Raphaël Cendo - Scratch data (2002)

Doesn't it seem excessively repetitive to you?

I will say something a bit strong, reconnecting to the piece by Bertrand and Billone that we have already discussed... and still in favor of Bertrand versus Billone and Raphaël Cendo.

You asked me what Bertrand had more of than these last two... well, I remember much more of Bertrand and nothing of them. I don't know how to explain it, but it's a bit like if you meet a woman... precise, perfect, with all the little things in place, but after a night together you don't even remember what her face looked like... and instead, that woman you saw on the subway, totally normal and not even too perfect, you remember her for your whole life.

...it must be captured by someone, right? Well, same feeling...

If we also consider the piece by Steen-Andersen, among those mentioned this one left a deeper impression on me... but I must tell the truth, more the "figuration" than the music...

In short, I just can't really get into it with the music (as such)...

Marcello wrote:

Doesn't it seem excessively repetitive to you?

A certain amount of repetitiveness is determined by the idea of the piece, which mimics some characteristics of digital media (at certain moments it feels like hearing a skipping CD!). This concerns the surface, the detail.

As for the global form, the idea is compact; there are few elements. Frankly, I prefer an excess of redundancy to an excess of dispersion. Obviously, these are personal tastes: for me, the piece is certainly repetitive, but not too repetitive!

RedScharlach wrote:

for me the piece is certainly repetitive, but not too repetitive!

And it is indeed subjective as well, but who can tell us if it truly isn't too repetitive? To me it seems infinitely repetitive; during the first listen I almost made it... by the second listen it had already told me everything.

In my opinion, there are things made to be re-heard, so despite the repetition, even massive repetition, one gets a certain gratification... others less. Now I'm not saying that this is the case, but when a few minutes ago I pressed play...

A bit like in the case of Corghi, I am not very convinced.

RedScharlach wrote:

i prefer redundancy over dispersion.

Perhaps this is the point; I am not sure that art contemplates redundancy. At most the "right"... but also the "beautiful", essentiality, and more. No great work has anything redundant or out of place. In this one, I see everything except for the characteristics listed above.

Rotore wrote:

Perhaps this is the point, I am not sure that art contemplates redundancy. Rather the "right"... but also the "beautiful", essentiality, and more. No great work has anything redundant or out of place.

It seems to me that there is a lexical problem. Redundancy, in itself, has no negative connotation. It is a fairly common term in the field of contemporary music (but also, for example, in information theory, where it is obviously not used in a derogatory sense!!). In very simple terms, it indicates the proportion of repetitions of a given element within its own context. Redundancy - understood in this sense - is fundamental in music, and is present in the vast majority of cases. Art or not, Bach is extremely redundant, and very often Beethoven too... Conversely, a case of low redundancy is the music of Webern, especially regarding the shorter pieces.

Redundancy, in itself, has nothing against essentiality and "being in order"... As for what is right and what is beautiful, I leave that to your judgment.

All true, but the famous little rule (de facto and we can say "artistic") of 3 almost always holds ... and besides Webern.... has self-extinguished in his aphoristic nature, only his ideas remain (not bad, they are)... but ultimately, I increasingly seem to encounter people who only listen to the Passacaglia and his works where he makes use of the voice... there must be a reason? Right?

Cute discussion on redundancy

Read from http://it.wikipedia....wiki/Ridondanza (I know it's not the best, suggestions are welcome)

Redundancy is being superabundant, excessive, or unnecessary. The term has various meanings:

1. Redundancy in linguistics, the use of words whose omission does not constitute a substantial loss of meaning.

2. Redundancy in technology, the addition of duplicate parts to increase reliability.

3. Redundancy in psychology: according to the theory proposed by Watzlawick, in reference to the Pragmatics of Human Communication, this term indicates the repetition of behavioral patterns that we observe during an interaction.

And so, on the contrary... just for a change:

3) Those who have studied sociology will correct me, but the repetition of behavioral patterns is not an advantage

2) certainly a positive connotation (but it doesn't change the value of the introduction)

1) the first one seems to me to be the case being appealed to in the parallelism with language...

... but:

I maintain that music has sense (and not just one) and not meaning, so definition 1 is not properly relevant because the sense of this piece is given by the repetition...

Perhaps it refers to the cases in the introduction proposed by wiki....but I see a connection (between the lines) to meaning anyway... personally speaking, it doesn't drive me crazy, but since not much time has passed since it was written, I am unable to say if it is just my problem or a problem with the piece itself... time will tell. Of course, if none of the professionals liked it (obviously, I am not just referring to this forum) ... that would be pathological...

Or rather (because one is never too precise) in many contexts the term redundancy certainly has a negative connotation: in linguistics, for example, where the redundant element is the superfluous element since it adds nothing to the informative content of the message; or in literature, where redundancy generally reduces to a mere aesthetic whim.

In music - in my opinion - the repetition of an element is neither positive nor negative in itself: the conveyance of a possible meaning is not determined by the meaning of a formal element (what would be the meaning of the cascade of sounds that opens Scratch Data?) and the fact of repeating such an element is an aesthetic choice. In certain styles, repetition (redundancy) is tolerated and perhaps even sought after (a Bach Fugue is extremely redundant at a thematic level, a Beethoven Sonata is extremely redundant at a motivic level but perhaps is scarcely redundant at a rhythmic level, but the discussion changes from piece to piece); in other styles redundancy is abhorred (Webern, as I was saying); in other cases, redundancy is the basis for the construction of meaning (minimalism, obviously). Let's say that in terms of redundancy, Scratch Data places itself at some intermediate point between pure minimalism and Bach.

I do not want to comment on the proposed piece, but I would just like, once again (I don't give up so easily), to point out that if one follows words too closely, one ends up creating sophisms, where perhaps a small effort to understand each other would suffice. It seems to me that here Rotore simply used “redundancy” in one of the many senses in which any term can be used to express a certain meaning. In themselves, terms are like instruments: neither good nor bad, it depends on how they are used. Therefore, investigating philologically what the connotation of a word is is quite superfluous. I believe Rotore simply wanted to say that here the repetitiveness or overabundance of some element or aspect does not please him much (at least that is how I understood it), and trying to convince him or even demonstrate to him that redundancy also has positive aspects would not prove to him that in other cases (as in this one) it does not have them.

More importantly for me, is the vexata quaestio regarding sense and meaning in music. I certainly do not presume to discuss this topic here, but, just to provide some food for thought, I would like to remind you once more (even if I have already done so elsewhere) that there can be no sense without a meaning, at least if we are talking about the term 'sense' as used in logic or linguistics. Sense is precisely the way in which a meaning can be expressed. Therefore, saying that something has a sense and not a meaning is somehow a contradiction. I know well that this is a misunderstanding that, like many others, arose at the moment when specific terms were carelessly translated from one subject to another. Probably in this case, the confusion brought by the distinction between connotation and denotation was also superimposed. But if one wants to say that a given music has no external material reference (assuming that is possible), one should simply say exactly that: that a given music has no precise and unambiguous reference. Furthermore, one should not underestimate the hermeneutic aspect, namely that there can be no interpretation except of a meaning. And much more… The fact that an expression does not determine a unique meaning (which is actually quite rare, and a known cause of misunderstandings), does not mean that it does not determine any meaning at all. I believe these are points to be considered sooner or later; otherwise, one risks enormously shrinking the otherwise vast field of semantics and losing a large slice of pleasure (...intellectual, I mean).

Bianca wrote:

It seems to me that here Rotore simply used “redundancy” in one of the many senses in which any term can be used to express a certain meaning. In themselves, terms are like instruments, neither good nor bad; it depends on how they are used.

Without a doubt. However, it happens that in certain lexicons some terms have specific technical meanings: such is the case with redundancy, a concept quite widespread in the field of contemporary music... and since we were talking about contemporary music...

Bianca wrote:

e trying to convince him or even demonstrate to him that redundancy also has positive aspects, would not demonstrate to him anyway that in other cases (as in this one) it does not have them.

On the other hand, I do not intend to demonstrate that redundancy in music has positive or negative aspects in itself. I simply want to note that it is a constitutive part of many musical styles (not all, but most). But Rotore already knew this: he actually recalled the "rule of three", which seems to me a quite fitting example (parenthetically, Cendo also shows knowledge of it).

Bianca wrote:

Therefore, saying that something has a sense and not a meaning is somehow a contradiction.

mmm ... perhaps in this "contradiction" lies the specificity of music (perhaps!) ...

From my point of view, music cannot have meaning but it can make sense (and also many senses) and be connoted. Since Bianca won't back down ( ), I would like to start from examples to make the discussion more concrete... would a Chopin étude be okay?

For example, if possible, could someone illustrate its meaning to me?

RedScharlach wrote:

Without a doubt. However, it happens that in certain lexicons some terms have specific technical meanings

Exactly. Just like for 'sense', when it is accompanied by 'meaning', it is immediately placed in a specific field which is that of logic, and as such, an interlocutor who has expertise in the matter receives it as such.

As far as redundancy is concerned in general, personally, in music I do not see it a priori as a negative aspect, on the contrary. And probably not even Rotore (for example if he liked baroque....). I was only noticing that here he gave it a non-positive connotation, which is perfectly possible. That is, if someone finds that redundancy here does not bring positivity, one cannot refute their judgment by remembering that elsewhere redundancy is positive (and I am not just talking about taste...). Well, I don't know if I explained myself clearly...

Frank wrote:

From my point of view, music cannot have meaning but can have sense (and also many senses) and be connoted. Since Bianca will not back down ( ), I would like to start from examples to make the discussion more concrete... would a Chopin étude be appropriate?

For example, if possible, could someone illustrate its meaning to me?

Frank, I understand what you mean. However, I would like you to try to see things from other points of view as well. What I said before does not only concern music. Imagine we are not talking about music. Sense and meaning are used in that way; one cannot speak of sense without speaking of meaning. In mathematical logic (and therefore not simply in linguistics), which I believe is the most formal subject man has ever invented, one certainly cannot proceed without semantic concepts; in fact, one simply cannot do without them. Those who invented formal languages were moved precisely by the intention to reduce, for example in philosophical disputes, the possibilities of misunderstanding caused by possible different interpretations of meaning, not by the intent to erase meanings.

You ask me to illustrate the meaning of a piece. There is not necessarily "the" meaning or "a" meaning of a piece; there are countless ones. Each performer will give their own during their performance. Meanings are not just pieces of matter, but everything that is indicated by a sign, in some way everything that at that moment does not perform the function of a sign, since even a sign can be a meaning.

In Western music, one of the most frequent fields of meaning, but not the only one, is the sphere of emotions. In other cultures, there are semantic fields that are even more defined and determined. In a hypothetical experiment, I could assign to each sound event in a series a specific and unequivocal correspondence of any kind, and so on.

If we want to set aside mathematical logic, a field that I can understand may seem difficult, we could for example start from the excellent works of Piaget, for instance on the formation of logical and physical concepts in children.

If instead we shift our attention to how much the concepts of denotation and connotation can be distinguished in music, the discussion is certainly more feasible and the margins for opinion wider, perhaps.

Sorry if I'm "interjecting," but ...

Bianca wrote:

What I said before isn't just about music. Imagine we aren't talking about music.

But in a forum of musicians and regarding a piece of music... what should one talk about?

Bianca wrote:

There isn't necessarily a single meaning or a specific meaning to a piece; there are countless ones. Each performer will give their own during their performance.

I'll jump back in... in my opinion, you are always referring to the sense, even if you are unaware of it

Natan wrote:

Excuse me for "interjecting," but ...

But in a forum of musicians and regarding a musical piece... what should one talk about?

Natan wrote:

i'm backing up... in my opinion you are always referring to sense, even if you are unaware of it

Of course, that can obviously be the case. But it could also be the opposite. I can only once again urge a rereading of the "classics" on the subject. Then again, they too can obviously be contested; generally, I am the first to do so. One just needs to agree on the vocabulary to be used. However, if you attribute to Sinn the use made of Bedeutung, you will have to find a place for the latter, or else delete it from the vocabulary, knowing that you will then have to fill the gap left by the former...

But, without going too far, have you ever tried looking in an encyclopedia under the entry "sense"?

Or, making even less effort, try to give me your own clear definition of "sense". I have repeatedly given "mine" (though it is not mine), and if it isn't liked, it can quite easily be changed (though I don't know how many logicians would be willing to do so).

Bianca, it cannot be the opposite because to obtain meaning one must "get entangled" with semantics... which music cannot have.

If only I had coined the axiom that music is an asemantic art, lacking which (semantics) it cannot, by definition, have meaning...