FUTURE MUSIC

It's an interesting concept, Ash, but I'm afraid it's been done before. Have you heard any Vedic music? :-)

All right, you guys, I think we shouldn't diss Ash too much for his innovations... I think it's not "listening music" like Mozart and Beethoven - but "thinking music" like Cage etc. Like the opposite of 4 minutes of silence - 13 minutes of the same thing over and over again. I did notice a small change in the timbre of the guitar part about halfway thru the piece, but that was it.

So, the music itself - I have to agree here - is totally unoriginal. A key??! Actual chords?! I was expecting something, well, different. But as someone said previously, it's just a pop song accompaniment. But maybe you're trying to say something about the futility of melody - perhaps trying to bore us into thinking some more about the basic tenets of music. Really, why should we be outraged at 13 minutes of the same thing? What's wrong with that?

But at the bottom of it, I really doubt you meant that. I'm also dubious whether or not you've really deeply heard any classical music, or are you just trying to make more rock (okay, Led Zeppelin-type) music.

It's a nice chord progression. Now add music.

That wasn't sarcastic. I mean add music. Where's the feeling, the emotion in this same basic thing repeated 100+times? Music is deeper than just notes and progressions, as you yourself found out when you dumped guitar lessons. So why am I hearing them alone in your music? Add depth, warmth, color. All music has this. Even music we snobbier composers look down upon as not "real" has these qualities.

Thanks very much, Ash. You've made us all think about the real meanings and techniques of music.

Actually there's one possibility I overlooked. Are you trying to create music without emotion? Possibly. But then why title it "Celebration"?????

"That had to be a joke right????" Hmm.

"That is enough to drive someone insane!!!!!" Yep.

"13 minutes of the same thing over and over again" But it's been done before. To look at the opposite again, would anyone write 4'33" again???

"It's a nice chord progression. Now add music" quite.

I'm too tired to add my own thoughts related to this discussion and minimalism (so-called and un-deservedly) and minimalism (the real minimalism, which is even less repetitive than this example!!)

It is too late for me to argue, so I will sleep on it and try to come up with a sensible argument in the morning. (Or afternoon!!)

I am glad that some of you saw part of the magic that is within that fragment. I am also glad that some of you did not see what I was trying to show you. It takes time to understand. As I have said before quite clearly, I have never finished anything. Everything I create is in fragments which arise spontaneously at different times. Sometimes I achieve something larger by putting different fragments together. Sometimes these fragments are best left alone.

I am afraid that a lot of you missed my message though. Those who complained about the repetition or how it sounded like "pop music" or something of that nature, missed the point. The reason this perception of my fragment misses its true essence is that you have only made a superficial analyzation. It is difficult to explain. I have said before that it is the essence and the idea of a creation which makes it revolutionary. Revolutionary music is not music which strives to be so. If that were the case, someone could just make up something out of nowhere that has nothing to do with past traditions or anything. This "revolutionary" music would fail because the meaning would be gone; it would be rooted in nothing. I never said that the past had to be avoided. Only certain aspects of the past should be avoided. Of course, you must keep certain traditions like the key system, tonal centers, etc.. in order to remain balanced in many cases. If I broke any of these foundations, the message would be completely lost. No, it is not about repetition; I already knew it repeated. That is not the point. It is about the idea behind it. The idea is what is revolutionary and capturing a feeling that has been ignored for so long is revolutionary. Yes, you can compare anything to pop music or any type of music you want. But do comparisons have any significance to the idea? No. You can compare a tree to a desk or a frog to a human. But is a frog a human? Is my fragment pop music? No. Music is a mirror. It mirrors the individual who creates it. If that individual has a sincere emotion which comes across pure in his music, I would consider that music revolutionary. The closer the music embodies the idea, the stronger the message. Music without message is dead. Led Zeppelin was revolutionary, and it has taken time for me to see why. They failed many times, and many or all of their songs could be considered "heavy metal" or any label you like. But they were the only ones who were closest to their pure ideas. I have never found anyone else like them, and I do not think I ever will. It is the message within the creation that you must find in order for you to understand what I am talking about. I find no true message in most music. Most music sounds dead to me. I have never created anything yet which completely captures one of my ideas, I never will. I only create things which come close. That is the best I can do. Yes, more "music" could be added on to this, but you have to consider what that would do. Why add more just to add more? If any more was added, it would alter the message and the perception. Many times that can be a bad thing. It can decrease the power and the impact of the message by creating too many variables. One unified message is essential. Any excess is usually not. This is why I say basically all music sounds the same to me. To me, I see the excess. Even in simple "pop" music. Simplicity has nothing to do with it. Something can be simple yet have no impact at all and it can be excessive. It is about a message that is pure and free of excessive distractions. I hope I have helped. If you truly appreciate what I am speaking about, you will realize there is a great deal behind that concept. There is always more that can be added which will support the message, but the foundation is already there. Many times it is difficult to name my fragments or ideas since ideas are difficult to name. It is also difficult to capture entire ide

It is also difficult to capture entire ideas in one composition or fragment. It takes an infinite amount of fragments to cover an idea. The title of this sample fragment, "A Celebration," is the best title I can think of for this idea. This idea captures something royal, significant, prestigious, powerful. Words are not adequate to describe it. It is this ambiguity which makes it magical. I hope that you will truly be able to find the magic within "A Celebration," and see that it is truly different from anything else. If you still do not believe me, that is your choice. I will not force my message. Someone has to feel it themselves. There are many times when my compositions have less adequately captured my message. Times are rare when I find fragments that do well. Think about what I have said, and thank you for your comments and interest.

Sincerely

PageWizard

Uh, I'm thick. Please tell me what this revolutionary bit is in it. And I'm thick so you have to tell me. :o)

I've got to say that it wasn't quite what I was expecting... but I'm of the John Bouz school of no music is bad music. Unless they're taking the chris. In which case it can be amusing. :o)

And have you heard Plastikman? From what I now understand of your ideas and concepts you may like him. And, uh, is this the same Led Zeppelin that I know? - People? I would like to point out that Led Zeppelin hardly sound like that whatsoever...

An artist's reply to [just(ified)?] criticism?????????

A Reply

Uh, nice one, I suppose... :o)

[This message was deleted]

Ash, Maybe I'm missing the boat here. You said the idea behid the music is what makes it revolutionary. What is the idea behind the MIDI that you posted?

Justin-

You said the idea behid the music is what makes it revolutionary.

Yes, the message within the music is what is able to extend its significance beyond the limitations of ordinary music. It has little or nothing to do with technical (mechanical) or theoretical training. These things are excessive and usually greatly distract the listener from a message (if there is one). The only advantage I see with virtuositic instrumental pieces is their mechanical impressiveness. This only has to do with the difficulty of the piece to perform and only lasts a short time. After a while, scales and arpeggios at any tempo become monotonous. In addition, it takes no real talent to create such a piece. It only takes advanced technical maneuvers (weaving in different patterns throughout scales/arpeggios) which derive from training. I find that any piece grounded more in physical (technical) ability than in mental (creative) ability, lacks any real musical insight whatsoever. Anyone can memorize some finger movements which in turn produce tonal combinations, without having any real knowledge of what they are doing. This is why I dislike most music. I also think that the physical performance with an instrument is all that is relied upon, instead of a real knowledge of the hierarchial tonal relationships. This is why I say that all "classical" music sounds the same and that most music sounds the same. It is because all of the "technical" training has been taught to each successive generation. I have said that a true unique composer/musician is revolutionary when he is able to use the instrument ONLY AS A MEANS to bring the music in his mind to reality. Without this, all "music" will sound very similar since the technical abilities are the same throughout history. Each mind is not the same, and if each mind created true music of its own, then each form of music would be unique and could not be categorized so easily or not at all.

What is the idea behind the MIDI that you posted?

I am glad you asked that question instead of quickly dismissing the midi. I already talked about the meaning in two of my previous posts from today. If you want to find out more, go look at those also. For me to state in text what my idea is, is as impossible as using words to describe an object. Even though I could tell you vague adjectives about the object, it would be impossible for me to describe the object in complete detail. The only way for me to do this would be to show you a picture. The problem is that there is too much information to be compressed into text. The idea contains too much information to be compressed into multitudes of midis. The midi is not important. The idea is. I have many ideas in my mind which never make it to music. Sometimes I will experiment and find an idea I never knew about before.

The recording of the midi does not involve real instruments. It is from a computer program in which I compose. This program has limitations, but it allows me to roughly do things I cannot physically. The idea of "A Celebration" increasingly developed as I added more instruments to support the main message. I have described the idea as an enterance of royalty, of importance, of significance. It is as almost if a war is over and even though much has been lost, it is a time for an entire nation to begin a new future. There are many elements at work here, and in order for yourself or for anyone else (who cares) to grasp the message, I should add some more information. Here are the instruments which were involved [much more than one would think (8 tracks total)]-Harpsichord, Tubular Bells, Acoustic Nylon guitar, Synth Bass, 3 percussion sets, and distorted guitar. This will not be of much help until I describe the significance of each. The Harpsichord (eighth notes) is the MAIN idea or MAIN statement. It is the fragmentary essence of the idea-scale frag-. The Synth Bass is the main emphasizer (whole notes) and

(whole notes) and reinforces the main bass foundation. The distorted guitar is a secondary bass (eighth notes) which is able to provide sustained relations across the main idea. The Bells and the Nylon guitar are an interesting aspect. They actually only repeat one measure constantly, yet they sound as if they are following the harpsichord. I believe this is due to the brain's tendency to group similar sounding multi-melodies into one collective melody. The first percussion set is an eighth note beat which is mainly a reinforcer. The second percussion set is a half note beat which emphasizes the main points in the structure. The third percussion set is in sixteenths with small drums alternating on eighth notes.

As you can see; there is a lot here. But quantity is not nearly as important as the main message. The harpsichord is the base message, and everything else builds on it. The computer program allows me to single out and combine various tracks. Unfortunately, the midi combines everything, so there are many relationships which you will not be able to see. To me, this creation is completely unique in its message and idea. If I saw someone else's creation that possessed its own power, I would also say that his creation was unique also. I hope you can truly appreciate the depth of "A Celebration" and begin to see what I am talking about. I have found no one that has so far. That is unfortunate since I would like everyone to benefit from it and create their own works to benefit from. I hope I have helped explain your questions. Please feel free to ask anything you want.

Sincerely,

PageWizard

Dang! He deleted it. Sorry, Michelle. It was 13 minutes of a 4measure chord progression, very pop-sounding, repeated over and over. Instrumentation guitar and drums.....

Ok, you keep on saying over and over that we "missed the point", that we "analyzed superficially". So what *is* the point?

Good, you changed your mind again about past traditions. We'll turn you into a classical composer yet! :-)

"I already knew it repeated. That is not the point. It is about the idea behind it."

Ok Ok, what IS the idea behind it? We didn't criticize your music by saying it sounded popsy..... but we DO want to know, what is this "message", which you keep making excuses for but which you never specify?

"Most music sounds dead to me."

Well, this is certainly a step forward from "most music is dead".

I think you make too much of "excess"; I myself think your music is encountering the same problem in the opposite direction: too simple.

Maybe I'm getting your message about physical/creative wrong, but I would hardly compare a composer who thought up creative variations and modulations on a theme, against a composer who knows where the "cut" and "paste" buttons are on his computer. Sorry if I sound harsh, but I still think you haven't really listened to any real classical music. Maybe your experiences with guitar training have given you a few preconceived ideas... please do go and listen to some Mozart, or Beethoven. Their music not only acheives physical difficulty but also emotional and creative depth.

Only as a means? Again, listen to those people I mentioned. How many times have we proved that they used forms only as a means, and accomplished great things?

OK, so now you can't explain the reason why you created this music. You have a reason, but unconveniently we cannot be shown it.

So now you give us a very elaborate explanation of your orchestration. Which is nice, but I think you misunderstood our questions. I'm getting a tad tired of this philosophical beating around the bush, so I'll come straight to the point:

You showed us a chord progression, repeated for thirteen minutes. Now our questions are:

HOW is this music original/revolutionary?

WHY did you write this music? WHAT mood or idea were you trying to express?

WHY did you repeat the same thing over and over again for thirteen minutes? What purpose did you have in doing this?

COULD you please show us a few other examples of your music?

David, have you deleted your link pages, cos they aren't working.

Very strange. You will need to save the target, rather than just click on the link for some reason.

Oh Ash, I agree that you're ideas are quite revolutionary and a logical step in the development of the arts (all arts). But honey, you ain't expressin' any of that in your music. You say training can distract you. I agree to a certain extent, but your explanation of your different tracks and what they represent is very reminisecent of a standard orchestration class/textbook. And my God, your posts are so long, that I don't have the time or energy to go back and pinpoint examples, but you contradict yourself ROYALLY several times. Or maybe I should say, you don't 'express your ideas clearly in words'. It's not quantity, but quality. Maybe you should work on condensing your ideas into several synthesized statements before you rock the music world.

Oh yeah, your ideas behind your music (like royalty, pomp, blahblahblah) are exactly the same as in the past. I gather that you mean to say it is HOW you use the ideas rather than what the ideas are. No?

I heard of a producer in either Hollywood or on Broadway. When a young playwright would approach the producer with their new play he would not look at it. The producer would hand them a business card and tell the playwright if the idea of the play could be written on the back of the business card he would consider looking at it.

Ash, if an idea is well focussed then I think it is best if it can be described in a minimum of words.

This also applies to music. I think if an idea is presented musically with too many notes then, if you are not careful, the idea can be lost in the notes.

One last question about the MIDI. Why 13+ minutes? Couldn't you have achieved what you wanted in less time?

Ok, Ash. Welcome to the well trodden path of Techno. I may well mail you with some artists names you may be interested in- if you're interested in the music. If you were only interested in being the first to come up with this theory then you won't. It'll be interesting..

I think some people are being a little harsh- and reacting in a typically anti-avant garde way: even the aledgedly open minded and avant-garde among us. The traditional wails of "It's not real music" "Any fool could do that" "What's the point" are being made... This in itself has made me step back and think- and I think that maybe some people should step back a bit. I do feel Ash has made some reasonable points about traditional music being written for the performer- and this being something he wants to change. This is something I agree totally with, as you may have got by now- music shouldn't compromise itself to satisfy the whims of some arsey violinist.

Ash, I think we agree on most things- please lose your air of arrogance though. It doesn't help to win anyone over, and makes even less people respect you. And other people- don't be so harsh. If we're not careful this is going to turn into the avant-garde debate again... "You must use sonata form cos it was really good ages ago and so you must use it now or otherwise you're a talentless nobody who couldn't tell their Scarlatti from their Purcell and doesn't deserve to be called a composer.", if you know what I mean. Let's all think about this calmly for the moment, ok everybody? For John Bouz if for no-one else...

Stefan, this John Bouz thing you have going is a little freaky! He's not Christ, y'know :-). Furthermore, although people are asking the above questions, they are not 'wailing', if I am to understand your use of the word. I don't think (although I could be wrong) that anyone said it wasn't real music. In fact, everyone seems to like it (except for the repetitive 13 minutes thing). I also don't think anyone said that 'any fool could write that', just anyone in particular, which is a valid observation. Finally, we ARE asking what is the point, which is another valid question that even Ash approves of people asking. Actually I admire Ash for being 'receptive' (in his own way) to other people's ideas, and actually responding to them. Just try to cut down a little. Thanks. :-)

OK I haven't followed this thread(so I'm sorry if I'm repeating what was already said), but it seems like this guy is trying to become a master of music without first studying. Quite frankly I don't think you know what you're talking about, Ash.

One has to deeply and thouroughly understand all music before one can become a revolutionary master; a Beethoven. LVB wasn't born with the ability to write his 9th symphony or his last quartets. It took years of study and practice.

Don't compose just for the sake of being a famous revolutionary. Compose the music that you feel and love. IF you are indeed a revolutionary genius it will be expressed in your music.

Revolutions aren't simple nor are they easy.

All right, Stefan, calm down :-)

As I said before, I think Ash may have intended his music as "thinking" music (Cage, etc) as opposed to "listening" music (Mozart). However I doubt it. I have absolutely nothing against abandoning sonata form. I've never used it in my life.

I'm just interested to hear why he's using *this* form. What's the point?

Again, my unwailing questions are: why is the music special, what does it get across, and why did you repeat it over and over for 13 minutes? I think these are valid, unwhiny questions.

I appreciate your responses and questions...

I feel that I have already answered the main question as to what the meaning or point behind "A Celebration" was. I never claimed that this piece was revolutionary; I only believe it is a certain degree closer to embodying my ideas. As I have said before, it is not the music that is revolutionary; it is the idea behind it. Words are extremely crude for explaining ideas. Ideas are too specific and words are too general. This is why it is impossible to represent my idea accurately through words.

I have seen many questions about the 13+ minutes of repetition. As I have said before, "A Celebration" is only a fragment. If this fragment ended without repeating very much, the idea would be lost. The repetition allows me to discover new emotions and ideas which come out of the music. Preferably, on my software, "A Celebration" repeats continuously. With a midi that is impossible. So I repeated it 99 times. This may seem insane to you, and it would to me if I did not understand what the "point" was. The point is, to listen and understand what is going on instead of understanding that it repeats. As I have said before, superficial analyzations like "pop music" and "repeats" will not allow you to see the message. I am not being arrogant, I am only being straightforward and honest with you. If I was not honest, I would not bother explaining all of this to you. I do not feel that all classical music is bad. Some pieces stand out more than others. Most classical, to me, seems like a skeletal structure though. This is why much of it sounds similar. The techniques imployed on scales and arpeggio runs are very similar and are usually in a cascading arrangement to bring forth continuity. Continuity is good, but it can easily bring monotony. I agree that "A Celebration" was definitely monotonous since it repeated a great deal. That was not the point though. I know there are flaws. I never said that I have yet accomplished what I wish to. Each creation is more or less closer to what I wish to do in the future. All of my past creations have been created by chance basically. There is no method. I am also against learning someone else's "method" because then I would sound like they do. I have been creating my own system. Once it is completed, I will be able to fully capture the essence of my ideas more closely than was ever possible before. I also need to find the right people who must help me do this. I hope I have answered your questions. If you have any more, please ask.

Sincerely,

pagewizard I

"I am also against learning someone else's "method" because then I would sound like they do" So Prokofiev, Rimsky-Korsakov, Shostakovich, Borodin, Schnittke and Myaskovsky all sound the same do they? They were all within 100 years or so of each other, coming from more or less the same training background, yet they have very distinctive voices of their own.

Training and individuality are two very different things. It was effectively said here, I think, (I am not trawling through the nearly 100 messages), that many composers learn Bach's choralization and harmony etc., but does Shostakovich sound like Bach? No. That is because the real composition process, based on whatever background it may be, is individualistic -regardless of training.

I think I shall not argue more on the subject unless things change one way or another, because quite frankly, I can't be bothered!

Pagewizard the 1st.... indeed.

Anyway, yet another inch gained (I'm keeping a running tally). You admit your piece was not revolutionary. Then you go on to tell us that you can't explain the idea behind the piece. Can't you even give us a vague inkling of it?

And anyway, you didn't answer my second question, or only vaguely: what purpose did you have in writing this piece? You talk about endless repeats allowing one to "discover new emotions", etc. What we all want to know is (and I really don't think I can make this any clearer):

WHY did you write this piece?

WHY does it repeat endlessly? What purpose does this serve?

Also, I think poor Michelle is going to have a hell of a time going thru all these messages, so I think I'm done with this thread unless you can answer those questions concisely in one post, without vague generalizations...

"As I have said before, it is not the music that is revolutionary; it is the idea behind it." But tell us, why is this idea so revolutionary? If you think the idea of repeating the same chord progression over and over again is innovative, you're wrong. Do you know erik satie's vexations (composed in 1893)? in this piece the same phrase is repeated 840 times. The piece is very static and undramatic and the many repetitions give it the character of an "immobile sound object". is this also the idea behind your piece?

"The point is, to listen and understand what is going on instead of understanding that it repeats." That's rather vague, isn't it? can't you be more concrete? So the point is to listen and understand what is going on, but we have all heard what is going on in the piece: a simple chord progression that's being repeated many times. really, there isn't much more going on the piece. but if we say that that's what's going on in the piece, you say we make superficial analyzations. Then, WHAT exactly IS the point? You still haven't answered that question satisfactorily. WHAT do we need to understand? WHAT do you think is going on in the piece that makes it interesting and original?

"As I have said before, superficial analyzations like "pop music" and "repeats" will not allow you to see the message." Once again, what IS the message? You seem to have trouble getting to the point. You may think you have answered all these questions before, but either you gave us vague and ambiguous answers or you just evaded the questions with pseudo-philosophical ramblings.

Please answer these questions DIRECTLY and give CLEAR and CONCRETE (not vague) answers.