Chaos for the sake of itself

Conceptualism in some cases seems to exist without artistic value. Banging one's head on the piano, weeping, pouring shaving cream and ketchup on your head? How is that music?

Music existing as chaos for it's own sake does not seem to serve any aesthetic purpose. I cannot figure out how that becomes music, except to change our idea of expectation and challenging the idea of music itself. Much in the way of 4'33", these works seek to challenge us intellectually, but not musically.

The musical challenges these works represent boil down to a single element, committing oneself to the production of the work. Instead of calling them music, my inclination is to look at them as theater in which musicians are the performers, or even to say where sound is produced as a result of the performance.

The presentation of these works makes more sense as theater in that Conceptualism does not contain any performance aspect that cannot be produced by a pedestrian. Rice in his A Brief History of Anti-Records and Conceptual Records states "Shifting emphasis away from the music, they point to their own existence as cultural artifacts and objects to be consumed. These recordings transcend the sound contained within their packaging (often there is no sound at all) to question “‘extra-musical” elements such as music industry practice, the notion of “quality,” the role of the music critic, the role of the listener, etc.”

As these works exist, they do not promote music, they promote a single idea. Be it single or complex, the end game of Conceptual music is not music. It is unable to be. Whatever else may be said about it, Conceptualism cannot help but seek out the questioning of some social construct. They are entirely political.

However, there is no room for miscommunication in Conceptualism. The explanation of the music is the music. Here there is no intermediary. Listening to a Shostakovich Symphony, twelve people may hear twelve different things. In Conceptualism though, this is impossible. The explanation of the work provokes the idea of the work itself. The explanation manifested is the piece. Therefore, without a composer explaining what is meant by his notes, the explanation comes before the performance, leaving no room for miscommunication.

This aspect is very appealing, thought provoking too. In practice, it does not seem to carry any musical or aesthetic weight, is this due to the pieces themselves or is it a byproduct of the times and avant-garde's seeking out of all that provokes a response out of us?

More study and listening time is needed to answer that question, maybe tomorrow.