Ulman, Erik. 'Some Thoughts on the New Complexity'. Perspectives ...

Some <strong>Thoughts</strong> on the New ComplexityAuthor(s): <strong>Erik</strong> <strong>Ulman</strong>Source: Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Winter, 1994), pp. 202-206Published by: Perspectives of New MusicStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/833163 .Accessed: 20/11/2013 10:48Your 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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..Perspectives of New Music is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspectivesof New Music.http://www.jstor.orgThis content downloaded from 144.32.156.59 on Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:48:29 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

204Perspectives of New Musicwork the experience of complexity may shift from formal structure to theacoustical richness of a single chord.All of these musics, if they sustain critical attention and different pathsof interpretation, are valuable and "complex": their collective motto mayhave been written by Cage in a letter to Boulez, in which he describes hisartistic task as "[understanding] thoroughly all the quantities that act toproduce multiplicity."6 Why, then, should a movement be labelled withthe term "complexity" on the mere basis of, say, notational specificity?This narrow understanding of the word is objectionable. I certainly haveno problem calling such works as Barrett's Coigitum or Ferneyhough'sCarceri d'invenzione cycle complex: here, intricacy is not merely on thesurface but constitutes the "being" of the music, whether in terms ofnotation, relations among parts, cultural subtexts, and so forth. However,some "complex" music is not complex according to my criteria: itselaborateness of notation and difficulty of performance do not fostermultiplicity and subtle distinction, but strain after obvious effect. InXenakis's less successful works, for instance, the apparent complexity ofsurface detail reveals itself to the ear as producing exceedingly simplecontrasts of texture which, however immediately striking, reveal fewerand fewer dimensions with time. (I hasten to add that there is muchXenakis of which I am very fond, and that I, among others,7 aminterested in its exploration of the realm between complex and simplephenomena; at times, however, this dialectic fails to emerge.) This problemis certainly not unique to Xenakis, but is evident in various pieces byyounger composers. Several times I have examined a score and beenexcited by its apparent vitality, only to hear what had looked so powerfulin the notation shrivel to banality.I do not dispute the claim advanced by composers as different asFerneyhough and Feldman that the score is a powerful object whichinflects performance in many ways that are difficult to verbalize. Someinteresting music has been specifically concerned with the potential discrepanciesbetween music as "text" and music as sound: Bussotti's earlywork in particular reveals the score not as a stable unity but as a palimpsestin which description, prescription, and compositional residue mayinteract unpredictably. These explorations are not too distant fromFerneyhough's, in whose scores the wealth of notational detail is thenecessary product of a "polyphonicization" of all the parameters of composition,thus not only prescribing performance, but also indicating theturbulent play of forces from which the music arises.8 However, if notationcan signify richness and multivalency, may it not also conceal theirabsence? Sometimes the "complex" score becomes an intimidationmechanism, staving off critical scrutiny by cultivating incomprehension,This content downloaded from 144.32.156.59 on Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:48:29 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Some <strong>Thoughts</strong> on the New Complexity205substituting colorful notational and verbal detail for musical detail, anddepending on an inevitable inaccuracy of interpretation for either a genuinelyimprovisatory performative power or a final excuse for the failure ofthe material to present itself audibly. In these cases, the aura of the "NewComplexity" erodes critical attention and approaches the condition of apublicity strategy.These are harsh words, and I do not mean to dismiss the validity ofmuch "newly complex" music, nor do I wish to launch into diatribesagainst work that has not convinced me. I am also aware of the subjectivismof my stance: I don't have a clear means of distinguishing the genuinefrom the ersatz score except by hearing which pieces engage me, andwhich don't. However, some composers' cavalier attitude to accuracy ofperformance reinforces my skepticism regarding their notational practice.I remember talking to a performer who had worked very closely with thecomposer of a very beautiful piece. Although I had enjoyed her performance,I was curious why she had played a certain gesture, which hadbeen notated as rhythmically regular, as irregularly as what surrounded it.She responded, I'm sure with the sanction of the composer, that sincethe rhythmic notation was generally a written rubato, she felt justified inapplying rubato everywhere. I felt, to the contrary, that the irregularity ofthe context made the accurate interpretation of the regular figure imperative,so as to realize the notated contrast.This disagreement did not diminish my enthusiasm for the piece, norfor the performer; but, in light of the composer's apparent approval ofwhat seriously distorted his notation, I was unconvinced that the score'sextreme rigor was necessary. This experience, coupled with my disappointmentat hearing pieces whose scores had fascinated me, made mesuspicious of some of my own recent work, whose "complexity" hadbeen increasing: I was no longer certain whether my notation was commensuratewith density of ideas, or camouflaged their insufficiency. Ihave not resolved this issue, not having a chance to hear that recentwork, but have proceeded more cautiously.At its best, the "New Complexity" represents a range of options thatare a welcome antidote to the sterility of "academic serialism" in thiscountry, and even more to the aggressive vapidity of "the mock-astralplane of musical yuppiedom"9 represented by most "new simplicity,""new romanticism," "new vernacular," and so on. At its worst, it permitscomposers to evade compositional accountability by substituting thetrappings of complexity-we may call them "complications"-for complexityitself. I think it important that the worthy task of creating complexmusic not degenerate into the manufacture of mere simulacra.This content downloaded from 144.32.156.59 on Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:48:29 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

206Perspectives of New MusicNOTES1. Chris Dench, "Sulle Scale della Fenice: Postscript," Perspectives of NewMusic 29, no. 2 (Summer 1991): 101.2. Richard Toop, "Sulle Scale della Fenice," Perspectives of New Music29, no. 2 (Summer 1991): 90.3. Michael Finnissy, English Country Tunes, Etcetera compact disc KTC1091 (1990).4. See Brian Ferneyhough, "Form, Figure, Style-An IntermediateAssessment," Perspectives of New Music 31, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 33-34.5. Morton Feldman, "Boola Boola," in Essays (Cologne: BeginnerPress, 1985), 52.6. Pierre Boulez and John Cage, Correspondance et documents, ed. Jean-Jacques Nattiez (Winterthur: Amadeus Verlag/Paul Sacher Stiftung,1990), 179.7. James Boros, "Why Complexity? (Part Two)," in this issue of Perspectivesof New Music.8. Brian Ferneyhough and James Boros, "Shattering the Vessels ofReceived Wisdom," Perspectives of New Music 28, no. 2 (Summer1990): 11, 16.9. James Boros, "Why Complexity? (Part One)," Perspectives of NewMusic 31, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 7.This content downloaded from 144.32.156.59 on Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:48:29 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions