Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Do you enjoy...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yztoaNakKok

It is a link originally posted by Pianojerome in response to one of hyonchingonchon's threads. Many people seemed offended by his dislike towards overly dissonant music. However, I found it a very interesting subject. (Although I have to admit, hyonchingonchon did sound a bit immature in his threads Janus Sachs pointed out. Janus Sachs, I hope to be on your good side!)

I mean to give no insult. Truly, I'm hardly the one to "define" music. I'm simply curious as to what other people thought about this particular composition. I have listened to about thirty seconds of it, and still have a fierce headache. (Twice in a row, pianojerome! I stand awed .)

I fully understand that no single composition could ever satisfy all. I want to make this very clear, because I've observed how these sort of subjects lead to unpleasantries.

So do you, honestly, enjoy this composition? It is original and interesting, and if not for the headache, I would have liked to listen to the whole thing. But I do not think I would ever come to relish anything like it as I do more traditional harmonies. Now judging from the rating and such, I assume people do appreciate the idea. But that is a different thing from finding pleasure in the sound.

So comments?

Actually, it was playadom who posted that. Not me.

It reminds, in a strange way, of some late 19th century orchestral music (e.g. Sibelius, Debussy, Stravinsky). All of these composers used blocks of sound -- a certain set of instruments for a few measures, and then a different set of instruments for a few measures, and then a different set of instruments for the next measures....

That's seems, to me, to be a big part of what Xenakis did in this piece. Of course he's using different instruments -- he's not using cellos and violins and flutes and bassoons... he's using computerized instruments. And if you watch the video, you can see how he is dividing them up into definite sound blocks.

It takes getting used to the sounds of the new instruments, for sure.

Not my cup of tea. Sorry, but I couldn't bear to listen to more than a minute. Hurt my ears.

I'm kind of middle of the road on it. I respect the composer for getting out there and doing something different. And there are times when I do enjoy listening to stuff like this - just masses of sound. But it isn't something that I absolutely rave about either, and it probably wouldn't be in my most-played list on iTunes...

There's a time and place for pieces like this.

awful was my thought, couldn't listen for more than 10 seconds

Enjoyed it, although part of that was the visual aspect, I'm sure. But it's not really up to Xenakis' best work, I don't think. And the YouTube sound is a bit suspect. I ended up listening to more Xenakis posted at YouTube, and then surfed on to some electronica videos. And did some googling for software that translates visual info into sound.

It's interesting that "art" electronic music has never really caught on with classical music listeners outside of a pretty small circle. But in the pop world, it's a whole different story, and although I'm not really part of that scene, it seems that heavily electronic pop seems to be growing by leaps and bounds.

Can quality be divorced from personal taste?

i.e. that even if I can't stand a decidedly great work, I can still admit that it is a great work.


or is quality inherently tied to reception?

i.e. if I don't enjoy listening to it then it has failed an aesthetic and communicative goal.


or is it some dialectical compromise of the two?

I listen to music because I actually enjoy it and not to feel proud of myself for being sophisticated. If I don't enjoy a piece, if it isn't enjoyable to me as a listener then I do not consider the piece a success, as far as I am concerned of course. I've found certain twentieth century music to be interesting - someone posted a video of "Cottonsboro Mill" or something like that, and it was a great piece, I thought. This piece posted has novelty, sure, but I mean, you can do anything and pass it off as art and there will be someone who pretends to understand and truly appreciate it.

So if I like a piece, and you don't like the same piece, is it great or not? Can it be both?

Can it be a great success because I like it, and at the same time *also* be a failure because you don't like it?

It means we have different opinions.

opinions based on immediate aesthetic reaction?

That could be a good thing; I mean, if the greatness/success of a piece of music relies entirely on immediate aesthetic reaction -- but then it's impossible to say if a piece is objectively good or not. In other words, there's nothing about the music itself that makes it good or bad; and everyone's opinions mean absolutely nothing about the music, but rather everything about the *people* making those opinions. (i.e. it's not that the music is too dissonant to be good music; it's rather that the listener has too low a tolerance of dissonance to enjoy the music.)

On the other hand, if there is more to the music that just anybody's gut reaction, then different opinions don't really matter. If "greatness" is based on the structure of the music; the relationships between consonances and dissonances; the relationships among harmony, melody, and rhythm, etc;;; then listening to a great work, someone might not personally enjoy it and say "it sucks", without going into any detail about *the music itself*, but there'd be reason to even listen to that opinion. It would be irrelevant, since it doesn't really describe what's truly good or bad about *the music itself* (not what's immediately appealing to the listeners personal preferences about music).

Ouch, I didn't turn down my speakers when I started the video. I had them turned all the way upQ! Otherwise, it didn't appeal to my taste very much, interesting concept though.

I have no idea how that can be called music, The technical definition seems to be: "an artistic form of auditory communication incorporating instrumental or vocal tones in a structured and continuous manner" (at least according to google define!) but music to me means something very different, and it's hard to put into words, it's obviously not just somehing "you like the sound of" but I guess that has a part in it to some extent.

Music should be somewhat pleasing to the ears, unfortunately that "piece" just hurt mine

C H O P I N

I'm not sure where the "immediate response" stuff came in. My answer is pretty simple - I listen to music for enjoyment. That enjoyment can come from many different things. When I hear a piece that does not fall under anything I consider "enjoyable", then I don't consider to be good music since it didn't accomplish what I think is the basic purpose for music.

I'm ashamed to confess that I did not enjoy it the first time, or the second, or the third.

I write contemporary music, and I'm an advocate for 20th and 21st century music. I was one of those who found 5/5 to be peices and not "random"

But in this case (and Xenakis is Greek, as I am... ) I have to say that it is lacking most features that I do enjoy in music. It is music, and it is well defined as such, but the quality of the sounds, was simply to raw for me (who grew up with computers) to enjoy purely.

Avant garde in general, is not my cup of tea, and although it's great to shake the waters I doubt it's most peoples cup of tea.

That said, there are 95% chances that I'll use such a sound in some work in the future, or have already, but under my terms, which includes more... "normal" trascendens...


____

Sam, there is a problem that I was pondering on as well.

If you don't enjoy at all something, why must it be great at all? I, personally, can see the greatness in pieces that I don't particularly like, and I can see in Xenakis work(s) the value, but still I can't measure it up to other works, personally.

How do you measure greatness in music?

Is it the process which one went through? In that case deaf composers come first. Then limp ones, then crazy ones, etc. And then young ones (whoops, these grow old at some point ).

When you listen to something (not aimed at Sam, but everyone) do you stop to think who did what and how? Who cares that Messiaen wrote his quartet when in "jail"? It's still magnificent. Would it matter was there peace at the time? Sure, but it doesn't change the work, does it? You are entering the fantastic domain are you not with such thoughts?

Does it make any difference on how long it took to compose? What Mozart, infamously spent more than 10 minutes composing his symphony? would it be a better work? Many times we can tell if someting is a work of a long hard work or not, but in truth you can't tell so in pros. And for the record, lots of media music (film, computer games) is being composed in very few weeks time, maybe less than a month.

________________

I can guess to what Xenakis was after when he wrote that and I'm sure that inside academia all this is acceptable. There are excuses and the thin line connecting loose art (as drawn by him) and music is a great one to explore.

Only that academia is good for researching and teaching, not for art itself...

OK, I actually listened to it all the way through. And I have to say, it grew on my a little more. I still wouldn't call it music. Maybe more of a "sound idea". It sounded like something from a horror movie, which I though was neat. I also heard what sounded like fire trucks in the city. And at one few points I though I heard an emeregency warning siren and got this wierd feeling as if I was the last person on Earth and was walking through a city after a bomb or something had destroyed it. Kinda wierd. So the "piece" had some interesting ideas in it.

Yes!

I must say, one has to be in the right mood to listen to this.

I don't understand this, nor do I pretend to, but I certainly enjoy it, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The visual component is certainly a major factor; I'd be less likely to just put this piece on my iPod and just listen to it(although this might elicit interesting reactions from friends...)


For those interested:
http://membres.lycos.fr/musicand/INSTRUMENT/DIGITAL/UPIC/UPIC.htm
This is what he used to 'compose' this piece.

Can quality be divorced from personal taste?
i.e. that even if I can't stand a decidedly great work, I can still admit that it is a great work.
or is quality inherently tied to reception?
i.e. if I don't enjoy listening to it then it has failed an aesthetic and communicative goal.
or is it some dialectical compromise of the two?

I am a purely subjective response man, Sam. I just create and respond to abstract sound. I tried to understand externally defined criteria of goodness in music for many years but I can no longer see the point of it. In short, I am probably a simple, happy pig rather than a complicated, wretched Socrates, which propensity limits my participation in forum discussions because I have problems seeing reasons to argue about music at all. I'd just rather get on with creating it and enjoying it. But I'm sure you knew that.

That's hyperbolic to the point of being barf-worthy! Is an improvised 18th-century cadenza "structured and continuous?" Are stylized arrangements of folk dances or ethnic rhapsodies "artistic" in the Germanic, elitist way that the word connotes?

One of my favorite quotes, by Charles Ives: "Music is not recreation for the ears."

As for the Xenakis, I found it less innovative than some of his other works, but when taken in context of some of the other trends in musique eletronique and musique concrete Mynenae Alphae is still a fairly progressive piece.

This is a bunch of sound effects that could have been 'composed' by anyone noodling around around with a synthesiser or two, preferably under the influence of mind-altering substances, so as not to be aware of the awfulness emanating from the speakers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against self-indulgence per se, as long as there is no pretence of actually being art, or that the protagonist(s) receive any of my tax money in order to produce it . Then again, life is too short to waste on bothering with stuff of this ilk.

-Michael B.