# Brian Ferneyhough



## Herzeleide

For the naysayers who think he's impracticable, here he is teaching/conducting a piece of his:


----------



## Bach

Very interesting, thank you.

I'm a big Ferneyhough person.


----------



## starry

I've liked his Unity Capsule piece from 1973-6.


----------



## bdelykleon

I'm still unable to enjoy Ferneyhough. It will be cliché to say that it seems all too difficult and technically demanding then really enjoyable.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I just had a seminar that was taken by him. He's got quite fat and needs his beard trimming.

He was talking about his music, in particular his orchestral music. He's got a whole world of sound in his head. Pity it's all too complex for mere mortals to comprehend.

He said his music is an affront and he's well aware of this. The thing is, there's going to be a point where we can't get more radical and will have to take some steps back.


----------



## tdc

A comment I noticed in regards to the Ferneyhough youtube vid:

"I heard a similar piece played by drainage workmen on assorted hammers and shovels while stuck in roadworks on the A27 Chichester bypass on 22 July 2005.﻿ They appeared to be playing without sheet music, having committed the piece to memory - a staggering achievement - though at one point the foreman shouted to a young lad "Keep up, ye fookin slacker!!", indicative of the immense challenges faced by even these seasoned Ferneyhoughian contrapuntalists."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTvzf...eature=related


----------



## norman bates

Kurze Schatten is the most complex and the worst thing ever composed for guitar hands down




There is something heroic in writing a pieces that is so damn ugly (even for people like me with very weird tastes) and at the same time is so difficult.



tdc said:


> A comment I noticed in regards to the Ferneyhough youtube vid:
> 
> "I heard a similar piece played by drainage workmen on assorted hammers and shovels while stuck in roadworks on the A27 Chichester bypass on 22 July 2005.﻿ They appeared to be playing without sheet music, having committed the piece to memory - a staggering achievement - though at one point the foreman shouted to a young lad "Keep up, ye fookin slacker!!", indicative of the immense challenges faced by even these seasoned Ferneyhoughian contrapuntalists."
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTvzf...eature=related


:lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Vasconcelos

Hey guys... Where I found his book "Brian Ferneyhough: Collected Writings" to download?

Please, I need it so much!

Thanks!


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> Kurze Schatten is the most complex and the worst thing ever composed for guitar hands down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something heroic in writing a pieces that is so damn ugly (even for people like me with very weird tastes) and at the same time is so difficult.


I agree. Well, there are a few pieces that challenge its complexity, "I Giardini del Sogno" by Karl Wieland-Kurtz, for one, but it's not as ugly! Fernyhough's use of quarter-tones just makes the guitar sound out of tune. Wieland-Kurtz uses them in one spot, but they add a surreal effect.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Listen to the 'solo' on this from 0:43 to 0:57 - would the modernist masters approve even though this is a joke?


----------



## violadude

elgars ghost said:


> Listen to the 'solo' on this from 0:43 to 0:57 - would the modernist masters approve even though this is a joke?


You can tell by the context of the song that it is a joke...I don't understand your point.


----------



## Frasier

Vasconcelos said:


> Hey guys... Where I found his book "Brian Ferneyhough: Collected Writings" to download?
> 
> Please, I need it so much!
> 
> Thanks!


I thought I needed it, as our house has a big oak door that needs stopping. Well, it's an expensive book to buy but is filled with long, abstruse words. You may not understand what they mean but they do sound good when spouted in the company of critics and groupies. They won't understand what the words mean either so you're on safe ground.

The opening paper "Aspects of Notational and Compositional Practice" continues on for about 12 pages in florid and unfathomable terms just to say that your notational system must be capable of expressing everything you need to express when you compose. Oh, and don't forget it has to look good on paper. To summarise, his writing is a bit like his composition. Perhaps one day someone will discover a Ferneyhough Stone, a bit like a Rosetta Stone, that would be invaluable in translating his writings into English and his obscure, cluttered drawings into music.

You need to look at some of his scores. Time signatures of 5/32 or 13/16 are fine. It's when you hit 7/10 or 5/12 that things get either weird or amusing, depending on whether you're trying to play the thing or want to frame it to hang on the wall.


----------



## elgar's ghost

violadude said:


> You can tell by the context of the song that it is a joke...I don't understand your point.


Not a point as such, it's just that in my ignorance I can hardly tell the difference between the Swell Maps' pretend incompetence with the guitar 'solo' in my link and the presumably ultra-serious 'Kurze Schatten' offering that was posted.


----------



## Frasier

Just be thankful it wasn't 'Lange Schatten'. I think he did write a version: 'Ein sehr langer Schatten' but it kept listeners in the dark too long.....


----------



## SottoVoce

You know, people whine all the time about the pretentiousness of avant garde composers, but the only pretentiousness I see around here is coming from the people who can't understand and thus ridicule a persons art. The comments made on here are just plain disrespectful, whether or not you like this music. If you don't, why are you posting here? I enjoy very much ferneyhoughs music


----------



## Frasier

SottoVoce said:


> You know, people whine all the time about the pretentiousness of avant garde composers, but the only pretentiousness I see around here is coming from the people who can't understand and thus ridicule a persons art. The comments made on here are just plain disrespectful, whether or not you like this music. If you don't, why are you posting here? I enjoy very much ferneyhoughs music


If I'm not mistaken, Ferneyhough himself knows he's controversial. But while here, pray tell me what there is to "understand" about music in general or Ferneyhough in particular. You don't understand a cup of coffee, you drink it and enjoy it or otherwise.


----------



## Mandryka

Does anyone here know which texts Ferneyhough used in Transit?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

For you avant-garde nerds out there  here is a great piece composed by Ferneyhough this very year:

Brian Ferneyhough- Inconjunctions (for ensemble) (2014)


----------



## Dirge

Brian FERNEYHOUGH: _La Chûte d'Icare_ (Petite sérénade de la disparition) for clarinet and mixed septet (1988)
Rosman, Deroyer/Elision Ensemble [Kairos]

This "little serenade of disappearance" is a sort of pint-sized (ten-minute) clarinet concerto based upon the Icarus myth by way of the Brueghel painting _Landscape with the Fall of Icarus_ (c. 1558) as discussed in the Auden poem "Musée des Beaux Arts" (1938)-the Auden title referring to Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, where the Brueghel painting (now thought to be an early copy of a lost Brueghel original) is kept. The painting and poem can be viewed here: http://beetleinabox.tumblr.com/day/2010/07/23

Brueghel drolly depicts Icarus's flight/plight at the moment of splashdown, an unassuming pair of splayed legs all but lost in the mundanely preoccupied and unnoticing (or uncaring?) scene being the only telltale of the occurring disaster. The painting itself gives no indication that any of its local inhabitants actually notice Icarus falling out of the sky and splashing into the sea, but Auden believes that they have noticed and are leisurely ignoring it. This seems to be Fereneyhough's view as well, as the local inhabitants of the landscape (the ensemble) are not unaware of Icarus (the clarinet), but they're leisurely ignoring him. The "program" (if you can call it that) of the music is quite abstract-there's no way, for example, that one could hear the music out of the blue and think "Icarus!"-but knowing the subject matter ahead of time and working backwards, one can rationalize/delude oneself into thinking that one detects a method to Ferneyhough's madness and discerns a program.

The clarinet is pretty busy throughout, often squawking in a sort of vocalized avant-garde jazz manner that reminds me of Eric Dolphy's "conversations" with Charles Mingus, only Mingus isn't answering back; in a rationalized program sense, it sounds as if the clarinet is trying to get the ensemble's attention but not having much luck-the members of the ensemble are too concerned with tending to their day-to-day tasks to pay him any heed. There's frustration in the clarinet's tone from the git-go, with a growing sense of trouble as the work proceeds, culminating in the final meltdown and plummeting descent and splashdown/drowning, which is well represented by the clarinet's virtuoso cadenza at work's end. From Icarus's perspective, the work's sequence might go something like this: "Excuse me, but I'm having a little trouble with my wings" to "A little help here … anyone?" to "Hey! Ploughman! I know you can hear me, damn it!" to "Houston, we have a problem" to "Holy%#$&*[email protected]!!!" to "Ouch!" to *gurgle, gurgle, gurgle, gur….* For their part, the ensemble members react sympathetically without actually engaging the clarinet, maintaining a sort of parallel relationship much of the time. Not everything in the work fits that mold (some might argue that nothing in the work fits that mold), but that's how I've generally chosen to hear it.

The bold, dramatic, vigorously responsive Elision performance is excellent, besting the earlier accounts by Nieuw Ensemble [EtCetera] and Ensemble Contrechamps [Accord] in every respect I can think of. Carl Rosman plays the bejesus out of the clarinet, bringing a real sense of communication to the aforementioned vocalized squawking that adds a whole nother dimension to the music. The recorded sound is fairly close-up and bold but very clean, smooth, and refined, allowing instrumental timbres to come through quite vividly. The recording can be heard at Spotify and YouTube:


----------



## Morimur

It's rather a shame that Ferneyhough doesn't command a larger audience. His music, along with that of Barret's, Finnissy's and Lachenmann's is some of the most innovative and thrilling of the 21st century. Let's leave the dead guys alone for awhile and appreciate what we have here and now.


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> It's rather a shame that Ferneyhough doesn't command a larger audience. His music, along with that of Barret's, Finnissy's and Lachenmann's is some of the most innovative and thrilling of the 21st century. Let's leave the dead guys alone for awhile and appreciate what we have here and now.


It's a shame that no single label is churning out Ferneyhough or Barrett works like ECM churns out Arvo Part tunes. And I like Arvo Part, personally..


----------



## Morimur

nathanb said:


> It's a shame that no single label is churning out Ferneyhough or Barrett works like ECM churns out Arvo Part tunes. And I like Arvo Part, personally..


Not a fan of Part's, but I am sure he's too busy swimming in a sizable pile of cash to care.


----------



## GioCar

At least from time to time there come out some interesting new recordings.

I bought the latest (I believe)









Complete Works for String Quartet & Trios (3CD)
Arditti Quartet

and i'm slowly going through it... 
Wonderful music, each one of these works deserves repeated listening, and repays for it.


----------



## Morimur

I wish NMC would remaster 'Shadowtime'. I really have to crank up the volume in order to hear anything—it's infuriating.


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> Not a fan of Part's, but I am sure he's too busy swimming in a sizable pile of cash to care.


I enjoy my fair share of conservative music, but admittedly Part's gotten a bit too comfortable lately. The ECM discs _Adam's Lament_, _In Principio_, and _Orient Occident_ in particular feel like direct re-hashes of _Te Deum_, _Litany_, and _Miserere_. And does _every_ disc have to contain a version of "Summa" and "Fratres"?

Even so, I think works like "Tabula Rasa", "Kanon Pokajanen", or "Passio" earn him a place in my heart 

Edit: Erm...back to Ferneyhough! Unless I get stuck on some overlong Romantic opera today, I'll probably fit in some Ferneyhough... I need to give the middle quartets (aka everything but the sonatas and the 6th...) more attention.


----------



## Mandryka

nathanb said:


> I enjoy my fair share of conservative music, but admittedly Part's gotten a bit too comfortable lately. The ECM discs _Adam's Lament_, _In Principio_, and _Orient Occident_ in particular feel like direct re-hashes of _Te Deum_, _Litany_, and _Miserere_. And does _every_ disc have to contain a version of "Summa" and "Fratres"?
> 
> Even so, I think works like "Tabula Rasa", "Kanon Pokajanen", or "Passio" earn him a place in my heart
> 
> Edit: Erm...back to Ferneyhough! Unless I get stuck on some overlong Romantic opera today, I'll probably fit in some Ferneyhough... I need to give the middle quartets (aka everything but the sonatas and the 6th...) more attention.


I'd be interested in what you think of the explosive 3rd quartet.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I've been intentionally avoiding this composer, because life's too short to try to understand everything, and he impresses me as someone who requires an effort to understand. And there are so many composers I need to get to know, is all this time invested on just one person going to be worthwhile for me personally?

Having said that, this thread is prompting me to make an effort, so I'm watching this:


----------



## Mandryka

Manxfeeder said:


> I've been intentionally avoiding this composer, because life's too short to try to understand everything, and he impresses me as someone who requires an effort to understand. And there are so many composers I need to get to know, is all this time invested on just one person going to be worthwhile for me personally?
> 
> Having said that, this thread is prompting me to make an effort, so I'm watching this:


I don't think he does require a singular effort from the listener, no more than late Beethoven or late Bach. Some of his music reminds me very much of late Beethoven. He's nowhere near as challenging as Feldman.

The pieces which first convinced me that he was up to something special were Transit and the 6th quartet.


----------



## Morimur

Ferneyhough's music is certainly complex and depending on one's musical aesthetic, and attitude towards the avant-garde, it may make intimidating demands that one is not prepared to meet. As far as complex music is concerned, the best course of action is repeated listening. Of course, one must first acquire a passion for exploring new sonic territories, otherwise music such as Ferneyhough's will forever remain indecipherable to the ear.


----------



## Guest

I'll just add to the above two sentiments that Ferneyhough's music is really only unapproachable if the avant-garde in general is unapproachable. So it's not that life's too short for Ferneyhough - unless life's too short for the avant-garde. In which case, I must say that you're missing out on a *huge* treasure trove


----------



## Guest

Mandryka said:


> I'd be interested in what you think of the explosive 3rd quartet.


I've heard it before, but this kind of music is so dense that only with repeat listenings will nuances become truly familiar.

Listening to it right now. It's remarkable when you listen to something like this and then watch that video of the Arditti quartet working with Brian...and you realize that he has specific intent behind every little piece of it. Difficult to fathom such attention to detail, but that's part of the fun!


----------



## Manxfeeder

Mandryka said:


> . He's nowhere near as challenging as Feldman.


I think in exploring a new composer, I need to first feel some connection with them. I connect with Feldman - I don't know why - so it's not an effort for me to read books and articles to understand his music better. I haven't connected with Ferneyhough yet. I have the same problem with Peter Maxwell Davies. But I was that way once with Ligeti, and the people around these parts helped me get past that, so maybe that wall will come down.


----------



## Mandryka

nathanb said:


> I've heard it before, but this kind of music is so dense that only with repeat listenings will nuances become truly familiar.
> 
> Listening to it right now. It's remarkable when you listen to something like this and then watch that video of the Arditti quartet working with Brian...and you realize that he has specific intent behind every little piece of it. Difficult to fathom such attention to detail, but that's part of the fun!


You're talking about the video of the 6th quartet? In interview he once said that he didn't mind if the musicians played his music inaccurately, as long as they tried, because the act of trying will somehow make the performance electrifying.

I tend to listen just like I do with op 131. I don't listen intelectually, looking for transformed themes or stuff like that. But it's obvious I connect with Ferneyhough, as Manxfeeder would say. It just sounds natural and accessible to me.


----------



## isorhythm

I'm trying to get into Ferneyhough a little, and coming up with nothing. Those of you who like him, what do you like about him?

Also, every article I've read about him talks a lot about these over-the-top nested rhythms. As many people have pointed out they are not playable by humans, so is this purely conceptual? If so, what is the concept and why is it interesting?


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> I'm trying to get into Ferneyhough a little, and coming up with nothing. Those of you who like him, what do you like about him?
> 
> Also, every article I've read about him talks a lot about these over-the-top nested rhythms. As many people have pointed out they are not playable by humans, so is this purely conceptual? If so, what is the concept and why is it interesting?


One thing I like about the 6th quartet is the way the mood and the rhythms and the textures change so surprisingly, and yet the thing seems totally coherent. That's what made me think of op 131 when I first heard it.

I like the string trio because of the grotesque English style comedy.


----------



## isorhythm

Mandryka said:


> One thing I like about the 6th quartet is the way the mood and the rhythms and the textures change so surprisingly, and yet the thing seems totally coherent. That's what made me think of op 131 when I first heard it.
> 
> I like the string trio because of the grotesque English style comedy.


Thanks, I'll try out those pieces.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Ferneyhough... I listened to one of his string quartets a while ago, and meant to listen to some more, but never got round to it. I might try again.


----------



## Albert7

Dude, you are a genius. Looked at your score and wow, it's like looking at art.

Feldman and you are totally awesome score writers.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Albert7 said:


> Dude, you are a genius. Looked at your score and wow, it's like looking at art.
> 
> Feldman and you are totally awesome score writers.


They are very pretty, and they sound amazing too.


----------



## Albert7

MoonlightSonata said:


> They are very pretty, and they sound amazing too.


No kidding... that bone piece in the OP was just amazing to hear him rehearse... question is whether I can do a month devoted to him like I did Feldman?


----------



## Xenakiboy

Ok, Brian is one of those composers that I want to really like but everything apart from "La Terre est Un Homme", doesn't appeal to me at all. I'm trying hard, I even brought this: http://www.amazon.com/Ferneyhough-Critical-Guides-Contemporary-Composers/dp/1783200189 to attempt to appreciate it, but unfortunately it's not helping. And those who know me here on the forum know that I love lots of really dissonant, aggressive and highly polyphonic music. Anyone with some knowledge on Ferneyhough here have any idea how to approach his music?


----------



## Portamento

Call me crazy, but I'm really liking his String Trio. Better than any of the quartets (IMO, of course).


----------



## Guest

Portamento said:


> Call me crazy, but I'm really liking his String Trio. Better than any of the quartets (IMO, of course).


The string quartet is pretty nice! But better than the 6th quartet? oof 
What of his other chamber music, though?


----------



## Portamento

shirime said:


> The string quartet is pretty nice! But better than the 6th quartet? oof
> What of his other chamber music, though?


_Dum Transisset_ is OK, and so is guitar music. I find most of the orchestral stuff noisy and unbearable. Some notable exceptions are _Terrain_, _La chute d'Icare_, and _Firecycle Beta_.

I'll have to give the 6th String Quartet another listen.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Portamento said:


> _Dum Transisset_ is OK, and so is guitar music. I find most of the orchestral stuff noisy and unbearable. Some notable exceptions are _Terrain_, _La chute d'Icare_, and _Firecycle Beta_.
> 
> I'll have to give the 6th String Quartet another listen.


I finally learned to appreciate the 6th string quartet. For me the gateway work was the 4th string quartet to Ferneyhough.


----------



## Guest

_Dum Transisset_ is probably one of the most overtly 'traditional' string quartet pieces he has written inasmuch as surface level textures and forms are concerned.


----------



## stone

I've been listening to his music for flute and it blows me away, the depth and richness he can write for this instrument is incredible. Well worth listening to.


----------



## Mandryka

stone said:


> I've been listening to his music for flute and it blows me away, the depth and richness he can write for this instrument is incredible. Well worth listening to.


I am slowly, generally, I'm coming to the conclusion that flute is an instrument which has done well with the recent avant garde. Which pieces have you been listening to?


----------



## ZJovicic

Listened to this 8 times in a row today. (Masochism perhaps) 

Things SLOOOWLY kind of starting to fall into place.


----------



## Iota

This is rather strange, I've always drawn a complete blank on Ferneyhough's music until today, yet tonight, listening first to the 2nd String Quartet, then Inconjunctions, I find myself riveted to the action, they suddenly seem clearly remarkable works, full of engaging music. A very pleasant experience I must say, and am very interested to see where it leads.

The performances I listened to were from the post above by Zlovicic, and #18 by SeptimalTritone, so thank you to both those posters.


----------



## aleazk

Currently, I think Ferneyhough is my favorite composer (oh, the horror!...). I particularly enjoy the following pieces:


----------



## Mandryka

From wikipedia



> Liber Scintillarum (literally "The Book of Sparks") is a late seventh or early eighth-century florilegium of biblical and patristic sayings in Latin. It was compiled by Defensor, a monk who in the preface identifies himself as a member of St Martin's Abbey at Ligugé, near Poitiers, and who wrote the work at the behest of his teacher Ursinus, the abbot of St Martin's. Virtually nothing is known of the monk beyond what the preface offers us. The compilation was written sometime between 636, when the important source Isidore of Seville died, and about 750, when the earliest extant manuscript appears to have been produced.
> 
> The "sparks" (scintillae) of the title refer to sayings (such as maxims and proverbs) of the Lord and his saints, which have been excerpted from the Bible and the Church Fathers, and rearranged into as many as 81 chapters. The headings of these chapters refer mainly to vices (e.g. avarice, fornication), virtues (patience, wisdom), devotional practices (confession, prayer) and common themes of human life (marriage, feasting).


' xs\zmjklzavfczaxsdklzasdkvcbzashbvfc


----------



## aleazk

A small guide for listening that piece, considering that people often say they find his music incomprehensible and impenetrable, is the following: at 0:59 a small motif-like figure is introduced. That figure, and particularly its intervallic content, constantly comes back during the rest of the piece (often distributed among the different instruments, somewhat like in Webern) and this can serve as a reference point. Certainly not the only one!


----------



## Flutter

aleazk said:


> Currently, I think Ferneyhough is my favorite composer (oh, the horror!...). I particularly enjoy the following pieces:


I wouldn't say favorite personally but he's one of the most enjoyable composers out there. I actually did a binge of his string quartets and a few of his chamber pieces a few days ago.


----------



## Guest

I can't get enough of Shadowtime. Also, those philosophers of the old Frankfurt School in general. They're pretty neat. And Ferneyhough's adaptation of Walter Benjamin's death and ideas is pretty fitting with his approach to composition, generally.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/jul/08/classicalmusicandopera1


----------



## Red Terror

Ferneyhough is perhaps the best British composer alive right now. I didn’t much care for shadowtime, but I shall return to it. I did find his string quartets to be quite beautiful upon first hearing them.


----------



## aleazk

Well, his string quartets are quite a landmark. Personally, I tend to prefer the ensemble pieces because I find his woodwind writing to be particularly attractive, beautiful and lyrical.


----------



## aleazk

Flutter said:


> I wouldn't say favorite personally but he's one of the most enjoyable composers out there. I actually did a binge of his string quartets and a few of his chamber pieces a few days ago.


Yeah, well, my favorite composer tends to vary over time. These days, it's him. Lately, I have been increasingly disenchanted with simpler music and have a tendency to look for the most dense music, in terms of aural information and events, I can find. And Brian delivers  . Not that there's something 'wrong' with simpler music, it's simply me the one who prefers density at this moment.


----------



## Mandryka

This post will conclusively prove that I am mad. 

Listening yesterday to Liber Scintillarum I couldn't help but think how good natured, humorous, the music is! I don't see the need for any identifying ideas that keep recurring in some way, or anything like that. It's just a nice bit of music to relax to.


----------



## aleazk

Yes, that's true. I just mentioned the recurrence since someone may find it useful, that's all. In fact, the fist time I listened to it I didn't identify those recurrences, I was simply struck by the visceral brilliance of the piece.


----------



## aleazk

shirime said:


> I can't get enough of Shadowtime. Also, those philosophers of the old Frankfurt School in general. They're pretty neat. And Ferneyhough's adaptation of Walter Benjamin's death and ideas is pretty fitting with his approach to composition, generally.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/jul/08/classicalmusicandopera1


Well, considering your supposed 'Marxist' preferences, I wouldn't be surprised. Personally, those thinkers couldn't be more on the antipodes of my own philosophical preferences (which are on the side of hardcore analytic philosophy); Adorno's views on modern music may be of some interest. To each its own... philosophy, I guess


----------



## Mandryka

I thought a very amusing little talk on how to play Cassandra's Dream Song here






I think it's a very good piece of music!


----------



## aleazk

A colorful ensemble piece:


----------



## Mandryka

aleazk said:


> A colorful ensemble piece:


Yes it's nice to have it out of the context of the opera. It's lovely music.


----------



## millionrainbows

What a beautiful, honest thread this has been. The flute video that Mandryka posted was especially illuminating.

Which leads me to my next idea. After seeing Cage's Freeman Etudes in score, and reading the liner notes of the Arditti Quartet recording, I'm wondering if the main aesthetic goal of Ferneyhough, and his use of complex notation, is to "fix" aleatoric effects of sounds into a totally fixed rational language? In other words, precise aleatoric music without it being 'random.'

After all, the effect of many of the 'nested tuplet' and complex rhythmic notation, when listened to, sounds like gradual slowing or 'rubato' phrasing. It's like certain 'uneven' events happening within a measure.















So this would make Ferneyhough a kind of "classicist" aleatorialist after John Cage's model. Perhaps Cage saw this coming, and did the freeman Etudes to "cover" his aleatoric tracks.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm not sure if anyone posted this link, so here it is. It helped me immensely.


----------



## aleazk

^That video is very good.

Meanwhile, I ordered this book the other day, but hasn't arrived yet...


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> ^That video is very good.


In the video, Samuel Andreyev holds up & mentions a reddish IRCAM book about the computer program Ferneyhough used. I looked it up, and it's only available in French.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not sure if anyone posted this link, so here it is. It helped me immensely.


Yes that looks very interesting, thanks.

As far as I know only Arditti have recorded the trio, and just the once. is that right?


----------



## Larkenfield

Ferneyhough Interview:


----------



## Flutter

aleazk said:


> ^That video is very good.
> 
> Meanwhile, I ordered this book the other day, but hasn't arrived yet...


I've had that book for years, it's quite a decent buy. Very interesting read, I learnt stuff!


----------



## Mandryka

Larkenfield said:


> Ferneyhough Interview:


I've just listened to the first 15 minutes so far, formally what he describes could apply to some 13th century motets, at least in performance where the singers would be expected to be creative harmonically and otherwise when their music collides. Even the tuning is ancient.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> Yes that looks very interesting, thanks.
> 
> As far as I know only Arditti have recorded the trio, and just the once. is that right?


That's the one I have, and I would assume, the only one. I base this guess on the fact that Irvine Arditti was the only violinist who would attempt to play Cage's Freeman Etudes, which are similarly complex.Paul Zukofsky walked away from them.


----------



## keqrops

I haven’t spent that much time listening to Ferneyhough’s music, but I love what I’ve heard. When I first read about New Complexity I imagined something like Hans Joachim Hespos, so I was surprised to hear how beautiful Ferneyhough’s music is. I’ve been loving pieces like Lemma-Icon-Epigram, La Chute d’Icare and no time (at all) recently, they’re all so intricate and flow very nicely. I hope I’ll be able to do a deep dive into his works soon. Shadowtime impressed me as an opera where the music can really stand on its own.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> That's the one I have, and I would assume, the only one. I base this guess on the fact that Irvine Arditti was the only violinist who would attempt to play Cage's Freeman Etudes, which are similarly complex.Paul Zukofsky walked away from them.


Ferneyhough wrote his own solo violin music. The Freeman Etudes are, I think, totally random sounds made by the instrument. I think that there's other things going on in the Ferneyhough.


----------



## Mandryka

keqrops said:


> I haven't spent that much time listening to Ferneyhough's music, but I love what I've heard. When I first read about New Complexity I imagined something like Hans Joachim Hespos, so I was surprised to hear how beautiful Ferneyhough's music is. I've been loving pieces like Lemma-Icon-Epigram, La Chute d'Icare and no time (at all) recently, they're all so intricate and flow very nicely. I hope I'll be able to do a deep dive into his works soon. Shadowtime impressed me as an opera where the music can really stand on its own.


The last couple of things I listened to were the second quartet and Time and Motion Study 1, both seem to me rather nice.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> Ferneyhough wrote his own solo violin music. The Freeman Etudes are, I think, totally random sounds made by the instrument. I think that there's other things going on in the Ferneyhough.


No, Cage notated it. In the Mode recording, with Irvine Arditti, there's a photo of John Cage holding up the score while Arditti attacks it. Of course, it depends on what you mean. The music by Cage certainly sounds 'random' on a certain level, but is too frantic and changing to be what I would call_ truly_ 'random-sounding.'

Brian Ferneyhough? Wasn't he in Roxy Music? :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

How to pronounce his name? Andreyev pronounces it 'Furny-how.'


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> No, Cage notated it.


He notated the results of a totally random process of composition -- like in the Variations II the performer notates the result of a totally random process.



millionrainbows said:


> The music by Cage certainly sounds 'random' on a certain level, but is too frantic and changing to be what I would call_ truly_ 'random-sounding.'


I just cannot bear that Arditti recording, nor the Fusi one. But I finally found one I like -- well it's the Borealis Etudes but it's the same sort of thing _fundamentally_.


----------



## flamencosketches

I'm ready to dip my feet in the water. Where to begin?


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> I'm ready to dip my feet in the water. Where to begin?


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> Ferneyhough wrote his own solo violin music. The Freeman Etudes are, I think, totally random sounds made by the instrument. I think that there's other things going on in the Ferneyhough.


There probably are, since Ferneyhough is using more intentional compositional procedures. Ferneyhough's use of complex notation is to fix "aleatoric effects" of sounds into a totally fixed rational language, creating precise aleatoric-sounding events without it being truly 'random.'

The effect of many of the 'nested tuplet' and complex rhythmic notation, when listened to, sounds like gradual slowing or 'rubato' phrasing. It's like certain 'uneven' events happening within a measure, which totally obscures any underlying pulse.

So the factor of intention in the compositional process is the big difference between Cage and Ferneyhough, but the net result might sound the same to some listeners.

The use of complex notation, unusual for Cage, makes the Freeman Etudes a kind of 'comment' on the New Complexity. John Cage "sticking his nose" into places it doesn't belong. It's the "idea" of randomness that gives people problems.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> I'm trying to get into Ferneyhough a little, and coming up with nothing. Those of you who like him, what do you like about him?
> 
> Also, every article I've read about him talks a lot about these over-the-top nested rhythms. As many people have pointed out they are not playable by humans, so is this purely conceptual? If so, what is the concept and why is it interesting?


This link might prove illuminating:






My take on it (this is just my opinion) is that Ferneyhough has taken the sound of randomness and has made it "legit" by using the complex notation. Thus, the "idea" of randomness is dispensed with, and the composition (and composer) gains the legitimacy of intention (associated with the complex notation of Boulez and others) which it would not otherwise have had, since people have a problem with music produced randomly, like John Cage.

As Samuel Andreyov said, it's impossible to play a Ferneyhough piece 100% accurately. So, there is an element of "conceptuality" at play here, since the actual score is an "impossible ideal" to an extent, and exists as an unrealized idea.

I think Ferneyhough's strategy is to escape the label of "randomness", which seems to be Cage's territory historically (and was ultimately rejected by Boulez), and to establish himself as a legitimate composer who actually "composes" with his intent, not chance. Yet, the net result sounds uncomfortably close to random to many listeners, I would imagine.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> There probably are, since Ferneyhough is using more intentional compositional procedures. Ferneyhough's use of complex notation is to fix "aleatoric effects" of sounds into a totally fixed rational language, creating precise aleatoric-sounding events without it being truly 'random.'
> 
> The effect of many of the 'nested tuplet' and complex rhythmic notation, when listened to, sounds like gradual slowing or 'rubato' phrasing. It's like certain 'uneven' events happening within a measure, which totally obscures any underlying pulse.
> 
> So the factor of intention in the compositional process is the big difference between Cage and Ferneyhough, but the net result might sound the same to some listeners.
> 
> The use of complex notation, unusual for Cage, makes the Freeman Etudes a kind of 'comment' on the New Complexity. John Cage "sticking his nose" into places it doesn't belong. It's the "idea" of randomness that gives people problems.


One thing I want to say is this -- Cage seemed to find a way of transforming random sounds into beautiful music by doing two things:

1. Using notations which give the performer the opportunity to use his discretion, creativity. This gets their commitment, their engagement.

2. Using silence. The silence in Cage's compositions make them somehow introvert, and engaging when you're in a Zen mood.

When Cage notates random music fully, so that the musician is on rails, the results seem much less satisfactory, especially where there are a lot of notes. I don't know if I've ever heard a satisfying performance of Music for Changes, for example, in fact, I don't know what it would be other than a technically correct one. And maybe the most satisfying performances of the Etudes add expression to the score -- something he may not have wanted. (Crismani)

On the other hand, this piece of random music seems beautiful to me, it is in a way fully notated but there are important points of performer discretion: "for any number of players, using any sound-producing means" so they can be creative.






and this, the score derived from the random shapes of rocks in a Japanese garden, but look: "For any solo from or combination of voice, flute, oboe, trombone, double bass ad libitum with tape, and obbligato percussionist or any 20 instruments" -- so they are all engaged in turning the score into something musical.






Ferneyhough never does anything like this. He wants to get the musicians' engagement by giving them something very difficult to do, but his scores have a structure, which I can hear. They never sound random to me. Of course his music is so complex you may never hear all that's going on. The uploader of this recording of Time and Motion Study III has kindly reproduced some notes by the composer which are quite revealing of the way his mind works


----------



## starthrower

From February 2021


----------



## SanAntone

starthrower said:


> From February 2021


Good interview. I posted this same video in a different thread recently.


----------



## starthrower

I enjoy Sam's YT channel because he's very knowledgeable about modern music. Unfortunately, I've yet to appreciate any of Ferneyhough's music. Admittedly, I haven't listened to much but everything I've heard contains a lot of spikey, dissonant phrases. It's just too extreme for my taste. If someone can point me to something a bit more lyrical I'll give it a listen.


----------



## Mandryka

starthrower said:


> I enjoy Sam's YT channel because he's very knowledgeable about modern music. Unfortunately, I've yet to appreciate any of Ferneyhough's music. Admittedly, I haven't listened to much but everything I've heard contains a lot of spikey, dissonant phrases. It's just too extreme for my taste. If someone can point me to something a bit more lyrical I'll give it a listen.


El Re de Calabria






In Nomine a12 at 51.30 on this youtube.






Silentium


----------



## Bwv 1080

starthrower said:


> I enjoy Sam's YT channel because he's very knowledgeable about modern music. Unfortunately, I've yet to appreciate any of Ferneyhough's music. Admittedly, I haven't listened to much but everything I've heard contains a lot of spikey, dissonant phrases. It's just too extreme for my taste. If someone can point me to something a bit more lyrical I'll give it a listen.


No quartertones in this piece (piano music as well), and amazing that he can do so much with a solo piccolo


----------



## Torkelburger

Bwv 1080 said:


> No quartertones in this piece (piano music as well), and amazing that he can do so much with a solo piccolo


You see, this is the problem I have with Ferneyhough's music. He approaches each piece pretty much the exact same way and the method of writing is basically identical from one piece to the next, just different instrumentation. One score is interchangeable with another.

The main problem with the writing is that it is not written with the intent of audibility. It isn't composed from the ear, but solely from the mind. Its music that is strictly thought-up via notation and notational complexity, not conceived from any auditory context. It's just a self-indulgent academic exercise that is impossible to realize in actual reality, as this video shows.

One thing is that I find quite ironic is that the music's notational complexity does not materialize when performed to any equivalent auditory complexity. In other words, it doesn't even come close to sounding as complex as it looks on paper. The complexity is lost in translation. One can achieve sounds that are functionally equivalent with much less complex notation.

One of the most ridiculous things he does in his compositions has to do with the dynamics. Quite often and regularly, you will see notes in short duration but rapid succession (such as sixteenths, thirty-seconds, etc. in a row) and each one has a different dynamic level. Not only that, but they are marked with ridiculously varying levels and with such a wide range that no living person could be so precise or play it. Like having five sixteenths played in a row as: ppp, mf, ff, p, ppppp. Even at a slow tempo playing whole notes with a single note on a piano its virtually impossible. Five Ps? Who can differentiate between so many dynamic levels? Especially so quickly? Ppppp, pppp, ppp, pp, p, mp, mf, f, ff, fff, ffff, fffff are so many it's like trying to cut the eyebrows off a gnat to differentiate between ppppp and ppp and pp and so on. Totally ridiculous. Why he can't just use the dynamics between pp and ff is beyond me. That is what has been shown to be playable and is perfectly reasonable. No person can play with such precision and every performance and recording proves it. And in this piece he's got Sfzmf and Sfzp right after the other. That is utterly ridiculous and stupid, and of course, the person playing the piece doesn't even come close to doing these things. He does it less in this piece (although he does do it), but in the quartets its much, much more prevalent.

This type of writing also creates further problems. Namely, with the dynamics in constant change almost with every note, it creates a sense of monotony and grayness to the piece and overall sound. There is no overall arch or narrative that the dynamics can carry, identify, or exploit in any meaningful way. They can't add any sort of meaning to the music beyond their trivial relation to each individual note (or small group of notes). Instead of meaningful context, you just get randomness. But what's actually ironic, is that the performers don't play the dynamics as written anyway, but the grayness and monotony remains as there is nothing for them to work with to create any sort of interest or context (as this video shows).

Anyway, I could go on, but I'll stop there. I've written enough and don't feel like writing one of my dissertations at the moment.


----------



## Highwayman

Torkelburger said:


> You see, this is the problem I have with Ferneyhough's music. He approaches each piece pretty much the exact same way and the method of writing is basically identical from one piece to the next, just different instrumentation. One score is interchangeable with another.
> 
> The main problem with the writing is that it is not written with the intent of audibility. It isn't composed from the ear, but solely from the mind. Its music that is strictly thought-up via notation and notational complexity, not conceived from any auditory context. It's just a self-indulgent academic exercise that is impossible to realize in actual reality, as this video shows.
> 
> One thing is that I find quite ironic is that the music's notational complexity does not materialize when performed to any equivalent auditory complexity. In other words, it doesn't even come close to sounding as complex as it looks on paper. The complexity is lost in translation. One can achieve sounds that are functionally equivalent with much less complex notation.
> 
> One of the most ridiculous things he does in his compositions has to do with the dynamics. Quite often and regularly, you will see notes in short duration but rapid succession (such as sixteenths, thirty-seconds, etc. in a row) and each one has a different dynamic level. Not only that, but they are marked with ridiculously varying levels and with such a wide range that no living person could be so precise or play it. Like having five sixteenths played in a row as: ppp, mf, ff, p, ppppp. Even at a slow tempo playing whole notes with a single note on a piano its virtually impossible. Five Ps? Who can differentiate between so many dynamic levels? Especially so quickly? Ppppp, pppp, ppp, pp, p, mp, mf, f, ff, fff, ffff, fffff are so many it's like trying to cut the eyebrows off a gnat to differentiate between ppppp and ppp and pp and so on. Totally ridiculous. Why he can't just use the dynamics between pp and ff is beyond me. That is what has been shown to be playable and is perfectly reasonable. No person can play with such precision and every performance and recording proves it. And in this piece he's got Sfzmf and Sfzp right after the other. That is utterly ridiculous and stupid, and of course, the person playing the piece doesn't even come close to doing these things. He does it less in this piece (although he does do it), but in the quartets its much, much more prevalent.
> 
> This type of writing also creates further problems. Namely, with the dynamics in constant change almost with every note, it creates a sense of monotony and grayness to the piece and overall sound. There is no overall arch or narrative that the dynamics can carry, identify, or exploit in any meaningful way. They can't add any sort of meaning to the music beyond their trivial relation to each individual note (or small group of notes). Instead of meaningful context, you just get randomness. But what's actually ironic, is that the performers don't play the dynamics as written anyway, but the grayness and monotony remains as there is nothing for them to work with to create any sort of interest or context (as this video shows).
> 
> Anyway, I could go on, but I'll stop there. I've written enough and don't feel like writing one of my dissertations at the moment.


But, it sounds good.


----------



## Torkelburger

Highwayman said:


> But, it sounds good.


Meh, I've heard better. A lot better.


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> The main problem with the writing is that it is not written with the intent of audibility. It isn't composed from the ear, but solely from the mind. Its music that is strictly thought-up via notation and notational complexity, not conceived from any auditory context. It's just a self-indulgent academic exercise that is impossible to realize in actual reality, as this video shows.


And you know this how?


----------



## Torkelburger

SanAntone said:


> And you know this how?


Easy. Because, if Ferneyhough, or anyone on the planet, including you, could hear this music in their head AS WRITTEN, then they could pass an ear training test of this music. I would write an excerpt in this highly-complex style and Ferneyhough, you, or anyone else who thinks this music is audible conceived should be able to notate it down no problem. I'd bet anything you, Ferneyhough, or anyone else for that matter couldn't get a 99% accuracy rate of 2 bars I'd make up in this style.


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> Easy. Because, if Ferneyhough, or anyone on the planet, including you, could hear this music in their head AS WRITTEN, then they could pass an ear training test of this music. I would write an excerpt in this highly-complex style and Ferneyhough, you, or anyone else who thinks this music is audible conceived should be able to notate it down no problem. I'd bet anything you, Ferneyhough, or anyone else for that matter couldn't get a 99% accuracy rate of 2 bars I'd make up in this style.


It is speculation on your part (and disrespectful, at that), since you have not provided any empirical evidence of how Brian Ferneyhough composes his music, nor his ability to "hear" his music in his head.


----------



## Torkelburger

SanAntone said:


> It is speculation on your part (and disrespectful, at that), since you have not provided any empirical evidence of how Brian Ferneyhough composes his music, nor his ability to "hear" his music in his head.


Please. I wasn't born yesterday. I find it really hard to believe anyone on this entire planet could hear music in 6/32 + 5/16 + 8/64 time signature for even just one single bar in their head with *multiple instruments* simultaneously playing mixtures of 64th, 32nd, 16ths in large groupings, with odd groupings that are *further* sub-grouped into smaller odd groupings sometimes over the barline, with rests thrown in the grouping and dotted rhythms all within the 32nd note and super-complex grouping context-several instruments at the same time, mind you, and with a dozen different dynamic levels in that bar that range from ppppp to fff.

Sure, it's much more reasonable to believe he's some sort of Superhuman, super-composer, than just that he's making stuff up on the spot out of where the sun don't shine. Riiiiiight. Uh-huh. Oh, but since we're not omniscient, and we're fanboys, let's just give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, seems totally reasonable.


----------



## Mandryka

Maybe he uses some sort of computer programme to get a feel for what it sounds like, experiment with ideas like that.


----------



## Torkelburger

This video explains how he composes (at least the rhythms) and shows how they do not come from his ear. They are calculated using a formal procedure. Video is timestamped at relevant part.


----------



## Torkelburger

Mandryka said:


> Maybe he uses some sort of computer programme to get a feel for what it sounds like, experiment with ideas like that.


I'm pretty sure he's been writing music like this well before computer technology has been capable of re-creating it.


----------



## Portamento

I'm not by any means an expert of Ferneyhough's compositional philosophy, but he has stated many times that executing his music - taking into account not just rhythms, but also dynamics, articulations, etc. - 100% accurately is impossible. That is if we define "accuracy" in the traditional, modernist sense where a performer's job is to do the composer's bidding and nothing else. Ferneyhough seeks to give the performer more of a say by cramming so much information onto a page that they have no choice but to use their personal priorities to "filter out" the impossibilities. His uber-complex notation gets a distinctly different result than if we were to, say, transcribe the aural result (which would inevitably be much simpler than what's on the page); the latter would subscribe to a more traditional performer-score relationship. Ferneyhough is not so different from an aleatoric composer, actually. At least that's been my experience from what I've read.

It's always good to see what an actual performer of Ferneyhough's music has to say about the learning process. Here's a fascinating article by percussionist Steven Schick about performing _Bone Alphabet_.


----------



## Mandryka

Portamento said:


> I'm not by any means an expert of Ferneyhough's compositional philosophy, but he has stated many times that executing his music - taking into account not just rhythms, but also dynamics, articulations, etc. - 100% accurately is impossible. That is if we define "accuracy" in the traditional, modernist sense where a performer's job is to do the composer's bidding and nothing else. Ferneyhough seeks to give the performer more of a say by cramming so much information onto a page that they have no choice but to use their personal priorities to "filter out" the impossibilities. His uber-complex notation gets a distinctly different result than if we were to, say, transcribe the aural result (which would inevitably be much simpler than what's on the page); the latter would subscribe to a more traditional performer-score relationship. Ferneyhough is not so different from an aleatoric composer, actually. At least that's been my experience from what I've read.
> 
> It's always good to see what an actual performer of Ferneyhough's music has to say about the learning process. Here's a fascinating article by percussionist Steven Schick about performing _Bone Alphabet_.


This is completely new for me. I once heard him say that he wanted performers to really push themselves to be accurate because he believes that the stress of doing so will produce something special, something which goes beyond note spinning. In this way, I've always imagined Ferneyhough's objectives were similar to, for example, Cage's time bracket music or Stockhausen's graphic scores, i.e. more inspired music making - though they go about it using diametrically opposite means. Both put the act of music making, real physical performance first.


----------



## Torkelburger

Portamento said:


> I'm not by any means an expert of Ferneyhough's compositional philosophy, but he has stated many times that executing his music - taking into account not just rhythms, but also dynamics, articulations, etc. - 100% accurately is impossible. That is if we define "accuracy" in the traditional, modernist sense where a performer's job is to do the composer's bidding and nothing else. Ferneyhough seeks to give the performer more of a say by cramming so much information onto a page that they have no choice but to use their personal priorities to "filter out" the impossibilities. His uber-complex notation gets a distinctly different result than if we were to, say, transcribe the aural result (which would inevitably be much simpler than what's on the page); the latter would subscribe to a more traditional performer-score relationship. Ferneyhough is not so different from an aleatoric composer, actually. At least that's been my experience from what I've read.
> 
> It's always good to see what an actual performer of Ferneyhough's music has to say about the learning process. Here's a fascinating article by percussionist Steven Schick about performing _Bone Alphabet_.


I've heard this excuse before, but it seems completely ad hoc to me. Reminds me of a kid who makes a mistake and says, "Oh, I meant to do that."

Even if he's telling the truth, the writing still seems pretty superfluous, pointless, and self-indulgent.

The problem with comparing it with aleatoric music is that it doesn't have near the variety, interest, or purpose as aleatoric music or techniques. If the whole gimmick is to get different performances each time and not know what to expect, then there is not near enough variety of materials to make it interesting. I mean, every single piece you write has the same exact "aleatoric parameters", which are quite mundane when compared to actual aleatoric music. Take the dynamics, for example. He writes ff followed by mf and ppppp and it gets played as ff, mf, and pp, is it really THAT interesting that that happened?


----------



## Mandryka

Torkelburger said:


> Take the dynamics, for example. He writes ff followed by mf and ppppp and it gets played as ff, mf, and pp, is it really THAT interesting that that happened?


This is not a valid argument.

Suppose we analysed what exactly Cortot was doing in his performance of a Chopin etude. We calculated how he was changing rhythm and tempo and dynamics, exactly. After all, a performance is a physical thing.

We could then say -- Chopin wrote X and he got Y, is it really THAT interesting that that happened? And to a naive person it would sound like a knockdown argument, a rhetorical question with the obvious answer, no!

But Cortot's performances of Chopin's etudes are arguably very interesting to people that way inclined. In exactly the same way as there are performances of Ferneyhough's etudes which are very interesting too, arguably, to people who are that way inclined.


----------



## Portamento

Mandryka said:


> This is completely new for me. I once heard him say that he wanted performers to really push themselves to be accurate because he believes that the stress of doing so will produce something special, something which goes beyond note spinning. In this way, I've always imagined Ferneyhough's objectives were similar to, for example, Cage's time bracket music or Stockhausen's graphic scores, i.e. more inspired music making - though they go about it using diametrically opposite means. Both put the act of music making, real physical performance first.


Makes sense to me. Ferneyhough confronts the performer with the impossible in order make them more engaged in all aspects of music-making. Of course, whether he's successful at that is up for debate.



Torkelburger said:


> I've heard this excuse before, but it seems completely ad hoc to me. Reminds me of a kid who makes a mistake and says, "Oh, I meant to do that."
> 
> Even if he's telling the truth, the writing still seems pretty superfluous, pointless, and self-indulgent.


I kind of agree, actually. I don't know about superfluous or pointless, but it is certainly self-indulgent. Then again, so is Mahler and people love him.


----------



## Torkelburger

Mandryka said:


> This is not a valid argument.
> 
> Suppose we analysed what exactly Cortot was doing in his performance of a Chopin etude. We calculated how he was changing rhythm and tempo and dynamics, exactly. After all, a performance is a physical thing.
> 
> We could then say -- Chopin wrote X and he got Y, is it really THAT interesting that that happened? And to a naive person it would sound like a knockdown argument, a rhetorical question with the obvious answer, no!
> 
> But Cortot's performances of Chopin's etudes are arguably very interesting to people that way inclined. In exactly the same way as there are performances of Ferneyhough's etudes which are very interesting too, arguably, to people who are that way inclined.


No, it is valid. Chopin did not define his intentions as "aleatoric".

So the "interest" of the Ferneyhough *IS* supposed to be that the dynamic was different. Because the dynamics is part of the whole complex nonsense that is unplayable. Therefore, the dynamics is one of the aleatoric parameters (in Ferneyhough). Point stands.


----------



## Torkelburger

Portamento said:


> Makes sense to me. Ferneyhough confronts the performer with the impossible in order make them more engaged in all aspects of music-making. Of course, whether he's successful at that is up for debate.
> 
> I kind of agree, actually. I don't know about superfluous or pointless, though it is certainly self-indulgent. But then again, so is Mahler and people love him.


Just, as a composer myself, it is quite pointless/superfluous to write so much detail that will 1) get played incorrectly or 2) won't be played at all. I mean, especially at so many of these things PER BAR. Really, if this type of thing impresses people so much, I could fill bars full of HUNDREDS of notes, with dynamic ranges of ppppppppppp to ffffffffffffffffff and REALLY REALLY REALLY be specific and complex, ten times more than Ferneyhough, and maybe have an asterisk beside each and every note with a paragraph in the performance notes the length of a novel about not just playing sul ponticello, but how many millimeters from the bridge each and every note should be, etc. etc. and let the performer choose what to play. But would it make that much of a difference? At what point is it a complete and total WASTE OF TIME?


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

Torkelburger, and what if Ferneyhough doesn't compose with his ear? What a rudimentary world we would all be living in if artists composed only with their primary and primitive and unreliable senses. What is an ear but a mechanical object attached to an organic thing in possesion of the greatest tool on the surface of the Earth? You present a false equivalence. It is not ear or intellect. And each artist is free to choose their own strategy, if the experiment fails (were it composed with the ear or the mind, as you say), so be it. 

"Meh, I've heard better. A lot better." 

Also, please, enlighten us. I'm always looking for good and new things, and if it's better than Ferneyhough I must definitely listen to it (not that I'm a big fan of his, btw).


----------



## Torkelburger

> Torkelburger, and what if Ferneyhough doesn't compose with his ear?


Well, then as a result you often get a lot of music that is completely unplayable or impossible to play as written, unmusical, unnecessarily complex/complex for complexity's sake, sounds bad (I know, not all agree), self-indulgent, and non-sensical. Using formal systems is fine, but the ear should be the final judge in what works or not. And a composer should never, ever write what he can't hear. What if a composer was at a rehearsal of his music and a player asks how a passage goes because it is so difficult and the composer just sits there with a blank look on his face and can't offer a solution?



> Also, please, enlighten us.


Well, off the top of my head since there are a million better, how about just string quartets by writers who are living or only recently-deceased: Rihm, Rouse, Rochberg, (Joan) Tower...want more?


----------



## Portamento

Torkelburger said:


> And a composer should never, ever write what he can't hear.


What about Mozart basing his piano sonatas on the golden section? There's no way to "hear" that, but he did it anyway.


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> This video explains how he composes (at least the rhythms) and shows how they do not come from his ear. They are calculated using a formal procedure. Video is timestamped at relevant part.


The point is that he has a conception of the kind of music he wishes to compose. Whether he hears it entirely in his head or uses processes to create complex rhythmic cells is irrelevant, since the work is under his control and responsibility. He is writing with integrity and your specific criticism speaks more to your personal taste rather than Ferneyhough's worth as a composer.


----------



## Torkelburger

SanAntone said:


> The point is that he has a conception of the kind of music he wishes to compose. Whether he hears it entirely in his head or uses processes to create complex rhythmic cells is irrelevant, since the work is under his control and responsibility. He is writing with integrity and your specific criticism speaks more to your personal taste rather than Ferneyhough's worth as a composer.


Since you are stating the obvious here, I guess I will also state the obvious. Specific praise speaks more to your personal taste rather than Ferneyhough's worth as a composer, too.


----------



## Torkelburger

Portamento said:


> What about Mozart basing his piano sonatas on the golden section? There's no way to "hear" that, but he did it anyway.


Do you have a url or pdf about his piano sonatas being based on the golden section? Is it the form like Bartok (which is believed to be false by some scholars)? If so, yes, nobody "hears" form, but that doesn't translate to actual music. The fact that it is the golden section doesn't make a difference. It's just a pre-determined outline of musical events like any other.

I'm talking about writing music that is unplayable or impossible to play accurately or so complex that it is impossible for the composer to conceive of it on an auditory level. So that even if asked how the music goes by a performer, the composer cannot re-create the music on the page.


----------



## Torkelburger

Torkelburger said:


> Easy. Because, if Ferneyhough, or anyone on the planet, including you, could hear this music in their head AS WRITTEN, then they could pass an ear training test of this music. I would write an excerpt in this highly-complex style and Ferneyhough, you, or anyone else who thinks this music is audible conceived should be able to notate it down no problem. I'd bet anything you, Ferneyhough, or anyone else for that matter couldn't get a 99% accuracy rate of 2 bars I'd make up in this style.


I just re-read this and meant to say "you couldn't get a 1% accuracy rate". Lol!!


----------



## Mandryka

Torkelburger said:


> No, it is valid. Chopin did not define his intentions as "aleatoric".
> 
> So the "interest" of the Ferneyhough *IS* supposed to be that the dynamic was different. Because the dynamics is part of the whole complex nonsense that is unplayable. Therefore, the dynamics is one of the aleatoric parameters (in Ferneyhough). Point stands.


I'm not following you. Maybe we're at cross purposes because I thought you were talking about what makes a performance interesting, but your reply seems to be about something else. Sorry, I've lost the thread of the argument.

What I'm saying is that the interest of some performance of Ferneyhough could be the dynamic, just as it could be that with a Chopin performance.

I'm lost, I don't know what Chopin's intentions have to do with it -- he was releasing a score, he knew that underdetermined performance, he knew that pianists use rubato, interpret dynamics in different ways etc . . .


----------



## Mandryka

Torkelburger said:


> Just, as a composer myself, it is quite pointless/superfluous to write so much detail that will 1) get played incorrectly or 2) won't be played at all. I mean, especially at so many of these things PER BAR. Really, if this type of thing impresses people so much, I could fill bars full of HUNDREDS of notes, with dynamic ranges of ppppppppppp to ffffffffffffffffff and REALLY REALLY REALLY be specific and complex, ten times more than Ferneyhough, and maybe have an asterisk beside each and every note with a paragraph in the performance notes the length of a novel about not just playing sul ponticello, but how many millimeters from the bridge each and every note should be, etc. etc. and let the performer choose what to play. But would it make that much of a difference? At what point is it a complete and total WASTE OF TIME?


This post makes me wonder if you've seen this


----------



## Mandryka

Torkelburger said:


> Well, off the top of my head since there are a million better, how about just string quartets by writers who are living or only recently-deceased: Rihm, Rouse, Rochberg, (Joan) Tower...want more?


I can't believe that anyone can think that the Rihm quartets (in fact the Rihm anything) are better than the Ferneyhough (anything) I think Rihm wrote uninspired music, as if the only thing which inspires him is the compulsion to write. You can't like everything I guess.

As for the rest, I won't comment.


----------



## mikeh375

Having heard anecdotes from some players about the efficacy and accuracy of some 'difficult' composer's ears as they relate to a score in rehearsal, I am tending to agree with Torkelburger's assessment of Fernyhough's ear and the impossibility of fully hearing accurately what is written.
Composer's of complex music will sometimes aim for a 'best guess' approach as to the effectiveness of passages and maybe this applies to Fernyhough at times.
The extreme gradation in dynamics is, on a practical level, impossible to achieve but on a subjective level from the performers pov, will undoubtedly have a psychological benefit that affects the approach and performance - musical mind games perhaps.

I'm sure I read somewhere that a well known 4tet has stopped learning any new music by Fernyhough simply because the effort required to reach good ensemble through the rhythmic complexity simply ends up sounding aleatoric - random. Perhaps someone knows which 4tet this is.


----------



## Mandryka

mikeh375 said:


> Ha
> 
> I'm sure I read somewhere that a well known 4tet has stopped learning any new music by Fernyhough simply because the effort required to reach good ensemble through the rhythmic complexity simply ends up sounding aleatoric - random. Perhaps someone knows which 4tet this is.


Strange because the Ferneyhough quartets don't sound random, the ones that I've heard. But what I want to say is that random sounding music can be rather beautiful -- if the performer is inspired. This for example , which I think is elegant and diamantine.


----------



## Torkelburger

Mandryka said:


> I'm not following you. Maybe we're at cross purposes because I thought you were talking about what makes a performance interesting, but your reply seems to be about something else. Sorry, I've lost the thread of the argument.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the interest of some performance of Ferneyhough could be the dynamic, just as it could be that with a Chopin performance.
> 
> I'm lost, I don't know what Chopin's intentions have to do with it -- he was releasing a score, he knew that underdetermined performance, he knew that pianists use rubato, interpret dynamics in different ways etc . . .


I'm saying it is completely pointless and superfluous, not just from a *musical* standpoint, but from a *realistic* (playability) standpoint, to write say five notes with dynamics of each note as ppppp Sfzmf mp Sfzp fff when no one can play it or do it accurately (let alone do the complex rhythm on top of it). It was argued that it *isn't* pointless because he purposely writes that knowing that it can't be played or won't be played that way as an element of chance so that each performance is special and each performer makes their own decision and has control over the outcome of the piece. I replied that if that were so and it is in fact, a form of aleatoric music, then it fails in comparison to other actual forms of more interesting and well-thought out aleatoric music since those aleatoric parameters of his are so idiotically mundane. (So pp gets played instead of ppppp, big deal).

Your comment was that that happens in all interpretations no matter the piece, but that comment doesn't apply to what my point is. I'm talking about setting aleatoric parameters in a piece of music (or "happening" I guess you could say) where the choices the performer makes actually lead to something tangibly different, or interesting, or has depth, meaning, whatever. I'm saying if the POINT is to be ALEATORIC, then playing a note pp instead of ppppp as some kind of choice in the matter doesn't result in anything tangibly interesting (again, in an aleatoric context).


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> Since you are stating the obvious here, I guess I will also state the obvious. Specific praise speaks more to your personal taste rather than Ferneyhough's worth as a composer, too.


Ferneyhough's reputation has been established as a respected composer and has an audience. You have a problem with his compositional process. I am not speaking from a personal enjoyment of his music, I hardly listen to it, but I am aware of his standing within the contemporary Classical community.

His music is not for everyone, or even most people - but he is entitled to develop his music through processes that are useful and productive for his method. You are entitled to your opinion, but his artistic integrity is not up for debate. He has earned the respect he is due, despite his music not being to your taste.


----------



## Torkelburger

Mandryka said:


> I can't believe that anyone can think that the Rihm quartets (in fact the Rihm anything) are better than the Ferneyhough (anything) I think Rihm wrote uninspired music, as if the only thing which inspires him is the compulsion to write. You can't like everything I guess.
> 
> As for the rest, I won't comment.


Yeah, our tastes must be vastly different then. I've heard some Rihm that is like modern day Berg, IMO. I haven't heard anyone else do that. Plus, his stuff is much more varied. I mean, a lot. BTW, Rihm has much admiration for Ferneyhough (I saw him say so in an interview), but we can't expect him to be perfect.


----------



## Torkelburger

SanAntone said:


> Ferneyhough's reputation has been established as a respected composer and has an audience. You have a problem with his compositional process. I am not speaking from a personal enjoyment of his music, I hardly listen to it, but I am aware of his standing within the contemporary Classical community.
> 
> His music is not for everyone, or even most people - but he is entitled to develop his music through processes that are useful and productive for his method. You are entitled to your opinion, but his artistic integrity is not up for debate. He has earned the respect he is due, despite his music not being to your taste.


This is a discussion forum. No one is immune to any criticism of any kind, whether it's Mozart, Haydn, or Ferneyhough. I could care less about his integrity and am not debating it. Please be kind enough to stop trolling with obvious sentiments.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

I guess the ultimate question would be: is Ferneyhough ever pleased with the way musicians play his music? If the answer is yes, and there are people who are willing to play it -which is obvious because it is performed and recorded- then this discussion is of no use. Although I understand your concerns, Torkelburger, there's always a compromise -with any music- between what is feasible and what is not. The thing is also, does Ferneyhough conceive his music as being random? That's what I meant with that artists not only compose with their ear, they have intellectual concerns, things they want to tackle, etc etc


----------



## Mandryka

Torkelburger said:


> Plus, his stuff is much more varied.


This is true. And maybe what I said about him was unfair - I have enjoyed some lieder and opera. By the way, I've spent the past year struggling to get in some sort of relation with this - and failing miserably. Maybe one day


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

I love Rihm, but I don't think his quartets are his best works, perhaps there are two or three that are really essential. In that regard Ferneyhough has him beat. I'll have to listen to the quartets that Torkelburger recommended, although they're all by americans :lol:.

Anyway, since this is Ferneyhough's thread, has anyone here listened to his opera?


----------



## Bwv 1080

While BF uses software to assist in composition, he does hear the rhythms


----------



## Bwv 1080

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> I guess the ultimate question would be: is Ferneyhough ever pleased with the way musicians play his music? If the answer is yes, and there are people who are willing to play it -which is obvious because it is performed and recorded- then this discussion is of no use. Although I understand your concerns, Torkelburger, there's always a compromise -with any music- between what is feasible and what is not. The thing is also, does Ferneyhough conceive his music as being random? That's what I meant with that artists not only compose with their ear, they have intellectual concerns, things they want to tackle, etc etc


Yes, BF is pleased with the performances - he writes to challenge performers to get a specific result. This is not abstract music that exists in some ideal,perfect form in his mind - he writes for performers, understanding that a good realization does not mean a perfect reproduction of everything on the score


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> This is a discussion forum. No one is immune to any criticism of any kind, whether it's Mozart, Haydn, or Ferneyhough. I could care less about his integrity and am not debating it. Please be kind enough to stop trolling with obvious sentiments.


You didn't make a criticism so much as cast doubt on the validity of his composition method and artistic purpose. In essence you questioned his integrity by speculating that his music did not originate within his mind but was artificially created and he was not in control of the outcome, or did not care about the outcome. This accusation is a product of your own imagination, highly speculative, and does not take into account the generally high regard Mr. Ferneyhough is held by his peers and classical music community in general.

If by pushing back on what I view as unfair and disrespectful statements regarding Brian Ferneyhough amounts to "trolling" it would appear that you are incapable of debating a point that you raised without resorting to ad hominem.


----------



## Portamento

This excerpt from an interview with musicologist Richard Toop seems relevant:



> RT: What, for you, are the essential criteria for a good performance of your work?
> 
> BF: I would say the establishment of audible criteria of meaningful inexactitude. That is, from work to work, from one section of a work to another section, from one performer to another, from one performance situation to another, the level of meaningful inexactitude is one indication, one hint of the way in which a work 'means'.
> 
> RT: So interpretation consists, to some extent, of different intelligent failures to reproduce a central text?
> 
> BF: I would say this was true, yes. Unfortunately, the situation today is that the central text has no long-term text supporting it, in which it is embedded, and which tells us how to play it. Therefore it is our duty as composers to make the text, the visual aspect of the text and its musical structure, so self-referential in an enriching sense that the performer can find some way of plugging it into his own sensibilities - so that he is not trying simply to give a generally tasteful rendering of some set of noises, or whatever, but that these noises are, in a semantically specific sense, interrelated among themselves in such a way that the performer himself can attempt to take an attitude towards that relationship.


So from what I can tell, the intent is to create works that actively direct, through sheer "too-muchness" (BF's term), some aspect of their interpretation. Say a performer creates mental maps/algorithms while learning a piece, and that these strategies are both supported and bound by what's in the score. (Schick's article is a good illustration of what this might look like.) BF's scores strike me as wild, labyrinthine roadmaps whose parsing can be quite liberating for performers so inclined. Schick talks about how the "extreme complexity and performative difficulty... enforce a slower pace of learning and allow the natural growth of an interpretive context," something that he clearly relishes.

My question is where the listener fits into all of this.


----------



## Mandryka

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> I love Rihm, but I don't think his quartets are his best works,


The Minguet studio recordings maybe don't do them justice, either performance or sound. I've got a concert recording of Quartet 11, Minguet, and it's more satisfying.


----------



## Torkelburger

> You didn't make a criticism so much as cast doubt on the validity of his composition method and artistic purpose.


Actually, the vast majority of my post was, in fact, a detailed criticism of musical attributes in the music itself you decided to ignore and instead obsess about my comment about him not using his ear to compose. You're wrong.



> In essence you questioned his integrity by speculating that his music did not originate within his mind


As a matter of fact, that's EXACTLY where I said his music originated from. I said it didn't come from his EAR.



> but was artificially created


Nope, never said that. That is a lie. Calculations from a formal procedure is not saying the music is "artificially created". Stop putting words in my mouth.



> and he was not in control of the outcome,


Never said anything even remotely close to that. Another lie. If you're referring to saying his music is based on chance and all that aleatoric stuff, Portamento brought that up, not me.



> or did not care about the outcome.


Never said that either. Fourth lie.



> This accusation is a product of your own imagination,


If the wording as an "accusation" is what's hurting your feelings, and you're going to play the role of an attorney about it I can play along. I won't accuse him or make any positive assertions requiring evidence of my claims. We'll play the ol' atheist or bigfoot denier gag-I do not believe the claim that he can hear this music in his head when it is composed or conceived. That statement requires no evidence or support. If someone believes he can and state positively that Ferneyhough hears the music in his head in totality the moment it is conceived, then they are making the positive claim and must support it. I am NOT saying Ferneyhough can't hear the music in his head (exactly as written) when it is conceived. That is a positive claim. I lack the belief that he can in the absence of evidence. Feel better now? Sheesh.

BTW, the two positions do not carry the same amount of reasonability. Even if we do not know with 100% certainty, or have hard evidence either way, it can be argued that one position is more reasonable to hold than the other, EVEN IF IT ISN'T TRUE. Just like Bigfoot, the reasonable position is to withhold belief in his existence until sufficient evidence is given, EVEN IF HE REALLY DOES IN FACT EXIST. You are just holding a position that is reasonable at the present time. That is all that matters.

I've already gone through some of the reasons why it is reasonable to withhold believe in Ferneyhough's supernatural abilities, and even shown a video showing his compositional process in regards to rhythms showing he does not, in fact, use his ear, but if I have to reiterate them, I will.



> highly speculative,


No, it's more indeductive reasoning, based on observations about the real world and the nature of the music itself.



> and does not take into account the generally high regard Mr. Ferneyhough is held by his peers and classical music community in general.


You'd be surprised by how much Ferneyhough's compositions are looked down upon by his peers and classical music community. Here's a clip (below) of a room full of members of the "classical music community" (composers) laughing at Ferneyhough-type writing (timestamped, but the whole entire lecture is worth watching). Esa Pekka Salonen talks about a "very famous composer" he was asked to conduct and how laughable and poor the writing was (he was talking about the Ferneyhough-isms and its dangers). He said he wouldn't name the composer, but then mumbled something under his breath, can't tell who it was. Anyway, he shows people what was written and the composer was so wrapped up in Ferneyhough-isms that the music was laughably unplayable. He even says at the end, "And the funniest thing about this, is that this was supposed to be played on the harpsichord". The whole room is laughing.

So yes, I've "taken into account" Ferneyhough's reputation among the elite and community, and even if it wasn't him being talked about in the video (when you watch the excerpt and the whole thing) you'll see Salonen is not a fan of the Ferneyhough style. As you can see, some of Ferneyhough's "peers" are on my side. Thanks, Esa. Preach on, brother.








> If by pushing back on what I view as unfair and disrespectful statements regarding Brian Ferneyhough amounts to "trolling" it would appear that you are incapable of debating a point that you raised without resorting to ad hominem.


Yeah, it's just word salad trolling: "Ferneyhough's reputation has been established as a respected composer and has an audience." Really? Duh. Thanks for that wonderful insight, cause you see, I've been living in a cave on Mars with my eyes shut and my fingers in my ears for the last 30 years and had no idea. Maybe you should explain this to Esa, too!

"he is entitled to develop his music through processes that are useful and productive for his method." Really? I had no idea. You mean, I don't control the mind, actions, or thoughts of others? Thanks for explaining that to me. Good thing I never said that, I guess.


----------



## Torkelburger

Mandryka said:


> This is true. And maybe what I said about him was unfair - I have enjoyed some lieder and opera. By the way, I've spent the past year struggling to get in some sort of relation with this - and failing miserably. Maybe one day


Yes, yes! Maybe we can discuss his work in his own guestbook, so as not to derail this thread? (BTW, his opera _Dionysos_ was one of the compositions I was referring to that sound like an updated, modernized homage to Berg to me! (even though it's not Sprechstimme singing)). So great.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Just discovered that BF did a whole Q&A on the comments page for his Wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brian_Ferneyhough

Open questions for Brian Ferneyhough (also applicable to other composers of our day)[edit]
(The aim of these questions is to cause the reader to think critically about the various aspects of Ferneyhough's (and other composer's) music. Hopefully Ferneyhough will not take offense.)

1) When composing, do you know what your music will sound like? (To what extent?)
Yes. Completely.
2) How often do you listen to recordings of your own works, esp. in the comfort of your own room/house?
Ten times when first recorded. Infrequently thereafter.
3) Which recording have you been listening to recently? Which recording is in (next to) your CD player right now?
My latest recorded pieces.
4) When do you listen to your own works?
When the recordings first arrive.
5) Can you follow you scores, when hearing them performed?
Yes.
6) Can you tell to what extent Steven Schick's video-recorded performance of Bone Alphabet is following the score (especially rhythmically)?
I haven't heard/seen it.
7) Can you tell, if a performer makes mistakes (e.g. rhythmically) when performing your works? Do these mistakes worry you?
Mistakes are bad. Flexibility is good.
8) Would you notice if a performer plays something different, than written on the score (especially deliberately), but in "Ferneyhough-style"?
Yes, even assuming that 'Ferneyhough-style' is as easy to imitate as you seem to think. .
9) Would it worry you, if a performer tests you, by deliberately playing things differently than written on the score? Consider especially a pemiere of a work, where the performer starts improvising in a "Ferneyhough-style".
No it happens all the time that you need to prove yourself to performers intent on 'testing' you.
10) Is every aspect of your music important to a performance? What if a performer plays something completely different?
he shouldn't be paid.
11) Do you perform your own works? When last did you perform one of your own works?
I have not performed publicly for 30 years, since I am a clinical narcoleptic. I used to enjoy it though.
12) Do you believe it is more difficult to compose the works that you do; or to compose music in a more traditional style with the aim of tradition listener's responses?
One writes what one can, within the realm of what one believes in.
13) Would you believe that I can compose in "Ferneyhough-style", even if I admit that I would very unlikely be able to compose music in the style of say Mozart of Schubert?
'Style' also includes criteria of quality. Would your imitation?
14) When last have you composed in a more traditional style? Do you believe you could compose in a more tradition style?
About 40 years ago. Depends on the style. But: why bother?
15) Do you believe you notation for rhythm, allows one to express every smallest possible nuance?
Who decides what a nuance is?
16) Where do you get the motivation to write new works?
Can't seem to stop doing it.
17) What are your works about?
Life.
18) Do you want the performers and listeners of your works, to have the same understanding of the works that you have, or do you want them to make up their own mind completely?
Some aspects of listening are communal, some individual.
19) Are your works calculated or do they occur to you naturally?
The question is so far from my experience, I can't answer it.
20a) Have you ever composed a work where a note has a duration, which is not a rational factor of the duration of another note?
Yes.
20b) Why, why not? Did this question cause you to think about, or alter an answer to a previous question?
Notation is an important aspect of composition. The choice of notation automatically guides the mind to certain sorts of solutions. Not all notations are adequate representations of all sorts of imagined musical contexts. As to the last point: no.
21) Are your works an experiment? (When does the experiment succeed/fail? Has it succeeded/failed?)
Is your life an experiment? If so, who runs the laboratory?
22) Which or your works is your favorite?
The most recent.
23) Would you ever stop composing?
Not if I were still mentally capable.
24) Do you compose works for yourself, or for the listener, or the performer?
Works are themselves. They must decide on their own targets.
25) What would you do, if no one would ever want to perform your works again or listen to any of them?
Carry on exactly as before.
26) What would cause you to become unmotivated to compose new works?
No one can predict the future. best not to provoke it.
27) What ideas generate the score -> is it the sound? or do you map something else to sound?
Both.
28) Would you listen to computer versions of your works?
Not unless there were a computer-generated aspect to the work.
29) Do these questions worry you?
Does my music worry you?
More open questions for Brian Ferneyhough (also applicable to other composers of our day)[edit]
30) What music, other than your own, do you listen to?
It varies continually. Probably I listen to music less often than most people, since I cannot stand ambient music whilst doing something else.
31) Which music, by composers since 1900, other than your own do you listen to? 
How do you decide on its quality?
Anything I am not familiar with. I continually scour stores and record libraries for odd things. Sometimes one is disappointed; at other times single works catch one's fancy. 'Quality' is only one word, but stands for many subcategories. One would have to refer to specific pieces and how they stand with respect to national or historical tendencies. The flow of styles across national borders in the Renaissance is fascinating, for example.
32) Do you compose with a musical instrument or computer directly at your side (perhaps to get immediate feedback)?
I have never used an instrument while composing, other than the flute, when working on details of some of my flute compositions.
33) Do you hear the sound "in your mind's ear" when composing without a musical instrument or computer at your side? Or do you work out the score first and then listen to the result? (Perhaps a bit of both? Any elaboration?) (ref. 1 above)
One scarcely ever listens to single sounds; much more often it will be a group of sounds already clustered in a musical context. Idea and sonic result are inextricably intertwinged in the compositional act.
34) Do your works have variations of some sort (perhaps some changing of previous material)? Are they generated mathematically?
'Variations' is a species of form; 'variation' is a manner of working. Surely all music deals with the latter. Likewise mathematics (except that most music probably deals with a sort of elevated arithmetic).
35) Did you ever study math or science?
Not willingly. I did study mathematical logic for a brief period back in the 60s, but never systematically.
36) Is math or science important when performing or listening to your works?
No, except sometimes as helpful metaphor. .
37) How important do you consider it, that people listen to your works?
Nice when it happens.
38) Whom would you like to have, listen to your works?
Variable sub-categories of human being.
39) Are you proud of your works? (If so, what is the source of pride.)
I would rather hope that my works were proud of me.
40) Is it important to listen to your works, within a specific context? (e.g. an understanding of something that you try to put to music.) What is the context?
It is helpful to have some background, even when one can of course be immediately seduced by unfamiliar sounds. It helps, for instance, to understand the different texts and their relationship in a 13th C. motet, since key words are often superposed.
41) (ref. 13 above) Do your pieces have some 'style'? Do they have some quality? (if so, which criteria of quality can be identified?)
Yes - their own. What is 'quality'? I hope that they are interesting.
42) (ref. 12 above) How important is belief for you? Do performers have to "believe" in your works? What about the audience?
All art requires, in some sense, suspension of disbelief. It's up to the performer to appreciate and mediate this to the listener.
43) Did your music and composing change how you listen and/or respond to traditional music (baroque, etc.)? If yes, then in what way?
I think that increasing age brings greater tolerance and insight into the problems and rewards of specific historical styles. Early on I think that the development and occupation with one's own problems hinders or distorts this empathy in some respects.
44) (Almost) All tradition musical styles have some recognizable patterns! On the one hand we recognize the style of a piece of music (e.g. baroque, classical), even if it is a piece that we have never heard before (taking into account that we have heard some "baroque" and "classical").
On the other hand we often now what is going to happen next with some melody,


----------



## Portamento

Fascinating! And it goes on:

45cont.) You say your works are about life. (ref. 17 above)
Do your works describe life and aspects of life, or are your works about life in the sense that it's life, when one performs it. (compare with Cage)
Is the piece and the sound the content, or is the struggle of the performer to play the piece the content?
See my answer to your earlier 'content' question. But no, seriously, what IS this 'content'? When are you, as a listener, satisfied that you have absorbed enough content to throw the CD out of the window? If I were to compose a piece according to an AMTRAK timetable, could the piece be more efficiently replaced by the timetable itself? In any case, if you were not about to plan a journey, how would the timetable (or piece) provide you with satisfactory life-enhancing information?

46) I don't understand your answer 19 above. Would you like to elaborate?
Neither of the alternates you offer fill the bill. What does 'naturally' mean? Is calculation 'unnatural', or only unnatural when we choose to do things with it? Much calculation goes on outside the realm of our immediate consciousness - binocular vision leading to depth effect, for instance. The same is probably true for music. Art is, in part, an attempt to overcome the hoary old 'intuition/cerebration' dichotomy, so composers can hardly be faulted for avoiding questions couched in those terms.

47) (ref. 24 above) Do you create your own works? Or do you mean that they are created through you? Is there a randomness aspect in your music?
No ectoplasm-enshrouded voices from the beyond, you mean? Sadly not, in my case. Perhaps I'll come back later to help out coming generations if the waiting list on the other side is not too long.
As to random: all decision making (I believe) has random elements. These can be constrained in various ways. It is the constraint system which transmits a sense of order. There are computer programs which can rapidly write you a symphony in the style of Mozart: what they are patently unable to do is come up with the flashes of perverse insight which makes a piece REALLY Mozartian. The Imp of the Perverse is our true spirit guide.

48) (ref. 27 above) What do you map to sound?
Do you ever map things to sound, that have nothing (directly) to do with sound, e.g. mathematical formulas, statistical distributions, chemical characteristics of materials, transcendental numbers (pi, or golden ration, etc.), DNA, etc.?
What would you think about mapping these things to sound?
Would you say that such mappings could be important to music, considering the rather negative reasoning that "these things are actually unrelated to sound and music".
Composers are magpies. Anything that glitters is grist for their nest-building. It is not important that it be understood as a professional scientist would understand it; it is the process of sensual mediation that counts. Number series are sometimes useful, in that they afford distributions that are of compositional interest. Visual images have set pieces in motion as home oracles. You just have to be sceptical as to the predictions offered.

49) Steven Schick's video performance can be seen here:
Can you now answer question 6 above?
I still haven't seen it.

50) Which other questions would you ask yourself, or would you like to be asked? (How would you answer?)
As long as someone asks something we should be grateful - it can occasionally lead to a more precise reckoning with missed cues.

51) I followed the explanations of Klaus Lippe in his article " 'Pitch Systems' im Vierten Streichquartett von Brian Ferneyhough ". I made a pre-composition, quite exactly like Klaus Lippe explained. How can I translate my precompositon into a score? I analyzed your score, found some facts from your precompositon, but the way to translate it into the real score is not descriped, so I cannot imitate it. How do you do it?
The structure of the background material is not 'translated' directly: the entire point of these preparations was that there would then be a high degree of flexibility in their working out in the piece. The most important thing is that the resultant hexachords are not considered as linear objects but as unordered sets. Thus, the degree of explicitness with which the linear order of the component trichords is maintained is an important feature. If you look at the long quartet passage at the beginning of the 4th movement you might be able to distinguish some specific cases. This is not a serial work; the 'method' is not a 'system'.

52) I read that you use a 2 display system: one for "Finale" and one for your calculations. You used "PatchWork" and "open Music". Do you use Max/MSP right now or still these old programs? How do you transfer the calculations into Finale?
I do not use Max/MSP but OpenMusic and the Patchwork successor PWGL. I need to transfer PWGL information to OpenMusic in order to make a direct transfer to Finale.

53) Concerning your articles about form, figure, style & gestures: I feel a big difference btw listening and reading your compositions. After reading your articles and explanations of your thoughts about form etc., I try to hear it in your pieces. My way of listening changed, but do I really require to read your articles to understand your music? I know, you said before, that there are only 2 different types of listeners. the ones who like and the ones you don´t like your music. But aren´t there ones who can learn to like by reading articles and essays?
Music is a widespread art form and thus has many available approaches to its conventions and challenges. Although some of my writings were made in order to clarify to myself some important issues, many were aimed at underlining the fact that art of any sort is closely and inextricably linked to conceptualization. Art cannot (probably) be 'explained' through language, but language is a valuable adjunct to the location of aesthetic perception in the ongoing discourse of understanding who we are.

54) Concerning Bone-Alphabet: Steven Schick wrote an essay about learning the piece and talked about the indeterminacy of the 7 percussion-instruments (in: the percussionist´s art, university of rochester press, 2006). Compared to your comment in the interview with James Boros (1992) you said you both agreed using only 7 instruments. That means he already knew it before.
I think you misunderstand the initial challenge. Although I specified that only 7 instruments are to be used, I did NOT define what those instruments were to be, even though I DID offer some rules about the way they may be compbined in a register and colour gamut. In all cases, performers of this piece select their own personal group of instruments. (YouTube contains videos of several such).

55) He also explains that this piece is more a theater piece than music.
There is an undeniable physical component in any percussion performance. I simply make more specific, in musical terms, some of the categories of physicality demanded. Steve is a very physical performer: at the same time I would contest and approach which suggested that the theatrical dimension was more important - on the contrary, it only gains significance when filtered through the specifically musical contexts defined in the score.

56) What would you say? and compared to musical-theater-pieces by John Cage: what do you think is the major difference?
The concept of 'piece' in Cage needs to be examined carefully. There is a lot of literature on that. I compose closed-form works with no scope for re-ordering the elements.

57) Cage eliminated the subjective musical expression by using indeterminacy, you do this by using complicated notation. What do you think is the difference in the result?
I disagree with your conclusion. The entire point of my notation is to activate interpretational speculation in the mind of the performer. We no longer have such a thing as a common 'performative tradition' in contemporary music. Thus, each piece needs, to some extent, to suggest a 'tradition' appropriate to it. I attempt to do this via notation. Subjective expression is very much intended.


----------



## Knorf

I had the great privilege of getting to study a little bit with Brian at Darmstadt, the "_Ferienkurse für neue Musik_," and these open question answers from him are highly representative of his thinking, and how he talks. I adored learning from him. Reading those answers brought back great memories! Thanks for posting them, BWV 1080 and Portamento.

As I posted in the weekly string quartet listening thread, Brian Ferneyhough is an amazing teacher, absolutely skilled at finding the most critical and useful elements of discussion in any student's music, regardless of style. He's quite a musical genius; of that I have zero doubt.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Knorf said:


> I had the great privilege of getting to study a little bit with Brian at Darmstadt, the "_Ferienkurse für neue Musik_," and these open question answers from him are highly representative of his thinking, and how he talks. I adored learning from him. Reading those answers brought back great memories! Thanks for posting them, BWV 1080 and Portamento.
> 
> As I posted in the weekly string quartet listening thread, Brian Ferneyhough is an amazing teacher, absolutely skilled at finding the most critical and useful elements of discussion in any student's music, regardless of style. He's quite a musical genius; of that I have zero doubt.


certainly then you must have witnessed, according staggerburger, that behind his back how BF is "looked down upon by his peers and classical music community"?


----------



## Phil loves classical

I recall reading somewhere Ferneyhough, Chin, and other use this program (forgot the name) that generates certain permutations of rhythms that would otherwise take a lot of time to do by hand. That explains the uncanny sort of precision that the music has on paper. Can't remember if it was my own interpretation on the following, but I believe he then chose which rhythms go well with others. So I believe TOrkelburger is at least partially right that he didn't conceive the music wholly by ear, but I think he ended up putting it together with what he felt sounded what he was after at some point. I don't hear any of his music as aleatoric, they all sound very deliberate to me, but the precision and detail is not really what he specifically hears, as in dynamics, etc.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Phil loves classical said:


> I recall reading somewhere Ferneyhough, Chin, and other use this program (forgot the name) that generates certain permutations of rhythms that would otherwise take a lot of time to do by hand. That explains the uncanny sort of precision that the music has on paper. Can't remember if it was my own interpretation on the following, but I believe he then chose which rhythms go well with others. So I believe TOrkelburger is at least partially right that he didn't conceive the music wholly by ear, but I think he ended up putting it together with what he felt sounded what he was after at some point. I don't hear any of his music as aleatoric, they all sound very deliberate to me, but the precision and detail is not really what he specifically hears, as in dynamics, etc.


Patchwork is the software, but if you look to my earlier post of BF working with a performer (and conducting) on Bone Alphabet, its obvious he can hear all the rhythms. He also has mentioned throughout his careers performers test him by playing rhythms incorrectly to see if he catches it.


----------



## Knorf

Bwv 1080 said:


> certainly then you must have witnessed, according staggerburger, that behind his back how BF is "looked down upon by his peers and classical music community"?


Among some, sure. Among others he is highly respected. As it always is.


----------



## Mandryka

Brian Ferneyhough, John Cage and Roger Reynolds. I wonder if anyone can add some speech balloons.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Bwv 1080 said:


> Patchwork is the software, but if you look to my earlier post of BF working with a performer (and conducting) on Bone Alphabet, its obvious he can hear all the rhythms. He also has mentioned throughout his careers performers test him by playing rhythms incorrectly to see if he catches it.


Yes, I'm sure he can hear them at least afterwards, but it's in the early conception stage that I don't believe he had something that specific in mind, or else he wouldn't need the software, or to work it out.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes, I'm sure he can hear them at least afterwards, but it's in the early conception stage that I don't believe he had something that specific in mind, or else he wouldn't need the software, or to work it out.


It's quite common practice for a composer to have no sound in mind. This is the case in all indeterminate music, like French baroque keyboard preludes. It is obviously the case in music which makes use of time brackets. The conception of composition according to which the composer imagines a sound and then records the sound in his head using a notation is, in my opinion, an unsustainable dogma.


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> It's quite common practice for a composer to have no sound in mind. This is the case in all indeterminate music, like French baroque keyboard preludes. It is obviously the case in music which makes use of time brackets. The conception of composition according to which the composer imagines a sound and then records the sound in his head using a notation is, in my opinion, an unsustainable dogma.


I see that issue as a red herring, since the important thing is that a composer, worth his salt, has a conception for a work and will realize the work using some kind of method or process. When composers were using 12-tone serial procedures I am not sure how seriously this issue was taken in order to question the validity of the composer or work.

In any event, it seems a rather superficial, provincial, concern, IMO.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> a conception for a work .


Not necessarily a conception of what the work will sound like

https://icareifyoulisten.com/2013/10/graphic-scores-touring-project-notations21/5/


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mandryka said:


> It's quite common practice for a composer to have no sound in mind. This is the case in all indeterminate music, like French baroque keyboard preludes. It is obviously the case in music which makes use of time brackets. The conception of composition according to which the composer imagines a sound and then records the sound in his head using a notation is, in my opinion, an unsustainable dogma.


Yup, I don't see it as a limitation at all. It all matters how the end result is. I think he was able to achieve something that couldn't be done by someone who hears everything specifically from the start, unless that person is beyond human.


----------



## Knorf

Phil loves classical said:


> Yup, I don't see it as a limitation at all. It all matters how the end result is. I think he was able to achieve something that couldn't be done by someone who hears everything specifically from the start, unless that person is beyond human.


Well said. And I quite agree. The impulse to create music can appear in almost any any context, from almost anything, whether a sound, an image, an event, a structure, or something words can't adequately describe. In fact, the latter might be the best source of all.


----------



## Mandryka

Torkelburger said:


> Yes, yes! Maybe we can discuss his work in his own guestbook, so as not to derail this thread? (BTW, his opera _Dionysos_ was one of the compositions I was referring to that sound like an updated, modernized homage to Berg to me! (even though it's not Sprechstimme singing)). So great.


Interesting to think of Rihm's exploration of line and Roger Reynolds's in Ariadne's Thread. I'm a great admirer of Reynolds.


----------



## Torkelburger

Hey I just wanted to apologize to SanAntone and Bwv 1080 for my remarks a couple of months ago. I wanted to do it in public and not in PM. I didn't get reprimanded or anything it's just been weighing on my mind. I tend to get a little carried away at times and get a bit rude and abrasive. I don't mean disrespect to BF. I'll continue listening to BF's music in my listening schedules and I'm sure there will be something I can find that I can enjoy at some point.


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> Hey I just wanted to apologize to SanAntone and Bwv 1080 for my remarks a couple of months ago. I wanted to do it in public and not in PM. I didn't get reprimanded or anything it's just been weighing on my mind. I tend to get a little carried away at times and get a bit rude and abrasive. I don't mean disrespect to BF. I'll continue listening to BF's music in my listening schedules and I'm sure there will be something I can find that I can enjoy at some point.


I've completely forgotten about whatever transpired between us. But thanks, you are a gentleman.


----------



## Bwv 1080

same here, no worries


----------

