CONCLUSIONS

As a result of the literature review, interviews with experts in the field, and my own collaborative case studies with composers, I am able to more clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of the violist when collaborating with living composers.

In Chapter One, I identified what these roles and responsibilities are through role models, Tertis and Dean. These committed musicians (amongst many others) have contributed to the expansion of the viola repertoire and its status as a solo instrument. One can summarise their roles as highly skilled performers of the viola, communicators, interpreters, promoters, composers, transcribers and collaborators. 

In Chapter Two I drew on authors such as Goehr⁸⁴ and Cook,^{85, 86} to discuss the roles of the performer (interchangeable with violist) and composer in a historical context, identifying the historical divide that occurred from the 1800’s onwards. I then went on to examine what these collaborative roles are today. As mentioned in chapter two, Hayden and Windsor⁸⁷ divide performer composer collaborations into three categories: Directive. Interactive. Collaborative (or a blending of more than one).

In chapter Three, I identified the responsibilities of the violist when collaborating with living composers. Firstly, through examples of role-models Tertis and Dean and then through the work of contemporary pianist Kanga.⁸⁸ In sum, this chapter argues that in order to collaborate effectively, one must have a high level of skill on the viola, musical knowledge, an ability to communicate and a willingness to collaborate. 

These I moved on to implement  in my own collaborative processes in Chapter Four. 

My roles in each of the collaborations with living composers have been as instigator, violist, interpreter, communicator and promoter (or potential promoter for the works to be premiered at my Master recital 2022). My Responsibilities in each of the collaborations discussed fell into these broad categories. With the pre-composed works (Agir, Edwards and Kats-Chernin) I was not involved in their commissioning. (Towards the end of my conclusions is a brief summary table of the conclusions reached in each case study).

Orkun Ağır (Dutch composer) Preludio di Quintetto- pre-composed, unpublished work

Responsibilities:

• Know the background of the composer and the music- through interviews and artistic processes, for example workshops and background information online. Ağır shared his background and experiences as a performer.
• Resonate with the composer and the work- this was the case and has resulted in an extensive and successful collaboration. 
• Set clear time frames- we were organised ahead of time for each part of the process. 
• Understand the concept behind the music- this was possible, not only through personal analysis and practice but by receiving clarification from the composer. The more deeply I explored this music, the more I was able to confidently express through my playing. 
• Working through artistic challenges-  Personal practice, artistic and intellectual exchange with the composer and my teacher. This has made it possible to accomplish a high performance standard for this work. I further develop the musical ideas each time I study this work and the technical challenges seem to be less of an issue, although inconsistencies in intonation are evident at times.  
• Feedback loop- meaningful artistic exchange between Ağır and myself has resulted in an altered score and an interpretation of the Preludio which resonates for both composer and performer. After the Television recording on the 26^th January, Ağır took me aside and said: “Michelle, this piece grows with you everytime I hear you play it. I felt really moved by your performance.”

Maarten Bauer (Dutch composer)- A Second Chance- new work

Responsibilities:

• Know the background of the composer and the music- through interviews and workshops and background information online. 
• Resonate with the composer and the work- this was the case, in addition we shared meals together and had some meaningful discussions away from the music. This has resulted in a successful collaboration. Bauer has treated the whole process of writing about my story in a mature and sensitive way. 
• Set clear time frames- aims were set and reached for each part of the process. 
• Understand the concept behind the music- Bauer extensively shared with me the creative processes he went through whilst writing this work. Especially as he was writing about my story, the creation felt like a shared experience on a deeper level.  
• Working through artistic challenges-  Personal practice, artistic and intellectual exchange with the composer and my teacher. The technical challenges are still evident through my recording, however I feel a performance level of this work is obtainable. 
• Feedback loop- there has been extensive exchange between myself and Bauer throughout this process, although the score has remained unaltered. I still have more to explore as it is not ready yet for a public performance. I would like to further investigate the quadruple stops and splitting these into two bows at the beginning of the work. It could mean a notational change.
• There are still performance practicalities to be resolved for example the use of the audio recordings and how to make this work in performance.

 Art of Sound teacher Daan van Aalst was helpful in suggesting taking a single speaker and placing it behind me. This way the central focus is still on the performer

Christopher Bowen (Australian composer)- Firemusic- new work

Responsibilities:

• As I had already collaborated with Bowen in the past, I was aware of his background and that we would successfully work together. I feel emotionally connected to his music.  
• Set clear time frames- As planned in advance, each workshop dealt with a different section of the work. 
• Understand the concept behind the music- as this was about the Australian bushfires I was able to relate to the concept on a personal level.   
• Working through artistic challenges-  Personal practice, artistic and intellectual exchange with the composer and my teacher. These are still by no means resolved as the work has only freshly been completed. I will be focusing on my practice of this work leading up to its premiere performance in April and will continue to communicate with Bowen and take it to my lessons. I will also do some trial performances with pianist Gerard Boeters.  
• Feedback loop- there has been extensive exchange between myself and Bowen.  Throughout the workshop process the score has been expanded and altered.  This will be an ongoing collaboration. 

Richard Hughes (Irish composer)- Viola Delay- new work.

Responsibilities:

• Background of composer and music- through interviews and workshops as well as background information online. 
• As a collaborative duo, in my opinion we resonate with each other and the music reflects this.  Each workshop resulted in a further development, not only in the score, and the music concept from both sides, also in our level of exchange as we became familiar with each other’s approach. I particularly enjoyed learning about the function of electronics (delay and microphone) in this composition which makes it unique in my project and expands my experience.
• Understand the concept behind the music- Hughes showed me examples and shared videos so I could further understand his multi-media approach to the composing process and the use of electronics and delay pedal function. The Celtic influence is also evident through his writing, especially in the melody. 
• Working through artistic challenges- I have been able to improve the extended techniques with the bow over time and will continue to do so, it was helpful to have the constructed delay pedal for practice. 
• Feedback loop- there has been extensive exchange between Hughes and myself. The score has been expanded.  This will be an ongoing collaboration as we both head to our final Master presentations and my recital. The practicalities of the performance still need ironing out as we take it from the Composition studio into a public performance sphere, in addition the audio-visual aspect of the performance has yet to be completed.

Ynyr Pritchard (Welsh-Maltese composer)- The Dreams of Pierre Moreau an aural noir film. Volume 1- new work.

Responsibilities:

• Background of composer and music- communicated through discussions as we were both studying under the same teacher in The Royal Conservatoire, the Hague and further discussions online.
• Resonate with the composer and music- As students together with common interests in contemporary music, we formed a friendship early on in our studies, and this has continued. I was able to resonate with Pritchard’s style, as I was also challenged by how contemporary it is.  
• Understand the concept behind the music- Through the sound files Pritchard has shared I was able to understand more about the concept, as well as the extensive programme notes he has written. The score itself is illustrative of how Pritchard is experimenting with ways of writing sound effects rather than melody lines. In some cases, this was a new musical language for me and needed some clarification. This was therefore helpful when he shared the videos demonstrating certain aspects of how to interpret the score. He shared the film with me that he based on the concept behind the music. 
• Working through artistic challenges- Due to the complex nature of this work I am sure there will be many. However with the role of Ásdís Valdimarsdóttir as teacher and a member of the trio and with Pritchard as part of the ensemble, I am sure these will be resolved.
• Feedback loop- Already the exchange has been a productive one as set out in the previous chapter. 

Ross Edwards, (Australian composer)- Prelude and White Cockatoo Spirit Dance- pre-composed/ published work. 

Responsibilities:

• Composer’s background- through interviews, workshops and prior-knowledge. 
• Resonate with the composer and music- Edward’s music was known to me before the start of the collaboration, and his writing style resonates with me. We had never met prior to the collaboration. Through this process, Edwards and I have communicated well and resonate with each other in a calm and respectful manner.  
• Understand the concept behind the music- I already had a deeper understanding of The White Cockatoo Dance, having taught it and performed it before. The Prelude, was a piece that I had to come to terms with.
• Working through artistic challenges- workshops, practice, lessons, performances and recordings have contributed to this productive period of working towards goals and troubleshooting technical and interpretive aspects. 
• Feedback loop- A change in my  interpretation of the Prelude. I agree with Edwards that my tempo was too slow, and feel that I am starting to play more freely. One of the other important aspects of this collaboration was being made aware that composers really do appreciate feedback, even if a piece has been published many years prior. They are still willing (as Edwards made me aware) to change the score, to make it more practical for performers. They also appreciate and find it important to hear your interpretation of the work prior to performance. This is of benefit both ways.  I will have another workshop with Edwards prior to my next performance as he has suggested

Elena Kats-Chernin, (Australian composer)- Still Life- pre-composed/ published work. 

• Background of composer- through interviews, workshops and prior-knowledge. 
• Her music was known to me before the start of the collaboration, and her writing style resonates with me. I had met Kats-Chernin and worked with her successfully prior to this collaboration.    
• Understand the concept behind the music- in my opinion I have a good understanding of this work having already performed it before, however I have not workshopped it with Kats-Chernin. I have yet to explore it with the composer herself. 
• After interviewing Kats-Chernin I now know more on how the work came into being. A common thread- it was written for the same violist (Patricia Pollett) as Edward’s work. 
• Working through artistic challenges- Besides an initial rehearsal and joint group lesson performance with Gerard Boeters, I have not been able to pursue a workshop with Kats-Chernin, nor have I gone into detail in my lessons. This I will do leading up to my Master recital.  Kats-Chernin has agreed to do this. 
• Feedback loop- As we have not had a workshop, I cannot comment on the feedback loop, except to say that she assured me the tempo markings are often an element she has issues with. These though, she thinks were confirmed in a previous collaboration many years ago. Kats-Chernin also emphasised the importance of revising scores over time. 

My table represents the blending of Collaborative roles in each of my Case Studies. 

Hayden and Windsor. “Collaboration and the Composer: Case Studies from the End of the 20th Century.” Tempo, vol. 61, no. 240, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 28–39. ⁸⁹

Directive: provided notations have the traditional functions as instructions for the musicians by the composer. The traditional hierarchy of composer and performer(s) aims to completely determine the performance through the score.

Interactive: The composer is involved more directly in negotiation with musicians. The process is more interactive, discursive and reflective, with more input from collaborators than in the directive category, but ultimately, the composer is still the author. Some aspects of the performance are more ‘open’ and not determined by the score.

Collaborative: The development of the music is achieved through a collective decision making process. There is no singular or hierarchy of roles. 

The common result of each one of these collaborations in my opinion is a blending both Interactive and Directive Collaborative categories. 

Why? Each collaboration has been through direct negotiation with the composer. Each collaboration has revealed a flexibility from the composer. The notes are not written in concrete, unchangeable forms. Revisions are reasonable to expect.

 My interpretation of each piece will grow and develop and this I especially recognised in my collaboration with Ağir. Even my performances of Edwards’s Prelude has changed dramatically from the time of the recording and the workshop. 

The “Collaborative” category  in my experience is not relevant as I am not a composer, jazz improviser or pop artist. Each work has been written in a notation format, and serves a traditional function. A slight exception is Pritchard’s work which uses a more unconventional notation style. However it is still written on the traditional stave with most of the essential musical elements. Agir’s work is without bar lines but still demands a certain style of phrasing. 

The “collective decision making process” could possibly be at home in the “Collaborative” category as initial concepts were discussed with the composers prior to the new works’ conception. The clearest example being my collaboration with Bauer who based the composition on my life story, using the audio of my interview with him in the music. Although even in this case it was he who essentially chose the parts of that interview he would structure the work around. For the other part I do not take credit for how these works were shaped structurally, melodically, rhythmically or harmonically. I have only provided ideas for instrumentation and the length of the work and indicated whether I resonated with the concept behind the music as discussed to varying degrees with each composer.  

At the end  each of my Collaborative Case Studies, I have attempted to answer the sub- question: 

When collaborating with living composers, can I gain further insight into whether the viola has truly emerged as a solo instrument in its own right, or is there still work to be done? 

These works in my case studies provide a range of possible outcomes. What I can conclude, is that each one of these works provide their own artistic challenges and puts the viola in the spotlight by giving it a prominent, sometimes virtuosic role. This research also reveals that composers are not shy of writing for the viola, but more importantly it reveals that the connection between composer and performer is often the spark needed for the generation of new works.  

As far as extended techniques and pushing the boundaries of our instrument, there is still much work that can be done. The limited experimentation I have done here, especially in my collaborations with Hughes, Bowen, and Pritchard reveal there is more scope for finding sounds on the viola. As technology advances, the use of the instrument can too. 

There is no doubt in my mind however that the viola can be played with pride as a virtuosic solo instrument and that it has a very special quality of sound which makes it unique in the string family. 

After the generation of this new repertoire, and successful collaborations with living composers, it is with confidence that I have curated the lecture-recital style programmes outlined in Chapter 5. My aim is to promote this new repertoire, perform it, record it and teach it. I feel that this project has resulted in some meaningful and clarifying outcomes, both collaboratively, intellectually and artistically and that it contributes to an ever brighter future for my instrument, the viola.  

As Maurice Riley concludes in The History of the Viola, 

    "The future of the viola depends upon the violists themselves!"⁹⁰

My addition to his prediction is; “And those that they collaborate with!        NEXT