Social Media in Library 2.0

An exploration of social media in libraries

A Symphony as Collaboration (?)

with 5 comments

In this week’s module on collaboration, we were given the YouTube Symphony Orchestra as an example of collaboration. There has been some discussion about whether or not a symphony is actually a collaboration, or whether it is a coordination or cooperation (while the terms are similar, they are not synonymous). I’m going to use the principles and definitions found on Meta Collab to examine this a bit further. I’ve put the criteria into a matrix: the squares highlighted in purple are the criteria that I feel are most exemplary of a symphony performance.

Collaboration matrix

Collaboration matrix - Click for a larger view

 

1. Purpose

This one is a no-brainer. The individual members of the symphony couldn’t possibly perform the musical work the same way they can as a unit. Even if one musician were able to record all parts of the work and piece them together, the end result would not have benefited from the multitude of perspectives, skills, and expertise that other musicians bring.

2. Preconditions for success

The conditions for a coordination might be sufficient for a group of people to make it through a performance, but for a performance to be truly successful and rewarding, it needs to be dynamic and have a sense of urgency. Open communication (interpreting gestures from the conductor and other musicians, listening to the other players, reading the score and interpreting the composer’s markings, etc.) is an absolute necessity.

3. Enablers

Enablers are the criteria that aren’t necessary, but are nice to have. Here again, the criteria for a cooperation would suffice, but the criteria for collaboration will ensure a much better result.

4. Degree of interdependence and need for co-location of participants

As the YouTube Symphony has shown us, co-location in a physical sense is no longer a necessity for a successful symphony performance. However, the degree of interdependence is still substantial. I once sang in a choir in which we were told not to “poison the well.” If one member of the group doesn’t know his/her part, or has a negative attitude, it has an negative impact on the rest of the group. It’s a chain-as-strong-as-its-weakest-link kind of scenario.

5. Degree of individual latitude

This criterion is variable. It depends on the individual musician and his/her role within the group. A soloist has a great deal of latitude, as does the conductor; the concert master has a fair bit of latitude; someone who plays second violin would have considerably less individual latitude. It depends on the size of the section and of the overall group: the more people playing the same part, the less latitude those players have. It also depends on the genre of music, the era in which it was written, and the composer (some composers were much pickier about following score markings than others).

6. Desired outcome

One might not think that “savings in time and cost” applies to a symphony performance, but their unions are surprisingly strict about rehearsal time and compensation. In the case of a professional symphony, it’s very important to stick to rehearsal times and to work efficiently. The main goals of an extraordinary performance, and the “we did that!” feeling (and the audience’s “I can’t believe they did that!” reaction) are what every musical performance strives for.

 

To summarize, I agree with my classmates who say that a performance can be a simple coordination or cooperation. But I believe that a great performance, and what every musician strives for, is a true collaboration. What do you think?

I’ll leave you with another YouTube musical collaboration, Eric Whitacre‘s Virtual Choir singing Sleep. Here’s a link to his Ted Talks video, in which he explains the making of, and inspiration for, the video.

Written by Jessica Gillis

July 27th, 2011 at 3:37 pm

5 Responses to 'A Symphony as Collaboration (?)'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'A Symphony as Collaboration (?)'.

  1. This module on collaboration has truly opened me personally to the possibilities of positive virtual collaboration. There have been some exceptional examples posted on the discussion board and in blogs. Your whitacre example was a transformative experience for me.

    Your comments about open communication resonated with me. I think it is important that cues, hints, signals and such be noticed and acted upon for virtual collaboration to be successful.

    Elizabeth Graboski

    29 Jul 11 at 08:58

  2. […] Jessica Foshaug A Symphony as Collaboration (?)  – Module III […]

  3. Lovely! The collaboration matrix is extremely useful. I really like how you managed to put together the differences between the concepts so succinctly. A fantastic music performance requires performers to listen to each other and trust that everyone is doing what they are supposed to do, the correct note, the correct time. In collaboration, there is a huge amount of individual autonomy – each person is responsible for delivering each or her part to the highest possible standard.

    librarianincognita

    29 Jul 11 at 13:36

  4. Jess, you make some great points about collaboration and orchestras. I thought your discussion about interdependence was especially relevant, not just to your topic, but to any sort of collaboration. Negative attitudes and poor work don’t just affect the quality of individual group members’ contributions; they disrupt the dynamic and mood of the entire group, affecting all the work that is produced. Your discussion around this point is a great example of how collaborations are much more than the sum of their parts.

    Seanna

    30 Jul 11 at 20:37

  5. Thanks for the matrix. I found it very useful!

    lynnpyke

    31 Jul 11 at 19:07

Leave a Reply

Spam prevention powered by Akismet