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

[Øivind Idsø <plateaux@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Michal Seta wrote:

> 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.

In comtemporary music I´d say it´s often far fetched to assume that the
music is either organized or it isn´t organized; you´d have to guess. And
to judge whether or not it´s organized you´d have to use a pre-established
"law", so to speak, thereby reducing/subsuming the potentially different to
the rule of the same. The "I´ve heard it all before" could simply mean
you´re listening to it the "wrong" way, or that the "law(s)" you´re
comparing piece X to has been misconstrued to begin with. The concept of
the "originary" is highly problematic, not least when it comes to
aesthetics. "Classical music" is such a powerful concept, and it should be
deconstructed 24-7.

I also very much doubt that you´d be able to distinguish (in this day and
age) what´s aleatoric and what´s not in much, say, glitch music. (I won´t
go into the microscopic fact that .completely. aleatoric processes can´t be
produced on a computer, so that some kind of control is always
involved--though not always on the part of the "composer"). So the
"mistake" you might think you find could be based on a false premise. As I
said, the composer could be in control, but it still sounds like a
"mistake"--if compared to .your. form. If compared to the "form" of a
writer in The Wire it could sound just like what the doctor ordered.

Is Oval´s "Ovalprocess" or "dok" highly organized or a more or less random
collage of various semi-random/purely-random processes? I can´t tell. I
reckon it would be impossible to make this call if you knew nothing of
Markus Popp and his homecooked way of spinning the digits. What in The
Legend Of Eer is random, what is not? And couldn´t the structure of the
piece (as viewed from above, or as a "classical surface") be described as
rather uninventive (it ends with the beginning and begins with the end;
it´s almost aristotelian with its beginning, middle and end, and that would
suit the greek Xenakis just fine)? But would the piece as a whole be
characterized as uninventive?

> > 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.

Yes, yes, deterritorializaton and reterritorialization. It´s unavoidable
and it´s fine. But the composer would not have to know that he broke a
rule, as his intentions are not distributed through/with his music (unless
you are one of those talkative electroacousticians cum writers who include
ten pages of text in the booklet accompanying the CD to describe exactly
what´s been done and why). Who broke what is determined on the receiving
end (the musical collective, the socius etc.), and whether or not the
artist serving the dishes knew seems irrelevant--unless he´d want to
reproduce the rulebreaking, but why would s/he? "Breaking things for a
reason" seems too formalized and political to me. Wasn´t it Schönberg who
said he only "invented"/developed serial/12-tone music because history
(musical) dictated it should be invented? Scary, that.

> Then you can analyse
> F.Bayle in light of Schaeffer and come up with some elements that are
> similar.

Not to mention all the things that are very different. What´s more
interesting - finding similarities or finding differences?

> seems to
> be living simultaneusly in hist past, present and future.

Aren´t we all?

> > 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.

Influence and incompetence doesn´t exclude each other.

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

I won´t. I´ll just say that "right" doesn´t sound good to my ears.

/Øivind/