Notation and Sequencing Software

[Philidor]

I interpreted Jeff's comments as a sort of Puritanism (which isn't meant as a criticism). The claim that: (a) things are no good if they don't hurt - a variation on the theme that the artist must suffer to produce great art - and (b) anti-Catholicism: anything that gets between man and God is BAD.

Sibelius, technology and Western consumerism* fall down on both counts. Suffering is drastically reduced (who knows what pap Bach might have composed if death hadn't been a daily visitor, particularly to his own children) and God notoriously is banished by material comfort. For example, the great God-killer in Britain was the welfare state (not Darwin as many claim). Banish "want, ignorance, disease, squalor and idleness" from society (or at least drastically reduce it) and God goes into full retreat. It's one reason the US is still God-intoxicated: if you're poor, ill or old you have a hard time, and people having a hard time turn to God. They also, if they're tough enough, produce great art. But the argument's logical conclusion is to demand an increase in human suffering and who, apart from the occasional mad clergyman or high Tory when he's had too much to drink, is willing to stand up and say that? I wish Jeff was here to defend himself.



* Somewhat reduced at present

[Herzeleide]

Originally Posted by Scott Good

About notation software: It is neither good nor bad. Like any technology (such as paper, a pen, a hammer, a typewriter, a car, a syringe, dynamite etc etc), it does not come with morality. It is only what the user makes of it. It is a tool.

I don't think so... technology, remember, is human-made, hence it is not morally neutral. Obviously this does not apply to music software, but some technology is intrinsically malevolent. Weapons for a start!

Originally Posted by Scott Good

But, it is not right (in my opinion) to be dogmatic in believing it is the cause of any problems. It is simply a tool with limitations. The key to it's effective use is to understand those limitations, and to not let them get in the way.

True. But, having listened to many compositions conceived at Sibelius by students, I was left with the impression that Sibelius was the problem. Of course, students can be told how to treat Sibelius sensibly and responsibly, but no one can make them. I think it's tied ineluctably to general musicianship amongst students, because if any of them were forced to use their head, pencil and paper, they would very quickly realise the various fundamental skills that needed vastly improving. Such an issue goes deep into current standards of music education, where music literacy is woefully poor, and machines are brought in to compensate for this, thus offering an excuse not to improve musicianship. In Britain, one does not even have to read music at GCSE! It's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Scott Good

Can't teach an old dog new tricks, which can be seen clearly from Carter's latest works - very similar in all regards to the music he composed 40+ years earlier (except a bit more subtle, perhaps). He has not embraced newer compositional concepts, and why should he. If it ain't broke...

I would say that his recent compositions are palpably different from the overtly complex compositions of forty years' ago (forty years' since the Concerto for Orchestra, non?)... obviously his fundamental musical language has not changed (he's no Stravinsky, that's for sure) but his more recent works have greater lucidity and less opaque textures, hence commentators' saying it's like a new classicism.

Originally Posted by Scott Good

I would also like to add that the study of orchestration from a book is far inferior to actually being in an orchestra, and listening to an orchestra. in concert and rehearsal (the rehearsal process is so important to understanding how an orchestra works)

I agree. I feel quite lucky to have attended rehearsals, and we can see how spending hours' at rehearsals during his childhood rubbed off on Oliver Knussen.
Obviously I think the notion that orchestration ought to be taught exclusively from a textbook is mad. Rather, my suggestion would be to constantly listen to orchestral pieces along with the score. I freqently spontaneously remember excerpts of orchestral pieces I love, then go and consult the score on the specific orchestration of that passage. In time, one builds up an aural library of instrumental and orchestral sounds, with the real sound in mind, not some Ersatz factitious reproduction on 'Sibelius'. BTW - I think all orchestration texts should come with a CD - like Kent Kennan's.

Originally Posted by Scott Good

This is an art in it self.

Well, maybe it's the graphic designer in me (my maternal grandfather taught and practiced technical drawing) but I take great delight in writing my manuscripts in pencil and making them neat and pretty. I certainly find it far more satisfying and liberating than 'Sibelius', which I find frequently infuriating. Also, if I were to spend the requisite number of hours on 'Sibelius' then I would find my right-hand palm starting to ache (which I find if I spend too long on the computer anyway).

[birabiro]

Originally Posted by Philidor

Thanks. I'm pretty much with you on this btw. If I was teaching music to a bunch of 14 yr olds for GCSE it would be wonderful if they could compose and listen to their work. When I was at school it would have been sheer joy to have had a sequencer. As long as the teacher makes it clear it's a tool, a means to an end, and that live performance is best, I don't see a problem. Or it's like arguing against the printing press, in case the proles read something unsuitable. Or against the Mass said in English for fear of the congregation becoming inflamed with religious fervor and giving their money away to the poor.

My boys learned basic aural skills from a computer program, Practica Musica. They started composing using me. (They played on the piano and I wrote it down). I switched them to Finale, however, like me they never used it for playback. It is a wonderful tool . Its like using a typewriter with the cut and paste method for an essay versus a computer with Word. It is nice to click and drag when you are a beginner learning to organize.
It is wonderful to have earlier parts above where you are working.
I do not even know how to use the play back parts - and i do all my first drafts on paper at the kitchen table. I will never go back to pen and ink for the rest.
Parts are so easy - a couple of clicks and you can give the performer something - and corrections are easy also.
I remember a sax score that I wrote before I had finale. I left out a measure when I made the final copy. what a mess! - I had to rewrite an entire page and cram it all together so I would end up ready for the next page.

[Scott Good]

Philidor,

Excellent! Let's go from there.

(Btw, If this, indeed, were the meanings behind the words Jeff wrote, then I have more empathy and interest in what he has to say. But, I doubt it. Sorry to be a jerk, but his words really got under my skin. I mean, he said my work, and the work of my friends, teachers and colleagues is crap!)

At any rate...

The suffering artist...I do believe that there is some truth to this. I recently read an article in which wisdom was trying to be measured. Unfortunately, I cannot cite as I can't remember where the article is (I'll keep looking), but I do remember that although it was a quality that was hard to measure (as what exactly are the measurable traits of wisdom?), it seemed as if those who contained the most wisdom were those that had suffered. In essence, through their experience, and "survival" or what have you, they gained insight into the human condition that others who had not suffered were not privy to.

And it wouldn't be a stretch to pair wisdom and art together. Could one say that art is expressing the wisdom of emotion? (i hear ohm and bells....)

But, people still suffer, yes?...less...perhaps?? I think this could be argued effectively - mortality rates are much higher, allowing for a higher percentage of the population to reach their full life value. And a child dying is a suffering as much as anything I can imagine - and this is something I know about. But, the measure of suffering is tricky subject as it is not in proportion necessarily to the cause. The mind is a complex place, and I am certainly no expert by any stretch. Bid Van Gogh suffer? Did he suffer more than Bach? I think so. Will one suffer more if their child is dying rather than the 1000's people dying that they don't know? Certainly.

Is not the human condition, that is, as we are aware of our mortality, a basis of suffering for all?

And, what about existential suffering? This become more and more prevalent as materialism replaces truly meaningful relationships. This is the "new" godless suffering, and it exists everywhere, covered up with a gloss of plastic and a sparling, bright white smile. Why is it that the pharmaceutical companies are raking it in with anti-depressants?

What I would like to propose is the idea that through work and conscious attention, great art can be achieved, and that it's role to play in society is still as vital as ever. The sensitivity to tragedy and suffering only needs to be heightened for a communal sense of suffering and dealing with the suffering to occur. And also, was Bach's greatness due to suffering, or might it be more accurate to say that it is because of his genius like sense of beauty, and a work ethic to be able to explore it to its full potential? A bit of both.

One last point (boy do I blather). As far as artistic sacrifice - bleeding for your art and all that, I would like to point out that composers such as Bach and Brahms and Beethoven and the gang had a crutch as well that has been stripped away from us. The kind of crutch that could facilitate ease in which to compose in one's head thousands of pieces and all that - it is called "functional tonality". A set of fairly easy to follow "rules". This was their "Sibelius", and it is long gone. The composer today is faced with endless possibility, and this is both stimulating, and very intimidating. Sonata form, fugue, dominants and tonics, augmented and diminished etc - they all still exist, but now we can add a myriad of other possibility, from the aleotorisism of Cage to the rigor of Boulez - the complex mathematics of Xenakis to the simple algebraic constructions of Part. The romantic angst of Shostakovitch to the clean clarity of Webern. There is Jazz and it's child Rock. There are all the "isms" - serial, minimal, expression, pointal, experimental, impression etc etc, There is access to all music of the world, folk and classical - both present and from the past. Now, can you tell me that all this makes it easier than they had in the good ol' days? And don't be fooled, lots and lots of generic, uncreative crap was written because of this crutch. Just because something sounds pleasant doesn't mean it is quality. It is much deeper than just liking something.

What you have to understand about my perspective is I am not just a composer, but also a performer, and importantly to this, a curator and programmer. There is a massive resistance to the new out there, and it is stifling programming to the point of no return. I love this art form! I want it to thrive!!! I want it to be a part of the community, as I believe it has much to offer. But if old dead european white dudes is all we can offer (because people wont support new art, and money rules the world), I can assure you, it will die a slow death. The composer is the fuel for the fire. And I believe if the society engages with the artist, the artist will return the favor, and genius will blossom.

[Philidor]

Originally Posted by Scott Good

Suffering...

I'm no expert on comparative religion, but I think it's true that Christianity is more concerned with suffering than any other. It places suffering at the centre in ways which, say, Islam and Buddhism do not - their major concerns are elsewhere. The story of Christ on the cross, of a father sacrificing his son (the death of a child if you like), Christ dying to make general human suffering less acute, offering hope at the times when people are in deepest despair, has a profound history in Western culture. Given this history, and given the rise of Godless consumerism, I think the Western composer is placed in a difficult position. Music is notoriously good at expressing sorrow - people weep easily when exposed to sad music. Other art forms - books, pictures etc - have to try harder for the same effect. A composer gets more bang for his buck! (I went to a great performance of the St John Passion last year and buttoned-up Englishmen in tweeds were snuffling away all round me.) So, in sense, music has been handmaiden to both Christianity and suffering. It's been very good at communicating, examining, exposing, the central Christian message. Yet those links are now broken. God is dying in the West as scientific advances and greater wealth kill suffering (or, as you say, take the sting out of it, move it to the existential realm). The Western composer has had the ground whipped out from under his feet. He can still express suffering in music, e.g. Gorecki's Sorrowful Songs - but it's no longer reflected in the daily lives of most people around him and underpinned by a major religion.

My point is - I'm not expressing it clearly - the death of God, the accompanying reduction (in the privileged West) of raw human suffering – large numbers of children dying, many women dying in child-birth (when a woman agreed to marry a man and have his children she was often sentencing herself to death, and knew it, so marriage was a serious business), low life expectancy, cholera epidemics, operations without anaesthetic, lethal working conditions, etc etc – has abolished a key area in which the composer excelled. He can still do love, patriotism and nature but suffering (with exceptions such as Gorecki) no longer has the same sting. The death of God in the West has reduced the stature of the composer.

This is wildly offtopic - sorry.

[Herzeleide]

You must NOT find notation/sequencing software either useful, enjoyable or helpful.

[Herzeleide]

Originally Posted by Philidor

My point is - I'm not expressing it clearly - the death of God, the accompanying reduction (in the privileged West) of raw human suffering – large numbers of children dying, many women dying in child-birth (when a woman agreed to marry a man and have his children she was often sentencing herself to death, and knew it, so marriage was a serious business), low life expectancy, cholera epidemics, operations without anaesthetic, lethal working conditions, etc etc – has abolished a key area in which the composer excelled. He can still do love, patriotism and nature but suffering (with exceptions such as Gorecki) no longer has the same sting. The death of God in the West has reduced the stature of the composer.

But if anything I'd say that there has been more harrowingly sad, neurotic and sorrowful music in the twentieth-century than in any century before it!

[birabiro]

Originally Posted by Herzeleide

But if anything I'd say that there has been more harrowingly sad, neurotic and sorrowful music in the twentieth-century than in any century before it!

i doubt that there is less suffering now than there was before. War, genocide (not just racial but political as seen in the cone of South America and south east asia) and the oppression necessary to enforce the "free" capitalist economic system that we are not witnessing have caused massive suffering. And there seems to be no end in sight.
If artists reflect the times then we are in for some troubling listening.

[Philidor]

Originally Posted by birabiro

i doubt that there is less suffering now than there was before. War, genocide (not just racial but political as seen in the cone of South America and south east asia) and the oppression necessary to enforce the "free" capitalist economic system that we are not witnessing have caused massive suffering. And there seems to be no end in sight.
If artists reflect the times then we are in for some troubling listening.

I agree. But I was thinking of the privileged West and Western composers producing music primarily for Western audiences. If the aim is to speak directly to the audience's emotions - and that surely must be their aim - then those emotions have changed radically along with the huge reduction in suffering in the audience's daily lives.

Sure, we feel sorrow, outrage, political anger etc at suffering in the developing world but we no longer have direct, personal experience of the pain involved in, say, losing child after child to diphtheria.

This, I'd argue, places modern Western composers in a new and precarious position and helps explain why much modern classical music seems distant, alienated, detached from basic human experience. It's because one of the main areas in which Western composers traditionally worked - the examination of direct human suffering and their listeners' relationship with God in response to that suffering - is no longer available to them. Both the suffering and the power of God has been reduced. Western science and the enlightenment project have ejected Western composers from what was their (the composers') primary operational territory.

They need to find new territory, to enable them to produce a coherent answer to the question: 'What's my music for?' Bach could answer that question easily. Can Sir Peter Maxwell Davies?

[Herzeleide]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting Phil.

I mean, can we not understand the melancholy music of past composers as well as audiences could then? I recently read a biography of Schumann - he had to deal with the death of family and friends quite frequently. Must we suffer such losses to understand the melancholy of some of his pieces?

BTW - Romanticism was, to some extent a reaction against the Enlightenment and science and I'd argue that the death of God has produced music more painful than was possible when belief in God was de rigeur. Would Schoenberg's Erwartung be possible in a religious age? Also, I should point out that the person responsible for the most joyful music of the twentieth-century was also the most confidently religious - Messiaen.