Understanding Joseph Schillinger's work
Lou Cohen
I wonder how many composers are acquainted with the work of Joseph
Schillinger? I have been studying his two major works, "The Schillinger
System of Musical Composition" and "The Mathematical Basis of the Arts",
and I have come to a few conclusions.
1. Schillinger was brilliant, and has provided me with several useful
insights into the relationship between mathematics, physics and artistic
thinking.
2. Schillinger's writing is very difficult to follow. There may be many
reasons for this, including the fact that English was not his native
language.
3. Schillinger's mathematical notation is idiosyncratic at best, and
occasionally too ambiguous to make sense. There are at least a few
assertions that he makes that I know to be mathematically incorrect or
at least not applicable to his text. Only by studying his examples, text
and notation together, and adding a bit of intuition, can many of his
ideas be made clear. Even when he is mathematically off the mark, I have
felt that the sense of his idea was valuable. For example, in the first
chapter of "The Schillinger System of Musical Composition", by invoking
Fourier's name, he seems to suggest that we can replace sinusoidal waves
by square waves, and that the application of Fourier analysis to square
waves will still be valid. In fact I don't believe it is valid, but it
doesn't matter. Schillinger's suggestion for generating a wide range of
rhythms by superimposing several square waves with differing periods is
still interesting and useful.
4. Schillinger's influence on composers today is probably very slight,
because his writing is so unnecessarily difficult to read.
What if someone took the trouble to explain Schillinger? Who would
listen?
I await your response.
--
regards,
Lou Cohen
------------
it's = it is
------------
George Bogatko
Lou Cohen (LouC...@concentric.net) wrote:
: I wonder how many composers are acquainted with the work of Joseph
: Schillinger?
Gershwin for one. I'm not sure which compositions, but I believe it was
everything from the 2nd concerto onward, which may include the Cuban
Overture.
I knew quite a few people who had studied his books. They originally came
out in smaller doses as part of a learn-by-mail system, so quite a few
people who were in the Army during WWII studied it via mail. I believe
he had a very wide influence on the Jazz band arrangements that came during
and after that War.
GB
Lou Cohen
Everything you say is true, but it actually doesn't answer the question I'm interested
in. I'd like to know who TODAY is familiar with Schillinger's "system", and whether
anyone is interested in learning more about it. I've spent quite a bit of time reviewing
his materials, and find them fascinating but hard to decipher. I'm potentially willing to
explore these materials in an open forum with others, if there is any interest.
For starters: the first few chapters of Schillinger's "system" provides the composer with
a method of generating rhythms. The method is analogous to the physical phenomenon of
interference, in which the superposition of several regular beats creates a more
complicated rhythm. Would anyone like to know the details? Or has everyone already
learned them and discarded them as uninteresting? How about you, George?
Lou Cohen
George Bogatko wrote:
>
> Lou Cohen (LouC...@concentric.net) wrote:
> : I wonder how many composers are acquainted with the work of Joseph
> : Schillinger?
>
> Gershwin for one. I'm not sure which compositions, but I believe it was
> everything from the 2nd concerto onward, which may include the Cuban
> Overture.
>
> I knew quite a few people who had studied his books. They originally came
> out in smaller doses as part of a learn-by-mail system, so quite a few
> people who were in the Army during WWII studied it via mail. I believe
> he had a very wide influence on the Jazz band arrangements that came during
> and after that War.
>
> GB
Everything you say is true, but it actually doesn't answer the question I'm interested
in. I'd like to know who TODAY is familiar with Schillinger's "system", and whether
anyone is interested in learning more about it. I've spent quite a bit of time reviewing
his materials, and find them fascinating but hard to decipher. I'm potentially willing to
explore these materials in an open forum with others, if there is any interest. I believe
I'm in a good position to do this, because of my combined interests in mathematics and
music. I might be able to help people bridge the gap.
George Bogatko
Lou Cohen <LouC...@concentric.net> wrote:
>George Bogatko wrote:
> I'd like to know who TODAY is familiar with Schillinger's "system".
>Would anyone like to know the details? Or has everyone already
>learned them and discarded them as uninteresting? How about you, George?
I had a chance to by the reprint once, and couldn't afford it.
Shortly thereafter I had to drop music as both a vocation and
avocation and didn't pick it up until recently.
The interesting thing is that while in the industrial exile everything
just kinda got internalized. Lots of stuff got dropped (12 tone for
instance) and other stuff (jazz roots and set theory) survived so that
when I started picking up the pieces I wasn't interested in persuing
theory and method anymore.
So to answer your question, no, I'm not that interested in persuing
what to me is now just another theory. I'm building my own now.
GB
George Bogatko - gbog...@intac.com
Lou Cohen
George Bogatko wrote:
> I had a chance to by the reprint once, and couldn't afford it.
> Shortly thereafter I had to drop music as both a vocation and
> avocation and didn't pick it up until recently.
>
music. I've faced the same thing all my life, until now.
> The interesting thing is that while in the industrial exile everything
> just kinda got internalized. Lots of stuff got dropped (12 tone for
> instance) and other stuff (jazz roots and set theory) survived so that
> when I started picking up the pieces I wasn't interested in persuing
> theory and method anymore.
>
> So to answer your question, no, I'm not that interested in persuing
> what to me is now just another theory. I'm building my own now.
>
> GB
> George Bogatko - gbog...@intac.com
Thanks for your candid response. For your information, several people
who do seem interested responded to me privately. I don't understand why
some people post messages and others respond directly, off-line. Anyway,
I understand your point about building your own theory. I'm doing the
same for myself (but I call it a "method"), and it's one of the things I
love about composing. I suspect every composer develops his or her own
method.
But for your information, what's neat for me about Schillinger, is that
as I decipher each of his ideas, it causes me to think, and that process
generates a variety of new ideas for me. Then, like you, some of these
ideas get absorbed into my own repertoire.
Dick Dammit
Lou Cohen <LouC...@concentric.net> writes:
>4. Schillinger's influence on composers today is probably very slight,
>because his writing is so unnecessarily difficult to read.
>
>What if someone took the trouble to explain Schillinger? Who would
>listen?
Schillinger right at hand.
He presented a "mathematical" view of harmony to me that seemed to cut right
through huge amounts of ambiguity and confusion I had experienced before.
If I understand correctly Mr. Duna's teacher's teacher, the great Bill Evans,
was also a Schillinger devotee.
I can't say if this Schillinger influence runs through all of Jazz education
but it may not be as antiquated and neglected as you surmise!
Lou Cohen
Dick Dammit wrote:
>
> I studied 2 years of Jazz Piano with Jazz Pianist Bill Duna who always had
> Schillinger right at hand.
> He presented a "mathematical" view of harmony to me that seemed to cut right
> through huge amounts of ambiguity and confusion I had experienced before.
> If I understand correctly Mr. Duna's teacher's teacher, the great Bill Evans,
> was also a Schillinger devotee.
> I can't say if this Schillinger influence runs through all of Jazz education
> but it may not be as antiquated and neglected as you surmise!
If it were not for the miracle of internet technology, I would not have
known about your experience. Thanks. It does seem that Schillinger's
influence on Jazz musicians lives on.
Bill Milligan
I have, over the years spent a fair amout of time with the work of
Schillinger. I have the "The Schillinger System of Musical
Composition" and "The Mathematical Basis of the Arts", as well as his
biography (published after his death by his wife).
While, like most of us, my training is in "traditional" music theory,
I find the Schillinger system VERY interesting. It is sometimes
convolouted but always wonderful food for thought. Please count me in
on discussions regarding this matter.
Chris Rolfe
In article <4n5uk3$g...@gold.niia.net>, orge...@niia.net (Bill Milligan) wrote:
I missed the original post, having been absent from rmc for ages and ages.
In regards Schillinger, though, I've read only "The Mathematical Basis of
the Arts" but found it an idiosyncratic, bizzare treatise. I had heard
that Schillinger had some talent as an arranger, and, influence upon some
of the pop-jazz orchestras in the 50's (Glenn Miller, eg.), but was
unaware that Bill Evans had taken to the stuff.
My impression of the book was that the most interesting notions were
borrowed from Gestalt perceptual psychology, but that the harmonic theory
was essentially Platonic/Pythagorean and weirdly ideal.
I agree that it's interesting work, but I'd like to play protagonist in
any acclamation of it.
Chris
ro...@sfu.ca