nov. ’23. “no ontology of sound”

The only clear conclusion here is that structure and methods are as indispensable as they are hindrances.
peter ablinger, Now!

there is no doubt to me that scores always lie on the periphery of what is possible in sound. moreover, the functionless-ness of art in general is the only aspect thereof that i even find beautiful. the lack of necessity in playing is overshadowed by the external validation sought before, during, and after the fact of performance, in the context of music based in western classical and its posterity.

a score, regardless, remains as self-opposed choreography… what is verifiable? the medium, but the reason for a motivation. the fact that i want to know implies others do. an interpretation of a piece of music (or of anything, for that matter) requires two types of assertions:

the most common instruction i find myself giving to players when first approaching my music is to take ones time. a score lies to the performer, as it implies that it contains the entire temporal narrative abstractly on paper, linearly- when this never has existed in actual interpretation.

in my solo cello piece which stutter and sing, two versions were produced; an indeterminate score which contained rhythms and contours, and a traditional score which contained a “transcription” of the original. in my sessions at Darmstädter Ferienkurse, most composers preferred the former, and most performers preferred the latter. i wanted to know if awarding freedom was itself a structure that proved to be a hindrance.


which stutter and sing, page 1. original ‘open’ score.

alternate version with ‘example’ pitches.

the biggest mistake i made was conveying to the cellist that there was an alternate score with pitches. when using notation, regardless how indeterminate or not it is, the existence of a finite amount of pages can mistakenly communicate to the performer that the piece ends, with measurable points in between to separate, stop, restart, etc.

the composer must decide beforehand their place as mediator between concept (relation to idea) and manner (performance). globalization and over-saturation of content, scores, ideas, and networks entails a re-orienting of the issue of whether something we create exists for us or itself. the composer cannot separate themself from the audience, as they are not ever in control of the sound that results. it is the illusion of control that solicits art being made for the sake of itself. herein lies the misconception that a work belongs to a composer. if a composer truly ‘made’ their work, it would never be played.

ever since social media has taken over our lives, contemporary art music has continued to shift from a set of core values to a surface of attractive glitz. New music was meant to challenge authority, propose new forms of expression, stimulate our imagination and provide emotional satisfaction. these days, being socially connected means a lot more than using art to connect new concepts and ideas.
liviu marinescu, personal interview.

it is impossible to write and not be seen, or to hear without being heard. the inspirations for every gesture in music come from methods and sources i find sensible to represent myself, but also from every moment of mundanity that compels me to not write down what i’m hearing in that instant. a creative process is ongoing from birth until death, ergo i am always writing. only sometimes do i sit down, like a radio operator, to try and fine tune myself into the frequency i want to dictate.