Kurt Stone - New Notation for New Music I

7/29/2019 Kurt Stone - New Notation for New Music I

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kurt-stone-new-notation-for-new-music-i 1/10

MENC: The National Association for Music Education

New Notation for New MusicAuthor(s): Kurt StoneReviewed work(s):Source: Music Educators Journal, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Oct., 1976), pp. 48-56Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of MENC: The National Association for Music Education

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3395118 .Accessed: 21/03/2012 11:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Inc. and MENC: The National Association for Music Education are collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Music Educators Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=menc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3395118?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3395118?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=menc

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage



Page 10 from SONGS,DRONESAND REFRAINSOF DEATh(P66463) hyGeorge crumbCopyright © 1971 by C. F. Peters Corporation 73 ParkAvenue South,,New York.New York10016.

by the publisher.

.

.>....

Y %% /

2 < 7

7.. , /

, , , ,,77 7 .777 7/ / >7 777 .. ';7 / 7 : ..

' /7 777 7/, // 7/K; 77/77 77 77K<



*H·L~~~~~n~~RQBIQ~~~~%Ph'l%~~ lwzi, "Y'l vfta"A MMM"

:1 ~ ~ ~~01

.(b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~*W

in"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m"~~~J~~~"h~c~l-~· Ls~~ ~!g ~ b: CI a m

g.

MM

MMMM IW "M w"""'MOt '-Vl~ ~~~r"

a Pi a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~uMM " IIMM~1 MN

··-, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~I M"d\. I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ IMMIM.



since new notationbegan to appearin the

1950s. The- irst question is answeredquiteeasilywith the thumbnailhistoryof notationthatfollows.The answerto the secondques-tionis "yes," omethings beingdone,so thatat least the prospectbeforeus may be a littleeasier and pleasurable.Whatis being donewill also be examinedhere, as well as in asecondarticlenextmonth.As for the past,it,unfortunately,cannot be altered, and twoand a half decades of new music will stillhavetobe read rom roublesome otation.

How it all happenedFrom the medieval neumes on, notation

grewsteadilyn precisionandcomprehensive-ness until,around1600, t became etanddidnot change undamentallyor350 years-thatis, all the way to the early1950s.Musiciansseldomrealizehow remarkablydaptablera-ditionalnotationhas actuallybeen.Afterall,it has remained alidandpracticalhroughallthe drasticstylisticchangesthat have comeabout during its long reign from EarlyBaroque through the Classical period toRomanticism, nd then to Impressionismndeven to the music of Schoenberg/Webern,Stravinsky,Varese,Carter, ndothers.

Those innovationsand additionsto nota-

tionthatdid occurduring histimespanweresecondary in character "cosmetics" con-sisting chiefly of interpretive nstructions:tempoindications,dynamics,phrasing,orna-ments, articulation, nd so on. By the earlyl900s, these detailed interpretive inepointshad proliferatedo such an extentthat theyoften all butcrowdedout the actualnotes.

Even so, the essentials of the system re-mained he same all along.Thesystembeganto breakup only a quarterof a centuryagowhen all music elements were scrutinizedmercilessly,resulting n the overthrow f theentire traditionalhlierarchy f music com-

ponents a reorientation he like of whichhad nothappened ince 1600and perhapsnoteven sincetheintroduction f polyphony ntoWesternmusic.

As is usual n times offundamental pheav-al, the former ulerswere deposedwhile theformerserfs and subordinatescame to thefore.Traditional otationcould servethe oldrulers-melody, rhythm,harmony,and syn-chronization to perfection,but it was notequipped to deal adequately if at all) withelements that formerlyhad been mere sideissues. For example,while we were able to

indicate steady rates of speed with great

exactitude,we had noequallyefficientmeansfor indicatinggradual tempo changes (andhave none to this day).Instructions uch asritardando,accelerando,and rubatocannotcompare n precisionwith, say, J= 92.

Similarly,we couldnotatevibratoandnon-vibrato as verbal ndications,but we had nomeansbywhichto indicate he vibrato's xactmicrotonalwidth, norwhether hiswidthwasto remainconstantor change.Norcould wenotatea vibrato's peed,whetherconstantorchanging.

Thesetwo examplesalone showthattradi-tionalnotationwas notequipped o copewith

the greater xactitudesdemandedby at leastsome of the new, post-1950,music. And inmanyareas, ven our radition-basedotation-al innovations till cannotcope with some ofthe new musicaldemands.

Conversely,traditionalnotation did notlend itself to the notationof deliberate n-exactitudeseither. We had no way, for ex-ample, to signify diSerent frameworks ormore or less controlled mprovisation.Eitherwe wroteout what we wantedor we drew afermata nd left practically verything o theperformer'sngenuity.

For some time now, music has operated

with variously controlled improvisation:Pitches may be given while durations orrhythm patterns must be improvised, orrhythmsaregiven while the performer as tosupply the pitches, or given pitches orrhythmsare to be used either in the ordergiven or in random uccession,and so forth.For such innovationswe now do have newnotation but it oftenlooks quitedifferent ndifferent cores.

Furthermore,hereis the challengeof howto handle sounds and instrumentmanipula-tionsthatformerly adbeenabsentaltogetherfrom music had, in fact, been considered

alien to the art.In ourera,with its new atti-tudetoward ounds,these "aliens"aregivenpotentially qualstatuswithothermusic com-ponentsandthus haveto be notated, oo, inproper ashion.

Inthe past, imbrewas generally onsidereda merevehicle for moreimportant lements.Consequently, o one had seen any need toworry abouttimbralnotationas such, or toaddsignificantlyo the traditionalimbral e-sources. The 1950s changed all that, too.Timbrebecamea sonic element in its ownright,andwith its increase n status,the pal-

50 mej/october '76



ette of tone colors and othersounds soonwas

expanded to include any imaginablenoise,pitched or unpitched, natural or generatedartificially.

Howwas one tonotate hese newphenome-na? Since theirpitchqualitiesweretheirmostelusive characterraits,and since manyof thenew soundsweren'tpercussion oundseither,a trenddeveloped onotate he manipulations,thatwould produce he sounds, nsteadofthesounds themselves a kind of tablature.Butthis was only one of the notationalmethods,and to this day there s considerable otation-al overproduction nd general confusioninthis area.

And what about the largeraestheticlsocialconceptson whichvariousnew musictrendsare based that is, the whole range fromtheuncompromising, lmost inhumanprecisionand complexityof totalserialism now argelypasse)to the deliberate mbiguity ndunpre-dictabilityof aleatorymusic, or even chancemusic,1a trenddesigned to liberate he per-former romthe dictatesof the composerandspread he joy of invention o all participantsin a musical "happening."This rend,bytheway, s also beginning o recede.)

Why, f total serialismand music of chanceare fading out, should we botherabouttheir

respective notational specialties Becausethese two seeminglyirreconcilable estheticphilosophieshave lately begun to meet on amiddleground.This s perhaps he most nter-esting recentmusicdevelopment, ombining,as it does (at eastpotentially), he best of twoworlds, each of which by itself had runintothe dangerof limitingprinciplesand of even-tual monotony.Thus,we now find, in manyrecent compositions, ome or all of our era'sstylistic approaches, rom super control tosuper reedom, resented ither n crasslycon-trastingsections or in gradual ransition,oreven superimposedupon one another, oragain as no more thanan occasional easingdeviation from a given composition'spre-dominant tyle.

What this meansfor musicians, ncludingmusic educators, s that they can no longerafford o ignore music trends they dislike ordo not considervalid.Todayevelyoneactive-

tln view of inconsistent usage in the field, the distinctionhere,which follows MEI style policy, is a worthwhile one: "Aleatory,"is a type of music in which chance is used as a compositionaltechnique, whereas "chance music" involves choice by the per-former n determininK heultimate formthe music takes. Aleatorymusic, then, is not changedby theperformer xcept nterpretively.

ly involved with contemporarymusic had

betterbe familiarwith the completespectrumof music trendsand philosophiesand, there-fore,with all the diSerentnotationalmethods(or nonmethods)hat go with them.

So, whatexactlyare these notationalmeth-ods? What s "new notation" f almost everyrecent compositionfollows a differentnota-tional system or a mixtureof several,and ifthe same signs often mean differenthings indifferent compositions, just as the samemusic phenomena are often notated differ-entlyfromwork o work?

First, et's notblamethe composers or thisconfusingsituation.They have had no guide-

lines, no models,nothing to go by but theirown graphic nventiveness.Neitherdid theyhave time to lookfor precedents r to consulttheir colleagues.They had to inventsigns onthe spot, as the need arose. And invent theydid!

Formore hantwentyyearsnow,everybodyhas been experimenting nd inventingevery-where,withEurope nd NorthAmerican theforefront.Nowonder, herefore, hat he num-ber of new signsand othernotationaldeviceshas becomeastronomical, nd that with it hascome generalnotational chaos. No wondereither that less and less contemporarymusic

has beenperformed s a result,andthat ama-teur musicianshave been lost to new musicaltogether.

Whathas beendoneSomethinghad to be done, even if it meant

only a reductionof unnecessaryduplicationsand a weeding-outof unwantedambiguities.

A handfulof music publishers ried.Theydeveloped relativelyuniformnotationalsys-tems, based primarilyon the works of theirmost mportantomposersn the new-notationfield,and thentranscribed ewlyacceptedbutdiSerently notated works accordingly.Most

successful was Ars Polona, the Polish musicpublishing enter n Krakow so muchso thata good manycomposersoutsidePolandhavesince adoptedmuch of the Polishnotation ortheirowncompositions.

Even so, musicpublishersare not the idealvehicle fornotational eform ecause hey canapply their guidelines only to the scores bycomposersthey themselves happen to pub-lish. If, as in the Polish case, others oin in, itis little more than a lucky coincidence.Whatis needed is a more neutral, universal, andcosmopolitanbase that can act as a clearing-

mej/october '76 51



selected;they are listed here in the order nwhichthe mailmandelivered hem:

(1)

P $ Yl, bYs 11

(2)

P ><}Y

(3)

Ps Y;._X(;,-nYs 11

(4) ,J

F $ Yj.A-("Y$ 11

(5)

P ; A ; ' $

(6)

P s Y . Y a

(7) j J

P $ Yt Ys 11

(8)

P r @ ^ ^ . X ( _ , Y

(9)

P Y

houseforgreater tandardizationfnewnota-tion (orat leastof thatkind of new notationthatwouldbenefit romstandardization;lea-torynotation,such as thatof implicitgraph-ics, naturallycannotbe included in such aproject).

In 1970, with funds from the RockefellerFoundation,an Indexof New MusicalNota-tion was establishedunder my directioninthe MusicDivisionof The New YorkPublicLibraryat Lincoln Center.Later,the FordFoundation oined in the funding,with theMusicLibrary

Associationactingas thespon-soring organization.Aftera thorough nter-national urvey o findoutif potentially imi-lar endeavorsmight alreadybe in existence(nonewere found),and afterthe additiontothe projectof GeraldWarSeldromPrincetonUniversity(who laterwas promoted o asso-ciatedirector),webeganourwork.

We analyzedand tabulated he new nota-tion in a verylargenumberof representativecompositionsdating rom heearly1950s,andbefore, o the most recentscores,printedorstillin manuscript.Wethuscoveredboththepastandpresentmanifestations f new nota-tion, racing tsgradual eSnement

ndnotingthe ncreasingly eneralacceptance fsomeofthenewdevices,aswell asthedisappearance,over he years,of others.

\Vethen developedan extensiveand quitedetailed notation questionnaire that wesentout internationally it was availableinthreeanguages).As the answerscamein, weanalyzed nd tabulated hem, thus coveringthepossible uturetrendsof new notation.Asenseof the confusionthatprevailscan per-haps e realizedby examining ustone of thefifty-ninetems hatappeared nthisquestion-nairc and this was a questionthat did notevendeal with new music!It read:"Onthestaffbelow,otateadownward lissando tart-ingon the secondhalf of the secondbeat.Itshouldbe a continuous glissando lastingexactlyhree full beats.Begin on the third-spaceC andend on middleC."Thequestionwasollowedby this staffsegment:

e $ Y I Ys I

Herearesomeof the answers.Theyarenot

52 mej/october '76



(10)

P $ Yr- - L- }S s 11

(1 1)P gliss

(12) _

P$ YSs1nY$ 11(3 beats)

(13)

P$SY 11gAis*.

(14) ($ )

P $ YC L S $ 11

(15)

b YFS aS $ 11

naire,we singled out those signs and proce-dures hatalreadyhadbecomewidelyaccept-ed, and in cases of ties we eitherchose thedevicethatseemedto be the mostperceptiveandpractical,or we reservedall versionsforlaterevaluation.Next,thanks othecollaborationftheUni-versityof Ghent n Belgium,we arranged oholdanInternational onference nNewMu-sical Notationat the university n the fall of1974.Wetooka selectionof about400 signsand proceduresto the conferencefor dis-cussionsand

decisionsby the activepartici-pants,who comprisedclose to eightyprofes-sionalmusicians,musiceducators,musicedi-tors,and composers romeighteendifferentcountries a truly cosmopolitanconglomer-ationof practicalexperienceandknow-how.Allparticipants greedthatthe emphasisintheir eliberationshouldbeonclarity,practi-cability, nd necessitytrom the pedormer'spointofview. Thus, we abstained romin-ventingnynewsignsattheconference, o asnot o compoundthe alreadyexisting over-abundancendconfusion.A concisebutcompletereport f thepolicy,Sndings,ndrecommendations

f the GhentConferenceas published, in both EnglishandGerman,n the November1975 issue oftheeriodical ntedace,a jointpublicationbytheniversitiesof GhentandUtrecht.A con-siderablyorecomprehensive ersion,whichwillombine he GhentSndingswith the In-dex'ecommendationsnmattershat or ackofime could not be dealt with duringtheconference,s presentlybeingprepared ymeforublicationby W. W. Norton&Compa-ny.Meanwhile,an annotatedinternationalbibliographyf some 500 entries has beenpreparedy GeraldWarfield nd the staffofthendex of New MusicalNotation,and isabouto be releasedby the Music LibraryAssociation.astly,IndianaUniversityPresswillublisha collectionof about iftytypicalnotationalnalysesofrepresentativeomposi-tionsrom the period under discussion, aspreparedytheIndexproject.

Newotation orvocal musicThe ollowingnotational igns anddevicesforocal musicrepresent samplingof thoseselectedy the Index projectand laterdis-cussed,odified if deemed desirable,andendorsedytheGhentConference.

Noticehat only half these answers (whichconstitutehe first

fifteenanswersreceivedfrommerican respondents)show a glis-sandoastingall the way to the end of thethreeeats thatis, through he thirdeighthofhe secondmeasure Numbers , 5, 7, 8, 9,14,nd 15). Observe, oo, that in two of theanswersherequested"downward lissando"goesp (Numbers3 and 4). Finally,noticethato two solutions are alike. Now try toimaginehe confusion createdby the totalnumberf answers: pproximately00 filled-outuestionnaireswerereturned!Afterabulatinghe resultsof the question-

mej/october76 53



(1) The notationof rhythm n vocal musicshouldbe identicalwiththatin instrumentalmusic.This:

>

Ky - ri - e e - le- i- son, e - le - i - son.

Not this:

iA j Cz1TSKy - ri - e e - le - i - son, e - le - i - son.

The "stemlet" marked y an asterisk n Fig-ure la above)is optional in simple rhythmtextures uchasthese, butit shouldbeusedifthe rhythmis complex. It is recommendedthatnotationwithand withoutstemletsnotbemixedwithinthe samepiece ormovement.

(2 Different types of voice productionshouldbe notatedas follows:(a) NormalVoicc as in Figure a above.(b) Sprechgesang normalnotation,but withan "x"added othe stem:

P I 2 11

Ky - ri - e e - le - i - son, e - 1e - i - son.

(c) SpeakingVoice closer oordinarypeakingthanSprechgesang, hichinliteral ranslationmeans speech-song) with the "x" now re-placingthe notehead.Thereare several ypesof speaking-voice otation:

(i) speechonfairlycontrolledpitches:

:<: + ¢ 5 |; Ch

etc.

s

Ky - ri- e ele-i-son,e - le - i - son.

(ii) speechwithapproximate p-and-downinflections-noted with a centralpitch-referenceine:

ey - ri - le- i -

54 mej/october '76

l X |

< 1 W



etc.

or, notatedwith outsidepitch-referencelines:

Ky - ri- e le- i

(d) Spoken (ordinary peech), with rhythmgiven but no inflection notated without astaffor referenceines:

(e) Whispering notatedas in "Spoken," utwith broken tems:

, 3

I- le - i - son, e

4 , , ; -I ,8 A. k k it k

Ky - ri- e e

I ,, , ,

le - i -on.

If it is considered desirable to retain thenormal taffduringspokenor whisperedpas-sages, the x-shaped noteheads should beplacedon an extra taff ine drawn wo spacesbelow the staff:

m,f w

X 1. > >4 v , etc.

Ky - n - e e - le - i-son

Occasionally, ne finds spoken or whisperedtext notatedwith headless stems. This is not

recommendedbecause with stems only it isimpossible to distinguish between quarternotes and half notes.

(3) MouthPositions could logically be in-dicatedby the followingsymbols, romclosedto wide open:

- o o

These symbols were rejected, however, be-cause "-" could be mistaken or a tenuto ineand "o" (being identical to the sign for har-

mej/october '76 55

-

X I J W

7 .FE 1 r XKy - ri - e e - le - i - son, e - le - i - son.



monics)mightbe misinterpreteds a symbolf;oralsetto.As a result,a heavierand slightlylonger ine, tworectangles, nd a squarewereadopted, n the followingorder:

closed: _

slightlyopen: E

open: o

wide open: O

(4) Tongueclicks (orclucks)shouldbe no-tatedon a separate ingle line below the staff,

oron a line thatreplaces he staff.Lettersmaybe addedto indicatethe approximate owelsounds:

t___H' Q ' S ' l

a o

be used in connection with

tongue licks

F j 1 X ' r T fI love life

(The grace-note"x" was endorsed n Ghenteven thoughone also encounters he follow-ing signs for grace notes fairly fre-

quently:1 1 and ; i. However, sincetongueclicksarenot used very often,so thattheywouldhave tobe identifiedverballyany-way, at leaston firstoccurrence,t was decid-ed to reservethese two distinctivesigns formore mportant ffects.)

(5) Falsettohouldbenotatedwithdiamond-shapednoteheads:

falsetto e

A):1 J I I te - lei - son

(6) Audible inhalingand exhalingareno-tated with wedge-like signs on stems. Al-

thoughone does findthesign C for nhaling,it was rejectedn favorof thefollowingsigns,with "IN" and "EX >"addedon firstoccur-rence: , EX

1 n c r

Ky - .n- e e -

The stem appearsat the end of the inhalewedge becauseit is there that the breath smostaudibleandthat it canbe discontinuedmostnoticeably nd precisely. Thismaywellbe the only note device in which the soundprecedesthe beat-part f the note.)

For mostother ndications, he GhentCon-ferencerecommended he use of verbal in-structions ather han symbols.

Theprecedingrecommendationsbviouslydo not includethemoreadventurous otationwe sometimesencounter n scores.However,

one cannotand should not attempt o stan-dardizewhat is, by definition,antistandard.Evenso, a few notationaleatures f relativelyfree vocal notationhave been used so oftenthatthey havecomedangerously lose to be-comingstandarddevices in spiteof it all.

Oneof the most frequently ncountered sthatof dynamics"builtinto" the text, eitherby way of differencesn the size of the lettersor words,or throughdifferent hicknessesofthe letters.

tonglle ,1

clicks o

Clicks may also. .

regu ar slnglng:

Either:

K Y - Rl E E L E - - S O N

Or:

Occasionally,these two methods are com-bined.

Anotherpractice s to indicateapproximatepitch inflectionsof the voice by movingthetext up anddown as it progresses:

lei - son e lei - son

This notationcan easily be combinedwiththatof built-indynamics. Actually, f course,all this can be notatedjust as effectivelybymore conventional means-only then itwouldnot lookas "advanced.") M1

Editor'sNote: Next month, Kurt Stone will con-tinue his discussion of new notation with an expla-nation of signs that are not confined to vocal musicexclusively and of innovations that are specificallyapplicable to the notation of instrumentalmusic.

KY- Rl - E E - LE - I - SON

Documents

Kurt Stone - New Notation for New Music I