Re: Academic music...
dial...@mail.com
composers who are capable of writing anything from superb music to
perfect junk. Eliot Handelman has a wonderful, pungent analysis of
academe music.
"If I described something as "academic music" I'd probably mean: it's
mostly concerned with obeying a bunch of rules that are extrinsically
determined. it gives no joy. It comes from no need, other than some
social (possibly academic) pressure. It is deaf to the possibilities of
existence. It defines itself by what it is not, and is mostly driven by
the fear of being caught as incompetent. It risks nothing, and shows
nothing new. It hides its emptiness behind a veneer of learning, or
fine aesthetic discrimination. It thinks that it is defending something
that risks consigment to the dustbin of history, whereas the best minds
only wish to expedite that consigment; it reveals nothing and is
pointless."
And lest I be corrected for having quoted a complete nobody, Eliot
Handelman is a composer/theorist mostly interested in machine-generated
mind, listening simulations, faking music of the past by machine (AI),
composing kinematic musical animation (a style he is still trying to
get right), and is writing a book on the future of music as
mind-numbing electronic spaces that rupture the ego boundary. He
studied composition in West Berlin with Isang Yun and got a PhD from
Princeton in 1991.
JKG
Todd Michel McComb
dial...@mail.com <dial...@mail.com> wrote:
>And lest I be corrected for having quoted a complete nobody, Eliot
I just happened to notice this, scanning through the group time to
time. Eliot used to be a regular on Usenet, although I don't recall
if he hung around long enough for this particular group to spinoff
of what used to be a very fine discussion forum over in
rec.music.classical. It just kind of gave me a chuckle to have
someone come to tell us who Eliot is, although I don't mean that
in a condescending way.
Anyway, back to the "this music sucks" stuff....
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Christopher Culver
> Eliot Handelman has a wonderful, pungent analysis of academe music.
>
> "If I described something as "academic music" I'd probably mean: it's
> mostly concerned with obeying a bunch of rules that are extrinsically
> determined."
The tradition of tonality forced for several centuries in Western
music is extrinsically determined. What I like so much about
twelve-tone serialism is it really frees the music up to explore all
possibilities, instead of staying chained to a tonal centre
where. When I listen to classical music in the tonal tradition, I am
very unpleasantly aware that only some tones are being used, and ask
myself why the composer is limiting his talents such much.
> it gives no joy. It comes from no need, other than some
> social (possibly academic) pressure. It is deaf to the possibilities of
> existence. It defines itself by what it is not, and is mostly driven by
> the
> fear of being caught as incompetent. It risks nothing, and shows
> nothing new. It hides its emptiness behind a veneer of learning, or
> fine aesthetic discrimination. It thinks that it is defending something
> that risks consigment to the dustbin of history, whereas the best minds
> only wish to expedite that consigment; it reveals nothing and is
> pointless."
All of this could be said about the tonalism of Western classical
music, too.
Christopher Culver
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
dial...@mail.com
"All of this could be said about the tonalism of Western classical
music, too."
"relieved* Chris, it so good to finally have a composer who is into
modernist style to not automatically think they should be writing tonal
music. I fully understand your argument in favor of modernism, and I am
entirely sympathetic with your views, even if I happen to write tonal
music. What has transpired in most of these discussions is: how can
modernist style improve one's handling and understanding of traditional
music, and - how can an understanding of traditional music as a means
of communication with an audience who understands it, benefit those who
write in a modernist style. Thanks.
JKG
Christopher Culver
> "relieved* Chris, it so good to finally have a composer who is into
I'm not a composer. In fact, I had no training in music theory at all
before hearing some living composers and falling in love with
contemporary music, ultimately finding that Boulez, Xenakis, and the
spectral school were where it's all at. That's why I find it
ridiculous that you slander serialism as only an academic concern,
since if this man on the street can appreciate it, it's hardly an
ivory-tower deal.
> What has transpired in most of these discussions is: how can
> modernist style improve one's handling and understanding of traditional
> music, and - how can an understanding of traditional music as a means
> of communication with an audience who understands it, benefit those who
> write in a modernist style.
The key to good music is maximal possible variation. That's why
Xenakis triumphed so greatly in his ST series of pieces. If a piece
has repetition built in (and hovering around a fixed tonal centre
sounds as such) then it sounds trite and banal. There's no need to
consider tradition, the composer should simply look within, do the
necessary calculations, and write.
dial...@mail.com
"There's no need to consider tradition, the composer should simply look
within, do the necessary calculations, and write."
Thank you. You are exactly right. A modernist composer should do
precisely as you've described. Like you, I am not a composer, at least
not in the modernist sense. I am, however, a traditionalist, so for me
to ignore tradition would go against how I view my own life and art.
And as Carl Sandburg so eloquently wrote, "If you took all the art
outta me, there wouldn't be enough left to spit." So yes, we are in
agreement.
JKG
Christopher Culver
> Thank you. You are exactly right. A modernist composer should do
> precisely as you've described. Like you, I am not a composer, at least
> not in the modernist sense. I am, however, a traditionalist, so for me
> to ignore tradition would go against how I view my own life and art.
> And as Carl Sandburg so eloquently wrote, "If you took all the art
> outta me, there wouldn't be enough left to spit." So yes, we are in
> agreement.
No, we are not in agreement, because music made by considering
tradition is boring. Considering tradition can only lower the
variation within the piece. It is only by a composer doing the
necessary calculations from scratch without considering previous work
that interesting music can be made.
dial...@mail.com
"No, we are not in agreement, because music made by considering
tradition is boring."
No, actually, we're still in agreement. I think atonal and serial music
is boring. The capacity for variation within those systems are so
limited with regard to communicating anything of value or meaning to
most listeners, that generally its appeal can only be towards a select
few. I did note you did not say "In my opinion" music made by
considering tradition is boring - do you mean to imply my own opinion
is fallicious in general, and that my own opinion of music is worthless
to anyone? Because if that's how you really feel, then you would
certainly be espousing the elitist view that many folks find completely
prideful and reprehensible concerning modern music. I allow that you
enjoy your music for your own reasons, but it would be a curious thing
indeed for you to hold any sway whatsoever over my opinion of music I
happen to enjoy and respect. I am glad traditional music is boring for
you, and I am happy for you that unlimited variation is the key for
your ascribing beauty and order with regard to the music you love. I
could personally give a fig for music outside of tradition, but for my
own reasons.
JKG
Christopher Culver
Things like "communicating" and "appeal" are subjective. However, the
amount of information in a piece is objective, for it can be described
mathematically. Therefore, it would be better here to accept this
criterion for discussion here of the worth of musical styles, since it
is the only one that doesn't depend on an individual's own perception.
As I said weeks ago, just see the first page of Xenakis' _Musiques
formelles_, his points there are good.
dial...@mail.com
"As I said weeks ago, just see the first page of Xenakis' _Musiques
formelles_, his points there are good."
I'm sure they are good - for you. And Xenakis' viewpoints on anything
are simply his own opinion, with which one may freely agree or
disagree. You may have every speck of objective music you can stomach,
in fact - I cheerfully hand over to you my share. I have no use for it.
JKG
Christopher Culver
> I'm sure they are good - for you. And Xenakis' viewpoints on
> anything are simply his own opinion, with which one may freely agree
> or disagree. You may have every speck of objective music you can
> stomach, in fact - I cheerfully hand over to you my share. I have no
> use for it.
If you don't want to use objective criteria, then you clearly not
looking to reach any objective conclusion from this argument. Which
makes you a troll. Why are you here if you don't want to do anything
productive?
dial...@mail.com
"If you don't want to use objective criteria, then you clearly not
looking to reach any objective conclusion from this argument. Which
makes you a troll. Why are you here if you don't want to do anything
productive?"
Since when do opinions constitute objective opinions? For that matter,
the best you can do is resort to name-calling. How's that for
objectivity - just because someone doesn't hold the same opinion you
do, you categorize them and their tastes as useless - hey, sounds a lot
like Boulez! Better yet, get several of your friends together and tell
me flat out I'm not welcome here because I do not abide modernist
music. That'll make a real big man out of you, won't it?
No, I think if you have any sense you should go back and actually read
what my posts say, instead of writing me off because I am a
traditionalist. Even if I had a shred of objectivity concerning my own
views, I would not share it with someone so obviously arrogant and
prideful as you. You are the one that choose to argue about the matter,
or had you noticed that? Probably not, because you think your own
opinion is the only one worth holding - I never came in here to change
your mind, or to have mine changed. I came in here for discourse, which
apparently you can't handle.
Figures - and after all your peers had pretty much assured me that
accusations of elitism against modernist composers and listeners were
in this day and age unwarranted. *laughing" You're pretty funny, were
you aware of that?
JKG
Christopher Culver
> Since when do opinions constitute objective opinions?
Mathematical description is ultimately the only objective
criterion. Certain contemporary music can offer that. It is your crowd
that can only offer opinions.
> For that matter,
> the best you can do is resort to name-calling. How's that for
> objectivity - just because someone doesn't hold the same opinion you
> do, you categorize them and their tastes as useless
I categorise their taste as not capable of being formally described,
which means it's not worth it to discuss it, since it all comes down
to relativism.
> Figures - and after all your peers had pretty much assured me that
> accusations of elitism against modernist composers and listeners were
> in this day and age unwarranted.
They are unwarranted. I don't belong to an academic elite. I'm a man
on the street listener.
Christopher Culver
Greg Nyquist
> Things like "communicating" and "appeal" are subjective. However, the
> amount of information in a piece is objective, for it can be described
> mathematically. Therefore, it would be better here to accept this
> criterion for discussion here of the worth of musical styles, since it
> is the only one that doesn't depend on an individual's own perception.
Since when does the amount of information constitute any sort of
criterion, objective or otherwise, of the aesthetic worth of a musical
style? Even on modernist assumptions, that simply will not do. And the
suggestion that the only musical style worth discussing is "one that
doesn't depend on an individual's own perception" demonstrates an
extraordinary naivete. What kind of music (or, for that matter, what sort
of experience of any description) doesn't depend on an individual's
perception? The individual presumably would have to experience the music,
perceive it in some form or another, before he could discuss it. The kind
of objectivity aimed at here is based on false ideals of cognition.
Christopher Culver
> Since when does the amount of information constitute any sort of
> criterion, objective or otherwise, of the aesthetic worth of a musical
> style?
Since Xenakis published _Musiques formelles_ in 1963.
An online text is available at http://www.iannis-xenakis.org/MF.htm
> What kind of music (or, for that matter, what sort
> of experience of any description) doesn't depend on an individual's
> perception?
All kinds of music. Xenakis defines music as group theory operations
on sound by a human agent. This is the only definition that is broad
enough to fit in all things that have ever been considered as music,
even John Cage's extreme aleatorism and Fluxus. It is enough that it
is created in this way, there's no necessity that it be listened to
for it to be considered music.
dial...@mail.com
"It is enough that it is created in this way, there's no necessity that
it be listened to for it to be considered music."
Chris, your definition of what music is and how it affects a very small
audience is stiflingly oblique at best. You are welcome to it, but I
will no longer discuss the matter with you because I see now you are
hopelessly deluded with bloated notions of your own perceptions. I
believe you have crossed the threshold into not being able to tell the
difference between beautiful and not beautiful. Isaiah 5:20. Don't
bother responding - I won't respond any more to any of your posts. Your
idea of what music is is perfectly ridiculous.
John Graham
Samuel Vriezen
> Greg Nyquist <gsnmac...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>>Since when does the amount of information constitute any sort of
>>criterion, objective or otherwise, of the aesthetic worth of a musical
>>style?
>
>
> Since Xenakis published _Musiques formelles_ in 1963.
Hi Christopher,
Xenakis may have pointed in that direction, and variations on this idea can be
found in lots of places. Personally, I find I have very little use for this
notion but I deeply love Xenakis' music. I find the notion of "information" in a
way dated in fact, as in recent times and particularly since the rise of
internet the one thing we've ceased to lack most is information. This may seem
trivial but for me this means the information metaphor has become quite
meaningless. It also fails to explain why I love, just as I love Xenakis, so
much music that hardly features any information at all.
--
samuel
MP3's of my works and performances:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/
Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.
- Charles Bernstein
Christopher Culver
> This may seem trivial but for me this means the information metaphor
> has become quite meaningless. It also fails to explain why I love,
> just as I love Xenakis, so much music that hardly features any
> information at all.
My music tastes have moved entirely in the opposite
direction. Minimalism, traditional tonalism, traditional form,
etc. all bore me to tears, but I find twelve-tone music
super-exciting. And when I heard Xenakis' ST series of compositions,
which used a computer to generate maximum possible variation and
therefore the greatest amount of information, I felt I had found
supremely pleasurable music. When I read _Musiques formelles_, then I
was very happy to see that Xenakis had created a theoretical system to
explain my tastes.
Samuel Vriezen
> Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>>This may seem trivial but for me this means the information metaphor
>>has become quite meaningless. It also fails to explain why I love,
>>just as I love Xenakis, so much music that hardly features any
>>information at all.
>
>
> My music tastes have moved entirely in the opposite
> direction. Minimalism, traditional tonalism, traditional form,
> etc. all bore me to tears, but I find twelve-tone music
> super-exciting. And when I heard Xenakis' ST series of compositions,
> which used a computer to generate maximum possible variation and
> therefore the greatest amount of information,
Well much greater amounts of information are possible within a single tamtam
stroke - have you ever heard Tenney's Having Never Written A Note For Percussion
which is usually done on tamtam? - and in fact I would say that what is
interesting about Xenakis is not the variation but how it's all held together.
Yes, surface flexibility in the ST-series, and they're quite attractive works,
but really you can hear it all comes out of a quite small computer program. I
don't think it has more detail really than Mozart.
Also, Achorripsis was already written using the statistical methods for
maximizing information, but I think it's - sonically - among Xenakis' weakest
works. Of course that's no problem, it was a first attempt, but it seems that
the information thing doesn't cover it all.
Have you by any chance ever read the transcript of the talk Xenakis had with
Morton Feldman in Middelburg? I enjoyed Formalized Music but to me, that talk is
more interesting in terms of aesthetics.
> I felt I had found
> supremely pleasurable music. When I read _Musiques formelles_, then I
> was very happy to see that Xenakis had created a theoretical system to
> explain my tastes.
--
bachsl...@yahoo.com
[in response to Chris Culver]
[snip]
> I believe you have crossed the threshold into not being able to tell the
> difference between beautiful and not beautiful.
Who's deciding what is beautiful and not beautiful? Is there in fact
only one standard for this?
Samuel Vriezen
> and in fact I would
> say that what is interesting about Xenakis is not the variation but how
> it's all held together.
Sorry, this is not accurate, it's more that I think it's interesting how he
makes his surface richness accessible, and how it's held together by a very
clear structure is part of that. The imagination, which I think of as the
ability to know what sounds are like when they're performed, is another part
that is extremely important and present in Xenakis' best work.
Christopher Culver
> Who's deciding what is beautiful and not beautiful? Is there in fact
> only one standard for this?
That's precisely the point I was trying to make. Yes, the individual
perception of beauty exists, but it's so subjective and arbitary that
debating the worth of musical styles based on it would just be a
masturbatory waste of time. It would be an argument no one would win,
since each person would claim that the music he finds objective is the
best.
I proposed an objective criterion: that part of music which can be
described mathematically and therefore does not depend on individual
perception, but Mr Graham is so desirious that all here share the same
tastes he does that he then bows out of the conversation.
Ian Pace
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4433c51b$0$11064$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> Have you by any chance ever read the transcript of the talk Xenakis had
> with Morton Feldman in Middelburg? I enjoyed Formalized Music but to me,
> that talk is more interesting in terms of aesthetics.
>
Ian
Samuel Vriezen
I got it by email from a friend, I'm not sure if it is online. Let me know if
you'd like me to send it to you.
Ian Pace
> Ian Pace wrote:
>
>> "Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> news:4433c51b$0$11064$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>>>Have you by any chance ever read the transcript of the talk Xenakis had
>>>with Morton Feldman in Middelburg? I enjoyed Formalized Music but to me,
>>>that talk is more interesting in terms of aesthetics.
>>>
>>
>> Where can that talk be found?
>>
>
> I got it by email from a friend, I'm not sure if it is online. Let me know
> if you'd like me to send it to you.
>
Thanks in advance,
Ian
Steve Layton
"Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote in message
news:rHPYf.6668$8o....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
You can download a PDF of it here:
http://grace.evergreen.edu/~arunc/ texts/music/xenakisFeldman.pdf
--
Steve Layton
http://www.niwo.com/steve/
Steve Layton
"Steve Layton" <dal...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:KdSdnRMTNYg...@speakeasy.net...
>
> "Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote in message
> news:rHPYf.6668$8o....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> news:4433c51b$0$11064$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>> Have you by any chance ever read the transcript of the talk
>>> Xenakis had with Morton Feldman in Middelburg? I enjoyed
>>> Formalized Music but to me, that talk is more interesting in terms
>>> of aesthetics.
>>>
>> Where can that talk be found?
>
> You can download a PDF of it here:
>
Ooops! The Google link for some reason had extra spaces in the URL;
try this instead:
http://grace.evergreen.edu/~arunc/texts/music/xenakisFeldman.pdf
Jack Campin - bogus address
>>> with Morton Feldman in Middelburg? I enjoyed Formalized Music but to me,
>>> that talk is more interesting in terms of aesthetics.
>> Where can that talk be found?
> I got it by email from a friend, I'm not sure if it is online. Let me
> know if you'd like me to send it to you.
Me too! (Hard to imagine two composers more different than those two).
============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557
Paul Dirmeikis
Very interesting conversation between these so different composers.
I particularly enjoyed this part:
"(...) Feldman: Are you in any way involved with the social context of
a piece?
Xenakis: You mean, to whom it is adressed?
Feldman: Yes.
Xenakis: No, one should never think in that way. If you think that the
music is interesting—I use the word interesting in the sense of
attraction—then it must be the same for other people because we are
made the same way.
Feldman: Well, maybe you and me, but I don’t know if we’re all made the
same way! I mean, What is
interesting? I just had a piece in New York for the Philharmonic and I
had a very interesting review.
The review said that I was the most boring composer in the history of
music. But I love the fact that
you would use the word “attract” rather than “interesting”, that you
would not have a criteria.
Xenakis: No, there are no criteria. This is why I think that music is
not a science.
Feldman: Do you have a criteria for boredom?
Xenakis: No, I think that even the most boring piece has many things to
teach you. The most trivial pop
music for instance has also very interesting things in it because it is
based on tradition, on imitating
things. And in its imitation it’s like finding the structures that have
been produced by generations of
people or by civilizations. You can find out very interesting things.
They can tell you something, not
in a sense of language because I don’t think that music is a language.
Nothing is a language except
the language itself because there are semantics behind it. Now, if
you’re interested or not depends
on yourself, but if you try you will see, understand and grasp it. This
is why I pretend that even the
most boring piece of music or art can teach you something. It makes you
react in your own personal
way. If it makes you feel rich or if it makes you react in a fantastic
way then it is a good piece.
Maybe this could be a criteria (...)"
This is exactly about what was lately discussed here.
Paul Dirmeikis
www.dirmeikis.org
Jerry Kohl
Thanks, Steve, for the link, and thanks to Samuel for bringing this up.
It is, indeed, a fascinating conversation between two composers we do
not normally think of as having a great deal in common.
--
Jerry Kohl
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Samuel Vriezen
>>>>Have you by any chance ever read the transcript of the talk Xenakis had
>>>>with Morton Feldman in Middelburg? I enjoyed Formalized Music but to me,
>>>>that talk is more interesting in terms of aesthetics.
>>>
>>>Where can that talk be found?
>>
>>I got it by email from a friend, I'm not sure if it is online. Let me
>>know if you'd like me to send it to you.
>
>
> Me too! (Hard to imagine two composers more different than those two).
They're very close really. Major difference is only what they put on their
surface, but the attention towards sound as such is similar, as is the attitude
towards form, as is the proximity of graphic disciplines and the way these
things hang together; also, in fact, the way they address the physicality and
mentality of the performer.
Samuel Vriezen
>>>>Have you by any chance ever read the transcript of the talk Xenakis had
>>>>with Morton Feldman in Middelburg? I enjoyed Formalized Music but to me,
>>>>that talk is more interesting in terms of aesthetics.
>>>
>>>Where can that talk be found?
>>
>>I got it by email from a friend, I'm not sure if it is online. Let me
>>know if you'd like me to send it to you.
>
>
> Me too! (Hard to imagine two composers more different than those two).
(btw I assume you've found Steve's link)
Julio Laredo
<dial...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1143835003.9...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Regardless of style, but generally obsessed with producing young
> composers who are capable of writing anything from superb music to
> perfect junk. Eliot Handelman has a wonderful, pungent analysis of
> academe music.
>
> "If I described something as "academic music" I'd probably mean: it's
> mostly concerned with obeying a bunch of rules that are extrinsically
> determined.
This describes late Beethoven and Bach's Art of Fugue and Musical Offering,
among other things.