David Rothenberg: Nature Sounds or an Extension of Human-Centric Musicality?

The second artist working within the compositional framework of music and nature is the composer and nature sound philosopher David Rothenberg. Similar to Adams, Rothenberg borrows from nature sounds, specifically from animal sounds, which he takes as leitmotif to jointly compose and make music with. Again, just like with Adams’s work, the interrelationship of art and science is apparent here. While through scientific means, the melodies of bird songs can be tracked and musically deciphered, Rothenberg as an artist can replay these animal melodies with his saxophone or clarinet and bring both together. The underlying argument is, that there generally is no structure or organization of sound, at least not in the way that society teaches one to decipher music. If there was, then the structure is not limited to human sounds and music, but extends to the natural world, like the musical aesthetic of bird songs and their perceivable analogous complexity to jazz music. While I find Rothenberg’s approach to the artistic impulse intriguing and valuable, whether to biology’s or to avant-gardist music’s discourse, I find his live compositions with animals somehow problematic. The reason for this is, that I believe his methodology to be contradictive at parts. Yes, we should try to understand animals and move away from our human-centric worldview. And yes, the decoding of animal communication plays a valuable role in this prospect. But through the interference with nature sounds on-site, by making music with animals in their natural environment, I would argue, that a human perspective is again imposed on them and that some of the last undisturbed natural places in this world become humanly influenced again.

Hence, in that Rothenberg not only observes, but actively intervenes in nature by trying to make music with the animals, the concept of musicality for me is not extended by nature sounds but misused to bring human aesthetics into the living animal world. Although Rothenberg expresses his desire for a respectful, deeply felt coexistence between man and nature, I think that Rothenberg is not doing himself any favors from the aforementioned argument and classifies as a phantast. We simply cannot know at this point of time, if the animals want to jam in these inter-species improvisations in nature or if this approach is not rather encroaching on the animals’ communicative space, their last resort, free of human dominance.

For this reason, Rothenberg's work as experimental music stands in contrast for me to the work of composer John Luther Adams, since in my view, Rothenberg does not compose ecocentric music, but human-centric music alongside the sounds of animals.