John Adams Oratorio El Nino is a fascinating work unlike any of his other large scale vocal oriented works. His three operas draw upon story lines indigenous to the twentieth century. Despite the political intrigue that could potentially be generated from some of the story lines, Adams has taken an objective interpretive approach to the different stories, portraying the events as close to the way they occurred while minimizing his personal viewpoint of the situation.
In El Nino, Adams draws upon 2700 years of literature that deals with the Birth of Christ. Here, his texts range from the prophet Isaiah in the eight century BC to the 1960s and the Mexican author Rosario Castellanos. The texts for this work are in three different languages: Latin, Spanish, and English (as mentioned in the previous blog post, Adams actually learned the Spanish language while writing this work in order to be able to more effectively set the Spanish texts to Music.)
The outline of the events for this story follow the Biblical accounts in the four gospels. Divided into two parts, the oratorio lasts approximately two hours and incorporates orchestra, SATB chorus and children's chorus. The world premiere of El Nino took place at the Théâtre du Chatelet on December 15, 2000 in Paris. The American premiere occurred January 11, 2001 at Davies Hall, San Francisco. The following is a list of the intended instrumentation for performance:
Orchestra
2 flutes (1&2=picc)
2 oboes (2=Cor anglais)
2 clarinets (2=bass clar)
2 bassoons (2nd =contra)
3 horns
3 trombones
2 steel string guitars
1 harp
piano (=celesta)
keyboard sampler (=celesta)
3 percussion (glock, almglocken, crotales, chimes, gongs)
Strings
14 Violins
6 Violas
6 Cellos
4 Contrabasses
While the Messiah by Handel would be an obvious work which El Nino could be compared to, it has some significant textual differences. Handel used only texts within the accepted Biblical Canon (in the Bible, there are 66 books that are accepted as "canonical" with 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament). In Adams work, not only does he draw upon contemporary Mexican texts, but also drew upon the writings of Martin Luther and the New Testament Apocrypha (the New Testament Apocrypha were writings that were rejected by the early church fathers as being uninspired and are not included among the 27 books of the New Testament.)
In an interview about this work, Adams points out that he was brought up in the New England Unitarian tradition, and was influenced by the works of the transcendentalists, Emerson, and Thoreau. Because of this perspective of the upbringing, his interpretations of the events surrounding them tend to be less on the textual fidelity to the events outlined in the gospels, but more towards the moral teachings that they fostered. This, he points out, is due to a antisuperntatural worldview espoused by the above writers. They tended towards an interpretational scheme that allowed them to allegorize and moralize the content rather than accept everything at face value.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
A Contrast of the Adams
Today in class we examined the compositions of John Luther Adams. I will admit that I do not have a great deal of exposure to his music, but I appreciated the relative simplicity of his ideas and how he was able to generate such magnificent works.
John Adams has a compositional style that has some striking similarities with that of John Luther Adams. Much of his compositional output has been described as being spatially oriented, somewhat like the music of John Luther Adams. A good example of this can be seen in the first act of The Death of Klinghoffer. As the music progresses, the music has a feeling of progressing towards the listener spatially, before slowly receding away.
In addition, both Adams are located on the West Coast. John Luther Adams (as Kyle pointed out today) is a resident of Alaska, Whereas John Adams resides in California. Both draw upon nature for their sources of inspiration. John Luther Adams is able to witness the rugged terrain of the Arctic regions. John Adams does much of his compositional work in a cabin located on an undeveloped homestead that allows him to get close to nature.
However, there is one very noticeable difference in their works which accounts for the immense popularity of John Adams. John Luther Adams moved to Alaska to get away from the congested regions of California and escape to the wilderness terrain. John Adams does escape to the Wilderness, but has continued to live in California for over three decades, traveling to conduct concerts worldwide.
There is another element in John Adams music that I touched on last week. That element is the American aspect. John Luther Adams writes music that depicts the region of Alaska in which he lives. It is wonderful, yet at the same time it is only regional in compass. John Adams music, on the other hand, explores much of not only our country or continent, but the entirety of the Americas.
The three operas and oratorio that Adams has written emphasize this great diversity. Nixon in China describes the visit of President Richard Nixon to China in the 1970's. The Death of Klinghoffer focuses on the murder of an American Jew, as well as the tensions associated with Jews and Palestinians, not only in the middle East, but also in the entire world. The oratorio El Nino depicts the Birth of Christ, but instead it presents it in the context of having occurred in Mexico (some of the texts used are Spanish. While writing this oratorio, Adams learned to read and speak Spanish.) Doctor Atomic explores the nuclear experiments in the Southwest during World War II, as well as the cultural environment that surrounded such a tense ordeal.
There are a great deal of other works that John Adams has written which reflect many of these same qualities. John Adams, as has been seen throughout the last few weeks (and I will discuss tomorrow in a post which will examine El Nino) writes music that is directed towards an audience, but it is an international one.
I love the music of John Luther Adams. It has a gothic feeling to it which makes it awe inspiring to listen to. Yet due to the fact that he has made an attempt to get away from the more populated regions of the world and John Adams willingness to not only live there but also travel extensively and maintain a metropolitan career, his music has caught on.
It is a shame though. I love John Adams music, but the music of John Luther Adams is immensely creative and deserves to get much more recognition in concert halls. Thank you again Kyle for sharing information about John Luther Adams. Hopefully, one day, his music will gain the notoriety among concert goers it deserves.
John Adams has a compositional style that has some striking similarities with that of John Luther Adams. Much of his compositional output has been described as being spatially oriented, somewhat like the music of John Luther Adams. A good example of this can be seen in the first act of The Death of Klinghoffer. As the music progresses, the music has a feeling of progressing towards the listener spatially, before slowly receding away.
In addition, both Adams are located on the West Coast. John Luther Adams (as Kyle pointed out today) is a resident of Alaska, Whereas John Adams resides in California. Both draw upon nature for their sources of inspiration. John Luther Adams is able to witness the rugged terrain of the Arctic regions. John Adams does much of his compositional work in a cabin located on an undeveloped homestead that allows him to get close to nature.
However, there is one very noticeable difference in their works which accounts for the immense popularity of John Adams. John Luther Adams moved to Alaska to get away from the congested regions of California and escape to the wilderness terrain. John Adams does escape to the Wilderness, but has continued to live in California for over three decades, traveling to conduct concerts worldwide.
There is another element in John Adams music that I touched on last week. That element is the American aspect. John Luther Adams writes music that depicts the region of Alaska in which he lives. It is wonderful, yet at the same time it is only regional in compass. John Adams music, on the other hand, explores much of not only our country or continent, but the entirety of the Americas.
The three operas and oratorio that Adams has written emphasize this great diversity. Nixon in China describes the visit of President Richard Nixon to China in the 1970's. The Death of Klinghoffer focuses on the murder of an American Jew, as well as the tensions associated with Jews and Palestinians, not only in the middle East, but also in the entire world. The oratorio El Nino depicts the Birth of Christ, but instead it presents it in the context of having occurred in Mexico (some of the texts used are Spanish. While writing this oratorio, Adams learned to read and speak Spanish.) Doctor Atomic explores the nuclear experiments in the Southwest during World War II, as well as the cultural environment that surrounded such a tense ordeal.
There are a great deal of other works that John Adams has written which reflect many of these same qualities. John Adams, as has been seen throughout the last few weeks (and I will discuss tomorrow in a post which will examine El Nino) writes music that is directed towards an audience, but it is an international one.
I love the music of John Luther Adams. It has a gothic feeling to it which makes it awe inspiring to listen to. Yet due to the fact that he has made an attempt to get away from the more populated regions of the world and John Adams willingness to not only live there but also travel extensively and maintain a metropolitan career, his music has caught on.
It is a shame though. I love John Adams music, but the music of John Luther Adams is immensely creative and deserves to get much more recognition in concert halls. Thank you again Kyle for sharing information about John Luther Adams. Hopefully, one day, his music will gain the notoriety among concert goers it deserves.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
John Cage
I love John Cage’s music. Probably the first several pieces of his music that I’ve heard are not too much in the “Zen” concept in yet. I think that hearing this first makes it easier for me to accept whatever kind of music he wrote later. Perhaps I don’t like some of his later works as much as the earlier things, but I still can find a way to appreciate what he had done. Some of the percussion works that he wrote have become standard repertoire for many percussion groups. I remember that I really liked his music and had a great impression of his musical designs when I first listened to it. Here is a link to one of my favorite works: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yGPAUcWyUU ). I also love the prepared piano sound a lot. The piece that Brad played for us on youtube was awesome. Of course, I’m not a “Cage” expert, but the music that I heard so far…I like it.
I think to be able to appreciate his later work, after his influence from “Zen” through Japanese scholar Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, we probably should look at the meaning of “Zen. This would give us more ideas of why his later work sounds the way it does. I’m not an expert of Zen Buddhism, either. But where I grew up there is a lot of influence from Buddhism. Here is the Wikipedia definition of Zen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen . This might be one reason that I find John Cage’s works more accessible.
Meditation is the core concept for Zen. Generally, they think that the language or words will set up the boundaries of the thoughts. You have to use your body and mind to feel it. This also is reflected to the language, art, and music in Asian culture. Notice that the Chinese painting has fewer details than western style. Maybe just a few figures are present, but they carry the concepts or the thoughts from the artist. The artist might try to express the idea for a story, a poem, or a secret through a simple figure and leave a lot of room for people’s imagination.
For music, the spirituality is always more important than the details in the composition by Asian composers. That doesn’t mean that the details are abandoned, but if the players only focus on forms, notes, harmonies, and so on… He/she is missing the most important elements. Because the spiritual is hard to write down in words or in notation, so you have to “feel” and “think” about it. It is more focused on how to present the music to the listener.
Maybe 4’33” is too much for the people who don’t know a lot about Cage before they hear it. It is just like me not knowing much about Nancarrow’s music before. The first time I heard his music was the player piano composition. My first response was “I don’t like that at all” and I don’t understand why he was so important before I went a step further to hear his other compositions.
I don’t think that I would be able to argue for or give a new or better definition of “music” but I am just sharing my ideas of how I appreciate Cage’s music. If you are looking for melody, harmonic, sonata form, or any traditional composition techniques, you might be going to the wrong direction if you want to know John Cage’s later works.
ipod: left turn
OK, I wanted to do the ipod thing. Crashed and Burned, it wasn't pretty (come on, someone get the movie quote...). So I want to take it in a different direction.
Put up 5 evocative or provocative titles of pieces, songs, whatever, on your ipod. Don't list the artist. Mine will mostly come from my art music collection since that's what I can think through relatively quickly. The challenge to the reader, assuming they have no clue who the music is from, is to ponder the following questions, then either post your responses (brief?) with your list, or else just sit in the dark alone and ponder quietly:
1) What would this music sound like? What sort of performing forces would be necessary?
2) Who could write music that would sound as the title would suggest? What is the sort of musical and cultural background of such a composer/artist/group/entity?
3) What is the audience for a music like this and what sort of reactions may they have to your imagined sonic result based on the title you have given them?
If you know something on the list, you obviously are not allowed to think about it! In a quite particular order undiscernible to you the viewer:
1) G-Spot Tornado (OK, that it is Zappa is relatively obvious, but I'm hoping most of you don't know what the piece sounds like)
2) The Immesurable Space of Tones
3) Onomatopoeia
4) Like Igor Stravinsky crossed with Thelonius Monk
5) Yo Shakespeare
Put up 5 evocative or provocative titles of pieces, songs, whatever, on your ipod. Don't list the artist. Mine will mostly come from my art music collection since that's what I can think through relatively quickly. The challenge to the reader, assuming they have no clue who the music is from, is to ponder the following questions, then either post your responses (brief?) with your list, or else just sit in the dark alone and ponder quietly:
1) What would this music sound like? What sort of performing forces would be necessary?
2) Who could write music that would sound as the title would suggest? What is the sort of musical and cultural background of such a composer/artist/group/entity?
3) What is the audience for a music like this and what sort of reactions may they have to your imagined sonic result based on the title you have given them?
If you know something on the list, you obviously are not allowed to think about it! In a quite particular order undiscernible to you the viewer:
1) G-Spot Tornado (OK, that it is Zappa is relatively obvious, but I'm hoping most of you don't know what the piece sounds like)
2) The Immesurable Space of Tones
3) Onomatopoeia
4) Like Igor Stravinsky crossed with Thelonius Monk
5) Yo Shakespeare
beyond the pale
We established on the day 1 that we couldn't get to everything we "needed" to. sure enough, we are succeeding admirably. =) There are literally hundreds of composers I could name who we won't get to, won't find out why their music is neat, cool, provocative, or important. We will be fortunate enough to scratch the surface of the 20 or so we will get to, though, most of us will have at least heard of some of these folks, meaning that there is only so much 'newness' to them (though how one can cease to find something new in Cage or Ives or Zappa I can't fathom).
That end, and roughly relating to my upcoming lecture on John Luther Adams, I would like to open this particular thread as a means of cataloging literature that may be useful to anyone who wishes to know some of these composers further. My initial list will be mostly works written by the composers themselves, but with the proviso that these works are usually the single best or most important examples of the written word through which to approach the aesthetic basis of the music we have studied. With the exception of just one or two on this initial list, these are the books I've read, books that have profoundly influenced my knowledge and perception of my musical education and the way I see the musical world these days. Anyone interested in any of the composers listed is obviously highly recommended to check the appropriate book(s) out.
Kyle Gann- Writings from the Village Voice
Alex Ross- The Rest is Noise
Steven Schick- The Percussionist's Art: Same Bed, Different Dreams
Harry Partch- Genesis of a Music
Henry Cowell- New Musical Resources
Charles Ives- Essays before a Sonata
John Cage- Soundings
Lou Harrison- Musical Primer
John Luther Adams- Winter Music
Morton Feldman- Give my Regards to 8th Street
Steve Reich- Writings on Music, 2000 ed.
This is of course just the tip of the iceberg. Other great places to read writings that I return to frequently include Peter Garland's Soundings journal from the 70s (a bunch of which we have upstairs) and back issues of Perspectives of New Music. The memorial issue on James Tenney is absolutely fabulous and includes writings or works from many of the people listed above.
If you have others, throw em up! I read. I want to read more.
That end, and roughly relating to my upcoming lecture on John Luther Adams, I would like to open this particular thread as a means of cataloging literature that may be useful to anyone who wishes to know some of these composers further. My initial list will be mostly works written by the composers themselves, but with the proviso that these works are usually the single best or most important examples of the written word through which to approach the aesthetic basis of the music we have studied. With the exception of just one or two on this initial list, these are the books I've read, books that have profoundly influenced my knowledge and perception of my musical education and the way I see the musical world these days. Anyone interested in any of the composers listed is obviously highly recommended to check the appropriate book(s) out.
Kyle Gann- Writings from the Village Voice
Alex Ross- The Rest is Noise
Steven Schick- The Percussionist's Art: Same Bed, Different Dreams
Harry Partch- Genesis of a Music
Henry Cowell- New Musical Resources
Charles Ives- Essays before a Sonata
John Cage- Soundings
Lou Harrison- Musical Primer
John Luther Adams- Winter Music
Morton Feldman- Give my Regards to 8th Street
Steve Reich- Writings on Music, 2000 ed.
This is of course just the tip of the iceberg. Other great places to read writings that I return to frequently include Peter Garland's Soundings journal from the 70s (a bunch of which we have upstairs) and back issues of Perspectives of New Music. The memorial issue on James Tenney is absolutely fabulous and includes writings or works from many of the people listed above.
If you have others, throw em up! I read. I want to read more.
Friday, March 6, 2009
New York Phil and other random thoughts
My husband surprised me with one ticket to hear the New York Philharmonic orchestra in Danville on Thursday night. I was so excited! Orchestras of this caliber were only ever accessible to me on cd back in South Africa. As a student, we would talk about what American orchestras we would hear first if any of us were given the opportunity. Over the past 2 years, I have experience more than I could ever have imagined.
So after 6 weeks of listening solely to American 20th century music, I was finally going to soothe my ears with the music of Berlioz, Schumann, and Mussorsky, or so I thought. As the orchestra walked on stage I felt a sense of relief in the tradition of this incredible medium and as the overture began, I was amazed at the depth in the simple unison passages of the various sections. It was then that I realized I was listening differently than I ever had before.
Perhaps the instrumental innovations of Partch made me appreciate the nine double basses on stage. The seemingly random sounds of Cage and Christian Wolff helped me to appreciate the simplicity of Schumann. And I began to think about all the discussions we had in class. Having read a lot about minimalism on my own the past weeks and the impact of the well-known and not so well-known composers thereon, I had to ask myself why they would abandon their traditions. I think you were defiantly right Evan, in saying that many of the composers of the time were “seeking for meaning and questioning everything about existence”. Their music defiantly seems to be rationalizable that way.
After interval, Mussorgsky’s ‘Pictures at an Exhibition’ (an orchestral excerpt I know frontwards and backwards in my tuba studies over the past 10 years). This magnificent work was surely going to help me put all this ‘American Innovator thought’ out of my head so that I could just enjoy the performance…there I go thinking again! I was completely and utterly disappointed. Not by the New York Philharmonic orchestras performance itself, but by the music. It was predictable, every chord, every sound, even the cheap climax at the end of ‘The Great Gate of Kiev’. My only explanation is that the listening I have done recently has demanded more from my ears than I had previously anticipated and that the familiar sounds of the classical and romantic composers were now almost disappointing. I’m sure that will change again with time, as I believe music is evolutionary within every individual. But until then, I am less inclined to allow my ears to get too comfortable again with “traditional sounds”.
At the end, the little old lady sitting next to me asked me ‘what did you think of the performance?’. I instinctly but politely answered ‘from what perspective would you like?’. I didn’t elaborate to her but I was consumed by the ideas we’ve thrown around the room and the blog about various composer’s views. If ‘noise can connect us to the present moment’ as Dr. Brunner said, then I was defiantly not connected. I could not escape the batter in my head thinking whether from Cage’s perspective, the coughing and shuffling around me during the performance all added to my experience.
I did not give a standing ovation (although I rarely do as I sincerely believe that these are reserved for exceptional performances, and not simply something one ‘does’). But I clapped in sincere appreciation and left feeling disappointed. Perhaps in that brief moment I experienced just a little of what some of the innovative composers we have been studying, felt. The need for something more, something different. Or perhaps I’m giving myself way too much credit.
I do know this for sure, I am more excited about experiencing 4’33 live (Brad, the onus is on you to pull through with this one). LaMonte Young is giving a performance of his Raga Sundara in the Dream House (a continuous electronic sound environment in luminous fields of colored light) at the Guggenheim in New York next week, I would give my front teeth to see that! And in studying LaMonte Young (whom I will try to share with you on Tuesday) it has allowed me to experience music on a completely different plain.
If you get a chance, listen to LaMonte Young’s Drift Study 31 1 69 http://ubu.artmob.ca/sound/aspen/mp3/drift.mp3. Is this really music? I’ll try to shed some light on it on Tuesday…oh the pressure!!!
Did this blog make any sense? It did in my head. Sound familiar?
So after 6 weeks of listening solely to American 20th century music, I was finally going to soothe my ears with the music of Berlioz, Schumann, and Mussorsky, or so I thought. As the orchestra walked on stage I felt a sense of relief in the tradition of this incredible medium and as the overture began, I was amazed at the depth in the simple unison passages of the various sections. It was then that I realized I was listening differently than I ever had before.
Perhaps the instrumental innovations of Partch made me appreciate the nine double basses on stage. The seemingly random sounds of Cage and Christian Wolff helped me to appreciate the simplicity of Schumann. And I began to think about all the discussions we had in class. Having read a lot about minimalism on my own the past weeks and the impact of the well-known and not so well-known composers thereon, I had to ask myself why they would abandon their traditions. I think you were defiantly right Evan, in saying that many of the composers of the time were “seeking for meaning and questioning everything about existence”. Their music defiantly seems to be rationalizable that way.
After interval, Mussorgsky’s ‘Pictures at an Exhibition’ (an orchestral excerpt I know frontwards and backwards in my tuba studies over the past 10 years). This magnificent work was surely going to help me put all this ‘American Innovator thought’ out of my head so that I could just enjoy the performance…there I go thinking again! I was completely and utterly disappointed. Not by the New York Philharmonic orchestras performance itself, but by the music. It was predictable, every chord, every sound, even the cheap climax at the end of ‘The Great Gate of Kiev’. My only explanation is that the listening I have done recently has demanded more from my ears than I had previously anticipated and that the familiar sounds of the classical and romantic composers were now almost disappointing. I’m sure that will change again with time, as I believe music is evolutionary within every individual. But until then, I am less inclined to allow my ears to get too comfortable again with “traditional sounds”.
At the end, the little old lady sitting next to me asked me ‘what did you think of the performance?’. I instinctly but politely answered ‘from what perspective would you like?’. I didn’t elaborate to her but I was consumed by the ideas we’ve thrown around the room and the blog about various composer’s views. If ‘noise can connect us to the present moment’ as Dr. Brunner said, then I was defiantly not connected. I could not escape the batter in my head thinking whether from Cage’s perspective, the coughing and shuffling around me during the performance all added to my experience.
I did not give a standing ovation (although I rarely do as I sincerely believe that these are reserved for exceptional performances, and not simply something one ‘does’). But I clapped in sincere appreciation and left feeling disappointed. Perhaps in that brief moment I experienced just a little of what some of the innovative composers we have been studying, felt. The need for something more, something different. Or perhaps I’m giving myself way too much credit.
I do know this for sure, I am more excited about experiencing 4’33 live (Brad, the onus is on you to pull through with this one). LaMonte Young is giving a performance of his Raga Sundara in the Dream House (a continuous electronic sound environment in luminous fields of colored light) at the Guggenheim in New York next week, I would give my front teeth to see that! And in studying LaMonte Young (whom I will try to share with you on Tuesday) it has allowed me to experience music on a completely different plain.
If you get a chance, listen to LaMonte Young’s Drift Study 31 1 69 http://ubu.artmob.ca/sound/aspen/mp3/drift.mp3. Is this really music? I’ll try to shed some light on it on Tuesday…oh the pressure!!!
Did this blog make any sense? It did in my head. Sound familiar?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
I DON"T LIKE IT -- BUT IS IT MUSIC?
okay, so I said it... I don't like the music of John Cage! It's dissonant, its senseless... What does chance have to do with making music? My less than traditional education would have me believe that not liking the strange works of Cage is just closed minded. My more traditional senses tell me I like what like and thats not 4'33" !
But, is it music?
Theoetically, the rules of music are not followed. Where is the form? I can't recognize a sonata form, a rondo or even a mazurka in there. What about the resolution of dissonaces and for heavens sake where are the consonant harmonies? To me it seems John "Caged" the consonance when he imancipated the dissonance. What about meter, sure it may fit into some relative time frame, but it's not exactly got the strong and week beats of four-four or six-eight time.
But, is it music?
Cage's "song books" certainly don't pay tribute to the tradition of Bel Canto singing. In fact they're not all song. Rather they are performed by a "singer" but does turning on a radio, bouncing a ball on a wall, or carrying a flag while shouting sloagans about anarchy count as "singing"?
And, is it music?
I've heard of a bassoon, but a bath tub? A flute, but a frying pan? When did a flower pot or a rice steamer become an instrument. Does a rubber duck even really make a sound? Certainly it's entertaining and even comical...
But, is it music?
Well perhaps I will answer that question in the same way I think Mr. Cage would; with another question.
Does it matter what label we give it? Performance art, noise, sound effects, music? It doesn't change the function, the influences, the history and the effect that it has on the future of "music" So does it matter? It is still there, does calling it something other than music somehow discredit it, or make a person like me, who doesn't like it feel better because they can rule it out of that catagory and pay it no regard? I don't think calling it something else will get rid of it. So is it music.
Just for the sake of argument here is how wikipedia defines music -- I open this disscussion in the hope that we can each contribute a new definition of music; our own or from a reputable source. How do these definitions differ, how are they similar and do they fit our ideals of music?
"Music is an art form whose medium is sound organized in time. Common elements of music are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture. The word derives from Greek μουσική (mousike), "(art) of the Muses".[1]
The creation, performance, significance, and even the definition of music vary according to culture and social context. Music ranges from strictly organized compositions (and their recreation in performance), through improvisational music to aleatoric forms. Music can be divided into genres and subgenres, although the dividing lines and relationships between music genres are often subtle, sometimes open to individual interpretation, and occasionally controversial. Within "the arts", music may be classified as a performing art, a fine art, and auditory art.
To people in many cultures, music is inextricably intertwined into their way of life. Greek philosophers and ancient Indians defined music as tones ordered horizontally as melodies and vertically as harmonies. Common sayings such as "the harmony of the spheres" and "it is music to my ears" point to the notion that music is often ordered and pleasant to listen to. However, 20th-century composer John Cage thought that any sound can be music, saying, for example, "There is no noise, only sound."[2] According to musicologist Jean-Jacques Nattiez, "the border between music and noise is always culturally defined—which implies that, even within a single society, this border does not always pass through the same place; in short, there is rarely a consensus.… By all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be, except that it is 'sound through time'."[3] "
1. Mousike, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, at Perseus
2. John Cage, 79, a Minimalist Enchanted With Sound, Dies
3. Nattiez 1990: 47-8, 55
But, is it music?
Theoetically, the rules of music are not followed. Where is the form? I can't recognize a sonata form, a rondo or even a mazurka in there. What about the resolution of dissonaces and for heavens sake where are the consonant harmonies? To me it seems John "Caged" the consonance when he imancipated the dissonance. What about meter, sure it may fit into some relative time frame, but it's not exactly got the strong and week beats of four-four or six-eight time.
But, is it music?
Cage's "song books" certainly don't pay tribute to the tradition of Bel Canto singing. In fact they're not all song. Rather they are performed by a "singer" but does turning on a radio, bouncing a ball on a wall, or carrying a flag while shouting sloagans about anarchy count as "singing"?
And, is it music?
I've heard of a bassoon, but a bath tub? A flute, but a frying pan? When did a flower pot or a rice steamer become an instrument. Does a rubber duck even really make a sound? Certainly it's entertaining and even comical...
But, is it music?
Well perhaps I will answer that question in the same way I think Mr. Cage would; with another question.
Does it matter what label we give it? Performance art, noise, sound effects, music? It doesn't change the function, the influences, the history and the effect that it has on the future of "music" So does it matter? It is still there, does calling it something other than music somehow discredit it, or make a person like me, who doesn't like it feel better because they can rule it out of that catagory and pay it no regard? I don't think calling it something else will get rid of it. So is it music.
Just for the sake of argument here is how wikipedia defines music -- I open this disscussion in the hope that we can each contribute a new definition of music; our own or from a reputable source. How do these definitions differ, how are they similar and do they fit our ideals of music?
"Music is an art form whose medium is sound organized in time. Common elements of music are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture. The word derives from Greek μουσική (mousike), "(art) of the Muses".[1]
The creation, performance, significance, and even the definition of music vary according to culture and social context. Music ranges from strictly organized compositions (and their recreation in performance), through improvisational music to aleatoric forms. Music can be divided into genres and subgenres, although the dividing lines and relationships between music genres are often subtle, sometimes open to individual interpretation, and occasionally controversial. Within "the arts", music may be classified as a performing art, a fine art, and auditory art.
To people in many cultures, music is inextricably intertwined into their way of life. Greek philosophers and ancient Indians defined music as tones ordered horizontally as melodies and vertically as harmonies. Common sayings such as "the harmony of the spheres" and "it is music to my ears" point to the notion that music is often ordered and pleasant to listen to. However, 20th-century composer John Cage thought that any sound can be music, saying, for example, "There is no noise, only sound."[2] According to musicologist Jean-Jacques Nattiez, "the border between music and noise is always culturally defined—which implies that, even within a single society, this border does not always pass through the same place; in short, there is rarely a consensus.… By all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be, except that it is 'sound through time'."[3] "
1. Mousike, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, at Perseus
2. John Cage, 79, a Minimalist Enchanted With Sound, Dies
3. Nattiez 1990: 47-8, 55
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)