OT: Interesting article from Journal of Music: Why Systems?

http://journalofmusic.com/article/1193

A good read....I'd love to see what kinds of discussions this provokes.
Already, some good ones were happening on Facebook among my FB friends. :)

Best,
AKJ

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

Interesting article -

I agree, a composer's "voice" is set of choices made within whatever system
the composer is working in. What is formulaic is to always make the same
choices and essentially produce variations of the same music - what is
difficult is to make different choices, and / or use new or additional
systems and still be recognized as the same composer. I don't see the issue
with doing something new with each piece. Why not? Life is short and there
are *a lot* of things musical to try. (I guess it is fairly obvious that
would be my position).

I'm one of those people who want to learn theory. I know of people who are
proud to say "I've never had a lesson, or I never read any music theory". To
me that is just a matter of limiting yourself as to what all the (known)
possible choices that are out there. And in a sense the anti-theorists *are*
learning theory at least on an intuitive level with every song or piece they
hear.

This statement "When it comes to the recent past in music � modernism �
practical knowledge is not being passed on in any rigorous way." I have to
disagree with. Because there IS literature and recordings. There is more
music to listen to then ever before. An over-whelming amount in fact.

A question my theory teacher brought up was that in the age of recording was
a score - that is the ability to reproduce the performance - necessary
anymore. Obviously performances that rely on randomization short circuit
this idea - on the other hand he made the argument that composers can write
for super-virtuosic performers and have the ultimate realization captured -
or with electronic music - the accepted final realization mastered directly.

Chris

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@...>wrote:

>
>
> http://journalofmusic.com/article/1193
>
> A good read....I'd love to see what kinds of discussions this provokes.
> Already, some good ones were happening on Facebook among my FB friends. :)
>
> Best,
> AKJ
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

I think this article does raise a lot interesting questions. For one, supposing one wishes to avoid producing music that sounds like a certain style--how many of the "rules" that govern that style must one learn, in order to avoid accidentally reproducing them?

Also, the article seems to place a negative value judgment on people who wish to discover the musical "rules" of a system on their own, rather than paying money and spending much time in studying to have them formally taught to them. I have a friend who is a rather virtuosic pianist, but he does not read music and he has never really studied music theory. He has, however, listened to plenty of classical music, and by imitating what he hears by ear he's re-invented a lot wheels and made some amazing music. Is what he does "wrong" or "bad"? Is he a fool for not taking 15 years of piano lessons and then getting a bachelor's degree in music?

For my part, I have never taken a formal music theory class. I'm not proud of this and my failure to pursue such education does not come from a disdain for theory. Rather, it comes from my belief that in my short life, there are more valuable things for me to spend time and money on learning in a formal academic setting. Had I an infinite amount of time and money, I would love to go back and get a BA in composition. But I would never want music to be more than my hobby, so it makes no sense to me to invest the requisite resources to learn all the theory that would benefit me as a composer. So I have to make do with figuring it out myself in my spare time. Again, is this not a respectable way to go about learning and playing music? The article seems to suggest so.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> http://journalofmusic.com/article/1193
>
> A good read....I'd love to see what kinds of discussions this provokes.
> Already, some good ones were happening on Facebook among my FB friends. :)
>
> Best,
> AKJ
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

the author appears to be a moron:

"When it comes to the recent past in music – modernism – practical
knowledge is not being passed on in any rigorous way. The same can
also be said for the ancient tonal practical techniques."

I guess he did not attend any conservatory or university with a large
music department. If he had, he would know that they provide exacting
training in theory, analysis, ear-training, music history and
composition (if desired). At Juilliard one could have studied with
ultra-modernist Babbitt, if one so desired.Those who attend a school
like Berkeley College of Music get just as exacting an education in
jazz theory.

but he continues babbling:

"the big guns of modernism were terrible show-offs who left behind
enormous turgid tomes that claim to elucidate their techniques while
ignoring at least half of what they did and obfuscating the rest in a
cloak of pretension"

really!? wow, I can't wait to read the enormous tomes by Debussy,
Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Webern, Boulez, Carter and Ligeti on
how they composed. Can anyone give me a citation so I can find the
books as soon as possible?

it gets worse:

" From there it was a short move (perhaps via Xenakis) to the dream
and eventual realisation of algorithmic composition, where a computer
can create actual music from a programmed set of rules. "

He must be thinking of Lejaren Hiller, not Xenakis, who never did any
such thing. Xenakis used algorithms to generate raw pitch materials
but never to "create actual music". Early Boulez is also a lot closer
to this than Xenakis ever was.

So what is this article's point? Hard to tell. He seems to be saying
that its better to be educated in the art one is attempting to work
in. duh. Maybe he's pointing out that there are poseurs who are too
lazy to learn their craft? also, duh.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> http://journalofmusic.com/article/1193
>
> A good read....I'd love to see what kinds of discussions this provokes.
> Already, some good ones were happening on Facebook among my FB friends. :)
>
> Best,
> AKJ
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>