1

From sign to sound:

Interpreting piano notation in post-2000 music

Fuyue Lan

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Philosophy

The University of Sheffield

Faculty of Arts and Humanities
Department of Music

10.08.2018
 2

ABSTRACT

This study is rooted in the performance of contemporary music. I explore the issues of notation and
its interpretation in piano music after 2000. I aim to explore the significance of the freedom of
discretion offered to or claimed by performers in their interpretative decisions.

This research is an original investigation to approach notation and related performing issues
through my roles as researcher, performer, practitioner and listener. In order to know the
perspectives regarding notation from contemporary composers and performers, I conducted
interview sessions with six prominent musicians and their names are identified. I evaluate and
discuss their thoughts in my Interview analysis and case study.

The music for my case study and recital programme is deliberately selected to suit my purpose - to
approach the notation and its interpretation. In the case study Black Earth by the composer Fazil
Say, I examine his notation and compare the performing versions of the composer himself and
another pianist. My recital programme consists of Two thoughts about the piano by Elliott Carter,
Day break shadows flee by Judith Weir and Z/K by Michael Finnissy, which present three different
approaches to notation. I explore the interpretative possibilities and raise related questions for
further discussion.

This thesis is divided into five chapters which are: 1. Introduction, 2. Literature Review, 3. Interview
Analysis, 4. Case Study and 5. Conclusion and Reflection. Even though this thesis is focused on
piano music, the generated questions and perspectives could apply to other instruments and fields
in contemporary music research. I summarize my findings in the final chapter and seek for better
engagement in contemporary music performance. Lastly, I intend to avoid a firm conclusion but to
encourage further exploration in this area.
 3

CONTENTS

Abstract 2

Contents 3

Acknowledgement 4

Chapter One — Introduction 5

Chapter Two — Literature Review 7

Chapter Three — Interview Analysis 11

Chapter Four — Case Study 22

Chapter Five —Conclusion and Reflection 34

Bibliography 40

Appendix 1: Interview transcription 44

Appendix 2: Examples of scores 60

 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I wish to thank my supervisor Professor George Nicholson for his generous support
throughout the entire process of my research. I sincerely appreciate his assistance and care during
my study at the University of Sheffield. I would like to thank my second supervisor Dr.Dorothy Ker
particularly for her suggestion in the early stage of research.

I would also like to thank Joanna MacGregor for her teaching and advising on contemporary piano
music. I am grateful to the participants who involved in this research: Philip Thomas, Jenny
Jackson, Zubin Kanga, Elena Chiu, James Joslin and Belle Chen. I could not have completed the
thesis without their engagement. In addition, I would like to thank Janet McAlpin for English
support.

Finally, special thanks to my wonderful family for their love, understanding and encouragement
during my time in the UK. Their support is invaluable for my study and life even though at distance.
 5

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

Interesting notation innovations have been emerging since the middle of the 20th century. New
music techniques and philosophies have challenged traditional notations significantly, offering the
potential for notational expansion. A number of scholars have attempted to document and
categorize these notation innovations. For example, The Index Project organised by the
International Conference on New Musical Notation in 1974 sought for “notational standardization”1.
While some composers adopt new notations such as graphic drawings and texts, others continue
using conventional notation and forms.

Professional musicians have years of training in how to read a score effectively and perform it
accurately, fostering the ability to be intuitive (Behrman 1965, Reid 2002). Reid (pp.102-112) calls it
“informed intuition” and suggests making use of analysis when this inbuilt sense collapses. In the
majority of cases, the composer pre-writes the music and then passes it to the performer to
transfer into a sound product. However, performers’ decisions on the interpretation of notations can
be affected by various considerations, such as the composer’s background, the work’s title and its
publication date.

Performance study as an academic “discipline” is widely recognised (Dunsby 1995, pp.17-28).

Furthermore, the concept of performance itself, and the way to perform new music, receive
continuous attention. For many performers who are learning new music, there are a variety of
obstacles to transferring notation into sound. These obstacles might be new notation such as
drawings and texts, or challenging technical demands. On the other hand, such novelties could
prompt musicians to discover new possibilities of acoustics and interpretations. Levy (1995. p.168)
thus describes new notation as an “empowering” tool. The one significant feature of new music is
its originality for both composers and performers. This originality presents a space of freedom,
which can affect all aspects of the theoretical and practical issues in learning new music. However,
how much this freedom works in music has rarely been scholarly addressed.

Personally, I doubt whether composers could notate every thought on paper just as I doubt
whether performers could play every detail in their score. Performers work on the score for most of
their learning time, thus the score is frequently expected to be a perfect guiding tool which reveals
everything the composer expects. Moreover, performers are expected to receive any updates
when the composer’s idea develops, even after publication. Along with close examination of the
score, another effective option is to approach the composer directly. We certainly cannot ask
Chopin how to play his rubato, but we can ask living composers how to play their music and can
expect feedback from them. In order to discover more about this aspect I interviewed six UK
prominent musicians - three composers and three performers - to obtain their comments on how to
approach notation and interpretation of new music in post 2000.

Even though the performance study of new music receives attention, the subject of interpretative
freedom on notation remains rarely discussed. Therefore my research is an investigation into the
notation and interpretation issues of performing piano music in post-2000. I aim to explore freedom

1The conference was held in Ghent, 1974. Stone, K. (1980). Music Notation in the Twentieth
Century: A Practical Guidebook. pp.332-337. Appendix II, W.W. Norton&Company
 6
of discretion in interpretation, whether offered to or claimed by performers, and to find out how this
influences our interpretative decisions. The questions I seek answers for are:

• How much interpretative freedom do we contemporary performers have?

• How much does the individual performer do in adhering strictly, or modifying, the composer’s
writing according to the score?
• How does the difference between notational perspectives of composers and performers influence
my own performance decisions?
• What are the challenges of exploring freedom of interpretative discretion?

The notational ambiguities which make the interpretative decision difficult are discussed on a
practical basis. My intention is not to select or award any particular advice on interpretation, but to
attempt to demonstrate and discuss the varied approaches of the composers and performers who
participated in this research.

Even though this study’s main focus is on piano music in post- 2000, it is not restricted to piano
music. A number of composers work for different instruments but use similar techniques in some of
their music. Also the interpretation issues apply to all instruments. I am trained as a
professional pianist, therefore any pianistic discussion is naturally relevant to me whether on the
choices of repertoire or the experience of practice. Thus the discussion of solo piano repertoire will
remain central to this thesis. Though the role of piano in chamber and concerto music is different,
nevertheless the interpretative matter affects all genres.

This thesis considers music which is ‘notated’. Therefore free improvisation and computer
synthesised music are excluded from this discussion. In Chapter Four I discuss four contemporary
pieces for solo piano. First I present a case study of Fazil Say’s Black Earth. My purpose here is to
contrast two performing versions of this work, focusing on how the performers decided to interpret
the same notation. I then examine the three pieces I plan to play in my recital programme. These
are Intermittences by Elliott Carter (2005), Day Break Shadows Flee by Judith Weir (2014) and Z/K
by Michael Finnissy (2012). They represent three different approaches to notation. Carter’s piece
contains comparatively more modern notation such as the diamond notes. Weir’s piece presents a
more conventional notation and structure, for instance, using standard pitches and symmetrical
layout. Finnissy’s Z/K particularly raises the question of freedom, as the score avoids precise
advice such as bar lines or dynamics, and thus offers the performer substantially more discretion
than the other two pieces in the programme. When I perform these pieces, I hope to demonstrate
the interpretative decisions I explored in my study.

Before discussing these four pieces, I explore the current knowledge in this field in my Literature
Review in Chapter Two, and I present the result of my interviews with contemporary musicians in
Chapter Three. Central to my thesis is my interview analysis and repertoire discussion as outlined
above. Chapter Five is my conclusion and reflection, where I evaluate my findings and raise
questions for further discussion. Example of scores mentioned in interviews and transcriptions of
those interviews are provided in the Appendix.
 7

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

Notation is the essential point to initiate a musical interpretation. In other words, the sound is
produced according to the instructions. It is a form of transcription of the composer’s abstract idea
and it provides the connection between composers and performers. Rebelo (2010 pp.17-20)
concludes that notation has three fundamental functions: 1. to be documented accurately by the
composer to create sound; 2. to give instruction to the performer to produce sound by means of
communication; 3. to be “a mode of creation in itself”. Historically, C.P.E Bach (1949) and Daniel
Gottlob Türk (1982) advised reading the notation carefully and playing exactly what the notation
indicates, by means of precision. The notation they referred to, from bar lines to fingering, is to
modern eyes fundamental. On the other hand, these 18th century treatises reflect a contrast with
how much more expansion of notation we have nowadays, all continuing to strive for perfect
representation of required sound.

It is widely accepted that since the 1950s, the categories of notation have been expanded
significantly. Stone (1980, preface) states that “conventional notation soon proved insufficient for
dealing adequately with the new musical techniques and philosophies.” Experimental composers
such as John Cage and Morton Feldman, who chose to invent new notation, rapidly changed the
functions and forms of conventional notation. Composers were enthusiastic to explore any
non-standard structures of notation.

Scholars then attempted to examine and classify new notations. Karkoschka (1972), Risatti (1975),
Sauer (2009), and Feist (2017) have collected new notations over 50 recent years, including those
notations which appeared frequently and those which have disappeared. Some scholars aim to
trace a connection from traditional to new notation. Others consider that innovative notation is not
directly related to tradition but related to innovative concepts, for instance, the use of prescriptive
and descriptive notation (Seeger 1958, Kanno 2007). Whatever their rationale, new notations
continue to receive attention.

Performers are invited and expected to respond to these innovations creatively. Greater freedom of
interpretation is offered to performers than ever before. The perception of piano performance has
been developed with a variety of ways of creating sound. Therefore Stone (1980, Intro, p.xvi)
concludes:

The other stylistic trend rejected precision [in contrast with traditional notation].
Instead, it introduced deliberate ambiguity, varying degrees of indeterminacy,
choices between alternatives, improvisation, and the utilization of extraneous,
unpredictable sounds and circumstances. All these required radically new notation,
even to the abandonment of conventional symbols and procedures altogether, in
favour of ‘implicit graphics’, because such graphics assure the greatest
possible interpretative freedom by drawing heavily on the performers’
contributive imagination and ingenuity. Naturally, this trend not only called
for new notional signs, but for an entirely new attitude toward notation as such.
 8
Composers start inventing notation to suit their increasing musical needs. Therefore, new notation
usually accompanies new techniques. For instance, Henry Cowell’s string piano introduced the
exploration of extended techniques, subsequently followed by his pupil Cage (Dullea 2011 p.11). In
his The Banshee, Cowell invents the notation and suggests its manner of playing inside the
piano.The letters of alphabet are used to represent different physical approaches along with literal
instruction. It is a visibly complex notation which fuses letter-codes, glissandos, tremolos and texts.
Cowell further notates use of the damper pedal throughout. Whether to use a wedge or rubber
inserted under the pedal, or to require a second performer to sit in front of the keyboard, is decided
by the performer. That Cowell’s whole page of literal instruction helps performers to make each
decision on the interpretation, is unquestioned. However, the difference of internal construction of
various types of piano generates additional consideration. Therefore to some extent, the
techniques used for interpretation of new notation is left to the performer’s discretion.

Composers’ innovative exploration increases the categories of notation. The notational potentials
and possibilities have been expanded more than ever before. The phenomenon of two extremes of
notation receives discussion—the trends to complexity and to simplicity (Griffiths 1995, Duncan
2010, Taruskin 2010). Griffiths (1995 p.312)) summarises six forms of musical complexity. He lists
factors which would cause dense notation: (1) complexities of sound density, (2) complexities of
compositional element relationship, (3) complexities of reference to other compositions, traditions
and histories, (4) complexities of interpretation, (5) complexities of expression, (6) and complexities
of complexities, by which I assume he encompasses all previous factors together. Recent
examples from Brian Ferneyhough’s Lemma-Icon-Epigram (1981) and Michael Finnissy’s English
Country Tunes (1990) have complex and difficult-to-read score. Complex notation could visibly
reflect the intellectual and abundant intentions of a composer’s music. Such composers tend to
seek a multi-layered texture and innovative ways of creating sound. Very often this is accompanied
by challenging technical demands such as extended techniques and inserted objects (Toop 1988).
Moreover, contemporary composers suggest that complex notation means more than its
appearance. For instance, Finnissy responds to Toop (Toop 1988, p.5) by saying, “‘It horrifies me
that people say the music is complex. It isn’t, except in a very superficial detailed kind of way”.
Similarly, Dench (Toop 1988, p.5) describes complex notation as “a kind of hyper-intellectual
teasing-out of the skin of the music.[…] one’s experience enriches, and yes, I think that results in
more complicated pieces”.

However, complex notation receives criticism as being unnecessary and unbalanced. Silverman
(1996. p.34) criticizes complex notation:

More than can be played: more that can be imagined. And not only notes:
multiple staves, diagonal and perpendicular lines, crescendo-hairpins, dotted
lines and tremolo-wobbles, arrows, tiny tabulators, charts and diagrams, all kinds
of signs, tables and verbal instructions. […] Much more can be notated than can
be conceived.

Based on the composing experience of open-form music [much more associated with
improvisation], Freeman (2011) claims that the increased density of score is a result of
dissatisfaction with the performer’s interpretation. Freeman (2011. p.15) continues his point by
claiming that “High notational density is usually impractical; unconventional, open-ended scores
predominate.” Moreover, Duncan (2010 p.141) claims it “seeks to control every musical domain”.
Both Silverman’s and Freeman’s statements suggest that the process of notational refinement
cannot be equated to notational increase. They also reflect the view that it is by no means proven
that the density of notation affects music as a whole.

The opposite extreme is simplicity (Griffiths 1995, p.312). Composers such as Steve Reich,
Howard Skempton, and Arvo Pärt use minimum materials to create maximum effects. Their music,
for instance Pärt’s Fur Alina (1976), requires the performer to evaluate the freedom and play within
the peaceful and introspective context.
 9
Simple notation is never easy to play in a simple way. Moreover, simple notation does not imply
that the composer offers more freedom. Even a simple notation is likely to generate complex and
ambiguous interpretation. Heyde (2007, pp.71-95)) finds that simple notation generates
interpretative difficulty. Conversely, Duncan (2010, pp.136-172) argues that the more detailed the
notation provided by the composer, the more likely the space for a performer’s personal choices is
reduced or ended. Simplicity may also lead to another consequence, a failure to interpret the
minimal information provided. At this point simplicity requires even more creative preparation
before initiating any practical action. Simple notation prompts the performer to engage more with
hidden aspects of the score. In some cases, the performer has to deal with varied aspects of
uncertainty and unpredictability. Moreover, it is comparatively rare that a piece comes with defined
complexity or simplicity. Most works are written with varieties of notational forms.

Notation provides communication between composers and performers using a specific-written

language. It is not the only method to convey the composer’s ideas, as merely providing written
instructions is insufficient for musical realisation (Schwartz and Godfrey1993). For instance, a
close working relationship can form an essential supplement for understanding composers’
intentions. Collaborative models have been explored and proved to have positive and effective
results (John-Steiner 2000, Merrick 2004, Roe 2007, Hayden and Windsor 2007, Kanga 2014).
The thoughts of the composer can be clarified during the process. Earlier composers and
performers worked together, such as Nikolay Rubinstein with Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Marguerite
Long with Claude Debussy, Paul Wittgenstein with Maurice Ravel, David Tudor with John Cage
and Oliver Messiaen with Yvonne Loriod. Webern’s well-known pupil Peter Stadlen published
Webern’s solo piano work Piano Variations Op.27 in a facsimile with Webern’s own indications for
performance interpretation. According to Stadlen’s notes (1936), Webern “was in habit, while
standing next to me and discussing a passage, to complement his remarks with casually pencilled
entries”. In his Piano Variations, Webern notated in a spare manner and tended to avoid tonality.
Without Stadlen’s edition, this piece would become even harder to interpret. Similarly, Hill (2002
pp.129-143) describes his own learning experience with Messiaen, who “wanted the rhythm and
phrasing to be supple[…] ’like an etude’”. Moreover, Fitch and Heyde (2007) recognise that
through clarification of notation, the collaborative process can help to decode the motivation of the
composer’s choice. Dullea (2011) states that working with composers helps to discover the most
reliable interpretative solution. These experiments proved that collaboration between composers
and performers not only contributes to new compositions, but also positively stimulates musical
creativity. Conversely, sparse collaboration and communication could lead to comprehensive and
interpretative problems (MacRitchie, Zicari and Blom 2018).

Composers and performers both have an integral role in music creation and the performer should
also be regarded as the generator of music creativity (Martin, L1993, Martin, S 1998). For
performers, it is a challenge to transfer a composer’s thought into sound and it raises risks
(Kontarsky and Vernon 1972). Therefore, personal consideration of decision needs evaluation.
Godlovitch (1998, p.8) comments that “Interpretation seems primarily linked with a musician’s
concern about achieving certain determinate acoustic effects and the best means to do so”.
Similarly, Cone (1968 p.34) points out that “Every valid interpretation thus represents, not an
approximation of some ideal, but a choice”. Moreover, Reid (2002 p.102 ) states that “The
indeterminacy inherent in Western musical notation means that the decoding of the score requires
considerable interpretative input and insight from the performer”. These statements suggest that
decisions on the interpretation of notation are associated with personal preference. Cardew (1961
p.21) advocates using performer’s own “language”. For instance, in his giant work Treatise (1963),
Cardew did not give any instructions for notation and instruments, leaving the performer entirely
free to decide its interpretation for 193 pages of abstract graphic notations. The many possibilities
of the score can not only inspire the performer’s creativity, but also motivate the performer to
evaluate different approaches to the music. Nevertheless, the decision on the interpretation of
notation raise ambiguity. Nyman (1999 pp.210-211) claims that a composer’s music is his
intellectual product with compositional rules and when the score is passed to the performer, it
becomes the sole concern of the performer. Therefore the musical outcome becomes a surprise,
 10
due to the various performing styles of performers and the specific process of preparation in each
case.

Few researchers have addressed the freedom of interpretative decision-making but instead focus
mainly on the analysis of notational details. Performers are trained to learn the model of notation in
terms of shape, duration and location. They are encouraged to approach its interpretation in an
accurate and standardized way. However, notation itself is problematic. Its inherent ambiguity
affects performers’ understanding of composers’ intentions. Even though Smith (Sauer 2009, p.11)
claims that “To standardise notation is to standardise patterns of thought and the parameters of
creativity”, the performer’s decision on interpretation cannot always be standardized. Therefore,
Howat (1995 pp.3-20) encourages performers “to acknowledge and accept our subjectivity” and
“re-edit” the notation using our own decision. Hill (1975) is one of the pioneer pianists to address
this problem by examining Xenakis’s Evryali. He considers the music is presented with physically
impossible material. Many passages are written with extremely opposite directions; four staves are
used instead of two staves; brackets are frequently provided to give an alternative choice as many
notes are difficult to reach. Those elements are not compositionally new, but Xanakis applies them
within his innovative arborescence context. He finds that all those notations indicate that there are
different extents of compromise to be considered when making a decision. Hill (1975 pp.17–22)
points out:

Nevertheless, it would be wrong to imagine that the performance of

Xenakis’s music does not involve the process of decision-making by the player.
[…] in any given passage one must make decisions according to a scale
of accuracy priorities: a scale that distinguishes between what can and cannot
be clearly heard, what is of primary importance to the sense of the music
and what is subordinate.

Hill’s statement also suggests that a process of evaluation is necessary. Performers need to realise
the boundary that how far they could achieve without going against the composer’s intention.
Moreover, Ferneyhough (2003 p.373) states that decision-making is “more about how to create
one’s own insights when immersed in the complex ambiguity of the art object”. His view suggests
that the inherent ambiguity of notation could also be applied to its interpretation. Ferneyhough’s
score is one of those which involves complex texture including woven clefs, tremendous dynamic
changes, shifted registers and almost endless pitches. His explicit instructions suggest that the
performer needs to give close consideration to notation, for instance, reading notes and analysing
unusual text. This process could occupy the majority of a performer’s learning time. Detailed
notation can help the performer to detect the composer’s compositional ideas efficiently and play
according to its guidance. However, there is a risk that focusing mostly on precise reading of
notation can lead to losing musical creativity. Therefore, over-relying on notation does not
necessarily contribute to effective and creative decision-making. Furthermore, Thomas (2007 pp.
132-137) finds that “compositional intention and performance possibilities” determine the space of
performer’s decision. He points out that the performer has the freedom to explore the notational
decision under certain circumstances, for instance, when comprehending the composer’s
preference and context. However, the weakness of their statement is that it rarely evaluates how
much freedom could work in musical realisation.

Making decisions on interpretation is an objective requirement of all performers even if they are
unaware of it. It should play an essential part in performers’ daily practice. However, little scholarly
attention has been paid to the issue nowadays. Therefore the Interview analysis in the next
chapter will discuss this aspect from the different points of view of six professional participants.
 11

CHAPTER THREE
INTERVIEW ANALYSIS

My interviews were designed to stimulate a discussion-based conversation. I tended to avoid the

question-answer stereotype, but to encourage interviewees to express their genuine approach to
music. The interview transcriptions are as accurate as possible, with some word order changes
and deletions of hesitations and spoken slang. The questions were sent to the interviewees before
the formal interviewing in order to provide time for them to generate ideas and prepare for the
discussion. For composers, I would want to know their attitudes to notational freedom and how
they would use it to control their music. For performers, I particularly paid attention to the questions
of interpretative freedom. In addition, I would want to know whether and why collaboration forms
an effective communication in their perspectives. I summarised their agreement, disagreement and
neutrality and then commented on these from my personal point of view in the end of this chapter. I
raised questions on some of the answers which tended to be debatable and ambiguous. I used
some of information from the interviews in examining the case study. I raised more questions
during the exploration of Fazil Say’s Black Earth and my recital programme.

Composers —Jenny Jackson, James Joslin and Elena Chiu

Notation
In today’s music, composers use various methods to notate their work. The three composers I
interviewed, use a combination of conventional and modern notation. They are all agreed that
music should serve a purpose no matter what style of notation they choose to use. Jenny and
Elena use more traditional notation than James, who introduces more innovative notation such as
applying cut-up pieces from photos, newspapers and magazines as well as broken texts and
graphic lines. However, James’s score still has traditional elements in terms of standard pitches,
staves and rhythms. He states that he intends to train the performer to work on the new music by
putting unfamiliar elements in a familiar context.

Approach to notation
Today’s composers still use the score to convey their musical thoughts to other people. Composers
keep exploring and testing notation to better convey their intentions. I ask which method of notation
in their perspective works more efficiently for the performer, for instance, do they prefer to provide
more or less information on the score? Jenny and James prefer to give more information on the
score, while Elena chooses less. Both Jenny and Elena predict situations where the performer
might feel reluctant to deal with too much notation. Jenny states that she would like to control the
outcome without making it too difficult for the performer to practice and rehearse. Elena suggests
that a small amount of accurate and precise notation is a better choice.

Intentions beyond the notation

I wonder whether the intentions and inspirations behind the score play an important role in creating
new music. All three composers agree with this assumption. Jenny describes it as the equivalent of
“baggage” which you carry throughout the whole process of music making. Elena would write her
musical intentions literally at the front of the score, for instance before the musical text. But she
doubts whether the performer would bother to read it rather than the score itself. James illustrates
his Cadaquésan Landscape and Memories, Dreams, Reflections as an example. He explains that
the meaning of the title is notated as clearly as possible to the performer. James states that if he
wants the performer to play in a certain way, the notation should be precise. But he does not intend
 12
to control which way to play his music, thus he suggests the most significant thing is to “suggest
the image in my head”.

Realising notation into sound

Many composes have a clear idea of how their music sounds. And that determines the notation
used by the composer to express their music. Therefore, notation should serve the purpose of
delivering a precise message to the performer. I wonder how composers convey their idea clearly
and accurately through notation. I do not intend to judge which kind of notation expresses ideas
better than others, because each composer has their own familiar way of notating music.

James states the most important thing he tries to convey is the music’s possibilities. He says, “I
think if you try to control everything then it becomes difficult”. He considers that the notation cannot
generate the musical whole as notation is part of music making and is versatile. Elena states that
the most important thing she tries to convey to performers is her composing purpose. In order to
demonstrate it accurately, she attempts to work with performers in rehearsals. She considers that
rehearsals have a significant role in learning and communicate her pieces. Jenny says “the
expression, the character and the general kind of effect of the piece” are the most important thing
she intends to convey to the performer.

Does the performer need information beyond the score?

As a performer myself, I would expect the score contains full information. Therefore, do we need
extra information beyond the score to learn new music, for instance reading contextual articles and
searching recordings? Surprisingly, the three composers all agree that the performer does not
need to seek outside information beyond the score.

Elena indicates that even though the composer may want to write extra information to help
performers, they probably would not read it. She considers the practical experience of rehearsal is
the more helpful and feasible way in today’s fast and busy life. Jenny states that she is satisfied
with the information provided on the score as she considers that she has already worked out
everything for the performer, though she is willing to ease the process of practice and rehearsal.
James takes the same point that everything needed is supposed to be written in the score.

The collaboration between composer and performer

The nature of the working relationship between composer and performer is constantly explored
and updated. The three composers all say that they work with performers and are impressed with
the experience. Jenny considers this collaboration is a “fun” and “natural” experience which could
discover new things for both composer and performer in terms of personality and style. She
suggests not to always work with the same performers to avoid the limitation of music creation and
possibility. She states that she intends to create a dramatic sound without too difficult notation. This
is due to her consideration of performance feasibility and her practical working experience in
Sheffield.

Elena indicates that the majority of her compositions are “tailor-made”, which implies that she had
a pre-connection with the performer before initiating each piece. She demonstrates that her
understanding of the performer’s personality and performing style is more valuable than writing a
perfect score. However, she suggests that the composer should not impose too many ideas about
interpretation because the collaboration should encourage inspiration for both the composer and
the performer. As she is also a concert pianist, she comments that as a performer, she finds it very
beneficial to work with composers.

James’s perspective is inherently coherent with Jenny and Elena. He describes the collaboration
as a meeting ground where the composer and performer could discuss and discover the same
music goal. He also thinks that it is worth considering that too much communication might reduce
 13
space for imagination and creation. In addition, he would value feedback from the performer after
collaboration.

The three composers all indicate that they would be willing to know the performer before they start
to compose the music. James says that it is significant to know the person’s interest in the piece in
order to create a “middle ground that satisfies both sides”. He considers that if he is commissioned
by someone, he would like to know their thoughts about the piece because it is also their music.
The way of contact is not restricted to face-to-face meeting. The internet, email and Skype can
also be used. Jenny states that the knowing of a person would help the inspiration of the music.
Elena says that she would like to know a performer’s “abilities and strengths” rather than their
personality because their personal character and performing style do not affect her own idea or the
work.

Performer’s influence on notation

I wonder how communication with performers would change a composer’s way of notating music.
The three composers all agree that performers have significant influence on the process of
composing. They say that they would evaluate the performer’s suggestions and change any
ambiguous points according to performers’ needs. Jenny gives a practical example of a rehearsal
in Amsterdam several years ago:

There was a harp and piano in the ensemble and I wanted the harp and piano to sound
very simple to each other. It is a very delicate piece. But I wrote a quite difficult part for
the pianist to play inside the piano. Then the pianist said to me ‘look, I just cannot see
the conductor while playing the strings’. So I suggested to play the pitches at any
point. The outcome was not that different but it was much easier for the pianist to play.

Jenny illustrates that collaboration can result in an outcome that is not significantly different from
the original plan, but which which helps the performer to play with more confidence. Similarly,
James always develops his idea with collaboration during the composing process. He states that it
is important to know the performer’s thoughts and feedback about the piece.

Elena says that as a performer herself, her attitude is slightly different. She would consider the
music from the sides of both composer and performer. She particularly points out the
communication between herself and performers is vital to engage with her music.

The three composers’ statements confirm that a negotiating process between the composer and
the performer is a positive way to help to achieve the outcome effectively and efficiently.

Freedom in interpreting notation?

The three composers all agree that they offer freedom to performers but to different extents. All of
them would expect the performer to play exactly what the notation indicates. James says, “I would
expect the performer to play what I notate basically”. He would indicate the frame of the freedom
which he allows for as “limitation is liberation”. He would also make a note to emphasise the places
where freedom needs to be considered. Elena states that she wants the performer to keep to the
original notation unless she points out the change. Jenny considers that the freedom can be
divided into different layers and should be treated accordingly. She criticises that it is even “rude
and offensive” if the performer changes her notation at their own discretion.

Even though precise notation may have been provided, a performer could misunderstand its
meaning. James states that he constantly thinks about this issue. He considers that much of his
notation is unusual thus he would write guidance for the performer where he thinks it is ambiguous.
Jenny states that performers do misunderstand her notation when she works with them. This is
one of the reasons that she attempts to find an easy way for them. She has already considered
this issues during the process of composing. Elena says that she does not put too much attention
 14
on this issue as she is satisfied with her writings on the score. She would prefer to deal with any
problems that might arise in rehearsal.

Performer — Philip Thomas, Zubin Kanga, and Belle Chen

The preparation for new music

The possibilities of composition are infinite. This also applies to performance interpretation. The
three pianists all express that they would initiate some research before starting to learn a new
piece. Belle states that whatever kinds of notation the composer uses, the intention beyond the
piece is the vital aspect to prepare in the music. Thus she would contact the living composer to
collect such information to understand the inspiration of the piece. She would also search if any
other performers play the same piece in order to evaluate how they approach it and how they
document their thoughts.

Zubin states that he would consider the “priorities” from the composer and a “priority” from himself.
The composer’s “priorities” include the intention, inspiration and character of the piece. And the
performer’s “priority” is to take these “priorities” into account before practically learning the piece.
He says that he would practise it in a normal way such as working out the fingering and body
position depending on the requirement.

Philip says that he would consider what the score suggests to him. He also thinks about the
influence that composer has received. He suggests situating the composer in a tradition because
every composer has a tradition.

Notation
The three pianists discuss the pieces they are currently working on and the meaningful notations
that concern them. Belle states she is working on Piano Sonata (1996) from Scottish composer
Sally Beamish and she feels that it is necessary to contact Sally for background information.
She also learns pieces by Turkish composer Fazil Say, Croatian composer Ivan Bozicevic and
London-based composer Vasiliki Legaki. The unusual notation for her is the Mechanicals from
another interviewee - the London-based composer James Joslin - which involves large numbers of
cut-out pictures from magazines, newspapers, journals and posters. As Belle describes. “It feels
like there is no notation but the performer has to perform this information”, which implies the
possibility of creation.

Zubin states that he works not only on piano pieces but also on multimedia music. His long list of
repertoire includes works by Nicole Lizée, Johannes Kreidler, Neil Luck, Adam de la Cour, Patrick
Nunn and Kate Moore. He also engages with experimental and minimalist style works written by
Tim Parkinson, Andrew Hamilton and Laurence Crane and so on. He considers that music
involving electronic devices has special notation, which requires more effort to cope with. He
explains, “Some composers write this out as graphic notation, others as a simplified version in
standard notation, and others still leave out any notation, but simply use a click track and time
markings on the score”. He recommends gaining practical experience in order to play
“consistently” and “accurately”. He also illustrates several sorts of notation that he would pay more
attention to, for example the consecutive accidentals and where “the composer prescribes the
distribution of hands in a monophonic passage”. Where the composer has not notated, he would
arrange his way of playing to be the most feasible.

Philip says he is recently working on music by Canadian composer Martin Arnold who has been
influenced by different types of music such as jazz, folk and improvised music. Philip states that he
 15
would evaluate the significance of the composer’s influences and adjust his way of performing
accordingly. He would also consider his own performing tradition and how he can bring to the
music with new perspective.

Approach to notation
Zubin illustrates his approach to Z/K as an example. He commissioned Z/K from Michael Finnissy
and gave its world premiere in 2012. Zubin says, “The score did not have any expression markings
or dynamics, and most of the tempi were also left to the performer’s discretion. This was Finnissy’s
way of drawing the performer into the work”. I assume Zubin suggests that the score itself already
presents certain freedom for the performer to make an interpretative decision. Zubin indicates that
Finnissy offers him the freedom of exploring different versions of interpretation in the composer’s
workshop. However, Zubin considers that the more information provided on the score does not
mean the more accuracy contributed to its interpretation. On the contrary, it can be “very
challenging and frustrating”. For other pieces, Zubin states he would also contact living composers
and performers for more information. He would try to find many versions of recording from other
performers to obtain inspiration outside the score.

Philip states that “Christian Wolff says the score is one element of conversation”. He explains that
the notation could act as a meeting ground which connects the notation and intention, the
composer and the performer. Philip considers the notation that appeared on the score is to some
extent enough because the composer should notate precisely what he wants the performer to play.
If the composer requires a specific character or technique, they should provide the notation
accordingly. Philip keeps highlighting his willingness to be musically creative and innovative. He
says that he treats the each performance as an experiment, whereby he could discover the
interpretive options in different performances.

Belle states she would carry out a contextual research of the piece because she considers the
composer writes notation with meanings. She indicates that she would prefer less information
provided on the score, for instance, descriptive text or additional guidance. She says that she
respects the score, but she has the freedom to decide any choices of interpretation at the front of a
score.

Realising notation into sound

It is the performer’s privilege to eventually transfer the notation into a sound product. It is also
crucial for the performer to make an interpretative decision. The decision might be affected by
many factors, for instance, whether the performer feels too busy on the notes, or the written
notification is unclear. Zubin suggests performers should avoid obeying completely what the
composer says. He states that he always suggests changing things through communicating with
composers in the workshop. He says that for some reasons, the score might not reflect the
composer’s original intention. For example, the printing issue in the publication could lead to a
different appearance. He considers, “In all these cases, a great amount of research into sources,
performers and performance practice is required to be informed enough to make one’s decision”.

Philip states that there are different kinds of freedom of making decision. He refers to Michael
Finnissy and Brian Ferneyhough. He considers that many people feel their freedom of choice is
restricted just because Finnissy and Ferneyhough write complex and detailed notation. Actually, he
considers that complex notation does not mean limitation, and that simple notation is not equal to
freedom. Philip regards the notation as an opportunity of creation. He points out that performers
should always obtain inspiration from different forms and densities of notation. The form, such as
graphic notation, can even generate more imagination for him. Philip thinks that performers are
always free to make any choices.

Belle states she would retain the freedom to decide interpretation. For living composers, she
always would want to collaborate with the composer in order to keep the idea updated.
 16
Recordings and performing versions
Recording is a significant issue in performance research. Many performers would usually look for
recordings of the music in the learning process. The availability of recordings is generally less for
new music than for older music. There are several reasons for this shortage, for instance the
recency of work and the lack of time to develop a performing tradition, as well as the time it takes
for a new work to become known. Therefore, if there is no recording available, how do we make an
interpretative decision? The three performers all express a positive attitude if there is no recording
available.

Philip states one of the advantages is that he would not be affected by other people’s
interpretation. He states that when he receives a composer’s new work, he would ask to see some
of their other scores because he prefers to work in that music context. He states that he has
experiences of tackling new music and he is not willing to be influenced by other performers’
interpretation. However, he presumes the fresh learner of new music could seek help from other
people’s recordings because many of the contemporary scores might look unusual.

Zubin says the creativity is more significant when there is little material available. He says that
“having more information and recordings does not make one less free, just as having less
information does not necessarily mean greater freedoms can be taken”. I agree with his opinion.
When performers rely on other performers’ recordings for inspiration, there is a risk that their own
creativity is not cultivated.

Belle considers there are no disadvantages to a lack of recordings. This means if you give the
premiere performance, people will appreciate both the new music and your interpretation. She
believes that collaboration with the composer can work better than seeking recordings.

The collaboration between composer and performer

The three performers all indicate that they had experience of collaboration with contemporary
composers. Zubin indicates that he always attempts to work with composers. He says, “I’ve had
many long-term working relationships with composers, including Michael Finnissy, Kate Moore
Adam de la Cour, Neil Luck, Daniel Rojas, Elliott Gyger, David Gorton, Rosalind Page, all of whom
have written multiple works for me”. His statement indicates that he has experience of working with
composer which also implies that collaboration forms part of his decision-making. He states that
the performer could have different roles in collaboration at the different stages of process.

Philip states that he would choose not to work with the composer during the process of writing. He
prefers to follow the traditional way of waiting for the score to be completed before acting on it. He
says, “I prefer not to work with the composer in a long term and sophisticated way”. What concerns
him is how he can bring his idea into the piece and make it unique. He prefers to name this
composer-performer working relationship as a meeting ground rather than a collaboration.

Belle considers there are two kinds of collaboration. One is to work together while the piece is
written and another is to work together after the piece has been written. She usually collaborates in
the second way. She states that she always expresses her feeling and experience to the
composer. She states that though she could hear many thoughts from the composer, the composer
cannot impose these on her. She indicates that there is no disadvantage with collaboration.

Interpretation and Authorisation

Performers need to demonstrate their interpretation eventually and it might take a long process to
reach this goal. Contemporary performers generally have experiences of working with
contemporary composers. Therefore, I would assume this direct collaboration could lead to an
interpretation which is to some extent authorised. I would want to know whether the performer
remains faithful to the composer’s intention, and at the same time interprets precisely. I asked the
three pianists how they evaluate this issue.
 17
Zubin says, “on works that I have commissioned, developed and premiered, I think my
interpretation is more authoritative as the works are often tailored to me. At least in the early
history of the work”. This statement suggests that he claims the authority in his interpretation.
However, he humbly expresses that he would not presume to be an authority for other
contemporary music.

Philip states that he would not consider the issue of authorisation. He states that the signifiant
thing is how to interpret the same music with different approaches. He refers to Peter Hill who used
to work with Messiaen and his wife Yvonne Loriod. The two pianists worked closely with Messiaen,
so whose interpretation is more authoritative? He states that he frequently works with Christian
Wolf but he does not consider himself as authoritative. The knowing of Wolf could help him to
approach the music and become convincing in detail. However, he does not intend to became a
model to be imitated. He additionally gives a third example of working with Michael Finnissy with
the same point of view2 . Moreover, Philip advocates approaching to interpretation with creation.

Belle holds the same perspective as Philip: she does not consider authorisation as an issue. She
thinks it is not a simple conclusion that you qualify your interpretation as authorisation by working
with a composer. She says, “I think it is a difficult question because the context of authority is
depending on certain composer. How do I know my interpretation is authoritative or not
authoritative?”.

Freedom in interpreting notation

How much freedom could we performers have in contemporary music is the significant question in
my research. In most cases, performers work on the materials provided by the composer. I wonder
how density of notation leads performers to consider their freedom is either allowed or limited.

Zubin indicates it is always associated with the collaboration. The composer and the performer
could negotiate this issue during that process. However, he continues that neither the composer
nor the performer could represent an integrated outcome. He states that the composer’s notation is
“an illumination of the core priorities of their score and this can only be helpful for me in making
interpretative decisions”. Thus he considers it is important to discuss and update ideas with the
composer in order to achieve the ideal sound.

Philip sees the collaboration as a meeting ground. He says, “I think about how the composer
influences me and what I can bring to their music”. He points out that the performer could influence
the work by inputting his own perspective. He suggests that the performer should try as many
possibilities as they can, as he himself usually does.

Belle states that she always holds the right to be free to make any choices of decision. She
respects the composer, thus she prefers to negotiate the detail of freedom in rehearsal.

2 See Appendix. Interview transcription. Philip Thomas.

 18

Conclusion

First of all, the three composers express different standards of control. They all agree the virtue of
respecting their score. James’s music has a strong sense of indeterminacy, under the influence of
indeterminate music and Dadaist style. He offers the most freedom to performers and he expects
the different kinds of surprise that the performer could bring back to him. However, Jenny’s
perspective reflects that she prefers to control the music by designed notation. She considers that
more detail should be provided in oder to obtain more control of the result. Additionally, her
different layers of notation generate different levels of control of music. In her [S]pan for mixed
ensemble, Jenny writes detailed notation to express her control and performer’s freedom. For
instance, she provides seven boxes of notes, and says “play these boxes in any order”. The seven
boxes contain different materials and the overall timing is determined as 3’10”. Jenny provides the
freedom for the performer to rearrange the boxes using the material she prepared. No matter how
the performer exercises this option of interpretation, they cannot extend the duration more than
3’10”. Therefore Jenny controls the freedom of interpretative choices at this point. Elena holds a
similar attitude with Jenny, by stating that the performer cannot change things without her
permission. Even though Jenny and Elena demonstrate that they allow certain interpretive
freedom, I consider the extent of free decision for performers is not very prominent in their music.

Some people assume that composers can use notation to control their music. At this point of view,
James prefers to provide more information without control. He offers freedom and trust to the
performer. Meanwhile he expects respect and inspiration from the performer. In contrast, Jenny
suggests that the more information she provides means more control of her piece. She refers to
her [S]pan as an example of how she controls the music by using different types of notation. She
particularly mentions that conventional notation could help the performer to engage with the music
more smoothly and consistently. At this point, I assume she also feels more confident to express
certain ideas by using conventional notation. She states that the notation should be clearly
designed in order to help people to understand your intention. Along with the arrangement of
pitches, rhythms and staves, she writes word instructions within the text where needed. For
instance, “The duration is approximate. The overall piece should be managed by the players to
produce dramatic and energetic performance”.

Jenny states that, “If you look at Brian Ferneyhough’s scores, they are so precise. For me, I would
say it is far too difficult to read. When you listen to his music, you still do not know how it is
notated, do you?” I assume her point here is that she locates herself in a place as a listener and
tries to infer from the listener’s perspective. I assume she intends to express the idea that even
though performers could figure out how it should sound, they would not know the notation better
than the composer. There is another possibility that she might think Ferneyhough writes too many
details to digest. It is also an arguable point whether the outcome could become an independent
product. It is true that from the audience’s point of view that many of them would not know what
has been notated without seeing a score. However I consider there are connections linking the
score and the outcome, especially when the composer would like to control the outcome and the
performer interprets simultaneously with the same goal.

It is the composer’s privilege to convey his perspective to performers using all sorts of notation. I
wondered what kind of idea the composer considers most valuable to pass to the performer to help
them better engage with the music. The priority for James is the musical possibility. James’s
notation consists of many unusual and abstract elements. Because of the influence of
indeterminacy and other modern styles, it is not surprising that much of his musical intention is
expressed through new notations. I agree that new notation can be invented for new ideas of
sound. And if a composer would want a new sound to happen, he should work out how to notate it.
For instance, in Cage’s famous The Wonderful Widow of Eighteen Springs, he created two
separate note-shapes for fingers and knuckles for different parts of the piano. In my view, he did
this because he needed to decide a way of notating the drum-like sound on the lid of piano,
 19
therefore a new notation inevitably became a choice. Elena’s priority is her composing purpose. I
understand her preference for gathering people in the rehearsal. This way, composers and
performers can communicate directly to avoid misunderstanding, additionally saving time and
energy. To Jenny, the music character is the most important message to convey to the performer.

Philip finds different attitudes when people appreciate new music compared with classical music.
With new music, people would pay more attention to the composer and the composition because
they usually do not have a familiar context for what the composer has offered them. With earlier
music, people tend to focus on the performer and the performance because they are familiar with
the music so they would like to know how the performer interpret it with different perspectives.

I question whether the freedom of notation suggests a freedom of interpretation. I found that the
three composers allow a varied extent of freedom on interpretation. One example is from Cage’s
4’33, in which any sounds could be generated except sounds from the instrument itself. According
to the score, the overall timing is 4’33” and the timing for each movement is determined. In one live
performance available from David Tudor3 , a watch is clearly presented. Tudor constantly referred
to the watch during his performance. The watch suggests a precise counting, however, Tudor must
have interpreted the instruction to exclude the time to close and open the lid three times, because
his total timing exceeds 4’33”. It reflects Tudor’s discretion in interpretative the performance of the
work, possibly also his response to sounds of the audience and the environment. According to
Cage (2009 p. preface), “the work may be performed by any instrumentalist or combination of
instrumentalists and last any length of time” , literally, this instruction appears to give great freedom
of decision to the performer. However, in some aspects the performer is not absolutely free. For
instance, the timing counted on the watch cannot be changed or adjusted. Therefore, the space for
the performer to interpret is reduced to the interval of each movement. Additionally, the performer
is not the only participant in interpretation of the music. The audience and the acoustic surround
also contribute to differences in each performance.

The three pianists all highlight the importance of the background of the music. It should be
investigated with extra effort before initiating any physical practice. Belle and Zubin consider that
intention and contextual information need to be examined, while Philip thinks the influence the
composer has received is worth valuing. I assume Philip’s point of view could generate several
issues. Firstly, a composer might have different styles in different periods which could be changing
all the time. This is harder to summarise in one style or one tradition. Secondly, it could lead to
misreading. For instance, if the score appears similar to Chopin, do I need to play like Chopin?
Also if a composer writes in a way similar to Feldman, it does not necessarily mean he is
influenced by Feldman. Instead, he might have a different attitude or manner of notating the music.
However, I agree with Philip’s highlighting of the impact of tradition upon the composer. Philip’s
suggestion requires more theoretical research and practical engagement because of the large and
varied contexts of tradition. I assume the performing tradition he refers to is the tradition people
have already established. He has pointed out earlier that every composer has a tradition, and I
assume it also applies to the performer.

There are situations where a composer, Fazil Say and Elena Chiu for instance, also works as a
performer. I disagree that those composer-performers could have more comprehensive
contribution to interpretative decisions of the music than composers who are not specialist players
of a certain instrument. However, I agree with Zubin’s point of view, the sound imaged in the
composer’s head might be different from what the performer could achieve.

The three composers all agree that it is unnecessary for performers to seek information outside the
score. They all indicate that the entire information performers should know is indicated on the
score. On this point, I assume the three composers are not only confident with their writing, but
also appreciative of the significant role that practical rehearsals with performers can play in sharing

3 Accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HypmW4Yd7SY on 03.05.2018

 20
understanding of their music directly. However, the three performers all state that they would seek
information beyond the score to enhance their understanding of the music. Zubin states that,
“Ferneyhough once said that the score really needs to do what is required of it. I think notation
expresses the ideology of its own process of creation”. Zubin further illustrates the example of
working on Charlie Sdraulig’s Collector. He says the notation is intended to illustrate the tiny sound
playing on the surface of the keyboard. Thus he considers if Sdraulig applies another kind of
notation, the result would be changed. Moreover, Philip states,

In some way, I say yes, the notation is enough if I act extremely about it. But I do not
actually think that because we should think about what the composer tries to do and
go beyond the score. All the things combine with the notation to make something much
more complex than just reading notates and instructions.

Belle’s approach to notation is very practical in general. For instance, she says “if the composer
writes staccato here, I would think about what is the actual thing he wants”. Compared with Zubin
and Philip, she examines the specific detail directly. In my perspective, I agree with the three
composers that the whole information should be indicated in the score. Meanwhile, I also agree
with Philip’s view, because we could read the score as literally finished, but psychologically we
should not consider the score is completed.

The sourcing of recordings plays an important role in discovering music interpretation. Zubin and
Belle indicate that they would prefer to look for recordings available to them to obtain extra
information such as various versions of interpretation and inspiration. Philip indicates that
recordings produced from other people might affect his own decision and creation, thus I assume
he tends to avoid this material. Philip highlights his rich experience associated with new music and
his collaboration with composers. Thus I assume he depends on the confidence and independence
he has built in dealing with new music. I assume it also reflects the culture in contemporary music
in which many performers consider the freedom and creation are more important than tradition.

All three performers expect the freedom of decision. This freedom could be informed and adjusted
according to the score and contextual information. Creative thinking is particularly mentioned and
suggested for the whole process of practice. As a performer myself, I agree with the three
performers’ perspective. Both Philip and James express the idea that freedom is limitation. Philip
gives the example of Resistance, written by Christian Wolf, to express his understanding of
freedom. This piece has no tempo setting, then it becomes a kind of freedom for him. However, he
needs to listen to the ensemble to determine when to start playing. So it is a limitation. Therefore it
is always a combination of freedom and limitation.

The three composers agree that a working collaboration between composer and performer is
significant to explore their music. The process of collaboration could not only help the composers
and performers to better engage with new music, but also build confidence and trust. Moreover,
they apparently prefer to work with performers. The form of collaboration is not restricted to
workshop and rehearsal. Actually, formal and informal talking, meeting, email, Skype and internet
could be applied. The three composers all agree that the performer’s comments have influence on
the music and are willing to amend certain details in response to that.

From the performer’s points of view, only Philip states that he prefer not to work with composers
before and during the learning process. He tends to work on his own method. I assume he
highlights his own perspective of the music in order to facilitate communication with equal status.
However, he states that he still has connection with composers’ private life by means of knowing
the person. Therefore, he names the collaboration as a meeting ground. Zubin probably obtains
the richest experience of working collaboration among the three performers. I agree with his point
that the role of performer could be shifted during different stages of collaboration. For example, I
assume the performer’s role could be changed to a listener or a suggester. Belle states that she
usually works with composers when the score is complete. She considers there is no disadvantage
 21
in this form of collaboration. Meanwhile, Zubin and Belle indicate that the process of collaboration
could clarify how much freedom they have to make an interpretative decision. The three
performers all agree that the simplicity or the density of notation does not affect their freedom of
choice. It is one of the advantages of collaboration that it could help them clarify ambiguous issues
in interpretation, and additionally it might raise their performance to authoritative level. However,
only Zubin believes his interpretation could be authoritative, and merely under specific conditions.
Philip and Belle indicate that the outcome of collaboration does not mean authorisation.

I consider the information obtained from the six professional musicians are valuable. Therefore I
continue the discussion about notation and its interpretative decision-making by examining one
case study and three recital pieces in next chapter.
 22

CHAPTER FOUR
CASE STUDY

Fazil Say—Black Earth

I chose Fazil Say’s Black Earth as my case study. This piece for solo piano was published in 2007.
Fazil Say is internationally renowned for his pianistic virtuosity as well as compositional promotion
of Turkish traditional instrument and folk lyrics. Black Earth has attracted international attention by
its infusion of folk music and jazz, underpinned by its romantic and improvised setting. Therefore it
is frequently performed in varied concerts and events around the world. Belle Chen is an active
performer who is enthusiastic about new music. As one of my interviewees, I became curious
about how she reads the same score as I am reading, and conveys her musical perspective
through her particular decision.

In the composition aspect, this piece has a unique musical language and consists of exotic factors,
extended techniques and conventional notation. Therefore I intend to highlight its fusion of new
compositional elements and standard notation. In the performance aspect, I intend to compare the
interpretative decision made between the composer himself and Belle Chen. However, this piece is
not chosen to cover the whole range of current techniques. Likewise, Belle cannot present the
complete range of interpretation. Moreover, it is not a model of interpretation.

The piece is dedicated to Aşik Veysel who was a traditional Turkish balladier. The score begins
with a preface, written in German, English and French. I assume the composer contributed the
original text which is significant for introducing and framing the background of the piece. It says
that the inspiration for Black Earth came from Kara Toprak, which is a Turkish lyric composed by
Aşik Veysel, the dedicatee. This lyric depicts a grey and gloomy atmosphere and is frequently
interpreted on guitar in contemporary performance. It evokes a sense of loss and loneliness. Say
tends to use this recurring lyric as the theme to link the whole piece. He writes in the preface that
the performer should operate the inner strings in the piano to mimic the sound of Saz, which is a
traditional Turkish string instrument. It is notated in the preface “particularly in the folkloristic
section, he employs the improvisatory freedom which is inherent to both folk music and jazz”.

The score is a mixture of three-stave and two-stave notation. It moves from freely notated
passages which use the strings inside the piano, to conventional notation on the keyboard. The
form could be divided into three sections: A-B-A recap. Say provides a large number of dynamic
and articulation marks. In section A, Lento is marked in the opening expression. There is no time
signature indicated in this section, so it is the most free and improvised passages in the piece. It
begins with a meditative tune, and then the chords gradually enter to build the harmony. From bar
2, the piano strings are introduced for the Kara Toprak lyric. In a footnote, Say writes the instruction
“Bağlama effect: To obtain a ‘con sordino’ sound, press the strings with the left hand, while playing
the notes with the right hand”. He writes prepared to indicate the place where the performer should
prepare their left hand to depress the nominated strings. The accurate location of strings needs to
be identified before placing the hands on the strings. The identified strings are concentrated
around middle C area. However, in order to recognise which string is intended and minimise the
searching time during performance, many performers like to prepare the strings with cut-stickers,
preferably with different colours.
 23

Henry Cowell is the pioneer composer in the use of inside piano , for instance, in his Banshee and
Aeolian Harp. Say explores the technique, where one hand depresses the prepared string while
the other remains on the keyboard. Here Say writes a f along with drammatico. For a more
effective result, I would suggest to try to use the sostenuto pedal to sustain the harmony. The
performer should avoid blurring the harmony with the prepared strings. Thus the sostenuto pedal
would help to clarify the background harmony. However, Say does not write a sostenuto mark, thus
it is the performer’s discretion to work out a solution respectfully.

Say writes intensive expression and dynamic notation for prepared strings. There is no doubt that
he would like the performer to play the strings with emotion. For example (see Example 1), the
dynamic tension is from f-ff, ff-mf, and then ff again, finally finished with pp. Along with the dynamic
marking is Allegro-Presto-Allegro-rit, all these dramatic effects happening in one bar. Even though
Say marks Lento, there is a great music continuity inside the bar. The performer should arrange
the timing of entering dynamic fluctuation in accordance with the expression mark. Because the
playing method is significantly different between the strings and the keyboard, it also requires the
performer to prepare physically and psychologically in a short time. There are several accent
markings on the downbeat, thus I consider it needs extra pressure to depress the strings.

Example 1, bar 3

Section B is from page 3 to page 9. Say indicates Largo doloroso, which deliberately creates a
sentimental atmosphere. The music enters with quietness, but a block of six recurring chords
keeps producing a hesitant and sorrowful ambiance. The texture of the music is developed when
he notates Allegro assai— Drammatico, and the atmosphere becomes agitated. Say uses frequent
f and ff along with cresc to emphasis the tension of music continuity. The climax is reached when
the block of six recurring chords appears again. It is a reminiscence of the previous sadness but in
a passionate way. Here he writes an irregular meter 6/16+6/16+6/16 (see Example 2). I assume he
intends to enhance the music tension to a higher degree. At this point, he writes sustained pedal
marks for each chord in order to achieve and retain the fervent character.
 24

Example 2, bar 48-53

The material returns to section A as a recapitulation following the intensive expression of section B.
Say indicates Largo doloroso to transfer the hand position to prepared strings. He also deliberately
writes prepared which guides the performer to manipulate the strings in the same way as at the
beginning. I consider this material suggests the performer could design different approaches to
make the interpretation diversified. After the transition passages, the Kara Topeka lyric appears
again in Largo. Say writes accel…rit…accel…rit along with Andante and Allegro to suggest the
possibility of rubato (see Example 3). It is worth mentioning the dynamic mark sffp under the
duplet, which appears close to the p, suggesting the decreasing of volume before the note B which
follows. It is highly technical for both hands in different positions. The performer should predict its
potential effect when making a performing decision. The music ends with a ppp, leaving the
audience immersed in the dramatic atmosphere.
 25

Example 3, bar 85

The score convinces me that Say is deliberately precise. He intends to write substantive notation
for the performer to read and understand as accurately as possible. On the Kara Toprak theme
(see example 1), I can see he attempts to indicate each subtle nuance. The constant dynamic
changes are intended to describe the features of the original lyric. Most performers who are not
familiar with the Turkish Bağlama would want to obtain more information about the instrumental
effects directly from the composer. To avoid such lengthy procedure, Say chooses a notational way
which probably suits the performer better. It efficiently saves the performer both time and energy
by suggesting Bağlama interpretation within the score. I assume it has advantages to those
performers who pick up the piece quickly and have limited time to prepare a performance in a short
period.

The Kara Toprak theme is carefully organised to connect the entire piece. I consider it also implies
a transition of Turkish music. Thus the interpretation of the theme associated with the piano strings
is significant. It needs to not only build the character of the traditional Bağlama effect, but also to
reflect the performer’s interpretative decision. When the strings are pressed, the sound becomes
veiled to mimic the Bağlama. The preface indicates that “particularly in the folkloristic section, [Say]
employs the improvisatory freedom which is inherent to both folk music and jazz”, which suggests
that the theme should be played with a sense of flow and imagination. This offers the performer a
chance to personalise the theme in a creative way though the expression marks are emphasised
by the composer. I raised the question, do we performers need to seek information about Turkish
music when we learn the music? If so, how much knowledge is necessary?

Say himself has performed this piece in various concerts and events. I consider the recordings of
these performances as an important learning medium. Generally, Say applies more improvisation
in live performances than in his recording (CD) published in 2008. This CD is one of the earliest
performances available. Even though he does not indicate tempo, I could hear the theme is
deliberately organised. The rhythm is carefully counted and the flow of melody is steady. The
dynamic nuance is more obviously distinct than his live performances. I assume this is to some
extent due to recording studio effects which can enhance the expression. Therefore, Black Earth
lasts 5’31” in CD. However, the majority of live performances exceed that time, usually up to 6’30”.
I consider the most significant reason is his free interpretation and improvisation are recognised in
live performances.
 26
In section A, Say particularly writes lunga with a fermata at the end of each stave (see Example 1).
I consider this arrangement represents the breath of the phrase when the bar line is absent. In
Say’s latest live performances on Youtube4 in 2017, the time is extended by nearly one minute
more from his CD. We can clearly see Say breathes at each lunga. Moreover, he does not put any
stickers on strings for convenience. Instead he operates keyboard and strings smoothly and
naturally as if there is no positional barrier. Therefore, this type of free interpretation contributes to
a longer time than a studio recording for CD.

There are two issues to consider. Firstly, Say applies more freedom. The theme continues with
more sense of musical flow. Meanwhile, his act of breath is visible. I consider this to be significant
in the interpreting of the theme. The act of breath in music could not only facilitate the engagement
between the performer and the music, but also encourage the mutual communication between the
performer and the audience. In the 2017 live performance, I could perceive that Say has more
control of freedom in interpretation of the theme than his CD. Say deliberately pauses and flows
through the breath in order to create a folk-like atmosphere. In other words, he still controls the
music as a performer.

Secondly, how long is the lunga supposed to be? Also, because it is associated with the piano
strings, when do we prepare ourselves for that? The question about freedom starts from the
beginning of the piece. According to the preface comment “particularly in the folkloristic sections,
he employs the improvisatory freedom”, there is no doubt that Say provides the option of freedom
for performers to decide the interpretative choice.

In section A, the left hand returns to the keyboard and remains for the entire section. Say interprets
this section with full of character and expression both in CD and in live performances. The Kara
Toprak theme returns and is developed, now shifted to the keyboard. Thus it is much more
feasible for the performer to achieve a dramatic feature. This section is the most dramatic and
emotional part of the piece. A sense of rubato can be traced in his live performances. However,
there is no notation written about this on the score.

In the CD, I could infer Say tends to play as precisely and accurately as possible according to his
notation. I could hear he carefully organises the tempo with a sense of freedom, at the same time
trying to avoid disrupting the music continuity. The dynamic expression is deliberately arranged
and achieved within expectation. However, in his 2017 live performance, for example, the freedom
of improvising and rubato are obvious. Even though time signature and bar lines are indicated in
the section, Say does not control the tempo in strict time. Instead, he follows the music and lets it
continue and speak for itself. Meanwhile, the dynamic expression is stretched. I assume this
performance is not just an interpretation by the composer of the music, as it includes the
improvisation of a performer. On the other hand, the length of time might be affected by the
presence of audience. Playing with response from an audience is intrinsically different from playing
in a studio. Therefore, it is understandable that Say would want to adjust his performance to
unique live circumstances. It also needs to be considered that Say’s idea of interpretation has
been developed over a long period of time.

I also consider the question of authorisation in new music which applies to many living composers
and performers. Many people might assume that Say holds the authoritative version because he is
the creator of the music. People might also assume the composer is freer with his own music than
his score suggests. If Say develops his ideas and plays differently from the score, people might still
agree with that because he owns the music. To some extent, it is true. The fact is, we performers
work on the information provided on the score. We have a vital difference of attitude from the
creator. Many performers would therefore seek for a safe zone to avoid potential criticism.
However, I consider that when composers perform their own music this does not necessarily mean
that the music is written with only one interpretative option. Here, Say particularly writes

4 Accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYtybgToH2Q on 15.06.2018

 27
improvisatory freedom which positively encourages performers to design one or more kinds of
interpretation to their own satisfaction.

Another question raised is whether Say’s free notation suggests an interpretation freedom. He
uses a combination of free and standard notation. Does this imply that the performer has the same
privilege to make a decision in response to that? Or can it be assumed that it is a method of
suggesting what the composer considers to be most coherent and suitable? He does not write his
own improvisation nor provide relevant instruction other than the improvisatory freedom in the
preface. However, his available audio documents suggest his free interpretation to different
extents.

Belle Chen, one of my interviewees, recorded her own live interpretation in 20165. In this
performance, she gives a short introduction, mentioning the imitation of the Turkish instrument.
Belle finishes the music at 6’08”. There are two points to note. Firstly, in my point of view, the
biggest difference from Say’s performance is that she interprets the music just how I would
interpret a classical period piece. I consider Say inputs his understanding of Bağlama and Turkish
music into his performance, so the music evokes the exotic feeling. In the interview, Belle indicates
that she has had collaboration with Say. However, she presents a different version of interpretation
from his. Moreover, her interpretative decision reflects her statement, “I respect what the composer
writes, but I am always free to make a choice”.

Secondly, Belle organises the music in a compact way which significantly facilitates its continuity.
She manages the tempo steadily even at the Kara Toprak theme. To some extent, the
improvisation is less traceable. But in section B, she still presents rubato which naturally speeds
and flows with shape of phrases. Here the freedom of expression is recognised. For instance, she
adjusts the volume of dynamic in the climax passage (see Example 2). Say writes ff from the
beginning of the bar until the next bar. In his 2017 live performance, he plays exactly as he
indicated on the score, but Belle chooses to increase the volume from p to ff. It creates a different
kind of acoustic effect. However, it also could be assumed at her live performance she was
improvising on the spot.

Thirdly, in Say’s live performances, he uses techniques such as vibrating the strings, and
occasionally depressing the string heavily. However, he does not write nor describe these
extended techniques on the score. From his introduction in the preface and his live performances, I
could see that he intends to mimic the Bağlama as closely as possible by applying his knowledge
of this Turkish traditional instrument. This raises the question of whether we performers need to
search other sources in order to know how to play the Kara Toprak theme? How much information
outside the score do we need to know? Or, if we rely solely on the score, how much interpretative
freedom may we have?

Black Earth also presents a challenge about how much to improvise on a notated score. Belle is
like many performers who work mainly on what is written on the score. Decisions we make not only
contribute to the sound we plan to achieve, but also reflect the nature of how we perceive the
information in front of us. Even when much background information is available, for every piece of
piano music we try to achieve the best sound experience. Philip says in his interview that “notation
has much more suggestive possibilities”. I consider the essential task for performers is how to think
creatively both in the score and outside the score. Then this could help the performer to establish
with confidence how much freedom and improvisation are appropriate.

5 Access at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRJGn7EiB2Y on 15.06.2018

 28
Music for Recital

My three selected piano pieces, Intermittences (2005) from Two thoughts about the piano by Elliott
Carter, Day break shadows flee (2014) by Judith Weir and Z/K (2012) by Michael Finnissy
represent different notational and musical approaches.

In his preface, Carter says:

The many meanings silences can express in musical discourse challenged me to use
some of them in Intermittences. This title was suggested by ‘Intermittences du coeur’,
and of the chapters in Marcel Proust’s novel. It is a short work that also uses many
different piano sounds to convey its expressive meanings.

This statement mentions his intention of using the silent mark. However, Carter actually writes
silent only in the first two pages and, press silently on the last page. The silent is usually located
underneath a chord on left hand (see Example 4). Additionally, the relevant notes on the chord
take a hollow-diamond shape. There is no doubt that Carter intends to guide the performer to
depress the keys without sound. I assume he intends to point out that the harmony should be
available but hidden. It clearly refers to Carter’s “many meanings silences”.

In the performance perspective, the silence needs to be prepared. It raises the question of how
much freedom I could have here. I found there are two factors which could influence my decision.
The first factor is the time signature which has determined the counted rhythm. The second factor
is the symmetrical bar lines which offer little space to be rhythmically flowed. Additionally, the right
hand can be regarded as an assistance to help the silent-playing. I evaluate the finger speed and
weight I put on the keyboard in order to achieve the hidden harmony. I still need to listen to the
harmony and to image the sonority played with right hand. It also helps the audience to notice my
timing initiating and finishing the phrase. I realise that varieties of piano conditions may easily lead
performers to fail just on this detail. Thus it is important for the performer to obtain plenty of time to
familiarise with the instrument and make a decision about its execution.

Example 4, bar 18-22

 29
Another feature is the expression mark tempo flessibile. Even though many new music has a
flexible tempo, I consider this measurement needs more attention. Following the tempo flessibile,
Carter indicates that the tempo is in 4/4 and a crochet equals 144 beats. At this point, I assume we
still need to count the rhythm as we normally play. However, I consider the flessibile suggests the
opposite of a precise tempo which could generate other rhythmic possibilities. Therefore, I assume
Carter offers freedom of discretion on the speed of flowing the music but in a rhythmic frame.

The silence passages and the standard passages alternate. I notice the colour and character of
harmony are prominent during this alternation. Carter particularly writes “Timing depends on
resonance of Pianoforte”. To me, this implies that the condition of the instrument is worth
evaluating. Therefore in this piece, I assume the judgements on tempo must be to some extent
tentative until the performer knows their instrument. I would suggest it is important to arrange and
to test the instrument before performance in order to be familiar with its acoustics and mechanism.
Before that, a fixed or prepared tempo is not appropriate. I also need to consider how to transmit
the sound to the audience in the performance venue. Performers are required to act with sensitivity
not only to the instrument itself, but also to the surrounding public environment - its space and its
acoustic.

As in many contemporary piano works, progression of chords, fast changing dynamic and groups
of rapid notes are included. I found the major challenge of playing this piece is how to coordinate
its dissonance and technique in tempo flessibile. So far, I have different performing experiences on
different pianos. To some extent, I play with what the acoustic returns to me. Therefore I should,
each time, design a tempo which best suits the piano and location.

My second selected piano piece is Day Break Shadows Flee by Judith Weir. Weir provides
substantial information on the score. In the preface, she writes,

Day Break Shadows Flee, written for Benjamin Grosvenor, is a Two-Part Invention, a
piano solo composition in which the two hands work in close co-ordination but
independently. My intention was generally to avoid using thick chords (although
octaves and other clear sonorities are included) while allowing both the right and
left-hand lines to be free, mobile and expressive. The treble and bass sector of the
keyboard are clearly contrasted and often widely separated. In atmosphere and
expression the music is another kind of two-part invention, contrasting bright,
upward-arching phrases (heard at the opening and evoking the arrival of light at the
beginning of the day) with veiled, mysterious scurryings, suggesting the stranger,
more nervous life lived at night and in the early morning.

Weir applies standard notation in this music. According to her “the two hands work in close
co-ordination but independently”, which implies that each hand has its own separate interpretation
within the context. She expresses her intention “generally to avoid using thick chords” which I
assume she designs particularly for depicting the transparent and vivid character of sunlight. It
enables each hand to express its own part precisely without the feeling of heaviness. The scheme
of melody and rhythm has a traditional relationship, which is symmetrically straightforward. The
rhythm is frequently changed but remains symmetrical. For example, from bar 26 to bar 29, she
writes four time signatures which are 3/4, 2/4, 2/2 and 3/2 (see Example 5). However, the texture
remains smooth and the changing metres is almost traceless in actual performance. Ultimately, the
rhythm functions mainly as a signal of beats. It is a significant feature of Weir’s prolonged lyricism
and the continuity of music tension in this music.
 30

Example 5, bar 26-28

By her statement “In atmosphere and expression the music is another kind of two-part invention”, I
assume she intends to emphasise again the independence of two hands by highlighting the
expressive character this achieves. Weir especially mentions “contrasting bright” which I assume it
suggests that a different versions of interpretation needs to be prepared for each hand. Very often
the two hands have different feature of colour, dynamics and articulations (see also Example 5). In
order to achieve this effect, I deliberately practise each hand and try to avoid uniting the two.

Weir writes pedal indication at the beginning as “throughout, as necessary”. About this point, Weir
comments in her website on why she did not input any pedal markings, “pedalling seems a flowing,
natural extension of his finger technique, rather like vibrato for a string player, and not something I
could impose”6 . She regards pedalling as a personal preference and thus she does not try to
control it by notating beforehand. Her view also reflects the question of the limitations on our
freedom, even though the composer gives the chance to free yourself on certain points. Weir
continues, “But I found the biggest scope for advice lay simply in adding pauses and breaths
between sections – tiny gaps and breaks too small to notate”7 . Very often the task given to the
performer is not only understanding the composer’s intention, but also realising the composer’s
intention of freedom. Here Weir tries to explain her flexible attitude. Thus I would consider the
freedom in her meaning does have its limitation. Furthermore, at the end of this statement she
encourages a performer to meet the living composer for seeking a better solution. I consider that
collaboration with the composer is an efficient way to resolve all performing issues. The three
performers I interviewed all express its advantages and their own willingness to work with
composers.

The compatibility of conventional familiarity and contemporary novelty is raised—how to play a

piece of new music which has traditional form. Its title suggests it is a piece that needs imagination.
Weir writes plenty of dynamic and expression marking to represent different environmental
changes. Three tempo changes suggest imagery that changes with the time of day. The opening
passage has a similar sonority to Debussy’s Clair de lune with soft octave lines. Then the music
gradually develops with coloristic intervals, and later initiates another section which requires
animated expression. Fast-note groups and changing dynamics provide the excitement and busy
atmosphere of middle of the day. This piece ends with pp, which I assume is Weir’s intention to
finish the day quietly and peacefully. Weir creates a picture of a whole day. It encourages me to

6Judith Weir’s official website, accessed at http://www.judithweir.com/single-post/2014/09/04/Day-

Break-Shadows-Flee on 05.03.2018
7 Ibid
 31
think of different possible approaches to the music which suit both the instrument and performance
arena.

It is interesting to compare Weir’s approach with Carter and Say. Weir writes the most detailed
notation, does it thus inhibit the performer’s creativity? I particularly brought this question to the
interview. I obtained the responses that three performers all agree that substantial information like
Weir’s does not necessarily mean their creativity is limited. For instance, Belle indicates “I respect
what the composer writes, but I am alway free to make a choice”. Meanwhile, Zubin says ‘I
certainly do not think that the composer’s word is final.[…] and this can only be helpful for me in
making interpretative decisions”. On this point, I would suggest to avoid over-focusing on the
notation. There is plenty of other contextual information that could also contribute to completion of
the music. I consider Weir’s intensive notation plays an important role which enables me to
communicate with her through the score.

The third piece is Z/K by Michael Finnissy. This piece is the ‘freest’ music in the recital because it
has the least notation on the score. There is no time signature indicated except in the middle
section where Finnissy writes 2/2 (see Example 6). The bar lines suggest its character by using
down and off beat. I assume Finnissy intends to guide the performer to comply with the exact
detail.

However, the next section presents the opposite direction (see Example 7). Finnissy writes senza
misura which precisely suggests to play in a free time. In contrast with example 6, no bar lines are
indicated. I consider this implies that Finnissy provides freedom for the performer to organise the
phrase. In example 7, the notes are spanned into two extremes and both hands cooperate
independently but relatedly. Thus without the presence of tempo and bar lines, it is left to the
performer to work out how much freedom is appropriate in the phrase. Overall, the bar lines are
irregular and are changed with the music’s progress. I assume this is a clue which Finnissy devises
deliberately in order to introduce the character of each section. Thus the decision of tempo in each
section is my first task.

Example 6, bar 40-46

 32

Example 7, bar 172

Finnissy provides an expression mark at the beginning of each section, for instance Andante
sempre piano in the first section and Largo in the second section. These expression marks could
help the performer to identify different sections and make an interpretive decision according to that.
Finnissy avoids writing extensive dynamic marks on the score. However, other essential
information is given such as non legato e mezzo piano and poco accel. I assume that, along with
the flexible tempo, this is another example where freedom of discretion is left to the performer. It
generates many interpretative options, such as how to design the phrase with characteristic
expression and to what extent can the tempo be free without affecting the continuity of the music.
The sections without bar lines last two to three pages. Thus I need to decide where to start and
end each phrase. I consider the dynamic expression plays a significant role in designing a phrase.
I often explore different shapes of phrase and test them with diverse dynamics. The decision on
expression is my second task with this piece. This is another freedom Finnissy offers to the
performer.

I feel this piece ends with a sense of infinite. Finnissy writes a standard notation for the last three
pages where the bar lines are precisely and symmetrically presented. To me, the texture suggests
a strong similarity of Gigue in Baroque period. I can see the music speaks for itself, even without
the tempo and expression marking. Finnissy writes poco accel for the last several bars (see
Example 8). The structure remains fundamentally consistent. I consider the poco accel indicated
here is worth examining because it could generate many possibilities. For instance,
psychologically, the music is continuing. It creates an atmosphere of Baroque-like dance. Or, it
functions as a preparation for the new character of future music. Secondly, in the practical aspect,
it is challenge to interpret in such a short distance. Very often, I feel the music ends before I notice
the rhythmic change. Thirdly, the different conditions of pianos might delay the feedback of sound.
All these points lead to the decision becoming more complex in consequence. I wonder why
Finnissy locates poco accel at this place but I suppose he has his reason. On the other hand, it
prompts me to think creatively and be able to discover more potentials of interpretation. It reflects
the freedom given by Finnissy which encourages the performer to explore the piece with different
perspectives.
 33

Example 8, bar 258-163

Finnissy dedicates this piece to pianist Zubin Kanga. In the interview session, Zubin discusses his
collaboration experience with Finnissy and comments “he encouraged me to explore all the many
dynamic and expression options for any given passage, and to also feel free to change my
approach every time I played the work”. This statement suggests that many versions of
interpretation are recommended. It also reflects Finnissy’s open attitude in accepting various types
of interpretation and personalities. The freedom of decision is obvious on the score. I agree with
Zubin’s practice which stimulates you to think creatively. Additionally, it cultivates the ability to
discover music within the contemporary context. Z/K is the ‘freest’ score I currently work on. The
score itself generates many possibilities. It helps me to think creatively and enthusiastically to
make my decisions about interpretation.
 34

CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusion and Reflection

This study is an original investigation of notation and related performing issues in the
contemporary music context. My roles as researcher, performer, practitioner and listener continued
to develop during the study. I focused on the central question: how much freedom a performer
could have to make an interpretative decision. Through the process of investigation, my original
questions have been developed and expanded.

My recital programme was determined and prepared during the process of research. I learned the
repertoire in my normal way as a practitioner, at the same time I was constantly reflecting on the
questions I asked. This experience of preparation has developed my perspective on performance
interpretation. The pieces I chose is aimed to present different types of notation that can be
encountered in new music. Fazil Say’s Black Earth combines variable notation from standard
keyboard to piano strings. The two pieces Intermittences and Caténaires by Elliott Carter illustrate
the fusing of new ideas in a standard form. Judith Weir uses completely conventional notation in
her Day Break Shadows Flee. Michael Finnissy’s Z/K uses sparing notation with tiny expression
and tempo markings. Along with the pieces I examined, composers I interviewed provided other
examples of notation (see Appendix 2). The types of notation they illustrate included graphic,
linear, narrative and improvised notation. My intention is to highlight the perspective of
interpretative decision on the notation, rather than to list ranges of existing notation. I aim to
explore the scores as examples of notation issues that performers such as my interviewees and
myself need to consider when approaching the music.

The discussion I encouraged with the interviewees reflects the nature of diversity in contemporary
music culture. From the performer’s point of view, I questioned how they evaluate their freedom of
interpretative decision. Moreover, I asked whether new music requires more effort to prepare as
the variety of notation suggests different possibilities of interpretation, for instance, tackling
technical demands and understanding unusual notation. From the composer’s perspective, I
realised that freedom has a boundary. I use the word ‘Frame’ to suggest the scope of how far the
performer could achieve freedom. It is an analogy equivalent to the frame around a picture.

The three composers I interviewed all indicate that their scores are provided in completed form. I
am surprised that composers all agree it is unnecessary for performers to seek further information
beyond the score, because the three performers I interviewed all say the opposite. They would
prefer to seek extra knowledge, particularly contextual information, when preparing new music.
This seems to suggest that the composer and the performer still retain different roles in
new music, unless the composer also works as a performer. Therefore, composers convey their
intentions through the score and performers work on the information provided. This situation
remains the same as with most earlier compositions except perhaps in situations where musicians
work music together.

I raise the question of whether free notation suggests a free interpretation? In Black Earth, Say
creates an exotic atmosphere by imitating the sound of the Turkish instrument Bağlama. His free
notation, which switches from piano strings to keyboard, suggests many interpretative possibilities.
Both Say himself and Belle present some different approaches to interpretation. Moreover, free
notation could be used for purely practical reasons rather than encouraging improvisation. For
 35
instance, it could make performers feel less pressure to play inside piano and reduce nervousness
when using unfamiliar techniques. Therefore, sometimes notation may be allowed to not speak for
itself as much as usual. Say’s various performing versions in recorded and live performances
reflect his constantly developing ideas. Thus I would assume the score published in 2007 is only
one of the interpretative versions which he had in mind at that period. The improvisation aspect is
still a significant feature in his performances. This view is supported by Say’s instruction Quasi
improvvisazione, which suggests the freedom to explore interpretative decision.

This connects with another question, how much freedom does the composer offer? Should we
performers completely obey what is written on the score, or could we modify it to certain extent to
suit our needs? The three composers I interviewed all say that they do not wish the performer to
change things unless permission is granted, but at the same time, they say they allow some space
for interpretative freedom. I consider this to be a contradiction, so I assume they are speaking of
two approaches. One approach is diverse formats to control freedom applied by the composer. For
instance, in Jenny’s [S]pan for mixed ensemble, the option for reorganising the order of boxes
using the prepared material is the performer’s discretion. Thus it could be deemed an obvious
example of complete freedom of interpretive choice allowed by the composer. However, because
there are more than two choices for the performer, it also implies that Jenny has pre-explored the
extent for freedom of interpretation. The material in each box suggests that its musical
interpretation has been deliberately identified by the composer. Therefore the extent of
interpretative freedom is measured. In another word, the composer is controlling the interpretation
through notation.

The other approach is the diversity of outcomes permitted by the composer. Jenny intends to
control both the freedom and outcome, while James allows the most freedom of interpretation
among my interviewees. In his Cadaquésan Landscape, he makes it clear where freedom and
limitation apply. The lengthy instructions and programme note contain important contextual
information particularly on the aspect of instrumental setting. In the interview, James indicates that
he would prefer to give more information to the performer in order to suggest the interpretation,
rather than imposing his interpretation. Thus the use of two metronomes and the music box is
entirely determined by the performer. He writes comments such as “Perform the above notes with
free durations (though in the correct order and only once) within approximately 60 seconds until
the following metronome pattern emerges”. The words “free duration within approximately 60
seconds” still suggest a frame that limits freedom of interpretation. It reflects that the composer
could control the outcome through notation.

I consider the frame might have different meanings in classical music, for instance, the frame of the
rubato or the frame of the Adagio. The performer should play it exactly, using established
knowledge and performing tradition. However, in new music, many composers would not restrict
the performer on these details. For instance, in Elena’s O Still, Small Voice of Calm, she writes
“duration and frequency of each trill can vary depending on the performer’s choice.” Jenny writes
similar instructions in her [S]pan, such as “occasionally, go against the Brass & WW dynamic
surge, as much as possible”. These notations suggest a wider frame of freedom.

I attempt to explore this frame of freedom in my recital programme. The most extreme case I am
working on so far is Z/K by Finnissy. Compared with the standard notation of Day Break Shadows
Flee by Weir, the notation of Z/K implies that the frame has multi-options. For instance, there are
two approaches to tempo. Where tempo is indicated by the composer, I choose to respect it strictly.
Where tempo is not indicated in the score, I have my interpretative discretion. In the middle
section, Finnissy writes Alla breve. The bar lines are precisely and symmetrical located.8 The
material has a classical appearance. Thus I assume the frame of interpretative freedom could not
be extended to allow me to change the detail, particularly in the aspect of rhythm. Here I decide to

8 See Example 6
 36
count the phrases exactly in time in response to the score. I also intend to differentiate this from
the non-tempo material, which forms the majority of the score.

My approach to the non-tempo material is to try to avoid a single conclusion. Finnissy only
provides markings such as Andante semipro piano and Largo. The sections where senza misura
appear suggest a free decision in tempo. The bar lines are irregularly arranged, and there are
whole pages without them.9 I regard this as a puzzle hidden in the notation. It sometimes
disappears in the text, or appears with standard beats, creating a Baroque-like atmosphere,
particularly in the last three pages. It could also be viewed as a psychological pause rather than
actual stopping. There are passages where Finnissy writes the pitch in a particular way. For
instance, he writes the double sharp x on C to indicate the note D. However, there are very few
dynamic markings written on the page. As with Black Earth, does this free notation suggest a free
interpretation?

I found the free notation in Finnissy's score does give me the freedom to explore the potentials. For
instance, I could make several decisions at one time. I am able to test and change my decisions on
different pianos and locations. Occasionally, I improvise on certain passages. I aim to respond to
what is written on the score, because the score indicates its spaces for free decision. To me, the
frame is comparatively large. I should try to negotiate and explore the frame in order to discover
more interpretative possibilities.

During the process of learning Z/K, I found that the notation could suggest the way of
interpretation. It depends on how much freedom the composer intends to give. The notation forms
the frame of freedom to show how much flexibility the performer could introduce to the music. Thus
it is crucial for the performer to realise the scope of the frame and make interpretative decisions
accordingly. If the information on the score suggests a larger scope of frame, it implies that multiple
versions of interpretation could be explored. The performer needs to think creatively to discover its
possibilities and impossibilities. Therefore any decisions made for it are worth encouraging. I also
realise the frame could be adjusted depending on how I decide the interpretation each time I play.
In the interview, Zubin says that Finnissy encouraged him to explore the variety of interpretation.
Thus I consider the performer’s own decision could influence the scope of freedom.

Unlike the great freedom of notation in Z/K, I found a different kind of frame in Day Break Shadows
Flee by Judith Weir. The appearance of her score is standard and conventional. To me, the
notation is very precisely presented. Weir writes almost every detail in terms of tempo, articulation
and dynamic expression. Comparing this with the very sparse information provided by Finnissy, it
raises the question of whether too much information inhibits the performer’s creativity. The three
performers I interviewed all agreed that they would not be affected by the density of notation.
However, I found it affects me in several aspects. Firstly, my options of interpretation are reduced.
The detailed notation already suggests an actual sound intended by the composer. Secondly, it
implies that there is not much space for free interpretation and improvisation. Thirdly, I assume the
conventional notation suggests a similarity to classical music, thus to some extent I should
examine it with my sense of classical tradition. They all shape the frame of freedom. However, I
found that my creative thinking is not affected. I realise the frame of freedom in Day Break
Shadows Flee is smaller than in Z/K, but the notation still inspires me with new ideas and prompts
me to find out more.

Even though I consider that notation could suggest interpretation, it does not restrict itself to one
solution. It depends on how the composer builds the frame and sets up its relative notation. From
the performer’s point of view, the three pianists I interviewed all state that the performer has the
freedom to make an interpretative decision. I found that the diversity of notation types affects

9 See Example 7
 37
neither their decision, nor their creativity. For instance, Philip indicates that unusual notation even
encourages him to think in a more creative way. Zubin says that the performer “should not be a
slave to these intentions”. I realise that the appearance of notation is not the prime factor for the
performer to take into account when approaching the music. Instead, the notation functions as an
inspiring agent to encourage the performer to discover the many interpretative possibilities. It also
reflects that performers could generate their individual attitude towards the frame depending on
how they approach the music.

I consider the performer’s decision could not only influence the frame, but also influence the music
itself. For instance, in Z/K, I intend to explore the same passages with two different approaches.
One approach is to highlight its dynamic expression, while in the other I focus on the rhythmic flow.
These two different outcomes are clearly distinguished from each other in the sound produced. I
also explore more options, for instance, stretching the space of silence and re-shaping the phrase.
The music is already influenced from the moment when we start to approach it with our own
focuses and intentions.

I consider there is a compromise between full freedom and strict limitation allowed in the score. In
his Caténaires, Carter writes “The distribution of the notes between the hands can be modified to
suit the performer”. I see this as a typical example of a composer giving a precise suggestion on
interpretation, and at the same time offering freedom to the performer’s discretion. I assume that
because this piece consists of a non-stop chain of notes, this sort of material has already
determined its scope of interpretation. Here the dynamic markings are deliberately provided in
order to highlight the accent, the colour and the character. These notations suggest certain ways of
interpretation to me as a performer. I found that whether I fully or partly comply with the notation,
neither the continuity nor the general character of the music are affected. I found that dynamic
markings in particular help me to shape the phrase and layer the texture. Following these
notations, I could exchange the position of both hands to flow with the music and to ease my body
movement. Here I consider Carter’s interpretative suggestion is supportive. However, this is not the
only interpretation which the score implies. The score reflects one kind of interpretation that Carter
intended to write at that period, and the notation is designed according to that intention. The
freedom I explore in this piece is mainly on the dynamic tension and hand position. Following
Carter’s words, I am able to explore different gestures of both hands in different registers, and
practise them with different dynamic expression.

I realise that extreme decisions about its notation could be regarded as departing from a score. For
instance, in Caténaires, I am able to explore the many possibilities of hand position and dynamics,
but I consider I am not able to change the tempo and relative music continuity, because the
changing tempo might not only break the flowing atmosphere, but also affect the context of music.
Another example is in Z/K. I consider I am able to explore the interpretation in every aspect in
terms of tempo, expression, articulation, phrasing, silence and harmony, and particularly, pedalling.
I found the decision on pedalling is the most discretionary and subjective part. I changed the way
of using pedal according to different pianos and events. The prerequisite for this free decision is
the absence of notation on the score. When the score includes time signature and bar lines, I
consider I should comply with the composer’s notation. Thus the notation suggests the frame of
freedom within which I can decide its interpretation.

I found an interesting point of contrast in the interview. The three composers all state that it is
unnecessary for the performer to seek further information beyond the score, while the three
performers all say that they like to search extra information outside the score. The idea of writing
detailed notation is common to the three composers and moreover, they would want to write all the
information the performer should know. I consider it is a positive attitude that many contemporary
composers are willing to give consideration to the performer’s ability and feasibility. Personally, just
like the three composers, I would expect the score to be presented with complete information.
However, on the performance aspect, I assume the reason why performers always attempt to find
supplementary knowledge to enhance their understanding is that the information provided on the
score is not the musical whole. For instance, when considering composers like Chopin and
 38
Beethoven, performers would usually think about the performing tradition and literature relating to
their times. Moreover, the same notation could generate different meanings for different
performers. Therefore, it becomes a constant struggle of pursuing a better performance whether it
is a new music or earlier music. Another example is in Black Earth; how much do we need to know
about the Bağlama in order to mimic this string instrument when playing inside the piano? Would it
be helpful to listen to several folk recordings? What kind of contextual information and how much
of it will satisfy the performer? On this point, I consider it requires more creative thinking and
practical experience in exploring the score. It would be worth interviewing more musicians for
detailed perspectives.

Many performers claim that they prefer less information because it inhibits the freedom to make an
interpretative decision. The three performers I interviewed all agreed that the performer should
consider the notation creatively and independently. Creativity has formed part of their process of
approaching the music, and they therefore have a personalised approach to it. Notation is
significant, but its density should not become the prime factor to affect their creativity or
interpretative decision.

Performers usually spend years to develop performing techniques, to expand the repertoire, and to
strengthen the ability to perform publicly. Performance is the moment when a composer’s intention
and writings are transferred into a sound product. In most cases, this achievement is appreciated
by the composer, the performer and the audience. I consider the performer’s role and their
responsibility. In the interview, Philip points out “many performers do not realise that their playing
could change the way we hear music”. Therefore the performer needs to be aware that their
decision could further change the effect of the music for the audience.

Some contemporary composers also work as a performer. Thus I consider the different roles of
being a composer and being a performer could suggest different approaches to the music. In Black
Earth, I found the score does not indicate as much possibility of free improvisation as the
composer himself uses in live performances. However, I understand that as a performer, ideas
about interpretation can be developed during the process of learning and exploring at all times.
Thus it is not irrational that Say’s decision of interpretation appears differently from his score. I
believe this also reflects that Say has explored the possibilities in his own score and presented
each performance as a practical experiment. I would question whether Say’s dual role of
composer- performer could suggest that his performance interpretation is authoritative. Perhaps in
performance he is utilising the interpretative freedom he has allowed in his composition. Many
people still claim that the composer has the most correct and accurate idea on the interpretation
because the music is their creation. Some composers do attempt to write the most precise notation
to convey their thoughts, as Jenny said in the interview. However, some composers would just
encourage the performer to explore the score using their own approach, for instance, Finnissy’s
Z/K and the examples listed by James. In their interviews, Zubin and Belle both say that they
would search for recorded material for the purpose of referencing. This suggests that the question
of whether any interpretation is authoritative is not significant to them. I assume they accept that
creativity is the priority and the performer has the freedom to choose their interpretation.

The interviewees all state that a working collaboration relationship between composer and
performer plays an important role in interpreting new music. Mutual communication is encouraged
and some of them the experience of collaboration is, moreover, a long term working method. The
frame of freedom and its potential for individual decision could be explored within the collaboration
process. The three composers all express their willingness to work with performers, particularly in
reference to rehearsals and meetings. At performers, Zubin and Belle tend to work with composers
at different stages of preparing the music. However, Philip expresses his preference to prepare on
his own. He tends to avoid communicating with the composer during the learning process as this
might affect his decision making. Nevertheless, he states that he still has connection with the
composer, for instance, by knowing his personal character and listening to his other compositions.
 39
Considering this point of view, I suspect the reason why many performers approach composers is
to know the safe zone of the composer’s wishes. I would suggest avoiding this because it inhibits
the performer’s creativity of thinking and negotiating.

I found my investigation on notation has changed some of my previous perspectives. Firstly, I

consider that that between pre-2000 and post-2000 there is no difference in the significance of
notation used. Whether there are dense or plain forms of notation does not change the reality of
the task of interpreting sign as sound for performance. Moreover, the notation does not affect our
appreciation of music aesthetically. Secondly, new notation keeps being invented to meet the
needs of contemporary composers. At the same time, earlier notation still remains for new
compositional and musical purpose. Therefore, performers need to explore and practise all types
of notation whether new or not. Thirdly, as notation is a medium which stimulates many potential
interpretative possibilities, I would suggest responding to notation creatively.

I consider the decision we performers make on interpretation reflects how we understand the
meaning of notation. I notice that many performers have classical music training, thus conventional
notation is more comprehensible to them. They might have a clear understanding of older kinds of
score and make their interpretative decision subconsciously. When they encounter the many
unusual notations in new music, they may hesitate to make a decision due to the many complex
elements. Thus Philip suggests seeking outside materials such as recordings for help. Also James
indicates that he would want to “train the musician to deal with the unfamiliar”. I find that I also
hesitate to make decisions when I feel the notation is unique. I realise that this kind of notation
takes me outside my comfort zone of dealing with familiar notation. I therefore tend to avoid
approaching the notation with the same method I use for earlier music. Psychologically, this could
help me to reduce the anxiety during the process of exploration.

In summary, this study is my original investigation on the subject of notation and its interpretative
issues. I explored questions of freedom in performing contemporary piano music. I also raised
related questions and highlighted their significance in the contemporary context. I consider the
information obtained from interviews with six musicians to be essential, but further exploration
needs to be conducted by increasing the number of informants and broadening the scope of
research. Thus I leave my conclusion open. I hope this thesis could contribute to further research
in this field.
 40

Bibliography

Bach, C.P.E (1949). Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments. trans and ed. by
William J. M. W. W. Norton

Barrett, M. S. (2014). Collaborative creative thought and practice in music. Ashgate Publishing Ltd

Behrman, D. (1965). “What Indeterminate Notation Determines”. Perspectives of New Music. vol.
3, no.2. pp.58-73. available from doi: 10.2307/832504

Black, R. (1983). “Contemporary Notation and Performance Practice: Three Difficulties”.

Perspectives of New Music, vol. 22, no.1/2, pp.117–146. available from www.jstor.org/stable/
832938.

Burge, D. (1990). Twentieth-century piano music. Wadsworth Pub Co

Cage, J. (2009). 4’33 [Score]. Edition Peters

Cage, J. (1969). Notations. Something Else Press

Carter, E. (2005) Two Thoughts About the Piano: Intermittences and Caténaires [Score]. Boosey &
Hawkes

Cardew, C. (1961) “Notation: Interpretation, Etc.” Tempo, no.58, pp. 21–33. available from www.js-
tor.org/stable/944250.

Clarke, D. (2017). “Defining Twentieth- and Twenty-First-Century Music”. Twentieth-Century Music.

vol.14, no.3, pp.411-462. available from doi: 10.1017/S1478572217000342

Clarke, E, and Doffman, M. (2014) "Expressive performance in contemporary concert music”.

Expressiveness in music performance: Empirical approaches across styles and cultures. pp.
98-114. Oxford University Press

Cone, E, T. (1968). Musical form and musical performance. W. W. Norton and Co.

Cowell, H. (1950) Piano music. Vol. 2. Associated Music Publishers

Duncan, S, P. (2010).The Concept of New Complexity: Notation, Interpretation and Analysis. DMA
dissertation, Cornell University

Duncan, S, P. (2010). “Re-Complexifying the Function(s) of Notation in the Music of Brian

Ferneyhough and the ‘New Complexity’”. Perspectives of New Music. vol. 48, no.1. pp. 136-172.
available from www.jstor.org/stable/23076411

Dullea, M, J. (2011). Performing extended techniques in contemporary piano repertoire:

perspectives on performance practice, notation and the collaborative process in the use of the
inside of the piano and non-conventional methods. PhD thesis, University of Ulster

Dunsby, J. (1995). Performing music: shared concerns. Clarendon Press

Feist, J. (2017). Contemporary Music Notation. Berklee Press

Ferneyhough, B (2003). Collected Writings – Contemporary Music Studies. ed. James Boros and
Richard Toop. Oxford: Routledge
 41

Fitch, F, and Heyde, N. (2007). “‘Recercar’–The Collaborative Process as Invention”.

Twentieth-century Music. vol. 4, no.1, pp.71-95. available from doi: 10.1017/S1478572207000539

Freeman, J. (2011). “Bringing Instrumental Musicians into Interactive Music Systems through
Notation.” Leonardo Music Journal, vol. 21, pp. 15–16. available from www.jstor.org/stable/
41416816.

Garder, R. (1974). Music notation: a manual of modern practice. Gollancz London

Gieseking, W and Leiber, K. (1972) Piano Technique. Dover

Griffiths, P. (1995). Modern Music And After Directions since 1945. Oxford University Press

Godlovitch, S. (1998). Music performance: a philosophical study. Routledge

Hayden, S and Windsor. L. (2007). “Collaboration and the Composer: Case Studies from the End
of the 20th Century.” Tempo, vol. 61, no. 240, pp. 28–39. available from www.jstor.org/stable/
4500495.

Hill, P. (2002). “From score to sound’”. Musical performance: A guide to understanding. ed. John
Rink. pp.129-143. Cambridge University Press.

Hill, P. (1975). “Xenakis and the Performer”. Tempo, no. 112. available from doi: 10.1017/
S0040298200018830

Howat, R. (1995). “What do we perform?” ed. John Rink. The Practice of Performance: Studies in
Musical Interpretation. pp. 3-20. Cambridge University Press. available from doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511552366.002

Hultberg, C. (2000). The printed score as a mediator of musical meaning approaches to music
notation in western tonal music. vol. 2. Malmö Academy of Music, Lund University

Ishii, R. (2005). The development of extended piano techniques in twentieth-century American

music. PhD thesis. The Florida State University

John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford University Press.

Kanga, Z. (2014). Inside the collaborative process: Realising new works for solo piano.
Unpublished Phd Thesis. available from Royal Academy of Music library

Kanga, Z. (2014). “Not Music Yet: Graphic Notation as a Catalyst for Collaborative
Metamorphosis”. Eras, vol.16, no.1, pp.37-58.

Kanga, Z. (2016). "Through the Silver Screen: The Collaborative Creation of Works for Piano and
Video." Contemporary Music Review. vol. 35, no.4-5, pp. 423-449. available from doi:
10.1080/07494467.2016.1257559

Kanno, M. (2007). “Prescriptive notation: Limits and challenges”. Contemporary Music Review. vol.
26, no.2. pp.231-254. available from doi: 10.1080/07494460701250890

Karkoschka, E. (1972) Notation in new music: a critical guide to interpretation and realisation.
Praeger

Kontarsky, A. and Vernon, M (1972). “Notation for Piano”. Perspectives of New Music, vol. 10, no.
2, pp. 72–91. available from doi: 10.2307/832333
 42

Lachenmann, H. (2004) “Four Questions Regarding New Music”. Contemporary Music Review. vol.
23, no. 3/4. pp.55–57. available from doi: 10.1080/0749446042000285672

Lester, J. (1989) Analytic approaches to twentieth-century music. W.W.Norton&Company

Levy, J. M. (1995). “Beginning-ending ambiguity: consequences of performance choices”. The

practice of performance: Studies in musical interpretation. ed. John Rink, pp.150-169. Cambridge
University Press. available from doi:10.1017/CBO9780511552366.008

Long, M. (1972). At the Piano with Debussy. Dent

MacRitchie, J., Zicari, M. and Blom, D. (2018). “Identifying challenges and opportunities for student
composer and performer peer learning through newly-composed classical piano scores”. British
Journal of Music Education. vol. 35, no. 2. pp. 153-175. available from: doi:10.1017/
S0265051717000304

Magnuson, P. (2008). A Structural Examination of Tonality, Vocabulary, Texture, Sonorities, and

Time Organization in Western Art Music. available from http://academic.udayton.edu/PhillipMagnu-
son/soundpatterns/microcosms/.

Martin, R, L. (1993). “Musical works in the worlds of performers and listeners”. The Interpretation of
Music: Philosophical Essays. ed. Michael Krausz. Clarendon Press.

Martin, S. (1998). “Reviewed Works: Performing Music: Shared Concerns by Jonathan Dunsby”.
Music Analysis, vol. 17, no. 1. pp. 108–121. available from www.jstor.org/stable/854375

Merrick, L. (2004). Collaboration between composers and performers: recent British clarinet
concertos. PhD Thesis, University of Central England in Birmingham

Nyman, M. (1999). Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond. Cambridge University Press. p.210-211

Rebelo, P. (2010). “Notating the Unpredictable”. Contemporary Music Review Journal. vol. 29, no.
1, pp.17-27. available from doi: 10.1080/07494467.2010.509589

Reid, S. (2002). “Preparing for performance”. ed. John Rink. Musical performance: A guide to
understanding. Cambridge University Press

Rink, J. (2002). Musical performance: a guide to understanding. Cambridge University Press

Rink, J. (1990). “Reviewed Work: Musical Structure and Performance by Wallace Berry”. Music
Analysis, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 319–339. Available from www.jstor.org/stable/853982

Rink, J. (2005). The practice of performance: Studies in musical interpretation. Cambridge

University Press

Risatti, H (1975). New Music Vocabulary, a Guide to Notational Signs for Contemporary Music.
University of Illinois Press

Roe, P. (2007). Phenomenology of collaboration in contemporary composition and performance.

Phd thesis, University of York

Sauer, T. (2009). Notations 21. Mark Batty Publisher

Say, F. (2003). Black Earth [CD]. naïve

 43
Say, F. (1997). Black Earth [Score]. Schott

Samson, J. (1977). Music In Transition, A study of tonal expansion and atonality 1900-1920. Dent

Seeger, C. (1958). “Prescriptive and Descriptive Music-Writing”.The Musical Quarterly. vol.44. no.
2, pp.184-195. available from www.jstor.org/stable/740450

Seroff, V, I. (1956). Debussy, Musician of France. New York: GP Putnam’s Sons.

Schwartz, E and Godfrey, D. (1993). Music since 1945: issues, materials, and literature. Schirmer
Books

Silverman, J. (1996). “Reviewed Work: Aspects of Complexity in Recent British Music by Tom
Morgan, Nigel Osborne, Peter Nelson”. Tempo, no.197. pp. 33–37. available from www.jstor.org/
stable/944440

Stone, K. (1980). Music Notation in the Twentieth Century: A Practical Guidebook. W.W.
Norton&Company

Stone, K. (1963). “Problems and Methods of Notation.” Perspectives of New Music, vol.1, no. 2,
pp. 9–31. available from www.jstor.org/stable/832100

Taruskin, R. (2010). Music in the late 20th century. Oxford University Press

Thomas, P. (1999). Interpretative issues in performing contemporary piano music. Phd thesis,
University of Sheffield

Thomas, P. (2007). “Determining the indeterminate”. Contemporary Music Review. vol.26, no.2. pp.
129-140. available from doi: 10.1080/07494460701250866

Toop, R. (1988). “Four facets of the New Complexity”. Contact. no.32. pp.4-50

Türk, D.G (1982). School of clavier playing. University of Nebraska Press

Webern, A. (1936). Variations Op.27 [Score]. ed. Peter Stadlen, Universal Edition

Weir, J. (2014) Day Break Shadows Flee [Score]. Chester Music

 44

Appendix 1

Interview transcription —James Joslin

• Can you tell me what is your style of notation? (For example, do you use
traditional notation, a mixture of new and traditional notation, or completely new notation?)

I have my recent staff here. I have uploaded the pdf version of Mechanicals and Cut-Ups on Issuu
and Youtube. They are available to everyone. For my recent works, the example is Mechanicals
composed in 2017. It is a piece for harp and narration for 1 or 2 performers. It has traditional
notation and photo cut-up elements. The different shapes of photo are from magazines and
newspapers. So it is a mixture of traditional notation and unusual elements as well as instructions.
Obviously, it is not a completely standardised notation but I do not think it is a problem for
musicians who can read traditional notation. It still has room for them to read and interpret. For
example, they can feel how the pictures influence them. This also can train the musician to deal
with the unfamiliar. This Mechanicals lasts from four to seven minutes according to the
different settings and qualities of the metronome. There is a bit of indeterminacy involved. The
pictures of my reflection is probably strange but it is still recognisable. The score still has staves
and pitches so musicians can understand the relevant points.

• How much do you think the information you write on the score can give the performer a
good understanding of your work?
Do you prefer to give performers more information or less information on the score?
How often do you feel completely satisfied with the information you provide on a
new score?

I would give more information rather than less. I give them instructions but I do not restrict their
performance. In other words, I offer ideas. Cage’s Concert for Piano and Orchestra did something
similar to this or looks similar on the page. There are lots of types of notation. I knew about Dada
style and visualised art, so I explored them in the music. When I wrote the score, I thought this is
something new. Because I think it is nice and colourful, so it is unnecessary to be a musician to
appreciate it. I treat the score as an object of beauty rather than a simply structure. When the piece
is premiered, the score becomes an image that people can get it as well. I hope it informs
musicians because I write instructions for them. They can read through it and explore it. That is
what I think about my notation generally. I do not set limitation because I hope the performer can
create something unexpected. Of course I hope the performer respects the score but you do not
have to play exactly what it says.

• In learning to perform your music, is it more necessary for performers to know the
intentions and inspirations behind the score than when learning older music? (If yes, how
important is that knowledge?)

Yes. For example, I did a premiere on the Cadaquésan Landscape and Memories, Dreams,
Reflections. Because I think the concept is weird so I explained it as good as possible. I also
changed some of the text because the performer emailed me about the unclear things. I found that
if I really want something happened in a definite way, I should make it very clear. Generally
speaking, I have a sound in my head but I would expect the performer to look at the score and find
something different. Another example is from Memories, Dreams, Reflections for voice and 1, 2 or
3 instruments composed in 2015. I had a rehearsal with the performers and they did run through.
 45
Afterwards I said that is not what I expect the sound like. But I did not mean badly. They said to me
‘sorry, what should we do?’. But what I thought is they are amazing because they find something I
did not imagine at all. I have something specific in my head when I am composing. That is existed
in my head but the performer just find it differently. Also I do not say much about what kind of
technique the performer chooses to play. The only way I would say is to suggest the image in my
head.

• What is the most important thing in your music that you try to convey to the performer?
If expression, special thoughts, or technique are difficult to convey on the score, how
would you convey these to the performer?

The most important thing is the possibility. The notation is a way to try to get the performer to do
something on their imagination. It allows possibilities for them to explore. I trust performers
because they spend yeas and years to learn and practice their instruments. I feel I help them to
explore the instrument. I think if you try to control everything then it becomes difficult. Also it is hard
if you want notation to be everything, because it is difficult to turn the sound into page and turn into
sound again.

• Do you expect performers to seek information outside the notation of your score?
(If yes, what kind of supplementary information are you willing to provide to help them learn your
music?)

Not really. I quite like everything needed is in the score. This is how I visualise the score.

• Working with a performer is sometimes possible, would you prefer to work

with performers?
Have you had a working collaboration with a performer? (If yes, how did you value that
experience?)
What advantages and disadvantages do you see in a composer-performer collaboration?

Yes, I love working with performers because I learn so much. We have a meeting ground to work
together. Many performers are enthusiastic about what the composer’s feeling about their
performance. I do have an idea in my head but also I would like to see how the performer feels
about that. I think there are so many advantages. The only disadvantage is probably to much
commutation limits the possibility of creation. For example, I might stop to do certain thing or they
might feel they cannot do certain thing. Performers did say, for example ‘my hands is not big
enough’, but that is good feedback.

• If you write a new piece for a particular performer, how much do you want to know about
them? (For example, their personality, performing style, etc.)
How would you go about finding out?

If somebody contacts me through email or website, I always go to find out the person. If I need to
write a piece for them, I want to know their interests. I hope to find a middle ground that satisfies
both sides. It helps to get the further performances as well. If I write a piece that a performer hates
and does not perform again, that is a shame. It is good to know each other. So far, nobody asks
me to write a piece without meeting. Actually we do not need to meet face by face. We can
communicate by email or Skype. I feel It is also their piece, so it is important to know what they are
thinking.
 46
• Could you be influenced by working with a performer? (For example by acting on their
comment or suggestion? Would you be willing to change things that they don’t like or feel unable
to play?)

Yes, there are definitely influences. I have my ideas open and wait for the right performer to come
along. I pick one of their ideas and develop it based on the person. The piece always changes
through the compositional process.

• How much freedom do you offer to the performer? (Do you want them to adhere strictly
to the score, or might they modify to some extent?)
Are there any things you wouldn't want a performer to modify, such as articulation, pedal,
tempo, etc?

I think I offer them freedom while showing them some limitation. I always find that to some extent,
limitation is liberation. If somebody wants to commission a piece by saying ‘write whatever
instrument you want or can be influenced by anything’, it is too much for me and I cannot write
anything about it. If somebody wants something about ‘time’ or ‘a violin piece’, then I could have a
focus idea to develop. So limitation is liberation.

I would expect the performer to play what I notate basically. I think it depends on some pieces.
Sometime if I feel this point is important, I would highlight it and make sure they can understand it.
I enjoy this process.

• Have you ever anticipated misreadings of your intention? (If yes, how do you attempt to
avoid them?)

I am always thinking this when I am writing because the notation is unusual. I always write an
instruction or a note where I think it is difficult for the performer. I am always anticipating where the
performer might think unusual. I do not think I have a difficult situation to communicate with
performers. I am just worried if I write too complicated things, the performer might not have time to
do it well.

Interview transcription — Jenny Jackson

• Can you tell me what is your style of notation? (For example, do you use
traditional notation, a mixture of new and traditional notation, or completely new notation?)

I think I use everything because I choose the notation to get the result I need. I realise if I want to
have more control, I need to give more details. And no matter what kind of notation it is. I think the
reason I write a piece of music is I want the music to be what I want it to be. For example, in [S]pan
for mixed ensemble, I get control through the actual pitches but not much over the duration. The
most important thing is how the pitches past to the next, so performers need to decide how long
they want to play. I also control the shape of the piece but I give possibility. I suppose this is an
example which combines different notation to give different levels of control.
 47
• How much do you think the information you write on the score can give the performer a
good understanding of your work?
Do you prefer to give performers more information or less information on the score?
How often do you feel completely satisfied with the information you provide on a
new score?

I think I ask the performer to work on the piece, so I need to give the guidance. It is the process
that I want to get the outcome. I quite like to give performers a lot of information, so they can
choose to do things. It is better to give more information. But I am conscious that nobody wants to
read pages of guidance before they start to play. So I always work hard to find the easiest way to
get that musical result. I think it is really important to put the performance direction for the
performer, especially for a less confident performer who is nervous or scare to play difficult
passages. I try to find a nicest way to help them. For example, in my string quartet I would control
over the ranges of pitch in general. Of course each instrument is independent and it has its pitch
range. I use complete conventional notation because I want complete control. I think this piece is
more interesting in exploring its timber possibility. If you really want things to happen, you need to
notate in certain ways for people to understand your intention. I still use the stave. I get control of
the texture through vertical modulation. I wrote the instruction, such as ‘the duration is
approximate. The overall piece should be managed by the players to produce dramatic and
energetic performance’, and the like. So in order to achieve the character of this music, the players
need to think about how to play in a dramatic way and the tension between the music.

I always go for the easiest way to coordinate with performers, in order to minimise the rehearsal
time and to reduce the stress. If you look at Brian Ferneyhough’s scores, they are so precise. For
me, I would say it is far too difficult to read. When you listen to his music, you still do not know how
it is notated, do you? For the audience’s perspective, they do not know what is the score neither.

I do not want to lose the control of the musical outcome. So it is a question of balance that I could
get that outcome without being too difficult for performers to achieve. By the way, I do not give the
score to audience because I feel it is a secret. I think it is a magic, so just listen to it! But as a
composer, I am always interested to see the score in order to know how the sound is achieved.

I think I am usually satisfied with the information I put on the score.

• In learning to perform your music, is it more necessary for performers to know the
intentions and inspirations behind the score than when learning older music? (If yes, how
important is that knowledge?)

Yes. When you play a piece of music you know, you bring a lot of baggages with you because you
know how it should sound like. But if you play a piece you have not seen before, you may feel
‘what is it or how to do it?’.

• What is the most important thing in your music that you try to convey to the performer?
If expression, special thoughts, or technique are difficult to convey on the score, how
would you convey these to the performer?

I think I try to convey the expression, the character and the general kind of effect of the piece. My
title also expresses that. I am always interested in dramatic expression. So for me, the character is
important.

• Do you expect performers to seek information outside the notation of your score? (If
yes, what kind of supplementary information are you willing to provide to help them learn your
music?)
 48

No. I think I write down the instruction in the score. You do not need to look beyond that. As I said
before, I always try to find the easiest way for the performers to play my music.

• Working with a performer is sometimes possible, would you prefer to work

with performers?
Have you had a working collaboration with a performer? (If yes, how did you value that
experience?)
What advantages and disadvantages do you see in a composer-performer collaboration?

I think it is really fun to do that. You can discover things you cannot imagine. It is really important. It
should be a natural thing that you and performers can involve. Also it is nice to know someone’s
performing style.

I suppose there is no disadvantage. The only thing is if you only work with one person, you would
end up with certain way. And perhaps you could not discover other possibilities. I and my group of
composers write music not only for ourselves but also for other musicians in Sheffield. Very often
we need to write a piece quickly and pass it to the performer for a short rehearsal time. I think this
also forms some of my notation because I cannot expect the performer to spend a lot of time to
practice it. So I try to find another way to create a complex sound. I also put methods to help them
to learn some parts of the music.

• If you write a new piece for a particular performer, how much do you want to know about
them? (For example, their personality, performing style, etc.)
How would you go about finding out?

Yes. For example, if I plan to write a joke piece for pianist Philip Thomas, I would not write
the same thing to someone else I do not know. I would like to make a positive point to the
performance, so it is important to know the person.

• Could you be influenced by working with a performer? (For example by acting on their
comment or suggestion? Would you be willing to change things that they don’t like or feel unable
to play? )

Definitely. I would hear suggestions from the performer. For example, if this is impossible to play or
it takes too much time to practice. I also try to play as much instruments as I can to get the sense
of the instrument. I have an example for this. I wrote a piece for an ensemble in Amsterdam yeas
ago. There was a harp and piano in the ensemble and I wanted the harp and piano to sound very
simple to each other. It is a very delicate piece. But I wrote a quite difficult part for the pianist to
play inside the piano. Then the pianists said to me ‘look, I just cannot see the conductor while
playing the strings’ . So I suggested to play the pitches at any point. The outcome was not that
different but it was much easier for the pianist to play.

• How much freedom do you offer to the performer? (Do you want them to adhere strictly
to the score, or might they modify to some extent?)
Are there any things you wouldn't want a performer to modify, such as articulation, pedal,
tempo, etc?

I think the freedom varies, depending on what the outcome is. It has priorities, for example,
freedom of pitch or freedom of duration. I have really thought through everything and I have made
a decision for reasons. If you suddenly change the articulation or something, for example, the
place you play quietly when I write dramatically. It would be rude and offensive!
 49

• Have you ever anticipated misreadings of your intention? (If yes, how do you attempt to
avoid them?)

I think yes is the answer. I am getting better and better by working with people to find out the likely
things they do not understand. I have a general sense of how to make the performers to
understand my music. But in any way, I hope they will ask me.

Interview transcription — Elena Chiu

• Can you tell me what is your style of notation? (For example, do you use
traditional notation, a mixture of new and traditional notation, or completely new notation?)

Most of time, I use conventional notation along with some sort of ‘rare’ signs. They might not be
newly invented notation.

• How much do you think the information you write on the score can give the performer a
good understanding of your work?
Do you prefer to give performers more information or less information on the score?
How often do you feel completely satisfied with the information you provide on a
new score?

Most of time, the response from performers is positive. For example, they think the instructions are
clearly written. I prefer to give them short but precise information. Because I think when there are
too many words on the page, nobody would read it.

• In learning to perform your music, is it more necessary for performers to know the
intentions and inspirations behind the score than when learning older music? (If yes, how
important is that knowledge?)

Yes. I think ideally, performers would read my literal instruction before rehearsal. But I doubt
whether each of them would really do it. Usually, performers just grab a part of score and then play
what they see on the score.

• What is the most important thing in your music that you try to convey to the performer?
If expression, special thoughts, or technique are difficult to convey on the score, how
would you convey these to the performer?

The most important thing in my music is the purpose to serve my music, and how to execute the
ideas from the score. As you see in contemporary music, each piece has its specific idea. For
example, a work based on melodic development, and the textural development moulds a piece of
music is two opposite directions.

Attending rehearsal is one of the most crucial parts in making my music. Usually, performers are
able to engage more with a new work after meeting the composer. I think a piece of music involves
interaction between the performer and the composer.
 50

• Do you expect performers to seek information outside the notation of your score? (If yes,
what kind of supplementary information are you willing to provide to help them learn your music?)

No. It would be wonderful if performers can do the research. But in reality, most performers do not
have an ‘extra time’ for it. Everyone is busy with their lives, so they just have the opportunity to look
at the score and then play it. I think it is more about experience on dealing with contemporary
music scores and rehearsals.

• Working with a performer is sometimes possible, would you prefer to work

with performers?
Have you had a working collaboration with a performer? (If yes, how did you value that
experience?)
What advantages and disadvantages do you see in a composer-performer collaboration?

Yes, I prefer to work with performers. Most of the pieces I have written so far are tailor-made to a
specific performing force. When you know which groups of musician are going to perform, you will
understand their needs more than what kind of music should be written to achieve the best result
at a performance.

I think there are lots of advantages. The only disadvantage is maybe less room for pure
imagination from the performer, if the composer instructs the performer at each step. As a piano
performer myself, I believe it is a privilege to be able to have hands on experience with the
composer. In any way, they are valuable experiences.

• If you write a new piece for a particular performer, how much do you want to know about
them? (For example, their personality, performing style, etc.)
How would you go about finding out?

I always want to understand as much as I could about the performing body before I write. Usually,
what I care most are their musical abilities and strengths. Then I would hope to write something
that speaks my voice through the music. Then I will just let them interpret it. However, their
personal character or stylistic aesthetics would not affect the way I compose.

• Could you be influenced by working with a performer? (For example by acting on their
comment or suggestion? Would you be willing to change things that they don’t like or feel unable
to play?)

As a performer myself alongside working as a composer, I care a lot about other performers too. I
always imagine myself performing it. I believe music should be easy to play and effective in sound.
Occasionally, performers or conductors like to change minor things in the score. I of course give
them the liberty to amend my score after discussion, if the suggestion could make the piece
better.

• How much freedom do you offer to the performer? (Do you want them to adhere strictly
to the score, or might they modify to some extent?)
Are there any things you wouldn't want a performer to modify, such as articulation, pedal,
tempo, etc?

I do allow freedom on the interpretation of sound. Also sometimes, I amend the score after hearing
a rehearsal in order to make the music even more pleasing.
 51

I hope performers would not change the information on my score unless I tell them to do so.

• Have you ever anticipated misreadings of your intention? (If yes, how do you attempt to
avoid them?)

Not too often. I believe my instructions on the score are clear for most of time. Usually, the
‘misreadings’ can be fixed after attending the first rehearsal — it is usually about making the exact
sound I had in mind which came out not as similar in the first hearing.

Interview transcription — Philip Thomas

• Every piece of music was ‘new’ once. As a performer of today’s ‘new’ music, how do you
prepare to learn it? (For example, do you start from reading the notes, articulation,
tempo, etc, or some other ways?)

Regarding your questions, I would like to talk some general thoughts about new music. It is very
hard to generalise any kinds of music, especially new music. There are so many different
composers, notations and practices. You could say the 1950s particularly have the whole range of
notation from the very complex notation of early Stockhausen, to the graphical nation of Earl
Brown, Morton Feldman and late Cage. I think certainly Cage has opened up the whole bunch of
things. A lot of composers would say that Cage gave their permission to write music in certain
ways. I think that is still true for today. There are some composers still very interested in writing
alternative notations and methods. And there are composers who write extensions of traditional
notation or take the notation on very unusual ways. So music notation is keeping increasing
complexity.

I guess for the performer who is interested in new music, you have to be fairly adaptable. I think
my response to the notation itself is what the notation suggests to me and what is the influence
upon the composer. For example, is this composer influenced by Morton Feldman, or Michael
Finnissy? What is the context of their writing? This forms the way I approach the notation. I would
locate that composer in a tradition because there is no composer working in vacuum. There is
always an influence. And there is a lot of traditions being developed all the time.

• What are the contemporary pieces you have performed/practiced recently?

Do you find a notation that is difficult? (Why is difficult for you? For example, do you find it
confusing or misleading, etc)

I am looking at some new pieces by Canadian composer Martin Arnold. He collects various
influences from Jazz, folk, medieval and improvised music. So I am thinking how does that
influence affect the way I play this music and how notation speaks for itself. I am also thinking
about my own performance tradition and what I might bring to the music. I like to play the music
which might surprise the composer and make them think slightly differently about their own music.

When we talk about performing the old music such as Beethoven or Schumann, we tend to talk a
lot about the performance itself. You can find lots of these information on newspapers, journals,
CDs, performance notes and general reviews at that time. And with the new music, we tend to talk
 52
more about the composition. One important reason is because we know much about the old music,
so the more interesting thing is what the performer could bring to it. While the reviews about
contemporary music, the general focus of discussion is upon the music because we do not know
what the composer is doing for that.

• Today’s composers write music with various intentions and styles, how much do you
think the information written on the score can give you a good understanding of a new,
contemporary work? (For example, do you prefer more information or less information on the
score? can you give me an example of a score that satisfied you, or a score that you found
insufficiently informative, what are the critical elements to you?)

Christian Wolff says the score is one element of conversation. I would love to think that we can
engage with the score and make something new. I do not particularly think how the music notated
is a reason to play the music. It is not about the notation necessarily, because it is hard to separate
the notation from intention. I play a lot of music which is unusually notated. But you can also be
very odd and provocative using conventional notation. Notation has the purpose. It is really about
what the composer wants to do. For example, I like pitch and there is no better way to notate
actual pitch than using traditional notation.

In some way, I say yes, the notation is enough if I act extremely about it. But I do not actually think
that because we should think about what the composer tries to do and go beyond the score. All the
things combine with the notation to make something much more complex than just reading notates
and instructions. And this goes the same whether it is pitch notation, graphic notation or text
notation. There is not only one option for any performances. Performance is always in one
moment. The choice I have made is also based upon the acoustic and pressure in the atmosphere.
I would like to keep my option open at all the time. I would like the performance to be a sense of
question in order to test and explore.

• How do you approach a contemporary piece which has no recordings or literature.

In these cases, what do you see as the advantages and disadvantages to you?

In some way, I think there are various advantages. For example, I do not have to play like
someone else. But as I said before, It is hard to imagine that any composers or any music do not
have some kinds of tradition. On the whole, I play the music from the people I know. I am lucky
about that because I do not need to play someone’s music I do not know. Thus I am always
involved in the tradition because I know their music. I might personally do not know the person but
I know their music. So I always have a context. Very often when a composer sends me a music to
play, I do not ask them for a recording of that piece, instead I ask them to send me some other
music. Because I want to hear what he is interested in. If I have a recording of that music, all I am
hearing is how somebody plays that music. What is more interesting is how I make a decision on
that piano piece. I have familiarity with playing new music. But for a new student who picks up a
piece by Finnissy, I would suggest to listen to recordings for help.

I am interested in recordings of new music which compromises radical things into familiar. Very
often the new music is very strange and makes you feel uncomfortable. So we tend to play a way
that makes you comfortable. By the way, there is plenty of composers who want their music to be
played just like the 19th century music. I intend to not to play this kind of pieces.

• Do you play exactly what is written on the score?

(For example, do you feel freedom or restriction in this respect? How much do you
feel you can shape the piece without going against the composer’s intention?)

Different music have different kinds of freedom. Let’s say an example of Michael Finnissy and
 53
Brian Ferneyhough. Their scores are incredibly complex and seems everything notated. So the
cliche responds to that is ‘my freedom is limited’. But my response to that is notation has much
more suggestive possibilities. Notation directs my thinking and provokes me to be more creative
rather than limiting my creativity. When I have a graphic score with squiggles or circles, the
possibility is infinite. That helps me to find something I do not know. But I still have to do
something. The complex notation does not necessarily mean limitation. It can really inspire your
creativity. Also the graphic score does not mean freedom. It might reduce you to play things you
already know. I think the freedom is always in music. You negotiate and exercise with that freedom.
At the same time, you always have freedom to say you do not want to play or do not like this
music. So the performer needs to find the creativity in response to the score. There are loads of
creativities when you play the music no matter how complex notation is. You always free to make
any choices.

I am quite interested in some music which you have freedom in limitation. There is a piece for
piano and ensemble which I gave première last week by Christian Wolf called Resistance. The
example of freedom here is no rhythm and clef attached to these notes. Possibly, I can play either
in treble or bass clef. I need to listen to other people’s playing in order to choose when to play. I
can choose when to play on each note because there is no tempo. So it is all about listening. I
think different possibilities when I am preparing. I might practice in different clefs or tempos. In
performance, I am going to listen and then make a spontaneous decision. I like the options which
are available to me. There is no recording of this piece and my recording will come out in
November. This piece is a typical example of Wolf which contains freedoms and limitations.

Composers always try to find the best way to get the outcome they want. In complex notation,
people often ask me about the accuracy. Obviously, I try to be accurate. But accuracy is not the
purpose of music. Complex notation makes you feel the music is different. Also complexity is not
the end for itself, because it really can inspire the performer to create something lively.

• Working with a contemporary composer is sometimes possible, would you prefer

to work with composers?
Have you had a working collaboration with a composer? (If yes, did you value that
experience? Did this experience change your original decision of interpretation?)
What advantage and disadvantage do you see in a performer-composer collocation?

Yes I do work with composers. But I tend to not to work with the composer while they are writing
the piece. I feel I am quite traditional and I like to keep things separately. Maybe because I trust the
composer, so I believe they can do a good job. Also I think if I ask them questions, they might
change the music. So I prefer not to work with a composer in a long term and sophisticated way. I
am much more interested to see what they have done in music and what I might do in relation to
that. It is a meeting ground. I can be true to myself and do not need to be changed by what they
do. So I would think this is a meeting ground rather than collaboration.

I know a lot of composers and performers do collaborate. I just prefer to do my work and let the
composer do their work. They trust me and I trust them. I am not against collaboration, I just not
prefer to do so. I think if I deal with it, I probably need to compromise my ideas a bit.

• How authoritative do you think your interpretation of contemporary music is?

Do you follow the features of any other contemporary performers’ interpretation?
(For example, the one who inspires you most, and if so, what particular features?)

I do not think my performance to be authoritative, not the slightest. I think what the interesting thing
is how different performers play the same music differently. For example, Sheffield has a strong
culture of Messiaen because of Peter Hill. We think Peter Hill’s performances are more
 54
authoritative than others because he worked with Messiaen and knew Messiaen in person. But is it
as same authoritative as Messiaen’s wife Yvonne Loriod? I would say they are two different
authorities. Two pianists can study with the same composer and come up with two different ways
of playing. I work closely with Christian Wolf and record a lot of his music, but I can not think my
performance is authoritative. But my meeting with him and my knowledge of his music have
shaped my ideas. I hope it might be useful for people but I would not want other people to copy
what I have done.

Here is another example. There is a piece written for me by Michael Finnissy couple years ago.
There is a semibreve on the first page of the score. I rehearsed this piece with Michael and I
counted four beats. Michael later said to me that those notes do not really mean semibreve, they
are just long notes and just hold them for a long time. So I did that and that is on my recording.
Now I can imagine if somebody hears my recording and sees the score, they might say that
Thomas holds those notes for too long because the score says semibreve. So I suppose I could
say that I have the authority that they do not mean semibreve, they mean a long sound. But you
could still hold for four beats because the composer does not write anything on the score. I think if
the composer want specifically not to be four beats, he should write it. I guess maybe this is part of
Finnissy’s composing tradition. In fact, it is an interesting issue because it has lots of openness
about it. It encourages different possibilities and it is suggestive in multiple ways. It is also true to
Debussy or Bach.

• Do you think the composer can inhibit your own interpretation by giving you too
much or too little information in the score? (If yes, how do you cope with that?)

No. There is a meeting ground between me and the composer. I am interested in what the
composer is doing and how that affects the way I play. I think about how the composer influences
me and what I can bring to their music. I think I always try to find a meeting ground that I could
stretch myself and develop my own technique. I also hope to bring something fresh to the
music. Furthermore, I think many performers do not realise that their playing could change the way
we hear music.

I love to think there are so many different ways of playing. The music we hear is a meeting ground
of composer and performer. It is also a combination of all the influences from that composer and
the ways of how the composer creates the score, and also how the performer responses to the
score.

Interview transcription — Zubin Kanga

• Every piece of music was ‘new’ once. As a performer of today’s ‘new’ music, how do you
prepare to learn it? (For example, do you start from reading the notes, articulation, tempo,
etc, or some other ways?)

Before starting any piece, it is important to work out what the composer’s priorities are. What is the
process of composition? What is unique about the piece? How does it differ from other pieces I
might have played? From this I can decide my priority for practicing.

As a general rule, I find that the more virtuosic new piano music involves working out how one
needs to move around the piano. So slow practice, working out fingerings and hand distribution
and how this relates to the body is often the first step. But there are exceptions to all these rules.
 55

• What are the contemporary pieces you have performed/practiced recently?

Do you find a notation that is difficult? (Why is difficult for you? For example, do you find it
confusing or misleading, etc)

Recently, my solo work has focused on works for piano and multimedia. In my most recent tour,
this included works by Nicole Lizée, Johannes Kreidler, Neil Luck, Adam de la Cour, Patrick Nunn
and Kate Moore. Other programmes featured experimental/minimalist works by European
composers, such as Tim Parkinson, Andrew Hamilton and Laurence Crane and a programme of
Baroque and contemporary keyboard works, with the new works written by George Benjamin,
Michael Finnissy, Morgan Hayes, Thomas Adés, among others. These all have their own different
challenges.

The works with multimedia often require some methods for syncing with this virtual chamber
partner. Some composers write this out as graphic notation, others as a simplified version in
standard notation, and others still leave out any notation, but simply use a click track and time
markings on the score. All these have advantages and disadvantages, but all require some
experience to be able to play consistently and accurately with the electronics.

On the question of notation, there are many little things that younger composers usually do annoy
me. For example, octave transposition clefs are rather hard to read. Sometimes, very complex
works with many accidentals become very difficult to decipher if accidentals apply throughout a
long bar. Another pet peeve is where the composer prescribes the distribution of hands in a
monophonic passage, unless the composer is a very good pianist, this often requires me to rewrite
the passage.

• Today’s composers write music with various intentions and styles, how much do you
think the information written on the score can give you a good understanding of a new,
contemporary work? (For example, do you prefer more information or less information on the
score? Can you give me an example of a score that satisfied you, or a score that you found
insufficiently informative, what are the critical elements to you?)

Ferneyhough once said that the score really needs to do what is required of it. I think notation
expresses the ideology of its own process of creation. One very good example is the piece Michael
Finnissy wrote for me, Z/K. The score did not have any expression markings or dynamics, and
most of the tempi were also left to the performer’s discretion. This was Finnissy’s way of drawing
the performer into the work. In our workshops together, he encouraged me to explore all the many
dynamic and expression options for any given passage, and to also feel free to change my
approach every time I played the work.

Sometimes, an extreme density of information can be very challenging and frustrating to

internalise, but a good composer applies this density for a good reason, often playing with the
psychology of the performer. Charlie Sdraulig’s piece Collector, used a new form of choreographic
notation, paired with a complex game structure. That took me many months to learn and never
truly mastered it. The result is a very quiet intense piece using the sounds from the surfaces of the
keys: the extreme effort for almost no sounds is intentional. Another easier notation would result in
a very different piece.

Third example is Not Music Yet by David Young. This piece is notated as a watercolour painting,
functioning as a graphic score. Young gives specific instructions on the way that each colour
should be played in turn, and how the score should be interpreted as time-space notation, with two
options for the specific overall timing. In this case, it is the combination of the wildly free notation,
the strict conditions of interpretation, and Young’s own approach to workshopping, all opening up
options for me about how to deal with this paradoxical notation that makes this an extraordinary
work.
 56

For any score, old or new, I try to find as many recordings as possible by as many performers. I
also attempt to contact the composer and any pianists who have performed their work. In
contemporary music, there is not a critical mass of performers to allow performance practice to be
transmitted in the way traditional practices are. But technology can allow these lines of
communication to be open, no matter where the composers and performers are in the world.

• How do you approach a contemporary piece which has no recordings or literature.

In these cases, what do you see as the advantages and disadvantages to you?

The performer has to always deal with the material available to them. If there is very little, this is a
challenge and an opportunity. Creative input is always required in formulating an interpretation, so
having more information and recordings does not make one less free, just as having less
information does not necessarily mean greater freedoms can be taken.

• Do you play exactly what is written on the score?

(For example, do you feel freedom or restriction in this respect? How much do you
feel you can shape the piece without going against the composer’ s intention?

This is really dependent on context. When workshopping pieces with composers, I often suggest
changes for notational, technical or aesthetic reasons. This is even more the case when working
with student composers, where these recommendations play a vital educative role.

But for existing pieces, this is always an active question. For a very good or canonical composer,
one feels the need to trust the composer, even when a passage might seem technically
problematic, and often the solution is present but requires work to find. There is no point in playing
a piece if you are not going to take the composer’s intentions seriously, but at the same time, one
should not be a slave to these intentions. And in many cases, the score does not reflect the
composer’s intentions. For example, there are mistakes that publishers have not corrected, or
details left out, and details that have been filled in very late (sometimes at a publisher’s
suggestion) which are not part of the composer’s original vision. In all these cases, a great amount
of research into sources, performers and performance practice is required to be informed enough
to make one’s decision.

• Working with a contemporary composer is sometimes possible, would you prefer to work
with composers?
Have you had a working collaboration with a composer? (If yes, did you value that
experience? Did this experience change your original decision of interpretation?)
What advantage and disadvantage do you see in a performer-composer collocation?

Collaboration with composers was the subject of my PhD. I always prefer to work closely with living
composers, than any other type of performing work. I have had many long-term working
relationships with composers, including Michael Finnissy, Kate Moore, Adam de la Cour, Neil Luck,
Daniel Rojas, Elliott Gyger, David Gorton, Rosalind Page, all of whom have written multiple works
for me. And there are many single major projects I have done with composers. I have now
premiered 80 new works. The second part about changing my interpretation is too large and
contextual to answer here because it took me a whole PhD to start to get to the answer.

Composer-performer collaboration has always happened in music. It is a modernist myth that

these roles are separate, with clearly defined duties. It is not about deciding the pros or cons of
collaboration, but about deciding the type of relationship the collaboration is going to be.
 57

• How authoritative do you think your interpretation of contemporary music is?

Do you follow the features of any other contemporary performers’ interpretation?
(For example, the one who inspires you most, and if so, what particular features?)

Again this is highly contextual. I can not really say how authoritative my performances of existing
repertoire are. I have a career because other people think well of my playing, but where I sit
among the current contemporary pianists is not for me to say. But on works that I have
commissioned, developed and premiered, I think my interpretation is more authoritative as the
works are often tailored to me. At least in the early history of the work.

There are many new music pianists and traditional pianists who inspire me. I love David Tudor’s
intensity and the deep thought that went into all his work. I also love Paul Jacob’s passion, Roger
Woodward’s demonic energy and Yvonne Loriod’s authority and power. Of pianists who play
canonical repertoire, there are many great pianists who I love, for example Arthur Schnabel, Ignaz
Friedman, Alfred Cortot, Samson François and Glenn Gould.

Of current pianists and peers, Rolf Hind was my teacher, and I have always loved the zen coolness
with which he tackles even the most virtuosic scores. Xenia Pestova is a really inspiring player who
performs a wide range of repertoire. Michael Kieran Harvey remains a big inspiration in his
championing of Australian music. Nicolas Hodges has worked with many of the current leading
composers in Europe on major works. Philip Thomas has combined his research and pianism in
some excellent major projects. Sebastian Berweck is a great inspiration as a pianist working with
electronics. Adam Tendler is a leading pianist of Cage and late-20th century American music. Vicky
Chow is a powerhouse performer, and I love the new works with electronics she is commissioned.
Richard Outlay is a wonderfully subtle player. Mark Knoop is a pianist involved with many of the
most innovative composers in Europe and has brought many major works to fruition.

I am also inspired by other instrumentalists and singers: Percussionists Claire Edwardes, Serge
Vuille, Eugene Ughetti, Mathias Schack-Arnott, Joby Burgess, singers Jane Sheldon, Jess Aszodi
and Juliet Fraser, cellists Neil Heyde and Severine Ballon, violinist Mira Benjamin, conductor
Roland Peelman, saxophonist Josh Hyde, and many others.

• Do you think the composer can inhibit your own interpretation by giving you too
much or too little information in the score? (If yes, how do you cope with that?)

No. This is always an issue in collaboration, but the problem exists with canonical repertoire too.
For example, there are debates about this in the HIP movement about the Beethoven’s metronome
marks. For every work, it is a negotiation between a composer’s and performer’s artistic vision,
mediated by the score and by a lot of other context such as other works in the field, or other
performances of works by that composer. I certainly do not think that the composer’s word is final,
and often argue with composers over interpretation, but in most cases, they provide an illumination
of the core priorities of their score, and this can only be helpful for me in making interpretative
decisions. We both want the work to succeed. So it is usually in our interests to find an interpretive
approach that we are both happy with and find artistically sound.
 58
Interview transcription — Belle Chen

• Every piece of music was ‘new’ once. As a performer of today’s ‘new’ music, how do you
prepare to learn it? (For example, do you start from reading the notes, articulation,
tempo, etc, or some other ways?)

Music score is written in various ways. Some people write in notes and some people write in
graphic. I think beyond the actual score, the most important thing to me is to understand the
composer’s intension. So for example, if the composer is alive, I prefer to contact them and talk to
them. I would try to get the idea of the story that inspires the pieces. Then afterwards I would look
at what is actually written on the score. I think that makes more sense. I think I always approach to
the composer through email or an agent if they are alive. If the music has been played by someone
else before, I will look at their information, for example, the programme notes, reviews and
interviews related to that piece. So I will do my research at first.

• What are the contemporary pieces you have performed/practiced recently?

Do you find a notation that is difficult? (Why is difficult for you? For example, do you find it
confusing or misleading, etc)

Quite a few. Recently I have been playing Piano Sonata (1996) by Scottish composer Sally
Beamish. I contacted her but we never met. I first know her when I was doing a specific
programme with my colleagues. I feel I need to contact Sally to learn the piece because the actual
music is quite vivd. And I want to understand why she writes it. That piece is classical writing but
the language is modern. I also have been looking at pieces by Turkish composer Fazil Say,
Croatian composer Ivan Bozicevic and London-based composer Vasiliki Legaki. I also play music
from fresh graduated composers.

I think when I have a score, I would expect everything is written on the score but there are certain
miracle possibilities. Also the composer has his own way of writing, so contact the composer and
know his intention can help to clarify what certain notation means. I think the most unusual notation
for me is a piece called Mechanicals by James Joslin. Basically everything is cut off and placed
into pictures. It feels like there is no notation but the performer has to perform this information. It is
really cool.

• Today’s composers write music with various intentions and styles. How much do you
think the information written on the score can give you a good understanding of a new,
contemporary work? (For example, do you prefer more information or less information on the
score? can you give me an example of a score that satisfied you, or a score that you found
insufficiently informative, what are the critical elements to you?)

I will do my research first of all. If the score has a lot of information, that means the composer
writes specific things. For example, if the composer writes staccato here, I would think about what
is the actual thing he wants. I think composer always has a clue to work. I will do my research, for
example, the title of the piece and the composer’s background.

I would prefer less information provided on the score. As a performer, we have the right to put
ourself into interpretation. I will basically do what is written on the score.

• How do you approach a contemporary piece which has no recordings or literature.

In these cases, what do you see as the advantages and disadvantages to you?
 59
I do not think any disadvantages of these. People would normally listen to how you play the music
and how the piece could speak for itself. If I am able to work with the composer, the importance is
not about whether the composer like or dislike my interpretation. It is all about the musical outcome
of our collaboration.

• Do you play exactly what is written on the score?

(For example, do you feel freedom or restriction in this respect? How much do you
feel you can shape the piece without going against the composer’s intention?)

I think this question is also related to your last question. Because I think they share the same point.
It is about decision of interpretation. If the composer has passed, I feel I have some freedom to
interpret. If the composer is living, usually my experience is to work with the composer. As a
musician myself, I take a lot of flexibility on my personal choices. I think music is alive thus I need
to work with composers. Ideally, we would do some rehearsals. Most of time if the composer does
not like my way of playing, I would change. Also If I feel not comfortable about playing, the
composer would change bit of written. That is the advantage of working with living composer.

• Working with a contemporary composer is sometimes possible, would you prefer

to work with composers?
Have you had a working collaboration with a composer? (If yes, did you value that
experience? Did this experience change your original decision of interpretation?)
What advantage and disadvantage do you see in a performer-composer collocation?

Yes. I definitely prefer to work with composer and I always try to. I think there are two kinds of
collaboration to me. One collaboration is to start the piece from zero and another is to work on the
piece which has been written. I mainly work with composers on a completed score. I always tell
them my feeling and my progress of preparation. Recently, I work with composer Fazil Say. I think
there is no any disadvantages of working with composers. I have gained many benefits through
this kind of collaboration. I know some people do not choose to work with composers but I
definitely advocate to do this. Also I think a composer can not force you to play in certain way. It is
still your choice of doing certain decision. I think this work relationship is also a friendship in some
way.

• How authoritative do you think your interpretation of contemporary music is?

Do you follow the features of any other contemporary performers’ interpretation?
(For example, the one who inspires you most, and if so, what particular features?)

I think it does not need to be authoritative. Because some performers work with composers, so we
tend to think those performers are authoritative. I know what I play is what the composer writes on
the score, so I do not think about this issue. I think it is a difficult question because the context of
authority is depending on certain composer. How do I know my interpretation is authoritative or not
authoritative? If I am able to work with the composer I may ask this question.

• Do you think the composer can inhibit your own interpretation by giving you too
much or too little information in the score? (If yes, how do you cope with that?)

No. I don’t think so. I play contemporary music, and also I play classical music. As I say, I respect
what the composer writes, but I am always free to make a choice.
 60

Appendix 2

James Joslin Mechanicals (2017)

61
62
 63

James Joslin Memories, Dreams, Reflections (2015)

64
65
 66

James Joslin Cadaquésan Landscape (2017)

67
68
 69
Jenny Jackson [S]pan (2015)
70
71
72
73
 74

Elena Chiu O Still, Small Voice of Calm (2017)

75
76
77