From Sound to Symbol and Back Again:
Transcription/Composition
Jack Body
The inter-relationship between the development
of Western musical notation and Western traditions of music making is
a fascinating one. Whereas in its earliest forms notation was regarded
as an aid to memory, contemporary views of the function of the notated
score tend to see it as a highly specific text intended to be read (realised
in sound) with precision and accuracy, tempered by the current conventions
of taste and performance practice. But most composers also acknowledge
the integral part that notation plays in the creative act - the writing
down of notes is seldom simply a specific representation of an imagined
sound phenomenon since the notation itself can suggest complex possibilities
which the ear and mind, unaided, might never be able to encompass. This
can lead composers into new areas of exploration and experimentation.
The development of Western tonal harmony might be linked directly to the
use of notation, just as the rhythmic complexity of much of the so-called
avant garde music of the 1950s and 60s is fundamentally a "paper
music". This fascination with the process of composition as the manipulation
of notational symbols is not new - the Ars Nova composers of the fourteenth
century were as absorbed in the possibilities notation had to offer as
any Stockhausen or Cage. Indeed the increase in complexity of the Western
notational system over, say, the last two hundred years is probably symptomatic
of the growing separation of the roles of the composer and the performer,
and the alienation of the composer from his audience.
Thus notation is at once a medium for liberation and alienation. The magnificent
edifice of tonal harmony might well be largely attributable to the Western
notational system, but Western music arguably lost as much as it gained.
Comparatively, the rhythms of Western music can seem rather stiff, regimented
and essentially simplistic beside the living corporeality and sophistication
of many Indian and African musics. (Of course, other music traditions
have their own notational systems, but they are seldom as specific in
detail as Western notation, and more often than not function simply as
memory aids to the performer). Although many Western composers in the
last forty years have challenged the traditional concepts of the use and
function of notation, the prevalent Western view is that the notated score
is an authoritative text created by the composer, highly specific in its
details, a set of performance instructions which permit little or no argument.
The score takes on a sacrosanct quality. It becomes "the music",
while a performance is only "a performance", "an interpretation".
Notation has been put to other uses however. Transcription, the representation
in notation of a music heard (but not yet seen!), is one of the most important
tools of ethnomusicology. This reversal of the symbol-to-sound compositional
process makes possible detailed analysis and discussion of the sonic phenomenon
which we call music. Notation, the two dimensional spatial representation
of an immaterial temporal event, is the means whereby we can grasp the
intangible. The obvious trap however is that the notated representation
can be misread as an "authoritative text", and the music itself
perceived as a "performed version" of this text. Worse still
is when the notation is taken as a substitute for the sound phenomenon,
itself becoming the subject of commentary and analysis without reference
to the music as sound.
For over a decade I have had an ongoing interest in musical transcription.
It has occupied me at those times when I've unable to focus on original
composition - I recollect that Ravel is said to have used orchestration
(of his own and other composer's music) in similar circumstances. In the
first place I am drawn to a music in which I sense a particular quality,
melodic perhaps, or rhythmic, which my ears find attractive but which
I have difficulty in deciphering. I want to understand what is happening
in this music, what it is which gives it this special quality. My idea
is to learn something that I might be able to apply in my own composition.
In practice however I frequently find myself so astonished by, and in
admiration of the music I am transcribing that I have little inclination
to try to compete with it. Instead I try to recreate it in another form,
and through this recreation transmit at least something of those qualities
to which I first responded. My "arrangement" is not a replica
of the original, nor is it a substitute. For me this exercise of "double-transcription"
from sound to symbol and back into sound again, is a fascinating process.
Firstly, I am forced to be painfully specific about what I think I am
listening to, about what my brain perceives of what my ears hear. I must
try to distinguish the essential from the unessential - speed of vibrato
might be more important than concepts of fixed pitch for instance. Mine
is not an ethnomusicogical study, even though I might refer to authoritative
documentation. I consider the music simply as a sound phenomenon which
I trying to make sense of.
In attempting to notate what I interpret as the essential features of
what I hear I have to find, invent or adapt symbols which best represent
my perceptions. This makes me very conscious of the conventions of notation,
how these conventions function and the limitations they exercise over
the music we make and how we listen. Once I have some kind of abstract
notation I am free to consider how this music might be recreated in a
form playable by Western musicians, more or less following the conventions
of Western notation, and yet preserving what I see as some of the essential
qualities of the original music.
As I composer I have found this whole process of "deconstruction
and reconstruction" invaluable for the insights it has given me and
the skills I have had to learn. At Victoria University for the last decade
or more I have supervised a transcription project for third year composition
students. I always expect to be challenged to justify the inclusion of
such a requirement in a composition course but I'm seldom asked - it doesn't
take long before students become absorbed by the fascination and rewards
of transcription. At the very least it's a superb ear training exercise,
and all composers know the value of sharp ears!
My borrowings from other musical traditions might be construed as a type
of cultural exploitation - certainly current attitudes about cultural
property in New Zealand makes one particularly sensitive about these issues.
But intercultural exchange is a universal phenomenon. In my own work I
try to fulfil some basic responsibilities towards the material I "appropriate":
- Wherever possible I use recordings that I have made myself. This means that I have some knowledge of the social and cultural context to which the music belongs, and will have negotiated some kind of relationship with the original performers.
- When I use music from sources other than my own recordings I try to acknowledge the source, giving if possible the title of the work, and the names of both performer and recordist.
- My transcription generally presents the original music in its entirety, either simply as itself, translated into another medium or as a identifiably separate entity around which I build an additional musical superstructure.