Mod. to C, notation
Ryan
complete, and you feel like declaring the piece is back in C via a key
signature, what would you notate on the score? After all, C has no
sharps or flats and therefore, no real key signature. I'm sure there
must be something that could be put there.
Brad Beyenhof
Just put naturals; for example, when coming from Eb Major, just insert
a Bn, En, and An as a sort of "key signature cancellation."
--
Brad Beyenhof
http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com
mike ring
@posting.google.com:
No sharps and no flats is a key signature to me, C maj or A min.
Just as clear as any amount of barbed wire after the clef.
mike
Brad Beyenhof
> Ryan wrote:
>
> > Easy question. After you have modulated back to C, the modulation
is
> > complete, and you feel like declaring the piece is back in C via a
key
> > signature, what would you notate on the score? After all, C has no
> > sharps or flats and therefore, no real key signature. I'm sure
there
> > must be something that could be put there.
>
> No sharps and no flats is a key signature to me, C maj or A min.
>
> Just as clear as any amount of barbed wire after the clef.
Yes, but if the key changes in the middle of a system there needs to be
*something* there to indicate the change.
Tom Korth
"Brad Beyenhof" <bbey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cep2s7$e...@odak26.prod.google.com...
And even at the end of a system, including the canceling naturals to alert
the performer is the accepted notational practice.
Tom
Dr.Matt
I usually just use accidentals for the secondary key.
Come to think of it, my harmonic language is so chromatic--ESPECIALLY in
my tonal music--that I just use accidentals regardless.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
A genuine countertenor voice silences all arguments. --Salman Rushdie
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Ryan
> I usually just use accidentals for the secondary key.
>
> Come to think of it, my harmonic language is so chromatic--ESPECIALLY in
> my tonal music--that I just use accidentals regardless.
Then basically, you just write everything in C?
Tom Korth
"Ryan" <ink...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dea39397.04080...@posting.google.com...
I think Matt's waiting for a lesson in modulation from A.S. - just stay away
from the IV chord, Matt!
Tom
Steve Latham
If the music is very chromatic, or it makes less sense to use a key
signature than to put the accidentals within the music, then writing it in C
is a good idea. That way, the player doesn't have to remember which are
"normally" sharp or flat, and which are being changed all of the time. It
also avoids a lot of unnecessary cancellations and allows the composer to
spell the accidental in the most logical, way (or easy to read way - based
on direction, or surrounding accidentals, etc.).
Best,
Steve
"Ryan" <ink...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dea39397.04080...@posting.google.com...
Brad Beyenhof
> "Ryan" wrote...
> > Dr.Matt wrote...
> >
> > > I usually just use accidentals for the secondary key.
> > >
> > > Come to think of it, my harmonic language is so chromatic--
> > > ESPECIALLY in my tonal music--that I just use accidentals
> > > regardless.
> >
> > Then basically, you just write everything in C?
>
> signature than to put the accidentals within the music, then writing
> it in C is a good idea. That way, the player doesn't have to remember
> which are "normally" sharp or flat, and which are being changed all
> of the time. It also avoids a lot of unnecessary cancellations and
> allows the composer to spell the accidental in the most logical, way
> (or easy to read way - based on direction, or surrounding
> accidentals, etc.).
To add to what Steve said, I think it's a fallacy to consider that a
piece written in this manner is "in C." Granted, you may tell your
notation program that it's "in C" just so there's no key signature, but
I think it makes much more sense to say that it is not in a key at all.
mike ring
news:DYOdnefAO_e...@comcast.com:
Sorry, I seem to have fergot that bit!
mike
Dr.Matt
LOL, you know perfectly well that according to AS, modulation is...
wait for it....
*MEANINGLESS*
[cue giant tamtam and timpani]
Steve Latham
>
> To add to what Steve said, I think it's a fallacy to consider that a
> piece written in this manner is "in C." Granted, you may tell your
> notation program that it's "in C" just so there's no key signature, but
> I think it makes much more sense to say that it is not in a key at all.
> --
> Brad Beyenhof
> http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com
>
Oh yes, should have caught myself on that - Brad's right - using in that
context it's better not to say "key signature"!
Thanks Brad.
beau gustave
>
>"Brad Beyenhof" <bbey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:cer9m3$2...@odbk17.prod.google.com...
>>
>> To add to what Steve said, I think it's a fallacy to consider that a
>> piece written in this manner is "in C." Granted, you may tell your
>> notation program that it's "in C" just so there's no key signature, but
>> I think it makes much more sense to say that it is not in a key at all.
No sharps or flats is just as much a key signature as five sharps or flats, especially when the
pieces are in C m,ajor or a minor.
Of course atonal music will have no key signature. And lots of modern tonal music is written
without a key signature because the music has so many accidentals, or moveme thriugh so many keys it
would be impractical to change the key with every other measure., or so.
Dr.Matt
And in fact, some notation programs have a "no key signature" option
which is separate from the "in C" option so that if you pick up a
patch of music and transpose it, accidentals shuffle around but no new
key signature is added.
Dr.Matt
Or "as if it were atonal". Some of it probably is, but much of it
demonstrably is not. There are Scorch pages of many of my scores
under "works" on my home page...
Michael Bednarek
wrote in rec.music.theory:
>Ryan,
>If the music is very chromatic, or it makes less sense to use a key
>signature than to put the accidentals within the music, then writing it in C
>is a good idea. That way, the player doesn't have to remember which are
>"normally" sharp or flat, and which are being changed all of the time. It
>also avoids a lot of unnecessary cancellations and allows the composer to
>spell the accidental in the most logical, way (or easy to read way - based
>on direction, or surrounding accidentals, etc.).
E.g. George Gershwin, "2 Waltzes In C". They really are neither.
>"Ryan" <ink...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:dea39397.04080...@posting.google.com...
>> fie...@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote in message
>news:<hiWPc.181$vs....@news.itd.umich.edu>...
>>
>> > I usually just use accidentals for the secondary key.
>> >
>> > Come to think of it, my harmonic language is so chromatic--ESPECIALLY in
>> > my tonal music--that I just use accidentals regardless.
>>
>> Then basically, you just write everything in C?
--
Michael Bednarek http://mbednarek.com/ "POST NO BILLS"
Ryan
> LOL, you know perfectly well that according to AS, modulation is...
> wait for it....
>
> *MEANINGLESS*
>
> [cue giant tamtam and timpani]
Some of it can certainly seem so. For instance, the chamber piano
works of Debussy I'm listening to right now. A lot of times the
modulations seem to have no rhyme or reason behind them. Even in the
final modualtion for the final cadence, it doesn't really feel like
we're home, or that finally, he has tied it all together in a
convincing way. How can one know where one is supposed to go if one
has no idea where one is? In short, it feels like he's modualting
simply "because he can." An ADD inflicted person showing off. I hope
someone can point out why I'm wrong about this particualer example.
Ryan
> Ryan,
> If the music is very chromatic, or it makes less sense to use a key
> signature than to put the accidentals within the music, then writing it in C
> is a good idea. That way, the player doesn't have to remember which are
> "normally" sharp or flat, and which are being changed all of the time. It
> also avoids a lot of unnecessary cancellations and allows the composer to
> spell the accidental in the most logical, way (or easy to read way - based
> on direction, or surrounding accidentals, etc.).
>
> Best,
> Steve
Am I the only here that thinks the traditional notation system went
out of its way to be complicated? First we have note X. Note X does
not fit into the diatonic scale that we are in so we must notate with
a flat or a sharp. So now we must figure out if it's a flat or a
sharp, or maybe evn a doube flat or sharp. Now we must figure out
where to notate this based on what clef we used. We will use
different cleffs for different instruments even if note X is the same
for both. Now perhaps we might finnally know how to notate it, right?
Wrong. A lot of instruments are written in different transposistions
with the pre-agreed upon idea that the player will always read the
notes a few semitones higher or lower. Really, could they have made
it any more difficult?
That's 4 transformations per note!
I really wish we could adopt a semitonal stave system where every line
or space is a different semitone, and all notes are written at the
pitch which the composer actually intends it to be performed. Wallah!
No more worries about accidentals or key signatures or the players
ease in reading even the most complicated atonal pieces. The vertical
space of the score will be bigger as a result, but only by about 1/3.
An acceptable loss for all that would be gained.
Of course, the traditional frustration system has far too much
momentum behind it for a switch like this to really be widely accepted
or encouraged.
Steve Latham
news:<2abQc.32$vK....@news.itd.umich.edu>...
>
> > LOL, you know perfectly well that according to AS, modulation is...
> > wait for it....
> >
> > *MEANINGLESS*
> >
> > [cue giant tamtam and timpani]
>
> Some of it can certainly seem so. For instance, the chamber piano
> works of Debussy I'm listening to right now. A lot of times the
> modulations seem to have no rhyme or reason behind them. Even in the
> final modualtion for the final cadence, it doesn't really feel like
> we're home, or that finally, he has tied it all together in a
> convincing way. How can one know where one is supposed to go if one
> has no idea where one is?
You hit the nail on the head. You don't know where he is because you don't
understand where he is. You're trying to apply a principle that, say, Haydn
used, to a totally different composer and time period.
>In short, it feels like he's modualting
> simply "because he can." An ADD inflicted person showing off. I hope
> someone can point out why I'm wrong about this particualer example.
I don't know of which particular example you speak - cause you didn't tell
us!
You said convincing. But once again, you're looking at what "convinces" you
based on what you know about "modulations" (or music in general). Debussy
used chords, such as Dominant 9th chords for example, that don't resolve
"correctly". Are his harmonies not convincing to you? What about voice
leading? Debussy is usually the principle example for "planing" or parallel
chords that do not "voice-lead" in traditional ways. Are his chord
progressions less convincing to you? These harmonies, and progressions, are
similar to, but also different from other music. You shouldn't apply the
same principles.
A lot of people say that the final of a Gregorian Chant doesn't sound, well,
final. They're unconvinced that it's the right ending note. But it was.
That's how they wrote music. In fact, they were doing that before the idea
of modulations even existed (and a lot of other stuff). Home is where the
heart is, not whether or not it's the same chord the Machaut, Monteverdi,
Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Debussy, Stravinsky, Ligeti, etc. would have ended
on - because they're all different styles, and only a few of them wrote in
each particular style- and where tonic, modulation, in C, cadence, means
different things (or don't exist at all).
Confuser of Soundtracks,
Steve
Dr.Matt
to the modal repertoire it was developed for, and even in my atonal
music I find vestiges of modal thinking so the only time I worry
about whether to use a sharp or a flat is when I'm writing for
pedal harp with its peculiar limitations.
Steve Latham
> Am I the only here that thinks the traditional notation system went
> out of its way to be complicated?
No, every semester and every time I pick up a new guitar student I get
people who whine about this. This is too hard, why do we need all of these
different clefs, why do all these instruments transpose, why do we need
compound meter, why should I even bother to learn music theory.
It never strikes them that learning their instrument was far more difficult.
They've often spent years on it - practicing hours a day. They sit around
playing scales and patterns to learn the instrument. Then when someone asks
them to take a week to learn the circle of fifths, all hell breaks loose.
First we have note X. Note X does
> not fit into the diatonic scale that we are in so we must notate with
> a flat or a sharp. So now we must figure out if it's a flat or a
> sharp, or maybe evn a doube flat or sharp. Now we must figure out
> where to notate this based on what clef we used. We will use
> different cleffs for different instruments even if note X is the same
> for both. Now perhaps we might finnally know how to notate it, right?
> Wrong. A lot of instruments are written in different transposistions
> with the pre-agreed upon idea that the player will always read the
> notes a few semitones higher or lower. Really, could they have made
> it any more difficult?
> That's 4 transformations per note!
(I'll let others address this)
>
> I really wish we could adopt a semitonal stave system where every line
> or space is a different semitone, and all notes are written at the
> pitch which the composer actually intends it to be performed. Wallah!
> No more worries about accidentals or key signatures or the players
> ease in reading even the most complicated atonal pieces. The vertical
> space of the score will be bigger as a result, but only by about 1/3.
> An acceptable loss for all that would be gained.
I have an idea, there are 88 keys on a piano. Let's draw 44 (or so) lines as
a staff. In fact, I want you to try this. Take the easiest two hand piano
piece you can find, and write it out, then try to play it on a 44 line
staff. Get back to me when you've finished counting lines. Well, you know,
we can really hear beyond 88 notes, so we actually need more than that.
Quick, point to the 31st line from the bottom.
Do you get my point?
Yes, it could be simpler, and it could be made more difficult. But you know
what. That's the way it is. I'm sorry. I'd like Utopia too. It probably
won't happen on this planet. Suck it up, learn it, and stop whining about it
if you want your little piece of paper with some BS on it (Ok, BA). If you'd
like to develop your own system, by all means, feel free.
But instead of wasting all of this time and energy, why not just accept it,
learn it, learn how to transcend it - and get on to more important things
like actual playing and composing of music.
>
> Of course, the traditional frustration system has far too much
> momentum behind it for a switch like this to really be widely accepted
> or encouraged.
Point exactly. Besides the fact that it, like language, represents a
historical evolution. The reason is, in the past (in the Middle Ages) they
didn't use sharps and flats only diatonic notes. There WAS "one note" on
each line and space. Then, as more chromatics were added, they got added
gradually, 1 at a time, so there was no need to add an extra line for each
of the 5 non-diatonic notes until they started using 5 (and playing in
different keys) more regularly, and by then, everybody knew how to read it
the way it was, and felt no need to change it. We have changed it now
however to notate things that aren't traditional - graphic notation (see
http://www.menc.org/guides/explor/score.gif ) for instance (the best example
I could find - the good ones must still be under copyright)
But for those who insist on sticking to notes as musical sound, you're
better off to write so performers can read it, else they may not bother to
play it for you!
Good Luck,
Steve
Dr.Matt
I find Debussy's modulations FUN, and unlike AS, who dismisses
the concept of modulation itself as meaningless in order to weasel
out of describing anything more complex than Old Folks At Home,
I say they're quite clearly describable. In Debussy's case, they
tend to be motivic, too.
Dr.Matt
Steve Latham <lla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>I have an idea, there are 88 keys on a piano. Let's draw 44 (or so) lines as
>a staff. In fact, I want you to try this. Take the easiest two hand piano
>piece you can find, and write it out, then try to play it on a 44 line
>staff. Get back to me when you've finished counting lines. Well, you know,
>we can really hear beyond 88 notes, so we actually need more than that.
>Quick, point to the 31st line from the bottom.
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped
to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer
be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained
would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2
might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the
same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with
"i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear
with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12
or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi
ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz
ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud
hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
---Mark Twain
Steve Latham
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@rastan.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:qFwQc.120$vK....@news.itd.umich.edu...
Dr.Matt
I think it was just a stand-alone essay Mark Twain published in the
newspaper, but I'm not sure.
Steve Latham
Found it here:
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/vangogh/555/Spell/spel-fun.html
The site has a lot of dead links on it but looks fun. Going to poke around a
bit!
Steve
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:qnCQc.132$vK....@news.itd.umich.edu...
Charlton Wilbur
R> Am I the only here that thinks the traditional notation system
R> went out of its way to be complicated?
No. Frequently a crackpot or crank makes a posting on the matter.
R> First we have note X. Note X does not fit into the diatonic
R> scale that we are in so we must notate with a flat or a sharp.
R> So now we must figure out if it's a flat or a sharp, or maybe
R> evn a doube flat or sharp.
Except that in tonal music, a C# is a variety of a C note, and a Db is
not a variety of a C note. For tonal music, this matters, and so the
system works for tonal music. There is more benefit than cost here..
R> Now we must figure out where to notate this based on what clef
R> we used. We will use different cleffs for different
R> instruments even if note X is the same for both.
The idea is to prevent leger lines and to make transposition easy. (I
used to do a 15-minute introduction to transposition by clefs for my
first-semester theory students. They were astounded, but it wasn't
sufficient motivation for them to become fluent in C clefs.) There is
more benefit than cost here.
R> Now perhaps we might finnally know how to notate it, right?
R> Wrong. A lot of instruments are written in different
R> transposistions with the pre-agreed upon idea that the player
R> will always read the notes a few semitones higher or lower.
And this was originally done because equal temperament was not
universal; it still continues to be done in the cases of Bb/Eb
clarinets and Bb/Eb saxophones (for instance) because it makes things
so much easier for the performers. A performer who plays any
saxophone can pick up a sax and play a part written for that
instrument without having to transpose, regardless of the sounding key
of the instrument. Again, there is more benefit than cost here.
R> I really wish we could adopt a semitonal stave system where
R> every line or space is a different semitone, and all notes are
R> written at the pitch which the composer actually intends it to
R> be performed. Wallah! No more worries about accidentals or
R> key signatures or the players ease in reading even the most
R> complicated atonal pieces. The vertical space of the score
R> will be bigger as a result, but only by about 1/3. An
R> acceptable loss for all that would be gained.
Except that you eliminate meaning. Such a system could work for
atonal music, or other music in which the concept of scale is
irrelevant and equal temperament is axiomatic -- but the vast majority
of music I care about doesn't fall under that rubric, and so I'm going
to continue to care about the difference between C# and Db for the
time being.
Of course, if your music is brilliant enough you might be able to use
a different notation system; I understand Harry Partch and Conlon
Nancarrow have had some success in this regard. Or you could just
create your music digitally and not bother with performers at all --
or create a computer tool to translate your ideal notation system into
one the rest of us can work with.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Ryan
> You hit the nail on the head. You don't know where he is because you don't
> understand where he is. You're trying to apply a principle that, say, Haydn
> used, to a totally different composer and time period.
>
> >In short, it feels like he's modualting
> > simply "because he can." An ADD inflicted person showing off. I hope
> > someone can point out why I'm wrong about this particualer example.
>
> I don't know of which particular example you speak - cause you didn't tell
> us!
> You said convincing. But once again, you're looking at what "convinces" you
> based on what you know about "modulations" (or music in general). Debussy
> used chords, such as Dominant 9th chords for example, that don't resolve
> "correctly".
I said a convincing final cadence. I'm talking about the pay off at
the end of the maze. The big ending. And also about how these things
are joined, nothing really seems to develop, the sections have little
connection to eachother. A lone note lingers around from the previous
section, then new harmony comes in putting you in a new key. So the
sections share a note, but there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or
reason. Why did we switch to this new section? It is very pretty,
but how does it strengthen the overall piece? Very often when I feel
I'm being set-up for something, he only seems to switch to new
material that seems to be setting us up for yet something else, and we
never get anywhere. I've heard of through-point before. I can't say
his music dosen't have that. But I might venture to say his music has
little "through-purpose" at times. That said, I still like Debussy,
and these are just small complaints.
> Are his harmonies not convincing to you? What about voice
> leading? Debussy is usually the principle example for "planing" or parallel
> chords that do not "voice-lead" in traditional ways. Are his chord
> progressions less convincing to you? These harmonies, and progressions, are
> similar to, but also different from other music. You shouldn't apply the
> same principles.
> A lot of people say that the final of a Gregorian Chant doesn't sound, well,
> final. They're unconvinced that it's the right ending note. But it was.
> That's how they wrote music. In fact, they were doing that before the idea
> of modulations even existed (and a lot of other stuff). Home is where the
> heart is, not whether or not it's the same chord the Machaut, Monteverdi,
> Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Debussy, Stravinsky, Ligeti, etc. would have ended
> on - because they're all different styles, and only a few of them wrote in
> each particular style- and where tonic, modulation, in C, cadence, means
> different things (or don't exist at all).
It has to do with the timing. It's not so harmonic.
Dr.Matt
Steve Latham <lla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Matt,
>
>Found it here:
>
>http://victorian.fortunecity.com/vangogh/555/Spell/spel-fun.html
>
>The site has a lot of dead links on it but looks fun. Going to poke around a
>bit!
Alas, the essay on the site isn't an exact match for that on this thread,
plus the site appears to be infected with GatorWare.
Steve Latham
> I said a convincing final cadence. I'm talking about the pay off at
> the end of the maze. The big ending.
Well, does a piece have to have a big ending, or even a final cadence?
>And also about how these things
> are joined, nothing really seems to develop, the sections have little
> connection to eachother.
Do they have too? I mean, a rhapsody of just abruptly changes from one idea
to the other.
>A lone note lingers around from the previous
> section, then new harmony comes in putting you in a new key.
Well, that's not really super unusual, it's called a common tone modulation
(and the note is reinterpreted in the new key as being the 3rd of the chord
instead of the root, or it's the 3rd scale degree in one key, and the 5th in
the next, or soemthing like that). Haydn and co. every now and again, and
Schubert and those guys make a little more use of it.
>So the
> sections share a note, but there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or
> reason. Why did we switch to this new section?
Contrast?
>It is very pretty,
> but how does it strengthen the overall piece? Very often when I feel
> I'm being set-up for something, he only seems to switch to new
> material that seems to be setting us up for yet something else, and we
> never get anywhere.
Well, I hear a lot of Mozart where he sets you up for something, based on
what you've heard before, or what you think that style of music "should" do,
then he "tricks you by doing something different. Common tone modulations
are a good example of that because composers would often set up a pattern
where you'd hear the note in one context, and then the next time around,
when you expect one thing, it does soemthing else.
But remember, Debussy is an Impressionist composer. Scales, keys, meter,
modulations, cadences, etc. are "hazy", as if looking through gauze or fog -
a lot of his music seems to try to depict musically what's going on with the
Symbolist poets and with Impressionistic painters like Monet and Manet.
Maybe words like meandering, wandering, inconclusive, ambiguous may fir. But
they always seem to have such negative meanings. Symbolists poets "hinted
at" things rather than depicting them perfectly. Artists use new techniques
with lighting and shading, and even methods of applying paint to the canvas.
If you compare these hazy images to the paintings of Da Vinvi, they might
seem unconvincing in the boundaries between objects - there might be a
common color that connects two seemingly unrelated parts of the painting -
to further the analogy with one note.
But that's part of the style. I was afraid you were trying to apply the
"rules" of Da Vinci, to Manet, and that's not quite fair. They're two
different styles. What "works" for one, may not "work" for the other. That's
what I think you might be experiencing.
Since you asked for an agreement, it seems like you wanted to be proven
wrong, or at least have something you think may be there, but can't quite
relate, proven to you. I was just trying to point out that you have take
each under the context in which they were written.
May I suggest, you read some Symbolist poetry, and look at some
Impressionistic paintings, and then listen again to Debussy and see if it
makes more "sense" (or is more convincing). We're such visual and mental
beings that I think those other art forms always seem to help.
That said, I still like Debussy,
> and these are just small complaints.
Well, I never got the impression (pun intended) you didn't like Debussy,
only that you were trying to "justify" it using standards for something
else.
>
> It has to do with the timing. It's not so harmonic.
Yes, I see. There seems to be a certain fluidity in both the meter and
pacing of Impressionistic works (that's different than say, the music of 50
years earlier). But again, I think the Impressionistic aspect has a lot to
do with it. It's not always four measure phrases (or at least, obviously so)
, so again, I wouldn't want to apply the same ideas that more "four-square"
pieces do (sorry, that's a broad generalization).
Hope that makes it clearer on my end too!
Steve
Ryan
> I have an idea, there are 88 keys on a piano. Let's draw 44 (or so) lines as
> a staff. In fact, I want you to try this. Take the easiest two hand piano
> piece you can find, and write it out, then try to play it on a 44 line
> staff. Get back to me when you've finished counting lines. Well, you know,
> we can really hear beyond 88 notes, so we actually need more than that.
> Quick, point to the 31st line from the bottom.
>
> Do you get my point?
Yes I get your point. Do you get mine? Let's follow your logic here
for a second. Obviously an 88 note stave would be quite unwieldy and
very hard to read, you'll get no argument form me on that as that was
not what I intended. I would keep the clefs, and simply expand the
number of lines in them by 1/3.
You are right, an 88 note stave would not work, what we need is less
staves lines and more abstract symbols. What we should do is present
only one stave line, and have about four or five new symbols that will
actually tell us the pitch of the note to be played. Perhaps these
symbols could follow the note value notation. One symbol for an
octave up or down, one symbol for a fifth, one for a third and one for
a second. Oh yes, we would also need one to represent three octaves,
four octaves, indeed up to 7 octaves or more. But we would be left
with one narrow line that takes up very little space and is incredibly
easy to read. So what if every note is followed by four symbols and
students would have to sketch out their own notation on scrap paper to
actually play it, this obviously is the better way, right? ;)
> Yes, it could be simpler, and it could be made more difficult. But you know
> what. That's the way it is. I'm sorry. I'd like Utopia too. It probably
> won't happen on this planet. Suck it up, learn it, and stop whining about it
> if you want your little piece of paper with some BS on it (Ok, BA). If you'd
> like to develop your own system, by all means, feel free.
Utopia? I'm only talking about one specific thing here, in one
relatively inconsequential area of life, a small thing that might
actually have a chance of being accomplished. You're talking about
ending all starvation, violence and hatred the world over. I'm not
surprised you can make your exaggerations of my points sound
impossible. Many new systems have been put fourth, and some have
actually been performed. A quick look at the John Cage edited
"Notation" would reveal this. As I said before, there are no
delusions of grandeur here. I know simply because of the vast amounts
of people who already know the traditional system and have come to
accept it, there is very little chance of my wondrous new system
actually being adopted. It's not the coming up with my own system
that's the trick, but the getting everyone else to use and promote it.
But I already admitted that.
Ryan
> No, Ryan. I think the traditional notation system is quite optimized
> to the modal repertoire it was developed for, and even in my atonal
> music I find vestiges of modal thinking so the only time I worry
> about whether to use a sharp or a flat is when I'm writing for
> pedal harp with its peculiar limitations.
For what reasons do you feel the traditional system is optimized?
Especially when it comes to atonal music, which as we both agree, it
was not designed for. I haven't been immeresed in the world of music
as long as you, but can't think of one.
Tom Korth
> What we should do is present
> only one stave line, and have about four or five new symbols that will
> actually tell us the pitch of the note to be played. Perhaps these
> symbols could follow the note value notation.
Ryan, you might find Rodney Fawcett's "Equiton" interesting.
http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/equiton/equiton.htm
There was also a proposal for a six line staff, starting with C on the
bottom line. The first space would be C#/Db, the next line D, the next
space D#/Eb, etc. and appropriate clefs would indicate the octave It would
be great for whole-tone music!
Of course, as was pointed out, reading "real" music in any of these
(efficient) systems requires so much re-training as to be totally
impracticable.
Tom
Jerry Kohl
> "Ryan" <ink...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dea39397.04080...@posting.google.com...
>
> >And also about how these things
> > are joined, nothing really seems to develop, the sections have little
> > connection to eachother.
>
> Do they have too? I mean, a rhapsody of just abruptly changes from one idea
> to the other.
>
> [lots of good advice snipped]
>
> But that's part of the style. I was afraid you were trying to apply the
> "rules" of Da Vinci, to Manet, and that's not quite fair. They're two
> different styles. What "works" for one, may not "work" for the other. That's
> what I think you might be experiencing.
>
> Since you asked for an agreement, it seems like you wanted to be proven
> wrong, or at least have something you think may be there, but can't quite
> relate, proven to you. I was just trying to point out that you have take
> each under the context in which they were written.
>
> May I suggest, you read some Symbolist poetry, and look at some
> Impressionistic paintings, and then listen again to Debussy and see if it
> makes more "sense" (or is more convincing). We're such visual and mental
> beings that I think those other art forms always seem to help.
>
> That said, I still like Debussy,
> > and these are just small complaints.
>
> Well, I never got the impression (pun intended) you didn't like Debussy,
> only that you were trying to "justify" it using standards for something
> else.
>
> >
> > It has to do with the timing. It's not so harmonic.
>
> Yes, I see. There seems to be a certain fluidity in both the meter and
> pacing of Impressionistic works (that's different than say, the music of 50
> years earlier). But again, I think the Impressionistic aspect has a lot to
> do with it. It's not always four measure phrases (or at least, obviously so)
> , so again, I wouldn't want to apply the same ideas that more "four-square"
> pieces do (sorry, that's a broad generalization).
I would like to add that Debussy in particular and musical Impressionism
more generally did not spring full-grown from the brow of Zeus, either.
(Neither did Impressionist painting--you must experience Delacroix to
understand Manet or van Gogh). Steve has mentioned Schubert, but I
might suggest that, if you look a little later in the 19th century you will
find a gradual evolution toward these "vaguer", more fluid forms
and harmonic relations. Chopin is a very important influence, as
are Schumann and Wagner. But for more specifically French connections,
you should listen to the music of Berlioz (the orchestral songs Les
Nuits d'Été are more instructive than the Symphonie Fantastique, I think),
Franck (the Piano Quintet is a splendid place to start, or the Symphony
in D minor), Chabrier (the piano pieces and songs), Chausson (songs,
or the Počme for violin and orchestra), Massenet (arias from operas such
as Werther, Thaďs, or Manon), Lalo (songs, or the Third Piano Trio, op. 26)
and d'Indy (Piano Quartet in A minor and other earlier works--he outlived
Debussy though he was born earlier). Also some of the not-exactly
impressionist contemporaries of Debussy, such as Dukas (the Piano
Sonata, in preference to the Sorcerer's Apprentice) and Fauré (First
Piano Quartet in C minor, the 13 Barcarolles for piano).
If you have somehow convinced yourself that the Viennese Classical model
and military marches are what all music is about, then Debussy will be a
puzzle. The French context will give you a better basis for understanding
where Debussy is coming from. And this music is far from painful to
listen to--the French have always been into lush, rich sounds for their
own sake, and striking harmonic and timbral effects are a feature of
French music back to at least the early 17th century.
--
Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
>news:<zCwQc.119$vK....@news.itd.umich.edu>...
>> No, Ryan. I think the traditional notation system is quite optimized
>> to the modal repertoire it was developed for, and even in my atonal
>> music I find vestiges of modal thinking so the only time I worry
>> about whether to use a sharp or a flat is when I'm writing for
>> pedal harp with its peculiar limitations.
>
>For what reasons do you feel the traditional system is optimized?
For what PURPOSES: for modal music, and by natural extension, tonal
music. The default structure of the notation is diatonic scales, which,
GUESS WHAT, are the default structure of that repertoire.
>Especially when it comes to atonal music, which as we both agree, it
>was not designed for.
Depends on what kind of thinking you're using to structure your music,
and on what grounds you call it "atonal".
> I haven't been immeresed in the world of music
>as long as you, but can't think of one.
Look. Sing some Gregorian chant from the notation. Learn some tonal
repertoire. The notation is optimized around that. Play the 371
choral preludes of Bach in the Riemannschneider keyboard notation
(there's a Belwyn edition in print, maybe a Dover).
For people like me, and Stravinsky and Schoenberg and Bartok and so
forth, whose "atonal" music has local tonal structures in it, there's
very little worry about the sharp-flat thing.
The use-note-names idea is found in some so-called "keyboard tablatures".
You can try using it. But the signs won't be ascending and descending
in conjunction with the music that they represent.
Steve Latham
news:<XCwQc.522$721...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
>
>
> staves lines and more abstract symbols. What we should do is present
> only one stave line, and have about four or five new symbols that will
> actually tell us the pitch of the note to be played.
Ryan, did you know that that's already been done, and it was found
insufficient at spome point?
In fact, early notation didn't even use staff lines! you should really check
this out:
http://www.intelligirldesign.com/literature/musicsymbol.pdf
There's also shape note singing notation, see here:
http://fasola.org/introduction/note_shapes.html
>Perhaps these
> symbols could follow the note value notation. One symbol for an
> octave up or down, one symbol for a fifth, one for a third and one for
> a second. Oh yes, we would also need one to represent three octaves,
> four octaves, indeed up to 7 octaves or more. But we would be left
> with one narrow line that takes up very little space and is incredibly
> easy to read. So what if every note is followed by four symbols and
> students would have to sketch out their own notation on scrap paper to
> actually play it, this obviously is the better way, right? ;)
I think history has proven that in each historical period, the type of
noation being used was sufficient until styles demanded new notation be
invented. There's tablature for guitar (both ancient and modern) as well a
keyboard instrument tablature. There's the two above. I mean, historically,
lot's of things have been tried, and maybe the notation we have represents a
"catch-all".
> Utopia? I'm only talking about one specific thing here, in one
> relatively inconsequential area of life, a small thing that might
> actually have a chance of being accomplished. You're talking about
> ending all starvation, violence and hatred the world over. I'm not
> surprised you can make your exaggerations of my points sound
> impossible. Many new systems have been put fourth, and some have
> actually been performed. A quick look at the John Cage edited
> "Notation" would reveal this. As I said before, there are no
> delusions of grandeur here. I know simply because of the vast amounts
> of people who already know the traditional system and have come to
> accept it, there is very little chance of my wondrous new system
> actually being adopted. It's not the coming up with my own system
> that's the trick, but the getting everyone else to use and promote it.
> But I already admitted that.
Oooh, sorry I sounded so far to one side. What I took your original
statements as meaning, was, that you thought notation could be made simpler,
but you realized doing so would be a hard row to hoe. I'm agreeing with you.
That's always the problem...getting everyone to agree. But I think we should
remember that in various times in history there was a main predominant style
which for one notation would be relatively sufficient. Now, there are so
many streams that I think it would be impossible to have one all
encompassing notation, unless it were something like audio waveform (because
they work for all audio) - but boy are they hard to read!
I think we're missing the most important point here - that the notation
should be as complete as possible - so it may be that the easiest, best, or
perfect notation is going to vary from piece to piece (like Cage and Earle
Brown may have come up with different solutions for different pieces) The
only drawback there is that any "new" notation has to have a legend that
explains what everything means, which represents a pretty high learning
curve.
So I'm not dogging you - I'm trying to figure out what you're aiming at.
While I've got you on the line, the thing about the Debussy that Jerry
mentions is good advice too - not taking it in a vacuum, but tracing the
evolution up to it. Things always seem to make more sense when you know the
context.
The other thing is I'd like to apologize because I kinda jumped to a
conclusion that you were just learning to read music and thought the system
was too hard and were looking for a shortcut - I see now that that's not the
case.
I think there's been some other good responses (Tom's) so I'll sign off for
now.
Bye,
Steve
paramucho
And yet young children can master the system at around the same speed
they master reading and writing, despite the fact that we write
withspacesinarbitrarypositions.
>I really wish we could adopt a semitonal stave system where every line
>or space is a different semitone, and all notes are written at the
>pitch which the composer actually intends it to be performed. Wallah!
> No more worries about accidentals or key signatures or the players
>ease in reading even the most complicated atonal pieces. The vertical
>space of the score will be bigger as a result, but only by about 1/3.
>An acceptable loss for all that would be gained.
I've tried this and didn't find the result particularly helpful:
C ----------X-----------
B ---------X------------
A# ----------------------
A -------X--------------
G# ----------------------
G ------X---------------
F# ----------------------
F -----X----------------
E ----X-----------------
D# ----------------------
D --X-------------------
C# ----------------------
C -X--------------------
There's an inherent limitation in our brain which makes larger groups
more difficult to decipher than smaller groups. The five line staff is
in the middle of our individual capabilities. I guess thats why piano
music is notated with two staves.
Of course, we could also split up an octave stave as follows.
C ----------X-----------
B ---------X------------
A# ----------------------
A -------X--------------
G# ----------------------
G ------X---------------
F# ----------------------
F -----X----------------
E ----X-----------------
D# ----------------------
D --X-------------------
C# ----------------------
C -X--------------------
That said, although I'm comfortable with notation, I do think it's an
anachronism. Like doing maths with roman numbers. I've been working on
a different form of notation, but for analytic purposes rather than
for scoring.
>Of course, the traditional frustration system has far too much
>momentum behind it for a switch like this to really be widely accepted
>or encouraged.
It's like spelling reform.
Ryan
> "Ryan" <ink...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dea39397.04080...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I said a convincing final cadence. I'm talking about the pay off at
> > the end of the maze. The big ending.
>
> Well, does a piece have to have a big ending, or even a final cadence?
I certainly prefer them that way. By big ending I don't necessarily
mean a fanfare or loudness. It can also be big becuase of it's
cleverness and unexpectedness. I'm a fan of unfished works becuase
they stop in the middle of nowhere for no reason. I would consider
these non-endings to be big endings too. They leave strong
impressions in your mind, positive or negative. They stand out.
Debussy is pretty good at the clever/unexpected ending, but still alot
of it seems pointless, frivolous to me. It's sort of like, "oh, I
guess that's the ending. The music stopped, so it must be over with.
Okay." Personally I derrive more meaning and more insight from the
ending than any other section. Endings can change everything you
though you knew, or re-inforce them in the absolute.
> >And also about how these things
> > are joined, nothing really seems to develop, the sections have little
> > connection to eachother.
>
> Do they have too? I mean, a rhapsody of just abruptly changes from one idea
> to the other.
Well, I'm not a fan of the pointless change, or a change simply for
contrast. every part should propel the piece foreward, hopefully
every new part should be stronger than the part before it, so that
when the end comes we have been mind-fucked into pure bliss. (pardon
my french) I need a plan, a clear structure. It doesn't have to be
clear on first listen, but it should make sense after the piece is
overwith and you can reflect upon it. The perfect parts fit into
eachoter like keys into locks. I can't really explain this in an X +
Y = Z type of way, but I know when it's happening and when it isn't.
Does all music have to be this way. Who am I? Hitler? Art should be
free. I'll put it like this. Some guys like bikini briefs. I don't.
Do I think it should be illegal to wear them? Not on your life. But
that doesn't mean you'll find me buying a pair anytime soon.
>
> >A lone note lingers around from the previous
> > section, then new harmony comes in putting you in a new key.
>
> Well, that's not really super unusual, it's called a common tone modulation
> (and the note is reinterpreted in the new key as being the 3rd of the chord
> instead of the root, or it's the 3rd scale degree in one key, and the 5th in
> the next, or soemthing like that). Haydn and co. every now and again, and
> Schubert and those guys make a little more use of it.
I know, it's not the technique, but the specific execuition. Bach
does this very well. Desbussy just seems like he has no specific goal
in mind to me. Again, as I childishly put it before, like a kid with
ADD hoping around just because he can.
> >So the
> > sections share a note, but there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or
> > reason. Why did we switch to this new section?
>
> Contrast?
Not a good enough reason. Breaking out into a marching band song
would also be a contrast, so would some atonal stuff, or eight bars of
pure silence. There must not only be contrast, but a job that the
contrast is doing besides providing simple variety.
> >It is very pretty,
> > but how does it strengthen the overall piece? Very often when I feel
> > I'm being set-up for something, he only seems to switch to new
> > material that seems to be setting us up for yet something else, and we
> > never get anywhere.
>
> Well, I hear a lot of Mozart where he sets you up for something, based on
> what you've heard before, or what you think that style of music "should" do,
> then he "tricks you by doing something different. Common tone modulations
> are a good example of that because composers would often set up a pattern
> where you'd hear the note in one context, and then the next time around,
> when you expect one thing, it does soemthing else.
Yes, but Mozart *does* eventually get somewhere. I couldn't finish
"If on a winter's night a traveler" for the same reason.
> But remember, Debussy is an Impressionist composer. Scales, keys, meter,
> modulations, cadences, etc. are "hazy", as if looking through gauze or fog -
> a lot of his music seems to try to depict musically what's going on with the
> Symbolist poets and with Impressionistic painters like Monet and Manet.
> Maybe words like meandering, wandering, inconclusive, ambiguous may fir. But
> they always seem to have such negative meanings. Symbolists poets "hinted
> at" things rather than depicting them perfectly. Artists use new techniques
> with lighting and shading, and even methods of applying paint to the canvas.
> If you compare these hazy images to the paintings of Da Vinvi, they might
> seem unconvincing in the boundaries between objects - there might be a
> common color that connects two seemingly unrelated parts of the painting -
> to further the analogy with one note.
>
> But that's part of the style. I was afraid you were trying to apply the
> "rules" of Da Vinci, to Manet, and that's not quite fair. They're two
> different styles. What "works" for one, may not "work" for the other. That's
> what I think you might be experiencing.
>
> Since you asked for an agreement, it seems like you wanted to be proven
> wrong, or at least have something you think may be there, but can't quite
> relate, proven to you. I was just trying to point out that you have take
> each under the context in which they were written.
Oh, please continue to disagree with me. That is what I wanted.
Well, what I really wanted is for someone to reveal the hidden inner
logic of Debussy to me. But from most of the responses, it seems you
guys are saying that there is no inner logic, but Debussy has the
right to be unlogical. Well, sure. But what I'd really like to hear
is something like, "Cadence A sets us up for the switch to X that
happens a minute later. We switch to Y in order to through us of the
scent. But three minutes later, here comes Z, which makes Y actually
make sense, which also comments on the importance of X, and makes Y a
strategic part that the piece could not do without."
> May I suggest, you read some Symbolist poetry, and look at some
> Impressionistic paintings, and then listen again to Debussy and see if it
> makes more "sense" (or is more convincing). We're such visual and mental
> beings that I think those other art forms always seem to help.
Van Gough is one of my favourites. A lot of the prose-poetry I used
to write was dubbed impressionistic by my teachers. I'm pretty well
aquainted with the idea. I suppose I don't mind that visual art can
be impressionistic because all visual art is a fake, a fallacy, an
imaginary thing. It's obvious that we are not looking at real life
when we are looking at a pinting. Whereas music is not a copy, or
portrait of itself. In fact it might be impossible to create music
that is simulation of music, if that makes any sense. Maybe if you
played it on a toy piano or a cheap synthesizer, or maybe drowned it
with some kind of recording effect. Otherwise a note is always a
note.
>
> That said, I still like Debussy,
> > and these are just small complaints.
>
> Well, I never got the impression (pun intended) you didn't like Debussy,
> only that you were trying to "justify" it using standards for something
> else.
>
> >
> > It has to do with the timing. It's not so harmonic.
>
> Yes, I see. There seems to be a certain fluidity in both the meter and
> pacing of Impressionistic works (that's different than say, the music of 50
> years earlier). But again, I think the Impressionistic aspect has a lot to
> do with it. It's not always four measure phrases (or at least, obviously so)
> , so again, I wouldn't want to apply the same ideas that more "four-square"
> pieces do (sorry, that's a broad generalization).
It's bigger than the meter, or the harmony, or the melody. Think more
macro. I'm talking about the placement and the reasons for existence
of 8-32 bar sections. (Or roughly, about the span between
modulations, save the very rapid changes.)
> Hope that makes it clearer on my end too!
> Steve
You were always clear, professor.
Ryan
> If you have somehow convinced yourself that the Viennese Classical model
> and military marches are what all music is about, then Debussy will be a
> puzzle. The French context will give you a better basis for understanding
> where Debussy is coming from. And this music is far from painful to
> listen to--the French have always been into lush, rich sounds for their
> own sake, and striking harmonic and timbral effects are a feature of
> French music back to at least the early 17th century.
I'm not trying to force Debussy into the Viennese classical model,
whatever that is. I just sit and focus on the piece coming through my
headphones and let my gut tell me if it works or not. If I start
thinking about styles and models and etc, I know I am listening with
my brain and not with my ears, which is a bad thing, and something
which I hope we all try to fight. Thinking like this would write off
a lot of the great music out there, from Satie to the Beatles to Run
DMC. I do not propose that everyone should write music to please me
specifically, and I am very open to styles. I can find parts of my
favourite pieces by my favourite composers in my favourite styles that
I still don't think are quite pulled off. Shostakovich's 8th string
quartet arranged for chamber orchestra is one of my most favourite
pieces, but I still usually skip the first movement when I put it in
the CD player. I'm always on the lookout for such parts becuase I
know you can learn just as much about your craft from bad examples as
great ones, perhaps moreso. I try to think what I would have done
differently, or why that small section didn't quite make it. That
doesn't mean I hate it because it is a circle and I cannot force it
through a square hole. I hope you think a little better of me than to
consider me a brain dead fachist.
Ryan
Could you explain why?
> The use-note-names idea is found in some so-called "keyboard tablatures".
> You can try using it. But the signs won't be ascending and descending
> in conjunction with the music that they represent.
I guess what I really wanted to know was why you considered it optimal
for dodecaphony. The traditional notation system is great for
diatony, certainly. Too bad there are 12 notes in an octavce and not
just 8. Or if you really want to get serious, maybe there's over 700.
http://www.kylegann.com/Octave.html
Jerry Kohl
> Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<411415E0...@comcast.net>...
>
> > If you have somehow convinced yourself that the Viennese Classical model
> > and military marches are what all music is about, then Debussy will be a
> > puzzle. The French context will give you a better basis for understanding
> > where Debussy is coming from. And this music is far from painful to
> > listen to--the French have always been into lush, rich sounds for their
> > own sake, and striking harmonic and timbral effects are a feature of
> > French music back to at least the early 17th century.
>
> I'm not trying to force Debussy into the Viennese classical model,
> whatever that is.
I suppose I should have put a smiley in there somewhere. We do--all of
us--measure each new thing by our esperience of the old. This can cause
bewilderment if the new thing does not fit the template we have built up
from our experiences. It does not mean that the new thing is poorly made--
only that we may have to learn a different way of regarding it. The words
that you used to explain what you were looking for and not finding in
Debussy suggested to me a Germanic bias, especially the notions of
"formal logic" (not your words, I know--I'm extrapolating) and the idea
of the "big finish". French music generally, but Debussy in particular
has more to do with nuance and less to do with "Schopenhauerische
Wille". There are formal logics there, to be sure, but they must be found
on their own terms.
> I just sit and focus on the piece coming through my
> headphones and let my gut tell me if it works or not.
I try not to listen over headphones (or through speakers, for that matter),
though often there is no alternative. Live music is best, but better still
is the live music you make yourself. If you can even stumble slowly
through the Debussy Preludes on the piano, you will learn more in a
shorter amount of time than you ever will by listening to other people
play--live or recorded.
> If I start
> thinking about styles and models and etc, I know I am listening with
> my brain and not with my ears, which is a bad thing, and something
> which I hope we all try to fight.
Absolutely, and this is precisely what I am talking about here. Just
plain *listen* (as you play, ideally), and let your intuition guide you
to the surprising conclusions that you will draw.
> Thinking like this would write off
> a lot of the great music out there, from Satie to the Beatles to Run
> DMC.
Don't know this Run DMC guy, and I'm not sure I would dignify
Satie with the term "great", but there is no accounting for personal
taste. You do surprise me a bit by expressing admiration for Satie,
but perplexity at Debussy, however. They are very different
composers, to be sure, but the French mentality (favouring nuance
and subtlety) is certainly there in both cases.
> I hope you think a little better of me than to
> consider me a brain dead fachist.
"Fascist"? Heaven forfend! You are asking good questions; I'm
sorry if I haven't been able to provide equally good answers for
them.
Jerry Kohl
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<4UQQc.983$114...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> > "Ryan" <ink...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:dea39397.04080...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > >A lone note lingers around from the previous
> > > section, then new harmony comes in putting you in a new key.
> >
> > Well, that's not really super unusual, it's called a common tone modulation
> > (and the note is reinterpreted in the new key as being the 3rd of the chord
> > instead of the root, or it's the 3rd scale degree in one key, and the 5th in
> > the next, or soemthing like that). Haydn and co. every now and again, and
> > Schubert and those guys make a little more use of it.
>
> I know, it's not the technique, but the specific execuition. Bach
> does this very well. Desbussy just seems like he has no specific goal
> in mind to me. Again, as I childishly put it before, like a kid with
> ADD hoping around just because he can.
Maybe you just haven't found Debussy's goal yet. Keep listening,
patiently. Most important--don't assume that you already know all
the possibilities that Debussy may have in mind.
> > >So the
> > > sections share a note, but there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or
> > > reason. Why did we switch to this new section?
> >
> > Contrast?
>
> Not a good enough reason. Breaking out into a marching band song
> would also be a contrast, so would some atonal stuff, or eight bars of
> pure silence. There must not only be contrast, but a job that the
> contrast is doing besides providing simple variety.
> > Well, I hear a lot of Mozart where he sets you up for something, based on
> > what you've heard before, or what you think that style of music "should" do,
> > then he "tricks you by doing something different. Common tone modulations
> > are a good example of that because composers would often set up a pattern
> > where you'd hear the note in one context, and then the next time around,
> > when you expect one thing, it does soemthing else.
>
> Yes, but Mozart *does* eventually get somewhere. I couldn't finish
> "If on a winter's night a traveler" for the same reason.
Interesting comparison! Do you know Mozart's D Minor Fantasy (the C minor
one would do almost as well)? If I had to think of a musical analogy for
Calvino's novel, I don't think I could do better than the Mozart.
> > That said, I still like Debussy,
> > > and these are just small complaints.
> >
> > Well, I never got the impression (pun intended) you didn't like Debussy,
> > only that you were trying to "justify" it using standards for something
> > else.
> >
> > >
> > > It has to do with the timing. It's not so harmonic.
> >
> > Yes, I see. There seems to be a certain fluidity in both the meter and
> > pacing of Impressionistic works (that's different than say, the music of 50
> > years earlier). But again, I think the Impressionistic aspect has a lot to
> > do with it. It's not always four measure phrases (or at least, obviously so)
> > , so again, I wouldn't want to apply the same ideas that more "four-square"
> > pieces do (sorry, that's a broad generalization).
>
> It's bigger than the meter, or the harmony, or the melody. Think more
> macro. I'm talking about the placement and the reasons for existence
> of 8-32 bar sections. (Or roughly, about the span between
> modulations, save the very rapid changes.)
Hmm. This sounds very suspiciously like the Germanic thinking I referred
to earlier--specifically, like Riemann's "Vierhebigkeit" principle of historical
development.
Ryan
I would find the above example usefull, very usefull. At last,
showing the system as it really is! No hocus pocus presto change-o!
Perhaps it is more usefull for me becuase I thought of music as
semitonal from the beginning. I don't mean in terms of theory or
style or anything. I mean look at a piano, is the pattern repeating 8
notes or twelve? When I first learned what a fifth was, or a major
third, I was taught in terms of semitones. Semitones are constant,
they do not bend or change because of what key we are in. A fifth is
always 7 semitones, a major third always 4. I don't even have to use
my secret decoder ring! Whereas, what's a third diatonically? Well,
it's always the third note in the scale from root, but given what key
we are in it can sound very different. And what if we go into 6 or 5
note scales, where's the third than? This is like telling a kid in
driver's training, "Okay, this is the gas pedal, but only when we are
heading north. When we are heading south it is the brake. And if we
are heading east or west, it's the horn." A major 3rd, however--4
semintones, always and forever. If kids were taught to look at music
this way from the beginning, I doubt they would have any more trouble
with this than the traditional system. Kids are ferocious learners.
Christ, they learn to walk and talk (to an extent) in less than three
years. Saying, "even a child could do it" is not really that good of
an argument. A lot tougher one would be, "even a fifty year old could
do it."
Ryan
> "Ryan" <ink...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dea39397.04080...@posting.google.com...
> > "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:<XCwQc.522$721...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> >
> >
> > You are right, an 88 note stave would not work, what we need is less
> > staves lines and more abstract symbols. What we should do is present
> > only one stave line, and have about four or five new symbols that will
> > actually tell us the pitch of the note to be played.
>
> Ryan, did you know that that's already been done, and it was found
> insufficient at spome point?
>
> In fact, early notation didn't even use staff lines! you should really check
> this out:
> http://www.intelligirldesign.com/literature/musicsymbol.pdf
>
> There's also shape note singing notation, see here:
>
> http://fasola.org/introduction/note_shapes.html
Unfortunatly, sarcasm is very hard to display in text. I thought the
;) symbol would help clue everyone in.
Charlton Wilbur
R> If I start thinking about styles and models and etc, I
R> know I am listening with my brain and not with my ears, which
R> is a bad thing, and something which I hope we all try to fight.
You mean I have to *choose* between listening with my brain and
listening with my ears? Oh the horror, I have been doing it wrong for
years.
Ryan
> Maybe you just haven't found Debussy's goal yet. Keep listening,
> patiently. Most important--don't assume that you already know all
> the possibilities that Debussy may have in mind.
> > Yes, but Mozart *does* eventually get somewhere. I couldn't finish
> > "If on a winter's night a traveler" for the same reason.
>
> Interesting comparison! Do you know Mozart's D Minor Fantasy (the C minor
> one would do almost as well)? If I had to think of a musical analogy for
> Calvino's novel, I don't think I could do better than the Mozart.
No I haven't heard it, but I will make a point to now. I must admit
to not be being the biggest Mozart fan. I lean more towards
Beethoven. Mozart always seemed a bit, what my Russian friend Joe
called, "froofy." Kind of like a miniture poodle. [Ducks and covers]
Still, I can certainly respect his genius, and his adagio for his
Piano concerto in A major (k 488) ranks among my most favourites. And
the Turkish March? Man, fo-ghed-a-boud-it!
> >
> > It's bigger than the meter, or the harmony, or the melody. Think more
> > macro. I'm talking about the placement and the reasons for existence
> > of 8-32 bar sections. (Or roughly, about the span between
> > modulations, save the very rapid changes.)
>
> Hmm. This sounds very suspiciously like the Germanic thinking I referred
> to earlier--specifically, like Riemann's "Vierhebigkeit" principle of historical
> development.
Well, I am of German heritage, could very well be. I'm not farmiliar
with this idea specifically. Maybe it is in fact very in line with my
thinking. Could you tell me a little more about it?
Jerry Kohl
> Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<41157864...@comcast.net>...
>
> > Maybe you just haven't found Debussy's goal yet. Keep listening,
> > patiently. Most important--don't assume that you already know all
> > the possibilities that Debussy may have in mind.
>
> > > Yes, but Mozart *does* eventually get somewhere. I couldn't finish
> > > "If on a winter's night a traveler" for the same reason.
> >
> > Interesting comparison! Do you know Mozart's D Minor Fantasy (the C minor
> > one would do almost as well)? If I had to think of a musical analogy for
> > Calvino's novel, I don't think I could do better than the Mozart.
>
> No I haven't heard it, but I will make a point to now. I must admit
> to not be being the biggest Mozart fan. I lean more towards
> Beethoven. Mozart always seemed a bit, what my Russian friend Joe
> called, "froofy." Kind of like a miniture poodle. [Ducks and covers]
Mm. Not the Mozart I know, but then, your mileage will vary. Still, I
think you are in for a very big treat with the D minor and C minor
Fantasies. They are utterly mad (in the most attractive possible way!).
> Still, I can certainly respect his genius, and his adagio for his
> Piano concerto in A major (k 488) ranks among my most favourites.
Mine too.
> And
> the Turkish March? Man, fo-ghed-a-boud-it!
Mozart could be light and frivolous, too--and witty along with it.
> > > It's bigger than the meter, or the harmony, or the melody. Think more
> > > macro. I'm talking about the placement and the reasons for existence
> > > of 8-32 bar sections. (Or roughly, about the span between
> > > modulations, save the very rapid changes.)
> >
> > Hmm. This sounds very suspiciously like the Germanic thinking I referred
> > to earlier--specifically, like Riemann's "Vierhebigkeit" principle of historical
> > development.
>
> Well, I am of German heritage, could very well be. I'm not farmiliar
> with this idea specifically. Maybe it is in fact very in line with my
> thinking. Could you tell me a little more about it?
The idea is that throughout all history music was "tending toward fourness",
and that examples of triple time or irregular patterns (six-bar phrases
and so on) had to be seen as deviations from a norm. In other words, these
early "primitive" compositions simply hadn't gotten the hang of things yet,
as their later descendents (the German classical/romantic repertory) would
represent. This led Riemann (amongst other things) to distort his readings
of 13th-century modal-rhythmic theory, in order to make it fit a duple-time
model, and to try to force the subtle and often complicated phrase structures
of troubador/trouvčre music into "normal" four-bar or eight-bar phrases--
a very Procrustean operation. Here is a brief reference:
<www.mc.edu/campus/users/sclater/ Music%20417%20The%20Phrase%20Chapter%202.doc>
And here is a slightly longer and more specific one:
<www.troubadours.vaninedit.com/chapter_I.html>
Dr.Matt
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "R" == Ryan <ink...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> R> If I start thinking about styles and models and etc, I
> R> know I am listening with my brain and not with my ears, which
> R> is a bad thing, and something which I hope we all try to fight.
>
>You mean I have to *choose* between listening with my brain and
>listening with my ears? Oh the horror, I have been doing it wrong for
>years.
>
>Charlton
At least you don't have to do it like the character Sarah in
Children of a Lesser God and listen through your nose.
Joey Goldstein
>
> Easy question. After you have modulated back to C, the modulation is
> complete, and you feel like declaring the piece is back in C via a key
> signature, what would you notate on the score? After all, C has no
> sharps or flats and therefore, no real key signature. I'm sure there
> must be something that could be put there.
In all of this thread I can't see that anyone has answered your question yet.
The way that a modulation to C major or A minor from some other key is
established is by using natural signs to negate the prior key's sharps
or flats.
For example:
In treble clef, if you have been in the key of Bb major and you are
modulating to C major, at the end of the final measure of the Bb section
you would place natural signs on the 3rd line (Bb's become B naturals)
and the 4th space (Eb's become E naturals).
Etc.
As to why there are no satisfying Tonal cadences in much of Debussy
that's because much of Debussy is not Tonal music. From time to time he
might be using Tonality and he might decide to not use a final cadence
as an effect. To writers of Debussy's time and later Tonality itself was
seen as an effect, an effect that they could choose to exploit or not
exploit. IMO The more surprises in music the better. When you expect
something to happen and it doesn't, because what you expected is
replaced by something else that has its own merits, well to me, that's a
good thing. Of course Tonal music depends on expectations being met,
most of the time, and deviations from those expectations have to be kept
to a minimum or the music loses its Tonal character.
As to why there are sharps and flats and clefs in traditional notation.
Clefs are used to make things easier, not harder. Eg. Tenor saxophone is
transposed up a maj 9th and guitar is transposed up an octave because if
they were written in concert key they would require a Grand Staff which
takes up much more room on a chart. Most transposing instruments are
written that way so that less paper can be used and so that there are a
minimum of leger lines necessary depending on the instrument's range.
Sharps and flats are still used because they are different *ideas*,
especially in tonal music. I.e. D# and Eb are not just a single key on a
piano or a single spot on a fretted stringed instrument, they are
different musical ideas, even when they have the exact same sound. When
you study traditional harmony and voice leading this will become
apparent to you. I.e. In Tonal music the correct spelling of a pitch is
paramount to how that pitch *functions* in the key.
And, as Matt is fond of pointing out, on non-keyboard or non-fretted
instruments, D# and Eb can be and are played as slightly different
pitches dcepending on the musical context.
You need to realize that the 12 tone equally tempered scale is only used
on 12 notes to the octave keyboards and 12 frets to the octave
fretboards, and that 12tet is a compromise, a subset of the possible
Tonal pallette. 12tet was invented so that keyboards could easily
modulate to any key at any time. The trade-off is that all intervals,
except for octaves, are slightly out-of-tune in 12tet. So all keys are
equally out-of-tune but still acceptable to the ear.
Now as far as non Tonal forms of music are concerned many composers will
use no key signature (i.e. no sharps or flats) and the accidentals will
be just sharps (no flats) or just flats (no sharps), or if it makes it
easier to read for the players they'll use both sharps and flats
according to the individual situation.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Tom Korth
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:4117AFB4...@nowhere.net...
>
> In all of this thread I can't see that anyone has answered your question
yet.
>
> The way that a modulation to C major or A minor from some other key is
> established is by using natural signs to negate the prior key's sharps
> or flats.
>
change of key signature? A tonal center is established aurally (V7-I
cadence, etc.), not visually, especially as the practice in both jazz &
classical tonal music is to not change signatures for relatively brief
modulations.
My point is that since notation normally consists of the instructions for
producing sound, modulations cannot be established in the notation, only in
the sounding music.
Tom
Bob Pease
"Tom Korth" <tkorth...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_MidncRKOfv...@comcast.com...
agreed.
Another way of saying this is that the Key *signature* sets the stage for
easier notation and Solfeggio reading, when and if the modulation is
established by accepted means.
An outstanding example is in Pictures at an Exhibition ( Great Gate of Kiev)
double flats are used a lot rather than to try to sign the easier key but
with melodically confusing enharmonics to a player who was trying to think
in intervals and modes.
Bartok sometimes signs C Minor with one flat (Eb). ( or D minor with one
Sharp.)
From a matter of efficiency , if the intent is melodic minor, this avoids
having to put naturals in front of A and B .
For folks who always think of "one flat = F or Dminor" this is confusing.
Rj P
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.661 / Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 4/19/04
Joey Goldstein
True enough.
I just meant that the key change is established *in the notation* in the
manner that I detailed.