Joseph on Wings

In writing about Wing Donevier, Joseph Pehrson wrote:

>I like the opening premise of this piece. *Very* interesting! The
>timbres are, of course, amazing.

Thanks.

>Although I enjoy the piece as it stands, I would like to also hear
>an "alternate" version, where the opening premise becomes *more*
>abstract rather than *less* (I guess I mean *pop*).

Interesting, but Im not sure that I understand.
At the moment, the structure of the piece is (more or less)

A B A' B' C B'' A''' B'''

All three parts lack any real "harmonic" motion (theyve got
a nice vertical sonority, but meander horizontally).
All three are also in 7 (mostly 4+3).
Partly because theres no "chord changes", I thought it
appropriate to give it forward motion rhythmically,
(rather than harmonically).

Use of the word "pop" is fascinating here - remember we're
talking about something clearly in an adaptive tuning,
and with a 7/4 rhythmic structure...
just what kind of pop are we talking about?

Dont get me wrong Joseph - Im not trying to defend my choices
(though I could), but Im trying to figure out what your
proposed alternate version would be like.

--Bill Sethares

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., sethares@e... wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_2934.html#2934

>
>
> In writing about Wing Donevier, Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> >I like the opening premise of this piece. *Very* interesting!
The
> >timbres are, of course, amazing.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >Although I enjoy the piece as it stands, I would like to also hear
> >an "alternate" version, where the opening premise becomes *more*
> >abstract rather than *less* (I guess I mean *pop*).
>
> Interesting, but Im not sure that I understand.
> At the moment, the structure of the piece is (more or less)
>
> A B A' B' C B'' A''' B'''
>
> All three parts lack any real "harmonic" motion (theyve got
> a nice vertical sonority, but meander horizontally).
> All three are also in 7 (mostly 4+3).
> Partly because theres no "chord changes", I thought it
> appropriate to give it forward motion rhythmically,
> (rather than harmonically).
>
> Use of the word "pop" is fascinating here - remember we're
> talking about something clearly in an adaptive tuning,
> and with a 7/4 rhythmic structure...
> just what kind of pop are we talking about?
>
> Dont get me wrong Joseph - Im not trying to defend my choices
> (though I could), but Im trying to figure out what your
> proposed alternate version would be like.
>
> --Bill Sethares

***Hello Bill!

What does "Donevier" mean again? It's probably something I should
know...

Anyway, I just mean by "pop" the kind of rhythmic regularity that
kicks in at about 16 seconds into the piece, after the intro where
the various sounds are "let ring" a bit.

At 16 seconds a "beat" kicks in and there is certainly nothing wrong
with that. In fact, most people would probably like the piece better
*because* of that.

So, I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with the piece at all.

I was just saying, I would be interested in a version that went the
*other* direction, perhaps making longer time spans with the more
consonant sounds, *without* the repetitive percussion beat. I
realize there is little harmonic motion there, but there is still
*lots* of variation possible.

A good example is the recent post by Jacky Ligon, the _Tritonica_.
There was almost *no* harmonic motion in that piece; it was
incredibly static. However, it still held interest in the timbral
variations.

You initial premise, up to 16 seconds was *so* interesting that it
prompted me to want to hear an "alternate" version of it; that's
about all.

best,

Joe Pehrson