Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic New music up on mp3.com

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...>
wrote:

> > In any case, possibly the rhythmic regularity in
> > _Clinton Variations_ was a little cloying (a little more "metric
> > math" maybe needed in this department) but on the whole a worthy
> > effort in my humble opinion.
>
> Hmmm...I'll keep that in mind.

i had a different, yet very strong, reaction to the clinton
variations. tantalizing as the harmonies were, the relentless
centrality of the tonic chord was what "cloyed" up against me. for
such a lengthy piece, i thirsted, desired, absolutely longed for some
kind of modulation, after which a new chord would be established
as "home" and, in that section, the original tonic would sound like a
subservient function if it appeared at all.

what i'm dying to hear is for you or joseph pehrson or someone to
develop a strong voice as a *melodist*, along the lines of a lou
harrison or a joe maneri (to pick two extremely contrasting
examples). with the kinds of tuning systems you guys are using, it's
not too difficult to take any conceivable melody, harmonize it in
your "pseudo-just" ways -- probably several alternative, equally-
convincing yet expressive of different feelings, harmonizations could
always be worked out -- and then procede to develop a piece through
various combinations of melodic variation, the aforementioned
alternate harmonizations, and modulation (not to mention metrical and
timbral effects). in other words, i feel that i (and, i'll go out on
a limb and say, most listeners) would respond most strongly if the
piece germinated from a confident, consistent melodic idea, with
whatever machinations may then be used to develop it, rather than
having the melody or melodies or lack thereof spring themselves from
machinations of various kinds, or as mere resultants of the harmonic
processes underlying your compositions.

dig? (maybe i'm way off base)

just my schisma . . .

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul and all,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >what i'm dying to hear is for you or joseph pehrson or someone to
develop
> >a strong voice as a *melodist*, along the lines of a lou harrison
or a joe
> >maneri (to pick two extremely contrasting examples)
>
> It sounds as if you believe that development as a melodist is
something
> that can be crafted or learned; I tend to think that the ability to
come up
> with compelling melodic material is a more innate quality.

as in a "gene for melody" (no pun intended)? maybe, but . . .

you learn by doing. you may be able to hit the mark 1% of the time
by "innate ability" (whatever that is) -- by laboriously working on
one's music (and listening to other music) with a self-critical sense
turned way up, over many years i believe you can get that ratio up to
50% or more.

if you don't have that 1% to begin with, then you'll probably never
get anywhere. but i would never, never presume to tell any aspiring
composer that he or she has no innate ability and may as well give up
now. perhaps that innate ability is there but hasn't been watered
enough and given a chance to flower. perhaps it isn't. but who are we
to say? maybe future generations will find our judgments quaint and
outmoded.

> While harmonic
> creativity seems both a skill and an art, and other techniques such
as
> counterpoint and 'orchestration' lean even more toward the craft
end of
> things, my listening to both composers and improvisors leads me to
believe
> that melody is more in the domain of personality and not learned
technique.

who said anything about learned technique? many people devote their
lives to acheiving ever-greater levels of spiritual inspiration,
starting from very meager beginnings. why couldn't the same be true
of musical inspiration?

> Maybe others on the list have ideas as to whether melody is a more
personal
> reflection than other aspects of music-making, or if one can train
oneself
> to become a gifted 'melodist'.

yes, i've found that if one spends years and years working on it, one
can improve one's abilities as a melodist considerably. it's more a
spiritual than a technical feeling when you do it, but *doing it* is
the key -- just like writing prose or poetry or expressing one's
emotions to others, it gets better with practice, and worse with
neglect.

🔗Gene W Smith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:

> i had a different, yet very strong, reaction to the clinton
> variations. tantalizing as the harmonies were, the relentless
> centrality of the tonic chord was what "cloyed" up against me.

Well, you are both right; the idea was to get enough variation by only
changing the harmony, and adjusting the melody to the extent required. I
thought it had a kind of hypnotic quality I like, but I guess it's not
for everyone. The relentless tonic *did* loosen its grip an at the
end--not by modulation, but by the harmony becoming less tonal.

> what i'm dying to hear is for you or joseph pehrson or someone to
> develop a strong voice as a *melodist*, along the lines of a lou
> harrison or a joe maneri (to pick two extremely contrasting
> examples). with the kinds of tuning systems you guys are using, it's
> not too difficult to take any conceivable melody, harmonize it in
> your "pseudo-just" ways -- probably several alternative, equally-
> convincing yet expressive of different feelings, harmonizations could
> always be worked out -- and then procede to develop a piece through
> various combinations of melodic variation, the aforementioned
> alternate harmonizations, and modulation (not to mention metrical and
> timbral effects).

Hmmm. I'll think about this. Of course, not everyone is a Pete
Tchiakovsky.

> just my schisma . . .

That two cents again?

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul,

There are certainly elements of your points that I agree with. However, I do not agree, in the main, with your premise.

{you wrote...}
>you learn by doing

Yes, one does. But I happen to believe that of all the elements of (at this point, we are speaking of 'Western' music) music, melody is the least 'learnable'.

>you may be able to hit the mark 1% of the time by "innate ability" >(whatever that is)

C'mon, use your imagination! Would "intuitive" be a better term? And why would you ascribe such a low percentile? Do you honestly believe that a nose-to-the-grindstone person will spine 49% better melodies than some gifted singer, walking around humming tunes?

(Yes, we're a bit afield from your original notion that Gene (as just one person) could spend more time on melody).

>- by laboriously working on one's music (and listening to other music) >with a self-critical sense turned way up, over many years i believe you >can get that ratio up to 50% or more.

Labor and self-criticism doesn't sound like a path to melodies that are deep, enduring, and unforgettable. I think you'll just crank out labored tunes, as I've heard in so many workaholic improvisors.

>but i would never, never presume to tell any aspiring composer that he or >she has no innate ability and may as well give up now.

I probably wouldn't either, and I always encourage musicians - young or old - to find their muse and hone their skills. But the skills of successful composition/arranging are multi-part, and I don't believe (unlike Chris Bailey) that the are all equally conquerable.

In addition to playing, I've had a long 'career' of teaching, something I really cherish. There were times, before playing became full-time, that I would see more than 30 individual students for percussion lessons each week. And I tell you that, in a large sampling of human beings, there are those that simply will never have a very good concept of a steady tempo, and that solid rhythmic ability will escape them, in spite of much, much practice. That never stopped us from having a good time, but I never pulled the wool over my own eyes about their probability for being solid, time-keeping drummers. And being rhythmically adept is the easiest task for a performing musician, long before the other skills.

Labor does not always save the day.

>perhaps that innate ability is there but hasn't been watered enough and >given a chance to flower.

Could be. But if someone were intrinsically a 'melodic' person, if they walked around "with song in their heart" (sorry about that...), it would show up in their music. Not to mention Gene's comment, which I found really on the mark: not everyone is a Pete Tchaikovsky!

>perhaps it isn't. but who are we to say? maybe future generations will >find our judgments quaint and outmoded.

Uhhh, right...

>who said anything about learned technique? many people devote their lives >to acheiving ever-greater levels of spiritual inspiration, starting from >very meager beginnings. why couldn't the same be true of musical inspiration?

Well put. I like that.

>yes, i've found that if one spends years and years working on it, one can >improve one's abilities as a melodist considerably. it's more a spiritual >than a technical feeling when you do it, but *doing it* is the key -- just >like writing prose or poetry or expressing one's emotions to others, it >gets better with practice, and worse with neglect.

I don't agree with the above paragraph, for the most part. *Never* doing something certainly won't yield much fruit, but unlike counterpoint, orchestration, all the task/craft-like aspects of music-making, I still think that the best of the melodists are tapping into something inside them that isn't 'work'-related.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> There are certainly elements of your points that I agree with.
However, I
> do not agree, in the main, with your premise.
>
> {you wrote...}
> >you learn by doing
>
> Yes, one does. But I happen to believe that of all the elements of
(at this
> point, we are speaking of 'Western' music) music, melody is the
least
> 'learnable'.

agreed!

> >you may be able to hit the mark 1% of the time by "innate ability"
> >(whatever that is)
>
> C'mon, use your imagination!

excuse me?

> Would "intuitive" be a better term?

you're taking me the wrong way. i said "whatever that is" to suggest
that i wouldn't want to try to *define* innate ability -- NOT to
doubt that it exists.

> And why
> would you ascribe such a low percentile?

this was a completely, random, hypothetical example, meant to
illustrate that even a tiny spark of innate ability can grow into a
bright flame.

> Do you honestly believe that a
> nose-to-the-grindstone person will spine 49% better melodies than
some
> gifted singer, walking around humming tunes?

who? what? where are you getting this from? what are you talking
about? these two percentages were meant to apply to the same person,
in my example.
>
> (Yes, we're a bit afield from your original notion that Gene (as
just one
> person) could spend more time on melody).

yes, you sure went far afield!

> >- by laboriously working on one's music (and listening to other
music)
> >with a self-critical sense turned way up, over many years i
believe you
> >can get that ratio up to 50% or more.
>
> Labor and self-criticism doesn't sound like a path to melodies that
are
> deep, enduring, and unforgettable. I think you'll just crank out
labored
> tunes, as I've heard in so many workaholic improvisors.

this is exactly what i *didn't* mean.

perhaps alison expressed it better but it was the same idea. i
meant "labor" in the sense of spiritual reaching, not in the sense of
nose-to-the-grindstone counterpoint exercises or whatever you
imagined (inspired, i'm sure, by your continuing prejudices about me
as a human being).

the process i was, in fact, thinking of, has more to do with
transcendence, or, if you will, magic, than routinely chipping away,
getting successive approximations to a "product". no. rather, i meant
that if you just sit on your butt doing nothing, or if you just think
you're the cat's meow and have reached perfection already, you sure
aren't going to feed that melodic flame. you have to "work" at it --
meaning actively and humbly making and immersing yourself in music --
and the result, when finally attained, will not resemble the "work"
at all. this process of transcendence i have read about in many
accounts by many great musicians, and like to think i might have
experienced myself now and then, and is quite the opposite of "just
cranking out labored tunes".

> >but i would never, never presume to tell any aspiring composer
that he or
> >she has no innate ability and may as well give up now.
>
> I probably wouldn't either,

well then i may have overstated the point, which was a reaction to
what you *were* saying.

> and I always encourage musicians - young or old
> - to find their muse and hone their skills. But the skills of
successful
> composition/arranging are multi-part, and I don't believe (unlike
Chris
> Bailey) that the are all equally conquerable.

i missed chris's remark. but i agree with you, jon, on this.

> In addition to playing, I've had a long 'career' of teaching,
something I
> really cherish. There were times, before playing became full-time,
that I
> would see more than 30 individual students for percussion lessons
each
> week. And I tell you that, in a large sampling of human beings,
there are
> those that simply will never have a very good concept of a steady
tempo,

i have to say you're probably right, but for any given individual,
how can you presume to say never? my own personal experience
contradicts that in the strongest of terms. so i prefer to give each
musician a chance, and let the chips fall as they may.

> and that solid rhythmic ability will escape them, in spite of much,
much
> practice. That never stopped us from having a good time, but I
never pulled
> the wool over my own eyes about their probability for being solid,
> time-keeping drummers. And being rhythmically adept is the easiest
task for
> a performing musician, long before the other skills.

what do you mean by "long before"? might it not be one of the *last*
skills a particular musician learns to perfect?

> Labor does not always save the day.

which is better: sitting on your butt doing nothing, or working on
yourself as an integrated human being?

> >perhaps that innate ability is there but hasn't been watered
enough and
> >given a chance to flower.
>
> Could be. But if someone were intrinsically a 'melodic' person, if
they
> walked around "with song in their heart" (sorry about that...), it
would
> show up in their music.

if they were an effectively expressive musician, yes. there can be
many obstacles to that too, and it can take "work" to remove those
obstacles.

> >perhaps it isn't. but who are we to say? maybe future generations
will
> >find our judgments quaint and outmoded.
>
> Uhhh, right...

it's happened before!

> >who said anything about learned technique? many people devote
their lives
> >to acheiving ever-greater levels of spiritual inspiration,
starting from
> >very meager beginnings. why couldn't the same be true of musical
inspiration?
>
> Well put. I like that.
>
> >yes, i've found that if one spends years and years working on it,
one can
> >improve one's abilities as a melodist considerably. it's more a
spiritual
> >than a technical feeling when you do it, but *doing it* is the
key -- just
> >like writing prose or poetry or expressing one's emotions to
others, it
> >gets better with practice, and worse with neglect.
>
> I don't agree with the above paragraph, for the most part. *Never*
doing
> something certainly won't yield much fruit, but unlike
counterpoint,
> orchestration, all the task/craft-like aspects of music-making, I
still
> think that the best of the melodists are tapping into something
inside them
> that isn't 'work'-related.

i wasn't talking about this "best" of the melodists, i was talking
about someone who may have a hidden melodic spark trying to get
better at it. i agree that the product, in this case, bears little
resemblence to the "work" involved in attaining it. but even the best
of melodists don't appear in a vacuum. musicians are nearly always
*immersed* in some existing musical style or style, and once in a
while you get a mozart, but for the most part it takes some active
effort *within* that style before a musician, even a great musician,
gets around to *transcending* that style in whatever small way, and
making a melodic statement that is truly personal, expressive, and
timeless.

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul (and anyone else),

First off, new readers/listeners should note that Paul and I have corresponded lots over the last few years. We bear no enmity towards each other, historical or otherwise...

{Paul, you wrote...}
> > >you may be able to hit the mark 1% of the time by "innate ability"
> > >(whatever that is)
> >
> > C'mon, use your imagination!
>
>excuse me?

Very simply, I took you at your (written) word, and thought you didn't understand my inference of "innate ability", and pointed out that I'm *sure*, with a moment of thought, you would understand my drift. Nothing more than that!

>this was a completely, random, hypothetical example, meant to illustrate >that even a tiny spark of innate ability can grow into a bright flame.

Wellllll, completely random it may have been, but also skewed into a rather vivid contrast of the two potentials.

>these two percentages were meant to apply to the same person, in my example.

Sorry, that wasn't clear to me.

>yes, you sure went far afield!

Oh, Paul, the entire conversation is drifting. You may take credit as well! :)

>Paul first said: by laboriously working on one's music
>Jon went on: Labor ... doesn't sound like a path to melodies that
>
>Paul finally said: this is exactly what i *didn't* mean. i meant "labor" >in the sense of spiritual reaching

Well, your examples and your thrust seemed to parallel exactly the kind of work *I* was thinking of, the kind you hear in so many music department practice rooms, with constant (and somewhat mindless) repetition droning on and on. I know you to be a spiritual person, but I also know you to be a rather exacting person. When you say "work" and "labor" I tend to think of the classic meanings, not "laboriously working" as translated to "spiritual quest", "transcendence", or "magic".

>... nose-to-the-grindstone counterpoint exercises or whatever you imagined >(inspired, i'm sure, by your continuing prejudices about me as a human being).

C'mon, Paul, I'm not harboring those thoughts! I'm just reading plain ascii (especially the kind without capital letters, where someone is just too *busy* to hit the shift key so it can be read easily...).

>this process of transcendence i have read about in many accounts by many >great musicians, and like to think i might have experienced myself now and >then, and is quite the opposite of "just cranking out labored tunes".

I don't know that it is the "opposite", but, sure, *that* kind of musical journey is always a fulfilling one.

>well then i may have overstated the point, which was a reaction to what >you *were* saying.

I just *knew* it was my fault in some way!

>i have to say you're probably right, but for any given individual, how can >you presume to say never? my own personal experience contradicts that in >the strongest of terms. so i prefer to give each musician a chance, and >let the chips fall as they may.

I specifically said that I would still encourage and work with that kind of individual (I happened to also be the only person that would still take on beginning students, while others just carved out their time for more advance or collegiate players). I don't look on it as a presumption that young Bob or Sylvia will never make a good drummer - I'll work with them, but also keep an eye (or ear) out for the part of music that is stronger in them than rhythm.

I don't happen to believe that everyone can do everything. I think that everyone can maximize and fully realize that set of 'things' that just seem so very right for them as an individual. I find the journey of discovering the strengths in each individual to be joyous and exciting, and I also find it a shame when another is kept on false "learning life support" in an endeavor that is probably not playing to their inner strong points.

I know you want to "let the chips fall", and that is fine. I was speaking more to a real mastery of something, and not simply having a rudimentary grasp. *Anyone* who would study percussion with me would be better after x number of sessions than not at all. That does not mean that they would all progress equally, or end up in the same place. There will always be those that have IT, and those that don't. Even those that don't can have a good time, too.

>what do you mean by "long before"? might it not be one of the *last* >skills a particular musician learns to perfect?

Sure, but that isn't what I meant. I meant that if a musician were to work on all the musicianly skills, rhythmic training would be the easiest to come to grips with.

>which is better: sitting on your butt doing nothing, or working on >yourself as an integrated human being?

Gee, the second option?

>if they were an effectively expressive musician, yes. there can be many >obstacles to that too, and it can take "work" to remove those obstacles.

Obstacles?

>i wasn't talking about this "best" of the melodists, i was talking about >someone who may have a hidden melodic spark trying to get better at it.

And this sort of sums it up: a hidden spark. And what I've been saying is that some people just happen to have _it_. And where we diverge is a matter of whether that _it_ or spark is noticeable. There is never harm in trying to fan that spark; I also think that it is false to assume that everyone has identical sets of sparks, and that it is simply a matter of 'work' to get results.

Lastly, from another of your messages (written directly to me in the subject line...):

>around ages 6-10, my nose was shoved to the grindstone with classical >piano. there was absolutely no musicality emerging in my soul during this >process.

It was approached poorly, by both the teacher and the nose-shovers. That, indeed, is a shame.

>now, for example when i drum, my conscious mind simply sits back and >observes this unusual little part of the universe that happens to make >music. the "work" is not apparent at all in the product -- but the product >wouldn't be here without it

To whom is the work *not* apparent to - you or the listener?

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_3732.html#3808

>
> i wasn't talking about this "best" of the melodists, i was talking
> about someone who may have a hidden melodic spark trying to get
> better at it. i agree that the product, in this case, bears little
> resemblence to the "work" involved in attaining it. but even the
best
> of melodists don't appear in a vacuum. musicians are nearly always
> *immersed* in some existing musical style or style, and once in a
> while you get a mozart, but for the most part it takes some active
> effort *within* that style before a musician, even a great
musician,
> gets around to *transcending* that style in whatever small way, and
> making a melodic statement that is truly personal, expressive, and
> timeless.

***Regardless of what people may or may not think of the music of
Aaron Copland, I will always remember one of his quotes. I think it
was included in one of the biography books by Vivian Perlis.

In it, Copland mentions that he sits his butt down at the piano (they
were still using that then) every day for a certain specified time.
Some evenings he was inspired, some evenings not (Hopefully he threw
out the work he did on those evenings -- he was a night worker).

The point was that he had an actual structure of time and *tried* to
compose during it, sometimes more successfully than others.

Personally, I try to use this same "method..."

J. Pehrson

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> >Paul first said: by laboriously working on one's music
> >Jon went on: Labor ... doesn't sound like a path to melodies that
> >
> >Paul finally said: this is exactly what i *didn't* mean. i
meant "labor"
> >in the sense of spiritual reaching
>
> Well, your examples and your thrust seemed to parallel exactly the
kind of
> work *I* was thinking of, the kind you hear in so many music
department
> practice rooms, with constant (and somewhat mindless) repetition
droning on
> and on.

hmm . . . i'm not sure how you got from what i said to this?

> I know you to be a spiritual person, but I also know you to be a
> rather exacting person.

when it comes to logic or math, yes. when it comes to music, i like
very free, un-exacting environments (as you know).

> When you say "work" and "labor" I tend to think of
> the classic meanings, not "laboriously working" as translated
to "spiritual
> quest", "transcendence", or "magic".

these are parts of the same process. some are uncontrollable
outcomes, others ("work" and "labor") are the effort that fertilize
the ground to make those outcomes spring up more frequently.
>
> >well then i may have overstated the point, which was a reaction to
what
> >you *were* saying.
>
> I just *knew* it was my fault in some way!

my overstating the point was your fault??
> > them than rhythm.

> There will always be those
> that have IT, and those that don't.

agreed 100%. just wanted to *encourage* (something i learned
something about here on this list).

> I meant that if a musician were to work
> on all the musicianly skills, rhythmic training would be the
easiest to
> come to grips with.

for some, yes.

>
> >which is better: sitting on your butt doing nothing, or working on
> >yourself as an integrated human being?
>
> Gee, the second option?
>
> >if they were an effectively expressive musician, yes. there can be
many
> >obstacles to that too, and it can take "work" to remove those
obstacles.
>
> Obstacles?

yes. c'mon jon, did you ever hear early charlie parker or john
coltrane outtakes? these guys weren't born creating flawless
melodies. they worked and worked and worked to achieve the pinnacles
that they did.

> >i wasn't talking about this "best" of the melodists, i was talking
about
> >someone who may have a hidden melodic spark trying to get better
at it.
>
> And this sort of sums it up: a hidden spark. And what I've been
saying is
> that some people just happen to have _it_. And where we diverge is
a matter
> of whether that _it_ or spark is noticeable.

we diverge?

> There is never harm in trying
> to fan that spark; I also think that it is false to assume that
everyone
> has identical sets of sparks,

i certainly wouldn't assume that.

> Lastly, from another of your messages (written directly to me in
the
> subject line...):
>
> >around ages 6-10, my nose was shoved to the grindstone with
classical
> >piano. there was absolutely no musicality emerging in my soul
during this
> >process.
>
> It was approached poorly, by both the teacher

my mother.

> and the nose-shovers.

my mother?

> That,
> indeed, is a shame.

well, my mom's next project was my sister, and she's now a world-
class piano virtuoso, studying at NEC. what do you know.

> >now, for example when i drum, my conscious mind simply sits back
and
> >observes this unusual little part of the universe that happens to
make
> >music. the "work" is not apparent at all in the product -- but the
product
> >wouldn't be here without it
>
> To whom is the work *not* apparent to - you or the listener?

the listener, which could be me if i could make myself unconscious of
the past.

New music up on mp3.com

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...>

🔗Gene W Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...>