a survey of notation issues in twentieth century

7/22/2019 A Survey of Notation Issues in Twentieth Century

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-survey-of-notation-issues-in-twentieth-century 1/17

A SURVEY OF NOTATION ISSUES IN TWENTIETH CENTURY

ART MUSIC

Momilani Ramstrum

A Research Paper Presented to Brian Ferneyhough

INTRODUCTION

Background

At the heart of the complex issues surrounding contemporary art music and

performance lies the multi!faceted topic of notation" Traditionally notation has ser#ed

to direct and inform a performer in the reali$ation of a piece of music" But %the score

and the performer ha#e actually exchanged roles& 'hereas the score used to (e the map

designed to guide the performer to'ard the composer)s artistic #ision it no' is oftencompletely explicit" " " performances are no' often mere sta(s in the direction of the

composer)s en#isioned perfection of execution"%*+, The pro(lem is in the increasingly

precise notation for pitch rhythm -meter and note durations. and expressi#e /ualities

-e"g" tim(re dynamics intensity tempo attac0 intonation articulation. and the

exploration of extended instrumental techni/ues" Today 'e are at a crossroads& 'e need

to 'al0 in the direction of clarity (ut not necessarily explicity of music notation"

Changes are needed and although standards for notational changes ha#e (een proposed

there is as yet little consensus among composers in their usage" 1ue to our emancipation

of pitch and rhythm our scores ha#e gotten progressi#ely more dense and difficult to

accurately interpret" The result of all these situations has (een a lac0 of performer

engagement 'ith ne' music and the ina(ility for the composer to get his or her 'or0s

fully reali$ed"

Pitch notation has (ecome pro(lematic 'ith the 'riting of highly chromatic music

'hich re/uires an accidental on e#ery note" Rhythm notation has (een the most difficult

and %unyielding pro(lem in recent music"%*2, 3hereas 'ith pitch notation it is only a

/uestion of density of information 'ith rhythm the difficulty is 'ith our (ipartite

system notating complexities of a greater di#ision of the (eat than t'o -or multiples of

t'o." Modern music has (een mar0ed (y )irrational) su(di#isions of the (eat a situation

impossi(le to clearly sho' and read 'ith our notational system"

The exhausti#e notation of expressi#e /ualities is e/ually pro(lematic since this is

%encroaching on the freedom of the performer extending control into areas 'here the

performer had pre#iously (een free to ta0e decisions and specifying e#er more exactly

'hat is re/uired"%*4, %Composers li0e Stra#ins0y and Schoen(erg lea#e the interpreter no

freedom 'hate#er e#ery nuance of dynamic tempo phrasing rhythm and expression is

rigidly prescri(ed and the performer is reduced to the status of a gramophone record% *5,

Another issue is the proliferation of composer generated sym(ology and pictographs"

These are score mar0ings that are freely in#ented #arying from composition to

composition and need a codex to translate the intentions of the composer" These

sym(ols replacing or 'ith #er(al directions indicate performance actions instrumentalchoices or the use of extended techni/ues"

http://www.ramstrum.com/momilani/html/NOTE.HTM#note1













All of these issues are currently pro(lematic for the composer in the reali$ation of his or

her 'or0s" The issues of education and standardi$ation #ersus freedom and creati#ity

ha#e come into the arena to (e addressed" 3here do 'e dra' the line so 'e don)t stifle

creati#ity and are competently preparing our performers to (e a(le to engage these

'or0s acti#ely"

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to sur#ey the recent pro(lems 'ith our con#entional

notation system 'hile focusing on the issues in the areas of rhythm and pitch notation"

Along 'ith this sur#ey 'ill (e a detailing of proposed ne' standards solutions to the

pro(lems and the effects of all this on performance practices"

Limitations

In this paper 'e 'ill o(ser#e the pro(lems surrounding issues in contemporary

notational reforms" 3hile focusing on ho' this applies to the notation of pitch andrhythm 'e 'ill not loo0 at specific scores (ut rather center on the issues current

pro(lems and possi(le solutions" To accomplish this the 'ritings of music theorists

composers and performers from the last fifty years 'ill (e studied" 3e 'ill also limit

oursel#es to the examination of systems that %see0 to prolong and complete the existing

system"%*6, 3e 'ill refrain from loo0ing at graphic musical scores or scores 'hich are

%stimuli leading the performers to express themsel#es through their o'n sound

'orld " " " 'ithout falling (ac0 on clich7s"%*8, These pieces %are not concei#ed so as to

pro#ide a uni#ocal response to the /uestions posed (y the notation%*9, and 'e 'ill defer

these issues for another or more extensi#e study"

Methodology

A re#ie' of literature 'as underta0en (y this author to in#estigate the issues

surrounding the notation of art music (y t'entieth century composers" 3ritings (y

music professional -music theorists composers and performers. 'ere studied to get

insight into the issues of notational reform" Articles (oo0s and inter#ie's 'ere selected

that ha#e (een pu(lished in the past fifty years and 'ere studied to find a consensus as

to the existing pro(lems 'ith our con#entional notation system proposed changes and

the effects on the performers"

Definition of Terms

There are many speciali$ed terms used to descri(e contemporary music notation and the

issues surrounding it" These definitions 'ere compiled from :erald 3arfield)s Writings

on Contemporary Music Notation ;rhard <ar0osch0a)s Notation in New Music =ohn

MacI#or Per0ins)s %>ote ?alues"% in Perspectives on Notation and Performance and

this author)s o'n experience"

Con#entional -traditional standard. music notation@ a reference to the notation of tonal

music" %Traditional notation is notation in 'hich the re/uirements do not significantly

extend (eyond those of music of the +th and early 2th centuries"%*,















Proportional notation -spatial notation.@ %'hen discreet #alues are not indicated (ut

#alues are decided upon (y the performer usually (y comparing relati#e distances or

si$es"%*,

Frame notation -<ar0osch0a.@ A term originated (y Bogusla' Schaffer for notations

'here the performer has freedom of choice 'ithin fixed limits"*+,

Equitone: Proposed by the Englishman Rodney Fawcett in 1958 and is a

system of music notation that only uses lines to indicate octaves. All other

notes are placed within the lines, with every other note either black or white.

This eliminates accidentals and allows for even spacing to indicate even

interval relationships. The horizontal axis is time and vertical is pitch, [11] as in

traditional Western notation.

Klavarscribo: Was created by the Dutchman, Cornelius Pot in 1931 and is a system of

music notation that is best suited for the piano because it is actually a kind of tabulaturefor that instrument. The time axis is vertical and the pitch axis horizontal. The lines

(vertical) on which the notes are hung, refer to the black and white keys on the piano.

the notes are colored black and white respectively to represent the same.[12]

Irrational divisions of the beat: Although the name "irrational" is used to denote

bracketed note values, this is misleading because mathematically "all conventional

durations are rational fractions of the unit duration."[13]

Summary

Since the composer's intents are no longer able to be easily and fully realized withtraditional notation, some modifications have been proposed. These proposed changes

in notation can be grouped in three general ways: 'changes in traditional notation'

(simplifications, additions and elaborations), 'partly new principles' (notation of

approximate values, and action notation) and 'completely new principles' (proportional

notation, verbal scores, and musical graphics).[14]

The situations problematizing the performance of contemporary art music using our

current music notation system can be summarized by the following five points: 1) With

extreme chromaticism, the performer must read an accidental with every note. This

doubles the amount of material the performer is required to read. 2). The rhythms used

by contemporary composers are frequently too complex to be notated unambiguously in

our traditional notation system. 3). Composers are rigidly controlling all expressive

aspects of performance, leaving the performer with no expressive freedom. 4). Extended

techniques are being explored for all instruments. This includes new techniques for

attack, intonation, and special effects, with which individual performers might not be

familiar. 5). Composers are inventing new notation symbols with every composition,

requiring performers and conductors to learn new systems with each new work.

All of the above, leads to densely over-notated scores that are difficult to penetrate. To

the traditionally trained musician, it is sometimes an impossibility, leaving many

performers unable to realize the composer's intentions. Performers feel alienated,inexpressive, and mechanistic, abandoning contemporary art music to be performed by

















an elite few with "relaxed and intelligent performances a rarity."[15] In this paper, we will

look at some of these issues while focusing on the possible solutions, and the effects on

performance practice.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Pitch Notation Issues

Over the last millennium, the evolution of Western art music has led us to develop

extreme explicity in pitch, rhythm, dynamics, and timbre. With pitch being the first

notational domain to emerge, we have evolved great complexity in this area. But this

system evolved from a tonal-based music and some feel it has limited functionality with

highly chromatic, atonal, pantonal or twelve-tone music. "As soon as the twelve tones

were treated as equal, independent pitch elements . . . that we have accidentals at all -

became irrelevant."[16] This argument states that the use of basic notes with accidental

markings presupposes the existence of an 'accidental-free' music, which is music using

diatonic scales. If the diatonic scale is not used, as in twelve-tone music, than ournotational system should not keep pointing to its importance. Another drawback of our

present system is that "we should like vertical displacement to be in direct ratio to the

musical interval, which it is not."[17] Equitone proposed by the Englishman Rodney

Fawcett in 1958, and Klavarscribo by the Dutchman, Cornelius Pot in 1931 are two

experimental systems proposed to make the reading of our notation simpler by

eliminating the use of any accidentals.[18] As with the many other proposed notational

innovations, they have not found a wide acceptance.

While there are many new notational systems reputed to make the reading of complex

chromaticism easier, adopting any of these systems would entail re-educating a

population of highly trained professionals, an event not likely to occur. "The advantages

of universal comprehension (extending back to the music of the past), of ease in writing

and reading derived from constant use, to say nothing of the capital invested in printing

and engraving equipment and unsold stock, decisively out weigh the remote gains

offered by plans for reform."[19]

Even so, the consensus is that most pitch issues, even microtonalty, can be adequately

conveyed with small modifications to the existing notational system.[20] These

modifications could be easily standardized with the general adoption of the

comprehensive standards put forth by the International Conference on New Musical

Notation in their 1974 report. This slim volume is the "outcome of collaborationbetween the Index of New Musical Notation which initiated the project and the more

than 70 specialists who . . . gathered from all over Europe and North America at the

Ghent Conference."[21] In this informative report is contained their recommendations for

notation reforms according to the following criteria: 1. Given a choice, the preferable

notation is the one that is an extension of traditional notation. 2). The notation should

lend itself to immediate recognition, This means it should be: a) graphically distinct; b)

as self-explanatory as possible. 3. Proposals should be made only in cases where a

sufficient need is anticipated.. 4. Analogous procedures in different instrumental

families should be notated similarly. 5. Given a choice, the preferable notation is the

one that has received relatively wide acceptance. 6. The notation should be sufficiently

distinct graphically to permit a reasonable amount of distortion due to variations in
























handwriting and different writing implements. 7. The notation should be the most

efficient for the organizational principles that underlie the respective composition.

8. Given a choice, the preferable notation is the one that is spatially economical.[22]

The International Conference on New Musical Notation grouped their results intoGeneral Categories (I. Pitch, II. Duration and Rhythm, III. Dynamics and Articulation,

and IV. Score Layout, Conduction and Synchronization) and Instrumental Categories

(Woodwinds, Brass Installments, Percussion, Bowed String Instruments, Piano. Voice,

Electronic Music). With the general adoption of these standards, some of the current

difficulties in realizing new music scores would be alleviated. Of course, this would

have to be endorsed and supported by our education system to be effective. For the next

generation of composers to understand and employ these compositional tools, they must

be taught to use them along with traditional notation.

As the adoption of these standards would be beneficial in facilitating the realization of

contemporary music, similarly, the same rigorous conventions could also be adopted inthe invention of new notational symbols.[23] These standards should concomitantly be

taught as well.

Lucas Foss comments that the complexities of pitch notation could be eased by using

"moments of incomplete notation."[24] He suggests that there are unessentials in a

composition that could be filled in by the performer. "Take a very fast run, for example,

low to high and back to low: lowest and highest notes may be essential. Intermediate

notes may, under certain circumstances be unessential."[25] This idea of moments of

incomplete notation would enable the performer to be given back some choices in a

performance. Foss also suggests using notes to indicate the rhythm, but only

approximating the pitch by erasing the staff lines, or alternately, the noteheads.[26]

Another solution that involves the performer in a co-creative role with the composer, is

where the performer is required to improvise within varying frameworks. This frame

notation has been used by many composers including Stockhausen, Berio, Kagel,

Pousseur, Boulez and Ward-Steinman. Ward-Steinman in several of his works allows

the performers to improvise freely over a group of pitches in certain sections. He feels

this allows the performer freedom within a fairly explicit structure; giving the performer

imput while maintaining the integrity of the composition.[27] All of these solutions

require the composers to be very cognizant of performance practice and be willing to

give up some control over performance parameters and collaborate with the performers

in the creation of their compositions.

Rhythm Notation Issues

Rhythm issues are as yet unresolved. One difficulty is with complex irrational divisions

of the beat that are cryptically notated in our Western notational system.[28] That we are

unable to notate these complexities is not surprising, as Western art music has focused,

for the past 400 years, on intricacies of harmony not rhythm. Our notation system

reflects this situation. Nevertheless, today we are faced with a situation which needs

reform.

The rhythmic flexibility of the Middle ages was lost with the advent of the barline.While this rhythmic regularity did provide an "immensely useful scaffolding for musical
























composition and performance, at the same time it has imposed the tyranny of the steady

beat from which composers have been delivering themselves ever since."[29] "In much

contemporary writing, regardless of the theoretical underpinnings, there is virtually a

phobia against any reminder of our pulse-driven past, a desperate avoidance of anything

suggestive of the old bondage."[30] Today we use "intricate or irrational, duration

relationships through multiple, simultaneous, artificial, divisions, irregular meters,rhythmic modulations, incommensurable tempo changes and/or analog notation.

Emphasis is placed on the expansion of resources and on flexibility, often at the expense

of traditional cohesive, unifying and organizing forces, and the musical results are thus

roughly analogous to the musical results of those earlier developments in the area of

pitch relations called by Schoenberg "the emancipation of dissonance"."[31] "With the

decline of the periodic pulse as a structural matrix for music came unprecedented

difficulties in performance. These arose from the fact that our notational system, and

hence the training of performers, is largely based on progressive halving of a basic unit

of time. Other fractional subdivisions on the one hand, and additive rhythms on the

other, have had to be fitted into the procrustean notational system."[32]

One solution was to "notate rhythm precisely, [while] expecting the performer to play it

approximately."[33] Another answer was the use of proportionate notation where the

length of the note is indicated by the length of the stem, notehead or spacing of the

notes. While this gives an approximate space for the note to sound, it is believed that

our space perception is not equal to our pulse perception. Kurt Stone states, "If they are

not given something they can count, they will not be able to play in time."[34] Another

problem with proportionate notation is that spatial notation can only be played in time

with other performers if each player can see the full score or continuous cue lines. This

obviously would become prohibitive with ensembles of any large size.[35]

Stockhausen has written about how "increasing notational complexity may lead to a

state where the performer tends to commit an increasing number of errors."[36] He solves

this problem by taking these "time fields" and notating them approximately rather than

exactly. He does this by using what resembles a series of grace notes which he instructs

the player to play "as fast as possible, but at all times as clear and important as the other

notes."[37] These notes are played outside of the notated rhythmic structure. And

although his aim in doing this is to "break the time continuum of metronomic measures

by different events which are unmeasured - or better, measured by action (as fast as

possible, different kinds of attacks),"[38] what he accomplishes is to give the performer

some active control over the performance.

Charles Wuorinen states that new music is not as hard as has been said, and if musicians

had the proper training the obstacles would disappear. "The problems experienced by

performers in dealing with it [contemporary music] are the result of their having been

trained in a tradition of no relevance to its performance requirements."[39] Wuorinen

believes that anything that can be heard, can be played. In considering the rhythmic

difficulties of contemporary music, he feels that it is no more difficult than the demands

of music from the ars subtilior period in France (ca. 1400).[40] He asserts that our present

day musical difficulties are psychological and that contemporary musicians should train

themselves in the execution of the complex rhythms.[41]

Another solution for playing rhythmic complexities comes from the composer,Emmanuel Ghent. He looked for a way to "maintain complete independence as to





































tempo, meter and positioning of the beat, and yet be precisely coordinated in time."[42]

His solution takes the score and prepares it with signal structures (lines) that show the

placement of an audio signal that will be transmitted to the performer via headphones.

Each part has different signal structures, and audio signals, in a multi tempo work.[43]

This would replace the periodic pulse with a "predictable but aperiodic pulse that is both

seen and heard by the musicians."[44] This system would also enable exact coordinationof widely spatially separated players.

Other Notation Issues

The uses of music notation can be divided into three categories: "1). mnemonic notation

. . . in which the notation provides an analogue to the sound of music already learned by

ear; 2). sight-reading notation, in which the object is to allow the performers to make at

least a reasonably accurate attempt at the music at sight; and 3). notation which cannot

be used except by a process of investigation and rehearsal."[45] Contemporary music, if

approached, not from a sight reading perspective, but from the third perspective, "an

assumption of careful and detailed preparation."[46] becomes a less daunting endeavor."Indeed, in the present century composers have tended to demand from the performer-

and have received- a commitment to rehearsal-time that is largely unparalleled in other

ages."[47] If musicians have assumed that they should be able to read contemporary

music with the same ease that they can read a classical sonata, then they would be

resistant to the extra effort required. If we can understand that new music must be

approached on its own terms, then we might not have the resentment and alienation that

sometimes accompanies the performance of new music. The time involved might even

be construed as a good thing. As Steve Schick points out that while learning a complex

piece by Brian Ferneyhough, the "extreme complexity and performative difficulty in his

scores enforce a slower pace of learning and allow the natural growth of an interpretive

context."[48]

"Since the 1950s, the ideal of a totally determinate notation has become a somewhat

tarnished. It has grown increasingly clear that absolute control, mechanistic response,

can never be attained while the human relationship is involved."[49] Since the

development of electronic music, Hugo Cole states, "we have become aware of the

incompleteness of conventional notation. Timbre, attack and decay, dynamic and tempo

changes, are all vaguely specified. For instance, the timbre of a single oboe note may be

varied in 98 ways by the use of different fingerings and methods of blowing."[50] Cole

advocates returning control of these parameters to the performer. Others have simply

noticed the situation as "requiring an enormous expansion of notational needs andmeans."[51] These can be pictographs, verbal instructions, or variations on standard

notations and are used to direct performers toward specific techniques or choices of

instruments. In his book, Pictographic Score Notation, Gardner Read has compiled an

impressive variety of instrumental pictographs.[52] For the marimba alone he shows fifty

different pictorial variations by individual composers. While most are similar and easily

identified, some are cryptic and indistinguishable. In looking in the International

Conference on New Music Notation Report , it can be observed that this proliferation of

inventions can be cut down to one.

Some feel the imaginative innovations in music notation serve to magnify the

inspiration of the composer and that to standardize the notation would mean "theacceptance of a number of established means, and as a result, a falling off of the creative


































powers."[53] "For the advanced composer, there is, it seems, what amounts to a moral

obligation to reconsider; to add new symbols to those already in existence, or to set up

new playing and listening situations by devising new notional methods of appeal."[54]

There is a steady move towards codifying these reforms and changes so that universal

literacy will once again reign. Some feel that we are in a perpetual state of notational

reform and that the needs of today's music necessitates this constant shifting in thenotation.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

"In a literate age, music has a double character. Generalizing, we can say that we often

find it easier to appreciate structural and intellectual qualities of a piece from a reading

of the score, while the emotional impact is only made apparent in live performance."[55]

The problem then is there is little emotional impact if performers are caught up in

intellectualizing about the notation. If we are able to compose our music using a morestandardized repertoire of expanded notation, then we will be more able to engender

expressive and sensitive performances from a broader spectrum of committed,

sympathetic and engaged performers. This will in turn create a performance atmosphere

that will engage the audiences and eventually better support us in our compositional

processes. The other important problem is the implications for pedagogy. If we are to

effect changes, it must start with how we educate the next generation. If, as Wuorinen

says, the music isn't really that difficult, but that we haven't been properly training our

musicians, then it is time we started improving the situation.

There are many issues in new music notation that have had solutions proposed (See

Table 1). Many of the solutions to the problems involve giving some freedom back to

the performer. Even though these efforts to return something to the

performers is only what Ligeti calls "a superficial aspect of freedom,"[56] it still is a start

in the consideration and involvement of the performer in the creative process of

composition.

Conclusions and Future Study

It has been questioned whether there can exist today a generally excepted system that

can serve the music community at large. "The vocabulary of sound is now limitless, toour great benefit today; can it then accommodate a system of writing to be shared by

all?"[57] Historically we have seen that "systems of notation have been invented as they

were found necessary, and modified or abandoned as they were found inadequate; so the

story of musical notation in Western Europe is one of innovations, changes and

disappearances."[58] We can only expect the same in the present era.

It seems that our pitch notation system will probably not encounter major upheavals.

Instead what would be efficacious would be the adoption of standards involving small

modifications to the existing system (For example, the standardization of the notating of

microtones).



















Table 1. Notation Issues and Reforms

Notation! Pro"lem Proposed Notation Reforms#$olutions

Pitch@ 3ith highly chromatic

music is #ery dense and hard

to read /uic0ly

>e' notation systems for example ;/uitone and

<lariscri(o -is not li0ely this area 'ill radically change."

Use moments of incomplete notationMicrotones@ no standard

notationStandardi$ing microtonal notation sym(ols

Rhythm@ too complex

Impro#e training in contemporary rhythms proportionate

notation frame notation use Stoc0hausen time fields 'ith

groups of notes that resem(le grace notes that are outside

of rhythm structure"

Multi tempo 'or0s pulseless

music physically separated

players@ is #ery difficult to

coordinate players

Performers ha#e specially prepared scores 'ith aperiodic

electronic sound -in headphones for indi#idual performers

to follo'."

;xpressi#e elements -tim(re

attac0 decay tempo

dynamics. are o#er!notated@

score is cluttered and players

ha#e no expressi#e freedom

:i#e control of some parameters (ac0 to the performers

standardi$e pictograph sym(ols and eliminate most #er(al

instruction"

;xtended techni/ues are used@

players are unfamiliar 'ith

the techni/ues and the

sym(ols indicating to use the

techni/ues"

Impro#e training in contemporary extended techni/ues

standardi$e notation and pictograph sym(ols"

Performers alienated@

performances are inexpressi#e

Change attitudes a(out ho' ne' music should (eapproached -needing careful and detailed study. impro#e

training in contemporary notation gi#e (ac0 some control

to the performers o#er the performance use graphic

notation and aleatoric techni/ues solicit performer input

to colla(orate on compositions

We must prepare ourselves for more changes to come by embedding in the education

system appropriate and rigorous contemporary notation tools for the use of future

generations. The implications for pedagogy are immense. We must routinely begin to

teach standards for innovation. New symbols will always be invented, but we can at

least teach the accepted standard deviations.

Much of the impetus for standardizing our notational innovations happened in the

1970s. In the past two decades, there has not been that much done. It seems that while

the same issues remain, the focus of scholarship in this area is with an altered

perspective. Barry Truax has detailed a paradigm shift away from linear models of

acoustics towards multi-dimensional concepts. "In composition, the shift is away from

its literate and deterministic aspects, as well as the notion of art as abstract and contextfree."[59] Truax lists the focus on timbre as a principle concern that involves the






composer in new types of complexities (gender, environment, and culture) as an

example of this paradigm shift.[60] He continues that this marks the end of the literate

composer; That "the shift away from composition as a literate activity will not

necessarily mean the abandonment of notation, but rather a change in the traditional

thinking that resulted in notation as its sole representation. The post-literate composer

may bypass notation entirely by dealing directly with sound or will view notation as aconvenient representation of the result of an algorithmic process. Scores won't probably

disappear, but they may become just one of many forms of representation of music."[61]

Truax feels that the complexity of the music is a reflection of the complex real world

concerns (physical, social, and psychological) that are informing the composer's works.[62]

Complexity in music was the focus of an entire festival at Darmstadt in 1992. And

while not all have the post-modernist perspective of Truax, all are aware of the concerns

surrounding the issue. The issues today are not radically different than twenty-five years

ago, but the shift is away from the actual notation to conceptions of time, contextual

elements and cultural applications. As James Boros states in his article entitles, "WhyComplexity?" "As our world views have shifted, as reductionist sciences have come to

be challenged by those of complexity, so many of us have been led to the recognition of

the futility perhaps even the impossibility, of constructing "determinate and testable

statement about musical compositions.""[63] This means a loss of control but a gain of

diversity, participation and the realization of intent (including that of peoples formerly

marginalized by established Western traditions).

Earle Brown in the 1964 Darmstadt festival on notation and performance stated the

following that is still applicable today: "We do have a crisis of consciousness, and it has

changed the nature of the artist's relationship to his work and the relationship of the

work to a performer reader viewer or listener. The loosening of notational controls and

the conscious introduction of ambiguity and spontaneity in performance were a way to

deal with this new situation."[64]

This author gained some valuable insights from this very preliminary study. The first

was a greater understanding of the wealth of creative notational techniques being used

today. The second was an understanding of not only how our current system is being

constantly modified and continually renewed, but also how the perspectives surrounding

essential issues central to that system are also shifting. Today we are perceiving the

complex roles that experience and culture have in informing our creations and can

observe the resultant complexity as a representative consequence.

Notation functions on many levels. One purpose of notation is to assist the composer in

composing and the performer in performing. As we redefine these interactive roles and

to better achieve these ends, our notation system will continue to evolve. It will have to

integrate our expanded interest in new sounds and timbres, complexities in rhythm,

density of pitch information, and cultural or contextual application, while allowing the

performer the status of co-creative equal. This will enable the performer to feel

involved, committed and supported and the music the be dynamically and expressively

realized. These challenges are on going, as the evolution in music and notation are in

constant flux. These issues surrounding contemporary music, its notation and

performance will not be easily resolved, but, with the informed cooperation of
















composers, instructors, theorists and performers, we will be able to mitigate the

problems and continue to grow with our musical processes.

Notes*>ote +, Kurt Stone, "Problems and Methods of Notation." in Perspectives on

Notation and Performance. Edited by Benjamin Boretz and Edward T. Cone.

(New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1976), 30.

*>ote 2, Emmanuel Ghent, "Programmed Signals to Performers: A New

Compositional Resource." in Perspectives on Notation and Performance.

Edited by Benjamin Boretz and Edward T. Cone. (New York: W. W. Norton

and Company, Inc., 1976), 134.

*>ote 4, Hugo Cole, Sounds and Signs (London: Oxford University Press,

1974), 127.

*>ote 5, Thurston Dart, quoted in Cole, Sounds and Signs , 127.

*>ote 6, Jean-Yves Bosseur, Sound and the Visual Arts,translated from the

French by Brian Holmes and Peter Carrier (Paris: Dis Voir, 1993), 14.

*>ote 8, Bosseur, 15.


*>ote , Gerald Warfield, Writings on Contemporary Music Notation (Ann

Arbor: Music Library Association, 1976), ii.

*>ote , Warfield, ii.

*>ote +, Erhard Karkoschka, Notation in New Music, translated by Ruth

Koenig (New York, Praeger Publishers, 1972), 55.

*>ote ++, Karkoschka, 13.

*>ote +2, Karkoschka, 11.

*>ote +4, John MacIvor Perkins, "Note Values." in Perspectives on Notation

and Performance. Edited by Benjamin Boretz and Edward T. Cone. (New

York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1976), 69.

*>ote +5, Karkoschka, 5.

*>ote +6, Stone, "Problems and Methods ," 9.

http://www.ramstrum.com/momilani/html/NOTE.HTM#appel1
































*>ote +8, Stone, "Problems and Methods ," 10.

*>ote +9, Richard Rastall, The Notation of Western Music (London: J. M. Dent

& Sons LTD., 1983), 248.

*>ote +, Karkoschka, 11.

*>ote +, Cole, 131.

*>ote 2, Stone, "Problems and Methods," 12.

*>ote 2+, Herman Sabbe, Kurt Stone, and Gerald Warfield, editors,

International Conference on New Musical Notation Report , (Amsterdam:

Swets & Zeitlinger B. V., 1974), 12.

*>ote 22, International Conference on New Music Notation, 33.

*>ote 24, The following are suggestions by Karkoschka for conventions in the

invention and adoption of new notational symbols: "Unambiguousness 1) the

same symbol must not appear with a different meaning. 2) the outward

appearance of a symbol must not resemble too closely that of another." 3) "A

symbol with a traditionally familiar meaning can only acquire a new one in an

entirely new context. 4). A sensible balance of symbols and verbal

instructions is to be preferred. 5). As far as possible, a symbol should be able

to indicate its meaning directly and without explanation. 6). Abstract symbolsand illustrations should be selected according to function, and should never be

mixed. "Karkoschka, 5.

*>ote 25, Lucas Foss, "The Changing Composer-Performer Relationship."

Perspectives on Notation and Performance. Edited by Benjamin Boretz and

Edward T. Cone. (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1976), 38.

*>ote 26, Foss, 38.

*>ote 28, Foss, 39.

*>ote 29, David Ward-Steinman, conversation with the composer, August

28,1999.

*>ote 2, Perkins, 67.

*>ote 2, Ghent, 134.

*>ote 4, Ghent, 135.

*>ote 4+, Perkins, 63.



































*>ote 42, Ghent, 135.

*>ote 44, Ghent, 135.



*>ote 48, Leonard Stein, "The Performer's Point of View," in Perspectives on

Notation and Performance. Edited by Benjamin Boretz and Edward T. Cone.

(New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1976), 47.

*>ote 49, Stein, 48.

*>ote 4, Stein, 48.

*>ote 4, Charles Wuorinen, "Notes on the Performance of Contemporary

Music." Perspectives on Notation and Performance. Edited by Benjamin

Boretz and Edward T. Cone. (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.,

1976), 51.

*>ote 5, The ars subtilior period in France was marked by great rhythmic

experimentation, the like of which was not seen again until the twentieth

century.

*>ote 5+, Wuorinen, 54.

*>ote 52, Ghent, 135.

*>ote 54, Ghent, 136.

*>ote 55, Ghent, 142.

*>ote 56, Rastall, 257.



*>ote 5, Steve Schick, "Developing an Interpretive context: Learning Brian

Ferneyhough's Bone Alphabet." Perspectives in New Music, (New York: W.

W. Norton and Company, 1994), Volume 32, Number 1, Winter, 132.

*>ote 5, Cole, 128.

*>ote 6, Cole, 128.









































*>ote 6+, Rastall, 258.

*>ote 62, Gardner Read, Pictographic Score Notation (Westport, Connecticut:

Greenwood Press, 1998), 8.

*>ote 64, Roman Haubenstock-Ramati, "Notation-Material and Form" in


Edward T. Cone. (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1976), 100.

*>ote 65, Cole, 132.

*>ote 66, Hugo Cole, Sounds and Signs (London: Oxford University Press,

1974), 123.

*>ote 68, Stein, 50.



*>ote 6, Barry Truax, "Musical Creativity and Complexity at the Threshold of

the 21st Century." Interface (Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger B. V. 1992), Vol. 21,

29.

*>ote 8, Truax, 32.

*>ote 8+, Truax, 36.

*>ote 82, Truax, 39.

*>ote 84, James Boros, quoting Brian Ferneyhough, "Why Complexity?"

Perspectives in New Music, (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1994),

Volume 32, Number 1, Winter, 95.

*>ote 85, Earle Brown, "The Notation and Performance of New Music." The Musical Quarterly (New York: MacMillan, Inc., 1986), vol. 82, No. 1, 197.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Black, Robert. "Contemporary Notation and Performance Practice: Three Difficulties."

Perspectives in New Music. (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1984).

Boehm, Laszlo. Modern Music Notation. (New York: G. Schirmer, Inc., 1961).

Boros, James. "Why Complexity?" Perspectives in New Music. (New York:W. W. Norton and Company, 1994), Volume 32, Number 1, Winter.































Bosseur, Jean-Yves. Sound and the Visual Arts. Translated from the French by Brian

Holmes and Peter Carrier. (Paris: Dis Voir, 1993).

Brown, Earle. "The Notation and Performance of New Music."The Musical

Quarterly. (New York: MacMillan, Inc., 1986), Volume 82, Number 1.

Cole, Hugo. Sounds and Signs. (London: Oxford University Press, 1974).

Cope, David. New Directions in Music. Sixth edition. (Madison: Brown and

Benchmark, 1993).

Dart, Thurston. quoted in Cole. Sounds and Signs. (London: Oxford University Press,

1974).

Duckworth, William.Talking Music. (New York: Schirmer Books, 1995).

Duckworth, William and Edward Brown,Theoretical Foundations of Music. (Belmont,

California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1978).

Elias, William Y.Grapes, Practical Notation for Clusters and Special Effects for Piano

and other Keyboards. Second Edition. (Israel: William Y. Elias, 1984.).

Ferneyhough, Brian. "The Tactility of Time." Perspectives in New Music. (New York:

W. W. Norton and Company, 1993), Volume 31, Number 1, Winter.

Foss, Lucas. "The Changing Composer-Performer Relationship." Perspectives on

Notation and Performance. Edited by Benjamin Boretz and Edward T. Cone.(NewYork: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1976).

Ghent, Emmanuel. "Programmed Signals to Performers: A New Compositional

Resource." Perspectives on Notation and Performance. Edited by Benjamin Boretz and

Edward T. Cone.(New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1976).

Haubenstock-Ramati, Roman. "Notation-Material and Form" Perspectives on Notation

and Performance. Edited by Benjamin Boretz and Edward T. Cone.(New York: W. W.

Norton and Company, Inc., 1976).

Jones, George Thaddeus. Music Theory. (New York: Harper Perennial, 1974).

Karkoschka, Erhard. Notation in New Music. translated by Ruth Koenig. (New York,

Praeger Publishers, 1972).

Kennedy, Michael.The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Music. (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1985).

Lidholm, Ingvar, Gyorgy Ligeti, and Witold Lutoslawski.Three Aspects of New Music.

(Stockholm: Nordiska Musikforlaget, 1968).



MacIvor Perkins, John. "Note Values." Perspectives on Notation and Performance.

Edited by Benjamin Boretz and Edward T. Cone. (New York: W. W. Norton and

Company, Inc., 1976).

Messiaen, Olivier. The Technique of My Musical Language. Translated by John

Satterfield. (Paris: Alphonse Leduc et Cie., 1956).

Morgan, Robert P.Twentieth Century Music. (New York: W. W. Norton and Company,

1991).

Pooler, Frank and Brent Pierce. New Choral Handbook. (New York: Walton Music

Corporation, 1971).

Rastall, Richard.The Notation of Western Music (London: J. M. Dent & Sons LTD.,

1983).

Read, Gardner. Modern Rhythmic Notation. (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1980).

Read, Gardner. Pictographic Score Notation (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press,

1998).

Sabbe, Herman, Kurt Stone, and Gerald Warfield, editors, International Conference on

New Musical Notation Report, (Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger B. V., 1974).

Schick, Steve. "Developing an Interpretive context: Learning Brian

Ferneyhough's Bone Alphabet." Perspectives in New Music. (New York: W.

W. Norton and Company, 1994), Volume 32, Number 1, Winter.

Stein, Leonard. "The Performer's Point of View," Perspectives on Notation

and Performance. Edited by Benjamin Boretz and Edward T. Cone.(New

York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1976).

Stone, Kurt. Music Notation in the Twentieth Century. (New York: W. W. Norton and

Company, Inc., 1980).

Stone, Kurt. "Problems and Methods of Notation." in Perspectives on Notation and

Performance. Edited by Benjamin Boretz and Edward T. Cone. (New York: W. W.

Norton and Company, Inc., 1976).

Struble, John. American Classical Music (New York: Facts on File, 1995).

Subotnik, Rose. Developing Variations. (Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press, 1991).

Toop, Richard. "On Complexity." Perspectives in New Music. (New York: W.

W. Norton and Company, 1993), Volume 31, Number 1, Winter.

Truax, Barry. "Musical Creativity and Complexity at the Threshold of the 21st

Century." Interface. (Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger B. V. 1992), Vol. 21.



Warfield, Gerald. Writings on Contemporary Music Notation. (Ann Arbor:

Music Library Association, 1976).

Wuorinen, Charles. "Notes on the Performance of Contemporary Music."


Edward T. Cone. (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1976).

a survey of notation issues in twentieth century

Documents