People collaborate daily in all spheres of life; working together is a given. The Vygotskian ideal of working productively together towards shared goals is increasingly being realised in the twenty-first century. Feldman has suggested that we are moving from the ‘age of the individual’ in the twentieth century to the ‘era of community’ in the twenty-first century (John-Steiner, 2000: xiii). The notion of shared visions is gaining currency in an increasingly globalized world. The term collaboration, however, can give rise to misunderstandings and confusion as it relates abstractly to various processes where people operate together. The contexts in which people work collectively are naturally varied and have particular ramifications for collaboration. In education, for example, issues can arise in relation to individual intellectual property where researchers are increasingly being asked to develop potential collaborative linkages. Similarly within the arts concerns are often raised regarding ownership when artists work together. In the context of this research the virtues of collaboration were extolled by the various composers I worked with but issues were also raised regarding challenges that exist in promoting this practice. 5.3.1 On Working Together
All five of the composers I worked with commented on the benefits of collaborative working. For Bennett, collaborating with performers has proven to be more productive than sitting in a room working by himself, with attendant results dispatched to unknown performers (Roe-Bennett, 2005: Meeting 1). According to O’Leary being with performers and developing a mutual understanding of music is vital. Canning raised issues of nuance in relation to collaboration; words including interplay, cooperation, consultation and so on were discussed in an effort to achieve some clarity. Ultimately, each of the five composers had a different notion of what working collaboratively meant.
As a jazz musician Guilfoyle considered collaboration an almost daily occurrence in his working life, as jazz is so dependent on engagement, not just
between the musicians, but also the audience. Redman has referred to this interaction as the essence of jazz, where human beings interact ‘telling each other stories both verbally and musically, and sharing with each other as people at a particular time in the present tense’ (Hast, et al 1999: 83). Interestingly, whilst O’Leary considered working closely with musicians an important part of her creative work, she also felt that she never really had any truly collaborative processes, despite having worked extensively with musicians over many years. She considered collaboration as something more ‘involved’, speaking of a ‘different level’ of engagement with a greater level of interaction between musicians (Roe-O’Leary, 2005: Meetings 1-3). This corresponds to how Light and Littleton have described collaboration, as an ideal form of peer interaction where joint construction of knowledge requires shared understanding of the goals of the activity, building on mutual commitment towards achieving these goals (quoted in Vass, 2004: 79). With Bennett, however, there was an acknowledgement that collaboration can have many guises, from technical assistance (instrumental possibilities) to a more involved engagement ‘where the performer has an active role in the process of the development of the piece’ (Roe- Bennett, 2004: Meeting 1). Finally, Canning spoke of the importance of engaging in collaborative processes early on, where ‘building blocks’ are devised mutually and where you can have a ‘meaningful collaboration’ rather than ‘something that’s just tagged on at the end’ (Roe-Canning, 2005: Meeting 1). Undoubtedly dialogue occurs on many levels with creative outcomes that reflect the level of engagement.
5.3.2 Collaborative Dialogue in Various Contexts
As a general rule the smaller the number involved the greater the potential for productive collaboration. All of these composers had experience with collaboration in a range of settings including working with individuals to working with a full symphony orchestra.
Working on a one-to-one basis was cited as providing an opportunity for substantial creative development. Speaking about her work with Garth Knox (composer and violist), O’Leary described how even within a short period of time significant influence can be brought to bear on the development of a piece of music. ‘The session [with Knox] lasted only one and a half hours and it was so strong that it
gave me the impetus for the whole piece’ (Roe-O’Leary, 2005: Meeting 2). Working on an individual basis, one musician to another gives the occasion and the music a personal quality, so that both have the opportunity to develop a joint concept of the music. The four pieces composed for this research have this personal quality, as the aesthetic development, performances and recording of the music were all collaboratively conceived and applied.
Whilst the close-knit engagement between individual musicians provides a focus and intensity of engagement, the process of working collaboratively within an ensemble can also be productive. O’Leary (Concorde) and Bennett (Decibel) work with their own ensembles and both commented on the importance of having a group to work with. Bennett described this ‘DIY approach’ to getting music performed as being crucial for a composer. The growth of understanding that emerges from working with an ensemble over a period of time provides joint benefits for performers and composers. The composer can develop the most appropriate way to write for individual performers and the performers can gain an increased sensitivity towards the composer in realizing the works. ‘I know how to write in a way for the individuals in my group to get the best out of them and how to get the group to sound better’ (Roe- Bennett, 2005: Meeting 2).
Collaborating across artistic boundaries, including working with musicians from different genres, or across art forms within dance, theatre and visual arts, can provide engaging collaborations and creative stimulus. These interactions tend to require a greater level of mediation than those within art form or genre. Each individual discipline has a particular language and ethos that requires understanding before collaboration is possible. Guilfoyle illustrated this point intriguingly when he talked about a composition he wrote for an ensemble involving Jazz, Irish traditional and Indian musicians. ‘I had to explain the music in three different ways, first of all with the traditional musicians I spoke to them about jigs and reels, the Indian guys in a kind of rag and tala way and then with the jazz guys in jazz terms D7-sharp 5.’ (Roe-Guilfoyle, 2004: Meeting 1) [Track 14]. He described these types of collaborations as creatively enriching and hugely beneficial.
Working in small settings is perhaps the most productive avenue for collaboration in contemporary music. In larger ensembles, including orchestras, the opportunity to develop collaborations is hindered by sheer size. The attitude of orchestral musicians is also inhibitory, as many are hostile to playing contemporary music. O’Leary underscored this by two particular experiences of working with orchestras. She explained, with this first example, the conductor was critically important and ‘exceptional’ in working ‘as a positive mediator between myself and the orchestra; his interest in my work made a tremendous difference in how the musicians themselves related to the music positively’ (Roe-O’Leary, 2004: Meeting 1). The other experience she spoke of is compelling as it relates the attitudes of some orchestral players to contemporary music,
I found the players at the first rehearsal very negative, it hit me like a wall, I thought, gosh, they don’t want to do this, I was in tears, it was so depressing and it took me a lot to write the music…I was happy with the piece, but I felt, my God, not only do I have to write the music, I have to convince them to play it also.
Roe-O’Leary, 2004: Meeting 1
5.3.3 Challenges: Prescription, Ownership and Institutional Support
All five composers considered collaboration fundamentally a good practice. They recognized that finding ways to accommodate different viewpoints through collaboration enabled creative growth, with skills gained and refreshed on an ongoing basis. They did, however, raise a number of issues regarding difficulties in promoting effective modes of collaboration. Concerns were discussed regarding prescription, ownership, and institutional support, which will be discussed briefly in the following section.
The primary way in which composers and performers come to work together is essentially prescriptive, through commissioning schemes where contracts are drawn up to establish a commitment to work together. This is a less than ideal foundation on which to develop an equal partnership, as it promotes a system of top-down working, with a fee agreed for the composition of a piece of specific duration and instrumentation. It tends to encourage a closed agenda for new work, as expectation is created regarding creative outcomes. Bennett speculated that it would be interesting if
composers were commissioned to write music of their own choosing; he suggested that this would be more creative and provide more individual freedom. He also made the interesting observation that if people in the past always knew who and what they were writing for, there would never have been composers such as Charles Ives (Roe- Bennett, 2005: Meeting 2).
The issue of ownership in the context of notated and through-composed music is a complex one. Some composers in the past considered the role of the performer as almost subsidiary to the main creative endeavour of composition. Whilst this position is now open to debate in musical scholarship it can still have resonances when composers and performers come to work together. This is particularly the case if new work emerges out of substantial communication between composer and performer, and especially if this involves elements of improvisation. A way has yet to be found where composers and performers can work together collaboratively and produce integrated work that is jointly assigned. Ed Bennett referred to this in an early interview:
You know we as composers always have this thing about ownership of our work and it’s a terrible thing in a way…when I was young we did play in bands and write pieces between us but I wouldn’t be as convinced of that now, in that I’m not convinced they would do what I would want them to do which I suppose is bad [laughs].
Roe-Bennett, 2005: Meeting 2
Some institutions tend to encourage collaboration, and some tend to reinforce ideas of individualism and self-determination. The traditional ‘classical’ music institutions of conservatoires and orchestras tend to promote individual self- determination within particular hierarchies, thus inhibiting collaborative working. A number of the composers spoke of their dissatisfaction with some of these institutions, where they found the development of creative relationships seemed of little importance. O’Leary described being commissioned to write an orchestral work for a national music institute where she was not invited to any of the rehearsals. She subsequently turned up for the first performance of the new work and found the performance and attitude of the musicians deeply disappointing (Roe-O’Leary, 2005: Meeting 2). Hayden and Windsor refer to the difficulties associated with collaboration
and orchestras, and suggest it is difficult to question the traditional assumptions of engagement. They argue that ‘the prospect for more collaborative modes of working are bleak unless composer and musicians are prepared to fully engage with the assumptions of the other party’ (Hayden and Windsor, 2007: 38).