It ain't the weirdest thing I've heard, but it is a lovely piece with an extremely interesting interaction between the out-of-context vocal samples and the instrumental gestures. Thumbs up!!
Messiaen did use Nature as a sonic source for this music, but it is HOW he did it that was completely original. He never used the instrument to simply "copy" and "paste" the "culture" of birds. That's what Globokar did with the voices: he imported the sound; he didn't do anything with it other than the 'collage' approach. And the same goes to the multiple gestures throughout the piece: they are aliens. There is energy, I agree.I am not saying it's bad, it's just that it's not appealing to me.
Messiaen transcribed birdsongs, "copied and pasted" them to the piano. So what, how original! Organising the twelve notes in modes wasn't particular new, either. You either pick out this or this influence, stick it together and you have your style. VG permits a few more. Of course, the singing is left as it is, that makes it "collagey"
it's interesting how these pieces sound very simple. a collection of gestures, sharp attacks, voices, etc...but in the end it's quite simple stuff...maybe too simple.
Define "simple" please. Simple for whom? The players? The listeners? The composer? As for a heavy theoretical background, yes, that is missing. For him, he said, a theoretical structure is not autotelic, but subservient to the music. Anyway, this is certainly demanding for both listener and performer, because of the myriads of ways to produce sounds
Being simple is not necessarily a negative thing. In fact, a lot of "simple" works demand careful attention from the listener and a high degree of creativity from the artist. That said, this work sounds like a collection of interesting simple elements, but somehow the collective result dissipates (eliminates/destroys) the richness of each one of these individual materials. By no means I am talking about theory. In this sense, your quotation of the composer has little to do with I've pointed out.
I didn't know what you were trying to point out, I just made a guess, since your assertion was so vague. "collection of gestures, sharp attacks, voices", those are the raw materials of music, if you break it down. In what order and sequence must these sensations penetrate the air molecules in order for you to assess the "simplicity" or "complexity" of a piece? Every piece is a succession of "simple" events. In other words, I still don't know what you're talking about.
the raw elements of this piece exist outside the piece itself. In this sense, this work does not need to exist. The piece becomes a conglomerate of redundancies. Complexity comes precisely from the manipulation of the raw material. But Globokar seems more concerned with stereotypes and gestures rather than the creation of a new sound world. You seem to worried about academic classifications. That's definitely not what I am looking for. It's just that the piece sounds superficial to my ears.
It's "aural overload", thus creating a new sound world. It's probably impossible to create a new sound world from scratch, one always extrapolates from the familiar. Bulgarian singing or col legno playing is nothing new in itself, but combining those two is something new. I don't care about academic classifications, I enjoy the piece on a gut level
It is possible to create a new sound world from scratch. Electronic music proved this was possible long ago. And in orchestral music, one of the examples is Messiaen. And I will use Messiaen to answer your next statement too: "Bulgarian singing or col legno playing...but combining those two is something new." If that's true, then Bulgarian singing, col legno, fireworks and a dog barking is even newer!
very interesting! ;)
ZigaIvanncthegreat 3 weeks ago
It ain't the weirdest thing I've heard, but it is a lovely piece with an extremely interesting interaction between the out-of-context vocal samples and the instrumental gestures. Thumbs up!!
Thrash0Jazz0Assassin 1 year ago
Beautifull. If you like this? Then investigate the orchestral music of Frank Zappa.
cnotting 1 year ago
thank you so much...!
galas06 2 years ago
magnifique oeuvre !
VELOURS22 2 years ago
Messiaen did use Nature as a sonic source for this music, but it is HOW he did it that was completely original. He never used the instrument to simply "copy" and "paste" the "culture" of birds. That's what Globokar did with the voices: he imported the sound; he didn't do anything with it other than the 'collage' approach. And the same goes to the multiple gestures throughout the piece: they are aliens. There is energy, I agree.I am not saying it's bad, it's just that it's not appealing to me.
Justino111 3 years ago
Messiaen transcribed birdsongs, "copied and pasted" them to the piano. So what, how original! Organising the twelve notes in modes wasn't particular new, either. You either pick out this or this influence, stick it together and you have your style. VG permits a few more. Of course, the singing is left as it is, that makes it "collagey"
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
it's interesting how these pieces sound very simple. a collection of gestures, sharp attacks, voices, etc...but in the end it's quite simple stuff...maybe too simple.
Justino111 3 years ago
Define "simple" please. Simple for whom? The players? The listeners? The composer? As for a heavy theoretical background, yes, that is missing. For him, he said, a theoretical structure is not autotelic, but subservient to the music. Anyway, this is certainly demanding for both listener and performer, because of the myriads of ways to produce sounds
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
Being simple is not necessarily a negative thing. In fact, a lot of "simple" works demand careful attention from the listener and a high degree of creativity from the artist. That said, this work sounds like a collection of interesting simple elements, but somehow the collective result dissipates (eliminates/destroys) the richness of each one of these individual materials. By no means I am talking about theory. In this sense, your quotation of the composer has little to do with I've pointed out.
Justino111 3 years ago
I didn't know what you were trying to point out, I just made a guess, since your assertion was so vague. "collection of gestures, sharp attacks, voices", those are the raw materials of music, if you break it down. In what order and sequence must these sensations penetrate the air molecules in order for you to assess the "simplicity" or "complexity" of a piece? Every piece is a succession of "simple" events. In other words, I still don't know what you're talking about.
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
the raw elements of this piece exist outside the piece itself. In this sense, this work does not need to exist. The piece becomes a conglomerate of redundancies. Complexity comes precisely from the manipulation of the raw material. But Globokar seems more concerned with stereotypes and gestures rather than the creation of a new sound world. You seem to worried about academic classifications. That's definitely not what I am looking for. It's just that the piece sounds superficial to my ears.
Justino111 3 years ago
It's "aural overload", thus creating a new sound world. It's probably impossible to create a new sound world from scratch, one always extrapolates from the familiar. Bulgarian singing or col legno playing is nothing new in itself, but combining those two is something new. I don't care about academic classifications, I enjoy the piece on a gut level
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
It is possible to create a new sound world from scratch. Electronic music proved this was possible long ago. And in orchestral music, one of the examples is Messiaen. And I will use Messiaen to answer your next statement too: "Bulgarian singing or col legno playing...but combining those two is something new." If that's true, then Bulgarian singing, col legno, fireworks and a dog barking is even newer!
Justino111 3 years ago
Superb!
billyshitcheese 3 years ago