Theory/etc

Hey Hans...I read your enclosed link, and not sure what point you're trying to make....I still stand 100% by what I said. Again...the study of musical theories may or may not have any effect on one's ability to play profound music. There have been, and still are, uncounted musicians who play very well, with great emotional depth, who have no idea, intellectualy, what they are doing. As a case in point, I just did a blues gig with my old friend Bob Lohr...he is one of the great blues pianists, with many years of playing with the greats in the field (including Chuck Berry)...at one point on the gig, he made me weep with the depth of his expression...it was, as we say, the real deal. But, Bob knows absolutely nothing about the theory behind the notes he plays, by his own admission...no biggie there. So...if you wanna chat more about this, maybe private posts would be best. I'm happy to hear you out...best...Hstick
microstick@... www.microstick.net

_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/

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

Neil, I absolutely agree that that a performing musician or composer does not need to study music theory to play or write profound music. I do not understand why you posted the reply to my posting because I think I wrote more or less the same. If you look at my posting, you see that I wrote there are two different viewpoints - the one of the performing musician (which is obviously yours) and the one of the music theorist. And if you remember, just a short while ago Ozan Yarman had written about his qanun tuned to his 79-tone MOS of 159EDO, which he had showed to several musicians, and IIRC he wrote the musicians' reactions were very positive, amongst other things because apparently there is currently always a big problem whenever maqam musicians want to play together and have to tune their instruments so they match each other, and such a tuning standard could make their lifes much easier. So, obiously music theory can be useful, which does, also obviously, not mean the performing musicians have to know it. In this sense, I cannot but restate that both viewpoints are right and necessary. Actually, I thought my posting was quite balanced - that's why I do not understand why you felt it necessary to write that reply.

Hans Straub

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Neil Haverstick <microstick@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hey Hans...I read your enclosed link, and not sure what point you're trying to make....I still stand 100% by what I said. Again...the study of musical theories may or may not have any effect on one's ability to play profound music. There have been, and still are, uncounted musicians who play very well, with great emotional depth, who have no idea, intellectualy, what they are doing. As a case in point, I just did a blues gig with my old friend Bob Lohr...he is one of the great blues pianists, with many years of playing with the greats in the field (including Chuck Berry)...at one point on the gig, he made me weep with the depth of his expression...it was, as we say, the real deal. But, Bob knows absolutely nothing about the theory behind the notes he plays, by his own admission...no biggie there. So...if you wanna chat more about this, maybe private posts would be best. I'm happy to hear you out...best...Hstick
> microstick@... www.microstick.net
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Just sort of a general comment...in thinking about how "microtonality" developed in the 20th century, a lot of the action has taken place with so called "classical" composers/musicians dabbling in other systems: Ives, Haba, Carrillo, Bartok, Johnston, Sims, Harrison, and others...also a lot of scholarship devoted to how folks like Bach tuned. Of course, LaMonte Young got into minimalism, as did others...but a lot of the thinking seems to be connected to breaking away from traditional classical forms and thinking (oversimplifying here to make a point). But, when we take blues/jazz/bluegrass/rock/reggae/electronica, and other non classical forms into consideration, it's a different story...then sonata form, string quartets, and other concepts associated with European classical thought don't have near as much importance, and different sorts of ideas are introduced. Of course, it's all music...but a one chord blues tune ("Smokestack Lightning") or a bop progression may lead one to different ways of thinking about non 12 tunings. I think one of the best things to have happened in the last few years is the introduction of these non classical forms into the tuning field...it makes it potentially more accessible for a wider range of people...good discussion...Hstick www.myspace.com/microstick

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft�s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/

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

Hello Hans,

Nice of you to mention me. We have hereabouts a more emphasized
standpoint consigning the role of theory to solely explaining the
music made. However, music theory's function cannot be reduced to just
defining practiced intervals, scales and harmonies after a certain
point in the historical development of music. At some stage, theory
evolves to a level which licenses it to GUIDE music-making as much as
music had previously DEFINED the scope of theory. It becomes a
continuous loop from this point forth. Europe and its satellites have
entered into this loop four or five centuries ago. Only with some form
of established music theory could the great symphonists of the Classic
and Romantic periods have emerged. Only with the theory of Serialism
could the Second Viennese School arise.

Needless to say, new musics fuel the discovery of new musical rules
and concepts which in turn provide the feedback for more provocative
novelties in sound.

In Maqam music, the benefits of applying the "right" theoretical
model(s) is pretty much obvious: Not just for preserving the tradition
per se, but for providing a fresh "blood supply" for the continuance
of artistic growth and innovation along the lines of maqam & usul.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Feb 23, 2010, at 5:59 PM, hstraub64 wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Neil, I absolutely agree that that a performing musician or composer
> does not need to study music theory to play or write profound music.
> I do not understand why you posted the reply to my posting because I
> think I wrote more or less the same. If you look at my posting, you
> see that I wrote there are two different viewpoints - the one of the
> performing musician (which is obviously yours) and the one of the
> music theorist. And if you remember, just a short while ago Ozan
> Yarman had written about his qanun tuned to his 79-tone MOS of
> 159EDO, which he had showed to several musicians, and IIRC he wrote
> the musicians' reactions were very positive, amongst other things
> because apparently there is currently always a big problem whenever > maqam musicians want to play together and have to tune their
> instruments so they match each other, and such a tuning standard
> could make their lifes much easier. So, obiously music theory can be
> useful, which does, also obviously, not mean the performing
> musicians have to know it. In this sense, I cannot but restate that
> both viewpoints are right and necessary. Actually, I thought my
> posting was quite balanced - that's why I do not understand why you
> felt it necessary to write that reply.
>
> Hans Straub
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Neil Haverstick
> <microstick@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey Hans...I read your enclosed link, and not sure what point
>> you're trying to make....I still stand 100% by what I said.
>> Again...the study of musical theories may or may not have any
>> effect on one's ability to play profound music. There have been,
>> and still are, uncounted musicians who play very well, with great>> emotional depth, who have no idea, intellectualy, what they are
>> doing. As a case in point, I just did a blues gig with my old
>> friend Bob Lohr...he is one of the great blues pianists, with many
>> years of playing with the greats in the field (including Chuck
>> Berry)...at one point on the gig, he made me weep with the depth of
>> his expression...it was, as we say, the real deal. But, Bob knows
>> absolutely nothing about the theory behind the notes he plays, by
>> his own admission...no biggie there. So...if you wanna chat more
>> about this, maybe private posts would be best. I'm happy to hear
>> you out...best...Hstick
>> microstick@... www.microstick.net
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

With all due respect Oz,

A theory, by definition, has predictive outcomes that are testable.

Considering the outcome of serialism with respect to popularity the verdict
would be that the theory has failed - IF it were a theory.

These terms are getting confused here - and with all due respect to your
education Oz - serialism isn't a theory - it is a method.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:

>
>
> However, music theory's function cannot be reduced to just
> defining practiced intervals, scales and harmonies after a certain
> point in the historical development of music. At some stage, theory
> evolves to a level which licenses it to GUIDE music-making as much as
> music had previously DEFINED the scope of theory. It becomes a
> continuous loop from this point forth. Europe and its satellites have
> entered into this loop four or five centuries ago. Only with some form
> of established music theory could the great symphonists of the Classic
> and Romantic periods have emerged. Only with the theory of Serialism
> could the Second Viennese School arise.
>
>

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

O Chris,

Appeal to popularity is not a requisite of a successful theory. But I
digress...

A misunderstanding abounds on the usage of the word "theory" in music
theory. This is not a scientific theory we are talking about here.
It's rather, a collection of techniques and methods based on practice,
observation and great innovations. Here, it means the "collection of
standards and rules for making good music". Most of the time, music
theory is inseperable from some form of notation or fixed-pitch
instrument.

The boundaries of the art of music theory are not yet well-defined. It could be seperately handled under Practical and Empirical branches as
delineated in my previous messages. The Empirical branch, which I
described as "investigating the physical, acoustical and psycho-
physiological phenomena in music-making" has more chances of evolving
into hard science.

The common understanding of music theory (i.e. practical music
theory), on the other hand, involves notation tools & techniques,
rhythmic elements, melodic contours, harmonic textures, instrumental
styles & forms. It may mean any or all of these areas.

Serialism naturally involves a special technique of "melody/rhythm/
nuance-making" and "polyphonization". Nevertheless, it is an off-shoot
of common-practice music-theory by virtue of its adherence to the
rudiments, styles and forms of its predecessor.

If we are simply talking of a technique, it is better called the
"twelve-tone technique" or "dodecaphony". Serialism should be accorded
its full rights as an "atonal music theory" since it is based on the
same elementary grounds as common-practice music theory taught in
Western schools today.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Feb 26, 2010, at 12:34 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> With all due respect Oz,
>
> A theory, by definition, has predictive outcomes that are testable.
>
> Considering the outcome of serialism with respect to popularity the
> verdict
> would be that the theory has failed - IF it were a theory.
>
> These terms are getting confused here - and with all due respect to
> your
> education Oz - serialism isn't a theory - it is a method.
>
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...
> >wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> However, music theory's function cannot be reduced to just
>> defining practiced intervals, scales and harmonies after a certain
>> point in the historical development of music. At some stage, theory
>> evolves to a level which licenses it to GUIDE music-making as much as
>> music had previously DEFINED the scope of theory. It becomes a
>> continuous loop from this point forth. Europe and its satellites have
>> entered into this loop four or five centuries ago. Only with some
>> form
>> of established music theory could the great symphonists of the
>> Classic
>> and Romantic periods have emerged. Only with the theory of Serialism
>> could the Second Viennese School arise.
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hi Oz,

You said in your previous post

"At some stage, theory
evolves to a level which licenses it to GUIDE "

Quite a few posts in the past week or two involved accusations of people
following theory to write music (the implication was slavishly following
theory ).

Music theory is not predictive because because, like you say, it is a
collection of practices - really a collection of high probability choices, a
method - and following this without variance condemns you to repeating what
has already been done. Serialism just developed faster, not differently.

and might I say that you DO condemn serialism because:

"Here, it means the "collection of
standards and rules for making good music". "

and

"
Appeal to popularity is not a requisite of a successful theory. But I
digress..."

this is incorrect because "good" is defined by large scale agreement by
people as being good. Thus - most people agree Bach, mozart, and Beethoven
are good. And unfortunately most people agree serialism is bad (at least in
the present day).

However - - drop the word "theory" and it becomes clear - serialism is a
compositonal method - just like aleotoric or computer assisted or 18th +
19th century common practice are all "methods".

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:

>
>
> O Chris,
>
> Appeal to popularity is not a requisite of a successful theory. But I
> digress...
>
> A misunderstanding abounds on the usage of the word "theory" in music
> theory. This is not a scientific theory we are talking about here.
> It's rather, a collection of techniques and methods based on practice,
> observation and great innovations. Here, it means the "collection of
> standards and rules for making good music". Most of the time, music
> theory is inseperable from some form of notation or fixed-pitch
> instrument.
>
>

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

Hello Chris,

I stand by my words when I said that theory, i.e. practical music
theory, evolves at some stage to a level which accords it a stationfor guiding the music-making process.

This does not mean that "good music" is guaranteed by any such theory.

Here, the definition of "good" itself involves utter-most cultural and
historical bias. It is mostly misconceived as a superficial adjective
classifying all the Classics of Europe we cherish as the top people to
look up to.

Reality is totally different.

The majority of the world DOES NOT listen to Bach... seldom to Mozart,
and certainly not much to Beethoven.

Billions of people probably listen to musics that are totally alien to
the styles of these masters and these same billions would not deem
works by the celebrated trio as appealing to their personal taste.

To think otherwise is a gross prejudice in Western-orientedness.

Aesthetics is relative. Moreover, there is not just one, but several
distinct and oft clashing music theories in the market.

Surprised? Just compare Classical Western music with Iranian music or
Gamelan. Their theories, written or oral, have little semblance in
several areas.

Since everything is relative in this business, appeals to populism
have no ground. A music that has a theoretical model (or several more)
accompanying it will naturally have its followers. Composers and
musicians out of such a group will obviously produce and execute
pieces ENGINEERED by the intrinsic theory of that genre provided that
the theory is sufficiently advanced to GUIDE the music-making process.

And I certainly do NOT condemn Serialism. It must still have its
followers, no matter how dwindling, who continue to believe that
"decent" or "erudite" music can be made with it.

It also somewhat depends on the mood one is in at the moment.

A sound theory STILL does not guarantee "good" music though, even by
the standards of its followers.

In the end, the soundness of a music theory depends on its inner
coherence. It does not need to conform to some JI bias or any other
thing. Most of the time, however, the theory will have intrinsic
properties that represent the better qualities of the genre it aims to
explain.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Feb 26, 2010, at 4:25 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> Hi Oz,
>
>
> You said in your previous post
>
> "At some stage, theory
> evolves to a level which licenses it to GUIDE "
>
> Quite a few posts in the past week or two involved accusations of
> people
> following theory to write music (the implication was slavishly
> following
> theory ).
>
> Music theory is not predictive because because, like you say, it is a
> collection of practices - really a collection of high probability
> choices, a
> method - and following this without variance condemns you to
> repeating what
> has already been done. Serialism just developed faster, not
> differently.
>
> and might I say that you DO condemn serialism because:
>
> "Here, it means the "collection of
> standards and rules for making good music". "
>
> and
>
> "
> Appeal to popularity is not a requisite of a successful theory. But I
> digress..."
>
> this is incorrect because "good" is defined by large scale
> agreement by
> people as being good. Thus - most people agree Bach, mozart, and
> Beethoven
> are good. And unfortunately most people agree serialism is bad (at
> least in
> the present day).
>
> However - - drop the word "theory" and it becomes clear - serialism
> is a
> compositonal method - just like aleotoric or computer assisted or
> 18th +
> 19th century common practice are all "methods".
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...
> >wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> O Chris,
>>
>> Appeal to popularity is not a requisite of a successful theory. But I
>> digress...
>>
>> A misunderstanding abounds on the usage of the word "theory" in music
>> theory. This is not a scientific theory we are talking about here.
>> It's rather, a collection of techniques and methods based on
>> practice,
>> observation and great innovations. Here, it means the "collection of
>> standards and rules for making good music". Most of the time, music
>> theory is inseperable from some form of notation or fixed-pitch
>> instrument.
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Perhaps is more than either a theory, a body of work, a catalyst for form
and musical ideas, a rationality of twelve notes harmonically linked by
thirds relationships, an evolution of Wagner's use of equal temperament, an
excellent method for step by step composition lessons in a university, a
natural consequence, a metaphor, etc.

Before one condemns theory as beyond listening comprehension, please
consider that each human being has a unique pair of ears. I find great success
in utilizing serialism in particular situations. Stravinsky devoted the
third part of his life to serialism in music (which for Beethoven would have
been the beginning of the Romantic period in music). To my own ears, all
manner of using music is available for successful music making, if only
patterns are detectable. (Haba's athematic music suffered for this.)

Anyone hear the old chestnut: a piece of music must be 50% predictable for
success.
Also: A piece could be disliked or loved for the music to be of value, as
long as one is moved one way or the other and not left indifferent.

To those that don't appreciate serialism, or Beethoven, no matter. Maybe
you'll like my Zanzibar for bassoon now on the AFMM website and available
on my new Bassoonist album:

_www.afmm.org_ (http://www.afmm.org)

How much theory do you think it represents?

Johnny Reinhard

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

Oops. Please insert the word "serialism" after the first word...perhaps.
thank you for your indulgece.

Johnny

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> You said in your previous post
>
> "At some stage, theory
> evolves to a level which licenses it to GUIDE "
>
> Quite a few posts in the past week or two involved accusations of
> people following theory to write music (the implication was
> slavishly following theory ).
>

Following a theory _slavishly_ is definitely a bad idea. If that were the essence of theory - you have to follow it slavishly - this would be a clear case against theory. But the point is, it isn't. You can let yourself guide without being a slave. There are lots of paths between the extremes.
--
Hans Straub