What do you think?
Rate this book
Illegal Harmonies: Music in the 20th Century
From Debussy to Duke Ellington, Ligeti to Laurie Illegal Harmonies is generous and encyclopedic in its scope, sometimes contentious in its assertions, always lively and informative, Andrew Ford encourages the reader to take up his arguments and debate their merits. This book is an expanded version of the series played on Australian Classic FM in 1997.
- GenresMusic
266 pages, Hardcover
First published February 9, 1998
4 people are currently reading
53 people want to read
About the author
Andrew Ford
70 books7 followersAndrew Ford is a composer, writer and broadcaster. For twelve years he was in the Faculty of Creative Arts at the University of Wollongong. He has written nine books and, since 1995, has presented The Music Show each weekend on Radio National.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
January 24, 2012
ABC Classic FM has presented Andrew Ford's fascinating 10-part radio series Illegal Harmonies more than once. The book is equally brilliant; a music and history lesson in one!
May 28, 2013
First published in 1997, with a second edition (including the first part of the Epilogue) published in 2002, my edition is the third, published in 2011, which contains a Preface, and an expanded Epilogue. The author is Australian, and he begins his work with an assertion that Australia, being ‘distant’ (in a number of ways) from the main Western tradition while at the same time a part of it, was a good place to conduct an examination of that tradition. His approach is cool, rational, and surprisingly catholic (in its original sense of ‘universal’) in its range. All of this is done in clear, easy to read and often very illuminating prose that (to my mind) leaves no nook or cranny unexplored. It is therefore a book which I would recommend highly for anyone who wishes to come to terms with what happened to Western music during that most turbulent of times, the 20th century.
Because of Ford’s approach, there are very many aspects which can be fruitfully followed. I can only report on some of them in this review — the rest I leave to the intelligent reader to explore.
First, is the question of terminology. Before anything, the term ‘illegal harmonies’ needs to be defined. It comes from American composer John Cage, and refers to such things as the ticking of a clock, traffic noise, fragments of conversation, a passing plane, etc. Each sound or noise has its own particular sonority; when put together, either simultaneously of through overlapping, a new sonority is arrived at which fits into the intellectual definition of ‘harmony’ (in the strict sense, that is, of ‘putting sounds together’ — and leaving aside the question of whether this should be ‘pleasing’ (a subjective term) or not). One can immediately sense that the definitions of traditional descriptive terms are being stretched. As a person of Italian background, my natural inclination is to consider music as being basically melody, and harmony as the pleasing melodic combinations found, for example, in polyphony. In the 20th century such ideas, for various ‘logical’ reasons, were altered: ‘music’ was extended to include ‘sounds’, and these sounds also incorporate ‘noises’; thus ‘harmony’ came to mean any of these extensions sounded together, whether ‘harmonious’ (in the ‘pleasing’ sense) or not. And that is just the beginning…
Our intellect needs to establish specific boundaries in order to explore certain aspects of reality, so we tend to call certain periods by certain ‘names’ or tags in order to deal with what those names might mean. We now tend to call the period from the last few decades of the 19th century up to just after the two World Wars as ‘the Modernist period’, and for want of a better name, the period after this as being ‘Postmodernist’ (while ‘today’s’ music is referred to Contemporary). One can immediately see that these nomenclatures are problematic. Ford is very conscious of this, and his discussions of musical activities and ideas within these ‘periods’ are constantly (and consciously, I believe) undermined by his references within the text as to past, present (and even, eventually, to) future ‘influences’. Late 19th century Modernism was, for example, antagonistic to the domination of the Germanic tradition exemplified by Wagner; and the attack on Wagner in particular was led bo, of all people, Erik Satie! But then again, Beethoven at the beginning of the same century was antagonistic towards the immediately preceding ‘Classic’ tradition, and it can be argued that all the Modernists were against the domination of the ‘old’ Romantic Germanic tradition, including the German composers of the time!
Today, the influence of postmodern rationalisations has spread throughout our way of thinking, especially with regard the arts in general. At best, it questions all assumptions about any subject, regardless of its so-called ‘authority’, pointing out that such determinations are essentially arbitrary, and therefore unnecessarily restrictive. In a way this is similar to the basic Socratic method of questioning all one’s assumptions. Such postmodernist thinking can be useful and productive; however, if uncontrolled, it can and has been used to be simply destructive, and particularly so in many creative fields. Unbridled postmodernists have become experts at floccinaucinihilipilification. Everything becomes essentially meaningless, and can be belittled as a result (but note, incidentally, that as a result such postmodernist assertions become their own victims as well…). Little or no value can be attributed to any constructs in the arts.
Ford, however, is not particularly concerned about this late 20th century linguistic and philosophical problem. He is more concerned for the reader to understand what happened in Western music in that century. In my opinion he succeeds handsomely, to the extent that we can actually participate in deep and meaningful discussions about nothing (!) such as Cage’s noteless ‘silence’ ‘composition’ 4’33” for solo piano (later expanded to allow either less or more than 4’33” of silence, and permitted for ‘performance’ with any solo instrument…); or the piece which consists of a grand piano and a pile of hay for feeding into the piano; or all and any of the ‘minimalist’ works which eventually seem to get rid of the orchestra altogether, or has a pointless need for a conductor by instructing the individual members of the orchestra play ad libitum… Perhaps the most astonishing thing about this is that, thanks to Ford, we can indeed ‘understand’ why such ‘abominations’ developed, and, indeed, why they might be significant…
Yet most of these so-called musical variations can also be seen simply as experimentations. In the past, most such experiments would have been sampled and eventually dismissed and forgotten, allocated to the dust-bins of history, never to be seen or heard of again. But in the 20th century, because of technological developments and improvements in recording techniques, multi-track recording, computer-generated sounds, and storage methods, etc. they remain more or less permanently archived, are easily accessible anywhere, and practically impervious to dismissal or loss. They even begin to contribute to more and more ‘illegal harmonies’ through the use of reverse taping, sampling, insertion as ‘quotes’ into other works, etc. This is compounded by the intellectual approaches born as a result of the late 20th century phenomenon when all the Arts became subjects of academic studies in educational institutions, and the worst excesses of negative postmodernist thought contaminated everything. More so, the technological developments of the Internet has ensured that far more people have access to just about any combinations one cares to explore, or even create, than ever before. Anything, literally anything, real or computer created, natural or not, can be and are employed.
Additional complexity and possible enrichment is provided by the widening of the ‘musical base’ to include folk songs, national and international music forms and systems (to the extent that now references to the plural ‘musics’ to differentiate these — despite the fact that theoretically all should come under the more generic title of the singular ‘music’) as well as pop, jazz, and any other form of ‘music’ within the new more holistic canon of what is acceptable. What is perhaps most enlightening is that, despite all the breaking apart of traditional concepts, everything both old and new are more or less permanently archived through technological advances, and all have, in a sense, found their own places and spaces in the contemporary music scene. This is most obviously illustrated in film, television and other audio-visual entertainments. The joyful cacophony of someone like Charles Ives, for example, can be easily mimicked and included in comedic soundtracks; the grating, jabbing, screeching noises of some of the Modernist pieces find a home in horror and thriller films; the essentially monotonous, minimalist, neutral and repetitious products of Serialism are used by filmmakers almost like special invisible editing to patch over (as it were) incongruous images, or to suggest that something more sinister or compelling is being suggested than is provided merely by the images they accompany; and so on. They are used to work together in a kind of fusion (i.e. to ‘harmonise’) to create new and interesting modes of expression. Whether they are necessarily good or even pleasing is besides the point.
Considerations as to whether all this expansion and compounding of the arts need to be taken together as a whole to be appreciated, is a moot point. We can and do separate soundtracks from their accompanying environments or ambiences, but whether this does justice to either may be a crucial concern in the ultimate evaluation of current developments. Postmodernist thinking tends to eschew any form of evaluation, but my own feeling is that ultimately some evaluation is going on regardless.
In the end, one thing appears clear to me: the 21st century is poised at an ‘anything goes’ phase of development. Further developments in technology present many new possibilities: one example is that ‘music’ could be totally computer-created in ways as yet not even imagined, to the extent that it (the technology) will determine much of what is to come. I refer the reader to Kevin Kelly’s What Technology Wants for an insight to this potential problem…
As for the future of music itself, if there is one thing Ford exemplifies it is that basic traditions, precisely because of their general appeal to humanity, will remain, regardless of all intellectual attempts to control, liberate or redefine them. Despite all the counter-traditionalist extremes of the rebellious, we still have the great traditions with us, and there is no suggestion that they will necessarily diminish in appeal in the future. In this regard, I would also refer the reader to Denis Dutton’s The Art Instinct, which argues that not only music, but the arts in general, are biologically and evolutionarily part of human nature: it is humanity as a whole, not just solely emotional or solely intellectual pursuits, which will survive to nourish us best in the future. In the process we are all in a sense always ‘learning’ to listen to music more acutely and more closely than ever before, and that can only be good.
Because of Ford’s approach, there are very many aspects which can be fruitfully followed. I can only report on some of them in this review — the rest I leave to the intelligent reader to explore.
First, is the question of terminology. Before anything, the term ‘illegal harmonies’ needs to be defined. It comes from American composer John Cage, and refers to such things as the ticking of a clock, traffic noise, fragments of conversation, a passing plane, etc. Each sound or noise has its own particular sonority; when put together, either simultaneously of through overlapping, a new sonority is arrived at which fits into the intellectual definition of ‘harmony’ (in the strict sense, that is, of ‘putting sounds together’ — and leaving aside the question of whether this should be ‘pleasing’ (a subjective term) or not). One can immediately sense that the definitions of traditional descriptive terms are being stretched. As a person of Italian background, my natural inclination is to consider music as being basically melody, and harmony as the pleasing melodic combinations found, for example, in polyphony. In the 20th century such ideas, for various ‘logical’ reasons, were altered: ‘music’ was extended to include ‘sounds’, and these sounds also incorporate ‘noises’; thus ‘harmony’ came to mean any of these extensions sounded together, whether ‘harmonious’ (in the ‘pleasing’ sense) or not. And that is just the beginning…
Our intellect needs to establish specific boundaries in order to explore certain aspects of reality, so we tend to call certain periods by certain ‘names’ or tags in order to deal with what those names might mean. We now tend to call the period from the last few decades of the 19th century up to just after the two World Wars as ‘the Modernist period’, and for want of a better name, the period after this as being ‘Postmodernist’ (while ‘today’s’ music is referred to Contemporary). One can immediately see that these nomenclatures are problematic. Ford is very conscious of this, and his discussions of musical activities and ideas within these ‘periods’ are constantly (and consciously, I believe) undermined by his references within the text as to past, present (and even, eventually, to) future ‘influences’. Late 19th century Modernism was, for example, antagonistic to the domination of the Germanic tradition exemplified by Wagner; and the attack on Wagner in particular was led bo, of all people, Erik Satie! But then again, Beethoven at the beginning of the same century was antagonistic towards the immediately preceding ‘Classic’ tradition, and it can be argued that all the Modernists were against the domination of the ‘old’ Romantic Germanic tradition, including the German composers of the time!
Today, the influence of postmodern rationalisations has spread throughout our way of thinking, especially with regard the arts in general. At best, it questions all assumptions about any subject, regardless of its so-called ‘authority’, pointing out that such determinations are essentially arbitrary, and therefore unnecessarily restrictive. In a way this is similar to the basic Socratic method of questioning all one’s assumptions. Such postmodernist thinking can be useful and productive; however, if uncontrolled, it can and has been used to be simply destructive, and particularly so in many creative fields. Unbridled postmodernists have become experts at floccinaucinihilipilification. Everything becomes essentially meaningless, and can be belittled as a result (but note, incidentally, that as a result such postmodernist assertions become their own victims as well…). Little or no value can be attributed to any constructs in the arts.
Ford, however, is not particularly concerned about this late 20th century linguistic and philosophical problem. He is more concerned for the reader to understand what happened in Western music in that century. In my opinion he succeeds handsomely, to the extent that we can actually participate in deep and meaningful discussions about nothing (!) such as Cage’s noteless ‘silence’ ‘composition’ 4’33” for solo piano (later expanded to allow either less or more than 4’33” of silence, and permitted for ‘performance’ with any solo instrument…); or the piece which consists of a grand piano and a pile of hay for feeding into the piano; or all and any of the ‘minimalist’ works which eventually seem to get rid of the orchestra altogether, or has a pointless need for a conductor by instructing the individual members of the orchestra play ad libitum… Perhaps the most astonishing thing about this is that, thanks to Ford, we can indeed ‘understand’ why such ‘abominations’ developed, and, indeed, why they might be significant…
Yet most of these so-called musical variations can also be seen simply as experimentations. In the past, most such experiments would have been sampled and eventually dismissed and forgotten, allocated to the dust-bins of history, never to be seen or heard of again. But in the 20th century, because of technological developments and improvements in recording techniques, multi-track recording, computer-generated sounds, and storage methods, etc. they remain more or less permanently archived, are easily accessible anywhere, and practically impervious to dismissal or loss. They even begin to contribute to more and more ‘illegal harmonies’ through the use of reverse taping, sampling, insertion as ‘quotes’ into other works, etc. This is compounded by the intellectual approaches born as a result of the late 20th century phenomenon when all the Arts became subjects of academic studies in educational institutions, and the worst excesses of negative postmodernist thought contaminated everything. More so, the technological developments of the Internet has ensured that far more people have access to just about any combinations one cares to explore, or even create, than ever before. Anything, literally anything, real or computer created, natural or not, can be and are employed.
Additional complexity and possible enrichment is provided by the widening of the ‘musical base’ to include folk songs, national and international music forms and systems (to the extent that now references to the plural ‘musics’ to differentiate these — despite the fact that theoretically all should come under the more generic title of the singular ‘music’) as well as pop, jazz, and any other form of ‘music’ within the new more holistic canon of what is acceptable. What is perhaps most enlightening is that, despite all the breaking apart of traditional concepts, everything both old and new are more or less permanently archived through technological advances, and all have, in a sense, found their own places and spaces in the contemporary music scene. This is most obviously illustrated in film, television and other audio-visual entertainments. The joyful cacophony of someone like Charles Ives, for example, can be easily mimicked and included in comedic soundtracks; the grating, jabbing, screeching noises of some of the Modernist pieces find a home in horror and thriller films; the essentially monotonous, minimalist, neutral and repetitious products of Serialism are used by filmmakers almost like special invisible editing to patch over (as it were) incongruous images, or to suggest that something more sinister or compelling is being suggested than is provided merely by the images they accompany; and so on. They are used to work together in a kind of fusion (i.e. to ‘harmonise’) to create new and interesting modes of expression. Whether they are necessarily good or even pleasing is besides the point.
Considerations as to whether all this expansion and compounding of the arts need to be taken together as a whole to be appreciated, is a moot point. We can and do separate soundtracks from their accompanying environments or ambiences, but whether this does justice to either may be a crucial concern in the ultimate evaluation of current developments. Postmodernist thinking tends to eschew any form of evaluation, but my own feeling is that ultimately some evaluation is going on regardless.
In the end, one thing appears clear to me: the 21st century is poised at an ‘anything goes’ phase of development. Further developments in technology present many new possibilities: one example is that ‘music’ could be totally computer-created in ways as yet not even imagined, to the extent that it (the technology) will determine much of what is to come. I refer the reader to Kevin Kelly’s What Technology Wants for an insight to this potential problem…
As for the future of music itself, if there is one thing Ford exemplifies it is that basic traditions, precisely because of their general appeal to humanity, will remain, regardless of all intellectual attempts to control, liberate or redefine them. Despite all the counter-traditionalist extremes of the rebellious, we still have the great traditions with us, and there is no suggestion that they will necessarily diminish in appeal in the future. In this regard, I would also refer the reader to Denis Dutton’s The Art Instinct, which argues that not only music, but the arts in general, are biologically and evolutionarily part of human nature: it is humanity as a whole, not just solely emotional or solely intellectual pursuits, which will survive to nourish us best in the future. In the process we are all in a sense always ‘learning’ to listen to music more acutely and more closely than ever before, and that can only be good.
October 7, 2023
Well outside my usual range, but this was recommended by a wider-read and music-loving buddy, and I'm glad I took a swing at it because this was a really fascinating look at the developments of art in the 20th century, through the lens of art music. Occasionally it got too deep into the musical theory weeds and I got lost for a paragraph, but the author noted in the opening that he had tried to keep things accessible, and largely I think he succeeded. It was particularly interesting to consider the pressures on art, from history and geography and politics and society, and how all of those push "new" art in different directions. And around the edges of the specific movements and philosophies and shifts, there is always the larger question - what is music, what should it be doing, how should we engage with it, what makes it "good" or "bad".
December 26, 2014
Fantastic book regardless of what background in music history etc.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews