Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Non-Bach and the wide world of influences

Well, I myself can't go down the exact same road as Aaron. I've played a fair amount of Bach, I like quite a number of the works - in so many forms! - and some of them are among the best pieces written by Western hands and ears. But I don't think he is the apex, if there even is one, and I don't think he is indispensable, but agree that he is worthy of both study and enjoyment.

My big inspiration didn't feel the same way, uh, either. I dug this out, and hope you guys won't mind a little bit of Harry Partch weighing in on Bach and his status. It may not be fair to Bach, but it's also possible that had he been smitten, we might have ended up with a Partch who composed only in 12tet. It's tongue-in-cheek, but he was already on the bitter side:

"Our schools are doing a bang-up job of preventing any absurd anarchy creativity is what the wretched radicals call it in music. No investigation it's not in the rules. No curiosity it's not in the rules. No more than a superficial interest in exotic musics (confidentially, there will never be One World until everyone loves Bach as much as we do!) ... They could offer two initial degrees B.B. and M.F. (the second degree available only to female candidates), that is: Bachelor of Bach, and Mistress of the Fugue (need I remind you? there was only one Master of the Fugue). ... The penultimate degree which would really get tough would be D.B.D., Doctor of Bachic (not to be confused with bacchic no, never!) Divinity. ... And finally, the ultimate degree, B.V.D. Bach verus Dominus, requiring that the candidate possess the ability to rewrite the entire B minor Mass from memory under massive injections of pentathol."

~ Harry Partch, "On G-string Formality", unpublished typescript, 1946, HP Foundation Archives

I sometimes feel like I'm one of the only people around here who has spent a lot of time in the disparate fields of classical, popular, and world musics. It surely can't be the case, but there always seems to be so much suspicion of 'the other guys', and so little interest in getting as big a picture as possible.

One thing I'm eternally grateful for is something my first drum teacher told me, which I think was something from Duke Ellington, that there were two kinds of music: the good kind, and everything else. I was too young to know how important that was, but I've spent the rest of my life enjoying and being fascinated by virtually every form of music that I've been able to find. I can't seem to stop. It spans the globe, and it spans the centuries. And it seems he was right: the only stuff I haven't liked was the other stuff.

I don't think it matters, on this list, or out in the world, exactly what it is that you like. I only think it is important that you like as much as you possibly can, and don't ever turn away from some significant music simply because you might not understand it, or haven't been exposed to it. I'll die before I've really scratched the surface, and that gives me reason to live long.

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

Long years Bach was for me number 1, and I still evaluate him high
after all those years of listening, studying and performing his
music. But adoration? I'd say not, the more I know his music and also
the other music before his times and from his times. It must be said
he did also lot of routine work, "pop music" of his times. Which
still has, let's admit some standard quality, but it's nothing
special if even not boring... No doubt about this, life is too short
even without TV and Internet - it's impossible to write only shining
great works (N.B with so much children at home, teaching and church
duties), for sure he also had his bad days. But try just to copy by
hand all his works by hand with a feather pen and ink, all those
pages he wrote (and additionally invented as well) - you will spent
probably many years just with this.

He also did many works where he just tried to imitate French, English
and Italian style. For this purpose he studied, copied and let's face
the truth, stole motifs, themes, harmonies, whole structures... Those
times something like copyright didn't exist and lot of patterns and
even melodic motifs were considered to be public domain (good example
are bass patterns for variations - like Foglia, or descending
chromatic scale from tonic to dominant which can be found in Italian
music 100 years before Bach). And for some works Bach used music of
the other composers, just rearranged it (Vivaldi and similar).

For me was very surprising to hear and study music of Dowland,
Purcell, Rameau and some obscure people like Matteis, this completely
changed my view of Bach from adoration to more realistic attitude. My
recent discovery is Bonporti. It's just unbelievably original music,
some of his works were long time considered as written by Bach,
because they were found among Bach's manuscripts - until
musicologists found that Bach just copied them for his study. Great
story.

No doubt Bach was a genius, but after 300 years we should rank him
properly.

Daniel Forro

On Mar 11, 2011, at 9:16 AM, jonszanto wrote:

> Well, I myself can't go down the exact same road as Aaron. I've
> played a fair amount of Bach, I like quite a number of the works -
> in so many forms! - and some of them are among the best pieces
> written by Western hands and ears. But I don't think he is the
> apex, if there even is one, and I don't think he is indispensable,
> but agree that he is worthy of both study and enjoyment.
>
> My big inspiration didn't feel the same way, uh, either. I dug this
> out, and hope you guys won't mind a little bit of Harry Partch
> weighing in on Bach and his status. It may not be fair to Bach, but
> it's also possible that had he been smitten, we might have ended up
> with a Partch who composed only in 12tet. It's tongue-in-cheek, but
> he was already on the bitter side:
>
> "Our schools are doing a bang-up job of preventing any absurd
> anarchy — creativity is what the wretched radicals call it — in
> music. No investigation — it's not in the rules. No curiosity —
> it's not in the rules. No more than a superficial interest in
> exotic musics (confidentially, there will never be One World until
> everyone loves Bach as much as we do!) ... They could offer two
> initial degrees — B.B. and M.F. (the second degree available only
> to female candidates), that is: Bachelor of Bach, and Mistress of
> the Fugue (need I remind you? there was only one Master of the
> Fugue). ... The penultimate degree — which would really get tough —
> would be D.B.D., Doctor of Bachic (not to be confused with bacchic
> — no, never!) Divinity. ... And finally, the ultimate degree,
> B.V.D. — Bach verus Dominus, requiring that the candidate possess> the ability to rewrite the entire B minor Mass from memory under
> massive injections of pentathol."
>
> ~ Harry Partch, "On G-string Formality", unpublished typescript,
> 1946, HP Foundation Archives

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Well, I myself can't go down the exact same road as Aaron. I've played a
> fair amount of Bach, I like quite a number of the works - in so many forms!
> - and some of them are among the best pieces written by Western hands and
> ears. But I don't think he is the apex, if there even is one,

Agreed.

> and I don't think he is indispensable,

Whoa. Major disagree. History shows that EVERY composer of note after Bach
had some kind of reaction to Bach in the way of being awestruck. It's a
pretty objective fact that taking Bach out of music history leaves a gaping
hole in the foundation. He's quite simply a foundational figure for every
major Western Classical figure who came after. The fact that Harry Partch
was still talking about it in your paragraph below is proof of the huge
tidal wave, the huge gravitational pull that Bach had and has still.

> but agree that he is worthy of both study and enjoyment.
>
>
Yup. Big yup.

> My big inspiration didn't feel the same way, uh, either. I dug this out,
> and hope you guys won't mind a little bit of Harry Partch weighing in on
> Bach and his status. It may not be fair to Bach, but it's also possible that
> had he been smitten, we might have ended up with a Partch who composed only
> in 12tet. It's tongue-in-cheek, but he was already on the bitter side:
>
>
I'll say. A crusty old curmudgeon if there ever was one.

> "Our schools are doing a bang-up job of preventing any absurd anarchy —
> creativity is what the wretched radicals call it — in music. No
> investigation — it's not in the rules. No curiosity — it's not in the rules.
> No more than a superficial interest in exotic musics (confidentially, there
> will never be One World until everyone loves Bach as much as we do!) ...
> They could offer two initial degrees — B.B. and M.F. (the second degree
> available only to female candidates), that is: Bachelor of Bach, and
> Mistress of the Fugue (need I remind you? there was only one Master of the
> Fugue). ... The penultimate degree — which would really get tough — would be
> D.B.D., Doctor of Bachic (not to be confused with bacchic — no, never!)
> Divinity. ... And finally, the ultimate degree, B.V.D. — Bach verus Dominus,
> requiring that the candidate possess the ability to rewrite the entire B
> minor Mass from memory under massive injections of pentathol."
>
>
Very witty, and he has some points. The adulation can be kneejerk. At the
same time, it gets to that point because there is a huge reason for being in
awe of the collosal figure of Bach

Partch had something to prove, and had a big reaction *against* traditional
classical music.

I will keep to myself my own opinion of Partch, who on the opposite end of
things, gets a lot of kneejerk praise around here :)

> I sometimes feel like I'm one of the only people around here who has spent
> a lot of time in the disparate fields of classical, popular, and world
> musics.

It may feel good to think you are alone here---but, I've been in 2 rock
bands, one which played atonal fusion, played jazz in college, and have a
hunger for lots of ethnic traditions from African, to Bulgarian, to Celtic,
and of course, classical, all of which influence my total musical psyche. I
think it's more common among many of us around here (probably at least
Daniel Forro, Cameron, and Neil as well) than you'd think....

It surely can't be the case, but there always seems to be so much suspicion
> of 'the other guys', and so little interest in getting as big a picture as
> possible.
>
>
Exactly. Which is why I took such offense to being called, by association,
'snooty'. I suppose in some ways, I am snooty, but to be called so in
public. I won't have it! :D

> One thing I'm eternally grateful for is something my first drum teacher
> told me, which I think was something from Duke Ellington, that there were
> two kinds of music: the good kind, and everything else. I was too young to
> know how important that was, but I've spent the rest of my life enjoying and
> being fascinated by virtually every form of music that I've been able to
> find. I can't seem to stop. It spans the globe, and it spans the centuries.
> And it seems he was right: the only stuff I haven't liked was the other
> stuff.
>
>
Funny how no two people agree *exactly* what the other stuff is, right?

> I don't think it matters, on this list, or out in the world, exactly what
> it is that you like. I only think it is important that you like as much as
> you possibly can, and don't ever turn away from some significant music
> simply because you might not understand it, or haven't been exposed to it.

Amen.

> I'll die before I've really scratched the surface, and that gives me reason
> to live long.
>
>
Ars Longa, Vida Breve, as they say.

AKJ

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

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

No, Aaron, no problem :-, you are right. I have the same feelings with Bach, same love and appreciation - really nothing against him. (Yesterday I again performed one of his choral preludes at my concert. I do at least one of his works in each of my gigs. Long year custom. Which I don't do with any other composer.)

I just wanted to say that he was not type of innovative composer as Scarlatti. For me this is important aspect, I prefer more originality. What he did was an organic synthesis of German, Italian, French and English music, which itself is a great task, and he did it perfectly. Truth is he was not able to change his style in his later years, despite there were significant changes and new more modern things happened in music of those times. He quarrels about this even with his more progressive sons. He was sure about his qualities and level of knowledge he got, and that was probably main reason for his attitude just to continue in it. No wonder that his music was forgotten and disappeared from the public for the next 79 years after his death...

Sometimes Handel seems to me having more original ideas, also his polyphonic works are more free, not so strict like those by Bach. Which I find refreshing and sometimes surprising. Such kind of surprise is rare with Bach. But maybe because I know his works best of all composers :-)

Names I have mentioned just did similar things many years before Bach, that was my point. In this sense he didn't bring much new to the music of his times, just continued in that style.

Daniel Forro

On Mar 11, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

> But, in spite of my somewhat sarcastic response (sorry :D ), I do > agree,
> dear Daniel, that is important to put Bach in a larger context. For > me, his
> achievements are even more impressive from that vantage point, > though. :)
>
> And, again, I sometimes tire of hearing Bach; I can probably listen > to more
> back to back Sibelius than almost any other composer, for instance, > but I
> always return to it (Bach's music) and have deeper appreciation > after a
> while....
>
> AKJ

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Daniel,

True Bach was a master forger of musical alloys... :)

Scarlatti is an amazing genius, too of course.

In my earlier years, Handel struck me as square, but now I agree, he has a
mastery and looseness that can be refreshing compared with Bach even....plus
Handel's melodic gift is really remarkable.

AKJ.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Daniel Forró <dan.for@tiscali.cz> wrote:

> No, Aaron, no problem :-, you are right. I have the same feelings
> with Bach, same love and appreciation - really nothing against him.
> (Yesterday I again performed one of his choral preludes at my
> concert. I do at least one of his works in each of my gigs. Long year
> custom. Which I don't do with any other composer.)
>
> I just wanted to say that he was not type of innovative composer as
> Scarlatti. For me this is important aspect, I prefer more
> originality. What he did was an organic synthesis of German, Italian,
> French and English music, which itself is a great task, and he did it
> perfectly. Truth is he was not able to change his style in his later
> years, despite there were significant changes and new more modern
> things happened in music of those times. He quarrels about this even
> with his more progressive sons. He was sure about his qualities and
> level of knowledge he got, and that was probably main reason for his
> attitude just to continue in it. No wonder that his music was
> forgotten and disappeared from the public for the next 79 years after
> his death...
>
> Sometimes Handel seems to me having more original ideas, also his
> polyphonic works are more free, not so strict like those by Bach.
> Which I find refreshing and sometimes surprising. Such kind of
> surprise is rare with Bach. But maybe because I know his works best
> of all composers :-)
>
> Names I have mentioned just did similar things many years before
> Bach, that was my point. In this sense he didn't bring much new to
> the music of his times, just continued in that style.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On Mar 11, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>
> > But, in spite of my somewhat sarcastic response (sorry :D ), I do
> > agree,
> > dear Daniel, that is important to put Bach in a larger context. For
> > me, his
> > achievements are even more impressive from that vantage point,
> > though. :)
> >
> > And, again, I sometimes tire of hearing Bach; I can probably listen
> > to more
> > back to back Sibelius than almost any other composer, for instance,
> > but I
> > always return to it (Bach's music) and have deeper appreciation
> > after a
> > while....
> >
> > AKJ
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

I hate to admit it, but yes, Gene, your assement here is actually more
accurate than mine.

But I will say---late Beethoven put such a spell on composers into the 20th
and 21st century, and that is really a reaction to the spell of Bach on
Beethoven. And even up to the 2nd Viennese school, there is an underpinning
of Bach in the discussions of contrapuntal manipulations of tone-rows, etc.

AKJ

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:27 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Whoa. Major disagree. History shows that EVERY composer of note after
> Bach
> > had some kind of reaction to Bach in the way of being awestruck.
>
> Thinking about this, I think it's pretty clearly not true. For some time
> knowledge of Bach was a fairly arcane subject; that Mozart and Beethoven
> were influenced hardly means everyone was. Later on some composers, most
> notably Mendelssohn and Brahms and some twentieth century composers were
> strongly under the spell of Bach, but most were not. As for Mozart, the
> Romantic composers tended to treat him as a composer of pretty music.
>
> The kind of influence you are attributing to Bach really belongs to
> Beethoven, and shock and awe commentary is not hard to find ("You have no
> idea how it is for the likes of us to feel the tread of a giant like him
> behind us!")
>
> It's a
> > pretty objective fact that taking Bach out of music history leaves a
> gaping
> > hole in the foundation.
>
> So does taking Dufay out of music history, and yet for a very long time
> that's what people did. You'd think of Palestrina in Gradus ad Parnassum
> terms, but not as actual music, and of no one earlier.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

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

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:18 PM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Aaron,
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
> > > and I don't think he is indispensable,
> >
> > Whoa. Major disagree. History shows that EVERY composer of note after
> Bach
> > had some kind of reaction to Bach in the way of being awestruck.
>
> In keeping with my global viewpoint: well, yeah, except for all those
> composers in Bali and Java, and all of the music being made in India and
> Africa, and... you get the picture. You are restricting this Circle of
> Veneration to the school of Western (European) classical music.

Yes.

> What *I'm* saying is that the future can hold an awful lot of great musics
> that emminate from any *number* of other wellsprings besides J.S. Bach.

Yup, and this is true in the West *before* Bach, as the little ditty poem
Graham brought out so eloquently showed.

> It is in this sense that he is not indispensable, and I reject the notion
> that good things cannot come from those who have not studied his works. I
> don't think it would hurt them.
>

I feel that there is something approaching perfection (I daresay, often
achieved) in Bach's music that is rare, and a good example to all kinds of
composers. My main point, really.

>
>
>
> I will keep to myself my own opinion of Partch, who on the opposite end of
> > things, gets a lot of kneejerk praise around here :)
>
> Good. I'd hate to reach across the aether to strangle you. I pull a muscle
> the last time I tried that.
>
>
I'm almost tempted to try, just to see this aether trick at work....nah. :)

> > Ars Longa, Vida Breve, as they say.
>
> I've never understood why the Greeks were into that whole "Mine's longer,
> your's is shorter" pissing contest... :)
>
>
In this case, it was a Roman pissing contest. :)

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

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

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:52 PM, genewardsmith
> <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Dante Rosati <danterosati@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > i find that ironic because I think serial/set theory music is the best,
> > or
> > > at least most natural use for EDOs.
> >
> > So-called "set theory" you could at least argue. Serial music? That is and
> > always will be a rather artificial method. There's something a little
> > Medieval about it, like isorhythm.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, Dante--it is ironic! Since Shoenberg's goal was 'emancipation of
> dissonance' and the abolition of traditional tonal associations, he would
> have/should have actually loved 13-edo or 11-edo. And serialism works well
> for them.

The "emancipation of dissonance" did not mean "make everything as dissonant as possible". It meant giving dissonance status equal to that of consonance. Using a tuning which very strongly favors dissonant possibilities over consonant would not be in keeping with Schoenberg's conception of the emancipation of dissonance.

A tuning such as that offered by thirty-four equal divisions of the octave, which offers a plethora of possibiliites both very consonant and very dissonant, might be ideal.

However, "34 tones related only to each other" would present quite a cognitive and logistic challenge.

Obviously we're talking about consonance and dissonance in their brute physical forms, which can be very different in context, but remember, Schoenberg considered consonances and dissonances to be utimately rooted in the harmonic series and therefore as having a "raw" form as well as a contextual forms.

And, of course, Schoenberg and serialism are not one and the same thing. 11-edo and 13-edo surely are dynamite pitch fields for all kinds of serial and set manipulations.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

Kraig Grady has been doing "consonant atonality" for decades. It's definitely "process music", though I don't know the extent of traditional serial technique involved. Sounds more like "change-ringing" transformations of mutable sets to me, but anyway, it does fit what you describe, in a general sense at least.

Some of Erv Wilson's tunings are the ultimate evolution, in my opinion, as far as the field of material, of the Schwedenborgian concepts advocated by Schoenberg. Wilson's systems in which all pitches are harmonically related to a central pitch which is not literally represented in the field are arguably better representations of the "pleroma", as the pitches all relate to one another, a la Schoenberg, yet both create/are created by an absent, yet all-present pitch we could just cut to the chase and call "G-d".

Philsophers would have to evaluate Schwedenborg's relation to Spinoza, and Schoenberg's (likely erratic and vague let's face it) relation to Schwedenborg, were we to want solid arguments here.

But the general concepts are related, and consciously so by those involved.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> <aaron@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, Dante--it is ironic! Since Shoenberg's goal was 'emancipation of
> > dissonance' and the abolition of traditional tonal associations, he would
> > have/should have actually loved 13-edo or 11-edo. And serialism works well
> > for them.
>
> A somewhat novel idea I don't think I've ever heard of doing - apply
> serialism to MOS's instead of equal temperaments. So apply it to
> blackwood[10] or something and watch as everything suddenly becomes
> brilliantly consonant. The "haplotonic," "wind chime" scales we've
> been talking about on tuning would be great for this!
>
> The concept was inspired by knowsur's application of serialism to
> 7-edo, and his observation that it has an "unexpectedly 'popular'
> sound":
> http://ia600103.us.archive.org/14/items/Knowsur-NanaWodori/02Knowsur-Hikaru.mp3
>
> I dig it.
>
> -Mike
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:47 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
> Kraig Grady has been doing "consonant atonality" for decades. It's definitely "process music", though I don't know the extent of traditional serial technique involved. Sounds more like "change-ringing" transformations of mutable sets to me, but anyway, it does fit what you describe, in a general sense at least.

I guess you could say that the Eikosany is kind of like consonant
atonality. I was getting at a system where everything sounds pantonal,
though, not just with individual tonal fragments in isolation.

> Some of Erv Wilson's tunings are the ultimate evolution, in my opinion, as far as the field of material, of the Schwedenborgian

Schwedenborgian, you say.

> concepts advocated by Schoenberg. Wilson's systems in which all pitches are harmonically related to a central pitch which is not literally represented in the field are arguably better representations of the "pleroma", as the pitches all relate to one another, a la Schoenberg, yet both create/are created by an absent, yet all-present pitch we could just cut to the chase and call "G-d".

Gene (I think it was Gene?) had some interesting posts last year about
how the Eikosany is symmetric about a pitch that isn't there, and if
you add it the whole thing makes a lot more sense. I believe it was
controversial because if you work out, mathematically, the pitch that
it's symmetrical about, it ends up being a tempered pitch relative to
everything else, not a just one (I think it ended up being marvel
tempered, where 225/224 vanishes). I don't remember. I thought it was
an interesting point, though, and if I had listened to more Eikosany
music I wonder if I would have gotten some kind of interesting
synesthetic interpretation out of it.

If you know of any particularly synesthetically inspiring Eikosany
music, feel free to point it to me. So far all I've heard are just
what sounds like randomly changing higher-limit chords to me.

-Mike

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:47 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
> >
> > Kraig Grady has been doing "consonant atonality" for decades. It's definitely "process music", though I don't know the extent of traditional serial technique involved. Sounds more like "change-ringing" transformations of mutable sets to me, but anyway, it does fit what you describe, in a general sense at least.
>
> I guess you could say that the Eikosany is kind of like consonant
> atonality. I was getting at a system where everything sounds pantonal,
> though, not just with individual tonal fragments in isolation.
>
> > Some of Erv Wilson's tunings are the ultimate evolution, in my opinion, as far as the field of material, of the Schwedenborgian
>
> Schwedenborgian, you say.

Yes, the stargazer aspect of Schoenberg has been apparent to me since I was a teenager, and it was with relief that I read Taruskin's excellent bit on Schoenberg's deliberate association of his musical ideas with Schwedenborg's hippy jive. :-) It's in "Russian Music" of all places (in relation to Scriabin's ideas of course), great book.

>
> > concepts advocated by Schoenberg. Wilson's systems in which all pitches are harmonically related to a central pitch which is not literally represented in the field are arguably better representations of the "pleroma", as the pitches all relate to one another, a la Schoenberg, yet both create/are created by an absent, yet all-present pitch we could just cut to the chase and call "G-d".
>
> Gene (I think it was Gene?) had some interesting posts last year about
> how the Eikosany is symmetric about a pitch that isn't there, and if
> you add it the whole thing makes a lot more sense. I believe it was
> controversial because if you work out, mathematically, the pitch that
> it's symmetrical about, it ends up being a tempered pitch relative to
> everything else, not a just one (I think it ended up being marvel
> tempered, where 225/224 vanishes). I don't remember. I thought it was
> an interesting point, though, and if I had listened to more Eikosany
> music I wonder if I would have gotten some kind of interesting
> synesthetic interpretation out of it.
>
> If you know of any particularly synesthetically inspiring Eikosany
> music, feel free to point it to me. So far all I've heard are just
> what sounds like randomly changing higher-limit chords to me.
>
> -Mike
>

You don't think "Creation of the Worlds" has this perpetual feeling of being an unresolved dominiant, vii° or something? Yet it's pretty darn consonant at the same time.

But you know... really, "serialism" as I see it truly being (and my take on it would irk Boulez to no end) is very different from Kraig's compositional approach, which I feel is more towards gamelan/campanology. So I could easily be at peace with saying Kraig's work is different from what we're talking about.

More on serialism in various tunings later

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

Oh yeah it's Swedenborg of course- my spelling gets worse and worse. Just be glad I didn't type ©vedenborg.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad" <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:47 AM, lobawad <lobawad@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Kraig Grady has been doing "consonant atonality" for decades. It's definitely "process music", though I don't know the extent of traditional serial technique involved. Sounds more like "change-ringing" transformations of mutable sets to me, but anyway, it does fit what you describe, in a general sense at least.
> >
> > I guess you could say that the Eikosany is kind of like consonant
> > atonality. I was getting at a system where everything sounds pantonal,
> > though, not just with individual tonal fragments in isolation.
> >
> > > Some of Erv Wilson's tunings are the ultimate evolution, in my opinion, as far as the field of material, of the Schwedenborgian
> >
> > Schwedenborgian, you say.
>
> Yes, the stargazer aspect of Schoenberg has been apparent to me since I was a teenager, and it was with relief that I read Taruskin's excellent bit on Schoenberg's deliberate association of his musical ideas with Schwedenborg's hippy jive. :-) It's in "Russian Music" of all places (in relation to Scriabin's ideas of course), great book.
>
> >
> > > concepts advocated by Schoenberg. Wilson's systems in which all pitches are harmonically related to a central pitch which is not literally represented in the field are arguably better representations of the "pleroma", as the pitches all relate to one another, a la Schoenberg, yet both create/are created by an absent, yet all-present pitch we could just cut to the chase and call "G-d".
> >
> > Gene (I think it was Gene?) had some interesting posts last year about
> > how the Eikosany is symmetric about a pitch that isn't there, and if
> > you add it the whole thing makes a lot more sense. I believe it was
> > controversial because if you work out, mathematically, the pitch that
> > it's symmetrical about, it ends up being a tempered pitch relative to
> > everything else, not a just one (I think it ended up being marvel
> > tempered, where 225/224 vanishes). I don't remember. I thought it was
> > an interesting point, though, and if I had listened to more Eikosany
> > music I wonder if I would have gotten some kind of interesting
> > synesthetic interpretation out of it.
> >
> > If you know of any particularly synesthetically inspiring Eikosany
> > music, feel free to point it to me. So far all I've heard are just
> > what sounds like randomly changing higher-limit chords to me.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
>
> You don't think "Creation of the Worlds" has this perpetual feeling of being an unresolved dominiant, vii° or something? Yet it's pretty darn consonant at the same time.
>
> But you know... really, "serialism" as I see it truly being (and my take on it would irk Boulez to no end) is very different from Kraig's compositional approach, which I feel is more towards gamelan/campanology. So I could easily be at peace with saying Kraig's work is different from what we're talking about.
>
> More on serialism in various tunings later
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Hey Cameron, or Paul Erlich, or whoever you really may be,

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:02 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:52 PM, genewardsmith
> > <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Dante Rosati <danterosati@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > i find that ironic because I think serial/set theory music is the
> best,
> > > or
> > > > at least most natural use for EDOs.
> > >
> > > So-called "set theory" you could at least argue. Serial music? That is
> and
> > > always will be a rather artificial method. There's something a little
> > > Medieval about it, like isorhythm.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes, Dante--it is ironic! Since Shoenberg's goal was 'emancipation of
> > dissonance' and the abolition of traditional tonal associations, he
> would
> > have/should have actually loved 13-edo or 11-edo. And serialism works
> well
> > for them.
>
> The "emancipation of dissonance" did not mean "make everything as dissonant
> as possible".

I never said it did. But the fact remains that the over-riding sensation of
a mature Schoenberg work is tension, at least in the harmonic sense.

Wait---straw-man counter arguments, with the aim to provide a forum for
didacticism? This feels more like Paul Erlich now! :)

> It meant giving dissonance status equal to that of consonance. Using a
> tuning which very strongly favors dissonant possibilities over consonant
> would not be in keeping with Schoenberg's conception of the emancipation of
> dissonance.
>
>
Schoenberg did not seek the tonal implications of serialism as much as Berg
did. Certain piece of Schoenberg have a more tonal feel, like the 2nd
chamber symphony, nonetheless.

His conception was to chase the true abstract linearity of counterpoint, and
the identity of the tone-row, freely, without regard to consonance *or*
dissonance. "Emancipation of dissonance" really means emancipation from the
concept of dissonance or consonance, period.

Schoenberg's music is not, at least on a harmonic way of view things,
structured around "tension/release". Surface things may provide a semblance
of them (tempo, registration, orchestration, dynmamics, etc.) but not
harmonic structures, b/c outside of the row, there are no harmonic
structures, and the rows are not typically structured to provide a sense of
harmonic motion. They are structured to DESTROY any such implication. That's
the true meaning of "emancipation of dissonance". See more, below.

A tuning such as that offered by thirty-four equal divisions of the octave,
> which offers a plethora of possibiliites both very consonant and very
> dissonant, might be ideal.
>
>
Irrelevant, because of the arguments above, and below....

> However, "34 tones related only to each other" would present quite a
> cognitive and logistic challenge.
>
>
12-tones present a similar challenge for many, if not most, as decades and
decades of flustered audiences of the 2nd Viennese school proves.

> Obviously we're talking about consonance and dissonance in their brute
> physical forms, which can be very different in context, but remember,
> Schoenberg considered consonances and dissonances to be utimately rooted in
> the harmonic series and therefore as having a "raw" form as well as a
> contextual forms.
>
>
Again, Schoenberg did not use contextual dissonance in his mature works. He
may have had surface gestures which did mimic things like non-harmonic tone
appogiaturas, but they didn't form "tension-release" dualities against some
background harmony. It would be a mistake to think so. There are no
chord-progressions here.....

> And, of course, Schoenberg and serialism are not one and the same thing.
> 11-edo and 13-edo surely are dynamite pitch fields for all kinds of serial
> and set manipulations.
>
>
Agreed, you bet! :)

AKJ

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

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

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Cameron, or Paul Erlich, or whoever you really may be,
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:02 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:52 PM, genewardsmith
> > > <genewardsmith@>wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Dante Rosati <danterosati@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > i find that ironic because I think serial/set theory music is the
> > best,
> > > > or
> > > > > at least most natural use for EDOs.
> > > >
> > > > So-called "set theory" you could at least argue. Serial music? That is
> > and
> > > > always will be a rather artificial method. There's something a little
> > > > Medieval about it, like isorhythm.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, Dante--it is ironic! Since Shoenberg's goal was 'emancipation of
> > > dissonance' and the abolition of traditional tonal associations, he
> > would
> > > have/should have actually loved 13-edo or 11-edo. And serialism works
> > well
> > > for them.
> >
> > The "emancipation of dissonance" did not mean "make everything as dissonant
> > as possible".
>
>
> I never said it did. But the fact remains that the over-riding >sensation of
> a mature Schoenberg work is tension, at least in the harmonic sense.

>
> Wait---straw-man counter arguments, with the aim to provide a forum for
> didacticism? This feels more like Paul Erlich now! :)
>
>
> > It meant giving dissonance status equal to that of consonance. Using a
> > tuning which very strongly favors dissonant possibilities over consonant
> > would not be in keeping with Schoenberg's conception of the emancipation of
> > dissonance.
> >
> >
> Schoenberg did not seek the tonal implications of serialism as much as Berg
> did. Certain piece of Schoenberg have a more tonal feel, like the 2nd
> chamber symphony, nonetheless.

You're missing the basic point. Read Harmonielehre and Stil und Gedanke, and you will see that what I say is simple and very sensible:

Schoenberg considered that which Western music traditionally considers dissonances to be simply higher members of the harmonic series, that which we consider consonances being lower members. He stated this quite clearly.

Therefore, according to him, the chromaticism of the Romantics was simply the regular inclusion of higher partials into Western music.

Schoenberg's liberation of dissonance, dissonance being in terms of harmonics simply the more complex ratios, was none other than not only including more complex ratios as the Romantics had already done, but considering them equally important to the simpler ratios.

So, not only did he precede Partch, he went beyond, for Schoenberg proposed, for example, 13:8 as equally "central" as say 5:4... or 2:1.

Is Johnny Rheinhardt currently lurking? I'm sure he'll recognize the simple sanity of this take on Schoenberg.

>
> His conception was to chase the true abstract linearity of >counterpoint, and
> the identity of the tone-row, freely, without regard to consonance >*or*
> dissonance. "Emancipation of dissonance" really means emancipation >from the
> concept of dissonance or consonance, period.

A more cynical take would be that he sought to elevate sheer gesture, specifically Romantic gesture, to architectural significance. In my opinion, this is actually true to an extent, and pretty much perfectly concides in time with the painting of Janet Sobel. But I don't consider this a slight, unlike Boulez who critized the Romantic in Schoenberg. Rather I consider the elevation of gesture to structural importance an artistic achievment.

> A tuning such as that offered by thirty-four equal divisions of the octave,
> > which offers a plethora of possibiliites both very consonant and very
> > dissonant, might be ideal.
> >
> >
> Irrelevant, because of the arguments above, and below....

Not irrelevant. Schoenberg gave 53-tET the stamp of approval, how can it be irrelevant to offer 34 as an alternative?

>
>
> > However, "34 tones related only to each other" would present quite a
> > cognitive and logistic challenge.
> >
> >
> 12-tones present a similar challenge for many, if not most, as >decades and
> decades of flustered audiences of the 2nd Viennese school proves.

This is a cliche, valid only for a small group of people hysterically clinging to cliched thinking. Countless millions have for decades parsed Schoenbergian "dissonance" in movie soundtracks, effortlessly.

> Again, Schoenberg did not use contextual dissonance in his mature >works. He
> may have had surface gestures which did mimic things like >non-harmonic tone
> appogiaturas, but they didn't form "tension-release" dualities >against some
> background harmony. It would be a mistake to think so. There are no
> chord-progressions here.....

Again, Schoenberg considered "dissonances" as simply entities coming from higher in the harmonic series. More complex ratios. You would maintain that Schoenberg did not use more complex ratios, even after he said he did, and everyone can hear, at least in a sensitive orchestral performance, plain as day that he does?

>
>
> > And, of course, Schoenberg and serialism are not one and the same thing.
> > 11-edo and 13-edo surely are dynamite pitch fields for all kinds of serial
> > and set manipulations.
> >
> >
> Agreed, you bet! :)

Well we certainly agree there. And how about some examples?

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Hey, wad-lobber, responses below....

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:49 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:

>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Schoenberg did not seek the tonal implications of serialism as much as
> Berg
> > did. Certain piece of Schoenberg have a more tonal feel, like the 2nd
> > chamber symphony, nonetheless.
>
> You're missing the basic point. Read Harmonielehre and Stil und Gedanke,
> and you will see that what I say is simple and very sensible:
>
> Schoenberg considered that which Western music traditionally considers
> dissonances to be simply higher members of the harmonic series, that which
> we consider consonances being lower members. He stated this quite clearly.
>
>
Quotes?

> Therefore, according to him, the chromaticism of the Romantics was simply
> the regular inclusion of higher partials into Western music.
>
>
Whether or not he did may be beside the point, considering the insights of
cognitive perception of music. Schoenberg was an intellectual who certainly
had intellectual blinders on, as well as poor understanding of musical
cognition. To claim, for instance, that a tone row is a recognizable musical
identity in a given piece is quite a stretch. Very few rows can be so easily
parsed....some examples of easily parsed ones might be 4 parallel augmented
triads, like Liszt used in the 'Dante' symphony. Of course, this was
pre-serialism, and probably was not even thought of in the same terms.

> Schoenberg's liberation of dissonance, dissonance being in terms of
> harmonics simply the more complex ratios, was none other than not only
> including more complex ratios as the Romantics had already done, but
> considering them equally important to the simpler ratios.
>
>
Depending on how one takes to mean 'important', this is a key statement.
Schoenberg may have taken them to be 'equally important' in an 'a priori'
way. However, to take them as equally important in their effect on the human
cognitive mechanism of consonance and dissonance is another thing
altogether. Which, as we know, would be a cognitive mistake. Even the simple
fact that most spectra make higher partial much less significant due to
lower amplitude puts this to rest.

> So, not only did he precede Partch, he went beyond, for Schoenberg
> proposed, for example, 13:8 as equally "central" as say 5:4... or 2:1.
>
>
Exactly...this is totally wishful thinking at best. As a dyad, 13:8 doesn't
register as anything but an "out of tune" or approximately just shy of a
quarter-tone sharp minor 6th....it only becomes something which is perceived
as a "locked unit" if it appears in conjunction with other stronger, and
similarly weak, members of the series.

> Is Johnny Rheinhardt currently lurking? I'm sure he'll recognize the simple
> sanity of this take on Schoenberg.
>

It's been a long time, but I have "Style and Idea", and I will peruse it for
some quotes.

For someone who didn't want to reveal your identity based on the fallacy of
"argument from authority", I'm surprised you are invoking Johnny Reinhardt
to come to your rescue as just such an authority. :)

>
> His conception was to chase the true abstract linearity of >counterpoint,
and
> the identity of the tone-row, freely, without regard to consonance >*or*
> dissonance. "Emancipation of dissonance" really means emancipation >from
the
> concept of dissonance or consonance, period.

A more cynical take would be that he sought to elevate sheer gesture,
> specifically Romantic gesture, to architectural significance. In my opinion,
> this is actually true to an extent, and pretty much perfectly concides in
> time with the painting of Janet Sobel. But I don't consider this a slight,
> unlike Boulez who critized the Romantic in Schoenberg. Rather I consider the
> elevation of gesture to structural importance an artistic achievment.
>
>
There's no doubt about Schoenberg's achievement, love him or hate him (I
respect him highly) even though he had pretty naive ideas about human
musical perception. In spite of that, he was certainly a great master, and a
highly respected and influential figure, both as a revolutionary thinker and
as a teacher.

>
> > A tuning such as that offered by thirty-four equal divisions of the
> octave,
> > > which offers a plethora of possibiliites both very consonant and very
> > > dissonant, might be ideal.
> > >
> > >
> > Irrelevant, because of the arguments above, and below....
>
> Not irrelevant. Schoenberg gave 53-tET the stamp of approval, how can it be
> irrelevant to offer 34 as an alternative?
>

IIRC, he gave 53 a stamp of approval, only to later argue against its
practicality. The same argument was made by Hindemith, I believe.

>
> >
> >
> > > However, "34 tones related only to each other" would present quite a
> > > cognitive and logistic challenge.
> > >
> > >
> > 12-tones present a similar challenge for many, if not most, as >decades
> and
> > decades of flustered audiences of the 2nd Viennese school proves.
>
> This is a cliche, valid only for a small group of people hysterically
> clinging to cliched thinking. Countless millions have for decades parsed
> Schoenbergian "dissonance" in movie soundtracks, effortlessly.
>

Two things going on here, we're not quite talking about the same thing:
there's 1) parsing "dissonance" and 2) parsing the "tone row". I was
referring to the latter, which is claimed to be an important structural
element that is *audible*. Sure, Pierre Boulez can probably parse 12-tone
rows and all their permutations, but your average audience member, even
studied musicians, will not.

And "dissonance" in movie soundtracks is irrelevant to the discussion as I
see it, although I concede it's an interesting contextual dichotomy that
what people "accept" when there are scary things going on on the big screen
is out-of-sync with what they "accept" without a programmatic narrative...

> > Again, Schoenberg did not use contextual dissonance in his mature >works.
> He
> > may have had surface gestures which did mimic things like >non-harmonic
> tone
> > appogiaturas, but they didn't form "tension-release" dualities >against
> some
> > background harmony. It would be a mistake to think so. There are no
> > chord-progressions here.....
>

Again, Schoenberg considered "dissonances" as simply entities coming from
> higher in the harmonic series. More complex ratios. You would maintain that
> Schoenberg did not use more complex ratios, even after he said he did, and
> everyone can hear, at least in a sensitive orchestral performance, plain as
> day that he does?
>

My point is, sure, one can consider them more "complex ratios", but that
doesn't still help the case, because these ratios go above and beyond what
people would parse as meaningful in any context other than the creation of a
subjective sense of tension and/or chaos, even though that tension and/or
chaos may have a highly organized underlying intellectual order.

The argument of course being that what comes across louder and clearer than
anything is the feeling of tension and/or chaos. The 2nd Viennese school is
largely successful as being able to capture a sense of anxiety, neurosis,
and hysteria that seemed to grip "Fin du Siecle" Viennese thought in
general, as exemplified in the visual arts by expressionists such as Egon
Schiele.

> > And, of course, Schoenberg and serialism are not one and the same thing.
> > > 11-edo and 13-edo surely are dynamite pitch fields for all kinds of
> serial
> > > and set manipulations.
> > >
> > >
> > Agreed, you bet! :)
>

Well we certainly agree there. And how about some examples?
>
>
>
Sure, share yours! I don't have any at the moment, and other projects more
pressing to attend to, but I can say that Chris Bailey's stuffed animal set
is an excellent example of neo-serialist thinking applied to xenharmonics
(in this case, the hot topic of 11-edo again)

Cheers!

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

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Hey Lob-a-wad,

You originally said earlier:

> > It meant giving dissonance status equal to that of consonance. Using a
> > tuning which very strongly favors dissonant possibilities over consonant
> > would **not** [emphasis mine] be in keeping with Schoenberg's conception
of the
> > emancipation of dissonance.

My point is that, in Schoenberg's own words, consonance and dissonance were
irrelevant to his purpose. But it goes even further, and sometimes he
indicates he does favor dissonance; here's another quote, form an essay in
1931 entitled "Linear Counterpoint" (pg 291-292 of "Style and Idea, selected
writings of Arnold Schoenberg", University of California Press, 1975):

"""....parts ought to be independent of each other even in their harmonic
relationship. This means:
(a) that in sounding together they need not be related to a common
harmony;
(b) that no sort of 'registerable' harmony has to result from the way
they sound together;
(c) that if possible they should produce dissonances when they sound
together (to show how little they are worried)
(d) that there need be no attempy to produce harmonic _progressions_
('registerable') ones, such as cadences or any other identifiable
fundamental-progressions, and that such progressions are no criterion of the
parts' function;
(e) that so far as possible one should avoid any articulation such as
can arise from the coincidence of parts in articulating 'steps'. """

I draw your attention to item (c) above, which clearly and unambiguously
states that Schoenberg in fact favored dissonance *over* consonance for his
goals, a fact you originally denied by stating that "emancipation of
dissonance" did not mean "be as dissonant as possible". Here, it appears he
endorses "being as dissonant as possible"!!! Which is why I think 11-edo or
13-edo have great potential for a hungry serialist, for two reasons: maximum
avoidance of tonal implications, and maximum dissonance (one could argue
that these are one and the same)...

Regardless of our disagreements about the basic premises involved, we
thankfully agreed on this most important point, anyway :)

Best,
AKJ

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:20 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:

> But we weren't talking about "ebb and flow of harmony".
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> > <aaron@...>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It's been a long time, but I have "Style and Idea", and I will peruse
> it
> > > for some quotes.
> > >
> > >
> > Just wanted you to know, that I found a VERY pertinent quote from the
> essay
> > "Twelve-Tone composition", dated 1923. This is the very first sentence:
> >
> > """ In twelve-tone composition consonances (major and minor triads) and
> also
> > the simpler dissonances (diminished triads and seventh chords) --- in
> fact
> > almost everything that used to make up the ebb and flow of harmony ---
> are,
> > as far as possible, avoided""
> >
> > Later, in the same essay:
> >
> > """ ....in twelve-tone composition one need not ask after the more or
> less
> > dissonant character of a sound-combination, since the combination as such
> > (ignoring whether its effect creates a mood or not) is entirely outside
> the
> > discussion as an element in the process of composition. """
> >
> > So, I think I've demonstrated my original thesis, with quotes right from
> > Schoenberg himself, that he was little concerned, in the context of his
> own
> > music, with any sense of consonance and dissonance at all.
> >
> > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > http://www.untwelve.org
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

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

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Hey, wad-lobber, responses below....
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:49 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Schoenberg did not seek the tonal implications of serialism as much as
> > Berg
> > > did. Certain piece of Schoenberg have a more tonal feel, like the 2nd
> > > chamber symphony, nonetheless.
> >
> > You're missing the basic point. Read Harmonielehre and Stil und Gedanke,
> > and you will see that what I say is simple and very sensible:
> >
> > Schoenberg considered that which Western music traditionally considers
> > dissonances to be simply higher members of the harmonic series, that which
> > we consider consonances being lower members. He stated this quite clearly.
> >
> >
> Quotes?

"Man kann nun sagen, und kann diesen Satz ziemlich weitgehend erproben und beweisen, dass alle musikalischen Geschehnisse sich auf die Obertonreihe zurueckfuehren lassen, so dass alles sich darstellt als Ausnuetzung eifacherer un komplizierterer Verhaeltnisse dieser Reihe."

Followed by a "13-limit JI" structure, you can make a JI diagram from it.

I already said where to find this stuff- Probleme der Harmonie, 1927.

>
>
> > Therefore, according to him, the chromaticism of the Romantics was simply
> > the regular inclusion of higher partials into Western music.
> >
> >
> Whether or not he did may be beside the point, considering the >insights of
> cognitive perception of music.

>Schoenberg was an intellectual who certainly
> had intellectual blinders on, as well as poor understanding of >musical
> cognition.

There is one and only one demonstration of true understanding of musical cognition: good original composition. The piano concerto no.42 from '42 is a full-blown mature work, and I hear nothing "baffling" or "confusing" or anything along those lines about it. Just clear, strong, and, to use the scientific term, bitchen', music (there's a pretty darn Bartok part of it, too).

This alone sastifies me as to the quality of Arnie's understanding of musical cognition.

>To claim, for instance, that a tone row is a recognizable musical
> identity in a given piece is quite a stretch. Very few rows can be >so easily
> parsed....some examples of easily parsed ones might be 4 parallel >augmented
> triads, like Liszt used in the 'Dante' symphony. Of course, this was
> pre-serialism, and probably was not even thought of in the same >terms.

It could be that Schoenberg made the claim that "a tone row is a recognizable musical identity in a given piece", but I don't recall reading any such thing from him. What I have read is far more sensible- in Composition with Twelve Tones, he speaks of the unifying effect of the row arising from intervallic repetition, pointing out that when you've got R, I and RI you've got more repetition than you'd expect, and each tone (of the row) is neighbored on either side
by consistently the same intervals.

The error here, in my opinion, is over-identifying ascending and descending intervals. But that is beside my point, which is, where does Schoenberg make this claim?

Gotta run, back later

> Depending on how one takes to mean 'important', this is a key >statement.
> Schoenberg may have taken them to be 'equally important' in an 'a >priori'
> way. However, to take them as equally important in their effect on the human
> cognitive mechanism of consonance and dissonance is another thing
> altogether. Which, as we know, would be a cognitive mistake. Even the simple
> fact that most spectra make higher partial much less significant due to
> lower amplitude puts this to rest.

>
>
> > So, not only did he precede Partch, he went beyond, for Schoenberg
> > proposed, for example, 13:8 as equally "central" as say 5:4... or 2:1.
> >
> >
> Exactly...this is totally wishful thinking at best. As a dyad, 13:8 doesn't
> register as anything but an "out of tune" or approximately just shy of a
> quarter-tone sharp minor 6th....it only becomes something which is perceived
> as a "locked unit" if it appears in conjunction with other stronger, and
> similarly weak, members of the series.
>
>
> > Is Johnny Rheinhardt currently lurking? I'm sure he'll recognize the simple
> > sanity of this take on Schoenberg.
> >
>
> It's been a long time, but I have "Style and Idea", and I will peruse it for
> some quotes.
>
> For someone who didn't want to reveal your identity based on the fallacy of
> "argument from authority", I'm surprised you are invoking Johnny Reinhardt
> to come to your rescue as just such an authority. :)
>
> >
> > His conception was to chase the true abstract linearity of >counterpoint,
> and
> > the identity of the tone-row, freely, without regard to consonance >*or*
> > dissonance. "Emancipation of dissonance" really means emancipation >from
> the
> > concept of dissonance or consonance, period.
>
> A more cynical take would be that he sought to elevate sheer gesture,
> > specifically Romantic gesture, to architectural significance. In my opinion,
> > this is actually true to an extent, and pretty much perfectly concides in
> > time with the painting of Janet Sobel. But I don't consider this a slight,
> > unlike Boulez who critized the Romantic in Schoenberg. Rather I consider the
> > elevation of gesture to structural importance an artistic achievment.
> >
> >
> There's no doubt about Schoenberg's achievement, love him or hate him (I
> respect him highly) even though he had pretty naive ideas about human
> musical perception. In spite of that, he was certainly a great master, and a
> highly respected and influential figure, both as a revolutionary thinker and
> as a teacher.
>
>
> >
> > > A tuning such as that offered by thirty-four equal divisions of the
> > octave,
> > > > which offers a plethora of possibiliites both very consonant and very
> > > > dissonant, might be ideal.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Irrelevant, because of the arguments above, and below....
> >
> > Not irrelevant. Schoenberg gave 53-tET the stamp of approval, how can it be
> > irrelevant to offer 34 as an alternative?
> >
>
> IIRC, he gave 53 a stamp of approval, only to later argue against its
> practicality. The same argument was made by Hindemith, I believe.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > However, "34 tones related only to each other" would present quite a
> > > > cognitive and logistic challenge.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 12-tones present a similar challenge for many, if not most, as >decades
> > and
> > > decades of flustered audiences of the 2nd Viennese school proves.
> >
> > This is a cliche, valid only for a small group of people hysterically
> > clinging to cliched thinking. Countless millions have for decades parsed
> > Schoenbergian "dissonance" in movie soundtracks, effortlessly.
> >
>
> Two things going on here, we're not quite talking about the same thing:
> there's 1) parsing "dissonance" and 2) parsing the "tone row". I was
> referring to the latter, which is claimed to be an important structural
> element that is *audible*. Sure, Pierre Boulez can probably parse 12-tone
> rows and all their permutations, but your average audience member, even
> studied musicians, will not.
>
> And "dissonance" in movie soundtracks is irrelevant to the discussion as I
> see it, although I concede it's an interesting contextual dichotomy that
> what people "accept" when there are scary things going on on the big screen
> is out-of-sync with what they "accept" without a programmatic narrative...
>
>
> > > Again, Schoenberg did not use contextual dissonance in his mature >works.
> > He
> > > may have had surface gestures which did mimic things like >non-harmonic
> > tone
> > > appogiaturas, but they didn't form "tension-release" dualities >against
> > some
> > > background harmony. It would be a mistake to think so. There are no
> > > chord-progressions here.....
> >
>
>
> Again, Schoenberg considered "dissonances" as simply entities coming from
> > higher in the harmonic series. More complex ratios. You would maintain that
> > Schoenberg did not use more complex ratios, even after he said he did, and
> > everyone can hear, at least in a sensitive orchestral performance, plain as
> > day that he does?
> >
>
>
> My point is, sure, one can consider them more "complex ratios", but that
> doesn't still help the case, because these ratios go above and beyond what
> people would parse as meaningful in any context other than the creation of a
> subjective sense of tension and/or chaos, even though that tension and/or
> chaos may have a highly organized underlying intellectual order.
>
> The argument of course being that what comes across louder and clearer than
> anything is the feeling of tension and/or chaos. The 2nd Viennese school is
> largely successful as being able to capture a sense of anxiety, neurosis,
> and hysteria that seemed to grip "Fin du Siecle" Viennese thought in
> general, as exemplified in the visual arts by expressionists such as Egon
> Schiele.
>
> > > And, of course, Schoenberg and serialism are not one and the same thing.
> > > > 11-edo and 13-edo surely are dynamite pitch fields for all kinds of
> > serial
> > > > and set manipulations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Agreed, you bet! :)
> >
>
> Well we certainly agree there. And how about some examples?
> >
> >
> >
> Sure, share yours! I don't have any at the moment, and other projects more
> pressing to attend to, but I can say that Chris Bailey's stuffed animal set
> is an excellent example of neo-serialist thinking applied to xenharmonics
> (in this case, the hot topic of 11-edo again)
>
> Cheers!
>
> AKJ
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

:facepalm: "If possible" doesn't mean "always", and it cannot because Schoenberg assumed the presence of, in their raw form, "consonances" as possibilities. He had to do so, for consonances are part of the harmonic series, from which he unequivocabally claimed musical intervals to derive!

Schoenberg's conception of dissonances, in their raw form, is what is called on this list "higher limit JI".

b als 7. Oberton von C
fis als 11. Oberton von C
es als 7. Oberton von F und 13. von G

(Probleme der Harmonie, 1927)

!!!! It's spelled out plain as day. And see the intro to Harmonielehre.

If you think about it, we can settle this argument with ease.

What we need for a turbocharged moderne Shoenbergian tuning is a tuning favoring, but not consisting almost entirely of, dissonant intervals, in which dissonance is defined in the Schoenbergian manner as members of the higher harmonic series.

Therefore: excellent 7, 11, 13 approximations with slop on 3 and 5 allowed, even preferred. 11-edo and 13-edo each have some okay properties, given these standards. Much better tunings surely exist, and here hopefully is where GWS can help us out.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Lob-a-wad,
>
> You originally said earlier:
>
> > > It meant giving dissonance status equal to that of consonance. Using a
> > > tuning which very strongly favors dissonant possibilities over consonant
> > > would **not** [emphasis mine] be in keeping with Schoenberg's conception
> of the
> > > emancipation of dissonance.
>
> My point is that, in Schoenberg's own words, consonance and dissonance were
> irrelevant to his purpose. But it goes even further, and sometimes he
> indicates he does favor dissonance; here's another quote, form an essay in
> 1931 entitled "Linear Counterpoint" (pg 291-292 of "Style and Idea, selected
> writings of Arnold Schoenberg", University of California Press, 1975):
>
> """....parts ought to be independent of each other even in their harmonic
> relationship. This means:
> (a) that in sounding together they need not be related to a common
> harmony;
> (b) that no sort of 'registerable' harmony has to result from the way
> they sound together;
> (c) that if possible they should produce dissonances when they sound
> together (to show how little they are worried)
> (d) that there need be no attempy to produce harmonic _progressions_
> ('registerable') ones, such as cadences or any other identifiable
> fundamental-progressions, and that such progressions are no criterion of the
> parts' function;
> (e) that so far as possible one should avoid any articulation such as
> can arise from the coincidence of parts in articulating 'steps'. """
>
> I draw your attention to item (c) above, which clearly and unambiguously
> states that Schoenberg in fact favored dissonance *over* consonance for his
> goals, a fact you originally denied by stating that "emancipation of
> dissonance" did not mean "be as dissonant as possible". Here, it appears he
> endorses "being as dissonant as possible"!!! Which is why I think 11-edo or
> 13-edo have great potential for a hungry serialist, for two reasons: maximum
> avoidance of tonal implications, and maximum dissonance (one could argue
> that these are one and the same)...
>
> Regardless of our disagreements about the basic premises involved, we
> thankfully agreed on this most important point, anyway :)
>
> Best,
> AKJ
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:20 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
> > But we weren't talking about "ebb and flow of harmony".
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> > > <aaron@>wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It's been a long time, but I have "Style and Idea", and I will peruse
> > it
> > > > for some quotes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Just wanted you to know, that I found a VERY pertinent quote from the
> > essay
> > > "Twelve-Tone composition", dated 1923. This is the very first sentence:
> > >
> > > """ In twelve-tone composition consonances (major and minor triads) and
> > also
> > > the simpler dissonances (diminished triads and seventh chords) --- in
> > fact
> > > almost everything that used to make up the ebb and flow of harmony ---
> > are,
> > > as far as possible, avoided""
> > >
> > > Later, in the same essay:
> > >
> > > """ ....in twelve-tone composition one need not ask after the more or
> > less
> > > dissonant character of a sound-combination, since the combination as such
> > > (ignoring whether its effect creates a mood or not) is entirely outside
> > the
> > > discussion as an element in the process of composition. """
> > >
> > > So, I think I've demonstrated my original thesis, with quotes right from
> > > Schoenberg himself, that he was little concerned, in the context of his
> > own
> > > music, with any sense of consonance and dissonance at all.
> > >
> > > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > > http://www.untwelve.org
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Lobawad,

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:54 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:

>
> "Man kann nun sagen, und kann diesen Satz ziemlich weitgehend erproben und
> beweisen, dass alle musikalischen Geschehnisse sich auf die Obertonreihe
> zurueckfuehren lassen, so dass alles sich darstellt als Ausnuetzung
> eifacherer un komplizierterer Verhaeltnisse dieser Reihe."
>
> Followed by a "13-limit JI" structure, you can make a JI diagram from it.
>
> I already said where to find this stuff- Probleme der Harmonie, 1927.
>
>
This is the first time in this thread you mentioned "Probleme der Harmonie".
But more to the point--you are ignoring my quotes which are direct evidence
that Schoenberg considered consciously used dissonance "to show how little
the lines are worried".....

And, I think you could have at least translated to English for me...this
passage doesn't really tell us anything. I never said Schoenberg didn't talk
about the harmonic series. I said that his use of consonance and dissonance
was such that the distinction between them was irrelevant, and in fact, as
we are discovering, he actually favored dissonance. So we were both
incomplete in our assessment....the naive view that he wanted to make things
"as dissonant as possible" is actually, judging from his written words on
the subject and also the type of textures he wrote, closest to the truth.

>
> >
> > > Therefore, according to him, the chromaticism of the Romantics was
> simply
> > > the regular inclusion of higher partials into Western music.
> > >
> > >
> > Whether or not he did may be beside the point, considering the >insights
> of
> > cognitive perception of music.
>
> >Schoenberg was an intellectual who certainly
> > had intellectual blinders on, as well as poor understanding of >musical
> > cognition.
>
> There is one and only one demonstration of true understanding of musical
> cognition: good original composition. The piano concerto no.42 from '42 is a
> full-blown mature work, and I hear nothing "baffling" or "confusing" or
> anything along those lines about it. Just clear, strong, and, to use the
> scientific term, bitchen', music (there's a pretty darn Bartok part of it,
> too).
>
> This alone sastifies me as to the quality of Arnie's understanding of
> musical cognition.
>
>
This of course, is entirely subjective, and you are in a vast minority here.
His output is uneven in this regard---some works are denser and harder to
parse than others, for sure. Look at the difference in the two chamber
symphonies! The 2nd one is a sort of 'return to tonality'

My own take is that the mature serial pieces of Schoenberg are masterfully
constructed, but until you have many repeated listens they are homogeneous
in their anxious character....and not my favorite listening. I don't often
say to myself "gotta hear some Arnie", but that kind of thing shifts for me
and different composers come into the foreground while others recede.

Elsewhere, Schoenberg writes about his lack of use of repetition, stating a
preference for continuing variation. He never really justifies this, and
even acknowledges the importance of repetition for cognitive grasping. It's
as if he just stubbornly wants to not repeat because it "hasn't been
done"....this is a composer extremely self-aware of how he is perceived in
the fabric of musical history, wanting to put as many notches in his belt as
he can that read "no one before me did this"

>To claim, for instance, that a tone row is a recognizable musical
> > identity in a given piece is quite a stretch. Very few rows can be >so
> easily
> > parsed....some examples of easily parsed ones might be 4 parallel
> >augmented
> > triads, like Liszt used in the 'Dante' symphony. Of course, this was
> > pre-serialism, and probably was not even thought of in the same >terms.
>
> It could be that Schoenberg made the claim that "a tone row is a
> recognizable musical identity in a given piece", but I don't recall reading
> any such thing from him. What I have read is far more sensible- in
> Composition with Twelve Tones, he speaks of the unifying effect of the row
> arising from intervallic repetition, pointing out that when you've got R, I
> and RI you've got more repetition than you'd expect, and each tone (of the
> row) is neighbored on either side
> by consistently the same intervals.
>
> The error here, in my opinion, is over-identifying ascending and descending
> intervals. But that is beside my point, which is, where does Schoenberg make
> this claim?
>

In Twelve-Tone composition, the same 1923 essay, the last paragraph reads:

""" In twelve-tone composition the matter under discussion is in fact the
succession of tones mentioned, whose comprehensibility as a musical idea is
independent of whether its components are made audible one after the other
or more or less simultaneously. But perhaps (or even, certainly) the further
development and the tempo of the presentation depend on whether in its first
form it was sufficiently comprehensible, or, on the contrary, whether it was
perhaps too comprehensible (laws of popular expression!) """

It does appear that he concedes that a row can be both opaque and
transparent. The transparent examples are few and far between though.

Throughout his writings, Schoenberg is obsessed with the idea of unity in
general, and there are passages that show some god-awful reasoning processes
to justify how one theme from a work is 'derived' from another. In
particular, there is one example where he discusses almost destroying a 2nd
theme from the 1st Kammer-Symphonie bc it didn't appear to be derived from
the 1st main theme; however, the reasoning that the two are related is very
Procrustean at best. He does so by a pseudo-Schenkerian analysis (while
ironically, elsewhere showering contempt upon Schenker), including making
weak-beat notes of the 2nd theme "True principal tones" so as to show how
the first and 2nd themes are related by inversion and an obvious omission of
notes. Indeed, you are left impressed with the idea, after a careful
reading, that Arnie could demonstrate that he could relate his entire output
to "Frere Jacques" by a repeated process of "inversion and omission"....

AKJ

> Aaron Krister Johnson
> > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > http://www.untwelve.org
> >
> >
>
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

<sigh> :facepalm-II

I'm only pointing out what Schoenberg himself said about the *use* of these
tones in relation to one another.

He said, as plain as day, that in serial technique, his serial technique to
be specific, the considerations of consonance and dissonance don't come into
play in general, and that if anything, dissonance is to be favored. Period.

So the discussions about the overtone series, although they exist in
theoretical texts by Arnie, do not in any way become pertinent to the
practical manner by which any set of raw tones is used. Except to say that
typically, what is traditionally a 'dissonance' is defined on the continuum
of the overtone series. But so what?

I don't see how this is in any way an arguable point. I just quoted you a
handful of paragraphs by the man himself where he makes this completely
clear to anyone who knows how to read..... :)

AKJ

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:27 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:

> :facepalm: "If possible" doesn't mean "always", and it cannot because
> Schoenberg assumed the presence of, in their raw form, "consonances" as
> possibilities. He had to do so, for consonances are part of the harmonic
> series, from which he unequivocabally claimed musical intervals to derive!
>
> Schoenberg's conception of dissonances, in their raw form, is what is
> called on this list "higher limit JI".
>
> b als 7. Oberton von C
> fis als 11. Oberton von C
> es als 7. Oberton von F und 13. von G
>
> (Probleme der Harmonie, 1927)
>
> !!!! It's spelled out plain as day. And see the intro to Harmonielehre.
>
> If you think about it, we can settle this argument with ease.
>
> What we need for a turbocharged moderne Shoenbergian tuning is a tuning
> favoring, but not consisting almost entirely of, dissonant intervals, in
> which dissonance is defined in the Schoenbergian manner as members of the
> higher harmonic series.
>
> Therefore: excellent 7, 11, 13 approximations with slop on 3 and 5 allowed,
> even preferred. 11-edo and 13-edo each have some okay properties, given
> these standards. Much better tunings surely exist, and here hopefully is
> where GWS can help us out.
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Lob-a-wad,
> >
> > You originally said earlier:
> >
> > > > It meant giving dissonance status equal to that of consonance. Using
> a
> > > > tuning which very strongly favors dissonant possibilities over
> consonant
> > > > would **not** [emphasis mine] be in keeping with Schoenberg's
> conception
> > of the
> > > > emancipation of dissonance.
> >
> > My point is that, in Schoenberg's own words, consonance and dissonance
> were
> > irrelevant to his purpose. But it goes even further, and sometimes he
> > indicates he does favor dissonance; here's another quote, form an essay
> in
> > 1931 entitled "Linear Counterpoint" (pg 291-292 of "Style and Idea,
> selected
> > writings of Arnold Schoenberg", University of California Press, 1975):
> >
> > """....parts ought to be independent of each other even in their harmonic
> > relationship. This means:
> > (a) that in sounding together they need not be related to a common
> > harmony;
> > (b) that no sort of 'registerable' harmony has to result from the way
> > they sound together;
> > (c) that if possible they should produce dissonances when they sound
> > together (to show how little they are worried)
> > (d) that there need be no attempy to produce harmonic _progressions_
> > ('registerable') ones, such as cadences or any other identifiable
> > fundamental-progressions, and that such progressions are no criterion of
> the
> > parts' function;
> > (e) that so far as possible one should avoid any articulation such
> as
> > can arise from the coincidence of parts in articulating 'steps'. """
> >
> > I draw your attention to item (c) above, which clearly and unambiguously
> > states that Schoenberg in fact favored dissonance *over* consonance for
> his
> > goals, a fact you originally denied by stating that "emancipation of
> > dissonance" did not mean "be as dissonant as possible". Here, it appears
> he
> > endorses "being as dissonant as possible"!!! Which is why I think 11-edo
> or
> > 13-edo have great potential for a hungry serialist, for two reasons:
> maximum
> > avoidance of tonal implications, and maximum dissonance (one could argue
> > that these are one and the same)...
> >
> > Regardless of our disagreements about the basic premises involved, we
> > thankfully agreed on this most important point, anyway :)
> >
> > Best,
> > AKJ
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:20 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
> >
> > > But we weren't talking about "ebb and flow of harmony".
> > >
> > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> > > > <aaron@>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's been a long time, but I have "Style and Idea", and I will
> peruse
> > > it
> > > > > for some quotes.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Just wanted you to know, that I found a VERY pertinent quote from the
> > > essay
> > > > "Twelve-Tone composition", dated 1923. This is the very first
> sentence:
> > > >
> > > > """ In twelve-tone composition consonances (major and minor triads)
> and
> > > also
> > > > the simpler dissonances (diminished triads and seventh chords) --- in
> > > fact
> > > > almost everything that used to make up the ebb and flow of harmony
> ---
> > > are,
> > > > as far as possible, avoided""
> > > >
> > > > Later, in the same essay:
> > > >
> > > > """ ....in twelve-tone composition one need not ask after the more or
> > > less
> > > > dissonant character of a sound-combination, since the combination as
> such
> > > > (ignoring whether its effect creates a mood or not) is entirely
> outside
> > > the
> > > > discussion as an element in the process of composition. """
> > > >
> > > > So, I think I've demonstrated my original thesis, with quotes right
> from
> > > > Schoenberg himself, that he was little concerned, in the context of
> his
> > > own
> > > > music, with any sense of consonance and dissonance at all.
> > > >
> > > > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > > > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > > > http://www.untwelve.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > http://www.untwelve.org
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Just to underscore that point, one of my first Schoenberg quotes:

""" ....in twelve-tone composition one need not ask after the more or less
dissonant character of a sound-combination, since the combination as such
(ignoring whether its effect creates a mood or not) is entirely outside the
discussion as an element in the process of composition. """

Note the words "entirely outside". Important!!!

AKJ

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@...>wrote:

> <sigh> :facepalm-II
>
> I'm only pointing out what Schoenberg himself said about the *use* of these
> tones in relation to one another.
>
> He said, as plain as day, that in serial technique, his serial technique to
> be specific, the considerations of consonance and dissonance don't come into
> play in general, and that if anything, dissonance is to be favored. Period.
>
> So the discussions about the overtone series, although they exist in
> theoretical texts by Arnie, do not in any way become pertinent to the
> practical manner by which any set of raw tones is used. Except to say that
> typically, what is traditionally a 'dissonance' is defined on the continuum
> of the overtone series. But so what?
>
> I don't see how this is in any way an arguable point. I just quoted you a
> handful of paragraphs by the man himself where he makes this completely
> clear to anyone who knows how to read..... :)
>
> AKJ
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:27 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
>> :facepalm: "If possible" doesn't mean "always", and it cannot because
>> Schoenberg assumed the presence of, in their raw form, "consonances" as
>> possibilities. He had to do so, for consonances are part of the harmonic
>> series, from which he unequivocabally claimed musical intervals to derive!
>>
>> Schoenberg's conception of dissonances, in their raw form, is what is
>> called on this list "higher limit JI".
>>
>> b als 7. Oberton von C
>> fis als 11. Oberton von C
>> es als 7. Oberton von F und 13. von G
>>
>> (Probleme der Harmonie, 1927)
>>
>> !!!! It's spelled out plain as day. And see the intro to Harmonielehre.
>>
>> If you think about it, we can settle this argument with ease.
>>
>> What we need for a turbocharged moderne Shoenbergian tuning is a tuning
>> favoring, but not consisting almost entirely of, dissonant intervals, in
>> which dissonance is defined in the Schoenbergian manner as members of the
>> higher harmonic series.
>>
>> Therefore: excellent 7, 11, 13 approximations with slop on 3 and 5
>> allowed, even preferred. 11-edo and 13-edo each have some okay properties,
>> given these standards. Much better tunings surely exist, and here hopefully
>> is where GWS can help us out.
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hey Lob-a-wad,
>> >
>> > You originally said earlier:
>> >
>> > > > It meant giving dissonance status equal to that of consonance. Using
>> a
>> > > > tuning which very strongly favors dissonant possibilities over
>> consonant
>> > > > would **not** [emphasis mine] be in keeping with Schoenberg's
>> conception
>> > of the
>> > > > emancipation of dissonance.
>> >
>> > My point is that, in Schoenberg's own words, consonance and dissonance
>> were
>> > irrelevant to his purpose. But it goes even further, and sometimes he
>> > indicates he does favor dissonance; here's another quote, form an essay
>> in
>> > 1931 entitled "Linear Counterpoint" (pg 291-292 of "Style and Idea,
>> selected
>> > writings of Arnold Schoenberg", University of California Press, 1975):
>> >
>> > """....parts ought to be independent of each other even in their
>> harmonic
>> > relationship. This means:
>> > (a) that in sounding together they need not be related to a common
>> > harmony;
>> > (b) that no sort of 'registerable' harmony has to result from the
>> way
>> > they sound together;
>> > (c) that if possible they should produce dissonances when they sound
>> > together (to show how little they are worried)
>> > (d) that there need be no attempy to produce harmonic _progressions_
>> > ('registerable') ones, such as cadences or any other identifiable
>> > fundamental-progressions, and that such progressions are no criterion of
>> the
>> > parts' function;
>> > (e) that so far as possible one should avoid any articulation such
>> as
>> > can arise from the coincidence of parts in articulating 'steps'. """
>> >
>> > I draw your attention to item (c) above, which clearly and unambiguously
>> > states that Schoenberg in fact favored dissonance *over* consonance for
>> his
>> > goals, a fact you originally denied by stating that "emancipation of
>> > dissonance" did not mean "be as dissonant as possible". Here, it appears
>> he
>> > endorses "being as dissonant as possible"!!! Which is why I think 11-edo
>> or
>> > 13-edo have great potential for a hungry serialist, for two reasons:
>> maximum
>> > avoidance of tonal implications, and maximum dissonance (one could argue
>> > that these are one and the same)...
>> >
>> > Regardless of our disagreements about the basic premises involved, we
>> > thankfully agreed on this most important point, anyway :)
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > AKJ
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:20 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > > But we weren't talking about "ebb and flow of harmony".
>> > >
>> > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson
>> > > > <aaron@>wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It's been a long time, but I have "Style and Idea", and I will
>> peruse
>> > > it
>> > > > > for some quotes.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > Just wanted you to know, that I found a VERY pertinent quote from
>> the
>> > > essay
>> > > > "Twelve-Tone composition", dated 1923. This is the very first
>> sentence:
>> > > >
>> > > > """ In twelve-tone composition consonances (major and minor triads)
>> and
>> > > also
>> > > > the simpler dissonances (diminished triads and seventh chords) ---
>> in
>> > > fact
>> > > > almost everything that used to make up the ebb and flow of harmony
>> ---
>> > > are,
>> > > > as far as possible, avoided""
>> > > >
>> > > > Later, in the same essay:
>> > > >
>> > > > """ ....in twelve-tone composition one need not ask after the more
>> or
>> > > less
>> > > > dissonant character of a sound-combination, since the combination as
>> such
>> > > > (ignoring whether its effect creates a mood or not) is entirely
>> outside
>> > > the
>> > > > discussion as an element in the process of composition. """
>> > > >
>> > > > So, I think I've demonstrated my original thesis, with quotes right
>> from
>> > > > Schoenberg himself, that he was little concerned, in the context of
>> his
>> > > own
>> > > > music, with any sense of consonance and dissonance at all.
>> > > >
>> > > > Aaron Krister Johnson
>> > > > http://www.akjmusic.com
>> > > > http://www.untwelve.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Aaron Krister Johnson
>> > http://www.akjmusic.com
>> > http://www.untwelve.org
>> >
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>

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

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

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

And using a field of pitches which offers pretty much only dissonance is NOT conducive to placing issues of consonance and dissonance outside the discussion: it is basically a declaration that everything must be dissonant. It's a cop-out that I don't think Schoenberg, obsessed with "problem-solving" as he was, would have dug.

Now, there's another route out of this disagreement: "asonance". I find that using a tuning which is both all-dissonant AND all-consonant, that is, asonant, is great for serialism, and tends toward work that is closer in feel to Schoenberg as performed by an orchestra than something done in a hellacious tuning.

"Asonant" tunings would be those "windchime" tunings which are not "sweet". I will post an example, from some time ago, as soon as I get a chance.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Just to underscore that point, one of my first Schoenberg quotes:
>
> """ ....in twelve-tone composition one need not ask after the more or less
> dissonant character of a sound-combination, since the combination as such
> (ignoring whether its effect creates a mood or not) is entirely outside the
> discussion as an element in the process of composition. """
>
> Note the words "entirely outside". Important!!!
>
> AKJ
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> <aaron@...>wrote:
>
> > <sigh> :facepalm-II
> >
> > I'm only pointing out what Schoenberg himself said about the *use* of these
> > tones in relation to one another.
> >
> > He said, as plain as day, that in serial technique, his serial technique to
> > be specific, the considerations of consonance and dissonance don't come into
> > play in general, and that if anything, dissonance is to be favored. Period.
> >
> > So the discussions about the overtone series, although they exist in
> > theoretical texts by Arnie, do not in any way become pertinent to the
> > practical manner by which any set of raw tones is used. Except to say that
> > typically, what is traditionally a 'dissonance' is defined on the continuum
> > of the overtone series. But so what?
> >
> > I don't see how this is in any way an arguable point. I just quoted you a
> > handful of paragraphs by the man himself where he makes this completely
> > clear to anyone who knows how to read..... :)
> >
> > AKJ
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:27 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
> >
> >> :facepalm: "If possible" doesn't mean "always", and it cannot because
> >> Schoenberg assumed the presence of, in their raw form, "consonances" as
> >> possibilities. He had to do so, for consonances are part of the harmonic
> >> series, from which he unequivocabally claimed musical intervals to derive!
> >>
> >> Schoenberg's conception of dissonances, in their raw form, is what is
> >> called on this list "higher limit JI".
> >>
> >> b als 7. Oberton von C
> >> fis als 11. Oberton von C
> >> es als 7. Oberton von F und 13. von G
> >>
> >> (Probleme der Harmonie, 1927)
> >>
> >> !!!! It's spelled out plain as day. And see the intro to Harmonielehre.
> >>
> >> If you think about it, we can settle this argument with ease.
> >>
> >> What we need for a turbocharged moderne Shoenbergian tuning is a tuning
> >> favoring, but not consisting almost entirely of, dissonant intervals, in
> >> which dissonance is defined in the Schoenbergian manner as members of the
> >> higher harmonic series.
> >>
> >> Therefore: excellent 7, 11, 13 approximations with slop on 3 and 5
> >> allowed, even preferred. 11-edo and 13-edo each have some okay properties,
> >> given these standards. Much better tunings surely exist, and here hopefully
> >> is where GWS can help us out.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hey Lob-a-wad,
> >> >
> >> > You originally said earlier:
> >> >
> >> > > > It meant giving dissonance status equal to that of consonance. Using
> >> a
> >> > > > tuning which very strongly favors dissonant possibilities over
> >> consonant
> >> > > > would **not** [emphasis mine] be in keeping with Schoenberg's
> >> conception
> >> > of the
> >> > > > emancipation of dissonance.
> >> >
> >> > My point is that, in Schoenberg's own words, consonance and dissonance
> >> were
> >> > irrelevant to his purpose. But it goes even further, and sometimes he
> >> > indicates he does favor dissonance; here's another quote, form an essay
> >> in
> >> > 1931 entitled "Linear Counterpoint" (pg 291-292 of "Style and Idea,
> >> selected
> >> > writings of Arnold Schoenberg", University of California Press, 1975):
> >> >
> >> > """....parts ought to be independent of each other even in their
> >> harmonic
> >> > relationship. This means:
> >> > (a) that in sounding together they need not be related to a common
> >> > harmony;
> >> > (b) that no sort of 'registerable' harmony has to result from the
> >> way
> >> > they sound together;
> >> > (c) that if possible they should produce dissonances when they sound
> >> > together (to show how little they are worried)
> >> > (d) that there need be no attempy to produce harmonic _progressions_
> >> > ('registerable') ones, such as cadences or any other identifiable
> >> > fundamental-progressions, and that such progressions are no criterion of
> >> the
> >> > parts' function;
> >> > (e) that so far as possible one should avoid any articulation such
> >> as
> >> > can arise from the coincidence of parts in articulating 'steps'. """
> >> >
> >> > I draw your attention to item (c) above, which clearly and unambiguously
> >> > states that Schoenberg in fact favored dissonance *over* consonance for
> >> his
> >> > goals, a fact you originally denied by stating that "emancipation of
> >> > dissonance" did not mean "be as dissonant as possible". Here, it appears
> >> he
> >> > endorses "being as dissonant as possible"!!! Which is why I think 11-edo
> >> or
> >> > 13-edo have great potential for a hungry serialist, for two reasons:
> >> maximum
> >> > avoidance of tonal implications, and maximum dissonance (one could argue
> >> > that these are one and the same)...
> >> >
> >> > Regardless of our disagreements about the basic premises involved, we
> >> > thankfully agreed on this most important point, anyway :)
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > AKJ
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:20 AM, lobawad <lobawad@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > But we weren't talking about "ebb and flow of harmony".
> >> > >
> >> > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> >> > > > <aaron@>wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > It's been a long time, but I have "Style and Idea", and I will
> >> peruse
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > for some quotes.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > Just wanted you to know, that I found a VERY pertinent quote from
> >> the
> >> > > essay
> >> > > > "Twelve-Tone composition", dated 1923. This is the very first
> >> sentence:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > """ In twelve-tone composition consonances (major and minor triads)
> >> and
> >> > > also
> >> > > > the simpler dissonances (diminished triads and seventh chords) ---
> >> in
> >> > > fact
> >> > > > almost everything that used to make up the ebb and flow of harmony
> >> ---
> >> > > are,
> >> > > > as far as possible, avoided""
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Later, in the same essay:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > """ ....in twelve-tone composition one need not ask after the more
> >> or
> >> > > less
> >> > > > dissonant character of a sound-combination, since the combination as
> >> such
> >> > > > (ignoring whether its effect creates a mood or not) is entirely
> >> outside
> >> > > the
> >> > > > discussion as an element in the process of composition. """
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So, I think I've demonstrated my original thesis, with quotes right
> >> from
> >> > > > Schoenberg himself, that he was little concerned, in the context of
> >> his
> >> > > own
> >> > > > music, with any sense of consonance and dissonance at all.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Aaron Krister Johnson
> >> > > > http://www.akjmusic.com
> >> > > > http://www.untwelve.org
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > ------------------------------------
> >> > >
> >> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Aaron Krister Johnson
> >> > http://www.akjmusic.com
> >> > http://www.untwelve.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > http://www.untwelve.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

Thanks, Gene!

Heh- I think Hemif 41 coincides exactly with what I worked out as a probable ideal, just by poking around, and trying to make some rhyme and reason of Schoenberg's JI structure (which is actually whacked, unless you assume plenty of comma shifts are okay, which he probably did, being a wild-eyed Romantic who kept his razors under a glass pyramid).

Circle or chain of fifths, or anything else, doesn't matter in Schoenbergian tone-row music, so complexity of reaching intervals via generators shouldn't present any problems. Which brings up the interesting idea, though, that there might be different ideal temperaments for different tone rows- hexachordal mirror-ju-ju (that's the official term) might suggest very specific temperaments.

And 37 looks very interesting.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad" <lobawad@> wrote:
>
> > Therefore: excellent 7, 11, 13 approximations with slop on 3 and 5 allowed, even preferred. 11-edo and 13-edo each have some okay properties, given these standards. Much better tunings surely exist, and here hopefully is where GWS can help us out.
>
> Your best bet may be Hemif, though 7 is much more complex than 3, and if 3 must be avoided it's not a good choice:
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Chromatic+pairs#Hemif
>
> For Hemif tuning 58 is good.
>
> Playable in 20edo, which Balzano has made a big deal out of due to its analogy with 12edo, is Score:
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Chromatic+pairs#Score
>
> But I wouldn't call the approximations excellent.
>
> If having 5 won't pollute things, Roulette could be used:
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Chromatic+pairs#Roulette
>
> The name comes from the fact that 37edo is a good tuning for it.
>
> Huntington also has good approximations, but it misses 11 and has 5 instead, which may leave it out of the running:
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Chromatic+pairs#Huntington
>
> You could tune that up in 400edo, which is cute.
>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

It is your reply that is the "non-sequitur". You replied to the question of whether Schoenberg had ever heard the intervals in question (which are specifically the simple ratios of 7, 11 and 13) by saying that these intervals definitely are not represented in 12-tET.

This is true, but it doesn't answer the question at all. My response was to point out the wealth of non-12 intervals Schoenberg most certainly did hear, continually. And really, you guys should look into things more. Didn't you know that the 2nd Viennese school experimented with quartertones? Haven't you heard of Haba? Schoenberg certainly did hear 11:8 and 13:8, or at least decent approximations thereof.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Dante Rosati <danterosati@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I really wonder if he ever actually listened to the ratios in question.
> > >
> > > i highly doubt it. 11 is a perfect quarter tone and 13 almost so, so
> > > there is no way they are implied by 12edo in any way shape or form.
> > >
> > > 11 is audible in a low piano note wacked hard enough and left to
> > > decay, but I dont remember if 13 is. Maybe someone with an acoustic
> > > piano can check: Aaron?
> > >
> > > Arnie wrote precious little about his 12tone music almost all his
> > > theoretical writings are about tonal theory.
> > >
> >
> > Schoenberg wrote for orchestra and choir. Do you really think orchestras and choirs were performing 12-tET? They don't even today, and they most certainly did not pre-War, as you can verify for yourself listening to old recordings. And he was a violin player.
> >
> > The fact that Schoenberg wrote relatively little about his 12-tone technique only reinforces the idea that he considered it a logical extension of his Romantic background- which it audibly is.
>
> your reply seems to be a non sequitur. what does the fact that a
> capella choirs don't follow strict 12et have to do with the fact that
> partials 11 and 13 have absolutely nothing to do with our tuning
> system as it has historically developed? Unless you are suggesting
> that singers sing ratios based on 11 and 13 instinctively, which I
> certainly hope you are not.
>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Lobawad,
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:54 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Man kann nun sagen, und kann diesen Satz ziemlich weitgehend erproben und
> > beweisen, dass alle musikalischen Geschehnisse sich auf die Obertonreihe
> > zurueckfuehren lassen, so dass alles sich darstellt als Ausnuetzung
> > eifacherer un komplizierterer Verhaeltnisse dieser Reihe."
> >
> > Followed by a "13-limit JI" structure, you can make a JI diagram from it.
> >
> > I already said where to find this stuff- Probleme der Harmonie, 1927.
> >
> >
> This is the first time in this thread you mentioned "Probleme der Harmonie".

No it is not.

/makemicromusic/topicId_26794.html#26889

> But more to the point--you are ignoring my quotes which are direct >evidence
> that Schoenberg considered consciously used dissonance "to show how >little
> the lines are worried".....
>
> And, I think you could have at least translated to English for >me...this
> passage doesn't really tell us anything. I never said Schoenberg >didn't talk
> about the harmonic series. I said that his use of consonance and >dissonance
> was such that the distinction between them was irrelevant, and in >fact, as
> we are discovering, he actually favored dissonance. So we were both
> incomplete in our assessment....the naive view that he wanted to >make things
> "as dissonant as possible" is actually, judging from his written >words on
> the subject and also the type of textures he wrote, closest to the >truth.

Not ignoring your quotes. Trying to explain to you the nature of what Schoenberg meant by dissonance.

And he was correct in proposing that ratios from higher in the harmonic series can be implemented as "central" ratios. The 11-edo piece I did uses 9:7 as the simplest central ratio and seems to be pretty, pleasant and downright catchy to "civilians".

We were talking about tunings. Whether or not a tone row is comprehesible as such is an interesting topic, but it is a tangent. You are trying to use this, which I don't think Schoenberg ever even claimed, as an argument to discredit Schoenberg's theories. Bogus approach.

The tuning ideas in question can be tested. I'm testing them, you're really just giving me Hallmark Greeting Card wisdom about "what people like".

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Hey Wad-lobber,

I think now you are throwing up smokescreens, because the argument was done
a while ago...it's all moot. I think I showed in a very clear and
unambiguous way that Schoenberg didn't give a damn about traditional
consonant and dissonant structures when he wrote 12 tone music, in fact, he
favored dissonant structures. Directly in contrast to your claim that
"emancipation of dissonance" wasn't about being as dissonant as possible.
So, it's you vs. Schoenberg about how to understand Schoenberg. I gave you
all the relevant quotes.

I mean, I gave about 3 or 4 direct source quotes from the man himself. Now
you are saying I was claiming and arguing things that I wasn't even talking
about. I already agreed with you about the overtone series, but pointed out
that it was moot. Now you're all over the map, dude. You're not arguing any
one thing anymore, but having an argument with yourself, claiming I said
things I didn't even say, or more to the point, didn't even care about for
this whole conversation.

I'm not even trying to discredit Schoenberg as you claim, either his
writings or his theories, although the sense that Carl has that he's a bit
of a hack when it comes to musical cognition and acoustics is probably not
far from the truth.

Here's what happened:

1) I claimed 11 or 13 edo would be a good way to do neo-Schoenbergian
serialism. I mentioned "emancipation of the dissonance"
2) You said "emancipation of the dissonance" is not about "being as
dissonant as possible"
3) I said it didn't matter since Schoenberg didn't worry about consonance
and dissonance in the traditional sense, only about row structure and
identity.
4) You then started claiming that I missed the point, and that it was about
overtones. Which was and is completely moot.
5) I then gave you a series of direct quotes which backed up my points about
Schoenberg's conception of serialism, including a quote which suggested that
he did favor "being as dissonant as possible" by favoring dissonant
harmonies in simultaneous tones.
6) You then again claimed I was missing the point, and that it was about
overtones. Again, not listening to what I was saying, what Schoenberg
himself was saying, or even what you were saying, and now having a
completely orthogonal conversation.
7) Exasperated, I re-quoted Schoenberg.
8) Exasperated, you said it was about higher overtones.
9) Here we are, and you still haven't realized that Schoenberg didn't
consider harmony when he wrote serial row music. And that he favored
dissonances to show "that the voices didn't care" (direct quote), etc. You
are still pointing out 13/8, 11/8, etc. Why?

In short, I don't see what your point is. I was only trying to point out
that 11-edo and 13-edo are perfect for abolishing, in the Schoenbergian
sense, traditional associations. Period. And that idea still stands, and in
essence, I don't see why you are huffing and puffing about anything, since
you seem to agree with me about this basic point.

You can chase your tail all you want talking about other moot things, but I
will simply re-post all these points, which are *Schoenberg's own words*,
until you see what I've (he has) been saying....

Also, I stand corrected---you did mention "Probleme der Harmonie" in the
first episode way back, before this thread really got going. :)

I also said you were ignoring my direct Schoenberg quotes...you now say:

"Not ignoring your quotes. Trying to explain to you the nature of what
Schoenberg meant by dissonance."

I'm baffled why you think I'd take your words over his own words, especially
when they are in direct contradiction at times. I agree with you what he
meant by dissonance---higher partials. But so what? How are they used? This
is where you say it would be meaningless to consider a tuning that had no
consonances. I'm showing you it wouldn't be meaningless, because Schoenberg
didn't find the distinction between consonance and dissonance important to
his process, and furthermore, he favored dissonance.

Best,
AKJ

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:00 PM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Lobawad,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:54 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Man kann nun sagen, und kann diesen Satz ziemlich weitgehend erproben
> und
> > > beweisen, dass alle musikalischen Geschehnisse sich auf die
> Obertonreihe
> > > zurueckfuehren lassen, so dass alles sich darstellt als Ausnuetzung
> > > eifacherer un komplizierterer Verhaeltnisse dieser Reihe."
> > >
> > > Followed by a "13-limit JI" structure, you can make a JI diagram from
> it.
> > >
> > > I already said where to find this stuff- Probleme der Harmonie, 1927.
> > >
> > >
> > This is the first time in this thread you mentioned "Probleme der
> Harmonie".
>
> No it is not.
>
> /makemicromusic/topicId_26794.html#26889
>
>
>

> > But more to the point--you are ignoring my quotes which are direct
> >evidence
> > that Schoenberg considered consciously used dissonance "to show how
> >little
> > the lines are worried".....
> >
> > And, I think you could have at least translated to English for >me...this
> > passage doesn't really tell us anything. I never said Schoenberg >didn't
> talk
> > about the harmonic series. I said that his use of consonance and
> >dissonance
> > was such that the distinction between them was irrelevant, and in >fact,
> as
> > we are discovering, he actually favored dissonance. So we were both
> > incomplete in our assessment....the naive view that he wanted to >make
> things
> > "as dissonant as possible" is actually, judging from his written >words
> on
> > the subject and also the type of textures he wrote, closest to the
> >truth.
>
> Not ignoring your quotes. Trying to explain to you the nature of what
> Schoenberg meant by dissonance.
>
> And he was correct in proposing that ratios from higher in the harmonic
> series can be implemented as "central" ratios. The 11-edo piece I did uses
> 9:7 as the simplest central ratio and seems to be pretty, pleasant and
> downright catchy to "civilians".
>
> We were talking about tunings. Whether or not a tone row is comprehesible
> as such is an interesting topic, but it is a tangent. You are trying to use
> this, which I don't think Schoenberg ever even claimed, as an argument to
> discredit Schoenberg's theories. Bogus approach.
>
> The tuning ideas in question can be tested. I'm testing them, you're really
> just giving me Hallmark Greeting Card wisdom about "what people like".
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

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

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

Not "diatonic", but chromatic. Specifically, chromatic as arising in the process of Romantic chromaticism, on which he literally wrote the book.

Let's grab the first thing off the page (in Probleme der Harmonie) that pops out as dubious at first glance- As as 13:8. Well it takes only a minute to figure: in C, vii°7-I in "5-limit" JI gives us an As which is... 5 cents from 13:8.

So Schoenberg is a dolt for tempering out 325/324, while identities at 81/80 float for an allegedly "microtonal" community? Pshaw.

There are obvious bogosities in Arnie's reckoning- F# is certainly going to show up earlier and oftener in V/V than as a tritone straight off of I, so 7:5 at 225:224 from 5-limit Just is far more reasonable than 11:8.

Nevertheless, the concept of a unity between chromaticism and higher parts of the harmonic series is sound, can be demonstrated, and can be heard, especially in older recordings of Romantic music.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:
>
> > It is your reply that is the "non-sequitur". You replied to the question of whether Schoenberg had ever heard the intervals in question (which are specifically the simple ratios of 7, 11 and 13) by saying that these intervals definitely are not represented in 12-tET.
> >
> > This is true, but it doesn't answer the question at all. My response was to point out the wealth of non-12 intervals Schoenberg most >certainly did hear, continually. And really, you guys should look into things more. Didn't you know that the 2nd Viennese school >experimented with quartertones? Haven't you heard of Haba? Schoenberg certainly did hear 11:8 and 13:8, or at least decent >approximations thereof.
>
> If he was familiar with the sound of 11 and 13, especially in a
> diatonic setting, he never would have claimed them to be the "origin"
> of notes of the chromatic scale. But if thats not bad enough, he
> equates 11 and 13 by saying that "db is the 13th overtone of F and the
> 11th of G". Not even close Arnie!
>
> For the record, I'd like to state that I also think he was an
> ubergenius composer, easily one of the 3 or 4 best of the 1st 1/2 of
> the 20th c. And to answer those like Boulez who accused him of being
> an old fuddy duddy, as opposed to the fascist-leaning Webern's "music
> of the future", the Trio is one of the craziest most avant-garde
> pieces I've ever heard.
>