Why do we Care?

Last week after forum the lab was soon swarming with vigilant emuers, writing their blogs and discussing their experiences of improvisation and forum. Later had a long, lively yabber with an EMUer in the kitchen, discussing the whole course. Noticed, not for the first time, how much more we care about this course and this place than my B.A. cohort ever did, in days of yore. This sometimes manifests in debate, frustration, annoyance - I think we want a lot from this place and have rather different requirements but uniformally high expectations.

This is a great thing. It's invigorating to be somewhere where people care.

Tim's first work at forum was based on water sounds. Interesting thing happened during it - I stopped actively listening to it as a piece of music and started experiencing it as naturally occuring sound. Can't recall this happening before, and it was amazing. thanks Tim.

With the jazz recording, I wondered about the mix. The piano was low, and the saxophone's tone was dull. cold and didn't seem to have much dynamic range. Knowing nothing about recording I wondered if the saxophone was compressed. Tim said neither he nor the saxophonist were happy with the sound either - on reflection Tim attributed the tone to microphone placement. Getting great recordings must be a fiddly, painstaking process, especially live!

Introducing New Surroundings, Jake said, "the world we have made may not be very pleasing but it's surely where we belong". 1 The piece followed Odin's adventures as he idled in a space ship, breathed and successfully escaped gibbering demonic clutches. Quirky and odd. The after effects of the Po Mo pandemic, mean it's hard to know how genuine Jake was with this piece, and how much he was parodying himself and/or the genre. I felt the same way about Ben's piece. To what extent did he authentically pour his heart into his piece Vocalacov, and to what extent was he taking the piss? does it matter? I don't know! It was a collection of sounds, some great, and it would be good to hear Ben judiciously rework these sounds into something new, at some stage. (Great set of lungs there btw Ben)

William admitted "if I knew that we were presenting things, I would have spent more time on it".2 William doesn't gives himself enough credit. He approaches music with deep thought and care. As he builds up his dare to disturb the universe, I suspect he will create exceptional music. This piece was fine - William was small picture, thinking about the sounds, rather than the whole piece - he said "it needs more purpose".2

The Pieces
Goebusch, Tim presented at University of Adelaide, 24 August 2006
Goebusch, Tim presented at University of Adelaide, 24 August 2006
Morris, Jake New Surroundings presented at University of Adelaide, 24 August 2006
Probert, Ben Vocalacov presented at University of Adelaide, 24 August 2006
Revill, William Neurotic Turbulence presented at University of Adelaide, 24 August 2006

1 Morris, Jake talk presented at University of Adelaide, 24 August 2006
2 Revill, William talk presented at University of Adelaide, 24 August 2006

EMU allsorts

Do you recall Mark Carroll speaking about the diversity of student pursuits within EMU? He contrasted us with the homogenous violin students. Yegads man, Mark was right! Those violinists are missing out!

It's one of the things I like about EMU, we learn the tools, but the application of these tools is our own business. A long long time ago I started a performance degree, and realised that becoming a singer (or instrumentalist) largely means playing covers. You study to learn the repertoire that applies to your instrument or voice type and try to emulate the great masters in your field. It's something like beautiful, intricate, incredibly difficult audio paint by numbers. (And tben you listen to a CD of someone truely great, and cry both for the beauty of their craft, and the mediocrity of your own.)

Enough of that, thing is - EMU isn't like this. Last week's forum was a case in point. We listened to three vastly different styles of music, all original - and took it in our stride. EMU mightn't have a big wing span, but some part of it (arse?) is mighty wide. hmmm

Maybe it's because of this wideness, left to create whatever we choose, we create things of meaning to us.

Henry Reed's piece was both dedicated to and inpsired by his grandfather. Henry did a great job of explaining just enough of the maths behind his work to give us some appreciation of his method. I liked the balance he had between randomness and his own artistic judgement. I really enjoyed the sounds and their juxtaposition. It was a great piece - I found it emotionally evocative (my Grandfather was also in WW2) and wanted lots of time and space to take it in - wonder what the piece would sound like with silence as one of the sounds in the mix, and also some longer times for the sounds?

Matthew Mazzone's works were ultra smooth and repititious, in good honest ambient, minimalist style. Have heard some of his work before, Matt's sound is slick and pro. I don't understand dance music at all and don't know the right words to categorise Matt's music. Reminded me of someone once talking about how in dance music, the layering of instruments is like Baroque music - neo polyphony. Get down!

Daniel. Spectacular band man. Great recording. Being a singer, I focus on the vocal track and usually wish it was up higher, but that's just personal preference. The recording was so CLEAN. (My hubby is an old headbanger and has a collection of old metal vinyls so I've listened to a bit over the years.) Daniel's recording was top class for the genre. How tight are metal bands? Tempo changes, meter changes all perfectly managed. More bass, as someone said, would be good too. Daniel, you go tiger!


The Pieces

Reed, Henry Lucky presented at University of Adelaide 17 August 2006
Mazzone, Matthew presented at University of Adelaide 17 August 2006
Enemy of ? If When you say you are in Heaven, you mean Gates of Hell presented at University of Adelaide 17 August 2006

a sort of fourth dimensional experiental insight

Missed last week, and so now offer two blog entries in one - a genuine offer of exceptional value that you would be crazy to miss.

Over the last two forums, students have shared their own works. 1 I don't feel real comfortable critically reviewing my fellow students, which is why I procrastinated last week. And also why, during the performances, my mind wandered.

Perhaps I could sidestep a review of these chaps - other than to say I really liked their works, and they were creative and all that and Performance Symmetry was most atmospheric (if you want a decent critical review check out Pocket's) - and instead indulge in a ramble about my wandering/wondering.

During Adrian Reid's piece, I realised "I don't understand this music because I don't know what's going to happen next." Dragos' music was easier because it was more predictable to me - even down to our old friend: the ABA structure. I had a sort of fourth dimensional experiental insight about listening to music.

Got thinking about how when we listen to music for the first time, we can't know what's coming next - we can't listen ahead. Apparently when we read words, we read ahead, and if we are sheet music types, I guess we can read ahead some too. An art piece is done too when we view it. Complete. But listening to a piece for the first time, we can't listen ahead, we can't know what is coming next. It unfolds before our ears.

We can guess of course.

And that got me thinking about predictability in music. How there seems to be some fairly innate modeling/predicting brain thing we do, infact need to do as humans, in our compulsive search for sense.

And so we find predictability an easy and reassuring thing in music.
Which makes predictability one of the tools of the composer. But how? How should we use predictability? In these modern times, should I even ask questions that start with "should"?

For the commercial composer, the use of predictability is fairly straight forward eh? Milk it for all it's worth baby. But for us EMUers?

Maybe we need to utilise unpredictability to ensure we fuck shit up enough (which as far as I can ascertain seems to be a course requirement). But then too much unpredictability becomes chaotic and at some stage just plain dumb - stops meaningful communication with the audience.

How do we learn our musical language? For example, how do we know that V7 leads to I? "It wants to," our theory teachers tell us. That's quite an interesting idea - that chords have their own desires and composers either give the chords what they want, or deny chords their wishes.

Imagine the revolutionary person who having a particularly zany day, first thwarted V7 by leading it not home but to iv. Wohooo. No doubt there was some rioting after that gig. Hard to believe now isn't it? Now, not only the humble interrupted cadence, but most of functional harmony's cadential family is widely snubbed for being cliched. Except for Luke Digance's lovely piece which provided some concrete evidence that the humble V7 to i is still relevant.

For the interrupted cadence to be invented/discovered (depending on your stance in the whole subjective/objective universe issue) first audiences had to predict that V7 would be succeeded with I. Now where did they learn to expect that?

Here's an interesting point made in a few books - music (for eg V7 to I) isn't a representation of something else. 2,3 A painting of a tree probably looks like a tree (well atleast it would have in the old days) but what is V7 to I about a tree? According to Finkelstien music is the most self referential art. 2 Which makes it an even more interesting question - how do we learn that V7 leads home to I when we can't look or listen to a tree or anything else in our non musical environment for any cadential information.

Finkelstein leans towards the nurture end of the debate. Many aspects of normal life - work, walking, lerve, gave our ancestors rhythm, and speech inflection informed melody. 2 But chords? Hmmm. I suspect there would be those amongst our EMU brethren who, having seen the sines, would favour a physics based explanation for the tonal system.

Well if that is true, we could expect some universality of musical language. Guess that's the realm of ethnomusicology. Here's something interesting - I found Vinny Bhagat's improvisation (with Indian musical language) more predictable than Adrian's piece.

Earlier in the week, we watched a documentary on John Cage. At one stage he was asked what he would do if someone farted during 4'33'. He said "I would just listen". Can we "just listen" without trying to predict? What happens then?

There is some predictability now of 4'33' - we expect a piece featuring audience sounds - farting, coughing, moving, maybe external traffic noises, maybe airconditioning, tummy rumbling. Hey if you were to amplify 4'33' - say for a stadium gig - would you mic the audience or the piano player? There's a piece you can play on your ipod even when it's flat. Hmmm wonder if I can download an Mp3????

Forgive my ramble - it's my birthday!

Jodie

PS. Tuscadero's singer was a bit flat sometimes. A singer going flat on the top notes of their phrases - that IS predictable. (I liked David's sheet on this band - he shared some interesting insights.)



1. The Pieces:
Delany, John Performance Symmetry presented at University of Adelaide 3 August 2006
Digance, Luke Concrete Harmony presented at University of Adelaide 3 August 2006
Reid, Adrian Composition Formally Known as Horses presented at University of Adelaide 10 August 2006
Bhagat,Vinny Improvisation on Raag Yaman presented at University of Adelaide 10 August 2006
Tuscadero Ideal Me presented at University of Adelaide 10 August 2006

2. Finkelstein, S. 1970 How Music Expresses Ideas New York: International Publishers
3. Meyer, L. 1956 Emotion and Meaning in Music Chicago: University of Chicago

The Audience Doesn't Want to Know

This is a rambling interlude between two official forum posts.

One of my favourite sayings from the mighty mighty mighty Robert Dawe, bass and singing teacher is "the audience doesn't want to know".

When I turn up to lessons with my pockets brimming full of excuses - head cold, dog ate my homework, Bach is too hard, I'm singing flat because my piano's out of tune, stubbed toe, morning voice and so on - he just says "the audience doesn't want to know, don't tell them."

It's amazing how often this little saying pops into my head - the audience doesn't want to know.

What an honour to get an insight into his self discipline. One day we were talking about the issue singers can face of 'morning voice' that the instrument can be kind of gluggy and crap in the morning. He said that when he rehearsed with orchestras at 10am, he just needed to be in full voice. So he would wake up early, and make sure he had sung for an hour or two, before the day's rehearsal began. He didn't have the luxury of morning voice - the audience doesn't want to know.

Sometimes I wonder what the audience does and doesn't want to know. Recently I was introducing a song, and got all rambly, realised I was talking about sewing clothes. Oopsy. Remembered too late - the audience doesn't want to know, so I shut up and got on with it. It's hard to always keep in mind that the audience's attention is a great honour indeed.