JBM

I have my own bad reaction to Glass partly as a result of the appalling, stupid banality of several works I've heard - major works. My reaction is, if a person could create something so pretentious, insulting and just plain bad as his opera, or his sabotage of Cocteau (done posthumously - when no one can protest) how can you accept anything else? If someone is a murderer, does it matter that they also regularly bathe?

I also am interested in what you are talking about with drones, and tonality vs. atonality - an historical distinction no longer appropriate. You are absolutely right about jazz - it is one of the few purely modern forms that has done something unthinkable in the past, but instantly meaningful. However, where that puts the art of music in general I have no idea. One thing I am keenly interested in right now is microtonalism, though I am just beginning to experiment with it. Also, my approach is highly compartmentalized - even though I am fascinated by utterly contradictory modern styles, I turn around and do something that is simply anachronistic just because I am in the mood.

"I turn around and do something that is simply anachronistic just because I am in the mood." - William.

[:)]

a damn fine answer, William!

I suppose this is really the way things are going -- people simply discovering, through trial and error, or personal interest, something that is productive for them. That, in itself, makes our time somewhat unique. But I do find it very interesting that the most widely applied sort of "structure" (if you can call it that) is drone... And for no better reason than a personal tendency, I'm still very much driven by the idea of creating a synthesis of these different forces in my musical/theoretical/harmonic life.
I am curious about this idea of microtonallity, as well... Is this through Ligeti? Can you sum it up, or give me a general outline? Links? Articles?

cheers,

J.

Actually my interest in microtonality comes from performances, rather than any theoretical writings, including Ligetti even though he didn't score it in his Lux Aeterna or Lontano or Atmospheres (using his so-called micropolyphony instead) - but on hearing the performances one definitely detects microtonality. It is impossible to perform these pieces without becoming microtonal. The musicians cannot hold the pitches.

But also, I love out-of-tune ensembles. I have heard some sounds beyond anything normal from them and want to incorporate this into deliberately composed pieces. I've noticed how much I enjoyed de-tuning the tempered perfection of samples, but also how a triad that is detuned is a new musical entity. This of course is nothing new in theory, but hearing it in this context is very interesting.

I was lucky enough to have been able to pour over Ligeti's Requiem conductor's score in university. What a massive score too!!! All of the lines are sub-divided beyond reason. Each instrument plays a quick repeating line except that each line is a quarter tone apart so the end result is a sound wash where there is no longer a key centre or even the perception of a singular harmonic entity. Fascinating stuff really.

@jbm said:

Also, don't be so pedantic about "vertical" and "horizontal" composition. You know what dcoscina meant... (or at least you should, with your level of knowledge)... again, it seems you're just being kind of rude.

Oh. Sorry. I hate it when I sound pedantic. lol.

Yeah, dcoscina, sorry about sounding pedantic. Yes I knew what you meant. I also, just didn't explain what I was saying very well either. Not sure I can right now either, it's even later! [[:|]] But, "whatever that guy said" will do fine for now! [:D]

Evan Evans

@Another User said:

Please be more specific about Glass masterpieces. I´m really curious now.

Ok, sure. There are at least 3 pieces. Only one of them I can recall at the moment. Let me see if I can find it. It's kind of obscure (of course). ..... searching my HUUUUUUUUUGE iTunes library .... .... ... ...

continued below:

continued from above:

"Changing Opinion" Songs From Liquid Days
This one is not necessarily the best arrangement or orchestration, but the composition is eons ahead of it's time. And it must be taken 100% with the lyrics, as a film score can only be appreciated with the film. The singing style is very bizarre. It mixes an operatic alto in a folk way. But at the same time the form is more advanced than typical song, and in fact it's over 10 minutes long. Ultimately the whole song is about a hum coming from a refrigerator. God damned. It's pure art. And fantastic. A real unique work of art. The mix of minor and major at key points, and then the juxtaposition of pure piano with extremes of brass is also very unique. It's genius is in how song like it is, and yet how so many elements of advanced melody, rhythm, and form are able to stretch any current notions of what a song is really, and what words really mean if anything. It's a kind of "Sixth Sense" in music. A song that turns itself inside out on itself.

"Knee Play 5" Glass Masters (Disc 3)
This uses singers singing numbers, which count off the meter beats of each odd meter that goes by, with some numbers dropping in and out. Than there is some plain talk in whisper. Also with the counting numbers which are pecking out various chords, is a faint warm organ type sound. If this isn't ahead of it's time I don't know what is. But for now, I don't know of anyone who would like to listen to it. it's VERY intellectual. However, in the future humans will be ready for it. It needs a more evolved brain to get into it. It's not feeling music at all, although it is hypnotic. But then again so is a lecture on coronary artery bypass precedure and protocol. I'm sure Einstein would have found it completely fascinating. It also reminds me of the Glenn Gould work which is just people talking. This one is quite a piece of art. Whether it's annoying or not, it is an undeniable masterpiece of invention. On some levels it sounds trite, but it's way too conceptual to not be thought of that way. It's better to just drop the shackles of pretense, and think about what is really being presented, and try to decode it with your advanced mind. It's like listening to a Rubix cube. There is a middle section that has some ordinary conversation spoken almost sarcastically, or at least without emotion. It makes fun of society, it belittles ordinariness. It makes the simple epic. The bizarre is a part of all of us it tries to say.

I also think that this one is worth preserving for the annals of time:

"Akhnaten's Hymn to the Aten," Akhnaten, Act II; iv 13:40
It is very organic. And one of the more musically pleasing of his compositions. I suspect though that unless you enjoy listening to Ives you won't like this, unless you can enjoy the colors.

Also this one is classic, and almost beyond the capabilities of humans to perform:

"Spaceship: Einstein on the Beach", Act IV

Evan Evans

@William said:

My reaction is, if a person could create something so pretentious, insulting and just plain bad ... how can you accept anything else? If someone is a murderer, does it matter that they also regularly bathe?

A good example is John Nash, popularized in the film "A Beautiful Mind". He really struggled with making any appreciated contribution to math or science. Many laughed at him. He spent much of his life coming up with bizarre theorems that no one cared for. He did however come up with a significant contribution, and to ignore it is to be ignorant and having the potential to fail if your field requires his idea. Even after he completed this one small contribution to science, he went on making further attempts at further bizarre theorems, still many of which are taken with a BIG grain of salt. He still works today, and puts out banal theorems and postulates.

I think Philip Glass is the same way. And I think there are plenty of people who can't control their mind the way most people do, who although they consistently do not "fit in", they can have MORE potential than the typical human being to introduce something that can break barriers and new frontiers, either while they are alive or many eons later.

Evan Evans

dcoscina

Okay back to the Goldsmith - Williams comparison. Yes I'm familiar with John Williams music. In fact "Soundings" which is a purely orchestral piece written for the openening of Disney Hall should be a good example of pure composition I think you would agree. Yes it did contain some quartel harmonies, clusters and non diatonic motif's and phrases. In fact it was typical John Williams in that respect. Well it just sounded like bad film music. It was a hogepodge of various ideas stitiched together with seams showing everywhere. I can't imagine Goildsmith coming up with anything so lacking.

My original point is that Goldsmith is one of those rare composers that has the weight and gravity in his music that is found in "serious" (I use the term scientifically, not as a slight.) Alex North (my personal favoritie - and Goldsmiths btw) certainly falls into the same categorie.

I am for more mystefied by JG than JW. Perhaps you are the reverse and that's why the world goes around. You obviously know your music well (by reading your comments.)

Dave Connor

I agree that WIlliams concert works aren't as solid as his film scores. It's clear that he's used to working with a solidified narrative and consequently he's inspired by them.

Goldenthal is another interesting beast. I find his film scores and concert works are uniformly quite good. I don't care for BAtman Forever mind you, but COBB, GOLDEN GATE, INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE, ALIEN3 (a classic) and even TITUS are pretty great. Any thoughts?

Regarding Glass I was never speaking of mental illness, or visionairies who cannot fit into society. Probably most of my favorite artists are exactly of this type.

I was talking about mere banality and exploitative phoniness. Something much less tragic and dramatic than John Nash.

I agree to an extent with Dave on the Goldsmith-Williams comparison, but am maybe not quite as negative toward Williams. Goldsmith seems to be more of a "protean" creator in the sense that his most elemental ideas are things that are memorable. Whereas with Williams, it is a more technical accomplishment of providing a perfectly useable accompaniment.

What I really enjoy about this board is being able to talk and debate music using terminology that everyone understands. I've learned a lot!

Although Williams concert works are, for me, more interesting and captivating that his film music. But the best word I can describe for them is "aimless". I know that doesn't give respect where respect is due, so I should say this much ... Williams is a fantastic gifted ... um ... musician. yeah, that much I CAN say. LOL.

Evan Evans

Just a quick comment:

WHAT A THREAD THIS HAS BECOME!!!! LOL

I dream of wonderful intellectual, debateful threads like this at FSM. This rocks!

POST ON!

Evan Evans

Just a brief observation...

I mentioned somewhere above that "drone" may be the most prominent contemporary form. But I've just be listening to some LFO (great stuff, btw), and I realize that I wasn't quite right on that. It's not necessarily drone, but rather a tendency toward 'singluar' forms (?? I remember "binary" and "tertiary"... but what is 'one': "monist"???) -- that is, one "section" only! Or sometimes, they have 2 or more sections, A, B, [...], superimposed over a particular, continuous element from A... this is probably what made me think of drone right away. It's often like this: A/A -> B/A -> A/A, etc. I guess that probably happened in certain early dance forms, which were often drone-based (or at least made heavy use of pedal tones), but it's pretty interesting that it's become such a common way of thinking (formally) these days. You notice it a lot in pop music and R&B stuff (yes, most of it's crap, but that doesn't mean it's uninteresting from a formal point of view!), where the music under the verse and chorus is essentially the same, and only the vocal changes. I really don't think this is laziness, or anything simplistic like that. I think it's coming from a deep, cultural drive to shed the past 300 years of "chord progression". I don't know, but it's interesting.

J.

ps - Evan. Yes, the ripped canvas analogy is very good. And actually, I've long felt like someone who doesn't "understand music"... at least in the traditional sense. In fact, I've put a good deal of effort into trying to empty my mind of much of the "knowledge" I've accumulated. If I don't, I can't get anything done, because I'm always faced with 10,000 reasons why I "shouldn't" do something... Keeping my brain as theory-clear as possible (while composing) lets me simplify the whole process down to just listening and responding. Which is where I most like to be!

@dcoscina said:

What I really enjoy about this board is being able to talk and debate music using terminology that everyone understands. I've learned a lot!

Oh, I just got to this post. YEAH, isn't htis great man!?

EEE

@jbm said:

ps - Evan. Yes, the ripped canvas analogy is very good. And actually, I've long felt like someone who doesn't "understand music"... at least in the traditional sense. In fact, I've put a good deal of effort into trying to empty my mind of much of the "knowledge" I've accumulated. If I don't, I can't get anything done, because I'm always faced with 10,000 reasons why I "shouldn't" do something... Keeping my brain as theory-clear as possible (while composing) lets me simplify the whole process down to just listening and responding. Which is where I most like to be!

Thanks! Funny thing, I just got this iPodFM car iPod playback unit, and we had my iPod on random today. On came a piece of Glass' that was used in the Truman Show. It was the best one, the one where Truman realizes his "self" and stops traffic at his bidding, as he realizes that his world actually revovles around him. My son asked what it was, and I told him, and my wife did too. She said, I actually like this one. That is BIG, becuase she is a huge Glass detester! Anyway, I could care less, LOL, but then I mentioned that by coincidence we, VSL posters, had been talking about Glass and how his music might be best off admired as unique art unto itself, and not as music. She debated for a moment, then I mentioned the "Ripped Canvas" analogy. She realized, it was a good one. She said, "Yeha, but you can't get people to like something they don't like." I said, "I know. But to foster the idea of expanding our minds is something I can't resist sharing." And she said, "Well ... yeah." It was like, I guess so, ... a noble cause (of course I could think of a helll uf a lot of more nobler causes than trying to get people to realize Glass' genius, THAT'S FOR SURE).

Anyway, the "ripped canvas" analogy seems to work well. It "cut" right through, pun MAYBE intended. [;)]

Evan Evans

@William said:

Regarding Glass I was never speaking of mental illness, or visionairies who cannot fit into society. Probably most of my favorite artists are exactly of this type.

I was talking about mere banality and exploitative phoniness. Something much less tragic and dramatic than John Nash.

Oh. I am not sure I can "put" Glass on that. But I respect that you may have enough connections with your evidence that you can draw such a conclusion. I guess I'll just have to take it as you're the detective that thinks my brother did it, but I still know in my heart he couldn't have. And we can leave it at that.

Evan Evans

P.S. I don't have a brother. lol.

@dcoscina said:

Yes, this does stem from being involved with jazz. Sorry if that goes against your compositional beliefs but that's how I do things.

Oh that's cool. Don't apologize. It's a definite formidable approach. I don't discount any approaches. It's hard to explain. I have a completely open mind, AND my own viewpoints. So, no offense ok? None was meant.

Certainly, anyone, who chooses their path is going to be up against resistance. But, I think, the more the struggle, the merrier the cause. As long as it's not sick and twisted ... like what I do! [6]

[:D]

Evan Evans

@William said:

I agree to an extent with Dave on the Goldsmith-Williams comparison, but am maybe not quite as negative toward Williams. Goldsmith seems to be more of a "protean" creator in the sense that his most elemental ideas are things that are memorable. Whereas with Williams, it is a more technical accomplishment of providing a perfectly useable accompaniment.

Absolutely. I feel the same way. Williams is about fluffing up his wonderful songs, and Goldsmith is about covertly presenting his red hot core.

Evan Evans