CC BY
48
Section 2. Musical arts ■ European Journal of Arts 3 (2021) - ISSN 2310-5666 -
UDC: 780.616.432.082.2:78.036(477) DOI: 10.29013/EJA-21-3-91-96
A. V. SHARINA, 1
1 Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine)
ALEATORIC COMPOSITION: ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCES IN THE CONTEXT OF TELEOLOGY (BASED ON THE EXAMPLE OF PIANO SONATA NO. 3, AER BY VASYL TSANKO)
Abstract
Purpose: this study aims to investigate the contrasting strategies of performing aleatoric compositions, on the example of Piano Sonata No. 3, AER by a Ukrainian composer Vasyl Tsanko, and consider teleology.
Methods: the research employs methods of analysis of literature on teleology and aleatory, structural analysis of AER, interpretive analysis that allows discovering alternative performances of Piano Sonata No. 3, and comparative method, which consists in analytically presenting and comparing two strategies of the performance.
Results: in contrast to non-aleatoric scores, the complexity of understanding and performing aleatoric compositions initially presupposes the author's instructions for performers. The majority of aleatoric compositions include such guidelines. Nevertheless, it was important to find a specific teleological strategy for performing a particular aleatoric piece. In the teleological aspect, many interpretations can be applied. However, here only the two most indicative and radically different alternative types of the performances of the AER were considered: the whole text strategy and the fragment text strategy. Adopting the first strategy, the pianist closely follows the composer's plan, while the second strategy requires a more individualized approach towards the Sonata.
Scientific novelty: lies in the fact that attention is paid to extended piano techniques in the works by contemporary Ukrainian composers of a new generation. The article is the first one to provide the analysis of Piano Sonata No. 3, AER (2017) by Vasyl Tsanko.
Practical significance: this paper aims to offer an individual approach that can be practical for further learning of aleatoric compositions.
Keywords: aleatory, teleology, performance alternatives, Ukrainian contemporary art music, Piano Sonata No. 3, AER by Vasyl Tsanko, extended techniques.
For citation : A. V. Sharina. Aleatorio composition: alternative performances in the context of teleology (based on the example of piano sonata no. 3, Aer by Vasyl Tsanko) // European Journal of Arts, 2021, №3. -P. 91-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29013/EJA-21-3-91-96
Introduction
The music of the 20th century is remarkable due to its undeniable freedom and an infinite number of experiments with new styles and techniques. During the 20th century, composers attempted to free music from old frameworks, equalizing the roles of the performer and the author in determining the structure of the piece. Thus, many different musical trends appeared, including atonality, aleatory, serialism, electronic music, and extended techniques.
1. Teleological features that distinguish aleatoric music from non-aleatoric works before the 20th century
In contrast to "traditional" music, the aleatoric technique initially presupposes instability of form. In a narrow sense, the performance of aleatoric compositions gives the interpreter considerably more freedom and the possibility to participate in the creation of works. It requires a certain synthesis ofboth the composer's strategy and the performer's compositional choice in its teleological finality. The main idea of the teleological aspect in music can be formulated based on the results of the
ISSN 2310-5666
research conducted by Darcy [3], Fink [4], and Zatkalik [6] among others.
Since teleology is a doctrine that explains various phenomena through their purposes, it can be argued that performance is the realization of the original goal, as defined by the author. Moreover, it can be emphasized that teleology focuses on the final sounding result of the musical piece as well as on its step-by-step implementation. With aleatoric pieces, the performer approaches the initial musical text from different angles. Thus, from the teleological point of view, the development of the form of compositions is unpredictable, and the final goal can be achieved in various ways. This main feature of the musical pieces created with the use of the aleatoric technique distinguishes them from the compositions written through the use of other methods.
1.1. The specificity of aleatoric compositions: basic ideas
The Latin term alea is most often associated with situations in which performing a random component includes a relatively limited number of possibilities. It is necessary to define the types of aleatory, as it allows us to conceive a clear and convincing analysis of the Sonata, as well as to suggest valid alternatives performances. The description of these types, presented below, is based on the study of many scholars, such as Brown [2], Hooger-werf [5], and Adorno [1] among others.
The aleatoric technique is divided into two categories. The first one is the so-called limited aleatory (developed by Witold Lutoslawski, 1913-1994), in which music composition necessitates the use of restricted control. The other group is the absolute (or unlimited) aleatory (introduced byJohn Cage, 1912-1992), where ordinary musical notation is often replaced by graphic symbols.
Limited aleatory indicates compositions the performance of which remains largely unmodified with certain sections and fragments of the work are formed differently each time. Often, the composer does not offer any clarifications on the musical text but gives his/her remarks concerning the register of the melody, its range, dynamics, rhythm, and the sounding time. Moreover, the musician is provided with separate sections of the work, the order ofwhich could be chosen during the performance.
Unlimited aleatory means that the composition is created during the performance, the composer not being able to predict the final result. In this aspect, many different experiments are carried out, based on the use of total chance. Typically, the score is reduced to graphic signs-hints, which
limit the composer's control over the composition as a whole and can be subj ectively interpreted by the performer.
Aleatory also became an essential part of the technical arsenal of Ukrainian composers of the second half of the 20th century, such as Valentin Silvestrov (1937), Valentin Bibik (1940-2003), Yevhen Stankovych (1942), Vladimir Zubitsky (1953), Karmella Tsepkolenko (1955), Igor Shcherbakov (1955), Volodymyr Runchak (1960), Ludmila Yurina (1962), etc.
The younger generation of the early 21st century has also been interested in experimenting in the field of aleatoric composition. Vasyl Tsanko (b. 1995, Ukraine) is a disciple of contemporary art music, a composer, and, as pianist, a performer. He is an author of symphonic, chamber, piano, vocal, and electronic music. In 2018 Tsanko graduated from the Petro Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine and in 2020 - from the University of Aveiro. He won the First Prize at the International Competition of Interpretation of Contemporary Music in Lisbon. In 2020 Tsanko defended his Master's thesis, titled Extended piano techniques at the initial stage of piano lessons. While writing a research paper, he composed a collection of extended piano pieces for children.
2. The idea ofAER inside the cycle ofpiano sonatas
The cycle of four piano sonatas incorporates diverse compositional techniques and methods of performance. It employs the quintessence AETHER - a set of specific sounds that unite the cycle into a single whole. Each sonata is built upon a small section of this set: the first one - TERRA - is the most normative and classical, with its iron logic of development and traditional performance techniques. The second - AQUA - is written for the prepared piano and has a fluid structure (the performer has the opportunity to freely change the order of pages). The next one is AER, and the fourth sonata has not been written yet.
Tsanko's idea was to create four Sonatas in accordance with the four elements - Earth, Water, Air, and Fire - significant for a number of Ancient Greek philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle. According to the author, Earth represents sensuality, Water - intuition, Air - intelligence, and Fire - emotion. His concept is based on an ancient description of each element as dry or wet and cold or warm. Tsanko suggests that Earth (Piano Sonata No. 1 TERRA) is dry and cold, and Water (No. 2 AQUA) is wet and cold. Air (No. 3, AER) and fire (probably, Piano Sonata No. 4) are opposite to Earth and Water. He also mentions that the two parameters can be either stable or mobile. The cold elements are stable, while the hot elements are mobile.
PREMIER
Publish ng
ISSN 2310-5666
For the first group (Sonata No. 1 and No. 2), the composer employs the keyboard. As for AER and (perhaps) the fourth sonata, Tsanko instructs that they should be performed using the strings inside the grand piano.
2.1. Structural Analysis of the Sonata No. 3
AER for piano solo was written in March 2017 and performed by the author in Kyiv in the same year. In the performance instructions, Tsanko notes that the Sonata embodies different states of the air and its unpredictability. AER is performed by playing different strings inside the grand piano. The pianist should press the damper pedal with a heavy object to hold it down so that he/ she is free to handle strings (otherwise, an assistant is needed). From the beginning until the end, AER is performed with continuous use of the sustain pedal, so an accidental touching of other strings can lead to dirty and blurred sound. Therefore, the interpreter can mute the strings adjacent to the one that is currently producing sound. According to the composer, performers don't have to imitate the sound of the wind (air moving); in this composition, it is a symbol of freedom. The most important thing is the concept behind AER, namely the idea that improvisation should be spontaneous, and the performer has to distract the listener from monotony.
Tsanko chooses extended piano techniques as the primary performance techniques in the Sonata. The pianist is to use such methods as OFF-the-strings, and ON-the-strings. Also, the author instructs the pianists to search for various elements inside the ON and OFF techniques.
Tsanko notes the use of various objects involved in the process of performing. Different letters signify particular ways of producing the sound:
• «F» - the use of the inner and outer side of a fingernail;
• «M» - the use of metal objects, such as a coin, a key, or a ring;
• «G» - the use of glass objects, such as glass or a glass lens;
• « W» - the use of wooden objects, for example, a stick.
The combination of two materials means using both methods simultaneously or alternately (see Example 1).
To allow for a better understanding of the Sonata's form and structure, the peculiarities of its notation, and the performance features, one should focus on the visual organization of the score.
The piece consists of eight separate staffs, which indicate different strings, and the final measure PLUCK (the same eight strings noted below), which has to be played with both hands (see Example 2).
Example 1. Piano Sonata No. 3, AER by Vasyl Tsanko, staff 4
Example 2. Piano Sonata No. 3, AER by Vasyl Tsanko, the final bar
The first page (four strings) is in the bass clef, and the second one (four strings and the Pluck section) in the treble clef. Each staff indicates a new string, a new playing technique, and a distinct material that allows achieving a special timbre. There are no dynamic markings in the score, so the strength and the speed of the performance determine the piece's dynamics.
The first page, in the bass clef:
• the first line: string G2, F (a finger), OFF the string;
• the second: D flat 2, F+M (a metal object), OFF+ + ON;
• the third: string A flat 1, M, ON the string-
• the fourth: E1, M + G (any glass object), ON + + OFF.
The second page, in the treble clef:
• the fifth line: string D 5, material G, technique ON;
• the sixth: G sharp 5, G + W (any wooden object), ON + OFF the string;
• the seventh: C sharp 6, W, technique OFF;
• the eighth: F6, material W + F, OFF the string.
The final Pluck section, pizzicato behind the
bridge, technique F, specifically, in the treble clef: D 5, G sharp 5, C sharp 6, F 6 and in the bass clef: G 2, D flat 2, A flat 1, E1, F.
It is important to note the order in which the various materials appear on each staff. On the first string, Tsanko suggests using only a finger (F) or sound extraction; on the second, he adds another material, namely metal (F + M). On the third staff, only one object (metal) remains again, and on the fourth, a glass object is added to a metal one
ISSN 2310-5666
(M + G). Thus, a metal object is used on three lines, both as an independent object and paired with another material. A similar situation can be observed on the first staff of the second page. Instead of using M + G, Tsanko leaves only a glass object. On the next string, he adds a wooden object to glass (G + M).
Further on, the situation repeats, and instead of G + W, only W remains. The fourth staff requires a duet of materials to be formed again. Here, Tsanko adds an object that has not yet been used on the second page - a finger (F). In the end, in the last measure of PLUCK, eight strings are simultaneously played with the means of F. Thus, the logical chain of adding and eliminating material has been closed. Starting with F and then alternating between various objects, the performance of AER also ends with F.
According to the composer, a pianist must strictly follow the instructions on using any objects and techniques of playing. Tsanko retains control over certain aspects of the performance, such as the minimum duration of one string and the Sonata's total length, the techniques of sound-extraction and the chosen materials, the exact register, and the pitch of the strings. He demands that each string be played for at least eight seconds and the whole duration of the Sonata for approximately eight minutes. Also, PLUCK is played in a kind of pizzicato, used only once within the last bar of the piece and marking the end of AER.
The pianist only chooses the order of the strings, the dynamics, the material involved, the order in which it is applied, the amplitude of the string movement, and its vibration level. The speed, attack, and release of strokes may also vary. Additionally, the pianist can use all the available playing techniques on specific strings in any order and for any duration. Based on the main characteristics of aleatory, Piano Sonata No. 3, AER by Tsanko could be classified as a piece with limited aleatory.
As for the significance of the number eight, it can be assumed that in the horizontal position, this figure is an infinity symbol; thus, it appears throughout the opus. Continuing Plato's philosophical ideas, Tsanko chooses eight strings, eight options of playing (four times with a single material and four times with the combination of two), eight minutes of total sounding time, and (at least) eight seconds on each string.
3. Alternative performances in the contexts of the development of AER
So, when considering aleatoric compositions, each performance will be quite different. In the case of a limited type,
the performer must comply with the indicated positions and specific parameters of the score. At the same time, the musician has the freedom to choose among all alternatives provided by the author. During the performance, these aspects fully depend on his/her imagination. However, before looking at the differences between the possible performance strategies, it is necessary to find the similarities
When performing AER, the musician has at least two options - either to meticulously implement the existing development plan or to make fuller use of his/her freedom. These two illustrative examples will be considered below to reveal their differences:
• the whole text strategy;
• the fragment text strategy.
The whole text strategy means that the performer gets to use all of the eight strings and the last bar PLUCK. It can be played in the original order suggested by the composer or by the pianist's free choice. If all the strings are played in a row, the listener can anticipate the appearance of an object made of a new material, which is used to produce sound. Naturally, such detailed knowledge of the score is only possible if the listener has already listened to the Sonata carefully several times.
If the whole text strategy is chosen, the main rule is to remember the minimum performance time for each staff and the total time of the whole piece. Nevertheless, it is also clear that this concept is truly based on improvisation (along with thefragment text strategy) because many other parameters of AER are left to the discretion ofthe performer. Components such as the strength and the speed ofusing different strings, which affect the timbre and dynamics of the Sonata, are indeterminate. Additionally, the sounding time of each staff cannot be the same, so the durations and tempos of performing for every new string may vary.
Given the logical emergence of new materials, the use of the fragment text strategy allows the performer to behave more unexpectedly in order to not give the listener a chance to predict which material or technique may come next. For example, the pianist can play only two or three staffs of AER and PLUCK. In this case, the timing of each staff has to be much longer than the minimal mark, which is eight seconds. Considering the overall duration of the Sonata, the mandatory parameters for each staff (certain strings, techniques, and materials), and the lack of frequently changing staffs and performance methods, the pianist is required to reveal the potential of his/her imagination to the maximum. From the perspective of keeping the listener's attention, the fragment text strategy
ISSN 2310-5666
is more open since it incorporates spontaneity during the performance than the whole text strategy.
Thus, the organization of the Sonata is based on contrasting positions: the structure has been laid out by the author, whilst the pianist creates the form ofAER during the performance. One could argue that two incompatible performing strategies are possible, so the performer can choose between the whole text strategy and the fragment text strategy. Despite the presence of different versions of AER, the author's initial idea can be found in each performance. The existence of certain materials and instrumental techniques, as well as the final PLUCK section, dictate the development of the form regardless of the alternative performances. It is preserved whether the pianist is following the fragment text or the whole text strategy.
Therefore, AER, Sonata No. 3 for piano solo by Tsanko is a vivid example of limited aleatory, which has its parameters and concept suggested by the author. Nevertheless, the framework of freedom involves the creative input of the performer and his/her intellectual curiosity. From the teleological perspective, both the whole text strategy and the fragment text strategy require an open reading of the Sonata. Their difference lies only in the fact that by choosing the second alternative (fragment text), the musician himself/herself actively creates the form of AER during the performance.
Conclusions
It is essential to highlight the fact that aleatory concerns musical freedom, improvisation, and instability. Thus, the so-called "chance" technique is exceptionally
unique, generating unlimited performance possibilities. Unpredictability is an inherent characteristic of aleatoric music. It liberates performers from the dogma elicited by the "classical musical" form, the structure, and dramaturgy. In aleatoric works, far fewer rules can be found, as there are no requirements to adhere to set musical standards.
It should be noted that the performance of a "traditional" piece - for instance, from the Classical or Romantic era - demands following music score from the beginning until the last bar. Musicians are free in their choice of articulation, phrasing, fingering, duration of some rests, and a degree of dynamic deviation. However, an open interpretation of the musical text itself is not employed in this case. Within the context ofteleology, this is the feature that distinguishes a "classical" piece from an aleatoric composition. Based on the analysis of AER, it is clear that, due to free interpretation of certain elements in the score, musicians can adopt an attitude of total freedom reproducing the full musical text or its parts.
On the whole, while the process of selecting a particular performance approach is rather individual, the musician should still follow the author's instructions. It is hardly possible to suggest an overall strategy for all aleatoric compositions due to the fact that different types of aleatory can affect their interpretation. In other words, an aleatoric musical piece should embody a unique way of its realization and a personal teleological strategy of performance, as it is important to keep a perfect balance between staying faithful to the composer's vision and using the musician's freedom of performance intrinsic to aleatoric composition.
References
1. Adorno Theodor W. On the Problem of Musical Analysis. In: Music Analysis, - No. 2. - July, - Vol. 1. 1982. -P. 169-187, translated by M. Paddison.
2. Brown Earle. The Notation and Performance of New Music. In: The Musical Quarterly, - No. 2. - February, -Vol. 72. 1986. - P. 180-201.
3. Darcy Warren. Rotational Form, Teleological Genesis, and Fantasy-Projection in the Slow Movement ofMahler's Sixth Symphony. In: 19 th- Century Music, - No. 1. - Summer, - Vol. 25. 2001. - P. 49-74.
4. Fink Robert. Goal-Directed Soul? Analyzing Rhythmic Teleology in African American Popular Music. In: Journal of the American Musicological Society, - No. 1. - April, - Vol. 64. 2011. - P. 179-238.
5. Hoogerwerf Frank W. Cage Contra Stravinsky, or Delineating the Aleatory Aesthetic. In: International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music, - No. 2. - December, - Vol. 7. 1976. - P. 235-247.
6. Zatkalik Milos. Reconsidering Teleological Aspects of Non-Tonal Music. In: Denis Collins (Ed.), Music Theory and Its Methods: Structures, Challenges, Directions. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishers, - 1. 2013. - P. 265-300.
- ISSN 2310-5666 -
Information about the author
Anastasiia Sharina, Postgraduate student, the Department ofMusic Theory P. Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine)
E-mail: [email protected]; tel: +38097-43-22-404 ORCID: 0000-0002-1538-3740
ШАР1НА А. В., 1
1 Нащональна Музична Академiя Украши iM. П. I. Чайковського
АЛЕАТОРНИЙ СКЛАД: АЛЬТЕРНАТИВН1 ВИКОНАННЯ В КОНТЕКСТ1 ТЕЛЕОЛОГП" (НА ОСНОВ1 ПРИКЛАДУ П1АНО-СОНАТИ № 3, АЕР ВАСИЛЬ ЦАНКО)
Анотаця
Мета: дослГдити KOHTpacTHi стратеги виконання алеаторичних композицш на прикладi фортетанно! сонати № 3, AER укра!нського композитора Василя Цанька, а також розглянути ix з позицГi телеологГi.
Методи: у розвгдцг використано ргзнг науковг методи, серед яких: аналгз лгтератури присвяченгй телеологГ! та алеаторицг; структурний аналгз AER; штерпретацшний аналгз, який дозволяе виявити альтернативш варганти практично! реалгзацп фортетанно! сонати № 3; та поргвняльний метод, який полягае в аналгтичному поданнг та поргвняннг двох стратеггй виконання.
Результаты: на вгдмгну вгд не-алеаторичних творгв, складнгсть розумгння та реалГзацн алеаторичних передбачае наявнгсть у партитург авторських вказгвок для виконавцгв. Загалом у бГльшосп з алеаторичних композицш включено низку настанов практичного змгсту. Втгм, важливим завданням саме ще! статтг був пошук показових телеологгчних стратеггй виконання конкретного твору. Зггдно з телеологгею, вгдтворення алеаторичного опусу передбачае застосовування багатьох варгантгв реалгзацг!. Однак у межах ще! розвгдки розглянуто двг найбГльш показовг та протилежнг альтернативи виконання AER, це: стратегiя циого нотного тексту i стратегiя фрагменту нотного тексту. Вгдповгдно до першо!, ташст мае точно дотримуватися композиторського задуму (плану побудови композицп), водночас друга стратеггя вимагае бГльш шдивГдуалГзований пгдхгд до виконання Сонати № 3.
Наукова новизна: полягае у тому, що увага придгляеться виключно «розширеним фортепганним техшкам» у творах сучасних укра!нських композиторгв нового поколгння. Власне, у статтг вперше проаналгзовано Сонату № 3для фортетано, AER (2017) Василя Цанька.
Практичне значення: запропоновано власний пгдхгд, який може бути доцгльним для подальшого вивчення гнших алеаторичних композицш.
Ключовi слова: алеаторика, телеологГя, альтернативи виконання, укра!нська сучасна музика, фортетанна Соната № 3, AER Василя Цанька, «розширеш техшки гри».
1нформац1я про авторах
Шарта Анастасия Вгктор1вна, Астрантка кафедри теорГ! музики, Нащональна Музична АкадемГя Укра!ни Гм. П. I. Чайковського
E-mail: [email protected]; тел.: +38097-43-22-404 ORCID: 0000-0002-1538-3740
