Any Schools That Don't Require Performance?

Awh man, I accidentally stepped on a nail and drove it right through my foot; you should try it sometime.

So... I just wrote "gagaku" on youtube. That was awful. Torture. Anoying as hell. I guess we just like opposite things, it's not worth debating.

so, basically, you're a hipster composer? awesome XD I personally love gagaku

who me? I love gagaku to so I assume you meant Francisco. Gagaku is my second favorite type of music, maybe third if you consider all the separate genres in Indian Classical

I assume he meant you. Listening to gagaku is definitely not mainstream.

yeah, I meant you, it's ok to be hipster, I think it's kinda cool. Maybe you should integrate gagaku into your music, it should turn out very interesting. I'd honestly love to hear it.

I already have, in fact the piece placed in a competition. They haven't given me the recording yet, but I do have an eastwest sample. The score is currently being revised though, won't be anytime soon thanks to finals. Anyway, I don't think any kind of world music is mainstream, even within the art music scene (including jazz) the biggest thing is latin or indian and even then many people don't like that.

must we always be looking for something that hasn't been done before?

the idea of nonfusion of sounds is relatively unexplored in the west, and I'm not talking about just pitch with atonal stuff either. klangfarben developed in the west and not the east after all. for one thing, just do anything the spectrotone chart doesn't allow. you are boxing yourself in, it doesn't have to be strict imitation of gagaku it can just take the principle of nonfusion into account and then the sky is the limit (or rather the box you put yourself in is the limit).

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/groups/gagaku/index.html

see, even you haven't even HEARD of the concept. there hasn't been much use of the idea in western music, even in the 20th century.

*looks at site*

....................

Non-fusion is what Miles Davis's detractors were doing in the '70's.

it's multifaceted. basically, it's using any means to make sounds not blend, bringing that particular difference between the sounds to the foreground or at least the midground. a double reeder with a flute, a dissonant interval, different rhythms, anything to detract from pitch listening to timbral listening.

Call me old-fashioned, but I like harmony and melody.

it's a cultural thing, as I said there's a reason the antithesis developed in the west, klangfarbenmelodie. don't ask me why it took 2000 some odd years for the West to develop it's counterpart, perhaps because it's so much easier to get sounds to not blend in general I guess. Western music also lacks an emphasis on cyclicity of time, nearly every world music does, especially indian, indonesian, african, and japanese. in japan, there is the wabi sabi aesthetic of liking transient things that are only in brief passing. this can be seen in the separation of phrases by untimed rests, 'ma' rendered in music (whereas in painting perhaps there will be a lot of space between seemingly incomplete or 'not-quite-there' natural objects, empty white space between clusters of odd looking trees for instance). the wheel of time kalachakra reflected, meditation audiated. shakuhachi music has a lot of stuff where the emphasis is on the timbre rather than the pitch, different breath techniques, an audiation of zen meditation. how many pieces have you seen a GP/grand pause?

vertical is just one way, that would be when they do 9ths or something. them just playing in unison/8ves can also be nonfusion ;)

here, just this one small snippet alone should help you understand:

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/groups/gagaku/combinations/mixww.html

yes in the 20th century, 2000 years after nonwestern music had been doing it. and they were influenced by nonwestern music, namely gamelan, some composers by gagaku in indian, some african.

Why do I think that? Because it's fact. Go gloss over at least 75 haydn symphones, at least 30 mozart, at least 50 bach cantatas, etc. you will rarely come across any of it, maybe some nonfusion via purposeful dissonance in opera or cantatas. cyclical would just be canon. it is largely, to this day, unexplored terrain, there's no denying that. western has mostly been about the fusion of sounds and telling a story in a sequence of events (tone poems, symphonies, fugues) rather than a story that can happen over and over again (varnams, gagaku, gong kebyars etc), though not identically (the wheel of time idea again).

but no argument can be made that they are 'relatively explored' in any detail.

actually, what are we actually arguing here anyways? I was merely pointing out how gagaku has the emphasis on timbral listening through nonfusion techniques, something rarely (to this day) explored in the music of the West, something which I enjoy very much. you can find examples of it going back to early medieval polyphony I'd imagine, a music which is relatively new compared to the ancestors of gagaku and not to mention indian music.

I already have listened to a bit of stravinsky and varese, do you know of much others? also I love messiaen so no need to mention him. I'm aware that webern liked canonic stuff so there's some element of cyclical time, vaguely.

Well, forgive me for being an ignorant, but I think music should be less about the sounds and ideas in it, and more about the actual MUSIC. The best example I can think of is baroque music, although it can be highly complex, it is pretty basic stuff compared to other styles. There is no in-depth timbral or philosophical exploitation, and the rules are simple and intuitive. You can even improvise multiple voice baroque music in real time! STILL, - for me - it is one of the best sounding music genres there is, probably the best sounding one! Nothing works for me like listening to the St. Matthew Passion. And now the important part: I can play baroque music with rock or jazz instruments, and it still sounds great! Why? Because the actual MUSIC is great. I can also play baroque music for a homeless guy or a construction worker and he will love it! The challenge in making modern music is to make something that is new and original, but sounds just as good as old music. Renaissance music was great, Baroque was great, Classical was great, Romantic was great, Late Romantic, Impressionist, Expressionist, all great. We should write music that is beyond philosophy and sound, instead of writing music that sucks but has a very intellectual academic reason to suck.

I don't think nonwestern music sucks, timbral listening isn't better or worse than any other kind of music. Western music influenced by nonwestern doesn't necessarily suck either. A music doesn't suck just because hobo Bob doesn't like it. Try playing some raga panthuvarali see how many people in the west like it. Just because a lot of people don't like it doesn't mean something is worse. I could easily say baroque sucks precisely because of the reasons you mentioned (you can improvise multi voice baroque, the rules are simple, etc). Although I could care less about philosophy in music (that's a Romantic era thing and a Baroque thing anyways, such as cantatas) that kind of music is equally as valid.

also, phil, I disagree with a statement;

the broader application of Eastern philosophies isn't as exhaustible as the direct attempt at evoking Eastern music itself

I think the application of philosophies would be much more numerous. Cyclical time is pretty vague as it is, a trillion things you can do with that and then just say 'oh this piece is influenced by blah blah". same with nonfusion and applying the aesthetic of wabi sabi. These techniques are much more numerous than the cliched augmented 2nd and overzealous vibrato/glissando people try to pass of as eastern, and is a more realistic and non-derogatory way of fusing the two cultures without making one look less than the other.

Kids, take this argument to a new thread. It's derailing this one.

This debate no longer interests me.