|
Post by fuguestate on Mar 21, 2019 20:51:43 GMT
Yes, I get what you mean.. and I am playing devil's advocate.. But I do not think you are giving the exploration of rhythmic complexity - (as developed in India, for example) - its due weight. One could say that what they lack in harmonic modulation, they make up for in rhythm. I must say, applying the 'dramatic arc' model does not necessarily fit as a way to measure music from 'other places'… especially, considering the harmonic stasis of say, Indian music. But pieces - Ragas, do build in intensity - and from what I understand, have motivic Rhythm cells, that are 'modulating' - many times in poly rhythms.. But no, not exactly a fugue. gx : I get that some people believe that indigenous musics are somehow "better" than, say, the western classical tradition -- I dunno, perhaps it's more "from the heart" than a meticulously-planned and executed large-scale performance perhaps, or as Bob Porter says, a large symphonic performance might be considered an exclusive rather than communal thing. And I get that rhythmically speaking, it may very well be true in some cases that indigenous musics are superior in complexity. Perhaps these are things that people look for in music: something that "speaks to their heart", or something so rhythmically complex you couldn't notate it, or something you could participate in as a communal activity. But what draws me to music is not primarily these things. These are surface elements that perhaps could be what sparks my initial interest. But what ultimately draws me into the music is the structure, and the correspondence of said structure with substructures thereof. This is probably why I strongly agree with Sibelius in that anecdotal conversation with Mahler, where Mahler wants to emcompass the world, whereas Sibelius appreciated the inner consistency and coherence of a symphonic work -- and probably why I don't enjoy the Mahler symphonies as much as I do the Sibelius ones. This is probably why I enjoy fugues, and other things with motivic development, cyclic structures, self-references, that sort of thing. This is probably also why I generally don't enjoy songs, because I'm not very much drawn to the emotional element of the lyrics, and the accompanying music is rarely on the same level of interest as, say, a symphony, for practical (and very valid) reasons. (I do enjoy songs when I like the lyrics, though -- but I rarely ever find lyrics that I like. Most lyrics don't move me an inch, and thus the associated song sparks little interest in me. Y'all may throw the rotten tomatoes, but I tune out during the choir passages of Beethoven's 9th, and pay intense attention during the instrumental-only passages. ) I do derive a lot of emotional enjoyment from instrumental music, though, paradoxically enough. But again, that's only when the structure becomes a vehicle by which the emotion of the music is transmitted and amplified. I find most of the slow movement of Beethoven's 7th rather boring -- because it's just the same theme over and over again, more-or-less in the same form -- in spite of most people raving about how good it is. And on the contrary, when the opening melody of the 1st mvmt returns at the end of the finale of Shostakovich's 7th, that was an intensely emotional moment for me -- that cyclic reference brought closure to a musical question that has been left open through almost the entire length of the symphony, and that, to me, is extremely powerful, much more so than Beethoven wringing a single theme dry for the umpteenth time. Anyway, I have to say that my complaint wasn't about rhythmic complexity, or harmonic complexity, or melodic line, etc.. These are merely individual elements from which good music is composed. What determines whether the music is good, IMO, is not any specific such element, whether it's "complex enough" or "developed enough", etc.. It's the overall coherence and structure within which these elements are interposed. It's the large-scale structure built from these individual elements. It's the correspondences of individual instances of these elements with each other, and the coherence with which they are wrought into the whole. It's the sense of discovery when you suddenly realize that this motif was actually the development of a previously-heard motif. It's the sense of awe when the counterpoint intensifies in complexity yet never loses its bearing or the rules it set out to follow. That's what drives me to new levels of musical euphoria. And that is something I haven't yet found in any indigenous music. I can find many of the elements in indigenous music, but only as individual, isolated elements. They can be individually very well-developed, perhaps far beyond what western music could ever offer, but there is no upper structure. There's only the ground floor full of well-developed bricks -- beautiful in their own right, but never built into a larger, cohesive structure. The "bricks" with which western classics are built may be "inferior" by some measure, but the structure built from them stands tall, grand and awesome, a magnificent edifice for which one may reasonably excuse the supposedly poor quality of the individual bricks. The individual bricks from which the structure is composed may not have much speak of, but together, they form an imposing structure unchallenged, to my knowledge, by any indigenous musics, and AFAIK absent from indigenous musics. And again I emphasize, this doesn't mean the western tradition is perfect. Those bricks sure could use some polishing, or better yet, wholesale replacement with newer, better building blocks. But without the large-scale structure, you can have the shiniest, most modern, individual blocks but it means little, in my view. I think you misunderstand. I did listen all the way through both performances (and I note that the monkey dance video was incomplete, because there was a fade out at the end, implying there's more that wasn't shown). What I meant was that after 20-30 seconds or so, I didn't perceive any signs of the aforementioned upper structure. There were many wonderful bricks, perhaps more wonderful than the kind of music I would listen to, but the building was absent. I seek the building; bricks alone are insufficient.
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Mar 21, 2019 20:58:47 GMT
[...] BTW fuguestate , listen to Messiaen's Turangalila Symphony for all things raga-related and rhythmically complex. A piece solidly in the great tradition but bursting forward into new territories. I'll have to look it up sometime. Thanks for the suggestion! Somehow this link is broken...? All I get is a message saying an "unexpected error" occurred.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Mar 21, 2019 21:39:00 GMT
I don't think anyone is saying that non-Western music is in any way superior. You've gone to great lengths to explain how you think Western music is better. I don't think which is better is the point. How music is realized in different cultures IS the point. To someone brought up in an Eastern culture, a Sibelius symphony has less than no meaning, or value. Their music is just as important to them (if not more so) as yours is to you. The things that make Western music important to you are great. For you. Bigger is better, regardless of how great the building material, is no guarantee of anything. It might be a waste of space in another culture. For example, I like Wellington's Victory. Generally a laughed at composition. My reasons are my own.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Mar 22, 2019 10:37:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Mar 22, 2019 11:12:26 GMT
We could all probably agree that music at the very least should be transformative in some way, be that on a communal, popular level, a physical (dance) level, an emotional or on an intelligent plane (or all of them). The methods of achieving transcendence in a piece of music are obviously different, but perhaps that is the only real common ground between all musics. The rest is upbringing, influence and perception.
I listen for, reach for and am moved by, the same parameters as Teoh in concert music, but I am also moved by a lot of popular music too. It always amazes me how efficacy in music composition itself can be acquired by trained and untrained composers/performers alike, the artistic results of which are often favourably comparable. I do think there is music in everyone and that music is naturally a transcendent experience (done well of course:-)
|
|
|
Post by gx on Mar 22, 2019 16:12:08 GMT
"I do think there is music in everyone and that music is naturally a transcendent experience (done well of course:-)" Gentlemen, extreme caution is required; we have a radical among us. Thanks HS for your quite detailed model of appreciation. That is a feat in itself. And I mostly agree… except that I have seen where rhythm can be more than a brick to the structure.. but something that has modulating/morphing cells which also underpins the grand structural design has been done, and worth mentioning in this context. One example of this is Reich's "Drumming"…(which is quite long -- an hour+) and it might try your patience.. but I'll post a few others that are more 'friendly' to the listener. If you have limited time, check out the first 10 minutes of 'Music for 18 musicians", first.
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Mar 22, 2019 17:23:37 GMT
Bob Porter: fyi, I grew up in an Asian culture. Well OK, it was a mix of Asian and Western cultures, so I had ample exposure to both kinds of music. Yet I find little or no value in the music of my culture. Well actually, I didn't appreciate any kind of music back in those days. It wasn't until later that I "acquired the taste", one might say. But I won't belabor that point anymore, since I've already stated my position more than clearly. Mike Hewer: I listened to the Messiaen several times. Its harmonic language is utterly alien to me, so it felt like listening to a foreign language that I didn't understand. But it did have very interesting rhythmic variations going on, and from what little I could make sense of it, quite interesting motivic developments of the opening "subject". As well as changes of mood, intensification of tension over time, and resolution, etc.. Very interesting indeed. It's not exactly what I'd choose to listen to, but it does have very interesting ideas that I might borrow at some point in my own work. Thanks for the recommendation! And I have to say, it is greatly reminiscient of some of the piano fugues you posted on the Other Forum a while back. I guess now I'm seeing firsthand your Messiaen influence. (Speaking of which, any new prelude/fugues lately? Been missing my dose of "spicy (ear) sauce", Hewer brand. ) gx: I'll have to listen to those samples you posted later, but for now: Gentlemen, extreme caution is required; we have a radical among us. You mean... like this one?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Mar 23, 2019 7:53:45 GMT
gx Greg, I have a love/hate relationship with Reich's work. Hate, because a lot of briefs I received professionally had his music as a reference. Love, because hearing him here again in your post after a long hiatus, has made me realise that despite his ubiquity, you've reminded me that he really was quite innovative. Have you heard his 'Different Trains'? fuguestate Teoh, there are many interesting technical moves in the Messiaen including retrograde rhythmic canons, non-retrogradable rhythm, stretti devices and the usual augmentations etc. His concept of additive rhythm and other innovations (including raga adaptation) was a decisive influence in my humble efforts and might be an inspiration for you in your own work regardless of the language. You can download his seminal treatise on his own technique here... monoskop.org/images/5/50/Messiaen_Olivier_The_Technique_of_My_Musical_Language.pdf The chapter headings alone should intrigue you if I've read you correctly over the years. BTW the way Messiaen sounds alien to you is how I feel about your mathematical thingy me bob above....
|
|
|
Post by gx on Mar 23, 2019 18:13:34 GMT
Hey, Mike. Yes, me too… a long time since I've listened to Reich.. As a young kid, I found the 18 musicians quite something.. Then I had to listen to everything he had done.. I'm not crazy (although - it seems so well liked..) about different trains.. It hits me more of an exercise, technically.. The inherent rhythm and tone of speech (of a phrase) that then is morphed into the Qt. part. I get the bigger message, though… the political.. but I found it tiresome.. 'Come out' is one of hits earliest experiments, (which was political as well) which uses and dices up speech phrasing using (I guess) a R to R.. I think it is certainly interesting to use 'tape' to cut up the rhythm in a very precise way, which I find quite revelatory (the 'echo' displacement) to his whole process, (you can even feel the piece bleeding). .. Something Carl Stone went on to do much with. When he came out with the Daniel Variations, (which I saw performed at a rehearsal, where Reich was present, wearing a red baseball cap.. ) I was pleasantly surprised, and moved.. But I don't listen much these days.. or much of the other 2..Riley and Glass.. though that might not be fair to loosely group them. There has been some modulation though in their approach, as time went on.. maybe Glass, not so much… But his Liquid Days in kinda fun.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Mar 31, 2019 8:25:57 GMT
Hey, Mike. Yes, me too… a long time since I've listened to Reich.. As a young kid, I found the 18 musicians quite something.. Then I had to listen to everything he had done.. I'm not crazy (although - it seems so well liked..) about different trains.. It hits me more of an exercise, technically.. The inherent rhythm and tone of speech (of a phrase) that then is morphed into the Qt. part. I get the bigger message, though… the political.. but I found it tiresome.. 'Come out' is one of hits earliest experiments, (which was political as well) which uses and dices up speech phrasing using (I guess) a R to R.. I think it is certainly interesting to use 'tape' to cut up the rhythm in a very precise way, which I find quite revelatory (the 'echo' displacement) to his whole process, (you can even feel the piece bleeding). .. Something Carl Stone went on to do much with. When he came out with the Daniel Variations, (which I saw performed at a rehearsal, where Reich was present, wearing a red baseball cap.. ) I was pleasantly surprised, and moved.. But I don't listen much these days.. or much of the other 2..Riley and Glass.. though that might not be fair to loosely group them. There has been some modulation though in their approach, as time went on.. maybe Glass, not so much… But his Liquid Days in kinda fun. I suppose one could say the "dicing" and tape cutting was a form of rhythmic (motivic) variation - I take your point though, I can only take so much of him, Glass, Riley and minimalism in general. I fair a lot better with Adams who has become more musically centre ground and his expressive reach is much more musically satisfying I find. He is in fact one of my favourite 20thCent. composers although he misses the mark for me when he reverts to more simplistic traits. Glass is ok for 5 mins and then I turn on him and call him terrible names. BTW do you know Lou Harrison's piano concerto...the slow mvt is a beauty.
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Apr 1, 2019 13:47:57 GMT
Hey, Mike. Yes, me too… a long time since I've listened to Reich.. As a young kid, I found the 18 musicians quite something.. Then I had to listen to everything he had done.. I'm not crazy (although - it seems so well liked..) about different trains.. It hits me more of an exercise, technically.. The inherent rhythm and tone of speech (of a phrase) that then is morphed into the Qt. part. I get the bigger message, though… the political.. but I found it tiresome.. 'Come out' is one of hits earliest experiments, (which was political as well) which uses and dices up speech phrasing using (I guess) a R to R.. I think it is certainly interesting to use 'tape' to cut up the rhythm in a very precise way, which I find quite revelatory (the 'echo' displacement) to his whole process, (you can even feel the piece bleeding). .. Something Carl Stone went on to do much with. When he came out with the Daniel Variations, (which I saw performed at a rehearsal, where Reich was present, wearing a red baseball cap.. ) I was pleasantly surprised, and moved.. But I don't listen much these days.. or much of the other 2..Riley and Glass.. though that might not be fair to loosely group them. There has been some modulation though in their approach, as time went on.. maybe Glass, not so much… But his Liquid Days in kinda fun. I suppose one could say the "dicing" and tape cutting was a form of rhythmic (motivic) variation - I take your point though, I can only take so much of him, Glass, Riley and minimalism in general. I fair a lot better with Adams who has become more musically centre ground and his expressive reach is much more musically satisfying I find. He is in fact one of my favourite 20thCent. composers although he misses the mark for me when he reverts to more simplistic traits. Glass is ok for 5 mins and then I turn on him and call him terrible names. BTW do you know Lou Harrison's piano concerto...the slow mvt is a beauty. I used to call Glass names, too, until I watched the documentary about him ("Glass" I think) and it was clear he's not a con artist, however much I may disagree with much of the results. I find his music is most successful in film, operas and as incidental music, where it is not intended to be evaluated on its own. I'm quite excited about his opera, Akhenaten, coming to NYC next year. I saw Satygraha several years ago and it was excellent. If the production is good, the total result can be quite effective.
|
|
|
Post by gx on Apr 1, 2019 19:09:24 GMT
IIRC, Glass studied with Boulanger.. at first i too thought he was a con artist.. just hit the arpeggiator button, . But yes… I do agree, that it works in conduction w film.. Mike, it's been quite sometimes since I heard the Harrison concerto, but remember that I liked it a lot. I think that one was in 'just' intonation… (Wasn't he also influenced by that gamelan stuff:) I'll check out that 2nd mov't. (IIRC, he had an artist retreat built near 'Joshua Tree' …)
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Apr 1, 2019 19:27:05 GMT
IIRC, Glass studied with Boulanger.. at first i too thought he was a con artist.. just hit the arpeggiator button, . But yes… I do agree, that it works in conduction w film.. Mike, it's been quite sometimes since I heard the Harrison concerto, but remember that I liked it a lot. I think that one was in 'just' intonation… (Wasn't he also influenced by that gamelan stuff:) I'll check out that 2nd mov't. (IIRC, he had an artist retreat built near 'Joshua Tree' …) In conduction Greg.....(sorry good typo). Yeah why not, if his music is in a film it'd give me more energy to listen, mainly because there'd be something to look at and distract. I take the point about his music in collaboration though, including libretto. The repetition can easily become a single, simple, uneventful strand in a soundtrack. I heard his vln conc recently and that just confirmed my dislike of his 'absolute' music. I also have some 4tets of his I think but don't remember them demanding my full attention neither.
|
|
|
Post by BootHamilton on May 27, 2019 21:10:38 GMT
That's IT!
I'm gonna' start workin' on a country tune.
|
|