con'd--> composers (Cage, Xennakis) Watching an amoeba divide may be boring for some but for others, it's simply fantastic. Like evolution, what happens in a performance of any aleatoric composer's music is determined by what you start with (piano and oscillators, DNA helices) by what EMERGES is determined by ????? (Room acoustics, environment). And NewMusicXX, it is a VERY Zen thing to experience a work like this. Thanks for posting!
Of all the composers of the 20th century, it is easy to peg Lucier as an "experimental" composer, but IMHO he's not. From his liner notes one the CDs I had of his he made it plain that he had a good idea of what would happen before he even set up his recording equipment or his"instruments." The only part not precisely determined is what would happen once he set something going - the slowly rising ringing sounds in "I Am Sitting In A Room," for example. Thus he is aligned with "aleatoric" -->>
So it's like Reich's phase shifting, only with pitch instead of rhythm... Except that it shows that pitch by itself can create rhythm, and is therefore not really that different at all. Neat.
@ViewerNotes No, I think Milton Babbitt's "Who Cares If You Listen?" wins in that category. But it puzzles me that this lovely work should bother anyone. As with everything on this channel, I simply uploaded it because I like it.
You can find an aim in dance music for sure. Because it's made to dance. But I think that's one of the few exceptions. About serialism I didn't mean to refer to everybody like that. I know there are several approaches to serial composition, and different results for sure. The piece is supposed just to be listened because the aim of the author (not of the composition though) is not to move anybody, just to think about the acoustic phenomenon he's presenting
I find the slow unfolding oscillation here to be completely captivating. Piano work on top... not so much; its sort of, ok. Overall the piece functions though. Not a revelation, but certainly pleasant, to my ears. *Which is all the explanation anybody ever needs to give. As hard as that can be to swallow (John11inch), this is a subjective realm. From Bach to bubblegum
I find the slow unfolding oscillation here to be completely captivating. Piano work on top... not so much; its sort of, ok. Overall the piece functions though. Not a revelation, but certainly pleasant, to my ears. *Which is all the explanation anybody ever needs to give. As hard as that can be to swallow (John11inch), this is a subjective realm. From Bach to bubblegum
I have to say, for me, this would fall into the category of music that sounds good on paper, but falls on the ears as useless. Everything the composer had to say with this piece was said in the first two minutes, so I don't see how it's vindicated in being 16 minutes long. It just doesn't seem like there's any macro ideology (like in the occasionally similar works of Feldman); just this microtonal interplay, over and over again.
What's wrong, Earl of Dublin? Did you delete your comment because I'm not "wrong" any more? Or is it because you have no argument as-to why it's good?
Since there is no argument proposed for this piece of music being substantial in any way, and since I must be wrong (given these anonymous 'thumbs down'), I guess this piece must *actually* be mediocre.
i can not agree with you, listen very carefuly to the ascillators all over the work and you will notice that the pitch direction of each voice gives a contrast and even a rythmic sensation.
Why don't you tell me what he did or did not have to say?
I have made an argument; you have not. Your opinion is thus comparatively null until you say something other than "you are wrong". Oh, excuse me, the fall-back of pseudo-intellectuals: "you should consider the possibility that you are wrong".
I will take it into consideration when someone else even makes an attempt to say something.
I am not making an argument, I don't think there is a point in arguing wether the music is tedious or not. However I find your thinking mechanism bitterly defensive.
I am not challenging your opinion or "argument" as you prefer to call it.
I am simply presenting you a question in hopes of stirring your thoughts before you disqualify the piece on the basis you have.
By the way (and this IS an opinion) I think calling a piece useless is extremely arrogant, not only because you are claiming the piece should have a use but because by saying it you are also claiming that it has failed to have a use for you and therefore it is to be regarded as useless by everyone else.
If a piece has nothing to say then it is useless on an academic level. I am not arguing aesthetics; I am arguing its construction. This is your misunderstanding, not my miscommunication.
No. I want to know what you think this piece is. What is its meaning? What are its aesthetic and academic qualities? Basically, *why* do you think it is a good piece of music, as opposed to a bad one?
First of all: if you refer to music like this as useless, then what's useful music?
I understand what you' re saying about music which is just theoretically interesting, only when written, but I think this is not the case. (You can talk like that more for dodecafonism and serialism, all the stuff from Koln, and so on).
This piece' s supposed just to be listened. It's a nice study about beating in interaction between piano and sine waves. It actually sounds good .
I don't think you're correct on many counts at all, there. I don't believe this music was conceived with absolutely no academic or theoretical pretenses (i.e. "just to be listened to"), from what I've read I believe the main structure of the work is based upon the intervallic relationships between the microtonal oscillators and the tones played on the piano (study about beating [I read "rhythm" when you say "beating", but maybe that's not what you meant] in interaction)...
talking about all of Serial and row-based music, as in, every piece and every composer, as if it can be aesthetically evaluated by a single, short sentence, is ludicrous: you would talk of Babbitt, Messiaen, Boulez, Barraque, Reynolds, Berg and Stockhausen (all extremely different composers) in such a way, all at once? My problem isn't with pieces that are more theory than practice, so to speak; I just believe this 16 minute piece says all that it has to say much more quickly. [cont]
The primary interest in the work is the progression of microtonal intervals and overtones produced by the piano's resonance, against the sine oscillator. It does not take such a long period of time for the fullest extent of this relationship (within the parameters of the writing of the piece) to be explored, well beyond the tone recognition capabilities of the human ear. The repetition is not an aspect of the writing, therefor; it is ancillary to the form, and thus unneccesary.
Unnecessary* That is what I mean when I say "useless"; it has no use. It does not serve the aim of the music. It can only be given a value on its aesthetic qualities, and in my opinion, 16 minutes of this is boring, and frankly, that's nearly an objective statement. At the very least, "repetitious" and "monochromatic" are objective, and these are typically terms people use to describe bad music. I understand some people are interested in "drone" music (I don't consider this Minimalist)...
but there must be a form for evaluating music, even within that sub-genre. Even if judging the piece in the capacities of "drone music" (which I personally dislike, but I prefer to not let my personal tastes interfere in such matters), there must be criteria by which one can determine if this is a good or bad piece (excuse me: "personal listening experience", just to avoid *that* argument). Even so, the sparseness, uninvolving sonority and repetitive form make this a "bad" drone piece for me.
For beating I mean the acoutstic phenomenon on which this piece is composed. Beating is when two sounds of near frequencies are perceived by the human ear as only one sound with a variation of amplitude which is the difference between the two frequencies. This piece is just interaction in beating between piano and pure sine waves. Yes the piece is monolithic, definitely. But it's still interesting. And I still don' t understand what ' s the AIM of music, beacuse there's no AIM.
@John11inch Ahh yes completely dodge around the validity of the statement rather than taking an honest look to see if that is in fact the case. You are making judgements of this music stating your preference for drone music and asserting your opinion. All of those are actions designed not to offer any insight to the music, but instead to re-enforce your own collection of ideas about yourself.
Basically you are trying to prove your own brilliance. Luckily the less narcissistic can see that
Dodge around the validity of the statement fragment "define me"? No: it means nothing. It has no meaning because it has no context, explanation or amplification. I've given objective reasons for disliking this piece; you have not even given subjective reasoning to *like* it, but instead have responded to me in hilariously trite vaguities that are malapropos to anything I've said, because you lack the intelligence and/or technical vocabulary (I'm betting on "and") to do so.
@John11inch you'll find the only pseudo intellectuality here is your own attempt t conflate your identity on here with more brilliant men than yourself.
There certainly isn't only one instance of pseudointellectuality going on here, but one of them is assuredly your brute-force inclusion of the word "conflate" in a youtube post, where it's fairly obvious that you meant something else. But do tell us why we *should* like this; you are aware that such would constitute at least some semblance of an argument, as opposed to the whiny crap you've posted thus far (which I promise isn't doing your stance any service)?
Strong stuff. Another post that makes absolutely zero argument for the piece. Keep them coming; we're getting a stronger and stronger impression that you don't have one.
con'd--> composers (Cage, Xennakis) Watching an amoeba divide may be boring for some but for others, it's simply fantastic. Like evolution, what happens in a performance of any aleatoric composer's music is determined by what you start with (piano and oscillators, DNA helices) by what EMERGES is determined by ????? (Room acoustics, environment). And NewMusicXX, it is a VERY Zen thing to experience a work like this. Thanks for posting!
Roy, Outlands
OutlandsCommunity 2 weeks ago
Of all the composers of the 20th century, it is easy to peg Lucier as an "experimental" composer, but IMHO he's not. From his liner notes one the CDs I had of his he made it plain that he had a good idea of what would happen before he even set up his recording equipment or his"instruments." The only part not precisely determined is what would happen once he set something going - the slowly rising ringing sounds in "I Am Sitting In A Room," for example. Thus he is aligned with "aleatoric" -->>
OutlandsCommunity 2 weeks ago
I have to agree, sounds good on paper, but doesn't do a whole lot. I much prefer something like I Am Sitting In A Room.
Squidpus 3 months ago
This piece is so beautiful.
jan1365 3 months ago 2
I enjoy this, and feel no need to explain to philosophy majors as to why :)
senseitre 9 months ago
So it's like Reich's phase shifting, only with pitch instead of rhythm... Except that it shows that pitch by itself can create rhythm, and is therefore not really that different at all. Neat.
tone12of12 9 months ago
@tone12of12 Reich was phasing with pitch as well as rhythm in piano phase a bit yeah? But certainly not to this extent. Both are awesome hey.
senseitre 9 months ago
wow! this is intense! i love it!
madcheshire77 9 months ago
i think this piece is amazingly beautiful!!!!
17205513 1 year ago
well, so this is your most controversial video, Isn't it?
ViewerNotes 1 year ago
@ViewerNotes No, I think Milton Babbitt's "Who Cares If You Listen?" wins in that category. But it puzzles me that this lovely work should bother anyone. As with everything on this channel, I simply uploaded it because I like it.
NewMusicXX 1 year ago
I think he's just proposing a different way to listen. To approach to an acoustic phenomenon almost absent in western music culture.
"In this works, beats are not used as ornaments or coloration but are the essential material from wich the pieces are made" (Alvin Lucier)
Anyway I think I understand your point, you just don't like that ;)
I apologize for poor english;)
aleinspire 1 year ago
You can find an aim in dance music for sure. Because it's made to dance. But I think that's one of the few exceptions. About serialism I didn't mean to refer to everybody like that. I know there are several approaches to serial composition, and different results for sure. The piece is supposed just to be listened because the aim of the author (not of the composition though) is not to move anybody, just to think about the acoustic phenomenon he's presenting
aleinspire 1 year ago
Comment removed
aleinspire 1 year ago
You have to see this live. The crappy recording does it no justice.
dsteffey77 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dsteffey77 9/11 = inside job
michaelpatrickwalker 1 year ago
great ^^
ChristophAmirSamii 1 year ago
Beautifully hypnotic…very calm…
Jextxadore 1 year ago
I would prefer to listen just to the ocillators.
In headphones is a must.
meagain2222 1 year ago
Great piece, specially if one simply listens and does not interrupt the music with its own thoughts...
jrafaelvalle 1 year ago
I find the slow unfolding oscillation here to be completely captivating. Piano work on top... not so much; its sort of, ok. Overall the piece functions though. Not a revelation, but certainly pleasant, to my ears. *Which is all the explanation anybody ever needs to give. As hard as that can be to swallow (John11inch), this is a subjective realm. From Bach to bubblegum
rauxmedia 1 year ago
I find the slow unfolding oscillation here to be completely captivating. Piano work on top... not so much; its sort of, ok. Overall the piece functions though. Not a revelation, but certainly pleasant, to my ears. *Which is all the explanation anybody ever needs to give. As hard as that can be to swallow (John11inch), this is a subjective realm. From Bach to bubblegum
rauxmedia 1 year ago
I'm agree with you Haimcito !
gloriaivandavalossha 2 years ago
I liked it.
arkanomen 2 years ago
I have to say, for me, this would fall into the category of music that sounds good on paper, but falls on the ears as useless. Everything the composer had to say with this piece was said in the first two minutes, so I don't see how it's vindicated in being 16 minutes long. It just doesn't seem like there's any macro ideology (like in the occasionally similar works of Feldman); just this microtonal interplay, over and over again.
John11inch 2 years ago
It's a Zen thing, grasshopper.
NewMusicXX 2 years ago 11
There's a difference between minimalism and repetition. This is just mind-numbing repetition. Nothing comes of its duration except tedium.
John11inch 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheEarlOfDublin 2 years ago
What's wrong, Earl of Dublin? Did you delete your comment because I'm not "wrong" any more? Or is it because you have no argument as-to why it's good?
Since there is no argument proposed for this piece of music being substantial in any way, and since I must be wrong (given these anonymous 'thumbs down'), I guess this piece must *actually* be mediocre.
John11inch 2 years ago
i can not agree with you, listen very carefuly to the ascillators all over the work and you will notice that the pitch direction of each voice gives a contrast and even a rythmic sensation.
haimcito 2 years ago
"Everything the composer had to say with this piece was said in the first two minutes"
How do you know he had anything to say?
Jemvie 2 years ago
Why don't you tell me what he did or did not have to say?
I have made an argument; you have not. Your opinion is thus comparatively null until you say something other than "you are wrong". Oh, excuse me, the fall-back of pseudo-intellectuals: "you should consider the possibility that you are wrong".
I will take it into consideration when someone else even makes an attempt to say something.
John11inch 2 years ago
I am not making an argument, I don't think there is a point in arguing wether the music is tedious or not. However I find your thinking mechanism bitterly defensive.
I am not challenging your opinion or "argument" as you prefer to call it.
I am simply presenting you a question in hopes of stirring your thoughts before you disqualify the piece on the basis you have.
And I rephrase it thus;
Have you considered he had nothing to say?
Jemvie 2 years ago
By the way (and this IS an opinion) I think calling a piece useless is extremely arrogant, not only because you are claiming the piece should have a use but because by saying it you are also claiming that it has failed to have a use for you and therefore it is to be regarded as useless by everyone else.
Jemvie 2 years ago
If a piece has nothing to say then it is useless on an academic level. I am not arguing aesthetics; I am arguing its construction. This is your misunderstanding, not my miscommunication.
John11inch 2 years ago
You never specified and I disagree, but to each his own, peace. Some interesting stuff on your channel btw.
Jemvie 2 years ago
If you disagree, tell me why.
John11inch 2 years ago
Because I believe the contrary, a piece can have nothing to say and have plenty of uses even if it's just for academic porpuses.
Jemvie 2 years ago
To summarize I don't believe music should always have something to say.
Jemvie 2 years ago
No. I want to know what you think this piece is. What is its meaning? What are its aesthetic and academic qualities? Basically, *why* do you think it is a good piece of music, as opposed to a bad one?
John11inch 2 years ago
Fair enough.
I think this piece is music, organized sound, or as the author prefers to call it "Music for Piano and Oscillators".
If it has a meaning I do not require to know it.
It's aesthetic qualities speaking for myself are the sounds in it.
It's academic qualities and uses are up to the teacher to decide, here's an example; "Drones in contemporary music".
I do not think there are good pieces and bad pieces of music. However there are pieces I like and pieces I do not like.
Jemvie 2 years ago
Something....
88jester 2 years ago
I remember that joke.
From the 1st grade.
John11inch 2 years ago
An oscillating joke that as repetitive variation but one that is typically in time....
88jester 2 years ago
@John11inch
First of all: if you refer to music like this as useless, then what's useful music?
I understand what you' re saying about music which is just theoretically interesting, only when written, but I think this is not the case. (You can talk like that more for dodecafonism and serialism, all the stuff from Koln, and so on).
This piece' s supposed just to be listened. It's a nice study about beating in interaction between piano and sine waves. It actually sounds good .
aleinspire 1 year ago
I don't think you're correct on many counts at all, there. I don't believe this music was conceived with absolutely no academic or theoretical pretenses (i.e. "just to be listened to"), from what I've read I believe the main structure of the work is based upon the intervallic relationships between the microtonal oscillators and the tones played on the piano (study about beating [I read "rhythm" when you say "beating", but maybe that's not what you meant] in interaction)...
John11inch 1 year ago
talking about all of Serial and row-based music, as in, every piece and every composer, as if it can be aesthetically evaluated by a single, short sentence, is ludicrous: you would talk of Babbitt, Messiaen, Boulez, Barraque, Reynolds, Berg and Stockhausen (all extremely different composers) in such a way, all at once? My problem isn't with pieces that are more theory than practice, so to speak; I just believe this 16 minute piece says all that it has to say much more quickly. [cont]
John11inch 1 year ago
The primary interest in the work is the progression of microtonal intervals and overtones produced by the piano's resonance, against the sine oscillator. It does not take such a long period of time for the fullest extent of this relationship (within the parameters of the writing of the piece) to be explored, well beyond the tone recognition capabilities of the human ear. The repetition is not an aspect of the writing, therefor; it is ancillary to the form, and thus unneccesary.
John11inch 1 year ago
Unnecessary* That is what I mean when I say "useless"; it has no use. It does not serve the aim of the music. It can only be given a value on its aesthetic qualities, and in my opinion, 16 minutes of this is boring, and frankly, that's nearly an objective statement. At the very least, "repetitious" and "monochromatic" are objective, and these are typically terms people use to describe bad music. I understand some people are interested in "drone" music (I don't consider this Minimalist)...
John11inch 1 year ago
but there must be a form for evaluating music, even within that sub-genre. Even if judging the piece in the capacities of "drone music" (which I personally dislike, but I prefer to not let my personal tastes interfere in such matters), there must be criteria by which one can determine if this is a good or bad piece (excuse me: "personal listening experience", just to avoid *that* argument). Even so, the sparseness, uninvolving sonority and repetitive form make this a "bad" drone piece for me.
John11inch 1 year ago
@John11inch
For beating I mean the acoutstic phenomenon on which this piece is composed. Beating is when two sounds of near frequencies are perceived by the human ear as only one sound with a variation of amplitude which is the difference between the two frequencies. This piece is just interaction in beating between piano and pure sine waves. Yes the piece is monolithic, definitely. But it's still interesting. And I still don' t understand what ' s the AIM of music, beacuse there's no AIM.
aleinspire 1 year ago
Comment removed
aleinspire 1 year ago
Comment removed
aleinspire 1 year ago
@John11inch You're looking for it to define you. To mean something to you. Why should it?
VikingsAreGay 1 year ago
I'm looking for it to "define me"? What sort of pseudointellectual bumper sticker did you get that one from? Elaboration is in order, son.
John11inch 1 year ago
Comment removed
VikingsAreGay 1 year ago
Comment removed
VikingsAreGay 1 year ago
@John11inch Ahh yes completely dodge around the validity of the statement rather than taking an honest look to see if that is in fact the case. You are making judgements of this music stating your preference for drone music and asserting your opinion. All of those are actions designed not to offer any insight to the music, but instead to re-enforce your own collection of ideas about yourself.
Basically you are trying to prove your own brilliance. Luckily the less narcissistic can see that
VikingsAreGay 1 year ago
Dodge around the validity of the statement fragment "define me"? No: it means nothing. It has no meaning because it has no context, explanation or amplification. I've given objective reasons for disliking this piece; you have not even given subjective reasoning to *like* it, but instead have responded to me in hilariously trite vaguities that are malapropos to anything I've said, because you lack the intelligence and/or technical vocabulary (I'm betting on "and") to do so.
John11inch 1 year ago
@John11inch you'll find the only pseudo intellectuality here is your own attempt t conflate your identity on here with more brilliant men than yourself.
VikingsAreGay 1 year ago
There certainly isn't only one instance of pseudointellectuality going on here, but one of them is assuredly your brute-force inclusion of the word "conflate" in a youtube post, where it's fairly obvious that you meant something else. But do tell us why we *should* like this; you are aware that such would constitute at least some semblance of an argument, as opposed to the whiny crap you've posted thus far (which I promise isn't doing your stance any service)?
John11inch 1 year ago
@John11inch jesus you are so full of self important bullshit. I bet your life is a mess
VikingsAreGay 1 year ago
Strong stuff. Another post that makes absolutely zero argument for the piece. Keep them coming; we're getting a stronger and stronger impression that you don't have one.
John11inch 1 year ago
@VikingsAreGay -youre only jealous because you are thick.
Prublixa 4 months ago
Thank you much!!
askthemailman 2 years ago