Category Archives: philosophy

Object Permanence Pt. 2: Crowd Control

How much control does an artist have then is another question. The painter can fill up the canvas and decide how the work is going to be framed. How much control does an artist have over how the work is displayed? Would there be a problem with hanging a certain painting in proximity to the work of another artist? How much can we expect the audience to cast off as “not the work of the artist”.

There was a sculpture of sorts on display in one room of the new Modern building at the Art Institute of Chicago. The sculpture involved a pile of white rocks piled up on a conical figuration with tiny rocks on the outskirts and larger rocks towards the center and peak. Intersecting the rocks were mirrors in the shape of an asterisk. As I looked at this exhibit I wondered aloud to my brother, “do you think the artist comes to the museum that this work is displayed in to set it up or do you think that it is shipped with very specific instructions as to how it needs to be exactly?” We left it up in the air.

This is to say, how much of a degree of aleatory is there in all the arts? I know that Cage was convinced (and has convinced many others, including myself) that there is a certain degree of aleatory in all music. The variables being performers, performance space, conductor, instruments, tempo, audience…the list is infinite.

While in Chicago we also visited the Museum of Contemporary Art. There was a simple sculpture made of found items that were hung from a wire frame and meant to form a smiling face. Though it was enclosed in a plastic box and therefore unable to be touched, the string from which most of the sculpture was hanging had twisted somehow and it made the eyes, nose and mouth of the face appear perpendicular to the outer wire frame forming some sort of cubist idea of a face. This, I can say with almost complete certainty, was not the original intention of the artist. Should I, however, take it as I saw it? Or should I correct what I feel is “wrong” and remember the sculpture as being that of a right and true “face”? How far can one take this idea? I don’t think that many artists would appreciate the idea of their audience “perfecting” their art.

With a piece of music, how much is the audience expected to “correct”? There are going to be slight mistakes made, there are going to be choices made by the conductor that make some parts seem more important than others, and there are going to be cues missed and measures accidentally excluded perhaps by a particularly nervous percussionist that hasn’t played for 42 bars and lost count or was not cued. How much of the music, then, actually is what the composer wrote? I realize that this does overlap with thoughts about degrees of aleatory in music, but I would like to examine it one step further from an audience perspective. Is an audience experiencing music and taking it for granted that the performance was perfect? This begs the question about artist control. Exactly how much control does the composer have once the score leaves their hands?

Object Permanence

This past week I was in Chicago, a giant cultural leap forward from the small town that I currently occupy. This trip not only afforded me the opportunity to spend time with my brother and sister in law, but also to wander through the brand new Modern building of the Chicago Institute of Art.
I could go on for pages about how wonderful this new space is and what a beautiful building Chicago now has, and how great it is to see that art is flourishing, which stands in direct opposition to my myopic views on art as directly influenced by living in a one-horse town. Perhaps sometimes I am a bit too negative. This is not the point that I want to be exploring right now. When I have the chance to look at great art it makes me think. I have a few thoughts that are constants, and usually a new idea or two will crop up.
It is taking me far too long to get to the point here, I apologize. The point is this: should I, or anyone for that matter, take pictures of what they see at art galleries, to take with them? Should the experience of seeing a great work of art be something that is brought with a person wherever they go (via storage on a laptop or online gallery)?
There are so many connotations here that I can hardly stop to gather my thoughts. Let’s begin with the idea that art is to be taken with you when you go.

One takes a picture of a painting, or a sculpture or anything. First of all what is one expecting from this work of art? Is this sort of like portable “inspiration”? Does art have the ability to stir up thoughts when it is taken out of its “natural habitat” (being an art gallery)? What is an artworks “natural habitat”? If the painting is currently on display in Chicago, in that new building in that city in the summer and then travels the next week or better yet the next season to a museum in Seattle in the winter in a building that is of a completely different style of architecture…..will they both garner similar thoughts in the same person if they travel with the painting? How much does the location (which takes into account everything inherent in that word i.e. geographical location, climate, even the history of that area with regards to their general feelings of how arts and artists should be treated) affect how the viewer sees that work of art?

My point being how permanent is the experience of viewing art? Or better yet, how permanent should it be? This is, of course, ultimately up to the individual. This puts the “plastic” arts in quite a contrasting light than music. Or does it?

Perhaps bringing up more questions than answers is a really annoying way of going about things. The reason I am doing so is because I don’t even really know how I feel. I do believe that the object of art is to express what can not be expressed in words. That is the goal of the artist, no matter what medium they are working in I believe that this is the goal. We as artists are attempting to get to the root of the human experience. We are trying to create a universal language that can be perceived through any of the senses. As a musician should I expect my audience to be swept up in the moment while listening to one of my works and suddenly be driven to do great things, or feel one way or another? I suppose this would be the ultimate compliment, but am I thinking about it as I write? Absolutely not.

How much, as artists, can we expect our audience to take our works with them wherever they go? I know that I will never forget how I feel looking at the works of Pollack or Picasso. I can constantly turn over in my mind what those works conjure inside of me, and perhaps time and again I need to be reminded by looking at the painting again. Looking at it on my computer would certainly be a good way to spark those thoughts once again, but I can easily admit that the experience of viewing that work in that way will not even come close to the experience of viewing it for the first time in that clean, bright white room. The silence, the austere atmosphere of the gallery; all of these things add to the experience of the art.

John Cage's 4'33"

John Cage’s 4’33” Is probably the single most talked about work of the 20th century. For those of you not “in the know” John Cage was a composer in the middle of the last century that was most interested in Eastern Philosophies, thinking about the question “what is music?” and using the Tao Te Ching as a guide to his compositions. There is much more to this multi-faceted composer (and mycologist…a combination that doesn’t exactly come up all the time.). He utilized chance as a means to composition and developed interesting ways of notating his intentions through the use of graphically representational scores.

Cage was concerned with aleatory in his music, and argued that it appeared in all music whether it was intended by the

John Cage
John Cage

composer or not. Differences in tempo, slight gaffes, changes in articulation, accidentally missing a cue, coming in too late, coming in too early, these are the obvious and very slight (arguably) changes that any piece is subject to in a live performance. Nobody is perfect right? The score, as written by a composer, must be accepted as how the piece should sound if everything goes as planned, “In a perfect world”. Honestly though, how often is that even possible? Is it possible at all? What about sounds made by the audience? Cell phones ring, people cough intermittently, programs are dropped on the floor, the conductor may smack the baton on the stand accidentally and so on. Should these things be accepted as part of the piece? Are we smart enough, as listeners to know what to separate out from the actual music?

Along with his constant curiosity about “What is music?” he wondered, perhaps more importantly, “what is silence?”. Does true silence even exist? Throughout Cage’s life he was concerned with the issue of silence. He even titled his first collection of writings and lectures Silence. His work, 4’33” stands as a testament, through arguments that still go on to this day, of the important philosophical implications of a work, and what a work of music is, among many other things.

The work is written for any instrument or combination of instruments to remain tacet for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, divided into 3 movements. What does the performer do during this time? What is the performer thinking about? What about the audience, what role are they playing? I think that this work is at once the most ridiculous piece of “music” and at the same time the most amazing and, undoubtedly, the most thought provoking. Here is a piece that didn’t really require any writing, doesn’t really require any practice, it doesn’t even require an instrument. Does this imply that any silence that we hear, anywhere, is part of Cage’s work? Did he effectively “copyright” silence? Another important thing to think about is, why was this simple piece never thought of before?

While composers were concerned with other means of manipulating notes, organizing them, disorganzing them, searching out new timbres, using electronics and other machines to create new sounds (which Cage was also an important part of, through several sound experiments with David Tudor).  Here was a man that went in completely the opposite direction that everyone else seemed to be going. Cage was almost alone in his crusade or thinking about music. He was thought of, by some, as a joke of a composer. I personally believe that Cage was the most important musician/philosopher of the 20th century. There is nobody that has created a more thought provoking collection of works than him.  4’33” is at once a piece that is extreme in its simplicity and complexity. The audience is left questioning not only the music, but themselves, and what they just “heard”. What is hearing? Are we all hearing the same things during a performance?

It is interesting that 4 and a half minutes of silence can generate so many thoughts about anything and everything. It is also interesting that so many words need to be used to describe silence, yet they never even come close to truly describing it.

Taking action from far away

Facebook can be just about the most annoying website/application in existence, or so it seems. Every time I log in I am inundated with a myriad of stories of the time wasted by my friends and acquaintances, which magically turns into time wasted for me as I sit for 20 or 30 minutes reading about all the stupid, pointless quizzes, tests and pokes and other mindless garbage that goes on.

Every single day I consider abandoning facebook, just like I did with Myspace. The über-connectivity of the internet gets to be a bit much sometimes, especially for someone like me that finds great enjoyment during weekends spent alone, completely alone, cut off from the world and locked in my room listening to music, reading a book or watching Alton Brown and learning about the history of pasteurization, replete with an actor playing Louis Pasteur.

Then, once in a very great while the hyper-connectivity of it all actually finds a use, and I realize that there is a point to being able to reach out to people for some cause, other than begging you to join their cause (“We want to be teh larg3st groop on teh fac3b00k!!”).

I was looking through my facebook newsfeed and saw that a friend of mine had “attended” an event “An email to help save Gates-Chili’s music” or something to that effect. Seeing as how I grew up in the Gates, NY school district (Gates and Chili are right next to each other, so they share schools), I clicked on the event and read.

The story was nothing new. School district is facing hard times (and aren’t we all these days) and looking for places to cut some money out of the budget. Of course the first thing they look to cut is music. Without going into a crude value-based judgement on what should stay and what should go in this situation I decided that I would immediately write an email, as the group requested, to the address at the top of the page. My letter, that I wrote without much thought, but simply a passionate plea from one music lover/student/active American citizen (a rare breed, indeed) appears below for you:

My name is Adam Shanley. I grew up in Gates. I attended Kindergarten through 4th grade at Neil Armstrong and I still hold fond memories of that institution as shaping me to the person that I am today.

Currently I am finishing up two Masters degrees in Music at SUNY Fredonia, one in Classical Guitar Performance, and one in Music Theory/Composition. I completed my bachelors degree in Music Composition in 2006.

After being in college, and coming into contact with so many people with an astounding array of different backgrounds I have only become stronger in my opinion that music education from an early age has benefits to all involved. I feel so incredibly strongly about this that I have made it my life goal to insist that music education be held in equally high regard with the  sciences and math. Music education and art appreciation go hand in hand, not only forming a more well-rounded person, but it also helps a student to think abstractly.

Mathematics and music have incredible amounts in common. This is so much the case that several universities offer a “Math in Music” course that studies the ratios that are so important to music, tuning systems, the imperfections that arise with each of these tuning systems and all the details that come with it. If mathematics is important for solidifying a skill for abstract thinking because math occurs in everyday life I would have to argue that the same is true for music. Music is not simply “all around us”, but the fact that math exists naturally in the world and humans have been striving to discover all of its intricacies, and music and math share so much in common, wouldn’t it be completely unwise to cutoff this avenue of exploration?

Denying a young adult access to proper music education, especially music theory, would be the equivalent of not teaching algebra in math, or not teaching the periodic table of elements in science. There are so many more reasons to continue teaching music than there are to cease and desist.

Music Technology would be just as big a mistake to get rid of altogether. Allowing students to have access to the programs and tools that are used today in the creation of music, after they have studied the science behind how music is structurally put together (through music theory, history and a general music education) it is of the utmost importance that students are able to create something from that knowledge that they have learned.

Music education should never be thought of as something like a “niche market” that is only valuable to a student that is going to grow up to be a musician. Music education will ultimately strengthen our culture, which is already failing drastically in the world as far as cultural significance goes. Music education would benefit anyone not just as a musician, but as one who appreciates music. A person that learns to appreciate music, and the arts in general will most certainly foster a love for mathematics, the English language, the sciences, art and just being a creative person. Wouldn’t it be absolutely wonderful to have an entire generation of people that are curious about the world?

Imagine a country where people didn’t simply sit down on the couch every day and watch 6 hours of television a night but instead became interested in music or math or science or anything and went out to research anything that they were curious about. Imagine a world where people were driven to life long education because of an instilled interest in the arts and music. Imagine a world where everyone got involved and stood up to make a difference and cared about something deeply and made their voices heard.

It is a fact that music education has all of these benefits and more. Cutting music theory and music technology classes, or any music classes for that matter would ultimately hurt the society that your school should be striving to help flourish.

Adam Shanley

I was informed the next day that this very email, which was not alone – in fact there are emails written by current Eastman School of music faculty and other concerned Gates-Chili alumnus- will be read at a school board meeting in which the fate of the music program will be discussed.

Through the din of useless chatter in the ultra-connected world there is hope that a difference could possibly be made.

Listening to Jandek

A few weeks ago a friend gave me a recording of various albums by reclusive, outsider musician superstar Jandek. If you don’t know anything about Jandek, and you are interested, there is quite a back story involved. A good place to start is with the wikipedia article about him. Although I usually stay away from wikipedia for anything even quasi-“research” related, there is such scant information about the man anywhere that this is pretty much the authority, along with a very detailed fansite, done fastidiously by Seth Tisue (http://tisue.net/jandek/). Seth’s site includes vary detailed descriptions of many of the albums, ordering info and what not in case you are interested.

Basically the story is that there is a guy, living in Houston, Texas, nobody is 100% sure who he is (though his real name is most likely Sterling Richard Smith), and nobody is sure what he does for a living (possibly a machinist)…but basically somewhere along the line this man, whoever he is, began recording music, alone. He releases albums by himself through a label that represents nobody else called Corwood Industries. He has released 51 albums to date since 1978, and up until just recently (2004) NEVER appeared in public. He gave an interview that appeared in the first article of Spin, but other than that has been almost completely anonymous.

Somehow his music was discovered, through all of this. Somehow people became interested in this very strange music. Through the wikipedia article one can find out what they need to know about the mystery that is Jandek, that’s where I learned all that I know about him, and that is not what I would like to concentrate on in this post. What I would like to discuss is one of my favorite topics: “What is music?”

There are two camps of people basically, amongst those that even know about Jandek. The first feel that he is a genius like no other and that he is pretty damn near close to a god walking on this Earth. The other faction feels that what he creates is not music and he should not be held up on this pedestal that fans of outsider music have put him up on. I stand pretty much with the first group, though I often hesitate to throw out the “genius” qualifier.

It is true that this music is like no other, though that is not to say that it doesn’t have its influence from something. It is clear that the lyrics, their content, their form (where there is one) and the style of singing that is totally wrought with intense emotion are derived from the folk and more importantly the blues traditions of the south, namely his home of Texas. This is intense music. I will say that I disagree with the naysayers that feel that Jandek is just making noise, not music, and that he is talentless.

First of all what we need to discuss is not only what is music, but what does one expect from music? This, I feel, is a more important question than anything, it is THE question. Not just regarding music, this question should be asked of everything. What do you expect to take away from any experience that you percieve?

JandekListening to Jandek requires one to be an active participant. One can not just passively let the sound wash over them, it is not art that functions in that way. This is not the kind of music that one would put on in the background at a part. This is intensely heartfelt, soul wrenching and usually terrifying stuff. Although it is usually assumed that Jandek does not tune his guitar, if one listens closely it is possible to hear that the guitar is usually tuned to an open tuning of some sort or another, usually something bizarre, most likely of his own devising. The early albums consist completely of open strings on the guitar and a waling vocal. Later works may include other instruments, and violent and dramatic guitar butchering. His left hand attacks the fretboard while he screams out in pain.

There is no question as to whether or not this is art or not. The fact is, plain and simple, that it is art, an art that appeals to a certain group of open minded individuals. I will be bold enough to say that I am one such of the open minded individuals. One may ask, “where is the melody, where is the harmony, where is the rhythm, WHAT is the rhythm?”….all of the elements of music are in fact there though, I would argue.

The melody is, of course, in the vocal line. The harmony is in the guitar, the rhythm is in the combination of the two. This is where things get complicated: It is not that there is a lack of any of these elements, for there can’t be. You can not have sound, any sound at all without something that can be deemed melody, rhythm or harmony, you just need to redefine it for each instance. The melody is extremely hard to follow, does not repeat usually or regularly and can waver between only a few pitches. The harmony is not able to be defined by roman numeral analysis, such that music theorists may try, or by chord names or anything that has been previously thought of.

In order to appreciate this music on any level at all one must completely set aside everything that they think they already know about music. One has to listen with a fresh perspective, it’s going to ask you what you truly think and know about music, it is truly going to test your limits. I think that someone that comes to discover Jandek is most likely already pretty deep into music and will be willing to listen with an openness that someone who hears Jandek, say, through a friend, may not have.

Jandek is to pop/rock/folk/blues (whatever guitar driven music you can even think to classify it as) what John Cage was to concert music. He is more a philosopher than a musician. It is true that he is telling a story through his lyrics, he is creating a different world for us to visit while we listen and he is definitely amplifying the emotion and meaning of his thoughts through the medium of music. He chooses to do it in such a personal style that nobody could ever duplicate. If you think that his music is just aimless noise then by all means, try to mimic him. You will not be able to. The music is connected to Jandek alone.

Thoughts like this make me wish that I could start my musical training all over again. One of the hardestJandek album cover things to do is to find a voice and style of your own when you decide that you are going to create music. It is so easy to sound derivative, mimicking everything that you take in. Jandek apparently did not get this memo. Without going on for days and days repeating myself I could conclude by saying that everything that Jandek presents to us should shock us.

Another question that comes to mind is: How does music or art of this kind come to be discovered? It is my belief that something this truly originally, and this emotionally shocking will intrigue whoever decides to pay attention. Something of this nature says something about ourselves, not only is is challenging to ourselves, but it is shocking and frustrating because it is art that is telling us something about ourselves that either we did not know about ourselves, or we were repressing for a long time. How did Jandek know this about us? That is the frustrating and angering part, that there can be someone out there that is more in tune with how we feel and what it is to be human than ourselves. If you ever thought you knew yourself well enough, you may now discover that you were wrong. The scariest things sometimes come from within. Imagine carrying around with you something that you were not aware of and then one day someone reaches in and pulls out this shocking, revealing piece of your psyche. Of course you are going to be devastated. This is the music of Jandek.

He is making us question what we would define as music, and all the elements contained therein. He is also forcing us to think about how that would pertain to everything else in our lives. We should always be thinking about our motivations, our expectations and our thoughts about everything and there should never be a single thing that we let slip by unnoticed or unanalyzed. We should be active in our minds at all times, constantly questioning and requestioning everything that we think should be considered a “given”. Not a single thing in life should be taken for granted. Continue reading Listening to Jandek