# Composers Who Give Up Some Control Over Their Music



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

This thread is inspired by millionrainbows' quote:



millionrainbows said:


> No, the "system" in serialism, or the "chance" in aleatoric music, were both attempts to "get rid" of the artist's intent or "ego." Read the liner notes to this CD.


When I first saw it, I was a bit surprised that two enormously different approaches to music composition, deep structure (serialism or total serialism) and chance (aleatoric or indeterminate music), could yield a similar result. Yet, upon more thought, they both can reduce the composer's inputs. In chance music the composer relegates some control over the music to something outside the system (e.g. computer generated random numbers). In total serialism the composer allows the system itself to partially "take control".

There are various types of chance music, but examples would be Cage's use of the I Ching in Music of Changes, Xenakis use of probability in Pithoprakta, and Feldman's use of undefined musical notation in Intersection No. 2.

Boulez said of serialism, "Serialism was right for me and many of my generation because it gave us a strict discipline, but we could then go anywhere from there. I suppose it's like if you like strict counterpoint, you are held within very rigid constraints, but it forces you to find solutions where you think there are no solutions. You had both the flexibility and discipline of invention which you could not get anywhere else. But we went so far, it went to a point of absurdity. …If you have too strict a discipline, it kills your ideas. If you are flexible and not so strict, your ideas will flow. So there was this great fight within the discipline."

What do you think of the idea of "giving up some control" in music composition, and do you think that aleatoric music and music created using total serialism can be compared in this manner?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I guess there's 2 aspects of control involved here. One is the interpretation of the performer it seems, and the other the actual composition process of the composer. A strictly guided performer vs. improvisational performer; and a composer free to expresses themselves with contextual tonality etc. vs. composer that only works in systemic tonality (tonal).

Serialism is actually very strict sometimes in its interpretation to performers. _explosante-fixe _by Boulez is one of those ridiculously meticulous scores where every single little thing is written down. It's not serialist, but it works with a pitch-class set, which is refined but still pliable (I mean, the piece is about 40 minutes). Therefore, the only one who is free is the composer, who can do whatever he wants in the rather wide world of tone rows and pc-sets (it's contextual, meaning the composer defines what is dissonance, not systemic tonality rules), but the musician has to do exactly what's on the page. Aleatoric music on the other hand, leaves the control of the interpretation to the musicians, and thus it's the opposite of serialism: the composer has relinquished his composition power into the hand of the players. However, it could be possible that the Aleatoric music is still a perfect rendition of what the composer wanted (thus they do have control after all), alongside the musicians.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> What do you think of the idea of "giving up some control" in music composition, and do you think that aleatoric music and music created using total serialism can be compared in this manner?


I'm almost certain the end reaction to delving into total serialism is easily imaginable as then deciding to give up control of some of the musical elements, whether it is non-specific graphic notation, a few pitches selected and given to the players to improvise with, etc.

Total serialism is about as locked in as it gets: once you've set up your parameters, your possible solutions are channeled into adhering to all the principles set as to what can be in the piece. Boulez is correct, once you've chained yourself to something so seemingly restricted, there is still plenty of room to take it where you might like it to go. What you know you cannot do, i.e. knowing what does not belong in one piece or a movement of it, is a very positive thing to be able to recognize, regardless of the vocabulary style, or system you are working within.

Boulez, from first hand experience, tells us, "But we went so far, it went to a point of of absurdity. ... _if you have too strict a discipline, it kills your ideas."_ (italics mine)

Bingo, and from that, I can imagine the aleatoric or leaving a bit more up to the musicians becomes attractive in keeping your ideas (and the piece) from being killed.

Much, much, much of aleatory and "leaving it up to the performers," was done in the mid to late 1960's -- at a time when serialism had hit a crest of trendiness, to the point where any other sort of music using other techniques or a different approach to tonality was ignored. The appeal of the aleatory and some improv relying on the musicians instead of set pitches or metric, was I believe a direct reaction to serialism, and the inception of total serialism, dating from the same time.

That letting go pendulum swung, as is physically expected, about as far away from strict anything as serialism swung into total serialist mode. The decade and then some was littered with music where the players or conductor choose the order of the pages, graphic notation scores were plentiful, etc. Next, also expected, both extremes later swung back to a more median center point. Much was learned of great value, a lot of terrible music was made (in both camps), a few outstanding pieces from those who are just that good that most anything they turned to had value by the time they had worked it.

Too much reliance upon method and technical process can lead to methodical and technical process pieces which lack any real spark, and the flip side of that coin, letting it all go, can be just as deadening: what working extensively in either the strict or the free can do is hone the composer's ear and thinking a great deal, and to the better. Too far, as the man said, and you and the piece are dead in the water before ever making it to shore.

Really, no matter how diligent and precise your scoring (including some very specific written qualifications to the players as to what and how), a composer still gives up control -- to a degree unimaginable by many -- the moment that score gets in the hands of the players.

Virgil Thomson, writing as critic, wrote early on about Boulez that by choosing strict serialism and total serialism the composer had made a choice which would soon have him written into a corner -- a canny observation about Boulez' later little problem about how little, in a great deal of time, he could or would write. Boulez' statement about going to the Nth degree has a lot to do with that corner: then relying more upon your intuition, or the intuition of others, seems to be a clear reaction.

What I write is pretty much done by the seat of my pants, regardless of all that training, just how it goes for me. Because that is done not adhering to anything method-like in any way, I'm not ready to give up decisions of which notes and in what order to the players


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Chance" music is hardly new, but maybe composers used to have more fun writing it. Mozart wrote a "Musikalisches Würfelspiel" in 1787, a game which used throws of dice to build a minuet complete with trio. Thus, aleatoric music (the word aleatoric is from the Latin word for dice).

There's actually a web page that has implemented Mozart's game rules and will generate a minuet for you. Haven't tried it!

http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Mozart/dice/


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> "Chance" music is hardly new, but maybe composers used to have more fun writing it. Mozart wrote a "Musikalisches Würfelspiel" in 1787, a game which used throws of dice to build a minuet complete with trio. Thus, aleatoric music (the word aleatoric is from the Latin word for dice).
> 
> There's actually a web page that has implemented Mozart's game rules and will generate a minuet for you. Haven't tried it!
> 
> http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Mozart/dice/


When a student and working on a serial piece, I was at home, working on the floor, manuscript in hand and referring to my row matrix, Original / Inversion / Retrograde / Retrograde inversion, each transposed into all 'keys,' which was sitting on the floor. I was puzzling over which row to go to next, knowing that was near at the juncture of the piece to which I had gotten.

A very small spider started walking across the page with the matrix on it, and I decided the next note-head the critter set any of its tiny feet upon would choose the row to be used. (I'm thinking with his size, and that page, the odds of stepping on any note head at all during this creature's transit were about 50: 50).

The spider stepped on a note head. I used that row next.

Is that aleatory and does that count?


----------

