On the upcoming anniversary of 9/11, I would like to give mention of two incredible pieces of music.
Blue Man Group: Exhibit 13
This piece is on their album The Complex and is among my favorite tracks they've ever made. The inspiration for the piece was the paper scattered in the aftermath of the attack in New York. More specifically, it was a certain group of papers that fell into a neighborhood a fair distance away from the World Trade Center buildings. I recall when the video was put on the BMG website along with the explanation of the inspiration of the piece. Moreover, I remember seeing this live with the video projected over the stage. The video shows a couple pieces of paper falling at a time... a rate which increases to a dense shower, only to taper away again. Periodically, photographs of specific papers are shown in detail with rips, tears, burn marks and the like: paper recovered from the neighborhood mentioned above. It is a simple concept, but very evocative for those that watched the events unfold in person or by television.
John Adams: On the Transmigration of Souls
Adams won a Pulitzer Prize for this work, and he deserves every bit of it. The piece is potentially the only piece that I find to be consistently moving and emotionally engaging, regardless of the mood I'm in. It is for orchestra, chorus, children's choir and prerecorded tape. The text is compiled from various missing signs and posters found around New York in the aftermath of the attacks, phrases from interviews with family members who lost loved ones and names of victims. Adams used the term "memory space" for the work he created, and I experience that every time I listen to it. It is, I think, all but impossible to listen to this piece and not relive the events of that day in some way: where you were, what you were doing, when you found out, etc. I recommend this piece highly... and that you keep a box of tissues nearby when you listen.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
Atonal Music is More than a Numbers Game (The Genius of John Cage, Part II)
(continued from a previous entry, The Genius of John Cage)
I have encountered a number of people that can only envision much of modern music as a grab-bag of mathematical processes. My response? Atonal music is more than a numbers game. It truly is that simple.
I'm a long time advocate that technique can only carry you so far. Just think about Louis Armstrong. By all technical critique, Armstrong did not play trumpet correctly. He built up scar tissue above his lips and would have to take time off for his skin to heal, all because he ultimately (as a non-trumpeter such as myself understands it) pressed the mouthpiece too hard to his lips. But, nonetheless, his creativity and artistry out-shined this issue. No one reminiscing on his work ever begins with these issues: the memories are of specific songs, solos, his personality, his film work... whatever. His creative genius overshadows a technical issue. So it is with composition, too: technical prowess can only go so far.
The greatest danger of how we teach atonal music (along with other modern compositional processes: indeterminacy, total serialism, computer music, etc.) is the reduction of its artistry into a box of technical elements.
As I stated at the opening of this post, I have met and worked with several people that dismiss modern compositional processes - mainly because they have failed to connect a human element to the work. When we understand harmonic structures of Beethoven, it is still easy to access that piece of his work that is uniquely him: we easily understand that he used technical elements as a method of putting down the things he wanted to say. Rarely do we sit and listen to Beethoven symphonies as a list of all the ways he could make harmonic structures or orchestrate certain passages, because at no time do we dismiss Beethoven as a creative individual. We know the narrative of Beethoven (his life, career, hearing loss, etc.) and view that as radically important to his work.
When reaching the twentieth century, we begin to over-emphasize the new technical elements of music because of their importance and innovation. The result? It becomes difficult to bring people out of the cave, so to speak. Our technical emphasis kills the expression of new music... potentially because we have begun to teach technical innovation as the expression of new music. We are losing the stories of what makes this music unique: the biographies, the history, the culture, etc. Any music example is more than a series of mathematical equations: the composer is working for a desired effect or outworking of a philosophy that must be recognized.
Enter John Cage. From the previous post, I stated a case that Cage's work and philosophy leads people to make a decision about music from the ground up: there are no comparative dismissals or blanketing statements made from personal tastes. Inserting Cage into this discussion is where modern music can find freedom.
I don't find parallel fifths to be wrong. Voice leading is a special effect. Why? When I write music, I have reasons for employing certain sounds in certain situations and have found that technique is only a ground floor of getting to higher ideas. Is that not what new music has always been? A composer may leave traditional harmonic constructions to achieve certain sounds. A composer may return to traditional harmony to achieve certain sounds.
"Sound" and "music" are higher ideals than a process, no matter how simple or complex it may be. Atonal music is more than a numbers game.
I have encountered a number of people that can only envision much of modern music as a grab-bag of mathematical processes. My response? Atonal music is more than a numbers game. It truly is that simple.
I'm a long time advocate that technique can only carry you so far. Just think about Louis Armstrong. By all technical critique, Armstrong did not play trumpet correctly. He built up scar tissue above his lips and would have to take time off for his skin to heal, all because he ultimately (as a non-trumpeter such as myself understands it) pressed the mouthpiece too hard to his lips. But, nonetheless, his creativity and artistry out-shined this issue. No one reminiscing on his work ever begins with these issues: the memories are of specific songs, solos, his personality, his film work... whatever. His creative genius overshadows a technical issue. So it is with composition, too: technical prowess can only go so far.
The greatest danger of how we teach atonal music (along with other modern compositional processes: indeterminacy, total serialism, computer music, etc.) is the reduction of its artistry into a box of technical elements.
As I stated at the opening of this post, I have met and worked with several people that dismiss modern compositional processes - mainly because they have failed to connect a human element to the work. When we understand harmonic structures of Beethoven, it is still easy to access that piece of his work that is uniquely him: we easily understand that he used technical elements as a method of putting down the things he wanted to say. Rarely do we sit and listen to Beethoven symphonies as a list of all the ways he could make harmonic structures or orchestrate certain passages, because at no time do we dismiss Beethoven as a creative individual. We know the narrative of Beethoven (his life, career, hearing loss, etc.) and view that as radically important to his work.
When reaching the twentieth century, we begin to over-emphasize the new technical elements of music because of their importance and innovation. The result? It becomes difficult to bring people out of the cave, so to speak. Our technical emphasis kills the expression of new music... potentially because we have begun to teach technical innovation as the expression of new music. We are losing the stories of what makes this music unique: the biographies, the history, the culture, etc. Any music example is more than a series of mathematical equations: the composer is working for a desired effect or outworking of a philosophy that must be recognized.
Enter John Cage. From the previous post, I stated a case that Cage's work and philosophy leads people to make a decision about music from the ground up: there are no comparative dismissals or blanketing statements made from personal tastes. Inserting Cage into this discussion is where modern music can find freedom.
I don't find parallel fifths to be wrong. Voice leading is a special effect. Why? When I write music, I have reasons for employing certain sounds in certain situations and have found that technique is only a ground floor of getting to higher ideas. Is that not what new music has always been? A composer may leave traditional harmonic constructions to achieve certain sounds. A composer may return to traditional harmony to achieve certain sounds.
"Sound" and "music" are higher ideals than a process, no matter how simple or complex it may be. Atonal music is more than a numbers game.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Blog CPR News
I have found that available tools, options, and gadgets have significantly improved since the time I started this blog. The result: this gets to look and function far more like I wanted it to then. :)
As you can see, I've started posting again and have also been cleaning out some deadwood in previous posts. I'm also slowly bringing pages online so this site has the ability to have some other uses than my personal musings. Visually, the capabilities are far greater than ever, especially with the ability to customize templates. Its nice to be regularly writing again, especially as this continues to get more the way I envision it.
As you can see, I've started posting again and have also been cleaning out some deadwood in previous posts. I'm also slowly bringing pages online so this site has the ability to have some other uses than my personal musings. Visually, the capabilities are far greater than ever, especially with the ability to customize templates. Its nice to be regularly writing again, especially as this continues to get more the way I envision it.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Recommended Reading: Karlheinz Stockhausen
Many people know that I am a big fan of Stockhausen for many reasons. I've advocated some of his compositional ideas and have the opportunity to play some of his music. Most of the reasons I enjoy Stockhausen came from this book:
Stockhausen on Music: Lectures and Interviews, by Karlheinz Stockhausen and Robin Maconie
This book is a series of transcribed lectures and interviews which I found to be an enlightenment concerning some of Stockhausen's ideas and where they come from. I particularly recommend the section on "Intuitive Music." Not only have I found this to be an adequate guide to Stockhausen's own works, but the concepts presented in the transcribed lectures are a worthy source of pondering for any musician.
Stockhausen on Music: Lectures and Interviews, by Karlheinz Stockhausen and Robin Maconie
This book is a series of transcribed lectures and interviews which I found to be an enlightenment concerning some of Stockhausen's ideas and where they come from. I particularly recommend the section on "Intuitive Music." Not only have I found this to be an adequate guide to Stockhausen's own works, but the concepts presented in the transcribed lectures are a worthy source of pondering for any musician.
Monday, August 8, 2011
The Genius of John Cage
It is easy to laugh over the Italian Futurists. One can shrug away serial composition. It could be claimed that the day music died was actually about 1890. But, despite how quickly and easily it is for some to dismiss contemporary forms, I have found that most people meet their match when they try to spar with John Cage.
There is something about Cage that forces the concept of dismissal off of the table. Suddenly it can't simply be said, "That's not music!" Truly dueling with Cage requires no less than making personal decisions and declarations about music. I've often pondered why this is, and one of the paramount explanations I have is among the most obvious: he challenged the definition of music himself.
But, more so than his challenge is how he went about doing it. The nay-sayers of contemporary music must respond to a fine twist: to find what isn't music.
Cage makes this inversion and forces - by happenstance or intention, I do not know - the debater to play on his terms. The question of whether something is music is inherently comparative. Whether it is a dictonary definition or a personal taste, the question calls for an outside standard to be applied. On the other hand, to ask why a particular example isn't music is to necessarily consider it of its own merits. Rather than start from an ideal and work down, the case for any piece in question must be made from the ground up. For the purpose of demonstration, let's work through this with a specific example.
If one asks, "Is Stockhausen's piece, Kontakte, music?" ...the real curiosity concerns what standard will be used. If the standard is Palestrina, Stockhausen is in for a rough ride. But, if the standard of comparison is Webern, Stockhausen doesn't turn out too badly. It becomes evident though, that the outcome is quite different if you approach it working the other way. "Why isn't Kontakte music?" The examiner must necessarily make an evaluation on the content of the piece and the qualities of the composer.
But for the sake things, let's consider a more ludicrous example (I think most would consider Stockhausen to be a prolific composer, despite a potential lack of attraction to his work).
It is easy to label the Italian Futurist movement at the turn of the 20th century as crazy. There are numerous reasons for this, including the fact that they really weren't musicians... despite willingness to explain the future of music (Luigi Russolo, the author of The Art of Noises was actually a painter). But ultimately, down beneath the surface of the dismissal:
Cage turned the tables... and I'm glad.
To Be Continued with an upcoming post: Atonal Music is More than a Numbers Game.
There is something about Cage that forces the concept of dismissal off of the table. Suddenly it can't simply be said, "That's not music!" Truly dueling with Cage requires no less than making personal decisions and declarations about music. I've often pondered why this is, and one of the paramount explanations I have is among the most obvious: he challenged the definition of music himself.
But, more so than his challenge is how he went about doing it. The nay-sayers of contemporary music must respond to a fine twist: to find what isn't music.
Cage makes this inversion and forces - by happenstance or intention, I do not know - the debater to play on his terms. The question of whether something is music is inherently comparative. Whether it is a dictonary definition or a personal taste, the question calls for an outside standard to be applied. On the other hand, to ask why a particular example isn't music is to necessarily consider it of its own merits. Rather than start from an ideal and work down, the case for any piece in question must be made from the ground up. For the purpose of demonstration, let's work through this with a specific example.
If one asks, "Is Stockhausen's piece, Kontakte, music?" ...the real curiosity concerns what standard will be used. If the standard is Palestrina, Stockhausen is in for a rough ride. But, if the standard of comparison is Webern, Stockhausen doesn't turn out too badly. It becomes evident though, that the outcome is quite different if you approach it working the other way. "Why isn't Kontakte music?" The examiner must necessarily make an evaluation on the content of the piece and the qualities of the composer.
But for the sake things, let's consider a more ludicrous example (I think most would consider Stockhausen to be a prolific composer, despite a potential lack of attraction to his work).
It is easy to label the Italian Futurist movement at the turn of the 20th century as crazy. There are numerous reasons for this, including the fact that they really weren't musicians... despite willingness to explain the future of music (Luigi Russolo, the author of The Art of Noises was actually a painter). But ultimately, down beneath the surface of the dismissal:
"They aren't like Bach."
"They aren't like Chopin."
"There's just nothing like the classics, you know - Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven."
"This isn't music (because Debussy is)."If one was to start from the ground up... the least that could happen would be a bit of understanding concerning their thought process and the notions of heralding modern technology in art.
Cage turned the tables... and I'm glad.
To Be Continued with an upcoming post: Atonal Music is More than a Numbers Game.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
The Hidden Beauty in "Get Whitey"
One of my favorite tracks on the Frank Zappa/Ensemble Modern recording The Yellow Shark is "Get Whitey." It is remarkable in that in the middle of a deluge of the extreme, such an invitingly complex piece can take center stage. Don't get me wrong: I get a huge kick out of "Welcome to the United States" as much as anyone and this version of "Be-Bop Tango" is maybe, I think, second only to the Roxy and Elsewhere recording. But despite such incredible work, "Get Whitey" contains something special.
I particularly am attracted to the harmonic combinations (primarily the white notes of a keyboard) and how they complement the intricate figures spun over that base. While much of Zappa's work tends force your attention due to pitch content and never ending rhythmic complexities, "Get Whitey" is somewhat of a passing ghost that is alluring the listener into the music.
In addition to the base layer, the textural combinations are much more ethereal. Harsh tambours are afforded their place, but so much is based around warmer colors and naturalistic textures that, at least for me, it becomes much more relatable than most of Zappa's catalog.
All in all, this piece certainly has the distinction of being one of the few examples of Zappa's music that leaves you relaxed when you reach the last note. Give it a listen - you won't be disappointed.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Performing Blog CPR...
Welcome to the site as of 3/13/11. I'm currently (albeit close to two years after I said I would-see date of previous post) out to revamp, re-master, reorder, and do everything else to tidy up this blog. I don't know when I'll be finished, but for now some layout changes are at least a token of the process. Thanks, and I'll get back in business pretty soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)