Thursday, June 25, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
As an American culture we have failed as a collective to make classical music our own. America somehow managed to take a European piano and let its artists create a new genre of music called jazz. However, the current model for American orchestral management is to hire European music directors, play European music, and record the same European music over and over again to the point where it is unsellable and driving orchestras more in debt and audiences farther away. What is the artistic or business model there?
I can understand making these records if they were flying out of the record shops, but they are virtually unsellable. Albums are only done for the vanity of the music director’s ego to create their own legacy in the classical world at the future expense of the orchestral musicians and patrons.
Can't these patrons and managers at least find American music directors? Are we that inept as a society that in our expansive country, where we explode in creativity in so many genres, cannot find our own home grown music directors? Or are we always going to be content as a second rate Europe?
Who is minding the store? How are these things allowed to happen? The classical world hemorrhages vast amounts of money and would not even exist if it were not for the handful of rich patrons that allow music directors to indulge this behavior. If it is all a write off for a musical charity, this money would be a lot better spent if these patrons would have the sense of self to at least try to create their own indigenous American orchestral sound, as we have managed to do with Jazz. Art must have context and we are a society of rhythm and of jazz. The entire world has changed and responds to a different pulse than the European elite of the 1700s. This current thinking only pushes classical music farther away from the youth of this country and prevents any chance of its growth. We are not Europe and need to concentrate on building a first rate model predicated on the ideas of our own country rather than imitating the Europe of 100 years ago.
Part 2: The future
The powerless composer and the all mighty orchestra paradigm will soon invert. The composer will have the power of realizations of their works, as the “Artificial Intelligence” computer orchestra will far surpass any real orchestra in the next few years. A composer’s imagination will no longer be stifled predicated on the dexterity of the human digits. They now will be able to realize whatever they can imagine in their minds. If you want to write a tuba part where the tuba must play perfect 32nd notes at any tempo from the lowest note to highest note without any effort or mistakes this will be a none-issue.
For those of you that follow the Binaural+ recordings I have been doing in conjunction with Professor Edgar Choueiri and the Princeton Physics lab, virtual 3D audio is around the corner. In the future the collective experience concert hall may not be the best venue to listen to music as soon our homes can be transformed into any venue we like. Science fiction? No, it is science that can now be done in a lab.
The composer of the future will not resemble his forefather, sub human life form composer who grovels like a scared mouse at the feet of an orchestra to play their music. They will not only compose music, but perform it with a perfect virtual orchestra, pick the venue, and you will get it as a hi-resolution 3D download at home.
So if the orchestras of tomorrow want to coexist with this new platform they need to change their modus operandi and perhaps start thinking about joining the world of the present.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
In order for any creator in the high arts to retain a modicum of sanity one must drop the ontological construct of self world. In the world of the arts there is no world, only the self as the world is very capable and successful in turning a creator into an alcoholic, depressive, drug addict, or in some rare cases, ear-less.
I started my career in jazz and looking back it would have been very practical to have stayed in that idiom. Jazz is very different art form than orchestral composition, (as it is based on improvisation) and the JAZZ AUDIENCE is OPEN to new things. JAZZ thrives on the spontaneity of new music being created in the moment. I would compare it to the thrill of surfing a giant wave as you ride the sound that emanates instantaneously from your subconscious to your fingers.
I thirsted to leave my very comfortable home and create new music in different genres and forms and composed orchestral works because I love the sound of these large scale challenging musical novels that do not exist in the world of jazz, but unfortunately I created these for a classical world that is NOT OPEN to new IDEAS and RESENTS them as it perpetuates the status quo, and has been spiritually and intellectually castrated thus forth they are not to able to celebrate anticipation.
So in liberating myself from my mothers nipple I will write symphonies for fun, and play jazz for fun, and EXPECT NOTHING more than the SATISFACTION of the creative process.
So I am signing off and entering the world of the Solipsistic ARTIST, the PSYCHOTIC and CRIMINAL, and all others that live outside the realm of SOCIETY in the hope of finding inner peace from solely the artistic process.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Monday, July 21, 2014
The Art Gene
The McGurk Effect (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0) has proven that humans are hard wired to function in a certain way, even if we instinctively know something is not correct. We cannot short circuit our natural responses despite how frequently we try. The experiment blatantly displays that it is virtually impossible to alter our natural response. Genetically passed down knowledge simply trumps acquired knowledge.
Take for instance, ten young men walk into a bar. They are all from the same town and have the same cultural background. A girl is sitting at the bar and none of them attempt to speak to her. Four of the men express they are not attracted to her. Three say they would date her once. Two agree she might make a nice girlfriend. And one puts her on an aesthetic pedestal, falling madly in love and begs her to marry him. Hard wired or not? This has to be a bio chemical response. We romanticize the most simplistic human evolutionary function. Are we programmed to respond to a certain set of random patterns, i.e. a person’s attractiveness, in the natural order of selection to preserve the species?
Is it possible this gene that determines attractions within a species, also defines beauty in all other areas of life?
I was not raised in Russia or Austria, therefore I have no connection to either culture, yet I will always prefer to listen to Stravinsky's works over Mahler's. While I can appreciate Mahler on a cerebral and compositional level, I can honestly say I am not moved by his music in the same way, nor have the same connection as I do with Stravinsky.
Is it possible that some music critics, no matter how much they listen, will not be able to connect and see the beauty in a work? These works, as brilliant as they might be, can merely be dismissed by the critic as minor and non relevant. So, do our natural, sexual attractions and preferences carry over to our artistic tastes as well? No man can fake being moved by a woman's face, the body does not lie, you love her or you don't. Is this the case as well for art? Are humans unable to see the beauty in some works because we are hard wired not to in this area?
Are the genes that control our musical aesthetics passed down and imprinted in our nervous system? Are our tastes predetermined from birth or do they develop with later cognitive learning and culture?