Contemporary composers
Daniel
My name's Daniel and I'm writing from Italy and I study at the Gioacchino
Rossini conservatory
I've a question for those of you that are graduated in composition
And this is the question: do you think you will ever write tonal music
following harmony rules ?
I don't dislike atonal music and I consider it a good tool to create certain
effects that rapresents the emotions of the composer
Anyway I also think that any tool we have should be used in its right
context and without necessarily forget anything else
That's why I agree when a composer says that he/she needs to write an atonal
piece in order to rapresent musically specific feelings and emotions but I
trying to consider it dishonest when a composer keep writing only atonal
pieces, even though his/her message is not understood by the public, just
because of the fear of being unoriginal
Yes, we become dishonest when we forget our messages and our emotions
because of our hadonism and presumption
I think it's sad to see a valid composer composing horrible and cold music
just because he is interested in showing that he's is able to compose
complicated and original things forgetting that music is emotion, art and
heart and not just an accademic exercize
When one is afraid of composing something unoriginal or already heard it
means that there's nothing that he can say with his music and nothing that
he want to say otherwise he would consciously know that even though some
musical patterns will be not original the idea, the emotions, the touch, the
orchestration, the sensivity of the piece will always be original
Saying that composing tonal music is like composing unoriginal music is like
saying that writing a fantasy book is like writing an already existing book
I don't think that it's the musical language we use that make an opera
original or unoriginal otherwise conteporary writers will be writing using
uncomprehensible words, using four commas or upside down sentences
In fact, that's what they would do for the fear that their language is not o
riginal anymore
They could even be afraid of using the same words other writers used
Nevertheless, by using the same alphabet and the same words they can be
original because they know that it's not the language, the alphabet or the
words used that make a book original or not but the idea, the story and the
sensitivity of the writer
The same should be for the music
The composer should be willing of writing even banal music if that is what
is needed to rapresent its ideas and emotions and it should not be afraid of
using an already utilized musical alphabet as innovation is not changing
every time the system utilized to compose but the ideas and emotions the
composition was meant to transmit
When I'll be graduated I won't say
"I will compose atonal music"
"I will compose tonal music"
"I will compose the most difficult music ever heard so people will say that
I surealy know composition rules"
I will simply say
"I will compose the music needed to translate my emotions and my idea and to
share my ideas with others, and I will try to utilize the most appropriate
language and music system for that specific idea"
Surely, there will be a lot of room for original ideas that can be better
translated in tonal music
And if my classmates will say that my music is banal just because of the
system I will utilize it will be their fault and not the system fault
In music we can create new alphabet, new systems every time but a lot of
composer afraid of being unoriginal try to create anytime a new system and
new sounds
There are arts (such as writings) where the system and the alphabet can be
only one, yet by using the same system different writers with different
emotions and messages to share with people can be always original and will
be forever
Music is finite just like writing
The notes and chords we can use are finite as finite are the word in our
dictionaries and the characters we can use
But music, just like writing, is infinite in it's melodic contest, just like
the same word in different positions create different sentences with
different meanings, and above it all it's infinite because of the infinite
and unique sensitivity of the composer
I think too much composers are utilizing music as math
They don't write music for it to be a translation of different emotions,
messages and ideas they write it in order to show other how good they're
when utilizing difficolout and complicates calculations
But if music would only be a mathematical conception the computers and
robots would be able to compose and write music better than humans and we
know that's not true
And also if Swan Lake hadn't been never wrote then a computer using
mathematical formulas to combine notes, chords, cadences and rythm would
have been able to write an ideantical Swan Lake with the same humanity and
poetry
But we know that's not true, without Tchaikosky there would never been the
Swan Lake we know; that's because we'are all unique and our ideas and
emotions are unique and if we have really something to say that it's
spontaneous, true and personal then there's no risk to be unoriginal and to
write something that has been already wrote
This is the risk of those dishonest contemporary composers that have nothing
personal to say that they know that every note they write with this lack
within can be unconsciously imitated from another opera and that's the
reason why these composers instead of translated their emotion in music they
decide instead to write an accademic exercise so has that those who have
studied harmony and composition can see how good he is but people will
always recognize how dishonest this music is
(I'm not saying all contemporary composers are like this)
Bottom line, art means also being able to translate an emotion or an idea
utilizing the complicated rules of that art without needing that people
understand these rules
For instance, people who love sculpture doesn't need to understand the rules
of sculpture of the material utilized to enjoy the sculpture, people who
love picture doesn't need to understand what tecnique the artist has
utilized or what hystorical period this tecnique reflects in order to enjoy
the picture, people who love dance doesn't need to know the rules of dance
motions and understand the name and the history of that motion
Art is something extempore, immediate .. it should be understood even by
layman
If you bring a 1 years old child who has never listened to music and you
make him heard a Beethoven sonata, a Bach prelude, a Debussy symphonic poem,
a Strauss waltz a Gershwin swing this child will always enjoy the music,
will smile and start to move his feet or hands
But this doesn't happen with a contemporary piece even when the child has
not been brainwashed by other music
So, I only laugh when someone who write atonal music that seem not to be
enojoyed by the public say to me that it's because of the fact that people
are musically ignorant and doesn't know music theory and rules
This is ridicolous
Art is translation of complicated ideas and emotions in simple visual and
aural manifestations so that even layman can enojoy and understand them
When an artist requires the public to know the rules and theory of its art
in order for the public to enjoy its work then this artist has completely
failed
It's just like the controversy about animation vs computer graphic we see
today
I find stupid that there are people who really believe that it's the media
you utilize that make something original or not, beautiful or not
It's the story, the idea, the emotions ...
Evey system can be utilized for writing horrible or beautiful thing
I would like your answers, your opinions and your idea about this and my
message either if you agree with me or not
Thanks for reading
Daniel
Dan McGarvey
vs. atonal terms, I simply refuse to answer. If there's one thing I've
learned it's that such categorzation is completely futile as a measure of
how good a piece is. If your music is sincere and well-constructed, the
message will get through to your audience regardless of what sounds you're
using.
Here's my advice: make the resolution never to get drawn into a debate on
tonality vs. atonality. It might have been fun in the 1920's, but today
it's positively useless. If you want to compose in the 21st century, purge
those words from your aesthetic vocabulary. There's room today for every
harmonic language and style; if you're good, you can shape any sound into a
meaningful experience.
Jeffrey Quick
"Daniel" <dani...@email.it> wrote:
> Hi
> My name's Daniel and I'm writing from Italy and I study at the Gioacchino
> Rossini conservatory
> I've a question for those of you that are graduated in composition
> And this is the question: do you think you will ever write tonal music
> following harmony rules ?
Sure. do it all the time. Not the only game I play, and I'm not a slave
to "the rules". But do I do things with tonics and dominants and care
for voice-leading? sure.
> I don't dislike atonal music and I consider it a good tool to create certain
> effects that rapresents the emotions of the composer
> Anyway I also think that any tool we have should be used in its right
> context and without necessarily forget anything else
>
> That's why I agree when a composer says that he/she needs to write an atonal
> piece in order to rapresent musically specific feelings and emotions but I
> trying to consider it dishonest when a composer keep writing only atonal
> pieces, even though his/her message is not understood by the public, just
> because of the fear of being unoriginal
As if doing what everyone else does is the way to be original.
> Yes, we become dishonest when we forget our messages and our emotions
> because of our hadonism and presumption
> I think it's sad to see a valid composer composing horrible and cold music
> just because he is interested in showing that he's is able to compose
> complicated and original things forgetting that music is emotion, art and
> heart and not just an accademic exercize
I'm not in the business of telling other people how to write. It's not
my problem.
I do think that in the US at least, it is possible today for a composer
to live without a real audience. There are people teaching composition,
being paid in part for composing, who only get played by those similar
to them. I think that's sad, and that the art of music would be stronger
if it were not so. But that's not my problem either.
Samuel Vriezen
> I've a question for those of you that are graduated in composition
> And this is the question: do you think you will ever write tonal music
> following harmony rules ?
I might some day write some sort of tonal music but I don't like 'rules'.
> When one is afraid of composing something unoriginal or already heard it
> means that there's nothing that he can say with his music and nothing that
> he want to say otherwise he would consciously know that even though some
> musical patterns will be not original the idea, the emotions, the touch, the
> orchestration, the sensivity of the piece will always be original
Well, it's always personal to some extent. But I feel that to get to
truly original music, you have to do a lot of work. I don't think that
everything that is personal is therefore original. I feel it's rather
that you can be original when you get to the bottom of what is your
personal relation to music.
> Music is finite just like writing
> The notes and chords we can use are finite as finite are the word in our
> dictionaries and the characters we can use
I disagree. First, you can invent words and many authors do so. That
even happens in Harry Potter. Language changes.
And this is true for chords too. Still, I believe. Radulescu can write
beautiful, strange harmonies, and in a very different way Xenakis could,
too. On the other hand if you hear a major triad in the music of Richard
Ayres it often doesn't really sound like any major triad you've ever
heard before, it might have an odd instrumentation or come very
unexpectedly. So even major triads are not finite.
> I think too much composers are utilizing music as math
> They don't write music for it to be a translation of different emotions,
Perhaps they do, but you're simply not interested in that emotion?
When I think of applying mathematical procedures in music, I think of
Iannis Xenakis and of Tom Johnson, who both wrote music that I love.
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
--
Als God had gewild dat we het gezellig hadden had hij het wel gezellig
gemaakt.
Samuel Vriezen
> I do think that in the US at least, it is possible today for a composer
> to live without a real audience. There are people teaching composition,
> being paid in part for composing, who only get played by those similar
> to them. I think that's sad, and that the art of music would be stronger
> if it were not so. But that's not my problem either.
Do you distinguish between a small audience and a real audience?
I find that distinction difficult. I know I feel at some concerts, the
audience is small but somehow real and at other concerts, there's no
'real audience', particularly at some festivals where you have audiences
that are there only for professional reasons and which is basically bored.
What makes an audience feel 'real' to me is enthusiasm and a sense that
something might grow out of the experience they had.
Samuel Vriezen
> Here's my advice: make the resolution never to get drawn into a debate on
> tonality vs. atonality. It might have been fun in the 1920's, but today
> it's positively useless. If you want to compose in the 21st century, purge
> those words from your aesthetic vocabulary.
Very good advice. At best, I think 'tonal' and 'atonal' can be used as
technical terms on the level of 'meter' and 'fluttertongue'.
Imagine a stylistic debate "Are you a fluttertongue composer, or a
double tongue composer?"
Daniel
story
That's it, you use strange words when you need it and use already seen
sentence patterns when you need it
I have no problem with atonality per se if it is considered as a new tool
amongst the others to write music just as I don't have problem with Rowling
new words when they're a necessary contribution to the story
But I would have some doubt about the honesty of the writer is it would
write a whole book of new words just because "I want to be original"
Minimalism, serialism, atonality, impressionism, dodecaphonism are all
mediums, means and tools to write music (just like tonality, sincopatited
rythm, tetrachord, dissonances and so on) but it seems that (and I don't
mean everyone) a lot of composers instead of utilizing all the mediums and
tolls they have for reaching an end make the tool the end itself
This is where I sense a lack of honesty and an excess of mannerism
Atonal music can give a sense of pain, lost, wandering, dreaming while tonal
music is more concrete and it divides the ephimer dream from the lucid dream
Since our emotions and our ides are all a mix of dream and concrete or at
least any composer has also something less evanishent to say I think that
the two system should cohesixt
But when the mean becomes the end instead of a tool or medium for reaching
the end only dishonest and bad work can come up
How do I think I can recognize dihonest art ?
It's simple: when a young boy graduated in composition instead of trying to
utilize all the means and the better ones for its purposes says to you:
"I would be really happy if my music would be impossible to eseguite"
"I want to destroy the past and my music must be "new" at all cost"
"I haven't used this complicated time signature because it is necessary to
my piece but just because I want show other how complicated can be the thing
I compose"
This is being dishonest: mistakening the mean for the end just out of
presumption and exibitionism
I also draw
I love to draw
Sometimes I draw real thing such as trees, cats and landscapes other times I
draw abstract subjects
I can use different means for my drawings: light touch, water colours,
double lines, lack of prospective, black and white, cartoons tract, stalcks
and so on
The point is that first I decide what I want to transmit with my drawing (in
other words: first I have an idea that come from my conscious) and then
during the work I decide with means to utilize to concretize the work
I would become dishonest if, instead of following this crestive path, I
would simply say:
"I want to amaze other, so even if it has nothing to do with my idea I will
put in my picture all the strangest things in the world, I will paste grass,
rasors, I will spit in my drawing and will also cut the angles .... but I'm
not doing this because this is what I want to tramist I do this just because
I want other to be amazed so I need to search for the strangest thing even
though they're not what I want"
Art can be anything and music can be even noise but the point is that art is
honest when one has something to say and utilize the better mean to reach a
conscious end, art becomes dishonest when one before having an idea utilize
all extraneous means as the end itself in order of show other how good,
strange, bizzarre one can be
We need honest and balanced art
P.S. Many atonal contemporary composition are original and very good, most
are just the same and give the same feelings when one listen to them
So, while on the first place many composers use atonality because they fear
of creating something already heard if they would use also tonality, by
using atonality they're anyways many time composing thing already heard or
wrote
Bottom line: it's impossible to write a piece only of unheard material and
music as all other arts is also a a chain of mixing of past and present so
it's impossible not to utilize already heard, seen or whatever patterns
The point is that originality is to be searched in the ideas and in the
different sensitivity of how them are exposed and not in the looking for a
always new language
P.S. 2
IMHO Debussy is the example to be followed as a balance between ideas that
are need to be expressend with tonality and ideas that need atonality
He always searched the better means for reaching the end that he had in mind
and not viceversa
This is the problem: making the means the end itself
P.S 3
Tons of artists have drawn cats, but I don't fear that my drawing will be a
"copy" of them or unoriginal because I know that no cat is like another and
no person is like another and no touch, sensitivity, and life vision is like
another
We're unique human being and if we're really interested in composing music
by utilizing all the means past an present have given to us then there's no
risk that our music can be a plagiarism even though the language utilized
for writing it is already being utilized
Daniel
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:409f93bd$0$567$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Samuel Vriezen
> But I would have some doubt about the honesty of the writer is it would
> write a whole book of new words just because "I want to be original"
What you're opposed to really, I think, is just bad writing and bad
composing.
I do prefer art that strikes me as original, so I would like artists to
try to be original. It's just not so simple to be original; it's
certainly not merely a question of having this or that style.
Daniel
non-tonal just like any other sound in nature
I have sometimes discussed about the possibility that atonal, serial music
is somewhat unnatural and that's why it's not always considered pleasent
(even to children who have never heard anything else)
I have always been answered that atonal is actually more natural than tonal
as all natural sounds are non-tonal
I asked this my teacher (hey, he's pretty good graduated in composition,
piano, organ, basson, cello and he's an orchetra director) and he said that
this is not true
There were a (I forgot the name) scientist musician that studies the sound
of different birds and sound of different falls and he showed that actually
all natural sounds are harmonics construction of 3rds where all the 3rd of a
given tonality are recognizable in a bird tone or water tone
So, actually (if he didn't lie to me and I will try to ask more precise
information) all natural sounds are tonal
I'm not trying to say that unnatural is bad, I like atonal compositions when
they're good and when atonality is the better mean to trasmit a specific
sensation and emotion but maybe the fact that atonality (lack of a tonic
that create a force of attraction for the grades) is unnatural could
explain the reason why even children not exposed to tonal music or plants
react with a sense of "lack of balance" to a totally atonal composition
While Debussy atonality sense of lack of balance resolved with tonality
stability could create even a better sense of satisfaction due to "return"
of "natural" equilibrium after a lack of center of attraction
That's maybe is also the reason why many people (Shonberg himself created
the dodecaphonic system for this reason) feel the atonal music like
something that is not in armony, a calamity, a sense of vertigo ... a lack
of a tonic center of attraction
Vertigo I think is what better explain the innaturality of atonality if we
think that life and health itself is ruled by a tonic of attraction: our
blood pressure, the gravity, the earth, the planet, the star
That's also the reason why many people dislike (or find unpleasant)
contemporary atonal music, but they love and find pleasant 12-ton and
penthatonic "atonal" (compared to the tonal occidental) oriental, african
and indian music
The point is that even if compared to occidental tonality etnich music is
atonal, there's no lack of a tonic of attraction in the etnich music system
so there's a sense of lack of gravity or balance because the grades
gravitate around a tonic like the heart gravitate in its orbit
That said I think I'm luck I have yet another mean in my bag to write music
I will use tonality for tramist a sense of balance and atonality to transmit
a sense of vertigo, rupture of the natural order and a lack of gravity
Anyway, since I'm a positive person I think I will resolve all my atonal
music in a tonal back of the order
Just like: tonal = piece in the valley / atonal = terrible earthquake break
the piece and create a lack of armony and balance, tonal = the eaerthquake
is over
What do you think ?
Daniel
Samuel Vriezen
> What do you think ?
> Daniel
Of course bird song is not tonal. Have you ever heard a bird sing a
cadence in C? But it's not 12-tone either. It's bird song, and it varies
enormously from bird to bird.
It seems to me that you should also listen more to the enormous variety
of *human* music. It's incredible, there's much more out there than only
what they talk about in your school.
Daniel
agree with you
For what my teacher told me bird tones are tonals since they're composed of
consecutives 3rd all belonging to the same tonality hence birds tones obey
to the attraction rule of tonality, pressure, gravity, orbit
The same for many etnic music that is born just out of imitatin natural
sounds
Not only this, but a single note itself utilized in the atonal system is by
itself a consecutive chain of all the sound of a precise tonality and that's
the reason why with a well tempered organ you can play a specific note of a
specific tonality just by playing two other notes belonging to the same
tonality
So that's why my teacher says that natural sounds has been proved to be
tonal and that's why young human beings find tonal music more natural than
atonal music (atonal in the sense of a lack of tonic of attraction)
even when they're have not been exposed to tonal music (there are scientific
experiments with reguard to this but sorry I don't have the references right
now, I will ask my teacher)
I think that atonality is not a consequence of tonality but just a different
and useful musical system but while tonality is the necessary derivation of
scientifically separated subtones of a single vibration atonality was not
born naturally but out of forcing the natural system in an unnatural one
that could permit someone to write bad music (not my words, but Shomberg and
Berg ones that wanted music to sound as innatural as possible and even
unpleasent so has to translated in music the discomfort of the moder man
during the 1 world war)
The point is that I'm not saying that occidental tonality is more natural
but that a musical system with a tonic of attraction is natural where
instead lack of tonic is unnatural
This is problably the reason why people who can't stand contemporary atonal
music have no problem with atonal etnic music
Daniel
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:409facb2$0$15375$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Laurence Payne
Daniel
tonality instead of atonality (lack of a tonic of attraction)
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:4vcv9057n0iqij91b...@4ax.com...
Charlton Wilbur
SV> Very good advice. At best, I think 'tonal' and 'atonal' can be
SV> used as technical terms on the level of 'meter' and
SV> 'fluttertongue'.
They can be; but "atonal" is frequently used as a synonym for "ugly,"
or as a shorthand for "music I don't like."
(I once heard the opening movement of _Einstein on the Beach_
described as atonal. If a clear IV-V-I gesture, repeated dozens of
times, fails to establish a key center, then there's something wrong
with your ears.)
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Steve Layton
news:QLOnc.4763$%x6....@news.edisontel.com...
> By studying and repeating the sound of birds one is more likely to
discover
> tonality instead of atonality (lack of a tonic of attraction)
No, even Messiaen himself would never have said that. By listening to
machines in a factory you're as likely (or more) to "discover tonality". The
main point of all of this is that any position here can be supported by any
number of observations of experience. Even the simple, objective measurement
of sound parameters like frequencies and harmonic spectra differ greatly
depending on which natural or musical collection you measure, and in the end
will tell you very little about how each of us experiences them. Interval
"attractions" do exist in our ears and minds, sometimes very similar and
sometimes very different depending on the culture and time we're talking
about. And which happens to who is greatly context-dependent.
The mere fact that there are people who listen and respond genuinely to
African drumming, Japanese Noh, Thai phi phat, Machaut, Mahler, Webern,
Charlie Parker, Cage, Xenakis, Feldman, Bayle and Lachenmann is all the
proof needed for a whole spectrum of "correct" musical systems. None of them
are natural, in that we've created them; and each is natural, in that we've
created them. They all "work", providing sincere and valuable experiences
for the musician and their audience.
--
Steve Layton
http://www.ampcast.com/stevelayton
For the sounds of music being made worldwide *today*
pay a visit to "NetNewMusic": www.netnewmusic.net
And some good music words:
Daniel
Harmonics sounds in nature contain within themselves the rules of tonality
This is a mathematical principle and it's the whole reason why tonal music
was born natural by natural sounds imitations and studies
When you play a C in a well tempered piano you can feel the C 8v above, the
G and the E chords vibrate while all the other chords don't
So, I think that when laymans or even educated in music people tell that
atonal music sound unnatural to them they should at least be understood
because their instinct is right in this instance and tonal music
brainwashing has nothing to do with it has even children not exposed to
occidental music feel the same "unnatural" sensation by listening to atonal
music
I'm not saying that atonal is an uncorre musical system just that it's less
natural than tonal by mathematical principles, that is not a inevitable
evolutions of tonality and that its being unnatural is the reason why many
people react to atonal contemporary music in a way they never reacted with
music before, not even techno acid
I think that a way for the contemporary atonal music to be liked by more
people (I think that those that like it, analyse it for its unnatural
context while those that don't like it listen to it instinctively, but music
imho should be more istinctively and free listened than over analyzed) is to
be resolved in atonality
If because of rules of attraction of your world and all the nature we know
(rules of attraction are not in our mind they're in all world cosmo contrary
to caos, and they're even within the single intonated sounds of nature)
atonal music make people lost their sense of gravity (make sometimes them
sick, and this is not simple musical ignorance since I know graduated
musician that literally feel sick in a physical way when they listen
contemporary)
then all they need to feel good and be able to listen contemporary music is
by resolving the atonal loss of gravity moment with a tonal resolution
I really start to think that the difference between those who like atonal
contemporary music and those who don't like it is the same between those who
can travel by car and those that instead feel sick and have nausea after few
miles
The car motion sickness is caused by a physical narrow following of the
natural rule of equilibrium that is telling us that car motion is someting
unnatural
I think the same is for atonal contemporary music
Those who can's stand it have imho a body that is somewhat more anchored to
gravity and equilibrium
Without a balanced blood pressure life woudl be impossible
The ear is the organ that feel and maintain this equilibrium
Now if in sensitive people the ear is exposed to a lack of balance sequence
of sound due to the not following of the natural rules of attraction of all
the intonated sound themlsemves a person can even lose his/her gravity by
listeing contemporary atonal music is there's not a tonal resolution
You can experiment if you want but I'm sure that those people with
orthostatic intolerance are less likely to like contemporary atonal music
It's true that we created both tonality and lack of tonality them but even
in what we create there's a respect of natural balance rules or not
For example the difference between a wood chair and a microwaves oven, both
are man's creation both it's easy to recognize the most "natural" and more
related with nature between the two
Daniel
"Steve Layton" <dal...@speakeasy.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:qaidnRCoWuP...@speakeasy.net...
> "Daniel" <dani...@email.it> wrote in message
> news:QLOnc.4763$%x6....@news.edisontel.com...
> > By studying and repeating the sound of birds one is more likely to
> discover
> > tonality instead of atonality (lack of a tonic of attraction)
>
Samuel Vriezen
Samuel Vriezen
> I don't agree
> Harmonics sounds in nature contain within themselves the rules of tonality
> This is a mathematical principle and it's the whole reason why tonal music
> was born natural by natural sounds imitations and studies
> When you play a C in a well tempered piano you can feel the C 8v above, the
> G and the E chords vibrate while all the other chords don't
Very good. Now play a snare drum.
Daniel
I'm saying that every sound a bird produce is ruled by natural rules of
tonality
Bird sounds are intonated sounds, and as such they contain within themselves
all the 3rds of a tonality
Again, when birds sing they don't sing tonal songs, but the physiology and
phisical rules of their sounds obey to tonality rules that is a mathematical
principle
Daniel
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:40a0d52b$0$562$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Samuel Vriezen
> I'm not saying that bird songs are tonal
> I'm saying that every sound a bird produce is ruled by natural rules of
> tonality
> Bird sounds are intonated sounds, and as such they contain within themselves
> all the 3rds of a tonality
> Again, when birds sing they don't sing tonal songs, but the physiology and
> phisical rules of their sounds obey to tonality rules that is a mathematical
> principle
>
> Daniel
I'd say some birds are more harmonic than others. A flock of geese is a
marvelous sound but it's hardly in tune.
Jeffrey Quick
Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote:
> Jeffrey Quick wrote:
>
> > I do think that in the US at least, it is possible today for a composer
> > to live without a real audience. There are people teaching composition,
> > being paid in part for composing, who only get played by those similar
> > to them. I think that's sad, and that the art of music would be stronger
> > if it were not so. But that's not my problem either.
>
> Do you distinguish between a small audience and a real audience?
>
> I find that distinction difficult. I know I feel at some concerts, the
> audience is small but somehow real and at other concerts, there's no
> 'real audience', particularly at some festivals where you have audiences
> that are there only for professional reasons and which is basically bored.
>
> What makes an audience feel 'real' to me is enthusiasm and a sense that
> something might grow out of the experience they had.
Right. Real audiences are people who care about the music, and
performers who do the music because they love it, and not just so they
have a favor to call in from Dr. A's University of Z New Music Ensemble.
Jeffrey Quick
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "SV" == Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> writes:
>
> SV> Very good advice. At best, I think 'tonal' and 'atonal' can be
> SV> used as technical terms on the level of 'meter' and
> SV> 'fluttertongue'.
>
> They can be; but "atonal" is frequently used as a synonym for "ugly,"
> or as a shorthand for "music I don't like."
>
> (I once heard the opening movement of _Einstein on the Beach_
> described as atonal. If a clear IV-V-I gesture, repeated dozens of
> times, fails to establish a key center, then there's something wrong
> with your ears.)
OTOH, there are Koechlin's "atonal" movements, which do avoid key, but
which are generally gorgeous.
Eric Fretheim
Geese... The violists of the bird world...
Eric Fretheim
Steve Layton
> I don't agree
Obviously! But it doesn't matter to me if you agree; what matters is that
you *know* really why you don't agree. You will say that you have given very
many reasons below in your writing, but if you look more closely you will
see that each has some assumption at the center, something that has no
objective basis anymore, but instead just a personal judgment about some
thing or people.
> Harmonics sounds in nature contain within themselves the rules of tonality
> This is a mathematical principle and it's the whole reason why tonal music
> was born natural by natural sounds imitations and studies
This is a way to use a little "fact" to support a big conjecture. "harmonic
sounds" in nature do *not* contain "the rules of tonality". They do contain
the harmonic series (some of them do at least), but that series hasn't been
found to have much to do with our own conception of tonality. Actually, in
just the case of our western music, our equal-tempered scale that we base
all of our harmony on is quite dissonant when compared against the "natural"
intervals contained in the harmonic series. And using even a simple triad,
looking at the combination of all of the overtones in the three pitches set
against each other, in the context of traditional "tonality", would provide
a greatly complex and dissonant "chord" at every moment, even assuming that
every pitch was perfectly stable and precisely calibrated. Many people have
argued and written about this "natural" basis for tonality and harmony, and
you are welcome to read them. But just as much has been written, that
clearly refutes each of those positions.
In music with "tonal" systems it is clear that there are relationships
between the harmonic series and certain tendencies in many very different
cultures, at least especially regarding the octave, fifth and fourth. But
beyond those intervals, what makes consonance and dissonance is very
different. In that simple Balinese scale that we westerners tend to write "C
E F G B c" (though the actual intervals don't match our own equal-tempered
ones very well), the two main "poles" are the "tonic" B (not C) and F (not
G). Debussy can end with a ninth chord, leaving many feeling perfectly calm,
even though the first and second degree keep beating against one another and
never resolve. And don't forget that even earlier in our history, the third
was a dissonant interval that had to be resolved. There are all kinds of
examples like these, where what's happening "harmonically" has very little
correlation to what's in the "pure" harmonic series.
[...]
> So, I think that when laymans or even educated in music people tell that
> atonal music sound unnatural to them they should at least be understood
> because their instinct is right in this instance and tonal music
> brainwashing has nothing to do with it has even children not exposed to
> occidental music feel the same "unnatural" sensation by listening to
atonal
> music
Here you use the word "instinct", without ever really knowing what or even
if it truly is an "instinct". You're making universal statements without
stepping outside of our cultural biases. How do we know what is instinctive
and what is not? Some of the same problem with "even children not exposed to
occidental music"... where are those children, and what *are* they exposed
to? How can we say what their "true, instinctive" reaction would be in a
culture where the general style was "atonal", a culture we haven't really
seen yet? And simply because we haven't seen it yet, does *not* mean that it
isn't possible. The world of Dufay could never imagine the world of Debussy,
not to mention Messiaen or Xenakis. And what *is* Xenakis or Feldman, by the
way? They're certainly "atonal", but not in the way you're using the term.
> I'm not saying that atonal is an uncorre musical system just that it's
less
> natural than tonal by mathematical principles, that is not a inevitable
> evolutions of tonality and that its being unnatural is the reason why many
> people react to atonal contemporary music in a way they never reacted with
> music before, not even techno acid
"Techno acid" (or whatever combination of electro-terms you want to use) has
99% of it's musical vocabulary and grammar in common with everything from
Monteverdi to Mozart to Tchaikovsky. It's very easy to "understand" within
our own culture.
>
> I think that a way for the contemporary atonal music to be liked by more
> people (I think that those that like it, analyse it for its unnatural
> context while those that don't like it listen to it instinctively, but
music
> imho should be more istinctively and free listened than over analyzed) is
to
> be resolved in atonality
> If because of rules of attraction of your world and all the nature we know
> (rules of attraction are not in our mind they're in all world cosmo
contrary
> to caos, and they're even within the single intonated sounds of nature)
Now you'e slipping out into that kind of pure "metaphysical" speculation
about how things work (a little bit like talking about "God"), that makes
discussion impossible. Just some general observations:
I don't say "do not believe" what you *do* believe; if you make a system
like this and it works for what you do, that is great. But to then begin
thinking that it is "obvious" that this system is fundamental to everyone
who is *not* you, that is a big trap. The evidence that it all does not work
"that way" is everywhere. All of the people who practice, listen to, and
appreciate music that falls in your "unnatural" category are certainly *not*
simply "deceiving" themselves, living in some kind of unnatural fantasy
(well, any more than any of us are ;-)... ). The quality and value of the
music for them can't be questioned, any more than it could be for what you
find valuable.
Music is not simply some natural reflection of the physical properties of a
harmonic series (If you want to test that, you're welcome to create music
that only oprates within its "rules", and see what you get). It's a highly
artificial human construct, using sound in time to achieve emotional
reponses. What those sounds, time, and responses are can be anything, and
the refrence is not "out there", but rather "in here". And that means *my*
"here" and *your* "here", and *their* "here", none of which need be the same
as either each other, or some single described observation of the physical
world.
Eric Fretheim
lacking harmony or pitch, it means not following the classical
rules of tonal center and modulation. To this argument I bring
exhibit A, the scherzo movement of Shostakovich's 5th symphony
(I don't know what he called it, but I call it a scherzo
movement. I only pick this example because I happened to be
listening to it this morning.) There are many repetitive
figures in it, that for short stretches of time follow clearly
classical rules, but he laid them out in a modulation scheme
that would have been incomprensible a century earlier. You
might be able to establish a key center by declaring one of
these figures to be in the tonic, but even then, the modulation
scheme, and key of the other figures, just doesn't fit any
classical rules, hence it is atonal.
The problem is, the word atonal just doesn't mean much anymore,
because it is a catch-all that describes a very wide variety of
styles, so it doesn't give you any information about what it is
describing.
Eric Fretheim
Daniel
I talked with a Ph.D in music hystory and etnic music (L.B) according to him
etnic music system may not be tonal as the tonal wester system but they all
have a tonal center or a tonic of attraction
Contemporary atonal music without a tonic or a tonal center is therefore
unnatural to human musical hystory and it sounds as if 3 minutes of music or
300 minutes are the same and in this cases I think plagiarism is more easy
to occur than whith tonal music
So no African, Oriental, Japanese, Tibetian whatever music lack a tonic
center were all the other notes are attracted as in many contemporary atonal
music
And yes I believe Rameou and Shenker when they say that years and years of
scientifical studies of natural sounds have showed that tonality is derived
from natural laws within natural sounds and that nothing in nature sound as
random as serialism or atonality contemporary words ... not even mosquitos
The mere fact that all different etnic music with their cultural differences
has anyway a tonic and a tonal center should say us a lot about what is
instinctive in huamans and in humans way to utilize naturals laws
And as for a child exposed to only atonal music I think he could start to
like it at young age, but we shouldn't forget that if you teach a young
chidl that killing is right and good for the world he will become accustumed
to this idea
So, it's very easy to make someone accustumed to something unnatural
Nevertheless, even if you can counvince a child that rocks can be eaten and
he can maybe physiologicallt digest them, we know better and we know that we
have forced an unnatural principle in his mind and life
Herbert Benson, Don Campbell and others have showed that you can take a non
culturally brainwashed being (a fetus, a plant, an animal, a child not
exposed to western musical events of whatever nature) and they all respond
naturally with tonal music and unnatually with atonal music as if atonal was
something contrary to natural laws (expecially gravity law)
That being said I still don't understand why a lot of boys and girls
attending the conservatory with a lot of ideas in their mind, after
graduation in composition they always end up doing the same music ... that
may be composed of different intervals or different notes but sound always
the same even to educated ears
Atonality has been a forced evolution due to WW1 and lack of faith in life
... I don't see no reason why it should be more important than tonality in
our Western and rich world where majority of us doesn't even know what a war
or famine is
Young composers are to whealthy and lucky to need to compose music only
using atonal system
I start to think that maybe by composing always atonal pieces even people
who really lack talent can make other think they knwo what they doing
Even composition teachers doesn't recognize the difference many times
between a contemporary piece and random notes played buy a little child at
the piano or by a computer
I do believe that writing tonal music is less easy and therefore one without
talent is more likely to be unmasked
Daniel
"Steve Layton" <dal...@speakeasy.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:l9WdnYnMTpD...@speakeasy.net...
Daniel
Schenker) showed that the tonal system is derivated from the properties of
natural harmonic series
Again we're not talking about western after equal temperation tonality but
about the natural sound inclination for attraction toward a tonic center,
inclination that is common in all world and etnic music but contemporary
atonal music
So it doesn't seem to be true that harmonic series has not much to do with
the world conception of "tonic" and "attraction" hence tonality
Daniel
"Steve Layton" <dal...@speakeasy.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:l9WdnYnMTpD...@speakeasy.net...
> "Daniel" <dani...@email.it> wrote in message
> news:EB3oc.5004$%x6....@news.edisontel.com...
> > I don't agree
>
Daniel
Daniel
They have never been exposed to any kind of music neither before they were
born
Scientist, therefore, studies humans beings not yet exposed to society,
consumism or western sounds and their instinctive physiological and
psychological reaction to atonal music and tonal music (both never heard
before)
Atonal was perceived by children as young as five month olds never exposed
to any kind of western sound before
(a part from noise and voices but not songs) as unnatural and their body and
mind frequencies and brain waves reacted negatively to this kind of music
while tonal music generated a response of over production of neauroptides
was sites are also the brain zones was task is to control feelings and
emotions
They also were sad, nervous, distracted whiel listening to atonal music and
their nervous connection were all tight, their pressure also drop giving the
idea of a lack of balance
The same experiments has been carried out with plants and animals and no one
can really believe that they have been somewhat brainwashed by wester
tonality so much to make atonal music a poison for their body or a
stressfull events for their brain as showed by the encephalograms
I want to add that same experiments about children instinct have been made
even in nutriotion and it has been proved that a young child lacking vitamin
C will istinctively (without pre-knowledge or wester brainwashing) the food
that contain more vitamin C and they instinctively recognized that such food
was not oranges but wild roses
There are a lot of studies, theories and proofs that "tonality" is actually
more natural and natural lwas friendly than atonality just like fruits are
more physiologically friendly than paper or rocks
Daniel
"Steve Layton" <dal...@speakeasy.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:l9WdnYnMTpD...@speakeasy.net...
> "Daniel" <dani...@email.it> wrote in message
> news:EB3oc.5004$%x6....@news.edisontel.com...
> > I don't agree
>
Daniel
Daniel
"Steve Layton" <dal...@speakeasy.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:l9WdnYnMTpD...@speakeasy.net...
> "Daniel" <dani...@email.it> wrote in message
> news:EB3oc.5004$%x6....@news.edisontel.com...
> > I don't agree
>
Samuel Vriezen
[lots and lots; lots snipped]
> No music in the world lack a tonal center
> I talked with a Ph.D in music hystory and etnic music (L.B) according to him
> etnic music system may not be tonal as the tonal wester system but they all
> have a tonal center or a tonic of attraction
I'd like to see a study that supports this assertion.
> Contemporary atonal music without a tonic or a tonal center is therefore
> unnatural to human musical hystory
Eating with a fork is also unnatural.
> Atonality has been a forced evolution due to WW1 and lack of faith in life
Schoenberg's first atonal compositions were written well before WWI, and
I don't think a piece like Gesaenge der Juenglinge shows a lack of faith
in life.
> I do believe that writing tonal music is less easy and therefore one without
> talent is more likely to be unmasked
Well I don't.
Samuel Vriezen
> Actually, many scientist, musicologists and theorists (first of all Heinrich
> Schenker) showed that the tonal system is derivated from the properties of
> natural harmonic series
So where's the natural minor seventh in classical tonal music?
Samuel Vriezen
> There are a lot of studies, theories and proofs that "tonality" is actually
> more natural and natural lwas friendly than atonality just like fruits are
> more physiologically friendly than paper or rocks
Can you give some references?
Daniel
have been carried out by:
Dr. Jerome Kagan
Dr. Glenn Schellenberg
Dr. Sandra Threub
see also Robert Fink and Heinrich Shenker
Daniel
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:40a14320$0$562$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Samuel Vriezen
> Sorry I'm not able to find the proper studies reference on pubmed but they
> have been carried out by:
>
> Dr. Jerome Kagan
> Dr. Glenn Schellenberg
> Dr. Sandra Threub
http://www.webster.sk.ca/GREENWICH/babies.htm
They have shown that babies respond better to consonances than to
dissonances. The article lumps together Schoenberg and Public Enemy as
belonging to the same dissonant camp. However, all this is not saying
much about (a)tonality, given the extreme dissonance you can find in,
say, Bach. Consonant atonality can exist as well.
> see also Robert Fink
http://www.webster.sk.ca/GREENWICH/sherlock.htm
Here we read about how the diatonic scales are based on overtones and
that this view is supported by a 4000 year old Syrian stone tablet.
Alain Naigeon
1V4oc.5021$%x6....@news.edisontel.com...
> I'm not saying that bird songs are tonal
> I'm saying that every sound a bird produce is ruled by natural rules of
> tonality
> Bird sounds are intonated sounds, and as such they contain within
themselves
> all the 3rds of a tonality
> Again, when birds sing they don't sing tonal songs, but the physiology and
> phisical rules of their sounds obey to tonality rules that is a
mathematical
> principle
I'm afraid that "tonality" as a composing style isn't the same
as "Fourier" analysis to which, IMHO, your comment refers to.
A single note has harmonics ; now, is this unique note tonal
or atonal ? :-)
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Strasbourg, France
Daniel
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:40a14281$0$562$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Daniel wrote:
>
> [lots and lots; lots snipped]
>
> > No music in the world lack a tonal center
> > I talked with a Ph.D in music hystory and etnic music (L.B) according to
him
> > etnic music system may not be tonal as the tonal wester system but they
all
> > have a tonal center or a tonic of attraction
>
> I'd like to see a study that supports this assertion.
See Don Campbell, Robert Fink and Sandra Threaub works about tonic in etnic
music
> > Contemporary atonal music without a tonic or a tonal center is
therefore
> > unnatural to human musical hystory
>
> Eating with a fork is also unnatural.
Well but everything unnatural can be more natural than something else
For example eating with a fork is clearly an evolution of the natural
grasping properties of primate thumb so it in its unnaturality is far more
natural than eating using our feet
Even travelling by car is unnatural, but yet it mimics our movement toward a
directions and nevertheless more sensitive people can't stand travelling in
a car because their body, their ear and their sense of equilibrium recognize
it as unnatural
By studies of Herbert Benson, James Barnard, Arne Naess and many other in
different science fields it's more and more clear in every espect of life
that the more we live according to natural rules the more our mind and body
is likely to live without lakc of balance and diseases
For example cooking is unnatural yet hard cooking is cancerous wheres quick
cooking is quite neutral
So we have two unnatural things but the one that is more close to the
natural aspect from which it was born (raw)
is also the one better eccepted by our body because it better obey to
natural laws
So the point is not whether something is unnatural or not but if something
is so unnatural that your body and mind eschew it in order not to breaking
natural laws that govern life and physiology
According to Sandra Threub tonal system is derivated from artifacts closer
to natural laws of dynamics and attraction compared to serialisn and
atonalism
So the point (by children and plants experiments) is that even though
tonality is still unnatural in that human created it, it still close obey
natural laws of sound so that our body doesn't instinctively reject it,
which doesn't seem the case with atonal system music
Of course we can even force our brain and body to accept ultra-unnatural
things so much to accustom them to it just the way we can force our body to
digest cardboard by keeping eating it ...
> > Atonality has been a forced evolution due to WW1 and lack of faith in
life
>
> Schoenberg's first atonal compositions were written well before WWI, and
> I don't think a piece like Gesaenge der Juenglinge shows a lack of faith
> in life.
I'm sorry for Shonberg then, since Shonberg aimed to create "ugly music that
make the listener realize that we live in unhappy, false and hypocrital
society"
School of Vienna purposes were not much musical but actually they wanted
politically eliminate romanticism as they considered it hypocrital
You can find this tendencies even in Shonberg pictures and drawing and
political theories
Shonberg said "we can't create pleasent music as we are not living a
pleasent situation and without offending the ear of the listener we were all
being hypocrital"
This before WW1 (but there were already effects of its coming) and before
(when the effects were still presents)
Steve Layton
> No music in the world lack a tonal center
> I talked with a Ph.D in music hystory and etnic music (L.B) according to
him
> etnic music system may not be tonal as the tonal wester system but they
all
> have a tonal center or a tonic of attraction
> Contemporary atonal music without a tonic or a tonal center is therefore
> unnatural to human musical hystory and it sounds as if 3 minutes of music
or
> 300 minutes are the same and in this cases I think plagiarism is more easy
> to occur than whith tonal music
Hmmm... "No music in the world lacks a tonal center", but you just mentioned
"Contemporary atonal music without a tonic or a tonal center...". But even
though we create it, listen to it, and appreciate it, we are somehow
"unnatural to human musical hystory"? We *are* human musical history!
> So no African, Oriental, Japanese, Tibetian whatever music lack a tonic
> center were all the other notes are attracted as in many contemporary
atonal
> music
> And yes I believe Rameou and Shenker when they say that years and years of
> scientifical studies of natural sounds have showed that tonality is
derived
> from natural laws within natural sounds and that nothing in nature sound
as
> random as serialism or atonality contemporary words ... not even mosquitos
Ouch! Saying things like the above bit on nature will never help your
argument! As to the two theorists you mention, Rameau tells you about as
much about fundamental "natural laws within natural sounds" as Odo of Cluny
did back when there was only modal music. And Schenker tells a lot about
what Schenker wanted to tell about. (For some perspective on some problems
there, and some quick asides on the harmonic theory and tonailty, you could
read Ken Moore's short essay on Schenker:
http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/schenk/index.htm )
> The mere fact that all different etnic music with their cultural
differences
> has anyway a tonic and a tonal center should say us a lot about what is
> instinctive in huamans and in humans way to utilize naturals laws
> And as for a child exposed to only atonal music I think he could start to
> like it at young age, but we shouldn't forget that if you teach a young
> chidl that killing is right and good for the world he will become
accustumed
> to this idea
Oh, so now "atonal" music is right up there with killing! And I suppose the
same must be true of Cubism/abstract expressionism/etc in painting? Even the
clothes I wear! The fact is that you already made your judgement about
"atonal" music before you went looking for whatever piece of this or that
might be picked out to fit that judgement.
[...]
> Herbert Benson, Don Campbell and others have showed that you can take a
non
> culturally brainwashed being (a fetus, a plant, an animal, a child not
> exposed to western musical events of whatever nature) and they all respond
> naturally with tonal music and unnatually with atonal music as if atonal
was
> something contrary to natural laws (expecially gravity law)
You can also find just as many studies that will show no relationship at
all.
>
> That being said I still don't understand why a lot of boys and girls
> attending the conservatory with a lot of ideas in their mind, after
> graduation in composition they always end up doing the same music ... that
> may be composed of different intervals or different notes but sound always
> the same even to educated ears
The thing you might want to do is spend a little more time listening to what
you are saying, Daniel. The fact that you call it all "the same music" (not
to mention that lots of boys and girls in conservatories a hundred or
two-hundred years ago did "the same music"...) and say that it "sounds
always the same" really says only something about yourself, not myself or so
many other people I know.
> Atonality has been a forced evolution due to WW1 and lack of faith in life
That's just silly. The people who created "atonality" had a lot of faith in
life (and in the beauty of their creations), as do most people who pratice
it today.
> ... I don't see no reason why it should be more important than tonality in
> our Western and rich world where majority of us doesn't even know what a
war
> or famine is
Ah! Finally! You see, it's *not* any "more important". It's not any *less*
important, either.
> Young composers are to whealthy and lucky to need to compose music only
> using atonal system
> I start to think that maybe by composing always atonal pieces even people
> who really lack talent can make other think they knwo what they doing
> Even composition teachers doesn't recognize the difference many times
> between a contemporary piece and random notes played buy a little child at
> the piano or by a computer
> I do believe that writing tonal music is less easy and therefore one
without
> talent is more likely to be unmasked
All horrible arguments, full of generalizations that flow from the initial
prejudice. Like all of us, you can create precisely what you want to create,
using whatever criteria you wish. But you'll never have "the" music, the
"one true" music. None of us ever have, or ever will, because we *all* make
it up, according to our own needs.
Samuel Vriezen
> School of Vienna purposes were not much musical but actually they wanted
> politically eliminate romanticism as they considered it hypocrital
Oh?
Steve Layton
[...]
> By studies of Herbert Benson, James Barnard, Arne Naess and many other in
> different science fields it's more and more clear in every espect of life
> that the more we live according to natural rules the more our mind and
body
> is likely to live without lakc of balance and diseases
> For example cooking is unnatural yet hard cooking is cancerous wheres
quick
> cooking is quite neutral
And yet we generally live longer than anyone ever has before on this planet.
> So we have two unnatural things but the one that is more close to the
> natural aspect from which it was born (raw)
> is also the one better eccepted by our body because it better obey to
> natural laws
> So the point is not whether something is unnatural or not but if something
> is so unnatural that your body and mind eschew it in order not to breaking
> natural laws that govern life and physiology
True! But since my body and mind *don't* eschew it, "pop" goes that
argument. It's really simple, if you want to keep extending your argument:
Give everything away, go sit naked in the forest, with some water to drink,
a few leaves, fruits, nuts, and berries to eat, and for music there can only
be the sound of your voice, making one single tone against the sound of the
rest of nature. There is nothing else, all else is an "unnatural" addition
(even the single voice-note might be pushing things a bit too far... and
come to think of it, I know a few people who've done just what I
describe...).
--
Steve Layton
http://www.ampcast.com/stevelayton
Music words: http://www.niwo.com/steve/news9.html
alabaster
>For example eating with a fork is clearly an evolution of the natural
>grasping properties of primate thumb so it in its unnaturality is far more
>natural than eating using our feet
By that logic, one could argue that "atonal" music is a response to the
natural evolution of the ear (or, if you prefer, the aesthetic sense). For
centuries each new generation of composers has written music to challenge
antiquated notions and to give listeners fresh, new sounds
Schoenberg's system of harmony may *seem* to be a more drastic revolution
than was, say, the Ars Nova, but Schoenberg saw it the logical next step
after the extreme approaches to tonality that occured in the late 19th
century. Tonality simply couldn't go any further without a lot of
re-thinking. So you're right, Daniel--atonality may be "unnatural" but it
is far more natural than writing music to appeal to ears that have been dead
for 200 years.
I think it's fair to say that "tonal" music is (maybe) more "natural"
because it is (kind of ) an outgrowth of natural laws. The triad is not an
arbitrary sonority-- it is rooted in the laws of harmonics and the overtone
series. Certain intervals and sonorities sound "pretty" because their
waveforms literally resonate well together.
But so what? To argue that the tonal system has more *merit* simply because
a triad obliquely matches with the laws of harmonics is just silly. Would
you argue that Picasso's angular abstractions are unnatural and therefore
worthless, and that contemporary artists should paint nothing but
naturalistic landscapes?
chris.
Dr.Matt
Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote:
>Dan McGarvey wrote:
>
>> Here's my advice: make the resolution never to get drawn into a debate on
>> tonality vs. atonality. It might have been fun in the 1920's, but today
>> it's positively useless. If you want to compose in the 21st century, purge
>> those words from your aesthetic vocabulary.
>
>Very good advice. At best, I think 'tonal' and 'atonal' can be used as
>technical terms on the level of 'meter' and 'fluttertongue'.
>
>Imagine a stylistic debate "Are you a fluttertongue composer, or a
>double tongue composer?"
>
Oh, fluttertongue, no doubt!
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
"Hey, don't knock Placebo, its the only thing effective for my hypochondria."
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Dr.Matt
Daniel <dani...@email.it> wrote:
>Hi
>My name's Daniel and I'm writing from Italy and I study at the Gioacchino
>Rossini conservatory
>I've a question for those of you that are graduated in composition
>And this is the question: do you think you will ever write tonal music
>following harmony rules ?
Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't.
>I don't dislike atonal music and I consider it a good tool to create certain
>effects that rapresents the emotions of the composer
>Anyway I also think that any tool we have should be used in its right
>context and without necessarily forget anything else
Certainly that's the way Debussy did things--he understood "the rules"
better than his teachers, and knew how to differentiate planing
from counterpoint.
>That's why I agree when a composer says that he/she needs to write an atonal
>piece in order to rapresent musically specific feelings and emotions but I
>trying to consider it dishonest when a composer keep writing only atonal
>pieces, even though his/her message is not understood by the public, just
>because of the fear of being unoriginal
Originality is not the most useful idea for a composer, but composers
do need for each work to be distinct and vividly different from other works.
>Yes, we become dishonest when we forget our messages and our emotions
>because of our hadonism and presumption
My "message", such as it is, is sound. I don't expect music to convey
emotions, though I'm aware that listeners will have emotions--their
OWN emotions--in response to it.
>I think it's sad to see a valid composer composing horrible and cold music
>just because he is interested in showing that he's is able to compose
>complicated and original things forgetting that music is emotion, art and
>heart and not just an accademic exercize
Does "Horrible and cold" music include Ralph Vaughn Williams's "Sinfonia
Antarctica"?
I've certainly heard lots of music which bored me, both tonal and
atonal. And I've heard music which excites me, both tonal and atonal.
Some of the most wonderful music I've heard uses newly made-up sounds,
like Joe Pehrson's compositions in Blackjack-21 tuning.
I think the issues you raise are non-issues. For each composition,
good composers do what they must, whether it's inventing something new,
reusing something old, or something else entirely. Occasionally,
folks who are just exploring new materials without any idea what they're
good for will stumble across something musically useful, too, so those
efforts are worthwhile.
Dr.Matt
Dr.Matt
Daniel <dani...@email.it> wrote:
>It's true that even writers invent new words but they contribute to the
>story
>That's it, you use strange words when you need it and use already seen
>sentence patterns when you need it
>I have no problem with atonality per se if it is considered as a new tool
How can anything 150 years old be a new tool?
Dr.Matt
Daniel <dani...@email.it> wrote:
>I will try to find out more about this but it seems that science doesn't
>agree with you
You have not presented any science in this discussion, and
tonality is a cultural artifact in any case.
>For what my teacher told me bird tones are tonals since they're composed of
>consecutives 3rd all belonging to the same tonality hence birds tones obey
>to the attraction rule of tonality, pressure, gravity, orbit
>The same for many etnic music that is born just out of imitatin natural
>sounds
>Not only this, but a single note itself utilized in the atonal system is by
>itself a consecutive chain of all the sound of a precise tonality and that's
>the reason why with a well tempered organ you can play a specific note of a
>specific tonality just by playing two other notes belonging to the same
>tonality
>So that's why my teacher says that natural sounds has been proved to be
>tonal and that's why young human beings find tonal music more natural than
>atonal music (atonal in the sense of a lack of tonic of attraction)
>even when they're have not been exposed to tonal music (there are scientific
>experiments with reguard to this but sorry I don't have the references right
>now, I will ask my teacher)
You need a better route to truth than citing the authority of your
teacher. Actual pertainent evidence is required.
The statement "tonality is more natural than atonality" has no basis
in reality.
>I think that atonality is not a consequence of tonality but just a different
>and useful musical system but while tonality is the necessary derivation of
>scientifically separated subtones of a single vibration atonality was not
>born naturally but out of forcing the natural system in an unnatural one
>that could permit someone to write bad music (not my words, but Shomberg and
>Berg ones that wanted music to sound as innatural as possible and even
>unpleasent so has to translated in music the discomfort of the moder man
>during the 1 world war)
>
>The point is that I'm not saying that occidental tonality is more natural
>but that a musical system with a tonic of attraction is natural where
>instead lack of tonic is unnatural
I think before we go any further here, we need to agree on the meaning
of the word "natural".
>This is problably the reason why people who can't stand contemporary atonal
>music have no problem with atonal etnic music
You present this as if it were a well-established fact using
terms the meaning of which everybody agrees upon. Are you reasonably
certain of that, and if so, why?
>Daniel
Dr.Matt
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "SV" == Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> writes:
>
> SV> Very good advice. At best, I think 'tonal' and 'atonal' can be
> SV> used as technical terms on the level of 'meter' and
> SV> 'fluttertongue'.
>
>They can be; but "atonal" is frequently used as a synonym for "ugly,"
>or as a shorthand for "music I don't like."
>
>(I once heard the opening movement of _Einstein on the Beach_
>described as atonal. If a clear IV-V-I gesture, repeated dozens of
>times, fails to establish a key center, then there's something wrong
>with your ears.)
I've heard it applied to Beethoven's "Grosse Fuge", even.
Dr.Matt
Daniel <dani...@email.it> wrote:
>By studying and repeating the sound of birds one is more likely to discover
>tonality instead of atonality (lack of a tonic of attraction)
Define the terms of this statement and then tell us a rough
approximation of how much more likely---and show us statistics
to back that up.
Apply it to a representative sample of different birdsongs, and
explain why this sample is large enough and varied enough to count as
representative.
Also account for the sounds of mockingbirds with the same model.
>
>"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> ha scritto nel
>messaggio news:4vcv9057n0iqij91b...@4ax.com...
>> Google for "Messiaen birdsong".
Dr.Matt
Daniel <dani...@email.it> wrote:
>I don't agree
>Harmonics sounds in nature contain within themselves the rules of tonality
Where in nature does it say that the interval of a 4th is a DISSONANCE?
What proportion of sounds in nature are "harmonic", taking into account
wind and other sounds?
>This is a mathematical principle and it's the whole reason why tonal music
>was born natural by natural sounds imitations and studies
There is no mathematical principle behind the hierarchy of cadence
formulas which is tonality. This is malarky.
If you need to cite an authority for this, cite me. I have an
earned doctorate in music, might as well put it to use for something.
Dr.Matt
Look. There are equally scientific studies showing that praise of Allah
is more natural than praise of Jesus. And there are equally scientific
studies showing that praise of Jesus is more natural than praise of Allah.
The day before yesterday I thought you were confused.
Yesterday I thought you were simply overwhelmed with the confusing
messages you're getting at the Rossini Conservatory.
Today I think you're a big fat liar.
Dr.Matt
Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>In article <87ekpsc...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
>
>> >>>>> "SV" == Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> writes:
>>
>> SV> Very good advice. At best, I think 'tonal' and 'atonal' can be
>> SV> used as technical terms on the level of 'meter' and
>> SV> 'fluttertongue'.
>>
>> They can be; but "atonal" is frequently used as a synonym for "ugly,"
>> or as a shorthand for "music I don't like."
>>
>> (I once heard the opening movement of _Einstein on the Beach_
>> described as atonal. If a clear IV-V-I gesture, repeated dozens of
>> times, fails to establish a key center, then there's something wrong
>> with your ears.)
>
>which are generally gorgeous.
There's lots of gorgeous atonal music. Just a side-note, before we get nailed
for it: E.o.t.B starts out on VI-V-I, not IV-V-I. And gets some wind for
the sailboat.
Dr.Matt
Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>In article <409f9502$0$576$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote:
>
>> Jeffrey Quick wrote:
>>
>> > I do think that in the US at least, it is possible today for a composer
>> > to live without a real audience. There are people teaching composition,
>> > being paid in part for composing, who only get played by those similar
>> > to them. I think that's sad, and that the art of music would be stronger
>> > if it were not so. But that's not my problem either.
>>
>> Do you distinguish between a small audience and a real audience?
>>
>> I find that distinction difficult. I know I feel at some concerts, the
>> audience is small but somehow real and at other concerts, there's no
>> 'real audience', particularly at some festivals where you have audiences
>> that are there only for professional reasons and which is basically bored.
>>
>> What makes an audience feel 'real' to me is enthusiasm and a sense that
>> something might grow out of the experience they had.
>
>Right. Real audiences are people who care about the music, and
>performers who do the music because they love it, and not just so they
>have a favor to call in from Dr. A's University of Z New Music Ensemble.
And also not just To Be Seen There or For The Bluehairs Who Are Seen There.
Dr.Matt
Doing what's "natural" is "more difficult"... hmmm...
Very odd.
Dr.Matt
Daniel <dani...@email.it> wrote:
>Actually, many scientist, musicologists and theorists (first of all Heinrich
>Schenker) showed that the tonal system is derivated from the properties of
>natural harmonic series
>about the natural sound inclination for attraction toward a tonic center,
>inclination that is common in all world and etnic music but contemporary
>atonal music
Claiming it, which Schenker did purely out of tradition, and showing
that it is true (which Schenker never achieved) are quite different things.
>So it doesn't seem to be true that harmonic series has not much to do with
>the world conception of "tonic" and "attraction" hence tonality
>
>Daniel
Then why are 4ths dissonant?
I'm afraid that your initial claim--that scientists have proven
tonality natural--is false. The first time you said it, it was a mistake.
The second time you said it, it was a delusion. You've said it more
than three times now, it has now graduated to a lie.
Charlton Wilbur
MF> There's lots of gorgeous atonal music. Just a side-note,
MF> before we get nailed for it: E.o.t.B starts out on VI-V-I, not
MF> IV-V-I. And gets some wind for the sailboat.
_EotB_ starts with ^6-^5-^1, which I hear in the light of subsequent
events (though it's clear by the end of the first Knee Play) as
IV-V-I. Regardless - it's a clear subdominant or subdominant
substitute to dominant to tonic progression, hardly atonal at all.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Dr.Matt
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "MF" == Matt <fie...@rastan.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> writes:
>
> MF> There's lots of gorgeous atonal music. Just a side-note,
> MF> before we get nailed for it: E.o.t.B starts out on VI-V-I, not
> MF> IV-V-I. And gets some wind for the sailboat.
>
>_EotB_ starts with ^6-^5-^1, which I hear in the light of subsequent
>events (though it's clear by the end of the first Knee Play) as
>IV-V-I. Regardless - it's a clear subdominant or subdominant
>substitute to dominant to tonic progression, hardly atonal at all.
Indeed, that's the point of it. But listen carefully to the second and
third repetitions (and more, if you can), and I think you'll see it's
actually vi, not IV, though it's as clearly a preparatory-for-dominant
function as you can get.
Laurence Payne
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>You have not presented any science in this discussion, and
>tonality is a cultural artifact in any case.
You're just muddying the water :-) First by bringing up birds'
AWARENESS of tonality. Now you're disputing the harmonic series.
Laurence Payne
<sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote:
>> I don't agree
>> Harmonics sounds in nature contain within themselves the rules of tonality
>> This is a mathematical principle and it's the whole reason why tonal music
>> was born natural by natural sounds imitations and studies
>> When you play a C in a well tempered piano you can feel the C 8v above, the
>> G and the E chords vibrate while all the other chords don't
>
>Very good. Now play a snare drum.
Which is a non-harmonic sound. What's your point?
Daniel
"alabaster" <noe...@nofreakingemail.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:2Fpoc.188376$L31.1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >Well but everything unnatural can be more natural than something else
> >For example eating with a fork is clearly an evolution of the natural
> >grasping properties of primate thumb so it in its unnaturality is far
more
> >natural than eating using our feet
>
> By that logic, one could argue that "atonal" music is a response to the
> natural evolution of the ear (or, if you prefer, the aesthetic sense).
One may argue this but this is not evidently true
All evolutions in human history have always happened gradually and
simultaneously
It's clear from jazz, etnic, pop, folk music we listen around that such
evolution of the ear has never happened
The same way followers of futuristic cuisine could argue that eating sand,
metal, cardboard .. whatever is a natural evolution of our stomach
Of course they can argue this and even it those foods but it's clear that
such physiological evolution never happened
I do think that we must look at the world outside the place were music is in
contest and stop being snob consider people who listen to popular music as
ignorant in music or simply stupid
Music outside, popular music is the demonstration that ear evolution toward
atonality never happened
And mind you, even people with three graduation in music, harmony, piano,
violin (people that can't be called ignorant in music) never evolved to
atonal and they also love some kind of popular music
We can argue that atonality is an avolution but it is a forced one not a
natural one
Music like language must evolve spontaneosly in the place were music is
listened or were music has a purpose
When someone tried to "evolve" language forcing it and sperimenting with
liek the esperanto it always failed
Shonberg can argue any misconception he want but serialism and atonity were
born not out of natural evolution but out of forcing the language for a
specific purposes ... if you have read some book about Shonberg you should
know that Shonberg pursposes was political and atonal music was born out of
protest for the coming war and the misery of world
Such artifact can be considered right or usefull but it is not a natural
evolution
I would consider natural evolution afro contamination, impressionism and
neo-classicism not the forced and constructed atonality and serialism
> For
> centuries each new generation of composers has written music to challenge
> antiquated notions and to give listeners fresh, new
> sounds
That's not true
There's nothing really antiquated in music and in art as innovation is not
given by tearing a language apart but the difference between a composer
expression and another
No composer music sounds like another one because we have our own and unique
sensibility and style
Also, there's no a single composer in history who didn't get inspiration
from another composer
Even Shonberg ideas were not indipendent
Most important of all, every composers got inspirantion by popular music
without being so snob so as to consider it "too easy" "stupid" "not enough
accademic" ... so maybe composer in the 20th shouldn't eschew popular music
altogether and label it as nonsense
Without past there can't be no future and future is not something we must
looking for but something that happen spountaneously and sometimes if
chances don't happen naturally, there can be no change for more than
hundreds of years
So, just because Shonberg was looking for a new way of traslating in music
the sufference, the discontent, the unpleasent sensations and feeling in
Europe that doesn't mean that this was a natural evolution ...
> Schoenberg's system of harmony may *seem* to be a more drastic revolution
> than was, say, the Ars Nova, but Schoenberg saw it the logical next step
> after the extreme approaches to tonality that occured in the late 19th
> century.
Was Schonberg saw has logical is not rule
Schonberg was less talented and knowledged than he wanted us to believe and
his drastic revolution has nothing to do with logical steps in music but
with politic (have you ever seen his pictures or read the text of his
conference ?)
he just thought it was hypocrital to make pleasant music is Europe was not a
pleasant place to live anymore... but he didn't believe tonality or the past
was died or changed completely .. he just thought it was hypocrital because
it reality is unpleasant and sad you can't listen or compose pleasant music
(his OWN words)
>Tonality simply couldn't go any further without a lot of
> re-thinking.
Tonality went a lot further instead
Even if composers are too snob too realize or consider it jazz, ragtime,
minimalism, soudntracks, pop music, rock and roll, rythm and blues, country
.... tonality is evolved a lot .. only that it evolved thanks to layman
because composers were too snob to be interested
We have utilized the possibilities of atonality more than all the
possibilities on impressionistic music ... so from a hystorical point of
view atonality is more old, dead and already listened than impressionist
music or neoclassicism
But we should remember one thing, nothing is not influenced but something
else not nothing is reallty completely innovative or new ... and certainly
not is atonality
Schonberg has been influenced by a lot of composers, other composers have
been influenced by Schonberg, the composers of this ng have been influenced
by this composers
Who argues that the future is not influenced by the past and that evey opera
should be completely indipendent is a self-deluded
>So you're right, Daniel--atonality may be "unnatural" but it
> is far more natural than writing music to appeal to ears >that have been
dead
> for 200 years.
Who told that it was dead ?
Schonberg ? Not even him believed this ...
If music of a certain kind still appeal the ear for many people (and many
not ignorant in music) it means that the ear never evolved to something else
Think about it, how many still find more appealing a black and white,
crispy, mute in a little screen movie instead of a coloured and restaured
one ?
So from black and white to colour was a natural evolution .. an evolution
according to natura since we see colour in nature
And also your reasoing is wrong ..
Tonal music is dead because it is old and many people have composed it ?
And what about atonal ?
We have been making atonal music for 100 years and lot of this music sounds
the same as Berg, Schonberg, Webern and many indipendet camera music
So, how can you say that someone is old just because a lot of people did it
and someone else is not even though it has been made, copied, repeated,
rearranged, plagiarized by a lot of people for 100 years
Making atonal is original ?
Not anymore, since we have been making it for 100 years and there is the
same chance to make something new by using tonal than atonal since there are
hundred and hundreds of atonal composition everywhere
If you want to be coherent with your ideas you should consider atonal music
as old, dead and unoriginal than atonal
Neoclassic music is dead ?
Composers have been writing for pieces in atonal style than in neoclassic
style so atonal is more old and dead tna neoclassicism by following your
reasoning
So, if something is dead just because it has been listened for 100 years
what would you invent to be original after atonal ?
Noise ? Sorry, it has already been used ..
What else ?! We have been using all the sound in nature
If tonal is dead then atonal is dead and then everything every style already
used by someone else is dead.. then music is dead !
The problem is thinking that innovation is inventing a new language anytime
...
If that were the case we would be short of experiences and languages in just
few years ...
Innovation is the unique kind of a composer due to the fact that we are
unique individuals with unique sensitivity
I'm more interested in listening to the original style of a composer even
thought the language is the same of many other instead of listening the
false original style of a composer who use a new language without style..
Originality is not new without the past..
Fresh new sounds ?
If originality woudl be using fresh new sounds you would run out of
originality in just 5 years .. because sound in nature are finite and very
few in fact
It's the different between style, sensistivity, life vision, ideas between
two composers that make something original
Just think about it
By forgetting the past, forcing evolution and trying any time to use a
different expression or language we go nowhere .. as life and time is not a
straight line but a circle
Cars ...
How can we evolve cars without being influenced by the past ?
It's impossible ..
We can make flying car but it would be like mixing two old thing: cars and
areoplanes
And after flying cars ?
A lot of scientist have accepted this and it's time composers accept this
too: it's impossible to inventing something new forever .. sooner or later
we run out of new experience to try so the only path to be followed is to
make old experienced different by using our unique ideas and sensitivity and
style
Think about cuisine..
Futuristic cuisine was to be anytime new so as to make palatable unedible
things or so as to mix strange food together ...
Okay, now we have fish with chocolate ?
And then ?
By thinking that innovation in cuisine is mixing strange foods or using
strange new foods instead of the ability of reinventing old foods with a new
style, sooner or later futuristic cuisine will run out of "new" material too
use
And as you think about it the tendence in innavotion is aleays a return to a
past in the future context
For example cuisine is now the rediscovery of old spices and herb,
architecture is now rediscovery of living close to nature and to make
ecologic houses
You will see that future is always past + future and too future is always
starting back from the past.
Life is a circle not a straight line and we can find innovation only in
different styles and not in new fresh experienced and they're finite and
quite few
The rare times in which future must completely be indipendent from from the
past are natural evolution and not forced one ...
and you always recognize a natural evolution because it happens
spontaneously either among layman and knowledgeable people
I think you should change your mind and aknowledge the fact that
"innovation" is not something fresh, independent always .. or before you can
accept it you'll have no more experienced to enjoy and you'll think that
life is dead, old or obsolete
Dramma, fiction, fantasy saga .. they would be all dead according to your
ideas since the stories are always the same, the influences from other
writers is always evident and the language utilized is always the same..
Yet, every book is different because every writer is different, because
style is different and sensivity is different from a person to another ..
Even your family is always the same, so you should consider it old,
obsolete, boring so far
Yet, you know that even with the same people you can have different
experience and even if any experience is influenced by the past it is a new
one
If you consider tonality, folk or end 1800 music dead and impossible to
innovate because utilized by too much composers you shoudl think the same
think of atonality, serialism and dodecaphony since they have been used for
years, by a lot of composers, none of this workd is not influenced by a past
work and many of them sound siminals...
Independent works are just a myth
There's nothing fresh and new in this world
Even new dishes are made of "old" foods and even "new music" is an imitation
of other composers
The only thing that can be new and fresh is personal style not the language
utilized, that in fact can be considered "old" as soon as someone else
utilized it
Tonality can be new because every composers has a personal style and a
different way to describe and compose
Atonality was already all the first time someone wrote a dodecaphonic
composition imitating an old composer
Why do you think your music is so fresh or new ?
if it is atonality, tonality, serialism, mathematic, dodecaphony,
pantathonality, 12-tone or a mix of this is it already OLD is someone else
has already utilized these languages
> I think it's fair to say that "tonal" music is (maybe) more "natural"
> because it is (kind of ) an outgrowth of natural laws. >The triad is not
an
> arbitrary sonority-- it is rooted in the laws of harmonics and the
overtone
> series. Certain intervals and sonorities sound "pretty" because their
> waveforms literally resonate well together.
>
> But so what? To argue that the tonal system has more *merit* simply
because
> a triad obliquely matches with the laws of harmonics is > just silly.
I'm not trying that it has more merit
I was just trying to analize the fact the fact that after 100 years a lot of
people (layman or musically educated) find atonality music unpleasant and
that this music is found unpleasant by children, animals and plants
If our physiology and psicology make us feel okay when we do our best to
obey natural laws then is so many people fell not okay when listening atonal
(even if the have heard thousands of atonal music) is probably means that it
is too unnatural
So, thsi is not what you would call a "natural evolution"
>Would
> you argue that Picasso's angular abstractions are unnatural and therefore
> worthless, and that contemporary artists should paint nothing but
> naturalistic landscapes?
Not, because they're not find so unpleasant by many as atonal contemperary
music
So as unnatural as abstract and cubist art may be it is still enough natural
or not enough unnatural to our instinct, brains, psycology and physiology
Abstraction has a natural fondation in dreams and dreams are part of our
physiology and part of natural laws
But no sound in nature is so random as atonality and the fact that the main
rules of harmony and a tonic center of attraction has been discovered by
many populations in different part of the world and that the musical system
of these population have a lot in common but they never meet each other make
enough credible the theory that tonality is within our DNA, is something
instinctice and physioligcally predisposed
Daniel
Laurence Payne
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>What proportion of sounds in nature are "harmonic", taking into account
>wind and other sounds?
Enough.
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>Actually, many scientist, musicologists and theorists (first of all Heinrich
>Schenker) showed that the tonal system is derivated from the properties of
>natural harmonic series
>Again we're not talking about western after equal temperation tonality but
>about the natural sound inclination for attraction toward a tonic center,
>inclination that is common in all world and etnic music but contemporary
>atonal music
>So it doesn't seem to be true that harmonic series has not much to do with
>the world conception of "tonic" and "attraction" hence tonality
Daniel, they're only teasing you :-)
Dr.Matt
They're ALL non-harmonic sounds--except for the very artificial ones
we've developed. Now listen to the overtone series--say, just the
low end of it. You get a detuned lydian-flat-7 sound with no harmonic
motion--nothing at all like cadences in a major or minor key.
Samuel Vriezen
There are, very naturally, nonharmonic sounds in music.
Dr.Matt
In other words, a non-answer. The real answer is "so close to none that
they're negligible, except that we make them."
Dr.Matt
Yes, Daniel's professors are evidently teasing him.
In music of the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, the
4th is consonant and the 3rd is dissonant.
In music of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the
4th is dissonant and the 3rd is consonant.
I defy you to explain these circumstances in terms of the harmonic series.
Dr.Matt
I didn't "dispute the harmonic series", that's nonsense.
I dispute the primacy of harmonic sounds among natural sounds,
the derivability of tonality from the harmonic series, and the
notion that obeying natural laws is more difficult than creating
something which works against them.
Samuel Vriezen
> The same way followers of futuristic cuisine could argue that eating sand,
> metal, cardboard .. whatever is a natural evolution of our stomach
> Of course they can argue this and even it those foods but it's clear that
> such physiological evolution never happened
Hai letto "La cucina futurista"? Non ci si puo leggere che dobbiamo
mangiare quelle cose.
> I do think that we must look at the world outside the place were music is in
> contest and stop being snob consider people who listen to popular music as
> ignorant in music or simply stupid
Congratulations! This has what to do with atonality?
> We can argue that atonality is an evolution but it is a forced one not a
> natural one
It's your word against Schoenberg's here.
MarcF
j...@po.cwru.edu says...
> In article <36Lnc.4652$%x6....@news.edisontel.com>,
> "Daniel" <dani...@email.it> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> > My name's Daniel and I'm writing from Italy and I study at the Gioacchino
> > Rossini conservatory
> > I've a question for those of you that are graduated in composition
> > And this is the question: do you think you will ever write tonal music
> > following harmony rules ?
>
> to "the rules". But do I do things with tonics and dominants and care
> for voice-leading? sure.
>
> > I don't dislike atonal music and I consider it a good tool to create certain
> > effects that rapresents the emotions of the composer
> > Anyway I also think that any tool we have should be used in its right
> > context and without necessarily forget anything else
> >
> > piece in order to rapresent musically specific feelings and emotions but I
> > trying to consider it dishonest when a composer keep writing only atonal
> > pieces, even though his/her message is not understood by the public, just
> > because of the fear of being unoriginal
>
>
> > Yes, we become dishonest when we forget our messages and our emotions
> > because of our hadonism and presumption
> > just because he is interested in showing that he's is able to compose
> > complicated and original things forgetting that music is emotion, art and
> > heart and not just an accademic exercize
>
> my problem.
>
> I do think that in the US at least, it is possible today for a composer
> to live without a real audience. There are people teaching composition,
> being paid in part for composing, who only get played by those similar
> to them. I think that's sad, and that the art of music would be stronger
> if it were not so. But that's not my problem either.
>
audiences (specifically at the Houston Festival in the mid-Eighties) were
far more open-minded than British ones. The audiences there seemed to
want to hear music BECAUSE it was new, whereas here there was the
ridiculous catch22 that people would only be enthusiastic about new music
if it was by established composers. Things haven't changed much here, how
about there?
--
Marc
http://www.fractalvisions.co.uk
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/4/marcfraser.htm
Samuel Vriezen
Well, I'm all for harmonic sounds and all for inharmonic sounds. In
speech I use both on a more or less 50/50 basis.
Dr.Matt
Then look what happens when you apply your proof to music.
alabaster
> It's clear from jazz, etnic, pop, folk music we listen around that such
> evolution of the ear has never happened
Jazz has never evolved? So how do you explain the progression from swing to
bebop to cool jazz to free jazz to fusion, and all the other stops and
tangents along the way. Listen to the music of Bob Brookmeyer--he
incoroporates atonal and aleatoric elements into straightahead jazz. Pop /
folk music has never evolved? Listen to some Radiohead and compare it to
the Everly Brothers. Better yet, listen to some late Beatles and compare it
to the early Beatles. Folk Music? Imagine Tom Waits singing "My Darlin'
Clementine" If you played some modern rock music for someone from Bach's
day, my guess is they would think it was the work of satan. Today it just
rocks.
You're arguing against something I never said. I qualified "evolution of
the ear" with "aesthetic sense" to clarify that I wasn't proposing some
biological change in the physiology of the ear. The fact is, people get
bored easily. They always like their old favorites, but in the meantime
they desire new things. Enjoying an old black-and-white film doesn't
preclude my enjoying the latest hollywood blockbuster or experimental art
film.
> Music outside, popular music is the demonstration that ear evolution
toward
> atonality never happened
I repeat, I didn't imply that it was a biological change. In fact, I
specified that this evolution took place in "Western Art Music." Pop, folk,
jazz, etc. musics have all evolved on their own progression, completely
separate from Art Music (although very often parallel). The entire
progression of western art music is based on visionary composers questioning
the arbitrary rules of the tonal system. Beethoven said "why CAN'T I
modulate in 3rds?" Debussy said "what's so bad about parallel motion?" And
Schoenberg said "why does music have to have a tonal center?"
Nobody has claimed that the tonal system is without merit, just that it
doesn't merit blind, dogmatic adherence.
> And mind you, even people with three graduation in music, harmony, piano,
> violin (people that can't be called ignorant in music) never evolved to
> atonal and they also love some kind of popular music
I've got a few degrees in music myself. I like Xenakis. I like Pearl Jam.
I like Duke Ellington. I like Public Enemy. I like DJ Shadow. I like
Trisan Murail. Your friends with all the degrees may not like atonal music,
but there are plenty of people who do. That is enough to prove its
validity.
> We can argue that atonality is an avolution but it is a forced one not a
> natural one
> Music like language must evolve spontaneosly in the place were music is
> listened or were music has a purpose
> When someone tried to "evolve" language forcing it and sperimenting with
> liek the esperanto it always failed
Go to http://shakespeare.about.com/library/weekly/aa042400a.htm for a
partial list of common english words which were INVENTED by Shakespeare
(about 1,700). When a visionary artist finds the language limiting, he
updates it to suit his purposes. This is true for every great composer who
ever broke a "rule."
> Also, there's no a single composer in history who didn't get inspiration
> from another composer
> Even Shonberg ideas were not indipendent
I never said Schoenberg's ideas were independent. Schoenberg was trying to
outdo Strauss when he discovered that this couldn't be done without making a
major change in his thinking on tonality.
> Most important of all, every composers got inspirantion by popular music
> without being so snob so as to consider it "too easy" "stupid" "not enough
> accademic" ... so maybe composer in the 20th shouldn't eschew popular
music
> altogether and label it as nonsense
Who is eschewing popular music? Nobody in this newsgroup has eschewed
popular music. *I* certainly haven't eschewed popular music. So why are
you yelling at me?
> Without past there can't be no future and future is not something we must
> looking for but something that happen spountaneously and sometimes if
> chances don't happen naturally, there can be no change for more than
> hundreds of years
> So, just because Shonberg was looking for a new way of traslating in music
> the sufference, the discontent, the unpleasent sensations and feeling in
> Europe that doesn't mean that this was a natural evolution ...
>
What the heck is "natural evolution"? Music doesn't write itself. People
write music. Every time music evolves, it is because a PERSON makes a
choice to try something new. Sometimes the "next step" is a logical
progression from the previous step, but this doesn't make it "natural" -- it
occurs as the result of a person making a choice to change something.
> Was Schonberg saw has logical is not rule
Of course Schoenberg's logic is not the rule. But neither are any of the
"rules" that he broke. There are no rules, only personal choices and
individual tastes.
> he just thought it was hypocrital to make pleasant music is Europe was not
a
> pleasant place to live anymore... but he didn't believe tonality or the
past
> was died or changed completely .. he just thought it was hypocrital
because
> it reality is unpleasant and sad you can't listen or compose pleasant
music
> (his OWN words)
So Schoenberg chose to write unpleasant music, and he had good reasons for
it. So what? Plenty of people find it pleasant anyway. And plenty of
people since have written pleasant music without triads and V-I cadences.
>
> >Tonality simply couldn't go any further without a lot of
> > re-thinking.
>
> Tonality went a lot further instead
> Even if composers are too snob too realize or consider it jazz, ragtime,
> minimalism, soudntracks, pop music, rock and roll, rythm and blues,
country
> .... tonality is evolved a lot .. only that it evolved thanks to layman
> because composers were too snob to be interested
The tonal system continues to be explored in all genres of western music.
It is a time-tested system which can yield pleasant results. But it is not
the only valid way to make music.
The fact that the tonal system is still in use doesn't mean it has evolved
FURTHER. Strauss pushed the system to its limits. Schoenberg responded by
abolishing those limits. Most pop, jazz, rock, etc. sits comfortably within
the system. I don't consider this simplistic, it simply means that it is
written within a pre-existing language.
> so from a hystorical point of
> view atonality is more old, dead and already listened than impressionist
> music or neoclassicism
You're right. Schoenberg is dead. Hardly anyone today uses his system
exclusively. We've evolved past him. But he (and others) succeeded in
breaking the shackles of the Tonal System. Now we can choose to use it, or
choose to ignore it. It is no longer the rule--it is one tool among many.
> But we should remember one thing, nothing is not influenced but something
> else not nothing is reallty completely innovative or new ... and certainly
> not is atonality
> Schonberg has been influenced by a lot of composers, other composers have
> been influenced by Schonberg, the composers of this ng have been
influenced
> by this composers
> Who argues that the future is not influenced by the past and that evey
opera
> should be completely indipendent is a self-deluded
You're arguing against an argument that nobody has made. Nobody has ever
claimed that innovative composers are uninfluenced by the past. In fact, I
said that Schoenberg's system was a direct outgrowth of late romantic
tonality. Music has progressed because composers have taken the language of
their day and added to it, updated it, or simply transcended it. Schoenberg
is no exception.
> If music of a certain kind still appeal the ear for many people (and many
> not ignorant in music) it means that the ear never evolved to something
else
> Think about it, how many still find more appealing a black and white,
> crispy, mute in a little screen movie instead of a coloured and restaured
> one ?
> So from black and white to colour was a natural evolution .. an evolution
> according to natura since we see colour in nature
People still enjoy Mozart. Does this mean everything composed after Mozart
is bad? Old music can be good, and new music can be good.
> And also your reasoing is wrong ..
> Tonal music is dead because it is old and many people have composed it ?
> And what about atonal ?
I never said Tonal music is dead. Atonality (in the Schoenbergian sense) is
as antiquated as Tonality (in the Mozartian sense). Now I can write music
which is tonal, atonal, both, or neither. Tonality is not dead, nor is
atonality, but neither is the presiding force anymore--they are simply two
tools in a large arsenal of tools which a modern composer can employ. There
is nothing wrong with writing music within the Tonal System, but it would be
a shame to ignore the last 100 years of music history.
> Neoclassic music is dead ?
Who said this? I didn't say this. Who are you arguing against?
> The problem is thinking that innovation is inventing a new language
anytime
Innovation is finding new ways to use the language, and/or updating and
revising the language to suit your personal tastes. See the Shakespeare
link above.
What on earth are you talking about??? Nobody has claimed to be
uninfluenced by the past. Every great composer, even the most original,
will acknowledge his influences. In fact, most composers nowadays develop
their own langauge by combining aspects of all of their influences. If I'm
influenced by Charles Mingus and Motley Crue, I can put elements of the two
together, add my own personal touch, and if I'm lucky, I will eventually
discover a sound which is uniquely mine. This language will be deeply
rooted in the langauge of the past, but it will nonetheless be a unique,
original language.
> A lot of scientist have accepted this and it's time composers accept this
> too: it's impossible to inventing something new forever .. sooner or later
Scientists have accepted that there's nothing new left to discover??? What
are you smoking?
> Think about cuisine..
> Futuristic cuisine was to be anytime new so as to make palatable unedible
> things or so as to mix strange food together ...
Cuisine is a bad example. There is a finite amount of plants, animals, and
minerals from which human beings derive nutrition. There is an infinite
amount of sounds, potential sounds, and combinations of sounds. Our simple
little language of 12 pitches, a handful of harmonic and rhythmic patterns,
and a small assortment of plucked, bowed, blown, or struck instruments has a
great deal of variety and potential, but it doesn't even come close to
encompassing all of the various ways that sound can be organized and
arranged.
> Okay, now we have fish with chocolate ?
Why not? Maybe somebody will like it. Who first decided to mix peanut
butter with jelly?
> Why do you think your music is so fresh or new ?
Who said anything about my music?
> I'm not trying that it has more merit
> I was just trying to analize the fact the fact that after 100 years a lot
of
> people (layman or musically educated) find atonality music unpleasant and
> that this music is found unpleasant by children, animals and plants
> If our physiology and psicology make us feel okay when we do our best to
> obey natural laws then is so many people fell not okay when listening
atonal
> (even if the have heard thousands of atonal music) is probably means that
it
> is too unnatural
> So, thsi is not what you would call a "natural evolution"
Plenty of people find atonal music very pleasant. Plenty of people find
Mozart very unpleasant.
> But no sound in nature is so random as atonality
WHAT??? Listen to running water or the sound of leaves being blown by wind.
This is far more random than the ordered, measured use of 12 discrete
pitches.
> rules of harmony and a tonic center of attraction has been discovered by
> many populations in different part of the world and that the musical
system
Gravity is a natural phenomenon, but I don't deny the validity of airplanes.
The overtone series is a natural phenomenon, and tonal music is appealing
because--to an extent--it plays with this phenomenon. But there is a lot
more to sound than the overtone series, and there is an infinite variety of
ways to combine sounds with pleasing results.
> I think you should change your mind and aknowledge the fact that
> "innovation" is not something fresh, independent always .. or before you
can
Your entire argument is an attack against things I never said or implied.
Against things *nobody* has ever said or implied. I said that innovative
composers try to find "fresh" sounds, but I never implied that anyone has
ever been completely independent and devoid of past influences.
If you're going to argue against me, you should read what I write and argue
against that. Don't blindly extrapolate wild claims from the simple,
logical points I have presented.
chris.
Daniel
scritto nel messaggio <news:40a362a4$0$566$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>...
> Daniel wrote:
>
> > The same way followers of futuristic cuisine could argue that eating
sand,
> > metal, cardboard .. whatever is a natural evolution of our stomach
> > Of course they can argue this and even it those foods but it's clear
that
> > such physiological evolution never happened
>
> Hai letto "La cucina futurista"? Non ci si puo leggere che dobbiamo
> mangiare quelle cose
Sì, ho letto libri che riguardavano il pensiero futurista inclusa la
"cucina"
Ma non ha assolutamente senso !
> > I do think that we must look at the world outside the place were music
is in
> > contest and stop being snob consider people who listen to popular music
as
> > ignorant in music or simply stupid
>
> Congratulations! This has what to do with atonality?
This has everything to do with atonality
Popular music is not atonaliy, after 100 years atonality is still liked by
few people and it is still unpleasant for children, plants and animals
This shoudl remind us that music shouldn't be separated from our time
Atonality is the music of modermism before WW1 and after WW2, it's the
attemp to destroy beauty because in a place were such horror has been
possible there can't be place for beauty
Modernism is old, boring, already seen and while it was in context 50 or 60
years ago it is surpassed now
More and more young people want to see a come back of surrealism and
neoclassicism but they're dead tired of old modernism that has nothing to do
with our time
> > We can argue that atonality is an evolution but it is a forced one not a
> > natural one
>
> It's your word against Schoenberg's here.
No, I don't think so
I think too many composers are separating music from culture, art, politic
Shonberg was a modernist
If you read any book about modernism and post-modernism you'll see that
Schonberg political ideas was modernist
In fact Schonberg has been one of the most political active composer ever
Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Grieg and many other were not interested in politic
as Debussy, Schonberg, Reger, Boulez and many other
So, actually, Schonberg many and many declared that he used its music to
strengthen the political contest of modernism
Modernism was born as a movement of protest against romanticism considering
it hypocrital
"if our world is ugly, perverse, cruel and horrorific why our music should
be pleasant and romantic ?" these are Schonberg words
Art followed the same path
Modernist art was a way to destroy romanticist, protest with politic and
ironize the human ego
So, while those only interested in music, closed in a conservatory believe
that modernism was a natural evolution because other languages were dead,
actually it is just a forced language to protest against the world
So, Schonberg himself would agree that if it weren't for Europe situation,
political crises and wars romantic music and tonality would have been still
fresh, original and certainly not dead
Now, I could even agree with Schonberg that modernism and atonal,
dodecaphony, serial music was the only possible language 50 or 60 years ago
before WW1 and after WW2 and they were in context with modernist
urbanization, architecture, painting , literature adn sculpture but now
they're over, they're obsolete, they're out of context, they're already seen
and not more usefull in the actual, present world and world situation
As a matter of fact contemporary music, probably, is the only language that
is still so unflunced by modernism
Both ecology, painting, literature, architecture, politics, sculpture all of
them have abandoned modernism and now we don't any longer see as "fresh" or
"new" pieces of frogs on a canvas or picture with cow blood (all meant as a
destruction of romanticism)
Now, talent and skill are back and youngsters want to see different thing a
back of surrealism and neoclassicism and they are not interested anymore in
dadaism, pessimism, futurism and whatever
World Wars are over so we should search for other form of arts than just
protest through destruction of romanticism and realism, yet the world is not
in pace .. but it would really unoriginal to use the same language Schonberg
used to protest against Europe crises as a protest with terrorism.
Probably contemporary music is still so unfluenced by modernism because
Schonberg and Co. were so good at convincing people that their political
interest was artistic interests .. so composers who believe serialism,
dodecaphony, dadaism, mathematic musical constructs are natural evolution of
aesthetic doesn't realize that they're the expression of a dead political
movement that has no reason whatsoever to exist today
As stupid as it may sound even Schonberg himself consider his music
unpleasant or offensive, as a matter of fact he many times declared that
"creating something beauty in art" was an unacceptable thing
As a matter of fact Schonberg used to held meetings were all modernist
artists (not only composers but also painters, writers and sculptors)
discussed their ideas together
They're were against beauty and they wanted to express the contrary to
beauty in music (if you don't believe me just read any bio of Schonberg)
So, apparently they consider beauty something universal and not personal ..
Modernists, whose Schonberg was a follower and a leader, considering the
European situation ugly and disgusting found very hypocrital, nonsensical
and lacking of respect didn't accept romanticism in art nor beauty
Schonberg knew well that his music were ugly as he wanted the Europeans to
open their eyes to the political situation of that years
Just think about a thing ...
your sister, brother, whatever is dying (because of war, misery, famine or a
disease) would like to go to a party and see comic movies and listen to
romantic movies or would you prefer to meditate in a dark, cold place for
not being the fault of being happy while other people are so sad ?
That was Schonberg music and modernism art is all about and you just need to
get whatever book on Schonberg, art hystory and modernism, futurism to
realize this
Futurism and modernism are probably going to be remembered as the worst art
and political messages ever but we will remember and consider the context in
which they was born and grew horrible in the same way
So, it's probably normal to create "ugly" "difficolout" "anti-romantic" art
during such periods and we may agrre with Schonberg but such periods are
over and Schonberg himself would agree with me that it's me to move forward
if you just look the artistic creations of this century and of the modernism
period you will see that they mimics a lot atonality and dodecaphony, as
Debussy music mimics Cezanne and Monet pictures, as Brahms mimics Van Ghog,
as Beethoven minics liberty style
Now, composers has become a sort of noctur animals completely out of context
whose music is heard only by other composers or nostalgic post-romanticism
followers
I think it's time contemporary music open its eyes, give a good look at art,
literature, architecture, politics and culture and composes realize that we
can't keep making music that mimics an old period, completely out of
context, already obsolete and over in painting, writing, architecture,
sculpture, poetry and unoriginal 90 years old politically and culturally
When modernist was over, post-modernism was born in order to try to keep
modernism existing
Post modernism has been a exageration of modernism on all the arts
Painters, writers, architects now all consider post-modernism a disgrace
In music post-modernism is mathematical applications to pantatonality and
noises as music
Those contrary to post-modernism that recognized how modernism was obsolete
and useless in our times founded dadaism, minimalism, neo-surrealism
They're all too old, obsolete, passed now
Post-modern art is over from at least 15 years but it keep existing in music
In this new millenium passionalism and post-classicism are born and hundreds
of artistic students and graduated want to use their abilities with passion
and positivism in the old way but in context with this period
If modernism and its artistic trends were rapresentive of discontent,
anti-art, destruction of easthetic and pessimism this millenium artistic
trend that is borning is rapresentative of passion, artistic love,
positivism, faith in life
Painting and architecture have been the first one to conform to the new
millenium, now the whole world is hoping that literature and music will soon
join in
I think Schonberg, if he were here, would agree that his modernism and all
modernism in music, paiting, architecture, poetry, writing, sculpture,
culture is over and obsolete right now
I really praise those artistic associations that claim that music should
follow other artistic reality and trends and never be separated from them
...
If music would take a look at painting, sculpture and architecture would
realized that contemporary music is becoming tremendously old because it
mimics an old style, an old language from an old political and artistic
movement that is completely forgotten and over
What music is doing now is like creating rebellion country music ala Joan
Baez from protesting against Vietnam War .. without realizing that this
period is completely over
Daniel
As I said I consider atonality as another tool in the bag so I'm only
against atonality at all cost, or considering tonality past and therefore
dead
I understand you don't think this but you can find by yourself that during
modernism era in conservatories who were willing to use tonality was always
attacked and modernists in all artistic trends and politic was the bosses
and they were willing to destroy romanticism and tonal music because
hypocrital for that period..
That period is over
As for scientists I never said that scientists believe that there's nothing
new to discover, but that they have aknowledged that every new innovation
will be just a
re-application application of old discoveries and not new discoveries..
We have motion, space shuttle, elctricity, computer, vaccines ...
There's nothing completely new to be discovered, just something not yet
discovered about past things or a new application for something old
Just like applying flying properties to car
And also the more you look into the future the more you come back to the
past
This is obvious in ecology, psycology, medicine, architecture, urbanization,
education and so on
You can see the trend that science is bringing us back to past in all
scientific fields
I'm not saying completely to the past, to the paleolithic or something like
this but a turning around the circle time instead of an infinite walking
forward a straight time line
And if you really don't eschew popular music, don't forget atonality, don't
consider serialism dogma as religion and use different styles in the same
composition, you're a good exception to this century trend in contemporary
music were modernism, futurism and post-modernism ideas became rules that no
one could break
Daniel
"alabaster" <noe...@nofreakingemail.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:YqMoc.68238$sK3....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> I'm not sure you're ag
>
Dr.Matt
So... what's natural or unnatural about the sounds heard here--*this* week?
Samuel Vriezen
[a lot]
> As stupid as it may sound even Schonberg himself consider his music
> unpleasant or offensive, as a matter of fact he many times declared that
> "creating something beauty in art" was an unacceptable thing
That certainly sounds stupid, given op. 16 no. 3
Daniel
I think you can say instead that you can try to create a more artificial
language
As for music there are proves that languages is more a natural instinct
whose rules are to be found in physiology and nature instead of a human
artifact
In act, strangely idioms and words that are very similar have been found in
population that never meet themselved
As strange as it may sound the word nature, before the romans meet the
vickings population, were already used in the whole world with very few
difference: natur, nature, natura, natuur, nacture ...
The same similitudes can be found in oriental language before western
contamination or influence
Almost all natural manifenstation (star, sun etc...) have been found to born
simuntaneously in almost all world
population without that these populations never meet or were influenced by
other and there words are all very similar or begin with the same phonemas
The point is that now many hystorians believe that this can't be just an
enormous coincidence and that it is very likely that the evolution of
language has already been written in our physiology and in the nature that
surrounded us
The word "star" were already utilized in Japan before any kind of western or
other population influence and the sound of that word resembled the sound of
all the ways stars wasl called by almost all population from all over the
world ...
This is not a coincidence...
Some can believe that it is because we are sons of the same God, I, and many
scientists and hystorian, believe that it is because we're sons of the
nature and its natural laws
Daniel
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@rastan.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:CQKoc.27$j9....@news.itd.umich.edu...
Daniel
Seriously, Schomberg wanted his music to sound offensive, ugly and
horrorific it was part of its purposes and the purposes of the political
movement he followed
Anyway, I don't romember op. 16
Maybe it was before the period in which Schomberg became a modernist and
started his ribellion against Europe politics
Daniel
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:40a39ae5$0$64453$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Samuel Vriezen
> So, you're saying that Schomberg was stupid ;-)
> Seriously, Schomberg wanted his music to sound offensive, ugly and
> horrorific it was part of its purposes and the purposes of the political
> movement he followed
> Anyway, I don't romember op. 16
> Maybe it was before the period in which Schomberg became a modernist and
> started his ribellion against Europe politics
>
> Daniel
It's been a pleasure, Daniel.
Plonk
Laurence Payne
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>>>What proportion of sounds in nature are "harmonic", taking into account
>>>wind and other sounds?
>>
>>Enough.
>
>In other words, a non-answer. The real answer is "so close to none that
>they're negligible, except that we make them."
And we've, for centuries, chosen the ones that ARE harmonic, refined
them and made music with them.
Dr.Matt
No, we're saying you're full of lies.
>Seriously, Schomberg wanted his music to sound offensive, ugly and
>horrorific it was part of its purposes and the purposes of the political
>movement he followed
This is a lie.
>Anyway, I don't romember op. 16
Well, then, you need to learn what you're talking about.
>Maybe it was before the period in which Schomberg became a modernist and
>started his ribellion against Europe politics
Please give us a *primary source* of information about Schoenberg's
politics.
>
>Daniel
>
>"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:40a39ae5$0$64453$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Daniel wrote:
>>
>> [a lot]
>>
>> > As stupid as it may sound even Schonberg himself consider his music
>> > unpleasant or offensive, as a matter of fact he many times declared that
>> > "creating something beauty in art" was an unacceptable thing
>>
>> That certainly sounds stupid, given op. 16 no. 3
>>
>> --
>> samuel
>> concerten.free.fr
>> http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
>> --
>> Als God had gewild dat we het gezellig hadden had hij het wel gezellig
>> gemaakt.
>
>
Dr.Matt
Some people have, and some people haven't. Find one harmonic sound in
a gamelan. Big hint: there aren't any.
Dr.Matt
Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote:
>Daniel wrote:
>
>[a lot]
>
>> As stupid as it may sound even Schonberg himself consider his music
>> unpleasant or offensive, as a matter of fact he many times declared that
>> "creating something beauty in art" was an unacceptable thing
>
>That certainly sounds stupid, given op. 16 no. 3
It sounds stupid considering the fact that Schoenberg never said anything
like it in any case.
Jaakko Mäntyjärvi
> I don't think you can say this
> I think you can say instead that you can try to create a more artificial
> language
> As for music there are proves that languages is more a natural instinct
> whose rules are to be found in physiology and nature instead of a human
> artifact
> In act, strangely idioms and words that are very similar have been found in
> population that never meet themselved
> As strange as it may sound the word nature, before the romans meet the
> vickings population, were already used in the whole world with very few
> difference: natur, nature, natura, natuur, nacture ...
Where do you get this rubbish? The word 'nature' comes from Latin, so
obviously it spread to areas where the Romans wielded influence -- the
Roman Empire and its borderlands -- and thus to languages that developed
from Latin (Romance languages) and that bordered the Empire (some
Germanic languages). But the Vikings never met the Romans. Rome
collapsed in the late 5th century, and the Viking era is generally taken
to have begun in the 9th century. Unless you are referring to Viking
merchants who travelled to Byzantium, which is what the eastern half of
the Roman Empire became... but if those merchants already had the word
'nature', it was by virtue of some Germanic peoples picking up the word
centuries before, in Central Europe, from the Romans.
As for "used in the whole world", a major drawback to that statement is
that Greek (whose ancient civilization was of course much older than the
Roman) had and has a wholly different word for the concept: 'physis'.
Not to speak of Russian ('priroda'), Latvian ('daba') or Finnish
('luonto'), for example. Or even of some Germanic languages: in Old
English the word was 'gesceaft' even at a time when the language had
already acquired loan words from Latin.
If you can show scientific evidence of a word sufficiently similar to
'nature' and referring to that concept occurring in a language prior to
any known contact, direct or indirect, with Latin, then I would
certainly be interested. I have never heard of such a thing, and I am a
professional linguist.
> The same similitudes can be found in oriental language before western
> contamination or influence
> Almost all natural manifenstation (star, sun etc...) have been found to born
> simuntaneously in almost all world
> population without that these populations never meet or were influenced by
> other and there words are all very similar or begin with the same phonemas
> The point is that now many hystorians believe that this can't be just an
> enormous coincidence and that it is very likely that the evolution of
> language has already been written in our physiology and in the nature that
> surrounded us
> The word "star" were already utilized in Japan before any kind of western or
> other population influence and the sound of that word resembled the sound of
> all the ways stars wasl called by almost all population from all over the
> world ...
I beg your pardon? The Japanese word for 'star' is 'hoshi'. For that
matter, the Japanese word for 'sun' is 'taiyo'.
You are partly right in that words representing concepts like these are
among the oldest shared words in any language family, which is why one
will find cognates (i.e. words deriving from the same root) in widely
different geographical locations -- but only WITHIN the same language
family, not in different language families. Indo-European languages (to
which the majority, but not all, of European languages belong) span the
continent from Iceland to India, and words similar to 'star' and 'sun'
and meaning precisely that occur in a great many Indo-European
languages. They do not, however, appear in other language families such
as Finno-Ugric ('sun' is 'aurinko' in Finnish, 'nap' in Hungarian) or
Japanese, as observed above.
--
Regards,
Jaakko Mäntyjärvi
Helsinki, Finland
To reply by e-mail, remove EQUALS.
"Nil significat nisi oscillat. Du vap. Du vap. Du vap."
Daniel
movement he followed you really need to read about modernism adn Schonberg
Mine is Vitaliano Bambini: storia della musica
There are the letters of Schonberg to players that doesn't want to play his
music, his declaration about "ugly"music and his political letters..
You can also see how Schonberg was dittatorial,
unpolite and hateful
I'm not full of lies, it's you that are full of ignorance ..
sorry ...
Daniel
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@rastan.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:13Qoc.51$j9....@news.itd.umich.edu...
Richard Brooks
> I think there is no evidence whatsoever that birds are aware of
> tonality.
I agree and it's all part of the danger of "humanising" all kinds of
species! As far as most people who have studied the bird noises are aware
is that they are just telling neighbours "keep off my patch" or "hey babe, I
sound better than the next bloke. Let's get busy!"
Richard.
Dr.Matt
Daniel <dani...@email.it> wrote:
>If you don't believe that Schonberg meant to create ugly music for the
>movement he followed you really need to read about modernism adn Schonberg
>Mine is Vitaliano Bambini: storia della musica
>There are the letters of Schonberg to players that doesn't want to play his
>music, his declaration about "ugly"music and his political letters..
>You can also see how Schonberg was dittatorial,
>unpolite and hateful
>I'm not full of lies, it's you that are full of ignorance ..
>sorry ...
>
>Daniel
>
Nope. Schoenberg never wrote in Italian. He wrote in German and English.
Try citing Schoenberg instead of some third party.
Dr.Matt
Alain Naigeon
news: naJoc.24$j9....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> In music of the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, the
> 4th is consonant and the 3rd is dissonant.
> In music of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the
> 4th is dissonant and the 3rd is consonant.
>
> I defy you to explain these circumstances in terms of the harmonic series.
Well, at least for the third, one might add that the 16th century one
and the older one are not the same interval!
But, once again, even "just" intervals don't mean tonal center, IMHO.
The fourth is rather special. Its status changed, as you mention, though
its value changed much less than the value of the third. AFAIC I can't
consider it a dissonnance "per se" ; I find a sequence of fourths on a
keyboard very interesting, I like it very much. I guess it's heard as a
dissonnance in some styles or contexts, for reasons I'm not able
to analyse.
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Strasbourg, France
Dr.Matt
Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
>"Dr.Matt" <fie...@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> a écrit dans le message
>news: naJoc.24$j9....@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
>> In music of the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, the
>> 4th is consonant and the 3rd is dissonant.
>> In music of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the
>> 4th is dissonant and the 3rd is consonant.
>>
>> I defy you to explain these circumstances in terms of the harmonic series.
>
>Well, at least for the third, one might add that the 16th century one
>and the older one are not the same interval!
Except that everywhere except for on keyboards, they ARE the same,
again.
>But, once again, even "just" intervals don't mean tonal center, IMHO.
>The fourth is rather special. Its status changed, as you mention, though
>its value changed much less than the value of the third. AFAIC I can't
And its value changed not at all, on voices.
>consider it a dissonnance "per se" ; I find a sequence of fourths on a
>keyboard very interesting, I like it very much. I guess it's heard as a
>dissonnance in some styles or contexts, for reasons I'm not able
>to analyse.
My pet theory is that folks around Palestrina's time were deliberately
trying to make something *new* and unlike previous musics,
deliberately reversing previous practice. Whether that means that the
resulting tonality is an arbitrary construction in contradiction to
nature or not depends on your point of view--I've met hardcore
medievalists who say exactly that.
MarcF
says...
> I'm not saying that bird songs are tonal
> I'm saying that every sound a bird produce is ruled by natural rules of
> tonality
> Bird sounds are intonated sounds, and as such they contain within themselves
> all the 3rds of a tonality
> Again, when birds sing they don't sing tonal songs, but the physiology and
> phisical rules of their sounds obey to tonality rules that is a mathematical
> principle
>
As someone has already mentioned wayback - tonality is a social
construction; music is a social (man-made) construction. It may have been
*inspired* by natural sound at some stage, but it is not the sound
itself. You can no more say that bird song obeys laws of tonality than
you can say that plains, mountains or forests follow the laws of Cubism
(for example).
You also mentioned before about people being 'snobs' in eschewing popular
music - would that same courtesy not extend to atonal music (or any music
that doesn't take your own particular fancy)? Just because a piece is
popular doesn't necessarily mean it's a great piece, and just because a
piece is not so popular, doesn't mean that it isn't. I have experienced
more inverted snobbery among popular musicians than I have among
'serious' composers.
alabaster
Where I am, NONE of the "serious" composers cling dogmatically to serialism
or atonality. None of them eschew popular music--In fact, most of my peers
(I'm a 25 year old Master's Degree student at a major American conservatory)
listen to rock, jazz, heavy metal, techno, industrial, hip-hop, folk, etc.
in equal doses as they listen to contemporary classical music. Here,
composers who listen ONLY to classical music are considered one-dimensional,
and this is often evident in their music. (This is not my judgement, just
an observation of how things are at my school).
As far as I know, the tonality vs. atonality war has been over for quite a
long time, and the era of serialist dogma in the conservatories has been
over for about 20 years. At least this is the case in America, according to
my observations and those of my professors and colleagues.
Perhaps I am too young to have a real sense of perspective, but it seems to
me that the trend in today's music (at least among young American composers)
is what I would call Alchemism (as far as I know, I coined this term).
Today's composer has at his disposal an enormous variety of tools, elements,
resources, etc., and there is a no-holds-barred approach to combining these
in any combination desired. Thus a composer's "original voice" tends to be
a concoction of all his influences--and if he is skilled enough, he can
combine these influences in a way that they transcend themselves and become
something uniquely his. Incidentally, this has been true for the entire
history of western music--the only difference today is the wide variety of
influences available, and the idea that *nothing* is unacceptable.
If this is not the attitude where you live, then you should go somewhere
else. Another school, another city, another country.
chris.
Samuel Vriezen
> Perhaps you're at the wrong school.
My impression exactly.
Richard Brooks
> In article <c80t0p$2vk$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Richard Brooks <richar...@kdbanglia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> Dr.Matt wrote:
>>> I think there is no evidence whatsoever that birds are aware of
>>> tonality.
>>
>> I agree and it's all part of the danger of "humanising" all kinds of
>> species! As far as most people who have studied the bird noises are
>> aware is that they are just telling neighbours "keep off my patch"
>> or "hey babe, I sound better than the next bloke. Let's get busy!"
>
> Isn't that what Heavy Metal is about?
I'd have thought that's what going deaf's about!
Richard.
Steve Layton
"Daniel" <dani...@email.it> wrote in message
news:%Gboc.5186$%x6....@news.edisontel.com...
>
> "Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > Daniel wrote:
> >
> > > There are a lot of studies, theories and proofs that "tonality" is
> actually
> > > more natural and natural lwas friendly than atonality just like fruits
> are
> > > more physiologically friendly than paper or rocks
> >
> > Can you give some references?
> >
> Sorry I'm not able to find the proper studies reference on pubmed but they
> have been carried out by:
>
> Dr. Jerome Kagan
> Dr. Glenn Schellenberg
> Dr. Sandra Threub
>
> see also Robert Fink and Heinrich Shenker
.........
(Just when you thought this thread was dead...;-)
On a related note, there was just a post by "sophrosune" over on
rec.music.theory, under the thread title "Logical fallacies and facts about
math and music". I won't quote it here, as it's very long (61kb!), but it
touches on a number of points that have come up in the thread here, with
some good references for further reading. Worth going to take a look at.
--
Steve Layton
http://www.ampcast.com/stevelayton
For the sounds of music being made worldwide *today*
pay a visit to "NetNewMusic": www.netnewmusic.net