repost from crazy list: compositional methods

This is a repost from the, appropriately named, CrazyMusic list.
Someone read it and wanted me to post it in a more "civil"
environment where it could be discussed rather than: "Will so and so
go ballistic if I say such and so...":

[... name deleted to protect the guilty] poses here an *extremely*
interesting compositional question.... i.e. how does one actually go
about it, and what is the process. The suggestion that the ideas are
first "in the head" is a significant one. Basically, this is the way
*I* work all the time... I virtually *always* HEAR something before I
write it down or try to find the pitches to match it.

So, in that sense, I don't "improvise" if, "improvise" means just
trying out different things and settling on something acceptable.
However, I doubt very seriously that fine improvisers work that way,
either. Most probably they *also* are striving to find something
that is ALREADY in their heads... and use their muscular-auditory
coordination and senses to realize that aim...

So how does this process differ in microtonality from 12-tET? Well,
of course, I have had VASTLY more experience in 12-tET, having
composed *well* over 10 hours of music in that tuning.

So how is this process working in microtonality? Well, in this case,
I believe I absorb the scale as a kind of "template" and STILL try to
find pitches I am initially hearing *in my head* matching these
pitches to the pitches of the scale.

For this reason, I believe my basic "style" of which I seriously
believe I have one, after many years of composing, is for all
practical purposes THE SAME in 12-tET AND in microtonality.

It's just that I have a new, "refreshing" (for *me* at least)
template of pitches that remains in my mind after working with a
scale a bit.

Then, I try to "find" the pitches I need for my piece from this range
of possibilities. Since the pitches are xenharmonic and,
therefore, "fresh" to me, the compositional experience at the moment
is more interesting and enjoyable that it would be in 12-tET.

And, generally speaking, when *I* am getting more out of my
composing, an audience, conceivably, will as well!

__________ _______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> So, in that sense, I don't "improvise" if, "improvise" means just
> trying out different things and settling on something acceptable.
> However, I doubt very seriously that fine improvisers work that
way,
> either. Most probably they *also* are striving to find something
> that is ALREADY in their heads... and use their muscular-auditory
> coordination and senses to realize that aim...

Well, sure . . . when I'm improvising on 12-tET guitar, I generally
play just what I hear in my head . . . I can almost always sing along
when I'm improvising stuff because I know exactly how it's going to
sound before I play it.
>
> So how does this process differ in microtonality from 12-tET? Well,
> of course, I have had VASTLY more experience in 12-tET, having
> composed *well* over 10 hours of music in that tuning.
>
> So how is this process working in microtonality? Well, in this
case,
> I believe I absorb the scale as a kind of "template" and STILL try
to
> find pitches I am initially hearing *in my head* matching these
> pitches to the pitches of the scale.

This is a little surprising to me, if only because you never
mentioned it before. Are you saying that you sort of hear
the "contour" of the melody in your head, and then try to find
its "best fit" within the scale that you have tuned up on your
keyboard? I'd like to hear more about this.
>
> For this reason, I believe my basic "style" of which I seriously
> believe I have one, after many years of composing, is for all
> practical purposes THE SAME in 12-tET AND in microtonality.
>
> It's just that I have a new, "refreshing" (for *me* at least)
> template of pitches that remains in my mind after working with a
> scale a bit.
>
> Then, I try to "find" the pitches I need for my piece from this
range
> of possibilities. Since the pitches are xenharmonic and,
> therefore, "fresh" to me, the compositional experience at the
moment
> is more interesting and enjoyable that it would be in 12-tET.

Interesting . . . now for the Blackjack scale, which you've been
working with lately . . . let's say you've worked with the scale for
a while, and it remains in your mind. Then, when you're hearing
melodies in your head based on this pattern in your mind, do you ever
hear a pitch that is _not_ present on the keyboard?

Answer that before you read the rest of this message.

I would expect this to happen sometimes with an improper scale like
Blackjack, while in 12-tET, it might _never_ happen because all the
intervals in the scale (and thus in your mental "template" or
whatever), when transposed to other starting pitches, lead to ending
pitches which are always in the same scale. But this is far from true
for a scale like Blackjack . . . of course, if you kept adding more
and more new pitches accordingly, you'd end up with all of 72-tET,
which is of course "closed" like 12-tET . . . perhaps a reason to
think about getting a 72-tET generalized keyboard eventually . . .

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_82.html#83

> >
> > So how does this process differ in microtonality from 12-tET?
Well, of course, I have had VASTLY more experience in 12-tET, having
> > composed *well* over 10 hours of music in that tuning.
> >
> > So how is this process working in microtonality? Well, in this
> case, I believe I absorb the scale as a kind of "template" and
STILL try to find pitches I am initially hearing *in my head*
matching these pitches to the pitches of the scale.
>
> This is a little surprising to me, if only because you never
> mentioned it before. Are you saying that you sort of hear
> the "contour" of the melody in your head, and then try to find
> its "best fit" within the scale that you have tuned up on your
> keyboard? I'd like to hear more about this.
> >

Yes, it seems as though that's what's going on. However, I believe I
am cognizant of the difference between the scale I'm working on and
12-tET... so it's not just a matter of "squeezing" 12-tET melodies
and patterns onto another scale. I think I'm more involved in the
xenharmonics than that! For example, I've become *very* conscious of
the smaller intervals (33 cents) in blackjack, and know that many
pitches can be "inflected" slightly... That informs my melodic
construction, since I like to use that on occasion.

HOWEVER, I have also been working "pre-compositionally" as I have
mentioned... finding harmonies through common-tone movement on the
lattice. BUT, the important factor is that I *don't use* every
harmony I stumble upon. I select them, and also select the voice
leading according to the same general principles I outline above...
i.e. I have to think they're "good," meaning they have some kind of
syntax that relates to my musical experience and language...

Frankly, I don't want to seem too "dogmatic" about any of this. I
suppose there are some times that I try things out on the keyboard
too and use the "better" of them. But, generally speaking, I really
believe I am mostly "looking for" something... and finding it through
the pitches. It's a bit like the parable of the sculptor who
actually "sees" the form inside the stone before he starts carving...

I think maybe I "try things out" more in the ORCHESTRATIONAL process
than in something like melodic or harmonic construction. In other
words, I will copy a line from my sequencer onto another line and
listen to the results. If I'm not satisfied, I will transfer that to
another voice, change the balance of the volume, etc., etc. There is
some chancy "trying out" in some of that. But of course, in my music
anyway, it's all subject to careful selection... (or rejection!)

> > For this reason, I believe my basic "style" of which I seriously
> > believe I have one, after many years of composing, is for all
> > practical purposes THE SAME in 12-tET AND in microtonality.
> >
> > It's just that I have a new, "refreshing" (for *me* at least)
> > template of pitches that remains in my mind after working with a
> > scale a bit.
> >
> > Then, I try to "find" the pitches I need for my piece from this
> range of possibilities. Since the pitches are xenharmonic and,
> > therefore, "fresh" to me, the compositional experience at the
> moment is more interesting and enjoyable that it would be in 12-tET.
>
> Interesting . . . now for the Blackjack scale, which you've been
> working with lately . . . let's say you've worked with the scale
for a while, and it remains in your mind. Then, when you're hearing
> melodies in your head based on this pattern in your mind, do you
ever hear a pitch that is _not_ present on the keyboard?
>

Quite frankly, I don't believe I have *yet* Paul...

> Answer that before you read the rest of this message.
>
> I would expect this to happen sometimes with an improper scale like
> Blackjack, while in 12-tET, it might _never_ happen because all the
> intervals in the scale (and thus in your mental "template" or
> whatever), when transposed to other starting pitches, lead to
ending pitches which are always in the same scale. But this is far
from true for a scale like Blackjack . . .

I'll be on the "lookout" for that... So far I haven't noticed it...
That's pretty interesting, actually...

of course, if you kept adding more
> and more new pitches accordingly, you'd end up with all of 72-tET,
> which is of course "closed" like 12-tET . . . perhaps a reason to
> think about getting a 72-tET generalized keyboard eventually . . .

Well MAYBE, but it's *so* cumbersome! I would rather sacrifice a few
pitches than have a 10 foot long keyboard :) (or, seriously,
something rather "foreign" for me...)

__________ ___________ ______
Joseph Pehrson