more on spectral duudes

re: Murail, Grisey. . . .

I forgot to mention something about their technique. . . . there is a
recent volume of Perspectives of New Music with some articles detailing
their methodologies, but here are some tidbits. . .

Most simply, they derive harmony from spectral analyses of sounds. .
. often inharmonic or slightly inharmonic. then transformations are
applied to the harmony over time to form musical processes. Murail often
speaks of his "harmonies" as being somewhere in between timbre and
harmony, the desired goal is that the listener not be able to quite tell.
. . well, sometimes it works. The chords are usually pretty cool
anyway.

Transformations might include something like "FM" -- frequency modulation
-- of a certain pitch, which generates a calculable set of sideband
frequencies. this "modulation" is all done "virtually", and
orchestral instruments (or chamber group) "play" the "chord or timbre"
produced by the FM.

Often the composers work in temporal aspects of the analyzed sound as
well. . . for example the way certain partials in a sound decay or attack
or sustain. . .

One interesting facet of their work is that "extended techniques" like
multiphonics are made far more organic, since the partials produced by a
given multiphonic on a given instrument can become part of the harmonic
fabric of a work. . . .

anyway, that's just a little sampler of their technique, from which I've
learned a lot. . .

Having hung out with Murail and his "followers" (students), the only
thing of which I (and others) complain is a slightly pompous attitude
asserting (put simply) that since their work comes from "the sound itself"
or, "nature", it's therefore "better". . . . so as I say, I often join the
devil-advocates around school. . . .but nontheless, when push comes to
shove, the music rocks. . .

Chris,

Thanks for more background on the spectral folks.

--- In tuning@y..., Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:
> . . .but nontheless, when push comes to shove, the music rocks. . .

Yep, and I wish more people shoved in this world. Alas...

Cheers,
Jon

Christopher!
My friend is scheduled to bring some over a while back so it can hear some. Now i really look
forward to it! I would imagine that our adaptation to having a movable 12 tone tuning might have
trained us to adjust to acoustical "cues" which would allow such 1/4 and 1/8 tone notation to get
the players close enough to where they might "correct" subconsciously.

I would tend to side with them in at least seeing music being based on sound-via acoustical
relationships (any and all though). Most other methods quickly degenerate into conceptual juggling
of unperceptable entities (rows being but one example). Things that look good on paper.

The whole argument really is absurd if i take a step back, music based on sound,
how archaic. We don't have to base it on sound anymore where in the end the measure becomes
nothing more than the level of "cleverness". Which has its place but can lead to "shallowness"

Christopher Bailey wrote:

> Having hung out with Murail and his "followers" (students), the only
> thing of which I (and others) complain is a slightly pompous attitude
> asserting (put simply) that since their work comes from "the sound itself"
> or, "nature", it's therefore "better". . . . so as I say, I often join the
> devil-advocates around school. . . .but nontheless, when push comes to
> shove, the music rocks. . .

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

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

--- In tuning@y..., Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_33808.html#33808

>
> re: Murail, Grisey. . . .
>
> I forgot to mention something about their technique. . . .

Thanks, Chris, for this *very* valuable post...

J. Pehrson