Colagem Final

Percussion and instrumentality: exploring the performance of unusual instruments and sound sources Luís Bittencourt Abstract This research focused on the performance of percussion works composed for unusual instruments and sound sources (UISS). UISS refers any material or object that may be used for producing sound in a musical context. In addition, this research attempted to identify some features of the instrumental potential of UISS — in other words, their instrumentality — through a discussion of the homonymous concept. A practice-led multimethod approach was adopted, which included studio research of three case studies, and interviews and performative ethnography with performers and composers who are specialists in UISS repertoire. Research findings suggests that the performance of works composed for these instruments involves a unique performance path, shaped by singular characteristics regarding epistemic, immaterial and organological issues.151 Background In the context of Western art music, the term percussion refers to an action that can be applied to any object or surface, embracing a multitude of instruments, concepts and practices. Consequently, percussion repertoire encompasses a plurality of sonic affordances and objects and, according to Cope (1997, 129) “the acceptance of almost any sound-producing object by percussionists has significantly expanded our view of just what, in fact, constitutes a musical instrument.” Terms such as “found instruments” (Oliver 2003, 273), “found objects” (Mellers 1992, 446; Cage in Kostelanetz 2003, 151 This research was implemented in the context of the project “Experimentation in music in Portuguese culture: History, contexts and practices in the 20th and 21st centuries”, co-funded by the European Union through the Operational Programme Competitiveness and Internationalization, in its ERDF component, and by national funds, through the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology. Special acknowledgements to percussionist and researcher Louise Devenish, for precious suggestions and corrections. 309 73), “sounding objects” (Glennie in Bittencourt 2019, 2), and “junk or noise percussion” (Schick 2006, 290) are commonly used to refer to ordinary objects imbued with some sonic potential, but also to establish an organological boundary between unusual instruments or sound sources and standard152 percussion instruments. In addition, the point of contention between unusual instruments and sound sources (hereafter UISS) and standard percussion instruments is not only related to organological matters, but also to performative and epistemological issues. In this text, I intend to demonstrate that the performance of works composed for UISS follows a different path, which demands a distinct approach regarding the singular characteristics and unique epistemic nature of such works. These propositions were outlined from my own artistic practice and reflections on the concept of instrumentality, on the epistemic complexity in musical performance, and on the skills and processes involved in experimental western art music, a genre which UISS are usually associated with. In the next section, I will briefly discuss some theoretical topics that support these propositions. From musical instruments to instrumentalities – a brief overview One of the underlying forces that propels my artistic-research work is the reflection on the impact of musical instruments in my artistic practice and, in a panoptic perspective, how contemporary musical instruments can be defined at a digitally-driven era, a time in which virtual / interactive / intelligent / automated resources, mediums, systems and interfaces are increasingly eroding the boundaries of past concepts on the subject. Although digital, virtual or electronic instruments may seem unrelated to UISS, they do share some concealed resemblances: both frequently deal with non-standard performance techniques, and their learning processes are non-linear, often requiring previous development. In addition, digital music instruments and UISS present to their performers unique sound, tactile, visual and proprioceptic references, when compared to standard musical instruments. Hence, exploring the instrumentality of digital instruments can be useful as 152 I am aware that this term can evoke several problems and understandings, since a given percussion instrument may be “standard” within a particular culture and not in others. In this research, I use the term “standard” to refer to percussion instruments that have undergone a process of legitimation and are somehow accepted and used regularly in a context of a particular culture (e.g. orchestral percussion instruments used in Western art-music, instruments manufactured by companies). 310 theoretical support to deepen the perspectives on the instrumentality of UISS. The ability to produce sound in some way is undoubtedly a fundamental criterion of a musical instrument and, in fact, some of the most accepted notions of musical instruments take this aspect as the basis for the construction of their concepts — e.g., that musical instruments are “sound producing devices” (Hornbostel 1933, 129; Lysloff and Matson 1985, 217). However, this perspective becomes questionable when one is aware that our world is crowded with things that produce sound, which are not primarily recognised as musical instruments (e.g. a blender, an iPod, a chair dragged on the floor, cicadas in a summer evening). Furthermore, there are many everyday objects that are not originally musical instruments, but that have been regularly used as such in the context of certain cultures; these objects have undergone a process of legitimation and acquired the status of “real” musical instruments (e.g. the cajon, the musical saw, the washboard used in Dixieland bands, among others). These examples demonstrate that an object not originally designed as a musical instrument may become one by being used as such, and, more importantly: the human intent to use something as a musical instrument is just as important as the material properties of the object itself. This plays a crucial role in our understanding of musical instruments (Alperson 2008; Hardjowirogo 2017). In other words, “it appears that “instrument” does not actually refer to a device [...] but rather qualifies its interaction with users” (Cance et al. 2013, 297), and this perspective shifts the focus from the object to its user’s purpose, from material features to immaterial ones, from collective traditions to individual volitions. The more we realise the role of “immaterial features” (Alperson 2008) in the understanding of musical instruments, the clearer the idea of the concept of instrumentality becomes. What is instrumentality then? As suggested by Hardjowirogo (2017, 17), instrumentality represents the potential of objects to be used as musical instruments, and represents “a complex, culturally and temporally shaped structure of actions, knowledge, and meaning associated with things that can be used to produce sound.” However, instrumentality must not be interpreted as a property that an object essentially has or has not, but as a gradable, dynamic concept, in which an object may be more or less instrumental than others, aimed as a means to elicit the instrumental potential of a given artefact (Hardjowirogo 2017). For Alperson (2008), our understanding of musical instruments shapes our way of thinking about music and the different ways music is produced and performed; above all, it plays a crucial role in how we appreciate many of the skills involved in music making. Therefore, it would be imprecise to investigate 311 the performative processes involved in UISS repertoire without first reflecting on how these instruments relate to current understandings of what a musical instrument is. Through this reflection, the concept of instrumentality shows itself as a useful and inclusive theoretical structure, as it overturns perspectives that are often neglected by other musicological or organological studies. Methods This research required a multidisciplinary approach that combined methods and theoretical perspectives from the fields of artistic research, performative research (Haseman 2006), performance studies, and auto- and performative ethnography (Wong 2008). Semi-structured interviews and performative ethnography with percussion specialists in the selected repertoire were undertaken, in order to collect information and concepts about the research subject from multiple practice-based perspectives. In addition, my own artistic practice was used as a research medium and strategy, since the research questions derive from practical concerns and reflections drawn from my activities as percussionist. Departing from a performative and auto- ethnographic approach, studio research on three case studies was undertaken, which enabled me not only to investigate the research subject from the performer's viewpoint, but also to produce a double-articulation between theory and practice: theory that emerges from practice while practice is informed by theory (Bolt 2010). The case studies also included interviews with composers, to gather information about the musical works from the standpoint of their creators. Interviews Eleven interviewees were selected, including nine percussionists (Evelyn Glennie, David Cossin, Steven Schick, William Winant, Miquel Bernat, Joby Burgess, Beibei Wang, Matthias Kaul and Håkon Stene), and two composers (Gabriel Prokofiev and Jon Rose). The interviews were conducted between

Load more