On 5 Mar 2003 at 16:07, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > At 01:40 PM 3/5/03 -0500, David W. Fenton wrote:
[] > >My basic objection is that a composer controlling a MIDI performance > >with the latest controllers, and using the finest envelopes for the > >instrumental sounds, is still only a single performer controlling > >what might be distributed between multiple individuals. > > I accept the facts. But that's not just any ol' performer -- that's the > *composer* at the controls. And to me, therein lies all the difference. It's a difference, yes. But it's not a difference that makes the composer's performance in all cases for all time the superior performance. And that still doesn't address the basic problem of insularity. > >When multiple people collaborate, all sorts > >of things can be *instantly* suggested, at performance time, just but > >a slight change of shading, a touch of an accent, a slight lift, and > >that can be picked up and run with by the other players. > > Matt Fields also says this. . . He and I were at Oberlin together. > . . . But when is the point of diminishing returns > met? For the career players whose Beethoven is in-your-sleep material, then > such shadings and interpretations are possible. But when a few hours are > assigned to learn a new work without much stylistic precedent, even playing > the notes is rarely a given. Who wants to fight this fight? Not me, not > anymore. Well, as I said earlier, I think "without much stylistic precedent" is more the problem than the performers themselves. How could you expect them to absorb so much in so short a time? They do their best, within the styles they are familiar with. If they make bad choices, then it's simply because they didn't understand the appropriate range of choices. More time to absorb the music would unquestionably help. But that's not practical in most situations, so you're faced with mechanical performances or with adjusting your compositions to fit performance realities. While the latter might seem a horrid compromise, there's quite an honorable tradition there, and the results are not always so bad, after all. Even music so straightforward (to me, at least) as Schoenberg's Opus 19 has only in the last 20 years or so gotten to the point where it's not remarkable to see it programmed. I can't fathom why that would be, other than that it took forever and a day for people to learn the stylistic context in which they should be hearing it (more backward- looking than forward-, in my opinion) and only now are there enough pianists who see it as standard repertory that the musicians grasp it well enough to perform it regularly. That's dreadfully sad. Should Schoenberg have compromised? I hope not. Indeed, he wrote stuff that was immensely accessible and comprehensible (the Variations for Orchestra, op. 31, for instance, which S. talked about in a radio broadcast explaining how he used rhythm to make the 12- tone tonality more comprehensible). But, nonetheless, people closed their ears and refused to listen. People still do, and I'm not arguing that composers should compromise to gain the favor of the pig-ignorant. But there are a lot of sympathetic people, including performers (and even historical musicologists) who find the exasperated and impatient attitude that seems to be the composer's reaction to their puzzlement (over unfamiliar music) rather unfair. Maybe you need to do more explaining. Maybe the performers need to do more rehearsing. Maybe everybody needs to broaden their horizons while deepening their involvement. [] > >And therein lies the distinction that I think is the danger for the > >composer-controlled MIDI performance. It's too easy to become > >insular, to lose your perspective, to become too attached to one way > >of seeing your music so that you end up limiting the possibilities > >inherent in what you've written. > > Insularity can also be considered focus and dedication. And yes, there is that positive aspect to it. But most positive things when taken too far can have a negative impact, and I find a lot of solo performers to be really problematic in this regard. > And insularity is not implicit in Midi/electronically assisted performance. > The Mulchers just gave a night-long concert in (I think) Melbourne. They > just didn't use squeezeboxes and plumbing. Scratchers and techno artists > and trancers are all 'insular' in that regard, while they can create a > wonderful expanse of sound beyond the ability of ordinary acoustic players. This is why I'm not fingering MIDI as the problem here. MIDI is just another instrument. It's the lack of sufficient human interaction that's the problem for me. I don't care that much whether the people are playing via a computer interface of with gut strings. > >How much more wonderful to give the pieces to gifted performers who > >would have there own reactions and find their own nuggets of interest > >in what I've created. > > The gifted performers are welcome to be part of the equation. For most > composers, gifted or not (the composers, that is), they are absent and > almost always will be. "What do you do now, Jack, what do you do?" Well, there are lots of artists and actors and even pianists who don't get their due, either. Welcome to the real world. > At 02:05 PM 3/5/03 -0500, David W. Fenton wrote: [] > >So, how do you notate dynamics? With key velocities? With decible > >levels? Anything else is ambiguous and open to interpretation, so if > >you're complaining that performers don't respect your intentions, > >then maybe you're not being as explicit about your intentions as you > >think. > > I don't understand the question. If something is specified, it's to be done > as closely as possible within limits of and skill (and time and budget). > It's not optional. And if it's not specified, then it's open to > interpretation within the stylistic parameters of the piece, which I would > expect a performer to study and learn. So, how is a performer to know exactly what your MF means? If they get it wrong, is it really their fault? I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect performers to grasp the style of your piece (which may very well be the only composition of yours they've ever encountered, and that may also have nothing in common with any thing you've ever written) to the degree that you'll condemn them for inappropriate interpetive choices that fall outside the work's stylistic parameters. They aren't mind readers -- they are just musicians. I think this is the crux of the matter -- you have very specific ideas, yet, based on your report of repeated failures, you don't seem to me to be providing sufficient information to them *given the time constraints*. You either make adjustments, whether in your expectations or in your compositional and notational practices, or you abandon live performances. > >Could a different person take your MIDI data and rework it in a way > >that would produce an inappropriate performance, working only from > >the printed score? > > Within the stylistic parameters of the piece, no. Which only you know. Gotcha. > At 01:59 PM 3/5/03 -0500, David W. Fenton wrote: > >It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is about what > >our ideals should be. > > The questions and comments in the original post, presented as somewhat of a > pre-drawn conclusion, didn't seem to be about ideals: > > >At 04:56 PM 3/4/03 +0100, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote: > >>Is anyone haunted > >>by this? Is this beautiful? > >>http://www.crystalmusic.com/taussig/download.html > >>The Bach *may* benefit but the Rachmaninoff is a plastic robot without soul. > >>Question is: is the success of this art form going to rely soley on the > >>individual programmer's abilities or will this type of new advancement in > >>interpretive nuance and performance of music eventually help, in the end, to > >>separate the compositional chaff from the wheat? Or is it the lack of > >>emotional and spiritual ensemble between one's individual fingers and hands > >>that which kills the spirit of music? > > I thought this was deliberately loaded and provocative and full of a kind > of 19th century romantic flush. > > So I couldn't agree with the basic premise of the question and redefined > the argument from my point of view: that Midi can do as well and even > exceed a performer's abilities. The entire chain of argument that > performers simply *can't do* a lot of this -- fractals, morphing, > algorithms -- hasn't even been touched. That's irrelevant, since you can't lose on that part of the argument. Where there's room for disagreement is where the music falls within the natural capabilities of live musicians. > If you want to play Beethoven, go get a piano and a pianist. I guess. I > don't listen to Beethoven any more. That's a shame. > >I'm assuming > >the absolute best synthesizers and controllers, since you wouldn't > >possibly be happy with anything else. Why would you assume that > >someone on the other side of the argument would be happy with ill- > >prepared, mistake-ridden performances? > > Because they're almost all ill-prepared and mistake-ridden in the current > economic climate. The few that aren't are rare and inaccessible to most > composers. So, you use MIDI performances. That's your choice. But don't dress it up as a universal. Plenty of other composers find the live musicians they work with to be perfectly satisfactory, if imperfect. And for me, live musicians add the intelligence that a MIDI performance can never have, unless a MIDI quartet, for example, actually has each part being controlled by a different individual. There, assuming sufficient sophistication for the controllers and reasonable musicality for the performers, there's really no difference in terms of the musical and human interaction. That the instruments being played are MIDI controllers is pretty much irrelevant. See where I'm coming from, maybe? > And less talk politics. Even if they appear to be wonderful performances > from an audience/performer perspective, it's very important to realize that > a composer will almost never criticize a performance. It's politically > dangerous and career suicide. Even if a composer *despised* a performance > by your ensemble of choice, Eighth Blackbird, the composer would (unless > their career was incredibly secure or they were incredibly stupid) just > shut up and smile. (In private, they'll come clean to other composers.) Gee, it's just awful that composers have to be nice to people. You really do seem to me to be caught up in a very Beethovenesque romantic genius point of view of the composer's "rights" as an "artist." And I think a lot of your disappointment is in being denied rights that I'm not sure it's healthy to assume. This is where the Howard Roark comparison comes in (main character of Ayn Rand's execrable _The Fountainhead_). [] > And with that, our tastes and ultimately the music itself will change. To > refer to my first post, instruments as we know them are "taking their slow > walk into the museum of sonic history." And from that vast museum we'll > play the Bachs and Ockeghems and Mozarts and Hildegards and Beethovens -- > probably better and better, with the competition from electronic devices. I profoundly disagree. Modern instruments will not make the older ones disappear. The older instruments have phenomenal characteristics that have been bleached out of the newer versions (compare a Mozart- era fortepiano to a modern Steinway, for instance). The older instruments will still have their value for the specificity of their sound. Even if they don't, the one thing that won't vanish is ensemble performance by human beings -- there is nothing like that possible without multiple musically sentient beings interacting with each other. > >Or have you simply despaired of there ever being such a world? > > Yes. Sad. > >Given practical realities, if you want live performances, you should > >compose in a fashion that mazimizes the chances that average or > >better than average performers will get acceptably close to your > >intentions. > > Correct. But ultimately, it is the wrong decision. I think that's so wrongheaded as to be frightening. It's anti-social and anti-humanist. It's profoundly egotistical and arrogant. Beethoven was a complete asshole even if he did write transcendant music. > >Music is about process, about unfolding over time. The social aspect > >of it is for me the part that makes it fun and interesting, both for > >the performers and for the audience. Composers could choose (and have > >often chosen) to exploit this, to revel in the uncertainties, the > >spontaneities. > > As do I. And I have a lot of music that encourages that. In fact, for > years, in writing for amateurs, I have provided what could be done and had > great fun doing it. I still do. (I've provided links in my past posts; have > you looked at or listened to any of that music, or are you just shooting > from the hip here?) I've listened to some of your music, but it's hardly possible to get any useful picture by grinding through single listenings of dozens of works. That would be just as shallow as the performers who don't give sufficient study to your music. I don't really "get" most of what you're doing on initial hearings, but I don't blame that on *you*. I recognize that one of two things is the case: either I simply need more hearings to learn the sound world so that I can understand it, or your music is simply not to my taste. Neither of these mean that I've made a judgement of "good" or "bad" about your music. I plead insufficient exposure to have an informed opinion. > But the heart of it is the richness of the art that the artist is capable > of creating when at the outside edge of ability and imagination and > inspiration. One can point to "Es is genug" and say "Aaah! Genius!" But > JS's art doesn't stop at the chorale, and neither does mine. I don't believe that the "outside edge of ability and imagination and inspiration" have any kind of monopoly on excellence. Plenty of things that are well within the bounds of those parameters are brilliant, moving, amusing, aggravating and well worth listening to. Being at the edge doesn't automatically bestow merit, though it has often seemed to me that way too many 20th-century composers, at least, seemed to think so. > >And when I read you, I feel > >there's that implied indictment behind everything you say. > > Of course there is. (In my role as interviewer, I know this feeling is > shared by composers both unknown and successful.) > > But this discussion is (for me) about driving a Midi performance vs. > driving a muscle performance. In ideal circumstances, both can be equally > subtle. Circumstances are far from ideal, so: > > - On one side are those like me, who want accuracy first and don't care > about the rest. > - On the other side are those who equate muscle performance with some sort > of spirituality. (As Frances McDormand's character Marge Gunderson said in > Fargo, "I just think I'm gonna barf.") But you're attributing sentiment to me, and wrongly so, as should be clear from what I've written. It's *brain-driven* that matters to me, not muscles, it's human interaction that matters, no whether the instruments are made of wood or silicon. [] > >All of those miss the time constraints. And also, choirs that can > >perform Bernstein and Stravinsky, while strictly speaking amateur, > >don't really count to me in the definition of amateur. > >I mean people who barely read music, but who have musical ability. I > >mean the kind of people that sing in the choir in a church with 100 > >people at weekly services. > > Um, half of my 8- to 12-member choir didn't read music. Some still don't. > We sang for congregations of under 25. We rehearsed one hour a week. I'm > just good at it, and have worked with amateurs as director and composer for > so long that I *do* know what's possible in terms of inspiring performers > to do well, and I write what's doable. (From a composer's perspective, most > of those performances were terrible; but they were for the performers and > the congregation, not the composers.) > > I listed all that because it met your criteria, it didn't violate them. You didn't prepare the Bernstein in a one-hour rehearsal, which was my point -- limited capabilities with limited time. > >And it should also teach them how to write music that is going to be > >performed *correctly* with little special preparation. You learn what > >is hard for performers and then learn to shape the musical material > >to avoid musically unnecessary difficulties. > > Beat 'em down until they cave in, you mean? Rip off their creative wings? > Remove their aspirations to write at the edge? Deny them artistic > marvelousness from the start? No, this is a fine little experiment, but not > much more. (I happen to like it, but it does make me lazy.) > >I'd be interested to know if you'd compose for viol consort, and what > >you might compose. > > I have already. The entire middle movement of my Triple String Quartet > (using only the second of the three quartets) is rescored for viols. I've > never published it, though. I've arranged many pieces for viols; I think my > arrangement of Dowland's "In Darkness" is on my site, but I'm not sure. It > hasn't been played in years. Heck, I used to play bass viol and still own > one (I no longer play, so if you want it, it's for sale at > http://maltedmedia.com/people/bathory/gamba.html) And I've written for > recorders; there's a book of pieces called "The Big Fipple" on my site > that's probably among the most popular downloads. > > >But to me, it seems that the composers are the ones who broke the > >covenant. > > Total nonsense, especially if you think Boulez was a problem composer. But > that is for another time. I can't imagine why anyone could not see that Boulez was an arrogant bastard who thumbed his nose at all his audiences after a certain point. Sorry, but you've only described a masturbatory musical environment in which the listeners receive enlightenment direct from the Genius Composers. Your musical society is fascist (hence the Ayn Rand reference). Mine is democratic. I don't for a minute deny you your right to control the performances of your pieces. I don't mean to suggest that you're not a wonderful performer whose music sounds better when performed as you wish. But as a universal rule of application, if your feelings about it represent those of large numbers of composers (as you say they do), then I think it shows that composers are spoiled brats who should think more about the fact that they depend on audiences and can't just browbeat their listeners into swallowing whatever they presume their audiences need. I won't argue for the converse, that composers should simply compromise down to the lowest common denominator, but ignoring the audience is cutting you off from the society your music is supposed to enrich. Of course, maybe that's my error -- assuming that's a goal of your composition. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
