Do you find this interesting? Is it music? No need to answer the second question, by the way, unless you feel like doing so.
Check out this TED Talk by composer/creator Mark Applebaum and please share your thoughts in the comments below:
If you didn't click on the link in the second paragraph above to Mark Applebaum's bio page in Wikipedia, the very brief version is that he is a full professor of music composition and theory at Stanford University.
Posts
15 comments:
Thanks for sharing, Dr. Ross!
He is very engaging and I found his presentation super interesting.
I can’t relate to him in that I find instruments I’m familiar with boring - in fact I think the more familiar or confident I am in an instrument the more fun I can have with it. Although, I can understand why he likes to explore new tools for music making. I also like the roles/enterprises he presents (ie: the inventor and the interpreter) - I’ve never heard of musicianship referred to in that way. I found the visual scores at the Cantor Art Centre Museum very very cool - and I love how he said it was visual art most of the time except for that 1 hour where it became musical. To me, music is many many things and I don’t really feel entitled to say what is or isn’t music to someone else. What I know is that there’s something about harmony and more conventional music that draws me in in a special way as a performer and musician HOWEVER, I do love to listen to what musicians in other places and in other ways are doing. Yes, it IS interesting (very!) - I love how he shifts this question towards the end.
Thanks so much,
Claire
Thanks for your comment, Claire!
Like you, I found him to be a fascinating speaker and presenter, but I do not find traditional instruments such as the piano boring. Quite the contrary! I love trying to find new ideas to work on for the piano and other instruments. Ditto for classical repertoire; every year I teach the Beethoven piece that Applebaum played briefly at the start of his presentation ("Pathetique" Sonata, Op. 13, final movement), and I'm excited by it every time!
Nevertheless, he is a compelling speaker and you may find that some of the things that interest him are interesting for you as well.
To me it is very interesting how our musical ideas are very limited to our tonal system and our instruments, which are an extension of how humans perceive sound and how we have the ability to classify them and form things that have a meaning to us. That’s why i really love every time I see some whacky new instrument or a piece of music so original I don’t even have any idea if I like it or not yet (in most cases I do end up liking the new music), as they push these limits (or look at them from a completely different perspective) which generates a new style. In a way it is a bit like being born again and listening to music for the very first time, we are completely clueless of what's happening but somehow we can find a meaning to the most meaningless occurrence, which is amazing!
I think it is interesting because, throughout our lives, we were made to believe that music had to have some sort of tonality to it. I'm always fascinated by new ways to make music, and it really puts into perspective that music can be anything we imagine it to be (as long as it has sound of course). Music doesn't have to be a sonata, or have verses and a chorus to be considered "music", and you can use pretty much anything around you to make it, which I find absolutely incredible.
Personally, I find this TED talk to be extremely interesting. It definitely made me take a double take on my thoughts and opinions of music and really take away the idea of always having an open idea and perception of music going forward! It really made me appreciate all aspects of performers a little more and really showed how impressive improvisation during music really is. Especially when he played the Beethoven lol. Personally, I find this to be what I would call the ‘grey area’ of music, and that really it all comes up to the ones personal definition of what music really is. I wrote a paper last semester on John Cage’s 4’33” and had the same discussion of is it really music even though he doesn’t touch a single key on the piano the entire performance. It has similar aspects to things that are music such as having scores created for the instrument both straight and abstract but I also find the sounds itself are hard to distinct as pitch or straight beats/pulses. I truly think this being determined as music wholly comes down to the idea of the person who is asked. Even though I think Mark’s Instrument would be better used for specific sounds during possibly an action or horror film, I do find these to be music. For me personally, I believe anything that can be notated in some way shape or form, holds some sort of rhythm or form, and can be performed/interpreted by someone other than the creator, it has its place in the music world as it is audio, but that’s just me. I find its up to the listeners discretion but for me yeah it can be considered music in a way.
I found this video very interesting! I like how open minded he is about music. Although I don’t agree with the statement that pieces by Beethoven and instruments we’re familiar with, like the piano, specifically, can be boring or become boring — I’m biased! — I think there’s infinite possibilities that come with both if you try hard enough to find them. I think once you become familiar with an instrument there are an infinite number of possibilities that come along with it. That being said, I can see how some people wish to seek out new and unusual ways of making music. I also think it’s amazing how he showed so many ways of making music inside and outside of tonal music in such a short time. Considering my interests in visual art, the idea of graphic scores is the most fascinating to me and I think of all the ways there are to make new, different kinds of music, graphic scores would be my preferred way of going about it starting off.
The comment above was mine! Sorry!
Kaitlin
I personally thought that his talk was very interesting, however I do think the isolating and individualistic way that he discussed the roles that he has taken was odd when so much of his work seems to be interpretational and aleatoric, to an extent. From the talk and his focus on the insistence that he was bored and the centralizing of the self in the different roles that he creates gave me more of an impression of separation and individuality from others that I didn’t really appreciate. However, I also found an interview about the Concerto for Florist and Orchestra where he started by saying that he got the idea for the piece when he met a colleague that was a florist and thought it would be cool to work with him as a performer. He even says that he determines the success of his work based on the audience’s reception and whether or not they want to hear more. That, and the more theatrical aspects of a lot of his works give a more open, shared, and collaborative impression of his process, where I feel that the leaning into the first-person pronouns when allotting of a person as composer, interpreter, improviser, ect. is much more self-contained and isolating. So, as a whole I just thought that this approach and wording in the talk was a little odd.
I actually think that his instrument was pretty cool and could potentially be used in an exponential number of ways. The sounds it produces remind me of sounds effects that are used in film, which I feel like makes sense based on the theatrical nature of so many of his compositions, and I would like to see how it evolves and how he uses it in the future. As for whether or not it’s music, I’m on the fence with some of it, but either way it’s definitely performance art, so I don’t think it really matters. All of which leads me to say, I agree that whether or not something is interesting is more important than the technical classification, even if I don’t agree that standard instruments are boring and lack any sense of innovation.
Also, Here's the link to the full Concerto recording with the interview, if anyone wants it: https://youtu.be/CuhIAvKhOb0
I found this talk very interesting and entertaining. I really enjoyed listening to him speak about music, and the various examples of the performances were very fun to watch. The question "Is it music" has bothered me for a long time, because in my opinion it is completely subjective. I know that I consider a lot of things music that others may not, but to be honest, I don't think it's up to the listener to decide that. Take the example he showed of the man ripping paper, cutting wood, etc. Is that music? Well many could watch that and consider it performancde art, but not music. Some people could even watch that and consider it pointless. I think that it is primarily up to the composer to decide if their work is music or not. If someone writes a piece that is nothing but the pages of a book turning and the composer says that it is music, who are we to tell them differently?
As for the talk, the only thing I really disagree with is his use of the word "boring". I used to find certain music boring, and even now I still get bored by certain types of music or songs. In recent years though, I have realized that the music is not boring, its just becoming familiar. We get so used to certain sounds that we get familiar with them, hence leading to us getting bored of them. This makes us want to branch out to find new sounds, just like he did by creating the instrument he presented. I don't think any music is boring, as I think people can find something they enjoy in any kind of music. Not everybody finds the same things interesting or boring, but there is always something out there for everyone to enjoy.
This was a great Ted Talk, it had an interesting premise and a great delivery. I liked how he tied “interest” in an instrument or type of music to the role one might serve in the performance of a piece. To my mind, it is important to think about how the role I play in the act of creating music shapes my level of interest or satisfaction with a piece. For example, there have been pieces that I think sounded good but did not enjoy singing and there have been pieces I have enjoyed singing but would not want to conduct. These are both scenarios in which my relationship with music changed based on my “role” (i.e. Interpreter, Improviser, Inventor, Composer ect.).
I found that ted talk quite interesting. It made me think of music in a way that I already was going towards. I will say, where I split off from him ,is that if there is too much experimentation outside of what we would call traditional definition of music, it is not interesting to me. I think in this way because I see music through an incredibly emotional lens...what I mean by this is that I need a tiny bit of traditional sonorities to make it inspiring to me, to make me invested in its development, the rest can all be aloof. I think compositionally those performance ideas are not very interesting if we just look at the composition and don't distract ourselves. Drilling through a book is not compositionally interesting to me, nor probably most people. This is where he's being to individualistic but that's alright for him. I do though support his individualism as I feel in some ways quite individualist as well, however, I want everyone to communally feel something from my music.
This presentation was overall extremely entertaining. It gave me a new perspective of “atonal music” and the composers who make it. The idea that atonal music could be a result of simply boredom with all things tonal, rather than trying to create something different for the sake of being different. Applebaum explains his pieces as a result of reaching a level of skill and confidence with his instrument that he redefines music entirely. I like that despite being admittedly bored with tonal music, he never lost his passion for music as a whole. His passion just shifted into something new, expanding his horizons as a musician. The idea of using boredom as a motivator for growth both as a person and musician is fascinating. I also really appreciate how seamlessly he tries to bring what he's doing to a wider audience. Even if you're not deeply into the world of music and composition, everyone can agree the idea of a concert with a florist is more interesting than just a concert.
The title of this video piqued my interest after finishing the video. A mad scientist is usually someone so smart they've lost themselves to their craft, pushing the boundaries of science as a whole. I think in Applebaum’s case, he not only pushes the boundaries of music but also evolves other parts of his person as a result. After becoming bored with the piano and composing tonal music, he takes up a variety of new roles in his life. The sort of domino effect music has taken for him is interesting (and anything but boring).
Mark Applebaum's presentation offers a fresh perspective on music and what music is, he showcases the transformative power of creativity. Moving from traditional tonal compositions to experimentation. I loved how he started playing Beethoven which is very tonal and by the end we seemed to be in a different planet. His unconventional instruments and performances challenge what I see music as. Personally I dont find the piano or saxophone boring as it is what I love doing so I can’t relate to him on that. However I do sometimes find my own rep boring and try to add new ideas which sometimes my applied profs allow and sometimes not. This is why I love playing solo saxophone music as there tends to be so much freedom and what I can do with the notes is so much fun and less “boring”. This video has simply just made the definition of music is just sound. That’s it, I find it interesting if you had subtitles on then for every little bang or sound (music) came up. Maybe this is signifying what music is, maybe google knows the answer lol. However I do agree music can be anything and his presentation really opened my eyes up.
What a cool ted talk video! It was really interesting to listen to Mark Applebaum talk about his various composition projects. I am particularly interested in the project that used a "picto graphic notation", as this is something that I have been interested in myself. Graphic notation is something you don't see all that often in classical music spaces, however, there are some cool examples of it out there including ones that date back to the medieval/early renaissance period. It was also cool that the graphic notation that Applebaum created was being played/interpreted by different musicians all the time. In general, I think the idea of a performer making their own contributions/having their own interpretation of the piece can make for an enjoyable performance. I'm sure many composers are very particular about how their pieces are performed, which I understand as they put a lot of time and effort into writing the piece. However, I think writing a piece with the intention of the performer making extensive contributing to it would be a really cool project. Better yet, utilizing graphic notation.
Love his TED presentation; thanks for the share.
Shameless bump and humble request: have you heard of CKORD? It's a music discovery platform and supports emerging artist on their musical journey. Is there an artist /band you'd commend to be profiled for our Rising Stars spotlight? Thanks
Post a Comment