IMSLP Forums

Examining this philosophical world of music created by composer and insurance salesman Charles Ives, I found myself lately fascinated over his philosophy of music established in Essays Before a Sonata, and I've been trying to relate his philosophy to my ideas of music. After thinking about some of his arguments, I wondered if his position on the essence of music may prove to be even more plausible today to encompass the extent of our experimentation with many of the most fundamental aspects of music that we in the Western tradition of musical study take for granted by convention, such as notation, performance, instrumentation, relationships of the performers to the audience, the composer's relationship to the audience, and the composer's relationship to the performers. What I am approaching through this reference to convention is a question concerning our beliefs about music, based on the rapid increase of musical experimentation through the use of innovative or different compositional approaches introduced into Western Music over the past century.

For those unfamiliar with the topic, Charles Ives discussed in the Epilogue of his essays how problematic it would be to imply specific attributes of a person through some form of musical expression or device in such a way that it would be considered universal. He believed that the expression of a person's disposition through music ought to be left to one's interpretation, and that the expression of one's attributes might not be as misleading to us if we formed a distinction between the qualities of a person and the means by which those qualities are expressed, which Ives denoted as "substance" and "manner." He defined "substance" as the value comprised of a particular spirit, reality, or quality that is expressed in a certain manner, where "manner" implies the way in which the substance itself is expressed. From his perspective, Charles Ives placed substance in a higher position to manner not because it was either right or wrong, but because by one's intuition it seemed right, even if we couldn't determine why this was either right or wrong, or what the difference implied between them.

From these ideas, I also arrive at a question involving the intentions of today's composer by understanding a little more clearly the fundamental ideas expressed by the composer. I aim particularly at those composers who are attracted to mid-20th century and late-20th century music to present-day music. When I thought about what kinds of things these composers were looking for, I wondered how they determined a sense of structure within their pieces and whether the means by which they convey it best reflected their intentions. With that said, I ask myself in total four specific questions that are arbitrary with regards to the functions and limitations of a composer today:

1) Which of the following two values, in your opinion, is the modern composer more closely connected to in the development of his compositions: substance or manner? Or, are neither values important? Or, are they both equally important?

2) Can electronic music, or more specifically, musique concrète, bring composers any closer towards the depiction of human attributes?

3) Do the arguments of Charles Ives as presented appear to have relevance to our generation of composers? If they are irrelevant today, to what extent are his arguments irrelevant? Irrelevant to the motives of a composer?

4) How do we define today the definition of structure in music? Is it essential? How do we evolve the concept of structure over time and create a sense of understanding from it? And finally, can silence be considered structure in itself?

My 2 cents:

1) Substance is more important than manner.

2) Electronic music is better at depicting the electronic world we live in than human attributes.

3) Ives' arguments are relevant, but on the other hand, one doesn't have to address them in order to become a great composer. I can't imagine Brahms getting into this discussion, but his music reflects his considerable substance, and is expressed in a very personal manner.

4) Structure is essential to music, because it is what makes it coherent and gives us a thread that we can follow -- it holds our interest throughout. Some names come to mind: a) Debussy, whose "through-composed" music was definitely not structureless, and did have coherency and held interest throughout. b) From discussion I had a couple of days ago on Philip Glass, and this is just an opinion, his score to Powaqqatsi held my interest because of the visual images it was tied to. I found later that much of the minimalist, less-structured music didn't hold my interest without something else to give it the thread and coherency. Maybe I have a low boredom threshhold.

On the other hand, just because a composer uses a pre-defined "structure" doesn't give automatic coherency and thread, or hold the interest. Having just listened to three days of instrumental exams, I can name a few of the sillier competition-style pieces that use (abuse?) the variations structure, and one Romantic concerto that uses Sonata-allegro, but if the themes are just piles of scales and arpeggios, who cares?

If structure was all we needed, it wouldn't be difficult to be a great composer.

Silence -- not a structure in itself, but can be used very powerfully within structures.

Lastly, one thing grabbed my attention: the use of the word avant-garde. At a concert a few weeks ago, one of the examiners objected to the use of the word "avante-garde" in the programme notes. She pointed out, quite correctly, that something half a century (electronic or aleatory) or a full century (serialism) old is no longer in the "advance guard" of artistic development. We should refer to these techniques and structures as early 20th century, or post-1950, or something else.

They're no longer an experiment, they happened, and they're history.

steltz wrote:We should refer to these techniques [electronic, aleatory, serialism] and structures as early 20th century, or post-1950, or something else.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. When I think about this again and try to apply it to the "use of the word avant-garde" today, it really doesn't make sense that something which happened over 50 years ago would be considered as today's music. That was silly of me.

jjw119 wrote:From these ideas, I also arrive at a question concerning what today's music composer is trying to represent through his music and to apply this question to composers of the 21st century, specifically to those composers more highly attracted to the avant-garde forms of music, such as electronic music, aleatory music, and serialism,

should be changed to

From these ideas, I also arrive at a question involving the intentions of today's composer by understanding a little more clearly the fundamental ideas expressed by the composer. I aim particularly at those composers who are attracted to mid-20th century and late-20th century music to present-day music.

I didn't mean it as an attack, just an observation. If you want to make it specific to compositional techniques, then by all means use the words serialism, aleatoric, etc.

On a similar note, a student of mine is finishing a thesis on what used to be called "avante-garde" flute techniques. Due to the fact that they were developed so long ago, we've discovered that they are now (more appropriately) called "extended techniques."