James Dillon's Book of Elements

[pies]

Thoughts on this set of pieces?  I've listened to small bits of this in recent days.  Doesn't really fit the new complexity mold.  Me gusta.

[retrouvailles]

Didn't really strike me much, to be honest. I haven't heard much of it yet, so I might see something in it once I get a bit further in. There were a few cool moments in the earlier sets. Btw, why do you create these topics? It's quite obvious that no one but you, me, and like 3 other people listen to this kind of music.

[pies]

hinton and a few others probably know something about Dillon.  always nice to learn something about modern music.  there still are a few interesting posters here.

[general disarray]

hinton and a few others probably know something about Dillon.  always nice to learn something about modern music.  there still are a few interesting posters here.

Well, I only know what I've read about him and the YouTube "Ti.re-Ti.ke-Dha," an inauspiciously pretentious and off-putting title, drum performance from Oberlin, which doesn't give me much insight.  Any links where I can hear more of his stuff?

P.S. those of us not into the "new complexity" are not necessarily less "interesting" than those of you who are.  Perhaps you could post some links to educate us.  I'm not opposed to "modern music."  I just haven't heard much that convinces me that I want to hear more.  Maybe you can help.

P.P.S  my problem with the "new complexity" is the same problem I have with "metafiction" in literature -- that postmodern, self-imposed self-consciousness that never lets you escape from the artifice of the art object.  Such an experience, for me, destroys the effect of Art.  I want Art to describe, illuminate and enrich my world -- not to reference my world with irony and posturing. 

When you read metafiction, for example, you're never allowed to sink into the experience of reading fiction, to suspend your disbelief, because you're constantly reminded of the author's cleverness in CREATING fiction.  It strikes me as decadent.  I get the same effect from the "new complexity."  It's so convoluted you can't simply enjoy it:  you must "appreciate" its complexity, revel in the composer's ostentatious ingenuity to enjoy it.  Beethoven and Bach didn't ask that of listeners, nor did any of the greatest composers or novelists.  The complexities in their works were integral to the work and were subsumed in the emotional experience of listening/peforming/reading.  As in Tolstoy or E. M. Forster's novels.  With them, the reader could disappear into their worlds to escape his or her own world.  With metafiction (and the "new complexity"), you are constantly reminded that you are immersed in artifice.  Yech. 

No great artists succeed in parading their complexity for complexity's sake.  That's artifice and pomposity.

So, tell me why I should enter this world of self-conscious, hyper-complex composition?  Present your case before you label us as not interesting posters. 

I don't need irony and narcissism, pies.  I need beauty.

[pies]

Any links where I can hear more of his stuff?

https://home.comcast.net/~piesfinder/202.mp3

https://home.comcast.net/~piesfinder/204.mp3

[general disarray]

https://home.comcast.net/~piesfinder/202.mp3

https://home.comcast.net/~piesfinder/204.mp3

Thanks for the links.  I can't say I can hear a distinctive voice in his piano works, but then, I've only heard two small examples.  The first interested me for its rhythmic play (sort of like John Adams).  The second sounded like postmortem Scriabin.  Maybe with more listening I'll grasp him.  However, from these two examples, his works definitely deserve close attention.

[indutrial]

P.S. those of us not into the "new complexity" are not necessarily less "interesting" than those of you who are.  Perhaps you could post some links to educate us.  I'm not opposed to "modern music."  I just haven't heard much that convinces me that I want to hear more.  Maybe you can help.

P.P.S  my problem with the "new complexity" is the same problem I have with "metafiction" in literature -- that postmodern, self-imposed self-consciousness that never lets you escape from the artifice of the art object.  Such an experience, for me, destroys the effect of Art.  I want Art to describe, illuminate and enrich my world -- not to reference my world with irony and posturing. 

I don't need irony and narcissism, pies.  I need beauty.

I don't really think he's being that narcissistic here. The goal seems to be more info on the composer/piece in question. The reaction to things like New Complexity and other modern trends on this site has been somewhat of a letdown in the past. Threads about works like Dillon's are born and quickly dissolve into lengthy discourses on aesthetics and everyone's personal tastes, two things which I personally don't care about that much (and I hope I'm not alone on this). I'm not trying to disrespect anyone's personal opinions, but simply expressing an idea that they take the air out of threads very quickly.

I, for one, don't know anything about Dillon, but these pieces definitely raise my curiosity. I'm sure the OP has read this, but I enjoyed this article from the Guardian:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2006/may/10/classicalmusicandopera2

Has anyone heard the piano concerto 'Andromeda' by Dillon? I'd love to know more about that work.

[cmg]

I don't really think he's being that narcissistic here. The goal seems to be more info on the composer/piece in question. The reaction to things like New Complexity and other modern trends on this site has been somewhat of a letdown in the past. Threads about works like Dillon's are born and quickly dissolve into lengthy discourses on aesthetics and everyone's personal tastes, two things which I personally don't care about that much (and I hope I'm not alone on this).

I don't think general disarray was suggesting that "pies" was "narcissistic," but was referring to the narcissism of the so-called and absurdly-named "new complexity" composers.  "Narcissistic" because the technical resources used to expound their musical  expression is dense, convoluted and not at all obvious to an educated listener.  To obscure your intent to listeners is counter-productive.  Why would a composer or writer do that?  Could it be vanity?  Could it be intellectual snobbery?

Dillon's work, however, as evidenced in the links posted here, doesn't strike me as very "complex."  Rather, it sounds quite unoriginal and derivative.  Nothing strikingly new that I can hear.  Nothing particularly winning or moving.  Why this composer has a publisher and an audience is a mystery to me.  Perhaps I need to hear more. 

You object to "discourses on aesthetics and personal taste" regarding so-called modern music.  But this is art.  Not science. What tools do we have to discuss its worth?  Objectivity is clearly not possible.  We're left only with subjective responses, so why do you have a problem with this?

[indutrial]

You object to "discourses on aesthetics and personal taste" regarding so-called modern music.  But this is art.  Not science. What tools do we have to discuss its worth?  Objectivity is clearly not possible.  We're left only with subjective responses, so why do you have a problem with this?

I have a problem with it because a lot of the aesthetic issues that bloom out of threads like this one widen the void between the thread's subject matter and the topic of discussion. The end result is usually a bunch of self-involved philosophical pondering and aimless discourse on the nature of things like "what is music vis-a-vis the audience." I'm not really against these kind of arguments through and through, but I'd rather see them stick to their own threads.

I've never said that objectivity is truly possible, but there are certainly ways in which it can be approached or emulated. When idealistic personal tastes and views on aesthetics (which to me is about as important to discuss as the nature of true love or a hundred other fantastical nonentities) take over, it just seems like a missed opportunity to actually discuss topics that transcend the fruitless and useless nature of "you feel this way, I feel that way, hooray for our self-assuredness" attitude that, to me, defeats the purpose of talking to anyone about anything.

This is not really the case in this thread. I'm mostly referring to several other threads from the past that turned into garbage.

[thalbergmad]

I'm mostly referring to several other threads from the past that turned into garbage.

Well, some of them started as garbage as well.

Thal