NationStates Jolt Archive

My brother is a musician and a Professor of music at a small college in the mid-west USA. This is his latest "work"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MaxhJs2AUo

What say you the vast unwashed membership of NSG?

What, pray tell, does this have to do with music, except for the presence of a musical instrument?

I think your brother has issues.

I want my 7:12 back =(

Is he claiming it's music? I'd say it wasn't, since the burning of a piano results in entirely random noise.

Your brother is a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual non-artist.

All these types are worthless and idiotic.

That was rather boring.

I like Yosuke Yamashita's version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gPqrQcmKSY&feature=related) better.

What, pray tell, does this have to do with music, except for the presence of a musical instrument?

I think your brother has issues.

It is somewhat avant-garde, isn't it?

As a supposed work of music, what does burining a piano say about the current state of music?

It is somewhat avant-garde, isn't it?

As a supposed work of music, what does burining a piano say about the current state of music?

To be avant-garde it would have to say something. It doesn't.

Burning the piano has more to do witht he person burning it than with the current state of music.

As The Critic would say, "It stinks."

As a supposed work of music, what does burining a piano say about the current state of music?Absolutely nothing, seeing as it's not music. As a piece of art, it indicates that an angry mob can put an end to an instrument, even one not heinously out of tune.

The piano seems to be experimental composition's bitch. It's hit with mallets, has little pieces of wood shoved into it, it's set on fire...

I think that the comment on the youtube entry defuses a lot of the stated pretension. "We're going to light a piano on fire. *pause* Because it's awesome."

There is a sort of Pere Ubu element to this piece (the Jarre character, not the band), that in essence you are destroying the instrument of music (which in this case, in regards to western composition, the piano is the prime symbol) to create music. For experimental composition, this is almost the perfect event, the burning down of the core element that defines western music composition-destroying it to build music on its ashes.

And, you know, bonfire. Bonfires are awesome.

The piano seems to be experimental composition's bitch.

Heheh...

Funnily enough, his response when I asked what he had in mind with that was:

"Bitch had it comin'"

It's hit with mallets, has little pieces of wood shoved into it, it's set on fire...

I think that the comment on the youtube entry defuses a lot of the stated pretension. "We're going to light a piano on fire. *pause* Because it's awesome."

There is a sort of Pere Ubu element to this piece (the Jarre character, not the band), that in essence you are destroying the instrument of music (which in this case, in regards to western composition, the piano is the prime symbol) to create music. For experimental composition, this is almost the perfect event, the burning down of the core element that defines western music composition-destroying it to build music on its ashes.

And, you know, bonfire. Bonfires are awesome.

Indeed a cogent analysis... Especially the second comment...

You really shouldn't attempt to be avant-garde just because you think it's cool.

Or something.

What he did looked more like a day time bush party than a work of art.

Reminds me of the Score for a Hole in the Ground. Only that that one won £50,000 from the PRS foundation.

I like CToaN's analysis, but I cannot reconcile this stunt with any conception of what 'music' is. I shouldn't think your brother actually believes in the avant garde, he's more intelligent than that. This is a parody of experimentalism, not real activism to invoke change.

The fire is a good idea, but burning the piano is pointless.
what would have been better would be him playing the piano next to the burning fire, or playing while it burned.
and why didn't anyone cook some marshmallows on it while it was burning?

I guess you could say I'm visually impared since I'm at work now and can't watch videos.

could someone give me a brief discription of what's on the video?

I guess you could say I'm visually impared since I'm at work now and can't watch videos.

could someone give me a brief discription of what's on the video?

well Dastallia 2104 runs around naked for a while, then he steals his brothers piano (with a forklift truck) then he draws a pentagram on the ground and pours oil over it.
He lights it with a flare claiming "purge the evil of orchestra music, all those be dammned who look upon thy creation with wonderment".
Then he runs away as police chase him down, he ends up being detained for a while.

okay so seriously, it's not as interesting as that.
They burn a piano. that's it. i just wanted to make it seem cool

Is there a point to this... "art"?

I find this really disturbing - to me, its mindless destruction of something precious.

That was rather boring.

I like Yosuke Yamashita's version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gPqrQcmKSY&feature=related) better.

My brother's reply to your comments:

I’ve seen this. It strikes me as Jerry Lee Lewis revisited, only with more safety gear.

I determined that the most unique thing about our burning vs others on Youtube is that it was “organic” – we didn’t use any petroleum products, only wood and hay.

Very Grinnellian!

(Grinnell's where he teaches.)

I'm about to pass along some other comments and will post the replies he makes, if any. :)

o_0

Just the title tells me all I want to know, thanks. Someone burns a piano. :(

Okay, well around 3.30 and also 4.45, there was some interesting imagery in terms of how the fire burnt the piano, the flames from within contrasted with the sections below and above the keyboard.

The tippety-tap of the burning between those two sections was also usable.

So if your brother actually wants to make something of this, rather than just burn a piano for the seeming amusement, he could make a composition based on that snapping, possibly rhythmic sound and take influence from that imagery. He could also edit the visuals to underscore the composition.

The point is, he could do something with it that could potentially be interesting but, as it is, it's just a bunch of people burning a piano.

EDIT: Actually, as a teacher, he should ask his students to do something with it either as a joint class project or as individuals.

That made me so bored I now want to set fire to and destroy teh internets:p

Here're his replies...

The best, and most accurate comments would probably be:

"I like (the above) analysis, but I cannot reconcile this stunt with any conception of what 'music' is. I shouldn't think your brother actually believes in the avant garde, he's more intelligent than that. This is a parody of experimentalism, not real activism to invoke change."

"I think that the comment on the youtube entry defuses a lot of the stated pretension. "We're going to light a piano on fire. *pause* Because it's awesome."

The worst and least accurate are:

"Your brother is a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual non-artist. All these types are worthless and idiotic." - this is someone who assumes way too much about an "artist's" motivations (walking on very this ice in the realm of aesthetics) and takes him or herself way too seriously

"Is he claiming it's music? I'd say it wasn't, since the burning of a piano results in entirely random noise." - this dismisses way too much of the literature without acknowledging its presence (and it's not entirely random. After all, by constructing the tripod, hoisting the piano, and building the fire, I controlled the position of the piano in relation to the wind, the type and size of the fire, and to some degree, the order in which portions burned. This may, in fact, be exercising as much control as a tunesmith who "writes" a pop song with a melody and basic chords.)

It may be a little unfair as I've heard some of his music before.

Although, this thread does highlight something interesting about activism and the avant garde in asking, 'What does it achieve?'.

Those who have pushed the supposed limits of what is 'music' (and 'good music') have generally been lambasted and ostracised, though have often influenced what future generations conceived as acceptable (e.g. Stravinsky). However, I dislike this tabula rasa idea of destroying any links to previous traditions and starting afresh (e.g. Boulez in earlier times), as if this will create something better. The best composers (and most listened to, whether that is synonymous or not is a different matter) have always used traditions to branch off from into new areas.

Problem with modern day experimentalism is that it pushes what music is into something that is not comprehensible by the human brain, either being too lengthy, too complex - electronic composition can often mean the composer puts in more than the brain can cope with just because he/she can, and similarly, serialist composition can often sound like random notes despite its strict control of them. This just leads to apathy in 'classical' music of the last 100 or so years, as is seen in classical radio stations and a lot of music programming, unless it has clear links to the past (Karl Jenkins, film music, though the latter has inherited quite a few techniques from C20 composers).

I always found Cage's work rather pointless, despite the label of 'pioneer' he gets given.

It might well be art, but the lack of tones makes it not music, by definition.

well Dastallia 2104 runs around naked for a while, then he steals his brothers piano (with a forklift truck) then he draws a pentagram on the ground and pours oil over it.
He lights it with a flare claiming "purge the evil of orchestra music, all those be dammned who look upon thy creation with wonderment".
Then he runs away as police chase him down, he ends up being detained for a while.

okay so seriously, it's not as interesting as that.
They burn a piano. that's it. i just wanted to make it seem coolLIAR!!! :mad:

well, if you added Nanatsu then it would be VERY intersting...

It might well be art, but the lack of tones makes it not music, by definition.
true, no 'music' and not what I would call 'art'.

Of course, 'Art' is up to the individual...

It might well be art, but the lack of tones makes it not music, by definition.

Is, then, Ligeti's piece for 100 metronomes not 'music'? And how do you define 'tone'?

Music. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chje84FAo8A)

I find this really disturbing - to me, its mindless destruction of something precious.

Agreed. This video is garbage.

Is, then, Ligeti's piece for 100 metronomes not 'music'? And how do you define 'tone'?

I woudn't call Ligeti's stuff music. the Rain hitting my neighbor's corrigated steel roof shed sounds better.

but that doesn't make Ligeti's work not art.

I woudn't call Ligeti's stuff music. the Rain hitting my neighbor's corrigated steel roof shed sounds better.

but that doesn't make Ligeti's work not art.

You find this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgsqLIfcq8A&feature=related) not music? I'm sure Kubrick and anyone who has seen the film would disagree.

And define the difference between 'music' and what you call 'art'.

You find this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgsqLIfcq8A&feature=related) not music? I'm sure Kubrick and anyone who has seen the film would disagree. I was refereing only to the metronome thing, when I posted that post you quoted, I was on the phone and had to type fast.

And define the difference between 'music' and what you call 'art'.
all music is art, but not all art is music.

as for my post, I said "I don't consider it music." and that is because, like art, it's on the individual's preference.

My brother is a musician and a Professor of music at a small college in the mid-west USA. This is his latest "work"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MaxhJs2AUo

What say you the vast unwashed membership of NSG?

Was it a witch?

Was it a witch?

It weighed the same as a duck.

I was refereing only to the metronome thing, when I posted that post you quoted, I was on the phone and had to type fast.

Ah, I thought your comment was about all of Ligeti's music. Though that piece is rather unusual in his life, it carries a similar quality to much 'minimalist' music in its emphasis on process and rhythm in place of pitch (there is regular frequency in the chiming of the metronomes, but it is above our ears' capacity of pitch resolving).

all music is art, but not all art is music.

as for my post, I said "I don't consider it music." and that is because, like art, it's on the individual's preference.

Fair enough. Is your perception of music as a subset of art simply that which you enjoy listening to?

I could see it having artistic value, (something about creativity consuming itself? I don't know) but I could also see it having rather more artistic value to some aspiring musician who can't afford the piano they decided to burn. if I knew the people I might kind of find it cool, but only for their sake...having a piano could make a big difference in some kid's life - it would've been a lot more meaningful that way...but you can't youtube that...just rather wasteful I guess.

Fair enough. Is your perception of music as a subset of art simply that which you enjoy listening to?
hmmm.... for me, 'music' has to touch me in a different way than 'Noise' and 'Sound'.

I would like to say, for it to be 'music' to me, it has to contains a Rythm or Beat. preferably in a pattern.

A melody is not necessary, and neither are harmonics but they are preferable to me.

The reason why I don't call the 100 metronomes music is that while it can be said it contained a beat, it was drowned out by all the other metronomes moving at different beats.

had one been dominant or established as the dominant by starting with that beat first then slowly introduce the other beats untill all 100 metronomes were going as supporting that dominant beat then I might have changed my mind.

but after listening to it 5 times... it just sounded to me like rice being poured into a large plastic tub.

again this is my opinion. but also yea, I have to enjoy listening to it.

Is, then, Ligeti's piece for 100 metronomes not 'music'?

Is it reproducible? If not, then no.

Is it reproducible? If not, then no.

'Reproducible'? Exactly, you mean? No piece is reproducible exactly unless to perform it you simply press play on a tape. I assume the piece has a set list of what positions and speeds the metronomes should be placed/set at. A different set of metronomes could be used, but this would be as reproducible as two different orchestras performing a piece (different instruments, people).

hmmm.... for me, 'music' has to touch me in a different way than 'Noise' and 'Sound'.

I would like to say, for it to be 'music' to me, it has to contains a Rythm or Beat. preferably in a pattern.

A melody is not necessary, and neither are harmonics but they are preferable to me.

The reason why I don't call the 100 metronomes music is that while it can be said it contained a beat, it was drowned out by all the other metronomes moving at different beats.

had one been dominant or established as the dominant by starting with that beat first then slowly introduce the other beats untill all 100 metronomes were going as supporting that dominant beat then I might have changed my mind.

but after listening to it 5 times... it just sounded to me like rice being poured into a large plastic tub.

again this is my opinion. but also yea, I have to enjoy listening to it.

In a sense, you could say the metronome that lasts longest is the dominant one as it is present during the whole thing and the others are layered on top, but your point is fair. What I find interesting about the piece is the process of complexity becoming simpler towards a single beat. But this is a different kind of enjoyment to that which I would get listening to, say, Mozart.

I'll assume that when you say 'rhythm' you mean one that is comprehensible to the human brain i.e. Cage's 'As long as possible' would not be classed as music as the 'beat' is imperceptible (lasting in the current performance about 40 years each).

That's quite a common definition to include emotional response as why else would one listen. Myself, I include process as something to base a piece on, so would include the Ligeti in 'music', but it is after all a personal choice.

I assume the piece has a set list of what positions and speeds the metronomes should be placed/set at.

If so, then it's music.

If so, then it's music.

You don't consider improvisation music?

This strikes me as more ironically avant-garde than the real thing.

In a sense, you could say the metronome that lasts longest is the dominant one as it is present during the whole thing and the others are layered on top, but your point is fair. What I find interesting about the piece is the process of complexity becoming simpler towards a single beat. But this is a different kind of enjoyment to that which I would get listening to, say, Mozart. In a sense you could say that, but you don't hear it till the end. EVEN when you know which beat to listen to, you can't hear it (or I can't anyway). that's while it kinda fails for me.

I'll assume that when you say 'rhythm' you mean one that is comprehensible to the human brain i.e. Cage's 'As long as possible' would not be classed as music as the 'beat' is imperceptible (lasting in the current performance about 40 years each). it's more of a feeling for me. some rhythms are better felt than heard. Never heard Cage's piece. but I'll check it out.

That's quite a common definition to include emotional response as why else would one listen. Myself, I include process as something to base a piece on, so would include the Ligeti in 'music', but it is after all a personal choice. yeah, it reminds me of a saying
"I may not know 'art' but I know what I like."

My brother is a musician and a Professor of music at a small college in the mid-west USA. This is his latest "work"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MaxhJs2AUo

What say you the vast unwashed membership of NSG?

What what what!!! Why did he burn a piano for?! A piano... *sobs*
That, to me, is like murdering another person. Why? Gods...:(

You don't consider improvisation music?

Improvisation is reproducible. A fire is not.

What what what!!! Why did he burn a piano for?! A piano... *sobs*
That, to me, is like murdering another person. Why? Gods...:(

I know. my initial reaction was "that's my family's old piano"

and that Piano was made from GOOD WOOD. :(

I know. my initial reaction was "that's my family's old piano"

and that Piano was made from GOOD WOOD. :(

I absolutely adore and have a deep respect for that instrument. Seeing one burn saddens me.:(

What what what!!! Why did he burn a piano for?! A piano... *sobs*
That, to me, is like murdering another person. Why? Gods...:(

He sent me another comment to post that actually explains this (and may adress some others comments as well.

Also, for folks who like discussing such things, a new issue is that of value.
The piano actually had negative value: not only was given away at no charge, it was left in a storage shed with the indication that it needed to be taken or it would be hauled away to the dump. Therefore, we were in essence "hired" as a disposal service.

He sent me another comment to post that actually explains this (and may adress some others comments as well.

Although I understand that your brother and his students were just disposing of the piano, because of my love for that instrument, I feel really saddened of the way it was neglected, abandoned at a warehouse and, subsequently, burnt. But I´ll get over it.:p

In a sense you could say that, but you don't hear it till the end. EVEN when you know which beat to listen to, you can't hear it (or I can't anyway). that's while it kinda fails for me.

Fair enough, it's a rather odd piece by all accounts. I find process music only enjoyable in certain states of mind, if I require too much interaction with it it becomes dull and uninteresting. Some pieces are exceptional to this, like Adams' Short ride in a fast machine which brims with excitement and energy, and Pärt's Spiegel im spiegel which is really simple and quite beautiful.

it's more of a feeling for me. some rhythms are better felt than heard. Never heard Cage's piece. but I'll check it out.

http://www.john-cage.halberstadt.de/new/index.php?seite=dasprojekt&l=e

That's the website, but given that the piece started in 2001 and there has been 2 notes thus far, you probably wouldn't be too interested. ;)

In general, I find undue complexity annoying. There was a piece at the proms a year or two ago, the composer described it as multi-layered and rhythmically complex, and in hearing it I just thought, 'why bother writing something that is indistinguishable from random sounds?'. Just because you can write a myriad of parts in computer notation software, doesn't mean you should. In many cases the simpler, the better; or, at least, complexity kept to a prudent level that the brain can cope with.

Anyway, end rant, it's been nice discussing with you.

Improvisation is reproducible. A fire is not.

In what way? A fire can be videoed and played back in the same way an improvisation can be. An improviser can never repeat spontaneous actions in the exact same way. I'm not sure how you are defining 'reproducible'.

He sent me another comment to post that actually explains this (and may adress some others comments as well.

That doesn't make me feel any better - its like kicking a person when they're down :(

It's just a bunch of people standing around pointlessly destroying an instrument.

If you want to listen to the sound of fire, it would have sounded the same whether or not a piano was used as the hapless kindling.

That piano could have been donated instead.

Unless he's making fun of the avante-gard's tendency to take its own stupid shit way too seriously, I'm afraid this has given me a very low opinion of your brother.

what would have been better would be him playing the piano next to the burning fire, or playing while it burned.


Billy Joel already beat you to that one.

In what way? A fire can be videoed and played back in the same way an improvisation can be. An improviser can never repeat spontaneous actions in the exact same way. I'm not sure how you are defining 'reproducible'.

When you improvise, you still play notes. If you have a good memory, you can then play the same notes at a later date. This cannot be done with a fire, since if you set another fire it will not result in the same pattern of sounds.

When you improvise, you still play notes. If you have a good memory, you can then play the same notes at a later date. This cannot be done with a fire, since if you set another fire it will not result in the same pattern of sounds.

Ok, that's a fair comment, and aligns with how I saw the winner of the PRS award that I mentioned earlier. It was basically a set of suspended metal bowls placed underground with an amplifier to relay aboveground the sounds created by rainwater dripping down onto the bowls. Artistic, perhaps, but not music. Chance in music is possible, but should be limited to determining what sections to move onto, or when to move from a repeated phrase onto the next (as in Riley's In C).

In essence, music is patterned sound by human design. But what about birdsong?

My brother's reply to your comments:

(Grinnell's where he teaches.)

I'm about to pass along some other comments and will post the replies he makes, if any. :)
Cool to get a response.

Had he tried to play the piano himself, I would have been greatly amused! :p

That's the website, but given that the piece started in 2001 and there has been 2 notes thus far, you probably wouldn't be too interested. ;)
I recall hearing about that. I've always wondered what the locals might be thinking in 150 years or so when the piece hits a sharp dissonance (a major seventh for instance). "My ears are ringing! Am I going deaf?"


In general, I find undue complexity annoying. There was a piece at the proms a year or two ago, the composer described it as multi-layered and rhythmically complex, and in hearing it I just thought, 'why bother writing something that is indistinguishable from random sounds?'. Just because you can write a myriad of parts in computer notation software, doesn't mean you should. In many cases the simpler, the better; or, at least, complexity kept to a prudent level that the brain can cope with.
I think similar thoughts when attending an awful lot of new music concerts, although don't usually give voice to them, (after all, who could take seriously someone writing music in the 21st century who doesn't like either minimalism or serialism?), so glad to see my kind is still around.

Also, burning pianos: definitely satirical; but most experimental music is satirical in tone anyway. I point to one work, the composer of whom I've forgotten, entitled A Bomb Shall Be Thrown Into The Audience. This is tame in comparison. :p

I recall hearing about that. I've always wondered what the locals might be thinking in 150 years or so when the piece hits a sharp dissonance (a major seventh for instance). "My ears are ringing! Am I going deaf?"

:p I seem to remember the building being relatively remote, but an interesting social experiments notwithstanding.


I think similar thoughts when attending an awful lot of new music concerts, although don't usually give voice to them, (after all, who could take seriously someone writing music in the 21st century who doesn't like either minimalism or serialism?), so glad to see my kind is still around.

You probably shouldn't categorise me like that based on limited information. I like both serialism and minimalism in moderation. The example I gave was quite extreme in its unnecessary complexity, some premieres at the proms can be excellent pieces. I regularly go to concerts of new music and enjoy them from both a listening and compositional perspective. You just need to find the type of thing you like and find more like it.

In fact, your characterisation of the modern music scene seems a bit contrived. Successful composers at the moment (Adés, Macmillan, Watkins some examples in Britain) often make use of tonality and neither of the two you mentioned. Good modern composition doesn't have to fill the boxes of academic techniques (if anything those two schools are more of an outdated 20th century thing), it just needs to be interesting and enjoyable. It's always a fine line of using tradition in innovative ways.

In essence, music is patterned sound by human design. But what about birdsong?

Patterned sound by bird design. I'd call it music.

Patterned sound by bird design. I'd call it music.

Yeah, I'd agree with you there, and Messiaen certainly did. :)

My brother is a musician and a Professor of music at a small college in the mid-west USA. This is his latest "work"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MaxhJs2AUo

What say you the vast unwashed membership of NSG?

I say setting things on fire doesn't constitute art.

My brother is a musician and a Professor of music at a small college in the mid-west USA. This is his latest "work"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MaxhJs2AUo

What say you the vast unwashed membership of NSG?

It must be a really small college....

Btw I for one think killing an antique musical instrument should be a crime. :(

It must be a really small college....

Btw I for one think killing an antique musical instrument should be a crime. :(

Indeed since restoring it would have been the better option..

There is far out modern art (Warhol (sp?) etc) and then there is what the hell did you do that for.

I rather liked it, actually. Not because it had any particular meaning, but because it was pyroclastic and strange.