in relation to some of the youtube mandolin videos mentioned in this section and at the risk of being tagged as a philistine, i'd like to ask why it is that certain composers of MAD music (Melodiphobic, Atonal, Discordant) choose the mandolin? i'd also like to ask what it is that's required - other than two ears and something in between - to appreciate this music?
a little wary but paying attention - bill
Why not? #That's comparable to asking why some chefs prefer to work with fish and others with mushrooms. #You might like what either one cooks, but you might not. #There's not necessarily anything wrong with the taste of anybody involved, whatever it is.Originally Posted by (billkilpatrick @ Aug. 04 2008, 05:14)
I suppose no more than wanting to. #I also suppose there's no reason to appreciate it if you don't want to. #I will offer that knowing how and/or why such things are constructed certainly can enhance appreciation. #For example, I didn't care much for Bozzio's multi-movement solos for drum kit until I saw him explain their structure at a clinic. #After, I came to think of them as rather profound.
willingness to listen is essential when confronted with this stuff, i agree. i was wondering if a degree in music might be as well - or maths, or physics ... seems an initiation process of some sort is essential.
i think it's ironic - glib and heavy handed - to choose a sweet sounding, lyrical instrument like the mandolin to make noise - sounds of the earth may be like music but that doesn't make them so.
a bit like the "big lie" theory of propaganda by joseph goebbels - little lies get detected but a big one rolls on forever, gaining acceptance.
Sort of like the "Novel of Ideas"; interesting, perhaps, but seldom revisited for pleasure after the mandatory read. Castor oil for the ears? "Listen to this, it's good for you".
Still, there remains Eugene's uncovering hidden depths. Or Twain's discovery that Wagner's music is better than it sounds. Or Stavinsky's Firebird, for yet another vector: there may well be something in it, but it may take time and effort to appreciate. Meanwhile lay in a stock of outdated vegetables, and head for the concert hall.
I vaguely remember this story from one of Bennett Cerf's books -- may well be apocryphal:
A contemporary composer wrote a a concerto for 24 pianos and two airplane engines, which was performed (for the first and only time) in New York. A monstrous din emanated from the stage, and a man in the audience turned to his companion and said,
"This is terrible!"
At which, a mink-coated dowager in the row ahead turned around with a loud "Sshh!"
-- No mandolin content...
Allen Hopkins
Gibsn: '54 F5 3pt F2 A-N Custm K1 m'cello
Natl Triolian Dobro mando
Victoria b-back Merrill alumnm b-back
H-O mandolinetto
Stradolin Vega banjolin
Sobell'dola Washburn b-back'dola
Eastmn: 615'dola 805 m'cello
Flatiron 3K OM
Another use for those vegetables...
vegetable orchestra video
Vegetable Orchestra site
Jim
My Stream on Soundcloud
19th Century Tunes
Playing lately:
1924 Gibson A4 - 2018 Campanella A-5 - 2007 Brentrup A4C - 1915 Frank Merwin Ashley violin - Huss & Dalton DS - 1923 Gibson A2 black snakehead - '83 Flatiron A5-2 - 1939 Gibson L-00 - 1936 Epiphone Deluxe - 1928 Gibson L-5 - ca. 1890s Fairbanks Senator Banjo - ca. 1923 Vega Style M tenor banjo - ca. 1920 Weymann Style 25 Mandolin-Banjo - National RM-1
MAD music is better than it sounds.
... as koan's go, it's perfect.MAD music is better than it sounds.
I'm with Bill here.
My $.02 is that works like 'Yob Cultcha' & MAD music (best description I've heard yet) in general is that composers are playing with theory or doing math with the structure of music. It's as if it is structured sound by theoreticians for theoreticians. At least that's what it sounds like. It sure ain't pretty or moving...just makes me wince.
All of that genre of atonal, dissonant, modern...call it what you will...it all sounds like someone dropped a large tray of silverware on a concrete floor: harsh and unpleasant.
I wouldn't disparage anyone who wanted to listen to it or play it. But I won't hide the fact that I can't imagine why they would want to subject themselves to it either.
Eugene,
When did you see Bozzio's clinic? Was it recently with his new, super-monster drum set? As a former drummer I have to say that what Terry does is simply mind boggling. All that coordinated sound from 4 limbs is astounding.
There are three kinds of people: those of us that are good at math and those that are not.
I am one who actually enjoys listening, playing, and composing music which can be melodiphobic, atonal, discordant, etc.. so I guess I am qualified to put forth my opinion on this topic. I first should should say that topics like these tend to become polarized very quickly, stirring up passions. Whatever I may say in defense of my tastes is not intended to to aggravate others (although it may unintentionally do so).
Dissonance in music is relative. What was once considered dissonant is now considered consonant. Late Beethoven was "unlistenable" Wagner was "noise" Stravinsky's Rite of Spring caused a riot at it's premiere, etc.. (For a large collection of initial bad critical reviews of music read "A Lexicon of Musical Invective" by Nicholas Slominsky.) For that matter, Charlie Parker and many other jazz artists can be added to that list.
An essay titled #"The Aesthetics of the Strange" by friend and collegue Peter Yates speaks more eloquently than I can about this topic so I will quote from it. Warning: provocative ideas. You may disagree.
"...Poetry differs from prose, being more obscure
...Inaccessibility is a necessary condition of profound experience. A downhill skier pays for a lift ticket, is hauled to a hilltop, skis down, and buys a powder suit. The bicyclist struggles to the top of a hill and glides down, exhilarated.
...Music’s greatest liability is its pretty sounds. They allow the listener to be content with only that.
...Art and entertainment are independent variables. Each may be present alone, or both may be present, together in varying proportions. They are different in character and purpose. Distinquishing between them is easier than distinguishing between good and bad. An entertainment may accomplish its goals, in which case it is good, and so may a work of art.
# #An entertainment carries its listeners from temporal point A [to] point B with no obligation other than to deposit them safely at the conclusion, keeping them intact, as they were at the beginning. It is a kind of life support system, or a mechanism for suspended animation - keeping the perceiver alive but in a neutral state. Like small-talk it is not reprehensible, but neither has it anything to do with growth, change, or development. A juggling act can be exciting, amazing, or diverting. Most musical performances stop at this, without offering any inkling of music’s greater power to engage the intellect, the emotion, and the spirit. When on the contrary even a slight effort to do so is made, it is easily detected. The only surprise is that such efforts are so rarely made. The prowess and excitement of an entertainment become a trap of beguiling performers and listeners into false satisfaction, much as a plateful of mashed potatoes can pass, in the stomach, for a complete meal.
In order for their armor plates to be pried apart, observers must at some point be made uncomfortable, put off balance, exposed to the unexpected. In order for them to be pleased at a deeper level, their superficial expectations must be first frustrated. Unless the performer is willing, by so doing, to risk a listener’s rancor, he will get nowhere with him..."
____
This is not a defense of any piece of music previously discussed. Bad music can be found everywhere, regardless of musical style or melodic content (and just because something is dissonant does not make it good either). Rather, it's just an explanation of an aesthetic that embraces "difficult" music, and is directed towards Bill's confusion about what is attractive about music of a certain musical aesthetic which he finds unenjoyable.
In the end, I guess, it comes down to what one wants out of their musical experiences. One can talk about aesthetics until the cows come home, but if there is no spark of interest when listening to something unusual it means nothing.
as a preamble i'd like to say it was never my intention to monitor/censor/edit/discourage/etc. anyone's contribution to the forum - video or commentary. in preparing my little "drop the times" video (made in reaction to "yob cultcha'") i learned something about musical noise - not a lot! - just a little ... and realize there's nothing haphazard about the process.
confrontation in art has been done to death. goading, enraging, shocking, horrifying, etc., etc. has been repeated, amplified (i say ... AMPLIFIED!) and enlarged to the point of cliche - or worse ... to the point where bad is good and ugly is beautiful.
this stuff is ugly.
it would be fun to coordinate with other mandolinists - to go "pleep" and have another go "twang" and another go "plink." we could perform "paddy cakes" with our instruments ... play "pleep-pleep-twang-twang-plink-plink" in faster and faster turns, until we all fall down in fits of giggles. it would be fun for us to do and fun, perhaps, for a paid audience to see.
on another night, we could repeat the process: don expressions of concern - no giggling this time - and call it "yob cultcha'."
as a composer or a musician - as an artist with a vocation - which would you rather do: grate your audience with noise for 45 minutes and send them home - cast them out! chastised and quaking - emitting sounds of consternation and gnashing of teeth! ... or have them enraptured by your melody; tapping their toes and glad they came ... whistling your tune on the way home?
it's a choice.
fraternally - bill
Buzz, many thanks for your post. I used to make the distinction between "good" music and "nice" music.
Mozart is both good music and nice music.
Bartok is good music, but it's not always nice.
Muzak is nice music, but it's not good.
As a composer, my goal has never been to shock anyone, but just to express myself. My earliest pieces were all pretty light, as I used humor to make them interesting until my composing skills improved. When I became tired of writing "cute" pieces, I wrote my first 12-tone piece, just to break out of a rut and start thinking differently about composing. My 2 Sonatas for solo mandolin freely mix tonal and more dissonant writing. (Ugo Orlandi observed that I have a preference for major 7ths.) The primary goal of these pieces was to write serious, substantial, modern concert works that employed the idiomation mandolin techniques of past centuries, but another conscious goal was to destroy any stereotypes about the mandolin being merely a quaint little instrument for the performance of polite music. It can also be a powerful instrument, and play exciting, intense music.
Yob Cultcha was not to my personal tastes, but a lot of contemporary music is, and in my personal opinion, some of the best stuff in the mandolin repertoire has been written since 1980. There are more than enough gems from previous centuries to comprise a worthwhile repertoire, but you have to sort through an AWFUL lot of fluff to find it. (I did, and it was worth the effort.) SOMEDAY, I'll finally get back to my project that addresses this subject...
Watch me tag myself as Philistine - I have heard "Battle of Evermore" about 50 times in my life, many times before I knew what a mandolin was or who J.R.R.R.R.R.R.Tolkien was, and many many times since - and I have yet to "get it" as music. The vocals don't do anything for me and the music does even less. And it sure doesn't make much interesting use of the mandolin. Were I to hear it in performance it would take incredible patience and deliberate open-mindedness for me to sit through the whole thing.
I am not here to dis the tune, or defend other music - just to show the incredible range of tastes on this forum. For every type of music in which a mandolin shows up you will find some of us who are passionate about it, and some who don't understand why anyone would call it music.
Not to hijack Bill's thoughtful thread, but I have to admit I never 'got' LZ either in my youth or adulthood. Nonetheless, the Robert Plant-Alison Kraus combo has me amazed. Their live versions of old Zeppelin tunes are transcendent.
Is it them or has my ear changed? Probably some of both. Melonious Quartet's take on Satie probably would have weirded me out at 17. Now I dig. I'm counting on catching up on some things and leaving others behind. Maybe someday I will get 'Rawhide.'
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
It would be really nice to have alerts put on music in advance, things that would let us know whether what was coming up was going to be worth the effort to absorb it.
I mean, something like the following:
"You'll hate this now, and so will everyone, but eventually everyone will love this (including you), and it will become a classic."
or
"You and everyone will hate this now, and you will come to love and be moved by it, but nearly everyone else will still dislike it."
or
"You and everyone are completely baffled by this, but it will all be clear in 5 or 10 years, and you will come to be moved by it, even if you don't love it."
or
"You and everyone are baffled by this, but eventually nearly everyone will be moved by, love and enjoy it. Except for you."
or
"You and everyone are baffled by this, and you should be, because it is actually rubbish, and your instincts are dead on."
If we had some idea in advance of how bafflingly unfamiliar pieces would eventually wear on us, we might not feel as hostile or adversarial toward them.
And boy, imagine our relief to be able to say with confidence, "That was utter rubbish," secure in the knowledge that it actually was, without fearing exposure as a philistine, and knowing that we weren't going to have to eat crow in the face of a modern-day "Rite of Spring."
In the end, we all, including the most highly educated among us, know what we like. None of us can help that. What's intriguing is that we don't necessarily know what we will like eventually.
That's what makes sitting through the hard and baffling stuff worth the risk!
Doug Hoople
Adult-onset Instrumentalist (or was that addled-onset?)
I think pretty much anything capable of generating sound, especially if capable of definite pitch, could be perceived as "sweet-sounding" and "lyrical." #The same things are also often capable of staccato, scratchy noise and atonality. #I don't take any issue with exploiting it all even if I don't choose to listen to all. #The notion that a mandolin can be "lyrical" and thus always should be strikes me as wholly subjective and a little too prescriptive for my own tastes.
You have to recognize that "this stuff is ugly" isn't necessarily an opinion shared by all. #Microtonality and the frequent occurrence of the augmented 4th "blue note"/tritone (the scarily dissonant "devil's interval" of the medieval and renaissance eras) in blues and jazz--not to mention in almost every breed of popular music since--could be perceived as ugly by many, but most have been exposed to it so thoroughly that it seems wholly tame.
I don't think atonal music or dissonance necessarily has any more to do with "confrontation" than a modern kid picking up a guitar and playing through the blues scale for the first time. #I have never perceived it as confrontational, even in the frequent occasions that I don't like it.
That's a really fine line. #Music/Art crafted solely to appeal to an audience without any daring on the part of the artist is often rightly considered to lack integrity or to be of "sell-out" caliber.
Atonality and dissonance isn't necessarily anything new. We simply grow more accustomed to it as we continue to hear it in a particular context and tend to perceive it less for what it really is. Consider this admonition: "...let him not think, finding in this work many harsh sounds or dissonances, that they are printing errors, for they must be left as they are." That's from the preface to Michelagnolo Galilei's (1575-1631) first lute book (1620: quoted from the liner notes of Paul Beier's recording). Many listeners today would be hard pressed to actually identify the dissonances buried in the counterpoint, but they evidently were considered pretty harsh when new. Mudarra gave a similar warning with his fantasy after Ludovico in 1546!
Sometimes dissonances or atonal passages can be tremendous fun and used to great effect in largely consonant music. Coonsider Rebel's (1666-1747) Les Elemens; the first movement, "Le Cahos", opens with one of the nastiest tone clusters I can call to mind in the whole of composed music.
Then consider the music of Alan Hovhaness (1911-2000). Very modern, but always very smooth and easily digestible, rarely dissonant, and never atonal.
No mandolin, but I might recommend Arvo Part's cello concerto as a good intro to "MAD"-music appreciation. It is largely a serialist work in its construction, but punctuated with fluffy, rococo-style cadences. There is a great humor to the whole, especially the last movement.
...Or, to involve some mandolin, watch this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RokcZ33VblI
Not remotely new or recent! (...although the kit still struck me as "super-monster" in scope.) It must have been somewhere in the span of 1987-1990 or so. It was part of an annual percussion festival that used to be sponsored by the now-defunct Coyle Music. But be careful! That stuff is so atonal, it doesn't even have definite pitch!
Up to the year 1200 in Europe, thirds and sixths were considered dissonant and were employed judiciously. They achieved legitimacy only in the high Middle Ages and Renaissance.
(See: people.vanderbilt.edu/~cynthia.cyrus/ORB/orbgloss.htm, under the headings of consonance and dissonance.)
David
Clocks make no alliances.
I'd like to add praise for your Sonata II, Neil. #I love the cohesion provided by the recurring motif amongst movements, the toccata is exciting (I believe I've mentioned that I think of it as somewhat Brouwer-like), the fugue intense, etc. #It's just groovy.
...And thanks for some very nice thoughts on the matter, Buzz and Doug.
I like it, but really, the best thing I can say for the song is in regard to Sandy Denny's backing vocal.
I would like to say, firmly but with as much politeness as I can muster, that if you know very little about and don't understand a type of music you should refrain from making insulting generalizations about it. #Composers do NOT write dissonant music as some sort of mathematical or theoretical exercise--or at least very few do. #And those of us who love dissonant music don't appreciate it for those reasons either. #The composers think it sounds good. #The listeners think it sounds good. #Almost everyone who is involved in any way with the music is involved because they like it and enjoy listening to it.
Twentieth century classical music is my favorite period in classical music. #The super dissonant avant garde jazz of the 1960s (say the last few years of Coltrane or Pharoah Sanders or Albert Ayler) is my favorite period in jazz. #The most dissonant groups to come out of modern folk music (say the Punch Brothers and the Sparrow Quartet) are generally my favorites. #I genuinely love this music. #In general I find Baroque and Romantic period music to be rather boring, and the same goes for big band or bepop jazz and for more traditional, tonal bluegrass. #I enjoy these types of music but only as something pleasant to listen to. #Almost all of the music that is extremely moving to me is also extremely dissonant. #I know other people who feel the same way and we are not making it up to seem hip to the contemporary scene or something.
I would venture to guess most of you are the exact opposite. #That is totally fine. #I am not "right" to be elated almost to tears by a wild atonal sax solo or Norgard symphony, and you are not "right" to feel the same way about a really sweet and tasteful bluegrass mandolin solo. #You might find my music incomprehensible and I might find yours predictable and boring. #So what? #We all have different tastes. #I respect other tastes and find it sad that is uncommon for a similar to respect to be shown for the music I prefer.
I don't even ask that everyone take the time to try to understand the music, only that you acknowledge that just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's trash or only written to be confrontational or only a math exercise, etc etc.
P. S. #I know that none of the negative comments about dissonant music are intended as personal attacks on people who like the music and I don't take any of them that way. #Similarly I hope nobody takes any of my comments that way. #I have no hard feelings toward anyone, I just thought it was worth defending something I care deeply about.
P. P. S. #For what it's worth, I'm a composition major focusing on 20th century music. #
as an experiment ...
imagine a doppler effect as the camera pans over a group of musicians playing "yob cultcha'" under the tree:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RwiFqjyBJ2o
By the way I just listened to Yob Cultcha for the first time and I like it. To my ear though the violinist (and maybe the other two) in the youtube video is having some trouble with the rhythm.
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! Not my thing, but some very impressive good playing of bad music!
Let me propose another reason for making dissonant or otherwise experimental music i.e. that of the musical R&D department.
Research and development is necessary in any field and music is no different. And for this reason music gets made which some may not even call music. The creator might not even call it that. A 'what if' impulse sometimes suggests a new approach and numbers can be very useful for this. e.g. what if I take the letters of a name (something mozart did), or the population of your home town, or the varying temperature of your fish tank...and make a piece. Who knows there might be a break through there. Sometimes these experiments get discarded, sometimes they get heard before an audience. But it has to be the right audience, an audience who know why they're there.
In fact I might not include dissonant music in this category - the roots of this genre have been relatively well researched and there is something of an established range of approaches. There is an established audience for this kind of music.
But what kind of audience for the R&D stuff? Difficult, and I've had to deal with this dilemma as an experimental composer/performer.
The thing which really puzzles me is why this is not as much a problem in other fields i.e. the supposed inaccessibility of experimental approaches. This is always done in science - scientists knowingly and commonly present research which appears arcane to the general public.
Thoughts from a lover of bluegrass and dissonant music...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks