1.1 Peer learning in higher music education

Peer learning is becoming a more frequently used approach in the higher education music classroom. In the higher education conservatorium, Reid and Duke (Reference REID and DUKE2015) noted that peer learning can be both formal and also informal (e.g. through coffee shop discussion). By asking student peers performing on the same instrument for their views on learning from each other, a type of community of practice developed with peer mentoring and active involvement in student engagement activities on-going into the following year. Examining peer learning in the conservatoire master-apprentice environment, Hanken (Reference HANKEN2016) identified specific strategies teachers adopted to actively encourage peer learning amongst their students, e.g. the teacher not giving an opinion first, specific questioning-responding techniques by and to student performers encouraging deeper discussion, and the teacher physically moving away from the student group to encourage peer interaction.

Several studies draw out the assessment challenges and opportunities for students in mixed repertoire (Blom & Poole, Reference BLOM and POOLE2004) and popular music programs (Lebler, Reference LEBLER, Gaunt and Westerlund2013) through peer or collaborative learning within groups of student performers in the recording/composition environment. Little if any research has been undertaken into peer learning in the composer-performer relationship. Collaborative learning is a broad term, which includes peer learning, and Clauhs and Newell (Reference CLAUHS, NEWELL, Gaunt and Westerlund2013) mention music students working collaboratively on the recording and notating of compositions and arrangements, plus partnered songwriting. They also note the value of small group improvisation where, musically and socially, students constantly learn from their peers. Their study is in Gaunt and Westerlund's (Reference GAUNT and WESTERLUND2013) publication, Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education, which despite the breadth of its title, has no articles exploring the composer-performer collaborative environment in the conservatoire.

1.2 Composer-performer peer learning in other teaching contexts

There are enterprising music teachers who are placing student composers and student performers together, although with few if any research outcomes to date. Italian pianist and teacher, Antonietta Loffredo (Reference LOFFREDO2010), has written of her experience introducing middle school students (aged 9–11) to around 20 specially commissioned pieces by experienced composers for small instrumental ensemblesFootnote ¹. Her own interest in the performance of new notation practices aimed to see students introduced to these ideas. With pieces which did ‘depart radically from “tradition” . . . to explore harmony, timbre and gesture, no particular resistance was noted from the pupils’ (fourth page).

UK schools enjoyed relationships with professional composer-educators John Paynter, Peter Maxwell Davies, Brian Dennis and George Self in the late 1950s (Burke, Reference BURKE2014), and the Music for Young Players series published by Universal Edition in the late 1960s–1970 featured compositions by David Bedford, George Self, Brian Dennis, Christopher Small and Bernard Rands. In Canada, composer-educator R. Murray Schafer engaged students in exploring sound. Maxwell Davies’ visit to Australia in 1965 to talk about his UK teaching of creative music stimulated the introduction of creative music education in schools in Victoria, Australia. And in the early 1960s Australian composer, Keith Humble, with a small number of classroom music teachers, pioneered creative music education in the state of Victoria (Burke, Reference BURKE2014). New Zealand's composer-in-schools program has been in place since 1976, actively engaging composers in the classroom (Blom, Reference BLOM2001). Literature has engaged with the workings of some of these professional composers in the classroom, finding that there is much to learn from students’ responses. Composer Harry Somers (Kuzmich, Reference KUZMICH1987) brought his modes of compositional thinking into the classroom and used the student responses as the basis for more explorations. Linjama (Reference LINJAMA1999) has written of Finnish composer Einojuhani Rautavaara realising that working with children had taught him many things. Linjama noted that, when learning a new work, children might ‘develop an urge to sing a particular bar twice over . . . [and this might] teach the composer something more profound about the way the music naturally breathes, about its inherent time perspective, so that in the end he might well decide to revise his work at that point’ (p. 6). Makoto Nomura (Reference NOMURA1996), composer and improvising musician, agrees. He asked students to play extracts from one of his incomplete compositions but didn't correct their mistakes and misunderstandings because they ‘often show surprising ideas’ (p. 207). In doing so, he found that he learned composition from the students ‘hints of new musical possibilities’ (p. 203). These insights involved both notated and non-notated compositional strategies.

1.3 The professional composer and performer relationship

The majority of literature documenting the collaboration between composer and performer is centred on the relationship between professionals. From the first half of the twentieth century an emphasis is often seen placed on the composer and the score as the primary focus, with the performer as secondary. Cook (Reference COOK2001) offers three examples from this period. Firstly, Arnold Schoenberg, who is purported to have said, ‘The performer . . . for all his intolerable arrogance, is totally unnecessary except as his interpretations make the music understandable to an audience unfortunate enough not to be able to read it in print’. Secondly, Leonard Bernstein who required the conductor to ‘never interpose himself between the music and the audience; that all his efforts, however strenuous or glamorous, be made in the service of the composer's meaning’. Thirdly, Stravinsky, who found ‘The secret of perfection lies above all in [the performer's] consciousness of the law imposed on him by the work he is performing’. Here, the performer is servant of the composer. Some 20^th-century composers may go even further and self-represent themselves as independent and autonomous, with no allegiances to stylistic schools or aesthetic commonalities with the work of other composers (Wilson, Reference WILSON2004). Yet Wilson finds that an artist is never truly alone. Often composer and performer work closely together. This can occur at a macro-level e.g. in the case of soprano, Denise Duval, who asked Poulenc to delete an opera scene, which he did, or at a micro-level, e.g. violinist Joseph Joachim, who advised Brahms on technical issues in a concerto. For the contemporary performer and composer in the 21^st century, this collaborative process is often a natural way of working (Clarke & Doffman, Reference CLARKE, DOFFMAN, Fabian, Schubert and Timmers2014) and can encompass a wide variety between performers and composers in terms of the amount of creative input possible (Kanga, Reference KANGA2014).

From a performer's perspective, Finnish cellist, Anssi Karttunen (Reference KARTTUNEN1999), finds relationships he develops with composers are very important to him: ‘I try to place myself in their worlds, each completely different’ (p. 18). Here the performer is taking on the responsibility of understanding what sound the composer is trying to achieve and to make it even more effective. When composers write for the instrument they play, it may result in music which is less interesting ‘in a technical sense, for he will tend to write something that is comfortable to perform or to over-exploit certain personal facilities’ (p. 16). A non-performing composer, however, may produce ‘ideas that will force the player to look for new solutions on the instrument’ (p. 16). Karttunen uses composer Kaiija Saariaho as an example, in particular her use of the tone gradually becoming noise because of extreme bow pressure. While a conservatorium might teach the student not to make that sound, he finds ‘it is not a note that is destroyed but a beautiful sound in itself’ (p. 19). Here exploration of timbre, beyond the traditional way of playing the cello, is recognised by the performer and appreciated.

Casting a composer's eye on workshop interactions between new composers paired with professional performers, composer Elliott Gyger (Reference GYGER and Barrett2014) documented interaction focused around the notated score. Over several months, performer feedback and collaboration was invited at different stages in the creative process (from first drafts to final rehearsals). Seven categories of revisions were suggested by performers, placed by Gyger into increasing order of significance:

1. 1. Practicalities and corrections

2. 2. Notation issues

3. 3. Missed opportunities – ‘making the music go further’

4. 4. Tempo and pacing

5. 5. Mood and character

6. 6. Theatrical impact in performance

7. 7. Aesthetic choices

The results from this workshop suggest that certainly for new composers preparing notated scores, there are several concerns that can be addressed through collaborative learning. The majority of these concerns generally address the effective communication of information through the notation.

1.4 The notated score

Although music notation has offered itself as the medium for more than four centuries through which western composers communicate with performers, a notated score may only be considered as a partially successful attempt to reduce the complexity of a compositional idea to its symbolic representation. A musical score, in trying to specify events as occurring simultaneously and involving different parameters, is subject to the performer's will and ability to decipher, understand and interpret it. This task becomes more challenging if one considers the number of additional pieces of information (convention-related and instrument-specific) which, if missing, may result in a breakdown of communication between the composer and performer.

Conflicts between professional composers’ intentions and professional performers’ interpretations in this regard are often due to issues of unclear notation but also, in fact, issues of personal taste on the part of the composer (Thomas, Reference THOMAS2007). A case in point is represented by Luciano Berio's Sequenza I for flute solo, first published in 1958. Although it was not his initial intention, Berio decided to use proportional notation, in which the horizontal spacing of each note is equivalent to its duration (Folio & Brinkman, Reference FOLIO, BRINKMAN and Halfyard2007). However, the composer found the results most unsatisfactory and argued that ‘this notation has allowed many players . . . to perpetuate adaptations that were little short of piratical.’ (Berio, cited from 1981 interview in Perlove, Reference PERLOVE1998. p. 47). The problem lay in the manner in which flutists either tended to misunderstand the proportions, regardless of the chosen speed, or took them almost as a pretext for improvisation (Muller, Reference MULLER1997). Berio, feeling obliged to impose his will more assertively, decided to rewrite the piece, this time adopting a precise time signature (2/8) and traditional note values. The second version was published in 1992 but never succeeded in establishing itself as the reference version over the first. For composer, Brian Ferneyhough, ‘notation is always relative to intention, whereby it is up to the composer to adequately suggest appropriate forms of response’ (Ferneyhough in Gaudeamus Foundation et al., 1990, p. 19).

These issues become far more intricate if one considers that a largely shared notion of performance style in recently composed music takes time to be established among performers. In fact, the limited number of performances prevents the creation of that substantive body of repeated interpretive gestures and habits which represent the foundation of the notion of style itself (Leech–Wilkinson, Reference LEECH−WILKINSON2010). Prescriptive notation has become a more distinctive feature of contemporary music than descriptive notation (Kanno, Reference KANNO2007). But, while in descriptive notation a long-established tradition codifies and underpins the relationship between the written sign and the expected sound, in prescriptive notation the composer rather specifies the method of producing the sound, leaving the aural effect open to a range of possibilities. Contemporary music scores then may often include legends that attempt to describe in detail those body gestures, movements and tools necessary to achieve the expected result.

This balance between choosing precise notation to determine the performance and allowing the performer full interpretive freedom is characterised by Hayden and Windsor's (Reference HAYDEN and WINDSOR2007) examples of directive and interactive collaboration. The latter involves a more discursive and reflective process between the two parties that covers more than simply practical issues in realising the piece, but establishes that the composer remains the sole author. The stage in the composition process at which this collaboration takes place (pre-draft, rehearsals through to final performances) can influence its very nature (Gyger, Reference GYGER and Barrett2014). However, at any stage, we note that a creative collaboration process presents opportunities for peer learning for student composers and performers in educational institutions.

1.5 Stages of learning newly-composed scores

In learning traditionally notated scores, the performer segments their practice into stages, addressing the overall picture of the piece, perfecting smaller segments and re-integrating them into the overall narrative (Chaffin & Imreh, Reference CHAFFIN, IMREH, Chaffin, Imreh and Crawford2002; Hastings, Reference HASTINGS, Williamon, Edwards and Bartel2011; Williamon, Valentine & Valentine, Reference WILLIAMON, VALENTINE and VALENTINE2002). Chaffin and Imreh (Reference CHAFFIN, IMREH, Chaffin, Imreh and Crawford2002) note the stages of practice for classical compositions as follows:

1. 1. Scouting it out: Identifying the main structure via an initial read-through

2. 2. Section by section: Resolving basic and technical difficulties in each section

3. 3. The gray stage: Further work on technical difficulties to make the performance automatic, linking short sections into longer passages, first work on phrasing and dynamics

4. 4. Putting it together

5. 5. Polishing

6. 6. Maintenance

However, in preparing an unfamiliar contemporary classical piece for performance, Viney and Blom (Reference VINEY and BLOM2014) find that an interpretational platform needs to be established before an understanding of the score elements can be properly achieved in stages 1–3 (scouting it out – the gray stage). This platform involves: 1) getting to know the composer, 2) reading the score, 3) engaging with musical parameters, 4) anchoring and 5) discussing the issues which involve actions such as researching biographical information and previous works, listening to recordings, finding non-musical information on the score that can help with interpretation such as the title, and making sense of the notation in being able to perform what is directed. Professional performers also often experience the need to develop their technique, in ways that haven't been addressed in their formal education, in order to address the technical challenges in each new piece. Often, ‘thinking outside the box’ is required in order to solve these challenges (Redgate, Reference REDGATE2007).

Investigating how student performers take meaning from music notation in sections or entire pieces of Western tonal music (works by Mozart, Scriabin, Schumann, Chopin), Hultberg (Reference HULTBERG2002) identified two main approaches. In a ‘reproductive approach’ the score is ‘found to be that of an explicitly normative document in which the composer's intention is correctly decoded’ (p. 193). She noted a prescriptive and a controlling aspect to this approach, likening it at times to the musicians appearing to act on behalf of ‘a superior interpreter, the editor, whose interpretation they tried to reproduce’ (p. 189). This type of approach in fact relies on the performer's conception (or in some cases misconception) of both the instrument-specific and convention-related practices associated with the type of work in question. In an ’explorative approach’, ‘music notation serves the primary function of a document providing incomplete, coded information on the composer's possible musical intention within a normative frame settled by the discourse in music . . . [with the printed score] a source of exploration based on the musician's individual familiarity with conventions of expression’ (p. 193). While Hultberg's study is reporting on tonal music of established pre-20^th-century composers using traditional music notation, the two approaches relate to other notions of composer-performer relationships discussed above – reproductive with directive collaboration and descriptive notation; explorative with interactive collaboration and to some extent, with prescriptive notation – and all might be relevant for approaching newly-composed music by live student composers, as the challenges involved in writing, and student performers in interpreting, a musical score become all the more evident if contemporary music is taken into consideration.

Pianist Philip Thomas (Reference THOMAS2007) suggests that performers of contemporary music must approach individual works as truly individual, with standardised approaches limiting the creativity that performers can bring to new works. However, performers still seem to share some common learning strategies in that they usually search for landmarks or patterns to guide them through their reading of the piece (Thomas, Reference THOMAS1999). Although some experienced performers report focussing on smaller moments in contemporary pieces with less of a focus on overall structure, as they often feel this is evident in the notes themselves (Clarke et al., Reference CLARKE, COOK, HARRISON and THOMAS2005), performers trained in the classical tradition find it difficult to suppress the urge to seek out structural units and try to phrase or shape them (Heaton, Reference HEATON2012).

In summary, the literature identifies several challenges and opportunities for students and teachers. Peer learning can be formal or informal, building into a community of practice with teachers adopting specific strategies to encourage students. In more recent years, collaboration has been acknowledged as a natural way of working for many professional composers and performers. The impetus for composer-performer peer learning may come from the performing teacher's own interest in new notation practices, identifying harmony, timbre and gesture for exploration. From student and professional performers, composers learn more about: the way music naturally breathes; inherent time perspectives; new musical possibilities; and instrument-related technicalities. From the composer, performers learn to take responsibility for understanding what sound the composer is trying to achieve; making it even more effective; and looking for new solutions through exploration of timbre, on one's instrument. Composers should know that performers learn new scores in different ways and that the musical score is subject to the performer's will and ability to decipher, understand and interpret it. Therefore, it is up to the composer to adequately suggest appropriate forms of response. On the other hand, the performer cannot and does not apply the same approach to each new work, (and across performers this approach is also modified by their personal way of approaching a score – reproductive/explorative) and so needs to have the will and ability to understand what is in the score and what is not. Performers are to take responsibility for understanding what sound the composer is trying to achieve, make it even more effective and look for new solutions on the instrument. Because of insufficient performances of new scores, a performance practice has not become firmly established, however, there are common learning strategies between existing and new repertoire. When learning a newly composed score, a scouting it out read-through is not enough. Rather, an interpretational platform needs to be established from which to interpret the work. Both composers and performers need to understand that some prefer descriptive notation (e.g. proportional notation) to prescriptive notation (e.g. precisely metered notation); at the same time different individuals may prefer different ways of collaborating.

Heaton (Reference HEATON2012) asks, whether a contemporary score alone is sufficient enough to develop an interpretation. This question is particularly pertinent in the absence of an established performance practice, and limited knowledge of new/extended instrumental techniques. Although it is acknowledged that in this context within a higher education institution, peer learning is certainly desirable, to what extent is it absolutely necessary? When deprived of such opportunities, what are the challenges that arise for students approaching newly-composed scores, and what skills are required in order to compose and interpret a piece of new music? What are the possible shortcomings if composer and performer communicate only via the notated score? This article will address these questions by describing a study undertaken at a music conservatory involving student composers and performers.