Knowledge-based cooperation between art music composers and musicians

Applying this approach to composition processes opens the possibility to highlight the cooperation between composers and various professionals from different fields who contribute to the composition process, so that the composition can be written (computer scientists producing composition software), edited, printed and distributed (publishers), advertised (promoters) and evaluated (critics, listeners). Concerning economic and institutional questions, composers also rely on purchasers. They raise a budget, create the thematic context in which the composition will be performed and organise the venue. These interdependencies primarily reflect the division and coordination of labour necessary to write and perform the composition. But it is also important not to lose sight of the artwork itself, because “all of the people who participate in making the work have some effect on the final choice of the ‘work itself’” (Becker 2006: 24).star (*2) The basic parameters set by purchasers, for example, influence the work of the composer and thereby also the composition with regard to time (concert date/work period, deadlines/time pressure, length of the composition in relation to budget), theme of the composition (which should correspond to the topic of the event), and instrumentation, as it is not uncommon for the performing ensemble or orchestra to be pre-booked. But even as purchasers influence the composition process and the artwork, they are not directly involved in the creative work – unlike the musicians. Because, when talking about the process of composing, many of our interviewees specifically refer to cooperation with musicians. So in this article I will explore three different aspects of this cooperation: the time (in the process of creating or in rehearsals), the quality (whether musicians and composers share or do not share the same object of work and whether or not they are contractually bound to each other) and the aspect of knowledge (expanding, transferring and exchanging explicit and tacit knowledge) in such cooperation.

Cooperation in the process of creating

At the beginning of the creation process, some composers enter a creative cooperation with musicians. In order to discover the ensemble’s sound options in relation to their instrumentation or to get a feel for their way of playing, they contact the musicians who will be performing the composition. Preferences, peculiarities or unique skills of individual musicians can also serve as influences. As a composer explained his cooperation with an ensemble he knows: “I probably wouldn’t have written a relatively complex electric guitar part like that for an ensemble that I didn’t know at all, yes. But since I know the musician and his readiness to experiment, and also his desire so to say to do something he otherwise normally doesn’t do like that, this rather encourages me not to reject an idea that suggests itself.”

Knowing the ensemble in advance can be an advantage, because it makes it possible to anticipate the way individual musicians will interpret the composition or play certain parts. Simultaneously, the quote above also illustrates, that working with an unknown ensemble requires a different approach to the writing process. Compositions can be very complex and the musical imagination of the composer very particular. Thus the following questions emerge: can the musician play my composition according to my imagination? Or can the musician add something valuable to the composition through her/his own interpretation or individual expertise? Hence this kind of creative cooperation is rooted in artistic exchange of musical ideas and possibilities of creating sounds and happens during the development of the composition. It also reveals a formal dimension, as composers and musicians share the same object of work and are contractually bound to each other.

star

Becker, Howard S. (1974): Art As Collective Action. In: American Sociological Review, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 767–776.

star

Becker, Howard S. (2006): The Work Itself. In: Becker, Howard S.; Faulkner, Robert R.; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara (eds.): Art from Start to Finish. Jazz, Painting, Writing, and Other Improvisations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 21–30.

star

Becker, Howard S. (2008): Art Worlds. 25th anniversary ed., updated and expanded. Berkeley, London: University of California Press.

star

Blumer, Herbert (1986): Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.

star

Böhle, Fritz (2010): Arbeit als Handeln. In: Böhle, Fritz; Voß, G. Günter; Wachtler, Günther (eds.): Handbuch Arbeitssoziologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 151–176.

star

Danto, Arthur (1964): The Artworld. In: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 61, No. 19, pp. 571–584.

star

Polanyi, Michael (1966): The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

star

Polanyi, Michael (1964): The Logic of Tacit Inference. In: Grene, Marjorie (ed.): Knowing and Being. Essays by Michael Polanyi. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969, pp. 138–158.

star

Schatzki, Theodore (2014): Art bundles. In: Zembylas, Tasos (Ed.): Artistic Practices. Social interactions and cultural dynamics. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 17–31.

star

van Maanen, Hans (2009): How to Study Art Worlds. On the Societal Functioning of Aesthetic Values. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

star

Warning, Rainer (ed.) (1975): Rezeptionsästhetik. Theorie und Praxis. München: Fink.

star

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953/1968): Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

star

Zembylas, Tasos (2006): Modelle sozialer (Un)Ordnung. Überlegungen zur Konstitution der Forschungsgegenstände der Kulturbetriebslehre. In: Zembylas, Tasos; Tschmuck, Peter (eds.): Kulturbetriebsforschung. Ansätze und Perspektiven der Kulturbetriebslehre. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 17–45.

star

Zembylas, Tasos; Dürr, Claudia (2009): Wissen, Können und literarisches Schreiben. Eine Epistemologie der künstlerischen Praxis. Wien: Passagen Verlag.

The author acknowledges the original research project “Tacit Knowing in Musical Composition Process” which is based at the Institute for Music Sociology at the University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna and directed by Tasos Zembylas. The project has been generously funded by the Jubiläumsfonds der Stadt Wien (project number: J-2/12) as well as by the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung (project number: P27211-G22) from November 2013 to November 2015. All empirical data and analysis result from the collaboration between the author and the members of the project team, Andreas Holzer, Annegret Huber, Rosa Reitsamer and Tasos Zembylas.

In a following passage Schatzki criticises Becker for his concept of convention. Highlighting his own concept of art, understood as wide-ranging “bundles” linked to each other within “constellations”, Schatzki argues that interactions among the participants in an art world would not be as standardised as Becker suggested.

Martin Niederauer ( 2015): Knowledge-based cooperation between art music composers and musicians. In: p/art/icipate – Kultur aktiv gestalten # 06 , https://www.p-art-icipate.net/knowledge-based-cooperation-between-art-music-composers-and-musicians/