I am not a big Zorn fan but I would have to admit that if you investigate the total body of his work dating back to the late 1970′s until present, I can think of no other American composer (besides for Anthony Braxton who should be a recipient) who has demonstrated such a unique and creative sound universe and vision as John Zorn. For my criteria in judging a creative musician/composer, Zorn certainly belongs in the group of recipients mentioned as do many other “non-winners”…but that is a different post. Again, his work has never resonated with me but he is a very deserving winner.

Well, my opinions on musico-academia have been expressed numerous times before. I’m generally not it’s biggest fan, and I find it has a record of artistic conservatism that can be – as you put it – stifling. I know there are exceptions, of course, and some schools are better than others – and my impressions are primarily based on my college days (late 80s / early 90s) and on the writings of those who came before me – but I’ve listened to many student compositions in the years since, and those by fresh-out-of-school composers with degrees in hand and… I find myself hearing a lot of the same. And when it’s “different” it’s usually kitschy and/or self-conscious about it.

But then these are conservatories after all…

I’ve made reference to – but I’ll mention again, for those who’ve never read it – Dana Gioia’s Can Poetry Matter? as a parallel to what’s happening in the world of “academic” music. Only I think the situation for composers of such is much, much worse.

I think it’s a combination of two things: first, the resistance to new ideas – especially those that have already proven themselves outside of the ivory tower. There’s a general reluctance to put the stamp of approval on anything – jazz, minimalism, electronics, whatever – that wasn’t an in-house creation. Second is the intentional isolationism – the “who cares if you listen?” effect. And while one should make the music they want and not be concerned with popular approval, that sentiment is a step too far – it’s not like saying “who cares if you like it?” – it says that it doesn’t even matter if anyone pays attention. Except special people who “get it” – an academic music performance is kinda like those Bush “Town Hall Meetings” where everyone’s been pre-approved beforehand, where you know everyone’s already on the same page.

There are many reasons behind it all – don’t feel like going into detail now, I’ll spare y’all the sociohistorical rant (which would just be a rehash of one of my old ones, anyway) – but the end result is a womb of sorts. Only an infertile one.

But then it seems this thread is already off that whole subject and onto “Is Babbitt / serialism mathematical or not?” instead. Hmm. My opinion? If I go to a restaurant and every entree tastes like ass, I’m not gonna waste my time debating the details of the chef’s technique.

——-

Whoever it was above that talked about hearing so much different music at NYC student concerts: well, that is true. But there’s a reason. And that’s because, whatever the jealous haters may say, we are the Center Of The (Artistic) Universe. (So just get over it, everyone else, and accept that all y’all cities are fighting over second place.)

Um, point being – students in NYC can’t help but experience a multitude of different musics every day. That’s one of the great things about living here, how much outside your normal realm that you’re exposed to, even unwittingly. And that has two effects: first, whether you like it or not it expands your horizons. Second, because people know this about NYC, it tends to attract students who want to embrace that, who already have very open views and progressive ways of thinking. Every student in the arts I know here – and I know a lot of them – says that the school they chose, only half the reason was the school itself. The other half was location. There’s such a plethora of schools here, a clear majority of them didn’t even bother looking at schools in other cities.

——

Oh, and one more vote for bringing back the “preview” button.

since these words are coming from a performer … and one who has no interest in composition … composers are free to ignore me.

Duckworth: How do your ideas come to you?

Babbitt: Well, it’s a very interesting question, but the answer, I hate to say, is I don’t know. I’m simply incapable of knowing when I think “Hey, this is right.”

Duckworth: When you begin a piece, do you know where it’s going?

Babbtt: I never start writing a piece unless I have a conception of the piece.

Duckworth: All the way through?

Babbitt: A huge conception of the piece. Otherwise, you’ll write down that wonderful first page with every dynamic, everything set, and realize you don’t know where the piece is going. And it completely inhibits you from continuing. And that’s certainly the way I feel about influences. I can’t possibly imagine what goes into when I finally make a decision. If I really wrote music mathematically, I wouldn’t have that problem.

I by no means compose music like this either but Messiaen’s compositional procedures (and music) have held my interest for a long time.

“Mode de valeurs et d’intensites” is not constructed with reference to ordering. Hence it is not serial.

Its title has a very specific meaning in the context of Messiaen’s idiosyncratic musical vocabulary. A “mode” is a predetermined set – an unordered set – of elements, usually of pitches, as in Messiaen’s own beloved “modes of limited transposition” – i.e. modes with symmetrical properties. In this etude, the “mode” consists not only of pitches but also of durations and dynamics – in fixed constellations, comprising an unordered set of elements from which the composer selected without any undue emphasis on the idea of “structural ordering.” It has much less to do with “total serialism” than with Cage’s “gamut” idea, q.v. the String Quartet in Four Parts in particular, where Cage’s “mode” involved pitches, articulation, and instrumentation.

The importance of “Mode de valeurs et d’intensites” for Messiaen’s students et al. lay in its atomistic structural use of dynamics and duration – thus totally separating dynamics in particular from the agogic and expressive role it had held for 250 years -, the precompositional separation of duration from rhythm, and the structural equation of rhythm/dynamics/pitch as equally weighted.

clear? now back to writing my safe music.