Artistic Characteristics Of Contemporary Electronic Composition Of Chinese As Reflected From "TaiYi Ⅱ" And "Moo·Nui"

A branch of modern composition genres, electroacoustic music composition is called "high-tech composition" due to its use of computers, audio editing software and related electronic equipments as a major medium for the creation and performances (or playbacks) of a work. Electroacoustic music first appeared and began to flourish on the stages of Europe in early 1950s and its first introduction to China's music scene happened thirty years later. It was not until early 1990s that electroacoustic compositions by Chinese reached their maturity and established their unique characteristics.Scientific and technological development has on one hand given birth to ever-expanding new musical "instruments" (i.e. electronics) that are differentiated from traditional acoustic instruments and in many senses challenged and transcended traditional harmony and the twelve-tone system by including noise as a musical element and sometimes even as a principal part of a particular work. In defiance of the traditional aesthetic notion that music should possess a degree of melody, harmony or rhythm, electroacoustic musicians have expanded the ingredients of music to embrace all sorts of possible "sounds."On the other hand, however, the creativity-boosting expansion of the realm of music and the seemingly limitless ranges of materials it has brought has also posed bigger challenges and trials to composers in the accessibility of their works and the establishment of a coherent, logical musical language.This article attempts to analyze the several features of contemporary Chinese electroacoustic works by demonstrating two pieces of electroacoustic music of similar configuration but composed in different periods with sharply contrasting characters-Xu Shuya's "Taiyi No.2" for flute and electronics(1991) and An Chengbi's "Moo-Nui" for viola and live electronics (2002). By relating to their respective concepts, composition processes and techniques and with references to both their actual acoustic effects and extracted scores and scripts, the author delivered a multi-dimensional analysis of the two works, which not only captures their individual features but also reaches a comparative conclusion.The two works reflect differences in their means of composition and manners of performance due to objective restrictions (e.g. electronics, software, hardware) from different time periods. Also manifested are the different messages the two works convey, which result from the composers' differences in ethnic background and philosophical and aesthetic ideology.The two composers have showcased distinctive features and sharply contrasting musical characters in their respective works using different methods to think, compose and narrate. They have managed to forge their own musical identities despite the fact that they all used the same music genre and way of expressions, which originated and grew up in Europe. Uses of different composition tools and attempts in different angles of creation are all parts of the process of practice and testing of a composer's own musical concept.How is it possible to persist in the creation of a clearly identifiable musical language at the same time of braving innovative timbres, to pursue a well-concealed but fundamental consistency in the multitude of sounds, and to commit to listening, the essence of music, in the gargantuan realm of sounds? Answers are found in these two works.The electronic music which made by MIDI technology or played by electrophonic musical instruments are not discussed in the article.