After quickly reading this, I understand the core of Braxton's musical philosophy to be:
- His compositions connect together. Shorter pieces can be merged with larger compositions and segments from one work can be mixed and matched or embedded into other works. Individual sections can be isolated and multiplied (used repeatedly) by itself or with other structures.
- The music can be played by any instrument or instruments. Solo parts can be interpreted by orchestras, and vice versa. Compositions can be disrupted and re-sequenced or re-envisioned to suit any combination of musicians.
- Tempos, pacing and volume dynamics are relative. The way something might have been written or recorded is not intended to be the only option. It can be fast/slow, loud/quiet...every option is open to each performer's interpretation.
- This music can be played too correctly (AKA "wrongly"), as opposed to incorrectly (which is actually "correctly"). This freedom is meant to enhance creativity, not suppress it. Mistakes are meant to be made with the materials.
- A loose understanding of the materials or structure may be better than lots of rehearsals or advanced preparation.
This is all very interesting. I've had similar thoughts and inclinations, which is why I've been shifting farther and farther away from music that feels like it requires strict rules by definition. You certainly couldn't impose Braxton's approach onto traditional Irish music where tunes are typically played at relatively standardized speeds, with specific rhythms, and a common understanding of how many times through they should be played. A jig is a jig, a hornpipe is a hornpipe, a reel is a reel, on down the line. That music serves a different purpose, which is fine.
And you really couldn't do it with, say, the music of Phish or the Grateful Dead and still be doing that type of music justice. As an amateur musician with unexceptional abilities, I can learn certain basic bits like the vocal melody line to Phish's Guyute, but it'll always feel incomplete if interpreted as a bare bones solo piece minus all the intricate sections that go along with it. For me, I need music that is open to the freedom that a philosophy like Braxton's allows for; music that - with good conscience - can be removed from stylistic barriers without anybody getting too butt hurt about it.
It kind of reminds me of Leaves of Grass, in a way. In an attempt to continually express his outlook on life, didn't Walt Whitman view Leaves of Grass as an ongoing, life-long work that united all of his poetry into one constantly evolving whole? Now, I don't know if you can chop up the poems in Leaves of Grass and reassemble them in a William S. Burroughs sort of way, but maybe you can.
Post a Comment