Integrated ideology in music

[jamess]

I'm not entirely sure that the title makes sense, but I don't think I can do better... What I'm getting at is the idea of every element in a piece of music being a part of the ideology of its creator. For example, I have a rather lo-fi aesthetic and prefer to reject traditional instruments (not an especially unusual quality on this forum). There are very obvious ways in which this manifests itself in my music, but how far should it extend? Some of my scores are text based and I am currently in the process of transcribing them from text files on a computer to physical versions made using a typewriter. Do you feel these sorts of things add value to the product? Not necessarily making it "better music" but rather, "better art"? Do Mattin's particular aesthetic choices add value to his product or strengthen his statement?

[yonhosago]

mr. faster is gonna have a field day with this.

[mono tony]

some of the stated aesthetic choices feel superfluous to the end result. my ideology is more "anything goes," without placing too much importance on rigid or pre-conceived processes. the process could be interesting, but emphasizing it feels like an unecessary conceit. some of the best "art," or music, is without accompanying ornament or concept, imo.

personally, i put more value in group efforts (re: improv) where there may be restraint and compromise, but room for personality and expression, and there may be several ideologies at play. i'm often bored by "solo improvisation," but still believe there is value to it. even if only to learn (steal) ideas from it.

Could you link Mattin's statement? Apology for my lack of context, subsequent tangent.

[jamess]

some of the stated aesthetic choices feel superfluous to the end result. my ideology is more "anything goes," without placing too much importance on rigid or pre-conceived processes. the process could be interesting, but emphasizing it feels like an unecessary conceit. some of the best "art," or music, is without accompanying ornament or concept, imo.

personally, i put more value in group efforts (re: improv) where there may be restraint and compromise, but room for personality and expression, and there may be several ideologies at play. i'm often bored by "solo improvisation," but still believe there is value to it. even if only to learn (steal) ideas from it.

Could you link Mattin's statement? Apology for my lack of context, subsequent tangent.

But do works of art/artists which/who entirely embody what they are trying to say not seem more convincing to you? This is only really relevant when there is a strong statement behind the work (be it artistic, political etc.). For example Brian Ferneyhough's music (for lack of a better example at present) would be less impressive if not for Ferneyhough himself and the way his work is presented. Not only the incredibly complex notation (which of course is integral to the actual sound of the music) but the ways in which it is generated and the incredibly verbose way in which he speaks and writes (not only about music, but in general). If you like his music or not, you cannot deny that he provides an integrated and totally coherent package in what he does and in my opinion his work is given strength by it. I would be far less convinced by his work if external factors relating to the music did not reach the same standard (a fault I find in Birtwhistle).

I agree with you about improvisation whole heartedly. Some of my favourite collaborators when improvising have a very different approach to mine regarding sound (I don't think politics really has any role in improv). Solo improvisation for me is a very different beast and its success depends very much on the musician in question.

Regarding Mattin, he is extremely opposed to copyright. If you use his website you will notice that the text across the top of your browser window or tab says "DO WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT WITH THIS FILES" [sic] and it is by no means formatted for ease of use. Many of his compositions are a very clear stab at copyright laws and from what I can tell, popular culture in general (amongst other things). I'm by no means an authority on his work, but he is certainly a fine example of a musician for whom the ideology is paramount.

[Dan Warburton]

I'm not entirely sure that the title makes sense, but I don't think I can do better... What I'm getting at is the idea of every element in a piece of music being a part of the ideology of its creator. For example, I have a rather lo-fi aesthetic and prefer to reject traditional instruments (not an especially unusual quality on this forum). There are very obvious ways in which this manifests itself in my music, but how far should it extend?

The "this" meaning your interest in unconventional instruments, James? What interests me is the "should" - you sound either unsure of what you're doing or as if you need the advice of others (hell, do whatcha like, don't ask me what you should do!).

Some of my scores are text based and I am currently in the process of transcribing them from text files on a computer to physical versions made using a typewriter.

Interesting. Why? (And why not write them out longhand - ever seen Malcolm Goldstein's gorgeous handwriting?)

Do you feel these sorts of things add value to the product?

Ach, product. Why not "result" (if you don't like "music" anymore).

Do Mattin's particular aesthetic choices add value to his product or strengthen his statement?

We've had this discussion before, and my own thoughts on Mattin's work are quite well known round these parts. But to recap once more, the only thing that matters to me when all is said and done is the music, what I hear, how it affects me. If it comes beautifully packaged, all the better. If the concept behind it is interesting, fine. It seems clear that Mattin is now more interested in the ideas behind the music than in the music itself, and there we must part company.

For example Brian Ferneyhough's music (for lack of a better example at present) would be less impressive if not for Ferneyhough himself and the way his work is presented. Not only the incredibly complex notation (which of course is integral to the actual sound of the music) but the ways in which it is generated and the incredibly verbose way in which he speaks and writes (not only about music, but in general). If you like his music or not, you cannot deny that he provides an integrated and totally coherent package in what he does and in my opinion his work is given strength by it.

Good Lord, is he still at it? I fell under the spell of BF and his spiel in the late 1970s (might be nice to hear from Richard Barrett on this subject, btw). I used to be violently opposed to that aesthetic of failure - "no way you're ever going to be able to play my scores as I wrote them, but it'll be fun watching you sweat blood in vain" - but I have to say the music, for the most part, sounds so good I don't mind. I think the string quartets are superb (and suspect the Ardittis actually manage to play nearly everything that's written!).

I would be far less convinced by his work if external factors relating to the music did not reach the same standard (a fault I find in Birtwhistle).

Oh, but Harry Birtwistle has never had any time for blabla. In an odd way he's rather like Niblock (not as cuddly though) - sort of "it is what it is" and that's that. The music's the same: tough, gritty, hairy, windswept. Hard to get into but fascinating once you do.

[jamess]

The "this" meaning your interest in unconventional instruments, James? What interests me is the "should" - you sound either unsure of what you're doing or as if you need the advice of others (hell, do whatcha like, don't ask me what you should do!).

Amongst other things yes. I was simply acknowledging that I'm certainly not alone in useing unconventional instruments on IHM. I wasn't looking for advice so much as perspectives. I am comfortable in what I do and how I do it, but I find it enlightening to see other peoples perspectives; to have my opinions questioned or countered.

Interesting. Why? (And why not write them out longhand - ever seen Malcolm Goldstein's gorgeous handwriting?)

Because I think the visual aesthetic changes the way the performer interprets a score and there is something charming about the look of a typewritten page to me. I opted against longhand as my handwriting tends towards being illegible and clarity is important. Also because a big part of my work is the rejection of modern conveniences. All traditional scores are handwritten, I avoid high end electronics in favour of hand made items or outdated technologies. My work would probably be better on an aural level if I used more advanced or professionally made items, but for me the 'imperfections' are an important part of what my work is trying to say. As far as I'm concerned, a good piece of music is still good wether I have to put up with a certain amount of hiss or interference from a cable or not. Even though the score is only seen by the performer, I don't think my statement would be as strong if it were perfectly formatted on Word. I feel that intentionally making things more difficult for myself not only epitomises the concept, but that it frees me from the lazy habits that are so easy to form when you have infinite processing power and the latest software.

Ach, product. Why not "result" (if you don't like "music" anymore).

Apologies. I didn't want to use the word music because I didn't want to restrict the conversation to music alone and because where music, sound art and other sound based work are all equally relevant to what I was saying. You're right, result would have been a better choice of word.

We've had this discussion before, and my own thoughts on Mattin's work are quite well known round these parts. But to recap once more, the only thing that matters to me when all is said and done is the music, what I hear, how it affects me. If it comes beautifully packaged, all the better. If the concept behind it is interesting, fine. It seems clear that Mattin is now more interested in the ideas behind the music than in the music itself, and there we must part company.

I picked on Mattin because regardless of his output it is difficult to deny he has integrity in what he does and is a prime example of my point about integration. I personally feel that Mattin's work has stopped being interesting on an aural level in favour of making a statement. That doesn't make it invalid, it just means I'm not going to listen to it more than once. I feel very strongly that the best art is art today is that which is not only exceptional in terms of composition (or performance in improvisation terms) but also has a strong concept behind it. The arts are able to make people think and they should use that to positive ends. Concept alone is not enough to create fine art, but if it just sounds/looks lovely it is lacking the element that separates the arts from entertainment.

Good Lord, is he still at it? I fell under the spell of BF and his spiel in the late 1970s (might be nice to hear from Richard Barrett on this subject, btw). I used to be violently opposed to that aesthetic of failure - "no way you're ever going to be able to play my scores as I wrote them, but it'll be fun watching you sweat blood in vain" - but I have to say the music, for the most part, sounds so good I don't mind. I think the string quartets are superb (and suspect the Ardittis actually manage to play nearly everything that's written!).

The string quartets are beautiful. I am a recent convert in terms of New Complexity. I am by no means an imitator of that style, nor does my work have any link to it, but I do feel there is a real value in what BF has written (certainly his earlier works).

Oh, but Harry Birtwistle has never had any time for blabla. In an odd way he's rather like Niblock (not as cuddly though) - sort of "it is what it is" and that's that. The music's the same: tough, gritty, hairy, windswept. Hard to get into but fascinating once you do.

I feel that Birtwhistle has spend a long time imitating himself.

[Moon]

I remember first reading about how Stockhausen might have been a secret fascist.

I thought at the time that was kind of obvious with the way his music is. I'd much rather have a musical fascist than a physical one.

[RFKorp]

Do you feel these sorts of things add value to the product? Not necessarily making it "better music" but rather, "better art"?

To begin simply. I think it depends on exactly what "these sort of things" are and how obvious they are and how and necessary they are to the appreciation of the work. If implementing all of these extraneous "things" brings you to a point where you feel you are creating work that is closer to your vision than it could have been otherwise, then GREAT. If however, the result is work that cannot be fully appreciated without knowing all of the ideology that you put into it, then there might be a problem.

But do works of art/artists which/who entirely embody what they are trying to say not seem more convincing to you?

This question is REALLY easy to answer. and it's a firm No. Followed by a confused "convincing of what?"

At best, an artist who truly honestly embodies the point they wish their work to make MIGHT seem more genuine but surely not convincing. And I feel like it's worth cautioning that far too often I feel like I meet people who seem to have ACTIVELY taken on an ideology that they wear like an identity. And that put-on is sufficiently off-putting that I won't engage with their work at all.

--

In summary

Because I think the visual aesthetic changes the way the performer interprets a score

This is interesting. Go for it. Make scores however you think creates the best performer-content interface for presenting it with the right character. No one else even has to see the score or know you did this if it produces the intended result.

and there is something charming about the look of a typewritten page to me.

This is cheese as all get out. Maybe I'm not your target audience, but if you want me to take you seriously when you say it was a choice to type the scores a particular way in order to change the way the performer interprets it, you'd better not also declare you picked the presentation method because it's "charming" to you. This is pure kitsch. And for me, it gets in the way of trying to understand where your music actually honestly comes from.

[Dan Warburton]

I personally feel that Mattin's work has stopped being interesting on an aural level in favour of making a statement. That doesn't make it invalid, it just means I'm not going to listen to it more than once.

Agreed with this.

I feel very strongly that the best art is art today is that which is not only exceptional in terms of composition (or performance in improvisation terms) but also has a strong concept behind it.

So if you heard a piece of music on the radio or somewhere that totally blew you away you wouldn't trust your reactions, you'd need to know the underlying concept? And then, if there wasn't one, would another piece that sounded less exciting but with a cute concept behind it be "better" in your book? There we might part company.

The arts are able to make people think and they should use that to positive ends.

Again, that "should" bothers me. Makes you sound a bit preachy, Leavis-like. Don't care for sermons myself. And what does "positive end" mean? Are we talking the betterment of society here, something morally uplifiting, or what? (And what, therefore, would a negative end be?)

Concept alone is not enough to create fine art, but if it just sounds/looks lovely it is lacking the element that separates the arts from entertainment.

Waah, looks like we're back on the old high art vs low art slippery slope.. in which case, I'm off.

I feel that Birtwhistle has spend a long time imitating himself.

I'd call that style, myself. And I might be inclined to agree with you if you gave me a few concrete examples and spelt his name right

I remember first reading about how Stockhausen might have been a secret fascist..

Oh fuck, are we back to dumping on Karlheinz again? Hasn't James given us enough interesting aspects to discuss?

[Seth]

Something that interests me about this topic is the notion of risk, and how framing or presentation might effect the transaction between author and audience. If there’s a concept or ideology that’s introduced as part of the overall experience it becomes possible for the audience to judge not only whether something succeeds or fails by the criteria of what they enjoy, but also whether it stands or falls in accordance with the criteria set by the person who made it. Framing/presentation could be the wrong words, though. If you see what you do as setting up an experience rather than making a piece of music then there’d be no real distinction between the frame and the thing framed.

Wonder whether K-Space could be an interesting example. You’re never quite sure exactly what you’re hearing, where or how it was recorded, whether it originated in ritual or something that could more traditionally be called performance. That confusion is essential to their activity. What they do – and I include the Radical Transcultural Initiatives project and their magicoreligious beliefs & practices – seems to be the experience just as much as the odd CD they release or live event they take part in (the words 'show' or 'concert' aren’t quite right here, I think). It’s not right to say that they do ‘more than just music’ – I don’t think they’re trying to be ‘more than’ anything. But what is received by some as music might be more accurately described as the sonic manifestation of something that’s experiential on multiple levels (and I’m not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ level. You don’t have to buy into the shamanic aspect to appreciate it, although understanding a little helps you orient yourself). Whether or not you like to listen to it is still a factor, but listening to it as ‘music’ isn’t quite the right fit for what you’re getting.

[bedouin]

What I'm getting at is the idea of every element in a piece of music being a part of the ideology of its creator ... Do you feel these sorts of things add value to the product?...

In a time where ideologies mean less than ever, and seem to serve primarily the folks that create them (whether you prefer leftism ideology or goldman sachs ideology), I am not the least interested in a musician's ideology. And I mostly ignore it unless one is promoting something mighty stupid (like a few strands of popular music do).
In contrast to Mattin, it is interesting that the most popular, political musician ever (Dylan), tried hard to avoid association with ideologies.

As I have said here before though, understanding a bit about the context of an album does help to approach it (appreciate it) better. Especially where the music appears too alien or personal at first listen. Choices made by the musicians involved do give some hints. But I would call it more "attitude" than ideology.

[jamess]

So if you heard a piece of music on the radio or somewhere that totally blew you away you wouldn't trust your reactions, you'd need to know the underlying concept? And then, if there wasn't one, would another piece that sounded less exciting but with a cute concept behind it be "better" in your book? There we might part company.

Again, that "should" bothers me. Makes you sound a bit preachy, Leavis-like. Don't care for sermons myself. And what does "positive end" mean? Are we talking the betterment of society here, something morally uplifiting, or what? (And what, therefore, would a negative end be?)

Waah, looks like we're back on the old high art vs low art slippery slope.. in which case, I'm off.

I'd call that style, myself. And I might be inclined to agree with you if you gave me a few concrete examples and spelt his name right

If I heard a piece of music that totally blew me away I would of course trust my reactions. However, if there were an underlying concept which interested me or added to the content of the piece then it would add another level of interest to the piece. If a fiction book is a fantastic piece of literature, great. If it also has a beautiful cover, even better. That's really what I'm trying to say. The book is still amazing regardless of its cover, but a beautiful cover is only going to increase my enjoyment of the book. However, an average book with a very beautiful binding or cover, is still an average book.

For the second comment I have a proper example: I took a friend of mine who has no involvement in music whatsoever to a performance of Wandelweiser works. A few weeks later we were talking and she told me that since the concert she had found herself fascinated by everyday sounds that she had completely disregarded before. Specifically she said that she had never noticed how interesting the sound of unrolling masking tape was, nor had she even considered that masking tape makes a noise. In my book, that concert had a positive effect on her. She gained from it something should could take into her day to day life which increased its general interest. A negative result I would be if she left a concert having been indoctrinated with a narrow minded view of what music was allowed to be.

I don't think it is a high art/low art thing. I think that art and entertainment are two different things with different aims. That doesn't make one better than the other. I enjoy listening to John Cage. I also enjoy listening to The Sisters of Mercy. The two have a completely different function in my life and thus are incomparable in terms of which is better. I think comparing them on these terms would be a silly as saying that I prefer sofas to food because sofas are more comfortable to sit on.

Regarding Birtwistle (apologies for spelling error), I heard the premier of his 2012 piece Fantasio upon All the Notes and felt like I was simply listening to an imitation of what a typical Birtwistle piece aught to sound like. There is style and then there is regurgitation. Style evolves and from what I've heard (certainly not everything) his music hasn't done much evolving in a while.

[Dan Warburton]

If I heard a piece of music that totally blew me away I would of course trust my reactions. However, if there were an underlying concept which interested me or added to the content of the piece then it would add another level of interest to the piece.

Yes, but the ear comes first. If you didn't like what you heard "blind" you wouldn't bother to find out whether there was a cute concept behind it.

For the second comment I have a proper example: I took a friend of mine who has no involvement in music whatsoever to a performance of Wandelweiser works. A few weeks later we were talking and she told me that since the concert she had found herself fascinated by everyday sounds that she had completely disregarded before. Specifically she said that she had never noticed how interesting the sound of unrolling masking tape was, nor had she even considered that masking tape makes a noise. In my book, that concert had a positive effect on her. She gained from it something should could take into her day to day life which increased its general interest. A negative result I would be if she left a concert having been indoctrinated with a narrow minded view of what music was allowed to be.

Depends, I suppose, whether you consider the sound of unrolling masking tape to be positive or negative. Either way, beauty is in the ear of the behearer - I know many people who find the sounds of everyday life annoying, or at least that they get in the way of the music they're trying to listen to. For such a person - my father, for example - a concert of Wandelweiser music would be more of a curse than a blessing.

There is style and then there is regurgitation. Style evolves and from what I've heard (certainly not everything) his music hasn't done much evolving in a while.

If I may be permitted the luxury of quoting from a recent Wire review:
'Charting the evolution of Mota's playing, whether on acoustic or electric guitar, is no easy matter. While one can clearly hear, on successive albums, Taku Sugimoto composing himself into near-silence and Loren Connors stripping the blues to the bone and wrapping the skeleton in a shroud of hum and hiss, drop the needle on any of the tracks in this handsome 5-CD box, which contains concert recordings from Lisbon, Ljublana and Paris along with eleven tracks recorded in Mota's own home, and you could easily mistake it for something he released a decade ago. There's a little more space in the music these days, for sure, but Keith Rowe's observations on Mondrian in The Wire #206 come to mind: "[He] just basically did the same thing. Even after the seismic change of going to live in America, his lines just thickened up a bit."'

[jamess]

I don't think that quote justifies musical stagnation. It just states that it happens.

[Dan Warburton]

Aggghh, the dreaded S-word!! My point was simply that those features of an artist's work that allow us to identify it immediately - style, for want of a better word - are only developed through long periods during which not much is changing. The waters are still, rather than stagnant. I'd agree with you that Harry Birtwistle has been pretty still for a couple of decades now. But he's not alone, as composers go, is he?

[jamess]

Aggghh, the dreaded S-word!! My point was simply that those features of an artist's work that allow us to identify it immediately - style, for want of a better word - are only developed through long periods during which not much is changing. The waters are still, rather than stagnant. I'd agree with you that Harry Birtwistle has been pretty still for a couple of decades now. But he's not alone, as composers go, is he?

He is certainly not alone. A musician's work need not be constantly changing from piece to piece, but to quote Prevost: "Composers and marketeers have an eye (and an ear) for a follow-up hit. If the music they subsequently offer to a market satisfied with an earlier product is too different, the potential audience could bell be disappointed, meaning that pop musicians develop a string of similar songs until the strain gets so weak (as if inbred) it inevitably fails to reproduce and dies. This suggests not urge to create something new in itself, but to create something with market value." This comment is aimed at pop music but is equally valid when applied to the likes of Birtwistle in my opinion.

[Dan Warburton]

Ach, hearing Eddie banging on the same old drum is about as tiresome to me as reading drive-by Stockhausen Serves Fascism posts here. I seriously doubt Harrison Birtwistle has ever made any concessions to his audience, let alone ever thought of his work in terms of "follow up hits" and "market forces." You don't care for his music, fine (you're certainly not alone there), but I wonder if that's because (returning to the title of the thread, miraculously) he's never shown the slightest interest in compositional dogma, be it post-Darmstadt serial posturing or extra-musical conceptual underpinning. Now that Elliott Carter has checked out, I'd say Birtwistle is about the closest we'll get to Stravinsky's notion of music as (nothing more than) jeu de notes.

[Richard Barrett]

Dan, why do you think "extra-musical conceptual underpinning" is a form of "compositional dogma"? Or isn't that what you're saying? Going a bit further, where do you draw the line between "musical" and "extra-musical"? Which is maybe another way of stating James's original question. Personally I prefer not to draw that line at all. (Is that dogmatic of me?)

I agree though that there's a temptation to see exactly the same artistic consistency as "style" or "regurgitation" according to how interesting you find the artist under discussion. (On the other hand I find Birtwistle's music really rather inconsistent. I never know whether I'm going to like the next piece of his that I hear.) I can't think of any artist in the world about whom I couldn't conceive of someone somewhere thinking they're just repeating themselves for reasons of having a "successful" formula and/or creative exhaustion, or whatever. On its own it's a statement of opinion rather than a reasoned criticism.

[jamess]

Dan, you're right in what you say about Birtwistle's music coming closer to Stravinsky's conception than anyone one else of note right now and of course part of my critique of his work is based upon the fact that I don't like his later work (I do quite like some of his early pieces). I'm going to end the Birtwistle discussion on that note because there is nothing more to say short of silly arguing. For the record, I agree about Prevost. I own both "No Sound is Innocent" and "An Adaptive Appraisal of Meta-Music" and haven't been able to read either in full. I do however think that if you manage to wade through all of the nonsense, he does make some very valid statements (not many).

[faster]

I own both "No Sound is Innocent" and "An Adaptive Appraisal of Meta-Music" and haven't been able to read either in full. I do however think that if you manage to wade through all of the nonsense, he does make some very valid statements (not many).

I agree with that. His hit/miss ratio, though, is pretty rough, as is his writing.