The Feva 2017 performance presented as a critical incident since it was a predetermined output that supported the establishment of a participant-initiated band, and in doing so offers a more nuanced consideration of process and product in community music practice. Historically, process and product have been considered as dichotomous in community music. Whereby process, understood as relationship and interaction through music-making, has been emphasised as the focus of the work, as opposed to product, such as resulting performances or recordings. For discussion see for example Renshaw, 2005; Rimmer, 2009; Paton, 2011. In my professional practice, I previously resonated with this and was often frustrated by projects that had performance outputs requested in advance of the work by external agencies, especially those with a short timespan to create, and a large group. This often brought about situations in which community musicians (and I as a community musician) reverted to making music for participants. Reflecting soon after the group’s Feva 2017 performance, the event stood out initially as a critical incident because it challenged my problematizing of products determined in advance of projects. It highlighted that performance outputs (particularly those of high-profile) scheduled before any music-making begins, does not automatically equate to problematic practice if they are offered as an opportunity rather than expected outcome. For The Burnholme Bossa Nova Band a performance goal was set before the band formed. This offered an opening; a chance for Bob to pursue his enthusiasm for genres different to those offered at weekly Musication sessions, and desire to play in a group instead of independent songwriting. Through the framework of a Tang Hall SMART musician showcase, set by the organisation’s director Sue Williamson – what was to be performed, who would perform, and if there were to be any performance at all, was determined in negotiation with Musication participants.  

​

    With further reflection, the greatest significance of this critical incident is indication of an intertwining between process and product. My moving from process or product, towards process and product is not a straightforward ambition for ‘excellence’ for both, but rather a raising of the question; what are to be considered as processes and products in community music practice? And how does this differ from other music practices? The Burnholme Bossa Nova Band’s performance at Feva 2017 for example, was at once a product (in conventional music terms as a gig for a festival audience), and a process (a confidence building experience that brought together individuals to jointly pursue their music-making as a band). Through the course of time products can be conceived as process, and perhaps vice versa, but I suggest an intertwining of process and product exceeds this, and speaks to the 'foundational principles' of community music (Higgins & Willingham, 2017). Social relationships and interaction afforded through music-making (and from this possibilities for individual and group empowerment and transformation), might be at once process and product in community music practice. Perhaps then, it is a focus on producing at the expense of recognising the relational as a 'product' on its own terms that is problematic. And, this may inadvertently be perpetuated by calls for excellence of both process and product - both social and musical excellence - because this continues to conceive of both separately. 

​