Subject: Re: CIMESP-Results Fwd:
From: Eliot Handelman (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 20:35:40 EST
>I like that piece, but maybe an mp3 doesn't do it justice. Maybe 5
>minutes either. But then I've heard it a few times, in concert and at
>home (not an mp3.) Maybe that's an advantage. I'm not really sure all
>EA works are made to grok at first sitting (although I quite liked
>this one early on (I'm very old-fashioned)) and an mp3 file is hardly
>capable of delivering the detail in the materials. It's good for a
>hint. Like looking at guernica or the The hallucinogenic matador on a
>coffee table (or a 12" 72dpi screen). I'm not sure I'd feel
>comfortable judging (indeed panning) a work in public with that kind
>of (or lack of) evidence.
Fair enough. I listened again: I found it overall engaging. But I felt
disappointed about the development of the little
rime-warped dream melody that more or less winds its way through the
opening. It became more static, whereas I had the feeling that
a new world of possibility lay there. I didn't care for its existence
as a symbol: it might have been
brought to life.
It was good as "this kind of music." But to hand out prizes for "this
kind of music" seems to me about being a
poltical defense of "this kind of music" in order to keep those in
control of the situation in status quo. I don't
otherwsie see how to explain the persistence of the "me and gilles"
syndrome. Why are all of these composers
not inventing something unique?
Students want to know what wins prizes. If something in the classical
mold is at the top of the list,
students may get the idea that EA is not about innovation, feelingone's
way into a NEW art, but rather
about the mastery of a stock gestures and special sound effects that say
"this is YOUR kind of music." when
x is on the jury. Younger composers need a better challenge than this.
Knowing that originality
counted, for instance, might be a good thing.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:14 EST