Thinking in new directions…
The question to come out at the Piteå conference was:
"Many people perceive improvised or generative music as chaotic. How can you address that in your work?"
This is a really good question because it's tied into the idea that all music, in terms of its "goodness," is critiqued along the same lines—listening. If people like to listen to it then it's good; if they don't then it's not good. The problem with this in relation to my work is that the experience isn't about listening it's about experiencing while in the flow of doing something else in which they are 1) actively engaged, and 2) have a direct responsibility in creating what it is they are hearing. The passivity is completely removed in lieu of a direct engagement with the environment/apparatus that creates the music. There may be a relation here to Harold Cohen's research that should have been discovered/read back in April.
I think right now that this can be related to some of the pre-Istanbul research I did. The idea of listening modes and "using" music helps revel some of what's at work here. People get into the mode of listening to music passively—it is their "experience creator." They play it and let it work its magic. What I propose has a completely different intent. In the composition-instrument a player/ user/ listener/ composer is directly engaged with the music and is, in fact, making the music as they go along. I have compared this experience to that of someone in an improvising ensemble where as the music unfolds, new directions, meaning, and understanding emerges as a result of their contribution relative to the rest of the music. As they provide a new foreground or background the overall musical texture (timbre, tonality, etc.) shifts and adopts a new character as direct result of their intervention. There is nothing passive about this.
On a lighter note, this can be likened to the "bad music" we all make in private. It's crap—but it's our crap, and that makes it fantastic. Pride of ownership trumps aesthetic value.
I need to look further into all of this, but it seems to be a way to answer important questions, rectify old inconsistencies, and point the way forward with the composition-instrument technique.
"Many people perceive improvised or generative music as chaotic. How can you address that in your work?"
This is a really good question because it's tied into the idea that all music, in terms of its "goodness," is critiqued along the same lines—listening. If people like to listen to it then it's good; if they don't then it's not good. The problem with this in relation to my work is that the experience isn't about listening it's about experiencing while in the flow of doing something else in which they are 1) actively engaged, and 2) have a direct responsibility in creating what it is they are hearing. The passivity is completely removed in lieu of a direct engagement with the environment/apparatus that creates the music. There may be a relation here to Harold Cohen's research that should have been discovered/read back in April.
I think right now that this can be related to some of the pre-Istanbul research I did. The idea of listening modes and "using" music helps revel some of what's at work here. People get into the mode of listening to music passively—it is their "experience creator." They play it and let it work its magic. What I propose has a completely different intent. In the composition-instrument a player/ user/ listener/ composer is directly engaged with the music and is, in fact, making the music as they go along. I have compared this experience to that of someone in an improvising ensemble where as the music unfolds, new directions, meaning, and understanding emerges as a result of their contribution relative to the rest of the music. As they provide a new foreground or background the overall musical texture (timbre, tonality, etc.) shifts and adopts a new character as direct result of their intervention. There is nothing passive about this.
On a lighter note, this can be likened to the "bad music" we all make in private. It's crap—but it's our crap, and that makes it fantastic. Pride of ownership trumps aesthetic value.
I need to look further into all of this, but it seems to be a way to answer important questions, rectify old inconsistencies, and point the way forward with the composition-instrument technique.
1 Comments:
While I can see your point in providing a situation in which the participant is part of the creative process, e.g. improvisational music in which every listener is a contributor, I also feel that the passive listener process is perhaps the more important phase of music. I don't mean to discount improvisational music, however the participation is arranged, I only mean that the creation of music which is itself the active process and the listener passively (but creatively) listens provides the greatest satisfaction. I find that I don't remember even excellent improvisations very well, because the constant change precludes a clear imprint in my memory. But I remember a gorgeous melody with rich counterpoint and clear structure, and it provides me with pleasure for years.
Just a thought.
By
Harry Boyd, At
7:38 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home