11 Apr 08
Originally posted by darvlaynope, it's raw sounding psychedelic rock/blues kind of stuff. quite traditional, but sounded really good to me. buzzing bass lines, psychedelic guitar, 70's heavy drumming. sort of reminds me of cathedral. well this song anyway, as I've heard only a couple so far...
Wish I could see this right now (No youtube at work). My curiosity is certainly piqued. Is it anything like the 60s electronic duo Silver Apples?
11 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn=====================================
That is one of the things that orchestras do not like, a sound engineer manipulating what they have just played. Because of that, the listener never actually hears what the performer has done, and the performer is frustrated because all the artistic control he once had over that has been taken away from him. One of my friends, a top player in one of th ...[text shortened]... calls it, "artistic decisions being made by non artists," and the public has bought into that.
That is one of the things that orchestras do not like, a sound engineer manipulating what they have just played. Because of that, the listener never actually hears what the performer has done, and the performer is frustrated because all the artistic control he once had over that has been taken away from him. One of my friends, a top player in one of the major orchestras, calls it, "artistic decisions being made by non artists," and the public has bought into that.
========================================
Don't they patch in correct notes when an intrument has made a mistake during a recording ?
I have heard errors in major orchestra's performances. Not many. But now and then.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by jaywillOften they do, which is further proof that a recording is not real; it is artificial. I would rather hear the mistake, with all the human frailities that go along with these things, in a live performance with nothing in the way of speakers or other so-called enhancements being put between me and the performer.
[b]=====================================
That is one of the things that orchestras do not like, a sound engineer manipulating what they have just played. Because of that, the listener never actually hears what the performer has done, and the performer is frustrated because all the artistic control he once had over that has been taken away from him. One of m ...[text shortened]... ?
I have heard errors in major orchestra's performances. Not many. But now and then.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornYou have a good point.
Often they do, which is further proof that a recording is not real; it is artificial. I would rather hear the mistake, with all the human frailities that go along with these things, in a live performance with nothing in the way of speakers or other so-called enhancements being put between me and the performer.
12 Apr 08
6 edits
Originally posted by jaywillFor me, music is about the creation and release of tension. I don't claim that this is a novel
I hope the primary respondents will be musicians or music lovers familiar with the classical music of composers like:
Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, Stochousen, Pendericke, Roger Sessions, Elliot Carter, Henze, and of course all "12 tone" composers of the 20th century.
You might add some electronic music composers like Morton Sobotnik and Milto ...[text shortened]... n.
What do you think of Arnold Schoenberg's concept of all tones being equally important?
idea -- until the 20th century, it was a universally defining characteristic of music. It was
present in plainsong with the departure from and arrival to a particular final, in the Renaissance
music with the various modal tonal centers and tension created through the art of counterpoint
(reaching its climax with the likes of Gesualdo, say), and reached full maturity in the Baroque
with the notions of keys (and the consequent dominant-tonic relations) and modulation and then
was further developed in the Classical and Romantic periods with increasingly complicated and
precarious departures through and among key regions.
12-tone music was a literal divorce from this millennium-old model. Somehow, because of the
notions of 'novelty' which gained currency in the time following Beethoven, the idea of doing
something 'new' in music became all the rage. It no longer mattered if music was good or not,
but that it was different. Schumann's and Mendelssohn's symphonies got panned by critics
because they sounded 'too Beethovenian.' But they are, of themselves, exceptional works of
art. When Brahms' first symphony finally got published (because of the harsh critics, he was
seriously gunshy about writing a symphony, waiting until his mid 40s) they called it 'Beethoven's
Tenth!'
So, they got rid of the thing that made music recognizable: the relationship between tension
and relaxation. Since every note is theoretically heard an equal number of times and without
reference to each other, the compositions have a focus on the notes themselves rather than
how the notes relate to each other with any sort of intelligible musical grammar, a sort of
sonum qua sonum. I would liken it to this sort of poetry:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=177403
It would be generous to say that this poem barely makes any semantic sense; it's a focus on
sound -- the aesthetic of phonemes, say. And if you can find beauty in that, then terrific.
Next will simply be nonsensical words or word fragments and you can sit and listen to phonemes
all day.
I find such experiments to be tedious and artistically unrewarding. With music, it's even worse,
and I think this is the case for two reasons. First, music has natural mathematical relationships;
certain pairs of notes have very little dissonance because their beats are so slow (fourths and
fifths) while other pairs have a lot of dissonance because their beats occur rapidly (seconds
and sevenths) [By beat, I mean the intersection of two separate sound waves which at times
enhance their respective amplitudes, and at other times cancel them out]. So a person is
naturally going to hear tension in fully diminished sonorites and hear relaxation in major triads.
Experiments done when playing Mozart, say, to indigenous people who do not know Western
Art Music demonstrate this natural tendency (although that's not to say that there is a degree
of socialized learning involved; of course there is). Second, because music is abstract by its
very nature (the note C, mHz 523, has no socialized meaning of itself), we can only glean
meaning from context (unlike words). For most people, listening to atonal music is like reading
a poem in sanskrit. Unless you have studied a whole buttload, it's not going to have any
meaning to you whatsoever -- it's just a bunch of shapes and swiggles.
Now, Alban Berg recognized this problem with his 2nd-Viennese School partners (Webern and
Schönberg), and sort of reached a compromise. He would utilize the twelve-tone system,
but place it in the contexts of vague tonal regions, thus creating tensions which he would later
relieve. His violin concerto is a good example of this (with the Es ist genug reference).
Penderetski (I think that's the composer you meant?), Stockhausen, Sessions, Carter -- they
all appeal to very small sections of the public -- the crowd who can read the equivalent of
musical sanskrit -- in decreasing order of popularity, I think. I've never even heard of Henze,
but then again, I tend to have disdain for this style of music.
Frankly, I think France (of all countries!) has produced the only interesting 20th-century composers:
Debussy, Fauré, Vierne, Ravel, and especially Duruflé and (although I'm not too crazy about
him) Messiaen. The English have offered a number of excellent composers in the 20th century,
but all writing in a sort of blended style (like Howells, Harris, or Matthias) which hearkens to
the earlier ages (a sort of neo-Baroquist approach, but not like Stravinski).
So, I personally cannot wait until composers rediscover the natural grammar of their art and
start composing music that is intelligible rather than the kind that requires a PhD to appreciate.
Nemesio
12 Apr 08
Originally posted by NemesioYou can expand the definition of music to be "organized sound".
For me, music is about the creation and release of tension. I don't claim that this is a novel
idea -- until the 20th century, it was a universally defining characteristic of music. It was
present in plainsong with the departure from and arrival to a particular final, in the Renaissance
music with the various modal tonal centers and tension creat ...[text shortened]... lligible rather than the kind that requires a PhD to appreciate.
Nemesio
Most music is "about the creation and release of tension". However, you might want to consider that there are many aspects of sound that can be used in building tension: form, melody, harmony, dissonance, rhythm, dynamics, timbre, texture, etc. There are examples of music that are primarily about the use of timbre and texture that I find quite compelling.
Someone (Dolphy?) said something like, "Different ways of making music require different ways of listening". While you have to invest some time to "find your way in", the dividends can be substantial. How many people do you know who don't listen to classical music because it's "too difficult"? If it doesn't have a straightforward melody with an easily grasped rhythm, they don't find it "intelligible". The only thing that keeps it from being "intelligible" is ignorance. This is also true of "experimental" musics.
12 Apr 08
Originally posted by jaywillMiles strived for it and achieved in somewhat in the late 60's and early 70's. In reading books by and about him he often remarked on how he studied some composers that you've mentioned.
I hope the primary respondents will be musicians or music lovers familiar with the classical music of composers like:
Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, Stochousen, Pendericke, Roger Sessions, Elliot Carter, Henze, and of course all "12 tone" composers of the 20th century.
You might add some electronic music composers like Morton Sobotnik and Milto ...[text shortened]... n.
What do you think of Arnold Schoenberg's concept of all tones being equally important?
I guess Paul Bley is still a practitioner.
12 Apr 08
Originally posted by NemesioMusic is not solely defined by musical scales, and in this case resolution to the tonic. That idea in and of itself is compulsory and rather irretrievable.
For me, music is about the creation and release of tension. I don't claim that this is a novel
idea -- until the 20th century, it was a universally defining characteristic of music. It was
present in plainsong with the departure from and arrival to a particular final, in the Renaissance
music with the various modal tonal centers and tension creat ...[text shortened]... lligible rather than the kind that requires a PhD to appreciate.
Nemesio
12 Apr 08
Originally posted by jaywillI think that anything is music if looked at in the right way, atonal music included.
I hope the primary respondents will be musicians or music lovers familiar with the classical music of composers like:
Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, Stochousen, Pendericke, Roger Sessions, Elliot Carter, Henze, and of course all "12 tone" composers of the 20th century.
You might add some electronic music composers like Morton Sobotnik and Milto ...[text shortened]... n.
What do you think of Arnold Schoenberg's concept of all tones being equally important?
Schoenberg isn't the worst atonalist; if you look at the works of John Cage and Jeffrey Mumford, their music is music, but it's pretty dissonant. Plenty of minor 2nds and diminished 4ths, plus a few examples of music-theory rule-breaking. Composers like Cage and Mumford are taking us into the 21st century of music, an age where anything can be music if looked at with an open mind and earplugs.
Me, I'm a very conservative composer. I tend to write in the neo-Romantic style, with some Prokofiev-ness mixed in. I tried writing a Baroque-style piece once . . . what a disaster that was.
13 Apr 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You can expand the definition of music to be "organized sound".
I could, but then 'poetry' could be consider music, or traffic, or snoring because they all involve
sound. I think restricting music to something which focuses on tone (or pitch) makes more sense.
Most music is "about the creation and release of tension".
I agree with the various different aspects that can create tension. I think I said that, or at least
I tried to.
While you have to invest some time to "find your way in", the dividends can be substantial...The only thing that keeps it from being "intelligible" is ignorance. This is also true of "experimental" musics.
Do I strike you as someone who hasn't invested time in 20th-century music? I assure you I
have. I've done Schenkerian analysis, harmonic studies in the style of Allen Forte (pronounced
'Fort'😉, done countless mappings of various 12-tone pieces, listened to music as adventurous and
avant garde as Steven Reich. I assure you, ignorance is not the obstacle here. I understand
their compositions as well as anyone. However, intelligibility does not necessarily mean that
it's any good. I mean, I'd guess I understand Mozart better than say 90% of the people
who attend the symphony, but they don't have any problem appreciating it.
The problem with much experimental music is that it has deviated from the very natural things
which make it recognizable to the ear. When a minor second is a 'consonance' in the contrived
language of the experimental composer, the brain cannot -- will not -- adapt. That's not to
say that there has to be a tonal center or tonic-dominant relationships. But there does have
to be a sensitivity to the natural tendencies and socialized grammar that music has. Otherwise,
it's just noise.
Nemesio
13 Apr 08
Originally posted by eldragonflyI have no idea what you just said, but I didn't say that music is solely defined by musical
Music is not solely defined by musical scales, and in this case resolution to the tonic. That idea in and of itself is compulsory and rather irretrievable.
scales or resolution to the tonic. I said that certain constellations of sounds naturally have a
relaxed feel (fifths, fourths) and others have a tense feel (seconds, sevenths). This lends itself
neatly to tonal music, but also in modal music, or in impressionistic music, for example.
Twelve-tone music disregards this for the sake of novelty. Consequently, the grammar defined
by the physics of sound is ignored. This is why people tend not to like Schönberg's a(nti)tonal
music, even if they lack the capacity to explain it.
Nemesio