Exploring the boundaries of Improvisation and Composition Malcolm Atkins Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the award of Doctor of Philosophy, September 2010. Volume 1: Written Commentary ii Abstract This practice based research degree addresses the question of when it is appropriate to compose in the traditional format of Western music (using pen or computer and paper) and when it is better to use alternative techniques which include relying on the developed vocabulary of the performer, alternative forms of construction (such as graphics or text instructions), collaboration with other art forms and use of alternative performance space to generate work. The core of the research is a series of works that I prepared for performance, both with large ensemble, scratch ensemble and in collaboration with other art forms, and which explored all available methods of construction. The works created showed that for my practice the employment of technique is entirely dependent on context. The use of graphic or simple scoring or opportunities for free improvisation can be gauged according to the requirements of a piece and be utilised in parallel with traditional staff notation. The effect of this flexibility increases the variety and interest of a piece of music and engages performers and audience alike. The implications of this are that composition should be treated as the creation of the finished work through a dialogue between composer and performers in relation to the performance space. To effect this dialogue the composer needs to be able to understand the creative potential and vocabulary of the performers and harness this. Composition should be seen as encompassing all skills of construction of sound in all possible performance environments and in all possible collaborative situations. Of course composers may choose to specialise in particular methods of construction but to privilege any method of construction over another is mistaken – just as we now generally accept that to privilege any one genre of music over another is fallacious. iii Preface This research has been the focus of my creative output for six years and has influenced all my performance and composition over this time. Because it focuses on how we create work and the advantages and disadvantages of using different methods of inception it inevitably includes a great deal of material: some carefully crafted using traditional techniques of staff notation; some created quickly using improvisation that relies on the prior learning and experience of performers; some developed through experimentation and exploration with performers or collaborators from other art forms. This explains the quantity of the material discussed and the range of examples used as part of the core submission. I would like to thank Paul Whitty for his invaluable insights and critiques of my work; Pat Thomas for the same; Howard Skempton, Michael Finnissy, Diana Burrell, Paola Esposito, Paul Mackilligan and Ana Barbour for agreeing to be interviewed; Helen Edwards, Barry Reeves, Ana Barbour, Jeannie Donald Mckim, Miles Doubleday and Pat Thomas and all members of the Oxford Improvisers and Café Reason Butoh Dance Theatre for their dynamism and creativity in collaboration; Peter Green, Dariusz Dziala, Chris Atkins and Peter Jones for editing video material which I have used in evidence in the paper; Chris Percival, Peter Green and Tim Hand for recording audio material; Gorwel Owen, Ana Barbour, Paolo Esposito and Clifford Atkins for their discussion of the document. CONTENTS iv Contents This contents section includes: details of the written commentary. details of examples, figures and tables in the document. a listing of core and example submissions of recorded material and scores which are part of the research. All CDs and DVDs as well as all scores are held in a separately bound volume. This material is split into core and example submissions. Core submissions are the part of my work submitted for assessment. Example submissions are there to support the text. Some of the audio in the example submissions consists of extracts from the core submissions which have been created to demonstrate specific points. Other recorded examples validate points raised. None of this example material (including the example scores) is for assessment and for this reason it is held separately to the core material. Within the written commentary, where a recording relates to the material in the research it will be referenced in brackets. For example (Core CD 01:02) would refer to Estonia – track 2 on the first core CD). For example CDs this might be (Example CD 01:02) which would refer to track 2 on first example CD. Written Commentary 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2BACKGROUND – WHY I CHOSE THESE QUESTIONS . .................................................................................... 2 1.3 NOTATIONAL ISSUES .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 COLLABORATION AND PERFORMANCE ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................ 10 1.5 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF TECHNIQUE ......................................................................................... 12 2 DEVELOPMENT OF MY AESTHETIC ........................................................................................... 14 2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2INITIAL APPROACHES ............................................................................................................................. 14 2.3 PROBLEMS WITH NOTATED WORKS ........................................................................................................ 16 2.4 MY CURRENT AESTHETIC ..................................................................................................................... 20 2.5CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 25 3 NOTATION ISSUES ............................................................................................................................. 27 3.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 27 3.2 CONVENTIONAL COMPARISONS OF IMPROVISATION AND NOTATED COMPOSITION . ..................................... 29 3.3 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSION ........................................................................................ 30 3.3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 30 CONTENTS v 3.3.2 Initiation ..................................................................................................................................... 30 3.3.3 Construction ............................................................................................................................... 33 3.3.4 First performance ....................................................................................................................... 47 3.3.5 Development of work for November ........................................................................................... 49 3.4 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF NOVEMBER PERFORMANCE .............................................................................. 58 3.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 58 3.4.2 Role of notation ......................................................................................................................... 58 3.4.3 Role of dance .............................................................................................................................. 67 3.4.4 Role of tonality ........................................................................................................................... 68 3.4.5 Role of rhythm ............................................................................................................................ 70 3.4.6 Role of electronics ...................................................................................................................... 71 3.4.7 Role of free improvisation and minimal guidance ...................................................................... 72 3.5 FINAL REFLECTIONS ON ACCESSION ...................................................................................................... 73 3.6 DO GEESE SEE GOD ............................................................................................................................ 75 3.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 75 3.6.2 Structure ..................................................................................................................................... 76 3.6.3 Exploration of extended performance space .............................................................................