Subject: Re: CIMESP-Results Fwd:
From: Eliot Handelman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Nov 05 2005 - 03:20:43 EST
Louis Dufort wrote:
>>Of course not. It becomes academic when there's a fixed way of carrying
>>out this interesting
>>goal. Instead of "experiencing:" we read the skill levels as a kind of
>>symbol system about how to compose
>>EA music. This is why we tend to notice GRM tools, for instance.
>Again you seem to mix up the ingredient and the final product.
No I'm not, Louis. If the ingredient is "the conventions of classical
EA" then the final product becomes
about reading those conventions rather than experiencing anything. This
is about art, not the special olympics. The
gfact that Andrew's piece does pursue many of those conventions is not
one of its strengths. I have to overlook
them, since there's something in his work I like. The fact that penmon
begins with the EA cymbal crash followed by fill
is a symbol announcing a certain kind of piece with a certain kind of
pacing. I have to forget everything I ever heard in order to subdue that
perception and actually listen to it. Someone with no background in EA
hears that as "oh, an announcement of a
big thing is happening, and it's building in suspense." The symbols leap
right out at you.
>I would refer that more to the Information theory. I wouldn't say that he
>is restraining by lack of knowing other genre but more for keeping the
>clarity of the code.
What do you mean by "the code" -- whose code? The composer's or the
small group of people who've decided
on the conventions the code embodies?
>The underlying chaos is maybe not that interesting
You need enough if you want to give birth to a dancing star, said Nietzsche.
>>Somewhere along the line
>>there might be something
>>like what Jimmy Durante called "a GOOD note."
>Yes, I'm ok with that. You must love contemporary music, Murail, Grisey
>Haas, Lachenman...? Those composers are very active in term of density of
>information where the "preparation function" is basically inexistent.
Well, Lachenmann has tremendous plasticity and animated force in his
music. I'm sort of half with Grisey and I don;t care
for Murail at all. I can't remember anything by Haas.
All music involves some kind of preparation unless the aim is to shatter
>Styal, shouldn't be here represent because you simply heard an exerpt and
>it's simply not fair to talk about "form management" (transition, climax
>etc.) over an excerpt.
Ok, I admit this. I'm not being fair. At the same time, mp3 excerpts on
the internet are real to me
as a new musical art and I feel free to take them seriously.
> But what you mention about "structure of
>favoritism" goes for any kind of music, no?
>It's all about balance, noisy information versus predictable information, we
>need both and good composer know how to manage both of them.
Why balance anything? Pick something and go with it. This is the
modernistic headache of
EA to me. You don;t have to do everything in one piece. You can listen
to other pieces.
If I may use some of my older language, make a piece that expresses an
awareness of another piece
that it has listened to.
The key word is "awareness." When I block out from my memory all the
things the EA cymbla crash
symbolizes (as a topos in the convention of EA) I must crush my
awareness because the music
cannot supply me a way of engaging it.
In the olden days the glorious symbol of this was the pastiche. Today I
think we need to be more real.
>> Ok. So now that
>>you passed the course,
>>it's time to become your own artist.
>I can only hope your wrong here...
I was making a general remark that even if we can make a piece that
sounds as good
as one by Gilles, we still have our own journey to undertake. You don't
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:14 EST