The Guitarist and the Non-Guitarist Composer

The Guitarist and the Non-Guitarist Composer: an analysis of contrasting collaborative models and their impact on new works for solo classical guitar Benjamin Peter Ellerby BMus (Honours Class I)

A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy at

The University of Queensland in 2020

School of Music

Abstract Composer-performer collaboration in the creation of new works for solo classical guitar is shaped by several distinctive challenges, specifically related to notation and technical guitar idioms that often do not make up a part of a composer’s training or experience. In practice, these challenges have typically been overcome through the collaboration of guitarists and non-guitarist composers—leading to the creation of some of the instrument’s most beloved repertoire. While the benefits of compositional collaboration between performers and composers generally are widely documented, questions have been raised regarding the potential for guitarists to inhibit the creative process of non-guitarist composers in collaborative situations involving new works for solo classical guitar.

This exegesis explores the issue via two intrinsic case studies, documenting the potential advantages and disadvantages of contrasting collaborative models with a focus on two key components: the composer’s understanding of how to write for the guitar, and the performer’s influence on the composition. Each case study explores the collaboration between a non-guitarist composer and myself as the performer from the earliest stages of a new composition through to its premiere. Aligning with a practice-led research paradigm, my role as both researcher and participant in the project shapes the narrative of the analysis.

Alongside looking at the effect of the collaborative models, other variables that influenced the compositions are discussed, notably the influence of the composer’s approach to writing for the guitar, and the influence of their inherent compositional processes. This project aims to provide new insights into composer-performer collaborations in the guitar repertoire as well as suggest potential strategies for future collaborations that are relevant to both non-guitarist composers and performers.

Declaration by Author This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.

I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.

I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.

I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co-authors for any jointly authored works included in the thesis.

Publications Included in this Thesis

No publications included.

Submitted Manuscripts Included in this Thesis

No manuscripts submitted for publication.

Other Publications During Candidature

No other publications.

Contributions by Others to the Thesis

The two compositions that were created for the purposes of the research:

Preludes and Soundscapes – Benjamin Heim

Tarantism – Connor D’Netto

Statement of Parts of the Thesis Submitted to Qualify for the Award of Another Degree

No works submitted towards another degree have been included in this thesis.

Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects

Ethics approval number: SoM-ETH14-12/BE

Approving Committee: School of Music Ethical Review Panel

“This project complies with the provisions contained in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and complies with the regulations governing experimentation on humans.”

See Appendix D for copy of ethics approval letter.

Acknowledgements This was a challenging research project, and its completion is purely thanks to the support and encouragement that I have been fortunate enough to receive over the past few years. I would firstly like to thank the two most important characters in this story: Benjamin Heim and Connor D’Netto. It is difficult to imagine how this project would have developed without their enthusiastic participation. Both Ben and Connor are brilliant composers and I am incredibly grateful that they chose to sign up for this journey.

To my supervisors over the past few years, Dr. Liam Viney, and Dr. Robert Davidson, thank you both for your advice and expertise. In particular I would like to thank Liam for helping nudge me across the finish line and pushing me to create something that I can be proud of. I would also like to thank my co-supervisor and teacher Karin Schaupp, who not only provided great insight into the world of composer- performer collaboration but has also been a tremendous influence on my own development as a musician.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends. I am incredibly lucky to have been able to fall into the career that I have, and the support from my family has always been immense and unfaltering. To my partner Molly—thank you for putting up with the endless hours of practice, for reading through draft after draft, for supporting this crazy thing I do that is being a musician, and then still being there for me day after day.

Financial Support No financial support was provided to fund this research. Keywords classical guitar, guitar, non-guitarist composer, collaboration, performer, composer- performer collaboration, performer-composer collaboration Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC) ANZSRC code: 190407, Music Performance, 100% Fields of Research (FoR) Classification FoR code: 1904, Performing Arts and Creative Writing, 100%

Table of Contents Abstract ...... 2 Declaration by Author...... 3 Acknowledgements ...... 5 Introduction ...... 11 Chapter 1 – Literature Review ...... 15 1.1 Writing for the Guitar ...... 15 1.2 The Non-Guitarist Composers and the Guitar ...... 16 1.3 Collaborative Models – The Non-Guitarist Composer in Collaboration ...... 17 1.4 Research Design...... 18 Chapter 2 – Methodology ...... 19 2.1 The Participants ...... 19 2.1.1 Complementarity Collaborative Model (Heim) ...... 19 2.1.2 Minimal Impact Collaborative Model (D’Netto) ...... 19 2.2 Participant Criteria and Project Requirements ...... 20 2.3 Establishing the Collaborative Models ...... 21 2.4 The Performance ...... 22 2.5 Data Collection Procedures...... 22 2.6 Data Analysis Methods ...... 23 Chapter 3 – Case A ...... 25 3.1 Introduction to the Case ...... 25 3.2. Content Analysis in Case A ...... 25 3.3 Benjamin Heim ...... 27 3.3.1 Composer-Performer Relationship Prior to the Project ...... 27 3.3.2 Previous Experiences with the Guitar ...... 27 3.4 Stage 1 (Session 1 – Session 8)...... 27 3.5 Stage 2 (Session 9 – Session 12)...... 28 3.6 Stage 3 (Session 13 – Session 18 – Premiere) ...... 29 3.7 Performer Influence in the Evolution of Preludes and Soundscapes ...... 30 3.7.1 Sustained Textures in Preludes and Soundscapes ...... 30

7 3.7.2 Developing Timbral Layers and Extended Techniques for Preludes and Soundscapes ...... 32 3.8 Challenges of Writing for the Guitar ...... 34 3.9 Summary of Performer Influence ...... 36 3.9.1 Performer Influence in Stage 1 ...... 36 3.9.2 Performer Influence in Stage 2 ...... 36 3.9.3 Performer Influence in Stage 3 ...... 37 3.10 The Complementarity Collaborative Model in Practice ...... 38 Chapter 4 – Case B ...... 40 4.1 Introduction to the Case ...... 40 4.2 Connor D’Netto ...... 40 4.2.1 Composer-Performer Relationship Prior to the Project ...... 40 4.2.2 Previous Experience with the Guitar ...... 40 4.2.3 Changes to Research Design ...... 41 4.3 Tarantism – 1st Edition ...... 42 4.4 Tarantism – 2nd Edition ...... 42 4.4.1 Movement 4, Bar 43–44 (Playability Edit) ...... 43 4.4.2 Movement 2, Bar 21–22 (Playability Edit) ...... 45 4.5 Tarantism – 3rd Edition ...... 46 4.5.1 Movement 4, Bar 27–28 (Typesetting Edit) ...... 46 4.5.2 Movement 4, Bar 106 (Playability Edit) ...... 47 4.6 Challenges of Writing for the Guitar ...... 49 4.6.1 The Edits and Discussion Points of Tarantism ...... 49 4.6.2 “Learning to play the instrument in the mind” ...... 50 4.7 Performer Influence ...... 51 4.8 The Minimal Impact Collaborative Model in Practice ...... 51 Chapter 5 – Discussion ...... 53 5.1 Writing Idiomatically for the Guitar ...... 53 5.1.1 Benjamin Heim ...... 53 5.1.2 Connor D’Netto ...... 54 5.1.3 Impact of the Collaborative Model ...... 55

5.1.4 Influence of the Compositional Process ...... 56 5.2 Conclusions ...... 56 5.2.1 Challenges Arising from Collaboration ...... 56 5.2.2 Recommendations for Future Collaborations ...... 58 5.2.3 Reflections on the Creative Output ...... 59 5.2.4 Limitations and Concluding Thoughts...... 61 Appendices ...... 63 1.0 Appendix A ...... 63 1.1 Limitations and Guidelines Provided to Heim after Session 12 ...... 63 1.2 Limitations and Guidelines Provided to Heim after Session 15 ...... 63 2.0 Appendix B ...... 64 2.1 Discussion Points Provided to D’Netto for Tarantism ...... 64 3.0 Appendix C ...... 67 3.1 Accessing Recordings of Premiere Performances ...... 67 4.0 Appendix D ...... 68 4.1 Copy of Ethics Approval Letter ...... 68 List of Works Cited ...... 69

List of Figures

Figure 1. Case A – Content Analysis Categories ...... 26 Figure 2. Sample 5 from Session 13 – "pinging harmonics on all the strings" ...... 31 Figure 3. Preludes and Soundscapes, Bars 12–15 ...... 31 Figure 4. Sample 6 from Session 15 – Natural Harmonics Vs. Artificial Harmonics ...... 33 Figure 5. Preludes and Soundscapes, Excerpt from Prelude ...... 34 Figure 6. Preludes and Soundscapes, Excerpt from 2nd Soundscape ...... 38 Figure 7. Tarantism, Movement 4, Excerpt from 1st Edition ...... 43 Figure 8. Tarantism, Movement 4, Excerpt from 2nd Edition ...... 44 Figure 9. Tarantism, Movement 2, Excerpt from 1st Edition ...... 45 Figure 10. Tarantism, Movement 2, Excerpt from 2nd Edition ...... 45 Figure 11. Tarantism, Movement 4, Excerpt from 1st Edition ...... 46 Figure 12. Tarantism, Movement 4, Excerpt from 3rd Edition ...... 47 Figure 13. Tarantism, Movement 4, Excerpt from 1st Edition ...... 47 Figure 14. Tarantism, Movement 4, Excerpt from 3rd Edition ...... 48 Figure 15. Edits in Tarantism after 3rd Edition ...... 49 Figure 16. Fretboard Chart – Frederick Noad, Solo Guitar Playing ...... 50 Figure 17. Tarantism, Movement 1, Excerpt from 1st Edition ...... 57

Introduction The guitar has long been considered a difficult instrument to write for, featuring challenges that are considered formidable even to the most diligent of composers (Mackenzie 60). In Godfrey’s “Principles of Idiomatic Guitar Writing”, the difficulties are summarised as follows:

…one might imagine the challenges a non-violinist composer would face writing for the violin if triple and quadruple stops were the idiom’s norm. Idiomatic guitar writing is not entirely dissimilar, and perhaps in some ways is even more problematic given that the guitar has more strings, is tuned in irregular intervals, and is played with a slew of techniques not found on any other instrument. (vi)

It is for reasons such as these that Hector Berlioz is commonly quoted to have stated, “It is almost impossible to write well for the guitar without being a player on the instrument” (145). Unsurprisingly the guitar has been represented in countless orchestration textbooks, specific guides on how to write for the instrument, and multiple masters and doctoral theses on the topic (Adler; Bream; Dodgson; Godfrey; Kachian; Schneider). Even with the abundance of literature available, Godfrey is of the opinion that (as of 2013), “to this day, no author has come close to suggesting a comprehensive modus operandi for guitar composition”. (vii)

The guitar’s reputation has been a persistent problem, leading to non-guitarist composers avoiding the instrument or doubting the playability of their own compositions (Ginastera 1; Ferguson 9). For the past century, a popular solution to the issue has been through what Vieira describes as: “collaboration as a source of information” (33). One of the most famous examples is of the Spanish guitarist Andrés Segovia, who in the early 20th century offered himself as a “guide through the labyrinth of the guitar’s technique” with the goal of incentivising the leading composers of the time to write for the instrument (Greene 19). Segovia’s ensuing success began a long-standing tradition of composer-performer collaborations involving non-guitarist composers, with the resulting compositions considered to be some of the instrument’s most beloved (Paget 51).

11 Collaboration continues to be an important practice for the aspiring guitarist and has over the past two decades occurred with more frequency. Prolific collaborator and guitarist David Starobin suggested that one of the reasons for this was due to the increased presence of guitarists in universities and conservatories, commenting that composers are now presented with more opportunity to “collaborate closely with guitarists who are eager to play new music” (Tosone 118). Another factor is the unique nature of music written for the guitar by non-players. Many guitarists are attracted to unidiomatic features and seek out non-guitarist composers because of this allure (Tanenbaum 202). With the guitar’s ongoing reliance on collaboration to both produce new music and alleviate the compositional challenges faced by non-guitarist composers, the role of collaboration in producing new works for guitar requires further research.

The benefits of composer-performer collaboration generally have been widely documented (Hancox; Lifschitz; Kanga), however, in the context of the guitar and non- guitarist composers the amount of studies conducted are more limited (Vieira 4). While there are many benefits that arise as a result of collaboration with non-guitarist composers, questions have been raised regarding the potential for the process to inhibit a composer’s understanding of how to write effectively for the instrument, and subsequently the composition itself. Prominent non-guitarist composer Stephen Dodgson suggests that while it is a necessary part of collaboration, composers should avoid becoming overly reliant on performer assistance (13). Mackenzie summarises Dodgson’s arguments as follows:

…There are three dangers in relying too heavily on editorial assistance. The first is that the guitarist might unwittingly bring his own pre-conceptions to bear, his suggestions channelling the music into patterns with which he is familiar through the existing repertoire. On the other hand, if the composer lets his imagination run free and leaves technical solutions to the guitarist, it may result in a conscientious player desperately searching for a way ‘to give idiomatic utterance to musical material which was instrumentally unsuitable in the first place’. The third danger is that if the composer never dares to fly the nest, his reliance on editorial assistance may prove an

obstacle to a personal discovery of the guitar from the inside out: lessons learned by personal discovery are so much more thoroughly absorbed. (64)

Dodgson focuses on the importance of self-education, believing that once composers can “seek a healthy independence” they have the potential to develop a detailed and complex understanding of the guitar (13). Therefore by engaging in a collaborative model that limits performer assistance during the composition process, composers are encouraged to develop their own awareness of how to write for the guitar, and subsequently better appreciate the advice that a collaborating guitarist may provide (Dodgson 13).

Dodgson’s views are supported by the collaborative approaches of guitarists Julian Bream and John Williams, who are both documented as having adhered to a philosophy similar to Dodgson during their respective collaborations (Koznin 1; Paget 53). However, the absence of specific case study research in this area makes it difficult to draw conclusions on the practicality of Dodgson’s ideal collaborative model, as well as other potential collaborative models. To explore the area further, the research question at the core of this exegesis is: for composer-performer collaborations involving the creation of new works for solo classical guitar by non-guitarist composers, are there identifiable advantages and/or disadvantages to implementing specific collaborative models, and if so, what are those advantages/disadvantages?

While the research project aims to identify all notable traits and patterns that relate to the impact of the collaborative models, two key components will be focused upon:

- The composer’s understanding of how to write for the guitar - The performer’s influence on the composition

In order to accurately assess the research question and these key components, the data set for the project must be able to provide an accurate depiction of how the composer and the performer worked together throughout the collaboration, especially during the composition process.

13 In many well-known cases of composer-performer collaboration in the guitar repertoire, there are often significant gaps in the information available. In the collaboration between Segovia and composer Manuel Ponce, a large portion of the correspondence took place through handwritten letters. Unfortunately, historians and academics have only been able to source the letters written by Segovia, indicating that any study of the collaboration cannot give an accurate perspective on the composer’s point of view (Segal 3). Similar issues relating to shortcomings in documentation are apparent with the collaborations of Miguel Llobet and Manuel de Falla, as well as Segovia and Frederico Moreno Torroba. It is for reasons such as these that historical case studies were deemed unsuitable for adequately assessing the research question and it was determined that original composer-performer collaborations would need to be designed and conducted for the purposes of the research project.

Between 2015 and 2016 I participated in two collaborations with student composers from the University of Queensland, both of whom were non-guitarists who had not previously written a composition for solo classical guitar. These collaborations were comprehensively documented as intrinsic case studies that detailed the collaborations from their earliest stages through to the premiere of the resulting compositions. The intrinsic nature of each case study is established by presenting a detailed analysis of the relevant contexts, looking specifically at those that highlight the unique aspects of the collaborations. The data for each case study is examined using qualitative research methods and furthermore the research places my own role as a participant in each case as a focus of the study, drawing upon a practice-led and self- reflective research paradigm.

Chapter 1 – Literature Review

1.1 Writing for the Guitar For composers hoping to gain insight into the complexities of writing for the guitar, there is an ever-growing variety of resources available. These come in the form of traditional orchestration treatises (Berlioz; Adler), magazine articles (Dodgson, Bream), doctoral theses (Godfrey) and monographs (Schneider; Kachian). Each text ranges from a basic description of the instrument’s technical limitations (Berlioz; Adler), an analysis of idiomatic guitar writing (Godfrey), to an in-depth perspective of a non-guitarist composer’s personal insights (Dodgson). The large disparity between the information presented in each text reflects how difficult it is to both explain the idiomatic qualities of the instrument and subsequently present them in a way that is informative to non-guitarist composers. Godfrey summarises this notion stating, “fully decoding the idiom for the non-guitarist composer has ultimately proven to be quite difficult” (vii).

Dodgson’s 1984 article “Writing for the guitar: Comments of a non-guitarist composer” is one of the earliest examples of an author detailing concepts beyond technical playability. By reflecting on personal experiences with the challenges of writing for the guitar, Dodgson explains various concepts in a language that is readily accessible to other non-guitarist composers. A key concept in Dodgson’s article is that he believes composers must develop the ability to visualise how their music will be performed on the guitar (13). The article goes on to discuss the importance of writing idiomatically, focusing on how to compose in a way that is conducive to all aspects of the guitar’s various sonorities.

There are few examples in the literature that capture the problem as succinctly as Dodgson, primarily because many of the authors are themselves guitarists (Kachian; Godfrey; Bream). By aiming to understand the perspective of the non-guitarist through their lens, more effective strategies may be possible. An example of this is in Paget’s “The Guitar Music of Peter Sculthorpe”, where Sculthorpe’s approach to writing idiomatically for the guitar is discussed (51). Paget describes the various ways in which Sculthorpe was effective and ineffective in writing for the instrument deducing that “the best writing for the guitar is technically economical but musically rich” (51). This rather

15 simple philosophy alongside Dodgson’s “play the instrument in the mind” are concepts likely less overwhelming to the beginner non-guitarist composer, especially when compared to the large compendium like guides written by Kachian and Godfrey (13).

1.2 The Non-Guitarist Composers and the Guitar The research of Segal, Paget, and Ferguson provide important context regarding the role that non-guitarist composers played in the development of the classical guitar throughout the twentieth century. Segal and Paget present contrasting examples of non- guitarist composers in collaboration with prominent guitarists, namely Andrés Segovia and John Williams respectively. Due to an incomplete data set, Segal’s descriptions of Segovia’s various collaborations are limited by an absence of the composer’s point of view, leading to an imbalance of perspective regarding the guitarist’s role. Conversely Ferguson’s discussion of Darius Milhaud’s collaboration with Segovia aims to provide the perspective of the composer; however, due to limited data relies significantly on secondary sources and is only able to speculate on Milhaud’s relationship with Segovia and the guitar.

Although the guitar was featured in the compositions of many notable composers such as Milhaud, Benjamin Britten and Toru Takemitsu, the circumstances surrounding the creation of the individual works are not readily available, and are often—as is the case with Ferguson—lacking detail. For example, while Britten’s Nocturnal: After John Dowland is considered to be one of the most significant works for the instrument it is relatively unknown to non-guitarists in the overall context of Britten’s oeuvre (Greene 63; Tanenbaum 192). Academics and biographers give minimal details regarding the works creation or how Britten approached writing for the guitar (Powell 386–387; Greene 63–74). There are some notable details regarding Julian Bream’s role as editor (Wade), however, the majority of publications include only an analysis of the musical structure of the composition or the non-musical themes that influenced the piece’s programmatic elements (Frackenpohl; Goss; Alcaraz).

1.3 Collaborative Models – The Non-Guitarist Composer in Collaboration In Paget’s “The Guitar Music of Peter Sculthorpe”, guitarist John Williams is described as having been a conservative editor, aiming to avoid influencing any composer that he is working with—an approach that for the purposes of this exegesis will be described as belonging to a ‘minimal impact’ collaborative model (53). This approach is echoed in interviews with guitarist Julian Bream, who in a 1984 interview with the New York Times deemed it to be the more “ethical” approach (Koznin 2). Further support of this collaborative model is found in Dodgson’s aforementioned “Writing for the guitar: comments of a non-guitarist composer” where he stresses the importance of limiting the influence of the collaborating performer (13).

In contrast to the minimal impact collaborative model, Segal highlights several examples that illustrate Segovia’s extensive influence on the musical outcomes of his collaboration with Ponce. Although Segal and others have criticised this collaborative approach, it shares many similarities with modern examples of collaboration such as those discussed in the texts of Kanga and Lifschitz. Lifschitz refers to one of her own collaborations as having a greater degree of performer input, relating it to John-Steiner’s ‘complementarity’ collaborative model, where “the complementarity of expertise, disciplinary knowledge, and shared experience enrich each practitioner’s practice” (Lifschitz 72). In Vieira’s analysis of his own collaboration with a non-guitarist composer he supports the use of the ‘complementarity’ model and found it especially applicable for “collaboration during the composition process” (180).

The minimal impact and complementarity collaborative models were used to form the basis of the two collaborations that are the subject of this exegesis (see Section 2.1).

1.4 Research Design Lifschitz’s doctoral thesis “Creative Collaboration in and as Contemporary Performance Practice” was fundamental in providing a suitable framework for this exegesis. The conceptualisation of the exegesis within the practice-led research paradigm was framed by Borgdorff’s “The Debate on Research in the Arts”, as well as Smith and Dean’s “Practice-led Research, Research-led practice in the Creative Arts”. Of particular importance was Smith and Dean’s notion that “scholarly research can lead to creative work”, which was paramount in assisting in the creation of the two case studies (7) (see Section 2.1). For this exegesis the culmination of the scholarly research and the creative work was expressed through the premiere performances of the new compositions—each created as a part of the research project (see Appendix C for details on how to access recordings of the premiere performances).

The use of content analysis was based on the works of Norton, and Denscombe. Norton views the methodology as having the ability to generate a deeper understanding of data, which subsequently was of assistance in developing an appropriate structure for the case results. Finally, the use of intrinsic case study was based on Stake’s “Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry: Case Studies” as well as his The Art of Case Study Research. To understand each case Stake encourages the detailed description of relevant contexts, suggesting that, “the more the case study is an intrinsic case study, the more attention needs to be paid to the context”, an aspect that heavily framed both cases (64).

Chapter 2 – Methodology

2.1 The Participants In this project, the two composers that were chosen as participants were Benjamin Heim and Connor D’Netto. Based on the complementarity and minimal impact collaborative models established in Section 1.3, I as the performer participated in two separate collaborations: Heim participated in the complementarity collaborative model and D’Netto participated in the minimal impact collaborative model.

2.1.1 Complementarity Collaborative Model (Heim) Derived from the model described by Vera-Steiner, the complementarity collaborative model is based upon active communication between the composer and the performer (Lifschitz 72). The composition is written while the collaborators are together in real-time (either in person, or online), allowing for the frequent transfer of knowledge. The musicians work together developing ideas and music through a bi-directional feedback loop, which Lifschitz argues has the potential to produce “artistic outcomes and discoveries greater than the sum of the individual skills” of the musicians (21). Furthermore, the frequent correspondences allow the performer to actively assist the composer in ensuring the composition is playable on the guitar, highlighting technical issues at the soonest possible instance.

2.1.2 Minimal Impact Collaborative Model (D’Netto) Although this is not a pre-existing framework established in the literature, I have based this model upon the philosophies employed by notable guitarist collaborators and the non-guitarist composer Dodgson, (as discussed in Section 1.3). In the minimal impact collaboration, the composer does not benefit from the assistance of a performer during the composition process and is encouraged to develop their own understanding of how to approach the challenges of writing for the guitar. The role of the performer in the collaboration is reduced to that of an editor, only receiving the music once it has been completed. The performer must then proofread the score and take note of any technical concerns or potential errors within the music. These notes are brought to the composer, and both composer and performer negotiate possible solutions with the main goal of ensuring the playability of the composition.

2.2 Participant Criteria and Project Requirements With the widespread popularity and accessibility of the guitar, the definition of a non-guitarist composer had to be carefully considered. Ideally a composer that has not previously attempted to play or write for the guitar would be the perfect candidate; however, with a limited pool of composers to choose from (consisting of student composers from the University of Queensland), such a strict criterion made it difficult to find two willing participants. Instead it was decided that a composer with limited guitar skills that had been self-taught outside of the classical guitar tradition could still be classified as a non-guitarist composer. Therefore, the two participating composers were chosen based on the following criteria: they had not previously played or written for solo classical guitar, they had not received guitar tuition, and they had limited facility to play the instrument.

The participants were asked to write a piece 5–15 minutes in length, and to compose the work within a period of six months. I was to be available to assist each composer during the final editing process, ensuring that both works were playable on the instrument. Lastly, the ethical implications of the project were considered and participants were offered the following: complete access to all details and requirements related to the project; the option to leave the project at any time with zero consequences; and the option to be included in the project anonymously if desired. Prior to the commencement of the project ethical clearance was received through the University of Queensland’s School of Music Ethical Clearance Committee.

The participants were also given the option to have their complete scores retracted from the final exegesis if desired, and it is for this reason that the scores have not been included. If any readers would like access to the scores, please contact the composers or myself directly.

2.3 Establishing the Collaborative Models Based on a research-led practice approach, the participants were asked to adhere to a series of limitations throughout the duration of the project (Smith and Dean 7). These limitations were based on the research presented in Section 1.3 and Section 2.1 and were designed to ensure that both Heim and D’Netto participated in collaborations that were an accurate representation of the collaborative models that they had been assigned. The limitations put in place were based on either restricting or enabling the communication between the participating composers and myself as the performer.

These limitations were as follows:

Heim (complementarity) D’Netto (minimal impact) • Heim participated in ongoing one-on-one • D’Netto did not participate in collaborative sessions (30–60 minutes). collaborative sessions during the • Heim was free to have a minimum of two composition period. and a maximum of four sessions per • If D’Netto received any assistance or month. feedback regarding their composition • Negotiations could be made by Heim to from another composer, they were increase the amount of sessions per expected to document the exact details of month, provided Heim met the minimum the exchange. requirement of six sessions for the total • D’Netto was not able to seek the compositional period. assistance of another guitarist regarding • If Heim received any assistance or the composition. feedback regarding their composition • D’Netto was permitted to participate in from another composer, they were collaborative sessions at the completion expected to document the exact details of of the piece for the purpose of editing. the exchange. • Heim was not able to seek the assistance of another guitarist regarding the composition.

2.4 The Performance Heim’s Preludes and Soundscapes and D’Netto’s Tarantism were premiered on May 6th, 2016. The performance took place at Brisbane’s Spring Hill Reservoir as a part of a concert series directed by the participating composers.

For recordings of the premiere performances as well as other related audio recordings and videos, see Appendix C.

2.5 Data Collection Procedures The data set from the collaboration with Heim consists of:

- Multiple draft scores and editions of Preludes and Soundscapes - Personal reflections - Online communications (email, Facebook Messenger, and SMS) - 18 transcribed audio recordings of the collaborative sessions that occurred between August 14th, 2015 and May 2nd, 2016 (12.5 hours)

Similarly, the data set from the collaboration with D’Netto consists of:

- 3 editions of Tarantism - Personal reflections - Online communications (email, Facebook Messenger, and SMS) - 1 transcribed audio recording of the collaborative session (1.5 hours) that occurred on May 2nd, 2016 during the sound check to the Brisbane premiere - 2 transcribed audio recordings of the separate editing sessions that occurred on January 11th, 2016 and July 26th, 2016 (3.5 hours)

2.6 Data Analysis Methods All transcripts were analysed using a content analysis method based on the frameworks detailed by Norton (115–130) and Denscombe (236–238). While content analysis typically breaks down a text into component units such as words, sentences, paragraphs, or headlines, Norton suggests the use of information units described as, “… conveying a discrete concept, thought or idea, which might be expressed in a word, a phrase, sentence or even a paragraph or two” (124). Similarly to other content analysis methods, these information units can be placed into relevant categories, and the data is analysed in reference to the frequency and relationship of the various information units and categories (Denscombe 237).

For example, in Case A of this exegesis, the category “Heim and Ellerby work together on developing new techniques” was generated from the combination of the following information units (underlined and in yellow):

Session 2:

Discussing the idea of using chopsticks to hit the guitar strings Ellerby: So, what were you thinking? Say like this is the chopstick (Ellerby grabs a pencil) Heim: Do you mind if I play? Heim demonstrates his chopstick hitting technique with the pencil, producing a sound akin to the ricochet technique on a bowed instrument Ellerby: Kind of like what a string player would do? (Heim: Yeh) Ellerby attempts technique

Session 6:

Returning to the original idea of Session 2, instead using actual chopsticks instead of substitutes Heim is experimenting with the chopsticks on the guitar – hitting the first string of the guitar with a ricochet effect on the open string note. Ellerby: Is that what you imagined?

23 Heim: It’s nice; it’s not what I imagined. Ellerby: Keep going. Ellerby improvises on the guitar whilst Heim continues to hit the string with the chopstick. Heim: It sounds like some kind of film music if you do that. . .

Session 9:

Discussing the potential for a hybrid technique involving the right-hand fingers in combination with a guitar pick Heim: Are you totally against using picks? Ellerby: No. Heim: Okay can you do, pick on the bottom strings and pluck the top strings with your fingers? Ellerby: I’ve done it before I'm pretty sure, like with the ring finger? Ellerby: Say if it was like: (plays one of Heim's sample compositions using technique) or it was like (Ellerby experiments more with technique). Heim: What If we used the pick on the bottom strings to get harmonics sounding really punchy? Heim: And then like maybe chords on the top strings? (Ellerby: okay) But that’s probably not that much an advantage over using your fingers. Ellerby experiments and improvises with the technique Ellerby: You do get a noticeably different sound.

Due to Case B relying predominantly on score analysis, content analysis was only included for Case A.

Chapter 3 – Case A

3.1 Introduction to the Case This chapter explores the collaboration that I undertook with composer Benjamin Heim from August 14th, 2015 – May 6th, 2016. Framed by the complementarity collaborative model, Heim and I came together for a total of 18 collaborative sessions concluding in the creation and premiere of the work Preludes and Soundscapes. The data used to present the case consists of excerpts selected from the 12.5 hours of transcribed audio and score excerpts. The transcribed audio is examined through the use of content analysis and the relevant categories are detailed in Section 3.2.

The case is presented chronologically and divided into three stages reflecting the changing dynamics of the collaboration throughout the composition process. Each stage is summarised through an analysis of the relevant contexts, and the role that each stage played in the evolution of Preludes and Soundscapes is discussed. Finally, the chapter concludes with an analysis of how Heim dealt with the challenges of writing for the guitar, a summary of my influence as the performer and a summary of the complementarity collaborative model’s overall impact.

3.2. Content Analysis in Case A Due to the multi-stage nature of this collaboration, the data analysis produced numerous categories that reflected each particular stage and not the collaboration as a whole. Using content analysis, these specific categories can be seen to emphasise the differences between the stages, providing further understanding of the case. For the entirety of the case a total of 36 categories were created:

Figure 1. Case A – Content Analysis Categories

Ellerby educates Heim on repertoire/history/concepts Ellerby explains guitar technique Ellerby explains extended guitar techniques Ellerby explains difficulties of guitar music Ellerby gives specific advice on composing for the guitar Heim discusses his previous experiences with the guitar Heim demonstrates a current awareness/understanding of guitar Heim demonstrates a developing understanding of the guitar Heim shows an interest in guitar techniques/idioms Heim shares his opinion of guitar culture and repertoire Heim refers to other instruments to reflect on composing for the guitar Heim and Ellerby discuss the guitar’s timbre Heim and Ellerby discuss typesetting Heim and Ellerby discuss notating harmonics Heim and Ellerby discuss other notation questions Heim suggests new techniques and encourages experimentation Heim and Ellerby work together on developing new techniques Heim and Ellerby work together on the interpretation Heim and Ellerby discuss project/composition (progress/process) Heim and Ellerby discuss the impact of collaboration on project Heim and Ellerby deliberate on how to collaborate (run session) Terminology causes confusion between Heim and Ellerby Heim’s expectations of the challenges of writing for the guitar Heim shares his intentions for the project/composition Heim’s strategies Heim reflects on composition Heim reflects on new ideas Heim’s inherent focus on the technique of the instrument he is writing for Heim discusses composing in general Heim references music/pop culture Ellerby’s strategies for learning music Ellerby reflects on Heim’s ideas/help in learning new material Ellerby reflects on project Ellerby encourages his opinion Ellerby discusses interpretation Ellerby reflects in general

3.3 Benjamin Heim

3.3.1 Composer-Performer Relationship Prior to the Project Heim and I first met at the University of Queensland during our undergraduate music degrees in 2012. From 2012–2013 we both sang together as members of the bass section in the university choir, and frequently attended each other’s recitals. In April of 2014 Heim and I collaborated for a single concert, not in a composer-performer partnership but instead as an electronic music duo. It was through these mediums that we began to develop a mutual respect for one another’s musicianship and began working together.

3.3.2 Previous Experiences with the Guitar Heim came into the project with many predispositions towards the classical guitar and its repertoire, which can be seen to have had an impact on Preludes and Soundscapes. Firstly, Heim was critical of the prominence of Spanish music in the guitar’s repertoire, as was evident in the 6th collaborative session where he commented on how most guitarists appeared to only want to play Spanish music and nothing else. In Session 7 Heim elaborates on this notion, explaining that the world of classical guitar is a “club”, where “the same repertoire gets performed by the same people for the same audiences all the time”. This foreshadows Heim’s ongoing aims throughout the project, which can be summarised as: to develop new techniques for the guitar; discover new timbres; and to separate the instrument further from Heim’s perception of its current identity in western classical music.

3.4 Stage 1 (Session 1 – Session 8) August 14th, 2015 – December 31st, 2015

With project deadlines approaching at the beginning of August 2015, it became clear that I had fallen behind schedule in regard to my data collection. As I could not collect data from D’Netto until the completion of his composition, I asked Heim if he would be able to begin meeting for collaborative sessions earlier than we had previously agreed. While Heim was happy to accommodate my request, he made it clear that due to

27 ongoing commitments with other projects he would be unable to work on the composition until the end of the year.

As a result of beginning the collaboration prematurely, the first eight collaborative sessions lacked a goal and focus. The content analysis reflects this through the category “Heim and Ellerby deliberate on how to collaborate (run session)” only appearing for the first eight collaborative sessions. Although the sessions may have been more productive if there was a clear focus on developing new music, the lack of direction allowed additional time for Heim to begin developing an understanding of how he might approach writing for the instrument.

3.5 Stage 2 (Session 9 – Session 12) January 8th, 2016 – March 5th, 2016

In Session 5, Heim commented on how he believed that the use of short sample compositions would assist his development in understanding how to write for the guitar:

Heim: I think the most useful sessions are just when I bring you music . . . the most useful thing for a composer is to write stuff and have people play it, and then write more stuff and have more people play it—and just keep doing that.

Almost two months later during Session 9, Heim began to bring in sample compositions consisting of approximately 10–20 bars of music—a process that characterised the relevance of the collaboration’s second stage. In total Heim brought in four samples during this period, each focusing on different guitar techniques, including: natural harmonics, two-part counterpoint, and the use of right-hand arpeggio patterns. Heim did not revisit or rework any of these samples, instead choosing to follow the process he discussed in Session 5. Heim observed the strengths and weaknesses of each sample and then applied the knowledge gained to the subsequent samples—continuing the process until he was prepared to begin working on the ideas that would develop into the final piece.

In contrast to the lack of direction that characterised Stage 1, Stage 2 saw Heim and I working with the shared goal of collaborating on new music. The content analysis reflects

this with the addition of multiple new categories regarding collaboration appearing during this stage. These categories include:

- Heim and Ellerby work together on developing new techniques - Heim and Ellerby work together on the interpretation - Heim and Ellerby discuss project/composition (progress/process) - Ellerby reflects on Heim’s ideas/help in learning new material

3.6 Stage 3 (Session 13 – Session 18 – Premiere) March 28th, 2016 – May 6th, 2016

Stage 3 is characterised by Heim beginning to show a clearer intention on the future of the samples that were being written. During Session 13, Heim reflected on a new sample saying, “This movement’s going to be really cool; actually, it’s probably going to be really long.” This is the first time that a sample was referred to as belonging to a movement, indicating that it would be used in the final score. Furthermore, this is also reflected in the content analysis, as Stage 3 marks the first time that the category “Heim reflects on composition” appears.

The complete Preludes and Soundscapes was written in a timeframe of approximately one month, and the pressure of the upcoming premiere increasingly influenced the collaboration. During Session 18 (May 2nd) Heim revealed that he had not yet completed the second and third movements, though he still intended to write them over the remaining days. Due to the limited amount of time remaining until the May 6th premiere I suggested to Heim that the movements needed to be composed in a simple and idiomatic style to ensure that I would be able to adequately learn them prior to the performance. Coincidently Heim had been developing the idea of using electronic effects to manipulate the sounds of the guitar during the premiere performance. Faced with the prospect of needing to simplify the remaining movements due to playability and time constraints, he chose to focus on creating short ‘soundscapes’ that highlighted simple timbral ideas enhanced with live electronics. The result of this for the guitar part was that the 2nd Soundscape simply consisted of notes played on only one string of the guitar,

29 exploiting wide vibrato, string bending and glissando, and the first soundscape incorporated elements of indeterminacy and prepared improvisation.

3.7 Performer Influence in the Evolution of Preludes and Soundscapes Throughout each stage of the composition process Heim experimented with a range of contrasting guitar techniques and sounds such as harmonics, sustained textures, timbral layers, tuning, extended techniques, and tremolo. The following examples illustrate how Heim’s ideas developed across each stage of the collaboration and demonstrate the importance of my role in their creation.

3.7.1 Sustained Textures in Preludes and Soundscapes From early in the project, Heim explored the idea of a “constant sound”, and in Session 6 after experimenting with the use of chopsticks hitting the strings, Heim reflected:

Heim: It sounds like some kind of film music if you do that . . . a lot of film music has like this one constant sound that just like keeps going.

Later in the process during Session 11, Heim came back to this idea, still searching for a constant sound, though this time referring to it as a “sustained texture”:

Heim: I don’t know, I just want to get some sort of sustained texture (Ellerby plays example of sustained texture). But that just sounds like strumming. Ellerby: You’re just kind of thinking back to what you were kind of hoping for with the chopstick thing?

In Session 12 the idea is developed further (and the name of the idea developed even more: “constant texture”):

Heim: I was trying to work out a really timbral kind of opening thing and remember how I was talking about that constant texture sort of thing? What if it was just pinging [plucking] harmonics on all the strings? (Ellerby plays example) No so not stopping them. (Ellerby plays again though this time letting all the strings resonate) Yeah something like that.

My role throughout the evolution of this idea was to allow Heim to hear the potential of his ideas as soon as possible. During this process Heim suggested musical ideas for me to improvise on, which in turn let him immediately decide whether the ideas were practical for the purposes of the composition. In this instance Heim found the idea appropriate and returned in Session 13 with a section of music that demonstrated “pinging harmonics on all the strings”, which would later evolve into a section from the first movement of Preludes and Soundscapes.

Figure 2. Sample 5 from Session 13 – "pinging harmonics on all the strings"

The first bar of this sample, as seen in Figure 2, achieves a sustained texture through the use of repeated quavers, but more importantly by sounding harmonics on all 6 strings of the guitar and letting them resonate without interruption. By Session 15 this section evolved once more with Heim rewriting the idea while still maintaining the focus on the resonance of the harmonics across all the strings—as seen from bar 12 in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Preludes and Soundscapes, Bars 12–15

The score excerpt also shows the fingerings that I used to assist in the playing of the section. These fingerings were encouraged by Heim to ensure that I was never immediately repeating strings and aiming to maximise the resonance of the guitar. The circled string numbers above each note head indicate the occasions where all six strings were able to sound in succession without any strings repeating—these points highlighted when the guitar was resonating the most.

31 3.7.2 Developing Timbral Layers and Extended Techniques for Preludes and Soundscapes The extended techniques developed for this piece resulted from Heim’s desire to create “timbral layers”, an effect where each voice being played has a distinct timbre. The main technique that was used to create this effect was the combination of two voices consisting of harmonics—where one voice used natural harmonics, and the other artificial harmonics. This technique was the product of many weeks of experimentation, and my role in its development was critical.

During Session 7 Heim spoke very positively about the timbre of the guitar, commenting that, “there is even more variety of tone production than the piano”. However, Heim’s positivity changed once he began to try and explore the variety of timbres through one of the sample compositions and in Session 9, he began to find the timbre to be more limiting than he expected:

Ellerby: So, when you are thinking like “try a different colour”, like what are you expecting me to be able to do with it? Heim: Well I don’t know actually; I just expect that there has to be some advantage of using guitar over piano.

In this excerpt I began to suspect that Heim was searching for timbres beyond common colour changes, and I was unable to demonstrate anything that Heim found satisfactory. Over the following sessions we continued to experiment with ideas, and eventually in Session 12 Heim and I had a breakthrough. After discussing the use of natural harmonics and artificial harmonics in creating the sustained texture mentioned in Section 3.7.1, I suggested to Heim that we try both together:

Ellerby: Unless you combine them . . . (Ellerby plays both natural and artificial harmonics) Ellerby: I guess it adds a whole other timbre . . . Heim: (surprised) It is very timbrally different. Ellerby: And that kind of sounds like a whole other instrument in there.

Heim was very happy to discover this possibility, and in the following session he asked for advice about how to successfully implement the idea. During this session I discussed possible limitations and guidelines that could assist Heim in writing the section (see Appendix 1.1).

In Session 15, Heim returned with the following sample, Figure 4, where the diamond note heads indicate natural harmonics, and the solid note heads—with the diamond note head an octave above—indicate artificial harmonics.

Figure 4. Sample 6 from Session 15 – Natural Harmonics Vs. Artificial Harmonics

Heim asked for further advice on how to improve the idea, asking specifically about how to improve the sound and the distinction between the voices. In my response I focused on giving advice that ensured the artificial harmonics had clarity and sustain and based my advice on these factors (see Appendix 1.2).

In the following session, Heim returned with the idea expanded into a complete section, which included phrases with both two voices and three voices. The following excerpt Figure 5 shows where Heim used three voices simultaneously: natural harmonics, artificial harmonics (solid note head with diamond note head one octave above) and a bass line:

33 Figure 5. Preludes and Soundscapes, Excerpt from Prelude

This was the most technically and musically challenging section of the entire composition, and remarkably was written by Heim without the need for any changes or edits. It represents both Heim’s improved ability to imagine the technique of the guitar, as well as highlighting the importance of my role in ensuring Heim understood how to make the technique effective and playable.

3.8 Challenges of Writing for the Guitar Heim’s understanding of the guitar’s technique and how to write effectively for it developed continually throughout the different stages of the collaboration. In the first collaborative session Heim commented, “I always think about placement, so it is going to be a bit of a head fuck to get my head around guitar technique”. This was reflected in the content analysis through the category “Heim’s inherent focus on the technique of the instrument he is writing for”, highlighting that regardless of the instrument, Heim aimed to ensure that he could learn and overcome all technical challenges and idiosyncrasies.

Heim quickly discovered that one of main challenges of writing for the guitar is in understanding the variety of ways that a performer can interpret the music. After playing through Heim’s first sample composition in Session 9, Heim was surprised by my interpretation and mentioned that he had written it with different fingerings in mind, leading to the following exchange:

Ellerby: Definitely put in those fingerings, they will make a huge difference . . . it’s cool that you have thought of them, like it’s not usually what I would expect. Heim: Really? Well yeah, I don’t know if they’re possible.

Heim’s comment reveals that he carefully considered the placement of each note to ensure that the music would be playable, and he had not anticipated the existence of alternative solutions.

Over the next few sessions Heim continued to grow more confident in his ability to write for the guitar, however in Session 12 he became frustrated after I again interpreted the music differently to how he expected:

Heim: Actually… I am just going to write for whatever I want, and I’m going to bring it in and then I’m going to see if you can play it. And then we’re going to work from there, because you’re playing everything completely differently to how I tried to work it out on guitar, and there is just absolutely no point in trying to work it out. Ellerby: That’s really interesting. How? Why didn’t you write down how you thought of it? Heim: Well obviously because you’re the guitarist I assume you do things the best way.

Heim went on to reveal that part of the frustration came from feeling as though he had wasted his time attempting to imagine how each note was going to be played. In response I assured Heim that it was this attention to detail that made his music playable and encouraged him to continue the process regardless of how I interpreted the music.

Interestingly as we entered the final stage of the collaboration, Heim stopped assuming that I knew the “best way” to play through the music and he began to inform me of exactly which fingerings he preferred (as discussed in Section 3.7.1). This demonstrated a clear shift in Heim’s confidence in his ability to write for the guitar and shows a direct link to the impact of the specific collaborative model. If Heim had not been able to observe how I was interpreting the music, his drive to anticipate my

35 interpretation would not have existed and he may not have developed the confidence to assert how he believed the music should be played.

3.9 Summary of Performer Influence

3.9.1 Performer Influence in Stage 1 As is evident in the content analysis, the categories associated with Stage 1 are typically related to the education of Heim, and include: “Ellerby educates Heim on repertoire/history/concepts”; “Ellerby explains guitar technique”; “Ellerby explains extended guitar techniques”; “Ellerby explains difficulties of guitar music”; and “Ellerby gives specific advice on composing for the guitar”. This period of the collaboration allowed for Heim to be educated on how to write for the guitar, and arguably had an impact on the final composition. In Session 11 I asked Heim if he had retained any of the information that was discussed throughout the first 8 collaborative sessions, and he replied with:

Heim: Oh, I would say all of it. Ellerby: Yeah but do you, do you feel like you remember things? Heim: Yeah, for sure . . . Ellerby: Were you like reflecting on things or did you feel like some of the things we might have talked about would be in the back of your head? Heim: It’s probably more in the back of my head.

One benefit of this stage of the collaboration is that the collaborative sessions that followed had less focus on educating Heim, and instead prioritised the sample compositions.

3.9.2 Performer Influence in Stage 2 As discussed in Section 3.7.1, my role during this stage of the collaboration was to demonstrate to Heim how the sample compositions worked on the guitar, giving him immediate feedback on the success of each sample composition.

Heim: It’s really great doing these little pieces because it helps me learn a lot more about how things fit on the guitar.

Ellerby: Definitely. Heim: And it’s actually easier than I thought it would be, like it’s not as “holy fuck I have no clue how this works”.

As this excerpt from Session 10 indicates, one of the main positives of my assistance in this stage was in how I was able to provide Heim with reassurance and confidence regarding his ability to write for the guitar. Without collaboration Heim would not have been able to confirm the playability of his sample compositions and subsequently could not have developed his understanding of the instrument with as much ease.

3.9.3 Performer Influence in Stage 3 Once Heim began to write what was to become Preludes and Soundscapes, my role in the collaboration once again shifted. While at times the assistance I provided to Heim was similar to that of Stage 2, the biggest change was regarding how I assisted Heim in developing experimental and innovative ideas and techniques. As these ideas and techniques developed, Heim asked for advice regarding how to best implement them and I provided him with the limitations and guidelines such as those in Appendices 1.1 and 1.2.

As discussed in Section 3.6, the second and third movements of Preludes and Soundscapes were written in the final days leading up to the premiere. As I was hesitant towards Heim’s decision to continue writing the final movements, I felt it was necessary to insist that the difficulty of the music be adjusted to meet the time limitations. As Figure 6 illustrates, Heim wrote the third movement adhering to my request, deciding to incorporate live electronic effects into the premiere performance that allowed him to produce a sparse score consisting of notes for only one string of the guitar. Despite Heim writing the movement without my assistance, my requests regarding playability were of notable influence and highlight the fluid nature of our collaboration.

37 Figure 6. Preludes and Soundscapes, Excerpt from 2nd Soundscape

3.10 The Complementarity Collaborative Model in Practice Section 3.7 is a clear example of how the complementarity model can have a positive impact on collaboration. My main role in the collaboration was to assist Heim in developing an understanding of how to write for the guitar, which alongside the dynamic nature of our specific collaboration enabled him to access technical ideas that would have otherwise been unattainable. The technique developed in Section 3.7.2 was of particular significance, demonstrating how Heim was able to develop the capacity to write challenging and idiomatic music for the guitar without error.

While outside the scope of this exegesis and not discussed in this chapter, the collaborative model also had a notable impact on the premiere performance of the composition. Through a combination of direct communication with Heim and by reflecting on the knowledge that was gained throughout the collaborative process, I was able to approach the interpretation of Preludes and Soundscapes with a musical understanding that extended beyond the directions marked on the score. Several categories of the content analysis reinforce this, including: “Heim and Ellerby work together on the interpretation”; “Heim and Ellerby discuss project/composition (progress/process)”; “Heim shares his intentions for the project/composition”; Heim reflects on composition”; and “Ellerby reflects on Heim’s ideas/help in learning new material”.

The complementarity collaborative model in Case A generally encouraged positive outcomes, however there were some exceptions. Towards the later stages of the collaboration (as discussed in Section 3.9.3), I began to have a larger than anticipated creative influence on the composition. Due to the length of the collaboration and the continued one-on-one collaborative sessions, I became increasingly familiar with Heim’s compositional process and began to feel comfortable making requests and comments

regarding the playability of the music. While feedback during the earlier stages of the collaboration was based on assisting Heim develop the composition, the aforementioned requests were more for my own benefit. In reflection I felt that my interventions could have been avoided, and that my influence here had a possible negative impact on the music. While the aim of this collaborative model was not to discourage performer influence, it is an example of how the performer—when given the opportunity—can easily have an inhibiting impact on the process.

Lastly, feedback provided during the earlier stages of the collaboration appeared to have a mixed impact on Heim. In Section 3.8, Heim appeared to at times be surprised when it became clear that his writing for the guitar was not played in the way that he had envisioned. Although this had the potential to discourage Heim, it inevitably became a motivational tool, encouraging the further development of his writing skills for the guitar.

Chapter 4 – Case B

4.1 Introduction to the Case This chapter looks at the collaboration that took place between D’Netto and myself from 2015–2016 resulting in the four-movement work for solo classical guitar, Tarantism. Framed by the minimal impact collaborative model, the collaboration was limited to two editing sessions—where decisions were made to ensure the playability of the piece—and one collaborative session that occurred during the sound-check prior to the premiere. The data used to explore this case consists of excerpts from the five hours of transcribed audio (taken from the two editing sessions, and the one collaborative session), personal reflections, score excerpts, and online communications (sourced from Email, Facebook messenger, and SMS).

The case follows the collaboration from its conception in August 2015 through to the works fourth public performance in November 2016. The details of the case are presented chronologically focusing specifically on the relevant contexts that led to the development of all three editions of Tarantism. The chapter concludes with an analysis of how D’Netto dealt with the challenges of writing for the guitar, a summary of my influence as the performer, and a summary of the minimal impact collaborative model’s overall role in shaping the process.

4.2 Connor D’Netto

4.2.1 Composer-Performer Relationship Prior to the Project I first met D’Netto in 2012 during our undergraduate degrees at the University of Queensland. From 2012–2013 D’Netto sang with both Heim and I in the bass section of the School of Music’s Chorale and from 2013 onwards D’Netto and I began to attend each other’s recitals. Knowing D’Netto was studying composition I once queried him about writing a piece for solo guitar, to which he replied with hesitation, mentioning that he was unfamiliar with how to write for the instrument.

4.2.2 Previous Experience with the Guitar Apart from having attended performances that featured classical guitar, D’Netto had limited experience with the instrument prior to beginning the project. D’Netto had

never learnt to play or write for the guitar and had mentioned that his understanding of the guitar’s repertoire was limited to “non-Spanish/traditional repertoire” and the “settings of Bach for guitar/lute”.

D’Netto’s lack of experience with the guitar made him the ideal candidate to write a new work for the instrument as a part of the research project. In Mackenzie’s “The Guitar Works of Stephen Dodgson”, Dodgson is presented as having a similar relationship to the guitar as D’Netto. Mackenzie describes Dodgson’s lack of experience with the instrument as a positive attribute, arguing that Dodgson had a “fresh and unprejudiced view of the instrument and its possibilities” (iii). I hypothesised that D’Netto would share these same attributes and that the minimal impact collaborative model would reinforce them.

4.2.3 Changes to Research Design As discussed in Section 2.1.2, the collaboration with D’Netto was designed to adhere to the minimal impact collaborative model, meaning that my influence on the composition was to be kept to a minimum. Consequently, my interactions with D’Netto throughout much of the project were limited by my role as the researcher.

The initial research design proposed that the collaboration would conclude at the end of the premiere, as it did with Heim. However, due to my own desire to perform Tarantism at future recitals, the collaboration continued. As I had already gathered all of the research that I intended to—and the collaboration was now to be conducted outside the parameters of the original research design—I returned to work on the piece with D’Netto as a performer, uninhibited by my previous role as researcher. During this stage I decided to continue the data collection, allowing for the analysis of the second editing session as well as the resulting 3rd edition of Tarantism.

4.3 Tarantism – 1st Edition Received December 6th, 2015

Four months after the project began, I was sent a copy of D’Netto’s new work for solo guitar: Tarantism. Consisting of four short movements, Tarantism illustrates D’Netto’s post-minimal and neo-classical influences explored through a conservative approach to guitar technique. Unlike Heim’s Preludes and Soundscapes, D’Netto did not consciously attempt to push the boundaries of the guitar, nor did he experiment with extended techniques.

After receiving the 1st edition of Tarantism, I began the process of studying and learning the score. During this time I reflected on my progress, taking note of the passages that appeared to be either unplayable or problematic. For the issues that required immediate editorial intervention, I chose solutions that ensured the core elements of the music would remain clear. As my knowledge of the piece developed over the following weeks, I was able to find solutions to many of the existing issues that did not require significant changes. During this period I reflected: “A lot of the problems I initially found, I am slowly solving with fingerings, however some are quite difficult and eccentric” (28/12/2015). As I solved more of the issues I began to become optimistic about the playability of the piece, though it was still clear that significant editing decisions would need to be made.

4.4 Tarantism – 2nd Edition Received January 21st, 2016

In preparation for the first editing session, I made a list of all chords and passages that were problematic. These were described as “discussion points” and were each categorised by how likely they were to result in the music requiring editing. In total I indicated that there were 48 discussion points across all four movements of Tarantism (see Appendix 2.1 for full list of categories and discussion points for Movement 4).

At the conclusion of the editing session, D’Netto and I had decided that 18 of the 48 discussion points would result in edits being made to the score. These consisted of 7 “Playability Edits” where notes were changed or removed from the score due to playability issues, and 11 “Typesetting Edits” where changes to the appearance of the score were made. The following examples highlight the main issues that had to be addressed and demonstrate the different ways that D’Netto and I collaboratively resolved them.

4.4.1 Movement 4, Bar 43–44 (Playability Edit) Figure 7. Tarantism, Movement 4, Excerpt from 1st Edition

D’Netto’s misunderstanding of harmonics on the guitar was the cause of several issues in Tarantism. During the first editing session D’Netto realised that they had mistakenly notated most of the 5th fret natural harmonics as only one octave above the pitch of the open string, when instead the interval is two octaves above. In most cases the only change that this error required was in the notation; however, in the case of bars 43– 44 the error was the cause of other issues.

In bars 43 and 44 D’Netto had written the phrase imagining that the B5 would be played as a 5th fret harmonic, allowing for the section to be played on the guitar in one position. When I approached the section, I found that the only way to play the passage was with the B5 as a 12th fret harmonic plucked with the right hand. My interpretation was surprising to D’Netto, and the confusion regarding the harmonics led to the following exchange:

Ellerby: I thought right-hand harmonics would be the only way to do it? D’Netto: I didn’t write it in… (Ellerby: you must have thought?) I didn’t at any point in time… I probably thought they would be an octave above, and you would play them on the second string at the 5th fret, probably was thinking that, but that

43 doesn’t really work with the arpeggios (Ellerby plays excerpt with 5th fret B6 harmonic), you’re having to lift… Ellerby: It is harder. (Ellerby plays excerpt with 12th fret B5 harmonic) D’Netto: Yeah that works better, it’s another mistake, I thought it was an octave above and at the fifth fret, okay sure, done.

D’Netto had meant to write a B6 instead of a B5, as the 5th fret harmonic would sound a note two octaves higher than the open string B4. After I attempted to play the segment in the way that D’Netto had intended, it became clear that it would be too technically challenging and that the way I had originally interpreted the bar would be more suitable.

The next issue related to the D5 on the first beat of bar 43. In this bar both the B5 harmonic and the D5 are played on the second string, meaning that the D5 is interrupted by the following B5, giving it only the length of a dotted quaver. Furthermore, the D5 interrupts the B5 harmonic that is tied over from the end of bar 42. Although I suggested removing the D5, D’Netto preferred to leave the bar unchanged.

The third issue with this passage is related to the chord at the first beat of bar 44. Right-hand harmonics are played with two fingers in the right hand and plucked chords on the guitar are generally limited to a maximum of four fingers—as the fifth finger is rarely used. The chord on the first beat of bar 44 requires four notes, with one of them being a right-hand harmonic, meaning five fingers would be required. After explaining this issue to D’Netto, he decided to remove the harmonic and keep the A4, as it belonged to the primary voice. The final version can be seen below in Figure 8 from the 2nd edition of Tarantism.

Figure 8. Tarantism, Movement 4, Excerpt from 2nd Edition

4.4.2 Movement 2, Bar 21–22 (Playability Edit) Figure 9. Tarantism, Movement 2, Excerpt from 1st Edition

The playability issue in bars 21–22 is a result of the tied A4 in the lower stave that begins in bar 21. The only way to play the passage as written is with the second finger of the left hand playing the A4 and the fourth finger playing all notes of the upper voice in bar 21 simultaneously. As the second finger must remain on the A4, the transition to the following chord in bar 22 requires the fourth finger to release the preceding chord and reposition itself in the new chord shape. This abrupt change does not allow for a smooth transition between the chords and forces an unwanted pause.

After explaining the issue to D’Netto, he responded by suggesting we remove the A4. As I had already found a solution that did not remove any notes, I explained to D’Netto that there was an alternative option: changing the A4 to be played as a 12th fret harmonic on the 5th string, giving it the same sounding pitch as a fretted A4 while also freeing the left hand to play the chords in the upper staff. D’Netto found this solution to be preferable (see Figure 10), and the same solution was also used to correct a similar issue in bar 13 of the second movement.

Figure 10. Tarantism, Movement 2, Excerpt from 2nd Edition

45 4.5 Tarantism – 3rd Edition Received July 26th, 2016

Following the premiere of Tarantism on May 6th, 2016, D’Netto and I decided to continue working on the piece—though now outside of the research project’s limitations (as discussed in Section 4.2.3). By the time D’Netto and I were able to schedule the second editing session, I had spent much more time working on the piece, D’Netto had completed a trio for guitar, violin, and violoncello (In Black, premiered in May 2016) and he had also begun working on a piece for three guitars (Two-Tap, premiered in November 2016). These developments meant that both D’Netto and I were more informed in our approach to the editing process.

4.5.1 Movement 4, Bar 27–28 (Typesetting Edit) Figure 11. Tarantism, Movement 4, Excerpt from 1st Edition

During the editing session I mentioned to D’Netto that I had been having problems phrasing bar 27 through to bar 28 and explained that I was confused by the impact of the subito piano at the start of bar 28. D’Netto responded:

D’Netto: …problem with subito piano is where you align them to; it should be on the second quaver . . . Ellerby: So it’s (the notes at the end of bar 27) actually meant to land heavily, that changes it a lot.

I had misinterpreted the placement of the subito piano and practiced the downbeat of bar 28 as suddenly soft, rather than a continuation of the preceding forte marking. D’Netto had already felt that this bar lacked clarity, and my confusion encouraged him to make changes to the typesetting:

D’Netto: How would you like me to typeset that? There is never a nice way for doing that except for making a giant gap between first and second quavers.

Ellerby: That’s a toughie, is it worth disconnecting the stems? Or… D’Netto: I could . . . put those three notes on first quaver as a chord, dotted minim, and then quaver rest up top and . . . move “l.v.” out of the way because bad place, and bring subito piano up underneath that note?

After D’Netto makes these changes the ideas are much clearer, as can be seen in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Tarantism, Movement 4, Excerpt from 3rd Edition

4.5.2 Movement 4, Bar 106 (Playability Edit) Figure 13. Tarantism, Movement 4, Excerpt from 1st Edition

In bar 106 (repeated 109, 113, 116, 118) a G3 is held throughout the duration of a 7/8 bar. As the note is fretted, the left hand loses one of its four available fingers, making the remainder of the bar extremely difficult to play. The passage according to D’Netto was written at the piano and is supposed to be played on the guitar as if a sustain pedal was being used. This is an effect that the guitar can only replicate to a limited degree, and at the introduction of the G3 the remaining left-hand fingers are unable to fret the upper voice without disrupting the illusion of a sustain pedal.

After the first editing session D’Netto and I decided that the best solution to this issue was to limit the duration of the G3 to a crotchet length. D’Netto and I never felt that this was a satisfactory solution, and in the weeks leading up to the second editing session I came up with an alternative option: to remove the D4 from each 7/8 bar (see Figure 14). While this was a significant change, it was the only solution that did not disrupt the flow

47 of the bar. In response, D’Netto commented: “I understand why you have to do that, and there isn’t really a way around it”.

Figure 14. Tarantism, Movement 4, Excerpt from 3rd Edition

This is one of the few examples where a partly unresolved discussion point from the first editing session underwent significant changes in the second editing session, highlighting the importance of both practical experience with the piece and uninhibited communication (previously a consequence of the research project’s limitations).

4.6 Challenges of Writing for the Guitar

4.6.1 The Edits and Discussion Points of Tarantism D’Netto wrote the movements of Tarantism in the following order: 2nd, 4th, 3rd, and 1st. By looking at the number of edits and discussion points that occurred in each movement, it can be argued that D’Netto became more proficient in his understanding of how to write for the instrument without any performer assistance.

Figure 15. Edits in Tarantism after 3rd Edition

Length Discussion Playability Typesetting Total Edits (bars) Points Edits Edits 2nd Mvt. 70 18 2 6 8 4th Mvt. 119 19 7 8 15 3rd Mvt. 73 9 1 1 2 1st Mvt. 44 10 1 1 2

While the data does show an overall decrease in edits required, the fourth movement of Tarantism does not follow the trend. The most likely reason for the larger number of edits is in relation to the movement’s length. At 119 bars, the fourth movement is 46 bars longer than the next longest movement, and therefore there are more opportunities for error. Secondly, this movement is the most complex, composed predominantly in two voices with heavy use of both natural and artificial harmonics. Taking these factors into account, an overall improvement in D’Netto’s understanding of how to write for the guitar can still be seen. As D’Netto did not collaborate with me throughout the entire composition process, the data demonstrates the potential for a composer to make significant improvements without the need to rely on the guidance of a performer. This reinforces Dodgson’s argument that over time composers will begin to find themselves “selecting concepts suited to the instrument and an instinct for laying them out effectively” (1). Furthermore the data dispels the idea that non-guitarist composers cannot write successfully for the guitar without performer assistance, a stigma

49 that Heim addressed in Session 2, commenting that he felt D’Netto was going to struggle due to “the depth of guitar writing”.

4.6.2 “Learning to play the instrument in the mind” Prior to starting the piece, D’Netto discussed what he believed were the main challenges of writing for the guitar:

D’Netto: For me, the challenge exists in understanding the physical limitations of being able to fit your hands around the chords and moving fluently between each. Similarly, it is in being constantly conscientious of which notes hold and how notes continue to resonate.

While he began the composition with an understanding of the challenges that were to be faced, D’Netto found it difficult to take his own advice, admitting that the process of writing for the guitar was “doing his head in”.

One of the main difficulties that D’Netto faced during the composition process was actively checking the playability of all notes, passages, and chords. In “Writing for the guitar: Comments of A Non-Guitarist Composer”, Dodgson stresses that a composer must be able to visualise how the guitarist will use each hand when interpreting the music, furthermore stating, “It’s a question of learning to play the instrument in the mind” (13). Despite Dodgson admitting that this concept is only achievable through extensive experience, he suggests that the use of a fretboard chart can be used as a suitable alternative until the skill develops, such as in Figure 16.

Figure 16. Fretboard Chart – Frederick Noad, Solo Guitar Playing

D’Netto did make use of a fretboard chart at times, however some of the most notable issues with Tarantism arose because of D’Netto’s inconsistent use of the chart.

As discussed in Section 4.5.2, D’Netto revealed that he wrote the ending of the fourth movement on the piano. Due to the issues that were present in bar 106 (and it’s repetitions) it is likely that D’Netto didn’t spend adequate time using the fretboard chart to imagine how the passage would be performed—instead basing most of the notation on that which had been conceived on the piano. Dodgson summarises the issue of editing such a passage as being the “spectacle of a conscientious player searching desperately for a way to give idiomatic utterance to musical material which was instrumentally unsuitable in the first place”, and comments that it is unfortunately a common issue (13). Furthermore, there were several other issues with Tarantism that could have been avoided had D’Netto used the fretboard chart with more caution and accuracy.

In summary, while D’Netto was able to develop an understanding of the challenges associated with writing for the guitar without the need for performer assistance (as demonstrated in Section 4.6.1), the main issue was that he was unable to consistently check the playability of the music, as is evident in the above example.

4.7 Performer Influence From the beginning of the collaboration, the minimal impact collaborative model ensured that the influence of the performer was kept to a minimum. However, D’Netto’s inability to consistently write within the limitations of the guitar meant that editorial intervention was inevitable. Across the two editing sessions, editorial intervention resulted in 11 playability edits, and 16 typesetting edits.

4.8 The Minimal Impact Collaborative Model in Practice As expected, the lack of communication with a performer throughout the duration of the compositional process allowed D’Netto to write music for the guitar uninhibited by external influences. D’Netto was able to develop his own unique voice in the classical guitar repertoire, illustrating the intended purposes of the minimal impact model. However, the expected consequences of this collaborative model were not entirely avoided, with the score proving to be at multiple occasions problematic for the performer. In Section 4.4, the technical issues within the piece were discussed in detail, revealing a range of issues related to D’Netto underestimating the limitations of guitar technique.

51 In interpreting and performing the piece for the premiere, I was forced to rely only on the score and my own musical experiences. The absence of collaboration with D’Netto meant that I was unable to find clarity regarding ambiguous markings or be corrected by D’Netto when I may have misinterpreted elements of the music. While assistance in this area from D’Netto would have been beneficial, the process allowed me to draw on my own musical intuition and develop what to me felt like a more individualised interpretation.

Chapter 5 – Discussion The aim of this project was to illuminate the complex nature of collaboration involving non-guitarist composers, evaluating the implicit advantages and disadvantages of contrasting collaborative models. To frame the analysis, two key components were observed: the composer’s understanding of how to write for the guitar, and the performer’s overall impact on the composition. The chapter begins by first summarising each composer's approach to writing for the guitar and looking at how the different methods were shaped by both the collaborative models and each composer's own compositional processes. The overall impact of the contrasting collaborative models— including the impact of the performer—is then assessed, with recommendations made regarding future collaborations. The individual compositions are then discussed, referring to my own personal reflections and assessing the overall merit of the project as a creative endeavour. Finally, the relevance of the two cases regarding the research area is discussed, looking at both the limitations of the research project as well as making suggestions on how the findings could be used to encourage further research in the area.

5.1 Writing Idiomatically for the Guitar

5.1.1 Benjamin Heim As discussed in Chapter 3, Heim developed his understanding of how to write for the guitar across three stages. In Stage 1 Heim formed a basic understanding of the guitar’s complexities through open discussion and experimentation, Stage 2 saw Heim experimenting purposefully with small sample compositions demonstrating different guitar techniques, and in Stage 3 Heim composed Preludes and Soundscapes.

In the first collaborative session Heim explained that his compositional process was based on understanding—and exploiting—the technique of the instrument that he was writing for: “So when I write for violin or any string instrument, basically I always like to think of technique . . . I don’t ever write notes”. As one of the main difficulties of writing for the guitar is in regard to understanding its technique, Heim’s habitual compositional approach proved to be a valuable asset throughout the collaboration.

53 By aiming to develop a thorough understanding of the guitar, Heim began the process of writing sample compositions with the purpose of learning how to implement particular techniques (as described in Section 3.5). This part of Heim’s approach was like that of several other non-guitarist composers, where preliminary writing in a simplified setting was required to establish a familiarity with the instrument. For example, Paget suggests that Sculthorpe “trained himself” in how to write for the guitar by first writing for the instrument in a chamber music setting, and many other notable non-guitarist composers such as Britten and Takemitsu wrote chamber music featuring the guitar prior to composing solo works for the guitar (Paget 53; Alcarez 24; Burt 269).

Beyond learning to implement standard guitar techniques, Heim was also interested in extending the boundaries of the guitar, and in the 9th collaborative session commented that he was “trying to push the technique of guitar more” and noted the following, “…all I gotta do is make you play in ways you haven’t played before”. This desire to create new techniques for the guitar was fundamental to the composition, and Heim’s success in creating such techniques was evident in Section 3.7.1 and 3.7.2.

5.1.2 Connor D’Netto Overall D’Netto was successful in developing a basic understanding of how to write for the guitar and did so without the aid of a guitarist. D’Netto achieved this by making use of the literature available to him and through using a basic fretboard chart as a guide. However, in Section 4.6.2 it was shown that D’Netto was at times unable to consistently check the playability of the music that was being written, resulting in technical issues. It was found that the problem was partly due to D’Netto writing sections of the piece at the piano, and then underestimating the lack of compatibility between keyboard instruments and the guitar. Furthermore, it reinforces the importance of Dodgson’s suggestion that a non-guitarist composer must learn to “play the instrument in the mind” (13). While D’Netto did attempt to follow Dodgson’s advice and made considerable efforts to confirm the playability of the music, his occasional use of the piano in the composition process inevitably allowed errors to go unseen.

Section 4.6.1 revealed that D’Netto’s developing ability to write for the guitar could be seen by arranging the total number of edits required per movement of Tarantism

in the order that the movements were composed. This highlights the fact that there were a greater number of errors made in the early stages of the composition, as this was D’Netto’s first serious attempt at writing for the guitar. It is possible that had D’Netto been able to write sample compositions such as those written by Heim, or had first written for the guitar in a chamber music setting such as Sculthorpe, he may have been able to limit the amount of errors that were made in the early stages of Tarantism.

5.1.3 Impact of the Collaborative Model

What separates Heim’s Preludes and Soundscapes from many works by non- guitarist composers was that it was produced as a result of the complementarity collaborative model. During collaborative sessions Heim used my skills and knowledge as his own tool, asking me to demonstrate his ideas and provide feedback on how to improve the playability of them in real-time (as described in Section 3.7.2). This is an example of what Lifschitz described as a ‘bi-directional feedback loop’, where a frequent transfer of knowledge is made possible through continued active communication— allowing Heim to develop his understanding of the guitar with considerable efficiency. These findings demonstrate that even considering the notable challenges associated with writing for the guitar, it is possible for a collaboration involving a non-guitarist composer to produce “artistic outcomes and discoveries greater than the sum of their individual skills”—a result that may not be easily replicated (21).

In contrast to Case A, the positive aspects of the minimal-impact collaborative model were overshadowed by the technical complications featured in Case B, a direct result of D’Netto receiving no feedback during the composition process. D’Netto’s misunderstanding of harmonics for example (Section 4.4.1) was the cause of significant editorial intervention. Had this mistake been revealed to D’Netto at an earlier point in the project, it would have reduced many of the discussion points and editing decisions required for Tarantism. Nonetheless the collaboration is an example of how a composer can develop an adequate understanding of how to write for the guitar without performer assistance.

55 5.1.4 Influence of the Compositional Process Within the confines of this project, the impact of the different collaborative models can be seen as related to their compatibility with a composer’s inherent compositional process. Heim’s focus on instrumental technique ensured that regardless of the collaborative model, it could be expected that he would develop a sufficient understanding of the difficulties associated with writing for the guitar. This indicates that Heim has a higher chance of adapting to the minimal impact collaborative model as well as any variation of the two models demonstrated in this project.

Where Heim could be described as writing music with the purpose of exploring and discovering the various techniques of the guitar, D’Netto instead used the guitar as a medium to express his own musical language—with technique merely a tool. As discussed in the previous section, D’Netto’s approach meant that his writing was susceptible to errors that had a notable impact on the playability of the music, resulting in substantial editing (for example, Section 4.5.2). A complete lack of performer assistance in this case was a limitation to D’Netto and resulted in undesired alterations to the music. It is likely that D’Netto’s compositional process would have been more compatible with the addition of occasional consultation sessions with a performer during the writing process.

5.2 Conclusions

5.2.1 Challenges Arising from Collaboration A key factor that prompted the creation of this research project, was the idea that a performer—specifically a guitarist working with a non-guitarist composer—can have an inhibiting effect on a collaboration, both in regards to the composition and in relation to the composer’s ability to develop an understanding of how to write for the guitar. In both collaborations it has become clear that one possible cause for concern is related to a natural imbalance of knowledge, where the performer is undoubtedly the expert in the area of what is possible on the guitar. As the limitations of the guitar’s technique are considered more challenging to comprehend than many other instruments, suggestions

the performer makes regarding notes, chords, passages, and techniques can hold significant weight in the eyes of the composer.

In the first few days of learning Tarantism I found the music to be very unidiomatic, making note of numerous awkward technical challenges in the first movement and describing them as “not ideal” (such as in bars 4–5 of Figure 17).

Figure 17. Tarantism, Movement 1, Excerpt from 1st Edition

Almost a week later I felt that I had overcome the issues through creative fingering decisions and through practice. It is worth considering that had this taken place within another collaborative model that featured more active communication, D’Netto and I likely would have had discussions regarding the playability of this passage. It is reasonable to expect that D’Netto, another musician, or myself as the performer would suggest a change to the passage for the purposes of making the music more idiomatic. It is here where a performer has the potential to make significant changes to the music with very little effort or purposefulness.

Similarly, I found the performer could have a negative effect in other ways that were less related to the composer’s understanding of the guitar. As already discussed in 3.9.3 and 3.10, I made requests regarding the playability of Heim's Preludes and Soundscapes towards the end of the collaboration. While these requests may have been justifiable considering the piece was to be performed in less than a week, they were a clear example of a performer using their position in the collaboration for their own benefit. Reflecting on this, I believe that while I was concerned about the time limitations it mostly came down to not believing Heim was able to write something that was idiomatic.

57 In hindsight I am much more interested in what Heim may have composed had he not been influenced by my request to simplify the playability of the music. Regrettably, the resulting soundscapes that were written during this period are the least interesting musically and do not reach the same creative heights as the Prelude movement. Historically such performer interventions have been criticised, and Segal’s comments are applicable in this case, “The intersection between composer and performer is not always clearly defined. While each performs a necessary function in the creative process, a question arises when the creativity of the one is interfered with by the self-interests of the other” (36).

5.2.2 Recommendations for Future Collaborations The main variable to consider regardless of collaborative model is the amount of time the performer and the composer spend in collaboration during the composition period. For non-guitarist composers that are new to writing for the instrument, it is during the main compositional period that early interventions will be of most benefit. D’Netto’s Tarantism was completed before any form of collaboration could occur, and for this reason the errors were more challenging to correct. Instead of making changes to musical ideas that were currently in progress and malleable, D’Netto and I were battling against notes that already had a sense of permanence and belonged to the piece. Any significant change that we made felt like a disservice to the composition (such as in Section 4.5.2).

In Section 5.1.1 it is made clear that one of Heim’s most effective methods to aid his understanding of how to write for the guitar was to compose sample pieces that were simple in nature. This is comparable to writing for the guitar in a chamber music setting, likely an equally effective method to use in preparing for the task of writing for solo guitar. It is possible that the chamber music setting encourages a composer to write a guitar part that is closer to that of a stringed instrument and is subsequently more economical, featuring only one voice (either melodic or accompanying). This unencumbered writing would allow a composer to experiment with the technical and musical potential of the guitar without the pressure of needing to condense multiple parts to one instrument.

Finally, as discussed in Section 5.2.1, guitarists have an unprecedented amount of influence in collaborations involving non-guitarist composers unfamiliar with writing for solo guitar. The performer’s opinion in both musical and technical matters can hold significant value to the composer and should be exercised with caution during collaborative sessions.

5.2.3 Reflections on the Creative Output Preludes and Soundscapes – Benjamin Heim

Heim’s multi-movement work for solo guitar adheres to many standard practices of the modern classical guitar repertoire while also moving away stylistically to explore genres more closely associated with modern finger style guitar players (for example the guitarists Andy McKee, Jon Gomm, Alexandr Misko). At the end of Session 2 during Stage 1 of the collaboration, Heim and I began to discuss extended guitar techniques and their use in both modern classical guitar repertoire and in the modern finger style genre. Heim made a point of showing me a YouTube video of guitarist Jon Gomm performing his work for guitar, Passionflower (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY7GnAq6Znw). Heim commented that he liked the sound of the closely amplified guitar and the use of harmonics in the composition—ideas that are particularly present in the live recording of Preludes and Soundscapes (see Appendix C).

During the premiere performance of Preludes and Soundscapes, Heim used several audio effects to enhance the overall musical experience—adding layers of digital delay and reverb, as well as predesigned audio soundscapes. The audio effects combined with the acoustics of the venue, Brisbane’s Spring Hill Reservoir, made for an extremely enjoyable performing experience. I felt that the technical demands of the piece were less exposed, and I later reflected, “I felt very comfortable playing the piece as it was suited to the environment” (31/8/16).

It is worth mentioning that since the premiere I have only performed the piece once more—for the purposes of helping Heim create a video recording of the work. Although I would like to perform the piece again, the extensive use of harmonics and subtle timbral effects make the work dependant on the precise use of amplification,

59 making it difficult to program the work amongst standard classical guitar repertoire. However, as the video recording demonstrates, the piece is possibly more successful as a recording, where the intricate details created by Heim can be easily captured and enhanced where necessary (see Appendix C for video link). Regardless of what medium is used to deliver the composition and performance, Preludes and Soundscapes stands as an incredibly successful example of composer-performer collaboration.

Tarantism – Connor D’Netto

Performed in the same concert as Preludes and Soundscapes, Tarantism was not comparably suited to the venue, or to the style of amplification being used. There were multiple audio feedback issues throughout the performance, and I did not feel as comfortable in performance. However, the audience reacted to the piece positively, and as the composition was stylistically similar to current modern classical guitar repertoire, the encouragement from audience members led to me programming the work in future performances.

During 2016 I played Tarantism in lessons with Australian guitarists Karin Schaupp and Alex Tsiboulski, who were both fond of the piece and encouraged me to continue working on it. I then performed Tarantism on three separate occasions following the premiere. Most notable was the performance during the final round of the Adelaide International Guitar Competition, where the piece received further support from judges and audience members. Finally, I performed the work during my second MPhil recital, demonstrating the culmination of numerous performance experiences with the work, lessons with various tutors, and further collaborative sessions with D’Netto (see Appendix C). D’Netto mentioned that he was extremely pleased with how the piece was performed during this recital, and I personally found the experience very rewarding.

The ongoing interest in Tarantism by guitarist colleagues and audience members since its premiere indicate the composition to be a much greater success than anticipated. D’Netto has since shared the score with several other guitarists interested in learning the work, and I plan soon to release audio and video recordings of Tarantism.

5.2.4 Limitations and Concluding Thoughts At the conclusion of the project it became clear that several elements of the research design could have been altered to further improve the project outcomes. In Section 2.1, the limitations unnecessarily restricted the participating composers: Heim was required to meet a quota of collaborative sessions, and D’Netto was not permitted to communicate with a performer during the composition process. While these restrictions helped demonstrate the two ends of the spectrum regarding guitar collaboration with a non-guitarist composer, they encouraged examples of the collaborative models that are less likely to exist outside of a research context.

The impact of the research design on collaboration is also apparent in Chapter 3 – Case A, which took almost three months longer than anticipated. This is a result of the four months that were spent during Stage 1 of the composition, where the collaboration occurred despite Heim being unable to begin writing the composition. Ideally stricter restrictions regarding the timeline of the composition would have been a positive addition to the project’s design.

While this study focuses on current examples of collaborative models involving the classical guitar, examples from the last century invite further research. The collaborations that occurred with Benjamin Britten, Michael Tippett and Alberto Ginastera, for example, require further investigation. Although there have been several texts analysing the musical language of Britten’s Nocturnal: After John Dowland for solo guitar (Alcaraz; Goss; Frackenpohl), the influence of the guitarist Julian Bream is only partly documented (Wade). Considering Bream is credited with having edited the score, it is surprising that the changes made to the original manuscript are seldom discussed. Historical case studies such as the collaboration between Britten and Bream could provide considerable insight into the collaborations between non-guitarist composers and performers.

While interest in the topic of non-guitarist composers in collaboration has increased in the 21st century, there is still scope for additional study. The challenges of writing for the guitar and the influence of collaboration on previous and contemporary works for guitar are areas that can be developed through further research. It is hoped that

61 the findings in this exegesis encourage continued research into the area, as well as contribute insight into how non-guitarist composers and performers engage in collaboration.

Appendices

1.0 Appendix A

1.1 Limitations and Guidelines Provided to Heim after Session 12 - The voice with artificial harmonics should remain close to the 5th fret and 7th fret natural harmonics. - Speed will be a limiting factor in regard to the artificial harmonics. - The fingering of the artificial harmonics will need to be carefully selected to ensure that other fingers within the hand are available to play the natural harmonics. - A third voice could be possible, especially if it were a “droning” bass line. - Counterpoint would be possible provided the stretches within the left hand are within reason. o Limited to 4 frets if using three voices, or 5 frets if using only two voices - Do not ‘trap the fingers’ too often: if one or more fingers play fretted notes, the other fingers will be limited in where they can move. - Amplification will be important to ensure the harmonics are clearly heard by the audience, particularly the 5th fret harmonics.

1.2 Limitations and Guidelines Provided to Heim after Session 15 - Artificial harmonics on the first string are not effective and should be avoided - Notes that need to have a longer sustain should be placed on the third string or lower - 4th position or 5th position on the guitar allows for all 5th and 7th fret natural harmonics as well as a large variety of artificial harmonic notes - Heim is already writing the idea effectively and time spent practicing the idea will improve the sound more than further limitations and guidelines

63 2.0 Appendix B

2.1 Discussion Points Provided to D’Netto for Tarantism KEY:

• Unplayable, a passage or chord that without doubt cannot be played. • Most-Likely Unplayable, a passage or chord that appears to be unplayable, but is not without doubt. • Potential to be Unplayable, a passage or chord that appears to be playable with extensive practice, but could prove to not be worth the effort required. • Extremely Difficult, a passage or chord that after extensive practice could be achieved with good musical results. • Moderate Difficulty, a passage or chord that after moderate practice could be achieved with good musical results. • Unidiomatic, a passage or chord that appears simple, but due to the nature of the guitar presents atypical challenges. • Right-Hand, a passage or chord where the challenges for the right hand are notable. • Difficulty from Interpretation, a passage or chord where the difficulty is derived from the performer’s interpretive decisions. • Typesetting, a passage or chord that contains irregularities with its notation, typically in reference to harmonics. • Difficulties with timbre, a passage or chord that is impacted by the voicing of a chord or melody. • Difficult Left-Hand Stretch, a passage or chord where the difficulty is predominantly due to a stretch within the left hand. • Question for Composer, a passage or chord that is not made completely clear by the composer.

The focus of most points is in reference to the left hand. The right hand is rarely an issue, and if it is, the Right-Hand category will be stated.

Movement 4

• Bar 7: Typesetting o The harmonic should be written as the octave higher. • Bar 21: Most-Likely Unplayable, Difficult Left-Hand Stretch o The stretch between the second fret barre with the 1st finger and the 4th finger playing the G# makes it very difficult to allow the A harmonic on the fifth fret. • Bar 21: Typesetting o In latest draft there is now an issue where two harmonic symbols are present instead of just one. • Bar 27: Unplayable, Difficult Left-Hand Stretch o The chord on the third beat of the bar is not possible. The stretch would be between the 7th fret and a barre on the second fret, other fingerings would not help. • Bar 30: Typesetting o The B harmonic should indicate that it is to be played on the second string. • Bar 36: Moderate Difficulty, Unidiomatic, Difficult Left-Hand Stretch o The stretch is very difficult between the fretted fingers and the G can easily be misplaced. • Bar 43: Unplayable o It is not possible to play the second-string D for the required length as well as play the harmonics. Alternate fingerings would not be practical, even with artificial harmonics. o The D could be shortened in length to a dotted quaver. • Bar 44: Most-Likely Unplayable o The harmonic would be very difficult to be played on top of the chord, as it must be an artificial harmonic. It is likely either the C# or the B harmonic will have to be cut.

65 • Bar 65–66: Typesetting o Could be better illustrated as ‘l.v’ or as legato. As only harmonics have been given string numbers previously this seems strange. • Bar 76: Moderate Difficulty o The slur from the F# to the G can only occur as a slide. • Bar 77: Extremely Difficult o As this is all on the 14th fret barre chords are very difficult and stacking all four fingers on top of each can also be very difficult. • Bar 106 (repeated, bars 109, 113, 116, 118): Most-Likely Unplayable o The G in the bass is almost impossible to let ring for the whole bar, if a fingering is used that allows for it to ring, it is at the expense of the rest of the bar.

3.0 Appendix C

3.1 Accessing Recordings of Premiere Performances Any online storage location for these recordings will likely be more temporary than the existence of this document, and I apologise if you are unable to gain access to them. Nonetheless the recordings can be accessed at the following unlisted YouTube links:

• Premiere performance of Preludes and Soundscapes by Benjamin Heim o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RJ2ID5-Lxs • Video preview of Preludes and Soundscapes by Benjamin Heim o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46cCANG3E2w • Premiere performance of Tarantism by Connor D’Netto o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9r4qxWxClc • 4th performance of Tarantism by Connor D’Netto at final MPhil recital o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vTsZ2f2N1I

However, if these are no longer available, please try to contact me directly or the University of Queensland’s School of Music.

4.0 Appendix D

4.1 Copy of Ethics Approval Letter

List of Works Cited Adler, Samuel. The Study of Orchestration. W. W. Norton, 2002.

Alcarez, Roberto. Benjamin Britten’s Nocturnal, OP. 70 for Guitar: A Novel Approach to Program Music and Variation Structure. 2001. U of Arizona, PhD dissertation.

Berlioz, Hector. Treatise on Instrumentation. Edwin F. Kalmus, 1948.

Borgdorff, Henk. “The Debate on Research in the Arts.” Sensuous Knowledge, no. 2, Bergen UP, 2006.

Bream, Julian. "How to Write for the Guitar." 1957. Guitar Forum 2 (2003), pp. 1–8.

Britten, Benjamin. Nocturnal: After John Dowland, Op. 70. Edited by Julian Bream, Schott, 1963.

Burt, Peter. The Music of Toru Takemitsu. Cambridge UP, 2001.

Denscombe, Martyn. The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research projects. Open UP, 3rd ed., 2007.

Dodgson, Stephen. "Writing for the Guitar: Comments of a Non-Guitarist Composer." Guitar 1984, pp. 13‐16.

Ferguson, James Edwin. Darius Milhaud's Segoviana: History, Style & Implications. Toward a Performance Edition. 1990. Mills College, MFA dissertation.

Frackenpohl, David John. Analysis of “Nocturnal Op. 70” By Benjamin Britten. 1986. North Texas State University, MM dissertation.

Ginastera, Alberto. Sonata for guitar. Boosey & Hawkes, 1978.

Godfrey, Jonathan. Principles of Idiomatic Guitar Writing. 2013. Indiana University, DMA dissertation.

Goss, Stephen. “Come, heavy sleep: motive & metaphor in Britten’s Nocturnal, opus 70.”

69 Guitar Forum 1 (2001), pp. 53–75.

Greene, Taylor Jonathon. Julian Bream’s 20th Century Guitar: An Album’s Influence on the Modern Guitar Repertoire. 2011. U of California, Riverside, MA dissertation.

Hancox, Grenville. “Chapter 9 The composer-performer relationship in the music of Peter Maxwell Davies.” Peter Maxwell Davies Studies, edited by Kenneth Gloag and Nicholas Jones, Cambridge University Press, 2009.

John-Steiner, Vera. Creative Collaboration. Oxford UP, 2000.

Kachian, Chris. Composer’s Desk Reference for the Classic Guitar. Mel Bay Publications, 2006.

Kanga, Zubin. "Inside Composer-Performer Collaboration." Resonate Magazine, 2014, http://www.australianmusiccentre.com.au/article/inside-composer-performer- collaboration. Accessed 8 Mar. 2015.

Koznin, Allan. “Julian Bream Stretches with Contemporary Music.” The New York Times, Nov. 1983, http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/20/arts/julian-bream- streaches-with-contemporary-music.html?pagewanted=all. Accessed 3 Mar. 2017.

Lifschitz, Sonya. Creative Collaboration in and as contemporary performance practice. 2014. U of Melbourne, PhD dissertation.

Mackenzie, John Lawrence. The Guitar Works of Stephen Dodgson. 2006. U of Leeds, PhD dissertation.

Noad, Frederick M. Solo Guitar Playing 1. 4th ed., Amsco Publications, 2009.

Norton, Lin S. Action Research in Teaching and Learning: A Practical Guide to Conducting Pedagogical Research in Universities. Routledge, 2009.

Paget, Jonathan. The Guitar Music of Peter Sculthorpe. 2003. Eastman School of Music, DMA dissertation.

Powell, Neil. Benjamin Britten: A Life for Music. Henry Holt and Co., 2013.

Schneider, John. The Contemporary Guitar. Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.

Segal, Peter E. The Role of Andrés Segovia in Re-Shaping the Repertoire of the Classical Guitar. 1994. Temple University, DMA dissertation.

Smith, Hazel and Roger T. Dean, editors. Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts. Edinburgh UP, 2009.

Stake, Robert. The Art of Case Study Research. Sage Publications, 1995.

———. “Chapter 5 Case Studies.” Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, edited by Norman K. Deznin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, 2003.

Tenenbaum, David. “Chapter 11 Perspectives on the classical guitar in the twentieth century.” The Cambridge Companion to the Guitar, edited by Victor Anand Coelho, Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Tosone, Jim. “Chapter 5 David Starobin: Making Modern Music.” Classical Guitarists: Conversations. McFarland, 2000.

Vieira, Márlou Peruzzolo. The Collaborative Process from the Performer’s Perspective: A Case Study of Non-Guitarist Composers. 2017. University of Aveiro, DMA dissertation.

Wade, Graham. The Art of Julian Bream. Ashley Mark Publishing Company, 2008.