Freedom in Musical Form

[Bonn1827]

I've just been listening to a very interesting program, "Something Understood", on BBC World Service. The program canvasses the view that too much freedom isn't necessarily a good thing (my own opinion for a long time!) and that true creative genius resides, in large measure, (no pun intended) in the ability to transcend the restrictions of form. The broadcaster started by quoting Wordworth, who wrote about "the weight of too much liberty" in one of his sonnets. (We could extrapolate that to society, but I will stick to form). Wordsworth was celebrating the (oxymoronic) "freedom" of form in sonnets, suggesting that one could find solace and refuge in form.

The program went on to discuss Beethoven and his ability to transcend form, and the comments Haydn made to Beethoven about the necessity of LvB to move beyond formal limitations to express his own original ideas (Papa was a hugely generous human being!). A piece by Xenakis was played ("S.709"), apparently based on mathematical models. The commentator argued that "Xenakis translates these models accurately but, importantly, does not transcend form as did Beethoven."

I would like to suggest, therefore, that Xenakis was more philosopher and intellectual than composer. Or, to put it another way, as a Composer Xenakis is a very good Mathematician!

[Peter]

And of course you can't transcend anything until you have complete mastery - try playing Liszt's transcendental studies if proof were needed!

[Ed C]

I would like to suggest, therefore, that Xenakis was more philosopher and intellectual than composer. Or, to put it another way, as a Composer Xenakis is a very good Mathematician!

Interestingly I've been thinking about form alot lately, specifically sonata form. For me sonata form is as natural and instinctively human as 4/4 time, the just intonation scale and the "Golden Ratio".

(Er..) Hello? Hello? Is anybody there? HELLO!! (OK, goodbye)

-introduction-exposition-expo repeat-development-recap w variation-coda

That's sonata form in a nutshell.

I used to be quite fond of forms used by Xenakis and Stockhausen, Cage etc....(even performed a few) but these days those structures (as cool as they are in their own way) come across more as expressions of science experiments more than expressions of the human condition. It can be argued that it's still "music" but if 99.9 percent of the world disagrees, then on a purely semantic level, it can't be called music - at least without a defensive argument attached

This is a kind of touchy subject with me I guess. Since I "discovered" LvB, I feel like I've taken on the role of a kind of "rogue Scientologist" if you know what I mean...

[Quijote]

[...] The program went on to discuss Beethoven and his ability to transcend form, and the comments Haydn made to Beethoven about the necessity of LvB to move beyond formal limitations to express his own original ideas (Papa was a hugely generous human being!). A piece by Xenakis was played ("S.709"), apparently based on mathematical models. The commentator argued that "Xenakis translates these models accurately but, importantly, does not transcend form as did Beethoven."

I would be very interested to read, see and (more importantly) hear how one may accurately translate a mathematical model into a (presumably) musical one. How one defines "accurately" would be a starting point - and probably a hilarious one - for serious debate (which won't be happening on this thread). One may argue (in a futile manner) that in attempting to transcribe the mathematical into the musical Xenakis has indeed transcended mathematical form(ulae).
Personally, I consider Xenakis to be à la fois composer, philosopher, mathematician and architect. Gosh, what a Renaissance man he was!

[Quijote]

[...] A piece by Xenakis was played ("S.709"), apparently based on mathematical models. The commentator argued that "Xenakis translates these models accurately but, importantly, does not transcend form as did Beethoven."

I would like to suggest, therefore, that Xenakis was more philosopher and intellectual than composer. Or, to put it another way, as a Composer Xenakis is a very good Mathematician!

And do you base that suggestion on a close listening of the Xenakis work in question? Personally, I tend to remain sceptical of other commentors' opinions (even the BBC) until I have made my own mind up. I find that a lot of nonsense gets published, especially concerning 20th/21st century music. Unfortunately, a lot of this nonsense gets repeated, and mindlessly so.

[Quijote]

Well, we lowly under-educated "philistines" must rely on our reading and learning from others as we don't have a beam of light directly channeled from on high to guide as the more enlightened ones do. And reading and learning from others is as good a starting point for a discussion as any I can imagine. Of course, when studying "Renaissance" men - like Xenakis or Shakespeare - we must put our faith, to a large degree, on our instincts too - on whether we think something has intrinsic artistic merit, then back that up with the arguments and thoughts of others. Wasn't it Brahms who said, "I am standing on the shoulders of giants"? (Don't take it so personally, Philip.)

Well, if you insist that you are under-educated and philistine who am I to argue? My point (my question) was if you had actually listened to the Xenakis work you mention. It seems you haven't, so I fail to see how you can seriously "suggest" that Xenakis is more philosopher and intellectual than a composer (whatever that nonsense is supposed to mean). It strikes me rather that you are uncritically repeating what you have read or heard via the BBC.
I don't take it personally, Bonn1827. Pip pip !!

[Bonn1827]

Interestingly I've been thinking about form alot lately, specifically sonata form. For me sonata form is as natural and instinctively human as 4/4 time, the just intonation scale and the "Golden Ratio".

(Er..) Hello? Hello? Is anybody there? HELLO!! (OK, goodbye)

-introduction-exposition-expo repeat-development-recap w variation-coda

That's sonata form in a nutshell.

I used to be quite fond of forms used by Xenakis and Stockhausen, Cage etc....(even performed a few) but these days those structures (as cool as they are in their own way) come across more as expressions of science experiments more than expressions of the human condition. It can be argued that it's still "music" but if 99.9 percent of the world disagrees, then on a purely semantic level, it can't be called music - at least without a defensive argument attached

This is a kind of touchy subject with me I guess. Since I "discovered" LvB, I feel like I've taken on the role of a kind of "rogue Scientologist" if you know what I mean...

Ed, could you explain what you mean by "cool as they are in their own way"? I've never been able to get my head around this kind of music and am eager to learn just how it affects others who are obviously intelligent and atuned to music. Also, by "Golden Ratio" do you mean the "Golden Mean" which, according to musicologist Lendvi, is the basis for some of Bartok's music, especially "Strings, Percussion and Celeste".

[Ed C]

2nd question first, yeah I mean Golden Mean

As far as modern music, think of it this way - what would a musical representation of an exploding star sound like? Or the pattern of growth on a tree? Or the activities of an anthill? Xenakis, Babbitt, Lachenmann, Ferneyhough etc..all go exceptionally well with nature films (in fact I've seen it referred to as both "insect music" and "plink-plonk".)

The other cool thing about modern music is that they are kind of math puzzles, and once you figure out the pattern it's kind of interesting. In Stockhausen's Zyklus you can start on any page as long as you end on the page before you started - also you can play it backwards (not only that but the score looks like this:

Xenakis is known for his glissandos so you can think of those like visual curves. Some extreme modern music (such as Cage's Cartridge Music or Iancu Dumitrescu's electro-acoustic pieces) I nowadays consider "sound-effects" records. I've actually performed Cartridge Music myself in a Cage festival and it's almost like doing theater. And then I have a couple records with the artist title "Total Fucking Destruction". I honestly don't remember what it sounds like - and when a band title is more memorable than the music itself, that's not a good thing.

John Cage - Cartridge Music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIXI6iSRJ0Y
Iancu Dumitrescu - Pierres Sacres: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKKGnyZ-iZ4

PS - Oh yeah - 99 percent of it is crap, just like any other style of music

[Ed C]

I'm in total agreement with you James - I will add another couple anecdotes:

When Cage used chance operations to create Music of Changes (a piece which uses random dice throws to choose notes) he actually "threw out" results which he didn't like! Hardly seems like "chance" right? So much for removing ego from his own compositions. I also know from a fellow composer who worked with some of Stockhausen's technicians that at times they would just "twiddle knobs" to make background noises - and then later on write long texts about how "serial techniques" were used to create said noises. Now I'm not saying this is true of all of Cage or Stockhausen, but in line with your point about equations: sometimes they didn't play fair with the concept! I hope I'm expressing my point clearly....hard to explain in a few sentences on a Saturday morning

PS - re: musical "lines: : if you import a picture file (BMP/JPG etc) into most audio editors as RAW data, you can actually "play" the image...hey now that's a good idea for a Beethoven piece...stay tuned...

[Bonn1827]

It goes to show there are gullible people out there, Ed, who want to believe the things dished up to them by the avant garde, just as they did with Andy Warhole. What's the famous line that comes from the Australian film, "The Adventures of Barry McKenzie" (James told it to me recently)? It goes something like this:

A character asks Barry shortly after he arrives from Australia, "Do you like Stockhausen", and Bazza replies, "No, but I think I just trod in some"!! (I hope my paraphrasing is accurate - no doubt JoE will set me straight if it isn't).

[Roehre]

A character asks Barry shortly after he arrives from Australia, "Do you like Stockhausen", and Bazza replies, "No, but I think I just trod in some"!! (I hope my paraphrasing is accurate - no doubt JoE will set me straight if it isn't).

Isn't this a paraphrase of an uttering by a famous English conductor (Boult IIRC)?

[Bonn1827]

You may well be right, sir!! Funny though, isn't it!! Sounds like something Beecham would say.

[Quijote]

2nd question first, yeah I mean Golden Mean

As far as modern music, think of it this way - what would a musical representation of an exploding star sound like? Or the pattern of growth on a tree? Or the activities of an anthill? Xenakis, Babbitt, Lachenmann, Ferneyhough etc..all go exceptionally well with nature films (in fact I've seen it referred to as both "insect music" and "plink-plonk".)

The other cool thing about modern music is that they are kind of math puzzles, and once you figure out the pattern it's kind of interesting. In Stockhausen's Zyklus you can start on any page as long as you end on the page before you started - also you can play it backwards (not only that but the score looks like this:

Xenakis is known for his glissandos so you can think of those like visual curves. Some extreme modern music (such as Cage's Cartridge Music or Iancu Dumitrescu's electro-acoustic pieces) I nowadays consider "sound-effects" records. I've actually performed Cartridge Music myself in a Cage festival and it's almost like doing theater. And then I have a couple records with the artist title "Total Fucking Destruction". I honestly don't remember what it sounds like - and when a band title is more memorable than the music itself, that's not a good thing.

John Cage - Cartridge Music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIXI6iSRJ0Y
Iancu Dumitrescu - Pierres Sacres: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKKGnyZ-iZ4

PS - Oh yeah - 99 percent of it is crap, just like any other style of music

Hmm, Ed C, time for us to get serious, and we shall avoid derision at all costs. I feel we have a different approach to listening (representations of exploding stars, plant growth, anthills, etc.). People read different things into music, and who am I to argue? For example, musicologist Susan McClarey hears (I paraphrase) certain cadences as "failed" and that these represent "a rapist's frustrated rage" (I am horribly distorting her message). This is all worthy of debate, and as a recovering formalist, anything beyond the Schenkarian "music for-and-in-itself" paradigm is really most welcome.

[Quijote]

I forgot to mention that the McClarey quote above concerns certain passages in the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth. I think this forum has (superficially) touched on this topic before. I wouldn't mind taking it a little bit further. Any takers?

[Peter]

I forgot to mention that the McClarey quote above concerns certain passages in the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth. I think this forum has (superficially) touched on this topic before. I wouldn't mind taking it a little bit further. Any takers?

I'm surprised there are any 'takers' for her views - I can only assume she is incapable of enjoying music as it obviously causes her such a Freudian migraine! Strange, as I'm writing this Ethel Smyth's March for the suffragettes is playing on BBC radio 3.