Atonal Music is More than a Numbers Game (The Genius of John Cage, Part II)

(continued from a previous entry, The Genius of John Cage)

I have encountered a number of people that can only envision much of modern music as a grab-bag of mathematical processes.  My response?  Atonal music is more than a numbers game.  It truly is that simple.

I'm a long time advocate that technique can only carry you so far.  Just think about Louis Armstrong.  By all technical critique, Armstrong did not play trumpet correctly.  He built up scar tissue above his lips and would have to take time off for his skin to heal, all because he ultimately (as a non-trumpeter such as myself understands it) pressed the mouthpiece too hard to his lips.  But, nonetheless, his creativity and artistry out-shined this issue.  No one reminiscing on his work ever begins with these issues: the memories are of specific songs, solos, his personality, his film work... whatever.  His creative genius overshadows a technical issue.  So it is with composition, too: technical prowess can only go so far.

The greatest danger of how we teach atonal music (along with other modern compositional processes: indeterminacy, total serialism, computer music, etc.) is the reduction of its artistry into a box of technical elements.

As I stated at the opening of this post, I have met and worked with several people that dismiss modern compositional processes - mainly because they have failed to connect a human element to the work.  When we understand harmonic structures of Beethoven, it is still easy to access that piece of his work that is uniquely him: we easily understand that he used technical elements as a method of putting down the things he wanted to say.  Rarely do we sit and listen to Beethoven symphonies as a list of all the ways he could make harmonic structures or orchestrate certain passages, because at no time do we dismiss Beethoven as a creative individual.  We know the narrative of Beethoven (his life, career, hearing loss, etc.) and view that as radically important to his work.

When reaching the twentieth century, we begin to over-emphasize the new technical elements of music because of their importance and innovation.  The result?  It becomes difficult to bring people out of the cave, so to speak.  Our technical emphasis kills the expression of new music... potentially because we have begun to teach technical innovation as the expression of new music.  We are losing the stories of what makes this music unique: the biographies, the history, the culture, etc.  Any music example is more than a series of mathematical equations: the composer is working for a desired effect or outworking of a philosophy that must be recognized.

Enter John Cage.  From the previous post, I stated a case that Cage's work and philosophy leads people to make a decision about music from the ground up: there are no comparative dismissals or blanketing statements made from personal tastes.  Inserting Cage into this discussion is where modern music can find freedom.

I don't find parallel fifths to be wrong.  Voice leading is a special effect.  Why?  When I write music, I have reasons for employing certain sounds in certain situations and have found that technique is only a ground floor of getting to higher ideas.  Is that not what new music has always been?  A composer may leave traditional harmonic constructions to achieve certain sounds.  A composer may return to traditional harmony to achieve certain sounds.

"Sound" and "music" are higher ideals than a process, no matter how simple or complex it may be.  Atonal music is more than a numbers game.