I am listening to the longest of the short stories � I worked on this last night, a kind of meandering piece between major and minor which reminds me a bit of Bert and John in its original guitar parts. I have put on two electric guitar parts, Dhorn and flute � is this too much I wonder? I probably need to get Gilbert�s view. I also worked impulsively on a rather expressionist piece � this is thelast in the set (although I have two others to tackle. It has a one chord backround and a noise-ish second guitar part. I put the flute through some effects on the Vamp and took some further sounds of my Yamaha rhythm box. Is it important to find language to explain why these pieces are as they are? Does this language appear before or after the work?

The reference on the second piece was a B major arpeggio � and so this became an issue for the flute whose lowest note is a C. There is also a dichotomy between the natural sound of the guitar and the processed sound of the flute. The advent of the rhythm box sound fragments tips the balance in favour of the flute�s sound orientation and the guitar is in the minority � but more energetic. But the percussion is deeper and maybe if it is a contest it ends in a draw.

In comparison the first piece is more tonal although in one centre � there are lots of floating ninths sevenths and sixths. What makes the narrative ? well its obviously in two halves � the first half has one guitar part, the second has three and the flute is more active in the second half and more free in its harmonic explorations. I suppose it is tired of the sweet suspended notes of the soprano sax and the electric guitars but it can�t establish its identity except by trying to having the last word � but that final phrase is just an echo of the preceding sax phrase � so it ends up locked into the domain of superficial beauty. I suppose that is often the fate of the flute - a failed attempt to establish a melodic identity in a broad stream of musical events.

Andrew was talking recently about modulation � whether the carefully prepared passage from one key to another is a thing of the past � nowadays then its just a matter of putting down a jump cut from one tonal area to the next. This is a good question � I can think of lots of reasons why jump cuts might become the norm. A kind of casualness about composition stemming from the thought perhaps that all this preciousness about adding or taking away a few sharps and flats is a bit preposterous � why make such a song and dance about it � if you want to do it , do it � and anyway what difference does a change of key make to a piece anyway. The concern about tonal expectations in the audience relates to a more unified culture � say when there was a code of good manners.

You might relate that say, to the tonic/dominant episode in the Great Divide by John Adams � where he makes a ridiculously big thing of the most elementary chord progression in the world.

I could see myself going back over my own pieces and questioning myself over the stance that they take over any key shifting episodes.

I feel a bit of theory coming on - based on the book I am reading about US art since Abstract Expressionism - each of the major figures - Rauschenberg, Twombly, Sol le Witt (or Serra who I don't think is discussed) - takes an aspect of visual syntax and invests that with meaning - in his own way. The implication is that you can do the same with any aspect of musical syntax - you are not constrained by the way that any specific syntactical dimension - harmony, rhythm or colour - has been used in the past. It is open to take - say colour - and make new meanings out of it within a piece. No guarantee of success of course - but no condemnation to failure either.

I got hold of some big new Skills Policy documents off the net and started to read and sift. I gave copies to Keith whose office is next door to mine. I visited Coventry University in the morning with Richard and Sue from the DTI. Sometimes I wonder whats going on!