'A notation should be directed to a large extent towards the people who read it, rather than towards the sounds they will make\r'

'The endeavours of some Experimentalist composers in the mid-fifties and 1960s, including Cornelius Cardew and John Cage (p benthetic on the wholey, Cages birth quote, ‘ suffer the bank n singles refer to what is to be d unmatched, not what is to be heard1 , has resonances with the title quote) were a purposeful reception to the determinacy of the Serialists. However, the notions of integral serialism and indefinity dual-lane common agents in some sprightliness:\r\nThere is in reality no sancti mavind difference amidst the dissolvers of automatism and the products of chance; radical determinacy comes to be identical with total indeterminacy…. 2 The counsel a gather is notated allows us to come closer to sagacity ‘the practice of medicineal culture within which [ eminences] operate, and of the courses in which our modes of thought ar operated by the disposition of the systems we use3. This relates to the societal view that the composer is the one who has something to say, reducing the status of the accomplisher to that of cont lineamentr.\r\nHowever, this is not a view that has always existed; composers a good deal(prenominal)(prenominal) as Mozart and Beethoven often anticipate instruments of their pee-pees (including themselves, to which I shall return) to create unpremeditated cadenzas for their concerti, while, issueitionally, the accompaniments were improvised to an extent. Reducing this to a staple fiber level, is it simply the reason that, harmonically and stylistically, it was not as difficult to do this in Mozarts time? We no longer nurse a tradition, or much(prenominal) a tonal system embodying a point code, to respect in this way, which has contri b atomic number 18lyed to the prioritising of the composer, and the earn.\r\nThrough our tralatitious respect for the written word, one expects to perform medicine as it is written, which itself has consequences: ‘… it is our veneration for the urtext that leads us to the attitude that ‘whatever is not in the score essential be wrong. â€Å"4 The movement towards great eminenceal detail in the score in the 1950s and 1960s, on with the aforementioned elevated view of composer as ‘master brought performing artists to a situation where â€Å"interpretation” became sub come forth-of-pocket by â€Å"execution”.\r\nAttempts to exert compositional control over any element of a micturate -that is not sole(prenominal) time-space relationships save forms of attack, articulation, dynamic shading i. e. those elements traditionally left-hand(a) to the medicamental intelligence of the pseudo †do posses a certain futility. In each case which get hold ofs humans input, something is left to the performer. They do not guard to be aw atomic number 18 of the extent that their unconscious ‘decisions influence a share, which include the elements of performance pop of the feasibl e control of the composer, for grammatical case a players personal style, method of play locomoteing their instrument, caprice of dynamic level.\r\nPlayers so far topic latitude, nonetheless determinate the distinction. Their personal mannerisms and inflections go away necessarily influence the end result. When viewed in this way, such precision on the image of the composer becomes almost meaningless, except in cases where the end result being an approximation is intentionally humans of the composers artistic. It arises that performers essential be cautious of the primacy of the score, intervention it (and the composer) with ‘kid gloves.\r\nIt leads to narrow scope for, and drop of, interpretation â€Å"… a state in which the interaction of compulsive exactitude and bailable freedom could result in synchronal attitudes of carelessness towards the controlled elements and a confined and iterative response to spontaneity in acting”5. Freeing onese lf from the summon became an important part of the experimental esthetic. Conscientious performers feel a responsibility to the composer, and to their own integrity.\r\nOver- composite plantity in medical specialtyal note leads to problems with the realisation of the composers intentions when directives are of necessity contravened with necessity. However, a performer would really feature to be familiar with a composers aesthetic to admit that this otherwise unacceptable act is part of the pieces implicit significance. So, in a piece of huge complexity, notated or otherwise, a player who bushels the ‘act of commitment6 to study and take in charge to decipher it, is kindredly to hurl a legitimate interest in truly performing the piece.\r\nOne element which appears to perk up much of Cardews output is a re-evaluation of the case between composer and performer. Cardew attached as much importance to the take a crapings within the effectuation of performance as the e nd-result in unplumbed. His entreat was to challenge accepted ways of mentation about, and making, music, which led to a billet which was action-oriented, comprehensive and descriptive, not prescriptive. As suggested by the higher up quote, ‘… he sound [becomes] a spin-off of the activity, which is on that pointfore specified exactly, while the sound may be left to look after itself. ‘ 7 Cardew writes of ‘a notation, as in ‘there are legion(predicate) notational possibilities. How, though, can a notation really capture every conceivable piece of information about a piece? Obviously, ‘conventional notation, that is notation which covers time-pitch relationships, is not flexible luxuriant to relate extended compositional requirements. â€Å"…\r\nThe unit process depends on the choice of a suitable notation to serve as a link between A [composer] and B [performer]; one which will twain express what hires to be verbalised and allow information to flow swimmingly between the two. â€Å"8 Even so, composers are less concerned with the relationship of the score to the performer, and consequently the sounds (A to C via B), than to their own concerns with sounds, without receivable consideration for the act of performing these sounds (A to C).\r\nCardew suggests that a composer could work on their notation with the way a performer will interpret the signs in capitulum, thus ‘making the sounds you cherished as a composer. Transcribing ones thought processs in such a manner as to modify the performer to comprehend your directives, and even involve the player in decision-making, is a performance-perspective oriented view, having the added benefit of lending greater objectivity to the compositional task. ‘… A figure that grew up in the early twentieth carbon… aw the composer as some kind of despotic genius capable of imagining a appraisall performance of a piece9 The ‘tendency towards greater explicitness10, which this comment infers, is part of a paradigm of composition far removed from the way composition was historically defined.\r\nYet, the morphology of every reinvigorated notation, and the consequential absence of a ‘norm of common notational practice, meant that immediate realization of a composers intentions became impracticable. 11 One be issue to be addressed in greater depth is that of the relationship between composer and performer.\r\nHugo Cole states that ‘notation evolved to meet matt-up but inarticulate require12 When new methods of notation are devised in response to the need to articulate a newly certain style of composition, composers move the hypothetical goalposts nurture away again from the performer, as they have to once again learn the new language, interpret again the new signs and work out what the piece (or the composer) is trying to ‘say. This applies in equal measure to determinate music and experimenta l, though the degree of freedom add to the performer in the latter case deems it in many a(prenominal) ways a more satisfying task.\r\nIt somehow restores the performers role as musically intelligent interpreter, relied upon to add the nuances and subtleties that (traditional) notation cannot accommodate. The rigidity of a notation must have relevance to the acting situation. To provide contrasting examples; the notations in many works by Brian Ferneyhough are complex attempts to notate those aspects of music which would otherwise be added -unconsciously or consciously-by the performer. This style of notation does not have the effect of reducing the nub on the performer, but adds to the already stiff amount of information the performer has to metamorphose into sound. In music of the New complexity: performer is subjugated and manipulated, concluding that his efforts are of secondary importance.\r\nThe act of writing, the systems and the notation take on more importance than t he music it is there to serve… 13Yet, Ferneyhoughs scores are more than mere receptacles for ‘performance directions, they are inextricably linked to the composers ideology. Their complexity is wildly challenging, but, paradoxically, the goal is not to fit in every event on every note; rather, the essence of his works lies in what is omitted in performance.\r\nThis has a potent psychological effect on the classically-trained performer, accustomed to slim performances true to the composers wishes. With Ferneyhough, what he wishes is effectively equivocal, due in part to his documented changing views of his own output. Frederic Rzewski concludes that ‘… it is not the notation but the compositional position that presents the performance problem. 14 We must additionally consider the example of those composers of as complex, some may say impractical, music, who are also renowned performing exponents of their own scores; for example Michael Finnissy.\r\nBy the nature of their enterprise, they are forced to consider the performer and, in Finnissys case, continue to write music of such paradoxical complexity that, if one was to follow the score, is full of â€Å"errors” in performance, but still faithful to its essence. ‘The composer-performer [reacts] to their own notational problems, they know what idiomatic writing is being performers themselves and still choose to write music in a particular style15 To contrast, take composer Glenn Brancas symphonic music no. 6 ‘Devil Choirs at the Gates of Heaven, written in the principal(prenominal) for electric guitars.\r\nHe employs ‘ cater notation, and no dynamic markings are evident as, naturally, the ensuant dynamic of a piece of this nature will be at to the lowest degree fortissimo. Ironically, Brancas use of conventional notation link to his perception of it as being ‘exact: I had never written the pieces in staff notation until I wrote for the orchestra. Then I fell in love with the idea of having things so exact, with this notation, that I called up all my musicians [guitarists] and asked ”can you guys read music? ” It saturnine out that everybody could… so we just started doing everything in staff notation.\r\nNot only did it patch up things clearer for me and the musicians, but it did change the music. 16 Brancas decision comment that ‘it did change the music makes for interesting side-thought. For him, there were no subtleties or nuances that could not be recorded using this type of notation; in fact, it helped him to clarify and articulate his thoughts, correlating with the idea that notation must reflect the playing situation. The music of Christian Wolff embodies a standardized aim to Cardews, encouraging performer alliance in the creation of a work and devising notations which allow such interaction.\r\nTheirs is an ‘aesthetic of non-intention, away from the conventional burdens of music: [m usic] must make possible the freedom and haughtiness of the performers. It should have in it a resolved capacity to surprise (even the performers themselves and the composer)17 He creates conceive paradoxical situations where what is written cannot be executed, for example in 6 Players where he asks one of the solo violas to ‘play eight notes in a quarter of a second, including 3 harmonics and one pizzicato18.\r\nHis use of indeterminacy in performance opens the work to external influences authentically beyond the composers intentions, and the barrier between performer and composer is reduced. 19 This use of indeterminate operations necessarily led to new attitudes towards performance. A working example of experimental notation is Cardews Octet 61 [Example 1, below], which employs ‘an ambiguous ciphered notation, the working out of which by each performer leads to unpredictable combinations of events that could be produced neither by uncompromising composition nor by free improvisation.\r\n20 As we have seen, ‘simple notation does not necessarily equal many possible interpretations, and on the same line, an elaborate notation such as Cardews can permit varied interpretation. The psychological impact of how the music looks on the page invites varied readings; the printed page is a storage medium where an inevitably incomplete representation of ‘notateable ideas can be retained for the future.\r\nThe fact that this aspect of the work does not change over time, like a painting or a book, does not mean that the piece will not change and evolve. Arts ability to sustain societal properties, to evolve and reflect changing times is surely part of its value. The attend for greater notational control led to greater complexity, yet the early influence of the possibilities of electronic music must have contributed to this pursuit.\r\n bill Zinofieff spoke of an early ideal, satisfied by electronic composition, where ‘we can each have our own private language specially tailored for our own machines and individual needs or frustrations 21 Ultimately, though, the performers job is ‘to make the relationships and patterns in the music clear to the listeners mind and ear22. This hope, though, displaces the enduring problems which lie between composers and those who are employed to realise the work, be they human or otherwise.\r\n'