Re: [tuning-math] Digest Number 864

> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:54:14 -0800
> From: Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 863
>
> >> As for transforming it into the countersubject, can you give me two
> >> subjects of the same length that cannot be transformed into one
> >> another with serial procedures? I'll believe you if you say yes.
> >
> >No, not if you can have arbitrary operations.
> //
> >> What are the allowed serial procedures?
> >
> >Well if you're composing, you can do what you want to a row.
>
> Aha! And a row is just any sequence of notes then, eh, of any
> length?
>
> -Carl

I knew it was a trick question... sure, every piece can be heard as based
on a row of precisely one note, every other note in the piece is a
transposition of this "row", therefore every piece ever written is a
serial piece, therefore "serial" is a meaningless label, yada yada yada.

The fact is, there *is* a consistent serial practice, especially in the
2nd Viennese School, that doesn't include arbitrary operations on rows.
And what would be the point of using a row, if your serial procedures can
turn it into any other row you happened to feel like writing? Just write
the notes you feel like, in that case (and afterwards you could even
pretend there *was* a row, and that everything was derived from it via
your secret procedures). But theorists' progresively more sophisticated
modelling of serial procedures isn't some sort of numerological claptrap,
and the musical structures described really are fundamental to that
repertoire. I mean, Schoenberg actually believed it when he said he had
"discovered a method of composing that would ensure the supremacy of
German music for the next 100 years".

--Jon

>> Message: 5
>> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:54:14 -0800
>> From: Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>
>> Subject: Re: Digest Number 863
>>
>> >> As for transforming it into the countersubject, can you give me two
>> >> subjects of the same length that cannot be transformed into one
>> >> another with serial procedures? I'll believe you if you say yes.
>> >
>> >No, not if you can have arbitrary operations.
>> //
>> >> What are the allowed serial procedures?
>> >
>> >Well if you're composing, you can do what you want to a row.
>>
>> Aha! And a row is just any sequence of notes then, eh, of any
>> length?
>>
>> -Carl
>
>I knew it was a trick question...

Nope, I just asked because I'd always heard you had to use all 12
tones before reusing any.

>The fact is, there *is* a consistent serial practice, especially in the
>2nd Viennese School, that doesn't include arbitrary operations on rows.
>And what would be the point of using a row, if your serial procedures can
>turn it into any other row you happened to feel like writing? Just write
>the notes you feel like, in that case (and afterwards you could even
>pretend there *was* a row, and that everything was derived from it via
>your secret procedures). But theorists' progresively more sophisticated
>modelling of serial procedures isn't some sort of numerological claptrap,
>and the musical structures described really are fundamental to that
>repertoire. I mean, Schoenberg actually believed it when he said he had
>"discovered a method of composing that would ensure the supremacy of
>German music for the next 100 years".

But in fact Schoenberg was the end of 200 years of German musical
supremacy. Actually Mahler had already come to America, IIRC.

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, jon wild <wild@f...> wrote:

>I mean, Schoenberg actually believed it when he said he had
> "discovered a method of composing that would ensure the supremacy
of
> German music for the next 100 years".

After which, of course, he moved to the Big Orange.

Carl wrote:

> >> >> As for transforming it into the countersubject, can you give me
> >> >> two subjects of the same length that cannot be transformed into
> >> >> one another with serial procedures? I'll believe you if you say
> >> >> yes.
> >> >
> >> >No, not if you can have arbitrary operations.
> //
> >> >> What are the allowed serial procedures?
> >> >
> >> >Well if you're composing, you can do what you want to a row.
> >>
> >> Aha! And a row is just any sequence of notes then, eh, of any
> >> length?
> >
> >I knew it was a trick question...
>
> Nope, I just asked because I'd always heard you had to use all 12
> tones before reusing any.

Ah, sorry, I thought your "Aha!" was a triumphant one... Anyway in the
practice of the 2nd Viennese school (which is what people usually mean by
"serial", though that term can encompass much more) what you heard is
right to a first approximation, but only to a first approximation. The
beginning of Schoenberg's Piano Concerto is a good example, if you can
find a score. The melody in the right-hand goes (I could have misspelt
something, this is from memory)

Eb Bb D F E C // F# Ab Db A B (C# A B) G

which is a fairly straight-forward version of the row that backtracks on
itself once for a few notes towards the end. The left-hand accompaniment
is quite freely derived from the two hexachords of the row - it goes like
this:

(F E C) (C Eb D) (D Bb F) / (C# A B G)etc

The right-hand and left-hand reach the boundary between hexachords at the
same time.
The next row statement, again in the right-hand melody, is a retrograde
inversion of the above, transposed to the level that gives it the same two
(unordered) hexachords:

E C D (C D) Bb Eb F // B G F# A C# G#

You can only do this (find a transformation of a row that preserves
pitch-level of hexachords) with a row whose hexachord is the same
set-class as its complement, i.e., one that's not Z-related to another
chord. Hexachords that can do this are called "combinatorial".

See you --Jon

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, jon wild <wild@f...> wrote:
>
> > I mean, Schoenberg actually believed it when he said he
> > had "discovered a method of composing that would ensure
> > the supremacy of German music for the next 100 years".
>
> After which, of course, he moved to the Big Orange.

ah, but this is what i find really interesting about that
famous comment by Schoenberg: i'm convinced that his early
"free atonality" style came about as a result of his
decision not to go with microtonality. and now, here
we are a century later, on what i think is truly the
threshold of the "microtonal era".

again, i refer to my "A Century of New Music in Vienna",
the years 1908 to 1914, especially 1908-10.

http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/schoenberg/Vienna1905.htm

-monz