I think I understand Ives a little better now.

Charles Ives is pretty famous as far as classical music goes. He's well known for doing Weird StuffTM like playing different pieces at the same time. Supposedly, this goes back to his dad who was a band conductor (I think?) and at one point, this crazy dad of his had multiple bands marching toward one point (town center). Anyway, so if you just imagine in your head, let's say, the Gummi Bears Theme song, Welcome to the Jungle, and Bolero going at the same time, you get some ide of what he was getting at. The main problem with this is that many people would find (at least at first) that sort of combination incomprehensible and thus cacophonous. A synthesis of various elements often turn out better than the mere sum of its components but what how can this apply with superimposing music?

Well, leave it up to United to make me understand. While listening to the "Wachet Auf" Cantata (BWV 140) by Bach, the pre-flight announcement came on. At first it was kind of annoying: I've got people raising their voice to God and then all of a sudden they've got to put on their seat belts. But the more I focused on both sound sources at the same time, the more I became interested. Speech has a certain natural rhythm to it and that, superimposed on Wachet Auf, was somehow fascinating. The superimposition of two rhtyhms generated something far more dynamic than either source alone and it was damn cool.

There is precedence for this even in traditional classical contexts but of courses the sources are MEANT to be together. Nevertheless, think about the Fantasie-Impromptu by Chopin. The hands do 3 against 4 (3 in the left against 4 in the right). Each rhythm by itself isn't terrifically fast. However, when combined, there exist 6 distinct attacks to a beat (the first is shared by both hands, then 3 attacks in the right and 2 more in the left). So by combining two slower rhythms, Chopin managed to create something that is aurally twice as fast. This, of course, is a planned effect, something much less aleatory than Ives's stuff. But still, the fundamental principle remains similar.

And I think I'll leave this post, incoherent as it is, right here.