Reading: Earl Brown

I think Earle Brown makes a valid point to start with. I feel like sometimes using an alternative system of notation might prove to be good or bad. Sometimes ambiguous directions can do interesting things creatively. That being said, I feel like with alternative notation systems ( specially the one he talks about) you definitely end up leaving more to the performer and audience to interpret and to a lot of composers that also means letting go of creative control. It is something not everyone feels comfortable with, perhaps. I do understand the idea behind the reason for depicting musical notation with line drawings, though. Sometimes music that is intuitive cant really be written down in notes or in the form of clear time or pitch-units. To make room for those kind of performances, I feel that it is important for traditional notation to adapt and make a way for music between the lines and for things that dont exactly always follow uniform time parameters. Earles talk about implicit and explicit areas makes me wonder how many times I have written down music without a metronome and make it fit into a grid. I feel like real music is supposed to be fluid, and irregular. Not uniform. Not to say that music that fits a pattern is any better or worse than irregular music. The idea of implicit areas seems to completely fit with irregularities. However, if I were to arrive at a system, I would prefer a combination of a grid or something that could be used or discarded when required along with the idea of implicit areas. The first paragraph of The General Movement seems a bit ambiguous to me, primarily because he has put all the arts under a single umbrella. I see it as too broad of a classification. Certain works of art may not necessarily be performed as an actual event. However, trying to bridge life and art seems like something I can relate to. About knowing the function you are supposed to perform as an artist in case you are in a group or an ensemble versus something being more free in form, I understand what he means. I think I relate it to something like getting on a stage for the first time. On one hand, you have rehearsed and you know all your parts. But at the same time, sometimes

you learn to let go and go with the flow. I feel that having past experience as a performer, I relate what he said to that perspective. I feel that its just as important to be flexible as it is to be rigid while you are doing art that relates to an actual event An interesting point brought about is the fact that any art needs to conform to certain rules or restrictions to fit in with the common denominator, that it needs to follow certain grammar. However, at the same time I think that a concept like this is something artists learn to grapple with everyday the fear of completely alienating their audience versus dumbing down their art to fit certain parameters and rules. Its concepts like these that make me wonder if someone ever thought up something completely radically and different from what is there currently, it would perhaps make it harder for that person to establish themselves as an artist. I did not quite understand what he meant by mobiles of Alexander Calder, however from what I read it does indeed seem like something related to a mobile phone (?) I found it hard to grapple with the idea of a mobile acting as a conductor in a piece. To sum up, I think Earl Brown provides an interesting perspective to art as more of a transformation between forms rather than just a static un-changing piece of work

09/02/15 12:45 AM

09/02/15 12:45 AM