Where's Zankel's stage door? I'm already 19 years late for my concert!

My friends Matt Marks and Brian Sacawa have been kicking out articles over the past few days in response to a fairly contentious piece on eighth blackbird’s blog. Topics under discussion include:

1. Is classical music still “relevant?”
2. Is the new “alt-classical” movement a revolution or just a fad?

As with seemingly all art music vs. pop discussions, the participants neatly sort themselves into two camps: there are the High Art Purists, who see a great and necessary divide between (and I’m paraphrasing here) “the direct, communicative power of art music” and “the mob mentality behind all that drivel the kids listen to.” And then there are the Cultural Relativists, who talk about the depth, breadth and variety of their iPod playlists in the same entirely unironic sentence that they all talk about how much they like Radiohead, Björk and Sigur Rós.

What both parties seem to agree on, however, is how important things like “complexity” and “craft” and “classical rigor” are to making great music. Thank God they can at least agree on that, right?

Sorry, but no. Every argument here is jive because the discussion itself is jive. Let’s take a walk, shall we?:

Is classical music still “relevant?”

What does “relevant” even mean here? Relevant to whom? Relevant for what? I suspect that the people asking this question think that the word is somehow loaded with meaning (in the “nudge nudge wink wink” sense) but I honestly have no idea what’s being asked. Is a concert ticket that costs $50 relevant to a person who lives off of food stamps? Is a gig at a bar relevant to a kid who’s under 21? Of course, the answer is no. But is Mahler relevant to a person who loves Mahler? Of course, the answer is yes.

Maybe the question is about whether or not we have some sort of cultural obligation to preserve classical music, either through government funding or corporate sponsorship. If classical music is “relevant” to the greater good of the culture, then it’s easy to make a case that it deserves some kind of support. Suspiciously, the people who fight for this tend to have something to gain by having a wide array of grant applications at their disposal. But can we honestly make this argument in a cultural climate that can’t even recognize that health care is worth government support? Let’s get our priorities straight.

So, the answer to “is classical music still relevant” is “I don’t understand the question, but I suspect you have an agenda.”

Is the new “alt-classical” movement a revolution or just a fad?

First of all, If you love this music, you should work to keep the name “alternative” as far away from it as possible. Alternative used to mean Rage Against the Machine. Later, it meant Limp Bizkit. Is that an admirable trajectory? Today, alt-classical means Alarm Will Sound. Tomorrow, will it mean Bond? It’s very easy (and often very profitable) to take something that gained credibility for being other and monetize it by taking things that are not other and dressing them up as other.

Secondly, here’s a relevant and timely quote on the issue:

The traditional boundaries of genre, intended audience, “culture,” have been so thoroughly crossed that even when you try it’s impossible to take a cohesive stand toward any particular piece of music.

It’s relevant because it was written by Evan Ziporyn, who’s certainly one of the major players in this music. It’s timely because it was written about the current state of affairs. Oh, wait. It was written in 1991.

[Update: Evan has now entered the discussion himself on his own blog.]

There’s nothing new about alt-classical. (There, I used it myself. See what you made me do?) Bang on a Can has been playing this music for more than twenty years. The 90s “Downtown” scene was all about classically-trained cats letting their pop music upbringing come out in their music, and throwing off the shackles of their “Uptown” training. What’s suspicious is that the people who keep asking questions about the “new alt-classical” are well aware of this recent history. What’s the motivation here?

(By the way, do student composers in 2010 seriously still need to defend their pop music influences to their professors? I would suggest that any student in this position needs to consider finding a different professor. There’s nothing pedagogically sound in telling young composers to ignore what inspires them.)

Finally, and perhaps most contentiously, I take issue with the one thing that the High Art Purists and Cultural Relativists agree upon: the sanctity of “classical rigor.”

Like polyrhythms or fluttertonguing, the decision to compose structurally is a stylistic technique. It’s not an a priori foundation for quality. I’ve seen otherwise enlightened composers give lectures in which they defend their pop culture influence by an appeal to “craft.” Who cares? Does it sound good? Then you did it right. Does it sound bad? Then all the craft in the world won’t save you.

The only thing that’s ever mattered about any piece of music, ever, is what it sounds like. Martin Bresnick used to talk about how a good piece of music should make you check for your wallet; you should feel like you got your ass kicked after listening to it.

How it got made only matters if what got made matters. No one gives a shit about your craft if your music sucks. Likewise, there’s plenty of music that makes you check for your wallet, even if it doesn’t hold up to analysis.

So what makes music good? What makes music relevant?

The answer is, “who cares?” Figure out what you like to hear. Then go listen to it and make more.

Dennis DeSantis: DJ set @ Halcyon, April 14, 2010 by Dennis DeSantis

Tracklist:

1) Rhythm & Sound – Carrier – Rhythm & Sound
2) Big Spender – Fade to Black – Plastic City America
3) Michael Jackson – Billie Jean (a capella) – Epic
4) Solaris Heights – Rivers (Dennis DeSantis Remix) – unreleased
5) Lusine – Crowded Room – Ghostly International
6) Earth, Wind & Fire – September – Columbia
7) Alex Israel – Penithboid (Dennis DeSantis Remix) – Beretta Red
8) Telefon Tel Aviv – What’s the Use of Feet If You Haven’t Got Legs? – Hefty Records
9) Al Tourettes – Dodgem – Apple Pips
10) Marko Fürstenberg – Steinbruch (Dennis DeSantis Remix) – unreleased
11) Murcof – Ulysses (Fax Mix) – Leaf
12) Proem – Sleep is For Lunch – Merck
13) Dennis DeSantis – Pilfer – unreleased
14) FaltyDL – Our Loss – Planet Mu
15) Dennis DeSantis – Asynchronous – unreleased
16) Diego – High In Spaces (Dennis DeSantis Remix) – unreleased
17) Theorem – Embed – Minus
18) Lomov – Kynon – Thinner
19) Terry Riley – In C – Ghostly International
20) Michael Jackson – Get On The Floor – Sony

Here’s a brief rundown on what’s happening. I promise to get to all of it in more detail soon:

1) I’ll be playing some kind of hybrid live/DJ set at Brooklyn’s venerable Halcyon Records on Wednesday, April 14 from 7-9pm EST. If you don’t happen to be in Brooklyn, fear not; the whole thing will be broadcast live at dailysession.com and then archived and streamed via both dailysession and the Halcyon website. Expect music and witty banter.

Ghostly International

2) I previously discussed my performance of Terry Riley’s In C at Le Poisson Rouge in November of 2009 with the venerable and not-to-be-stopped GVSU New Music Ensemble. I’m thrilled to announce that the live recording of this performance will be released by the also-venerable and not-to-be-stopped Ghostly International on April 27. I can’t tell you how thrilled and honored I am about this, both because GVSUNME deserves all the attention they can get and because Ghostly is pretty much my favorite label, ever.

3) I’ll be performing at the Whitney Museum of American Art on May 7 at 6:30, as part of a series of performances on and around a sculpture installation. For about an hour, I’ll be recording the sounds of the sculpture and the room itself and turning them into something like music in real time.

4) I’m writing an opera for the Staatsoper Stuttgart for performance this July. Yes, that’s very soon. This is why I’m busy.

What's that? Not what you wanted? Steve's not listening to you. (Photo by mattbuchanan - (CC))

(Note: my gig at Ableton might tempt you to read between the lines of this post to glean information about upcoming plans. Avoid this temptation. Not only do I not have any info here, I would never suggest or imply anything about future Ableton developments on this website. This disclaimer should be implicit, but this is my personal space.)

By now, every geek this side of Cupertino has weighed in on the iPad. So my attempt to add to the noise could easily be seen as just a crude attempt to cash in on a trending topic for the purpose of leveraging website traffic. Fair enough.

But as a geek with a particular niche interest — computer music technology — I hope to bring some fresh perspective.

There seem to be two dominant reactions to the iPad:

1. It’s a big iPod Touch. What a joke!
2. It’s a big iPod Touch. How awesome!

The WankosphereBlogosphere debates the second half of the realization, but everyone’s basically in agreement about the first half: it’s not a keyboard-less laptop. It’s something much less. Or is it more?

The arguments about “openness” and “extensibility” apply about as much to this device as they apply to the iPhone/iPod Touch, which is to say, they don’t. The market for these devices isn’t hackers. It’s consumers. This is for anyone who wants to sit on the couch and have a simple but functional media experience. It’s for people who don’t want endless possibilities, but rather an elegant and safe set of possibilities.

Now, I’m not afraid to get a little dirty trying to make gadgets do unusual things. But even I have my limits. Every couple years, I try a desktop Linux installation just to get a sense of how far things have come. This usually lasts about an hour. Something is ALWAYS broken, and getting it to work requires near-infinite Googling followed by the editing of scary configuration files. Some people live for this kind of fiddling. I find it boring. I have basically no interest in tools themselves — only as a means to get things done.

And this is why things like the iPad are really exciting for me. Because it’s locked down tighter than an El Al cockpit, you can be pretty sure that there won’t be any fiddling with configuration files. It’s just going to work, period. There are already iPhone apps (like TouchOSC) that do multitouch control of musical applications over Wi-Fi. I can’t imagine it will take long for these applications to appear on the iPad as well. Until now, the only viable multitouch controller for computer music applications was a boutique item called the Lemur. It’s gorgeous, powerful and completely unaffordable for most mortals. Now the iPad is here and, at about a quarter of the Lemur’s cost, stands to bring usable multitouch to a price point that many musicians can reach.

Yes, Apple fosters a closed, monopolistic ecosystem. But they also make tools that work. This is important for people who want to get stuff done, and perhaps less important for people who want to sit around and polish their tools.

If you’re still not convinced, consider this: would there be an ever-expanding field of iPhone competitors if the iPhone wasn’t such a game-changer? Perhaps even more important than the iPad itself is the fact that laptop-sized multitouch is about to become a real market segment. For some, this might be exciting because it means more tools and more fiddling. For me, it’s exciting because it promises more ways to get stuff done.

The Grand Valley State University New Music Ensemble is a pretty amazing group.

A couple years ago they managed to blow everyone’s minds with a series of killer performances of Steve Reich’s Music for 18 Musicians, culminating in a critically-acclaimed recording for Innova. This year, they’ve done it again, releasing a new recording of Terry Riley’s In C along with 18 remixes by electronic artists from all over the spectrum (and world.)

I was honored to be one of those remixers, and even more honored to spend some time with the students in October and November. I visited GVSU, did a little teaching and provided live electronics for performances of In C with the group on their campus and at (Le) Poisson Rouge in New York.

Playing In C at LPR (photo: Hiroyuki Ito for The New York Times)

The press around this group makes a lot of noise about how their Midwestern pedigree makes them such an unlikely success story. Maybe some of that is true, but that’s the sort of narrative that sells newspapers; not CDs.

The real reason they’re successful is because they play the hell out of this music.

Go buy their stuff.

Instead, it’s a top-down, highly coordinated effort to create the illusion of a popular uprising. This phenomenon is known as astroturfing.

Let’s examine who’s really behind the scenes:

Rick Scott: Criminal. 1st Class 'chebag.

Before Rick started this group, he made a fortune as the Chairman and CEO of Columbia/HCA, a for-profit hospital business. He’s not a doctor. He’s a lawyer.

During his tenure, Columbia/HCA was indicted for Medicare fraud, and eventually paid nearly 2 billion dollars in civil suits and over 600 million to settle with the federal government.

As Paul Krugman says, you can’t make this stuff up. Why does a guy with a health care rap sheet even have a say in health care anymore? Well, he doesn’t directly. He’s the man behind the curtain, quietly pouring money into maintaining a status quo that made him extraordinarily wealthy.

Dick Armey: Republican. Dick.

Armey was the House Majority Leader during the “Republican Revolution.” He’s the total package: as a professor, he sexually harassed multiple students, and eventually divorced his wife to marry one.

FreedomWorks is hard at work to make sure that health care remains a money-making industry. But they’re not just a conservative non-profit; they actually sell insurance, so they’re directly invested.

Now, it’s pretty clear from watching the heightened emotions at the town halls that there is actual, genuine anger among the people in those rooms. The question is, what is it that’s making those people so angry?

Is it actual concern over actual issues? Or is it the fires of fear, uncertainty and doubt that are being carefully and calculatingly stoked by a right-wing machine that knows how to play the undereducated for suckers?

As Rick Perlstein’s excellent article points out: “the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy.” The Right is practiced and adept at playing off of the horrors of what a liberal administration might bring: boogeymen like “Big Government,” “Socialism,” “Nanny State” and a loss of “Freedom.”

None of this is real. None of these terms even mean the things the Right would have you think they mean.

“Freedom” to the Right means “freedom to make money.” It’s not about personal freedom (the gay marriage controversy should make that abundantly clear.) It’s about unfettered free markets.

The people who want you to believe that universal health care is “unAmerican” are in the health care business to make money. It really is that simple.

The United States remains the only industrialized nation without universal health care. Glenn Beck would have you believe that we’re the only ones that are doing it right, because we have the best health care in the world, but this is false by most metrics. We rank considerably lower than many universal health care nations in life expectancy and infant mortality.

Yelling “we’re #1″ without knowing what that means isn’t patriotism. It’s white noise.

Patriotism means looking at your country objectively and knowing that it’s capable of doing better. It means realizing that taking care of its citizens is self-evidently the right thing to do, and that this is more fundamentally “American” than the free market.

The Right likes to throw the Bible around in defense of whatever their cause du jour might be. The Bible is pretty ambiguous about a lot of things, but it takes some serious mental gymnastics to not understand what the Bible has to say about taking care of people:

‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Students at the So Percussion Summer Institute getting ready to play Shifty.

A couple weeks ago, I had the pleasure of doing a composition master class at the So Percussion Summer Institute. My piece Shifty was on the repertoire list for the students, and I was asked to come to a rehearsal and talk about it.

It’s been a long time since I’ve done anything like this. Heading to Princeton on the train, I wasn’t even sure that I still knew what composers talked about, or what performers expected them to say. Lately, when I talk to groups, it’s about musical tools rather than music itself. It’s certainly not about my own music.

I was pleased to find that I didn’t make a complete fool of myself. I was even more pleased to find that there’s a veritable army of brilliant, hungry young percussionists out there, full of chops and even more full of great ideas about music.

Mostly, what we talked about was instrumentation. Shifty’s weird, in that the instrumentation is partially left up to the performers. The score calls for each of the four players to build a setup using the following:

1. Kick drum, preferably double-headed and muffled very lightly. The tuning and head selection should be appropriate for funk.
2. Large tom tom, double headed and tuned just high enough to eliminate wrinkles in the head. The drum should be unmuffled if possible and both heads should be tuned to the same pitch to avoid pitch bends.
3. Small drum with short decay and high pitch. (e.g. timbale, bongo, tight snare drum with snares off, small roto-tom, etc.)
4. Piece of resonant wood with short decay and higher pitch than the small drum. A woodblock is a possibility, but found objects are encouraged.
5. Resonant metal with short decay and complex overtones. (e.g. broken cymbal, brake drum, Englehart Crasher, etc.) Found objects are encouraged.

Three of the five instruments are pretty clearly specified. The last two are not. I thought this was a cool idea in principle, but in practice the instrumentation has become fixed over time, as a result of some sort of unspoken rule that “Thou Shalt Play Shifty the Way So Plays Shifty.” So spent many years playing this piece pretty regularly, often in front of groups of other percussionists. It seems that all of these other groups decided that this was The Right Way. Then a video appeared on YouTube a few years ago showing a So performance of the piece, and this further cemented this idea into law. I’ve never heard another group play it a different way; the resonant wood is always a wood block or plank and the resonant metal is always a brake drum and/or a china.

Click here to view the embedded video.

It works great this way. It’s loud and edgy and people like it because it’s drummers doing what everyone expects them to do – play loud and edgy.

The problem is, if everyone plays it this way, it’s clear that they’re not really following the score.

“Found objects are encouraged.”

Go for it. Get an old car door and a log and see what happens. The only thing that could go wrong is that it will suck, in which case you just try something else.

The So instrumentation is just one interpretation. It’s not the “right” approach. In fact, the only wrong approach is to not think about it. This isn’t a piano sonata (and even if it was, there are tons of ways to play those as well, even though the instrumentation is specified.)

As part of the rehearsal with the students at Princeton, they played it the So way. And it sounded great. Then they played it using a tiny setup (little drums, tiny Chinese woodblocks, splash cymbals, smaller mallets – they affectionately referred to this as “Pocket Shifty.”) And this sounded great too! It was a completely different experience, but one that’s entirely within the parameters of the score.

The moral of the story is, take some chances. Music grows like gardens grow – people have to do the work. If you keep planting the same seeds in the same soil, it eventually becomes barren.

The phrase “not even wrong” has since come to refer to ideas that are so malformed that they cannot even be assessed.

Here’s an example: you and I can disagree about the composition of the moon. I could argue that the moon is made of green cheese. You could reply that the moon is made of rock. It’s possible that one (or both) of us is wrong, and experiments and observations could resolve this. We can have a legitimate disagreement.

In contrast, imagine that I argued that the moon was made of green cheese and you countered by saying that the moon was made of lamps(|}hamster16z#. One of us (me) could be wrong. But it’s meaningless to say that your statement is “wrong” because your statement is meaningless. We’ve transcended disagreement; we’re not even speaking the same language.

Now, I’ve got lots of opinions about lots of stuff. I’m perfectly happy to argue with people about these opinions. But there are certain things I can’t begin to oppose because they’re not even wrong.

Here are some of those things:

1. The Earth is 6,000 years old.

We can disagree about the existence of a creator God. We can disagree about which God it might be. But we can’t disagree about the accuracy of radiometric dating without disagreeing about fundamental properties of matter. At this point, we would stop speaking the same language.

2. Sarah Palin is qualified to be president.

Not even wrong.

We can disagree about Sarah Palin’s values. We can even disagree about whether or not an educated person who shares those values is qualified to be president. But we can’t disagree about whether or not Sarah Palin is qualified to be president unless the word “qualified” (or, I suppose, “president”) means something different than what we already agree it means.

3. We know the Bible is true because it is the word of God.

This is an example of a logical fallacy known as petitio principii – “begging the question.” To beg the question is to assume as true the thing that you’re trying to prove.

Disputing this claim is not an argument against the existence of God, or even the truthfulness of the Bible. It is entirely possible for the Bible to be true and for it to be the word of God. But it is not even wrong to claim that we know that the Bible is true because it says so. A statement constructed in this way is not an argument. It is meaningless.

4. George W. Bush never lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

On May 23, 2009, George W. Bush gave an interview for Polish television in which he stated the following:

We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.
(source)

At the time this statement was made, the Defense Intelligence Agency had already issued a report stating that the found laboratories were “almost certainly intended” for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons (source). To date, Bush’s claim has never been retracted or qualified. In fact, the quote’s link above leads directly to Bush’s official web archive.

We can disagree about whether or not the Iraq war was justified. We can even disagree about the broader aims of the war on terror. But we simply can’t disagree about whether the above quote is a lie unless the word “lied” means something different than what we already agree it means.

The point of Wolfgang Pauli’s statement was that disagreements are fine, but that they can’t even exist unless both sides of an argument are at least in the same ballpark.

The problem with a lot of current political discourse is that it doesn’t even rise to the level of discourse. What passes for a “position” is often just incoherent drooling that happens to use some of the same words found in actual ideas. These arguments, and their advocates, are not even wrong.

The Vinyl Distortion effect - underappreciated and full of awesome

By itself, this noise isn’t necessarily very interesting. But I like to use it to seed other downstream devices. By combining effects that process this noise, I can create endless combinations of material without every having to write a note of music.

(Here’s a secret: I’m really, really lazy. I like having music get made, but I don’t always feel like making it. If I can design tools to make music for me, I get happy.)

I’ve created a Set that uses this type of working process. Download it, open it, and listen. It begins making noodly abstract machine sounds immediately and requires no user interaction.

If you’re part of the Ableton Share beta test, you can grab the Set here:
http://www.ableton.com/documents/10288ec1d39f

If you’re not using Share (but you still have a copy of Ableton Live/Suite 8), you can grab it here:
http://www.dennisdesantis.com/freebies/Automatic.als

Here are some ideas to make this Set your own:

• Turn off the Vinyl Distortion effect and use an open hardware input on your audio interface as the seed. If the input is being fed by nothing, you might need to boost the gain (often by a lot) to get any sound at all.
• Instead of an empty line input, try using a mic. This works particularly well on a laptop, for example.
• Instead of empty or noise sources, try using actual musical material as the seed. Feed clips into the device chain and see what you get.
• Tweak everything. There are lots of parameters to play with and even tiny adjustments can yield a completely different result.