Music and Etc.

Music out of Order: Background

I didn’t intend for “Music out of Order” to be the title, but now that I read it it has very strong associations, definitions and silly puns. It also has the acronym MooO, which would be hilarious to e-mail as a title to any involved. Just food for thought.

The piece is about attachment.

It is not narrative in a strict sense, but for the sake of explanation of these forms I will use “subject” and “subjects” to connect the idea of attachment to a person. This could mean dancer, music, movement, etc, but for the sake of the English language let’s personify.

With that said: the relationship between parts, however, is narrative in the sense that they contrast according to the form. Once there is a consensus within the collaborators of what exactly a Study, Meeting and Day means (or maybe even just A, B and C), the parts will relate to each other accordingly.

There are three types of pieces in the work: Studies, Days and Meetings.

STUDY: It’s not a study like an Etude, per se. I originally wanted to name it “Reflections” or “Meditations” or another superpretentious name that composers just can’t dump out of their toolbox. The idea is that a Study is an exploration of self, of intimacy. In the context of attachment, this would be where the piece looks inwardly, and as consequence of the insight the piece moves forward in a different direction. The Studies represent consciousness. If this sounds too much like a hippie, just stick to how you know this feeling/idea: religiosity, spirituality, meditation, reflection, understanding, gut feeling, intuition; whatever the flavor or depth of the Study for you, it works. In the linear context of the piece, it borrows material from previous Days and Meetings (not to say that the material has to originate in those).

MEETINGS: You could say that Meetings are where the conclusion from the Studies play out. It’s the encounter or confrontation of the subject(s) with issues of attachment and expectation, and they play out based on factors of the individual, the situation, and luck (i.e. everything else). Whereas Studies allow the subject(s) to examine, evaluate and prepare, Meetings are where patterns of attachment play out. If Studies are rehearsal time, Meetings are recitals. Beyond these meanings with awfully negative connotations, a Meeting is also an opportunity. It is through a Meeting that the subject(s) can overcome issues of attachment not only in thought, but in action.

DAYS: The cheapest way to describe a Day would be a halfway situation between Meetings and Studies, but it is not quite that since it borrows from both in pretty different ways. A Day is like a Meeting in that it is a structure where attachment can play out indirectly. We could say that, if our protagonist is ballsy, he will turn a Day into a Meeting and overcome it. On the other hand, a Day is like a Study in that it provides a different place from which to observe the battle. It’s not the frontline of a Meeting where the pressure is on, but it is also not a Study where the real world is concealed. It’s like a general in the sidelines. It is not a perfect balance, however, since it also removes the space for deep reflection and can lead to hastiness, carelessness, panic, loss of values, etc etc.

It’s hard not to be specific, but I hope these forms are at least different enough from each other to a random reader. If you happen to read this, please let me know at raphberry@gmail.com please, please!

Oh, here is another way to bias everybody who reads this. If you were Robert Wilson, you might say Meetings are portraits, Days are still-lifes, and Studies are landscapes. I don’t think the size of the ensemble for each part should necessarily reflect that (if you look at my other notes, you will find out that I specifically DON’T think that). But it’s one of many ways to look at it.

Let’s move on to some notes about Meeting 1.