Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic What is a composer?

MMM'rs:

In a recent note, Joe P. included the following:

>***In all fairness to Mike, I believe he's more a studio technician than a >composer per se at this point.

In the era we live in, with the tools we have and the new ways of working, I think it would be interesting to mull over: what is a composer? (abbreviated "C")

Is someone who assembles entire pieces from audio loops a C?

Is someone who works strictly in a sequencer, not notating pieces, but then rendering them and optionally creating notation for a live version, a C?

Are people working in the oral tradition Cs as well?

Are people processing audio live and remixing it to new forms Cs?

Is an improvisor a "C-of-the-moment"?

(the above are fairly rhetorical, and don't need answers; they are off the top of my head for discussion purposes...)

Etc, etc. My point is that while we still have (even among us!) people who fit the classic picture of a Composer - you know: keyboard, pencil and score paper, maybe a Meerschaum pipe... - I have a feeling that we are rapidly approaching the point where we don't need 'formal' Cs running around, and that we can focus on the result of the effort, no matter how the music came about.

>Oh... and for those of you who salivate at the thought of theoretical >analysis (you know who you are, and most of you are on the other list... >:) the blackjack and cello piece will have *most* of the harmonies written >out, and I'll post them as a .pdf.

Excellent idea, Joe! I'd say that even if you could find a phrase you really like (maybe that illustrates some use of blackjack that really evokes elements not possible in other ways/intonations) and put a short .pdf and .mp3 so we could study it. If you like the idea, feel free to forward them to me and I'll make a page up for them at microtonal.org

>Personally, I would prefer that people just *listen* to the piece and >*enjoy* it, however "pedestrian" that might seem... :)

Blasphemer! Heretic! Doofus! (smileys superfluous at this point...)

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_2916.html#2916

>***Thanks so much for your commentary here, Jon. Of course we don't
aalways agree on everything (wouldn't it be a dull world if everybody
did!!!) but we've learned to communicate, which I believe is the most
important part!

I think your commentary is sagacious given the current state of
composition (or *C*omposition :) although I have to admit right up
front that I probably know less about some of the newest trends than
I would like to!

Although I don't really want to get in the middle of this, though,
given Jacky Ligon's reaction to Mike's post, it would lead me to
believe that quite possibly Jacky really is a composer with a
capital "C!"

Blasphemy? Jacky, are you ready for this horrible admission???

Joseph

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>I think your commentary is sagacious given the current state of >composition (or *C*omposition :) although I have to admit right up front >that I probably know less about some of the newest trends than I would like to!

First off, I am more than aware of the *name* of your collective (...concordance) so I respect (and certainly don't want to denigrate) those who are proud to be a C! And it isn't that I think (as I hope I made at least a little clear) that there is less need for the single-focus dedication of the traditional C. But if, as you said at the end of your one message that we must look to the end result - the Music - for the ultimate validation, then I think we can hear what we can call a Composition, and its creator - in whatever mode, fashion, or implementation they used - has served the ultimate purpose a C can strive for: fashioning sound into a communication that reaches people, in a way that no other form can, and with information and experience that can't be conveyed otherwise.

An aside (gad, I hope I haven't written this before): after this recent concert, where Steve and I performed an improvisation for about 4-5 minutes, I was spoken to by the C who had just had a World Premier (WP). He asked how we developed our 'materials' for the C we had played, and almost refused to believe that we had made it up on the fly. "But it was so structured!" he implored. I then had to disappoint him with the fact that prior to mounting the stage (love that expression), time constraints had conspired against us to the point that we had only played on the Found Sound constructed instruments for a total of about 60 seconds.

Of course, I owe most of the credit to the incredible musicianship embodied in Steve Schick, but there you have it: a real life C, fully believing our 'music of the moment' was a through-composed piece.

Life is interesting.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗graham@...

In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020513153148.02cd4d80@...>
Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

> In the era we live in, with the tools we have and the new ways of
> working, I think it would be interesting to mull over: what is a
> composer? (abbreviated "C")
>
> Is someone who assembles entire pieces from audio loops a C?

Yes.

> Is someone who works strictly in a sequencer, not notating pieces, but
> then rendering them and optionally creating notation for a live
> version, a C?

Yes.

> Are people working in the oral tradition Cs as well?

Depends.

> Are people processing audio live and remixing it to new forms Cs?

These people are improvisers.

> Is an improvisor a "C-of-the-moment"?

You could define it that way, but what's wrong with the word "improviser"?

> (the above are fairly rhetorical, and don't need answers; they are off
> the top of my head for discussion purposes...)

Okay, at least I can tick the bit of the nerdity test about answering
rhetorical questions.

> Etc, etc. My point is that while we still have (even among us!) people
> who fit the classic picture of a Composer - you know: keyboard, pencil
> and score paper, maybe a Meerschaum pipe... - I have a feeling that we
> are rapidly approaching the point where we don't need 'formal' Cs
> running around, and that we can focus on the result of the effort, no
> matter how the music came about.

We don't need such people to make good music and never have done. Making
obvious substitutions like sequencer for keyboard, score editor for
pencil and paper, electrodynamic stimulator for Meerschaum pipe, some kind
of composition will always be required if you want to make good, complex
music as a live performance.

Composition for recording is a different matter, and probably one we can
leave to one side. Recordings have changed the way most of us experience
music far more than digital technology is likely to. And that does
devalue the role of a formal composer -- you don't have to write your
music down for it to last.

As live performances still happen, people obviously want something beyond
a recording. As instruments are often amplified, that "added value" must
be the experience of humans creating the music in front of you. As such,
the technology's a side issue. The problem brought up by that recently
quoted article is that it isn't obvious how computer-based musicians are
contributing to the live experience. So either the audience will learn to
understand what's happening, or the interfaces will improve and become
easier to understand. If you want to experience musicians interacting in
a complex way, the nature of composition or improvisation doesn't really
change.

What the musicians are doing might change drastically, and the composers
will have to adjust to that. You may find (and already do) that composers
spend time preparing audio samples instead of giving instructions to
performers. But for the result to differ from a (cheaper) recording,
there has to be some kind of improvisation or composition. Improvisation
is still improvisation and composition is still composition.

Graham

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Graham,

Thanks for your thoughts on this - always good to have more to chew on...

{you wrote...}
> > Are people processing audio live and remixing it to new forms Cs?
>
>These people are improvisers.

Unless we allow for past similar usages, with especially the works of John Cage and David Tudor coming to mind. One of the greatest 'musical' environments I've ever experienced was Tudor's "Rainforest" at the Berlin New Music Festival in 1980. A large room filled with an array of big, metal 'sculptures', many incorporating junk and found metal objects. They all had transducers attached, and were being fed sounds from a collective of performers operating tape decks with the composer and others mixing live (the sounds coming from the sculptures *rarely* resembled the source material, as the transducers were causing the objects to act as vibrating 'speaker cones', as it were).

The sound was **incredible**, and as you walked among the creations (including one rotating overhead) it was hard not to believe you weren't in some other-worldly rainforest environment, filled with many species of sounds. This was all captured on an LP that I found later that year, recorded binaurally, so a headphone experience is eerily like being there.

Improvised? To a degree. Composed? To a pretty fair degree.

Yet another (thankfully) grey area...

>You could define it that way, but what's wrong with the word "improviser"?

Oh, nothing at all. I find it easily as estimable as "composer".

>We don't need such people to make good music and never have done.

No, but one thing I'm thinking is that maybe they should be getting some philosophical credit even if they aren't, categorically, "composers". Dunno, just musing...

>some kind of composition will always be required if you want to make good, >complex
>music as a live performance.

I don't know that I can whole-heartedly endorse that statement. I've heard good, complex music done live that wasn't pre-composed.

>Composition for recording is a different matter, and probably one we can >leave to one side.

???

>Recordings have changed the way most of us experience music far more than >digital technology is likely to. And that does devalue the role of a >formal composer -- you don't have to write your music down for it to last.

Exactly.

>As live performances still happen, people obviously want something beyond >a recording.

Oh, I know so for a fact.

>The problem brought up by that recently quoted article is that it isn't >obvious how computer-based musicians are contributing to the live experience.

So true! I certainly don't want to beat an expired equine, but the corporeal nature of live music - the visual, visceral aspects - are not only what sets it apart from recordings, but also from those performances that are simply not visceral: a person manipulating music from a laptop computer, or about 95% of a symphony orchestra concert. While the wall of sound that an orch can pump out is hard to duplicate (and bear in mind I sit in the middle of that sound on a weekly basis), it is *painfully* clear to me, from *attending* orch concerts that it is deadly dull to watch those players play soaring, involved music, all while looking like they are strapped into their seats with pencils rammed up their rears.

No wonder I enjoy being in the back banging on drums. But I'm rambling...

>What the musicians are doing might change drastically, and the composers >will have to adjust to that.

And in many ways, they are (thankfully).

>Improvisation is still improvisation and composition is still composition.

To a certain extent I agree. And disagree.

Just as it should be, I suppose!

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_2916.html#2936

A lot of this, it seems, depends on whom one is talking to. (Reminds
me of the great Pirandello play: "Right You Are If You Think You
Are..."

I believe many jazz composers like Ornette Coleman would call their
works "compositions" and their improvisation "composition" even if it
isn't written down. I'm sure of it.

On the other hand, there *are* people, like the co-director of our
composers group by the way, who tend to make distinctions
between "written down" music and "non written down" music.

Quite frankly, it's hard sometimes to tell the difference. This was
clearly illustrated to me when I attended a recent Bang on a Can
rehearsal with the "All Stars," a great group, as many of you know.

*Much* of the music presented was improvised -- a kind of
advanced "improvised jazz" in *my* book. I never would have known
that from the audience and, in fact, I though other similar sounding
pieces presented by Bang on a Can were actually written out.

They aren't.

But nobody would know the difference, and they probably wouldn't
sound as *good* if they were written out. So that would be a big
waste of time... :)

J. Pehrson

🔗x31eq <graham@...>

Me:
> >some kind of composition will always be required if you want to
make good,
> >complex
> >music as a live performance.

Jon:
> I don't know that I can whole-heartedly endorse that statement. I've
heard
> good, complex music done live that wasn't pre-composed.

I'll stick my neck out and say that you can't produce something like a
classical symphony by free improvisation. The performers can't know
what each other are going to do next. When you get 10 or more people
on stage, they have to follow stereotyped patterns, or some kind of
arrangement, or you end up with a mess.

> >Composition for recording is a different matter, and probably one
we can
> >leave to one side.
>
> ???

Okay, I'll define "composition" and "improvisation". The work you do
before a performance is composition, and what you do in performance
that wasn't planned is improvisation. This distinction doesn't make
sense for a recording as a thing in itself.

> So true! I certainly don't want to beat an expired equine, but the
> corporeal nature of live music - the visual, visceral aspects - are
not
> only what sets it apart from recordings, but also from those
performances
> that are simply not visceral: a person manipulating music from a
laptop
> computer, or about 95% of a symphony orchestra concert. While the
wall of
> sound that an orch can pump out is hard to duplicate (and bear in
mind I
> sit in the middle of that sound on a weekly basis), it is
*painfully* clear
> to me, from *attending* orch concerts that it is deadly dull to
watch those
> players play soaring, involved music, all while looking like they
are
> strapped into their seats with pencils rammed up their rears.

I had to look up "visceral" to see exactly what it means. Apparently,
it's something to do with instinct, so that's okay. The visual is a
red herring. You can record pictures as well as sound. Films of live
performances are much less popular than live performances themselves.
There's a big emphasis over here on live relays (even "live
recordings") on the radio.

The thing that most impressed me at my first orchestral concert was
how much better the music sounded than it looked. It was a wondrous
thing that such a beautiful sound could be produced by such an
unlikely group of people. It shows they really were working on that
extra 5%.

The best band I've seen were the Boredoms in 1995. They were a
strange mixture from the corporeal viewpoint. On the one hand they
did have two drummers pounding away at the back. But a lot of the
sound, especially at times the vocals, was so heavily processed I
didn't know where it was coming from.

You may think a laptop can't be used instinctively as a musical
instrument. But if somebody told you 30 years ago that people would
become millionares by playing records in public, would you have
believed them? The visual aspect is easily fixed -- use a projector
or a plasma screen. For it to work as a performance, the audience
need to have some idea what the performer's doing. Because they don't
now doesn't mean they won't ever.

I don't know what "corporeal" should mean in this context. It's tied
up with one particular theorist who was a doctrinaire modernist in
many ways. Truth to materials and all that. Computers are profoundly
post-modern devices. A computer has no natural connection with the
human body, so any interface you give it is a facade. You can get
them to respond to human instinct on a highly intellectual level.

You could use an interface that can be bashed and stroked like a
physical instrument. But it's an illusion of corporeality. Bashing
doesn't make a sound (or not one the audience hears) it only gives the
computer instructions for making sound. As far as making music is
concerned, this isn't a problem, so long as you don't cling to your
modernist ideals.

Or something like that.

Graham

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "x31eq" <graham@m...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_2916.html#2941

> The thing that most impressed me at my first orchestral concert was
> how much better the music sounded than it looked. It was a wondrous
> thing that such a beautiful sound could be produced by such an
> unlikely group of people. It shows they really were working on that
> extra 5%.
>

***Hi Graham!

If you ever get a chance to have pieces played by an orchestra you
will notice right away that *anything* sounds great played by an
orchestra. I mean it. Even a *unison* sounds great played by an
orchestra. And a *triad*?? Glorious.

One favorite Hollywood trick is a simple unison line played by
strings. I had that in one of my pieces, and was *astonished* how
good it came out. Each string instrument plays with a slightly
different intonation and the composite is a *much* greater sound than
a simple unison line...

Joseph

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Hello Jacky!
The idea that things are discovered as opposed to taught could not be
truer. It requires alot of work and alot of digging inside and out of
oneself.
It is no wonder how little comes out of the universities considering
that the material they cover is more often has been plowed to death. It is
like going to find gold in extinct and abandoned mines. The tours though
have become quite a good business.

When you find it, don't come to town either till you have it all pretty
well mined.
The thieves are everywhere to lay their claim to anything you might drop.

jacky_ligon wrote:

> The interesting thing for me is that many times what it takes to
> create something innovative and original cannot be taught, only
> discovered. John Coltrane comes to mind here. Even though he was
> academically trained, to be sure, the musical innovations and gifts
> he gave to the world were not taught to him in the university, but
> were discovered by him tapping into something deeper than the notes
> on the page.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Graham,

{you wrote...}
>I'll stick my neck out and say that you can't produce something like a >classical symphony by free improvisation.

Well, that only took about 3mm of neck space! :) Yes, that would be a very true example, and one of the most extreme (in the direction of the 'traditional' notion of composition/composer).

>The performers can't know what each other are going to do next. When you >get 10 or more people on stage, they have to follow stereotyped patterns, >or some kind of
>arrangement, or you end up with a mess.

In a sense, yes. But there are other forms of collaborative composition that lie somewhere between total, chaotic improvisation and strict adherence to a written score. For example, traditional New Orleans-style jazz, which may be on a tune done millions of times, but being freely elaborated on by all members of the band (which can easily be 10 or more in a second-line funeral march) simultaneously. Definitely more towards improvisation, but just as a yin-yang to the classical symphony item.

>Okay, I'll define "composition" and "improvisation". The work you do >before a performance is composition, and what you do in performance that >wasn't planned is improvisation.

Fair enough. What about a composition that relies on improvisation for its main body of construction? (no need to answer, just tossing things around...)

>I had to look up "visceral" to see exactly what it means. Apparently, >it's something to do with instinct, so that's okay. The visual is a red >herring.

I disagree. I believe that in many forms of live music, the visual element *as well as* the aural element is important. Note that I don't believe this in a 'knee-jerk' response to my having worked with Partch, although that certainly nailed it. I happen to have been excited by performers that were physically involved long before that (I mean, I got into playing drums from watching the very first Beatles performance on the Ed Sullivan show as a wee laddy!).

>You can record pictures as well as sound. Films of live performances are >much less popular than live performances themselves.

Yes, and that is because the visceral, flesh-and-blood energy of a live performance is hard to transmit (I'm getting pretty OT here, so I'll try to curve back...)

>The thing that most impressed me at my first orchestral concert was how >much better the music sounded than it looked.

No kidding: we look like a bunch of stiffs.

>It was a wondrous thing that such a beautiful sound could be produced by >such an
>unlikely group of people.

I still feel that way, sitting on stage. It is a pretty weird disconnect at times.

>You may think a laptop can't be used instinctively as a musical instrument.

I didn't mean to give *that* impression, because I firmly believe that they already can, and will only improve in the future. *However*, while they may be *musically* valid, I think that - now and forever - as a *performance* vehicle, any 'instrument' that is manipulated in a non-physically-involving manner will always leave an audience cold, certainly if they have alternatives.

>I don't know what "corporeal" should mean in this context. It's tied up >with one particular theorist who was a doctrinaire modernist in many ways.

Well, I hope we can go more to the root of the word - 'of the body' - in this instance, because I'm talking about the physicality of a medium that goes far beyond an American hobo. And I believe that humans, given a choice, will always prefer a more-involved (physically) than a less-involved experience.

That said, there are many 'composers' that aren't especially interested in this, and that makes sense as well. Again, I'm wandering...

>As far as making music is concerned, this isn't a problem, so long as you >don't cling to your modernist ideals.

I prefer to think of them as primitivist ideals. :)

>Or something like that.

Exactly.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Catharsis <catharsis@...>

Since I rarely discuss audio issues in person with anyone working towards similar goals (aesthetic or technical) I find that it is hard to openly discuss ideas on any one particular email list.

Joe Pehrson:
>I believe he's more a studio technician than a composer per se at this point. So, the frustration isn't there yet about getting a certain preconceived result.

Yes, but the line blurs considerably when the studio is not just used as a medium for reproduction.
I believe electronic music composers need to be expert technicians; technician first otherwise someone else is mediating the final work. Technical excellence via intuitive or formal experimentation leads to an enlarged oeuvre for composing in studio or production for live performance. All of this falls in a grey area... I think I am attracted to grey areas...

I define a composer as someone who has the ability to realize music via premeditation. To know and hear the result prior to realization.

I look forward to working on your latest Joe.

Jonathan M. Szanto:
>My point is that while we still have (even among us!) people who
fit the classic picture of a Composer - you know: keyboard, pencil and
score paper, maybe a Meerschaum pipe...

I am glad that this lists spans several generations and we have been able to converse informally without too much heartache!

>On the other hand, there *are* people, like the co-director of our
composers group by the way, who tend to make distinctions
between "written down" music and "non written down" music.

I am actively investigating JMSL (http://www.algomusic.com/jmsl/ ; previous HMSL) and MusicXML I am highly interested in the meta-data approach as I have several ideas that extend from my internet programming experience. This area should provide much interest in regard to a new "written down form" for music.

Jacky:
>Ok - you talked me into it.

;) There is so much to learn from composers and engineers who have worked with various technologies over time.

I just wanted to voice my viewpoint that computer and studio technology is extending my efforts and that I wouldn't give it up. I'm lucky that I started in the last couple of years.

------------------

By the way.. I am selling my hardware sampler as I finally found a software sampler that has me convinced.. Check out Kontakt from Native Instruments. ;) I'll be upgrading to the LynxTwo and hopefully will have enough left over for the SPL Stereo Vitalizer MK2-T

Best,
--Mike

Egregious
"Spiritual renewal through music for those outside the heard."
http://www.egregious.net/

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Mike,

{you wrote...}
>Yes, but the line blurs considerably when the studio is not just used as a >medium for reproduction.

Exactly.

>All of this falls in a grey area... I think I am attracted to grey areas...

I knew there was a reason I liked you and your music... :)

>I define a composer as someone who has the ability to realize music via >premeditation. To know and hear the result prior to realization.

Mike, that's quite good. It gets away from some of the older stereotypes and updates the 'job description'.

>I am glad that this lists spans several generations and we have been able >to converse informally without too much heartache!

It *is* a plus, and I hope we can always broach these dialogues in a mutually respectful way. If ever *any* of you find *me* being a butthead about something, call me out on it!

>I am actively investigating JMSL

Are you aware that Nick (Didkovsky) has a Yahoo group for JMSL?

/jmsl/

Not lots of traffic, but the users there have been real active in developing and debugging the environment right along with Nick. And it was Nick's *music* that got me interested in jmsl, not the other way around!

Cheers,
Jon