Spectralism: Movement for the Ages

[Michael Waller]

Spectralism has become one of those fancy names in post-WWII avant-grade composition terminology.

As far as a "school of thought", I am a big fan!

The music began to emerge in the 1970s both in France amongst the composers of the Groupe de l'Itinéraire...

The most common recent proponents include:
Tristan Murail
Gerard Grisey
Phillipe Hurel
Horatiu Radulescu

Proto-spectral composers include Claude Debussy, Edgard Varèse, Giacinto Scelsi, Olivier Messiaen, György Ligeti, Iannis Xenakis, and Karlheinz Stockhausen. Theoretical predecessors include some of the composers mentioned and Harry Partch, Henry Cowell, and Paul Hindemith.

"'Spectral music' is not to be confused with Spectratonal music, which is both a musical form and an approach to music-making that grows out of a heightened awareness of the natural harmonic series and other fundamental acoustic phenomena."

I guess La Monte Young would be a Spectratonal Composer by this defintion.

Overall, I think the "thought" behind Spectralism (FFT) is "worth a thousand words" - and maybe the foundation of 21st century composition.

[Michael Waller]

Some quick examples:

[Bruce Hamilton]

Yes, I believe Grisey described spectralism as more of an attitude than any specific technique; i.e., it'snot necessarily generating harmony from FFTs etc., but an aesthetic where sound is a/the central concern. And to differentiate it from some of the sound mass/textural composers of the 50s/60s/70s, there's typically the explicit connection between timbre & pitch (the frequency domain).

[Michael Waller]

Wow! That's great Bruce...

Spectralism as an "attitude" --- I love it!!

an aesthetic where sound is a/the central concern.

Now's that a GOOD ATTITUDE

Maybe that's why this movement is so "universal" ?!?

An aside, the closest thing I can think of is Mark Twain's description of a "listening attitude"...

In terms of FFT, and such, Tristan Murail wrote in a discussion about Giacinto Scelsi, that he used quarter tones for "tone colour" while Scelsi used it for "interference vibrations".

But I am not sure about this distinction, maybe you can give a little more explanation:

differentiate it from some of the sound mass/textural composers of the 50s/60s/70s, there's typically the explicit connection between timbre & pitch (the frequency domain).

Bruce Hamilton said:

Yes, I believe Grisey described spectralism as more of an attitude than any specific technique; i.e., it'snot necessarily generating harmony from FFTs etc., but an aesthetic where sound is a/the central concern. And to differentiate it from some of the sound mass/textural composers of the 50s/60s/70s, there's typically the explicit connection between timbre & pitch (the frequency domain).

[Bruce Hamilton]

...Tristan Murail wrote in a discussion about Giacinto Scelsi, that he used quarter tones for "tone colour" while Scelsi used it for "interference vibrations". "
But I am not sure about this distinction, maybe you can give a little more explanation:
"differentiate it from some of the sound mass/textural composers of the 50s/60s/70s, there's typically the explicit connection between timbre & pitch (the frequency domain)."

Yeah, distinctions like this are a bit sketchy, and again more attitudinal than anything else. One can use similar techniques, yielding similar results---for different reasons. For the spectralists the frequency relationships that create timbre are connected to the frequency relationships that create harmony; whereas someone like Scelsi is perhaps creating sonic effects/events more freely around a drone/axis--and microtones, mutes, playing techniques, orchestration are all working as one to realize his expressive sound-vision (after all, many of his works were borne out of ondiola improvisations).

Michael Waller said:

Wow! That's great Bruce...
Spectralism as an "attitude" --- I love it!!
an aesthetic where sound is a/the central concern.

Now's that a GOOD ATTITUDE

Maybe that's why this movement is so "universal" ?!?

An aside, the closest thing I can think of is Mark Twain's description of a "listening attitude"...

In terms of FFT, and such, Tristan Murail wrote in a discussion about Giacinto Scelsi, that he used quarter tones for "tone colour" while Scelsi used it for "interference vibrations".

But I am not sure about this distinction, maybe you can give a little more explanation:

differentiate it from some of the sound mass/textural composers of the 50s/60s/70s, there's typically the explicit connection between timbre & pitch (the frequency domain).

Bruce Hamilton said:

Yes, I believe Grisey described spectralism as more of an attitude than any specific technique; i.e., it'snot necessarily generating harmony from FFTs etc., but an aesthetic where sound is a/the central concern. And to differentiate it from some of the sound mass/textural composers of the 50s/60s/70s, there's typically the explicit connection between timbre & pitch (the frequency domain).

[Mary Jane Leach]

This may seem simplistic, but I would think spectral music is music where harmonic frequencies are artificially added, while composers such as La Monte Young (and me) create those extra frequencies naturally. I would probably consider Radulescu in the same camp as Young, if I was hung up on categorizing things, which I"m not. Also spectral music had a lot of institutional support, whereas the American counterparts didn't (don't).

[Paul H. Muller]

Do you have any examples on your website that best illustrates this?

Mary Jane Leach said:

This may seem simplistic, but I would think spectral music is music where harmonic frequencies are artificially added, while composers such as La Monte Young (and me) create those extra frequencies naturally. I would probably consider Radulescu in the same camp as Young, if I was hung up on categorizing things, which I"m not. Also spectral music had a lot of institutional support, whereas the American counterparts didn't (don't).

[Mary Jane Leach]

I only have examples of my music on my site, and I only seem to have excerpts on it. However, if you go to my myspace and net new music pages, you can find examples of complete pieces. 4BC, Trio for Duo, Feu de Joie, and Xantippe's Rebuke all demonstrate this in its purest form, in which I work with sound phenomena using multiples of one instrument. (for some reason the link function isn't working - my myspace name is emjayleach)

[Paul H. Muller]

Mary Jane:

Thanks for pointing me to your NNM page - listening to 4BC now - great stuff for Bassoons!


Mary Jane Leach said:

I only have examples of my music on my site, and I only seem to have excerpts on it. However, if you go to my myspace and net new music pages, you can find examples of complete pieces. 4BC, Trio for Duo, Feu de Joie, and Xantippe's Rebuke all demonstrate this in its purest form, in which I work with sound phenomena using multiples of one instrument. (for some reason the link function isn't working - my myspace name is emjayleach)

[Mary Jane Leach]

Actually, 4BC is for 4 bass clarinets. Feu de Joie is for 7 bassoons. Xantippe's Rebuke is for 9 oboes. Trio for Duo is for 2 voices and 2 alto flutes, with the voice (me) sounding like the alto flute.

[Michael Waller]

Thank you so much for the bottom of my heart.
Your music is truly amazing, and I am honored to hear the warmth from which it emanates.

Celestial Fires [XI Records] is a beautiful place to start Paul.

I agree wholeheartedly that there is something "unique" about La Monte Young's spectralism,
and I believe it is exactly that "creat[ing] those extra frequencies naturally" is what is the motive behind this distinction.

I also think Radulescu is in that LMY Camp of "non-subscribers" in the school of spectralism.

I found a term on wikipedia ( ;) "Spectratonal music"

"'Spectral music' is not to be confused with Spectratonal music, which is both a musical form and an approach to music-making that grows out of a heightened awareness of the natural harmonic series and other fundamental acoustic phenomena."

Thank you again!

Mary Jane Leach said:

This may seem simplistic, but I would think spectral music is music where harmonic frequencies are artificially added, while composers such as La Monte Young (and me) create those extra frequencies naturally. I would probably consider Radulescu in the same camp as Young, if I was hung up on categorizing things, which I"m not. Also spectral music had a lot of institutional support, whereas the American counterparts didn't (don't).

[Michael Waller]

"attitudinal"

You're onto something!

For the spectralists the frequency relationships that create timbre are connected to the frequency relationships that create harmony; whereas someone like Scelsi is perhaps creating sonic effects/events more freely around a drone/axis--and microtones, mutes, playing techniques, orchestration are all working as one to realize his expressive sound-vision (after all, many of his works were borne out of ondiola improvisations).

I think this is the "explicit distinction" we are all identifying in:

The "so-called spectralists" are primarily concerned with "inserting" this highly articulate philosophy (that occurs "naturally" in the overtone series, as La Monte Young, Mary Jane Leach, Pythagoras and many others have identified) into a traditional harmonic context ridden with "artificially added implications".

Scelsi, on the other hand, did exactly that "creating sonic effects/events more freely around a drone/axis--and microtones, mutes, playing techniques, orchestration are all working as one to realize his expressive sound-vision (after all, many of his works were borne out of ondiola improvisations)".

Great comment!

Bruce Hamilton said:

...Tristan Murail wrote in a discussion about Giacinto Scelsi, that he used quarter tones for "tone colour" while Scelsi used it for "interference vibrations". "
But I am not sure about this distinction, maybe you can give a little more explanation: "differentiate it from some of the sound mass/textural composers of the 50s/60s/70s, there's typically the explicit connection between timbre & pitch (the frequency domain)." Yeah, distinctions like this are a bit sketchy, and again more attitudinal than anything else. One can use similar techniques, yielding similar results---for different reasons. For the spectralists the frequency relationships that create timbre are connected to the frequency relationships that create harmony; whereas someone like Scelsi is perhaps creating sonic effects/events more freely around a drone/axis--and microtones, mutes, playing techniques, orchestration are all working as one to realize his expressive sound-vision (after all, many of his works were borne out of ondiola improvisations).

[Mary Jane Leach]

Just one general comment. While Wikipedia can be useful for objective information, I'd be wary of relying on it for subjective and analytical information, especially with fields or developments that are recent. For instance, the inclusion of Feedback Studio composers in the spectral category is baffling. I know the work especially of Johannes Fritsch and Klarence Barlow, and wouldn't consider them spectralists at all. I check to see who makes the Wiki entries if possible. So, I'd focus on the techniques and worry about the terminology later. For instance, Walter Zimmerman, who is also a Feedback composer, wrote "sound phenomena" pieces by adding the frequencies of notes played, which didn't really work as well as those of us who found the phenomena by trial and error. Also don't forget, that sound also evolves in space, not just time, and that is where it becomes a lot more difficult to evaluate/objectify.