Appearance - Reality - Appearance

Appearances can be deceiving. What is usually meant by this saying concerns the perception of something or someone by someone else. But the deception I'm referring to has to do with an individual in relation to him/herself.

The process of artistic creation starts deep within the artist's inner world. But soon after the psyche is impregnated by the creative seed (a seed that can be all-encompassing and atmospheric, resembling sometimes a state of madness), imagination must be confronted with reality. And often, in an instant, reality prevents imagination from pouring into the physical world. Only a few strands of the imaginary make it, just like insemination.

The appearance that is formed by the creative impulse meets reality by way of materialization. Sound is a difficult raw material, for it has no physical weight. In this respect, sound may give the impression of being closely bound to the imaginary, of never leaving it, for it doesn't seem to materialize completely. So what do composers tend to do? Organize sound grammatically, as a form of language. The result, the final appearance, then sounds like someone trying to describe something. Description is a symbolic way of understanding and getting a sense of something (an object or a phenomenon), but it's not the thing itself. Of course, no physical reality can be the thing imagined itself, but it can recreate it. The difference between recreating and describing is a central issue in art. In music composition, description is closer to musicology, and thus a deception. To recreate details of the inner world is closer to art.

Thus we have: Appearance (inner world) - Reality (sound) - Appearance (recreation).

The quasi-impossibility of artistic music

Music has mainly been about ideas. Ideas translated into an ordering of sounds (pitches for the most part). Unless there is a common pseudo-language through which people can eventually grow meanings, like tonality was, ordered sounds cannot convey ideas. Although it's sometimes floating around like a dream (nightmares mostly), tonality ceased to be an artistic possibility a long time ago. Unfortunately most composers still believe ideas can be perfectly channeled through sound, a belief that has secretly transformed itself into making order in music the main idea. And so, countless "personal" systems of music-making have flourished over the last century.

It seems that composition has been involved in a blind (or rather, deaf) search for meaning: looking for order (even if trying to convey chaos) as if meanings and ideas were to spring from the nonsense. When disillusioned, the next logical step appears to be backwards to the past or to a postmodern limbo, being cynical about the impossibility of artistic creation.

Stubbornness in maintaining semantic order above all else has prevented a great deal of composers from opening their ears and listening. Of course, many have impeccable hearing, but the problem lies in what they're listening to. It might be that most want to dissect what they hear into combinable parts.

More than having the power to convey ideas, sound itself (with its movement and transformations) has the potential of establishing equivalencies. To what? To reality and to the individual psyche. This is of course nothing new, great artists have known this all along. But it's easier to infuse some logic to composition, as opposed to dealing with the diffuse and ephemeral raw matter that is sound. That's why true art (not art that's correct) is a rare thing, always has been.

The essence of things

Anything can be painted. It's more difficult to see whether what one is doing is any good or not. But that's the only thing that counts. As Duchamp showed, it has nothing to do with craftsmanship. What counts isn't being able to do a thing, it's seeing what it is. Seeing is the decisive act, and ultimately it places the maker and the viewer on the same level.

-- Gerhard Richter.

Dream

Sometimes I imagine the existence of a music authority. Not one whose moral grounds come from aesthetics, idealism and/or extra-musical beliefs, but one of a moral respect for the art itself. I would love, for instance, that a bad singer be denied the possibility of singing lieder by Schubert and Schumann; that a mediocre orchestra or conductor be forbidden of meddling with Mozart or Beethoven; or that a pianist who only sees the keys of the instrument but can't hear them be remitted to wedding bands and have the scores of true art music withheld.

But of course, this can't be. In reality I'd be against it myself. To do so would imply the enforcement of policies, and as is now very clear, politics are an ideal channel through which human beings can degrade themselves. But even-though a music authority can't and shouldn't exist, it's nice to dream every once in a while.

Lost time

No one seems to have time anymore. It appears it's about to become extinguished.

With my music I hope to return some of the world's lost time.

Musical baggage

I found this video at NetNewMusic, where Jeff Harrington uses it to point out musical expectations. It's outstanding to realize (as the present video shows, but not only because of it) how certain musical notions and criteria are embeded in us. No wonder a great deal of the 20th century sounds like a lost puppy.

World Science Festival 2009: Bobby McFerrin Demonstrates the Power of the Pentatonic Scale from World Science Festival on Vimeo.

Tha dark side of the moon (if anyone cares)

In my creative work I seek to simplify certain structural processes in order to vent others that occur more naturally. A simple structure -and with certain width regarding time and space- allows for the unfolding of more complex (and interesting) acoustical phenomena. A more intimate approach to the substance of sound is needed for this to take place. In this way, sound can be a self-worthy entity instead of a syntactic element. It requires space and time to move, to transform itself, to breathe. Sound is not interested in ideas, and when it's pushed around with them it hides its nature, its essence, it becomes indifferent, almost as if giving the other cheek.

Like with the Alexander Technique [see previous post], it is not necessary to do much with sound, only establish the conditions for it to do what it must. The more one interferes with these processes, the less freedom. Artistic work deals with the establishing of these conditions. It's an enormous -seems almost impossible- labor which is the sum of skills, perception, intelligence, intuition, and sensitivity.

Music knows very little about this. Or better said, we know almost nothing about this other music. It's like the dark side of the moon, and there aren't many who'd like to step in. Most would rather have certainty (with an intervalic syntax, for instance) and it's understandable, it's a safe place. There's a popular saying: "No one said life was easy." No one said art is.