*2.4. The State of Play*

Emergent through the previous explorations of chamber musicking and chamber repertoire is a kind of paradigmatic tension centring around the nature of inclusion and intimacy. For being an artform that has the "potential to exemplify democracy, mutual respect, and empathy" (Chamber Music America 2013, p. 5), there are several features that can be interpreted as minimising opportunities for egalitarian interaction between participants. Fundamentally, both chamber musicking and chamber repertoire exist in a framework that reinforces a distinction between composer, performer, and audience. Chamber musicking has broadly shifted from a participatory activity that is centred in domestic environments to a presentational activity in public environments. Chamber repertoire, the "object" of chamber musicking, not only requires a certain level of musical literacy and proficiency to play, but is also potentially viewed by audiences as needing a musical understanding to appreciate fully.

As Christopher Small writes, "every musical performance is inescapably to some degree a political act" (Small 2001, p. 349). The democratic environment ostensibly maintained within chamber musicking is only contained within the performers themselves, and is generally structured according to the framework dictated by the chamber repertoire. Agency, in this instance, is limited to those actively playing

music, and even then, that agency may be constricted within a *Werktreue* framework.<sup>1</sup> Thus, although chamber music in the 21st century is still hailed as an intimate art form, there are limits to its inclusivity. Whilst it may have been more accessible at its origins, it does not fulfil the same societal niche now.

#### **3. The Verb**

One possible route to addressing the potentially increasing anachronistic nature of chamber music in the 21st century goes back to the core of the ambiguities explored earlier in this chapter. This is not rebranding chamber music for a younger audience, but rather exploring how framing it in terms of its overarching principles may allow its relevance to modern cultural practices across society to become clearer.

Existing definitions of both chamber musicking and chamber repertoire appear to be preoccupied with surface-level details—the number of players or parts, where the musicking takes place, the instruments being used, etc. This categorisation of details allows authors such as Radice to make comprehensive lists of what counts as real, authentic, or good chamber music. These definitions are paradoxically rigid and fluid: rigid in that there are a number of qualifying features that can be used to gatekeep "authentic" chamber music, but fluid in that the existing literature on chamber music does not consistently agree on those qualifying features.

#### *3.1. Music-as-Discourse*

As useful as it is to discuss chamber musicking and chamber repertoire as distinct aspects of chamber music, establishing such a dualistic divide may itself be too rigid. Sociologist Martyn Hudson suggests that Roy and Dowd's distinction of music as an activity and an object (2010) does not fully capture how music acts and is interacted with in society. Rather than viewing music as an ontological duality, he proposes to "examine both at once in the study of music-as-discourse where music hold within it discourses from society that can be described and that have ideological impacts in the social world" (Hudson 2014, 2.9). Along those lines, therefore, defining chamber music as the sum total of the characteristics of chamber musicking and chamber repertoire might be limiting. Exploring the discourse between activity and object may yield a more nuanced understanding of what chamber music is and, importantly, what it could be. In this context, two discourses arise through the

<sup>1</sup> *Werktreue* is a performance culture "characterised by the principle of the performer's fidelity to the composer's presumed 'intentions' in a musical work" (Leistra-Jones 2013, p. 399). As Lydia Goehr explains, a performance will have met the ideals of this culture "when it achieved complete transparency", allowing "the work to 'shine' through and be heard in and for itself" with minimal interpretative residue left by the performer (Goehr 1994, p. 232).

shared characteristics of chamber musicking and chamber repertoire: the centrality of intimate relationships and the economy of resources.

The first discourse that emerges is the centrality of intimate relationships. Both popular and academic writing about chamber music highlight it as a paragon of "an egalitarian, convivial society" (Small 2001, p. 354). This is most overtly manifested through chamber musicking, as the micro-society created through performance is one in which individuals are autonomous and hierarchy is flattened, to varying degrees. Such a social network is not spontaneously generated, though; chamber repertoire lays the groundwork for these relationships similarly to how the rules of sport might be constructed. Such repertoire is designed to encourage the generation of these intimate relationships—if only for the duration of the piece—through balanced complexity of parts and nuanced interplay.

The second discourse taking place is around an efficiency of resources. There is a certain economy at the core of chamber music, which emerges as an interplay of activity and object. This mainly concerns drawing from a capped pool of resources: in particular, a limited number of musicians, instruments, and parts. Such an economical approach to musicking could be considered to extend to an efficiency in space usage, recalling the original terminology of "chamber" playing. What were once practical requirements of performance have bled into compositional constraints, which have then become standardised. This economy of resources, particularly in terms of personnel, helps create an environment where chamber music's intimate relationships can thrive. Each participant is there due to the fact that their part and performance provide an essential element of the experience.

Considering these two discourses simultaneously *within the context of western art music* might yield a perfectly viable understanding of chamber music. Within a wider context, however, these discourses could be ascribed to entire genres of popular and folk music. A jazz combo, a ceilidh band, and an indie rock band all share features with chamber music, and thus could be folded into consideration of these discourses. The 21st century provides an opportunity for us to reconsider what chamber music means, which may involve stripping away the cladding of the genre, i.e., the descriptors used to distinguish it within a wider market, and identify its values.

#### *3.2. Chambering Music*

Considering these two discourses between chamber musicking and chamber repertoire allows us to reframe what it means to engage with both an activity and an object. In other words, to engage in both an activity and an object in these discourses is to embody their shared inherent ideologies and values. Hence, I propose that it is useful to consider the term "chambering music" as a means of opening up the concept of chamber music to encompass the positive and inclusive aspects of this social phenomenon: *to chamber music is to create intimate musical experiences through an economy of musical material.*

Chambering music centres on intimacy. Lauren Berlant writes that "to intimate is to communicate with the sparest of signs and gestures, and at its root intimacy has the quality of eloquence and brevity. But intimacy also involves an aspiration for a narrative about something shared, a story about both oneself and others that will turn out in a particular way" (Berlant 1998, p. 281). Within both chamber repertoire and chamber musicking, two key intimate relationships are developed: the sonic relationships between musical parts and the interpersonal relationships between performers. However, neither chamber repertoire nor chamber musicking encourages the development of *intimate* relationships with audience members. Herein lies the crux of the issue. Audiences may observe performers enact intimate relationships and listen to intimate sonic relationships between musical parts, but they are, by and large, external to these relationships. Thus, to chamber music is to create intimate musical experiences *for all participants* through an economy of musical material. Recalling Turino's terminology, chambering music would shift the activity from a presentational mode of performance to a participatory one (Turino 2008). Through this, the lived relationships between participants would reflect what sociologist Veronika Zink describes as an "affective community": "a specific form of collectivity that can be characterised by a shared sensuality eliciting an implicit sense of commonality and immediateness" (Zink 2019, p. 289). Zink proposes that such affective communities maintain social values "informed by the belief in a seemingly enlivened and, hence, basic form of collectivity that is in direct contrast to modern visions of a functionally organised, alienating society governed by instrumental reason" (ibid., p. 297). Thus, exploring how music may be chambered would entail fundamentally reimagining the relationships between all participants in the encounter, pursuant of what Zink calls "a playful form of practicing convivial connectivity" (Zink 2019, p. 290).

The remainder of this chapter explores possible implications of chambering music. Recalling Berlant's definition of intimacy given above, what would an aspirational narrative about something shared through chambering look like? Who would be involved? Ultimately, how would it turn out?

#### **4. Flattening Hierarchy**

Chambering music expands the scope of intimacy to include all those partaking in the experience of the live performance. Its full extent requires a flattening of the artistic hierarchy typically found in presentational music, placing the performers and the audience in parity with each other. It is difficult to imagine how intimate relationships can be developed between parties whose power or degree of control vary dramatically. Chambering music validates and elevates audiences' experiences. By extension, the composer should not hold sway over the performers or the audiences, and the performers should not hold sway over the audiences.

Positioning performers and audiences as parties in equal dialogue with each other—and, consequently, in open dialogue with chamber repertoire—would certainly require adjustments in accepted societal roles, but I do not think this is unachievable. It would, however, mean dismantling the formality and mysticism around western art music in particular, and musical performance in general. To fully embrace chambering music is to move away from a hierarchical model of musicking and make it more about sharing creative moments—more about the human connection that helps manifest that creative moment.

#### *4.1. Limiting Numbers*

Blurring the boundaries between performer and audience impacts the practicalities of performance. It is difficult to imagine how intimacy may be developed effectively across large numbers of people. Thus, concert halls and venues that are designed to maximise acoustic properties and to seat proportionally larger audiences than performers are likely not effective places to chamber music. From an economic standpoint, chambering is not a model that will maximise profits for minimal expenditure. Instead, it is more about audiences engaging in deeply personal experiences with performers, building up relationships, and sustaining their engagement. Catalysing those experiences will likely mean performing in environments that encourage intimacy: smaller spaces with less public thoroughfare or disturbances and increased privacy.

This physical intimacy between performers and audiences becomes revealing in other ways, particularly around the manual act of performance. Performance is not aseptic or sterile; creating sound requires *effort*, and musicians move, breathe, grunt, shift, sigh, shuffle, etc., while operating their instruments. The acknowledgement of these sounds in the chambering space—which Peter Kivy recognises as signifying sonic authenticity (Kivy 1995, p. 48)—may further humanise performers. Ultimately, all of these steps may further dismantle the sense that audiences are on the outside of an imaginary museum. Performances such as those promoted by Sheffield's Music in the Round do well to reconfigure conventional performer/audience physical divisions,<sup>2</sup> as they seat audiences closer to and around performers, provide more spoken introductions than may be usually present in other classical music performances, and broadly adopt a more informal style than other chamber music series. Lucy Dearn and Stephanie Pitts, who have extensively researched this

<sup>2</sup> For more information about current activities by Music in the Round, see: https://www. musicintheround.co.uk (accessed on 21 September 2021).

initiative, note that "these features have been reported by regular [Music in the Round] audience members to contribute to feelings of accessibility and inclusivity, building audience community through familiarity with the performers and the opportunity to watch other audience members as they listen" (Dearn and Pitts 2017, p. 47). However, these features could be applied to an even greater extent.

#### *4.2. Repositioning Repertoire*

Placing performers and audiences in such close proximity and as equally agentic participants has a further impact on the ontological nature of performance. Rather than performers striving to precisely articulate a *Werktreue* ideal, practised and honed for audience consumption, chambering music would encourage performers and audiences to more openly explore chamber repertoire together. This would shift performances again from presentational towards participatory modes, with repertoire becoming less "a set item [or] and art object" towards "a set of resources, like the rules and stock moves of a game refashioned anew during each performance" (Turino 2008, p. 54). Divisions between rehearsals and performances blur, in this instance, allowing repertoire to be explored by performers in conversation with audiences.

From another perspective, however, the relationship among performer, audience, and repertoire may become more of a continuous narrative than a one-off event. Developing such a relationship with a work may involve revisiting it repeatedly, exploring and playing with it, breaking it and mending it. Performers are familiar with this through the process of rehearsal, although there may be varying degrees of perceived authority to not just play, but play *with* a piece and explore potentially radical interpretations of it.<sup>3</sup> Audiences may develop similar relationships with repertoire through repeated listening, although again, the degree of agency in these relationships may be limited. Through chambering, both parties may be able to play with the intricacies of pieces, *living* the music within a shared experience. Repertoire thus becomes the material that prompts the joint exploration of sound. Chambering is less about recreating a work to a particular standard, but more about using works as opportunities to explore, grow, and live with other musicking people. In a way, this is similar to gamification, the process of "using game design elements in non-game contexts to motivate and increase user activity and retention" (Deterding et al. 2011, p. 9), where non-playing and playing participants are playing non-competitively together. By extension, chambering music side-steps the notion of a canon of chamber repertoire in favour of localised canons. These canons may

<sup>3</sup> Performers' interpretations of a piece may be impacted by a number of factors, not the least of which is their perceived role in relation to their conception of "the work". More conservative interpretations may result from a presumed obligation to adhere to a *Werktreue* ideal—a musical worldview that perceives performers as those articulating rather than creating works.

not arise through wider historical importance or greatness (Desler 2013, p. 387), but rather through shared experience of pieces together.

#### *4.3. Chambering in Practice*

The following imagined narrative may provide insight into how chambering music may look in practice. This is certainly not intended to be prescriptive, but is offered as an illustration of how chamber musicking and chamber repertoire may be repositioned to allow for more broad participation and engagement.

The session begins as it always does: with a round of coffee and general conversation. The brass quintet and five audience collaborators are well-acquainted with each other, and have been playing together in various combinations on and off over the last year. Today they're meeting in a smaller rehearsal space that would only fit a few more people than those already present. After catching up about their families and day-to-day lives, a handful of people start flipping through sheet music on an iPad. One person suggests a piece to warm up with, something to help the whole group centre their listening and breathing. They decide on *The Webster Cycles*, by Steve Peters (1981), a semi-improvisatory piece structured around all the words in Webster's Dictionary that can be spelt with A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. This has become a personal favourite of the chambering group, as it not only helps the brass players warm up their instruments and bodies, but also slows the whole group's breathing and clears away thoughts of busy lives and to-do lists. People are seated throughout the space, with some audience collaborators in-between performers and some at the fringes of the group, situating themselves where they prefer the resonance in the space. After the piece finishes, someone remarks that there ended up being some notable gaps between phrases in this play-through, prompting the trumpet players to joke about how they ended up synching more than they intended. The horn player points out how much they find the longer words such as CABBAGE or DEFACED fun to play, simply because there are so many options for interpreting those sequences of notes—a comment echoed by an audience collaborator, who likes being surprised by different interpretations of phrases. Another person comments that they always like finding a place to sit at a particular spot between the tenor and bass trombonists, as they can feel the resonance in their chest particularly well.

Having settled into the space, the group discusses what to play next. The bass trombonist has recently acquired a copy of Joan Tower's (2006) *Copperwave* upon the recommendation of a friend, and suggests that as an option. The group agrees, so they all start looking through the parts. The brass players start unpacking their various mutes, and the audience collaborators comment on the performance instructions and ask about some of the techniques required. Scanning through the sheet music, people point out areas that might be a bit more complicated to put together. The environment feels part open rehearsal, part workshop, with everyone

sharing their initial thoughts on the music. Reading through an online review, an audience collaborator flags up how much the piece is influenced by Latin music, sparking a moment of understanding in one of the trumpet players working on deciphering a particularly tricky rhythm. After identifying the main sections in the piece, the group decide to tackle them in order, agreeing to pause at the trumpet cadenza. They establish a conservative tempo amongst themselves, then count in. As the players launch into the piece, the audience collaborators stay focused—some tap their feet and groove along, some watch the notation go by, and some close their eyes and focus on listening. The play-through is not polished; in fact, some sections slip slightly out of the grasp of the players. Errors are not received with derision or shock, but instead treated as elements of risk and edge-of-the-seat tension. The pleasure that comes from attempting tricky technical gymnastics within an instrumental part is shared with the audience collaborators, and at times, players and audience alike laugh at successfully navigating complicated phrases. Once the group reaches the trumpet cadenza, everyone relaxes, and conversation begins again. After some immediate conversation around particular parts, the floor opens up, and people discuss what they found most exciting, interesting, or challenging. Even though technical details are mentioned—tricky rhythms to align, chords that could be tuned more quickly, or dynamics which went by unnoticed—the discussion is as much about the joy of encountering this new music together as it is about highlighting things to try differently in subsequent playing. Before launching into the next run-through of this section, everyone has an opportunity to discuss their experience. One person tells a story about how this piece reminds him of his favourite salsa band, and the rest of the group chuckles at how seemingly everything leads back to this band for him. The group continues through the piece, taking the time to learn it together. Audience collaborators' input is valued by the performers, who use that to inform how they interpret their parts and pull the piece together overall. Having read through each section, the quintet plays through the whole piece. Some players comment on how much trickier some sections are when buried in a much longer play-through, some collaborators remark on how well the themes of the piece link together when heard back-to-back, and all agree that this is a piece they would like to return to again.

As the session nears its end, the group decide to return to a piece they worked on several sessions prior—an arrangement of Debussy's (1910) *La fille aux cheveux de lin*. The players and collaborators had explored a number of the different recordings of arrangements available in the time since that session, and started off by discussing what they particularly liked about each. Working through the piece, the group jotted down notes about how they might shape their specific interpretation—stretching time slightly more in some places and speeding it up in others. The brass players discussed some of the practicalities of these decisions, with the bass trombonist

flagging up how at times their breathing patterns may have to change at different tempi, and a trumpet player pointing out how lingering on a high note would be lovely, but optimistic, this far into the session. When the main decisions are sorted, the conversation settles, and the group begins to play. This is a piece they all know well, and both players and collaborators inhabit the performance as they would a well-loved piece of clothing.

#### **5. Conclusions**

Marginal, impractical, yet prestigious: Botstein's description of chamber music captures three possible reasons why its intimacy has been limited. At present, the social sphere within which intimate relationships occur through chamber musicking and chamber repertoire only encloses the performers and the work being performed. When audiences encounter chamber music through performances or recordings, they may observe intimate relationships being played out, but their participation is somewhat limited—their role is dictated within "a functionally organised, alienating society" (Zink 2019, p. 297). This is not to say that audiences do not impact a concert's atmosphere or performers' actions, but that the degree of agency audiences have is significantly less than that of performers, and thus, they are not fully participating in the potential affective community. Audiences may have a window into narratives "about something shared, [stories] about both oneself and others" (Berlant 1998, p. 281), but they are excluded. Ultimately, this kind of power imbalance between participants may result in chamber music being perceived as being "at odds with the contemporary age" (Griffiths 2003, p. 11), where its prestige is wrapped up in a "now archaic link with the upper classes and connoisseurship" (Levy 1987, p. 14).

Underpinning the surface-level features of chamber music are two recurrent themes: the centrality of intimate relationships and the efficiency of musical resources. These themes become more evident if chamber musicking and chamber repertoire are not considered to be two parts of an ontological duality, but rather two parties in dialogue with each other. The liveness of this back-and-forth between activity and object can be framed as a verb: "to chamber" music is to approach musicking in a manner which is motivated by the creation of affective communities, which elicit "an implicit sense of commonality and immediateness" (Zink 2019, p. 289). Principally, such an endeavour entails flattening social hierarchies among composers, performers, and audiences; limiting the numbers of participants; and repositioning repertoire as the prompt for activity rather than the ideal goal. From this perspective, chambering music in the 21st century involves a potentially wider array of practices than would normally be considered chamber music in its most traditional sense. Chamber music, the noun, is enriched by chambering, the verb. To chamber music is to create a recurring, sustainable creative space that centres around personal, human relationships between all parties, where all people contribute to the shared

experiences. Centring chamber music around the creation and maintenance of intimate relationships could address chamber music's potential marginality within the 21st century.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** This chapter has come about through the encouragement and support of many friends and colleagues. Mine Do˘gantan-Dack has been a patient sounding board through the entire writing process, and I could not have asked for a better editor. Mark Hutchinson provided invaluable feedback in the early stages of writing and was the first person to help articulate what it meant "to chamber" music. My colleagues at York St. John University, namely Catherine Birch, Morag Galloway, Sarah-Jane Gibson, Lee Higgins, David Lancaster, Emily Rowan, and Rob Wilsmore, continuously provided a creative environment within which to develop my ideas. As always, Clare and Kenai supported me in all of my work, and I am lucky to come home to them.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


Debussy, Claude. 1910. *La Fille aux Cheveux de Lin*. Munich: G. Henle Verlag.


Kivy, Peter. 1995. *Authenticities*. Cornell: Cornell University Press.


© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
