The wrong note school is back at last!

[ahinton]

I don't possess that book and am trying to recall Nyman's definition of the difference between avant-garde and experimental music. If I remember correctly the latter had to do with music whose outcome is only decided in performance, not by working at a score until perfected in accordance with a composer's assumed intentions. But, a composer's intentions may be to be non-intentional regarding outcomes, or be intentional that his performers, possibly not including himself, are non-intentional. But in that case either s/he, or they, would have to be intentional about being non-intentional.

The only conclusion I can reach is that to be experimental one is expected to be non-intentional at the moment one originally intended to be.

And we all know what the road to Hell is said to be paved with, do not we?(!)...

The only other issues here, it seems to me, is whether or not the composer seeks to confine any experimental approach to his/her work to creative activities conducted in his/her own workshop as distinct from realising such experimental in piecesw expressly intended for public performance - i.e. experimental work carried out behind closed doors and that which is effectively conducted in a public arena.

[Richard Barrett]

If I remember correctly the latter had to do with music whose outcome is only decided in performance

That might be one aspect of it, but it isn't quite as simple, since Nyman would include (early) minimalist music which wouldn't vary at all from one performance to another, but exclude Stockhausen's "intuitive music" in which nothing is decided in advance except (ideally) the frame of mind of the performers. Anyway I wasn't intending my formulation to give rise to yet another exchange about definitions. What I maybe should have said was that where this piece (IMO) falls down is in the ungainliness (rather than the mere fact) of its mixture of conventional and unconventional musical thinking. To me the adoption of something like "extended just intonation" has all kinds of implications for material, structure, instrumentation and so on, but this composer either didn't think of these implications or wasn't interested in pursuing them.

[Quarky]

I don't possess that book and am trying to recall Nyman's definition of the difference between avant-garde and experimental music. If I remember correctly the latter had to do with music whose outcome is only decided in performance, not by working at a score until perfected in accordance with a composer's assumed intentions. But, a composer's intentions may be to be non-intentional regarding outcomes, or be intentional that his performers, possibly not including himself, are non-intentional. But in that case either s/he, or they, would have to be intentional about being non-intentional.

The only conclusion I can reach is that to be experimental one is expected to be non-intentional at the moment one originally intended to be.

Google books, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q...page&q&f=false, reproduces a very significant amount of Nyman's book, see chapter 1, Towards (a definition of) Experimental Music. I don't know how Google avoids the law of copyright.

There seems to be a narrow sense of Experimentalism, but also a broad brush use of the word.

[verismissimo]

Out of interest, what makes certain sorts of modern compositions "experimental" and other sorts of modern compositions not?

Right notes, but not necessarily in the right order?

[Sydney Grew]

Here is what the man himself has to say about his composition:

"The name Septimalia alludes to intervals of a seventh. The "natural seventh" (the 7th partial) used in such genres as barbershop [sic - inexplicable this reference to Finnish hairdressing!] and some folk music is a sensual, consonant sound not traditionally belonging to the Western art-music system. Harmonies and intervals based on it play an important part in Septimalia. All in all, the way the orchestra is tuned is exceptional and complex in this composition. My aim is to contrast the wonderful sound of pure harmonies based on the natural harmonic series with exciting, microtonal progressions permitted by 7th partials and other pure intervals. The main key of the work is E minor, but the notes will not be found on a piano. The sections of Septimalia are marked Andante Maestoso – Con moto – Intenso e serio – Allegro estatico: there are times when the work is fast and frenzied, but it also has a serious, symphonic vein. Though the instrumental techniques are experimental, maybe even extreme, my music is tonal and thematic. But it does acquire what might be called psychedelic hues in places."

It is good of him to state his aim is it not? And did Bacon - with whom I compared Mr. Nuorvala in an earlier post - regard his work as experimental in that sense I wonder?

[Blotto]

Out of interest, what makes certain sorts of modern compositions "experimental" and other sorts of modern compositions not?

This seems like quite an interesting question to me. Vaughan Williams, Finzi and Moeran are every bit as modern as Boulez or Stockhausen because they composed in modern times. Mustn't experimental modern music differ from the simply modern by an uncertainty of the outcome before it's (well-) played. Thereafter, it may become knowable and predictable, surely? The experimental element is an intention in composition which is often removed by performance.

Looking at the piece you posted, it's simple enough in alot of ways to imagine that it would be audible to the composer's imaginative ear without performance and therefore not experimental. By contrast, some of the very dense 'splat' pieces with multiple strident lines of discord perhaps remain experimental because they weren't clearly audible imaginatively before performance and perhaps never become memorable. Well, that and the fact they never get a second performance because barely anyone gives a stuff in the first place!

But then it's hard to refute that in some of its rhythms, the finale of Beethoven's 5th wasn't experimental for its audience. But perhaps that mistakes new and radical for experimental.

[Richard Barrett]

some of the very dense 'splat' pieces with multiple strident lines of discord perhaps remain experimental because they weren't clearly audible imaginatively before performance

Speaking as the originator of numerous "'splat' pieces I humbly suggest that you don't know what you're talking about.

[MrGongGong]

Speaking as the originator of numerous "'splat' pieces I humbly suggest that you don't know what you're talking about.

How polite and tactful.
The inability to imagine that others don't share the same perceptions as oneself is a very limiting condition.

[Blotto]

Speaking as the originator of numerous "'splat' pieces I humbly suggest that you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know whether you are an originator of 'splat' pieces or not but you're quite right about me, I'm no more than a listener. Volume numbers aren't of the utmost importance anyway. Minority music matters and all serious music is minority music.

I should have said 'not many people'. And I do think that's why most new music isn't repeated, though; the larger part of the audiences aren't impressed. It takes time for the subtleties of new music to penetrate the general listener, even if they have patience, persistence and resources of time and money to spend on it. The music is often too uncharitable for/of the audiences even where it's actually meretricious.

My musical imagination is limited. I can remember and replay music to myself if I know it very well but the shamblingly percussive pieces with 9 lines of counterpointed discord are inconceivable as memorable music or as preconceived. Perhaps this is one of new music's principle problems - the distance between the musical imaginations of general listeners and composers? I always imagine that dissonant composers write for other musicians rather than audiences. But perhaps those distances have always existed? Was there ever a time when large audiences responded gratefully to the new?

What size were large audiences in the 18th and 19th centuries?

It does strike me though that dance and tune are a part of the broader, sympathetic humanity of the great composers and that the small additions to the general repetoire made by post-war music are perhaps a symptomatic extension of "man's inhumanity to man"?

[Padraig]

What are "splat" pieces?

[MrGongGong]

What (or who?) is "general repertoire" ?

(welcome back Walrus?)

[Sir Velo]

What are "splat" pieces?

They're what you get after you trip over a squeaky gate.

[ahinton]

They're what you get after you trip over a squesky gate.

That lends a whole new meaning to the term "cowpat music", does it not?...

[Sir Velo]

Speaking as the originator of numerous "'splat' pieces I humbly suggest that you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm sure the last thing you intended by this post was to suggest that the listener's reaction is of no importance unless it coincides with the composer's intention. I happen to listen to a great deal of contemporary music, some of which would be considered "experimental" by some listeners; however, there are certain contemporary compositions which do tax even adventurous listeners beyond the point of endurance. No doubt some compositions are better heard on the page than by the aural faculties.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I happen to listen to a great deal of contemporary music, some of which would be considered "experimental" by some listeners;

Well, yes: it depends on their experience and expectations. Someone once told me that they really couldn't stand "tuneless atonal Music" - and mentioned Britten's Phaedra as the example they'd most recently heard.

however, there are certain contemporary compositions which do tax even adventurous listeners beyond the point of endurance.

How do you know this, SirV? What is your definition of an "adventurous listener" and which piece(s) have you canvassed their opinions on?

No doubt some compositions are better heard on the page than by the aural faculties.

But if you don't name names, this is an empty (and really rather meaningless) statement: doubt it!