|
Post by martin130161 on Feb 21, 2014 9:12:44 GMT
THANK YOU, MissClarkTree for FINALLY getting the discussion going on more of a level that I'd hoped for; namely, avoiding the straight 'like/don't like/observational' approach to what was going on in the video... I don't think we have the space or time on the Forum to go 'deeper', as Michael put it (and I don't think we did, unfortunately, Michael), into the ideology/philosophy/psychology behind work of musicians such as Derek Bailey - more's the pity. We've stated the obvious, of course: that's he chose to apply his training and 'amazing techniques' to a lifetime of playing sounds that invoked extreme reactions of one kind or another in listeners, and it's admirable, too, that Derek remained resolute in his dedication to his own particular style of the art that we all recognise - in whatever form - as music. But my central aim is/was to understand WHY?? What is it about this particular path that makes a musician and the listeners who go with him eschew pretty much all that it is generally accepted - and I do use that phrase carefully - as 'music' in favour of the timbres, sounds and techniques on offer. Perhaps there's a parallel universe somewhere in which the majority are listening to avant garde free jazz improv - and where a debate is currently underway regarding the one chap who turned his back on it all to play Sor... I've personally always viewed the programmatic side of presenting live music as akin to inviting people round for a meal: it's good to introduce your 'guests/listeners' to new, perhaps untried/untested tastes/sounds during the evening - but how would they react to an entire six courses of that taste, followed by coffee, cheese and biscuits and wafer-thin mints? In this sense, take a look at a typical John Williams programme, for example. There might be Koshkin's 'Usher Waltz' in there, to challenge and stretch the intellect of an audience more used to Bach & Barrios. In the same way, I think players like Amrit have got it spot on, by including 'Rigid Geometry', thereby again stretching and opening his audience's ears to new sounds and ideas. I wish Derek were here to join in the discussion. I wish he were still here full stop, because the world needs individuals like him to prevent it falling into a state of accepting complacency. But, as I said earlier, a straightforward observational analysis of that video is not enough in itself... So, I'm going to leave it there for now - thanks for your views and contributions. Oh, and just to fan the flames en passant, here are one or two more clips to marvel at. One of them features Derek playing without vocal accompaniment, and another is especially for Michael, to show him exactly what it's like to be shouted at by an elderly Japanese relative... but is it Art? Well, IS IT? <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdZ9weP5i68>
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 11:48:54 GMT
Not sure whether I can add much to the intellectual debate, but I can relate my own, and my students' experiences, especially as someone who has had to teach 15 and 16 year olds what to look for in a piece of Schoenberg (Peripettie for those interested).
It is interesting to see the reaction of children with a wide variety of musical backgrounds. The overriding reaction is not usually "wow that is horrible, turn it off" though there has been one or two comments like that. More perceptive comments focus on how this music has influenced other styles of music that they are more familiar with. And lets face it, almost all of us listen to such music on a regular basis. As several students have commented, "this is like horror music". And, they are absolutely right. Whenever a TV programme or film wants us to be unsettled and uncomfortable, these "Expressionist" and "12 tone" composers seem to be just the ticket (or at least the contemporary composers writing pastiches of this music). Without the music the film/ Tv would be so much less effective. Even when my kids watch scooby doo they are listening to atonal music.
And at the end of the day, the music has served its purpose. It has elicited an emotional response, the response that the film director wanted.
The question I think Martin is asking, if I understand it right, is why would people want to deliberately listen to such music? I don't think any of us would really enjoy watching horror films every minute of the day. Even a horror film has to release the tension sometimes.
And this is why I personally think such music (i.e. music for its own sake, not for any purpose) is so ineffective, especially the work of Schoenberg, Webern, Nono, Ligeti et al- I believe its a case of in their effort to "break the rules" (and after all where would we all be today if we weren't pushing the boundaries- still listening to pentatonic church music with simple 5th and 4th based hamony? Or maybe still pounding out rhythms on stones and logs?).......
.....its a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I love 12 tone music- just listen to Shostakovich's 10th string quartet for a good example of what can be achieved by using all 12 tones of the scale.
I love rhythmically complex music- listen to the rite of spring by Stravinsky, or the works of James MacMillan.
I love challenging harmony- most 20th century classical music has complex harmony, that can actually be quite beautiful.
Challenging textures and timbres can also be quite fascinating and beautiful, and very evocative.
But....and here comes the crux of my argument......why the blazes do composers have to dispense with everything? Music that is melody less, harmonically vague, structureless, no clear rhythm etc etc Derek Bailey is a very good case in point.
I like to be intellectually challenged occasionally. In fact one of the first Jazz albums I ever bought was "Adventure Playground" by John Surman, some of the most haunting free Jazz I've ever heard. Absolutely beautiful. Yes the drummer is hitting his drum kit with chains, and the melodies still weave about fascinatingly. But at least this music still has structure, rhythm, harmony, texture.
Sorry, went on a bit, but at the end of the day to me music has to be more than just an intellectual (and sometimes in the case of Schoenberg a mathematical) exercise.
Robbie
|
|
|
Post by grayn on Feb 22, 2014 9:36:55 GMT
I don't think this sort of music is cool or clever but I do think it's the direction some talented guitarists have gone, to express themselves. There is much in the performances to get your teeth into and anjoy. But as complete peices, they don't work for me. My preference is for a balancing of "conventional" and "other". It gives the brain a reference to spread out from. Whether you're going for something almost cinematic or raw emotion, I think it's worth considering that you are trying to communicate and the listener/audience should be considered, to some extent.
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Feb 22, 2014 15:29:05 GMT
Hello all, these discussions are always interesting!
The question that springs to my mind is about the apparent randomness. If Rigid Geometery is repeatable, then it is carefully worked out and written to sound random, but by definition it isn't random. Why can't we play with real abandon?
As to wether it 's listenable or not, I guess it's like strings, tonewoods, genres, plectrums ad infinitum that people can only disagree about, but you never know you might just find something to think about...
Think I'll go and watch the rugby...
kind rgs Peter
|
|
|
Post by martin130161 on Feb 22, 2014 17:48:37 GMT
I don't think this sort of music is cool or clever but I do think it's the direction some talented guitarists have gone, to express themselves. There is much in the performances to get your teeth into and anjoy. But as complete peices, they don't work for me. My preference is for a balancing of "conventional" and "other". It gives the brain a reference to spread out from. Whether you're going for something almost cinematic or raw emotion, I think it's worth considering that you are trying to communicate and the listener/audience should be considered, to some extent. I'm glad at least a few more of you folk joined in with the discussion, and I don't think it's a topic that will ever be settled one way or another. There is no right or wrong, but what I'm intrigued by is what motivates people to want to play/listen to this 'style' (if we can even call it a style) in the first place. Artists in many other disciplines - theatre, painting, sculpture, cinema - have sought to, effectively, completely de-construct the form they first began working in...but in order to do/find/express what? There are plenty of interviews with Derek Bailey out there on the internet which make for interesting - no, ESSENTIAL - reading for anyone who is even vaguely curious as to what made him tick. My own preference, too, is the idea of counterbalancing the 'conventional' with the 'out there'; light and shade; Yin and Yang; harmony and dissonance. Maybe - since I get the feeling that the discussion is starting to peter out - the last word should come from Derek Bailey himself, especially on the questions of audiences and communication. And maybe this raises even more questions than before... Derek Bailey: I’ve never been sure about audiences. I’ve never understood what the responsibility of a performer is to an audience. It’s intensely complicated. When people talk about audiences, they usually drool on about communication. Anyone interested in communication should spend time digging holes for telegraph poles. There’s much more going on between a performer and an audience than just communication. I don’t know what happens but I think that the audience’s role in listening to improvising – and I never liked saying anything about audiences because if anyone asks what I think about an audience, I’m just grateful there is one – but actually I would think that an audience listening to improvisation has a greater responsibility than any other type of audience because they can affect the musical performance in a direct way, in a way that no other audience can affect the musical performance. They can affect the creative process in every aspect. Every aspect of the music, every part of the process can be affected by the audience if it’s improvised music because the whole thing is going on at the time they’re witnessing it. They’re witnessing the whole process of producing that music. I mean, there’s a lot of work behind it, and they’re not going to affect that, but they can affect the immediate production of the music, its immediate construction, which is the crucial time for improvisation.
|
|
missclarktree
C.O.G.
Posts: 2,427
My main instrument is: It varies
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"1979e6"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 100605
Mini-Profile Text Color: 020a12
|
Post by missclarktree on Feb 22, 2014 20:23:04 GMT
I'm glad at least a few more of you folk joined in with the discussion, and I don't think it's a topic that will ever be settled one way or another. There is no right or wrong, but what I'm intrigued by is what motivates people to want to play/listen to this 'style' (if we can even call it a style) in the first place. Artists in many other disciplines - theatre, painting, sculpture, cinema - have sought to, effectively, completely de-construct the form they first began working in...but in order to do/find/express what? Having thought about it a bit more, I'm making the following wild guesses at some of their possible reasons. If all of these guesses are wrong, then I'm absolutely stumped. 1. A genuine desire to explore the boundaries, or call them into question. 2. To make some sort of point (but not a musical/artistic one). 3. They feel that Western music is exhausted 4. Either cynically or from a sense of humour, they want to see if the audience will 'fall for it'. PS The Yoko Ono video reminded me too much of my former workplace - the psychiatric ward.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Floorstand on Feb 23, 2014 0:00:16 GMT
Some musicians don't like to improvise, some like to improvise with melodies and rhythms; Derek Bailey appears to be improvising mainly with textures and timbres. I guess that is not going to be a popular kind of music - the kind of music that helps the working day pass quicker, or helps you relax at the end of the working day. You probably can't dance to it, you probably wouldn't have it on as background music while doing household chores. It requires that you either concentrate on it, or at least have nothing else that might distract you or require your concentration.
I wonder if Derek Bailey's motivation to play this style was that he had already mastered melodic improvisation and no longer found it emotionally or intellectually rewarding?
|
|
|
Post by alembic1989 on Mar 3, 2014 9:07:36 GMT
What intrigues me about Derek Bailey is that here is a musician who learned to play and studied music in a conventional way (whatever definition we choose to put on 'conventional'), but then departed so radically from it to spend the rest of his life wringing tones, timbres and sounds from his instrument in a way that flew in the face of all that I suspect the majority of Soundboard members would regard as 'guitar playing'. And it's up to him what he does with this training. Let's go slightly deeper... If we can agree that music (and more specifically, instrumental or non verbal music) is a language (having a semantic and syntactical basis regardless of parent culture) then perhaps we can also agree that music is unique in the fact that it is the only language that communicates entirely in emotion, not information. The cognitive dissonance experienced when confronted by a pensioner with an archtop guitar who steadfastly refuses to play tasteful extended harmonies to "Autumn Leaves" and instead bombards our senses with grinding, upsetting noises and an apparent disregard for the values that we as guitarists/musicians hold dear (sweet tone, clean attack, lyrical phrasing, clever tasty chord melody movement etc) is akin to being shouted at in Japanese by an elderly relative. (Adjust to Geordie if your elderly relatives are in fact Japanese). Hence an undeniable emotional response... We should also bear in mind that this clip is an introduction to a Derek Bailey performance, he's talking to the audience, setting the scene, perhaps even preparing them a little for what's to come. Not that what's to come is going to be any less "other"... There are some amazing techniques on display that I have stolen in the past (I love playing behind the bridge on an archtop and freely admit to snaffling this idea from Derek Bailey) but that's not at the heart of this performance. What is perhaps most admirable is that there's no coersion, no attempt to pander to taste/demographic/fashion. Derek Bailey sat down with the intention of giving a specific timbre of performance. He did that without compromise throughout his career. Hats off. Nicely put Michael..... I remember meeting Amrit for the first time...we were strangers, and were due to be playing a gig together ...with some other guitarists, at our local arts centre...a kind of guitarists extravaganza..each player having his own style. We sat in my bedroom, and he played first...he performed Rigid Geometry...and then asked me what I though of it...I could only say that I'd never heard anything like it in my life...he liked my response....nice guy, liked his music...and it was a great gig too....no egos.
|
|
|
Post by alembic1989 on Mar 3, 2014 9:11:35 GMT
I don't think this sort of music is cool or clever but I do think it's the direction some talented guitarists have gone, to express themselves. There is much in the performances to get your teeth into and anjoy. But as complete peices, they don't work for me. My preference is for a balancing of "conventional" and "other". It gives the brain a reference to spread out from. Whether you're going for something almost cinematic or raw emotion, I think it's worth considering that you are trying to communicate and the listener/audience should be considered, to some extent. I'm glad at least a few more of you folk joined in with the discussion, and I don't think it's a topic that will ever be settled one way or another. There is no right or wrong, but what I'm intrigued by is what motivates people to want to play/listen to this 'style' (if we can even call it a style) in the first place. Artists in many other disciplines - theatre, painting, sculpture, cinema - have sought to, effectively, completely de-construct the form they first began working in...but in order to do/find/express what? There are plenty of interviews with Derek Bailey out there on the internet which make for interesting - no, ESSENTIAL - reading for anyone who is even vaguely curious as to what made him tick. My own preference, too, is the idea of counterbalancing the 'conventional' with the 'out there'; light and shade; Yin and Yang; harmony and dissonance. Maybe - since I get the feeling that the discussion is starting to peter out - the last word should come from Derek Bailey himself, especially on the questions of audiences and communication. And maybe this raises even more questions than before... Derek Bailey: I’ve never been sure about audiences. I’ve never understood what the responsibility of a performer is to an audience. It’s intensely complicated. When people talk about audiences, they usually drool on about communication. Anyone interested in communication should spend time digging holes for telegraph poles. There’s much more going on between a performer and an audience than just communication. I don’t know what happens but I think that the audience’s role in listening to improvising – and I never liked saying anything about audiences because if anyone asks what I think about an audience, I’m just grateful there is one – but actually I would think that an audience listening to improvisation has a greater responsibility than any other type of audience because they can affect the musical performance in a direct way, in a way that no other audience can affect the musical performance. They can affect the creative process in every aspect. Every aspect of the music, every part of the process can be affected by the audience if it’s improvised music because the whole thing is going on at the time they’re witnessing it. They’re witnessing the whole process of producing that music. I mean, there’s a lot of work behind it, and they’re not going to affect that, but they can affect the immediate production of the music, its immediate construction, which is the crucial time for improvisation.i enjoyed that...
|
|