Aaron Cassidy- Ten Monophonic Miniatures

[john11inc]

Aaron Cassidy's "Ten Monophonic Miniatures" are composed under the presupposition that, besides dynamics in their standard form (e.g. ppp, mf, sffz) and durational discrepancies (e.g. staccato, legato, sostenuto), the form of attack placed on the keyboard has a distinct, recurring and static effect on the tone and color of the sound produced.  This is a continuation of theories and compositional techniques Richard Barrett, Vinko Globokar, Alain Louvier and Ian Pace were using at the time, taken to a somewhat extreme level, such as but not limited to using knuckles, fingernails, palms in various positions or specific striking maneuvers under the notion that it would create a slightly different tone than normal performance of the instrument would.  An example:



As you can see, performance instructions are given, while a unique notational method is used to notate how a note should be struck.  Obviously, this is partially to add a sense of physicality and struggle to the work (Cassidy is an admitted New Complexity composer), but my question is, do you think that using techniques like this actually create different tones?  Another example of the notation from this work:



You can as well listen to the first three miniatures here:

http://www.aaroncassidy.com/soundclips/miniatures1-3.mp3

My next question would be, of course, if Cassidy's theory is actually true, is it also true that certain pianists have a certain "sound" not due to technique, musicianship or even anything conscious, but perhaps due to merely, I don't know, how many millimeters long bone x in hand y is, or the weight of a tendon in his or her pinky finger, or simply the way the pianist curls his or her finger a fraction more or less than another?

[lostinidlewonder]

Freaky time signature and written as difficult as possible to understand! I am sure this can all be simplified into something more legible. The subtle difference in "the form of attack" is so small and insignificant to me as a musician, that to a normal listener I would think it is beyond detection!
I don't see how this sounds delicate or dancelike at all, at least the dance part must be some twisted interpretive dance I think I have played this piece before, that day when I clean the piano keys with a rag. I like looking at the sheets for this type of music, it looks in some way quite pretty, art itself!

Sadly however, for me, the musical value of this type of music is near zero. There is nothing really you hear from this music that you say, ah yes this is something interesting and something I haven't heard used elsewhere. Or, this is amazing use of the traditional elements! That is what I really want from listening to music, something which simply sounds random to me belongs to that group of random sounding music. It is fun, you can improvize it with no real musical skill. It is a form of musical expression, but nothing to devote your life to, certainly not something I would spend my time studying from other people if I can produce the same effect by improvizing and without the hundreds of hours of practice memorizing someone who decides to write down their random music.

... if Cassidy's theory is actually true, is it also true that certain pianists have a certain "sound" not due to technique, musicianship or even anything conscious, but perhaps due to merely, I don't know, how many millimeters long bone x in hand y is, or the weight of a tendon in his or her pinky finger, or simply the way the pianist curls his or her finger a fraction more or less than another?

I think our technique and musicianship overrides the subtle effect the make up of our physical body has on the piano. Essentially the only force in the piano we control with our hands is the hammer and the string, that is all we can control, everything that we do either effects this directly. Mucking around with processes which are before this physical energy transfer has little or no benefit to the sound. If a finger is curled when playing a note opposed to straightened and the notes are struck with the same force, there is no difference in sound, just a difference in visual appreciation of technique.

Alterations to how we physically play something on the piano however can aid in producing a desired sound. It might be more effective to put your fingerings in a certain position opposed to the other choices you may have, the sound may not be different but the physical effort required to produce it has a difference. I feel that writing music which requires you to physically touch the keys in a precise AND peculiar way is somewhat ineffective music. Unless we can really hear the difference, putting those difficulties in your music seems simply for the sake to make things difficult!

[thalbergmad]

I would have thought that the piano being played was of equal importance to the protuberance being used to strike the note.

If a key is being struck with the same force, i cannot see how it would matter what was striking it, whether it being finger, knuckle, nose, or 11 incher. However, if in direct contact with the string, I can envisage the sound produced being different.

Interesting sheet music.

Thal

[pianowolfi]

Men oft believe, if only they hear wordy pother,
That there must surely be in it some thought or other.

Mephisto in Faust 1 (Goethe)

Sometimes I think very much the same thing is true for music as well 

[allthumbs]

I would have thought that the piano being played was of equal importance to the protuberance being used to strike the note.

If a key is being struck with the same force, i cannot see how it would matter what was striking it, whether it being finger, knuckle, nose, or 11 incher. However, if in direct contact with the string, I can envisage the sound produced being different.

Interesting sheet music.

Thal

Bragging again, I see.

Which protuberance do you prefer to use from the norm?  

BTW, on YouTube I once saw two pianists playing a Chopsticks duet handsfree.  

EDIT:

A quick search turned it up.

Either one of them you?

I wonder what unique notational method would be used for the performance instructions of this piece.

[john11inc]

Bragging again, I see.

I believe he's bragging on my behalf.


And no, neither of those boys is me.  My penis is much more sophisticated than to play "Chopsticks".

[ahinton]

My penis is much more sophisticated than to play "Chopsticks".

Might you also be implying that this is because Chopsticks is not a very long piece?

Dear me! If proof were required that the distance between penile and senile is even shorter, it's on this thread...

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

Might you also be implying that this is because Chopsticks is not a very long piece?

Dear me! If proof were required that the distance between penile and senile is even shorter, it's on this thread...

Best,

Alistair

It's not that.  It's merely that, due to my girth, I'm only capable of playing rather large tone clusters.  As such, the Stockhausen X is the staple piece of my penis' repertoire (shudders at using the words "staple" and "penis" in the same sentence).

[weissenberg2]

That is appalling.

[lostinidlewonder]

It's merely that, due to my girth, I'm only capable of playing rather large tone clusters.

There was a show in running through Australia called "Puppetry of the Penis", they sure did demonstrate a lot of ways in which you can contrort yourself They may even have piano technique tips for you, I think I have their email address somewhere.

[allthumbs]

I wonder why no females have hijacked this thread yet. Although weissenberg2 hasn't specified a gender.

[weissenberg2]

I wonder why no females have hijacked this thread yet. Although weissenberg2 hasn't specified a gender.

I am a male, and how did I hijack the thread?

[allthumbs]

You didn't. I thought a few females might have some comments, but I guess not.

[furtwaengler]

Sadly however, for me, the musical value of this type of music is near zero. There is nothing really you hear from this music that you say, ah yes this is something interesting and something I haven't heard used elsewhere. Or, this is amazing use of the traditional elements! That is what I really want from listening to music, something which simply sounds random to me belongs to that group of random sounding music. It is fun, you can improvize it with no real musical skill. It is a form of musical expression, but nothing to devote your life to, certainly not something I would spend my time studying from other people if I can produce the same effect by improvizing and without the hundreds of hours of practice memorizing someone who decides to write down their random music.

I like the note about improvisation, ol' Roger Woodward student. What is your take, Mr. inch? How does someone of your tastes and expertise respond to something like "A Giant Chain Spitting Machine"

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35436.0

or "Crash and Burn"

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35182.msg407176#msg407176

?

This is a serious question. I'd love to know how your reactions to these ramblings differ from those of some of the meticulously detailed compositions you hold dear. I'd love you to completely dismantle these.

[john11inc]

I like the note about improvisation, ol' Roger Woodward student. What is your take, Mr. inch? How does someone of your tastes and expertise respond to something like "A Giant Chain Spitting Machine"

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35436.0

or "Crash and Burn"

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35182.msg407176#msg407176

?

This is a serious question. I'd love to know how your reactions to these ramblings differ from those of some of the meticulously detailed compositions you hold dear. I'd love you to completely dismantle these.

Both garbage; the second one is far worse, however.  Aimless and plagiaristic in parts (also, you need to work on your tremelos.  A lot).

If you think you're making a point, it's merely that you're incapable of discussing this music.  Ironically, I think it's funny that you write these pitiful, little attempts at vindicating the pieces, giving explanations to your meaninglessness, surely as an afterthought.  Sounds like you're just doing what you and your buttbuddy are griping about, except much, much, much, much worse.

I'd also love to see either of you improvise something with the same aural sensation as, say, Stockhausen Klavierstuck X, Boulez Deuxieme Sonate, Ferneyhough Lemma-Icon-Epigram, Sciarrino Sonata No. 5 etc.  Or this piece.  You'll quickly find that you can't, which means there's something going on you're missing.  That's right, believe it or not, you don't understand.  Just like people don't understand Fellini or Joyce or Kandinsky, you don't understand contemporary music.  There's no difference, here.  When "we" say that, it's not because there isn't something to get, or because we can't explain it, or because it's trivial.  It's because you're not capable of understanding and we're sick of wasting our time coming to that conclusion.

You're just inferior is all.  And so is your music.  If you want to get in a real argument, go take it up with all the people who have Ph. D.'s in musicology, 95% of whom will tell you that you're a plebe.  I've had this conversation too many times to waste any effort on someone as useless as you.  I just wish you could realize how useless your comments are, how stupid you look to people who know what they're talking about, how pitiful your argument is (or lack there of), how unfunny you are, how ignorant you are, how ill-informed, ill-conceived, philosophically and semantically childish your pathetic attempt at sounding smart (and the only people who think you are smart are more of you; what a select group), why your psychological motives are misguided and that they'll be misguided towards this; that's all I want in life.  For people like you to not be so incredibly stupid.  Not because I'm a humanitarian, but because there are so many people out there just as stupid as you, and I don't like dealing with you people, because you're only smart enough to realize the words that just came out of your mouth are, indeed, in English, most of them are in the right places to form proper sentences and they're vaguely tangential to what I'm talking about.  Just the perfect storm of stupid; smart enough to vomit these posts, too stupid to realize they're vomit.  But no, you don't think about any of these things.  You can't think about that many things at once, you can't even think about some of them at all because they're too complicated, or because they require some actual knowledge, which you don't have, yet think your statement is as valid as someone who knows their sh*t.  You just are incapable and unwilling to think on the level necessary to discuss these things; go away forever and rot in your library of Chopin scores.

But hey, I must just be being a jerk, or taking exceptional offense, or being defensive, whatever you want to call it.  But then again, you did call me an expert, so you must be aware of our... intellectual differences.  Despite this, I must still be wrong, right?


You people make me want to throw up sometimes all the time.  If I could press a button that would kill you and the people like you (substandard thinkers) I'd do it, and hope it was really, really painful for you.  I know that sounds like some psychopath sh*t (and it really is textbook BPD, that sentence out of context), but you're the mental case, because you know you're stupid, ignorant and uneducated, yet you come at me.  It's like intellectual suicide.  I'm sure you know you're wrong at some level of your primitive, reptilian brain, knowing you should flee instead of pick up this fight, but you don't, which to me is way crazier than being *** exasperated by your idiocy.  In fact, I'm sure most of you just wanted to piss me off, but you're not making me mad because of what you say.  You're making me mad because you think you have the intellectual right to say it.  I couldn't give less of a *** about what you think, nor is it something I haven't heard a billion times.  See, you don't even know why you say things; that's how inferior you are.  But again, you just don't think about that.  The confidence you and your other, insignificant friends have truly sickens me.  It actually gives me a faint nausea, because it is so undeserved in the realm of intellectual endeavors.  Literally sick.  That is how stupid you are to me.  You literally give me a head-ache and make my stomach hurt.

You don't make me angry and you can't challenge me.  All you can do is bore me and disgust me to retaliation.  Your lack of intellect is just as disgusting to me as my attitude is disgusting to you.  This response is as nasty as it is because you need to understand that, and you need to understand that I am intelligent and you are not, and you're going to run into a lot of people smarter and more studied than me, and they're going to feel the exact, same way, and these are the people that matter.  Except they're probably going to have dealt with this for longer than my 21 years has, and like I said, I don't have a god complex: you'll run into people much more intelligent to me, and their reaction will be even stronger, even more dismissive.  Change your actions or get used to being trapped in barely-mediocrity.

[thalbergmad]

This is why we need this man on this forum.

Absolute classic.

Thal

[weissenberg2]

Both garbage; the second one is far worse, however.  Aimless and plagiaristic in parts (also, you need to work on your tremelos.  A lot).

If you think you're making a point, it's merely that you're incapable of discussing this music.  Ironically, I think it's funny that you write these pitiful, little attempts at vindicating the pieces, giving explanations to your meaninglessness, surely as an afterthought.  Sounds like you're just doing what you and your buttbuddy are griping about, except much, much, much, much worse.

I'd also love to see either of you improvise something with the same aural sensation as, say, Stockhausen Klavierstuck X, Boulez Deuxieme Sonate, Ferneyhough Lemma-Icon-Epigram, Sciarrino Sonata No. 5 etc.  Or this piece.  You'll quickly find that you can't, which means there's something going on you're missing.  That's right, believe it or not, you don't understand.  Just like people don't understand Fellini or Joyce or Kandinsky, you don't understand contemporary music.  There's no difference, here.  When "we" say that, it's not because there isn't something to get, or because we can't explain it, or because it's trivial.  It's because you're not capable of understanding and we're sick of wasting our time coming to that conclusion.

You're just inferior is all.  And so is your music.  If you want to get in a real argument, go take it up with all the people who have Ph. D.'s in musicology, 95% of whom will tell you that you're a plebe.  I've had this conversation too many times to waste any effort on someone as useless as you.  I just wish you could realize how useless your comments are, how stupid you look to people who know what they're talking about, how pitiful your argument is (or lack there of), how unfunny you are, how ignorant you are, how ill-informed, ill-conceived, philosophically and semantically childish your pathetic attempt at sounding smart (and the only people who think you are smart are more of you; what a select group), why your psychological motives are misguided and that they'll be misguided towards this; that's all I want in life.  For people like you to not be so incredibly stupid.  Not because I'm a humanitarian, but because there are so many people out there just as stupid as you, and I don't like dealing with you people, because you're only smart enough to realize the words that just came out of your mouth are, indeed, in English, most of them are in the right places to form proper sentences and they're vaguely tangential to what I'm talking about.  Just the perfect storm of stupid; smart enough to vomit these posts, too stupid to realize they're vomit.  But no, you don't think about any of these things.  You can't think about that many things at once, you can't even think about some of them at all because they're too complicated, or because they require some actual knowledge, which you don't have, yet think your statement is as valid as someone who knows their sh*t.  You just are incapable and unwilling to think on the level necessary to discuss these things; go away forever and rot in your library of Chopin scores.

But hey, I must just be being a jerk, or taking exceptional offense, or being defensive, whatever you want to call it.  But then again, you did call me an expert, so you must be aware of our... intellectual differences.  Despite this, I must still be wrong, right?


You people make me want to throw up sometimes all the time.  If I could press a button that would kill you and the people like you (substandard thinkers) I'd do it, and hope it was really, really painful for you.  I know that sounds like some psychopath sh*t (and it really is textbook BPD, that sentence out of context), but you're the mental case, because you know you're stupid, ignorant and uneducated, yet you come at me.  It's like intellectual suicide.  I'm sure you know you're wrong at some level of your primitive, reptilian brain, knowing you should flee instead of pick up this fight, but you don't, which to me is way crazier than being *** exasperated by your idiocy.  In fact, I'm sure most of you just wanted to piss me off, but you're not making me mad because of what you say.  You're making me mad because you think you have the intellectual right to say it.  I couldn't give less of a *** about what you think, nor is it something I haven't heard a billion times.  See, you don't even know why you say things; that's how inferior you are.  But again, you just don't think about that.  The confidence you and your other, insignificant friends have truly sickens me.  It actually gives me a faint nausea, because it is so undeserved in the realm of intellectual endeavors.  Literally sick.  That is how stupid you are to me.  You literally give me a head-ache and make my stomach hurt.

You don't make me angry and you can't challenge me.  All you can do is bore me and disgust me to retaliation.  Your lack of intellect is just as disgusting to me as my attitude is disgusting to you.  This response is as nasty as it is because you need to understand that, and you need to understand that I am intelligent and you are not, and you're going to run into a lot of people smarter and more studied than me, and they're going to feel the exact, same way, and these are the people that matter.  Except they're probably going to have dealt with this for longer than my 21 years has, and like I said, I don't have a god complex: you'll run into people much more intelligent to me, and their reaction will be even stronger, even more dismissive.  Change your actions or get used to being trapped in barely-mediocrity.

He was talking about Xenakis and did say Xenakis is one of the most jaw-dropping composers, thus I think he does understand atonal music. But what sanctioned you wanting to kill him and "Everyone like him"?

[lostinidlewonder]

I'd take you up on that improv challenge and I know most people will agree with me that the improv sounds similar to the random composiiton (perhaps the few random music fanatics can tell a difference, but how can I produce something exactly the same or with the exact same structure? I don't have to, they draw a triangle with many many fuzzy little eccentric smudges, I can draw the general smudge and most people wont know the difference.)

I know I could reproduce something that sounds much of any of that complex random music. If you wanted more structure then I could basically do it all in a Midi recording, cut, paste, edit, bobs your uncle you produce the same results.

Since probably 1% of listeners would understand "random" music and be able to decipher phrases and memorize them (hum them back in their heads when the music is not playing) only that small chunk of people would recognise one composer of the "random" style over the other. However give a "normal" listener of music a sample of this professional, a small snippet say 30 seconds, juxtapose that with an improv focused on a similar sound, and the listener will not know which one is the professional written music composition and which one is the organic improv. Just ask any normal person

[bluepianogirl]

This is why we need this man on this forum.

Absolute classic.

Thal

I guess you're right. But what was that about killing people?? And he even said he wasn't angry! So that was just a rational decision?? Is he some kind of Hitler wannabe? Deciding who is good enough to live and who should die just because someone isn't the way he wants them to be?? Bad!!

[john11inc]

I'd take you up on that improv challenge and I know most people will agree with me that the improv sounds similar to the random composiiton (perhaps the few random music fanatics can tell a difference, but how can I produce something exactly the same or with the exact same structure? I don't have to, they draw a triangle with many many fuzzy little eccentric smudges, I can draw the general smudge and most people wont know the difference.

I know I could reproduce something that sounds much of any of that complex random music. If you wanted more structure then I could basically do it all in a Midi recording, cut, paste, edit, bobs your uncle you produce the same results.

But there is no real point in doing so, 1) wastes my precious music time, 2) proves an easy to prove point with basic logic. Since probably 1% of listeners would understand "random" music and be able to decipher phrases and memorize them (hum them back in their heads when the music is not playing) only that small chunk of people would recognise one composer of the "random" style over the other. However give a "normal" listener of music a sample of this professional, a small snippet say 30 seconds, juxtapose that with an improv focused on a similar sound, and the listener will not know which one is the professional written music composition and which one is the organic improv. Just ask any normal person

By "normal" you mean "uneducated in contemporary music".

Which means your post is useless, because we're not talking about that.  If someone wants to come on here and act all tough and righteous I'm not going to put up with it; if you came on here and were like, "I don't really understand the significance of this music's ideology and I disagree with it" I wouldn't bother you (that's not to say you wouldn't get an ear-full if your comment was more along the lines of "this music is total garbage").  Likewise, if you were Ian Pace or Elliott Carter and came on here and said "this music is total garbage" then I wouldn't be disrespectful because those people actually know what they're talking about, just like how Alistair didn't like the piece by Gordon Downie in the other thread where this guy and his buddy were attempting to harass me and the music, I didn't get in a big spat with him; pleasant, albeit argumentative, discourse.  But if someone comes on here knowing so little and purporting to know so much, I get irritated.  And when I deal with it from the same person over and over, then it becomes a form of harassment (or at least feels like it), and I harass back.


Also, making long posts on this forum is more of a waste of your time than actually attempting to duplicate complex, atonal music in the quest to prove yourself correct, if I may be so bold as to add.  Back it up.

[john11inc]

I guess you're right. But what was that about killing people?? And he even said he wasn't angry! So that was just a rational decision?? Is he some kind of Hitler wannabe? Deciding who is good enough to live and who should die just because someone isn't the way he wants them to be?? Bad!!

Ohhhhh, Nazi.  Original.

Unless you're against the death penalty in all forms, your argument fails.  I don't want to kill someone for how he/she is born, only for how he/she acts.  In my book, being a rapist and acting stupid are equally disreputable.  Just a different set of rules.

[john11inc]

He was talking about Xenakis and did say Xenakis is one of the most jaw-dropping composers, thus I think he does understand atonal music. But what sanctioned you wanting to kill him and "Everyone like him"?

Knowing about Chopin doesn't make you a Liszt expert, nor does liking Chopin means you're an expert on him.

Also, pies likes Xenakis.  Pies.  Do you think pies knows something?  At all?

[lostinidlewonder]

By "normal" you mean "uneducated in contemporary music".

Normal could also mean "uneducated in the ability to evaluate ancient chinese antiques". How much education does one need to appreciate music? A book doesn't teach you how to listen and how to know if you like something or not. As a musician my ear can hear all types of music and with my years of study and countless hours of practice at the piano i am able to reproduce sounds that I hear from within my head through improvisation. I find random sounding music a lot easier to reproduce than something with a more formal style.

If someone wants to come on here and act all tough and righteous I'm not going to put up with it;

Does it seem I am trying to be tough or righteous? It is a truth for me that if I improv in the style provided for us to download I am certain that most people would not be able to tell which one was which. That is not to say what I do is as good as the composer who the very few listeners will appreciate, but "good" is subjective. I would admit what I produce isn't as good because the time I devoted to the work would be hundreds of times less than the composer himself/herself! I must pay respect to musicians who spend time in the eccentric and although I could echo what they produce, I can of course not capture the entire soul of what they write.

What I produce will sound similar to the random composition and most people will agree with it. Because I can fool most people then I would be happy that I can produce the same result without wasting countless hours memorizing an actual random piece.

Ask me to do the same with more normal musical forms and I will not be able to do it as effectively. Play in a Liszt or Chopin etude style, yeah right, tough stuff! Random music has an ambigious form to it, people fail to remember what they hear, they merely listen and let the sound hit them. The expert random music listener can hear the phrases, anticipates the eccentric sounds, I can admit this from listening to countless hours of experimental piano music (notably playing on the piano strings opposed to the keys themselves).

if: "I don't really understand the significance of this music's ideology and I disagree with it" I wouldn't bother you

I don't think it is useless or without merit, but I do believe that it is not something that can't be reproduced with less intensive accurate memory/sight reading work.

If you were Ian Pace or Elliott Carter and came on here and said "this music is total garbage" then I wouldn't be disrespectful because those people actually know what they're talking about, just like how Alistair didn't like the piece by Gordon Downie in the other thread where this guy and his buddy were attempting to harass me and the music, I didn't get in a big spat with him; pleasant, albeit argumentative, discourse.  

Luckily this statement only deals with 2 people in this entire world. I dodge this IF, THEN action at least without any defense!

But if someone comes on here knowing so little and purporting to know so much, I get irritated.  And when I deal with it from the same person over and over, then it becomes a form of harassment (or at least feels like it), and I harass back.

How do you know I know nothing or so little? I could be the most impressive improviser you have ever met.

Also, making long posts on this forum is more of a waste of your time than actually attempting to duplicate complex, atonal music in the quest to prove yourself correct, if I may be so bold as to add.  Back it up.

The length of my posts are not a product of a lot of time. I can write them quite quickly because I type at a fast rate. My accuracy in spelling is not always correct becaue I dont really have the time to proof read.

To produce the improv would require at least an hours of work which totally doesn't interest me just as a matter of debate on a little online message board.

[thalbergmad]

We seem to be trapped in a never ending cycle.

1. John appears on the forum after being banned for a while and behaves for a short period.

2. John posts recordings/sheets that he knows some people will call garbage.

3. John asserts his superiority and accuses most of the forum of being plebs.

4. Some people dare to respond and challenge him.

6. John calls us all wankers and substantiates his greatness as he once spoke to Ian Pace on the phone 3 years ago.

7. John finally loses it completely and gets banned.

Back to number one and so on.

I am glad he keeps coming back, but the question must be why, when we are such divs?

Thal

[weissenberg2]

Also, pies likes Xenakis.  Pies.  Do you think pies knows something?  At all?

well...your point stands.

[furtwaengler]

Please note: This board is primarily intended for professional pianists and piano teachers as well as piano students and amateures at an advanced level. If you are not part of this group, consider posting in the Student's Corner instead.

Wow, had I read that in detail before, I'd never have posted.

Your epic rant probably exceeded some expectations, and reading it reminded me a little of Sviatoslav Richter's view of people who didn't like/understand Wagner's Ring. But I comfort and assure you, there is nobody here or elsewhere as stupid as me. I've been weary of that fact, hiding my lack of education, my total inexperience, the mistakes I made along that road effecting my development, hiding with joy/apprehension that I somehow fooled some. 

Honestly, I wish that I could know about this music (yes, I do like Xenakis...but Xenakis is easy to like; it doesn't mean I understand it; it just means I like it.) I have tried unsuccessfully to thank you in the past for your site, for your uploads, for attempting to bring this music to greater accessibility. I am not trying to harass you. Sometimes I try to get close enough to gain a glimpse of what people like you know and think - but I note not all people like you are as big dicks as you, even if they do think what you think...but if you're 21 maybe you'll have time to mellow. You don't have to be such a repulsive soul, even if you're so constantly repulsed. If you can't express yourself without demeaning insults, innuendo, and death threats, are you really as advanced as you think? (Maybe in music, but certainly not in the world.)

I wish I did understand, and I wish I was accepted in such an exclusive club, but in the end I know that there are things that are far greater than me, to which I will not be able to attain. I spoke of what I did not know and I repent in dust and ashes.

Dave

[lostinidlewonder]

Dave you are such an understanding person and there is no music that is too intelligent for you, or anyone else for that matter, unless you are deaf but then you could put the music to color patterns or feel the vibratations, who is to say you coudn't listen still!

All of us can hear the music, just because we might not compeltely or even partially understand how it was written doesn't matter one bit. We can appreciate that the clock is turning, we do not have to go into the inside of how it works to appreciate it. IF someone said to you, "HA you like Rolex?!? But do you even know how the cogs are exactly aligned? NO!? HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU ENJOY OR EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT YOU APPRECIATE IT!" this is just silliness.

[john11inc]

Wow, had I read that in detail before, I'd never have posted.

Your epic rant probably exceeded some expectations, and reading it reminded me a little of Sviatoslav Richter's view of people who didn't like/understand Wagner's Ring. But I comfort and assure you, there is nobody here or elsewhere as stupid as me. I've been weary of that fact, hiding my lack of education, my total inexperience, the mistakes I made along that road effecting my development, hiding with joy/apprehension that I somehow fooled some.  

Honestly, I wish that I could know about this music (yes, I do like Xenakis...but Xenakis is easy to like; it doesn't mean I understand it; it just means I like it.) I have tried unsuccessfully to thank you in the past for your site, for your uploads, for attempting to bring this music to greater accessibility. I am not trying to harass you. Sometimes I try to get close enough to gain a glimpse of what people like you know and think - but I note not all people like you are as big dicks as you, even if they do think what you think...but if you're 21 maybe you'll have time to mellow. You don't have to be such a repulsive soul, even if you're so constantly repulsed. If you can't express yourself without demeaning insults, innuendo, and death threats, are you really as advanced as you think? (Maybe in music, but certainly not in the world.)

I wish I did understand, and I wish I was accepted in such an exclusive club, but in the end I know that there are things that are far greater than me, to which I will not be able to attain. I spoke of what I did not know and I repent in dust and ashes.

Dave

I dunno how much/which parts of this post are supposed to be sarcastic, but I guess I'm sorry.  It's not really your fault; it's gyzzzmo and lostinidlewonders', and all the hundreds/thousands of people I've had to deal with over/over/over/over/over again on here in the past, many of whom have made a hobby out of harassing me on this forum.  You just aligned with them at a time in which I was at my rope's end in dealing with their ignorance.  I don't have much against you.  I guess just keep enjoying whatever music it is you enjoy on whatever level it is you enjoy it.  Sorry x:

People who don't like this kind of music don't bother me.  People who say it's "pointless" or "useless" or can't express their dislike in any way other than making derogatory remarks bother me.  I don't understand why there's a difference between me making remarks about those people and them making remarks about the music I've devoted my life to.  Frankly, because there isn't a difference.

[john11inc]

How do you know I know nothing or so little? I could be the most impressive improviser you have ever met.

You seem to be forgetting I've been here since 2004.

[furtwaengler]

soliloquy?

[john11inc]

soliloquy?

Among others.

[lostinidlewonder]

You seem to be forgetting I've been here since 2004.

I haven't met anyone from pianostreet in person, so how long you have been here is rather irrelevant.

[furtwaengler]

I was unfair, seeing the direction this thread was taking, to try to get some personal gain out of it. I wanted an honest answer and part of your post was intelligent and true, particularly

Both garbage; the second one is far worse, however.  Aimless and plagiaristic in parts (also, you need to work on your tremelos.  A lot).

Absolutely true, though I still get a kick out of them (probably because I'm the one that did them.) and

Ironically, I think it's funny that you write these pitiful, little attempts at vindicating the pieces, giving explanations to your meaninglessness, surely as an afterthought.

Of course as an afterthought! I know I do that and have struggled a bit, not so much with its meaninglessness, but with remembering that I at one time had aspirations of being a composer, which I failed to fulfill due to many reasons, and that in improvisation I have greatly exceeded what I could say in composition. This definitely bothers me, because I struggle to think that improvisation could ever be composition (which you support dramatically), though sometimes the goal of each is the other. Anyway, to improvise something with the same aural sensation as, say Boulez Deuxieme Sonate...no, maybe we can come up with a similar sound, a "plagiarization" if you will, but Boulez's sonatas are anything but random. After a concert I was actually able to shake Boulez's hand and say some kind words on his orchestral expansions of some of the Notations, some the most utterly ravishing pieces conceived for the orchestra, and he was extremely gracious to me (I'm so glad he didn't know I was an idiot! But it was a short and fortunate meeting, and he'd just finished conducting Schoenberg's Pelleas und Melisande five minutes earlier.) Anyway, this thread was hijacked and you did ask some interesting questions.

Aaron Cassidy's "Ten Monophonic Miniatures" are composed under the presupposition that, besides dynamics in their standard form (e.g. ppp, mf, sffz) and durational discrepancies (e.g. staccato, legato, sostenuto), the form of attack placed on the keyboard has a distinct, recurring and static effect on the tone and color of the sound produced.  This is a continuation of theories and compositional techniques Richard Barrett, Vinko Globokar, Alain Louvier and Ian Pace were using at the time, taken to a somewhat extreme level, such as but not limited to using knuckles, fingernails, palms in various positions or specific striking maneuvers under the notion that it would create a slightly different tone than normal performance of the instrument would.  An example:



As you can see, performance instructions are given, while a unique notational method is used to notate how a note should be struck.  Obviously, this is partially to add a sense of physicality and struggle to the work (Cassidy is an admitted New Complexity composer), but my question is, do you think that using techniques like this actually create different tones?  Another example of the notation from this work:



You can as well listen to the first three miniatures here:

http://www.aaroncassidy.com/soundclips/miniatures1-3.mp3

My next question would be, of course, if Cassidy's theory is actually true, is it also true that certain pianists have a certain "sound" not due to technique, musicianship or even anything conscious, but perhaps due to merely, I don't know, how many millimeters long bone x in hand y is, or the weight of a tendon in his or her pinky finger, or simply the way the pianist curls his or her finger a fraction more or less than another?

I cannot really see the instructions on the score or grasp the unique notational method from the pictures, but your synopsis and the mp3 gives the philosophy. And I remember, didn't Pace write something similar in the forward to Dusapin's Etudes? And I will admit that at this point I don't get much of a thrill from the aural sensation of pieces posted, but the curiosity is there, and if there's something I'm missing, I may still get it down the line. It's happened this way for a number of works and composers, for I hate closing doors (I'm starting to love Jonathan Harvey after being confused for years...again, this doesn't mean I understand him, just that I'm starting to enjoy what he does.) I think with this Cassidy there is a much greater need for understanding before enjoyment, because it is grounded in the philosophy, physics of the instrument, the attack of the performer.

Yes, of course these different techniques are going to give different tones, and that is no new knowledge. It's part of any good pianists' technique to try different and sometimes unusual attacks to bring out some expressive purpose; performing from Beethoven to Boulez this is true. Cassidy is simply isolating and intensifying this exploration, but in this case isn't the theory itself the purpose? Is there any other destination? Or is this type of piece a study to later expand expressive possibilities of future composition? Do you get something beyond the theory that can be put into words? (Actually a simple yes would suffice, or call my questions stupid)
 
Then your question coming out of this theory would have to be true to some extent. Thinking just on a small level...I've never heard anybody attack a chord the way Rachmaninov could attack a chord...there is a physical advantage involved beyond his obvious imagination and technique. And away from the pianist, it's true that a say a trumpet player would have a certain "sound" not due to technique, musicianship or even anything conscious, but because of the face they were born with. That's one reason why Philip Smith will never sound like David Guerrier.

This actually is an interesting thread and an interesting question, and I'm sorry we all jumped on you. Be careful, though...just as the piano responds differently to how many millimeters long bone x in hand y is, or the weight of a tendon in his or her pinky finger et cetera,  the way we present ourselves to others, whether on an internet forum or out in real life provokes a certain response from others. Check your manners before complaining about all the harassment.  

(BTW, I have to laugh, because the masked insult that was removed from my Beethoven Op. 111 thread seemed more reasonable than all the compliments!)

[john11inc]

(BTW, I have to laugh, because the masked insult that was removed from my Beethoven Op. 111 thread seemed more reasonable than all the compliments!)

What masked insult?  I don't remember leaving a comment on a Beethoven Sonata thread, and I certainly don't remember masking anything I have to say.

[pianowolfi]

What masked insult?  I don't remember leaving a comment on a Beethoven Sonata thread, and I certainly don't remember masking anything I have to say.

oh I saw it too. Guess I see ghosts, then

[furtwaengler]

What masked insult?  I don't remember leaving a comment on a Beethoven Sonata thread, and I certainly don't remember masking anything I have to say.

It was probably only masked to me; I had to take time to look up the term "padowan." So it was a delayed reaction..."Oh, he's making fun of me." You've got to remember, I'm not as smart as them other folk.

Good night, man...wanting a button to kill us all painfully, and forgetting everything you do? I know you're not a sociopath. Lay off the juice!

[pianowolfi]

I think there's a young padowan who badly needs to learn humility and guess what? it's not Furtwängler.

[john11inc]

It was probably only masked to me; I had to take time to look up the term "padowan." So it was a delayed reaction..."Oh, he's making fun of me." You've got to remember, I'm not as smart as them other folk.

Good night, man...wanting a button to kill us all painfully, and forgetting everything you do? I know you're not a sociopath. Lay off the juice!

Social Darwinism (the philosophy of my life) and an understanding that vitriol via cursing and screaming or sarcasm and guile is vitriol either way (my way is just more fun than yours, and no, yours doesn't go unnoticed) are easily confusable with sociopathy; it's easy to see how you are so confused about that, as well as confused about how there isn't any difference between my comments and the comments directed towards me except a smaller number of four letter words.  (This is where you should actually think about that comment instead of just read it; it's not my job to hold your head to the monitor and make you read what I say; if you disregard something I say because you're all pissy and butthurt, that's your loss, not mine)

See.  Yelling is louder, so I get the attention.  I like attention, so I don't really mind <:

"Patience, young padowan" is a common expression, just like "patience, young grasshopper".  They are standard vernacular, whether you are/were familiar with it/them or not.  No, particular spite intended; your miscued prerogative to assume.  The comment I left, which I do remember now, was merely regarding a sense of unmusical hurrying; your interpretation was good in many ways, but it lacked breathing room, a "macro tempo", so to speak.  It was like watching a Woody Allen movie, where you have a character this is just talking non-stop for the entire movie.  Sure, it's fun for the first five minutes, and sure, it's well made (it's Woody Allen, so we'll just assume), but it beats you down over time.

If you can't handle constructive criticism either, you should avoid speaking to me ever.  I know hearing, "oh, it's so special" is nicer, but it's useless.  Totally useless to you, not me.

[john11inc]

I haven't met anyone from pianostreet in person, so how long you have been here is rather irrelevant.

Well I haven't met you in real life either.

By your logic, you can therefore make no comment regarding me what-so-ever that pertains to anything other than my interaction within cyberspace.  If I say I am an astronaut, you are forensically obligated to oblige the notion (according to your logic).

[john11inc]

I think there's a young padowan who badly needs to learn humility and guess what? it's not Furtwängler.

Genuine humility is a sociological detriment to the person who has it.  Feigned humility has many uses, but it has none here where there are no repercussions.  Many philosophers, animal behaviorists and psychologists have made the argument that true humility does not exist; it is a conscious and self-imposed defense mechanism, a form of submission and/or manipulation.

Like when a dog pisses all over itself in fake fear. (The pants I'm wearing are very expensive; I will pass) Humility is a non-secular word in origin; self-sacrifice.  You know I'm not a fan of that sort of stuff.  Humility is also, by definition, self-imposed humiliation.

[furtwaengler]

You never did want to talk about Cassidy's Ten Monophonic Miniatures? Or are we just too inferior and stupid, and you use Cassidy to flaunt that?

Social Darwinism (the philosophy of my life) and an understanding that vitriol via cursing and screaming or sarcasm and guile is vitriol either way (my way is just more fun than yours, and no, yours doesn't go unnoticed) are easily confusable with sociopathy;

To the contrary, I said you are not a sociopath, but I'm sorry if your think your misguided philosophy works. Society will chew you up and spit you out.

(This is where you should actually think about that comment instead of just read it; it's not my job to hold your head to the monitor and make you read what I say; if you disregard something I say because you're all pissy and butthurt, that's your loss, not mine)

Why do you assume I was offended? As if I don't know some of the obvious flaws of my playing? I held the recording back for nearly 3 years! (And I'm SHOCKED by the possitive response ) I just had no idea what you were communicating, so I think you're confused about what is and what is not constructive.

"Patience, young padowan" is a common expression, just like "patience, young grasshopper".  They are standard vernacular, whether you are/were familiar with it/them or not.  No, particular spite intended; your miscued prerogative to assume. 

Sorry to be so ignorant, but it's easy to be confused when I must look up terms in an urban dictionary. "Patience young padowan" does not strike me as constructive criticism, but that's probably my fault, because how could you have known my ignorance to this vernacular would destroy any hope of its potential? The entries in the urban dictionary, mostly Star Wars references easily lead me to interpret it as one of your usual immature insults, asserting my inferiority to your perceived superiority (you know your history). That's not a hard conclusion.

The comment I left, which I do remember now, was merely regarding a sense of unmusical hurrying; your interpretation was good in many ways, but it lacked breathing room, a "macro tempo", so to speak.  It was like watching a Woody Allen movie, where you have a character this is just talking non-stop for the entire movie.  Sure, it's fun for the first five minutes, and sure, it's well made (it's Woody Allen, so we'll just assume), but it beats you down over time.

Now, this I can understand. This is right on the money. This, anybody can compare to my performance and see exactly what you are talking about, clear and true constructive criticism. Why did you not write this in the first place? How on earth could I have gotten that out of "patience young padowan?" Do you see the difference?

If you can't handle constructive criticism either, you should avoid speaking to me ever.  I know hearing, "oh, it's so special" is nicer, but it's useless.  Totally useless to you, not me.

It is often your mistake to think your ill manners constructive, and if people should avoid speaking to you, it has nothing to do with "constructive criticism," but with avoiding the rotten manners of a pretentious punk kid. You are perfectly capable of contributing to this forum; your real critique proves that.

[john11inc]

You never did want to talk about Cassidy's Ten Monophonic Miniatures? Or are we just too inferior and stupid, and you use Cassidy to flaunt that?

Nobody here is talking about the piece any more.  You made a post that was about the ideology of the piece, and then switched half-way through to being about me again.  If you want to talk about me, then let's not blame it on me.  Do you literally need me to copy/paste all the comments that are transpiring in this thread for you as evidence, are you actually unaware of the fact that you and others are concentrating on me instead of the music, or are you just trying to make a point?  Frankly, whether or not your "point" means anything to anyone does not concern me, because it obviously doesn't mean anything to me, which I would hope would be your "point" in the first place.  If it's exhibition, I suggest you start thinking about your own actions as well as mine.  If you want to discuss the piece of music, make a comment about it.  Not a comment about me, or what you think I am, or things I've said, or things you've interpreted about me from some online interaction.

To the contrary, I said you are not a sociopath, but I'm sorry if your think your misguided philosophy works. Society will chew you up and spit you out.

You said I am not a sociopath "because I want to kill everyone" and "because I don't even remember my own actions".  Again, is this exhibition rhetoric, or do you honestly believe yourself?  If you think anyone who vaguely speaks English and doesn't have Autism is going to interpret that comment as sincere, you need to evaluate your use of the language.  Social Darwinism is a philosophy invented by someone far smarter than me or you; take it up with them.  I also severely doubt you understand what it is.

Why do you assume I was offended? As if I don't know some of the obvious flaws of my playing? I held the recording back for nearly 3 years! I just had no idea what you were communicating, so I think you're confused about what is and what is not constructive.

You are not understanding that comment.  It directly proceeded the remark about the execution of what I labeled as "vitriol".  It has nothing to do with your playing or your offense.

Sorry to be so ignorant, but it's easy to be confused when I must look up terms in an urban dictionary. "Patience young padowan" does not strike me as constructive criticism, but that's probably my fault, because how could you have known my ignorance to this vernacular would destroy any hope of its potential? The entries in the urban dictionary, mostly Star Wars references easily lead me to interpret it as one of your usual immature insults, asserting my inferiority to your perceived superiority (you know your history). That's not a hard conclusion.

I don't know my history, apparently.  I have over 100 posts on this account, now.  If you tally those that are constructive and those that are argumentative, you will find it leans hugely in favor of being constructive.  Let's also keep in mind that all but one post are constructive, if we disregard the fact that all, other argumentative posts I've made are in response to other people behaving the exact, same way as I do.  Like I said, less four letter words, same meaning.  But no, everyone else is a saint and I am Satan, because I give slightly less of a sh*t about your feelings and slightly less of a sh*t about what is "acceptable insulting practice".  Do you have any idea how stupid that is?  "Acceptable insulting practice".  That's what this whole ideology you have is about.  I can be more coy, guiled, sarcastic and condescending than anyone you will ever meet, but it's less fun for me because when I go for it, people usually don't even realize I'm insulting them.  Much less fun.  Keep that in mind; I am under more attack than you are, for being an attacker.  That is why this is stupid beyond recognition.  It is playground psychology you and the others like you have.  I don't know how old you are, but apparently you have a lot more growing up than I do when it comes to removing yourself from a confrontation and realizing what it actually is.  Even if my dialog is often immature, at least I understand what this is.  Also, if I remember correctly, I apologized (I doubt you know how rare that is, and you might not care); you could have let it die, but you brought it back up.  You did.

"Padowan" is common language.  I have seen one and a half Star Wars movies in my life and I know the word; therefore it is understandable for me to assume something (you are not the only one with that right), which was that most people know what the word means.  Also, I don't particularly see a difference; a need for patience is merely the abridged version of the comment which you will go on to call highly constructive.  I can not believe you wrote a huge paragraph berating me because you had to look up a word, and subsequently misinterpreted the meaning of my comment.  That is beyond ridiculous.  Just outrageous!  That is like trying to order food in a French and then screaming at the waiter when he brings you a steak, when you tried to order fish, not knowing French.  It's exactly the same.  I am not obligated to leave your video any comment, much less obligated to leave an extensive one.  If you wanted to know what I meant, you should have asked, not make wild assumptions about me insulting you.

Now, this I can understand. This is right on the money. This, anybody can compare my performance to and see exactly what you are talking about, clear and true constructive criticism. Why did you not right this in the first place? How on earth could I have gotten that out of "patience young padowan?" Do you see the difference?

Because, contrary to overwhelmingly popular belief, I am not "pompous" or "pretentious", and leaving a comment like that is just such.  My taste in music may be "pretentious", and I am most certainly arrogant, but I am not those things.  Had you engaged me and asked me what the meaning of my comment was, I would have then explained it to you.
 

It is often your mistake to think your ill manners constructive, and if people should avoid speaking to you, it has nothing to do with "constructive criticism," but with the rotten manners of a pretentious punk kid. You are perfectly capable of contributing to this forum; your real critique about proves that.

I don't think my manners are constructive to anything other than my own enjoyment, as doing what Alistair does in the face of ignorance, for instance, is less fun for me.  The words that I actually type can be constructive; you just have to pay attention to them instead of the way I'm saying them.  Your choice; most people don't.  You come on this forum for enjoyment, and so do I.  I'm not going to ruin my own time by being harassed and just taking it, which is what's happening.  Where's the sympathy for me, eh?  I bite back, I don't bite first; this is almost without variance.  I just bite harder, and I get all the sh*t.  It's so stupid.  Just painfully stupid.  Nobody pays attention to the context of my arguments; all you see are how many times I used the words "***" or "idiot", which is more than the other guy, which means I'm the evil one.  Seriously, go find all the infamous threads of me tearing people up; I never start it.  On here, for example.  Go look in the "polls" sub-board of "Miscellaneous", "Hardest Classical Piece", and you'll find your little posse trying to start sh*t with me, going out of their way to piss me off.  So, excuse me if I get pissed off.

And Thal's idiotic argument that I post these threads to "show off my knowledge" or to "instigate trouble" is asinine.  Trouble comes to me, I don't make it.  Seriously.  Look through the history of all my accounts.  That's:

Skeptopotamus
Soliloquy
I_love_Xenakis
I_heart_Xenakis
s_bussotti
Ikedian
ferret_dance
meowmix
Oeillade

Probably others.  If you actually care this much.  You will see that I'm not the one who starts these fights; I'm just the one who ends them.  Just like I apologized to you to try to end it, which is not my typical strategy, so to speak.  But you brought it back up, and then bitched that it was being brought back up.  What do you think is going to happen if you respond to this post in a civil manner?  Do you think I will still be nasty?  If you respond like you just did, of course I will.  But if you act the way you're telling me I'm supposed to act all I'm going to do is say "fine" and let it be done, which is what I always do.  It's not me: it's you.


Let's take a look:
http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35908.msg412743#msg412743
http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26169.msg412665#msg412665
http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26169.msg412671#msg412671
http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26169.msg412677#msg412677
http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26054.msg412623#msg412623
http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26054.msg412607#msg412607
http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26054.msg412435#msg412435
http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35841.msg412721#msg412721

Undeniable harassment.  So, excuse me if I don't deal with you civilly.  Or, these people.  Like I said, that one, big post had a lot of displaced anger from them to you which I already apologized for, mistaking (possibly) you for being in their crowd, so to speak.  So, if these people harass me, I am not allowed to retaliate?  Are you the Gestapo or something?  You like to insinuate that I'm crazy, but I want to know what sort of crazy, self-serving world it is you're trying to force on me.  Because I don't want any part of it.  I might seem crazy to you, but that's only because I'm sane enough, not rooted in sociostigma enough, to see what is actually going on.

[furtwaengler]

Nobody here is talking about the piece any more.  You made a post that was about the ideology of the piece, and then switched half-way through to being about me again.  

I had thought this was your goal, and I'm sorry that I misinterpreted this and many other things. I see your list of names, and feel some sympathy.

As long as I've been on this forum, I've never been treated unfairly, but I know certain people definitely have. The worst and saddest case I ever saw was Sandro Bisotti (screenname "sarrasani") who from the moment he got here received nothing but ridicule because of the mannerisms in his videos. That was shameful, and I cite it because I know these things happen, and when the posts are rolling in a certain direction it can be a disastrous avalanche. Such an avalanche is what's become of this thread, which I jumped in the middle of with selfish intent. I brought things up again for selfish intent, to try to explain things away. Had I a chance to do things differently, I would. I wish I had asked to clarify instead of making assumptions.

I note your apology and I'm sorry. Please forgive me...I'll start afresh giving you a fair shake.

I'm out of my league, and often have difficulty knowing what a subject is and sticking to it (this is apparent in many a thread). But this is certainly the worst damage I've done here in such little time.

Let's forget it and start over. 
 

[john11inc]

Let's forget it and start over. 
 

Fine.

[lostinidlewonder]

By your logic, you can therefore make no comment regarding me what-so-ever that pertains to anything other than my interaction within cyberspace.  If I say I am an astronaut, you are forensically obligated to oblige the notion (according to your logic).

That is exactly what we are all here for isn't it? Not to question where people come from, but to discuss what they talk about. You cannot believe for one second that you can, simply by reading statements on a forum, know someone completely, so much so to say that they know nothing about a topic. Why do we have to speak for other people or even try to reveal that they know nothing? If what someone says is so ridiculous you can reveal this not by hitting below the belt trying to accuse that the person is a fraud, fake, actor or delusional, but by pointing out why you disagree with them through what they have discussed online.

If you say you are an astronaut I would have to believe you yes! I have no reason not to. However even so, I am not interested in your profession, IQ, qualifications etc etc. I am simply interested in what people have to say, if someone has the highest qualification in music possible in this world but what they say online is destructive, angry, annoyed or whatever other negative emotion, their qualifications are meaningless to me. So too if someone says something intelligent, thought provoking, challenging to my ideologies etc, I do not then go and think about what they have achieved in their real life and then place full doubt on anything they know if we disagree with them. We don't have to be so cynical and if we behave this way then we are not really participating in a free public discussion which pianostreet is all about.

We shouldn't be talking for people or think that we have to highlight to others how terrible someone is. We should keep those opinions to ourselves. No where have I said anything about you personally, yet you happily decide to personally attack people you disagree with. This is fine, but if you want to convince more people who read this thread to understand your side of the story, then use your knowledge, qualifications, whatever you have to make us see the light.

[john11inc]

If you say you are an astronaut I would have to believe you yes!

I am an astronaut.  I work in space and mostly wear white.

I'm also a coin collector.  I can often be seen holding money.

[lostinidlewonder]

Interesting! Now that you have put your profession and a hobby on the table can you tell me how you will use it to talk about the music you posted about? Talking about collecting coins I am an avid collector too, I don't like to touch the money with my bare hands though, the acid in my fingers ruin the coins. I guess, the acid and fingers has a connection in playing random music cos the music does burn like acid when you play it

[tea cup]

The resenters that slight this kind of music simply because it sounds like "random notes": consider how much time went into composing this music. There is obviously something there, as the composer (however sophisticated) obviously put an incredible amount of time into composing it. These pieces need to be listened to not only once, but twice, or perhaps even three times before you can dismiss them as random notes. These composers are trying to do something "new", as Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Schoenberg, etc. once did—that at least should be acknowledged and valued to some extent.

In truth though, there is a lot of rubbish that sounds like plates crashing and cats fighting in garbage cans (perhaps the majority of it!), but not all "new" music is like this.

Enfin, I personally enjoyed listening to these pieces, simply because I've never heard them before.

[tea cup]

Quote myself? Don't mind if I do.

These pieces need to be listened to not only once, but twice, or perhaps even three times before you can dismiss them as random notes.

In addition to this... If you really can't bear listening more than once, then the music is not "for you", and that is OK. Still, I don't think it warrants the "this is random notes anyone can make this music" response simply because you dislike it. Think of all the people that dislike the Grosse fugue, because, to them, it sounds like there "are too many notes", or it sounds like "random notes"! These people exist, I have met them.

I'm not comparing these pieces to the Grosse fugue... But who knows! may be one day one of these composers will compose some thing similar and reach the outward limit of music as Beethoven did.

[iroveashe]

These composers are trying to do something "new", as Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Schoenberg, etc. once did—that at least should be acknowledged and valued to some extent.

The difference is that those composers while they created something new and broke the rules, at the same time they composed extremely beautiful music, that's where the merit lays. Think of Mozart, a lot of people find his music "too catchy" and that is not completely false, however, the genius of Mozart is in combining that catchiness with hidden messages and symbols or just masterfully playing around with the elements that make music, making something like Die Zauberflote, as he said, for both the popular masses and the most demanding musicians. And I say that without even being a big Mozart fan. Now, while I don't doubt that you or anyone can enjoy this modern music and regard it as good, I'd have a hard time believing it sounds beautiful to anyone.

I'm not comparing these pieces to the Grosse fugue... But who knows! may be one day one of these composers will compose some thing similar and reach the outward limit of music as Beethoven did.

I doubt it, because while Beethoven was doing exactly that, from what I'm reading, this composer is more worried about the performer having a hard time turning into sound his notations. That's why in principle I personally am not a fan of this music (despite of how it may sound), because it seems that it relies tremendously on context.