Whoops My FAQ is not ready yet but I accidently sent it !

You may suggest add or comment on FAQ. But bear in mind it was not ready or
finished, when it was accidently posted .

Justin White

DAVID JONES LIMITED ACN 000 074 573

--- In tuning@y..., "Justin White" <justin.white@d...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19981.html#19981

>>
> You may suggest add or comment on FAQ. But bear in mind it was not
ready or finished, when it was accidently posted .
>
> Justin White
>

Hi Justin...

Personally, I thought it was "cute" and could segue into concepts of
"Harmonic Entropy" and such like for the more advanced.

I would recommend a but more "conventional" beginning, however. It's
a little "spooky.." Kind of like, "if you are reading this, maybe
there's something a little wrong with you..." Maybe that's not how
it was intended, but *I*, personally, had that impression and if I
read anything else of a similar nature on the Internet I would feel
similarly...

Just as a little aside regarding tuning and electronic music...

Back in, let's say the 1960's and so, everybody was VERY excited
about the "sound continuum" that was electronic music. Actually, it
probably started in the 1950's with pioneers like Otto Luening (my
mentor) and Varese (who once "filled in" for his course at
Columbia...)

In fact, back in those days they would sometimes included a
"Halberstadt"-type conventional 12-note keyboard in the electronic
studios and composers would, generally, look "askance" at it...

Such considerations of "quantifying" the pitch continuum seemed, at
that time, to controvert the idea of using a continuing pitch
spectrum... something that electronic music was trying to do OPPOSED
to the conventional 12-tET tunings with _discrete_ pitches...

I have to say that this opinion of "lack of quantifying" had an
effect on the "reputation" of electronic music at that time. It was
considered by many in the conservatories to be a little "under
class...", not quite as "sophisticated" as "traditional" music or
conventional composition... At least, that was the feeling I
garnered from several at that time.

And, there were many EXCELLENT electonic compositions from that
day... although, frankly, most of them consisted of "washes" of sound
of one kind or another. Some were VERY attractive. But STILL,
electronic music was considered "intellectually suspect" in some
quarters...

Of course, nowadays everything has changed, and computerized
synthesizers allow us to explore the entire continuum in a
QUANTIFIABLE way...

I belive this will (if it hasn't ALREADY) change the underclass
"reputation" of electronic music.

Quite possibly, electronic music, and tuning studies can and will be
as sophisticated or even MORE sophisticated than ANYTHING produced in
our historical past...

_________ ______ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

Joe,

What you are talking about, in general, in this post, I have never
been able to understand:

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Just as a little aside regarding tuning and electronic music...

...and you have continued references to

> composers would, generally, look "askance" at it...

...and

> I have to say that this opinion of "lack of quantifying" had an
> effect on the "reputation" of electronic music

...and

> not quite as "sophisticated"

...and

> electronic music was considered "intellectually suspect"

Well, and this is one human's opinion, I have never for one day
written music that *I* wanted to write (as opposed to music written
for an expressed [i.e. commissioned or on spec] purpose) that I felt
needed to be justified, sophisticated, acceptable, or in any way
legitimate.

I realize that everyone makes/writes music for different purposes,
but my hat is off to the ones that don't give a tinker's damn about
acceptance, and my condolences to those who feel the need to fill the
above 'requirements' of conforming.

Where are the renegades and mavericks when you need 'em?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:

> Where are the renegades and mavericks when you need 'em?

This is Jacky Ligon. How may I help you?

: )

JL

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19981.html#20001

Hello Jon!

I wouldn't want to mar my consistency in generally disagreeing with
you :)

The problem is, Jon, the CLIMATE around a composer affects the
composer...

I'm sure you could illustrate this situation with aspects of Harry
Partch's life.

Sure, he was ALWAYS a renegade, BUT I'm certain, on the overall, that
he was "happier" when he was in environments (maybe the University of
Illinois, I don't know...) where he was APPRECIATED and where his
music was VALUED.

CLIMATE *DOES* matter. Let's take Ives, for example (maybe we can
get Dan Stearns in on this one, too! :))

Sure, Ives was "unappreciated" and kept on going... Partch was
"unappreciated" and kept on going. Yes, indeed, it is a strength.

But, would these composer not function EVEN BETTER in a SUPPORTIVE
environment??

I would say they would.

What you are fostering is the "old fashioned" Romantic idea that
composers should be "against the world" and should be "against"
everything, and then, they're ORIGINAL. The "climate" means NOTHING,
because these strong bohemians can, and will, fight everything.

Is that view really necessary?

You're becoming an "old fashioned Romantic fuddy-duddy" Jon!

________ _____ ______ __
Joseph Pehrson

J,

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:
> This is Jacky Ligon. How may I help you?

You, my boy, are already in the League of Maverick Musicians. Better
get outta Dodge, son...

:)

Jon

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> I wouldn't want to mar my consistency in generally disagreeing with
> you :)

I, for one, have never wanted this venue to be a back-slapping,
Barney-esque "I Love You, You Love Me" scene. Disagree away!

> The problem is, Jon, the CLIMATE around a composer affects the
> composer...

Sure, and the composer can choose his climate. Without a doubt.

> I'm sure you could illustrate this situation with aspects of Harry
> Partch's life. Sure, he was ALWAYS a renegade, BUT I'm certain,
> on the overall, that he was "happier" when he was in environments
> (maybe the University of Illinois, I don't know...) where he was
> APPRECIATED and where his music was VALUED.

While I knew Partch at the end of his life, I had gotten a fair bit
of historical knowledge from other. However, if one were to read Bob
Gilmore's biography it is hard to come away thinking anything but
that he rarely had two or three "happy" days in a row.

That, however, is an entirely different matter: what is the music
that is in you that begs to get out? If the only music that is in
there is music that must make others happy, or be accepted within
whatever circle you expose it, then you will have to arrange your
life accordingly. If you write music that *itself* cannot be denied,
that must come out -- in spite of the discomfort it will cause you --
then you have a tough road ahead.

And more likely than not, others will benefit.

> CLIMATE *DOES* matter.

Sure. Stick around Yale or some of the other breeders of the new
composers and see what it does. Not for me, bucko (I think that's a
direct quote from Dennis Miller).

> Sure, Ives was "unappreciated" and kept on going... Partch was
> "unappreciated" and kept on going. Yes, indeed, it is a strength.
> But, would these composer not function EVEN BETTER in a SUPPORTIVE
> environment??

I seriously doubt it. With the struggle comes the fortitude to write
music that refuses to compromise.

> I would say they would.

Then we disagree at a very fundamental level.

> What you are fostering is the "old fashioned" Romantic idea that
> composers should be "against the world" and should be "against"
> everything, and then, they're ORIGINAL. The "climate" means
NOTHING,
> because these strong bohemians can, and will, fight everything.
>
> Is that view really necessary?

Of course not *necessary*, it is just what I happen to believe. I
just find that the vast, vast majority of stuff that comes from the
other side to be unaffecting, inconsequential, and a waste of time
and effort.

> You're becoming an "old fashioned Romantic fuddy-duddy" Jon!

You couldn't be more wrong, Joe: I've always been one.

Cheers,
Jon

P.S. Oh, shit, I've gotta get ready to go to work...!

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19981.html#20007

>
> That, however, is an entirely different matter: what is the music
> that is in you that begs to get out? If the only music that is in
> there is music that must make others happy, or be accepted within
> whatever circle you expose it, then you will have to arrange your
> life accordingly. If you write music that *itself* cannot be
denied, that must come out -- in spite of the discomfort it will
cause
you
--
> then you have a tough road ahead.
>

Jon... I'm simply talking about "allocating resources." It seems,
from your discussion, that you haven't really spent much time in
"academic institutions." I'm not DEFENDING them, I'm just saying
that it seems as though you haven't spent much time in them by your
comments...

For example, when I was 20 years old, back in the "dark ages" what I
REALLY wanted to do was to write electronic music at the University
of Michigan electronic music studio, which was quite an advanced
studio at the time (only second to Columbia-Princeton).

However, I was not in the "graduate" department at that time, so USE
OF THE STUDIO was denied me. I was never able to create the works
that, at that time, excited me the most...

THEN, the instructors at the school "did a number on me" regarding
electronic music. They conveyed the impression that it had a certain
kind of "second class" status and that I should continue my
compositional studies in more "traditional" forms.

I went along with the studies, because I believe... perhaps others
disagree... that formal compositional study with accomplished
teachers of composition is a beneficial situation.

By the time I was done, "electronic music" had been "drilled out of
me" and when I FINALLY had access to the studio, I didn't want to do
it any more.

OK... so that's a bad story about academia... but it was part of my
experience and it MADE a difference in how I was composing and what I
wanted to do.

Should I have ignored everybody's opinion? Should I just have not
gone to school? I will let others judge.

Surely I can't believe that a LACK of musical education is going to
make a fine composer. I can't believe it, personally. However, some
my disagree with my view...

>
> > CLIMATE *DOES* matter.
>
> Sure. Stick around Yale or some of the other breeders of the new
> composers and see what it does. Not for me, bucko (I think that's a
> direct quote from Dennis Miller).
>

Jon Szanto, you couldn't have picked a WORSE example. Yale
University has one of the most "maverick" composition departments in
the country!

Have you heard of Martin Bresnick?? He's a wild man!

At Yale, they instituted a performing group called "Wolves in Sheeps
Clothing" or something of the like. They would give wacky concerts
all night!

Have you heard of David Lang?? Have you heard of BANG ON A CAN?

The "Bang on a Canners" are DIRECT descendents of the Bresnick "wild
bunch."

Jon, my friend, you don't know what you're talking about, in my
opinion...

> > Sure, Ives was "unappreciated" and kept on going... Partch was
> > "unappreciated" and kept on going. Yes, indeed, it is a strength.
> > But, would these composer not function EVEN BETTER in a
SUPPORTIVE environment??
>
> I seriously doubt it. With the struggle comes the fortitude to
write music that refuses to compromise.
>
> > I would say they would.
>
> Then we disagree at a very fundamental level.
>

Jon, this is Romantic B.S. They why don't we all go "starve
ourselves," live in garrets, and come down with tuberculosis...

That, surely, is the way, then, to write superior music...

I don't buy it.

>
> > You're becoming an "old fashioned Romantic fuddy-duddy" Jon!
>
> You couldn't be more wrong, Joe: I've always been one.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
> P.S. Oh, shit, I've gotta get ready to go to work...!

Jon, you self-confessed fuddy-duddy, you! Now you go off to work in
the orchestra where you probably will be performing 19th century
Romantic repertoire, which is about all orchestras do... Well, that
and Beethoven... early Romantic.

Maybe that's where you're getting this turn of the century Romantic
viewpoint!

__________ ______ ____________
Joseph Pehrson

[---LIST: Delete or skip this message if tired of this thread!---]

Joseph, you wrote, concerning a support system for composers:

>Jon... I'm simply talking about "allocating resources." It seems,
>from your discussion, that you haven't really spent much time in
>"academic institutions." I'm not DEFENDING them, I'm just saying
>that it seems as though you haven't spent much time in them by your
>comments...

Let's see: two degrees (one in Music Performance, one in Software Engineering), adjunct professorship, close relations with the dept and faculty of UCSD, which encompasses people such as Roger Reynolds, Harvey Solberger, Brian Ferneyhough (recently left), Bert Turetzky, etc., the long-lost days of Pauline Oliveros, too many campus performances and master classes to name.

Please be careful when you make your assumptions, OK?

>For example, when I was 20 years old, back in the "dark ages" what I >REALLY wanted to do was to write electronic music ...

[snip]

>However, I was not in the "graduate" department at that time, so USE OF >THE STUDIO was denied me. I was never able to create the works that, at >that time, excited me the most...

I am sorry for that. When an undergraduate at SDSU (a school I am not proud of for it's great music dept but attended because the Partch ensemble was at this institution) it was the same situation. What I did was first put up a huge fuss to get attention to the situation, and then did all manner of studio internship and whatnot, constantly coming in during the closing hours, until they had to _let_ me at the machines, just like the early generation of programmers (circa Bill Gates writing DOS and BASIC). Spent many a wee hour with the huge Buchla system, trying to find out how Morton Subotnik did all those cool things. But I digress...

>THEN, the instructors at the school "did a number on me" regarding >electronic music. They conveyed the impression that it had a certain kind >of "second class" status and that I should continue my compositional >studies in more "traditional" forms.

Then they screwed you royally. Whether you should have listened to them in the first place is not my call.

>I went along with the studies, because I believe... perhaps others >disagree... that formal compositional study with accomplished teachers of >composition is a beneficial situation.

There are good composers that have studied, as well. In and of itself, studying composition is not a good or bad decision, but teachers themselves can vary a great deal, no?

And then there are those that strike out on their own.

>By the time I was done, "electronic music" had been "drilled out of me" >and when I FINALLY had access to the studio, I didn't want to do it any more.

This is really too bad. Me, I'd harbor a very great animosity towards the people that exhibited the hubris to talk a young man out of following his muse. They owe you, you know it?

>OK... so that's a bad story about academia... but it was part of my >experience and it MADE a difference in how I was composing and what I >wanted to do.

Yes, apparently it did.

>Should I have ignored everybody's opinion? Should I just have not gone to >school?

Well, what do *you* think, in retrospect? It doesn't sound to me like you are a person who, by nature, strikes out in the opposite direction, so you must have been doing what you thought was right. And at that age, we're _all_ learning.

>Surely I can't believe that a LACK of musical education is going to make a >fine composer.

Of course not.

As to my comments on Yale, I should preface that it stuck in my head that a former, and talented, member of this list was at Yale, and had a hell of a time getting anyone to pay attention to anything microtonal, *unless* it was cloaked in the most conventional of settings. And Partch? He said when he tried to play stuff like that they all laughed.

We'll see who laughs last!

>Jon Szanto, you couldn't have picked a WORSE example. Yale University has >one of the most "maverick" composition departments in the country!

Oh, I'm sure I could have picked a worse example, but what I didn't do was mention that I was speaking in generalist terms, while being reminded of the above composer; don't think my remarks were intrinsically tied to YU. But honestly, Joe, there _is_ a difference between the most *outside* people within such Ivy Halls, and the people outside. More below...

>Have you heard of Martin Bresnick?? He's a wild man!

No, but I will check him out on your recommendation; on the other hand:

1. I consider myself pretty aware of the new music scene, and I'm not familiar -- maybe he is somewhat regional?

2. I consider "wild" more like Tom Waits. Bresnick better be ready to rumble.

>At Yale, they instituted a performing group called "Wolves in Sheeps >Clothing" or something of the like. They would give wacky concerts all night!

Means not much. I'm pretty versed on the lineage of performing groups that are considered outside of the mainstream: Bang On A Can (and the All-Stars), Icebreaker, Composers in Red Sneakers (is that correct?), Eighth Blackbird, and all the various composer-led groups (Louis Andriessen's ensembles, Paul Dresher, Michael Nyman, etc.). But don't they all pretty much play concerts in concert halls playing music that is trying to break out. Have they succeeded? Dunno, let's see...

>Have you heard of David Lang?? Have you heard of BANG ON A CAN?

Yes, and have played "The Anvil Chorus", which is quite fun; I imagine he would have written David Lang music wherever he went to school, or even if he didn't go to school. And I am friends and colleagues with Steven Schick of BOAC, and have witnessed their performances here. I like what they do, for the most part.

>The "Bang on a Canners" are DIRECT descendents of the Bresnick "wild bunch."

I really don't know what your point is, as I don't consider them to be as ground-breaking as you do. What is it that they do that is so different? They:

1. play concerts, first in lofts and alternate spaces, more often in concert halls and universities (they were going to be up at UCLA, which I noticed when I visited the campus the other day), more power to them for making careers out of it.

2. play music that is not all that different from much of the earlier 'avant' stuff, except they try and add some of the volume and grit from a "rock sensibility" to what they do. It's possible that Howard Hanson and Ned Rorem would be offended/shocked, but it is a heck of a lot closer to Boulez and Ferneyhough then it is to Pearl Jam and the Art Ensemble of Chicago. Considering working within the modern concert-and-grant situation, they are probably as out as they can go.

I just happen to think that there are people who have stepped outside, have not felt fear of *not* appeasing the academe, have chosen different vehicles and venues -- outside the lines -- that make these examples somewhat pallid.

I guess my point is simply this: the halls of learning are a fine and wonderful place, but you point to examples of rebellion as what can happen there, and it seems to me the thrust is *against* the institution. Which begs the question: why be there in the first place? (Hint: they really aren't subversives...)

>Jon, this is Romantic B.S.

Frankly, Joe, I'll take that as a compliment, if you don't mind. At least it's *Romantic* bullshit!

>They why don't we all go "starve ourselves," live in garrets, and come >down with tuberculosis... That, surely, is the way, then, to write >superior music...
>
>I don't buy it.

I don't believe my stance went nearly that overboard, so the hyperbole is all yours.

>Jon, you self-confessed fuddy-duddy, you! Now you go off to work in the >orchestra where you probably will be performing 19th century Romantic >repertoire, which is about all orchestras do... Well, that and >Beethoven... early Romantic. Maybe that's where you're getting this turn >of the century Romantic viewpoint!

That, my good friend, is my *job*. It is not *me*. It is presumptuous of you to know my repertoire (three premieres so far this season), to think that an orchestra is my only musical outlet (not to mention that my musical values were formed long ago), that, that...

No, this is about the kind of music-making I feel is important and will have a lasting effect; at that, it is about as personal a statement as I can make, and can't be applied to any other soul. I know what moves me, both in performing and composing (and listening, I suppose). What I am trying to understand is why you seem so unsure of your own methods/motivations in making music, and why you need the concurrence of others to validate those methods/motivations.

Wanna experiment with scales? Go ahead, knock yourself out! But do it because YOU want to, not because it's OK to do it.

But you knew all this already, didn't you?

Please: this is all in the best of healthy dialogue,
Jon
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`

Real Life: Orchestral Percussionist
Web Life: "Corporeal Meadows" - about Harry Partch
http://www.corporeal.com/

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

/tuning/topicId_19981.html#20027

> Let's see: two degrees (one in Music Performance, one in Software
> Engineering), adjunct professorship, close relations with the dept
and faculty of UCSD, which encompasses people such as Roger
Reynolds, Harvey Solberger, Brian Ferneyhough (recently left), Bert
Turetzky, etc., the long-lost days of Pauline Oliveros, too many
campus performances and master classes to name.
>
> Please be careful when you make your assumptions, OK?
>

OK, sorry if I stepped on your toes... However, Roger Reynolds had
EXACTLY the same kind of background *I* did and he had SIMILAR
problems at the University of Michigan where he attended...

I think, though, he "dropped out" whereas I stayed through the
program, so I'm sure he will be a big "hero" in your view..

>
> >THEN, the instructors at the school "did a number on me" regarding
> >electronic music. They conveyed the impression that it had a
certain kind of "second class" status and that I should continue my
compositional studies in more "traditional" forms.
>
> Then they screwed you royally. Whether you should have listened to
them in the first place is not my call.
>

A 20-year old student is still an "apprentice." Of course, I
understand that *you* always know and knew everything to a much
greater degree than any "instructor..." So, of course, you would
elicit a different kind of behavior.

Most 18-year olds behave the same way. Are you sure you're not 18,
Jon??

> >I went along with the studies, because I believe... perhaps others
> >disagree... that formal compositional study with accomplished
teachers of composition is a beneficial situation.
>
> There are good composers that have studied, as well.

OHMYGOD. Amazing to come from *your* pen...

>
> And then there are those that strike out on their own.
>

Of course, *you* and Harry Partch. Jon, I should get more of your
music.... Where is it published, where recorded?? I have,
unfortunately, never run across it...

> >By the time I was done, "electronic music" had been "drilled out
of me" and when I FINALLY had access to the studio, I didn't want to
do it any more.
>
> This is really too bad. Me, I'd harbor a very great animosity
towards the people that exhibited the hubris to talk a young man out
of following his muse. They owe you, you know it?
>

Pourquoi? They were the TEACHER, *I* the STUDENT, not the "other
way" around. But, of course for the "self-taught" geniuses this does
not apply, naturally.

>
> >Should I have ignored everybody's opinion? Should I just have not
gone to school?
>
> Well, what do *you* think, in retrospect? It doesn't sound to me
like you are a person who, by nature, strikes out in the opposite
direction,

Now I think you are being also a little "presumptuous," yes??

>so you must have been doing what you thought was right. And at that
age, we're _all_ learning.
>

That statement doesn't make ANY sense in light of what you were
saying before.

> As to my comments on Yale, I should preface that it stuck in my
head that a former, and talented, member of this list was at Yale,
and
had a hell of a time getting anyone to pay attention to anything
microtonal, *unless* it was cloaked in the most conventional of
settings. And Partch? He said when he tried to play stuff like that
they all laughed.
>
> We'll see who laughs last!
>

Well... it's hard to believe that it would be that restrictive, but,
I only speak "secondhandedly" since I was never there...

> But honestly, Joe, there _is_ a difference between the most
*outside* people within such Ivy Halls, and the people outside. More
below...
>

So what. Maybe you just like a different set of composers than I
do... Not a big deal.

I like composers with a little "technique." You know, there *IS*
such a thing, Jon!

> >Have you heard of Martin Bresnick?? He's a wild man!
>
> No, but I will check him out on your recommendation;

He won a "Mac Arthur 'genius'" grant of $500,000 and is composing
full time. It was in all the newspapers. Jon, you must not read the
newspaper.

on the other hand:
>
> 1. I consider myself pretty aware of the new music scene, and I'm
not familiar -- maybe he is somewhat regional?
>

I suppose, Jon, that the East Coast would be considered "regional" to
you. So, in that sense, yes.

> 2. I consider "wild" more like Tom Waits.

You can listen to Waits, and I'll listen to Partch. That's fine with
me. Better pass me a beer, too, so I can get through it...

> >Have you heard of David Lang?? Have you heard of BANG ON A CAN?
>
> Yes, and have played "The Anvil Chorus", which is quite fun;

Well, of course, you're a percussionist, so you're sure to like that
one.... Good

>I imagine he would have written David Lang music wherever he went to
school, or even if he didn't go to school.

So, you have to agree that he is a Yale product *and* a maverick, yes?

He is quite an astonishing composer...

>
> I really don't know what your point is, as I don't consider them to
be as ground-breaking as you do. What is it that they do that is so
different? They:
>
> 1. play concerts, first in lofts and alternate spaces, more often
in concert halls and universities (they were going to be up at UCLA,
which I noticed when I visited the campus the other day), more power
to them for making careers out of it.
>

Well, OK... so we should all hold our concerts in vacant lots. Jon,
do you take out the "trash" first, or leave it there for the audience
to sit on?? :)

> 2. play music that is not all that different from much of the
earlier 'avant' stuff, except they try and add some of the volume and
grit from a rock sensibility" to what they do. It's possible that
Howard Hanson and Ned Rorem would be offended/shocked, but it is a
heck of a lot closer to Boulez and Ferneyhough then it is to Pearl
Jam and the Art Ensemble of Chicago.

And the "Art Ensemble of Chicago" is *not* really all that close to
Partch... unless I have my ears on wrong.

>
> I just happen to think that there are people who have stepped
outside, have not felt fear of *not* appeasing the academe, have
chosen different vehicles and venues -- outside the lines -- that
make these examples somewhat pallid.
>

What makes you think that anytime someone steps "outside" they are
accomplishing something? Sure, Partch was a genius, but for every
Partch there are a thousand "imposters" and "diettantes."

They're all over the place, since it's so easy to be an "artiste."

> I guess my point is simply this: the halls of learning are a fine
and wonderful place, but you point to examples of rebellion as what
can happen there, and it seems to me the thrust is *against* the
institution. Which begs the question: why be there in the first
place? (Hint: they really aren't subversives...)
>

Jon, I don't buy this. I believe that *most* composers who undertake
a rigorous study in universities are SUPERIOR composers to the
"outsiders."

I say MOST... there are a "few" exceptions like Partch, but they are
"exceptions" rather than the rule.

And, just being an "outsider" means NOTHING in my view. One might
just as easily be an "imposter" or "fraud." They're all over the
place, Jon.

On this topic, as usual, we are never going to agree...

>
> >Jon, you self-confessed fuddy-duddy, you! Now you go off to work
in the orchestra where you probably will be performing 19th century
Romantic repertoire, which is about all orchestras do... Well, that
and Beethoven... early Romantic. Maybe that's where you're getting
this turn of the century Romantic viewpoint!
>
> That, my good friend, is my *job*. It is not *me*.

AHA! So where is the "rebellious outsider" here?? Do you think
Partch would have played that repertoire??

I, personally, ADMIRE you for this, but my perception is that you're
more "tied into" THE SYSTEM than *I* am! The joke is on YOU, Jon!

>I know what moves me, both in performing and composing (and
listening, I suppose). What I am trying to understand is why you seem
so unsure of your own methods/motivations in making music, and why
you
need the concurrence of others to validate those methods/motivations.
>

Well, as usual, I will take that as an insult, and also as another
"presumptuous" statement. But I "consider the source" as it were.

YOU don't care about anybody else's evaluations, because you are just
TOO GOOD for them. And you also KNOW EVERYTHING.

You are the typical 17 year old who never grew up, Jon. I had you 18
before in the above, but I reduced it by one year...

> Wanna experiment with scales? Go ahead, knock yourself out! But do
it because YOU want to, not because it's OK to do it.
>
> But you knew all this already, didn't you?
>

Huh?? I'm not following you... Oh... I see, you're saying I'm
interested in microtonality now because it's suddenly now the
"Zeitgeist..."

Well, I don't know... perhaps you're right. The first sensible thing
you've said. I'll have to think about it.

Microtonality is now so "establishment" that YOU YOURSELF now, Jon,
are part of the "establishment."

So what are you going to do about that now??

Well, I suggest maybe going out and robbing some old ladies for
starters...

> Please: this is all in the best of healthy dialogue,
> Jon
> `'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
>
> Real Life: Orchestral Percussionist
> Web Life: "Corporeal Meadows" - about Harry Partch
> http://www.corporeal.com/

Jon, we *ALWAYS* disagree, so this is nothing new.

I always *enjoy* our discussions, especially when they're "no holds
barred!"

Anyway, I think we're "past" insulting each other at this point... so
that's an "evolution" of sorts.

Actually, I "enjoyed" this one. (But, of course, I'm a
self-confessed sadist/masochist in my spare time...)

best to you!

___________ _____ __
Joseph Pehrson

Dear Joseph,

You have replied at great length this morning, and I do not have time
right now for a decent reply; I will, later today.

However, I am not sure how much I feel like writing, as (in spite of
your usual pleas to the contrary), you have taken a particularly
nasty tone, and phrased many of your comments in a very personal
nature, not to mention condescending. If I have somehow misread them,
I apologize, but it was not what I expected from you.

There is no reason we can't disagree, but even while you may do
things musical (and otherwise) in your life differently than I, I
won't insult or degrade you for it.

Jon

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19981.html#20043

> Dear Joseph,
>
> You have replied at great length this morning, and I do not have
time
> right now for a decent reply; I will, later today.
>
> However, I am not sure how much I feel like writing, as (in spite
of
> your usual pleas to the contrary), you have taken a particularly
> nasty tone, and phrased many of your comments in a very personal
> nature, not to mention condescending. If I have somehow misread
them,
> I apologize, but it was not what I expected from you.
>
> There is no reason we can't disagree, but even while you may do
> things musical (and otherwise) in your life differently than I, I
> won't insult or degrade you for it.
>
> Jon

Fine Jon...

We'll keep it at this. I'm HONORED.

Please don't bother replying...

________ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19981.html#20044

> --- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_19981.html#20043
>
> > Dear Joseph,
> >
> > You have replied at great length this morning, and I do not have
> time right now for a decent reply; I will, later today.
> >
> > However, I am not sure how much I feel like writing, as (in spite
> of your usual pleas to the contrary), you have taken a particularly
> > nasty tone, and phrased many of your comments in a very personal
> > nature, not to mention condescending. If I have somehow misread
> them, I apologize, but it was not what I expected from you.
> >
> > There is no reason we can't disagree, but even while you may do
> > things musical (and otherwise) in your life differently than I, I
> > won't insult or degrade you for it.
> >
> > Jon
>
> Fine Jon...
>
> We'll keep it at this. I'm HONORED.
>
> Please don't bother replying...
>
> ________ _____ ____
> Joseph Pehrson

Oh... and before I TOTALLY sign off on this, I just wanted to say
that Jon, I would be happy to apologize for any "personal" or
"insulting" comments. However, I feel less inclined to "apologize"
since I feel they were ONLY in response to what *I* perceived (perhaps
erroneously) as equally insulting and personal remarks on YOUR part.

Since this is, obviously, not getting anywhere, and it's happened
before... I think, Jon, we should advocate the John Cage rule:

Silence...

_______ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

Dear Joseph,

In an effort shed light on any misunderstandings, I'd like to respond to some of the points you raised; I will try my utmost to be clear, and I speak with no ill will whatsoever.

>OK, sorry if I stepped on your toes...

No problem, just wanted you to know that I've 'been to college', and I'm not sure why you thought otherwise.

>I think, though, he "dropped out" whereas I stayed through the program, so >I'm sure he will be a big "hero" in your view..

[In reference to Roger Reynolds] No, not a hero at all. To my ears, he ended up composing as if he had run the academic gauntlet, and he is not one of my favorite composers. Some people like his stuff, though.

>A 20-year old student is still an "apprentice." Of course, I understand >that *you* always know and knew everything to a much greater degree than >any "instructor..."

<sigh> In the great scheme of things, I know very little. I value greatly the wonderful teachers I have had, and have personally worked very, very hard to be a good teacher myself. It is only the healthy aspect of 'questioning authority' that I propose and value, and I'm not proposing much more than that.

>Most 18-year olds behave the same way. Are you sure you're not 18, Jon??

Some days, I wish I was; some days I'm grateful for the last 3 decades since then. Most days I try to be a blend of the best of both ages.

> > There are good composers that have studied, as well.
>
>OHMYGOD. Amazing to come from *your* pen...

You have misread my writings: I have never said, nor implied, that studying (composition) is a bad thing.

>Of course, *you* and Harry Partch. Jon, I should get more of your >music.... Where is it published, where recorded?? I have, unfortunately, >never run across it...

I am far less an outsider than HP, as well as many other composers. The music I have composed, such as it is, has either been in a commercially useable form, or for very personal projects. Most of my performed works have been for choreographic use, and the few pieces of 'absolute' music are self-published. I don't seek a name as a composer because, frankly, it isn't my main interest in life, and others are far more accomplished.

>Pourquoi? They were the TEACHER, *I* the STUDENT, not the "other way" >around. But, of course for the "self-taught" geniuses this does not >apply, naturally.

I hope the second comment is not meant to be applied to me, but my point on the first was very clear: you expressed an interest (in electronics), and they quashed it, for very specious reasons. By the time you had a chance to try, the desire was gone. A teacher is there to open minds, not close them, and in this case your instructors did you a great and deep disservice.

That, of course, is my opinion. But here you are, ready to embark on lectures (and performances) in the near future, on electronic music. You mentioned recently that you hadn't been doing it that long -- wouldn't it have been great if you had been allowed to start when you first wanted to?

> > It doesn't sound to me like you are a person who, by nature, strikes > out in the opposite direction,
>
>Now I think you are being also a little "presumptuous," yes??

Yes, I suppose I was. It was my distinct impression of you from your writings, but I could very well be wrong. And wrong to assume, certainly.

> >And at that age, we're _all_ learning.
>
>That statement doesn't make ANY sense in light of what you were saying >before.

I believe it does. At that young stage in your life you didn't see any value in 'taking on' the professors that would choose to limit you rather than let you grow. In spite of that, I'm sure you learned other things.

>I like composers with a little "technique." You know, there *IS* such a >thing, Jon!

Of course, and there are many composers and arrangers that profoundly impress and delight me for those very skills. Again, nothing I have said invalidates compositional prowess and craft.

[About Mr. Bresnik]
>He won a "Mac Arthur 'genius'" grant of $500,000 and is composing full >time. It was in all the newspapers. Jon, you must not read the newspaper.

<sigh> Joe, while I'm sure the most recent recipients of the Mac grants were covered in Reuters and AP, to chastise me for not noticing and remembering one name in an article is a bit silly. In my local paper, I don't recall an article on Mr. Bresnik, singularly, at all. In the music world, to be well read, I subscribe to the New Yorker (for concert info), BBC Music Magazine, and am a member of Chamber Music America; I also keep current with online resources such as NewMusicBox, though mostly when the subject materials interest me.

So I went online: found 6 recordings of his music, only two that are only his works. One is older string quartet music; the newer is of interest ("Opere della Musica Povera"), and I've ordered it. I guess he wasn't on my radar, as a well-known composer, but apparently some of his students are.

>I suppose, Jon, that the East Coast would be considered "regional" to you.

Most definitely -- it's a big country. European cultures and trends (for example) have developed, in distinct fashions, in far smaller geographical distances than we have between our coasts.

> > Yes, and have played "The Anvil Chorus", which is quite fun;
>
>Well, of course, you're a percussionist, so you're sure to like that one....

I tend to dislike most "percussion music", as the bulk of it pretty much defines the term "oxymoron".

>So, you have to agree that he is a Yale product *and* a maverick, yes?

I don't happen think he is *that* much of a maverick, so we're splitting hairs.

>He is quite an astonishing composer...

For me, good in small doses. What I like best about him is that he refuses to address the same compositional questions that have been pretty well answered over the past few centuries.

>And the "Art Ensemble of Chicago" is *not* really all that close to >Partch... unless I have my ears on wrong.

You miss my point: it's not about listening, or the literal 'music' itself. It is an attitude, a belief in the way of writing, performing, and living a music. In this instance, AEoC, and Sun Ra for that matter, are certainly closer to Partch and other 'outsider' music. I've been fortunate to see both groups play, and it was much more than a 'musical' experience. This does not invalidate my enjoyable experiences at a string quartet concert, in a lovely chamber music hall.

>What makes you think that anytime someone steps "outside" they are
>accomplishing something?

I did not, at any point, say "anytime" or "anyone". There are no guarantees, so please don't put words or ideas in my stead.

>Sure, Partch was a genius, but for every Partch there are a thousand >"imposters" and "diettantes." They're all over the place, since it's so >easy to be an "artiste."

I can't necessarily disagree, but I find far greater numbers of vacant imposters in the realm of 'art' music. In most of the other disciplines, be it jazz, experimental, communal music -- they don't have the support systems, and they have to produce or cease to exist. "Artistes"? I work with them all the time, to my increasing shame!

>Jon, I don't buy this. I believe that *most* composers who undertake a >rigorous study in universities are SUPERIOR composers to the "outsiders."

As Mr. Lechter says, "Okey-dokey". We disagree.

>AHA! So where is the "rebellious outsider" here?? Do you think Partch >would have played that repertoire?? I, personally, ADMIRE you for this, >but my perception is that you're more "tied into" THE SYSTEM than *I* >am! The joke is on YOU, Jon!

You are profoundly mistaken about me, Joe, and I'm sorry you feel this way. THE SYSTEM doesn't own my soul, nor does any other employer; as I said, it's a job, though I try to do it well. If I didn't have this kind of job, it would be something else, and it would still serve to further my 'other' activities.

But thanks for thinking it's all a joke.

I then said:

> >I know what moves me, both in performing and composing (and listening, I > suppose). What I am trying to understand is why you seem so unsure of > your own methods/motivations in making music, and why you need the > concurrence of others to validate those methods/motivations.

...and you replied:

>Well, as usual, I will take that as an insult, and also as another
>"presumptuous" statement. But I "consider the source" as it were.

I wish you hadn't taken it as an insult. You previously said:
- to JdL: "Oh come on, John... Not even a "little bitty bit" on my side??"
- to Dan: "Is there anyone willing or interested in defending the OPPOSITE view??" "Is it defensible??" "If it can't be defended, then I guess it's "game, set, match..." pun fully intended!" "Anyone else willing to take the other side??"

These very statements are what led me to think "Joseph is feeling unsure that his 'pre-compositional' explorations are a valid pursuit, and is looking for the support of others." But you compose a lot, and you get performances, and you are lecturing. You don't need others, it seems to me, but I shouldn't presume *that*, either. I certainly hope, as I hoped before, that it doesn't insult you: in my thick-headed way, I'm trying to say that you don't need anyone else to validate your methodology, because it is working for you.

If your statements above should have not led me to the conclusion I did arrive at, I am sorry for presuming. But I think a fair reading of your words would tend to make someone wonder the same way as I.

>YOU don't care about anybody else's evaluations, because you are just
>TOO GOOD for them. And you also KNOW EVERYTHING.

I ended my message with the sentiment that if you have a way to work, then do it, and revel in the fact that it is *your* chosen way for making *your* music. I cherish that in everyone who is creative, from the meekest amateur to the most accomplished professional. I do care, I'm not too good, and I don't know everything.

(...and that just came out sounding like Stuart Smalley!)

But I'm sorry you feel the way you do, and I'm only replying so that maybe others will see it a little differently.

>You are the typical 17 year old who never grew up, Jon. I had you 18 >before in the above, but I reduced it by one year...

??? What did I do to deserve this?

>Microtonality is now so "establishment" that YOU YOURSELF now, Jon, are >part of the "establishment."

Microtonality is far from being establishment, and I have never considered myself a microtonalist. I refuse to be limited by such a term.

Joseph, I hope my explanations have shown that I wrote with no animosity attached to the words, and no insulting tone intended. Where we vary in our choices, musical and otherwise, that will continue. Where we agree is more important: that music, and musical activities, are a profound and powerful endeavor.

EOF,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., Jonathan Szanto <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19981.html#20076

> Joseph, I hope my explanations have shown that I wrote with no
animosity attached to the words, and no insulting tone intended.
Where we vary in our choices, musical and otherwise, that will
continue. Where we agree is more important: that music, and musical
activities, are a profound and powerful endeavor.
>
> EOF,
> Jon

WELL... I'm very happy, Jon, that you've "come to your senses" as it
were and have decided to debate formally our concerns rather than
just go off "in a huff..."

That's all I was asking. Look, Jon, you were really "dishing it
out," in fact, you STARTED it... with the questioning, rather POINTED
I must say, of my attitudes as ONLY A POOR STUDENT studying
electronic music in a pretty conservative institution. I did what I
could, but I was only a KID! I was just trying to learn, not set the
University on fire (literally) at the age of 20! I wasn't really
READY to throw everything overboard... I hadn't even LEARNED it yet!

By the way, I have always found that the academic "chronology" is
totally wrong. They make you study HARMONY, when you want to write
your OWN harmonies, and they try to shove all kinds of OTHER stuff
down the throat BEFORE one is really ready for it as a composer.

The kind of music I am interested in... and, admittedly, it may be a
little on the "conservative" end in your view, even though I am VERY
interested in xenharmonics presently, DOES use elements of
traditional harmony and counterpoint, but I needed those studies and
courses AFTER I had done a substantial amount of composing.

That's the way a course of instruction for composers should be
designed... you get the theory WHEN you need it, not before! Even
Satie went back to study counterpoint at the age of 40! It's better
that way... when you ALREADY have your own voice.

So in THAT sense, I think I'm being "independent" although it may or
may not be "radical" enough for your view...

Anyway, we're all friends here... and we should be able to debate
vigorously WITHOUT acrimony. If any such has appeared in my debate
with you, I sincerely apologize. Sometimes such things happen in the
"heat" of discussion, but I agree one should watch out for them...

Regarding my academic associations, lest anyone feel I am
"besmirched" by academic associations, I should proudly proclaim that
I have never, ever been offered any kind of job in academia, part
time, full time, or even as an ADJUNCT! I am pure as the driven
"snow."

(Also I just learned that Kraig Grady has a knife, so I would like to
be quick to make this point clear...)

Thanks again for your willingness to continue the discussion. I
would reply again point by point, but I think list participants can
get a sense of where we both stand or don't stand by what we have
already written. If they're really smart, they won't even be reading
this drivel...

So, again, thanks for continuing the discussion. I've "enjoyed" it,
such as such things can be, and I hope we can continue such again in
the future... I agree we should try to avoid "personal" issues in the
process.

(See you out in back 12PM behind my apartment building...)

(Just joking)

Best,

_______ _____ ______ ___
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

<<I believe that *most* composers who undertake a rigorous study in
universities are SUPERIOR composers to the "outsiders.">>

If you mean composer only in the formal capital "c" sense then I'd
guess that's probably quite true too. However, if composer = sound
organizer, and superior = got it going on in a special way, then I'd
probably guess those who undertook rigorous study in some university
are probably holding the short end of the stick here...

But really, when it comes to the end of the day so to speak, who cares
what your orientation is anyway... it seems to me that the ability to
actualize something special is really what it's all about, no?

--Dan Stearns

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19981.html#20126

> Joseph Pehrson wrote,
>
> <<I believe that *most* composers who undertake a rigorous study in
> universities are SUPERIOR composers to the "outsiders.">>
>
> If you mean composer only in the formal capital "c" sense then I'd
> guess that's probably quite true too. However, if composer = sound
> organizer, and superior = got it going on in a special way, then I'd
> probably guess those who undertook rigorous study in some university
> are probably holding the short end of the stick here...
>
> But really, when it comes to the end of the day so to speak, who
cares what your orientation is anyway... it seems to me that the
ability to actualize something special is really what it's all about,
no?
>

Hi Dan...

I think you'll have to take my remark in the context of the entire
discussion with Jon Szanto... not "pulled out" like this, as it
were.... It went on for several posts, so it's not easy to "miss
it..."

It was an interesting discussion, for ME, anyway, with a bit of
hyperbole on both sides... Seasoned with a little vitriol at the
end, but sweetened with honey, stirred, and ingested reasonably at
the end of the day...

_________ ______ _______ _
Joseph Pehrson

><<I believe that *most* composers who undertake a rigorous study in
>universities are SUPERIOR composers to the "outsiders.">>
>

I'm in a conservatory. I agree for the part that we need a teacher, a
mentor, to let us discover worlds we would take years to come over. This is
not a superiority thing... only a cultural and guidance one. Anyway, we
must learn music by one way or another. Teachers helps us to organize our
mind for one of the qualitities of Art, according to me, that is it's
organization... so is the music everywhere as far as I know (any "classical"
music is so... and I do not forget music from everywhere in the wold here...
just think raga for example ( I would even say, any music, anyway, even if
it differs from place to place)).

Of course, you need not a master degree to write good melodies or the like,
but for harmony and rythme works... you'd better work it simple (not
necesserely bad in itself) without it though.

Vincent-Olivier Gagnon.

--- In tuning@y..., "Vog" <dunael@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19981.html#20133

> ><<I believe that *most* composers who undertake a rigorous study in
> >universities are SUPERIOR composers to the "outsiders.">>
> >
>
>
> Vincent-Olivier Gagnon.

Hello, Vincent...

It seems people really like to extract that little comment I made to
Jon Szanto!

However, I would like everyone to see it in the context of the ENTIRE
discussion with Szanto.

Szanto was claiming, at least initially, that anyone studying or
hanging around conservatories OR EVEN taking advice from teachers was
an "unoriginal" and weak-minded composer.

I'm sure he's now going to say that's *not* what he said, but I would
ask people just to read the posts and decide for yourselves.

My rather "strong" comment was a parry in response to some of his
rather "radical" statements, in my view...

I'm glad everybody "enjoys" it so much!

_______ _____ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "Vog" <dunael@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_19981.html#20133
>
> > ><<I believe that *most* composers who undertake a rigorous study in
> > >universities are SUPERIOR composers to the "outsiders.">>
> > >
> >
> >
> > Vincent-Olivier Gagnon.
>
> Hello, Vincent...
>
> It seems people really like to extract that little comment I made to
> Jon Szanto!

In or out of context, you "did" WRITE *that*.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

--- In tuning@y..., David Beardsley <xouoxno@v...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19981.html#20135
>
>
> jpehrson@r... wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Vog" <dunael@a...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_19981.html#20133
> >
> > > ><<I believe that *most* composers who undertake a rigorous
study in universities are SUPERIOR composers to the "outsiders.">>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Vincent-Olivier Gagnon.
> >
> > Hello, Vincent...
> >
> > It seems people really like to extract that little comment I made
to
> > Jon Szanto!
>
> In or out of context, you "did" WRITE *that*.
>

OK... then let me say that I, PERSONALLY DO believe it!

(I don't require that anyone else does, though...)

__________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

Dear Vincent,

> I'm in a conservatory. I agree for the part that we need a
teacher, a
> mentor, to let us discover worlds we would take years to come
over. This is
> not a superiority thing... only a cultural and guidance one.

I couldn't agree with you more, in spite of what Joseph Pehrson will
mis-interpret. You are in a valuable position and time in life, so
use it well and wisely. I include one quote from one of my messages:

"I value greatly the wonderful teachers I have had, and have
personally worked very, very hard to be a good teacher myself. It is
only the healthy aspect of 'questioning authority' that I propose and
value, and I'm not proposing much more than that."

So I ask that when you are listening to your teachers, listen with
your mind open, and do not be afraid to question their motives,
methods, and reasoning *if* something does not feel right to you. Let
them guide you along a path, but don't let them push you down a road
that you feel is better suited for someone else.

Best of luck in your studies,
Jon

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Szanto was claiming, at least initially, that anyone studying or
> hanging around conservatories OR EVEN taking advice from teachers
> was an "unoriginal" and weak-minded composer.
>
> I'm sure he's now going to say that's *not* what he said, but I
> would ask people just to read the posts and decide for yourselves.

Please: if you want people to decide for themselves, don't put words
in my typewriter. Joe, I really do object to you writing something
like "Szanto was claiming", because it is incorrect and misleading;
I never once claimed anyone would be unoriginal or weak-minded simply
by seeking the counsel of a teacher. In fact, I wrote:

"You have misread my writings: I have never said, nor implied, that
studying (composition) is a bad thing."

I respectfully ask that you allow people to judge my posts on their
own merits, and not explain what I meant to others, for the simple
fact that you misrepresent what I've written.

Thanks.
Jon

Vincent-Olivier Gagnon wrote,

<<Of course, you need not a master degree to write good melodies or
the like, but for harmony and rythme works... you'd better work it
simple (not necesserely bad in itself) without it though.>>

I disagree... and in fact I can think of many examples where the
interesting properties (yes, rhythmic and harmonic too... an no,
definitely not always simpler ones either) were there precisely
because they were unschooled manifestations of someone somewhere
intuitively and confidently knowing how to "work it".

Nothing the matter a degree in music (or what have you) of course. And
sure, generally speaking I'd think it would enable a heck of a lot
more than it would run off. However, I wouldn't underestimate what it
can -- and perhaps often does -- run off or fail to adequately address
either!

--Dan Stearns