Aaron Cassidy- Ten Monophonic Miniatures

[pianowolfi]

Aaron Cassidy's "Ten Monophonic Miniatures" are composed under the presupposition that, besides dynamics in their standard form (e.g. ppp, mf, sffz) and durational discrepancies (e.g. staccato, legato, sostenuto), the form of attack placed on the keyboard has a distinct, recurring and static effect on the tone and color of the sound produced.  This is a continuation of theories and compositional techniques Richard Barrett, Vinko Globokar, Alain Louvier and Ian Pace were using at the time, taken to a somewhat extreme level, such as but not limited to using knuckles, fingernails, palms in various positions or specific striking maneuvers under the notion that it would create a slightly different tone than normal performance of the instrument would.  An example:



As you can see, performance instructions are given, while a unique notational method is used to notate how a note should be struck.  Obviously, this is partially to add a sense of physicality and struggle to the work (Cassidy is an admitted New Complexity composer), but my question is, do you think that using techniques like this actually create different tones?  Another example of the notation from this work:



You can as well listen to the first three miniatures here:

https://www.aaroncassidy.com/soundclips/miniatures1-3.mp3

My next question would be, of course, if Cassidy's theory is actually true, is it also true that certain pianists have a certain "sound" not due to technique, musicianship or even anything conscious, but perhaps due to merely, I don't know, how many millimeters long bone x in hand y is, or the weight of a tendon in his or her pinky finger, or simply the way the pianist curls his or her finger a fraction more or less than another?

As far as my experience goes, the actual "sound" is an entirely psychological factor. All attempts to measure or define it are at most approximative. To get the sound that is closest to your intentions it's not necessary to own a so and so long bone x in hand y or a so and so long **** ( ) or whatever. Of course they do play a role but not the crucial one.

Why did Ethiopian runners like Gebrselassie succed so often in long and short distance competitions? Because they had this certain angle in their ankle which allowed them to run faster than anyone else. But that's sports and that's only about speed!

As we see so often in the comparative threads and polls, music can't be approached only from this very standpoint because it's a quantitative and not a qualitative standpoint. And I think that most of us would agree that art and music is more about "how" than about "what" and "how much"

(*bows, refuses to receive prospective applause, reserves a place in apology thread for whatever deadly pianostreet sin he's responsible for *)

[tea cup]

Now, while I don't doubt that you or anyone can enjoy this modern music and regard it as good, I'd have a hard time believing it sounds beautiful to anyone.

Yes and that is where the problem lies indeed! People should start believing that there are other people that enjoy listening to this music, and also that there are people that find beauty in it (sometimes the beauty of the context alone!). Some one mentioned Sciarrino? What ethereal and nocturnal beauty there is in his sonata! Beauty in music can also be found in the form of the piece itself, and not only the sounds. Mendelssohn's Prelude and Fugue, WoO. 13 for example. What audacity and tedious tendentiousness there is in the fugue! But how beautifully crafted and mature the structure of the fugue is! Surely no other Romantic composer at the age of 19 could have composed something so like a Bach organ chorale. And Brahms! my god. What a master of form; but how boring his pieces can be sometimes! All I'm saying is, is that the beauty of music, for those that have a little patience and are attentive, extends far beyond what we hear.

[iroveashe]

As we see so often in the comparative threads and polls, music can't be approached only from this very standpoint because it's a quantitative and not a qualitative standpoint. And I think that most of us would agree that art and music is more about "how" than about "what" and "how much"

Perfectly said

Beauty in music can also be found in the form of the piece itself, and not only the sounds.

I fully agree, in fact I think that is the case in most masterpieces, but I also believe that for appreciatting the form you shouldn't need the aid of anything else but the music itself. I find it funny that while in the past composers simply followed the flow of music and the ones to break the rules did so in a sort of personal adventure against their times because they were ahead of them, and were fully recognized not until later, there is now specific genders and tons of composers in the category of "music not easy to understand". But the truth is that no one knows if because they're (relatively) thrown aside now by the general audience, like say Mahler back then, it means they're ahead of their time. There is merit in writing something that is new and fresh, but that's hardly all there is when you're judging a piece of Art.