Page 43 - Composing Processes and Artistic Agency

32 The topography of composing work

those involved know that musical notation cannot always deliver the level of
accuracy required for conveying one’s ideas. Accuracy cannot be determined
via objective criteria that have no context, as Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953/
1968: § 88), for instance, has remarked: “No single ideal of exactness has been
laid down.” The meaning of exactness will be negotiated between those
involved in a particular situation and in certain contexts with a view to
applying it practically: it is a goal-orientated and intersubjective matter.

1.2.5 Summary
In this section, we have been discussing composers’ interactions with peers
and non-peers. These interactions, however, do not occur throughout the
creative process, but sporadically in certain phases. At times, composing is
indeed a “lonely” affair, with hardly any interaction with others that is
meaningful for the composition.
To summarise, composers and peers or non-peers relate on three levels. On
the social level, we have made the distinction between cooperative and colla-
borative relations based on the following differential criteria: whether those
involved share in the objective of the work, and whether their interactions are
informal or contractual. On an epistemic level, we distinguish between crea-
tive and knowledge-generating relationships. The former primarily provide
inspiration and generate ideas whereas the latter aim to solve specificpro-
blems. The relationship between composers and others can also be analysed
on a third, motivational level: composers have to reach out to the musicians,
convince them of their ideas and expectations, and create enthusiasm for a
successful interpretation of the composition. These three relationship levels
are not strictly divided. Together they produce an interdependent relation, in
which composers and others influence each other and benefit from one
another.
Composing can be interpreted as the collective undertaking of a practice
community, whose participants are involved with varying degrees of intensity,
depending on their competences and resources. And yet, even where musicians
sporadically influence the composition process and the rehearsals with their
knowledge, they are not granted the status of creators. Bertl Mütter describes
his relationship to musicians as “primus inter pares” [first among equals],
expressing his willingness to engage in a fundamentally egalitarian, non-hier-
archical relationship. This is reciprocal: the composers expect musicians to
show initiative and commitment and make creative contributions while they
themselves must meet the ensemble’s needs (see also Ravet 2016). It is just as
important in peer-to-peer relationships to convey professionalism and be
perceived as a professional, as one composer clarified: “If they get their sheet
music early, I know they’ll think, ‘Right, he’s well-organised’. There are
composers who’ll bring the last notes to the last rehearsal. To be honest, I’d
be sceptical myself. I’d think, ‘Whoa, this piece can’t be any good if he can’t
get it together!’”