Abstract This paper discusses the nature of experimental music, its reception, and suggests a method for its analysis. It is given a definition and its historical development is traced. A continuum is developed along which pieces fall that has at one end pieces conceived in a purely aesthetical way, and at the other end there are pieces for which an underlying conceptual apparatus forms an inextricable compositional element. The field of analysis is discussed in terms of its history and its place in discussions of music today. It is shown that analysis arose during the era of tonal music as a means of legitimizing members of the classical canon, and thereby tacitly denigrating others. The literature is shown to be united on the idea that analysis today needs to meet music on its own terms and highlight both a piece’s individuality and its way place in today’s society. The method for analysis includes some more traditional approaches which are adapted to deal with music which seeks not only to be aesthetically moving, but to further a conceptual goal. New methods and techniques are suggested. A number of common, which should be avoided in discussions of this type of music are outlined. As a proof of concept three exemplary short analyses are offered. The pieces were chosen as a way of demonstrating the strengths of the methodology suggested. The point of this endeavor is to provide the legitimacy these pieces deserve. If a piece is discussed on its own terms, its craftsmanship can be brought out. Likewise, if a systematic investigation of a piece is executed it will be possible to way why a piece is less than optimal, rather than merely casting it off without much consideration. Towards a Method for the Analysis of Experimental Music A Thesis Presented To the Faculty of the Department of Theory, Composition & Musicology East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master’s of Music in Theory-Composition By Andrew Pfalz April, 2014 © Andrew Pfalz, 2014 Towards a Method for Analysis of Experimental Music by Andrew Pfalz APPROVED BY: DIRECTOR OF DISSERTATION/THESIS: _______________________________________________________ Edward Jacobs, D. M. A. COMMITTEE MEMBER: ________________________________________________________ John O’Brien, D. M. A. COMMITTEE MEMBER: _______________________________________________________ Kevin Moll, Ph. D. CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THEORY, COMPOSITION & MUSICOLOGY: ________________________________________________________________ Thomas Huener, Ph. D. DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL: _________________________________________________________ Paul J. Gemperline, Ph. D. Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………… 1 I. Experimental Music……………………………………………………………… 4 A. Versus “New Music”……………………………………………………… 6 B. History and Context ………………………………………………………. 9 C. Agenda and Biases ……………………………………………………….. 11 D. Characteristics ……………………………………………………………. 13 II. Analysis………………………………………………………………………… 16 A. Definitions and History …………………………………………………… 16 B. The Historical Role of Analysis as a Legitimizer…………………………. 18 C. The New Role of Analysis………………………………………………… 18 III. Methodology…………………………………………………………………… 21 A. Traditional Approaches Adapted…………………………………………. 22 B. What Analysis of Experimental Music Should Avoid……………………. 26 C. Points of focus…………………………………………………………….. 28 IV. Case studies……………………………………………………………………. 31 A. Arvo Pärt Missa Syllabica ................................................................... 32 B. Fredric Rzewski Les Moutons de Panurge .......................................... 36 C. John Cage 4’33” ................................................................................. 39 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 43 Towards A Method for the Analysis of Experimental Music This paper will discuss a body of music conceived of in (or in reaction to) the cultivated tradition. This body of music tends to feature less common musical approaches such as indeterminacy or some other radical rethinking of traditional musical materials. These works are grouped not because of stylistic resemblances, but by similarly iconoclastic approaches. Introduction It is reasonable to assume that most concertgoers have at some point experienced something like the following. A piece is performed which features some elements which lie outside the mainstream tradition. Some audience member responds grumblingly something to the effect of “my six year old could do that!” Some go as far as to commit their disdain to writing. An example would be this review of Edgard Varèse’s Octandre : An Octandre is a flower having eight stamens. Mr. Varèse’s Octandre was no flower; it was a peach. It cannot be described. It ought not be. Such music must be heard to be appreciated. It shrieked, it grunted, it chortled, it mewed, it barked – and it turned all eight instruments into contortionists. It was not in any key, not even in no key. It was just a ribald outbreak of noise. Some people laughed because they could find no other outlet for their feelings. The thing was not even funny. (W.J. Henderson, New York Times, January 14, 1924) 1 The author of this review’s disdain is not hard to spot. The dismissive attitude is the most telling part. More effort was put into describing what the piece lacked than what the piece actually sounded like. Most incisively the author says the piece is not even worthy of discussion. The foundations that this, admittedly superficial, sentiment are based on form the motivations for what is to follow. More specifically, the tendency to dismiss radical new works 1 Nicolas Slonimsky, Lexicon of Musical Invective (New York: Coleman- Ross Company, Inc.,1953), 213. as trivial, ill-conceived, or otherwise inherently inferior to other, more traditional, works in the same genre serves as the point of departure for this paper. The debate over what makes art “good” or “bad” has been going for centuries and is likely to continue. One key element in this discussion that is pertinent to this paper is the issue of legitimacy. A piece of art, in any medium or genre, can be legitimized in the eyes of a perceiver in a number of ways. Examples of these would might include the so-called “test of time;” an appraisal of the awards won by the piece in any number of arenas; its monetary success; or a personal value judgment which could range from superficial and highly colored by personal bias to a quasi-objective assessment of the piece in its proper context and in its proper terms based on a thorough understanding of the genre of the piece. A continuum might be constructed that shows at one end a rather superficial and unsubstantial judgment essentially the same as “my six year old could do that” and on the other end a thoughtful analysis which balances solid research methodology, a broad understanding of the topic, and well-informed value judgments. Any number of other points may be noted in between these two extremes. The problem with judgments that tend towards the superficial is that often these are quickly arrived at and as such are based on a preponderance of presumptions, many or all of which may be irrelevant to the piece being judged. It should also be noted that because a judgment is well grounded does not mean it is a positive assessment. In the same way, superficial praise for a piece may be based on entirely irrelevant assumptions and because of this is not as substantial as it could be. For established genres, within established art forms such as portraiture in painting, sonnets in poetry, ballet in dance, and sonatas in music, there already exists analytical methodologies designed to legitimize certain bodies of music over others. Sometimes a piece 2 which is tacitly presumed to be part of a canon is legitimized only by superficial methods. These works are sometimes given statuses as a “good” work, nonetheless. For instance a piece may have stood the “test of time” and so assumed to be of merit because of this. A piece might also be assumed to be a masterpiece by the reputation of the persona attached to the work. Examples might be some like: the assumption that because the music of Guillaume de Machaut is still studied and heard to this day, and because his music is the best preserved among composers working in the same time and place as him, it must be good. These types of assessments have more to do with context or with the genre as a whole than they do with the piece itself, and as such, cannot provide much insight into the piece. Other pieces have been analyzed in a more scrupulous manner which delves much deeper beyond the surface of the piece in order to demonstrate the level of skill that was required to craft the piece. The insight gained from a well-reasoned discussion of a piece is much greater than if the piece is merely described in general terms. The conclusion that the piece is a work of admirable craftsmanship or is aesthetically pleasing is much more compelling if it can be demonstrated through argument, rather than by assertion. Taking the time to go deeper than a superficial description of a piece is helpful because it can be of use for listener, theorist, performer, and composer alike 2. Unfortunately, regarding works which do not resemble other works already considered among the great masterpieces, one rarely encounters insightful discussions. It is only natural that such works would be met with suspicion. Because unbiased discussion happens so infrequently, superficial