Well somebody cares because "classically-trained" is one of the
knee-jerk phrases that comes up every time one such classically
trained attempts something that is outside the academic parvenu. Some
sort of label-tagging? Validation of the "experiment"?

I think the role of stochastic technique in music and poetry is a
chance to step outside the potential gridlock of technique, to prevent
stale patterns happening see collage, flarfing etc.

On the one hand I like the idea of preventing people from
playing/writing. On the other, I've done too much self-prevention in
the past...

Thankyou for the list of names. Certainly food for thought.

Roger

On 11/15/05, Christopher Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> <snip>
> We did not care if the
> were trained or intuitive technicians. [KW]
> <snip>
>
> The freeing up of those trained/untrained, formal/informal, commercial/art
> distinctions (at least temporarily) was the point: _not caring_ about the
> distinction isn't the same as regarding training as a hindrance. And
> suppression of knowledge ('...never mentioned...') isn't the same as not
> having it in the first place. If Parker was a surprise but Taylor not then
> surely you must have known (and cared) just a little, I think.
>
> <snip>
> Frankly, nobody I knew cared
> particularly whether whosywhatsis was classically trained unless
> Whosywhatsis was Vladimir Horowitz [KW]
> <snip>
>
> That's the distinction back again.
>
> <snip>
> John Cage?  Frankly?  Who cares? [KW]
> <snip>
>
> Babbitt respected Cage, total serialism notwithstanding. But I did mean
> Cale, not Cage. Welshman. Responsible for the Velvet Underground's viola,
> feedback and other emblematic sounds. Cale becoming a rock musician is like
> Blake designing the cover for *Sergeant Pepper*: some sort of sign of the
> times
>
> <snip>
> Hello.  There was a widespread PERCEPTION that technique was a barrier to
> free expression. [KW]
> <snip>
>
> _Free_ expression and _self_ expression aren't the same. I think you elide
> that distinction also. Cf the role of chance, which is key here. Either in
> Cage's terms or the aleatoric in, say, Lutoslawski's.
>
> <snip>
> Physically prevent from playing their instruments [...] it strikes me as
> destructive and asinine. [KW]
> <snip>
>
> At that stage, Ichiyanagi was, I think, still married to Yoko Ono... But the
> wider point was about the role of hindrance, chance's negative counterpart.
>
> As to the material you describe as being 'too rich' for your blood. Let me
> try to put it better (and it's not just or even primarily about music; think
> of people like Valie Export or Hans Haacke, for example): there was a
> further shift in focus, I think, from the behaviour of the materials making
> up the object towards the behaviour of those concerned with the object
> (artist, spectator, conservator, promoter et al). That is one of several
> ways in which, again, hindrance is important.
>
> CW
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> I am always doing what I cannot do yet in order to learn how to do it
> (van Gogh)
>


--
http://www.badstep.net/
http://www.cb1poetry.org.uk/