Not really composing
Bonnie Granat
but I don't know what the technical explanation is for what I'm doing. I
know this question is very vague. Let me put it this way: I have phrases
that sound like Bach might have written on a bad day. No. Phrases that Bach
would never have written, but that sound like Bach to me. What is it that I
am doing?
--
Bonnie Granat
Granat Technical Editing and Writing
http://www.editors-writers.info
Roni Liebenson
"Bonnie Granat" <bgr...@editors-writers.info> wrote in message
news:3f9a...@andromeda.5sc.net...
> I'm not really composing, but I'm just playing around with Bach-like
sounds,
> but I don't know what the technical explanation is for what I'm doing. I
> know this question is very vague. Let me put it this way: I have phrases
> that sound like Bach might have written on a bad day. No. Phrases that
Bach
> would never have written, but that sound like Bach to me. What is it that
I
> am doing?
Bonnie,
You're improvising (or maybe composing) in Bach's style, or what you may
think Bach's style was.
Roni.
http://liebenson.com
Bonnie Granat
"Roni Liebenson" <r...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:bnehju$596$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru...
Hi, Roni,
Thanks for responding. What I mean is, "What *technical* harmonic things am
I doing?" I am trying to analyze it, but I'm not sure if I'm correct. In
fact, I am sure that I am wrong. The notes seem to want to go somewhere:
sometimes it's to this degree of a scale, sometimes to another, sometimes
major, sometimes minor, sometimes maybe diminished. I don't know what it is,
but it looks like a whole lotta V-I's stacked on one another, with scalar
passages connecting them.
Charles-Emmanuel
>I'm not really composing, but I'm just playing around with Bach-like sounds,
>but I don't know what the technical explanation is for what I'm doing. I
>know this question is very vague. Let me put it this way: I have phrases
>that sound like Bach might have written on a bad day. No. Phrases that Bach
>would never have written, but that sound like Bach to me. What is it that I
>am doing?
The exact term is noodle. Like in "I was noodling Bach at the keyboard when I
suddenly decided to write the rmc FAQ".
Roni Liebenson
> > > I'm not really composing, but I'm just playing around with Bach-like
> > sounds,
> > > but I don't know what the technical explanation is for what I'm doing.
> >
> > You're improvising (or maybe composing) in Bach's style, or what you may
> > think Bach's style was.
> >
>
>
> Thanks for responding. What I mean is, "What *technical* harmonic things
am
> I doing?" I am trying to analyze it, but I'm not sure if I'm correct. In
> fact, I am sure that I am wrong. The notes seem to want to go somewhere:
> sometimes it's to this degree of a scale, sometimes to another, sometimes
> major, sometimes minor, sometimes maybe diminished. I don't know what it
is,
> but it looks like a whole lotta V-I's stacked on one another, with scalar
> passages connecting them.
>
Bonnie, are you talking about the golden sequence? Like
i-iv-VII-III-VI-ii(dim)-V-i? Bach used it almost in every composition, as
did most composers of all times, and still do.
Roni.
http://liebenson.com
Bonnie Granat
I have no clue. Every time I watch what I'm doing, I get confused, because
sometimes I think it's a I when it's really a iv. I will see if that
sequence sounds like what I'm doing. Thanks, Roni.
On a slightly other subject, I think there is something very important about
chromatic steps, but I'm not sure what it is. It seems that one can modulate
to another tonal center by playing a "wrong" note in the current key that's
a semitone away from a right one.
Dr.Matt
Bonnie Granat <bgr...@editors-writers.info> wrote:
>I'm not really composing, but I'm just playing around with Bach-like sounds,
>but I don't know what the technical explanation is for what I'm doing. I
>know this question is very vague. Let me put it this way: I have phrases
>that sound like Bach might have written on a bad day. No. Phrases that Bach
>would never have written, but that sound like Bach to me. What is it that I
>am doing?
The usual word is "pastiche".
If you play through the 371 Choral Preludes at the keyboard, you'll soon
intuit how to really do the sort of thing he did, in which every note
is part of a melody and most notes are participating in chords at the same time.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Dr.Matt
That's called the diatonic circle of fifths.
The Golden Sequence is still 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 where
S[0]=0, S[1]=1, else S[N]=S[N-1]+S[N-2]. It appears in the music
of Bartok and others.
Bonnie Granat
Yup, I'm definitely using those chords, and I think a few others. I'm trying
to get it down so I can post an MP3, but I'm getting stuck due to not
knowing what I'm doing and not recognizing where I am when it sounds right!
I'm always getting befuddled by the i and iii being so much alike and I
don't know which is which most of the time.
Bonnie Granat
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:fEAmb.4109$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu...
I do not understand this.
Roni Liebenson
> >Bonnie, are you talking about the golden sequence? Like
> >i-iv-VII-III-VI-ii(dim)-V-i? Bach used it almost in every composition, as
> >did most composers of all times, and still do.
> >
>
> That's called the diatonic circle of fifths.
>
> The Golden Sequence is still 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 where
> S[0]=0, S[1]=1, else S[N]=S[N-1]+S[N-2]. It appears in the music
> of Bartok and others.
>
Yes, you're right about Fibonacci numbers, (and they certainly appear much
more in music than you think), but I was talking about the musical term
"golden sequence", which indeed is the diatonic circle of fifths.
Roni.
http://liebenson.com
Dr.Matt
That's part of it, certainly. The most commonly used "wrong" note is #4,
which is the leading tone of the key of the dominant.
Bonnie Granat
http://www.editors-writers.info/102503.mp3 faster - It's 445 KB.
You might want to download the above one because it's smaller.
http://www.editors-writers.info/102503A.mp3 slower - It's a lot bigger at
1MB (??)
You can hear where I get stuck in both of them. If I knew the principles of
what I was doing, then perhaps I could become unstuck.
Roni Liebenson
> > Bonnie, are you talking about the golden sequence? Like
> > i-iv-VII-III-VI-ii(dim)-V-i? Bach used it almost in every composition,
as
> > did most composers of all times, and still do.
> >
>
trying
> to get it down so I can post an MP3, but I'm getting stuck due to not
> knowing what I'm doing and not recognizing where I am when it sounds
right!
> I'm always getting befuddled by the i and iii being so much alike and I
> don't know which is which most of the time.
>
Bonnie,
In c-minor:
Cm - Fm - Bb - Eb - Ab - Ddim - G - Cm
Bach mostly used those _diatonic circles of fifths_ (which I called golden
sequence earlier) in their "original" construction. In his later
compositions, you can see increased use of it, especially with added 7
chords, e.g. Cm - Fm7 - Bb7 - Ebmaj7 - Abmaj7 - Ddim7 - G7 - Cm, each new
chord retaining a note from the previous chord (3rd becomes 7th). Mozart
used those a lot, especially in big compositions like concerti and sonatas,
even symphonies - but much less obviously than Bach did.
In classical terms, we can say that after we have heard a section of
concentrated material (e.g. the main theme), we need something to ease the
tension, and here is where the golden sequence comes in play.
Today, although not many contemporary classical composers use it so openly,
I'd say that about half of all pop songs have the sequence as the basis.
Roni.
http://liebenson.com
Roni Liebenson
> http://www.editors-writers.info/102503.mp3 faster - It's 445 KB.
>
> You might want to download the above one because it's smaller.
>
> http://www.editors-writers.info/102503A.mp3 slower - It's a lot bigger
at
> 1MB (??)
>
> You can hear where I get stuck in both of them. If I knew the principles
of
> what I was doing, then perhaps I could become unstuck.
>
Bonnie,
That's more Salieri-like than Bach-like, I'd say. But some elements are
Schubertian, e.g. the diminished octave in the 3rd bar, and the development
style. The descending chromatic bass reminds me of a piece by Mozart, but
don't forget that Frescobaldi already used such chromatisms, albeit as
themes and not continuo. Bach too wrote such progressions, have a listen to
his mass in B-minor - the composer's personal compilation of the best of his
past and new works.
There's a lot to learn just by listening, but what you're doing is very
important too, keep at it!
Roni.
http://liebenson.com
Bonnie Granat
Then I guess it's just trial and error until I learn more about theory,
isn't it? No clue as to what that next chord I'm fishing for is? LOL. I'll
find it somewhere.....
Dr.Matt
Each number is the sum of the last two.
This occurs anywhere in art or nature where pieces latch onto their neighbors
to build bigger pieces.
>--
>Bonnie Granat
>Granat Technical Editing and Writing
>http://www.editors-writers.info
>
Dr.Matt
Ah, we don't use that term "Golden Sequence" here as far as I know.
Bonnie Granat
embarrassment and take that file down, I guess. I know that a few people
downloaded the file. Don't be *kind* to me. Just please HELP. Surely you can
hear as well as I what's happening there....
Dr.Matt
Hmmm, yeah, There's a lot of ornamentation... Concentrate on the main
stuff, and try working through this stuff in slow, long notes
first. On the short file, where you got stuck is in a descending scale
in tenths, which sounded like the first step in a *descending*
*sequence* (a staircase made by repeating the music transposed down a
bit each time). It might have ended up in a different key than you
started, and that would get us listeners intrigued about how you were
going to get back.
I do suggest going through the Bach 371 Choral Preludes
(Riemannschneider's keyboard arrangements, available from e.g. Belwyn
Mills Music)--sightread one or two pieces a day, and after a while
your hands will begin to know the patterns. With a little bit of push,
you can get through the whole set in less than a year. :)
Dr.Matt
yup... there's definitely an *ascending* *sequence* just before
the *descending* one where you get stuck.
Bonnie Granat
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:lGEmb.4124$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> In article <3f9a...@andromeda.5sc.net>,
> Bonnie Granat <bgr...@editors-writers.info> wrote:
> >As an illustration, I've uploaded two MP3s to my site.
> >http://www.editors-writers.info/102503.mp3 faster - It's 445 KB.
> >
> >You might want to download the above one because it's smaller.
> >
> >http://www.editors-writers.info/102503A.mp3 slower - It's a lot bigger
at
> >1MB (??)
> >
> >You can hear where I get stuck in both of them. If I knew the principles
of
> >what I was doing, then perhaps I could become unstuck.
> >
> >--
> >Bonnie Granat
> >Granat Technical Editing and Writing
> >http://www.editors-writers.info
> >
>
> Hmmm, yeah, There's a lot of ornamentation... Concentrate on the main
> stuff, and try working through this stuff in slow, long notes
> first. On the short file, where you got stuck is in a descending scale
> in tenths, which sounded like the first step in a *descending*
> *sequence* (a staircase made by repeating the music transposed down a
> bit each time). It might have ended up in a different key than you
> started, and that would get us listeners intrigued about how you were
> going to get back.
Tenths? I got further with it a few minutes ago, and I see that it can go
in a variety of directions, actually.
> I do suggest going through the Bach 371 Choral Preludes
> (Riemannschneider's keyboard arrangements, available from e.g. Belwyn
> Mills Music)--sightread one or two pieces a day, and after a while
> your hands will begin to know the patterns. With a little bit of push,
> you can get through the whole set in less than a year. :)
>
I have that. So you're saying that I'll spot the particular harmony that I
tried here and then learn what it is, plus lots more, eh?
Thanks, Matt. I appreciate your taking the time.
Mark Steven Brooks
chromatic steps, but I'm not sure what it is. It seems that one can modulate
to another tonal center by playing a "wrong" note in the current key that's
a semitone away from a right one. >>
I think this person knows more than they are letting on.
elat...@aol.com (Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)
Bonnie Granat
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
> I do suggest going through the Bach 371 Choral Preludes
> (Riemannschneider's keyboard arrangements, available from e.g. Belwyn
> Mills Music)--sightread one or two pieces a day, and after a while
> your hands will begin to know the patterns. With a little bit of push,
> you can get through the whole set in less than a year. :)
>
>
Ach. Now I remember why I don't work with the chorales. I have small hands
and I cannot reach TENTHS in the left hand. Then figuring out how to play
the darn things by trying to put the tenor voice into the right hand takes
my mind off what I am trying to do. Any ideas. Maybe I should just drop the
tenor part? What? Grrr.
Mark Steven Brooks
S[0]=0, S[1]=1, else S[N]=S[N-1]+S[N-2]. It appears in the music
of Bartok and others. >>
Most notably Stockhausen.
Bonnie Granat
"Mark Steven Brooks" <elat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031025210522...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Nope. If you heard it, you heard it. ; )
Roni Liebenson
> >Yes, you're right about Fibonacci numbers, (and they certainly appear
much
> >more in music than you think), but I was talking about the musical term
> >"golden sequence", which indeed is the diatonic circle of fifths.
> >
>
>
Certainly "golden mean" is used, although in its *actual* meaning..
Actually, the term "golden sequence" is widely used in music terminology in
slovanic languages, and I personally find it pretty descriptive of what's
happening in the music: it's something that's endured for long enough to be
justly called golden.
Regards,
Roni.
http://liebenson.com
Roni Liebenson
about
> >chromatic steps, but I'm not sure what it is. It seems that one can
modulate
> >to another tonal center by playing a "wrong" note in the current key
that's
> >a semitone away from a right one.
>
> That's part of it, certainly. The most commonly used "wrong" note is #4,
> which is the leading tone of the key of the dominant.
>
That's right. And the other most commonly used "wrong" note is b7 which
might bring us to the subdominant.
(One may rightly say that such a progression isn't as convincing, but the
same can be said for a simple I-ii#3-V. In both cases, some establishment is
needed, e.g. in the key of A: A-A7-D-Em/G-D/A-A7-D)
Matt, help me out here please: how do you spell that out ^^ correctly using
your notation? Using the notation here in Russia it would be something along
the lines of:
A: I Ib7 IV
D: V7 I II6 I6/4 V7 I
Regards,
Roni.
http://liebenson.com
Dr.Matt
Bonnie Granat <bgr...@editors-writers.info> wrote:
>
>"Dr.Matt" <fie...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
>
>> I do suggest going through the Bach 371 Choral Preludes
>> (Riemannschneider's keyboard arrangements, available from e.g. Belwyn
>> Mills Music)--sightread one or two pieces a day, and after a while
>> your hands will begin to know the patterns. With a little bit of push,
>> you can get through the whole set in less than a year. :)
>>
>>
>
>Ach. Now I remember why I don't work with the chorales. I have small hands
>and I cannot reach TENTHS in the left hand. Then figuring out how to play
>the darn things by trying to put the tenor voice into the right hand takes
>my mind off what I am trying to do. Any ideas. Maybe I should just drop the
>tenor part? What? Grrr.
>
1) You don't need to put tenths in the left hand--usually they're between
the soprano and the bass.
2) Try normally playing the soprano, alto, and tenor in the right hand,
and letting the tenor shift hands when you must.
3) Take your time--after a few attempts at several of these, it will get easier.
4) Consider using a smaller keyboard, if the size of your hands is really
a problem.
Dr.Matt
Roni Liebenson <r...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>> >Yes, you're right about Fibonacci numbers, (and they certainly appear
>much
>> >more in music than you think), but I was talking about the musical term
>> >"golden sequence", which indeed is the diatonic circle of fifths.
>> >
>>
>> Ah, we don't use that term "Golden Sequence" here as far as I know.
>>
>
>Certainly "golden mean" is used, although in its *actual* meaning..
Again, for (-1+Sqrt(5))/2, the limit of ratios of adjacent terms in
the Fibonacci sequence.
>Actually, the term "golden sequence" is widely used in music terminology in
>slovanic languages, and I personally find it pretty descriptive of what's
>happening in the music: it's something that's endured for long enough to be
>justly called golden.
Okay, we'll have to keep that in mind.
>Regards,
>Roni.
>http://liebenson.com
Dr.Matt
Roni Liebenson <r...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> >On a slightly other subject, I think there is something very important
>about
>> >chromatic steps, but I'm not sure what it is. It seems that one can
>modulate
>> >to another tonal center by playing a "wrong" note in the current key
>that's
>> >a semitone away from a right one.
>>
>> That's part of it, certainly. The most commonly used "wrong" note is #4,
>> which is the leading tone of the key of the dominant.
>>
>
>That's right. And the other most commonly used "wrong" note is b7 which
>might bring us to the subdominant.
>(One may rightly say that such a progression isn't as convincing, but the
>same can be said for a simple I-ii#3-V. In both cases, some establishment is
>needed, e.g. in the key of A: A-A7-D-Em/G-D/A-A7-D)
In one common notation here, we'd write ii#3 as II.
>Matt, help me out here please: how do you spell that out ^^ correctly using
>your notation? Using the notation here in Russia it would be something along
>the lines of:
>A: I Ib7 IV
> D: V7 I II6 I6/4 V7 I
Since the I in A is already compatible with the key of D, we'd start
the key of D there. Much as you identify the main key with a letter,
you can identify the subsidiary key with a function relative to the
main key. The usual requirement for an interpolation from another key
is that it must begin and end consonant to the next higher up key, and
thus serve as an elaboration of an ordinary motion in the previous key.
In my dialect, we would not show such a beast as Ib7, but we *could* if
we wished label the very last chord as IV in the home key, although that's
already shown by the label of the subsidiary key.
A: I IV
7
6-5
IV: V 7 I ii6 V4-3 I
The other slight difference in my dialect is that 4-3 is treated
as a *contrapuntal* detail (the resolution of the fourth above the bass
downwards by step) within a single chord, rather than a harmonic detail.
>Regards,
>Roni.
>http://liebenson.com
Roni Liebenson
>
> A: I IV
>
> 7
> 6-5
> IV: V 7 I ii6 V4-3 I
>
Thanks Matt, and how do you label the A-A-D-F# chord in D major? I'm used to
I6-4, or K6-4, or just K - if it comes right before the dominant.
Roni.
http://liebenson.com
Bonnie Granat
> In article <3f9b...@andromeda.5sc.net>,
> Bonnie Granat <bgr...@editors-writers.info> wrote:
> >
> >"Dr.Matt" <fie...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
> >
> >> I do suggest going through the Bach 371 Choral Preludes
> >> (Riemannschneider's keyboard arrangements, available from e.g. Belwyn
> >> Mills Music)--sightread one or two pieces a day, and after a while
> >> your hands will begin to know the patterns. With a little bit of push,
> >> you can get through the whole set in less than a year. :)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Ach. Now I remember why I don't work with the chorales. I have small
hands
> >and I cannot reach TENTHS in the left hand. Then figuring out how to play
> >the darn things by trying to put the tenor voice into the right hand
takes
> >my mind off what I am trying to do. Any ideas. Maybe I should just drop
the
> >tenor part? What? Grrr.
> >
>
> 1) You don't need to put tenths in the left hand--usually they're between
> the soprano and the bass.
True, some are not as bad as others; some are impossible with any
configuration.
> 2) Try normally playing the soprano, alto, and tenor in the right hand,
> and letting the tenor shift hands when you must.
Yes, that's probably the best solution.
> 3) Take your time--after a few attempts at several of these, it will get
easier.
They're so gorgeous!
> 4) Consider using a smaller keyboard, if the size of your hands is really
> a problem.
>
I can reach a minor ninth -- I don't think they make *real* keyboards that
are smaller, and at any rate I'm not able to make any additional financial
outlays.
Dr.Matt
Roni Liebenson <r...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> A: I IV
>>
>> 7
>> 6-5
>> IV: V 7 I ii6 V4-3 I
>>
>
>Thanks Matt, and how do you label the A-A-D-F# chord in D major? I'm used to
>I6-4, or K6-4, or just K - if it comes right before the dominant.
6
I4 occurs rarely, usually as a result of the bass arpeggiating.
Most of the time, what you're calling A-D-F# in D major only occurs as
appogiaturas to A C# E in D major. It's not a chord in its own right.
Roni Liebenson
to
> >I6-4, or K6-4, or just K - if it comes right before the dominant.
>
> 6
> I4 occurs rarely, usually as a result of the bass arpeggiating.
>
> Most of the time, what you're calling A-D-F# in D major only occurs as
> appogiaturas to A C# E in D major. It's not a chord in its own right.
>
Sure, it was used as appogiaturas since the times of Palestrina through
perhaps Bach. But then on it became a chord in its own right. I'm inclined
to call it the "cadenza" chord. In the 18th century it became so widely used
as the chord following the double-dominant -
- (or secondary dominant you may call it), i.e. ii#3(b) or iv#1 (and
iv#1dim7) or iv#1b3, and rarely ii#1b5(b), e.g. in the key of C: F# A C D or
F# A C E (and F# A C Eb) or F# Ab C Eb (or F# Ab C D#, depending whether it
was C major or C minor in the first place). These all nicely resolve to G G
C E (or G G C Eb), with F# and A and Ab always going to G, and D going to E
(or Eb), and D# always going to E, and Eb almost always staying at Eb. This
is what I call K(6/4), i.e. I(c) or i(c) - third inversion. In classical
harmony it either resolves to the dominant (or dominant seventh), it may go
back to the double dominant (which may then enharmonically go somewhere
else, thus not actually returning the dominant of the original key), or it
may just hang there indicating a cadenza is to be played by the soloist of a
concerto, say, or a serenade. At the end of the cadenza there is _usually_ a
final K(6/4) again, resolving to the dominant, and with a trill resolving
down to the tonic, where the orchestra may come in to say the last word,
etc. -
- that the romantics built whole new ideas from it. Remember the beginning
of Verdi's Requiem...Schubert's 9th symphony, etc.
Interestingly, today's non-classical music (i.e. pop, rock, etc.) ignores
this important chord almost completely. Perhaps it's due to the increased
use of very loud low bass, which sounds out of place when used in 6/4
chords...or maybe people have forgotten that a chord can have other bass
than root...
Regards,
Roni.
http://liebenson.com
Dr.Matt
Interestingly enough, the cadenza situation you cited is almost always
a prolongation of a 4-3 suspension.
Roni Liebenson
> Interestingly enough, the cadenza situation you cited is almost always
> a prolongation of a 4-3 suspension.
Perhaps only formally. Musically, it has become an independent chord, an
independent colour if you like, and with its own independent associations
and figurativeness.
And while, formally, it might seem like a prolongation of such a suspension
at the beg. of 18th cen., by mid. 19th - it is a completely different chord
with new expressive powers. I'm sorry, but I can't really explain what I
mean, I don't have the right vocabulary...
Roni.
http://liebenson.com
Dr.Matt
knud
>don't know which is which most of the time.
In some situations depending on inversion, texture and melody, i can be
subjectively heard aurally as iii and vice-versa. Many chords can be
interchanged freely, depending on effect desired but this doesn't come to the
fore so much until the romantics. Sometimes a iii ends up sounding like a i
with an added 7th even if it's not technically.
blahblah
ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
EVERYONE CREATES IN A VACUUM!
knud
>compositions, you can see increased use of it, especially with added 7
>chords, e.g. Cm - Fm7 - Bb7 - Ebmaj7 - Abmaj7 - Ddim7 - G7 - Cm, each new
>chord retaining a note from the previous chord (3rd becomes 7th). Mozart
>used those a lot, especially in big compositions like concerti and sonatas,
>even symphonies -
Lesser composers than Mozart have abused it badly with a resulting cheesy
shop-worn effect.
knud
>isn't it?
Keep in mind that the theory is meaningless without aural equivelents in
mind. For this reason repeated listening and analysis may be a good excercise,
judging by your description of your compositional approach. Even if you only
force yourself through detailed analysis of one Bach piece you will have
learned a lot about theory.
Mark Steven Brooks
EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!>>
There are certainly degrees of originality.
The above sounds like a rationalization for someone
who knows their music is unoriginal.
Bonnie Granat
> <<ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
> EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!>>
>
> There are certainly degrees of originality.
>
> The above sounds like a rationalization for someone
> who knows their music is unoriginal.
>
It seems hard to be "original," and every time I try to improvise in the
classical style, it sounds trite.
<sob>
--
Bonnie Granat
Granat Technical Editing and Writing
Tony T. Warnock
knud wrote:
Is a randomly generated piece of music random if one note is changed? Loop.
knud
>
>The above sounds like a rationalization for someone
>who knows their music is unoriginal.
The above sounds like a rationalization for someone who takes usenet sigs
far too seriously.
blahblah
ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
knud
Original and good are not neccesarily synonymous. Brahms wrote some good
stuff even if he didn't practice flagrant originality. Not everything has to be
radical and "new". At this point in music history, the reliance on "sound
effects" and novelty has lost it's appeal for many. Now the meat seems to take
center stage again. Novelty is only good in a meaty context. Novelty for it's
own sake has spawned endless orchestral works with xylophone obbligato. Excuse
me while I yawn.
blahblah
ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
Samuel Vriezen
>>It seems hard to be "original,"
>
>
> Original and good are not neccesarily synonymous. Brahms wrote some good
> stuff even if he didn't practice flagrant originality. Not everything has to be
> radical and "new".
But new works do have to be new.
> At this point in music history, the reliance on "sound
> effects" and novelty has lost it's appeal for many. Now the meat seems to take
> center stage again. Novelty is only good in a meaty context. Novelty for it's
> own sake has spawned endless orchestral works with xylophone obbligato. Excuse
> me while I yawn.
Any value can serve as an excuse for bad music. But I can't see how one
can tire of newness. It seems almost logically impossible. Unless the
definition of new would be having a xylophone, but that's not the case.
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
Dr.Matt
Since xylophones have been around for something like a thousand
years, I don't see how it could be the case.
Steve Layton
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.doesnt...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3fa7ff0f$0$58712$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> knud wrote:
> >>It seems hard to be "original,"
> >
> >
> > Original and good are not neccesarily synonymous. Brahms wrote some
good
> > stuff even if he didn't practice flagrant originality. Not everything
has to be
> > radical and "new".
>
> But new works do have to be new.
*Will* be new, guaranteed. Just as every performance is a new performance,
whether a Rihm premiere, or the umpteenth time that Mozart sonata's on the
program.
>
> > At this point in music history, the reliance on "sound
> > effects" and novelty has lost it's appeal for many. Now the meat seems
to take
> > center stage again. Novelty is only good in a meaty context. Novelty for
it's
> > own sake has spawned endless orchestral works with xylophone obbligato.
Excuse
> > me while I yawn.
>
> Any value can serve as an excuse for bad music. But I can't see how one
> can tire of newness. It seems almost logically impossible. Unless the
> definition of new would be having a xylophone, but that's not the case.
It's not so much a question of newness, I think, as much as a question of
familiarity, and that's inseparable with personal affinities and tolerances
each person has for both familiarity and unfamiliarity.
--
Steve Layton
http://www.ampcast.com/stevelayton
For the sounds of music being made worldwide *today*
pay a visit to "NetNewMusic": www.netnewmusic.net
Bonnie Granat
"knud" <symp...@aol.comblahblah> wrote in message
news:20031104133827...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> >It seems hard to be "original,"
>
> Original and good are not neccesarily synonymous. Brahms wrote some
good
> stuff even if he didn't practice flagrant originality. Not everything has
to be
> radical and "new". At this point in music history, the reliance on "sound
> effects" and novelty has lost it's appeal for many. Now the meat seems to
take
> center stage again. Novelty is only good in a meaty context. Novelty for
it's
> own sake has spawned endless orchestral works with xylophone obbligato.
Excuse
> me while I yawn.
>
>
Obviously, I was not equating originality with novelty for novelty's sake
when I wrote:
It seems hard to be "original," and every time I try to improvise in the
classical style, it sounds trite.
Knud, do you see the term "classical style," there? Do you see the words
"radical" or "new"? Neither do I.
Samuel Vriezen
>>Any value can serve as an excuse for bad music. But I can't see how one
>>can tire of newness. It seems almost logically impossible. Unless the
>>definition of new would be having a xylophone, but that's not the case.
>
>
> It's not so much a question of newness, I think, as much as a question of
> familiarity, and that's inseparable with personal affinities and tolerances
> each person has for both familiarity and unfamiliarity.
I like to think there's something else behind it all, too. Why is it
that I can hear a Beethoven piece for the first time, or anytime after
that, and think it can't grow old, and hear another piece of classical
music for the first time and think it was never new?
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
knud
>can tire of newness. It seems almost logically impossible.
One can tire of newness for newness sake easily. So maybe you do that one
wind doubling that nobody has done before. Who cares if the music sucks? Who
cares about your "shocking" new Glockenspiel technique of picking the thing up
and banging it on you rhead to produce "radical new sonorites". So what if your
melodic line reaches for some "strange forbidden interval". It's all boring
without inspiration behind it. Besides, todays novelty is tommorows tired
cliche. People have seeked out artistic success using trombone glissandos and
xylophone obbligato, forgetting to work on the music in the process. It's still
happening, more than ever.
>But new works do have to be new.
What constitutes "new" great master? There is nothing stopping you or
anyone from producing a work of genius in the key of Cmajor. Personally I won't
disregard art simply based on it's style. If so I would listen to pop music.
The whole idea behind "art" music for me is that it transcends trends and
styles of it's era of production.
knud
>years, I don't see how it could be the case.
So have all the other instruments, so how can anything be "new"? According
to Samuel, nothing is new yet it has to be new. How does that work? Sure you
can work with microtones and computers, but even there it's hardly "new" at
this point.
knud
>whether a Rihm premiere, or the umpteenth time that Mozart sonata's on the
>program.
Hence my signature.
knud
>that I can hear a Beethoven piece for the first time, or anytime after
>that, and think it can't grow old, and hear another piece of classical
>music for the first time and think it was never new?
I thought you just said music had to be "new" to be interesting?
With Beethoven you're experiencing the timeless power that exists despite
the formal conventions he was writing in.
knud
>"radical" or "new"? Neither do I.
Sorry if I missed something but what are you talking about?
Steve Layton
"knud" <symp...@aol.comblahblah> wrote in message
But while it's fine in some sense to say all music is new (even if *no* note
is changed), it's *not* to say all music is original. Very different thing,
that. And neither could possibly lead to the conclusion that "everyone
creates in a vacuum".
--
Steve Layton
http://www.ampcast.com/stevelayton
For the sounds of music being made worldwide *today*
pay a visit to "NetNewMusic": www.netnewmusic.net
Virtual Orchestrators: http://www.niwo.com/orch/index.html
Steve Layton
"knud" <symp...@aol.comblahblah> wrote in message
>
> One can tire of newness for newness sake easily. So maybe you do that
one
> wind doubling that nobody has done before. Who cares if the music sucks?
Who
> cares about your "shocking" new Glockenspiel technique of picking the
thing up
your
> melodic line reaches for some "strange forbidden interval". It's all
boring
> without inspiration behind it.
Of course (though "inspiration" is a pretty meaningless term to describe
what's happening, just plonked down there like that). But each of the
musical/sonic effects you mention don't in any way lose their potential or
value for contributing to a great piece of music.
> Besides, todays novelty is tommorows tired
> cliche. People have seeked out artistic success using trombone glissandos
and
> xylophone obbligato, forgetting to work on the music in the process. It's
still
> happening, more than ever.
There are many composers who use those or other techniques regularly in
their work, but I'd be hard pressed to think of any who forget "to work on
the music in the process". The piece can be bad, or stunning. There's some
undertone in your arguments, that seems to sound like your personal dislike
of them, no matter the quality of the piece of music they showed up in.
Dr.Matt
knud <symp...@aol.comblahblah> wrote:
>>Since xylophones have been around for something like a thousand
>>years, I don't see how it could be the case.
>
> So have all the other instruments, so how can anything be "new"? According
>to Samuel, nothing is new yet it has to be new. How does that work? Sure you
>can work with microtones and computers, but even there it's hardly "new" at
>this point.
Granular synthesis techniques have only been around for about 25 years,
of course.
>blahblah
>ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
> EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
> EVERYONE CREATES IN A VACUUM!
Personally, I concentrate on quality and distinctness: changing just one
note or paraphrasing a known work tends to lead to a work which will be
received as a pale shadow of the known work, whereas merely avoiding
known stuff isn't enough of a principle in itself to interest me.
Steve Layton
"knud" <symp...@aol.comblahblah> wrote in message
>
> With Beethoven you're experiencing the timeless power that exists
despite
> the formal conventions he was writing in.
Ouch, "timless power" is another of those really vague and virtually
meaningless descriptors again. And why is it *despite* the "formal
conventions he was writing in"?
Steve Layton
> Steve Layton wrote:
>
> > It's not so much a question of newness, I think, as much as a question
of
> > familiarity, and that's inseparable with personal affinities and
tolerances
> > each person has for both familiarity and unfamiliarity.
>
> I like to think there's something else behind it all, too. Why is it
> that I can hear a Beethoven piece for the first time, or anytime after
> that, and think it can't grow old, and hear another piece of classical
> music for the first time and think it was never new?
Right, exactly. But that quality isn't even close to being universal, or
even stable within the life of a single person.
--
Steve Layton
http://www.ampcast.com/stevelayton
For the sounds of music being made worldwide *today*
pay a visit to "NetNewMusic": www.netnewmusic.net
Virtual Orchestrators: http://www.niwo.com/orch/index.html
knud
>what's happening, just plonked down there like that). But each of the
>musical/sonic effects you mention don't in any way lose their potential or
>value for contributing to a great piece of music.
Of course not. That is what I am arguing. It's not the sword but the one
who wields it.
>There's some
>undertone in your arguments, that seems to sound like your personal dislike
>of them, no matter the quality of the piece of music they showed up in.
Unjustified reading between the lines in this case! I use every potentially
tacky instrumental device I can think of in my own scores. I'll use every
glissando you can think of, including skin flute and butt bugle glissandos if I
need to! But I think really hard before using such well-worn devices. But you
know how it is, sometimes an idea just *needs* that 'bone pull-up to work.
knud
>known stuff isn't enough of a principle in itself to interest me.
The principle of "merely avoiding known stuff" guided an entire era of
composers at one time. Of course some were good enough to make good music while
pursuing the un-pursued.
knud
>is changed), it's *not* to say all music is original.
It's not a real scientific question anyway, getting as it does into the
realm of personal taste and all. Berlioz is more obviously original than
Brahms, does that make him better? It comes down to opinion. Lucky for me I
don't have an opinion on such matters since I take pieces/composers on their
own terms.
>And neither could possibly lead to the conclusion that "everyone
>creates in a vacuum".
You know, that sig is just a silly reaction to the heated claims of
"NOTHING IS ORIGINAL, ALL ART COMES FROM ARTISTS BEFORE 100% YOU ARE JUST
REARRANGING WHAT YOU HAVE ABSORBED FROM THEE PHONEEEGRAPH AND THEE FUN FUN
SCOREY PAPER WITH THEE FIVE BLACK LINES! WHEEEE!" that crop up around here from
time to time. I just put an equally extremist but opposite point of view in my
sig to maybe level things out a little.
knud
>meaningless descriptors again. And why is it *despite* the "formal
>conventions he was writing in"?
OK, fine, "because of the conventions". It concerns me none. I just really
enjoy the music and to me it doesn't sound like the antiquated noodlings of the
past but an intensely present experience. So I would not throw it out just
because it isn't "new".
knud
>> that I can hear a Beethoven piece for the first time, or anytime after
>> that, and think it can't grow old, and hear another piece of classical
>> music for the first time and think it was never new?
>
>Right, exactly. But that quality isn't even close to being universal, or
>even stable within the life of a single person.
As far as we little humans know at any rate. People argue "immortal truths"
about music just as they do religion. The only thing we really know is that we
don't know jack shit.
Dr.Matt
knud <symp...@aol.comblahblah> wrote:
>>whereas merely avoiding
>>known stuff isn't enough of a principle in itself to interest me.
>
> The principle of "merely avoiding known stuff" guided an entire era of
>composers at one time. Of course some were good enough to make good music while
>pursuing the un-pursued.
What era was that? 1601?
>blahblah
>ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
> EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
> EVERYONE CREATES IN A VACUUM!
Dr.Matt
knud <symp...@aol.comblahblah> wrote:
>>> I like to think there's something else behind it all, too. Why is it
>>> that I can hear a Beethoven piece for the first time, or anytime after
>>> that, and think it can't grow old, and hear another piece of classical
>>> music for the first time and think it was never new?
>>
>>Right, exactly. But that quality isn't even close to being universal, or
>>even stable within the life of a single person.
>
> As far as we little humans know at any rate. People argue "immortal truths"
>about music just as they do religion. The only thing we really know is that we
>don't know jack shit.
>
>
Personally, I talk about music I enjoy. As far as I know, I'm not
immortal, so immortal truths have no salience for me.
Samuel Vriezen
>>whereas merely avoiding
>>known stuff isn't enough of a principle in itself to interest me.
>
>
> The principle of "merely avoiding known stuff" guided an entire era of
> composers at one time. Of course some were good enough to make good music while
> pursuing the un-pursued.
> blahblah
You live in a world of parodies. Bad composers are everywhere, whether
they *think* they're avoiding known stuff or not. Truth is that novelty
has been an important value probably in just about every age that knew
boredom. And that people may think something is novel, forgetting that
it has been used by a million others in the last five minutes. Also I
think that pieces such as Beethoven's Diabelli variations, or
Stockhausen's Gruppen remain breathtakingly new, regardless of
historical circumstance, and this is a quality.
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
Samuel Vriezen
>>I like to think there's something else behind it all, too. Why is it
>>that I can hear a Beethoven piece for the first time, or anytime after
>>that, and think it can't grow old, and hear another piece of classical
>>music for the first time and think it was never new?
>
>
> I thought you just said music had to be "new" to be interesting?
>
> With Beethoven you're experiencing the timeless power that exists despite
> the formal conventions he was writing in.
Oh, is that the key! Well, from now on I think I'll use this timeless
power technique in my works. Definitely beats being new.
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
Samuel Vriezen
>>Ouch, "timless power" is another of those really vague and virtually
>>meaningless descriptors again. And why is it *despite* the "formal
>>conventions he was writing in"?
>
>
> OK, fine, "because of the conventions". It concerns me none. I just really
> enjoy the music and to me it doesn't sound like the antiquated noodlings of the
> past but an intensely present experience. So I would not throw it out just
> because it isn't "new".
It sounds new to me still.
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
Samuel Vriezen
> "Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.doesnt...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:3fa90e76$0$58704$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>>Steve Layton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's not so much a question of newness, I think, as much as a question
>
> of
>
>>>familiarity, and that's inseparable with personal affinities and
>
> tolerances
>
>>>each person has for both familiarity and unfamiliarity.
>>
>>I like to think there's something else behind it all, too. Why is it
>>that I can hear a Beethoven piece for the first time, or anytime after
>>that, and think it can't grow old, and hear another piece of classical
>>music for the first time and think it was never new?
>
>
> Right, exactly. But that quality isn't even close to being universal, or
> even stable within the life of a single person.
And the mystery is that to me, it seems at the same time irreducible to
personal contingencies.
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
Dr.Matt
Things are often not what they seem in the arts. An illusion of timelessness
or of profoundity may be worth more than all the eternal verities one could
try to state.
"Music, states of happiness, mythology, faces belabored by time,
certain twilights and certain places try to tell us something, or have
said something we should not have missed, or are about to say
something; this imminence of a revelation which does not occur is,
perhaps, the aesthetic phenomenon." --Juan Luis Borges
Steve Layton
"knud" <symp...@aol.comblahblah> wrote in message
> >Of course (though "inspiration" is a pretty meaningless term to describe
> >what's happening, just plonked down there like that). But each of the
> >musical/sonic effects you mention don't in any way lose their potential
or
> >value for contributing to a great piece of music.
>
> Of course not. That is what I am arguing. It's not the sword but the
one
> who wields it.
That's a nice sentiment, but not always true. Sometimes the sword makes all
the difference, and the smart guy will try to know which situation they're
Steve Layton
"knud" <symp...@aol.comblahblah> wrote in message
> >Ouch, "timless power" is another of those really vague and virtually
> >meaningless descriptors again. And why is it *despite* the "formal
> >conventions he was writing in"?
>
> OK, fine, "because of the conventions". It concerns me none. I just
really
> enjoy the music and to me it doesn't sound like the antiquated noodlings
of the
> past but an intensely present experience. So I would not throw it out just
> because it isn't "new".
I understand that "intensely present experience" and how important it is,
whether the work was made in 1450 or yesterday. But I don't see how you can
use the phrase "antiquated noodlings of the past" as the antithesis of the
"intensely present experience". "Antiquated" is simply old (or
old-fashioned, noodles or not), and "noodlings" happen in every time, new
and old.
Steve Layton
"knud" <symp...@aol.comblahblah> wrote in message
> As far as we little humans know at any rate.
Which is the only rate we're ever going to know.
> People argue "immortal truths"
> about music just as they do religion. The only thing we really know is
that we
> don't know jack shit.
People hold assumptions based on affinities, in religion or music. Whether
they argue them is an optional complication. And I think we actually know
quite a lot; of what exactly seems to be different with each of us to some
greater or lesser degree.
Steve Layton
> knud wrote:
> >
> > The principle of "merely avoiding known stuff" guided an entire era
of
> > composers at one time. Of course some were good enough to make good
music while
> > pursuing the un-pursued.
> > blahblah
>
> You live in a world of parodies. Bad composers are everywhere, whether
> they *think* they're avoiding known stuff or not. Truth is that novelty
> has been an important value probably in just about every age that knew
.........
But what constitutes that "novelty" (and so sets a particular value) is
something that rarely stays fixed for very long.
Steve Layton
> >Steve Layton wrote:
> >
> > Right, exactly. But that quality isn't even close to being universal, or
> > even stable within the life of a single person.
>
>
> And the mystery is that to me, it seems at the same time irreducible to
> personal contingencies.
I think it's a greater mystery that it could be anything *more* than that
irreducible... yet something does end up "shared" (however
illusionistically) between Beethoven or Stockhausen and you.
Steve Layton
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:txhqb.4738$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
> Things are often not what they seem in the arts. An illusion of
timelessness
> or of profoundity may be worth more than all the eternal verities one
could
> try to state.
[...]
Or, things are often both not what they seem, and seem what they are. Either
way, "illusion" *is* the verity in just about any of the Art I can think of.
Bonnie Granat
"knud" <symp...@aol.comblahblah> wrote in message
> >Knud, do you see the term "classical style," there? Do you see the words
> >"radical" or "new"? Neither do I.
>
> Sorry if I missed something but what are you talking about?
>
I'm talking about the fact that I wasn't talking about "new" as "novelty," I
was talking about the "classical style."
But that's okay. ; ) Misunderstandings happen all the time in e-mail,
possibly the worst form of communication mankind has yet devised.
--
Bonnie Granat
Granat Technical Editing and Writing
http://www.granatedit.com
Bonnie Granat
"knud" <symp...@aol.comblahblah> wrote in message
> >> I like to think there's something else behind it all, too. Why is it
> >> that I can hear a Beethoven piece for the first time, or anytime after
> >> that, and think it can't grow old, and hear another piece of classical
> >> music for the first time and think it was never new?
> >
> >Right, exactly. But that quality isn't even close to being universal, or
> >even stable within the life of a single person.
>
> As far as we little humans know at any rate. People argue "immortal
truths"
> about music just as they do religion. The only thing we really know is
that we
> don't know jack shit.
>
>
I know him, and he cannot play worth a damn. ; )
Dr.Matt
Steve Layton <dal...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.doesnt...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>news:3fa99860$0$58713$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> >Steve Layton wrote:
>> >
>> > Right, exactly. But that quality isn't even close to being universal, or
>> > even stable within the life of a single person.
>>
>>
>> And the mystery is that to me, it seems at the same time irreducible to
>> personal contingencies.
>.......
>
>I think it's a greater mystery that it could be anything *more* than that
>irreducible... yet something does end up "shared" (however
>illusionistically) between Beethoven or Stockhausen and you.
>
Or if not, it's a pretty nifty illusion.
Samuel Vriezen
> "Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.doesnt...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:3fa9978b$0$58713$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>>knud wrote:
>>
>>> The principle of "merely avoiding known stuff" guided an entire era
>
> of
>
>>>composers at one time. Of course some were good enough to make good
>
> music while
>
>>>pursuing the un-pursued.
>>>blahblah
>>
>>You live in a world of parodies. Bad composers are everywhere, whether
>>they *think* they're avoiding known stuff or not. Truth is that novelty
>>has been an important value probably in just about every age that knew
>>boredom. [...]
>
> .........
>
> But what constitutes that "novelty" (and so sets a particular value) is
> something that rarely stays fixed for very long.
Of course, a novelty can be used only once. But this quality of newness
of a work is not dependent on a gimmick. It's more like polish, a sheen
that it emits.
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
Samuel Vriezen
>>>>Right, exactly. But that quality isn't even close to being universal, or
>>>>even stable within the life of a single person.
>>>
>>>
>>>And the mystery is that to me, it seems at the same time irreducible to
>>>personal contingencies.
>>
>>.......
>>
>>I think it's a greater mystery that it could be anything *more* than that
>>irreducible... yet something does end up "shared" (however
>>illusionistically) between Beethoven or Stockhausen and you.
>>
>
>
> Or if not, it's a pretty nifty illusion.
Pretty nifty illusion yourself!
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
Samuel Vriezen
> "Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.doesnt...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:3fa99860$0$58713$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>>>Steve Layton wrote:
>>>
>>>Right, exactly. But that quality isn't even close to being universal, or
>>>even stable within the life of a single person.
>>
>>
>>And the mystery is that to me, it seems at the same time irreducible to
>>personal contingencies.
>
> .......
>
> I think it's a greater mystery that it could be anything *more* than that
> irreducible... yet something does end up "shared" (however
> illusionistically) between Beethoven or Stockhausen and you.
At the same time contingent and not contingent. That's interesting. When
we have a shared experience, this is contingent upon a.o. our having
attended the same performance, say. But if we agree, understand each
other, there's something transpersonal in it too.
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
Samuel Vriezen
> "Music, states of happiness, mythology, faces belabored by time,
> certain twilights and certain places try to tell us something, or have
> said something we should not have missed, or are about to say
> something; this imminence of a revelation which does not occur is,
> perhaps, the aesthetic phenomenon." --Juan Luis Borges
In Spanish, 'ilusion' refers to illusion but also to hope, and to some
sort of excitement.
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
Dr.Matt
Interesting. The usual translation for "hope" in Spanish, "esperanza",
also means "expectation".
Steve Layton
> >Steve Layton wrote:
> >
> > But what constitutes that "novelty" (and so sets a particular value) is
> > something that rarely stays fixed for very long.
>
> Of course, a novelty can be used only once. But this quality of newness
> of a work is not dependent on a gimmick. It's more like polish, a sheen
> that it emits.
Woo, Samuel, that's about as metaphysically vague as I've ever seen you get!
;-)
Even if it's like a "polish" or "sheen" (and I'm not so sure about that), is
it always only "emitted"? That would tend to imply that whatever it was,
resided exclusively in the piece. What about the person on the receiving
end?
Steve Layton
> >Steve Layton wrote:
> >
> > I think it's a greater mystery that it could be anything *more* than
that
> > irreducible... yet something does end up "shared" (however
> > illusionistically) between Beethoven or Stockhausen and you.
>
> At the same time contingent and not contingent. That's interesting. When
> we have a shared experience, this is contingent upon a.o. our having
> attended the same performance, say. But if we agree, understand each
> other, there's something transpersonal in it too.
And the "transaction" seems to be able to occur with so little in the way of
pre-knowledge or "ground-rules". It's easy to start cataloging some set of
values, but becomes impossible to assuredly predict a reaction to any piece,
based upon that catalog.
Steve Layton
news:Nftqb.4751$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> In article <3faa5be6$0$58704$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Samuel Vriezen <sqv.doesnt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> >In Spanish, 'ilusion' refers to illusion but also to hope, and to some
> >sort of excitement.
> >
>
> also means "expectation".
According to my Spanish wife, what Samuel says is correct.
And one thing to note with Borges, from James Irby's introduction to
"Labyrinths":
"Narrative prose is usually easier to translate than verse, but Borges'
prose raises difficulties not unlike those of poetry, because of its
constant creative deformations and cunning artifices. [...] He had a
penchant for what 17th- and 18th-century rhetoricians called "hard" or
"philosophic" words, and will often use them in their strict etymological
sense, restoring radical meanings with an effect of metaphorical novelty."
Samuel Vriezen
> "Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.doesnt...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:3faa5a36$0$58704$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>>>Steve Layton wrote:
>>>
>>>But what constitutes that "novelty" (and so sets a particular value) is
>>>something that rarely stays fixed for very long.
>>
>>Of course, a novelty can be used only once. But this quality of newness
>>of a work is not dependent on a gimmick. It's more like polish, a sheen
>>that it emits.
>
> ......
>
> Woo, Samuel, that's about as metaphysically vague as I've ever seen you get!
> ;-)
>
> Even if it's like a "polish" or "sheen" (and I'm not so sure about that), is
> it always only "emitted"? That would tend to imply that whatever it was,
> resided exclusively in the piece. What about the person on the receiving
> end?
Insert 'seems to'.
I like metaphors deriving from cleaning things. I think it's a good idea
to focus on making your artistic ideas clear/clean. Polish the thought.
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
knud
>>
>
>I'm talking about the fact that I wasn't talking about "new" as "novelty," I
>was talking about the "classical style."
>But that's okay. ; ) Misunderstandings happen all the time in e-mail,
>possibly the worst form of communication mankind has yet devised.
The thread kind of drifted off in other directions and I wasn't sure if it
was even the same thread that you started.
Samuel Vriezen
>>At the same time contingent and not contingent. That's interesting. When
>>we have a shared experience, this is contingent upon a.o. our having
>>attended the same performance, say. But if we agree, understand each
>>other, there's something transpersonal in it too.
>
>
> And the "transaction" seems to be able to occur with so little in the way of
> pre-knowledge or "ground-rules".
There's biology, acoustics and culture. And importantly, most of the
time there's a basic human desire to understand each other!
> It's easy to start cataloging some set of
> values, but becomes impossible to assuredly predict a reaction to any piece,
> based upon that catalog.
Does it matter whether we react in the same way to a similar experience?
Perhaps I like some Beethoven symphony more than you do, but we agree
that it's a symphony, to begin with. Or if we don't share enough
culture, we can certainly agree that it's long and loud!
--
samuel
free.concerten.fr
knud
>power technique in my works. Definitely beats being new.
Better yet, be new AND use the timeless power technique!
knud
>they argue them is an optional complication. And I think we actually know
>quite a lot; of what exactly seems to be different with each of us to some
>greater or lesser degree.
For people with a particular turn of mind, every answer in life raises a
new set of questions.
Dr.Matt
Samuel Vriezen <sqv.doesnt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>that it's a symphony, to begin with. Or if we don't share enough
>culture, we can certainly agree that it's long and loud!
By comparison with a rock concert, it's short and faint.
knud
>use the phrase "antiquated noodlings of the past"
By typing it! =)
>as the antithesis of the
>"intensely present experience"
You can't. Who says it needs to be so? Not me!
knud
I speak in a world of parodies at any rate!
>Bad composers are everywhere
Sadly, good and even great composers are taken for bad all the time.
>Truth is that novelty
>has been an important value probably in just about every age that knew
>boredom
Sure. Lets put it this way. Would you rather have a really killer piece
for 4-part chorus or a really lousy piece just because it has a trombone
glissando (pretending for a moment you were in a time when a trombone glissando
might actually raise an eyebrow)?
>Also I
>think that pieces such as Beethoven's Diabelli variations, or
>Stockhausen's Gruppen remain breathtakingly new, regardless of
>historical circumstance, and this is a quality.
Now newness is a quality, not just a relative time reference?
knud
>something that rarely stays fixed for very long.
If all any of us really cared about was novelty composers wouldn't be able
to survive past their deaths as they have, since we would have long since
seeked out further novelties of the hour.
knud
>;-)
>
>Even if it's like a "polish" or "sheen" (and I'm not so sure about that),
Er, a polish of trombone glissandos topped with a sheen of xylophone
solos? =)
> is
>it always only "emitted"?
Sometimes to emit "newness" we are better served not by inclusion but by
ommision.