luis
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by luis on Sept 27, 2017 8:49:43 GMT
Hi. I'd like to know your opinions about that. What do you think about indeterminacy in music? There are, in general terms, two levels: - Composer: using random systems (as Cage did with the I Ching)
- Players: interpreting more or less indeterminate scores
In the first case, we have a definite score, but the process of composing has gone through some kind of indeterminacy. In the second case, we have an "open" score. Sometimes even there is no particular instruments indicated. The maximum exponent is the graphic score.
I have experimented with the two scenarios.
On one hand, I used decks of cards to write some piano pieces in which I take some, or almost none, control over the process. On the other hand, I made some graphic score and let it be played by others.
Greetings.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Sept 27, 2017 11:17:24 GMT
It's an interesting topic. Personally I like my scores to be very set. Within the knowledge that every performance and musician will be different, I don't want much interpretation, and writing a part that's left to the musicians (like a free gliss or a phrase of random fretboard tapping or something) is too potentially random for me except, in cases I can imagine where I would be unable to score a particular effect and have to leave it to the expertise of the players. The only exception to this in my writing so far is occasional use of fermatas (fermati?).
But then, I don't write music you could really call experimental.
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 27, 2017 20:04:09 GMT
For me, it depends on the piece. Some of the music I've written only makes sense if strictly interpreted, but for others, many things are open to interpretation. I think it depends on the nature of the piece.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Sept 27, 2017 20:08:35 GMT
I have experience with both. Even though I'm a disorganized slob, I really like repeatable structure in my music. I just can't get excited about a piece that is 10 minutes of 7 clarinets playing random overtones. Or a score that is a flowchart of odd symbols representing sound events, to be played in any order by any number of instrumentalists, on any instrument. Which is not to say that I don't love sitting down with other guitarists for jam session. Music to us. Noise to others.
|
|
|
Post by David Unger on Sept 27, 2017 20:09:41 GMT
I always want to make it as clear as possible what my own intentions are and therefore rendom elements can not be found in my music. I do however like when my music is interpretated in a way that shines new light unto it and makes me aware of things and possibilities in mu music that I was previously unaware of. I do not however particularly enjoy music that is largely based on random elements and almost never perform or listen to such music.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Sept 28, 2017 9:57:48 GMT
For me it depends on the parameters the composer keeps hold of and controls. Lutoslawskis' scores are about as far as I can accept to relinquish control. Cage, throwing a dice, is not for me. Neither are the graphics scores that Bob alluded to. The randomness and chance element essential to composing when you are hunting for an idea is acceptable, because once found, you apply yourself to it and it becomes a personal expression. That is what I value in music - the imposing of ones' will on the material - the desire to control and to then communicate something intangible and perhaps moving to a listener. Obviously indeterminacy can also communicate to receptive ears, but composing with chance is an acknowledgement that the self is not needed and is a paradigm shift too far for me.
|
|
|
Post by BootHamilton on Sept 28, 2017 20:40:52 GMT
Well, coming from a Blues and Jazzish background, this makes perfect sense. We have a set chord-structure, set rhythm and an approximate melody, but how it is interpreted is up to the players. And this is why I mean to keep aiming at a hybridization of this rather improvisational approach, but within a different compositional structure than a 12 bar blues. Now, Jazz has taken this this, standing on the foundation of blues, and intellectualized it way beyond Robert Johnson's 'Crossroads'. However, the attempts at melding a degree of improvisation with a more 'classical' approach to instrumentation, at least anything I've heard to date, have sounded contrived, non-integrated and unconvincing (don't ask me for examples of this 'bad' stuff - I've flushed it from my memory banks). Maybe I'll be the one. Maybe not. But I will keep trying. The truth is out there. And so am I, sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by pantonal on Oct 27, 2017 14:59:38 GMT
I get blues and jazz improvisation, but I don't think that's what the OP was asking about. In blues, jazz and rock improvisation the idea is to play a solo over the chord changes. The idea is to provide and enjoyable musical experience to the listener.
The indeterminacy that the OP was asking about is the concept of introducing randomness into the composition or performance process. In my experience random sounds (for lack of a better way of putting it) random. Part of what makes an enjoyable musical experience is an emotional connection to the music. A virtuoso performance can be at the very least thrilling and other emotions may be brought forth by music. In addition for me, I like to hear the structure of music, I enjoy hearing variations on themes, the return of melodies I've heard earlier in a piece in a different guise. The problem with randomness is that it can eliminate any aspect of that. The notes are random or the melodies or rhythms are random. There's no attempt to build a coherent structure, so the listener is left wondering, "What will come next?" Composers may surprise the listener with what they put next in a piece, but it usually makes sense in the larger structure. I find randomness usually boring and not at all interesting. YMMV
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Oct 27, 2017 17:29:12 GMT
pantonal: Does it necessarily have to be that way, though? What if the randomness is applied at a higher level, e.g., at the structural level? So you'd still here recognizable themes, but their sequence of appearance (for example) may differ. Not that I'm advocating for such an approach, but it's just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by pantonal on Oct 27, 2017 19:28:56 GMT
pantonal : Does it necessarily have to be that way, though? What if the randomness is applied at a higher level, e.g., at the structural level? So you'd still here recognizable themes, but their sequence of appearance (for example) may differ. Not that I'm advocating for such an approach, but it's just a thought. You're absolutely right, the approach can be structured any way you can conceive. Having said that it seems in practical terms the typical approach that I've seen seems to prefer more more randomness not less. The higher level approach you've suggested would be viewed as half assed, probably because the results might be more enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 27, 2017 20:17:27 GMT
I think the case of performance indeterminacy holds the most promise and danger. Regardless of what happens, each time the piece is played. it will never be heard again. It is up to the player to make each performance the absolute best ever. Each time. No holds bared.
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Oct 27, 2017 21:12:35 GMT
Funny, that sounds like me improvising on the piano. So many good ideas, and almost all are forgotten. (Of course, there's also lots of fluff that ought to be forgotten...)
|
|