# Pseudoscience in Music/Stockhausen/Schillinger/Serialism



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

*I found these interesting posts in an audio magazine forum whilst looking for a paper with a similar title. I think it would get a better response here, and the user is 'unregistered', so there's no issue with permissions:*



Anonymous said:


> I just watched that hilarious interview with Stockhausen. I rather like, that, when someone takes themselves _so_ unbelievably seriously, no one else really can!
> 
> I am interested in his contribution and ideas while a lot of his stuff makes me laugh (e.g. that helicopter quartet) like a great surreal comedy! And why not? Like John Cage said, "if it offends you to call what I do 'music', then call it something else." Fair enough, although I believe many of Cage's contributions were more about zen states than music.
> 
> ...


------------SECOND POST------------


Anonymous said:


> cottonwood_spacehill said:
> 
> 
> > ...I really dont understand your problem with the Schillinger system, or fractal music.
> ...


------------THIRD POST------------


Anonymous said:


> Daniel Davis said:
> 
> 
> > I hate pseudo science, but you appear to be arguing against science in music because you think it is inaudible or unimportant, that does not make it pseudo-science.
> ...


*Any thoughts here?*


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2013)

Minona said:


> Any thoughts here?


Well, I wish Daniel had gotten his attribution correct. The person who said "stand up and use your ears like a man" was Ives, not Debussy, and it was at a premiere of a piece by Carl Ruggles, not Stravinsky.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't have nor the time or will for reading all that. I will just say a couple of things. Mathematics is a science which, using only logic, tries to study the properties and relations between objects previously defined, e.g., you define first what a continuous function is, then you define what a differentiable function is, and then you _show_, in a theorem, that differentiability implies continuity. So, from this point of view, mathematics is just a very powerful, systematic and refined way of studying things using logic.
In applications, it's a very useful thing, since once you identify the objects you are dealing with some mathematical object, you can work then with the properties of the mathematical object and you can obtain results rather quickly.
For example, if I'm measuring distances in a field and I have a right triangle for which I need to measure the longitude of all its sides (a, b, and h, where h is the hypotenuse), I can proceed in two ways: I can go and measure directly the three quantities, _or_ I can go and measure only a and b, but, since I know from mathematics that the longitude of the hypotenuse is simply h= sqrt (a^2+b^2), then I can calculate the other value. So, I have taken advantage of the powerful, systematic and refined way of studying things using mathematics.
In music the picture is not different. Particularly in serialism. 
In serialism, you have a basic row of notes, for example. You want to know some permutations of that row. The best way is to take a systematic approach, ordering such rows in matrices for example and then applying some algorithmic operations (derived from the theory of matrices) for obtaining the permutations. You are certainly using mathematics in that construction.
Now, that does not say anything about the _artistic_ value of the piece of music composed using that method, in my opinion. That will always be related with subjective perception, after all, that's the interesting thing about art.
Other composers are inspired by mathematics, but they don't use it for their compositions. For example, Ligeti was fascinated with fractals and their properties. The fourth movement of his Piano Concerto is clearly inspired by fractal geometry, the 'self- replication' property is cleverly used, making the musical analog of those typical fractal images. Ligeti does not use any iterative mathematical formula, he just tries to use the 'self- replication' property in an intuitive way in his composition.
I think all of the previously mentioned examples are valid and interesting ways to proceed.
In any case, I only have my reservations when I perceive certain kind of pedantry and pretentiousness from the composer.


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

RE "I don't have nor the time or will for reading all that."

Hehe, I don't blame you. To much to say? I read it (in bits) because I was thinking of studying Schillinger and found several criticisms of his theories. There are some points in there that really resonate with me a lot and I don't want to waste time with bull**** theoretical systems.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Minona said:


> RE "I don't have nor the time or will for reading all that."
> 
> Hehe, I don't blame you. To much to say? I read it (in bits) because I was thinking of studying Schillinger and found several criticisms of his theories. There are some points in there that really resonate with me a lot and I don't want to waste time with bull**** theoretical systems.


Well, I'm an amateur composer and I work on mathematical physics. My knowledge of music theory is in the "standard approach". This knowledge has been very useful so far for working in my compostions and for reading and understanding the scores and the writings of my favorite composers.
My compositional methods are highly driven by theoretical ideas and motivations. Now I'm working in a piano concerto and, so far, without touching a single key of the piano!, (although, since I'm a pianist, I have a deep knowledge of the piano). But, despite this, I don't have any mathematical "framework", "method" or something like that, even considering that I work with rather sophisticated mathematics everyday in physics. The only abstract thing is a very general idea of the kind of form I want to explore, a type of polyphony. But, when I'm confronted with the score, my steps are mainly intuitive.


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

Well, I just agree that acoustic & psychoacoustic factors were largely ignored by some C20th composers, and so that you're using intuition is the best way to counteract writing music that isn't beyone human perception. You might enjoy the Stockhausen lecture video posted above:






If you follow the links there are other interesting lectures by him.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

CP tonality is based on acoustic factors, because of the scale of consonance and dissonance in intervals (see chart in my blogs). It is a system _based _on these harmonic principles, but it takes these "vertical" intervals and _spreads them out over time horizontally, and gives functions to them._ This requires cognition and memory, applied over time. Thus, it is just as much a _"hidden system"_ as serialism or fractal composition, or any of the "pseudo-scientific" methods. For a listener to follow the harmonic scheme of a Beethoven symphony is just as arbitrary and cerebral as serial music. The only thing that makes CP tonality "seem" more "apparent" and comprehensible is the vertical sounding of harmonies and triads, along with rudimentary language-like phrasing. Debussy likewise seems comprehensible to many, because he uses "harmonic mechanisms" like triads based on thirds; there is no CP tonal function.

This is because the only harmonic "truth" which is intuitively and instantly comprehended by the ear/brain are intervals sounded simultaneously, as the harmonics of a "root" or fundamental note.

Therefore, if we are searching for "natural truth" in music, then North Indian raga is more "truthful, because it does not modulate, and is always in reference to a "drone" which is constant and always audible to the ear/brain. In fact, Schenkerian analysis is monotonal; the "truth" leads back to _one note and its harmonics.

_20th century music has its own logic and methods, much of it based on symmetry rather than being directly derived, as CP tonality is, to strictly vertical harmonic factors; _but music is more than the sensual vibrations of the eardrum; it involves cognition through time as well. 
_
If the insistence on "totally natural and apparent" music were really the case, then ET would not exist, and we'd all be listening to La Monte Young's perfectly-tuned pure intervals.


----------

