FUTURE MUSIC

First, I will answer alethea's questions--

WHY did you write this piece?

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

The main structure of the piece was originally part of a longer composition that I created on a different program. It was an experimentation of creating different sounds. I went slowly as I heard in my mind what the composition should sound like. That first composition had different fragments in it, some more powerful than others. There was one fragment near the end which especially caught my attention. It was a very powerful fragment which had a strong meaning. I took this fragment aside and developed it further into what is now "A Celebration." That is how I can best describe how I "wrote" the piece. The endless repeating was only used so that I could listen to it many times to absorb what "A Celebration" was telling me. This would allow me to adjust, augment, or change anything I needed to. I do not consider this work complete at all. Every work I do is incomplete. They are all ideas which can be expanded or truncated to allow different sensations to take place. The repeating also serves the purpose of allowing the listener (myself) to hear different things and sense different feelings. If it repeated only once, a couple times, or not at all, the essence of the piece would be lost. Remember, this is not finished (I do not believe any piece ever is). This is only a fragment that was repeated so that different aspects of it could be brought out.

To X-

I was very concrete in my statement. You should open your eyes to see the power within "A Celebration" instead of overexaggerating about its repetitions. I am not repeating it solely for the sake of being repeated like that one work you mentioned. "A Celebration" goes by so fast, that all of the meaning would be lost if it was not repeated. I have also found that drastic changes also disrupt the main idea that is trying to be expressed. It is possible to augment "A Celebration" with further arrangements, but these additions will likely subtract from the power of what it is now. This is why, many things lose something when they alter too much. Macro scale changes cause confusion and distort original meanings.

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?

The point is that "A Celebration" is able to capture a moment fairly authentically. The moment is a feeling. It is meant to be ambiguous. The meaning of any good music will be an ambiguous one. That is the magic of real music. Anything predictable and discrete means little or nothing at all. You need to understand that the music which I refer to is not meant to be pinned down to a few words. Music is definite. Words are indefinite. That is what I have been trying to tell you. Try using words to describe a river or the ocean, or anything truly. You cannot. Words are vastly inadequate. I think there is a great deal going on in the piece. There are two main things though. The first is the instruments involved, their harmonies, and rhythm. The second is the ideas implied by the combinations of these elements. The first aspect is really of little importance as far as its interest and originality go. The second aspect is what is important. This piece has layers of depth which build on a singular foundation. I find that the way different elements expose themselves at uncertain times is very interesting. The percussion elements add a good effect by reinforcing important tonal accents. It is difficult to list every one. I hope that you will find new things which I have not found. I think the main problem has been a misinterpretation. This piece is not a piece it is a fragment. I do not consider it complete. I think its ability to be amorphous and indistinct allows it to capture so

capture something I believe is rarely or never captured. It is the essense which is ephemeral. There are parts about this piece which I could change or take out. I am fairly happy with the arrangement as it is, but experimentations can always bring about new discoveries. It is amazing how very small changes make a huge difference in the emotions perceived.

Sincerely,

PageWizard II

I think thats the first time someone didn't make a big thing about getting the 100th post.

The question I have right now is what led you to the beliefs that you have? You seem sa confident in these ideas that I would like to know what exactly influenced you.

Also, how much does the idea of an audience factor into your compositions. Personally I never try to sacrifice anything just to make my compositions audience friendly but I do wish for others to enjoy my music.

Justin--

I believe that my confidence in my ideas is derived from my independence in both my personal and musical development. I have also been rejected many times throughout my life which has attributed to my independent nature. Probably the reason why I see my music as significant is because no one else has ever cared at all. I do not see anyone who cares about music for what it is; they only care about what music can do for them. I look deeply into basically everything I encounter. I have discovered many things also. These are not things that anyone could understand. But my perceptions were not given to me nor did I use someone else as a mold that I liked. My perceptions are my own; they always have been. I have been influenced by most people in a negative way, and that has caused me to dislike many people. I am not a negative person generally; it is the world which appears very negative to me.

I am getting to like audiences less and less. The more I find out about them, the less I like them listening to what I create. I only wanted to share something special and something unique with them. This turns out to be impossible. It would not matter how much work I would put into something; it would all be in vain. The reason is that no one will understand my ideas as I do. And my idealistic hope that they will, is destroyed. Most people do not appreciate what music really is. Many who are "involved" in music do it for their own selfish reasons and join social or worldly clubs, activities, or vocations. I would like to find someone who was of a pure musical and personal character, someone who wished to search creatively. I find that this is basically impossible. I have been on an endless search for quality. The only "type" of people that I have found closest to quality are these composers or musicians who compose classsical-like music. It is not at all what I wish to do, but it is the closest out of the limited range of choices.

PageWizard III

You're right, Rach! 100 it is. Pauvre Michelle (did you get this far? It's worth it!).

THANK YOU, God! He finally answered my questions! No sarcasm intended! Let's see what he wrote..

Damn.

OK, Ash. You told me how you wrote the piece. Thanx, but that's not what I asked. I asked WHY.

"The endless repeating was only used so that I could listen to it many times to absorb what "A Celebration" was telling me."

WHAT was it telling you?

BTW, we would "open our eyes" a little easier if you'd put it back online. No joke. I want to listen again, I may have missed something. No sarcasm.

Tell me, how can an ambiguous idea have meaning?

Really, and I'll be perfectly honest with you, I think I'm starting to get an idea of what's going on. You create a simple chord progression which I'm sure took a talented composer like you a minimum of effort to write, then you come on to this site, denounce all the composers of the past until we prove to you that their music has worth, denounce all composing styles until we prove to you they don't limit music, etc, etc. You contradict yourself - I'm not even going to count. I'm tired and not a little frustrated. You can't show us a meaning in your music, or a purpose WHY you wrote it, or WHAT it's supposed to mean. In fact, I don't think these ideas are well defined even in your own mind. Perhaps they are, and you just can't get them across to us.

Listen, this is going to be my last post on this thread until you answer my questions, simply, without any rambling about orchestration or fragments or anything like that. Just answe, in one sentence each, these questions (and *please* don't tell me you can't; that's an excuse you've used already).

WHY did you write this music?

WHAT IDEA, EMOTION, or OTHER FEELING is it supposed to communicate?

WITH WHAT PURPOSE does the chord progression repeat 99 times?

Thank you.

Regarding #104. Translation: "I've never taken harmony or theory. Everyone has said I should, but I don't listen 'cuz they all stink anyways. I look deep within a piece, which is my justification for writing simple little fragments that repeat endlessly, since that is all I am capable of developing. I actually feel quite uneasy around 'classical' composers 'cuz they have more training and are better than me any day, so I choose to put them down to make myself feel better."

This may sound harsh, but I believe it is the truth. Althea, I think that the answers that Ash has provivded are the best ones he can come up with. The music makes perfect sense FOR HIM, and the meaning are clear and distinct FOR HIM. As it was stated, this music was not intended for an external audience, but for the composer himself. Whatever....

Chris, that was what was running thru my mind, but I was too polite to say it (LOL, no offense).

You know what? Lemme put up a piece of my own on the site, and then maybe you all can ask me some questions about it.... I think it may be slightly more interesting. But I have no idea how to do it....

I think the concept that has to be realized is that as a young composer you have to crawl before you walk. I had to realize this when I was trying to compose beyond my capabilities. Unless you are a one in a billion composer like Mozart, composition is a slow learning process that takes years to develop. I think the concepts stated by Ash, at their foundation, are very good and insightful. I also think that all of us may need to step back and treat composition as a process of growth rather than something that we seem to know all of the answers to. I am as guilty of the next guy of having a closed mind to opposing viewpoints, but no matter how confident we think we are in our beliefs I think we must always be open to reevaluate our convictions.

I thought we were taking a step back though. That is why we were trying to get answers about this music.

Ash's ideas are advanced and, as I said, a logical step in the right direction. However, I believe that it requires...actually...I'm not going to say anything. It's all been said.

Yes, but Justin, you're taking the view that this is just a "base" for Ash to build on. HE takes the view that this is a completed piece of music - he doesn't *want* to "add anything else" (unless he's going to change his mind about that too.....)

Actually Althea, Ash doesn't regard this piece as complete. He said that none of his pieces are ever completed. Although I think it is safe to say that he considers it largely completed.

Ash, I've written a composition which I'd like to dedicate to you. I've posted the score in the "Word-scores" thread (yes, it's a word-score!). Let me know what you think of it. I hope you'll like it....

None of you have any idea what my true ambitions are, nor do you know at all what I am capable of and what my concepts are capable of. The only purpose I have in coming here in the first place was to search for anyone who even remotely identifies with what I wish to accomplish. It is obvious that mainly everyone here wishes to copy like everyone else. You can do what you wish, but it will never become anything except imitations based on old emotionless theoretical structures. These mathematically based structures have no meaning inherently and will never be able to instill any true future concept in anyone. The reason is ALL THE STRUCTURES YOU USE ARE OF THE PAST. You may say the same is true of my midi. Well, of course it is now because it uses the same system you have used. You probably also are bothered with the lack of complexity. Scales and arpeggios in classical works represent nonsense which means nothing. Once you have heard one, you have heard them all. If you hear them faster, you will notice technical and mechanical ability in the performer. That is all I see in some classical works--technical ability. Why or how do they have this abilty? They have been trained like all composers. Any trained "composer" to me is not a composer. I disagree with your claims that the teaching on harmonic and rhythmic structure had nothing to do with their "original" compositions. Yeah right. This is the same as saying the knowledge of colors and combinations of colors make no difference in an artist's ability to create a replication of a detailed landscape. It is rather impossible for any composer to replicate the commonplace complex arrangements of his time without being taught how to do so beforehand. All of these teachings affect composition just as easily as they affect performance or improvising. You know next to nothing about me. All you know is what I have allowed you to see. I was curious to how you would respond to "A Celebration." It is obvious now, and it was even obvious before I posted a message here. As I have said before: "I am not interested in those who read by sheet music, who follow the syntax of what they have been told, who are limited to the constructs of the past. Anything of a commercial sort, I despise. I am also not looking for anyone who lacks motivation or who is part of the degraded filth of "music" that has infested everything. There are basically two extremes: the completely programmed composer and the completely limited/primitive composer." If you truly understood the meaning of this statement, you would realize that you would not be capable of seeing beyond what you have been programmed to see. This is my last comment regarding what I have seen. I thank you for your input.

Sincerely,

PageWizard IV

Why "create" complexity for the sole reason of complexity or "climb" a mountain for the sole reason of climbing it?

All right, enough. This is becoming ludicrous.

Oh, now you're Pagewizard the 4th?

I'm disappointed to see that you use the old avante-garde argument: "You can't understand what comes out of my rear end because it's too revolutionary for your feeble brain to comprehend, since you've been brainwashed to accept what comes out of everyone else's rear end, which is poop, whereas what comes out of mine is art". I would have thought you might think of something more "original", no pun intended.

Your analogies and logic, like all the other examples which you have shown us, are riddled with errors. If you're not interested in the people you mentioned in your rather long and grandiose quote, why do you use their techniques?

Your music, I'm afraid to say, is neither revolutionary nor interesting. A simple, merely mechanical chord structure, repeated over and over again displays NEITHER performing skill nor emotion depth. In short, even if music of the past is crap, one can hardly call yours better. I still fail to see why you condemn past techniques, yet do nothing revolutionary in your music AT ALL except repeat the same small fragment over and over again.

Perhaps (not the first time the theory's entered my mind) you've been so scarred by having to learn chord patterns on the guitar that you grow to despise all past techniques, and decide to compose new and original music. Which, for some inexplicable reason, consists of repeated chord patterns.

How can you judge our music? You've never heard mine. For all you know mine may be as "revolutionary" as yours.

"Why "create" complexity for the sole reason of complexity or "climb" a mountain for the sole reason of climbing it?"

All right, I'm tired of this. What I really hate are people who jump to conclusions. WHEN did we EVER give you evidence that we do this?

I think I've said all I can. I leave the field of debate somewhat frustrated. Had you been able to communicate your ideas coherently, I might have changed my mind about some ideas of music. Unfortunately you incontinently spewed a jargon of sophistry and blather which meant nothing and completely avoided our questions. It soon became obvious that you yourself didn't know the answers to the extremely simple questions which any composer should be able to answer had (s)he put any effort or emotion into his/her music. Towards the end you seeked refuge under the idiotic arguments of the avante-garde, including "you just can't understand". The problem is, we can understand, only too well: you made your music long because length in your mind equates with depth. Certainly this explains why you made such an overcompensation in time span.

Yours very truly,

Alethea (the first and last. Accept no imitations!)

Here are some different samples that I created recently if you want to listen to them.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ycompose/files/Random%20fragments/composition%20%231.mid

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ycompose/files/Random%20fragments/piece%20%233.mid

You have shown us again that your music is nothing interesting, nothing original and nothing innovative or revolutionary at all.

Sorry, I could also give you constructive criticism, but why should I? I think you don't even care for our opinions. Because we are just copycats like all composers of the past, we are unoriginal losers, we are part of the degraded filth of "music" that has infested everything, we are too stupid to see the true value of "A Celebration", but YOU,you are such an innovative genius, writing such highly revolutionary music, without using any structures of the past... I hope you're just pulling our legs and if you are, it's an amazing joke, if not, dream on, Mr.Page, dream on....

Sounds like extracts from larger works in traditional form, if you ask me.

The more I think about this thread, the more I'm thinking "it's an amazing joke"

I do like these MIDIs more than "A Celebration." I just wish you could find a way to sift through your musical philosophies and justify developing the fragments. It would be more gratifying for me, as a listener, to hear the ideas over a larger time span.

"Amazing joke" indeed. Either the guy doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's schizophrenic. Seriously.

Out of one side of his mouth he talks about hating being complex for its own sake, hating old forms and structures, hating how rapid arpeggic patterns and scales are what constitute all the "filth" of the past.

Out of the other side he composes this first piece. Seriously, Ash, I don't see any difference between this and typical Chopin, except that Chopin is usually better. And maybe I'm tone-deaf, but it seems to me that ALL of your first piece is rapid scales and arpeggios. Again, nothing revolutionary - or even creative. I see that the first ten seconds of your piece consist of broken chords, rapidly played on piano.

I'll go listen to the second now. Post my comments in a little.

Oh Ash, I'm tending to agree with the amazing joke theory. You speak of your 'aversion' to arpeggios and scales when you quite obviously use them everywhere. It almost sounds like your aspiring to be what the great classical composers were (and are)....

I've decided that the only way I can see a justification of your philosophies in your music is that it is entirely personalized. You see the distinct meanings and ideas that make it complex and revolutionary, but no one else can. Only you can see the special aspects of it. What you don't seem to realize is that if the music is personalized and revolutionary for the individual composer alone, you can never convince anyone else of its 'special' aspects because they just don't exist for anyone else. See what I mean?

I think Christopher has a good point. Ash sees his ideas as revolutionary and I respect his views. The problems lies in the communication of his views through the music. However he may not want to clearly communicate through his music. He says that good music is mysterious and ambiguous (a point I very much disagree with). He may intend composition to be only self-fulfilling and philosophical, not to clearly communicate ideas. I don't know.

I have posted a new midi sample if you wish to listen:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ycompose/files/Random%20fragments/concept%20I.mid

I can see exactly what you are talking about when you say how I say one thing and do another. I did that on purpose. You can't sincerely believe that these recent pieces are my own. Well, of course, I did create them, but that is beside the point. It was remarked by many that I lacked the ability necessary to compose anything of "structure" or "depth." This is the reason why I have been writing these other pieces which are quite different and less powerful as the first one. These latter pieces are not devoid of meaning entirely. They still have my emblem on them, only in a diminished way. I have written pieces like this before for fun, to see what I can do within limited boundaries. I find that there is only so much I can do before everything begins to sound the same. This is why I dislike most classical music; scales and arpeggios begin to sound the same after a short time no matter what combination of them you use.

Just because my real music is ambiguous does not mean that it cannot be communicated. I believe the message communicated through my pieces is stronger than messages conveyed elsewhere. Sonic Atmospheres are much more important than sound with discrete quanta. I never implied that past composers had no skill. I believe they had skill but only a certain type of skill. And this skill was more performance orientated than anything else. I see about every classical piece rambling on or repeatedly doing the same little things. It is typical of the genre or of any genre. That is why genres are ridiculous.

I hope that it is blatantly clear for you that I am capable of composing anything that I wish to. Even though I find it monotonous many times to compose works for your favorite style, I do it anyway to prove my point. Do not judge someone completely by one sample of music which you do not understand the idea behind. Hopefully, I will be able to develop more superficial structure to my future works so people like you, and many others, will have nothing to quibble about. To me, anything that uses very similar and identical techniques can be classified with anything else within a time period which uses the same techniques. This is why it is so simple to classify all classical music. If any of them were truly great they could not be classified so easily. I have said this before. The time period back then was little different than our time period now except for structural embellishments. Everyone who composed basically sounded like everyone else around at the time. And you wonder how I can make preconceived judgments regarding how many or all of you sound similar to them. All your files are titled just like classical works, have the same instruments as classical works, and sound just like classical works. I agree, my new files do sound like classical works, but I did that on purpose. Many of you cannot seem to see outside of what you are doing. I can see why, to you, my first file would sound simplistic because you look for unecessarily complex edifices. Complexity can be good but not when it is trained as a science and occurs in similar patterns throughout every composition.

Sincerely,

PageWizard V of Essex

Hi Ash. I was trying to listen to your pieces but was unable to open them. I would be very grateful if you sent me them through email (johnbouz@hotmail.com) and I could let you what I think.

First of all, lets set up a few rules. What good does it do to put someones beliefs and tastes down in such ignorant ways? We are young composers chatting with each othammerher about what we love, on the internet. How does loudly and stubbornly voicing your opinion do any good? I know that Im not the best at this either but lets try to be a bit more considerate.

I think that some people should take Ash's 2248work a bit more seriously. I believe that if i don't like something, there is something wrong with me, not the piece. However, there are two sides to this. Ash, I respect you and your views. Even though Im sure you will make it far the way you are now, I encourage you to take other styles more seriously. Sometimes it is easy to find flaws in classical music. However, it would do you no harm if you listened to some of Cages music, to read his books, and to listen to some of his pieces. If you dont agree with it you can keep on doing what you are doing.

A few days back, I was talking with a lady who knew Cage and I am rethinking my career once again. She told me a lot about music and what he thought of it and this has led me to listen and be more aware of the sounds around me. Once you start to understand all the little things in sound it is so rewarding. Now, I find it impossible to be bored mainly for the existence of Cages piece 433. This is truly amazing music. Please, Im asking everybody to listen to it and give it a chance. It you refuse to, you are refusing to give yourself a chance.

Thank-you for listening. Ash, I am looking forward to hearing your music.