Let's start by listening to an excerpt from "La Barque Mystique" by Tristan Murail, chosen in part because the instrumentation is very similar to that of the ensemble some of you are writing for (second project, W2012). This may also give you ideas for textures and roles of the instruments to use in your own composition.
You may have noticed that there appears to be no melody. The texture changes frequently, but at no point do we get anything that might be described as melody with accompaniment, or homophony. The instruments often play different material from one another, some of it linear, but it doesn't appear to be contrapuntal in sense of intertwining relatively independent melodic lines.
Instead, we hear a succession of sonorities for the most part, often begun in the piano, with other instruments contributing pitches to the piano's, thereby changing the overall musical colour. Many of the sonorities are sustained, but there is sections with short bursts of activity, particularly in the piano.
To me, the effect is of many "splashes" of sound colour.
You also may not have heard anything resembling a regular pulse here; it may well be that the performers are feeling a pulse that helps keep them together, but it does not sound like metrically predictable music in any way.
And so, with no melody and no regular pulse, we might well ask, what is it that holds this music together? The answer is that it uses timbre (sound colour) as its primary organizing principle; it is an example of spectral music. An even clearer example of this is Gérard Grisey's Partiels, which can be found at the end of this blog. Have a listen to it now if you like.
From Wikipedia (accessed today; disregard the fact that the second sentence is not a sentence):
Spectral music (or spectralism) is musical composition practice where compositional decisions are often informed by the analysis of sound spectra. Computer-based sound spectrum analysis using tools like DFT, FFT, and spectrograms. The spectral approach focuses on manipulating the features identified through this analysis, interconnecting them, and transforming them.Some points of particular interest are:
The spectral approach originated in France in the early 1970s, and techniques were developed, and later refined, primarily at the Institut de Recherche et Coordination Acoustique/Musique [IRCAM], Paris, with the Ensemble l'Itinéraire, by composers such as Gerard Grisey and Tristan Murail. Murail has described spectral music as an aesthetic rather than a style, not so much a set of techniques as an attitude – that "music is ultimately sound evolving in time". Julian Anderson indicates that a number of major composers associated with spectralism consider the term inappropriate, misleading, and reductive. More recently (2003) the Istanbul Spectral Music Conference redefined the term "spectral music" to encompass any music that foregrounds timbre as an important element of structure or musical language.
- Murail describes spectralism as an aesthetic, rather than a style, which I take to mean that he regards it as a principle or value within his compositional philosophy;
- Murail's statement that "music is ultimately sound evolving in time" makes me think of light passing through a slowly turning prism or crystal, changing colour gradually and beautifully;
- Some composers associated with spectralism consider the term misleading, which suggests to me that different composers define the term differently; and
- The Istanbul Spectral Music Conference (ISMC; 2003) definition of spectral music encompasses any music in which timbre is an important element of structure or musical language; this seems significantly more open-ended than the definition found at the beginning of the Wikepedia article (compositional decisions … often informed by the (computer) analysis of sound spectra).
One of the wonderful freedoms in composing is that you can define terms relating to your compositional practice in any way that is meaningful for you. Your understanding of these concepts may be spot on, or seriously flawed, but ultimately it doesn't matter as long as you compose good music. Good music can grow out of an idiosyncratic or even inaccurate understanding of a term or concept, such as spectralism, polystylism, minimalism, etc.
I think it is important for composers, even experienced ones, to constantly find ways to increase our compositional vocabulary (knowledge of techniques, devices, and styles), and trying a variety of compositional approaches such as spectralism, polystylism, etc., in whatever way we understand these terms, are ways of doing this.
Below are more videos of what could be considered to be spectral music (the first might not be considered spectral by some, but it is certainly an example of #4 above):
Schoenberg — Farben (#3 of Five Pieces for Orchestra, also called "Summer Morning by a Lake: Chord Colours"; 1908)
Iancu Dumitrescu - Cogito/Trompe l'Oeil (part 2/2)
Want to learn more? Read Introduction to the Pitch Organization of French Spectral Music, by François Rose, in Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Summer, 1996), pp. 6-39.
16 comments:
Surprisingly, I quite like this type of music (as usually I'm partial to things that are closer to the "normal" end of compositional techniques). I like the fact that the parts are united by their sound (ie. when the strings are plucking, the piano also becomes very sparse and staccato). I never really considered the possibility of that being a technique to try before.
Thanks for the videos - they are some lovely examples of this type of music. I think we often get too caught up in having something to 'sing in our heads'; experiencing music doesn't just have to be about hearing tunes, but enjoying a shifting soundscape.
I'd be interested to hear about (successful) music that was composed due to a complete misunderstanding of its own attempted aesthetic.
Is it just me, or does it seem that every time a musician or musicians come along that end up essentially defining a genre, they reject the label!? So strange. Either way great blog post! I love this kind of music, and have actually been diving into a lot of music that has tone colours as it's primary focus for a few years now. Although, I had never heard the term spectralism exactly which is why I was drawn to this blog post. I think it kind of goes without saying that I believe music does not necessarily need to have a melody or driving pulse in order to feel "structured", but I often feel that timbre is something integral and just as important as melody or rhythm in any piece. It seems to sometimes be that one thing that makes a certain piece successful that you can't put your finger on!
Anyways I may be writing a lot for a comment, and I have some new composers to check out now!
Something I find about spectralism is that there is an electronic component to picking the content of your music that I find too much to get a hold of. What I mean is that I find the technology to be an obstacle, because I am someone who finds it difficult to learn to use technology to its greatest advantage. I find the aesthetic very fascinating, but the technique intimidating.
I recently downloaded an app released by Oxford wave research that uses my iPhone's microphone to capture spectrograms. I find myself exploring new sound scapes, looking at overtones that crowds create, it might be applause in a concert hall, the radio in my car, or a walk downtown. It gives valuable insight into the "music" that we hear everywhere in today's busy world. Thinking about creating spectral music is very interesting, and seems quite easy to get the desired effect. The relationship between physical music and mathematics have always interested me, things like proportions and symmetry. This is certainly an idea work exploring.
I was very recently introduced to this genre of music. Dr. Staniland lent me a Tristan Murail CD. I really enjoyed the music, and though I wasn't aware that spectralism was a style, I had the impression from listening that this music was more about creating an organism that moves as naturally as possible. To me it seems that though there is no clear melody, all the parts move and are initiated by events. These events are triggering sympathetic ripples in the sound that just continue on. To me, the way it interacts with itself resembles more closely something you would hear or see in nature than any music I have heard before. A very interesting aesthetic.
Spectralism was introduced to me as "music that is based on the overtone series." Now if that's not vague I don't know what is. But I will say that it is a genre or 'aesthetic' that I am very curious about. I really enjoyed the Murail piece, and loved Andre's comment^^ about his interpretation of spectralism.
I'll leave this link to a scrolling score-video of the first "spectral" piece that blew me away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXaNFBzgDWI Gerard Grisey - Vortex Temporum
Like Andre said, it's impossible not to hear the "cause-and-effect" temperament of the this music, and the "ripples of sound" are obvious, especially in the opening.
Even if you don't plan on writing purely spectral music, you can learn so much about the possibilities of timbre by studying scores or even just listening to these pieces. An excellent way to expand your "composer's toolbox."
I have tried composing music where the main focus was colour and not melody, I did it mostly through electronic sounds which I mixed together and altered using Audacity. In the end I was not as satisfied with these pieces as I usually am with the melody-based pieces I write, but they did produce some interesting results, and were a lot of fun to make. I tried using spectrograms in this music, and I found a free program that will convert an image into spectrogram, allowing you to listen to it: http://www.nicolasfournel.com/?page_id=125
I found it particularly interesting to input images of words and use the resulting sound in a piece, this way you can hide messages in it which can only be read by looking at a spectrogram of the piece.
Music has countless purposes in everyday life: motivation, entertainment, communication, storytelling, and so on. However, one of the foundation goals of music is to spread an emotion. When listening to Spectral music (I am listening to Ian Dumitrescu Cogito/Trompe l'Oeil right now) emotion is portrayed very clearly. Despite the fact that this music is not over powering in terms of the number of instruments, and does not have a clear metre, it can very effectively convey an emotion with texture and colour. Since some foundational aspects of music are not present in spectralism the colour of the music dominates and becomes very effective. Spectral music seems would be difficult to compose because of its thin texture and exposure of each pitch, but however difficult the end result is effective! I would like to experiment with spectral music or something similar.
Spectralism is a concept which has intrigued me for a while, as I never really understood what makes a spectral piece "spectral". Wikipedia's definition is equally confounding, does this mean that composers are taking spectrograms of pieces they write and trying to make something interesting visually there? How does the spectro-analysis inform the composition process? I think the 2003 Istanbul definition is better, but I would argue that there exists lots of music written well before the 70s that focuses on timbre as a driving force of the composition. I think most contemporary composers are interested in the wide world of sounds available on each instrument (I cannot tell you how many times I have googled "extended techniques "), but timbre goes beyond the world of contemporary music and is really one of the things that defines different genres and styles altogether.
EX: A jazz saxophonist can play "classical" pitches and rhythms, but it will definitely still sound within the jazz canon because of the embouchure being used by the saxophonist.
So I guess all music is in some way spectralist, whatever that actually means.
That's very interesting the trueness of how everyone could understand a term and even its definition differently, as what I have understood as spectral music from reading your post on music with no melody differ slightly from all the examples given in this post. I was defining some of the impressionism style music as "spectral", but they definitely are more melodious and conventionally structured.One thing that I noticed in common is the lack of a clear sense of steady meter/pulse, either polyrhythm/compound meter is present or there's no meter or other clear rhythmical restrictions. For example, while I tried to orchestrate Ravel's Oiseaux tristes from Miroirs to achieve the "spectral" quality I hear from this piece, I had a hard time assigning meters to different sections/instruments as there were a lot of meter changes in the original score. Plus there were lots of duple against triple meter rhythms. And the orchestra also had a hard time to sight read it. It was just not the kind of straight forward music that could be sight readable, rather it requires more practice so the players can feel the pulse and the flow of the piece. The examples were very inspiring. Although I think the link to Gérard Grisey's Partiels isn't valid anymore, you may want to update it. I think I would have a try on spectralism, in the way I understand it, with my miniature character piece instead of minimalism, as I think my all Bb movement could already be categorized into minimalism. So thank you for all the great info!
I kind of like the idea in this blog post that genres can be up to your interpretation and don't have to be set by strict rules. If you interpret your music as spectralism, why can't it be? I feel that this gives composers a lot less of a pressure to try and fit into categories and also helps them to expand the direction of genres.
I also find it interesting that spectralism is considered more of a compositional style than a genre. This relates to the fact that spectralism is more of a technique for composing music as opposed to a set sound that composers aspire to recreate.
I honestly think that finding techniques for composing like spectralism, 12 tone or other styles is a lot better than trying to write in a certain genre because it gives you room to let your own influences shine instead of forcing yourself to write music you may not relate to.
Phenomenal blog post! I find most talk of genre in relation to composition a little difficult to relate to, preferring instead to explain what techniques were used; in that way I am very much in agreement with Evan. In fact I personally believe that it is entirely unnecessary to think about genre when composing music purely for yourself (of course, this will not hold true if being commissioned for a specific genre of music). It can only be limiting to think of oneself as a specific type of composer, musician, or any other type of artist, though this is unrelated to understanding what you are skilled at. In general, genres should be applied to a piece of music after it has been fully realised, if only so as to not interfere with the artist creating it. If that artist wants to compose in a certain style then all the power to them, but telling an artist that they ONLY create in a certain style limits them. This all got a bit off-topic from spectralism, which I think is a wonderful technique to use while writing.
I actually really like the idea of spectralism, which doesn’t surprise me, since the emotions and the atmosphere are what I tend to listen for the most in the music that I like, and that is almost all that spectral music seems to be on the surface. I also think that it’s interesting that, assuming you follow the Wikipedia definition with the spectrograms, then there is also a visual component, where you would be linking figures together by the actual electronic visualization of sound. But even despite any technical factors, the colour is really the focal point of the music, which in my opinion lends itself to so many different uses.
I also find the disparity between definitions and composers to be funny, because in general, there always seems to be someone who disagrees with other people’s perceptions of the music. In terms of Murail’s opinion, I do think that calling spectralism an aesthetic is fitting, although I would argue that ‘style’ and ‘aesthetic’ go hand in hand to an extent. And personally, while I would agree that music is the active evolving of sound, I would also question the wording of “not so much a set of techniques as an attitude.” Much like my opinion on style and aesthetic, I think attitude can only get you started before it requires a set of techniques to be properly executed, and no piece, especially if it’s just atmospheric, can be truly unified without some sort of underlying technique. I would also be interested in hearing how the composers who disagree with the term ‘spectralism’ think that it is reductive. What is it that they see in their music, and that they feel is being stripped away by trying to give it some sort of classification, no matter how broad?
I absolutely loved John Chowning's Stria. I have found that I love many different types of classical music genres and aesthetics from the 1970s.
I particularly loved his piece because of the slow-moving notes/chords that reminded me of ambient asmr type of music that was reminiscent of furniture music or absurdist music yet done in a quite serious way.
I am now intrigued to find out more about what John Chowning was feeling at this time in his life/ while working on this composition. I think it is reasonable to attribute spectralism to an aesthetic more than a style because all of the examples shown are so different. I appreciate it more when composers create their own languge around a MOVEMENT such as this one.
Post a Comment