‘The New Musical Notation: A Graphic Art? John Evarts Leonardo, Vol. 1, No. 4. (Oct., 1968), pp. 405-412. Stable URL http flinks.jstor-org/sicisici=0024-094X % 281968 10°29 1%3A4°%3C405%3A TNMNAGS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X, Leonardo is currently published by The MIT Press. Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at bhupulwww.jstororg/about/terms.hunl. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of « journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial us. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at bhupswww jstor-org/journals/mitpress.htm. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission, JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to ereating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @jstor.org, bhupslwwwjstor.org/ Wed Dee 6 22:26%44 2006Leonardo, Vol. 1, pp. 405-412. Pergamon Press 1968. Printed in Great THE NEW MUSICAL NOTATION —A GRAPHIC ART? John Evarts* Abstract—Following the rupture with the past in the visual arts, contemporary ‘music 100 has broken violently with tradition in the last 40 years. The paletie of sound possibilities has been radically increased—including electronic sounds and noise—and with the new theories and techniques have come equally radical ‘changes in musical notation. Some of the changes have been functional and essential, some have been extremist and exaggerated. The illstrations—the ‘graphic pictures used as scoresshow the extent of freedom and responsibilty ‘piven to the performers and to chance. The resemblance of some of the scores {0 the work af painters of the last decades, such as Mondrian, Miro and Klee is sriking The new notation has aroused much dissent and opposition as well as support. Exhibitions have been given of ‘graphic scores’, numerous analytical articles hhave been written; publishers protest because of the greatly increased cost in beginning from scratch for each score; there is no standardization of indications {for special effects; conductors and performers find the realization’ ofthe scores ‘extremely dificult and time-consuming. One writer, Karl Roschitz, clarifies the purpose of this new graphic notation in these terms: ‘The essential condition of these “optical transcriptions”, apart Jrom questions of passing fashion, isthe constant desire to find forthe work to be ‘performed and interpreted a method of fixation, so to speak, “adapted to the ‘material” and which thereby gives the interpreter a clear, transparent and complete picture of the work as well as of the events and problems which are its “key”... on these scores are indicated only the purely approximative musical “evolutions and developments" —evolutions intended to make the performer Hise ascover and make fl se faces and relations of sound, of perpetually new sound events. ‘The writer poses the question of whether these graphic scores may not be regarded with more interest for their visual appeal in the future than for the Imusic which hey are intended to communicate. ‘These experiments may simulate and strengthen later creativeness: they reflect the desire to evolve new forms of expression and new tools of communication, and in the new notations, they reveal ‘akinship with the graphic artist which has never before existed so strongly. ‘The rupture with the past which has been character- istic of modern art and which has created new modes of expression, as well as new techniques of communication, has also occurred in music. This break can be observed not only in the new sounds and musical theories but also in the elaboration of entirely new and individualistic forms of musical notation (Figs. land 2). Like painters and sculptors, today’s musicians are forging new forms and new tools of communication. Fundamentally, itis of little interest to a music- lover whether a composer uses India ink, a ball- point or a goose feather to transcribe on paper his latest work. To the listener it is a matter of in- Assoc, Exes, Secretary, International Music Coun (Unesco), 6 rue Franklin, Paris 16, France, (Received 26 March 1868.) 405 difference whether he uses translucent paper, ten staves, a hundred or none. The music's there for hearing! But notation interests both composers and per- formers vitally, for it is their principal mode of communication. And some of the composers are ‘making life difficult indeed these days for per- formers and conductors and, one should add, for publishers as well. There has been a kind of revolution in the notation of some contemporary music, whose fan- tasy at times seems to exceed the extravagances of the music itself. Composers have created their own private, individual way of notating their thoughts. New musical languages, divorced entirely from those of the past, have been created. Perhaps within a few years these picturesque squiggles, graphs and fantasies will be considerably more admired forJohn Evaris Fig. 1. Score for ‘Nr. 9 Zyklus’ by Karthein: Stockhausen, (Publisher: Universal Edition, Vienna, 1960.) Fig. 2. Score for ‘Mandros' by Anestis Logothetis. (Publisher: Universal Edition, Vienna, 1963.)