Pierluigi Billone - Δίκη Wall (2012) - Schallfeld Ensemble

I'm sorry Red, this time I didn't pass the minute mark. I didn't really like it at all.

It's a shame because it is a very beautiful piece...

Anyway, for those who want to see in more detail what happens, I suggest this video

Open content (youtube)

And on his website there are also some pages of the score: http://www.pierluigibillone.com/pdf/%CE%B4%CE%AF%CE%BA%CE%B7_wall_example.pdf

RedScharlach wrote:

It's a shame because it is a very beautiful piece...

...I imagine, at least for you.

Think about it, to me it seemed terrible...but obviously it is a subjective opinion. It is certainly a well-done job, of course...it just doesn't suit my taste, something that hasn't happened with other works you have proposed in this section.

Oracolo wrote:

...I imagine, at least for you.

Not just for me! I'm sorry anyway for having very little time in these weeks, otherwise I could write something more. In any case, I regretted writing 'beautiful' because the issue risks appearing very flattened. In the sense that here – obviously – it is not just about beautiful vs. ugly. That is so banal that it isn't even worth talking about. It would instead be worth talking – if one had the time – about what Δίκη Wall can mean. What is it? This is a slightly less stupid question – but much more complex. Because there are many things inside this music. The first two that come to mind: the relationship, which is far from obvious, between the percussionist and the percussion. Does the body act as a resonator for the Chinese gong hanging from his neck? What is the relationship between sound and the body? Second question: rhythm. Here it is truly very simple, extremely direct: that ta-ta that opens the piece with violence (and returns later, with a totally different sound: but it is still him). And then there is a whole series of questions revolving around these two points which are the first to strike me. The relationship between the percussionist and the other instruments. I don't think anyone can doubt that Billone knows to the millimeter what he is doing. The relationship between the instruments is calibrated with a precision that has few comparisons. See the example recorded by micamahler: it is all there, without any vagueness, everything marked in detail and without hiding behind any graphic notation (I would even say it is functional and "intuitive"). And going further, there would be many other things to say, in the sense that – in any case – it is music that is at the same time visceral and direct; it is a strong and not easy experience; it is nonetheless something quite unique that you don't find elsewhere, and it carries with it a whole series of things that are much needed today.

RedScharlach wrote:

it carries with it an entire series of things that are much needed today.

This last sentence makes me very curious, there is a great need for whom?

In general, no one denies that Billone knows what he is doing and in fact it was precisely having started with something beautiful that somewhat conditioned my initial immediate opinion. I mean, surely it will be interesting, but granted and not conceded that beauty is subjective, in my opinion the beautiful things are others ... within the scope of contemporary music (I am not referring to other reservations).

So, I'll make a general point. However, I must start from our conversation, because one thing needs to be clarified. I introduced Δίκη Wall by writing: here is a beautiful new recording. 'Beautiful' evidently refers to the recording, not to the piece itself. Usually, when I propose a piece in this section of the forum, I try to explain briefly and simply how I see it, for what reason that piece seems interesting to me… In short, I try to provide an interpretation, certainly partial, perhaps even wrong, but something that can be discussed. In the case of Δίκη Wall, no, for a trivial reason: I wanted to propose it because I was interested, but I didn't have time to write anything else.

Oracolo intervenes and writes: “I don’t like it.” What is this, Nutella? I don't like Nutella, fine. But here we are talking about music. Do we want to discuss it? Then let's articulate a thought. What is there to discuss about the fact that you don't like it? There is nothing to say… But then it is perfectly useless to discuss it. Can we imagine something like this referred, I don't know, to Beethoven? Just to mention a name about which no one would have doubts. What sense is there in saying: “I like the Great Fugue,” or: “I don’t like the Hammerklavier at all.” I mean: in the face of such statements—both positive and negative—wouldn't you also, Oracolo, feel some perplexity regarding the ability to get into the merits, and to say what, how, and why, to explain, to discuss, etc.?

So it is clear: I hear “I don’t like it,” and I respond with an even greater triviality, something like “it's beautiful.” Something like that does justice to no one, neither to the Hammerklavier nor so much less to Δίκη Wall. And so let's talk about it, but seriously. You ask me: “Who is there such a great need for?”, and I answer you: for a lot of people. And not just for the few thousand people who listen to “contemporary music”: otherwise it would be truly useless. Instead, here there are things that many would need: I don't say everyone, that wouldn't make sense, but surely here we can find something that is rare to find in our old and weary Western culture. A precise knowledge of what is being done, how it should be done, and why it is being done. In this case, since we are dealing with a composer, the knowledge of sound. And I am not talking about “effects”: everyone uses those. I am talking about the possibility of creating something new, never heard before, and equally comprehensible—perhaps difficult to explain, but comprehensible—where every sound has its place, its function, and its breath; something unexpected and perhaps not pleasant (or at least not immediately pleasant) but endowed with a strength that one does not hear every day.

I understand what you are trying to make understood, but perhaps it isn't simpler to say that (at least I think this is what he meant) on an aesthetic level, he didn't like the piece?

"That's all", in music, besides the meaning a certain work may have for the composer, and the total control of means and theory over creativity in order to determine the structure of the composition, aesthetics remains, which has its importance, but if this is not perceived, identified, or understood by some listeners, there is nothing to be done.

Here it seems to me that one is slightly drifting into personal displeasure.

One can strive as much as one wants, but if their personal perception of that composition does not go beyond "the technical means, the control of every event", what remains is pure technique without understanding and, last but not least, without the pleasure of listening which, even if "how one gets there" is important (I am not diminishing the work that may be behind works of this kind and anyway behind every properly conceived work, on the contrary), remains (or should/could remain) the first, and not the last, goal for a composer.

Piccinesco wrote:

I understand what is being tried to be conveyed, but perhaps it isn't simpler to say that (at least I think this is what was understood) on an aesthetic level, he didn't like the piece?

"That's all", in music, besides the meaning a certain work may have for the composer, and the total control of means and theory over creativity used to determine the structure of the composition, there remains aesthetics, which has its importance, but if this is not perceived, identified, or understood by some listeners, there is nothing to be done.

Here it seems to me that one is slightly drifting into personal disappointment.

One can strive as much as one wants, but if their personal perception of that composition does not go beyond "the technical means, the control of every event", what remains is pure technique without understanding and, last but not least, without the pleasure of listening which, even if "how one gets there" is important (I am not diminishing the work that may be behind works of this kind and anyway behind every properly conceived work, on the contrary), remains (or should/could remain) the first, and not the last, goal for a composer.

I should preface that I substantially agree with Red, and this regardless of my personal judgment "on an aesthetic level" which perhaps I will be able to concretize after many listens: for now I limit myself to saying that it undoubtedly arouses and maintains my interest, if only because, undoubtedly, we are faced with music that is truly - at least to my ears - new.

I do not think that the primary task of a composer is to be pleasing to listen to.

Not for nothing - I think - Red made a comparison with Beethoven's Hammerklavier and the Great Fugue, which are two works in which, if the composer from Bonn had made it his primary problem to be aesthetically pleasing to his contemporaries, he would never have composed.

Regarding the former, after the flop he said, it will be understood in 50 years - but he was being optimistic - and regarding the latter, also after the flop, he called his listeners donkeys and beasts.

In reality, for the Great Fugue to be recognized as the masterpiece that it is, it had to wait well 100 years, until it was finally re-performed and understood.

Now, I don't know how this work that Red proposes to us will be perceived by future generations, obviously, but, I repeat, a composer does not necessarily have to pose the problem of how it might be perceived on an aesthetic level; otherwise, we would still be stuck with the music of the past and, while this might perhaps be fine for many, it is nonetheless always an indication of staticity, of anachronism, and would, as such, have very short breath (lack longevity).

Perhaps I explained myself poorly; it is logical that a composer must compose what makes sense to them, something strictly linked to their being and that contemplates as much as possible their ability to translate the knowledge they possess into music, but what I meant to say is that (and taste comes into play very subjectively here) for me, in addition to these considerations (which, stated this way, may seem to oversimplify the matter a bit, but that is not my intention), one cannot set aside too much the pleasure of listening (which above all must convince and satisfy the listener themselves), otherwise it would remain, with all due reservations, also a "pure" exercise of one's own abilities.

Let us be clear, I am not comparing a composition written in Baroque or Romantic style with something like this, but it is to make understood what I mean.

A pieces from the 1950s/60 can seem "new" and always relevant to me, even though they are now (in some cases) considered "old"; it is clear, therefore, that in certain respects (even if it is not a rule, this is logical) personal taste influences things quite a bit, and that this being well-known is obvious.

I would like to add, but only as a “joke”, that regardless of the complexity of a work (as often happens, some works that are truly complex in terms of writing and also listening actually turn out to be pleasant, as if we understood them immediately), an instruction manual should not be necessary to listen to a piece; because while it is true that not all music is the same (fortunately), it is equally true that saying “first time's a charm” (just to use an exaggerated example) cannot always be valid in some cases, whereas in others a learning curve is far too long (assuming one can even understand a piece in the end).

I hope that what I am writing is not understood as an a priori or a posteriori rejection of the piece in question nor of other works of contemporary music, because I have listened to a bit, certainly little, but there are things that, I repeat, despite their complexity and duration, struck me immediately, and I am not talking about baroque music.

I myself, writing very simple music which for some is useless given the times we live in, have ideas regarding more daring compositions, but it takes intelligence, means, the ability to put all the material together, develop it etc... and last but not least (for me it is so), the search for the pleasure of listening, even if a piece proves difficult technically and graphically.

First, I did not mean to say that it must please others, so that everything else becomes secondary; absolutely not.

Piccinesco wrote:

one cannot set aside too much of the pleasure in listening (which above all must convince and satisfy oneself), otherwise, with all due reservations, even that would remain a "pure" exercise of one's own abilities.

But I think that this is precisely the point, namely, I consider it highly unlikely - if not impossible - that a Beethoven in his time and today a Billone, in composing and listening to their own music, did not feel - or do feel - pleasure as well.

While there is little to say on matters of a technical nature, pleasure is always subjective after all. I do not think a composer makes music that does not convey pleasure to them and, this, regardless of the type of music they compose,

Just as Beethoven's contemporaries did not share the composer's pleasure, today many do not share the pleasure of certain contemporary music, but this does not mean at all that those who compose it and also those who listen to it do not feel it.

Piccinesco wrote:

Here it seems to me that we are slightly drifting into personal regret.

"Personal regret," no, that is an exaggeration... personal regret would come from much more serious things, I can assure you!

Let's just say, however, that one thing does bother me: the fact that writing "I don't like it" leaves no room for discussion. It would perhaps be enough to write "I don't like it because...", explaining why, and then things would change. In particular because we are in a forum here; we write something and leave a public trace. But arguing takes effort, perhaps even just discussing takes effort; it is easier to click "like" or "dislike." It is a kind of Facebook syndrome.

The other thing I wanted to tell you – because I assure you that I always read your posts with the utmost interest, precisely because you participate in discussions by always bringing your point of view, even if perhaps sometimes I don't quite agree, and this is evidently one of those cases – is when you say that "music should not need an instruction manual." For me, it isn't like that. Years ago, I could listen to or sing Renaissance polyphony without really understanding anything about it: to understand something, I had to study counterpoint, I had to read volumes on modality in Renaissance polyphony, I had to research the composers of that era... Only by studying did I begin to understand; I changed my way of listening to that music by learning to recognize its structures and the differences between one composer and another (once they would have seemed imperceptible to me, now I find them enormous). I am far from considering myself a specialist in the field, there are those who dedicate their entire lives to it... However, for example, I became convinced that – as I already wrote some time ago – Josquin Desprez is one of the most important composers in our history, and his greatness can only be equated to composers like Bach and Beethoven.

Then, it is evident that music does not necessarily have to be difficult and demanding, I have never thought so: fun music is perfectly fine, immediately pleasant music, silly music, and so on (Berio used to say "there is music and music") and it's not as if listening to one prevents me from listening to the other. But nor can I – changing perspective – ask non-fun music to be fun, or ask music that isn't immediately pleasant to be immediately pleasant, and so on.

Of course, on this you will find me more than in agreement, it could not be otherwise.

The difficult part is certainly reaching as many people as possible, but in this I imagine, I hypothesize that the consumption of this music on a global level carries great weight; in practice, it is not an everyday thing to be able to listen to it

on TV—and I mean truly on TV—so you have to go and look for it yourself, and since it is not music accessible (through the most usual and powerful "information" channels available) to everyone, unless indeed by searching for it (which on one hand is also more pleasant, because sometimes you discover pleasant, interesting, particular, and stimulating insights), the level of understanding remains still low, insufficient.

For my part, I think I do not have the right preparation for this type of listening; regardless of the fact that I have been prescient since birth, I do not feel prepared, culturally and also as a person; I feel like I am halfway there, which is why there are some works that "grab" me immediately, and others that I just cannot stomach, but this is also subjective.