Webmaster's note: These remarks are web-presented as a "work in progress".
Any confusion in the text and
graphics will be fixed later
There is much to gain here about the nature of 20th-21st century music.
Read and dig deeply:
|
CD Cover Notes – BD II PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Mass Sound Formation &or
Construction
Spring morning in an isolated
forest. Rush hour traffic on a freeway. Feeding time at the zoo. A crowd at a sporting event.
War-zone in the midst of a battle.
Sounds of a busy factory. The
Mass Sound Formation refers to any situation wherein there exits a combination of individual sounds or lines of connected sounds (as in a ‘melody’) or sonic activity (an ‘aviary’), ‘noise-clumps’ (railroad train), or combined differentiable ‘sub-formations’ of mass sounds themselves, called Laminae (elephant stampede versus cattle stampede, or such as might be heard at the center of a great city) –thus, Mass Sound Formation occurs whenever any or all of these are in operation simultaneously, and of sufficiently high density that the resultant entirety, given any size time-frame, cannot be apprehended simultaneously in all its detail. *[In association with the foregoing, there is in any case a problem involved as to whether the human brain is able to ‘hear’ even two sounds simultaneously (much less, two differentiable ‘lines’ as are found in various counterpoints) or whether these in actuality must be separately apperceived in some sequence, then to be still further decomposed as may be necessitated by the various subsystems of intercerebral cognition, and eventually re-synthesized as a holistic entity within the ‘perceptual awareness’ as a reconstructed ‘illusion’ of the actual perception(s). – This is a possible but thus far untestable argument from the standpoint of experimental psychology.] There are also certain other characteristics pertinent to the definitive identification of a Mass Formation: Some level of Complexity is necessarily a characteristic – but what that level is and what is meant by ‘complexity’ is a matter for the modes and ‘ways of being’ of each individual… a walk through the woods by a hunter, a vacationer, a pair of lovers, an ecologist, a botanist, children at play, or an artist, a troubled youth, a man on the ‘run’, a dreamer, a philosopher, a deer … all different levels of perception. None of the foregoing necessarily look at such a situation from the viewpoint of its being a Complexity, and thus in some way a discomfiting or distressing hardship – as a matter of fact, to most it will appear as an enjoyable and straightforward experience, a ‘simplex’ rather than a ‘complex’ – unless one feels compelled (perhaps by some outside authoritarian force) to ‘mistakenly’ perceive it from a viewpoint foreign to one’s own nature … but neither the ‘woods’ nor its ‘source of being’ cares … nor is anything ‘really’ required to listen to Bach or Beethoven. ‘Delving deeper’ into something does not essentially imply any added disconcerting complication – and should actually pave the way for a still greater enjoyment. When speaking about ‘Complexity’ as a trait
of Musical Mass Structure, it is understood neither to refer to difficulty
of performance, nor to some complicated level of ‘local construction’
– which does not mean to imply that such levels of complexity are never
present, as they clearly are in various works by Ferneyhough, Stockhausen
and others. Nor, except in certain of the latter cases,
is there necessarily any degree of sophistication or erudition needed
for an extended measure of appreciation or involvement: These modes and levels of appreciation or involvement
are found to be freely adaptable in accordance with the characteristics
of different personalities, and even relative to different time &
mood fields for the same person. As
to exactly how this ‘complexity’ may then be defined, as to what ‘aspect’,
or from what ‘vantage of perception’, or in precisely what manner it
is in which it can be appreciated and/or enjoyed, is not readily elucidable,
and is in part intuitive. Put
another way, it is only within the frame of ‘analysis’ that a complex
might become uncomfortably complicated.
One possible response to the ‘complexity’ of a Mass Structure might be an enticement into the exploration of, or a desire to inhabit the intricacy of, the presence and mystery of such a formation – the allure of the Enigmatic, call of the Unknown, possibly along with a fervent urge to untangle, resolve, or at least to further explore. Hence, one enters with the initial intention to ‘Scan’ a Mass in order to observe and identify what is there, and also to ‘Search’ for meanings relevancies, similarities, derivations, and relationships; ‘Scan’ and ‘Search’ are both forms of exploratory ‘focus’. ||| Or one might enter into a ‘Complex’ without such intentions, solely for the purpose of immersion in the atmosphere of mystery for its own sake. ||| In actuality this notion of ‘immersion in some perhaps undefined aspect’ of a state of ‘Music’ (which in itself may prove indefinable) for its own sake, is itself the principal incentive for most people to participate (i.e. ‘listen aesthetically’.) In other words, that ‘Music’ is there, causes the desire to listen [[attend to]] it. ||| ...Another response might be the entrance into a state of ‘Unfocus’: that trance-like state wherein all those cognitive parts of the mind that ‘give meaning’ are overshadowed by a larger state of perception in which all things are the same and ‘equally great’ – ‘meaning’ and ‘differentiation’ become subsumed into a state of timeless ecstatic absorption. This comes into existence as a result of opening the attention to all of a ‘Mass Complex’ all at once. …And of course, many other modes of experience are also possible. *[See below for further definition and discussion.] A further characteristic
of… [[[poss
here for: [peripheral] ‘CON-FUSION’ (non-pejorative) …if one is in ‘focus’ on some aspect< Mass Sound Formation in accord with its nature as thus far defined, cannot be fully analyzed, either aurally or functionally, in terms of any formal theory or common-practice (nor is it necessarily desirable to attempt such an analysis.) This is due to an inability to predict how much of what portion will be heard at any one time, and how the complex of internal relations and agglomerations is being perceived, in addition to the immediate unavailability of those only-eventually-perceptible events which may initially be overshadowed or hidden behind or inside other events, and hence may only become discernible to the ear after several hearings, or extended aural scanning. This situation is somewhat similar to the unpredictability of what path might be taken through an untrod woods, and what specifically might be seen there – clearly a very different situation from a path through a formal garden wherein everything can be mapped and labeled (…which seems more like the academic model of a ‘classical’ symphony plus program notes.) One can be forever attracted to an uncharted forest because of its endless possibilities for new experience, discovery, and interpretation; and for kindred reasons may be attracted to a mass sonic formation, whether it be as a composed form or a natural occurrence. It is, of course, probable that after a multitude of ‘hearings’ (which is only possible in this ‘age of the recording’) each individual will come to his own particular ‘way’ of auditing a given sonic mass … but even that ‘way’ should be liable to change. There have been ‘Composed’ examples of (or close approaches to) Mass Sound Structures, starting at least as far back as the 16th century (Renaissance) with the 40-voice motet, Spem in Alium of Thomas Tallis (this piece is often sighted as, but is not really a very good example of ‘mass structure’), and at various other times throughout the history of western music, but more and more often after the onset of the twentieth century. In addition to the Tallis, there are a good number of pre-twentieth century compositions exhibiting ‘near-mass’ structure; these might include portions of compositions by Ockeghem, Bach, Beethoven, and Skryabin. And there are an increasing number of such examples as one moves into the early twentieth century; including various compositions by Max Reger and Kaikosru Sorabji, select segments of the tone poems of Richard Strauss (mostly due to techniques of orchestration), certain early works of Arnold Schoenberg (notably among the pre-12-tone compositions such as Die Gluckliche Hand –1913), the two dodecaphonal chords in the Mahler Tenth Symphony –1910, and portions of Stravinsky’s Petrouchka –1911 and Le Sacre du Printemps –1913. Polytonality and pantonality, as are found respectively in works by Milhaud and Shostakovitch, do not often approach inhomogeneity characteristic of ‘mass structure’ – although, in the case of Milhaud, the density levels are sometimes quite high (e.g. in 5 Etudes for piano and orchestra –1920.) However, most cases of those areas which are of a sufficiently high density (prior to 1945) are of an auxiliary, incidental or embellishmental nature; and even when they appear to be complexly functional or semi-functional (as in Sorabji’s Opus Clavicembalisticum –1930), the additional material usually falls within the realm of some ‘harmonic practice’, so that it is all heard together as a ‘intercomplementary homogeneity’ rather than as part of a heterogeneously dense mass formation. Starting around 1911, Henry Cowell began to create pieces utilizing ‘tone-clusters’ (entire chromatic or diatonic scales employed as single chords) initially on the piano (e.g. Dynamic Motion –1914 and Tiger –1928) and later for full orchestra (as in the Piano Concerto –1925.) Similar cluster-like chords and other devices were used by Leo Ornstein (in Impressions of Notre Dame –1912 for piano, and the orchestral tone poem The Fog –1932?) and John T. Becker (Symphony Brevis –1929), but once again these compositional usages are found to be basically tonal and homogenous. Exemplification of high-density mass in the early 20th century, that is actually audible as such, can be heard notably in compositions of Charles Ives (especially in the Fourth Symphony –1916) and Edgard Varese (as in Arcana –1927 and Equatorial –1934.) Keeping in mind that no historical era ‘STOPS’
as some new era ‘BEGINS’: Around
1945 there was a fairly clear-cut epochal change from the previously
so-called ‘Modern’ era of music (beginning somewhere in the 1890’s –
a term meant to go along with the previously labeled ‘Baroque’, ‘Classical’
and ‘Romantic’ eras … all misnomers adopted from the arts of painting
and sculpture) to the era of the ‘avant-garde’ or more simply
called “Music Since 1945”; which, like its predecessors, was
sharply subdivided into a wide variety of warring factions (e.g. post-Webern
seriality, Cagean and pseudo-Cagean indeterminacy, aleatoric composition,
the ‘anything goes’ school, ‘academic neo-Hindemithian Americana’, etc.,
etc..) in which it seemed to become a requirement that a composer be
able to state ‘a Music’ as a verbal (verbose) Theory, the more complicated
the better; And which were eventually
more or less supplanted (in part via ‘Minimalism’ with its subdivisions
– mainly into the ‘restrictive’ vs. the ‘modular’)
by the ill-defined ‘Post-Modernist’ era (which should have allowed
for an increased ‘freedom of style’ – since one no longer had to be
‘up-to-date’ – but it didn’t: and
which is hence allied against Seriality and other complex approaches
as well as various ‘experimental’ approaches) and by a key movement
within ‘Post-Modernism’, the ‘New Romantics’ (after the ‘End of Minimalism’
– at whatever date composer John Adams, who keeps using that phrase,
sets it – this is not to cast aspersions on his music, just his
judgment – probably somewhere in the 1980’s) who are at war with the
‘New Complexity’ (Brian Ferneyhough, et al) and the now considered
‘academic’ Serialism (although Milton Babbitt, who will most likely
‘lead Serialism out’ to its developmental conclusion, is hardly what
I would call ‘academic’.) Sub-Categories of Mass Sound
Construction Mass Sound Constructions can be generally categorized as being ‘Static’, ‘Textural’, ‘Dynamic-Functional’, ‘Laminar’ (either ‘of units’ or ‘of masses’), and also as ‘Directional’ or ‘Spatially Surrounding’. Because the incidence of Mass Sonic Formation becomes a much more frequent compositional occurrence in the era of ‘Music since 1945’, in the following discussion I will only briefly and arbitrarily mention a few composers names and compositions (selected at personal whim, and giving sufficient space to lesser known composers):
‘Static Mass’ denotes the simultaneous clustering
into ‘chords’ of more tones than can be readily separated out by ear.
In the case of For the most part, it
can said that most composers who are ostensibly involved with ‘Mass
Sound’ make some use its ‘static’ form, although perhaps not
to the exclusive degree that Varese has in his frequent use of ‘cluster
pyramids’, that is chords that usually start with a single note and
build additively within a characteristic rhythmic framework (e.g. Hyperprism
–1923, Integrales –1925, and Deserts –1952-4.)
In contrast to the foregoing, in certain of his verbal statements
concerning ‘organized sound’, especially as in reference to ‘crystalline-like’
cells, Varese points toward a more ‘functional’ (or at least
‘textural’) approach to ‘Mass Sound’, which in my opinion he
does not achieve. Although his music is mostly considered as Textural
in this writing, much of Gyorgy Ligeti’s Lontano –1967
and Concerto for ‘Cello and Orchestra –1966 can be considered
as Static ‘Textural Mass’ can be said to occur when several ‘non-distinctive’ (this is not meant pejoratively) patterns of notes are set into repetitive motion (cycled with or without variance) – not presented, however, either as ‘accompaniment’ (e.g. ‘Alberti bass’ or other such modes employed to give motion to chordal harmony) nor as ‘counter-embellishment’, but being presented ‘for their own sake’, and in simultaneity with a sufficiently large number of other such cyclical patterns, each differentiated by having a somewhat varied form and with contrasting rhythm and/or velocity, thus producing an actively mobile complex texture or atmosphere. The term ‘Textural’ may also be said to apply to any case where a dense group of single ‘short’ notes or ‘cluster blocks’, which are complexly or randomly distributed as ‘points’ without other manifest characteristics (this is also called ‘spatial’ tachism or pointillism), or where there exists a substantial density of sometimes changing ‘long’ tones, trills, tremolos, or repetitive glissando-contours (such conglomerates are also called ‘colored space’). Any of the foregoing Textural masses may change internally (that is, become ‘transformative’) without going so far as to be perceived as a ‘Dynamic–Functional’ mass [see forward.] There is a fairly consistent use of variously contrasting types of ‘texturality’ (sometimes derived from probability distributions) throughout most of the works of Iannis Xenakis, starting early on with Metastasis –1954 and Pithoprakta –1956, and continuing on up through Dammerschein –1994 and after. This ‘multifold-texturality’ also occurred with somewhat less variegation in the late-early works of Krzysztof Penderecki (Threnody –1960) and others of the Polish ‘school’ who came under the influence of Xenakis. Another major group of noteworthy ‘multi-textural’ examples, in some instances almost exclusively based on ‘texturality for its own sake’, are those compositions of Gyorgy Legeti dating from the period which begins with his arrival at Darmstadt (Apparitions –1958, Atmospheres –1961 and Ramifications –1969.) These compositions make much use of the aforementioned ‘simultaneous cyclical patterns’, which Legeti refers to as ‘micro-counter-point’, but which I would call ‘textual mass’ because the separate lines do not sound as individually distinctive, that is ‘functionally’. In my opinion, this stylistic trend in Legeti comes to its greatest fruition in San Francisco Polyphony –1974, after which he (unfortunately) does not sufficiently further explore this mode of composition. Although sometimes considered as a ‘Minimalist’ (this is, for the most part due to his extremely interesting Trombone Concerto –1973, which I remember as being based solely on a single pitch class) there is also at least one early work by James Fulkerson that I would call Textural, Globs –1968 (though he might not.) I know that Fulkerson has also been interested in the ‘Social’ aspect of music relative to performance (whether or not this extends to ‘Social Mass Sound’, as is discussed below, I do not know.) Charles Morrow has organized a number of events, such as the one for 40 clarinets (probably in the 1970’s) in which 40 (in honor of the Tallis motet) instruments are ‘freely’ involved. (I have heard him refer to certain of his events as ‘free jazz’.) This notion of the open ‘Mass free improvisation session’, which Morrow was doing as a regular part of his New Wilderness performances at Washington Square Church in New York city during the 60’s and 70’s later became extended into the main activities of specific groups such as ‘Fred Firth and Friends’, along with the added feature of extreme amplification. Any such events naturally have a ‘Musico-Social Mass’ aspect. The factor of ‘extreme amplification’ itself might be considered by some to be a possible characteristic of Mass Sound Formation; however, I would say that whatever Mass-like attributes ‘extreme amplification’ may on occasion appear to evince are produced by produce ‘overload’ on the physical system of the ear and are not inherent in the nature of the event unless other of the aforementioned properties are present (e.g. I do not consider ‘Rave’ to be an example of ‘Mass formation’.) [[[ultra-high density Noise – mostly improvised – as well as in a current (2003) semi-popular mode as part of ‘Rock Concerts’ and ‘Raves’??????]]] Joe Jones (1934-93) was
a maker of self-playing automated instruments in One of the most captivating
and highly energized pandemonic sonic masses that I ever encountered
was heard (and seen) at the Kitchen performance space in Certain compositions by Henry Brant (Orbit for 80 trombones, organ and sopranino voice –1979 and Rosewood for 100 Guitars –1997) although these compositions may have some functional aspects, they may generally be considered as textural, in any case they are definitely Mass structures *[for Brant, see below under Laminar and Surround.]
‘Dynamic-Functional Mass’: [[[…A Chain is considered to be ‘functional’ when one tends to be pulled along by it or follow it in its variegation, as in the case of a melody, progression, or developmental sequence – as opposed to those chains of events which are static, ‘spin in place’, are clearly part of a ‘holistic texture’, or are of a subsidiary or accompanimental nature… ||| … A Chain is considered to be ‘dynamic’ when it is ‘featured’ by way of its expressivity and/or interesting<{alluring} nature, and also when it is brought into the foreground in a sonorous, resonant or even stentorious manner…]]] Thus, ‘Dynamic-Functional Mass’ refers to any mass conglomeration of lines or ‘chains’ of sound objects, wherein a sufficient number ({{such that all events cannot be heard simultaneously, [[hence there is also a factor of concurrent inexplorability or peripheral con-fusion]]}}) of ‘individual linear components’ (individual Objects or Chains of objects) can be aurally distinguished and followed within the mass; and if these ‘components’ were to be separated out, any ‘Chain’ of such characteristic objects (which ‘chain’ may itself be in the form of a changing static mass or transformative textural mass) will be found to have either distinct ‘compellingly memorable’ (that is ‘dynamic’ in the sense of ‘forceful’) musical qualities, or to have musical qualities which are ‘recognizably indicative of forward progression’ (that is ‘functional’ in regard to movement in time, such as can be found in ‘motive’ and ‘melody’, or other ‘compelling’ Chains) In either case, even when a fairly large number of such dynamic–functional objects or chains are sounding together (most often found embedded in a mass along with ‘Static’ and ‘Textural’ elements), their distinguishing features, due to their singular, explicitly perceptible, and alluring nature, will tend either to acutely obtrude on one’s attention, or can be readily focused upon to do so. {{And}}PROBLEM ‘Boundary distinction between Textural Mass and Dynamic-Functional Mass’: As can be seen from some of the statements and examples given in the section on Textural Mass, there might often be somewhat of a problem as to the determination of an exact definitional ‘boundary’ between Textural and Dynamic–Functional. This distinction is often a matter of subjective judgment, especially if the composer’s ‘intention’ is to be considered as a major criterion. (It is not meant to be implied here that there is any applicable hierarchical superiority of one or the other of the types, except perhaps from some standpoint of a specific composer’s design.) Relative to the ‘Dynamic’, at least, this differentiation can be based on ‘that which has been purposely made Emphatic’ or ‘is Emphatically and individually Recognizable’ (as encountered within the mass) vs. that which is clearly subsidiary or ‘can be’ merely or barely ‘Recognized’ within the mass. However, ‘Emphatic’ in itself does not necessarily imply Dynamic–Functional – as in the case of ‘Emphatic clamor’, which does not perforce contain individually ‘recognizable’ factors; Neither does any movement or transformation of the whole ‘Texture’. Sumatively, the difference between ‘textural’ & ‘dynamic’ lies ion the contrast between being drawn toward the fabric as a whole, as opposed to being more drawn or drawn-as-well toward individual recognizable objects that are either laid upon or embedded within a fabric. Also to be considered as essentially cogent within a mass structure is the contradistinction between ‘Emphatically interesting enough’ and the ‘Recognizable-but-you-don’t-Care’ or the ‘Effortfully Recognizable’. ‘Emphatically interesting enough’ can be engineered by the use of various compositional devices of ‘allurement’ and ‘differentiation’. This may be done by means either entirely stipulated by the composer (nevertheless, its virtual dynamicism within a mass will be sufficient only provided that all of the ‘dynamic energy’ is not consumed by the ‘difficulty of performance’), or by giving the performer a ‘constrainted’ amount of freedom to interpret, vary or improvise (unlimited freedom may often lead to a less dynamic result due in part to the performer not being sufficiently cognizant of the pertinent compatibility of the individual segment to the over-all superstructure.) [See discussions below under ‘Freedom’, ‘Constraints’ and ‘Prototypes’.] Examples of this problematic textural/dynamic
boundary might include: Terry Riley’s in C
–1964, which consists of 53 modules (short repeatable patterns) to be
‘passed through’ (with optional
numbers of repeats) simultaneously by all performers, plus a drone pulse
on the piano – which, dependant on the number of performers,
can become a mass-like structure in spite of the very obvious common
pulse and ‘tonality’; and, due to its individual interpretive latitude,
can be occasionally perceived in part as Dynamic–Functional. On the other hand, Pierre Boulez’ Structures:
livre I for 2 pianos –1952, which contains sections that approach
Mass-Sound, has been conceived by the composer functionally,
but is heard by many as being almost random (therefore ‘textural’)
because of the sonic complexity of its internal relations (however
clear it may be on paper.) This
was brought out in an article by Gyorgy Ligeti in an early issue of
Die Reihe – of course this type of analysis goes against
the probable intention of the composer.
In the case of certain of the works for ‘possibly’ large groups
by John Cage, the problem goes much deeper because of his stated intention
‘not to have an intention’, nevertheless, he is certainly to some degree
aware of the ‘approaching klangideal’ (i.e. ‘overall sound quality
or style’) as the ‘composition’ comes into being, at least to the degree
that it ‘could’ become a ‘complex quantity’ (that is, an ‘Indeterminately’
caused Mass Formation), and in some manner (usually) what the ‘probable’
sound sources are generally going to be (i.e. orchestral instruments
– i.e. with or without ‘extended’ techniques or electronic modification
– electronic or concrete sounds, crowd sounds, birds, etc..)
But, as to whether or not some portion of such a mass becomes
or appears to become ‘Dynamic’ happens more or less by way of
an ‘accident’ inherent to its nature. The forgoing ‘indistinction’ may
be noted in Concert for Piano and Orchestra –1958 and
Atlas Eclipticalis –1961 (dependant on the number of instruments
used, which is in neither case mandated.)
Important among these borderline cases are those works of Aldo Clementi utilizing a sufficient number of instruments to engender ‘Mass’ (a ‘number’ which, incidentally, cannot be specified.) In the both the Capriccio for Viola and 24 instruments –1980 and the Violin Concerto –1977 for Violin, 40 instruments and chimes, the solo stands ‘dynamically’ out against the ensemble which consists for the most part of ‘textual’ Mass with occasional functional obtrusions (most ‘textural’ Mass will have some ‘functional obtrusions’ – however rare.) This ‘texturalization’, however, is not constructed from any of the aforementioned special types or modular patterns, but from what he calls ‘derived contours’ which are usually small melodic segments that have either been fragmented or abstracted from the solo parts or have been ‘borrowed’ or derived from the works of others (but without necessarily functioning as ‘quotes’.) In either case, these ‘derived contours’ are most often ‘tonal’ in the sense of ‘diatonic’ (meaning utilizing the scale of some ‘key’, and are not highly ‘chromatic’ or ‘dissonant’.) These objects are then ‘gathered into Mass Structure’ by canon-like procedures wherein they are also modified (in part, made ‘less distinguishable’) so that they unlikely to function either as ‘quotes’ or ‘dynamically’. This material is then used pan-diatonically (that is, making ubiquitous use of any or all ‘key scales’) and superimposed polytonally (i.e., irregardless of ‘tonal function’) thus creating a sometimes chromatic cluster-cloud having no stable tonal center. Thus, while the material remains tonal, the ‘Mass’ itself often points toward an aspect (not overtly ‘dissonant’) of ‘atonality’ (a better term for which might be ‘fuzzy nomadic tonality’.) And, the ‘derived’ material functions solely from a standpoint of klangideal. Some of the works (such as AEB for 17 instruments –1987) also border on the ‘enmassed type of Minimalism’ as is found in the aforementioned in C by Terry Riley; in Clementi, however, such a work is sustained as Mass for much longer periods (when not for almost an entire piece.) Examples that fall more clearly
within the category of ‘Dynamic–Functional Mass’<<<|| ... Start Here 1st …read all of LAMINAR ‘Laminar Mass’ refers to entire ‘layers’ of recognizably different Sonic Objects or Sets or Mass Sound Formations that occur simultaneously, but are in few or no ways inter-related. It is clear that, even though we often tend to apprehend the ‘everyday world’ holistically, it is clearly occurring in not-obviously-related ‘layers; take for example ‘sitting at a street-side café’: there are the sounds emanating from your table, the tables near and far, the passers-by, the traffic from the street, city sound from afar, passingrep birds, possibly rain on an overhead awning, … … {{++see below for TYPES}} … … And in composed music (as opposed to the ‘resounding of the any or the all’ which may be experienced as music) it is illustrated early in this century in the ‘passing of the two marching bands’ in second movement of Ives’ Three Places in New England, and perhaps also in the ‘military band’ versus certain portions of ‘Marie’s soliloquy’ in Alban Bergs’ Wozzek. But much earlier in history, something like Lamenae occur in the 14th century multi-tempo works of Matteo da Purgia. … >>>>>>> {{POINTS of DIFFERENTIATION: especially >Pulse … but also Fuzzy Entrainment (the Group Hump){use example of BD II + maybe Steven Stapleton && Homeostatic Harmony && Recognizable Homogeneity of Sound Source Category [?? may be similar or at times same as Homeostatic Harmony &or Klangideal? - !! all 3 may not be that separable ??] && General Register (if applicable – mixed registers poss) && ??? are there others ??? >>not all of these need to be sharply differentiated in order to have Laminae (? What about cobordens ?)}} <<<<<<<< … ... Start Here or slightly before &+ ADD from below + fixx! … LAMINAR: !! Might have to go btwn ‘NEED for CMPLXity’ & ‘Freedom’ … or down under UNDERLYING MODELS !!: Certain music compositions or portions of music combinations. {{uniform or compound &or Laminar & Hetero-laminar {{{??how (perhaps not) different from Laminar space > in gen, a Sonic Mass will or may have some kind of homologousity, while a Laminar Space, which may consist of a number of simultaneous Sonic Masses will probably have some degree of Heterogeneousity, in which the layers or lamina are clearly discernable. >>>>>>>>+ Captivators (initially momentary) vs Features (of attention). [[(mass) Structure or Continuum later?? w/ moment-form
&+ System]] – find lower set of notes
&+ check old-NB p 159+156 – !!! {Laminar} >> ‘locked’ embedded vs. ‘free’ embedded <<>>> ALSO (either as ‘amassed’, or ‘of masses’) << Carter ‘locked’ [tempos] : Symphony for 3 Orchestras , Stockhausen Groupen ‘locked’ for 3 orchestras -1957, Carre for 4 orchestras –1960 & Choruses, Mixtur 19??, Hymnen [#22½ - electronic version] -1967, Brant, Kamin (0–Angel slowly shifting (N) –2002 + Jelly Beans & the Peanut-butter Skreeb –1974, performance poem ?explain?) In a talk given at Indiana University in 1970, in regard to the composition Hpschd (made in collaboration with Lejaren Hiller, -1969) for 1–7 amplified harpsichords and 1–51 tape channels; which in the performance that I attended at the University of Illinois were spaced around the dome of an immense arena: Cage said that he had become interested in the bringing into play of great ‘Quantity’ in order to engender an experience of ‘Unfocus’. At the Illinois performance, there was an immense amount of visual material (mostly in the form of slides and films – supplied mostly by Heller – projected on ceiling hangings) and a rather large and changing crowd was constantly milling around the space, some talking yelling or singing as well as engaging in other less predictable activities. All of this crowd sound and movement, along with the harpsichords (which were on platforms scattered the floor space), the taped sounds, and the visuals, must be experienced as part of the work. The over-all {effect<?WW?>/system/composition} was manifestly ‘Laminar’ being easily sunderable (because of the great differential in group timbre) into harpsichord sounds, tape sounds, mass crowd sounds, the various episodic sounds of various ‘crowd-sub-set’ activities In order to experience the purported ‘Unfocus’ of the work, it was necessary to abstract the on-goings, especially certain crowd activities and visuals, from their obvious meanings (which was difficult in some cases) and had to become aware of the necessity of doing so as there were no instructions to that effect; as well as to ‘blur’ the clear-cut separability<?WW?>of the laminae… making an embedment of some greater whole… {} [However,] relative to the LP recording of the work (without the crowd activity, etc.) while it remains a Mass Structure is of a much simpler nature due to the loss of at least two laminae, and probably does not readily lead to a state of ‘Unfocus’. In both cases, the live performance and the recording, the laminae remain clear, there are occasional divergences from ‘textural’ to ‘dynamic’, and in my case the onset of ‘Unfocus’ is not an automatic occurrence; which is not to say that the work was not or is not a great adventure. {Laminar}
+homogeniosity, static (auto Blare, >> LAMINAR [or
LAMINAL] SPACE: ‘embedded’,
‘glued’, ‘spliced’, ‘juxtaposed’ – also ‘congruent’, &
either ‘consubstantial’, homogeneous-harmonic, or at least homologous or else incongruent [incongruous – heterogeneous] –––– BD II definitely is LAMINAL, as the 4 groups [ Lamina, that is, each having its own cogent ‘character-model’ clearly differentiable from the others, though, in this case, all are embedded in some clearly discernable klang-ideal – which is clearly not the
case in certain of my later works, such as O – Angel slowly
shifting (N). &+> A Laminar Space is what we live in, that is, all sorts of things (traffic, birds, books, beetles, refuse and roads) which seemingly operate without regard to each other, are made to cohabit the same space: Sometimes in mere proximity, sometimes glued, sometimes embedded – mostly unrelated in their activities, but on occasion interact, and at times must ‘watch out for each other’. No one says they don’t all fit together (or that they do) – a matter of perception.
&+> poss ‘Temporal Lamina’ {linear}as in the programming story ‘Directionality’ denotes any situation where[in] the ‘different directions’ from which the sound is coming form an integral part of a music. This [had] occurred as early as the 16th century, notably in the ‘Antiphonal’ works of Giovanni Gabrielli which make use of cori spezzati (and occurred still earlier in the Latin Mass.) {Directionality} ++…Stockhausen Groupen –1957
[[S’s works that are clearly Laminar are also Directional
& Xenakis: (purposeful stereophonic effects found in Orient-Occident
(4- channel) 1960 &+ Bohor (8-channel tape) 1962 +???ask
Brody &+ Polytrope of Montreal (4 orchestras) 1967… ++
Nono late works (+halophone, a ‘live-use’ electronic device which can
readily move the output of a sound source around to various points in
a performance space…– especially Prometeo –1984, in which
the perambulation of sounds is a major ‘dramatic’ aspect of the ‘opera’,
therefore Functionally Directional ) & Das Atmende Klarsein -1981…
&+ Functional Directionality has been a major factor in many
of the works of Franz Kamin since the mid 1960’s (4 Corners
for 4 Trumpets -1966): The Latter Days of Janet Quubyne
-1971… The Eradication of New York Graffiti by >> DIRECTIONALITY & DIRECTIONAL COUNTERPOINT: .) Clarification by separation .) moving
vs stationary [[…not really (around
aud.) until O–Angel…]] .) see also Halophone & Theatricality (…disadvantage of what the eyes see) Sameness which is of immediate interest as opposed to teleotic interest. [[as in they are all trees, But … & they are all plane closed curves, But: triangles, squares, rectangles, trapezoids, circles, etc..]]<??? ‘Spatial Surround & ‘Audience Interdispersion’ & ‘Gallery’ {+or??Exhibition??-?multimedia, but also local-specific.} ’ refers to the idea that a Music could be all around and even inside the audience. This was implied early in the 20th century by Ives (for use his uncompleted Universal Symphony) and Skryabin (for his uncompleted Mysterium.) {Surround} Xenakis Terretektorh -1966 and Nomos Gamma -1968 (“…dispersed through the audience…”) ++…Henry Brandt ++& Cage Hpschd -1969 &+ Bird Cage -1972 (for … “12 tapes to be distributed by a single performer in a space in which people are free to move and birds to fly…” <but it wasn’t; I was there at the premier at the Kitchen – beautiful piece nevertheless) …&+ Kamin …&+++ include ‘visual’ ((Xenakis Polytrope of Montreal)) …&+ Kamin ASRB #4 …for the Father of a Newborn Child with Eggs…-19?? ‘Spatial Surround & ‘Audience Interdispersion’ & Audience Participation >>>&+ (intentional [as in Tom Johnson Sp: see Pf piece & not [& again Cage Hpschd -1969) which is not on the recording, therefore, just barely Mass (as much can be simultaneously heard) &+ Charlie Morrowagain??? + freedom) //:. Subsets of Surround 1) internal to the audience 2) ‘audience participation’ ((…although this also leads one to include ‘mass singing’ and even playing in an orchestra)) 3) audience ambulatory inside the sound sources [++ ASRB #4 as a ‘Gallery piece’ – poss illus
{‘Mutiplexity of sub-categories of Mass’}&+ also poss w/ ‘Multiplex’ – probably just a simple statement &or a list of composers {‘Mutiplexity of sub-categories of Mass’} Jerry Hunt (…an ‘Incomprehensibly Insane’ but fascinating racket [wherein he… ] – at the Kitchen – unfortunately nothing like that on any of the recordings…) HaramondSp? Plain evinces various features of Mass… ) ++ ??… Xenakis (+all types)?? {{{…fit in…some as }}}, Nono (+halophone & ‘mass’ in voice piece…), Stockhausen, Glenn Branca [..there are probably those who would like to include the ‘wall-of-guitar’ Symphonies of Glenn Branca as well (as other ‘wall of …’ productions from various ‘Third-stream’ rock artists) among the Mass Structuralisms, however, I feel that most of these belong more realistically in the ‘Minimalists’ category because … never departs from – exposition to – a single tonal function, indeed often a single pitch or chord), &&++Terry Reilly in C ( …nevertheless, from among the ‘Minimalists’, the piece which is often pointed to as starting off that very short (but like every ‘era’ that’s ‘finished’[?WW?}, ‘continuing’…& to-be-repeated) sub-era… can be included in the catalogue of Mass …) , com-plexity), >> …this is all that is listed on p 53 newNB… << >>>>Insert some of Definition below into p1 Definition of ‘Mass’<??already Done??<<<<Perhaps-NOT-INTENDED-As-Mass Sound’ {{usually ‘Dynamic-Functional Mass,}}<last of this overall Section {{{ALSO NEED NUMBERED POINTS of DEFINITION of MASS structure … To reiterate: [1] Points, blocks, lines or conglomerates of sound in operation simultaneously and of sufficiently high density that the resultant entirety, given any size time-frame, cannot be apprehended simultaneously in all its detail… [2] ‘Complexity’ of temporal and harmonic relations between {conceivably/eventually/?analytically separable} components {{[A] interconnected in some clear way [a] homogeneous layered [b] homogeneous embedded … not interconnected … heterogeneous layered [a] heterogeneous embedded>define [3] ‘Complexity’ of Derivation and/or Differentiation<esp. rel. PT’s [?4] The [composer] ‘intended’ possibility of ‘Unfocus’ as a valid mode of interpretive apprehension. …[…it may happen anyway (…as may apprehension as mass…)] Some of the most important examples of Mass Structure may have been ‘Not-Intended-As Mass’, at least ‘purposefully’ as Mass Structure has been defined here … therefore + Carter & Babbitt<(see below long discuss Pf Cnc)> + Boulez already discussed + On rare occasions such as…<see Cope> Wallingford Riegger, … more!!| … ] +? Mention Cage again [OR put: ‘see also’…] {‘Not-Intended-As-Mass’} >>poss move to above
Funct.<<>> Elliott Carter<below Babbitt
+++… – Milton Babbitt (who said “...music could
be so much more…”Check Article &or Voice recording!!!:
…what did he mean??? ( - that
you should know???…)(??about
what??) |& problem of 1st
Piano Concerto: …I would like to include the Piano Concerto
#1 of Milton Babbitt as a candidate for Mass Sound Formation
because due to its ‘technological construction’ …there is a kind of
semi-opaque ‘wall’ ((functions as ‘static mass initially on non-technologically-knowledgeable
[naïve, but intently focused]
listening)) of string (mixed with other) sounds … in which are hidden
(not probably on purpose) various ‘shadow motives and melodies’ which
are frequently semi-concealed by other complexly contrapuntal cells,
and which are only eventually to be found after multiple hearings [[which
as is the case for many complex musical structures, is only possible
in the era of home owned recordings ‘recording era only poss.]] – finding
these and aurally functional Mass … actualization problems
in interpretation of reproductional speculating on what their relation
to the other material including the clearly-to-be-heard continuum of
motivic structures<rep in the piano
keeps one fascinated & serve as signposts amid the ‘status-of-lost’
time-after- time in the listening. Of
course it is quite possible (however unlikely) that Babbitt would prefer
that one would analytically follow the score having availed of the essential
knowledge of what he is actually doing – however I prefer not to ruin
my many mysterious journeys into dense forests of this beautiful composition/masterpiece/structure<Rep
unless at some future time I should want to do so either for furthering
my own compositional/utilitarian knowledge or to change the status of
the piece<WW to that of a ‘known quantity’
or ‘familiarity’. … this brings
up the problem of the differential<WW between
what a composer has ‘Constructed’ including the method of that (construction)
versus what of that he has ‘intended’ for one to hear
versus what one can and/or does hear … a philosophical and not-controllable issue of
opinion … ??FURTHER DISCUSS HERE – or “…to perhaps be discussed later
in this excursus<Rep?…”
??? …) |??!wht abt
the ‘New Complexity’& the ‘Other New Complexity (of which I &
Jerry Hunt are very different members)!??|, Brian
Ferneyhough (esp. Icarus for clarinet and 7 players -1988
and Time and Motion Study There are also any number of works by Elliott Carter that could be said to contain large sectors of Dynamic/Functional mass, such as … Double Concerto for harpsichord, piano, and 2 chamber orchestras -1961 … Piano Concerto -1965 … Concerto for Orchestra -1969 … A Symphony for 3 Orchestras -1976 … 3 Occasions for Orchestra -1986-9 Next
Section after Completing Above Call>Truth, Music, Complexity & Freedom Actual order of Nexts: Truth – Music – What is Music for? – Complexity – the Need for Complexity – Freedom – {Lamina} 3 TopicswhoseMajorCharacteristcs are: {{Lamina+see below}}, Freedom+life&libidinallity, degrees of…, Complexity Complexityunfocus
vs mystery-puzzel&solution-or-“placementation” , also confusion theory, + the necessary charm of
‘Noise’+see Arnheim:NEED Freedom{{{+++frozen<determinate><rigid>
vs somewhat flexible, pliable, variable,
semi-improvisatory, improvisatory, total or varying degrees of
indeterminacy w/&/or ‘Ambient sounds’}{ also: ‘Scored’ but – predetermined vs systemic or system or
bass generated}}} – see also newNB p50 [[also Apollonian
& Dionysian aspects of BD II – structure vs. freedom
nwNB p53]]W/Emotionality<&
MY emote, & Beet Goethe story Truth, Music, Complexity &
Freedom <<<as
of 8/28, this section below contains all of notes on Truth from newNBp66 Truth (…as a Matter of Opinion): Before discussing some of the possible major characteristics of Complexity and Freedom and, in, & aside from Music, it may be necessary to quasi-validate the nature of the information about to be given: [1] It is virtually impossible to make a statement
which is absolutely True &or with which every one is in agreement.
That is because ‘Truth’ is a solely human preoccupation, and
humans do not all agree with each other. And everything else (e.g. stuff in & of
itself, aside from human perception, if there is any) in so far as is
humanly known, ‘ [2] Never-the-less, we All will probably continue to make, argue, and fight over ‘True Statements’. [3] Sometimes (when not Consciously (?) ‘Lying’) we will try not to ‘bend’ or ‘twist’ what we say away (or very far away) from the ‘Truth’. [4] We ‘bend’ or ‘twist’ things that we say away from the ‘Truth’. – We do this in order to have what we want to say be ‘True’. [5] When we ‘bend’ or ‘twist’ things that
we say away from the ‘Truth’, we say that we do not ‘bend’ or ‘twist’
things that we say away from the ‘Truth’.
And, that what we say ‘IS [6] But, all this and what is to follow, what I claim to be ‘True’, is authentically opinion – and , in my opinion, there is nothing for us other than opinion – which in itself may ‘not Quite be ‘True’ – and certainly might not be the case later. (Gives one Hope does it not. But then ‘Hope’ is the enemy of the true seeker. [7] Hence: ‘TRUTH’ (!) is a matter of Opinion - &or a modification by what is Desired. [8] Further: ‘TRUTH’ is an ‘authentic
variable’ that allows one to BELIEVE &or feel Corollaries, Correlatives & Asnides: [a] ‘Know the truth, and the truth shall set ye free’ …but only if it is a sufficiently well-made conjecture, that is both authoritative and adequately enforced. [b] “Know the truth, and the truth shall
set ye free … but first it shall make ye miserable.” – [c] >>>Iris LezakSp? Story<<< [d] Where does the ‘Truth’ lie? [e] “…I do not know… that is my Opinion…” – anonymous student. [f] The purpose for this exploration into ‘truth–as–a–matter–of–opinion’ is this: As an artist I wish, with out repeating the work that others have done well, to seek out that which it seems to me to be ‘wanted and needed, with no one and nothing left out’ (within a realm which is reasonable and suitable for me) … which attempt is essentially futile, as Nothing & No One can ever be complete, until it is terminated – upon which and within which ‘not-quite-all-of-it’ will eventually dissipate as a continuing and possibly interminable morphism. Try, by any means by all means some of us will. The
‘Truth’ ends here: ??USE?? there’s
nothing more I could add. Now
We are going to talk about Complexity in Music (if we
knew what Music was…
if we knew what Complexity was… & We…) …but ?What is MUSIC?: [from nwNBp60] If asked, what is Music? For INSERT<below: …in the ‘Invitation’ to experience ‘something’ as music […as ‘our’ ground of music…] All sound is music if you hear it as music & if you agree that this is so … but even if you don’t agree, ‘all sound’ and at times ‘other’ is Music – because I say it is, or you say it is… & somebody else agrees with one or the other of us (I wonder who…) And in those special case(s) where you might not like to agree to some anomaly being music that I have called as Music, I claim that{,} since when you hear something as music, that occurs as a state of mind, or is a state of mind – and that any state of mind and specifically that state of mind is to be (can be) had with or with out sound, and further that you can hear whatever see, touch, taste or ‘feel’ – this is called Synaesthesia [vide the Concert of Doors &c]] &or ‘…Music is whatever two people agree to it as being… or, iff you don’t care what They think: just for you alone is acceptable ( now I really wonder who agrees now) &
if some one doesn’t agree: then music is what ever any two people agree
to it as being {{{don’t forget Concert of DOORs illustrations}}} {++ – hidden music: …but
?Is it Music if no one hears it ? …or no one is there to hear it ? …or
even knows of it? –
(Only iff you say so!) ++} [[Notes fro Grnd of Mus]]>> 2) MUSIC
as a ‘Property’ of human beings [innate – inherent to] … that is the
necessitated Attraction (e.g. …& ability to –
) making ‘Available’ Sound into ‘Organized’ Sound, which must be done
with ‘Composed ‘{‘Per-Organized} Music {again} in any case, in
order for it to be experienced as Music
…&&… ‘Non-Composed’ Sound [‘ambient , found or chosen]
Can Be or IS {Via the necessitated Attraction
(e.g. …& ability to – )} Intentionally or Not, Consciously or Not
– ‘Organized’ into or as Music – or Function (Un-organized &or
Un-consciously) as Music as Needed – as in the case of my personal
predilection toward listening to the sound of people ‘working’ or ‘living
in activity’ all around me, especially when I am in Bed {{to paraphrase:
“…‘Work’, it fascinates me … I could sit and listen to it all day…”}} ?What is MUSIC for?: {{{poss a Spew on…}}}
+ refreshing & internal vacation for the brain/mind
& Recreational [ …to paraphrase Moshe Feldenkrais
(who said the human organism (h.o.) thrives
on variety…) variety is essential to the healthy existence of
the h.o. … … the h.o.
exists as a continuous homeostatic re-creation of itself… re-creation
& re-creative [also Renewal]activities are essential to the
h.o … the
h.o. exists as a homeostatic
refreshment … refreshment is essential to the h.o
… Music is a refreshing & Recreational {?activity?}<<<the
foregoing also implied a possible NEED for CMPLXity
in Music]
… …but what is Music.
(++) see Slobod
p118 - Complexity in Music
as a >
{{then to new NB pp 60 & 67 &[?69]}}
after COMPLEXITY: {{{does CHAOS, Random, Strange & Sensitive
&c go here ???as Cplv Types}}} The
Simplex of Complexity<this may need to be inserted early above
as part of original definition of
MASS Sound Formation> {{diff between
‘Mass’ & ‘Massive’}} {{diff between Complex Analysis, Synthesis,
{{[to reiterate(?)]…to a businessman taking a recreational walk thru the woods to get away from the ‘complexities’ of the office, the woods is a ‘simple’ place to be – to an ecologist it is ‘complex’, unless he is also taking a recreational walk ((but still may be more complex than businessman – but-but he may be partially engaged & having more fun, so it is simpler<fun is simple| ++ businessman’s kid taking an afternoon off from the complexities of school <having fun at| at Dad’s office : office is simple ___ the ‘Simple life is all bound up in visions of complexity – continue??? [businessman’s housewife… running home + kids <but mom is simple| & budget etc. ]] Multiplicity of Composer’s intention vs. the Simplex of your Freedom of listening<iff Composer has allowed for it (All)!!!| COMPLEXITY: Choosable levels of Complexity within the frame of Audible Perceptivity (ranging from the Simplex of ‘ignorance of being there’ thru the enjoyment & awareness of ‘simply being there’ … continuing on to the casual noticing of ‘things that may be there’ thru the noticing of possible internal relations between ‘things that may be there’ thru the noticing of the possible origin of possible internal relations between ‘things that may be there’ … to the study (enjoyable or not, authoritarianly enforced or not) of ‘things that may be there’ thru the noticing of possible internal relations between ‘things that may be there’ thru the noticing of the possible origin of possible internal relations between ‘things that may be there’ … to the absolute (& deluded & deluded (re)enforced deluded) necessity of having to Know All that is ‘REALLY’ there(!) – (Remembering that it is non-Complex (simple) for an individual human being to experience a ‘complex event’ at some (perhaps for some ‘superficial’) level, which may grow in interest {?{difficult absalesion}?} engagement as one delves deeper and deeper)) –&+ not (necessarily) of complexity of ‘Mode of Composition’ or ‘Source Generation’ or ‘Superficial Appearance’ or [especially] of ‘Level of Difficulty of Performance’ i.e. A complex enforestation of flowers is not complex either to produce or experience – just toss out some seeds and water, & later stand around and sense - iff you want ‘Structural Complexities’ rather than random: Add some simple hidden ruleS to your ‘toss’ [especially rules that do not have an obvious comparable/compatible/complimentary base] – thereby producing a ‘SIMPLE COMPLEXITY’ or ‘Complex Simplex’ … … >> Behavioral Drift II (BD II – maximum, coequal, uniform) & US (BD XIII?? – somewhat variable density – could be viewed as 6-voice cnt-pnt) are both Complex musical environments of highly structured Mass Sound [{{Lamina.}}] – Complex & Complexification [&& ‘Complex Simplex’<see above]…all lines or events cannot be individually apprehended at the same time as they might be able to{, for instance, in the case of a Bach fugue ––– the notion of simultaneous hearing is in actuality not entirely agreed upon among experimental psychologists {debatable/under.contention}even in the case of simple homophonic chords – as to whether they are ‘’pulled apart’’ analytically & then or thus apperceived separately… nor can [be predicted] the sequential continuity of any one event line {?} or the mass effect of any compound of event lines … &or/either the next-state direction of a mass … &or/either the next-state direction of an individual auditor’s apprehensional focus within a singular mass >>> Complexity [which {{may or may not}}]} refer to a heterogeneous multitude} is not necessarily the same as Complicated – especially as to mode of generation – COM: around – Plex: weave or braid (?General?) {therefore of a greater dimension} – Plica: fold (?Local?){therefore of a lesser dimension} >>> Thus, I am going to make a distinction between Complex & Complicated: Something that is complex, since it has weave or braid as well as around as its ‘roots’ will necessarily be complicated when apprehended globally or wholistically, but may turn out to be rather ‘simple’ when apprehended on a local level, or in terms of its generator(s) – whereas, something that is complicated, while also having around as a ‘root’, has fold as its main root, and therefore is necessarily complicated when apprehended locally as well as globally – >>>> also Intricate<<<<< – the apparent complication of a Mass Sonic Formation or System [See] is caused by the overlapping {simultaneous} application of systems of simple formulae - as Generators – formulae-not-quite-on-the-same-base {{is this ?CHAOS?
– is “Complex” = “Chaos”??? ask Dennis R}}
&+[&& ‘Complex Simplex’<see
above] >>>Complexity
[wanted & desired] for [the sake of] Simplification:
Humans exist with a ‘need to be able to’ SIMPLIFY, as they are born
into a complex world. That ‘need
to be able to’ (which because it is inherent necessity to the system
also exists as an ‘automaticism’ and an ‘attractive[-ated]
desire which has a ‘pull toward satisfaction’ – when things are sufficiently
simple (operating well or easy) in one’s life, one still has that ‘pull
toward satisfaction’ to simplify the complex, and therefore [[case 1]]
one will seek out some complex to simplify (usually one which is of
less {“strained-importance” WW” &or+
‘responsibility’}, and [[case 2]] even {often especially} when thing
particularly NOT “going well” {are already to complex – but with forced
responsibility} one tend to seek out ‘complexity-for-solving’ which
does not carry the ‘load of responsibility’ to ‘play’ INSTEAD of {“to
get out of”} resolving [simplifying] the responsibly required or enforced
Complexities (Responsibilities)
just as it is with sex or eating {{3-part: desire – fullfilment
– satisfaction}} seeking barbed
wire – just in order to be able to entangle
both the process of simplification >>…the above process can occur ‘effortlessly’ and/or without much [conscious??] attention, or may be enhanced by a voluntary {or even involuntary, if one is ‘that way’ [so] inclined} and/or purposefully ‘conscious participation’ – which might be either emotional, intellectual, or other involvement {…as in the following & other…} >>> Complexity:
also ++ Ericsonian “Confusion Technique” as “Another aspect [‘reason
for/use of’] of Complexfication >>> Complex: as in {intellectual} ‘Search-in-the-Forest’ (for anamorphics - ?anamorphotics??, both of object & directionality) can be for some a ‘Fun Game’ ––– &also the ‘Mystery’ of ‘Being-in-the- Complex’ of
the Dennis R {also Ouroboros: is it a math model)?????}} – Add: Complexity
from New NB pp 60 & 67 (+) Complexity: [?mostly?]see also p53 newNB …{{{???IS this also ‘the NEED for Cmplxity???}}} x – {{the}} mystery of the complex – fascination of the search {[aural scrutiny, the probing, exploration, scrutiny -ization inside the unfocus {{self-abandon}}– the discoveries – some repeatable, some not , the deflections, the defocuses the refocuses, the search & research - - - {tryingDiffW to hearDiffW inside |||the continuance of{from} a captivator inside the unfocus|||- - & the mystery of that {{& did you know you were in pursuit}} the dream of the sound to the dream in the dream {{{{& back to conscious attention – recognition, commentary & pursuit (++) see Slobod p118 - Cmplxty in Mus as a Meditative State (…but wht is Medtatve Stt for?- add at: but Wht is Mus? (…&for?) &also Cmplxty {{{++also add PAPER & Constructive (& Reproductive) Complexity vs. PERCIEVED Complexity}}} ++…not same as overly-TECHNOCRATIC – for ‘All’ to be Joyously ‘lost’ in… the COMPLEX Desire for COMPLEXITY [UnExcused] [[+++]] … but also the Rhyzomatic Multiplicity (indivisible & untraceable holism – cannot exist in/as its parts) the complex as all-unknowable object & magnificence of the Not-know - - ‘finding parts’ [as in above forest] are not parts but paths in & of the parts {{any-Paths in/of no-Parts [?‘body without organs’?<poss that has no subtextural meanings espc from Academia &+ ‘Reterritorialization’<possibilities] swirl of the multiplicities of the-all-the-dances … … … & the ‘Group-Hump’ of ‘no-certain-point-of-pulse’(!!) … & the glory of the non-solution of the mystery (‘sign-posts’ notwithstanding’)(tempted to the ‘I-know’ – but in ec-stacy of the not-know) … … ++Rhizome && Ecosystem [eco : frm Grk. = ‘house’ (prob as in ‘household’)] … one does not ‘live in’ an ecosystem by analysis of its parts (which will not include its synergic or holistic “supremium”… [?‘Body without Organs’?] – may go with Plateaus??? The Body
without Organs is a limit. In particular, it is the limit at which all
the flows which constitute the world flow completely freely, each into
the others, so that no distinctions exist among them any longer. Flows?,
you ask. D&G describe a world in which everything flows and everything
is made of flows: not only water, air, magma, blood, paint, electricity,
not only grass, earth, sun, but ideas, people, culture, books, conversations
flow. What allows us to distinguish these flows from each other, to
single out one or another, is a threshold or a point which separates each of
them. Every flow is made by cutting off another flow, by restricting
or drawing off a flow. But, in
some sense, a flow does not want to be cut-off, to be restricted. This
desire, the desire of a flow to flow unconstrained, is the BwO.
The BwO is real, since the desire is real,
in fact, the BwO just is desire. But it is
abstract, for it is a limit: flows are never free, but always interrupted. Without the interruption and
the desire, the flow and its break, there would be no world at all.
Why "Body-without-Organs"?
The absence of organs means the lack of organization, or the fact that
the BwO is not broken down into parts distinct
from each other. It remains a body, though, even if it only ever presents
itself as an attractor or repeller, a surface
to slip over or bounce off of. For no sooner does a flow return to the
BwO, then it is reconstituted
as part of another flow, distinguishing itself from its surroundings.
Nothing lives in the BwO, only over its surface.
Since it allows no distinctions, no identity, it is effectively sterile,
a degree zero; the complete freedom of the BwO
is also the undifferentiated of death. The BwO makes paradoxical (!) the problem of freedom. On the one hand, freedom is the freedom to flow without constraint, the freedom of autonomy. On the other hand, this same freedom is only death. What would be a limited freedom? This paradox of freedom is studied as the paradox of capitalism in _Anti-Oedipus_. If capitalism can make everything fall back on the BwO (of capital), then how far can it go toward this limit? >> BD II as a RANDOM KNOWING [+ plateaus?] >> Cmplx or Games & Fun {{{but
possibly goes below under General Comments}}} If you flip a coin, you know it will come
up heads or tails {George Washington & an Eagle} If I paint colored
dots on all sides of all the coins as they come down , perhaps selected
at random from 20 colors, perhaps sometimes, or even often changing
in the middle of a toss or as it lands … you still know it as heads
or tails, only now more colorful, more interesting … If sometimes it
is something other than heads, but still tails and you will wait for
the heads to return as long as the tails remain … or change the tails
but not the heads or change both but not too often: you will still know
the game … if the heads are of different personages & the tails
different birds … if there are two coins now, or three, or eight … only
half heads & tails, the rest many other things – the heads always
changing, the birds always changing, and the colors change all the time
… and still you will know the game, and await heads or tails …
& a final outcome… or not … having been caught up in an always changing game that
you cannot predict or be sure of – but that you know! **[[also
a view from possible>Chaos &or ‘Confusion
Technique’]] the NEED for COMPLEXITY: Complexityunfocus vs mystery-puzzel&solution-or-“placementation” , also confusion theory, + the necessary charm of ‘Noise’+see Arnheim:NEED >>>below[from nwNBp69bott-COMPLETE]: Humans have, & Need to have, a capacity to SIMPLIFY (for the purposes of ‘Utilization’ & ‘Understanding’ within their environment.) And hence, as in the cases of ‘Eating’ & ‘Sex’, it lies within his ‘nature’ to be drawn toward this ‘Actrivity’{phenomenon} even when {perhaps often “especially when”} it is abstracted from its necessity – as a source of ‘pleasure’, ‘satisfaction’, ‘fulfillment’ and ‘edification’ {a Desire tantamount to Need}‘{justRep?} for its own sake’, and therefore REQUIRES {Needs} a wide and varied {super}abundance of Complex Objects and Activities {‘Complexifications’??not EXACT Word??} to playWW? with, as is the case with Food & Sex… The NEED for COMPLEXITY see also Arnheim:NEED: 1[[[[People are attracted to {by}{toward a} Complexityintricacy,perplexity,puzzlement,mystery {either}{because}they are compelled toward {finding} OrderOrganization,Understanding [or because they are allured by a state of UnfocusWonderment,Surprise,Awe] ]]]] – [ 2[[[It
is Natural for some people to be, or say that they
are more attracted to {Simplicity or}{the} Simple things {or a Simple version of the Complicated or Complex}{|or that they don’t want to
analyze – just enjoy – but isn’t this the ‘allurement of Unfocus’,
or ‘Wonderment // besides which, ‘Intuitive Analysis’ (of which
one may not be conscious) is radically different|}
but might often include in such ‘simple activities’ a walk in the woods,
or sitting by the ocean, however in both cases one is dealing with things
which are in their actual existence highly complex – such a person would
not usually say ‘a Red Dot’ – but even the contemplation of a Red Dot
will either go to complexity in the mind or lead to unfocus - iff it does not
gravitate toward boredom & disinterest, and hence abandonment ]]]] [[[not so much a
matter of whether {attracted to COMplexity}but
which COMplexities one is willing to
consider as Complexities
3[[[a key word in the taste for ‘Complexity’
vs. ‘Simplicity’ is “DIFFICULT”
{…& how difficult…}
4[[[[ – all the words &
statements here(in)[in this ¶] are arguable – but then, aside from the acceptance of authority,
All Words & Statements Are arguable. – In any case,
I find that people are attracted toward the mystery of complexity
– even if {it is said that} they are not complex or interesting
in themselves {although everyone IS} – but even if they weren’t ?
Should I make music for boring people?]]]]???Already
Handled under ‘TRUTH’???!!
{{++CompliFiction & CompliFUCKation = obfuscation a
seeming necessity, especially in this also Complification &or Complifaction
are both analytical Simplifications of Complex Phenomena … FREEDOM: Freedom+life&libidinallity, degrees of… + ‘Constraints’ & ‘Rules’ [[[… additional libidinal energy being caused by some degree of freedom
of improvisation {{also as in jazz figurations or the use of ‘prototypes’
as found in Behavioral Drift II or RUGUGMOOL]] {{ also libidinal ‘freedom’}}]]] therefore, additionally: 1) Total Freedom
&& 2) Clichéd Freedom 1) [[[…but also give increased possibility of “Expressive Emphasis”
– therefore promoting ‘Dynamicism’ ]]] [[[…and also leads to a ‘simple’ mode of producing ‘Complex Relations’<poss see below ]]] Freedom{{{+++frozen<determinate><rigid> vs.
somewhat flexible, pliable, variable,
semi-improvisatory, improvisatory, total or varying degrees of
indeterminacy w/&/or ‘Ambient sounds’}{ also: ‘Scored’ but – predetermined vs. systemic or system
or bass generated}}} – see also newNB p50X {{{But
this is very different from that music in which everything has its own
place and is separated out as in a formal garden – where the places,
spaces & the names can all be known…there is no (sense of)
mystery – all set into [dead lattices within] a dead frame
& wherein such effort [& over-specialized abilities are necessary
in order just to breath a little
life [into the corpse] – on the other hand, how else would you preserve
some one’s thought – other than to freeze it - & later bring it
back to as exact a semblance as possible - & then [‘breathe life
into it’]Rep … & suppose one wishes to make such ‘a Concert’
…as one’s own thought – to join into the creativity of that which
is not & appears to occur
randomly ? how does one allow for the complex to come into being – without
making the frame itself so complex that it can barely be replicated
without massive exertion Rep & the
elitism of over-specialization {{{{{there is of course total freedom
of ‘free improvisation’ or the thousands of kinds of history-ridden
freedom of ‘jazz’ – also the ‘’music of the untrained’
++Systemic or asystemic – {&}that which is influenced by
no outside thought >>[[also Apollonian & Dionysian aspects of BD
II – structure vs. freedom nwNB
p53]]>>prhps under Freedom??? [[[&or: [the term ‘constraints’ is in reference to being ‘multi-dimensionally bounded by rules – both ‘hidden’ and ‘overt’] may cause what might otherwise be relegated to Texturality, to be heard as Functional-Dynamic<<>>]]] ++differentiate from ‘Rules’… >> ++ ANTI-ELITIST or ANTI-SPECIALIST ELEMENTS {in BD II}: > professional is about money & conceit – amature is about loving < >>>> FREEDOM (LIMITED) & LIBIDINAL ENERGY: <See Martens: Minimalism> vs CONSTRAINTS ??Why ‘Limited’?? (e.g. ‘having constraints’) Freedom: otherwise it cannot be called ‘Composition’, & thus belongs to the field of ‘Improvisation’ & its relatives rather than compositionally making use of certain Improvisatory Techniques. Composition is controlled (to a degree or another) from a single source – exactly where a Work passes out of the field of ‘Composition’ is beyond the scope of this writing. {{Bussotti: fun for the perf., not for the aud. – but, of course, in such a case it is the perf.s job to make it fun for the aud, ?&Bussotti’s Intent??}} }} the freedom isn’t so much as “to do whatever you like”, as is it is freedom from overly difficult technologies, and certain external & often suffocating ‘controls’ in order to ‘individually’ make music and participate ‘easily’ in a [still – yet] complex event [event complex] }} Democratic approach which can include the non-elite and non-over-specialized… >>>>***[ FREEDOM vs CONSTRAINT – this will be discussed (in portions) more later – diff. Issues: 1. simple complexity – chaos & complexity are in nature both made from simpl processes on simpl formulae – 2. individ. Mus. Expressivity as opp. over-intellectualization ((also leads to a studied elitism wch has little to do w/ music))) 3. non-elitist democracy perfs at diff levels of training & from diff disciplines 3a/4. anti-over-specialization 5. fun & games & libidinal creativity (diff from Expression) as opp serious labor & onus 6. all Mus is essentially IMProvised Freedom at some point - ?how much Im p vs ?how much Constraints applied at wht point in the procedure leading up to listening {Auditation – also remember the Gypsies ]]<<<<< at 4/23
Next
Section after Completing Above callTime, Fun & Games, Plateaus
& Moment Form ???Wht abt TIME, >>ORDER:
Time, Plateaus [or v.v.]{?where
does F&G fit?} …other… then Moment Form
OTHER
PERTAINENT and > MOMENT- [term
due to Stockhausen, but…][from Griffeths pp 144-5]: about Kontakte
–1960, Stockhausen said “The musical events do not take a fixed course
between a determined beginning and an inevitable ending, and the moments
are not merely consequents of what proceeds them and antecedents of
what follows; rather the concentration on the Now – on every Now – as
if it were a vertical slice dominating over any horizontal conception
of time and reaching into timelessness, which I call eternity: an eternity
which does not begin at the end of time, but is attainable at every
moment.” […but the music for reasons to be examined does not support
this very pretty claim in any specific way – 10 there are obvious ‘lead
to’ climaxes 2) there is at least a clear cut beginning & a kind
of end 3) if he means he uses very little repetition or derivation:
while this may be to some degree true, it is hardly a new idea {vis
areas in Mozart & Bach, to say nothing of the Opera Mother by Alois
Haba which is constructed entirely without repetition 4) This is not
meant as a criticism of the value of any of Stockhausen’s music, but
only of his point of reference 5) Because the so-called ‘Moments’ are
musico-logically connected into a reasonably moving chain of events
that ‘fit’ within the context of the piece [vs. variety of unrelated
moments – as may be found in certain pieces of Cage {?Williams
Mix<CHECK??}: a. The ‘Moments’
are not interchangeable in time. b. One is pulled along by or with the chain
of ‘Moments’ [even ‘melodically’] in time, thereby not abiding in any
[illusion of – of course totally static or somewhat varied) is entirely self-regenerative, and will eventually be perceived as a ‘whollyPresent Cyclical Sameness’ (even if somewhat varied) which is sustained in such a manner that it can be
intimately examined – see also Plateau** &+> An Extended Moment-form is a cellular complex of sound in which there is continuous change and still remains within an obvious sameness, such that one is captivated by the moving moment and what is to be found therein (hence an M-F most likely will contain at least one Captivator – a motivic cell or cellular structure of musical fascination which is semi-obscured or hidden by more obvious features within which it is embedded), and remains on that Plateau of excitement without the necessity of being progressively driven toward some ‘greater value’ or ‘greatest value’ (forthcoming climax.) +++ ASRB IV …for the father of a New-Born
Child (with Eggs)… +++ The Viscouscation
of Shattered Shafts (Prismoid Sunbarbs
…when removed from the Garden)
&+> Moving Moment vs Static Moment (Varese ‘pyramids’ (some motion), Scelsi & Lamont Young) Changing Moment {vs} Progressive Moment {vs} Destined Moment (toward some climax or Denoument – this is a Moment only in the sense of an ‘open sample’, & therefore can not be considered as part of a Moment-form as the attention is divided between where one is & where one is going,
with the intent focused on where one is going; whereas, the Progressive
Moment is moving from one state to a another state of equal value, thus there is no Climactic Intent or feeling
of the need to Arrive somewhere else, & hence the Focus
remains in or on the Moment – & so, it is driven to change only by the eventual ‘desire for Variety’ {Feldenkrais: the ‘Human System’ thrives on Variety << &+ ‘except sometimes’ as in the gambler’s rule [‘when you got ‘em, play ‘em, when you don’t, don’t, except sometimes’] &+ …what’s beautiful about the weather, the ocean, the woods … variety in sameness &+ ‘maintenance’ of any such eco-system… – <<<&+ recheck Man’s Rage for Chaos >>>> with
MOMENT- Other UNDERLYING MODELS &
CONCEPTS
Strange
Attractor + Sensitive to init +Homeostatic Harmony {{{????}}} + [separate] MOMENT- + other stuff from new-NB p 53 + the “”Group Hump”” && Fuzzy “Entrainment” [[a Complexification of homogeneous temporal relations in distinction from the more militant simultaneous pulses with subdivisions List of Terms to be Defined &or Discussed – before BD II: Mass
Sound Continuum Homeostatic
Harmony
&)‘Harmony’ in this sense has nothing
to do with conventional chordal harmony
– the 12-note ‘chords’ herein are apprehended
only within a sufficiently large sample
space (from 2 to 10 seconds) with the possibility that {{at no time}} within a particular
occurrence
might all 12 pitches happen in exact
simultaneity &)
These ‘chords’ may be differentiated from one
another only by their intervallic content, as opposed to either their
pitch
content
(all 12 different pitches are present, again given a sufficiently
large sample space) or their functional position
in some harmonic system. …therefore
maintanence of (various) 12 note chords or ((sample) nebulae
&) +++define Homeostatic +++define Harmony
&) harmonic roots may form at times but will do so
only randomly, vaguely and ephemerally – thus there is no demand for
functionally necessitated root progression
as there is in conventional harmony.
OLD – for Revision
&) TONALITY: because of the constant fluxuation inside any given vertical slice & the fact
that the
pitch-pair Clusters always
contain all 12 tones any Tonal Centers formed are vague at best,
and in
any case will vary randomly with performance,
and any Root Progression that might be derived from
these ‘Accidentally’ formed Centers
will form no sane harmonic progression, thus while not being
exactly Atonal (almost
no organized or even unorganized sound is), it is at any given moment
merelyWW?
randomly &or disjunctly
tonal. Bass
Generated Behavior Drift Prototypes Strange
Attractor Entrainment
& the ‘Group Hump’ BLACK
Whenever two events are experienced in immediate linear juxtaposition they influence one another (especially in the direction of antecedent to consequent.) The music of Behavioral Drift II (circa 1975) was composed entirely without reference to anything other than its own construction of sonic events. The story Black New York (circa 1973) was already in existence at that time. (Curiously enough, the story was written while undergoing Werner Erhardt’s EST Workshop.) The only feature, either 'atmospheric' or ‘structural’, that the two had in common was that both were dedicated to or into the romantic aura of Marie N. The story was combined with the music as an after-thought in order to give some non-sequential ‘program’ to the musico-emotive ‘mental set’ as a preparatory condition for the musical event that follows. Which is to say that it imparts an expressive mood or ‘flavor’ to its attached abstraction, where it becomes psychically embedded. And under such conditions may itself be considered as a musical event – a prelude. This story is included in Ann Margret Loves You & Other Psychotopological Diversions published by Station Hill Press (1980). STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF BEHAVIORAL DRIFT II (1975) BD II is a musical Mass Sound Continuum* for 21 performers. These are divided into 3 performing Ensembles, and a ‘Control’ ensemble (Ens.1) whose cues are for the most part given on percussion instruments and thereby function as part of the musical continuum. Overall
Staging Diagram
Stage
{optional Dice Cage} Light Panel & Mood Cards
(Ensemble 1)
Ensemble 2
Snare Drum (Ensemble
1)
Wood Block
(Ensemble 1) Ensemble 2 Ensemble 3
Pf Tb1
Toy Winds
Vl2
Cl1
Small Drums
Wind Chimes
Cl2 Vl1
Small Bells
Odd Devices
Tb2
Cb The foregoing ‘staging diagram’ is represented on this recording by the following sonic array, which may be best heard on a system with widely spaced stereo speakers or a good set of head-phones. This ‘directional aspect’ (directional counter-point) is an integral and highly important part of the composition, not an additional embellishment:
Toy
Winds
Pf Cb
Bass
Drum
Cl2 Cl1
Small Drums Wind Chimes
Vl2 Vl1
Snare Drum
Small Bells
Tb2
Tb1
Wood Block
Odd Devices
V o c a l
E n s e m b l e {& Narrator} The ability to record such a configuration
is an almost ‘lost art’, and in this case is due entirely to the expertise
of Paul Goodman (engineer) and Judith Sherman (editor) at the incredible
RCA Studios in
Ensemble 1 is made up of 4 ‘Controllers’,
respectively on Bass Drum, Snare Drum, Wood-Block,
and Light Panel. Each
of the first three controls the Behavioral changes (Drifts)
as well as the dynamics of the other 3 ensembles.
The Light Panel Controller (who also controls the ‘Mood
Card System’ – e.g. ‘mysterious’, ‘playful’, ‘violent’…)
is solely ‘visual’, and maintains a Homeostatic Harmony* for
Ensemble 2 by governing the distribution of pitches, 2 at a time
per instrument (except for the piano and ‘bass where pitches are randomized.)
These ‘pitch pairs’<[***]
are selected from a Chart of 12-note chords such that all 12
pitches are always sounding (more or less simultaneously) within any
arbitrarily selected 2-5 second sample of time.
The ‘Pitch-Pairs’ are used as the predominating material
in the realization of Prototypes* which form the Behaviors*
in Ensemble 2. Each of the chords on the chart has a different
intervallic construction so that each chord has it own special flavor
or mood. [***]???KEEP?[[[Except for the pf & Cb: … . {11.} The Pf and Cb Parts do not contain any Pitch-Pairs or their relevant Systems, and are therefore are to use a wide variety of Pitched Intervals at ‘random’, covering a wide variety of registers, and avoiding the formation of obvious ‘tonal centers’. Their only Cues come from the Bass Drum (PTs) and the Snare Drum Velocity (which indicates ‘relative’ Dynamic Levels.) |… … …|This [quasi-limited] [inspecificity] of constraints in the pitch parameters of these 2 instruments is purposeful … I could easily have used a ‘reference row’ or ‘row sequence’ (elective< chart), or one or more ‘all-interval’ 12-note ‘reference chords’ {which is basically what is implied or indicated by the instructions as given } – but this would have restricted possible/occasional semi-lawbreaking antic actions, quizzical error & indolent arbitrarity (human elements || [allows for]: human error / erraticism / laziness / secretive playfulness) on the part of these instruments (as in contrast to the other 6 instruments in this ensemble – more ‘fluke’ & ‘fake’ than ‘semi-restrained freedom’ – both degrees of ‘fuzz’) … this leaves the overall Mass Sound Formation with a ‘touch of the Strange’ …but not ‘so strange’ that the ‘antic’ element is entirely overwhelmed by the partial confinement of the rest of the group as a whole …but<rep that the ‘whole’ retains a sufficient ration of ubiquitous ‘antic flavor’ … however, it also opens the door to a greater possibility of disregarding the instructions almost entirely (hopefully then to be restrained or reeducated by Controller 1)]]] ???KEEP? Ensemble 2 is comprised of eight instruments (2 Violins, 2 Clarinets, 2 Trombones, String ‘Bass & Piano) situated more or less evenly around the outside of the audience (see the foregoing diagram.) The musical output of Ensemble 2 consists of a sequence of Behaviors (about 20 seconds each in this performance) operating with specific materials and within given constraints. Each Behavior is made up of a set or Bundle of 8 concurrent instrumental lines or Chains, all operating continuously. Each instrumental Chain is ‘Base Generated’ by improvisatory means from one of 8 different Prototypes. A Prototype is a generalized motive or meta-Motive* (e.g.: ‘progressing predominantly upwards’ or ‘Walking’ evenly between 2 notes) that is used as a ‘Base’ instruction, given external to time of performance, from which is to be created a Chain of motives of the given prototype within a given performance time; that is, there is no ‘temporal linear analogue’ (conventionally notated scoring in time) of what is being performed. An individual instrumental Chain is produced in a Behavior when a performer linearly ‘links’ together (Generates) a variety of realizations of a given Prototype. *[A Chain, especially when composed of ‘musico-logically’ mixed prototypes can also be called a ‘Generalized Melody’.] In each case, this extemporized Chain is created under a ‘fuzzy intervallic constraint’, in that 80% of the generated Chain on any specific Prototype is made up solely from a given one of the 24 pitch-pairs taken from the Chart of 12-note Chords (which may be exchanged in mid-Behavior at the discretion of the Light Panel Controller.) The system in Ensemble 2 is setup so that all 8 Prototypes (using all 12 pitches) are always continuously sounding from all 8 instruments concurrently, thus coming from all 8 directions Hence a Behavior is a ‘Base Generated Bundle of Chains, each made from a distinct Prototype, and coming from a different instrument from a different location, all emanating from a given Directional Arena’. There are 64 such Behaviors possible when combining 8 instruments with 8 Prototypes, however, in BD II only 8 are used. The 8 Prototypes used in BD II are: .) Progressing predominantly ‘upwards’ .) Progressing predominately ‘downwards’ .) Random fast ‘telegraph-like’ rhythm on a high note (one change allowed) .) Sustained Low Note (one change allowed) .) ‘Even Walking’ between 2 notes (a rare third is allowed singularly) .) ‘Bessel Function’ (as a musico-graphic analogue): a sequence of separate notes or a continuous glissando that wavers up and down, at first close together within a narrow range, then becoming farther apart in a wider range, achieving some ‘widest’ range, and then reversing the process. .) ‘Speckled Space’: a dense random distribution of ‘note-points’ covering the entire range of the instrument, and which features the pitch-pair dynamically. A plethora of points. .) An invented ‘Bird-call-like’ Motive, to be repeated with pauses and only minor variants (if any.) Revise from here on down –
after In order to realize a change or Drift to each next Behavior as a ‘revitalization’ of the continuum, The same Set of Prototypes is given for each instrument, but in a different order, and each of these Behavioral Sets is given an ‘index number’ (1–8) which can be ‘called for’ by the Drift Controller for Ensemble 2 (Bass Drum) by performing an aggregate of eighth-notes equal to that index, this aggregate is repeated after a short pause for clarity. This will produce a new Set of all 8 prototypes simultaneously, each coming from a new different instrument, and therefore from a new different direction. At the onset of a newly indicated Drift, in order to maintain continuity and to avoid obvious lacunae or too sharply defined ‘borders’ in the continuum (which would make it discontinuous), ‘quasi-immediate’ changes are mandated with the given instruction “…wait until the next instruction is understood, then change directly to the next state (prototype, pitch-pair, etc..) [Processual Transformations from one prototype to another will not be used until RUGUGMOOL (1980).] Because there is no underlying downbeat, such fuzzy changes produce a fuzzy zone of transformation which I much prefer to the militantly cut and overly obvious ‘sharp edge’ (just as I prefer ‘beginning’ by ‘gathering’) – I find this to be a more realistic form of continuity. The amount of time that a Behavior may last before such a change is arbitrary, but around 20" seems to be optimal – this may be pre-chosen and/or then modified by the Bass Drum Controller. – – – or do we need ‘wholistic’ or Drifts’????? ***hence within the Behavioral Bundle, all 12…….. see also below below
Pt’s – 2 Large
¶’s – ???keep after, or before??? ?¶?{{{??’Drift’ before ‘Lamina’??? +…after some given period of time’Chance vs Freeze PROB… ???}}} The sequence of Behaviors in Ensemble 2 form an ‘integral part’ (Lamina*, or Embedding* actually, in that each Ensemble functions as a separate entity in the complex, as they are each metrically and contrapuntally distinct) of the Complex Sonic Mass in Flux* which is BD II. A change, a Drift to a ‘new’ behavior will cause a change in the direction from which each prototype is coming (that is, a change in the entire sonic prototypal shape or array surrounding the audience), a change in the instrumental ‘color’ and register of each prototype, a probable change in the intervals (pitch-pairs) being used respectively in the realization of each prototype, and also a change in the individuation of interpretation of each prototype – but will cause no change in the prototypal content of the overall Behavior. In short, the system will maintain a state of saturated dynamic homeostasis{{{define + “”Autopoiesis””iff}}} – ‘Saturated’ in that it makes sonically available all of its material (pitches, prototypes and instruments) all of the time (given a sufficient sample of 2"–3".) Always all the same, and always all different… In general, the performers do not respond to each other outside of the semi-automatic framework of Musical Entrainment – and the different ensembles, even less so, thus preserving the autonomy of {{this Lamina*.}} ______________________________________________________________________________________ …iff
starting over on a ‘Shorter’ ¶2 … (see
immediately above) [[See if some or stuff on BDII
below can be erased]] ______________________________________________________________________________________ CD Cover Notes – BD II STRUCTURAL
FEATURES OF BEHAVIORAL DRIFT II (1975) BD II is a musical Mass Sound Continuum for 21 performers (not including the narrator and one or two assistants.) These are divided into 3 performing ensembles, and a ‘Control’ ensemble whose cues are for the most part given on percussion instruments and thereby functions as part of the musical continuum. Ensemble 1 is made up of 4 ‘Controllers’, respectively on Bass Drum, Snare Drum, Wood-Block, and Light Panel. Each of the first three controls the Behavioral changes (Drifts) as well as the dynamics of the other 3 ensembles. The Light Panel Controller (solely ‘visual’) also controls the ‘Mood Card System’ [{{(optional), and has available a Panel consisting of a rank of four different colored lights operated singly in combination with a rank of six lights of one color operated cumulatively, thus the Light Panel can indicate 24 configurations. Each of these 24 possibilities indicates to 6 of the 8 instruments in Ensemble 2, a specific pitch-pair for each instrument. This pitch-pair is to be employed in forming 80% of the material used to create each instrumental line in any realization of a currently indicated ‘Behavior’. (The piano and ‘bass, are told merely to use a wide variety of pitch intervals overall.) Each category on the Chord Chart from which these pitch-pairs are drawn contains a chord made up of all 12 pitches given in the form of 6 pitch-pairs, one indicated for each instrument. Each chord has its own characteristic structure, in that some chords have a wide variety of intervals, while others have only one or two interval types. A change of pitch-pairs does not necessarily occur at the same time as a change (or Drift) in the Behavior, nor even a change in the Mood Cards which are operated by the same Controller. The Mood Cards (e.g. ‘mysterious’, ‘playful’, ‘violent’…) if used, appear individually in conjunction with the Light Panel in order to enhance or sometimes modify the current ‘chord characteristic’. Ensemble 2 is comprised of eight instruments (Vl1, Vl2, Cl1, Cl2, Tb1, Tb2, Cb & Pf) situated more or less evenly around the outside of the audience:
Pf Tb1
Cl2 Vl1
Vl2 Cl1
Tb2 Cb A Behavior in Ensemble 2 will always consist of all 8 different prototypes simultaneously coming from 8 different instruments and 8 different directions. This ‘directional aspect’ is an integral and highly important part of the composition, not an additional embellishment. For the purposes of this recording, the following array (which can be best heard with head-phones or widely spaced speakers) has been selected for Ensemble 2 (with Ensemble 3 and the Control Ensemble appropriately interspersed, while the Vocal Ensemble is given full spectrum): Pf
Cb Cl1 Cl2 Vl1 Vl2 Tb1 Tb2 The ability to record such a configuration
is an almost ‘lost art’, and is due entirely to the expertise of Paul
Goodman (engineer) and Judith Sherman (editor) at the incredible RCA
Studios in The musical output of Ensemble 2 consists of a sequence of Behaviors (circa 20") utilizing specific materials and constraints. Each Behavior is made up of a simultaneous bundle (or simultaneity) of 8 instrumental lines or chains, each one of which is ‘base generated’ by improvisatory means from a different Prototype. A prototype is a generalized motive (e.g.: ‘progressing predominantly upwards’) or a meta-Motive*, that is used as a ‘base’ instruction from which can be constructed a ‘chain’ of motives of a given type. An individual Chain is produced in a behavior when a performer linearly ‘links’ together a variety of realizations of a given prototype – this is called base generation* because there is no ‘temporal linear analogue’ (conventionally notated score) of what is being performed. In each case, this extemporized generation is created with an intervallic ‘fuzzy constraint’, in that 80% of the generation on any one prototype is made up solely from a given one (which may be changed in mid-Behavior) of the 24 pitch-pairs from the chord chart. The 8 prototypes used in BD II are: .) Progressing predominantly ‘upwards’ .) Progressing predominately ‘downwards’ .) Random fast ‘telegraph’ rhythm on a high note (one change allowed) .) Sustained Low Note (one change allowed) .) ‘Even Walking’ between 2 notes (a rare third is allowed singularly) .) ‘Bessel Function’ (as a musico-graphic analogue): a sequence of separate notes or a continuous glissando that wavers up and down, at first close together within a narrow range, then becoming farther apart in a wider range, achieving some ‘widest’ range, and then reversing the process. .) ‘Speckled Space’: a dense random distribution of ‘note-points’ covering the entire range of the instrument, and which features the pitch-pair dynamically. A plethora of points. .) An invented ‘Bird-call-like’ Motive, to be repeated with pauses and only minor variants (if any.) All 8 of these prototypes are
used continuously and simultaneously in every Behavior
throughout the Ensemble 2 part, each always on a different instrument,
and hence coming from a different direction.
A Behavior then, is a ‘Base Generated Bundle {or
Simultaneity} of Distinct Prototypal Chains in a Directional Arena’.
The Behaviors in Ensemble 2 form an ‘integral part’ (Lamina*,
or Embedding* actually, in that each Ensemble functions as a
separate entity in the complex, as they are each metrically and contrapuntally
distinct) of the Complex Sonic Mass in Flux* which
is BD II. A change, a Drift to a ‘new’ behavior
will cause a change in the direction from which each prototype
is coming (that is, a change in the entire sonic prototypal shape
or array surrounding the audience), a change in the instrumental
‘color’ and register of each prototype, a probable change in
the intervals (pitch-pairs) being used respectively in the realization
of each prototype, and also a change in the individuation of
interpretation of each prototype – but will cause no
change in the prototypal content of the overall Behavior.
In short, the system will maintain a state of saturated
dynamic homeostasis{{{define
+ “”Autopoiesis””iff}}} – ‘Saturated’
in that it makes sonically available
all of its material (pitches, prototypes and instruments) all of the
time (given a sufficient sample of 2"–3".) Always all the same, and always all different… In general, the performers do not respond to
each other outside of the semi-automatic framework of Musical
Entrainment – and the different ensembles, even less so, thus
preserving the autonomy of the Lamina*. In order to realize a Drift to each next Behavior as a ‘revitalization’ of the continuum, there have been selected from a possible 64 combinations of all 8 instruments with all 8 prototypes, only 8 such one-to-one correspondences (Behavioral Sets), chosen because they are vastly different from each other, yet at the same time present certain interesting internal relations to each other. The same Set of Prototypes is given for each instrument, but in a different order, and each of these Behavioral Sets is given an ‘index number’ (1–8) which can be ‘called for’ by the Drift Controller for Ensemble 2 (Bass Drum) by performing an aggregate of eighth-notes equal to that index, this aggregate is repeated after a short pause for clarity. This will produce a new Set of all 8 prototypes simultaneously, each coming from a new different instrument, and therefore from a new different direction. At the onset of a newly indicated Drift, in order to maintain continuity and to avoid obvious lacunae or too sharply defined ‘borders’ in the continuum (which would make it discontinuous), ‘quasi-immediate’ changes are mandated with the given instruction “…wait until the next instruction is understood, then change directly to the next state (prototype, pitch-pair, etc..) [Processual Transformations from one prototype to another will not be used until RUGUGMOOL (1980).] Because there is no underlying downbeat, such fuzzy changes produce a fuzzy zone of transformation which I much prefer to the militantly cut and overly obvious ‘sharp edge’ (just as I prefer ‘beginning’ by ‘gathering’) – I find this to be a more realistic form of continuity. The amount of time that a Behavior may last before such a change is arbitrary, but around 20" seems to be optimal – this may be pre-chosen and/or then modified by the Bass Drum Controller.
??? Any More Ens 2 ??? – see Rec. Jac. & BD II Instruc. – Ensemble 3 is comprised of five instrumental collections situated more or less evenly around the outside of Ensemble 2: 1) Toy winds: slide whistles, tooters, bird whistles, small sirens, etc. 2) Small Drums and wooden objects 3) Bells and Metal Junk 4) Wind chimes (suspended on a rack): metal, bamboo, shell, glass, etc. 5) Odd Devices: cat calls, cow moos, frog croaks, small ratchets, crickets, etc. Toy Winds
Small
Drums
Wind Chimes
Small Bells
Odd Devices A Behavior in Ensemble 3 will always consist of all of 5 different Rhythmic Prototypes simultaneously coming from the 5 different instrumental sets and 5 different directions. Start HERE Weds. {{{{ ¶’s +[??] conclude Ens 2[??]…}}}} Ensemble 1 (Controllers) – a further view: The Decisions of the various controllers are informed by, but not ‘tied to’ the changes of parameter made by the other controllers. A list of All of the Variable Parameters and their their {{origins – origioations}}: .) Behavioral Drift of Ensemble 2 (change of Prototypes relative to instruments & directional configuration)
… and when (.: how long a Behavior lasts : can be prechosen
– an arbitrary 20”) …the Prototypal Drifts in any performance can be selected in one of four ways – pre-chosen (‘frozen’), by controller ‘taste’, by controller random choice, or via small or large Dice Cage
–
Bass Drum Controller .) Behavioral Drift of Ensemble 3 (change of Prototypes relative to instruments & directional configuration) …and when (.: how long such a sub-Behavior lasts : can be pre-chosen – the arbitrary { }”) – Snare Drum Controller .) Relative Pitch-pair content of each instrumental prototype in a Behavior within a given group of pitch-pairs (12-note chord) for Ensemble 2
–
Light Panel Controller .) Relative Dynamic balance of the various ensembles – Speed of ‘cueing-aggregates’ of the 3 Sounding Controllers .) Pitch Array Content (one of six three-note chords) for Ensemble 4 (Vocal)
–
Wood Block Controller .) Overall
Mood {{{ ?? "
or just Ens 2 ??}}} – Light Panel Controller >>>??what about ‘Woods Analogy’ from record jacket >>??????WHERE?????<< {before or ‘after’ other ensembles?????} cld be after ¶ - end phrase: saturated
dynamic homeostasis ((above))
√ – other Ens are like sub-cats in woods: birds, insects, wind rustles, water –
Stage:
{iff Dice
Cage} Light Panel
& Mood Cards
Snare Drum
Wood Block
BEHAVIORAL
DRIFT II – (1975) Scattered Footnotes & miniEssays on Pertinent
Topics: ???All Footnotes
1st, then miniEssays??? ??{{PRELIMINARY METAPARAMETERS}}?? – background
thought & definitions – >>*[The earliest of my pieces to make use of this format were the Base Generated Emergency Structuring Systems (BGESS #1 … #4) from the mid 1960’s.] >>**[A
‘Motive’ can be seen as a musico-emotion-packing
entity: ‘Musical emotions’ being different from
other kinds of emotions; and any emotions being experientially
identifiable but not definable. While
most emotions are nameable, differentiable from each other, and identifiable
as emotions by most people, this is due solely to the authoritarian
practice of clustering them together under one term, however, they are
not necessarily subdivisions of some singular category – in actuality
they may not be related to each other at all.
These aspects of ‘musical emotionality’ are mentioned here because,
especially in the case of a meta-motive, the emotional value or ‘feeling’
(which necessitates a certain amount of ‘freedom’***) is important relative
to its interpretive employment, and thus its auditory recognizability
(e.g. a ‘rising’ motive that is not adjunctively rendered with some
kind of a feeling of ‘upness’,
is musically afunctional.)] >>PROGRAMING:
If I were to speak purely from the stance
of musical values alone – I could not speak.
If I were to tell you exactly what the tones and rhythms are…
the tunes and harmonies… the loud, the soft, and every other precisity…
there still would be no base commonality with the music itself… but
I do speak, and you want to read about it… to get something from the
speaking that you are not yet getting in the music… or perhaps the history
of how it was made… or some way into its apparent opacity… or to enhance
its value… or… …but when I speak – ?What will you allow me
to speak of? The sonnet of Shakespeare
with a hole in his sock is not the sonnet of Shakespeare with socks
intact. (Henry Miller) Beethoven
said of Op. 31 #2: If you want to understand this sonata, read Shakespeare’s
Tempest. For all the musical abstraction of his structural thinking,
Beethoven often kept a text beside him as worked. ( ??are
the next few entries below footnotes – and hence should be above?? >> GLOBAL COMPOSITION: non-local lineation, which might be either Realized (frozen) or Instructed (to be realized in performance) BASE- GENERATION (1ST used in BGESS 1 – 4)
>> Poss GAMES &
PLATEAUS {{titled together}} >> GAMES: Behavioral Drift II consists of a [laminated}
simultaneity of Games. [[[…such Behaviors may be viewed as quasi-improvisatory ‘games’*…]]] [Complex]GAME: redefine game: ––– 1) 2) PLATEAU [see: Bateson, Deleuze, Guatari] vs. Portent &or Aggression &or the Need- toWin
&or Competition [Huizenga made it all
Competition) 3) for both
Tibetan Ball game – DeLatereSp?, &also African Game [M……… Sp?], &poss Crossword – or any unthreatening
challenge of the self - the NON- 4) CHALLENGE (&or Winning) vs?? PLATEAU **––– but only Elements of ‘GAME’ >> BD II as a RANDOM KNOWING [+ plateaus?] >> Games & Fun or Cmplx<see
at p 13… {{{but
possibly goes below under General Comments}}} If you flip a coin, you know it will come
up heads or tails {George Washington & an Eagle} If I paint colored
dots on all sides of all the coins as they come down , perhaps selected
at random from 20 colors, perhaps sometimes, or even often changing
in the middle of a toss or as it lands … you still know it as heads
or tails, only now more colorful, more interesting … If sometimes it
is something other than heads, but still tails and you will wait for
the heads to return as long as the tails remain … or change the tails
but not the heads or change both but not too often: you will still know
the game … if the heads are of different personages & the tails
different birds … if there are two coins now, or three, or eight … only
half heads & tails, the rest many other things – the heads always
changing, the birds always changing, and the colors change all the time
… and still you will know the game, and await heads or tails …
& a final outcome… or not … having been caught up in an always changing game that
you cannot predict or be sure of – but that you know! **[[also
a view from possible>Chaos &or ‘Confusion
Technique’]] [[++…Werner Erhardt:
“oh! Now it’s a Game – now it’s Fun!” – >> PLATEAU: [define Plateau according to Bateson & Deleuze Guatari] 1) :. No tendency toward Climaxes // the feeling that one
is moving in & around something rather than something is progressively
passing by. – also, to
become lost in time – when time stands still How TIME ‘doesn’t Pass’: Since Time is {“Now
hold the moment in your mind, see how it extends beyond you.” –
Michael Satterfield} + “How Time IS” (in some fuzzy ball of now): different from “How Time PASSES &+> see also Fraisse & poss. Ornstein on p 136 of Reynolds The
EXPERIENCE of {{…people will either act according to their own predilections,
or in a manner responsive to their beliefs or how those beliefs have
been transformed relative to various authority…}} … therefore, if [One … an Artist] wishes to
have as the desired response to some idea [‘given sample’]
of {{?Shld the Sect after the
one below come 1st??}} ??<<A Closer Look at some of the Terminology>>??
Contemplations
of BEHAVIORAL
DRIFT as seen from outside of the framework of it’s purely Musical values the stance of applied General Systems Theory
& Programaticisation >> GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY – as a structural device – as a programmatic device – that is, any structure from any discipline may be acceptable for use in the construction of a musical composition {{{such is the case anyway, whether you think so or not}}}older musical forms as being of “{specialized} programmatic recognition” [in any case], therefore all formal structures, including ‘arithmetic’ (as in dodecaphonic) and other mathematical frames (stochastic, random, topological), how ever ‘abstract’, should be viewed as programmatic just as much as if they were structured by a story (a device constantly used but hidden by Beethoven as well as Chopin) or an impression – which is to say that all composed music is in some fashion programmatic. But the main ‘programmatic’ features of BD II do not lie<WW? with the ‘programming story – even if it is experienced that way… the way something is experienced may well & deservedly WW? have little to do with its actual underlying program(ming) & other structural features as conceived by the composer. >> HOMEOSTATIC SYSTEM – or an ECOLOGY: {biol.} (See Gen Syst Theory) >???Global next???< >> DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS:
(see paper from GQ)
>reread & add notes
to this > rules – degree
of predictable change or movement toward change >> STRANGE ATTRACTOR:
&+> SENSITIVE DEPENDANCE ON INTIAL CONDITIONS: (a necessity in defining a Strange Attractor) will probably turn out to have to do with the substantial integrity of comparison relative to different performances &+ changes in Base generators, changes in Prototypes, changes in mood Overlay Structure, changes in performance Practice (counter to instructions & clear compositional wishes) will cause “sufficiently noticeable’ changes in the ‘Recognizable Nature’ &or Klang-Ideal of the System(the Composition) as well as both Global & Linear Momente – this ‘Inviolability’ or ‘homeostatic Invariance’ is due to clearly delineated compositional CONSTRAINTS (See) on the performers use of the given materials (as, in actuality is the case in a much more restricted fashion in conventionally notated music even in instances of ‘bad’ performance – [different]Performances, the meaning & effect (also ‘Affect’) of: – under (?any) ‘conditions’ of performance: Bad Beeth. is still obviously ‘Great’-Beeth … >>> BGESS #4 – ?failure?
– ?not enough contrraints?
?[Bussotti prob.]?? >> ‘factory’ for producing {‘gereralized’}cnt-pnt >> REACTORY SPACE:
{don’t know if applies in this essay} >> Not
Error Field: – Discretionary Field – Volition – Option
– Latitude – Deviance – Indeterminate
Access – Projective – [[origionally Tolerance – Volitional Tolerance – Tolerancy]]
>> BEHAVIORAL DRIFT: >> BEHAVIORAL
DRIFT II – General Comments: >>> BD II then, is a chaos in which more & more can be recognized & discovered more & more often (even if what is discovered & recognized is sometimes not what the composer conceived [Beethoven was disgusted when Goethe gushed over the expressionWW? when Beethoven first played his Fifth Symphony to him – although later, Goethe wrote that the piece was a ‘magnificent structure’ with no expression at all (too far in the other direction… perhaps Ludwig yelled at him)] or intended – but may have Allowed for!) – …?In his Pf Cnc does Babbitt do this (consciously or unconsciously) – in spite of a (what he seems to feel to be a ‘required’) mathematic, which most cannot either find or apprehend – which often doesn’t seem make any difference, just as most can’t find or apprehend the contrapuntal tricks in Bach – but in that case, both changing densities and catchy motives [[or at least obvious motives – superficial excitement with ‘some-depth’ (more depth still because of the obviousness of an imitation with only minimal variance) – ?… as opposed to a chaos which remains opaque regardless of the composers Conception!! & the Intuitive Analytic Sensingww? (this ‘Sensing’ operates as an automatic {autonomic}process and is therefore more related to ‘feeling’ [indefinable] and ‘familiarity’{‘’familiarity’ can be recognized or not recognized} [‘familiarity’: the ‘feeling’ of ‘knowing’ without the necessity of its espousal {{‘being taken up as a cause’}}]) & is thusly Not related to Intellectual Anal–`ysis (what we call an ‘intellect-you-all’ or akademic approach – which is either a purposeful {or accidental} de-sensitization of an experience) ]] – {only ‘surface excitement’ available in Boulez – often (as in Structures) unable to get into depth because of lack of interest due to sameness (as an antivaluric content) and constant density – could get by with one or the other but not both{??}} >>>Pf &
Cb lack of PP’s: *[This partially limited inspecificity of constraints
in the pitch parameters of these 2 instruments has a definite purpose. I could easily have used a ‘reference row’,
a ‘row sequence’, an elective chart, or one or more ‘all-interval’ 12-note
‘reference chords’ (which is basically what is implied or indicated
by the instructions as given) but this would have restricted the possibility
of occasional semi-lawbreaking antic actions, secretive playfulness,
quizzical erraticism, and even indolent arbitrarity, all human elements
to be allowed for, on the part of these few instruments.
This is in contrast to the greater number of instruments in this
ensemble where, while these elements are not entirely disallowed, there
is more of a ‘semi-restrained freedom’ than ‘fluke’ & ‘fake’ – both of which have different degrees
of ‘fuzzy’ tolerance.) These considerations, in a limited quantity, impart to the overall
Mass Sound Formation a ‘touch of the Strange’ …but not
‘so strange’ that the ‘antic’ element ever obviously overwhelms
the partial rule conservation of the group as a whole. Nevertheless,
this ‘whole’ retains a sufficient seasoning of ubiquitous ‘antic flavor’. I am aware, however, of the danger that it also
opens the door to a greater possibility of disregarding the instructions
almost entirely – hopefully then to be restrained or reeducated by Controller
1.]{++see actual BD II Instruction Booklet for actual instructions… >>> BD II as a RANDOM KNOWING [+ plateaus] If you flip a coin, you know it will come
up heads or tails {George Washington & an Eagle} If I paint colored
dots on all sides of all the coins as they come down , perhaps selected
at random from 20 colors, perhaps sometimes, or even often changing
in the middle of a toss or as it lands … you still know it as heads
or tails, only now more colorful, more interesting … If sometimes it
is something other than heads, but still tails and you will wait for
the heads to return as long as the tails remain … or change the tails
but not the heads or change both but not too often: you will still know
the game … if the heads are of different personages & the tails
different birds … if there are two coins now, or three, or eight … only
half heads & tails, the rest many other things – the heads always
changing, the birds always changing, and the colors change all the time
… and still you will know the game, and await heads or tails …
& a final outcome… or not … having been caught up in an always changing game that
you cannot predict or be sure of – but that you know! **[[also
a view from possible>Chaos &or ‘Confusion
Technique’]] {{{Above}}} a ||CHAOS || offrom “”limited”” factors … & but you know right away … or pretty soon, if you do not already know the game, you will find out … ??? Is CHAOS only an ‘apparent’ RANDOM continuance – but made with underlying ‘structure’ & but may also contain random factors ***top page 159 oldNB here*** See
also >>FREEDOM & GAME<<{above} >> CONSTRAINTS in
BD II: <Vectoral>
parametric controls: >>>prhps
mv to FREEDOM {{or at FREEDOM, mark See:}} >> PITCH-PAIRS & PITCH-PAIR CLUSTERS: {{+ Internal groupings & the LIGHT PANEL}} >>> PROTOTYPES: >>> TONALITY: because of the constant fluxuation inside any given vertical slice & the fact that the pitch-pair Clusters always contain all 12 tones any Tonal Centers formed are vague at best, and in any case will vary randomly with performance, and any Root Progression that might be derived from these ‘Accidentally’ formed Centers will form no sane harmonic progression, thus while not being exactly Atonal (almost no organized or even unorganized sound is), it is at any given moment merelyWW? randomly &or disjunctly tonal. >> MUSICO-EMOTIONALITY:
1) How music-emotions differ from other emos [whch emos may not even be sim to each other 2) In the case of a clear-cut abstraction, ?How does the Emo get in there at all?? –––– a) the ‘Mood Line’ overlay (wch can be Seriated or not) b) the programming story c) freedom from anti-mus-emo constraints d) the intention or intentionality e) ?+ >> THEATRICAL ELEMENTS in BD II: Dice Cage – Light Panel – Instrumental Placement vs Halophone >> ANTI-ELITIST or ANTI-SPECIALIST ELEMENTS in BD II: > professional is about money & conceit – amature is about loving < >> Brief History of
BEHAVIORAL DRIFTS in General: Cont.
at ‘STRANGE ATTRACTOR’ above & – & Cont. near bott
of old-NB
p 159 at ??? – after
THEN:
p 156 RUGUGMOOL )) Book of Animal Models (types of PT) )) Spydr Moon )) the Dance )) forced (by academia) into militant notational processes )) TOLERANCE FIELD US )) Essays )) ‘Tempo’ Drift + extended Tolerance Field<+Curtailmentability of the {possibly ‘varied’} Redundancy in semi-recursive modules –[ as ‘realistically’ less than ideal] :. w/o ‘fear of loss!! X {:. creative over-generation} ))AUGENMUSIK (as PTs + mention early Alchemic Poem & ASRB #4) – see index card + “reading thru a score” & Graphic Notations” &+ … BUT I state that it must be audible as well as visual!! >> “mannerist music notational practice prominent 1400-1625” [Daniel Warner] – Telemann’s Gulliver Suite: Lilliputian Chaconne (v sm rhyth vals) & Brodingnagian Gigue – Baude Cordier’s 3v rondeau ‘Belle, bonne, sage’: 3 staveve bend into heart – Bach: Cross & snakes – George Crumb: perpetual mobile for Pf on circular staff (But wht abt “My End is My Beginning” [?Machaut] & ASRB #4 BDs) – Earl Brown December 1952 [[&folio, see Anth Chance Op]] – Cage Concert for Pf & Orchestra – discussion with Christian Wolf<Sp – GRAPHIC (!diff concept! Started in 1950’s) Bussotti Sette Fogli<Sp (instruc withdrawn) – Braxton & Zorn graphic – the musicologist J R White once showed me an obscure text on mediaeval music that contained a plate showing a 14th C manuscript that consisted of nothing but rests: ?early Silence? –
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
