Category: Articles

How do you approach putting music to words? Ronald Perera



Ronald Perera
Photo by M. Richard Fish, photographer, Smith College

Most composers of vocal music, whether they are composing songs, chamber music with voice, or opera or music theater, are setting to music words that are not their own. My own approach is, in effect, to make another’s words my own. That is, in choosing a text, I have to feel some intimate connection to it that goes beyond mere admiration for the writer’s craft. I have to feel that the writer is writing something that I myself would want to express, however different in time or circumstance the actual writer’s experience may be from my own.

Hear Ronald Perera’s music

Word and Voice

“A word will never be able to understand the voice that utters it.”
—Thomas Merton

One of the beautiful things about music is that it can mean almost anything, or nothing at all.

Like language, music encompasses a continuum of meaning from specific denotation to evocative connotation.

And the relationships between word and voice constitute another continuum of their own.

At one end of this spectrum are the hobo text settings of Harry Partch’s U.S. Highball and Debussy’s opera Pelleas et Melisande, in which every syllable of language is set as a clear, distinct musical atom.

At the other end is chant, organum, and pure vocalise in which the connotative colors of voice completely supercede the denotative meanings of word.

Alvin Lucier’s I Am Sitting In A Room is a unique vocal work that traverses this entire spectrum, from pure language to pure tone, without any singing at all.

My own music extends from one end of the word/voice spectrum to the other, in one case embracing both ends at the same time.

My English text settings of Inuit songs and the poems of John Haines follow a strict one-syllable-per-tone course. And in two songs to poems in the Gwich’in Athabascan dialect, I followed a similar path with a language I don’t speak myself.

The text of my opera Earth and the Great Weather is a series of “Arctic Litanies” in which the names of places, plants, and the seasons are spoken simultaneously in Gwich’in, I–upiaq, English, and Latin, accompanied by microtonal music for strings.

Although Earth is one of my best-known works, I’ve sometimes felt an element was missing in the musical space between the strings and the spoken voices. So for a new production at the Almeida Festival a couple of years ago, I added a chorus singing elongated versions of the Gwich’in and I–upiaq texts. As it turned out, the voices of the singers were the catalyst that fully integrated the music and language.

Whether it’s Dawn Upshaw or Robert Ashley, ultimately it’s voice that brings musical text to life. And the quality of “voiceness” resides not just in the unique spectral print of an individual’s speaking or singing voice. We also hear the composer’s voice and the writer’s voice ­in those composites of experience, aesthetics, and beliefs that create and permeate the sound of both music and word.

What do you hear in the relationships between word and voice?

Are there specific pieces of music you feel embody an especially strong marriage of text and sound?

As Charles Ives asks in his Postface to 114 Songs: “Must a song always be a song?”

What’s your ideal performance space? Phil Kline



Photo by Tom Jarmusch

The funny thing is that we have these places called concert halls, erected for the purpose of hearing serious art music, temples of culture which loom large in matters of civic pride and identity, and the first answer to the question of where is the best place to hear new music is: probably not there. Most concert halls are home to institutions which are basically 19th-century music theme parks with modern bottom lines, so they’re too big, set up for Brahms symphonies and their recognizable kin, and while the chances of hearing something really new there might not be zero, they’re not much better.

The ideal new music venue, like the composer who uses it, is flexible, not to mention accessible and affordable. In fact, often the best performance situations are provisional, floating, and nomadic rather than permanent, for with permanence comes power and authority and the need to protect them, things that foster orthodoxy rather than freedom of expression. Sometimes it seems the best spaces and the works made for them co-invent each other, as presenter and creator improvise and meet each other on new and unexpected ground.

New music generally originates from the edges rather than the center, so the audience is small and can be comfortably housed in intimate spaces such as lofts, small clubs, and galleries. At the same time, the means of production in music have changed so radically in the last few decades that a whole new kind of physical plant may be needed to present it, one which can accommodate sound reinforcement, video, and digital media, not to mention one which has a good, knowledgeable tech staff with the saintly patience to run it. Recently, I was in the audience for several performances of a work of mine for amplified ensemble, two of them in concert halls and one in a rock club. Can you guess where the sound was best?

When I was starting out I wanted to make orchestral music but, like most young composers, had no hope of gaining access to an orchestra, so I came upon unconventional means of producing such sonorities, massing together large numbers of portable tape players and making through-composed sound sculptures that could travel, indoors or out. With these works I literally went out and found my audience, or they found me. More recently I have written for all kinds of ensembles, including the most traditional and have presented my work in a wide variety of venues. In the past year I’ve had gigs in jazz and rock clubs, ambient lounges, art galleries, several churches, public parks and streets, a multimedia performance center, a small concert hall, the BAM Opera house and a hillside in Vermont. All of those venues worked for me and my audience, which leads me to believe that the best place to hear new music is wherever you can find it, and you should be ready to find it anywhere, cuz it’s an opportunistic feeder that likes to roam.

Music, Space, and Place

“Place is security, space is freedom.”

—Yi-Fu Tuan

Morton Feldman’s one and only composition lesson with Varèse was a brief encounter on the street in New York. The old master gave the young upstart one pearl of wisdom: “Make sure you think about the time it takes from the stage to go out there into the audience.” That seemingly simple adage contains a world of implications.

Listening to music, time and space become present to our ears. Since sound is slow, we hear space as time. The distance between here and there becomes then and now. Space is where the music comes from, and where it’s going. Place is where we are listening.

In the 19th century, the most exalted place for listening to Western music was the concert hall, that consecrated space outside quotidian time where a congregation of listeners came to experience symphonic communion. As the concert hall grew larger, the orchestra grew larger. (And vice versa.) But though the sound grew louder, it also moved farther away from most listeners.

In the 20th century, the locus of much of our listening moved to the loudspeaker. Musical space exploded to fill arenas and stadiums for blockbuster concerts. And it grew smaller and more intimate until (with headphones) we had private music rooms for our ears alone.

From Gabrieli to Berlioz, from Ives to Brant, to Oliveros and Lucier, the places and spaces in which we listen have fundamentally shaped the creation of music. Just as music is molded by the acoustical spaces in which we hear it, the virtual spaces of recordings have a powerful influence on the music we make today.

As a composer, I’m obsessed with space and place. My music has been profoundly shaped by the place where I live. The soundscapes of Alaska resonate even in pieces I think of as abstract, and the ideal of sonic geography remains a persistent metaphor for my work. But a very specific acoustical space has also been a touchstone for my music.

Over the past three decades I’ve been fortunate to work in a beautiful concert hall at the University of Alaska, and this space has had an audible influence on the evolution of my music. Whether by accident, design or some combination of the two, the acoustics of this hall are nearly perfect. Both high and low frequencies are fully present, and the natural reverberation of the room imparts richness and warmth to almost any ensemble.

This hall seems especially well suited to the spacious textures of my music. Several of my works have been premiered and recorded in this hall, and a few years ago I composed a concert-length work for percussion and electronics specifically for the unique resonances of this space.

Now, after years trying to evoke place in musical space, I’m trying to do this in a more concrete form. The Place Where You Go to Listen will be a permanent installation for the new wing of the University of Alaska Museum. In this space, infrasonic and ultrasonic vibrations from earthquakes, volcanoes, aurora borealis and other natural phenomena will be transposed into our range of hearing, and modulated by the seasonal cycles of night and day. So once again my work comes back to music, space and place.

But what about you?

What are your favorite musical spaces?

How do space and place shape the music you listen to and the music you make?

John Luther Adams
President
American Music Center

What's your ideal performance space?

Sarah RothenbergSarah Rothenberg
“Anything that radiates the opposite of “business as usual,” and instead wakes people up…”
Amy DenioAmy Denio
“I prefer not to use a stage if there is one, as this is too great a metaphor for the concept of performers as specialists, audience as consumers…”
Mary Jane LeachMary Jane Leach
“The ideal performance space is a matter of preference—one composer’s ideal space is (or can be) another’s nightmare…”
Phil KlinePhil Kline
“The funny thing is that we have these places called concert halls, erected for the purpose of hearing serious art music, temples of culture which loom large in matters of civic pride and identity, and the first answer to the question of where is the best place to hear new music is: probably not there…”

One Size Does Not Fit All

Molly Sheridan
Photo by Melissa Richard

A few months ago, I took a friend who was into electronica and obscure indie-rock to a new music concert at Carnegie Hall, naively convinced that I was opening his eyes to a whole wide world he never knew existed but would embrace immediately as the most cutting-edge music he had ever heard. Unfortunately, I don’t think he even heard the music. More accustomed to listening to bands from dark corners in smoky bars, he seemed blinded by the gilt paint. When I asked him what he thought, his comments stuck to the negative, but never touched on the music – it was too formal, too stilted, everyone looked bored. That he had dropped his program and the woman seated in front of him turned around to glare hadn’t helped matters any.

He finally admitted that he hadn’t really hated the music, but that he would have been more interested in listening to it if the concert had been in a different space, someplace where he was free to move around or get a drink or talk if he wanted to. He might have actually enjoyed the concert that way, but like trying to eat good food in fluorescently-lit restaurant, the venue had killed it for him.

So where should new music be played? Perhaps wherever the audience and the musicians are simply the most comfortable. After all, a venue is supposed to offer the best way to hear a live performance and make listening an enjoyable experience. So what characteristics define that kind of venue? Carnegie Hall is a great place to hear music if you fit in with that community, but a distraction for musicians and audience members who don’t. How much formality does music need to be appreciated? Why even go to concerts when you can now watch them online from the privacy of your own home? These are some of the questions tackled by Russell Johnson, CEO of Artec Consultants, Inc., Colette Domingues, Principal, Magalhães Music, and Limor Tomer, curator for BAMCafé, who got together with NewMusicBox editor Frank J. Oteri to debate what makes a great concert venue.

To broaden the issue’s scope, Laurie Shulman examines the pros and cons of venues across the country, everywhere from opera houses to church sanctuaries. Sarah Rothenberg, Amy Denio, Mary Jane Leach, and Phil Kline also share personal performance horror stories and reveal some favorite places to hear their own work. What’s your favorite place to hear new work? Be sure and post your nomination in our interactive forum.

This month we’ve also changed the face of News&Views. To keep pace with the field, our news content will now be updated as the news breaks so you won’t have to wait for the next issue to read about the latest developments in the field. Check back often through the month. We’ve also added an In Print section to bring you excerpts from recently published books that you’ll likely find of interest. To kick things off, we present American Mavericks: Visionaries, Pioneers, Iconoclasts—a coffee table catalogue of the outsider composers who shaped 20th-century music.

The View columns expand to four writers this month. In keeping with the theme of this issue, Relâche’s Artistic Coordinator/Executive Director Thaddeus Squire discusses venues in Philadelphia under the shadow of the new Regional Performing Arts Center, and Florida-based composer Orlando Jacinto Garcia takes a look at how we judge different forms of musical expression. NewMusicBox regular Dean Suzuki explores simplicity vs. complexity in great music and Greg Sandow delights in the musical motifs of Jean-Luc Godard and a performance by Eve Beglarian.

As always, NewMusicBox’s own Amanda MacBlane tirelessly sifts through the latest in new music CDs so you won’t have to. This month’s installment features sound samples of over 35 discs, so explore and pick up the best music to program in that most frequently attended of new music venues—the home stereo. And now, not only can you listen to music on NewMusicBox, but you can also create your own on Morton Subotnick’s Toolbox1.

Out of Place: A HyperHistory of the Elusive Acoustics of Concert Hall Venues



Laurie Shulman
Photo by Bill Fox, City of Richardson

What is the ideal venue in which to hear music?

You might just as well ask, “What’s the best type of music?” For both questions, it depends on what music you like. With respect to where you listen, the best venue for music depends on what you want to hear. No one space is the right venue for all music. A large symphonic concert hall is not, in all likelihood, ideally suited to chamber music. Similarly, the same large hall, if it is specifically designed for orchestral performance, will be inadequate as a venue for opera. Conversely, a theater is almost always a poor venue for concert music. An organ recital or a choral work may sound marvelous in the reverberant space of a large church, but an orchestra will sound like mud in the same space.

The variety among these types of music and the spaces in which we hear them is at the mercy of acoustics. Superior acoustics have always been considered desirable in planning performance space for music, but designers have not always understood the factors that contributed to excellent sound, nor how to achieve those factors. Today, thanks to advances in acoustical research and practical understanding, the quality of the listening experience has emerged as a key element of planning for performing arts facilities. Acoustics has come into its own as an essential component of the building and design process, and the size and shape of the concert hall is changing.

But changing from what? Concert halls have undergone their own evolution in the past one hundred years. As in other fields, certain concepts and ideas have gone in and out of fashion. Not surprisingly, technology and research have wrought their own effect on the field of concert hall design.

Each type of commonly found performance space—concert hall, recital hall, multi-purpose room, opera house, theatre, church—has its own acoustical properties. The principal variants in these spaces, and the most important factors affecting their acoustical properties, are size and shape. Other characteristics have an impact on the way musical sound behaves in an enclosed space: materials (also called finishes), conformation of audience seating (seating rake), balconies, etc.

The basic principles that govern the way musical sound behaves in an enclosed space derive from the laws of physics, which do not, of course, change. Our understanding of sound behavior has changed a great deal, however, in the past thirty years. Because of advances made by acoustical researchers, we know more about why certain halls are great for music, while others sound uninspired.

Still, audiences and musicians will seek out places to hear and perform music no matter what the acoustics are. Some of the most exciting musical experiences even happen in the great outdoors where the quality of the sound is almost guaranteed to be not so great!

Inner pages:

View From The East: Two Delights


Greg Sandow

A while ago I saw a Godard film, one of his later ones, Soigne ta droite from 1986, which like all Godard’s later films isn’t easy to understand. It’s even hard to say what it’s about, which doubtless means the question doesn’t apply, or at least doesn’t apply in any normal way. The film shows itself to you; it draws you in; the people in it speak and move, or so it seems, in something like a dream (a very intellectual dream). The sounds and words and images don’t tell you anything you could readily explain, but they echo in your memory.

Toward the end, I realized that I’d missed the core of what I’d watched because I don’t know French well enough to follow all the dialogue. I had to read the movie, pondering the subtitles. I couldn’t give in to the sound of the voices, to the words as sounds and to the sounds of life (like wind or footsteps) threading through the words. The soundtrack, I began to guess (but only near the end), wasn’t meant to give me information, as most soundtracks are (the bell is ringing; he says he lost the secret formula). It seemed to be its own world, evolving next to the images, blending with them, but alive all by itself. And I’d missed that, because I’d worried too much about what the words meant.

So I was deeply thrilled when I learned that ECM had released the entire soundtrack of Godard’s 1990 film Nouvelle Vague on two CDs. Now I could taste the kind of pleasure that I’d missed. This isn’t a new recording; it came out in 1997. But it’s timeless. It’s also music (or, if you insist, sound art, though I think the distinction that implies gives far too limited an idea of what music is). I doubt many people think of Godard as a composer, but in this soundtrack (and in Soigne ta droite), that’s exactly what he is. He’s even said so, in an interview:

I start at the cutting table by looking at the pictures with no sound. Then I play the sound without the pictures. Only then do I try them together, the way they were recorded. Sometimes I have a feeling there’s something wrong with a scene—and maybe different sound will fix it. Then I might replace a bit of dialogue with dog barks, say. Or I put in a sonata. I experiment with things until I’m happy.

And also:

It’s no different from being a composer, really…An artistic discipline. I have the whole soundtrack in my head as I’m cutting. And once I’ve decided on the sound, I cut the scene, and throw the rest in the bin.

The first sound in Nouvelle Vague is music, tentative music, from a bandoneon, just one soft, hesitant, repeated note. Then a man’s voice: “This is a story I want to tell.” (Though of course in French.) The coming of the voice is a new event; the bandoneon finds a second note, a minor third above the first. Not that I analyzed all that when I first listened; now I have to play the opening repeatedly, to understand what’s going on. The voice and music move ahead. To mark the end of his first phrase, the speaker pauses for a moment; the bandoneon plays a major chord, the climax of its phrase, and everything the voice says after that feels like a coda. (Or a microcoda; we’re just 30 seconds into the film.)

The bandoneon starts again, this time with something more decisive and a little sad. In the background, there’s a raucous bird. In the foreground, a dog barks. It barks again. The music swells, then dies, and as it ebbs away, we hear a motor (a lawnmower or a car?). Then thunder. Then again the motor (an essay in the CD booklet says that it’s a vacuum cleaner) shutting down, somehow echoing the music. (The essay, appropriately, is by somebody blind, who has read about the film, but can experience it only through the soundtrack.)

Then voices. A man, a woman. Rhythmic: “Cecile! Cecile!” (I think that’s what she says.) By this time I’ve heard these two minutes of movie sound so many times that they’ve taken on the profile of a familiar symphony. I hear how everything connects. I wait for parts I like: A car door slamming, a woman saying “Poum!” A ringing telephone, footsteps hurrying to answer it. A woman with a subdued voice, speaking French: “It’s New York, Mr. Dorfmann. What should I tell him?” A car, more footsteps. Another woman, in Italian: “Domani, domani.” A car departs, its engine disappearing in the distance. Then music: high, soft strings.

A little later: Music, louder; car horns joining it, harmonizing; car horns screaming now, hurtling by, as if on a highway; a shriek of brakes. As I listened more, I started hearing layers. Before the telephone, there’s the swish of someone sweeping with a broom, though as I hadn’t noticed, it started earlier, underneath some voices. Almost everything is layered. There’s a car behind the voices and the sweeping; footsteps after the telephone as well as before; footsteps and the crunch of gravel while the car starts; quiet, busy, rustling before the high, soft strings. And distant car horns after them, in what otherwise would be a pause.

These car horns anticipate the horn explosion a few seconds later. So the soundtrack (like a piece of music) is organized. The barking dog is a motif. So is the bandoneon. So are the broom, the raucous birds, the cars. All of them keep coming back. Long sections of the film, stretches of 10 minutes or more, are stitched together with recurring music, or, more precisely, with the recurrence of music; similarity proves more important than exact repetition, though some of the motifs, like the dog, seem to be the same every time.

I started cataloguing these motifs and timing their recurrences. Then I realized I’d misunderstood. I was looking for musical structure; Nouvelle Vague doesn’t have that. Instead, it has coherence. The difference lies in the motifs, in how they work. You can’t track them as you’d track themes in a symphony, or characters in Shakespeare, or ideas in philosophy. They have no meaning I could name. They come and go; I hear them changing, or else they stay the same, but they don’t mark anything I can identify, and most of all, they don’t develop. I can’t track changes in the music, from beginning to conclusion; I can’t tell you the relationship between the moments when I hear the barking dog. There might be relationships, but I don’t think about them when I listen to the film, any more than I try to follow its plot, which in any case was impossible for me, even if the movie has a plot, because the dialogue is in quickly-moving French. Later, from the liner notes and elsewhere, I learned the outline of the story; it helps me understand the sections of the film and gives the music even more coherence, but doesn’t give the structure any bones I can appreciate.

Maybe if I listened obsessively I’d find something. But what I care about right now is how eagerly I listen. Everything sounds fresh, newborn, lively, curious. I come back to the layering I talked about. Everything stands in relationship to something else, a relationship that lives in both time (the order things come in, the way events support each other) and space (some s
ounds front, some back, some to the right, some to the left, many often moving). I don’t need to define the kind of music these sounds make, but I listened for 80 minutes without fades in my attention. ECM has also released, on five CDs, the sounds from Godard’s long video Histoire(s) du CinÈma, this time giving us a transcript (in four solid books) of all the words we hear. Sometime, maybe soon, the perfect long and rainy day for hearing it will come, and I’ll savor it.

*

Second delight: A concert by Eve Beglarian, December 16 on Patrick Grant‘s cheerful series of Sunday afternoons at Egizio’s Project, a tiny gallery on Broadway near Prince Street. If you saw the space without the musicians, or the chairs for the audience, you might never think of giving concerts there; it might seem too small and too irregular, with an angle in the middle that keeps some people from seeing all of the performers. But this only makes the concerts fun. I don’t know many other spaces that transform the audience into a community, but this one goes even further, and makes me feel as if I’m part of a happy clump of friends.

Eve (whom I’d met just a week or so earlier, in the tony lobby of the Metropolitan Opera) did ten excerpts from A Book of Days, her ongoing project which eventually will give her a piece—text, visuals, and music—for each day of the year. There are two models, as she says: medieval books of hours (which compiled prayers and meditations suitable for particular days of the year, or times of day), and commonplace books, in which, generations ago, people used to write down passages they’d read that they wanted to remember. Each of these pieces might be a meditation, music made for words and images Eve found that she likes.

Some of the texts were profound, like this one (from a zen source):

What has been long neglected cannot be restored immediately.

Ills that have been accumulating for a long time cannot be cleared away immediately.

One cannot enjoy oneself forever.

Human emotions cannot be just.

Calamity cannot be avoided by trying to run away from it.

Anyone who has realized these five things can be in the world without misery.

And all of the music was joyful. Eve is, among many other things, an unabashed performer. The music for one of the pieces was an organ work. Eve stood in front of a keyboard, joining a recording in performing it. She looked like she danced as she played, but she wasn’t really dancing. She had the rhythm in her body; she was focused on it, darting her fingers out to touch the notes, feeling the music so completely that her physical being had to show it. Some of the organ lines she played were snarling domesticated dissonances; she really seemed to savor those.

She also sings, and while I wouldn’t call her a studied, practiced singer, she’s something even better; she’s inspired. She launches her voice at her music, and lands precisely where she wants to be, for the same reason that she’s moving while she plays the keyboard: Her soul is full. You could say she improvises her vocal technique, but that shouldn’t be a criticism. Her singing has a perfect Eve-ness. I couldn’t say any such thing about many famous singers. Kiri Te Kanawa is a refined opera star; her singing might be perfect, but her Kiri-ness got lost on the way to her career.

Eve’s music doesn’t have a wasted note. And yet it doesn’t sounds chiseled or hammered into inevitability; it feels as if it grew, and found its own shape. It’s wonderfully varied. The organ piece was brawny; another one, for toy piano, was light and playful, almost teasing, constrained to just a few useful notes. “Good Deal Easier,” which finished the concert, was dance-pop, simultaneously (at least as I heard it) the real thing and a friendly parody. It worked almost perfectly, though I’d venture one thought about the way it ended. It subsided into a skeletal rhythm, executed (if my ear is right) by samplers, using human voices. But it lost momentum, because, I’d guess, an ending like that either has to pick up the pace, so everything gets tighter as the sound lightens, or else it needs to relax. This just moved forward doggedly, creating what struck me as an anticlimax, sounding mechanical.

But that was just one moment in a concert that was much more than terrific music; it made me glad to be alive. It and the Godard soundtrack were the last music I heard for professional purposes last year; as I cast the auspices, that’s a good omen for 2002.

View From The West: Simplicity vs. Complexity


Dean Suzuki
Photo by Ryan Suzuki

I would like to suggest that we may have a skewed notion of the criteria for what it good or great in the music and the arts. Guided by our Western philosophies, aesthetics, and sensibilities, many of us have decided (or someone has decided for us) that great music, great art must be complex if not convoluted, monumental, epic, or otherwise intricate and grandiose. Dazzling, even mannerist and Byzantine structures tout the composer’s ability to construct incredibly sophisticated monuments to human achievement in music, but might there be another and equally meaningful way? Might not virtuosic displays of compositional daring be considered merely bombastic, as least in some instances? The answer, of course, is “yes,” as there is always plenty of bad music, but the question is at least food for thought.

The well known, oft quoted adage “less is more” is tossed about freely, but in our heart of hearts, we really do not believe it. Instead, we tend to believe that more is more and less is less. We may concede that a Zen ink and brush rendering of a stalk of bamboo with a bird perched on a branch executed with a handful of brush strokes is masterful, but deep down inside we believe that Michaelangelo‘s frescoes in the Sistine Chapel must be better, if nothing more than by virtue of the technical skill, virtuosity and complexity of the work. Even closer to home, we may agree that Schubert‘s “Gretchen am Spinnrade” is a fine piece, but Wagner‘s Ring Cycle or Stravinsky‘s Le sacre du printemps must be the better works by dint of sheer size and intricacy. Of course, size and complexity alone is never the standard for excellence. I doubt that any of us would compare a Bruckner symphony to one of Beethoven‘s or a Sammartini symphony to one by Haydn. Still, cannot a haiku be as profound as an epic poem by Dante? Cannot a little character piece by Schumann be as significant as a sprawling tone poem by Strauss? If not, why not?

Of course there are also works that are relatively long, even very long, where not much happens, at least compositionally. Whether it is the Dies Irae from the Requiem (one of the longer chants in the repertoire) or La Monte Young‘s The Tortoise, His Dreams and Journeys, how are we to evaluate them?

Béla Bartók recognized that very simple, indigenous folk musics were the artistic equivalent of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. Authentic Hungarian folk songs were often monophonic or heterophonic, or comprised of simple modal melodies accompanied by the simplest, even crudest of harmonic schemes. Indeed, in our own Western European heritage, medieval Gregorian chant and organum were often quite Spartan and simple, yet few would deny the profundity of these musics of the Middle Ages. That being said, few seem to place them on the same plane as Bach, Brahms, or Boulez.

Perhaps we too need to reassess. Consider Satie‘s Vexations, a simple 2-page piano piece comprised largely of augmented chords which is to be played very softly and slowly with the cryptic instruction that it is also to be repeated 840 times. Upon discovering the work in the late 1950s, John Cage came to the conclusion that Satie’s little musical trifle was unperformable, clocking in at over eighteen hours and unlistenable. While there is likely a humorous element intended by the composer in Vexations, it is not known if Satie actually expected the instructions to repeat 840 times to be taken seriously. However, very concrete, unexpected, and even profound effects can result when listening to this work when performed according to the instructions.

After embarking on the premiere performance of Vexations which he organized in 1963, Cage came to realize that something powerful was underway that dramatically eclipsed his wildest expectations. Cage recalls, “After about an hour and a half we all realized that something had been set in motion that went far beyond what any of us had anticipated.'” [Calvin Tomkins, The Bride and the Bachelors: Five Masters of the Avant-Garde, expanded ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1976), p. 104.] By the time the performance was completed, he came to the conclusion that “Vexations was of profound religious significance.” [Peter Dickinson, “Erik Satie (1866-1925),” Music Review, 28, No. 2 (1967), p. 146.]

Concerning extensive repetition in Satie’s music, Dick Higgins pointed out:

“In performance the satirical intent of this repetition comes through very clearly, but at the same time other very interesting results begin to appear. The music first becomes so familiar that it seems extremely offensive and objectionable. But after that the mind slowly becomes inc
apable of taking further offense, and a very strange, euphoric acceptance and enjoyment begin to set in… Is it boring? Only at first. After a while . . . [it] begins to intensify. By the time the piece is over, the silence is absolutely numbing, so much of an environment has the piece become.” [Dick Higgins, “Boredom and Danger,” Source, 3, No. 1 (Jan. 1969), 15, rpt. originally in The Something Else Newsletter, 1, No. 9 (Dec. 1968), pp. 1-4, 6, 15]

At least one early musicologist saw the value of long durations and extensive repetition in Satie’s work. In referring to examples of musique d’ameublement or “furniture music,” Rudhyar Chenneviere (a.k.a. Dane Rudhyar) proposed:

“There seems to be no reason why these chords might not continue for hours…One feels that for hours at a stretch he has caressed the ivory keys, sounding them softly, then, little by little, with greater force…One feels that the composer’s sense of hearing, his nerves, vibrate sensuously, lulled by these infinite undulations of sound.” [Rudhyar D. Chenneviere, “Erik Satie and the Music of Irony,” trans. Frederick H. Martens, Musical Quarterly, 5 (1919), p. 470.]

According to Roger Shattuck, “Satie seems to combine experiment with inertia… The simplest of Satie’s pieces…built out of a handful of notes and rhythms have no beginning, middle, and end. They exist simultaneously. Form ceases to be an ordering in time like ABA and reduces to a single brief image, an instantaneous whole both fixed and

moving. Satie’s form can be extended only by reiteration or ‘endurance.’. . . Satie frequently scrutinizes a very simple musical object . . . Out of this sameness comes subtle variety.” [Roger Shattuck, The Banquet Years: The Origins of the Avant-Garde in France 1885 to World War I, rev. ed. (New York: Vintage, 1968), p. 142.]

The following can be found in Cage’s Silence:

“In Zen they say: If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, try it for eight, sixteen, thirty-two, and so on. Eventually one discovers that it’s not boring at all but very interesting.” [John Cage, Silence (Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), p. 93.]

I in no way mean to suggest that complicated music and art is merely bombastic. Rather, simplicity in music and the arts, even radical simplicity can be as powerful, meaningful, and profound as complex work. Simplicity can communicate ideas in ways that complexity cannot and vice versa. Neither is inherently better than the other; they are simply different. Each has a role to play if only we will let them do their work. We would to well to judge the content of the music rather than the means by which it was constructed.