Fluffy bunnies

[Derek]

Here's a piece I recorded today which I am calling "Fluffy bunnies." In actuality, it was an experiment to see if I could emulate the overall sound of Xenakis. It turned out to be very easy. I know, I'm just uneducated and need to read up on it and then I'll find out it sounds nothing like the great Xenakis! Nothing at all.

To be honest, I enjoyed the physical act of playing this way, but the sound...not so much 

[ongaku_oniko]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA fluffy bunnies?


I prefer to call it spiky porcupines

EDIT: so you don't misunderstand, i LOVE it.

[Derek]

This was uploaded purely as an experiment. Next thing I know I'll be the next great 20th century composer, when all I wanted to do was write some romantic and baroque music. I really hope you're the only one who "loves" it. Haha

[ongaku_oniko]

No, I really did enjoy it. Like I like pieces like this and opus clavicembalisticum. Really gives you something to think about.

[Derek]

Well, if it does that for you then I'm glad. I certainly didn't think anything when I played it, except perhaps a general stochastic (GASP) distribution of white and black keys to get the overall effect. If you like melodic music, check out some of my other uploads (and everyone else in the improv room, too!). I personally find that sort of music much more appealing than fluffy bunnies.

[m1469]

Hi Derek, I am listening right now.  I had actually listened just a little inch before this, and I decided it gave me permission to be the Monsty type at the piano, which I felt I needed to do a bit.  I find that, though mine may have been a different thing, there is indeed a certain kind of physical language to this (and of course, a different sound because of that).  Do I love the sound overall ... I wouldn't say I love it (not in my own, either).  I think it's got its place, though.  Fluffy bunnies?  I don't know  , but who am I to say!

[Derek]

I suppose it has its place...it is called having a "temper tantrum." Or, if it isn't a temper tantrum, I'd call it a "joke." I'll never understand why anybody takes this music seriously, or goes so far as to have "heroes" who compose it such as Xenakis. If you can make identical sound by banging randomly on the keys---what value is there in having "heroes" or "pioneers."  When something is challenging, such as composing melodic music, then you have heroes (living or dead) who were/are really good at it. Since that is the case, this explains the reams and reams of vitriol you get in response whenever you try to call people out on calling this sort of music "great." The truth is, such people are hiding behind a wall of re-definition of words. When something is incomprehensible nonsense like Xenakis you can explain and invent your way into feeling like you know something someone else doesn't. But the truth is---there's nothing there.

I used to find such music abhorrent just because of the dissonance--but now I know this is not why I disliked it. Quantum, furtwaengler, and you, m1469, have all made music I enjoy that have some harsh dissonances in them. The truth is---you were being *musical.* Music such as fluffy bunnies and xenakis is not musical, it is crap. 

[ongaku_oniko]

It's like how people think picasso is a good artist.

And these artists who just dump paint on a canvas and see how it spreads out itself.

I agree that abstract is good, but too abstract is bad. But still, I enjoy this music. Unlike random paintings.

[Derek]

I don't know very much about art, but I've never found picasso incomprehensible. More like fantastical and dreamlike perhaps. But yes, the artistic equivalent would probably be something like jackson pollock.

[lostinidlewonder]

omg Derek these are some killer bunnies or something! I see fur flying all over the place, and the blood!!!!

[Derek]

Yeah it's the soundtrack for this bunny.

[lostinidlewonder]

lol very suitable! When you hit those really high notes now and then I get this image of blood flying and landing lol! It is almost like those scary violin sounds in Psycho.

[quantum]

Derek, I liked this.  Even though you may not feel a connection to this sort music at the moment, don't discount the possibility of incorporating elements of it into your other creations.  You never know, in the future you may find need to express a certain emotion this music evokes. 

lol very suitable! When you hit those really high notes now and then I get this image of blood flying and landing lol! It is almost like those scary violin sounds in Psycho.

They have fluffy bunnies in schools don't they?  Perhaps a reason to march? 

[Derek]

quantum, if anybody on this website or heck anyone in the world could persuade me to like this music, it'd be you. you're like the polar opposite of most people I've encountered who support the creation of such music. All the others seem like "rabble rousers" rather than people who genuinely like it. Maybe both I and said individuals could learn something from this thread.

I think for me I err on the side of Bach's sentiment about music: "The aim and end of all music ought to be the Glory of God and the refreshment of the soul."

And in general I like the creation of music to have an element of challenge in it that actively engages complex processes in my mind. "Fluffy bunnies" involved only the rapid movement of my hands and fingers, very little "response" to the music was actually occurring.

I think part of my problem with accepting extremely abstract music is I'm an engineer. My whole life revolves around objectivity rather than subjectivity, so it makes sense I'm more drawn to music which can more readily accept objective metaphors rather than subjective ones. Perhaps this could also explain my profound lack of ability to associate imagery with music (except painfully obvious ones such as "flight").

On the other hand, there is some music which at one time I found too abstract which I now enjoy, such as your own music quantum, and some of Jarrett's improvisations. However, these still contrast quite starkly with fluffy bunnies or xenakis, in my mind. I hear process, I hear shapes, I feel the music. Xenakis produces, with an immense amount of effort (or so I am told), what I can do with none. Why should I think what he has done is anything special? That being the case, why do people defend him so virulently? I really don't understand it.

[ongaku_oniko]

I don't know who Xenakis is, but are you saying I don't genuinely enjoy this kind of music? Isn't that a bit rude? What do I have to gain by lying?

Do you really think that engineering is "objective"? Go learn some philosophy. Nothing is objective. I hate how some people seem to think that science is the answer to all, when human science has so many fallacies it really isn't much better than religion, if any.

I used to hate this kind of sound too. But is it really wrong, is it really incomprehensible to try and find beauty in something that at first might seem repulsive?

Perhaps I can relate to this music because I'm anti-social. People who see me always think I'm extremely arrogant, and don't really want to associate with me. But really, I'm not such a bad person.

I think the beauty of this is trying to find the harmony, trying to find a melody, trying to find something that moves you in such music. I don't care what you intended to do when you played this, it has nothing to me. When I listen to music, the music becomes mine. The sounds, the pauses, the emotions, they're all mine. And so, even if the reason you made this music was shallow, it doesn't have to be to my ears. What I hear is different from what you played, or what you hear.

And when I find parts of a piece that at first sounds horrible, I feel "ah, this music isn't bad afterall". It makes me happy to know that I can like music that may not be good sounding to other people.

[Derek]

I'm willing to accept that some people enjoy this sort of sound. I'm not willing to accept Xenakis or anybody else as a "hero or pioneer" of it, because I have demonstrated with Fluffy Bunnies that it takes zero talent or effort to create it. If you like the sounds that result, fine, but I don't personally understand anybody who would hold up Xenakis or anybody else who creates it as some kind of hero. That's what I'm commenting on here. I enjoy abstract, dissonant music, too, but only if it really is music.

[ongaku_oniko]

Should anyone be held up like an idol/hero/whatever?

I don't think so. So yes, I agree with you, but at the same time, it's not just this Xenakis (who I still don't have the slightest idea is), but no one should be held up liek that.

Do you think Tom Cruise deserves it? Will Smith? Angelina Jolie? 50 Cent? Rihanna? Brittney Spears?

No.

No one deserves to be seen as somehow greater than other people, because no one is greater than other people

[Derek]

Yes, I think anybody who has achieved great things that have touched others (regardless of how many people, it might just be someone close to me such as a family member or friend) and inspired others can be considered a hero. Someone who poops on my porch and calls it art is not a hero. That's kind of how I feel about Xenakis.

Obviously "hero worship" can be taken too far, to the point where people no longer believe in their own creative impulse. That is certainly negative. But I think it is quite possible to have heroes but still respect your own abilities...that's the state I always strive to be in.

[ongaku_oniko]

The thing is, "great" is not objective. And if some people feel that they have be touched by Xenakis, and I'm sure there are such, seeing as there are people who called him a hero (according to you, anyway)

Then by your definition, he is a hero.

Req 1: Achieve great things.

-Subjective term great, many people however do think that his work is great (according to you)

req 2: touched others

-also true, according to you.

req 3: inspired others

-probably... I mean it inspired you to create "fluffy bunnies" didn't it? :p

[Derek]

This is the point where I must respectfully leave the conversation. When the definition of words can no longer be relied upon for further discussion, there's no sense in continuing. I think I've made my point to the best of my abilities---whether or not anyone gets anything out of that isn't my responsibility anymore. But at the very least I've proven to myself how utterly worthless Xenakis' music is. Except perhaps to remind me why I'm trying to learn how to improvise baroque fugues instead of mire myself in mess of subjectivity, nihilism and confusion.

[ongaku_oniko]

What I'm trying to say is, you don't see the hypocracy of your statements. You say you're objective, yet clearly your definitions are purely subjective.

If you don't like my definition of your statements, then elaborate on what you mean by them. If you can't, that means it isn't objective.

In actuality, you're saying that you don't like this kind of music. You don't think there is anything creative about it. You don't think Xenakis deserves praise.

And even though I still don't know who this person is, all you've said is that you don't think he deserves the praise he gets. You have not given any objective evidence otherwise.

And so, as with everything else in this world, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and objectivity is just a myth.


EDIT:

What do you think of Gaspard de la nuit: Scarbo, and Opus clavicembalsticum?

[Derek]

Do you consider it an objective or subjective belief that objectivity is a myth?

[ongaku_oniko]

That's an awesome question :p

Personally I think there IS an objective truth. After all, "cognito ergo sum". Since something exists, there must be an objective truth.

But as for us humans, I don't think we can ever reach a point where we can agree on an objective truth, so as for all our thoughts, including mine and what I say, they are subjective. I mean subjective in terms of society and how others see it, but it's objective for myself. Sort of.

I hope you understood what I meant, but I know it's not very clear.

[Derek]

This is sort of tangential to the above discussion. But subjectivity versus objectivity in music is a very interesting topic. I wondered for years why composers from the Renaissance up through the Romantic era loved to use thirds so much. Once I bought my clavichord and began learning about the older temperaments I understood why. They were learning about musical intervals. Ones which were "beatless" such as a pure major third, perfect fifth, and octave were particularly interesting because they really stood out from other intervals. These harmonious intervals are particularly pleasing to the ear. The older temperaments were a series of compromises to emphasize the sweetness of the various consonant intervals, since having them all perfect is impossible and results in a "comma" wider than an octave. But they sought this "sweetness" of harmony. Perhaps that is subjective. But--lets say we were not people living in the 21st century with all the complex developments that led to our present state. Would we rather hear a pure major third, or something sour and wavery? Which one is simply more pleasant...less "rough?" The major third. That's just about as close to "objective" as I think we can get in music. It's like it is subjective and objective at the same time. These intervals are beatless---and we really like that. Composers decided that these intervals were put there by God and decided to over emphasize them for hundreds of years. Well...I don't really blame them. When I hear my clavichord play these intervals...it sounds so different from modern instruments. It gets inside my ear in a much different way. Hard to describe. But I guess I know where all those old dead guys were coming from using thirds so much is what I am trying to say.

Their subjective enjoyment of thirds led to objective ways to emphasize them such as voice leading rules and counterpoint. It often took a lot of talent to do this effectively. It takes me a lot of trial and error to learn how to also emphasize thirds effectively in my own music (and this is only an example, I can think of other processes and styles which don't pay much homage to thirds but which are also very difficult to emulate). I guess I just find it hard to respect a compositional process which, since I can emulate it easily, does not challenge me in the least. If you enjoy those sounds make them for yourself I say.

[ongaku_oniko]

Okay, I think I understand what you mean.

And I can't say I disagree. Obviously I don't know as much about you in this aspect (haven't even touched a clavichord before), but I want to ask you this:

If we suddenly had a genius, who, when he plays randomly, beautifully brings out the thirds, and plays really good harmony and counterpoint and other things from musical theory that I don't know about. Basically this guy is able to create sophisticated music without needing to learn how or even think about it.

He's just playing the keys randomly; he doesn't know how to play the piano; in fact he's deaf.

I know this is a highly improbable and theoreticl situation, but in this case, do you think this guy can be held up as a hero and musical genius?

[Derek]

You're right; if talent, hard work, etc. were not required to create things of beauty or in general improve life in other ways, there would probably be no such thing as heroes. I'm glad reality is as it is though; it makes the creation and/or discovery of things of beauty very rewarding.

[ongaku_oniko]

Okay, so what I'm trying to say, is that a musical hero doesn't necessarily have to make good music, he just has to make something hard to replicate. Whether people like the music or not doesn't matter?

[Derek]

I didn't mean to imply that the reason I enjoy the music that I do is because it is difficult to emulate. It just so happens that all the music I subjectively enjoy also has a great deal of effort behind it. I personally and perhaps subjectively believe that to be no coincidence.

[ongaku_oniko]

On the other hand, you can't say that people who's music you think you can imitate didn't put a great deal of effort in writing their music. Just becase you think it sounds random doesn't mean it is.

[Derek]

Well, you've gotten back to the point I originally made. All I care about is the sound. I cannot tell the difference between Fluffy Bunnies and a painstakingly composed piece by Xenakis. Therefore, I do not have any respect for the process he used, because the end result is equivalent to my non-effort in the original post. And I subjectively dislike both Xenakis and the music I made here.

I'd be interested to learn how you can tell (if you can) aurally the difference between the two styles. What is Xenakis doing that I'm not doing, that has any significance to the end result?

[ongaku_oniko]

Well then, if all you care about is the sound, then if some people enjoy xenakis's sound, then it's all good, right?

I still don't see why you hate him so much. I have no idea what you're doing differently, since I don't know who he is. But the point is, your posts seem to be self contradicting. but so are mine.

[Derek]

I don't hate Xenakis the man. From what I've heard he was as nice as the next guy. I strongly dislike his music, and feel that while he may have contrived various processes to create it, that since similar sounds can be created by a total lack of effort, that it has no value to me personally. And, it seems to me self evident at that point that if I or anybody can create similar sounds, that this renders Xenakis non-special and not any more worthy of admiration than I am for having created Fluffy Bunnies. And, as we've already discussed, if music that I (and many others) subjectively found beautiful could be created by anybody, then yes, nobody would be special, there would be no heroes, nobody to look up to or aspire to.  *edit* just to qualify that, I believe that anyone who wishes to create beautiful music can do so if they work at it---I don't believe that heroes are limited to a handful of dead guys from Europe

[ongaku_oniko]

Well, many many more people like pop music. They feel that pop music (and I don't mean pop the genre, I mean popular, including pop, rock, rap, hiphop etc) is beautiful.

On the other hand, most people find classical music boring and not exciting enough.

So would that make pop singers bigger heros than beethoven and bach?

[Derek]

You're right, exactly who heroes are is subjective. You're entitled to have Xenakis as a hero and believe that he has created something of value, I'm entitled to believe that he has not created anything of value, has not done anything I can't do, and to believe that anybody who DOES believe such things have utterly deceived themselves. If someone carefully sculpts a turd or defecates it, it's still a turd, smelly, formless and without value. Even if they talk and talk and talk about their turd...It's still a turd! Sorry, that's just how I see things. I'm afraid I can't come up with much beyond the points I've already made. 

[ongaku_oniko]

Well, if you agree that what heroes are is subjective, then isn't it a little rude and disrespectful to compare Xenakis to turd?

And at the beginning you said you were asking why people like Xenakis. If you agree that like is subjective, then why is this a problem?

[Derek]

Well, if you agree that what heroes are is subjective, then isn't it a little rude and disrespectful to compare Xenakis to turd?

And at the beginning you said you were asking why people like Xenakis. If you agree that like is subjective, then why is this a problem?

If you find my beliefs rude, that isn't my problem. I'm just making an observation. Turds are easy to make, so is "fluffy bunnies". I don't expect someone to write about what a great pioneer I was if I designed a turd to every last smelly detail.

It's a problem because the music is horrifyingly ugly and hideous (not to mention vapid and boring). The only reason anybody likes it is because other people dislike it. That being a subjective belief in and of itself, I don't think it would be possible to debate this point.

*edit* Perhaps you genuinely like it. I'm not judging you. But I've met some for whom I think the above holds.

[ongaku_oniko]

I see, so you're basically saying that you are just rude, and you don't care.

And you're also accusing people of lying, with no substantial proof, other than its your own subjective opinion.

I agree, there's nothing more to add to this discussion; you don't seem to be willing to discuss at all, even though you're the one who created the thread and asked the question.

[Derek]

With something as difficult to discuss in objective terms as music, yes you're right. I can't provide any evidence that these things are true, I can only believe them. The only person I've ever met who made me believe it was possible to genuinely like music like this is quantum. Everyone else I've met who says they like this music enjoy making others angry (or at least seeing them react)---and are the sole source of my opinions as I presently hold them. Combined with the fact that the music itself just plain sucks. I haven't known you personally very long ongaku, so I'm not saying I believe you don't genuinely like this music either.

[ongaku_oniko]

EDIT: No point in saying this, since he edited his post

[Derek]

EDIT also no point in this response either 

[pianowolfi]

Derek, I liked this.  Even though you may not feel a connection to this sort music at the moment, don't discount the possibility of incorporating elements of it into your other creations.  You never know, in the future you may find need to express a certain emotion this music evokes.  

They have fluffy bunnies in schools don't they?  Perhaps a reason to march?  

Haha this made me laugh!   You are so right!

I take it as an opportunity to link one of the most legendary improvs on pianostreet

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=31278.0

and Derek's legendary response too:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35659.0

[ongaku_oniko]

Hi Derek,

without any further debate in this topic, and without anymore trying to convince you of my point of view, I just wanted to say that if you ever wanted to try to understand why people might like this kind of music, well

First of all, I think you can try to get past the initial "ew" factor. I hated debussy. I hated Ravel. But the more I heard their pieces, the less I started to hate it. Eventually I started enjoying it.

Opus Clavicembalisticum took me at least 200 times to start enjoying (not the whole thing, just a 2min video on youtube).

Don't listen to it with the preconception that it's bad or easy to make; easy to make pieces can sound quite good too. Throw a couple of major chords and arpeggios and I'm sure most people would say it sounds nice.

So just try to listen with an open mind, don't first assume it's horrible.

And then listen to it a few times, see if there's anything you can pick up from this music. And feeling, any melody, any rhythm...

It's really not that bad. Just try it, if you like. If you don't, thats okay too.

I guess I can understand your feeling since your disgust for this music is the exact same with my disgust for pop music in america/canada. I think that everyone who listens to rap is another idiot bandwagoner who follows fads like a sheep.

[Derek]

First of all, I think you can try to get past the initial "ew" factor. I hated debussy. I hated Ravel. But the more I heard their pieces, the less I started to hate it. Eventually I started enjoying it.

I've tried, and I can't get past this with Xenakis. I can't remember ever disliking Debussy or Ravel on the other hand.

Opus Clavicembalisticum took me at least 200 times to start enjoying (not the whole thing, just a 2min video on youtube).

You have a lot of perseverance, I'm afraid I stop well short of 200 before deciding I do not like something. I feel I try enough for me, though.

Don't listen to it with the preconception that it's bad or easy to make; easy to make pieces can sound quite good too. Throw a couple of major chords and arpeggios and I'm sure most people would say it sounds nice.

The reason I dislike it is because I find it subjectively ugly. The fact that it is easy makes me wonder why people talk about it in grandiose or intellectual terms as though it is some amazing feat. You're right, a couple of major chords and arpeggios sounds nice. But I don't see intellectuals lining up to justify it being great and pioneering. There's got to be a reason for that that has something other than genuine enjoyment of music behind it. Maybe I'm wrong.

So just try to listen with an open mind, don't first assume it's horrible.

I've listened with an open mind for years. I enjoy a wide variety of music. And my conclusion is, Xenakis is crap.

And then listen to it a few times, see if there's anything you can pick up from this music. And feeling, any melody, any rhythm...

Nope.

It's really not that bad. Just try it, if you like. If you don't, thats okay too.

Okay.

I guess I can understand your feeling since your disgust for this music is the exact same with my disgust for pop music in america/canada. I think that everyone who listens to rap is another idiot bandwagoner who follows fads like a sheep.

It isn't the same. There aren't that many people who like Xenakis by comparison. I dislike it for the reasons I've mentioned above. Obviously the people who like Xenakis aren't stupid---they are self deceivers. I haven't decided which is worse, I'd have to think about that. That's with the qualification that individuals such as quantum may prove to be exceptions from what I perceive to be the rule. I won't write anyone who says they like Xenakis off as a self deceiver "just because." They have to give me evidence, such as reams of text in defense of him. (you know, that protest too much concept)   Again ongaku, we're talking in general terms here. I'm not commenting on you specifically in this post.After all, you don't know who Xenakis is. You're just playing devil's advocate.  

[ongaku_oniko]

Well, if you feel you listened enough to make an informed judgement, then that's great. Sometimes you just can't like something. Like I will always hate rap, and will always look down on rappers and those who like rap. I'd say there's a lot more musical structure in fluffy bunnies than rap.


I just wanted to say I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but I certainly hope I didn't. If I didn't, I'm sorry for doubting you.

But I hope you're not implying that I'm actually defending Xenakis because I really know him, but is just afraid to say it. I have a "friend" who also feels that he knows everything, including how I feel, and thinks that I would lie just to impress him. I didn't know these people existed until I saw him.

Anyway, I certainly hope you don't think that I know Xenakis, because I really don't. I assume your fluffy bunnies is played in his style. If it wasn't, then I'm just talking about your fluffy bunnies.

Again, for me, I don't think anyone deserves really special heroic status. So yeah. Just making sure.

[retrouvailles]

NEWS FLASH: Not all Xenakis sounds like the way Herma does. That is an early experimental work which many Xenakis fans, including myself, don't think is all that great of a piece. DO SOME RESEARCH (which I doubt you have done) into his later works and some of his musical language and then you will develop at least a respect for his music (I'm not saying you have to like it). Put it this way, if Xenakis was crap, he wouldn't have scholarly dissertations on his music constantly written at the graduate level. Those of us that like or respect his music aren't "self-deceivers", but rather we can see the real musical qualities behind it and/or understand the compositional processes (this is what the dissertations are written about) behind the music. Listen to something like Keqrops or Pléiades, two works I actually really enjoy by Xenakis, purely on a musical level.

Oh, and by the way, this fluffy bunnies thing is just a show of your immaturity and lack of understanding. You clearly have no understanding of any sort of post-tonal music, nevermind stochastic, serial, etc music. Go back to your futile Keith Jarrett imitations. It really is what you're best at.

[chopinatic]

really cool, shows how versatile of a player you are! great stuff