8. Summary


From my background as both a classical pianist and pop musician I have explored three research questions regarding my own artistic research and development, on the topic of using chamber music in my popular music compositions, exploring the extended chamber ensemble to create a signature sound and collaborating with musicians from different traditions and genres.

I have used the term extended chamber ensemble to describe combining a chamber ensemble with a popular music band and electronic sounds. 



The result of my first research question, on using chamber music when composing, exceeded my initial expectations, and my prior fear of making a mockery of genre blending gave way to enthusiasm early on in the process. Leaning on inspiration from the romantic period, using musicking as a process, and emulating the techniques of my favourite composers, I have become more clear about my artistic preferences, and defined some building blocks I want to utilise in my future compositions.

My process has been influenced by Feyerabends statement on the importance of the process to be open-ended and free to go where it needs to go, without initial limitations. (Hannula et al, 2014)

Just as I described in the methodology chapter, I have experienced that the process has been in focus. Of course, it is not certain that my practices were the best possible ones to implement. For example, I might have quoted music more directly when composing, like other bands do(as described in chapter 3.2). Another possibility could have been to go even further away from popular music harmonics and structure, and upon seeing my results, this is one direction I wish to explore further. However, using a practice-led methodology was a good choice for finding new ways of composing music, and I will continue to use and elaborate on these new-found practices past this project.



Regarding my second research question I have explored using the extended chamber ensemble to create a signature sound. My experience with DAWs, synthesisers, and classical music gave me an opportunity to explore different arranging techniques and audio processing. My most important finding on this matter has been the ability to become more bold and unapologetic in my expression. 

I might have chosen to tackle fewer artistic roles myself to find my signature sound. It is likely that the demos would be more “finished” if I had collaborated closer with other music producers, cut all the time-consuming editing and ignored learning about new procedures in my DAW. However, compared to my previous experiences of co-working with these processes, I bear more ownership to the sound and feel “my” signature more clearly. 

 

Collaborating with performers from different genres and traditions led to lots of unforeseen challenges. My hope is that some of my findings on this matter will lead to a more seamless collaboration process for those who embark on a similar task. I experienced the need to adapt my communication towards the different recipients. Other findings were related to the musicians' differences in preferences on phrasing, and playing “in time”. The popular band musicians were able to take initiative with their own ideas in the process, while the chamber musicians responded better to direct instructions. The collaboration process would have benefited intensely of a prolonged duration as the musicians would have been able to adapt to each other's language. As the concept of musicking has been of importance, and the relationships and understandings between the musicians in the collaboration was central to connecting our musical horizons, with more time, we would have been able to delve deeper into each others context.


More objectivity might have been achieved through dividing the artistic and reflective processes. My research has been personally tailored, and as I showed in the methodology chapter, Barret argued could be seen as a strength. (Barrett, 2007) While I have tried to create a systematic and scientific structure, I have a close connection to the material, and the research might have been better served with a division between the artist and the researcher. (Crispin, 2015)