It's quite amazing to think that Gordon Mumma was writing music like this as early as the 1960's.
Today, his work may still pose considerable difficulties to the average listener.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W85rbPbI7CI&index=1&list=RDW85rbPbI7CI
Gordon Mumma - The Dresden Interleaf 13 February 1945
A few facts about his life and work:
Mumma's performances on piano were often in the context of piano ensembles, partnered with John Cage, David Tudor, and other performers. He toured internationally in the 1960s in a two-piano performance collaboration with Robert Ashley. He cofounded Ann Arbor's Cooperative Studio for Electronic Music with Ashley in 1958-66, was a cofounder of the ONCE Festival in 1961-66 in Ann Arbor, was a resident composer with the Merce Cunningham Dance Company alongside Cage and Tudor from 1966–74, and was a member of the Sonic Arts Union with Ashley, Alvin Lucier, and David Behrman.[1]
Mumma was professor of music at the University of California-Santa Cruz from 1975 to 1994, where his composition students included Chris Brown, Joe Hannan, Daniel James Wolf, Jonathan Segel, and Mamoru Fujieda (See: List of music students by teacher: K to M#Gordon Mumma.). Mumma also has a close association with Mills College in Oakland, California, where he was the Darius Milhaud Professor in 1981, Distinguished Visiting Composer in 1989, and Jean Macduff Vaux Composer-in-Residence in 1999.[2]
Mumma currently lives in Victoria, British Columbia, where he continues to compose.
Replies
Sister Wendy says, the "contemporary artist" is afraid of perfection. So the modern artist creates something, and then distorts it, or breaks it up, hoping to gain control, and thereby becomes able to tame the object, and forestall the fear of the perfect.
Some of her key phrases were:
The modern person knows:
"The world is not what it is supposed to be."
"We are frightened of perfection."
"Many contemporary artists make things and then they break them ... they mutilate them ... it gives them control."
"It takes the terrible fear of the unreality of perfection away from them."
-------
Though this may be true, in some instances, I think it is a very false generalization about modern and contemporary art. In fact, such a view, I believe, obscures the most essential features of contemporary thought and our modern aesthetic sense.
First, the common man has always known the "world is not what it is supposed to be." But in Ancient Egypt, and in more recent times (up through the 17th century, at least), the common man would not be allowed to express that view because it would call into question the justice of the ruler, and even the concepts of God held by the ruler (over the head of the ruled).
Any public form of art would have had to express the "perfection" of the social and political order, of the world, and of the priests' conceptions of God, Gods, or the Pantheon.
The "acceptable forms" of perfection in Art, would always have to be somewhat standard, in accordance with something akin to a stereotype, and in such a way that the ruler(s) [whether intelligent, or stupid, as individuals] could understand the "Art," and why it was expressive of "perfection," as opposed to anything that might be the least bit idiosyncratic.
The "art of the past" is not more "perfect," more "beautiful," but simply more standard, more in accord with narrow criteria, that were established as part of a false universalism, or idea of what "should" be seen as perfect or good (all other expressions to be seen as deviations).
This explains, in part, why prior to the "Democratic" Age, or the Age of Representative government, so much standardization (in music, for example) was mandatory, why only certain scales, certain keys, specific kinds of harmony were allowed. [The fact that certain artists, like Bach or Rafael could create great beauty under those conditions speaks more to their ability, than to some assumed "perfection" that was inherent in the fact that they were not "moderns"]
As freedom became more acceptable, within the body politic, and as more people became accustomed to freedom, and thinking became less constrained, there was more experimentation, as a result.
There has been a lag, though, which persists, because political and social systems are far from free in practice, as they were intended to be in theory.
So the characteristic of most modern art (painting, sculpture or music) is NOT that it has the appearance of being broken, or that it expresses a "fear of perfection."
Quite the opposite. The vast majority of great (and even many amateur artists) are not creating "broken" works. They are discovering a vast multitude of new forms of perfection, and new forms of beauty, which simply would not have been allowed, if we continued to live in a society governed by Kings, Aristocrats (or dictators) and traditional systems of rule, which discourage individuality, experimentation, and the exploration of the unique or the "different."
What is lacking (this is the "lag") is this: an increased ability and willingness, on the part of the people to appreciate their new found freedom in the realms of thought, consciousness, philosophy, aesthetics, and so many other areas. It's not the "fault" of the people. It's that they get mixed signals. "You live in a Democracy. You are free. You live in a free society," people are told. At the same time, people are oppressed by constant exposure to standardization, mediocrity, restrictions in their ability to REALLY think freely, and a whole host of additional problems. These problems—many of them social, political and economic, as well as literary, philosophical and aesthetic—continue to keep people aware of the fact that "the world is not what it is supposed to be." Solutions to the problems will only be worked out over a long period of time.
Here's a little thought experiment, for those following the conversation about Mumma's music.
On another point.
I am not sure that Mumma's piece about Dresden is "not to be enjoyed," simply because it is about a horrible event. Certainly, dirges and all sorts of works dating back centuries are about "sad or tragic events." Even though the events evoke sorrow, that does not mean the works of art are intended to be "unenjoyable."
Might it be that Mumma's Dresden Interleaf is meant to be enjoyed as much as any work? We may be able, perhaps, to test and see whether this is true.
The obstacle to "enjoyment," for many people, may simply be the extremely innovative use of sounds, tones, harmonies and textures, and "noise combinations" which are alien to the vast majority of listeners.
However, Mariza's point may be correct. I'll warrant it's at least one half to three quarters "true." But it's probably, at least in part, a matter of personal perception.
Here is the "experiment."
The link below is to another work by Gordon Mumma.
It's called,
Stressed Space Palindromes
The title does not suggest anything tragic, horrific or something intended to sadden.
It might seem to suggest something merely abstract, and enjoyable.
People can listen, and see if that's what they get out of it (or if it is just as difficult to enjoy or listen to as the Dresden Overleaf).
I have no preconceived answer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loM7Hswijm8
My vacuum cleaner is louder and crankier than yours!
(as in : my daddy is stronger and my mummy handsomer than yours)
but how do I write a duet for both our cleaners for vacuum audiences?
Any help appreciated :-)
Peter Brown said:
Socrates, I think you nailed it there with... 'Vacuum Audience' :>}} RS
Socrates Arvanitakis said:
Ondib,
I enjoyed and agreed with every sentence you wrote here. I will be reading them again later, with more time. I think you have a valuable perspective.
I think what you wrote captures a lot, even if it can't be a complete generalization either (perhaps impossible to generalize about art currents). Thank you for it.
Mariza
O. Olmnilnlolm said:
Ondib, you wrote:
"You live in a free society," people are told. At the same time, people are oppressed by constant exposure to standardization, mediocrity, restrictions in their ability to REALLY think freely, and a whole host of additional problems. These problems—many of them social, political and economic, as well as literary, philosophical and aesthetic—continue to keep people aware of the fact that "the world is not what it is supposed to be." Solutions to the problems will only be worked out over a long period of time."
I am very appreciative of this thought, because I do feel intellectually oppressed in the US, in all sorts of ways. In fact, if people wonder why the heck I come to the Composer's Forum on a daily basis, it is because there is some degree of mental freedom to be found here and there is art and topics brought up and discussed which sadly are difficult to create in everyday life. (And yes, I do love to listen to the uploaded pieces, too.)
Olm,
Thank you for sharing this. I was not familiar with the work of Gordon Mumma before and I am enjoying this. May I ask, are you a fan of Sunn 0))) ?
O - you say
"The fact that certain artists, like Bach or Rafael could create great beauty under those conditions speaks more to their ability, than to some assumed "perfection"… "
Yes. What they did with so little.. which is not unlike Beethoven using a 'cell' (motif) as the dna to a large composition.
But I would also say, w/ regard to Bach.. the tuning wasn't equal temperament, and somewhere in the transition between just/mean/pythagorean and equal temperament … where the harmonic relationship was far more complex than equalT. I imagine it as retaining the incredibly varying emotive quality of old tuning… (No 2 minor scales sounded exactly the same!) .. but also the ability to modulate to far flung (harmonic) regions..
The is a site that thinks they have decoded the elusive Bach 'tuning' :
LARIPS.com ('spiral' backwards :)
They have a few recordings posted with this tuning.. Mostly on harpsichord… But there is one on the piano… And because the piano allows the tones to ring in the air much longer, (and without the attack (clang) of the ball peen ) one can much more easily soak in that complex harmonic world..
I am not necessarily saying that they cracked the code that they say they have… (By using the doodles surrounding the cover over the WTC as the blueprint for tuning ratios) - but it is (imo) certainly (very) evocative.
(I want to have my piano tuned the same way!… )
(Perhaps this puzzle is one i could frame in such a way for Socrates' thread on 'spot the historical inaccuracy' :)
I don't feel that Bach's music was less free because of constraints. I think that constraints allow notes and chords to be distinct from one another in meaningful ways. And that removing all constraints can diminish variety, i.e., can lead to the paradoxical effect of all pitches sounding the same. I don't know how much of that effect has to do with ear training or instead is intrinsic and maybe could in principle even be partly understood analytically in terms of information theory.
But we won't know for sure, and we won't understand this properly, or be able to negate it properly, without venturing into brand new directions in music, and I have nothing but interest and enthusiasm for a spirit of search and of starting anew. We should invest in completely new things. But of course their value, however great or small it turns out to be, will not lie in their newness, just like the value of the old does not lie in it being old.
The topic of freedom under constraints of form is a VERY complex one.
Some time ago Teoh wrote in the forum (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) that certain musical constraints gave him freedom. And I have a fuzzy idea of what that can mean. The idea that certain constraints have a freeing effect, or that the lack of all constraints is dulling, is something I see expressed in all kinds of contexts, and I suspect it expresses something very important, though I cannot claim to understand it.
For example, these 2 things in the image are distinct only when you have them constrained to 2-D space:
If you add more branches to this type of tree, then the distinct number of trees in 2-D space increases exponentially and quickly reaches astronomical numbers (because of the different combinations of left versus right orientation of each branch). In 3-D the number of such trees with n branches continues to be just one even for large values of n.
The constraints of 2-D space introduce a difference between left and right. Each branch can "choose" to be either to the left or to the right. With n branches you can create many distinct trees, by placing some branches to the left and others to the right. You can encode a lot of information using such 2-D trees even for modest values of n. In 3-D you always get 1 tree, no information.
The topic of how richness, variety, meaning, humor, freedom, arise from constraints is probably HUGE and appears everywhere. In practical everyday life these topics confront us very strongly when trying to figure out how to raise a child. Fortunately, a child is anything but a blank canvas for us to paint on - a child has their own nature, spirit, and drive, so there's a lot of forgiveness and irrelevance to parenting limitations (whew!).
I know what I wrote here is extremely fuzzy and primordial. And there may be an entire body of literature on related topics that I am unaware of.
....
Gregorio - Thanks so much for the very interesting post about tunings.
Thanks!
I think it was Stravinsky who said, (paraphrasing) "once you decide on your limitations (compositionally) , you are set free…"
I am sitting under your tree analogy til the apple hits.
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
of 9 Next