"Music is a collaborative art form; musicians work with each other, with composers, both living and dead, and with professionals from related disciplines. But musical training frequently focuses on the young performer's or composer's talent without helping him or her learn to work with others"⁵⁰.

Due to practical reasons, I chose to analyse the sessions and focus only on some of the numerous possible approaches to the collaborative processes, creating a narrower perspective to guide my analysis.

The most relevant ones are my personal experience and the topics that emerged during the feedback sessions. I also considered other elements to understand the collaborations, but they were all subjected to the main choice of starting from feedback and personal experience.

Feedback 

I took the feedback sessions as a guide to access and select the recorded material from the sessions. Listening back to the sessions made me aware that some topics that strongly impacted the final feedback were already emerging from the beginning, but they only became clear and explicit towards the end of the collaboration. One example is Gaspar's general discomfort in not having a defined role in the partnership and the need – expressed by both composers – for external goals and deadlines to maintain high levels of engagement.

The general feedback with Gaspar started very positively (Session 3): we were both excited, curious, and enthusiastic about our collaboration. Later, the "grades" given by each of us decreased for personal reasons. We were experiencing busy months and the sessions added stress over already highly demanding situations, and we felt we were not doing our best. External pressure undoubtedly affected our interaction, affecting the collaboration in both practical ways (not writing or not practicing the material) and atmosphere-wise.

After the summer, even though I experienced the sessions as heavier because I felt I was exploiting Gaspar's time (he had graduated, so it was not a student-student collaboration anymore), from the recordings the sessions look more structured, more equally interactive, and horizontal. Over the summer, we had worked on some musical material, and the last sessions aimed to build on that and to get to the final composition. Clearer goals and deadlines probably helped keep this phase of the collaboration effective, although it was perhaps less enjoyable due to personal and external factors. 

With Jasper, on the other hand, the path was more linear. We succeeded in structuring our meetings more frequently and consistently first – to get to know each other and to start sketching and experimenting with the flute – and gradually spread the sessions after the summer, once the main pieces were composed and we could focus more on interpretation and refinement. 

The positive outcome of my collaboration with Jasper is evident from our feedback, stable on good satisfaction levels, but this does not represent the level of experimentation included in the process. With Gaspar, the exploration of new ways of interacting and the fluidity of roles was responsible for less stable feedback and overall satisfaction, but it also led to a deeper awareness about ourselves and our boundaries, our needs, and our desires for a fulfilling collaboration. Even though the feedback was not always positive, our openness and willingness to grow made us feel that the process was worth it. 

Personal experience

Another important specification of the perspective chosen to analyse the collected data is my own experience. This research represents mainly my view over the processes I was involved in; it does not include my collaborator's opinions over the interactions apart from the interviews I conducted and the feedback sessions. I will further dive into this topic in the limitations of this research since I feel that being the only one involved in the analysis represents a limit to the understanding of the collaborations. I also considered that "solo" research about collaboration misses the main idea of collaboration itself, reporting only a small part (not more than 1/3) of the possible findings.

Other parameters

• Writing (composing)

My engagement in composition varies between the two collaborations. If Jasper was the principal writer, and I would only create inventories of what is possible and easier on the flute, with Gaspar the writing balance was higher. Between the first sessions, we would both compose as an exercise; later, we tried collaboratively composing during the sessions. The last experiment, from the summer until the last session, consisted of individually choosing some musical material, agreeing on a structure and form for our piece (a flute duet), dividing it into sections and individually working on each section, trying to merge our work from session to session. The last working method functioned best to reach the result I needed for the research, but did not represent a satisfactory example of collaborative composition. The element of negotiation was present, but only reflected in the broad structure of the piece, more than in the actual composition. 

During the collaboration with Jasper, on the other hand, I only wrote a few notes in the entire process. We tried to compose together during the sessions, but he was still the one holding the pencil, while I tried out the material we were working on.

• Different opinions

The type of relationship I maintained with both composers has always stayed on a very respectful level. This does not mean we were always agreeing, but that we were close to what Creamer calls “multiplists”, collaborators that view “differences of opinion as routine and to be expected”⁵¹. Interdisciplinarity and complementarity are strictly related, and the spontaneity in collaborating with Jasper to create an interdisciplinary setting – where I am the performer, he is the composer – proves that different expertise domains facilitate collaboration, even if it makes it arduous to explore and readjust relational dynamics diverging from the traditional ones (or from the initially established ones). Conversely, with Gaspar was easy to experiment with different ways to interact and work together. 

With Gaspar, nevertheless, although we always listened to each other respectfully and celebrated differences in opinion and taste, the “multiplist" approach did not persist until the end of the collaboration. A demonstration of this is the “shared but separated” outcome of our collaboration: we composed not one, but two duos, almost identical except for the fact that one is written by me and the other one by Gaspar. It is interesting to look at the similarities and differences between the scores, the pieces only differ in the notation of small details, that affect the performance result only on a minimal scale. We remained with this as a final product for my research in order to show that our collaboration was not completely successful, but we also agreed to get to a final joint version if and when we would have to rehearse and perform the piece. 

Creamer includes in the factors that influence how collaborators experience differences in opinion:

• a shared worldview 
• respect for each other's expertise
• familiarity with each other's expertise 

In my collaboration, I could see differences in worldview with both composers, but the short period and limited interaction outside the sessions (for consistency, but such a pity!) made it difficult to share much about our personal worldview.

Familiarity with each other’s expertise was low in my collaboration with Jasper, and that made it easier to collaborate respecting each other’s opinion in our own field, whereas with Gaspar the unbalance was evident. He knew my field as much as I did, while I was completely new to composition. I appreciate that in both partnerships respect was always present, and especially Gaspar's ability to find instructive a situation where he clearly was the most expert, finding perhaps more insights on a social and an introspective side than on the professional one, but always showing interest towards the challenge of creating something together.

During the first sessions with both composers, I asked for and offered a "non-judgemental environment" where everyone could "share ideas, even if they don't look refined yet". Also, I aimed to create a setting where agreement and disagreement could always be constructive. I feel that this mindset offered an advantage during the collaboration. I can recall moments where I felt unsure and avoided exposing too much, but that happened sporadically, and I think it was due to factors that I am not considering in this specific study, such as personality, education, gender, and cultural differences. 

• External factors

The collaboration with Gaspar was affected by external personal factors, changing not only our mood and enthusiasm, but also our way of collaborating: session 7 was held online, and we worked individually during the summer, thinking of musical material to include in the final piece. The stress from other projects or duties and the fact that we had to leave from the Netherlands affected the atmosphere during some of the sessions. From session 5 on, the external pressure was visible: we both had less time to devote to the project; not giving our best was unpleasant for both. In the second feedback (Session 6), we commented that we were both living in busy periods. That made us feel inadequate, especially Gaspar. Since I had a more complete view of the research, I was more calm in accepting the non-linearity of the process, since it was my interest to explore the collaboration’s flow, in its ups and downs. 

Differentiation

The first part of the first session was the only part of the collaboration when the two processes could overlap: after a brief introduction and an explanation of the methodology adopted, we shared some expectations and made our "offers" explicit: how much time, mental space can I devote to this project? Which responsibilities do I want to take? Which practical actions am I willing to take?

The first two sessions of both collaborations also had in common a consistent flow of exchange of references and interests, both musical and extra-musical: we needed to get to know each other to collaborate. Of course, the kind of relationship we created was based on what we shared and what we liked, and the common experience of being in recorded sessions. For this reason, the personal aspect that often naturally emerges in artistic collaborations where the sharing is deeper did not stem from ours. 

Some reasons might be connected to the timing (starting without knowing each other means "skipping" the entire part of understanding each other before engaging in artistic collaboration) or to the methodology (which loosened with time, but was quite strict in the documentation of the sessions), personal factors (I often give a "cold person" first impression), lack of a concrete budget for the project (focusing on the process makes it difficult to obtain a good and fairly retributed musical outcome, but I must say I also lacked skills and time to apply for fundings).

I will in this chapter describe some of how the processes developed differently, based on the already mentioned parameters of feedback and personal experience.

Final feedback

The final feedback was more critical with Gaspar. I think it is probably due to the higher degree of freedom and experimentation we included in our collaboration, making it less “familiar” and more difficult in many ways. 

Only during our last feedback session, I discovered that Gaspar had not understood from our first meeting that our collaboration would have been an experimental way to try out different role balances in a performer-composer collaboration. He told me he probably became aware of this only later in the process, but listening back to the previous feedback I noticed he was probably trying to tell me this since the beginning, even if implicitly – which I did not get before. During the first meeting, I thought my proposal was clear and explicit. Looking back at it, I notice that I also did not yet have any clear idea of how the interactions would have been. He was not expecting to have to "step back" from the composer's role, renouncing the power that comes from it, to create a co-composed piece. I was not conscious yet of which forms the collaboration could have taken, but I was convinced I had clarified that I wanted it to go further than a traditional collaboration or commission. 

The process started, and the collaboration took shape during its development: we were experimenting with different ways to collaborate, and from the feedback, I thought he was expecting something similar or, at least, that exploring new possibilities was fulfilling for both of us. There was an expectation gap that I only discovered during the last feedback session, which might have explained how the mood changed after the enthusiastic first feedback session.

It is striking to compare the first and the last feedback sessions with Gaspar: not only for the different outcomes – we both were clearly more enthusiastic about the possibilities during the first feedback session and more tired and aware of the difficulties of the process in the final one – but also for the way we talked about the collaboration. The difference in how we communicate is noticeable; individual and collective growth and a more prominent awareness of our needs in projects of this kind are tangible.

Jasper showed overall more satisfaction, remaining available and interested in future meetings and projects and even suggesting that I write a piece to discuss with him. I will do that in the coming months.

Engagement levels over time

During the collaborations, my energy levels connected to the project diminished. I could tell that the same applied to Gaspar's. With Jasper, the flow finally crystallised in less and less frequent but somehow consistent encounters, with a more relaxed mood in which sharing and trying out things was natural.

In my collaboration with Gaspar, our general well-being and stress levels affected both of us, and the process reflected it in its entire duration, hitting the lowest point around June 2023. In the beginning, we were both very excited about trying out and discovering how we could work together, while after the summer break, the collaboration was lower in our priorities, and its outcome served only for research purposes.

Based on the last feedback session, this trend was probably due to the lack of concrete purpose. Without a planned concert, a deadline, or a recording scheduled, our motivation appeared to diminish with time. Having a clear shared final goal could have also influenced how we worked together.

Personal factors:

I did not explicitly discuss this topic with any of the composers, but I feel that one of the deep differences between the collaborations, one of the most connected to subjectivities, was the type of personal connection we developed over time. 

With Gaspar, I felt we resonated as individuals on many levels: we play the same instrument (even though he also plays its historical versions...), and have similarly detail-focused and craft-oriented personalities, rational and methodical. I believe we also share a "slow" approach to the world. These similarities, nevertheless, were balanced by distinct aesthetic research and musicality. This artistic divergence made the first part of the project exciting for both of us, but our engagement in the project lowered with time, not having a concrete goal and with the hindrance of the research over the more creative and free craft of art, concurrently with difficult moments on the personal and academic side (stress, mental health, …).

Collaborating with Jasper, it was clear that our personalities were very different even from the first session: he likes to talk, often with a loud tone and in a very excited way, whereas I tend to be less extroverted and talk soft. Also, our skills are more obviously on two different levels; his musical research almost every time made me exit my comfort zone: his style - or how it looks to me after our collaboration - relies a lot on repetitive patterns in quick tempo, on very rhythmical motifs or on effects that take harmony as their starting point. The nature of these requests challenged me musically and technically; they also reflected the differences in our backgrounds: I can easily see that for a composer with a piano performance background, the parameters of rhythm and harmony prevail on tone production, colour, and vibrato, for instance. It was interesting to look for a compromise between technical potential and limitations of an instrument on one side; and musical and compositional research on the other. I think that the fact of continuously challenging the technical side of my instrument based on Jasper's curiosity about what is possible on the flute and how far one can push its technical limits kept us engaged during the entire collaboration. Even if it became "low maintenance" in the last months, we considered each session as an opportunity to learn and create something. 

The outcome of the collaboration also represents our different backgrounds: in the piece Psalm for solo flute, the interpreter also has to recite a poem by Paul Celan. The text is in German, a language Jasper knows, but another preparatory piece included an Italian poem (La notte bella by Giuseppe Ungaretti), my mother tongue. Once more, by choosing the German poem, Jasper made me leave my comfort zone and try to learn how to pronounce it. I enjoyed the process since it was a new way to practice and approach a solo flute piece. 

Including poems in the music was included in my very first collaboration proposal, where I wanted to explore language possibilities connected to music as a topic for a performer-composer collaboration; I later discovered that the process and interactions could serve as a research topic since the insights derived from them were so rich. 

The impact of poetry and, more specifically, how words sound in both collaborations makes me think that my input also resulted in the composition process, even though Jaspar chose alone the poems to include in the pieces.

Also, transferring language qualities into music (sound, meaning, allegory, ...) is one thing, – and Gaspar and I explored it in our very first composition experiment (Sessions 2 to 5) – but actually reciting a poem while playing the flute is on another level: it challenges me to find the confidence to include my completely untrained voice in music making, where I usually have the flute "protecting" me. It is a different kind of exposure, and I probably needed someone with an external perspective on flute playing to make me actually engage in such a challenge. 

Complementarity and proximal development

Complementarity is a meaningful topic that often emerged during the two collaborations I had: finding a balance in roles and a bi-directional exchange of skills and knowledge was easier with Jasper since we both had expertise in two different fields that, joined, could create a good product. Contrarily, with Gaspar there was an evident – predictable and understandable – unbalance in the knowledge exchange. He was more experienced than me on almost all of the central aspects of this project, and this instability made it problematic to create an environment that was fulfilling for everyone. 

John-Steiner's belief that in collaborations partners "broaden, refine, change and rediscover [their] individual possibilities"⁵² was confirmed during my collaborations, where – both in positive and negative ways – all the involved individuals were aware of a satisfying personal development. 

During the last feedback session with Gaspar, even if the failure of many aspects of our collaboration emerged strongly, I was stunned by the honesty and transparency of our communication, and by how we were open to embracing the downsides of an imperfect process without regrets or rancour. We both felt we had understood something about us, aware that this is what matters after all. 

During a conversation with Arefeh Hekmatpanah (Composition Student) about my research, she also pointed out that composers develop with time "their way" to collaborate with musicians. I question if it is the case with Jasper, but, based on his feedback, I think our collaboration pushed his habits a bit further. After the collaboration, I recognise that the fact that Jasper is used to working with performers helped us find a balance and stick to it, even if that meant it was harder to experiment with role balance and different settings as Gaspar and I did. I would define my collaboration with Jasper as safer, perhaps, but also more traditional compared to the one with Gaspar.

Clarity of goals

I think my goals were quite clearly stated since the beginning of the process, and they consisted of exploring the interactions between a performer and a composer in the composition of a piece for flute(s) and experimenting with how collaboration can work. Based on this, the collaboration with Gaspar could be considered more in line with the aims of my research, giving more material to answer my research question. However, collaborating with Jasper was easier and led to more satisfying outcomes. Our interactions were still useful in understanding how a performer can collaborate with a composer to create a solo flute piece, even though it approached the question more traditionally. 

As a result of the feedback from both sessions, a clear goal and defined deadlines would have made the work more effective, probably leading to better compositions sooner. More planned concerts and performances can stimulate the composition process.

Vera John-Steiner affirms that collaborating enhances individual engagement and consistency when involved people share an interest in a common challenge. It requires trust and confidence that any debate leads to deeper understanding and connection⁵³.

Authorship: who is the composer?

Inspecting authorship might seem superfluous in this research, where the traditional compartmentalisation of the roles of composer and performer is questioned. It is nevertheless an essential matter to be discussed, and one of the reasons why Gaspar reported feeling "unfamiliar" with the process sometimes.

Jasper never questioned his authorship as the composer, he wrote his name and birth year on all the sketches. This choice is totally understandable since he had composed them, and our roles stabilised in this way during the collaboration.

With Gaspar, the separation between the traditional roles of composer and performer was unhinged. This freedom led to a more problematic authorship definition, and the composer's ego was obliged to negotiate with collaborative results. We never discussed the authorship, and the final products – although very similar – consist of two separate versions, "mine" and "his" ones. Both versions result from joint composition, but we did not feel the explicit desire to specify the author at any moment. I never felt the urge to discuss authorship with Jasper, since he composed all the pieces, and I only gave inputs once the composition was nearly complete.

In future projects of this kind, I would definitely be explicit from the very beginning about which credits we want from the final product, creating authorship guidelines – as suggested by Creamer⁵⁴.

Some possibilities could be the creation of pseudonyms, the definition of a collective to include all involved individuals and make everyone feel fulfilled and recognised, and writing all the collaborators' names on the score. It is also possible, as it happened with Jasper, that the composer takes credit for the piece even after the inputs given by the interpreter, as long as everyone agrees on that. 

I like the idea of collectives very much, I think it would fit the aims and approaches of a project like this. I will keep it in mind for future collaborations.

Subjective perspectives might seem an intrinsic limit of artistic research. In this study, a thoughtful methodology throughout the research process aimed to turn subjectivities and interactions into data, adopting my viewpoint over the process. I want to highlight the incredible potential of the subjects involved in artistic research: each presence was an opportunity to develop a meaningful collaboration. It was interesting to experience collaborative composition, but it would have probably been even more fruitful to transform it into an equally collaborative research process. The fact that this research originated from only my perspective makes it partial and entirely personal. I hope my collaborators will not mind eventual mistakes, lack of balanced opinions, or misunderstandings. Their point of view is probably quite distant from mine: this distance again reflects the variety and opportunities offered by collaborative practices, both in art making and artistic research. 

In this section, I feel the urge to mention that the collaborations I present were trying to overcome gender-defined roles; I am aware that the male-composer and female-musician (especially flutist) combination is common and often stereotyped. During the process, I could feel that sometimes this circumstance impacted the collaborations. Yet, gender-related dynamics are not the focus of this research, so I did not include them in my analysis. I think this topic deserves in-depth attention and that researching this would give thought-provoking insights into collaboration in arts, creating a wide range of possible perspectives. I hope to have the chance to investigate different gender balances in collaborations in the future.

John-Steiner (2000) approaches gender differences in partnerships, dedicating a chapter to women in collaboration⁵⁵. She specifically delves into the genesis of Women's Ways of Knowing, a collaboratively written book, the outcome of joint research about women's perception of knowledge conducted by four women⁵⁶.

This research gives an autoethnographical overview of an artistic project conducted between April 2023 and January 2024. It provides case studies that add to the already broad and varied literature about collaboration between performers and composers.