philip glass' wise remark

Philip Glass said something wonderful in an interview i listened to recently- and it was advice to young composers. No matter what you think of his music (i dont always have the nicest things to say, either) the statements rung true for any composer, and more importantly, true for any artist.

young composers often ask him "how do you find your own voice?" and glass' reply came in the interview: "its not about finding a voice, but trying to get rid of it!" (or something to that effect) This holds true whether your a "neo-romantic" or a purely electronic artist, you will have a "style" already, even if its copying bach or beethoven, or varese and cage, you will have a manner of saying something, and the goal is not to do the same thing until it becomes trademark, but to rebel against yourself and your musical inclinations in order to develop a greater musical vocabulary and range. It seems that a degree of self-rebellion is probably the healthiest thing for a contemporary composer, but thats my speculation.

Ironically, Glass' music is often criticize for its terrible sameness- "it all sounds the same" kind of thing, and in the last 30 years how far has he deviated from his origins? not very far at all. His chord progressions can be horrifyingly hackneyed. "its the philip glass chord progression!" you might say to yourself when listening to anything he's written in the last 20 years. He seems to use it in all music after the mid 80s.... major on the tonic, chromatic shift down to minor, back to an inversion of the maj0r chord, then to the...what do you call it... arg, theory terminology slipping away from me, the "dominant" for the minor (i like to think of it as this, hopefully you know what the hell im talking about) and then back to the relative minor, and then back to the major on the tonic, and again and again and again. In only slight variations this appears in dozens of pieces and operas and on and on and on. Minimalism still exists- not in his music, but in his musical output as-a-whole.

Glass realizes this. He said in the interview that he's been trying to escape his own compositional processes, and when faced with the reality of the sameness of his output- "its humbling" he says..... I'd say. He openly admits that he's failed at escaping his style. I cant see how it would be that difficult, as a rather undisciplined musician, i'd comment that its probably the triumph of technique over imagination- which makes sense given his training under Boulanger.

I couldn’t help the criticism, i really couldn’t, but i have a lot of very nice things to say too, i swear. Either way, his commentary is still illuminating and i appreciate what he has to say.... i just wish i'd reflect more in his art.

Jolly Jolly Ego -The Dirty Projectors - 2005

Sweet and melancholy- yet glichy and playfully irreverent. A strong contrast is constructed between the repetitive (but never monotonous), elegantly modal-minor progression the choir sings (whew) and the glichy electronic collage of xylophones, a rude interruption of a trombone(?) and the near-falsetto singing of Dave Longstreth. All the while an orchestra of sweet oboes and clarinets reinforces the plaintive mood with a series of beautiful chords and a yearning melody.

This is spacious music, there are substantial breaks between the instruments, yet it moves coherently along with the help of a very slow drum beat. It only lasts 5:33, but it explores a greater range of expression than expected in that time frame. This is music is heavily electronically altered- there are very deliberate cuts and sudden breaks that might surprise those not expecting it and it lends a very.... different feeling to the music.All in all it works together very well, a beautiful and startling combination.


im such an amateur

A little political detour

I have, in part, unleashed a minor firestorm of political debate on the Fredosphere (contradiction in terms? hardly). I left some rather angry comments after reading a painfully misguided essay by a mr. Mark Steyn which can be read HERE.This essay is subtitled "The real reason the West is in danger of extinction. ", if that alone does not give you the tip that this is going to be a flurry of stupidity, i dont know what to say. Mr. Steyn's histrionics and bombast does nothing but inflame my hostility. here i will post my angry comments for reference:

Im not afraid to say it- that was a terrible essay. His entire construction relies on so many stupid assumptions- assumptions which are baseless and, at best, insulting. excuse me, Mr. Steyn, Islam is not the enemy, secularism is not the enemy. He can continue his xenophobia all he wants, he can intellectualize it and water it down by expressing it in beautiful language, but at its core its still the same bullshit... "Western civilization"? please. This is the same type of chicken-little rhetoric/shit that nazis and arian-race f---ers talk about (no, seriously, it is). He should take a lesson from that fact, come to terms with his insane assumptions and shut the hell up. Provocative, yes, moronic? certainly.

Then i post again, to further express myself:

oh, and the question he pushes "the extinction of western civilization" is, like he rest of his essay, bullshit. What is western civilization, i ask you (or Steyn, really)? Is it the institutions and governments we have today? because if it is, then certainly it wasn’t western civilization 200 years ago, or even 100 years ago in europe or America. So what is it? If we say western civilization is ideas- concepts about life - then i fail to see how that will die out. There is no solidity in "western civilization" its not defined as a thing or one trait, and there never was. In reality, we exist in an entirely different culture than 100 years ago, and i think its safe for steyn to assume culture will again be different in 100 years, but its moronic to assume that somehow represents the "death" of western civilization. As far as im concerned the greatest threat "western civilization" was the book burning and zealous anti-humanism and anti-rationalism of the nazi period. Then it is ironic and somewhat terrifying that he uses similar rhetoric.

Others posted legitimate comments - more moderate than my own.

Tangaleo Lentil Smith responded...

To m. keiser: 1. What are Steyn's stupid assumptions? Please list them.2. Agree with you on Western Civ. Not sure what the definition of that is supposed to be.3. I wonder what bin ladens definition of Western Civ. is. Just curious.

Steyns stupid assumptions are numerous and disguised. I am forcing myself to write this post. Subjecting myself to moronic essays of the right-wing is not my cup of tea, im not a mental masochist. Its wonderful to know that there are some people out there who enjoy that sort of thing, so they can refute them intelligently for the rest of us. Nevertheless, i have written this short list of the dangerous assumptions made in (just!) the begining of the essay. I very well may be missing things.

#1) In the future, most Western European countries will disappear.
This kind of crystal-ball prediction irritates the hell out of me, ooooo... the future! there will be flying cars too and vengeful HAL computers, did he fail to mention that? Also- language is a constant barrier. Worst of all, he treats this hypothetical as a fact.
#2)We've prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones.
Steyn makes an arbitrary, ideologically-infused distinction between "primary" and "secondary" governmental functions (basically conservative vs. liberal, but disguised as "primary and "secondary"). Thats not the purpose of this essay, and its moronic in the first place to try and make this dichotomy.
#3) the secular social-democratic state wont be able to sustain itself: Steyn makes the assumption that secular social-democratic states requires a continually increasing population in order to sustain themselves and that a secular society simply wont produce enough babies. Do we know this to be true? cite an example of a secular social-government that collapsed because of a lack of babies. Dont have one? thats a shame... because we dont know of it ever happening. Its a moronic assumption.
#4) Religion is required for population increase- because only religious people produce enough babies. I think this pretty much speaks for itself. Yes, some religions encourage babies (Mormons, ( Catholics?)) but that is still a moronic assumption.
#5)"Islamism is the enemy" - He says Islam is a problem for cultures all over the world. I was so baffled by this quote that i was pretty much unable to give a coherent response. If you believe this assumption, you're already very, very lost. Radical Islam is a problem, yes, but do you really believe that most Muslims are fundamentalist wack-jobs? Just a tangent- from personal experience, the Muslims i know (*many) preach about love and would want nothing more than to get rid of those Islamic extremists who give their religion the horrible name.
#6) "western civilization" is more than just a really abstract phrase, but a very real tangible thing: its as if he believes “western civilization” is some coherent thing tied to governments and religions and society, which is simply logically flawed if he considers anything before WWI western civilization. If he believes governments/society/religion is what defines "western civilization", like i said earlier, then Rome was not part of western civilization (different society structure and behavior, different language, different religion, different government) neither was Greece, or the Middle ages, or the Enlightenment period or even the 19th century. They all had radically different societies. The fact is, "western civilization" is a empty phrase, devoid of much meaning at all.
#7)The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism will cause the collapse of western civilization: Multiculturalism and secularism will cause the collapse of "western civilization"?! now are we starting to sound like nazi/neo-nazi propaganda? It has that ring to it, doesnt it? This is so absurd that i cant really express myself. Im stifled by the sheer stupidity of this assumption and shocked by its unabashed xenophobia. This assumption is founded on an all-pervasive conservative-ideology/dogma which is itself a construction of unexplainable assumptions.

Oh, im fuming. I cant continue this right now. I honestly haven’t read the entire essay, i admit it, i just couldn’t continue to read this stuff, it was too painful to finish. I got over half way there and then i skimmed the rest. No nice language can cover up the true meaning here. The wall street journal should be ashamed of themselves. This is disgusting.

Lento E Largo - Symphony # 3 -Henryk Gorecki

How can one construct a sincere expression of mourning? It is one of the most difficult things to do, I expect. To compose an authentic expression of sadness and to be able to convey that authenticity to the listener- that will never cease to amaze me. 19th century diminished harmonies and loud minor chords aren’t going to do it these days, they're hackneyed, melodramatic and as insincere as any music can sound. It wasn’t clichéd in Chopin’s time, but today, thousands of movies later, it is.

still, quiet, sweet and expressive as hell. This is very simple, very elegantly sad music. Those lush chords in a very tight musical format- one could imagine Ravel's hand was in this... Speaking of which, Ravel was quite the master of understated emotion. Works like Petit Poucet from Ma mère l'oye or the Minuet from Le Tombeau de Couperin express so much sorrow in so few notes and with great simplicity, not unlike this particular movement. Here, Gorecki has constructed some genuinely tragic music, stripped of any histrionics or artificiality.

Im in love

...with the Bulgarian Women's choir. They performed a stirring sephardic lamenta that made me want to cry. This music is achingly beautiful, the choir produces warm and ethereal sounds that can cover all shades of emotion...and few things please M. Keiser more than traditional Jewish music- so all in all, this combination makes me very very happy.

I love it! so much beautiful and tuneful music to listen to, full of yearning, full of life and vigor and exuberance, music that seems to have floating into existence from another world, yet it feels very natural. These sounds gives me the desire to travel to Bulgaria... or the middle east? or Greece? or other slavic nations? certainly all of the above.

There is also something... avant-garde(?) about these sounds, voices used to create strong rhythms out of abstracted language, sudden changes in rhythms, there are moments of sprechstimme-like sounds along side cheerful yelps and cries, and there are those gorgeous, lush harmonies. My father was puzzled, pleasantly so, when i showed him this music, and keep in mind- my father is very conservative and does not generally take kindly to kinds of music he's unfamiliar with (then again the slavic aspect may have pleased him, he knows russia very well)

I know what i want for my birthday. take a listen to the clips at the amazon site.
Gorgeous!

apologies for the previous post. I wouldn’t have written it if the program hadnt said i looked like Puccini ( yay for double negatives)

Also- im back at college, so you know what that means... more drin.... i mean, less time to make posts (har har har). But im good at procrastinating, so we shall see.

Face Recognition stuff....

Via Oboeinsight

So i ran some pics through this little face recognition program they've got running and guess who i look like? (well, 62 % similarity, or something like that)....Giacomo Puccini! i look like a famous composer! (sort of? at least a computer thinks so)

Ah, i knew music ran in the family! But i ran about 5 photos of me through this device, the other times i got someone different and low numbers (ex 52%, 50%) ...clearly meaning i dont look like much. Ah, but who got the highest number? Penelope Cruz with 72% similarity. Now that can be a good thing or a very bad thing.

Maybe i should grow some facial hair.

hm.

This is a funny thing but it doesnt mean much at all.

wonderfully cacophonous

How could i be so ignorant? i didnt realize cacophonous.org existed till three days ago, but hey, its the new year- let me start off again fresh.

2006? madness. I remember in elementary school writing the date- 1991 -on my papers and getting upset because it had just become 1992 and i had to then erase my mistake.

Its amazing how John Cage's story from living room music sounds like modern beat box and late 80s rap. Weird, i wonder what the actual score looks like, as it could just be the current interpretation (doubtful). I do not deny that i am hostile to much of cage's approach, (pretty much anything post 4'33"), but this piece and his construction #2 shocked me simply because of their date- the internet tells me the year for both these pieces was 1940.

1940!?!?!

David W Barber wrote a wonderful bit in his wonderful book Bach, Beethoven and the Boys:

What is there to say about Cage's music? In keeping with his own philsophical approach as a composer, I could very well say nothing at all. "I have nothing to say " he says cryptically, "and i am saying it and that is poetry". Are you following this?

So, would it be fair in modern music to treat him as he treated the piano in 4'33"? He thought statements of non-statements were poetry, so if we say nothing about cage except "i have nothing to say about John Cage" then we've done his art justice, by his own definition. Does that strike you as wrong?

This is why people like me object to Cage's approach, there is nihilistic element in it that is much more than unsettling, a love of an artistic-nihilistic paradox... but im rambling and this argument is much more involved than i have energy for.

Another day.