Re: [tuning] Digest Number 3944

Aaron wrote:

"The issue is this: when the society formed, it was indeed a whites-
only society, and this is a terrible historic fact, that, none-the-less
is on par with just about any other organization that age in this
country, including many churches, sports teams, restaurants...
SPEBSQSA wasn't exactly extreme or particularly racist compared
to the rest of the country."

No, integration was a local option, and there were many chapters -- in NYC, with, as I posted before, LaGuardia himself as an enthusiastic member, or the Ohio chapter that the Mills Brothers and their father belonged to -- with black members. But the national was increasingly dominated by chapters which excluded members, and racial exclusion came to feature in national gatherings.

"Today, the society laments that this fact
of our history is the reason we have lost some of the african-
american tradition. Simply put, without a "preservation" society,
black barbershop singing died out, as all of it could have without
a society to "preserve" it. But there was no attempt to eliminate it. "

It was not eliminated, it was excluded, and continued to develop on its own terms elsewhere. "Preservation" is here a largely a fiction, as any aspect of barbershop music as defined by the organization can be shown to have been a variable in the past -- use of accompaniment, harmonic vocabulary, voice leading conventions, use of untexted vocals, solos, etc..

This is not to demean or discount the institutional barbershop tradition, but simply to place it into a wider context, in which the identity of the genre is heard rather as a set of conventions that are arbitrarily fixed and have, in fact, varied over time. Personally, I would be more interested in hearing what potential the tradition has for further development. For example, why should it be limited to the two-to-four-minute-long song format, or to repertoire that has dropped out of copyright, or to seven limit harmonies? I could easily imagine that a barbershop quartet could do fantastic things with, say, Roy Orbison's _In Dreams_, a song with a formal shape quite unlike the standard song repertoire. And William Brooks' setting of Foster's _Nellie Was A Lady_ in his extended vocal technique _Madrigals_ demonstrates potential of another sort.

Jon wrote:

"I think the problem for Gene, and this may always be the case, is that
in many circumstances musical terminology is _not_ as codified,
ossified, and concrete as mathematical terminology. I can live with
that, but I don't think he can. :) "

Jon,

Having spent enough time for a lifetime or two among music theorists and musicologists, I would say that musical terminology is pretty well codified, ossified, and concrete, it's just that that codification, ossification, and concrete-footware-iation is subject to extreme local variations, and neither rigorous consistency nor logical consequence has ever been a major element of musical terminological invention. If you have the right frame of mind, this can be a perfectly acceptable state of affairs, as music is, in the end, a subjective and aesthetic experience, and -- so long as they are pursued with internal coherence and honesty -- each theoretical/musicological project has the potential to bring out features or qualities that competing projects simply miss. The gods forbid that we should be stuck with just one theory.

What were the poet's words?

"And twofold Always. May God us keep From Single vision & Newtons sleep."

Gene,

Having just written the above, I will nevertheless confirm that the terms "real answer" and "tonal answer" are standard and well-known, and are especially important in learning to write fugue, which at the early stages is all about composing subjects and answers that might be combined with the subjects and with each other.

DJW

Dan,

> Having spent enough time for a lifetime or two among music theorists
and
> musicologists

I've been hanging out with performers and composers, myself. :)

> I would say that musical terminology is pretty well
> codified, ossified, and concrete, it's just that that codification,
> ossification, and concrete-footware-iation is subject to extreme local
> variations, and neither rigorous consistency nor logical consequence
has
> ever been a major element of musical terminological invention.

Yeah, ok, play a semantic game if you want to - we're both saying that
the terminology is quite a bit more fluid and hard-to-pin-down than in
other disciplines. Me? I don't have a problem with it.

> The gods forbid that we should be stuck with just one theory.

Good that *someone* was doing their job! :)

> What were the poet's words?
>
> "And twofold Always. May God us keep From Single vision & Newtons
sleep."

Lovely. So seldom to things end up poetically expressed in these parts.

Cheers,
Jon

>
> This is not to demean or discount the institutional barbershop
> tradition, but simply to place it into a wider context, in which
the
> identity of the genre is heard rather as a set of conventions that
are
> arbitrarily fixed and have, in fact, varied over time. Personally,
I
> would be more interested in hearing what potential the tradition
has for
> further development. For example, why should it be limited to the
> two-to-four-minute-long song format, or to repertoire that has
dropped
> out of copyright, or to seven limit harmonies? I could easily
imagine
> that a barbershop quartet could do fantastic things with, say, Roy
> Orbison's _In Dreams_, a song with a formal shape quite unlike the
> standard song repertoire. And William Brooks' setting of Foster's
> _Nellie Was A Lady_ in his extended vocal technique _Madrigals_
> demonstrates potential of another sort.
>

Oh, I completely agree, both that the institutional
approach is not the same as truly preserving the
dynamics of the tradition, as well as that we should
be open to new related ideas. Do be aware that
quartets today do and have done music much newer
than copyright expired music, probably well over
the majority of the music sung is still copyrighted,
not THAT old. On top of that, further stylistic things
like Roy Orbison arrangements are and have been done.

In addition to all of that, I fully, strongly agree
that it is worthwhile to explore further tonalities
and styles and even opening up exploring new
combinations of ensembles, using the barbershop
quartet traditions to whatever degree. I'm with you
on that.

Like anything, it is hard to pin down this sort of
society into one simple view. Within the society,
there are both conservative traditionalists who
preserve a mythical view of the tradition, as well
as experimental composers who are interested in
incorporating all sorts of things (I'm one of those).

The way I look at it, it's like this: besides
sometimes oversimplifying, even the best attempts
at "preservation" of a style can only preserve those
elements that we can easily write down or notate or
describe. Everything else will get lost over time.
But because this leaves gaps in the expressiveness of
the music, those gaps will be filled in by equally hard
to describe (but not necessarily similar) elements that
help create expressive complete music. Today's top
quartets have a new sound that is unlike anything
previous. This is just how things go.

The main thing that draws me and I believe most
barbershoppers is simply the focus on harmony,
whereas most music leaves harmony as a background
element. But not just that focus, it's the
harmonic and carefully tuned, matched sound that is
what's so neat.

-Aaron

> "Today, the society laments that this fact
> of our history is the reason we have lost some of the african-
> american tradition. Simply put, without a "preservation" society,
> black barbershop singing died out, as all of it could have without
> a society to "preserve" it. But there was no attempt to eliminate
> it. "
>
> It was not eliminated, it was excluded,

While I'm sure there was a quantity of deliberate exclusion
at every level of the society, it's a myth that segregation
requires the intent to segregate. I happen to live in a
neighborhood in Berkeley with virtually no black residents.
They are in no way excluded, and our elementary schools are
even non-local.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...> wrote:

> For example, why should it be limited to the
> two-to-four-minute-long song format, or to repertoire that has dropped
> out of copyright, or to seven limit harmonies?

The extension I find most intriguing is to get away from the chain of
fifths.