EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 52, Issue 01 This issue's topics: Academic Music (6 messages) Beating a dead horse... (4 messages) Breaking boundaries Compositional processes... (5 messages) Compositions etc. (5 messages) Fringe Benefits Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... (9 messages) musical realization (5 messages) Not WORKSTATION anymore... (2 messages) Not WORKSTATION anymore... For Sure!!! On life experiences, computer music, etc....a "thank you" (3 messages) Quality in computer music - Going out of town - Breathe! Teachers Test post:RE: OOPS! "Workstations" (9 messages) Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 01:20:23 PDT From: Mike Friesen Subject: Academic Music Mike Metlay raised an interesting point a little while back re. talking to composers even if the work was. . . less than aesthetically wonderful. >It almost certainly is. I enjoy dialogue with composers on their work >and often find that even if I can't bring myself to LIKE what they've >done, I can at least learn to understand what the hell they thought >they were accomplishing. This does a lot to take the bite out of simply >wanting to slam everything broadside, and on rare occasions even lets >me salvage something of value from the experience. I'd like to echo this sentiment. While at Berklee I attended a Richard Boulanger/Max Mathews concert: definitely something to be classified as 'academic music'. Some of the stuff was, um, challenging. But I refuse to assume the hubris it takes to say "the experience was worthless". Having one's head opened is not an entirely comfortable thing. I'm not comfortable with the idea of universally condemning academic music. Those folks on the fringe are exploring fronteirs in which I may someday choose to settle. Just because it sounds weird and inaccessible NOW doesn't mean that I won't someday have a greater appreciation for it. As re. access to facilities: all systems have heirarchies. Whenever you have scarce resources you're going to have to establish criteria for the distribution of those resources (thank you, ECON 100). By the time a person has completed several courses in a given department, s/he has established certain personal and professional credentials which are sufficient to gain access to various strata of the institution. This principle is alternately known as RHIP - Rank Hath It's Privileges. Live with it. That's the way things work. Michael Friesen North Peace Secondary School Fort St. John, British Columbia, Canada It is a tale told by an idiot; full of sound and fury... ******************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 08:44:00 EST From: Robert Depin Subject: Academic Music >By the time a person has completed several courses in a given department, s/he >has established certain personal and professional credentials which are suf- >ficient to gain access to various strata of the institution. This principle is >alernately known as RHIP - Rank Hath It's Privileges. >Live with it. That's the way things work. >Michael Friesen Total agreement. However, my feeling is from reading other posts on this topic, that your agruments will fan the flames and fall on death ears. The feeling I'm getting is the subscribers to this list have little or no use for academic electronic music, hey, that's fine. Regarding academic music, the point isn't to provide popularly acceptable music, but to educate and expand one's knowledge. Just as Mozart's father educated him in the techniques of harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration today's universitys and conservatories provide the same foundation, luckily funded by our goverments and private orgizations. IMHO if it weren't for the academic music department the present access to a music education would be limited to the elite few who were lucky enough to study with working composers (of which there would only be a handful to take students). With regard to access to equipment, when I graduated from my undergraduate music I maintained a relationship with the music department and having taken the electronic music studio courses, was granted access to the facilities. Establishing a professional relationship allowed me to further pursue elec- tronic/computer music with no personal equipment. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 15:24:00 CDT From: Greg Youngdahl Subject: Re: Academic Music I feel the need to jump in here in support of Joe's position: > Are theory classes absolutely required to be able to compose music that > reaches people and makes them want to listen to it? I would argue that they > are not. I think most would agree that the Beatles were among the more successful composers at reaching people and making them want to listen to their compositions. Some would say (myself included) that they were responsable for a transformation in popular music. They had no formal music training, and apparently were unable to read music (when Paul McCartney was called upon recently to compose an oratorio he had to enlist the help of another composer to transcribe his ideas into a form that the orchestra could use). I'm a firm believer that if you want to do something the best thing to do is to jump in and do it (applying to most things, not just music). If your approach is to take classes that is one way, but not the only way. It may work for some people and be the wrong method for others. It may take a while from the time you "jump in" with the non-formal approach until you are prepared to compose, but the formal training takes a chunk of time as well. I'd also argue that there is an aspect of "giftedness" that comes into play. Some people can take all the classes in the world and still not be able to compose a worthwhile song (at least in the "making people want to listen to it" sense), while others with no formal training crank out an abundance of "successful" songs. Perhaps the goal of the academic folks isn't success in that sense, but to break new ground. Again, it doesn't take formal training or high powered technology to break new ground either. Joe's example of the Beatles "Revolution #9" was composed by John Lennon using a bunch of tape recorders looping little snippets of sound faded in and out as he saw fit. Certainly not "high powered technology", even at that time. However, I'm wondering if this issue of access to high powered workstations etc. is about composing music, or generating new "timbers" for use in songs. Maybe I've missed something, but didn't the discussion about the high powered systems stem from the computations required for this "morphing" process from one waveform to another? Is the "morph" intended to occur for every note played in a song (ie every key you press morphs from a flute into a jackhammer or whatever), or does the process occur gradually over the course of playing a song (at the start you are playing a flute and by the end of the song this has evolved into a jackhammer), or does the whole "song" consist of the sounds created as the flute morphs into the jackhammer somehow? My original impression was that this morphing process was a way to discover new sounds for use in a song. I visualized someone performing a morph from one sound to another and listening to the sounds at intermediate points of the process, hopefully finding some great new sounds along the way that would be used in their compositions. Maybe the answer is "any of the above". In the first examples (individual notes, or over the course of the song, either as the notes played, or as the song itself) perhaps a high powered workstation would be required due to the real time computation necessary, but if one is just looking for new and different timbers I would imagine that could be accomplished on a typical "home computer". How much more powerful is a neXt than my 33 Mhz 386? -- Greg Youngdahl AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, IL greg@ihlpm.att.com "When all else fails you've got to say hmmm..." (j.ridder) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 10:45:18 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Academic Music Michael Friesen writes: >>This principle is >>alernately known as RHIP - Rank Hath Its Privileges. And Robert Depin writes: >The feeling >I'm getting is the subscribers to this list have little or no use for academic >electronic music, hey, that's fine. > This certainly is getting far, far, far away from my original intention. What I was trying to say was, as a musician who is not formally trained in the sense of having achieved a degree in music, but who has gone out and learned practical music theory and has composed for a number of years, and also as a musician who does appreciate so-called "academic" music (why else would I buy Paul Lansky's and Stephen Scott's records?), composition of advanced, high-quality computer music is virtually inaccessible for a part-time composer. Poerhaps this *is* just belly-aching and envy. However, I think it's valuable to discuss simply to let "the academic community" know that there are non-academic composers who *are* interested in their work and techniques, and who might be able to use their own skills and viewpoints to produce things with the same equipment that are different enough to enrich the work of both. This was the point I was trying to establish before we started getting into sweeping generalizations on both sides of the fence. As an aside: I wish I could hear more "academic" music around the Washington area. I was quite envious of those who got to attend the recent Princeton concert. Robert also writes: >Regarding academic music, the point isn't to provide popularly acceptable >music but to educate and expand one's knowledge. Sure. But there is nothing inherent in computer-based composition which requires it to be academic-only forever, other than access. When the first music concrete pieces were composed, the composers more than likely never dreamed that popular music would ever use these techniques (e.g."For the Benefit of Mr. Kite" and "Revolution No. 9", taking simply the Beatles). The more people who understand and have access to a technique, the more people who will produce interesting work. What could a good rule-of-thumb composer do with a hot workstation and good software? Impossible to predict. What could a good computer programmer who understands and has practical knowlege of computer music and a trained computer-music composer do together? Totally impossible to predict. Likely to happen? Not at most music departments. >IMHO if it weren't for the academic >music department the present access to a music education would limited to the >elite few who were lucky enough to study with working composers (of which >there would only be a handful to take students). And the others would be forced to do what traditional (in the sense of vernacular tradition) composers have always done and still do: compose without the admitted benefits of such training. The academic music department does not have to exist to provide composers, but its function as a structured environment in which to acquire useful tools is very important. I guess this has been an inarticulate plea to music departments to help make things more accessible by making it simpler for the part-time composer to acquire the tools to work with them, and to try to break the attitude that someone not spending the whole of his life in learning to compose could never possibly compose anything of value. I am *not* requesting that the rules and requirements be tossed out the window because one walks in the door and say "Hi, I know how to program computers and I play synthesizers, so I want to play with your computer music system". I am requesting that there be a little unbending, so to speak, and a realization that there are indeed talented people out there who may no longer be able to afford to ditch their chosen career on the off-chance that they might be a good composer. Are theory classes absolutely required to be able to compose music that reaches people and makes them want to listen to it? I would argue that they are not. I will acknowledge that they improve one's compositional ability through rote practice, as does practicing scales, but one can only practice for so long. Some of us will spend our time in the practice rooms; others will go out and compose without benefit of formal training. I simply propose that both places are learning environments, and that lessons learned informally may be valuable in an "academic" environment. I also ask whether the academic community sees any value in informal experience. Is four years of theory-composition training the only way to convince an academic music department that the person in question is sincere and motivated and merits access to their equipment and time? Are there other paths that go through recording studios instead of conservatories? Really, I'm more curious than anything else. I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that unless there is another quantum leap in the price/performance ratio for CPU power, memory size, mass storage, digital signal processing, and digital recording, I probably will continue to slug it out on synths and wonder whether I'd enjoy composing computed music. (I think I like this term better than "computer music".) --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 15:33:18 PDT From: metlay Subject: Re: Academic Music In the midst of a very impassioned argument about the inaccessibility of computer music systems to non-academics, Joe McMahon asks: >Is four years of theory-composition training the only way to convince an >academic music department that the person in question is sincere and >motivated and merits access to their equipment and time? I'd say no, not offhand, at LEAST not to the point of refusing exposure entirely. Take, for instance, the outreach program offered by Oberlin in a recent post. Other programs at Oberlin and other universities can at least offer a taste of what can be done, and in a nurturing and fun environment. Trying to get ongoing access to the tools is probably a hell of a lot tougher, though, I'll admit. -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ren and Stimpy are the gerbil gods who infiltrate ENSONIQ samplers. (j. k.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 11:37:29 EDT From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: Academic music > ... Have I mentioned my experience > as a grad student where I wrote a piece in memory of John Lennon > (this was just after he was shot), with fragments of "Eleanor Rigby" and > "A Day in the life" worked into the counterpoint, very much "rock" in style > but "classical" in construction. It was performed, and very shortly after > I got a letter from the department informing me that my financial aid > would not be renewed for the next year. I asked my teacher what was going > on, he said ask the chariman of the department. I asked the chairman, and > he said ask my teacher. What to do? I sat down and wrote 12-tone music > and soon afterwards I was informed that they had just happened to find > some scholarship money for the next year, bless their hearts. > Is that a message or what? Academic composers can follow their imaginations > as far as they want? Don't you believe it! Mark Simon's experience with his Lennon tribute/12-tone music apparently causing his funding to be turned off/on is shocking, to say the least. Mark was obviously affected by Lennon's murder to the point of composing a tribute. (A much better reaction than mine - I was merely a zombie for a few days.) His motivation was obvious. What I'd like to know is how many 12-tone pieces had to be written to get out of the dog house! Was the motivation for the 12-tone music purely financial? Don't get me wrong; I think that financial motivation can be equally as powerful and equally as valid as emotional motivation. Mark: I think I can assume that your Lennon tribute was personally very satisfying. How did you feel about the 12-tone music you wrote? I find it abhorrent that the powers that be were so shallow as to believe that you, as a composer, should be limited in the scope of your expression. If *I* were in a position of power over the purse strings, I'd have DOUBLED your financial aid! Bill Fox ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 23:08:51 -0400 From: "James M. Macknik" Subject: Beating a dead horse... -=About this whole issue between Jeff and Bob=- Siskel and Ebert, here, have been talking a lot lately about this whole compositional style/computer modelling/performance reproduction et al. issue. There are some basic comments I would like to make. Jeff seems to be defending the "human quality" in music that to him is blissfully ineffable, will always be so, and will always be so. Bob seems to be saying that this doesn't really cut it in the real world, for ignorance is not necessarily bliss to everyone. I agree with Jeff to a point. There are some innate human qualities that we still have no idea how to approach in terms of understanding how they work. I, however, will stand my ground in stating that I will NOT rest until I either find out all I can about exactly how such properties work, or until I die. *This* is human nature. Anyone who thinks they can be creative or explore their universe without asking: "Why?" "How?" "When?" is fooling themselves. Humans do this every day, in everything they do. The hammer would never have been concieved without first asking the question "How?" at some point. We cannot deny that anything we do REQUIRES us to examine HOW we do it and WHY we do it, at least on some level. If this never happened progress would never take place, and this holds true for music. If established rules were never confronted with a "Why?" by someone, they would never be broken, and change would never take place. The last time I checked, the whole ideology behind "academia," "eduaction," and "learning" were all based on the idea of asking well-formed, well-INformed, pertinent questions about our world and what's in it. To use the new catch-phrase of ListServ World, "IMHO," anyone who composes music without asking some of these questions is just as musically "stupid" as the computer they trivialize. The computer has no ability to ask "Why?" or "How?" It is a TOOL...and the use of tools is what defines one of the most basic definitions of HUMANITY. The use of this tool to help "codify" some reasons for human behavior should not fall under general trivialization by those who take such a self-righteous stance as: "Using such toys is stupid. What *I* do is art...all they do is ruin it." I agree that much of what is done with tools such as computers is bad. This is NOT the fault of the tool. The computer is only as stupid as its programmer and/or its user. If the pieces created WITH a computer (note WITH and not BY) are bad, it is because the composer does not know how to use her/his tool. Bad compositions existed before the computer was ever invented, and this is because those composers did not know how to use their only useful tool for composition...their ear. So let's get away from calling the computer a useless piece of human-wanna-be metal. Anthropomorphising is best left to bad science-fiction writers. Let's take it to the level it should be addressed. The composers are are responsible for the expertise of their tool. If they can't use it, and can't understand HOW it should be used, then they are to blame, not the tool. "Computer Music" is not a joke, nor is the exploration of it a dead-end street. "Computer Music" is a viable course of study of how and why we listen. If the product is bad, tell the smith he needs more practice and study with his anvil. Don't tell the anvil that it isn't good enough, because it simply CAN'T listen. If you think it can, then you have probably been in the "creativity" business for too long. -- James M. Macknik Assistant to MicroComputer Specialists Junior - Connecticut College Department of Academic Computing New London, Connecticut Connecticut College Home (203)-439-3560 Work (203)-439-2354 BITNet: jmmac@conncoll.bitnet InterNet: jmmac@mvax.cc.conncoll.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 09:05:49 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Beating a dead horse... James concludes -> > > -=About this whole issue between Jeff and Bob=- > Siskel and Ebert, here, have been talking a lot lately about this >whole compositional style/computer modelling/performance reproduction et al. >issue. There are some basic comments I would like to make. > Jeff seems to be defending the "human quality" in music that to him >is blissfully ineffable, will always be so, and will always be so. Bob >seems to be saying that this doesn't really cut it in the real world, for >ignorance is not necessarily bliss to everyone. Thank you for reducing my argument to the point of inaninity - not that I'm not inane (leave out the "s" please!). My point basically was - "ACADEMIC MUSIC SUCKS!" Why? My arguments were that there were people busy modelling the ineffable. People who don't really know how to write music to begin with attempting to recreate their own misunderstanding of musical creation. There, I just reduced my own argument to the point of inanity (TA DA!). I try everyday to model my own compositional processes. EVERY COMPOSER DOES! No one consciously attempts to write music with their ears and eyes closed. All I'm really saying is that institutions - any institution - promote incompetence - maybe it's the Peter Principal...and these incompetent people produce incompetent research which is lauded and celebrated throughout the academia. This research is then driven by the researcher's ego into a piece of music - head long - bang - and look out... yawn... Nobody on the emusic list (puhleeze) is dissing experimentation, taking chances, going boldly where no composer has gone before. It's in the nature of emusic. Ultimately, I have to ask - who listens to all those university CD's that are produced (and sometimes sold ;-) NOBODY! A few students will buy them... some poor sucker who wants to learn about computer music but is really looking for more Floyd... and possibly the Christmas gift (overwrought). > I agree with Jeff to a point. There are some innate human qualities >that we still have no idea how to approach in terms of understanding how >they work. I, however, will stand my ground in stating that I will NOT rest >until I either find out all I can about exactly how such properties work, or >until I die. *This* is human nature. Anyone who thinks they can be >creative or explore their universe without asking: "Why?" "How?" "When?" is >fooling themselves. Humans do this every day, in everything they do. The >hammer would never have been concieved without first asking the question >"How?" at some point. We cannot deny that anything we do REQUIRES us to >examine HOW we do it and WHY we do it, at least on some level. If this >never happened progress would never take place, and this holds true for >music. If established rules were never confronted with a "Why?" by someone, >they would never be broken, and change would never take place. The last >time I checked, the whole ideology behind "academia," "eduaction," and >"learning" were all based on the idea of asking well-formed, well-INformed, >pertinent questions about our world and what's in it. Puhleeze - this shows a real lack of creativity. Nobody writes good new music with "established" rules - this is a totally jaundiced mis-conception - following rules produces parody. > To use the new catch-phrase of ListServ World, "IMHO," anyone who >composes music without asking some of these questions is just as musically >"stupid" as the computer they trivialize. The computer has no ability to >ask "Why?" or "How?" It is a TOOL...and the use of tools is what defines >one of the most basic definitions of HUMANITY. The use of this tool to help >"codify" some reasons for human behavior should not fall under general >trivialization by those who take such a self-righteous stance as: "Using >such toys is stupid. What *I* do is art...all they do is ruin it." NOBODY HAS SAID THIS!!! You're filtering the whole discussion through a 1950's anti-computer argument... > I agree that much of what is done with tools such as computers is >bad. This is NOT the fault of the tool. The computer is only as stupid as >its programmer and/or its user. If the pieces created WITH a computer (note >WITH and not BY) are bad, it is because the composer does not know how to >use her/his tool. Bad compositions existed before the computer was ever >invented, and this is because those composers did not know how to use their >only useful tool for composition...their ear. Yes... > So let's get away from calling the computer a useless piece of >human-wanna-be metal. Anthropomorphising is best left to bad >science-fiction writers. Let's take it to the level it should be >addressed. The composers are are responsible for the expertise of their >tool. If they can't use it, and can't understand HOW it should be used, >then they are to blame, not the tool. "Computer Music" is not a joke, nor >is the exploration of it a dead-end street. "Computer Music" is a viable >course of study of how and why we listen. If the product is bad, tell the >smith he needs more practice and study with his anvil. Don't tell the anvil >that it isn't good enough, because it simply CAN'T listen. If you think it >can, then you have probably been in the "creativity" business for too long. Whatever... Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 09:44:39 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Beating a dead horse... >Puhleeze - this shows a real lack of creativity. Nobody writes good new music >with "established" rules - this is a totally jaundiced mis-conception - >following rules produces parody. Mmmmm, now, I'm not so sure, Jeff. Would you argue that performing within a tradition excludes the possibility of creating good new music? Or are you saying that things like sonata form, cadences, and other traditional music tools have no place in modern composition? I don't *think* you are saying either one of these things, but I just want to be clear on this point. What I think I hear you saying is that music created to a rule allows the composer to blame the rule, rather than herself, if the music is not successful or listenable. You are not advocating discarding all existing musical tradition simply because it's tradition, but because certain composers, whether academic or not, can use the excuse that a piece is perfectly constructed; never mind if it is boring, pointless, and mundane. I hear you passionately insisting that composers be willing to: 1) LISTEN to what they write and be willing to discard attempted compositions if they don't reach the listener (a very difficult thing to do when one has invested a lot of labor in a piece), and 2) Be willing to jettison a rule or tradition in favor of producing a piece with more emotion and beauty; not to follow rules blindly in the belief that a rigorously-constructed piece is always a good one. Is that summed up in a non-trivial way? --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 09:54:26 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Beating a dead horse... >>Puhleeze - this shows a real lack of creativity. Nobody writes good new >>music with "established" rules - this is a totally jaundiced mis-conception - >>following rules produces parody. > Mmmmm, now, I'm not so sure, Jeff. Would you argue that performing within a > tradition excludes the possibility of creating good new music? Or are you > saying that things like sonata form, cadences, and other traditional music > tools have no place in modern composition? I don't *think* you are saying > either one of these things, but I just want to be clear on this point. Sonata forms - cadences - are not rules. They are musical processes. The most infamous rule is the 12-tone row! The whole argument about rules is based on a serious misunderstanding of how composers in the past really worked. Mozart never said, hmmm... I just used a I 6/4 chord - well the rule says I've got to go to V. It's my guess that what many people consider rules was considered "fashion" in the past. Taste and fashion rule the mediocre composer. > What I think I hear you saying is that music created to a rule allows the > composer to blame the rule, rather than herself, if the music is not > successful or listenable. You are not advocating discarding all existing > musical tradition simply because it's tradition, but because certain > composers, whether academic or not, can use the excuse that a piece is > perfectly constructed; never mind if it is boring, pointless, and mundane. > Exactly! > I hear you passionately insisting that composers be willing to: > 1) LISTEN to what they write and be willing to discard attempted compositions > if they don't reach the listener (a very difficult thing to do when one > has invested a lot of labor in a piece), It's really painful! I've written over 150 full length pieces (since I was 16). I've discarded 140. and > 2) Be willing to jettison a rule or tradition in favor of producing a piece > with more emotion and beauty; not to follow rules blindly in the belief > that a rigorously-constructed piece is always a good one. > > Is that summed up in a non-trivial way? > Definitely! > --- Joe M. > Thanks! Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 10:51:01 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Breaking boundaries I think that Mark Simon is somewhat oversimplifying the avenues available to a musician. I agree that in popular music, heavily-promoted mediocrity tends to become more popular, if only from exposure. However, as a number of the members of this list have noted, there are still musicians who put a lot of craft and care into both composing and performing their music out there. It's just more difficult for them to establish themselves. I would suggest that, as far as fields open to exploration, jazz, soundtracks, and dance music are probably the fields in which you'll find more people making music because they want to more than because they are getting rich doing it. I would also suggest that we've really beaten this subject nearly to death and it's about time to move on to something else. Mark, what other pieces have you written that you feel have "gone right"? And how do you approach the compositional process? I think this might be more productive and helpful and may provide us all with more insights that may come from a different angle than some of us are used to. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 17:42:00 EST From: Robert Depin Subject: Compositional processes... I've been trying to stay out of this discussion of compositional practices/ processes simply because I don't agree with the general philsophy that any music is a emotional, ground moving experience. With regards to twelve tone music, The general tone of the discusion has been that it is devoid of tonality. Jeff H. as boldly stated that twelve tone music sucks (maybe a mis-quote, I hope not though) as well as most academic music he's heard. As far as personal compositions from grad school, my thesis was also 12 tone. However, my process of creating a row was based on exploring my teachers tech- nique of deriving a row from previously composed material (a motif, folk song, whatever). This allows for some very tonal - sounding music and gives me the compositional control necessity to handle a large scale piece. While at grad school I had the pleasure and study my teachers latest symphony based on this technique. If I hadn't had this one to one experience I doubt that I could have determined the row from hearing it and would have swore the piece to be tonal. The card trick was nice, but 12 tone composition must be approached just like any other compositional process, requiring work, experience, and experimenta- tion. This has been an interesting discussion, but I believe it's time for me to bow out and just listen. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 09:04:39 PDT From: metlay Subject: Re: Compositional processes... Mark Simon states: > My "card trick" was an attempt to privately give the third finger >to the department that had just cut off my financial aid. I figured I >could write my piece with a deck of cards and no one would be wiser. >And I was correct. A good friend of mine pulled a similar stunt when he was in college, and saved his grade in an electronic music course. He had sweated, agonized, and bled his way through a semester's worth of emusic composition projects and got consistently mediocre to low grades with a great deal of criticism from the professor. Finally, convinced he was going to flunk, he gave up, and handed in a final project that consisted of tapes he had fished out of the garbage can in the main student studio the night before the due date (i.e. scraps from other students' projects that they had thrown away as useless), hacked them into tiny pieces with a razorblade, spliced them together in random order, and handed them in. He made no effort to even listen to the piece he'd created; I don't even think he bothered making sure that all the scraps were spliced in with the magnetic side of the tape facing the heads. He just spliced together several dozen feet of garbage and handed it in. Needless to say, he got an "A" on the project and a very good final grade in the course, with the professor gushing in his review notes about the "carefully chosen timbres" and basically how my friend had at long last "gotten the idea" of what was necessary. This confirmed a lot of my suspicions about the academic world. >offence anyone may take to the above posting. Maybe I should do like >Brahms and apologize to anyone I *didn't* offend. "I have just played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless bastard!" --Tschaikovsky -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If this is a Global Village, then I must be the Global Village Idiot....... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 10:35:01 EDT From: Mark Simon Subject: Re: Compositional processes... I need to ask a few things of Bob Depin before he disappears from this discussion, and maybe others here were wondering the same things. So who was your teacher? What symphony did he write that got a 12-tone row from a folk song? If you don't care to blast it to the whole net, you can answer me through private e-mail. I remember hearing Tobias Picker talk at length about the labyrintian procedures he went through to turn tone rows into I IV and V chords (well, not quite, but almost), and I wondered if that's what you intend to end up with, why go through all the contortions? Just what kind of compositional control does 12-tone give you anyway? It has no relevance to the large-scale structure of the music, nor to the moment-to-moment structure, or any other structural level that you may wish to hear (and the key word here is "hear". If you can't follow the compositional process in real time with your ears, then it's not relevant) All it can hope to do is provide some sort of harmonic homogeneity, which I'm not even certain is particularly desirable. It's not a substitute for, say, sonata form or functional harmony. I'm not saying that all 12-tone music lacks form, but that the system doesn't insure the presence of form. So what does it do that makes it so worthwhile? I must say I enjoy what Schoenberg did with the 12-tone system. It seemed to suit his personality. Stravinsky did a few brilliant things with it towards the end of his life. Most other 12-tone music I've heard (and I've heard a lot) is a big yawn, this includes Webern. Webern is facsinating to study. He builds a lot of ingenious symmetries into his scores. His music is so concentrated that it bores me to death within 30 seconds, thus saving me the agony of being bored to death in 30 minutes or longer. I know, you roll your eyes when you read Jeff tell us about primal emotions in music. What he means to say (God, aren't we all so good at telling this guy what he means to say? Sorry about that Jeff) is that you have to have your theoretical system so thoroughly internalised that you can just spew forth music as if it was coming from divine inspiration. Now if you can internalise your 12-tone technique so that you can write it without having to look at row charts or anything else, you might have something. I think you'll agree that it takes years and years of study just to get fluent with good old tonality. Well, good luck. My "card trick" was an attempt to privately give the third finger to the department that had just cut off my financial aid. I figured I could write my piece with a deck of cards and no one would be wiser. And I was correct. Now when you say you "don't agree with the philosophy that music is an emotional, ground moving experience" do you mean that music is never emotional, or that it doesn't always have to be earth-shakingly emotional? Are you denying the presence of emotion in music or merely the necessity for constant seismic emotional levels? Just curious. I guess that's all for now. My apologies in advance for any offence anyone may take to the above posting. Maybe I should do like Brahms and apologize to anyone I *didn't* offend. --Mark Simon tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 12:30:00 EST From: Robert Depin Subject: Re: Compositional processes... Mark, No offence taken, I was just feeling this was an interesting discusion that kept beating the same arguments to death. >So who was your teacher? As an undergraduate I studied with Robert Adams, and later spent a semester with Gerald Shapiro from Brown University - primarily theory. In '86 I began studying with Roque Codero, a Panamanian born composer who before had been at Indiana University before moving to Illinois State University. My previous teachers had been relativoty young so it was a great experience having an older, much more experienced teacher, who had known several of this centruies greate composers (Copeland, Stravinsky, Harris, etc.). He had also spent time as the director of the conservatory in Panama and work on preparing Several Ives scores. His process of 12-tone compositional is the most musical I've discovered thus far, though his use of the row is freer and less strict. In a nutshell, he'd create a row by analyzing the melodic material of a flok song or motif that he had composed. This "derived" row would thus have some inherit "tonal" and non-tonal qualities. Then he'd spell out the other version of that row, retro- grade, inversion, etc., and then take the original version of the row, spell it veritaclly across several registers and use those notes as begining points for additiional versions of the row. The actual process of composition would then be using the row material more as a "scale". My "process" is to take the row, and create groupings of notes in 3's or 4's which can repeat or act as harmony. In the developement of the whole piece, I may expand a 3 note group to 4 using the first note of the next grouping or last note of the previous i.e. 4 note group becomes 5. I tend to be a little less restrictive when repeating notes and allow myself the freedom to repeat a note or notes when called for. The large scale froms are still employed and only the pitch material is serialized. The idea is to provide a level control and organization, just as sonata form does for large pieces. Thus, in a piece composed in this fashion, harmony and melody can be derived from a scale which I design and which has certain attributes I desire (both melodic and intervalic). I don't think music is never emotional, however for me, composition has to be about 90% intellectualization, and 10% emtional. Yet, my listening experience is probably the exact opposite 90% emotion and 10% intellectual. The processes I described above are what've worked for me in the past. Who's to say that I'll continue with 12-tone. I may develope my process to a point where it becomes some kind of "free" tonality. The point with 12-tone music currently is there are any number of processes which are valid and the root of each is control for the composer, just as major and minor dictate a set of "tonal" and harmonic controls. I hope this answers your question, Bob P.S. I once used a computer program to generate a set of 12 random numbers, I unfortunately was unable to fool my teacher and was unable to generate anything acceptable. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 16:56:31 EDT From: Mark Simon Subject: Re: Compositional processes... OK, Bob, let's see if I've got you right. Let's say I want to make a tone row based on the theme of Star Wars. I start C G F E D then continue the motive with F# C# B A# G# and finish it off with A D#. So then I spread this row all over the gamut and use each note as the starting point for another row form. I'll use the prime form on the C two octaves above middle C and call it the "C3-P0" and then I'll use the retrograde starting on the D (second line down on the treble clef) and call that the "R2-D2", and then ... well, maybe I ought to let this remain your property. Whatever works.... --Mark Simon tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 14:05:00 EST From: Robert Depin Subject: Re: Compositions etc. Zak wrote: >Pardon me if I butt into your fascinating discussion. Almost >everybody here (granted I did not read all the messages) treats the listener >as an active participant in the compositional process. I don't know >about that. I don't think of listener's point of view until a piece is >almost finished. I think this might the reason for the problem so many here seem ot be having with academic music. The most important thing about academic music is that it has the fredom to explore anything it desires, limited only by the imagination. I'm sure Jeff H. would argue that anyone could do this, however, Zak points out that the listeners point of view isn't necessarily consider during the com- positional process. Most academic music I've heard (computer or otherwise) is more concerned with exploration, research, and pushing the educated listener to new areas. I'd agree that many times this doesn't produce the best music, yet if I experiment and explore througth 99 pieces then use what I learned while creating those 99 to create another, less experiemental piece, I may find some- thing quite nice and unexpected, possibly never before heard. My point is academic composers serve and important purpose, to expand the current knowledge of music, both theory and composition. Whether their music is inconsequentiable or great is inmaterial What's more important is that they're work contribute to the knowledge of music as a whole and not be condemed as "good" or "bad" otherwise we're doomed to listening to music of previous centuries and never creating for music of our own time. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 14:48:57 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Compositions etc. Bob wrote: > My point is academic composers serve and important purpose, to expand > the current knowledge of music, both theory and composition. Whether their > music is inconsequentiable or great is inmaterial What's more important is > that they're work contribute to the knowledge of music as a whole and not be > condemed as "good" or "bad" otherwise we're doomed to listening to music of > previous centuries and never creating for music of our own time. Exactly. Here's another picture - we're all in this together as a team, working on something like 'ideal music', or whatever. Everybody is responsible for their own piece of work - some do the research, some - bring money into the industry, some - finish other's work, some - compile ideas into one piece, some - write books about it, and some - kill most of their time on EMUSIC-L discussions. All written music goes into a bank, we can borrow from it (ideas mostly, please), we might add to it, etc. A person starts abusing the system when he/she takes more from the industry/culture/whatever, than he/she gives. I mean - I don't mind some asshole's commercial success, as long as the money goes into the music industry, for record contracts and synthesizer development. Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 16:20:12 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Compositions etc. > I think this might the reason for the problem so many here seem ot be having > with academic music. The most important thing about academic music is that > it has the fredom to explore anything it desires, limited only by the > imagination. > I'm sure Jeff H. would argue that anyone could do this, however, Zak points > out that the listeners point of view isn't necessarily consider during the > compositional process. Most academic music I've heard (computer or > otherwise) is more concerned with exploration, research, and pushing the > educated listener to new areas. I'd agree that many times this doesn't > produce the best music, yet if I experiment and explore througth 99 pieces > then use what I learned while creating those 99 to create another, less > experiemental piece, I may find something quite nice and unexpected, possibly > never before heard. > My point is academic composers serve an important purpose, to expand > the current knowledge of music, both theory and composition. Whether their > music is inconsequentiable or great is inmaterial What's more important is > that they're work contribute to the knowledge of music as a whole and not be > condemed as "good" or "bad" otherwise we're doomed to listening to music of > previous centuries and never creating for music of our own time. Shit, I'm all for experimentation... don't give me that nonsense... all I'm saying is that academic institutions and institutions in general promote mediocrity through an old boyz network. A little hand-shaking a little bad-mouthing of so and so (I know, I've been through it all!) and a little pat me on the back and I'll pick your piece for such and such a conference. Well, if you go back to my postings (last month) you'll see that my point was that academic composers don't take risks. I was saying instead that they as a whole re-hash the same out-dated anti-musical ideas - numerologies, mis-interpreted models of musical processes, mappings of mappings into "musical contexts." What they as a whole consider original is some new mapping! No way does anyone want to listen to this crap - give me a break! Yet, every year, the minions of these academics dutifully attend ICMC to praise their anti-musical efforts. How can _anyone_ who is not employed by a university - and I'd like to know where Zak and Bob's bread is buttered - support this nonsense? I have _NO_ faith in the composers of the _American_ university system to push the envelope of contemporary music. My ultimate point is that these composers are (for the most part) hacks - who collectively form cabals meant to exclude _real_ artists! I can think of several composers who have suffered mightily at the hands of our university system! Probably the most interesting iconoclast of this order is James Drew - employed by Yale for 10 years - until he was told to publish articles or be denied tenure - his musical career has been practically a disaster since then - yet he is probably one of the more innovative and original American composers. (He was denied tenure - and has moved from university to university since then - 1978?). I would be surprised if anyone in Netland has even heard of him now ;-(. The American university system is intolerant of iconoclastic free thinkers - and I would hesitate to say that the composers we all know and love - Varese, Zappa, Stockhausen, would all flounder in our current academic climate! Partch? Give me a break! So don't give me any bull about if we don't look to our great universities (cough) for artistic inspiration - we'll be listening to that dreadful music of the past forever? - it's nonsense! I have complete faith in Americans to write great American music and they may well be teaching at an American university. But it will not be from anyone who pretends to be anything but an artist - and I would bet a damn iconoclastic artist. Again - I repeat - what do these hacks listen to when they go home. This is VERY IMPORTANT! Do they listen to the works of their colleagues? NO WAY! They hate that crap as much as we do! They listen to Miles, Varese, Zappa like the rest of us! > > Bob > Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 17:12:52 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Compositions etc. Idealord asks if 'my bread is buttered by an academic institution'. No, idealord, my bread is not buttered by an academic institution. And when I said that the listener does not count, I was not talking about writing music that nobody would be listening to. Hey - I'm a pop-musician. I would be stupid to think that way. My point was that I know better what the listener wants to hear from me, than the listeners themselves. If they knew what they wanted, they would not need _me_, would they? They would just produce the music themselves. Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 10:19:55 EDT From: Mark Simon Subject: Re: Compositions etc. Bravo Harrington! I agree with your immoderately stated rebuke to Bob Depin although I dare say it runs the perilous risk of leading him into the personal flame arena. It's all too easy for academics to forget that composing is not research. our main goal is not to develop new compositional techniques, to boldly go where no man has gone before. Leave that to Captain Kirk. It may very well happen that in the process of being creative you may just happen to go where no one's gone before, and if so that's great, provided you can convince enough people in your audience to go out there with you. But there's nothing more pathetic than seeing a composer trying to be "original". This generally involves reinventing the wheel and trying to sound entirely different from anyone else. But it doesn't work. Either you're original or you're not. You can't "try" to be original. You can only hope to capture that unique part of your personality and crystalize it in tones. That's what composition is all about. If you want to do research, be a music theorist or musicologist. Don't be a composer. Bob pictures the academic composer as some kind of musical Daniel Boone blazing the trail for more traditional composers to follow. Actually they're more like General Sullivan, who massacred all the indians he met who wouldn't go onto reservations. Have I mentioned my experience as a grad student where I wrote a piece in memory of John Lennon (this was just after he was shot), with fragments of "Eleanor Rigby" and "A Day in the life" worked into the counterpoint, very much "rock" in style but "classical" in construction. It was performed, and very shortly after I got a letter from the department informing me that my financial aid would not be renewed for the next year. I asked my teacher what was going on, he said ask the chariman of the department. I asked the chairman, and he said ask my teacher. What to do? I sat down and wrote 12-tone music and soon afterwards I was informed that they had just happened to find some scholarship money for the next year, bless their hearts. Is that a message or what? Academic composers can follow their imaginations as far as they want? Don't you believe it! --Mark Simon tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 09:42:28 EDT From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: Fringe Benefits Subject: "Fringe Benefits" Michael Friesen: > Mike Metlay raised an interesting point a little while back re. talking to > composers even if the work was. . . less than aesthetically wonderful. > ... > Having one's head opened is not an entirely comfortable thing. I'm not > comfortable with the idea of universally condemning academic music. Those > folks on the fringe are exploring fronteirs in which I may someday choose > to settle. Just because it sounds weird and inaccessible NOW doesn't mean > that I won't someday have a greater appreciation for it. Bob Depin: > ... The feeling > I'm getting is the subscribers to this list have little or no use for academic > electronic music, hey, that's fine. > > Regarding academic music, the point isn't to provide popularly acceptable > music, but to educate and expand one's knowledge. When I was doing "academic" music in college, it was easier for me to listen to that genre. In the last year, I've attended two such concerts, possibly the most exposure I've had since college, and found them a little more difficult to endure. Maybe that's due to my immersion into rock/pop/jazz/classical ie the traditional western harmonic genres since college. But I keep going because I know that these acedemicians are the people who develope ideas and techniques that have crept their way into "mainstream" music. I look forward to the day when I hear the end of a song morph its way through a singularity to the beginning of the next song. Heck, I'd like to DO this! Bill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 10:47:56 EDT From: Mark Simon Subject: Re: Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... I like what Jeff Harrington says about the listening habits of academic composers. It's so true: I don't know how many times I've seen these guys (and I'm drawing on my experience in my former life as a grad music student) dutifully lugging their oversized scores of Ligeti, Boulez, Babbitt or what have you, around the music department during the day, then you drop in on their apartment in the evening and they're f---ing listening to Miles Davis, and you glance up at their book shelf and its full to the brim with jazz and rock records, with nary a Boulez disc in sight. So who do they think is going to want to listen to their pitch class matrices if they themselves won't listen to them? And if they're so heavily into jazz why don't they just write jazz? It would be so much more honest of them. I've always wondered just what kind of things this Schillinger was teaching. Apparently the end result sounded more or less like conventional music, despite the mathematics involved. His most illustrious pupil was George Gershwin, whose Porgy and Bess was supposedly written with the Schillinger system, at least in part. If you want to see a *really* mathematical approach to composition check out a book called "Composition with pitch classes" by Robert Morris. Honest to God, you'll think you've picked up a calculus book by mistake. The whole thing is nothing but equations. Oy veh! --Mark Simon tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 11:01:20 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... >This is an interesting approach - denial of expectations is something I've >been interested in. A couple of observations: Jeff, did you read the recent interview of Keith Jarrett in Keyboard? Denial of expectations is a key part of his approach in both composition and in improvisation. To paraphrase him, denying the listener's expectations causes the listener to become more alert and to listen more carefully. Secondly, and in a related vein, I got a useful developmental rule from an essay on writing by Samuel R. Delaney, who recommends that any given idea should occur in at least two different contexts. I've found this can greatly enhance the feeling of closure in a piece. >... do you computer musicians really go home >at night and put on (after a hard day's work at the hard drive) this kind of >music... I don't know about anybody else, but I do -- sometimes. I still have to get hold of a CD copy of Charles Dodge's "Speech Songs", which I find remarkably refreshing, funny, and inventive, and yes, they were performed by computer. I also like Paul Lansky's stuff, Terry Riley's "The Harp of New Albion" (Riley seems uncannily able to play in his non-traditional tunings as if he'd been playing them all his life), my precious tape of Harry Partch (especially "Barstow" -- trivia: what nationally syndicated radio program plays an admittedly *very* short excerpt from "Barstow" every week?) and others. A number of these could be lumped under "academic" music, I think. >Well, you know me enough by now that I don't find much new interesting music >anywhere - except for Lutoslawski - he's my hero... ;-() I don't recognize the name - tell us about him. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 12:01:53 EDT From: Doug Walker Subject: Re: Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... Re the Schillinger "Method": It's odd that the Russian-American composer and theorist, Joseph Schillinger, who with Taneev, invented algorithmic musical composition, is almost completely ignored today. He had a great influence on George Gershwin during the time Gershwin was writing his extended concert works. It is well worth seeking out Schillinger's 2 volume set on musical composition, as well as his book, The Mathematical Basis of the Arts. In many respects, his ideas go farther and run deeper than those of the current algorithmicists, except Xenakis, of course. We are still ruled these days by the computer's ease at generating streams of pseudo random numbers. This enables composers to fake musical reality with varying degrees of success. Schillinger, like today's enthusiasts of Chaos Theory, went to nature for his inspiration: the symmetry of growth, for instance, blew him away. Schillinger earned his living partly from the support of some students of composition who wanted a short cut to being geniuses. This probably drew the ire of folks like Slonimsky and De Monfred, who made fun of the artificiality and arbitrariness of the examples in his books. Interesting to me, is the fact that some of the extended scores of Reich, Glass, and perhaps Adams, show the definite influence of Schillinger's "method". I would guess at least somewhere along the line, those composers may have glanced prolongedly at Schillinger's theoretical writings. An interesting book, Cybernetic Music by Jaxitron [Jack P. Citron], now out of print but still on library shelves here and there, develops Schillinger's ideas and direction of thought allowing one to write fairly decent tonal music, using the APL computer programming language. Citron does not rely so heavily as does Schillinger on resultants of interference to generate his micro and macro structures. There is definitely much that can be learned from these two authors. Surely, nowadays, people are no longer afraid of the influence of mathematics on music Doug Walker ncf.sigs.new.music ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 12:12:39 EDT From: Doug Walker Subject: Re: Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... > >I like what Jeff Harrington says about the listening habits of academic >composers. It's so true: I don't know how many times I've seen these guys > (and I'm drawing on my experience in my former life as a grad music student) >dutifully lugging their oversized scores of Ligeti, Boulez, Babbitt or >what have you, around the music department during the day, then you drop >in on their apartment in the evening and they're f---ing listening to >Miles Davis, and you glance up at their book shelf and its full to the >brim with jazz and rock records, with nary a Boulez disc in sight. So >who do they think is going to want to listen to their pitch class matrices >if they themselves won't listen to them? And if they're so heavily into >jazz why don't they just write jazz? It would be so much more honest of >them. > > --Mark Simon > tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu Interesting observation: I understand that Babbitt's deepest desire as a young man was to write popular songs. Look what happened when this wish was denied him! As for Morris' book, I think that serious serialists, by getting so technical and mathematical, ensured their tenure in their ivory towers, but at the same time virtually guaranteed having no musical offspring. It does seem in negative moments that all the action and meaning in such music takes place somewhere outside the music. Yet there is much to admire and wonder about: Picture the young serialists, with their books on advanced set theoretics propped up in front of them, whistling the equations and Venn diagrams. This goes beyond absolute pitch. Doug Walker ncf.sigs.new.music ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 12:27:38 EDT From: Brian Good Subject: Re: Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... Jeff writes: > >This is an interesting approach - denial of expectations is something I've > >been interested in. Joe answers: > A couple of observations: Jeff, did you read the recent interview of Keith > Jarrett in Keyboard? Denial of expectations is a key part of his approach > in both composition and in improvisation. To paraphrase him, denying the > listener's expectations causes the listener to become more alert and to > listen more carefully. ...and denying or toying with a listener's expectations is a large part of what makes PDQ Bach funny. But it also presupposes a certain degree of sophistication on the part of the listener, who has to know *what* to expect before he/she will be aware of the fact that expectations *haven't* been met. I guess this is why I have a bit of a problem with the attitude, expressed here on occasion, to the effect that the only criterion by which music can be judged is a kind of context- free "it did/didn't get to me emotionally." I maintain that if you don't have the training or knowledge or ears to hear music in its intended context, you don't have a sound platform from which to make judgements, other than in the most simplistic way. IMO, if you're not willing to make the effort to meet a composer halfway, so to speak, you're missing a lot of what music has to offer; listening becomes a more passive activity. I think this is also one of the reasons why it's difficult to write good computer music. The context simply hasn't yet been well-established, it's difficult for a composer to exploit the tension/release that comes from raising expectations and then denying them when there *aren't* so many "standard" expectations. (Please *don't* take this as a defense of intentionally obscure academic music. I pretty much agree with Jeff on *that*). > >Well, you know me enough by now that I don't find much new interesting music > >anywhere - except for Lutoslawski - he's my hero... ;-() > > I don't recognize the name - tell us about him. > > --- Joe M. Try his string quartet--IMO it manages to be simultaneously abstract, passionate and (given the other people you listen to) very listenable. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 13:06:50 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... > > >This is an interesting approach - denial of expectations is something I've > >been interested in. > > A couple of observations: Jeff, did you read the recent interview of Keith > Jarrett in Keyboard? Denial of expectations is a key part of his approach > in both composition and in improvisation. To paraphrase him, denying the > listener's expectations causes the listener to become more alert and to > listen more carefully. Secondly, and in a related vein, I got a useful > developmental rule from an essay on writing by Samuel R. Delaney, who > recommends that any given idea should occur in at least two different > contexts. I've found this can greatly enhance the feeling of closure in a > piece. Interesting story - Jazz Fest - '74 New Orleans - I was a high school student selling programs to get in free ;-). People are clapping at Keith - totally diggin' what he's doing. He typically gets pissed off. Gives the audience a lecture (f*ckin' prima dona!) about not clapping. Audience is quiet for a while - some schmuck in the audience yells, "Rock and Roll!!!" Keith has a fit - walks off the stage and disappears for about 10 minutes! Quint Davis - the promoter comes on stage - says - "Be Patient, Keith will be right back" 5 minutes later Keith comes back on stage and plays one note - A 440. 30 seconds later he plays another A (same one) and a few seconds later begin repeating it. He did this for about 5 minutes! Talk about fulfilling expectations (both personal and musical ;-). > > > >... do you computer musicians really go home > >at night and put on (after a hard day's work at the hard drive) this kind of > >music... > > I don't know about anybody else, but I do -- sometimes. I still have to get > hold of a CD copy of Charles Dodge's "Speech Songs", which I find > remarkably refreshing, funny, and inventive, and yes, they were performed > by computer. I also like Paul Lansky's stuff, Terry Riley's "The Harp of > New Albion" (Riley seems uncannily able to play in his non-traditional > tunings as if he'd been playing them all his life), my precious tape of > Harry Partch (especially "Barstow" -- trivia: what nationally syndicated > radio program plays an admittedly *very* short excerpt from "Barstow" every > week?) and others. A number of these could be lumped under "academic" > music, I think. Well this is all good stuff - and not what I would call typical academic music. (Another interesting story - friend of mine used to live next door to Charles Dodge - he'd heard he did some crazy computer record about sunspots but was amazed that every night he heard Liszt - live - not off a recording... no comment ;-). > > >Well, you know me enough by now that I don't find much new interesting music > >anywhere - except for Lutoslawski - he's my hero... ;-() > > I don't recognize the name - tell us about him. > Lutoslawski - living Polish composer - 70+ years old - wrote like Bartok until 1954? when he heard a radio broadcast of Cage's Piano Concerto - started using aleatoric rhythmic processes in sections of his music. He's the one living composer I've heard that really gets those old romantic juices flowing - big big big sounds - fresh bizarre textures - his recent Piano Concerto was a monster - unrecorded - check out his 3rd Symphony (Philips) conducted by his bad self..., Livre - amazing string cluster glissandos in the beginning - a really mind-blowing orchestra piece. > --- Joe M. > Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 13:26:53 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... Brian continues -> > Jeff writes: > > > >This is an interesting approach - denial of expectations is something I've > > >been interested in. > > Joe answers: > > A couple of observations: Jeff, did you read the recent interview of Keith > > Jarrett in Keyboard? Denial of expectations is a key part of his approach > > in both composition and in improvisation. To paraphrase him, denying the > > listener's expectations causes the listener to become more alert and to > > listen more carefully. > > ...and denying or toying with a listener's expectations is a large part of > what makes PDQ Bach funny. > > But it also presupposes a certain degree of sophistication on the part of > the listener, who has to know *what* to expect before he/she will be aware of > the fact that expectations *haven't* been met. I guess this is why I have a > bit of a problem with the attitude, expressed here on occasion, to the effect > that the only criterion by which music can be judged is a kind of context- > free "it did/didn't get to me emotionally." I maintain that if you don't have > the training or knowledge or ears to hear music in its intended context, > you don't have a sound platform from which to make judgements, other than in > the most simplistic way. IMO, if you're not willing to make the effort to meet > a composer halfway, so to speak, you're missing a lot of what music has to > offer; listening becomes a more passive activity. > We have to depend on educated audiences. It's a given. Audiences who are excited by _new_ musical experiences and who can tolerate the unexpected. I don't care about the listener outside of this audience - it's not my job to inform the masses that their music of choice has a limited capacity for expression of musical information. Ultimately your audience is yourself. If I think the piece is good - that's enough for me. > I think this is also one of the reasons why it's difficult to write good > computer music. The context simply hasn't yet been well-established, it's > difficult for a composer to exploit the tension/release that comes from > raising expectations and then denying them when there *aren't* so many > "standard" expectations. IMHO good computer music is good music. It should create expectations - deny them - at the last possible moment that the denial seems complete - BANG! - spring it on them... Basic information theory informs much of the expectation equations - if you are hearing a repetitious section - a good composer is getting ready to change (forget about minimalism for this ;-) if you hear something unbearably loud - you can expect something soft sooner or later - Big contrasts - big shapes - lead the listener to expect more big shapes - as soon as you've got an expectation - bang - a good composer'll deny it. It's not that hard... > > (Please *don't* take this as a defense of intentionally obscure academic > music. I pretty much agree with Jeff on *that*). > > > >Well, you know me enough by now that I don't find much new interesting music > > >anywhere - except for Lutoslawski - he's my hero... ;-() > > > > I don't recognize the name - tell us about him. > > > > --- Joe M. > > Try his string quartet--IMO it manages to be simultaneously abstract, passionate > and (given the other people you listen to) very listenable. > Kronos Quartet - good recording! Just got a tape from a rec.music.classical buddy of his 4th Symphony - premiered recently in L.A. I wonder how many computer composers read rec.music.classical? (just curious) Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 16:14:01 PDT From: Jesse Kanner Subject: Re: Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... I have been scanning the disussion about compositional processes for the last few days. There have been some impassioned and thoughtful arguements from all sides. I would like to share my observations: 1. It seems that everybody ultimately shrares the same basic aesthetic here. Why should we spend our time proppping up stale unessesary arguements? It just doesn't feel like we are really getting anywhere. 2. The single most exciting piece of info came from the guy that told us about Lutoslawski. He was expressing an emotional response to actual music. It made me want to go dig out my old Lutoslawski to an actual peice of music. It made me want to go dig out my old Lutoslawski String Quartet reocrds I haven;t heard for years. It gave me hope and a sense of connection to this group of obviously shrewd and probably brilliant minds that visit this place. 3. PROPOSAL: How about if we all post a few "favorite" pieces so that the others can _really_ see where we are comming form. And with that post be sure to include specific why you think the piece works or gets you off or whatever. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: "The Dresden Interleaf" by GordonMumma. Have you heard it? An amazing collection of PRE-TREANSISTOR synthesis (yes he re-wried an old tube radio to heterodyne!) AVailable on Lovely Music. He seemed to somehow capture the utter banality of pre-nuclear thermo-obliteration. And a sense of theatre as well. The piece was orignally scored in a QUAD version witht he alcohol fueled airplane propellers live on stage. I have picked this one piece as an example. Any other "best loved" musical works you'all would car to mention? -buzz@netcom.com -- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 09:29:44 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... > > I have been scanning the disussion about compositional processes > for the last few days. There have been some impassioned and thoughtful > arguements from all sides. I would like to share my observations: > > 1. It seems that everybody ultimately shrares the same basic > aesthetic here. Why should we spend our time proppping up > stale unessesary arguements? It just doesn't feel like we are > really getting anywhere. > > 2. The single most exciting piece of info came from the guy that > told us about Lutoslawski. The guy who mentioned Lutoslawski was the guy who is saying that most computer music sucks, O.K. me... > He was expressing an emotional response > to actual music. It's all I've been doing. Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 13:28:48 EDT From: ronin Subject: musical realization robert depin makes a point that is central to the issues of electronic music composition and performance, that i think is worth amplifying and pursuing outside the distinct realm of workstations and the like. one of the criticisms that i have often had of 'academic' emusic is its apparent lack of 'musicality'. i am usually fascinated by the experiments being made, but also usually not likely to find the musical manifestations of these experiments to be enjoyable. of course, as a practitioner, i am well aware that one of the causes of the music's unlistenability has to do with the time differential between conceptualization and realization. the shorter the feedback loop between the artist and the instrument, the more likely (easier?) it is that 'good music' will result. now, of course, this view can only be pushed so far. after all, classical composers frequently sit for hours/years and organize their music on paper before it actually composed. on the other hand, i also believe that most of them usually do so with an instrument at hand, to work out phrasing and such in real time. this is why so much effort was/is produced by people like bob moog to create complex instruments which can respond to a musician's gestures. what we see in the development of more modern tools is that, in the experimental stage, new techniques still seem to reinstate that distance between artist and art. which begs the question: what is 'sophistication' in the design of a musical instrument, or even in the development of a process? in a way, sophistication seems to be simplification, where the most useful elements of a technique or technology are identified by experiment, and distilled to a manageable form. to be trite in example, a violin is at one and the same time both a very simple and, at its best, a very sophisticated instrument that provides an extraordinary amount of expression. ramble, ramble... gotta go do finals, now. more later. -----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >----------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) or The American University Physics Dept. 4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058 (202) 885-2748 (with Voice Mail) ---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 16:17:23 -0400 From: Jon Crystal Subject: Re: musical realization Eric Harnden's recent posting raises some significant issues about what constitutes 'good' music, and why some believe much 'academic' music doesn't qualify. While I basically agree with his contention, clearly, we are dealing in a subjective and culturally conditioned realm, and for all I know today's academic music may represent the epitome of 'good' music a hundred years from now. I'm not so sure that the issue is primarily one of the length of the feedback loop which he describes, although I acknowledge that as a contributing factor. IMHO the issue is more directly how much of a purist one is in the application of an experimental technique. Me, I compromise. I will use an experimental technique or stochastic process to come up with a central conception for a piece, but that is just the beginning. My goal is what my ear hears as 'good' music (for whatever reason), so a will manipulate the initial results of such an experiment with the goal of assuring (or introducing) *musicality*. Sometimes this may be simple tweaking, voice changes, tempo changes, or rewriting parts. I am not a fanatic dedicated to the experimental approach for its own sake, but rather one who enjoys new techniques to challenge my concepts of making music, so long as I can then amend them. Jon Crystal University of Vermont 357 Waterman Burlington, VT 05405 email: jcrystal@moose.uvm.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 09:20:39 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: musical realization > > Eric Harnden's recent posting raises some significant issues about what > constitutes 'good' music, and why some believe much 'academic' music > doesn't qualify. While I basically agree with his contention, clearly, we > are dealing in a subjective and culturally conditioned realm, and for all I > know today's academic music may represent the epitome of 'good' music a > hundred years from now. Surely, your joking ;-)... come on... why can't we be righteous in our beliefs? Academic computer music sucks! I'd rather listen to Deserts or Poeme Electronique than anything played at ICMC. There's just no (set p.c. mode to off) _balls_ in it. (p.c. mode on) Puhleeze... And I know why. (Rant mode on) Most artists today - have never done anything truly adventorous or truly crazy or truly extraordinary. I'm thinking of Byron joining the revolution in Greece - Nancarrow in the Liberty Brigade (it doesn't have to be war - just something deep - done with passion). Most artists today (I'm speaking of artists in general - I think we can call computer musicians artists) spend their entire life in little rooms playing little games. They've received teaching assistantships so they have never had to _work_ except maybe at a book store - laugh... (Totally bragging rant mode on) me - I worked on an offshore drilling rig off of Texas (28 miles out) to pay for my studies with Elliott Carter at Juilliard - no one there could believe it - they'd spent their whole fuckin' life in a practice room. We will never get significant music from people without stories to tell. I think a rich life experience is the key to rich, righteous, fantastic music and this is why our pampered society's culture is dying... no one has the passion - the life force - it's all just a game. Also, we have to care about why emusic is important - why it will be someday a bearer of greatness - a greatness that will endure in its colors and melodies and textures because it says something with a little passion. And this means standing up and saying to that nerdy guy with his pretentious piece based on FFT's of his last sorry piece that - "Your music sucks. How did it ever get on this concert?" (Rant mode off) Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 10:15:10 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: Re: MUSICAL REALIZATION > > Eric Harnden's recent posting raises some significant issues about what > constitutes 'good' music, and why some believe much 'academic' music > doesn't qualify. While I basically agree with his contention, clearly, we > are dealing in a subjective and culturally conditioned realm, and for all I > know today's academic music may represent the epitome of 'good' music a > hundred years from now. Surely, your joking ;-)... come on... why can't we be righteous in our beliefs? Academic computer music sucks! I'd rather listen to Deserts or Poeme Electronique than anything played at ICMC. There's just no (set p.c. mode to off) _balls_ in it. (p.c. mode on) Puhleeze... And I know why. (Rant mode on) Most artists today - have never done anything truly adventorous or truly crazy or truly extraordinary. I'm thinking of Byron joining the revolution in Greece - Nancarrow in the Liberty Brigade (it doesn't have to be war - just something deep - done with passion). Most artists today (I'm speaking of artists in general - I think we can call computer musicians artists) spend their entire life in little rooms playing little games. They've received teaching assistantships so they have never had to _work_ except maybe at a book store - laugh... (Totally bragging rant mode on) me - I worked on an offshore drilling rig off of Texas (28 miles out) to pay for my studies with Elliott Carter at Juilliard - no one there could believe it - they'd spent their whole fuckin' life in a practice room. We will never get significant music from people without stories to tell. I think a rich life experience is the key to rich, righteous, fantastic music and this is why our pampered society's culture is dying... no one has the passion - the life force - it's all just a game. Also, we have to care about why emusic is important - why it will be someday a bearer of greatness - a greatness that will endure in its colors and melodies and textures because it says something with a little passion. And this means standing up and saying to that nerdy guy with his pretentious piece based on FFT's of his last sorry piece that - "Your music sucks. How did it ever get on this concert?" (Rant mode off) Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------------------ THIS IS A REPLY TO THE ABOVE MESSAGE SUBJECT OF THE REPLY: REPLY ------------------------------------------ Jeff Harrington writes: >I think a rich life experience is the key to rich, righteous, fa >and this is why our pampered society's culture is dying... no on >passion - the life force - it's all just a game. Nonsense. I respect your sentiment, but it sure doesn't square with music history (or just about any kind of history). Think of great artists, composers, leaders in any field. Its a mixed bag of personalities, life experiences, education, etc. There's certainly no one-to-one correspondence between life experience and richness of imagination. One of my favorite examples is Immanuel Kant, who never left East Prussia and spent most of his life studying and teaching in Konigsberg. As to why our culture is dying, I think it has to do with the limitations on chances to publish, concertize, etc. The mass media has homogenized the forums for exhibiting our creations. Maybe thats why so many of us have turned to independent self-gratification in our home studios. The media homogenization has a blowback effect in that it limits the stimulation artists get from knowing the full range of what's being done in their field. I admire good honest work; but I don't agree that people who work on oil rigs or in auto factories make better composers. Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 11:53:34 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: MUSICAL REALIZATION Joel Stern writes> > As to why our culture is dying, I think it has to do with the > limitations on chances to publish, concertize, etc. The mass > media has homogenized the forums for exhibiting our creations. > Maybe thats why so many of us have turned to independent > self-gratification in our home studios. The media homogenization > has a blowback effect in that it limits the stimulation artists > get from knowing the full range of what's being done in their > field. > > I admire good honest work; but I don't agree that people who work > on oil rigs or in auto factories make better composers. > That wasn't my point - my point was to take risks - you have to have stories (outside of those god-damn stories of so and so being denied tenure which I hear whenever I talk to my academic composer friends) to make good art. I don't care if it's a story about your trip to Africa to record drumming or your adventure trying to find a homeless shelter to volunteer for. You're trivializing my argument - reducing it to a celebration of drudgery - interesting because it had the opposite intention! > Joel Stern > stern@mail.loc.gov > Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 10:58:00 EST From: Robert Depin Subject: Not WORKSTATION anymore... Reply to Jeff Harrington's - >Surely, your joking ;-)... come on... why can't we be righteous in our >beliefs? Academic computer music sucks! Who are you to make a judgement as to whether someone elses music suck ? What is your basis for determining whether music is good or bad ? If you can definitely quantify for me why a piece "sucks" then I this might carry some weight. >Most artists today - have never done anything truly adventorous or truly crazy >or truly extraordinary. I'm thinking of Byron joining the revolution in >Greece - Nancarrow in the Liberty Brigade (it doesn't have to be war - just >something deep - done with passion). ... >I think a rich life experience is the key to rich, righteous, fantastic music >and this is why our pampered society's culture is dying... no one has the >passion - the life force - it's all just a game. IMHO this is pure Bull Shit! When I attended graduate school a fellow composition student decided he needed to experience life in his last semester. To make a long story short, He left academia tossing 5 1/2 years of trainging out the window to go work in a box factory for $7 hour. Guess what, I never heard from him again. He maybe doing music for himself, he may have finished his degree (highly doubtful) who knows. My point, you don't need to be a starving artist in this day and age. Take Charles Ives - a successful insurance salesmen, I'm sure he never had to starve for his art. >We've got a Cray Y/MP parked around here somewhere. Wonder what would happen >if I wrote a work order to get a MIDI interface installed.... >brian good Sounds like the mother of all MIDI setups! >As to why our culture is dying, I think it has to do with the >limitations on chances to publish, concertize, etc. The mass >Joel I think were back to the money issue here. I don't think media companies can afford to break with the currently accepted norms, as much as we'd like then to. The real question is if there were nolimitations on these outlets, would the public be inclined to attended on purchase it ? I serioulsy doubt it. (if you think otherwise, fine) Technology has broken down many of these barriers already anyway. I sure you can find small publishing companies which special- ize in the off beat music (at least there are for traditional non-emuisc). Let us not forget that composers in the past have taken the financial risk to perform their music at their own cost (V. Thompson, Cage) and in turned gained musch popularity. My point - their are barriers to getting heard but they can be overcome. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 11:51:27 EDT From: Mark Simon Subject: Re: Not WORKSTATION anymore... I'm afraid I have to disagree strongly with a statement made on Friday by Robert Depin: "Who are you to make a judgment as to whether someone else's music sucks? What is your basis for determining whether music is good or bad? If you can definitely quantify for me why a piece "sucks" then this might carry some weight". This is entirely what's wrong with music today. We're all supposed to be so "open minded" that we can't bring ourselves to bring our own critical instincts into play. Who's to say what music is good and what isn't? I am. You are. It's up to all of us to formulate an aesthetic criterion governing our tastes and apply it to what we listen to. If you give a damn about what you listen to you're going to have a strong opinion about it. But if you allow yourself to be goaded into complacency by this "who's to say" attitude then you've got to be prepared to just take what's given to you. As Metlay has correctly pointed out, this is exactly what the academic composers would like us to do (NB: I'm actually on Metlay's side in this debate!). Take last year's Pulitzer Prize controversy, where the "expert committee", which was supposed to recommend 3 titles for the general committee to choose from, chose instead to submit only one composition, an hour long "Concerto Fantastique" by Ralph Shapey which was so unpalatable that one of the Chicago Symphony violists who performed it reported looking out into the audience and seeing "a scene of suffering out of Dante". The panel of experts, all of them academic composers, felt that the Chicago Symphony's audience was unqualified to judge the merits of Shapey's concerto (who are they to say ...) and in fact didn't even trust the general Pulitzer Prize committee, a group of intelligent people to be sure, to make a judgment on the music. Only they, the experts knew what was good, so they decided to submit only one composition for consideration, to insure that their will prevailed. Such arrogance! No good music can come from musicians who scorn their audience, nor from audiences who accept such scorn, who sit back and accept the idea that they're not qualified to have an opinion. Composers need audience feedback to keep them on the straight and narrow. They need to know just what hits home with the listeners and what makes them fidget in their seats. They need to give a damn about what people are going to think when they listen to their music just as audiences need to give a damn about what they're hearing. A healthy composer-audience relationship is a continuing dialog. A composer may propose a new idea, one that the audience may not have thought of, but the audience has the option of accepting or rejecting what the composer offers. 80 years ago Schoenberg brought up the idea of atonality, but even audiences today have not seen fit to accept it. In a healthy musical environment, composers would conclude "well, we gave it a try, but this doesn't seem to be working. Let's do something else". But no, our academic composers are instead saying "Well these idiots just don't know anything. If they'd studied composition as long as we have they'd realize the historic inevitablity of what we're doing, etc. etc. Besides, who are they to say what's bad or good?" I should remind you all that I myself am a product of the academic music world. I even enjoy the music of certain academic composers such as Elliott Carter (at least what he wrote during the '50s and '60s shows a deeply felt commitment, as thorny and incomprehensible as his music seems to even exper- ienced listeners), and I refuse to make blanket condemnations of any segment of the music community, but in general the academic attitude towards music is very unhealthy for the art, and should be resisted at all costs. That is my honest and passionately felt conviction, and I would like to hope that more people come to see things this way, but if you don't, well get out you flame throwers. I'm sure you'd never withold your opinon, humble or otherwise, from the net. --Mark Simon tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 11:44:16 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Not WORKSTATION anymore... For Sure!!! Reply to > Mr. Depin's > Reply to Jeff Harrington's - > > >Surely, your joking ;-)... come on... why can't we be righteous in our > >beliefs? Academic computer music sucks! > > Who are you to make a judgement as to whether someone elses music suck ? What > is your basis for determining whether music is good or bad ? If you can > definitely quantify for me why a piece "sucks" then I this might carry some > weight. > I am a _consumer_ of music. That is all it takes. I _care_ about music. Timidity in the defense of musical quality is no virtue! (To misquote Barry Goldwater ;-). This is just more proof that we have no ability to sift the wheat from the chaff anymore... truly embarassing... to do otherwise is sheer cowardice. My main criteria are traditional - movement (does the piece suddenly make the listener question the composer's intentions without later explaining the divergence) - contrast (is it the same stuff over and over?) - beauty (don't ask me I just work here :) > >Most artists today - have never done anything truly adventorous or truly crazy > >or truly extraordinary. I'm thinking of Byron joining the revolution in > >Greece - Nancarrow in the Liberty Brigade (it doesn't have to be war - just > >something deep - done with passion). > ... > >I think a rich life experience is the key to rich, righteous, fantastic music > >and this is why our pampered society's culture is dying... no one has the > >passion - the life force - it's all just a game. > > IMHO this is pure Bull Shit! When I attended graduate school a fellow > composition student decided he needed to experience life in his last semester. > To make a long story short, He left academia tossing 5 1/2 years of trainging > out the window to go work in a box factory for $7 hour. Guess what, I never > heard from him again. He maybe doing music for himself, he may have finished > his degree (highly doubtful) who knows. My point, you don't need to be a > starving artist in this day and age. Take Charles Ives - a successful > insurance salesmen, I'm sure he never had to starve for his art. > I'm not saying - drop out of school and go to work - I'm saying simply "Get a Fuckin' life" - don't spend your whole life going to meetings, in a classroom, doing nothing but academic trivia. Art, ultimately, is about telling stories - I don't want to be bothered with a boring story - don't waste my time. The stories I hear from the academic music community are BORING! BORING! BORING! When you listen to Varese or Lutoslawski or Messiaen you hear their life experience distilled through sound. That is what makes their music great and our music bull shit. Sorry, sometimes the truth hurts. I can say these things because I dare to. Sorry, call me an asshole, call me a jerk, it won't matter if _my_ music sucks, too. I dare to make statements about mediocrity because I'm concerned with the incredible preponderance of mediocrity infesting every aspect of our culture today. We had a statement at Juilliard to explain it all - "Mediocrity will always temporarily triumph over incomprehensibility." 'Nuff said... time to wipe the froth off my chin ;-) Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 10:48:13 PDT From: metlay Subject: On life experiences, computer music, etc....a "thank you" Every once in a while someone shows up out here who's enough of a jaws-in-the-argument-and-won't-let-go ranter and flung-tomato magnet to gain me, through his efforts, a much-needed rest. My heartfelt thanks to Jeff Harrington for his services in that regard. As to the topic in question, namely the flavorlessness of most modern academic musical output and the claim by Mr. Harrington that this is due at least in part to a lack of stimulus from outside the studio on the part of the musicians, I am of two minds.... On the one hand, I remember chillingly a concert at Oberlin in the early 1980s where a professor stood up and vigorously booed a piece of electronic music at its debut, following this with a scathing editorial in defense of his conduct which boiled down to "I may not know art, but I know beauty when I hear it, and this piece was UGLY." Something in me rebels at this. It is not the opinion that was held, so much as the vitriol with which it was delivered. This is not criticism, this is cruelty, and cruelty is very rarely necessary or constructive. Worse still, it is combined with narrowmindedness, the inability to conceive that what is repellent to you may be beautiful to another, and that booing a piece may shatter the appreciation of others of different tastes, who are as much entitled to like the work in question as you are to hate it. Walking up to the composer afterward and saying calmly, "I did not like your work, and this is why.....", is one thing. Standing up and screaming "ALL ACADEMIC MUSIC **SUCKS!!**" is another. Politeness is to be encouraged above all else, and it is NOT necessary to abandon politeness in order to communicate information effectively. The streetcorner beat poet with the fistful of dung who proclaims that hurling it at passersby is the only way to shake them out of their complacency and get them to wake up and listen to him is rarely likely to become lionized for anything until long after he is dead, at which point his obnoxious behavior is forgotten and his poetry is left to stand on its own merits. I am particularly sensitive to this matter, having been taken to task for it myself in the past. I do not know for certain if it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce good music from a sheltered environment; in fact, I doubt that this is so. However, I will agree that the varied tapestry of modern life, be it on an oil rig or in a box factory or just walking in the park with one's wife between classes and listening to the peals of laughter from children at play interspersed with the drone of cars and the tantalizing thud of an 808 kick beat from a passing boombox that is quickly gone, lends much to the worldview of the artist that is reflected in his work, and can only add to his palette. I think that it is overly dramatic and somewhat shortsighted to attribute ALL of the less-than-arresting music being produced in academia to the academic lifestyle, and would argue that the microscopic quality of the technique itself is as much of a culprit in many cases. Pointillism requires far more patience and focus than sumi-e, but I know which sort of painting I tend to prefer when I walk through an art gallery. (Note the phrase, "...that I tend to prefer...." The mistaking of opinion for gospel is a common one out here and inevitably leads to trouble. Until someone dies and makes me God (not yet but I'm working on it), whatever I say here is opinion and not fact, particularly where intangibles such as the merit of music are concerned. And the same is true of Mr. Harrington, and everyone else.) On the other hand, [please stop reading this post. PLEASE stop reading this post! NOW!!] it has been a LONG time since I have heard anything produced in an academic mindset that I would ever remotely wish to hear again, much less purchase and play for reference or enjoyment. The academic music to which I have been exposed at Oberlin, Carnegie-Mellon, and other places, is often self-congratulatory, meaningless flatulence, elegant, intricate, and empty like a key-actuated reusable magnetic anti-theft CD longbox whose contents have been removed. It piques the intellect in passing, raises a few eyebrows and a few questions that one might wish to pursue if one cared to (usually not), and then is gone and forgotten. It needs no hummable melody or catchy beat, no traditional harmonic structure or recognizable timbre, it only needs worthwhile ideas presented in a worthwhile manner, and frankly I do not experience that in the vast majority of what's been sent past me these days. The question then becomes, "How do I communicate this dissatisfaction to those who must learn that they are not reaching their intended audience?" The easy, tempting means is to scream at them; when confronted with the occasional blinding beacon of monumental stupidity that my community is capable of producing, I can and do lose control and succumb to the temptation myself, but I try not to do so where something as value-oriented and intangible as "musical quality" is concerned. Insulting someone's musical output is hurtful and produces nothing but pain. But walking away and leaving the gap-toothed ape that produced that last bit of stomach-turning Csound uselessness surrounded by felching (look it up) sycophants gushing praises in return for more grant money, a higher grade, or (rarely) out of genuine appreciation for the art, is also not a viable alternative. When I stalk out of a concert feeling cheated, and see expressions on many faces around me that mirror my own, SOMETHING IS WRONG! I miss the days in which I could sit down in someone's office and say, "so-and-so, I saw your concert last night and quite frankly I do NOT see what you were trying to accomplish. Could we go over it?" As an academic outsider and basement musician with a limited budget, it is rare that I am accorded anything more than a polite smile and a passing wave in the halls of academia, and for me to actually (gasp!) CRITICIZE the Maestro's work would get me branded an ignoramus, a useless amateur, or (worst of all, spoken in deep tones like the pronouncement of an excommunication), "NOT a serious musician." The community insulates itself from any need to reach beyond itself by only recognizing as valid criticisms it receives from WITHIN itself. This is a fantastic racket, and I rather wish I could get in on the ground floor. It reminds me a lot of televangelism.... It would be wonderful to be able to release my music and deflect criticism by simply saying without thinking, "Well, YOUR opinion doesn't MATTER, because YOU don't belong to MY crowd." BULL! We are all part of the same crowd-- the human race. It is dishonest and unfair to limit one's sensory input to only that which is without risk. We must be prepared to take whatever is thrown at us, and to be able to discern for ourselves what is useful criticism and what is mere bile. Where would I be if I refused to sell copies of my CD to the people who called me an asshole in this forum and then refused to apologize for their ill-conduct? Real life doesn't work that way. The composer must be prepared to accept criticisms, even ill-thought ones, and have the ability to judge the merits of what her hears honestly and faithfully. To do less is to deny oneself growth, and DAMN I wish some of the academics out there would take a leaf from this book! *whew* Boy, that felt good. Okay, people, start swinging....|-> -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- No more Charlie, it's my throat, send the bellboy for my coat (buggles) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 14:48:18 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: On life experiences, computer music, etc....a "thank you" Mr. Metlay rants -> > Every once in a while someone shows up out here who's enough of a > jaws-in-the-argument-and-won't-let-go ranter and flung-tomato magnet > to gain me, through his efforts, a much-needed rest. My heartfelt > thanks to Jeff Harrington for his services in that regard. I accept your thanks and offer my sincere apologies in forcing you to lurk... > As to the topic in question, namely the flavorlessness of most modern > academic musical output and the claim by Mr. Harrington that this is > due at least in part to a lack of stimulus from outside the studio on > the part of the musicians, I am of two minds.... > > On the one hand, I remember chillingly a concert at Oberlin in the > early 1980s where a professor stood up and vigorously booed a piece of > electronic music at its debut, following this with a scathing > editorial in defense of his conduct which boiled down to "I may not > know art, but I know beauty when I hear it, and this piece was UGLY." > Something in me rebels at this. It is not the opinion that was held, > so much as the vitriol with which it was delivered. This is not > criticism, this is cruelty, and cruelty is very rarely necessary or > constructive. Worse still, it is combined with narrowmindedness, the > inability to conceive that what is repellent to you may be beautiful > to another, and that booing a piece may shatter the appreciation of > others of different tastes, who are as much entitled to like the work > in question as you are to hate it. > Personally speaking, and some out there will know about this, I never say anything negative about an artist's work. Sorry, I just don't. I go out of my way not to hurt people... genres are a different matter ;-). My intentions are not to hurt, just to induce critique. It's my feeling that there is so much pressure to keep or gain academic status that all criticism is done in secret over drinks at the after concert gathering. Pathetic. > Walking up to the composer afterward and saying calmly, "I did not > like your work, and this is why.....", is one thing. Standing up and > screaming "ALL ACADEMIC MUSIC **SUCKS!!**" is another. I would never do this. Typing "ALL ACADEMIC MUSIC SUCKS!!!" is a little different. Hopefully, everyone out there considers themselves beyond the ken of me a mere mortal, a monster composer who transcends every genre and could not possibly be hurt by such a generalization. When someone judges a piece because it makes an outstanding nuiscance of itself - well - I might even get into that - I'm talking about the totally lame stuff - better to be annoyed than bored IMHO - (Do I have to type IMHO every sentence now Mike?). > Politeness is > to be encouraged above all else, and it is NOT necessary to abandon > politeness in order to communicate information effectively. Absolutely, you will never hear me say anything after a concert (people have faulted me on this and even taken it as a sign that I respect their work and feel it comes close to mine... sigh...) Maybe it's this lack of direct personal confrontation which makes my generalizations so ascerbic... Incidentally, for those who would like a chance to totally diss me - I've contributed a tape to the EMusic archive - tomatoes away... > I do not know for certain if it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce good music > from a sheltered environment; in fact, I doubt that this is so. Anything is possible; many things are highly unlikely. Basically what we have is a Kabal - a boyz club. In a kabal you have debts which are paid by doing favors. Kabals are for one thing - to separate the infidels from the true believers, need I say anything more? What else could explain the lack of variety at ICMC and in all those university group CD releases. I guess that explains why most of the recent computer music I've liked was written by women ;-)... Incidentally, I have never heard any music by anyone who posts to this list. Just so that _no_ one takes offence with my generalizations! Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 22:51:53 PDT From: metlay Subject: Re: On life experiences, computer music, etc....a "thank you" >Mr. Metlay rants -> Son, THAT wasn't a "rant." I didn't even work up a sweat. You want a "rant," you just keep on calling me "Mr." Metlay instead of DOCTOR Metlay. And no, it's not a music degree, it's a REAL PhD. X-)) >I accept your thanks and offer my sincere apologies in forcing you to lurk... Not at all, I enjoy the vacation. I should introduce you to John Rossi III. >Personally speaking, and some out there will know about this, I never say >anything negative about an artist's work. Sorry, I just don't. I go out of >my way not to hurt people... genres are a different matter ;-). My intentions >are not to hurt, just to induce critique. It's my feeling that there is so >much pressure to keep or gain academic status that all criticism is done in >secret over drinks at the after concert gathering. Pathetic. Does this surprise you? People want to keep their jobs. Criticism leads to bad press and thus must be avoided at all costs. Shhhhhh. >> Walking up to the composer afterward and saying calmly, "I did not >> like your work, and this is why.....", is one thing. Standing up and >> screaming "ALL ACADEMIC MUSIC **SUCKS!!**" is another. > >I would never do this. Typing "ALL ACADEMIC MUSIC SUCKS!!!" is a little >different. Not really. You're screaming it to a worldwide audience, some of whom are guilty little sufferers of exactly the sort of spunklessness that you and I are decrying. The only difference is that you're not doing it in the middle of a concert, unless someone is listening to a Paul Lansky CD as they read their mail.... >Hopefully, everyone out there considers themselves beyond the ken >of me a mere mortal, a monster composer who transcends every genre and could >not possibly be hurt by such a generalization. When someone judges a piece >because it makes an outstanding nuiscance of itself - well - I might even get >into that - I'm talking about the totally lame stuff - better to be annoyed >than bored IMHO - (Do I have to type IMHO every sentence now Mike?). Why bother, when your opinions are anything but humble? I stick to IMO, and then only when I'm really worried about hurting some music-lab weeeeeeeenbag's feelings. But I'm not sure what you're getting at here; are you saying that criticism of someone's work is OK if the work in question goes beyond a certain fecklessness threshold? Who judges that? >Absolutely, you will never hear me say anything after a concert (people have >faulted me on this and even taken it as a sign that I respect their work and >feel it comes close to mine... sigh...) Maybe it's this lack of direct >personal confrontation which makes my generalizations so ascerbic... It almost certainly is. I enjoy dialogue with composers on their work and often find that even if I can't bring myself to LIKE what they've done, I can at least learn to understand what the hell they thought they were accomplishing. This does a lot to take the bite out of simply wanting to slam everything broadside, and on rare occasions even lets me salvage something of value from the experience. >Incidentally, for those who would like a chance to totally diss me - I've >contributed a tape to the EMusic archive - tomatoes away... And on a similar note, I have not, and do not plan to, for reasons I will gladly explain via private email to anyone who cares to ask but which do not belong on a public forum. >. I guess that explains why most of the recent computer music >I've liked was written by women ;-)... Oooooh. I SHOULD introduce you to Rossi! |-> >Incidentally, I have never heard any music by anyone who posts to this list. >Just so that _no_ one takes offence with my generalizations! Oh, people will anyway. That's why I love 'em, this craaazy buncha kids. -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who/what is "ren and stimpy," and for what sampler? (j. gates) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 09:48:10 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Quality in computer music - Going out of town - Breathe! A few thoughts before I abandon the discussion and go to Anaheim for a week without email ;-(. 1. Everyone who subscribes to emusic is interested in experimentation. It's a given. 2. Institutions promote mediocrity. Committees promote mediocrity. Milton Babbitt once told me - If you win a composition contest you have the money, if you lose you have the honor. Ultimately, its the way pieces are picked for CRI style recordings, university CD sets, other instituional award systems which have promoted our mediocre new music recording scene. Similar story for most festivals. Committees do not allow for eccentricity. Eccentricity is what is ultimately the most interesting aspect of the bizarre new music we'll love in 20 years. (Look at Ive's essays!). 3. Music is more than a bunch of notes. If it doesn't form big shapes with lives of their own it isn't music. Very very few people can accomplish this miracle - regardless of the instrument. Everyone should try to be more _musical_. I know this is going to rile some folks - but remember aren't you an artist - a _musical_ artist first and foremost? 4. Taking processes - (flame gear on full!) mathematical, musical, and arbitrarily coverting them into notes is not music. How long did it take our society to throw off that 12-tone yoke? Now we're replacing it with _process_. If it works (crab canons in the Musical Offering) it can be cute - but that's about it... It sure ain't going to get anyone off because it's not built around expectations. O.K. here comes the cute mop-headed kid with his FFT's of his own guitar spectrum. Processing the peaks onto chordal expectations - can't wait! Peace and musical achievement for everyone! Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 06:52:43 GMT From: Matt Thallmayer Subject: Teachers I had an experience with a music teacher that was sort of the inverse of the situation other people have posted. While attending Bucks County Community College ( to study video production ) I took an Electronic Music course for fun. My teacher was very much into minimal, slowly changing, quiet, tonal music. I like to do stuff this is dissonant and abrasive. While playing one of my first assignments you could see him cringing. He couldn't wait for it to end. When it did he jumped up to take it off the tape player. But, I had put a false ending on it. Just as he was about to hit the stop button it started up again. His head looked like it was going to explode. Each one of my pieces escalated from there and were done purely to drive him nuts ( all within the parameters of the assignment, of course ). My final piece was in three sections. The first was based on a twelve-tone row. I used the four forms each on it's own track of the 4-track recorder. I retuned the synth on each track so that none of them were in tune and played each at a different tempo. The second section was based on the 19 to the octave microtonal scale with an annoying ad lib over an ostinato. The third part was annoying sound effects over alternating grandmother and pyramid chords with two or three false endings. I think he quit soon after. Mathias ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 09:11:28 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Test post:RE: OOPS! "Workstations" Mr. Steve Adams writes -> > Ok so this may finally be a successful attempt to post to this list.... > idealord writes: > >Flame gear on full... Fire away! > OK [Mr. Adams' background info deleted] > > Now to the meat... There are two important aspects that need to be > addressed and "high-end" computer music workstations (here I mean > the software *and* hardware) > do *more* in exploring new operational practices than you will find in > your garden variety set of music tools such as low end computers > samplers, sequencers and signal proccessors etc(more generally: > commercial gear). I hestitate to point out one more time that gear (which is now inexpensive) has produced what IMHO I believe to be the most significant electronic music - Sgt. Pepper - Varese - Deserts/Poeme Electronique - Stockhausen - Kontakte/Mantra. If the expensive gear is so good how come we don't have any _good_ music? (That of course is a rhetorical question - but why is there still a chasm between the composers of instrumental music and computer music?) Most of the people I know who write instrumental music consider computer music a joke ;-(. I've even been told by many of them that I'm wasting my time delving in this arena. I am beginning to consider their advice ;-(... > > To make this clearer, some examples are appropriate. These examples > are referred back to acoustical music production (yes...people playing > mechanical musical instruments). Fundamentally because computing > environments can't even do that very well, let alone explore *new* non > instrumental musical universes.. Why can't they?? primarily because > each stage that *simulates* part of the performance process > (instrument interface , sound) encounters computational bottlenecks > (read MIDI) this limits the notion of interactivity, as does the notion that > a sampler has no *idea* of the sound it produces(here I mean idea in the > sense that an acoustic instrument relates directly to the sound it is > making by virtue of the interface and sound production mechanisms > being intimately linked). Exactly - the recent work in physical modelling (CMJ last two issues) would seem to point into interesting territory. Why can't we make computers musical instruments? > > What can high end (academic)music workstations can do to change > this?? > Back to the question: they can help to reduce the > informational bottlenecks inherent in commercial and domestic > equipment, broaden the capacity of sound generation and control > processes (through *academic* research on high-end sytems) In other > words they can add to the potential for interactivity and complexity in > computer music and allow those fortunate enough to have access to > these systems to design and implement their own musically useful tools > that are not bound and gagged to the requirements of representation > designed into commercial (non academic) music systems. As PL > suggested, this stuff trickles down anyway..in terms of technology and > ideas.. Sure we can't all own these > systems, when theyre relatively cutting edge, but that seems to be the > way of the world....not everyone got to write for orchestras either.. _Everyone_ can write for orchestra- I'm working on an orchestra piece now. If you can't imagine the orchestra playing your music - you need to go back and do your homework - solfege - whatever... no one is excluded from _this_ practice, unlike the very real exclusion of composers to computer workstations. If we had research into optimizations - I believe we could have good cheap computer instruments. Research into physical modelling with modelling code written for inexpensive DSP chips could allow anyone to have access to excellent computer performances. BUT - no one seems to recognize that _most_ computer musicians do not work in the academic enviroment. (Maybe this is an exaggeration - but it will certainly _soon_ be true...). And I have very deep doubts that the meta-philosophical underpinnings of most computer music research is not inherently musical - and actually could be (flame gear on full!) considered - anti-musical in that its primary goal is to _replace_ the musician - even to replace composers! (Elliott Handelman - where are you?) > > Steve Adam :Spectro-Morphologist > Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 10:57:06 -0400 From: Bill Scott Subject: Re: Test post:RE: OOPS! "Workstations" >< [Lots of good and even inarguable comments from both sides deleted] > And I have very deep >doubts that the meta-philosophical underpinnings of most computer music >research is not inherently musical - and actually could be (flame gear on >full!) considered - anti-musical in that its primary goal is to _replace_ the >musician - even to replace composers! (Elliott Handelman - where are you?) > > >Jeff Harrington >idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org Bah! Maybe replacing your fingers and the heretofore necessary dependence of a composer on the multiple limbs of many performers is a goal, but modelling the cognitive and constructional processes of performers and composers doesn't imply a primary goal of *replacing* them any more than modelling flight implies a goal of replacing birds. Bill Scott ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 12:41:29 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Test post:RE: OOPS! "Workstations" Mr. Scott continues -> > >< [Lots of good and even inarguable comments from both sides deleted] > > > And I have very deep > >doubts that the meta-philosophical underpinnings of most computer music > >research is not inherently musical - and actually could be (flame gear on > >full!) considered - anti-musical in that its primary goal is to _replace_ the > >musician - even to replace composers! (Elliott Handelman - where are you?) > > > > > >Jeff Harrington > >idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org > > Bah! Maybe replacing your fingers and the heretofore necessary dependence of a > composer on the multiple limbs of many performers is a goal, but modelling the > cognitive and constructional processes of performers and composers doesn't > imply a primary goal of *replacing* them any more than modelling flight > implies a goal of replacing birds. > > Bill Scott > My point was that at a deep level - much research is aimed at anti-musical processes - commentaries on musical processes, possibly. If this weren't so - I think we'd have good computer musical instruments by now! Tools which would allow for the creation of personal expert systems for compositional purposes. Much of the work seems aimed at replicating musical processes - which is obviously impossible (IMHO) until we have living computers. Music is alive - it is more than the right note at the right time. When I hear a computer which hits me over the head like a performance by Casals I'll believe in the research. I want to be blown away musically - not algorithmically - by computer music. We do not even know how we interpret music and yet much research is aimed at the replication of compositional processes. There are neural net compositional programs, rule-based compositional programs which take input from previously existing musical material - and we still don't even know what music is! This of course reflects my biases - which are admittedly extreme - but I believe reasonable - we should keep our eyes on the _music_ not the process. How does this research enable this composer to realize her vision? What are the limitations _musically_? Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 13:38:00 EST From: Robert Depin Subject: Re: Test post:RE: OOPS! "Workstations" >This of course reflects my biases - which are admittedly extreme - but I >believe reasonable - we should keep our eyes on the _music_ not the process. >How does this research enable this composer to realize her vision? What are >the limitations _musically_? >Jeff Harrington >idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org I swore to myself I wouldn't get into this discussion again but... I believe this discussion may have touched on important point, the use computers to research the "process" of composition is very important in understanding how music is created. To say "we should keep our eyes on the music" is like saying keep "don't worry about watching where your going just drive, you'll get where your going eventually." I take the view point that the more I understand about the "decisions" made in a piece of music, the better I'd understand music as a whole. Anyone that belives music is pure inspiration is doomed to only create music when the spirt moves him or her. The "trained" composer (beating down flames) can create a motif with very little effort, and through knowledge of the process, create very acceptable music. I'm sure Jeff H. and company will argue that know trained musician ever produced an ounce of worth while music, oh well. However, if you look at W.A. Mozart's music you'd find about 90% follows the "common practice " for that periodd. IMHO there is only maybe 10% of his latter music which strays from the accepted preactice of the period. This begs the question what is the accept practice for our period ? Twelve Tone, Computer assisted ? I still believe that their is an "understood" set of musical rules which are constanly being redefined. My first composition teacher always said "You gotta know the rules before you can break them." Cur- rent computer music research is hopefully helping us understand reasons for breaking the rules. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 14:02:52 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Test post:RE: OOPS! "Workstations" Bob writes in response to Jeff's rant :-> > >This of course reflects my biases - which are admittedly extreme - but I > >believe reasonable - we should keep our eyes on the _music_ not the process. > >How does this research enable this composer to realize her vision? What are > >the limitations _musically_? > > >Jeff Harrington > >idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org > > I swore to myself I wouldn't get into this discussion again but... > > I believe this discussion may have touched on important point, the use computers > to research the "process" of composition is very important in understanding how > music is created. To say "we should keep our eyes on the music" is like saying > keep "don't worry about watching where your going just drive, you'll get where > your going eventually." I take the view point that the more I understand about > the "decisions" made in a piece of music, the better I'd understand music as a > whole. Wait a minute - how do composers make decisions? We don't even know that yet! A lot of music is improvised - whether in the head or with the fingers - how do we codify such a beautifully musical process? Does any analytic method really describe music? Schenker? Hybrid Post-schenkerian analysis? I don't think so. We have no valid models of musical process! > Anyone that belives music is pure inspiration is doomed to only create > music when the spirt moves him or her. The "trained" composer (beating down > flames) can create a motif with very little effort, and through knowledge of > the process, create very acceptable music. Yes, of course, my point wasn't about inspiration, but about our lack of understanding of _musical_ decisionmaking. Sure there is a rulebase, but that is like saying that you can write poetry by knowing all of the N-V-ADJ-ADV-PREP combinations. My point is that there is more to music than a set of rules - and this is what is so scary. We have come to the point that many people believe we can codify our humanity as expressed in music. They believe that it is a basically mathematical or rule-based process - this is to ignore our humanity. You can trivialize the concept if you wish - but it is a fundamentally mysterious and non-codifiable phenomenon - this thing called _expression_. > I'm sure Jeff H. and company will argue that know trained musician ever > produced an ounce of worth while music, oh well. However, if you look at > W.A. Mozart's music you'd find about 90% follows the "common practice " for that > periodd. IMHO there is only maybe 10% of his latter music which strays from > the accepted preactice of the period. This is to praise the Salieri's! There are composers who play by the rules and those who fly with them. Are you really such a cold-hearted musician as to trivialize genius? This kind of argument informs my point that there is a fundamentally _anti-musical_ bias at work. Practically a hatred for the mysterious quality of artistic expression. It is all so predictable - this world of rules and nets - I'll have no part in it - give me the chaos of the human experience. Next time you're wooing your love play them a poem and a song written by a computer - see where it gets you! ;-) > This begs the question what is the accept practice for our period ? > Twelve Tone, Computer assisted ? I still believe that their is an "understood" > set of musical rules which are constanly being redefined. My first composition > teacher always said "You gotta know the rules before you can break them." Cur- > rent computer music research is hopefully helping us understand reasons for > breaking the rules. > Who cares about what is accepted or non-accepted practice? Certainly not a real _artist_. Ultimately, the only reason to break a rule in a composition is because it _sounds_ better. Puhleeze! This is all kind of funny to me because I use a personal expert system I developed for all of my composition these days. But I still write all of the melodies at my keyboard - computers are very useful tools for the math - but they won't get a head rush when your music goes woooosh or tell you that the melody is boring or that texture too dense! :-) > Bob > Go ahead and accuse these arguments as platitudes informed by a romantic and archaic ideal. Go ahead and use computerized processes to break those computerized rules. It's your life - there's only so much time and the one who writes the best music - get's the audience. Don't you want to communicate something fantastic? And please - don't hate me for passionately expressing my deeply held convictions. I wish the best for all of you in your composing and de-composing experiences... ;-() Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 14:13:28 EDT From: Mark Simon Subject: Re: Test post:RE: OOPS! "Workstations" The last time this thread was up and running, several people mentioned that they didn't care for "Revolution #9", which made me dig up my old copy of The White Album and try it out for myself. You know, it's not all bad. The piece has a definite atmosphere, thanks largely to the mood of the "found objects" that get looped and faded in and out. For the first 4 minutes it's a very haunting piece. I have so far been able to identify 2 of the musical fragments that John and Yoko worked into the collage. There's a snippet from Beethoven's Choral Fantasy (the variation that features an oboe duet over pizzicatos in the cellos, to which Lennon/Ono have added the honking of an auto horn); there's also the final C major7 chord of Sibelius' Seventh Symphony, minus its resolution up to pure C major. Some of the other excerpts I've never been able to identify, and if anyone out there can tell me what they are I'll be eternally grateful. There's a piano solo, kind of F minor-ish, at the opening, then, and I'm really dying to know what this piece is, a really haunting bit of choral music that gets looped over and over. it goes something like this: |" | " | " -------|-----------o--|---|---|- "-------- b | | o | | | || -------0.-------------|-------o--|----|-|| 0 o o :| || -b------------o-|----------0----------|-|| b > o | 0 | :| || ---------<--|-o-|----------0----------|-|| o | | | | || ------------|-/-|----------|-------------- / > (b = flat; small o = filled in note-head; 0 = open note-head; < = quarter rest) It may sound perfectly mundane in its original setting, but taken out of context and looped, it sounds incredibly haunting. I've been wanting to know what this was for years and years, so if anybody knows, please tell me. --Mark Simon tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 14:20:36 +1000 From: STEPHEN ADAM Subject: Test post:RE: OOPS! "Workstations" Ok so this may finally be a successful attempt to post to this list.... idealord writes: >Flame gear on full... Fire away! OK Firstly, I have to say that I read, and have enjoyed the discussions on this list: far more than the average "how do I .."dribble on comp.music and the likes. I have however come to the point where I feel obliged to contribute to the discussion re: computer music workstations.. I apologise before the fact if anyone considers my arguments *academic* or esoteric but I think these are important considerations in the production of music and sound using computers.. Firstly some background: I have spent time in both the academic and non-academic environments (ie I have written supposedly "academic" music and music to make toilets sound (look?)good in budget videos....and things in between) and feel comfortable in both environments. Now to the meat... There are two important aspects that need to be addressed and "high-end" computer music workstations (here I mean the software *and* hardware) do *more* in exploring new operational practices than you will find in your garden variety set of music tools such as low end computers samplers, sequencers and signal proccessors etc(more generally: commercial gear). These aspects can be, for want of better names, called interactivity and complexity..and are strongly related.. Interactivity refers to the exchange of information between conceptually independent elements in the process of converting idea or action into sound... Complexity refers to the range of possible behavioural characteristics of these contributing elements. Much of the discussion is aimed at real-time generation as opposed to studio based and compiling operations, but the issues are similar. Especially in the issue of complexity. To make this clearer, some examples are appropriate. These examples are referred back to acoustical music production (yes...people playing mechanical musical instruments). Fundamentally because computing environments can't even do that very well, let alone explore *new* non instrumental musical universes.. Why can't they?? primarily because each stage that *simulates* part of the performance process (instrument interface , sound) encounters computational bottlenecks (read MIDI) this limits the notion of interactivity, as does the notion that a sampler has no *idea* of the sound it produces(here I mean idea in the sense that an acoustic instrument relates directly to the sound it is making by virtue of the interface and sound production mechanisms being intimately linked). Additionally in computers at least, musical sound is almost universally modelled by lifeless *objects* whose existence is no more than a*representation* of some pre-existing sonic event. In many cases such approaches are adequate, but not ideal. (this is most true in hd recording, samples and/or simplistic synthesis algorithms to which basic parametric controls are applied.) In the case of sampling (which is used and justified by its apparent ability to add interest and complexity through the use of acoustic sound, we have the bind where the complexity is gained at the price of interactivity. the sample is only amenable to rudimentary transformations of the sound image. These sound production/organisation methods are (not surprisingly) reductionist in their approach to the creation of sound in time and limit the interactivity and complexity of the sounds produced. They reduce the temporal and informational overheads so that we can have our little home systems churning out our favourite musics with the help of a few low end computers. What can high end (academic)music workstations can do to change this?? Paul Lansky probably answered this better than I can (see his post earlier in the list) although I would take him to task on the point of simply upgrading software for new functionality as at some point the hardware has to grow to accommodate new software, especially where it involves real time signal processing (besides, how many updates have you seen that are exactly the same size or smaller than the versions they replace??). Back to the question: they can help to reduce the informational bottlenecks inherent in commercial and domestic equipment, broaden the capacity of sound generation and control processes (through *academic* research on high-end sytems) In other words they can add to the potential for interactivity and complexity in computer music and allow those fortunate enough to have access to these systems to design and implement their own musically useful tools that are not bound and gagged to the requirements of representation designed into commercial (non academic) music systems. As PL suggested, this stuff trickles down anyway..in terms of technology and ideas.. Sure we can't all own these systems, when theyre relatively cutting edge, but that seems to be the way of the world....not everyone got to write for orchestras either.. Steve Adam :Spectro-Morphologist ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 14:38:00 EST From: Robert Depin Subject: Re: Test post:RE: OOPS! "Workstations" >Wait a minute - how do composers make decisions? We don't even know that yet! >A lot of music is improvised - whether in the head or with the fingers - how >do we codify such a beautifully musical process? Does any analytic method >really describe music? Schenker? Hybrid Post-schenkerian analysis? I don't >think so. We have no valid models of musical process! Every note, every dynamic marking, every chord voicing should have been made by some decision. Even if that decision is "Sounds best this way." The analy- tical systems you describe are simply a methid for theorist to communicate the technical basis for a piece. I agree, their is are no models of the musical process, however, through analysis certain traits, certain compositional prac- tices become evident either to the individual composer or the composers of that particular period. >Are you really such a cold-hearted musician as to >trivialize genius? This kind of argument informs my point that there is a >fundamentally _anti-musical_ bias at work. To the contrary, I'd argue that your arguments are anti_musical and less concern -ed with your creative efforts. Nothing wrong with that. I choosen to labor and understand why I make choices and thus gain greater insight into my personal music process/style. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 15:11:35 EDT From: Mark Simon Subject: Re: Test post:RE: OOPS! "Workstations" Robert Depin and Jeff Harrington argue so adamantly that I wonder why it is that I agree with both of them. I think it's absolutely true that there is, as Bob says, an "understood" set of musical rules which are constantly being redefined. This set of rules is known as "style" Style gives the listeners a set of clues that help them interpret what they're hearing. It may take the form of standard types of cadences or a treatment of dissonance. When a composer writes V7 - I, it's like putting a period at the end of a sentence. An emphatic I 6/4 punctuates with a colon. It says "pay attention to what comes next, at least until we get to the next V7", which is why the classical composers liked to lead into their cadenzas with it. Part of the nature of these stylistic conventions is that we internalize them to the point where we're unaware that they're operating. We just know that the music is communicating something wonderful to us. Likewise the composer can't hope to produce anything (dare I say it?) good until he/she has internalized these understood rules and can manipulate them without giving them any 2nd thought. Any deviation from the understood rules produces a jolt, of course, but it only does so against the backdrop the rules. The reason you won't hear very much worthwhile music, computer or otherwise, coming from academia is that they're engrossed with the idea of making up their own arbitrary set of rules. 12-tone is only one of the more widely accepted rule-sets in use. There are many more of more recent devising. The trouble with them is that since the composers haven't internalised these rules, they have to rely on charts and mathematical computations to uphold their self-imposed rules. The real "rules", the ones unconsciously accepted by the listeners, cannot be imposed by theorists or composers. They have to evolve naturally. Through research one may gain special insights into the nature of stylistic rules, and why they produce the responses they do in listeners, but I rather doubt that research will tell us *everything*. There will always be something intangible which will prevent us from quantifying what is "good" or "bad" in music. So, I like to understand what I'm listening to, I like to examine what it is about it that turns me on but I also like to surprised and amazed when something pops up that can't be explained. The beauty of music is in the coordination of the rational and irrational sides of our beings. --Mark Simon tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 13:23:42 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: your mail Bill Fox comments-> > > ... Have I mentioned my experience > > as a grad student where I wrote a piece in memory of John Lennon > > (this was just after he was shot), with fragments of "Eleanor Rigby" and > > "A Day in the life" worked into the counterpoint, very much "rock" in style > > but "classical" in construction. It was performed, and very shortly after > > I got a letter from the department informing me that my financial aid > > would not be renewed for the next year. I asked my teacher what was going > > on, he said ask the chariman of the department. I asked the chairman, and > > he said ask my teacher. What to do? I sat down and wrote 12-tone music > > and soon afterwards I was informed that they had just happened to find > > some scholarship money for the next year, bless their hearts. > > Is that a message or what? Academic composers can follow their imaginations > > as far as they want? Don't you believe it! > Get this - I was told by the chairman of the department - that we will not allow you to study composition if you continue to write tonal music! My thesis was written in a extended-tonal Stravinskyish tonality for this reason! I spent a year working on a piece just for my degree - a piece I (to this day) still feel qualified about. I had dropped out of Juilliard (studying with Carter and Sessions) because I ran out of money. Spent 6 years working in record stores until I got a commission to write a SQ. They liked it and offered me a T.A. Things were fine until my professor went on sabbatical (just like at Juilliard with Carter - eccentricities will not be tolerated outside of your personal composer/professor relationships). Sidenote about Lennon- I was living in a welfare hotel on 71st St. just after dropping out of Juilliard - going on my nightly walk with my spouse to be to Central Park along 72nd St. Usually there were only groupies hanging outside of the Dakota - this day there was this ~CREEP~. I immediately pulled Elsie (my companion) across the street, telling her - that guyz a real creep - looks dangerous. The next day there was his picture on the cover of the Post. Still gives me a chill just typing about it... > How did > you feel about the 12-tone music you wrote? I find it abhorrent that > the powers that be were so shallow as to believe that you, as a > composer, should be limited in the scope of your expression. If *I* > were in a position of power over the purse strings, I'd have DOUBLED > your financial aid! > > Bill Fox > Alright! Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 16:32:51 EDT From: Mark Simon Subject: Re: your mail Thank you, Bill Fox for posthumously doubling my financial aid. If I'm ever in a position to make you the head of a music department I will certainly do so. My Lennon piece was for a chamber orchestra with electronic tape. The tape part was generated from the extremely quaint, even in 1981, modular Moog synthesizer which formed the heart of Cornell's electronic music studio in those days (I've heard that that was Moog's very 3rd synthesizer, which must make it some sort of historical instrument, which is only fitting,for the musicologists at Cornell are very much into historical instruments) and was controlled from within the orchestra by a guy at a tape player who turned it on and off at cues from the conductor (me). What really pissed off the department, I think, was the section where a hush falls over the music, string tremolos and the like, and then a voice shouts out from the tape "HEY MR. LENNON! CAN I HAVE YOUR AUTOGRAPH?!!" followed by absolute pandemonium from the orchestra -- pounding bass drum, screaming woodwinds, frantic electronic noodling etc. (As you recall, Lennon's assassin had gotten an autograph from him earlier in the day). If they weren't completely offended by this frankly dramatic and extra-musical display, they were probably nauseated by the fact that all this energy was being put out over a mere rock star. Since I've identified the school as Cornell I might as well identify my teacher as Karel Husa, whose Music For Prague 1968 is one of the most wonderful pieces of music ever written, but who as a teacher was, well, not the person I should have been studying with. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 16:55:43 EDT From: Mark Simon Subject: Re: your mail Sorry, I hit the send button before finishing my posting. My 12-tone piece (yup, it only took one to get my funding back) was written with the aid of a primitive sort of algorithmic composition program: A deck of cards. Heh, heh, I never did tell Husa about that but I heard that he had praised my new comopsition profusely to someone else. Using 12 cards, one note per card, I shuffled the deck to produce several tone rows. I selected the row that pleased me the most. Then, using a deck of 48 cards, I made an ordering of all the 48 permutations of that row (Hearts = prime form; diamonds = retrograde; clubs = inversion spades = retrograde inversion. Ace = starting on C; 2 = starting on C#, etc.) >From that I had a long stream of notes and all I had to do was come up with the rhythms, octave registration, and dynamics. The piece was for solo clarinet (my instrument) and was very virtuosic. I've never written 12-tone music since then, and I don't plan to any time soon. It's a technical challenge for me, and I enjoy playing it, but I enjoy playing a lot of music that I wouldn't care to listen to. I am still called on to play in some of Cornell's contemporary music programs, and I do it gladly. I'd much rather experience Babbitt's Composition for 4 Instruments from the stage than from the audience. Where else can you play pp in low register for one note, and then ff in the high register in the next, and mf in the middle register in the next with no transitions inbetween? --Mark Simon tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************