To be honest, I have a friend whom Evan reminds me of.... This guy is a visual artist, and he takes any oportunity he can to cut people down whose methods, habits, etc., don't seem appropriate to him. However, he does so in a manner which makes it very clear that the reason he's cutting them down is because he has a specific methodology in his own work. The big difference is that this individual also incorporates this process of 'attack' into his work, thus conveying his position through the work itself, and establishing a particular social commentary. Though not so cleanly considered, I think Evan thinks in a similar way. That's really what I was trying to point out with my little ethic A/B thing -- that, being an ethic, it is really something that must be _lived_ and experienced on a day-to-day basis. Evan lives daily with this struggle, musically, and has found that the only way to 'survive' has been to build an iron-clad process. That process requires an equally iron-clad ethic, in order to make it possible to sustain. I understand that... However, I _will_ say that doing an MFA (a collaborative degree, working with artists from different media) thumped the exclusivity out of me, since I realized that my ethic was really only of such tremendous importance to _me_, and that, should it happen to apply to anyone else, it would cease to be the same ethic, since it would be 'lived' by another individual, with another personal history, etc.
I will admit that some of his comments are a little ridiculous. However, I also understand what he's saying when he claims that only those who place themselves in opposition to him will feel offended. He's firmly planted in his ethic and speaks to others as though they are planted in theirs. If they're not, then they become offended. So, the point of the ethic A/B thing was to consider which side you approach composition from. (Naturally, it could be a bit of both.) Then it's possible to continue this discussion, in a valuable way, without being upset -- you've discovered your relationship to the problem, and you can discuss it from that standpoint. There really is no need to become personally offended, and I genuinely believe that's not Evan's intention. After all, an ethic B composer has every right to find Evan's steadfast adherence to ethic A totally naive. We live in a time when most of the new works we hear are revealed to us through recordings, and in the world of film music, many of those works may _never_ have been played by 'live' musicians, from a score. Furthermore, many people who work in electronic music think the virtual duplication of the symphonic orchestra is a complete waste of time, talent, and processor cycles! And in an entirely electronic medium, they have every right to support that opinion. We here, who find the virtual orchestra beautiful, fascinating, useful, and culturally valuable are really in the minority... I think. In that context, the ethic B composer is in a much better position to make something truly interesting and culturally significant, since they have better understood the medium in which we are all are working and the parameters specific to that medium. In that vein, Mathis' ideas about the Nancarrow-like work are more 'lucid' than any notion of passing off midi as Mahler.
That said, I still love the idea of commanding a virtual orchestra -- a _real_ virtual orchestra, that could fool even Boulez! [;)] -- I find it fascinating, and I think it could potentially give rise to a peculiar sort of renaissance in both virtual and live music. (Trumpet fanfare, sun bursting through the clouds, and so on...)
Peace, All... Evan is just inflamatory. Stand back and take a look at how many heart-felt and interesting viewpoints have come out in reaction to his opinions.
James.
