Henry Cowell's New Musical Resources

Well, finally I had a chance to go through this fairly short theory
book. I particularly enjoyed the emphasis on the overtone series.

I was more troubled, though, by his lengthy section on rhythm. First
off, the whole idea of using different note heads for other
rhythms... triangle notes for "third notes" or one beat (with a stem)
of the meter 3/3 seem a little far-fetched for musicians to adopt.

I think the fact that this book was written in 1919 and, to my
knowledge, none of these suggestions have been seriously implemented
in any way may speak to this difficulty.

Even more troubling is the assumption that rhythm and meter of,
essentially, inharmonic timbres, should follow the pitched overtone
series of multiples (i.e. 1 note per measure, 2 notes per measure, 3
per measure) and should relate in a kind of gestalt theory that
covers everything.

I'm not sure that there is any evidence that an inharmonic sound
being struck at twice the speed of another sound heard at the same
time has the kind of "special relationship" that one finds in the 2x
multiple of vibrations in the pitch spectrum.

Couldn't these things be apples and oranges and not necessarily
involving the same physical principles?

I admit that some of these ideas of organization... say
of "modulating" rhythms according to speed multiples that roughly
correspond to a multiple of the overtone series might be an
intresting way to make some textures.

After all, Charles Ives does this in his Universe Symphony... did he
get the ideas from Cowell or vice versa (probably the latter)

However, to boil all this down to some kind of "unified field theory"
where it all relates, rhythm, meter and pitch, to the simple ratios
of the overtone series *by necessity* seems something of a stretch,
no?

I though the sections on creating tone clusters and the harmonic
implications of those and usage was a considerably more apt and
useful.

Fun summer reading, in any case...

Joseph Pehrson

if one has only pieces, then in pieces give-goethe

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

>Well, finally I had a chance to go through this fairly short theory >book. I particularly enjoyed the emphasis on the overtone series.
>
>I was more troubled, though, by his lengthy section on rhythm. First >off, the whole idea of using different note heads for other >rhythms... triangle notes for "third notes" or one beat (with a stem) >of the meter 3/3 seem a little far-fetched for musicians to adopt.
>
>I think the fact that this book was written in 1919 and, to my >knowledge, none of these suggestions have been seriously implemented >in any way may speak to this difficulty.
>
>Even more troubling is the assumption that rhythm and meter of, >essentially, inharmonic timbres, should follow the pitched overtone >series of multiples (i.e. 1 note per measure, 2 notes per measure, 3 >per measure) and should relate in a kind of gestalt theory that >covers everything.
>
>I'm not sure that there is any evidence that an inharmonic sound >being struck at twice the speed of another sound heard at the same >time has the kind of "special relationship" that one finds in the 2x >multiple of vibrations in the pitch spectrum.
>
>Couldn't these things be apples and oranges and not necessarily >involving the same physical principles?
>
>I admit that some of these ideas of organization... say >of "modulating" rhythms according to speed multiples that roughly >correspond to a multiple of the overtone series might be an >intresting way to make some textures.
>
>After all, Charles Ives does this in his Universe Symphony... did he >get the ideas from Cowell or vice versa (probably the latter)
>
>However, to boil all this down to some kind of "unified field theory" >where it all relates, rhythm, meter and pitch, to the simple ratios >of the overtone series *by necessity* seems something of a stretch, >no?
>
>I though the sections on creating tone clusters and the harmonic >implications of those and usage was a considerably more apt and >useful.
>
>Fun summer reading, in any case...
>
>Joseph Pehrson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Hi Joseph,

>I was more troubled, though, by his lengthy section on rhythm. First
>off, the whole idea of using different note heads for other
>rhythms... triangle notes for "third notes" or one beat (with a stem)
>of the meter 3/3 seem a little far-fetched for musicians to adopt.
>
>I think the fact that this book was written in 1919 and, to my
>knowledge, none of these suggestions have been seriously implemented
>in any way may speak to this difficulty.

One could say the same thing about microtonality.

>Even more troubling is the assumption that rhythm and meter of,
>essentially, inharmonic timbres, should follow the pitched overtone
>series of multiples (i.e. 1 note per measure, 2 notes per measure, 3
>per measure) and should relate in a kind of gestalt theory that
>covers everything.

Simple ratios fall out of coupled oscillator systems that are likely
candidates for the way the brain represents rhythms. I don't think
Cowell knew that, that but he could hear the way they sound. I really
enjoy the polyrhythms in Cowell's music. The nature of percussion
timbres hardly matters here, especially in light of the fact that the
ratios are not describing simultaneities.

>I'm not sure that there is any evidence that an inharmonic sound
>being struck at twice the speed of another sound heard at the same
>time has the kind of "special relationship" that one finds in the 2x
>multiple of vibrations in the pitch spectrum.

The overwhelming majority of percussion parts, as notated, are
made entirely of simple-ratio rhythms. Cowell was suggesting
extending this. Nancarrow apparently did stuff with irrational
rhythms like sqrt(2)... might be a good exercise to dig up that
stuff and listen for it.

>I admit that some of these ideas of organization... say
>of "modulating" rhythms according to speed multiples that roughly
>correspond to a multiple of the overtone series might be an
>intresting way to make some textures.

Glenn Gould was a believer that tempo changes ought to happen at
simple ratios -- in a 1981 (IIRC) interview he describes how he
used this technique between variations in his rendition of the
Goldberg variations. I had always done this on my scores, before
I knew about just intonation or Glenn Gould.

>After all, Charles Ives does this in his Universe Symphony... did he
>get the ideas from Cowell or vice versa (probably the latter)

Or maybe they did it independently... anybody know?

>However, to boil all this down to some kind of "unified field theory"
>where it all relates, rhythm, meter and pitch, to the simple ratios
>of the overtone series *by necessity* seems something of a stretch,
>no?

I don't remember Cowell putting forth such a grand system -- I
remember his approach being one of making suggestions. An unified
theory like this would indeed be a stretch, in my view.

-Carl

> I don't remember Cowell putting forth such a grand system -- I
> remember his approach being one of making suggestions. An unified
> theory like this would indeed be a stretch, in my view.
>
> -Carl

***Hi Carl,

I believe this is the thesis of the book. I also read someplace that
later serialists took to it (people like Boulez) since they were also
trying to tie all the musical parameters together under one grand
schema... (don't have that citation at the moment...)

Thanks for the comment!

JP

P.S. Everybody... I am seriously behind in everything... not
uninterested in the posted music here. Es *muss* sein. It will be
done... :)

At 08:00 PM 8/11/2005, you wrote:
>> I don't remember Cowell putting forth such a grand system -- I
>> remember his approach being one of making suggestions. An unified
>> theory like this would indeed be a stretch, in my view.
>>
>> -Carl
>
>***Hi Carl,
>
>I believe this is the thesis of the book.

Oh. I guess it's been too long since I've read it.

>I also read someplace that later serialists took to it (people
>like Boulez) since they were also trying to tie all the musical
>parameters together under one grand schema... (don't have that
>citation at the moment...)

It didn't strike me as something serialists like Boulez would
take to heart... but if you remember that citation, let me know!

-Carl