Немного Курляндского

[Kontrakadenz]

Вот квинтэссенция курлянщины, но с юмором:
http://www.newmusicclassics.com/venus_fly_trap.jpg

а в начале строчки там что такое завернуте нарисовано? Кажется, скрипичный ключ? Не. Это я не умею.

[Roman]

а в начале строчки там что такое завернуте нарисовано? Кажется, скрипичный ключ? Не. Это я не умею.

Для тех хто знает английский:
"First of all, Delians should actually listen to this young man's
music. I recommend "Resonant Mass" (2002), which is fairly short and
can be downloaded at his web site, since I give my
stream-of-consciousness impressions of it below. All are free to form
their own opinion and indulge in their own fantasies. His URL is as
follows:

http://kourl.ru/bio.htm

I respond below to comments about and by this young Russian composer
which you can read in their original context at the URL given above.

First, several quotations documenting what others think of
Kourliandski's music, with my remarks interspersed:

"A new and unorthodox sound in contemporary music"

Joe:

I'm afraid these words don't tell me much about the quality of the
music. "New" and "unorthodox" have been used to describe
"contemporary music" for longer than I can remember. Perhaps it's
time for critics and reviewers to come up with some more vivid
adjectives?

"Dmitri Kourliandski's language completely rejects traditional
instrumental sounding."

Joe:

This description, too, is neither good, bad, nor indifferent.
However, the rejection of tradition is itself very traditional. It
was wildly popular in the twentieth century and before. Some
composers, like Boulez, cling to the tradition of iconoclasm. That's
all very respectable stuff now; some governments even subsidize it
because it's so reassuringly mainstream. Artists are expected to
behave that way, and if they don't then they're hardly recognizable as
artists, are they? To style oneself an iconoclast is to conform to a
well-established stereotype.

As for eliciting unexpected sounds from instruments, that, too, is
pretty standard practice. Bach could make one stringed instrument
sound like two. Beethoven could simulate the sound of a thunderstorm
with an orchestra. Paganini could draw the sound of bells from a
violin. Liszt could evoke the sound of a full orchestra at the piano.
Sounds come from my brother's synthesizer that defy classification,
and he doesn't read a note of music. Hurray for them all!

"Kourliandski knows how to communicate his artistic ideas very
convincingly..."

Joe:

I hope so, but to whom is he communicating? To other composers? To
real people outside of elite "new music" circles?

"He knows what he wants"

Joe:

So do most men, but what does this have to do with music?

* * * Kourliandski on Kourliandski* * *

Dmitri Kourliandski:

"The concept of music as an object, a visual phenomenon, is opposite
to [the] romantic concept characterized by [the] evolution of music in
time (which is largely typical of contemporary music, too)."

Joe:

Yes, music, objectively speaking, involves the vibration of air
molecules, and is a physical phenomenon. Composers have treated music
objectively in the past, and compositions from most periods bear
titles of persons, places, and things. Music in the form of scores
and performers/performance media has always been an art that is both
seen and heard. Color music has a history that long predates
Scriabin. The "evolution of music in time" is not an exclusively
romantic concept--but what does this mean? We must read on ...

Dmitri Kourliandski:

"In my music, there is no evolution, there is no action."

Basically, the composer is saying his music does nothing. I presume
it is, then, static? This is a variation of the romantic notion that
architecture is "frozen music." For Kourliandski, then, "music is
kinetic architecture (or sculpture)?

Dmitri Kourliandski:

"Some compositions can give the listener an impression of action, of
dramaturgy."

Of course. Isn't that what opera is all about?

Dmitri Kourliandski:

"But this is simply a consequence of human perception: when something
exists in time, something always happens within us."

Is the "impression of action ... simply a consequence of human
perception"? Human consciousness gives rise to the illusory
"progress" of time, but it's not clear if that's what he's getting at.
And if it is, and time is an illusion, then fundamentally there is no
"old" and "new." All music, all styles and forms, are equally present
and equally "contemporary." So why is there any debate?

Dmitri Kourliandski:

"A human being can feel, experience, think in his innermost being,
without this being caused by an exterior action: the action is inner."

I certainly hope so. Otherwise, we'd all have to be jolted into
action by electrical shocks, sharp sticks, or some other external
stimuli!

Dmitri Kourliandski:

"I love kinetic sculptures. I like something that seems static and
yet at the same time provokes a multitude of thoughts."

But aren't kinetic sculptures supposed to move about and not seem
static? Whether they're in motion or at rest, they can give rise to
"a multitude of thoughts."

What's the origin of thought--the past tense of "to think"! Thought
arises from memory--the repository of the past. Mnemosyne--Memory--is
"Mother of the Muses."

Dmitri Kourliandski:

"Formally, my compositions can be defined as ... mechanisms whereby if
you press a button all the music comes out. Listeners are invited to
notice how the piece functions."

We can do the same with CD players by inserting any disc of non-tonal
or tonal music and pushing "play." Musical automata and machines have
existed for millennia, from ancient Egypt to the gardens of the
Italian Reniassance (e.g., the water organ at the Villa d'Este). All
are variations of the same archetypal concept. Musical instruments are
sound-producing machines in their own right.

Dmitri Kourliandski:

"There can be no restrictions on art."

Except that tonal traditions are excluded by "serious" composers?
Except for those who dare to write "period" music today and are
summarily dismissed as creatively deficient troglodytes? Do I detect
a double standard? Woops!

Dmitri Kourliandski:

"Abnormal" sounds do not contradict today's language position. On the
contrary, such sounds form new active fields, where the decisive
element is not the reliance on available experience[s], but the
possibility of gaining new one[s]."

Dmitri Kourliandski:

No one is arguing that unusual sounds don't have a place in music.
The question is: do they enhance musical communication or exist
merely as some gratuitous "special effect"? Making strange sounds may
be lots of fun, but you can hardly call that music unless those sounds
have meaning and that meaning is intelligible to listeners. Conveying
meaning requires a mutually comprehensible set of musical structures
analogous to the vocabulary and grammar of spoken languages. Tonality
provides such structures and has by no means been exhausted as an
effective means of expressing comprehensible ideas that resonate with
listeners.

Here's a new experience for you:

"Gsfetyd dgffiiv wjnviir vkkbooymv."

It's really a very profound statement about the nature of art. And
if nobody understands it, so what? All that matters is that I do.
And maybe I'll reveal its meaning to a few friends. But if the rest
of the world doesn't get it, they just aren't trying hard enough.
They're too closed-minded, too lazy. They should really work at it or
go study semiotics at university!

I'm now listening to Kourliandski's "Resonant Mass" (2002). It's
charmingly crustacean, a seascape with lobsters clicking their claws
like castanets. A distant roll of thunder. Looks like no picnic
today at the beach. Jove is really in rare form as the storm clouds
gather above. And go on gathering. And on... And on....

Are we getting wet yet?

Aha! A thunderbolt just zapped the biggest, juiciest lobster! Dinner
is served. The gods are good.

Salutations to Monsieur Kourliandski, my fellow Delians, and marine
life everywhere!

Joe (channeling Satie and piously lighting a votive firecracker before
an icon of Saint Pierre B)

http://www.newmusicclassics.com/musicbox_12.html

[Filin]

МутОМ.
Драма (ин итальяно) э маскулино.

Это у меня перевод с курляндского, а не с итальянского. Драма мута - драму муту - драмой мутой. (Могу ещё на эстонский перевести, там вообще рода нет, вот компьютер-то задымится)

[8u8]

Salutations to Monsieur Kourliandski, my fellow Delians, and marine life everywhere!
Joe

а чего этот крошка джо так распинался? то, что у мити на сайте написано, меня тоже не впечатляет. но не потому, что это именно он, а потому, что самооценку любого к-ра можно обглодать так же. и что теперь? не нравится музыка – ее и критикуй. чего глотку-то драть зазря.

[Roman]

Kритика музона была ниже. Читайте до конца, если умеете.


[quote=8u8;286061]

Salutations to Monsieur Kourliandski, my fellow Delians, and marine life everywhere!
Joe/quote]
а чего этот крошка джо так распинался? то, что у мити на сайте написано, меня тоже не впечатляет. но не потому, что это именно он, а потому, что самооценку любого к-ра можно обглодать так же. и что теперь? не нравится музыка – ее и критикуй. чего глотку-то драть зазря.

[Kontrakadenz]

Для тех хто знает английский:

Забавно. Очень похоже на некоторые посты в нашем форуме, не правда ли? Как правило, влекущие за собой бесконечные дискуссии уходящие в никуда (бесконечность).

Тем не менее

Критиковать критику критиков не буду - что обо мне писали - то дело тех, кто писал. На сайт я это выставил, потому что забавно - и Joe это благодарно подтвердил. Критики - забавные люди.

Что же касается разбора моих высказываний - отмечу только одно: как принято и на нашем форуме - мне приписываются не принадлежащие мне выводы. Самый яркий пример:

Я говорю: "There can be no restrictions on art."
Joe делает вывод: "Except that tonal traditions are excluded by "serious" composers?"

Нет, не except!!!

На самом деле - лобстеры и раки просто замечательны. Roman передавайте горячий привет Joe и мою глубочайшую благодарность за внимание!

ЗЫ Борь, поговорим, что тебя не устраивает из приведееных на сайте слов?

[Roman]

Я говорю: "There can be no restrictions on art."
Joe делает вывод: "Except that tonal traditions are excluded by "serious" composers?"

Нет, не except!!!

Вы не ограничиваете РАЗЖИЖЕНИЕ искусства, и ограничиваете его концентрацию. Об этом свидетельствует ваш продукт, что бы вы не говорили.
Элементарное расхождение слова и дела.

[8u8]

Kритика музона была ниже. Читайте до конца, если умеете.

да читал я, читал. разве это критика? это анимация, диснеевщина. так можно описать любую музыку.

более важно другое.

No one is arguing that unusual sounds don't have a place in music.
The question is: do they enhance musical communication or exist
merely as some gratuitous "special effect"? Making strange sounds may
be lots of fun, but you can hardly call that music unless those sounds
have meaning and that meaning is intelligible to listeners. Conveying
meaning requires a mutually comprehensible set of musical structures
analogous to the vocabulary and grammar of spoken languages.

то есть малютка джо, говоря о неконвенциональных звуках, заботится, чтобы они были не просто так, сбоку припеку, а "улучшали коммуникацию", – то есть, пишет он, имели бы структурное значение, а не превращались бы в спецэффекты. а что такое иметь структурное значение, быть частью структуры? это значит находиться в иерерхии муз. ткани выше того условного уровня, который отделяет структуру от орнамента. причем для каждого текста этот уровень свой. ну так с этим у курляндского все в порядке: у него вообще все состоит из неконвенциональных звуков, на которые и ложится структурная нагрузка.

по ведению: митя, скорей нарисуй роману два пива, он, кажется, поел перцев чили.

[8u8]

Борь, поговорим, что тебя не устраивает из приведенных на сайте слов?

прямо здесь?

[Jonah]

У нас все преходит на такой изыскано интимный уровень, что подглядывать становится все интересней...

прямо здесь?

О да прямо здесь...!