FRAMING NEW MUSIC THE EFFECT OF PREPARATORY CONDITIONS ON AUDIENCE RESPONSE TO MORRIS’S CLEAR SOUNDS (2013)

DAPHNE LEONG AND ROBERT MORRIS

Performance Studies Network Third International Conference University of Cambridge 18 July 2014 [email protected] [email protected]

Figure 1. Preparatory Conditions (C1-5)

C1. simple identification: the title of the piece, its date of composition, its approximate duration, and the names of composer and performer

Clear Sounds Among Hills and Waters (1989, revised 2013) (11’) Robert Morris (b.1943) Daphne Leong, piano

C2. program note: brief program note supplied by the composer describing the handscroll and referring to the piece’s structure [in addition to C1]

The title is that of a handscroll, in ink and color on paper, by the Ch’ing Dynasty artist, Hsiao Yun- ts’ung (A.D. 1596-1673). “This long handscroll closes with a cave housing a lonely monk and his attendant, followed at the very end … by a harbor scene with clearing banks of mist… A typical unit of the composition [involves] numerous plateaus and a characteristic swinging rhythm, based upon the careful juxtaposition of an arc and a countering angle” (Lee History of Far Eastern Art).

The piece’s shape derives also from a sequence of 36 basic, but interdependent musical states. The concatenation of these states affects the harmonic color, registral ambitus, and textural density of the music.

Daphne Leong gave the world premiere of the work in September 2013; the 2013 second edition is dedicated to her.

- Robert Morris

C3. aesthetic/visual introduction: 5-minute video in which the composer presents an aesthetic introduction including visual projection of sections from the handscroll [+ C1 and C2]

C4. structural/aural introduction: 5-minute video in which the composer presents a structural introduction based on aural presentation of the work’s primary harmonic components, the six all-combinatorial hexachords [+ C1 and C2] In set-theory nomenclature, these hexachords are A. [012345] (the chromatic hexachord), B. [023457], C. [024579] (the diatonic hexachord), D. [012678], E. [014589] (the hexatonic), and F. [02468t] (the whole-tone scale).

C5. combination: all of the above [C1, C2, C3, and C4]

C3 video. C4 video. Figure 3. Components (Principal Components Analysis followed by Varimax Rotation on Questionnaire items A2-23, B9) Figure 2. Two levels of musical sophistication

loading % of variance explained *Means on 5-point scales. For scales, see Questionnaire Part B. Component 1: logic/feelings 10.259% item A9. makes sense .735 MUSICAL SOPHISTICATION MORE LESS A10. logical structure .677 Mean* S.D. Mean* S.D. A21. different feelings .601 overall musical experience 3.63 0.79 2.26 0.49 ( A5. dark/bright .302 ) concerts attended per year 3.88 1.13 2.44 0.96 hours/week listening to music 4.07 1.14 3.36 1.21 Component 2: performance 9.218% years of private musical instruction 3.37 0.96 1.72 0.85 A11. surprises .709 years of ensemble participation 3.71 1.19 1.59 0.9 A23. difficult to play .666 compositional experience 2.32 1 1.23 0.53 A8. in/expressive .650 familiarity with style 2.9 1.12 1.37 0.48 number that have taken 20th-c. music theory course 12 2 Component 3: textural/harmonic complexity 8.540% number that have taken 20th-c. music history course 17 1 A15. texture simple/complex .794 number of participants 41 39 A16. harmony simple/complex .733

Component 4: interest 8.415% A3. listen again .827 A4. hold attention .774

Component 5: liking + ? 8.246% A14. soft/loud .792 A2. liking .772 ( A12. slow/fast .461 ) ( A7. soothing/harsh .377 )

Component 6: sections 6.824% A20. smaller units .715 A19. sectional .624 ( A6. cool/warm .553 )

Component 7: contour 6.241% A13. smooth/jagged .625 A17. melody simple/complex .600 ( A22. ending sounds like ending .419 )

Component 8: familiarity 6.196% B9. familiarity with style .884

Component 9: rhythmic complexity 5.991% A18. rhythm simple/complex .742 ______

69.930% Figure 4. Open-Ended Questions: topics, tallies, tallies scaled (max, min)

Preparatory Condition C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 All No. of participants 14 /14 17 /17 18 /18 14 /14 17 /17 80 /80 COMMENTS Topics Questions composer / context / motivation / intentions 11 0.79 4 0.24 1 0.06 4 0.29 3 0.18 23 1.54 Hsiao Yun-ts’ung, far East classical music 1 0.06 1 0.06 piece’s meaning / title 8 0.57 3 0.18 1 0.06 5 0.36 1 0.06 18 1.22 in any plays? 1 0.06 1 0.06 structure 7 0.41 5 0.28 3 0.21 3 0.18 18 1.08 scroll: relation to / see 5 0.29 3 0.17 3 0.21 3 0.18 14 0.85 Leong's ethnicity & interpretation 1 0.07 1 0.07 Observations lack of unity / clarity / sense 9 0.64 9 0.53 13 0.72 6 0.43 4 0.24 41 2.56 complex, challenging 3 0.18 2 0.12 5 0.29 mood, dissonance, articulation, contrasts, sections 6 0.43 6 0.35 12 0.67 7 0.50 13 0.76 44 2.71 listening strategy, prep helpful 4 0.24 5 0.28 1 0.07 10 0.58 program note too technical 1 0.06 1 0.06 couldn't hear harmonies from intro 1 0.07 1 0.07 title / scroll – relation N/A 3 0.18 10 0.56 4 0.29 6 0.35 23 0.29 imagery 4 0.24 2 0.14 6 0.38 story 2 0.12 1 0.07 3 0.19 rehear 2 0.12 1 0.06 3 0.18 unfamiliar 1 0.06 4 0.22 3 0.21 3 0.18 11 0.67 liking / interest (pos & neg) 3 0.21 2 0.12 7 0.39 3 0.21 8 0.47 23 1.41 need expression / emotion to connect 4 0.22 3 0.21 7 0.44 Totals COMMENTS 37 2.64 56 3.29 65 3.61 47 3.36 49 2.88 254 15.79 Questions 19 1.36 19 1.12 10 0.56 16 1.14 12 0.71 76 4.88 Observations 18 1.29 36 2.12 55 3.06 26 1.86 37 2.18 172 10.49 Ratio Questions / Observations 1.06 0.53 0.18 0.62 0.32 0.44 TYPES OF COMMENTS 5 0.36 15 0.88 11 0.61 13 0.93 13 0.76 57 3.54 Types of Questions 2 0.14 4 0.24 4 0.22 5 0.36 6 0.35 21 1.31 Types of Observations 3 0.21 11 0.65 7 0.39 10 0.71 8 0.47 39 2.44 Figure 5. Open-ended items: maxima and minima

C1 (simple identification) min1 comments min1 t-comments max1 questions min1 observations max1 ratio questions:observations max1 composer questions max1 meaning questions

C2 (program note referencing scroll & structure) max2 comments C4 (structural / harmonic aural) max2 t-comments max1 t-comments max2b questions max2a questions max2 t-observations max1 t-observations max2b composer questions max2a composer questions max2b meaning questions max2a meaning questions max1 structure questions min2 structure questions max1 scroll questions min2 lack of sense observations min1 mood observations max2 imagery observations max1 imagery observations

C3 (aesthetic / scroll visual) max1 comments C5 (all) min1 questions min2 questions max1 observations min2 ratio questions:observations min1 ratio questions:observations min2 composer questions min1 composer questions min1 meaning questions min1 meaning questions min1 structure questions (except C1 = 0) min1 scroll questions (except C1 = 0) min1 scroll questions (except C1 = 0) max1 lack of sense observations min1 lack of sense observations max1 prep helpful observations max1 mood observations (most varied, most pos.) max2 mood observations max2 scroll observations max1 scroll observations (8/10 ≠) max1 like observations max2 like observations WORKS CITED

Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Meredith Corp.

Pitts, Stephanie E. (2005). What makes an audience? Investigating the roles and experiences of Bradley, Ian. (1972). Effect on student musical preference of a listening program in listeners at a chamber music festival. Music and Letters 86/2, 257-269. contemporary art music. Journal of Research in Music Education 20, 344-53.

Prince, Warren. (1974). Effects of guided listening on musical enjoyment of junior high school Clarke, Eric. (2002). Listening to performance. In Rink, John (Ed.), Musical performance: A students. Journal of Research in Music Education 22, 45-51. guide to understanding (pp. 185-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Radbourne, Jennifer, Johanson, Katya, Glow, Hilary, & White, Tabitha. (2009). The audience Daynes, Helen. (2011). Listeners’ perceptual and emotional responses to tonal and atonal music. experience: Measuring quality in the performing arts. International Journal of Arts Psychology of Music, 39(4), 468-502. Management 11/3, 16-29.

DeNora, Tia. (1986). How is extra-musical meaning possible? Music as a place and space for Roose, Henk. (2008). Many-Voiced or Unisono? An Inquiry into Motives for Attendance and “work.” Sociological Theory, 4/1, 84-94. Aesthetic Dispositions of the Audience Attending Classical Concerts. Acta Sociologica 51/3,

237-253. ———. (2003). After Adorno: Rethinking Music Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Rozin, Alexander, Rozin, Paul, & Goldberg, Emily. (2004). The feeling of music past: How

listeners remember musical affect. Music Perception, 22, 15-39. Dobson, Melissa & Pitts, Stephanie. (2011). Classical cult or learning community? Exploring

new audience members’ social and musical responses to first-time concert attendance. Schubert, Emery. (2007). The influence of emotion, locus of emotion and familiarity upon Ethnomusicology Forum, 20, 353-83. preference in music. Psychology of Music, 35, 499-515.

Finnäs, Leif. (1989). How can musical preferences be modified? A research review. Bulletin of Tan, Siu-Lan, Spackman, Matthew, & Peaslee, Christy. The effects of repeated exposure on the Council for Research in Music Education, 102, 1-58. liking and judgments of musical unity of intact and patchwork compositions. Music

Perception, 23, 407-421. Gillis, Glen. (1995). The effects of narrated versus non-narrated concert performances on

audience responses. PhD dissertation. University of Missouri-Columbia. Temperley, David. 1999. “The question of purpose in music theory: description, suggestion, and

explanation.” Current Musicology, 66, 66-85. Halpern, Jessica. (1992). Effects of historical and analytical teaching approaches on music

appreciation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 39-46. Thompson, Sam. (2006). Audience responses to a live orchestral concert. Musicae Scientiae

10(2), 215-44. Heyduk, Ronald. (1975). Rated preference for musical compositions as it relates to complexity

and exposure frequency. Perception and Psychophysics, 17, 84-91. Thompson, William F. (2009). Music, thought, and feeling: Understanding the psychology of

music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hornyak, R. Robert. (1966). An analysis of student attitudes towards contemporary American

music. Bulletin of Council for Research in Music Education 8, 1-14. Torrance, E. P, Reynolds, C. R., Riegel, T., and Ball, O. (1977). Your style of learning and

thinking. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 21, 563-573. Lerdahl, Fred. (1988). Cognitive constraints on compositional systems. In J.A. Sloboda (Ed.),

Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation, and Williams, Geneva. (1943). The effect of program notes on the enjoyment of musical selections. composition (pp. 231-259). Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Journal of General Psychology, 29, 261-279.

Margulis, Elizabeth. (2010). When program notes don’t help: Music descriptions and enjoyment. Zalanowski, Annette. (1986). The effects of listening instructions and cognitive style on music Psychology of Music, 38, 285-302. appreciation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34, 43-53.

Meyer, Leonard B. (1956). Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.