http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/it-is-what-you-think-it-is-2/
MW gets it wrong I'm afraid. You see DS is being specific about the mystery in his music theater crime work. The work is designed to be incomprehensible, except for the title and the editorial back story--this is about a "true" story. The criminals motivation is the mystery and expressed in an incomprehensible way. Rather fitting actually. So in that case it means there is no ambiguity at all but very specific mystery pertaining to crime stories. The annoying thing is that DS does not mention this at all. He frames his post to make the most obvious and mundane things seem incredible.
Phil Fried says:
“..but the exact idea being expressed can only be conveyed through the supplied text…”
I disagree.
That is only partially true and then only if there is no visual component to the work. The revealing of action or inaction, emotion or stasis can be shown visually, with underscoring or not.
Many directors have made careers visually reinterpreting songs, opera, etc. into brand new works. This is done by creating new visual scenarios.
On the subject of text perhaps you are not considering that many vocal based works and some instrumental works as well have stage directions, or what amounts to stage directions, that can completely undercut the text and change its meaning. That is there can be more than one layer of text in a work.
There is nothing wrong with creating work that does not take advantage of the above but I just don’t find text limiting.
________________________________________
http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/experimental-instruction/#comment-8610
Phil Fried says:
A consideration in such an enterprise is this; do you present experimentalist works by musical examples or by the composers? Why I ask is this: what was the composers commitment to experimental music over their life time? There seems a wide range on this. Were they consistent? Did they compose a work or two in the genre yet mostly compose mainstream work? How did that work? What was their motivation for their experiments? Did they codify the work of others, did they invent or did they have an idea that caused others to listen?
By the way I wonder if Virgil Thomson’s opera fit in here.
Or course its all easy with hindsight. Yet that mind set and the association their of are gone.
___________________________________
http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/blogging-the-2011-tcg-conference-what-if/
Phil Fried says:
“What if… revolutionary creators of theater and music worked together to create new performance works outside of the traditional rules of “musical theater” and “opera”?
But David these folks believe that this is exactly what they are doing right now. Further the focus on musical accessibility even among folks like Nautilus Music-Theatre means that one tradition merely replaces another.
Phil Fried, no sonic prejudice
Phil Fried says:
“Boy, you guys are all sunshine and light.”
David. There are those who accept the system as it is and those who don’t. Just because I chose to struggle against the currents of today’s art does not mean I refuse sunshine and light.
Rather I see the breaking dawn ahead.
Lovely view.
Phil Fried, no sonic prejudice
MW gets it wrong I'm afraid. You see DS is being specific about the mystery in his music theater crime work. The work is designed to be incomprehensible, except for the title and the editorial back story--this is about a "true" story. The criminals motivation is the mystery and expressed in an incomprehensible way. Rather fitting actually. So in that case it means there is no ambiguity at all but very specific mystery pertaining to crime stories. The annoying thing is that DS does not mention this at all. He frames his post to make the most obvious and mundane things seem incredible.
Phil Fried says:
“..but the exact idea being expressed can only be conveyed through the supplied text…”
I disagree.
That is only partially true and then only if there is no visual component to the work. The revealing of action or inaction, emotion or stasis can be shown visually, with underscoring or not.
Many directors have made careers visually reinterpreting songs, opera, etc. into brand new works. This is done by creating new visual scenarios.
On the subject of text perhaps you are not considering that many vocal based works and some instrumental works as well have stage directions, or what amounts to stage directions, that can completely undercut the text and change its meaning. That is there can be more than one layer of text in a work.
There is nothing wrong with creating work that does not take advantage of the above but I just don’t find text limiting.
________________________________________
http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/experimental-instruction/#comment-8610
Phil Fried says:
A consideration in such an enterprise is this; do you present experimentalist works by musical examples or by the composers? Why I ask is this: what was the composers commitment to experimental music over their life time? There seems a wide range on this. Were they consistent? Did they compose a work or two in the genre yet mostly compose mainstream work? How did that work? What was their motivation for their experiments? Did they codify the work of others, did they invent or did they have an idea that caused others to listen?
By the way I wonder if Virgil Thomson’s opera fit in here.
Or course its all easy with hindsight. Yet that mind set and the association their of are gone.
___________________________________
http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/blogging-the-2011-tcg-conference-what-if/
Phil Fried says:
“What if… revolutionary creators of theater and music worked together to create new performance works outside of the traditional rules of “musical theater” and “opera”?
But David these folks believe that this is exactly what they are doing right now. Further the focus on musical accessibility even among folks like Nautilus Music-Theatre means that one tradition merely replaces another.
Phil Fried, no sonic prejudice
Phil Fried says:
“Boy, you guys are all sunshine and light.”
David. There are those who accept the system as it is and those who don’t. Just because I chose to struggle against the currents of today’s art does not mean I refuse sunshine and light.
Rather I see the breaking dawn ahead.
Lovely view.
Phil Fried, no sonic prejudice
