Symphony #1498 "Line in Woooooow!"

Originally Posted by robinjessome

Okay...so it's not the BEST example.

And I'll give you the Mona Lisa was not the best example. In this light, let me ask you: Where do you draw the line between a painting that INSPIRES music, and a painting that IS music?

Dev, you are right to what you say.

If you just take a painting and call it a score, it won't really work. It takes a bit more than that. Cheating is cheating!

But there are instances where such ideas and scores (exactly because of the idea, more than the score) have been successful. And yes, the line between the performers and the composers will be more blury with such scores, but if the philosophy and idea belongs to the "composer", then he is indeed the composer...

I think if Jose just posted the fucking music in the first place this wouldn't be an argument.

Originally Posted by nikolas

And yes, the line between the performers and the composers will be more blury with such scores, but if the philosophy and idea belongs to the "composer", then he is indeed the composer...

Well put!

Originally Posted by Dev

let me ask you: Where do you draw the line between a painting that INSPIRES music, and a painting that IS music?

When something is created with the intent of using it as music.

I'm not talking about taking a frame off a wall, OR simply painting a work of art and calling it a 'chart'. I'm talking about a composer creating something with the intent of using it as visual stimulation for creative music. They will take into consideration how different aspects effect improvisors: colour, density, contour, attack...

Can you see how one would interpret this:



differently from this:



or this:



or even this:



??

You need to get away from the idea that we're just taking one art and substituting it for another... There's an entirely different language requiring an entirely different approach.

[edit: my 30-second photoshop work actually look pretty cool. I'm now working on a Card Filing Conduction concept for real-time comprovisation with large ensembles: dozens...hundreds of cue cards, as above, depicting a different improvisatory direction]

I remember taking piece of paper, a pencil, and rhythmically draw one line, which would make one long sustained hss, and then make a sharp turn, than make curves, and it would make a pretty neat noise. I was four. But this is pretty cool

what causes some to puzzle about whether it is music is the fact that one still thinks of art, or in this particular case - music - as being an entity, which might be though by definitions. so, unavoidably, one gets trapped into endless and fruitless roundabout of defining what is music, or, what is art. actually, none inconsistent multiplicity - such as that of art, politics, or even love are thinkable by definitions. definition describes a counted entity, structured one, precisely, 'one'. but, as we see and think, art is not 'one', it is completely hostile to any oneness or unity. its (arts) ways are that of examples, historical works of the infinite, which, being born of\from the infinite thought cannot and are not rendered definable. one cannot define works of art in any strict delimitating sense. to call something art, in this case art of musical thought, one needs decision, which is taking place only and only when things are not clear, indiscernable, previously undecided (undecidable). this is not thinking trough definition, but axiomatic thinking. to name something as an event of musical thought one has to make a choice. in this respect, jose's work is completely valid and could be\could become a point of musical truth and yield examples\works of this kind of musical thought.

Originally Posted by robinjessome

You need to get away from the idea that we're just taking one art and substituting it for another... There's an entirely different language requiring an entirely different approach.

Well, claiming to be able to play the Mona Lisa does sort of point to doing that, though I do realize you aren't the one who said that.

So basically where we're at is: As long as I firmly state that my left hand is a piece of sheet music, it is, and you would all be open to considering it is, yet to me, it's ludicrous because my hand most clearly isn't nor was ever meant to be "music"

I guess the real point of contention lies in the fact that someone can draw a line with a pencil and be considered in the same profession as Beethoven. I suppose it just doesn't seem...fair that someone putting that little effort into it, and someone with (as far as we know) no real musical knowledge can still be considered "a great musical composer" in some circles.

Being open minded is one thing, being unable to say "no" is entirely another.

Originally Posted by almacg

However, when Horowitz sits down and plays Tschaikovsky's piano concerto no.1, Tschaikovsky is the composer, and horowitz is the performer; they are two very different jobs.

This, again, is exactly what I'm disputing. I find it a much too simplified view to see the jobs of performers and composers as clearly separate and different. It just doesn't conform with the many, many musical traditions we had until now which all defined the relationship between composers and performers differently. There has been no standard that has been consistent throughout history defining a strict line between these two parties. It has always been a cultural, temporal, and stylistic distinction. It isn't a distinction that is inherent to music.

Dev: That last point of you seems to highlight one important aspect of this debate that has always been subconscously around but never mentioned: The readiness to accept something as a genuine composition in comparison to the amount of "work" or "skill" put into it. This is a topic that has already been discussed on this forum and has resulted in some heated debates. Personally I don't think "work" and "skill" matter in the least for whether something is "valid" as a composition. Composing isn't a job where you directly get "paid" for how much you work. And I very well know how much work composing can be. It may be necessary to put a huge amount of work into a composition, but I think it's wrong to make a direct connection between work and the value of the musical result. It just isn't so simple in the arts.

But I have to agree with Dev on the fact that we're probably stuck in this argument and that we won't be able to convince each other. I find the topic rather relevant though, and for this I have to give some credit to Josepablo.

Originally Posted by Dev

So basically where we're at is: As long as I firmly state that my left hand is a piece of sheet music, it is, and you would all be open to considering it is, yet to me, it's ludicrous because my hand most clearly isn't nor was ever meant to be "music"

Almost. You didn't create your hand, but were you to present it as music to be interpreted, then yes. Perhaps photocopying or projecting images of your hand in various positions, each to be interpreted on their own...

In fact many composers use invented systems of semiotic hand gestures (known as "conduction") to control and manipulate improvisors. Hand gestures are a VERY common way to direct real-time changes in texture, dynamics, structure, instrumentation....

Originally Posted by Dev

I guess the real point of contention lies in the fact that someone can draw a line with a pencil and be considered in the same profession as Beethoven. I suppose it just doesn't seem...fair that someone putting that little effort into it, and someone with (as far as we know) no real musical knowledge can still be considered "a great musical composer" in some circles.

But anyone who just 'draws a line' would be ignored by any creative music community. Composers must study, and are often well versed (if not highly competent) in Classical music, jazz, as well as the avant-garde. One also needs to be familiar with the music's history and development. You don't just suddenly start making this kind of music - just like you don't just pick up a saxophone and start playing like Peter Brotzmann. You'll be labeled a charlatan and treated as such.

You'll be surprised, but unlike our classical counterparts, we generally try not to ignore other forms of musical expression, preferring instead to absorb and assimilate them.

Originally Posted by robinjessome

But anyone who just 'draws a line' would be ignored by any creative music community. Composers must study, and are often well versed (if not highly competent) in Classical music, jazz, as well as the avant-garde. One also needs to be familiar with the music's history and development. You don't just suddenly start making this kind of music - just like you don't just pick up a saxophone and start playing like Peter Brotzmann. You'll be labeled a charlatan and treated as such.

But the "composition" in question (jose's boxes) shows absolutely no musical knowledge whatsoever. There is no evidence of theory, instrumentation, or even things like pitch, tone, duration - there is just absolutely nothing about this picture that suggests the "composer" was a musician. Which is why I have a problem with it; a clever non-musician could produce the same exact work and by adamently defending his "creative vision" still be considered a composer. Why should a painter be given the same job title as Beethoven?