So when I'm not pondering the deep questions of being I still occasionally write music. Kyle has just posted a nice thought about the mutuality of performance, and i thought I'd echo it, having just come out of a fabulous first rehearsal of my 'Deixo | Sonata' with Jessica and Steve Beck. Two thoughts came to mind during our session which connect to and expand Kyle's point.
The first is the extent to which scores underdetermine performances, but that that is a good. One way of looking at that is completely selfish– i much prefer to play with people and try things out and uncover things about that work through a discussion, through the interplay of engaged musicians sharing openly. A 'perfect notation' (i.e. a notation which somehow captured that perpetually elusive 'intent' of the composer) would amplify the power dynamic which has evolved between composers and performers, but would (imho) limit how good a piece could get, since the would then be the result of one perspective, rather than several. Certainly, as composers, we have developed models of performers that we use in constructing a piece, hopefully somewhat more sophisticated than 'I hope this triple stop isn't too hard,' but similarly conditional. My model will never match the insight that a Jess or a Steve bring to the process of developing a work, though the better the model the more efficient that process can be.
The second thought follows on from this; if I am to take the above point seriously, than I need to take seriously the fact that other are contributing in non-trivial ways to that collective activities that we refer to as a particular 'work.' I've just been thinking a bunch about how as composers we are both individual actors and inheritors of the concepts and traditions, and how the interference pattern between these two fields is what makes us who we are, not only in the sense of providing influence and provoking responses, but truly making us, giving us the opportunity to be. But if that is that case, then I must have a similarly interactive relationship with the colleagues with whom I'm working on these projects. Kyle in her post mentions generosity, which I think is a good word for it, but I would add openness, openness to the intermingling of self and intent that is musicking. Revisions are literally what this is all about.
Technorati Tags: collaboration, Jessica, Kyle
Douglas wrote: "Certainly, as composers, we have developed models of performers that we use in constructing a piece, hopefully somewhat more sophisticated than 'I hope this triple stop isn't too hard,' but similarly conditional."
ReplyDeleteTo what extent do (or should) composers develop 'models' of listeners to be used in constructing a piece? Or perhaps, to what extent do listeners (potential or actual) contribute in non-trivial ways to the process of the 'work'?
So actually any score can be thought of as "open source" code, sometimes the written code can change --Sumire our cellist talked me out of a string's worth of scordatura two days ago--sometimes more the volatile field in between the notes...
ReplyDeleteThe idea of a model listener is very sticky--potentially fascist. I tell myself that I refuse to deal with the notion, but by doing so I've just accepted myself as my model listener. I write what I want to hear, and I slide out from under the responsibility to "communicate" with Tarkovsky's idea that the listener/viewer is the essential last step--their making sense, their filling in the answers for themselves, their innate human desire to discover patterns--they finish the piece. If an artist has a duty it is to leave these spaces open. It is important to me to think of the listening experience, the performance experience, and the compositional experience--as non-coercive.