devia:

The Contemporary Classical Composer’s Bullshit Generator

thequizmaster:

LMAO this is hilarious

As a primarily pseudo-semantic artist, I aim to recreate the source within instrumental-intricacies, and bring forth a single narrative that really seeks the most post-acoustic issues. All composers should superimpose a variety of developments, and (if this morphs spatial works), proceed to write contrapuntally until the best result is achieved. Combining novelties, modulations and devices (as well as technologically dominating), my overall aesthetic is that of the ‘traditionally-unified’ school of sonic commissions. As a rather choreographic composer, I yearn to generate, and deconstruct subtractively-artistic forces, an approach that features prominently in my recent multi-additive works. One of my most aleatoric influences is the concept of superimposing resonant studies, which mixes my composer and causes my colour to become somewhat complex

Honestly, some musicians just bother me with all this fucking jargon. No one gives a shit. I hate over analysis of anything. There’s never any need for over analysing anything at all. When I write my tunes, I just want people to like it. The only thought process behind them is “make it catchy” and that’s it. People will like it or not. They don’t care how I wrote it cause even I don’t care how I wrote it lol. I just make sure that my product is honest as it can be.

Dear Contemporary Musicians,

The over analysis of any work sometimes is a detriment to the music itself… riiiight. It’s important to note that a lot of contemporary composition (I’m not talking about tune writing) sometimes requires the lengthy, often bullshit sounding explanation that you find on concert programmes. Much of the time it’s there to prevent the over analysis of a piece by the audience… I mean, hey, if the composer already found theoretical wonder behind the piece, then the audience knows that they should be listening for something else, perhaps less physical, less real. 

In reality, especially in high art, there is no such thing as over analysis. Nobody can figure out how to listen to a piece without some explanation, and even then the nature of performance only means that the instance an important event happens, it’s gone… any audience, no matter how trained, cultured, or otherwise brilliant would have trouble listening to a piece without knowing what to expect. This is why classical musicians perform the same standard works over and over. It’s not because we can’t move forward. It’s because every time you hear the same thing, there’s something new, either added by the musicians’ re-imagining, or your own re-imagining due to being more experienced with the piece. Of course, what we classical musicians do for a living might very well be interpreted as over analysis in its most raw form… that we look at every speck of ink on a page, and analyze. And we do it because each time it’s truly meaningful. Remember, any musician, no matter what stream, genre, or level, attempts to create beauty NOT through creation, but through recreation. When what you do isn’t truly original (which is impossible, so get over it), you better be able to explain yourself well.

Just a note: I understand what that website is. I am a big fan of its satirical qualities… and I intend to use it for one of my program notes one day [EDIT: THAT WAS SARCASM]. I’m just pointing out that there’s a difference between what you might think over analysis is, and real babbling. One is written by musicians about their treasured works, the other by blind critics. You can figure out which one is which.

Best,

Oh hey friends, I feel like I should jump right in now that the discussion is over! Mostly because I am the only one here who didn’t pursue music after high school, so I’m probably the one that is right. I also am feeling a little inadequate that I don’t have a flashy signature to end my input with, and I just looked at Kirk’s signature properly for the first time and thought he changed his last name to Sartre before realizing that I am a Western-centric idiot. (Also, why haven’t we made plans? I’m back working at a certain Canadian Company who performs Operas in January, let’s go to dress rehearsals when I get tix.) Can you tell I’m writing this at 5 AM? 

So, I am a very big fan of the notion that a piece can transcend Authorial Intent (which goes for composers, too, of course), and that an author does not always have a privileged insight into their own work. So, I don’t agree with your (probably facetious) idea that program notes are meant to prevent the over-analysis of the audience. Let’s take the example of a brilliant beginning composer who has a weak background in music history — is it the composer or the seasoned audience member who can best pick out the theoretical framework of his work, including the ability to trace the historical developments that made this piece possible? I’d actually extend that to every single damned composer ever: even the most deliberate and careful composer is never going to fully understand the context in which his work is rooted. It’s just too complex. This even goes for composers whose work is all about theory: 4’33 transcends John Cage. 

I actually do think Jerson has a point here: jargon can be super alienating, and I think it does often get thrown around by people who are using it to be imprecise, rather than clear. And the alienation factor may seem trivial, but I think it ties into a discussion we’ve had before: what is the status of classical music in the 21st century? Are we relegating it to the academy? If classical music is going to survive as a living tradition rather than something that is studied (debatable), the idea shouldn’t be to intimidate people right off the bat. To fill seats with the 30 and under crowd, classical music has to seem like something worth their time. 

Explanation of pieces is great! I almost always appreciate greater insight into a piece. But lots of people seem to equate wordiness with value (including me, this whole thing could have probably been written in, like, five sentences), but most ideas can be conveyed more simply than they are. If the jargon isn’t necessary to discuss the content of a piece (hint: it probably isn’t), then cut it. I am finally starting to get why professors assign ridiculously short essays — if you can’t state it simply and in 1000 words, you probably don’t really get it anyway. 

Sincerely, 

Lisa

Notes

  1. gooddrumbreak reblogged this from devia and added:
    How’s 1 o’clock? I can be downtown or in Scarborough. (It’s slightly sad/odd that Tumblr is hands down the best way to...
  2. devia reblogged this from gooddrumbreak and added:
    It says “Chau Kirk Sartre.” Don’t judge me....dice, blah blah blah, some shit like that....
  3. gooddrumbreak reblogged this from thequizmaster and added:
    I just want this here (because it’s kind of true!).
  4. thequizmaster reblogged this from gooddrumbreak
  5. gooddrumbreak reblogged this from devia and added:
    Oh hey friends, I feel like I should jump right in now that the discussion is over! Mostly because I am the only one...
  6. devia reblogged this from judgingeye and added:
    Maybe if I get some non-linear commissions.
  7. judgingeye reblogged this from devia and added:
    I think there’s some sort of myth being perpetuated in the outside world that this so-called “over analysis” is almost...
  8. thequizmaster reblogged this from devia and added:
    Love you. I understand what you’re saying, Kirk. I guess I really mean when they really bullshit. But even if a...
  9. devia reblogged this from thequizmaster and added:
    Dear Contemporary Musicians, The over analysis of any work sometimes is a detriment to the music itself… riiiight. It’s...
  10. thequizmaster posted this