Re: [microsound] Further (rambling) thoughts on stuff

[Michal Seta <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi there, Derek

I know that your comments are directed to Guillaume and that he can
speak for himself but they generated some brain activity in my
ex-academic head.  So here're my 2 (worthless) cents:

On Mon,  3 Jun 2002 13:50:20 +0200
Derek Holzer <derek@xxxxxx> wrote:

> guillaume,
> 
> 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.

Yes, providing that the said music (composer) isn't exactly trying to
imitate the traditional theory and doing it bluntly.  And not really
knowing what he's doing.  I'm not speaking about the mentioned shows. 
Just in general.  However, our era has experienced some 'retro' things
happening: neo-classical, neo-baroque, neo-romantic etc.  And although
those styles did not follow _all_ the 'rules' governing the respective
periods' characteristics they still set forth their own logic.  In any
case, as soon as you hear pitches (which is quite often, even in the
'contemporary electronic music'), even if you don't analyse them on the
basis of 'traditional music theory' you still try to organize them, or
rather understand their organization.  Why should those pitches be
organized, anyways?  Well, that's a whole different story.

> 
> even when the latter is directly referenced [handel in mattieu,
> rembrandt in greenaway...], the same aesthetic standards just don't
> apply. 

True.  What does apply though?

> "classical 
> beauty" remains the stuff of myth.

Beauty is very subjective.  However, logic of/within a composition is
not (well, sometimes) and is (or has a potential to be) more tangible. 
However, I am aware, while writing these words, that, say, conceptual
art (sound or otherwise) or improvised (especialy) music will have a
different 'internal' logic than some piece of music _based_ on older
(like, say, classical) forms.  I tend to think that in the case of
conceptual (I should be careful with this term, arguably, serial
composition is/was conceptual, too as many other 'techniques' once were)
or improvised music the context seems to be more important than the
internal structure or form for that matter.  Well, sometimes.  But that
also, is a different story.


> it always 
> strikes me as a trick of the old academic fuddy-duddies to discredit
> new forms by comparing them with established, canonical stuff.

I can't help but to agree with you on this one too.  I, too, find that
many academics (professors, critics, students) are too stuck in the
established forms.  However, when I hear a tonal piece of music (be it
electronic or not) that claims to be groundbreaking avant-garde and it
violates every single rule (or most) of tonal music
composition/construction and it does not (self)justify those violations
I am willing to take the stand of an 'academic fuddy-duddy' and say:
"This is crap!"

Don't get me wrong, it is OK to break rules.  But usually you can tell
when the rules are broken on purpose, with the full knowledge or said
rules or when they're broken as a pure mistake because the 'composer' in
question isn't aware of any rules.

DISCLAIMER:  This is not an attack on any composer/artist in particular.
 Just a mid-day rambling.

cheers
-- 
../MiS

Michal Seta		http://creazone.eworldmusic.com/doc/mis
CreaZone		http://www.creazone.com
No One Receiving	http://creazone.eworldmusic.com/doc/nor

upcoming release:
NOR - "The Release of the Wandering-Eyed Girl"
	http://www.grainofsound.com