Hunjoo Jung: Music as broken structures
Watch my interview with Hunjoo Jung. He is a Germany-based composer of acoustic, electronic, and electroacoustic concert music as well as intermedia art. In recent years, besides focusing on acoustic music, Jung has also been exploring multi-complex structural ways in which interactive visual, live video and video mapping, lighting & laser, sensor, actions, and/or sculptural forms of objects can be used in a wide range of combination with acoustic, electroacoustic and electronic music in spatialization. His most recent works will be/have been commissioned/ performed by ensembles such as Distractfold [UK], Curious chamber players [Sweden], Talea [USA], KNM Berlin, Recherche [Germany], Mimitabu [Sweden], Interstring Project [Germany], Surplus [Germany], Multilaterale [France], Soloists such as Taylor J. Borden from Mivos Quartet[USA], Niklas Seidl from Handwerk & Ensemble Mosaic [Germany] and Kevin Toksöz Fairbairn [USA], Alexander Schimpf [Germany] among others.
What is your musical idea and signature?
The first one is noisiness. I have an improvisation background and am used to playing noise music for a long time before beginning composition. I think my music is on the line between contemporary music and noise improvisation music. In addition, not only do I use noise as a sound in and of itself, but I am also interested to create “structural noise”. Noise can not only be sound, but it can also be a structure such as disconnected irregular patterns, phrasing, and broken envelop shape.
The second thing is vocalization. I am also a vocalist as an improviser. I invented my own vocal techniques and I use these techniques for my composition.
The third thing is broken structural shape. When I was in the USA, I always set a very clear structure in advance, then crammed my musical ideas into that structure. When I squeeze my improvisatory musical contents into that compositional structure, these musical contents totally lost energy. Since I came to Germany, I tried to compose with non-identifiable ideas with different roles and functions for their musical/non-music content. OR, I fixed the idea from the beginning, then I totally deconstruct this identification to give confusion the audience in the later sections.
The last thing is decolonization. Since I came to Germany, I attempt to learn various styles of European music. But, I am in a transitional moment now. I resist everything that I have learned. Also, I resist where I came from and even myself as well.
However, this does not mean that I exclude Western musical styles, or that I intentionally find Asian elements to put into my pieces, such as using a Korean melody or instrumentation. Rather, I tried to get away from a Westernized mindset to get back my own unique perspective. I ask myself whether my musical philosophy and perspective comes from something that I actually think and feel. As an Asian composer based in Europe, I am consistently asking myself: How can I contribute to pushing the boundaries of contemporary music in Europe so that the European contemporary music field can embrace Asian composers’ music as a part of “contemporary music” and not as a third world music?
Watch interview:
What are your criteria for a good musical composition?
I am open to any style, composition, and art. Actually, it is hard for me to judge music or art as good or bad. I believe that any compositions are valuable if it comes from an honest heart through her or his own voice. However if you might ask me my preference, I would say… there are two categories for composers; craftsman and creator. I usually prefer to listen to music from creators. I also rather listen to music that is written in a critical way of thinking than just orchestrated music. Also, I prefer to listen to music that involves many questions, confusion, weirdness, or awkwardness with psychological links. I respect music that challenges me like music that leads the audience, but is not easy to follow.
What is your process of composing?
First of all, before composing, I usually research about what I am interested in, then I try to figure out how to realize this as a musical creation. For example, since I came to Germany, I adopted perspectives and ideas from psychology into compositional thinking
such as gestalt psychology, portrait abstract, Uncanny Valley, Psychoanalytic theory, etc. After that, I do brainstorming, set clear missions, and map out. Then, I usually communicate with a performer or ensemble. Sometimes, I suggest they have jammed together if they are also improvisers. Other than that, I ask them to have a workshop. Then, I try to figure out what this ensemble can do the best and fit in their atheistic as well. After that, I finally start composing. I usually compose really slowly and a lot at first. For example, I worked with Distractfold Ensemble based in London. I composed over 40 minutes for over one year. Then, I took another year to revise and cut unnecessary parts. So, the result was only 16 minutes from 40 minutes. After done, I totally deconstruct and reorganize these materials as though they follow a stream of disassociated consciousness and unconsciousness. The final process is I build up my own MAX/MSP patch for electronic parts. If there are multimedia for a piece, I research what technologies I would use, then build up hardware and software on my own.
What does you as a composer fear the most?
I feel fear when I look at an empty paper actually. I face this fear when I compose each time. When I look at an empty paper, I always say “don’t compromise myself.”Many composers including me actually compromise very often due to many reasons such as relationships with performers, political reasons, funding, time limits.. etc. Among these, compromising “MYSELF” is the most feared and not acceptable thing to me. Because… in order to compromise myself, I have to lie continually and persuade myself.
Being honest is really important for me to push my boundaries and break the limit so that I can clearly judge my music from outside of myself, then possibly improve in the future.
Why do you still compose?
To me…. the process of composing is a disciplined process like a meditational exercise. All of my pieces refer to the process of my self-examination; they do not present what I experienced though. I composed as a form of self-control. When I compose, I always learn humility. Also, I think an artist can’t choose their job. Usually, an artist is “CHOSEN” and can’t get out of this destiny. Having a talent for art is something else though. So… if someone can possibly quit an art, which means it wasn’t her or his path actually…
Looking 10 years back, what are the changes in your musical idea? And how would you explain them?
My composition changed a lot since I moved to Germany. As I had already mentioned, I have the right to destroy myself was my last piece in the US. As you can see from the piece, my music during that period of the US was personal. I was too much inside of my music, and I needed to get out of my music for some time. I was using my music as a tool to express my personal feelings. So, since I moved to Germany, I gave missions to myself: How can I “ACTUALLY” compose without over-relying on personal expression? How can I deconstruct all of the expressive sounds in my heart? Then, how can I step back from myself and manipulate these deconstructed ‘sounds’ on their own terms, from outside of my composition?
So… the first thing that I tried to do in Germany was I tried to get rid of emotional words on my score as much as I can. In the US, I used a lot of vocalizations with emotional words such as pain, sorrow, or anger. Emotion is quite fixed and more of a concrete way of defining feeling. The sensation is like the way your body reacts OR the way that you felt when you heard it OR the environment when you heard it. The sensation is less personal. Basically, I want to deal with sound, which deserves the possibility of attaching to special emotions, without association being inherently in the sound itself. I wanted to open my pieces up to things outside, and not be directly tied to my own emotions. So… recently…. I don’t use emotional words that much. Rather, I just explain the mechanism of how to approach these sounds in a sensational way.
The second change is I relied on loud extremely noisy sounds to make strong intensity before coming to Germany. In Germany, I still use this way to make intensity, but much less. I map out a wide range of amplitude throughout the entire piece. Then, I attempt to experiment in various ways to create strong intensity, such as quiet whispers, chord changes, or timbral changes. Also, loud sound in and of itself isn’t always enough to generate this intensity. The audience doesn’t always perceive strong intensity based on the degree of amplitude. What is more important is how the other sonic relationships before or after this loudness function in a perceptional way. About the intensity, this is the most important thing that I learn is… music doesn’t always need intensity.
The third change is I adopted pitch materials into my pieces since I came to Germany. before coming to Germany, I barely used pitch materials. Instead, I mainly focused on noise content, because pitch materials have so many references connected to European historical music with old gestural configurations. Since I came to Germany, the reason is I want to use these old perceptions of sound to give confusion the audience. The pitch contents contain a lot of references. So, in terms of perception of sound, these references enable me to give confusion the audience when I twist these references in unexpected ways.
How the development of technology has influenced your music?
It seems like the high development of technology gives me a lot of options to present my music in various ways. However, at the same time, this high development of technologies destroy my atheistic or forcefully try to control the composer’s artistic vision. Also, we should come to think about is do you think which composers get the most benefit from this development of technologies. High technologies strongly connect to the capitalist system. Of course, composers are based in rich countries. They have more chances to get devices and easier to get funding for technical helpers. Also, the development of technologies sometimes makes blind artists as well. To me, technologies are just tools like instruments such as piano or violin. These tools must be less present and assist composers' artistic visions. However, if you come to some concerts which include new technologies, After concerts, most people talk about technologies rather than actual artistic formation or composition.
In addition, it happens a lot in an experimental music scene, the companies who create technologies have turned composers and artists into generalizations. For example, most of my electronic musicians’ friends pay a lot of money to purchase synthesis when a new brand comes out, which means if you have money, then you can make more fancy sounds. What is worse is if you go to electronic experimental music concerts recently if they use the same brand synthesis or sequencers, they all sound became similar. Unfortunately, these companies don’t allow electronic musicians to create their own authentic sound. These companies need money and create devices that most common people would like.
What are the biggest changes in music composition (in general) in last 25 years?
I think the main key points of the contemporary music scene in the last 25 years are multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and deconstruction of the traditional musical meaning. In the last 25 years, a lot of composers adopted multimedia, theatrical elements, and new technologies into the new music field. These interdisciplinary aspects are considered increasingly important in the contemporary music field. In this circumstance, performers are required multidisciplinary roles in the sense that they are not only playing their own instruments but are also playing objects, vocalization techniques, manipulating electronics, and theatrical actions.
Besides, until the early 90s, contemporary music was heading to the extreme side in terms of rhythmic gesture, accentuation, percussion setup, musical formation, super complex texture, etc. For example, from the 70s until the 90s, new complexity music was very popular and dominated the European contemporary music scene. However, since the middle of the 90s, contemporary composers started reacting to these super complex musical styles. First of all, many composers refused to pitch content. Instead, composers explored noise material, finding new extended techniques, and amplifying the role of the performer’s body.
After that, in last 10 years, many composers started refusing musical gestures, accentuation, traditional dynamic envelop shapes, etc. So, these composers tend to compose long tone-based texture Klang music in a simple way. Recently, some composers focus on conceptual music, in which the idea (or concept) behind the work is more important than the finalized musical object. Basically, they refuse most of the traditional musical aspects even the processing of the composition. Simply, I would say…last 25 years were the succession of deconstructing or refusing all these musical aspects, which involves references connected to Western historical music.
How audience of new music has changed (in general) in the last 25 years?
I think the biggest change in the last 25 years is in various ways of perceiving sound and listening exercises. There are two essential ways of perceiving sound.
Hearing = passive || movement to movement
Listening = active || developing form over time.
Until the 90s, most contemporary music is written for active listening. There is engagement with music. The audience needs to focus on listening to perceive detailed musical contents which process in time. On the other hand, for the last 25 years, there are many composers who are against of this active listening to music. Instead, they started composing for passive hearing music. Texture Klang music such as Klaus Lang is one example of passive music. Music doesn’t process and just be objectified and lets the texture goes out of time.
AND THEN, the second change in the 25 years is audience participation. Audience participation has a clear part in some of the sound art and sound installation art. In the past, the audience only has a passive position and role as a receiver, however, through audience participation, the audience can actively create their own sonic environment. In addition, recently, there are many pieces that include theatrical actions and abstractive multimedia works in the new music scene. These kinds of works don’t include direct messages from creators. I think these works open the audience to perceiving sound in more multi-dimensional ways, which means these works enable the audience to follow their own route and understand in various ways.
What are the main future trends (or trajectories) in new music now? Who shapes them?
Actually, I am not right the person to answer this question because I believe that trendiness just gives momentary gratification and it doesn’t motivate my musical creativity. Also, it is hard to say trend because when we zoom in or zoom out the western contemporary music history, the trend is different. If you look at Western music history, much of the trendy music disappeared. For example, early 20 century around WW II, romantic music was popular in the all over European music scene. But, now, no one listens to this music and most people remember serialism like Schoenberg as a symbol of that period of music.
And in the future, I believe that the definition of contemporary music might disappear. Instead, sound installation art, experimental music, improvisational music, and contemporary music might be all integrated as “sound art”. Just like the way that painting, performance art, and multimedia art have been integrated as visual art.
I believe that’s what contemporary music should be.
What is the role of new music in society, now?
I used to believe that new music has a role in finding new possibilities and visions in music. Then these aspect influence other subcultures and art. However, in the last 25 years, this aspect of the role of contemporary music is getting weak now. As I had already mentioned in a previous question, in the last 25 years, the contemporary music scene has had time to deconstruct and refuse traditional musical meaning. Although it seems like many composers still keep pushing the boundaries to find other possibilities, much recent contemporary music can possibly replace another genre, unfortunately. My question is at this moment, there are no options left because we all just rejecting these to cut off from history. What can we do now? What is the role that we should be pursuing as contemporary composers?
Selection of music created by Hunjoo Jung:
Photo:
