EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 61, Issue 11 This issue's topics: A quibble on the Balinese/Javanese "split" (2 messages) Anderson, Cage, and Zorn (3 messages) Anima Mundi (2 messages) ARCHETYPES ELEC. MUSIC & THE RENAISSANCE Emotional power of music -- a neurological perspective Glass on TV (was Anima Numdi) minimalism...minimalsim...minimalism...mini More Cage for you gilded birds... (2 messages) More Glass... (4 messages) Music and it's capabilities (6 messages) regarding Glass on TV (2 messages) Sarcasm? (was Re: Glass on TV) SUBJECTIVISM, ORIENTAL STYLE (4 messages) SUBJECTIVISM, ROMAN CATH. and GREEK STYLE ;-) 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: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 10:47:10 CST From: Gregory Taylor Subject: A quibble on the Balinese/Javanese "split" William Eldridge writes: True. An interesting case is the difference between Javanese and Balinese gamelan music. The former is stately and somewhat static, while the latter is loud and funky, creative and continuously evolving. As I understand it, with the relatively late arrival of the Dutch, the social control exercised by the Balinese ruling class broke down and "1,000 flowers bloomed". I think you may have a problem with that, Bill: there's plenty of evidence of regional variation outside of the court "orbits" of central Javanese work. Besides, the "loud and funky" tradition you're referring to is of quite recent vintage; Colin McPhee was around to see enough of the development of early Kebyar stuff to notate its beginnings in "Music in Bali." He places its origins in the first decade or two of this century; one always has the parallel traditions of Gong Gede stuff, which is the Balinese version of the "stately and somewhat static" stuff. Too simplistic for my tastes. Besides, if our sampaks are too stately, someone takes a tabuh to our knuckles. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 17:47:00 PST From: Casey Dunn Subject: A quibble on the Balinese/Javanese "split" Gregory Taylor writes: > William Eldridge writes: > True. An interesting case is the difference between Javanese and Balinese [ deletions ] > around to see enough of the development of early Kebyar stuff to > notate its beginnings in "Music in Bali." He places its origins is "Music in Bali" also "A House in Bali"? or did McPhee write other books? also; any idea of where to get transcriptions of his piano peices that were gamelan influnced? MIDI files of gamelan music? casey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 01:35:25 -0400 From: "Nicholas P. Traenkner" Subject: Re: Anderson, Cage, and Zorn At Last! somebody brings up John Cage! I've been waiting to discuss Cage for months! Besides being a highly experimental composer, I have found Cage a wonderful author. Last summer, I picked up a copy of _Silence_, which opened such a new way of thinking about music to me, I immediately began searching for all I could of his. I experimented with some chance operations methods for composing static radio signals (purely for my own curiosity) and found the results interesting, but as many seem to point out, rather difficult to sit down and listen to the results which I recorded onto four track cassette, not to mention the task of learning to 'play' static radio signals. I have to admit I went a bit overboard, taking an interest in alternative 'manuscripts'. Also, (tsk, tsk) since patience is not one of my greater disciplines, the chart I drew up for I-Ching hexagrams included a lot less silence than probably should have been included. Listening back to the tape, I see where more instances of silence on the recording (which perhaps I should have considered Cage's philosphy on recorded vs. live music) would have made it much more interesting. The important thing that came from this whole experiment was that I learned a lot about sounds. I have a question on "Fontana Mix". I understand that the score is a series of plastic overlays, including a gridded rectangle. However, In reading of the arduous task Cage took upon himself, Tudor and Co. in splicing and randomly mutilating the tape, how does one 'perform' a work that consists of a strand of magnetic tape? Since I have only one recording of "Fontana Mix", I haven't had the chance to hear any other 'versions'. sic Cage's problem with recorded music. Also, being an avid fan of Finnegan's Wake, I have been foaming at the mouth to hear the 'Roaratorio'. Is it available on (alas) recorded media? In Cuyahoga Falls Ohio, I have been hearing rumors of a Cage 'tribute' CD, supposedly containing a performance of 4'33" by the late Frank Zappa. anyone else hear of this? Finnally, Objectification of the art form through chance operation, although I'm not sure is he pioneered it or not, strikes me as being a major utilization of 'modern' artistic theory. Cage's modernity was, I believe, a breakthrough that reached decades beyond what some call postmodernism, modernism, or whatever other catchwords we can find to define an artistic 'era'. Nicholas Traenkner engxt343@ksuvxa.kent.edu " " " !" -John Cage ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 12:28:28 -0500 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Anderson, Cage, and Zorn > At Last! somebody brings up John Cage! I've been waiting to discuss > Cage for months! > > Besides being a highly experimental composer, I have found Cage a > wonderful author. Last summer, I picked up a copy of _Silence_, which Yes, "Silence" is certainly destined to be one of the important books about music of the 20th century. It will be remembered long after his compositions are long forgotten. I think Cage has made a profound influence on the history of music, perhaps the most profound influence of any musician this century. For the past 200 years, at the very least, the history of music has been the story of those who have stretched the language of music by breaking the rules of what's permissible in music. Mozart's use of dissonance seemed bold (String quartet K. 465, G minor symphony) Beethoven's was even bolder (3rd symphony, Grosse Fuge), Wagner upped the ante with continuous chromaticism until composers at the turn of the century (Max Reger for instance) could hardly bear to write 2 consecutive measures in the same key. Schoenberg introduced atonality and Stravinsky employed mixed meters and polymeters, and then after World War II all hell broke loose and any composer worthy of the name was expected to have his own personal method of turning the rules of music on their head. It was Cage who carried the trend to its logical conclusion and declared that all rules in music are void, that absolutely anything can be music. I think the implications of this have even today not yet been fully appreciated. If everything is permissible, if there are no more forbidden boundaries to be crossed, then there is no more point in searching for innovations. New compositional techniques may be introduced but they can no longer be automatically regarded occupying the vanguard of the historical development of music. Music, of necessity will evolve in a different direction. What that direction is or will be is anybody's guess, but it is certain that the breaking or keeping of rules is now beside the point. In this environment there is no reason not to adopt old rules formerly thought outmoded. For instance the minimalists have succeeded in reintroducing tonality. It is no coincidence that Terry Reilly, Phillip Glass, and John Adams all started out from the aleatory camp. Reilly's "In C" was a chance composition in which an undetermined number of performers play unspecified instruments and proceed through a number of notated musical fragments, repeating each an unspecified number of times. So the influence of John Cage has already affected music in ways that Cage himself could have never anticipated. I have seen the Cage tribute CD with Zappa's rendition of 4'33" in a record store in Ithaca. I didn't realize it was such a rarity. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 11:42:45 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Anderson, Cage, and Zorn >Oh, by the way, his equipment consists of a big stack of those old >grade-school record players, a bunch of old disks which he buys in >thrift shops, a great ear, and a lot of energy. Sounds like Philip Jeck, a British-based musician who is currently getting quite a bit of exposure in the UK contemporary dance scene, mainly because of the work he does with Marisa Zanotti. ...who is currently a bit of an Arts Council Darling; the work she's doing isn't bad, but she does get rather a lot of financial backing mostly because she used to perform with the Cholmondleys. ...who, together with the Featherstonehaughs, are a high-profile long-established dance group and a cornerstone of the London Dance Mafia. ...who are a collection (6) of dance companies based at the Place Theatre complete with a Godfather who won the major commercial dance award last year, the Digital. ...who make computers, but you knew that. Where was I? Oh yes, Philip Jeck. Performs using two Dansette record players, a couple of stomp boxes and a cheapo Casio sampler. He uses a pile of old records which he marks up with sticky labels in order to "pre-program" the loop points; the record loops are then swapped and mixed during the performance (the first minute or two just being layered loops of surface noise). It's very good stuff, beautifully rich and atmospheric. Of all the musicians I've come across who are working in contemporary dance right now, Jeck is closest to what I'm trying to do. Except that my equipment is a couple of orders of magnitude more expensive than his (and an order of magnitude less reliable, I reckon)... Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 09:17:58 GMT-0500 From: JASON VANTOMME Subject: Anima Mundi Thanks for the answers about the film...I knew it was Glass. In fact, some parts sounded like they were straight out of Powaqaatsi. I actually ended up turning the channel too, not so much for the soundtrack, but more because of the disjunct visual imagery. Often the continuity of what I was seeing was not exactly obvious. jason ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:16:17 -0600 From: hinkle-turner elizabeth Subject: Re: Anima Mundi Hey, I was watching CBS last night and saw this Bufferin commercial with this background music that sounded unmistakably like Philip Glass. Since there weren't any credits in the commercial, I'm not sure whether it REALLY WAS Glass' music or not? Does anyone know? 'nuff said. Signed, Listening to Boulez in Iowa ******Remember: Appearance is Everything. Substance Means Nothing******* ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:34:10 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: ARCHETYPES Jason Geistweidt: >As a composer I can create forms which reference architypes in t >culture's thoughts. But, we cannot ever guarantee that the audi >those architypes. Again, I can only create forms which appeal t >audience is on its own. I think there's more certainty than you admit in an audiences' ability to share archetypes. It's really up to the composer to decide whether to reference widely shared archetypes, narrowly focused ones, no archetypes at all, or try to create new(?) ones. This isn't really, as you have said, a small point at all. The question of the validity of subjectivism in artistic creation is a stuggle as old as the hills. It even relates to the original patch creation topic, sort of. Sometimes I get the feeling that people who adamantly insist on creating their own sounds look upon the others as insufficiently subjective. Some electronic composers are impelled to set themselves apart from the commercial, mass-marketed drek that 90 per cent of the population listens to - a worthy goal- and also from the stasis of classicism that the another 8 percent devote themselves to: an equally worthy goal. The only pitfall I see in this is the possibility of falling into a narcissistic mind set. Yuk...who wants that??? Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov j.stern11@genie.geis.com tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 19:45:19 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: ELEC. MUSIC & THE RENAISSANCE >I thought that the Early Renaissance was >funded by the Roman Catholic Church (and its rich members)... Yeah, I don't think these monolithic structures usually have much of a problem with expanding their temporal sphere, through conquest, banking and commerce, or other means, which is what the early Renaissance was about. But the early Renaissance was not a characteristic period for the kind of monoliths we're talking about - that's why it was a renaissance. The boundries of music, art, and thought, under the influence of expanded geographical and economic boundries pushed out far enough to cause a fracture of the monolith, with the result that to this day in the west nothing has really been able to replicate the kind of domination of culture that the Church once exercised. Electronic music (-there-) Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 23:33:04 -0400 From: William Eldridge Subject: Emotional power of music -- a neurological perspective On the off chance this topic hasn't been beaten to death, here's Stravinsky in his provocative, ornery mode: "Music is powerless to express anything." Although he later revised his thinking: "Today I would put it the other way around. Music expresses itself....A composer works in the embodiment of his feelings and, of course, it may be considered as expressing or symbolizing them." And for a neurological perspective, here's Howard Gardner, a cognitive scientist and amateur pianist, whose theory of multiple intelligences -- linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial (visual arts, design, etc.), bodily-kinesthetic, and the personal intelligences, interpersonal (knowing others) and intrapersonal (knowing oneself) -- has to some extent superceded the outdated Stanford-Binet I.Q. model of intelligence: "I have already noted the universally acknowledged connection between musical performance and the feeling life of persons; and since feelings occupy a central role in the personal intelligences, some further comments may be in order here. Music can serve as a way of capturing feelings, knowledge about feelings, or knowledge about the forms of feeling, communicating them from the performer or the creator to the attentive listener. The neurology that permits or facilitates this association has by no means been worked out. Still, it is perhaps worth speculating that musical competence depends not upon cortical analytic mechanisms alone, but also upon those subcortical structures deemed central to feeling and to motivation. Individuals with damage to the subcortical areas, or with disconnection between cortical and subcortical areas, are often described as being flat and devoid of affect; and while it has not been commented upon in the neurological literature, it is my observation that such individuals seem rarely to have any interest in or attraction to music. Quite instructively, one individual with extensive right hemisphere damage remained able to teach music and even to write books about it, but lost the ability and desire to compose. According to his own introspection, he could no longer retain the feeling of the whole piece, nor a sense of what worked and what did not work. Another musician with right hemisphere disease lost all aesthetic feelings associated with his performances. Perhaps these feeling aspects of music prove especially brittle in the instance of damage to the right hemisphere structures, whether they be cortical or subcortical." -- Howard Gardner, *Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences* (New York: Basic Books, 1983), p. 124 ---------------------- William Eldridge katzja@hugse1.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 15:00:54 -0500 From: Brian Good Subject: Glass on TV (was Anima Numdi) > > Hey, I was watching CBS last night and saw this Bufferin commercial > with this background music that sounded unmistakably like Philip Glass. Since > there weren't any credits in the commercial, I'm not sure whether it > REALLY WAS Glass' music or not? Does anyone know? > 'nuff said. ...implying that somewhere there's a market survey that shows that if they broadcast more Glass they'll sell more Bufferin? :-) brian good ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 11:41:05 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: minimalism...minimalsim...minimalism...mini >While we are all talking about Glass: >On Dancepieces the 7th track is just beautiful: Well, being into dance, I should probably check this one out. Is it a single CD or is there a set of them? I have a feeling I've seen a collection of dance pieces... >Any fans of Akhnaten? Dig the hats... Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 15:24:48 CST From: Gregory Taylor Subject: More Cage for you gilded birds... >Nicholas Traenkner (engxt343@ksuvxa.kent.edu): >In Cuyahoga Falls Ohio, I have been hearing rumors of a Cage 'tribute' >CD, supposedly containing a performance of 4'33" by the late Frank Zappa. >anyone else hear of this? The discs you're looking for are on the Koch label [they're a classical distributor] the catalog number is KIC CD 7238 A Chance Operation: The John Cage Tribute One of the more interesting features of these discs is that each section is, in turn, divided into smaller indices - so that you can do a Cageian runthrough of the disc by putting your player on random shuffle. Interestingly, my player shows no "time remaining" when the 4'33" sections are running. In light of FZ's recent passing, the whole thing seems a trifle poignant in a way that neither FZ nor Cage would have intended. >Finally, Objectification of the art form through chance operation, >although I'm not sure if he pioneered it or not, strikes me as being a major >utilization of 'modern' artistic theory. Cage's modernity was, I believe, a >breakthrough that reached decades beyond what some call postmodernism, >modernism, or whatever other catchwords we can find to define an artistic >'era'. While I'm not sure that this is the place to quibble about this [ one nearly always argues that conceptualists move away from objectification, that Cage's work is important precisely *for* its placement in history, and that Cage might well have found some strains of the nonmonolithic PoMo beast not at all to his liking, etc. ], I *will* whet your taste for an interesting new book on Cage's work from James Pritchett, which is out from Cambridge Press. Here's a short excerpt from it that we spent some time discussing in rec.music.classical. Jamey was kind enough to shorten a paper he gave and pass it along [he taught here for a year a while back]. Let's see what you think of entertaining the possibility that - although Modernism specifically *allowed* the easement of the strictures - 4'33" has its roots in the mysticism of another age and of a different culture entirely.... ________begin JP snippet_____________________ I'm sure most--if not all--of you have heard of 4' 33'', Cage's "silent piece", the piece in which no sounds are made by the per- former at all. It's probably his most famous creation, the one mentioned in all the textbooks. I've had a rather uneasy rela- tionship with this piece in my study of Cage's work. My disser- tation, which was on the development of chance composition in his music of the 1950's, should have included 4' 33'' (which was com- posed in 1952), but I couldn't seem to find a place for it. I was aware of the piece's reputation: that it represented the "ultimate" chance piece, Cage's final renunciation of his own in- tention in his composition. In this sense, it's most often viewed as an anti-musical gesture, Cage's statement that, since the accidental sounds of the environment are so interesting, there's no need to compose anything at all. But in my disserta- tion, I was concerned with Cage as a composer, with technical matters of how he used chance to arrange his sounds. I couldn't reconcile the image of the composer who was creating dozens of works with the philosopher who was supposedly slamming the door shut on music entirely. So, I did what any self-respecting doc- toral student faced with a deadline would do: I declared that 4' 33'' was "not relevant to my thesis", and just ignored it. As I began work on my new book, a survey of Cage's music, I real- ized that I would have to deal with the silent piece. But the old problems resurfaced; try as I might, I couldn't find a satisfac- tory place for it in my book. This impasse was broken when it came to my attention that, although Cage did not compose a silent piece until 1952, he actually had the idea for one somewhat ear- lier. In a lecture titled "A Composer's Confessions", delivered at Vassar College in 1948 (and only recently rediscovered), Cage first presented the idea for a silent piece as follows: I have, for instance, several new desires (two may seem absurd, but I am serious about them): first, to com- pose a piece of uninterrupted silence and sell it to the Muzak Co. It will be 4 1/2 minutes long--these being the standard lengths of "canned" music, and its title will be "Silent Prayer". It will open with a single idea which I will attempt to make as seductive as the color and shape or fragrance of a flower. The ending will approach imperceptibility. (As an aside, the other "absurd" idea that Cage describes is to compose a piece for 12 radios to be called Imaginary Landscape No. 4--another piece that would have to wait until the 1950's.) "Silent Prayer", as it was thus described in 1948, is clearly the first glimmer of an idea that, four years later, would become 4' 33''; while "Silent Prayer" is not 4' 33'' itself, it is its ancestor. My problem in reconciling 4' 33'' with Cage's work of the 1950's was thus solved by realizing that the piece, in a sense, belongs to an earlier period in Cage's career. Placing the roots of 4' 33'' in the late 1940's casts an entirely different light on the piece: while it has almost universally been presented as a result of Cage's interest in chance, it actu- ally predates his first use of chance. Equally important, his famous anechoic chamber experience--in which he first realized that there is no such thing as a true silence--was still three years away when he conceived of a silent composition. That Cage first contemplated a silent piece in 1948 suggests that those deep changes in his thought that we have come to associate with his adoption of chance procedures may have in fact begun much ear- lier, and--even more importantly--may not be concerned with the con- cept of chance at all. Rather than considering 4' 33'' as close- ly related to chance-composed works such as Music of Changes, we must instead reconcile it with pieces such as the String Quartet in Four Parts and Sonatas and Interludes (both relatively tradi- tional compositions). ------------- After this, I take a long look at Cage's writings (particularly his "Forerunners of Modern Music") to try to put together a picture of his aesthetic position c. 1948. I find Cage to be heavily indebted to the writings of Ananda Coomaraswamy (the Indian art historian/theorist), and also to the writings of Meister Eckhart, the German Christian mystic (whose work was probably brought to Cage's attention by Coomaraswamy). Eckhart says things like this, for example: It is in the stillness, in the silence, that the word of God is to be heard. There is no better avenue of approach to this Work than through stillness, through silence. It is to be heard there as it is . . . for when one is aware of nothing, that word is imparted to him and clearly revealed. I portray 4' 33'' as a religious piece, a spiritual endeavor in the sense of Eckhart's injunctions. I sum things up towards the end of my paper, where I try to point out the glimmers of Eckhartian/Coomaraswamian language in the 1948 "Vassar Lecture": ---------------- In it, for example, Cage objects to the materialism of contem- porary Western music, lamenting that "our culture has its faith not in the peaceful center of the spirit, but in an ever-hopeful projection on to things." He contrasts this attachment to things (which he identifies with the love of recordings, fame, master- works, and so forth) with the true purpose of music, which is "our becoming more integrated as personalities." Through the com- position, performance, or experience of a piece of music, he says, we can forget ourselves, and thus, "enraptured", gain our- selves. The concluding paragraph of the lecture sums up these ideas: Each one of us must now look to himself. That which formerly held us together and gave meaning to our occu- pations was our belief in God. When we transferred this belief first to heroes and then to things, we be- gan to walk our separate paths. That island, . . . to which we might have retreated to escape from the impact of the world, lies, as it ever did, within each one of our hearts. Towards that final tranquillity, which to- day we so desperately need, any integrating occupation--music is only one of them--rightly used can serve as a guide. I believe that sentiments such as these--and probably the poetic idea of a totally silent piece--were most certainly derived from Cage's reading of Coomaraswamy and Eckhart. The connection of this inner tranquillity to >silence<, however, was not made until later. Perhaps the most striking thing about the Vassar lecture is that, when Cage explains why he uses musical structures based on duration, he does not cite the nature of silence as a reason. That he insisted upon this very point only a few months later (in "Defense of Satie") suggests that the idea for "Silent Prayer" may have acted as a catalyst for Cage's thinking about silence, that his compositional and aesthetic ideas about silence probably developed in tandem. It may go against all the "common knowledge" about Cage, but I firmly believe that the silent piece did not follow from any particular theoretical or aesthetic discovery, but rather was born of the imagery of silence in Meis- ter Eckhart; Cage's ideas about silence developed as a conse- quence of this compositional inspiration. _______end Jamey snippet____________________________ I expect that perhaps this may interest some of you.... Gregory ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 14:36:45 EST From: "Jason E. Geistweidt" Subject: Re: More Cage for you gilded birds... Gregory, where can I get my hands on the Vassar lecture your colleague writes of? Is is in Cage's _Silence_? Jason E. Geistweidt [ "Alas! An ill fated philosophy leads to an The American University [ ill fated religion!" -- S. T. Coleridge jg8602a@american.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 14:35:05 GMT-0500 From: JASON VANTOMME Subject: More Glass... While we're on the Glass thread... I was watching PBS the other night and cut into a film called 'Anima Mundi' which had a soundtrack that was pretty unmistakably Glass. Unfortunately, the credits must have been at the beginning (which I missed) and I didn't see if it was in fact Glass. Anybody got an answer? Jason Vantomme =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Jason D. Vantomme Faculty of Music, McGill University Montreal, PQ CANADA email: vantomme@music.mcgill.ca =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 16:06:21 EST From: David Lunney Subject: Re: More Glass... As for the sound track on "Anima Mundi": I found it so obnoxious that I switched channels. --David Lunney ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 17:10:08 -0500 From: "Jon Crystal (Jon Crystal)" Subject: Re: More Glass... >While we're on the Glass thread... I was watching PBS the >other night and cut into a film called 'Anima Mundi' which >had a soundtrack that was pretty unmistakably Glass. >Unfortunately, the credits must have been at the beginning >(which I missed) and I didn't see if it was in fact Glass. > >Anybody got an answer? > YES, IT WAS ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 18:14:40 -0500 From: Mike Clemens Subject: Re: More Glass... In article <19940201.170941.755518.NETNEWS@auvm.american.edu>, JASON VANTOMME wrote: >While we're on the Glass thread... I was watching PBS the >other night and cut into a film called 'Anima Mundi' which >had a soundtrack that was pretty unmistakably Glass. >Unfortunately, the credits must have been at the beginning >(which I missed) and I didn't see if it was in fact Glass. > >Anybody got an answer? In fact, it *was* Glass... your ears didn't trick you... :-) - Mike ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 20:30:34 EST From: "Jason E. Geistweidt" Subject: Music and it's capabilities OK now. Thanks for your feedback, it fed my thoughts. But, on my theory that (And this is not only my theory) my theory that music does nothing, I must stan stand strong. You see, as a composer, I feel that though my works are influenc ed by my "sentimentalities", music is incapable of actually transmitting them. As a composer I can create forms which reference architypes in the system of a culture's thoughts. But, we cannot ever guarantee that the audience will see those architypes. Again, I can only create forms which appeal to me. The audience is on its own. Thus, after I create a work and present it, it is no longer mine. The forms are "incapable" of transmitting my emotions. The organized sounds are only that, organized sounds. We call that music, eh? But my point is that the forms are only reflective of what the audience wants to see. Forms in music are not transitive of my feelings. Forms do not have emotions. Sounds are highly complex vibrations, as Cage says "they have no thought or ought or theory." It is a small point, but I beleive an import- ant one. If music is too idealistic, we become more concerned with the idea th an the music. If it isn't obvious, i just finished Cage's _Silence_. Is my deconstructionism showing? Jason E. Geistweidt 231 Nebraska Hall The American University 4400 Mass. Avenue, N.W. jg8602a@american.edu Washington, D.C. 20016 (202) 885-6762 Dept. of Performing Arts "Go ahead! Shoot the messenger" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:33:40 -0500 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Music and it's capabilities > OK now. Thanks for your feedback, it fed my thoughts. But, on my theory that > (And this is not only my theory) my theory that music does nothing, I must stan > stand strong. You see, as a composer, I feel that though my works are influenc > ed by my "sentimentalities", music is incapable of actually transmitting them. > As a composer I can create forms which reference architypes in the system of a > culture's thoughts. But, we cannot ever guarantee that the audience will see > those architypes. Again, I can only create forms which appeal to me. The > audience is on its own. Thus, after I create a work and present it, it is no > longer mine. The forms are "incapable" of transmitting my emotions. The > organized sounds are only that, organized sounds. We call that music, eh? But > my point is that the forms are only reflective of what the audience wants to > > see. Forms in music are not transitive of my feelings. Forms do not have > emotions. Sounds are highly complex vibrations, as Cage says "they have no > thought or ought or theory." It is a small point, but I beleive an import- > ant one. If music is too idealistic, we become more concerned with the idea th > an the music. I think the questions in life that are worthiest of discussion are the ones that can never be answered, and this is one of them. Emotion and music do seem to be mixed up with each other but the exact nature of the relationship is elusive. As you say, the main determinant of what emotion gets transmitted is cultural. If composer and audience share enough assumptions about what music is supposed to mean then there's a pretty strong chance that the emotion felt by the composer will be accurately conveyed to the audience. The much-derided concept of "major = happy, minor = sad" is, of course, grossly over-simplified, but it does have some cultural relevance, or else the observation would have never been made. It has been the great burden of the twentieth century to undergo a total upheaval in cultural indicators. Every convention that would define the emotional orientation of music for an audience has been taken away. And here we have Cage, the last of the musical iconoclasts, smashing the very last of the conventions that conferred meaning on music and then proclaiming that music is meaningless. Kind of like the proverbial kid who murders his parents and then pleads for mercy on the grounds that he's an orphan. Others have used more high-falutin' language to say this, but here goes: the soul of music lies in cliches. That's right. It's those stereotyped riffs that one picks up from god knows where and regurgitates at strategic moments, its the little motivic snippets, the chord progressions, sound patches, etc. that one steals consciously or unconsciously, that's where the emotion in music is. Redundancy is an essential component of music. A listener carries a large memory bank consisting of all the other music he's ever heard and as he listens to a new piece, he (or she) is constantly comparing what he hears to what he's heard before and when he senses a correlation, or a "hit", a reaction goes off in his brain and he feels an emotion. Of course that emotion might be "aw jeez haven't I heard that before?" but that's the way it works. When the right buttons are pushed in a context that varies significantly (but not too significantly) from the original context, a positive emotional reaction occurs. All we composers are really searching for (well, maybe I shouldn't speak for everybody) is the proper balance between redundancy and originality. It would never do to have music that was completely original, just as it wouldn't do to have music that was completely redundant. As I said in a previous posting, thanks to Cage, we are finally free of the historical necessity to smash conventions to prove our originality. Now we can safely pick up the pieces and hopefully put them back together in new ways (but not too new, mind you). I have a feeling I've wandered off the original topic. Perhaps it's too much to expect a polished essay on a e-mail bulletin board. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:23:45 CST From: "Harry F.P. Haecker" Subject: Re: Music and it's capabilities Jason writes: >...I feel that though my works are influenced by my "sentimentalities", music >is incapable of actually transmitting them. Bingo. I think that this is the crux of our differences: I'm a "mystic" when it comes to music. I believe (and I'm not the only one) that not only is music capable of transmitting feeling across cultural and temporal lines, that is one of its functions! It's the "universal language" that can be capable of "soothing the savage beast" and all. I don't think these sayings just came out of nowhere, but are rooted in this reality. >As a composer I can create forms which reference architypes in the system of a >culture's thoughts. But, we cannot ever guarantee that the audience will see >those architypes. Very true! One has to be an inspired composer who has a receptive audience before the communication works. Pearls before swine ain't gonna cut it, nor scat before royality. (How 'bout dem aphorisms?) >Forms in music are not transitive of my feelings. This is probably a self-fulfilling prophesy! IMHO, you get out of your compositions what you put in: put in sincere, emotional/rational content and your audience will hear it and it will endure. Make it out of hackneyed, repititious motifs, and it will go straight to MTV...and you'll be famous for 15 minutes ;-) >Forms do not have emotions. Sounds are highly complex vibrations, as Cage says >"they have no thought or ought or theory." Again, true...as long as it's not heard or conceived by emotional humans. It's like the old falling tree in a forest story. >If music is too idealistic, we become more concerned with the idea than the >music. I say: if music is too rational, using nothing but number theories (for example), we become more concerned with the idea than the music. In reality, probably both forces are at work, inextricably entwined. Anyway, I don't want to start a "Holy War": this debate really is as old as the hills. It's probably what has driven the Classical/Romantic yo-yo throughout Western man's history (unfortunately, I don't know much about other culture's artistic traditions...is there anyone out there who can speak of Oriental artisitic philosopy?) Harry Haecker (haeckerh@osprey.nwrc.gov) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 16:44:52 -0500 From: Alper Kerman Subject: Re: Music and it's capabilities > OK now. Thanks for your feedback, it fed my thoughts. But, on my theory that > (And this is not only my theory) my theory that music does nothing, I must stan > stand strong. Hey, its okay to stand strong by what you believe in!... I just happen to stand strong by my theory (and perhaps also the theory of most composers), that any type of musical style infact DOES "something" for its audience. There is always "something" delivered from composer to his/her audience, whether it is positive, negative, emotional, humorous, political, or weirdness, etc. Otherwise, why write music in the first place, if you don't have anything to say?...Why do you think we each appreciate only certain styles of music? Because, the message being delivered thru music (as being a tool) pleases us, whether it is thru lyrics, and/or musical expression. It's always composer takes an action, and in turn, causes a reaction on the audience side. It's one way avenue in that sense!...Of course, there is always that fullfilment of joy, when your audience appreciates what you have delivered to them. You see, its just like what we are doing now; here I'm typing my thoughts in this mail and using english as a tool trying to deliver a message across to you. Now, if I can only form my sentences in such way and use the right words ( like using "right" sound pathes ), and deliver the message I want to get across to you, then its great!, I've done my job!...And of course, on the other hand, if I don't do my job well, then you will receive a different interpretation of the original message intended. I wanted to reply to other comments you've made, but I have to take my machine down for the weekend (for power outage)!...So, I shall give you my comments next week, starting Tuesday!... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:15:43 -0500 From: Elissa Brill Subject: Re: Music and it's capabilities Mark Simon writes: > ...All we composers are really searching for...is the proper balance > between redundancy and originality. This is true not only in terms of the large-scale musical elements (general style, performance medium, tuning systems, etc), but also in terms of the smaller-scale details within a piece. And it's been that way historically--After all, aren't most discussions of musical form concerned with repetition/variation of old material and introduction of new material? It's the *balance between redundancy and originality* that defines the way we hear the piece unfold. Elissa Brill ebrill@ecn.mass.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 09:53:57 EST From: David Lunney Subject: Re: Music and it's capabilities I have a book somewhere that claims that some aspects of music are universal: it wouldn't be surprising, given the universality of many human behavior patterns. (Notice I didn't say "behaviors" (yecch), which marks me as a literate human being and not a social scientist.) Years ago anthropologists spouted the shibboleth "there is no such as human nature." They were proved wrong by biologists, and now, their tails between their legs, they are discovering, lo!, there ARE some universals in human behavior, for example, the way that mothers talk to their infants. Irrespective of the culture or language, the demeanor of mothers toward their babies is very similar. (You know what that is, if you have ever seen and heard a mother and her baby.) Cut to the chase. The author claims that the following are universally understood as "sad": descending pitch (doesn't have to be on a scale) ritardando dimuendo. The book has many other juicy pieces of information, and if anybody is interested I can dig it out and post the title and author. It's been quit a while since I read it, so I don't recall a lot of details. David Lunney Department of Chemistry and Science Institute for the Disabled East Carolina University Greenvlle, NC 27858 USA VOICE: 919-757-6713 919-758-6453 FAX: 919-757-6210 CHLUNNEY@ECUVM1.BITNET CHLUNNEY@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 18:20:06 CST From: bq Mackintosh Subject: regarding Glass on TV Mmm. A favorite marketing stratagy is to employ a composer who can adaquately emulate any one composer without actually demanding the same salary. Witness the Enya-esque stuff in car commercials as well as the endless quasi-Vangelis would-be Chariouts of Fire used in anything even remotely athletic. bq Mackintosh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 09:39:00 -0600 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: regarding Glass on TV > Mmm. A favorite marketing stratagy is to employ a composer who can > adaquately emulate any one composer without actually demanding the same > salary. Witness the Enya-esque stuff in car commercials as well as the > endless quasi-Vangelis would-be Chariouts of Fire used in anything even > remotely athletic. Would you be refering to the Volkswagen commercial with the Enya-esque remark? Because that was Clannard, who Enya used to belong to and who is fronted by Enya's sister. Of course they weren't hired to do commercial music, but one of their older songs was bought. I don't know what that says about Clannard tho'. -- Arne F. Claassen |"In cows we trust | EPS Classic * D4 | E pluribus Moo" | Mac Centris 650 | | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 12:33:57 GMT-0500 From: JASON VANTOMME Subject: Sarcasm? (was Re: Glass on TV) Elizabeth hinkle-turner writes: Subject: Re: Anima Mundi > Hey, I was watching CBS last night and saw this Bufferin > commercial with this background music that sounded > unmistakably like Philip Glass. Since there weren't > any credits in the commercial, I'm not sure whether it > REALLY WAS Glass' music or not? Does anyone know? 'nuff said. I read just a tad o' sarcasm here - bad and ill-placed attempt at a flame I think. Heh - I just wanted to get my facts straight! I hope there's not a problem with *that*? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Jason D. Vantomme Faculty of Music, McGill University Montreal, PQ CANADA email: vantomme@music.mcgill.ca =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 18:06:18 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: SUBJECTIVISM, ORIENTAL STYLE Harry Haecker: >(unfortunately, I don't know much about other culture's >artistic traditions...is there anyone out there who can speak of I thought you'd never ask. I spent my academic career (through the M.A. ) and after, studying pre-modern China. Very different aesthetic , indeed. The whole Confucian influenced cultural sphere is as obsessed (really I should say was as obsessed: things changed when the West came swaggering in) with emulation and conformity as we are with originality. I know I quoted this last time we had this discussion but here it is again: Confucious said, "Shu er bu zuo", i.e., Copy, don't originate. You can see it in Chinese painting very clearly: the most famous artists of later times (post 800 A.D.) were known for their masterful copies of the great ancient works. In music, painting, caligraphy, writing, etc., new styles were new because they interpreted old styles in a slightly different way. With the mammoth ebb and flow peoples and products in mainland Asia there were periods of radical change - especially with the introduction of Buddhism from around the 3rd century - but cultural "legitimacy" always sprang back in somewhat modified form. I don't think this stems from an 'oriental' mindset, since it really characterizes all traditional cultures - especially ones with towering (stifling) religious/state apparati: the Catholic Church, for one. Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 16:24:32 -0400 From: William Eldridge Subject: Re: SUBJECTIVISM, ORIENTAL STYLE Joel Stern writes of post-800 AD China: > . ..In music, painting, caligraphy writing, etc., new styles were > new because they interpreted old styles in a slightly different way. > With the mammoth ebb and flow of peoples and products in > mainland Asia there were periods of radical change -- > especially with the introduction of Buddhism from > around the 3rd century - but cultural "legitimacy" always > sprang back in somewhat modified form. > I don't think this stems from an 'oriental' mindset, since it > really characterizes all traditional cultures - especially ones > with towering (stifling) religious/state apparati: the Catholic > Church, for one. True. An interesting case is the difference between Javanese and Balinese gamelan music. The former is stately and somewhat static, while the latter is loud and funky, creative and continuously evolving. As I understand it, with the relatively late arrival of the Dutch, the social control exercised by the Balinese ruling class broke down and "1,000 flowers bloomed". Here is some of what Leonard B. Meyer has to say about cultural stasis: The presumption that social-cultural development is a necessary condition of human existence is just not tenable. The history of China up to the nineteenth century, the stasis in ancient Egypt, and the lack of cumulative change in countless other civilizations and cultures make it apparent that stability and conservation, not change, have been the rule in the history of mankind generally. Once this is recognized, theories which postulate necessary cycles, developments, dialectics, or progressions become suspect. If the history of Western civilization has been conspicuously characterized by change, then one must look to the peculiarities of the culture and its ideologies for reasons and explanations. [*Music, the Arts and Ideas* (1967), p.134] -- William Eldridge ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 13:15:05 EST From: Bill Fox Subject: Re: SUBJECTIVISM, ORIENTAL STYLE William Eldridge quotes Leonard B. Meyer on cultural stasis as part of his response to a Joel Stern post on how cultural change affected the arts in China. Please let me reccommend a TV show! "How the Universe Changed; a Personal View by James Burke" is currently being run on the Learning Channel (TLC) on cable. This was originally shown (in the US) on PBS (and probably on the BBC, I'll wager) and shows how what we know shapes how we view things. As what we know changes, so does our perception of the Universe. I've probably said this poorly but the show is definitely worth viewing. With some of the conversations on EMUSIC-L, my universe has changed measurably! Bill Fox wbf@aloft.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 11:03:42 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: SUBJECTIVISM, ORIENTAL STYLE >Please let me reccommend a TV show! "How the Universe >Changed; a Personal View by James Burke" is currently being run on the >Learning Channel (TLC) on cable. This was originally shown (in the US) >on PBS (and probably on the BBC, I'll wager) Indeed, ten years ago, which is when I saw it, and bought the book (and caught the flu off James Burke). Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 14:01:15 CST From: "Harry F.P. Haecker" Subject: SUBJECTIVISM, ROMAN CATH. and GREEK STYLE ;-) >I don't think this stems from an 'oriental' mindset, since it >really characterizes all traditional cultures - especially ones >with towering (stifling) religious/state apparati: the Catholic >Church, for one. You got dat right; although, I thought that the Early Renaissance was funded by the Roman Catholic Church (and its rich members), so ironically, although the music and form of the Mass stayed virtually the same for 1800 years, the secular forms were able to flourish and change relatively quickly. The freer thinking actually caused the loosening of the iron grip of the Church and caused the rise of Protestantism. Please correct me if my ignorance is showing: cause and effect can certainly become muddy! Also, from what I remember about the ancient Greeks, Plato also argued strongly against new forms, scales, and what I guess we'd call freeform jazz (improv). He said that music can have such strong emotional content that it could be effectively used against the State. We certainly see that in our (USA) brief history as a nation; for example, in "gangsta" rap, sample-based collage (Negativland), 30 years ago with Dylan and Peter, Paul, and Mary...and 220 years ago with the propaganda song, "Yankee Doodle"! Boy, wouldn't Plato be shocked that so many strong governments in the world allow nearly unlimited freedom in this area! Mass marketing seems to be limited mainly to $$$-muzik, though. Although this freedom is great, it carries >much responsibility...and I don't think many people fully understand that music can truly be not only a POWERFUL mirror of social upheaval, but also a catalyst and primary mover of change. Harry Haecker (haeckerh@osprey.nwrc.gov) ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************