Discussion
Although neither artist specifically uses these terms, the precarious, dis/continuous, and non-ideal are revealed through these discussions and their dialogue with the musical works. While Khabat Abas describes sound as the most important element of her practice, she also situates sound beyond the individual materials of her instruments. Biographical approaches to listening influence the selection of her materials, and while there is an element of indeterminacy in her work – related to sometimes surprising or unexpected sounding results – this is not a motivating factor but a corollary of her process. “Technique” that arises as a result of this approach can therefore be mapped across her multiple instrument designs, even as designing and making the instruments becomes, for her, a process of stumbling upon these techniques. This is not a practice of sounding materials in and of themselves, but of using her encounters with their materiality to sound subjective relationships in addition to instrumental materials. Abas also situates this as a result of working in environments beyond those usually associated with the cello, describing these encounters as “cello-ness” – part of the expanded environment, materiality, and relationality of the cello.
In a similar manner, although Sam Underwood approaches his practice as a way of creating sounds that he might wish to hear or make, he also describes this as an empowering way of designing an instrumental practice that reflects his musical identity. It is also one that has the potential to empower other musicians by providing them with a model. The modular approach that he takes replicates familiar models from other instrument-building practices, providing a point of reference to audiences, and also situates his work as one of expanding relationships between materials, elements, and sonic ideas.
Both of these instrument makers identify processes of building as ones that have the potential to open musical and sonic narratives to unheard experiences. They similarly mention instrument building as a professional practice that they operate somewhat outside of, identifying their work as individual and personal. Both also mention the visual aspect of performance that follows from instrument making and design as well as the importance of the visual aspect of their materials in involving their audiences in the relational aspects of their practices.
This leads to an understanding of dis/continuity as a corollary of indeterminacy in musical practices, following Toksöz Fairbairn’s discussion (2022: 134). There is no “before” or “after” the practice of building, nor a concept of “works” that follow from this practice. To say that the instruments themselves are the “works” would also be to remain within a familiar linearity of the work concept in Western music: such “works” of organology would serve the later reproduction of “works” of music. For both Abas and Underwood, encounters with their instruments might elicit performances or further acts of instrument building. In the case of Underwood, the concept of the modular system which underpins his work allows for a potentially constant evolution and expansion of his instruments; in the case of Abas, elements of preparation may allow for a continuous re-exploration of her instruments.
Precarity in these cases can be observed in two ways: first, these instruments are unique and non-replicable. This is partly due to the role of the artists in their design and realization, and partly due to their materiality. For example, there is no guarantee that two bombshell cellos would sound the same; the experiment of making additional bombshell cellos also holds no particular significance within Abas’s practice, as the aim is not to create a replicable oeuvre of sounds but to sonify a social relationship. In contrast, the modular elements of Underwood’s instrument ams allow it to remain self-identical even as it exhibits the property of continuous change. However, these instruments are also precarious in their materiality, which exist on a continuum with other sonic and everyday objects. Elements of other instruments become new instruments within these practices, such as the Tam Tam for Abas or organ pipes for Underwood. Still other elements – such as the bombshell, safety pins (Abas), bicycle wheels, and driveshaft (Underwood) – take the form of instruments here but not in other contexts.[5]
These positions are non-ideal in the sense that they articulate a non-utopian model of material semiotic relationships with instruments, one in which the texture of individual experience is foregrounded. This leaves space for change and adaptability. Indeterminacy is also a part of this: there are no intended sounds or outcomes beyond those that are realized as and through the practice. Both of these artists take an exploratory approach to their materials and experiences, creating space for other artists to do the same within the extended space of instrument building and/as part of improvisation. These are critical and self-reflective practices that foreground continuation and iteration rather than the articulation of closed systems, as “works” might be understood.