The “peçiane” logic and the theoretical preparation of a composer student

Several days ago in the hall of the radio, the symphony orchestra of this institution executed a Clarinet Concert work for  a graduating Student.

At our surprise the work was called “Insectoidal”. During the discussions of the first semester, as member of the commission, I pointed out that this unusual and negativist title had to be changed. This is because in the history of music, based on the best works of musical literature where the aesthetic principles of “beauty” act and not the “ugly” this title strikes hard and it poses a negative innovation.

Secondly, someone may invent the world’s greatest fools but the pedagogical didactics forces us to teach students the basic compositional laws or the profession beyond futurisms and creative experiments.

In the “peçian” thought, the answer was that even Dante wrote “Hell”.

This, according to him, was the same as “Insektoidal”. To this “argument” of a non-culture professor i shortly answered  that it was not called “Hell” but it was named “Divine Comedy.” “Hell” was just the first chapter of this great work of Aligeri and this was in the function of an allegorical idea that would help the morals and ethics of the people of that medieval age. Even if he knew this, the professor did not have to cling to one part, to generalize or justify his “Insektoidal” title. It is obvious that it is a suggestion of a professor as a great sophism or at least his aesthetic remarks.

In his platform the student writes: Insektoidal = world of insects. So the title could freely be “The Insect World”. Regardless of the aesthetic of this title, let us consider a different cultural aspect: I have the impression that this title, as a “nice” pose of an ugly subject, with the tendency of alienation in a foreign language of Albanian meaning is just an expression of ignorance and of the cultural gap. I would rather agree with a reduced cultural level title than with such balloons, that say nothing but disrupt the student on his way to tomorrow, disturbing the communication with the listener to hide the traces of ignorance. What do we teach students? Of course, this trend is general (for example a store name is also called the Crazy Horse) and such extremes have been added very recently, but this trend should not and can not be a place at the academic levels.

It would only suffice these to understand the levels at which the compositional didactics operate, where, in the name of modernism all aesthetic, ethical, moral and, ultimately, professional theories are rejected.

In order not to deepen in the subject, so the reader can easily follow us, let’s move on to a more elaborate analysis.

In the conceptual platform presented by the student and, of course, under the direction of his professor it writes:

Concert for clarinet and orchestra

“Insektoidal”

First Momevement- Insektoidal

Second Momevement The wounded butterfly

Third Momevement Tornado Time

Following it goes: “Referring to the story (without making known where the story is and in these cases the story should be presented to the audience to orient it as the last centuries of music history has happened, otherwise there is no need to mention it), where the main insects are spiders and butterflies. The formation of a spider’s net (trap), where the butterfly falls. The text is taken as it is proposed to understand the lack of the student’s thought and expression, and the “tolerances” of his professor.

Comment: The human concern presented by the student in a concerted crime scene is the process of falling into the trap of the butterfly, and perhaps even the skill of knitting the net from the spider to catch the butterfly. Maybe tomorrow someone will focus on the serpent venom and the work will be called the “Serpeintoidal”. These perspectives, and as much as they can, may be objects for zoologists who deal with the study of the construction and behavior of living things and insects and not the artist’s concern that seeks to generalize reality with forms and artistic means. The subjects of the work can be anything, but they have to capture an idea that radiates the human ideal, human morality, ethics, or human beauty that arouses pleasure and ultimately lies alongside other artistic works. I think tradition offers us the orientation points that we should refer to.

On the other hand the student writes: The first movement is of a sonata form, which consists of two topics that are in contrast to each other. (I am writing the notes without any change, including the grammar mistakes). Themes, harmony, melodic structure, chord, come out of fashion.

Initially I took the Do, Reb, Mib, Mi which through transposition are generated by continuing with (Mi, Fa, Sol, Lab (again) Lab, La, Si, Do //.

Comment: First, these sounding structures can not be the theme

Comment: Referring to the score it clearly shows that the concept used by the student in the work is of structural music rather than the practice of the thematic thinking. The theme itself is a source of sound that, according to the Grove Dictionary, ” The musical material on which part or all of a work is based, usually having a recognizable melody and sometimes perceivable as a complete musical expression in itself, independent of the work to which it belongs”.

The sound structure that the student or his professor (erroneously they call it “mod”) suggests in the theoretical commentary or in the score that it is the (casual) use of a four-note tetrachord that cannot be called a theme. On the other hand, we see that the tetrachord, or group of notes in the first movement is the same (or transposed two tones above) with the second and third movements, but where is the contrast?

Can the professor find a work of serial authors with similar series in their cyclical works? And the contrast, does it stand in the headlines? From three equal structures, how can three contrasting picture come out? The student must understand well these phenomena and  the relationships between them.

How do you know what and how he will write tomorrow?You can not stopp laughing when you read that the third movement is called “Tornado”. How did this come from? Or maybe is it the Spider who ate the butterfly and took it into the wind to rotate it up in the last circles of Hell?

We are obliged to treat this with humor but the situation is scandalous and ignorance is spread all over.

Nestor Kraja

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Anonymous says:

    Njelloj jeni bere te gjithe prandaj jemi kaq grop dhe te pazhvilluar si vend se godasim njeri tjetrin…imagjino ca mund te thuash per xhon cage perfaqesuesi I inderteminizmit…gjithsesi uroj qe mos te gjykohen konceptet personale her tjeter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe
No Thanks
Thanks for signing up. You must confirm your email address before we can send you. Please check your email and follow the instructions.
We respect your privacy. Your information is safe and will never be shared.
Don't miss out. Subscribe today.
×
×
WordPress Popup
error: Sorry! You don\'t copy...