EMS Proceedings and Other Publications

Negotiating the Musical Work. An empirical study on the inter-relation between composition, interpretation and performance

Henrik Frisk & Stefan Östersjö

Henrik Frisk: PhD candidate
Malmö Academy of Music - Lund University
henrik.frisk@mhm.lu.se

Stefan Östersjö: PhD candidate
Malmö Academy of Music - Lund University
stefan.ostersjo@hotmail.com

Article

PDF - 1.5 Mb
Download the paper

Abstract

In this paper we intend to explore the inter-relations between performer and composer, in the form of a theoretical study, which is intended to lay the ground for a new work for guitar and computer by Henrik Frisk for Stefan Östersjö. This project is part of our respective artistic research projects at the Malmö Academy of Music.

We find that the ontology of the mixed media work (in lack of a general terminology we use the term ’mixed media’ in this article to refer to a work for instrument(s) and electronic sounds) is closely related to the general discussion of score-based works, but it is important to bear in mind that the programming of the electronics should also be regarded as notation in this discussion and the electronic part is itself another object of interpretation for the performer.

From a hermeneutic point of view, performance interpretation of music is a special case [Levinson, 1993, Davies, 2001, Stecker, 2003].

If performances and critical interpretations are both representations of works, they are so in quite different senses. If we ignore these differences, we can easily be misled to make invalid inferences. Performances are necessarily constructive; that is, they necessarily add features that the work leaves vague or undetermined.[Stecker, 2003]

But not only in cases in which the notation is in some respect unclear or vague is there a call for constructive elements in interpretation. Construction is really at the heart of the matter in performance interpretation. When elements of electronic real-time processing, sound synthesis, sound file playback or be it any other means of producing electronic sounds, are part of the work, yet another level of complexity is added to the issue of interpretation. This is closely related to the notion of authenticity, which is already a powerful factor in the performance of score-based works. How is this issue to be aproached in mixed media works? If the programming of the electronic part is to be regarded as a special case of notation, how is this notation ’transcribed’ and communicated to the performer?

It has been suggested by several writers that performances should be regarded as works in their own right. From this point of departure, Peter Kivy [Kivy, 1995] distinguishes between four kinds of authenticity in performance, most importantly; ’Authenticity as Intention’ (that is, authenticity as faithfulness to the composer’s performance intentions) and a fundamentally opposed notion of authenticity, which he simply names ’The Other Authenticity’. Kivy’s intention is to bring out an opposition between these two authenticities: On the one hand, the obligation to conform with the composer’s intention and, on the other hand, the creative originality that should result in a work in its own right. But, unlike Kivy, we suggest (as has been done by Stefan Östersjö and Cecilia Hultberg [Östersjö and Hultberg, 2005]) that the opposite may also be claimed: The tension between the two imperatives on the performer makes up a creative field in which truly original instances of works come out. The different forms of authenticity turns out to be the definition of a creative field of tension in which the composer and the performer negotiate and interact towards a version of a work.

A close collaboration between a living composer and a performer, allows for discussions on the rendering of a mixed media work. We find that this process could be described as a negotiation towards a version of the work [Kivy, 1995] and that this can serve as a model for understanding similar processes even prior to the existence of any notated material. This article aims at a closer understanding of the significance of these negotiations, specifically their meaning in relation to the two modes of musical representation; the notation and the sonic trace left by the computer part. Further, we aim at creating a broader platform for reflection on and analysis of our respective artistic practices.

We approach this complex area empirically by analyzing selections of the video documentation of Östersjö’s collaboration with composer Love Mangs, as well as versions of a certain passage in a piece for harp and computer by Henrik Frisk. Love Mangs’ “Viken” is a work for guitar, banjo, e-bow and real time processing in Max/MSP. In the video material we find striking examples of how the traditional roles of "composer" and "performer"It has been suggested by several writers that performances should be regarded as works in their own right. From this point of departure, Peter Kivy [Kivy, 1995] distinguishes between four kinds of authenticity in performance, most importantly; ’Authenticity as Intention’ (that is, authenticity as faithfulness to the composer’s performance intentions) and a fundamentally opposed notion of authenticity, which he simply names ’The Other Authenticity’. Kivy’s intention is to bring out an opposition between these two authenticities: On the one hand, the obligation to conform with the composer’s intention and, on the other hand, the creative originality that should result in a work in its own right. But, unlike Kivy, we suggest (as has been done by Stefan Östersjö and Cecilia Hultberg [Östersjö and Hultberg, 2005]) that the opposite may also be claimed: The tension between the two imperatives on the performer makes up a creative field in which truly original instances of works come out. The dif- ferent forms of authenticity turns out to be the definition of a creative field of tension in which the composer and the performer negotiate and interact towards a version of a work.

A close collaboration between a living composer and a performer, allows for discussions on the rendering of a mixed media work. We find that this process could be described as a negotiation towards a version of the work [Kivy, 1995] and that this can serve as a model for understanding similar processes even prior to the existence of any notated material. This article aims at a closer understanding of the significance of these negotiations, specifically their meaning in relation to the two modes of musical representation; the notation and the sonic trace left by the computer part. Further, we aim at creating a broader platform for reflection on and analysis of our respective artistic practices.

We approach this complex area empirically by analyzingselections of the video documentation of Östersjö’s collaboration with composer Love Mangs, as well as versions of a certain passage in a piece for harp and computer by Henrik Frisk. Love Mangs’ “Viken” is a work for guitar, banjo, e-bow and real time processing in Max/MSP. In the video material we find striking examples of how the traditional roles of "composer" and "performer" are exchanged, indicative of the difficulty to establish fixity in the definition of these seemingly discrete artistic fields. Following Stecker [Stecker, 2003] we would like to suggest that there is always an element of construction in a performance of a piece of music, but we also find that there are elements of interpretation in the act of composition. By using Molino’s and Nattiez’ terminology for a semiological analysis of music we attempt at describing the interplay in terms of poietic and esthesic processes, [Nattiez, 1990] [Molino, 1990] and with semiotic terminology in general.

References

- [Davies, 2001] Davies, S. (2001). Musical Works & Performances: a philosophical exploration. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- [Kivy, 1995] Kivy, P. (1995). Authenticities. Cornell University Press.
- [Krausz, 1993] Krausz, M., editor (1993). The Interpretation of Music: philosophical essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- [Levinson, 1993] Levinson, G. (1993). Performative vs. Critical Interpretations of Music, pages 33-60. In [Krausz, 1993].
- [Molino, 1990] Molino, J. (1990). Musical fact and the semiology of music. Music Analysis, 9(2):113-156. Blackwell Publishing.exchanged,ofdifficultyestablish
- [Nattiez, 1990] Nattiez, J.-J. (1990). Music and Discourse - Toward a Semiolog y of Music. Princeton University Press. Translation by Carolyn Abbate.
- [Östersjö and Hultberg, 2005] Östersjö, S. and Hultberg, C. (2005). Per nørgård’s “returns”, a collaborative study on interpretation finding and performance practice today. Conference Paper MIDAS Conference, Glasgow 2005.
- [Stecker, 2003] Stecker, R. (2003). Interpretation and Construction: art, speach, and the law. Blackwell Publishing.