The organization of chromatic pieces of music.
-
- KVRian
- 933 posts since 26 May, 2008 from Colorado
There are as many ways to do this as there are people who do it. Guys like Schoenberg and Wuorinen were brilliant. What's your favorite way to use math to make chromatic music? Doesn't have to be 12 tone, either.
-
- Banned
- 282 posts since 4 May, 2022 from drippy, rainy wet western Oregon, USA.
It's notable that Schoenberg's early works are his most popular. I don't consider his later note row approach to be anything "brilliant", but to each their own. As theory it is NOT well thought out. It's impact on 20th century music is marginal - yet it's what was rammed down our throats at music school - to the exclusion of music that DID expand the vocabulary of western music and DID have some cultural relevance outside the faculty room - that would be afro american forms like jazz and rock. Wendy Carlos eviscerates it here -
When I went over from a Physics major to music composition, it left me with a much stronger background in math and acoustics than most musicians. Thus I was unlucky enough to grasp that Schoenberg's systematized serial methods are based upon a lie -- that all intervals of the 12 note scale can be treated democratically in a row. But these intervals aren't the same acoustically, having developed from tetrachordal tonal and diatonic scales of at least as far back as Pythagoreus. Easley Blackwood has observed for a proper serialism one need employ a scale that is "intervalically neutral", such as the scales of 11 or 13 equal steps.
In this instance the Serialists were conservative, and never stepped past the 12 tone scale. Their reluctance (or ignorance) led composers to choose germinating tone rows that had minimal adjacency of tonal intervals: no rich 3rds and 6ths, few dominant-tonic implicating 4th and 5ths, which pretty much left what's heard as the watermark of so much of this music: 7ths, 9ths, and tritones. Only logical. (I've made a computerized count: most 12-tone music uses the latter three intervals 55% of the time, while all other musics seldom top 8% -- a significant difference!) Like a diet of all spices and little protein, fat or carbohydrate, it quickly loses its appeal. If the 13-note scale had been adopted, the cliche might not have arisen, as Schoenberg's initial goal would have become much easier to achieve: a systematic avoidance of tonal center, or "home key" (to oversimplify.)
When I tried to discuss some of this with the teachers and serial-prone students around me at Columbia, you can imagine the rebuff that I was given: snotty and defensive. If I suggested that the so-called "math" used for row manipulation (procedures that seemed to intimidate a lot of other musicians -- perhaps the point) was a rather weak copy of real permutation and commutation theory, their fear, hatred and scorn reached new heights. I learned fast to keep my mouth shut, while dutifully cranking out several capable 12-tone compositions to obtain grade credit, then tossing these papers later as initiation dues. Wasted time. (That some decent dodecaphonic music was being written seemed at the time an excellent example of "the exception that proves the rule".)
When I went over from a Physics major to music composition, it left me with a much stronger background in math and acoustics than most musicians. Thus I was unlucky enough to grasp that Schoenberg's systematized serial methods are based upon a lie -- that all intervals of the 12 note scale can be treated democratically in a row. But these intervals aren't the same acoustically, having developed from tetrachordal tonal and diatonic scales of at least as far back as Pythagoreus. Easley Blackwood has observed for a proper serialism one need employ a scale that is "intervalically neutral", such as the scales of 11 or 13 equal steps.
In this instance the Serialists were conservative, and never stepped past the 12 tone scale. Their reluctance (or ignorance) led composers to choose germinating tone rows that had minimal adjacency of tonal intervals: no rich 3rds and 6ths, few dominant-tonic implicating 4th and 5ths, which pretty much left what's heard as the watermark of so much of this music: 7ths, 9ths, and tritones. Only logical. (I've made a computerized count: most 12-tone music uses the latter three intervals 55% of the time, while all other musics seldom top 8% -- a significant difference!) Like a diet of all spices and little protein, fat or carbohydrate, it quickly loses its appeal. If the 13-note scale had been adopted, the cliche might not have arisen, as Schoenberg's initial goal would have become much easier to achieve: a systematic avoidance of tonal center, or "home key" (to oversimplify.)
When I tried to discuss some of this with the teachers and serial-prone students around me at Columbia, you can imagine the rebuff that I was given: snotty and defensive. If I suggested that the so-called "math" used for row manipulation (procedures that seemed to intimidate a lot of other musicians -- perhaps the point) was a rather weak copy of real permutation and commutation theory, their fear, hatred and scorn reached new heights. I learned fast to keep my mouth shut, while dutifully cranking out several capable 12-tone compositions to obtain grade credit, then tossing these papers later as initiation dues. Wasted time. (That some decent dodecaphonic music was being written seemed at the time an excellent example of "the exception that proves the rule".)
-
- Banned
- 282 posts since 4 May, 2022 from drippy, rainy wet western Oregon, USA.
I just realized that criticizing Schoenberg's later schtuff doesn't answer your question. Sorry about that.
Here's something cool imo - it's isorhythm.
Imagine a row of tones, no rhythm. That's called the color.
And a rhythmic pattern, no tones yet. It has.... ons and offs. The ons are where the notes will land, the offs are rests. This is called the talea.
You superimpose these.
If the talea has the same number of ons as the color has tones in the row then obviously the result is the same with every repetition of the row.
The cool part is that they don't.
the length of the color and talea are often unequal, causing the repetition of the melody in differing rhythmic patterns. As an example, if the "color" includes nine notes and the "talea" five, the "color" would have to be repeated five times before the two schemes again realign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isorhythm ... orhythm%20(from%20the%20Greek%20for,voice%20part%20throughout%20a%20composition.
Here's something cool imo - it's isorhythm.
Imagine a row of tones, no rhythm. That's called the color.
And a rhythmic pattern, no tones yet. It has.... ons and offs. The ons are where the notes will land, the offs are rests. This is called the talea.
You superimpose these.
If the talea has the same number of ons as the color has tones in the row then obviously the result is the same with every repetition of the row.
The cool part is that they don't.
the length of the color and talea are often unequal, causing the repetition of the melody in differing rhythmic patterns. As an example, if the "color" includes nine notes and the "talea" five, the "color" would have to be repeated five times before the two schemes again realign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isorhythm ... orhythm%20(from%20the%20Greek%20for,voice%20part%20throughout%20a%20composition.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 933 posts since 26 May, 2008 from Colorado
EdwardGivens wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 7:36 am I just realized that criticizing Schoenberg's later schtuff doesn't answer your question. Sorry about that.
Here's something cool imo - it's isorhythm.
Imagine a row of tones, no rhythm. That's called the color.
And a rhythmic pattern, no tones yet. It has.... ons and offs. The ons are where the notes will land, the offs are rests. This is called the talea.
You superimpose these.
If the talea has the same number of ons as the color has tones in the row then obviously the result is the same with every repetition of the row.
The cool part is that they don't.
the length of the color and talea are often unequal, causing the repetition of the melody in differing rhythmic patterns. As an example, if the "color" includes nine notes and the "talea" five, the "color" would have to be repeated five times before the two schemes again realign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isorhythm ... orhythm%20(from%20the%20Greek%20for,voice%20part%20throughout%20a%20composition.
It's okay. I was thinking about your previous post for most of yesterday. Made me realize that there are rabbit holes I don't really want to go down(at least not right now.
)But...the isorhythm is pretty cool. Aand, with the exception of writing with some purely traditional methods, it's universally applicable.
You're right.Farnaby wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:35 am Schoenberg didn't use maths really, he just used sequences, reversing them, inverting them, etc.
I was making an association that I didn't realize I was making.-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
There’s really only arithmetic in music, with rare exception.
Here’s the only thing I can think of that’s even close to higher maths and still music.
A brilliant examination here. We get into how complex can you get before it’s so dense it’s noise. (Confer Ligeti and micropolyphony for this in the realm of pitch. Which also prefigured granular synthesis.)
When I was an ‘Applied Music’ major, I took a composition elective, which was purely a <make something for a grade employing teh twelve tone rows> exercise. I worked it for a while but decided ultimately being graded on the quality of my rows wasn’t a good idea. There was no sign by that time the test was about more than correctness of, or something impressive about the manipulation of the row(s).
CF:
(click the URL, cued) Serialization a tool, not an end
But I was diligent up to a point. But by the time I had figured to compose in earnest (I was against being schooled, I’m not a scholastic type anyway) I felt I’d internalized techniques, this being one I had looked somewhat closely at.
I frankly don’t think serialization of the full chromatic is necessarily superior to basically just doing it. I have two fake 12-tone pieces, that I dare anyone I didn’t tell on myself on to recognize the difference.*
Schoenberg’s music during that period feels neurotic and… miserable. Some of it is the performance, I believe. I finally heard a Pierrot Lunaire that was listenable, years on.
I heard his final piece yesterday and it’s as though we have highly chromatic Mozart sacred music. Somewhat like his free atonality, but I don’t like that word for it.
I think it can be funny. *:
(Much later) I eventually dove into Forte’s The Atonal Music of Anton Webern. I’m not sure why, 20 some yrs hence. But I found some things. You may find some of these things of interest: https://allenforte.github.io/writings.html
EG: “Aspects of Rhythm in Webern's Atonal Music”
People serialize any/all aspects. In my assessment, 12 tones using regular instruments isn’t going to exploit math until you get into rhythm, or say timbre is also virtually infinite. Like Frank, I wouldn’t serialize timbre, I mean subjective arbitrary holds far more interest than pure abstraction.
have fun!
Here’s the only thing I can think of that’s even close to higher maths and still music.
A brilliant examination here. We get into how complex can you get before it’s so dense it’s noise. (Confer Ligeti and micropolyphony for this in the realm of pitch. Which also prefigured granular synthesis.)
When I was an ‘Applied Music’ major, I took a composition elective, which was purely a <make something for a grade employing teh twelve tone rows> exercise. I worked it for a while but decided ultimately being graded on the quality of my rows wasn’t a good idea. There was no sign by that time the test was about more than correctness of, or something impressive about the manipulation of the row(s).
CF:
(click the URL, cued) Serialization a tool, not an end
But I was diligent up to a point. But by the time I had figured to compose in earnest (I was against being schooled, I’m not a scholastic type anyway) I felt I’d internalized techniques, this being one I had looked somewhat closely at.
I frankly don’t think serialization of the full chromatic is necessarily superior to basically just doing it. I have two fake 12-tone pieces, that I dare anyone I didn’t tell on myself on to recognize the difference.*
Schoenberg’s music during that period feels neurotic and… miserable. Some of it is the performance, I believe. I finally heard a Pierrot Lunaire that was listenable, years on.
I heard his final piece yesterday and it’s as though we have highly chromatic Mozart sacred music. Somewhat like his free atonality, but I don’t like that word for it.
I think it can be funny. *:
(Much later) I eventually dove into Forte’s The Atonal Music of Anton Webern. I’m not sure why, 20 some yrs hence. But I found some things. You may find some of these things of interest: https://allenforte.github.io/writings.html
EG: “Aspects of Rhythm in Webern's Atonal Music”
People serialize any/all aspects. In my assessment, 12 tones using regular instruments isn’t going to exploit math until you get into rhythm, or say timbre is also virtually infinite. Like Frank, I wouldn’t serialize timbre, I mean subjective arbitrary holds far more interest than pure abstraction.
have fun!
-
- Banned
- 282 posts since 4 May, 2022 from drippy, rainy wet western Oregon, USA.
I think it can be funny too. I've pointed out before w regard to Adorno's "avoiding kitsch" justification for the 12 tone fiasco, that such music after 100 years is now its own style of kitsch - "Bleep-Squawk" music.
Frank never threw out any babies with his bathwater. Some of his melodies are remarkably lovely.
For me I'm a pragmatist. If it sounds good then it is good. Landini (1300 or so) wrote that "he cared not whether one used one's nose" provided the result was pleasing.
Composers like Babbitt for example are the musical equivalent of a cook who doesn't taste. A liverwurst flavored flan would be a gastronomic achievement indeed, but knowing how it's made doesn't make it taste good. Besides any idiot can compose that way. Sensitive intuition not required. Take Milton. Nice guy, horrible composer.
A dog playing piano at least has some entertainment value. Whoa! tone clusters dude! Anybody got a transcription?
Frank never threw out any babies with his bathwater. Some of his melodies are remarkably lovely.
For me I'm a pragmatist. If it sounds good then it is good. Landini (1300 or so) wrote that "he cared not whether one used one's nose" provided the result was pleasing.
Composers like Babbitt for example are the musical equivalent of a cook who doesn't taste. A liverwurst flavored flan would be a gastronomic achievement indeed, but knowing how it's made doesn't make it taste good. Besides any idiot can compose that way. Sensitive intuition not required. Take Milton. Nice guy, horrible composer.
A dog playing piano at least has some entertainment value. Whoa! tone clusters dude! Anybody got a transcription?
Last edited by EdwardGivens on Fri Dec 30, 2022 6:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
I’m the same, it’s all sounds good to me or not.
If I needed long form, ie., vastly more repetition essentially, I’d have more drive to use this sort of technique, serializing.
If I needed long form, ie., vastly more repetition essentially, I’d have more drive to use this sort of technique, serializing.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
My first exposure to ‘12-tone’ was directly out of chromatic harmony part-writing, the first time at community college. It shocked me out of a certain complacency in my sort of “Impressionist” lushness aesthetic. At the same time avant-garde jazz was exerting its pull. Schoenberg’s actual music of that type still left me cold.
-
- Banned
- 282 posts since 4 May, 2022 from drippy, rainy wet western Oregon, USA.
It's an easy concept to explain to young music nerds. The part I took exception to was the idea that music "progressed" into what they, the composition faculty, were creating in order to establish themselves on the lower slopes of Mt. Great Composers. Or that complexity (or the illusion thereof) makes better music as a matter of course. But I was an early music nerd at the time. When you've sung a mass where each tone of the mode gets a different word in the liturgy assigned to it (so that Deus for example is always on DO no matter who is singing it) Mind blowing complexity and it sounds - well - heavenly - the idea that you should use every color in your little paint box before returning to the top seems a bit retrograde. Or inverted. Or......both! 
And it's part of the "one great man" myth too. Look at this colossal genius! All alone he changed everything about music forever. cue tumbleweed
Yea I switched to art history (I love early moderns) Even more useful than a music degree!
And it's part of the "one great man" myth too. Look at this colossal genius! All alone he changed everything about music forever. cue tumbleweed
Yea I switched to art history (I love early moderns) Even more useful than a music degree!
Last edited by EdwardGivens on Fri Dec 30, 2022 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Banned
- 282 posts since 4 May, 2022 from drippy, rainy wet western Oregon, USA.
I do think that serializing (seriously) can be useful for generating material for a larger form, but....anymore I don't have a problem coming up with ideas. Inspiration is no problemo. Running out of time IS.
You're right about the need to shock oneself out of complacency. I live in fear of repeating myself which is ironic because I like to explore repetition in music. Anyway whilst on another forum (which I loath - kvr is more interesting) I made "friends" with a composer whose music is pretty unlike mine - very dissonant by comparison and more importantly dense in texture - something I'm not very good at. Her music seemed meaningful and not simply mental self abuse - I liked it. So I tried for a while to make sounds that were thicker. It's still not my thing exactly but I broadened my palette by giving it a shot.
You're right about the need to shock oneself out of complacency. I live in fear of repeating myself which is ironic because I like to explore repetition in music. Anyway whilst on another forum (which I loath - kvr is more interesting) I made "friends" with a composer whose music is pretty unlike mine - very dissonant by comparison and more importantly dense in texture - something I'm not very good at. Her music seemed meaningful and not simply mental self abuse - I liked it. So I tried for a while to make sounds that were thicker. It's still not my thing exactly but I broadened my palette by giving it a shot.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
By the time I was making things and hearing them - ie., using the ways of the DAW - I had come to realize improvisation {freshness} was the m.o. for me. So, if I wrap it up but fast, I’m okay with it. As a young would-be composer I contrived, and planned, made schemes and basically just used up a lot of paper and 2B pencils, never heard anything I didn’t record, on tape, and most of that was live. I did have two Revox B77s to play with at SFCM (learned “Frippertronics” off the liner notes of Eno’s Music for Airports).
So I have a basic deficiency as far as ‘serious composer’ goes, but I got to develop my sound. And starting out in more popular music clearly entrained me to 3, 3 and a half minutes form.
Music school was purely means to an end, “Music Theory” (90% four part writing in the late chromatic paradigm) and “Applied Music”, ultimately perform on the instrument for jury. I stuck with what I was good at, scholastics be damned. I suck at life.
So I have a basic deficiency as far as ‘serious composer’ goes, but I got to develop my sound. And starting out in more popular music clearly entrained me to 3, 3 and a half minutes form.
Music school was purely means to an end, “Music Theory” (90% four part writing in the late chromatic paradigm) and “Applied Music”, ultimately perform on the instrument for jury. I stuck with what I was good at, scholastics be damned. I suck at life.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 933 posts since 26 May, 2008 from Colorado
If this is your work, great job. It was fun.
I'm slowly working my way through all you've posted. I don't want to re-invent the wheel.
I'm the same way. I my case, I have a hard time avoiding overworking things from time to time.
I understand this paradigm.EdwardGivens wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 4:33 am ...I live in fear of repeating myself which is ironic because I like to explore repetition in music.
Writing music whose main purpose is to avoid being kitsch was and probably still is statistically unfriendly.EdwardGivens wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 7:58 pm I think it can be funny too. I've pointed out before w regard to Adorno's "avoiding kitsch" justification for the 12 tone fiasco, that such music after 100 years is now its own style of kitsch - "Bleep-Squawk" music.
-
- Banned
- 282 posts since 4 May, 2022 from drippy, rainy wet western Oregon, USA.
Stop. I'm pretty sure based on your prose, that you do not.
Frippertronics! I had No PussyFooting on Vinyl.
Yea a faster approach is to take a page from Picasso FIND, don't search. It's far more interesting to never know exactly where the rabbit pops up next, than to have a grandiose idea with too many specifics a priori. I try to let my subconscious do the driving and work as fast as possible. Covid. Death of my brother and mother. Fear of death is a good motivator.
Of course I'm older now and have the technique and confidence to pull it off. Flaws are essential. Perfection is banal and understandable to any idiot.
At "that other forum" there is much gab wrt setting up templates and organizing, tinkering with, etc ad nauseum accompanied by hand wringing over not being motivated. "maybe I need a different string library". In Lesotho they make remarkable music with instruments made of trash.
-
- Banned
- 282 posts since 4 May, 2022 from drippy, rainy wet western Oregon, USA.
"Fault eludes conventional and banal perfections. Therefore fault is multiple, it is life, it reflects the personality of the artist and her character; it is human, it is everything, it will redeem the work."
- James Ensor
- James Ensor
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.