New complexity as music's Joyce?

[liszmaninopin]

Recently, I've finished writing a research paper for school on the works of James Joyce, more specifically Ulysses.  When finished, it struck me that there are a number of parallels between his his works and those of the "New Complexity" composers.

Both seek to expand the technical range of their expressive capability (Joyce through original use of words and sound; NC through new relationships with their instruments)

Both are complex in inspiration, conception, and execution

Both draw from a wide range of sources (Joyce from Homer, the Bible, Shakespeare, and countless other literary sources; NC from cultural music, the traditional western canon, and mathematical/electronic systems of composition)

One could also say that both are quite controversial.

What do you think of this possible parallel?

[ted]

I have read all of Joyce more than once but, as I am unfamiliar with "New Complexity" music I cannot pass a knowledgeable opinion. What is a typical example of a "New Complexity" piece of music ? As I understand it, Joyce's primary thrust, his discovery, was the omnipotence of the abstract word to generate meaning in the mind of the reader, in much the same way as you might "see things" in an abstract painting. Finnegan's Wake definitely operates along these lines. Ulysses and other works perhaps not quite so much, although there are strong indications of what was to come - "Going to a dark bed there was a square round Sinbad the sailor's roc's auk's egg ... " etc. "Lovelorn countenance of Lugubrubooloohoom", "The bonhomme eyes and fatchuck cheekchops of JollyPoldy, the Rix Dix Doldy" I'm probably quoting inexactly from memory, but you know the bits I mean.

For me, Joyce is really making words function as all music has always functioned anyway. That is his originality and his genius. Therefore I would need to listen to some "New Complexity" music in order to see why it possesses a "Joycean" property more than, say, a Bach fugue, a Joplin rag, a Jarrett improvisation or anything else.

Purely as an aside, you might like my post in the thread at

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,10579.msg109125.html#msg109125

[ahinton]

Recently, I've finished writing a research paper for school on the works of James Joyce, more specifically Ulysses.  When finished, it struck me that there are a number of parallels between his his works and those of the "New Complexity" composers.

Both seek to expand the technical range of their expressive capability (Joyce through original use of words and sound; NC through new relationships with their instruments)

Both are complex in inspiration, conception, and execution

Both draw from a wide range of sources (Joyce from Homer, the Bible, Shakespeare, and countless other literary sources; NC from cultural music, the traditional western canon, and mathematical/electronic systems of composition)

One could also say that both are quite controversial.

What do you think of this possible parallel?

It's an intriguing one but, I fear, also rather limited in the extent of its realistic application. Certainly, the notion of taking elements of linguistic expression as points de départ for new ones - as in the invention of new words and new sounds - could suggest a degree of common ground, but if one considers, for example, the notational complexities that one finds in certain music by, say, Ferneyhough or Finnissy, we are possibly confronting a different concept. Look, for example, at the kinds of rhythmic complexity - tuplet groups within other tuplet groups - or the occasional hyperactive multiplicities in Finnissy's piano writing - and the obvious connection with things Joycean seems to ebb away somewhat. So, whilst this comparison is arguably not without some degree of validity, I think that what Joyce on the one hand tried to achieve in exploratory works such as Finnegan's Wake and what some of the "NC" composers on the other hand have sought to do in certain of their more challenging works are probably more notable for their divergences than their commonalities.

Best,

Alistair