Some musically oriented people simply cannot compose a melody

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

>As for serialism, Schoenberg's method was eminently teachable, a true system >of composition. I'm not as negative about it as Paul and Kraig. Some >musically oriented people simply cannot compose a melody (e.g. La Monte Young).
> >
Care to explain why you're using La Monte as an example?

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

In a message dated 10/9/2003 10:55:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, db@biink.com
writes:

> Care to explain why you're using La Monte as an example?
>
>

It comes out of a discussion we had, when I was speaking to him about a solo
piece.

Johnny

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 10/9/2003 10:55:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > db@biink.com writes:
>
>> Care to explain why you're using La Monte as an example?
>>
>
> It comes out of a discussion we had, when I was speaking to him about > a solo piece.

You're saying he said he can't compose melodies?

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

Something like that. Johnny

On Thursday 09 October 2003 09:48 am, David Beardsley wrote:
> Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:
> >As for serialism, Schoenberg's method was eminently teachable, a true
> > system of composition. I'm not as negative about it as Paul and Kraig.
> > Some musically oriented people simply cannot compose a melody (e.g. La
> > Monte Young).
>
> Care to explain why you're using La Monte as an example?

Sorry I'm using David Beardsley's thread to answer Johnny's quote
re:Schoenberg...I must have missed or erased the original message. Anyway,
I'm going to sidetrack away from LaMonte, and dig at the tasty morsel above
about 'systems of composition'.

Anyway, I just wanted to mention that I think (and many, many people share
this view, for what it's worth) that serialism is so dead that I can't
believe it's taken seriously anymore. One of the great things that
microtonality and altered tuning brings to the table is a rebirth of the
exploration of tonality, consonance, hierachical thinking and hearing that is
evident to a listener (don't tell me serialist 'hierarchies' are obvious to a
listener--they are simply not).

Schoenberg was certainly a great composer and thinker and intellect, even if I
don't like his music, or don't feel like being assaulted by a bleak,
expressionist affect most of the time- (like Mark Twain said of Wagner-'his
music is better than it sounds'), but unfortunately, he is responsible, with
others, of alienating an entire population of the art-music listening public,
(and don't go telling me to read Babbitt's 'Who cares if you listen'--Babbitt
is the epitome of that nasty, post-serialist academic view of composition,
IMO--the 1950's way to write a piece-step one--first, what is your tone row?
Barf.)

By the way, neither am I making a plea to have people write in whatever
popular vein (neo-romanticism, etc.) you might falsely imagine that I am
touting as an alternative to post-serial whatever. I AM making a plea for
people to actually write music that enjoys a broad pallette of affect, and a
full spectrum of consonace/dissonance. Much of the problem that the serial
music I've heard has is precisely that it revels in a sort of annoying,
neurotic state of perpetual, unrelieved dissonance, and it grates the nerves!
(Of course, if you are a certain type of person, this may thrill you to no
end, but I won't comment on that.....)

Anyway, regarding 'systems' of compostion, in my experience, as someone who at
one point was EXTREMELY attracted to the idea of systems, algorithms, etc., I
have found that the more one comes to rely on them, the less the music that
comes out really bears a stamp of a personality, and consequently, the less
interesting and communicative and sensual, or engaging of the imagination it
will be. I say this in general, not as an absolute. Hold your knee-jerk flame
responses back, please. Yes, there are very great works which have been
written using a systematic approach, (what is a fugue, as an example, if not
a 'system' or 'procedure'?), but I find that striking a nice balance between
system and human spontanaeity to be ideal. Read this is a 'perfect marriage
of head and heart'. (or if you prefer 'Apollonian' at the expense of
'Dionysian') Too much music out there is about, for, and by the 'head',
neglecting the 'heart'. (not to mention the genetalia)

Just an opinion, not an invitation to flame.....you can share yours if
contrary to mine! Just a 'credo'

Best,
Aaron.

OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...> wrote:

> (and don't go telling me to read Babbitt's 'Who cares if you
listen'--Babbitt
> is the epitome of that nasty, post-serialist academic view of
composition,
> IMO--the 1950's way to write a piece-step one--first, what is
your tone row?
> Barf.)

The title 'Who Cares if You Listen', of an article which appeared
in High Fidelity 1958 was not the author's original title, but was a
sensational editorial change which was made without Babbitt's
consent. Babbitt has been trying to set the record straight on this
for most of his career. The original title was, if memory serves
me, 'The Composer as Specialist'. If you would like to know the
story straight from the man himself, check out the excellent
double CD 'soli e duettini', which includes, in addition to many
stunning performances of incredible music, the voice of Babbitt
explaining the whole story behind this infamous article, and then
some. Buy it here at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000001SIW/qid
=1065721636/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/104-7866661-5176760?v=glan
ce&s=classical&n=507846

Regards,
Aaron Hunt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "pitchcolor" <Pitchcolor@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
> <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
>
> > (and don't go telling me to read Babbitt's 'Who cares if you
> listen'--Babbitt
> > is the epitome of that nasty, post-serialist academic view of
> composition,
> > IMO--the 1950's way to write a piece-step one--first, what is
> your tone row?
> > Barf.)
>

But that is not how Babbitt writes a piece. He is very hard in critic
of composers starting with tone row as a melody.

Of course Babbitt did not make his own microtone-music, but his
article on the RCA synthesizer says that it is possible, so he was
open to the idea.

Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>

/tuning/topicId_47786.html#47790

> Schoenberg was certainly a great composer and thinker and
intellect, even if I
> don't like his music, or don't feel like being assaulted by a
bleak,
> expressionist affect most of the time- (like Mark Twain said of
Wagner-'his
> music is better than it sounds'), but unfortunately, he is
responsible, with
> others, of alienating an entire population of the art-music
listening public,

***I'm assuming, Aaron, that you know the bulk of Schoenberg's
music? There are lots of different styles. I've just been listening
to his 2nd String Quartet again. I find that hardly "bleak and
expressionistic..."

Monz?? [Soon to go on metatuning, I admit]

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "pitchcolor" <Pitchcolor@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47786.html#47792

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
> <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
>
> > (and don't go telling me to read Babbitt's 'Who cares if you
> listen'--Babbitt
> > is the epitome of that nasty, post-serialist academic view of
> composition,
> > IMO--the 1950's way to write a piece-step one--first, what is
> your tone row?
> > Barf.)
>
>
> The title 'Who Cares if You Listen', of an article which appeared
> in High Fidelity 1958 was not the author's original title, but was
a
> sensational editorial change which was made without Babbitt's
> consent. Babbitt has been trying to set the record straight on this
> for most of his career. The original title was, if memory serves
> me, 'The Composer as Specialist'. If you would like to know the
> story straight from the man himself, check out the excellent
> double CD 'soli e duettini', which includes, in addition to many
> stunning performances of incredible music, the voice of Babbitt
> explaining the whole story behind this infamous article, and then
> some. Buy it here at Amazon:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000001SIW/qid
> =1065721636/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/104-7866661-5176760?v=glan
> ce&s=classical&n=507846
>
> Regards,
> Aaron Hunt

***And also, before entirely dissing Babbitt, consider his
phenomenal, _Philomel_ for voice and electronics. Babbitt is best in
electronics, I believe...

J. Pehrson

on 10/11/03 12:30 PM, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
>
> /tuning/topicId_47786.html#47790
>
>> Schoenberg was certainly a great composer and thinker and
> intellect, even if I
>> don't like his music, or don't feel like being assaulted by a
> bleak,
>> expressionist affect most of the time- (like Mark Twain said of
> Wagner-'his
>> music is better than it sounds'), but unfortunately, he is
> responsible, with
>> others, of alienating an entire population of the art-music
> listening public,
>
> ***I'm assuming, Aaron, that you know the bulk of Schoenberg's
> music? There are lots of different styles. I've just been listening
> to his 2nd String Quartet again. I find that hardly "bleak and
> expressionistic..."

Hmm. One person's bleak is another person's exciting. It depends on how
much you love the darkness.

I find his organ piece

Variations on a recitative Op. 40

to be quite engaging, and when I hear it in my mind it seems to leak out of
the boundaries of 12-et a bit - in the melodic domain.

For those interested this piece can be found on an italian CD

fone 92 F 03
Schoenberg, Messiaen, Hindemith, Scelsi
Organo Kleuker 1978 de l'Alpe d'Huez
Visioni del Novecento

which I found on amazon here, but apparently not available currently

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000003XLU/qid=1065939512/sr=8
-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-8602822-0132131?v=glance&s=classical&n=507846

It's a beatiful tracker organ made to look like a large hand.
Check out the pic on the page linked above.

(The Scelsi piece could *only* be played on a tracker,
since it makes use of partially pressed keys.
Quite an interesting CD if you can find it.)

-Kurt

>
> Monz?? [Soon to go on metatuning, I admit]
>
> J. Pehrson
>
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
> the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>