Page 41 - Composing Processes and Artistic Agency

30 The topography of composing work

composition is no different. In this sense, authorship must be thought of as
plural (see also Stillinger 1991).
Musicians also contribute to rehearsals spontaneously. During a rehearsal
for the premiere of Bernhard Gander’s sitcom opera, “Das Leben am Rande
der Milchstraße” (Wien Modern, 2014), the violin, cello and double bass were
struggling with a difficult combination of rhythms when the percussionist
stepped in. He gave them advice on how best to count so the stresses fell in the
right places and so the musicians could coordinate better. He played the passage
on his percussion elements while counting aloud. He then accompanied
the three instruments even though he was not in the score, and switched on a
metronome. The conductor and composer did not get involved. Instead, the
four musicians spontaneously synchronised on the basis of their respective
expertise. This is an example of “experience-based subjectivising cooperation”,
as Fritz Böhle (2010: 164 – our translation) calls it: “The catalyst, timing and
co-operators involved evolve in a situated way depending on the problem;
communication occurs based on shared experiences and uses objects; and the
relationship between the co-operators is founded on reciprocal (work-related)
familiarity.” Composers need to know many things, but cannot know everything;
they always have the choice of delegating. Asked whether it ever happened
that musicians were unable to play a passage, Joanna Wozny answers: “Yes, it
happens. But it’s not a big problem because the musicians often look for
solutions themselves.”
Despite their different training and practical competences, musicians and
composers share a broad body of knowledge: of writing and reading musical
notes; of instruments, their sound and tonal range and the way they are
played; of arrangements and of musicians making music together. Thus, from
this perspective, they are peers. This joint theoretical, music-practice and
acoustic knowledge always has an impact when producing a score. Howard S.
Becker points out that in their actions people anticipate the possible reactions
of their counterparts and so change perspective. Artistic actions are not
excluded from this: “[A]rtists create their work, at least in part, by anticipat-
ing how other people will respond, emotionally and cognitively, to what they
do” (Becker 1982/2008: 200). The significance of shared knowledge, common
practices and anticipated reactions becomes obvious when the notation
cannot express the composer’s intentions. Even when composers use a con-
ventional notation system for their score, it is not necessarily musically realised
by the performers that the composer originally had in mind. Potential reac-
tions cannot always be anticipated in spite of shared knowledge and common
practices. Individual notation systems can express a great many things, yet
they also always come up against the limits of what they can represent. In
such cases, composers use various techniques for answering questions or
avoiding communication problems.
Since every notation system has semantic ambiguities, composers often use
verbal explanations as well as symbolic analogies. Thus Bertl Mütter avoids the
need for complicated or time-consuming detailed notes by explaining to a pianist: