# Striated and Smooth Space.



## Mandryka

This is something which Boulez discussed in his lectures in Darmstadt. It was later taken up by Deleuze and Guatari, hence my interest. Can someone explain to me what it is? I need a magazine type intro, Scientific American level.


----------



## millionrainbows

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Thousand_Plateaus

I think you'll have to read the book.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Thousand_Plateaus
> 
> I think you'll have to read the book.


That's not gonna happen. I have given up on French philosophy, I just can't make sense of it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> That's not gonna happen. I have given up on French philosophy, I just can't make sense of it.


Sartre is probably my favorite. I'm getting into Foucault now.

(WIK) Of A Thousand Plateaus, the book has been considered to be a major statement of post-structuralism and postmodernism, especially starting in the late 20th century.

The book is written in a non-linear, allusive fashion. The reader is explicitly warned not to set down roots and read A Thousand Plateaus in order, but to choose a new "plateau" or page and begin again "from ground zero" at each plateau, as long as they read the introduction first and the conclusion last.

In plateaux (chapters) of the book, they discuss psychoanalysts (Freud, Jung, Lacan-who trained Guattari and Melanie Klein), composers (Chopin, Debussy, Mozart, Pierre Boulez, and Olivier Messiaen), artists (Klee, Kandinsky, and Pollock), philosophers (Husserl, Foucault, Bergson, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Gilbert Simondon), historians (Ibn Khaldun, Georges Dumézil, and Fernand Braudel), and linguists (Chomsky, Labov, Benveniste, Guillaume, Austin, Hjelmslev, and Voloshinov).

(Me) It sounds a lot like the way Marshall McLuhan wrote & thought. I was finally able to understand McLuhan when a friend suggested that I "read it like poetry." Quit looking for precise meanings and definitions, and realize that the author is "probing for meaning." This is what I think is meant by an "experimental" work.


----------



## Mandryka

I have tried many times to read Foucault's _Les Mots et Les Choses,_ and Foucault to his credit is a fabulous writer in French. There are unforgettable purple passages of prose. The problem I have is that it's very technical, in the sense that it relies on a lot of detail in the history of ideas. My feeling is that I'd need to be part of a graduate class which was looking at it carefully over a few weeks to get more than the most superficial understanding.

Deleuze just seems so antithetical to my Oxford analytic training, I almost give up hope of ever appreciating it. I once got into a real fight, fists, with a German philosopher over Heidegger's concept of being - I said it made no sense and that Heidegger just had failed to ask a real question. I think the same would happen if I went to a Deleuze class. That guy said that I needed to read Heidegger as poetry. But that means giving up my critical faculties, and I'm far to **** for that . . .

(Those stars are there because of the word which Freud used to contrast an oral personality. Quite why **** should not be allowed and oral be allowed I don't know. This forum is well and truly rubbish.)

By the way, if you're interested in Foucaut the man, especially from a Queer point of view, I just read something very amusing, called _Ce Que L'aimer Veut Dire _by Matthieu Lindon. Lindon was born into the family who run Editions Minuit - Beckett's and Robbe-Grillet's publishers - and he lived with Fouccault at the end of his life. I think it's been translated.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> I have tried many times to read Foucault's _Les Mots et Les Choses,_ and Foucault to his credit is a fabulous writer in French. There are unforgettable purple passages of prose. The problem I have is that it's very technical, in the sense that it relies on a lot of detail in the history of ideas. My feeling is that I'd need to be part of a graduate class which was looking at it carefully over a few weeks to get more than the most superficial understanding.
> 
> Deleuze just seems so antithetical to my Oxford analytic training, I almost give up hope of ever appreciating it. I once got into a real fight, fists, with a German philosopher over Heidegger's concept of being - I said it made no sense and that Heidegger just had failed to ask a real question. I think the same would happen if I went to a Deleuze class. That guy said that I needed to read Heidegger as poetry. But that means giving up my critical faculties, and I'm far to **** for that . . .
> 
> (Those stars are there because of the word which Freud used to contrast an oral personality. Quite why **** should not be allowed and oral be allowed I don't know. This forum is well and truly rubbish.)
> 
> By the way, if you're interested in Foucaut the man, especially from a Queer point of view, I just read something very amusing, called _Ce Que L'aimer Veut Dire _by Matthieu Lindon. Lindon was born into the family who run Editions Minuit - Beckett's and Robbe-Grillet's publishers - and he lived with Fouccault at the end of his life. I think it's been translated.


Oxford, huh? That must be why. Yes, I'd like to know more about Foucault the man, especially in connection with Barraque. I'll see about that book, thank you.


----------



## Mandryka

Someone has just told me that the book to read to start to understand this stuff is by Félix Guitari himself -- _Qu'est-ce que la philosophie? _published by Minuit. Or failing that, François Dosse's biography _Gilles Deleuze et Félix Guattari : biographie croisée._ It turns out that both are available at the London Instut Français library, so I'll pick them up this weekend hopefully.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT

Dave Harris has written intelligently and extensively on the work of Deleuze & Guattari. Although Harris admits to finding _A Thousand Plateaus_ unreadable (the authors, he notes, have made it unreadable deliberately, because they are arguing throughout that we need new ways of conceiving of the world which break out of conventions, conventional classifications, celebrate multiplicity and making creative connections), his web page is helpful in that he does his very best to make various notions intelligible, including the smooth and the striated, to those of us not endowed with a preternatural volume of gray matter.

Professor Harris also has a 12-part lecture series called "Deleuze for the Desperate" on YouTube.

https://www.arasite.org/TPch14.html


----------



## Woodduck

RICK RIEKERT said:


> Harris admits to finding _A Thousand Plateaus_ unreadable (the authors, he notes, have made it unreadable deliberately, because they are arguing throughout that we need new ways of conceiving of the world which break out of conventions, conventional classifications, celebrate multiplicity and making creative connections).


I'm glad to hear that the authors made their book unreadable. It saves me from feeling guilty for failing to break out of conventional classifications, celebrate multiplicity, and make creative connections. Anyway, I like my space smooth, and would not appreciate a couple of pointy-headed French intellectuals roughing it up.


----------



## millionrainbows

There's the ultimate rationalist

From the above link to Dave Harris' essay, and Boulez, which I think answers Mandryka's original question:

In music, Boulez worked with smooth and striated space, explaining abstract distinctions as well as concrete mixes. At its simplest, smooth space time is occupied without counting, offering nonmetric multiplicities and 'directional' spaces not dimensional ones. The difference can be seen in terms of a break between the regular and undetermined and the standardized. Frequencies can be distributed [according to official notation], or 'statistically without breaks' (527). There is a 'modular' principle to regulate the standardized, which can be straight or curved, even or irregular. The statistical distribution has no break, however, although it might still be equal or 'more or less rare or dense'. It might still have intervals, however, as intermezzi. We can see smooth as Nomos and striated as Logos [these terms have several meanings when they are opposed as we saw, and will see below]. Boulez was interested in how the two types of space communicated, melded together, corresponded, how the octave can be replaced by non octave scales for example which might spiral, how musical texture can be created without 'fixed and homogeneous values', the sonic equivalent of op art. At bottom, striated produces order in succession, for example in 'horizontal melodic lines and vertical harmonic planes'(528), while the smooth offers us continuous variation, continuous development of form, the fusion of harmony and melody, a diagonal across the vertical and horizontal


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> There's the ultimate rationalist
> 
> From the above link to Dave Harris' essay, and Boulez, which I think answers Mandryka's original question:
> 
> In music, Boulez worked with smooth and striated space, explaining abstract distinctions as well as concrete mixes. At its simplest, smooth space time is occupied without counting, offering nonmetric multiplicities and 'directional' spaces not dimensional ones. The difference can be seen in terms of a break between the regular and undetermined and the standardized. Frequencies can be distributed [according to official notation], or 'statistically without breaks' (527). There is a 'modular' principle to regulate the standardized, which can be straight or curved, even or irregular. The statistical distribution has no break, however, although it might still be equal or 'more or less rare or dense'. It might still have intervals, however, as intermezzi. We can see smooth as Nomos and striated as Logos [these terms have several meanings when they are opposed as we saw, and will see below]. Boulez was interested in how the two types of space communicated, melded together, corresponded, how the octave can be replaced by non octave scales for example which might spiral, how musical texture can be created without 'fixed and homogeneous values', the sonic equivalent of op art. At bottom, striated produces order in succession, for example in 'horizontal melodic lines and vertical harmonic planes'(528), while the smooth offers us continuous variation, continuous development of form, the fusion of harmony and melody, a diagonal across the vertical and horizontal


:lol: So nice to read something that made me chuckle. Woolly Boulez indeed!


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> There's the ultimate rationalist
> 
> From the above link to Dave Harris' essay, and Boulez, which I think answers Mandryka's original question:
> 
> In music, Boulez worked with smooth and striated space, explaining abstract distinctions as well as concrete mixes. At its simplest, smooth space time is occupied without counting, offering nonmetric multiplicities and 'directional' spaces not dimensional ones. The difference can be seen in terms of a break between the regular and undetermined and the standardized. Frequencies can be distributed [according to official notation], or 'statistically without breaks' (527). There is a 'modular' principle to regulate the standardized, which can be straight or curved, even or irregular. The statistical distribution has no break, however, although it might still be equal or 'more or less rare or dense'. It might still have intervals, however, as intermezzi. We can see smooth as Nomos and striated as Logos [these terms have several meanings when they are opposed as we saw, and will see below]. Boulez was interested in how the two types of space communicated, melded together, corresponded, how the octave can be replaced by non octave scales for example which might spiral, how musical texture can be created without 'fixed and homogeneous values', the sonic equivalent of op art. At bottom, striated produces order in succession, for example in 'horizontal melodic lines and vertical harmonic planes'(528), while the smooth offers us continuous variation, continuous development of form, the fusion of harmony and melody, a diagonal across the vertical and horizontal


Mental games for effete minds and idle hands in a decadent culture of affluence.

The "rationalist" - or "rationalizer" (take your pick) - is the wrinkled, ninety-pound pinhead for whom reality doesn't feel real until he frames it in novel and abstruse jargon and publishes it in an unreadable book which will be opened only by victims of "higher education" whose career depends on their willingness to perpetuate the game.

These people need to spend a year on a farm shoveling manure - _real_ manure, as opposed to the "smooth and striated" kind.


----------



## Barbebleu

And what part is this?
That’s the sanity clause.
Ah, you no foola me - there ain’t no sanity Claus. 

(With thanks to Chico and Groucho)


----------



## millionrainbows

Hmm...I would think that Boulez' words on the matter would be taken more seriously than manure, since he created works of art which embody these principles, and which "back up" and lend credence to these compositional principles. After all, we're not talking simple rocket science here; music composition is more complex than that, I would think.

Have fun with that "real manure" paradigm of music, as embodied by whoever one's favorite composer might be. 

Oh, I thought that someone once said that "life is manure" was a modernist idea, but apparently "shoveling manure" brings mavericks like Boulez back into the fold.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Hmm...I would think that Boulez' words on the matter would be taken more seriously than manure, since he created works of art which embody these principles, and which "back up" and lend credence to these compositional principles. After all, we're not talking simple rocket science here; music composition is more complex than that, I would think.
> 
> Have fun with that "real manure" paradigm of music, as embodied by whoever one's favorite composer might be.
> 
> Oh, I thought that someone once said that "life is manure" was a modernist idea, but apparently "shoveling manure" brings mavericks like Boulez back into the fold.


We hope that music can speak for itself. To think of it as "backing up" gibberish such as we find in post #10 is to turn reality downside-up and back-arsewards.

The lesson of manure should be heeded by composers wishing to be heard. Manure is the end product of one process devoid of cerebral self-indulgence, and with the help of rain and earthworms it becomes the beginning of another.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> We hope that music can speak for itself. To think of it as "backing up" gibberish such as we find in post #10 is to turn reality downside-up and back-arsewards.


You call this gibberish: _"__At its simplest, smooth space time is occupied without counting, offering nonmetric multiplicities and 'directional' spaces not dimensional ones. The difference can be seen in terms of a break between the regular and undetermined and the standardized."_

Yet in other threads, in your over-the top ebullience about Wagner, we catch you expounding modernist ideas, even mentioning Morton Feldman by name, and using terms like 'atemporality.'

"(Parsifal) gestures back to Bach and beyond to Renaissance polyphony in search of a "purity" of feeling capable of conveying its moral and spiritual idealism and *a sense of existence in a dimension that transcends time and place.* The prelude to Act One is an austere structure unlike any other in Wagner: principal musical motifs are set forth slowly, successively and with quiet deliberation, separated by pauses, like the elements of a liturgy, and the effect is very much that of a devotional meditation - anything but "excess." Elsewhere in the opera there is a predominance of slow tempos, quiet dynamic levels, and subtle, restrained orchestration. *It's often noted that Parsifal seems to suspend time - to slow it down, giving each event time and space to "breathe" - and to subjectivize it to the extent that we have no idea whether we've spent minutes, hours, or an eternity in its mystical realm.* In this effect of suspended time it does seem to achieve something akin to the religious works of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and has little in common with other works of its century except perhaps with late Beethoven and certain works of Schubert and Bruckner. It might even be felt to adumbrate the meditative music of* Feldman *and other moderns who embrace an aesthetic of atemporality. As Gurnemanz says to Parsifal, *"You see, my son, here time becomes space."*



> The lesson of manure should be heeded by composers wishing to be heard. Manure is the end product of one process devoid of cerebral self-indulgence, and with the help of rain and earthworms it becomes the beginning of another.


I think we've uncovered the irrational side of the professed rationalist Woodduck; the fixation on this ideation about Wagner, manure, earthworms, and suspended time.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> You call this gibberish: _"__At its simplest, smooth space time is occupied without counting, offering nonmetric multiplicities and 'directional' spaces not dimensional ones. The difference can be seen in terms of a break between the regular and undetermined and the standardized."_
> 
> Yet in other threads, in your over-the top ebullience about Wagner, we catch you expounding modernist ideas, even mentioning Morton Feldman by name, and using terms like 'atemporality.'
> 
> "(Parsifal) gestures back to Bach and beyond to Renaissance polyphony in search of a "purity" of feeling capable of conveying its moral and spiritual idealism and *a sense of existence in a dimension that transcends time and place.* The prelude to Act One is an austere structure unlike any other in Wagner: principal musical motifs are set forth slowly, successively and with quiet deliberation, separated by pauses, like the elements of a liturgy, and the effect is very much that of a devotional meditation - anything but "excess." Elsewhere in the opera there is a predominance of slow tempos, quiet dynamic levels, and subtle, restrained orchestration. *It's often noted that Parsifal seems to suspend time - to slow it down, giving each event time and space to "breathe" - and to subjectivize it to the extent that we have no idea whether we've spent minutes, hours, or an eternity in its mystical realm.* In this effect of suspended time it does seem to achieve something akin to the religious works of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and has little in common with other works of its century except perhaps with late Beethoven and certain works of Schubert and Bruckner. It might even be felt to adumbrate the meditative music of* Feldman *and other moderns who embrace an aesthetic of atemporality. As Gurnemanz says to Parsifal, *"You see, my son, here time becomes space."*
> 
> I think we've uncovered the irrational side of the professed rationalist Woodduck; the fixation on this ideation about Wagner, manure, earthworms, and suspended time.


Do you really think people here are stupid enough to confuse anything I said, or anything I would say, with the jargonistic monstrosity which is post #10? And can it be - can it possibly be? - that you yourself are insufficiently perceptive to tell the difference between metaphoric imagery and pompous postmodern codswallop?

Don't make me tear apart that Boulezian bloviation and leave it lying in a bloody pulp in the ditch where it belongs. And don't try to attack me and my writing on this forum in any manner whatever, if you know what's good for you. I've handled far tougher intellectual opponents than you can ever dream of being.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Do you really think people here are stupid enough to confuse anything I said, or anything I would say, with the jargonistic monstrosity which is post #10? And can it be - can it possibly be? - that you yourself are insufficiently perceptive to tell the difference between metaphoric imagery and pompous postmodern codswallop?
> Don't make me tear apart that Boulezian bloviation and leave it lying in a bloody pulp in the ditch where it belongs. And don't try to attack me and my writing on this forum in any manner whatever, if you know what's good for you. I've handled far tougher intellectual opponents than you can ever dream of being.


It's just argumentation, since it seems that's what you want to do. Actually, I found your Parsifal descriptions entertaining. I can react to your posts in more positive ways, but this is determined by your reactions, and how you want to play. I see argumentation as a form of play, until it degenerates into personal dimensions.

To the contrary, I see our exchanges as "compost" for further exploration of ideas about music, philosophy, etc., and your description of Wagner does sound like you've been influenced by "modern conceptions of musical time" that are used in dealing with Feldman, Cage, minimalism, etc.

The "bloody" imagery you just posted sounds like it was influenced by opera. Tell us sometime about these intellectual opponents you've handled. Does this sort of conflict occur in academic environments? It sounds fascinating.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> It's just argumentation, since it seems that's what you want to do. Actually, I found your Parsifal descriptions entertaining. I can react to your posts in more positive ways, but this is determined by your reactions, and how you want to play. I see argumentation as a form of play, until it degenerates into personal dimensions.
> 
> To the contrary, I see our exchanges as "compost" for further exploration of ideas about music, philosophy, etc., and your description of Wagner does sound like you've been influenced by "modern conceptions of musical time" that are used in dealing with Feldman, Cage, minimalism, etc.
> 
> The "bloody" imagery you just posted sounds like it was influenced by opera. Tell us sometime about these intellectual opponents you've handled. Does this sort of conflict occur in academic environments? It sounds fascinating.


What makes you think I want to argue? In my estimation, that description of Boulez's music is Modernist bombast and not worth arguing about. You're the one trying to turn this into an argument. What a bore.

I'm even less interested in your little "gotcha" games than in spurious "arguments." In one week you've tried to lay two traps, dredging up my thoughts on _Parsifal_ in contexts unrelated to them (first in relation to Mahler, now to this), solely for the purpose of finding some imaginary inconsistency in my thinking. Since there isn't any, your efforts have come to naught.

As for "personalization," you are the crassest and most incorrigible "personalizer" on this entire forum. I don't know how to get you to stop characterizing me and others with various labels, though I've pointed out how objectionable it is numerous times. This instance is a perfect and typical case: I made a witty remark about a self-confessed "unreadable" postmodern writer, and you reacted by hauling out one of your favorite epithets for me, "There's the ultimate rationalist." You then offered as a "rebuttal" a perfect specimen of the sort of unreadable analysis art critics of the sixties were fond of using to prove their intellectual sophistication, secure academic chairs, and flatter the pretensions of wealthy patrons. My failure to be impressed by such stuff seemed to push you over the edge; witty ripostes were no longer equal to the task of putting me in my place, wherever that may be, and so you had to resort to the game of "gotcha" and hope that quoting my words on other subjects would catch me in a fatal faux pas.

It didn't. There's nothing to discuss here, unless perhaps you'd like to describe the music of Boulez in plain English. That doesn't sound like a very entertaining project - surely it's better just to listen to the stuff? - but it would be an improvement on the contents of this thread so far.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> What makes you think I want to argue? In my estimation, that description of Boulez's music is Modernist bombast and not worth arguing about. You're the one trying to turn this into an argument. What a bore.


I'm simply responding to harsh interpretations such as "modernist bombast" which invites rebuttal, esp. when applied to specific composers (Boulez).



> I'm even less interested in your little "gotcha" games than in spurious "arguments." In one week you've tried to lay two traps, dredging up my thoughts on _Parsifal_ in contexts unrelated to them (first in relation to Mahler, now to this), solely for the purpose of finding some imaginary inconsistency in my thinking. Since there isn't any, your efforts have come to naught.


I still maintain that Mahler was treated unfairly elsewhere, on the same religious issues for which Wagner was praised.



> As for "personalization," you are the crassest and most incorrigible "personalizer" on this entire forum. I don't know how to get you to stop characterizing me and others with various labels, though I've pointed out how objectionable it is numerous times. This instance is a perfect and typical case: I made a witty remark about a self-confessed "unreadable" postmodern writer, and you reacted by hauling out one of your favorite epithets for me, "There's the ultimate rationalist."


"The ultimate rationalist" is hardly a harsh label; and it applies to the non-rationalist French writers we were discussing. Even Mandryka said that they were difficult to read because of "Oxford" rational education. Don't forget, you called me 'misguided' recently.



> You then offered as a "rebuttal" a perfect specimen of the sort of unreadable analysis art critics of the sixties were fond of using to prove their intellectual sophistication, secure academic chairs, and flatter the pretensions of wealthy patrons. My failure to be impressed by such stuff seemed to push you over the edge; witty ripostes were no longer equal to the task of putting me in my place, wherever that may be, and so you had to resort to the game of "gotcha" and hope that quoting my words on other subjects would catch me in a fatal faux pas. It didn't.





> There's nothing to discuss here, unless perhaps you'd like to describe the music of Boulez in plain English. That doesn't sound like a very entertaining project - surely it's better just to listen to the stuff? - but it would be an improvement on the contents of this thread so far.


If there is nothing to discuss, then entry into this thread would obviously be to create argumentation.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread concerns Boulez's comments (and possibly other philosophical ideas) about space and presumably music. Please refrain from personal comments and focus on the thread content.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

If one has Density , Dynamics and Duration as the structural fundamentals ... this would be of smooth space ? 3d : ha ha .


----------



## Woodduck

-----------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Ah ... striated space .

At home here are specifically defined elements of Pitch , Harmony and Meter . Alone in the universe it
is the Machine . It welcomes smooth space , for life . The pure music of smooth space , however , does 
not require striated space . Yet , nothing unfriendly need be going on .


----------



## millionrainbows

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Ah ... striated space .
> 
> At home here are specifically defined elements of Pitch , Harmony and Meter . Alone in the universe it
> is the Machine . It welcomes smooth space , for life . The pure music of smooth space , however , does
> not require striated space . Yet , nothing unfriendly need be going on .


Yess...smooth space is not evil, it is simply the absence of striated space...it is dark matter, we know it is there...but be not afraid...


----------



## millionrainbows

Tikoo Tuba said:


> If one has Density , Dynamics and Duration as the structural fundamentals ... this would be of smooth space ? 3d : ha ha .


Yes, but be sure you know how to move the stuff around. I would advise using gloves, with both hands. If it gets too dense, you can add a little water.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

I think a smooth space reference is simply paper with no lines (striations) , no printed musical staff markings .


----------



## Woodduck

Nothing so refreshing amid all the hackneyed comments on Mozart as a thread in which no one knows what the topic is.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Woodduck said:


> Nothing so refreshing amid all the hackneyed comments on Mozart as a thread in which no one knows what the topic is.


I know . There's nothing you can do about it . I particularly know about people from Ashland , Oregon .
Never mind . I won't tell a soul .


----------



## Woodduck

Tikoo Tuba said:


> I know . There's nothing you can do about it . I particularly know about people from Ashland , Oregon .
> Never mind . I won't tell a soul .


Oh, at least tell me. I find them incomprehensible.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Only the sensible may escape the vortex .


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Nothing so refreshing amid all the hackneyed comments on Mozart as a thread in which no one knows what the topic is.


Yes, but we _know_ that we don't know; we continue, because we believe, and read some McLuhan in 1972.

Love ya! MMmmwahh!


----------



## Woodduck

I read some Mary Baker Eddy in 1999. I learned that God is perfectly smooth and that our striations are all in our heads.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

The vortex sucks . Oboe-livian is yours to indulge .


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I read some Mary Baker Eddy in 1999. I learned that God is perfectly smooth and that our striations are all in our heads.


That's Western thinking. In the East, they strive for smooth brains. Just ask John Cage. His brain was very smooth because he constantly polished it. It reflected light on those around him, sometimes blinding them.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> That's Western thinking. You're stuck in objectivity. In the East, they strive for smooth brains. Just ask John Cage. His brain was very smooth because he constantly polished it. It reflected light on those around him, sometimes blinding them.


Typical of you to assume that I agree with Mary merely because I mention her. Any excuse to label people, right? Your brain could use a few more striations. Try some "Western thinking," commonly known as rationality.


----------



## millionrainbows

So serious! 

I'm not concerned with what anyone believes or doesn't believe. The bulk of replies were not taking this thread seriously, anyway. This has become a humorous thread, but it sounds like I have to start walking on eggshells. 

Just another "gotcha" exchange.


----------



## Rogerx

Tikoo Tuba said:


> The vortex sucks . Oboe-livian is yours to indulge .


Fabulous answer . ......


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> So serious!
> 
> I'm not concerned with what anyone believes or doesn't believe. The bulk of replies were not taking this thread seriously, anyway. This has become a humorous thread, but it sounds like I have to start walking on eggshells.
> 
> Just another "gotcha" exchange.


"You're stuck in objectivity" is just another another version of "you're a rationalist" or "you're an academic" or "you're a conservative" or any of the other vacuous labels you like to stick on people. That you haven't yet figured out why this habit is obnoxious (and very, very tiresome) after being told umpteen times is a bafflement. Maybe you _have_ figured it out, but just enjoy being obnoxious. Or maybe such terms are just something you toss off in a semiconscious or unconscious state. Any of these seems plausible. (But I note that you've now removed the statement from your post...)

I tend to assume that when people begin a statement with "You are...", they actually mean to say something about you. Well, to be clear: I have read Mary Baker Eddy, but I am not a Christian Scientist - and not, let me assure you, because I'm "stuck in objectivity." That phrase, like its semi-synonyms from your quasi-philosophical lexicon, is about as meaningful as a puff of Mary Jane. For all I know it originated at one of her soirees.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> "You're stuck in objectivity" is just another another version of "you're a rationalist" or "you're an academic" or "you're a conservative" or any of the other vacuous labels you like to stick on people.


You _are _a rationalist, aren't you? I've heard you say so. And if you haven't said it, it is self-evident to me, and perhaps others as well.



> That you haven't yet figured out why this habit is obnoxious (and very, very tiresome) after being told umpteen times is a bafflement. Maybe you _have_ figured it out, but just enjoy being obnoxious. Or maybe such terms are just something you toss off in a semiconscious or unconscious state. Any of these seems plausible. (But I note that you've now removed the statement from your post...)


I removed it because I don't want to get an infraction. Yes, I "label" people based on how I perceive their thinking style, tastes, worldview...their "being" as I see it.



> I tend to assume that when people begin a statement with "You are...", they actually mean to say something about you. Well, to be clear: I have read Mary Baker Eddy, but I am not a Christian Scientist...


It was a figure of speech mainly. I thought the discussion was lighter in nature. I know already that you not a Christian Scientist from what you've said in the forum. In that sense, I feel I "know you" to that extent.



> - and not, let me assure you, because I'm "stuck in objectivity." That phrase, like its semi-synonyms from your quasi-philosophical lexicon, is about as meaningful as a puff of Mary Jane. For all I know it originated at one of her soirees.


From what you've said about John Cage and modern art in general on this forum, from my perspective, that is how I know you to be. It's a different mode of thought. It also applies to jazz and pop music; almost any music that is non-classical. It seems that a classical academic bias is evident. Composers like Cage go against the grain, apparently. But also, I would expect a little more respect for different thought styles, and acknowledgement of their validity, instead of constant invalidations.

From my experience as a student in educational music departments, I think the more classical, academic music teachers need to be more flexible in their thinking, perhaps get involved in any available jazz studies, and thus become better teachers.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Vivace !! : a smooth space directive given to a random orchestra of stoned bongo players . They won't resist it .


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> You _are _a rationalist, aren't you? I've heard you say so. And if you haven't said it, it is self-evident to me, and perhaps others as well.


No, I've never called myself a "rationalist." A person who thinks rationally, believes it's important to do so, and opposes sloppy thinking, is not a "rationalist." Rationalism is a philosophical position opposed to empiricism. I don't view the rational and the empirical as opposed.



> Yes, I "label" people based on how I perceive their thinking style, tastes, worldview...their "being" as I see it.


I don't do that. I consider it presumptuous, which it generally is. My "being" as YOU see it isn't worth a flying fig, and if you create labels for that and talk as if they actually represent me I will tell you to fig off.



> I know already that you not a Christian Scientist from what you've said in the forum. In that sense, I feel I "know you" to that extent.


Well, I suppose I'm glad you had that much right.



> From what you've said about John Cage and modern art in general on this forum, from my perspective, that is how I know you to be. It's a different mode of thought. It also applies to jazz and pop music; almost any music that is non-classical. It seems that a classical academic bias is evident. Composers like Cage go against the grain, apparently. But also, I would expect a little more respect for different thought styles, and acknowledgement of their validity, instead of constant invalidations.


Characterizing people's "thought styles" and "modes of thought" and pinning labels on them _is itself an invalidation._ You don't know me as well as you think you do. I don't know you very well either, but I don't pretend to. If I think you've made an invalid statement, I won't hesitate to say so and to say why. That isn't personal invalidation. Your pinning labels on me, and publishing them on this forum, IS a form of personal invalidation, because it ignorantly and unjustly substitutes an image of me for the real me. How can I explain this more clearly?



> From my experience as a student in educational music departments, I think the more classical, academic music teachers need to be more flexible in their thinking, perhaps get involved in any available jazz studies, and thus become better teachers.


Not having set foot in a music department for nearly fifty years (I am most definitely not an "academic," so ditch that label;you're much more of one than I am), I can't argue with you there. I'm very much an autodidact in virtually everything, musical and otherwise, and I comprehend music mainly through experience, creativity, feeling and intuition (so much for "rationalism"). I'm quite capable of understanding, and responding to, music outside the Western classical tradition, even though that's where my primary interest lies. As far as my evaluations of modern music are concerned - and please note that I don't say very much about it - I'd suggest caution in drawing conclusions about my "mode of thought" based on our differing evaluations of John Cage. My "thought style" doesn't keep me from "getting" Cage; I just don't find his work interesting or rewarding, or his thinking in any way revelatory or essential. He's a culture hero to a tiny minority of music lovers, but to me he's rather a quaint period piece. As with a lot of the avant garde art of the mid-to late 20th century, I don't find much "there" there. Warhol may be great wallpaper if you're into giant soup cans, chrome and black leather furniture, white polar bear rugs and miniskirts. I prefer Song Dynasty Chinese paintings, Northwest Coast Indian carvings, Indonesian rattan furniture, Persian rugs, and loose-fitting jeans. If it occurs to you that none of that seems to go very well with Wagner, it might then occur to you that trying to pin labels on me might be a futile exercise.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> No, I've never called myself a "rationalist." A person who thinks rationally, believes it's important to do so, and opposes sloppy thinking, is not a "rationalist." Rationalism is a philosophical position opposed to empiricism. I don't view the rational and the empirical as opposed.


I meant it generally, as a convenient label. I didn't want a philosophy course. You seemed very opposed to the French thinkers who are not straight rationalists.



> I don't do that. I consider it presumptuous, which it generally is. My "being" as YOU see it isn't worth a flying fig, and if you create labels for that and talk as if they actually represent me I will tell you to fig off.


You must be one of those people who say they don't label people, and don't cast a shadow.



> Well, I suppose I'm glad you had that much right.


I thought it didn't matter to you what I think.



> Characterizing people's "thought styles" and "modes of thought" and pinning labels on them _is itself an invalidation. _


 Yes, and I try to stay away from them when they start becoming toxic, or if the blend is unproductive.



> You don't know me as well as you think you do. I don't know you very well either, but I don't pretend to. If I think you've made an invalid statement, I won't hesitate to say so and to say why. That isn't personal invalidation.


That's misleading. A person's ideas represent them in lots of ways, everyone included. If we disagree, the problem might not be a question of validity, but in the way we think, which can be vastly different. So the net effect of an invalidation of statements or ideas is by proxy an invalidation of the person, to that extent.



> Your pinning labels on me, and publishing them on this forum, IS a form of personal invalidation, because it ignorantly and unjustly substitutes an image of me for the real me. How can I explain this more clearly?


But I see people pushing ideas which represent their worldview, education, etc. all the time. If they invalidate my ideas, then this is also a way of labelling, branding, or categorizing the ideas, and implicitly, the person who espouses the ideas. We're just not supposed to say it out loud.



> Not having set foot in a music department for nearly fifty years (I am most definitely not an "academic," so ditch that label;you're much more of one than I am), I can't argue with you there. I'm very much an autodidact in virtually everything, musical and otherwise, and I comprehend music mainly through experience, creativity, feeling and intuition (so much for "rationalism"). I'm quite capable of understanding, and responding to, music outside the Western classical tradition, even though that's where my primary interest lies.


Well, many posts about music have struck me as academic, and would fit right in.



> As far as my evaluations of modern music are concerned - and please note that I don't say very much about it - I'd suggest caution in drawing conclusions about my "mode of thought" based on our differing evaluations of John Cage. My "thought style" doesn't keep me from "getting" Cage; I just don't find his work interesting or rewarding, or his thinking in any way revelatory or essential. He's a culture hero to a tiny minority of music lovers, but to me he's rather a quaint period piece.


Really? The vitriol is evident in many other instances.



> As with a lot of the avant garde art of the mid-to late 20th century, I don't find much "there" there. Warhol may be great wallpaper if you're into giant soup cans, chrome and black leather furniture, white polar bear rugs and miniskirts. I prefer Song Dynasty Chinese paintings, Northwest Coast Indian carvings, Indonesian rattan furniture, Persian rugs, and loose-fitting jeans. If it occurs to you that none of that seems to go very well with Wagner, it might then occur to you that trying to pin labels on me might be a futile exercise.


I don't think _anyone_ wants to be labelled, do they?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Striated space beings fear the power of a smooth space Zook 
may cause them to appear foolish to one another . Yes , a Zook
is occasionally impish and , in peace to this , god gave you the
fermata . Pause : realize nothing bad has really happened , 
proceed with free will .

Woven striations are the earth we stand on .

I have met Zooks . They are of a lovely Light .


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I meant ["rationalist"] generally, as a convenient label. I didn't want a philosophy course. You seemed very opposed to the French thinkers who are not straight rationalists.


I'm opposed to the irrational and the pretentious wherever I find it. (What is a "straight rationalist"? Someone who always makes sense? Maybe you need a philosophy course.)



> You must be one of those people who say they don't label people, and don't cast a shadow.


If you catch me labeling you with terms of "convenience" I expect you to point it out. (I don't know about that shadow business. I'll check when the sun comes out.)



> I thought it didn't matter to you what I think.


It doesn't matter what you think, but it does matter what you write. That's what we do here. Write.



> A person's ideas represent them in lots of ways, everyone included. If we disagree, the problem might not be a question of validity, but in the way we think, which can be vastly different. So the net effect of an invalidation of statements or ideas is by proxy an invalidation of the person, to that extent.


Well that's quite the rambling bit of nonsense. I guess all of us who disagree about stuff are busy invalidating each other's persons. After six years on the forum I must be invalidated to the point where there's nothing left of me. I'd better go look in the mirror to see if I even have a reflection.



> But I see people pushing ideas which represent their worldview, education, etc. all the time. If they invalidate my ideas, then this is also a way of labelling, branding, or categorizing the ideas, and implicitly, the person who espouses the ideas. We're just not supposed to say it out loud.


You just said it out loud twice and it isn't any more reasonable the second time.



> Well, many [of your] posts about music have struck me as academic, and would fit right in.


They would fit right into to your own constructed reality. Meanwhile there's objective reality.



> I don't think _anyone_ wants to be labelled, do they?


No. So stop making excuses for doing it.


----------



## millionrainbows

(All replies "sanitized" for the protection of victims of labelling)



Woodduck said:


> I'm opposed to the irrational and the pretentious wherever I find it.


"Irrational" ideas such as "scales are indexes of notes, and the order in which they are presented has no musical significance?" That's a difference in thought-styles, not like the true-or-false academic axioms you are so fond of.

That's the opinion of someone who might think like you, and that person would have the right to express it.



> If you catch me labeling *you* with terms of "convenience" I expect *you* to point it out.


I've seen a person such as yourself doing the same thing, especially over in Area 51.



> It doesn't matter what *you* think, but it does matter what *you* write. That's what we do here. Write.


Essentially the same thing. Express thoughts. But someone similar to you might say we can't act as if our replies, or anyone else's, are representative of the people expressing them. I never agreed with that nonsensical notion.



> Well that's quite the rambling bit of nonsense.


You see? You're doing it too. That was *my* statement you are referring to. You are insulting me by invalidating my reply with insults.



> I guess all of us who disagree about *stuff* are busy invalidating each other's persons. After six years on the forum I must be invalidated to the point where there's nothing left of me. I'd better go look in the mirror to see if I even have a reflection.


I don't think sarcasm is useful here, and doesn't translate well. *Stuff? *No, the replies and postings here are the expressions of real people, and if you disagree, you should be much more polite than this.



> *You *just said it out loud twice and it isn't any more reasonable the second time.


Your replies to others here are clever implications resembling ad hominems indirectly, but very closely. I've seen you doing what looks like someone attacking others.



> They would fit right into to your own constructed reality. Meanwhile there's objective reality.


Your ideas and replies strike me as those of an academic thinker. How's that? Better?



> No. So stop making excuses for doing it.


I'll keep doing what I do, and you can keep invalidating it or deeming it 'verboten.'


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Woodduck said:


> Maybe you need a philosophy course.)


I despise these soap-operatic postings . Yes , you need a philosophy forum . 
I appreciate a Philosophy of Relationalism .


----------



## millionrainbows

Tikoo Tuba said:


> I despise these soap-operatic postings. Yes, you need a philosophy forum.
> I appreciate a Philosophy of Relationalism.


So who's side are you on, Tikoo?

Wow, that's confusing, replying to a reply to someone else. Who are you replying to, the original replier, or the replier to the replier?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Gad Zooks ! The zound of it is everything .


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> "Irrational" ideas such as "scales are indexes of notes, and the order in which they are presented has no musical significance?" That's a difference in thought-styles, not like the true-or-false academic axioms you are so fond of.


What the heck is a "thought-style"?

Axioms? I've never stated any axioms. An axiom (or postulate) is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. An argument is not an axiom.



> I've seen a person such as yourself doing the same thing, especially over in Area 51.


There are no persons such as myself. Not even myself. (If that isn't clear, it may be because you don't understand my "thought-style.")



> someone similar to you might say we can't act as if our replies, or anyone else's, are representative of the people expressing them. I never agreed with that nonsensical notion.


What do you mean "representative"? And how can someone else's replies be representative of...um...another someone's replies?

My statements don't represent me. They represent ideas I have in my head. Both may change, and I am still me. No one and nothing can represent me, and I cannot be "invalidated."

If there's anyone similar to me, I want to make it clear to him right now that he is an impostor.



> You see? You're doing it too. That was *my* statement you are referring to. You are insulting me by invalidating my reply with insults.


It wasn't an insult if your statement really WAS a rambling bit of nonsense. The whole notion that intellectual debate amounts to personal invalidation (whatever THAT is) is nonsense, and your repeated efforts to sledge-hammer that idea until it seems sensible are certainly rambling.



> I don't think sarcasm is useful here, and doesn't translate well.


Translate into what? There comes a point where a dispute becomes absurd to the point of surreality. Only crazy humor will do, and no translation should be needed.



> Stuff? No, the replies and postings here are the expressions of real people, and if you disagree, you should be much more polite than this.


More polite than what? Than ragging on people's "rationalism" and "academicism" and "conventional thinking" and god knows what other phony categorical pigeonholes you think you have a right to stuff them (specifically, me) into?



> Your replies to others here are clever implications resembling ad hominems indirectly, but very closely. I've seen you doing what looks like someone attacking others.


Defensive people think every disagreement is an attack.



> Your ideas and replies strike me as those of an academic thinker. How's that? Better?


He's off again...



> I'll keep doing what I do, and you can keep invalidating it or deeming it 'verboten.'


Yes, I can.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Striated space beings fear the power of a smooth space Zook
> may cause them to appear foolish to one another .


Two of my friends appear foolish to one another . Only one need wisely to surrender . Blessings
of the Zook to the One .


----------



## millionrainbows

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Two of my friends appear foolish to one another . Only one need wisely to surrender . Blessings
> of the Zook to the One .


Yes, I think we see what you're saying, tikoo.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> What the heck is a "thought-style"?


A way of thinking, such as 'academic' vs. outside the box, that's what the heck it is, by golly.



> Axioms? I've never stated any axioms. An axiom (or postulate) is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. An argument is not an axiom.


You act like everything you say is an axiom.



> There are no persons such as myself. Not even myself. (If that isn't clear, it may be because you don't understand my "thought-style.")


I hope not. I was cleverly protecting grounds for an ad hominem.



> What do you mean "representative"? And how can someone else's replies be representative of...um...another someone's replies?


As above, same answer.



> My statements don't represent me. They represent ideas I have in my head. Both may change, and I am still me. No one and nothing can represent me, and I cannot be "invalidated."


Wow, I feel just the opposite.



> If there's anyone similar to me, I want to make it clear to him right now that he is an impostor.


I think my circumlocution eluded you. You have a great sense of humor, though.



> It wasn't an insult if your statement really WAS a rambling bit of nonsense. The whole notion that intellectual debate amounts to personal invalidation (whatever THAT is) is nonsense, and your repeated efforts to sledge-hammer that idea until it seems sensible are certainly rambling.


I think you're wrong, and being disingenuous.



> Translate into what? There comes a point where a dispute becomes absurd to the point of surreality. Only crazy humor will do, and no translation should be needed.


I'm not sure what you're responding to without going back and looking. Please make your replies include more context about what it is you're responding to.



> More polite than what? Than ragging on people's "rationalism" and "academicism" and "conventional thinking" and god knows what other phony categorical pigeonholes you think you have a right to stuff them (specifically, me) into?


Again, as above, not enough context without going back to the old post. That really gets tedious when your reply is already on a new page.



> Defensive people think every disagreement is an attack.


I think you _are_ attacking. I think your posts _do _represent you as a person.



> He's off again...


...not enough context without going back to the old post.



> Yes, I can.


You're off again...


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> A way of thinking, such as 'academic' vs. outside the box, that's what the heck it is, by golly.
> 
> You act like everything you say is an axiom.
> 
> I hope not. I was cleverly protecting grounds for an ad hominem.
> 
> As above, same answer.
> 
> Wow, I feel just the opposite.
> 
> I think my circumlocution eluded you. You have a great sense of humor, though.
> 
> I think you're wrong, and being disingenuous.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're responding to without going back and looking. Please make your replies include more context about what it is you're responding to.
> 
> Again, as above, not enough context without going back to the old post. That really gets tedious when your reply is already on a new page.
> 
> I think you _are_ attacking. I think your posts _do _represent you as a person.
> 
> ...not enough context without going back to the old post.
> 
> You're off again...


Whatever. Are we done? Just say yes or no...please.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I think we see what you're saying, tikoo.


The understanding is all yours . Anyway , I had a little dream about this string - it was a post addressed to me from its Idea . It's personal .


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Whatever. Are we done? Just say yes or no...please.


That's up to you as well; I've found that out the hard way. 
My suggestion is that you stop trying to be "the idea police."


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> That's up to you as well; I've found that out the hard way.
> My suggestion is that you stop trying to be "the idea police."


I volunteered to end this stupid conversation. I asked you if you'd agree to that. I'm not interested in your "suggestions." Can you say "yes" or "no"? It's a simple question. Just answer it, for chrissakes, and we're done.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I volunteered to end this stupid conversation. I asked you if you'd agree to that. I'm not interested in your "suggestions." Can you say "yes" or "no"? It's a simple question. Just answer it, for chrissakes, and we're done.


You have the freedom to engage or ignore any post. It's not up to me. 
My whole outlook is different; I post thread ideas as a pro-active form of involvement, and this naturally gives me incentive to engage and defend those ideas, or clarify them if need be. The overall intention is not simply to provoke, which they might, but to open up an idea and "probe" for meaning, explode myths, think outside the box, and be creative.
I do not passively wait in the shadows for something to jump on, which I can expose as "fraud" or as deficient.


----------



## millionrainbows

While searching for this CD, I ran across a review of it from scarecrow, our old compadre on Ama-whatzit. It's public, so I thought I'd paste it here for Mandryka, mainly, and others to enjoy. It's about Barraque, and is marginally relevant to the subject being discussed here about French aesthetics of "irrationalism." I thought al;so that it would be good to see what an intelligent composer had to say in a positive light about this, to de-tox some of the negative comments seen here.

Review by scarecrow:
Insensibility, as the theatre of cruelty of Antonin Artaud and the literature of Samuel Beckett, the rationalism of the irrational. I don't quite agree that the Barraque Sonata is a masterwork of this century, or the last one, but within the context of the set of aesthetic trajectories nurtured by European creativity at that time, Barraque was in the conceptual pit, slugging away. Andre Hodier's old book on French contemporary music is the first and really the only discussion of Barraque. What is significant of this 'Sonata' for its times was the retrogressive perspective,and its length. Beethoven was Barraque's creative icon, as opposed to the Schoenberg School for Boulez and the post war avant-garde. Barraque seemed to think that the rigours of serial music needed to contain this sense of durationally large architectural forms. The 'Sonata' works, its length and gestures, because it is primarily rhythmically charged. Always the intuitive ends is what saves what can be pedantic creative agendas. The work is in two large movements one fast, the other slow, but there are necessarily gradations within each movement of speeding up or slowing down. Barraque as well came to serialism with his own sense, forgetting about the tyranny of the interval, where only dissonance was to be exploited. Here we hear open fifths, and relatively wonderfullly pleasant sounding timbres. Hearing/Encountering/Appraising then the Boulez 'Third Sonata', is like having a bucket of ice water thrown over your head. For the 'Third' accelerates the challenge although even today it is a difficult work to encounter. It is not as lyrically directional or on its surface gesturally predictable as the 'First' or 'Second' Sonatas. Boulez here clearly wanted to mark/succomb and conquer new structural territories. The buzz of "Indeterminacy" was in the air, of open forms, the mobiles of Alexander Calder and with the freshness of John Cage coming to Europe in the early Fifties to loosen up the sometimes (most of the times) tyrannical mindsets of these post- war post- serialists as Stockhausen and Boulez harbored was quite important. Theodor Adorno always thought they were too serious, too much concerned with the surface of their art without looking out creating some worldview to be utilized in their music, too much concerned pure technique rather than philosophic/social substance. The Third Sonata which Boulez explains in his position paper included in "Orientations", "Sonata, What do you want from me?", "Sonate, que me veux-tu?", pages 143-54, is good start if you want to understand the excitement of these newly found structural departures. And also Boulez's lifelong affinity and inspiration he searched for from Mallarme, the concept of the book, that every part of a book should be enriched by its preceeding encounters, concepts you can quite literally devote ones life to. Here Chen plays wonderfully sensitive to Boulez's deep musicianship and structural vision, the elegance, and rarefied refinement, almost surreal, but also the open brutality, and the vigorously new approach toward exploiting the resonant physical features of the piano, as piano harmonics, that's where you depress tones silently then striking violently others thereby enleashing the sympathetic overtone vibrations. Also the utilizations of all the piano pedals to alter the timbral resonance, is here incorporated into Boulez structures.Tristan Murail, the younger generation French IRCAM composer has further developed these resonant piano techniques; see his piano solo 'Terratoires De l'Oubli'. The structure of the Boulez work itself has metamorphosized into varying states in incompletion since the time it was first written in the late Fifties. But the original plan was five movements, or Boulez calls them formatives, (formants in French), and were 1. Antiphonie; 2 Trope; 3. Constellation; 4.Strophe; 5 Sequence;, Constellation being the longest in duration here. Each piece of formant, or movement allows the possibilities of choice, like being given a map to direct your own destinations. The first complete performance of this work was some ten hears later by Boulez himself at Darmstadt in September, 1967. Here Chen adopts, fashions the 'Trope' movement which is the second movement (formative) (formant) which comprises four sections, 'Texte', 'Parenthese', 'Commentaire', and 'Glose'. The only other order, is reversing 'Glose' with 'Constellation' which you'll find in the Charles Rosen and Claude Helffer earlier recordings. 'Miroir' then follows this. Claude Helffer also includes formant #3,which is about 11 and a half minutes and consists of other materials, 'Points, Blocs, Points 2, Blocs 2'. The titles are extracted from medeival sensibility of discourse and duration, and each movement of the movement (Formatives) here has self-contained like features. 'Texte' is more one-dimensional monodic, with a serial like cantus firmus, 'Parenthese', is a slow tempo but is interrupted by parenthesis of fragments of music Boulez writes in boxes within the music line or system. 'Glose' as well is slow but undergoes frequent gradations of accelerations. This has been the Boulez approach of the dialectic between relatively fixed musical structures, and interruptions of those via complex means and techniques. His 'Repons', and his conducting of Mahler retains/contains similar approaches to form, interpretation and approach. The 'Third Sonata' also retains a musical sense of elegance structurally and interms of its extended pallette of timbres. It is still difficult listening. one of the three biographies on Michel Foucault, he relates a tale of Boulez, Barraque and Foucault all meeting in some castle for a concert where their music was to be played.Barraque and Foucault remained friends and shared intellectual and aesthetic pursuits until Barraque untimely death.. Barraque as this 'Sonata' admirably reflects was interested in extremes of expression, and the current buzz in France in the Fifties was this.
The earlier student 'Notations' has numerous recordings, Stephan McCallum is one I prefer, but Chen is right on the money here as well exposing the space threadbare piano lines of the young visionary composer. 'Notations' has above all documentary value, in the realizations of the odyssey of the Boulez's creative lifeworld. As the agricultural seeds known to be buried with Egyptian priests, when some centuries later when they discovered the seeds they still brought something to the surface, as similarly the orchestral realizations of Notations by Boulez are far more a greater conception.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> I do not passively wait in the shadows for something to jump on, which I can expose as "fraud" or as deficient.


A massive understatement methinks :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

_I do not passively wait in the shadows for something to jump on, which I can expose as "fraud" or as deficient._



Barbebleu said:


> A massive understatement methinks :lol:


When inspiration hits me, I must strike, admittedly. it's unfortunate that you see me as having sinister intentions; we could have been so good together.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> _I do not passively wait in the shadows for something to jump on, which I can expose as "fraud" or as deficient._
> 
> When inspiration hits me, I must strike, admittedly. it's unfortunate that you see me as having sinister intentions; we could have been so good together.


Oh, no. Not entirely sinister!


----------



## millionrainbows

At any rate, The French seem to me to be at the forefront of modern art, philosophy, & music. This is probably what's behind Woodduck's responses; he seems to dislike modern art & music, and now philosophy.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> At any rate, The French seem to me to be at the forefront of modern art, philosophy, & music. This is probably what's behind Woodduck's responses; he seems to dislike modern art & music, and now philosophy.


In Voltaire's day, French thinkers prided themselves on clarity and concision. Voltaire apologized for not having time to make his writings shorter. Now they pride themselves on bombast and obfuscation. As Tallulah Bankhead said on walking into a gallery of modern paintings, "There's less to this than meets the eye."


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> In Voltaire's day, French thinkers prided themselves on clarity and concision. Voltaire apologized for not having time to make his writings shorter. Now they pride themselves on bombast and obfuscation. As Tallulah Bankhead said on walking into a gallery of modern paintings, "There's less to this than meets the eye."


Well, if Tallulah Bankhead said it, it must be true. She must be an icon to you; she was known for her husky voice, outrageous personality, and devastating wit. Simply outrageous, dahling! I'll take John Cage's sensibility anytime, or even the chaste Boulez.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Well, if Tallulah Bankhead said it, it must be true. She must be an icon to you; she was known for her husky voice, outrageous personality, and devastating wit. Simply outrageous, dahling! I'll take John Cage's sensibility anytime, or even the chaste Boulez.


Was he chaste? The things you learn here...


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Was he chaste? The things you learn here...


He was chaste compare to Tallulah Bankhead. But just the facts, ma'am, just the facts. After all, this IS the internet. Did I spell "Talulah" correctly?

Apparently, you have a distaste for the French, or at least, that's the net result I'm getting. I think Boulez did, too. Ironic.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Apparently, you have a distaste for the French, or at least, that's the net result I'm getting.


As usual, jumping to conclusions about other people. I don't even know what it means to "have a distaste for the French." I don't like what I've encountered of postmodern philosophical writing - it makes my eyes roll and my guts contract - and there seem to be a lot of French guys doing it. That's all. Je suis certain que "the French" sont tres sympathiques.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> As usual, jumping to conclusions about other people. I don't even know what it means to "have a distaste for the French." I don't like what I've encountered of postmodern philosophical writing - it makes my eyes roll and my guts contract - and there seem to be a lot of French guys doing it. That's all. Je suis certain que "the French" sont tres sympathiques.


I didn't say that about you.

I said "Apparently, you have a distaste for the French, or at least, that's the net result I'm getting," judging from your posts & presence here on this thread.

And remember what you said, *"Our posts do not represent us as people,"* so how can I be actually jumping to any conclusions about you?


----------



## mmsbls

Comments about others should be kept to oneself or sent in PMs. The discussion has become simply a serious of personal comments. Please refrain from further such comments. Some posts have been deleted.


----------

