lic

enc

e c

rea

tiv

e c

om

mo

ns

Pate

rnit

é

Pas

d’U

tili

sati

on

co

mm

erc

iale

Pa

rta

ge

des

co

nd

itio

ns

init

iale

s à

l’id

enti

qU

e

©

1L’

AU

TRE

MU

SIQ

UE

REV

UE

4BR

UITS

No

ise, C

om

ple

xit

y, a

Nd

th

e a

geN

Cy

of

impr

eC

isio

N

Joh

n E

. Bo

wEr

- m

ar

Ch

201

6Noise, Complexity, aNd the ageNCy of impreCisioN John E. BowEr

Through acts of subjective artifice, interpretation imbues the immaterial with tangible qualities. Yet what are the bounds of these forms, the scope of their influence? This paper probes the representational artifacts of materiality and emergence. Vari-ously conceived, noise serves as a heuristic device through which music is read and representation proposed.

Music is inscribed between noise and silence, in the space of the social codification it reveals. JacquesAttali

The above epigraph from Jacques Attali’s Noise (1985) invites a moreexhaustiveunpacking thanwillbeofferedhere. Inplaceofahistoriogra-phyonwhatconstitutesmusic,noise,orhowconceptionsofoneshapesanunderstandingoftheother,thispaperinsteadacceptsamultivalentnoiseand immediatelyengagesmusicas “the audible waveband of vibrations and signs that make up a society” (Attali, 1985,p.4). Ifmusic“reflects the manu-facture of society” asAttali (1985) proposes—a sociocultural contextmusicactswithinandupon—thendoesmusicnotconditionthosesignsitmakesapparent?

PhilipBohlman(2005,p.206)claimsa“representational paradox”inmusic’sabilitytorepresentbothselfandother.Ofontologicalimportance,thiscon-flictunfoldswhenmusicassertsatextualidentityforinterpretationwhilecultivatingitsownecology,acontextinwhichinterpretationmayoccur.Onthemetaphysicalaspectofthisparadox,Bohlmanwrites:

[…]it is on that level that music assumes forms that reveal it to represent through both agency and process. When music serves “as representation,” we are witnessing its subjective potential; when music is a “representation of ” something, we recognize its objective functions. When it represents, music may be either subject or object, or—and this is when the paradox seems at once obvious and obscure—music can combine the metaphysical traits of both subject and object.1(2005,p.206–207)

Inthiselaboration,Bohlmandoesnotopenlyprivilegeoneaspectofhispar-adoxoveranyother.However,Bohlman’sdescriptionanimateshismusicaltext2inamannerthatsuggestssubtlebias.Presupposedinanyinstantia-tionofsubjectivequalityisitsowngenesis,theoperativeactionthatenablesitsemergenceandmayreflexivelyconditionthecontextinwhichitsignifies.

These dynamics—of ontology, stasis, and motion—recall the work ofGeorges Bataille. Specifically, Bataille’s informe (formless) establishes apriorityfor incitationoverspecification.A“performative”act(Bois,1996,p.29),informepresumptivelyrevokesthetranscendenceoftheabstract.3Inareturntotheworldly—theempirical—informeprovokesconfrontationbetweensomequalityweobserveandthoseimplicitpossibilitiesnotinitiallyexpressed.Throughthisdiscordinformeinducesnoise:arenewedaware-nessoftheobject’sinherentindeterminacycompelstheobservertoreevalu-ate itsqualitativepositioning.MichaelRichardson (1994,p.51)proposes

1WhereBohlmandescribespotential,theterm“possibility”seemsmoreappropriatetothereadingofferedhere.AfterMassumi(2002),anynumberofpossiblesignificationsareinherentinamusicalobject—itssocioculturalposi-tioning—whereaspotentialreferstoactivity,anobjectinmotion,conceivedofastheimmanenceofthatobjecttotheactualizationofanyofitsimplicitpossiblevariations.2Text,object,body,andimageareusedinterchangeably.

3“Abstract”referstoasubjectivequality,anobject’ssocioculturalpositioning.

lic

enc

e c

rea

tiv

e c

om

mo

ns

Pate

rnit

é

Pas

d’U

tili

sati

on

co

mm

erc

iale

Pa

rta

ge

des

co

nd

itio

ns

init

iale

s à

l’id

enti

qU

e

©

2L’

AU

TRE

MU

SIQ

UE

REV

UE

4BR

UITS

No

ise, C

om

ple

xit

y, a

Nd

th

e a

geN

Cy

of

impr

eC

isio

N

Joh

n E

. Bo

wEr

- m

ar

Ch

201

6thatBatailleintendedtorevitalize“intellectual enquiry”inthisemphasisonactionoversignification.Inthisspirit,noiseandtheactivitythatengendersitisofforemostconcerntothisstudy.

Thispaperseeksaconceptualspacetoconsidertherepresentationalarti-factsofmaterialityandemergence.Theensuingdiscussionoffersaviewofmusic,sound,andtextashomologous.Probingthelimitsoftheseobjects’notationelucidatesaspectsoftheexpressivepracticesthatdrawuponthem.Thepairingofobjectanditsdescriptionisseenasoppositionalandalocusofactivity.Metaphoricnoisebothinitiatesandemanatesfromthisactivitywithimprecisionbeingitsmoststructuredform—theonemostimmanenttoexpression.Whetherbyassumptionorprescription,noisecanbeagen-tic,actingtoaffectthesubjectivecontentofthemusicaltext.UnsukChin’sAkrostichon-Wortspielservesasaculminatingreferenceinthisdiscussionasitstextualcomplexityandconceptualinclusivityaptlyillustratetheideasoutlinedabove.

oN materialism

Intermsofamaterialconceptualizationofsound(exclusiveoftheattrib-utedorperceivedmusicalitytherein),PierreSchaeffer’sobjets sonoresmaybethemostenduring.Whileluminous,Schaeffer’sformulationalsocarriesconstraints that occlude the interpretive field of view.One appropriationofSchaeffer’ssoundobjectcanbefoundinAaronHelgeson’sphenomeno-logical reading of music by Salvatore Sciarrino. Appropriately, Helgesonoperatesfromapositionthatacceptstheintentionalityofobjectsexisting“in nothing more, or less, than our experience of them”(Helgeson,2013,p.5).WhileconformanttowhatSchaeffer(2004,p.81)describesas“an objectivity linked to a subjectivity,”suchempiricismistoolimitingforpresentpurposes:emphasizingabstraction—stasis—isolatesthereaderfromtheobject’sotherinherentqualities.

ChristophCoxsimilarlyreflectsonthesoundobjectinhisrecentlyproposedsonicmaterialism,extricatingthesoniceventfromitssource—anemanci-pationofidentity—anddispensingwiththetranscriptivenatureofrecordedsound(Cox,2011).WhatCox(2011,p.156)leavesare“ontological particulars and individuals rather than qualities of objects or subjects.”Inturn,Cox(2011,p.157)suggests,“We might ask of an image or a text not what it means or repre-sents, but what it does, how it operates, what changes it effectuates.”

TheruptureCoxespousesgivesprimacytoanobject’sactionswhilenullify-ingitssubjectivequalities.Superficially,thisorientationseemstoalignwithBataille’sinforme.However,thisexerciseislessproductive:abrogatingsig-nificationrenderstheperformancesilent.Nevertheless,allureremainsintheactivismofCox’ssonicmaterialismasjustbeyonditscompasslayaccommo-dationsforsubjectiveconsideration.ThepositionBrianMassumiputsforthinParables for the Virtual(2002)likewiseemphasizestheontogeneticpro-cesses that shapeemergence.Massumialsocriticizesexclusivelysemioticanalyses foroverlooking“the expression event—in favor of structure” (p.27).Despite these positions,Massumimakes allowances for signification andinterpretsthequalitiesanobjectexpressesasdiscretepositionsalongacon-tinuouspathofactivity.Inonesteptowardsreconciliation,Massumiofferstheconceptoftransduction:“the transmission of an impulse of virtuality from one actualization to another and across them all [….] the transmission of a force of potential…” (p. 42).An intermediary stance, transduction accounts forthe“forces, intensities, and becomings”Cox(2011,p.157)privilegeswhilenotinvalidatingtheinterpretivecontributionofextantsignifiers.Fromactionsthatunfoldinthevirtual,transductionsetstheactualaloud.

lic

enc

e c

rea

tiv

e c

om

mo

ns

Pate

rnit

é

Pas

d’U

tili

sati

on

co

mm

erc

iale

Pa

rta

ge

des

co

nd

itio

ns

init

iale

s à

l’id

enti

qU

e

©

3L’

AU

TRE

MU

SIQ

UE

REV

UE

4BR

UITS

No

ise, C

om

ple

xit

y, a

Nd

th

e a

geN

Cy

of

impr

eC

isio

N

Joh

n E

. Bo

wEr

- m

ar

Ch

201

6Amaterialistviewoftextuallanguagecanbefoundinperspectivesrootedintheaural.Numerousscholarsworkinginsoundandmusicalstudiesnotethe concordance between their respective practices of interest and thoseofnonsenseverseandsoundpoetry.4ForCox,soundpoetryepitomizesadisruptive radicalism sympathetic to his own disengagement with repre-sentation.ThiscommunionispoignantlyillustratedinCox’squoteofSteveMcCaffery—“fromphonictosonic”—andhisimplicitapprovalofSaussure’sexilingsuchmaterialfrom“the realm of signification”(2011,p.154).

AcounteringviewisofferedbyAaronCassidyinhisquoteofBrandonBellwhoidentifiesa“‘[yearning] for language by rupturing the very coherence of it’”(Cassidy, 2013, p. 45). Instead of interpreting neologisms and linguisticplasticity as sodeformational as tobeonly aperformative force,Cassidyqua Bellreadsitascommunicativeinthemostsubjectivesense.Thesocio-culturalcontextiskeyasitispresupposed.Thatcontextbegetstheprocessofbecomingandtherefore—asAttalinotes—itsproductisareflectionofthatsocialorder.

Regardlessofhowwedefineanobjectorthedegreetowhichweprivilegeaphenomenologicalexperienceofitsconstitution,exfiltratingatextfromitsenvironmentabandonsallthatwhichthecontextencodeswithinit.Theseencodedartifactsareinformative.Theydonotcomprisetheobjectbutcon-vey something about it: information. Not itself manifest, information iswhatKatherineHaylesidentifiesas“a pattern rather than a presence[….]con-structed never to be present in itself ”5(1999,p.25).Asynthesisofpatternandabsence—or“hyperreality”afterBaudrillard(Hayles,1999,p.249)—musi-calnotationfallsunderthetaxonomyofinformation.Notationservesasthesimulacrumofanactionspaceinwhichobjectsandeventsaredescriptivelyreifiedbutneveractualized.6

Whatoftherelationshipbetweennotationandthenotatedobjects’creation?DanielSiepmannsuggests“direct contact between the thoughts of the composer and the notated musical gestures on a score. They are flush with intentionality, focus, and human creativity at every moment of inception and execution”(Siepmann,2010,p.182).Whilenotationlikelycapturessomeintentionality,theextenttowhichitdoessoremainsdebatable.7TrevorWishart(1996,p.23)openlycritiquesnotationasimposing“a finite state logic”uponthemusicalobjectsitdescribes.Wishartmaintainsthatsonicobjectsideallyexistinacontinuumof infinitelypossiblequality,whereasnotationfixesobjectsupona lattice ofquantizedvalues—adiscrete, imprecise representationof a continuousdomain.8

Regarding intentionality, Wishart suggests that the lattice can impose apresuppositiononinception:objects intendedtobedescribedinnotationwillqualitativelyconformtoitslimitationsandthecomposer’s“conception of what constitutes a valid musical object”(Wishart,1996)followssuit.Inthesubjugationofsoundtosignsinnotation,thehyperreal“does not merely com-pete with but actually displaces the original”(Hayles,1999,p.250).Ascendant,notation asserts presence and its components assume the capacities foractionandsignification.

Onmattersofnotationincontemporaryconcertmusic,thepraxisofcom-poserslabeled,NewComplexity,maybethereferencede rigueur.WritingonthemusicofBrianFerneyhough,StuartDuncansuggeststhatfewobserv-ers“are able to look beyond[…]notational complexity”(Duncan,2010,p.141),thedominantandoftensingulartraitinvokedincharacterizingthismusic.Whilenotationdoesencodewithinitsomedescriptiveinformationaboutthemusic,DuncanintonesFranklinCoxtoremindthereaderthat“‘the precise meaning of notational and rhythmic symbols is not […] unequivocal’”(Duncan,2010,p.152).Thisobservationcompelstheethnographicacknowledgment

4SeeCassidy(2013),Cox(2011),Priest(2013),andBauer(2012).GivenLigeti’srelationshipwithChin,thelatter’sinsightsareworthnoting.

5ThisassertioncorrespondswiththeunderstandingofGödel’stheoremrecountedinChen(2004).

6NotationappliesequallytoexamplesofWesternmusicalnotation,recordedsound,writtentextet al.

7Toprovidejustoneexample,Bohlman(2005,p.214)writes,“Ethno-musicologists have a tendency to distrust notation as an inadequate or misleading sign system…”

8IndeferencetoWishart,digitalsys-temsareconstrainedbysimilarlatticeswherenoisecanresultfromalackofprecision,aninabilitytofullyrepresentacontinuoussignalinadiscrete,mediatedform.

lic

enc

e c

rea

tiv

e c

om

mo

ns

Pate

rnit

é

Pas

d’U

tili

sati

on

co

mm

erc

iale

Pa

rta

ge

des

co

nd

itio

ns

init

iale

s à

l’id

enti

qU

e

©

4L’

AU

TRE

MU

SIQ

UE

REV

UE

4BR

UITS

No

ise, C

om

ple

xit

y, a

Nd

th

e a

geN

Cy

of

impr

eC

isio

N

Joh

n E

. Bo

wEr

- m

ar

Ch

201

6thatnotationisculturallydependent.JustasoneshouldallowforpracticesthatdemonstratevaryingdegreesofcompatibilitywithWesternnotation,oneshouldalsorecognizeapracticethatco-optsitsschematoexceptionalends,onesseeminglyincompatiblewiththeapparentpurposeofthenota-tionalmodelandyetfullydependentuponit.

Such ends are observed throughout Ferneyhough’s œuvre; Cassandra’s Dream Song forsoloflute(1970)isanearlybutoftencitedexample.9Asnotated,Ferneyhough’sperformanceindicationsareattimescontradictory,nearlyimpossibletorealize,orsovoluminousastorequireactsoftriageandomissionbytheperformer.Thecomposerwritesinthescore:

This work owes its conception to certain considerations arising out of the problems and possibilities inherent in the notation-realisation relationship. […]The notation does not represent the result required: it is the attempt to realise the written specifica-tions in practice which is designed to produce the desired (but unnotatable) sound-quality.(Ferneyhough,1975)

Ferneyhoughappropriatesnotationandexploitsitslimitations.Indoingso,musicalobjectsencountertheirowndescriptionsinasharedcontext:pres-enceandpatterncollide.10

oN Complexity

TheseinteractionspromptareturntoHaylesandadifferentnotionofcom-plexity.Haylesconveystheobservationthat“an infusion of noise into a system can cause it to reorganize at a higher level of complexity”(Hayles,1999,p.25).With regard to Ferneyhough’sCassandra, noise emanates from the ele-mentsofnotationthatbringpreviouslyabsentpossibilitiesmoreimmanenttoexpression.Thisaggregateofmusicalobjectsandtheirdescriptorssug-geststheunitasmultiplex(Morin,1999).“Simultaneously one and multiple”(Morin,1999,p.116),EdgarMorindescribesthecomplexunitinparadoxi-calterms:

It is a nonhomogeneous but hegemonic unit because the organized whole dominates the distinct elements and holds them in its power. It is a nonprimitive but original unit: it has its own irreducible properties. It is an individual unit, quite indivisible: it can be decomposed into separate elements, but this changes its existence.(Morin,1999,p.116)

Emergence is similarly irreducible and—as in transduction—individualemergencesfeedbackbothonthepartandthewhole.If“positionality is an emergent quality of movement”(Massumi,2002,p.8),thentheantagonisticbutreciprocalarrangementofobjectsandthenoisysimulacrathat(would)displacetheminducesqualities—inthewhole—notpresentineitheralone.Putmoreelegantly,Morin(1999,p.118)writes,“The whole is not only more than the sum of the parts, but the part of the whole is more than the part by virtue of the whole”.

Theconceptoffeedbackisnotnewtothisdiscussion.Bohlman’srepresen-tationalparadoximpliesa likenessof feedbackinthereciprocitybetweenrepresentationsofselfandother.EarlierreferencestoAttalirevealasimi-laraffinitywithrespecttoasuggestedsocioculturalconditioningofandbymusic.Observed in thecomplexunit, feedback servesasbothprecipitateand catalyst conditioning the emergent qualities of the reactant objectspriortoexpression.Theformthesereactionsactuponisthevirtualone,onedelineatednotbyanexpressedqualitybutbyanobject’sindeterminacy—thetotalityofitspossiblequalitiesandactions.

Indeterminacyisnoise,andthroughinteractionsthatmaycomprise“reso-nation or interference, amplification or dampening” (Massumi, 2002, p. 25),

9InadditiontoitsreferencesinDuncan(2010),EllenWaterman(1994)andLisaCella(2009)havealsowrittenonCassandraandtheinterpre-tivechallengesitposes.

10ReturningtotheearlierquoteofSiepmann,onlyinperformance—exe-cution—cannotatedgestures(possibly)revealtheextentofthecomposer’sintent.

lic

enc

e c

rea

tiv

e c

om

mo

ns

Pate

rnit

é

Pas

d’U

tili

sati

on

co

mm

erc

iale

Pa

rta

ge

des

co

nd

itio

ns

init

iale

s à

l’id

enti

qU

e

©

5L’

AU

TRE

MU

SIQ

UE

REV

UE

4BR

UITS

No

ise, C

om

ple

xit

y, a

Nd

th

e a

geN

Cy

of

impr

eC

isio

N

Joh

n E

. Bo

wEr

- m

ar

Ch

201

6feedbackshapesthisnoise.JamesWhiteheadwrites,“Noise is destructive and fatal unless a limit is applied”suchthat“noise in-itself[…]effaces the possibility of any symbolism at all”(2013,p.23).

Theinvocationofeverypossibilityprohibitstheimmediacyofanyrepresenta-tionotherthanareflexiveonethatremainsvirtual.Feedbackmediatesinde-terminacylikeasieve—alattice—throughwhichtheobject’sfieldofpotentialflows.Onceindeterminate,noiseisnowmerelyimprecise,limited.Inarecur-sionofcomplexity,whatemerges intotherealmofsignification isnot justtheexpressedquality itselfbutalsoadescriptionofthatobject’s imprecisestatepre-emergence,apatternencodedwiththeartifactsofthismediation.IllustratedwithCassandra,notonlydoestheinteractionofamusicalobjectand its notated representation produce a new sonorous object to be readandinterpreted,butwithitsexpressioncomesatoken,someaccountofitsbecoming.Inthecomplexformulation,textandmeta-textcoincide.

Language has “encoded within it, along many vectors, the presupposition of a human actor with agency, autonomy, and discrete boundaries” (Hayles, 1999,p.252).Notably,thisactorpossessesanabilitytoactproductivelytowardsthe expressive (affect), expression (communication), and the expressed(emergence).Thecomposerservesastheapparentactorinmostdiscussionsofmusic.However,theroleofthecomposerdoesnotexcludeotheragenticpresencefromawork.Examplesgiveninthispapershowinstancesofnoiseassumingexpressiveagency.Asanagentmateriallyaffectingawork,impre-cisionmostreadilyactswithinthecomplexunit.

The preceding discussion of Ferneyhough’s Cassandra depicts how thenotation’s purposeful subterfuge, its prescriptive imprecision, elicits—inexecution—musical objects not apparent in the score. In a sense agency-by-proxy,thenotatedobjectneverthelessaffectsitscontextinamannerastaticsignwouldnot.Inamoregeneralsense,thefeedback-recursionpar-adigmdescribedabovecreatesasenseofinteractivityamonginstantiatedobjects.Theemergencesthatresultmayexceedcompositionalforethoughtand therebyshedanypredicationof individual intent.However initiated,thisprocesscreatesevercompoundingstrataoforganizationandalloftheconcomitantcomponentsthereof.11

oN musiC: Akrostichon-Wortspiel

Inapaperthatcommenceswithanevocationofmusic’ssocialfacetsandanextractaddressingitsrepresentationalnature,theprecedingdiscussionseems—generously—to bemore of than aboutmusic. To redirect, a briefreadingofUnsukChin’sAkrostichon-Wortspiel(1991–3)—hereafterA-W—provides an opportunity to follow a broader interpretive gaze, one thatobservesthemultivalentnoiseembracedatthispaper’soutset.

Inthiswork,ChinsetstextbyMichaelEndeandLewisCarrollissuingthesubtitle,Seven scenes from fairy-tales for soprano & orchestra. Consid-eredhere,noisedirectlyaffectsmusic,text,andthecomplexunionofthetwo;noisealsooperatesexternallyinregardtothetextualitybetweenChin’sworkandthoseofCarrollandEnde:Through the Looking-Glass and The Never-Ending Storyrespectively.Thesevaryingaspectsofnoiseimpartamaskingeffectonthecompositionasawhole.Noiseeffectuatesopacityordistanceinoppositiontothescoring’sclarityanddepthofstage—amatterforinterpretationthatwillbeaddressedshortly.

Chin’schoiceofsourcetextssetsthetenorofA-Wbutthetreatmentofinto-nationconveysthemostimmediateimpactinperformance.“Toachievearefined microtonality” (Chin, 1996), approximately half of the ensemble

11Acceptingforthepossibilitythatnoiseasimprecisionisnothingmorethanastructuralconceit,anaptcritiquemightofferthat“structure is the place where nothing ever happens, that explanatory heaven in which all eventual permutations are prefigured in a self-consistent set of invariant generative rules”(Massumi,2002,p.27).

lic

enc

e c

rea

tiv

e c

om

mo

ns

Pate

rnit

é

Pas

d’U

tili

sati

on

co

mm

erc

iale

Pa

rta

ge

des

co

nd

itio

ns

init

iale

s à

l’id

enti

qU

e

©

6L’

AU

TRE

MU

SIQ

UE

REV

UE

4BR

UITS

No

ise, C

om

ple

xit

y, a

Nd

th

e a

geN

Cy

of

impr

eC

isio

N

Joh

n E

. Bo

wEr

- m

ar

Ch

201

6

Example1.Akrostichon-Wortspiel,mm.342–346,byUnsukChin©Copyright1995byBoosey&HawkesMusicPublishers,Ltd.

Reprintedbypermission.

mustraiseitstuningbybetweenonesixthandonequarterstepinanunco-ordinated,imprecisefashion.Thiseffectimbuestheharmonicfieldwithasense ofnoise andde-centers the salient focal pitches found throughout.Similar to Cassandra in terms of its ambiguities, this prescript assumespresenceandinexecution,itsfeedbackconditionsallothermusicalobjectsinthework.

Returning to the texts,bothCarroll andEndeconstruct fantastic worlds situated aboveundercurrents of disaffection, toil, and escap-ism. Accordingly, the sixth movement ofA-W, “TheGameofChance,”consistsentirelyof random letter strings—nonsense—in lieuof words, phrases, or other higher-orderedstructures. Chin’s musical treatment retainsa sense of the monophonic, especially at themovement’s culmination.Thewoodwindsandpiano share pitch content—shading the uni-soninagradientoftonecolor—butthismusicdoes not coalesce into purposeful harmonicstructures.12 With the instruments sound-ing in concert, these gestures require precisecoordination. However, their rhythms strainagainst—or even disrupt—the movement’sprevailing metric organization (Example 1).In this part ofEnde’s story,13 the protagonistencounters a city of people who—absent ofmemory and language—endlessly cast letter-inscribed dice to no effect: a comprehensiblemessage never emerges. While symbolic, theonly symbolism here lies in the self-directedreflexivityofnoise.14Chin’ssettingforgoesanylibertieslayingbarethesourceanditsallegory.

Incontrast,Chinchoosestomanipulateothertextsinthiscycle.Shewrites,“Sometimes the consonants and vowels have been randomly joined together, at other times the words have been read backwards so that only the symbolic mean-ing remains” (Chin,1996).Thesealterationsput literary text, set text,andmusicaltextincontentionwithoneanother.Accentuatingthesonicoverthephonic,Chin’ssettingsobfuscate their lineageand—contrary toherclaimbutwithinherdesign—dampentheinvocationofallbutthecoarsestsym-bolismtherein.

A-W’ssecondmovement,“ThePuzzleoftheThreeMagicGates,”alsodrawsuponThe Never-Ending Story.15ChinrecallsthecharacterArtreyu’spas-sagethroughthreegatesortrials.InEnde’sstory,twosphinxesstandsen-tinel at thefirstgate, theoutsetof the rite.This image—or someessenceof it—figuresmostprominently in themovementas the textundergoesamercurial decomposition. Chin isolates individualwords, excises compo-nentsyllables,andthenmirrors,16juxtaposes,andconcatenatestextualele-ments.ExtractingtheendoftheGermanpluralforsphinx—Sphinxe—Chinmirrors its last two lettersaroundthepreceding“n”: “xenex.”ThisstringaccompaniesaritornellofigurewithaconjunctdescentfromFtoD(Exam-ple2).17

12Similartreatmentofpitchcontentisobservedinthemandolin,harp,andviolinpartsinsupportofthesopranosoloist.13FromChapter23(Ende,2004,p.388).

14Thegameofchanceelegantlydepictsindeterminacyinthevirtual.Thediceencompassallofanobject’spossiblequalities.Astheytumbleandflow,individualqualities—let-ters—becomemoreorlessimmanenttoexpression.Butlackingalinguisticmodel—structure—theobjectneveractualizesthispotentialanditremainsimmaterial,silent.15FromChapter6(Ende,2004,p.83).

16Thesecondgateisamirror:Zauber Spiegel Tor.

17EachnumberedchapterinThe Never-Ending Storybeginswithasuccessiveletterfromthealphabet.ThesixthchapterbeginswiththeletterF—theinitialnoteofChin’sritornellofigureandafocalpitchofthemovement.

Example2.Akrostichon-Wortspiel,mm.55-60,byUnsukChin©Copyright1995byBoosey&HawkesMusicPublishers,Ltd.Reprintedbypermission.

lic

enc

e c

rea

tiv

e c

om

mo

ns

Pate

rnit

é

Pas

d’U

tili

sati

on

co

mm

erc

iale

Pa

rta

ge

des

co

nd

itio

ns

init

iale

s à

l’id

enti

qU

e

©

7L’

AU

TRE

MU

SIQ

UE

REV

UE

4BR

UITS

No

ise, C

om

ple

xit

y, a

Nd

th

e a

geN

Cy

of

impr

eC

isio

N

Joh

n E

. Bo

wEr

- m

ar

Ch

201

6The ritornellooccursharmonizedandorches-trated in the ensemble throughout, and itsrecurrencesvariouslyaccruechromatic inflec-tion and a bifurcating rhythmic diminution(Example 3). In an intimate accord betweensoloist and ensemble, these flourishes inflectthealreadydiffusetexttheyaccompany—feed-back in a complex unity. Themovement con-cludeswithafinalutteranceof“nex,”animageofarrestedmotion.

The provocatively witty and subversive fifthmovementofA-W,“DomifareS,”alsowarrantsmention.Thismovement eschews an externalliterary source; in its place, Chin sets solfègesyllables to the developing motto that recursthroughout the piece. Here, the composerdirectlymakesinformationsonorousbyjoiningmusical pitch with its own descriptive patois.Initially aligned in the fixed-do system, eachinstance of themotto finds its correspondingsolfègemore thoroughly displaced.Moreover,asmusicalstatementscontracttemporally,thetextual lexicon expands from the diatonic toincludechromaticsolfègesyllables. Individualoccurrencesofthedescendingmottoultimatelywaneindistinction.Instead,theirheterophonycontributes to a composite texturemarked bypolyrhythmsandchromaticfluctuation(Exam-ple4).

WhatMassumi (2002,27)mightcall the “col-lapse of structured distinction into intensity,”dis-cordmakesitselfmoreapparent—inthequalitythat emerges—by the nature of its discord.Each successive rupture between apparentsignifier and signified generates more noise.Solfège’sschematicfunctionalityfails,itslimi-tationabates.Whatbeginsasacoymusicalpunevolvesintosomethingsolemn,andthissobri-ety has a musical correlate. Pedal bass tonesunderpin the Fortspinnung variations above;they progress: D–B-flat–E-flat–D. From astructuralperspective,however,thebasscanbeheardassounding:D–E-flat–D—aninvocationoflamentation.Muchmorethanhappenstance,thelamentmotivemakesasignificantreturninthe seventh movement and prominently con-cludesA-Wasawhole.

Forthisreader,thebroaderinterpretivethemedevelopedinA-Wisoneofalienation.Noise—beitnonsense,textualinterferenceorobfusca-tion, some cognitive dissonance, imprecision,ortheemergentelementsofacomplex,recur-siveprocess—suggestsaretreatingcohesionofthesocialinadiminishingefficacyofcommu-nication.18Intheinvocationoffantasy,Chin—recallingBaudrillard—asks,“Whatisreal?”

18Nottooverlooktheautobiographi-cal,ChinrecountsnotcomposingforthreeyearspriortowritingA-W,aneffortsheundertookto“‘talk in [her] own language’”(Park,2007).

Example3.Akrostichon-Wortspiel,mm.104-110,byUnsukChin©Copyright1995byBoosey&HawkesMusicPublishers,Ltd.

Reprintedbypermission.

Example4.Akrostichon-Wortspiel,mm.291-295,byUnsukChin©Copyright1995byBoosey&HawkesMusicPublishers,Ltd.

Reprintedbypermission.

lic

enc

e c

rea

tiv

e c

om

mo

ns

Pate

rnit

é

Pas

d’U

tili

sati

on

co

mm

erc

iale

Pa

rta

ge

des

co

nd

itio

ns

init

iale

s à

l’id

enti

qU

e

©

8L’

AU

TRE

MU

SIQ

UE

REV

UE

4BR

UITS

No

ise, C

om

ple

xit

y, a

Nd

th

e a

geN

Cy

of

impr

eC

isio

N

Joh

n E

. Bo

wEr

- m

ar

Ch

201

6The destabilization of intonation not only enriches the aural dimension,butitalsovariegatesourconceptionofthewholebyhighlightingtwodis-tinctdomains.Assuch,thesalientpitchcentersChincomposeslosetheirgrounding.Toanalogizethiswithanacousticfallacy,thesoundscapephasesbetweenstates.Realitywanes.Aquestionunresolved,thesoloist—anobvi-ous surrogate for humanity—“fluctuates between these two tuning systems, depending upon which she is aware of at any time”(Chin,1996).Justasthesolo-istseekshersubjectivepositioning,thisreadingofAkrostichon-Wortspielsimilarlymovesbetweenengagingwhatthemusicrepresentsandwhatitisrepresentativeof.Alwaysintheearofthebeholder,representationislessamatterof“what one hears but of how one hears it”(Bohlman,2005,p.212).Subjectivityisinherenttointersubjectivediscourse.

Inresponsetoadialecticalpositiononrepresentation,thispaperexploresthe potential for signification by contemplating the material aspect ofobjects,thescopeoftheirpresence,andtheextentoftheirinfluence.Aliberalinterpretationoftheinvokedconceptsinformsthishermeneuticendeavorwithoutavowaloffidelitytotheorthodox.Noiseinitsvariousformsservesasaheuristicdevice,acomponentpartofthelargercomplexformulationthroughwhichmusicisreadhereandrepresentationproposed.Whatcon-stitutesareadingdependsupontheperspectiveoftheobserver.Thereforeameasureofitssuccessorfailureis“radically perspectival and, ultimately,[…]radically indeterminate”(Priest,2013,p.6).

Withregardtothecomplexityofinterpretation,EdgarMorincautions:

The semantic structure of language is like a hologram: when we refer to a dictionary, we see that a word is defined by other words which are also defined by other words and—gradually—the definition of every word implies within it most of the words of that language.19(1986,p.105)

Themultidimensional aspectof language that facilitatesnuancedexpres-sion—musical orotherwise—canalso inhibit it. In the imageof theholo-gram,MorinalsooffersanelementofallegorythatrecallsGeorgesBataille.Whenalucidinterpretationfailstoemergeortheapparentoneseemsinad-equateorpresumptive,theproductiveactofmerelyshiftingone’sperspec-tivecanelicitsaliencefromnoise.

refereNCes

Attali, Jacques.1985.Noise: the Political Economy of Music.TranslatedbyBrianMassumi.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Bataille, Georges.1985.“Formless.”InVisions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927–1939,p.31.TranslatedbyAllanStoeckl.EditedbyAllanStoeckl.Minneapolis:UniversityofMin-nesotaPress.

Bauer, Amy.2012.“ThecosmopolitanabsurdityofLigeti’slateworks.”Contemporary Music Review31(2-3):p.163–176.

Bohlman, Philip V.2005.“Musicasrepresentation.”Journal of Musicological Research24(3-4):p.205–226.

Bois, Y.-A.1996.“Formless:AUser’sGuide,ExcerptsToIntroduceaUser’sGuide.”October(78):p.21–38.

Cassidy, Aaron.2013.“NoiseandtheVoice:exploringthethresholdsofvocaltransgres-sion.”InNoise in and as Music.EditedbyAaronCassidyandAaronEinbond,p.33–53.Hud-dersfield,UK:UniversityofHuddersfieldPress.

Cella, Lisa.2009.“Cassandra’sDreamSong.”The Flutist Quarterly34(4):p.19–26.

Chen, Yi-Zhuang.2004.“EdgarMorin’sParadigmofComplexityandGödel’sIncomplete-nessTheorem.”World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution60(5-6):p.421–431.

Chin, Unsuk,Lewis Carroll,andMichael Ende.1996.Akrostichon-Wortspiel.London:Boosey&Hawkes.

19Theauthor’stranslation.

lic

enc

e c

rea

tiv

e c

om

mo

ns

Pate

rnit

é

Pas

d’U

tili

sati

on

co

mm

erc

iale

Pa

rta

ge

des

co

nd

itio

ns

init

iale

s à

l’id

enti

qU

e

©

9L’

AU

TRE

MU

SIQ

UE

REV

UE

4BR

UITS

No

ise, C

om

ple

xit

y, a

Nd

th

e a

geN

Cy

of

impr

eC

isio

N

Joh

n E

. Bo

wEr

- m

ar

Ch

201

6Cox, Christoph.2011.“BeyondRepresentationandSignification:TowardaSonicMaterial-ism.”Journal of Visual Culture10(2):p.145-161.

Duncan, Stuart Paul.2010.“Re-ComplexifyingTheFunction(s)ofNotationintheMusicOfBrianFerneyhoughandthe‘NewComplexity’.”Perspectives of New Music48(1):p.136–172.

Ende, Michael.2004.Die unendliche Geschichte.Vienna:Carlsen.

Ferneyhough, Brian.1975.Cassandra’s Dream Song.London:EditionPeters.

Hayles, Katherine.1999.How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Helgeson, A.2013.“WhatisPhenomenologicalMusic,andWhatDoesItHavetoDowithSalvatoreSciarrino?”Perspectives of New Music51(2):p.4–36.

Higgins, Sean.2010.“ADeleuzianNoise/ExcavatingtheBodyofAbstractSound.”InSounding the Virtual: Gilles Deleuze and the Theory and Philosophy of Music.EditedbyBrianHulseandNickNesbitt,51–76.Farnham,Surrey:Ashgate.

Massumi, Brian.2002.Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.

Morin, Edgar.-1986.La Méthode III: La Connaissance de la Connaissance.Paris:Seuil.-1999.“OrganizationandComplexity.”Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences879(1):p.115–121.

Park, Yong-wan.2007.“ChinUnsukAttheForefrontofContemporaryMusic.”Koreana21(4):p.64.

Priest, Eldritch.2013.Boring Formless Nonsense Experimental Music and the Aesthetics of Failure.London:BloomsburyPublishing.

Richardson, Michael.1994.Georges Bataille.London:Routledge.

Schaeffer, Pierre.2004.“Acousmatics.”InAudio Culture: Readings in Modern Music.EditedbyChristophCoxandDanielWarner,p.76–81.NewYork:Continuum.

Siepmann, Daniel.2010.“Aslightdelay:agencyandimprovisationintheAmbientSoundWorld.”Perspectives of New Music48(1):p.173–199.

Waterman, Ellen.1994.“Cassandra’sDreamSong:ALiteraryFeministPerspective.”Per-spectives of New Music32(2):p.154–172.

Whitehead, James.2013.“Un-soundingmusic;noiseisnotsound.”InNoise in and as Music. Edited by Aaron Cassidy and Aaron Einbond,p.11–30.Huddersfield,UK:UniversityofHuddersfieldPress.

Whittall, Arnold.2000.“UnsukChininFocus:Meditations&Mechanics.”The Musical Times141(1870):p.21–32.

Wishart, Trevor.1996.On Sonic Art.EditedbySimonEmmerson.Amsterdam:HarwoodAcademicPublishers.

John E. Bower(USA)isamusictheorist,composer,andtechnologistwhofindsinspirationattheintersectionofdisciplines.JohnholdscompositiondegreesfromtheBerkleeCollegeofMusic(B.M.)andDukeUniversity(Ph.D.)andcurrentlyteachesmusictheoryatTheOhioStateUniversitySchoolofMusic.