Additions to the list . . .

Ok, ok, those are some pretty good ideas. Here are some URLs linked to your selections:

Tatie Bread
Soda Bread
Bushmills

along with the famous HP Sauce which apparently they don't make here anymore. We are weeping . . .

Oh, almost forgot this one.

Enjoying it here.

jason

#23, Swim Across the Atlantic Ocean (3,462 mi)

This is a slight modification of an original post put up on Boing Boing. It has been a long day. I am so grateful for my friends who have been so helpful by putting me up for the next week.

I've begun a list of all things Belfesian to take back to America:

Tunnuck's caramel wafers
Various flavours of Tayto
Ulster rugby jersey
hmm . . . what else?

It's great to be back.

jg

To Ireland . . .

Hey, off to Ireland for a week to record and do a few other things. Chat when we get back.

HO HO HEE HEE HA HA!

jason

More Jonathan Letham . . .

Over at Salon's site Amy Benfer interviews Jonathan Lethem, the novelist who wrote the article in Harper's Weekly which I posted last week. The interview is here, but you might have to navigate some adverts in order to get to it. I like his idea of creativity being a gift, and how can one copyright a gift?

jg

Discovering Electronic Music::Old School

Part I

This is entertaining and dated, yet we still learn all these things when we begin. An interesting primer . . . I love the opening montage and the fetishism of the old ways (patch cords).



Part II

The second part is all about synthesis and specifically imitation of acoustic instruments and sampling. The narrator refers to the guy in front of the synthesizer as 'the operator.' This is odd -- perhaps musician? I like the interface at the end of this section. Very kewl and practical. The ability to play the Bach backwards and forwards, in different keys, upside down, etc., however is not very earth shattering -- afterall, this is how Bach earned his bread and better throughout his career.



Part III

Continuing this thread, the last section ends in the Utopian tone of the technocrat and a mildly amusing demonstration of what this new technology can do. The narrator says, "A whole new world of creative possibilities has been opened to the musician through electronic music." Really, are those punch cards, the light pen, and the looped sounds new possibilities or simply artifacts of a new technology that must be circumnavigated and overcome in order to realize music?


I think we need to question these things. For it is technology that changes society, our tools directly impact the way we conceive reality, and, thus, the way we make art. I have come to understand that music technology (these new creative tools) are not simply helping us produce music more 'efficiently,' but changing what music is.

The ecstasy of influence . . .

Here is a great article by Jonathan Lethem which appeared in a recent issue of Harpers. In the article, entitled The Ecstasy of Influence, Lethem discusses subjects such as copyright, plagiarism, and the creative commons -- offering comments about the creative process and its function in society. I especially was struck by this paragraph:

Most artists are brought to their vocation when their own nascent gifts are awakened by the work of a master. That is to say, most artists are converted to art by art itself. Finding one's voice isn't just an emptying and purifying oneself of the words of others but an adopting and embracing of filiations, communities, and discourses. Inspiration could be called inhaling the memory of an act never experienced. Invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consist in creating out of void but out of chaos. Any artist knows these truths, no matter how deeply he or she submerges that knowing.

It's a really good read, affirming that we are part of a continuum of creative thought, word, and deed.

jason

A reply . . .

[Note: This is a reply to the comment made regarding the immediately preceding post. It simply was to long to be a mere 'comment'.]

Hmmm . . . well, yes there is a compositional voice, in fact, this might be all there is . . .

Consider Punk and its aesthetic, where the whole issue is anarchy: we don't know how to play our instruments and we don't care how we play our instruments . . . f**k you. It's a nice idea, but a bit of a misnomer/red herring/Dick Cheney, because musicians are concerned about their sound, their technique, their message, their look, whatever . . . so, yeah music is more than just music. After all, why do musicians do it? It's an attitude, a feeling, an addiction, and, in a more evangelical sense, a calling. It's simply a desire to do it. I am drawn to it; it keeps me up at night. Even when things are not going so well, I always return to it and it is always there for me. So yes, to para/re-phrase, music becomes ancillary to the desire of creating music, individual expression as you say. Music is just the outcome, not the goal: which is making music, a process.

It is a process here, and every one has a different tact. I can teach technique, I can teach ideas, historical precedence, etc. Teaching individuality, well, let's just say I leave that up to the advertisers, the fascists, and Walt Disney. I don't think you teach 'composition', 'painting', 'writing', or 'insert latest medium here.' We are seeking a process that has to be discovered. Which is funny, because now there are programs in 'multi-media', 'design', and 'interactivity.' I think we have the same problems here with these developing arts (which actually are media, as is 'writing', 'composition', 'dance', etc.) We can teach proficiency, but not necessarily aesthetic innovation. In fact, we are not teaching, we are leading others towards self-discovery. This I can agree upon.

To extend the argument, I believe that, in the above context, we could argue that technology is irrelevant when it comes to music . . . the tools are irrelevant to the act of music-making -- though they may be completely relevant to the music being made. Cage's 4'33', the so-called silent piece, was originally performed at the piano, from a pianistic (technological) standpoint, the instrument was irrelevant -- made even more so if you listen to one of the many recordings of the work. (Of course there are performance aspects to which the piano is vital, but leave that for another discussion.) This is all rolling towards the statement that music (art) is an event, a process, and a performance. Which relates to this education thing, formal or otherwise.

The problem with the standard, formal education, is that it can only give so much . . . certainly music is more than just the Groves Music encyclopedia, a set of recordings and sonata-allegro form. Sure it is, however, it was this externalized approach to music (the analysis, the theory, the history) which was the gist of my formal education. (It took me years to realize that music theory was irrelevant as well). Play the notes, ignore the music . . . Was it Schaeffer who argued for the 'primacy of the ear.' Is reading, studying about music a valid musical experience, and if not, why are our students paying good money (either directly, or through taxes) to not have a valid aesthetic experience (music, drama, writing, dance, etc.) . . . you could pull this across into all disciplines for this matter . . . chemistry, astrophysics, sport, etc. But we don't teach students how to learn, we teach students how to get the right answer. We stuff all this information into their heads and think, hey, that's knowledge. Well, it isn't. Knowledge is a process, an outcome, an innovative moment . . . not those damn dots on a page, not this formula, not that line of code. It is live, not Memorex.

Onto your question, if a structured system of musical education is even relevant anymore . . . well, perhaps we need to ask if the formal paradigm of education is relevant anymore. This gets into deeper waters and I will have to sleep on it; perhaps a new discussion tomorrow.

jg

I woke up this morning . . .

thinking about music. Thinking about how it is we go about teaching music. I find myself wondering what we are teaching? Are we teaching music? To do so would require that we define music. I don't recall any time during my early education that there was a serious discussion about what music is, which is a bit troubling. We just sort of jumped into organum and four years later we find ourselves at Stravinsky, surreptitiously eyeing that strange addendum in the back of the book where they discuss, the afro/black music, jazz -- feel free to read that if you want to . . . WHAT? Well, is this music? This is, in my opinion, not the way to go about teaching music. This is a listing of musical works, this is a listing of musical practitioners . . . this is music history, which is not so concerned about what music is, rather more concerned with what music was. To put it into focus, some music teachers are concerned with teaching music, some are concerned with teaching culture. Is there a difference? Well, I do think so.

For instance, is it possible to teach music as if it resided in a vacuum, outside of culture? Which is not to say, "Hey, remove culture from the equation," but rather,"Bring all cultures into the equation and look for a preponderance of similarities." Ergo, what are the cultural, political, sexual, psychological, physical, . . . etc., elements in music that are universal? That old adage states that music is the universal language (not true, really, if one defines language . . . music fails the semantic test, but that's another entry for a later time). If we hang on to the theory that music is universal (as it is found in all cultures) then how does it work? What makes it do its thing? What is its purpose and where do we go from here?

I should cut this short this morning, but consider this, we teach technique (chords, voice leading, synthesis, Fourier transforms, etc.) These are the building blocks of music, per se. So, if we wanted to create music we just need to employ these techniques . . . Dr. David Cope can teach the techniques to a computer. His machine is a brilliant copyist of Bach (and others) -- it's great, interesting research. Is it music? Well, on the outside is certainly appears so. But how does it function? What is it's reason for existing. Well, Dr. Cope has brought his analytical techniques (that WORD again) together to answer/approach a question. Certainly his research asks questions . . . what is the value of computer crafted music, how does the musical mind think, what, again, is the place for music in society, etc. etc. etc. All great questions . . . but, I guess the computer is not the composer here, really. The composer is Cope himself. The computer is merely a tool, an extension of his mind. So, why does society feel the need to create automatons to replicate human behaviors? Can of worms here.

Kalimbatronics MARK II

Here is a cleaned up version of the earlier thumb-actuated project. Now, the goal is to develop the software which will make the interface relevant. More info on that soon. For now, enjoy the picture. That is an Arduino board there mounted under the breadboard -- the USB serial connection is peaking out.

On another topic, our local NPR station is having its PLEDGE DRIVE this week. If you don't know what this is then you must be in a more civilized part of the world where the populace actually considers non-profit, informative, non-commercial, public radio a 'good thing.' Anyway, one of the talking heads (mouths?) was blabbing about how great is was that one could go back and 'listen again' to shows that may have been missed during the week, this all being done via the INTERNET website. She then said something that caught my ear. "Radio isn't ephemeral anymore, you can always go back and listen to it again." Radio, no longer ephemeral, kinda cheapens it to me.

Just a thought.

jg