From: alves@calvin.usc.edu (William Alves)
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Subject: Re: Advances in composition
Date: 4 Jan 1993 13:41:55 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: calvin.usc.edu

In article <1i5kbfINN9qs@mozz.unh.edu> dvf@kepler.unh.edu (David V Feldman) writes:
>In article <1hvr6oINNkf@calvin.usc.edu> alves@calvin.usc.edu (William Alves) writes:
>>David V. Feldman writes:
>>>(William Alves) writes:
>>
>>is some extra-musical notion (e.g. a serial use of cells that has inter-
>>esting properties and hasn't been tried before) that the composer is trying
>
>Perhaps we really have no disagreement, but I am vexed by your use of the
>term ``extra-musical'' as though there were some a priori notion of the
>music in the music.

OK, I will concede that "extramusical" was probably not the best choice of
terminology given the context, but let me tell you how that particular word
came to mind. The late Romantics (among others) were very fond of repre-
senting stories, visual imagery, natural sounds, etc. in music - we call
that programmaticism and no one argues that they are representing extra-
musical concepts. Now flash forward a hundred years. How many times have
I heard pieces with plural nouns as titles (say, "Triangles") and read
some program notes about how the notes were derived through clever processes
that somehow represent triangles on many different levels? It's still pro-
grammaticism, but now representing more abstract ideas. The important point
is that the quasi-representational (and likely inaudible, but see below)
process determined the notes. Now take away the title and you are still
left with a process guided by this (probably inaudible) process.

>Now you may want to
>argue that if these notions are inaudible from the final product, then
>they are extramusical, but the question becomes ``Inaudible to whom?''

Now, I certainly won't argue against you if you say that education and
sensitivity can help one hear the return of fugue subjects, but, come
on, there's a limit, even accounting for the most fantastic of ears.
Sure, there are places in Schoenberg where the row is clearly audible,
but far more frequently I can hear the row about as well as I can hear
the performer's heart beat - let alone inversion and retrogression! Maybe
that's just me, but I can't comprehend someone saying after a Babbitt
performance, "Well, I was disappointed how he left out a C# in what was
otherwise a beautifully combinatorial set."

As far as Schoenberg, I would argue that he didn't usually intend for the
tone row to have the same kind of audibility as a fugue subject. Nothing
wrong with that. The process just becomes a means to achieve a the certain
sound that he wants. Instead of a process (like imitation) whose effect
depends on clear audibility, it is a process (like common-practice voice
leading) whose effect is a result of the process rather than the process
itself.

But I'm arguing that the process remained the focus of many composers'
interest long after those processes had (for human ears) ceased having
anything to do with the sound. Thus I believe the music came to be lost.
Some composers were merely playing games with numbers, and THAT is what
I meant by extramusical.

>In particular, I reject the dogma that priviliges the
>gestalt over all other perceptions of the listener.  (I believe that
>this dogma is so pervasive that not only is it rarely challenge, but it
>isn't often explicitly formulated, except in slogans like ``If it don't
>swing, it don't mean a thing.'')

I won't argue with you there. Having taught music appreciation, I under-
stand how hard it is to convince someone that making the mental effort
to listen harder will result in a more enjoyable experience than "just
letting the music wash over you." Anyone else encountered this problem?

Bill