A notation should be directed to a large extent towards the people who read it, rather than towards the sounds they will make

The endeavours of approximately Experimentalist composers in the 1950s and 1960s, including Cornelius Cardew and John Cage (pargonnthetically, Cages profess quote, Let the nonations refer to what is to be d whizz, non what is to be heard1 , has resonances with the title quote) were a purposeful reaction to the determinacy of the Serialists. However, the notions of integral serialism and indefiniteness shared popular divisors in some eyesThere is rattling no canonical difference surrounded by the results of automatism and the products of chance number determinacy decreases to be identical with total indeterminacy. 2 The way a act is set downd allows us to come closer to understanding the melodyal culture within which greenbacks operate, and of the ways in which our modes of thought are decided by the nature of the systems we use3. This relates to the societal view that the composer is the one who has something to say, reducing the status of the performing artist to that of interpreter.However, this is not a view that has always existed composers such as Mozart and Beethoven often expected instruments of their works (including themselves, to which I shall return) to create improvised cadenzas for their concerti, while, to boot, the accompaniments were improvised to an extent. Reducing this to a basic level, is it patently the case that, harmonically and stylistically, it was not as difficult to do this in Mozarts time? We no longer see a tradition, or such a tonal system embodying a guiding code, to respect in this way, which has contributed to the prioritising of the composer, and the score.Through our traditional respect for the written word, one expects to perform medical specialty as it is written, which itself has consequences it is our veneration for the urtext that leads us to the attitude that whatever is not in the score must be wrong. 4 The movement towards great greenbackal flesh out in the score in the 1950s and 1960s, alo ng with the aforementioned wondrous view of composer as master brought performers to a situation where interpretation became subjugated by execution.Attempts to exert compositional control over every element of a work -that is not only time-space relationships but forms of attack, articulation, dynamic blending i. e. those elements traditionally left to the medical specialtyal intelligence of the player do posses a certain futility. In every case which involves human input, something is left to the performer. They do not have to be aware of the extent that their unconscious decisions crop a piece, which include the elements of exertion out of the possible control of the composer, for display case a players personal style, method of playing their instrument, conception of dynamic level.Players tranquilize take latitude, however determinate the distinction. Their personal mannerisms and inflections leave behind inevitably influence the end result. When viewed in this way, suc h precision on the part of the composer becomes approximately meaningless, except in cases where the end result being an approximation is measuredly part of the composers esthetical. It arises that performers must be cautious of the primacy of the score, handling it (and the composer) with kid gloves.It leads to narrow scope for, and range of, interpretation a state in which the interaction of compulsive exactitude and permissive independence could result in coinciding attitudes of carelessness towards the controlled elements and a confined and repetitious response to spontaneity in playing5. Freeing oneself from the page became an important part of the experimental aesthetic. conscientious performers feel a responsibility to the composer, and to their own integrity.Over-complexity in notation leads to problems with the recognition of the composers intentions when directives are inevitably contravened through necessity. However, a performer would really have to be familiar with a composers aesthetic to live on that this otherwise out of the question act is part of the pieces implicit significance. So, in a piece of large complexity, notated or otherwise, a player who makes the act of commitment6 to study and attempt to line it, is exchangeablely to have a legitimate interest in very performing the piece.One element which appears to permeate much of Cardews output is a re-evaluation of the fictional character between composer and performer. Cardew attached as much importance to the kit and caboodle within the implementation of mathematical process as the end-result in sound. His wish was to scrap accepted ways of thinking about, and making, unison, which led to a notation which was action- lie, inclusive and descriptive, not prescriptive. As suggested by the above quote, he sound becomes a by-product of the activity, which is therefore specified exactly, while the sound may be left to look after itself. 7 Cardew writes of a notation, as in there are many notational possibilities. How, though, can a notation really capture every conceivable piece of information about a piece? Obviously, conventional notation, that is notation which covers time-pitch relationships, is not flexible enough to relate drawn-out compositional requirements. The whole process depends on the choice of a competent notation to serve as a link between A composer and B performer one which will both express what needs to be expressed and allow information to flow smoothly between the two. 8 Even so, composers are less concerned with the relationship of the score to the performer, and thus the sounds (A to C via B), than to their own concerns with sounds, without due consideration for the act of performing these sounds (A to C).Cardew suggests that a composer could work on their notation with the way a performer will interpret the signs in nous, thus making the sounds you wanted as a composer. Transcribing ones whims in such a manner as to enab le the performer to comprehend your directives, and even involve the player in decision-making, is a performance-perspective oriented view, having the added benefit of lending greater objectivity to the compositional task. A figure that grew up in the early twentieth century aw the composer as some kind of absolute genius capable of imagining a perfect performance of a piece9 The tendency towards greater explicitness10, which this chit chat infers, is part of a range of a function of composition far removed from the way composition was historically defined.Yet, the syllable structure of every parvenue notation, and the consequential absence of a norm of honey oil notational practice, meant that immediate recognition of a composers intentions became impracticable. 11 One underlying reduce to be addressed in greater depth is that of the relationship between composer and performer.Hugo Cole states that notation getd to meet felt but in give voice needs12 When bran-new methods of notation are devised in response to the need to articulate a newly developed style of composition, composers move the hypothetical goalposts further apart again from the performer, as they have to once again learn the new language, interpret again the new signs and work out what the piece (or the composer) is stressful to say. This applies in equal measure to determinate music and experimental, though the grade of freedom lent to the performer in the latter case deems it in many ways a more satisfying task.It somehow restores the performers role as musically intelligent interpreter, relied upon to add the nuances and subtleties that (traditional) notation cannot accommodate. The rigidity of a notation must have relevance to the playing situation. To provide incompatible examples the notations in many works by Brian Ferneyhough are complex attempts to notate those aspects of music which would otherwise be added -unconsciously or consciously-by the performer. This style of notat ion does not have the effect of reducing the burden on the performer, but adds to the already substantial amount of information the performer has to transmute into sound. In music of the New Complexity performer is subjugated and manipulated, concluding that his efforts are of auxiliary importance.The act of writing, the systems and the notation take on more importance than the music it is there to serve 13Yet, Ferneyhoughs scores are more than mere receptacles for performance directions, they are inextricably linked to the composers ideology. Their complexity is wildly challenging, but, paradoxically, the goal is not to fit in every event on every peak rather, the essence of his works lies in what is omitted in performance.This has a potent psychological effect on the classically-trained performer, accustomed to polished performances true to the composers wishes. With Ferneyhough, what he wishes is efficaciously equivocal, due in part to his documented changing views of his own output. Frederic Rzewski concludes that it is not the notation but the compositional position that presents the performance problem. 14 We must additionally consider the example of those composers of equally complex, some may say impractical, music, who are also renowned performing exponents of their own scores for example Michael Finnissy.By the nature of their enterprise, they are forced to consider the performer and, in Finnissys case, endure to write music of such paradoxical complexity that, if one was to honour the score, is full of errors in performance, but still faithful to its essence. The composer-performer reacts to their own notational problems, they know what idiomatic writing is being performers themselves and still choose to write music in a particular style15 To contrast, take composer Glenn Brancas Symphony no. 6 Devil Choirs at the Gates of Heaven, written in the main for galvanising guitars.He employs staff notation, and no dynamic markings are evident as, na turally, the event dynamic of a piece of this nature will be at least fortissimo. Ironically, Brancas use of conventional notation links to his perception of it as being exact I had never written the pieces in staff notation until I wrote for the orchestra. Then I fell in love with the idea of having things so exact, with this notation, that I called up all my musicians guitarists and asked can you guys read music? It turned out that everybody could so we just started doing everything in staff notation. non only did it make things clearer for me and the musicians, but it did change the music. 16 Brancas closing comment that it did change the music makes for interesting side-thought. For him, there were no subtleties or nuances that could not be recorded using this type of notation in fact, it helped him to clarify and articulate his thoughts, correlating with the idea that notation must reflect the playing situation. The music of Christian Wolff embodies a similar aim to Cardews, encouraging performer participation in the creation of a work and devising notations which allow such interaction.Theirs is an aesthetic of non-intention, away from the conventional burdens of music music must make possible the freedom and dignity of the performers. It should have in it a persistent capacity to wonder (even the performers themselves and the composer)17 He creates deliberate paradoxical situations where what is written cannot be executed, for example in 6 Players where he asks one of the solo violas to play eight notes in a quarter of a second, including three harmonics and one pizzicato18.His use of indeterminacy in performance opens the work to external influences genuinely beyond the composers intentions, and the prohibition between performer and composer is reduced. 19 This use of indeterminate operations inescapably led to new attitudes towards performance. A working example of experimental notation is Cardews Octet 61 Example 1, below, which employs an ambig uous ciphered notation, the working out of which by each performer leads to unforeseeable combinations of events that could be produced neither by strict composition nor by free improvisation.20 As we have seen, simple notation does not needs equal many possible interpretations, and on the same line, an elaborate notation such as Cardews can permit varied interpretation. The psychological push of how the music looks on the page invites varied readings the printed page is a storehouse medium where an inevitably incomplete representation of notateable ideas can be well-kept for the future.The fact that this aspect of the work does not change over time, like a painting or a book, does not mean that the piece will not change and evolve. Arts ability to carry societal properties, to evolve and reflect changing times is surely part of its value. The search for greater notational control led to greater complexity, yet the early influence of the possibilities of electronic music must hav e contributed to this pursuit.Peter Zinofieff spoke of an early ideal, comfortable by electronic composition, where we can each have our own esoteric language specially tailored for our own machines and individual needs or frustrations 21 Ultimately, though, the performers job is to make the relationships and patterns in the music clear to the listeners mind and ear22. This hope, though, displaces the enduring problems which lie between composers and those who are employed to realise the work, be they human or otherwise.