Varese's ideas

[William]

In the light of all the discussion of romanticism, classicism, and other "isms" I thought it was interesting how Edgar Varese, in founding the Composer's Guild in 1921 stated the Guild "disapproves of all 'isms", denies the existence of schools; recognizes only the individual." He also said that Neo-Classicism was "one of the most deplorable trends of music today" though he conducted many Neo-Classical premieres, including Stravinsky's later works.

He stated that he was trying to find "new mediums which can lend themselves to every expression of thought and can keep up with thought" and of course was one of the first to use electronic sounds, with works like Poeme Electronique that still sound good today.

It was asked elsewhere on this forum why should composers simply use all these sampled sounds to mimic the conventional orchestra. Why shouldn't new combinations and changes be made that are inconceivable in the restricted conventional worlds of both commercial and classical music?

In 1936 he created a description of how music would be done when "new instruments will allow me to write music as I conceive it."

In other words, the way we today can do music with not only digital samples, but also new combinations and changes of those samples - sounds undreamed of in the past except by Varese.

[jbm]

I see another big discussion coming on! [:)]

I'll leave the first paragraph to those better equipped to address it, except to say that I think, for the most part, that "isms" find you, not the other way around... Or, at least, that should be the case. I mean, "isms" are the invention of music criticism (another ism), so they should be coined/invented/applied only when the critical need for drawing distinctions is clear. They are really intended to facilitate analytical discussion, and should be left for that purpose. Full stop (which is to say, "that's it for me!").

Now, what I find most intriguing above is the Varese quote, and particularly this notion of "music as I conceive it". For a long time I've been of the opinion that this is the greatest challenge a composer faces in their creative life -- how to search out their own unique way of imagining music. In fact, I've even begun to feel that this process has more to do with how one 'hears' music than how ones specifically _creates_ music, since we must begin with some idea of how the music is intended to sound, before we can set about realizing it in instrumental/vocal/electronic forms. For myself, I find it extremely difficult to imagine music independently of the instruments that produce it, and thus have a difficult time making creative use of most types of synthesis, save for granular synthesis, which tends to preserve the timbral qualities of the material being "granulated". However, this is definitely NOT to suggest that I'm not interested in synthesized or electronic sound, or that I don't feel it to be of musical value. In fact, I quite honestly think that Bjork and her collaborators have, over the years, come up with some of the most beautiful, moving, and compellingly "contemporary" music I've heard -- and more importantly, music that realizes an almost seamless integration of instrumental, vocal, and electronic forces.

I have an intense interest in, and curiosity about, exploring the world of strictly "virtual" instrumental music -- that is, instrumental music which is not necessarily intended ever to be played live. But it seems, to me, that to really branch out in this area, I must first learn to conceive of the instrumental forces, and perhaps even the instruments themselves, in a different way. They must become raw materials of a particular kind, since they are actually fragments of performances - micro-performances, if you will - from which a larger performance can be sculpted. In a strange way, I imagine it somewhat like creating "found object" art. The samples themselves are like objects, or pieces of broken objects, which can be assembled into an infinitude of forms. But it is their essence as fragments that gives them value. And nowhere is this more true than with the VSL, and the performance instruments in particular. These "objects" are incredibly conspicuous when standing on their own (due to the "transition" sounds), but when combined with other similar objects they begin to mimick reality -- quite a fascinating idea, when you think about it! [to be continued...]

Anyway, I'll save my breath and let the discussion grow for a bit!

J.

[William]

This concept of the "found object" in samples is good, since you are hearing a performance of a single note or articulation when playing a sample that the composer then puts together in new ways. I have made the point elsewhere on this forum that samples are not necessarily a mere substitute for live orchestras (though they are usually used as such by film composers), but can be a new artistic medium in themselves.

In fact, I view the use of samples as potentially immensely superior to live performance orchestras - from the standpoint of the composer.

Each sample to me is equivalent of a single pigment on the oil painter's pallette. No painter who is serious is attempting a mere reproduction of reality, anymore than a sample user should be simply "faking" an orchestra. Instead, a completely new conception is created: the use of pure tone colors in isolated form as sound by a composer, instead of notes written on a score to be filtered through the mind and body of a performer (with all the distortions and disturbances as well as new ideas and expressions that involves). The purest use of samples is an entirely new art medium that should not be limited to mere imitation of already existing limitations of sound inherent in the symphony orchestra.

All of this is intimately related to Varese, since he was one of the most revolutionary composers in new forms and techniques of expression. It is obvious that decades before the invention of the sampler he was attempting to do the exact same thing that people have available and yet for the most part ignore as a medium of artistic expression.

[jbm]

I like that metaphor of the painter's pallette...

The difficulty hits me mostly, though, in terms of deciding (or discovering) what elements of "reality" should be kept in, and which discarded. I mean, pulling in the idea from my other thread on idiomatic writing, there's the whole issue about how an acknowledgment of the physical constraints of the "real" instrument helps clarify sample-based writing. But if the sample library is genuinely atomized into its constituent parts, and considered a completely new and unique entity, then what happens to the notion of the physical integrity of the instrument itself? Is it still relevant when we think of the sample library as a pallette? Or do certain samples now arrange themselves as shades of a similar "colour"? Now, of course these questions are rhetorical, general. But I think this is why I find the performance instruments so fascinating -- because they instist on a certain formal integrity, and on a type of writing which acknowledges that integrity. No other sample library has done that, at least not with such force. I mean, a sampled trill is a close 'second', but it commands nowhere near the respect of a perf-leg or perf-port...
It seems to me that it's still a matter of making careful decisions as to what one agrees to "simulate", and what one wishes to discard. I remember a director friend of mine once talking about the importance of discovering and maintaining the inherent "logic" of the created world. The idea was that, no matter how absurd or surreal an idea might be, it had to maintain the integrity of its absurdity in order to "work" in the theatre. I think this applies to the creation of a strictly sample-based compositional world -- there must be certain elements which maintain their coherence (IMO, primarily dictated by the instrument that has been sampled), while other elements can be discarded or re-invented. I have some ideas as to what I can safely discard, but I'm excited to hear what others choose to do away with... That's where things could get _really_ interesting!

J.

[mathis]

I just read this discussion. A very good one, indeed! Similar thoughts are circulating through my head.
Please, jbm, post some experiments or results, I´m very curious.

[jbm]

Mathis,

I'm sorry to say that it will be sometime before I can come up with anything... My composing system is making me absolutely crazy, so I'm mostly in tweak mode for the next while. I'm finishing a concert-music commission at the moment, for which I am using VSL, but for obvious reasons, I'm not pushing the envelope with regard to the real/virtual divide.
I hope to be experimenting with this stuff later in the year. I'll certainly post when I get something interesting, though.

J.

[mathis]

I have kind of the same problem. But post some of your music, please!

[jbm]

Mathis,

I hope to get around to some heavy experimentation later in the year. My problem is that I have so many ideas for regular concert works (that is, ones that _can_ be performed), that I'm not sure I want to spend too much time on a totally virtual piece, just yet. It's a big ambition of mine, but sometimes the time seems better spent on work that will get played... Which, of course, is a general symptom of my adherence to the parameters of the "real" -- i.e., I hesitate to put my time into compositions that will, by nature, never be performed...
I just finished a concert music commission, for which I did use VSL, but it was just a quintet. Nothing huge. I sent it to cm, to see if VSL might want to post it, but I haven't heard anything. I guess I should try to post it on my site, but it would mean dumping some of the stuff that's up there already, and I can't really put the money toward more web-space at this particular time. Which reminds me that I planned to put together a Linux server to get around this...
Decisions, decisions, time, time, work, work, work.

J.