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

eprints@whiterose.ac.ukhttps://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 eprints@whiterose.ac.uk 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 |13

Example1:Scoreof‘Invocation’.

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 ΠΠw

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

eric.clarke@music.ox.ac.uk

MarkDoffman

FacultyofMusic,

UniversityofOxford,

St.Aldate’s,

OxfordOX11DB

mark.doffman@music.ox.ac.uk

ReneeTimmers,

DepartmentofMusic,

UniversityofSheffield,

34LeavygreaveRoad,

SheffieldS37RD

r.timmers@sheffield.ac.uk

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

P a g e |54

Psychology,andwasaresearchfellowatvariousinstitutesbeforebeing

appointedtohercurrentpost.Hermainareasofresearchincludeexpressive

timinginmusicperformance,perceptionandexpressionofemotioninmusic,

andmultimodalexperiencesofmusic.