Yeah, I've seen paintings done by elephants. They were interesting - for a little while.
Also, irrelevant, IMO.
Also, irrelevant, IMO.
I'm curious who are the members on TC who usually eschew artistic hierarchies of "this is better than that"?I just think it's very interesting that some people who usually eschew artistic hierarchies of "this is better than that" can find such a hierarchy and place this piece on the lower level of it, and apparently without much basis other than the intent of the creator of it. To put it another way, Bach can't really be any "better" than Elliott Carter, but anything by Elliott Carter is somehow self-evidently better than "Bubbles".
You persistently ignore several people, including myself, who have told you that they recognize hierarchies as subjective assessments made individually. Your opinion might be that Bach is superior to Hip-hop, but another person may disagree."Bach is superior to hip hop." Discuss.
Well, you sure have spent a lot of time not getting your knickers in a twist over avant-garde classical music.Subjective assessments made individually are really no more meaningful than "blue is my favorite color", and I'm not certainly not going to get my knickers in a twist if someone prefers red.
You have continually argued about Bach, e.g., being greater than Carter, e.g., or Rap, etc. Why?No I haven't. I find a lot of avant garde or "new music" to be very interesting.
Again, for the umpteenth time: Bach is greater than Carter to someone who thinks that, but not to someone who thinks the opposite."Continually"? No, only in this thread. Why not? Is Bach greater than Carter? Is ' "Bubbles" is better than A Mirror on Which to Dwell' a valid judgement?
I guess you believe (and it is a belief) there is objective criteria that establishes (as an incontrovertible fact) that Bach is better than Carter. And that this information is important. I disagree on both counts, but most emphatically on the second.So he really isn't, and "Bubbles" may very well be better than Carter's entire output to someone who thinks so. Therefore why the consternation?
First of all it has not been demonstrated that the work was "badly composed." In fact, the process used included standard methods of composing: editing the thematic material, deciding upon a multi-movement form, applying durational manipulation and other standard tools such as retrograde to the motives and phrases, and deciding upon the instruments and orchestration.The behavior of the avant-garde wasn't very pieceful towards more conservative composers in the past. And there is a competition for performance and influence anyway. So I demand a fair competition. Things like this, a composition verified to be badly composed wins a prize, backs up my assumption that there is no fair competition, and that decision makers are biased towards atonal music.
Apparently the boards perceived more stylistic new ground than in previous works by this composer known to them, this was stated in their letter.That does not seem probable to me. I mean, how is Bubbles a forward-looking piece? Does it really plow new stylistic ground?
Then you did not watch the video since the composer described in detail all of the manipulation he applied to the raw material (you also must not have read my other post which specifically outlines the compositional process he used). What he did was very similar to the example of Schumann you cited.I get what you mean, there are pieces like Schumann's ABEGG-Variations, where he just mapped a person's name to musical notes and then used it as a motive. However, in these cases the 'random find' is just a small part of the composition, as the development of the motive and its harmonisation is mediated by the composer's craftmanship.
In the case of Bubbles, however, the 'random find' is literally the entire composition. There is no conscious musical structuring to speak of.
Who said the kids had no musical education? I have to assume they did. But in any event, it is irrelevant whether they did or did not have any training. The raw material is just that: material to be manipulated in order to create a musical work. This the composer has done. The meaning of the word composer is based on the idea of putting things together, which is the most important aspect of composing, not necessarily the origin of the raw material.But the kids "improvised" without musical education. And he used more than just the phrases he liked.
I assume improvisation by someone who can play an instrument is better than by someone who can't. And this also is a point that convinces me that musical quality is somewhat objective. If player A or B is better is primarily subjective but who wouldn't agree that the quality of the music from both was better after they learned to play the instrument?
I am not talking about the nature of a person, but the nature of the music. Obviously the boards in question have their own ideas about what music is forward-looking or at least I think their letter referenced the composer's stylistic evolution. I did not get the impression they were concerned with establishing a preferred style for all music they fund.But which natures are forward-looking? This is an even more subjective question than the question of quality.
I can't speak for "avant-gardists" (whatever that is) in general. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and don't assume they are insincere or indiscriminating concerning matters of taste.And "new" and "forward-looking" aren't the same thing. But maybe some avant-gardists don't make a distinction here.
I am not arguing that what Comitas did was good music, but from my viewing of the video I came to a different impression of the amount of manipulation he applied. I only watched one video where he described his process of working with the raw material. Obviously, Comitas is not an exemplary example of a composer of avant-garde music, in fact he is trying his hardest to discredit the entire genre.I'm sorry but that's not correct.
I recommend you to watch the first video again, to pay attention to the Raw Material that he plays and to compare it to the finished music in the second video. The movements sound, despite the changed instrumentation, almost identical. So the composer clearly didn't do anything significant to change them.
As he explains in the first video, most of the things he did (double note values, bar lines) only make the score more readable and professional looking without actually changing the music.
The only exception is indeed the 3rd movement. Here the composer applies the retrograde plugin which causes the entire movement to be played backwards. This makes the movement in fact even more random sounding than it already is. He thought that this randomness would create an increased vibe of "complexity".
So no, this can absolutely not be compared to what Schumann does. Schumann composed music, Comitas made a score look pretty. I think we can believe that this piece is indeed just a child's improvisation.
You are not giving enough credit to composers of new music if you think they are susceptible to perpetuating this kind of fraud. They are artists with the ambition of realizing specific aesthetic goals. They do this by writing new music that explores a variety of extended techniques, imaginative narratives, confronting social issues, and historical injustices.Yes its sad, because his other stuff doesn't seem bad. I like his piece "the witches cauldron". He is not just an untalented composer salty that he is bad. He has some talent, but the jury preferred him using nonsense instead of his talent for composition. I fear that this "card-trick" is reproducible. But if it is reproducible than it is justified because it proves a grievance.
Young composers have used some aspect of 21st century society as a jumping off point, but it is not always political in nature. Issues of community, otherness, communication, figure prominently in the lives of people in their 20s and 30s, and it is natural that these same issues will inspire their music. But not always. However, I have noticed this in my interviews with a number of young composers.Isn't that a bit too much political? Do they really have aesthetic goals if at least 50% of these aspects are political?
Really? Where are the confronting social issues and historical injustices in the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Bruckner and Tchaikovsky for example? In Wagners case ok I see it, "Verachtet mir die Meister nicht" somewhat fits into the "historical injustices" category. And the first and second theme in Bruckners Symphony No. 3 are actually about "confronting social issues". But I mean that is rather a side note. These composers wrote a lot of absolut music. Where are the politics in Tchaikovskys swan lake or Mozarts symphonia concertante KV 364?
I read these as rhetorical questions since there is no way I can answer them. But it ought to be obvious that composers choose the tonal/atonal style as it suits their expression.I didn't meant contests, but the everyday rivalry on the market. Like Honda and Chevy but not in a race but at the shop counter.
There is music of classical composers which doesn't get performed at all or delayed for 50 years.
And what inspires them to atonal music exactly? I associate "community", "communication", "social media" rather with popular music influence which is tonal. What is the purpose of making everything sound dissonant? What about musicans of popular music? Why do they prefer tonal music? Are they less inspired by "community, otherness, communication", "technology, globalism, social media, and related "hive mind" concepts"?
William Basinski's Disintegration Loops - absolutely beautiful and extremely moving if you know the full story behind them.Just as an example, one of the most acclaimed (by which I mean it got praise from the mainstream music press) avant-garde works of the 21st century consisted of a tape loop which, due to problems with the equipment, slowly degraded over time as it was recorded and looped.
To what extent is it "just random"? Does it matter if the work was conceived by accident?