Symphony #1498 "Line in Woooooow!"

Originally Posted by robinjessome

If an honest and creative artist were to do so however, then yes, I would consider them an author.

Well then you're hopeless.

Originally Posted by Dev

But that's my point! How can they be considered an author if they expect you to write the book for them?

What I think: Most music requires a partnership between composer and performer. I play the harpsichord; in Baroque and Renaissance music, tempo, dynamics and articulations are not specified. Yet they are required in any sensitive performance. Every time I play a piece I decide where to pause, how to articulate, what to ornament and how; sometimes it is appropriate or even mandatory to improvise complex embellishments. Louis Couperin wrote unmeasured preludes only specifying the pitch of each note; the performer must improvise the rhythm. In other words, Louis Couperin wrote most of the book. The performer writes the rest.

Even in modern music with predetermined tempo, dynamics, articulations, etc... the performer's sensitivity must bring out every note the way he feels best. So when we say that this performer plays such a piece differently from that performer, really both performers are adding to the book in different ways, even if only slightly.

In this case josepablo left most of the book empty for you to fill. But certainly he wrote something; if I were to improvise with this score in front of me, I think I would play something different than without.

Unfortunately I am not much of an improviser, so I will not be playing this anytime soon. Maybe that is your problem too. But I remain open to this sort of music.

No, see, this Couperin guy wrote music - he wrote most of the book, or even all of the book, but expected the reader to fill in the rest or interpret his writing in different ways.

Josepablo wrote none of the book, but instead gave you something completely different - like, let's say, an acorn - and said, "now finish this book." But it isn't a book, it's an acorn. And yet you still consider him an author? You would still give him credit for the story you make up? You'd be fine with being given a colored box and being told, "now finish this piece," even though everything musical that comes out of it is actually your creation?

Originally Posted by Dev

Josepablo wrote none of the book, but instead gave you something completely different

Not quite. (And, I can't believe I'm defending that lame-ass charlatan Jose)

To continue your metaphor: jose wrote a book, in a language you can't yet comprehend.

...

If I look at the Mona Lisa, and then improvise based on my reaction to the painting, would Leonardi Da Vinci be considered a composer?
Even if the intention of a piece of art was to inspire music, I don't think it makes the artist a composer in a traditional sense, because the music itself would be coming from the performer, and I personally would therefore bestow the title composer on the perfomer/s. Again, even if a drawing is meant to inspire music, the title composer refers to somebody who creates musical art, not somebody who inspires it in others.

Anyway, I can't stand it when THIS bullshit is getting more attention than actual creative pieces of music...

I agree, but it at the very least reminds us that we should not be too open minded, and that we should approach new ideas with a welcoming, yet skeptical mind.

Originally Posted by robinjessome

To continue your metaphor: jose wrote a book, in a language you can't yet comprehend.

...

I would say it's more like, jose told me he had an idea for a book about time travel (and didn't expand on the idea), and then I wrote a novel on time travel and he took credit as being the author.

And to almacg, thank you, that's precisely my point. This is art, not a musical score.

Originally Posted by almacg

If I look at the Mona Lisa, and then improvise based on my reaction to the painting, would Leonardi Da Vinci be considered a composer?

A good point.

Originally Posted by almacg

Even if the intention of a piece of art was to inspire music, I don't think it makes the artist a composer in a traditional sense, because the music itself would be coming from the performer, and I personally would therefore bestow the title composer on the perfomer/s. Again, even if a drawing is meant to inspire music, the title composer refers to somebody who creates musical art, not somebody who inspires it in others.

This is where you get a little off base. Often, in this style the "artwork" is not intended to inspire music; it is the notated music - a concept, I'm discovering, nigh on impossible to explain to musicians/composers unfamiliar with it.

Drawing musical energy from extramusical sources; finding ways to steer, mold, direct, corrupt improvisors without resorting to archaic methods of notation; allowing the musicians the liberty to explore and interpret music without being chained by the confines of nomenclature - all these things expand and liberate the music, with surprising and often unpredictable results.

There are MANY heavy musicians working with this sort of thing: Anthony Braxton, John Zorn, William Parker, Butch Morris - cats who are at the top tier of creative music.

...

Originally Posted by almacg

...it at the very least reminds us that we should not be too open minded, and that we should approach new ideas with a welcoming, yet skeptical mind.

No, I thought it was bullshit because the guy (Jose) is a charlatan who's poking fun at the concept, in a very shrewd and savvy manner.

One can never be too open minded - the ability to accept and embrace anything - regardless of whether you like it, dislike it, or understand it - is always a good thing.

...

Originally Posted by Dev

I would say it's more like, jose told me he had an idea for a book about time travel (and didn't expand on the idea), and then I wrote a novel on time travel and he took credit as being the author.

Perhaps someday you'll understand....it's not like that at all.

Drawing musical energy from extramusical sources; finding ways to steer, mold, direct, corrupt improvisors without resorting to archaic methods of notation; allowing the musicians the liberty to explore and interpret music without being chained by the confines of nomenclature - all these things expand and liberate the music, with surprising and often unpredictable results.

Yea sorry, should have explained myself a little bit further. I think its a novel idea to create something with the specific intention of inspiring a 'free impro' amongst musicians.
If somebody created some art, and improvised around it, and somehow managed to convey the artwork in their improvisation... I'd be very impressed. However, if the artwork had been created by somebody else, I'm not too sure I'd be happy to label them as a composer. Essentially, an improvisor is a composer, because spontaneous musical creation is the precursor for composition. However, I personally wouldn't say that a 'composer' was an artist (as in somebody who paints, sculpts etc), and vice versa. Hope that makes sense

One can never be too open minded - the ability to accept and embrace anything - regardless of whether you like it, dislike it, or understand it - is always a good thing.

I agree, I'm impressed by clever ideas, regardless of what they are, or whether the outcome was as good as was expected!

I don't think scores should be just merely functional though. I mean, I have a series of pieces where the emphasis is both on the score AND the music. The score isn't just "means" to have the music sounding in this or that way, but in itself is art. ...at least I like that idea and I work it when I can (my piece "Lines" also sorta works this way, both out of necessity and because, shit, I love how it looks. And the girls that played it said it would look great on a wall or somethin'.)

Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by almacg

...I think its a novel idea to create something with the specific intention of inspiring a 'free impro' amongst musicians.

OOOH!! So close.

*keeps cigar*

It's often not about improvisation being 'inspired' by something visual; the visual IS the notated music. In ANY music, all the details - form, kinesis, density, contour - are derived from the visual.

Whether it's Bach, or Stravinsky, or Haubenstock-Ramati, or Anthony Braxton - it's all there, the difference is with Bach it's very precise and exact. With Braxton it can change and be seen differently by each set of eyes.

......oh, nevermind.

This isn't working.

*gives up*