Unnecessarily complicated scores?

I guess if you reworded "competent" as "educated" I would agree with that statement.

Yeah.. well he gets jobs... has degrees... is clearly educated... knows what he is dong... makes good music...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :sleeping:

On a tangent, Weca, about conceptual art - conceptual art is conceptual. Hence, if you don't really get the concept, you're missing the point of the art. Sure, SOME conceptual art may have been created as complete BS. But,

1. Most conceptual artists put a lot of time and effort into developing the concept (a difficult duty by itself), and for some works, the execution,

2. Even this "BS" conceptual art can be meaningful to some people, even if it isn't to the artist, and

3. A lot of this art may require a decent knowledge of philosophy (or a creative imagination) for you to get the effect the artist may have intended (which, of course, is not necessarily the only "correct" one...)

So really, before making statements attacking a wide swath of conceptual art, I suggest you do a little research on, well, art (and art history), as well as semiotics, modern/postmodern philosophy, and other, uh, stuff. :P

I mean, I'm not saying I'm a huge fan of this stuff, but I give the artist the benefit of the doubt, and I'd prefer that others do, too. :happy:

Now everybody, you can get back on topic!

Well considering Chris went to Yale and Manhattan......

He's probably more competent then you, you, you, you, you, me, you, you, you, or you.

Just guessing.

I thought you didn't put value in Conservatories? :whistling:

I thought you didn't put value in Conservatories? :whistling:

What's wrong with Conservatory?

I thought you didn't put value in Conservatories? :whistling:

No. I've never said that.

No. I've never said that.

*facepalm*

Then what did you say, just for the record?

I don't think any of this is very relevant here.

God YC and Qmwne are so smart. I already said conceptual art is CONCEPTUAL too, jeez.

Listen to people who know what they're talking about like Gardener and Chris, etc.

I guarantee you that you look like a total dumbass if you just go "well LOL that's just not art at all then!"

Which isn't even relevant because the piece that was brought up is not conceptual art to begin with. /:

aliuglaiubliajugsiuiutk

God YC and Qmwne are so smart. I already said conceptual art is CONCEPTUAL too, jeez.

Listen to people who know what they're talking about like Gardener and Chris, etc.

I guarantee you that you look like a total dumbass if you just go "well LOL that's just not art at all then!"

Which isn't even relevant because the piece that was brought up is not conceptual art to begin with. /:

aliuglaiubliajugsiuiutk

Whoa there killer.

Whoa there killer.

I have to tone it down because Gardener is not as fun-loving as, say, Qc.

Which isn't even relevant because the piece that was brought up is not conceptual art to begin with.

True. It actually sounds kind of funky. I like it. Which is not to say one shouldn't enjoy conceptual art, of course. :P

The boundary between conceptual and, well, non-conceptual art is rather fuzzy, but I think this is rather safely non-conceptual. I don't see how the concept takes precendence over everything else, really. Hell, I don't even know if there is a concept.

I have to tone it down because Gardener is not as fun-loving as, say, Qc.

Right! Plus, my close-thread-finger has been twitching for quite a while. Depending on how this develops I may have to give in to it.

Well, I certainly appreciate the information I've been able to gather from this thread and I hope that's enough incentive for people like Gardener to keep contributing explanations.

For anyone wondering if the score given in the link in the first post, is too complicated all they have to do is to try and notate it in a different way and actyally get the same result from the performers. If so, then it's possible that the score is too complicated for little reason. If not, then it means that the score should be exactly as it currently stands!

This is probably the most efficient argument for why the score should be written in just this fashion. Consequently, this also sounds like it would be an amazing exercise for anyone with entirely too many resources at their disposal.

Just for kicks, how about some specifics from the score? For instance, why not use bar lines in this piece? My assumption is that it's to take some focus off the overall rhythm and makes the piece more about the textures or harmonies by themselves. Does the removal of bar lines really create that much more of a free flowing impression on the performer than just labeling the piece rubato?

Why not barlines: Because there is no specific pulse, there is no beat to talk about in the first place. So you would either have to 'randomnly' (or without much purpose) put barlines on, or you would have to put time signatures as well, ending in a nightmare (15/16+3/7+whatever)...

Why extending beams? Because beats are what define the rhythm here, more than anything else. So rests over beams explain the rhythm more or less, and since beams are usually extended over 4, or 6, or 7:8 or something (with numbering unless they are straight 4s), it's easier to count.

Why the 'bed sheets' (white spaces) and things moving up and down? Because the form is much easier seen and for 5 instruments I would guess that there are no parts, so it's also MUCH easier for the performer to notice and follow what everyone else is doing: No staff, no music played by that instrument.

Weca: bullshiting, etc... I understand what you mean, but really it does feel that you 'didn't bother enough' so you're just putting down things. Hold back a tiny bit.

Barlines in unmetered makes sense, it's just another way to group things, maybe even say "this group is metered, unmetered break, this group is metered..."

I had to delete 4 posts, because of norbys' comment.

This is the last warning for this and any other thread.

NO MORE WARS, NO MORE PERSONAL COMMENTS, NO MORE IDIOTIC AND IGNORANT COMMENTS, NO MORE! Anything will be deleted without further warning!

I think that the music put up in the first post embodies a form of arrogance that typifies a certain "contemporary composer":

This score will take countless hours for even the most experienced musicians to plough through and rehearse. But to what end - a piece of music that nobody wants to listen to and nobody really enjoys playing (if they're honest), save for a few beard-scratching "intellectuals" in the above-mentioned clique.

So who's happy ? The composer whose sadistic tendencies are cruelly satisfied by the stuggle it takes for the musicians to play, and just about nobody else. I also suspect that there is a certain amount of ego-massaging going on in the form of "I understand this score, but you hoi-polloi just don't get it, do you ?".

If that's not arrogant, then what is ?

I think that the music put up in the first post embodies a form of arrogance that typifies a certain "contemporary composer":

This score will take countless hours for even the most experienced musicians to plough through and rehearse. But to what end - a piece of music that nobody wants to listen to and nobody really enjoys playing (if they're honest), save for a few beard-scratching "intellectuals" in the above-mentioned clique.

So who's happy ? The composer whose sadistic tendencies are cruelly satisfied by the stuggle it takes for the musicians to play, and just about nobody else. I also suspect that there is a certain amount of ego-massaging going on in the form of "I understand this score, but you hoi-polloi just don't get it, do you ?".

If that's not arrogant, then what is ?

I concur.

I think that the music put up in the first post embodies a form of arrogance that typifies a certain "contemporary composer":

This score will take countless hours for even the most experienced musicians to plough through and rehearse. But to what end - a piece of music that nobody wants to listen to and nobody really enjoys playing (if they're honest), save for a few beard-scratching "intellectuals" in the above-mentioned clique.

So who's happy ? The composer whose sadistic tendencies are cruelly satisfied by the stuggle it takes for the musicians to play, and just about nobody else. I also suspect that there is a certain amount of ego-massaging going on in the form of "I understand this score, but you hoi-polloi just don't get it, do you ?".

If that's not arrogant, then what is ?

Your post actually. It reeks of conceit.

Read Gardener's posts please.

It's easier, I imagine, to simply call the composer arrogant and sadistic, than to take the effort to study and think and understand the reasons why he might create a score in this way.

I know it may be hard to grasp, but this score is easier to read than a more conventional score detailing the exact same sonic product.

I'm sorry but this thread will be locked from now on, and until people calm down and stop the personal comments on other members and composers alike! :(