Weird scraping techniques

[snyprrr]

Blame it on GMG, but everything I've been soaking up around here lately says, Yes, it is a novelty piece. Someone had remarked about how P was going to call his piece "8'33", or so, but then came that "sexy" title, and ever since, P has mined every atrocity in his titles.

I don't know P's true intentions concerning this, but the actual result seems to smack of sensationalism.

Musically, the fact that P doesn't utilize mathematics means that all we are left with is an 8min segment of time filled with massive string tone clusters, very identifiable as THIS piece...the "novelty" of the sounds at the time ('59?) is what brought the piece, and P, fame, no?

But notice that P goes on to other sounds in his next pieces. He does not repeat himself literally, because, frankly, the technique as utilized by him, was dried up. If he did anything similar, people would say, "Oh, sounds like Threnody." Wouldn't they?

Now, if Xenakis had done Threnody @1976 it would be a different story; but, keep in mind that at the same time P was doing Threnody, Xenakis was working on his "ST" series, which, no matter the forces involved, still had the same "computer" music sound. I think, as does Xenakis, that a lot of the experiments '55-'62 were failures, and because the "ST"s sound so "dated", I will call them novelties also. I mean, sooo much music of that time could be considered novelty. "One hit wonders." Thankfully, many composers (unlike their pop-star counterparts many times) live to grow past their initial fame and reinvent themselves.

I think "in the beginning" sounds were novelties, but by the mid 70s these sounds had been around and a lot of serious thought had been done concerning them.

I keep harping on Holliger's SQ (1973) as the last word in sound=meaning. Though he doesn't specifically use mathematics as meaning, he paints a convincing portrait of "The Death of Music" with his ill fated quartet (it dies!).

Also, Xenakis, though not one for "meaning" in his pieces, still, through the "pure" language of mathematics, nontheless achieves, IMHO, pure substance. Mathematics cannot help but to bring meaning to music. I mean, spectral music without the spectra is just blobulous sound: it is the math that adds structure, it TELLS you where to place the note...IT is the composer, not the composer (cue ominous Terminator music!)!

All I have to do is come up with some piece of poopoo and call it "Requiem for the Victims of Swine Flu"...right? POLITICS.

ooo...that word made the vein in my forehead throb.

Gimmicks are great, but you really need a whole lot of them in order to "look like" meaning, and Penderecki's Threnody only has two gimmicks: screeching toneclusters and that title. A lone single pizz might have lent a strange "meaning." Or a wordless soprano singing beautifully over the clusters. Or a cymbal. Or a bass drum. Something. Anything.

And if Penderecki utterly fails, Crumb, IMHO, only gets it half right. Feldman only gets it half right. Xenakis got it right but then turned into a pumpkin. Lachenmann and Sciarrino have a sliding scale success rate depending on your point of view.

I think there is a "new responsibility" towards this vast new-ish(!) world of almost infinite sounds that hasn't been heeded by most (or most are too scared of it). All the work (experiments)has been done: mathematical serialism, spectral analysis, performing techniques. Now we just need someone to put it all together: SuperBach!

I must admit that I was confused by "jochaanan"'s response. I got the feeling I was supposed to like the piece because of the "message" of the title, instead of the ear quality of the music. This made me uncomfortable, as if, "You don't like this "Holocaust Requiem" by Philip Glass because you're an antisemite." Perhaps, lately, I see a political agenda behind every musical rock. This COULD be my fault, but I don't know.

All of a sudden I feel like un-Nono? Can "strange scraping techniques" be politicized? hmmm...

If you write music in Db minor you are a communist!

[greg]

I think Penderecki's music is much more than novelty. There's very very powerful emotion and a sense of mysticism that is uniquely Penderecki in his early music. They didn't use his music in movies because of the strange sounds alone, or odd playing techniques, but because of the chilling atmosphere of his music. Listening to his music is like looking down into the depths of hell, gazing into eternal suffering.

[snyprrr]

Don't get me wrong, I like Penderecki just fine; but, I don't find his music scary. I'm always trying to figure where exactly "The Exorcist" parts are in the SQ, because when I listen to the "music", I hear P revelling in "sound", not exorcizing his Catholic "demons." Maybe this comes from my background writing horror fiction (I always eschew "obvious" horror/scare tactics). I would have to know what P himself would say about where he was mentally at the time (his "Romantic" period, however, can be verrry scary to me).

Lullabies and nursery rhymes however...brrr. Very scary. I think I just tripped the OFF TOPIC ALERT!!! . These threads can be quite amorphous, no?

[jochanaan]

...I must admit that I was confused by "jochaanan"'s response. I got the feeling I was supposed to like the piece because of the "message" of the title, instead of the ear quality of the music. This made me uncomfortable, as if, "You don't like this "Holocaust Requiem" by Philip Glass because you're an antisemite." Perhaps, lately, I see a political agenda behind every musical rock. This COULD be my fault, but I don't know.

Well, I like to think my musical taste trumps my admiration for the message.  I'm sure there's been a lot of junk written to commemorate Hiroshima, the Holocaust and so on, but Penderecki's Threnody isn't one of them.  And yes, I have heard it, and yes, I really LIKED it.

[snyprrr]

But do you really really REALLY like it?

I "like" it too! You've made me have to revisit it. But only once!