davisonj@ECN.PURDUE.EDU (John M Davison) (03/18/91)
During a visit to the Lake County Public Library, I walked by the periodicals shelf and saw the current issue of _Omni_ shouting the title "BACH TO THE FUTURE: COMPUTER MUSIC GROWS UP" or something like that...so I pulled it shelf and read the article, which impressed me not only for its usage of four-letter words, but also by the sexy lighting used in the photos of Max Mathews and Tod Machover. And, of course, _Omni_ maintained its reputation for spewing lots of irresponsible, worthless assessments of the future of computer music. (I presume that this was largely a result of bad journalism, but some of Max Mathews' comments worried me, as they were pretty similar to the equally upsetting things he said at the 80th birthday celebration of John Pierce at Northwestern University a few months ago.) I must admit that I have not heard Machover's _VALIS_ yet; some critiques of the opera would be welcome. I do remember recoiling when I read a part of a _New_York_Times_ [I think] review that compared it to _Tommy_...maybe that's why I didn't buy it. Also, what is this new "hyperinstrument" buzzword? Simple folks like me are unaware of what exactly that term means, and if that represents any significant conceptual leap over what the state of the musical arts were before the term "hyperinstrument" was coined. Explanations and commentaries would be very, very welcome. -davisonj@ecn.purdue.edu
eneumann@bbn.com (Eric Neumann) (03/22/91)
In article <9103180007.AA26001@en.ecn.purdue.edu> davisonj@ECN.PURDUE.EDU (John M Davison) writes: > I must admit that I have not heard Machover's _VALIS_ yet; > some critiques of the opera would be welcome. I do remember > recoiling when I read a part of a _New_York_Times_ [I think] review > that compared it to _Tommy_...maybe that's why I didn't buy it. > > Also, what is this new "hyperinstrument" buzzword? Simple > folks like me are unaware of what exactly that term means, and if > that represents any significant conceptual leap over what the state > of the musical arts were before the term "hyperinstrument" was > coined. Explanations and commentaries would be very, very welcome. Tod Machover, I believe, is one of the finest, most promising and most innovative composers today. I say this coming from a strong classicist background, having high expectations for new music created and performed using new technologies, but not having been that impressed by much of what is currently out there. Too much of today's music is (at best) intellectually stimulating, but leaves you emotionally dead -- the next day after a performance, you can hardly relive the experience from memory! Tod is unique in that he truly does integrate lyricism with modern ideas and timbres/sounds in his work. He seems to have the right balance of musical ear and skill and techno-knowhow to compose pleasurable, contemporary music. As for the term "hyper-instruments", I must admit it sounds a bit trendy, but it represents a unique integration of real-time performance, MIDI control (of music and other expressive forms), and sonic environment structuring. I was fortunate enough to see a performance of his VALIS at MIT two years ago and was thoroughly impressed. The music moved me while the technologies dazzled me; you did not know what sonic treat was to be next ! The ease with which the piano changed from acoustic instrument to water-ambience was eerie ! From what I could tell, a Mac II was the sole integrating-computer in the performance, tying percussive instruments to pianos to synthesizers to lights. The programming of it was collaborately done by Tod and a graduate student, Joe Chung. I hope to hear a lot more of Tod in the near future, opera or suite ! -- Eric Neumann
davisonj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John M Davison) (03/23/91)
I have received a couple of messages asking me why I said what I said in my previous posting: In article <9103180007.AA26001@en.ecn.purdue.edu> davisonj@ECN.PURDUE.EDU (John M Davison) writes: > > During a visit to the Lake County Public Library, I walked >by the periodicals shelf and saw the current issue of _Omni_ ... > impressed me not only for [sic] its usage of four-letter words, but >also by the sexy lighting used in the photos of Max Mathews and Tod ... >spewing lots of irresponsible, worthless assessments of the future of >computer music. In this section of my posting I intended to express my dismay at the usage of four-letter words in the article and the sci-fi tone of the article (including the pictures). While the sci-fi tone is entirely appropriate for an article dealing with _VALIS_ (by virtue of its subject matter), I felt that the sci-fi tone diminished the credibility of those whose assessments of the future of computer music were quoted. I originally intended to have a copy of the new _Omni_ in front of me while writing this second posting so that I could refer to specific portions of the article; however, since that time I realized that my values must indeed be skewed if I were to waste any time saying why I didn't like particular parts of the article. Instead, I should be happy that _Omni_ has contributed toward popular recognition of computer music. >journalism, but some of Max Mathews' comments worried me, as they >were pretty similar to the equally upsetting things he said at the >80th birthday celebration of John Pierce at Northwestern University a >few months ago.) That remark of mine was just plain stupid, and now that I look at it, I am not sure how I could have let that get through my fingers. The only remark that even came close to "upsetting" anybody (i.e. me) was Mathews' remark (which I loosely paraphrase...hopefully I am within the spirit of his original remark) that 90% of a performer's effort is spent on non-expressive (with respect to the performer) actions, and that the Boie Radio Drum (by its nature) would more clearly delineate the distinction between the expression of the composer and the expression of the performer and free the performer of much of the "busy work" that is inherent in traditional instrument performance. I have a gut feeling that if the Boie Radio Drum prevails in the long term, the situation of the performer will be largely unchanged. Pieces for the Radio Drum in which the skills required for the successful execution of a performance will be as elaborately specified as the instructions in a piece employing CPN (common practice notation) are (in my admittedly under-informed opinion) inevitable, and the only thing that will have changed will be the musical style in which the performer finds himself/herself. One of the "selling points" Mathews used in his presentation of the Radio Drum becomes irrelevant if you take Max Mathews' attribution of the popularity of live performance to the demand of audiences (and, I would add, some composers) for gymnastic performances (again I am paraphrasing a remark he made at the presentation at Northwestern). I am not sure that he took this view seriously himself, though, and I ashamedly admit that the line of reasoning that I am using may be based on insufficient understanding of the Radio Drum (and Mathews' comments). Dr. Richard Boulanger quizzed Mathews about potential abuses of the hyperinstrument concept, asking much the same question that he asked Reynolds, Yuasa, and Wuorinen in his interview with them (_Computer_Music_Journal_ Volume 7, No. 4.) when he mentioned (in the article) that "I bought my two-year old son an eight-dollar keyboard...." Dr. Boulanger was concerned with the same remarks that caused me concern, but his "concern" may have been entirely facetious. Mathews' evasive reply ("I like to play with toys") was certainly facetious, and it seemed that they were both joshing, so in my mind the issue was really not addressed. I had the opportunity to ask both Mathews and Boulanger about it, but I failed to do so. At any rate, what I said were Mathews' "upsetting" remarks really weren't all that upsetting at all. And here I am accusing _Omni_ of poor journalism... >recoiling when I read a part of a _New_York_Times_ [I think] review >that compared it to _Tommy_...maybe that's why I didn't buy it. I apologize to all the people out there whose love for _Tommy_ I do not share. In no way did I intend to say "_VALIS_ is comparable to _Tommy_; therefore you should not buy it," but that's how it sounded to some. I will be more careful with my words in the future, and I'll try to respect the musical tastes of others. -davisonj@ecn.purdue.edu
eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) (03/28/91)
In article <5333@archive.BBN.COM> eneumann@bbn.com (Eric Neumann) writes:
; Too much of today's music is (at best)
;intellectually stimulating, but leaves you emotionally dead
If it were intellectually stimulating, that would be alright. The
current scene is anything but intellectually stimulating. It is
intellectually dead.