# New Complexity Discussion Thread



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

In this thread we shall discuss _new complexity._ Wikipedia describes it well....



Wikipedia said:


> Though often atonal, highly abstract, and dissonant in sound, the "New Complexity" is most readily characterized by the use of techniques which require complex musical notation. This includes extended techniques, complex and often unstable textures, microtonality, highly disjunct melodic contour, complex layered rhythms, abrupt changes in texture, and so on. It is also characterized, in contradistinction to the music of the immediate post-World War II serialists, by the frequent reliance of its composers on poetic conceptions, very often implied in the titles of individual works and work-cycles.


Anyone here like this music? As for me, I'm not all too familiar with it apart from the music of Brian Ferneyhough. I LOVE Terrain and I'd like to know more music like this by other composers!

So here's the place to discuss New Complexity, recommend works and composers.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Do Birtwistle and Carter count or are they not complex enough?

My favourite Ferneyhough piece is "Flurries" which is probably one of his more accessible works. He splits the ensemble into 3 duos and then 2 trios.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Garlic said:


> Do Birtwistle and Carter count or are they not complex enough?


I don't know much about Birtwistle, but as for Carter, he avoided using many extended techniques and his use of harmony is deceptively simple (a single piece might have harmonies derived from only a couple of chords) and doesn't go beyond the chromatic scale. The only thing really complex he did was in the rhythm.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

So far I have only heard the music of Ferneyhough and I have not been able to get into it. I am interested to hear any other suggestions that you may have.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I am unfamiliar with this music, but the term itself sounds intriguing, like something right down my alley. I too would like to hear examples.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I would submit that "new complexity" is music which defies immediate comprehension; it creates environments which surround us with large complexes of information, in chunks too large for our "streaming" capabilities, so that upon re-visiting such works, new meanings and patterns are gleaned, yet the work always remains a mysterious edifice, a labyrinth in which we wander.


The "systems" which generate these labyrinths are what concern composers such as Boulez, Ligeti, Cage, and the others mentioned here; how can I create an environment which transcends my own capacity for immediate comprehension, which has resonances which go beyond the surface of my understanding, which can be "streamed" again and again? 

For me, the term "new complexity" also implies music which is more "experimental" rather than deterministic, which has elements of unpredictability, and this resonates with Cage & Stockhausen as well, not just newer composers.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't know much about Birtwistle, but as for Carter, he avoided using many extended techniques and his use of harmony is deceptively simple (a single piece might have harmonies derived from only a couple of chords) and doesn't go beyond the chromatic scale. The only thing really complex he did was in the rhythm.


Intentionally or not (not, he was just doing his thing, laying down his own road) Carter is cited regularly as a sort of Daddy / GrandDaddy precursor of what led to / became the new complexity. Ditto the total serialist crew.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Garlic said:


> Do Birtwistle and Carter count or are they not complex enough?
> 
> My favourite Ferneyhough piece is "Flurries" which is probably one of his more accessible works. He splits the ensemble into 3 duos and then 2 trios.


wow, that clicked on me really fast, particularly the second duo, clarinet-piano. I have listened to other pieces by Ferneyhough and sometimes I get bored after a few minutes. I think the splitting in duos and trios helps in creating some textural contrast and so the full piece remains interesting.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I'm about to take issue with a genre I don't know that well. So, disclaimer. Feel free to recommend pieces that would change my mind 

I often like the sound of these pieces but I really wonder about the value of putting so many highly specific and overlapping details into a composition. Do those details honestly make a difference to the audience experience of the piece? If not, why are they there?

For example, the above-quoted Flurries. It's enjoyable to listen to. I could probably dance to it actually. Now what's the deal with all the nested polyrhythms? Why ask the clarinetist to count 8:7 inside of 14:11 inside of 20:13? Is the clarinetist actually going to be doing that math at tempo?? No way. Even when pianists play Chopin, for any cross-rhythm more complex than 4:3 we're just fitting the notes in alternation with each other, or starting one hand at a faster speed and the other at a slower speed and making sure to end at the same time. (I know this is not just me because multiple teachers have said so and because Garrick Ohlsson said in a lecture that it was Claudio Arrau's advice as well.) And pianists practice 2:3 and 4:3 scales as a matter of course, which clarinets don't do.

Given that the clarinettist will not be counting all the rhythms mathematically, the next question is, why write all those numbers that way, why not just write some 32nds and 16ths with an accel. or rit. to add some subtle change if necessary? That would produce the same effect in actual performance and the audience would notice no difference.

Or: The three-note slur for the cello that has an accent on the first note, staccato on the last note, is marked ben marcato, and has an fp on the first note. All those things are perfectly playable, but they are redundant. A classically trained cellist will look at a three-note slur with any one of those markings and it will come out sounding pretty much the same. If any of the markings could be removed with no effect on the audience experience, why are they there?

I could speculate that there is some other agenda here, like trying to create a serious and focused set of body language and facial expressions among the performers instead of vibrant and dramatic body language. But even then one could get the same effect by writing at the top of the score "Maintain serious and focused body language throughout."

Happy to be given greater insight by the new complexity enthusiasts here, however.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

I don't really have any greater insight, but I don't think the musicians are necessarily expected to be able to execute the rhythms exactly accurately. It does mean no two performances will be the same.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

From a technical point of view, you are completely right, Heather. But I think there's an element of conceptual art in all this.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Help!!! I Think I Get It?*

I have had some interesting experiences listening to avant-garde music. Most the time it makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like a lot of random noise. Then I listen to the music while following the score. Then much of the nonsense suddenly disappears. I had this happen to me when I was listening to a piece of Xenakis while following the score. My reaction was, this is not as random as it sounds.

I just had this reaction from listening to the Ferneyhough "Flurries" while following the score. My initial reaction was, "Hey, this ain't that complected." For example, there was an interesting little thingie in measure 107. He used a very common technique that has been around awhile. It sounds like the horn playing a bunch of notes, then the clarinet playing a note, piccolo playing a few notes, finishing up with the clarinet playing a note. In the music I saw that this was actually one thematic idea. It starts out in the horn, who passes it to the clarinet, it then goes to the piccolo and then back to the clarinet. I would have missed it just listening to it. But it was obvious to me when I saw it in the music.

OK. I have finally heard and saw a Ferneyhough that I get.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Is Ferneyhough the "Red Earth" guy"? That is complex? It sounds sort of semi-minimalist to me. And I like it's overall effect, too.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Anyone here like this music? As for me, I'm not all too familiar with it apart from the music of Brian Ferneyhough. I LOVE Terrain and I'd like to know more music like this by other composers!


My ears hurt... 

... but in a good way. 

Unpredictable, ugly-beautiful and very enjoyable!


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2013)

Excellent questions from *Hreichgott* about the so-called New Complexity school, and a word of thanks to *ComposerofAvantGarde* (jeez, CoAg, can't we call you Dave or Daisy or something for short?) for launching the topic. I'll be up-front immediately here and say I admire some (but not all) of Ferneyhough, preferring James Dillon (same 'school', though he might well resent that label). I'm only going to take up a couple of the points Hreichgott raises, maybe other forum members can take up the relay.



hreichgott said:


> I often like the sound of these pieces but I really wonder about the value of putting so many highly specific and overlapping details into a composition. Do those details honestly make a difference to the audience experience of the piece? If not, why are they there?


 Information overload I think is what you could say here, and I agree with your drift. One can spend months writing out the most complex rhythms forgetting, as you say, that your finally worked-out filigrees will not be perceived or even appreciated. It would work just as well to use an 'approximate' notation. And the key idea here, as you suggest, is auditor reception. You may well think you have written out the most rationally conceived composition and as the composer be aware of all the structural interrelations. But if your audience perceives randomness that is what they hear, and that is what your composition will be.



hreichgott said:


> For example, the above-quoted Flurries. It's enjoyable to listen to. I could probably dance to it actually. Now what's the deal with all the nested polyrhythms? Why ask the clarinetist to count 8:7 inside of 14:11 inside of 20:13? Is the clarinetist actually going to be doing that math at tempo? No way.


Well, there is no way anyone, and I mean anyone, can sightread such music. It takes weeks and months. And the final result will only ever be - can only ever be - an approximation



hreichgott said:


> Given that the clarinettist will not be counting all the rhythms mathematically, the next question is, why write all those numbers that way, why not just write some 32nds and 16ths with an accel. or rit. to add some subtle change if necessary? That would produce the same effect in actual performance and the audience would notice no difference.


Yes. Notation is a cow. A useful tool, but far from perfect. S(h)e who writes the history, know what I'm sayin?



hreichgott said:


> Happy to be given greater insight by the new complexity enthusiasts here, however.


Yep, me too.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Is Ferneyhough the "Red Earth" guy"? That is complex? It sounds sort of semi-minimalist to me. And I like it's overall effect, too.


Red Earth is by Michael Finnissy who might be classed as new complexity, he is definitely associated with Ferneyhough, although it seems the only composer regularly classed as new complexity is Ferneyhough.

Finnissy was who I was going to bring up before you mentioned Red Earth, which I think I have heard but have forgotten about. He produces a lot of piano works which I like a lot. They are interesting because while they sound fairly complex and intricate they are also quite soft and reflective. They have the occasional crazy piano thumpings but much of it trickles away in the near-background, a lot like watching and hearing a stream running, or looking at foliage: undeniably difficult to understand completely but easy to appreciate if you take a step back.

He also has sets of Verdi and Gershwin transcriptions, some spikey string quartets, one with pre-recorded bird sounds and some beautiful choral works including motets and a setting of the Old English poem _The Battle of Maldon_

One trope I never really liked in modern classical music is the tendency to have sudden outbursts of sound with silence between them. Complexity seems to at least fill those gaps, making the music more continuous and relentless, which to me makes it more approachable, it is not trying to hide and pounce you. It also has the impression of being freer, than something like serialism, perhaps it sounds like a mess to some, but it is an intriguing mess to me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Thanks for all the great replies to this thread! I'm surprised at how many there are at this time! I guess I would check out some Michael Finnissy now.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2013)

quack said:


> One trope I never really liked in modern classical music is the tendency to have sudden outbursts of sound with silence between them [...].


Hah! But then Beethoven (for one) uses that to great effect. I think the difference between the silent 'gestures' of (say) Finnissy and (say) Beethoven is one of metre, the former being metrically indeterminate, the latter very much more _tick-tock_.
*Edit*: What I said just above borders on nonsense. What I want to say about 'silent' bars in Beethoven is that one counts through the metre. Not so easy in slow movements.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Thanks for all the great replies to this thread! I'm surprised at how many there are at this time! I guess I would check out some Michael Finnissy now.


And I really think you might check out some James Dillon.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> I'm about to take issue with a genre I don't know that well. So, disclaimer. Feel free to recommend pieces that would change my mind
> 
> I often like the sound of these pieces but I really wonder about the value of putting so many highly specific and overlapping details into a composition. Do those details honestly make a difference to the audience experience of the piece? If not, why are they there?
> 
> ...


I agree with everything that hreichgott said. As I stated above sometimes this music makes sense to me is when I see the score.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> Do those details honestly make a difference to the audience experience of the piece? If not, why are they there?


There are several ways to answer this question, and different adherents to New Complexity will undoubtedly give different answers.

One answer is that the "hidden" nature of the technique is part of the appeal. Some composers and listeners get some pleasure out of the notion that music has features that are not discernible by the ear alone and therefore involve the mind. It's an approach to music that has a long tradition: the drones from medieval organum were "hidden" allusions to the original plaintchants on which they were based; the cantus firmus of a Renaissance mass was often taken from a preexisting source; the numerology and symbolism of Bach cantatas were "hidden" references to the divine; and so on. It was mentioned above that integrated serialism was an important precursor to New Complexity, and this "hidden" aspect certainly applies there as well, since no human listener could possibly discern, say, the durational series of a Boulez piece just by listening.

Another possible reason is the tendency, inherited from romanticism, to value the idea of a piece over the actual manifestation (i.e. performance) of a piece. In this sense, pieces are abstract identities that have an ideal, perfect form, and any given performance is merely a single and probably imperfect realization of the ideal form. Brahms once said there was no reason for him to go to a concert when he could simply sit down with the score and hear a perfect performance of a piece in his head. He was only half-serious, no doubt, but a few composers have taken it somewhat seriously. The score to Schoenberg's op. 23 piano pieces is a bit infamous for having a few moments where a dynamic swell (a crescendo immediately followed by a decrescendo) is placed over a single note--something that is obviously impossible on a piano and whose presence in the score is not even made known to a listener. Schoenberg apparently inserted those markings more for the "idea" of it rather than because he expected a performer to execute it. There are also those Messiaen works in which, for example, two dotted whole notes tied to a 16th note is somehow supposed to be distinguishable from two dotted whole notes tied to a 32nd note. (Try it some time! Pick whatever tempo you want and see if you can hear the difference.) In this category I would also include those integrated serialist works in which some notes are marked _pppp_ , others are marked _ppp_, and others are marked _pp_, as if a performer could realistically perform all those gradations differently and consistently, let alone the issue of whether a listener could actually hear the difference between the three.

Finally, there's the more cynical reason that what the audience can or can't perceive is beside the point, since not every composer feels he is writing _for_ an audience. Sometimes composers want to write things just because.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

What I enjoy about the new complexity movement is that in the seemingly impossible complexity there arises a sort of improvisation from the instrumentalists. This added touch to the music and what the performer does when they cannot possibly play what is written is something which I find fascinating.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Oh hey it's getting to be a great discussion. Thanks CoAG for getting us going.

quack, let me join the chorus thanking you for the Finnisy recommendation. I found North American Spirituals quite moving -- almost had to turn it off at the point where the first spiritual tune dissolves into chaos, due to emotional overwhelm -- and also it has quite a bit of good counterpoint in the chaotic passages. It isn't AS complex as some of the other pieces mentioned, though some of the crazy cross-rhythms are still a bit arbitrary...

People mentioned that maybe part of the appeal is visual (looking at the score) or conceptual. That's understandable. Although it doesn't have any connection to whether the piece would be effective in performance -- unless the visual/conceptual element were tied into the performance in some way. Giant video projection of the score?

About uniqueness of performance: Sure, no two people will play 4:7 inside 14:11 inside 20:13 in exactly the same way. No two people will play "accel." or "rit." or a simple fermata in exactly the same way either. Or ornamentation. Or notes inegales. (Sometimes we don't give pre-1913 music enough credit for being indeterminate!)


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I did think of one non-performable piece I like:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> I did think of one non-performable piece I like:
> View attachment 25084
> 
> View attachment 25083


Done by a professional music engraver, for fun, as a joke 
Now, with midi, etc. realizations are possible, though they are almost as funny as the original "look only" score was meant to be.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I like that PetrB felt he had to inform us that that piece is a joke


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Problem.

Whenever I listen to atonal music or its offshoots, I can never visualize it. I only see "chaos".

I explain (rambling). Listening to Bruckner' Symphony no. 7, I imagine myself conquering the whole world.. Listening to Winterreise, I sympathize myself to the protagonist.. Etc.

But when I listen to atonal pieces ( example: New Complexity piece above, " Flurries"), all I can think is how disjointed and chaotic it is.. I can't imagine myself into this chaos.. So, anyone can help me understand it?

#tonalguywholovescshubert


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> I'm about to take issue with a genre I don't know that well. So, disclaimer. Feel free to recommend pieces that would change my mind
> 
> I often like the sound of these pieces but I really wonder about the value of putting so many highly specific and overlapping details into a composition. Do those details honestly make a difference to the audience experience of the piece? If not, why are they there?
> 
> ...


Well, you answered the question yourself: those nested polyrhythms (or irrational rhythms) are a way of precisely notating tempos which speed up and slow down, and for a German composer like Stockhausen, the notion of precision is very appealing. What's wrong with precision? If we decided to do these things as electronic music in computer environments, the precision is very apropo, in programs of high resolution/division of the beat. Take that 7:4, its common denominator is 28, a simple task for a program which can divide a single measure into thousands of "ticks."
As to performance challenges, this is part of the accomplishment of brilliant performers like David Tudor and Ursula Oppens. As to audience response, no, a 7:4 polyrhythm is not going to matter to Archie Bunker, but it does to me. I always found it irritating to find "shuffle feel" or "swing feel" written above jazz music scored in 4/4, when 6/8 or 12/8 would have been more precise, but as you said, "who counts to twelve in a jazz tune?" It's the limitation of our time signature notation; we have no way of putting a "3" value in the bottom. It's all by 2's, military style. Hmmph! Why shouldn't we escape from this over-simplified notation system, and give musicians a real challenge?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> I like that PetrB felt he had to inform us that that piece is a joke


by a professional engraver


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> Problem.
> 
> Whenever I listen to atonal music or its offshoots, I can never visualize it. I only see "chaos".
> 
> ...


Ahh, chaos! Take a walk in the woods, my friend, and notice the chaotic, irrational patterns all around you. No, I can't help you understand such complexity; I can only send you into the labyrinth, where, hopefully, you'll get lost. In a good way, that is.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> Problem.
> 
> Whenever I listen to atonal music or its offshoots, I can never visualize it. I only see "chaos".
> 
> ...


Like a new geographic terrain unfamiliar to you, you have to walk around in it, several or many times, before you literally get "the lay of the land." Anything outside your listening habits, recognition will need this to slight or greater degree.

Then, you may know it better and get it, and still not care for it, because it is all about taste and personally whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> Problem.
> 
> Whenever I listen to atonal music or its offshoots, I can never visualize it. I only see "chaos".
> 
> ...


Are you familiar with 20th century tonal music, like (pre-serial) Stravinsky, Prokofiev, or Shostakovich? Because then it's only a very small step away in style. Likewise for late Mahler, Reger, Busoni, or (later) Debussy.

I must admit, though, that most Ferneyhough I've heard (haven't listened to the linked examples yet, though, and I might later) sounds like a mostly undistinguished flurry of activity to me personally, but that can just mean that you don't understand the idiom.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Some pieces are meant to tell a story and some aren't. (You probably don't imagine stories listening to Bach?)

Maybe you could start with atonal pieces that do have a story, and make it obvious? Rite of Spring and Wozzeck might be good places to start -- not totally atonal but with a lot of tonal ambiguity/atonal passages -- and with a story you can follow.

Debussy is good too, as a way of understanding how one person's imagination moved from tonality into atonality, and a lot of his pieces have great visual imagery if not stories. Try Afternoon of a Faun (it has a story, or a poem rather) and later works.

EDIT: Oh right, this is a thread about New Complexity..... any pieces of that style that have obvious stories?


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

hreichgott said:


> Some pieces are meant to tell a story and some aren't. (You probably don't imagine stories listening to Bach?)
> 
> Maybe you could start with atonal pieces that do have a story, and make it obvious? Rite of Spring and Wozzeck might be good places to start -- not totally atonal but with a lot of tonal ambiguity/atonal passages -- and with a story you can follow.
> 
> ...


I didn't mean that it has to tell a story or something. It just to make me think of something and _make_ me feel something.. Listening to Bach is calming, the sound of it serenading the soul, but atonal music, it's chaotic.. That's never a bad thing. There is a beauty in chaos, but that beauty escapes me.. 

PS: Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune is my favorite Debussy. It has this sort of hypnotizing you into its own unique world. La Mer is pretty great too.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Anyone here like this music? As for me, I'm not all too familiar with it apart from the music of Brian Ferneyhough. I LOVE Terrain and I'd like to know more music like this by other composers!


That Ferneyhough work was absolute garbage. I like atonal music (mainly _Second Viennese School_, Ligeti, Schnittke, Lutoslawski). This particular work expressed nothing. There's no emotional depth, there's nothing that grabs me, and, most importantly, the music goes absolutely nowhere. One meaningless note after another with nothing to latch onto but the scurrying and scraping of strings. Sorry, if this is one of the crowning achievements of this "New Complexity" style, then count me as one of the movement's fierce detractors.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Thanks for all the great replies to this thread! I'm surprised at how many there are at this time! I guess I would check out some Michael Finnissy now.


Finnissy ~ Snowdrift, for piano


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> I didn't mean that it has to tell a story or something. It just to make me think of something and _make_ me feel something.. Listening to Bach is calming, the sound of it serenading the soul, but atonal music, it's chaotic.. That's never a bad thing. There is a beauty in chaos, but that beauty escapes me..
> 
> PS: Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune is my favorite Debussy. It has this sort of hypnotizing you into its own unique world. La Mer is pretty great too.


Before you jump to this newer vocabulary / manner of music making, may I suggest you first:
Go forward to: 
Debussy's Jeux
Berg Violin Concerto / KammerKonzert (for 13 instruments)
Mahler ~ Das Lied von der Erde / Adagio, symphony no. 10
Schoenberg ~ Verklärte Nacht (excellent performance, original string octet version)








Maybe George Rochberg's Violin Concerto
Lukas Foss ~ Time Cycle (chamber versions on youtube -- if you have access, the premiere recording with full orchestra, Bernstein, NYPhil, Adele Addison, soprano
and branch out and through those areas, early Elliott Carter, then later, like the Symphony of three orchestras, etc.

-- a lot of those are still very lyric, and might better help you shift some of your sensibilities / expectations before "leapfrogging" to the new complexity.

This only because some people require the gradual progression / transition before they can hear much of anything of interest in later works (some of these nearly now 100 years apart!), while others can readily jump around comfortably and just 'go anywhere' -- neither indicating anything but differences in approach more comfortable for the individual.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Atonal music often has a tendency to sound less discordant when played on guitar, strangely enough....Here's a New Complex piece (again by Ferneyhough) for two guitars. I first heard it yesterday:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Also, I had a look around on YouTube for some other composers of New Complexity and found some pretty cool stuff. I was even surprised at how different and individual these composers sound even if they all compose in this style. They are all distinguishable from one another and very different in sound.....before I listened to them I actually assumed that it would be extremely hard to come up with anything extremely individual and unique in sound when trying to make as complex as possible in its execution both from the composer and from the poor instrumentalists! But wow! It's great to hear so many diverse voices in this style!

I'll have to find the quartet I heard........


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Aha I found it! Now this is _so_ different to Ferneyhough, still retaining the same ideas of New Complexity:


----------



## ericdxx (Jul 7, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Are you familiar with 20th century tonal music, like (pre-serial) Stravinsky, Prokofiev, or Shostakovich? Because then it's only a very small step away in style.


I was going to say that whenever I listen to atonal music I always find myself thinking "hey Stravinsky already did that". Often what I hear is Stravinsky with a couple of funny sounds....


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

This thread has lead me to James Dillon's Book Of Elements 1 which I enjoyed. Although he is associated with 'New Complexity', I wouldn't class this piece as such. It sounds more like Messiaen mixed with some Ligeti Etudes and Ravel's 'Gaspard' on LSD!
Much more approachable than any Ferneyhough I've come across.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ericdxx said:


> I was going to say that whenever I listen to atonal music I always find myself thinking "hey Stravinsky already did that". Often what I hear is Stravinsky with a couple of funny sounds....


Schoenberg wrote his first pieces without key signatures before Stravinsky even got started!

Strangely enough, when I hear music people call atonal, it sounds like music to me.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

To be honest I wasn't expecting to find music that I enjoyed here, but the Finnissy North American Spirituals was fascinating and beautiful. I've listened twice now and I'm a bit hooked.

PetrB: Thanks for the Rochberg Violin Concerto suggestion. I'm not sure if I had ever heard it before, but I loved it from the first listening. 

I love threads like these because they point me in places I may not have gone otherwise, and I'm rather glad I looked through the thread.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

Some composers who have been producing music that shares much in common with the aesthetics of New Complexity but don't carry that label include:

Stefano Gervasoni 
Beat Furrer
Helmut Lachenmann
Enno Poppe
Hector Parra

Two composers who have been included under the umbrella of the New Complexity label but haven't yet been mentioned in this thread are:

Chris Dench
Jonathan Harvey

All of the above composers have commercially available recordings I treasure. I might add the name Rebecca Saunders to this list even though I really don't think "New Complexity" quite gets at what she's doing but her output is uniformly excellent IMO.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Andolink said:


> All of the above composers have commercially available recordings I treasure. I might add the name Rebecca Saunders to this list even though I really don't think "New Complexity" quite gets at what she's doing but her output is uniformly excellent IMO.


Thanks very much for the Rebecca Saunders recommendation (and to all the other great ear-opening stuff on this thread). I just played Into The Blue which was superb, currently the not-on-cd premiere of Ire, which begins with an interesting couple of minutes of Saunders talking about the work:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> I didn't mean that it has to tell a story or something. It just to make me think of something and _make_ me feel something.. Listening to Bach is calming, the sound of it serenading the soul, but atonal music, it's chaotic.. That's never a bad thing. There is a beauty in chaos, but that beauty escapes me..
> 
> PS: Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune is my favorite Debussy. It has this sort of hypnotizing you into its own unique world. La Mer is pretty great too.


It's OK to not be able to engage with chaos, as long as you don't invalidate the notion of chaos, and the people engaging with it. That would be "genre profiling," and if you're going to be a good Art Policeman, you'll have to be trained to look past your own cultural biases, whether those biases are innate, or if they are indicative of a misguided desire to assimilate into the status quo. It's similar to deciding whetherr to try the Quarter-Pounder BLT, or stick with the original.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> It's OK to not be able to engage with chaos, as long as you don't invalidate the notion of chaos, and the people engaging with it. That would be "genre profiling," and if you're going to be a good Art Policeman, you'll have to be trained to look past your own cultural biases, whether those biases are innate, or if they are indicative of a misguided desire to assimilate into the status quo. It's similar to deciding whetherr to try the Quarter-Pounder BLT, or stick with the original.











I'm sorry--but I couldn't resist!

Thanks for all the musical recommendations in any case, everyone!


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

What immediately strikes me when hearing this is that the problem, and the greatness of this kind of music is that the players and composer seem to be having a lot more fun with it than the listener! Its all a little overwhelming to me right now. It certainly has charm and originality, i'll let it grow on me.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Garlic said:


> I don't really have any greater insight, but I don't think the musicians are necessarily expected to be able to execute the rhythms exactly accurately. It does mean no two performances will be the same.


Ferneyhough has a hearsay reputation of _fully expecting exactly what the rhythm is on the page from his players_.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Ferneyhough has a hearsay reputation of _fully expecting exactly what the rhythm is on the page from his players_.


It's a bit of a lol, but at the same time I would expect that too if I was Ferneyhough! I have been expected to play scores full of relatively complex rhythms, extremely complex layering and very very very precise directions on how exactly it should be played on my instrument. After a while I got the realisation that the performer needs to _feel_ the music as the composer wrote it, rather than simply _count_ and _read_ the music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Brian Ferneyhough, while in San Diego, wrote this about my stomping grounds: "Certainly being in California has encouraged a sustained commitment to rethinking the nature, purposes, and relevance of the contemporary arts, specifically music, for a society which by and large seems to manage quite well without them."


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Aha I found it! Now this is _so_ different to Ferneyhough, still retaining the same ideas of New Complexity:


This is great. And I couldn't help noticing that all the numerous marks in the score are things that noticeably affect the sound...


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I would expect that too if I was Ferneyhough!


You have got to be kidding.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> This is great. And I couldn't help noticing that all the numerous marks in the score are things that noticeably affect the sound...


The nature of the beast requires anyone writing like this to be thorough, clear, and most specific in the score, including all musical directives, as it in great part relies on dynamics and effects for its overall sound, i.e. that is the big preoccupation with this sort of music, so it must be in the score.

An aside.... all the variance of rhythm, the often high profile or extreme shape of the contours of the lines, conspire to make music which is, in analogy, sculpted, its shapes quite prominent as part of the intent.

The deliberate obscuring of pulse and bar-lines together with that high-profile contouring have an affinity with those exact same traits as found in later romantic music, which are a great deal of what make the character of late romantic music "romantic." This is a kind of neoromanticism in that regard, all the same fundamental technical principles in play making sound and form which we all associate as being highly "expressive."

_plus ça change_....


----------



## Praeludium (Oct 9, 2011)

(I just wanted to say I love this thread, but I've got nothing to add, not knowledgeable enough)

The thing that is bothering me the most with New Complexity is that I can never recall (or properly pronounce) Ferneyhough's name, so everytime I try to talk about him I fail miserably.
Coag, what about trying Ferneyhough Kurz Schatten II as your next piece on guitar ?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Praeludium said:


> (I just wanted to say I love this thread, but I've got nothing to add, not knowledgeable enough)
> 
> The thing that is bothering me the most with New Complexity is that I can never recall (or properly pronounce) Ferneyhough's name, so everytime I try to talk about him I fail miserably.
> Coag, what about trying Ferneyhough Kurz Schatten II as your next piece on guitar ?


Ha, I asked my teacher on Thursday if I could play one of those next and he said "No way" :lol: But he does like that type of guitar music.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I just listened to and read this piece of music by James Dillon:






Probably not as complex and experimental as works by Ferneyhough and others, but I really liked the way Dillon alternated a very complex rhythmic layering with more stable and repetitive ones at various points in the composition.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Personally I haven't found any New Complexity pieces that I found especially engaging. Much of it strikes me as complexity for complexity's sake which I don't find interesting in itself. Though I do admit I dig some of the interesting timbres some of these pieces coax out of instruments  Perhaps with more listening something will click. I will say that one of these videos did lead me to one of the most exciting new pieces I've heard in awhile 






I don't believe this counts as new complexity, but it certainly counts as awesome and badass :3


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

For me (generally speaking), these new complexity composers have a lot of characteristics I would identify as more "experimental" rather than totally rational; Ligeti comes to mind. It also seems to me that, since much of the territory of modernism has been mapped out, that these composers are exploring certain aspects within the pieces, zooming-in on particular aspects of timbre, perception of time, instrument characteristics, and other possibilities.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Personally I haven't found any New Complexity pieces that I found especially engaging. Much of it strikes me as complexity for complexity's sake which I don't find interesting in itself. Though I do admit I dig some of the interesting timbres some of these pieces coax out of instruments  Perhaps with more listening something will click.
> [...]


Felt the need to comment here. When I combine _COAG_'s mention [that the composer wants strict compliance with the score from the musician] with your post - and my own limited listening experience - I wonder if this 'complexity' thing constitutes another approach to the creation of an accurate composer-performer-listener communication stream. If so, it's pretty clever as a psychological ploy: make accuracy/precision a high priority _because_ of the fine-grained precision of the score.

This notion runs counter to my understanding of post-1970s composition, which is that the latter two elements in the co-per-lis trio are intentionally ill-informed.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Found an article re Finnissy:

http://www.trebuchet-magazine.com/complex-classical-michael-finnissy/

Maybe because of the two compositions by him that I've heard, I thought he was Aussie.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Found an article re Finnissy:
> 
> http://www.trebuchet-magazine.com/complex-classical-michael-finnissy/
> 
> Maybe because of the two compositions by him that I've heard, I thought he was Aussie.


Very interesting article. I laughed aloud at this bit from the introduction, though perhaps the humor was intentional:



> In April 2001 Ian Pace, also an accomplished pianist and musicologist, performed Finnissy's epic five and half hour composition for solo piano History of Photography in Sound at the Royal Academy of Music to wide acclaim for both the performer and composer alike.
> 
> Why aren't hearing his work on the radio?


Quite the juxtaposition! The interview is great--Finnissy is articulate and interesting. I'm glad he "makes the mistake of trying to explain, and defend, my work and the thinking behind it."

Thanks for the link!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

At best these pieces are mildly interesting. At worst the instruments are not so much played as they are raped.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Couchie said:


> At worst the instruments are not so much played as they are raped.


See, peeyaj?, imagery _is_ possible in this music!.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couchie said:


> At best these pieces are mildly interesting. At worst the instruments are not so much played as they are raped.


You have clearly not polled string players, especially the violinists, who have played Wagner


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Couchie said:


> At best these pieces are mildly interesting. At worst the instruments are not so much played as they are raped.


Such comparisons make me wince. Please come up with something else.


----------

