2/3rds of unfinished irrepressible

the below is a bit gash. pretend you know nothing. WE for I and US for ME

The personal motivations behind our work involve among other things a desire to inspire a realisation in an audience or performer that ‘music’ is not the ‘bottom line’ of composition. This raises several questions about the nature of analysis, transcription and music itself.
Previous research has led us to develop the ‘step metaphor’ as a way to describe control of sound. A basic example could be a Guitar; the physical action of playing directly creates the result – this is a one-step metaphor.
The modern computer can be said to be a three-step metaphor. The user creates an impulse through an intuitive control: the control seems to fit the purpose. But this impulse simply creates data, which may then be translated into any other form of data. The control lies within the data processing within the computer, which in turn bears no actual resemblance to the audible result. (This applies to any process on a computer: a keyboard may be used to type words, or trigger sonic processing: but in either case, the keys bear no resemblance to what is actually going on within the computer.)
One may input ‘any’ data and get ‘any’ data as a result: we can compare this to Cardew’s comments about graphic score: “…no musical experience or training is necessary.”
So an arising concept is the ‘relinquishing’ of control. Processes performed upon a computer are given up to the history of the computer, as it reflects the history of the human. The computer has been built around the understanding of human kind; it has been designed to fit a pre-existing idea (grid) of control and result.
The most intuitive control can be said to be a one step control metaphor that the result of which one may guess with great ease. WE call this a ‘predictable’ result. For reliable prediction, either systems must be well learnt by the user, or the control is simple enough to be understood at face value (implying a pre-existing knowledge).
But desired processes are anything but simple, and becous more complex with each redesign of the system. For example, the digital method of reverberation: streams of data being manipulated by higher and higher maths to best mimic a naturally occurring sound (a form of transcription); the user alters an intuitive control for ‘space’, able to predict a result from a pre-existing knowledge of the effect size and shape of a space have upon reverberation. The transcription is within the control method as well as the result: the control mimics the increase of a space of reverberation in reality, and the result mimics the effect that this would have. Interestingly, it would be difficult to accomplish this as a ‘real’ act, and most people would not have first hand knowledge of the effect upon reverberation that an increase in space would have.
Another process: synthesiser keyboard input is presented as a restricted (and traditional) tonality, but is in fact just an electronic data stream/trigger. These triggers open and close gates that control the movement of other electronic data streams, which are in turn translated into audio that is presented as a restricted and traditional tonality. Obviously, one may alter these restrictions.
The synthesiser is a late addition to the family of human instruments, yet is pre-built to be as restrictive as any, because it was designed to replace them. This could also be said to be an act of transcription.
The actual process of transcription is hidden: the control method, as stated, has no direct link to the streams of data that create the effect. Apply this to all computer aided composition, and we can see how this relinquishing of direct control prescribes a result in itself: automatic functions (such as midwe batch processing, and even automatic staff notation) begin to define a function and a use. Time-stretching algorithms each have their own sound and method… however for the user it can be simply a case of flicking an intuitive control. The sounds of the time-stretch becous embroiled in the composition, despite the apparent lack of control the composer has over the process.
If we look at staff score in the saus way, we can see how it transcribes the way something is supposed to sound, as opposed to tablature, which prescribes how something is supposed to be made. The former is a metaphor for control of sound (one step), the latter (tab) a metaphor for controlling a metaphor for the control of sound (two step). Tablature should be a better method for transcription, because it implies that a knowledge of the result is pre-existing – ie, that the action notated has been performed before.
Must sound (something) must be heard (realised) before it may be transcribed?
One may transcribe a tonally western sound (for example) because a language of notation exists to do so. However when a sound falls outside of this tradition, other notation methods must be developed, or the traditional techniques expanded (WE do not suggest that the traditional is static).
Alternative ‘listening’ methods must be developed to deal with sounds that fall outside of the conventional. If we can say that ‘hearing’ is an act of realisation, a spectral point of view reveals content that is arguably not ‘heard’. Reconstruction is arguably not the point of spectral processes; so why analyse in the first place? The deeper concerns of spectralism involve a very personal process of translation, in an attempt to (re)create a reality that more accurately represents a composer’s vision of reality. This process must include analysis methods: an act of listening.
As mentioned, staff notation directs a desired result rather than a method: it is the method. It also dictates what is possible, as does any notation. Using analysis is like using the synthesizer. Transcription becomes about how well the ‘realised’ suits both the analysis and the notation, and vice versa, until all three are altered.
This type of process is always a case of forcing data into understandable boxes which must make a transcription ‘inaccurate’, and therefore arguably not a transcription… although composers have learnt to absorb notational language until it becomes a second nature (intuitive – like any other language), struggling to create what they had imagined, which implies an accuracy is ever-present: using the language for it’s best purpose.
This is the transcription of ideas, which is essentially the basis of all music and composition… the ‘accurate’ transcription of something that does not exist.
Returning to computers: it is possible that after using a system for sous time, the composer begins not transcribing the idea, but transcribing what he/she believes the system should be capable of: the most predictable result related to the most intuitive control. Then, the composer may begin changing the system so it best suits their personal vision. A composer will create tools and processes that subconsciously mirror his or her own processes and perceptions of sound, in an effort to place sound in it’s natural habitat, believing that their perception of sound is how sound exists.
Briefly, WE would say that graphic score is a three-step metaphor with a difference: ‘any’ score of this kind may create ‘any’ result; but we must consider pre-existing knowledge in terms of pre-existing human responses to, for example, an arrow pointing up.
This WE place under the heading ‘panosophies’, meaning that which is already understood by everyone; a pre-existing knowledge. WE also place the concept ‘music’ under this heading. What they are about to witness will be ‘music’; anything they are presented with will be interpreted as such. They may argue that what is presented is ‘not music’. Its pretty obvious however that the idea of what ‘music’ is is directly affected by what ‘music’ has been. Following this thought through, ‘anything’ may eventually becous ‘music’.
For there to be ‘music’, must there be an alternative category? Kaija Saariaho, Helmholtz and other thinkers of note (sic) state this alternative as being ‘noise’ – Helmholtz’s definition of noise being ‘an irregular vibration’. A composer may intend an irregular vibration – which returns to ‘what they are about to witness is music’… which in light of a Panosophy, questions the role of the composer as a personality.
The composer cannot escape intent at all. Any manipulation must imply intent, intended or not. (One cannot play music that one doesn’t know). Even if a simple recording has been made, and no alteration or manipulation has been applied, the act of recording it to be heard reveals an intent: doing as little as possible implies that something has been done. And this act of doing may be unseen.
The idea – the impulse to do something – is the most important aspect of the work, but the artist or composer is superfluous. Although apparently opposing, for me, this thought process (conceptual art) is inextricably linked with immaterialism, subjective idealism or existentialism. One may perceive intent in the creation of something whether or not it can be said to be there, in the saus way that one builds intent into anything one makes. ‘Any’ idea creates ‘any’ result, and by the saus token, ‘no’ idea: ‘no’ result; ‘any’ idea: ‘no’ result: and so on.
This implies that modern composition is not always about the result, and following these thoughts through to the logical conclusion, one may say that there is no difference between ‘any’ sound in an act of composition.
Pulling back a few steps: is there no difference between a practiced orchestra performing Beethoven and ‘any’ group of performers responding to a conductor using ‘any’ gestures, or indeed responding to ‘any’ trigger (image, other sound, nothing, etc)?
Brecht states: “any interpretation is fine”, meaning that he does not care about the result: it is the composition (idea) that is important.
WE would go a step further and suggest to not care about the result or the idea, removing the composer from the equation altogether. The composer becomes the saus as the listener: aware of an intent, but avoiding making that intent his/her own, or even noticeable; recognising intent without acknowledging it. For me, this can be accomplished by relinquishing control of composition to the processes of composition – computers and automation; analysis; notation; instruments; even the performer (who may also be the composer).
One may reveal/simulate Intent through the existence of a Panosophy: in a word, a shared idea, which WE use as a definition of music. The Relinquishing of Control unto a Panosophy gives rise to a perceived Intent in the shared vision. A group Realisation takes place, which in turn is a group Transcription: almost, a transcription of the self, and how one exists about music, which is, again, panosophaic: shared.
This leads us to improvisation, and what WE call ‘workshop’.

izu for guitar etc

adapting to specific platforms. as a fairly unknown with little experience working conceptual, have found it difficult to get in the usual circles.
resorted to means that involve not, trickery. for example, can get a guise of workshop’. the workshop actually consists of ideas, culminating in a gathering together of these ideas. the nature of this’trickery’ means adjust to get the most involving.
lack of experience means that cannot be certain of a result despite IF using accurate / complex traditional which is not. it also means that do not know what are best suited to what ad nauseum.
so need to experiment (workshops), and also
prevous way of computer, where the result was. this method involves arbitrary descision making and conceptualised as purposeful relinquishing of control:  lets a process be completed by extrenal, where unsure of the possible result or can only be sure of a general (not specific) result. (for example, the applicatio: does not know to the or the the exact content the result; ‘predict’ .)
one way to apply this ethos to class is through improvisation (where limits are imposed upon somay ‘predict’ general result, not specifically accurate). repeated experients lead to a norrowing down of limits, which in turn narrows the margin of ‘predictiility’ (making results more and more predictable). so yeah.

the thing about writing is that it’s got too personal. the things i’d like to touch upon are sensitive, close – inflamed. i cannot point the finger let alone press it against the wound. unusally the symptoms make the illness worse. like hepatitis in the liver: a virus thirsty for your failure: its demands for parasite life making a cold beer in the veins an elixr of life, where it, for you, would be a dose of death.
overdoing it. i hit the floor again last night. wham, into the cold slate, catching the freezer corner on my eye on the way down, leaving a scratched puffy lid that could be much much worse. it slows me down too much.
the red of the vine, uncrushed. the black feet of the crow.

—play and sustain ascending notes of a chromatic scale across each instrument.
start at the bottom.
dble basses: begin on lo E. one player at a time – F, Gb, G etc.
then onto cellos, who have been silently following the scale.
and so on.
if the scale goes out of range for your instrument, lower the octave.

remember what note you are playing (write it down).

listen to melody and try to ‘walk’ through the scale to reach and follow it.
if melody does not play, ‘walk’ or ‘drop’ to the 2 lowest notes.

pause for one bar when directed, before following score Two.

“symbol” (see bar 1) means to play your remembered note for the duration specified.
otherwise, play the written note if within range.

conductor will keep tempo.

pledge/curse: all those who bring equipment into the space, and mention how much they like it – how hurt they would be if it were to break or melt – or how much it cost – especially if in comparison to other things that may be owned – will witness said equipment die.
all those who bring sub-standard equipment that they have found in the corner under a chest of drawers filled with school books, or that they have bought cheap from maplins, or that their mum got them when they were 16 and probably cost £60, and which they describe truthfully as such, will be rewarded by the everlasting reliability of said equipment.
all those who make high feedback noises will piss off _____.
all those who smoke _____ will be a bit sweaty.
all those who smoke ____ will lose confidence of voice.
when only one guitar is working, instead of 3 or 4, the band will sound shit and be demoralised for a while.
all will spend too long tuning.
all those who know how it goes will get it wrong.
all songs continue for a length unspecified.
the bass will never be loud enough.
at least one member will be in a foul mood, and perform better because of it.
all members shall get home much, much later than is reasonable.

NONO

imagine your range is over one string: imagine your instrument is one very long string.
play 2 notes (highest/lowest), sustain/loop.
play a note exactly halfway between. (sustain/loop)
play 2 notes exactly halfway between the top and middle note and the bottom and middle note. (sustain… etc)
play 4 note exactly halfway between these notes.
continue this pattern. all notes must be sustained: the notes accumulate. continue to max note accumulation for your ensemble.

violeta parra

Me mandaron una carta,                they sent a letter to me
por el correo templano,                by the usual methods
y en esta carta me dice,                in this letter it says to me
que cayó prieso mi hermano,            that my brother is a risk to society
así lo tema con grillos,                so he is put in shackles
por las calles lo arrastraron,si.            by which they dragged him to the streets
undressed
La carta dice el motivo,                the letter states their reason
que ha cometido Roberto,                it says my brother is committed
haber apoyado el paro,                to support unemployment
que ya se habia resuelto,                and his future has been decided.
si caso esto és el motivo,                if this is the true reason
presa también voy sargiento, si.        may i go to the dictator
as well
Yo que me encuentro tán lejo,            for I, who am so far away,
esperando la noticia,                waiting for the news to come
me viene decir en la carta,            the letter says to me
que en mi patria no hay justicia,        there’s no justice in my country
los hambrientos piden el pan,            the hungry need their bread
no molejan a la milicia, si.                they’re forced to spy to the militia
Esta manera pomposa,                in a pompous manner
queren consiervar su aciento,            to preserve an ancient system
los de abanicos y de flaque,            as their defences weaken
si tiener merecimiento,                we will hold them to account
van y volver a la iglesia,                but they run into the churches
y olvidan los mandamientos, si.            and deny that they had orders
yes
Habrase visto la insolecia,            we have seen insolence
barbárie y alevosía,                    barbarism and treachery
de apresentar el trabuco,                they confuse me and upset me
y matar a sangre fría,                thoughts return to bloody vengeance:
aquél piensar no tiene,                the thought i do not want
con las dos manos vacía, si            for your two hands must be kept empty

La carta que ha recebido,                this letter i received then
me pide contestación,                represents an answer
yo pido que se propaguen,            i ask that it is spread
por toda la población,                throughout all the population
que León és un sanguinário,            that power is bloodthirsty
en toda la generación, si.                throughout all the generations, yes

Por suerte tengo guitarra,                i have my guitar
para llorar mí dolor,                    with which to cry my pain
también tengo nueve hermanos,        and i have nine brothers
fuera de él que se engrilló,            who still remain unshackled
todos son comunistas, all are communist
con el favor de mí Diós, si.            if it pleases God and men

scee 211 305 495 210559   ser
hello computer that can do next to nothing.
`2 ideas
the bond at home film

state the obvious
i honestly don’t believe that anybody is incapable of anything. ok, perhaps some people are better at something than others, but how do you define ‘better’? ok, so if you’re making a wall. a better wall is one that stands up. but the give the guy who’s wall fell down another try, and then a few more, and it will get better. and there are so few things that you can judge in this way – all art, music, even architecture to a degree – once it’s covered the basics – are totally subjective.
its like: majority rule. when you apply that to being left handed, you are in the minority, and if you like you can make left handed tin openers. or guitars. sometimes a bummer, sometimes even better, but at least you can open doors and stuff. when applied to forms or methods of understanding, the minority are fucked. for example, dyslexia. if we look at dyslexia solely in terms of written and language skills, the fault is with the language itself – it does not suit the dyslexic. its not the dyslexics problem. when you look at dyslexia from a modern standpoint, its about types of understanding. the dyslexic’s type of understanding is different to the majority’s: a majority that has spent thousands of years (with language) developing a system that is best suited to their understanding. again, not really the dyslexic’s problem – but made very much so, because the majority system is the one you get.
so, society. based on a majority-rule system, literally, or at least in a democracy. so what about those people who are in the minority with this type of understanding? we all know people who lack social graces. people who are loners. people with higher personal levels of risk than deemed acceptable. people who lash out at other people. and more obviously, swathes of people who are not represented by the ‘majority’.
the problem with a democracy – as we all know – is that by mainlining the majority-rule situation, by making it transparent, obvious, more than just the way things already are (which it is), it leaves itself open to abuse and corruption.
there is no such thing as the polymath: or rather, there is and it is most if not all people.
its fucking personal anyway isn’t it?
what gets me is that people just accept the way it is: that majority rule shit. even if they don’t like it. people even say, you’ve got to join the system to beat the system. what rubbish. its too late – because by then, you’ve already joined the system. and people are so scared to try things. well thats people for you one of these people is bound to say. bound by the black bark. bound by the bloody border built. and when people say thats life, what they mean is thats an entirely hypothetical construct built to protect people from other people, that was built by people. a long time ago. it controls us as though it were not created by us. what sort of god are we? we bind ourselves to suffering.
evolution must be entirely random, otherwise you imply a persona – a goal – a motivation, which you may imply if you like as long as you are aware that it also implies a god. so, random doesn’t mean beneficial. or good. it means, whatever sticks, in the case of survival of the fittest. or not the fittest: survival of what sticks. and what sticks may not neccesarily be good, or beneficial.
take the four leaf clover. forgive me for stating the obvious, but you’d think the fourth leaf would be beneficial wouldn’t you? but it can’t be, otherwise it would not be a rarity. but what if it weren’t – what if it took over.
take all the statistics ever made. there are an awful lot of them relating to 7 seconds. is an unknown obsession for the number 7 present within us like the fourth leaf: a totally random genetic event?
there are also a lot of statistics related to numbers: GET IT? numbers are something we made up. maybe numbers are a totally random genetic event?
and we’ve established that random events may not necessarily be wholly beneficial.
certainly, intelligence in the case of humans is not beneficial – in the long run. we destroy ourselves.
so i suppose, do what you want.

it is impossible for catharsis – its impossible. not even a drunken blog. its mid afternoon. i’ve cut my eyelid through a fall. i’ve fallen. i’ve made a mistake – shit, i’ve made many more than one. but not only me. my eyes sting. thoughts like bruises make it tender to be inside. but there is no out, today, some kind of comeuppance i guess. no escape. no energy.

realised the trust need not be so formalized, with minimum this, and that. rewrite.

SHORT PIECE for 50 or more people #2

hehe wow its not as late as i’d previously thought. gosh.

see?

maybe i should write about some ideas here.that i’ve had in the last week.

the trust:

constitution

erm what else oh yeah also writing pieces that exist over many parts that can be freely distributed.