Knowledge-based cooperation between art music composers and musicians

Musical conventions, practices of representation and cooperation in rehearsals

The quality of the cooperation also changes after the composition is finished and musicians and composers meet in rehearsals. Here the cooperation does not necessarily have to be efficient, because the cultural sector in which contemporary art music is played today gives rise to possible frictions. In German-speaking regions, 18th- and 19th-century tonal music dominates the concert world. In this context contemporary art music is mainly presented in smaller, low-budget venues, and fails to attract broad public interest. In academic instrumental education, too, contemporary art music or new forms of music developed over the last 50 years are more or less neglected. Because the musicians are situated within this context, the cooperation between composers and musicians is not always easy. One composer, for example, pointed out: “Many orchestral musicians just don’t want to abandon what they are used to. I think these are really experts, who play the instrument perfectly but just in a specially prescribed framework.” The slight deprecation in these words invokes the assumption of a hierarchical relationship between composer and musicians where the creating composer is placed above the reproducing musicians. In reality, however, composers stress the cooperative character of their relations with performing musicians in rehearsals.

As our study is revealing, composers consciously rely on the musicians, for the simple fact that they are the ones who will be playing the composition and are one main key to a successful performance. Because of this, composers try to attend rehearsals and also to motivate the musicians, knowing that their composition can only be realised through joint efforts: “I just know that when you are jointly motivated for an objective it is just super.” Or as another composer explains: “When someone now says to me this or that sounds absolutely crap and it won’t work like that, I am the last person to say no, it’s got to be like that. But then I say, yes, OK, then we’ll change it where we can.”

This quote also shows that the interaction between composers and musicians in rehearsals does not just depend on their attitude to one another or on pursuing a common goal. The interpersonal relationships are also mediated by an artefact: the score that needs to be conveyed. Despite the differences in musical education between composers and musicians they do, of course, also share a wide pool of knowledge: of reading and writing notational signs, of instruments, arrangements and musical interplay – i.e., they have knowledge in common that facilitates professional interaction.

Regarding the knowledge of different participants in a professional interaction points out to another prominent notion in Becker’s theory of “art worlds”: conventions. According to Theodore Schatzki, “Becker defines conventions as ways of doing things (1) that are known to everyone, (2) that everyone knows are known to everyone, and (3) that people uphold because upholding them is the easiest way to coordinate activities” (Schatzki 2014: 21).star (*9)*2 *(2) Because conventions are standardised agreements – like symbols or practices – they reduce complexity and thereby simplify interactions, and guarantee that people can refer to something without the need to negotiate its meaning over and over again. Imagine a musical score with C-D-E: every professional musician will know how to read the symbols on the staves and their position on their instrument. A composer can therefore write C-D-E, anticipate possible reactions and expect musicians to read these notes without asking. One can say: a composer communicates his or her musical intentions through the score or, to paraphrase Becker, through conventions intrinsic to his or her particular art world.

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/