Stretching music theory (salvaged from train wreck)

[s4w2th]

[mod edit: I've removed these posts from a trollish thread. They shouldn't be lost because they were in a nonsense thread, so here they are. Sorry for the lame subject line, I couldn't think of anything better. Feel free to suggest something better, or change it yourself it you're s4w2th. Let the discussion continue.]

An understanding of Psycho-Accoustics is very helpful as well as general knowledge of placement for instruments and scales. If your using pads and sweeps your already using chords. I might even go so far as to mention microtonics as a big plus. So make your rules test them then go out and break them. Learning traditional terms and methods really is just about learning an old language for the very same concepts your currently working with. Classical arrangement is the same thing as what your doing now except that the terms are different.

[Per Lichtman]

I'm starting to feel really stupid about writing such a serious post.

I wish you wouldn't: I enjoyed reading it.

There is that constant tension in artistic expression though, isn't there? Is creativity based upon expanding ideas within the context of the genre or upon rejecting the genre itself? I think Rachmiel has gotten into that a lot at CM Magazine over the last couple years but I find myself unsure about any answers myself.

In the end, I suppose that I'm as concerned with authenticity as creativity: Does the music resonate with me personally as a listener? Was the artist clear in their intention and did they communicate that?

I'm glad to see discussion of these kinds of questions, regardless of what the thread is.

[Caysi]

I think creativity is a pretty vague term, you can be creative by developing idea's within and without a genre, yet be completely repetitive and still write a "creative" piece. .

[Per Lichtman]

I think creativity is a pretty vague term, you can be creative by developing idea's within and without a genre, yet be completely repetitive and still write a "creative" piece. .

And of course "minamlist" movement in art music was creative by the vary nature of its repetition go figure.

[runagate]

I think creativity is a pretty vague term, you can be creative by developing idea's within and without a genre, yet be completely repetitive and still write a "creative" piece. .

And of course "minamlist" movement in art music was creative by the vary nature of its repetition go figure.

I disagree. Now that the 20th century is over we can look back and assess the high points and the mistakes.

Repetition in mammals tends to get tuned out. Repetetive is repetetive no matter what fancy theory you put on it. Almost every single moment of "minimalism" was a head-trip foisted on composers that could have actually expressed something in their time, but instead bowed to their idols' artificial constraints (a trend, like any other, even with highbrow trimming).

The saddest thing is, as is so often in Western art music, the repetitions in the msucial forms that inspired these people genuinely are creative. The tala rhythms, the trance music of the mountain people of Morocco, gamelan...

I think assessment of the status we're at now isn't such a bad idea, either, especially in one's own work.

[Per Lichtman]

Okay, I was curious about what type of off the wall craziness you'd be putting out based on your incoherent and exuberant mission statement, but what you have on your myspace page is surprisingly constrained by any number of conventions in electronic dance music. It's all strictly metered with few changes in tempo within a track, even though you have lots of electronic possibilities open to you you're still emulating a drum kit, the phrases are all squared off in duple units, and you use a lot of cliches like filter sweeps. I'd never bag on someone for using genre elements to make a piece more comprehensible to an audience, but it isn't really going from 0 to 20000 as far as I can tell. How do you reconcile these opposing ideas of free expression within the context of a style with so many strong conventions?

I'm not saying your music is bad, by the way, I liked some of it, but it's really not that unusual, arbitrary, or free.

I'm starting to feel really stupid about writing such a serious post.

I wish you wouldn't: I enjoyed reading it.

There is that constant tension in artistic expression though, isn't there? Is creativity based upon expanding ideas within the context of the genre or upon rejecting the genre itself? I think Rachmiel has gotten into that a lot at CM Magazine over the last couple years but I find myself unsure about any answers myself.

In the end, I suppose that I'm as concerned with authenticity as creativity: Does the music resonate with me personally as a listener? Was the artist clear in their intention and did they communicate that?

I'm glad to see discussion of these kinds of questions, regardless of what the thread is.

I can explain this. There's a "raver re-education camp" (kind of like the chill-out room, but in a quieter part of raves) when guys with visors explain to you how to defend yourself against the arguments of legitimate creative types. "I don't need theory" is one of the talking points. You know, like on Fox News.

I also don't need no theory, but then again I'm not real defensive about it.

I think one my teachers best summed it up when they said "theory describes the rules of music that composers already create". In other words, theory can facilitate composition but compositional practice tends to predate a theoretical explanation.

By that standard, theory is not required to compose at all, but it can get some of the trial and error out of the way. Just one viewpoint and I tend to embody several depending on my mood at any given moment.

Seriously though, many of my favorite composers are not classically trained or went against the compositional practices of their time. Sometimes the best thing about learning the rules is getting to break them.

[Per Lichtman]

I think creativity is a pretty vague term, you can be creative by developing idea's within and without a genre, yet be completely repetitive and still write a "creative" piece. .

And of course "minamlist" movement in art music was creative by the vary nature of its repetition go figure.

I disagree. Now that the 20th century is over we can look back and assess the high points and the mistakes.

Repetition in mammals tends to get tuned out. Repetetive is repetetive no matter what fancy theory you put on it. Almost every single moment of "minimalism" was a head-trip foisted on composers that could have actually expressed something in their time, but instead bowed to their idols' artificial constraints (a trend, like any other, even with highbrow trimming).

The saddest thing is, as is so often in Western art music, the repetitions in the msucial forms that inspired these people genuinely are creative. The tala rhythms, the trance music of the mountain people of Morocco, gamelan...

I think assessment of the status we're at now isn't such a bad idea, either, especially in one's own work.

That assessment process can almost always be helpful, as long as we don't overdo self-judgment or cripple ourselves with it.

I had a chance to spend some time studying west African drumming and dance as well as Balinese and Javanese gamelan and found them very creatively stimulating. However, I found Claude Debussy's music following his exposure to gamelan to also be very creative and stimulating. Its simply not always the case that western exposure to foreign cultures results in work devoid of creativity.

Did I enjoy every minimalist piece? No. But then I didn't enjoy every serial piece either and minimalism was part of what helped us move in a different direction. I also think that both movements helped to open up western classical composers to working outside the constructs of a compositional system that had become codified. I believe that, that freedom is a good thing but that the compositions themselves are to be looked at on an individual basis.

I don't get to ask these kinds of questions very often, so I'll indulge my curiosity for a moment. Please bear with me. What were some of your favorite compositional trends of the 20th century?

[jopy]

There is that constant tension in artistic expression though, isn't there? Is creativity based upon expanding ideas within the context of the genre or upon rejecting the genre itself? I think Rachmiel has gotten into that a lot at CM Magazine over the last couple years but I find myself unsure about any answers myself.

Okay, I'll keep being serious since this thread has taken a rather odd turn now. I'll see if I can make this somewhat coherent. I'm especially interested right now in the role of expectations in listening and comprehending music. It's a head game, of course, but music is mostly written to be heard by human beings so the psychological component is important.

In a very cliche filled genre like trance deviations from the conventions will be very obvious to even the casual listener. Consider writing a trance tune with major key melodies, just for acoustic instruments, in 6/8, or that has very uneven phrase lengths. Even a break in a trance tune for four bars of solo tuba (for example) would knock everyone for a serious loop. It would sound bizarre. Conversely, if you're completely outside established conventions (e.g., Karlheinz Stockhausen) only the most informed listeners will realize when you're shifting the rules or adding new organizational materials.

Here's the rub: if you completely accept all existing grammar, your music will communicate nothing but conventions and rules--this procedure is very boring and not really even worth arguing against. If you completely reject all existing grammars, you get the chance to totally re-write the rules which is exciting for any creative artist but most listeners don't get to see the rules you're using, so it's very frustrating for them. They reject the end product of total innovation as incoherent and tedious, they can't differentiate it from someone just playing random meaningless strings of notes. Pierre Boulez's total serialism is a case in point--I know it's extremely thought through, intricate in details, and I cannot follow the logic at all so it sounds quite monotonous to me.

In a way, you can get a lot more surprising moments in music that is very restrictive--it sets up expectations so they can be violated. That's one of the reasons why John Zorn's uses very cliched segments of established genres and then throws them in the blender. The ability to constantly surprise even casual listeners is one of the reasons why some of J.S. Bach's best compositions are parts of dance suites, a.k.a. --it's an extremely limiting form, so every time he throws in a 7 or 9 measure phrase or shifts keys, it's a profound moment. may have gone to using popular dance and pop music as a grounding point for his electric period to give a point of reference for his most radical ideas; that beat and those modal patterns draw you in, and then the chromaticism and off-center rhythms can have a bigger effect right away. He most certainly was trying to get his message across to a larger audience. Minimalism was advocated by precisely because he wanted to make the unusual compositional process completely obvious for the listener by setting up very strong expectations via intense repetition.

There is a conflict between making music based on your gut feelings vs. making music based on a careful rejection of established procedures. I originally commented on this thread because I noticed something that I've heard many times before--people who completely reject the role of theory and proclaim that they innovate based on an internal system of their own creation nearly always make music that is a) very intuitive and expressive and b) very derivative of what they've already heard. A really talented intuitive musician will subtly violate rules and expectations without consciously trying. The established grammars that you've already internalized help you really express your emotional or intuitive sense of aesthetics quickly, moving outside of established systems means that you'll often make music that doesn't communicate a visceral meaning to most people unless you spend an enormous amount of time and energy internalizing your new system. Internalizing that new system is a viable alternative though. has internalized his own intuitive system for most of his career, and he's made his explorations into new theoretical and conceptual grounds sound completely natural and emotionally resonant.

I mostly think it's a balancing act that each musician has to negotiate internally; it's a tension between freedom and discipline, between emotional and intellectual expression, between communicating with an audience (including yourself as part of the audience!) and pushing an audience into a new space.

[Bobbotov]

Excellent analysis.

[Sascha Franck]

jmeier, that was a most excellent post. Others than completely seconding about everything you wrote, I've got nothing to add. Thank you.

[Per Lichtman]

There is that constant tension in artistic expression though, isn't there? Is creativity based upon expanding ideas within the context of the genre or upon rejecting the genre itself? I think Rachmiel has gotten into that a lot at CM Magazine over the last couple years but I find myself unsure about any answers myself.

Okay, I'll keep being serious since this thread has taken a rather odd turn now. I'll see if I can make this somewhat coherent. I'm especially interested right now in the role of expectations in listening and comprehending music. It's a head game, of course, but music is mostly written to be heard by human beings so the psychological component is important.

In a very cliche filled genre like trance deviations from the conventions will be very obvious to even the casual listener. Consider writing a trance tune with major key melodies, just for acoustic instruments, in 6/8, or that has very uneven phrase lengths. Even a break in a trance tune for four bars of solo tuba (for example) would knock everyone for a serious loop. It would sound bizarre. Conversely, if you're completely outside established conventions (e.g., Karlheinz Stockhausen) only the most informed listeners will realize when you're shifting the rules or adding new organizational materials.

Here's the rub: if you completely accept all existing grammar, your music will communicate nothing but conventions and rules--this procedure is very boring and not really even worth arguing against. If you completely reject all existing grammars, you get the chance to totally re-write the rules which is exciting for any creative artist but most listeners don't get to see the rules you're using, so it's very frustrating for them. They reject the end product of total innovation as incoherent and tedious, they can't differentiate it from someone just playing random meaningless strings of notes. Pierre Boulez's total serialism is a case in point--I know it's extremely thought through, intricate in details, and I cannot follow the logic at all so it sounds quite monotonous to me.

In a way, you can get a lot more surprising moments in music that is very restrictive--it sets up expectations so they can be violated. That's one of the reasons why John Zorn's uses very cliched segments of established genres and then throws them in the blender. The ability to constantly surprise even casual listeners is one of the reasons why some of J.S. Bach's best compositions are parts of dance suites, a.k.a. --it's an extremely limiting form, so every time he throws in a 7 or 9 measure phrase or shifts keys, it's a profound moment. may have gone to using popular dance and pop music as a grounding point for his electric period to give a point of reference for his most radical ideas; that beat and those modal patterns draw you in, and then the chromaticism and off-center rhythms can have a bigger effect right away. He most certainly was trying to get his message across to a larger audience. Minimalism was advocated by precisely because he wanted to make the unusual compositional process completely obvious for the listener by setting up very strong expectations via intense repetition.

There is a conflict between making music based on your gut feelings vs. making music based on a careful rejection of established procedures. I originally commented on this thread because I noticed something that I've heard many times before--people who completely reject the role of theory and proclaim that they innovate based on an internal system of their own creation nearly always make music that is a) very intuitive and expressive and b) very derivative of what they've already heard. A really talented intuitive musician will subtly violate rules and expectations without consciously trying. The established grammars that you've already internalized help you really express your emotional or intuitive sense of aesthetics quickly, moving outside of established systems means that you'll often make music that doesn't communicate a visceral meaning to most people unless you spend an enormous amount of time and energy internalizing your new system. Internalizing that new system is a viable alternative though. has internalized his own intuitive system for most of his career, and he's made his explorations into new theoretical and conceptual grounds sound completely natural and emotionally resonant.

I mostly think it's a balancing act that each musician has to negotiate internally; it's a tension between freedom and discipline, between emotional and intellectual expression, between communicating with an audience (including yourself as part of the audience!) and pushing an audience into a new space.

I'm really glad you stayed. That was a great read.

From a personal creative/psychological perspective, I'd say that most people tend to have a certain level of tension between trying to find the most natural and intuitive expression for their music and trying to develop the skills to find that expression more quickly. Thus there is the tension between expression (personal) and convention (the other). In creating a composition, the composer either consciously or unconsciously is making a series of decisions as to how much the song is a reflection of themselves vs. how much it reflects a microcosm of the world in the form of conventions. The listener's reaction and perception of this is not unlike their perception of, and reaction to, the following or deviation from cultural norms in society.

Some of us, when confronted with a person we cannot begin to understand, find ourselves intrigued and fascinated. Others find ourselves pulling away because we cannot engage or commit ourselves to an interaction where we have no reference point. In personal interactions, as in music, the conventions change with time. If you run up to somebody and and yell "rawr" in their face instead of just saying hello, you probably won't be the first person to have tried it. Some people would probably think you were crazy and some people might think you were fun but in the end it's mainly about pre-conceptions, expectations and how we react to deviations from them.

So basically, the compositional process, and the listening process, are both reflections of the relationship between self and other. That makes me wish that my electronica song of the same name were a bit more cerebral, but I enjoyed writing it at the time.

Thanks again jmeier!

[Meffy]

Fixed -- see first post for note on what happened to the original thread and why some posts in this thread might seem to contain non sequiturs.

[elxsound]

There is that constant tension in artistic expression though, isn't there? Is creativity based upon expanding ideas within the context of the genre or upon rejecting the genre itself? I think Rachmiel has gotten into that a lot at CM Magazine over the last couple years but I find myself unsure about any answers myself.

Okay, I'll keep being serious since this thread has taken a rather odd turn now. I'll see if I can make this somewhat coherent. I'm especially interested right now in the role of expectations in listening and comprehending music. It's a head game, of course, but music is mostly written to be heard by human beings so the psychological component is important.

In a very cliche filled genre like trance deviations from the conventions will be very obvious to even the casual listener. Consider writing a trance tune with major key melodies, just for acoustic instruments, in 6/8, or that has very uneven phrase lengths. Even a break in a trance tune for four bars of solo tuba (for example) would knock everyone for a serious loop. It would sound bizarre. Conversely, if you're completely outside established conventions (e.g., Karlheinz Stockhausen) only the most informed listeners will realize when you're shifting the rules or adding new organizational materials.

Here's the rub: if you completely accept all existing grammar, your music will communicate nothing but conventions and rules--this procedure is very boring and not really even worth arguing against. If you completely reject all existing grammars, you get the chance to totally re-write the rules which is exciting for any creative artist but most listeners don't get to see the rules you're using, so it's very frustrating for them. They reject the end product of total innovation as incoherent and tedious, they can't differentiate it from someone just playing random meaningless strings of notes. Pierre Boulez's total serialism is a case in point--I know it's extremely thought through, intricate in details, and I cannot follow the logic at all so it sounds quite monotonous to me.

In a way, you can get a lot more surprising moments in music that is very restrictive--it sets up expectations so they can be violated. That's one of the reasons why John Zorn's uses very cliched segments of established genres and then throws them in the blender. The ability to constantly surprise even casual listeners is one of the reasons why some of J.S. Bach's best compositions are parts of dance suites, a.k.a. --it's an extremely limiting form, so every time he throws in a 7 or 9 measure phrase or shifts keys, it's a profound moment. may have gone to using popular dance and pop music as a grounding point for his electric period to give a point of reference for his most radical ideas; that beat and those modal patterns draw you in, and then the chromaticism and off-center rhythms can have a bigger effect right away. He most certainly was trying to get his message across to a larger audience. Minimalism was advocated by precisely because he wanted to make the unusual compositional process completely obvious for the listener by setting up very strong expectations via intense repetition.

There is a conflict between making music based on your gut feelings vs. making music based on a careful rejection of established procedures. I originally commented on this thread because I noticed something that I've heard many times before--people who completely reject the role of theory and proclaim that they innovate based on an internal system of their own creation nearly always make music that is a) very intuitive and expressive and b) very derivative of what they've already heard. A really talented intuitive musician will subtly violate rules and expectations without consciously trying. The established grammars that you've already internalized help you really express your emotional or intuitive sense of aesthetics quickly, moving outside of established systems means that you'll often make music that doesn't communicate a visceral meaning to most people unless you spend an enormous amount of time and energy internalizing your new system. Internalizing that new system is a viable alternative though. has internalized his own intuitive system for most of his career, and he's made his explorations into new theoretical and conceptual grounds sound completely natural and emotionally resonant.

I mostly think it's a balancing act that each musician has to negotiate internally; it's a tension between freedom and discipline, between emotional and intellectual expression, between communicating with an audience (including yourself as part of the audience!) and pushing an audience into a new space.

Just had to add as well... great post. Very insightful. I think this was exactly what I needed to read today.

[jancivil]

Fixed -- see first post for note on what happened to the original thread and why some posts in this thread might seem to contain non sequiturs.

so this is "The Clean, European Version"

[Meffy]

Los Angeles, California, Spain... St. Paul, Minnesota, Italy... PDX, Norway... some place called Croatan, which obviously must be in Croatia. Yes, mostly European. But where's Hannover? Looks like a county in Virginia, misspelt, so that one's from America.