An open letter to musicologists

James Ingram

18th February 1999

Ladies and Gentlemen!

In November 1998, Cologne University hosted an International Musicological Symposium to mark Karlheinz Stockhausen’s 70th birthday. This was, for me, a rare chance to meet some musicologists at work, and to form an idea of their current concerns. It proved to be one of the most enjoyable events of the last 25 years, being very well planned and executed - both as a whole and in detail. I hope very much that things continue in this spirit. I’d especially like to congratulate Christoph von Blumröder on organising the event, and for his introductory words to Signale 1.

I did not read a paper myself, but was able to air my views about one of my pet obsessions - the notation crisis in this century - in several conversations during the breaks.

I found it very odd that this topic was not discussed at the symposium - even though it plays a large part in Stockhausen’s work as a whole. I have the feeling that musicologists (following composers) have given it up as being too difficult to solve, and are reluctant to talk about lost battles... However, notation remains much more important than, for example, ‘formula’-technique (which was on the agenda) because ‘formulas’ make use of symbols which are assumed to be understood. But nothing has been understood... Strange how unwilling the musicologists were to look into the scores, or to do any ‘formula’-analysis, and how much more willing they were to describe the more superficial aspects of the pieces (I dont mean this necessarily in a derogatory sense). Notation is, for example, all important during the 50s and 60s, and is intricately bound up with Stockhausen’s crisis around 1970 - for example, his improvisation ensemble broke up in the attempt to set up a demanding, un-notated performance practice.

There is a skeleton in the cupboard, and its been swept under the carpet!

Prof. Gruber warned us to read an artist’s texts with caution. (What an artist says may be more important than whether his opinions are correct or not.) I’d like to extend this caution to include scores as well, because notations also presuppose a world view... It really is high time musicologists took a long hard look at the standard (Romantic) notation - they have, after all, had considerable success revitalising Early Music...

The symposium was accompanied by a series of concerts, both at the university and at the Musikhochschule, and the choice of programs for these provided an excellent retrospective. Listening to MIKROPHONIE I, HYMNEN, TELEMUSIK, MANTRA, Kathinkas Gesang etc., it was very clear that, for Stockhausen, sounds and the piece-as-event are all-important. His Art consists of real performances, not just scores. While he continues to be extremely concientious about what goes into a score, these are nowadays always to be read in conjunction with a recording or performance which has been produced after a lengthy rehearsal period. In order to understand any notation well enough to interpret it, one has to have some information about the associated performance practice, and this is what real events (rehearsals, recordings or performances) provide.

The symbols in Stockhausen’s scores reflect his common-sense about time. In particular, he takes over from the nineteenth century the conventions of the Romantic notation because he and others failed to find anything better, or more practical, in the 50s and 60s. In my opinion, however, they failed because:

it was wrongly assumed that time and space can be equivalent (time cannot always be subdivided - see The Notation of Time)
the standard notation was badly understood and regarded with too much respect
composers dont have the necessary time or detachment from the problem to give it the right kind of attention. They are simultaneously trying to create works of art, fulfill deadlines, manage concerts, teach etc. This has been a problem throughout the century. That composers are also expected to be young (and therefore inexperienced) has made the problem worse, especially during the last 30 years.

Musicologists will therefore remain bogged down as long as they continue to look only at individual composers’ work. Our music notation (which is currently stuck with a jumble of antiquated concepts) should itself be studied, and this is, I take it, what musicologists are there for. It is the job of every academic science to identify and solve current problems, including this one. Notation is even a prerequisite for the development of Western music, and its no wonder that New Music has been stagnating for the last 30 years... So please DO something :-) !

I could go on and on about this subject, but refer you instead to my article ‘The Notation of Time’ (1985) which provides a convenient starting point for an investigation. My fundamental attitude has not changed since 1985, but the essay is not without its weaknesses:

My knowledge of the interactions before the 19th century is rather shaky. This is where proper musicologists need to confirm or deny my hypotheses. I had to start somewhere however, and I still think there was a fundamental change in the general common-sense about time, following the Newtonian revolution in mechanics at the start of the 18th century.
That notations require an associated performance practice is not sufficiently clear.

However, I shall continue to believe everything in the article until someone convinces me to the contrary. In particular:

The standard (Romantic) notation isnt sacrosanct, and there is a pressing need to rethink it.
The rules governing the physical (spacial) aspects of the symbols must be kept completely distinct from their meaning in time, because space and time are not the same thing (time is not always subdividable), and because the precise, local meanings have to be defined by contexts provided by composers (see also The Notation of Time: footnote 99.8).

It really is a pity that these ideas havent developed much since 1985. I was, perhaps, still too much of a composer to be taken seriously (in spite of my extensive experience dealing with the atoms of notation), and there was no reaction on the part of serious musicologists (who continue to publish learned articles with flawed assumptions...). As I implied above, some problems are too difficult for individuals to solve alone, and I too am no exception.

With Russel, Popper and others, I believe that philosophy must be rooted in ‘common-sense’. But ‘common-sense’ is a rather vague quantity, which can only be aquired in interaction with the real (material) world (It depends on each person’s experience.). So we all have to work together, if we want to get anywhere.

The Age of Heroes (who know enough to solve all their problems on their own) is over.

best wishes

James Ingram

P.S. Stockhausen is, of course, aware of what I think - how could it be otherwise after 25 years working together? That his notation is anachronistic does not, of course, diminish Stockhausen the composer, because for him, sound and events are what his Art is really all about (see above). He is a composer, not a musicologist.

Signale 1: Stockhausen 70 PFAU-Verlag, Postfach 102314, D 66023 Saarbrücken, Germany. ISBN 3-89727-047-1.
Prof. Dr. Christoph von Blumröder: Professor of 20th Century Music at Cologne University. Responsible for concept and organisation of the International Musicological Symposium at Cologne University to celebrate Karlheinz Stockhausen’s 70th birthday. Editor of Signale.
Prof. Dr. Gernot Gruber: Professor at the University of Vienna. Read a paper entitled “Stockhausens Konzeption der ‘Weltmusik’ und die Zitathaftigkeit seiner Musik” (“Stockhausen’s ‘World Music’ concept, and quotation in his music”). Doubtless this article will be published in the symposium’s proceedings.