Forum - Week 12 – Semester 2, 2008: “Squawk Box IIIB”
Pants are so mainstream...For my own benefit, to enhance my personal understanding and
feelings toward certain aspects of music and art in general,
I have lifted some audio snaps of this forum's engaging
discussion with a view to clarifying my thoughts on what was
said.
Stephen Whittington on the problem of choice:
1.Audio Here.
My written response:
Hmm, if the ‘cherished thing’ is pure Serialism or Music
Concrete, the limited time on earth aspect tells me to let
go now.
A 1st year student offers their opinion:
2.Audio here.
Stephen W. responds:
3.Audio here.
Stephen W. on learning things in their ‘pure’ form:
4.Audio here.
My written response:
I find it quite absurd that an analogy is drawn between the
reasons for learning a Bach fugue, which has been proven to
develop student’s piano technique and an understanding of
melodic polyphony over centuries, and learning Music
Concrete or Serialism in their pure form. If I’m to take
Stephen literally, I can’t be a competent composer unless I
understand these areas. My main problem with both Serialism
and Music Concrete is the complete lack of emotional
response I feel when listening to apparently ‘important’
purist works from either genre.
In countless other styles of music that I don’t particularly
like (such as Bach fugues), I can often find instrumental or
emotional material to connect with on some level, but rarely
does it happen with these two esoteric styles. I don’t feel
this is part of my ‘pre-conditioning’ from society. I
didn’t like the same eighties pop drivel that others did
during primary school. From around the age of eight I’ve
had an individual agenda for why I listen to a particular
style of music. I don’t deny my scope is narrow, but as
Stephen said earlier “There is only a limited amount of
time”, so why fill it with academic material that you feel
you should ‘get’ just because other academics do? I’ve been
trying to ‘get’ it for three years now and either it’s being
presented in the wrong way or, shock horror, it’s an
individual thing, and the emotional responses it solicits
from one person are not possible to extract from another –
despite the educated awareness of all involved.
David Harris on the reduction of one on one training for
composers at UNI:
5.Audio here.
Stephen on why one should write a piece of Music Concrete
and understand processes for creative outcomes in depth:
6.Audio here.
My written response:
I don’t feel I’ve gained an in-depth understanding of Music
Concrete and the motivation for composition in the style
just from ‘doing a piece’. If we were given sufficient
tuition from a compositional perspective (something along
the lines of the 33 hours one on one that David H. mentioned
was the case for composition students at Flinders St School
of Music would do nicely) then maybe I would understand the
process in-depth and have that knowledge to take with me in
life and apply to whatever I want to do.
My question regarding the format of Major projects and why
they cling to forced composition in the purist forms of
Music Concrete and Electro Acoustic music:
7.Audio here.
D. Harris responds and criticizes my subjective views:
8.Audio here.
I respond and criticize D. Harris’s subjective views:
9.Audio here.
D. Harris responds again with a Johannes Sistermannsian
angle on why we should never decide to ‘like or dislike’
anything:
10.Audio here.
My response in which I direct the conversation back to
compositional project structure:
11.Audio here.
D. Harris responds with a pro-serial rant pointing out the
restrictions of a tonal system by comparison:
12.Audio here.
My written response:
It is my right as an individual to ‘like’ or ‘dislike’
anything, and it is not always something I can control.
There is a deep flaw in the way D. Harris has worded his
expression in that he states it is pointless to choose to
like or dislike things. What makes you think that there is
any ‘choice’ involved at all? Choosing to like or dislike
things is the pastime of superficial people, who choose to
like something because it’s liked by a crowd they want to
hang with – what they are actually doing, is pretending to
like something that they probably feel neutral about or
maybe even don’t like at all. I don’t like pure Serial and
Concrete music because, as I’ve already stated, none of the
repertoire presented to me from either does anything for me.
This is not my choice, it is a failing of the art to offer
anything of musical substance to the individual that is I,
and I’ve given it all the chances it deserves as far as I’m
concerned.
The tonal system may be restrictive, but it continues to
produce great music to my ears. The Serial or Concrete
systems may be wide open, but they just don’t do it for me –
and it’s not me, it’s them.
Stephen W. attempts to point out the virtues of learning
something in its purest form:
13.Audio here.
I ask if it is yet determinable what the necessary basics
for mastery of Music Concrete even are. Stephen responds
followed by Peter questioning our ability to judge Music
Concrete effectively:
14.Audio here.
Stephen offers an incomplete response:
15.Audio here.
Stephen wraps up with a rant about what he would like from
student projects in general:
16.Audio here.
My written response:
If exciting, interesting and moving works of art are what
you crave then relax the genre specific directive associated
with student major projects. If a student enrolls in this
course who loves to make dance music first and foremost, let
them embrace what you’re teaching by incorporating it into
their own style. Don’t crush their soul with the weight of
academic scripture that decrees all must suffer at the hands
of Stockhausen, Schoenberg and Cage before they can be
permitted their own voice. Whether you believe it or not,
this is the effect that such directives have on many
students. I was really looking forward to engaging with and
applying technology and music theory of all kinds to my own
compositional directions as part of this course. Instead, I
find myself with an esoteric and largely useless collection
of works that are the product of being forced to work within
restrictive boundaries. If we did indeed have our 33 hours
per year of one to one tuition in compositional style, with
direct relevance to what would be expected in the major
project for a given semester, this may have been a very
different story. However, as this is never likely to be the
case, I suggest again that the major project specifications
are adjusted, so that future students may walk away with a
greater level of creative satisfaction and a folio of works
that may better serve their style as composers/performers.
I don’t intend for this blog to be a negative response to my
entire degree in any way, as it has been a largely positive
experience. I just feel that music is too subjective in
general for a course to cling to so many perceived
constants. Perhaps a TAFE based approach to marking
assignments on technological competence would be more
appropriate, removing subjectivity from the process
altogether. I guess the moral of this blog is to think
about how concepts are presented to students, before
determining expectations regarding what they should achieve
with them.
Reference:
Whittington, Stephen. "Forum - Week 12 – Semester 2, 2008: Squawk Box IIIB.” Workshop presented at EMU Space, level 5 Schultz building, University of Adelaide, 30th of October 2008.
Labels: Forum IIIB
posted by David J Dowling @ 12:11 PM
8 Comments:
I'm impressed by your use of audio recordings to back up your line of arguments, I had a listen to those you've put up thus far. I think the ultimate solution may be to allow the students to compose a piece of music in whatever manner they deem fit, while incorporating (and demonstrating the implementation of) the many concepts presented such as concrete, serial technique and build upon those by placing them within new contexts. Historically that appears to be the essence of progression in music and art, rather than regression which is to repeat what others have already done.
It is not without a since of irony that the term "new music" is thrown around today, as if Cage were still alive. Obviously what Debussy did with harmony, what Hendrix did with amplification, and what Miles did with phrasing and jazz idioms usually adhered to such notions of progression, meaning to add something without necessarily disavowing previously established form(s). In many cases, it was more of an integration, as such. At the time however, those such as Debussy, were frowned upon by the conservatoire. And what they achieved were BIG steps artistically, which someone had to do first, and it was them. Thus, there exists today fewer big changes to be made, just as we can't invent a new primary colour. I get the impression that a lot of people still find it difficult to come to terms with this. Perhaps that is because it implies some of the best musical moments are forever behind us, but then again, could they be re-applied and re-worked within different frameworks? Maybe humanity has discovered the most potent use of sound and would be better off referencing that in future?
It is interesting and intriguing that Stephen mentions the fact that he "doesn't know the answer to the question" concerning the 1st Year student's line of enquiry, adding, "because we haven't yet explored it." Whether this blog entry will be read by anyone but students, only time will tell, however I can not see how letting students compose works as per my above suggestions would hamper them, or the University system of objectivity in any detracting way. It is just a pity this approach wasn't adopted sooner, because I too felt let down by the compositional "pressures" of the course, suppressing quite a lot of creative ideas which I (and you too) would have felt able to implement in exciting ways. This does not mean I do not like modernist music, or the concepts presented, I think some of them have incredible potential to be integrated with other musical ideas, that include stronger rhythmic structures for example, but these were not encouraged.
Lastly, what David Harris had to say regarding the value of certain types of music, to me, has a definite truth to it, yet a line can and should be drawn somewhere. In my case, I know that I can and do appreciate hard-bop jazz, or as Stephen mentioned, Bach fugues for example - partly due to knowing or at least being aware of some of the theoretical underpinnings and/or practical approaches, intentions and modes of expression. Yet when I hear a loud removal truck by itself, it does not connect with me as a "musical" sound can. The same goes for aleatoric piano works, for example.
There is a certain novelty value to knowing about the process behind a work, but therein lies the problem. Is it about the process or the outcome? I remember writing about this eons ago on an early blog entry. Some artistic works unarguably possess intrinsic value / merit. Others are the outcome of a process (let's say 'experiment') in order to see if an interesting alternative outcome can be derived. Unfortunately, it seems, many forgot about such objectives and began attributing much of the value to the process itself, despite the outcome(s). As you mentioned, time is too short to become bogged down in that area. Through every day of our lives, we make aesthetic judgements and decisions about all manner of things, and if we considered everything to be intrinsically good and worthy, then everything may as well be de-valued also. Apologies for the lengthy response, it was as much for my edification as anyone.... this might be my last blogger comment anyway...
On the contrary, it's nice to receive a comment to rival the size of this entry! I'll get the rest of the audio up on Wednesday at UNI; my dial up system is failing me dismally at the moment.
I think reflection and edification is very important at this stage. Now we're at the end of our degree it's a good idea to get one's opinions in perspective. Ultimately, I think it is the under funded University system that is the root of many problems within various courses. If we'd had the personalised one to one training that's necessary for many to come to grips with certain high-brow art-house concepts then maybe I'd just be excited about going into the world to make avant garde music, and wouldn't need to vent frustrations in a blog that exceeds its word count by around a million sentences. I don't want to let certain individuals off the hook by only blaming funding and upper management for educational issues however. There could certainly be clearer objectives and direction in the delivery of course material in particular subjects.
Whatever the case, I'm sure we'll have to deal with the same kind of responses from our own students from time to time in future. There's always going to be something you need to get across that they won’t understand without taking your word for it and practicing diligently until the day of revelation comes. I guess I'm just disillusioned with the lack of revelatory responses I've had to most avant garde music presented to me at university. I really thought I'd have more of a personal understanding why one would go there by now. Sure, I sympathise and identify with the motivation behind certain directives, but when the war is over and no longer is anyone telling you: "You can’t do this you subversive anti-establishment rebel!" Don't some of these people sit back and listen to what they're doing to determine its aesthetic validity out of context?
It matters not, how clever the process for creation is. It matters plenty, how sound be the creator's judgment of the result.
Curious, isn't it, that the word 'sound' can also be an adjective for ‘competence’?...Hmm, yees, Hmm...
"It matters not, how clever the process for creation is. It matters plenty, how sound be the creator's judgment of the result."
Well summed up. I know that ultimately the "sound art" that appeals to me is that which has something worth holding on to sonically. I guess some people unfortunately don't know where to draw the line...
Hmmm not sure what else to say. So anyway, in a mid-80s metal falsetto voice, "Stay AWWAAAAAAAYYY from the black cat, YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH !!!!!"
who decides how we write a piece?
the music police!
I was really looking forward to engaging with and
applying technology and music theory of all kinds to my own
compositional directions as part of this course. Instead, I
find myself with an esoteric and largely useless collection
of works that are the product of being forced to work within
restrictive boundaries.
Unfortunately I agree. Apart from the Composition elective last year (and even that had restrictions) I have not written a piece since I've been here. I don't consider the CC projects as musical compositions. I was much into classical styles although not into classical music itself, I just liked the sounds and wrote my own pieces with electro and other weird stuff in it. Shame really, as like you said, some really interesting music could be shared by all of us if the restrictions were lifted.
Oh, btw. Why did I miss this forum?! Of all the forums to miss!! Oh man. What a rant session it could have been.
It was nice to throw my 2c's worth to the floor for a change...
lol I can read between the lines ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home