Re: [microsound] Further (rambling) thoughts on Mutek, 2nd night (30/05)

[Guillaume Grenier <gollum@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 03/06/02 07:50, Derek Holzer said in living color:

> guillaume,

Hi Derek.

> you must admit, however, that judging much contemporary electronic music on
> the standards of traditional music theory is a bit like judging sushi on the
> basis of linguini.

Do you have objections on specific points of my review?

I suppose that the bit on grasp of harmony is the one generating
discomfort...?

I'm obviously not looking for prepared 7ths, conjoint resolution of 6/4
chords, avoidance of parallel 5ths or stuff of that ilk. My position is that
when a musician does music where the harmonic parameter occupies a
significant function, especially in a tonal realm, he ought to know the
resources/limitations of this material. I don't mind if he disregards
canonical practice of some epoch or another. But it *really* shows when a
musician is working with this parameter in a completely clueless way.

> [or video on the basis of rembrandt, satellites on the basis of
> sailing ships, rock on the basis of ragga, apples on the basis of
> oranges.........]
> 
> even when the latter is directly referenced [handel in mattieu, rembrandt in
> greenaway...], the same aesthetic standards just don't apply.

I agree. Do you think I was guilty of such an offense in my brief discussion
of the Mathieu performance?

> "classical beauty" remains the stuff of myth. we are taught to like
> symmetrical composition, equal temperament tuning systems and ketchup on
> fries. it always strikes me as a trick of the old academic fuddy-duddies to
> discredit new forms by comparing them with established, canonical stuff. just
> ask literary critic Harold Bloom, for whom literarture began [and probably
> ended] with Shakespeare.
> 
> best, derek

I don't think I'm doing that (discrediting new forms by comparing them with
established, canonical stuff), if that's what you're implying.

I'm interested in a very vast array of musics covering hundreds of years and
vastly different aesthetics. When I try to form an opinion on a particular
piece, I evaluate the merits of exactly what I'm hearing. Now, it appears
evident to me that I cannot isolate myself from prior musical experiences
when exercising this judgment. Comparisons are bound to be made (on not
entirely conscious levels, if not explicitly) and any pretension to ignore
this would be hypocritical, I think. What needs to be avoided, I think, is
to apply an evaluation grid *derived* from a specific sample (belonging to,
say classical forms, to stay on topic) to all musical manifestations. More
useful comparisons that would not skew one's perception of a work would be
ones taking place on a global pleasure scale of sorts. This performance of a
Schubert sonata brought me X amount of pleasure, this new Tom Waits record
Y, this Janek Schaefer CD Z and so on.

But then, there is the question, are there different types of pleasure? How
do they measure against each other? And at this point, I must abdicate,
still being too trashed by the crazy Atom and company closing night of
Mutek...

g.

-- 
Guillaume Grenier - gollum@xxxxxxxxxxxx

in space there is no north  in space there is no south
in space there is no east   in space there is no west