Knowledge-based cooperation between art music composers and musicians

Analogies, sound imitations and physical gestures function as alternative practices of representation that fill the communication gap in the symbolic representation of the score. These different representation practices can complement one another, as one practice can shift the boundaries of another. And as we can see, music practitioners are aware of the problem that notations cannot fully explain the intentions or vision of the composer. Moreover, they know that the score basically lacks absolute exactness. But regardless of a standardised notation system one can also raise the question of whether absolute exactness is at all possible. Because, as Ludwig Wittgenstein argues, exactness cannot be defined by objective criteria and has no universal validity: “No single ideal of exactness has been laid down” (Wittgenstein 1953/1968: §88).star (*12) As the given examples illustrate, the meaning of exactness is negotiated among the participants (e.g. composer and musicians), in a specific situation (e.g. rehearsals), with different practices of representation (e.g. analogies, sound imitations, physical gestures) and in light of a specific practical implementation (e.g. preparing a performance). Consequently the meaning of exactness is an (a) temporally limited, (b) purposive, and (c) inter-subjective affair, and therefore (d) refers to the knowledge and experiences of the people involved.

The given practices of representation require a central communicative skill. Composers must assess the common frame of reference they share with musicians, so that analogies, imitations and gestures work. Composers have to know the common pool of knowledge, which consists of shared symbolic or material tools, experiences and ways of thinking (cf. Zembylas/Dürr 2009: 14).star (*14) It is about knowing what the others know and what knowledge you share with them.

In order to understand and to play the score, however, musicians do not just depend on the composer as the author of the work. They not only support the composition process by knowledge exchange, give creative input through their musical expertise and thereby function as an inspiration, but can also help one another in rehearsals, quickly identify problems and find uncomplicated solutions. In an observed rehearsal, for example, when the violin, cello and double bass had problems with a complicated rhythm in a passage, the percussionist – although he was not part of that passage – came up with some suggestions. He gave advice on how to count in order to get an accurate accentuation and to coordinate the interplay between the instrumentalists and then played the passage with them a couple of times and counted out loud, so that everybody could hear. He also turned on a metronome. Neither the composer nor the conductor participated in this situation. The four musicians got together spontaneously in an informal interaction between themselves in order to coordinate their interplay based on their knowledge. It is what Fritz Böhle calls an “experience-based subjectifying cooperation” (Böhle 2010: 164; my translation).star (*5) In this, occasion, time and participants in the cooperation arise in reference to the characteristics of the problem. The interaction is based on shared experience, mutual trust in the expertise of each participant and is supported by tools. Furthermore, such peer-to-peer cooperation among musicians can also provide a substantial relief for composers. Although composers know a lot about music theory, the pitch range of instruments and their common type of use, they also depend on the explicit and tacit knowledge of musicians and therefore can also hand over responsibility to them. As one composer responded to the question of whether it might be possible that musicians could not play something she had written: “Yes, that has happened sometimes, but it is no big disaster, because the musicians find a solution for themselves.”

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/