Re: [MMM] Digest Number 1475

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Pete McRae chimed in:
> >
> > And the fact that Harry Partch (for example(!) wrote a book that we can
still actually get is merely our good fortune. He -of all people- wouldn't
expect you to read it _before_ you started making music, I don't think.
> >

There's no single road into music making. Some people need to learn about everything first (Partch had researched and finished his book and was well into middle age by the time that even started composing the works that we recognize today). Others can't wait to get started, prodigiously entering game with gifts from the gods or whatever. And then there are those who are willing to learn as they go, letting mistakes and missteps happen as they may. This diversity is a good thing, methinks.

DJW

I hope I can be forgiven another hoot in this thread:

I think there are probably lots of composers "composing their asses off" in quiet and near-total obscurity.

The fact that they can't get a gig, or that there is no "market" to sustain them, indicates to me that there is no "culture" to sustain them.

What did Partch give up when he refused to do movie music? Um, a career (!!!!!) ?

I surely don't believe that the greats are all dead, there are no more.

Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Pete McRae chimed in:
> >
> > And the fact that Harry Partch (for example(!) wrote a book that we can
still actually get is merely our good fortune. He -of all people- wouldn't
expect you to read it _before_ you started making music, I don't think.
> >

There's no single road into music making. Some people need to learn
about everything first (Partch had researched and finished his book and
was well into middle age by the time that even started composing the
works that we recognize today). Others can't wait to get started,
prodigiously entering game with gifts from the gods or whatever. And
then there are those who are willing to learn as they go, letting
mistakes and missteps happen as they may. This diversity is a good
thing, methinks.

DJW

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Pete McRae
<petesfriedclams@...> wrote:

>
> I think there are probably lots of composers "composing their
asses off" in quiet and near-total obscurity.
>
> The fact that they can't get a gig, or that there is no "market"
to sustain them, indicates to me that there is no "culture" to
sustain them.

++++++++++Sounds valid.

A little more,

"If you have run with footmen and they have tired you out,
then how can you compete with horses?" Jeremiah 12 (5)

The limitations a composer has in 12
almost always would extend to anything non-12. Putting it another
way, if you can't write a beautiful song in 12 you won't be able
to in 19,24,72 etc. (if you're the only person that thinks your
song is beautiful, then it's not).

Stephen Szpak

______________________________________________

Stephen,

{you wrote...}
>The limitations a composer has in 12 almost always would extend to anything non-12. Putting it another way, if you can't write a beautiful song in 12 you won't be able to in 19,24,72 etc.

I don't know that one follows the other. You still think of 12 as the one and only way that music has ever been made, and that isn't really the case.

>(if you're the only person that thinks your song is beautiful, then it's not).

I respectfully, and strongly, disagree. Not to be disagreeable, though.

Cheers,
Jon

I'm inclined to chime in here, too.

If popularity is the measure of great music, I'm afraid we really don't have any left. (See Slonimsky's _Lexicon of Musical Invective_...speaking of "disagreeable" :-)

I tend to like a LOT of stuff that's good for clearing the place out at closing time. But somebody recorded it, and somebody else put it out, so I must not be the only one who likes it. See there? We're already up to three!

Pete

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(if you're the only person that thinks your
song is beautiful, then it's not).

I very strongly dissagree. I often make music purely for myself, and I
don't care what anyone else thinks of it because it's beautiful. It
isn't about the majority decision, or really about anyone but myself.
I only throw 1/100 of the music I make out to the public, and I go
about making that music in a very different way.

The music I make just for myself I listen to far more often than the
music I make for the world, and I think it's far more beautiful, but
it's only for me.

--TRISTAN
(http://dreamingofeden.smackjeeves.com/)

At 12:16 AM 2/5/2006, you wrote:
>(if you're the only person that thinks your
> song is beautiful, then it's not).
>
>I very strongly dissagree.

Me too. 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.'

-Carl

> The limitations a composer has in 12
> almost always would extend to anything non-12. Putting it another
> way, if you can't write a beautiful song in 12 you won't be able
> to in 19,24,72 etc.

It would be equally valid to say that if you can't write a beautiful
song in 15et, you're incapable :)

(if you're the only person that thinks your
> song is beautiful, then it's not).

I would be afraid, if I believed that philosophy, that I would be
constantly trying to validate my music by gaining other people's
approval. I do seek other people's perspectives, because in the end I
*want* my music to mean something to others, but I can't let myself
use popularity as any standard of value.

-chris

--
"... free speech is meaningless if the commercial cacophony has risen
to the point that no one can hear you." -Naomi Klein

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "c.m.bryan" <chrismbryan@...>
wrote:
>
> > The limitations a composer has in 12
> > almost always would extend to anything non-12. Putting it
another
> > way, if you can't write a beautiful song in 12 you won't be
able
> > to in 19,24,72 etc.
>
> It would be equally valid to say that if you can't write a
beautiful
> song in 15et, you're incapable :)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++I used 12 EDO because we all know of it.
>
> (if you're the only person that thinks your
> > song is beautiful, then it's not).
>
> I would be afraid, if I believed that philosophy, that I would be
> constantly trying to validate my music by gaining other people's
> approval. I do seek other people's perspectives, because in the
end I
> *want* my music to mean something to others, but I can't let myself
> use popularity as any standard of value.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++I'm NOT saying the most popular music
is the most beautiful. I do feel that
it can be somewhat of a meter. What gets
me is that if I took 3 notes at random
and assigned different durations
to each one,
that this would be music if I said it
was so. If I called
it beautiful music, then, because I
said it was so, it had to be true.
>

Beauty is what anyone finds beautiful.

Besides, who ever dictated that only
beautiful music was meaningful or valid?
At times I enjoy writing scary or disturbing
music, and how dull a horror movie or
psychological thriller would be without that!

One of the regular attendees at our Music SIG
(Special Interest Group) meetings often enjoyed,
and even praised, most of the music that I
performed there. But once I played something
in an awkward metre with strident cries and
jangly discords in the upper part, and she was
offended by it. When I asked why, she said
"It's not beautiful!" I told her it wasn't
meant to be. Haven't seen her since!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So...

When I asked why, she said
"It's not beautiful!" I told her it wasn't
meant to be.

If I the listener said that is was 'beautiful' then
it had to have been. If I re-listened to this piece
10 years later and said it was 'ugly' then the same
piece of music was indeed ugly.Or maybe 'beauty' and 'ugly'
are just the same word. Or maybe neither word has a
definition.

___________________________________________________________
'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.'

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++No offense Carl. (really, no offense
I hope. I just couldn't resist. I just don't believe
'Everything is beautiful in its own way'.)

http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~parasite/loa.html

Hope I offened ever...I mean I hope I offended no one.
You all have to remember I have no social life.

Stephen Szpak

> Hope I offened ever...I mean I hope I offended no one.
> You all have to remember I have no social life.

That was uncalled for.

--TRISTAN
(http://dreamingofeden.smackjeeves.com/)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rozencrantz the Sane
<rozencrantz@...> wrote:
>
> > Hope I offened ever...I mean I hope I offended no one.
> > You all have to remember I have no social life.
>
> That was uncalled for.

++++++++++++What? I guess I offended you. Sorry.

Stephen

>
> --TRISTAN
> (http://dreamingofeden.smackjeeves.com/)
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Pete McRae chimed in:
> > >
> > > And the fact that Harry Partch (for example(!) wrote a book
that we can
> still actually get is merely our good fortune. He -of all people-
wouldn't
> expect you to read it _before_ you started making music, I don't
think.
> > >
>
>
> There's no single road into music making. Some people need to learn
> about everything first (Partch had researched and finished his book
and
> was well into middle age by the time that even started composing
the
> works that we recognize today). Others can't wait to get started,
> prodigiously entering game with gifts from the gods or whatever.
And
> then there are those who are willing to learn as they go, letting
> mistakes and missteps happen as they may. This diversity is a good
> thing, methinks.
>
> DJW
>

***You know, this is the smartest thing I've read about any of this
so far on this thread. Brilliantly written DJW...

J. Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "c.m.bryan" <chrismbryan@...>
wrote:
> I would be afraid, if I believed that philosophy, that I would be
> constantly trying to validate my music by gaining other people's
> approval. I do seek other people's perspectives, because in the end I
> *want* my music to mean something to others, but I can't let myself
> use popularity as any standard of value.
>
> -chris
>

***This is, indeed, getting a bit off-topic, but since I believe this
is a composing forum, of sorts, I will continue...

I guess the thought is that there is a commonality of human experience
such that what pleases one person will communicate over to more than
just the creator.

It may be a minimal audience, but the assumption might be that all
human beings can't possibly be all *that* different...

J. Pehrson

On 2/22/06, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...> wrote:

> I guess the thought is that there is a commonality of human experience
> such that what pleases one person will communicate over to more than
> just the creator.
>
> It may be a minimal audience, but the assumption might be that all
> human beings can't possibly be all *that* different...

A lot of people think that until I play "Good Morning/Good Night" for
them. It's an exquisitely wrought masterpiece of improvisation that
speaks volumes to me, but most people just hear painfully high sine
waves. Similarly, Where most people hear Bethoven I hear noise.

--TRISTAN
(http://dreamingofeden.smackjeeves.com/)

> It may be a minimal audience, but the assumption might be that all
> human beings can't possibly be all *that* different...

In theory, maybe... but in practice, the *vast* majority of listeners,
even "educated" ones, are guided by a rigid fundamentalist framework
about what is good and what is not, which keeps them from appreciating
everything that they otherwise might. For instance, appreciaters of
pop music insist that good music must have a groove, whereas a
theorist like Adorno damns the groove as a function of the
mind-anaesthizing capitalist machine. More to the point, lots of
people (mostly musicians!) would dismiss microtonal music as
"out-of-tune" rather than let their perception of "in-tuneness" be
questioned or altered.

So, even if a certain music has qualities that should make it valuable
and appreciable by others, it may not be if it falls outside of
others' fundamentalist frameworks. My opinion, then, is that if
nobody likes your music, and you do, you're just going to have to
spend the rest of your life convincing a few people that their
perceptual framework needs some adjusting. :)

(All that is predicated on the assumption that good music has
intrinsic value, even if no one appreciates it. The other
alternative, that value is imposed by the observer, is not something
that I'm confortable with. I think the above is relevant to the list,
but I'll stop here...)

-chris
www.cmbryan.com

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>
wrote:
>
Chris

I have no idea where or when I heard this but it goes
something like this:

It was noticed that old (very old) couples when they were
in a dance hall, ( or just a place they had some room to
dance ) and there was the music playing that they danced
to when they were teenagers, perked up. The music took them
back to the time when they were young.

There is no way whatsoever that I know of that can duplicate
this. It doesn't depend on the quality of the music, it depends
solely on 'shared experience'. That is, a particular time in
one's life WITH the experience of a particular music at the
same time.

Stephen Szpak

____________________________________________________________________

> > It may be a minimal audience, but the assumption might be that
all
> > human beings can't possibly be all *that* different...
>
> In theory, maybe... but in practice, the *vast* majority of
listeners,
> even "educated" ones, are guided by a rigid fundamentalist
framework
> about what is good and what is not, which keeps them from
appreciating
> everything that they otherwise might. For instance, appreciaters
of
> pop music insist that good music must have a groove, whereas a
> theorist like Adorno damns the groove as a function of the
> mind-anaesthizing capitalist machine. More to the point, lots of
> people (mostly musicians!) would dismiss microtonal music as
> "out-of-tune" rather than let their perception of "in-tuneness" be
> questioned or altered.
>
> So, even if a certain music has qualities that should make it
valuable
> and appreciable by others, it may not be if it falls outside of
> others' fundamentalist frameworks. My opinion, then, is that if
> nobody likes your music, and you do, you're just going to have to
> spend the rest of your life convincing a few people that their
> perceptual framework needs some adjusting. :)
>
> (All that is predicated on the assumption that good music has
> intrinsic value, even if no one appreciates it. The other
> alternative, that value is imposed by the observer, is not
something
> that I'm confortable with. I think the above is relevant to the
list,
> but I'll stop here...)
>
>
> -chris
> www.cmbryan.com
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak"
<stephen_szpak@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@>
> wrote:
> >
> Chris
>
> I have no idea where or when I heard this but it goes
> something like this:
>
> It was noticed that old (very old) couples when they were
> in a dance hall, ( or just a place they had some room to
> dance ) and there was the music playing that they danced
> to when they were teenagers, perked up. The music took them
> back to the time when they were young.
>
> There is no way whatsoever that I know of that can duplicate
> this. It doesn't depend on the quality of the music, it depends
> solely on 'shared experience'. That is, a particular time in
> one's life WITH the experience of a particular music at the
> same time.
>
> Stephen Szpak

++++++++++++++++++++ Chris

Heading out for a few days again. I had a few more thoughts.

One could even take the above circumstance and intensify it to
perhaps its highest level. The level of "Honey they're playing
our song". The music itself would therefore fall one more
notch. The "shared experience" would now be the two lovers
(shared experience) WITH the music (shared experience).
{I probably could have expressed myself better here I guess.}

Then there are these 24 notes that have moved thousands
or more. There aren't even any words to it that can be
agreed upon either. An incredibily simple piece.

http://www.tapsbugler.com/TapsPDFandsound.html

The experience here would be loss (in wartime).

(There is also the subject of worship.
I've already commented on this before
however.)

All this time we've been trying to compose music that moves
people, when it's the events we experience, that makes the
music work.

All this is probably obvious stuff. I don't believe I
personally thought about all this this way before today
though.

Stephen Szpak

On 3/1/06, stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...> wrote:

> All this time we've been trying to compose music that moves
> people, when it's the events we experience, that makes the
> music work.

I agree, for the most part, with some critical exceptions. I came
across a mention of the Musical Offering in a book, heard it a few
times by pianists who didn't even get their name on the CD label, then
forgot about it. Later, by complete accident, I came across Tatyana
Nikolayeva performing the two fugues. No piece of music has struck me
as wholly moving and piercing the way that one did. And checking to
see if my webcomics updated today is not exactly a meaningful
experience for me.

Most of the really moving music I've heard has been completely context
independant. The only exception I know of is the one CD I had on hand
when my grandfather died, and I can't listen to that one without
becoming physically ill.

Music does have some inherrent meaning in it, but it is much harder to
put in, and much harder to dredge out, than is common with most art
forms. It is often accentuated with cliches (Ooh. Minor chord. He must
be sad) and lyrics ("I hope you die, I hope we both die!") but even
without these to lean against, there's still something that can be
conveyed.

How much is, I should suppose, a matter of some contention.

--TRISTAN
(http://dreamingofeden.smackjeeves.com/)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Rozencrantz the Sane"
<rozencrantz@...> wrote:
>
> On 3/1/06, stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...> wrote:
>
> > All this time we've been trying to compose music that moves
> > people, when it's the events we experience, that makes the
> > music work.
>
> I agree, for the most part, with some critical exceptions. I came
> across a mention of the Musical Offering in a book, heard it a few
> times by pianists who didn't even get their name on the CD label,
then
> forgot about it. Later, by complete accident, I came across Tatyana
> Nikolayeva performing the two fugues. No piece of music has struck
me
> as wholly moving and piercing the way that one did.

+++++++++++++++Tristan

If you ever come across a free downloadable version of
this I hope you will post it.

I'm pretty sure you know about this. The first part is
sad and the second much brighter:

http://www.akjmusic.com/works.html

Cancion y Danza #8

-Stephen