# Other musics



## Guest (Jan 23, 2014)

Online discussions of music are pretty firmly fixed (fixated) on tonality, "atonality," and serialism.

As if those were the only things to talk about.

Here's a very small sampler of other things.

Enjoy!!


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I guess it depends on whether one's personal definition of music is sufficiently catholic. I'd like to think that mine reaches to late Nono. But maybe that's because I know that he is a highly regarded composer. Regardless, I've found that basic training in meditation can be of great help when listening to, shall we say, more unconventional sound creations: to simply perceive the present moment non-judgementally. (Cross out the simply, of course.) Or would anyone recommend a different approach?


----------



## Rhythm (Nov 2, 2013)

This video shows a wildly dissimilar kind of art, some guy, but still fascinating, I think; the music is digital, too, as you'll hear.





^ Youtube notes. Box explores the synthesis of real and digital space through projection-mapping on moving surfaces. The short film documents a live performance, captured entirely in camera.

It's also been posted at Vimeo.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Other Musics: I find the music of the modern avant garde extremely fascinating. Recommendations? Richard Barrett, Helmut Lachenmann, Salvatore Sciarrino, Hans-Joachim Hespos and Hans Kox, to name some of my favorites. 

There are also Gamelan, Indian, Japanese and Persian musical traditions which are very rich and exciting.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2014)

Lope, yes. I recommend it.



From your list, it looks like you might like Mark Andre and Julio Estrada, too. And maybe Chaya Czernowin.

But I always recommend going beyond your list. Whoever you are and whatever your list is.

Until there are no lists. (But still Liszt. Gotta have Liszt, no matter what.)

Francis Dhomont. Simon Steen-Andersen. Mike Boyd. Ellen Fullman. Eliane Radigue. Maryanne Amacher. eRikm. And so forth.

(I can't believe that I just made two lists.)

Rhythm, that was a fabulous video. I liked the images more than the music, but the whole effect was still pretty cool. Thanks!!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

some guy said:


> Online discussions of music are pretty firmly fixed (fixated) on tonality, "atonality," and serialism.


Not with me. Might be with some of those who like to start threads, but they certainly don't represent us all. My position is that music is music and narrowly categorising things is of limited use. I know there's a wide variety of music and that music mixes styles together as well.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

That's why I started this thread, starry. 

For us.

I'm tired of hearing about serialism. It's fine. It did some things. Some people still use it. But it is not and never has been the only game in town.

Now, here's our chance to talk about the other games in town, yay!!:trp:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

That fluxus link (Klassen) is down right hilarious! I would categorize it closer to performance art than music myself though. The Brummer piece and the collaborative work (Dafeldecker and others) seemed interesting.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

I'll tell ya what's hilarious. The fluxus folks seriously wanted to break down boundaries, to question categories.

But all it took was somebody coming up with with "performance art," and bob's your uncle.

Sometimes you just can't win. (It was probably a fluxus person who came up with "performance art," too. Anyone know off hand? I know, I can just ask Google.... Well, Google is just as confused as a real person would be.)


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Superficial stuff, in my opinion. It degrades the serious compositional efforts that others strive for (now and the past). The first clip of some clown throwing two eggs on the wall etc. that's the sort of act I would expect my three year old neighbor's boy would do when there is no desert after dinner. Really, we can all say it's interesting, fascinating, challenging, ......, yes, but so what?


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

some guy said:


> Online discussions of music are pretty firmly fixed (fixated) on tonality, "atonality," and serialism.
> 
> As if those were the only things to talk about.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the invitation. In response, I'd like answer the question, "Did you enjoy?"

1. No. Not at all.
2. Yes. Quite a lot, actually.
3. I haven't got 46 mins spare to pay close attention at the moment - I might come back to it.
4. A mite scary, tense. I couldn't continue past about 7 minutes.
5. I liked this. It made the hairs on the back of my neck prickle. Like wandering round the Black Mesa facility in Half Life! I assume that's a Kaoss pad he's playing? I still didn't have the stamina for the whole 17 minutes.

For me, it raises the question, "Do you trust the performer to keep you safe and does it matter if you don't?"


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

For me, it raises the question: "How do you tell if it was a fine performance, or does it not even matter at all, only that it was just performed"? If latter, then it implies some serious problems with it.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Superficial stuff, in my opinion. It degrades the serious compositional efforts that others strive for (now and the past). The first clip of some clown throwing two eggs on the wall etc. that's the sort of act I would expect my three year old neighbor's boy would do when there is no desert after dinner. Really, we can all say it's interesting, fascinating, challenging, ......, yes, but so what?


Well, as somebody who puts forth serious compositional efforts (and therefore has some authority to speak on the matter), I don't feel this work degrades my efforts.

Some of the fluxus pieces that some guy likes, like the first one linked... I'm not sure I'd consider it music, but that doesn't have anything to do with quality. I just don't view the work as being an artwork where the focused medium is sound. Like, sure there are sounds occurring, but those aren't the art, they're a by-product. At least thats how I see it. I could be totally wrong, and the artist intended the sounds produced from those actions to be the whole point of performing those actions, but from what I've read and seen of fluxus works, it feels like its the actions, what we see, and what they are doing, that are the art. Of course, my view on this matter is open to change ^^

edit: I might add that the second comment is relating solely to that first piece you linked Some Guy. I consider all of the other pieces to be musical works.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

two other examples


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Superficial stuff, in my opinion. It degrades the serious compositional efforts that others strive for (now and the past). The first clip of some clown throwing two eggs on the wall etc. that's the sort of act I would expect my three year old neighbor's boy would do when there is no desert after dinner. Really, we can all say it's interesting, fascinating, challenging, ......, yes, but so what?


What I admire so much about Dali's paintings is the breathtaking craftsmanship with which he expresses his ideas. I have not had the fortune to see any of his paintings in the original, but the reproductions are more than enough to boggle my mind. I find that in Dali, craft and concept converge in the highest possible degree of mastery. And even if one were to discard the sujets of his works as nonsense, one would still be left with his stupendous technique.

There is an aura which surrounds outstanding technical ability. If it is absent, or at least not perceivable, one is left with what might be called ingeniuity, spontaneity, conceptual thinking, ideas. All that can be incredible, but it lacks the aura of intimidating technical ability, achieved, most probably, through endless hours of drill. Technique without ideas might be pointless, but it's humbling none the less.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Andreas said:


> I have not had the fortune to see any of his paintings in the original[...]


They are, for the most part, disappointingly tiny.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

ArtMusic said:


> For me, it raises the question: "How do you tell if it was a fine performance, or does it not even matter at all, only that it was just performed"? If latter, then it implies some serious problems with it.


If you don't have another performance to compare something to you have to use your imagination, same with any music.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

Well, I don't go to concerts to be safe.

And I don't value performances because they intimidate or humble me.

In all of those, the focus is on me. I go to concerts, I listen to music, to experience something that's not me. I already know me. And I'm fine. But I'm not the only thing. There are other things. I go to concerts, to museums, to libraries, to cities and countries and forests and mountains to experience things other than myself.

Norman, the first link you provided took me to a defective video.

This one worked, though:


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

some guy said:


> Well, I don't go to concerts to be safe.
> 
> And I don't value performances because they intimidate or humble me.
> 
> In all of those, the focus is on me. I go to concerts, I listen to music, to experience something that's not me. I already know me. And I'm fine. But I'm not the only thing. There are other things. I go to concerts, to museums, to libraries, to cities and countries and forests and mountains to experience things other than myself.


That's fine. I don't. In such circumstances, the only things are me and the artist.

I note that despite the fact that you are offered some genuine responses to what you've offered, you still prefer to reject the premise on which those responses are offered. It's ironic that you don't seem to consider anyone else other than yourself.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

Meh...

1234567890


----------

