Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • So I'm talking today with Samuel Andrea, who's composer, a Canadian composer who's currently residing in Strasbourg, where he's working as a composer.

  • And we're gonna talk today about music.

  • So but I think we'll start off by having Sam talk a little bit about his career and position himself so that we can move into the into the conversation and provide a bit of context for everybody who's watching and listening so taken away well, I'm a composer, I'm from Canada originally, and I lived there until I was 22 I decided, actually fairly early on that I wanted to live in France.

  • And so I moved to Paris, where I studied for quite a number of years at the Paris Conservatory.

  • Um, I remain there for 12 years and moved to Strasbourg 2.5 years ago, and I've been here ever since.

  • So I mainly a composer.

  • But I do a lot of other things as well.

  • I'm also a poet.

  • I'm also a teacher.

  • I'm also a performer.

  • So tell me a little bit about your experiences in North America, first as a composer.

  • Well, I should start by saying that because I left so young.

  • I didn't really have the opportunity to put together anything resembling a professional career when I was living in Canada.

  • Uh, but what I can say is that I started out in music by by producing songs when I was a teenager, and that became something of an obsession.

  • I was very interested in a sort of unusual branch of the sort of singer songwriter tradition that involved paying attention to avant garde manifestations of music and trying to incorporate those into the pop song format.

  • And there is, Ah, very fascinating and lengthy history of that.

  • And so that was sort of my initial foray into music.

  • So I made a total of about eight or nine albums of songs, and as I was going along with that, I became more and more interested and forms of musical expression that we're not easily compatible with the song format, and that resulted in a kind of interesting tension.

  • And so, towards the end of my sort of very short lived career as a singer songwriter, it became obvious to me that I couldn't I couldn't resolve the contradictions between sort of popular forms of expression and the sorts of things that were really starting to fascinate me and just keep me up at night in the format of the pop song.

  • So that resulted in a kind of schism at a certain point where I was making songs that really didn't sound like songs at all.

  • And it was from that point it was It was a fairly straightforward matter just to abandoned ship, so to speak and basically, uh, take up a full time composition.

  • You said that you were trying to incorporate avant garde elements into your songs.

  • So I think maybe the first thing you could do is defined for the listeners.

  • The difference between the song and and other forms of composition because it's not self evident to people standing outside the professional musical universe and also what you mean by event garde forms and why you were trying to incorporate them well, Essentially, the song is a vernacular format.

  • It's ah, it's It's a form of expression that deals with materials that are familiar to everybody and that are accessible to everybody.

  • So, in other words, the standard pop song has three chords for most part, and so these are These are very easy materials to master.

  • So anyone who's interested enough in it can can take the trouble to learn those three chords and put together something resembling a pop song.

  • They might not be very good at it, but you can still you can access the basic fundamental building blocks of the pop song fairly easily.

  • Um, whereas other branches of composition are primarily written, they're not primarily things that come out of the performance tradition necessarily.

  • In other words, they might be initially encoded as a score and then only after the score is written.

  • Do you have hopefully a performance tradition coming out of the peace, whereas in pop music, it ze opposite you.

  • Start with the instrument.

  • You start with performing.

  • You start with with the sort of immediate sort of tactile relationship you have to your instrument, and the music sort of flows out of that.

  • But you don't begin with the score with the written document and these of that guard elements that you were talking about two things.

  • What what got you interested in?

  • Then why did you think it was useful And, uh, and explain a bit more about what happened when you started pursuing them.

  • I didn't think of it in terms of utility.

  • It was something that it literally just grabbed me by the throat.

  • Because 11 thing that started to happen was in the in the sixties, particularly.

  • You had this very brief cultural moment when there was a kind of crossover between between what the Postwar Evelyn Guard were doing and and the sort of most broadly popular rock acts.

  • So, for example, the Beatles on There on the White Album famously included the track called Revolution Nine, which is the sound collage.

  • You know, it's a piece of sonic art.

  • It is an absolutely no regards a rock song.

  • And they did that because the John Lennon and Paul McCartney were interested in Stockhausen and things like this.

  • And that's an extraordinary cultural moment, and the Beatles were far from the only ones to do that.

  • So if you if you get interested in in that kind of music from that Europe from the sixties and onwards, um and you look at it closely, you can't help noticing that there's a kind of shadow world that's that's peeking through via these sorts of manifestations and a lot of Ah, a lot of groups did.

  • Did things like that as well.

  • The doors did that.

  • They did very uh, a strange sort of collage, avant garde poetry and all sorts of things that you can't easily square with the demands of the pops along format.

  • So as I was listening to these things when I was 12 or 13 years old, like my attention was instinctively drawn to the more unusual elements of those records.

  • Which is interesting because when they came out, those were usually the tracks that everybody skipped.

  • Right, right.

  • You know, I was instinctively fascinated by them.

  • I always thought that Jim Morrison's foray outside of the song format was generally unfortunate, but and I was confused, of course, when I listened to Revolution Number nine, although I thought that in the context of that album, it was very interesting because that, well, it's a double album, which was a very remarkable album, and it seemed oddly enough to fit in some strange way.

  • I mean, that whole double album fits together in a remarkable way, even though there's quite a diverse range of of song formats that were incorporated into it.

  • So why do you think the up?

  • So let's do a couple of things.

  • Why don't we define what constitutes avant garde, period?

  • It's not necessarily a term that people they've heard it undoubtedly.

  • But people here, all sorts of what would you call them?

  • Let's call them terms.

  • They hear all sorts of terms that they're not necessarily that haven't been well defined.

  • So you could tell us about the avant garde.

  • Tell us why it attracted you.

  • Do you think as well?

  • Well, first of all, to define the avant garde.

  • I mean, it's it's a military term, and it simply means the unfortunate souls that were the first to go into battle there on the front line, so to speak on DSO.

  • I suppose that in the artistic domain, it simply means people who are or engaging in forms of artistic expression that are as yet untested.

  • No, there's a you can certainly debate whether that term is at all historically valid anymore.

  • And there's a a strong case to be made for saying that the avant garde, in a certain sense, basically no longer exists because it's been so thoroughly institutionalized and written about and discussed, and it's very, very difficult these days to make a work of art that actually shocks anybody.

  • You know, that's kind of an interesting thing, and that's a very recent phenomenon also.

  • I mean, you can do absolutely outrageous things and have them be installed in public places, and it'll generate a certain amount of civic controversy, but nothing even remotely close to what would have happened 60 years ago.

  • Even right?

  • That's the first thing on an interesting phenomena in and of itself, right?

  • So there's a kind of extraordinary tolerance for, um, all sorts of artistic expression.

  • You could also argue that it's a form of societal indifference as well.

  • You could say that Well, the reason nobody's rioting and no one's shocked and seeking to have these sorts of cultural forms band is because it simply doesn't matter.

  • The sort of arts have been declawed in a certain sense.

  • I mean, there's an argument you could make in that sense, is what people are so flooded with sounds and images now to that, the sheer volume of those sorts of things that were exposed to I also think inoculates us against or also in Oculus inoculates us against Shaq but also makes it more and more difficult to be sufficiently original to actually have that effect on people.

  • It's not like people have dropped on their taboos because you see that the doubt the taboos about what can be said, for example just shift around.

  • But it certainly does seem to be the case that it's harder for artists to play a to play a role that it also, I suppose, speaks to some degree to the degeneration of cultural norms around ronel sorts of different areas.

  • Because if there are strongly established norms, it's a lot easier to violate them.

  • And that's pretty interesting, because it also means you can't be revolutionary unless there's 1/2 decent tired around to have me end.

  • So right, yeah, So why do you think the avant garde attracted you instead of, I mean, it would have been more typical, Let's say, for someone who started out composing pop songs to continue in that vein, not to go down the rabbit hole of the avant garde, which is a very strange thing for anyone to do.

  • Yeah, a couple of reasons.

  • The first thing is that the the pop song format is interesting in that it only works if you stay relatively close to its parameters.

  • And if you start to stray too far outside of them than what you're doing, basically no longer functions as a pop song because it's no longer vernacular.

  • And so I have, ah, fascination with all sorts of forms of music, and the pop song is an incredibly difficult medium to work within again because you first of all it's it's completely unforgiving.

  • You're working and basically an extremely compressed format.

  • It's very rare for pop songs to be too much longer than three minutes, so you don't really have much room to maneuver.

  • Um, and you certainly don't have any room to maneuver structurally.

  • I mean, you pretty much have to stick to the first scores for scores thing.

  • For the immense majority of pop songs, there's been very little variation in that since since rock, Really, since the fifties from I mean, I know the three minute length was that was actually a commercial imposition, if I remember correctly.

  • But that structure, verse, chorus, verse, chorus what out of what did that originate?

  • Well, that's a That's an extremely old forum, and you certainly have there.

  • They are broke forms such as the Rondo or the Return mellow, that have an extremely similar forum where you alternate one fixed element that keeps returning the same way essentially and then a secondary element that that sort of gives you a certain degree of relief, a certain degree of, uh, contrast with the proceeding element.

  • So Kate's chaos that's a chaos order into play, I guess of sorts.

  • At least that's the way I would interpret it.

  • And why the three structure wise?

  • Why do you think instead of two chords or four chords?

  • Why why do you think that's dominated?

  • Well, three chord structure is the bare minimum that you need in order to have any kind of harmonic tension.

  • Basically, in music, generally speaking, you, you in total music.

  • Anyway, you have a very simple and effective polarity between what's called the tonic and dominant degrees.

  • And that's that's something that was but that basically structured the entire classical period of the Baroque period as well.

  • Thio unpack that for that for us and tell, Tell us what that is.

  • Why that quite at why that works musically, why it works it aesthetically well It's one of many possible strategies for music.

  • And in fact, if you, if you go beyond the broke into into Renaissance music or or even earlier you don't have this sort of strong polarity between two opposing harmonic regions.

  • That was something that really came about during the 17th century.

  • Basically, is that conversational?

  • Do you think that, like one of the things that I've noticed about many pieces of music is that they sound like dialogues?

  • There's an announcement on the one hand, and then there's a response on the other.

  • And then there's an announcement.

  • And then there's a response.

  • It it seems to me to be based in dialogue based Anna.

  • Logically, metaphorically, maybe in dialogue.

  • Did you hear that many classical pieces as well?

  • So I would say that it's it's It's a way of setting up an extremely rudimentary story, an extremely rudimentary form of narrative in the sense that you start with a region that is established that you that you basically have is your home base essentially, and then you you modulate to a different different harmonic region, and through this process of modulating, you move from your home base to somewhere else, and that creates attention.

  • It creates nostalgia, and it creates a need for resolution.

  • Um, there are plenty of other ways you can do a great Well, okay, so that's interesting.

  • Mean for a variety of reasons.

  • 11 thing that made me that report made me think about right away is the proclivity of small Children to do that with their mother in particular.

  • So the space around the mother is defined as home territory, partly because mother is familiar, but also partly because if something goes wrong and mother is, their mother can fix it.

  • So So there's There's a zone around the child when the mother is there, where there is access to immediate resources that will fill in where the child skills are locking.

  • And then what the child will do after obtaining sufficient comfort from being in the presence of mom is to go out far enough into the world.

  • Driven by their curiosity, which which has an underlying biological manifestation.

  • There's an exploratory system that drives the child out there, too.

  • It discovered new information and to extend their skills by pushing against the unknown and then when that when they either get tired or when they go out far enough.

  • So the negative emotion as a consequence of threat predominates.

  • They run back to their mother inside, so it reminded me of that.

  • And it's also a microcosm of the hero's journey right, which is the journey from a safe and and defined place out into the unknown and then a return.

  • And that is, well, I wouldn't even say that's the simplest story.

  • That's the simplest story that also involves transformation.

  • So it might be the simplest good story, something like that.

  • I had mapped that onto that chorus.

  • Uh, what did you call it?

  • Verse Chorus?

  • Yes, yes, yes.

  • So that and that return to stability.

  • So?

  • So you think so?

  • Does that make sense that mapping as far as you're concerned?

  • Absolutely.

  • Because one of the one of the main tenets of the of the the total harmonic system is that you have an eventual return to where you started out at the end.

  • So there's always the promise of a return at the end, and and that's the essential structure that you see in pop songs as well.

  • So it's it's fundamentally, it's a directional.

  • It's a TV logical sort of structure.

  • Um, and that's extremely different from Renaissance music, which basically has a very, very weak degree of directionality.

  • It doesn't seem to want to particularly go anywhere.

  • It's sort of floats, and uh, that's that's an interesting thing that that music sort of went off in this other sort of direction.

  • Did you have any idea why that transformation occurred?

  • Well, I think it's because there was ah need for a more dramatically intense form of music, and that's certainly that certainly took took place during the Baroque.

  • And of course, that's related to the power and cultural influence of the Catholic Church and the need to create forms of artwork that would be extremely dramatic and expressive.

  • And in broke music, you have this intensification of musical expression that's that's quite striking.

  • In a sense, you could say that that that strongly directional thrust that you get in music developed even further in the classical and then in the romantic periods as well, to the point where it it becomes this sort of constant push towards ever more cataclysmic forms of expression.

  • Until it actually ruptures the fabric of music itself, you no longer can contain this.

  • This level of expressivity.

  • Okay, so that's as good a team.

  • So lots of the people that are listening, I presume, won't know the the temporal relationship between those periods of musical development that you just described.

  • So why don't you go back to the to the medieval era and then just lay out the periods of time across which music developed?

  • And then we'll go back to that idea of this cataclysmic upheaval that sort of shattered destructor of music, say, in the 20th century?

  • Well, there's only so far you can go back because music has only begun to be written down in a way that's that's reliably retrievable since the late 14th century or so.

  • So if you try to go too much farther back than that, you end up with documents that are extremely hard to decipher.

  • We don't really know exactly what these things sounded like.

  • We've got about 600 years yet we've got about 600 years.

  • So roughly speaking, the Renaissance period extends to about 1600 so roughly between 1416 100 the Baroque is usually said to end with the death of ball in 17 50 then you have a kind of no man's land that lasted 20 or 30 years, where there was a sort of in between period of generalized experimentation.

  • But there wasn't yet a strongly characterized style yet, And then you have classicism that starts really towards the well in the second half of the of the 18th century.

  • And Romanticism is a little bit more difficult to pin down.

  • But but Beethoven is considered to be one of the earlier exponents of of a romantic style.

  • He died in 18 27 so that more or less takes us to the end of the 19th century.

  • Then you have something that you could plausibly call late romanticism, although that's very difficult to define.

  • And that sort of dovetails with modernism.

  • So can you set out some of the defining features of each of those set out the defining features of each of those parks?

  • Let's say, and then maybe you can walk us through this.

  • This idea that you expressed about increasingly cataclysmic changes and then that resulting in in se 20th century music that takes us back to the avant garde is well, right.

  • Well, the first thing I would say is that these sorts of categorizations are our generalizations.

  • I mean, you can't You can't take 200 years of human cultural endeavor and reduced them down to a single word.

  • And of course, these things air constantly flowing and transforming.

  • And there are There are also all sorts of overlapping, um, contrasting movements happening at at any given time.

  • So this is really just for the sake of convenience.

  • But But if you wanted to make a generalization, you could say that during the Renaissance, music was essentially linear.

  • It was essentially melodic and and contra pencil.

  • In other words, that you would have, you would have individual voices, individual lines that would be flowing along together.

  • Ah, but music was not yet primarily thought of in terms of vertical or harmonica sonority ease.

  • That really starts to happen with broke early in the 17th century, so broke music has a much stronger harmonic dimension to it.

  • It's it's You could argue that it's harmonically somewhat simpler than Renaissance music because it's more codified.

  • That's when you start getting the first treatises on harmony in the first.

  • Theoretical writings on music also isn't the Baroque period.

  • It's also characterized by the use of highly stylized and very strong dance rhythms.

  • Theo Classical Period is essentially a simplification of the Baroque style.

  • In a certain sense, music became strongly divided between what you would call foreground and background elements.

  • In other words, you would have a very prominent melodic line, and then you would have an accompaniment.

  • But the two are not necessarily of equal importance, whereas in the broken in the Renaissance, the voices would have tended all to be of basically equal importance.

  • There's very, very little foreground background distinction in broke and and pre baroque music, so the classical style is a simplification.

  • It's also a codification of musical forms.

  • That's when you start getting the symphony, the string quartet, the concerto while the concertos will broke form.

  • But it starts to take on the characteristics of of other classical forms, such as the Sonata in the classical period.

  • So you get this basically is codification, and this simplification of the basic tools of music in the classical period and in the classical period is quite extraordinary, actually, because it's it's It was a rather short lived period in which, for a very brief span, of time.

  • There is a A, an overlapping of popular and several InStyle's.

  • So you had you had sort of a vernacular dimension in the classical period.

  • You had very simple popular reforms and popular forms of expression, and you also had the absolute highest degree of musical science.

  • And they were combined.

  • Um, not in every composer, but certainly the one that comes to mind is having bean.

  • The highest manifestation of that combination of different qualities is Mozart thing.

  • Wait, that's probably a unique historical phenomenon.

  • I mean, there's there aren't very many composers that can that can achieve that, and in a sense, you you have to be historically lucky.

  • The state of the musical language when you're alive has to has to coincide with your own need, thio to push the boundaries of your art.

  • And so that's Ah, that's an amazing thing.

  • And romanticism more or less puts an end to that because it puts a tremendous degree of focus on the individual.

  • It's It's an exacerbation of the idea of the self, and it elevates the subjective emotional impulses of the artist to, uh to a very high realm.

  • And so you get these forms of individual expression that begin to not really jibe with the underlying rules of the art.

  • And that's when things really get complicated.

  • Okay, so that moved into the into the ER.

  • You just talked about the classical period.

  • The next one that comes along is romantic, right?

  • Okay, what happens during the romantic period?

  • And you said Beethoven was nearly unearthly manifestation of that.

  • With his sort of cataclysmic, Beethoven starts off writing music that strongly influenced by hiding who's who's one of the most important classical composers.

  • And by the end of his career, he's doing pieces that basically our are destroying these forms from within.

  • Its very, very interesting.

  • If you listen too late, Beethoven works like the Hammer cliff here Sonata, for example, of the late string quartet way Theo, eyes basically pulling apart these these these these forms and in a rather ruthless way and just pulverizing.

  • There's an analogy between that and what happens in other fields of endeavor.

  • You know that the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn talked about and also the developmental psychologist PJ with With these revolutions in stages, you know what's so for PJ or for coon science scientists were working within.

  • Let's call it an axiomatic theory, and then they could create new data into that theory without disrupting the axioms.

  • But now, along now and then, some data would come along that didn't even fit within the axioms.

  • And then that data would generally be ignored for a while because no one knew what to do with it.

  • You know, and and it isn't reasonable to leap to the conclusion that if your theory doesn't predict something, that it should immediately be scrapped because there's always the possibility that the data itself is wrong.

  • But it's now and then something new comes along.

  • That's enough to collapse the science in some sense all the way down to its unstated assumptions, which then have to be recast now.

  • P.

  • J thought of something similar in terms of developmental stages in Children and adults that the same thing happened when we were organizing our internal representations of the world.

  • And but PJ Kun seemed to be a bit of a relativist in that he believed that paradigms could be in in commensurate.

  • That you really couldn't speak between them makes him a precursor in some ways to postmodernism.

  • But PJ's point was that each stage transition in human cognition, which was accompanied by, by the way, by a descent into chaos of some sort as the normalised data accumulated each stage that emerged was superior to the one before it.

  • Because you could do everything you could do in that stage.

  • Plus, you could do more.

  • And so for PJ, there was actually progress along the along the stage transformations.

  • Whereas for Coon, although I think Kun is less, uh, emphatic about that, that many is of many of his readers seem to think, Where is for Kun?

  • It was more like lateral transformation or something like that.

  • I mean, it's been a big debate, but it sounds very much to me like something similar is happening as musical forms developed.

  • Oh, sure, it would be impossible to make the argument, though, that this this constitutes in any way a progression or a an improvement over time.

  • You can't really make that argument about musical forms because they're always checks and balances.

  • There always pluses and minuses that their attendant with any any novel form of musical expression, of the things that seems to distinguish art from science in some sense is that it isn't obvious that art is improving right right there is, at least in principle, it seems obvious that science is improving in that p.

  • A genie in way is that we could do everything we could, plus more.

  • But art.

  • So maybe aren't really does have that structure that Thomas Kuhn talked talked about where that paradigms Aaron commensurate.

  • And there's no there's no progression where science has the more PJD in, um, structure, where there is actually something that you could regard as genuine progress.

  • But what you do have is a constant oscillation between two fundamental states and music history, which is you have periods of expansion periods in which axioms air tested and rethought, and periods of consolidation in which you strip away and you simplify.

  • And that's, Ah, that's a permanent feature of music history.

  • It's ah, it's a very interesting thing.

  • When things start to get a little bit too wild, there tends to be a counter reaction and a tendency towards simplification.

  • Certainly that's what happened in the classical with regards to the broke period.

  • So it's interesting because it kind of implies that the entire system, over time is oscillating around some sort of gold lean or something like that.

  • I mean, not that that thing actually exists in some sense, because it would move, You know, where the appropriate places is going to be dependent on the nature of the landscape at that point.

  • But the case you're making is that despite that, there's some boundaries on the movement.

  • There isn't much chaos, and which would be, I suppose, too much revolutionary transformation.

  • And I suppose that the degeneration there would be the experimentation could be some so extreme that would actually break the boundaries of what people are willing to to to accept as music.

  • There has to be a social contract between the between the artist and the public, unless you're making a totally hermetic art unless you're making an art that is not necessarily intended for public consumption.

  • So that's Ah, very delicate balancing act, of course, because artists have the natural inclination to explore and audiences have the natural inclination to stay close to things that are familiar to them, and they're already satisfying to them in some manner.

  • So what do you think that contract is exactly?

  • Because obviously, the audience also doesn't want to stay exactly where they are.

  • It's very difficult to speak in general terms of audiences because they're made up of individuals and individuals have wildly different approaches to music and wildly different tastes in music as well.

  • I mean, one of the what are the extraordinary things about music is that it has so many different functions simultaneously.

  • If you were to take all of the different functions that music fulfills and abstract out the music part and then try to understand what phenomenon could possibly cover all of those different functions, you'd be very hard pressed to think of anything.

  • I mean, music is is it's a science, but it's also a form of entertainment.

  • Okay, so you were just speaking about that, the actual function of music.

  • And so let's let's pick it up there because that's a really interesting issue and the function and meaning of music.

  • And I would really like to hear your thoughts on that.

  • So let's let's go, Let's go from there.

  • You can't speak of a function of music because music has so many different functions.

  • They seem on the surface of it to be almost completely incompatible.

  • So you have music that functions as a form of oven expression of religious devotion.

  • But you have music as well that his primary focus is to get teenagers to go out on dates you have, Ah, you have music that is crassly commercial.

  • You got music that is meditative and sublime.

  • You have music that represents the highest aspirations of mankind and music that is piped in through elevators.

  • I mean, that's just a very, very partial list.

  • I could go on and on and on.

  • So again, it's It's an absolutely amazing phenomenon in terms of the the sheer number of functions that that it covers its.

  • It's also it's good to dance to, uh, it's it's good for movies.

  • It's, ah, anything you can possibly think of.

  • There's there's been some form of music.

  • Device of those functions is actually a little universe.

  • I mean, the fact that that music seems to be useful in movies is a strange phenomena, you know, because if you go, if you go see a movie that lacks music, you you actually become aware quite rapidly that it locks music and it's much more two dimensional in some sense that I mean you could do it, but it's much more two dimensional.

  • It's much more difficult.

  • What the music seems to do is to Philly and somehow for the for the lacking context, you know, I mean, it makes it rich and and more real, which is even more surprising.

  • And it partly does that by exaggerating, I think, the emotions that are being portrayed.

  • But while obviously, if you could say completely what the music is doing in a movie, then you wouldn't need to put the music in because you could just incorporated in this story.

  • But you talked about elevators, dancing and movies, among many other things.

  • And those three things are extraordinarily different because obviously what's being piped into the elevator is there, too.

  • What calm the awkward silence, something.

  • It's something like that with something familiar.

  • Maybe it takes the edge off being locked in an elevator with, you know, multiple other primates that you've never met.

  • And people make fun of it, too, because it's denatured music, in some sense.

  • But obviously there's a demand in a requirement for it and a function so, um, well, anyways, okay, so we've talked about the multi multiple contradictory and paradoxical rules that music could play.

  • But let's let's go a little deeper.

  • Why don't you have a?

  • Why don't you tell us what you think?

  • What do you think music is doing and why it's so important?

  • Assuming it is in fact important, it certainly seems to be well again.

  • It's very difficult to talk generally about that.

  • And if you look at non Western cultures and the role that music plays in them, it's it's it's often extremely different from what from what we do with it.

  • So, for example, the South Indian music is, uh, is very, very long and drawn out, and it's it's essentially melodic.

  • There's no harmony in it.

  • These are extremely long forms, and you you can't.

  • You can't listen to them.

  • If you only have five minutes, it's It's an entire experience.

  • Tibetan music is very closely tied up with ritual.

  • For example, it's a it's a way of reinforcing a certain order of doing things in, so it's Ah, there are all sorts of examples, I think, in more traditional societies or more archaic societies.

  • The music is rarely divorced from the surrounding context.

  • It's not divorced from dance.

  • It's not divorced for masks.

  • It's not divorced from the religious context and one of the things you see as cultural differentiate.

  • Let's say you could say develop, but let's say differentiate is that there's a fragmentation of phenomena into there into their higher resolution sub components, you know.

  • So the language of biology, for example, continues to expand as we develop higher and higher resolution models of the world.

  • And as a society has more and more dimensions, it's possible to specialize Maurin each of the sub dimensions and that also both breaks things apart but also allows for there further manifestation.

  • So we could say, as a general, maybe as you go back into the past than the number of things that is happening simultaneously along with music explicitly probably increases.

  • You know, I've been struck by 01 of my friends told me about going to a Led Zeppelin concert in Sweden, and everyone was sitting politely, You know, he was from a culture where everybody would have been standing up cheering and dancing and clapping and dancing essentially right because of the music.

  • But that was frowned upon in there, which is very, very interesting because it's you know, it's an indication of that kind of almost artificial fragmentation.

  • So right, Well, I think that I think that analysis is absolutely accurate.

  • It's if you look at broke music, for example, What you have is a generalized kind of stylized version of dance.

  • It's not.

  • It's not the same as music that you would actually dance, too.

  • But but the entire broke period really rests upon dance rhythms.

  • Um, and that that goes for pretty much everything Bach ever wrote from From the Cantata is down to the fugues.

  • I mean, they're all based on dance rhythms.

  • Fundamentally, that's that's very interesting thing, because obviously nobody dances to a fugue.

  • I mean, I suppose you could, but that's not really its primary function.

  • So very interesting thing happens where you get music that is, that is no longer explicitly devotional, that is, It's not explicitly meant to be performed as part of a liturgical service of some kind, but it's not necessarily meant to be dense to either, Uh, and that's if you, if you look at music as being a phenomenon that easily existed for 10,000 years, I mean, that's the amount of the span of time during which that's been the case is, is just a drop in the bucket.

  • This is a very, very recent thing.

  • The idea that you would get several 100 or several 1000 people to go and sit quietly in a room while someone's playing and just sit there and listen.

  • That's that's extremely recent.

  • That really only starts to happen in really in the romantic period.

  • The idea of, Ah, concert per se, where there's nothing else attendant on the experience of the music, right well, and then pop concerts, rock concerts.

  • A lot of that additional material has been put back in, you know, in light show and and sometimes in more dramatic forms that not.

  • But the light show, I suppose, is as close as you can get to representing what music is doing in a visual format.

  • And I mean, that was that was conscious.

  • I know that it was, if I remember correctly.

  • It was Ken Keesey in his in.

  • His band of Merry Pranksters first started to experiment with electronic lighting and that sort of thing in California when they were experimenting with LSD back in the sixties, and they were interested in synesthesia, and I know there were classical composers who were playing with that much earlier.

  • And I suppose as well that in the non electronic format you could chase that back an awful long way.

  • The idea of spectacle encompassing music.

  • So Okay, so let's circle around that the musical element mourns.

  • I mean, you've thought a lot about this and you also write poetry.

  • And I also want to get back to the periods after the romantic because we never did finish that discussion about, you know, the cataclysmic restructuring of musical forms up into the modern period.

  • So but let's right, let's let's start by pursuing the meaning issue.

  • So you're gripped by music and the avant garde, and you've thought about it for a while, like and you've laid out some of the like the ordering functions of music, for example.

  • But there's a dis ordering function of music as well.

  • So so give us a more your thoughts about exactly what music is doing for people and in the deepest possible sense.

  • Well, one of the fundamental aspects of music.

  • If you were to try to define music, you would probably have to conclude that it has two essential components.

  • One is time and when its sound uh, it's difficult to give too much of a higher resolution definition of music than that because it very, very quickly starts to, uh, it starts to exclude all sorts of things that are that are thought of his music.

  • But that's that's the essential basis of it.

  • I would say that between the two, probably the temporal dimension is the most important.

  • And fundamentally, I would say, what music allows you to do is to experience forms of time that we cannot experience in so called real life.

  • So, for example, in in music, you can have a sort of distention of actual lift time or a contraction.

  • You could have multiple things happening simultaneously.

  • You can have people out enter into effectively a trance state where they're no longer aware of time.

  • That's an amazing thing.

  • Also, you know, a lot of music has that explicit function to it.

  • While the idea you know, music has always struck me as something like a four dimensional sculpture that's manifesting itself in three dimensions.

  • Like when I, when I listen to music and stereo listening, of course, enhances this you can see these notes spread out spatially in the three dimensions that you're capable of perceiving from an auditory perspective.

  • And so they're these patterns that manifest themselves moment by moment.

  • But the entire pattern stretches across time.

  • And so for me and and then there's pattern upon pattern as well.

  • And then there's transforming patterns upon transforming patterns.

  • And to me, that's a very close analog to what the world is like in its its multiplicity of layers that are all interacting, you know, in so far as anything Israel it constitutes a pattern that repeats either spatially or temporally, means things like smoke.

  • For example, a cloud of smoke is sort of pseudo riel in that sense, because it doesn't really have any.

  • Borders doesn't have any real repetition.

  • But most things, although it does persist across moments of time, which is a form of of patterning.

  • But most things that we interact with do repeat, at least to some degree.

  • That's what object permanence is, is the repetition of something across time and music seems to model the persistence and the transformation across multiple levels all at the same time.

  • And what you said about the distention of time is interesting because Mircea Ray Liotta, whose great historian of religions and Freud himself both both talked about the the transformation of time and the transcendence of time in certain states, Fried noted that dreams were really good at compressing time or extending time.

  • And, you know, so people have that experience.

  • Sometimes they'll hear their alarm go off in the morning, and instead of it waking up, they'll incorporate the alarm sound into a dream that seems to have gone on railway longer, sometimes hours longer than the alarm itself And Elliot.

  • It talks about the he concentrated mostly or much on the dream time of the of the original Australians.

  • And they viewed normal Time is sort of ensconced inside of an eternal time that was always present, that that seems to be something like the time in which music unfolds something like that.

  • Obviously these air ridiculously complicated things.

  • So while musical time is a is a very complicated thing, I mean, if if I listen to a piece of music that's three minutes long, in no way have I actually experienced three minutes of real duration.

  • I mean, that's a that's an extraordinary thing.

  • This this actually allows me to connect to your question about the avant garde, because one of the things that that fascinated me when I was a teenager was I would be listening to, Ah, a piece, 20th century piece that might be extremely short.

  • It might be two minutes long, but I would I would not be able to comprehend it and that that fascinated media.

  • The idea that I would not be able to comprehend a piece of music.

  • Now, obviously, that's that has something to do with my personality.

  • And not everybody is going to be fascinated by a piece of music that they find Impenetrable.

  • But in my case, I did.

  • There's also something else to note there is that because you're musically gifted, it's going.

  • You're gonna have to go a lot closer to the edge of what's regarded as let's say, conventional or even the edge of what's regarded as music before you encounter something that's Impenetrable.

  • Whereas for the average listener, let's say which in that category I would certainly include myself.

  • Um, I don't have to go that close to the edge before I run into music.

  • That's complicated enough so that I at least have to listen to it multiple multiple times before I understand the patterning in the repetition, and it's a lovely thing to experience.

  • When you listen to something complex, say the fifth or sixth time at pieces of it start to fail together.

  • I really had that experience with Bach's well tempered Clavier, which I had to listen to Jace maybe 20 times before.

  • I would say I had anything remotely like enjoyment as a consequence, but and that and that clicking together of those patterns also seems to be beautiful.

  • In some sense.

  • It's like you you meet the music with your understanding and in that meeting of the music with your understanding is that tremendous revelation of beauty and and depth and and harmony and all of those things that were so good a boat.

  • And it's more than that.

  • It's It's life affirming that which is a very strange thing about music as well.

  • And I've noticed that psychologically, like even nihilistic people, deeply nihilistic people and hopeless people still, they have to be pretty damned depressed before music loses its vibrancy and savor and life affirming properties, which is really magical thing I would say that being open to the possibility that you could enjoy something, even though perhaps it's it's difficult going the first few times you listen to it is probably a key aspect.

  • So that brings me back to this contract between the the composer and the listener.

  • Like you see, I think what stops a lot of people and I would again include myself in that may be particularly with regards to that Guard art is that in order to put in the time and effort that would be necessary for me to understand and appreciate something like the well tempered Clavier.

  • Let's say I have to trust that there's actually something there, and then I'm not just having the world pulled over my eyes and that I'm some kind of fool and the problem with a lot of avant garde at least the potential problem is that it's very difficult to dismiss the notion that you're being played for a fool.

  • Bye bye tricksters and jokesters and frauds.

  • And of course, you are more likely to be in that situation if you're listening to something new.

  • So so I think, part of people's hesitancy and and an unwillingness to throw themselves into something that's truly knew is is the suspicion that the Emperor has no clothes and that they're being played for a fool.

  • But you decide.

  • How did you know what you should continue to listen to so well?

  • That's pulled it apart for a second?

  • Because if you look at things like the historical avant garde, in other words, avant garde movements that took place, let's say, 100 years ago, just for the sake of argument, it's no longer avant garde.

  • It's been it's been thoroughly picked apart by historians.

  • There's being a sort of extended, a critical process that's already taken place, and that's sort of sifted out these artifacts and decided what's worth discussing and what's not worth discussing.

  • So, I mean, one of the one of the incontrovertible facts of music history.

  • Our history in general is that the works that are no longer able to communicate something vitally important to that address is the present concern tend to fall out of favor.

  • History is merciless, right?

  • It's it's absolutely merciless, and I mean, think of the tens of thousands of closers that were active during the Baroque period.

  • We've how many have we retained.

  • There's maybe a dozen figures that are sort of still regularly performed and discussed and and generally known to the public.

  • So I mean, there's a There's an absolutely ruthless selection process that goes on.

  • And of course, one of the fundamental difficulties of addressing contemporary or modern forms of art is that that process of selection hasn't taken place yet.

  • So you was a listener are necessarily engaged with that process to a certain degree, because the the process of selection hasn't hasn't taken place.

  • There is an overwhelming likelihood that what you're going to hear might not be of the highest standard.

  • That's just statistical.

  • If you figure that there are just just to throw out a number of 100,000 composers active in the world today, how many of them are geniuses?

  • How many of them are producing work of the highest order?

  • You know it's going to be a vanishingly small percentage, so that's not That's not to say that that none of them are doing extremely good work.

  • It's just that if you're coming to that world for the first time and you're not familiar with it, uh, and you you don't sort of have the context to be able to navigate through that space with a reasonable degree of certainty that you consort of sniff out the good from the bad.

  • Then, yes, it's It's difficult, isn't it?

  • Well, it's a good it's a good That's a good expansion of the metaphor of the avant garde, because what that means is avant garde listeners.

  • You're more likely to be killed, so to speak, like the avant garde in a battle.

  • And it's the same if you're laboring on the edge of musical composition, the probability that you're going to survive there in a real sense, and I mean practical, like day to day if you're gonna make anybody but also that you're going to survive into the future is extraordinarily low.

  • So so things game.

  • So why play in everything?

  • I would say Well, for the typical listener who doesn't know anything about it broke music or classical music or romantic music, you know who has who's afraid of it or who's afraid of being made a fool of for their ignorance when they first enter into it, which is which could easily happen in which is quite sad.

  • Why should they go to the Who should go to the effort of listening to what's truly knew, and why should they do it?

  • In Europe, you've got overwhelming musical capacity.

  • So you know it's clear in your case.

  • Well, first of all, the okay, the sort of career aspects of writing music that, as you say, lies sort of on the edges of what is recognizably musical to a broad public.

  • Well, is it a higher risk game?

  • That's this interesting question, because if I were to say, Try to start a rock band, you know and right write songs that were in a conventional format, you could certainly argue that I would have just as much trouble if not Maur establishing myself.

  • Then if I were writing in a for musical expression, that's that's more esoteric, simply because the crushing amount of competition is actually probably a lot greater in that in that domain than in much more, uh, highly individualized forms of musical expression incense.

  • So in a way, you could argue that it's it's it's that that's that's a difficult argument to make because it is very difficult, in any case, to have a career as a composer.

  • But it's probably somewhat easier to carve out a space for yourself if you're working in a rather individual musical idiom than if you're doing something that the overall culture is already completely satchel, Right, right, Fair enough.

  • Fair enough about then.

  • What about the listener, though?

  • So So I buy your argument.

  • But then the listener like if I go back and listen to only those composers that time has conserved which by your own admission, are composers that in some manners, some mysterious manner still have something to say, which I also don't understand.

  • It's like, What does it mean that box still has something to say?

  • Oh, I mean, it's the same as Shakespeare, I suppose, but But it isn't obvious what it is that remains to be said.

  • I don't get that.

  • It's It's only going to be something like the culture has not fully incorporated all of the perceptual genius that that person had to offer, like bark hasn't been transformed into cliche or into into implicit assumption or something like that, that because I think that one of the things that artists to visual or auditory is they teach people to see or hear you know, the the Impressionists air good example of that because obviously there works well.

  • Maybe not, obviously, but their works produced riots when they were first publicly displayed.

  • It's a particular way of seeing the world that has more to do with light than with form.

  • But for most people, it's easy to look at an Impressionist painting Now.

  • It seems, it seems, it's It's so embedded into our visual language that there's nothing about it that seems shocking.

  • And so I think we've learned that.

  • And the court.

  • I guess part of the question is, Do we do?

  • Do do composers teach us to to hear, And once we've learned everything they have to say, Do we not need their lesson anymore?

  • It's got to be something like that, right?

  • Well, the first thing I woul

So I'm talking today with Samuel Andrea, who's composer, a Canadian composer who's currently residing in Strasbourg, where he's working as a composer.

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級

作曲家塞繆爾-安德列耶夫 (Composer Samuel Andreyev)

  • 1 0
    林宜悉 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字