1. Paradise Metal (via @jabel) - What I’m calling Byzantine dark-wave, made by a Greek Orthodox priest on his fretless electric guitar. A perfect addition to my diet of microtonal/non-western tuned music.

2. Litanies, Alec Goldfarb - Trained in both jazz and Hindustani classical music, his newest album is realizations of traditional ragas on electric guitar. Incredibly effective.

3. Bach Artillerie (HT Robin Sloan) - I expected this to be a novelty (re-upped Wendy Carlos or Ruth White), but by the end I was listening much more closely. These are interpretive readings and the drumming (from Deerhoof’s Greg Saunier) is amazing. Canon at the 7th is particularly effective. The thing about Bach is the music is just so portable. The structure is resilient enough to endure any treatment without breaking down.

4. String Quartet No. 4, “Amazing Grace,” Ben Johnston (Via my music theory colleague Chris) - Johnston is a pretty obscure composer, mostly of music in just intonation (not to be confused with Tom Johnson, composer of the Chord Catalog). This is a mostly traditional piece, but as the top Youtube comment says, “It’s nice to hear an arrangement that doesn’t sound like it was written as background music for a civil war documentary.” Mensural canon on NEW BRITAIN is exactly what I’m interested in from a string quartet. Kronos sounding fantastic here as well.

Earlier this week I watched the Oscar-nominated 2025 film Train Dreams. I had no idea what we were in for, it’s a film I watched on the recommendation of my most cinephilic brother, but I really enjoyed it. While the choice to have a narrator driven film with little dialogue probably limits its overall impact somewhat, it accomplished a lot (and in under two hours, which I appreciate more and more these days).

Reading old books and watching films that take themselves seriously (some old and some new) is a reminder of how thoroughly irony has infected everything in our culture. One of the most remarkable things about Americans of the 50s and 60s (at least as depicted, and in my experience of elderly folks as well) is how seriously they take things. Seriously enough to get involved and do things that make communities work.

I recently played a gig at a luncheon for the local chapter of the National Federation of Music Clubs. (Basically groups of private music teachers who work together on things like competitions, scholarships, etc. organized by state and local chapter.) The amount of ceremony and ritual this involved was mind-blowing. Singing of hymns, reciting of pledges, the reading of a collect, bestowing honors and awards. Then I played about 30 minutes of music and we ate the worst salad I’ve ever had. The thing all these folks had in common was they were of my parents generation or older. It is unimaginable to me that people my age would organize in this way. There are lots of reason, but partly because we just don’t take ourselves that seriously.

I haven’t checked, but one imagines the enrollments in things like Kiwanis, Rotary, Elks, and other fraternal organizations is declining rapidly as the Greatest Generation has all but gone and the youngest Silent and oldest Boomers begin to die away in large numbers.

Robert Grainier, the subject of Trains Dreams, takes his life and his work seriously. His profession as a logger is incredibly dangerous and must be taken seriously to survive. Even the most careful must be lucky enough to avoid accidents to make it to old age. But he also has a sense that the work, something he seems to have fallen into as a young man, is important in a significant way. More specifically, it is destructive. The loggers are small crews of misfits living for weeks in the deep wilderness, but the most aware of them sense they are changing the world as they sever the interconnected threads of the forest one by one. Robert and some of the oldest members of the crews—like one of his only friends, Arne, the powder monkey—understand that the world is changing and they are foot soldiers on the wrong side of the battle.

As he gets older he more frequently encounters the brashness of the younger loggers. They believe that there are so many trees that by the time they cut them all down the next forest will have grown up to replace it. Robert’s concerns are not just about sustainability though. As the opening monologue of the film tells us, there used to be another world you could find around a corner in the forest. An older, more magical world, that could be stumbled into. Something like Terebithia or Narnia, where the deep magic still rules. Even if the trees regrow they won’t be the same as the ones they cut. Robert understands that the world he was born into is quickly fading and a new world he understands little is taking its place. The young loggers, born just a few decades later, never found themselves in the old world and don’t fear its loss.

After a break of several years (for reasons I won’t spoil for those who have not watched), Robert returns to a logging job to find that the work has changed as well. A steam-powered tractor, replacing the horse-drawn skids, rumbles through the forest. Revving chainsaws rather than rhythmic axe work now reverberate around the jobsite. He struggles to start the machine (a problem over a century of small motor innovation has not solved) until a younger sawyer grabs it from him, pulls the choke, and cranks it up. Leaving him behind for good.

Though unsaid, Robert clearly understands that this change in technology means the forest, like himself, will not be able to keep up. He leaves logging forever and, in one of the most beautiful scenes of the film, baptizes himself into a new life in the clear cold river.

The ending years of his life are spent contemplating its beginning. A life which featured alternations of violence, joy, absence, and finally a great loss. His life parallels the life of the forest, a place of beauty, danger, and exploitation. How to make sense of all this he has seen? And especially in a world he hardly recognizes outside of his one acre homestead?

His work after logging consists of odd jobs until he comes to own a pair of horses and wagon. He then makes his living as a driver. One of the people he meets driving is a woman (who looks quite similar to his wife) who works as a forest ranger. Her job is to sit in a high observation tower watching for fires and reporting on the changing landscape of the virgin forests due to logging. Though it goes unsaid, his awkwardness at being part of this change is palpable. (Despite the narrator, this film is good at showing even if it tells a lot of things).

Joining her in the observation tower one day he sees for the first time how the forest looks from above. Its beauty is affecting, and this change in perspective finally allows him to voice the loss he has endured to her, seemingly for the first time. She has likewise suffered loss and finds solace in her isolated work, but she is able to empathize with Robert.

This singular experience of perspective and sympathy directs the end of his life toward searching and considering what his life has meant, what all these events good and bad have been about. He occasionally forays into the cities where he encounters electricity, television, and circus shows whose obvious fakery does not blunt their capacity to stir something in him.

These scenes in the city are important, because they show his seeming immunity to amusement. He encounters these new developments with the same seriousness he approaches everything. He tries to understand rather than escape from his reality in them.

One of his final interactions with technology is paying for a ride in an airplane to “see the world as only the birds see it.” In a clear visual reference to the similar scene from Malick’s Tree of Life, Robert has an experience, similar to the one on the forest watch tower, of gaining perspective on the overall events of his life.

Women are conspicuous throughout Grainier’s life. Though never knowing his father and mother—he is an orphan who was put on a train to the west—he is intensely devoted to his family. Meeting his wife Gladys, or rather being met by her, gives shape to his early life. The joyful intrusion of a daughter brings him meaning as more than a worker and provider. The forest ranger helps him process his grief, and the pilot (who is somewhat surprisingly a woman) shows him the meaning of his life from the air.

These relationships, while they exist, are his life. After they are gone he spends his time earnestly trying to understand them and the world he inhabits. His work does not consume him, in fact it eventually expels him. He has no interest in social life beyond his family, and his pleasures come only in their purest versions: eating, playing with his wife and child, experiencing nature.

Robert Grainier is a man utterly devoid of irony. He does nothing in jest, though he can be playful, and does not shrug off any of the roles he finds himself in. Most of all, he doesn’t hide himself behind a false self but lives his own life with seriousness and joy.

This was striking, because it is harder and harder to take yourself or your life seriously. The performative nature of life online, and increasingly our politics, media, and all other things, means we drape ourselves in irony to hide in plain sight. Too busy costuming a role to be who we are and live our own life in quiet and contemplation—a well-examined life lived well.

When I was about fourteen my mom put a cd in my Easter basket. This wasn’t uncommon, but this particular disk would become one of the more important ones in my collection. I’ve listened to it nearly every Holy Week since.

Other than already being a fan of both Chanticleer and Tavener, I had absolutely no context for this work. I just knew that I loved how it sounded. Chanticleer is somehow the best and most versatile choir around, and this caught them at what I consider their peak (when I saw them in concert around 2010 only one member of choir—the incredible and affable bass Eric Alatorre—that recorded this was still in the group. He spent about thirty years with them but has since retired from Chanticleer and sings with whatever choirs he wants.)

As it turns out, this work is an Orthodox liturgical work. I am not Orthodox myself, but it would be fair to say my aesthetic sensibilities fit a lot better in an Orthodox context than Protestantism.

Tavener was himself a convert to Orthodoxy for most of his adult life and this work was intended as service music for Pascha. He includes somewhat detailed program notes about the movements through the space in the program notes. It appears to have only been performed a few times, mostly by Chanticleer and once by (of all things) a Presbyterian church’s choir.

The choral numbers are predictably Tavener; rich harmony, homophonous textures. Unlike many Tavener works, most of the choral numbers are lightly accompanied by strings which adds to the depth of sound for such a small choir. It’s the solo singing that really stands out though. To a man, they all inhabit the expressive world of byzantine chant (quarter tones and all) in a way that is very unlike any kind of western singing, but completely convincing.

The final movement, Resurrection in Hades, features one of the great shocks in music. After over an hour of sparsely accompanied music, we hear what sounds like a board being hit with a hammer. And indeed, it is a semantron. This is such a foreign sound to eastern protestant or catholic ears, but it carries rich significance in the Russian Orthodox tradition as a traditional accompaniment to processions and funerals.

This is the only work I know with what I consider a satisfying musical depiction of the resurrection. I’ll just leave it at that.

My musical life has been on a pretty serious microtonal kick lately. As someone who has always been somewhat dissonance-seeking in music this is probably the logical outcome. Microtonality is one of the things I’ve always found appealing about Chinese, Indian, and Arabic music. It’s a world of flavors we don’t have in classical music. And I’ve been at the buffet.

The science of tuning is fascinating, but when I try to talk to students about it they start to regard me with some suspicion as a possible crackpot. Many sidelong glances are exchanged around the room when I tell them the piano is a profoundly out of tune instrument and has ruined our ears for pure intervals. But it’s true! There are so many interesting and expressive sounds we have learned to hear as out of tune because they don’t accord with our reductionistic approach to tuning for convenience. (Don’t ask me how I feel about auto-tune.)

What kicked all this off was the sensation out of Canada, Angine de Poitrine. I’m not into the goofy costumes and performance art aspects of any of this but the music is so interesting. My introduction came (along with about 2 million other people) from Rick Beato on YouTube. If there’s anyone right now that can make a difference in the growth of a group, it’s Rick with his commentary and high standard of taste.

Hearing this kind of smart, prog/math rock is so refreshing. The nearest analog I can think of is my favorite Baltimore band, Horse Lords. The combination of complex rhythms and quarter tones is just enough to make this stick, but the loop-pedal nature of playing as a duo means the material is limited so you can get used to it. The YouTube comments on their videos are hilarious, but the consensus of those that like it is that it is something like a rebellion against the aesthetic averager that is AI-generated music.

Everyone else in my household absolutely hates this. The children shriek in horror. You might too.

Doing some more reading about tuning theory led me to this absolute gem from one of my favorite composers, Terry Riley’s The Harp of New Albion. I’ve read about La Monte Young’s The Well-Tuned Piano pretty extensively, but somehow missed the existence of Riley’s counterpart, a full length exploration of five-limit just intonation (as usual, Ethan Hein has you covered if you want to go deep on how this works).

These sonorities are so rich and expressive, much more alive than a piano in equal-temperament. As Riley once put it, “Western music is so fast because it’s out of tune.”

And of course the best information I can find about this with some tuning analysis is from a good old-fashioned blogspot blog.

All this reminded me of an album I got deep into a year or so ago. Alec Goldfarb’s microtonal take on the blues. His bio says that Hindustani classical music is one of his major influences. The synthesis of blues guitar and sitar playing is really quite something. This is not easy-listening in any sense, but hearing the tropes and habits of two wildly different styles merged is compelling. This music was clearly made by very serious-minded musicians that approach this project with earnestness.

I. After reading David Sudnow’s books on learning the play the piano (Ways of the Hand and Talk’s Body) I’ve been thinking about the “handfulness” (his term) of playing and learning music. In practicing improvisation he had to learn to go from playing “wayfully,” that is, through pre-determined and drilled pathways like scales and arpeggios to playing “songfully.” Songful musicians hear the sounds they want (often best accomplished by singing, there is a reason jazz musicians scat) and then develops the instincts, habits, and collections of skills to realize them in sound. Eventually, this songfulness also becomes a handfulness. Your hands learn to find the patterns that fit the song.

This is the open-circuit side of music. A controlled environment where vernacular phrases and gestures are traversed in new combinations, what we call improvisation. The mental space and physical preparation of improvisation is a lot like learning to play basketball or some other team sport. Clearly stated rules and expectations govern the ways of movement that are appropriate to the game and, when well-executed, come off with grace and style. No two basketball games are exactly alike, but any given play is quite similar to something that has happened before. The best players have trained for the most possible contingencies and how to handle them. (e.g. Steph Curry’s warm-up routine.)

Open-circuit skill experts develop vasts networks of motor programs (how the brain runs physical movements) along with task specific sub-routines. These are the subtle differences of movement that allow a five year old to walk and run on nearly every possible terrain, but a toddler can only manage flat and level ground. The five year old has developed many more task specific sub-routines in the “walking” motor program. If you only ever practice scales bottom to top starting on the first note, you shouldn’t expect to be able to jump in to the middle when the band changes chords.

II. “A song is a social organizational device par exellence, a format that quite elegantly coordinates the movements of two or more individuals” (Talk’s Body, p. 105). The same could be said for the rules of any sport or game. They create the expectations that allow coordinated movement and enforce punishment (fouls, penalty flags, time out for big tough hockey players) for those that violate them. On the macro level they create such things as Symphony Orchestras and the Olympic Games, perhaps the largest peaceful international cooperative event.

We don’t have the same formal punishments in music, but expectations are enforced socially. You won’t be asked back to the jam if you’re a showboat or can’t hang with the beat. If you try to play a jazzy solo in a rock-based jam band you’ll be a misfit. Blues has some of the strictest stylistic constraints of them all. In the fusion era we live in there is a lot less stylistic gatekeeping, but bluesmen of a previous generation were fiercely protective of the traditional sounds of blues.

III. On the other side of the spectrum are closed-circuit skills. This is all classical music, but also a lot of virtuosic metal (most of which is not improvised but worked out in advance) and a lot of fingerstyle guitar and folk music. Most genres more flexibility than classical music, but “the song” is essentially set down in writing or oral tradition and recreated roughly the same way each performance. The ability to recreate an ideal version of the music after extensive rehearsal is the territory of classical musicians, figure skaters, and gymnasts over all others. (Many years ago I realized that almost all the popular American sports are open-circuit team competitions—baseball, basketball, football, hockey, soccer—but that most of our favorite Olympic sports are soloistic, closed-circuit sports like gymnastics, diving, even skiing and oddities like bobsled to some extent.)

The ways of training for these different kinds of performance are quite different. Perhaps they are the difference between preparing to play Hamlet and preparing for an oral argument before the Supreme Court. To do Hamlet (closed-circuit) justice you have to memorize all the lines of course, but you also have to internalize all the thoughts and feelings he is processing throughout the play. Then you have to say them in the way you think will communicate the best. This is nearly identical to preparing to play a classical piece effectively, you are just dealing with the world of sound and gesture rather than word and action.

When you go before SCOTUS as oral advocate, you don’t know what you will be asked. Or at least you don’t know exactly **what you will be asked, but if you belong there you what the possibilities are and you have prepared accordingly. A successful advocate can actively navigate all aspects of a case and argument depending on the questions asked. The best even adjust their manner and attitude according to the tone of questions from the justices. These are the equivalent of task specific sub-routines. After the very brief prepared speech (”playing the head” as jazz people say), it is all improv. If you pull up to the jazz jam you don’t know what tunes will be called, but if you can’t play Cherokee, Stella by Starlight, All of Me, and twenty or thirty of the other most commonly played tunes then you really aren’t prepared.

IV. A curious habit of mind music students develop is to think about their hands as technology. Over years of practice the hands develop ways of moving and manipulating your instrument that seem to take on an alien quality. Around age sixteen I saw a video of myself playing the guitar and had something like an out of body experience. It was clearly me and my hands doing this playing, but I couldn’t imagine it was possible I actually did it. It seemed that some force was impelling my hands around the guitar in a way I didn’t fully understand.

And indeed, I did not fully understand it. I had been practicing essentially mindlessly, repeating the same things over and over again for rote muscle memory. In this way I learned to play some very difficult music, but performance was always on a knife edge. One misstep on this very narrow path I had gone down thousands of times and it would fall apart. Good preparation accounts for this by playing a piece in as many different ways as can be devised to account for the irregularities of live performance and playing with nerves.

This kind of practicing is from the hands up. Input is primarily from the hands, and the executive function does something like a pass/fail evaluation. “That attempt sounded bad.” “That attempt sounded good.” And then some are better or worse.

Practicing in this mode is wildly inefficient. The solution to the bad attempts is always another attempt. Wishful thinking, of course, that the hands will magically find the right pathway after traversing the wrong pathway dozens of times in a row. As I try to drill into my students, after you have played a mistake the most likely thing you will play the next time is… a mistake. This is something like the plateau of ability Sudnow hit after he had developed his “chops” on scales and arpeggios, but still couldn’t pull off stylistic improvisation. He had to lead the hands rather than follow them.

Learning the practice from the brain down is a major step for developing musicians. Careful analytical thought is the first step to progress, but it is primarily analysis of the hands and their ways of moving in relation to the music. Wisdom on an instrument comes from knowing what kinds of movements will be secure in the stressful environment of live performance and which won’t. ”Fingering is destiny” is another of our studio mottos. This kind of mental work creates an integrated connection from brain to hands that holds up to pressure much better. Rather than throwing your hands at the task hoping they bring it off because they have in practice, you are actively in control and making constant adjustments based on feedback. The brain tells the hands what to do, but the hands also respond with whether what is asked feels good. This is where the “songful” and “handful” nature of playing well come together. The mind and body in harmony.

V. Another element of handfulness in music—which you might remember is where this rumination began—is in the composing of music itself. My current concert program is all works by guitarists or lutenists. This is an interesting context to observe hand-based thinking. It’s clear that each of these pieces has a firm rootedness in the topography of the instrument. Though they aren’t easy by any means, the music doesn’t demand from the instrument something it isn’t good at. The best player-composers have independent musical ideas of course. A sure sign of hack-work is music that follows common patterns or relies completely on instrument-specific effects. But even the best pieces are molded by a deep knowledge of terrain, texture, and the possibilities of four fingers playing six strings. This music “fits the hand” as we say, and allows the instrument to speak in its natural voice. It’s an absolute joy to play.

“The only way to change the past is with the quality of attention you give to the present.”

• David Whyte A year ago, in March 2025, after a fairly steady increase in time staring at my phone each day, I decided it was time to do something about it. The exact tipping point has escaped my memory. Most likely it was a combination of things that finally impelled me to make changes I knew I wanted. What I wanted to do was obvious. I wanted to spend several hours per day fewer looking at my phone. Those hours I wanted to turn into paying better attention to my children, being more focused at work, reading books and periodicals, and generally being more present. Maybe thinking a stray thought now and then. The why (I was spending too much time on my phone) and the how (to stop) were not as clear. I consider myself a reasonably mature and disciplined person. How was I accidentally spending several hours per day more than I said I wanted to starting at this stupid thing? An honest answer to this question had to be made. There is some amount of difference between the person we like to think we are as and the person we actually are. The size of this gap varies person to person. You probably know someone with a very large gap and others with a smaller or gap. I did not think of myself as someone who looks at his phone for 4-5 hours a day. But I was, because I did. You are your habits. I eventually figured out why. I had to come to terms with the fact that I was looking at the phone to cope. At that time, having not-quite-two-year-old twins was challenging (in a very normal sense, many people have much more challenging lives, but it was difficult nonetheless). It was simply much easier to look at the phone than to deal with two needy and often crying children. Or at least to disappear for a few minutes of pleasure after dealing with them. I would say coming to terms with this and facing it as a personal deficiency was the most important factor in this project. More accurate self-knowledge being attained, I had a fifteen year habit to kick (first smart phone: 2013, iPod touch: 2010). If will power alone was going to work, it would have already done so. I was fairly sure a change in habits would require a change in equipment. I was ready to look for a dumb phone. If you’ve explored this you know that it gets overwhelming quickly. Lite phone, wise phone, the brick. All kinds of startups (and more all the time), most of them delivering what appear to be very unimpressive tech at purity-test pricing. I didn’t see myself spending ~$500 on a phone the purpose of which was to do fewer things and that only does those things when it’s in a good mood. I wanted the sturdy utilitarianism of my first flip phones with a few of the most useful tools of the smartphone. I needed a list. (That is the second Frog & Toad allusion for those keeping track.) I came up with what seemed like a modest list:
• Navigation
  • I briefly considered a dedicated GPS, but Garmins are also expensive and appear to have made absolutely no UI progress since I last used one circa 2010. Oh, and most of their new features also require connection to a smartphone. I also navigate on foot and by bike occasionally. It needed to stay on the phone.
• Podcast app/music streaming
  • I listen to podcasts and music daily. I usually listen to CDs in my car, but there are lots of times I want to have access to streaming media away from my car or computer.
• Bluetooth
  • To connect to devices which play the podcasts and music.
• Calls, texts, and group texts (you know, a phone)
  • If you have always been on iPhone you need to emotionally prepare for the violent reaction your iPhone friends will have when your texts now come through in green bubbles instead of proper blue bubbles. This is real. I was willing to compromise on just about everything else, but these few things painted me into a surprisingly small corner. The number of phones offering actual navigation and streaming media without a large screen and everything else in the world is quite small. This was all a bit of a non-starter, until I found Jose’s Dumbphone Finder. This tool allows you to select your nonnegotiable features then shows what phones are available. This brought me to what was quite literally the only option that met my criteria, the Tiq M5 Mini. I ordered one for $190 on eBay, which arrived broken. When its replacement came I switched my SIM card over and used this phone exclusively for the next 6 months (except for a ten day period when I was leading a study abroad trip in Europe and needed more firepower; for that I just swapped my SIM back to my old iPhone).  The M5 Mini is indeed a full-featured smartphone running Android, which I actually prefer to the well-dressed bully that is iOS. And along with the physical buttons it has a touch screen and supports voice-to-text, which is really the only way to do anything on this phone. The thing is though, that screen. It’s tiny. It has terrible colors and a slow refresh rate. It really doesn’t draw you in. It was exactly what I was looking for.  It is a very mediocre piece of hardware. Slow, laggy, takes almost 5 minutes to boot up, don’t even think about multi-tasking. Unappealing and just barely able to get the job done, but priced accordingly. This is what you want to reset your brain. The friction wears down those pleasure receptors quickly. The first few weeks I would impulsively reach for this silly little phone only to think “what am I going to do with that?” This was exactly what I was hoping to fix - the habitual reach. It was also a great conversation starter. Millennials were nostalgic; other dads at the park would rush over to ask me about it. Gen Zs were curious and slightly horrified. The physical buttons were a wonder to them. I showed some of my students how I could text with T9 and broke their brains. I felt like Jed Clampett. I used this little guy for about six months. Then I dropped it in the toilet. It dried out and seems to still work, but while it was in the rice I switched back to the iPhone. And guess what? I’m ok. In fact, now that my itchy trigger finger was reformed, the iPhone helped me be on the phone even less since it was good at doing the few things I wanted it to do. No black and white screen, no parental controls, just fixing my own broken default attention. Here is my five step guide to spending less time on your phone: 

1. Face yourself. 1. Say out loud or write down in your most private journal that you are a person who spends X amount of time on your phone every day. If you do not like the number you hear/read, proceed to step 2.
2. Disrupt your habits with a low-reward, high friction digital environment
   1. Lots of ways to do this. A change in tech worked well for me. When the fingerprint sensor on my wife’s phone broke she found she was opening it less because it’s just slightly harder to press those buttons.
3. Maintain this environment as long as necessary.
   1. If you still reach for the phone without a distinct purpose you aren’t ready yet.
   2. You might start to examine those moments and wonder why you are reaching at this particular time. This is a sign of growth.
4. Test the waters of the normal environment.
   1. Mutatis mutandis, you can have the convenience of a smart phone without getting sucked into the void every day.
   2. Or don’t. When my iPhone dies I expect I’ll go back to the M5. I actually enjoyed it. If nothing else, it’s something to feel smug about.
5. Transform the quality of the past with your attention to the present.
   1. Fill your environment with beautiful things and people to love.
   2. Deeply paying attention is one of the greatest forms of pleasure.

This is a program note I wrote for a few concerts I’m playing this month.

The way I see it, the most exciting thing about being a classical musician is participating in a tradition. Guitarists have five hundred years of lute and guitar repertoire to explore, enjoy, and perform. Maintaining this tradition has two responsibilities: preservation and progress. If we don’t compellingly present the worthy music of the past it will be lost. If we don’t promote new (sometimes uncomfortable) music, then our living tradition becomes a museum that will slowly but surely die. This program is an attempt to do both of those things and show some strains of continuity across five centuries of making music plucking strings.

The guitar is considered one of the most difficult instruments to compose for. Intricate polyphony is possible, but many simple chords are unplayable. Because of this, much music for the guitar (and lute before it) was written by performers who also composed. The first three composers on this program played the lute. Francesco, Dowland, and Weiss were each among the most famous musicians of their day, but with the passing of the lute as a major instrument their music fell into obscurity. In this sense Weiss, like his contemporary J. S. Bach, was as obsolete as he was famous by the end of his life.

The rest of the works are paired by genre but written at least two hundred years apart. Though of different eras and styles, the starting points of grief, nature, movement, and a formal process show through as these musicians living in different times and places picked up their instruments or sat down at their desks to compose.

To these works, and in this venerable tradition, I add two of my own. The title Lost Loss comes from a book I was reading when writing this. It describes the feeling of missing something but not knowing what that thing is (in this case, a secure sense of tonic for most of the piece). Fierce Friend (dearest friend) is related in material but uses a more dissonant harmonic language incorporating microtones. In an arch form (ABCBA) with coda, the central slow section is an exploration of the clash between twelve-tone equal temperament, just intonation, and the frets of the guitar. (This just means it sounds out of tune on purpose). The coda is a reimagining of the familiar chorale melody that inspired the title.

If you’re curious, you can hear the premier performance of my pieces here.

I have read the essay going around about habitats of attention and multimodal information consumption. It’s compelling, and I laud the sanguine approach. I am also wary of challenging anything a librarian says - I have learned they are so often right - but I think it has two major problems: one around incentive structures and one around media ecology.

Iacono hints at why our digital environments are the way they are, but doesn’t quite come out with it: greed. The companies that have designed our most addictive apps have reaped the rewards. Massive IPOs, rising stock prices, a seemingly infinite market cap. When you can harvest the time of humanity at scale you can get wildly wealthy. They do this while knowingly creating products that are harmful and they do not care.

Who then is going to make these proposed interfaces designed for deep thought? The fact is, they already exist, but not at scale. There are any number of small companies providing low-distraction phones, quiet RSS readers, or research and information tools. There are in fact still companies that sell physical books. These are utterly different kinds of companies though, because they are selling a product.

Slow, deep thought is not a scalable business model because there isn’t a wide demand for it. The market (by which I mean, people’s) demand is for diversion, as L. M. Sacasas gets at in this essay from a few years ago. The moment the steam-powered printing press lowered the cost of producing books, there was demand for penny dreadfuls. The moment we could deliver endless streams of whatever that stuff on tiktok is, there was an attentional market (billions of souls strong) demanding it for hours a day. As much as I would like to think that this is a design problem, my humanist instincts are telling me that we have a human-problem at the heart of all this.

My other issue is around issues raised by McLuhan and Postman: the medium [has an inexorable push toward certain modalities of attention to maximize profit, which given the above description of the financial incentives of screen-based attention means engagement maximization] is the message. Now that some of our biggest and most famous companies don’t sell products, how else are they supposed to operate? Surely we can’t expect them to fix themselves. It also seems highly unlikely that any government could or would seek to impose some kind of design regime. Nor would, I think, we want them to.

The most compelling idea from the essay is the construction of “attention habitats.” This is absolutely true, attention is a designed and cultivated good. It won’t just happen. Distraction is always available. But just like no one is going to clean your room or do your dishes, it seems unlikely to me that there will be a large scale effort to correct our attentional issues. Building and defending your own habitat is required. We need individuals who desire that for it to happen.

When you come down from the mountaintop Breathless and effervescent with the rare air Of enlightenment, clarity, the extraordinary,

Forgive me if I seem unmoved. I’ve been down here all along Vacuuming crumbs from under the children’s chairs.

A recent post by @dwalbert about the proliferation of the phone-based vertical video format (and a vertical ways of noticing) got me thinking about musical mediation. One of my perennial preoccupations, as it turns out. This post suffers from a case of Too Long, but I’ve trimmed it as much as I can.

We have two primary ways of experiencing music: playing it and hearing it live. These are both embodied and direct. Player and listener are quite literally interface. We also have two mediated ways of encountering music: notation and recording. As formats of mediation, these are quite different and have very different results from one another.

The last time I taught my music technology class I asked this essay question on a quiz:

“Which technology do you think has had a greater impact on the development of music: notation or recording?”

I expected a variety of answers but was surprised at the veracity with which most students (10 out of 12) argued for notation. These were all young musicians undergoing classical music training so perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised, but it did get me thinking about the different ways we relate to music through technology.

As a tool of preservation and communication notation is of enormous value. Without it, nearly every piece of music before about 1900 would be lost. At least we assume this. Without notation would the western tradition have continued as an oral tradition rather than a written one? Would violin teachers pass Bach partitas down to their students like sitar masters pass down ragas? Would they have subtly changed over the years the way folk songs do? Would there be Bach Partitas at all or would music have sounded utterly different in his day? I don’t know, but I am fascinated by these kinds of question. I would 100% read a book of speculative musicology (which should exist) imagining a European music tradition without notation.

For everyone who ever lived before c. 1900 (and many others since) the only music they ever experienced was played within ear shot. Thinking this way it’s easy to realize why Pa’s fiddle is so present in Laura Ingalls Wilder’s childhood memories and why music and religious ritual are so closely intertwined throughout the world.

Notation is not just a means of idea capture, it is also provides a model for compositional thought. Mozart had the inner ear to write complete pieces in his head before writing them down, perfect and complete, while Beethoven worked out his musical ideas on paper as he revised draft upon draft. The key here though is they were both translating sound to notation in their heads, Mozart at his desk and Beethoven walking around the countryside. (His typical day involved two hours of vigorous walking.) The notation was to communicate intent to the musicians, but also provided the frame of creative possibility. I’m fond of this definition of notation from Ferrucio Busoni, “Notation…is primarily an ingenious expedient for catching an inspiration, with the purpose of exploiting it later” (from Sketch of a New Esthetic of Music).

Another of my speculative questions is whether Mozart would have been such a prodigy in a different era. The classical style, with its homophonic texture and clear rhythms, is the style most well-suited to Western staff notation. It makes complete sense on the page, which is why it’s the music we give beginning music theory students to practice analysis. Mozart possessed a potent combination of aural imagination, creativity, and facility, but he was also born at the perfect time. Compared to later styles, which visibly strain against the limitations of staff notation (and eventually sought to break free of it altogether), Mozart’s music on the page is like a boat in the water drafting beautifully.

Stravinsky was the first composer I know of that bragged about composing at the piano. The complex sonorities of his music had to be worked out audibly since they didn’t follow an established vernacular. Historically though, composers hear the music then they write it down. Bach considered anyone who composed at the keyboard an amateur. Professionals do their thinking by ear.

This is why it seems obvious to me recording is a more impactful technology and has changed us as musicians much than notation. Notation is potential sound, recording is actual sound.

Think for a moment about the diversity of music you have heard in your life. Now think about the music you have heard live. One of my favorite composers is Arvo Pärt. I cannot recall ever hearing one of his works in a live concert (though I have played one!). Even the concert I attended at the actual Arvo Pärt Center in Estonia didn’t have a piece by Arvo Pärt. And yes, this felt just like going to church and not praying. There are dozens of composers whose works I know and admire for whom that is true. Recording has allowed us to become musical globalists in a way that notation could never have done. Compared to notation, recording is a populist technology giving access to an entire world of music. No skills required, just the equipment to play it.

Richard Taruskin points out in the introduction to his six-volume Oxford History of Western Music, that what we generally call “music history” is really the history of notated music plus a few bits of archeological evidence. At least until the 20th century. Now all other musical activities can be recorded, preserved, and studied. The earliest ethnomusicologists developed arcane notation systems to capture the idiosyncrasies of folk musicians’ individual performance. A generation later they could just record them.

This is the place where the “Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer” quote usually falls, but I’m not going to. Recording has enriched my life more than almost anything else. (And I bet Wendell has a hi-fi somewhere on that farm). If I had to choose it or notation I wouldn’t have to think two seconds. I am extremely good at reading music, but I can learn the music I want to play by ear if I have to. I cannot hear the music of the world except through recordings.

I will point out some ill effects though, perhaps analog to David’s original point about ways of seeing. Recording has had profound effects on our expectations of music. Most notably in our standard of perfectionism. I see this in my students frequently. If your main exposure to music is through studio-edited recordings that simulate perfect performance then you can have a falsely elevated standard for how good a live performance needs to be. Just like we think there are actually people who look like the instagram-famous with their clever poses, cosmetic surgery, and camera filters, we think musicians actually sound like this in real-life. They don’t. Striving for this standard leads the most dedicated students to practice to the point of injury and psychological torment over their mistakes.

Nearly every music student has had the experience of performing a recital that goes well and is well-received. Everyone (genuinely) says how nice it was, and you feel great. Then you get your recording back and eagerly listen only to hear mistake after mistake. Mistakes that nobody noticed in the live performance and didn’t detract from its effectiveness in the least sound like a pimple on your nose in a photo. Unnoticed in real life, absolutely glaring on record.

However much you might love recordings, we all know that the experience of person-to-person music-making is the real item. At least for those of us who still listen to live music. It seems some of us are so used to hearing pristine, auto-tuned, doctored vocals that hearing a real singer can be a letdown. Like the virtual porn-addled college student who has lost his desire for real people, we can lose sight of the beauty of unmediated musical experience. However much I may admire Glenn Gould, his animosity toward audiences and performing should be seen as an early harbinger of this pathology. In Adam Neely’s sharp video on AI generated music he includes results from his informal survey of Suno users. One of his questions is which AI generated music they consider influential on their own music. The responses were primarily bafflement. Why would I listen to someone else’s AI generated music? I listen to my own!

Music-making, ideally an instrumental activity extending and enriching our humanity, can become another device. Removed from the need for cultivation, discovery, experience, and sharing, one of the most humanizing of all activities, playing and listening to music, enters the goon cave.