Weaving Connective Threads: Doctors in Performance 2025 Reflections

28.11.2025 0 Like 0 kommenttia

Doctoral researcher Jussi Reijonen reflects on his experiences of the Doctors in Performance conference, organised in Helsinki in September 2025

On September 4^th 2025, I gave a presentation titled Weaving Connective Threads: Musical Narrative as an Integrative Device in Transcultural Instrumental Composition at the Doctors in Performance (DIP) Festival Conference at Musiikkitalo, Helsinki.

My praxis as composer, improviser and performer on fretted/fretless guitars and Arabic ‘ud reflects formative life phases spent absorbing a variety of cultural and aesthetic influences: I was born in northern Finland, grew up in Finland, Jordan, Tanzania, Oman and Lebanon, and later spent much of my adult life studying and apprenticing as a musician in the United States. As a result, my ongoing practice-based doctoral research at Sibelius Academy, University of the Arts Helsinki looks to find practical methodologies through which a composer and improviser can create coherent musical form that draws its influences and materials from aesthetically diverse sources.

As I prepared for my presentation, it took me quite some time to find my way back to my presentation topic since over the preceding summer months I had been working on other aspects of my research. Having to condense my first article-draft-in-progress with its many concepts into a relatively short time that would also allow me to play an 7-and-a-half-minute original piece was quite a challenge, but I felt reasonably happy with how it went, especially considering this was my first time attempting such a presentation.

In an earlier conference presentation that I had given at the International Society of Jazz Arrangers and Composers (ISJAC) Symposium at Vanderbilt Blair School of Music, Nashville, TN, USA in 2024, because I was addressing a room of composers and arrangers, my focus had been on the compositional, arranging and orchestration techniques I employ in my work. At DIP2025, I was for the first time presenting a more theoretical-conceptual idea, so in my introduction, I encouraged those present to take part in the conversation and to freely poke holes in my arguments wherever they might find them: I wanted to stress test my thesis in public and expose any blind spots I might have overlooked.

In my presentation I suggested that the mechanics of musical narrative as outlined by Byron Almén (2008) and Vera Micznik (2001) could provide a potential framing and point of departure for a practical transcultural compositional methodology. After outlining my conceptual and theoretical thinking, as proof of concept, so to speak, I presented the opening movement, “The Veil”, from my 5-part suite for nonet Three Seconds | Kolme Toista, which weaves together influences of Levantine and khaliji Arabic art and folk music, American jazz, and European and American art and popular music.

At the same time as I was relieved and grateful for such a warm reception from the audience, and the encouraging feedback from my peers and supervisor in later private conversations, I confess to being surprised at how few critical comments there were in the discussion portion after my presentation. Of course, I could not know in advance what the response might be, but I suppose I was expecting an atmosphere of more lively debate; given my relative inexperience, I doubt I could have been quite that convincing in my presentation, and I really was hoping for solid critique of my ideas.

Interestingly, one person of high academic position at another institution who was in attendance told me the next morning that while she had been quite taken by my presentation, people “in the back row”, as she said, had been very skeptical and in strong disagreement. I would have loved to hear and discuss their thoughts with them: what if I had indeed missed something, or was completely off the mark? Given that no one had said anything, I found myself wondering if this was just good conference etiquette that I wasn’t aware of, or if we were collectively acting too polite in a climate of silent courtesy where disagreements aren’t voiced as eagerly so as to avoid differences of opinion to be taken ad hominem? If we are, in doing so, might we not begin to risk compromising the substance and depth of artistic and/or practice-based research and all the critical discussions that must be had?

Be that as it may, on the flipside of the coin, the spirit and energy at DIP2025 was very positive and collegial, which I truly appreciated. I was able to meet new people and grow my network, learned from the other presentations I was able to attend, was exposed to many new ideas, and also saw how differently different scholars approach their presentations. I was – and am – grateful to have been invited; the presentation was a great opportunity to finetune how I could share my thinking and findings so far in front of an audience of more experienced scholars and researchers. Let’s just all keep the critical conversation going – also daring to challenge each other in public – so we can cultivate a culture of healthy, respectful debate and help each other go deeper.

Text: Jussi Reijonen, Doctoral researcher at the Sibelius Academy, Uniarts Helsinki