Restricted Setup Challenge (now released!)

[snailed]

Are these all interpretations of one composition?

Certainly not (no more than all solo violin pieces are interpretations of the same composition). IMO that way of thinking makes little sense in this context...

I really don't see how the solo violin piece logic makes any sense here (maybe you can explain what you mean a bit more?). I think an argument for whether this is an improvisation or composition can go either way. In my interpretation, it's a very open composition which was composed by a collective, and realized by each individual in that collective. There are certain restrictions which we all agreed on; if the Pisaro piece that Niwi referenced above can be considered a composition, I feel that this can be considered one as well (although, IMO, Pisaro's is much more elegant and poetic). A very open composition, of course, if one is to look at it that way. If we look at the rules that were posted at the beginning of the thread, it very much resembles a score to me.

The fact that this occupies a kind of gray area, to me, makes this whole project worth doing - which is why I thought it was good to host on the Abrash site, where this is the entire focus (gray areas between composition/improvisation). Obviously we all won't agree; I just raised the question because I was curious as to how you all looked at it.

[Charon]

All we did was select instruments and recording setups beforehand, and decide they were going to be solo, which is what improvisors do all the time anyway.

would you consider something like this to be interpretations of one composition? the instructions provided aren't a whole lot more explicit than the rules for this challenge.

I would, because they are more explicit in important ways. Specifically, although not exclusively, this: "occasionally responding (by making a long tone)". In that score the instructions dictate the nature of the sounds to be produced.

Of course, you could say that our instructions, by specifying that a single, 'non-musical' object be used, also in some way dictated the nature of the sounds to be produced, but to me, the extent of this would only be as much as is dictated by selecting a specific instrument to improvise on before performance, which is something that improvisors have done since the beginning. Of course, you could upset the applecart and say that selecting an instrument is in itself a composition (and I'm sure people coming from a compositional point of view could make those arguments), but for me (coming from an improvisational point of view), that doesn't leave much room for improvised music.

[snailed]

All we did was select instruments and recording setups beforehand, and decide they were going to be solo, which is what improvisors do all the time anyway.

would you consider something like this to be interpretations of one composition? the instructions provided aren't a whole lot more explicit than the rules for this challenge.

I would, because they are more explicit in important ways. Specifically, although not exclusively, this: "occasionally responding (by making a long tone)". In that score the instructions dictate the nature of the sounds to be produced.

Of course, you could say that our instructions, by specifying that a single, 'non-musical' object be used, also in some way dictated the nature of the sounds to be produced, but to me, the extent of this would only be as much as is dictated by selecting a specific instrument to improvise on before performance, which is something that improvisors have done since the beginning. Of course, you could upset the applecart and say that selecting an instrument is in itself a composition (and I'm sure people coming from a compositional point of view could make those arguments), but for me (coming from an improvisational point of view), that doesn't leave much room for improvised music.

I don't totally disagree here (and apologies for opening a can of worms here, guys - I was mostly curious) but I think there is a distinction to be made here between compositions that dictate the nature of the *sounds* that are to be produced - and compositions that dictate an approach, actions, or non-actions that are to be taken (with either some or no regard for the actual sounds).

[RFKorp]

is this not a score? I've played "composed" music with even less instructions before.

ONE OBJECT (for soloist)
------------------------

Perform for no more than 10 minutes.

Document your performance.

Complete equipment must consist of only:
1 recording device
1 microphone
1 connecting cable
1 non-instrument object with which to make music

Do not process or edit the contents of the recording.

[Charon]

is this not a score? I've played "composed" music with even less instructions before.

ONE OBJECT (for soloist)
------------------------

Perform for no more than 10 minutes.

Document your performance.

Complete equipment must consist of only:
1 recording device
1 microphone
1 connecting cable
1 non-instrument object with which to make music

Do not process or edit the contents of the recording.

then, is this not a score?

ONE GUITAR (for soloist)
----------------------

Perform for approximately the duration of a compact disc.

Document your performance.

Complete equipment must consist of only:
1 Guitar
1 Amplifier
2 Leads
1 Microphone
1 Recording Device

Do not process or edit the contents of the recording

[Wombatz]

I’d say it’s a score, but only because it has been written for/by a small set of performers, who, though they play in different styles, will bring with them a loosely similar understanding that noises may be music, and feel a certain sense of responsibility toward the object involved. If this stuff had been poetically written into the rules, it would undoubtedly be a score. (I take all of this back if somebody has been beating out tribal rhythms on their kitchen table for 10 minutes, or blowing their national anthem on a milk bottle.)

[visa tapani]

I really don't see how the solo violin piece logic makes any sense here (maybe you can explain what you mean a bit more?).

I thought that was fairly self-evident, not much I can do to explain it further. Saying: "make a solo violin improvisation and don't do any post-processing or editing on it" is pretty much what we're doing here, except that our piece is even more open. Since that's such standard practice, I don't see how it can suddenly be viewed as a composition. If that's a composition, there's no improvisation at all in this world. I don't see how that kind of definition serves any purpose.

Also, it frustrates me that the question seems to presuppose a binary divide between compositions and non-compositions. Anybody who has been involved with open score compositions and restricted free improvisation should know that in reality there is a continuum from the most fixed composition to the most open free-improvisation. Like every other piece, this project lies somewhere on that continuum, certainly *much* closer to improvisation than composition. Hence asking "is this a composition" is really only provoking semantic word play.

For me that Pisaro piece is not a composition, although I'm aware that a certain jargon is often used where that kind of thing is labelled as a composition. I think it's done mostly because of practical reasons. I'd say it's performance instructions, but again I'm not hugely interested in a discussion revolving around semantic hari-splitting, since whatever word were going to select to label it with doesn't really alter its nature or place on the continuum. I do think it's crucially different to our piece, however, not only because it dictates "the nature of the sounds to be produced", but simply because it dictates more about what kind of music is going to be produced in the performance situation. "I sit quiet | Anywhere Anything | Happens | Quiet loud still turbulent"... "In a large, open space (possibly outdoors). | For a long time. | Sitting quietly. | Listening. | A few times, playing an extremely long, very quiet tone." Clearly there are many compositions that dictate "an approach, actions, or non-actions that are to be taken" rather than sounds, but both result in a certain control over what is going to happen in the performance situation. In the Pisaro, this control is much stronger than in our project.

Also, at some point the discussion moved from "is this a composition" to "is this a score". Do we equate scores with composition and if so, why? I think scores can also be employed in non-composition, but this depends again entirely on the definition (more semantic hair-splitting).

But the main reason for this not being a composition is, as I already mentioned, that if this is a composition, it follows fairly evidently that every single piece of music is a composition, including the freest free-improvisation. If we do that, we have achieved nothing else except redefinitions of the terms to more impractical ones, after which we would have to come up with new terms to denote what we previously meant with composition (and improvisation).

[snailed]

I really don't see how the solo violin piece logic makes any sense here (maybe you can explain what you mean a bit more?).

I thought that was fairly self-evident, not much I can do to explain it further. Saying: "make a solo violin improvisation and don't do any post-processing or editing on it" is pretty much what we're doing here, except that our piece is even more open. Since that's such standard practice, I don't see how it can suddenly be viewed as a composition. If that's a composition, there's no improvisation at all in this world. I don't see how that kind of definition serves any purpose.

This piece is not nearly as open as the violin piece you describe, IMO. The only thing more determined in the violin piece is that the instrument is specified. We have a number of restrictions (duration, equipment used, interactions with the room and space, distinctions between intent and accident (see page 2-3), the fact that it must be a non-traditional instrument, that it was written by and for a small group of people with some common interests) that leads me to that conclusion. I don't see how your instructions are more restrictive besides simply specifying the instrument.

Also, it frustrates me that the question seems to presuppose a binary divide between compositions and non-compositions. Anybody who has been involved with open score compositions and restricted free improvisation should know that in reality there is a continuum from the most fixed composition to the most open free-improvisation. Like every other piece, this project lies somewhere on that continuum, certainly *much* closer to improvisation than composition. Hence asking "is this a composition" is really only provoking semantic word play.

As I've said in prior posts, the fact that this occupies a spot in that continuum (I referred to it as a gray area), is what interested me to begin with. I don't see anybody referring to it like that - although Richard's post says it's a score, it certainly doesn't disregard that a significant amount of improvisation is involved here. And yes, I think many of us here have been involved with open score interpretations and restricted free improvisation; it comes off a bit condescending to think that others here haven't engaged with those activities and don't see the continuum you're talking about (and that I've acknowledged clearly as well). Yes, it may be much more on the continuum of improvisation - but that doesn't mean it isn't a composition as well, because some pretty obvious rules were put in place.

For me that Pisaro piece is not a composition, although I'm aware that a certain jargon is often used where that kind of thing is labelled as a composition. I think it's done mostly because of practical reasons. I'd say it's performance instructions, but again I'm not hugely interested in a discussion revolving around semantic hari-splitting, since whatever word were going to select to label it with doesn't really alter its nature or place on the continuum. I do think it's crucially different to our piece, however, not only because it dictates "the nature of the sounds to be produced", but simply because it dictates more about what kind of music is going to be produced in the performance situation. "I sit quiet | Anywhere Anything | Happens | Quiet loud still turbulent"... "In a large, open space (possibly outdoors). | For a long time. | Sitting quietly. | Listening. | A few times, playing an extremely long, very quiet tone." Clearly there are many compositions that dictate "an approach, actions, or non-actions that are to be taken" rather than sounds, but both result in a certain control over what is going to happen in the performance situation. In the Pisaro, this control is much stronger than in our project.

Also, at some point the discussion moved from "is this a composition" to "is this a score". Do we equate scores with composition and if so, why? I think scores can also be employed in non-composition, but this depends again entirely on the definition (more semantic hair-splitting).

But the main reason for this not being a composition is, as I already mentioned, that if this is a composition, it follows fairly evidently that every single piece of music is a composition, including the freest free-improvisation. If we do that, we have achieved nothing else except redefinitions of the terms to more impractical ones, after which we would have to come up with new terms to denote what we previously meant with composition (and improvisation).

For me, you saying "this is not a composition" seems straight up hypocritical to your earlier statement criticizing black and white approaches. I think this just comes down to this crossing a line for you that it doesn't cross for me or some other people - I don't think anyone would argue that the fact that specifying some instruments for a free improvisation does not constitute a composition, or that the limitations of your instrument are in itself a composition. For me, the amount and specificity of the restrictions, along with the group it was written by and for, are enough that I do consider it to be a composition (although much more on the continuum toward improvisation). I don't really think of them as mutually exclusive things. You may have not perceived the initial question the way I intended - and if it wasn't clear, I'll be a bit clearer about what I meant. I was simply interested in some personal takes on it, and not at all looking for any definitive answers here because as you point out, it quickly devolves into semantics. And we all clearly define things somewhat differently or at least place more value on certain aspects of a piece of music.

[visa tapani]

The only thing more determined in the violin piece is that the instrument is specified [...] I don't see how your instructions are more restrictive besides simply specifying the instrument.

Yeah, that was the only reason. (It's a huge factor in determining how the piece will sound, though!)

As I've said in prior posts, the fact that this occupies a spot in that continuum (I referred to it as a gray area), is what interested me to begin with. I don't see anybody referring to it like that - although Richard's post says it's a score, it certainly doesn't disregard that a significant amount of improvisation is involved here. And yes, I think many of us here have been involved with open score interpretations and restricted free improvisation; it comes off a bit condescending to think that others here haven't engaged with those activities and don't see the continuum you're talking about (and that I've acknowledged clearly as well). Yes, it may be much more on the continuum of improvisation - but that doesn't mean it isn't a composition as well, because some pretty obvious rules were put in place.

If it came off as condescending, it was an accident. I am in fact aware that several people here practice open score interpretations and restricted free improvisation and did notice you speaking of the gray area. This is precisely why the question seemed so nonsensical to me.

For me, you saying "this is not a composition" seems straight up hypocritical to your earlier statement criticizing black and white approaches. I think this just comes down to this crossing a line for you that it doesn't cross for me or some other people - I don't think anyone would argue that the fact that specifying some instruments for a free improvisation does not constitute a composition, or that the limitations of your instrument are in itself a composition. For me, the amount and specificity of the restrictions, along with the group it was written by and for, are enough that I do consider it to be a composition (although much more on the continuum toward improvisation). I don't really think of them as mutually exclusive things. You may have not perceived the initial question the way I intended - and if it wasn't clear, I'll be a bit clearer about what I meant. I was simply interested in some personal takes on it, and not at all looking for any definitive answers here because as you point out, it quickly devolves into semantics. And we all clearly define things somewhat differently or at least place more value on certain aspects of a piece of music.

I am unable to perceive anything hypocritical in answering your question by saying "this is not a composition". In fact it is one of only two, equally black and white answers that the question seems to presuppose. If you ask "Are these all interpretations of one composition?", the answer is either "they are" or "they are not". It's a polarized question. Regardless of the continuum, we still have a definition of "a composition", and by that definition, something either is or is not a composition. One wouldn't say that something is a 40% composition - this is not how the word is used. However, it's only an issue of semantics. In fact I think your question does not only "quickly devolve into semantics", but is entirely about semantics. It's a question about meanings and definitions of words. I might employ a different definition than you or someone else, but what is IMO really important in a question of semantics is what is the common definition/usage. It seems to me that according to the common, widespread usage of "a composition", this would not be labeled as such.

[RFKorp]

You call this 40% composed, I call it more like 70% composed.

There is NO WAY I would ever refer to what I provided for this compilation as an Improvisation. It was a personal interpretation of a conceptual piece designed (if you would rather not use the word composed) by committee.

[Dohol]

It was an awfully big field to play in...


It'll be very interesting to hear how diverse (or not) the final product is.

[niwi]

There is NO WAY I would ever refer to what I provided for this compilation as an Improvisation.

neither would i.

[Dohol]

There is NO WAY I would ever refer to what I provided for this compilation as an Improvisation.

neither would i.

This is funny..

The way I did it (one take, no rehearsing, just using a stray object and making it sound. Using just a part of that object as a tool to excite it..) it was a total improvisation.



But then again...I probably misread the purpose of the exercise..

Shucks.. (I had fun doing it though..)

[Dohol]

If you're improvising in a small group, and you use an idea played by one of your fellow players in your own improvisation ...does that make what you're doing a composition?


I dunno..

[bryan]

What is the least amount of imposed restriction that would make something "composed"? (It kinda seems that compositions have it easy.)


I'm not sure how invested I am in defining improvised vs. composed, but I'll just add my approach to this project because it's interesting to me what restrictions people put on themselves without being asked....

I decided that once the object was chosen I would find a few sounds in it, just enough to know what they were, and then commit to a one-shot recording. This was all done quickly to keep me from second-guessing any of it.

[Charon]

The way I did it (one take, no rehearsing, just using a stray object and making it sound. Using just a part of that object as a tool to excite it..) it was a total improvisation.

Same here, Doug. I'd definitely call mine an improvisation

[RFKorp]

Just for the record guys, I made my recording in one impulsive take as well. No planning except the determination of instrument and recording method.

That still doesn't mean it wasn't guided by this group-conceived logic.

But I'm not that interested in defining composition vs. improvisation with hard lines either. I think there's a place for each. and a place for each inside of the other. and probably a place where NEITHER is appropriate at all too.

I think what this really comes down to is whether you felt like this thread was engaging in a compositional process before we moved on to the recording phase or not. I know I did.

[snailed]

It was an awfully big field to play in...


It'll be very interesting to hear how diverse (or not) the final product is.

There are some very diverse approaches, but I have to say that (with some tracks) at times I cannot tell when one track ends and another begins - usually in passive listening mode and especially for the more sparse, quiet tracks.

I am unable to perceive anything hypocritical in answering your question by saying "this is not a composition". In fact it is one of only two, equally black and white answers that the question seems to presuppose. If you ask "Are these all interpretations of one composition?", the answer is either "they are" or "they are not". It's a polarized question

It wasn't meant to be a polarizing question, since for me there are plenty of overlapping areas (and for people to simply say "yes" or "no" was also not my intention). For me, something can be considered a composition when there is a significant amount of pre-planning or if there are some rules or an approach in place, even if in execution the sound is improvised. They aren't polar opposites to me, or mutually exclusive. We can also make a distinction between the instructions and the realizations. Anyway, obviously we're not going to agree here, so I'm done arguing about it until I can get this thing up for everyone to listen to.

[visa tapani]

There is NO WAY I would ever refer to what I provided for this compilation as an Improvisation. It was a personal interpretation of a conceptual piece designed (if you would rather not use the word composed) by committee.

Even if it is a full blown composition, there's still the question of whether it is an interpretation of the same composition as every other piece- ie. is all this just one composition. That would make your piece and my straightforward and rather traditional improvisation with a balloon to be the same piece. I would probably be inclined to say that it's your own composition, although obviously I need to hear it before making any conclusions...

I think what this really comes down to is whether you felt like this thread was engaging in a compositional process before we moved on to the recording phase or not. I know I did.

I agree that this is a key factor. I was rather busy during the project, but since I was still interested in participating, I just skimmed the thread for key rules and guidelines before recording. I only read the thread fully later, so during the project I engaged less with some of the philosophical considerations that arose.

[patois]

I can vouch for the view from the fence...!

I'm looking forward to letting the musical interpretations do the talking anyway... to me, from the beginning, the prospect has been to hear how various individuals assert themselves with limited means - can it be done? Is it desirable? From what I understand there are 19 tracks at close to two hours to figure it out...