The goal of this text is to provide a broad overview of the concept of frameworks.
Frameworks are a way to conceptualize what constraints and degrees of freedom we have in our action and experience. We will see how they apply in different modes of artistic action.
Within this text definitions are presented prior to examples. Yet, there is no particular reason to follow this order. Feel free to jump around at any time, especially if you feel confused with details or abstraction. Understanding comes from seeing the connection between both generalities and specifics. I invite you to contemplate the concept by yourself and see how it applies to your world.
Characteristics of all frameworks
1) A framework is a conceptualization of possibility. Frameworking is a process of the mind’s drive to find coherence within changing phenomena. Frameworks exist only as concepts, as a simplification or a schematization of the actual instances that exhibit force. They are things of the mind. A framework is a set of generalities that enables new dimensions of specificity. It tells us what is rigid and what is fluid.
2) Frameworks are not present in stasis, but only within processes. This is because in perfect absolute stasis, there is no causality. Nothing can happen, there is no possibility, there is only actuality.
3) Frameworks themselves can be fluid or rigid. They all apply only for a period of time. If they would apply eternally that again would lead to stasis. They themselves can change over time. Their change can follow a meta-framework.
4) A framework is not identical with the thing it frames. In fact a specific framework is only one of many options of conceptualization. Any specific process can be framed by a great number of different frameworks. This is crucial, for when this factor is overlooked, it leads to meta-rigidity and to blindspots (see below).
5) That is why frameworks are not present on an objective level, they always apply to one’s subjective conceptualization. Even the frameworks that seem extremely objective (e.g. the law of gravity) only apply subjectively. (An indigenous Amazon tribe doesn't use the law of gravity as a framework. One could argue that their bodies still behave according to the law of gravity. The crucial point here is that the law of gravity cannot be observed directly. What is being observed is just the phenomena that the Western scientific worldview interprets as following the framework of the law of gravity.)
6) A framework is not a rule, a position or a point of view. All of those deal with the question of "What is right?". A framework is concerned with the question of "What is possible?" or "What can change in what way?". But a framework can spawn a point of view if it becomes too rigid. For the same reason, a framework is not just a model or a representation, it is a set of possibilities.
7) A framework is not a structure. Structures are concerned with the question of "What is there?". Frameworks are concerned with the question of "What can become?"
8) A framework is characterized by its frames of constraints and the degrees of freedom that it offers. A direction that demands a more rigid change we call a constraint, a direction that allows for a more fluid change, we call a degree of freedom. Constraints and degrees of freedom are mutually dependent. This dependence is seldom inverse (the most constraints offering the least freedom), but most of the time constraints open up new degrees of freedom and vice versa.
Degrees of freedom and constraints within frameworks
Freedom and constraint within frameworks can only be balanced, not achieved.
Here is an analogy from geometry. Think of a square on an infinite canvas and the process of drawing a dot. You have quite a few degrees of freedom here. For instance you can draw the dot inside of the square, outside of the square, on its edge or its corner etc. If you only have one line there are no corners and there is no inside and no outside. So you have fewer degrees of freedom because you have less constraints. If you only have an infinite canvas you can put your dot wherever you want, but it makes no difference because all space is identical. The only degree of freedom you have left now, is time. (We can‘t remove that because that would lead to absolute stasis.) In fact, the fact that time is your only degree of freedom, can be very liberating, because you can put all of your focus into the temporal dimension; when you are drawing your dot and how much time that takes. Not that this freedom wasn‘t there in the first place. But you had to divert your attention from the location of the drawing to timing of the drawing. That placed a constraint on your action, the change was less fluid.
Fluidity and Rigidity of Meta-Frameworks
Frameworks themselves are subject to change. That change happens according to a meta-framework. That means that a framework itself can have a certain meta-fluidity or meta-rigidity to it. This has a couple of possible consequences:
Blindspots can emerge when we consider things to be much simpler than they really are. Oftentimes, this is the result of a confusion between the framework that we hold to operate with and actuality. When we operate under a blindspot, we try to squeeze all the complexity of the world through the crudeness of our minds’ concepts. In order to do that, you need to create a blindspot for a great deal of intricacies, that would otherwise render your view obsolete. Having a single framework like that, one that doesn't need to change once again leads to stasis. Therefore, no framework can account for all the complexity that is there. Yet it can account for a small amount of specificity and that can be practical.
Blindspots in action are also called “ideology”. The conservative ideology accounts for the fact that we run into problems when too many changes happen too rapidly. But in order to be able to cling to that, the ideologues have to create blindspots for all the problems that arise by holding onto obsolete ideas. If their framework would be free of these blindspots and all the problems created by the ideology were apparent they would be unable to sustain it.
The question that arises is: How can we deal with the intricacies of the world without getting stuck? The answer is to hold none of our frameworks too dearly and to readily abandon them, when they cease to be useful.
The notion of "errors":
An "error" is something that doesn't fit in our current framework. Emotional attachment to a framework leads to the feeling of being wrong. The Western world is very persistent on the notion of errors, but in fact an error is merely something changing in an unexpected way. There is nothing existentially right or wrong about a certain change.
PT2: Frameworks within different artistic contexts
This section is a collection of concise case studies and examples of musical work that explores different implications of the notion of frameworks. The collection is quite comprehensive, aiming towards a certain depth of understanding.
Find the hyperlinks to all the mentioned artists’ works in the list of references and give them a listen. See, if you can observe the mechanics of frameworks within these works by yourself.
As we observed earlier, the notion of frameworks applies only to processes. It collapses as we approach stasis. I want to point that out explicitly by using the present participle suffix "-ing" with all the aspects of musical action that I will further develop. This linguistic choice is inspired by the term "Musicking", coined by Christopher Small, that we will explore in detail in a bit.
Sounding, Listening, Composing, Improvising and Musicking are all processes. In fact, they only really exist as processes and they are interdependent. For instance, the sound of an instrument is only present when we are playing and listening to it. The composition is only present, when we are playing, improvising or composing it. It is neither present in the physical notation of the composition nor is it present in the CD that it may be recorded on. It only comes into existence when we initiate or take part in a process. We will now take a look at how the notion of frameworks applies to these processes.
Frameworks of Sounding
The Sound of an instrument
Every instrument is a certain framework that allows to create only specific sounds.
The sound of an instrument can be a huge treasure house for artistic exploration. You can create an infinite amount of different sounds on a single drum, yet you can't create all sounds on a single drum.
We sometimes even attribute a specific sound to a specific person, if that person has gone far enough in their exploration of sound to find something unique. When you listen to a jazz trio, you technically can't hear the piano on the stage, you hear Cecil Taylor.
A framework can also emerge from the sound of an instrument. For instance, the complex patterns that can emerge from the simple feedback of a mixing console like in Toshimaru Nakamura's No Input Mixing Board Music. He turns a simple static feedback drone into a complex pattern of tones and crackling by introducing more and more complex feedback loops within his patching. That way the framework emerges from the sound itself as it is fed back in the same feedback loop that it was created by.
Sounding as an aspect of composing
Alvin Lucier's "I am sitting in a room" is an example of working with sound by means of an iterative process. It is a beautiful example of what happens to sound when it is reapplied to the same framework of sounding. The sound changes slowly over time, yet the framework of sounding stays the same. It is the framework itself that allows the slow changes to take place with each iteration. This piece is closely related to Steve Reich's process music (more on that below).
Pierre Schaeffer sculpts sonic material into a completely different sound in his musique concrete. By working with spliced tape, he rearranges bits and pieces of recordings into a composition that enables us to hear the original sounds in a way that we normally wouldn't. None of the original sounds change, yet the framework that hosts them changes the way they are sounding.
Frameworks of Listening
Which sounds we consider to be music and which we don't is determined by our frameworks of listening. Pierre Schaeffer and other composers (like the futurists) tried to open our rigid framework of listening by confronting it with music that demands a radically different framework. They wanted to obliterate the difference between music, sound and noise. They created music that challenges us to change the way we listen.
Composer Pauline Olivieros placed the framework of listening at the center of her work with her practice of "deep listening". "Sonic Rorschach" and "Energy Changes" are pieces that hold the change of a framework of listening as their center.
The extremes of listening
I want to point to three different kinds of music that require in some way extreme frameworks of listening.
Noise Music artists like Masami Akita aka Merzbow push the resilience of our capacity to listen to the brink of collapse by working with acoustic overload. Here, the notion of noise doesn't point to randomness, but to carefully constructed sonic landscapes, that surf the edges of different flavours of chaos. Changes are so rapid, that the mind is constantly confronted with its own inability to find structure. When we finally give up to do so, our listening takes a quantum leap and the pure acoustic energy of the music can be enjoyed. But in order to get there, we had to leave behind our habitual frameworks of listening. The way to get there is violent.
Drone Music, for example the early synthesizer works by Eliane Radigue and the music of the band Sunn O))) also demands this kind of non-linear jump. But here, we can observe the principle of deprivation, of sustained sameness, which ties back to the notion of stasis. We already saw that we can't have frameworks within absolute stasis but we can have a framework of stasis as a musical element. Listening to drones sharpens our focus, the ears get attuned to deeper, specific levels of sound (timbre, sonority, dynamics) that great drone artists are known to master.
Lastly, ambient music. In contrast to other kinds of music, ambient music doesn't want to capture our attention. It voluntarily moves to the periphery of our focus and comes back only when we pay attention. It offers us the option of listening. Its framework of listening holds listening itself as non-obligatory. We will have a more detailed discussion about ambient music later, as it also has an interesting framework of musicking.
Frameworks of Composing
Composing is the domain where the notion of frameworks is the most immanent. Composing can be understood as the practice of translating a framework, a conception of possibility in the mind of the composer into sounding. Notation plays a crucial role within this process of translation. It is a medium used to transfer a framework of a (musical) process from the composer to the performer. The music is not the score. And the music is not within the score. Only the framework is. Reading musical notation is understanding the framework that is required for the music to be created. In the second half of the 20th century many composers chose to abandon traditional notation, as it was too limiting for the frameworks they were using. Notation had to adapt.
Entire artistic movements and epochs of composers can be summarized as a single meta-framework of artisting creating, which we call style. To create style, all you have to do is to create a certain consistency within the frameworks of all your compositions. Most of the time style is an emergent property that simply develops out of an artist’s personal desire to spend time with one specific aspect that he likes about his craft. To quote Steve Reich:
"One hardly needs to seek out personality as it can never be avoided."
Let's have a closer look at Steve Reich’s work, as it is one of the most stylistically concrete among the composers of the 20th century, and exemplifies the immanent notion of frameworks. Not being too fond of the term minimal music that is a common label for the work of composers like him, Pilipp Glass and Terry Riley, Reich calls his music process music.
"I am interested in perceptible processes. I want to be able to hear the process throughout the sounding music. The distinctive thing about musical processes is that they determine all the note-to-note (sound-to-sound) details and the overall form simultaneously."
This taps the core of the idea of frameworks. A music in which all changes happen according to a set of predetermined conditions. This is how he defines some of the specifics of the frameworks that he uses within his compositions:
"I am not interested in improvisation and sounding exotic. [...] I am interested in music which works exclusively with gradual changes in time. [...] This music is not the expression of the momentary state of mind of the performers while playing. Rather the momentary state of the performer while playing is largely determined by the ongoing composed slowly changing music. By voluntarily giving up the freedom to do whatever momentarily comes to mind, we are, as a result, free of whatever momentarily comes to mind."
When listening to a piece like "Piano Phase" or "Music for Pieces of Wood", you can observe the process that is happening within the music to such an extent that the underlying framework that Reich used for composing becomes very clear, almost audible, almost perceptible. Reich tells us the reason why he finds this exciting:
"Listening to an extremely gradual musical process opens my ear to it, but it always extends farther that I can hear, and that makes it interesting to listen to that music process again."
With such clever implication of frameworking, Reich's music taps into the very nature of how we as listeners create meaning from our perceptions. It taps into our own process of frameworking.
Frameworks of Improvising
Improvisation can be seen as the practice of exploring the rigidities and fluidities of a framework. The improvisers are testing for the degrees of freedom and the constraints. Improvisation is a natural drive within all of us that ties back to our childlike wonder and the joy we experience in play. We are wired to explore the territory we are in, be it a spatial, an artistic-creative or a conceptual territory. We want to know how things work, how they behave and how they react to our impulses. We gain that knowledge through improvisation.
If we turn this around, it also means that there is at least a bit of improvisation within every human action. This is a crucial point! We never completely and perfectly execute a technique, we are always on the lookout for something new or different. We could also say that every technique is invented from scratch, according to the habitual frameworks that we are used to use in the context we're in. Nothing is ever learned or understood completely.
One might reply, that most people aren't that conscious and explorative in their actions and interactions. This phenomenon ties back to the notion of "errors" that are considered as something that doesn't fit our current framework. In many contexts using a certain technique is supposed to become so habitual that we don't even need to think about it anymore. When we become too emotionally attached to the technique, it happens that any unexpected result of our actions is conceived as being "wrong". Because of this fear of unexpected outcomes, most people tend to suppress their innate drive to explore.
Within improvisation, we can find frameworks that implement clever ways of constraining ourselves in a manner we aren't completely used to. Otherwise, what we call improvisation is mainly our habitual frameworks playing themselves out, which can be desirable in some contexts. Especially in the most rigid frameworks, like the performance of a classical violin piece. But even there some degree of freedom is still left. To perform a classical piece on a professional level, the performer first has to learn the music, the part of the framework that is provided by notation, and then the interpretation, the part of the framework, that is provided by style, historic research or sometimes by the individual or the teacher. Countless times within that process the performers find themselves confronted by the fact that things happened differently than expected (they are confronted by "errors"). By improvising their way through this process, the performers get to a level, where most of the frameworks become habitual. But even at that point, little differences and minutiae that make every performance individual, are accounted for by the fact that the performer is still improvising within a certain very concise framework.
Complete rigidity within frameworks does not exist. It is always balanced with freedom. Likewise, complete freedom also never exists.
An example opposing the classical violinist is the practice of "Free Improvisation". A practice that oftentimes doesn't limit itself to the medium of music, but goes beyond that onto a plane of complete artistic performative action. One might think that going on a stage and doing anything you want is the highest degree of freedom. But every great improviser will tell you, that it's not about doing anything. It's about doing something instead of anything. So, how do we get from anything to something without having decided on that something before stepping on stage?
Something interesting happens, when we confront ourselves with the possibility of doing anything. Sooner or later, we get bored with the randomness that comes from doing anything. Because of that, our inner drive of frameworking becomes our primary mode of action. We attend to what happens and make sense of it in the moment, we react to whatever we find out and see what changes, only to make sense of a new set of circumstances that we (co-)created again. All of this happens rapidly on a highly intuitive level.
Frameworks become an emergent phenomena within this context. A certain consistency that happens to happen can be picked up by the performer. It can get to a point where the performers no longer improvise the performance, but rather the performance improvises the performers.
Another thing, that's unique about improvisation as an artistic mode of action is that the improvisers and the audience share common ground. Neither knows what is going to happen, and they both have to make sense of it in the moment. They both build their frameworks simultaneously. Great improvisers have the ability to improvise in such a way, that their own frameworking and the one of the audience become very similar. Experiencing moments of change together, creates a strong connection between the performers and the audience.
Lastly, I want to point to one particularly interesting example, an Australian trio of improvising musicians called "The Necks". In their live concerts, they do long improvisations, usually a set lasting about one hour or two times 45 minutes. What sets them apart is the fact that they develop their material incredibly slowly. This unusual pace of change confronts the listeners with their own inner desire for something to change. But attending to the music gradually liberates the listener from that desire. "The Necks" turn the notion of free improvisation upside down. Their sets are completely unprepared, so in that sense, anything could happen. But almost nothing does happen. And the musicians and the listeners devote themselves to the few things that do happen. This is an example of a framework of immense freedom and immense constraint at the exact same time.
Frameworks of Musicking
The term musicking was coined by Christopher Small as "taking part, in any capacity, in a musical performance, whether by performing, by listening, by rehearsing or practicing, by providing material for performance (what is called composing), or by dancing. We might at times even extend its meaning to what the person is doing who takes the tickets at the door or the hefty men who shift the piano and the drums or the roadies who set up the instruments and carry out the sound checks or the cleaners who clean up after everyone else has gone. They, too, are all contributing to the nature of the event that is a musical performance." He continues to say, that "The act of musicking establishes in the place where it is happening a set of relationships, and it is in those relationships that the meaning of the act lies. They are to be found not only between those organized sounds which are conventionally thought of as being the stuff of musical meaning but also between the people who are taking part, in whatever capacity, in the performance."
Small wants to point to the fact that the making of the music (how, where and when it happens) has a key role in how the music is perceived. He used the term Musicking mainly to criticize the performance practice of classical music. “The reverence accorded to the composer’s score suggests that it is a sacred object, which is not to be tampered with, whose authority over the actions of all the musicians playing here tonight is absolute, which commands absolute stillness and silence from those devotees who have assembled to hear it performed. [...] In a word, a concert hall is a place where middle-class white people can feel safe together.”
This term should be used to criticize the performance practice of any music, especially of avant-garde music. (The very idea that something is avant-garde is a framework. Whenever you think that you are coming up with something radically new and unique, you ignore that all of your creations are the sole product of all the things you were exposed to and that influenced you consciously or subconsciously. You did not come up with a single new thing. You yourself only acted as a framework for ideas to be reprocessed.) Many avant-garde artists try to create new structures only within their actual art. But they seldom go beyond their medium and take into account the structures of musicking (or art-ing) that they are operating in. How frustrating for them can be the fact that their music is received by an audience, filled with expectations, their way of listening conditioned by the music that is usually musicked within the framework of music that the artists are (often thoughtlessly) working within.
Small’s view is heavily influenced by the practice of ethnic music, where art is not conceived as something distinctly separate from life. In contrast to how Western culture works, ethnic culture does not know concerts, exhibitions or fashion shows - all of that is seamlessly framed within their way of life. In the typical western life, art is marginalized by the ones that do not produce it or that are not dearly interested in it. It is rarely a part of our collective identity.
Small’s view strongly suggests that a concert is only one of many different frameworks of musicking. Other possible frameworks could be: listening to radio broadcast, music on demand, movie scores or telephone ringtones. His view also suggests that the concert as a framework of musicking could have a very different set of restraints and degrees of freedom. Some other frameworks that we are not so accustomed to are: the ritual, the festival, therapeutic usage or the ambience. Thinking about frameworks of music, we are not concerned with music specifically, but with what the music does to individuals and collectives.
Randall McClellen in his book "Music as a healing force" suggests that music was historically used as a tool for therapeutic purposes and healing in virtually all cultures, before the Roman Catholic Church started to monopolize on music by claiming that its only purpose is to praise god. He entertains the radical idea, "[...] that the main stream of music is embodied in the music of the non-Western world. Not in terms of style (although there might be commonalities), but in terms of philosophy and intent. Western music once shared this philosophy but has been diverted in the last 700 years of development into an interesting and unique side stream. This development, whose roots lie in the Medieval period, has come to an end and Western music is about to reenter the main stream of world music."
The philosophy and intent of mainstream non-Western music according to him is therapeutic. In a therapeutic setting the framework of musicking is one in which the music serves a specific purpose, namely to ease a pain, soothing the recipient, to help uncover and recontextualize psychological dynamics and to benefit relationships between the listeners. This contrasts completely the framework of musicking of a concert, where the condition of the listener is seldomly taken into account.
The ritual is also a framework of musicking that uses music as a tool for a specific purpose, here being the expression of a devotion to an entity, reinforcing an intent or the expansion of consciousness. The Danish-German-Norwegian band Heilung (ger. "Heilung" for healing) implement this ritual framework in their shows. They reproduce music from the European Iron age, using texts found on original artifacts of that time that are written in a variety of languages such as Old High German, Proto-Norse, Proto-Germanic and Old Norse. They wear authentic Celtic robes, bones, fur and warpaint, and only use instruments that people used in the Iron age, such as drums, rattles, bones, shields, spears and voices. Their shows usually start with the band lighting incense and stating their intention with a vow to nature. It seems more strange that there are cables and microphones on stage, than it would seem if there was a firepit and trees. You can believe that they are about to wage war upon the Romans. They call it amplified history and provide an experience that transports the listener somewhere else, they make you travel with them in their shamanic trance facilitated by music. That's the strength of ritualistic musicking.
To quote the artist Alex Grey:
"Festival culture wages peace in the world by creating a temporary zone of planetary civilization based on art, music and love!"
Festivals are immersive experiences. We temporarily enter a way of living and we do that voluntarily because we want to dedicate our time towards enjoying art, music and community. We voluntarily set aside our day-to-day habits and open ourselves to immediate and spontaneous experiences. We enter a framework of musicking (or art-ing) in which the music and art is our primary focus. We put our own effort into the experience. We make time in our schedule, we travel, we pack our camping equipment or book a room. We bring our friends but at the same time are open to meeting new ones. The framework of the festival leaves way more room for participation and interaction, and it holds potential to really be transformed by the music and art there. Yet it also demands that we put in a whole chunk of our life and that we open ourselves up to the experience.
The idea of ambient music, pioneered by the french composer Eric Satie places the music within the framework of non-exposition. His Gymnopédies fade into the background of the listeners’ awareness. The music becomes a part of the listeners’ surroundings, like pieces of furniture (fr. gymnopédie means furniture). 90 years later, Brian Eno coined the term ambient music, after being hospitalized,listening to baroque music with the volume turned so low, that he had trouble picking out the music against the sound of the rain.
Example: "FW2 (Zwischenzeit)"
I will now break down my composition "Zwischenzeit" using frameworks. Recordings and scores can be accessed using the link in the reference section.
The German term "Zwischenzeit" loosely translates as "meantime" like in: "Jerry goes for a walk. In the meantime, Jenny is preparing dinner." It refers to a chunk of spacetime that happens but is not experienced.
Structurally, the piece consists of a simple intro and outro and two similar main parts. The score is meant to be interpreted in a lead sheet manner. Solos are omitted to make room for the collective creation of a peaceful, stable yet alive atmosphere.
To supplement the sheet music, I often give the following instruction to the musicians I work with: "Imagine your favourite place from childhood. Now imagine how it feels right now, while you yourself are absent?"
The piece captures the imaginary peacefulness of a place that is experienced without the experiencer being present. How do we experience when we leave everything that we are behind?
Framework of composing
The piece is in some way quite programmatic. But not classically programmatic like the rippling of the stream and the waters of the ocean you hear in Smetana's Moldau. It's programmatic in the sense that a certain flavour of experience is transported by the musicians being in that process of experiencing.
The composition and playing instructions therefore act as a framework for transducing that kind of consciousness to the audience. All compositional parameters were intuitively chosen to support that. All notes are given but no dynamic descriptors. The intro is an open amount of fermatas, ringing like a meditation bell. The count-in is played on cymbal and therefore part of the music.
Framework of improvising
Most importantly though, the dramaturgy of the piece is intuitively created or rather the framework of composition supports the dramaturgy to play itself out.
The musicians move into a space of effortless action, nothing needs to happen. Everything just is. But the piece is not about stoic repetition. There are many degrees of freedom to be explored (like dynamics, timbre, phrasing ...).
I found that while working on this piece with musicians, specific step-by-step style instructions tend to constrain, whereas more metaphorical ones like the above-mentioned reference to the favourite place from childhood bring them into a more open dynamic space.
Dramaturgy then is a democratically emerging phenomenon as a result of careful frameworking.
We saw that sounding, listening, composing, improvising and musicking all play into each other since all these domains share some common ground. Artists have to take this into account. Frameworking is a clever way to do this because it makes use of the fact that all these domains deal with change. Fully acknowledging that fact can lead to a very holistic artistic practice. This kind of holistic artists no longer work only with specifics (instruments, paint brushes or text). They work with change.
PT3: Practical question and considerations for working with frameworks
This section offers a set of questions and considerations on how to work with frameworks.
Frameworks are already present in every work (even every action), even if we are not aware of them yet. These following questions are guiding marks that can be of help to us, when we want to get unstuck within our creative processes or life in general.
"What framework am I constantly using, without thinking about it?"
"Is the framework I am using the only possible one?"
"How can I produce a similar result with a totally different framework? How does the framework have to be constituted to produce that result?"
"Would it aid my desired result to employ more, less or different degrees of freedom within my framework?"
"Would it aid my desired result to employ more, less or different constraints within my framework?"
"Which degrees of freedom are present in my framework, that I don't take full advantage of? What restraints are present in my framework that impede on my action without me being conscious about them?"
"Where do we start? Where do we end? How do we get from A to B? How do we get from A to Z? What is the most high level view we can take?"
"Which frameworks apply in your specific medium of art? Which frameworks apply in a medium of art that is different from yours? How can you transfer that framework into my medium?"
"What would I have to change about my framework to produce something unexpected every time?"
References & Links
Reich, Steve (2002). Writings on Music, 1965–2000. New York: Oxford University Press.
Small, Christopher (1998). Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Hanover: University Press of New England.
McClellen, Randall (2000). The Healing Forces of Music: History, Theory, and Practice. Rochester: iUniverse Publishing
To access score and recordings of "FW2 (Zwischenzeit)" visit: http://heptagon.network/tim
(All above hyperlinks can also be found there, in case you read the print version of this article.)
Dré A. Hočevar
Urednica in kuratorka:
Tisa Neža Herlec