Jerry Berg
Stu McIntire wrote:
Ok, it's been all day and the silence is deafening! Or does everyone but me know this is just bait and you're accordingly not giving in? I mean, where would you even start anyway...Stu -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mr. Liudas Motekaitis Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Finale] "Real" composers ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher BJ Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] "Real" composersAt 9:19 AM -0500 11/10/02, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: snipBut those are all notational methods (so fall under the original question of who-is-a-composer), without even addressing the less theoretical and more significant area under constant discussion on the CECDiscuss list. Since electroacoustics (EA, or 'electroacoustic music', EAM, to those who don't mind the extra verbal associative baggage) does not deal with melody/harmony/rhythm as central to function but rather moresignificantlywith the development and juxtaposition of timbral elements, then themethodof transmission, method of notation (if any), and listening parametersforthese compositions are very different from dot-music. (Four years ago, I did have an interesting exchange with the very reactionary Churchill Society about this: http://maltedmedia.com/books/papers/sb-chrch.html) How do I, as an EA composer, create a method of transmitting my work?more snip Dennis, you ARE the man! Great post! I didn't always agree with you in the past, but you are extremely persuasive and an excellent writer, even without proofreading. I've kept this post for later reading and fun.What is going on here? I am going to simplify western music history as much as I can: Our western musical heritage has its roots in Pythagoras. The math relationships between tones were declared as something inherently interesting in the things we hear. This is WAY before Werkmeister, and Neidhart with problems of temperament and tonality etc. And WAY before Helmholz and Herz, and all of their acoustics. Let us not forget that already at the very beginning we had Music as the highest form of philosophy, indeed, it was the highest discipline in Platos utopian Republic. So what we have at the VERY beginning of all of our musical concepts of today was something that was (1) highly mathematical in nature and (2) something that speaks to and develops the all-important human soul (well, it was important then, today we're considered by many to be biological machines which chew and defecate, and have chemistry instead of emotions and discipline). So this math-soul thing we labeled music ages ago was later found to have its physical roots indeed in the math relationships between the notes' frequencies. And the ordering of these relationships was called composition for a long long time. The composer built music structures from bricks called notes. A chord was a type of wall. Perhaps a rest was a window. So on the one side we had the mathematical intricacy of the brick-work develop and on the other side, throughout western music history, and parallel to this, we also had the soul-nature of this interesting thing called music develop. According to place, historical context, traditions, etc, each of these two sides of music were of more or less value to composers and to the public. The fugue accented the beauty of the math aspect and the logical structures associated with that. Passion as expressed by the Romantics accented the emotional aspect and the soul, the feeling associated with that. But we had feeling in Baroque and Fugues in Romantic music, too. To sum it up, it was a display of the interplay between sense and sensibility, incorporated into one media whose name was music. Maybe that's why it was valued for such a long time. The point I want to make clear is that NOTHING changed fundamentally in the philosophy of music for thousands of years, until... ...until people started doubting things like the fundamental math relationships and build using timbre alone. It is like an architect trying to build with only water. You need bricks, too. Otherwise there is no chance at structure. The definition of timbre is: "The combination of qualities of a sound that distinguishes it from other sounds of the same pitch and volume." To doubt this is to doubt one's own existance (yes, that too has been done. There is help. Ask someone to kick you in the leg REALLY hard). If a composer supposes he/she is really composing music without using notes, and using only timbre, then I am speechless. It is an insult to logic herself to state that compositions which incorporate usage of both tones and timbre can even be compared to compositions which use only timbre. A very large part of compositional instumentation is exactly the use of timbre. Much of the emotional accents, dynamics and other markings made in scores has to do with timbre and its connection with the composition.How do I, as an EA composer, create a method of transmitting my work?You have two choices: (1) in Finale, attach all of your accents and other markings to dummy notes and then use invisible noteheads, then delete staff lines and all other traditional things on the page. Voila -- pure emotion, no meaningless notes. (2) Since that obviously won't work, you must go further: you must do as the pop industry has done and you must declare the recording you make to be the composition itself. It worked for them. It is the only way to prevent interpretation, which is definitely not desired if you are already getting touchy about things such as room acoustics. And to think of all of those beautiful concert halls, all gone to waste since future composers will not trust them for use with their own timbral compositions! Philosophically, what I see happening in these cases is not composition of new music but rather a creation of a new musical instrument which can only play that single piece which has been created for it by the composer. The composer creates the music and the instrument to play it as well, all in one composition-type thing which requires a new name. In fact this is merely a most logical continuation of the trend started centuries ago to get more and more conrol over how the musician's performance will be accepted. Wagner even built his own opera house out in the woods for this. Bach would have liked it, but he would have rather had the money spent on music education for children, so they could learn to compose. In my view, the most intelligent and true composer is the one who learns as much of the history and traditions as possible, and then adds to these in a most ingenious, respectful, and honourable manner. And for this reason, as far as I know, the greatest composer by far last century was Dmitri Shostakovich. Now there's a composer par excelence for you. And he did it all with the same little meaningful dots Pythagoras got so excited about thousands of years ago. Liudas _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
