To practically explore the ideas behind comprovisation and address the key questions of this research—such as how to lead and compose for an ensemble using non-static elements and how to create the necessary conditions to make it possible—the first step was gathering a large ensemble of musicians who embrace the openness and new concepts I wish to explore, musicians who possess strong improvisational skills, good listening abilities, and a balance between leadership and group dynamics, thereby creating the ideal environment for this exploration. With this foundation in place, I have placed significant emphasis on rehearsals, treating them as a space for experimentation, dialogue, and the gradual shaping of a shared musical language. Rehearsal traditionally involves preparing and solidifying elements like structure, technique, timing, and articulation, which one may say contradicts the core principle of improvisation—spontaneity and surprise in the face of the unforeseeable. However, I aimed to extend the concept rehearsal, so it is no longer a mere preparation for a fixed performance, but a phase of creative exploration and discovery. In this framework, rehearsal becomes a space for generating new material, rather than simply refining pre-existing content. The focus is on poiesis—the emergence of a new work through a dynamic, unfolding process, rather than the repetition or reproduction of an existing one.
Central to this process is collaboration. While a score may provide a loose framework—offering the notational material along with basic guidelines such as length, structure, and rhythm—the bulk of the creative work happens in rehearsal, where musicians and, furthermore, I as a composer, test, experiment, refine, or abandon ideas. This collaborative work involves constant dialogue: between musicians and me as composer, between musicians and me as conductor, between musicians and their instruments, and between the musicians themselves. As sociologist Erving Goffman notes, essential to this interaction is the "reciprocal perception of embodied co-presence1"—the awareness of each other’s physical and musical presence—along with verbal communication, eye contact, and gestures. These elements form a complex web of social and psychological dynamics, alongside musical ones, including empathy, intuition, and the shared experience of creating music together. This collaborative process operates on a democratic model, where every participant has a voice. Musicians are not passive performers but active co-creators, shaping the music through their contributions. The composer, too, adopts a different role than in traditional music-making: instead of strictly notating a fixed work, the composer, me, becomes a facilitator, guiding the collaborative process and steering the ongoing creation of the piece.
However, the ultimate meaning of comprovisation, the "unforeseen" in Bhagwati’s, arises from the live, situational nature of the performance. In performance, the work is not simply an iteration of what was rehearsed. While the rehearsal establishes a foundation, it is in the live performance that the musicians must embrace uncertainty and openness. The performance is a continuation of the rehearsal process, but one where the musicians remain free to alter, vary, and reinterpret what was practiced. The result is a fluid, dynamic event, where composition and improvisation are continually in motion, feeding off one another. Factors like space, time, and the presence of an audience create a unique environment for each performance, where the unexpected can emerge. Thus, the performance becomes a space where freedom and structure coexist in a dynamic tension—freedom to explore within a framework that has been established through rehearsal, but also bound by the need to respond to the moment, to the musicians, and to the audience. Even though we didn’t have many opportunities to play in front of an audience (see the Title page's video), once we did, we far exceeded our best trials.
For this ‘togetherness’ to materialize, selecting the right musicians for this comprovisational method might seem crucial—and indeed, my experience confirmed its importance. Individual musical approaches, cultural backgrounds, prior experience in open musical contexts, and personal views on performance, rehearsal, and roles all shaped the outcome.
The practical implementation of comprovisation, particularly in terms of musician selection, presents several challenges. As a collaborative and transcultural approach to music-making, it requires professional musicians who are not only open to intercultural exchange but also willing to engage in continuous creative negotiation. The process demands active participation, with musicians contributing ideas and developing their creativity together. However, this can be especially difficult for those who are less inclined to take initiative or come from cultural backgrounds where such collaboration is uncommon.
Moreover, although comprovisation aims to encourage democratic music-making, it often results in unintended hierarchies, where only a few musicians exert real influence. This highlights the crucial role that cultural and social factors, as well as the individual development of the musicians involved, play in shaping the outcome.
Finding musicians who possess the necessary openness, adaptability, and collaborative mindset is challenging, even within arts university settings. As a result, I worked on this project with musicians from diverse backgrounds—some chosen not for their expertise in this particular musical context but simply because they were available, given that this was a long-term, unpaid project.
In addition, I believe that creating a comfortable, safe space where all contributions, both musical and verbal, are valued is essential to this approach. I actively fostered these conditions to ensure that everyone felt secure in sharing their ideas.
Strongly linked to the idiosyncrasy of the musicians was the need for a common language of communication when rehearsing and performing. This included cues and body language, an essential aspect of the collective process. While existing cue systems like Walter Thomson’s Soundpainting2 and Butch Morris’s Conduction3 helped us understand the broader picture, we customized them to fit our needs. For instance, using a single hand for cues was necessary, as the other often controlled the tempo. My goal was to avoid unnecessary complexity—rather than employing an extensive list of cues, we focused on a select few that could effectively convey the necessary information, mirroring our approach to notation. Through this process, we cultivated a flexible yet structured environment that allowed for the genuine co-creation we were looking for. The interplay between preparation and spontaneity, structure and freedom, rehearsal and performance, proved to be the key to making comprovisation thrive.