Music theory stuff I'd like to know

[psenior]

I spend a lot of time on here answering questions. Now, I figured I'd ask a few. There are many clever people here and I seek enlightenment.

I have read that Mozart had a compositional method where he could take a few notes that formed a melodic motif, apply it and write entire concertos instantaneously. I'd love to know his methodology. Is it just doing retrogrades and stuff like that? Forgive me if I am mangling the terms used in classical harmony. I never made it past Music Theory III in college.

I have listened to a little Messiaen. It's really freaky but I kind of like it. It is like cosmic gospel music. I am familiar with his modes mainly because Barry Harris uses one of them. The other ones are … different? Can anybody give me some more insight into Messiaen's musical concepts, especially their application?

There is a lot of 12 tone music out there. I think a lot of it sucks but I'd still like to read or see some kind of simplified executive summary about the inventors of these methods and hear suggestions on some compositions in this style that might be a little more accessible to my ears (i.e jazzy sounding). If I understood it I might start liking it.

If anybody is an expert on George Russell, Pat Martino or George Garzone's musical concepts, I'd love to hear a concise overview or anything else you have to say about their music theory perspectives.

Oh yeah, I don't understand Aphex Twin's music either; explain it to me. His videos are pretty weird, too. What's up with that?

[breakmixer]

I spend a lot of time on here answering questions. Now, I figured I'd ask a few. There are many clever people here and I seek enlightenment.

I have read that Mozart had a compositional method where he could take a few notes that formed a melodic motif, apply it and write entire concertos instantaneously. I'd love to know his methodology. Is it just doing retrogrades and stuff like that? Forgive me if I am mangling the terms used in classical harmony. I never made it past Music Theory III in college.

I have listened to a little Messiaen. It's really freaky but I kind of like it. It is like cosmic gospel music. I am familiar with his modes mainly because Barry Harris uses one of them. The other ones are … different? Can anybody give me some more insight into Messiaen's musical concepts, especially their application?

There is a lot of 12 tone music out there. I think a lot of it sucks but I'd still like to read or see some kind of simplified executive summary about the inventors of these methods and hear suggestions on some compositions in this style that might be a little more accessible to my ears (i.e jazzy sounding). If I understood it I might start liking it.

If anybody is an expert on George Russell, Pat Martino or George Garzone's musical concepts, I'd love to hear a concise overview or anything else you have to say about their music theory perspectives.

Oh yeah, I don't understand Aphex Twin's music either; explain it to me. His videos are pretty weird, too. What's up with that?

I'm still learning, but noticed your Aphex Twin question...someone I know was on his label, his music came out of the acid house/techno camp and in the early 90's some of this Techno Music started getting harder and more twisted, so the artists started to do more and more bizarre stuff, messing with Electronics, taking synths apart and rewiring them, sampling weird sounds and experimenting with sounds that nobody had heard before in the name of 'Techno', alot of these Techno artists have a very good and/or twisted sense of humour and this is what you see in the videos(and hear in the music) - it's the opposite of commercial pop/dance! Aphex Twin wants to freak you out with his music, fascinate you or make you laugh I would say, they are the least serious musicians around some of them types but at the same time quite succesfull in what they do! File under 'Twisted Techno' That's how I'd explain it...see it as audio art if you can't see it as music...

[Ogg Vorbis]

I spend a lot of time on here answering questions. Now, I figured I'd ask a few.

Psenior, I always love reading your posts. I appreciate how dedicated you are to other people's learning. Do you have students? If not, I think you're a natural teacher and should probably have a little gaggle of eager learners following you wherever you go.

Regarding the Mozart thing, I have not heard of that before. I wonder if this is one of those legends that creeps into the mystique of genius composers? On the other hand, maybe there's something to it. If so, I would like to learn about this too.

Regarding Messiaen, I do not claim to know everything about him. However I find him a very fascinating individual. He was very mystical and imbued a lot of symbolism and even transcriptions of birdsong into his music.

He seemed to be one of the rare composers who took serial techniques and made those techniques serve him and his mystical visions. In other words, he certainly did use serialism but perhaps not so rigidly that he was a slave to the "system."

Each piece seemed to have its own method of organization. It is as though he wanted each work to create itself by its own means. Some works are quite serial and others are quite free in their organizational vocabulary.

I am a member of last.fm. If you have a last.fm account, go to my profile "Barking_Turkey" and listen to the "loved" tracks I have by Messiaen. These are piano etudes that seem very free, however they are very carefully constructed based on small scales intended to teach young pianists.

But beautiful and not "slavishly" organized.

The Turangalila Symphony is a very large-scale work that has an interesting organizational approach. You can learn some background information here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turangal%C ... lic_themes

If you see what I mean, this is not really a serial work but it is carefully thematically organized nevertheless. Again, this piece has its own unique construction that I don't think he repeated in other works as a "method."

I don't think that he believed that a composer uses a "process" or a "method" to compose like other serialists perhaps. But again, the idea is that each work will bring itself into being in its own way.

If you want a primer on 12 tone techniques, I would suggest starting with Anton Webern because they are very short. Now I understand that there is a hell of a lot of "information" packed into these economical pieces! You can take them apart and study them like you would a short poem. You can listen to them over and over.

Another good reason to look at Webern, is because he was at the beginning of the 12 tone thing. Being a disciple of Schoenberg, he removed all the "excesses" of post-Wagnerian emotive symbolism and looked at the pitches and rhythms "purely for their own sake."

The note is the thing.

Then you can also look at the Schoenberg Op. 33 Klavierstucke (spelling??) which are very condensed but a bit more on the romantic and emotive side.

So there are two aspects of 12 tone music, the "Notes for the sake of notes" and the use of the techniques to reach further into the emotive subconscious.

Look at Luciano Berio's serialism versus Stockhausen. What do you think? Are they both using the techniques the same?

Everyone dabbbled in serialism at some point - yes even Aaron Copeland and Stravinksy and even our good friend John Adams. It is regarded as both a dead ended street and a flexible approach to creating new music even today.

Personally, I could never make it work for me. I studied it with teachers and would come up with some sort of tone row matrix thing from which I was supposed to write music.

I never knew if I was doing it right or not...it was sort of like when I was trying to smoke cigars. People were telling me, "don't inhale, just taste.." I was sucking on this big thing and smiling like I was doing something, but I never really "got it."

To each his own, I guess! If one can make serialism and cigars work for you, my hat is certainly off to her or him!

[Meffy]

Mozart's Musikalisches Würfelspiel

[psenior]

Thanks for the info, guys!

Breakmixer, I think I watched a video about Aphex Twin once where he was putting images of himself in the waveform of his songs. I would have never thought such a thing was possible. Basically, I am trying to decide if he is a genius.

Ogg Vorbis, thanks for the 12 tone overview. One thing I could never understand in college was that my classical music theory instructors all listened to this weird music and would never teach it to us or even discuss it. I am trying to determine if any of it can be put into practical use in a pop music format. I seem to hear a bit of it in movie soundtracks.

I do not have any music students other than my three homeschooled sons. I do a lot of private emails to ecsmix because he has a lot of questions. There is so much to learn, and I enjoy learning. Barry Harris, 80 year old jazz legend, still takes piano lessons. Some say the best way to learn is to teach. I just like being able to talk about this stuff with people who can or want to share and grow musically.

I am going to setup a last.fm account and listen to those tracks. I am going to have to Google a lot of the stuff you mentioned. I would like to do some kind of serial compositions but maybe more tonal than normal. Something based on Barry Harris' stuff. The way George Garzone solos when he goes 12 tone sounds good and logically makes sense. I am not a big fan of randomness in music. I don't have a problem with randomness sounding good; I do have a problem with not being able to explain why it sounds good.

Meffy, I think you just gave me the answer I was searching for. I am definitely going to have to play with this compositional technique. If I can use it to "reverse engineer" some of Mozart's work, that would be very insightful.

OK, now all I need is some insight about Pat Martino and George Russell. There's gotta be some post-bop guitarists and Lydian chromatic devotees this forum. Speak up; Don't be shy!

[ckatrun411]

I think many, many composers have studied Mozart, omfg, you can write your master thesis on one opera, or symphony. Yep, ok, one of the greatest musical minds to ever live, you will not reverse engineer any of it, without serious study.

Starting with, basic musical theory, and continuing through orchestration and arrangement in the baroque period. Everything before, after and in between.


Also, understanding jazz, is to understanding classical, as understanding tennis, is to understanding football. Jazz, great American art form that it is, is a journey from the blues, and therefore uses its own and not classical ideas. That said, an athlete is an athlete, being able to run helps in football and tennis, knowing your scales, and intervals certainly makes sense for jazz.


I think a great place to start, if you are interested in this much theory, is the library. That's what I was trying to say. You must read, many, many books for this knowledge.

[psenior]

Hi ckatrun411, I have been studying music theory since I was 15 years old. I will turn 41 in March. I think I have done the equivalent of everything you mentioned and then some. If you have any specific answers to my questions, I would appreciate it.

I believe I am capable of reverse engineering Mozart. Probably many others have already done so. I really don't agree with your music/sport analogy at all. Many notable artists have called Jazz America's classical music. I think one well known jazz pianist, whose name escapes me at this moment, did his doctoral dissertation on this topic, which was later published as a book. I'm pretty sure I have this book along with a ton of others in my personal library at home.