concert piece for 100 metronomes

[Contratrombone64]

Not sure I'd call this music as such, but it had a certain engaging quality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8v-uDhcDyg

 

[wljmrbill]

Now that is different.. rather unusual for sure and I am sure alot of wrok top get in synec.

 

[Dorsetmike]

I would say somebody had too much time on their hands

 

[marval]

I am with Mike on this one, interesting but not for me.


Margaret

 

[dll927]

One would like to hope that they are all "counting" together. But I agree, it seems somewhat useless. How about a concert for ten ripsaws?

 

[marval]

Ten ripsaws? now that would be an unusual one.


Margaret

 

[Contratrombone64]

Actually, I agree, total b.s. but then again they said the same thing about that famous piece of silence, didn't they?

The video featured is actually not how the work was intended to be executed. Ligetti stipulates that the ten groups of ten metronomes be placed around the performance venue ... sigh. Whatever ...

 

[some guy]

Here's the score:

http://www.artnotart.com/fluxus/gligeti-poemesymphonique.html

And here's a more authentic performance:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-mEKnWU19s

 

[Contratrombone64]

An Australian performance, at that, some guy, thanks for sharing. I'll think I'll go and move a pile of sand with a pair of tweezers (makes as much sense as watch X metronomes ticking away).

 

[some guy]

But Contra, don't you like music? Besides, I thought you started this thread with "it has a certain engaging quality." Not that moving sand with tweezers couldn't also have a certain engaging quality. I mean, if you're into that type of thing!

 

[Contratrombone64]

It engaged itself with me by stealth and deception, I then found out its true, repetative motives. Give me 4'33" anyday.

 

[some guy]

Give me 4'33" anyday.

Can't argue with that!

 

[JHC]

Well, what can I say, such a genius to compose this and so well played
:angel: a true representation of some of today's music, unbelievable.

 

[rojo]

^ Not sure how well it represents today's music, as it was composed in 1962. Although I guess one could argue that in terms of classical music, 1962 wasn't that long ago (relatively speaking.)

 

[Contratrombone64]

tick, tick, tick, tick ...

there, now THERE's my original composition, just waiting for someone to play it for me please, with expression.

 

[JHC]

^ Not sure how well it represents today's music, as it was composed in 1962. Although I guess one could argue that in terms of classical music, 1962 wasn't that long ago (relatively speaking.)

You are quite correct sir, perhaps I should have just posted:

Rubbish

 

[some guy]

"rojo" is a ma'am.

And her point was about contemporaneity, not quality. 1962 was forty-eight years ago, and a lot has happened since then.

But since you've brought "quality" up, you should certainly be able to do better than a dismissive "rubbish." All that does is identify something about you and your listening abilities and your attitudes, which may indeed be interesting, but they are not what this thread is about.

Yes, I know. The thread did start out as an expression of contratrombone64's listening abilities and attitudes. OK, so that IS what this thread is about. How's this, then? Let's try to do more than simply express our attitudes. Let's at least give a wee justification for having them. And maybe even a wee justification for expressing them in the first place.

This is especially true for negative comments. A positive comment carries some built-in justification, after all. Positive comments lead somewhere, open things up generally. Negative ones close everything down. Some things may need to be closed down, you might argue. Well, justify the negative comments, then! Sneers and dismissals do nobody any good.

 

[Contratrombone64]

so the fact that someone thinks a certain piece of music is rubbish gives someone else the right to determine their cognitive process??

I THINK NOT

 

[some guy]

Not sure what you're addressing there, Contra. In what way was I determining someone's cognitive process?

I was pointing out that a word like "rubbish" is a dismissal of the thing so designated. Not much cognitive processing necessary to come to that conclusion.

But perhaps it was my use of the word "sneer." That seems a fair assessment of the last couple of posts of yours and J.H.C.'s.

I don't think that you would suggest that I should take everything I read at "face" value, completely oblivious to the daggers of sarcasm you two so carefully crafted. If I did that, I simply be faced with a contradiction: Ligeti is a genius for writing this. This is rubbish. But it's not a contradiction, is it? Statement one is sarcastic (as is "now THERE'S my original composition"), and statement two is not.

Actually, if you'd like to cast your eyes over my post again, you'll see that I was calling for more explication of cognitive processes, from the processors themselves. That is, I'd like to see more than just the conclusion ("rubbish"); I'd like to see the process that led to that conclusion.

 

[JHC]

"rojo" is a ma'am.

My apologies to you rojo I did not intend to offend you

And her point was about contemporaneity, not quality. 1962 was forty-eight years ago, and a lot has happened since then.

Yes I realise that, there is no point in stating the obvious.

But since you've brought "quality" up, you should certainly be able to do better than a dismissive "rubbish." All that does is identify something about you and your listening abilities and your attitudes,

It does no such thing, and I did not use the word quality perhaps you have me confused with some other poster, It was a flippant toss away remark complete with smilie that must have hit a sore point in you,

which may indeed be interesting, but they are not what this thread is about.

What do you see as the purpose of the thread?

Yes, I know. The thread did start out as an expression of contratrombone64's listening abilities and attitudes.

You are very quick to point out what you see as weaknesses in peoples point of view.

OK, so that IS what this thread is about.

Make your mind up

How's this, then? Let's try to do more than simply express our attitudes. Let's at least give a wee justification for having them. And maybe even a wee justification for expressing them in the first place.

I have been playing and listening to music for a long while and have come to various conclusions, I do not have to justify myself to you.

This is especially true for negative comments. A positive comment carries some built-in justification, after all. Positive comments lead somewhere, open things up generally. Negative ones close everything down. Some things may need to be closed down, you might argue. Well, justify the negative comments, then! Sneers and dismissals do nobody any good.

You really are very touchy and I have no intention of getting into an argument with you, I have seen some of your posts on other forums and realise that it is pointless, btw are you a musician or a composer