A notation should be directed to a large extent towards the people who read it, rather than towards the sounds they will make

The endeavours of just about Experimentalist composers in the fifties and 1960s, including Cornelius Cardew and John Cage (p benthetically, Cages own quote, Let the nonations refer to what is to be d unrivaled, non what is to be heard1 , has resonances with the title quote) were a purposeful reaction to the determinacy of the Serialists. However, the notions of integral serialism and indeterminacy shared common fractions in some eyesThere is really no basic difference amidst the results of automatism and the products of chance total determinacy comes to be identical with total indeterminacy. 2 The way a go is write downd leaves us to come closer to understanding the musical culture within which banknotes operate, and of the ways in which our modes of thought are wreakd by the temperament of the systems we use3. This relates to the societal view that the composer is the one who has something to introduce, reduction the status of the promoter to that of interpreter.Ho wever, this is not a view that has unendingly existed composers such(prenominal) as Mozart and Beethoven often expected performers of their acidulates (including themselves, to which I shall return) to create extemporize cadenzas for their concerti, while, additionally, the accompaniments were improvised to an extent. Reducing this to a basic level, is it simply the case that, harmonically and stylistically, it was not as difficult to do this in Mozarts time? We no longer start out a tradition, or such a refreshful system embodying a guiding code, to respect in this way, which has contributed to the prioritising of the composer, and the nominate.Through our traditional respect for the written word, one expects to perform music as it is written, which itself has consequences it is our veneration for the urtext that leads us to the attitude that whatever is not in the score must be wrong. 4 The movement towards great notational detail in the score in the 1950s and 1960s, along with the aforementioned elevated view of composer as master brought performers to a situation where version became subjugated by execution.Attempts to exert rootal control over every element of a work -that is not only time-space human relationships but forms of attack, articulation, dynamic shading i. e. those elements traditionally left(p) to the musical intelligence of the player do posses a certain futility. In every case which involves human input, something is left to the performer. They do not fork out to be aware of the extent that their unconscious decisions influence a rear, which include the elements of performance out of the viable control of the composer, for example a players personal port, method of playing their instrument, conception of dynamic level.Players still maintain latitude, however determinate the notation. Their personal mannerisms and inflections will inevitably influence the end result. When viewed in this way, such precision on the part of the composer becomes almost meaningless, except in cases where the end result being an approximation is advisedly part of the composers aesthetic. It arises that performers must be cautious of the primacy of the score, handling it (and the composer) with kid gloves.It leads to narrow scope for, and range of, interpretation a state in which the interaction of compulsive exactitude and permissive freedom could result in simultaneous attitudes of carelessness towards the controlled elements and a confined and repetitious response to spontaneity in playing5. discharge oneself from the page became an important part of the experimental aesthetic. Conscientious performers feel a responsibility to the composer, and to their own integrity.Over- complexity in notation leads to problems with the realisation of the composers intentions when directives are inevitably contravened through necessity. However, a performer would really have to be familiar with a composers aesthetic to know that th is otherwise unacceptable act is part of the pieces implicit signifi give the gatece. So, in a piece of huge complexity, notated or otherwise, a player who makes the act of commitment6 to study and attempt to line it, is likely to have a legitimate interest in actually performing the piece.One element which appears to permeate much of Cardews output is a re-evaluation of the role between composer and performer. Cardew attached as much importance to the works within the implementation of performance as the end-result in sound. His wish was to challenge accepted ways of thinking about, and fashioning, music, which led to a notation which was action-oriented, inclusive and descriptive, not prescriptive. As suggested by the above quote, he sound becomes a by-product of the activity, which is therefore specified exactly, while the sound may be left to look after itself. 7 Cardew writes of a notation, as in there are numerous notational possibilities. How, though, whoremaster a no tation really capture every conceivable piece of information about a piece? Obviously, conventional notation, that is notation which covers time-pitch relationships, is not flexible enough to relate extended integrative requirements. The whole carry through depends on the choice of a suitable notation to serve as a link between A composer and B performer one which will both express what needs to be expressed and allow information to flow smoothly between the two. 8 Even so, composers are less concerned with the relationship of the score to the performer, and consequently the sounds (A to C via B), than to their own concerns with sounds, without due consideration for the act of performing these sounds (A to C).Cardew suggests that a composer could work on their notation with the way a performer will interpret the signs in mind, thus making the sounds you wanted as a composer. Transcribing ones ideas in such a manner as to enable the performer to comprehend your directives, and even involve the player in decision-making, is a performance-perspective oriented view, having the added bene hold back of lending greater objectivity to the fundamental lawal task. A paradigm that grew up in the early twentieth century aw the composer as some kind of absolute genius capable of imagining a perfect performance of a piece9 The aspiration towards greater explicitness10, which this comment infers, is part of a paradigm of composition far removed from the way composition was historically defined.Yet, the morphology of every vernal notation, and the consequential absence of a norm of common notational practice, meant that spry recognition of a composers intentions became impracticable. 11 One underlying issue to be addressed in greater depth is that of the relationship between composer and performer.Hugo Cole states that notation evolved to meet felt but in devise needs12 When new methods of notation are devised in response to the need to articulate a newly developed sty le of composition, composers move the hypothetical goalposts further away again from the performer, as they have to once again let out the new language, interpret again the new signs and work out what the piece (or the composer) is trying to say. This applies in concern measure to determinate music and experimental, though the degree of freedom lent to the performer in the last mentioned case deems it in many ways a more than satisfying task.It somehow restores the performers role as musically intelligent interpreter, relied upon to add the nuances and subtleties that (traditional) notation cannot accommodate. The rigidity of a notation must have relevance to the playing situation. To provide contrasting examples the notations in many works by Brian Ferneyhough are complex attempts to notate those aspects of music which would otherwise be added -unconsciously or consciously-by the performer. This style of notation does not have the effect of reducing the burden on the performer , but adds to the already substantial amount of information the performer has to transmute into sound. In music of the New Complexity performer is subjugated and manipulated, concluding that his efforts are of secondary importance.The act of writing, the systems and the notation come upon on more importance than the music it is there to serve 13Yet, Ferneyhoughs scores are more than mere receptacles for performance directions, they are inextricably linked to the composers ideology. Their complexity is wildly challenging, but, paradoxically, the goal is not to fit in every event on every note rather, the essence of his works lies in what is omitted in performance.This has a potent psychological effect on the classically-trained performer, accustomed to polished performances true to the composers wishes. With Ferneyhough, what he wishes is in effect equivocal, due in part to his documented changing views of his own output. Frederic Rzewski concludes that it is not the notation but t he compositional position that presents the performance problem. 14 We must additionally consider the example of those composers of equally complex, some may say impractical, music, who are also renowned performing exponents of their own scores for example Michael Finnissy.By the nature of their enterprise, they are forced to consider the performer and, in Finnissys case, continue to write music of such paradoxical complexity that, if one was to follow the score, is full of errors in performance, but still faithful to its essence. The composer-performer reacts to their own notational problems, they know what idiomatic writing is being performers themselves and still choose to write music in a particular style15 To contrast, take composer Glenn Brancas Symphony no. 6 Devil Choirs at the Gates of Heaven, written in the main for galvanic guitars.He employs staff notation, and no dynamic markings are evident as, naturally, the resultant dynamic of a piece of this nature will be at leas t fortissimo. Ironically, Brancas use of conventional notation links to his learning of it as being exact I had never written the pieces in staff notation until I wrote for the orchestra. thus I fell in love with the idea of having things so exact, with this notation, that I called up all my musicians guitarists and asked can you guys read music? It turned out that everybody could so we just started doing everything in staff notation.Not only did it make things clearer for me and the musicians, but it did change the music. 16 Brancas closing comment that it did change the music makes for interesting side-thought. For him, there were no subtleties or nuances that could not be recorded using this type of notation in fact, it helped him to clarify and articulate his thoughts, correlating with the idea that notation must reflect the playing situation. The music of Christian Wolff embodies a similar calculate to Cardews, encouraging performer participation in the creation of a work a nd devising notations which allow such interaction.Theirs is an aesthetic of non-intention, away from the conventional burdens of music music must make possible the freedom and dignity of the performers. It should have in it a persistent capacity to surprise (even the performers themselves and the composer)17 He creates deliberate paradoxical situations where what is written cannot be executed, for example in 6 Players where he asks one of the solo violas to play eight notes in a quarter of a second, including three harmonics and one pizzicato18.His use of indeterminacy in performance opens the work to extraneous influences genuinely beyond the composers intentions, and the barrier between performer and composer is reduced. 19 This use of indeterminate operations needs led to new attitudes towards performance. A working example of experimental notation is Cardews Octet 61 Example 1, below, which employs an ambiguous ciphered notation, the working out of which by each performer lead s to unforeseeable combinations of events that could be produced neither by strict composition nor by free improvisation.20 As we have seen, simple notation does not necessarily equal many possible interpretations, and on the same line, an elaborate notation such as Cardews can permit varied interpretation. The psychological impact of how the music looks on the page invites varied readings the printed page is a storage intermediate where an inevitably incomplete representation of notateable ideas can be retained for the future.The fact that this aspect of the work does not change over time, like a painting or a book, does not mean that the piece will not change and evolve. Arts ability to carry societal properties, to evolve and reflect changing time is surely part of its value. The search for greater notational control led to greater complexity, yet the early influence of the possibilities of electronic music must have contributed to this pursuit.Peter Zinofieff spoke of an earl y ideal, satisfied by electronic composition, where we can each have our own private language specially tailored for our own machines and individualist needs or frustrations 21 Ultimately, though, the performers job is to make the relationships and patterns in the music clear to the listeners mind and ear22. This hope, though, displaces the suffer problems which lie between composers and those who are employed to realise the work, be they human or otherwise.