UnTwelve has arrived, sort of

Here it is, sort of:

http://untwelve.org/2010_competition.html

I say "sort of" because something seems to be wrong with Ig's mp3, and there's no link to my piece even though I asked for one, so there seem to be a lot of bugs to work out. Listening to the winners and runners up, it seems there may indeed be a sort of general style the judges favor, which makes wonder if they really are as disparate as all that.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> Here it is, sort of:
>
> http://untwelve.org/2010_competition.html

Having listened to the winners and runners up, always excepting Igs, it seems to me Shaahin Mohajeri is the best of the lot. It's not just his chutzpah in turning in a piece all of four seconds over the minimum, its the fact that it has a musical texture involving actual polyphony and that it develops, going from point A to point B. Nice Persian theme, also: The battle of Ahuramazda and Ahriman.

Aaron- Is this ready for consumption or did Gene stumble on
something that's not ready yet? -C.

At 03:02 PM 1/31/2011, you wrote:
>Here it is, sort of:
>
> http://untwelve.org/2010_competition.html
>
>I say "sort of" because something seems to be wrong with Ig's mp3, and
>there's no link to my piece even though I asked for one, so there seem
>to be a lot of bugs to work out. Listening to the winners and runners
>up, it seems there may indeed be a sort of general style the judges
>favor, which makes wonder if they really are as disparate as all that.
>

Hi guys,

It was an aborted upload that I hadn't noticed....should be fixed now. My apologies to Igs!

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron- Is this ready for consumption or did Gene stumble on
> something that's not ready yet? -C.
>
> At 03:02 PM 1/31/2011, you wrote:
> >Here it is, sort of:
> >
> > http://untwelve.org/2010_competition.html
> >
> >I say "sort of" because something seems to be wrong with Ig's mp3, and
> >there's no link to my piece even though I asked for one, so there seem
> >to be a lot of bugs to work out. Listening to the winners and runners
> >up, it seems there may indeed be a sort of general style the judges
> >favor, which makes wonder if they really are as disparate as all that.
> >
>

His piece (Shaahin) is very strong, I agree, Gene. The tuning is very exotic and listenable, too. It struck me as a kind of more tersely polyphonic Scriabin-like piece with an Arabic touch. Very nice.

I have to say my favorite might be Soressa Gardner's for it's all around creation-of-a-universe-in-itself, but I think Monroe Golden's piece is awfully original, and there's an 'ecstatic rush' quality to it quite unlike any of the other entries...it also is extremely polished in the sonics department. Ig's piece is really trippy and fun, and has a great climax; placed just right. I think it doesn't quite measure up to the best of Igs work, for instance pick a track on "Map of an Internal Landscape", but it grows on me more and more.

All of these pieces sounded *fantastic* on the 29th. They were all aided by the dark, and the quality of the 5.1 sound system, which also has a real nice deep subwoofer. It was a real pleasure to experience *all* of them. I told everyone about the downloadability of the non-finalists, and there was real interest and curiosity there, too.

Anyway, back to the finalist group--I think I've not heard anything quite like Soressa Gardner's piece in terms of gorgeous Zen-like tranquility, sensitivity to timbre, atmosphere, and real attention to foreground and background layers. I'm going to study this piece for quite some time--there's a lot to learn there. There is not an extraneous note or sound in that piece; it's simple and elegant like a Japanese ink. Many people commented on this piece in particular as really _speaking_ to them after the concert. That piece is extremely special in all of these ways, and very evocative. Listen to all those tiny details, they are simply exquisite and delicious...

I'm also fond, for the same reasons, of James Wyness's piece. It really is a beautiful 'dronescape' type piece, a model of its kind, and to me, very much in the mold of Kraig Grady's excellent work on his 'Stolen Stars' CD.

Yeah, I'd love all of your thoughts on all the rest of the pieces. To me, there's a lot to be inspired by in the whole body of submissions.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> >
> > Here it is, sort of:
> >
> > http://untwelve.org/2010_competition.html
>
> Having listened to the winners and runners up, always excepting Igs, it seems to me Shaahin Mohajeri is the best of the lot. It's not just his chutzpah in turning in a piece all of four seconds over the minimum, its the fact that it has a musical texture involving actual polyphony and that it develops, going from point A to point B. Nice Persian theme, also: The battle of Ahuramazda and Ahriman.
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> Here it is, sort of:
>
> http://untwelve.org/2010_competition.html
>
> I say "sort of" because something seems to be wrong with Ig's mp3, and there's no link to my piece even though I asked for one, so there seem to be a lot of bugs to work out.

There's a link to Igs now, but not yet to me or a lot of other people; I'm hoping we will get most of them in the end. Igs did some nice work; in the opening and closing sections using timbres which ameliorated the mistuning of Blackwood, the chosen temperament. I was wondering how a Blackwood gamelan orchestra would work, listening to it; maybe mistuning the octaves by flattening them a bit. Igs used 20et and not the 15et theory would suggest because he prefers the melodies in 20, which of course raises the question of what this would sound like in 15.

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:41 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...t> wrote:
>
> There's a link to Igs now, but not yet to me or a lot of other people; I'm hoping we will get most of them in the end. Igs did some nice work; in the opening and closing sections using timbres which ameliorated the mistuning of Blackwood, the chosen temperament.

Blackwood really is the chosen temperament. Also, to be respectful, it
is required that you capitalize chosen temperament, e.g. "Blackwood,
The Chosen Temperament."

> I was wondering how a Blackwood gamelan orchestra would work, listening to it; maybe mistuning the octaves by flattening them a bit. Igs used 20et and not the 15et theory would suggest because he prefers the melodies in 20, which of course raises the question of what this would sound like in 15.

I was trying to come up with a reason why It works so much better in
20 rather than 19, and my best guess was that we like using melodies
that approximate things like 8:9:10, and 8:9:10 is better approximated
in 20-tet than 15-tet. I'm not sure if I was on the right track or
not, because you can probably come up with different metrics for the
accuracy of a triad like 8:9:10 that will yield different results.

-Mike

Gnee, refresh your browser. I see pianodactyl. Some others
are black- I assume because the composers haven't yet given
their permission. -C.

>There's a link to Igs now, but not yet to me or a lot of other people;
>I'm hoping we will get most of them in the end. Igs did some nice
>work; in the opening and closing sections using timbres which
>ameliorated the mistuning of Blackwood, the chosen temperament. I was
>wondering how a Blackwood gamelan orchestra would work, listening to
>it; maybe mistuning the octaves by flattening them a bit. Igs used
>20et and not the 15et theory would suggest because he prefers the
>melodies in 20, which of course raises the question of what this would
>sound like in 15.

Gene,

    Funny, to me the winners virtually ALL sounded like ambient soundscapes (with great focus on timbre and a sense of abstract "wabbly-ness") to me, rather than actual songs that progress from one emotion to another (that would focus more on, say, chord and tonal color of the scales over the timbre and, ultimately, direct emotion).  The other sad thing is "they are all just random, dissonant textural soundscapes" is the thing I hear a lot of people negatively stereotyping microtonal music as and, sadly, I think re-enforcing that train of thought may actually cause less interest in microtonality among everyday musicians and listeners.

    And, dare I admit, even though I'm a huge Igs fan, the only part of his competition piece I really found fun
was the climax.  Agreed with Aaron, most of Igs's tracks off "Map of an Internal Landscape" I found much more emotionally engaging.

    Also dare I admit, I found Chris V.'s piece easily better than anything in the top 3 and likely in the whole contest.  Shaahin's piece wasn't bad either though, yes it was "another soundscape", but the arrangement was orchestral and clear and there was actually a clear sense of direction and larger chord/tonal-color to me...but, even then, I'd say it's about equal in my mind to Gene's competition entry (less engaging tonal color/polyphony than Gene's entry, but with a more interesting orchestral arrangement).
  
   But, sadly, I can't say I'd recommend any of the top 10 pieces to any friends or first time listeners...no matter how imaginative they may be, they just don't come across as emotional or controlled the way "normal" music does. 

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Gene,
>
>     Funny, to me the winners virtually ALL sounded like ambient soundscapes (with great focus on timbre and a sense of abstract "wabbly-ness") to me, rather than actual songs that progress from one emotion to another (that would focus more on, say, chord and tonal color of the scales over the timbre and, ultimately, direct emotion). 

Yes, that's what I meant by saying there seemed to be an underlying point of view after all in this year's judging, though since I was waiting for more links to appear before going on to the rest perhaps I am leaping to conclusions.

It's not color I miss, it's texture. A monophonic texture, with very little in the way of polyphony, was a striking aspect of a lot of the winners and runners up.

>     And, dare I admit, even though I'm a huge Igs fan, the only part of his competition piece I really found fun
> was the climax.

I liked the start of it also.

  Agreed with Aaron, most of Igs's tracks off "Map of an Internal Landscape" I found much more emotionally engaging.

>     Also dare I admit, I found Chris V.'s piece easily better than anything in the top 3 and likely in the whole contest.  Shaahin's piece wasn't bad either though, yes it was "another soundscape", but the arrangement was orchestral and clear and there was actually a clear sense of direction and larger chord/tonal-color to me...but, even then, I'd say it's about equal in my mind to Gene's competition entry (less engaging tonal color/polyphony than Gene's entry, but with a more interesting orchestral arrangement).

Easy to do since mine didn't have an orchestral arrangement. But thanks, in Shaahin's company is not a bad place to be.

Still no link for Cameron Bobro or John Lyle Smith.

Gene,

With the many, many times you have brought up polyphony with respect
to all of the entries in this contest I am completely perplexed I am
not perceiving a large amount of polyphony in your piece.

Is there something I'm missing here?

Respectfully,

Chris

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:53 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> > Gene,
>
> It's not color I miss, it's texture. A monophonic texture, with very little in the way of polyphony, was a striking aspect of a lot of the winners and runners up.

Huh, I hear a ton of polyphony in Gene's piece.

Looks like Jon Smith's piece just came up. Also, was Michael's
piece just renamed from Web Programmer to Dimension? -C.

At 09:45 PM 1/31/2011, you wrote:
>Gene,
>
>With the many, many times you have brought up polyphony with respect
>to all of the entries in this contest I am completely perplexed I am
>not perceiving a large amount of polyphony in your piece.
>
>Is there something I'm missing here?
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Chris
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Gene,
>
> With the many, many times you have brought up polyphony with respect
> to all of the entries in this contest I am completely perplexed I am
> not perceiving a large amount of polyphony in your piece.
>
> Is there something I'm missing here?

You need to listen for the various parts, they are certainly there. I haven't finished listening to the pieces with links, but so far pianodactyl is clearly the most polyphonic of what I have listened to.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Gene,
>
> With the many, many times you have brought up polyphony with respect
> to all of the entries in this contest I am completely perplexed I am
> not perceiving a large amount of polyphony in your piece.

By the way, how did twice get converted to "many, many times"? I have mentioned a proposed Polyphony Challenge several times, however. I've got a piece everyone will hate all ready.

On 1 February 2011 09:45, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> With the many, many times you have brought up polyphony with respect
> to all of the entries in this contest I am completely perplexed I am
> not perceiving a large amount of polyphony in your piece.
>
> Is there something I'm missing here?

It didn't sound polyphonic to me. That must have a lot to do with all
voices having the same timbre and timing. People more used to picking
polyphony out of that kind of thing may be able to do so.

It also sounded like it could do with a better rendering. I could
offer assistance on that, but I don't relish tweaking the timings in a
.seq file, which is what it will probably amount to.

I won't hear the new uploads for a few days because we have .mp3
blocked at work. The last batch sounded pretty good, as did Chris's
pieces that came with them. George's renovated entry from the year
before is fantastic -- up there with the Saba Storm.

Graham

Gene>"By the way, how did twice get converted to "many, many times"? I have
mentioned a proposed Polyphony Challenge several times, however. I've
got a piece everyone will hate all ready."

    Please post it! :-D  Everyone else may want drone music...but I'm thirsty for a punchy polyphonic piece loaded with engaging counterpoint...or (gasp) a piece with actual verse structure and straight forward emotional themes. 

    Someone please prove my suspicions wrong and post a top list for Untwelve that doesn't champion largely monophonic soundscapes over everything else.  In the back of my head I'm thinking "no wonder musicians in the outside world often doesn't take us seriously...what we rate highest is basically avant-garde experimental soundscapes...and would be even if done in 12TET".  I'm afraid Untwelve will capture little attention beside that of musicians already into avant-garde music (microtonal or not)...which virtually no one is. 

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

Gene>"You need to listen for the various parts, they are certainly there. I
haven't finished listening to the pieces with links, but so far
pianodactyl is clearly the most polyphonic of what I have listened to."

   I'd say Domina's and mine (at least after the intro) are competitive with yours far as polyphony.  Mine has 4-7 note chords played throughout...  Chris's not as much, but his has a different sort of style (and it's not soundscape).... :-)

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

I don't think using of chords (with any number of notes) is the right definition of "polyphonic" music...

Daniel Forro

On 1 Feb 2011, at 9:46 PM, Michael wrote:

> Gene>"You need to listen for the various parts, they are certainly > there. I
> haven't finished listening to the pieces with links, but so far
> pianodactyl is clearly the most polyphonic of what I have listened > to."
>
> I'd say Domina's and mine (at least after the intro) are > competitive with yours far as polyphony. Mine has 4-7 note chords > played throughout... Chris's not as much, but his has a different > sort of style (and it's not soundscape).... :-)

Soundscapes generally don't threaten the hegemony of 12-tET, as alternative tunings are easily rendered and percieved as sound-fx, without standing the scrutiny they have to in notes/rhythms/phrases/melodies//harmony/chordal-movement music. This, and plinky plonky inharmonic timbres, are the standard cop-outs of "microtonal music".

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Gene,
>
>     Funny, to me the winners virtually ALL sounded like ambient soundscapes (with great focus on timbre and a sense of abstract "wabbly-ness") to me, rather than actual songs that progress from one emotion to another (that would focus more on, say, chord and tonal color of the scales over the timbre and, ultimately, direct emotion).  The other sad thing is "they are all just random, dissonant textural soundscapes" is the thing I hear a lot of people negatively stereotyping microtonal music as and, sadly, I think re-enforcing that train of thought may actually cause less interest in microtonality among everyday musicians and listeners.
>
>     And, dare I admit, even though I'm a huge Igs fan, the only part of his competition piece I really found fun
> was the climax.  Agreed with Aaron, most of Igs's tracks off "Map of an Internal Landscape" I found much more emotionally engaging.
>
>     Also dare I admit, I found Chris V.'s piece easily better than anything in the top 3 and likely in the whole contest.  Shaahin's piece wasn't bad either though, yes it was "another soundscape", but the arrangement was orchestral and clear and there was actually a clear sense of direction and larger chord/tonal-color to me...but, even then, I'd say it's about equal in my mind to Gene's competition entry (less engaging tonal color/polyphony than Gene's entry, but with a more interesting orchestral arrangement).
>   
>    But, sadly, I can't say I'd recommend any of the top 10 pieces to any friends or first time listeners...no matter how imaginative they may be, they just don't come across as emotional or controlled the way "normal" music does. 
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Would you be willing to share a traditional score or a midi file I can
translate into a score?

For the life of me I hear a large number of chords in lock step through out
the piece with occasional very quiet incidental melodic fragments. I have
given it a go several times.

Maybe the definition is a problem here. for my polyphonic is music that is
formed by the aggregation of separate independent melodies. Usually melodies
that can stand separately on their own, move in contrary motion and often
are rhythmically independent. A prime example being Palestrina.

*Quid pro quo - *here my Orwellian Cameras score - a piece of mine that is
fairly polyphonic. Sorry for the score quality, I'm still fighting Sibelius.

http://micro.soonlabel.com/orwell/daily20100721-gpo-2-srings%20only%202.pdf

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:34 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > Gene,
> >
> > With the many, many times you have brought up polyphony with respect
> > to all of the entries in this contest I am completely perplexed I am
> > not perceiving a large amount of polyphony in your piece.
> >
> > Is there something I'm missing here?
>
> You need to listen for the various parts, they are certainly there. I
> haven't finished listening to the pieces with links, but so far pianodactyl
> is clearly the most polyphonic of what I have listened to.
>
>
>

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

It seemed like more than twice to me. No I didn't count the number of times.

Chris

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:18 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > Gene,
> >
> > With the many, many times you have brought up polyphony with respect
> > to all of the entries in this contest I am completely perplexed I am
> > not perceiving a large amount of polyphony in your piece.
>
> By the way, how did twice get converted to "many, many times"? I have
> mentioned a proposed Polyphony Challenge several times, however. I've got a
> piece everyone will hate all ready.
>
>
>

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

Daniel>" I don't think using of chords (with any number of notes) is the right
definition of "polyphonic" music..."

Right, but there are at least 3 different parts/voices (IE the bassline, the
strings, and the lead) going on at any given time and often 4 (IE two leads +
the bassline + the strings) in my pieces on different rhythmic lines, and tons
of different parts in Domina's piece. To me, chordal music isn't necessarily
high polyphony...but high polyphony music usually has lots of large chords
formed between voices.

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

Certainly not. Anyway, Gene's piece has huge chords. -Carl

At 05:11 AM 2/1/2011, you wrote:
>I don't think using of chords (with any number of notes) is the right
>definition of "polyphonic" music...
>
>Daniel Forro
>
>

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

>     Someone please prove my suspicions wrong and post a top list for Untwelve that doesn't champion largely monophonic soundscapes over everything else.

Mine won't; I'm not a big fan of monophonic soundscapes. But now I must listen to the runners-not-up.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think using of chords (with any number of notes) is the right
> definition of "polyphonic" music...

Using parts with independent horizontal motion is, and pianodactyl is full of that.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Would you be willing to share a traditional score or a midi file I can
> translate into a score?
>
> For the life of me I hear a large number of chords in lock step through out
> the piece with occasional very quiet incidental melodic fragments. I have
> given it a go several times.

I'll send a seq file. It's not the most polyphonic piece I've ever written, but there is a lot of it by my definition.

Thanks,

Much appreciated!!

Chris

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:37 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > Would you be willing to share a traditional score or a midi file I can
> > translate into a score?
> >
> > For the life of me I hear a large number of chords in lock step through
> out
> > the piece with occasional very quiet incidental melodic fragments. I have
> > given it a go several times.
>
> I'll send a seq file. It's not the most polyphonic piece I've ever written,
> but there is a lot of it by my definition.
>
>
>

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Would you be willing to share a traditional score or a midi file I can
> translate into a score?

I've uploaded a midi file, a Scala seq file, and four midi files for the four parts. Perhaps the best thing to do to start out with would be to play the midi file in MegaMID, which comes with the Scala distribution in Windows and which visually shows the parts moving around.

This issue is interesting, as it raises the question of what "polyphony" means. I don't mean when I bemoan the dearth of it that everything ought to be written in a quasi-Renaissance style. If "polyphony" isn't the right word, what would be?

>This issue is interesting, as it raises the question of what
>"polyphony" means. I don't mean when I bemoan the dearth of it that
>everything ought to be written in a quasi-Renaissance style. If
>"polyphony" isn't the right word, what would be?

Here's a suggestion:

1 ambient - timbre predominates over pitch, slow tempo

2 heterophonic - pattern-based; includes minimalism, electronica,
gamelan, etc.

3 homophonic - primary melody with backing harmony, includes most
SATB hymnody and songs without an independent bass

4 polyphonic - primary melody with harmony and at least one
rhythmically distinct part, usually the bass

5 contrapuntal - more than one simultaneous melody, none of which
is obviously primary

It would still be nice to have another term for the 4th class,
since the literal definition of "polyphony" might include all
5 classes.

In the interest of example, I'll try to put one of these to each
of the entries on my short list...

Chuckk Hubbard, The World Is Ours
polyphonic

Craig Evans, Hymn of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
last miniature, at least, is contrapuntal

David Hamill, Cool My Head
polyphonic

Donald Craig, Study in 31
polyphonic

Gene Smith, Pianodactyl
contrapuntal

Igliashon Jones, Persephone Descends
polyphonic

James Wyness, A Dissolving View
ambient

Jon Lyle Smith, Dithyramb
polyphonic

Joseph Post, US Gold
heterophonic

Monroe Golden, Incongruity
heterophonic

Shaahin Mohajeri, The Battle of Ahuramazda and Ahriman
polyphonic

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

Nothing to represent monophonic?

At 01:02 PM 2/1/2011, you wrote:
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>Nothing to represent monophonic?

True monophony is quite rare, but sure, it would go
between ambient and heterophony.

-Carl

I think Bach is what you probably mean by polyphonic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphony

There is a distinction to be made between Renaissance polyphony with
non-functional harmony (more or less) and Bach's polyphony *with* functional
harmony.
If you have listened to Bach Chaconne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uCdKH_zHVs you can pick out implied voices
(at times) filling out a 3 or 4 voice harmony within the context of
functional harmony. When we analyzed a portion of it in theory class this
was the whole point of the teacher.

As Schoenberg puts it, popular music often times just exchanges chords -
there is little functional harmony even when the bass may be playing a
different melody than the lead voice.

Part of polyphonic writing is composing in a way that the separate parts are
understandable as different voices. This means contrary motion, changes in
rhythm and such. That is the use of counterpoint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpoint.

As far as drone goes - what about micropolyphony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropolyphony

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

>
>
> >This issue is interesting, as it raises the question of what
> >"polyphony" means. I don't mean when I bemoan the dearth of it that
> >everything ought to be written in a quasi-Renaissance style. If
> >"polyphony" isn't the right word, what would be?
>
> Here's a suggestion:
>
> 1 ambient - timbre predominates over pitch, slow tempo
>
> 2 heterophonic - pattern-based; includes minimalism, electronica,
> gamelan, etc.
>
> 3 homophonic - primary melody with backing harmony, includes most
> SATB hymnody and songs without an independent bass
>
> 4 polyphonic - primary melody with harmony and at least one
> rhythmically distinct part, usually the bass
>
> 5 contrapuntal - more than one simultaneous melody, none of which
> is obviously primary
>
> It would still be nice to have another term for the 4th class,
> since the literal definition of "polyphony" might include all
> 5 classes.
>
> In the interest of example, I'll try to put one of these to each
> of the entries on my short list...
>
> Chuckk Hubbard, The World Is Ours
> polyphonic
>
> Craig Evans, Hymn of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
> last miniature, at least, is contrapuntal
>
> David Hamill, Cool My Head
> polyphonic
>
> Donald Craig, Study in 31
> polyphonic
>
> Gene Smith, Pianodactyl
> contrapuntal
>
> Igliashon Jones, Persephone Descends
> polyphonic
>
> James Wyness, A Dissolving View
> ambient
>
> Jon Lyle Smith, Dithyramb
> polyphonic
>
> Joseph Post, US Gold
> heterophonic
>
> Monroe Golden, Incongruity
> heterophonic
>
> Shaahin Mohajeri, The Battle of Ahuramazda and Ahriman
> polyphonic
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

Islamic call to prayer is monophonic.

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Nothing to represent monophonic?

Unless several adhans are heard simultaneously, in which case strange cacophonic microtonalities arise over the Istanbuline airs... more so since the adhans are broadcast from certain central mosques for a few years now. It's dull, repetitive and distasteful. Kind of reminiscent of the Soviet sympohony of factory clarions in Baku or something to that effect. The irony doubles when Turkiye has been a rock-solid ally of USA et al. against Communism.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Feb 1, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> Islamic call to prayer is monophonic.
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, genewardsmith
> <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>> Nothing to represent monophonic?
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hi Chris,

>I think Bach is what you probably mean by polyphonic.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphony

Bach wrote a great deal of music and it would really depend
on the piece.

>There is a distinction to be made between Renaissance polyphony with
>non-functional harmony (more or less) and Bach's polyphony *with* functional
>harmony.

Yes, but I don't try to tackle that. I'm just trying to classify
by different ways of using pitch:

ambient - not at all
heterophonic - melody but no harmony
monophony - one melody no harmony (drone allowed)
homophony - one melody with harmony
contrapuntal - multiple melodies in harmony
"polyphony" - somewhere between homophony and counterpoint

>Part of polyphonic writing is composing in a way that the separate parts are
>understandable as different voices. This means contrary motion, changes in
>rhythm and such. That is the use of counterpoint
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpoint.

That agrees with definition of counterpoint here. Actually all
my definitions here are pretty much standard.

>As far as drone goes - what about micropolyphony.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropolyphony

Re: micropolyphony - never heard this term before, thanks. I'm
a big fan of Ligeti, including the works mentioned. I would put
this in the heterophony dept.

-Carl

Yeah, I shouldn't have said it's rare - it's actually quite common!
(Much traditional Indian music too... etc etc) -Carl

At 01:11 PM 2/1/2011, you wrote:
>Islamic call to prayer is monophonic.
>
>On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, genewardsmith
><genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>> Nothing to represent monophonic?
>
>

By these definitions Gene's piece is much more homophonic then polyphonic or
contrapuntal.

Of course one must realize as in all things musical the landscape is a vast
amount of shades of gray.

Re: Bach - I'm pretty sure little if any of Bach's work wasn't contrapuntal
in nature. Every single Bach piece I studied or played was. Actually the
same is true of Stravinsky. And if you exclude the climax of his 5th
symphony I'd have to include Shostakovich. Debussy is notable for writing
sections that were *not* contrapuntal, at least not traditionally so.

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
> >I think Bach is what you probably mean by polyphonic.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphony
>
> Bach wrote a great deal of music and it would really depend
> on the piece.
>
>
> >There is a distinction to be made between Renaissance polyphony with
> >non-functional harmony (more or less) and Bach's polyphony *with*
> functional
> >harmony.
>
> Yes, but I don't try to tackle that. I'm just trying to classify
> by different ways of using pitch:
>
> ambient - not at all
> heterophonic - melody but no harmony
> monophony - one melody no harmony (drone allowed)
> homophony - one melody with harmony
> contrapuntal - multiple melodies in harmony
> "polyphony" - somewhere between homophony and counterpoint
>
>
> >Part of polyphonic writing is composing in a way that the separate parts
> are
> >understandable as different voices. This means contrary motion, changes in
> >rhythm and such. That is the use of counterpoint
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpoint.
>
> That agrees with definition of counterpoint here. Actually all
> my definitions here are pretty much standard.
>
>
> >As far as drone goes - what about micropolyphony.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropolyphony
>
> Re: micropolyphony - never heard this term before, thanks. I'm
> a big fan of Ligeti, including the works mentioned. I would put
> this in the heterophony dept.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

Chris wrote:
>By these definitions Gene's piece is much more homophonic then polyphonic or
>contrapuntal.

It's borderline homophonic/contrapuntal.

I'm not claiming this is a scientific enterprise here. :)

In his original comment I think Gene just meant entries that were
neither ambient or heterophonic.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> By these definitions Gene's piece is much more homophonic then polyphonic or
> contrapuntal.

Did you try my suggestion of looking at the midi file in MegaMID? Even if you are not hearing voices moving in contrary motion or playing distinct melodies, you should be able to see it.

This makes me wonder if a reasonable mathematical definition of degree of polyphony could be found. Using a correlation coefficient between voices is problematical, because voices are likely to start and stop, change number, and do various other inconvenient things.

I would offer terms like "stratophony" or "mixture polyphony", "mixture heterophony", "layer polyphony"...

Daniel Forro

On 2 Feb 2011, at 4:44 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil > <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>>
>> Would you be willing to share a traditional score or a midi file I >> can
>> translate into a score?
>
> I've uploaded a midi file, a Scala seq file, and four midi files > for the four parts. Perhaps the best thing to do to start out with > would be to play the midi file in MegaMID, which comes with the > Scala distribution in Windows and which visually shows the parts > moving around.
>
> This issue is interesting, as it raises the question of what > "polyphony" means. I don't mean when I bemoan the dearth of it that > everything ought to be written in a quasi-Renaissance style. If > "polyphony" isn't the right word, what would be?

What about Gregorian chant, Byzantion chant?

Daniel Forro

On 2 Feb 2011, at 6:02 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Nothing to represent monophonic?
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

AFAIK heterophony is more focused term, not so general one. It means more melodies without harmony, but this melodies must be very similar, almost identic, just with different tones sometimes, and slightly different rhythm and ornamentation. Like Japanese music.

Daniel Forro

On 2 Feb 2011, at 6:30 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
>> I think Bach is what you probably mean by polyphonic.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphony
>
> Bach wrote a great deal of music and it would really depend
> on the piece.
>
>> There is a distinction to be made between Renaissance polyphony with
>> non-functional harmony (more or less) and Bach's polyphony *with* >> functional
>> harmony.
>
> Yes, but I don't try to tackle that. I'm just trying to classify
> by different ways of using pitch:
>
> ambient - not at all
> heterophonic - melody but no harmony
> monophony - one melody no harmony (drone allowed)
> homophony - one melody with harmony
> contrapuntal - multiple melodies in harmony
> "polyphony" - somewhere between homophony and counterpoint
>
>> Part of polyphonic writing is composing in a way that the separate >> parts are
>> understandable as different voices. This means contrary motion, >> changes in
>> rhythm and such. That is the use of counterpoint
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpoint.
>
> That agrees with definition of counterpoint here. Actually all
> my definitions here are pretty much standard.
>
>> As far as drone goes - what about micropolyphony.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropolyphony
>
> Re: micropolyphony - never heard this term before, thanks. I'm
> a big fan of Ligeti, including the works mentioned. I would put
> this in the heterophony dept.

If you knock over one of the speakers, Yanni sounds like a phony in mono, does that count?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> What about Gregorian chant, Byzantion chant?
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 2 Feb 2011, at 6:02 AM, genewardsmith wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > Nothing to represent monophonic?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

On 2 Feb 2011, at 6:50 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> By these definitions Gene's piece is much more homophonic then > polyphonic or
> contrapuntal.
>
> Of course one must realize as in all things musical the landscape > is a vast
> amount of shades of gray.
>
> Re: Bach - I'm pretty sure little if any of Bach's work wasn't > contrapuntal
> in nature.

He has lot of works which are not contrapuntal - all Preludes, Toccatas and more...

> Every single Bach piece I studied or played was. Actually the
> same is true of Stravinsky.

I don't think so. We can't call "arrangement" or "orchestration" polyphony.

> Debussy is notable for writing
> sections that were *not* contrapuntal, at least not traditionally so.

Which is quite normal in music of most composers.

Daniel Forro

Daniel,

Given your deeper studies into the classics as well as experience I cede
this to you.

I think perhaps my definition may be skewed because my theory teacher tended
to point out the multiple voices that he saw in many composer's works.

I will agree though this reference totally backs you up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toccata_and_Fugue_in_D_minor,_BWV_565

Chris

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Daniel Forr� <dan.for@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > Every single Bach piece I studied or played was. Actually the
> > same is true of Stravinsky.
>
> I don't think so. We can't call "arrangement" or "orchestration"
> polyphony.
>
>
> > Debussy is notable for writing
> > sections that were *not* contrapuntal, at least not traditionally so.
>
> Which is quite normal in music of most composers.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
>

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

Yes, I think you're right. I'm just trying to make headway by
reducing everything to 5 or so classes for the sake of it.
Just a suggestion, really. -Carl

Daniel wrote:

>AFAIK heterophony is more focused term, not so general one. It means
>more melodies without harmony, but this melodies must be very
>similar, almost identic, just with different tones sometimes, and
>slightly different rhythm and ornamentation. Like Japanese music.
>
>Daniel Forro
>
[snip]
>> Yes, but I don't try to tackle that. I'm just trying to classify
>> by different ways of using pitch:
>>
>> ambient - not at all
>> heterophonic - melody but no harmony
>> monophony - one melody no harmony (drone allowed)
>> homophony - one melody with harmony
>> contrapuntal - multiple melodies in harmony
>> "polyphony" - somewhere between homophony and counterpoint

But as general classifications I think these pretty much describe it.
Then there are more fine-grained definitions of course. What's problematic in my opinion is actually definitions like "harmony". In texts at least, it seems to be equated with functional/tertian harmony, and personally I don't buy that. The seconds in Bulgarian singing are deliberate vertical sonorities, so I would call that harmony too.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think you're right. I'm just trying to make headway by
> reducing everything to 5 or so classes for the sake of it.
> Just a suggestion, really. -Carl
>
> Daniel wrote:
>
> >AFAIK heterophony is more focused term, not so general one. It means
> >more melodies without harmony, but this melodies must be very
> >similar, almost identic, just with different tones sometimes, and
> >slightly different rhythm and ornamentation. Like Japanese music.
> >
> >Daniel Forro
> >
> [snip]
> >> Yes, but I don't try to tackle that. I'm just trying to classify
> >> by different ways of using pitch:
> >>
> >> ambient - not at all
> >> heterophonic - melody but no harmony
> >> monophony - one melody no harmony (drone allowed)
> >> homophony - one melody with harmony
> >> contrapuntal - multiple melodies in harmony
> >> "polyphony" - somewhere between homophony and counterpoint
>

I would absolutely agree Bulgarian singing has "harmony". I don't
have a good definition for it either. When push comes to shove, we
must admit harmony is at work with monophonic singing over a drone.
There are also modal and functional harmony, as Chris mentioned.

-Carl

Cameron wrote:

>But as general classifications I think these pretty much describe it.
>Then there are more fine-grained definitions of course. What's
>problematic in my opinion is actually definitions like "harmony". In
>texts at least, it seems to be equated with functional/tertian
>harmony, and personally I don't buy that. The seconds in Bulgarian
>singing are deliberate vertical sonorities, so I would call that harmony too.
>
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I think you're right. I'm just trying to make headway by
>> reducing everything to 5 or so classes for the sake of it.
>> Just a suggestion, really. -Carl
>>
>> Daniel wrote:
>>
>> >AFAIK heterophony is more focused term, not so general one. It means
>> >more melodies without harmony, but this melodies must be very
>> >similar, almost identic, just with different tones sometimes, and
>> >slightly different rhythm and ornamentation. Like Japanese music.
>> >
>> >Daniel Forro
>> >
>> [snip]
>> >> Yes, but I don't try to tackle that. I'm just trying to classify
>> >> by different ways of using pitch:
>> >>
>> >> ambient - not at all
>> >> heterophonic - melody but no harmony
>> >> monophony - one melody no harmony (drone allowed)
>> >> homophony - one melody with harmony
>> >> contrapuntal - multiple melodies in harmony
>> >> "polyphony" - somewhere between homophony and counterpoint
>>
>
>

I wouldn't call it harmony, in my opinion we can use term "mixture homophony" or something like. Verticality is not the main principle here, horizontal melody is, and it's just reinforced by another mixture voice. Like medieval organum.

Daniel Forro

On 2 Feb 2011, at 8:48 AM, cameron wrote:

> But as general classifications I think these pretty much describe it.
> Then there are more fine-grained definitions of course. What's > problematic in my opinion is actually definitions like "harmony". > In texts at least, it seems to be equated with functional/tertian > harmony, and personally I don't buy that. The seconds in Bulgarian > singing are deliberate vertical sonorities, so I would call that > harmony too.
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I think you're right. I'm just trying to make headway by
>> reducing everything to 5 or so classes for the sake of it.
>> Just a suggestion, really. -Carl
>>
>> Daniel wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK heterophony is more focused term, not so general one. It means
>>> more melodies without harmony, but this melodies must be very
>>> similar, almost identic, just with different tones sometimes, and
>>> slightly different rhythm and ornamentation. Like Japanese music.
>>>
>>> Daniel Forro
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>> Yes, but I don't try to tackle that. I'm just trying to classify
>>>> by different ways of using pitch:
>>>>
>>>> ambient - not at all
>>>> heterophonic - melody but no harmony
>>>> monophony - one melody no harmony (drone allowed)
>>>> homophony - one melody with harmony
>>>> contrapuntal - multiple melodies in harmony
>>>> "polyphony" - somewhere between homophony and counterpoint
>>

Harmony in 2nd's (and inversions) have been part of the 20th and 21th
century composer's vocabulary. In fact, if you include clusters, the
entire 12 note system all at the same time is fair game.

Seriously, I have considered a fair number of consecutive whole steps
consonant => up to 3 or 4 depending on context. There is the shining
example of the sus 4th in root position and close voicing to lead the
way to using major 2nds freely in 12 equal. Also - the inversion of
the same suspended 4th chord yields a sonority built on 5ths. Stacked
quartal and quintal harmony is the inverse of major seconds. I myself
haven't used a great deal of minor seconds in this context but other
composers have obviously.

At the same time I would guess the Bulgarians have been using major
second harmony for a very long time though. And that this ended up in
Bela Bartok's field notebooks too.

Chris

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:48 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> But as general classifications I think these pretty much describe it.
> Then there are more fine-grained definitions of course. What's problematic in my opinion is actually definitions like "harmony". In texts at least, it seems to be equated with functional/tertian harmony, and personally I don't buy that. The seconds in Bulgarian singing are deliberate vertical sonorities, so I would call that harmony too.
>

Yes, but clusters are something different... The reason behind singing in parallel second mixtures by Bulgarian is they just wanted stronger sound when singing chorus in open air (in mountains). So best way is to use such dissonances. So it has nothing to do with harmony, chords, functions, resolving etc. It's just homophonic mixture. Not every "chordal" music uses harmony, only chords.

Daniel Forro

On 2 Feb 2011, at 9:34 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> Harmony in 2nd's (and inversions) have been part of the 20th and 21th
> century composer's vocabulary. In fact, if you include clusters, the
> entire 12 note system all at the same time is fair game.
>
> Seriously, I have considered a fair number of consecutive whole steps
> consonant => up to 3 or 4 depending on context. There is the shining
> example of the sus 4th in root position and close voicing to lead the
> way to using major 2nds freely in 12 equal. Also - the inversion of
> the same suspended 4th chord yields a sonority built on 5ths. Stacked
> quartal and quintal harmony is the inverse of major seconds. I myself
> haven't used a great deal of minor seconds in this context but other
> composers have obviously.
>
> At the same time I would guess the Bulgarians have been using major
> second harmony for a very long time though. And that this ended up in
> Bela Bartok's field notebooks too.
>
> Chris

The Bulgarian seconds are tuned to "ring like bells"- deliberate and consistent beating.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Harmony in 2nd's (and inversions) have been part of the 20th and 21th
> century composer's vocabulary. In fact, if you include clusters, the
> entire 12 note system all at the same time is fair game.
>
> Seriously, I have considered a fair number of consecutive whole steps
> consonant => up to 3 or 4 depending on context. There is the shining
> example of the sus 4th in root position and close voicing to lead the
> way to using major 2nds freely in 12 equal. Also - the inversion of
> the same suspended 4th chord yields a sonority built on 5ths. Stacked
> quartal and quintal harmony is the inverse of major seconds. I myself
> haven't used a great deal of minor seconds in this context but other
> composers have obviously.
>
> At the same time I would guess the Bulgarians have been using major
> second harmony for a very long time though. And that this ended up in
> Bela Bartok's field notebooks too.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:48 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > But as general classifications I think these pretty much describe it.
> > Then there are more fine-grained definitions of course. What's problematic in my opinion is actually definitions like "harmony". In texts at least, it seems to be equated with functional/tertian harmony, and personally I don't buy that. The seconds in Bulgarian singing are deliberate vertical sonorities, so I would call that harmony too.
> >
>

Yes, but it is this correct definition of "harmony" I don't agree with. I think it is a poor definition. Not because I don't know the correct definition, but because I do: how much harmony, in the sense of functions and resolving, the ancient Greeks, who invented the word,
have?

I think we should say functional harmony, tonal harmony, etc. when we mean functions and resolution and so on, but "harmony" by itself should mean basically "deliberate vertical structures".

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, but clusters are something different... The reason behind
> singing in parallel second mixtures by Bulgarian is they just wanted
> stronger sound when singing chorus in open air (in mountains). So
> best way is to use such dissonances. So it has nothing to do with
> harmony, chords, functions, resolving etc. It's just homophonic
> mixture. Not every "chordal" music uses harmony, only chords.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> On 2 Feb 2011, at 9:34 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
> > Harmony in 2nd's (and inversions) have been part of the 20th and 21th
> > century composer's vocabulary. In fact, if you include clusters, the
> > entire 12 note system all at the same time is fair game.
> >
> > Seriously, I have considered a fair number of consecutive whole steps
> > consonant => up to 3 or 4 depending on context. There is the shining
> > example of the sus 4th in root position and close voicing to lead the
> > way to using major 2nds freely in 12 equal. Also - the inversion of
> > the same suspended 4th chord yields a sonority built on 5ths. Stacked
> > quartal and quintal harmony is the inverse of major seconds. I myself
> > haven't used a great deal of minor seconds in this context but other
> > composers have obviously.
> >
> > At the same time I would guess the Bulgarians have been using major
> > second harmony for a very long time though. And that this ended up in
> > Bela Bartok's field notebooks too.
> >
> > Chris
>

Balkan violinists, especially Hungarians, play in a tuning akin to 22-EDO I think.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:13 AM, cameron wrote:

> The Bulgarian seconds are tuned to "ring like bells"- deliberate and consistent beating.
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>>
>> Harmony in 2nd's (and inversions) have been part of the 20th and 21th
>> century composer's vocabulary. In fact, if you include clusters, the
>> entire 12 note system all at the same time is fair game.
>>
>> Seriously, I have considered a fair number of consecutive whole steps
>> consonant => up to 3 or 4 depending on context. There is the shining
>> example of the sus 4th in root position and close voicing to lead the
>> way to using major 2nds freely in 12 equal. Also - the inversion of
>> the same suspended 4th chord yields a sonority built on 5ths. Stacked
>> quartal and quintal harmony is the inverse of major seconds. I myself
>> haven't used a great deal of minor seconds in this context but other
>> composers have obviously.
>>
>> At the same time I would guess the Bulgarians have been using major
>> second harmony for a very long time though. And that this ended up in
>> Bela Bartok's field notebooks too.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:48 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But as general classifications I think these pretty much describe it.
>>> Then there are more fine-grained definitions of course. What's problematic in my opinion is actually definitions like "harmony". In texts at least, it seems to be equated with functional/tertian harmony, and personally I don't buy that. The seconds in Bulgarian singing are deliberate vertical sonorities, so I would call that harmony too.
>>>
>>
>
>

I think we in the micro community use a weaker definition of harmony
than in classical theory. For us, any vertical simultaneity is a
harmony if performed systematically. I doesn't matter if it is
dissonant or functional or what.

Heterophony is different because the chords are not voiced as such
(systematically), but rather occur in whatever various combinations
are dictated by the melodic patterns. Notes seldom sound precisely
together and when they do it is a happenstance.

The Bulgarian choral style may be homophonic, but it is still harmony
in this sense. They sing chords in close voicings, that is enough to
make *which* intervals they sing important. Heterophonic textures
are much less affected by a change in intonation (though intonation
is still important).

-Carl

Daniel wrote:

>Yes, but clusters are something different... The reason behind
>singing in parallel second mixtures by Bulgarian is they just wanted
>stronger sound when singing chorus in open air (in mountains). So
>best way is to use such dissonances. So it has nothing to do with
>harmony, chords, functions, resolving etc. It's just homophonic
>mixture. Not every "chordal" music uses harmony, only chords.
>
>Daniel Forro
>

I wouldn't call Hungarians Balcan. Carpathian would be enough good word in musicology.

They can play so because there's some influence of Turkish music. We can find some influence even more north - In Slovakian and Moravian folk music. That's where Mr. Haba started.

Daniel Forro

On 2 Feb 2011, at 11:22 AM, Ozan Yarman wrote:

> Balkan violinists, especially Hungarians, play in a tuning akin to > 22-EDO I think.
>
> Oz.

If we talk about "harmony", context of chords, their relations are
included automatically. Let's leave this term for such case.

To me "deliberated vertical structures" are just "chordal" music.

Daniel Forro

On 2 Feb 2011, at 10:35 AM, cameron wrote:
>
> I think we should say functional harmony, tonal harmony, etc. when
> we mean functions and resolution and so on, but "harmony" by itself
> should mean basically "deliberate vertical structures".

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

Right, I agree.

Somebody should write a beautiful song about the Carpathian Mountains, in the same spirit as Mussorgsky's Night on a Bald Mountain.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Feb 2, 2011, at 5:06 AM, Daniel Forró wrote:

> I wouldn't call Hungarians Balcan. Carpathian would be enough good
> word in musicology.
>
> They can play so because there's some influence of Turkish music. We
> can find some influence even more north - In Slovakian and Moravian
> folk music. That's where Mr. Haba started.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> On 2 Feb 2011, at 11:22 AM, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
>> Balkan violinists, especially Hungarians, play in a tuning akin to
>> 22-EDO I think.
>>
>> Oz.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

That's very good idea, Carpathian mountains played an important role
in music culture - spreading of Wallachian shepherd's living culture
and music (flutes, Lydian scale...) from South to the North. Direct
connection between Turkey, old Byzantion, Greece, Bulgaria to the
north, through Romania, Hungary, Slovakia until the end of mountains
in north Moravia and Silesia.

Which reminds me I did some works inspired by this 34 years ago in fusion style, for example this one with a name Moravia (some of my
friends called it "Turkish-Moravian Friendship"):

http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=4522812

and Snake Charmer:

http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=4523866

and Music for Erno Rubik (1977-82):

http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=4520912

and more...

I'm not sure if it beautiful songs, but I'm sure it's not in the
spirit of Mussorgsky :-) I like his works but there's no reason to
copy him in our times.

To me the best celebration of Carpathian Mountains in music is
"Krzesany" from Polish composer Wojciech Kilar. Great work!

And Joe Zawinul did orchestral "Stories about Danube" (recorded in
Brno with Brno Philharmonic Orchestra). Janáček has also Danube
Symphony.

Daniel Forro

On 2 Feb 2011, at 12:58 PM, Ozan Yarman wrote:

> Right, I agree.
>
> Somebody should write a beautiful song about the Carpathian
> Mountains, in the same spirit as Mussorgsky's Night on a Bald
> Mountain.
>
> Oz.

I can think of half a dozen reasons to imitate Mussorgsky for centuries to come. He and Tchaikovsky are the best Russian composers I know. Borodin's Prince Igor opera also has excellent movements in kindred spirit. So that makes three of them Moscovite firestarters.

The first two of your pieces, I don't like. The third is quite good in comparison (except the chitter-chatter at the end).

Still hoping for a Carpathian symphonic microtonality worthy of Mussorgsky!

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:33 AM, Daniel Forró wrote:

> That's very good idea, Carpathian mountains played an important role
> in music culture - spreading of Wallachian shepherd's living culture
> and music (flutes, Lydian scale...) from South to the North. Direct
> connection between Turkey, old Byzantion, Greece, Bulgaria to the
> north, through Romania, Hungary, Slovakia until the end of mountains
> in north Moravia and Silesia.
>
> Which reminds me I did some works inspired by this 34 years ago in
> fusion style, for example this one with a name Moravia (some of my
> friends called it "Turkish-Moravian Friendship"):
>
> http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=4522812
>
> and Snake Charmer:
>
> http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=4523866
>
> and Music for Erno Rubik (1977-82):
>
> http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=4520912
>
> and more...
>
> I'm not sure if it beautiful songs, but I'm sure it's not in the
> spirit of Mussorgsky :-) I like his works but there's no reason to
> copy him in our times.
>
> To me the best celebration of Carpathian Mountains in music is
> "Krzesany" from Polish composer Wojciech Kilar. Great work!
>
> And Joe Zawinul did orchestral "Stories about Danube" (recorded in
> Brno with Brno Philharmonic Orchestra). Janáček has also Danube
> Symphony.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 2 Feb 2011, at 12:58 PM, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
>> Right, I agree.
>>
>> Somebody should write a beautiful song about the Carpathian
>> Mountains, in the same spirit as Mussorgsky's Night on a Bald
>> Mountain.
>>
>> Oz.
>

Ozan,

believe me, we composers have more interesting tasks, duties, aims and targets than just to imitate historical music. Of course we can
learn from the past, but now we have 2011... And beg you pardon,
Mussorgski was innovator, so he would be the last one who would agree
with your attitude to composition.

I like also Russian composers, my rank would differ from yours, and I
would add:

Skriabin, Rimski-Korsakov, Stravinski, Rachmaninoff, Lourie,
Schnittke, Denisov, Gubaidulina, Kancheli... little bit of
Prokofieff, and two grams of Shostakovitch.

Recently I'm fascinated by Russian futurism and early Soviet
composers, very interesting names like Roslavets, Drozdov, Krein,
Anatoli and Boris Alexandrov, Shcherbatchov, Deshevov, Feinberg,
Shenshin, Zaderatsky, Dzegelionok, Tyulin, Polovinkin, Liatoshinski,
Yevseyev, Shechter, Mosolov, Chemberdgi, Popov... Unbelievable music.
I'm lost in their world, working diligently on study their piano
works which I will soon include in my recitals.

I like also Arvo Pärt, but he is Estonian. He and Schnittke did lot
of interesting as for use of historical material in the contemporary
context. I would recommend this for study, before Mussorgski :-)

Also Gurdjieff had unusual output, I found him few years ago. Keith
Jarrett likes him and recorded a selection of his works.

Daniel Forro

On 2 Feb 2011, at 5:21 PM, Ozan Yarman wrote:

> I can think of half a dozen reasons to imitate Mussorgsky for
> centuries to come. He and Tchaikovsky are the best Russian
> composers I know. Borodin's Prince Igor opera also has excellent
> movements in kindred spirit. So that makes three of them Moscovite
> firestarters.
>
> The first two of your pieces, I don't like. The third is quite good
> in comparison (except the chitter-chatter at the end).
>
> Still hoping for a Carpathian symphonic microtonality worthy of
> Mussorgsky!
>
> Oz.

Lest you forget, Daniel, I too am a composer who is familiar with no less names from various parts of the world, including, naturally, those of Middle East.

And lest you forget again my colleague, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery in music. So many composers have drawn inspiration from their predecessors in music-making that it is superfluous to name them here.

Anyway, I elevate Mussorgsky and Tchaikosky above all other Russians by personal taste and discernment alone. Having a Balkan ancestry with a touch of Turko-Mongol Hunnishness, it is quite understandable that I would wish a truly impressionist neo-romantic air reminiscent of Mussorgsky, Borodin, Tchaikosky, as well as Rimsky-Korsakov (Scheherazade is a monumental favourite of mine still), Skriabin too, aside from Azeri composers such as Uzeyir Hajibeyov and Soltan Hajibeyli when thinking of a worthy music for Carpathian mountains.

Cordially,
Dr. Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Feb 2, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Daniel Forró wrote:

> Ozan,
>
> believe me, we composers have more interesting tasks, duties, aims
> and targets than just to imitate historical music. Of course we can
> learn from the past, but now we have 2011... And beg you pardon,
> Mussorgski was innovator, so he would be the last one who would agree
> with your attitude to composition.
>
> I like also Russian composers, my rank would differ from yours, and I
> would add:
>
> Skriabin, Rimski-Korsakov, Stravinski, Rachmaninoff, Lourie,
> Schnittke, Denisov, Gubaidulina, Kancheli... little bit of
> Prokofieff, and two grams of Shostakovitch.
>
> Recently I'm fascinated by Russian futurism and early Soviet
> composers, very interesting names like Roslavets, Drozdov, Krein,
> Anatoli and Boris Alexandrov, Shcherbatchov, Deshevov, Feinberg,
> Shenshin, Zaderatsky, Dzegelionok, Tyulin, Polovinkin, Liatoshinski,
> Yevseyev, Shechter, Mosolov, Chemberdgi, Popov... Unbelievable music.
> I'm lost in their world, working diligently on study their piano
> works which I will soon include in my recitals.
>
> I like also Arvo Pärt, but he is Estonian. He and Schnittke did lot
> of interesting as for use of historical material in the contemporary
> context. I would recommend this for study, before Mussorgski :-)
>
> Also Gurdjieff had unusual output, I found him few years ago. Keith
> Jarrett likes him and recorded a selection of his works.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 2 Feb 2011, at 5:21 PM, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
>> I can think of half a dozen reasons to imitate Mussorgsky for
>> centuries to come. He and Tchaikovsky are the best Russian
>> composers I know. Borodin's Prince Igor opera also has excellent
>> movements in kindred spirit. So that makes three of them Moscovite
>> firestarters.
>>
>> The first two of your pieces, I don't like. The third is quite good
>> in comparison (except the chitter-chatter at the end).
>>
>> Still hoping for a Carpathian symphonic microtonality worthy of
>> Mussorgsky!
>>
>> Oz.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Szymanowski wrote some fine late Mazurkas inspired by the Tatra mountain music; IIRC the Tatras are part of the Carpathian range.

There's also a piece by Fokker I think called "Septimes im Tatra-bergs" or some such thing, employing harmonic 7ths in 31-edo.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@...m, Daniel Forr� <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> That's very good idea, Carpathian mountains played an important role
> in music culture - spreading of Wallachian shepherd's living culture
> and music (flutes, Lydian scale...) from South to the North. Direct
> connection between Turkey, old Byzantion, Greece, Bulgaria to the
> north, through Romania, Hungary, Slovakia until the end of mountains
> in north Moravia and Silesia.
>
> Which reminds me I did some works inspired by this 34 years ago in
> fusion style, for example this one with a name Moravia (some of my
> friends called it "Turkish-Moravian Friendship"):
>
> http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=4522812
>
> and Snake Charmer:
>
> http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=4523866
>
> and Music for Erno Rubik (1977-82):
>
> http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=4520912
>
> and more...
>
> I'm not sure if it beautiful songs, but I'm sure it's not in the
> spirit of Mussorgsky :-) I like his works but there's no reason to
> copy him in our times.
>
> To me the best celebration of Carpathian Mountains in music is
> "Krzesany" from Polish composer Wojciech Kilar. Great work!
>
> And Joe Zawinul did orchestral "Stories about Danube" (recorded in
> Brno with Brno Philharmonic Orchestra). Janáček has also Danube
> Symphony.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 2 Feb 2011, at 12:58 PM, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
> > Right, I agree.
> >
> > Somebody should write a beautiful song about the Carpathian
> > Mountains, in the same spirit as Mussorgsky's Night on a Bald
> > Mountain.
> >
> > Oz.
>

The likes of Roslevets are researched and recorded by Marc-Andre Hamelin, the titan of piano virtuosi.

Arvo Pärt is a fave of mine. He writes quite beautifully and simply, always with a profound emotional core.

Not Russian, but Finnish, and worthy of mention, is Rautavaara. 'Vigilia' is one of the most beautiful compositions I've had the pleasure of re-discovering this past year...

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forr� <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> Ozan,
>
> believe me, we composers have more interesting tasks, duties, aims
> and targets than just to imitate historical music. Of course we can
> learn from the past, but now we have 2011... And beg you pardon,
> Mussorgski was innovator, so he would be the last one who would agree
> with your attitude to composition.
>
> I like also Russian composers, my rank would differ from yours, and I
> would add:
>
> Skriabin, Rimski-Korsakov, Stravinski, Rachmaninoff, Lourie,
> Schnittke, Denisov, Gubaidulina, Kancheli... little bit of
> Prokofieff, and two grams of Shostakovitch.
>
> Recently I'm fascinated by Russian futurism and early Soviet
> composers, very interesting names like Roslavets, Drozdov, Krein,
> Anatoli and Boris Alexandrov, Shcherbatchov, Deshevov, Feinberg,
> Shenshin, Zaderatsky, Dzegelionok, Tyulin, Polovinkin, Liatoshinski,
> Yevseyev, Shechter, Mosolov, Chemberdgi, Popov... Unbelievable music.
> I'm lost in their world, working diligently on study their piano
> works which I will soon include in my recitals.
>
> I like also Arvo P�rt, but he is Estonian. He and Schnittke did lot
> of interesting as for use of historical material in the contemporary
> context. I would recommend this for study, before Mussorgski :-)
>
> Also Gurdjieff had unusual output, I found him few years ago. Keith
> Jarrett likes him and recorded a selection of his works.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 2 Feb 2011, at 5:21 PM, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
> > I can think of half a dozen reasons to imitate Mussorgsky for
> > centuries to come. He and Tchaikovsky are the best Russian
> > composers I know. Borodin's Prince Igor opera also has excellent
> > movements in kindred spirit. So that makes three of them Moscovite
> > firestarters.
> >
> > The first two of your pieces, I don't like. The third is quite good
> > in comparison (except the chitter-chatter at the end).
> >
> > Still hoping for a Carpathian symphonic microtonality worthy of
> > Mussorgsky!
> >
> > Oz.
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:

> I like also Russian composers, my rank would differ from yours, and I
> would add:
>
> Skriabin, Rimski-Korsakov, Stravinski, Rachmaninoff, Lourie,
> Schnittke, Denisov, Gubaidulina, Kancheli... little bit of
> Prokofieff, and two grams of Shostakovitch.

Tchaikovsky, of course; Mussorgsky, Kallinikov, Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky, Prokoviev, Shostakovich; on their good days numerous others such as Borodin, Glazunov, Tcherepnin, Sokolov, Scriabin, Medtner, Rimsky-Korsakov.

Aaron wrote:

>Szymanowski wrote some fine late Mazurkas inspired by the Tatra
>mountain music; IIRC the Tatras are part of the Carpathian range.

Interesting. Thanks!

-Carl

> Szymanowski wrote some fine late Mazurkas

Ah, yes, the Szymanowski mazurkas have been a big influence on some of my music as well over a long period of time... (Not micro, but I just thought I'd throw that in.) :-)

Rick

Let's not forget Kabalevsky. Also, I insist Prokofiev be
listed first :) -C.

At 09:39 AM 2/2/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
>> I like also Russian composers, my rank would differ from yours, and I
>> would add:
>>
>> Skriabin, Rimski-Korsakov, Stravinski, Rachmaninoff, Lourie,
>> Schnittke, Denisov, Gubaidulina, Kancheli... little bit of
>> Prokofieff, and two grams of Shostakovitch.
>
>Tchaikovsky, of course; Mussorgsky, Kallinikov, Rachmaninoff,
>Stravinsky, Prokoviev, Shostakovich; on their good days numerous
>others such as Borodin, Glazunov, Tcherepnin, Sokolov, Scriabin,
>Medtner, Rimsky-Korsakov.

The problem is that "harmony" has, for thousands of years, had connotations of something desirable, "healthy", and even "in accordance with divine will".

So: what are we implying if we more or less equate "harmony" in music with "harmony, as defined in the music of Europe of her most imperialistic era"?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> If we talk about "harmony", context of chords, their relations are
> included automatically. Let's leave this term for such case.
>
> To me "deliberated vertical structures" are just "chordal" music.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 2 Feb 2011, at 10:35 AM, cameron wrote:
> >
> > I think we should say functional harmony, tonal harmony, etc. when
> > we mean functions and resolution and so on, but "harmony" by itself
> > should mean basically "deliberate vertical structures".
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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

Michael:
>     Funny, to me the winners virtually ALL sounded like ambient soundscapes (with great focus on timbre and a sense of abstract "wabbly-ness") to me, rather than actual songs that progress from one

Me:
I tend to focus very little on timbre, and that ain't so good either. Maybe my stuff would actually sound better with sine waves.

Michael:
>emotion to another (that would focus more on, say, chord and tonal color of the scales over the timbre and, ultimately, direct emotion).  The other sad thing is "they are all just random, dissonant textural soundscapes" is the thing I hear a lot of people negatively stereotyping microtonal music as and, sadly, I think re-enforcing that train of thought may actually cause less interest in microtonality among everyday musicians and listeners.

Me:
Probably so, but what good does complaining do? If there is more good, engaging microtonal music, it will eventually attract more attention, and the only way for that to happen is for us to make it.

I had the good luck to be in college in Philadelphia at a time when Toby Twining was in Philly, and later NYC, and I managed to set up an independent study wherein I'd meet with him a bunch of times through the semester, install my (now obsolete) JI sequencer on his computer and show him how to use it, and he'd teach me. The deal wasn't very specific as to what he'd teach me, and he turned out to be somewhat reluctant to get into any kind of tonal theory or anything like it. He had a lot to say about Greek philosophy and other unrelated subjects that could be very compelling to people without deadlines. He did coach me a little on overtone singing, which was awesome. But he suggested several times I just study composition and not worry about tuning. Good point; most of the compositions, and thus most of the great compositions, that have been created in the last 400 years, well, we all know the end of that sentence. They weren't particularly microtonal. But it was frustrating for me, with a relatively cerebral approach, to accept why he couldn't explain any of the awesome things he had done in Chrysalid Requiem. It seemed like he had something against me, or wanted to keep his secrets. But maybe, in fact, he did everything intuitively and couldn't rightly explain it. I'm not sure. Hi Toby :D

But I've always wondered... Partch lays out a lot of ideas in Genesis of a Music, but traditional theory, maybe because it's more restrictive, somehow seems to have more unified ideas. I still don't know what the JI equivalent of a ii7-V7-IM7 would be. A few years ago I picked up on the idea of common-tone chord changes from a Scala example created by Gene- inverting the harmonic series and keeping any two notes, switching their identities- and I've used that technique in everything I've written since then. Anyway, this thing I've always wondered is what more there is to extended JI theory than simply knowing the notes and modulations and how they sound. It seems like no one's really sure how it should be used. NB I don't know the first thing about other tuning systems than JI, maybe they're at different stages.

Michael:
>    But, sadly, I can't say I'd recommend any of the top 10 pieces to any friends or first time listeners...no matter how imaginative they may be, they just don't come across as emotional or controlled the way "normal" music does. 

AND JUST WHAT IS "NORMAL" MUSIC SUPPOSED TO MEAN???
-just kidding! We all know exactly what you mean, but some will deny it instead of addressing your point.

-Chuckk

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:11 AM, touchedchuckk
<BadMuthaHubbard@...> wrote:
>
> AND JUST WHAT IS "NORMAL" MUSIC SUPPOSED TO MEAN???
> -just kidding! We all know exactly what you mean, but some will deny it instead of addressing your point.

LOL! Yeah. I did like the pieces that I've heard so far quite a bit,
but a lot of them are geared towards a more complex mindset. I also
wouldn't recommend Stravinsky to first time western music listeners
from an uncontacted indigenous tribe.

-Mike

"touchedchuckk" <BadMuthaHubbard@...> wrote:

> I tend to focus very little on timbre, and that ain't so
> good either. Maybe my stuff would actually sound better
> with sine waves.

You need to focus on timbre if you use sine waves because
you're building the timbres yourself.

> But I've always wondered... Partch lays out a lot of
> ideas in Genesis of a Music, but traditional theory,
> maybe because it's more restrictive, somehow seems to
> have more unified ideas. I still don't know what the JI
> equivalent of a ii7-V7-IM7 would be. A few years ago I
> picked up on the idea of common-tone chord changes from a
> Scala example created by Gene- inverting the harmonic
> series and keeping any two notes, switching their
> identities- and I've used that technique in everything
> I've written since then. Anyway, this thing I've always
> wondered is what more there is to extended JI theory than
> simply knowing the notes and modulations and how they
> sound. It seems like no one's really sure how it should
> be used. NB I don't know the first thing about other
> tuning systems than JI, maybe they're at different stages.

From what I understand, it took hundreds of years for even
the I-IV-V-I spine to establish itself. I have a book of
songs with only four chords. And the four chosen ones are:
G, C, D, Em. They work fine in 5-limit just intonation.

The basic law of harmony I got from Margo is to resolve by
contrary stepwise motion. A good 7-limit trick is 5:6:7
moving to 4:5:6 with the middle note held constant. You
can also reveal the otonal root by resolving a 6:7:9 onto
its 4:5:6, which means a downward fifth in the functional
root motion. The other direction is weaker, but helps the
listener appreciate the logic of the 6:7:9.

In magic temperament, the comma pump sounds good to me. I
used it in my 60x60 contribution (<60 seconds, subset of
60-equal) and the chorus of "Golden Age". I've also looked
at 11-limit harmony in Magic, including the pun where the
tritone of a dominant seventh chord becomes an 11:8, which
entails tempering out 100:99. It was sounding pretty
good, but I didn't finish anything to demonstrate it.

Graham