[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] Formal Constraint



There are (at least) two schools of thought about this. The first, that of
Cage and Reich, et al, argues that the results of all aleatory processes
must be accepted without any interference from the composer.  That is,
accepted without any appeal to aesthetic considerations.  Reich, however,
differs from Cage, by arguing that the process must show itself in the
results (ie. if the listener can only understand the process from something
that is external to the music - writing, notes, introduction, etc. - then
the work is a failure) .  The second school of thought is much less formal
and allows for conscious selection and recombination to occur after the
initial aleatory process, ie. the results can be accepted or rejected, or
combined, go through further processes, etc.  I would call it a hybrid
approach.

I favour the hybrid approach.  For me the purpose of these processes in
music is to bypass the conscious volition of the composer.  Once this has
been achieved I think that it is possible for the artist/compooser to
inflict their selective aesthetic judgement on the reults without carrying
too much unconscious cultural baggage into the piece.  The problem I have
with the first approach is that it either values the result as an
(unmusical) autonomous conceptual art piece, or that it values the
ontological link between the result and the process over the music, thus
falling into a kind of essentialism.

>At what point does the method of artistic creation become more important
>than (or more interesting than) the end result?
>
>I keep coming up against this problem and wondered what some of you think.
>To clarify a little, i'm thinking about the use of  some sort of formal
>constraint as a means to produce unexpected results---for example: various
>forms of  serial or twelve tone music, Cage's music of changes, works by
>Georges Perec and Oulipo (using mathematical structures as a means of
>creating "potential literature"), Pollock's drip paintings, etc.    The
>idea here is that by constraining the means of creation one can arrive at
>a work that is somehow new, fresh, experimental, etc.  In the words of
>Perec "by not being able to say what you normally would, you are forced to
>say what you normally wouldn't."  Quite often I've heard about an
>artist/musician who uses some fascinating me
>ans to create a work only to be disappointed by the end product.  To what
>extend do these activities become more about the method of creation than
>about the end result....and if so, is this an acceptable aspect of
>experimental music???
>
>ideas??
>
>-patrick
>
>bohm.333
>bohm.732
>http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/538/bohm.html
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>website: http://www.microsound.org

------------------------------