Symphony #1498 "Line in Woooooow!"

Also, I'm still interested in a reply to my question posted earlier about what you'd think if the score included the two verbal instructions I mentioned.

Begrudgingly, yes, I would consider it a score (albeit not a very good one), but essentially only because it more or less has the label "musical score" pinned on it, and really for no reason other than that.

But basically, I think where we're stuck is that we're both willing to say that this picture can inspire someone to play music, but I'm not willing to give credit for the actual audial result to the picture's painter whereas you are, and in that respect, I'm pretty sure we're never going to sway the other to our viewpoint.

If you want to be the only author and proprietor of your music, then either play it yourself, or get into electronic music (which certainly does have its merits too). Otherwise, think of your music as a collaborative work between the performer and yourself and grant your performers some artistic individuality.

Yes in a sense composition is a collaboration between the performers and composer. They may no doubt interpret the piece in a way that the composer had not originally intended, which may in fact sound better than was originally percieved. 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.

If you, as a performer, are willing to play from a graphical score like this, then you probably should have no problems with calling the composer composer.

Well if somebody painted a beautiful painting based on a piece of music I wrote, I would not claim to be the artist, but merely the inspiration. The artist would no doubt agree with me, otherwise I'd be taking credit for something I could not do - paint a beautiful picture.

...if somebody painted a beautiful painting based on a piece of music I wrote, I would not claim to be the artist, but merely the inspiration. ...otherwise I'd be taking credit for something I could not do.

A valid point, but it only applies to a fraction of current musical trends. You're trying to apply the principals of one system to another - one with which you have no experience.

That's simply not the way it works in 'creative' music. I can't try and explain it, because currently your minds are not wired to absorb it.

:whistling:

Dev.

something to think about:

1. In older times, classical and preclassical concertos did NOT have written cadenzas; instead the performers would IMPROVISE to the given themes. Beethovens cadenzas are not his, to begin with, if not mistaken, at least not in most concertos.

2. There are scores which serve as guide:

3. Take this further. If you get some art and serve it as a score it might yield some interesting results. Of course grabbing a photocopy of Mona Lisa is not that, but it depends on how much you stretch it!

Jose is being an arse, that's for sure, but the idea is there, indeed!

That's simply not the way it works in 'creative' music. I can't try and explain it, because currently your minds are not wired to absorb it.

This is what I'm talking about: stop with this "you don't get it because of some mental defect" bullshit. I could say the only reason you DO get it is because you're a gullible idiot that buys into this "EVERYTHING is a great work of art :D" nonsense but instead I'm trying to actually argue my point. This is two people trying to back up opinions, not "the wise trying to bestow their knowledge onto the peons ohohohohohyes"

Anyway, to nikolas, let's take what you said there:

the performers would IMPROVISE to the given themes

Exactly. EXACTLY. They would be GIVEN THEMES. And then after they played WHAT THE COMPOSER WROTE they would BE TOLD to improvise IN THE SCORE. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Beethoven ever drew a smiley face and claimed it was "MY NEWEST SYMPHONY!"

2: Frank Zappa wrote sheet music, and on in very clearly indicated "play these rythms on any pitch." He even verbally explained it in depth in that video.

3: Well why not the Mona Lisa? Why can't I give you the Mona Lisa and tell you to play it? Because it's a PAINTING, that's why, and that's what you'd tell me if I gave it to you. You would say, "I cannot play this, as it is not music, it is the Mona Lisa."

3: Well why not the Mona Lisa? Why can't I give you the Mona Lisa and tell you to play it? Because it's a PAINTING, that's why, and that's what you'd tell me if I gave it to you. You would say, "I cannot play this, as it is not music, it is the Mona Lisa."

ahem: Mona Lisa

:P

3: Well why not the Mona Lisa? Why can't I give you the Mona Lisa and tell you to play it? Because it's a PAINTING, that's why, and that's what you'd tell me if I gave it to you. You would say, "I cannot play this, as it is not music, it is the Mona Lisa."

I'm sorry to bump this, I really am, but COME ON!

WHY not? Well, why the hell not huh? What if I told you "OK, I'll PLAY THE MONA LISA!"

What then?

What if, suddenly, the Mona Lisa was considered a SCORE! What if, RIGHT NOW, I played the mona lisa and said Da Vinci was the composer! What if I went and gave a concert and did this. What if others did it too?

I said it before, and I'll say it again, you can't dictate what other people do. That's not up to you, regardless of your opinion.

What is this?

-----------------

Why do people assume if something is out of their scope of experience, that it's invalid. You won't hear me arguing about Baroque bowing techniques...so why are people trying to tell me how creative music works.

Seriously, I understand your point. I'm trying to get you to comprehend that your point is limited to a very narrow segment of modern music and doesn't apply in many situations.

:hmmm:

to be fair, the example you've posted, Robin, is performance art, and no one is implying that the painting is the source of the music, but rather that the music is inspiring the movements that are creating the painting.

to be fair, the example you've posted, Robin, is performance art, and no one is implying that the painting is the source of the music, but rather that the music is inspiring the movements that are creating the painting.

Ah...ya got me. BUT, I'd be surprised if something she did or painted didn't affect/effect the improvisation.

I'd take it to be an interactive collaboration between the two performers, each reacting to and influencing the other...

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

a lot of effectmodules in the video, the sax was realy put to good use with the phaser, and flanger. But i have to say, the music did not move me much, little to much abstract for my taste, but you musical picture or what ever it is, great painting, im sorry but it did not move me much that either, but a colourful thought.

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

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 loving music in the first place this wouldn't be an argument.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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....

;)

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.

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?

But the "composition" in question (jose's boxes) shows absolutely no musical knowledge whatsoever. ...there is just absolutely nothing about this picture that suggests the "composer" was a musician.

That's because Josepablo is an asshole whose sarcastic mockery of the genre is quite offensive.

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.

They'd never be taken seriously...just as Jose here should have been laughed off the forum.

You thought I was specifically defending Jose?! :O No way!! I was defending the concepts he so rudely dredged up.

...

Jose is being a facetious and pretentious donkey in what he's done' date=' and I hope he never comes back

...

The problem arises when assholes like Jose here feel it's alright to make derogatory, sarcastic and facetious comments in the guise of satire.

...

I can't believe I'm defending that lame-donkey charlatan Jose

...

it was bullshit because the guy (Jose) is a charlatan who's poking fun at the concept, in a very shrewd and savvy manner.[/quote']

Seeee!!!!

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?

Cuz it's a crazy, crazy world. And that's how the modern art world works now.

Certainly, if I write a score of music, and someone comes around and says it's a nice graphical piece of art, rather than music, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I would've been the artist here rather the "composer" in this case. It depends who appreciates what, in what way.

I personally don't agree much with Jose's methods here on the forum, but I do defend the option to do what he's doing since to me it's a music score all the same so long as someone calls it as such.

HOWEVER, he's not POSTING ANY MP3s and I tire of that bullshit. He is also not posting ANYTHING ELSE other than the damn painting/score/thing so it also annoys me that there's not even a context to look at this from.

But regardless, I've been personally very interested in musical notation systems and all that. To me, your entire score could be "Look out the window" and that's it and it'd be OK. It'd be interesting to see what a performer does with such instructions, certainly.

Sort of like process music, but more vague. However, I personally like to elaborate more, such as "Look out the window, if there are trees, use them as basis for your rhythm. If there are cars, use them as basis for your tone selections" and so that sort of thing.

Look at the type of notation you'd write to do something like Cage's imaginary landscapes nr.4 (with the radios!) or Reich's pendulum music. It's pretty much non-standard and you'll probably end up with numbers and graphs and that sort of junk. Which, honestly, is just fine by me. The journals for Stockhausen's electronic pieces look really cool (and the pieces sound awesome imo.)

I at least attempt to respect here Jose for the fact that, well, he's trying at least. SOMETHING. I don't know what it is really, but well it's something. It'd be even better if he posted goddamn sound files to go with that something.

HOWEVER, he's not POSTING ANY MP3s and I tire of that bullshit. He is also not posting ANYTHING ELSE other than the damn painting/score/thing so it also annoys me that there's not even a context to look at this from.

To be fair, there are at least five threads in which Josepablo has posted mp3's or midi files of his compositions. Of course, some of them seem a bit like something that was scribbled down in two minutes, but others do show compositorial effort. The problem is more the great quantity of his posted pieces combined with an apparent nonchalance, not to say carelessness, in the creation and presentation thereof (and in his comments on pieces of other composers). This just isn't very beneficial, neither for his pieces, nor for discussing them on an online forum.

If these posts are indeed meant as sarcasm, as Robin said, I certainly fell for it. The "pictures" like this one here definitely seem to have been created with some care in any case (in contrast to the BANG! stuff), which is why I take them seriously.

To be fair, there are at least five threads in which Josepablo has posted mp3's or midi files of his compositions. Of course, some of them seem a bit like something that was scribbled down in two minutes, but others do show compositorial effort. The problem is more the great quantity of his posted pieces combined with an apparent nonchalance, not to say carelessness, in the creation and presentation thereof (and in his comments on pieces of other composers). This just isn't very beneficial, neither for his pieces, nor for discussing them on an online forum.

If these posts are indeed meant as sarcasm, as Robin said, I certainly fell for it.

Well, I don't know. He did post mp3s and midis in other threads but he still never said anything else. So the whole context thing and saying stuff, or at least presenting the piece, is still valid. I don't know why he would do it like that, he's either too young to have an idea of what he's doing, or simply silly.

Or it's all comedy, which I doubt...