Champions of Europe!!!!

Pictures from uefa.com

A poem questioning the excess of underground stations in New Cross

O East London Line!
Your termini oft I contemplate;
Have we any need for
Both New Cross and New Cross Gate?

"Dire cela, sans savoir quoi..."

I consider myself extremely lucky to be able to do what I do (with a little helping hand from HSBC). I've studied music since I was seven and I haven't wanted to stop since (except maybe when I couldn't be bothered to do my piano practice, but that was a long time ago) and so here I am, sixteen years later at Goldsmiths', still doing it. What is slightly irritating about studying music, though, is that everybody has an opinion on the subject. I don't think there are many other subjects outside of the arts that have quite the same wide-ranging reach, in terms of inducing a reaction and hence, an opinion. Therefore, I'd wager that there aren't very many people who haven't got into a heated argument about music. People have the unfortunate ability to make rather polarized statements on the subject (I have been guilty of this myself) and perhaps inevitably, disaster ensues.
Down the pub t'other night, an aquaintance said, "Nirvana weren't very good and Jeff Buckley is over-rated." I used to expropriate the use of "I think.." before those kind of statements, to inject a little credibility into the argument, but now, I think even that doesn't go far enough. It's fairly clear he thinks that, since he made a fairly concrete statement on his thoughts, but how does he know Nirvana weren't very good? Based upon which criterion? I might have accepted his opinions a bit more had he unpacked his argument a little, placing his argument into a more qualitative context, for example, in the context of technical instrumental ability or originality of songwriting, for example. Instead his argument lay in this.. "the only reason they're popular is because he [Kurt Cobain] killed himself..", which isn't even an argument on their musical quality, but on their popularity!! After this, I stopped listening, because I was tired and couln't be bothered engaging in a dialectic with somebody who didn't even know the terms of his own argument. Had he maybe said "I don't like Nirvana or Jeff Buckley" or "I think people are attracted to the maudlin appeal of dead musicians and don't listen to the music, which I personally do not like", I may have kept my ears open a little longer.
This is kind of indicative of the polarized views that cause me pain. It doesn't stop at popular (with a small p) music though. People have views on every kind of music, even contemporary 'serious/classical' music. This is the kind of music I compose. Because of this, I have had my work disregarded as "not music" and "arty farty crap (or something like that)", and my opinions on music therefore make me a "snob". By who? Usually people with an extended listening of readily available music, but whose arrogant attitudes towards music render them unable to see any further than the end of their own nose. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think I'm all that special, but at least give me a little credit for knowing what I am at least trying to do. This is not arrogance on my part, I accept fully that everybody has the right to an opinion on art and music, but many do not know where the line between subjective opinion and objective fact lies. So when somebody makes objective statements that they've mistaken for opinion, (based on what they know from having a semi-interest in music) it's comparable to somebody correcting a political science graduate (perhaps from LSE) on the finer points of American foreign policy because they read some of what Simon Heffer (or someone) had said in 'The Daily Mail'.
I have to say, the 'What is Art?' or 'What is Music?' debate really bores me. The dialectic largely ends in what art or music is for the individual, which is a most ridiculously arrogant standpoint. The individual therefore assumes complete knowledge, since their objective truth on the identity and boundries of music/art are limited by what they, at that point, understand. How on earth do these people think art ever progresses, if it is limited by what we now understand? Thank heavens history gave us people, pioneers, that were able to think outside of their own understanding.
Damn this postmodern world...

Nathan Barley lives!!!

I just got interrupted in the refectory by a guy handing out anti-G8 flyers who's manner was somehow familiar....

"You look fuckin' well stressed out there mate, yeah?"
"OK. How's th.."
"Yeah mate, you wanna fuckin' get on down to this shit tonight, yeah? Forget what you're doin' tommorow, 'cause we're gonna lay down some anti-fuckin'-establishment shit, yeah?"
"OK..."
"Gonna be well slick, yeah?"
"er....."
"Totally fuckin' wicked, yeah? Poetry starts at seven, yeah? Check it, check it!!"
"OK... (painful pause) Bye."

It's gonna be Well Jackson!!! Apparently...


"Totally fucking Mexico!!" Picture from channel4.com

How to be creative... (Part Three - Pens and Chairs)

So here is my latest epiphany. I think that my search to know how to be truly creative is forcing me also to search for who I am. In the studios where I work, students can book a weekly studio time in a specific studio. This really is the best way of doing things, since you know that every week, you have at least that time to work in the studios. What I have found, though, is that after a couple of weeks in one studio, I am no longer able to work productively, so I have to move on somewhere else. One week I spent three hours working under the piano in the main studio. Why? Heaven only knows, but it seemed to work - I got a fair amount of work done. So there's another question I am unable to answer: What is the most productive working environment for me? I starting to believe that nowhere really is, but that I need constant change.
This is just the latest in a long list of what I have considered important in order to compose. For most of this year, I have pinned creative difficulties not on myself, but on what I need in order to be able to compose successfully (whatever that means!!). Adorno was the first to confuse: He made me realise that a full and comprehensive knowledge of musical material (see 'it's not the taking part...') was required of me and I'm pretty sure I don't have that, but then, who does? Then Morton Feldman was next (Actually, fellow-composer and friend Ben Kamen alerted me to what Feldman said, so I guess it's his fault), with his assertion that a decent pen and chair was necessary. This actually led to dramatic actions for which I am not proud. Suffice to say I returned the pen.


Morty... Bastard ruined my life

"All those things, having the right pen, a comfortable chair...if I had the right chair, I'd be like Mozart."
Morton Feldman

I wanted to be like Mozart, and I figured that Feldman might have something in his train of thought. Now, of course, I recognise that as a little misguided. Don't get me wrong, I think those kind of things can have an influence, but not that much influence!! I recognise that things like pens, chairs, computers or a nice room are things that can certainly help the creative capacity, but they can't compose for me (But damn, I wish they could!!), so the issue must lie ultimately with me. Which means I need to look at myself and work things out.
I have been banging on for ages about not wanting to "compose by numbers", using formulae and charts to write music, because I know that's a cop-out. A brickie is not an architect and likewise, a musical constructivist is not a composer. So how the hell could I have struggled with this for so long without realising that if I really want to compose, the compositional capacity lies within me, not a pen or chair!! Morty, you're a fool!! (Well, you would be if you weren't already dead!)

Credit for finding the Feldman quotation must go to Canadian Nicole. Cheers!

Time Out

Before I start, let me apologise for both the brevity of this post and how long it has taken to come.
Sorry.

I haven't been so well this week. I haven't been very ill, just enough to make life a little more uncomfortable than usual, so I've been spending quite a lot of time in my room, either sleeping, reading or working slowly but surely. And in a wierd kind of way, I have been grateful for this short period of illness, because it's forced me to stop and relax for a bit. I spend a lot of my time running from place to place and I'm pretty sure I don't need to. I reckon there are a few reasons for this and I won't go into all of them now, but one of them certainly is that I concentrate on what I might be missing if I don't go out, rather than what I actually need to do. Now, I'm not hedonistic, but sometimes I have found myself in the union at midnight, despite the fact that I didn't sleep the night before, or that I have no money and cannot afford any more beer. The words "sod it" often leave my mouth in those situations. I guess that isn't all that bad either, every now and then, to leave routine and stop being so sensible, but maybe not all the time.
I have thus discovered this week that taking a little time out to recharge is a good thing. But I also feel a little more 'free' to not rush around all the time, if that makes sense. I can have a hard time saying "no" to people, in regards to doing stuff, but I have been forced to say "no" this week to try to get well. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. I didn't wonder what I was missing and I certainly enjoyed the time to consider myself a little more. I think, if Chin' is correct, that as an introvert (and also a thinker) I need to do that, lest I end up completely exhausted (mentally and physically) and going home (Thatcham, not New Cross) to recharge. Which does sound a little familiar....

All questions and no answers

Work has been hard recently and I cannot deny that despite my bullish attitude in tutorials (I had fiercely defended myself in a recent tutorial), I have disappointed myself in my work. It isn't that I haven't been trying, it's just that the efforts have been in vain.
I'm a man who thinks a lot about his work. I really cannot see the point of spending thousands on a degree course only to leap through hoops and achieve only what I need to pass with a respectable grade. Instead, personal academic development is much more important to me. So I have to place my work here in a relevant context of "how will this progress my ability to compose and understand music better?". In fact, I reckon that over 90% of my work consists of thinking about this kind of stuff, leaving the remaining 10% to a sheer panic about a fortnight before the submission date.
I have been finding recently that my thinking has just produced a whole bunch of questions and almost sod all answers. Don't get me wrong, I still consider thinking about the issues in place to be extremely important if the work isn't to become arbitrary and ultimately, crap, but at the moment the work just isn't materialising!! I have tacked on my wall a whole bunch of questions to which I have no answers...

How is pulse defined?
How is texture defined?
To what extent are texture and pulse integral?
How can established parameters of the above become realised in composition?
Why do fresh ideas to me become quickly stale?
How long is my concentration span?
What's going on?

Of course, the last is a joke, but it's a serious matter! I'm sure my tutors dispair of me, I wouldn't blame them. I don't think anyone could deny my efforts, but maybe my tutors worry should provoke a more productive response from me, like actually completing a composition. I shall certainly try.

Or maybe I should have really studied the philosophy of music instead....
(Now my mother panics. :) Don't worry Mum, it was a joke!!)