Revealing Sonic Wisdom in the Works of Cat Hope

There are many ways in which wisdom pervades artistic discourse. It is only recently, however, that a concerted effort has been made to understand the wisdom embodied in music. Drawing from the literal translation of phonosophy, this article attempts to unveil what might be described as sonic wisdom from a composer’s perspective, derived from an interview between Australian philosopher Samuel McAuliffe and composer Cat Hope. Hope’s notational practice challenges the hierarchies established by common practice notation, resulting in her contemporary art music being accessible to a wider range of performers, including those that do not read any music notations. Engagement with Hope’s notation leads to a revealing and transfer of a different kind of sonic wisdom than found in more traditionally notated works, in a process facilitated by technologies and articulated through musicianship.

Developing a Phenomenological Approach to Music Notation

Sound art theorists Seth Kim-Cohen and Salomé Voegelin regard the fixed conceptual structures of notation either as an obstacle to pure sensorial engagement with sound (Voegelin 2010), or as the site of arrogant musical exceptionalism (Kim-Cohen 2009). While sound, whether constituted in phenomenological or idealist terms, is evolving and dynamic, notation is characterised by its ossifying imperative (Kim-Cohen 2009; Voegelin 2010). For Voegelin, a music score is regarded as conceptual, not perceptual. It is read as text and, it seems, has no meaningful place within a phenomenological practice of sound art (Voegelin 2010). The criticism that Vogelin’s phenomenalism, in particular, levels at notation invites close examination of notational practice and the semiotic structures that underwrite it. In this article, I seek to challenge the conceptual imperative of fixed notation through the presentation of a case study in the form of an original composition for string quartet and tape. Drawing on research by Rudolf Arnheim and Mark Johnson, a form of notation will be proposed that enables the score to escape singularly semiotic structures so that it may address the dynamic, phenomenological mode of experience that recent theories of sound art imply is beyond the reach of musical notation.

Performance Practice of Early American Hymnody: Tempo and the “Moods of Time”

Modern time signatures indicate metrical organization in notated music. However, in most American hymnals and psalters published between 1721 and 1809, time signatures also signify very specific tempi. This notational practice, further removed from modern usage than any other element of this music, derives from proportional notations abandoned in art music in the seventeenth century. As technically complex music was published using this notation in the 1760s, these time signatures began to be used more subtly. In combination, they provide metrical effects unlike those possible with modern time signatures: doubling or halving tempo, or maintaining the pulse while altering its division or larger metric organization. Viewed from the perspective of modern notation, these functions diverge from their appearance. This article clarifies the correlation between time signature and tempo indicated in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century American tunebooks (hymnals), arguing for its inclusion in modern performances of this repertoire. Internal evidence and related pedagogical practices suggest these tempi were intended to be observed; most early American theorists, composers, and compilers advocated adherence. Any revival of repertoire first published in this notation, including the works of such composers as William Billings, Daniel Read, and Supply Belcher, would profit by observing these tempi. In a repertoire frequently devoid of interpretive markings, time signatures provide invaluable clues to performers.

The relationship of perfect and imperfect time in Italian theory of the Renaissance

Music of the Renaissance abounds in instances of successive and simultaneous use of perfect and imperfect time. When they occur simultaneously, the intended relationship can usually be determined without much difficulty. It cannot be assumed, however, that horizontal relationships of mensurations were always identical with the vertical ones. On the contrary, we know, for example, that many theorists advocated that major prolation signify augmentation only when it occurred simultaneously with minor prolation in another part, and not when minor and major prolations followed one another in the same part. Similarly, the sign of diminished perfect time always indicated diminution by half when it occurred simultaneously with undiminished perfect time; otherwise it might also indicate diminution by a third. Consequently, when imperfect time is followed by or follows perfect time, the question arises which value should remain equal under both tempora: breve, semibreve or minim? It is striking that not a single modern scholar considers the possibility of semibreve equivalence. It will be readily seen that semibreve equivalence is an independent possibility only when combined with different prolations (see Example lc–d); when prolations are the same, it is indistinguishable from minim equivalence (see Example la–b). Anticipating the results of the investigation that follows, I should say at once that I have not found a single theorist who would advocate semibreve equivalence in . The fact that modern scholars do not consider semibreve equivalence either means, presumably, that notational practice of the Renaissance does not suggest it.