Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Flames/theory

ah no...

that is not at all what I am saying.

In my theory class (Gradus) we did a survey of every western style - learned
about it and composed in the style (including some jazz). And we touched on
microtonal and other cultures as well - but no unfortunately we didn't
compose Indian or Balinese or Chinese.

When was the last time you went to a Gregorian chant concert?

You say this as though I said "the only insight comes from theory" - I did
not.

Also - lots of people develop music theories - for centuries this has been
happening, as often discussed here. That is not a "modern" thing. In the
long run what is good is remembered, and what isn't is forgotten, more or
less.

And your crappy 20th century music is another's master works...

Chris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...m>wrote:

>
>
> > Theory gives you more choices when you compose or improvise because you
> > learn and understand a much wider range of material then you would play.
>
> then isn't it ironic that so many 20th-c composers who were so into
> theory wrote such crappy music?
>
>
> > The fact is - you can read music, and read about music, much faster than
> you
> > can listen to it.
>
> there's way more information in a live performance or a recording than
> can ever be notated on paper.
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

I believe someone was originally telling Neil that he should stop
criticizing theory. The post of Neil's that was quoted was not bashing
theory, just pointing out its limitation and the fact that a lot of
music making gets along just fine without any theoretical thinking at
all. who could argue with that? Theory may, as you mentioned, provide
possibilities that one might not have thought of otherwise, but so
might tossing dice or flipping a coin. I have nothing against theory,
but as a personal aside, my theoretical thinking goes into the setup
of the tuning on a guitar. after that, I'm not even necessarily aware
of the numerical descriptions of what ratios I'm playing. notice im
not saying that I'm not aware of the ratios, I am certainly aware of
their sound, just not labeling them with numbers at that point in the
compositional process. The sound of a ratio in a musical context is
much richer in meaning than any theoretical description of it.

And I am certainly not the first to point out the correlation between
the over-intellectualization of some 20th c "classical" music and it
sucking. Those who have ears, let them hear.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> ah no...
>
> that is not at all what I am saying.
>
> In my theory class (Gradus) we did a survey of every western style - learned
> about it and composed in the style (including some jazz). And we touched on
> microtonal and other cultures as well - but no unfortunately we didn't
> compose Indian or Balinese or Chinese.
>
> When was the last time you went to a Gregorian chant concert?
>
> You say this as though I said "the only insight comes from theory" - I did
> not.
>
> Also - lots of people develop music theories - for centuries this has been
> happening, as often discussed here. That is not a "modern" thing. In the
> long run what is good is remembered, and what isn't is forgotten, more or
> less.
>
> And your crappy 20th century music is another's master works...
>
> Chris
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > Theory gives you more choices when you compose or improvise because you
>> > learn and understand a much wider range of material then you would play.
>>
>> then isn't it ironic that so many 20th-c composers who were so into
>> theory wrote such crappy music?
>>
>>
>> > The fact is - you can read music, and read about music, much faster than
>> you
>> > can listen to it.
>>
>> there's way more information in a live performance or a recording than
>> can ever be notated on paper.
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

I believe everything has its place, and every person learns / composes /
performs in their own way.
That is what makes life interesting.

When I improvise I do not think I must follow IV V I - for heaven's sake no
- even though I "fell" it. But I am aware of what note I'm thinking of as
tonic and if I want to enhance or cloud that relationship. When I want to
play in a scale my mind "maps" it to the fret board or keyboard - this is
true for 12 EDO - and is somewhat (and growing) true for micro tunings,
especially 17, 19, and 22.

However, the best minds make complex ideas understandable to many people -
including those not in the field. I would imagine one can write intensely
complex theoretical music (for example serialism) and still have it appeal
to many if it is done by a true genius.

One last point - my take on much of the 20th century was that it developed
techniques - from serialism to extended instrumental techniques to
microtonalism to electronics to computer generated and aided music /
computerized artificial creativity. It is probably up to the 21st century
to try to turn these myriad techniques into something that more / many /
most people will find compellingly expressive.

In other words, the ball is in our court.

Chris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>wrote:

>
>
> I believe someone was originally telling Neil that he should stop
> criticizing theory. The post of Neil's that was quoted was not bashing
> theory, just pointing out its limitation and the fact that a lot of
> music making gets along just fine without any theoretical thinking at
> all. who could argue with that? Theory may, as you mentioned, provide
> possibilities that one might not have thought of otherwise, but so
> might tossing dice or flipping a coin. I have nothing against theory,
> but as a personal aside, my theoretical thinking goes into the setup
> of the tuning on a guitar. after that, I'm not even necessarily aware
> of the numerical descriptions of what ratios I'm playing. notice im
> not saying that I'm not aware of the ratios, I am certainly aware of
> their sound, just not labeling them with numbers at that point in the
> compositional process. The sound of a ratio in a musical context is
> much richer in meaning than any theoretical description of it.
>
> And I am certainly not the first to point out the correlation between
> the over-intellectualization of some 20th c "classical" music and it
> sucking. Those who have ears, let them hear.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...<chrisvaisvil%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > ah no...
> >
> > that is not at all what I am saying.
> >
> > In my theory class (Gradus) we did a survey of every western style -
> learned
> > about it and composed in the style (including some jazz). And we touched
> on
> > microtonal and other cultures as well - but no unfortunately we didn't
> > compose Indian or Balinese or Chinese.
> >
> > When was the last time you went to a Gregorian chant concert?
> >
> > You say this as though I said "the only insight comes from theory" - I
> did
> > not.
> >
> > Also - lots of people develop music theories - for centuries this has
> been
> > happening, as often discussed here. That is not a "modern" thing. In the
> > long run what is good is remembered, and what isn't is forgotten, more or
> > less.
> >
> > And your crappy 20th century music is another's master works...
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...<danterosati%40gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Theory gives you more choices when you compose or improvise because
> you
> >> > learn and understand a much wider range of material then you would
> play.
> >>
> >> then isn't it ironic that so many 20th-c composers who were so into
> >> theory wrote such crappy music?
> >>
> >>
> >> > The fact is - you can read music, and read about music, much faster
> than
> >> you
> >> > can listen to it.
> >>
> >> there's way more information in a live performance or a recording than
> >> can ever be notated on paper.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

> However, the best minds make complex ideas understandable to many people -
> including those not in the field. I would imagine one can write intensely
> complex theoretical music (for example serialism) and still have it appeal
> to many if it is done by a true genius.

keep me posted.

> One last point - my take on much of the 20th century was that it developed
> techniques - from serialism to extended instrumental techniques to
> microtonalism to electronics to computer generated and aided music /
> computerized artificial creativity. It is probably up to the 21st century
> to try to turn these myriad techniques into something that more / many /
> most people will find compellingly expressive.

theres plenty of great 20t c music it just wasn't written by
serialists or set theoreticians.
xenakis' pre-compositional process was intensely theoretical but he
used those derived materials to communicate musically, not just
present the structures like pinned insects.

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

it appears you have something against serialists and set theorists.

this is not my fight so don't bring it to my door step.

I said theory - not just serialism or set theory.

Gosh - no offense but this is arguing religion, again.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> > However, the best minds make complex ideas understandable to many people
> -
> > including those not in the field. I would imagine one can write intensely
> > complex theoretical music (for example serialism) and still have it
> appeal
> > to many if it is done by a true genius.
>
> keep me posted.
>
>
> > One last point - my take on much of the 20th century was that it
> developed
> > techniques - from serialism to extended instrumental techniques to
> > microtonalism to electronics to computer generated and aided music /
> > computerized artificial creativity. It is probably up to the 21st
> century
> > to try to turn these myriad techniques into something that more / many /
> > most people will find compellingly expressive.
>
> theres plenty of great 20t c music it just wasn't written by
> serialists or set theoreticians.
> xenakis' pre-compositional process was intensely theoretical but he
> used those derived materials to communicate musically, not just
> present the structures like pinned insects.
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

> The post of Neil's that was quoted was not bashing
> theory, just
pointing out its limitation and the fact that a lot of
> music
making gets along just fine without any theoretical thinking at
>
all. who could argue with that?

To me theory is a double edged sword....it can be just as harmful as helpful.

I think what I take as Neil's point...that people often make great music without, say, knowing what JI chords they hit (IE 3:4:5) means indirectly is we should not use theory as a crutch.
When you do use theory as a crutch you can easily end up forcing yourself to play against you own emotions in order to match the theory. I once used to get a load of very harsh criticism on my compositional skill saying things like "your instrument is 3 cents out of tune" or "the fifth chord in your progression (a sus4 7) is too standard" or "the slightly plastic-sounding flute ruins the feel of your entire song". All the while I spent months polishing out these tiny errors and seeing no improvement in response...until someone had the balls to tell me "your problem is that seems you are forcing yourself to make the song and not enjoying it...that comes across in the mood: it sounds like an academic exercise not an expression of emotion". And from then on I made songs probably with more technical/academic errors than the first bunch...but this time with attitude and not stressing the theory so much...and they did much better.

Rather than spend all sorts of effort to make something fit a theory, I figure, a better idea would be to start with you emotions and build the theory around that. For example, hit notes of arbitrary frequencies that you think sound good together and only then try to tie them to some sort of nearest JI scale. Another idea...take a look at theory and think "is there any way I can
flip the theory around or extend it in such a way to match what I want
to express?". Blues seems to kind of do that indirectly as the 1/4 tone bends hover between major and minor keys and allow the musician/player to choose how much of each he wants to fit the desired mood: it essentially "bends" 12TET theory to fit between two different moods at once, rather than just be stuck with one.

A summary: I think theory can turn an ok musician into a good one...but not a good one to a great one. To me the best theory is one that opens up more possibilities, rather than tells you half the things you wanted to do musically are "illegal" ...And if the theory you've learned does that (IE the idea that minor seconds in chords must sound very tense), try to find a theory or develop one in such a way you can, say, get something that feels like a minor second but does not sound very tense.

A side note...I think some of the main challenges facing micro-tonal theory are typically
A) That it is usually heavily academic (IE why are so few people on these lists not music professors or those with music degrees...are normal musicians simply not allowed or are we just making the subject matter sound too intimidating to attract them?)
B) That it is usually be primarily based around classical music (which a very small percentage of people listen to)
C) That forms of it used most often are either so close to 12TET novice listeners can't tell or so dissonant they think it's chaotic (a few exceptions I've found: 22TET octa-tonic scales, Wilson's 6-tone MOS scales, Ptolemy's Homalon scales)
D) The fact so many scales require either a lot of theory to play well in (IE it is often much easier than in 12TET to hit sour chords by accident)
E) Fitting it to physical instruments well and getting support for it incorporated into more music software. For these reasons I am strongly against the idea of too much prevalence of huge ET (IE 34TET+) instruments scaring the daylights out of people who've never seen a micro-tonal instrument and making them think "wow that has to be impossible to play...what kind of weird rocket science is this (get me out of here)?"

-Michael

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

I don't think you understand the value or the limits of music theory.
Or perhaps even what common practice music theory tries to do.

Perhaps "theory" is a poor word now with the rise of science in our society.
Perhaps the expectations of what "theory" means in a musical context is
skewed in modern minds.

"
Beethoven makes complex ideas understandable to many people, but those
ideas are not describable by music theory!"

This is a silly statement.

And serialism is NOT music theory in the sense of "common practice" music
theory.

common practice tells you what HAS happened - this is why it is called
"common".

Serialism, in a scientific context, would be better called a postulate - a
question to be probed to see it there is truth in it. It surely is not
trying to understand what has happened in the past.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>wrote:

>
>
> > However, the best minds make complex ideas understandable to many people
> -
> > including those not in the field.
>
> Beethoven makes complex ideas understandable to many people, but those
> ideas are not describable by music theory! I'm not sure if even
> Babbitt et al would say that when they write a piece they are trying
> to make a complex theoretical idea understandable (although such a
> misguided program would help explain the dismal failure of much of
> this kind of music).
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Mike,

If one needs to use theory as a crutch then probably they are a true
beginning or do not have an innate sense of music.

IMHO I think you and other people on this list may have a skewed idea what
Music Theory is.

Music theory is a collection of tendencies composers made in the past the
people in general agree work within the context of the music being analyzed.
At one time all of common practice was "bleeding edge" new music never heard
before and the genius of people like Wagner and Beethoven pioneered the use
of these new patterns in music. They INVENTED patterns that music theorists
later explained.

Knowing music theory is akin to listening and understanding music of the
past. If that hurts your ability to compose music in the present then I
think the fault lies not with the so called theory.

What music theory is NOT is a theory like particle physics that is used to
predict the outcome of events (experiments) in the future. Music theory
predicts NOTHING. Music theory is NOT a scientific theory. Psycho acoustics
is. Music theory is not.

Chris

> To me theory is a double edged sword....it can be just as harmful as
> helpful.
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

> Beethoven makes complex ideas understandable to many people, but those
> ideas are not describable by music theory!"
>
> This is a silly statement.

I was responding to your statement:

> However, the best minds make complex ideas understandable to many people -
> including those not in the field.

I do not disagree, but what "complex ideas" are you referring to? My
statement about Beethoven was to point out that his music is about
complex ideas but ones that have nothing to do with music theory. If
you are saying that serial and set music is a completely different
animal in that what it is "about" is precisely the theory, then that
is an interesting idea, but in that case I would ask "why bother"?
Maybe we should say, along with Schoenberg, that the performance of
the piece is only for people who cannot read the score. Let the piece
"be" the 50 page paper in Perspectives of New Music describing its
structure and forget about the sound?

>
>
> And serialism is NOT music theory in the sense of "common practice" music
> theory.
>
> common practice tells you what HAS happened - this is why it is called
> "common".
>
> Serialism, in a scientific context, would be better called a postulate - a
> question to be probed to see it there is truth in it. It surely is not
> trying to understand what has happened in the past.
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > However, the best minds make complex ideas understandable to many people
>> -
>> > including those not in the field.
>>
>> Beethoven makes complex ideas understandable to many people, but those
>> ideas are not describable by music theory! I'm not sure if even
>> Babbitt et al would say that when they write a piece they are trying
>> to make a complex theoretical idea understandable (although such a
>> misguided program would help explain the dismal failure of much of
>> this kind of music).
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

> A hundred or several hundred years from now one will be able to determine if
> it "failed"

in several hundred years the 20th c music people will be interested is
more likely to be Duke Ellington.

> Serialism may end up being like Renaissance chromaticism - very ahead of its
> time. Or it may be forgotten. I personally do not presume to know.

late 14th C avant garde music is way better. Maybe its because, as you
were saying, music in those days was about something other than the
theory, no matter how complex the theory that went into it was. A
cabinet may have very fancy joinery, but thats not what its about.

> le sacre du printemps was greeted with a riot.

set theory music is mostly greeted with boredom.

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Dante,

My purpose was not to remove your bias. So this conversation has no purpose
for me.
If you wish to cut yourself off from knowledge then so be it. It is not
worng, better or worse. It is different - common practice music "theory",
serialism, set theory all are tools. All are mappings of what you hear into
words and diagrams. It is an aid for your mind to understand and grow.

An Australian aborigine has no music theory training and still plays a
digeridoo just fine. I'm ok with that.

Chris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>wrote:

>
>
> > A hundred or several hundred years from now one will be able to determine
> if
> > it "failed"
>
> in several hundred years the 20th c music people will be interested is
> more likely to be Duke Ellington.
>
>
> > Serialism may end up being like Renaissance chromaticism - very ahead of
> its
> > time. Or it may be forgotten. I personally do not presume to know.
>
> late 14th C avant garde music is way better. Maybe its because, as you
> were saying, music in those days was about something other than the
> theory, no matter how complex the theory that went into it was. A
> cabinet may have very fancy joinery, but thats not what its about.
>
>
> > le sacre du printemps was greeted with a riot.
>
> set theory music is mostly greeted with boredom.
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

Chris, I thought we were just arriving at an interesting "theory"
here, that what sets set theory music apart is that it is music that
is about the theory, and that this had never happened before in
history. The point of the music is to make the theoretical structure
audible, as Schoenberg says. What do you think of this idea?

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> Dante,
>
> My purpose was not to remove your bias. So this conversation has no purpose
> for me.
> If you wish to cut yourself off from knowledge then so be it. It is not
> worng, better or worse. It is different - common practice music "theory",
> serialism, set theory all are tools. All are mappings of what you hear into
> words and diagrams. It is an aid for your mind to understand and grow.
>
> An Australian aborigine has no music theory training and still plays a
> digeridoo just fine. I'm ok with that.
>
> Chris
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > A hundred or several hundred years from now one will be able to determine
>> if
>> > it "failed"
>>
>> in several hundred years the 20th c music people will be interested is
>> more likely to be Duke Ellington.
>>
>>
>> > Serialism may end up being like Renaissance chromaticism - very ahead of
>> its
>> > time. Or it may be forgotten. I personally do not presume to know.
>>
>> late 14th C avant garde music is way better. Maybe its because, as you
>> were saying, music in those days was about something other than the
>> theory, no matter how complex the theory that went into it was. A
>> cabinet may have very fancy joinery, but thats not what its about.
>>
>>
>> > le sacre du printemps was greeted with a riot.
>>
>> set theory music is mostly greeted with boredom.
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

I already said.

In the context of music "theory" these are not theories. Common practice
theory explains the past.
Serialism and set theory (of which I know vanishingly little) are more like
postulates - questions to be answered.

The word "theory" when combined with "music" gives the wrong impression.

"it is music that
is about the theory, and that this had never happened before in
history."

are you so sure? what about those 19 and 31 edo harpsichords?

What about all of those mean tone tunings in western practice? Each
purporting to be a better solution than the next.

After this conversation my impression is that you do not have an open mind
when it comes to serial and set theory techniques.

A person about 6 months ago posted a tone row that went something like this
c e g b d f# a c# ... etc. In other words a diatonic tone row.
So... you know with imagination... it can be done. BUT it takes an *open*
mind.

This conversation is way off topic now.

Chris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>wrote:

>
>
> Chris, I thought we were just arriving at an interesting "theory"
> here, that what sets set theory music apart is that it is music that
> is about the theory, and that this had never happened before in
> history. The point of the music is to make the theoretical structure
> audible, as Schoenberg says. What do you think of this idea?
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...<chrisvaisvil%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > Dante,
> >
> > My purpose was not to remove your bias. So this conversation has no
> purpose
> > for me.
> > If you wish to cut yourself off from knowledge then so be it. It is not
> > worng, better or worse. It is different - common practice music "theory",
> > serialism, set theory all are tools. All are mappings of what you hear
> into
> > words and diagrams. It is an aid for your mind to understand and grow.
> >
> > An Australian aborigine has no music theory training and still plays a
> > digeridoo just fine. I'm ok with that.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...<danterosati%40gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > A hundred or several hundred years from now one will be able to
> determine
> >> if
> >> > it "failed"
> >>
> >> in several hundred years the 20th c music people will be interested is
> >> more likely to be Duke Ellington.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Serialism may end up being like Renaissance chromaticism - very ahead
> of
> >> its
> >> > time. Or it may be forgotten. I personally do not presume to know.
> >>
> >> late 14th C avant garde music is way better. Maybe its because, as you
> >> were saying, music in those days was about something other than the
> >> theory, no matter how complex the theory that went into it was. A
> >> cabinet may have very fancy joinery, but thats not what its about.
> >>
> >>
> >> > le sacre du printemps was greeted with a riot.
> >>
> >> set theory music is mostly greeted with boredom.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Dante wrote:

>> My point was not that. My point was this:
>>
>> /tuning/topicId_69642.html#69642
>> --
>> Hans Straub
>
>everything Neil says in that post is perfectly true. what is it you
>are objecting to?

It's clearly true for music that isn't xenharmonic. Oud players
and blues players both step into long traditions, even with no
formal training. Considerable theory is wrapped up in the music
they grow up listening to, and the instruments whose design has
evolved over the ages. With xenharmony, the idea is to engineer
stuff that has, until now, evolved in musical traditions. How
to do that without explicitly practicing theory is less clear.
I have no doubt some amazing tunes could be written by a guitarist
feeling out a 23-ET guitar without any theory considerations
at all. But I'd wager they be much more effective behind a 19-ET
guitar. Theory told us. Similarly, I have observed musicians
here making music in 'any old scale' vs. rank 2 mapped scales
provided by theory, and their results (in my opinion) have been
much better in the latter case. That's not to say I don't think
the theory discussions here have sometimes been too long-winded,
but considerably more damage has been done by those complaining
about it.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Dante wrote:

>Theory may, as you mentioned, provide
>possibilities that one might not have thought of otherwise, but so
>might tossing dice or flipping a coin.

Unlike the modernists, we hope to do better than randomness.

>my theoretical thinking goes into the setup
>of the tuning on a guitar. after that, I'm not even necessarily aware
>of the numerical descriptions of what ratios I'm playing.

My theory use in 12 was limited to learning the basic chords and
major scales in all keys, which modes of the major scale produce
famous minor scales, and what the wholetone scale sounds like.
And of course, that I was using 12. I feel that's a good level
of theory use, and it's about the level I'd recommend in xenharmony:

/tuning/topicId_86071.html#86078

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

I wrote:

>>Similarly, I have observed musicians
>>here making music in 'any old scale' vs. rank 2 mapped scales
>>provided by theory, and their results (in my opinion) have been
>>much better in the latter case.
>
>Just to clarify, I'm talking about the same musicians here,
>i.e. when they tried rank 2 scales they immediately got better
>(to my ear) results. C.

And, I'll note that Erv Wilson has been recommending these scales
for decades, and the musicians who've taken theory advice from him
have, in my opinion, had excellent results. Compared to say, the
Boston 72-toners, who, despite using 72, are more an 'anything goes'
school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erv_wilson
I've heard most of the composers on this list, and like all but
one very much, even though several of them compose in genres that
are not personal favorites of mine (like techno).

YMMV, but what I think is clear is that the theory is audible in
the final product, whether you like it or not.

-Carl

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"Music theory is a collection of tendencies composers made in the past
the
people in general agree work within the context of the music being
analyzed."

Well then, how does that not tend toward, say, things like low-limit JI chords or music with extensive motifs? Not that there is anything wrong with either, but it can become a problem when people begin to think "it has to be that way and only that way". Rick Ballan gave me the utterly simply tip about motifs to make a melody and then change the phrasing/a few notes to make a second melody, do the same to make a third...until you have a song. Bizarre thing is...that type of structure seems ingrained into pop music...take any one melody from any part of a song and it can be used as a counterpoint to any other because they are all "chained" that way. So when the final chorus hits...you often hear all the melodies earlier in the song and the later ones all played at once (making twice as sure they all get ingrained into your head). Which sometimes can be what you want to do...but what if your goal in making "good music" is something different?

Music theory, to me, is "one way to get to your goal outcome/mood" through music. What makes it different from other sciences (and, indeed, not a scientific theory) is that there are often not one but many ways to an outcome...and >when< people treat music theory like a scientific theory IE "one theory must be the only way to get a desired outcome" is where people can hurt themselves by becoming too "fundamentalist" about it. So, Chris...I think we actually agree on this more than you recognize...I fully agree there's a whole lot to be said in that music theory is not a one way street used to "predict the outcome of events". Hey, if it were that way, we would have computers composing music for us (and maybe machine implants tickling our spinal cords so we wouldn't be so dependent on women)...but, of course, it's not so simple.

-Michael

P.S.-
Side note. You said psycho-acoustics is a theory. Even then, I wonder how much it tends toward "one ideal path leads to the ability to predict the outcome of an experiment". I'm still trying to get around how much effect periodicity has on consonance in comparison to roughness...not to mention the fact different people have different levels of tolerance for each. So to some extent, I'd say even well-calculated psychoacoustics can't give a definite result, but simply one "more likely to be close" to how a person perceives music on the average.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Mike,

"Rick Ballan gave me the utterly simply tip about motifs to make a melody
and then change the phrasing/a few notes to make a second melody, do the
same to make a third...until you have a song."

Theme and variation - Freshman music "theory" class. Composers have been
doing that a very long time.

"Well then, how does that not tend toward, say, things like low-limit JI
chords or music with extensive motifs? "

Certainly make sense if you think about the fact that music "theory"
predicts the past and not the future....

There is no magic bullet for making good new music. If there were everyone
on this list would have a recording contract.

Good new music takes talent and some degree of knowledge obtained in some
fashion because after all none of us exist in a vacuum.
Even if you were on a desert island you would have to have teach yourself.

Chris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> >"Music theory is a collection of tendencies composers made in the past
> the
> people in general agree work within the context of the music being
> analyzed."
>
> Well then, how does that not tend toward, say, things like low-limit JI
> chords or music with extensive motifs? Not that there is anything wrong with
> either, but it can become a problem when people begin to think "it has to be
> that way and only that way". Rick Ballan gave me the utterly simply tip
> about motifs to make a melody and then change the phrasing/a few notes to
> make a second melody, do the same to make a third...until you have a song.
> Bizarre thing is...that type of structure seems ingrained into pop
> music...take any one melody from any part of a song and it can be used as a
> counterpoint to any other because they are all "chained" that way. So when
> the final chorus hits...you often hear all the melodies earlier in the song
> and the later ones all played at once (making twice as sure they all get
> ingrained into your head). Which sometimes can be what you want to do...but
> what if your goal in making "good music" is something different?
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

"Music theory, to me, is "one way to get to your goal outcome/mood" through
music."

If you want to repeat what has already been done, certainly.

"Common practice theory" I think was intended to be a tool so you didn't
have to re-invent the wheel, so you didn't have to start form square one, so
you could improve and do something *different* from what was already done.

I'm starting to understand goal orientated composition and when you talk
about that in the harmonic language of the 18th, 19th century what common
practice is, in part, the solutions of composers to their goal orientated
progressions that supported their melodic framework.

Chris

>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

"Again the problem a lot of people seem to run into is they idea there must
be only one theory.."

I would have hope that no one so closed minded is on this or the tuning
list.

By definition anyone interested in micro music is against the grain of
musical convention.
Even Marcel's JI attempts are a totally different way to look at things.

The only real limits you have are in your mind, especially now with the
advent of computers.

Chris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> Chris>"A person about 6 months ago posted a tone row that went something
> like
> this
> c e g b d f# a c# ... etc. In other words a diatonic tone row.
> So... you know with imagination... it can be done. BUT it takes an *open*
> mind."
>
> Right, and all the above is...is a D major chord on top of a C major chord
> on top of a G major chord where the second chord starts where the first
> stops(G) and the third chord starts where the second stops(D). Again the
> problem a lot of people seem to run into is they idea there must be only one
> theory...and then refuse to do experiments to "flip" the theories around a
> bit. The above example diatonic row is, to me, a great example of flipping
> and a good use of theory as "a rule you can use to help you break rules"
> rather than a sort of almost fundamentalist limitation (as many musicians,
> sadly, treat theory). ;-)
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Carl>"My theory use in 12 was limited to learning the basic chords and major scales in all keys, which modes of the major scale produce famous minor scales, and what the wholetone scale sounds like.
And of course, that I was using 12. I feel that's a good level of theory use, and it's about the level I'd recommend in xenharmony:"

Yet, wouldn't that result in xenharmony being essentially an extra effort required to play only very slightly modified versions of chords already used in 12TET? What would be the driving force to make musicians compose Xenharmonically then...would it simply be to "purify their existing chords"? Would there be any chords or intervals not possible in 12TET and not summarized by 12TET theory...and what if people refused to make scales with those chords because doing so would make many basic 12TET chords impossible?

At least at first glance (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)...this seems an example to me of how theory can be (sadly) used in a negative way: to tie things down "safely" rather than open new possibilities.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Mike,

The way I understand it

Carl is saying to learn 17 EDO, for example, as well as 12 edo - in a 17 edo
context. That means all the scales, chords, and progressions that are
*unique* to 17 edo - anything related to 12 edo is purely a coincidence.

Carl is not IMVHO implying to play 12 edo music in 17 edo.

Chris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> Carl>"My theory use in 12 was limited to learning the basic chords and
> major scales in all keys, which modes of the major scale produce famous
> minor scales, and what the wholetone scale sounds like.
>
> And of course, that I was using 12. I feel that's a good level of theory
> use, and it's about the level I'd recommend in xenharmony:"
>
> Yet, wouldn't that result in xenharmony being essentially an extra effort
> required to play only very slightly modified versions of chords already used
> in 12TET? What would be the driving force to make musicians compose
> Xenharmonically then...would it simply be to "purify their existing chords"?
> Would there be any chords or intervals not possible in 12TET and not
> summarized by 12TET theory...and what if people refused to make scales with
> those chords because doing so would make many basic 12TET chords impossible?
>
> At least at first glance (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)...this
> seems an example to me of how theory can be (sadly) used in a negative way:
> to tie things down "safely" rather than open new possibilities.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Yes, thanks Chris. This seems to be coming up lately. Tuning
theory does not try to do all of the things that traditional music
theory does. Stuff about the structure of music -- sonata form,
and so on -- we don't touch. Criticisms like 'music theory is
only descriptive of what past great composers did' are valid (IMO)
for trad. music theory, but NOT for tuning theory.

-Carl

At 12:28 PM 2/22/2010, you wrote:
>In context here I think it is important to say:
>
>This is - tuning, not music, theory.
>
>Chris
>
>On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>>I wrote:
>>>Similarly, I have observed musicians
>>>here making music in 'any old scale' vs. rank 2 mapped scales
>>>provided by theory, and their results (in my opinion) have been
>>>much better in the latter case.
>>
>> Just to clarify, I'm talking about the same musicians here,
>> i.e. when they tried rank 2 scales they immediately got better
>> (to my ear) results. C.
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Carl>"YMMV, but what I think is clear is that the theory is audible in
the final product, whether you like it or not."

Bizarre. If I have it right, your favorites of mine was this song
http://www.traxinspace.com/song/37440

The bizarre thing, I was using 8-note scales under 19TET, picked completely by ear with a deliberate attempt to avoid sounding like usual diatonic scales under 19TET. Not because I think more standard theory is boring...but because I wanted to deliberately do something that sounded quite mysterious and melancholy in feel.

Can you manage to tie the end result of that back to theory?

_,_._,___

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

yes, because the music theorist's job (with in this context) is to explain
why what you did worked, after the fact.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> Carl>"YMMV, but what I think is clear is that the theory is audible in
>
> the final product, whether you like it or not."
>
> Bizarre. If I have it right, your favorites of mine was this song
> http://www.traxinspace.com/song/37440
>
> The bizarre thing, I was using 8-note scales under 19TET, picked completely
> by ear with a deliberate attempt to avoid sounding like usual diatonic
> scales under 19TET. Not because I think more standard theory is boring...but
> because I wanted to deliberately do something that sounded quite mysterious
> and melancholy in feel.
>
> Can you manage to tie the end result of that back to theory?
>
> _,_._,___
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Carl>"YMMV, but what I think is clear is that the theory is
> audible in the final product, whether you like it or not."
>
> Bizarre. If I have it right, your favorites of mine was this song
> http://www.traxinspace.com/song/37440
>
> The bizarre thing, I was using 8-note scales under 19TET,
> picked completely by ear with a deliberate attempt to avoid
> sounding like usual diatonic scales under 19TET. Not because I
> think more standard theory is boring...but because I wanted to
> deliberately do something that sounded quite mysterious and
> melancholy in feel.
>
> Can you manage to tie the end result of that back to theory?

I can't get this to play in Firefox or Chrome, so I can't
comment on this piece. But to my knowledge, you've never
finished a piece of music in a rank 2 scale, so you don't
fall in the group of musicians I was talking about.

-Carl

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Chris>"Theme and variation - Freshman music "theory" class. Composers have been
doing that a very long time."

Right...only when I learned it they simply taught us motifs and said to develop them separately or "how we please" so long as they are in key, have a similar mood, and form chords together. I think what is now taught as the standard for "staying on theme", at least for most popular music, is a bit overdone.

My point is that there is a continuum between having motifs and counterpoint and stringing them along so closely you can take disparate parts of a song and make them work together. Thus, many of us complain modern pop music does not have much variation...and, in fact, pop-musicians appear to follow said above theory closer than most classical musicians (past and present)...so religiously it's to the point it appears to stifle their freedom to add variation since they have such strict standards for "staying on theme". The extreme is to take a single motif and simply alter the phasing and instrument choice for different parts to a song to "obey the theory" more...which gives us songs like Mr. Oizo's "Flat Beat" and DJ Jean's "The Launch" (perhaps the most repetitive and annoying dance songs ever).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

Yes. You use your analytical side to explain after your intuitive side
has figured out what's going on.

This ties back in with the discussion about puns on the tuning list,
and one of the original points Carl made: 12-equal is not just a
meantone temperament.

Common practice theory revolves around meantone temperament. And guys
playing jazz in the 20th century didn't really care much about that,
and started exploring other "puns" available in 12-tet and such. You
could say that the concept of tritone substitution involves the
intuitive realization that 49/48 is tempered out in 12-tet, or that
all of the hip quartal and modal stuff jazz guys like to do these days
in which the I chord is a dom7 envisions 12-tet as a dominant
temperament. You could say that Coltrane started to delve into 12-tet
as an augmented temperament, and that Debussy explored its potential
as a diminished temperament (and several thousand other temperaments
that I can't even imagine). And so on and so on.

And this is why music theory is supposed to be descriptive, rather
than proscriptive. Had these guys had their heads stuck in
meantone-based common practice theory, they would have never
considered any of this. In fact, Debussy clashed with his more
"formal" teachers about his harmonic ideas all the time. But instead,
he stuck with the principles he intuitively knew to be right, and in
so doing almost singlehandedly invented modern harmony. You could say
that he started to delve into regular mapping without even realizing
it.

Of course, now that we finally have the ability to say from an
analytical standpoint that he was right and his teachers were wrong.
So now that we can more accurately describe theoretically some of the
developments of the last century's worth of music, it would be foolish
not to.

-Mike

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> yes, because the music theorist's job (with in this context) is to explain
> why what you did worked, after the fact.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Carl>"YMMV, but what I think is clear is that the theory is audible in
>>
>> the final product, whether you like it or not."
>>
>> Bizarre. If I have it right, your favorites of mine was this song
>> http://www.traxinspace.com/song/37440
>>
>> The bizarre thing, I was using 8-note scales under 19TET, picked completely
>> by ear with a deliberate attempt to avoid sounding like usual diatonic
>> scales under 19TET. Not because I think more standard theory is boring...but
>> because I wanted to deliberately do something that sounded quite mysterious
>> and melancholy in feel.
>>
>> Can you manage to tie the end result of that back to theory?
>>
>> _,_._,___
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

"Again the problem a lot of people seem to run into is they idea there
must
be only one theory.."

Chris>"I would have hope that no one so closed minded is on this or the tuning
list."

I was talking about the popular music scene in general...specifically in their typical use of 12TET without trying to twist anything around (IE diatonic tone rows and such). To them, it's as if the entire world of chords must exist mostly below the 8th harmonic or so (IE a 5:6:8 chord).
I agree even things I have complained in the past about as being too simple of forms of variation (IE mean-tone scales) in micro-tonallity still open up chords (and the moods which come with them) which are impossible in 12TET. Of course, so do Marcel's scales. Another way to state our mission on this list, which perhaps some of you can answer, is this
A) What extra possibilities can micro-tonallity offer today's musicians and how can different theories be used to provide different possibilities?
B) How do all of these play into the creation of certain moods in music, particularly moods relatively in-accessible in 12TET?

-Michael

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Quite frankly, I don't care about the general 12 tet music scene in this
respect.

It is not my mission to make them compose music as I want to compose or
hear music.

My goal is to compose music good enough (like Sean, Carlo, Dan S. and others
here) that no one cares it is microtonal.

Chris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> "Again the problem a lot of people seem to run into is they idea there
> must
> be only one theory.."
>
> Chris>"I would have hope that no one so closed minded is on this or the
> tuning
> list."
>
> I was talking about the popular music scene in general...specifically in
> their typical use of 12TET without trying to twist anything around (IE
> diatonic tone rows and such).
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Flames/theory

🔗Neil Haverstick <microstick@...>

🔗hstraub64 <straub@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>