Robert Davidson

Robert uploaded Exterior bass slapped [and] viola solo with sax and double bass to YouTube

Yesterday at 22:54 via YouTube Comment Like Unlike

__________

Ian Shanahan

The first minute is engaging enough, but then it instantly died in the arse and left me bored rigid throughout
the remainder. The bass-as-percussion trick works adequately, but its still just a gimmick: a pair of drums
(e.g. [Indian] tabla plus banya, or bongos) played by a percussionist i.e. a fourth musician would be rather
better timbrally, if not visually (or gesturally?). Alas, the harmonic and melodic language here is utterly
puerile: I was writing these sorts of basic tonal progressions when I was 6, and soon grew out of them; the
slow soprano saxophone tune is immediately forgotten as soon as its over. And this piece needs more than
the overdone flashy gesturality of rapid bowing, fast saxophone scales, and metric changes to keep me
interested. Plus the form itself how bleeding obvious to resort to a ritornello at the end! is pretty
hackneyed, block-like and unsubtle. Scratch beneath the surface here, and you find ... nothing. A poverty,
really. FAIL.

Today at 15:44

__________

Robert Davidson

And Ian totally fails to get it, yet again. Its like with Malcolm Gilles [sic!] a bad review from him equals a
good review in reality.

Today at 15:46

__________

Robert Davidson

Careful Ian, youll turn into Richard Toop

Today at 15:48

__________

Ian Shanahan

Oh I get it all right, Robert! I know the nakedness of the Emperors-New-Music when I hear it. What am I
missing, then, beyond the vacuousness I described above? Come on, tell me! Defend yourself!

Malcolm Gillies is a musically knowledgeable man with broad tastes. If you get a bad review from him then
you probably deserve it and should be worried enough to ponder...

Apart from not composing any more, I can think of much worse things than turning into Richard Toop (a
man with a truly vast and deep knowledge of new music) like losing most of my musical intelligence and
turning into yet another brain-dead minimalist!

Today at 16:02

~1~
__________

Robert Davidson

Heres a clue: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3397703

Today at 16:15

__________

Robert Davidson

Richard Toop might know a lot about modernist composed music, but he has not a clue about any non-
marginal music

Today at 16:20

__________

Ian Shanahan

Michael Nyman is a notorious idiot and simpleton. I read this article just a pathetic attempt to bolster the
standing of his own worthless drek (and that of certain British colleagues), really a number of years ago,
and was utterly unconvinced by it then. (By the way, Stockhausens notoriously arrogant aside to Feldman I
see as a fair cop, and not a put-down at all: Stockhausen seems to have been acknowledging that their
respective musics merely operate differently.) To argue against complexity in music is to argue against
artistic richness, which is a solution and not a problem.

On what basis do you reach this conclusion about Toop? Over the last 30 years, Ive heard him speak
informedly about musics from way beyond composed modernism.

Today at 17:28

__________

Ian Shanahan

Now heres a lesson for you, Robert: true simplicity (not simplistic-ness) and complexity are often just flip
sides of the same coin i.e. simplicity = complexity in disguise ... simplexity! The deciding factor is density
of interrelationality, which may or may not relate to texture or the number of sonic events per second. For
example Webern is at times simplex; Orff never (just simplistic).

Today at 17:35

__________

Ian Shanahan

A marvellous get-out-of-jail-for-free card youve got there, Robert. If anybody even more so a distinguished
colleague criticizes your musics (lack of) compositional content, then you bleat things like Ian totally fails
to get it, yet again. So only those who approve of your music seem to get it then, eh? How convenient... Of
course you really must be a great (whoops, better make that outstanding) composer. Well now...

Earlier I challenged you: What am I missing, then, beyond the vacuousness I described above? Come on,
tell me! Defend yourself! When are you going to stop dancing round the mulberry bush making excuses,
and start responding properly by addressing your musics details themselves?

~2~
10 hours ago

__________

Robert Davidson

Maybe youd be taken more seriously if you didnt blanket-dismiss all pop music. Why the piece works is
partly because its not that interested in the pre-frontal cortex, but in other ancestral parts of the brain. Most
of our audience get that and love it (as do I) thats who I care about. Connecting with ones music
community is where its at.

3 hours ago

__________

Robert Davidson

Oh, and Nyman is an amazing, brilliant composer. Talk about intertextuality.

3 hours ago

__________

Ian Shanahan

More obfuscation...

But lets address what you do say:

1. I dont blanket-dismiss all pop music just 99% of it plus. (And Im not alone in that...) Not that this is in
any way pertinent to my challenge to you.

2. Your piece doesnt work at least for this learned musician.

3. Ancestral parts of the brain? So what is this music for monkeys? Snakes? Well, your music community
sure as hell aint mine; they must have low musical IQs. (Too much Queensland sun...) Better man the
battlements of Brisbanes Sheltered Workshop for the Musically Challenged (i.e. Topology), then.

Meanwhile, my challenge still remains unanswered...

And the only things amazing or brilliant about Nyman as a composer are his amazing depths of
compositional ineptitude and his brilliant lack of taste and discernment: hes just a pretentious poseur. That
Jesus Blood piece, for instance, is one of the most irritating, idiotic pieces of crap ever foisted onto the
public! Plus he cant orchestrate for shit. (The only Nyman music Ive ever encountered that was bearable
was a film score for a kind of western movie about cannibalism its name eludes me [Ravenous] which
had a nice numerical pattern in it and a suitably folky sound-world. PASS)

Intertextuality is all very well and laudable I use it myself! if, and only if, the musics inner being alone is
rich and strong enough to make for a good piece. Internal interrelationality or content is solely the
determinative factor in deciding whether a piece of music sinks or swims; intertextuality is a secondary
consideration, merely icing on the cake.

33 minutes ago

__________

~3~
Robert Davidson

So what is this music for monkeys? Snakes? Yes, Ian, thats what it is. Sure, whatever you say. Sheesh!
Look up the ancestral mind and stop deliberately misunderstanding. You could definitely afford some more
alpha waves and to resist the constant dominance of abstract thinking.

Believe me, I could answer all this, but dont have time and am not inclined at present to defend silly,
uninformed criticisms like this. Ill leave that to musicologists, or myself if I get more time. Now go off and
read Georgina Borns Rationalizing Culture and Richard Middletons Studying Popular Music.

To quote the excellent composer Philip Glass, you dont have to listen to my music. Theres plenty of music
in the world. So dont concern yourself with not being counted amongst the lovely Topology audience.

Your rules for choosing how to value music are fine, but its kooky to think they apply everywhere. Why do
you assume your ideas about intertextuality are universally applicable? Seems mad.

Oh, and Nymans rad. Thats why such an excellent filmmaker like Greenaway kept working with him. Not
many composers get to invent a style and sound that is instantly recognisable.

And it was Gavin Bryars who wrote the incomparable, gorgeous Jesus Blood Never Failed Me Yet, an
ennobling, time-altering, totally moving, ancestral mind embracing, kitsch-transforming bit of pataphysics.

about an hour ago

__________

Ian Shanahan

1. You could definitely afford some more alpha waves and to resist the constant dominance of abstract
thinking.

Not if that means lowering my (musical) IQ, thanks very much.

2. Believe me, I could answer all this, but dont have time and am not inclined at present to defend silly,
uninformed criticisms like this. Ill leave that to musicologists, or myself if I get more time.

What a COP-OUT! Well I dont need musicologists to defend or explain my music, Robert. Why do you?
Inarticulacy? Or is it the case that there simply are no valid arguments to defend your lame composition? And
my criticism, entailing a cursory overview of the detail within your work, was not silly let alone uninformed.
You are the one who is dodging and weaving, trying to deflect my perfectly legitimate observations and
concerns with bullshit postmodern wankery (so-called poststructural theory, a great career-move for dodgy
musicologists like Born and Middleton).

3. To quote the excellent composer Philip Glass, you dont have to listen to my music. Theres plenty of
music in the world.

Glass excellent?! Only to the unintelligent. And I do steer clear of his mindless excrement, in favour of high-
quality music.

4. ... So dont concern yourself with not being counted amongst the lovely Topology audience.

Judging by what youve proffered of late, I dont.

5. Your rules for choosing how to value music are fine, but its kooky to think they apply everywhere. Why do
you assume your ideas about intertextuality are universally applicable? Seems mad.

~4~
Theyre not rules, Robert, but precepts which are time-honoured. They apply everywhere where music of
the highest quality counts and is recognized as such. And I didnt assume anything: what I wrote about
intertextuality follows on logically from those precepts. Rejection of them is a sure formula for the uplifting of
mediocrity (which you seem to adore).

6. Oh, and Nymans rad. Thats why such an excellent filmmaker like Greenaway kept working with him. Not
many composers get to invent a style and sound that is instantly recognisable.

No, Nyman is bad not rad; and Greenaway aint too hot as a filmmaker either. I seriously question your
assertion that Nyman has invented a style; but even if he did, and has a sound that is instantly
recognisable, neither of these factors in themselves is a guarantee of compositional excellence.

7. And it was Gavin Bryars who wrote the incomparable, gorgeous Jesus Blood Never Failed Me Yet, an
ennobling, time-altering, totally moving, ancestral mind embracing, kitsch-transforming bit of pataphysics.

Quite right, Gavin Bryars my mistake. Apologies (I am human after all!). But British composerly cretins like
Bryars and Nyman are all interchangeable to me. Yes, Jesus Blood is incomparable all right
incomparably bad. Gorgeous? Only the hobo therein. Ennobling? Humbug! Time-altering? It sure is: the
painfulness of it makes one minute seem like ten! Totally moving? It moves me to annoyance then anger
very bloody quickly, and in the end moves me to want to spew. Ancestral mind embracing = might amuse a
retarded primate. Kitsch-transforming? Yes, the hobos sweet little ditty is transformed into a gargantuan
monstrosity. Pataphysics? Well, that is a pseudophilosophy embracing parody and the ridiculous so yes.
Fools gold...

3 minutes ago

__________

Robert Davidson

It is not a cop out, it is merely my lack of engagement with the present conversation. My refusal to reply
springs not from inability, but from lack of desire, and I am spared the concern which I might have felt in
refusing you, had you behaved in a more gentleman-like manner.

6 hours ago

__________

Ian Shanahan

A cop-out on top of a cop-out...

... Followed by a resorting to mood fascism: ... more gentleman-like manner?!? More tea, vicar?

about a minute ago

__________

~5~