Collaboration and Performer Identity in Contemporary Classical Music
What is a performer for? When composers work with performers, in what capacities do they expect or hope to engage them? At what point should a composer give credit to the performer for their creative contributions to a piece? At what point should a performer demand that credit? How does the relationship to the composer and the process of collaboration create the identity of the performer? To repeat the original formulation: what is a performer for? The answers to these questions are fundamental to understanding the various practices in composer and performer collaboration.
Figure 1 outlines a range of six practices in composer and performer collaboration. This chart does not claim to be exhaustive; there may be practices left unlisted, and within this list there is nuance which is impossible to capture within the form of a chart or graph. The chart moves from top to bottom, where the collaborative approaches at the top have the composer and performer working separately, in different times and in different spaces. The approaches at the bottom of the chart have the composer and the performer working together, at the same time and in the same space.
Under the column of the Composer, there is an arrow illustrating the priority of the score within the collaborative process. The more separate the generative process, the more important the score becomes as a tool for communication between composer and performer. The more integrated the working process between composer and performer, the less important the score becomes as a tool for communication, however the score can remain a tool to preserve the musical work, as is also the case in more separate generative processes.
Under the column of the Performer there are explanatory words that illustrate the role of the performer in the genesis of a new musical work. These roles have the potential to encapsulate more than a specific working process and can be understood as performer identities through which a performer’s practice is built and understood. Identities are complex and elusive concepts, but one aspect that builds an identity is the relation between a person and others, and how their role in relation to others is different or the same. In the case of the performer, the relationship towards the composer and the score is a crucial element for understanding artistic identity. The performer who sees the composer as an authority through which the performer learns or grows is an identity all together separate from the performer who sees their identity as an equal to composer in the question of what and how a new musical work is made.
The performer as executor (see figure 1)
The method of using a performer to execute a musical score is perhaps the most practiced and understood dynamic between composer and performer. The executing performer most confirms the romantic view of the composer as solitary genius. In this case, the performer is understood to act as a “medium” or “messenger” that transmits ideas on behalf of the composer. In the crudest sense, the performer is submissive to the composer’s demands. The parameters for musical engagement and expression are designed by the composer and are most often communicated through a written score that is interpreted by the performer. Though the performer’s interpretation is a critical aspect of any realisation of notated sonic material, the authorship of that material remains always with the composer. This is the case even in the example of the open score, wherein the composer leaves openings for the performer to “finish” the work, for example by asking the performer to develop the sonic materials of the piece,1 as in the case of graphic scores, or by asking them to create the form of the piece, as in the case of open modular compositions.2
The performer as adviser11 (see figure 1)
The advisory role of the performer is one that encapsulates a range of collaborative methods and strategies. The performer as advisor is a role that many performers and musicologist will be familiar with, despite the fact that the impact specific performers have had on pieces and composers is very often told in the margins of history in the form of footnotes, anecdotes, and mythology. From Brahms to Britten, Cage to Stockhausen, composers have had specific performers by their sides acting as musical confidants and consultants.3 It is in these practices that the image of the composer as solitary genius begins to fade from view.
The performer advises by assisting the composer with issues of notation, by showing the composer the possibilities of their instruments and that specific performer’s tendencies or interests, or by workshopping sketches of a composition. In these methods, strategies such as improvisation may enter into the creative process, whereby the performer’s individual artistry directly impacts the development of a musical work. In all of these examples of advising performer, the performer and the composer begin to enter a dialogue where two parties have agency to contribute towards an artistic work before the composition’s formal components are set into score. In these cases of advisory collaboration, the composer may chose to use the margins of that score to thank the performer for her or his contributions to the piece.
The performer as deviser (see figure 1)
The performer as deviser is the performer as co-creator or co-composer. This method of collaboration is, within the world of classical music, the most radical in its demand for what and how a performer must contribute to the genesis a new musical work. The word “devise”4 in this context references strategies used in theatre and live arts originating in the 1950's and 1960’s, notably in the model of theatre known as devised theatre.5 Devised theatre is a generative practice in which the traditional method of creating theatre that begins with a script and relies on a director is replaced with a flat structure in which all theatre practitioners can contribute to the process and creation of a new work, including the actors, scenographers, technicians, and others.6 In devised contemporary classical music, the role of the performer and composer as separate practices is dissolved and both parties contribute to the formal contents of a musical work. In some cases, the composer also performs the piece alongside the performer. The authorship of the work is shared between the composer and the performer and both person’s names are listed as creators, regardless of their labor specializations.
The method of devising differs from more traditional classical music compositional methods in a number of key ways. The first is that devised composition does not rely on a score for its creation. In fact, in the case of devised work, the score may never be created. If it is created it is usually done so primarily to preserve the musical work, often long after it has been created and performered. Very often, the piece is made through a series of experiments such as improvisation and game playing. Artistic decisions are made in real time while the composer and performer work at the same time in the same space. This differs to more separated collaborative models where most artistic decisions are ultimately made at the composer’s desk. With the performer integrated into the process of creating the work, the score loses its significance as a method for communication between composer and performer. In the case of devised work, the communication of musical ideas happens immediately and verbally. Theatre director Simon McBurney says the following about his process of creation in regards to notion of a script or text:
“Most of the time a theatrical production is constructed in the following order: writing, rehearsal, performance and, sometimes, translation... In our creations, the process is... reversed...[it] becomes rehearsal-performance-translation-writing.”7
The diminished emphasis and influence of the score on the musical process is an exciting aspect of the devised creative method, however, even for the most adventurous and open classical performer, the process of sharing a creative process without the aid of a score can pose a unique challenge. Most classically trained musicians are trained to relate to a score through interpretation rather than to create themselves from scratch. However, devised creation demands that the object with which a performer interfaces is not score but a person. It is an added challenge that most classical performers are taught that it is the composer who owns the voice of authority in classical music practices. Through the process of devising, of interfacing with the composer as an equal, the performer’s practice naturally expands to include improvisation and composition. This expansion of skills and dispositions occurs naturally through the act of devising, and it does so regardless of any formal training.
The second aspect that differs from more traditional collaborative methods is the aspect of time — not the amount of time spent on composing or practicing a piece, but the amount of time spent with the composer and performer together in a shared space. The devised creative process relies on both parties working together in the same space and at the same time whereby the concept, materials, and form of a new work can be fully developed and realized. Devised theatre practitioner Alexandra Desaulniers says the following about the aspect of time in devised theatre work:
“...we accepted that a three or even six-week rehearsal process would simply not suffice to create this show, and agreed to live with the work, and each other, for six months instead.”8
For many situations, institutions, and artists, the amount of time required to devise a musical work is a luxury that is simply too hard to come by. In some situations, the method of devising is wholly impractical. But for performers who yearn for artistic and personal interaction, for having a direct impact on a piece, and for that piece to be personalised to that performer’s body and practice, the devised method can provide artistic riches impossible to replicate in more separated models of composer-performer collaboration.
The third aspect that differs from more traditional collaborative methods relates to responsibility — who is responsible for what and when. Devised creation creates the situation for everyone to be “in it together” in a “joint tenancy”9. This notion relies on all participants taking responsibility and ownership for the entire piece and process, rather than each party taking care of their own specialized work, be it composition or performance. In devised work the notion of a composer “blaming” a failed performance on an “unskilled/unprepared performer” or of a performer “blaming” the “unskilled/unprepared composer” is simply not possible. The group rises and falls together. Alexandra Desaulniers reflects on the notion of shared responsibility in the following way,
“As both creator and performer, the role of actor in devised theatre requires more than learning lines and inhabiting a previously established character...[it] was up to our ensemble to maintain structure....Even design elements were not off-limits for discussion...” 10
For the performer, the demand of taking on more responsibility requires new skills and dispositions. In devised creation the performer is not just an instrumentalist but is also a contributor to a shared concept. This expanded responsibility requires that the performer intimately understand the underlying concept as well as the composer does. This requires not only instrumental skills but critical and creative thinking aided by research: the more one has researched around the topic of exploration, the more one can contribute to the creative process and rehearsals.11 The performer will also recognise that the process of devising naturally creates opportunities for the performer to learn and test new skills, whether it is composition or improvisation, or even lighting and costume design. The nature of devised creation is that everyone involved has the opportunity to contribute to every aspect of a piece, regardless of their background or training. The performer who engages with this method of working will experience that the generative process is itself a training ground for an expanding artistic practice. In a devised contemporary music practice, the performer is also composer, improvisor, researcher, designer, specialist, beginner, and forever so on.
Devising offers an invitation to experience a profound coming together through creative action and joint tenancy that is unique within the frame of classical music collaboration. However, this invitation also confronts historical notions of roles and identities, authorship, and the separation of specialized labor in music making. As is the case with any collaborative method, devising is a practice and, as such, requires cultivation. The navigation of new identities, practices, and generative models requires nuanced communication skills and an unbounded generosity from both the performer and composer alike.
—
At least in part, it appears that the role that the performer assumes is contingent to the choice of when the composer and performer meet in the same space at the same time and at what point a score becomes the primary component for communicating and realising a musical idea. The sooner the score comes into the process the more likely the performer will assume the role of executor or adviser. The later the score comes into place, the more likely the performer will be asked to improvise and/or co-create to develop the materials that form a musical work.
It is critical for both the outcome of the work and the maintenance of the collaborative relationship that the performer understands the range of roles that can be assumed in a composer-performer collaboration, that that performer knows her or himself and understands how they can or want to be engaged within the collaboration, and that the composer and performer agree on a method of collaboration before the work begins and that they maintain that dialogue as the work progresses.
It can be the case that any single project can engage with a range of performer identities ranging from pure executor to co-creative deviser. A single collaboration can traverse several different processes while moving towards the creation of a single work. Specific collaborative processes may demand specific qualities from a performer. Collaboration is a practice and as such requires cultivation. The collaborative method one chooses does not presume the success nor the failure of a musical work. Regardless of the collaborative models employed, a prerequisite for a successful partnership is consent between both parties regarding the methods of working.
Collaboration is fundamentally a mode of interfacing with another. It is an act through which identities are formed and changed through the entanglement and mixing-up with another. To return to the original question, “what is a performer for?”, it is in part through methods of collaboration that performers understand what and for whom they are “for”. In other words, it is in large part through collaboration that performers understand their musical, and therefore artistic, identity. Through the modes of collaboration that look beyond the performer as pure executing instrumentalist one is able to imagine manifold becomings of the performer as co-creative artist exhibiting agency including and beyond the realms of a score and its interpretations. The notion of the performer is not a fixed idea; it is an identity multiplicitous in definition and in practice. It behooves us all to rethink the concept of the performer and the question of what a performer is for, because the performer is already all of the above, whether they take for it credit or not.
