Eurhythmics
Roger Sessions: The Musical Experience
Dana Friedman
November 12, 2008

The very first reaction I had when I began reading this section of THE MUSICAL EXPERIENCE is that music can be understood in three major parts: the composer, player and listener. For nearly a year, I have been directing a play focused on three actors playing one character that is divided in three. So, for me, the significance of this does not feel light or without meaning. Three is such an important number in so many dimensions; I will list a few: Holy Trinity; Triple Goddess; Three Phases of Matter; and, my favorite-- ID, EGO, and SUPEREGO. In this book, the idea is that one really is reliant upon the other to make the circle complete. One has less purpose without the other and when all three come together, anything is possible.
If one thinks of the three as a culmination of what makes up the musical experience, and if one thinks of music as life, then the first moment of the music must be breath. I love the idea that our first impulse towards rhythm is breath. For the rest of our lives, we continue breathing, but is impossible not for every breath and everything else that follows not to be a distinct, however distant, reaction to that first breath. It is on impulse that we inhale and on impulse that we exhale, and we cannot live without continuing that process. We begin to use and understand rhythm from the inside out. His “Most important idea”: tension and release. Accumulation and exhalation. This is life: Up and down. Upbeat, downbeat, give and take, contrast. At the point you cannot continue, you change. The law of dialectic and the law of physics states that something will continue to increase until it hits a critical moment and then it will change into a new thing. I live by this law and I use it in my work every day. I think Sessions would too.
Impulse and response become interchangeable. What comes first has relevance because they only exist in relation to each other and in relation to the human senses of the listener. The conductor can choose a story, and a player can also make choices and execute with precision, skill and technique, but at the end of the day, the other sounds in the air, the breath of the people and the awareness of the human mind are all variables in the musical equation. Therefore rhythm and music and even sound can never be an exact equation. Rather, they are a series of actions and reactions that continue indefinitely. Though they can be controlled in many ways, the variations are as infinite as there are grains of sand. Because the same moment never occurs twice, the same sound cannot either. As humans, and as open individuals, we can enjoy the pleasure of knowing that we have little control and therefore the world of sound and music is filled with unlimited opportunities. In theory, as soon as we define something, that thing can no longer exist because there will be a reaction to that definition.
The musical ear discriminates based on awareness, knowledge, openness, emotional state, preference, associates, compartmentalizes, fills in the spaces between sounds. Lately, I have also been taking my first figure drawing class. I am not horrible at drawing because I have learned simple lessons in scale and perspective, line weight and shape. However, the element that is most exciting is negative space. Just like we fill in the spaces between sounds with our own ideas, I can draw a portrait of a nude body and leave out certain lines. The human mind will automatically fill it in with the information it has stored. No matter who the nude may be or what shape they are in reality, the imagination will inevitably takeover. I never thought about it in terms of music. But since I have had the visual experience, I can completely understand how we do the same thing with music. This is one form of discrimination. It is not a bad thing, but a fact of human nature and another example of why music can never be actually replicated or defined—because it is dependent on the human reaction.
Even consonance and dissonance are products of interpretation based on western definitions of sounds. The space between sounds is much more universally definable.
We have to define a standard and vary from there. We are working with dialects in the play I am directing as well. The play takes place in the 1860’s in Northern England. The dialect at the time cannot be literally determined because none of us lived during that time and there were no recording devices invented yet. However, we do know the terrain and the economic and socio-political information. We also know what these northern English dialect sounds like now. With this information, we can create a proposed dialect. The fact is, however, that all of the characters in the play come from different places and different walks of life. Their upbringing, occupation, gender and many other characteristics affect their vocal sounds and patterns. As a cast, we created a neutral standard dialect. From there, each character could make alterations based on their own detailed life. This “neutral” is a made up thing. It is not real. And neither are the variations, but for the sake of defining a world. We establish “consonance and dissonance” in terms of the neutral.
A composer is like a writer, creating an aural journey. She is an inventor of a “train of thought.” In theory, this “train” can be always judged subjectively because what the composer creates does not exist prior and therefore people can respond with taste. A person can respond objectively, with technical comparisons to another piece as well. This type of comparison is intellectually satisfying, but, in my opinion, has much less value. The purpose of music, to me, has less power functioning in technical ways than it does when it is attempting to tell a story or move the listener. Even if the purpose is solely for the player or conductor, if it does not resonate on an emotional level, the value is less. In many cases, this “train of thought” can be a marriage of left and right brain functioning. The more balanced both sides are, the effectiveness is most high.

On communicating with common vocabulary and creating a language of subjective terms, I have had a lot of experience. I know that Sessions didn’t necessarily mean this literally, but since I have a limited knowledge of the world of music on an academic level, I have found other ways to respond to what I hear. Sometimes I respond physically, but often in directing, I have to find words to discuss sounds and rhythms and music with musicians, singers and actors when I don’t know the proper terms or I am trying to expressive something emotional. Since I have been working with Ali as the cellist/witch character in my play, we immediately played a game to establish a vocabulary. She began to play, and I would say a word. The words, (like: lust, grief, pride, joy, blue, yellow, red, earth, wind, fire air), made Ali play and move a certain way. I was able to see how she took a word that we both understood and turned it into sound. By doing this enough, we had a new vocabulary to communicate. We also did this with the actors and it proved extremely helpful in getting them and Ali comfortable creating a dialogue with sound and movement.
The composer/player have to keep product and the listener’s reaction out of her head or it will inform the choices. When this happens, the sound/rhythm can be less honest. This is because the music is not trying to achieve a goal that can only be defined by the listener. This is only a road to disappointment. The story can be made clear, but the reaction to it must be open to interpretation. Otherwise, there would be a wrong way to hear something and that would be very sad. Leaving music open to interpretation allows for longevity and a recurring connection no matter era or age.
It is the Listener’s joy, opportunity and right to hear, enjoy, understand and discriminate. In a world based on polls and opinions and financial significance, I am grateful for a few sacred arts. Art for art sake, with purpose and presence, will not die.