polyphony, monophony, 'soundscapey'....

My two cents on the conversation(s) that happened earlier--

Carl had a good list on the types of monophonic thru contrapuntal conceptions, but I would disagree except by the very broadest definition that Gene's piece was contrapuntal in the Bach sense. It was more like Medieval discant style where the voices move in lock step rhythmically. braodly speaking, it's polyphony, but not in the way one usually talks about polyphony, or more specifically, counterpoint. For me, contrapuntal music has on the most abstract level, near complete rhythmic independance for each voice.

I want to also point out that there seems to be an underlying assumption that counterpoint="reminds me of Bach"="good music". A typical mediocre student fugue, in my book, doesn't overshadow "a priori" a masterfully done ambient piece. Or, for that matter, a masterfully done monophonic piece.

(BTW, strictly speaking, when Bach writes a 'monophonic' piece like a violin partita movement, he's really unfolding multiple levels of counterpoint. So I disagree with Daniel Forro's assessment that certain Preludes and Toccatas of Bach aren't contrapuntal. There is *always* counterpoint/voice leading in Bach; it's just not always obvious on a surface level, and if you've ever studied voice leading analysis ala Heinrich Schenker, you'll know what I mean.)

Back to ambient, and "soundscapey"--if good ambient music were easy, we'd see a lot more of it. Sure, you could argue that there is more a focus on sensual timbres, etc., but I think the very best of this kind of things is as rare as the best of anything else.

Anyway, what is "soundscapey"---is there a general agreement about what it means? Someone mentioned Monroe Golden's piece was soundscapey, and that seems to me far-fetched, at least by my understanding of what that term means, but maybe I have the "wrong" definition. To me, Golden's piece is more like textural polyphony ala Ligeti, but a bit thinner than Ligeti tends to be. I would say that Golden's piece is somewhere between homophonic and polyphonic in conception. Melody is obviously not the large concern, but certainly there is rhythmic motion on many levels, and harmony via a chord progression.

When I think "soundscape" I think mostly of musique concrete, etc, and nothing to me from this competition fits that label. And I think "ambient" refers to a kind of mostly beatless slow-moving drone type music, often devoid of melody as well. I thinkg Dave Seidel's work is most often ambient. Lots of Kraig Grady's work I think could fit this description as well, like I mentioned---the 'Stolen Stars' disc.

In the competition, I would say James Wyness and Soressa Garnder's pieces have a definite "ambient" nature, in that they "take their time", and timbral elements come to the fore. Gardner's piece has an additional motivic/melodic element, too, which makes it harder to pin a label on.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> My two cents on the conversation(s) that happened earlier--
>
> Carl had a good list on the types of monophonic thru contrapuntal conceptions, but I would disagree except by the very broadest definition that Gene's piece was contrapuntal in the Bach sense. It was more like Medieval discant style where the voices move in lock step rhythmically. braodly speaking, it's polyphony, but not in the way one usually talks about polyphony, or more specifically, counterpoint. For me, contrapuntal music has on the most abstract level, near complete rhythmic independance for each voice.

To me, late Medieval music--ars nova, ars subtilior--is polyphonic. I was unaware of any definition which said it wasn't, and I just checked Wikipedia and find it uses the word freely about late Medieval music, so I am not alone. The same is actually true for the earlier Medieval discant, but I don't think my piece was nearly as much like discant as like 14th century music.

> Anyway, what is "soundscapey"---is there a general agreement about what it means?

Apparently not.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> To me, late Medieval music--ars nova, ars subtilior--is polyphonic. I was unaware of any definition which said it wasn't, and I just checked Wikipedia and find it uses the word freely about late Medieval music, so I am not alone. The same is actually true for the earlier Medieval discant, but I don't think my piece was nearly as much like discant as like 14th century music.
>

I've listen to your piece a few times by now. It still doesn't sound like there's much in the way of rhythmic independence of the voices at all even remotely resembling the kind of complex poly-metrical or poly-rhythmic layering one sees in Ars Subtilior music. To me, it still was more loosely like discant, b/c the voices move in lock-step.
To restate, it's polyphonic in an entry-level definition sense, but not "highly contrapuntal" a la Bach or Ockeghem.

I'd be curious to see what you would do in a "neo-subtilior" style, though. I imagine the work involved would be a whole order of magnitude greater, given that the algorithms for doing such things would be that much harder to code (assuming it's an algorithmic process, which you often say your work is).

> > Anyway, what is "soundscapey"---is there a general agreement about what it means?
>
> Apparently not.
>

What to do? :)

Soundscapey? What I meant is either

A) With no obvious chords (don't matter if the chords are just or not). BTW, if
the chords are so drowned out by effects or timbre or dissonance you can't tell
what they are...that also counts as "no chords"
B) With no obvious motifs or leads in melody (IE nothing hummable or easily
track-able)
C) With almost no obvious verses...usually one part and/or two parts but with a
vast majority of the song being only one part
...and usually...
D) Based more on texture than anything else IE fairly "Ambient"
E) Avant Garde...and the side fact the groups that make it very rarely get
enough popularity to perform live (either playing themselves or getting played
by a DJ), even at very small venues. If they pop up at all...it's usually in
things like B movies, and people who buy soundtracks for those are few and far
inbetween.

The most obvious black and white example would be an acoustic pop/folk song
vs. something from Brian Eno would make. Ambient and "sound-scapey" often go
hand in hand. Avant Garde music is most often sound-scapey, and soundtracks are
sometimes sound scapey. But virtually nothing on the radio, at least in
America, has ever been "sound scapey"...and during the 5 years I lived in
Holland I never heard anything over there truly "Soundscapey".

I guess you could say my point is...making music that's so abstract,
regardless of how wide a so-called "vision" it shows...is VERY VERY unlikely to
ever gain much public momentum. I never have heard anything like Monroe,
Soressa, Joseph Post, or even Igliashon's piece (far as style) get any sort of
mass publicity. The closest thing I've seen get fairly far is Brian Eno's work
or some of the most abstract lounge music...but even stuff like Brian's work has
much more obvious melodic and structural elements/verse than most of the work
I've seen in the Untwelve competition IE it's not as "soundscapey".

Don't get me wrong, a lot of the Untwelve work is very "academically
advanced" and I can see clearly the amount of skill involved.
But my point is, that alone matters little. Having "academically advanced" as
a goal often causes people to completely miss the universal goal in music of not
skill or "futurism", but fresh forms of emotional connection: it's like the guy
at a beach party wearing a really impressively done Eskimo suit he knitted
himself.

As I read Igs's interview quote, he seems to echo this

Igs in his Untwelve Interview>"too much of the scant music that exists is of an
academically-expository nature, lacking in artistic depth (and I include the
vast majority of my own microtonal music under this criticism). "

To be blatantly honest, part of me doesn't give a hoot about how
"academically advanced" or "daring" any of us do if, out of the hundreds of us
who compose...we can't even get a handful of us to write music I can manage to
convince people of as "well written 'normal' music". I can admire it far as
knowledge, but not so far as emotional connectivity. There's nothing I could
even hand a DJ and have him give me a straight face about playing it....heck I
doubt someone would even dare to play it as supermarket background music (even
that junk, primitive as it is, seems to have more identifiable structure, and
even identifiable emotion, then most of this). And that, I think...is truly
embarrassing.

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@...> wrote:

> I'd be curious to see what you would do in a "neo-subtilior" style, though. I imagine the work involved would be a whole order of magnitude greater, given that the algorithms for doing such things would be that much harder to code (assuming it's an algorithmic process, which you often say your work is).

I do? I say I use computers. I don't say they write the music.

Aaron wrote:

>I want to also point out that there seems to be an underlying
>assumption that counterpoint="reminds me of Bach"="good music". A
>typical mediocre student fugue, in my book, doesn't overshadow "a
>priori" a masterfully done ambient piece. Or, for that matter, a
>masterfully done monophonic piece.

Just to say it for the record: machines capable of measuring
the value judgement involved in such classification haven't been
invented yet. :)

>Back to ambient, and "soundscapey"--if good ambient music were easy,
>we'd see a lot more of it. Sure, you could argue that there is more a
>focus on sensual timbres, etc., but I think the very best of this kind
>of things is as rare as the best of anything else.

I don't think ambient music is easy. However I do think it's easier
to use microtonally. Since microtonality is mainly an edifice of
pitch, classes like ambient and heterophonic, where pitch plays a
less dominant role, will naturally be more forgiving to early
microtonal composers. And it does seem to have had more adoption
in these circles -- Terry Riley, LaMonte Young, Robert Rich,
Marcus Satellite, etc. So I think it's quite natural and good that
microtonal methods can get a foothold there.

>Anyway, what is "soundscapey"---is there a general agreement about
>what it means?

No, I only assumed it meant ambient.

>Someone mentioned Monroe Golden's piece was
>soundscapey, and that seems to me far-fetched, at least by my
>understanding of what that term means, but maybe I have the "wrong"
>definition. To me, Golden's piece is more like textural polyphony ala
>Ligeti, but a bit thinner than Ligeti tends to be. I would say that
>Golden's piece is somewhere between homophonic and polyphonic in
>conception. Melody is obviously not the large concern, but certainly
>there is rhythmic motion on many levels, and harmony via a chord
>progression.

I called it heterophonic before but you're right, there is a chord
progression. It's almost like a passacaglia. My problem with it
is that its structure -- including the passacaglia -- seems to be
lifted straight from Glass. I'm a huge fan of Glass but there's
only room to do that once.

>I thinkg Dave Seidel's work is most often ambient.

Yes, archetypal case (and one of my favorite ambient artists at that).

>In the competition, I would say James Wyness and Soressa Garnder's
>pieces have a definite "ambient" nature, in that they "take their
>time", and timbral elements come to the fore. Gardner's piece has an
>additional motivic/melodic element, too, which makes it harder to pin
>a label on.

Of the 11 on my list, I gave the following breakdown

ambient (1) Wyness
heterophonic (2) Post, Golden
homophonic (0)
polyphonic (6) Hubbard, Hamill, Craig, Jones, J. Smith, Mohajeri
contrapuntal (2) Evans, G. Smith

Evans' work was a mixture but contained at least one contrapuntal
section. I can see calling Gene's piece homophonic. Though the
voices usually move together, none of them is primary.

-Carl

Gene wrote:

>To me, late Medieval music--ars nova, ars subtilior--is polyphonic. I
>was unaware of any definition which said it wasn't, and I just checked
>Wikipedia and find it uses the word freely about late Medieval music,
>so I am not alone. The same is actually true for the earlier Medieval
>discant, but I don't think my piece was nearly as much like discant as
>like 14th century music.

The problem is "polyphonic" is sometimes used generally, and sometimes
almost as a synonym for contrapuntal. In my scheme I gave it a narrower
definition.

Whatever word characterizes the Ars subtilior, it should also apply
to much of your writing.

-Carl

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

> I can see calling Gene's piece homophonic. Though the
> voices usually move together, none of them is primary.

So far no one has taken up my proposal that they look at MegaMID while it plays a midi file of pianodactyl. You can see that the two lower voices tend to move together a lot, though hardly in lock step, but in general the voices *move* in an independent way in one sense: contrary motion, crossing voices (to the extent that matters with a piano) etc. What they do which I think people are taking, incorrectly, to be homophony is a semi-homorythmic texture, but not in the manner of a chorale; the voices are much more independent than that. It's not my idea of homophony, at any rate. It's not chordal.

Gene wrote:
>So far no one has taken up my proposal that they look at MegaMID while
>it plays a midi file of pianodactyl. You can see that the two lower
>voices tend to move together a lot, though hardly in lock step, but in
>general the voices *move* in an independent way in one sense: contrary
>motion, crossing voices (to the extent that matters with a piano) etc.
>What they do which I think people are taking, incorrectly, to be
>homophony is a semi-homorythmic texture, but not in the manner of a
>chorale; the voices are much more independent than that. It's not my
>idea of homophony, at any rate. It's not chordal.

I don't need to look at that because I can hear it. But krikey, I
notice you put the files in the root folder instead of in /Gene.

Typical SATB writing employs some part independence, part crossing,
etc. It's still considered homophonic. However, the S usually
has the melody. -Carl

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:04 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > I can see calling Gene's piece homophonic. Though the
> > voices usually move together, none of them is primary.
>
> So far no one has taken up my proposal that they look at MegaMID while it plays a midi file of pianodactyl. You can see that the two lower voices tend to move together a lot, though hardly in lock step, but in general the voices *move* in an independent way in one sense: contrary motion, crossing voices (to the extent that matters with a piano) etc. What they do which I think people are taking, incorrectly, to be homophony is a semi-homorythmic texture, but not in the manner of a chorale; the voices are much more independent than that. It's not my idea of homophony, at any rate. It's not chordal.

It's somewhere between homophony and polyphony, I think. I definitely
hear the contrary motion happening a lot.

I also said the last time I heard this that it was like fractally and
chaotic, and now it sounds perfectly tonal, in the key of something
around 12-equal G. I think I'm losing my mind. I also heard a quote
from Yes' "Gates of Delirium" in there, which I'm certain is due to
psychoacoustic factors and not cognitive ones.

-Mike

I looked at the score of the midi file. What was the tuning range used in
your pitch bends? The standard +/- 2 half steps?

I was going to ask if you'd mind if I posted the score for people to see.

chris

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:04 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > I can see calling Gene's piece homophonic. Though the
> > voices usually move together, none of them is primary.
>
> So far no one has taken up my proposal that they look at MegaMID while it
> plays a midi file of pianodactyl. You can see that the two lower voices tend
> to move together a lot, though hardly in lock step, but in general the
> voices *move* in an independent way in one sense: contrary motion, crossing
> voices (to the extent that matters with a piano) etc. What they do which I
> think people are taking, incorrectly, to be homophony is a semi-homorythmic
> texture, but not in the manner of a chorale; the voices are much more
> independent than that. It's not my idea of homophony, at any rate. It's not
> chordal.
>
>
>

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

Aaron>Anyway, what is "soundscapey"---is there a general agreement about what
it means?
Carl>"No, I only assumed it meant ambient."

Wow, so Carl, you think my piece, with its bassline and consistant 1-2
high-attack melodic leads, is still ambient...how so? The other thing is...in
the part where one and not two voices (different instruments) lead over a
bassline and string backup (all on separate rhythms)...how are those parts not
polyphonic?

>" To me, Golden's piece is more like textural polyphony ala Ligeti, but a bit
>thinner than Ligeti tends to be. "

The focus on textural and not clearly distinguishable notes within the voices
that form the chords, IMVHO, is what makes it ambient. Textured chords, to me,
come across a whole lot more like timbres than individual notes.

Tons of ambient music, mind you, has chords...but when they come, they comes
in forms that are so "blended" and "textural"...they can almost be confused with
timbres. A good litmus test for that sort of thing is to give it to an
experienced musician and have them figure out the underlying chords by ear....if
they struggle, it's likely "sound-scapey".

>"I don't think ambient music is easy. However I do think it's easier to use
>microtonally."

I agree with what Cameron said on this...that using microtonallity as "texture
only" is essentially a cop-out to keep the composer from facing the challenge of
making microtonality work in non-timbre-like context. People are ALREADY USED
to hearing fairly inharmonic timbres: bells, FM synths, etc. ...and making
microtonal music ambient is like saying "we know you won't accept microtonality
in clearly structured context, so we're giving it to you in an abstract timbral
one". People back on Trax In Space often told me "microtonal scales are ONLY
useful for texture...they have no place in harmony or chords, being way too
discordant for either". I swear...we need to challenge such pre-conceptions to
get anywhere...not re-enforce them...

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@> wrote:
>
> > I'd be curious to see what you would do in a "neo-subtilior" style, though. I imagine the work involved would be a whole order of magnitude greater, given that the algorithms for doing such things would be that much harder to code (assuming it's an algorithmic process, which you often say your work is).
>
> I do? I say I use computers. I don't say they write the music.
>

I'd be interested in your fleshing out more of what your process is in a more precise way, if you'd care to share.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Gene wrote:
>
> >To me, late Medieval music--ars nova, ars subtilior--is polyphonic. I
> >was unaware of any definition which said it wasn't, and I just checked
> >Wikipedia and find it uses the word freely about late Medieval music,
> >so I am not alone. The same is actually true for the earlier Medieval
> >discant, but I don't think my piece was nearly as much like discant as
> >like 14th century music.
>
> The problem is "polyphonic" is sometimes used generally, and sometimes
> almost as a synonym for contrapuntal. In my scheme I gave it a narrower
> definition.
>
> Whatever word characterizes the Ars subtilior, it should also apply
> to much of your writing.

You can't be serious, at least in the case of "pianodactyl"...comparing "pianodactyl" to say, something by Solage would be a huge stretch.

AKJ

I agree with Carl here...you can have say a passing tone figure of two eights in a largely quarter-note lock step texture, and it's still considered chorale-like.

Let's be clear though--typically "homophonic" implies something like a Chopin waltz--a melody and accompaniment (ignoring the fact that Chopin will often spinkle in moments of contrapuntal interest of a Bach-like nature)

"Polyphony" both imples something broad (more than one voice) and narrow (non-homophonic textures where there are markedly rhythmically independent strands), where I think it's better to be clear and use the word "contrapuntal".

We could also use the ideas of species counterpoint, too.

I would say Gene's piece is largely one that gives the impression (overall) of being in the "1st species".

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@...m, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Gene wrote:
> >So far no one has taken up my proposal that they look at MegaMID while
> >it plays a midi file of pianodactyl. You can see that the two lower
> >voices tend to move together a lot, though hardly in lock step, but in
> >general the voices *move* in an independent way in one sense: contrary
> >motion, crossing voices (to the extent that matters with a piano) etc.
> >What they do which I think people are taking, incorrectly, to be
> >homophony is a semi-homorythmic texture, but not in the manner of a
> >chorale; the voices are much more independent than that. It's not my
> >idea of homophony, at any rate. It's not chordal.
>
> I don't need to look at that because I can hear it. But krikey, I
> notice you put the files in the root folder instead of in /Gene.
>
> Typical SATB writing employs some part independence, part crossing,
> etc. It's still considered homophonic. However, the S usually
> has the melody. -Carl
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> I also heard a quote
> from Yes' "Gates of Delirium" in there, which I'm certain is due to
> psychoacoustic factors and not cognitive ones.

Or maybe "psychedelic" factors? ;)

AKJ

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

> heterophonic (2) Post, Golden

I think you have a mistaken definition of heterophony. Heterophony is rare, esp. in the Western musical tradition. Typically, it is the simultaneous playing/singing of a line where each voice has subtle variations, sometime in timing and sometimes in pitch. A good example is hearing several Celtic fiddlers play the same tune simultaneously. Often, they learned the same tune by rote, but they play different versions, and have different ornamentation, etc. So, there are 'smear spots' that cause subtle points of surface interest here and there.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> A good litmus test for that sort of thing is to give it to an
> experienced musician and have them figure out the underlying chords by ear....if
> they struggle, it's likely "sound-scapey".

This would mean that Messiaen's "Turangalila Symphony" is sound-scapey, or any number of tone poems of R. Strauss, or many developmental moments in the many symphonies by Mahler...and I don't think this is what you mean.

I think you really mean to conflate two things: micro-polyphony (e.g. Ligeti, Pendrecki, Lutoslwaski) and ambient (Briano Eno, Aphex Twin, Robert Rich). They are very different phenomena, and should be distinguished as such, in my book.

Re: "making things popular"---this is not so much the goal of such a contest, but not a bad result if it happens. THe other thing is "popular to whom?" If we want popular to 18-year old girls in shopping malls, we'd get microtonal boy bands as had been mentioned. Right now, if microtonality were even as popular and oft-performed as Messiaen, that would be a step in the right direction. The target audience (since you're making me think about this) I suppose would be people who are already interested in Art Music tradtitions who need a widening of scope.

That said, I see no problem with microtonal boy bands, as long as they add a level of thought absent from them as per typical. Maybe the addition of microtones would mean they start at a higher level of thought from the get-go, who knows?

Baby steps!

AKJ

Aaron wrote:
>> heterophonic (2) Post, Golden
>
>I think you have a mistaken definition of heterophony.

I invented a definition for it.

>Typically, it is the
>simultaneous playing/singing of a line where each voice has subtle
>variations, sometime in timing and sometimes in pitch. A good example
>is hearing several Celtic fiddlers play the same tune simultaneously.
>Often, they learned the same tune by rote, but they play different
>versions, and have different ornamentation, etc. So, there are 'smear
>spots' that cause subtle points of surface interest here and there.

...but this isn't even the correct normal definition.
From wikipedia:

"Thai music is nonharmonic, melodic, or linear, and as is the case with
all musics of this genre, its fundamental organization is horizontal...
Thai music in its horizontal complex is made up of a main melody played
simultaneously with variants of it which progress in relatively slower
and faster rhythmic units... Individual lines of melody and variants
sound in unison or octaves only at specific structural points, and the
simultaneity of different pitches does not follow the Western system of
organized chord progressions. Between the structural points where the
pitches coincide (unison or octaves) each individual line follows the
style idiomatic for the instrument playing it. The vertical complex at
any given intermediary point follows no set progression; the linear
adherence to style regulates. Thus several pitches that often create a
highly complex simultaneous structure may occur at any point between the
structural pitches. The music 'breathes' by contracting to one pitch,
then expanding to a wide variety of pitches, then contracting again to
another structural pitch, and so on throughout. Though these complexes
of pitches between structural points may strike the Western listener as
arbitrary and inconsequential, the individual lines are highly
consequential and logical linearly. The pattern of pitches occurring at
these structural points is the basis of the modal aspect of Thai music.
(Morton 1978, p.21)"

-Carl

Carl,

If you read carefully what I already wrote, you'll see that that's exactly the definition I gave, although not verbatim, obviously. The key thought being "made up of a main melody played simultaneously with variants of it", which is what my Irish fiddler example was pointing at.

In essence, heterophony can be thought of as "varient monophony", or as a sub-class of monophony.

In any event, Joseph Post and Monroe Golden's pieces don't fit the definition.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron wrote:
> >> heterophonic (2) Post, Golden
> >
> >I think you have a mistaken definition of heterophony.
>
> I invented a definition for it.
>
> >Typically, it is the
> >simultaneous playing/singing of a line where each voice has subtle
> >variations, sometime in timing and sometimes in pitch. A good example
> >is hearing several Celtic fiddlers play the same tune simultaneously.
> >Often, they learned the same tune by rote, but they play different
> >versions, and have different ornamentation, etc. So, there are 'smear
> >spots' that cause subtle points of surface interest here and there.
>
> ...but this isn't even the correct normal definition.
> From wikipedia:
>
> "Thai music is nonharmonic, melodic, or linear, and as is the case with
> all musics of this genre, its fundamental organization is horizontal...
> Thai music in its horizontal complex is made up of a main melody played
> simultaneously with variants of it which progress in relatively slower
> and faster rhythmic units... Individual lines of melody and variants
> sound in unison or octaves only at specific structural points, and the
> simultaneity of different pitches does not follow the Western system of
> organized chord progressions. Between the structural points where the
> pitches coincide (unison or octaves) each individual line follows the
> style idiomatic for the instrument playing it. The vertical complex at
> any given intermediary point follows no set progression; the linear
> adherence to style regulates. Thus several pitches that often create a
> highly complex simultaneous structure may occur at any point between the
> structural pitches. The music 'breathes' by contracting to one pitch,
> then expanding to a wide variety of pitches, then contracting again to
> another structural pitch, and so on throughout. Though these complexes
> of pitches between structural points may strike the Western listener as
> arbitrary and inconsequential, the individual lines are highly
> consequential and logical linearly. The pattern of pitches occurring at
> these structural points is the basis of the modal aspect of Thai music.
> (Morton 1978, p.21)"
>
> -Carl
>

Aaron wrote:
>If you read carefully what I already wrote, you'll see that that's
>exactly the definition I gave, although not verbatim, obviously. The
>key thought being "made up of a main melody played simultaneously with
>variants of it", which is what my Irish fiddler example was pointing at.

Two 'Celtic fiddlers using different ornaments but otherwise playing
the same melody' doesn't sound the same at all, especially if you
complete the sentence you're quoting: "...variants of it which progress
in relatively slower and faster rhythmic units".

>In any event, Joseph Post and Monroe Golden's pieces don't fit the
>definition.

As I said, I invented a definition, which both pieces do fit.

-Carl

Aaron>"This would mean that Messiaen's "Turangalila Symphony" is sound-scapey,
or any number of tone poems of R. Strauss, or many developmental moments in the
many symphonies by Mahler...and I don't think this is what you mean. I think
you really mean to conflate two things: micro-polyphony (e.g. Ligeti,
Pendrecki, Lutoslwaski) and ambient (Briano Eno, Aphex Twin, Robert Rich). They
are very different phenomena, and should be distinguished as such, in my book."

Firstly, I listened to Messiaen and the chords can still be made out clearly
vs. a whole lot of the stuff in the competition...though I agree it's hard
enough to elicit a "what the..." response from a whole lot of people. Actually
I'd say Eno and Rich are probably a lot more "digestible" to most people as they
have distinct themes: sometimes such themes involve repeated rhythmic patterns
rather than motif...but there is definitely a sense of order there. It's hard
to

>"THe other thing is "popular to whom?" If we want popular to 18-year old girls
>in shopping malls, we'd get microtonal boy bands as had been mentioned."

Indeed. When I say popular, I simply mean "respected by average musicians
and listeners". Something I could hand over to my brother, a professional jazz
guitarist, or the average listener and at least have them say "that was decent"
if not good...would work. A good example: Aerosmith. A lot of people don't
particularly like their stuff...but just about anyone would at least say they
know what they are doing far as making emotional connection to listeners.

Look up Sevish on Youtube.com...and note that he wasn't even in the top 50%
in your last Untwelve competition...yet comments on his music show respect among
general listeners
"Decent track for sure, the acid lines are slick... well it's all slick
really...!"
"Definitely different. Sounds good."
"Good experimental stuff"
...............

>"Right now, if microtonality were even as popular and oft-performed as Messiaen,
>that would be a step in the right direction."

True but this goes right back to my main gripe...that we're trying to
"popularize" microtonal music by pleasing academics....which seems to be a
straight line to capturing the attention of the, say, .01% of classical music
fans into microtonality where classical music fans represent 5% of the
population. It's like training your arms in insanely hard workout trying to win
a rowing race and then running the rowing race in a wooden barrel...great amount
of skill but toward an obtuse goal.

Meanwhile, it seems anyone who chooses to lean toward actual genres and styles
that have significant respect among virtually all musicians (say, classic-style
rock) get thrown aside.

>"That said, I see no problem with microtonal boy bands, as long as they add a
>level of thought absent from them as per typical. Maybe the addition of
>microtones would mean they start at a higher level of thought from the get-go,
>who knows?"

True but, come to think of it, I think a genuine class pop/rock style band
would get more attention. The point is not that really abstract music is
bad...but that it frustrates me how few people here seem to be looking at the
issue of respect in the musical community so far as emotion conveyed...and how
many just run an academic litmus test to see how "advanced" a piece is
regardless of how much of its emotional effect is clear upon the first few
listens.

Say you put a boombox playing music on the street and watched the reaction of
people walking by...is anyone moving to it, who is covering their ears...and I'm
pretty sure you'll see the problem. Now many people likely wouldn't be jumping
up and down over, say, Aerosmith...put they wouldn't be covering their ears or
saying "what the....is THAT?" either...they'd at least, well, respect it as
emotionally identifiable as music, even if shallow music. :-D Heck, even with
Vanilla Ice, you'd get people moving...not because it's good...but because it
has obvious structure/flow to both the melodies and beat. You just can't get
that with something that's too abstract,,,,

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron wrote:
> >If you read carefully what I already wrote, you'll see that that's
> >exactly the definition I gave, although not verbatim, obviously. The
> >key thought being "made up of a main melody played simultaneously with
> >variants of it", which is what my Irish fiddler example was pointing at.
>
> Two 'Celtic fiddlers using different ornaments but otherwise playing
> the same melody' doesn't sound the same at all, especially if you
> complete the sentence you're quoting: "...variants of it which progress
> in relatively slower and faster rhythmic units".

We don't know what they mean by that. That could mean ornaments, for example. Do they give an audio example? I've read definitions elsewhere that say that homophony is precisely as I describe it.

> >In any event, Joseph Post and Monroe Golden's pieces don't fit the
> >definition.
>
> As I said, I invented a definition, which both pieces do fit.

That's fine, let's just call polyphony 'monophony' and eggs 'bread' while we are at it. And bread will now be 'toothpaste'.

AKJ

Actually, I'm not interested at all in this debate of academic/lowbrow. As I see it, good music is good music.

Not to mention that none of the entries this year were at all 'academic' except maybe 2 of them.

Classical music in general isn't academic, BTW. Helmut Lachenmann is perhaps describable as 'academic'. Music written by professors would be 'academic'. But this doesn't necessarily mean that it is absent of any appealing characteristics.

As an educated classical musician with a vast experience plus a master's degree in that realm, we are probably also likely to disagree about what constitutes 'acacademic' to begin with. :)

I see your points about all this, although, the truth is, speaking for myself, I have very little interest as a rule in what is appealing to the 95% masses. Art music is marginalized enough already in favor of 'entertainment'. Nothing wrong with entertaining people, but my point is the deepest music is about something sublime and more philosophically pure. I don't write music for the typical boom-box audience, and I have next to no interest in that, outside of maybe experimenting dabbling in that. In rare cases, popular appeal can overlap with depth.

I like Sevish's stuff too. I think he's in the tradition of Squarepusher and Aphex Twin, whose music I think goes beyond mere pop status into some real depth at times.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron>"This would mean that Messiaen's "Turangalila Symphony" is sound-scapey,
> or any number of tone poems of R. Strauss, or many developmental moments in the
> many symphonies by Mahler...and I don't think this is what you mean. I think
> you really mean to conflate two things: micro-polyphony (e.g. Ligeti,
> Pendrecki, Lutoslwaski) and ambient (Briano Eno, Aphex Twin, Robert Rich). They
> are very different phenomena, and should be distinguished as such, in my book."
>
> Firstly, I listened to Messiaen and the chords can still be made out clearly
> vs. a whole lot of the stuff in the competition...though I agree it's hard
> enough to elicit a "what the..." response from a whole lot of people. Actually
> I'd say Eno and Rich are probably a lot more "digestible" to most people as they
> have distinct themes: sometimes such themes involve repeated rhythmic patterns
> rather than motif...but there is definitely a sense of order there. It's hard
> to
>
>
>
> >"THe other thing is "popular to whom?" If we want popular to 18-year old girls
> >in shopping malls, we'd get microtonal boy bands as had been mentioned."
>
> Indeed. When I say popular, I simply mean "respected by average musicians
> and listeners". Something I could hand over to my brother, a professional jazz
> guitarist, or the average listener and at least have them say "that was decent"
> if not good...would work. A good example: Aerosmith. A lot of people don't
> particularly like their stuff...but just about anyone would at least say they
> know what they are doing far as making emotional connection to listeners.
>
> Look up Sevish on Youtube.com...and note that he wasn't even in the top 50%
> in your last Untwelve competition...yet comments on his music show respect among
> general listeners
> "Decent track for sure, the acid lines are slick... well it's all slick
> really...!"
> "Definitely different. Sounds good."
> "Good experimental stuff"
> ...............
>
>
>
> >"Right now, if microtonality were even as popular and oft-performed as Messiaen,
> >that would be a step in the right direction."
>
> True but this goes right back to my main gripe...that we're trying to
> "popularize" microtonal music by pleasing academics....which seems to be a
> straight line to capturing the attention of the, say, .01% of classical music
> fans into microtonality where classical music fans represent 5% of the
> population. It's like training your arms in insanely hard workout trying to win
> a rowing race and then running the rowing race in a wooden barrel...great amount
> of skill but toward an obtuse goal.
>
> Meanwhile, it seems anyone who chooses to lean toward actual genres and styles
> that have significant respect among virtually all musicians (say, classic-style
> rock) get thrown aside.
>
>
>
>
>
> >"That said, I see no problem with microtonal boy bands, as long as they add a
> >level of thought absent from them as per typical. Maybe the addition of
> >microtones would mean they start at a higher level of thought from the get-go,
> >who knows?"
>
> True but, come to think of it, I think a genuine class pop/rock style band
> would get more attention. The point is not that really abstract music is
> bad...but that it frustrates me how few people here seem to be looking at the
> issue of respect in the musical community so far as emotion conveyed...and how
> many just run an academic litmus test to see how "advanced" a piece is
> regardless of how much of its emotional effect is clear upon the first few
> listens.
>
>
>
> Say you put a boombox playing music on the street and watched the reaction of
> people walking by...is anyone moving to it, who is covering their ears...and I'm
> pretty sure you'll see the problem. Now many people likely wouldn't be jumping
> up and down over, say, Aerosmith...put they wouldn't be covering their ears or
> saying "what the....is THAT?" either...they'd at least, well, respect it as
> emotionally identifiable as music, even if shallow music. :-D Heck, even with
> Vanilla Ice, you'd get people moving...not because it's good...but because it
> has obvious structure/flow to both the melodies and beat. You just can't get
> that with something that's too abstract,,,,
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> I looked at the score of the midi file. What was the tuning range used in
> your pitch bends? The standard +/- 2 half steps?

Whatever Scala used; I didn't use pitch bending for the actual piece.

> I was going to ask if you'd mind if I posted the score for people to see.

Why isn't the Scala seq file better than that? That's the actual score.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@...> wrote:

>Music written by professors would be 'academic'.

Cool! I didn't know that.

Aaron wrote:
>> Two 'Celtic fiddlers using different ornaments but otherwise playing
>> the same melody' doesn't sound the same at all, especially if you
>> complete the sentence you're quoting: "...variants of it which progress
>> in relatively slower and faster rhythmic units".
>
>We don't know what they mean by that. That could mean ornaments, for
>example. Do they give an audio example? I've read definitions
>elsewhere that say that homophony is precisely as I describe it.

Here's one example on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6HNxqxrGw

In gamelan, a typical pattern is for one part to play at 4x the
speed of another. It's generally considered a heterophonic
combination. Here's an example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRS13e5R8GI

>> >In any event, Joseph Post and Monroe Golden's pieces don't fit the
>> >definition.
>>
>> As I said, I invented a definition, which both pieces do fit.
>
>That's fine, let's just call polyphony 'monophony' and eggs 'bread'
>while we are at it. And bread will now be 'toothpaste'.

You could have complained a few days ago when I suggested it.
Anyway, I don't think my definitions are quite so far from common
usage. And, let's face it, this thread has done 'bout all it's
gonna do.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@...> wrote:

> You can't be serious, at least in the case of "pianodactyl"...comparing "pianodactyl" to say, something by Solage would be a huge stretch.

Take something by Solage and rescore it for solo piano and you could get people saying the same kinds of things re polyphony.

That's right, I wrote the same description few messages back.

Daniel Forro

On 3 Feb 2011, at 5:23 AM, akjmicro wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>> heterophonic (2) Post, Golden
>
> I think you have a mistaken definition of heterophony. Heterophony > is rare, esp. in the Western musical tradition. Typically, it is > the simultaneous playing/singing of a line where each voice has > subtle variations, sometime in timing and sometimes in pitch. A > good example is hearing several Celtic fiddlers play the same tune > simultaneously. Often, they learned the same tune by rote, but they > play different versions, and have different ornamentation, etc. So, > there are 'smear spots' that cause subtle points of surface > interest here and there.
>
> AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> Take something by Solage and rescore it for solo piano and you could get people saying the same kinds of things re polyphony.

I would say it is less about being scored for "solo piano" than the fact that it was pretty much just poured into a midi file and rendered. There is not aural differentiation of the individual lines, and the facts (piled up) of the static timbre, virtual lack of dynamic variation, virtual lack of rhythmic variation, and complete lack of a separation of the parts even by panning or creative equalization lead one to hear this as a succession of vertical chords, banged out (by machine) in a very static manner, with very occasional interpolations of a couple of singular notes or duos.

dum dum. dum dum dum dum dum. dum dum dum dum dum dum. dum dum.

While there may very well be four parts (which I infer from the four .mid files in the folder), the effect to the ear is more of chord voicing than voice leading in individual polyphonic lines. Which, artistically, is neither here nor there, but I would never in my life point to this as an example of polyphonic music.

I've always wished like hell that you - Gene - would end up developing these pieces along the lines of Nancarrow's player piano pieces, something that Kyle Gann has been successful at. With the tools at our disposal, it would be a great step to merge your command of microtonal understanding with some true "rescoring" for piano. Pianoteq and most any sequencer/DAW would be awesome if you ever had a summer vacation to wrap your head around the implications. Lesser intellects certainly have!

Best,
Jon

Nonsense. Celtic fiddles play mostly in unison. This is
*not* heterophony by any definition I've ever heard. -Carl

At 06:03 PM 2/2/2011, you wrote:
>That's right, I wrote the same description few messages back.
>
>Daniel Forro
>
>On 3 Feb 2011, at 5:23 AM, akjmicro wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>>> heterophonic (2) Post, Golden
>>
>> I think you have a mistaken definition of heterophony. Heterophony
>> is rare, esp. in the Western musical tradition. Typically, it is
>> the simultaneous playing/singing of a line where each voice has
>> subtle variations, sometime in timing and sometimes in pitch. A
>> good example is hearing several Celtic fiddlers play the same tune
>> simultaneously. Often, they learned the same tune by rote, but they
>> play different versions, and have different ornamentation, etc. So,
>> there are 'smear spots' that cause subtle points of surface
>> interest here and there.
>>
>> AKJ
>

I don't know about Celtic fiddlers, my example was Japanese music.

Daniel Forro

On 3 Feb 2011, at 11:23 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Nonsense. Celtic fiddles play mostly in unison. This is
> *not* heterophony by any definition I've ever heard. -Carl

Well, at least I can't get megamid to display traditional notation and I
think best in that.

I'm also having trouble printing a traditional score to PDF - BUT I did take
a couple snapshots of Sonar's piano view.
In one of them you can see scala used a lot of bending - as well as lots of
other midi controllers.

http://micro.soonlabel.com/various/gene.jpg
http://micro.soonlabel.com/various/gene2.jpg

The piano roll view does give one a nice overview of the entire piece.

... still working on a real score.

Chris

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:26 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > I looked at the score of the midi file. What was the tuning range used in
> > your pitch bends? The standard +/- 2 half steps?
>
> Whatever Scala used; I didn't use pitch bending for the actual piece.
>
> > I was going to ask if you'd mind if I posted the score for people to see.
>
> Why isn't the Scala seq file better than that? That's the actual score.
>
>
>

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

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:04 PM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> I've always wished like hell that you - Gene - would end up developing these pieces along the lines of Nancarrow's player piano pieces, something that Kyle Gann has been successful at. With the tools at our disposal, it would be a great step to merge your command of microtonal understanding with some true "rescoring" for piano. Pianoteq and most any sequencer/DAW would be awesome if you ever had a summer vacation to wrap your head around the implications. Lesser intellects certainly have!

The first thing I was going to offer to do as soon as I get these
EWQL/Kontakt issues worked out is to offer to re-render composers'
pieces around here, at least those who don't have something like GPO
already. I did a basic rerender of Gene's "Chromosounds" a long time
ago, although it was kind of a half-assed render and working with
something like a scala seq file would be better. I don't know if this
applies here but I've always admired Gene's work and I think I hear
something in it that doesn't fully emerge because of the
instrumentation. The same applies here - this could sound like a
Debussy composition or something, if it were played on a real piano,
with dynamics, etc inserted.

-Mike

Mike, you should be able to use Gene's midi files as is seeing how the
microtonal bends are built in.

Chris

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:04 PM, jonszanto <jszanto@...<jszanto%40cox.net>>
> wrote:
> >
> > I've always wished like hell that you - Gene - would end up developing
> these pieces along the lines of Nancarrow's player piano pieces, something
> that Kyle Gann has been successful at. With the tools at our disposal, it
> would be a great step to merge your command of microtonal understanding with
> some true "rescoring" for piano. Pianoteq and most any sequencer/DAW would
> be awesome if you ever had a summer vacation to wrap your head around the
> implications. Lesser intellects certainly have!
>
> The first thing I was going to offer to do as soon as I get these
> EWQL/Kontakt issues worked out is to offer to re-render composers'
> pieces around here, at least those who don't have something like GPO
> already. I did a basic rerender of Gene's "Chromosounds" a long time
> ago, although it was kind of a half-assed render and working with
> something like a scala seq file would be better. I don't know if this
> applies here but I've always admired Gene's work and I think I hear
> something in it that doesn't fully emerge because of the
> instrumentation. The same applies here - this could sound like a
> Debussy composition or something, if it were played on a real piano,
> with dynamics, etc inserted.
>
> -Mike
>
>

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

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> Mike, you should be able to use Gene's midi files as is seeing how the
> microtonal bends are built in.

Bends ruin the release tracking, as you know. I need something where I
can apply different numbers of notes per octave and so on.

-Mike

I'm not sure what you mean by release tracking. Aftertouch?

In any case - Gene has each individual voice up on the MMM file section - so
there should be no issues - fairly straight forward render
Load each into its own track - each has its own midi channel - each gets its
own EW voice (or more to each line) and it should work out.

Chris

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...<chrisvaisvil%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > Mike, you should be able to use Gene's midi files as is seeing how the
> > microtonal bends are built in.
>
> Bends ruin the release tracking, as you know. I need something where I
> can apply different numbers of notes per octave and so on.
>
> -Mike
>
>

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

>> Mike, you should be able to use Gene's midi files as is seeing how the
>> microtonal bends are built in.
>
>Bends ruin the release tracking, as you know. I need something where I
>can apply different numbers of notes per octave and so on.

Simply render the seq to MTS as Gene suggested. -Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Nonsense. Celtic fiddles play mostly in unison. This is
> *not* heterophony by any definition I've ever heard. -Carl

Quite right. A distinguishing characteristic of heterophony is that more than one voice/line is distinctly audible. It is audibly NOT monophonic.

Often it refers to the same or roughly the same melody with differences in timing and variation. This is however not the definition of heterophony. Heterophony could range from Romanian violin duos where they're playing in a way you could call "extremely sloppily in unison" (of course it's not actually sloppy)
to the folk songs where two people sing two completely different songs at the same time. That's also heterophony. And it's awesome. Good luck finding a recording, let me know if you do (I have almost none of my music collection anymore, had great Balkan stuff on cassette tape).

And there's the "granular synthesis" kind of African choral singing, where the singing is like a big cloud or stachasitc movement, the basic melodic shape the same but rhythms and pitches varying a lot. That's also heterophony.

The distinguishing characteristic of "heterophony" is of course the "hetero" bit.

>
> At 06:03 PM 2/2/2011, you wrote:
> >That's right, I wrote the same description few messages back.
> >
> >Daniel Forro
> >
> >On 3 Feb 2011, at 5:23 AM, akjmicro wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> >>
> >>> heterophonic (2) Post, Golden
> >>
> >> I think you have a mistaken definition of heterophony. Heterophony
> >> is rare, esp. in the Western musical tradition. Typically, it is
> >> the simultaneous playing/singing of a line where each voice has
> >> subtle variations, sometime in timing and sometimes in pitch. A
> >> good example is hearing several Celtic fiddlers play the same tune
> >> simultaneously. Often, they learned the same tune by rote, but they
> >> play different versions, and have different ornamentation, etc. So,
> >> there are 'smear spots' that cause subtle points of surface
> >> interest here and there.
> >>
> >> AKJ
> >
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

> The piano roll view does give one a nice overview of the entire piece.

How well do you think the piano roll works as a detector of polyphony?
The visual impression I get does not suggest homophony to me, but what does homophony actually look like?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> The first thing I was going to offer to do as soon as I get these
> EWQL/Kontakt issues worked out is to offer to re-render composers'
> pieces around here, at least those who don't have something like GPO
> already.

I'm always happy to have someone take a shot at re-rendering. You or Graham or anyone else is welcome to give it a go.

Piano roll is hard to use to pick out different voices unless you start
assigning different color per voice.
And that doesn't work too well when you are partially color blind like me.
However - some music looks stunning in that view - Debussy especially.

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:18 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> > The piano roll view does give one a nice overview of the entire piece.
>
> How well do you think the piano roll works as a detector of polyphony?
> The visual impression I get does not suggest homophony to me, but what does
> homophony actually look like?
>
>
>

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

Actually, I'm not interested at all in this debate of academic/lowbrow. As I see it, good music is good music.

Not to mention that none of the entries this year were at all 'academic' except maybe 2 of them.

Classical music in general isn't academic, BTW. Helmut Lachenmann is perhaps describable as 'academic'. Music written by professors would be 'academic'. But this doesn't necessarily mean that it is absent of any appealing characteristics.

As an educated classical musician with a vast experience plus a master's degree in that realm, we are probably also likely to disagree about what constitutes 'acacademic' to begin with. :)

I see your points about all this, although, the truth is, speaking for myself, I have very little interest as a rule in what is appealing to the 95% masses. Art music is marginalized enough already in favor of 'entertainment'. Nothing wrong with entertaining people, but my point is the deepest music is about something sublime and more philosophically pure. I don't write music for the typical boom-box audience, and I have next to no interest in that, outside of maybe experimenting dabbling in that. In rare cases, popular appeal can overlap with depth.

I like Sevish's stuff too. I think he's in the tradition of Squarepusher and Aphex Twin, whose music I think goes beyond mere pop status into some real depth at times.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron>"This would mean that Messiaen's "Turangalila Symphony" is sound-scapey,
> or any number of tone poems of R. Strauss, or many developmental moments in the
> many symphonies by Mahler...and I don't think this is what you mean. I think
> you really mean to conflate two things: micro-polyphony (e.g. Ligeti,
> Pendrecki, Lutoslwaski) and ambient (Briano Eno, Aphex Twin, Robert Rich). They
> are very different phenomena, and should be distinguished as such, in my book."
>
> Firstly, I listened to Messiaen and the chords can still be made out clearly
> vs. a whole lot of the stuff in the competition...though I agree it's hard
> enough to elicit a "what the..." response from a whole lot of people. Actually
> I'd say Eno and Rich are probably a lot more "digestible" to most people as they
> have distinct themes: sometimes such themes involve repeated rhythmic patterns
> rather than motif...but there is definitely a sense of order there. It's hard
> to
>
>
>
> >"THe other thing is "popular to whom?" If we want popular to 18-year old girls
> >in shopping malls, we'd get microtonal boy bands as had been mentioned."
>
> Indeed. When I say popular, I simply mean "respected by average musicians
> and listeners". Something I could hand over to my brother, a professional jazz
> guitarist, or the average listener and at least have them say "that was decent"
> if not good...would work. A good example: Aerosmith. A lot of people don't
> particularly like their stuff...but just about anyone would at least say they
> know what they are doing far as making emotional connection to listeners.
>
> Look up Sevish on Youtube.com...and note that he wasn't even in the top 50%
> in your last Untwelve competition...yet comments on his music show respect among
> general listeners
> "Decent track for sure, the acid lines are slick... well it's all slick
> really...!"
> "Definitely different. Sounds good."
> "Good experimental stuff"
> ...............
>
>
>
> >"Right now, if microtonality were even as popular and oft-performed as Messiaen,
> >that would be a step in the right direction."
>
> True but this goes right back to my main gripe...that we're trying to
> "popularize" microtonal music by pleasing academics....which seems to be a
> straight line to capturing the attention of the, say, .01% of classical music
> fans into microtonality where classical music fans represent 5% of the
> population. It's like training your arms in insanely hard workout trying to win
> a rowing race and then running the rowing race in a wooden barrel...great amount
> of skill but toward an obtuse goal.
>
> Meanwhile, it seems anyone who chooses to lean toward actual genres and styles
> that have significant respect among virtually all musicians (say, classic-style
> rock) get thrown aside.
>
>
>
>
>
> >"That said, I see no problem with microtonal boy bands, as long as they add a
> >level of thought absent from them as per typical. Maybe the addition of
> >microtones would mean they start at a higher level of thought from the get-go,
> >who knows?"
>
> True but, come to think of it, I think a genuine class pop/rock style band
> would get more attention. The point is not that really abstract music is
> bad...but that it frustrates me how few people here seem to be looking at the
> issue of respect in the musical community so far as emotion conveyed...and how
> many just run an academic litmus test to see how "advanced" a piece is
> regardless of how much of its emotional effect is clear upon the first few
> listens.
>
>
>
> Say you put a boombox playing music on the street and watched the reaction of
> people walking by...is anyone moving to it, who is covering their ears...and I'm
> pretty sure you'll see the problem. Now many people likely wouldn't be jumping
> up and down over, say, Aerosmith...put they wouldn't be covering their ears or
> saying "what the....is THAT?" either...they'd at least, well, respect it as
> emotionally identifiable as music, even if shallow music. :-D Heck, even with
> Vanilla Ice, you'd get people moving...not because it's good...but because it
> has obvious structure/flow to both the melodies and beat. You just can't get
> that with something that's too abstract,,,,
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Aaron>"As an educated classical musician with a vast experience plus a master's
degree in that realm, we are probably also likely to disagree about what
constitutes 'acacademic' to begin with. :)"

Probably, but if "academic" isn't the correct term to easily define music
somewhat obsessed with technical standards, what is? :-D

>"Music written by professors would be 'academic'. But this doesn't necessarily
>mean that it is absent of any appealing characteristics."
Hmm....I'm pretty much talking about "emotionally easily accessible" not
"appealing". Of course, loads of classical music can be ultimately appealing...

>"Nothing wrong with entertaining people, but my point is the deepest music is
>about something sublime and more philosophically pure."
I'd say....it can easily be both, doesn't have to be either one or the
other. The problem, I believe, is when people think one type of music is more
"valid" then another and the less valid should be censored out...IMVHO if a type
of music, even stuff I hate to hell, makes people happy...it's doing its job.

>"I like Sevish's stuff too. I think he's in the tradition of Squarepusher and
>Aphex Twin, whose music I think goes beyond mere pop status into some real
>depth at times."

Exactly...in fact I think he's a great example of both in one...the deep
artistic side and things people can just quickly get into and 'groove' to. And
I don't think every artist in competitions should be like that...but, rather, it
feels weird that not even one is like that...it's like instead of having a
neutral "we appreciate art and/or (even occasionally) entertainment" group, we
have an "anti-entertainment, only art" group...

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

This is straight from The Harvard Consice Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 1999 edition:

"Heterophony. The simulataneous statement, especially in improvised performance, of two or more different versions of what is essentially the same melody (as distinct from polyphony). It often takes the form of a melody combined with an ornamented version of itself, the former sung and the latter played on an instrument. The technique is widely found in musics outside the tradition of Western art music."

This is precisely what Daniel and I were saying.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Nonsense. Celtic fiddles play mostly in unison. This is
> *not* heterophony by any definition I've ever heard. -Carl
>
> At 06:03 PM 2/2/2011, you wrote:
> >That's right, I wrote the same description few messages back.
> >
> >Daniel Forro
> >
> >On 3 Feb 2011, at 5:23 AM, akjmicro wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> >>
> >>> heterophonic (2) Post, Golden
> >>
> >> I think you have a mistaken definition of heterophony. Heterophony
> >> is rare, esp. in the Western musical tradition. Typically, it is
> >> the simultaneous playing/singing of a line where each voice has
> >> subtle variations, sometime in timing and sometimes in pitch. A
> >> good example is hearing several Celtic fiddlers play the same tune
> >> simultaneously. Often, they learned the same tune by rote, but they
> >> play different versions, and have different ornamentation, etc. So,
> >> there are 'smear spots' that cause subtle points of surface
> >> interest here and there.
> >>
> >> AKJ
> >
>

I gave youtube examples of heterophony. I don't like these games.
Celtic fiddling as I know it is *not* heterophony. Daniel seems to
have misundestood you. -Carl

At 10:14 AM 2/3/2011, you wrote:
>This is straight from The Harvard Consice Dictionary of Music and
>Musicians, 1999 edition:
>
>"Heterophony. The simulataneous statement, especially in improvised
>performance, of two or more different versions of what is essentially
>the same melody (as distinct from polyphony). It often takes the form
>of a melody combined with an ornamented version of itself, the former
>sung and the latter played on an instrument. The technique is widely
>found in musics outside the tradition of Western art music."
>
>This is precisely what Daniel and I were saying.
>
>AKJ

All due respect Carl, no one is playing games.

I've given an authoritative definition from an official source of what heterophony is. It applies to my example. My example wasn't that celtic fiddling by a soloist per se is heterophony, but that _several_ fiddlers in a session *simultaneously* playing slightly different (e.g. some more ornate than others) versions of the same basic tune would be an example from a Western tradition.

If Daniel Forro disagrees, he can state so himself. Not that he's the final authority, but he and I seemed to have the same understanding going into this, based on his response to my post. Daniel? Clarification?

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> I gave youtube examples of heterophony. I don't like these games.
> Celtic fiddling as I know it is *not* heterophony. Daniel seems to
> have misundestood you. -Carl
>
> At 10:14 AM 2/3/2011, you wrote:
> >This is straight from The Harvard Consice Dictionary of Music and
> >Musicians, 1999 edition:
> >
> >"Heterophony. The simulataneous statement, especially in improvised
> >performance, of two or more different versions of what is essentially
> >the same melody (as distinct from polyphony). It often takes the form
> >of a melody combined with an ornamented version of itself, the former
> >sung and the latter played on an instrument. The technique is widely
> >found in musics outside the tradition of Western art music."
> >
> >This is precisely what Daniel and I were saying.
> >
> >AKJ
>

Hi Aaron-
Examples are better than definitions. I gave two... are you saying
you don't consider them heterophonic? Maybe you could also provide
some. I don't think of the Harvard Dictionary as authoritative
by the way.

Here's an MTO article on Balanese heterophony (see section 2.1) with
scores and sound examples
http://mto.societymusictheory.org/issues/mto.00.6.2/mto.6.2.tenzer.html

Here is something the composer (our very own Orangeboxman) calls
heterophonic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ35m6W2IDw

Here's something the composer calls heterophonic (rightly or wrongly)
http://lumma.org/music/score/Salvia.pdf

Here's another Thai one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1rynKgqhxQ

-Carl

At 01:16 PM 2/3/2011, you wrote:
>All due respect Carl, no one is playing games.
>
>I've given an authoritative definition from an official source of what
>heterophony is. It applies to my example. My example wasn't that
>celtic fiddling by a soloist per se is heterophony, but that _several_
>fiddlers in a session *simultaneously* playing slightly different
>(e.g. some more ornate than others) versions of the same basic tune
>would be an example from a Western tradition.
>
>If Daniel Forro disagrees, he can state so himself. Not that he's the
>final authority, but he and I seemed to have the same understanding
>going into this, based on his response to my post. Daniel? Clarification?
>
>AKJ
>

I think the examples you already posted are. (although I wasn't aware that Gamelan music was heterophonic; it seems like it would be hard to distinguish mensuration canons from multi-tempo heterophonic textures for one...) I just also think my example works too, although admittedly, it's not a strong or obvious example. It's difficult to find a clear example of this on YouTube, but the following link, as well as others when you Google, ackgnowledge the existence of the phenomenon in Celtic playing, so at least I know I'm not crazy.

http://www.tomhanway.com/melbay.htm

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Aaron-
> Examples are better than definitions. I gave two... are you saying
> you don't consider them heterophonic? Maybe you could also provide
> some. I don't think of the Harvard Dictionary as authoritative
> by the way.
>
> Here's an MTO article on Balanese heterophony (see section 2.1) with
> scores and sound examples
> http://mto.societymusictheory.org/issues/mto.00.6.2/mto.6.2.tenzer.html
>
> Here is something the composer (our very own Orangeboxman) calls
> heterophonic
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ35m6W2IDw
>
> Here's something the composer calls heterophonic (rightly or wrongly)
> http://lumma.org/music/score/Salvia.pdf
>
> Here's another Thai one
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1rynKgqhxQ
>
> -Carl
>
> At 01:16 PM 2/3/2011, you wrote:
> >All due respect Carl, no one is playing games.
> >
> >I've given an authoritative definition from an official source of what
> >heterophony is. It applies to my example. My example wasn't that
> >celtic fiddling by a soloist per se is heterophony, but that _several_
> >fiddlers in a session *simultaneously* playing slightly different
> >(e.g. some more ornate than others) versions of the same basic tune
> >would be an example from a Western tradition.
> >
> >If Daniel Forro disagrees, he can state so himself. Not that he's the
> >final authority, but he and I seemed to have the same understanding
> >going into this, based on his response to my post. Daniel? Clarification?
> >
> >AKJ
> >
>

For sure I'm not final authority despite my PhD in theory of composition (which is quite unimportant for me), but I was not a bad student and learn something new every day until now. What I have studied about heterophony (and sometimes used in my works) is in full agreement with Aaron.

Daniel Forro

On 4 Feb 2011, at 6:16 AM, akjmicro wrote:

> All due respect Carl, no one is playing games.
>
> I've given an authoritative definition from an official source of > what heterophony is. It applies to my example. My example wasn't > that celtic fiddling by a soloist per se is heterophony, but that > _several_ fiddlers in a session *simultaneously* playing slightly > different (e.g. some more ornate than others) versions of the same > basic tune would be an example from a Western tradition.
>
> If Daniel Forro disagrees, he can state so himself. Not that he's > the final authority, but he and I seemed to have the same > understanding going into this, based on his response to my post. > Daniel? Clarification?
>
> AKJ

Further comments which ignore the examples that have been
given are meaningless. -Carl

At 04:50 PM 2/3/2011, Daniel wrote:
>For sure I'm not final authority despite my PhD in theory of
>composition (which is quite unimportant for me), but I was not a bad
>student and learn something new every day until now. What I have
>studied about heterophony (and sometimes used in my works) is in full
>agreement with Aaron.
>
>Daniel Forro
>
>On 4 Feb 2011, at 6:16 AM, akjmicro wrote:
>
>> All due respect Carl, no one is playing games.
>>
>> I've given an authoritative definition from an official source of
>> what heterophony is. It applies to my example. My example wasn't
>> that celtic fiddling by a soloist per se is heterophony, but that
>> _several_ fiddlers in a session *simultaneously* playing slightly
>> different (e.g. some more ornate than others) versions of the same
>> basic tune would be an example from a Western tradition.
>>
>> If Daniel Forro disagrees, he can state so himself. Not that he's
>> the final authority, but he and I seemed to have the same
>> understanding going into this, based on his response to my post.
>> Daniel? Clarification?
>>
>> AKJ
>

I took a few minutes to do a quick improvised example with two different kinds of heterophony. The upper two voices are the "same" melody with varying ornamentation and rhythm, the lower two voices have the same general contour but have different intervals and notes (one just bops up and down on a major second, the other on a third).

It's multi-tracked, there not being four of me last time I checked, but first-take-one-take on each track (Boehm Bb clarinet).

Far more important than settling any argument about terminology (which probably isn't going to happen anyway :-) ) is to illustrate to anyone who might be interested how a few very simple and almost droning heterophonic lines can create quite a bit of vertical sonorities, and feelings of harmonic motion as well.

http://dl.kibla.org/dl.php?filename=PolyHeteroExample_CBobro.wav

-Cameron Bobro

If you don't think music has intellectual and technical aspect, why do you use heterophony ... ornamentation ... rhythm ... voicing ... contour ... intervals ... notes ... major second ... third ... multi-tracking ... Boehm system ... clarinet ... sonority ... harmonic motion ... computer... recording ... WAV ... All this is product of intellect.

Why do you use microintervals and deal with all that highly intellectual theories connected to it?

Daniel Forro

On 5 Feb 2011, at 7:23 AM, cameron wrote:

> I took a few minutes to do a quick improvised example with two > different kinds of heterophony. The upper two voices are the "same" > melody with varying ornamentation and rhythm, the lower two voices > have the same general contour but have different intervals and > notes (one just bops up and down on a major second, the other on a > third).
>
> It's multi-tracked, there not being four of me last time I checked, > but first-take-one-take on each track (Boehm Bb clarinet).
>
> Far more important than settling any argument about terminology > (which probably isn't going to happen anyway :-) ) is to illustrate > to anyone who might be interested how a few very simple and almost > droning heterophonic lines can create quite a bit of vertical > sonorities, and feelings of harmonic motion as well.
>
> http://dl.kibla.org/dl.php?filename=PolyHeteroExample_CBobro.wav
>
> -Cameron Bobro

Chiming in...if I understand correctly, Cameron was questioning the duality
of emotion/intellect, and asserting their underlying unity, not denying the
existence of one or the other--is that correct Cameron?

Just trying to put out another MMM fire! :)

AKJ

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:

> If you don't think music has intellectual and technical aspect, why
> do you use heterophony ... ornamentation ... rhythm ... voicing ...
> contour ... intervals ... notes ... major second ... third ... multi-
> tracking ... Boehm system ... clarinet ... sonority ... harmonic
> motion ... computer... recording ... WAV ... All this is product of
> intellect.
>
> Why do you use microintervals and deal with all that highly
> intellectual theories connected to it?
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 5 Feb 2011, at 7:23 AM, cameron wrote:
>
> > I took a few minutes to do a quick improvised example with two
> > different kinds of heterophony. The upper two voices are the "same"
> > melody with varying ornamentation and rhythm, the lower two voices
> > have the same general contour but have different intervals and
> > notes (one just bops up and down on a major second, the other on a
> > third).
> >
> > It's multi-tracked, there not being four of me last time I checked,
> > but first-take-one-take on each track (Boehm Bb clarinet).
> >
> > Far more important than settling any argument about terminology
> > (which probably isn't going to happen anyway :-) ) is to illustrate
> > to anyone who might be interested how a few very simple and almost
> > droning heterophonic lines can create quite a bit of vertical
> > sonorities, and feelings of harmonic motion as well.
> >
> > http://dl.kibla.org/dl.php?filename=PolyHeteroExample_CBobro.wav
> >
> > -Cameron Bobro
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

BTW, Cameron, this is just beautiful. I could listen to hours of this sort
of thing in be in bliss. If you come out with an album of this, make sure to
tell me; I'll be first in line to buy.

AKJ

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:23 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> I took a few minutes to do a quick improvised example with two different
> kinds of heterophony. The upper two voices are the "same" melody with
> varying ornamentation and rhythm, the lower two voices have the same general
> contour but have different intervals and notes (one just bops up and down on
> a major second, the other on a third).
>
> It's multi-tracked, there not being four of me last time I checked, but
> first-take-one-take on each track (Boehm Bb clarinet).
>
> Far more important than settling any argument about terminology (which
> probably isn't going to happen anyway :-) ) is to illustrate to anyone who
> might be interested how a few very simple and almost droning heterophonic
> lines can create quite a bit of vertical sonorities, and feelings of
> harmonic motion as well.
>
> http://dl.kibla.org/dl.php?filename=PolyHeteroExample_CBobro.wav
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

Fire is really not necessary, of course there's a connection between intellect and emotion. Such duality was probably created artificially to simplify art (music) study and analysis. In old Greek a word "techne" was used for art. And art is created ARTificially and intentionally, so there's always some intellectual ground.

Daniel Forro

On 5 Feb 2011, at 12:15 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

> Chiming in...if I understand correctly, Cameron was questioning the > duality
> of emotion/intellect, and asserting their underlying unity, not > denying the
> existence of one or the other--is that correct Cameron?
>
> Just trying to put out another MMM fire! :)
>
> AKJ

Yes, it's beauty pure. Maybe it would be more beautiful in half tempo or even much slower. Like a frozen fanfares.

Even one voice melody has some hidden, latent harmony...

Daniel Forro

On 5 Feb 2011, at 12:19 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

> BTW, Cameron, this is just beautiful. I could listen to hours of > this sort
> of thing in be in bliss. If you come out with an album of this, > make sure to
> tell me; I'll be first in line to buy.
>
> AKJ

Cam,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> I took a few minutes to do a quick improvised example...

Very nice. I like it as it stands, but it is also one of those pieces that is soooo good to run through PaulStretch. It ends up as if the Tibetans had clarinets instead of those longass trumpets.

It sounds nice - I agree this is made for paul stretch.

Why is there any question that you achieve vertical sonorities if you play
different simultaneous notes?

It seems like a nonsensical notion. Its like saying "you will see different
colors if you use different colors to paint with"... isn't that inherent in
the exercise?

Different simultaneous notes will *always* result in harmony not matter how
those different notes arrive at the cusp of musical time we are discussing.

Chris

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:23 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:

>
>
> I took a few minutes to do a quick improvised example with two different
> kinds of heterophony. The upper two voices are the "same" melody with
> varying ornamentation and rhythm, the lower two voices have the same general
> contour but have different intervals and notes (one just bops up and down on
> a major second, the other on a third).
>
> It's multi-tracked, there not being four of me last time I checked, but
> first-take-one-take on each track (Boehm Bb clarinet).
>
> Far more important than settling any argument about terminology (which
> probably isn't going to happen anyway :-) ) is to illustrate to anyone who
> might be interested how a few very simple and almost droning heterophonic
> lines can create quite a bit of vertical sonorities, and feelings of
> harmonic motion as well.
>
> http://dl.kibla.org/dl.php?filename=PolyHeteroExample_CBobro.wav
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>
>
>

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

I'm not saying that there is no technical aspect to music- far from it. I'm saying that the technical aspects and emotion, message, etc. are ultimately "as one". They can't be seperated, except provisionally, in the process of making the music, or in analizing it.

Put it this way: let's start changing notes and rhythms in a Bach piece. These are only "technical" differences, and according to the logic of people who think grimacing while noodling minor pentatonics constitutes "soul", they can't make a difference. They are only "technical"! And perhaps for a few changes, these alterations won't make a difference in feeling etc.

But we keep going, changing notes and rhythms. In certain ways,
the identity of the piece might be suprisingly durable, depending on the changes you make. You can deliberately swap all minors and majors in a piece (probably most of us have done this when we were young :-) ) and find that the piece remains somehow recognizable, if you don't change the rhythm, because the percieved structure of a piece isn't completely dependent on that single technical aspect.

The emotions the piece invokes are going to change quite quickly though, whatever "technical" changes you make. You don't have to make very many "technical" changes at all to completely change the "feeling" of piece. Just altering the "swing" of a four-four beat, on a micro-temporal level, can radically change the feeling. The technical differences can be in the milliseconds and the feeling is different.

The technical and the emotional are inseperable.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> If you don't think music has intellectual and technical aspect, why
> do you use heterophony ... ornamentation ... rhythm ... voicing ...
> contour ... intervals ... notes ... major second ... third ... multi-
> tracking ... Boehm system ... clarinet ... sonority ... harmonic
> motion ... computer... recording ... WAV ... All this is product of
> intellect.
>
> Why do you use microintervals and deal with all that highly
> intellectual theories connected to it?
>
> Daniel Forro

Everything in that list is also emotional, socio-political, and spiritual. Everything is loaded with history and meaning- a tree died to make my clarinet, the technical term "heterophony" means "voices, together, and apart", you can hardly get more sappily emotional about human behaviour than that!

-Cameron

Well said, you are right.

Daniel Forro

On 6 Feb 2011, at 9:47 PM, cameron wrote:

> I'm not saying that there is no technical aspect to music- far from
> it. I'm saying that the technical aspects and emotion, message,
> etc. are ultimately "as one". They can't be seperated, except
> provisionally, in the process of making the music, or in analizing it.
>
> Put it this way: let's start changing notes and rhythms in a Bach
> piece. These are only "technical" differences, and according to the
> logic of people who think grimacing while noodling minor
> pentatonics constitutes "soul", they can't make a difference. They
> are only "technical"! And perhaps for a few changes, these
> alterations won't make a difference in feeling etc.
>
> But we keep going, changing notes and rhythms. In certain ways,
> the identity of the piece might be suprisingly durable, depending
> on the changes you make. You can deliberately swap all minors and
> majors in a piece (probably most of us have done this when we were
> young :-) ) and find that the piece remains somehow recognizable,
> if you don't change the rhythm, because the percieved structure of
> a piece isn't completely dependent on that single technical aspect.
>
> The emotions the piece invokes are going to change quite quickly
> though, whatever "technical" changes you make. You don't have to
> make very many "technical" changes at all to completely change the
> "feeling" of piece. Just altering the "swing" of a four-four beat,
> on a micro-temporal level, can radically change the feeling. The
> technical differences can be in the milliseconds and the feeling is
> different.
>
> The technical and the emotional are inseperable.
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> If you don't think music has intellectual and technical aspect, why
>> do you use heterophony ... ornamentation ... rhythm ... voicing ...
>> contour ... intervals ... notes ... major second ... third ... multi-
>> tracking ... Boehm system ... clarinet ... sonority ... harmonic
>> motion ... computer... recording ... WAV ... All this is product of
>> intellect.
>>
>> Why do you use microintervals and deal with all that highly
>> intellectual theories connected to it?
>>
>> Daniel Forro
>
> Everything in that list is also emotional, socio-political, and
> spiritual. Everything is loaded with history and meaning- a tree
> died to make my clarinet, the technical term "heterophony" means
> "voices, together, and apart", you can hardly get more sappily
> emotional about human behaviour than that!
>
> -Cameron

Thanks you guys. :-) Trying to get an album out this year, this bit fits right in.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, it's beauty pure. Maybe it would be more beautiful in half >tempo
> or even much slower. Like a frozen fanfares.

I actually was thinking fanfare/declamation. The clarino register of the modern clarinet isn't as "little trumpet" as I'd really like, maybe a metal clarinet or some double-reed instrument will work. Finally started double reeds, would have years ago if I'd realized how
much microtonal control they offer.
>
> Even one voice melody has some hidden, latent harmony...

Yes, and even a great big pile of voices has implied monophonic interpretations.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 5 Feb 2011, at 12:19 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>
> > BTW, Cameron, this is just beautiful. I could listen to hours of
> > this sort
> > of thing in be in bliss. If you come out with an album of this,
> > make sure to
> > tell me; I'll be first in line to buy.
> >
> > AKJ
>

Probably I get too heated talking about these things, because of so many years of running into the concept of those who "know theory" have no "soul" and that kind of thing. Inevitably, this is coming from people whose music is a montage of cliches- complete slaves to theory without even realizing it. And that idea stinks because it prevents people from recognizing the superb achievement of, say, Ornette Coleman, in the "intellectual" avatar of music.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> Well said, you are right.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 6 Feb 2011, at 9:47 PM, cameron wrote:
>
> > I'm not saying that there is no technical aspect to music- far from
> > it. I'm saying that the technical aspects and emotion, message,
> > etc. are ultimately "as one". They can't be seperated, except
> > provisionally, in the process of making the music, or in analizing it.
> >
> > Put it this way: let's start changing notes and rhythms in a Bach
> > piece. These are only "technical" differences, and according to the
> > logic of people who think grimacing while noodling minor
> > pentatonics constitutes "soul", they can't make a difference. They
> > are only "technical"! And perhaps for a few changes, these
> > alterations won't make a difference in feeling etc.
> >
> > But we keep going, changing notes and rhythms. In certain ways,
> > the identity of the piece might be suprisingly durable, depending
> > on the changes you make. You can deliberately swap all minors and
> > majors in a piece (probably most of us have done this when we were
> > young :-) ) and find that the piece remains somehow recognizable,
> > if you don't change the rhythm, because the percieved structure of
> > a piece isn't completely dependent on that single technical aspect.
> >
> > The emotions the piece invokes are going to change quite quickly
> > though, whatever "technical" changes you make. You don't have to
> > make very many "technical" changes at all to completely change the
> > "feeling" of piece. Just altering the "swing" of a four-four beat,
> > on a micro-temporal level, can radically change the feeling. The
> > technical differences can be in the milliseconds and the feeling is
> > different.
> >
> > The technical and the emotional are inseperable.
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> If you don't think music has intellectual and technical aspect, why
> >> do you use heterophony ... ornamentation ... rhythm ... voicing ...
> >> contour ... intervals ... notes ... major second ... third ... multi-
> >> tracking ... Boehm system ... clarinet ... sonority ... harmonic
> >> motion ... computer... recording ... WAV ... All this is product of
> >> intellect.
> >>
> >> Why do you use microintervals and deal with all that highly
> >> intellectual theories connected to it?
> >>
> >> Daniel Forro
> >
> > Everything in that list is also emotional, socio-political, and
> > spiritual. Everything is loaded with history and meaning- a tree
> > died to make my clarinet, the technical term "heterophony" means
> > "voices, together, and apart", you can hardly get more sappily
> > emotional about human behaviour than that!
> >
> > -Cameron
>