Download Jeff Miller HONR 370 12/19/11 The Changing Role of the Performer

Jeff Miller
HONR 370
12/19/11
The Changing Role of the Performer Since the 20th Century
The traditional roles that define music can be separated into three
categories: composer, listener and performer. The relationship is usually symbiotic,
with the composer writing and structuring the music, the listener consuming the
end result, and the performer acting as a conduit between the two. Sometimes,
technology replaces the role of the performer via vinyl, CDs, mp3s, the radio and
other forms of recorded music. Our society tends to highly regard the composers for
their talent and skill in composition. With this in mind, coupled with the fact that we
are all listeners of music, the performer’s role is often neglected or forgotten.
Despite this, music since the 20th century has offered a variety of different and
evolving roles for the performer.
A common view of the performer, at least in regards to classical music, is that
they take a passive role in the performance. Their duty is to express the music as the
composer wishes. Igor Stravinsky viewed a piece of music not as a representation of
the composer’s “inner drives,” but rather as an “objective arrangement of pitches in
time” (Schwartz 48). In coherence with this idea, Stravinsky believed it was the
performer’s responsibility to convey these objective aspects without adding their
own interpretation (Dorian 324). Longer musical phrases and rhythmical elasticity
lends themselves to the performer’s interpretation, so Stravinsky employs shorter
motifs that are harder to stray away from (326). This can be heard in Stravinsky’s
piece The Rite of Spring in the section “The Augurs of Spring: Dances of the Young
Girls.” By alternating the short, repetitive rhythmical sections with those of slower
material, Stravinsky restricts the performer’s ability to stray from the score.
At around the same time as the premiere of The Rite of Spring, the player
piano began to gain popularity. The player piano is loaded with perforated
parchment, the holes of which indicate specific notes to be played, and the piano
reads and plays them. The player piano is therefore capable of making music
without performers, but it also allowed composers like Conlon Nancarrow to
compose music without worrying about a performer’s ability to reproduce it. For
example, Nancarrow’s 3rd Study for Player Piano features a very fast tempo
sustained throughout the piece that would prove incredibly difficult for a human
performer to pull off. It also includes several events occurring simultaneously, and
key combinations that would be impossible for a performer to manage. For the first
time in the 20th century, composers turned to technology to replace performers, and
it resulted in opening up the possibilities of music.
John Cage’s 4’33” seems to raise questions about every aspect of music, and
the role of the performer is no exception. Cage had already turned performers into
carpenters with his pieces for prepared piano, but 4’33” does something else
entirely. The piece instructs the performer to refrain from playing their instrument
for three movements totaling four minutes and thirty-three seconds. Although the
performer’s role in the piece is very passive, their presence is absolutely necessary.
Not only do they need to indicate the beginning and ending of the individual
movements, but also if the performer is not present, the piece does not exist. The
piece was not designed by Cage to put a copyright on silence, but instead to create
“occasions for experience,” in which the environment provides the “music”
(Schwartz 339). Additionally, the performer no longer needs to have any musical
talent or skill. Presumably, if I wanted to do a performance of 4’33” on the guitar, I
could, even though I cannot play the guitar. Cage’s piece, which questions what it
takes to be a performer, shattered the musical expectations of everything that came
before it. By foregoing composition, Cage as a composer takes a passive role in 4’33”,
which combined with the performer’s passive role, leaves the heavy lifting to be
done by the listener (Griffiths 227). Cages forces the listener to take a more
dominant and active role in the composition.
4’33” is an example of an open-form composition. Open form compositions
do not have a fixed end result and vary from performance to performance in
structure and form (Open Form). Closed form compositions on the other hand have
little or negligible variations between performances. Not only do open form
compositions require live performance, but they also require multiple live
performances so that the variations can be explored. While closed form
compositions offer direct contact with the composer’s intentions, open form
compositions allow the performer to take creative responsibility (Open Form).
One of the most famous examples of an open form composition is Earle
Brown’s piece December 1952. The piece is an example of a graphic score, or musical
notation that features no musical notes.
Source: http://uncertaintimes.tumblr.com/post/419684237/earle-brown-december-1952
Brown’s composition offers no directions for performance aside from the lines of
varying direction, width and shading. Inspired by the unpredictable and the
spontaneous, Brown’s December 1952 leaves all the musical decisions up to the
performer (Griffiths 32). As expected, performances of the piece fluctuate
immensely, from solo piano versions to ensemble pieces including visual or dancing
aspects. Presumably, I could create my own performance of December 1952 using
sounds found within Beatles recordings. Performers of the piece are allowed to take
risks like this, but a performance of December 1952 cannot be random. To do so
would be lazy and demeaning. Even though the piece does not explain the
instructions it gives, it is still imperative that these instructions be followed. It
should be noted that although the performances consist of the ideas of the
performer, the composition is still Brown’s. The freedom and control that Brown
gives to performers was previously absent from music.
Terry Riley’s minimalist piece In C also gives the performer a certain amount
of freedom and control, though not quite as much as December 1952. The score calls
for the group of performers (the size of which may vary considerably) to play a set
of 53 different musical phrases:
Source: http://mixedmeters.com/2009/12/could-terry-rileys-in-c-be-accepted-as.html
The performers of the piece make individual decisions on when to move onto the
next musical phrase. Contrary to December 1952, the musical content of In C is
controlled by the composer. Instead, the performers are responsible for the length
of the performance, because the speed with which they move through the motifs
determines the duration of a performance. Additionally, their choices also create
interesting and varying musical combinations, as different phrases are played
simultaneously and in different phasing. Performances of In C require some sort of
communication (either through body language, or perhaps previous understanding)
between all the performers in order to pull the piece off. One performer cannot
move through the piece with breakneck speed whilst another is more reserved in
their attempt. This sort of communication is common (and frankly, essential) in
another form of music, improvisation.
Improvisational or spontaneous music is music created in the moment by
performers in a live setting. Spontaneous music differs from composed music, which
is written in advance and when performed live retains some sort of permanence,
despite the uniqueness of each performance (Pearson 371). Spontaneous music
places the responsibility of creating the music completely on the performer, fusing
the roles of composer and performer (Curran 483). But where composers are free to
meticulously consider the effects and progression of the music in their composition,
and even retroactively edit it, the “composers” of spontaneous music must be
comfortable creating music in real time. Because of this, improvisational music
features those elements that the performers understand well enough to control and
manipulate in real time (Spontaneous).
The act of creating in a live atmosphere is particularly important to
spontaneous music. Recordings of improvisations are often considered pointless or
antithetical because they destroy the impermanence inherent to spontaneous music.
In spontaneous music, the process responsible for creating the music is considered
the “art,” not the end product (Pearson 374). Alvin Curran, one of the founders of
the improvisational group Musica Elettronica Viva, says that improvised music is
normally based on something, whether it is as concrete as a melody or rhythmic
pattern or as abstract as a memory or dream (484). Since improvisation doesn’t
necessarily require musical skill, it opens up the possibilities for who can be a
performer (485). The idea that anyone can be a musician foreshadows modern
laptop or sample-based musicians who don’t possess any knowledge on how to play
a musical instrument and opens up the debate on composer’s rights.
One of the “composers” who spearheaded and advanced improvisational
music was Anthony Braxton. Braxton tried to free his music from notation because
he saw it as an ally to those composers who prioritized the technical characteristics
of music over the sonic qualities (Schwartz 463). As a result, Braxton uses graphic
notation for his compositions. Like Brown’s December 1952, Braxton’s scores do not
feature any musical notes or suggestions, everything occurs spontaneously.
Braxton’s graphic scores differ from Brown’s in that Braxton’s exist more for
inspiration, whereas Brown’s are for instruction, even if that instruction is
undirected. Braxton’s compositions are marked by a lack of rhythmical structure
and frequent use of a trilling effect. In his compositions in which he is not the sole
performer, multiple lines of activity running with different tempos are common.
Part of Braxton’s reliance on extended improvisation and soloing stems from his
belief that emotion cannot be composed, but needs to be brought to a piece by the
performer (465). The myriad of different emotions that a performer could be feeling
on the night of any given performance would then most successfully be expressed
through improvisation. At the same time, it would be unnatural to expect a jubilant
performer to effectively convey the desired emotional resonance of Barber’s Adagio
for Strings.
Source: http://inconstantsol.blogspot.com/2009/02/anthony-braxton-composition-113-sound.html
Brian Ferneyhough’s ideas about the performer lie in counterpoint to
Braxton’s with regards to emotional freedom and creative control. Ferneyhough
sought complete control over every aspect of the composition as a composer – not
only which notes are being played, but also when and how they are being played.
The musical result is almost an inversion of improvisation; it may be difficult to tell
a Braxton piece and a Ferneyhough piece apart strictly by ear, but where Braxton’s
decisions are spontaneous, Ferneyhough’s are meticulously planned. Ferneyhough’s
scores are so detailed and often feature conflicting demands that the performer’s
failure is predestined. A “valid realization” is still possible, so long as the performer
makes a vigorous attempt at reproducing as much from the score as possible
(Griffiths 302). Ferneyhough’s music shares a sentiment with Nancarrow’s; both
feature music so technically complex that they are impossible to perform by
humans. The difference is that Nancarrow’s Player Piano Studies don’t use a human
performer, and pieces like Ferneyhough’s Carceri d’Invenzione IIb do.
Source: http://www.muziekcentrumnederland.nl/muziek-informatie-centrum/schatgraven/brianferneyhough-carceri-dinvenzione-iib-for-solo-flute/
In Ferneyhough’s compositions, the performer is the object of the composer’s will.
There is so much occurring in the score simultaneously, that it becomes impossible
to see ahead, leaving the performer in a constant state of surprise and suspense
(302). Because his pieces had lofty expectations for the performer, Ferneyhough
would often write pieces with specific performers in mind. Here is yet another new
role for the performer – that of inspiration and intention. The composer may write a
piece of music directed towards the strengths or weaknesses of a particular
performer. If this is the case, then the work loses some of its significance if it is
separated from its performer (Pearson 372).
Ferneyhough’s music was similar to most of the music that came before it in
the sense that the composers wrote music to be performed by others (though some
composers like Terry Riley and Steve Reich would perform their pieces alongside
other musicians). Improvisational music was the first time that the performer was
also (and always) the composer as well. This practice is very common in more
popular forms of music. Rock bands like Genesis in the 1970s and singer-
songwriters like Bob Dylan and Elton John would compose their music before
performing it on tours. In these cases, the composer’s presence is essential to a live
performance. Even when group members rarely share compositional duties (Roger
Daltrey, Robert Plant) their presence as integral performers is still desired.
There is a modern tendency to place the importance of a musical work in the
hands of the performer in these cases. For example, a David Bowie rendition of
“Space Oddity” or “Changes” is considered much more legitimate than say, a Pink
Floyd version. The same is not true for classical music. As long as the orchestra or
performers are respected or considered competent, there is no disdain if they are to
perform the works of respected composers like Bach or Stravinsky. Interestingly,
songs are often considered as “belonging” to certain artists or performers if they
release the first recorded version of the piece, even if they didn’t write it. “Umbrella”
is probably Rihanna’s most famous song, but it was written by four different
songwriters, none of which were Rihanna. Even if the composer is a famous
recording artist in his or her own right, the performer still takes precedence. For
instance Ke$ha was one of the co-writers on Britney Spears’ “Till the World Ends,”
yet the song is still considered “Britney’s”(though Ke$ha has earned some level of
association with the song thanks to a popular remix she was featured on). Perhaps
the reason for such an emphasis on the performer in popular music is its reliance on
image and branding over musical content. The fact that “Till the World Ends” is a
Britney Spears song may be more important financially than the musical content of
the song itself. The dependence on performers as the primary agents of authenticity
in popular music runs into problems when the performer has died. What constitutes
an ideal performance of “Imagine,” written and performed by John Lennon? Since
Lennon has been dead since 1980, the easiest answer is probably the studio
recording of the song.
Recordings of songs may exist as “studio-perfected” performances, in which
cases technology again takes the role of the performer (Chapman 245). As in other
instances in which technology replaced the performer, the recording delivers the
music exactly as the composer intends. An emerging trend in popular music is that
of sampling and remixing. These concepts involve altering, combining or extracting
bits of sound from recorded music and using them to develop a new piece. Some
artists use hundreds of samples to construct new songs while others are content
with combining existing songs in relatively unchanged forms. Sample artists like Girl
Talk have gained notoriety off of their ability to make music from pre-existing
music. This type of music itself results in astounding musical combinations that
would be impossible to reproduce live, like the Notorious B.I.G. rapping over Elton
John’s “Tiny Dancer.” As both a composer and performer, Girl Talk’s instrument is
his laptop. Technology, which initially replaced the performer, now expands the
capabilities and skills needed to perform music. Almost ironically, sample and
remix-based music when performed live tends to have improvisational qualities to
it. Girl Talk’s live shows happen in real time, as Greg Gillis (the man behind Girl
Talk) sequences a variety of loops and samples together to create danceable music
(Lazar 42). The timing required pulling it off and the knowledge of the loops needed
is impressive. Essentially, Girl Talk is improvising with pre-recorded sounds rather
than individual notes or musical phrases.
Some people believe that performers are essential to music; that they offer
necessary interpretation and humanity to the music they perform. The individual
nuances of a performer or performance can give the piece a beauty and
impermanence. On the other hand, others argue that performers are expensive,
egotistical and inefficient stopgaps that are much more competent when replaced by
technology. Since the 20th century, the performer has encountered a variety of new
roles that both challenge and expand the amount of control they share in a musical
piece. The popularity of sample-based music is changing the notion of live
performance as well. As music continues to develop, so will the role of the
performer.
Works Cited
Chapman, Owen. "The Elusive Allure Of "Aura": Sample-Based Music And Benjamin's
Practice Of Quotation." Canadian Journal Of Communication 36.2 (2011):
243-261. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Nov. 2011.
Curran, Alvin. "On Spontaneous Music." Contemporary Music Review 25.5/6 (2006):
483-490. Music Index. Web. 22 Nov. 2011.
Dorian, Frederick. The History of Music in Performance. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 1942. Print.
Griffiths, Paul. Modern Music and After. 3rd Edition. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2010. Print.
Kleinsasser, William. Open Form – Closed Form. Print.
Kleinsasser, William. Spontaneous Music: the rise of group and individual
improvisation in Western Concert music. Print.
Lazar, Zachary. "The 373-Hit Wonder." New York Times Magazine (2011): 38.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
Pearson, Valerie. "Authorship And Improvisation: Musical Lost Property."
Contemporary Music Review 29.4 (2010): 367-378. Music Index. Web. 22
Nov. 2011.
Schwartz, Elliott, and Barney Childs, eds. Contemporary Composers on
Contemporary Music. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967. Print.