Webmaster's note: These remarks are web-presented as a "work in progress".
Any confusion in the text and
graphics will be fixed later
There is much to gain here about the nature of 20th-21st century music.
Read and dig deeply:
|
CD Cover Notes – BD II PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Mass Sound Formation &or
Construction
Spring morning in an isolated
forest. Rush hour traffic on a freeway. Feeding time at the zoo. A crowd at a sporting event.
War-zone in the midst of a battle.
Sounds of a busy factory. The
Mass Sound Formation refers to any situation wherein there exits a combination of individual sounds or lines of connected sounds (as in a ‘melody’) or sonic activity (an ‘aviary’), ‘noise-clumps’ (railroad train), or combined differentiable ‘sub-formations’ of mass sounds themselves, called Laminae (elephant stampede versus cattle stampede, or such as might be heard at the center of a great city) –thus, Mass Sound Formation occurs whenever any or all of these are in operation simultaneously, and of sufficiently high density that the resultant entirety, given any size time-frame, cannot be apprehended simultaneously in all its detail. *[In association with the foregoing, there is in any case a problem involved as to whether the human brain is able to ‘hear’ even two sounds simultaneously (much less, two differentiable ‘lines’ as are found in various counterpoints) or whether these in actuality must be separately apperceived in some sequence, then to be still further decomposed as may be necessitated by the various subsystems of intercerebral cognition, and eventually re-synthesized as a holistic entity within the ‘perceptual awareness’ as a reconstructed ‘illusion’ of the actual perception(s). – This is a possible but thus far untestable argument from the standpoint of experimental psychology.] There are also certain other characteristics pertinent to the definitive identification of a Mass Formation: Some level of Complexity is necessarily a characteristic – but what that level is and what is meant by ‘complexity’ is a matter for the modes and ‘ways of being’ of each individual… a walk through the woods by a hunter, a vacationer, a pair of lovers, an ecologist, a botanist, children at play, or an artist, a troubled youth, a man on the ‘run’, a dreamer, a philosopher, a deer … all different levels of perception. None of the foregoing necessarily look at such a situation from the viewpoint of its being a Complexity, and thus in some way a discomfiting or distressing hardship – as a matter of fact, to most it will appear as an enjoyable and straightforward experience, a ‘simplex’ rather than a ‘complex’ – unless one feels compelled (perhaps by some outside authoritarian force) to ‘mistakenly’ perceive it from a viewpoint foreign to one’s own nature … but neither the ‘woods’ nor its ‘source of being’ cares … nor is anything ‘really’ required to listen to Bach or Beethoven. ‘Delving deeper’ into something does not essentially imply any added disconcerting complication – and should actually pave the way for a still greater enjoyment. When speaking about ‘Complexity’ as a trait
of Musical Mass Structure, it is understood neither to refer to difficulty
of performance, nor to some complicated level of ‘local construction’
– which does not mean to imply that such levels of complexity are never
present, as they clearly are in various works by Ferneyhough, Stockhausen
and others. Nor, except in certain of the latter cases,
is there necessarily any degree of sophistication or erudition needed
for an extended measure of appreciation or involvement: These modes and levels of appreciation or involvement
are found to be freely adaptable in accordance with the characteristics
of different personalities, and even relative to different time &
mood fields for the same person. As
to exactly how this ‘complexity’ may then be defined, as to what ‘aspect’,
or from what ‘vantage of perception’, or in precisely what manner it
is in which it can be appreciated and/or enjoyed, is not readily elucidable,
and is in part intuitive. Put
another way, it is only within the frame of ‘analysis’ that a complex
might become uncomfortably complicated.
One possible response to the ‘complexity’ of a Mass Structure might be an enticement into the exploration of, or a desire to inhabit the intricacy of, the presence and mystery of such a formation – the allure of the Enigmatic, call of the Unknown, possibly along with a fervent urge to untangle, resolve, or at least to further explore. Hence, one enters with the initial intention to ‘Scan’ a Mass in order to observe and identify what is there, and also to ‘Search’ for meanings relevancies, similarities, derivations, and relationships; ‘Scan’ and ‘Search’ are both forms of exploratory ‘focus’. ||| Or one might enter into a ‘Complex’ without such intentions, solely for the purpose of immersion in the atmosphere of mystery for its own sake. ||| In actuality this notion of ‘immersion in some perhaps undefined aspect’ of a state of ‘Music’ (which in itself may prove indefinable) for its own sake, is itself the principal incentive for most people to participate (i.e. ‘listen aesthetically’.) In other words, that ‘Music’ is there, causes the desire to listen [[attend to]] it. ||| ...Another response might be the entrance into a state of ‘Unfocus’: that trance-like state wherein all those cognitive parts of the mind that ‘give meaning’ are overshadowed by a larger state of perception in which all things are the same and ‘equally great’ – ‘meaning’ and ‘differentiation’ become subsumed into a state of timeless ecstatic absorption. This comes into existence as a result of opening the attention to all of a ‘Mass Complex’ all at once. …And of course, many other modes of experience are also possible. *[See below for further definition and discussion.] A further characteristic
of… [[[poss
here for: [peripheral] ‘CON-FUSION’ (non-pejorative) …if one is in ‘focus’ on some aspect< Mass Sound Formation in accord with its nature as thus far defined, cannot be fully analyzed, either aurally or functionally, in terms of any formal theory or common-practice (nor is it necessarily desirable to attempt such an analysis.) This is due to an inability to predict how much of what portion will be heard at any one time, and how the complex of internal relations and agglomerations is being perceived, in addition to the immediate unavailability of those only-eventually-perceptible events which may initially be overshadowed or hidden behind or inside other events, and hence may only become discernible to the ear after several hearings, or extended aural scanning. This situation is somewhat similar to the unpredictability of what path might be taken through an untrod woods, and what specifically might be seen there – clearly a very different situation from a path through a formal garden wherein everything can be mapped and labeled (…which seems more like the academic model of a ‘classical’ symphony plus program notes.) One can be forever attracted to an uncharted forest because of its endless possibilities for new experience, discovery, and interpretation; and for kindred reasons may be attracted to a mass sonic formation, whether it be as a composed form or a natural occurrence. It is, of course, probable that after a multitude of ‘hearings’ (which is only possible in this ‘age of the recording’) each individual will come to his own particular ‘way’ of auditing a given sonic mass … but even that ‘way’ should be liable to change. There have been ‘Composed’ examples of (or close approaches to) Mass Sound Structures, starting at least as far back as the 16th century (Renaissance) with the 40-voice motet, Spem in Alium of Thomas Tallis (this piece is often sighted as, but is not really a very good example of ‘mass structure’), and at various other times throughout the history of western music, but more and more often after the onset of the twentieth century. In addition to the Tallis, there are a good number of pre-twentieth century compositions exhibiting ‘near-mass’ structure; these might include portions of compositions by Ockeghem, Bach, Beethoven, and Skryabin. And there are an increasing number of such examples as one moves into the early twentieth century; including various compositions by Max Reger and Kaikosru Sorabji, select segments of the tone poems of Richard Strauss (mostly due to techniques of orchestration), certain early works of Arnold Schoenberg (notably among the pre-12-tone compositions such as Die Gluckliche Hand –1913), the two dodecaphonal chords in the Mahler Tenth Symphony –1910, and portions of Stravinsky’s Petrouchka –1911 and Le Sacre du Printemps –1913. Polytonality and pantonality, as are found respectively in works by Milhaud and Shostakovitch, do not often approach inhomogeneity characteristic of ‘mass structure’ – although, in the case of Milhaud, the density levels are sometimes quite high (e.g. in 5 Etudes for piano and orchestra –1920.) However, most cases of those areas which are of a sufficiently high density (prior to 1945) are of an auxiliary, incidental or embellishmental nature; and even when they appear to be complexly functional or semi-functional (as in Sorabji’s Opus Clavicembalisticum –1930), the additional material usually falls within the realm of some ‘harmonic practice’, so that it is all heard together as a ‘intercomplementary homogeneity’ rather than as part of a heterogeneously dense mass formation. Starting around 1911, Henry Cowell began to create pieces utilizing ‘tone-clusters’ (entire chromatic or diatonic scales employed as single chords) initially on the piano (e.g. Dynamic Motion –1914 and Tiger –1928) and later for full orchestra (as in the Piano Concerto –1925.) Similar cluster-like chords and other devices were used by Leo Ornstein (in Impressions of Notre Dame –1912 for piano, and the orchestral tone poem The Fog –1932?) and John T. Becker (Symphony Brevis –1929), but once again these compositional usages are found to be basically tonal and homogenous. Exemplification of high-density mass in the early 20th century, that is actually audible as such, can be heard notably in compositions of Charles Ives (especially in the Fourth Symphony –1916) and Edgard Varese (as in Arcana –1927 and Equatorial –1934.) Keeping in mind that no historical era ‘STOPS’
as some new era ‘BEGINS’: Around
1945 there was a fairly clear-cut epochal change from the previously
so-called ‘Modern’ era of music (beginning somewhere in the 1890’s –
a term meant to go along with the previously labeled ‘Baroque’, ‘Classical’
and ‘Romantic’ eras … all misnomers adopted from the arts of painting
and sculpture) to the era of the ‘avant-garde’ or more simply
called “Music Since 1945”; which, like its predecessors, was
sharply subdivided into a wide variety of warring factions (e.g. post-Webern
seriality, Cagean and pseudo-Cagean indeterminacy, aleatoric composition,
the ‘anything goes’ school, ‘academic neo-Hindemithian Americana’, etc.,
etc..) in which it seemed to become a requirement that a composer be
able to state ‘a Music’ as a verbal (verbose) Theory, the more complicated
the better; And which were eventually
more or less supplanted (in part via ‘Minimalism’ with its subdivisions
– mainly into the ‘restrictive’ vs. the ‘modular’)
by the ill-defined ‘Post-Modernist’ era (which should have allowed
for an increased ‘freedom of style’ – since one no longer had to be
‘up-to-date’ – but it didn’t: and
which is hence allied against Seriality and other complex approaches
as well as various ‘experimental’ approaches) and by a key movement
within ‘Post-Modernism’, the ‘New Romantics’ (after the ‘End of Minimalism’
– at whatever date composer John Adams, who keeps using that phrase,
sets it – this is not to cast aspersions on his music, just his
judgment – probably somewhere in the 1980’s) who are at war with the
‘New Complexity’ (Brian Ferneyhough, et al) and the now considered
‘academic’ Serialism (although Milton Babbitt, who will most likely
‘lead Serialism out’ to its developmental conclusion, is hardly what
I would call ‘academic’.) Sub-Categories of Mass Sound
Construction Mass Sound Constructions can be generally categorized as being ‘Static’, ‘Textural’, ‘Dynamic-Functional’, ‘Laminar’ (either ‘of units’ or ‘of masses’), and also as ‘Directional’ or ‘Spatially Surrounding’. Because the incidence of Mass Sonic Formation becomes a much more frequent compositional occurrence in the era of ‘Music since 1945’, in the following discussion I will only briefly and arbitrarily mention a few composers names and compositions (selected at personal whim, and giving sufficient space to lesser known composers):
‘Static Mass’ denotes the simultaneous clustering
into ‘chords’ of more tones than can be readily separated out by ear.
In the case of For the most part, it
can said that most composers who are ostensibly involved with ‘Mass
Sound’ make some use its ‘static’ form, although perhaps not
to the exclusive degree that Varese has in his frequent use of ‘cluster
pyramids’, that is chords that usually start with a single note and
build additively within a characteristic rhythmic framework (e.g. Hyperprism
–1923, Integrales –1925, and Deserts –1952-4.)
In contrast to the foregoing, in certain of his verbal statements
concerning ‘organized sound’, especially as in reference to ‘crystalline-like’
cells, Varese points toward a more ‘functional’ (or at least
‘textural’) approach to ‘Mass Sound’, which in my opinion he
does not achieve. Although his music is mostly considered as Textural
in this writing, much of Gyorgy Ligeti’s Lontano –1967
and Concerto for ‘Cello and Orchestra –1966 can be considered
as Static ‘Textural Mass’ can be said to occur when several ‘non-distinctive’ (this is not meant pejoratively) patterns of notes are set into repetitive motion (cycled with or without variance) – not presented, however, either as ‘accompaniment’ (e.g. ‘Alberti bass’ or other such modes employed to give motion to chordal harmony) nor as ‘counter-embellishment’, but being presented ‘for their own sake’, and in simultaneity with a sufficiently large number of other such cyclical patterns, each differentiated by having a somewhat varied form and with contrasting rhythm and/or velocity, thus producing an actively mobile complex texture or atmosphere. The term ‘Textural’ may also be said to apply to any case where a dense group of single ‘short’ notes or ‘cluster blocks’, which are complexly or randomly distributed as ‘points’ without other manifest characteristics (this is also called ‘spatial’ tachism or pointillism), or where there exists a substantial density of sometimes changing ‘long’ tones, trills, tremolos, or repetitive glissando-contours (such conglomerates are also called ‘colored space’). Any of the foregoing Textural masses may change internally (that is, become ‘transformative’) without going so far as to be perceived as a ‘Dynamic–Functional’ mass [see forward.] There is a fairly consistent use of variously contrasting types of ‘texturality’ (sometimes derived from probability distributions) throughout most of the works of Iannis Xenakis, starting early on with Metastasis –1954 and Pithoprakta –1956, and continuing on up through Dammerschein –1994 and after. This ‘multifold-texturality’ also occurred with somewhat less variegation in the late-early works of Krzysztof Penderecki (Threnody –1960) and others of the Polish ‘school’ who came under the influence of Xenakis. Another major group of noteworthy ‘multi-textural’ examples, in some instances almost exclusively based on ‘texturality for its own sake’, are those compositions of Gyorgy Legeti dating from the period which begins with his arrival at Darmstadt (Apparitions –1958, Atmospheres –1961 and Ramifications –1969.) These compositions make much use of the aforementioned ‘simultaneous cyclical patterns’, which Legeti refers to as ‘micro-counter-point’, but which I would call ‘textual mass’ because the separate lines do not sound as individually distinctive, that is ‘functionally’. In my opinion, this stylistic trend in Legeti comes to its greatest fruition in San Francisco Polyphony –1974, after which he (unfortunately) does not sufficiently further explore this mode of composition. Although sometimes considered as a ‘Minimalist’ (this is, for the most part due to his extremely interesting Trombone Concerto –1973, which I remember as being based solely on a single pitch class) there is also at least one early work by James Fulkerson that I would call Textural, Globs –1968 (though he might not.) I know that Fulkerson has also been interested in the ‘Social’ aspect of music relative to performance (whether or not this extends to ‘Social Mass Sound’, as is discussed below, I do not know.) Charles Morrow has organized a number of events, such as the one for 40 clarinets (probably in the 1970’s) in which 40 (in honor of the Tallis motet) instruments are ‘freely’ involved. (I have heard him refer to certain of his events as ‘free jazz’.) This notion of the open ‘Mass free improvisation session’, which Morrow was doing as a regular part of his New Wilderness performances at Washington Square Church in New York city during the 60’s and 70’s later became extended into the main activities of specific groups such as ‘Fred Firth and Friends’, along with the added feature of extreme amplification. Any such events naturally have a ‘Musico-Social Mass’ aspect. The factor of ‘extreme amplification’ itself might be considered by some to be a possible characteristic of Mass Sound Formation; however, I would say that whatever Mass-like attributes ‘extreme amplification’ may on occasion appear to evince are produced by produce ‘overload’ on the physical system of the ear and are not inherent in the nature of the event unless other of the aforementioned properties are present (e.g. I do not consider ‘Rave’ to be an example of ‘Mass formation’.) [[[ultra-high density Noise – mostly improvised – as well as in a current (2003) semi-popular mode as part of ‘Rock Concerts’ and ‘Raves’??????]]] Joe Jones (1934-93) was
a maker of self-playing automated instruments in One of the most captivating
and highly energized pandemonic sonic masses that I ever encountered
was heard (and seen) at the Kitchen performance space in Certain compositions by Henry Brant (Orbit for 80 trombones, organ and sopranino voice –1979 and Rosewood for 100 Guitars –1997) although these compositions may have some functional aspects, they may generally be considered as textural, in any case they are definitely Mass structures *[for Brant, see below under Laminar and Surround.]
‘Dynamic-Functional Mass’: [[[…A Chain is considered to be ‘functional’ when one tends to be pulled along by it or follow it in its variegation, as in the case of a melody, progression, or developmental sequence – as opposed to those chains of events which are static, ‘spin in place’, are clearly part of a ‘holistic texture’, or are of a subsidiary or accompanimental nature… ||| … A Chain is considered to be ‘dynamic’ when it is ‘featured’ by way of its expressivity and/or interesting<{alluring} nature, and also when it is brought into the foreground in a sonorous, resonant or even stentorious manner…]]] Thus, ‘Dynamic-Functional Mass’ refers to any mass conglomeration of lines or ‘chains’ of sound objects, wherein a sufficient number ({{such that all events cannot be heard simultaneously, [[hence there is also a factor of concurrent inexplorability or peripheral con-fusion]]}}) of ‘individual linear components’ (individual Objects or Chains of objects) can be aurally distinguished and followed within the mass; and if these ‘components’ were to be separated out, any ‘Chain’ of such characteristic objects (which ‘chain’ may itself be in the form of a changing static mass or transformative textural mass) will be found to have either distinct ‘compellingly memorable’ (that is ‘dynamic’ in the sense of ‘forceful’) musical qualities, or to have musical qualities which are ‘recognizably indicative of forward progression’ (that is ‘functional’ in regard to movement in time, such as can be found in ‘motive’ and ‘melody’, or other ‘compelling’ Chains) In either case, even when a fairly large number of such dynamic–functional objects or chains are sounding together (most often found embedded in a mass along with ‘Static’ and ‘Textural’ elements), their distinguishing features, due to their singular, explicitly perceptible, and alluring nature, will tend either to acutely obtrude on one’s attention, or can be readily focused upon to do so. {{And}}PROBLEM ‘Boundary distinction between Textural Mass and Dynamic-Functional Mass’: As can be seen from some of the statements and examples given in the section on Textural Mass, there might often be somewhat of a problem as to the determination of an exact definitional ‘boundary’ between Textural and Dynamic–Functional. This distinction is often a matter of subjective judgment, especially if the composer’s ‘intention’ is to be considered as a major criterion. (It is not meant to be implied here that there is any applicable hierarchical superiority of one or the other of the types, except perhaps from some standpoint of a specific composer’s design.) Relative to the ‘Dynamic’, at least, this differentiation can be based on ‘that which has been purposely made Emphatic’ or ‘is Emphatically and individually Recognizable’ (as encountered within the mass) vs. that which is clearly subsidiary or ‘can be’ merely or barely ‘Recognized’ within the mass. However, ‘Emphatic’ in itself does not necessarily imply Dynamic–Functional – as in the case of ‘Emphatic clamor’, which does not perforce contain individually ‘recognizable’ factors; Neither does any movement or transformation of the whole ‘Texture’. Sumatively, the difference between ‘textural’ & ‘dynamic’ lies ion the contrast between being drawn toward the fabric as a whole, as opposed to being more drawn or drawn-as-well toward individual recognizable objects that are either laid upon or embedded within a fabric. Also to be considered as essentially cogent within a mass structure is the contradistinction between ‘Emphatically interesting enough’ and the ‘Recognizable-but-you-don’t-Care’ or the ‘Effortfully Recognizable’. ‘Emphatically interesting enough’ can be engineered by the use of various compositional devices of ‘allurement’ and ‘differentiation’. This may be done by means either entirely stipulated by the composer (nevertheless, its virtual dynamicism within a mass will be sufficient only provided that all of the ‘dynamic energy’ is not consumed by the ‘difficulty of performance’), or by giving the performer a ‘constrainted’ amount of freedom to interpret, vary or improvise (unlimited freedom may often lead to a less dynamic result due in part to the performer not being sufficiently cognizant of the pertinent compatibility of the individual segment to the over-all superstructure.) [See discussions below under ‘Freedom’, ‘Constraints’ and ‘Prototypes’.] Examples of this problematic textural/dynamic
boundary might include: Terry Riley’s in C
–1964, which consists of 53 modules (short repeatable patterns) to be
‘passed through’ (with optional
numbers of repeats) simultaneously by all performers, plus a drone pulse
on the piano – which, dependant on the number of performers,
can become a mass-like structure in spite of the very obvious common
pulse and ‘tonality’; and, due to its individual interpretive latitude,
can be occasionally perceived in part as Dynamic–Functional. On the other hand, Pierre Boulez’ Structures:
livre I for 2 pianos –1952, which contains sections that approach
Mass-Sound, has been conceived by the composer functionally,
but is heard by many as being almost random (therefore ‘textural’)
because of the sonic complexity of its internal relations (however
clear it may be on paper.) This
was brought out in an article by Gyorgy Ligeti in an early issue of
Die Reihe – of course this type of analysis goes against
the probable intention of the composer.
In the case of certain of the works for ‘possibly’ large groups
by John Cage, the problem goes much deeper because of his stated intention
‘not to have an intention’, nevertheless, he is certainly to some degree
aware of the ‘approaching klangideal’ (i.e. ‘overall sound quality
or style’) as the ‘composition’ comes into being, at least to the degree
that it ‘could’ become a ‘complex quantity’ (that is, an ‘Indeterminately’
caused Mass Formation), and in some manner (usually) what the ‘probable’
sound sources are generally going to be (i.e. orchestral instruments
– i.e. with or without ‘extended’ techniques or electronic modification
– electronic or concrete sounds, crowd sounds, birds, etc..)
But, as to whether or not some portion of such a mass becomes
or appears to become ‘Dynamic’ happens more or less by way of
an ‘accident’ inherent to its nature. The forgoing ‘indistinction’ may
be noted in Concert for Piano and Orchestra –1958 and
Atlas Eclipticalis –1961 (dependant on the number of instruments
used, which is in neither case mandated.)
Important among these borderline cases are those works of Aldo Clementi utilizing a sufficient number of instruments to engender ‘Mass’ (a ‘number’ which, incidentally, cannot be specified.) In the both the Capriccio for Viola and 24 instruments –1980 and the Violin Concerto –1977 for Violin, 40 instruments and chimes, the solo stands ‘dynamically’ out against the ensemble which consists for the most part of ‘textual’ Mass with occasional functional obtrusions (most ‘textural’ Mass will have some ‘functional obtrusions’ – however rare.) This ‘texturalization’, however, is not constructed from any of the aforementioned special types or modular patterns, but from what he calls ‘derived contours’ which are usually small melodic segments that have either been fragmented or abstracted from the solo parts or have been ‘borrowed’ or derived from the works of others (but without necessarily functioning as ‘quotes’.) In either case, these ‘derived contours’ are most often ‘tonal’ in the sense of ‘diatonic’ (meaning utilizing the scale of some ‘key’, and are not highly ‘chromatic’ or ‘dissonant’.) These objects are then ‘gathered into Mass Structure’ by canon-like procedures wherein they are also modified (in part, made ‘less distinguishable’) so that they unlikely to function either as ‘quotes’ or ‘dynamically’. This material is then used pan-diatonically (that is, making ubiquitous use of any or all ‘key scales’) and superimposed polytonally (i.e., irregardless of ‘tonal function’) thus creating a sometimes chromatic cluster-cloud having no stable tonal center. Thus, while the material remains tonal, the ‘Mass’ itself often points toward an aspect (not overtly ‘dissonant’) of ‘atonality’ (a better term for which might be ‘fuzzy nomadic tonality’.) And, the ‘derived’ material functions solely from a standpoint of klangideal. Some of the works (such as AEB for 17 instruments –1987) also border on the ‘enmassed type of Minimalism’ as is found in the aforementioned in C by Terry Riley; in Clementi, however, such a work is sustained as Mass for much longer periods (when not for almost an entire piece.) Examples that fall more clearly
within the category of ‘Dynamic–Functional Mass’<<<|| ... Start Here 1st …read all of LAMINAR ‘Laminar Mass’ refers to entire ‘layers’ of recognizably different Sonic Objects or Sets or Mass Sound Formations that occur simultaneously, but are in few or no ways inter-related. It is clear that, even though we often tend to apprehend the ‘everyday world’ holistically, it is clearly occurring in not-obviously-related ‘layers; take for example ‘sitting at a street-side café’: there are the sounds emanating from your table, the tables near and far, the passers-by, the traffic from the street, city sound from afar, passingrep birds, possibly rain on an overhead awning, … … {{++see below for TYPES}} … … And in composed music (as opposed to the ‘resounding of the any or the all’ which may be experienced as music) it is illustrated early in this century in the ‘passing of the two marching bands’ in second movement of Ives’ Three Places in New England, and perhaps also in the ‘military band’ versus certain portions of ‘Marie’s soliloquy’ in Alban Bergs’ Wozzek. But much earlier in history, something like Lamenae occur in the 14th century multi-tempo works of Matteo da Purgia. … >>>>>>> {{POINTS of DIFFERENTIATION: especially >Pulse … but also Fuzzy Entrainment (the Group Hump){use example of BD II + maybe Steven Stapleton && Homeostatic Harmony && Recognizable Homogeneity of Sound Source Category [?? may be similar or at times same as Homeostatic Harmony &or Klangideal? - !! all 3 may not be that separable ??] && General Register (if applicable – mixed registers poss) && ??? are there others ??? >>not all of these need to be sharply differentiated in order to have Laminae (? What about cobordens ?)}} <<<<<<<< … ... Start Here or slightly before &+ ADD from below + fixx! … LAMINAR: !! Might have to go btwn ‘NEED for CMPLXity’ & ‘Freedom’ … or down under UNDERLYING MODELS !!: Certain music compositions or portions of music combinations. {{uniform or compound &or Laminar & Hetero-laminar {{{??how (perhaps not) different from Laminar space > in gen, a Sonic Mass will or may have some kind of homologousity, while a Laminar Space, which may consist of a number of simultaneous Sonic Masses will probably have some degree of Heterogeneousity, in which the layers or lamina are clearly discernable. >>>>>>>>+ Captivators (initially momentary) vs Features (of attention). [[(mass) Structure or Continuum later?? w/ moment-form
&+ System]] – find lower set of notes
&+ check old-NB p 159+156 – !!! {Laminar} >> ‘locked’ embedded vs. ‘free’ embedded <<>>> ALSO (either as ‘amassed’, or ‘of masses’) << Carter ‘locked’ [tempos] : Symphony for 3 Orchestras , Stockhausen Groupen ‘locked’ for 3 orchestras -1957, Carre for 4 orchestras –1960 & Choruses, Mixtur 19??, Hymnen [#22½ - electronic version] -1967, Brant, Kamin (0–Angel slowly shifting (N) –2002 + Jelly Beans & the Peanut-butter Skreeb –1974, performance poem ?explain?) In a talk given at Indiana University in 1970, in regard to the composition Hpschd (made in collaboration with Lejaren Hiller, -1969) for 1–7 amplified harpsichords and 1–51 tape channels; which in the performance that I attended at the University of Illinois were spaced around the dome of an immense arena: Cage said that he had become interested in the bringing into play of great ‘Quantity’ in order to engender an experience of ‘Unfocus’. At the Illinois performance, there was an immense amount of visual material (mostly in the form of slides and films – supplied mostly by Heller – projected on ceiling hangings) and a rather large and changing crowd was constantly milling around the space, some talking yelling or singing as well as engaging in other less predictable activities. All of this crowd sound and movement, along with the harpsichords (which were on platforms scattered the floor space), the taped sounds, and the visuals, must be experienced as part of the work. The over-all {effect<?WW?>/system/composition} was manifestly ‘Laminar’ being easily sunderable (because of the great differential in group timbre) into harpsichord sounds, tape sounds, mass crowd sounds, the various episodic sounds of various ‘crowd-sub-set’ activities In order to experience the purported ‘Unfocus’ of the work, it was necessary to abstract the on-goings, especially certain crowd activities and visuals, from their obvious meanings (which was difficult in some cases) and had to become aware of the necessity of doing so as there were no instructions to that effect; as well as to ‘blur’ the clear-cut separability<?WW?>of the laminae… making an embedment of some greater whole… {} [However,] relative to the LP recording of the work (without the crowd activity, etc.) while it remains a Mass Structure is of a much simpler nature due to the loss of at least two laminae, and probably does not readily lead to a state of ‘Unfocus’. In both cases, the live performance and the recording, the laminae remain clear, there are occasional divergences from ‘textural’ to ‘dynamic’, and in my case the onset of ‘Unfocus’ is not an automatic occurrence; which is not to say that the work was not or is not a great adventure. {Laminar}
+homogeniosity, static (auto Blare, >> LAMINAR [or
LAMINAL] SPACE: ‘embedded’,
‘glued’, ‘spliced’, ‘juxtaposed’ – also ‘congruent’, &
either ‘consubstantial’, homogeneous-harmonic, or at least homologous or else incongruent [incongruous – heterogeneous] –––– BD II definitely is LAMINAL, as the 4 groups [ Lamina, that is, each having its own cogent ‘character-model’ clearly differentiable from the others, though, in this case, all are embedded in some clearly discernable klang-ideal – which is clearly not the
case in certain of my later works, such as O – Angel slowly
shifting (N). &+> A Laminar Space is what we live in, that is, all sorts of things (traffic, birds, books, beetles, refuse and roads) which seemingly operate without regard to each other, are made to cohabit the same space: Sometimes in mere proximity, sometimes glued, sometimes embedded – mostly unrelated in their activities, but on occasion interact, and at times must ‘watch out for each other’. No one says they don’t all fit together (or that they do) – a matter of perception.
&+> poss ‘Temporal Lamina’ {linear}as in the programming story ‘Directionality’ denotes any situation where[in] the ‘different directions’ from which the sound is coming form an integral part of a music. This [had] occurred as early as the 16th century, notably in the ‘Antiphonal’ works of Giovanni Gabrielli which make use of cori spezzati (and occurred still earlier in the Latin Mass.) {Directionality} ++…Stockhausen Groupen –1957
[[S’s works that are clearly Laminar are also Directional
& Xenakis: (purposeful stereophonic effects found in Orient-Occident
(4- channel) 1960 &+ Bohor (8-channel tape) 1962 +???ask
Brody &+ Polytrope of Montreal (4 orchestras) 1967… ++
Nono late works (+halophone, a ‘live-use’ electronic device which can
readily move the output of a sound source around to various points in
a performance space…– especially Prometeo –1984, in which
the perambulation of sounds is a major ‘dramatic’ aspect of the ‘opera’,
therefore Functionally Directional ) & Das Atmende Klarsein -1981…
&+ Functional Directionality has been a major factor in many
of the works of Franz Kamin since the mid 1960’s (4 Corners
for 4 Trumpets -1966): The Latter Days of Janet Quubyne
-1971… The Eradication of New York Graffiti by >> DIRECTIONALITY & DIRECTIONAL COUNTERPOINT: .) Clarification by separation .) moving
vs stationary [[…not really (around
aud.) until O–Angel…]] .) see also Halophone & Theatricality (…disadvantage of what the eyes see) Sameness which is of immediate interest as opposed to teleotic interest. [[as in they are all trees, But … & they are all plane closed curves, But: triangles, squares, rectangles, trapezoids, circles, etc..]]<??? ‘Spatial Surround & ‘Audience Interdispersion’ & ‘Gallery’ {+or??Exhibition??-?multimedia, but also local-specific.} ’ refers to the idea that a Music could be all around and even inside the audience. This was implied early in the 20th century by Ives (for use his uncompleted Universal Symphony) and Skryabin (for his uncompleted Mysterium.) {Surround} Xenakis Terretektorh -1966 and Nomos Gamma -1968 (“…dispersed through the audience…”) ++…Henry Brandt ++& Cage Hpschd -1969 &+ Bird Cage -1972 (for … “12 tapes to be distributed by a single performer in a space in which people are free to move and birds to fly…” <but it wasn’t; I was there at the premier at the Kitchen – beautiful piece nevertheless) …&+ Kamin …&+++ include ‘visual’ ((Xenakis Polytrope of Montreal)) …&+ Kamin ASRB #4 …for the Father of a Newborn Child with Eggs…-19?? ‘Spatial Surround & ‘Audience Interdispersion’ & Audience Participation >>>&+ (intentional [as in Tom Johnson Sp: see Pf piece & not [& again Cage Hpschd -1969) which is not on the recording, therefore, just barely Mass (as much can be simultaneously heard) &+ Charlie Morrowagain??? + freedom) //:. Subsets of Surround 1) internal to the audience 2) ‘audience participation’ ((…although this also leads one to include ‘mass singing’ and even playing in an orchestra)) 3) audience ambulatory inside the sound sources [++ ASRB #4 as a ‘Gallery piece’ – poss illus
{‘Mutiplexity of sub-categories of Mass’}&+ also poss w/ ‘Multiplex’ – probably just a simple statement &or a list of composers {‘Mutiplexity of sub-categories of Mass’} Jerry Hunt (…an ‘Incomprehensibly Insane’ but fascinating racket [wherein he… ] – at the Kitchen – unfortunately nothing like that on any of the recordings…) HaramondSp? Plain evinces various features of Mass… ) ++ ??… Xenakis (+all types)?? {{{…fit in…some as }}}, Nono (+halophone & ‘mass’ in voice piece…), Stockhausen, Glenn Branca [..there are probably those who would like to include the ‘wall-of-guitar’ Symphonies of Glenn Branca as well (as other ‘wall of …’ productions from various ‘Third-stream’ rock artists) among the Mass Structuralisms, however, I feel that most of these belong more realistically in the ‘Minimalists’ category because … never departs from – exposition to – a single tonal function, indeed often a single pitch or chord), &&++Terry Reilly in C ( …nevertheless, from among the ‘Minimalists’, the piece which is often pointed to as starting off that very short (but like every ‘era’ that’s ‘finished’[?WW?}, ‘continuing’…& to-be-repeated) sub-era… can be included in the catalogue of Mass …) , com-plexity), >> …this is all that is listed on p 53 newNB… << >>>>Insert some of Definition below into p1 Definition of ‘Mass’<??already Done??<<<<Perhaps-NOT-INTENDED-As-Mass Sound’ {{usually ‘Dynamic-Functional Mass,}}<last of this overall Section {{{ALSO NEED NUMBERED POINTS of DEFINITION of MASS structure … To reiterate: [1] Points, blocks, lines or conglomerates of sound in operation simultaneously and of sufficiently high density that the resultant entirety, given any size time-frame, cannot be apprehended simultaneously in all its detail… [2] ‘Complexity’ of temporal and harmonic relations between {conceivably/eventually/?analytically separable} components {{[A] interconnected in some clear way [a] homogeneous layered [b] homogeneous embedded … not interconnected … heterogeneous layered [a] heterogeneous embedded>define [3] ‘Complexity’ of Derivation and/or Differentiation<esp. rel. PT’s [?4] The [composer] ‘intended’ possibility of ‘Unfocus’ as a valid mode of interpretive apprehension. …[…it may happen anyway (…as may apprehension as mass…)] Some of the most important examples of Mass Structure may have been ‘Not-Intended-As Mass’, at least ‘purposefully’ as Mass Structure has been defined here … therefore + Carter & Babbitt<(see below long discuss Pf Cnc)> + Boulez already discussed + On rare occasions such as…<see Cope> Wallingford Riegger, … more!!| … ] +? Mention Cage again [OR put: ‘see also’…] {‘Not-Intended-As-Mass’} >>poss move to above
Funct.<<>> Elliott Carter<below Babbitt
+++… – Milton Babbitt (who said “...music could
be so much more…”Check Article &or Voice recording!!!:
…what did he mean??? ( - that
you should know???…)(??about
what??) |& problem of 1st
Piano Concerto: …I would like to include the Piano Concerto
#1 of Milton Babbitt as a candidate for Mass Sound Formation
because due to its ‘technological construction’ …there is a kind of
semi-opaque ‘wall’ ((functions as ‘static mass initially on non-technologically-knowledgeable
[naïve, but intently focused]
listening)) of string (mixed with other) sounds … in which are hidden
(not probably on purpose) various ‘shadow motives and melodies’ which
are frequently semi-concealed by other complexly contrapuntal cells,
and which are only eventually to be found after multiple hearings [[which
as is the case for many complex musical structures, is only possible
in the era of home owned recordings ‘recording era only poss.]] – finding
these and aurally functional Mass … actualization problems
in interpretation of reproductional speculating on what their relation
to the other material including the clearly-to-be-heard continuum of
motivic structures<rep in the piano
keeps one fascinated & serve as signposts amid the ‘status-of-lost’
time-after- time in the listening. Of
course it is quite possible (however unlikely) that Babbitt would prefer
that one would analytically follow the score having availed of the essential
knowledge of what he is actually doing – however I prefer not to ruin
my many mysterious journeys into dense forests of this beautiful composition/masterpiece/structure<Rep
unless at some future time I should want to do so either for furthering
my own compositional/utilitarian knowledge or to change the status of
the piece<WW to that of a ‘known quantity’
or ‘familiarity’. … this brings
up the problem of the differential<WW between
what a composer has ‘Constructed’ including the method of that (construction)
versus what of that he has ‘intended’ for one to hear
versus what one can and/or does hear … a philosophical and not-controllable issue of
opinion … ??FURTHER DISCUSS HERE – or “…to perhaps be discussed later
in this excursus<Rep?…”
??? …) |??!wht abt
the ‘New Complexity’& the ‘Other New Complexity (of which I &
Jerry Hunt are very different members)!??|, Brian
Ferneyhough (esp. Icarus for clarinet and 7 players -1988
and Time and Motion Study There are also any number of works by Elliott Carter that could be said to contain large sectors of Dynamic/Functional mass, such as … Double Concerto for harpsichord, piano, and 2 chamber orchestras -1961 … Piano Concerto -1965 … Concerto for Orchestra -1969 … A Symphony for 3 Orchestras -1976 … 3 Occasions for Orchestra -1986-9 Next
Section after Completing Above Call>Truth, Music, Complexity & Freedom Actual order of Nexts: Truth – Music – What is Music for? – Complexity – the Need for Complexity – Freedom – {Lamina} 3 TopicswhoseMajorCharacteristcs are: {{Lamina+see below}}, Freedom+life&libidinallity, degrees of…, Complexity Complexityunfocus
vs mystery-puzzel&solution-or-“placementation” , also confusion theory, + the necessary charm of
‘Noise’+see Arnheim:NEED Freedom{{{+++frozen<determinate><rigid>
vs somewhat flexible, pliable, variable,
semi-improvisatory, improvisatory, total or varying degrees of
indeterminacy w/&/or ‘Ambient sounds’}{ also: ‘Scored’ but – predetermined vs systemic or system or
bass generated}}} – see also newNB p50 [[also Apollonian
& Dionysian aspects of BD II – structure vs. freedom
nwNB p53]]W/Emotionality<&
MY emote, & Beet Goethe story Truth, Music, Complexity &
Freedom <<<as
of 8/28, this section below contains all of notes on Truth from newNBp66 Truth (…as a Matter of Opinion): Before discussing some of the possible major characteristics of Complexity and Freedom and, in, & aside from Music, it may be necessary to quasi-validate the nature of the information about to be given: [1] It is virtually impossible to make a statement
which is absolutely True &or with which every one is in agreement.
That is because ‘Truth’ is a solely human preoccupation, and
humans do not all agree with each other. And everything else (e.g. stuff in & of
itself, aside from human perception, if there is any) in so far as is
humanly known, ‘ [2] Never-the-less, we All will probably continue to make, argue, and fight over ‘True Statements’. [3] Sometimes (when not Consciously (?) ‘Lying’) we will try not to ‘bend’ or ‘twist’ what we say away (or very far away) from the ‘Truth’. [4] We ‘bend’ or ‘twist’ things that we say away from the ‘Truth’. – We do this in order to have what we want to say be ‘True’. [5] When we ‘bend’ or ‘twist’ things that
we say away from the ‘Truth’, we say that we do not ‘bend’ or ‘twist’
things that we say away from the ‘Truth’.
And, that what we say ‘IS [6] But, all this and what is to follow, what I claim to be ‘True’, is authentically opinion – and , in my opinion, there is nothing for us other than opinion – which in itself may ‘not Quite be ‘True’ – and certainly might not be the case later. (Gives one Hope does it not. But then ‘Hope’ is the enemy of the true seeker. [7] Hence: ‘TRUTH’ (!) is a matter of Opinion - &or a modification by what is Desired. [8] Further: ‘TRUTH’ is an ‘authentic
variable’ that allows one to BELIEVE &or feel Corollaries, Correlatives & Asnides: [a] ‘Know the truth, and the truth shall set ye free’ …but only if it is a sufficiently well-made conjecture, that is both authoritative and adequately enforced. [b] “Know the truth, and the truth shall
set ye free … but first it shall make ye miserable.” – [c] >>>Iris LezakSp? Story<<< [d] Where does the ‘Truth’ lie? [e] “…I do not know… that is my Opinion…” – anonymous student. [f] The purpose for this exploration into ‘truth–as–a–matter–of–opinion’ is this: As an artist I wish, with out repeating the work that others have done well, to seek out that which it seems to me to be ‘wanted and needed, with no one and nothing left out’ (within a realm which is reasonable and suitable for me) … which attempt is essentially futile, as Nothing & No One can ever be complete, until it is terminated – upon which and within which ‘not-quite-all-of-it’ will eventually dissipate as a continuing and possibly interminable morphism. Try, b |