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