Cathnor
Cath001
The first release from our own Richard Pinnell’s Cathnor label (and, caveat emptor, I know Richard and, for that matter Tilbury and Wastell as well), presents us with something of a problem. Three tracks—first, a solo performance by Tilbury, then an equal length one by Wastell (on cello) and finally the two recordings simply layered atop one another. Actually, that may not be entirely accurate, as I believe Boghossian, whose project this is, adds faint washes of computer-generated tone to each recording though they’re subtle enough to easily be mistaken for acoustical artifacts. Apparently, he also requested the musicians to work in a specified general area and exercised some discreet editing as well. That said, the Tilbury is, as far as I’m aware, unique in his recorded oeuvre. He remains at the extreme lower end of the keyboard throughout, troubling the same octave or so of notes in a steady, moody rumble. I’m admittedly a sucker for virtually anything that drips from Tilbury’s fingertips but I did find this particular example to begin wearing on me about halfway through its 20 minutes. Wastell’s cello excursion holds greater interest in its own right, a drone piece awash in itchy overtones that has more than enough depth and interior graininess to hold interest.
Here’s the problematic aspect: Had I been presented with the third track knowing nothing about it, I’m pretty sure I would’ve enjoyed it fairly well, a solid combination of drone-y piano and cello with some subtle electronic augmentation. However, knowing it’s “only” a layering of the previous two tracks and, furthermore, having just listened to those pieces of music, a certain expectation is forced upon me, namely that the whole will somehow be greater than the sum of parts, that the two performances so combined will manage to produce some unexpected sonic moiré that could only have been achieved by just such a layering. So I tend to fluctuate between enjoying the actual sounds well enough and feeling disappointed that the conglomeration fails to produce an unexpectedly fascinating result. This leaves a slight taste of an arid science experiment. When Lucier integrated sine waves with similarly pitched percussion, the “musical” element may have been minimal, but a certain amount of interest could still be maintained as ear witness to a particular sonic phenomenon. Here, there’s really only the music we’ve already just heard which, attractive as it may have been, achieves no added level of profundity, acoustical or musical. Again, not “bad” by any means, just disappointing.
Posted by Brian Olewnick on September 11, 2006 5:36 PMMy own take on this (coming soon to a website near you) is somewhat more positive, Brian. It's odd that the Tilbury track didn't hold your attention as much as it did mine; I would have thought that someone like yourself a little more 'in tune' with the likes of Dion Workman and Ottavi's stuff could have found more to enjoy in there. I'll admit the first time I found myself thinking "wasted opportunity", like I did when, long years ago, I spent all my pocket money on Luigi Nono's Como una ola di fuerza y luz because Maurizio Pollini was on it, only to find MP confined to the same lower octave, but I found myself enjoying it much more second and third time round.
The superimposition thing doesn't worry me much - there are plenty of examples of that knocking around. Charles Curtis put out a cool double CD a while back where disc one could be played simultaneously with disc two to make a "new" piece. What I found a little more offputting were the rather dry track titles, and all that "the composer" stuff in the notes. Maybe there's something to be said for not mentioning any of this at all. If he hadn't, how much of it would we have spotted?
You were really bothered by the dryness of the track titles? I suggest you give them nicknames! Nobody uses "Gil" or "Gus" much anymore....
(But I suppose you'll have your own faves.)
Posted by: walto at September 12, 2006 8:54 AMWell, had they been something more, umm, "poetic" or "scientific" I imagine some folk would have reacted a little differently. Don't you think that more people today would appreciate, say, Davidovsky's electronic music if he'd chosen titles like "Golden Oranges of the Sun" instead of "Synchronisms 634b"?
Posted by: Dan Warburton at September 12, 2006 9:30 AMFor the record, the dry titles along with the dodgy pun of the overall album title come from Hervé against my better judgement, but then, they are just titles.
The use of the term 'the composer' was my choice, but simply to differentiate the people I personally wanted to thank for support setting the label up from those Hervé wanted to thank. Hence 'the publisher would like to thank...' and 'the composer would like to thank...' no deeper meaning than that. Any other uses of the term 'the composer' are Hervé's. Maybe it translates better into French?!
Thanks for the review Brian. As we have discussed i'm not wholly surprised you weren't fully smitten. As many people know I've not listended to this album for several months myself either....:)
But hey, its great! go buy it! Just look at the lovely sleeve art! :D
Posted by: Richard Pinnell at September 12, 2006 10:20 AMI did fail to mention the extreme handsomeness of the packaging both on this one and the Guthrie. Very well done on that count. That Oxneay character is pretty ok.
Posted by: Brian Olewnick at September 12, 2006 10:35 AMSo what are the tracks titled?
Posted by: Jacob Lindsay at September 12, 2006 12:08 PMIts Oxleay not Oxneay! Now he's sulking in the corner and I need to go sort him out...
Posted by: Richard Pinnell at September 12, 2006 12:11 PM"Pour Piano & Ordinateur", "Pour Violoncelle & Ordinateur" and "Pour Piano, Violoncelle & Ordinateur"
Posted by: Dan Warburton at September 12, 2006 10:00 PM.................................................. © 2003 - 2006 bagatellen ..................................................