Origins The Groupe de Recherches de Musique Concrète (GRMC), under the leadership of
Pierre Schaeffer, organized the First International Decade of Experimental Music between 8 and 18 June 1953. This appears to have been an attempt by Schaeffer to reverse the assimilation of musique concrète into the German
elektronische Musik, and instead tried to subsume musique concrète,
elektronische Musik, tape music, and world music under the rubric "musique experimentale". Publication of Schaeffer's manifesto was delayed by four years, by which time Schaeffer was favoring the term "recherche musicale" (music research), though he never wholly abandoned "musique expérimentale". John Cage was also using the term as early as 1955. According to Cage's definition, "an experimental action is one the outcome of which is not foreseen", and he was specifically interested in completed works that performed an
unpredictable action. In Germany, the publication of Cage's article was anticipated by several months in a lecture delivered by Wolfgang Edward Rebner at the
Darmstädter Ferienkurse on 13 August 1954, titled "". Rebner's lecture extended the concept back in time to include
Charles Ives,
Edgard Varèse, and
Henry Cowell, as well as Cage, due to their focus on sound as such rather than compositional method.
Alternative classifications Composer and critic
Michael Nyman starts from Cage's definition, and develops the term "experimental" also to describe the work of other American composers (
Christian Wolff,
Earle Brown,
Meredith Monk,
Malcolm Goldstein,
Morton Feldman,
Terry Riley,
La Monte Young,
Philip Glass,
Steve Reich, etc.), as well as composers such as
Gavin Bryars,
John Cale,
Toshi Ichiyanagi,
Cornelius Cardew,
John Tilbury,
Frederic Rzewski, and
Keith Rowe. Nyman opposes experimental music to the European
avant-garde of the time (
Boulez,
Kagel,
Xenakis,
Birtwistle,
Berio,
Stockhausen, and
Bussotti), for whom "The identity of a composition is of paramount importance". The word
experimental in the former cases "is apt, providing it is understood not as descriptive of an act to be later judged in terms of success or failure, but simply as of an act the outcome of which is unknown".
David Cope also distinguishes between experimental and avant-garde, describing experimental music as that "which represents a refusal to accept the
status quo". David Nicholls, too, makes this distinction, saying that "...very generally, avant-garde music can be viewed as occupying an extreme position within the tradition, while experimental music lies outside it".
Warren Burt cautions that, as "a combination of leading-edge techniques and a certain exploratory attitude", experimental music requires a broad and inclusive definition, "a series of
ands, if you will", encompassing such areas as "Cageian influences work with low technology improvisation sound poetry linguistics new instrument building multimedia music theatre work with high technology community music, among others, when these activities are done with the aim of finding those musics 'we don't like, yet', [citing
Herbert Brün] in a 'problem-seeking environment' [citing
Chris Mann]". Benjamin Piekut argues that this "consensus view of experimentalism" is based on an
a priori "grouping", rather than asking the question "How have these composers been collected together in the first place, that they can now be the subject of a description?" That is, "for the most part, experimental music studies
describes a category without really
explaining it". He finds laudable exceptions in the work of David Nicholls and, especially, Amy Beal, and concludes from their work that "The fundamental
ontological shift that marks experimentalism as an achievement is that from
representationalism to
performativity", so that "an explanation of experimentalism that already assumes the category it purports to explain is an exercise in
metaphysics, not ontology".
Leonard B. Meyer, on the other hand, includes under "experimental music" composers rejected by Nyman, such as Berio, Boulez and Stockhausen, as well as the techniques of "total
serialism", holding that "there is no single, or even pre-eminent, experimental music, but rather a plethora of different methods and kinds".
Abortive critical term In the 1950s, the term "experimental" was often applied by conservative music critics—along with a number of other words, such as "engineers art", "musical splitting of the atom", "alchemist's kitchen", "atonal", and "serial"—as a deprecating jargon term, which must be regarded as "abortive concepts", since they did not "grasp a subject". This was an attempt to marginalize, and thereby dismiss various kinds of music that did not conform to established conventions. In 1955, Pierre Boulez identified it as a "new definition that makes it possible to restrict to a laboratory, which is tolerated but subject to inspection, all attempts to corrupt musical morals. Once they have set limits to the danger, the good ostriches go to sleep again and wake only to stamp their feet with rage when they are obliged to accept the bitter fact of the periodical ravages caused by experiment." He concludes, "There is no such thing as experimental music ... but there is a very real distinction between sterility and invention". Starting in the 1960s, "experimental music" began to be used in America for almost the opposite purpose, in an attempt to establish an historical category to help legitimize a loosely identified group of radically innovative, "
outsider" composers. Whatever success this might have had in academe, this attempt to construct a genre was as abortive as the meaningless namecalling noted by Metzger, since by the "genre's" own definition the work it includes is "radically different and highly individualistic". It is therefore not a genre, but an open category, "because any attempt to classify a phenomenon as unclassifiable and (often) elusive as experimental music must be partial". Furthermore, the characteristic indeterminacy in performance "guarantees that two versions of the same piece will have virtually no perceptible musical 'facts' in common".
Computer composition In the late 1950s, Lejaren Hiller and L. M. Isaacson used the term in connection with computer-controlled composition, in the scientific sense of "experiment": making predictions for new compositions based on established musical technique. The term "experimental music" was used contemporaneously for
electronic music, particularly in the early
musique concrète work of
Schaeffer and
Henry in France. There is a considerable overlap between
Downtown music and what is more generally called experimental music, especially as that term was defined at length by Nyman in his book
Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond (1974, second edition 1999). ==History==