My ranking for 2009 UnTwelve

I don't know who all the participants were, and I hope no one here is offended.

10
8 Craig
4 Parizek
3 Allen
6
9
1 Pertout
2
7
5 Rubenstein

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> I don't know who all the participants were, and I hope no one here is offended.
>
> 10
> 8 Craig
> 4 Parizek
> 3 Allen
> 6
> 9
> 1 Pertout
> 2
> 7
> 5 Rubenstein

Hi Gene,

I hope you had fun playing "judge". As I promised Mike S., I'm revealing who submitted the pieces in the 2009 UnTwelve competition judges' page (to which your numbers refer):
http://www.untwelve.org/2009competition_audio/

Official winners (tied for first place):
Andrián Pertout, Australia (track #1)
Petr Paøízek, Czech Republic (track#4)

Other finalists (in top five):
Donald Craig, USA (#8)
Andrew Allen, USA (#3)
Paul Rubinstein, USA (#5)

The rest of the pack:
Sean Archibald, aka Sevish, UK (#2)
Nathan Prillaman, USA (#6)
Torsten Anders, UK (#7)
Warren Summers, Australia (#9)
George Secor, USA (#10)

Gene, I appreciate your concern about the judging, but what's past is past, and I have no hard feelings about the outcome. If you like, you can read about my reason for entering and my thoughts in the aftermath:
/makemicromusic/topicId_21327.html#21403

One thing I might add to the "old-school" part of that discussion is a fairly recent observation someone made on one of the tuning lists, which I will attempt to paraphrase: A successful composition is one that engages the listener. If you want to engage the listener in your composition, then you should have both expected and unexpected things occurring, but these must be carefully balanced. If there are too many expected things, then the piece will tend to become tiresome, but if there are too many unexpected things, then the listener will find it difficult to follow the piece and is apt to lose interest.

If you wish, you may also listen to the improved version of my piece, in which I fixed all of the tiny flaws I didn't have time to catch in my haste to meet the deadline for submissions:
http://xenharmony.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/Clouds-17HTT4.ogg

The most encouraging note in all of this is that Aaron has indicated that he welcomes suggestions on how the judging process might be improved. Considering that it has taken a lot of time and effort on his part to manage an undertaking such as this, I think we all owe him a hearty "THANK YOU SO MUCH!" for his sincere dedication to our cause.

--George

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:

> Gene, I appreciate your concern about the judging, but what's past is past, and I have no hard feelings about the outcome.

I don't know if people simply don't read what I actually say, or if they do read it and don't believe it. My concern was not with the judging, but with claims about it. It is simply not a fact that the ranking the contest came up with is a ranking by quality or value, and hence no such claim should be made, explicitly or implicitly. It *is* a fact that you lost the contest. It is equally a fact that both Carl and I, as it happens, ranked you number 1. That's not a criticism of the judging, it's a criticism of inflated claims, implicitly or explicitly made, about what such a judgment is and what result it produces. I hope and expect not to see such things in the future, but if I do, I reserve the right to comment.

If you like, you can read about my reason for entering and my thoughts in the aftermath:
> /makemicromusic/topicId_21327.html#21403

Interesting, but most microtonal music strikes me as more minimal than I like. I like music which gives my brain something to work with.

> If there are too many expected things, then the piece will tend to become tiresome, but if there are too many unexpected things, then the listener will find it difficult to follow the piece and is apt to lose interest.

The unexpected should be *interestingly* unexpected. That's key to my way of thinking.

> The most encouraging note in all of this is that Aaron has indicated that he welcomes suggestions on how the judging process might be improved.

That's all to the good, but I repeat my comments were not really directed at the judging process, though I did make a suggestion there.

> Considering that it has taken a lot of time and effort on his part to manage an undertaking such as this, I think we all owe him a hearty "THANK YOU SO MUCH!" for his sincere dedication to our cause.

I agree.

Was it me, that someone? Looks like (message from Jan 12th, 3:25 PM).
Thanks for supporting my idea. Not so recent observation, I
personally have been using it in my compositional work for almost 40
years. Yes, music deals with information, so we should apply
information theory as composers.

I would just add that applying this still not guarantees the work
will be successful...

Daniel Forro

On 27 Jan 2011, at 7:40 AM, gdsecor wrote:
>
> One thing I might add to the "old-school" part of that discussion
> is a fairly recent observation someone made on one of the tuning
> lists, which I will attempt to paraphrase: A successful
> composition is one that engages the listener. If you want to
> engage the listener in your composition, then you should have both
> expected and unexpected things occurring, but these must be
> carefully balanced. If there are too many expected things, then
> the piece will tend to become tiresome, but if there are too many
> unexpected things, then the listener will find it difficult to
> follow the piece and is apt to lose interest.
>

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

George,

I agree with your 2009 competition comment 110%:

"Let's face it: "serious" music has long had serious problems, and the solution
is not in writing music that's overly convoluted in order to establish one's
creditials as "serious" in order to be accepted by an academic
establishment....Let's not be ashamed to write in musical styles that are
understood in the
"real" world." -George in 2009

It also shocks the heck out of me Sevish did not place (actually in either
Gene's charts or the official).
If you look at his rating on traxinspace.com
(http://www.traxinspace.com/profile/sevish) and comments on his youtube videos
IE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyo-1r75HoU OR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnZzu4ua7vg OR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Krrg3_1L8.

Funny thing, I'd rate his work fairly low on melodic complexity, but very
well melody, rhythm, and (yes) accessibility...the thing that really makes them
click to me is they sound fun rather than serious...and like he is having fun as
well when making them.
In fact, along with Igs, he pretty much has my vote for first electronica
artist writing microtonal who could make a charting song (IE competitive with
pop songs).

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

Michael,

Sevish didn't compete, so he couldn't place.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> George,
>
> I agree with your 2009 competition comment 110%:
>
> "Let's face it: "serious" music has long had serious problems, and the solution
> is not in writing music that's overly convoluted in order to establish one's
> creditials as "serious" in order to be accepted by an academic
> establishment....Let's not be ashamed to write in musical styles that are
> understood in the
> "real" world." -George in 2009
>
> It also shocks the heck out of me Sevish did not place (actually in either
> Gene's charts or the official).
> If you look at his rating on traxinspace.com
> (http://www.traxinspace.com/profile/sevish) and comments on his youtube videos
> IE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyo-1r75HoU OR
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnZzu4ua7vg OR
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Krrg3_1L8.
>
> Funny thing, I'd rate his work fairly low on melodic complexity, but very
> well melody, rhythm, and (yes) accessibility...the thing that really makes them
> click to me is they sound fun rather than serious...and like he is having fun as
> well when making them.
> In fact, along with Igs, he pretty much has my vote for first electronica
> artist writing microtonal who could make a charting song (IE competitive with
> pop songs).
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Thanks, George.

We do accept suggestions for how the judging process might be improved, with the caveat that: the results of the process might be the same, and favor the same pieces. If people's "secret definition" of "improvement" means "they picked the wrong pieces, they should have picked mine and Tony B's..." then I think we're not talking about the same thing when we mean "process".

In the end, a certain set of judges will exhibit a certain global behavior of tastes, and that's perhaps the permanent flaw with a competition--it's art, not science. There are no objective criteria by which to measure a piece of music, other than some 'a priori' standards someone might come into the judgement with, and those are really quite socially dictated, and arbitrary.

One thing is perhaps (almost) universal---interesting music will have "sweet spot" information-richness: not to complex that it numbs or sounds noisy, not too predictible that it is dull or cliche. Mozart said "The best music has something for the connoisseur and the commoner". A nice balance of surprise and predictibility.

I/we appreciate the encouragement and acknowledgement of our efforts, George, thanks!

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know who all the participants were, and I hope no one here is offended.
> >
> > 10
> > 8 Craig
> > 4 Parizek
> > 3 Allen
> > 6
> > 9
> > 1 Pertout
> > 2
> > 7
> > 5 Rubenstein
>
> Hi Gene,
>
> I hope you had fun playing "judge". As I promised Mike S., I'm revealing who submitted the pieces in the 2009 UnTwelve competition judges' page (to which your numbers refer):
> http://www.untwelve.org/2009competition_audio/
>
> Official winners (tied for first place):
> Andri�n Pertout, Australia (track #1)
> Petr Pa��zek, Czech Republic (track#4)
>
> Other finalists (in top five):
> Donald Craig, USA (#8)
> Andrew Allen, USA (#3)
> Paul Rubinstein, USA (#5)
>
> The rest of the pack:
> Sean Archibald, aka Sevish, UK (#2)
> Nathan Prillaman, USA (#6)
> Torsten Anders, UK (#7)
> Warren Summers, Australia (#9)
> George Secor, USA (#10)
>
> Gene, I appreciate your concern about the judging, but what's past is past, and I have no hard feelings about the outcome. If you like, you can read about my reason for entering and my thoughts in the aftermath:
> /makemicromusic/topicId_21327.html#21403
>
> One thing I might add to the "old-school" part of that discussion is a fairly recent observation someone made on one of the tuning lists, which I will attempt to paraphrase: A successful composition is one that engages the listener. If you want to engage the listener in your composition, then you should have both expected and unexpected things occurring, but these must be carefully balanced. If there are too many expected things, then the piece will tend to become tiresome, but if there are too many unexpected things, then the listener will find it difficult to follow the piece and is apt to lose interest.
>
> If you wish, you may also listen to the improved version of my piece, in which I fixed all of the tiny flaws I didn't have time to catch in my haste to meet the deadline for submissions:
> http://xenharmony.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/Clouds-17HTT4.ogg
>
> The most encouraging note in all of this is that Aaron has indicated that he welcomes suggestions on how the judging process might be improved. Considering that it has taken a lot of time and effort on his part to manage an undertaking such as this, I think we all owe him a hearty "THANK YOU SO MUCH!" for his sincere dedication to our cause.
>
> --George
>

My bad, you were talking about last year; yes, he was part of the pack last year....

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> Sevish didn't compete, so he couldn't place.
>
> AKJ
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@> wrote:
> >
> > George,
> >
> > I agree with your 2009 competition comment 110%:
> >
> > "Let's face it: "serious" music has long had serious problems, and the solution
> > is not in writing music that's overly convoluted in order to establish one's
> > creditials as "serious" in order to be accepted by an academic
> > establishment....Let's not be ashamed to write in musical styles that are
> > understood in the
> > "real" world." -George in 2009
> >
> > It also shocks the heck out of me Sevish did not place (actually in either
> > Gene's charts or the official).
> > If you look at his rating on traxinspace.com
> > (http://www.traxinspace.com/profile/sevish) and comments on his youtube videos
> > IE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyo-1r75HoU OR
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnZzu4ua7vg OR
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Krrg3_1L8.
> >
> > Funny thing, I'd rate his work fairly low on melodic complexity, but very
> > well melody, rhythm, and (yes) accessibility...the thing that really makes them
> > click to me is they sound fun rather than serious...and like he is having fun as
> > well when making them.
> > In fact, along with Igs, he pretty much has my vote for first electronica
> > artist writing microtonal who could make a charting song (IE competitive with
> > pop songs).
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Hmm...it seems according to George Secor...Sevish did compete in 2009...which is
what I was talking about (I wasn't talking about 2010).

________________________________
From: akjmicro <aaron@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 27, 2011 9:29:08 AM
Subject: [MMM] Re: My ranking for 2009 UnTwelve

Michael,

Sevish didn't compete, so he couldn't place.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> George,
>
> I agree with your 2009 competition comment 110%:
>
> "Let's face it: "serious" music has long had serious problems, and the solution
>
> is not in writing music that's overly convoluted in order to establish one's
> creditials as "serious" in order to be accepted by an academic
> establishment....Let's not be ashamed to write in musical styles that are
> understood in the
> "real" world." -George in 2009
>
> It also shocks the heck out of me Sevish did not place (actually in either

> Gene's charts or the official).
> If you look at his rating on traxinspace.com
> (http://www.traxinspace.com/profile/sevish) and comments on his youtube videos

> IE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyo-1r75HoU OR
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnZzu4ua7vg OR
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Krrg3_1L8.
>
> Funny thing, I'd rate his work fairly low on melodic complexity, but very
> well melody, rhythm, and (yes) accessibility...the thing that really makes them
>
> click to me is they sound fun rather than serious...and like he is having fun
>as
>
> well when making them.
> In fact, along with Igs, he pretty much has my vote for first electronica
> artist writing microtonal who could make a charting song (IE competitive with
> pop songs).
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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

Indeed I was... :-)

________________________________
From: akjmicro <aaron@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 27, 2011 9:48:30 AM
Subject: [MMM] Re: My ranking for 2009 UnTwelve

My bad, you were talking about last year; yes, he was part of the pack last
year....

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> Sevish didn't compete, so he couldn't place.
>
> AKJ
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@> wrote:
> >
> > George,
> >
> > I agree with your 2009 competition comment 110%:
> >
> > "Let's face it: "serious" music has long had serious problems, and the
>solution
>
> > is not in writing music that's overly convoluted in order to establish one's

> > creditials as "serious" in order to be accepted by an academic
> > establishment....Let's not be ashamed to write in musical styles that are
> > understood in the
> > "real" world." -George in 2009
> >
> > It also shocks the heck out of me Sevish did not place (actually in
>either
>
> > Gene's charts or the official).
> > If you look at his rating on traxinspace.com
> > (http://www.traxinspace.com/profile/sevish) and comments on his youtube
>videos
>
> > IE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyo-1r75HoU OR
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnZzu4ua7vg OR
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Krrg3_1L8.
> >
> > Funny thing, I'd rate his work fairly low on melodic complexity, but very

> > well melody, rhythm, and (yes) accessibility...the thing that really makes
>them
>
> > click to me is they sound fun rather than serious...and like he is having fun
>as
>
> > well when making them.
> > In fact, along with Igs, he pretty much has my vote for first electronica

> > artist writing microtonal who could make a charting song (IE competitive with
>
> > pop songs).
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

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

George wrote
>I will attempt to paraphrase: A successful composition is one that
>engages the listener.

Here's one I like:

"The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude."

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@...> wrote:

>
> One thing is perhaps (almost) universal---interesting music will have
"sweet spot" information->richness: not to complex that it numbs or
sounds noisy, not too predictible that it is dull or cliche. >Mozart
said "The best music has something for the connoisseur and the
commoner". A nice balance >of surprise and predictibility.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@...> wrote:
> > One thing is perhaps (almost) universal---interesting music will
>have >"sweet spot" information-richness: not to complex that it numbs
>or >sounds noisy, not too predictible that it is dull or cliche.
>Mozart >said "The best music has something for the connoisseur and the
>commoner". A nice balance of surprise and predictibility.
In my experience, musicians are usually dreadful judges of what
listeners find to be be too much information or too little information.
And they never discover how off their estimates are because they stick
to formulae within the genre, whatever genre that may be. "Random"
improvised squeaks and squorks can be scanned in terms of shifting
colors, no problem. Free jazz and extreme electro-acoustic improv are
almost "popular" where I live, I think this is true all over the former
socialist world, and there seems to no limit to how minimal music can be
and still be greeted with enthusiasm.
I have found that even doontz-doontz disco kids appreciate this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28QNQulTsiY
as either something of quality and "musical" even if not to their
tastes, or downright like it ("sounds like cool old movie music"). As
some musicologist once pointed out (can't remember which book), fans of
"B" movies have been exposed to all kinds of complex, "dark" etc. music
for decades. (There's very interesting history about the roots of movie
and TV music and composers from the "Golden Age" until the last couple
of decades (that is, prior to the sample-assembly/DJing approach).)
Two examples: I convinced a young DJ to play his "private" music, his
own compositions, at my festival.
He was reluctant, sure that everyone would hate it as "experimental". It
was very minimal- a synth going me, re, do over simple beats for 20
minutes, literally, for example. It went over very well(and was quite
nice). But he didn't learn, and the next show he did (a larger show
which he got because the organizer heard him at my festival, as the
organizer informed me) he reverted to what he is convinced is
"crowd-pleasing". Sure everyone was drunk and danced, people will dance
to a clock ticking, but afterward the organizer and a couple of audience
members came to me and expressed their disappointment: his "private"
music was much better. Yip, better than the dance hits he was rolling,
because people don't want to always hear the "most popular".
I doubt he'll ever figure this out- he'd have to realize what an
illusion he's being sold by MTV and so on, and how clueless his
"musician" friends are, who give him advice.
The second example is basically the same, only with music the musicians
considered too complex and outre, which they'd never dared to perform in
public. In that case, I had to, without exaggeration, beg, plead,
threaten, one of the musicians to get on stage. The audience was tiny
but completely enthralled, including the "mainstream" people who usually
tsk-tsk anything "different", and now I'm starting to hear the "have you
heard...?!" of genuine popularity coming from people. Of course I've
heard, I fought to make the live debut happen.
-Cameron Bobro

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

Cameron,

You make some good points here, and I think it's good to point out that there are no easy formulas.

That said, I think "mi, re, do" for 20 minutes over simple beats would drive me bananas! :) ...but I'm willing to be proven otherwise and listen with an open mind, knowing that I've found certain extremely simple music enthralling in the past. Any links/samples of this guy's work I could hear?

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@> wrote:
>
> >
> > One thing is perhaps (almost) universal---interesting music will have
> "sweet spot" information->richness: not to complex that it numbs or
> sounds noisy, not too predictible that it is dull or cliche. >Mozart
> said "The best music has something for the connoisseur and the
> commoner". A nice balance >of surprise and predictibility.
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@> wrote:
> > > One thing is perhaps (almost) universal---interesting music will
> >have >"sweet spot" information-richness: not to complex that it numbs
> >or >sounds noisy, not too predictible that it is dull or cliche.
> >Mozart >said "The best music has something for the connoisseur and the
> >commoner". A nice balance of surprise and predictibility.
> In my experience, musicians are usually dreadful judges of what
> listeners find to be be too much information or too little information.
> And they never discover how off their estimates are because they stick
> to formulae within the genre, whatever genre that may be. "Random"
> improvised squeaks and squorks can be scanned in terms of shifting
> colors, no problem. Free jazz and extreme electro-acoustic improv are
> almost "popular" where I live, I think this is true all over the former
> socialist world, and there seems to no limit to how minimal music can be
> and still be greeted with enthusiasm.
> I have found that even doontz-doontz disco kids appreciate this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28QNQulTsiY
> as either something of quality and "musical" even if not to their
> tastes, or downright like it ("sounds like cool old movie music"). As
> some musicologist once pointed out (can't remember which book), fans of
> "B" movies have been exposed to all kinds of complex, "dark" etc. music
> for decades. (There's very interesting history about the roots of movie
> and TV music and composers from the "Golden Age" until the last couple
> of decades (that is, prior to the sample-assembly/DJing approach).)
> Two examples: I convinced a young DJ to play his "private" music, his
> own compositions, at my festival.
> He was reluctant, sure that everyone would hate it as "experimental". It
> was very minimal- a synth going me, re, do over simple beats for 20
> minutes, literally, for example. It went over very well(and was quite
> nice). But he didn't learn, and the next show he did (a larger show
> which he got because the organizer heard him at my festival, as the
> organizer informed me) he reverted to what he is convinced is
> "crowd-pleasing". Sure everyone was drunk and danced, people will dance
> to a clock ticking, but afterward the organizer and a couple of audience
> members came to me and expressed their disappointment: his "private"
> music was much better. Yip, better than the dance hits he was rolling,
> because people don't want to always hear the "most popular".
> I doubt he'll ever figure this out- he'd have to realize what an
> illusion he's being sold by MTV and so on, and how clueless his
> "musician" friends are, who give him advice.
> The second example is basically the same, only with music the musicians
> considered too complex and outre, which they'd never dared to perform in
> public. In that case, I had to, without exaggeration, beg, plead,
> threaten, one of the musicians to get on stage. The audience was tiny
> but completely enthralled, including the "mainstream" people who usually
> tsk-tsk anything "different", and now I'm starting to hear the "have you
> heard...?!" of genuine popularity coming from people. Of course I've
> heard, I fought to make the live debut happen.
> -Cameron Bobro
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> George,
>
> I agree with your 2009 competition comment 110%:
> ...
> It also shocks the heck out of me Sevish did not place (actually in either
> Gene's charts or the official).
> If you look at his rating on traxinspace.com
> (http://www.traxinspace.com/profile/sevish) and comments on his youtube videos
> IE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyo-1r75HoU OR
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnZzu4ua7vg OR
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Krrg3_1L8.
>
> Funny thing, I'd rate his work fairly low on melodic complexity, but very
> well melody, rhythm, and (yes) accessibility...the thing that really makes them
> click to me is they sound fun rather than serious...and like he is having fun as
> well when making them.
> In fact, along with Igs, he pretty much has my vote for first electronica
> artist writing microtonal who could make a charting song (IE competitive with
> pop songs).

I agree that Sevish's entry sounded very appealing. However, I wouldn't have ranked it among the finalists, because I failed to hear anything microtonal (or significantly different from 12-equal) in it. (This perplexes me no end, because I've listened to a bunch of others in an album of his that were clearly non-12.)

--George

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2011, at 7:40 AM, gdsecor wrote:
> >
> > One thing I might add to the "old-school" part of that discussion
> > is a fairly recent observation someone made on one of the tuning
> > lists, which I will attempt to paraphrase: A successful
> > composition is one that engages the listener. If you want to
> > engage the listener in your composition, then you should have both
> > expected and unexpected things occurring, but these must be
> > carefully balanced. If there are too many expected things, then
> > the piece will tend to become tiresome, but if there are too many
> > unexpected things, then the listener will find it difficult to
> > follow the piece and is apt to lose interest.
>
> Was it me, that someone? Looks like (message from Jan 12th, 3:25 PM).

Yes, very likely it was. However, I couldn't identify the message you're referring to without a number, because I didn't know whether this was January of this year or last year; also, the time didn't help, either, because I'm probably seeing the times displayed for a different time zone. I was referring to a message posted around a year ago, and I it struck a responsive chord with me, because I had followed that principle very deliberately when I wrote my UnTwelve piece.

> Thanks for supporting my idea. Not so recent observation, I
> personally have been using it in my compositional work for almost 40
> years. Yes, music deals with information, so we should apply
> information theory as composers.
>
> I would just add that applying this still not guarantees the work
> will be successful...

Yes, this is just one thing among many.

--George

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@...> wrote:
>
>
> Cameron,
>
> You make some good points here, and I think it's good to point out that there are no easy formulas.
>
> That said, I think "mi, re, do" for 20 minutes over simple beats >would drive me bananas! :) ...but I'm willing to be proven otherwise >and listen with an open mind, knowing that I've found certain >extremely simple music enthralling in the past. Any links/samples of >this guy's work I could hear?

Heh- I couldn't find anything online, but I don't speak "DJ" and can't unravel the pseudonyms, remixes, and stuff like "electronica" artists apparently naming themselves after... old compilations? Or something, beats me. I'll ask next time I see the guy.

Thinking about this brings up another point- time, place, conditions. Probably most ambient/chill music would make me grind my teeth to little stumps if I had to listen to it at home, but if you're having a drink with your friends on the town, it can be a nice wallpaper. (I usually prefer silence, but anyway).

And a great deal of music is part of rituals and substance (ab)use. As Sasha Cohen pointed out, one of the dangers of ecstasy is that if you take too much you start liking house music.

>
> AKJ
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > One thing is perhaps (almost) universal---interesting music will have
> > "sweet spot" information->richness: not to complex that it numbs or
> > sounds noisy, not too predictible that it is dull or cliche. >Mozart
> > said "The best music has something for the connoisseur and the
> > commoner". A nice balance >of surprise and predictibility.
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@> wrote:
> > > > One thing is perhaps (almost) universal---interesting music will
> > >have >"sweet spot" information-richness: not to complex that it numbs
> > >or >sounds noisy, not too predictible that it is dull or cliche.
> > >Mozart >said "The best music has something for the connoisseur and the
> > >commoner". A nice balance of surprise and predictibility.
> > In my experience, musicians are usually dreadful judges of what
> > listeners find to be be too much information or too little information.
> > And they never discover how off their estimates are because they stick
> > to formulae within the genre, whatever genre that may be. "Random"
> > improvised squeaks and squorks can be scanned in terms of shifting
> > colors, no problem. Free jazz and extreme electro-acoustic improv are
> > almost "popular" where I live, I think this is true all over the former
> > socialist world, and there seems to no limit to how minimal music can be
> > and still be greeted with enthusiasm.
> > I have found that even doontz-doontz disco kids appreciate this:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28QNQulTsiY
> > as either something of quality and "musical" even if not to their
> > tastes, or downright like it ("sounds like cool old movie music"). As
> > some musicologist once pointed out (can't remember which book), fans of
> > "B" movies have been exposed to all kinds of complex, "dark" etc. music
> > for decades. (There's very interesting history about the roots of movie
> > and TV music and composers from the "Golden Age" until the last couple
> > of decades (that is, prior to the sample-assembly/DJing approach).)
> > Two examples: I convinced a young DJ to play his "private" music, his
> > own compositions, at my festival.
> > He was reluctant, sure that everyone would hate it as "experimental". It
> > was very minimal- a synth going me, re, do over simple beats for 20
> > minutes, literally, for example. It went over very well(and was quite
> > nice). But he didn't learn, and the next show he did (a larger show
> > which he got because the organizer heard him at my festival, as the
> > organizer informed me) he reverted to what he is convinced is
> > "crowd-pleasing". Sure everyone was drunk and danced, people will dance
> > to a clock ticking, but afterward the organizer and a couple of audience
> > members came to me and expressed their disappointment: his "private"
> > music was much better. Yip, better than the dance hits he was rolling,
> > because people don't want to always hear the "most popular".
> > I doubt he'll ever figure this out- he'd have to realize what an
> > illusion he's being sold by MTV and so on, and how clueless his
> > "musician" friends are, who give him advice.
> > The second example is basically the same, only with music the musicians
> > considered too complex and outre, which they'd never dared to perform in
> > public. In that case, I had to, without exaggeration, beg, plead,
> > threaten, one of the musicians to get on stage. The audience was tiny
> > but completely enthralled, including the "mainstream" people who usually
> > tsk-tsk anything "different", and now I'm starting to hear the "have you
> > heard...?!" of genuine popularity coming from people. Of course I've
> > heard, I fought to make the live debut happen.
> > -Cameron Bobro
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>