... 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 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.
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
It's merely that, due to my girth, I'm only capable of playing rather large tone clusters.
I wonder why no females have hijacked this thread yet. Although weissenberg2 hasn't specified a gender.
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"https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35436.0or "Crash and Burn" https://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.
This is why we need this man on this forum.Absolute classic.Thal
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
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!!
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"?
By "normal" you mean "uneducated in contemporary music".
If someone wants to come on here and act all tough and righteous I'm not going to put up with it;
if: "I don't really understand the significance of this music's ideology and I disagree with it" I wouldn't bother you
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.
Also, pies likes Xenakis. Pies. Do you think pies knows something? At all?
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
How do you know I know nothing or so little? I could be the most impressive improviser you have ever met.
soliloquy?
You seem to be forgetting I've been here since 2004.
Both garbage; the second one is far worse, however. Aimless and plagiaristic in parts (also, you need to work on your tremelos. A lot).
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.
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:https://www.aaroncassidy.com/soundclips/miniatures1-3.mp3My 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?
(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.
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!
I haven't met anyone from pianostreet in person, so how long you have been here is rather irrelevant.
I think there's a young padowan who badly needs to learn humility and guess what? it's not Furtwängler.
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;
(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)
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Let's forget it and start over.
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).
If you say you are an astronaut I would have to believe you yes!
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.
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.