daemon@bartok.Sun.COM (03/02/90)
Music-Research Digest Thu, 1 Mar 90 Volume 5 : Issue 21
Today's Topics:
Electronic and Computer Music Eduation
Laske (was: Re: Music Research Digest Vol. 5, #18)
More Knowledge Acquisition
PNM address and information
*** Send contributions to Music-Research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
*** Send administrative requests to Music-Research-Request
*** Overseas users should reverse UK addresses and give gateway if necessary
*** e.g. Music-Research@prg.oxford.ac.uk
*** or Music-Research%prg.oxford.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 10:49 EST
From: FNELSON@EDU.OBERLIN.OCVAXA
Subject: Electronic and Computer Music Eduation
To: music-research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
I am involved in the definition of curricular goals for Oberlin's
Bachelor of Music degree in electronic and computer music. I am
wondering whether others in the music-research group are interested
in starting a discussion about education of future professionals in
the field.
Oberlin has been teaching electronic and computer music since the
late 60's with individual degree programs of all sorts. Oberlin
graduates head companies like MacroMind and Twelve-Tone Systems.
Others have worked on music projects at LucasFilm, Apple, Yamaha,
and Sony. Many others have followed the academic route and
currently run studios at colleges and universities.
We now have a four-year curriculum in place and we are graduating
our first seniors in May. We are not exactly new at this but the
field is changing so quickly that we thought it would be a good time
to have another look at what we are doing.
The Context
In our present program we try to balance the acquisition of
technique with the creation of original music. We are, in fact, a
composition department where all practical applications use
technological media. We teach programming, recording technology,
and even a course in analog and digital circuit design for music.
We are not an engineering program and Oberlin has no engineering
department. Our Computer Science Department is growing in both size
and quality and many of our students take advantage of this
resource.
To get the discussion going, here are some questions we are asking:
How much of the traditional music curriculum (theory, history,
keyboard proficiency) should be maintained in an electronic and
computer music degree?
What are the career prospects for our graduates and what subject
areas and skills are essential for professional preparation?
How important are programming proficiency, recording technique, and
engineering skills for the undergraduate?
If you had the opportunity to interview high school students
applying for a program like ours, what qualifications would you look
for? What level of musical and technical preparation would you
expect? What questions would you ask?
If you had the opportunity to hire a new faculty member, what would
you consider the essential (perhaps minimum) level of experience in
computer programming and other technical skills?
Thanks for your consideration.
Gary Lee Nelson
TIMARA Program
Conservatory of Music
Oberlin, OH 44074
------------------------------
Date: 24 Feb 90 22:04:14 GMT
From: Eliot Handelman <eliot%phoenix@edu.princeton>
Subject: Laske (was: Re: Music Research Digest Vol. 5, #18)
To: music-research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
;Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 08:12:18 EST
;From: Otto Laske <laske@edu.bu.cs>
;Subject: Subject: KA
;To: music-research <music-research%uk.ac.oxford.prg@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay>
;Feb 20, 90
;
; The discussion on knowledge acquisition in composition has shown
;itself to be an emotional topic (as evidenced by Stephen Pope's latest
;remarks, among others). This is understandable, but should not hide the
;fact that a community of inquiry is coming into being here which needs
;some solidarity.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Otto, what is being said here is that your views
of knowledge engineering, your concept of how to do music and your
concept of how to do anything else are far less interesting than you
make them out to be. You can cite articles by yourself dating back three
hundred years, and it wouldn't make any difference. You can write
articles about your other articles, as you did in Perspectives of New
Music V. 27 N. 2, in which you refer to yourself as "Laske," so that
readers who have forgotten who wrote this article in the first place
can think to themselves, "gee, the writer of this article has a high
opinion of Otto Laske." You can claim, as you do in a previous Music
Research digest, that the AI and Music workshop emphasizes knowledge
engineering, but that's because you are the chairman of these damnably
dull conferences and you decide which papers will be read, and you
make sure that the overall picture supports your contentions about the
existence of interest in your ideas. You can point to the dissertation
of a lone computer science grad student whom you advised. You can point
to Ron Roozendaal, who happened to send me the paper he wrote for the
class he took with you when you taught in Utrecht. But the weight of
opinion is that knowledge engineering is not a good approach to the
study of music.
; My general feeling is that it would be beneficial to let the
;pressure off "KA in composition" and broaden one's views by getting
;to know other fields of design, such as architecture, and try to cut
;out this romantic notion of the composer that is so European. My goal
;has always been to de-mystify composition, or art generally, because
;I thought that only by making it transparent scientifically as much
;as one can, one can point to what cannot be grasped scientifically.
;This is different from proclaiming composition to be untouchable by
;scientific understanding.
; Otto Laske
It's most unclear to me what Laske means in asserting that "art" should be
"de-mystified." It's equally unclear what Laske means by "scientific
understanding." And it's completely unclear who Laske thinks he's
adressing in recommending that "this romantic notion of the composer that
is so European" ought to be cut out, or why these people should study
architecture.
I would argue this out here if I thought it worthwhile. Let me merely
indicate that I take this all to be vacuous gibberish, the results of
associations forged in the early 60's during the heyday of serial music,
when one or two reputable european composers did think that the dilettante
perusal of architecture manuals would pay off compositionally, that
composition should be rationalized, and that scientific understanding
should be brought to bear on matters musical and compositional. The period
is historically interesting, but the importation of its dogma has be regarded
as suspect. There can be no "definition" of the scope, ambitions and limitations
of "art" that need have much validity over and beyond whichever products
grew up under the sign of that definition. As a man who claims for himself the
title of musicologist, Laske shows himself to be impervious to the historical
context of the lean and vitamin-starved ideas he advocates.
------------------------------
Date: 26 February 1990 8:21:48 am
From: Stephen Travis Pope <stp@com.parcplace>
Subject: More Knowledge Acquisition
To: Music-Research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
Hello,
I'd like to make a few comments and respond to several points that my recent
posting brought up.
With respect to Stephen Smoliar's questions in MRD V5#18.
He asks, "To what extent has your design of tools been guided by prior
decisions of the nature of the actions you *wish* to take?"
A large part of the design of the my tools (the HyperScore ToolKit), is based
on the wonderful quote of yours "what a composer does is to do crazy stuff,"
i.e., the attempt was made to have no "coloring" in the environment. There are
no fixed notions of sections/tracks/voices/measures/events/parameters, but
rather the system can be easily transformed to meet the needs of the composer
in his/her current situation. The system's input language and user interface
are also designed to be rebuilt on-the-fly (as frequently as necessary). The
compositional methodology that the system is made to support is rapid
prototyping and incremental refinement of musical structures, which is itself
rather generic and can look quite different in different hands.
The issue of backing it all up with musical examples is quite important.
Whenever I give live presentations I try to play at least a few extended
examples to demonstrate the points under discussion. It's unfortunate that we
cannot do this in MRD (as yet).
Regarding Robert Row's comments in V5#19
Otto Laske's challenge was to come up with "..an alternative KA, leading to a
model of theory-in-use of composers."
The hypermedia scores I mentioned do not by any stretch of the imagination
represent a model. They are data structures.
Robert Rowe mentions knowledge stored in people's "programs." I believe it is
important to differentiate between programs and scores (i.e., behavior and
state). In my case, I believe that the HyperScore ToolKit is relatively
"transparent," and has no compositional theory or direction in and of itself.
The knowledge (if any), of my recent work is encapsulated in the scores
(hypermedia documents) of these pieces, which are not "programs" in the
stricter sense of the word.
stp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 90 14:46:20 -0800
From: John Rahn <pnm@edu.washington.u.milton>
Subject: PNM address and information
To: music-research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
in re: James Symon's query
to: symon@cs.unc.edu and Oxford network
The email address for Perspectives of New Music is
pnm@milton.u.washington.edu
(As remarked earlier, English email scrambles the order.)
The paper mail address is:
Perspectives of New Music
School of Music DN-10
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
USA
phone: (206) 543-0196
An individual subscription for one year is US$30. This includes two issues
plus a Compact Disc. For overseas postage, add US$2. Checks should be made
out to Perspectives of New Music at the above address.
The student rate is $20, and the institutional rate is $60.
John Rahn, Editor
Jerome Kohl, Managing Editor
pnm@milton.u.washington.edu
------------------------------
End of Music-Research Digestpa2253@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa2253) (03/02/90)
In article <132393@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> music-research writes: >Music-Research Digest Thu, 1 Mar 90 Volume 5 : Issue 21 > >How much of the traditional music curriculum (theory, history, >keyboard proficiency) should be maintained in an electronic and >computer music degree? It is important for a computer music composer to have a rapport with compositional collegues and antecedents. The importance lies in the potential benefit that can occur with the exchange of musical ideas. To establish such a relationship, a computer music composer should have a means of communicating musical ideas. The academic community has and still highly values traditional music notation as an avenue of musical communication. The possibilities of computer music, however, are not bounded as stringently as the possibilities of traditional notated music. The form and function of instrumentation and pitch can change radically. To force a composer to ignore these new possibilities in favor of rehashing a hackneyed past is a grave travesty. Because computer music affords such possibility, I find it unnecessary for composers of computer music to adhere to rigid music history and theory curricula. They should be required to understand basic theory to the extent that they can communicate with their collegues but they should be given the freedom to apply their own musical knowledge toward personally defined musical goals. The imposition of a theoretical agenda can distract composers in a host of different ways. I can expand on these distractions if you have a couple days. Christopher Penrose penrose@do.ucsd.edu
pa2253@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa2253) (03/16/90)
In article <14531@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes: >Tell me, who has forced computer music composers to ignore any >possibilities whatever? Where are such things happening? Possibilities can be threatened if your time is wasted on narrowly focused pedagogy. >counterpoint -- from the orchestral works of Felix Mendelssohn. There >we derived "models" of music, and hten applied them to pieces in all >kinds of different styles. Needless to say, our instructor had received >many years of training in such matters, as well as a thorough grounding >in 12-tone composition. Several members of my class have gone on to become >musicians of various types; some do electronic/computer music. So does the >instructor, Paul Lansky. First, I must acknowledge the potential benefits of theoretical analysis and synthesis. Your collective study of Mendelssohn and the synthesis of "models" of music may have been rewarding. You, however, attend Princeton University--a university I'd like to attend in the Fall. At such a university I can see the encouragement of possibility--whereas UCSD imposes a pedagogical theoretical curriculum which is founded upon rigid style analysis projects. These projects waste the student's time by demanding that a specific task be performed without making the demand for synthesizing the task into a larger philosophical or theoretical framework. By imposing upon the composers time, they succeed in dictating musical preferences. In another light, you have not provided a rationale for describing the necessity for a "thorough grounding in 12-tone composition." Why not a thorough grounding in the techniques and structures inherent in rap music? Polka? Blues? automobile transmissions? Clearly, you must see that agendas exist. Theoretical models exist only for a handful of musical styles. This absense is another stylistic imposition/suggestion. Instead of choosing Mendelssohn, why couldn't you analyze the works of Gordon Mumma? The reason is clear--obvious theoretical models would have little utility in describing the music of Mumma. >Seems to me that the vast majority of music being composed and performed >today, with or without computers, whether academic, mainstream >"classical," jazz, pop, or any of a thousand other kinds, has strong >roots in one or another musical tradition. Pop is especially strong in >its traditions, and most of the music being written TODAY in that genre >and others is directly connected to the music theory of the "past," such >as harmony, phrase analysis, and species counterpoint. A piece of music obviously has an implicit relationship to the collective history of music. However, that does not require an individual to compose for historically obvious instruments in historically delineated ways. Why should a student of composition be forced to learn and use someone else's musical tools when they are more comfortable and facile developing their own? I understand MY musical history better than an institution, and I have the motivation and desire to create my OWN music as much as it is possible. >Again, that's a straw man. Who imposes these agendas? Seems to me it >can only be the composer herself. Anybody else is just teaching theory, >or teaching crafts of composition. The real work of composition is >never hampered by such teaching, except if the composer allows this to >happen by losing sight of her own interests. That is absolutely ridiculous! I doubt that you have had the experience of working 30 hours a week, while taking prerequisite music theory courses and attempting to compose. Clearly in my case, music theory has been an imposition. I was never asked to synthesize the information I was given: that I did automatically and effortlessly; I was asked to submit to rigid projects that gave no creative latitude and, therefore, were completely meaningless to me. The courses did not promote discussion or evaluation. Although I gained a few useful concepts from the courses, these ideas could have been presented in a much more interactive and efficient manner. I have taken composition courses where professors literally "corrected" my scores. I had notes erased and replaced by notes that the professor felt were "more efficacious in this context." He encouraged us to compose in pencil. Hmmm.. I think that the composer "must" have imposed those corrections on himself by making such a foolish musical choice in the first place. Just as in Enlightenment Christianity, you have total freedom as soon as you acknowledge that there is only one choice of action |-(. >Seems to me that the issues of instrumentation and pitch system in >computer composition are simply of a different type from the issues of >"traditional" composition. There is no incompatibility there at all. >Moreover, since almost all composers who use hte computer are >interested in using traditional materials in some way, it is important >for them to have an inside-out knowledge of these materials. >COLLEAGUES? I want them to be able to communicate with their >audiences! Don't you think there might be some experience that a >thousand years of insightful composers might have picked up, that might >be applicable to musics other than their own? Sounds like musical homogenization to me. You have no right to dictate musical values. You assume that most computer music composers are interested in traditional materials. This is completely unjustified. I use the computer to mutate and transform the traditional. See, I am different. Must I conform to your vision of music as you wish it to be? What does it mean to have inside-out knowledge of musical materials? >From the rest of your statements I gather that you imply that there is only ONE such understanding, ONE such truth. Knowledge is relative; there is a multitude of perspectives. I tend to look at musical objects timbrally--I think and perceive in terms of density, energy, space, motion, spectrum, time, contrast, and semantics. I fully recognize that other composers may employ a different language to describe their music and hence they will establish a different musical context. My intention is to insure that the multitude of contexts are not systematically destroyed by the imposition of 'proper musical processes.' Someone else's experience is never automatically useful--knowledge must be integrated into the individual's own history and experience for it to have any utility. >Another good reason to learn "hackneyed" theory is EXACTLY its >simplicity. To do almost anything well, one needs to master simpler >versions of the task first; and complete mastery of old-fashioned >technique has always stood composers in good stead. Schoenberg taught >most of his students nothing but elementary harmony and counterpoint; >Brahms likewise recommended the archaic ideas of Fux and CPE Bach to his >students. Not coincidentally, it was those two writers whom Haydn used >in his self-education; they were both describing music that was outdated >by the time Haydn read them, and htey made him into one of the great >radicals in music history. Mastering them, that is -- not rebelling >against them, even! One does not have to first become a Nazi to rebel against fascism. This metaphor hopefully shows how ridiculous your statement is. You CAN become a Nazi first, but I choose not to. A composer does not have to 'master' a technique if it offends her, she can simply avoid it and employ another. I have chosen my own focus: digital signal processing. I find this path to be functional and satisfying. This is not by any means my sole compositional process, it is simply a powerful tool that has been very useful to my music. Digital signal processing is a subject extremely alien to traditional music theory; however, it can be extremely intimate with respect to music. Now I guess that you will say that such a focus is fine as long as I share my attention with traditional music theory. A human being has only finite amount of time and patience available to her; I intend to maximize the share of attention that my interests receive at the expense of copious frustration and disintegration. >I wish I'd taken more music theory. The last class I took was called >Composition for Musicologists. In that class, we were given little >snatches of 18th-century-sounding music, and told to complete them. My >thinking about all kinds of music was enriched by this exercise. I am glad to see that someone can benefit from such exercises. I grant that my exposure to such exercises has often enriched my musical thinking in positive ways, but so has rap music. To think about ALL music one must be exposed to ALL music. 18th century art music is a mere fraction of all available music. I am not going to ignore the flocks of birds, pneumatic drill grooves, the occasional F14 flying over my house, Jupiter Larson, wind chimes, the drums of a TGIF from five miles away, Robert Ashley, poetry readings, by preoccupying myself with my next analysis hoax. I feel that I can take responsibility for my education and I can justify myself with my musical compositions. The justification for my compositions can come from an explication of their impetus, and what methods I employed to realize them. I would prefer a world where justification was not extant, but I feel that I can justify my work from a variety of perspectives. Christopher Penrose penrose@do.ucsd.edu
roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) (03/20/90)
I don't want this to turn into a flame war, but I think there are issues here that should be talked about seriously. In particular, I'd like to know where you're coming from, Christopher, especially since you've dropped some of the key questions I asked, such as: what's this "hackneyed musical past" stuff? and "What kind of computer music is entirely divorced from issues in our musical past/present?" In article <9073@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> pa2253@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa2253) writes: >In article <14531@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes: >>Tell me, who has forced computer music composers to ignore any >>possibilities whatever? Where are such things happening? >Possibilities can be threatened if your time is wasted on narrowly >focused pedagogy. Now, I know you feel this way about your current curriculum, and I've heard severe criticisms of the place in the past; just out of curiosity, what exactly is it you're forced to do, to the exclusion of all else? >>counterpoint -- from the orchestral works of Felix Mendelssohn. There >>we derived "models" of music, and hten applied them to pieces in all >>kinds of different styles. Needless to say, our instructor had received >>many years of training in such matters, as well as a thorough grounding >>in 12-tone composition. Several members of my class have gone on to become >>musicians of various types; some do electronic/computer music. So does the >>instructor, Paul Lansky. >First, I must acknowledge the potential benefits of theoretical analysis >and synthesis. Your collective study of Mendelssohn and the synthesis >of "models" of music may have been rewarding. You, however, attend >Princeton University--a university I'd like to attend in the Fall. At >such a university I can see the encouragement of possibility--whereas >UCSD imposes a pedagogical theoretical curriculum which is founded upon >rigid style analysis projects. These projects waste the student's time >by demanding that a specific task be performed without making the demand >for synthesizing the task into a larger philosophical or theoretical >framework. By imposing upon the composers time, they succeed in dictating >musical preferences. Hey, grad school in general is an imposiiton on one's time! Wait til you start TEACHING (as a TA or whatever) -- you'll learn the meaning of imposition. As far as synthesizing what you've learned, what's so bad about them leaving it up to you? I don't think there's a "right answer" to such a task. In fact, doing the synthesis on your own is what grad school is for, imho. They sure can't give you surveys of EVERYTHING; so you have to take whatever happens to be offered, and turn it to your advantage. (Not to say that you have to accept things uncritically, just that the actual teaching will of necessity be fragmentary, of the "Topics in -----" type, unlike, say, a calculus sequence or something.) >In another light, you have not provided a rationale for describing the >necessity for a "thorough grounding in 12-tone composition." Why not >a thorough grounding in the techniques and structures inherent in >rap music? Polka? Blues? automobile transmissions? Clearly, you must see >that agendas exist. Theoretical models exist only for a handful of musical >styles. This absense is another stylistic imposition/suggestion. Instead >of choosing Mendelssohn, why couldn't you analyze the works of Gordon >Mumma? The reason is clear--obvious theoretical models would have little >utility in describing the music of Mumma. Maybe you should reread what I said. NOWHERE did I say anything about the necessity of a thorough grounding in 12-tone comp.; nor has Paul or anyone else in this discussion. I mentioned it to point out the breadth of Paul's education/training/experience as a composer, and that it had contributed to his ideas about how to compose music that, on the surface, has nothing to do with 12-tone. Likewise, I think that a thorough grounding in blues would be terrific. Might be hard to do it at a college; a weekly seminar at the Checkerboard might be better, especially considering HOW blues is composed. (For the record, J K Randall and Steve Mackey have taught a very similar course, albeit not from the compositional viewpoint.) Why Mendelssohn and not Mumma? Well, it's hard for me to say, especially since I'd never heard of the latter until just now. But your "clear reason" is not so clear at all; I suspect, based on what you say, that theoretical/pedagogical models of Mumma might have little utility in describing many other musics of interest to most beginners, which we were in the Mendelssohn course. Mendelssohn, on the other hand, has a LOT in common with many popular (and even pop) musics, including classic/romantic music. So it's not that the obvious models wouldn't work on Mumma, I think, but that the Mumma models might not have much to say at the basic levels. Correct me if I'm wrong; this paragraph is partly smoke. >>Seems to me that the vast majority of music being composed and performed >>today, with or without computers, whether academic, mainstream >>"classical," jazz, pop, or any of a thousand other kinds, has strong >>roots in one or another musical tradition. Pop is especially strong in >>its traditions, and most of the music being written TODAY in that genre >>and others is directly connected to the music theory of the "past," such >>as harmony, phrase analysis, and species counterpoint. >A piece of music obviously has an implicit relationship to the collective >history of music. However, that does not require an individual to compose >for historically obvious instruments in historically delineated ways. Why >should a student of composition be forced to learn and use someone else's >musical tools when they are more comfortable and facile developing their >own? I understand MY musical history better than an institution, and >I have the motivation and desire to create my OWN music as much as it is >possible. So why are you in school, then? SERIOUS QUESTION!!!!! Eliot already described, metonymically, the purpose of grad schools in composition. But universities in general are storehouses of tradition and received knowledge. To be sure, the thing to do with tradition and received knowledge is to CHALLENGE them; but I'm not sure why one would go to a university and just IGNORE them. Universities "require" you to do things in historically delineated ways for several reasons. One is to allow you to develop your own relationship to tradition; another is to foster dialectic thinking: to get you to rebel and do something that is specifically NOT in the tradition. A surprisingly large number of musical advances has come about through just this sort of rebellion. Now, there's another way to learn, aside from the university: apprenticeship. And if you think the university atmosphere is stifling, you should check out the average apprenticeship/private study. The Buddhists say that the first step on the path to wisdom is to find a master and follow him; you don't even have to do that at a university. Or you can just work on your own. But even Charles Ives, the great self-made man of American music, as it turns out, did a whole lot more with his teacher than he let on. DO NOT read the above as an encouragement to drop out of school, or not to come to Princeton, or whatever. I'm just curious regarding what it is you're hoping to find wherever you are. >>Again, that's a straw man. Who imposes these agendas? Seems to me it >>can only be the composer herself. Anybody else is just teaching theory, >>or teaching crafts of composition. The real work of composition is >>never hampered by such teaching, except if the composer allows this to >>happen by losing sight of her own interests. >That is absolutely ridiculous! I doubt that you have had the experience >of working 30 hours a week, while taking prerequisite music theory courses >and attempting to compose. Clearly in my case, music theory has been an >imposition. I was never asked to synthesize the information I was given: >that I did automatically and effortlessly; I was asked to submit to >rigid projects that gave no creative latitude and, therefore, were completely >meaningless to me. The courses did not promote discussion or evaluation. >Although I gained a few useful concepts from the courses, these ideas >could have been presented in a much more interactive and efficient manner. >I have taken composition courses where professors literally "corrected" >my scores. I had notes erased and replaced by notes that the professor >felt were "more efficacious in this context." He encouraged us to compose >in pencil. Hmmm.. I think that the composer "must" have imposed those >corrections on himself by making such a foolish musical choice in the >first place. Just as in Enlightenment Christianity, you have total freedom >as soon as you acknowledge that there is only one choice of action |-(. Can you be a bit more specific? Are you referring to species counterpoint exercises, or choral harmonization? (I must confess that I don't feel quite as strongly about these as, say, Linda does; but I wish I were better at them.) Or are you referring to composition courses where the only assignment was something like "write a sonata for solo violin."? And, yes, you DID impose this on yourself, no matter what it was. Surely you weren't present at the creation of the grad program? Surely you had a chance to find out what it was like. And if the courses don't promote discussion or evaluation, well, MAKE them do it! Buttonhole the prof. Ruin his lunch hour and coffee breaks. Get the other students to discuss, and to demand discussion. I've done this more than once, and I think the courses I was in turned out much better than if I hadn't. >>COLLEAGUES? I want them to be able to communicate with their >>audiences! Don't you think there might be some experience that a >>thousand years of insightful composers might have picked up, that might >>be applicable to musics other than their own? >Sounds like musical homogenization to me. You have no right to dictate >musical values. You assume that most computer music composers are >interested in traditional materials. This is completely unjustified. Homogenization? No. But it is also a revolt against ghettoization. You see, I AM assuming that most composers of computer music see themselves as composers of MUSIC. And I know, and can see no reason to doubt, that music, the human activity and behavior, is predominantly a NON-computer-determined activity. In fact, I can think of no class of people, either now or in the foreseeable future, that will base its musical activity in more than a small part on highly computerized music. This is by no means to suggest that computer music is wrong, or irrelevant, or anything else like that. I simply think that the education of a computer musician should integrate some of the other kinds of music that, in one form or another, are intimately related with wider human experience: singing, dancing, ritual, etc. >I use the computer to mutate and transform the traditional. See, I am >different. Must I conform to your vision of music as you wish it to be? >What does it mean to have inside-out knowledge of musical materials? I don't have such a vision, and I think you know it. But, by mutating and transforming the traditional, you must have a vision of what the traditional is! Where did you get that from? Are you resistant to having that vision expanded, challenged, or otherwise changed? That's what we do in universities. Inside-out knowledge? Why, that's knowledge AS A COMPOSER, not simply as a listener. Is your composition a commentary on your listening to traditional music (of whatever kind), or is it a commentary based on more active participation? Listening is only one mode of musical activity, and very few composers restrict themselves to composition and listening exclusively. >>From the rest of your statements I gather that you imply that there is >only ONE such understanding, ONE such truth. Knowledge is relative; >there is a multitude of perspectives. I tend to look at musical objects >timbrally--I think and perceive in terms of density, energy, space, motion, >spectrum, time, contrast, and semantics. I fully recognize that other >composers may employ a different language to describe their music and >hence they will establish a different musical context. My intention >is to insure that the multitude of contexts are not systematically >destroyed by the imposition of 'proper musical processes.' Someone else's >experience is never automatically useful--knowledge must be integrated >into the individual's own history and experience for it to have any >utility. You gather EXACTLY the opposite of what I believe. I have made it clear (I hope) that I value the multiplicity of perspectives and approaches; what I do NOT value is the rejection of everything but the composer's own special interests -- the "all I read is in the books I write" mentality we see in other departments. But I do believe that there ARE specific contexts for specific musics, and that some musics are central to our musical culture (and some to others), and that one ought to get to know these, including the standard ideas of what is considered "proper" in them -- if only so that one can more effectively reject what one feels one must reject. As I say, this is how I see the composer at the university. (I ought to have confessed long ago that I'm not a composer, but a musicologist; we exist almost exclusively in connection with universities, but I'm not saying even that that's the only proper way for US.) I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way, nor the only one who feels that the university is the right place for *some* composers -- those whose composition involves a broad agenda that concerns received musics and musical ideas. >>Another good reason to learn "hackneyed" theory is EXACTLY its >>simplicity. To do almost anything well, one needs to master simpler >>versions of the task first; and complete mastery of old-fashioned >>technique has always stood composers in good stead. Schoenberg taught >>most of his students nothing but elementary harmony and counterpoint; >>Brahms likewise recommended the archaic ideas of Fux and CPE Bach to his >>students. Not coincidentally, it was those two writers whom Haydn used >>in his self-education; they were both describing music that was outdated >>by the time Haydn read them, and htey made him into one of the great >>radicals in music history. Mastering them, that is -- not rebelling >>against them, even! >One does not have to first become a Nazi to rebel against fascism. This >metaphor hopefully shows how ridiculous your statement is. You CAN become >a Nazi first, but I choose not to. A composer does not have to 'master' a >technique if it offends her, she can simply avoid it and employ another. But one DOES have to read _Mein Kampf_ or something a lot like it before one can COMMENT on fascism with any degree of intelligence. In any case, one must KNOW ABOUT Fascism and its history. Your metaphor shows me that you're not really digesting what I say. >I have chosen my own focus: digital signal processing. I find this >path to be functional and satisfying. This is not by any means my sole >compositional process, it is simply a powerful tool that has been very >useful to my music. Digital signal processing is a subject extremely >alien to traditional music theory; however, it can be extremely intimate >with respect to music. Now I guess that you will say that such a focus >is fine as long as I share my attention with traditional music theory. >A human being has only finite amount of time and patience available to >her; I intend to maximize the share of attention that my interests >receive at the expense of copious frustration and disintegration. OK: but why are you composing in the first place? Does it have something to do with listeners? (Not necessarily the general public, mind you, but even Milton Babbitt has an interest in "specialist" listeners, I think.) If so, then studying other musical behaviors (I don't care if it's traditional music theory, particularly; Linda Seltzer seems to be getting a lot of ideas out of Chinese poetry these days) might be helpful to the goals, if not the techniques, of your composition. (By the way, if there were a "theory" of your music, how would DSP fit in? I think it's not so much "alien" to "traditional" theory as it is non-intersecting. I'd like to know, both from the viewpoint of how it determines or influences what you compose, and from that of the listener.) >>I wish I'd taken more music theory. The last class I took was called >>Composition for Musicologists. In that class, we were given little >>snatches of 18th-century-sounding music, and told to complete them. My >>thinking about all kinds of music was enriched by this exercise. >I am glad to see that someone can benefit from such exercises. I grant >that my exposure to such exercises has often enriched my musical thinking >in positive ways, but so has rap music. To think about ALL music one must >be exposed to ALL music. 18th century art music is a mere fraction of all >available music. I am not going to ignore the flocks of birds, pneumatic >drill grooves, the occasional F14 flying over my house, Jupiter Larson, >wind chimes, the drums of a TGIF from five miles away, Robert Ashley, >poetry readings, by preoccupying myself with my next analysis hoax. I >feel that I can take responsibility for my education and I can justify >myself with my musical compositions. The justification for my compositions >can come from an explication of their impetus, and what methods I employed >to realize them. I would prefer a world where justification was not >extant, but I feel that I can justify my work from a variety of perspectives. Who's asking you to ignore all or any of those things? I sense more than a little hostility here, and I think it's misdirected -- ro at least I can't see the target. I can see that you're defining "music" in a Cagean sense, i.e., removing the constraint of purposeful creation or organization of sound by a composer/performer; like cage, you seem to be viewing composition, the choice-making inherent in music, as something the listener does, by choosing to listen. But you're still seeing yourself as a composer, presumably with a target audience of some sort, however small or hypothetical it may be. So why talk of "analysis hoaxes?" Are you about to claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to learn about composition-useful things by doing these analyses? Are you claiming it is specifically impossible for YOU to learn from them? If so, then you need to tell us more about your music, and show why this is so -- for many composers of all stripes have gained from what you call a hoax. Perhaps your hostility against the university way of composing is based on bad experiences (in fact, it almost certainly is, from the things you have said). But I'd like to hear from you exactly why it is you see yourself, as you obviously do, as a university-oriented composer. I'm sure you do have good reasons, or perhaps a vision of composition at the university that is radically different from mine. I'l like to hear more. Roger
edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) (03/20/90)
In article <14531@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes: >In article <8077@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> pa2253@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa2253) writes: >>They should be required to understand basic theory >>to the extent that they can communicate with their collegues but >>they should be given the freedom to apply their own musical knowledge >>toward personally defined musical goals. > >COLLEAGUES? I want them to be able to communicate with their >audiences! Don't you think there might be some experience that a >thousand years of insightful composers might have picked up, that might >be applicable to musics other than their own? There is a strange paradox in all this! Christopher Penrose, who wishes to use high technology to create his music, has less faith in the march of musical progress than Roger Lustig. Let's accept for the moment Roger's (implied) assertion that communication is one of the primary objects of musical composition. It does not follow that the techniques developed over 1000 years of Western Musical Tradition are the only means of creating music which communicates. Technology has enabled us to use the entire range of acoustical experience for communication rather than just those sounds available from beating, stroking, or blowing strings, membranes, blocks, or tubes. This is a relatively new state of affairs that the WMT is ill-prepared to address. Communication requires a ``language'' which is at least in part shared between the ``speaker'' and the ``listener.'' On this I think Roger and I would agree. However, I think that Roger has a highly constrained view of just what elements can make up such a language. A listener has developed a large number of expectations concerning her acoustical environment--expectations which are just as rich a source of communicative gesture as those provided by the WMT. For example, acoustical expectations might concern the size, material and proximity of the ``object'' generating a sound, the method used in exciting it, and the ``space'' within which it is located. Not only does the manipulation of these parameters require a technical discipline quite apart from the WMT, but the latter tradition only provides a limited amount of help in structuring such sounds into a coherent utterance. The result of all this is that computer music inherits the scientific disciplines of acoustics and engineering more directly than it does the WMT. I'm hardly saying that the WMT is always irrelevant--there is nothing stopping a composer from adapting traditional harmony and orchestration to computer music. But it is quite conceivable that a highly evocative and communicative piece of computer music would derive nothing from the WMT. -Ed Hall edhall@rand.org
smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (03/21/90)
In article <2461@randvax.UUCP> edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes: >In article <14531@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger >Lustig) writes: >> Don't you think there might be some experience that a >>thousand years of insightful composers might have picked up, that might >>be applicable to musics other than their own? > > I'm hardly saying that the WMT is always irrelevant--there is >nothing stopping a composer from adapting traditional harmony and >orchestration to computer music. But it is quite conceivable that a >highly evocative and communicative piece of computer music would derive >nothing from the WMT. > This debate is beginning to remind me of a paper Seymour Papert once wrote entitled "Teaching Children to be Mathematicians Versus Teaching About Mathematics." Ed's point is so well taken that it applies to more than computer music. For example, it applies to most of what John Cage did before he got anywhere near any form of electronic technology; and it applies to Gordon Mumma (to keep Christopher happy), who did some of his finest work with analog circuit design long before he had access to computer technology. On the other hand, NONE of these observations negate Roger's point, which is that we have a tradition of the relationship between a composer and his/her audience which can offer insights beyond prohibitions of parallel fifths our doubled thirds. The question is whether or not PEDAGOGY, as it is currently practiced, appreciates Roger's point! Following Papert, let me draw an analogy with mathematics; but let us consider graduate students, rather than children. A graduate student in mathematics takes a course in, say, real analysis. During this course he is exposed to all sorts of wonderful theorems about Banach spaces and Hilbert spaces, and he is expected to study the proofs of these theorems. However, becoming familiar with a documented proof of a theorem does not necessarily imply a command of the ability to actually PROVE that theorem. In other words, you can "play back" the proof you read without necessarily having any insight into the mental processes which yielded it. There is a similar danger in the pedagogy of composition. You can invest considerable time in the study of the artifacts of our tradition and master any number of approaches to analysis which tell you just how all the pieces fit together. However, none of that kind of analysis provides any insight into the BEHAVIOR of the composer who actually put those pieces together. Actually, I'm not sure pedagogy, as such, can ever make much progress with such insight. In an earlier article Roger raised the alternative of apprenticeship. This is such a good suggestion that I wish we saw more of it, not only in music but also in mathematics or practically any other technical discipline. If, ultimately, you are concerned with insight into PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR (which is what composition is fundamentally all about), then I can think of no better approach than to become part of a community of individuals engaged in that behavior. Many of us have probably acquired most of our computer skills that way . . . learning more from the people we work with than we do from the classroom. ========================================================================= USPS: Stephen Smoliar USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 1001 Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 Internet: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu "Only a schoolteacher innocent of how literature is made could have written such a line."--Gore Vidal