János Decsényi - About elektroacoustic music competitions, sitting on the jury, basic principles of judgement Dear friends, let me begin with the sentences written ninety years ago by Rainer Maria Rilke, my favourite poet, which he addressed to a young poet: "We can hardly approach a work of art with critical words; usually there are more or less successful misunderstandings which come out of it. Not a single thing is so evident or explainable as some would like us to believe it. Most of the events are indescribable and they take place in the void where no word has ever penetrated and the works of art are even more indescribable than any other things, these mysterious factors whose existence is more lasting than our fleeting life." This is the end of the quotation. Naturally, in 1903, there was no question of musical competitions, neither for the performing artists nor for the composers. As a matter of fact, even today I do not like the idea of competition, because the result cannot be measured with concrete figures, as for example in the sports; musical competition is even less measurable than figure skating, in the case of which the possibility of measuring is already rather ambiguous. The difference between the very bad - amateurishly bad - and the very good - professionally good - is rather evident, but as most of the works presented at a composers' competition are acceptable from the professional point of view, the subjective judgment has an extremely large scope - and this even in the case of professionally best prepared jury. Later, in the course of years, the judgment of the works presented at the competition changes and modifies very frequently. But we have to take note of a fact that the appreciation of the various works has been changing during the centuries without any competition, and this will always be the case. It was Mendelssohn who discovered the Matthew Passion, but at the same time, who remembers nowadays - apart from same musicologists and philologists - the composer X or Y who had a tremendous success in the past century? Does it mean that we should not organize any more competitions? No, not at all. It is always up to the individual participant - in our case up to the composer - to take the risk of winning a competition or not. If he is lucky, he is the winner, maybe even for centuries. (Although I think, after some time, he is no more interested in the subject.) Therefore, we can say that it is basically not the individual who wins but the society as a whole. The person of the winner is only a secondary question. He is chosen, selected - if he is lucky enough - according to the highest requirements of a given age. What matters is the fact itself, the fact of being selected, I could even call it selection, it sounds perhaps more objective. In our age, when artistic music is no more in the centre of interest of society (I wonder if it has ever been since we can speak such sort of music existing in the European culture), - moreover, it seems to lose its remaining positions - then it is a vital questions that workshops (institutions, communities of interest, etc.) should exist, that they should offer home for the artistic music of if you like, for one genre of this kind of music. (For lack of better, let me call our subject, the electroacoustic music - which is already a collective noun itself - a genre. Scientifically, I do not take the responsibility for it, since the history of music goes beyond it without any doubt. But it will do for this occasion.) 1. A music workshop - providing all the necessary technical equipment - makes the artistic creation possible; it can offer not only the technical facilities but also a kind of spiritual and intellectual assistance. And we must not underestimate the financial aid, either. 2. A music workshop - gathering the young people, even the very young ones - contributes to their artistic education. 3. A music workshop - due to its organizational talent and publicity activities - serves the same cause that human society needs even when its individual members are perhaps not aware of it and consequently they do not claim it. I would call also the Bratislava Experimental Studio such a workshop which takes a significant part in Eastern-Central Europe. Be it said incidentally; several Hungarian composers have already worked in this Studio. One of the very first Hungarian electroacoustic musical pieces, the composition Mariphonia by Zoltan Pongracz, was realized in this Studio, as well. The working method of a jury at the composers' competition - concluding the experiences of several years as to what is necessary and what is not - has gradually changed and probably will change in the future. This openness is a must. As the creations are constantly changing and as time passes, the genre rejects all that is not necessary and develops all that is considered essential - the various categories of the genre of the competition modify accordingly. The method tries to follow the requirements determined by the genre itself, its intellectual, thematical and technical development. As to the intellectual, thematical, aesthetical aspects of working of the jury, our standards - in an interesting way - do not differ from each other as one would expect according to the eventual differences in our basic philosophical theories. Evidently, this favourable situation comes from the professional routine and experience of the jury members during the many years when they have approached their subject. What I mean is, we do not have to write a book on music composition, we only have to classify it somehow. (Naturally, this does nor happen without debates.) But the situation is the same in both cases: some of the jury members insist on absolute philosophical values, while others deny the existence of such categories. Evidently, those who are for the absolute values do not deny its historically changing appearance; here it is enough if we lay the stress on the changing appearance. To discuss the absoluteness or the relativeness of the thing is not the task of the jury, although it can do it if this is its intention. Still, I believe that a sort of social and philosophical objectiveness lies behind the subjective opinions and judgments of the jury members. Is it possible that a separate aesthetics should exist for electroacoustic music? The answer is yes and no. As to the specificity of the genre - it does exist, just as film aesthetics make part of the aesthetics of dramatic genres. But the rules of dramaturgy (which are rather variable) are compulsory. So, although there have been specific aspects, basic principles must hide behind them, according to which the medieval Gregorian music, the African song of the Pigmies and the computer music can be judged on the basis of the same principle. But are there such general basic principles at all? Very modestly, I would only say I wish they existed. By all means, I am cautious to pronounce ex cathedra statements. I do not have the intention to show such things - not being sufficiently aware of them - that I have hidden myself behind the questions.