Music Composers Unite!
I would like to offer this up, for any comments, observation, dissection or discussion.
Scelsi Swallows the Buddha
It was inspired by the work and musical philosophy of Giacinto Scelsi.
This note may be of some interest to the listener:
'Scelsi is best known for writing music based around only one pitch, altered in all manners through microtonal oscillations, harmonic allusions, and changes in timbre and dynamics, as paradigmatically exemplified in his revolutionary Quattro Pezzi su una nota sola ["Four Pieces on a single note"]'
Thank you in advance for any responses to the work.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
I liked this. Despite the fact that it largely centers around one note, it has swells and troughs in the music, which helps keep interest by altering the mood. Some unexpected instrument changes at the end helped keep my interest going as well. As this is in a Youtube video with moving and changing images, I wondered if I would have enjoyed it as much if all I had was the music (no visuals).
Thank you, Kristofer, for your very kind words and generous assessment of the work. I like and approve of your use of the term "micro-modal," to describe the technique.
I did limit myself mostly to the "space" around D natural and D flat, for almost the entire piece; allowing the use of not just one D, but of many D's up and down the entire scale between D1 and D7, with different instruments, such as strings of various sorts, brass, and flutes. (though I "cheated" a bit at the end, by using the harp across a wider spectrum of tones).
You are right about the whole tone.
I agree completely with what you say about infinity, the space around a quartertone, and the Taoist philosophy (though Scelsi relied more on Buddhist thought, I believe, for his conceptions-- obviously there is a non dogmatic confluence between Taoism and Buddhism, that finds a home in Zen).
We can evoke the infinite and the infinitesimal in music, I believe.
Although one can object that the human ear is incapable of discriminating or "trading in infinities or infinitesimals," the truth is that Eastern music schools (Tibetan and Indian music in particular) have devised techniques that are perhaps very suggestive of infinity, and therefore, of the "divine," that could complement our Western notions of tone, tonality and mode.
Pitch bending, glissandi, and tonal gliding are subtle and indispensable tools not only in Indian and Tibetan music, but also in classical scholarly Chinese music. These techniques are part of an art that is only now being recovered and celebrated in China itself to the full extent that they were in earlier times.
Again, thank you for your comments.
In reply to the question, posed by Gav:
"I wondered if I would have enjoyed it as much if all I had was the music (no visuals)."
It's difficult to say.
I find it always useful, after I have finished a composition, to "comment upon it," as it were, with photos, images and paintings.
Call it a move towards Gesamtkunstwerk (Wagner's concept of a "total work of art") or more simply, the union of the primary senses-- vision and hearing-- as Varese attempted in his "poem electronique."
One can simply minimize or eliminate the picture while listening, and see if that makes a difference, but I find some visual stimulation helpful to many listeners, to suggest feelings or moods that might accompany or enhance the experience.
I think I read, Gav, on one thread, that you are working on a piece "East meets West," which I would very much like to hear. Perhaps you could post the link, when it is available.
Ondib, your music is challenging - more challenging than most of what is posted here. That is a compliment. Any classical work (which category I put you and which I presume you put yourself in, correct me if you disagree) which does not stretch the boundaries of what is acceptable is in my personal opinion not worth paying attention to. I did post East Meets West
"Ondib, your music is challenging... That is a compliment."
Thank you, Gav. Very nice of you to say so.
"Any classical work (which category I put you and which I presume you put yourself in, correct me if you disagree) . . ."
"Classical" is the word I would use, since what I love and respect in music, comes from the tradition that runs from
Vivaldi, Bach, Haydn, Mozart Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, and Mahler,
Schoenberg, Webern, Debussy, Ravel, Janacek, Nielsen, Milhaud, Prokofiev, Shostakovich,
Stravinsky, Bartok, Varese, Cage, Stockhausen, Pousseur and Scelsi . . .
(to name some of the "composers" I most respect)
You spoke of the need to "stretch the boundaries of what is acceptable . . ."
I feel I owe it to myself to "stretch the boundaries," in as many areas as possible, including that artificial boundary between East and West, East being defined usually as Indian, Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Javanese or Southeast Asian (Thai, Cambodian, Vietnamese, etc).
So I look forward to listening to your composition, East meets West, which I will do sometime soon.
Thanks for giving me the link, which I will bookmark.
Ondib, your works are always interesting to me even tho' they are
outside of the arena I call music.(meaning only, my preferred listening).
I would agree that without the visual, this wouldn't have the same impact,
but together they become 'dynamic'. The subliminal structure and well timed
changes of pitch give it it's texture and character. You have a good sense
of duration and by manipulation and pitch change , accomplish something unique.
( I think I would have titled it Tibetan Bazaar (or bizarre) :-} RS
Strange piece but fascinating.
Hi Fredrick. The simple answer to the question is «No.»
I understand there are quite a few cases on line where metadata gets connected with names accidentally, and this has happened with my name «Olmninlolm» in relation to other names as well. I think I have an idea about how that might have happened in this case, but it’s complicated.
Why do you want to know?
Thanks, Roger for your comments on the work. That work was very much inspired by what Scelsi did, and I learned a lot about him, in McHard’s book on the Philosophy of Modern Music, which more than any other single written work, helped me in a personal re-awakening with regard to «modernism and contemporary music,» so that I could write what I have written for the last several years. I really recommend the book, which is like no other. You may or may not like Scelsi, but you can google him on youtube, and find many of his works there.
Thanks Victor, for your reaction to the piece.
I wrote a question for you, Kristofer, about the metadata issue, on the Pachelbel forum, which I would like you to address, if you don't mind.
I will address the post you wrote here, with the following:
"we now have a submission in the contest forum ascribed to ... etc." You say you have examined metadata, gone to some sites, and based on that, are willing to make some "speculations."
You said, "we have a submission." You mean Gav has a submission? Or are you in charge of vetting and looking at submissions?
Perhaps you should leave that to Gav, and if and when he asks me a question about, we can talk about it.
Can you explain why you would want to take it upon yourself to look through this meta-data and make speculations about it?
Can you explain why you would want to discuss the issue here, when the contest is under way, and when the identity of the pieces and authors are not supposed to be revealed at this point?
Can you affirm on a stack of Bibles (or whatever texts you might assume to be holy or worthy of respect--perhaps the collected works of Bach) that your motives are honorable, ethical and for the good of the forum.
Tell me if you think what you are doing, might be categorized at doxing, or at least as attempts at doxing, with doxing defined as follows:
"Doxing (from dox, abbreviation of documents), or doxxing, is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting personally identifiable information about an individual. The methods employed to acquire this information include searching publicly available databases and social media websites (like Facebook), hacking, and social engineering. It is closely related to cyber-vigilantism, hacktivism and cyber-bullying."
The fact is, your conclusions, as stated in your last message are not correct.
But I have no doubt you can find out a great deal about any person, and certainly about me, if you are sufficiently persistent, and want to abandon any pretense to a code of morality that respects individual privacy.
There are no "big secrets" about me that you will discover. But that's not the issue.
The question, is whether you think that is an ethical thing to do, and whether you think it is something that is beneficial for composers forum. Should it be an acceptable practice amongst forum members to dox, or to attempt to dox, or ferret out private information of fellow members?
I mean, do you think people will want to be members, if they know any personal detail that any hacker can get ahold of may be be dumped out here, especially by another person who is also a member?
I don't think the kind of novels you read as a child is a sufficient justification for your behavior.
"When I was just a child, I read every Poirot mystery I could get a hold of, in spite of my poor command of the language, but I digress.."
Yes, and I read every Sherlock Holmes story written by Arthur Conan Doyle. But that did not make me want to violate people's privacy, or look up their meta-data and try to look into aspects of people's lives that are not really any of their personal business.
I am curious about your response to the charge that you are possibly engaged in doxing and are definitely not respectful of this member's personal privacy.
I too am a puzzle solver... see Les vagues et le vent on Y-tube
by Mr. O.O with comments by none other than herself, Charlotte Wellen.
clue # 1 match the color and tone of the vernacular. Severe schitz or
two unique individuals.? I'd say 'case closed Mr. Holmes'.
Kristofer Emerig said:
"Perhaps you should leave that to Gav, and if and when he asks me a question about, we can talk about it."
-I believe Gavin asked us to listen to the submissions. By submitting your entry, you implicitly asked us to listen to it. The mere act of opening the file reveals the data in the Windows Media Player window. There's really no "research" about it. So you are suggesting that if there is an indication that one is not presenting their own work in a contest, we should just accept that, because it isn't our business? Wrong- it becomes our business when you present your work publicly and solicit the time of others to listen and comment, particularly if you are insincere or fraudulent.
"Can you explain why you would want to discuss the issue here, when the contest is under way, and when the identity of the pieces and authors are not supposed to be revealed at this point?"
-I would think you might explain it to us. This is information you disclosed, not I.
"But I have no doubt you can find out a great deal about any person, and certainly about me, if you are sufficiently persistent, and want to abandon any pretense to a code of morality that respects individual privacy."
- That's pretty funny. "Sufficiently persistent", as though your lies require research to uncover. The only two matters I inquired about were a public comment on the Youtube video you present here, and the "Author" data that shows in a piece of music which you presented in a public forum. Now you're angry at me for accidentally noticing the carelessness of your dishonesties?
-So you're inventing a new word for "being caught in a lie"?
Viewing the comments on the video presented in this thread will show that Charlotte Wellen claims to be the author. That doesn't require any research, just opening the link you've provided. The piece you presented for the contest shows very plainly when opened, the composers name, Charlotte Wellen, and the album name Carlotte's Album. That's not "doxing", it's playing an MP3 - and you know that very well; don't try to cover one lie with another here..
Inquiring about information that you have presented publicly and implicitly requested others to view and comment upon is hardly and invasion of your privacy.
You have now presented two compositions of dubious authorship to this forum and asked the membership to give their valuable time to evaluate. I feel I'm well within my right to ask you, are you Charlotte Wellen, or are you taking credit for her work? It's one, or the other.
Ondib Olmnilnlolm said:
[insert random, desperate dissembling here]
I will put this in the form of Dialogue:
Olmnilnlom: ”Perhaps you should leave that to Gav, and if and when he asks me a question about, we can talk about it."
Kristofer: “ -I believe Gavin asked us to listen to the submissions. By submitting your entry, you implicitly asked us to listen to it.”
Olmnilnlom: That’s fair enough, as far as it goes. You were asked to “listen,” and that’s about all. You were not asked to try to discover who wrote the piece, using metadata. Nor do I think you were asked to post messages on the forum about your mental meanderings regarding said data. Do you think is it part of your moral responsibility as a member to try to take that data, attempt to make connections, speculate (erroneously) about it openly, and do research and then post additional information that you think may “prove” some calumny you manufacture about me on an open forum such as this? You have done “research,” however haphazard it may be, however erroneous your conclusions are. (I assure you, they are erroneous).
Kristofer: ‘There’s really no "research" about it.’
Olmnilnlolm: I believe that is a kind of prevarication. You didn’t simply open the file and stop there. Tell me that’s all you did, and then do want to compel me to show that is not the truth? You admit it yourself. It’s a bit absurd to deny you are involved in doxing. A simpler definition than the one given before is this:
“to search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.”
Example: “…hackers and online vigilantes routinely dox both public and private figures”
Kristofer: “So you are suggesting that if there is an indication that one is not presenting their own work in a contest, we should just accept that, because it isn't our business?”
Olmnilnlolm: Not at all. If you wish to make an allegation, whether it is true or false (and this one is false), then why do you not simply present it to Gav? Who is this “we” you are talking about? —“we should just accept that?”— Are “you” a person who decides what is or is not a breach of the rules in the contest, or the rules on this forum. I have already talked to Gav, and if you want to ask him about this, please feel free. Email him. But spreading false allegations, and false rumors simply because you like to “speculate” about other people, based on a wrong-headed analysis of the significance of metadata, does not seem appropriate.
Kristofer: “It becomes our business when you present your work publicly and solicit the time of others to listen and comment, particularly if you are insincere or fraudulent.”
Olmnilnlolm: If every member here sought (as you have done) to go into people’s metadata, visit their social media sites (with an eye to making mischief), and then drew incorrect inferences, and dumped some of that data along with speculations onto the forum, this place would become a mere gossip ring. Is that what you want?
If you yourself are “sincere,” Kristofer, would you like to ask Gav whether a special panel of moderators should be convened to see if I am “sincere,” or whether my work is “fraudulent” as you claim?
Olmnilnlolm: “But I have no doubt you can find out a great deal about any person, and certainly about me, if you are sufficiently persistent, and want to abandon any pretense to a code of morality that respects individual privacy.”
Kristofer: - That's pretty funny. "Sufficiently persistent", as though your lies require research to uncover.
Olmnilnlolm: You have again, accused me of a lie, and you have not even said what the “lie,” is. If it’s your allegation that I have fraudulently submitted a piece that is not my own, you yourself are making a false allegation, based on speculation. THAT would be a lie. This is one of the things that go wrong when people visit places like Facebook, or Twitter or Youtube, and read a stray comment. They assume they understand the exact meaning of this or that post, then they interpret it (to mean what they want it to mean), and then they “speculate” (as you have done). All of these things appear to have been done, in your case, simply to find fault where there is none, with some kind of malignant intent. Even if you were a registered private detective (as you by your own admission are imagining yourself to be), you would not make accusations. You would limit yourself to the questions, and not draw the erroneous conclusions that you do. There is no “lie,” as you suggest, other than your statement (opinion, speculation) that I have committed fraud.
Kristofer: The only two matters I inquired about were a public comment on the Youtube video you present here, and the "Author" data that shows in a piece of music which you presented in a public forum. Now you're angry at me for accidentally noticing the carelessness of your dishonesties?
Olmnilnlolm: I am not angry. I find this more amusing than you do, apparently. I am merely stating some facts, asking you about your actions, and inviting you (if you like) to follow this through to a reasonable conclusion. But I don’t think “doxing” is the way to go.
Kristofer: ”Doxing" -So you're inventing a new word for "being caught in a lie”?
Olmnilnlolm: I find it interesting that you act as though you don’t know what “doxing” is. Do you really not know? I provided the definition in my last post, but you seem not to have read it, or you are pretending you didn’t. Lets look at that earlier definition I gave you, which is more detailed.
Are you really saying that I invented the word? Isn’t THAT a “lie,” or at least an exhibition of pretended ignorance, or just plain ignorance? You tell me, after you study the issue for a while.
Let’s look at this definition: (The definitions I am giving you are derived from the Oxford Dictionary online, onthemedia.org, The Economist Magazine, Technewsdaily, the BBC and other sources.
Wikipedia sums it up this way, but you can go to the original sources if you like, which are footnoted.
Doxing (from dox, abbreviation of documents), or doxxing, is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting personally identifiable information about an individual. The methods employed to acquire this information include searching publicly available databases and social media websites (like Facebook), hacking, and social engineering. It is closely related to cyber-vigilantism, hacktivism and cyber-bullying. Doxing may be carried out to aid law enforcement, business analysis, extortion, coercion, harassment, public shaming and other forms of vigilante justice. 
——End of quote ——
If you read the quote carefully, you will see many elements that I would suggest define your behavior. One (1) is that you are “broadcasting” what you believe to be personal information about me, based on (2) “information gathered from a publicly available database” (whether it is Facebook or Youtube, or some other social media site, is beside the point), and you are doing this not to “right some wrong,” as you seem to claim—if you were doing that, you would not be “broadcasting,” it to the forum as a whole. You would simply hand over what you had to the forum authority who would be in charge of the matter at hand, in this case Gav. But you don’t do that. Your desire to “broadcast,” or make this a matter for the entire forum, on this or another thread, indicates a kind of malicious intent. You want to “shame” or “harass,” by making speculations, and from those speculations you draw false conclusions and make false allegations about me.
I don’t terribly mind continuing this discussion further, because the more you go on, the more you reveal yourself to have engaged in “doxing” and the more you will continue to engage in that practice. Others must have opened this document, and found what you saw, and yet they are not trying to trumpet to the world any belief they might have erroneously arrived at (or not) to the effect that I have “lied” or that I have done something “fraudulent.” But you want to pretend, or make people think that you have “proof” that I am a bad person, for some malicious reason of your own, perhaps. I won’t speculate with regard to the particulars, because they don’t matter. It’s your actual behavior that seems questionable to me, rather than some speculation about what you might be thinking about what you are doing.
Kristofer: That's not "doxing", it's playing an MP3 - and you know that very well...
Olmnilnlolm: Of course, playing an MP3 is not doxing. Many people have listened to the MP3. Doxing is what YOU have done. Taking data you have found, loudly trumpeting what you think it means, visiting social media to “research” a person’s character or alleged crimes, and then “broadcasting” that, with a view to harass, or shame, or act as a “vigilante” detective, with a malignant purpose. Read the definition carefully. You will see the difference between what countless people who listen to an MP3 have done, and what you have done. On each of the messages you have recently post on this thread, you do it again, and again. Look at yourself and your actions. Can’t you see? Calling someone a liar, or a “coverer of lies” several times, in different ways is unbecoming, especially when the accusation is false. It is most certainly doxing. It’s a kind of character assassination, quite commonly employed when people want to divert attention from something else. I won’t speculate here about what that something else is, though you yourself don’t seem afraid of openly engaging in speculations that lead to false conclusions and personal attacks.
So I reiterate: if you really think I have done something fraudulent, such as passed someone else’s work off as my own, then make the charge, and explain the meaning of the “data,” to the appropriate person or persons (via email to Gav, for instance, or to another moderator, if you think you need to). If your real intention is to engage in defamation, or some primitive attempt at “public shaming” based on false allegations, you will continue to post your “speculations” on the forum openly. If your real goal is “justice” or the truth, then you will probably do something else.
It will be interesting to see what you do, because your actions will help to clarify your motives.
As far as your claim that you have the right to ask me such-and-such a question, you know I have the right to ask you questions as well. I have asked you many questions, about many things, and you have often refused. That is your right, just as it is my right to refuse to answer any question you may ask. I will conclude simply by saying, you have and you do ask questions that are based on completely false assumptions. When, or if, you ever find out the “truth” of the matter being discussed, I think you might find yourself a bit embarassed, due to poor reasoning. You might want to read a few more “Detective Stories,” or watch a few films based on the Dashiell Hammett novels. I recommend “The Maltese Falcon,” which is worth watching several times.
[Roger, don't you fall into the same pit. Look before you leap. Think carefully. There such things as "false dichotomies" -- that's a clue for "problem solvers." ]
sorry O , I'm basically a peacemaker but had to have a look for myself.
I too saw an unfamiliar name on the MP3 but only thought it odd because
of the 'rule of anonimity' proposed for the contest.
It matters not so much if there was a cheat or not, because I've always
known that cheaters really only cheat themselves. There is NO aquisation
on my part. Maybe you and Kristofer should work this out 'off camera'. RS