Thanks, as always, Eugene. After a long break (too long), I am finally back to working on my music, and am determined to publish the Sonata this year!Originally Posted by (Eugene @ Aug. 07 2008, 00:06)
Thanks, as always, Eugene. After a long break (too long), I am finally back to working on my music, and am determined to publish the Sonata this year!
Thanks for reminding me of this video, I haven't watched it for a long time! They sound like all the right notes to me. I have sent this link to composer friends to show them someone else that could play their mandolin music.I'm very impressed by this. It is a major paradigm shift, really. I try to play a whole new tune without any sour notes. This kid can very skillfully play 328 sour notes a minute!
I had a former job down in the record stacks in the Library of Congress, and we were allowed to play records on the overhead speakers while we worked. Our supervisor was generally pretty tolerant of our tastes, but even though he liked "squawky" sax, he didn't approve of "squeaky" sax, and had a "No Eric Dolphy" rule.
Interesting discussion, glad to see it hasn't broken down into polemics as some topics can.
Passages of atonality or "sometimes" dissonant is one thing but a whole piece of that and it seems cacophonous.
I'm a huge fan of Avital and I've seen this piece before but I can't make it through all of that despite it being an impressive technical exercise.
You should see him now...that kit you saw was minuscule compared to the behemoth he currently uses, whole rows of chromatically tuned toms & cymbals. His playing is truly original and dumbfounding to watch. But I can see how that may seem inconsistent, that I can be a fan of something so truly cacophonous as solo drums but abhor atonal compositions for pitched instruments. Perhaps, being a former drummer, my admiration of the technical ability overrides my actual appreciation of the "music" made by Bozzio's drumming. But then again drummers aren't very smart: how can you tell when the stage is level? Drool is coming out of both sides of the drummers mouth...
I will add that the back & forth in this thread reinforces, in my mind at least, that MAD music is largely by theoreticians for theoreticians; that I suspect having a formal music education is almost required to truly appreciate the form.
There are three kinds of people: those of us that are good at math and those that are not.
Well if you are a philistine and you just happen to come to Winfield I suggest you don't come by our camp.
GVD
GVD
Not that anything bad would happen to you!!! #
GVD
GVD
Maybe these folks have gotten a bad rap over the years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines
Mick
Ever tried, ever failed? No matter. Try again, fail again. Fail better.--Samuel Beckett
______________________
'05 Cuisinart Toaster
'93 Chuck Taylor lowtops
'12 Stetson Open Road
'06 Bialetti expresso maker
'14 Irish Linen Ramon Puig
I think we shoud refrain from making insulting generalizations period.
But that is a behavior issue. I think we have a right, and perhaps a duty, to make aesthetic judgements - certainly to modify them when there is new information, or as experience impacts taste. I disagree with the implication that "I don't understand" a piece of music, every time I don't like it. That denies the possibility of bad music, and sets up too many "Emperor's new clothes" situations, where we all groove on the sound of someone crushing a trumpet in a garage door, afraid to be tagged as ignorant.
Good music or bad music, - if you have to explain it to me before I can enjoy it - don't be surprized when I don't.
oh i don't know ... what with their iron smithing skills, i expect they were capable of creating a terrible din - composing one ... even.
Wow, the threads that could be spun off talking about this, the balance between simple and complex, accessible and arcane!
But as to the assertion that science does not suffer in the same way as music, that scientists can freely present arcane research... well, I'd say that's not really the case. In fact, I'd say it's not dissimilar at all to the music scene.
When scientists are presenting arcane material, it's usually to other scientists. When presenting arcane to the general public, it's expected that the material will go over their heads.
It's also true that some arcane science can be more for the benefit of the presenter than for the audience, and that some scientists' material is so incomprehensible that very few people can tell it's full of cr@p. Not to say that all science is, but there are some charlatans who are posing as "incomprehensibly ahead of the curve." I used to work at the NY Telephone arm of Bell Labs after the splitup, and knew a few of these folks personally, so I know for a fact that they exist.
And as for the popular response to science, it quite often takes a popularizer to make science accessible (Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Asimov, Ira Flatow), and the general public can often be relied upon to misunderstand the stuff quite thoroughly. Not to stir too big a pot with this observation, but one need only read the recent debates on evolution to see how silly things can get.
The proposition that science is immune to the kinds of misunderstandings that plague music probably doesn't stand up to close observation.
Doug Hoople
Adult-onset Instrumentalist (or was that addled-onset?)
I love it. In addition to R&B music, we have R&D music!!
This oversimplification is the kind of statement that reinforces that attitude (already prevalent here, at the Cafe) that anyone who understands more than a little theory is an elitist who has contempt for audiences.
This is why some of us don't feel welcome to post anymore.
As a trained "elitist" who lives among civilians, I regularly find myself coming to grips with the gripes and the predilections of both camps.This oversimplification is the kind of statement that reinforces that attitude (already prevalent here, at the Cafe) that anyone who understands more than a little theory is an elitist who has contempt for audiences.
This is why some of us don't feel welcome to post anymore.
In defense of the "elitists" (hereinafter referred to as avant-gardists, for lack of a better term), they are pursuing what they love at the level that they understand it. Very few of them are trying to perpetrate "Emperor's Clothes" hoaxes. They are playing music that speaks to them.
In defense of the traditionalists or the civilians, they are pursuing what they love at the level that they understand it. #Hmmmm... I discern a common thread emerging.
What bugs an avant-gardist is when the music they love is ignored or derided. Actually, that may not bug them so much. But when, added to being ignored, they get slapped around because they're bored to tears by the "Hallelujah Chorus," or the "Pachelbel Canon," or "Fishers Hornpipe," or "Tears from Heaven," then the sense that they are being unfairly treated starts to form.
An enthusiastic traditionalist or civilian will blurt out to an avant-gardist, "Don't you just LOVE LOVE LOVE the 'Hallelujah Chorus'!!!!" The avant-gardist wants to scream, "NO! I want to impose a worldwide moratorium the whole of 'Messiah' for at least 10 years." To say such a thing out loud would make him a spoilsport of the first magnitude, wipe out the enthusiast's enthusiasm, and make everybody feel badly all around.
But can an avant-gardist put the shoe on the other foot? Never!
Taking myself as an example. I have always been deeply moved by Stravinsky's 'Mass.' Granted, it's not that avant-garde, but it will have to do, not to mention that I have my own catalog of pedestrian predilections and so am not a proper true avant-gardist. But I digress. If I try to play a recording of this work to just about anybody I know, the request comes shortly thereafter to play some GOOD music!
So why should civilians be able to insist that we share their adoration for works that bore avant-gardists, but turn a deaf ear to the works that avant-gardists feel equally strongly about? #
It's this kind of unfair burden that makes an avant-gardist so grumpy. #
But should civilians be obliged to say nice things about music that doesn't move them? It's also unfair. If a type of music doesn't move them, then they shouldn't have to say that it does, should they? And they shouldn't have to feel inadequate or uneducated to do that, should they?
So much pressure to love so much music that we're not moved by! No wonder both sides are grumpy all the time!!!
On both sides of the equation, the friction seems to be magnified by our mutual and mutually unrequited desire to share the beauty of something we love!
<span style='font-family:10'>Edit note: Better terms for the two opposing groups would probably be "specialist" and "non-specialist," but I think we all get the picture, no?</span>
Doug Hoople
Adult-onset Instrumentalist (or was that addled-onset?)
Missed my point entirely.
Oh well...
I would argue that a discussion like this would encourage varying viewpoints (let's hear it for alliteration...) rather than intimidate or make you feel unwelcome. Indeed, those of us who have a lack of regard for atonal or dissonant composition would appear to be the minority, in this forum at least.This oversimplification is the kind of statement that reinforces that attitude (already prevalent here, at the Cafe) that anyone who understands more than a little theory is an elitist who has contempt for audiences.
This is why some of us don't feel welcome to post anymore.
I understand more than a little theory and hardly consider those that truly have a grasp of it elitist. Rather I admire their dedication to and knowledge of the language of music. I strive to keep learning more about it.
I was referring specifically to atonal composition that seems or sounds like academic exercises and is not at all enjoyable, either intellectually or emotionally (well, unless irritation counts for emotion). That in now way should be misconstrued as some sort of slander on those who understand theory.
There are three kinds of people: those of us that are good at math and those that are not.
What? To say that misunderstandings abound on both sides? And that those misunderstandings are probably completely understandable?
I'm not sure how that missed the point.
BTW, Jim, I'm glad to see you back.
Doug Hoople
Adult-onset Instrumentalist (or was that addled-onset?)
Avant-garde, traditional, troglodytic, atonal, boring, non-linear, noisy, noisome.
The essential characteristic of a music is not, repeat not, to be found in the intellect. The ability to evoke emotional response seems to me to be of the essence.
I believe that someting atonal can do this, though it seldom does. This may be because it hasn't been around long enough, or because once it has demonstrated this ability it becomes subsumed into friendlier categories.
Familiar old chesnuts can still evoke the intended emotional response in some; in others, perhaps overexposed to the theoretical rather that the more gut-level, (or primitive, if you will), this stuff has lost its power to influence. Sad, perhaps.
The use of music in religious ritual (and Stravinsky was certainly not unaware of this usage) is an example of what I'm trying to get across. A similar phenomenon can be found in large arenas, filled with sympathetic fans and Marshall stacks cranking out three-chord rock at 125 dB. Or in more intimate settings, say an olive grove with a set of panpipes. Or even in the van of a Highland regiment, with the pipes skirling and the natives blanching beneath their tans as the thin red line of 'eroes advances. Anyone who didn't find their hairs standing on end when the helicopter-borne Ride of the Valkyries cranked up in Apocalypse Now will fail to grasp my point entirely. Doesn't matter if you liked it or hated it; that isn't the point at all.
When R&D music can produce this sort of effect, it'll get my vote. If it can't heighten the emotional content of a situation, it's just masturbation. So to speak.
IYHO, you mean, don't you?
Doug Hoople
Adult-onset Instrumentalist (or was that addled-onset?)
Agreed. Except in music the listening public does not accept the necessity of having an 'experimental/R&D' department. Whereas the equivalent in other non - entertainment fields is, for the majority, acceptable.
Sure the public isn't entirely sold on science, hence the growth of alternative medicine etc, but when last did we hear a non scientist complain that Stephen Hawkings should lay off the quantum physics and focus on something useful like designing a better Play Station. Non scientists are willing to accept that he does what he does, no matter how arcane.
As a musician/composer I'm tired of being pegged purely as an entertainer. I don't mind entertaining, but don't feel that all I do should have to be entertaining in order to be valid.
I'm not sure that qualification is needed. Excepting the occasional fact that get's posited, it's all opinion and really just a lot of dog-chasing-tail in the end.IYHO, you mean, don't you?
IMO...
There are three kinds of people: those of us that are good at math and those that are not.
Brendon,Agreed. Except in music the listening public does not accept the necessity of having an 'experimental/R&D' department. Whereas the equivalent in other non - entertainment fields is, for the majority, acceptable.
Sure the public isn't entirely sold on science, hence the growth of alternative medicine etc, but when last did we hear a non scientist complain that Stephen Hawkings should lay off the quantum physics and focus on something useful like designing a better Play Station. Non scientists are willing to accept that he does what he does, no matter how arcane.
As a musician/composer I'm tired of being pegged purely as an entertainer. I don't mind entertaining, but don't feel that all I do should have to be entertaining in order to be valid.
I think we're largely in agreement here, but I will split a hair or two here, if you don't mind.
Music colleges DO have 'experimental/R&D' departments, usually called the 'New Music Department.' A lot of cultural organizations sustain an 'experimental/R&D' thread in their efforts.
And the non-scientist corporate executive at Sony may not really care what Stephen Hawking finds intriguing, but you can be sure that he DOES care what the scientists in his own R&D department find intriguing.
Musicians are not obliged to create entertainment. But the bulk of them who want to make a living at it are. A small group of 'basic science' musicians manage to escape that trap, but most find themselves working in 'applied science' (for obvious reasons). One way to escape the trap for sure is to get a day job, no? Grrr. There's got to be a better way!
Doug Hoople
Adult-onset Instrumentalist (or was that addled-onset?)
Well, certainly IMHO. I can only espouse my own opinions. Still, I think my point has validity, even if it is a bit narrowly focused. And it seems to have been overlooked in the discussion.
And what other viewpoint could unite the Rolling Stones, Stravinsky and the rites of Pan with Wagner and the Scottish pipers? I suppose Aleister Crowley ought to have been included as well. Certainly his use of music fits right in.
I think your point has tremendous validity. Emotional response is one of the big pieces to what music is about. In fact, there are neuroscientists who argue that it's THE driving force that governs music and our response.
The counterargument, of course, and an admittedly specialist one, is that emotional response can be cheap and easy, and that music can still be good and even great without resorting to pulling cheap emotional strings.
That counterargument, taken to extremes, leads down a pretty narrow path, but it does address one potential objection that some very emotionally compelling music is technically arid and, in the end, uninteresting, especially to a specialist.
But yes! Emotional response is one of the really big puzzle pieces here.
Doug Hoople
Adult-onset Instrumentalist (or was that addled-onset?)
I agree...it doesn't sound sour or even particularly dissonant compared to a lot of what is out there.
Hah...what about "honky" sax? #I think that is my favorite kind.
And I will repeat that it is in your mind only. #Most of the people I know who like this music, myself included, don't even know the theory of what is going on in a lot of the pieces, we just enjoy them because they sound good to us. #And most of the composers write them because they sound good to them, using theory only as a means and not an end. #It can be interesting to know the theory behind a piece, especially if you're a composer yourself and looking for new ideas, but really it is about the way the piece sounds, not the theory behind it. #Insisting that it's only theoretical, even if that's "just in your mind" just proves what I said before about making insulting generalizations when you don't understand the music. #You don't have to like it, you don't have to understand it or even want to, and that's all fine, but please stop saying negative things like this about something you don't understand. #It is fine if it seems a certain way to you but it isn't actually that way.
I didn't intend to make such an implication. #I think I understand bluegrass music--after all I grew up around it, have listened to it for a long time, have played it, have studied it school, am constantly around people who are diehard fans, etc. #But I don't like it, or at least not much of it. # I don't think it is bad music and I respect people who like it, it just isn't for me. #What I was referring to before were the comments about dissonant music being only about the theory, or just written to be confrontational or outspoken or something. #Those things aren't true of the great majority of this music and they demonstrate a lack of understanding of the music.
I suppose there is music out there that is enjoyable mostly or only with a knowledge of the point of the piece. #But those are rarely the pieces I enjoy. #I think this idea of having to know about a modernist piece to enjoy it is totally misguided. #I nearly always know after the first couple of times I hear a piece whether I like it, and at that stage I am usually totally ignorant of the theory behind the piece. #I don't think it is a matter of knowing anything about the piece, I think it is just a matter of whether or not you have a taste for certain kinds of music. #Such a taste can be developed for sure, but it is developed by active listening and not by reading books or articles on theory or something.
I am not sure that I agree with this, but I definitely agree that it shouldn't be about purely intellectual response. #It should be about enjoying the music. #That said, I have emotional responses almost only to dissonant music or to traditional folk music like norwegian fiddling or old time fiddling (NOT bluegrass and not celtic either). #So to talk about the atonal music as not eliciting emotional response is really just a description of your reaction to it. #I react very differently. #And I bet that most of the music that elicits an emotional response from you gets very little from me. #People talk about being deeply moved by Bill Monroe for example...I get zero emotional response listening to him. #On the other hand Shostakovich at his very ugliest and harshest blows me away emotionally.
I don't assume that my reactions to a given piece amount to a factual statement about what the piece is capable of doing for people and I kindly ask that nobody else make that mistake either.
It can and does. #Just not to you.
By the way I don't like the implication that dissonant/atonal/avant-garde/whatever music usually or even often is just an experiment or some kind of "R&D." #Yes, composers will experiment and so some pieces qualify in this category...but most are meant as serious, finished products and not as experiments to pave the way for something else.
my take on this - having learned something in the process - is as follows:
some time ago i became involved with the tibetans - learning a vocabulary and a way of thinking very different from what i'd known before. subsequently, in conversations with friends and family - the "what you been up to?" variety - i soon found that these words and concepts were totally alien to my parents and only vaguely understood by the kids i grew up with. i also realized that by continuing with the use of these words and concepts, regardless of whether they were understood or not, i ran the risk of turning a friendly conversation into a diatribe - a rant - and being alienated by them in return. those people going through the same process of discovery as i knew exactly what i was talking about. those outside "the most perfect community" had more down to earth points of reference.
what to do? ... press on and abandon friends and family in the pursuit of this weird stuff or ease-up a bit and make it real to those who knew me when?
in the instance of the "yob cultcha'" video performance ... three guys, sitting in front of music stands (did michael finnissy actually write this stuff down!?!) holding recognizable instruments ... this constitutes a prelude to a musical performance - a soirée - something familiar ... similar to the start of a friendly "hi'ya, how ya doing?" conversation.
what follows - to those who have never heard anything of the sort - is complete jibberish.
the more one hears this sort of stuff, the more one become inured to it - to the point where it doesn't "shock" anymore ... and surely, this is the point of it.
what have we gained in the process? what have we learned? how has music benefited? has "yob" culture been vanquished? - has the notion of "bad is good" or "ugly is beauty" ... or whatever it is we see as "yob" culture ... lost ground to something higher? has a monotony of discordant "twangs" been elevated to something other than what it is?
shock is the prerogative of every 1st year art student - having done just that, i know. it is hoped that with time, maturity and a broader understanding of those around you - call it a social contract - there will come an equal measure of artistic responsibility. nothing victorian or soviet in its severity - just the possibility of leading by example instead of ridicule or with the musical equivalent of a cattle-prod.
one thing not discussed in regards to this piece is class snobbery in the u.k.. traditionally, "tabloids" are working-class newspapers. traditionally, violins, accordions and mandolins are "folk" music instruments, played in pubs and by immigrant buskers in the street (read "italian" ... read "gypsy" ... read "irish.") is culture better served by those who read and spell "boy" properly and don't drop their "r's?" should "booshe-wah" kids from south london, choosing music as a vocation, be elevated to such a height that they can "tut-tut" without being called back down to earth?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks