elkies@brauer.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) (11/10/89)
In article <1553@esquire.UUCP> rreid@esquire.UUCP ( r l reid ) writes:
:In article <3068@husc6.harvard.edu> [I wrote:]
:>New computer technology makes it easy to accomplish what in earlier
:>times would have required heroic efforts. Remember the responsibility
:>that comes with this power.
:
:Mercy me! Heaven forbid we should make any "bad music" as we
:go along!
:[...]
That wasn't quite what I meant... Only that, as with text
typesetting programs, the surface sound of synthesizer output
can be seductively appealing quite independently of musical
content, tempting the composer to accept what in another
medium (s)he would further improve/revise. [The same point
has been made in earlier times with, say, effective orchestration
instead of synthesizers---but I'm digressing from comp.music
issues...]
--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
Department of Mathematics, Harvard Universityeliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) (11/10/89)
In article <3111@husc6.harvard.edu> elkies@zariski.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes: ;In article <1553@esquire.UUCP> rreid@esquire.UUCP ( r l reid ) writes: ;:In article <3068@husc6.harvard.edu> [I wrote:] ;:>New computer technology makes it easy to accomplish what in earlier ;:>times would have required heroic efforts. Remember the responsibility ;:>that comes with this power. ;: ;:Mercy me! Heaven forbid we should make any "bad music" as we ;:go along! ;:[...] ; ;That wasn't quite what I meant... Only that, as with text ;typesetting programs, the surface sound of synthesizer output ;can be seductively appealing quite independently of musical ;content, tempting the composer to accept what in another ;medium (s)he would further improve/revise. [The same point ;has been made in earlier times with, say, effective orchestration ;instead of synthesizers---but I'm digressing from comp.music ;issues...] Look Noam, it actually doesn't matter whether you revise or not. It doesn't matter if you make 3 million pieces a day. There is no such thing as compositional "responsibility." These are ideas that come to us (or you) from another epoch that held that art could change the world but today we are not so sure of that. You are trying to pump up a kind of composing to an importance that it simply doesn't have. "Professional" modern music today is one of the last bastions of amateurism, one does the thing simply because one wants to, and the only responsibility that one need acknowledge is to probe the depths of that one will profess. No one who has made this committment needs to be reprimanded by the wagging finger of a Noam Elkies. In short, you're out of order. -- E. Handelman -- Music Dept -- Princeton U.
scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) (11/11/89)
In article <3111@husc6.harvard.edu> elkies@zariski.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes: >New computer technology makes it easy to accomplish what in earlier >times would have required heroic efforts. Remember the responsibility >that comes with this power. >[some followup deleted] > ....the surface sound of synthesizer output >can be seductively appealing quite independently of musical >content, i.e. new age music > tempting the composer to accept what in another >medium (s)he would further improve/revise. [The same point >has been made in earlier times with, say, effective orchestration >instead of synthesizers---but I'm digressing from comp.music >issues...] You brought up some interesting things that, as usual, point out that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Some synthesizer textures are so wonderful I can listen to them all day without further refinement. But then, I can listen to a good flute or violin all day also. The game seems to be the same. Much classical music is written to show off the technical skills of the solo performer and does very little to "move the soul" (not that there is anything wrong with that). At other times, the symphony composer will fill out a weak theme with bombastic orchestra razzle-dazzle. It all has it's place but, as you say, we must be careful not to get too carried away with it. If it seems too easy - it probably was. -- Scott Amspoker Basis International, Albuquerque, NM (505) 345-5232 unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott
maverick@oak.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) (11/11/89)
In article <3111@husc6.harvard.edu>, elkies@brauer.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes: > That wasn't quite what I meant... Only that, as with text > typesetting programs, the surface sound of synthesizer output > can be seductively appealing quite independently of musical > content, tempting the composer to accept what in another > medium (s)he would further improve/revise.
maverick@oak.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) (11/11/89)
In article <3111@husc6.harvard.edu>, elkies@brauer.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes: > That wasn't quite what I meant... Only that, as with text > typesetting programs, the surface sound of synthesizer output > can be seductively appealing quite independently of musical > content, tempting the composer to accept what in another > medium (s)he would further improve/revise. The analogy with typesetting suggests that the notes are the content and the sound is the realization of the notes. Why can't the musicality of a piece reside in what you dismiss as its "surface"? I would say it does in some Oliver Knussen orchestra pieces, to pick an example from the Euro-composer tradition, and in a lot of popular music -- early Rolling Stones for example.
elkies@osgood.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) (11/15/89)
[Eliot H.:] >[n*blah,...] >In short, you're out of order. So who's the nut that put Eliot in charge of comp.music to declare anyone "out of order"?
elkies@osgood.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) (11/15/89)
Vance Maverick (maverick@oak.berkeley.edu) <19433@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>: :In article <3111@husc6.harvard.edu>, [I wrote:] :> That wasn't quite what I meant... Only that, as with text :> typesetting programs, the surface sound of synthesizer output :> can be seductively appealing quite independently of musical :> content, tempting the composer to accept what in another :> medium (s)he would further improve/revise. :The analogy with typesetting suggests that the notes are the content and :the sound is the realization of the notes. Why can't the musicality of a :piece reside in what you dismiss as its "surface"? I would say it does :in some Oliver Knussen orchestra pieces, to pick an example from the :Euro-composer tradition, and in a lot of popular music -- early Rolling Stones :for example. I was wondering whether anyone was going to bring this up, or (back on the typesetting side) point to the LaTeX manual itself as an example where the polished surface is a substantial part of the content. To be sure, there is such a thing as musical or unmusical interpretation, and in entirely synthesized music it's not as easy to precisely separate the notes from what in earlier times would be their interpretation. Still, while the idea of music whose content resides largely in its surface sound may be interesting to contemplate philosophically, in practice I don't buy that this is a very fruitful notion. --Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu) Dept. of Math., Harvard University
rreid@esquire.UUCP ( r l reid ) (11/15/89)
In article <3167@husc6.harvard.edu> elkies@osgood.UUCP (Noam Elkies) writes: > >I was wondering whether anyone was going to bring this up, or (back on the >typesetting side) point to the LaTeX manual itself as an example where the >polished surface is a substantial part of the content. To be sure, there is >such a thing as musical or unmusical interpretation, and in entirely >synthesized music it's not as easy to precisely separate the notes from what in >earlier times would be their interpretation. Still, while the idea of >music whose content resides largely in its surface sound may be interesting >to contemplate philosophically, in practice I don't buy that this is a >very fruitful notion. I can't buy the analogy at all. To compare to the LaTeX manual, to be sure if it was pretty and lovely to look at and made you want to cry to behold it, and you couldn't figure out how to print a *#$%@ page by reading it; well it would fail completly as a LaTeX manual, and have to be recategorized as "art" or some such. Music is different, unless we're talking about "We Are The World" or some other ditty that has pushing some world view via the lyrics as it's goal. Assuming otherwise, the whole point IMHO is to be like that LaTeX manual that is so wondrous to behold but doesn't tell you how to print a page. Also, the phrase "surface sound" is being used over and over without ever being meaningfully defined. It's all sound, right? Then which is surface and what is/are that/those component/components which are non-surface? Where is this so-called content hiding, and why is it ashamed to come to the surface? :-) And once we get those defined, it's a horserace anyway, isn't it? Are you really going to argue for a non-personal method for evaluating the "fruitfulness" of any given music, or for that matter sound? Finally, this continues to argue that for some strange reason "computer music" or "synthesized music" is more likely to suffer from this malady than music for other instruments? I'm still unconvinced; the fact that I can implement a tuning more easily on a Sun than a flute doesn't do it. (In fact, I can far more easily make pretty music without much behind it (wherever "behind" is) on my flute than on my Sun). I think that's it. -- Ro rreid@esquire.dpw.com {phri|cucard}!hombre!cmcl2!esquire!rreid rlr@woof.columbia.edu