Reflections on 'Elollinen': Shared Ownership

In analyzing my second doctoral concert from last month, I realized that it would be more productive from a research standpoint to spread my observations out over a series of posts here on the site. For my first doctoral concert, I made two posts, each discussing two compositions from the concert. My observations focused mainly on discussion of ‘skills’ acquired or honed through work on the specific pieces. And while identifying skills unique to contemporary music performance is part of my research project, I also want to make connections between aspects, practical, aesthetic, and musical, between the works and between the American and Finnish works studied.

The first aspect of performance practice I would like to write about here is the idea of ‘shared ownership’ in the performance of contemporary classical repertoire. When I made my research plan, I argued that shared ownership was an aspect of performance practice unique to contemporary music, especially for the commissioning and premiering of new compositions. I argued that because contemporary compositions have shorter, or sometimes non-existent, performance histories, the clarinetist plays an integral part in introducing the composition to audiences and other clarinetists. I proposed that this added responsibility affects the clarinetist’s relationship with the composer and with the score, that there will exist a type of ‘shared ownership’ of the composition between composer and performer that does not exist with older repertoire.

I imagined that this ‘shared ownership’ was an aspect of performance practice inherent at least to all premiered works, and also in performance situations where there is close contact between performer and composer. I thought that ‘shared ownership’ could also be experienced in cases where the work is very new, newly discovered, and/or rarely performed. Now after two doctoral concerts, I beginning to understand that shared ownership is not necessarily inherent to any of these situations, not even to commissions or premieres. I have observed, rather, that ‘shared ownership’ appears to be part of the performance practice of Finnish contemporary music and is less frequently an aspect of American contemporary music performance practice.

FINNISH COMPOSERS AND ‘SHARED OWNERSHIP’

While I expected to study ‘shared ownership’ through my own experience in my concerts, particularly when it came to commissioning and premiering new works, it was performing for clarinetists Kari Kriikku and Heikki Nikula that demonstrated ‘shared ownership’ more clearly to me.

For my first doctoral concert, I performed works by Finnish composers Markku Klami, Uljas Pulkkis and Kirmo Lintinen. The Lintinen (‘Rieha’) and Pulkkis (‘Aria’) were composed for competitions, and I think this has affected the extent to which ownership can be shared from the perspective of the performer. I think that both composers expect(ed) the performer to take a certain level of interpretative freedom in the performance process. After all, part of performance (and competition) is individualism. I know from interviewing both composers that they work, or have worked, closely with clarinetists in collaboration for other works. But freedom in relationship to the score is different, in my opinion, than shared ownership. Shared ownership implies a relationship with the composer, and a shared responsibility with the composer for the piece. When I played ‘Rieha’ and ‘Aria’ for Kirmo and Uljas, their comments to me referred to the relationship with performer and score, not necessarily a relationship between composer and performer. There were a couple insights, or clarifications to the score, that would consider integral to interpretation of the work. So one might consider these verging on ‘performance practice’ rather than ‘interpretation’. But Markku’s solo work ‘Twirl’ was slightly different in this regard. While not written for a specific performer, I understood the premiere of the final version to be a collaboration of sorts between Markku and clarinetist Lauri Sallinen. When I performed the work for Markku, he referenced aspects of Sallinen’s performance. Of course I still felt free to make my own version, but not that artistic ownership was shared in the sense that I imagine Lauri would have experienced.

Furthermore, when I performed these works for Kari Kriikku in my ‘pre examine’ to prepare for “Imagined Models”, the comments were based on my interpretation. The suggestions that Kari made were interpretive based on the score. This experience could not have been more different in my pre-examination for “Elollinen”. Of the four Finnish works I performed in my second doctoral concert (Saariaho ‘Oi kuu’, Tiensuu ‘Plus II’, Raasakka ‘Everyday Etudes’ and Wennäkoski ‘Limn’), Kari premiered both the Saariaho and Tiensuu. The nature of his comments on those two works had much more to do with performance practice - his opinions, his experience of performing the score, his work with the composers - than they had to do with interpretation. I felt in no way felt limited by the comments, and of course was fortunate to be able to benefit from his expertise. But what Kari showed me in the nature of his comments, and the difference between his comments on those two works and the other six works on the program, was what I am coming to understand that shared ownership is. The nature of the comments could also have to do with the longer performance history of both works, that they are older and ‘core’ Finnish repertoire, but I still feel that the nature of the comments were unique to Kari’s experience rather than reflective of general performance experience.

The other two Finnish works on the program, Raasakka and Wennäkoski, were both premiered by Heikki Nikula. In the pre exam, Kari commented that Heikki would be the one to consult on those works. Besides the instrumental expertise that Heikki has as a bass clarinetist, I think Kari was also referring to Heikki’s body of knowledge on the specific performance practice of the work from the perspective of shared ownership. Like Kari’s comments on Saariaho and Tiensuu, Heikki’s comments on Raasakka and Wennäkoski extended well beyond interpretation to performance practice. Plans to play for the composers themselves derailed a bit on account of COVID, but playing these four works for the clarinetists who premiered them provided a greater insight into compositional intention and performance practice than I would have anticipated.

AMERICAN COMPOSERS AND ‘SHARED OWNERSHIP’

It goes without saying (but needs to be said) that 'Finnish composers’ as a body of artists, however unrealistically or artificially joined, is a completely different animal than the group that I call ‘American composers’ in this heading. By nature of population, geography (distances), cultural history, etc., the body that I call ‘Finnish composers’ is much tighter and smaller than the American counterpart. So is, also, the body of clarinetists in each place. The clarinetists who collaborate with composers in Finland is a smaller, more concentrated group than the American clarinetists who work with American composers. Finnish composers, and clarinetists, are also more accessible for me a researcher (a performance practice topic of a later post). And due in large part to systems of funding, I believe that there exists an inherently more collaborative relationship between clarinetist and composers in Finland than there is in the United States.

I want to keep this in mind as context as I discuss shared ownership and American composers. In my first doctoral concert ‘chapter’, there were three American compositions that I performed - Libby Larson’s ‘Dancing Solo’, John Adams’ ‘Gnarly Buttons’ and Steven Stucky’s ‘Meditation and Dance’. I would link to this chapter also my past experiences performing Joan Tower’s works ‘Wings’ and ‘Those harbor lights…’. Of these five works, only ‘Wings’ and ‘Dancing Solo’ were commissioned by clarinetists (Laura Flax and Caroline Hartig respectively'). Flax and Tower collaborated actively throughout both women’s careers (Flax passed away in 2017). The works by Larson, Adams and Tower could be considered ‘core clarinet repertoire’. These are works that are widely known and widely played in the United States. While i tried to interact creatively with the notated score, I did not experience anything regarding ‘shared ownership’ in performance. Of course I had felt the musical responsibility of introducing these works to an audience who probably was not familiar with them, but I considered myself mediator in the relationship between composer and audience more so than as a joint creative actor with the composer. This could be due, also, to the lack of contact I had with the composers (to be discussed in a later post).

In ‘Elollinen’, I performed less well-known, less-performed and/or newer American contemporary works by Augusta Read Thomas (‘Capricci’), Nina Young (‘Creeping Ivy’), Mason Bates (‘Life of Birds’) and a new work by Jack Hughes. I also want to include Derek Bermel ‘Coming Together’ in this chapter (to be performed this weekend in Kerava). The Hughes was the only commission by a clarinetist (me), but I would not say that I collaborated with Jack in order to yield the composition. We, of course, discussed what kind of piece he would compose, but the model was that Jack composed the work and I was to perform it. To my knowledge, none of the other works in this chapter included close performer-composer collaboration. ‘Coming Together’ could be considered a performer-composer collaboration, as Derek is a clarinetist, but therefore composer shares ownership as composer and performer. My relationship, as a performer, is still with the notated score rather than the composer.

I bring Derek Bermel into this discussion particularly because I read an interesting interview he did with Rachel Yoder in the online version of The Clarinet magazine (linked here). In the interview, he made the following comment:

I look for freedom in performances. Freedom of sound, freedom to play up the theatrical impulses in the piece. In new music there’s a common assumption that one has to be a slave to the written page, an overly inflated attachment to the importance of notation. Notation is just a guide. When I listen to performers playing my music, my main concern is that they have a bigger idea about what they want to do with the piece. If they’re simply reading notes and rhythms, they’re not yet communicating with the audience. The music needs to jump off the page, the circle must be made complete – composer, performer, audience.

The notion of having a ‘bigger idea’, of not being ‘a slave to the written page’ - to me this points to ‘shared ownership’ in new music performance. That the performer creates his or her own performance practice, and has the responsibility of doing so. But I also think that this is not true of all new music, particularly American ‘new music’. There exists a wide variety of expectations regarding the performer, and his/her relationship with the composer (or composer’s ‘intention') as well as with the notated score. This second concert in particular has drawn my attention to the differences in these expectations, and I will be focusing my research on these moving forward.

SHARED OWNERSHIP AND ME - RAASAKKA AND HUGHES

I was fortunate to unexpectedly collaborate with Ville on his work ‘Everyday Etudes No. 1: Gardening"‘ for bass clarinet, electronics and gardening objects during Spring 2020. The original work, entitled “Botanical”, was composed in 2015 (revised in 2017) and premiered by Heikki Nikula. The version of the work that I played underwent revision whilst I was working on it, and I had the opportunity to contribute to, or at least offer my opinion on, the nature of the notation. In addition to the notation discussions better informing me about compositional intention, I also feel that participation in the revision process provided unique artistic insights to me as the performer that would not be available to a future clarinetist who is ‘simply’ performing the work. Is this shared ownership?

I expected to experience ‘shared ownership’ by commissioning and premiering Jack Hughes’ ‘Ripple, reflected’. As the clarinetist who requested that the composer write the work, and as the clarinetist who provided the first performance, I suppose that this means I inherently ‘shared ownership’ in its creation. By providing the first performance, I established the performance practice, whether I like it (or feel it) or not. Same, I suppose, with the newest version of Ville’s piece. There will be recordings and videos available of the works, and as the first performer, my performance(s) are important. While initially I felt that my interpretations were individual, and that if in many years I was in Kari or Heikki’s shoes as a ‘pre-examiner’, my comments would be score-based, I need to take ownership of my ‘shared ownership’, if that makes any sense. Issues of gender, of authority, of age, of experience - these are all other topics for later.

I guess I inadvertently, through writing this post, identified the fact that I did have the experience of shared ownership in my second concert. That ‘shared ownership’ is most common in instances where works are premiered or commissioned. And that performers and composers experience it differently depending on where they work (and how they work).

Bibliography

Yoder, Rachel. 2020. "Interview with Derek Bermel." The Clarinet.