Page 49 - Composing Processes and Artistic Agency

38 The topography of composing work

Composers prefer different media for capturing their composition ideas and
writing up the details. They have the choice of using pen and paper or else a
computer, and the reasons behind their ultimate choices vary.
First, there is the motive of individual habit in the choice of medium.
Habits and aesthetic preferences come into play here, which as such are not
inevitable. Some composers prefer writing up and finalising the score by hand,
others on the computer. Katharina Klement writes “everything by hand. I’ve
never learned any other way. I think I’ll never be able to write on the computer
from the beginning. I use a lot of graphics, and it’s just not compatible.”
Bernhard Gander also writes exclusively by hand: “I get a better overview by
hand. I can put the sheets next to each other or on the floor. On the computer
I’d have to scroll through somehow. My handwriting also reveals what’s
important for me. On the computer it’s all a bit too samey.” When notating
by hand, composers can add in gestural indications, such as drawing a note in
bold or sketching an especially thin legato line. Composers do not follow any
fixed rules when interpreting their own handwriting, including its gestural
aspects, but proceed on a case-by-case basis guided by experience. This
demands sensitivity and a flair for the inherent musical sense of these gestures.
Following Wittgenstein (1969/2005: § 37), this is a case of “intransitive
understanding”. The meaning hidden in the various ways of shaping one’s
handwriting is not interpreted analytically but directly. This requires neither
explication nor justification since understanding results from familiarity with
the thing – in this case, with one’s own handwriting. Intransitive under-
standing thus has the advantage of not interrupting the flow of the action
because the understanding is already integrated into the action. It is an
understanding in actu, which requires no conceptual abstraction.
Second, Bernhard Gander’s statement hints at a pragmatic motive for his
choice of work medium. Writing by hand enables him to view objects in parallel.
His choice of medium is intended to bring order to the work and results.
Pragmatic motives become even clearer when the writing process has to be
accelerated, for instance to meet contractual agreements. Saving time turns
into an important criterion – and to save time, composers resort to computers,
as Christof Dienz reports: “For my first big orchestral piece, I worked eight to
ten hours a day for six weeks just to write a clean version of the score so that
someone else would be able to read it too. […] Six weeks!” What must be
remembered, however, is that nowadays Christof Dienz already works much
faster than he did before because he has experience. Saving time, in other words,
can be attributed in part – but not entirely – to using a computer. Clemens
Gadenstätter likewise types his scores into the computer at an advanced stage
of the rough versions because “I realised that if I see the score on the computer
and rework it, not just correct the errors but rework the piece from an almost
objective perspective, then that’s really good for me. Because that distance can
trigger responses to ‘what I’ve actually done’, which means it’s easier for me
3
to carefully reconsider my own work and the sound reality of the piece.” In
this instance, unlike for Bernhard Gander, working on the computer provides