Various back postings...

Mr. Pehrson:

>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...))

Well, that's a much better way to put it, insofar as _I_ can understand it! Note that the 'nice gray pie' is not, by any means, a _necessity_ or an _obligation_. (And is it not at least possible that the combination of the 'nice' lower-integer harmonies with (if I understand you aright) the 'nasty' higher-integer ones may appear valid to some ears? Maybe even tonally exciting _because_ of the *changing*?) I have heard '12-tone' compositions which actually sound quite 'nice' in a 'strange' kind of way...

>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.

Mr. Cage had harsher things to say about Mr. Branca at one stage... But I think that a composer should, perhaps, have a _reasonable_ right to express opinions, if only for the purpose of letting others know where they stand.

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

I think that was the name. Yup, Josef Hauer (1883 -1959). Schoenberg didn't ignore the credit, from what I heard, and ensured that his compositions were played occasionally by his Society, but Hauer apparently lived and died an embittered man. Such are the whims of fate... Anybody heard any of his compositions, BTW?

>***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..."

This reminds me of the Thai Elephant Orchestra, to whom I was listening this morning. For those who haven't heard them, as their name implies, all the compositions are performed entirely by elephants - no humans allowed. The instruments are made and tuned by humans, of course, but the elephants do all the playing, on things like gongs and marimbas. Given that some of the instruments have different elements to choose from, such as the different bars on the marimba-things, is it fair to say that the elephants are making a 'conscious' decision as to which notes to play? Or are they just striking things at random? I don't think so, 4WIW - it certainly sounds like music to me. So are we then to say that tonal appreciation extends somewhere beyond humanity? Of course; look at birdsong, as the obvious example...but isn't playing an instrument a different situation? And, if an elephant could build an instrument for itself, what kind of tuning would it have? Something which we immediately recognise ourselves?

I have no idea whatsoever. I present the thoughts for speculative purposes...

Paul:

>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 . . .

Yeah, I _thought_ so, but I wasn't sure who it was to, so I took the liberty of adding my thoughts...as to their 'uninformedness', well, I _told_ everybody that I was a hack producer of 12-ET pop...but, anyway, I didn't see a sign on the door saying: WARNING! NO ENTRY WITHOUT AN MA IN MUSIC THEORY! ;o)

Monz:

>i have to assume that you're stretching the truth a bit
>to make a point. it's documented quite well in Moldenhauer's
>big biography of Webern that he began composing in 1899
>at the age of 15, several years before he entered the
>University of Vienna and began his studies in musicology
>with Guido Adler.

Um, yeah...well, that's what _I_ heard, too. I wasn't going to say anything, but now that you have...

In any case, Mr. Gann, my observation was cheeky and I should have known better, but, alas, I didn't. No form of disrespect whatsoever was intended either to the memory of Mr. Bartok (whose compositions I largely find wonderful) or to yourself (who, as I said previously, I appreciate for taking the time to explain your position on Herr Webern).

Alison:

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

Many thanks! (And a Merry Christmas to all, even tho' I don't celebrate it...) But I'm sure that others will be cursing me for being too thick to know when to quit...

Now, Gene:

>the bottom line is that if you think we have a natural tone-row mechanism, >I'd like to see the evidence.

Umm...eh? Did _I_ say _that_?

Well, the word 'natural' is a highly loaded one, and one which I would be very careful about using, especially outside of a strictly philosophical/semantic situation. We know so very little about anything, really...

I was unaware until reading your comments that I was being taken to have said or to be implying that there might be such a thing. I have no idea whether there is, but I rather doubt it. I am sure that your experiments which "suggest that we do not" are valid.

However, how many 'serial'/'12-tone' works have you heard which consist only of the tone-row? I wouldn't go so far as to say that that was akin to saying that a 12-ET piece could be apprehended in some sense by describing the 'key' which it is in, but most 'serial' works which I have heard are 'harmonised' in the sense initially given in my 'Oxford Companion to Music', i.e. "[the] chordal aspect of the combination of voices or parts" ('Harmony', p. 441, 10th Edn). Now, of course, this in turn depends on what your definition of an acceptable chord might be, but I guess that what I am trying to say is that, as we all know, the row or its inversion/other permutations may be divided between different parts at the discretion of the composer, and 'harmonised', if you will permit it, in the same way.

Thus, it would seem to me in all my superb ignorance, a tone-row is _less_ of a "permutation group" or a "group operation" in an absolute acoustic (or even mathematical) sense, and _more_ of an abstract or conceptual notion, a composer's tool, which can be manifested and accompanied in a composition in _any fashion which the imagination of the composer is equal to producing_. The tone-row itself may be more or less explicit or implicit within a piece.

It would seem to me, on the above grounds, that stating that "[e]ven if we cut the number of notes down to seven, the ear does not seem to grasp group operations beyond inversions and reversions" may not state anything of significance in terms of establishing the 'naturalness' or otherwise of 'serial' composition, insofar as the music produced by this method may very well permit the application of "groups of transformations to harmony".

Does this make any sense?

->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

________________________________________________

CHRISTMAS, N. A day set apart and consecrated to gluttony, drunkeness, maudlin sentiment, gift-taking, public dullness and domestic behaviour. - Ambrose Bierce

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf

>

comments below!

>

>
> From: "ArchD'Ikon Zibethicus" <zibethicus@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Various back postings...
>
>
> >***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..."
>
> This reminds me of the Thai Elephant Orchestra, to whom I was listening this
> morning. For those who haven't heard them, as their name implies, all the
> compositions are performed entirely by elephants - no humans allowed. The
> instruments are made and tuned by humans, of course, but the elephants do
> all the playing, on things like gongs and marimbas. Given that some of the
> instruments have different elements to choose from, such as the different
> bars on the marimba-things, is it fair to say that the elephants are making
> a 'conscious' decision as to which notes to play? Or are they just striking
> things at random? I don't think so, 4WIW - it certainly sounds like music
> to me. So are we then to say that tonal appreciation extends somewhere
> beyond humanity? Of course; look at birdsong, as the obvious example...but
> isn't playing an instrument a different situation? And, if an elephant
> could build an instrument for itself, what kind of tuning would it have?
> Something which we immediately recognise ourselves?
>
> I have no idea whatsoever. I present the thoughts for speculative
> purposes...

As someone who works with scores that gives as few instructions as possible, feel that players are more than capable of "filling in the details" if only given the chance. With few instructions it is possible to create composaitions that sound alike regardess of
the players yet letting them makes the choices. This wonderful orchestra gives the elephants more than enough structure and a pitch array that pretty much from my viewpoint predetermines ALOT of what the elephants do.

>
>
> Paul:
>
> >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 . . .
>
> Yeah, I _thought_ so, but I wasn't sure who it was to, so I took the liberty
> of adding my thoughts...as to their 'uninformedness', well, I _told_
> everybody that I was a hack producer of 12-ET pop...but, anyway, I didn't
> see a sign on the door saying: WARNING! NO ENTRY WITHOUT AN MA IN MUSIC
> THEORY! ;o)

just to be clear that i have not a MA in music theroy and think this list would possibly gain more by someone as yourself producing music, since they tend to look at music as something besides notes on paper.

I will stand by my list of questions to thoose concerned stating that would cannot say to me that such and such is the best tuning untill they can back up that such a thing is possible.

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> just to be clear that i have not a MA in music theroy

and i don't have an MA at all . . . the stuff they discuss here is
not taught in any school that i know of, and pretty much vice versa
(i know some of our *schooled* correspondents can attest to the truth
of this) . . .

happy holidays from snowy boston

> happy holidays from snowy boston

Same to all, from snowy Montana! May
the new year bring beautiful music.

-C.

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

/tuning/topicId_41665.html#41665

<> However, how many 'serial'/'12-tone' works have you heard which
consist only
> of the tone-row? I wouldn't go so far as to say that that was akin
to
> saying that a 12-ET piece could be apprehended in some sense by
describing
> the 'key' which it is in, but most 'serial' works which I have
heard are
> 'harmonised' in the sense initially given in my 'Oxford Companion
to Music',
> i.e. "[the] chordal aspect of the combination of voices or parts"
> ('Harmony', p. 441, 10th Edn). Now, of course, this in turn
depends on what
> your definition of an acceptable chord might be, but I guess that
what I am
> trying to say is that, as we all know, the row or its
inversion/other
> permutations may be divided between different parts at the
discretion of the
> composer, and 'harmonised', if you will permit it, in the same way.
>
> Thus, it would seem to me in all my superb ignorance, a tone-row is
_less_
> of a "permutation group" or a "group operation" in an absolute
acoustic (or
> even mathematical) sense, and _more_ of an abstract or conceptual
notion, a
> composer's tool, which can be manifested and accompanied in a
composition in
> _any fashion which the imagination of the composer is equal to
producing_.
> The tone-row itself may be more or less explicit or implicit within
a piece.
>

***Greetings and Happy Holidays to everybody from Grosse Pointe, MI,
by the way...

Well, your statement here Zib, seems more in line with an *ideal* use
of serialism as a tool. Many composers have used it this way, but I
believe that Schoenberg and some of the earlier practicioners
insisted on a much more *literal* interpretation. Perhaps Monz can
elucidate...

J. Pehrson

----- Original Message -----
From: <clumma@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 8:01 PM
Subject: [tuning] happy holidays

> > happy holidays from snowy boston
>
> Same to all, from snowy Montana! May
> the new year bring beautiful music.

hmmm ... hope it doesn't bother anyone to know
that i spent a nice warm sunny Christmas in Mexico.

:)

-monz