The Logic Off Topic list

Thoughts from the mind of TazmnianDv@..., 08-07-2002:

>  >Even though I don't like most trance-ish music, I still can't fully
>>agree with you here.  True, melody and harmonic progression have been
>>sacrificed for soundscaping and rhythm, but somehow that _too_ is
>>composing, I think -- just with other means and a different focus
>>than we're used to.  Abstract painting is just as valid as landscape
>>painting -- it's just focusing on something different.
>
>I say that that is ARRANGING rather than COMPOSING. My definition of a song,
>is a musical expression, when played on a simple guitar or piano is
>recognizable as being the same musical idea.

I tend to agree with you here, up to a point.  At the same time 
however, I realize all to well that simply because a certain way of 
dealing with sounds has always been labelled "composing" and another 
way of dealing with sounds has been labelled "arranging", these 
labels don't necessarily have eternal and unchangeable definitions.

Wiliiam Turner (the English painter) used to paint "classical" 
paintings, and was well respected by all critics because he was 
extremely talented.  Then one day he changed his style, and from then 
on was despised by all, since "what he now does is not painting -- 
it's just blobs of colour".  Only 50-100 years later did it become 
apparent that he'd been at least half a century ahead of his time, 
making the first (almost) abstract paintings.

When John Cage grabbed a pair of dice to "compose" his music, that 
surely wasn't composing by anyone's definition.  And granted, I 
wouldn't want to play those records :-).  Still, what he did was 
extremely important and has liberated many composers from the rigid 
19th century ideas on what "composing" means.

Years ago I saw a guy perform as the support act for Portishead. 
Just one man, two turntables and a bunch of records.  And by god, 
what he managed to do with that in maybe 10-15 minutes was far more 
impressive than the entire Portishead concert.  At the bloody edge of 
my seat and holding my breath for the full performance.  Afterwards 
the audience almost tore down the hall with enthusiasm.

That got me thinking.  What that guy did was art, pure and simple -- 
with means that up till then I would have condemned as being "not 
serious" or "no ral instruments" or whatever.  At a moment like that, 
it doesn't matter if you call it composing or arranging or something 
else.  It was spectacular, impressive, emotional (!) and full of 
craftsmanship.  In a word: it was art and it was somehow music, and 
that's all that matters.  Even though he probably couldn't 
distinguish a C maj from a C min...

Last remark: about being able to play a composition on guitar and 
have the "idea" survive.  Take 90% of the "classical" compositions of 
the last 50 years...  Immediate breakdown of your definition :-). 
Even a simple piece for prepared piano can't be played on any other 
instrument and still have its idea survive, I think.

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html