So far, I have introduced Constança Capdeville, her role in Portuguese music history and my motivation to resort to one of her pieces as the case study of this research. I have described Avec Picasso, ce matin… and its adjacent materials. I have laid the framework upon which my practice is based. I’ve described three different performance conceptions (perfect performance of music, perfect music performance and historically informed practice) and I’ve proposed some deviations from the traditional classical music practice. Finally, I analyzed materials in order to be able to reconstruct the piece faithfully and two different anamorphoses of the piece were developed.

On this chapter I’ll reflect on the work I developed. I’ll justify why I decided not to reconstruct Avec Picasso, ce matin… based on theories and hypothesis by authors such as Nicholas Cook and John Butt and my own analysis of the materials. I’ll reflect on collaborative work supporting my opinions on the composer Lauren Redhead’s essay On collaboration and compare my experience working both with a musicologist and a composer. Finally, I'll reflect on subversion and on the importance of this artistic research on my own artistic practice.

When confronted with the hypothesis of developing a historically informed performance of Constança Capdeville’s Avec Picasso, ce matin… I was reluctant with the validity of this approach. I knew there were gaps in the documentation of the piece as well as incongruity between the different sources that would result in many uncertainties. Even though I was aware, especially taking HIPEX as an example, that I could still be able to point towards a faithful reconstruction of the piece, I couldn’t stop thinking about the problematics raised by the musician and musicologist John Butt and the musicologist Nicholas Cook.

Starting with Cook, on his essay Between Process and Product: Music and/as Performance the author questions whether an “original” to be reproduced even exists. Taking Beethoven’s Ninth Symphonie as an example, he states:

“(…) there is no such thing as Beethoven’s text, except as in interpretive construct; there is an autograph score, there are a few autograph parts and a larger number of non-autograph ones, and a variety of copyists’ scores, but all of them contradict one another to a greater or lesser degree.”

Thinking on Capdeville’s piece we could imply this to a certain degree: there are two distinct scores, there is a program note with information gaps and there is a tape with possible drafts used for the composition of the piece. There are multiple materials related to Avec Picasso, ce matin… but what is indeed the objective score, the text to be faithfully reproduced? Which one of the scores (PNL or MS) is even the right one?

Cook also draws attention to the argument that scores and performances coexist in an intertextual field in which the identity of a work arises by virtue of acts of interpretation. We can assume that the majority of the performances of Avec Picasso, ce matin… were different: Madalena Soveral and Jorge Peixinho followed distinct scores; Helena Marinho and Luís Bittencourt’s performance was a recreation in which two performers were involved – a pianist and a percussionist – instead of just one, as implied in the original. In light of Cook's argument, these distinct performances are all part of Avec Picasso, ce matin…’s identity. Even if Marinho and Bittencourt’s version should be considered more deviant and experimental, their work would still count as a part of the original piece. From previous performances, the only thing that remains are Madalena Soveral’s recollections and Jorge Peixinho’s recording. This argument, however, would imply that a plurality of performances would result in a plurality of versions or, at least, in a more complex identity that the one that might be simply implied by a score.

On his book Playing with History - The Historical Approach to Musical Performance John Butt points towards two different HIP problematics: whether we, when reconstructing a piece, can ever be sure that we have actually reconstructed all the original details and if we can assume that an ideal human subject will somehow respond identically to the same sensual stimuli regardless of age, period or social background.

Focusing on the first point: in the context of my work with Avec Picasso, ce matin…, making sure I was able to get all the original details ended up not being the most important problematic. The truth is, after a brief comparison of all the sources I knew there wasn't a way to be absolutely sure about how the piece should be executed. We could assume that Jorge Peixinho’s recording is the closest we have to what the piece should have sounded like. But when confronted with all other sources, uncertainties on how to interpret the materials did still arise.

Thinking on whether the human response to a reconstruction would be the same now as it would be listening to the “original” at the time and space of the performance, I can’t help but wonder about a very specific aspect. Avec Picasso, ce matin… is a piece for piano and tape. Even though this piece wasn’t composed too long ago, audio reproduction technology developed immensely since then. If we resorted to the same sound system used on previous performances of the piece, say Madalena Soveral’s ou Peixinho’s performances, we would never be able to hear the electronic part the same way. Our ears are now used to a high-fidelity audio quality, quite distinct from the eighties stereo systems. Furthermore, even if the argument was made that high quality loudspeakers could have been used at the time, I have a specific piece of information that refutes this possibility: when I was in the ENIM conference in November of 2021, the musicologist Manuel Pedro Ferreira confirmed that at the time, at Fundação Gulbenkian, where Jorge Peixinho perfomed the piece, the sound system was quite rudimentary.

Having laid out and compared all the sources and after reflecting on all these questions, I finally decided that in the context of my work I was not going to recreate Avec Picasso, ce matin…. Having learned more about the piece and studied all the different materials allowed me to create new links and expand my field of possibilities to develop subsequent anamorphoses. My historically informed approach became a mean to find my own way through the score, one more tool towards my subversive approaches to it.

The two collaborations I developed with the musicologist Mónica Chambel and the composer Catarina Ribeiro played an important role in this artistic research. Both of these had similar propositions and the outcome was, in both cases, a piece of music. Of course the process overtaken in the collaboration with Catarina was more subversive and resulted in a piece that could only be linked with Avec Picasso, ce matin… with some knowledge of the process and a fair amount of background, whereas in my collaboration with Mónica the outcome was directly linked with the original and many parts of the piece were kept intact. However, what I feel is important to discuss here is not the final result of the collaboration as something that derived from an already existing piece. I feel compelled to reflect on the actual collaborative process, whether it was indeed a collaboration and to what degree each step influenced the final outcome.

On her essay On collaboration, the composer Lauren Redhead points towards the fact that a majority of work labelled “as collaborative” is in fact “co-operative”. She takes upon the words of the sound poet Laurence Upton to reflect on how “true collaboration is not necessarily defined by the product of the practice but specific processes which impact upon the form of a work, its materials, and even the attitudes and processes of its creators.”. To her understanding true collaborative work comprises an ongoing conversation between all people involved that results on challenges, compromises and boundaries one wouldn’t normally deal with. Through this process, the outcome ends up being something a solo individual wouldn’t be able to develop alone.

Starting with my collaboration with Mónica, one cannot deny that we both depended on each other on the development of the type of work we undertook. Mónica, as a musicologist, presented to me materials I wouldn’t be able to access if not through our collaboration. Furthermore, she was the one who suggested using these materials in our work. On the other hand, Mónica's knowledge on performance was lacking. Even though she was able to suggest hypothesis on how to apply these materials on the context of our work, she depended on me not only to perform it on stage but also to find a way to make it possible to execute. To a certain extent, I ended up having a greater influence on the final result of the collaboration. I was the one who came with the possibility of transcribing the sounds on tape to the acoustic realm and undertook that effort; I suggested adding new "cubes" or replacing the material of already existing ones with materials reminiscing of the “scraps” tape; I developed most of the theatrical scene’s script; finally, I was the one who actually performed the piece on stage and decided how to connect the cubes. To be completely fair, Mónica also had an influence on the final outcome. For instance, she had suggested adding parts of the “scraps” to the tape which resulted on the addition of the music box part to the tape on the prelude; she was also the one who suggested starting the piece off-stage and that I should point the flashlight towards me while playing with my back facing the audience. However, communication problems were getting more frequent during our collaboration and this pressured me into making all final decisions without asking for her opinion and consent.

It is also important to mention how Mónica’s theoretical background influenced our work. As stated on the chapter describing our collaboration, Mónica modelled our approach to Avec Picasso, ce matin… through her knowledge on the pianist and artistic researcher Paulo de Assis’s work. This was, however, never discussed nor did she present this information to me. I found out about it when I later read the texts she wrote to explain the theoretical framework of our collaboration on the conference. In this sense, I would have enjoyed a bigger exchange of theoretical knowledge on this field.

Nevertheless, I consider our work more of a collaboration than a co-operation. Alone, I would not have considered using the drafts of the piece as actual compositional material (neither would I have access to them, without meeting Mónica). On the other hand, I largely influenced the choices made on the actual process of recreation of the piece and I was the one who developed this work. Even with some communication issues, the final result ended up coming into fruition through open dialogue and exchange of knowledge from both sides.

My collaboration with Catarina was very different from the one developed with Mónica. The shared background between both of us made communication much easier. Having studied together, we share some of the same interests and influences. Besides, ever since I studied composition and developed a close relationship with composers, it became much more natural for me to discuss about the creative process and to understand the general dynamic of a composer-performer relationship. However, reflecting on Lauren Redhead’s essay one might classify our work together as co-operative rather than collaborative.

The truth is that my creative input on the work developed with Catarina was much less direct than on my collaboration with Mónica. Even though I proposed Catarina to develop a very specific type of piece, my role was more of an observer and advisor (and as Readheas states, a commission is not a collaboration). Reflecting on musician Heather Roche’s four main benefits of collaborative relationships¹ the same issue persists. These benefits encompass individual personal growth, network expansion, development of personal relationships, and the creation of something neither could have discovered alone. Even though the experience of sharing ideas and creative processes with Catarina was fulfilling I wouldn’t consider it contributed to my personal growth. Maybe in this case, our shared background largely contributed to this. Being confronted with more contrasting ideas would have probably challenged me to develop new mindsets or skills. The question of my proximity to Catarina also influences the points of network expansion and development of personal relationships. The truth is our shared background and friendship undermines those two topics from the start. At last, probably the most important question, if our work together contributed to the creation of something neither could have discovered alone. Without my proposition to do so, I believe Catarina wouldn’t specifically set herself to develop an anamorphosis of Avec Picasso, ce matin…. However, this ends up being a small detail in our work together. Catarina composed a piece. I might have challenged her or influenced her decisions at some point, but the truth is it’s still a piece composed by Catarina in her language and aesthetics. It's still a work for me to perform.  

Lauren Redhead mentions how her most successful collaborations weren’t between composers and performers, questioning if this happens because of the underlying hierarchy of classical music practice. Reflecting on this subject I believe this may be one of the main reasons, if not the main reason. Up to the point where I started to question many of the prejudice and assumptions about classical music, as I have been trained on this very specific practice, it wouldn’t have crossed my mind that a collaboration with a composer could go differently. I always assumed that Catarina would have the final word, since she was the one who would actually write. Looking back on my proposal, I would have pushed our work towards a truly collaborative practice in which we both would have contributed to the compositional material. This would result in a piece with two composers and I believe that would be much more rewarding to our personal growth.

With its ups and downs working both with Mónica and Catarina was still interesting and fruitful. I do believe that being it a collaboration or a co-operation, to challenge a performer to think on aspects other than interpretation, reproduction or performance is always stimulating. In my case, specifically, more than challenging me I felt that this work ended up functioning as an outlet to put my diverse artistic skills in practice. Even if I didn’t grow in the sense of accumulating knew knowledge, to be able to test and question my expertise will always be a good way to further expand myself as an artist. From this work I also learnt about what is indeed to develop a truthful collaboration and look forward to putting this into practice in the future. Lastly is important to remember that from this collaborative / co-operative work were created two new points of view of the same piece, adding value not only to classical music practice but also to Constança Capdeville’s work and the piece Avec Picasso, ce matin… specifically.

 This research was my first attempt in exploring paths beyond practice. Even though the goal of my work was to move forward from tradition, I can’t deny that this research was also a way of understanding the practice that I’m a part of and that’s also a part of me. I now comprehend tradition and what it entails as I understand the hierarchies and rituals within classical music practice. Even if I didn’t undertake a historically informed reconstruction of the piece, to have analyzed and studied the materials thoroughly allowed me to have a deep knowledge of the piece. This knowledge opened my field of possibilities for the development of further anamorphoses. For instance, I can create an anamorphosis through a specific incongruency I found between the materials. This way even though I deviated from tradition, my actual knowledge on tradition helped me expand my deviation or even my degree of deviation. This being said, I can’t help but to recall Capdeville’s words on tradition: