At the end of the concert

On Paart personally I wonder which one, the first extreme or the last modulating one? Do you know which has changed more styles?

Paart tinkling, naturally

Carlos wrote:

It was a joke... After that joke I wrote quite something else, among other things extending the discussion to "modern and contemporary" music, eliminating the exclusivity of "avant-garde music", and therefore also eliminating all the issues relating to bis/non-bis, absolute firsts, etc.

To tell the truth, I found that joke more interesting and pertinent than the discussion about music "dead on arrival" (a cliché dating back to the late sixties, more or less!).

RedScharlach wrote:

To tell the truth, I found that joke more interesting and relevant than the discussion about "stillborn" music (a cliché dating back to the late sixties, more or less!).

Eh, what can you do? I had warned («I'll try to give my opinion, with all its limitations», I had started). I wasn't around in the late '60s, but as you can see, I try to keep up with the clichés!

Dear Micamahler, the challenges have nothing to do with it … if you have looked at the Bagatelles, good for you, and you are certainly not obliged to say so, just as you are not obliged to explain why integral serialism is or is not based on a certain narrativity.

I cited a couple of works (milestones?) from the 20th century that, in my opinion, eliminated narrativity from music (whatever it may be; my initial intro on the physiology of symmetry was just a reflection, as I was also writing).

I brought examples (not all) of musicality that instead, in parallel and also in the 20th century, did without eliminating narrativity from music. Incidentally, the 20th century was about ten years ago and several whom I cited were still there writing music… eh…

You tell me that you agree on narrativity, and with Britten too, and you haven't said anything to suggest otherwise (etc. …), but before my pathetic sermon, mine was just a matter of taste.

I certainly did not motivate my statements from the beginning, which is why one might even suspect it … but now I say, if you were already aware of the matter, you could have said immediately that you agreed and perhaps tried to compare notes on any doubts that you can or we can have. This created an expectation in me.

Since that was not the case, I explicitly laid out a millionth of my reasoning on the subject to try to understand eventually where they might be flawed, since they could depend on a matter of taste… for this reason, I expected that, from the perspective of narrative morphology, you would tell me how it could be. I chose the score to support my reasoning… I haven't read others in general within the topic. One thing is certain: experimental music can lead to boredom, and a composer who cares that it shouldn't be so should look for answers.

I hope that you want to share your point of view, supporting what you say with the means you believe most effective, but trying not to see Free Jazz or Feldman or etc. only from a compositional point of view, but from the point of view of what happens to the listener.

thallo wrote:

That being said, I haven't been to a concert in ages. I feel disgusted with myself... and this discussion is making me feel deathly guilty.

In fact, I wrote it somewhat "sadistically"; I expected that someone might no longer be an assiduous attendee.

The first question is: so how can one know with certainty that Kappa's experience is more or less confirmed?

A general suggestion is to go and hear music live, especially experimental music; I say this because it happens that the composer, caught up in the object of experimentation, has problems with the orchestration... you read the score, you see the part... I don't know, for the flute... and you hear nothing....and you say, well, maybe that was intended. You listen to the "record" and you hear the flute... and then you realize that the sound technician started doing concertation work... or perhaps they bypassed some of the composer's dynamics, perhaps incorrectly...

An important thing is that in a concert hall, for example, the volume "knob" is not available... this changes a lot if one were a die-hard volume geek... live, we are not in control AND everything just pops out....

Guys, I don't know what to say, so many topics and so many problems have been touched upon... beyond the ideas, you are exceptional. A virtual like to everyone

I would have another question but I will do it in a separate topic…

Frank, the analysis you did of Webern is not the listener's point of view but that of the composer!

That being said, of course I agree with many things you say, but the discussion about narrativity leaves me a bit perplexed; I think I share it, but I am not entirely convinced. You speak of extreme repetition of an element, but minimalism or Scelsi's pieces on a single note do exactly that—in fact, that is the element, naturally transfigured timbrally or rhythmically.

Clearly, if by extreme repetition you mean someone who plays the same note 100 times and nothing else, then we are definitely not getting anywhere....

Silence, you cite Filidei; in "Macchina per scoppiare i pagliacci" there are pauses of even ten seconds between one sound and another. We should establish what the maximum duration of silence is before losing concentration, but on what basis do we establish it? Perhaps a listener after 3 seconds already doesn't understand what is happening, while another "enjoys" the silence. Feldman is certainly an extreme case, I realize that, but Feldman is not just the one who wrote 5-hour pieces; he wrote much shorter pieces (for example for piano), even of just a few minutes. And it will be experimentation that leads to boredom, but I prefer 10 minutes of Feldman over 5 minutes of Britten (personal taste, of course).

I agree instead on extreme variation; the continuous change of every parameter certainly cannot be a foothold for someone listening.

I don't know how to insert myself into a discussion that is now very far along and perhaps already mature, but

micamahler wrote:

Frank, the analysis you did of Webern is not the listener's point of view but that of the composer!

In Frank's writing, I read:

Frank wrote:

However, it wouldn't have been a bad idea to take a look at the score I indicated to you, even just for appearances... perhaps the subject doesn't really interest you in the end, but there are others listening for whom I will not back down.

Narrativity is expressed in many ways and has a constraint of physiological symmetry that moves within binarity or bipolarity, such as a logical parallelism of Protagonist/Antagonist.

I would already meditate a lot on this, but regardless, how can a narrative be made incomprehensible? When 3 different types of situations occur:

Enchantment (it's clear to everyone, right? If I repeat the same word 100 times... at some point it will be impossible to follow)... here I save Webern... even if it's the fourth bagatelle...

Silence (it's clear to everyone, right? If I let too much time pass between one word and the next, those listening may lose the thread of the discourse)

Maximum differentiation (it's clear to everyone, right? If I change the subject every 3 seconds... whoever is listening to me won't understand a damn thing and won't be able to follow)

(I add transfiguration using hyper-parameters, here I save Webern)

In all 3 cases, I am seriously having difficulty remembering the narrative; I think that as a side effect, boredom sets in.

Reading it, I understand: "Maximum differentiation (it's clear to everyone, right? If I change the subject every 3 seconds... whoever is listening to me won't understand a damn thing and won't be able to follow)"... Webern changes tempo 10 times and rhythmic design 10 times in 10 measures... it's not that he exerted much effort for the listener. In my opinion, this is exactly the point of his argument... which, looking back, thinking of Boulez, one can only agree with...

Regarding repetition, I actually have to think about it; certainly if I were to start start start start start start start start start start start start start start start start start start etc.

I don't know... but some doubts are arising and effectively Gerardo's experience leaves little doubt...

Gerardo wrote:

More repetitive than Morton Feldman (even 25-hour pieces) ... what more could one want? After 5 hours, at the last event, people would go to drink a beer, come back, and nothing had changed (they hadn't lost anything)... sometimes you need a speaker to follow the score... and come on...

«often experimental music is born neither more nor less with the purpose of testing a new possibility, a new language, a new effect, regardless of any message this language may convey, and therefore regardless of who listens, and therefore it is born dead». (Carlos)

this is a statement in which I find myself very much.

I am skeptical towards a "music" that establishes its grammatical rules at a desk.

I love 'the new' that emerges from 'the old' and mixes with it, sometimes slyly, sometimes boastfully: that 'new' which, unbeknownst to 'the old' - and even to the composer himself - coexists with the old in the same house (the same work).

Then, one day, even those novelties will be tradition. This goes without saying. But they were born, so to speak... 'in nature'. Not in a laboratory.

Regarding certain experimental pieces (to which I imagine Carlos alludes with "dead music"), it seems to me that the listening guide might have already been ready when the piece itself was not even sketched out.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Regarding certain experimental pieces (to which I imagine Carlos alludes with "dead music"), it seems to me that the listening guide could have already been ready when the piece itself was not even sketched.

I don't know if you know what algorithmic music is? IRCAM, which was mentioned somewhere, has reconstructed pieces like Webern's Op. 27 using a single algorithm.

When I asked my teacher the following question: "it would be nice to experiment with this with authors like Brahms, Beethoven, etc.", he replied, in his exact words... the algorithm does not work with tonality because it is music made of exceptions. From my point of view, paradoxically, tonality becomes more interesting music than others because despite everything being foreseen, it is always new and unpredictable (if one is capable)... whereas anyone can be Webern. I am not speaking in terms of cultural depth, but certainly with the right program one can write Op. 27. There are other works reconstructed by algorithms; it seems to me something related to Ligeti and Boulez."

Boulez's first sonata is like this.

The right program was written by the right programmer

Xenakis:

As far as Feldman is concerned, what I can tell you is that a 25-hour piece is torture for me, no matter which composer writes it. But as I said, Feldman is not just this, and of course, one might not like it. But if Gerardo's experience is enough for you to judge a composer, then you won't even like Britten because I don't like him!

Actually, I like Feldman very much and I have almost all of his scores in PDF, so Gerardo's post only highlighted something that makes one reflect. The fact that I like him doesn't prevent me from recognizing that logorrhea can be tedious... and I'm not talking about myself, as I am particularly masochistic

Actually, I don't like Britten either... but he is very balanced and easy to follow comfortably...

I share this, logorrhea can certainly be tedious... and as for me, I am not particularly a masochist

I don't know, then one just has to accept it... we professionals don't make a big deal out of it if we think that our eventual pleasure might also be shared by others, especially because perhaps we are also fascinated by intellectual pleasure...

Little by little, new elements are being added. I'll throw it out there: what do you know or think about Verdi's wife and her relationship with her little husband?

... for Micamahler, I will calmly return to Scelsi, minimalism, etc. ...because there is still the need to compare on the theme of repetition

Ilenia wrote:

I don't know if you know what algorithmic music is? IRCAM, which was mentioned somewhere, has reconstructed pieces like Webern's Op. 27 using a single algorithm.

When I asked my teacher the following question: "it would be nice to experiment with this using authors like Brahms, Beethoven, etc.", he replied in no uncertain terms... the algorithm doesn't work with tonality because it is music made of exceptions. From my point of view, paradoxically, tonality becomes more interesting music than others because despite everything being foreseen, it is always new and unpredictable (if one is capable)... whereas anyone can be Webern. I am not speaking in terms of cultural depth, but certainly with the right program one can write Op. 27. There are other works reconstructed by algorithms; it seems to me something related to Ligeti and Boulez.

Just two words: an algorithm is a series of steps to obtain a certain result. A recipe can be (and is) an algorithm itself. Webern wrote the true algorithm.... someone else has only reconstructed it. It would have been different if someone had written Op. 27 through an algorithm.

As an aside, with Open Music you can also write tonal music (and exceptions exist within the code as well). Surely finding an algorithm for a piece already written is harder than creating one from scratch; practically, algorithmic composition is born to write and not to analyze.

Just for completeness, if I'm not mistaken, IRCAM had planned to deal with Bach as well (a beautiful project, but I don't know how it ended up)....and to complete what your teacher said, I can tell you that in the end perhaps it isn't even worth reconstructing the algorithm of a tonal composition because you would discover things you already know....

Anyway, [I] found the considerations interesting

x Ilenia

No, I didn't know what algorithmic music was, nor that IRCAM even existed. Before writing this message, I had to gain a minimal notion of it (also thanks to Frank).

I must say that my skepticism remains: that skepticism that made me write "music" (in quotes) in my previous message regarding those experimental things whose main purpose is to experiment.

If algorithmic composition arises to write, as Frank just wrote, this thing seems to me like a 'subcontract' of the compositional work.

One could say that the use of highly technological means capable of producing a certain amount of 'semi-finished material' is unacceptable for those who have a 'romantic idea' of the interior elaboration of a musical creation.

One could say - on the contrary - that in the end it is always the composer (the architect) who decides what they like and what they do not like about all the samples that their 'algorithmic craftsmen' have put before them to use as they please.

is it legitimate to subcontract?... let's say yes.

And by saying yes, I must force myself, because I have a 'romantic idea' of creating music (an idea from which I can also free myself). But the conviction I do not want to detach from is that, when 'musical things' are produced, I am willing to call 'music' those in which the priority intent was to 'create beauty' and not to 'experiment'. In this, I admit my own rigidity. But by posing myself this way, I first (honestly) answer this question: "what can/do I want to call 'music'?".

It consoles me that there were (a long time ago) people so rigid as to consider only the 'harmony of the spheres' as 'music', believing that what instruments produced was a low-grade phenomenon.

Ilenia wrote:

...instead anyone can be Webern. I am not speaking in terms of cultural depth,

Thank goodness! When I read "anyone can be Webern" I lost my breath, but then I continued reading and recovered!

LucaCavaliere wrote:

One could say - on the contrary - that in the end it is always the composer (the architect) who decides what they like and what they do not like about all the samples that their 'algorithmic skills' have put in front of them to use as they please.

Exactly! I know several composers from the '70-'80 generation who question the natural/artificial, or the machine (the problem is roughly the same). In my opinion, the key you provided is the right one: in the sense that one questions the machine to get results, to obtain starting material or elaborations of such material, but what really matters is the ability to formulate the question. If the question is banal, or an end in itself, the answer can only be uninteresting.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

And by saying yes, I have to force myself, because I have a romantic idea of creating music (an idea from which I can also free myself).

I don't want to take it away from you, but it is a fairy tale. Tonality itself is a machine... there are gears, pistons, and exceptions.

A sage once said that the work of inspiration accounts for 1%, the rest is atonement... and it is very true, when the idea arrives it is a flash... but then you have to sustain it and know how to carry it forward. How? With a lot of professional work (and yes, composing is also a profession) and technique.

Do you see the discussions we have?... surely they aren't the fruit of inspiration

x Tiger,

i perfectly agree with everything you have written above.

But you didn't understand what I meant by 'romantic idea' of creating music. I'll try again.

I didn't mean that the processing phase ('sustaining', 'carrying forward', 'craft', 'technique'...) is not necessary. Processing (which I like to call 'gestation') is always there. Even in those works that are believed to have been born "spontaneously" in a single night... those are just fairy tales.

By 'romantic idea' of creating music (which I can do without), I meant the image—idealized, precisely—of the composer closed off in their own inner world, creating their masterpieces without external help: without technological aids, without a piano, and perhaps (absurdly) even being a little deaf.