Total what?

So I don't really understand Totalism. I don't really understand the term itself, how it differs from post-minimalism, and what that means for the compositional process.
Gann starts off by stating that the genre on whole is akin to post-minimalism, but in his precise bullets that discuss the background of totalism, it doesn't particularly strike me as MUSICAL aspects that differ from other pigeon-holed genres. The justification for Totalism and reasons Gann state are largely sociological and historical, such as the environment in which this generation of composers were growing up. Okay, I acknowledge that this is a massive part of the process of composition, but being the budding theorist that I am, where is my analysis? Okay so they use come poly-rhythms? Is that it? great thanks for being so thorough.

Perhaps these questions will be resolved, or at least discussed to my satisfaction during class discussion. Or I can only hope.

So in my confusion I tried to focus on one of the composers discussed to try to latch onto something I could recognize and acknowledge and learn about correctly. Mikel Rouse was my choice, after watching this clip of Dennis Cleveland online:



At first, my reaction was merely "what is this 90's pseudo pop crap?" And as soon could latch onto something more musical about it, rather than just talking about the composer's life and background, I knew there was something more there.

Then I found THIS VIDEO. And all was made clear. Thank you so much Mikel Rouse, for clearly and succinctly explaining your process, as well the rhythms, using examples from your composition (like the part about Soul Train from Dennis Cleveland)

WATCH:


I also enjoy his discussion of "structured pop music", not that he claims that his works are quite applicable to this term, but the evolution of more 'academic' pop music. I am wholly glad that Rouse is bringing the importance of intelligent popular music to the forefront of the mind through his compositions, as I am pretty passionate about understanding and analyzing popular music (I jokingly tell everyone I would love to write my dissertation on Michael Jackson...except I'm not actually kidding).


As a sidenote, the idea of performance art is always astounded me. I think a lot of people, including myself, find it pretty funny in several cases, and it might be because of artistic endeavors like this one:


Media site Gawker tells the tale of Alison Knowles making a giant salad as performance art. Just makes me pretty hungry. Actually, one of the more provoking questions I thought of while watching her performance at the Tate museum in London was, "why does she choose classical string quartets to accompany her salad performance?" If performance art is to encompass the entire artistic being in a work, was choosing Mozart or Beethoven chamber music a conscious decision?

I don't know. I'm going to go eat a salad now.

Goldilocks' problem.

As I read the articles assigned this week and pondered the role of race in the avant garde, I noticed a lot of trends throughout both articles that bring up an issue.

Do we over analyze or under analyze avant garde works? and how does this analysis affect the role of race in the music or art form?
In Whitesell's article I noticed he spoke much more to the general themes of avant garde, but also contained a lot of examples drawn from the minimalist sub-genre (which was fantastic for me, because it is something I can relate to and expand upon based on my preexisting knowledge).

Whitesell presents the idea of getting back to "zero", wiping the slate clean and removing what centuries of Western music had covered up. Cage was a large proponent of this, but the author even cites the Beatles as assistants in this task (unnamed album, 1968). This idea is largely evidenced and supported by real statements from composers and artists, but I couldn't help but think that looking at these works from this angle only could potentially under analyze their true statement and/or value.

Then all of a sudden the shift is back to minimalism, and discussing different aspects of it. First Reich's early tape and phasing pieces, "It's Gonna Rain" and "Come Out", most emphasizing the role of race in their composition and foundation. Then there is another tangent about the complexity of Reich's music, citing "Music for Pieces of Wood" as a broken down, analyzed example. Whitesell does an eloquent job of explaining how the music undergoes processes and reaches temporal climaxes and points in the piece that are clearly non-traditional, but anchor the listener (and likely the performer!). I am pretty fond of this term actually, and appreciated the analysis.
However, I took a step back: How did we get to this very intrinsically sought out point in a specific example of Reich's music? This seems like examining tiny carpet fibers, versus looking at the entire room if we were considering the Zero concept.

So what is the moral here? There's Too much, Too little and "just right". Maybe Goldilocks was a cunning little thief, but she knew just how much she wanted. I don't know if a mean type analysis is available or how practical its application would be, but these seem like two extremes, present in an article that isn't all that long or exhaustive.

Listening to Dubstep on loop can be good for your health

What is avant garde in rock today? Well that's a really tough question when you consider how poorly I follow current pop and rock trends. (I really like Michael Jackson? can we talk about that?)

Anyway, I want to digress a little about Dubstep, something we haven't discussed since our exploration of conceptualism and Edgar Varese. I recently have been discovering the world of electronic music, and being shown how sounds are created, analog synthesis, tracked and performed gives me an entirely new appreciation of the world of electronic music.

We discussed a more 'classical' style development of electronic music, like that of Lucier, Oliveros, etc. I only mean classical in its broadest term, such as music that would be performed in a concert venue.
Yet electronic music has transformed pop and rock music in every facet of its creation, and the entire sub-genre of electronic/dance/house music.

So let's go back to Dubstep. After looking it up, I realize that I am just beginning to scratch the surface of electronic pop music. Not so coincidentally, Dubstep was born in the 90's in south London (I say uncoincidentally because both Laurie Anderson and the members of Pink Floyd were British musicians).

Let's look at the Grammy award winning track from Skrillex, easily the top selling dubstep single of the decade:



Since Chris showed us this song in class, I have been literally obsessed with it (much to my roommates disdain). As Wikipedia so eloquently states, "Musically, "Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites" is prominently a Brostep song that uses elements of electro house, progressive house and glitch."

To clarify, "brostep" is an even further sub-genre of dubstep used to describe much of American dubstep, especially the music of Skrillex. If is characterized by agressive tempo, style and use of electronics, as well as a very thick texture especially around the middle range of sounds.

Anyway, Why is this avant garde? Because I haven't heard of it before this semester? Well, yes. But also because it is a completely electronic (minus sampling and intermittent and processed vocals) form of popular music that most of us wouldn't hear on the radio, seek out readily or invest time in analyzing. I personally have become absolutely fascinated by the rhythm that is produced in these sounds, as well as the complete variety of unique sounds, as well as the intensity of emotion that these songs are able to convey with little to no vocals or lyrics.

Also, it makes me want to dance. And I do. Something about Skrillex's other track, "Kill EVERYBODY" does not inspire at all the sentiment that the title suggests; a little disturbing.

Anthony Braxton is severely underrated. His virtuosity, technique, sound and progress in the jazz world is vital, but not always acknowledged.

So, I spent most of the evening comparing Braxton's many different tunes posted on youtube. And one detail I kept uncovering is how he never ceases to make a new mark on traditional heads and tunes that even every jazz musician on earth has played. Listen to him blow over the popular tune "Black Orpheus", noting a few things:
-the use of sopranino saxophone (huh!?)
-The way in which Braxton's combo stay pretty nicely within the changes during their solos, but the registral, timbral, harmonic and melodic outgrowths Braxton takes advantage of in his solo (beginning at 4:55)



Braxton played several standards (in fact, this tune is off a set of 23 standard tunes which Braxton plays with his quartet). Yet, he is widely criticized, some very harshly so, stating that he barely can be defined as Jazz. One of these critics is the dictator of the trumpet, Wynton Marsalis. Pardon my french, but I think Marsalis is a giant douchebag. He is notorious for his lack of knowledge and acknowledgement of jazz past 1965 into the more avant garde sub-genres. In classical music terms, I would equate this to someone who insists that Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven is the be-all-end-all of music and our attention should stop there.

Is this complete ignorance for monumental progress in jazz music? Of course. I think Braxton does a wonderful job of bridging the gap between the more accepted "traditional" jazz tunes, forms, and harmonic and melodic frameworks, slowly edging in his new ideas into each tune. His compositions, like "Composition 40B" are not truly that extreme, but with the knowledge that many of these compositions utilized graphically notated scores is another huge step in the genre. By taking better know jazz material and applying his avant garde concepts to it, new listeners can be drawn in. Take for example the tune Nefertiti, by Wayne Shorter. Off the album by Miles Davis of the same name, it is a very standard and popular album and tune (one that I was familiar with by the time I was 16!). Listen for Miles' quintessential sound, as well as the little arragements of the head that Shorter and Davis play together, as well as the accompanying rhythm section, made up of jazz GIANTS Herbie Hancock, Tony Williams and Ron Carter. This isn't anything too jarring, even for the most naive of jazz listeners.



Now, I present Braxton's version of Nefertiti: Full of extremes, risks, and new material you would never find on Miles' album. Also note that he is accompanied by Chick Corea and Dave Holland, two artists who are not necessarily considered avant garde in their styles, but exhibit unique versatility in this recording. I'll admit I was skeptical at first because the opening of the tune, before the head played by Braxton is quintessentially Chick Corea (aka, it sounded like every piano intro off of every Corea album), but as soon as Braxton enters, that sensation disappears very quickly.




Lastly, I will leave you of this recent video of Braxton, and the premiere performance of his Composition 358, recorded and sold as a live performance from Iridium (a jazz club in Manhattan) in 2006. Here Braxton's style does not adhere to any sort of traditional jazz means. Things to watch for:
-The pictures of Braxton's unique notation: not truly 'graphic notation', but certainly not adhering to traditional notational means
-the diverse instrumentation (bassoon, tuba, sopranino saxophone, etc.)
-The insightful dialogue over the music by Braxton



"Redefine the idea of thematic...motivic..."

"The last 2,000 years have been wonderful, but we're not at a point we need to get away from the idea of Sonata Form... we need to find a formal space equal to the possibilities we have in this genre."

In closing; suck it Wynton.

The Hunger Games: heralding the Avant Garde

So I picked up the Gann to read chapter 10 and literally groaned out loud at the prospect of reading 30 pages about electronic music. Then I caught myself in quite the hypocritical situation. The self-proclaimed patron of new music is scoffing at a huge major genre of Avant Garde music? What a travesty. So I took it to my friends, like I have been.

They, surprisingly, didn't mind it. They convulse at the sign of Meredith Monk and heave at the first measures of Milton Babbitt. However, they didn't mind a little bit of Subotnick. I then put on some Laurie Spiegel... which really set them off. All of a sudden, I was sitting amongst 12 year old fangirlz:
"THIS IS FROM THE HUNGER GAMES! OMG OMG! THIS IS FROM THE SCENE WHERE SHE..."
blah, blah, blah.

A disclaimer: I'm sure the Hunger Games are a delightful and well written book series and film. It's just not my thing, nor do I have the time to spend reading the books.

Okay, so why does this certainly Avant Garde music strike them as okay? It wasn't Laurie Spiegel that did this, it was the massive, billion dollar film industry.
Think of the scores Philip Glass has written for films, such as the Hours or the Illusionist. These scores have certainly reached out to an audience that would never consider listening to Glass' music.

So, I listened to all of Spiegel's work "Sediment" (the one featured in the film) and actually quite enjoyed it, and I continued to listen to different parts of the movie soundtrack. It is quite electronic in many pieces, and I think for those who pay attention, and are obsessed with the movie like many are, this situation can be a stepping stone for electronic music.



Personally, I am currently in Electroacoustic music class and have been able to appreciate electronic music because I understand the means in which it is made. Similar to a non-musician who cannot appreciate a difficult violin concerto because they have no concept of technique or knowledge of classical music. As I've come to discover, anything that can promote classical or avant garde music, especially music that perhaps may hold a stigma such as electronic music, is good in my book. Good job, "Hunger Games".

Remember how much I love Steve Reich? Well don't tell, but I'm cheating on him...with John Adams. I've heard some (lay-)people accuse Adams of being "minimalism-lite".

So after I'm done chastising them for their ignorance, I'll retreat back to my lair and listen to several hours of John Adams. I'll read his autobiography for the fourth time, then watch a full length opera by him. Okay this is a little extreme, but I'd like to think that John Adams has been a vital and flexible pillar of the contemporary composition.

Why do I believe this? I didn't really realize it until I was watching a recent broadcast of his newer piece, City Noir premiered by the Los Angeles Philharmonic under Dudamel, where Adams is resident composer.

I am well aware of his experience in electronics and tape music, the little known repertoire that was written even before Phrygian Gates (which he considers to be his opus one, the first real and coherent of his works). One professor once told me about how she spent time in San Francisco at the conservatory and needed to make recordings; John Adams was her "recording engineer". A decade later she was in touch with him and reminisced about their time recording, and allegedly he said "I don't do that any more..." ...he had reached 'legitimacy'.

After our discussions about Glass and Reich in past classes, I had become paranoid that these most famous minimalists had "sold out" to the music scenes that never really seemed like they never fit into. Reich is now writing for Kronos (like his more programmatic and doesn't appear to endure the same processes as his previous works). Glass has written several film scores in recent years, that almost barely resemble his symphonies, operas or especially the earlier works (ex. pretty much anything written for the Philip Glass ensemble). Granted, we must take into account that commissions or genre (such as film) changes composition in many facets. John Adams has encountered similar criticism; even I noticed it in City Noir: it sounded kind of like glorified, post 2000 Gershwin. Not that I disliked this at all, I simply prefer the golden age of Adams...Nixon in China, Shaker Loops, Harmonielehre, etc.

At the end of the day, we all have to eat. I don't blame any of these compositional giants for taking the new and unique opportunities presented to them, as an opportunity to evolve compositionally and musically.

When comparing the differences between Reich, Glass and Adams, I feel it's fundamentally important, and also fundamentally ignored that Adams is not in the same generation as the former two. Reich and Glass were New Yorkers, conservatory trained, but seasoned city dwellers. Adams grew up in New England, attended Harvard, then lived the bohemian life in San Francisco. Adams is also over a decade younger than Reich and Glass, as if location and experience weren't enough! Comparing these three is like apples and oranges. I do agree with the more romantic aspects of Adams' music; but is it the programmatic aspects? instrumentation? Perhaps a combination of several factors. In the end, I feel as though I can connect emotionally more to John Adams' works (in most cases), which I try for in Glass' music, for example, but sometimes fail.

"I've got a secret"

I have a confession to make...
.........I love Steve Reich.

I love everything about Steve Reich. His music, his philosophy, his Judaism, his compositional evolution...I could go on and on.
When I started listening to minimalism back in high school, I did it mostly as a reaction towards my mother. She would complain about my lack of discipline while practicing piano and suggest that I listen to more Beethoven or Glenn Gould's Bach recordings (not to knock Gould, those recordings are masterpieces).
This only made me blast Music for 18 Musicians even louder. I explored Philip Glass, Terry Riley, John Adams...minimalism's greatest hits; but I always latched on to Steve.

For one reason, I believe it's because his process, which he discusses in depth in the article from Contemporary Composers on Contemporary Music. I was so sick of identifying the recapitulations, the 'secondary themes', the fugue subjects and countersubjects, etc, that this new means of unfolding musical form was fascinating.
In Reich, all the audible facets of music come together to aid in the process. The rhythm, harmony, instrumentation, melodies change gradually over time to make subtle changes and take what was once a small amount of material, spinning out into a larger canvas of musical form and ideas.

What I also wholly appreciate about Reich is his dedication to cultural ideas and allowing it to enhance his music. Many of my favorite works are those influenced by Judaism, for example the lesser known opera "The Cave", based on the Old Testament, as well as the even lesser known yet newer "Daniel Variations". Daniel Variations strike a particular chord, as they were written after the passing of journalist Daniel Pearl, who was executed in the Middle East by terrorists. Pearl was also Jewish, and the text of the piece is drawn from Pearl's own writing and songs, as well as excerpts from the Bible. Bringing intensely deep meaning to the music, beyond the fascinating analytical aspects, really makes the strongest connection for me as a listener.

As I thought about Reich tonight, I also thought of other artistic mediums in which Steve Reich and the types of minimalism he embraced might be influential or have influenced his work. Out of the blue, I thought of French impressionist Claude Monet and his "Water Lilies" works. Monet completed around 250 of these valuable and stunning works...Many of them are subtly different, but Monet manipulates light, color, perspective and an array of other perceptions to change a single subject matter into a prolific body of works. Monet uses a different process to take each painting by, and despite using the same materials, oil and canvas (just as a composer would use an ensemble, string quartet, orchestra over and over for different works), he manages to result in a new and innovative process each time.
In this respect, Reich does similar things with his composition: for example, he is often conservative with his harmonies and tonalities, just as Monet does not use radical colors or non-lifelike perspective in his paintings.

I cannot imagine Monet was criticized for being "repetitive" in his lifetime for creating so many works surrounding water lilies alone, yet minimalists have to bear this stigma often.
We can visually see that so many of Monet's works were strikingly different and each one beautiful in its own unique way, despite that they center around the same subject matter. (scroll down to the end of the Wiki article for an array of the paintings!)

Reich himself said the following, coincidentally surrounding French impressionism, but referencing music and composers:

"The point is, if you went to Paris and dug up Debussy and said, 'Excusez-moi Monsieur…are you an impressionist?' he'd probably say 'Merde!' and go back to sleep. That is a legitimate concern of musicologists, music historians, and journalists, and it's a convenient way of referring to me, Riley, Glass, La Monte Young[...] it's become the dominant style. But, anybody who's interested in French Impressionism is interested in how different Debussy and Ravel and Satie are—and ditto for what's called minimalism. [...] Basically, those kind of words are taken from painting and sculpture, and applied to musicians who composed at the same period as that painting and sculpture was made [...].

—From an Interview with Rebecca Y. Kim, 2000