Prescriptive notation: Limits and challenges

Abstract

Abstract Prescriptive notation specifies means of execution rather than resultant configurations of pitch and rhythm. A focus on performative techniques influences the way in which the composer communicates through the medium of writing. In general, prescriptive notation points to a shift in the function of notation from representation to mediation. Consequently, advantages and disadvantages of prescriptive notation are distinct from those of descriptive notation (its standard counterpart). Western musical history provides many examples of the combined use of both practices. Prescriptive notation is discussed from two viewpoints: the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive notations, and the expressive character and function of prescriptive notation in contemporary music. Sonic and notational forms of expression in contemporary works for violin are examined, indicating how prescriptive notation unlocks creativity in areas unknown to conventional performance practice. Keywords: Prescriptive NotationDescriptive NotationPerformance Notes [1] The contribution of notation itself to the development of composition in western classical music is of course well known. Its importance in the history of western classical music during the last hundred years or so is particularly noteworthy. [2] There appears to be a contradiction between the abundance of notational inventions and the inadequacy of present-day notation to represent the expression that takes place in music making. However, this contradiction is illusory because the abundance takes place in areas where the sound is stable and universal enough to be described, while the inadequacy is observed in areas where the sound does not yield these characteristics. Today, this may account for the growing number of composers wanting to work with specific performers—perhaps a reflection of a desire to work with an increased area of definable qualities in music. [3] Standard staff notation is, in this sense, prescriptive notation. However, the terms adopted in this article have been determined by the relative predominance of description and prescription in the given cultural context. It was Charles Seeger (Citation1958) who first distinguished between prescriptive notation and descriptive notation, also suggesting potential cooperations between the two in order to facilitate a better means of music-writing. It may be useful to point out that Seeger's descriptive notation is similar to Böttinger's resultant notation, but different in that Böttinger's resultant notation is a representation of abstract music, whilst Seeger's is a representation of a musical performance. In Seeger's view, Böttinger's resultant notation would be a more symbolically minded prescriptive notation and the action notation a more materialistically orientated prescriptive notation. [4] The similarity between the algorithmic process and the performative process of prescriptive notation lies in the successive structure of decision making. [5] It must be noted that fingering "0" can be problematic as "0" indicates an open string which is unaffected by the hand-transposition. [6] Berio re-wrote his Sequenza for flute (1958) in 1995 because in his view the notation of the first version (using spatialised rhythmic notation) was not precise enough. This is a rare case in modern music—where exactly the same 'music' is published in two different ways. The second version can be seen as an interpretation of the first, yet it is not difficult to observe that the first version captures the character of the piece—the rhythmic instability and the disjointedness of the notes—more expressively than the second one. The composer's urge to increase the piece's notational precision more than thirty years after its composition suggests that while the rhythmic layout of the 1958 version represented (at least to Berio himself) his own particular subjective intentions of rhythmic instability and energy, these intentions were only implicit in the score and their interpretation was context-sensitive. Similarly, it can be argued that the authentic force of Berio's original creative idea, belonging as it did to the 1950s, identifies the piece far more strongly than can any recomposition of the original score. [7] One can 'transcribe' compositions into numbers by describing the fingering (as Berio does) or pitch class (with additional information about register). The pitch-class transcription derives its concept from serialism and has become an analytical technique employed by many musicologists in the studies of diverse types of music. Musicians who are experienced in compositional and analytical technique can read music written in shorthand using pitch-class sets, without re-writing it fully in notes. This suggests that, practical though conventional notation may be, other pitch notations are neither less expressive nor inferior in transcribing some types of music. [8] As the left hand moves nearer to the bridge, the distances between fingers need to become smaller than the corresponding intervals at the lower hand positions, because the shorter the resonating length of the string, the smaller becomes the physical size of the interval. [9] The default basis varies depending on the type of music being played. For example, the basis for reading serially organised pitch material is that all pitches, regardless of tessitura, are one of only 12 pitch classes; in Baroque music, the numerical shorthand used for continuo playing (figured bass) depends upon the contextual understanding of tonal practice. [10] Tablature notation comprises a set of letters, numbers and signs derived mostly from the playing technique of a particular instrument, and is therefore used in notating music for those instruments only. The success of Renaissance tablatures lies in the recognition of physical mechanisms and characteristics of each instrument as rules in notation. Staff and tablature notations developed concurrently and gained many features from each other, before staff notation began to dominate almost exclusively by the mid-eighteenth century. [11] The following text is taken from the composer's performance notes: 'pst, mst, psp, msp indicate poco & molto sul tasto, and poco & molto sul ponticello respectively (all cancelled by nat). indicate degrees of bow pressure (and the associated variations in the speed at which the bow is drawn across the string): weak (flautando), "normal", exaggerated (producing distortion of a discernible pitch) and pitchless scraping, respectively. In the last case, "pitches" are shown in brackets to indicate fingering, but will not be heard. indicate degrees of left-hand finger-pressure: "harmonic", intermediate and "normal" respectively.' [12] 'Composer's Note' by Richard Barrett for air, made available separately from the score, by the United Music Publishers. [13] Ibid. [14] The violin is tuned down to G-D-G-D (from the standard E-A-D-G) and the cello to D-G-D-G (from A-D-G-C). [15] John Cage (Citation1985). The score includes performance notes. [16] This can be compared to reading a traditional orchestral score—the hierarchy must be created by interpreting the relative importance of the parts within a whole. [17] I imagine this might be the case for any bowed instrument, as this piece may be performed on any of the bowed strings. [18] Programme notes for Aaron Cassidy (Citation2004). Available online at http://www.aaroncassidy. com/music/crutchofmemory.htm