comments by George Crumb

There was a discussion not too long ago on the main list (for
whatever reason) about serialism and there was some dispute as to
whether there were "followers" of that system. I thought George
Crumb's recent comments on the American Music Center's _NewMusicBox_
were quite pertinent in that respect (and well put):

http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=40fp07

GEORGE CRUMB: Well, I suppose that you could tell students a lot of
things. One of the safest things to tell them is to really, what the
bottom line is, is discovering their own persona. Who are they?
There's nothing new about that. That's what the old Greeks talked
about too, you know. Who am I? All about discovering yourself. And
that's not so much in your control. You can just get at it obliquely,
you know, and hope that it develops. But there are so many things
that choke music. You mentioned the period of the '50s or the '60s
that carried over where there was a sense that there was an
international style that was kind of, you could describe it as either
post-Schoenberg, or post-Webern. It choked the life out of a lot of
composers because everybody was trying to do a style that was, first
of all, done better already by those people. You know, you can't re-
write that music and make it better. It had a lot to do with
canceling out personality. I think it did incalculable damage. I was
so happy when the idea became more prevalent that this is just a man-
made definition of musical style. There could be a thousand
styles...There may have been a very few composers, my colleague
George Rochberg, I think, was the absolute master of the post-
Schoenberg style. He did better than anybody else, in his early music
when he was involved in that, it didn't dampen his energies as a
composer and his personality came through very strongly in those
early works.

--- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> There was a discussion not too long ago on the main list (for
> whatever reason) about serialism

i'd like to see a big wave where composers "fractalize", rather
than "serialize", all the parameters of their compositions. i have
some very good reasons to suspect that the results would be a lot
more palatable, not only to listeners but to the composers
themselves, who would therefore be more likely and able to discover
themselves in the patterns that result, and thus end up much farther
along the path of self-expression than the serialism-trained
composers had . . .

Hello Paul!
I will tend to go with some implications off of George comments which
has pretty much always been my expressed viewpoint. It is much more
important to potentate what one already has going on. each to its own path.
Education is better along the lines of helping the student solve their own
problems, not solutions toward "international Styles". Just as the
helicopter was much more plausible in Leonardo's time, he rejected it as
being not the way he wanted people to fly ewhiuch was as important as being
able to at all. That systems can produce good results is fascinating, yet as
a process i find it more fascinating to explore the human realms and go
deeper into to it, as opposed to outside of it. Even when it comes to
mistakes, human glitches are far more interesting than machine glitches . Of
course maybe you are more wired for fractals than i, hence go for it.

paulerlich wrote:

> --- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > There was a discussion not too long ago on the main list (for
> > whatever reason) about serialism
>
> i'd like to see a big wave where composers "fractalize", rather
> than "serialize", all the parameters of their compositions. i have
> some very good reasons to suspect that the results would be a lot
> more palatable, not only to listeners but to the composers
> themselves, who would therefore be more likely and able to discover
> themselves in the patterns that result, and thus end up much farther
> along the path of self-expression than the serialism-trained
> composers had . . .

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

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

--- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Hello Paul!
> I will tend to go with some implications off of George comments
which
> has pretty much always been my expressed viewpoint. It is much more
> important to potentate what one already has going on. each to its
own path.
> Education is better along the lines of helping the student solve
their own
> problems, not solutions toward "international Styles". Just as the
> helicopter was much more plausible in Leonardo's time, he rejected
it as
> being not the way he wanted people to fly ewhiuch was as important
as being
> able to at all. That systems can produce good results is
fascinating, yet as
> a process i find it more fascinating to explore the human realms
and go
> deeper into to it, as opposed to outside of it. Even when it comes
to
> mistakes, human glitches are far more interesting than machine
glitches . Of
> course maybe you are more wired for fractals than i, hence go for
it.

hey kraig,

personally, i don't make my music using any mechanical "systems"
whatsoever (aside from tuning systems, and even that may change if i
get really creative with my fretless bass :) )

in fact, if i'm not mistaken, your compositions are far
more "systemic" than my own, though we both feature
improvisation . . .

i just meant that if there is a big wave for using a "system" such as
there was in the 20th century with serialism, i think that fractal
systems would likely lead to much more artistic success (in terms of
the types of criticisms crumb made).

now here's a random page mentioning both fractal composition and
microtonality:

http://timara.con.oberlin.edu/~gnelson/papers/fractal/GNfract.htm

-paul

hello Paul!
I am sure you might have this impression considering the "exploratory '
works i have put up. My only system now to is to play around until i like
the sound of something and then write it down, or preserve what i play
without thinking. This last method is a result of just having the
instruments around and while passing them i will just start to play
something, a pattern or short motive. I write these down like a little
diary. Composition is possibly edited improv with occasional enhancements

paulerlich wrote:

> in fact, if i'm not mistaken, your compositions are far
> more "systemic" than my own, though we both feature
> improvisation . . .

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

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

--- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> Composition is possibly edited improv with occasional enhancements

wow -- my compositional process exactly (though in my current "jazz"
group, i tend to leave room for some real improv -- lots of it in
fact).

Paul!
Interesting!
Often i will end up with will hierarchical levels of composition or
improvisation depending on how you look at it. This is divided up into
parts with some parts totally determined going to others with little
indication except to "play along" providing the pitch spectrum of what
others at most. Other Parts might lie in between with pitch/range given or
determined at points. The results of going toward one camp or the other
determined/undetermined) is just not for me, at least for now.

paulerlich wrote:

> --- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> > Composition is possibly edited improv with occasional enhancements
>
> wow -- my compositional process exactly (though in my current "jazz"
> group, i tend to leave room for some real improv -- lots of it in
> fact).

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

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

I once had the opportunity to ask George Crumb if he had ever considered
composing an intentional microtonal piece. I pointed out how "Ancient Voices
of Children" was certainly flirting with microtonality.

His answer was very considered sincere. He said he couldn't because he
couldn't hear microtonal intervals. I smiled and understood that he was
quite happy and successful with his own musical language.

Johnny Reinhard

--- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_2935.html#2936

> --- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > There was a discussion not too long ago on the main list (for
> > whatever reason) about serialism
>
> i'd like to see a big wave where composers "fractalize", rather
> than "serialize", all the parameters of their compositions. i have
> some very good reasons to suspect that the results would be a lot
> more palatable, not only to listeners but to the composers
> themselves, who would therefore be more likely and able to discover
> themselves in the patterns that result, and thus end up much
farther
> along the path of self-expression than the serialism-trained
> composers had . . .

***Sounds interesting. In a way a little like the approach that
Xenakis had in his _Formalized Music..._

And, of course, Robert Walker has been making inroads in this
direction as well.

J. Pehrson