Does it fit with conventional definitions of music?
A reminder of a standard definition:
The art of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.
So, based on the above definition, both much of Cage’s music and the more radical serialist music of Webern and total serialism of Messiaen / Boulez would fail the subjective threshold of music in terms of beauty of form and harmony. However it is difficult to say at what point it stops being music and becomes ‘art’ instead. Objectively speaking the elements of music are there. I’m just not sure how many people would consider it to be music. They say beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, I think that’s probably the case with chance and serial music.
Do you consider it music?
It is music – it is organised sound – but it’s not something I would choose to listen to.
It is largely subjective where music ends and art begins, and as such attitudes change over time as well. It’s not very ‘fun’ listening. To quote Stravinsky: “To listen is an effort, and just to hear has no merit…”
Consider how you might define what constitutes a work of art, and what your own idea of music is. What elements have to be present to call something ‘music’?
Some sort of organised sound, composed or improvised, has to be present in my view for it to constitute ‘music’. So, with the exception of 4’33’ which I would consider more art installation than music, the compositions of Cage, Nono, Boulez, Messiaen, etc, are music – They have composed these pieces, even if it stretches the musical boundaries and definition at times. In my case I try to respond to these pieces on an intellectual level rather than having an emotional response. If anything, the emotional response for me is more frequently likely to be one of irritation than anything else.
Do you notice any distinct differences between chance music and that composed using a complex system, such as one of the listening examples for serialism?
Yes I would separate Cage from some of the other composers because of the element of chance during both the composition as well as the ‘performance’, e.g. during a performance of Imaginary Landscape, each performance will be different in the sense that the tuning of the radio with pick up different stations and different music each time it is performed. I don’t know whether Cage used any chance systems when writing this particular piece, but there is an element of chance when performing it.
I realise that you can make the same argument for any piece of music. Each performance is different and unique, but Cage takes that to a different level based on chance.
Can you hear the systems used in the serial pieces? Quite frankly, not really. It’s usually obvious that it’s not tonal but to hear the ‘systems used’ would be stretching it.
How far do you consider an understanding of the systems used in composing a piece of music to be essential to the understanding of the work itself?
This clearly depends on the type of music. As a very broad generalization I would say that most pre-20th century music can be enjoyed without ‘understanding’ it as such. For example one can listen to and enjoy a fugue without knowing anything about the intricacies of counterpoint techniques. Other musical movements including classical and romantic are broadly based on the tonal system and have melodies and harmonies that can be appreciated without too much work, intellectually speaking.
However I would say that the same does not hold true for music composed in the latter half of the 20th century, where the appreciation of the art is based very much more on an intellectual level and as such an understanding of the work is not exactly required to appreciate it, but it helps. You approach the music in a different way. The context of the work becomes more and more important.
Is it possible to gain a sense of emotional impact from music without understanding how it was put together?
Most people who are not musicians, and probably many musicians, enjoy music without understanding how it is put together. So yes.
I’m inclined to think that an understanding of music on an intellectual level may create a ‘deeper’ level of emotional impact, but actually, I’m not sure. As I’m writing this I can’t help but think of the film Schindler’s List which is shot entirely in black and white, bar some scenes depicting a little girl wearing a red coat. You kind of wonder why Spielberg has done this and it’s perhaps clear at the end of the movie when Schindler repeatedly says that he wishes he had saved one more life… Just one more.
Devastating.
I digress.
But on further reflection I’m inclined to think that the reverse is true in music: if I’m analysing the music on an intellectual level I’m not responding to it so much on an emotional level.
Try to describe examples that support your answer. How is emotion created in music?
Emotion in music is created principally through a combination of tension and resolution, dissonance and consonance, and changes in dynamic range over time. Composers manipulate these systems in music to create emotion, e.g. Bach’s Toccata and Fugue in D minor BWV565. Like much of his music, it’s a journey of dissonance and consonance and ultimate resolution when we get to the end. The way the ‘voices’ resolve creates an emotional response, in me at least. This is music at a ‘Physics’ level – laws of harmony, overtones, etc.
The context of a work also has a lot to do with how we respond to music. For example, listening to Shostakovich’s fifth symphony as pure music creates an emotional response. Much like Beethoven’s fifth, there’s no denying the drama of the opening, but listening to it with an understanding of the historical context creates a further dimension by which to respond to the work. Somewhat like the Schindler’s list analogy.
Can the chance pieces deliver the same emotional impact as a systematically composed piece? Give reasons for your answer.
Like the modern artists of the time, such as Jackson Pollock who was randomly throwing paint on the canvas to create art, composers who used chance systems could not be entirely sure how the music was going to end up. It may or may not create an emotional impact, it’s by definition pure chance. A systematically composed piece has the possibility of delivering an emotional impact if the composer wants it to, though it depends on the system being used. Easier to achieve with a tonal system than a serialist system.
In your listening log, describe the main similarities and contrasts that strike you in the chance and serial pieces, and consider your personal response to the works
It seems to me that both serial music and chance music are methods of deconstructing music.
Some composers look for new and innovative ways to create music. Serialism created a set of rules that composers could follow. Chance music is another system by which to compose, but these systems just create a different set of rules to the tonal rules that came before, and they ultimately become a straight jacket. The serialist composer who has used 11 tones in a prior passage does not have a choice as to what comes next! In a sense Cage’s I Ching method also takes the choice out of the composer’s hands. A distinction also needs to be made regarding the chance element and whether it takes place during the composition, or during the performance, or both.
(My response to the works is explained under each piece)
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleatoric_music
Ross, Alex. The Rest is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century. (2007) HarperCollins Publishers.
Jim Mennell Music 