Opinions please, on this contemporary music.

GuyBoden

GuyBoden

Info:

Composer: Ann Cleare

Title: I am not a clockmaker either

For accordion and electronics

The title ‘I am not a clockmaker either’ is taken from the writings of Morton Feldman. In this work, the quote signifies my investigation of sonic, temporal and spatial structures, and their continuously shifting priorities as they are reconstructed into alternative sonic morphologies.

The piece sets into motion a physical force which dissects the instrument into acute shards or material and reconstitutes it in a completely restructured manner. As if one were to take the pieces of a broken egg and glue them back together in such a way that the original oval shape is hardly recognisable.

Through this forceful dissection also comes disruption: as one sonic particle takes lead, it is interrupted, resulting in a new form or organisation emerging: each element of the disorganisation being recontextualised within the next disorganisation. This deconstructive force creates a motion that breaks, ruptures, diverts, convolutes, and coils up on itself so that fragments of the accordion are pulverised together, swirl around one another like clouds, rotate, implode or turn themselves inside out.

Also the space in which the placing and direction of these objects is continuously revaluated: as a certain spatial motion evolves, another intervenes, scrambling it and so a spatial direction of a different nature emerges. These perspectival shifts allow one to zoom in and out on certain fragments of the resynthesised accordion.

octatonic

I don't not hate it as much as I don't not love it.

GuyBoden

After reading the title and description for the piece, I was disappointed with the actuality of the composition.

octatonic

I tried to respond in the style of the performance.

steamabacus

I quite liked it which, considering accordian is one of my least favourite instruments, is quite high praise. The accordian is the Devil's Own Instrument which is probably why it's at its best when making an ungodly racket.

I prefer Kimmo Pohjonen, though  (solo from about 5'25").....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXgssoTVgJo


I'm less enamored with the written description above, though. But, I guess, in classical circles it's a bit of a necessity to say something about a piece so that all those people who are only pretending to like it have something to talk about.

ICBM

steamabacus said:

I quite liked it which, considering accordian is one of my least favourite instruments, is quite high praise. The accordian is the Devil's Own Instrument which is probably why it's at its best when making an ungodly racket.

I'm less enamored with the written description above, though. But, I guess, in classical circles it's a bit of a necessity to say something about a piece so that all those people who are only pretending to like it have something to talk about.

I quite like some of this sort of stuff from a sonic point of view too, but the level of pretentious drivel in the description really makes me question whether the composer is listening to it as interesting sound in itself, or whether that's an accidental result of the contrived way it's been written.

I've got a few albums of sort-of similar stuff which I quite like to listen to, but fortunately don't include anything in the way of similar artistic wankery.

Here's an example by Martin Archer -

GuyBoden

More serious contemporary classical music stuff, but will anyone listen to the full 35mins?

ICBM

GuyBoden said:

More serious contemporary classical music stuff, but will anyone listen to the full 35mins?

I will, later. I do genuinely like this sort of thing.

Here's another piece, by Matthew Whiteside. I know the viola player, she's a serious classical musician who wouldn't be doing this if she didn't think it was good.

GuyBoden

ICBM said:

steamabacus said:

I quite liked it which, considering accordian is one of my least favourite instruments, is quite high praise. The accordian is the Devil's Own Instrument which is probably why it's at its best when making an ungodly racket.

I'm less enamored with the written description above, though. But, I guess, in classical circles it's a bit of a necessity to say something about a piece so that all those people who are only pretending to like it have something to talk about.

I quite like some of this sort of stuff from a sonic point of view too, but the level of pretentious drivel in the description really makes me question whether the composer is listening to it as interesting sound in itself, or whether that's an accidental result of the contrived way it's been written.

I've got a few albums of sort-of similar stuff which I quite like to listen to, but fortunately don't include anything in the way of similar artistic wankery.

Here's an example by Martin Archer -

That's quite interesting. 

steamabacus

GuyBoden said:

More serious contemporary classical music stuff, but will anyone listen to the full 35mins?

I'll give it a listen later - watching S. Korean robots on 'Click' on BBC News channel at the moment!

GuyBoden

Do you think that the Contemporary Classicists say things like, "I prefer the old atonal stuff, like Arnold Schoenberg, I don't like this modern stuff".

Classic Atonal Schoenberg:

bingefeller

@GuyBoden that description is one of the most pretentious things I've read (I know you didn't read it, just saying).  

Phil_aka_Pip

Noise.

Music = rhythm + melody + harmony, all of which are dependent on repeating patterns - even down to the waveforms of the sounds used for the notes, which in the case of musical notes is usually regular, and usually irregular otherwise. Distinctions can be blurred, you could say the sound of an internal combustion engine is regular but some of us would hesitate to classify it as a musical note.

But that stuff? Noise.

GuyBoden

GuyBoden said:

Info:

"Composer: Ann Cleare

Title: I am not a clockmaker either

For accordion and electronics

The title ‘I am not a clockmaker either’ is taken from the writings of Morton Feldman. In this work, the quote signifies my investigation of sonic, temporal and spatial structures, and their continuously shifting priorities as they are reconstructed into alternative sonic morphologies.

The piece sets into motion a physical force which dissects the instrument into acute shards or material and reconstitutes it in a completely restructured manner. As if one were to take the pieces of a broken egg and glue them back together in such a way that the original oval shape is hardly recognisable.

Through this forceful dissection also comes disruption: as one sonic particle takes lead, it is interrupted, resulting in a new form or organisation emerging: each element of the disorganisation being recontextualised within the next disorganisation. This deconstructive force creates a motion that breaks, ruptures, diverts, convolutes, and coils up on itself so that fragments of the accordion are pulverised together, swirl around one another like clouds, rotate, implode or turn themselves inside out.

Also the space in which the placing and direction of these objects is continuously revaluated: as a certain spatial motion evolves, another intervenes, scrambling it and so a spatial direction of a different nature emerges. These perspectival shifts allow one to zoom in and out on certain fragments of the resynthesised accordion."

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Noise.

Music = rhythm + melody + harmony, all of which are dependent on repeating patterns - even down to the waveforms of the sounds used for the notes, which in the case of musical notes is usually regular, and usually irregular otherwise. Distinctions can be blurred, you could say the sound of an internal combustion engine is regular but some of us would hesitate to classify it as a musical note.

But that stuff? Noise.

But, what do you think about her description of the composition?

steamabacus

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Music = rhythm + melody + harmony, all of which are dependent on repeating patterns - even down to the waveforms of the sounds used for the notes, which in the case of musical notes is usually regular, and usually irregular otherwise. Distinctions can be blurred, you could say the sound of an internal combustion engine is regular but some of us would hesitate to classify it as a musical note.

I'd agree with that but I also think there is also such a thing as 'sonic art' - whether it be noise, collage, whatever - and that the boundaries between 'music' and 'sonic art' are mutable and can be blurred, even in a single piece.

I'd say the piece in the original post shows some evidence of rhythm and possibly some harmonic textures but, without hearing more of it, I'm not sure what camp I'd place it in.

steamabacus

GuyBoden said:

But, what do you think about her description of the composition?

I think it's a very verbose way of saying 'I've processed the sound using various effects'.

steamabacus

toshimaru nakamura - no input mixing board

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqfGbtqDVDk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXQ12QC8-Tk

Is it 'music'? He thinks it is.

Phil_aka_Pip

steamabacus said:

GuyBoden said:

But, what do you think about her description of the composition?

I think it's a very pretentious way of saying 'I've processed the sound using various effects'.

ftfy

sure ain't rock'n'roll

GuyBoden

One good thing about this type of music, is that I learned to spell "contemporary".

EricTheWeary

GuyBoden said:

I liked the brevity.