# Contemporary music: blurring the lines between artistic disciplines.



## Guest (Aug 21, 2018)

In that thread I made recently that seems to be giving people (including me) a rather sick feeling in the stomach whenever we go back to read it, I have noticed a few comments surrounding the idea of whether a particular music is music at all, or another art form. But, I stress, let's not get back to that particular piece of music too soon until you've read the rest of this post.

I think it's definitely a valid point to make about anything that departs with our preconceptions of what music is, can be, or perhaps _should_ be.

One of my favourite composers at the moment is Elena Rykova. On her website she refers to herself as both a composer and visual artist, but what I particularly love about her approach to music is the way she has been able to bring her knowledge and passion for art into composition. Her scores are magnificently beautiful, in exactly the way we might find a painting beautiful. Not only that, but she has worked extensively to combine aspects of theatre and musical performance with visual art, as she also mentions on her website.



Elena Rykova said:


> Most of my ideas come to me as visual images and only after, I translate them into sound. Already for a while I keep expressing myself in drawing and painting, sculpturing and dancing. I am not inclined to distinct the borders between the disciplines of art, I am curious and interested to blend them.


The initial thing that strikes me as interesting about interdisciplinary works such as the ones she creates links to the idea of Gesamtkunstwerk. Wikipedia tells me that the first use of the term was made by German philosopher K. F. E. Trahndorff in 1827, certainly predating Wagner's more well known use of the term. It's interesting to see how the concept has taken in new directions in recent years.

to quickly go back to the topic of that piano piece posted in that other thread, I am more of the opinion that it blurs the line between music and ASMR videos to be honest

Questions for us to think about and respond to:
What do you think of interdisciplinary works?
What do you think of Rykova's works?
Would earlier works, such as early Ballet, be in the same category, or are there clearer separations between the different art forms that make up the entertainment as a whole?
What are examples of compositions that blur the line between music and a different art form that aren't really considered 'Gesamtkunstwerk' in this sense? Perhaps graphic scores as both a score and a visual artwork?
Can the musical calligraphy of a composer be considered visual art?

As usual, I look forward to your responses. :tiphat:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

If you don't want to go back to that thread, then stop mentioning it for christ's sake..

..................

As to scores as visual art, sure, if it was in Ars Subtilior 700 years ago, why not today. I would love to see an exhibition devoted to pages from Ferneyhough being hanged in frames, as in a exhibition of photographs (really, no kidding).

As for the piece from that thread, I already said that I don't consider it music, but conceptual or performance art, and gave my reasons why.

I find interesting the interaction between music performance (of actual music ), lights, and even stage theatrics. This is not new, I already saw it in a performance of Stockhausen's Trans some years ago. Perhaps a more recent example is that Alexander Schubert thing, which you called 'a bit tacky' or something. Certainly it may be, but some of the elements are worth keeping in mind.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2018)

Actually a couple of years ago I saw an exhibition at an art gallery here that was showcasing unconventional music notation from the 20th and 21st centuries........Stockhausen was in there and I found that to be quite interesting from the point of view of enjoying some visual art.

This is the 'tacky' piece, and it is a little tacky imo, but fun! To me it seems closer to a more conventional idea of a concert performance of a piece of music.....but I can see what you are talking about:


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2018)

To me, these more adequately blurs the line between different artistic disciplines than the Schubert:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

shirime said:


> To me, these more adequately blurs the line between different artistic disciplines than the Schubert:


I find the performance part quite preposterous or absurd (but in the good sense). As for the music, not sure. I would call it music since there's a more obvious intention in the way the sounds are indicated and performed than the piano piece of the other thread, but it is not really that interesting music to me. What I see is that you call it a 'blurring' when the music is reduced to its bare minimum? What if in that video, with exactly the same performance part, there were someone at the piano playing a Beethoven sonata, or even a Ferneyhough piece, it would be less blurred and more in the music side to you? To me it would be as equally blurred.


----------



## San Antone (Feb 15, 2018)

> I have noticed a few comments surrounding the idea of whether a particular music is music at all, or another art form.


Who cares what you call it? If it is not music, which is after all just a label, then what is it? The more important question is "do you enjoy it?"

Long ago I chose to ignore labels and just listened in the "now". If I like something, I like it no matter what it is labeled.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2018)

aleazk said:


> I find the performance part quite preposterous or absurd (but in the good sense). As for the music, not sure. I would call it music since there's a more obvious intention in the way the sounds are indicated and performed than the piano piece of the other thread, but it is not really that interesting music to me. What I see is that you call it a 'blurring' when the music is reduced to its bare minimum? What if in that video, with exactly the same performance part, there were someone at the piano playing a Beethoven sonata, or even a Ferneyhough piece, it would be less blurred and more in the music side to you? To me it would be as equally blurred.


Hmmm, I'm not sure. I don't think it would be less blurred. There'd simply be another musical element, a more historical musical element if it were Beethoven........

The mention of Beethoven actually reminded me of Kagel's _Ludwig Van_. What do you think of that? Excerpt here:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

San Antone said:


> Who cares what you call it? If it is not music, which is after all just a label, then what is it? The more important question is "do you enjoy it?"
> 
> Long ago I chose to ignore labels and just listened in the "now". If I like something, I like it no matter what it is labeled.


Well, yes, labels have a good dose of convention and arbitrary things. On the other hand, pretty much all we would agree that a Beethoven sonata is music (or not? ), and that this is not a convention, but a rather visceral feeling. Thus, labels have some degree of convention but also some grain of truth. Even better, we are not very sure where the truth ends and the convention enters into it. Thus, it is an interesting intellectual exercise and an interesting test to our knowledge and taste to investigate where that limit is, at least for each one of us.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

shirime said:


> Hmmm, I'm not sure. I don't think it would be less blurred. There'd simply be another musical element, a more historical musical element if it were Beethoven........
> 
> The mention of Beethoven actually reminded me of Kagel's _Ludwig Van_. What do you think of that? Excerpt here:


Yes, for a moment I thought into the Kagel example too. It's very funny and somewhat decadent, I always liked it. I think the actor was Kagel himself.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Some years ago some guy posted a video in which many spinning tops were thrown on some sort of small stage, the size of a small table, and where they could collide with each other, etc., all this under the background of some sort of eerie electronic ambient sounds. I liked it since I gave it a nihilistic interpretation in which the spinning tops were us, and the short time during which they were actually spinning and colliding at random with each other was our meaningless life in this universe, and then they simply randomly stopped to spin and just were retired from the stage with no particular solemnity or disrespect by the people filming it (it reminded me of a short story by Borges in which, in a very distant future, people lived for centuries, isolated from each other, and dedicating their lives to the arts, and when they simply got bored of living, they just went to special facilities that were specifically designed for people to end their lives in a painless way). The eerie music kinda reinforced this, haha. I wish I could remember the name of the video to post it here.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

shirime said:


> To me, these more adequately blurs the line between different artistic disciplines than the Schubert:


Those are the funniest performances I've ever seen. The shock value and attention-grabbing is definitely there. I also think of flims as interdisciplinary art. Music and visuals together can make a huge emotional impact. I would consider music separately as stand alone without visuals. Rykova's scores (if you can call them that, sure why not) are interesting to look at. I don't find her music good at all, just different intensities and densities and attacks of sound. The visuals help keep some interest. I don't think of her scores as visual art, because it has to say something to a musically uninitiated person.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

shirime said:


> To me, these more adequately blurs the line between different artistic disciplines than the Schubert:


I see no blurring of any art forms. These are just surrealistic little theater pieces with sound effects. I couldn't get interested or stay with them to the end. If Rykova actually writes music, or has anything to say, where's the evidence?


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I see no blurring of any art forms. These are just surrealistic little theater pieces with sound effects. I couldn't get interested or stay with them to the end. If Rykova actually writes music, or has anything to say, where's the evidence?


Well I guess that's just another perspective on it. In order to have a discussion about these works as actually blurring the line, being interdisciplinary, one would have to accept the interdisciplinary nature of the work as a first step.

I don't know too much about theatre myself, so maybe you could give a bit more of a run down of how this piece works on theatrical terms?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

shirime said:


> Well I guess that's just another perspective on it. In order to have a discussion about these works as actually blurring the line, being interdisciplinary, one would have to accept the interdisciplinary nature of the work as a first step.
> 
> I don't know too much about theatre myself, so maybe you could give a bit more of a run down of how this piece works on theatrical terms?


I call them theater pieces because they consist of sets containing costumed actors doing something. I don't know whether they "work" on any terms. They do nothing for me, but if they do something for you that's fine. My main point is that they don't "blur" any art forms, and I really don't know what that means anyway. Art forms can be _combined,_ and have been since we wore masks and danced and chanted around the village fire pit.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2018)

shirime said:


> I don't know too much about theatre myself, so maybe you could give a bit more of a run down of how this piece works on theatrical terms?


Taking the first example, the 'surgeons' appear to be following a score rather than a script. That would give priority to the sounds they are required to make. The visual setting/movement is no more than an initial joke.

It would work as theatre if the priority were given to movement, speech and setting (inc costume) combined - following a script and staging instructions.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I also think that a more convenient notion is that arts can actually be combined. As I asked earlier, it seems shirime defines his blurred notion as when the music is reduced to its bare minimun. Thus, in the presence of other aspect, like a theatral performance, the question if those few sounds are really music becomes if what we are seeing is actually just a theatral performance or a combination of that with music. Thus, the real notion is combination. I think these examples are a bit artificial since they disguise the question about those few sounds being music as a question of supposed blurring of different arts, since the other aspect, the non-musical one, seems much more straightforward to recognize as belonging to the other artistic discipline (that is, as being a theatral performance, in the examples).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Taking the first example, the 'surgeons' appear to be following a score rather than a script. That would give priority to the sounds they are required to make. The visual setting/movement is no more than an initial joke.
> 
> It would work as theatre if the priority were given to movement, speech and setting (inc costume) combined - following a script and staging instructions.


You must have a very sharp blade for splitting hairs. I see no "initial joke"; if there's a joke, it's sustained throughout. I saw no score and heard nothing I'd recognize as music if I were merely listening, and the only element missing, by your description of theater, is speech, which is not an essential of theater.

I guess some would call this sort of thing "performance art." I don't really care what it's called.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2018)

aleazk said:


> I also think that a more convenient notion is that arts can actually be combined. As I asked earlier, it seems shirime defines his blurred notion as when the music is reduced to its bare minimun. Thus, in the presence of other aspect, like a theatral performance, the question if those few sounds are really music becomes if what we are seeing is actually just a theatral performance or a combination of that with music. Thus, the real notion is combination. I think these examples are a bit artificial since they disguise the question about those few sounds being music as a question of supposed blurring of different arts, since the other aspect, the non-musical one, seems much more straightforward to recognize as belonging to the other artistic discipline (that is, as being a theatral performance, in the examples).


Just for clarification, I'm using the phrase 'blurring the lines' specifically in relation to hypothetical lines or definitions that separate one art form from another. A painting is different from a play which is different from a dance piece which is different from a piece of music for solo piano, however they can be combined in different ways with different emphases.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> You must have a very sharp blade for splitting hairs. I see no "initial joke"; if there's a joke, it's sustained throughout. I saw no score and heard no music, and the only element missing, by your description of theater, is speech, which is not an essential of theater.


The "joke" was the surgeons investigating the piano, which was there from the beginning, but there seemed to be no development or variation or addition to the joke. The screen they were looking at was, I think, the score (see her website for her graphic scores.)

You're right - there was no speech on this occasion - I was just including it as general definition of what theatre can be.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

shirime said:


> Just for clarification, I'm using the phrase 'blurring the lines' specifically in relation to hypothetical lines or definitions that separate one art from from another. A painting is different from a play which is different from a dance piece which is different from a piece of music for solo piano, however they can be combined in different ways with different emphases.


So, basically, you are indeed just simply asking here if those few sounds are music or not? Since it evidently is a theatre performance, nobody will deny that.

Curious thing, I mentioned the Schubert knowing you would say it was not the most interesting example for you (I assume, of course, because it is more evidenly music and just a bit of theatrics). Then you posted those examples which are evidently more about the theatrics than the music. But when I ask you if what really interests you is the question about the limits of what is music and what is not, rather than the blurring with other disciplines, I get evasives. It's really difficult to have a discussion when honesty is not put as a basis for civilized discussion.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> The "joke" was the surgeons investigating the piano, which was there from the beginning, but there seemed to be no development or variation or addition to the joke. The screen they were looking at was, I think, the score (see her website for her graphic scores.)
> 
> You're right - there was no speech on this occasion - I was just including it as general definition of what theatre can be.


Having surgeons perform some sort of operation on a piano's guts is an amusing idea. It does amount to a trivial work of art, though. Most "conceptual" art seems pretty trivial.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2018)

aleazk said:


> So, basically, you are indeed just simply asking here if those few sounds are music or not? Since it evidently is a theatre performance, nobody will deny that.


Well, I did post some questions in the OP....


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

shirime said:


> Well, I did post some questions in the OP....


Go ahead, I'm done with this, since I think I know where it wants to go.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Gesamtkunstwerk is an old concept from the 18th century. Wagner did realize it in his operas (music + visual + acting). Later, cinema took over (visual + music + acting) and the latest trend in Gesamtkustwerk is virtual reality, possibly stimulating also touch. 
It is interesting that you mention the ASMR videos because that is exactly that came to my mind when I first encountered the videos you posted. The gently stroke and touch the instruments to produce various bizarre squeaking and creaking sounds. But what do they need the instruments for, if they are not playing them? They could taky any objects and produce the sounds, just like in the ASMR. Is ASMR art?





I am sure you know the phrase "l´art pour l´art" and this seems to be l´art pour l´art.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Having surgeons perform some sort of operation on a piano's guts is an amusing idea. It does amount to a trivial work of art, though. Most "conceptual" art seems pretty trivial.


I suppose if you wanted to give the conceit further consideration, you might ask if the piano is 'music' and the piece is an investigation into the health of the art. I'm not sure what the diagnosis is, however, and the 'music' made is of little help.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I suppose if you wanted to give it further consideration, you might ask if the piano is 'music' and the piece is an investigation into the health of the art. I'm not sure what the diagnosis is, however, and the 'music' made is of little help.


That's the beauty of "modern art." You can call it anything you want, read anything into it, say that it "questions conventional ideas" of this or that, and no one can prove you wrong. Since everyone can do that with no talent or training, everyone can be an artist, and the grand democratic ideal of equality is effortlessly attained. Down with genius and elitism, say I!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> That's the beauty of "modern art." You can call it anything you want, read anything into it, say that it "questions conventional ideas" of this or that, and no one can prove you wrong. Since everyone can do that with no talent or training, everyone can be an artist, and the grand democratic ideal of equality is effortlessly attained. Down with genius and elitism, say I!


I disagree, there's plenty of modern art with lots of merit, and yes, even 'fringe' (as some like to say here) stuff like Ferneyhough. The problem is with people that think that Duchamp's Urinal or Cage's 4'33'' are interesting ideas for making art in the 21st century. And this not even because I may like or not like those particular ideas, but because those debates have already been allowed to take place, have been widely discussed, the lessons learned and then all art moved on.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I am always amused when someone does something that is intentionally provocative or controversial, and then gets upset when the response it provokes is mostly negative.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

aleazk said:


> I disagree, there's plenty of modern art with lots of merit, and yes, even 'fringe' (as some like to say here) stuff like Ferneyhough. The problem is with people that think that Duchamp's Urinal or Cage's 4'33'' are interesting ideas for making art in the 21st century. And this not even because I may like or not like those particular ideas, but because those debates have already been allowed to take place, have been widely discussed, the lessons learned and then all art moved on.


Agreed. Except that because it has always faced heavy critical reaction and never been fully accepted in the wider art world (apart from Duchamp's urinal), let alone public tastes, the approach really hasn't been fixed as art history and it remains the model for 'contemporary avant-garde art'. Really nothing else has come along, apart from tawdry 'shock art'.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

JAS said:


> I am always amused when someone does something that is intentionally provocative or controversial, and then gets upset when the response it provokes is mostly negative.


It's not so much the controversy, but the presentation of a debate which is decades old as being interesting, and this hidden under the facade of a different question. This is what happened in that other thread and, unfortunately, again here. People get that slight dishonesty and that's why they react negatively (pretty much everyone, including those that even like avant-garde), or seem disoriented when they compare the question being asked with the examples provided. And, you know, it is a real shame, because the actual questions in the OP, both here and in the other thread, actually are of some interest (as I have repeated many times there and even tried to contribute some answers, good or bad, to them; see, not all is negativity as some said). What's the point of clouding them with things that are of little relevance to them, I really don't know


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

eugeneonagain said:


> Agreed. Except that because it has always faced heavy critical reaction and never been fully accepted in the wider art world (apart from Duchamp's urinal), let alone public tastes, the approach really hasn't been fixed as art history and it remains the model for 'contemporary avant-garde art'. Really nothing else has come along, apart from tawdry 'shock art'.


Yes, maybe it's not fully closed, but in this forum this topic has been discussed ad nauseam, do we really need more of this discussion-cancer? Even more, pretty much all members are quite knowledgeable in music and art history and very familiar with the debate, it's an insult to the intelligence to try smuggling it like that into the debate and think we are not going to notice it.

Ultimately, it shows such a lack of originality and absense of ideas to think one can shock someone today (at least people with the level of this forum) with those ideas. No, we are not shocked, we are fatigated.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2018)

JAS said:


> I am always amused when someone does something that is intentionally provocative or controversial, and then gets upset when the response it provokes is mostly negative.


Mostly off-topic, actually. Off-topic posts don't really interest me.



aleazk said:


> It's not so much the controversy, but the presentation of a debate which is decades old as being interesting, and this hidden under the facade of a different question. This is what happened in that other thread and, unfortunately, again here. People get that slight dishonesty and that's why they react negatively (pretty much everyone, including those that even like avant-garde), or seem disoriented when they compare the question being asked with the examples provided. And, you know, it is a real shame, because the actual questions in the OP, both here and in the other thread, actually are of some interest (as I have repeated many times there and even tried to contribute some answers, good or bad, to them; see, not all is negativity as some said). What's the point of clouding them with things that are of little relevance to them, I really don't know


The actual questions in the OP are more an attempt to move away from that 'debate'. I'm really grateful that you are taking an interest in it.



Jacck said:


> Gesamtkunstwerk is an old concept from the 18th century. Wagner did realize it in his operas (music + visual + acting). Later, cinema took over (visual + music + acting) and the latest trend in Gesamtkustwerk is virtual reality, possibly stimulating also touch.
> It is interesting that you mention the ASMR videos because that is exactly that came to my mind when I first encountered the videos you posted. The gently stroke and touch the instruments to produce various bizarre squeaking and creaking sounds. But what do they need the instruments for, if they are not playing them? They could taky any objects and produce the sounds, just like in the ASMR. Is ASMR art?
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah actually ASMR videos are something I was thinking of as well, for the same reason. The thing about those videos is that they are made with a very specific intention, yet there are such a wide variety of ways that intention is being presented. ASMR videos that are based more on roleplaying are, in my mind, relatable at least to music combined with acting of some kind. Whether the acting is part of a play, film, Rykova's _101% Mind Uploading_ or something else, there's always a rather unique approach to how music (and even sound design) has been combined with another discipline. There's a kind of creativity or craft in how different people have achieved a balance (or imbalance) to serve a particular purpose. Thanks for the response, btw.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

shirime said:


> Mostly off-topic, actually. Off-topic posts don't really interest me.


Off-topic? It seems to me that it is precisely the topic. Oh, you just mean that you don't really want to discuss it. Okay.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

shirime said:


> Yeah actually ASMR videos are something I was thinking of as well, for the same reason. The thing about those videos is that they are made with a very specific intention, yet there are such a wide variety of ways that intention is being presented. ASMR videos that are based more on roleplaying are, in my mind, relatable at least to music combined with acting of some kind. Whether the acting is part of a play, film, Rykova's _101% Mind Uploading_ or something else, there's always a rather unique approach to how music (and even sound design) has been combined with another discipline. There's a kind of creativity or craft in how different people have achieved a balance (or imbalance) to serve a particular purpose. Thanks for the response, btw.


speaking of these ASMR phenonema, some of these spectralist videos evoked in me an ASMR response (tingling in my neck). Some of their work with sound is quite interesting, although I am not sure I would call it music (it has not structure or melody). It surely is art, I am just not sure it is music. It is work with sound.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Because of the way my listening and life arrangements are set up, I tend to "need" pure music rather than multimedia. Even operas end up on my back burner unless I relate to them as pure music first. I guess - I confess? - that I am also a little suspicious about multimedia and fear that it must be that the music will not stand up on its own. But that is not really a prejudice - merely a starting position - but I would probably listen to a composer's "intended as pure music" first.

Once more there are sour and unpleasant posts in this thread. I value seeing and hearing things that are new to me - even when I hate them - and feel that shirime is doing us a great service in introducing me to a lot. I don't really see why those who don't value this need to post in these threads but many of them seem to pile in. I guess that like any community a mob mentality can take over even normally civilsed people's responses. Maybe I exaggerate? There are a few genuinely offensive posts here (from people who are quite practices in writing these) but it is the general feel and tone of others that makes me a little uncomfortable.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Because of the way my listening and life arrangements are set up, I tend to "need" pure music rather than multimedia. Even operas end up on my back burner unless I relate to them as pure music first. I guess - I confess? - that I am also a little suspicious about multimedia and fear that it must be that the music will not stand up on its own. But that is not really a prejudice - merely a starting position - but I would probably listen to a composer's "intended as pure music" first.


This is the same for me too, really. I do think YouTube has been great in providing at least some level of the _performance_ aspect of interdisciplinary works, actually, so I am certainly grateful for that. Honestly, the thing about these interdisciplinary works, and also pieces of music/art that are more 'conceptual', is that it provokes thoughts and questions, even if the music/art itself is not something I find that appealing in its own right. In that sense, it makes for a very fulfilling experience, though not necessarily the most fulfilling experience _musically_. I love to think, I love to search for connections and contrasts between different things and I love to ask questions, and that's basically why I create these sorts of threads, to include the thoughts and ideas and questions of _others_ into the experience as well as my own.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

aleazk said:


> I disagree, there's plenty of modern art with lots of merit, and yes, even 'fringe' (as some like to say here) stuff like Ferneyhough. The problem is with people that think that Duchamp's Urinal or Cage's 4'33'' are interesting ideas for making art in the 21st century. And this not even because I may like or not like those particular ideas, but because those debates have already been allowed to take place, have been widely discussed, the lessons learned and then all art moved on.


No, not all contemporary art is "modern art" - art that consists of "concepts" that have to be explained or justified or propagandized because they aren't actually conveyed through any recognizable sensuous vocabulary of forms. But far too much of it is. People of no talent are still expecting to be taken seriously - and unfortunately _are_ taken seriously - for stuff that really hasn't "moved on." I've lived through all the trends in art since the fifties, and the continuing procession of supposedly avant-garde art has become a gigantic yawn.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> People of no talent are still expecting to be taken seriously - and unfortunately _are_ taken seriously - for stuff that really hasn't "moved on."


Talentless composers are particularly hard for me to come by, to tell you the truth, that I am starting to think that composition has a much more complex relationship between craft, creativity and communication.

By the way, why is it unfortunate that creative people are taken seriously?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

shirime said:


> Talentless composers are particularly hard for me to come by, to tell you the truth, that I am starting to think that composition has a much more complex relationship between craft, creativity and communication.
> 
> By the way, why is it unfortunate that creative people are taken seriously?


Nobody said it was.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The development of YouTube and digital sound/video, particularly the former, have allowed those with perhaps some minimal creativity, but apparently little or no talent to proclaim themselves artists and composers. Sometimes these people are very enthusiastic and charismatic and manage to surround themselves with naive followers. If examples of this (eg. doing surgery on a piano) are used in a thread, then, inevitably, that can be the focus of the thread.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Nobody said it was.


Why is it unfortunate for someone to be taken seriously for their work?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

shirime said:


> In that thread I made recently that seems to be giving people (including me) a rather sick feeling in the stomach whenever we go back to read it, I have noticed a few comments surrounding the idea of whether a particular music is music at all, or another art form. But, I stress, let's not get back to that particular piece of music too soon until you've read the rest of this post.
> I think it's definitely a valid point to make about anything that departs with our preconceptions of what music is, can be, or perhaps _should_ be.
> One of my favourite composers at the moment is Elena Rykova. On her website she refers to herself as both a composer and visual artist, but what I particularly love about her approach to music is the way she has been able to bring her knowledge and passion for art into composition. Her scores are magnificently beautiful, in exactly the way we might find a painting beautiful. Not only that, but she has worked extensively to combine aspects of theatre and musical performance with visual art, as she also mentions on her website.
> The initial thing that strikes me as interesting about interdisciplinary works such as the ones she creates links to the idea of Gesamtkunstwerk. Wikipedia tells me that the first use of the term was made by German philosopher K. F. E. Trahndorff in 1827, certainly predating Wagner's more well known use of the term. It's interesting to see how the concept has taken in new directions in recent years.
> ...


The Greeks did not use music separately; it was always in conjunction with staged action. Ballet reflects this.

Yes, musical scores are considered as art; there have been books on this, such as "Notations" by John Cage. In Cage's time in New York, the art scene and music scenes were intertwined. This is reflected in Philip Glass' interest in dance pieces and opera.

There seem to be a large disconnect between traditional music lovers and those listeners who are also conversant with concepts of art. In fact, the whole approach of "music as art" seems to elude those who would rather just listen to opera, or whatever other classical music, and just be entertained and leave it at that.

Some of Stockhausen's scores are extremely interesting. One of them is a scroll. I think Cage did a score as a scroll as well. Cage also used transparent sheets which were placed over other sheets. 
Allan Ginsberg's "Howl" poem was typed on a long scroll of paper which he would roll up and carry around. This has roots in Jewish scripture.
It was only by the time of public concert halls that music was listened to separately, without dramatic action. Still, the vestiges are there, which I discuss as "musical gesture" in my blog on this subject.

https://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/millionrainbows/1069-instrumental-music-dramatic-gesture.html


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

If I don't like a composer who many more knowledgeable that I think is worthwhile I immediately assume that the composer is a talentless con artist and that all those who are taken in by their music must be cloth eared morons. What other explanation could there be? It can't be, surely, that my taste is just my taste?

When people post that sort of stuff about Mozart or Beethoven it astonishes us and we point out the inconsistency of the position.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> *If I don't like a composer who many more knowledgeable that I think is worthwhile I immediately assume that the composer is a talentless con artist and that all those who are taken in by their music must be cloth eared morons. *What other explanation could there be? It can't be, surely, that my taste is just my taste?
> 
> When people post that sort of stuff about Mozart or Beethoven it astonishes us and we point out the inconsistency of the position.


This is unclear. Can you rephrase? Are you saying that when you're unable to appreciate music of acknowledged excellence you blame the composer?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> You must have a very sharp blade for splitting hairs. I see no "initial joke"; if there's a joke, it's sustained throughout. I saw no score and heard nothing I'd recognize as music if I were merely listening, and the only element missing, by your description of theater, is speech, which is not an essential of theater...I guess some would call this sort of thing "performance art." I don't really care what it's called.





Woodduck said:


> I call them theater pieces because they consist of sets containing costumed actors doing something. I don't know whether they "work" on any terms. They do nothing for me, but if they do something for you that's fine. My main point is that they don't "blur" any art forms, and I really don't know what that means anyway. Art forms can be _combined,_ and have been since we wore masks and danced and chanted around the village fire pit.


Yet, hairs are split in contention with the OP, that these works "blur" the line between theatre and music. Does this indicate an inability to see "hair-splitting distinctions of "blurred" art forms" (in itself a term which avoids precise distinctions), or simply indicative of a very strict, specific definition of what music is supposed to be?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

shirime said:


> Actually a couple of years ago I saw an exhibition at an art gallery here that was showcasing unconventional music notation from the 20th and 21st centuries........Stockhausen was in there and I found that to be quite interesting from the point of view of enjoying some visual art.
> 
> This is the 'tacky' piece, and it is a little tacky imo, but fun! To me it seems closer to a more conventional idea of a concert performance of a piece of music.....but I can see what you are talking about:


This is excellent, as well as entertaining. The piece seems to be playing on the idea of "music as gesture," complete with a "conductor." Many times the players are gesturing to music which is clearly not made by them, which further comments on the "music as gesture" idea. It's hilarious in places. I like it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

shirime said:


> To me, these more adequately blurs the line between different artistic disciplines than the Schubert:


This piece seems to be commenting on the trend of going inside the piano to create novel effects, started by Henry Cowell in his Aeolean Harp, all the way to John Cage's "prepared" piano, and his Variations IV (1960) in which David Tudor produces sounds from a piano by scraping a contact microphone along the strings.

But putting "action" to this, in the form of "piano surgeons," is a delightful idea, because it "gives meaning," albeit rather humorous, to these "avant-garde" sounds. But what's wrong with humor? We could use some in the 21st century.

Also, by combining dramatic or theatrical action with "avant-garde" sounds, it is an ironic and unlikely reuniting of the old Greek idea of music and drama being inseparable. Avant-garde sounds with Greek drama. Who woulda thunk? Very entertaining, as well!

Note that Stockhausen also used percussion in his piano piece Mantra:


In closing, I'd like to say that this piece does, indeed, consist of many varied sounds, which are music (that seemed to be a point of contention, that there was "no music or sounds" in it).

Also, the piece contains so many references, humorous and otherwise, to modern works that, unless the listener is conversant in modern music, he will not "get" this at all. 
I was frankly quite disappointed in the responses here, and the criticism leveled at this piece, since I immediately tuned-in to it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Yet, hairs are split in contention with the OP, that these works "blur" the line between theatre and music. Does this indicate an inability to see "hair-splitting distinctions of "blurred" art forms" (in itself a term which avoids precise distinctions), or simply indicative of a very strict, specific definition of what music is supposed to be?
> 
> ...putting "action" to this, in the form of "piano surgeons," is a delightful idea, because it "gives meaning," albeit rather humorous, to these "avant-garde" sounds. But what's wrong with humor? We could use some in the 21st century.


I've already presented my view that those pieces are essentially surrealist theater. The sounds produced by the "surgeons" are whimsical imitations of music, just as their outfits make them whimsical imitations of surgeons. If you think the noises they're making are actual music because the "composer" or someone else says they are (based, presumably, on some nonstrict, nonspecific definition of "what music is supposed to be"), and that the whole thing is a "concert in costume" or some such thing, suit yourself. But if sounds made by actors are not necessarily music just because someone is producing them, someone is expecting us to listen to them, and someone is calling them music, then nothing is "blurred."

What's avant-garde about any of this by the way? People have been doing stuff like this for nearly a century, haven't they?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> This piece seem _(sic)_ to be commenting on the trend of going inside the piano to create novel effects, started by Henry Cowell in his Aeolean Harp, all the way to John Cage's "prepared" piano, and his Variations IV (1960) in which David Tudor produces sounds from a piano by scraping a contact microphone along the strings.
> 
> But what's wrong with humor? We could use some in the 21st century.


_Seems_ is the appropriate word, since it relies upon purely speculative interpretation.

As for humour, I thought it hilarious..albeit unintentionally. Who needs intentionality?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

shirime said:


> To me, these more adequately blurs the line between different artistic disciplines than the Schubert:


This piece also uses techniques pioneered by avant-garde artists of the day: John Cage with his "Variations IV (1960)" and other instances of using contact microphones to amplify minute sounds and vibrations, and Karlheinz Stockhausen in his piece "Mikrofinie" in which a uni-directional condenser mike is moved along the surface of a ringing gong to amplify the "microscopic" sounds of the gong's noise-wave, which sounds as sine-tones (pure pitched tones with no harmonics to speak of). This reveals to us that even "noise" actually consists of sustained discreet pitches which, when combined, sound to us like noise. These men were "sonic explorers," and encouraged us to do the same. BTW, a contact microphone is a special type of microphone which does not pick up sound waves, but only responds to vibrations.

By giving this procedure of amplifying "microscopic" sounds, it pays homage to these past works, as well as providing a humorous "bone" for the uninformed to chew on. At once a humorous dismissal, using a collection of sounds and the facade of a "ping-pong" match, it is also conceptual, in that it is a post-modern comment on the avant-garde and how it might be made "palatable" as entertainment. It seems that most "theatre goers" are unable to consider "sound by itself" and need some sort of "prop" to give it at least a minimum of meaning. This is ironic, biting humor at its best. "The roar of the greasepaint, the smell of the crowd..." But hey, can'tcha take a joke? :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I've already presented my view that those pieces are essentially surrealist theater.


The sounds are very much music. Before I had seen and listened to the videos myself, from reading your description I would have expected random, incidental to the action, barely audible sounds; but I was pleasantly surprised at some of the techniques being used, which produced sounds from the piano similar to other pieces in this tradition of Henry Cowell, Cage, and Stockhausen.

Yes, this has a strong theatrical element, which is so integrated and inseparable from the sounds being made, being a comment on them, that it seems totally melded and inseparable.

The sounds produced by the "surgeons" are whimsical imitations of music, just as their outfits make them whimsical imitations of surgeons.

No, the sounds are music, by my definition. After all, they're coming from a piano. The outfits are theatrical props, which make a humorous comment.

If you think the noises they're making are actual music because the "composer" or someone else says they are (based, presumably, on some non-strict, non-specific definition of "what music is supposed to be")...

No, I hear this as music (which was intended to be heard as such); I enjoy sound like this. I call it music.

...and that the whole thing is a "concert in costume" or some such thing, suit yourself.

Yes, that's what I already said earlier. Why do you seem to want to create conflict about this? This music was made for people with similar taste as mine, obviously.

...if sounds made by actors are not necessarily music just because someone is producing them, someone is expecting us to listen to them, and someone is calling them music, then nothing is "blurred."

The fact that the music is combined with theatrical devices which comment on the music, totally integrated in meaning, then it truly is a "blurred" or melded version of music/theatre. But you can only see that if you "get" what is being done here artistically, which you obviously do not.

What's avant-garde about any of this by the way? People have been doing stuff like this for nearly a century, haven't they?

That's way too literal. This is modern music, using the past works and traditions of Cage, Cowell, and Stockhausen. You seem to have no problem with other "classical" music being derived from tradition.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
_
This piece seems to be commenting on the trend of going inside the piano to create novel effects, started by Henry Cowell in his Aeolean Harp, all the way to John Cage's "prepared" piano, and his Variations IV (1960) in which David Tudor produces sounds from a piano by scraping a contact microphone along the strings.

But what's wrong with humor? We could use some in the 21st century._



eugeneonagain said:


> _Seems_ is the appropriate word, since it relies upon purely speculative interpretation.


_Seems_ is just a figure of speech that I used. If that's all you've got, that's desperate.
Yes, this is music to me. I can't prove it, though, and you can't prove that it's not. It's the same old rational, definition-fueled arguments that keep resurfacing. Try again.

As for humour, I thought it hilarious..albeit unintentionally. Who needs intentionality?

You just see it that way because, I'm afraid, the joke is intended for a certain type of mindset which needs "concrete morsels" to digest. And _we_ were laughing first. :lol:

By the way, shirime, you've been making some beautiful posts lately. Kudos!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The sounds are very much music. 

What is music? Any sounds made by anyone or anything? Any sounds that someone says are music?

Before I had seen and listened to the videos myself, from reading your description I would have expected random, incidental to the action, barely audible sounds;

An unwarranted expectation.

but I was pleasantly surprised at some of the techniques being used, which produced sounds from the piano similar to other pieces in this tradition of Henry Cowell, Cage, and Stockhausen.

So what if they're similar to something else?

Yes, this has a strong theatrical element, which is so integrated and inseparable from the sounds being made, being a comment on them, that it seems totally melded and inseparable.

How are people dressed as surgeons performing a mock operation inside a piano a "comment" on anything? The piece makes no coherent comment on either music or surgery. It's a (slightly) amusing bit of surrealist incongruity. The only comments I see are those of people eager to make it all seem "significant."

However, had this been created by a known comedian instead of a "composer" pushing "concepts," it might very well be read as a comment on the pseudo-scientific strain of Modernism, implying that contemporary composers are more like surgeons than artists, dissecting music and offering severed body parts in place of organic art.

Hey, that's pretty good!

The sounds are music, by my definition. After all, they're coming from a piano. 

Yes, and toxic sludge comes out of water pipes in Flint.

The outfits are theatrical props, which make a humorous comment.

On what? ( but see my brilliant interpretation above ).

Why do you seem to want to create conflict about this? This music was made for people with similar taste as mine, obviously.

So people with different views can just **** off?

The fact that the music is combined with theatrical devices which comment on the music, totally integrated in meaning, then it truly is a "blurred" or melded version of music/theatre. 

In multimedia work, the media are not "blurred" just because they occur together. Opera doesn't "blur" music and acting.

But you can only see that if you "get" what is being done here artistically, which you obviously do not.

"Obviously" you have one concept of what this is while I have another. Be more modest in judging others' capacity for understanding things.

This is modern music, using the past works and traditions of Cage, Cowell, and Stockhausen. You seem to have no problem with other "classical" music being derived from tradition.

"Using" things people have done before proves nothing about what this thing is.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> _Seems_ is just a figure of speech that I used. If that's all you've got, that's desperate.
> Yes, this is music to me. I can't prove it, though, and you can't prove that it's not. It's the same old rational, definition-fueled arguments that keep resurfacing. Try again.


I don't need to try, you're doing a fine job by yourself. Your perverse fascination with all this means you _must_ consider it music, or the whole edifice you've built for yourself comes crashing down. 





millionrainbows said:


> You just see it that way because, I'm afraid, the joke is intended for a certain type of mindset which needs "concrete morsels" to digest. And _we_ were laughing first. :lol:


I can quite believe it. A certain mindset that sees anything in anything and has a suitable borrowed vocabulary for telling everyone about it - a bit of Eckhart Toll, a couple of chapters of _L'être et le néant _(or a quick-read exegesis) and some common or garden woo - makes a fine medium for some art criticism that says nothing.

Laughing or being laughed at? While you're busy laughing squire, art moves on. You're trapped in the art world of 60 years ago. Nothing avant-garde about that.:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The sounds are very much music.
> 
> What is music? Any sounds made by anyone or anything? Any sounds that someone says are music?


Partly; if an artist presents his work as music, I accept that it is, and proceed accordingly. If John Cage suggests, as in 4'33", that I listen to the sounds around me as music, then I accept that suggestion. Of course, he is really not defining those sounds as music; he simply wants us to listen with awareness to all sounds, and accept them as we would accept music. This sort of "de-mystifies" the idea of music, and puts everything into perspective.



Woodduck said:


> Before I had seen and listened to the videos myself, from reading your description I would have expected random, incidental to the action, barely audible sounds;
> 
> An unwarranted expectation.


I'm just going by your description of it, which I feel was misleading and biased.



Woodduck said:


> but I was pleasantly surprised at some of the techniques being used, which produced sounds from the piano similar to other pieces in this tradition of Henry Cowell, Cage, and Stockhausen.
> 
> So what if they're similar to something else?


No, this piece is commenting on the specific sources I mentioned.



Woodduck said:


> Yes, this has a strong theatrical element, which is so integrated and inseparable from the sounds being made, being a comment on them, that it seems totally melded and inseparable.
> 
> How are people dressed as surgeons performing a mock operation inside a piano a "comment" on anything?


They provide a theatrical element which puts a new "meaning context" on the kind of modern music he is referencing. If you wanted, you could interpret it as poking fun at contemporary music as well. In this sense, though, we would be entering a more purely conceptual realm in which the concept/comment was more important than the sounds themselves; I can't prove the artist's intent on this point, but the sounds themselves seem to have been carefully and thoughtfully planned out, to be accepted worthy of consideration in themselves; but who can really know? this is art, and this is just what I think. What do you think? Or would you rather go on commenting on what I think?



Woodduck said:


> The piece makes no coherent comment on either music or surgery. It's a (slightly) amusing bit of surrealist incongruity. The only comments I see are those of people eager to make it all seem "significant."


I see it completely differently, as an informed post-modern commentary on modern music, complete with "situation comedy" content, used as a sort of "bait" for those who need something to grasp on to, since music doesn't seem to satisfy their cravings. In lieu of that, there is the surrealist aspect of it, as a "default" interpretation for the uninformed.



Woodduck said:


> However, had this been created by a known comedian instead of a "composer" pushing "concepts," it might very well be read as a comment on the pseudo-scientific strain of Modernism, implying that contemporary composers are more like surgeons than artists, dissecting music and offering severed body parts in place of organic art.


It might be just what you said; we can't prove anything, or know the true intention of the artist. A conceptual artist need not be pigeonholed by terms like "composer" or "comedian." There is an element of humor in it.



Woodduck said:


> Hey, that's pretty good!


Yes, that is more positive, since you are expressing your own opinion instead of negatively commenting on mine.



Woodduck said:


> The sounds are music, by my definition. After all, they're coming from a piano.
> 
> Yes, and toxic sludge comes out of water pipes in Flint.


But this is not toxic sludge coming out of a water pipe in Flint; the use of a real piano, and the way it is used, is a definite commentary on modern music traditions, and also lends a sense of seriousness to the proceedings, as if trhe music should be considered as substantial. They could have used pre-recorded sounds, such as the splashing sounds of toxic sludge.



Woodduck said:


> The outfits are theatrical props, which make a humorous comment.
> 
> On what? ( but see my brilliant interpretation above ).


When you quote me out of context like that, the reply does come across rather inane; but this was just another reply to your feigned "incomprehension" of the art. I'm going along with the notion that this is an actual discussion, and not just a toxic sludge-slinging festival in Flint, Michigan.



Woodduck said:


> Why do you seem to want to create conflict about this? This music was made for people with similar taste as mine, obviously.
> 
> So people with different views can just **** off?


No, but they can reply with a little more civility, and treat this more like a discussion.



Woodduck said:


> The fact that the music is combined with theatrical devices which comment on the music, totally integrated in meaning, then it truly is a "blurred" or melded version of music/theatre.
> 
> In multimedia work, the media are not "blurred" just because they occur together. Opera doesn't "blur" music and acting.


I wouldn't call this an opera, since there is no real plot; it seems to be a conceptual commentary above all, using modern music from a certain time in history as its subject and musical content. It's in some sort of in-between area. Opera is a historically developed form; this is something else, and something newer. You no likey?



Woodduck said:


> But you can only see that if you "get" what is being done here artistically, which you obviously do not.
> 
> "Obviously" you have one concept of what this is while I have another. Be more modest in judging others' capacity for understanding things.


Then stop acting as if you don't understand it, and simply say you don't like it if you don't.



Woodduck said:


> This is modern music, using the past works and traditions of Cage, Cowell, and Stockhausen. You seem to have no problem with other "classical" music being derived from tradition.
> 
> "Using" things people have done before proves nothing about what this thing is.


Nobody can prove anything in art; "proof" is irrelevant. But this piece does use earlier examples, which I cited, of "inside the cabinet" piano techniques and works; so that suggests strongly that this is a commentary on those works and procedures.

What I don't understand is why you can't also see that the humor in this might be a double-edged sword, which could play to your advantage in this toxic sludge-slinging fest you are apparently trying to create.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
_Yes, this is music to me. I can't prove it, though, and you can't prove that it's not. It's the same old rational, definition-fueled arguments that keep resurfacing. Try again._



eugeneonagain said:


> I don't need to try, you're doing a fine job by yourself. Your perverse fascination with all this means you _must_ consider it music, or the whole edifice you've built for yourself comes crashing down.


I don't see it that way. As I said, I consider this to be music, under the broader umbrella of art. I'm commenting on the videos which were posted, not building an edifice for the defense against anyone's onslaughts.









Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
_You just see it that way because, I'm afraid, the joke is intended for a certain type of mindset which needs "concrete morsels" to digest. And we were laughing first. _




eugeneonagain said:


> I can quite believe it. A certain mindset that sees anything in anything and has a suitable borrowed vocabulary for telling everyone about it.


You seem more interested in commenting on my contributions to this thread topic than you do with the ideas under consideration.



eugeneonagain said:


> ...a bit of Eckhart Toll (sic)...


To be honest with you, I'd never heard of Eckhart Tolle before this. I like him, he seems sincere. Oprah Winfrey likes him so he can't be all bad. In fact, WOW! Thanks for turning me on to this guy! I think he's fantastic.



eugeneonagain said:


> ...a couple of chapters of _L'être et le néant _(or a quick-read exegesis)


That French means "Being and Nothingness," and, yes, I really like Sartre. Not so much that book, but his book on Genet. That's really killer.



eugeneonagain said:


> and some common or garden woo -


I don't know what that means. Is it a reference to marijuana?



eugeneonagain said:


> makes a fine medium for some art criticism that says nothing.


Well, I never promised you a rose garden. What do you want me to do, write a book?



eugeneonagain said:


> Laughing or being laughed at? While you're busy laughing squire, art moves on. You're trapped in the art world of 60 years ago. Nothing avant-garde about that.:lol:


I'm just commenting on the piano-surgeons video, which makes definite reference to piano music of 60 years ago.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't see it that way. As I said, I consider this to be music, under the broader umbrella of art. I'm commenting on the videos which were posted, not building an edifice for the defense against anyone's onslaughts.


I didn't say you were building it for defence against onslaughts. Perhaps you're doing it as some sort of hobby. What do you mean 'under the broad umbrella of art'? If that's your reference point why isn't it just theatre employing the guise of music?



millionrainbows said:


> You seem more interested in commenting on my contributions to this thread topic than you do with the ideas under consideration.


I am commenting in reply to your commentary on the topic. That's also 'on topic'.



millionrainbows said:


> To be honest with you, I'd never heard of Eckhart Tolle before this. I like him, he seems sincere. Oprah Winfrey likes him so he can't be all bad. In fact, WOW! Thanks for turning me on to this guy! I think he's fantastic.


I knew he would appeal to you...or maybe not, your attempt at irony is not particularly subtle.



millionrainbows said:


> That French means "Being and Nothingness," and, yes, I really like Sartre. Not so much that book, but his book on Genet. That's really killer.


Thanks for the translation. His book on Genet is indeed good. And his Roads to Freedom trilogy. He was more interesting as a novelist.



millionrainbows said:


> I don't know what that means. Is it a reference to marijuana?


You tell me.



millionrainbows said:


> Well, I never promised you a rose garden. What do you want me to do, write a book?


It's a kind offer, but not for me thanks, but it will probably sell well. There's a large market for deliberately prolix waffle.



millionrainbows said:


> I'm just commenting on the piano-surgeons video, which makes *definite* reference to piano music of 60 years ago.


Fair enough, but maybe 'definite' is a bit certain. And if it is doing that then it's pretty much second-hand, second-rate work. Excuse me now while I go and write a set of preludes employing the whole-tone scale...I am after all a serious artist at the cutting edge of art.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

shirime said:


> Why is it unfortunate for someone to be taken seriously for their work?


That is an interesting question. Which opens up others for me. Is the composer taking him/herself seriously or expecting others to. Does it matter if the answer is no?

I think John Cage's most interesting work is Music of Changes. There are an infinite number of interpretations of what the music means, beyond anything Cage could imagine himself. I think this music by Rykova, also the one by A. Schubert are obviously more composed and at times seem to mimic the sound of a cabinet holding plates giving way, a certain cascading effect (which I feel has become a sort of cliche) amongst some other things. That limits the number of interpretations for me, which is why I find it less interesting.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

shirime said:


> Questions for us to think about and respond to:
> What do you think of interdisciplinary works?
> .......
> Would earlier works, such as early Ballet, be in the same category, or are there clearer separations between the different art forms that make up the entertainment as a whole?
> ...


I think that what you call interdisciplinary is linked to avant-garde, Futurism, Dada, conceptual and performance art.

So early on you had Alfred Jarry (or Ubu Roi), Dada proper (the Cabaret Voltaire during WWI), Satie's Vexations, the Italian Futurists with various music machines, Duchamp.

Post WWII you had things like this:

Cage (of course) eg. 4'33", Water Walk, HPSCHD
Yves Klein's Chord piece
La Monte Young Piano Piece for David Tudor

I would group these with them, although they are more conventional in comparison:
Stockhausen Tierkreis
Crumb Voice of the Whale
Feldman String Quartet 2

Others like music by Harry Partch also resists boundaries and has performance as a central aspect of it, rejecting Western music between Bach and Schoenberg, and going towards ancient European, Asian and African traditions.

I think the score has always in some ways related to the music played. Peter Sculthorpe made the observation that music which looks good on the page tends to sound good, and that it can also mirror things like landscape. He gave the example of his own music which mirrors the flat landscapes of Australia. In contrast, he said that the scores of Mahler and Bruckner have groups of notes looking like the valleys and mountains of Austria.

I think ballet is different from interdisciplinary pieces. In the past though you did have similar things going on. Mozart's serenades would rarely be played as they are today, with one movement coming after the other. Often during parties they would be played by different groups in different rooms of a palace. This happens during the movie Amadeus, where his own and others (what looks like a folk or gypsy band) is being played simultaneously during a party. Cage, Stockhausen and others would do similar things post-1945, incorporating electronics and such.

What do I personally think about this? Generally speaking, not a fan, although it is part of art whether we like it or not. There is a scene in the Italian movie The Great Beauty (La Grande Bellezza) where a girl is forced by her father to do a performance art piece, making a painting in front of a crowd of rich art fans and critics. Its nothing more than an expression of her anger towards her father, although the crowd thinks its a brilliant piece by a prodigy. I think that this is an exaggerated but fair representation of how clichéd and pretentious this sort of direction in the arts this has become.


----------

