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

[Michal Seta <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 11:24:36 +0200
Øivind Idsø <plateaux@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Michal Seta wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> How can you tell? That he isn´t "aware of any rules", I mean? Isn´t
> this simply the ol´ metaphysics of authorial intention, whereby the
> critic claims to somehow have/gain access to the
> writer/composer/painter and his intentions? ("He tried to do X, but
> failed"? "He wanted to write a novel concerning the X, but instead
> ended up with the (lesser/greater/whatever) Y"?)

I cannot say that someone intended to write a piece in C Major but ended
up writing it in F#Major, or C Phrygian for that matter.  That's not the
point.  What you can tell from a listening to a piece whether the
pitches in the music (note: I say _pitches_ because the discussion
concerned _tonal_ music) are organized in some way.  I mean, they need
to be organized in some way if you want it to sound tonal.  And there's
nothing wrong with tonal music, if you ask me.  However, providing that
it is not an aleatoric piece of music (which, normally has no chance of
being tonal unless you _control_ the aleatoric process to an extent that
it produces only tonally related structures) you will expect some level
of organization.  If there is none and you know that it isn't aleatoric
music then, by simple deduction, you know that the composer of that
music has little or no clue.
> 
> How is it at all possible to know that the "composer" in question
> unintentionally or intentionally breaks the rules?

It isn't really possible.  However, through experience you can have a
'good idea' that this is the case.  After you have studied music for
some years and you've seen (and heard) people breaking various rules for
various reasons you get an idea.  However, what's imprtant is that when
you do break a rule it's for a reason.  Usually a broken rule gets
replaced by a new rule that's unique to the composer breaking the
'established' rules.

> Wouldn´t you have to
> know this person´s background and/or explicit intentions before making
> such a judgment (and getting all freudian: does the author even know
> his own intentions?) Or perhaps the "composer" intended for an
> eventual mistake to sound like a mistake? Or perhaps he "fails" (how,
> and according to what, does he fail?) to do even this successfully?

As I said.  If you intentionally break one form of organization you will
most likely want to reorganize into some other form.  Lack of any
organization whatsoever will usually indicate a lack of a clue...   I
admit, though, that I feel too stupid for some of the highly organized
forms.  I love Webern, for instance but can't really hear and appreciate
the series and structures (nor the aesthetics) of Boulez.  (but then
we're talking tonal, here)

> What would this mean for the
> external gaze that compares it to one History?
> 

History is being continually rewritten.  As is theory.

> I can see that pastiche or parody would be possible within a
> formalized tradition such as classical music, but how would one make
> an ironic or parodic comment on, say, Merzbow? Mouse On Mars?
> aleatoric music?

no idea.  Parody isn't my cup of tea.


> Will he judge Francois Bayle according to Wagner? Schaeffer to
> Bach? How about the other way around?

Of course not.  I said that before.  However you can judge/analyse
Wagner in light of Bach and although their musics are *totally*
different you will see many similarities.  Especially in terms of them
both writing tonal music in different ways with pretty much the same
amount of skill but following different rules.  (tonal counterpoint
anyone?)  Then you can analyse
F.Bayle in light of Schaeffer and come up with some elements that are
similar.

> 
> Borges´ view on the "retroactive influence" suits me better: a great
> author not only creates successors and imitators in the future, he
> also creates successors in the past. It´s possible to say that Kafka
> was influenced by Borges or that Descartes is (now) influenced by
> Beckett. And that Beethoven is (now) influenced by Bayle. Bearing this
> in mind, who makes which"mistake"?

sorry, I'm not aware of 'retroactive influence'.  However, I'm reading
Stephen King's "Dreamcatcher" and there is one character that seems to
be living simultaneusly in hist past, present and future.  Now, that's
SF (or just F).

> 
> Borges´ "Pierre Menard" is a brilliant example of how one can maximize
> difference through a word-for-word sampling/repetition of Don Quixote,
> of how the future leaks into the past and vice-versa ("The text of
> Cervantes and that of Menard are verbally identical, but the second is
> almost infinitely richer...").
> 
> For me, this changes everything.
> 

I'm not familiar with those works but I think you're mixing up influence
with incompetence.  I understand that someone could be influenced by 1
or more composers, imitate one style or another or juxtapose one style
with another.  But it does take a great deal of knowledge to do it
right.

And please, don't ask me what's the right way.


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