Composers don't often let us into their laboratories, but we should always be grateful when they do.

On the Cringeworthy titles thread, where it doesn't belong, I guess, a discussion began about contemporary tablature, and I ran across this quote:


This is something that took me by surprise, and I would appreciate some clarification. Tablature is useful for more clearly representing the execution method for a sound (i.e., an action notation rather than a result notation) -- in places where the mere indication of the desired result will be either misleading, or ambiguous, or harder to read. With tablature, once the performer is accustomed to it, music that is perhaps aurally complex but physically quite simple is much more practically and adequately representable.

But when does the player make the conceptual leap toward thinking of the movement of fingers as itself "gestural" rather than purely a means to an (audible) end? I'd appreciate input from all sides. Is it a conceptual leap at all, in which case I have a lot to learn about performer mentality? And if it is a conceptual leap, why is it one worth making?

And is this an excessively tendentious exordium for the topic? If so, I apologize - it might be, for I admit to being mystified.

I've got to admit to being foxed on this one, CD

I understood the purpose of the tablature to indicate the fingering by which a particular sound was to be achieved...  quite possibly a non-standard or unorthodox fingering which could produce that note, but with a sound-quality quite different what would be expected if the note(s) were notated conventionally?    To use a string instrument analogy...  by specifying that a passage of "conventional" notes isn't to be played in first or third position, but in extreme upper positions on the lowest strings of the instrument?

You mention "gesture" as though it's supposed to be something the audience will see...  I wonder if that was really what was intended here?   I doubt that more than a small number of any particular audience would recognise which fingerings were standard or not, nor be able to see them further back than the third row anyhow?   Apologies if I haven't understood your exegesis in the way you intended it?!

I find this intriguing. I'm often interested in how extraneous sounds (such as those which are the result of an action) can be 'written' and become part of a piece of music.
The focus of this is always on the sound, however, and not the gesture or action used to create it.
But these sounds/noises are often unpredictable, so I suppose a tablature notation which indicated these actions might be a more efficient way of notating them for all concerned. In terms of the mindset of the performer (and I claim to be no autority on this!) the use of a notation which gives these gestures more importance than conventional notation could, might result in their being given more importance during a performance than usual. (If that makes any sense at all).

In terms of the listener distinguishing between 'sound as such and sound as the result of action' (and here do we mean 'concert A' as opposed to the noise made by the D-sharp roller on a flute, for example) - maybe it is not nescessary that they should.
I am, personally, oppsed to a 'heirarchy' of sounds where some could be considered less important - actually some of these tiny sounds could be the crux of a whole piece.
Maybe it is unimportant for the listener to notice the gestures in terms of their action - this kind of thing couldn't be conveyed on a recording anyway, but in terms of their sound, in which case the composition would not need to 'point out' the difference in the method of sound production.

Once we begin to talk about physical gestures on the same level as sound, I feel there is a danger of pieces straying into the 'music theatre' category - fine if this is one's intention, but if not it raises questions about what these gestures are doing there in the first place...

Such is the danger of talking about this in the open, eh? Some journalistically minded ne'er-do-well pops in and christens.    All who are entertained by the above post (more power to ya!) please reread my disclaimer and don't attribute the joke to me:


I am walking on eggshells, I feel. Here are some extra winks, Ian: 

Other candidates to include - Frank Cox, Wolfgang Schurig?

(we'll do a Toop yet, and plant another Davidsbund in collective new musical consciousness  )

Ok, let's have the 'Egregious Eight' instead. The pre-history of this particular tendency might also be a subject of interest.... 

Since I am clearly the least-known member of this esteemed company, I have no complaints about being included   

... but nor do I have time now to share my thoughts on the topic.  soon, one hopes.

Sorry, silly mistake. Now, should a Wiki entry for 'Egregious Eight' be set up......