The 'system' of the century

Just to clear up a couple of outstanding points:

Monz:

>i had an innate sense that all 12 notes bore harmonic relationships to each >other, and serialism denied those relationships (or at least > made them >irrelevant

I see what you mean, but are the 'harmonic relationships' abraded out of existence because the notes are employed in a manner structured by a tone-row? Surely (pardon my thickness here!) the _relationships_ between the notes remain the same if the tone-row is in 12-ET; I mean, they're still the same notes, aren't they?

Might it not be just as legitimate to say that the 'harmonic relationships' are _employed in a new and challenging way_? I mean, some musicians I have known object to the tone-row concept because of "too much freedom". Anything other than the row is up for grabs! You can harmonise it as you like; nice or nasty - in such a manner as to either _retain_ as many of the _standard_ 'harmonic relationships', or to plunge ahead into creating new ones? Am I partly right in saying this?

>and Ben Johnston is the guy i always tout here for his combining of
>serialism and just-intonation

I'll have to check him out, and stop annoying people with my ignorance and stupidity...

Ooops, speaking of stupidity, I just saw that Gene covered areas of what I am saying; but could you explain what you mean by: "the techniques of serialism are not based on how we hear, and <snip> it is
therefore an artificial system", please? How is it so?

Alison:

>People found it "interesting" which doesn't say much (psychopaths are >"interesting")

Heh, heh...you _know_ you've failed when you hear _that word_!

>I wish someone would tell this to John Adams, who, though anything but a >serialist, is of the opinion that Partch (and Glenn Branca) is > unworthy >of consideration because of his lack of conventional musical > training.

Well, for my money, I have never found any inspiration in the very few works of Mr. Adams which I can recall hearing, whereas I would claim Partch and Branca as two of my great inspirations. Perhaps an absence of formal training _helps_?

Kyle:

>Doesn't that beat everything? Publishers won't take a chance on books on >microtonality by me, or even a genius like Monz, but if you're a hotshot >academic at some big university with a lot of modernist credentials, >they'll publish your esoteric 12-tone book and make a big deal out of it >without even reading through it to confirm that it makes any sense.

All right, all right. It's not fair. I agree. I'm starting to get sorry now that I ever said anything...

Gene:

>The decadisarticulation system

I wouldn't have a clue whether it's more 'artificial' than serialism...all I know is that it's bloody funny, and I might just try it sometime if you'll let me...with due credit, o'course...

But, in any case. one of the points I was originally trying to make was that I didn't understand the difference between a 'natural' and an 'artificial' 'system' of music in the sense employed on this list. Has there ever been a definition of these two terms? Is a definition possible?

Michael:

>I don't think serialism per se, is new. JS Bach used it (in a sense) > with >his use of cantus firmus.

Well, that's right.

>I think the only rule that Schoenberg added was that no note may appear a >second time until all others have been used (he was not the > only one with >that idea either).

And, in any case, according to what I have heard, he did not originate the tone-row concept anyway; another Viennese musician whose name escapes me had that possibly dubious honour. Schoenberg merely applied the technique effectively, including, as you said, the idea of expending each note in the row prior to repetition of any note.

My point was not about whether it is an old or a new technique, but whether it is a valid one.

Kraig:

>I have stayed out of this one but since i was brought up, even though
>mistakenly i have a few comments

OK, OK, I'm sorry, I'm sorry! I already apologised...

>you assume.
>1. That your subjective response is objective. or to be more generous > >that even a group subjective response can be objective
>wheather a minority or not.
>2. That an objective evaluation of a tuning can be made. This assumes > >that all people hear exactly the same. WHat can you present to prove > this >or that all people want exactly the same thing from music and the way they >tune.
>3. That only one tuning system can be the best.

Well, if these comments are directed at me, I confess my complete bewilderment. I am not sure whether I was assuming _anything_! _I_ was under the impression that I was asking reasonably polite questions, confessing my ignorance, and asking for input on the points I raised. If I appeared to be doing anything else, then, once again, I apologise most sincerely to anyone whom I have offended.

I wondered aloud whether there were any other valid criteria for 'judging' or 'evaluating' (or simply preferring) any given tuning than - in the final analysis - personal preference. I have no idea what the answer to that question might be, and I am certainly _not_ trying to impose my non-existent idea on the group. (One brave soul said that there probably _wasn't_!)

I am afraid that I also have no idea whatsoever of what you might possibly mean by saying "your subjective response is objective". I have racked what brains I have, and gotten no nearer understanding you. Could you please explain further?

As to "This assumes that all people hear exactly the same", I don't know whether I believe - or assume - that that is the case at all. I make no claim whatsoever to any expertise in this matter, but I _do_ recall rather dimly an article in Scientific American from the early or mid-1990s which analysed cultural hearing differences between English and American listeners in terms of the music of the Beach Boys and the Beatles, which seemed to suggest that inhabitants of the two nations actually heard certain 'harmonies' slightly differently, and that this difference was reflected in the songs written by the two groups. I suspect that this is very probably true, and maybe even deeply true, to say nothing of different perceptions among more different global cultures.

May I ask, with respect, exactly what it was that I wrote which causes you to believe that I was making the above assumption?

>3. That only one tuning system can be the best.

May I ask, with respect, exactly what it was that I wrote which causes you to believe that I was making the above assumption?

Kyle:

>You do know that Schoenberg, the day he wrote his first 12-tone row, wrote >in his journal, "I have discovered today something that will ensure the >supremacy of German music for the next 100 years."

>The son of a bitch.

Yes, indeed he did...and he was wrong! America won after all with rock 'n' roll! So let's all lighten up, and give three big cheers for the Musical System of the Next Millennium: THE DECADISARTICULATION SYSTEM!!! YAY!!! YAY!!! YAY!!!

Cheers, all;

->Zx<-

____________________________________________________________

Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.

- Lewis Carroll
________________________________________________

Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.

- Democritos

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_eliminateviruses_3mf

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ArchD'Ikon Zibethicus"

/tuning/topicId_41648.html#41648

<zibethicus@h...> wrote:
> Just to clear up a couple of outstanding points:
>
> Monz:
>
> >i had an innate sense that all 12 notes bore harmonic
relationships to each
> >other, and serialism denied those relationships (or at least >
made them
> >irrelevant
>
> I see what you mean, but are the 'harmonic relationships' abraded
out of
> existence because the notes are employed in a manner structured by
a
> tone-row? Surely (pardon my thickness here!) the _relationships_
between
> the notes remain the same if the tone-row is in 12-ET; I mean,
they're still
> the same notes, aren't they?
>
> Might it not be just as legitimate to say that the 'harmonic
relationships'
> are _employed in a new and challenging way_? I mean, some
musicians I have
> known object to the tone-row concept because of "too much
freedom".
> Anything other than the row is up for grabs! You can harmonise it
as you
> like; nice or nasty - in such a manner as to either _retain_ as
many of the
> _standard_ 'harmonic relationships', or to plunge ahead into
creating new
> ones? Am I partly right in saying this?
>

***Hello Zib...

Well, until Monz gets back: Yes, of course, there are harmonic
relations possible in serial music. HOWEVER, one is *supposed* to
keep "rotating" the row all the time. In fact, technically one isn't
supposed to *repeat* pitches, although Schoenberg cheats and does...

So, there is a constantly *changing* intervallic construction, and
the lower-integer harmonies which some (many) think as consonant are
just mixed in with the others in a nice gray pie...

(Except for a few masterworks and works of a few masters (works...))

>
> Ooops, speaking of stupidity, I just saw that Gene covered areas of
what I
> am saying; but could you explain what you mean by: "the techniques
of serialism are not based on how we hear, and <snip> it is
> therefore an artificial system", please? How is it so?
>

***Well, also, until Gene gets back... Most probably he means that
since all the intervals are "democritized" (some
say "socialized...") the lower-integer partial intervals aren't given
the prominence that the *ear* gives them...

>
> Well, for my money, I have never found any inspiration in the very
few works of Mr. Adams which I can recall hearing, whereas I would
claim Partch and Branca as two of my great inspirations. Perhaps an
absence of formal training _helps_?
>

***Those remarks by John Adams are very unfortunate, if Alison's
quotations are true. However, his new piece on 9-11 was very
inventive and inspiring. I thought he did a totally fine and novel
job with that... and a very difficult subject...

I wish composers would shut up with the negative comments on other
composers on the overall... Let the *critics* do it. That's what
they're *paid* to do and otherwise they'll have to sweep streets.

>>
> But, in any case. one of the points I was originally trying to make
was that
> I didn't understand the difference between a 'natural' and
an 'artificial'
> 'system' of music in the sense employed on this list. Has there
ever been a
> definition of these two terms? Is a definition possible?
>

***I think I covered that in the way the ear hears the lower-integer
ratio intervals, etc. above... (until these other dudes get back
on...)

> >I think the only rule that Schoenberg added was that no note may
appear a
> >second time until all others have been used (he was not the > only
one with
> >that idea either).
>
> And, in any case, according to what I have heard, he did not
originate the
> tone-row concept anyway; another Viennese musician whose name
escapes me had
> that possibly dubious honour. Schoenberg merely applied the
technique
> effectively, including, as you said, the idea of expending each
note in the
> row prior to repetition of any note.
>

**I believe that was Hauer... but we'll let Monz answer this one...

> My point was not about whether it is an old or a new technique, but
whether it is a valid one.
>

***Berg uses it in a marvellous way. Dig his _Violin Concerto_.
Masterpiece...

>
> I am afraid that I also have no idea whatsoever of what you might
possibly mean by saying "your subjective response is objective". I
have racked what brains I have, and gotten no nearer understanding
you. Could you please explain further?
>

***I think Kraig means that the "Big White Western Way" if that is in
one's subjective (maybe Germanic??) brain as the *best* way is *not*
necessarily universal, or "objective..." and other cultures disprove
it is being the "true answer..."

> As to "This assumes that all people hear exactly the same", I don't
know whether I believe - or assume - that that is the case at all. I
make no claim whatsoever to any expertise in this matter, but I _do_
recall rather dimly an article in Scientific American from the early
or mid-1990s which analysed cultural hearing differences between
English and American listeners in terms of the music of the Beach
Boys and the Beatles,

***I thought it was the Byrds and the Turtles...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> > I am afraid that I also have no idea whatsoever of what you might
> possibly mean by saying "your subjective response is objective".
I
> have racked what brains I have, and gotten no nearer understanding
> you. Could you please explain further?
> >
>
> ***I think Kraig means that the "Big White Western Way" if that is
in
> one's subjective (maybe Germanic??) brain as the *best* way is
*not*
> necessarily universal, or "objective..." and other cultures
disprove
> it is being the "true answer..."

actually, kraig was not replying at all to ArchD'Ikon Zibethicus, but
rather to Daniel White, the fine fellow who ArchD'Ikon Zibethicus (a
bit uninformedly, but well-intentionedly) was defending . . .

ArchD'Ikon Zibethicus wrote:

> Just to clear up a couple of outstanding points:

etc.

Respect to the ArchD'Ikon for taking it on the chin.

Good Tidings
a.m.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ArchD'Ikon Zibethicus" <zibethicus@h...> wrote:

> Ooops, speaking of stupidity, I just saw that Gene covered areas of what I
> am saying; but could you explain what you mean by: "the techniques of
> serialism are not based on how we hear, and <snip> it is
> therefore an artificial system", please? How is it so?

I've never heard the slightest suggestion that we have a natural mechanism for perceiving permutation groups, and can in some effortless way grasp a tone row as a permutation of the chromatic scale. If we did have a built-in permutation group brain function, I can imagine a lot of nifty uses for it; my own experiments suggest, as one would expect, that we do not. Even if we cut the number of notes down to seven, the ear does not seem to grasp group operations beyond inversions and reversions.

If we compare that to what happens when we apply groups of transformations to harmony, we see we are in a very different situation; the interchange of major and minor is only the beginning of what makes sense when heard.

This is mostly a personal aside; the bottom line is that if you think we have a natural tone-row mechanism, I'd like to see the evidence. I know of no one who has claimed that we do, and my own experiments with listening suggest that we do not.

Yes Sorry to ArchD'Ikon Zibethicus.
It is the assumptions of Daniel White that i was addressing.

>
>
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: The 'system' of the century
>
>
> actually, kraig was not replying at all to ArchD'Ikon Zibethicus, but
> rather to Daniel White, the fine fellow who ArchD'Ikon Zibethicus (a
> bit uninformedly, but well-intentionedly) was defending . . .
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST

>I've never heard the slightest suggestion that we have a natural
>mechanism for perceiving permutation groups,

The ability to fully enjoy Bach fugues takes some learning.
Should this reflect poorly on them?

I say it doesn't matter if it's "natural". We don't have an
in-born knowledge of the diatonic scale, but most people learn
its difference matrix by a young age, if we are to believe
Rothenberg. [Of course, the diatonic scale has many features
that play to natural mechanisms, but there's still a learning
curve to get out of it what the average Western listener does.
I _would_ say you can't/shouldn't play _against_ "natural"
tendencies (i.e. just harmony), but even this is arguable.]

So can the perception of permutations be learned? Probably.
Would it be interesting? Probably. However, I tend to think
that for the person able to identify strings of pitches and
compare them in real-time, a group of rigidly permuted strings
would be no more interesting than any other group. Therefore,
I stand by my statement that the serial technique adds nothing
to the perception of music composed with it. It may be useful
in helping the composer not unconsciously ruin the equity of
things... of course it wasn't enough to stop Schoenberg, being
the gifted composer that he was.

To be fair, I think the same is true of much of 'fugual
technique' as it is commonly taught. If you actually try to
apply it to Bach, you find that you need so many exceptions
to account for what he's doing that the 'technique' doesn't
amount to a theory of fugues. And the rules don't seem to
explain why Bach's music is so good (compared to other music
that obeys the rules). At least that's what I found.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >I've never heard the slightest suggestion that we have a natural
> >mechanism for perceiving permutation groups,
>
> The ability to fully enjoy Bach fugues takes some learning.
> Should this reflect poorly on them?

The ability to recognize the entries of the fugue subject, and to notice that there is imitation going on, does not require learning; while clearly everything that goes into listening to a fugue is not innate, it *is* at bottom based on or related to hearing.

> I say it doesn't matter if it's "natural". We don't have an
> in-born knowledge of the diatonic scale, but most people learn
> its difference matrix by a young age, if we are to believe
> Rothenberg.

Again, the diatonic scale is not innate, but its inner workings lean heavily on 5-limit considerations that do connect to how we hear.

[Of course, the diatonic scale has many features
> that play to natural mechanisms...

Exactly, and tone rows do not so far as I can tell. I've never heard anyone claim differently.

> So can the perception of permutations be learned? Probably.

Easily, for 7-note rows; it becomes much harder for 12-note rows. At some point it would of necessity break down completely--this is another manifestation of your favorite "magic number 7" theme.

Carl Lumma wrote:
>>I've never heard the slightest suggestion that we have a natural
>>mechanism for perceiving permutation groups,
> > To be fair, I think the same is true of much of 'fugual
> technique' as it is commonly taught. If you actually try to
> apply it to Bach, you find that you need so many exceptions
> to account for what he's doing that the 'technique' doesn't
> amount to a theory of fugues. And the rules don't seem to
> explain why Bach's music is so good (compared to other music
> that obeys the rules). At least that's what I found.

Carl,

I wonder how much of the problem is that the "theory" came after the fact. Bach was pretty much following excepted traditions of his day, but at the same time he was putting his own stamp on those traditions. And that is why he is still remembered today. It is not how much his music fits the theory that makes him known, on the contrary, he helped set the standards by which our theory "says" we must compose.

If Bach was reputed to be able to improvise a fugue, it just goes to show you the level at which his mind operated compositionally. He was able to do "on the spot" what most theoricians try to do in a lifetime.

Mike

Michael,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael McGonagle <fndsnd@r...> wrote:
> It is not how much his music fits the theory that makes him known,
> on the contrary, he helped set the standards by which our theory
> "says" we must compose.

Yep. And if we value his music, then we owe it to ourselves to forge outward to expand what music is and can do, instead of composing according to theories, mindful of the past and present theories *as but one set of paths*.

> He was able to do "on the spot" what most theoricians try to do in
> a lifetime.

Just so that you're prepared, someone on this list once posited that theory *precedes* music. I can't remember who, but my astonishment did make me remember the statement!

Cheers,
Jon

Jon Szanto wrote:
> Michael,
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael McGonagle <fndsnd@r...> wrote:
> > Yep. And if we value his music, then we owe it to ourselves to forge outward to expand what music is and can do, instead of composing according to theories, mindful of the past and present theories *as but one set of paths*.

Thanks, Jon, these were basically the words I was looking for, but somehow my brain did not think...

> >>He was able to do "on the spot" what most theoricians try to do in >>a lifetime.
> > > Just so that you're prepared, someone on this list once posited that theory *precedes* music. I can't remember who, but my astonishment did make me remember the statement!

Jon,

While I generally believe that theory should not hamper a composer (poet, painter, creative person, etc.), at the same time, how much of the training that the composer receives, influences what he does? So, in this respect, theory could be considered to proceed practice. (But how do you develope theory without a little practice?) Also, is it possible for a composer to develope in a vaccuum, developing completely on his own? If Harry Partch had not been trained in Traditional Music, would he ever have reached his theories for Just Intonation? Would he have developed the strength it took to forge his own path?

I do believe this is one reason that Serialism gets some "slightful" looks from composers is it really seems (to me) like you are just doing a "crossword" puzzle, only with notes. At the same time, some of the computer "experiments" that I have done use serial techniques in how the overall events are generated. The resulting overall sound can be quite fascinating, if not to call them musical. I have played with some fractals to generate some granular synthesis "clouds" of sound, and I find the results very pleasing. While these experiments are not following exactly the same theories as Schoenberg's, but a more generalized serialism, I still think that they both stem from the same compositional theory, maybe on a different scale (or magnitude).

Even still, how much of the concepts of serialism find their roots in the concept of "cantus firmus"? It was only up to the fanatics of the 20th century that tried to apply these theories to other parameters of music. I do think that there are many interesting things to be done with serialism, it just seems like the study of serialism as offered by the Vienna school is like spending your life living with something you really don't like in hopes of possibly, possibly, producing something remotely resembling music (or something that I would want to listen to).

I forget who might have said this, but to paraphrase, "We spend our childhood learning, and our adulthood unlearning."

Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@A...>"

/tuning/topicId_41648.html#41670

<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael McGonagle <fndsnd@r...>
wrote:
> > It is not how much his music fits the theory that makes him
known,
> > on the contrary, he helped set the standards by which our theory
> > "says" we must compose.
>
> Yep. And if we value his music, then we owe it to ourselves to
forge outward to expand what music is and can do, instead of
composing according to theories, mindful of the past and present
theories *as but one set of paths*.
>
> > He was able to do "on the spot" what most theoricians try to do
in
> > a lifetime.
>
> Just so that you're prepared, someone on this list once posited
that theory *precedes* music. I can't remember who, but my
astonishment did make me remember the statement!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hey Jon!

Greetings and Happy Holidays from my "undisclosed location."

I maybe be getting a little confused here, but isn't Harry Partch a
good example of a composer who spent quite a bit of time developing
his theories before putting them into practice in his best works??

Am I going cookoo??

Joe Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@A...>"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Just so that you're prepared, someone on this list once posited
>that theory *precedes* music. I can't remember who, but my
>astonishment did make me remember the statement!

occasionally theory *does* precede music. two (in)famous examples are
serialism and the 11-limit Tonality Diamond.

more often, theory and practice are intertwined in a chicken/egg
relationship . . . and there can be a lot of gray areas too. what is
theory? in a recent interview, john scofield made the point that even
some of the most basic ideas that might occur to a would-be garage-
band guitarist, such as transposition of power chords, are examples
of theory -- in other words, very few musicians who have any interest
in perfecting their craft operate completely free of intellectual
constructs . . . which are usually both informed by, and informing,
their music.

this is not to say that spiritual/emotional/ineffable considerations
may not be even more important for most music -- perhaps even for
all "real" music! but even those pursuing this
direction "exclusively" often manage to fill extensive liner notes,
often describing the process by which the music arrived at its
particular form -- hence outlining a putative compositional
*theory* . . .

and on it goes . . .