Talk:New Complexity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject contemporary music, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary music subjects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Article Problems

This article suffers from a largely unencyclopedic style and ta raft of unsourced statements that in the aggregate suggest WP:POV and WP:OR problems. I sugges it be rewritten in a more neutral tone, discounting the internal polemics (noted below). Basically, we need to know what it is, who is associated with it, and its influence and context within the larger world of classical, especially contemporary music. This sounds like it was written by an apologist and that is not what an encyclopedia article should be about. Eusebeus 13:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a few key citations are missing. Ferneyhough and Finnissy can be easily cited from their published writings. But I don't sense any trouble in the tone. It has already been commented that the article reads well, and is extremely concise. After a fairly straightforward description of the notation, the article moves to the aesthetic question at hand--problematizing the execution and interpretation of prescriptive musical notation. Aside from the obvious need to find sources, the biggest problem with this article may actually be the "Origins and Influences" section. It seems that this section has grown into a slightly boring and over detailed account of internal relations that don't belong on wikipedia (probably a WP:POV problem). Couldn't we do without these needless details, which threaten to grow longer than the main sections of the article? Finally, at long last, is it possible to do away with the standard claim that no composer fully espouses the term "new complexity?" This criticism is so commonplace, i'm not sure its worth stating again. 216.165.95.5 21:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion: a score image would clarify the style a lot.216.165.95.5 23:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of this article would strike me as being, at the very least, contentious. Can you support your claim that this article is contentious? Since the term, "new complexity" itself, is contentious anyway, right? It seems to me that either "new complexity" be defined only according to the bare facts of the composers involved (which would probably make it uninteresting), or that it be given a strong aesthetic defense, at the risk of being contentious. It seems that the latter has been done, right? It reads quite well, with minor revisions.24.45.14.239 06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I'd further add that the revision claiming this music somehow "forces performers" to do anything completely misunderstands the basic aesthetic laid out in the preceeding paragraphs. I will suggest deletion, unless someone strongly disagrees?24.45.14.239 06:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is contentious about this article

Although there are many excellent points to this article, I find this sentence contentious: "Others have suggested, more radically, that the demands of "New Complexity" scores celebrate the relationship between composer and performer as fully sado-masochistic; the composer is sadist, the performer, masochist."

Although some performers and commentators on new complexity have indeed used the terms such as "sado-masochistic" to describe the encounter with new complexity music, this is not really a serious criticism, but is rather a somewhat adolescent remark. This criticism is certainly not "radical": how can it get to the root (=radical) of an issue if it misses the point? No new complexity composer I have known over the last two decades is possessed of the sort of control mania with regard to performers that composers such as Stockhausen, numerous academic Modernists, and even some Minimalists (for example, Steve Reich) have exhibited. The musical tasks may be terrifying for performers, and the experience hearing of microtones, noises, etc. may be extremely unpleasant for some listeners, however, I doubt very much that the composers aimed to cause suffering. Rather, I would suggest that some performers/listeners have projected their reactions onto new complexity composers' intentions.

This projection mechanism has been seen before in musical history; one need only scan through Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective to find similar charges hurled at composers over the last two centuries who offended listeners' sensibilities.

I would suggest a more nuanced and well-informed presentation the topic of the relationship between new complexity composers and their performers/listeners.

Hagar333 07:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I see a bit of your point, but I would still defend the use of the term "sadomasochism" or "sado-masochism" since it goes directly to the question of power relation (or politics), embodied in new complexity scores. It is a question that Ferneyhough's Time and Motion Studies explicitly asks us: who is really doing the "expressing" when such highly specified notation puts the performer in a situation where they must navigate physical "impossibilities"? Further, it is important, in an entry such as this, to state the matter as directly as possible, sharply distinguishing the new complexity from other "atonal" or "avant garde" aesthetic positions that could sound indistinguishable to listeners, if it weren't for the very unique traits clearly explained in this article. Concretely, this question and concern over "power" is not shared, really, by most spectral composers, and certainly not by the serialists, just to pick a couple of examples.

Finally, sado-masochism never claims to speak for the intention of any party involved, and is not related to attacks on composers who just want considerable control over the performance. Even in the realm of sexual practices, most BDSM practices are very consensual. It may be helpful to think about how such practices focus on role-playing power relations, rather than simply actualizing them. I have edited the sentence to clarify this problem.

Does this make sense? 216.165.95.5 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are claiming that BDSM sexual practices are consensual, loving, caring, etc., then how can you claim that "sadomasochism...goes directly to the question of power relation[s] (or politics)?" This is equivocation.

What is more, I have heard this term used as a sort of slur by critics and some performers who simply didn't want to listen to or perform the music, which is why I mentioned the notion of projection and the Slonimsky quotes above.

If you were to speak to a wide range of people who advocate and perform this music, you would find most would be offended by the "sadomasochistic" term. It does not correspond to reality and it is degrading. The very notion of equating artistic performance--requiring endless hours of diligent preparation and intellectual commitment--with alternate sexual practices is inappropriate.

I think you misunderstand what detailed notational specification can and cannot accomplish. Even the finest degree of specification has a range of possible realizations, unless one is committed to a one-to-one relationship between written indication and aural result. New Complexity composers tend not to believe in this remnant of post-war scientism, and they tend to accept the active role elicited from performers in making spur of the moment decisions and considered interpretations on the basis of highly detailed scores. In many cases, not all of the notated specifications can be realized in any one performance, even though one must practice them all and attempt to realize as many as possible. But there can be no "perfect" performance of most pieces of New Complexity music.

To repeat, the question of maintaining monolithic control over an interpretation is not at the forefront of the concerns of any New Complexity composer I know. However, it has been at the forefront of the concern of serialists such as Stockhausen, early Boulez, Babbitt, and others. It has been at the forefront of Steve Reich's relationships with performers. It is at the forefront over many Spectralists' relationships with their performers. All of these groups tend to favor the one-to-one relationship between notated written indication and aural result. This is where the question of power becomes troublesome, because the power relationship doesn't actually appear on the surface of the score, but is rather embedded in the assumptions of many postwar avant-garde styles.Hagar333 03:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need image

Can we get permission from Brian Ferneyhough's publisher to reprint a short score excerpt that is extraordinarily complex (rhythmically and otherwise)? Badagnani (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's get to work on this. Badagnani (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)