Ben Isaacs – allone

We have all heard pieces that, upon first hearing them, change the way we interact with and listen to music. Ordinarily, this is a response to a kind of impressive hardcore-itude. We are faced with something which, through the sheer force of its existence, its facticity, changes everything we hear after it. I remember hearing Xenakis’ Eonta for the first time, for instance. Or Barrett’s Opening of the Mouth. Or Machaut’s Lai de la fonteinne. All works that, essentially through force of personality, resulted in my no longer being the same listener as I had been before. This process of cognitive alteration may be superficially, but perhaps adequately, described as fitting a kind of dialectical model: we are presented with something currently lying outside our assumed expressive norms. We reconcile that outlying stimulus with our existing cognitive apparatus, and move on, our musical and cognitive world having been embiggened by the experience.

Hearing Ben Isaacs‘ allone for the first time was pretty important for me. This experience was, however, unique in that the process of alteration occurred within the piece itself. allone calmly, nonchalantly, set about refiguring my frame of musical cognition in the course of listening to it. It was not simply a case of ‘before the piece’ and ‘after the piece’, but rather a constantly modulating ‘during the piece’.

Let me (try to) explain.

The structure of allone is almost mindlessly simple. The piece is a kind of triptych, with each panel lasting approximately 90 seconds. Each panel is based around a high pedal point – the first and last panels feature a (concert) Bb in the clarinet, the middle panel a top D in the cello. The first and final sections elaborate this pedal through a multitude of delicate, flickering filigree (the first more than the final section, in which the pedal is continually present).


Section 1 – Pedallin’

The first section is parse-able as, well, ‘normal’ music. It has pitches and rhythms. It has a relationship with musical time that is not particularly foreign to new music of what might be thought of as the Western Classical Tradition via European modernism. Sure, it never really coalesces into a language of primarily gestural coherence, but anybody who has listened to Ligeti or Xenakis (or Tallis or Ockeghem, for that matter) will not find the lack of gesturality, or clear motive-style relationships problematic in itself. The first section presents as music of a notable ephemeral, shimmering gorgeousness, but not music that in any way stands in a problematic relationship with what we understand its context to be.

This context is important. It is not so much a question of genre quibbles, or teleological lineage, so much as the manner in which a piece of music informs the conditions of its own perception; the cognitive mechanics (or software) that the musical morphology implies we are to use in order to process its ‘discursive logic’*. In the case of allone‘s first section, the manner in which pitch, rhythm, sonority and texture operate suggests to us that, like most music, its materials are to be interpreted as viable ‘objects’ in their own right; that the definition of a given parameter is a concrete and definable condition. That a given notated pitch or rhythm has that specific identity, and that identity is meaningful both as a unit and in its various relationships with surrounding material. That the relationships between these finite, definable entities are of primary validity in determining the expressive character of the music. More simply stated, what material is in the first section is basically what we expect ‘material’ to do in new music.

The central panel is something rather different. The entire section is a single note of 60-90″ duration, played within a single up-bow on the cello. The absurdly slow bow-speed results in a sound that is mostly noise, with occasional, infinitesimally small windows of pitch. It is a highly unstable sonority. Furthermore, it’s sheer duration is perceptually provocative. The semiological terms under which we have hitherto been operating disintegrate within the course of this single note.


Section 2 – Witchcraft!

But this doesn’t happen immediately, of course. For a time, we attempt to continue with the previously-applicable cognitive mechanism. The first section imposes its character upon the second section, which subsequently becomes starkly characterised by its non-eventfulness. For me, on first hearing, this lasted about 20 seconds. 20 seconds of an exhilarating/painful nothing, that defied all previously implied relationships between material and time in the piece. But for this 20 seconds I was still hearing this single pitch in terms of it being a viable ‘material’. That is, a single, extremely long, only occasionally pitched, entity. And then a noticeable shift happened. As if the ties holding me to a normative idea of material suddenly broke free and latched onto the minuscule variations within this single tone. The tone suddenly exploded into a welter of activity, the constituent parts of a fragile, unstable sonority suddenly atomised, becoming sensually meaningful. Like gradually walking towards a Cézanne, the external coherence of what the ‘object’ purportedly is (according to the notation, at least) evaporated in the play of microevents, the complex ecology existing within the sound itself foregrounded.

What is significant is that a discursive logic that was hitherto found in ‘material’ is relocated. The variations in the sustained cello note become material, although not a material that operates in a grammatical way.

As already mentioned, the first and final sections are very similar, and yet the imposition of this central panel renders the two not at all alike in terms of their signification. The sustained D in the cello completely reconditions the manner in which we cognitively interpret – construct music out of – the musical cues with which the performance provides us. Despite having returned to a more ‘typical’ use of material, that material is no longer the same. The notion of coherent material is essentially a communally agreed-upon fiction, or rather, material coheres only because we all agree that it can, and having borne witness to the total disintegration of that fiction, when the piece asks us once again to believe in the validity of material, there is an almost melancholy hollowness to it. It’s like watching Bruce Banner remaining totally chill when we’ve already seen the Hulk: the character has been redefined in terms of its capacity, and becomes irrelevant, or incomplete, or outright specious other than in direct reference to that extended, defining, capacity.

Section 3

Section 3

Musical conditions that rob the music of traditionally semantic function are an enduring feature of Ben’s work. His recent work with pieces of extended duration – notably the piano + CD work too expanding (2011) – are perhaps superficially more similar to the opening and closing sections of allone than to its more polemical central panel. But this is where the aforementioned failure/refusal to coalesce into a primarily gestural language comes in. We may be comfortable with non-gestural music when it has a clear structural logic. Or a trajectory. Or something, anything, that contextualises and provides reason for things being the way they are. In other words, a form. But what if it doesn’t? Or what if that form is repressed to the point of non-presence? What if the first section of allone, for instance, continued, unbroken, for one hour?

What results is a musical language not of logic, or material, or grammar, but rather of sensation, of tactility.

This post was prompted by allone‘s being on the programme of the some recent silences concert in King’s Place, and I wanted to briefly divert into a consideration of the role of silence in the music of Ben Isaacs in general (not just in allone).

In his interview with Tim Rutherford-Johnson in the lead-up to that concert, Ben has the following to say about the role that silence plays in his music:

Almost no role at all! Or at least it’s not really an aspect I explicitly consider whilst composing. However, over the last five years I have focused on writing extremely quiet and fragile music, so for an audience it does quite possibly draw attention to the act of listening in a similar way to music which does deal with silence (however the word is understood) more overtly. For me, this is a wholly welcome outcome of the work as I’m very much attracted to the sense of ‘live-ness’ musical performance can engender, though I tend to avoid pauses of any substantial length in order to maintain a continual fragility of sound. I often write in my performance instructions that the sound should be ‘barely there’, with the implication that it is ‘there’ nonetheless.

I sort of take issue with this. While it may be true in the the sense that there is very little in the way of actual, notated Silence, on a purely personal level I find this somehow perceptually or phenomenologically disingenuous.

Because I think that the music of Ben Isaacs has everything to do with silence.

Further, I think it has more to do with silence than a lot of other music that is very quiet, or features a great deal of explicit silence. When listening to Ben’s music, I am aware not only of the sounds produced by the instruments, but also acutely aware of the silence (both literal and conceptual) that lies behind them. It’s like one hears through the sounds to the terrifyingly eternal, cosmic silence beyond. It is a silence that the sounds seems always to be in some kind struggle to hold at bay, to drown out.

Agnes Martin - Stars (1963)

Agnes Martin – Stars (1963)

This music often makes me think of the work of Agnes Martin. Of the way a ‘static’ distribution of colour lies translucent upon the canvas or paper. The presence of empty/visible paper within the frame of the painting (i.e. within its field of operation), through the colour, carries a very different significance from visible paper clearly intended to lies outside that frame. The latter is an emptiness defined through its not belonging to the painting. In fact, it is not really correct to say that it is empty – it is rather external. In the former case, however, this emptiness exists in a potent and profound manner – the image is literally unable to obscure it, and the image is defined by its inability to do so. When we look at the work of Agnes Martin, we are looking at colour trying and failing to assert itself against the constant risk of being drowned out by the  emptiness behind it.

I hear a similar relationship between sound and silence in Ben’s music. The silence is not one defined by the framing qualities of the sound itself, but rather one that sits behind it, one that is imperfectly disguised by the presence of sound. Perhaps this has something to do with the intrinsic qualities of fragility: the word fragility implies the risk of breaking, of disintegration. And in Ben’s music, when that object breaks, we are not left only with the constituent parts of the object, but rather the remnant shards of sound itself, sparkling in the void.

* Square-quotes here because of the dubious universal applicability of either “discursive” or “logic”. Although I’d maintain that nonsense is also a logic, and that discursivity is something imposed upon, rather than immanent of, musical stimuli.


some recent silences

Londonites! On Sunday, King’s Place is hosting a concert entitled some recent silences. Curated by Tim Rutherford-Johnson, the concert features the wonderful Apartment House performing a number of recent-ish works that engage in some way with the notion of silence, a theme with which Tim demonstrates a fascinating and ongoing engagement.

Complete details (and tickets!) are available here, but the complete programme is as follows:

G. Douglas Barrett     A Few Silence
Gregory Emfietzis       DIY 1
Mathias Spahlinger   128 erfüllte augenblicke
Ben Isaacs                      allone
György Kurtág              Dumb Show
Charlie Sdraulig          close
Michael Pisaro             Fade

Tim has already posted some interviews on his blog with Gregory Emfietzis, Ben Isaacs and Charlie Sdraulig about their work, and they make for pretty fascinating reading.

Additionally, between now and the concert, I’ll be posting some reflections on the work of Ben Isaacs and Charlie Sdraulig. I’ve known both Ben and Charlie for a number of years, now, and have a pretty intensely personal relationship with their music, which has inspired and informed not only my own music, but also my identity as a listener, in ways too numerous and fundamental to adequately trace.

Wish I was in London to hear this.

ELISION, Ferneyhough, “Terrain”, and the performative tradition of complexity

One of the advantages of having my CD player back is that I can listen, over and over again, to this new release from ELISION ensemble of the music of Brian Ferneyhough on Kairos.

Now, the disclaimer here is that Terrain is pretty much a precision-targeted, Soundisgrammar-seeking love bomb. This is some of my favourite music in the world, performed by some of my favourite performers in the world, and there was pretty much no chance at all that I was going to dislike this disc. But that aside:

It’s amazing.

Apart from being a collection of utterly brilliant, lucid, aggressively argued performances, this disc very much heralds the beginning of a new era in the performance of this music. A coming of age, as it were, of the performance tradition of the new complexity.

I’ve alluded before on these pages to the excitement of being at the coalface of developing performance practices for new music, and Ferneyhough himself has spoken often and eloquently on the subject of interpretation and performance practice in his own music. Here is a lengthy, but representative, example from an interview with James Boros:

In previous ages it was never performances which survived, but scores, notated music. If all the information necessary to a correct interpretation is not contained in a score, it is practically impossible to reconstruct original intentions with any degree of certainty. Only tradition can provide some sort of tenuous continuity in this respect. If you play a Beethoven sonata, you’re not interpreting the notes on the page, you’re interpreting many generations of interpretation, an entire corpus of slowly evolving conventions. Contemporary music has little of this sense of self-reflexive tradition, partly for the obvious reason of being new, but also because of the extreme fragmentation of stylistic continuity so characteristic of the present day. This results in a sort of institutionalized deracination where the performer is all too often reduced to putting the right notes in the right place with little sense of the larger perspective which would make it all make sense to him. If one considers interpretation as the art of meaningful deviation from the text, one will be saddened to hear music played (and – mutatis mutandis – composed and listened to) in this reductive manner. In terms of my own work, I employ what some consider to be over-definition of the musical image as a path to suggesting what might come to replace this interpretive overview. Composers who tend to restrict their notational specifications to a bare minimum end up getting one-dimensional representations of a possible sound-world rather than entering into that world’s inner workings.

What I find particularly compelling about this statement generally, and in connection with this recent release in particular, is the subjective, qualitative difference in performance practice Ferneyhough draws between musics with lengthy traditions and those without (in this case, essentially ‘old’ vs ‘new’ musics). But what are the implications of the presence (or absence) or such performative tradition?

The first is the degree to which what is on the page is able to be regarded as intrinsically valid as a prescription of performative or sonic action. The complexity of Ferneyhough’s notation has been the source of much verbiage in journals, interviews (there’s scarcely an interview with BF that doesn’t at some point include a question to the effect of “So… your notation is super tricky. What’s that all about?”), programme notes, liner notes, etc. I think it’s fair to say that Ferneyhough’s notational practices have taken on an almost mythical aura of complexity, a sort of in-built notational polemicism that, for my money, has very little to do with the musical content of his scores.

Related to this is the perception of virtuosity. Now, I don’t believe anyone would go so far as to suggest that the music of Brian Ferneyhough is anything but virtuosic, but once again, the discourse on this music is dominated by this almost polemical aura of virtuosity. One has the sense that for nearly fifty years, now, the battle in performing this music has been solely one of mustering the necessary technique to jump the performative hurdles that Ferneyhough has laid down.

The absence of tradition in both of these instances results in an unnecessary and undesirable foregrounding of these superficial extramusical qualities. The constellation of sundry issues relating to the music’s presentation, appearance, and learning is forced into a position of prominence that effectively obscures the underlying musical and expressive elements. The presence of a tradition, on the other hand, results in the progressive perspectivisation of these sundry elements in relation to the music. By interpreting an existing tradition, the notes on the page are imbued with a de facto underlying validity, empowering performers  to ‘speak’ from the base of, interpret and amplify (for example) a highly charged rhythmic scheme, rather than fight their way through a tangled and impenetrable rhythmic web.

Graeme Jennings, apparently not breaking a sweat...

This is not to say that we’ve made a simple step from an absence of tradition to that tradition’s presence. Rather, tradition is a constantly evolving body of communal knowledge, propagated and augmented by the act of performance, an act which unavoidably takes place in dialogue with tradition, however limited that tradition may be. The present recording is a watershed in the discography not because it heralds the sudden arrival of a meaningful tradition, but rather because it presents us with by far the most cohesive document yet of that tradition’s evolution. Obviously, this is very difficult music, but ELISION’s players chew this up seemingly without breaking a sweat (or, at least, they’re sweating Good Sweat). These revelatory performances amplify the tensions and lines of force embedded in the score without undue focus on the perceived ‘difficulty’ of this music.

It may seem that, due to the nature of the praise I’m heaping on this disc, that I am, by default, rubbishing every previous recording of Ferneyhough. I’m not. Indeed, there are parts of the Ferneyhough discography which have been almost life-altering in their significance for me. But this really is a blindingly amazing CD, and is without a doubt the finest set of performance of Ferneyhough’s music available by quite a large margin. I’ll go out on a limb and say that it’s one of the finest discs of new music around.


Coming up in Melbourne

Tonight is Lucky Number – a performance of music by little-known Australian experimental composer Syd Clayton.

Tomorrow is ModArt09 – new works for vocal ensemble performed by The Song Company directed by Roland Peelman.

Tuesday 28 July is ELISION in Session – including modern classics by Richard Barrett, Liza Lim, Michael Finnissy and Roger Redgate, and some very recent and new works by Richard Barrett, Jeroen Speak, Ben Marks, Evan Johnson and Robert Dahm.