Re: [microsound] a new primitivism?

[Garry Kling <kling007@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 05/10/2001 08:03 PM, Ian Guthrie Yeager at iyeager@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>> What about orchestration, which is all about exploiting different timbral
>> qualities ? 
> 
> Of course, but always in service of melodic and harmonic themes and ideas.

On an even lower level timbre has always been a very essential element for
the performer. The artist of the past were interested in timbre changes of a
more subtle sort. They were also limited by the tools of the era. It's very
easy to say now with so much power at our disposal that timbre has been a
neglected element in the development of western art music. The artists of
the past were very concerned about this, and you can see the "development"
of the use of timbre if you look between Bach and Strauss. There is no
revolution here, we just happen to have a tool that many composer wish they
had before. Not only have we the power to create unimaginable timbres, we
don't have the additional challenge of relaying that information to a second
party. We press play.

>> And then there's the more recent extended techniques
>> tradition which is all about the search for new sounds and exploration of
>> timbre.
> 
> Well, like you say, "more recent." And that's what we're talking about.
> I think once Schoenberg had 'exhausted' just-intoned, 12-note, tone-based
> composition (of course he hadn't, but....), composers were looking for
> other dimensions. Timbre is a pretty obvious direction which has
> traditionally been woefully underexplored in Western "art" music, the
> importance of orchestration and good tone production notwithstanding.

In the 20th century we call it extended technique, in the 19th century
extended range, harmonics on string instruments, loud volumes, new
percussion instruments, and was generally called noise, Turkish music, or
sound-effects. It was very exotic to have cymbals in an orchestra before
mid-century. 

And I don't think the idea is too obvious, given what was considered "music"
was very limited. I don't think the world was ripe for the exploration
you're referring to.

> 
> Anyway, I agree with your points, Andrei, I don't feel like I'm in
> disagreement. Just different points of view.
> 

I do agree with you, Ian, in the sense that there are so many possibilities
left unexplored. But we have many more possibilities than they did, and I
think they did a pretty good job considering the sensibilities and social
structure of the time.

It just sounds like criticism, what you're saying, when I think you're just
trying to make a point about how technology has opened up these avenues for
exploration. Maybe the tool isn't the message after all... And I think so of
these composers would have given their left nut to have what we have,
especially the control over sound and artistic freedom.

Garry