofPeter’sengagementwiththepiece(sound,phrasing,his
improvisedmaterial),andatothertimestheyconstituteaframeworkwithin
whichtoorganisehisown–andperhapsJeremy’s–emergingunderstandingof
whatthepieceisandhisownrolewithinit.AsPeterobservedinthefirst
workshop,whenJeremyelaboratedontheséanceideabehindOuija:‘…[W]hat
youhavedoneformeimmediatelyisyouhaveactuallyansweredthequestionI
wastryingtoaskatlunch–whichis“whatamIdoingthere?”...’65
‘Inside/outside’theroom
Bothcreative-talkandface-talkderivemuchoftheirpowerfromtheimmediacy
ofdirectinteractionsinthehereandnow.Butthetalkthatgoesonalsolocates
theworkwithinculturalplaceandtime.Thewaysinwhichtheparticipants
contextualisetheirworkbyinvokingtexts,practices,andpeoplepointstoa
continuousdialecticbetweenanypresentimprovisedmomentandtheinvoked
pastinshapingon-goingculturalcreativity.Wehavecharacterisedthiscultural
indexation,establishingvariousformsofcontextforthecreativeencounter,as 64FromI1.65FromW1.
P a g e |31
‘inside/outsidetheroom’.Forexample,considerPeter’sfirstplay-throughof
‘Invocation’,inwhichheimmediatelymakesacommentaboutbothnarrative
andperformativeconnectionsthatheisawareofmaking,andaspecific
referencethathepicksupinthewrittenmaterial.
Peter:Withthis,asIamplayingIhadawholemessofideas–sofirstof
allwestartedwith…[plays]IalmosthadaScheherazadekindofthing
goingon,thestorytellingwhichis[sings]butthenthis,whichis
interesting–whetheritisdeliberateornot,[plays]that’sBergviolin
concertoofcourse.66
Andsimilarly,laterinthesameworkshop,afterthefirsttry-outof‘Underthe
shadowofwings’:
Jeremy:Well,thereisakindofBachianthingthere.
Peter:It’saBachianthing;Itisanadagiowitha[sings]…[plays]
Jeremy:It’sthatsortofthing…yeahandit’sadagiosoalthoughtheyare
actuallyfairlyfastnotes,it’swithinaverybroadslowkindoftempo.
Peter:SoyouaretellingusalotaboutyourBach.
Jeremy:Soit’sanoldRomanticnineteenthcenturykindofBach,yes.67
Thesetwoexamplesillustratedifferentformsofculturalconnectionthat
focusonmusical(andsometimesextra-musical)referencesaspartofthe
dialogue.Inapiecethatisnovelinconceptionandincorporatesasignificant
elementofimprovisation,theuseofinter-textualreferencesseemedtoplaya
particularlycrucialrole:thepointsatwhichthedialoguemovedtomusical
quotationsandreferencesoftenseemedtocreateculturalmodelsthatprovided
asharedinterpretativeplatformforJeremyandPeter,andhelpedeitherto
anchorimprovisedpassages(e.g.thereferencetoBach)ortomovethe
compositionalframeworkforwards–sometimesinanunanticipatedfashion.
ThereferencetoBerg,ratherthanidentifyingapositiveconnection,prompted
Jeremytore-writethepassagethatcontainedthisreference,soastoeliminateit.
Afterwedidthisrun-though,Petersaidofthisbitthathe’splayingnow,
thatitwasratherliketheBergviolinconcerto,becauseit’sgotthiswide-
spreadfigureacrossfourstringslikethewaytheBergopens.Andhe’s
right,thoughIhadn’tparticularlymeantit;itwasanunconsciousfinding.
Notquiteaclichébutakindofready-madething,becauseIdidwritethis
pieceveryquickly.IseemtorememberIwroteitthedaybeforethe
workshop.AndIthought:Idon’tmindputtingabigBergquotationin
thereforagoodreasonandreallymakinguseofitinthepiece.It’snot
thatI’veanythingagainstthat,butifI’mgoingtodoitIwanttodoitfora
reasonandreallyuseitinthepiece.Whereasasitis,it’snotthereforany
particularreason,andIdon’tmakeanyfurtheruseofit.Soit’sabit
randomandloose.SoIactuallymoreorlessgotridofit.Thereisatrace
66FromW1.67FromW1.
P a g e |32
ofthisbitleftinthefinalversionbutitsoundsmuchlessliketheBerg
violinconcerto,andit’smuchshorter.68
Inanessayonmusicalsociabilitybetweenjazzmusiciansinrehearsal,
ByronDueckhaslookedattherelationsbetweentheintimaciesofrehearsaland
theimaginedmusicalpublicsthatlieoutsidetheconfinesoftheroombutarein
dialoguewiththeface-to-faceworkofthemusicians.69Dueckdescribestheway
inwhichagroupofyoungmusiciansmakeuseofformulaicmusicalscriptsin
endingajazzstandard,providingapictureoftherelationshipbetweenaesthetic
discourse,identityandmusicalpraxisintheinterplaybetweenface-to-face
intimacyandtheirimaginingsofthepublicaspectofthemusicalscriptsthatthey
use.Inasimilarway,dialoguethatreferencesmaterials,personsandpractices
outsidetheroom,aswellastheimmediatereferencestothesethingsinthe
room,bringsoutthemesh-likequalitiesofcreativityasdistributedovertime,
materials(notations,images,instruments),andpeople.Asdemonstratedin
Dueck’sstudy,theintimatespaceofrehearsalopensoutintoamorepublic
imaginedsphere,andatthesametimealsoprovidesanopportunityforthe
converseprocesstotakeplace:asweseeherewithPeterandJeremy,various
distalassociationsintensifyandenrichtheimmediatemannerinwhichthetwo
musiciansunderstandthepiece.
Talkisonlyoneelementofthemusicians’dialogue,andPeterfrequently
useshisviolin(aswellassingingandgesturing)asanothersignificant‘voice’in
theconversation.StevenFeldwritesof‘Music'spoeticde-referentializingof
language’,70butintheseinterchanges,theuseofmusicalsoundcanattimes
becomedenotationallyveryexplicit:atonepointearlyinthefirstworkshop,
Peterdemonstratesasuccessionofplayingstyles,eachofwhichoffers
possibilitiesfortheperformance.
Peter:YoustartedtalkingaboutJellyd’ArányisoimmediatelyIstarted
thinkingabouthowmuchyouwantedittobe[playsinoneway],or[plays
anotherway],or[playsanotherway]-whichisherofcourseaswell…
BecausepartofwhatIamthinkingis…howmuchfreedomIhavegotto
movebetweennotes,or…or…or..[playsfouroptionsonviolin].71
Toplayasinglesoundorsetofsoundsforcomparison,andtoknowthatyour
collaboratorunderstandswhateachoneofthemmeans,dependsonthesortof
confidence-buildingthatwehavediscussedaspartofface-talk.Playing,asa
kindofreferentialshorthand,worksverywellonlyifyourcollaboratorcan
interpretit;soalthoughthissortofinter-textualreferencecanbeunderstoodas
amovetowardspublicness,theuseofamusicalsign(aspecificsoundonthe
violin)asopposedtoalinguisticsign,(anexplicitdescriptionofaplayingstyle),
makesthisamomentofinsiderunderstanding.Themusicalreferentmaybe
68FromI3.69ByronDueck,‘JazzEndings,AestheticDiscourseandMusicalPublics’,BlackMusicResearch
Journal,33(2013),91-115.70StevenFeldandAaronFox,‘MusicandLanguage’,AnnualReviewofAnthropology,23(1994),
25-53,(p.43).71FromW1.
P a g e |33
explicit,butthecodeisrestrictedtothatin-groupofmusicianswhocanpickit
up.
Insummary,theuseof‘outsidetheroom’musicalreferenceshasahostof
implicationsforthecreativeprocess.First,itsetsuptheconditionsformaking
progressintheworkshopsthemselves:byshorthandreferencestoother
violinists,composersandfragmentsofmusicthatappearedin,orresembled
materialsinthepiece,notonlywereimmediateproblemsclarified,butthelarger
directionoftheworkwasnegotiatedbymeansofthese‘external’signifiers.The
recognitionofawebofotherworksandcomposersthatradiatedoutfromthe
pieceseemedparticularlyimportantinmakingsenseofthemusicforPeter,and
–althoughJeremycouldnothaveknowninadvancethatthiswouldbethecase
–isparticularlyaptforapiecethattakesasitspoeticideatheinvocationand
explorationofawebof‘otherworldly’musicalreferences.Butreferences
outsidetheroomalsocontributedtothecreationofanintimateworking
relationship:talkingandplayingthatindexedpeopleormusicoutsidetheroom
notonlyfedtheimmediateprojectwithmaterialthatsteeredthedirectionofthe
work,butalsoprovidedopportunitiesforface-work.Insharinganimaginedpast
andidentifyingtheircommonmusicalhistories,theparticipantshelptoshapea
relationshipinthepresentanddisplaycompetentknowledgeofthewiderfield
inwhichtheywork.Havinglaidoutwaysinwhichtalkcreatesboththe
conditionsforcollaborationaswellasactualisingmaterialchangesinthework,
thenextsectionadoptsacomplementaryperspective,andexamines
quantitativelythematerialchangesthatoccurredinthemusicoverthecourseof
thecollaboration.
MaterialChangesinOuijaInthequantitativeanalysisthatfollows,wefocusonchangesintiminginthe
openingpassagesof‘Invocation’(INV),‘Amongvoices’(AV),and‘Underthe
shadowofwings’(USW).Asalreadynoted,thesethreemovementsprovidean
opportunitytocomparemusicthatisfullynotated,rhythmicallyimprovised,and
fullyimprovised.Thethreemovementsdifferconsiderablyinlength(INVis
between2and3minutesinduration,AVandUSWarebothbetween5and6
minutes),andtheanalysesthatfollowarebasedonthefirst14barsofINV,the
first24barsofAV,andthefirst180secondsofUSW.Thefocusontiming
excludesconsiderationofdynamicshaping,therelationshipwiththelaptoppart,
orthepitchcontentofPeter’simprovisationinUSW,butprovidesoneparticular
perspectiveonchangeanddevelopmentinthepieceovertime.
‘Invocation’
Itiscommoninempiricalinvestigationsofperformancetoexpresstiming
variationsasdeviationsfromthenotatedrhythmicvalues,andtoexpressthese
deviationsproportionallyinrelationtothenotatedvalues.72However,because
thenotatedrhythmicvaluesofINVwereinterpretedveryfreelybyPeter,itis
questionablewhetherthisapproach,whichimplicitlytakesthescoreasanorm,
isappropriate.73Oneconsequenceoftheproportionalapproachisthatchanges
72SeeEricClarke‘EmpiricalMethodsintheStudyofPerformance’,EmpiricalMusicology:Aims,
Methods,Prospects,ed.EricClarkeandNicholasCook(Oxford,2004),77-102.73Thelimitationsofregardingthescoreasspecifyingan‘inexpressiveperformance’and
departuresfromthescoreasameasureofexpressivenesshavebeenwidelypointedout
P a g e |34
inthedurationofshortnotesoftenappearlargeandchangesinthedurationof
longnotesdisproportionallysmall(alengtheningofe.g.30msisaconsiderable
proportionofashortnote,butonlyasmallfractionofalongnote).74Ananalysis
ofvariationsinlocaltempoatbeatlevelavoidsthisproblemofscale,but
requiresinterpolationintheabsenceofnoteonsetsonbeats.ThescoreofINV
(seeabove,Ex.1)demonstratesthatthemusicconsistspredominantlyofgroups
ofrelativelyshortnotesfollowedbyoneorsometimestwolongernoteswithina
loosemetricalframework,somewhatlikearecitative.Ouranalysistherefore
focusesontheabsolutedurationofsuccessiveunits,alternatingbetweenunits
comprisingoneormorelongnotes,andunitscomprisingoneormoreshort
notes,ThisgroupingofnotesisshowninthenumberingoftheunitsinExample
4.Figure3showstheabsolutedurationsoftheinter-unitintervalsinthefirst14
barsofINV.Theonsetsofunitswasmanuallyidentifiedintheaudiorecordingof
eachplaying75usingtheaudioanalysissoftwarePRAAT.
Example4:Startof‘Invocation’,indicatingtheunitsidentifiedfortiminganalysis.
74SeeReneeTimmersandHenkjanHoning,‘Onmusicperformance,theories,measurementand
diversity’,inMartaBelardinelli(Ed.)CognitiveProcessing,SpecialIssueofInternationalQuarterly
ofCognitiveSciences,1-2(2002),1-19.75Weusetheword‘playings’toreferbothtorehearsalrun-throughsandtrue(public)
performances.
P a g e |35
Figure3.Absolutevaluesofinter-groupintervalsinfourplayingsofInvocation:W1(A);
W2(B);P1(C);andP4(D).ThedatapointoutofrangeinpanelD(unit35)hasavalue
of14.46s.
Anobviousfeatureofthetimingprofilesarethelargepeaksinduration
(thelastofwhichconcludestheextract)thatrelatetothefournotatedpausesin
themusicalexcerpt,whichareparticularlypronouncedinthetwopublic
performances(PanelsCandD).ForJeremy,thesepausesareparticularly
significantforthemeaningofthisopeningmovementasheexplainsonanumber
ofoccasions.Having‘calledoutintotheunknown’,theviolinistshouldwaitfor
thespiritstostarttorespond:‘So[in]thepauses…youarehopingsomethingis
goingtohappen;andeventuallysomethingwillcomeback…Youaretheone
whostartstheconversation.’76.Overthecourseofthesefourplayings,the
durationofeachpauserelativetotheprecedingphraseincreasesconsiderably,
reflectingtheincreasingrhetoricalimportanceofthe‘listening’thatfollowseach
ofPeter’s‘invocations’.Table3furtherillustratesthisbyshowingthe
proportionalvalueofthedurationofthepauseinrelationtothedurationofthe
phrasethatprecedesit,demonstratingtheconsiderableincreaseinthisvaluefor
P1andP4comparedtotheworkshops.
Pause/Phrase W1 W2 P1 P4
1 0.162 0.233 0.326 0.345
2 0.099 0.146 0.428 0.510
3 0.174 0.199 0.372 0.909
76FromW1.
P a g e |36
4 0.143 0.163 0.312 0.243
Table3:Proportionalvalueofthedurationofapauseinrelationtothetotaldurationof
theprecedingphrase.
Apartfromthechangeinthedurationofthepauses,theinter-unit
interval(IUI)valueschangeverylittle:cross-correlationsbetweenthetiming
profiles–excludingthepeaksrelatedtothepauses–indicatethatingeneralthe
patternofIUIvaluesisveryconsistentacrossperformances,withPearson
correlationcoefficientsallabove.858(p<.0001,N=46).77Thisconsistencyis
basedontheabsolutedurationofthemusicalunitsasalreadynoted,andcan
thereforebeattributedinparttovariationsinthenotateddurationoftheunits,
(whichisconstantforallplayings).Iftheunitdurationsarenormalisedwith
respecttothenotateddurations(bydividingthemeasureddurationsbythe
scorevaluesoftheunits),thevariationattributablesimplytoscoredurationsis
‘filteredout’.Thecross-correlationsbetweennormalisedtimingprofilesare
lower,butareallstillstrong(greaterthan.7).Withinthisoverallfigure,the
normalisedtimingpatternsforthetworehearsalplayingsarerelativelystrongly
correlatedwithoneanother(r=.794,N=46),asarethetwoconcert
performances(r=.813,N=46),suggestingthatPeteradoptsdistincttiming
strategies(lessandmorerhetorical,respectively)underthetwoplaying
circumstances.
Onenoticeablechangeacrosstheplayingsistherelativedurationof
shorterandlongernotes.Intheabsolutetimingoftheunits,thereisaclear
distinctionbetweenshorterandlongerunits,inresponsetotherhythmic
gesturesnotatedinthescore.Thisisreflectedinapositivecorrelationbetween
thenotatedvaluesandperformeddurations(seeTable4).Inamechanical
performancethisvaluewouldbe1(indicatingperfectagreementbetween
notatedandplayedvalues),whichisclearlynotthecaseforP1andP4.Instead,
shorternotatedunitsareplayedrelativelylong,whilelongernotatedunitsare
playedrelativelyshort.Thisisapparentfromanegativecorrelationbetweenthe
notateddurationandthenormalisedplayedduration,indicatingthatwith
increasednotateddurationtheproportional(normalised)durationoftheplayed
valuesbecomesrelativelyshort(seeTable4).Thisnegativecorrelationis
particularlystronginP1andP4.
CorrelationwithAbsoluteIUI CorrelationwithNormalisedIUI
W1 .922*** -.501**
W2 .929*** -.470*
P1 .822*** -.705***
P4 .823*** -.709***
*p<.01;**p<.001;***p<.0001;N=46
Table4:Cross-correlationbetweenscoredurationsandabsolute(left)ornormalised
(right)playedinter-unit-intervals(IUI).
77Acorrelationcoefficientmeasuresthelinearrelationshipbetweentwosetsofnumerical
values,andrangesfrom+1(perfectlypositivecovariance)through0(norelationship)to-1(a
perfectinversecovariance).Theanalysesdiscussedherearebasedon46datapoints,excluding
thefourdatapointsforthepauses.Thestatisticalsignificancevalue(pvalue)indicatesthatthis
associationisstronglyreliable(veryunlikelytobebasedonchance).
P a g e |37
ThisanalysisindicatesthattheoveralltemporalpatternofINVisfairly
consistentoverthefourplayings,asindicatedbythehighcross-correlations
betweentimingprofiles,exceptthatthesilencesbecomelongerinP1andP4,
andthecontrastbetweenshortandlongdurationsbecomesprogressively
smaller.Thesechangesresultinalessmetricalandmorerhythmically
homogeneousplayingofthemusic(smallercontrastsbetweenlongandshort
notes),inwhichthesilencesplayasignificantlymoreprominentrole.
InJeremy’sandPeter’sdiscussionsofthismovement,theinterpretationof
thepausesandotherexpressivegestureswasaddressedonanumberof
occasions.Asalreadynoted,inthefirstrehearsalPeteremphasisedthevarietyof
waysinwhichhecouldperformtheopeninggesturesofthemovementandthe
tonecolourthathemightadopt,whileJeremyreturnedtotheideaof
‘invocation’,andencouragedPetertothinkintermsofbeingamediumandof
theattempttostartaconversationwiththespirits.Anditisthisconceptual
underpinningthatseemstodrivethedevelopmentofthemovement,asthe
followingcommentsfromthefirstworkshopindicate.
Jeremy:Eachofthesephrasesisactuallysortoftentative…
Peter:OK,sothisislikethereisaformalgesturethatstartsitandnowwe
begin;thenstuffhappensafterthat.
Andlater:
Peter:Iamveryexcitedaboutthiswholemediumthing…Therearetwo
bigAndréJolivetpiecesforsoloviolin…[whichhave]thatthingthatJolivet
loved–kindofinvocationactually.Hebelieveditwasthejobofaplayerto
summonupevilspirits,andPan,andslaveringgodsandeverything…78
‘Amongvoices’
Thesemi-determinatescoreof‘Amongvoices’,showninExample2,consistsofa
seriesofmotivicunitseachmadeupofagroupofshortnotesandalongnote.As
theperformancenotesinthescoreindicate,79andreiteratedbyJeremyinthe
firstworkshop,theperformerisexpectedtophrasetheseunitsinvariousways:
‘Iwouldlikethephrasestorunacrossseveralbars,[…].Youknow,sometimes
it’sfour,sometimesit’sfive,three,anditdoesn’thavetostartatthebeginningof
theline,itcanoverlaptheline.’80Thesedifferentphraselengthscanbeachieved
throughtempomodulation,andvariationofthedurationofthelongnotes
(keepingsomeofthemrelativelyshorttopreserveforwardmomentum),the
resultsofwhichareshowninFigure4.Duetothestrictalternationbetweena
groupofshortnotesandalongnote,theodd-numberedunitsinFigure4always
relatetothesummeddurationofagroupofshortnotes(short-noteunits–SNU),
whiletheeven-numberedunitsindicatethedurationofindividualnotesnotated
aslonginthescore(long-noteunits–LNU).Thenumberofnoteswithineach
78FromW1.79Thenotesinthescoreread:‘Barsshouldnotbetreatedasseparatephrases,butjoined
togetherinlongerphrasescomprisingseveralbars(sometimes3,sometimes4,5...).Theselarger
phrasescanendwithlongernotes(dottedminims,semibreves,etc.)andmaybefollowedby
rests.’80FromW1.
P a g e |38
Figure4.Timeintervalsbetweensuccessiveunits(groupsofshortnotes,andindividual
longnotes)inthefirst24barsforplayingsof‘Amongvoices’:W1(A);W2(B);P1(C);
andP4(D).Startofthelaptopmusicisindicatedwithanarrow.InA(firstrun-through)
thelaptopstartsbeforetheviolin;inpanelC(firstperformance)thelaptopplaysthe
wrongsoundfile,andhastobequicklyre-startedwiththecorrectfile–hencethetwo
entries.
SNUvariesfromfourtoeightinaregularpatternacrossfour-barunits:each
four-barunitstartswithtwobarseachcontainingfiveshortnotesandalong
note;thethirdbarcontainsfourshortnotesandalongnote;andthefinalbar
hasbetweensixandeightshortnotesandalongnote.
Figure4showsconsiderablechangesinthetimingprofileofthemusic
acrossthefourplayings.InpanelA,whichshowstheveryfirstplay-through,the
alternationofSNUsandLNUsismirroredinaregularpatternofshortandlong
unitdurations–atleastforthefirst20units(10bars),afterwhichitbecomes
somewhatmorevaried.Theratioofthesummeddurationoftheshortnotesto
thelongnoteineachbarfluctuatesaround0.487,indicatingthatthesummed
durationoftheshortnotesisalittlelessthanhalfthedurationofthesinglelong
note.81Thisisinsharpcontrasttothelaterplayingsinwhichthedurationratio
betweentheshortandlongnotesismuchmorevariable,the‘zigzag’pattern
appearingonlybrieflyandusuallytowardsthestart,andwithnumerous
instancesoftheLNUbeingshorterthantheSNU.Theaverageproportion
betweensuccessiveSNUsandLNUsprogressivelyincreases,fromjustbelow1in
81Afterthefirstplay-throughJeremyremindedPeteroftherecommendationtojointogether
differentnumbersofunits,whichPeterimmediatelyimplemented.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7In
ter-
Unit
-Inte
rval (s
ec)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Unit
Inte
r-U
nit
-Inte
rval (s
ec)
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Unit
WORKSHOP CONCERT
A
B
C
D
->
-> ->
->
P a g e |39
thesecondworkshop(0.978-panelB)toslightlyabove1inthefourth
performance(1.084–panelD).Thestandarddeviationofthisproportion,which
indicatesitsvariabilityacrossaplaying,isverysmallforthefirstrun-through
(0.152–panelA),largerforthesecondworkshop(0.459–panelB),andlargest
forthetwopublicperformances(0.585and0.583respectively–panelsCandD),
indicatingthatthereisamarkedincreaseinthevariabilityor‘playfulness’ofthe
phrasingintheconcertperformances.Inadditiontotheselocalrelationships,
thereissomeevidenceoflargerscalemodulationofthedurationsoftheunits,
indicatingphrasingacrossnumbersofunits–includingsomeevidencefor
phrasingacrosseightunitsrelatingtothefour-barstructureofthemusic,82
despiteJeremy’scommentthatthephrasingneednotrespectthefour-bar
organisationofthenotation.Forexample,inthesecondworkshopplaying(panel
Boffig.4),unit16(LNUofbar8)isdistinctivelylong,andisfollowedbyrather
clearphrasearchesacrosstwospansofeightunits(4bars)each.Thefourth
concertperformance(panelD)showssimilarpatternsoftempovariation,but
nowmuchmorevariableinlength–withphraseboundaries(signalledbylong
durations)atunits18,24,32and44(LNUofbars9,12,16,and22).
ThedurationoftheSNUsisonlypartiallydeterminedbythenumberof
notesineachunit.Therelationshipbetweenthenumberofnotesandtheunit
durationasindicatedbytheircorrelationisstrongerforW2andP4(r=.567;
andr=.553,respectively;p<.01,forboth)thanforW1andP1(r=.302,n.s.;and
r=.456,p<.05respectively;N=24throughout).Thismaybeaby-productofthe
tendencytoindicatefour-barphrasesbyalengtheningofthefourthbarinW2,
P1andP4,whichalwayscontainsarelativelylargenumberofshortnotes.
Nevertheless,evenexcludingeveryfourthbar,thecorrelationbetweenthe
numberofnotesandunitdurationisstrongestforW2andP4(r=.530,p<.05;r
=.466,p=.052,respectively;N=18),andisnon-significantforW1andP1(r=
.219;r=.364,n.s.forboth).ItappearsthatPeteremploystwotimingstrategies:
oneinwhichthedurationoftheunitshasamoredirectrelationshipwiththe
notation;andoneinwhichthisrelationshipislooserandmoreflexible.Itis
interestinginthisrespectthatPeterobservesafterthefirstplay-throughthat
thegroupswithvaryingnumbersofnotessuggestanadditiverhythm.83
However,variationsinthedurationofSNUsaremorestronglycorrelatedacross
playingsthanarevariationsintheaveragedurationofindividualshortnotes
(seeTable5),whichsuggeststhattimingcontrolwasexercisedatthelevelofthe
unit,ratherthanattheleveloftheindividualnote,despitethesenseofan
additiverhythmtowhichPeterrefers.
DurationofSNUs AverageDurationofShortNotes
W2 P1 P4 W2 P1 P4
W1 .366 -.106 .382 .226 -.214 .216
W2 .395 .549* .207 .274
P1 .497* .325
*p<.05
Table5:PairwisecorrelationsbetweenSNUdurations(left)andtheaveragedurationof
shortnotesperunit(right),calculatedbydividingeachSNUdurationbythenumberof
notesperunit.N=24foreverycorrelation.
82Therearetwounits(SNU+LNU)perbar.83W1.
P a g e |40
Thisanalysishasdemonstratedthatthetimingofrhythmicunitsinthe
movementchangedconsiderablyacrosstheworkshopsandperformances,
reflectingdiscussionsbetweenJeremyandPeteraboutthedeliberate
modulationofphrasingsoastoemphasisethemusic’simprovisatorycharacter.
Thereappearstobeadistinctionbetweenmore‘notation-driven’andmore‘in-
the-moment’strategiesofplaying,wherethe‘in-the-moment’strategywas
drivenbydetailedlocalfeaturesofthemusicalmaterial.Thisapproachwas
manifestinplayingsthatshowedmorediverseandvariedphrasing,andamore
improvisedandunpredictablequality.Acrosstheworkshopsandperformances,
theaveragetempoofPeter’splayingvariessomewhat,andthelaptopjoinsPeter
ataslightlydifferentmoment,withtheconsequencethattherelationship
betweenhispartandtheaccompanyinglaptopisdifferentoneachoccasion-an
indeterminacythatisfurtheremphasisedbytheoptionofusingeitheroneof
twoslightlydifferentversionsofthelaptopmusicforeachperformance.
Theinteractionbetweenthecomposedandimprovisedelementsiswell
explainedbyJeremyinaninterviewafterthepremière,inwhichhecomments
onboththefreedomofinterpretationandthefixityofthecomposition:
Iencouragedtheplayertothinkaboutphrasingandcontinuityandspan,
andIwroteallthenotesout,sointermsofpitchitisnotanimprovisatory
piece.…Peterdoesactuallydoslidesandbendsandthingsonthenotes
anditsoundsgreat,I’mhappyaboutthat.ButIthinkherealisedthatthe
ideawasthatIhadwrittenthemelody,andthattherhythmwasoneaspect
ofthefreedom;butevenmoreimportantthanthatwasthephrasebuilding.
Andyoucandoanawfullotwiththatthatcanberadicallydifferentevery
time.Soinasenseyoudecidewheresemicolonsorhalfcadencesare,and
biggercadences,andyoudecidewhereclimaxesare;andyoudecidewhere
crescendosanddiminuendosare,andotheraspectsofthemusicgowith
that.ButI’veleftthattotheviolinist…Sothatwasoneanswertothe
questionofhowyoucouldimproviseinsomerespects,butIcouldstillfeel
thatIcomposedthething.[AndPeter]saidactuallytheshapesofthelittle
phrasesweresuggestivetohim,andthethingsIhadnotspecifiedwere
alsosuggestive:hethoughtthathecouldmakeallkindsofthingswiththis.
Andhesuddenlywasveryimaginativeandfree;andhealsosaidthathe
foundthatplayingthatmovementfeltparticularlylikeimprovising,which
isinterestingbecauseasIsay,everypitchisspecifiedandintheright
order.84
‘Undertheshadowofwings’
‘Undertheshadowofwings’hasonlythemostminimalofscores(seeExample
3),andintheabsenceofmoreextensivenotation,theanalysisofperformance
timingthatfollowsnecessarilyfocusesonrawonsetdata.Thetimingsofnote
onsetsforthefirst180secondswereidentifiedusingSonicVisualiser(as
describedabove),andFigure5showsthedetectedonset-timesofnotesonthex-
axis,thedistancebetweenonsetsindicatingtheirinter-onsetdurations.Each
84FromI2.
P a g e |41
playingstartswiththeopeninggesturenotatedinthescore:abrokenchord
(representedastwoonsets)followedbyasuccessionoffastnotes.
Figure5demonstratesaclearpatternofchangeacrosstheplayings.The
firstplay-through(panelA)showsanalternationbetweenamelodicgesture
(consistingofoneortwolongnotes,followedbyasequenceoffastnotes)anda
longerpause.Peterexplainedinaninterviewthat‘Idecidedto[use]thematerial
hegavemetoplay,whichisaboutseventeennotes,asakindofmodeoflimited
transposition.SoIwouldwormmywaybackwardsandforwardsthroughthatin
differenttranspositions,inversionsandthings,’confininghimselfto‘intervalsor
gestures,whichwereimplicitinthatinvertedarch;inaugmentationor
diminution.’85Inthetwoconcertperformances(panelsCandD),andtoalesser
extentthesecondworkshop,thisstrategyalternateswithamorecontinuous
mannerofimprovisation,inwhicheventonsetsaremoreevenlyspreadacross
time,therearefewerandshorterbreaksbetweengestures,andalsofewerfast
notes–inotherwordsamoreevendistributionofonsets.Itseemsthatafterthe
firstplaying,theimprovisationbecomesmoreattunedtothepaceofchangein
thelaptopmusic,inlinewithakeyconceptofthemusic.AsJeremyexplainedin
thefirstworkshop:‘Iamthinkingofspiritvoicesoutthere[i.e.thelaptoppart]
thatyoucantuneinto,youcanhaveconversationswith,youcankindofgowith;
andinthiscasetherearesortofviolinspiritsoutthereandyoushouldfeela
warmenvelopeofviolinhoodasitwere.’86
Figure5:Noteonsetsacrossfourplayingsof‘Undertheshadowofwings’:W1(A);W2
(B);P1(C);P4(D).Eachverticalbarrepresentsthetemporalpositionofaviolinnote.
ThedatapresentedinTable6confirmthisinterpretationofthechanges
inrhythmicpacingacrosstheperformances.Thetableshowsthemedian,lower
andupperquartiles,andminimumandmaximumvaluesofthetimeintervals
betweensuccessivenoteonsets,anddemonstrateshowthetempoofPeter’s
performancedecreasesoverthefourplayings:byafactorofmorethansevenfor
85FromI1.86FromW1.
P a g e |42
themedian(from0.128to0.981seconds);morethanfiveandnearlynineforthe
lowerandupperquartilesrespectively,(0.080to0.445;and0.296to2.405);and
afactorofnearlytenfortheminimum(0.027to0.262).Onlythemaximum
showsadifferentpicture(effectivelynochange),indicatingthatthedurationof
thelongestpausesbetween‘utterances’bytheviolinistremainsessentially
constant.Thescoreitself(seeEx.3)providestwotempoindications:ageneral
tempoforthemovement(quaver=60bpm),whichisalsogivenasindicativeof
thelaptoppart;andaslowertempo(quaver=50bpm)fortheopeninggesture
oftheviolinpart.Ifthemediandurationistakenasanapproximationtothe
overalltempoofanyplaying,thenP4(correspondingto61bpm)isclosesttothe
indicatedtempo,whilealltheearlierplayingsaresignificantlyfaster.
Playing Median 25% 75% Minimum Maximum
W1 0.128 0.080 0.296 0.027 17.387
W2 0.443 0.229 0.949 0.078 8.389
P1 0.650 0.395 1.612 0.148 15.044
P4 0.981 0.445 2.405 0.262 15.604
Table6:Summarystatisticsforinter-onset-intervals(seconds)infourplayingsof
‘Undertheshadowofwings’
ThisanalysisofonsettimingindicatesthatPeter’sapproachtothe
movementchangesappreciablyoverthecourseofthesefourplayings,consistent
withhisowncommentthatwhilehisapproachtothemovementmetwith
Jeremy’sapprovalrightfromthebeginning,heneverthelesskeptondeveloping
andadaptinghisplaying.‘IthinkIprobablyhitsomethinghelikedfairlyearlyon
intheprocess;Ijustkindofwantedtomakesurethathelikeditslightlymore
eachtime.’87Hedoesnotgoontoexplainexactlyhowhechangedhisplaying,
andtherewaslittleexplicitinterventionfromJeremy–almosthisonlycomment
beingthatPetermightleaveafewlongergaps;butasthisanalysishasshown,
theimprovisationseemstobecomemorehomogeneousinitsrhythmic
characteristicsinlaterplayings,resultinginamorecontinuousinterweavingof
thetwovoices.
Tosummarize,perhapstheonlygeneralorunifyingstrategyacross
developmentsintheplayingofthesemovements,wasatendencytoincreasethe
homogeneityandintegrationofcertainfeaturesoftheperformance,while
increasingthevariabilityandcontrastofothers.In‘Invocation’,forexample,the
silencesbecamemorepronouncedandcontrastive,whilethedifferentiation
betweenshortandlongnoteswasreduced,withtheresultthattherhythms
becamemorehomogeneous.In‘Amongvoices’,ontheotherhand,thetimingof
compositeunitscontaininglongandshortnotesbecamemorevariedandless
stereotypical,whilethedurationoftheshortnoteswithineachfigurebecame
relativelymoreuniform.Finally,in‘Undertheshadowofwings’,the
improvisationbecamebothmoreunpredictable,inthesensethatitwasless
closelyrelatedtothenotatedopeninggestureofthemovement,andmore
integratedwiththeaccompaniment,astherhythmsbecamelessdurationally
contrastive,withaslowermediantempothatwasclosertothetempoofthe
laptopaccompaniment.
87FromI1.
P a g e |43
Understanding,materiality,andembodimentWehavesofardiscussedJeremyandPeter’scollaborationintermsoftheirsocial
anddiscursiveinteractions,andthematerialchangesthattookplaceacross
workshopsandperformances.Butthisistoneglectoneofthemoststriking
featuresofOuija’sdevelopment:thewaythatitcametolifethroughthe
instrumentinPeter’shands–thewaythatitbecameinstrumental/embodied.
Whileanincreasingtheoreticalinterestintheexplanatorypoweroftheoriesof
embodimenthasnowbuiltupasignificantliterature,88thereremainsignificant
practicaldifficultiesinanalysingthewaysinwhichembodiedactionmayeither
constituteorreflectchangedunderstanding–andwhatkindof‘understanding’
thatis.Variouslyreferredtoastacitknowledge,proceduralknowledge,or
‘knowledgehow’,89theknowledgeorunderstandingthatisachievedand
manifestthroughtheexerciseofaskill90hasoftenbeencontrastedwiththe
explicit,declarativeorpropositionalknowledgethatisexemplifiedinknowing,
forinstance,thatJellyD’Arányidiedin1966.ItisclearthatPeter’sdeclarative
knowledgeandunderstandingofOuija(includingaspectsofnotation,
narrative/poeticreference,phraselength,thecontentandsequenceofthe
laptoppart)developsthroughtheworkshopsinmanyofthewaysthatwehave
alreadydiscussed–alongwithhisproceduralknowledge.Asdiscussedearlier,
Peterhimselfarticulatesacomplexinterweavingofdeclarativeandprocedural
knowledgeindescribingthecraftofviolinplayingasbothagenealogicaltree(an
explicithistoryofteachers)andasapracticethatinvolvesaliteral(aswellas
metaphorical)‘layingonofhands’.Themoreembodiedandmaterialnatureof
thatknowledgeandunderstandingisexpressedevenmorestronglylaterinthe
sameinterview,whenhecontinues:
[T]hisis…wheretherelationshipbetweenthecraftofplayingandthecraft
ofmakingcomesin,whichissomethingthatI’mabsolutelyobsessedwith
aswell.TherelationshipthatIhave,say,withmybowmakers.Orthe
relationshipthatIwillhavethenwiththeinstrumentsthatIchoosetoplay,
whichwillexcitemebothbecauseoftheirhistoryasobjects,andbecause
ofwhattheyrepresentintermsoftheirmakingandtheiralterations.So
thisviolinhereisalargeStrad;verylikelytohavebeenmadelargebecause
itwasmadeforthecourtatBolognawhichhadalowpitchedA.…Andthen
itfindsitswayintothehandsofJosephJoachim,andthenawholeextra
thingadherestothat,whichiswhathappenswiththepeoplewho’ve
playedtheinstruments;what’sourrelationshiptothisslightlyabstract…–
well,forplayersit’snotabstract,it’sjustastactileasholdingthe
instrumentandplayingthemusic.Sothecraftbringsusvery,verycloseto
thevoicesthataren’theardanymore,whichcuriouslyissomethingthathas
88SomeimportantlandmarksincludeMauriceMerleau-Ponty,ThePhenomenologyofPerception
trans.ColinSmith,(London,1962)(originalFrench1945);FranciscoVarela,EvanThompsonand
EleanorRosch,TheEmbodiedMind(Cambridge,1991);AndyClark,BeingThere:PuttingBrain
BodyandWorldTogetherAgain(Bradford,1997).89Seeforexample,MichaelPolanyi,PersonalKnowledge:TowardsaPost-CriticalPhilosophy
(Chicago,1958);GeorgeA.Miller,EugeneGalanterandKarlH.Pribram,PlansandtheStructure
ofBehaviour(NewYork,1960).90Thestandardexampleisknowinghowtorideabicycle.
P a g e |44
notbeenchangedfundamentallysincethearrivalofrecording.Thereare
differentwaysthatthingsarecommunicated.91
Itishavingtheviolininhishands,thesizeoftheinstrument,andthehistoryof
theotherplayerswhohavealsoheldtheinstrument–eventhephysicalposture
thatthoseotherplayersmayhaveadopted92–thatinformsthewayinwhich
Peterapproachesandmakesthemusic.Forhim,thisphysicalityplaysacentral
roleinthesoundthatheproduces,therelationshipswithco-performers(most
obviouslytheothermembersofhisquartet),andevenhisrelationshiptothe
audience:
Someonesentus[theKreutzerQuartet]aphotographtheotherdayofus
playing,itwasactuallytheMendelssohnOctet,andthephotographhadthis
thingunderneathit:‘Lookatthelegs!’Andwe[Peterandsecondviolinist
MihailoTrandafilovski]wereleaningtowardseachotherintheconcert,
andourlegswereexactlysymmetrical.Anditwasreallyinteresting:we
neverdothatinarehearsalbutsomethingaboutthewaywewanttobein
publicmakesthingshappenphysically.Itwasanamazingpictureofwhat
themusicwasdoingatthatpoint.…Thenumberoftimescomposershave
saidtome,‘Acertaincolouronlyemergeswhenyouareacertainway
physically.’IremembermanyyearsagoaGermancomposercalledStefan
Hakenbergsaid–weweretryingtofindacolour[timbre]andnothing
happened,andIkindofbentoverandhesaid‘That’sit.Let’sputitinthe
score.Ifyoubendoverlikethatitmakesthecolour.’93
Theinstrumentsandphysicalityofplayingtogetheractasabridgetothe
traditionsoftheinstrumentaswellasservingthemoreimmediatefunctionof
communicatingwithfellowmusiciansandtheaudience.Whiletheinstrument
andbodyhereactasarepositoryofhistory,therearealsoshorterscalesof
temporalengagementatworkinOuija,andinwhatfollows,weoffera
descriptionoftheperformer’semergingbodilyengagementwiththemusicover
thecourseoftherehearsalperiod,asshowninaseriesofshortvideoclips.
Videoclips1and2showthefirsttwominutesof‘Amongvoices’–onthe
firstoccasionthatPeterplayeditatthefirstworkshop(clip1),andatthe
premièreinSidneySussexChapel(clip2).Anumberofstrikingdifferencesinthe
physicalityoftheseplayingsofthemusicareevident–someofwhicharethe
consequenceofPeter’sfirstplay-throughofthemusicbeingintherelatively
physicallyconfinedspaceofJeremy’scollegeroom.WhilePetermovesafair
amountinclip1,themovementsareallofasimilarkind–asifdrawnfroma
limitedrepertoire.Ingeneral,thesemovementsmirrorthemotivicprofileof
eachunitofthepiecereflectingmelodicandrhythmicpropertiesofthemusic,
andinsomecasesarepartiallydeterminedbysimpleergonomics(particularly
91FromI1.92OneofPeter’songoingprojectsisPaganini–hisviolinandbows,hisrepertoireandconcert
schedules,andtheparticularplayingposturethatheappearstohaveadopted.AsPeter
explained:‘I’mveryinvolvedinusingiconographyofPaganinitolookashisperformance
practice,andhowmuchofhismusicandthenewinstrumenttechnologyhewasusingwas
relyingonacertainformofposture’.(FromI1).93FromI1.
P a g e |45
themovementsofthebowing,arm).Bycomparison,clip2showsamuchwider
repertoireofconsiderablymoredramaticmovements(nodoubtfacilitatedby
standingratherthansitting),someofwhichtracemuchlargertrajectoriesin
spaceandextendoverlongerperiodsoftime,reflectingorinducingan
organisationofthemusicintolongerandmoreintegratedstringsofunits.These
movementsconveyamuchmoreintenseinvolvementwiththemusic–asense
thatthesemovementsaremakingthemusic,ratherthanreflectingit;andatthe
sametimetheyseemmorefreeofthemusic,anexamplebeingthewayinwhich
PeterusestheopportunityofanopenEstringtotakehislefthandrightaway
fromtheneckoftheviolinatabout1:40.
Oneobviousandsignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoclipsisthe
differenceinthesocialoccasionandcontextinwhichtheplayingtakesplace:a
privaterun-throughinarelativelysmallroomwithonlythecomposeranda
researcherpresentinonecase;andintheother,apublicpremièreinalarge
performancevenueinfrontofanaudience.Peterhimselfcommentedonwhathe
describedashisowninabilitytoperformthemusicconvincinglywithoutan
audience.
Alotofthepiece…onlyreally[works]whenthereisaudienceintheroom,
forthesuspensionofdisbelieftohappen.Ican’tdoitunlessthereare
peopletodoitwithme.Andthathasanimpactonwhathappensasyougo
throughtheeightorninelinesofit[‘Invocation’],asthelistening-to
responsegrows.Becausetheresponseissoquietyou’llalsoinvolvethe
responseofpeopleintheroomaswell.Thatwillhaveanimpactonwhen
youchoosetoplay,howyouchoosetowait,andevennotevalues…94
Itwouldbewrong,however,tosuggestthatPeter’smovementsinthe
performancearesimplytheresultoftacitandemergentprocessesof
embodiment:thereisalsoanexplicitlychoreographicelement,aswasclearfrom
acommentofJeremy’stoPeteratthesecondworkshop,followingaplay-
throughof‘Invocation’:
I’vegotafewthoughtsaboutthedramaatthisstage.Whenyougettoany
ofthesilences,itwouldbefantasticifyoucouldnotlookatthemusic,
because,somehow,whenyoulookatmusic,it’slike:‘thisisapauseinthe
piece,andnowI’vegottoplaythenextthing’;whereasreallyitshouldbe:
‘I’mhopingthere’sgoingtobearesponse’…Andinfactifthefirstcoupleof
phrasesonthe23rdMay[thepremière]couldbefrommemory,thatwould
helptogivetheimpressionthatyouarejustlookingforspirits.95
Peteragreed,andthoughhehadhadnotimeinwhichtomemorizethemusic,he
triedoutthismore‘dramatic’andself-consciouslychoreographedapproachwith
immediatelydifferentconsequencesforhispostureandmovement.Videoclips3
and4demonstratethedistinctcharacterofthesetwoplayings,andthe
interpretativedifferencethatistheconsequenceofthisdeliberatebodily
strategy.WiththeséancenarrativerunningthroughoutOuija,eachmovementof
thepiecepresentsaclearopportunityforPeterto‘actout’someaspectofthe 94FromI1.95FromW2.2.
P a g e |46
drama–floatingandswimminginashoalofvoicesin‘Amongvoices’;
respondingtothesoundandspiritofPaganiniin‘Sprite’;inhabitingand
exploringthesound-worldofBachin‘Undertheshadowofwings’.
Nonetheless,whileacknowledgingtheroleofdeliberatechoreography,
thereisalsoaclearsenseofthemusic’sincreasinglyembodiedpresence(the
musicbothtakingoverPeter’sbody,andbeingtakenoverbyit)inthesecondof
thetwoworkshops–particularlyinthemoretheatricalandacoustically
responsivespaceoftheRobinsonCollegeChapel.Ourfinalexample(videoclip5)
showsPeterinRobinsonChapelplaying‘Amongvoices’forthefirsttimeinthis
space.Afterastraightforwardstart,theplayingtakesonadramaticallymore
physicalandbodilycharacterafterabout30seconds,firstwithasuddenly
powerfulrenderingoftwoofthemotivicunits,followedimmediatelybyan
equallystrikingshifttoamuchmorelyricalstyleaccompaniedbyadistinctive
rockingmovementofhisbody.96AlthoughPeterwasnotyetdeeplyfamiliarwith
themovement,thereisapalpablequalityofinvolvementandbodily
characterisationthatconveyshisengagementwiththemusic.Closingwithan
extendedandintensedecrescendo,andafteramomentofdramaticsilence,Peter
walksslowlyovertowhereJeremyisstandingwiththelaptop,andhalf-
ironicallyremarks:‘Iwasprobablyhavingwaytoomuchfunthere,Idon’t
know…’97.ThecommentencapsulatesbothPeter’sacknowledgementofhisown
morepassionateengagementwiththemusic,andperhapsagenuineuncertainty
aboutwhetherthisapproachwasstillconsistentwithJeremy’sconceptionofthe
movement.Inthisrespect,andparticularlywhenJeremyresponds‘No,Ilikedit,
Ilikeditalotactually’,thisalsoactsasanappealbyPetertoJeremy’sjudgement
andopinion,andareciprocalreassurancebyJeremybacktoPeterthathe
approves–anexampleofface-talkthatsignalsincreasingtrustbetweenthetwo
musicians,inturnallowingthemtoappealmoredirectlytooneanotherfor
judgementandopinion.Inthisepisodeofplayingandtalking,body,
interpretation,andworkingrelationshipcometogetherinawaythatseemsto
actasaturningpointintheproject.
Insummary,wehavesuggestedthatembodimentperformsanumberof
functionswithintheworkingrelationshipbetweenthetwomusicians.First,the
bodyactsasaconduitforknowledgeinrelationtoinstrumentaltechniques,and
thetacitknowledgethatconnectsmusicianstoamusicalpast–somethingthatis
alsorealizedinlessproceduralandmoreexplicitwaysthroughthemusicians’
dialogue(‘inside/outsidetheroom’).Inthisrespect,thebodyconnects
musicians,instrumentsandeventsoverrelativelylongtimescales.Overthe
courseoftheworkshopsandperformances,however,andatarelativelyshort
timescale,thebodyisameanstoPeter’sincreasingabsorptioninthemusic,98
andamanifestationofthatchangingrelationship.Itisinthisenactive
relationshipthatPeterbothmakesandfindsadevelopingunderstandingofthe
material,anembodiedcomplementtotheshareddiscursiveengagementthat
constitutesandintensifiestheircreativecollaboration.
96FromW2.2.97FromW2.2(withfollowingresponsefromJeremy).98Cf.EricF.ClarkeandJaneW.Davidson‘Thebodyinperformance’,inComposition–
Performance–Reception.StudiesintheCreativeProcessinMusic,ed.WyndhamThomas
(Aldershot,1998),74-92.
P a g e |47
Conclusions
Thispaperhasexaminedtheproductionofapieceofnewmusic,usinga
combinationofmethodstoexplorecollaborationandchangeinacreative
partnership.Wehavesoughttoidentifyhowapiece-in-performanceemerges
fromcollaboration,byexaminingthedevelopmentofmusicalmaterialsthrough
theembodiedinteractionsanddiscourseofthemusiciansduringtheirface-to-
facework.Thecollaborativemomentumofthisprojectrevolvedprimarily
aroundtwodaysofintenseworkshopsbetweenthecomposerandperformer;
andwhilethecompletedscorecouldbecharacterisedashavingacontrolled
indeterminacywrittenintoit,italsomadeuseofasufficientlyexplicitnotation
andverbalinstructionthattheworkcouldbeperformedwithoutextensive
exchangebetweenthecomposerandperformer.What,then,wastheroleof
collaborationanddialogueasacreativeforceinbringingthismusickingto
fruition,andhowdifferentwastheprocessfromthetraditionalsequenceof
compositionandinterpretation?
Aswehaveshown,therewereexamplesoverthecourseofthe
workshopswhenstretchesofdialogueledtodirectchangesinthemusical
material.Suchconversationalmomentsweremarkedbyadegreeof
indirectnessandarelativelyopenorfluidapproach,allowingPeterandJeremy
opportunitiestoproffersuggestionsandshareuncertaintiesaboutthecreative
direction.Decision-makingseemedoftentooccurataverypragmaticlevel,and
wehavepointedtoanumberofspecificmomentswhenmanifestcreative
changeoccurredthroughclearcollaborativeinput.Butconceptionsofcreativity
placedifferentemphasesondifferentprocesses:Boden,forexample,tendsto
seecreativityasarelativelyfocusedanddeliberatetransformationalprocess,
whereasotherresearchpointstothemessierandmoreindeterminatenatureof
muchcreativework.99Inthisstudy,whilethereweremomentsofunambiguous
changethatoccurredthroughinteraction,perhapsofgreatersignificancewas
theprogressiveaccumulationofsharedunderstanding,whichtookplaceintwo
ways.First,thereisthatcategoryoftalkthatwehavedescribedasface-talk
throughwhichJeremyandPeterdemonstratedtrustineachotherandasenseof
eachother’scompetence,thelatteralsoachievedthroughdisplaysof
compositionalandperformanceprowess.Thismutuallysustaininginteraction,
constructedthroughcompetenceandinterpersonaltrust,appearscentraltoa
collaborativelycreativeproject.Theaccumulationofunderstanding,however,
alsooccurredthroughthefrequentsharingofmusicalandotherreferencesthat
wehavecharacterisedas‘outsidetheroom’.Thisformofdiscoursefunctioned
someofthetimetoestablishanunderstandingofmusicalmaterialsbyreference
toothermusic,acting,particularlyforPeter,asawaytocontextualiseand
consolidatehisimprovisationalstrategies.Butjustassignificantly,theselinksto
anetworkofpublicmaterials(othermusic,literature,film,paintings)outsidethe
roomhelpedtofostertheintimacyinsidetheroomthatanenterpriseofthiskind
99SeeMargaretBoden,TheCreativeMind:mythsandmechanisms(London,1990)andfora
contrastingview,DavidGelerntner,TheMuseintheMachine:computersandcreativethought
(London,1994),bothcitedinEvaVass‘UnderstandingCollaborativeCreativity:youngchildren’s
classroom-basedsharedcreativewriting’,CollaborativeCreativity,ed.DorothyMiellandKaren
Littlejohn(London,2004),79-95(p.80).
P a g e |48
requires,buildingasharedworldfortheprojecttoinhabit.100Althoughthereis
clearlyanincreasinglypublictransformationoverthecourseoftheproject(from
theprivacy/intimacyofJeremy’sroom,throughthepublicspaceoftheRobinson
CollegeChapelworkshop,tothemanifestlypublicpremière),intheworkshops,
publiccultureisusedtointensifyandstimulatetheprivateworkingsofthis
collaboration,bothintermsofpraxisandatanaffectivelevel.Incontrastto
thosepsychologicalmodelsthatcharacterisecreativityintermsofasurprising
orinnovativeshift,thedevelopmentthatoccursbetweenthesetwomusiciansis
thereforeincrementalandcumulative,characterisedbyemergence–particularly
theunderstanding(embodiedandprocedural,asmuchaspropositionaland
conceptual)thatisshapedbytheparticipants’interactions.
KeithSawyer’sresearchongroupcreativityhashighlightedhow
emergenceisoneofthedefiningfeaturesofcollaboration–therecognitionthat
‘thewholeisgreaterthanthesumofitsparts’.101Thereare,however,anumber
ofrefinementstothisfamiliarformulathataresuggestedbyourstudy.First,as
Sawyeracknowledges,themomentaryinteractionswithinanimprovised,
collaborativeframeworkareneversimplyofthepresent:thereisawealthof
tacitunderstandingsandreferencepointsthatscaffoldtheprocessthroughpre-
existingknowledgeandviastructuringprocessesthatemergeinternallywithin
theflowofthecreativework.ButSawyerseestheseassecondarytothe
improvisationalpresent,ahinterlandthatliesbehindtherealworkinthe
moment,thusunderplayingacentralaspectofjointwork–namelythereflective
understandingonthepartofthecollaboratorsaboutthecreativecontextin
whichtheyareworking.102Collaboratorsarenotsimplyknowntoeachotheras
namedindividuals;theyalsoinhabitgenericroles(inthiscasethoseofcomposer
andperformer)withparticularculturalhistoriesthatarebroughttobearinthe
work.Theyinteractwithoneanotherascomposerandperformer–inbothan
episodicsense(beingfamiliar,ornot,withthiscomposer),andamoregenericor
semanticsense(amoreorlesssharedsenseofcomposers’rolesmoregenerally).
Inthisstudy,muchoftheengagementbetweentheparticipantshingesontheir
desireforcreativeinteractionwithin,andperhapsattimesagainst,the
knowledgeandexperiencetheyhaveaccruedascomposersandperformers.
Soeveninhighlyimprovisedsituations,suchasaworkshopconversation,
oranimprovisedperformance,historymatters,bothinthesensethatan
aestheticobjectorperformanceparticipatesinagenre(i.e.ispartofasignificant
‘large-scale’orbroadsocialhistory),andinthewaythatanactivityofthiskind
makesandfeedsuponitsownmicro-historicalcontext.Whatisparticularly
salientaboutcontextinthecourseofapossiblyunpredictablecreativeprocessis
notsimplywhatcontextmayexplainabouttheunfoldingcreativework,butalso
howcontext(microormacro)isusedinthisunfoldingtogeneratenewinsights,
solidifyagreements,nudgethecollaborationinnewdirectionsorsuggestan
alternativetoanunproductivetrajectory.Wemakenoclaimthatallcreative 100Dueck,Jazzendings.101Seee.g.SawyerandDeZutter,Distributedcreativity;andR.KeithSawyer,‘Groupcreativity:
musicalperformanceandcollaboration’,PsychologyofMusic,34(2006),148-166.102Sawyerdoesrefertoscripts,formulaicspeechandthedialogicBakhtinianqualitiesof
language,allofwhicharereliantonthecapacityoflanguagetoconnectpast,presentandfuture
contexts.Ourreadingofhiswork,however,isthatitestablishesanundueemphasisonthe
present,anddiminishestheimportanceofculturalcuesandsocialidentitywithinacollaborative
framework.SeeSawyer,Groupcreativity,154-156.
P a g e |49
collaborationswouldenjoythesamedegreeofreferencetootherworks,
performers,composersandsoonthatwehaveobservedhere,sincemuchofthat
referencingisaproductofPeter’sparticularimmersionin,andpassionfor,the
historyofhisinstrumentanditsrepertoire.Nonetheless,theprincipleremains
thataformofsignifying–pointingtothecontextoftheworkandtothe
collaborationitself–iscentraltothetwingoalsofmakingmusicanddeveloping
aproductiveandenduringcollaborativerelationship.
Whilethereisnoescapingtheprofoundinfluenceofthehistoryof
musicalmaterialsandmusicalroles(thesedimentedrolesof‘composer’and
‘performer’)suffusingthewholeproject,thereisalsotheriskofover-stressing
themacro-socialandinstitutionalforces–ofappearingtoespouseatypeof
determinisminwhichtheentiretyoftheinteractionandcollaborationis
understoodintermsofinstitutionalandhistoricalpower.Intheimmediacyof
face-to-faceandmoment-to-momentworking,thosemacro-socialforcesrecede
intothebackground,onlytore-appearinsometimessuddenandunexpected
ways–aswhenPeteralludestothelonglineageofviolinplayerstowhichhe
feelsconnected,orreinforcesJeremyinhisroleascomposerjustfourminutes
intothefirstworkshop:‘Youtellme,you’reincharge,you’retheboss.’103
AsecondrefinementtoSawyer’sperspectiveistherecognitionthatmost
collaborativeworkseldomtakestheformofanequalandconstantinputfromall
collaboratorsthroughoutthelifetimeoftheproject.Acollaborative‘deficit’may
betheconsequenceofinequalitiesofstatusthatresultinamorehierarchicalset
ofworkingrelationships,suchthatcollaborativegoodfaithmaybequite
attenuatedatcertainpoints.Equally,asisillustratedinthisproject,theremaybe
considerablechangesovertimeinthedepthofcollaboration,asaconsequence
ofintrinsicallydifferentphasesofacreativeproject.Thegreatmajorityof
Jeremy’scompositionalworkhadbeenaccomplishedbeforethefirstworkshop,
apparentlyplacingprimarycreativeresponsibilityalmostentirelyinhis
domain;104whilebythetimeofthefirstperformance,therewasapalpablesense
thattheworkhadpassedverymuchmoreintotheperformer’sterritory.
Afinalpointinrelationtolanguageandinteraction–andonethatseems
centraltounderstandingcreativecollaboration–isthewayinwhich
participantsareinvolvedinasocialprocessthatextendsconsiderablybeyond
whatisnarrowlyrequiredtoachievethemusicalgoal.Incollaborativelycreating
apieceofmusic,significantworkalsogoesintoestablishing,maintainingand
developingaworkingrelationship.Wehavementionedthewayinwhichface-
talkisimplicatedinthecreativeprocess,butthereisadegreeofcreativity
involvedintheconstructionandmaintenanceofthecollaborationitself,over
andaboveits‘products’.Foreverycomponentofacollaborationgearedtowards
makingmaterialsandidentifyingorsolvingcreativeproblems,thereisan
103FromW1.104Jeremy’sownsensethatthisshouldbethecase,andofhisowncreativeresponsibilityis
expressedinthefollowingpassagefromhisinterviewafterthefirstperformance,wherehe
statesthatdespitetheimprovisedelement,Ouijashould“beapiecethatIhadimaginedand
dreamedandmadehappen,andthatIthoughtwasworthhearing.Soit’sasortofcontractasan
artist:youhavetodosomethingthatyouthinkisworthpeople’stimecomingalongtolistento,
andtheywillactuallygetsomethinggoodfrom.AndsoIwantedtofulfilthat,andthemoreyou
saythattheperformercandowhatevertheylike,thelessyoufeelyou’vekeptyourbargain
there.”(FromI1).
P a g e |50
accompanyinginteractionaldimensionthatisdedicatedtothesharedtaskof
establishingandmaintainingappropriatesocialengagement.
Beyondtherecognitionthatcollaborationhasbecomeamorecentral
featureofcontemporarymusic,thereisalsoanimplicitlypositiveglossthatis
oftenattributedtocollaborativework,whichshouldnotgounquestioned.While
theanimatedengagementbetweenthePeterandJeremy,andthepositive
creativeoutcome,constituteafruitfulcollaborativeproject,inwhatwaysdidthe
pieceactuallydevelopthroughtheseinteractions?Fromourdetailedtiming
analysis,itisclearthattherewereshifts,sometimesquitemarked,inhowthe
piecewasrealisedinperformance;andthatsomeofthematerial(forinstancein
‘Undertheshadowofwings’)developedamuchmoreintegratedrelationship
withthecompositionallyfixedlaptoppart,withPeter’simprovisationbecoming
morenuancedandselectiveashegotmoreattunedtoJeremy’sideasandmore
familiarwiththesoundfiles.Similarly,incomparisontotheinitialread-through,
‘Amongvoices’manifestedaverydifferentqualitybythetimeofthe
performances,withtheimprovisatoryframeworkrealisedthroughlonger
phrasesthatbecamemoredifferentiatedandlesspredictable,insomewhatthe
samewaythatPeter’sapproachto‘Invocation’becamemoredramaticand
rhetorical.
However,themusicalmaterialswerenotonlychangedbythecollaborative
processinparticularways,butthesesamematerialsalsoafforddifferent
opportunitiesforthecollaborativeprocessitself.Oneoftheintriguingfeaturesof
thecollaborationwasthewayinwhichthemovementthatliesmidwaybetween
explicitnotationandfreeimprovisationseemedtoelicitthemostintensive
exchangesinthecollaboration.Themostimprovisedmovements(‘Underthe
shadowofwings’and‘Sprite’)seemedtoaffordinterchangeonlyatarelatively
broadandgenerallevel;whilethemostfullynotatedmovement,‘Invocation’,not
surprisinglydrewthecollaboratorsintomorestandardtopicsofclarifyingand
realizingthenotation–thoughnotexclusively.Butitwasin‘Amongvoices’
wherethepresenceofaloosenotationalframeworkactsasakindofanchoror
partiallyfixedpointthatgavebothparticipantssomethingtoworkaround.Peter
remarkedthatJeremywasathis‘fussiest’withrespectto‘Amongvoices’,andfar
frombeinganegativecomment,itindicatesthedegreetowhichthestructureof
thepieceaffordsamoresustainedanddialogicinteraction.Indeed,inan
interviewafterthesecondperformance,Peterreflectedonthesometimes
counter-intuitiverelationshipbetweennotationalspecificityandfreedom:
Youneverknow…whenyou’resuddenlygoingtofindyourselfeither
puppet-masterorpuppet,effectively.Youneverknow.That’soneofthe
charmsofbeingaperformer–therelationshipbetweenbeingactiveand
passive:whenyouthinkyou’rebeingactive,thenyourealisesometimes
you’renot.Thatcomesbacktothequestionofnotation.Someofthefreest
musictoplayissomeofthemostdenselynotated.Ifyoutaketwentieth-
centuryEnglishmusic,tomethetwoextremenotatorsareElgarand
Ferneyhough,whohavealotincommoninthatrespect.Openingofthe
ElgarViolinConcerto,thefirstphrasehasfourteenexpressivemarksonit,
andthatisoneofthefreestthingstoplayimaginable,asisthe
FerneyhoughIntermedioallaciaccona,whichactuallyhasthesamefeeling.
WhereassomethingwhichhasnothingonthepagesuchasPhilipGlass’s
P a g e |51
CompanyorStrungOut,wherethere’snothingbutsinglenotestoplay,is
oneofthemostlimitingthingsimaginable.105
Andcontrarytoanegativeviewofthespecialisationandconsequentseparation
ofthetwospheresofcompositionandperformancethattookplaceinthelatter
partofthenineteenthandintothetwentiethcentury,Peterexpresseda
fascinationfortheinterpretivespacethatthisopenedupfortheperformer:
Ithinkoneofthemostexcitingthingsthathappenedtoclassicalmusicin
thenineteenthcenturywastheseparationoftheworldoftheperformer
andthecomposer.Iknowthisisanunfashionablethingtosay,butIthink
enormousopportunitiesemergedfromthat.Obviouslyoneofthefirst
thingsthatemergedwasanewopportunityforsubtletyofwhatwe’ve
cometocallinterpretation,whichwemighthavecalledembellishment...
But[also]somethingtodowithworkingwithatextwhichisnotfullyours.
NowIampassionateaboutthat…106
WeendbyreturningtoIngold’sproposaltoreadcreativity‘forwards’,
understoodinthelightofJeremy’sreflectiononthewholeexperienceofworking
withPeter.ToreadJeremyandPeter’scollaboration‘backwards’–thatis,to
assignitvalueonthebasisonlyoftheoutcome–wouldbetomissthepoint.Itis
ina‘forwards’readingthatthevalueofthisjointworkcanbeseen.The
creativityofthecollaborationisnotsomuchamatterofinnovationasof
developingashared,complexrealisationofapiece.Manyofthesamecreative
changesthatwehavedocumentedinthispapercouldalsohavetakenplace
underthemorestandardandsequentialcircumstancesofafinishedpiece
(however‘open’or‘closed’)thatispassedontoaperformer;anddespitePeter’s
ownstronglyexpressedpreferenceforworkingwithcomposerswherever
possible,wemakenoclaimforthespecialvirtuesofcollaborationintermsofits
outcomes.107Buttheparticularcircumstancesofthisprojectallowustowitness
creativeprocessesgoingonthatarealsofeaturesoflessobviouslycollaborative
circumstances.SomeofPeterandJeremy’scollaborativedecisionsundoubtedly
resultinconcretechanges,butmanyofthe‘changes’arebetterunderstoodas
shiftsofemphasisandunderstanding–adevelopingsenseofcomfort,
confidence,andidentificationonthepartofbothmusiciansthatconfigures
creativitynotonlyintermsofproductionbutalsoascollaborativeempathy,
mutualunderstanding,andtherealizingofopportunities:
Strugglingwiththedifficultyofthis[‘lettinggo’ofcompositionalcontrol]
wasareallygoodthingtodobecauseitmademestepbackalotfrommy
composing,andrealizethatthewholeprocess–fromthepointofmeeting
theperformeronwardsthroughtothefirstperformanceandfurther
performances–canbesomethingmoreopen;andifitis,it’sactuallymore
105FromI1.106FromI1.107FromI1:“ItryandavoidplayingmusicbycomposerswhoarealivewithwhomIdon’thavea
relationship.Simplybecauseifthere’sanopportunitytohaveit,there’ssomuchtobegained
fromthat;andevenifIdon’thavearelationshipwiththemItrytoworkwithsomebodywho
doeshavearelationshipwiththem.”
P a g e |52
relaxingandpleasanttotakepartin.…[O]ncewe’dhadthetwoinitial
workshopsIbecameveryrelaxedandveryconfidentaboutit,andIstrolled
intothefirstperformancethinking“Idon’treallyknowwhatthepieceis
goingtodo,and[Peter]mightdoallkindsofthings,butit’sgoingtowork.”
…Peterstruckagreatbalancebetweenbeingfullofideasandinvention
andthereforehappytodoimprovising,butalsoverykeentounderstand
myimaginationandthepiecesuchasitis;togetmyideaandthereforebe
abletoinhabitit.108
108FromI2.
P a g e |53
Acknowledgements
WearegratefultoJeremyThurlowandPeterSheppardSkærvedfortheir
generosityinallowingustofollowtheminthiscollaborativeproject,andfor
stimulatingandproductivediscussionsinourworkonthispaper.Thisresearch
wassupportedbyawardno.AH/D502527/1fromtheArtsandHumanities
ResearchCouncil,underitsResearchCentresscheme,whichalsoprovidedthe
fundswithwhichtocommissiontheproject.Thanksalsototwoanonymous
reviewersfortheirhelpfulcommentsonanearlierversionofthepaper.
Authorinformation
EricClarke
FacultyofMusic,
UniversityofOxford,
St.Aldate’s,
OxfordOX11DB
MarkDoffman
FacultyofMusic,
UniversityofOxford,
St.Aldate’s,
OxfordOX11DB
ReneeTimmers,
DepartmentofMusic,
UniversityofSheffield,
34LeavygreaveRoad,
SheffieldS37RD
EricClarkeisHeatherProfessorofMusicattheUniversityofOxford.Hehas
publishedonissuesinthepsychologyofmusic,musicalmeaning,musicand
consciousness,andtheanalysisofpopmusic,includingWaysofListening(OUP
2005),andMusicandConsciousness(OUP2011,withDavidClarke).Hewas
AssociateDirectoroftheAHRCResearchCentreforMusicalPerformanceas
CreativePractice(2009-14),andisaFellowoftheBritishAcademy.
MarkDoffmanisaLeverhulmeEarlyCareerFellowintheFacultyofMusic,
UniversityofOxford.From2011-2014hewaspostdoctoralresearchassistanton
theAHRC-fundedproject'CreativePracticeinContemporaryConcertMusic',led
byEricClarkeattheUniversityofOxford.PriortohisworkatOxford,Markwas
afulltimeresearcherintheSociologyDepartmentattheOpenUniversity
investigatingtheworkinglivesofblackBritishjazzmusicians.
ReneeTimmersisSeniorLecturerinPsychologyofMusicattheDepartmentof
Music,UniversityofSheffield,whereshedirectstheMusic,Mind,Machine
researchcentre.ShewastrainedintheNetherlandsinMusicologyand