# Conceivableness as a test of quality (of contemporary and other music)



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

As there has been a lot of talk about merits of serialism, contemporary music, etc... and the bubble experiment has proven that modern music critics can't distinguish between true works of art and random notes... here I propose a test for determining whether a piece of music is a true work of art, or just a meaningless construction:

"A piece of music can be a true work of art if and only if its main musical ideas can be conceived in the mind of the composer, *before *they write them down. By "main musical ideas" I think explicit melodies, rhythms, harmonies... not abstract concepts. So serialism is also a conceivable concept, but it doesn't count, as it's just an abstract idea... not a formed _musical _idea. Only actual melodies, rhythms, harmonies, etc... count... Only things you can sing or hum BEFORE you write down. In other words, true music is composed in the head and not on the paper/sheet music software. Only when they have complete ideas in their mind, they should write them down... and not compose while writing."

Of course this doesn't mean that composers can't do any construction or development... they can... but they need to first have some good musical ideas in their mind before they touch the paper. Something that they can sing before they write it down. Later they can work with it and develop it further.

IMO only this type of music is actual human music, all else is just artificial constructions with little actual musical merit."

In the end, which scale they use, whether it is tonal or atonal, etc... doesn't matter... the only thing that matters is that they operate with concrete conceivable musical ideas, before they even touch the paper.

Your thoughts?


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

ZJovicic said:


> and the bubble experiment has proven that modern music critics can't distinguish between true works of art and random notes


False...........


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

man if you don't like music by certain composers just say so, there's no reason to try to prove your correctness by coming up with some bizarre objective test to "prove" music you don't like isn't "true art"


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> As there has been a lot of talk about merits of serialism, contemporary music, etc... and the bubble experiment has proven that modern music critics can't distinguish between true works of art and random notes... here I propose a test for determining whether a piece of music is a true work of art, or just a meaningless construction:
> 
> "A piece of music can be a true work of art if and only if its main musical ideas can be conceived in the mind of the composer, *before *they write them down. By "main musical ideas" I think explicit melodies, rhythms, harmonies... not abstract concepts. So serialism is also a conceivable concept, but it doesn't count, as it's just an abstract idea... not a formed _musical _idea. Only actual melodies, rhythms, harmonies, etc... count... Only things you can sing or hum BEFORE you write down. In other words, true music is composed in the head and not on the paper/sheet music software. Only when they have complete ideas in their mind, they should write them down... and not compose while writing."
> 
> ...


Cornelius Cardew's Treatise is music I think. But I don't think its musical ideas were in the composer's mind. If it's not a work of art, what is it?

What about morse code? Is it musical? Rhythm is musical surely. Is morse code a work of art?

Have you thought about Cage's Variations II?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

ZJovicic said:


> As there has been a lot of talk about merits of serialism, contemporary music, etc... and the bubble experiment has proven that modern music critics can't distinguish between true works of art and random notes... here I propose a test for determining whether a piece of music is a true work of art, or just a meaningless construction:
> 
> "A piece of music can be a true work of art if and only if its main musical ideas can be conceived in the mind of the composer, *before *they write them down. By "main musical ideas" I think explicit melodies, rhythms, harmonies... not abstract concepts. So serialism is also a conceivable concept, but it doesn't count, as it's just an abstract idea... not a formed _musical _idea. Only actual melodies, rhythms, harmonies, etc... count... Only things you can sing or hum BEFORE you write down. In other words, true music is composed in the head and not on the paper/sheet music software. Only when they have complete ideas in their mind, they should write them down... and not compose while writing."
> 
> ...


How about this: A piece of music can be a true work of art if and only if people, maybe not millions of people but at least some people, actually want to listen to it, more than once, and more than a few years after it first appears.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

fluteman said:


> How about this: A piece of music can be a true work of art if and only if people, maybe not millions of people but at least some people, actually want to listen to it, more than once, and more than a few years after it first appears.


Actually you are defining good/great art. A piece of music can (and often is) mediocre/bad art and that will die away quite quickly unlike great art. But both are art.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

My "objective" test is of course just one of the ways to look at it, but I do think it has some merit, because it tries to catch the core of what music is - arrangement of sounds. If you don't know in your head how it will sound, if you can't imagine how it will sound before you start writing it down, then your composition has no direction... you'll end up either creating something random, or some kind of artificial construction, you'll follow the rules, the rules will lead to a certain result, but you had no idea what that result would be... and if that result was different, you wouldn't care... because if you don't have clue, idea, direction, the final result of your construction will sound to you who created it equally alien as it will sound to your listeners.

However, this I also like the fluteman's test as well:



> A piece of music can be a true work of art if and only if people, maybe not millions of people but at least some people, actually want to listen to it, more than once, and more than a few years after it first appears.


And I'd add another 2 of my own:

Second test:
"Music can only be art if it can communicate something, if it can transfer certain musical ideas to the listener, and be comprehended by them"

and Third test:

Music can only be art if it's recognizable... if it's distinguishable from other similar sounding works... if it's distinct, if it has identity. For example if you listen to a mediocre pop song, it will sound pretty similar to other mediocre pop songs, so it's quality is low. If you don't care whether you listen to this song in particular, or you substitute it with another similar song... and both feel kind of same to you... then probably neither of them is a great song.

So by this test serialism is definitely low quality music, because the listener in most of the cases wouldn't notice much difference even if the piece was based on some other tone row... it would still sound the same.

But by this test, for example also, most Haydn symphonies would be classified as "meh"... because they don't have much of identity, and don't sound too different from each other... (perhaps it's just me though)...


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Why the obsession with this subject? Why the obsession with objectivity? Why the obsession with tests? I'll grant you this, I do think that people don't like contemporary music because they don't think anyone can imagine that. Well, tough luck. Composers and musicians can.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Music involves all parts of the brain, so the creative process is really complicated to begin with, let alone in terms of describing it in any exact way.

Some composers, like Rachmaninov, could write down an entire piece without any need for plans or sketches. However, like many other composers, after a few years he would inevitably go back and revise these pieces. Others would sketch prolifically and refine these to create a finished work. Beethoven is a famous example.

Since the performance of music is about action, I think that improvisation is the link between what's in the head and what is written down. Franck's pupil d'Indy reminisced how his teacher would interrupt lectures to jot down ideas that came to him, otherwise they would be lost. Franck was a great improviser as an organist, and I have a sense that he was improvising even when away from the instrument. That makes me think of an interview I heard with a pianist years ago, where he was asked how many hours a day he practiced. He said 24 hours.

I think that many composers from the past would have found computers to be a blessing, because you can see the process of creation in their own scores. Janacek's scores are notorious for being messy, you can see the process of change, the sense of a work in progress. Imagine what he would have been able to do with today's technology?

http://www.musicweb-international.com/sandh/2001/oct01/manuscript.jpg

Compare that to Brahms, who liked to give the impression that he worked out everything in his head (E.g. the manuscript of Sextet #1 https://www.loc.gov/resource/ihas.200031143.0?st=gallery). The few sketches which survive by him suggest otherwise, they look more like Janacek's, however like much else they where consigned to the flames.

This only covers things up to the early 20th century, and doesn't cover important developments like serialism, aleatoricism and electronics. However even with music of the past, I think its unnecessary to try and differentiate between what you call true music and the rest. The creative process is too varied to try and delineate in this way.

Incidentally, my definition of music is an extremely broad one, and that is because I think that maximum freedom aids the creative process. My thoughts on that in another thread: 
https://www.talkclassical.com/57038-wheres-boundary-defines-whats-11.html#post1507034


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Regarding this boundary... it's a tricky question...

I consider some of the works from your list modern art in sound form. This modern art in sound form can still be fascinating, interesting, perhaps even enjoyable... I could imagine it being a part of some installation in an art gallery. But I wouldn't call it music. I'd call it "sound art". Or "conceptual sound art". I wouldn't call it music because while it engages my mind, it doesn't engage musical parts of my mind. And if I feel like listening to some music, if I feel this thirst for music, listening to some of these works will simply not quench that thirst. When I need some music in my life, listening to these things would feel like a waste of time.

But they would still give me a different kind of experience. They would satisfy my artistic curiosity, they would refresh my mind with some novelty, and they would engage those parts of my mind that get engaged in art museums.
They can give me something that music perhaps can't. They are indeed art... But some of them are not music IMO.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> My "objective" test is of course just one of the ways to look at it, but I do think it has some merit, because it tries to catch the core of what music is - arrangement of sounds.


I disagree. I think the test has no merit and is based on easily falsifiable assumptions.



ZJovicic said:


> If you don't know in your head how it will sound, if you can't imagine how it will sound before you start writing it down, then your composition has no direction... you'll end up either creating something random, or some kind of artificial construction, you'll follow the rules, the rules will lead to a certain result, but you had no idea what that result would be... and if that result was different, you wouldn't care... because if you don't have clue, idea, direction, the final result of your construction will sound to you who created it equally alien as it will sound to your listeners.


This is nonsense from start to finish. Beethoven had no idea how the first theme (or the movement as a whole) of the Eroica would sound before he started writing it down. It took him a series of four elaborate concept sketches - pages of writing and crossing out - before he managed to approximate the first theme as we know it. He didn't end up with something that sounded random or artificial. He broke numerous "rules" (actually, just conventions) and it did sound a little "alien" to its listeners, if by alien you mean completely original and ingenious enough that it was unlikely to be fully comprehended on one hearing.



ZJovicic said:


> Second test:
> "Music can only be art if it can communicate something, if it can transfer certain musical ideas to the listener, and be comprehended by them"


Which listener? Do you mean the kind who would think Beethoven fully conceived his music in his head before he started writing it down?



ZJovicic said:


> But by this test, for example also, most Haydn symphonies would be classified as "meh"... because they don't have much of identity, and don't sound too different from each other... (perhaps it's just me though)...


It's just you. Or else you don't know Haydn's symphonies very well.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> It's just you. Or else you don't know Haydn's symphonies very well.


I just want to quote Eduard Hanslick regarding this matter cause you think highly of him:

"Haydn's quartets are so deeply rooted in our blood . . . that we feel . . . that we are encountering an old friend. Furthermore, it was part of the historical character of the Haydn era that his quartets represented much more the common elements of a genre than a differentiated, sharply defined individuality. It is revealing that one always refers to 'a Haydn quartet' whereas one is precise with regard to the specific work one is talking about in the case of Beethoven. . . . The reasons do not lie exclusively with the fundamentally different personalities of the two masters. The manner of composition was entirely different in their respective times. Anyone who wrote more than one hundred symphonies and came close to that in terms of quartets, could not possibly invest in each of these works a distinct richness of individuality."


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

fbjim said:


> man if you don't like music by certain composers just say so, there's no reason to try to prove your correctness by coming up with some bizarre objective test to "prove" music you don't like isn't "true art"


Aesthetic philosophers have a name for these dubious attempts to define objective attributes to art -- the essentialist fallacy. There's a famous essay by Morris Weitz where he convincingly argues that art has no necessary or sufficient conditions. To me, art is the means by which people celebrate their humanity, and as humanity is so multi-faceted and broad in scope, and can be viewed in so many ways, there is no way to isolate specific attributes or reason to try. One can say, music is related to sound, but it's hard to say any more.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

fluteman said:


> Aesthetic philosophers have a name for these dubious attempts to define objective attributes to art -- the essentialist fallacy. There's a famous essay by Morris Weitz where he convincingly argues that art has no necessary or sufficient conditions. To me, art is the means by which people celebrate their humanity, and as humanity is so multi-faceted and broad in scope, and can be viewed in so many ways, there is no way to isolate specific attributes or reason to try. One can say, music is related to sound, but it's hard to say any more.


Do you think that any sound or any silence can be heard as music? The sound of traffic for example.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

ZJovicic said:


> Regarding this boundary... it's a tricky question...
> 
> I consider some of the works from your list modern art in sound form. This modern art in sound form can still be fascinating, interesting, perhaps even enjoyable... I could imagine it being a part of some installation in an art gallery. But I wouldn't call it music. I'd call it "sound art". Or "conceptual sound art". I wouldn't call it music because while it engages my mind, it doesn't engage musical parts of my mind. And if I feel like listening to some music, if I feel this thirst for music, listening to some of these works will simply not quench that thirst. When I need some music in my life, listening to these things would feel like a waste of time.
> 
> ...


I know what you mean. About ten years ago, I was at an exhibition of conceptual art, and it included a video of a performance of 4'33". The curators included such landmarks of conceptual art in the exhibition as context.

The boundaries between artforms have come to be so porous as to be practically meaningless. The creator's intention and the frame, or setting, may well be the only useful guides as to what category - if any in particular - an artwork might fit into.

I think that the reasons for this can be boiled down to two things - historical precedent and freedom of artistic expression. I extrapolated in that same thread:
https://www.talkclassical.com/57038-wheres-boundary-defines-whats-14.html#post1507649

In terms of the former, many see the 1950's as the peak of modernism. It can be argued that since then, postmodernism has fully embraced eclecticism with

- the disappearance of stylistic schools.

- innovation no longer being a prerequisite to justify something being labelled as contemporary.

- erosion of genre boundaries.

I think this all relates to the latter, freedom of expression. No set of approaches is dominant, so a great multitude of approaches are open to those who create.

Ultimately, I think that what has been done can't be undone, and it would be undesirable to try and do so. If those who create have the utmost freedom to do what they do, then that can only benefit culture as a whole. It gives the opportunity for the widest array of art to be created.

I acknowledge that this can still be a controversial issue.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

ZJovicic said:


> ...and the bubble experiment has proven that modern music critics can't distinguish between true works of art and random notes...


This is flatly not true. It was not an "experiment" in any regard in which that word has the least meaning, and it proved absolutely nothing other than demonstrate that some people are jerkasses who hate that some people like music they don't.

As for rest, rubbish heaped on a foundation of rubbish.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The OP is rather silly: it lacks logical coherence and is dictatorial. Hitler or Stalin might have devised it. 

As for the targeted modern music, the bad news is that lots of people do buy it and listen to it. Not as many as buy and listen to the Pastoral but enough to generate that many people do understand it and enjoy getting to know it.

For the rest I am wondering how the test might weed out music that is popular when it is new but then sinks into obscurity? This opposite case is very common: much music is appreciated in its time but then becomes an embarrassment. An example might be the Fould's World Requiem, a work that was a huge hit between the wars but is hardly ever heard now and IMO you can hear why.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Knorf said:


> This is flatly not true.


What do you think is the musical equivalent of this?:




"Here's a test I give my graduate students, all talented and well educated; "Please analyze this Jackson Pollock painting and explain why it is good." It is only after they give very eloquent answers that I inform them that the painting is actually a close up of my studio apron. I don't blame them; I would probably have done the same since it's nearly impossible to differentiate between the two."


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think is the musical equivalent of this?:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's what I think: Such experiments are without exception invalid and silly. Enthusiast's post above gets much closer to the truth. Merit in art can only be observed, never mind measured, solely by the way in which it is perceived by an audience that persists over time and beyond any short-term trend or fashion.

Edit: And btw, I am for the most part a traditional classical music fan and not a contemporary music fan (with exceptions, of course). Yet even I can see the fallacy in inherent in the arguments of those who think there are inherent attributes of contemporary or 20th-21st century music (as if such a broad generalization was even possible) that render it inferior to 18th or 19th century music.

So please spare me condescending lectures on how I am too extreme in my support of contemporary music.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fluteman said:


> Here's what I think: Such experiments are without exception invalid and silly. Enthusiast's post above gets much closer to the truth. Merit in art can only be observed, never mind measured, solely by the way in which it is perceived by an audience that persists over time and beyond any short-term trend or fashion.


So it would be impossible to judge the artistic merit of something composed last year?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Knorf said:


> This is flatly not true. It was not an "experiment" in any regard in which that word has the least meaning, and it proved absolutely nothing other than demonstrate that some people are jerkasses who hate that some people like music they don't.
> 
> As for rest, rubbish heaped on a foundation of rubbish.


Well I wouldn't put it so strongly maybe but I do think it was a cheap shot and way too much can be made of it. I can sit at a keyboard and come up with something that sounds *like* Webern superficially, but on closer inspection it would be seen that there wasn't much thought behind it. "Atonality" could be subject to such lampooning I guess, as could minimalism. But like PDQ Bach, it really doesn't take anything away from the originals.


hammeredklavier said:


> "Here's a test I give my graduate students, all talented and well educated; "Please analyze this Jackson Pollock painting and explain why it is good." It is only after they give very eloquent answers that I inform them that the painting is actually a close up of my studio apron. I don't blame them; I would probably have done the same since it's nearly impossible to differentiate between the two."


The thing though is that it's a *reaction to* Jackson Pollock, who had the idea first. Without Pollock there wouldn't have been a basis for the "gotcha".


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

dissident said:


> The thing though is that it's a *reaction to* Jackson Pollock, who had the idea first. Without Pollock there wouldn't have been a basis for the "gotcha".


Yes. Maybe all that experiment proves is that, since Pollock, we're able to see more in a studio apron. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Since you guys didn't like my first 3 tests, here's the fourth one:

Good music is difficult to compose... and probably rare!

I'm inspired by these experiments. If a child playing random notes on keyboard can create "music" that sounds very similar to works of certain composers, then, my conclusion is that these "works" are in fact extremely easy to compose. Even if you need to use some very obscure technique that is in fact difficult and complex to create such a work... if the final result is indistinguishable from randomness, and even educated musicians can't tell the difference, then well, you just wasted your effort employing that complex and difficult techniques, because in the end, the same result could be achieved by total randomness. So even if composing such a thing was difficult _*for you*_... it doesn't stop it from being easy *in general*... In the end it was just your whim to use a more difficult way, when the same thing can be achieved much more easily.

On the other hand... I still haven't heard of any random process or experiment creating something that sounds like Beethoven's Fifth... and so by that criteria (among many other criteria) I conclude that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is a much better work.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

At their most extreme, the experiments of the 1950's can justify the cliches - random noise, morse code, creaky doors and such. However, purely technical pieces can have a reason other than to gratify the needs of most listeners. A comparison can be made with the practice pieces of Clementi and Czerny. They may sound boring but can't be judged by the standards of listeners, since they where designed for teaching purposes. 

The aleatoric process pieces, integral serialism and early electronic music of the 1950's where like a watershed because after modernism, they became absorbed into music. It can also be argued that the 1950's was less like a high point of modernism and more like a bridge to postmodernism.

I think that its difficult and basically unnecessary to make comparisons between aleatoric music and something like Beethoven's fifth, because the aesthetics simply don't match. Neither is invalidated by the other. 

There is a danger in trying to correct mistakes with more mistakes. History has taught us that. In hindsight, the most extreme dogmas of modernism - which can be summed up as throwing out the baby with the bathwater - only served to highlight existing divisions in music. Nevertheless, once the dust settled, music was able to move beyond that particular ideological deadlock.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

I actually think the OP makes an interesting point, although I wouldn't call it a test of "quality" or "true art" but rather a test of the "musical meaningfulness" of a compositional idiom.

Let's face it, music is ultimately meant to be _heard_ so in order for a compositional language to qualify as musically meaningful its elements shouldn't be just conceptually / mathematically distinct but also aurally / psychologically distinct, i.e. they are perceived as distinct colors by the human ear.

For example the major and minor scales are psychologically distinct, with both having distinct sounds that even non-musician notice because minor scales are perceived as darker compared to major scales.

On the other hand I don't think that the different transformations of a twelve-tone-row are perceived as distinct in the same way. This has various reasons, I think an important one is that all twelve-tone-rows consist of the same 12 tones and the same mode and thus don't create enough contrast to create different psychological colors. So their conceptual distinctness doesn't translate that well into aural distinctness and thus they may be more relevant if viewed as concept art rather than music.

This is where conceivableness comes into play. If the elements of the music are psychologically distinct, one can conceive the music in ones mind simply by recalling their specific color, and does not need to construct them mathematically to ensure that they comply to the system.

There is also a strong connection between conceivableness and improvisation: If the music can be directly conceived in the mind then it can also be directly translated to an instrument to improvise. Thats why even many untrained musicians can sing improvisations in major keys (without understanding them mathematically), although the same cannot be said for twelve-tone-music (at best they may come up with lines that superficially resemble serial music but that in fact do not conform with twelve-tone-rows at all).

Many of the great composers were also great improvisers, e.g. Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Debussy, even Messiaen (who had synesthesia and interestingly criticised serial music for being not colorful enough and mostly grey).

On the other hand I am not aware of an improvising serial composer (although I would be happy to get disproven). I wonder if this has something to do with an emphasis on the conceptual over the musical.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

amfortas said:


> Yes. Maybe all that experiment proves is that, since Pollock, we're able to see more in a studio apron. Nothing wrong with that.


Yes, paintings by Pollock are supposed to be completely abstract. Yet he seems to have reproduced a real-life item with near photographic accuracy, so that the two are nearly indistinguishable. Although, if one looks long and hard, one can detect signs of careful technique involved in his paintings, and that they are not exactly the same as a studio apron. Painters have been playing tricks like that on viewers for centuries.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

chipia said:


> I actually think the OP makes an interesting point, although I wouldn't call it a test of "quality" or "true art" but rather a test of the "musical meaningfulness" of a compositional idiom.
> 
> Let's face it, music is ultimately meant to be _heard_ so in order for a compositional language to qualify as musically meaningful its elements shouldn't be just conceptually / mathematically distinct but also aurally / psychologically distinct, i.e. they are perceived as distinct colors by the human ear.
> 
> For example the major and minor scales are psychologically distinct, with both having distinct sounds that even non-musician notice because minor scales are perceived as darker compared to major scales.


You (? the OP, anyway) start off with an assumption that serial music is not perceived as having meaning and do this so as to show .... that serial music is not perceived as having meaning. The trouble is that you are a member of a forum where the majority do find meaning in serial music.

As for psychologists attempts to measure how different musical languages are perceived, are you assuming that the differences they find are innate rather than learned? Of course, if we were guided by popularity then none of us would be here. We would be participating in a pop forum.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> You (? the OP, anyway) start off with an assumption that serial music is not perceived as having meaning


No, I didn't start with this assumption.



Enthusiast said:


> and do this so as to show .... that serial music is not perceived as having meaning. The trouble is that you are a member of a forum where the majority do find meaning in serial music.


No, I also find meaning in much serial music.  My post wasn't talking about serial music as a whole but specifically about the method of pitch generation, i.e. tone rows and their transformations. There is still plenty of meaning in rhythms, timbre and texture. That's why I feel that the best serial works tend to be those that focus on timbre/texture.



Enthusiast said:


> As for psychologists attempts to measure how different musical languages are perceived, are you assuming that the differences they find are innate rather than learned?


Based on my experience and some research it's probably a mixture of innate and cultural influences, although I think innate elements are more important.

But that's not relevant to my argument: Even if it was 100% learned, the scales still must be recognized as distinct colors by the ear in order to assign a learned emotion to them. You can not recognize the "learned" darkness of the minor key without first recognizing the psychological color of the minor key. The emotion gets attached to it afterwards.



Enthusiast said:


> Of course, if we were guided by popularity then none of us would be here. We would be participating in a pop forum.


I don't think anybody here was talking about popularity.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

ZJovicic said:


> "A piece of music can be a true work of art if and only if its main musical ideas can be conceived in the mind of the composer, *before *they write them down. By "main musical ideas" I think explicit melodies, rhythms, harmonies... not abstract concepts. So serialism is also a conceivable concept, but it doesn't count, as it's just an abstract idea... not a formed _musical _idea. Only actual melodies, rhythms, harmonies, etc... count... Only things you can sing or hum BEFORE you write down. In other words, true music is composed in the head and not on the paper/sheet music software. Only when they have complete ideas in their mind, they should write them down... and not compose while writing."


Good definition. Its good to restrict it to the main musical ideas, because I guess some polyphonism results aren't in the mind of the composer before they are tested. If you have 5 lines of rhythms and melodies on top of each other its difficult to imagine the exact result. Testing is important here. But the main ideas, so each meldody, rhythm etc. has to come from the composer otherwise its not human. If its not human its not art but nature (maybe except AI which trained to produce human art). Maybe it should not be restricted to the human mind, because human muscle memory is ok too probably.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fluteman said:


> Yes, paintings by Pollock are supposed to be completely abstract. Yet he seems to have reproduced a real-life item with near photographic accuracy, so that the two are nearly indistinguishable. Although, if one looks long and hard, one can detect signs of careful technique involved in his paintings, and that they are not exactly the same as a studio apron. Painters have been playing tricks like that on viewers for centuries.


I think with the advent of photography painting was pretty much forced to move away from the representational to the more abstract. The way I read Pollock is that he was recording moments in time, in which he was moving through space and planning what he was going to do during those moments, like some kind of snapshot, though one which could be interpreted in various ways. I think what happened in music was similar: composers realized that they couldn't (or didn't want to) spend their entire careers essentially composing variations on Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. I think the path that modern music took was probably inevitable.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think is the musical equivalent of this?:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have no interest in Jackson Pollock's art nor have I studied it closely. Still, I could see instantly that the apron looks nothing like a Jackson Pollock work, so it's the same situation as the Bubbles "experiment:" Incompetent judges (or, more generously, trusting students who believed a teacher who is clueless about Pollock), which once again says nothing about modern art.



Aries said:


> Good definition. Its good to restrict it to the main musical ideas, because I guess some polyphonism results aren't in the mind of the composer before they are tested. If you have 5 lines of rhythms and melodies on top of each other its difficult to imagine the exact result. Testing is important here. But the main ideas, so each meldody, rhythm etc. has to come from the composer otherwise its not human. If its not human its not art but nature (maybe except AI which trained to produce human art). Maybe it should not be restricted to the human mind, because human muscle memory is ok too probably.


No, it's not a good definition. Did you read post #11 about the first theme of Beethoven's Eroica? Do you have an answer for why "the main musical idea" of this work, one that isn't complexly polyphonic, required so much effort and so much sketching and revising, despite the fact that Beethoven was a musical genius with perfect pitch? I'll give you a hint: It's because the OP's ideas on conceivabilty are obviously wrong.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ZJovicic said:


> Since you guys didn't like my first 3 tests, here's the fourth one:
> 
> Good music is difficult to compose... and probably rare!
> 
> ...


I don't care what process was used to create the music. It could be a process used by Beethoven or Cage, or small children randomly hitting a keyboard. If the resulting music interested me and gave me some enjoyment while listening to it - I'm fine.

I am not interested in the amount of training a composer has had, or how long it took to execute a painting, or how complex a method was that produced the music or painting. I am only interested in the final result.

Btw, I am a big fan of Jackson Pollock, as well as, Turner, and Cezanne, and many other painters.

The issues which seem to arouse you are of absolutely no concern to me.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I don't care what process was used to create the music. It could be a process used by Beethoven or Cage, or small children randomly hitting a keyboard. If the resulting music interested me and gave me some enjoyment while listening to it - I'm fine.
> 
> I am not interested in the amount of training a composer has had, or how long it took to execute a painting, or how complex a method was that produced the music or painting. I am only interested in the final result.
> 
> ...


It's remarkable to me that more than a few posters here are so dead set on demonstrating the existence of objectively quantifiable criteria to evaluate merit in art. Never mind that prominent art historians and scholars who have addressed this very issue in a careful, detailed and methodical way have routinely concluded that it can't be done, and that all questions of artistic merit at the end come down to a question of the individual subjective, or social 'intersubjective', values of the audience.

If you want to know what makes a work of art great, don't look at the artist, at least not in the first instance. Look at your family, friends and neighbors. Look at people on the street. Look in the mirror. If you can begin to understand what people find aesthetically pleasing, and how, and why, you'll be closer to some answers.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fluteman said:


> ...
> If you want to know what makes a work of art great, don't look at the artist, at least not in the first instance. Look at your family, friends and neighbors. Look at people on the street. Look in the mirror. If you can begin to understand what people find aesthetically pleasing, and how, and why, you'll be closer to some answers.


That can be kind of unreliable though. The Art of Fugue didn't sell very well initially. I can understand why I find it aesthetically pleasing, and I eventually find common ground with others who feel the same way. But it still starts with the music itself.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> I have no interest in Jackson Pollock's art nor have I studied it closely. Still, I could see instantly that the apron looks nothing like a Jackson Pollock work, so it's the same situation as the Bubbles "experiment:" Incompetent judges (or, more generously, trusting students who believed a teacher who is clueless about Pollock), which once again says nothing about modern art.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> The Art of Fugue didn't sell very well initially.


With 18th century composers though, I think there is a bit of misconception about them; even some people on TC talk as though Bach was some sort of an "avant-gardist" in his time. But Georg von Pasterwitz (1730~1803; and a host of other composers of the late 18th century) for instance, also had to write like: 







 (which didn't sell better than the Art of the fugue). What kind of music they produced really depended on which area they worked in (ie. secular or liturgical). Gottfried August Homilius (1714~1785), a pupil of Bach: 



I'm convinced that works like the Art of the fugue also strictly adhere to 18th century rules and the ideals of the Enlightenment (with "everything working under logic and reason"). It's much like the Goldberg variations, albeit in a different way.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> No, it's not a good definition. Did you read post #11 about the first theme of Beethoven's Eroica? Do you have an answer for why "the main musical idea" of this work, one that isn't complexly polyphonic, required so much effort and so much sketching and revising, despite the fact that Beethoven was a musical genius with perfect pitch? I'll give you a hint: It's because the OP's ideas on conceivabilty are obviously wrong.


I read it.

When Beethoven wrote the final version he had it in his mind and intended it. What happened between the sketches? Probably testing and thinking. Did he not intend what he wrote down at the end regarding melodies, rhythms, harmonies, instrumentation? As long as it was intended in his mind, its true art according to the OP's definition as I understand it.

What isn't true art according to the definition is randomness or abstract concepts which produce melodies, rhythms etc. only as unintended by-product.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Do you guys know this? It sounds good: 




But is it art? No, it is nature. No human intended these raindrops.

If someone likes just random notes, fine, but does that mean it is art?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Aries said:


> I read it.
> 
> When Beethoven wrote the final version he had it in his mind and intended it. What happened between the sketches? Probably testing and thinking. Did he not intend what he wrote down at the end regarding melodies, rhythms, harmonies, instrumentation? *As long as it was intended in his mind, its true art according to the OP's definition as I understand it.*


I suggest you read the OP more carefully. He wrote:

"A piece of music can be a true work of art if and only *if its main musical ideas can be conceived in the mind of the composer, before they write them down.* By "main musical ideas" I think explicit melodies, rhythms, harmonies... not abstract concepts."

This ^ ^ ^ can't mean what you think it means. If it only meant "intended in his mind" before the final version is written and after any amount of sketching, testing, and playing back, then it would apply to any music, including the exact kinds of music the OP insists it excludes. No, the OP means before the composer begins writing the main ideas and futzing about with pen and paper and sketches and revisions, which excludes Beethoven's _Eroica_ and much of Beethoven's best music. The conclusion is obvious. If the OP's test excludes Beethoven's music from the category musical works of quality, then it's not a good test.


----------



## hawgdriver (Nov 11, 2011)

ZJovicic said:


> Your thoughts?


Dude used if and only if. He gets it.

But you need to define 'conceivableness' cleanly to really stick the landing.

I have nothing better to offer. More rigor, more acceptance, more danceability. Cerebral or physical.


----------



## hawgdriver (Nov 11, 2011)

Anything is art. Music invites dance.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Aries said:


> Do you guys know this? It sounds good:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Art" is a label men invented - it is unnecessary. If the sound of rain gives you joy, that is the point. No label needed.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Jackson Pollock had nothing on Pro Hart:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

For a composer being able to conceive the music in his mind is without a doubt something that is extremely useful. But "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" as apparently Einstein said. The unknown has elements that can stimulate the imagination in new ways, so I'm not at all against the artist exploring new paths and ideas even if he's not perfectly able to control the results.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> On the other hand... I still haven't heard of any random process or experiment creating something that sounds like Beethoven's Fifth... and so by that criteria (among many other criteria) I conclude that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is a much better work.


I wonder what you think of those experiments with computers, where programs are able to make beleviable imitations of the music of many composers, like Brahms, Mahler, Beethoven. I remember that the pieces that imitate Bach were extremely believable and not just me listening at home, but a lot of the audience that was part of the experiment wasn't able to tell the real Bach from the fake Bach.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

chipia said:


> Many of the great composers were also great improvisers, e.g. Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Debussy, even Messiaen (who had synesthesia and interestingly criticised serial music for being not colorful enough and mostly grey).


I think it's interesting that Messiaen thought like that. I don't have synesthesia at all (I don't think it's important) but while I like some serialist music I've always felt that the "not colorful enough and mostly grey" is its biggest limitation. Not that it makes a piece of music necessarily worthless in any case (I think it depends, being colorful is not necessarily what art should be all the time obviously).



chipia said:


> On the other hand I am not aware of an improvising serial composer (although I would be happy to get disproven). I wonder if this has something to do with an emphasis on the conceptual over the musical.


I think it has to do with the extreme difficulty. I don't know if it's impossible (altough for what I know is how you're saying, with no musician able to improvise serialist music) but certainly it's an extremely trick thing to do that goes beyond the ability of most humans.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

chipia said:


> ..............
> 
> On the other hand I am not aware of an improvising serial composer (although I would be happy to get disproven).* I wonder if this has something to do with an emphasis on the conceptual over the musical*.


Just to say that the conceptual and the musical are not mutually exclusive even with an emphasis somewhere.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Just to say that the conceptual and the musical are not mutually exclusive even with an emphasis somewhere.


I meant an emphasis on the _purely_ conceptual, i.e. conceptual/mathematical constructs that don't translate well into music in the sense that their conceptually distinct elements does not translate into psychological distinctness as perceived by the human ear. In such cases the conceptual and musical are indeed mutually exclusive.

Why else do you think are there no serial improvisers?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> I suggest you read the OP more carefully. He wrote:
> 
> "A piece of music can be a true work of art if and only *if its main musical ideas can be conceived in the mind of the composer, before they write them down.* By "main musical ideas" I think explicit melodies, rhythms, harmonies... not abstract concepts."
> 
> This ^ ^ ^ can't mean what you think it means. If it only meant "intended in his mind" before the final version is written and after any amount of sketching, testing, and playing back, then it would apply to any music, including the exact kinds of music the OP insists it excludes.


Ok, its a bit more difficult. But its solvable. Someone can write notes dictated by a math formula on a sketch, then play it so he has it in his mind and then write the final version in the score. So it should not be about the final version. It should be about the first version without changes to the final version. - The first version with the final result regarding a melody, rhythm etc. When someone writes notes dictated by a math formula on a sketch and does not change it afterwards, then the melody, rhythm etc. wasn't in his mind before he wrote it down initially.



EdwardBast said:


> No, the OP means before the composer begins writing the main ideas and futzing about with pen and paper and sketches and revisions, which excludes Beethoven's _Eroica_ and much of Beethoven's best music.


Sketches and revisions should be allowed. Its should be all about what reason underlie the changes between sketches. Are the changes intended by the composer, or is an abstract concept the cause? I wounder if counterpoint lines can fall under "abstract concept". Maybe the definition needs to be restricted to the melodic main line.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

chipia said:


> I meant an emphasis on the _purely_ conceptual, i.e. conceptual/mathematical constructs that don't translate well into music in the sense that their conceptually distinct elements does not translate into psychological distinctness as perceived by the human ear. In such cases the conceptual and musical are indeed mutually exclusive.
> 
> Why else do you think are there no serial improvisers?


There is a difference between a composers ear and a listeners ear though and the psychological distinctness you mention is more apparent to a composer. The composer will be fully aware of the musicality in a row and exploit it with imagination, artistry and aesthetic proclivity. This is not very different to motivic variation and development in a more stable and easily comprehended language.

In a complex language such as atonality, a composer surely has to impose their will on material in order to create a work that has logic, integrity and coherence. This is done partly technically but also instinctively, ie musically too (serialism offers much in the way of alternatives and options to use in the course of writing - it is not the straight -jacket implied by some).

Re improvisation, serialism needs some form of control (row order) to stop it becoming random (at least from the composer's pov). Given the many technical options one has within the genre that can be imposed on the row in order to search for the "right notes", it is no surprise as to why it is virtually impossible to improvise in serialism's sound world in a truthful and rigorous manner and one that exploits motifs and ideas (in the composers ears at least) with a sense of logical inevitability. 
The discipline is also necessary within serialism because for the composer, the end result needs to be coherent and more importantly, a justified and considered statement imo.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> "Art" is a label men invented - it is unnecessary. If the sound of rain gives you joy, that is the point. No label needed.


Lets stick with the label a bit. The rain example makes aware of a difference between input and output. "Art" implies that both the output is good and the input is difficult to do, so not everybody can do it. Everybody can record rain. Its good but everybody can do it. The more something depends of the specific artist the more art it is. But maybe it does not have to be about melodies, rhythms. Maybe an composer can make himself essential without these things, maybe with random melodies and rhythms but with a special form. But that seems kinda recreatable for everybody. Just follow the rules of the form and let the random generator work! Since I don't like serial music, I can't judge, if that would be good for someone who likes it. The Bubble experiment implicates that at least some avant-garde specialists wouldn't notice a lack of quality.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Aries said:


> Lets stick with the label a bit. The rain example makes aware of a difference between input and output. *"Art" implies that both the output is good and the input is difficult to do, so not everybody can do it*. Everybody can record rain. Its good but everybody can do it.


I am not concerned with the bolded bit. For me the only consideration is the experience, not the process that was involved. And who said anything about "recording rain"? I listen to rain all the time and appreciate the beauty or it - until my power goes out. 



> The more something depends of the specific artist the more art it is. But maybe it does not have to be about melodies, rhythms. Maybe an composer can make himself essential without these things, maybe with random melodies and rhythms but with a special form. But that seems kinda recreatable for everybody. Just follow the rules of the form and let the random generator work! Since I don't like serial music, I can't judge, if that would be good for someone who likes it.


I am not uninterested in who the artist or composer is. When I go to a museum I ignore the title blocks, I don't read anything provided by the museum, I certainly don't listen to their tape guides or take any tours. I avoid that stuff. I just look at the work, I move from one painting to another, not in any order. I usually gravitate to those with the fewest people in front, and make my through the room.

Listening to serial music is no different for me than listening to Bach or Beethoven, or rain. I listen until I am tired of that kind of music then I move to something else. I usually don't even think to myself if I like it, or certainly don't wonder if the music is "of quality."



> The Bubble experiment implicates that at least some avant-garde specialists wouldn't notice a lack of quality.


Quality judged by whom? It is not hard for me to decide if what I am listening to is pleasing to me.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Aries said:


> Ok, its a bit more difficult. But its solvable. Someone can write notes dictated by a math formula on a sketch, then play it so he has it in his mind and then write the final version in the score. So it should not be about the final version. It should be about the first version without changes to the final version. - The first version with the final result regarding a melody, rhythm etc. When someone writes notes dictated by a math formula on a sketch and does not change it afterwards, then the melody, rhythm etc. wasn't in his mind before he wrote it down initially.
> 
> Sketches and revisions should be allowed. Its should be all about what reason underlie the changes between sketches. Are the changes intended by the composer, or is an abstract concept the cause? I wounder if counterpoint lines can fall under "abstract concept". Maybe the definition needs to be restricted to the melodic main line.


What if the conclusion here? If someone does that, and it sounds good, or- at least - interesting, then it was a good idea. If it sounds like crap, it was a bad idea. What I don't see is how this translates into the Holy Grail of some kind of objective formula for determining worth in art.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Listening to serial music is no different for me than listening to Bach or Beethoven, or rain.


I think the difference of attractive and difficult to create art and attractive but easy to create non-art is, that art has a more specific value which is not replaceable. A piece of art contains specific things that can attract people which are different to the specific things other pieces of art contain. Rain on the other hand can be replaced. You can go to a different place at a different time with the same storm strength, and the content will be the same. And serial music is maybe rather like the ladder. It is a less personal thing. 


SanAntone said:


> I listen until I am tired of that kind of music then I move to something else.


I often want to hear compositions until the end. If its too long I may skip it, but if I heard already 3/4 I want to hear the last 1/4 even if I am tired. In the case of rain that would be completely different for me. 


SanAntone said:


> Quality judged by whom? It is not hard for me to decide if what I am listening to is pleasing to me.


Quality is the wrong word. Lets say worth. Classical compositions are unique, recordings of rain not so much. If someone wants a lot of money for a recording of rain, its unlikely that he gets it because everybody can do such a recording. But you can't achieve the specific value of a classical compositions with another so one piece is more worth because of its unreplaceability.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Aries said:


> I think the difference of attractive and difficult to create art and attractive but easy to create non-art is, that art has a more specific value which is not replaceable. A piece of art contains specific things that can attract people which are different to the specific things other pieces of art contain. Rain on the other hand can be replaced. You can go to a different place at a different time with the same storm strength, and the content will be the same. And serial music is maybe rather like the ladder. It is a less personal thing.
> I often want to hear compositions until the end. If its too long I may skip it, but if I heard already 3/4 I want to hear the last 1/4 even if I am tired. In the case of rain that would be completely different for me.
> Quality is the wrong word. Lets say worth. Classical compositions are unique, recordings of rain not so much. If someone wants a lot of money for a recording of rain, its unlikely that he gets it because everybody can do such a recording. But you can't achieve the specific value of a classical compositions with another so one piece is more worth because of its unreplaceability.


If you are concerned about objective values, then that is a pickle that I do not bother with. If the mythology surrounding "art" is something that is important to you, then that is your affair. However, you won't be able to convince me of any objective criteria or "inherent" qualities in a Classical piece of music that will invalidate my own response to rain, or a piece of music by Schoenberg, or Cage, or Boulez, or The Beatles.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> With 18th century composers though, I think there is a bit of misconception about them; even some people on TC talk as though Bach was some sort of an "avant-gardist" in his time. But Georg von Pasterwitz (1730~1803; and a host of other composers of the late 18th century) for instance, also had to write like:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think Bach was a mixture of forward-looking visionary and hopeless "conservative". Today, he'd probably be so counter to the prevailing culture that he'd be an avant gardist, maybe.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I am not concerned with the bolded bit. For me the only consideration is the experience, not the process that was involved. And who said anything about "recording rain"? I listen to rain all the time and appreciate the beauty or it - until my power goes out.
> 
> I am not uninterested in who the artist or composer is. When I go to a museum I ignore the title blocks, I don't read anything provided by the museum, I certainly don't listen to their tape guides or take any tours. I avoid that stuff. I just look at the work, I move from one painting to another, not in any order. I usually gravitate to those with the fewest people in front, and make my through the room.
> 
> ...


That's a nice summary of a key idea in a book by John Dewey called Art as Experience. As you might guess even if you haven't read it, Dewey was not a fan of museums.

Looong ago, I wandered alone through a nearly empty Louvre (the dollar was very weak then). There was still a group of about a half dozen Japanese tourists gathered around the Mona Lisa, but nothing like the crowd you would see today. Entering a deserted gallery, I came across the magnificent portrait of Chopin by Delacroix. I suppose I could have grabbed the painting, smashed a window that was but a few feet away, and leaped Tom Cruise-style to the adjacent rooftop.

Soon I would be in a garret apartment in the Old Town section of Prague, setting up sophisticated surveillance equipment and meticulously assembling a high-powered rifle, while preparing to infiltrate --

Ah well.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

fluteman said:


> That's a nice summary of a key idea in a book by John Dewey called Art as Experience. As you might guess even if you haven't read it, Dewey was not a fan of museums.
> 
> Looong ago, I wandered alone through a nearly empty Louvre (the dollar was very weak then). There was still a group of about a half dozen Japanese tourists gathered around the Mona Lisa, but nothing like the crowd you would see today. *Entering a deserted gallery, I came across the magnificent portrait of Chopin by Delacroix. I suppose I could have grabbed the painting, smashed a window that was but a few feet away, and leaped Tom Cruise-style to the adjacent rooftop.
> 
> ...


Now there's a man who knows how to enjoy a museum! ^ ^ ^


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Re improvisation, serialism needs some form of control (row order) to stop it becoming random (at least from the composer's pov). Given the many technical options one has within the genre that can be imposed on the row in order to search for the "right notes", it is no surprise as to why it is virtually impossible to improvise in serialism's sound world in a truthful and rigorous manner and one that exploits motifs and ideas (in the composers ears at least) with a sense of logical inevitability.
> The discipline is also necessary within serialism because for the composer, the end result needs to be coherent and more importantly, a justified and considered statement imo.


All the things you said also apply to Common-Practice-Tonal music. Tonal music needs control as well (possibly more than serial music - just think about all the voice leading rules, e.g. for treatment of non-chord-tones!).

Also, there are tons of "technical options" in tonal music as well, e.g. which chord progressions to choose, which keys to modulate to, which melody/motives and how to develop them. As you said yourself, developing motives in serial music isn't that different from tonal.

Yet there were plenty of great CPT/Jazz/Impressionist/Rock - Improvisers and no serial ones. Your answer still didn't explain this dichotomy.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

chipia said:


> ...
> Many of the great composers were also great improvisers, e.g. Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Debussy, even Messiaen (who had synesthesia and interestingly criticised serial music for being not colorful enough and mostly grey).
> 
> On the other hand I am not aware of an improvising serial composer (although I would be happy to get disproven). I wonder if this has something to do with an emphasis on the conceptual over the musical.


You can add Stockhausen to that list, some of his music involves elements of improvisation in a sense that he requires the performer to be inventive in following directions. Stockhausen was too eclectic to be called a serialist, but he was taught the technique by Messiaen (who wrote Mode de valeurs, an important source of post-war serialism). In performing and touring with his family of musicians, Stockhausen resembled composers of the past who did the same with their chamber music.

Bartok, who included serial techniques in some pieces, was a notable pianist and fine improviser at least judging from some which he wrote down (e.g. Eight Improvisations on Hungarian Peasant Songs, 1920). On the whole though, the composer virtuoso tradition more or less finished with Bartok's generation. Rachmaninov was probably the last famous example.

That older generation would have had little or no understanding of the sort of cutting edge compositional techniques which Stockhausen and others where developing in the 1950's. They wouldn't have comprehended an electronic score. At the same time, aspects of improvisation continued to be part of music in composition and performance, albeit in different ways.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

chipia said:


> All the things you said also apply to Common-Practice-Tonal music. Tonal music needs control as well (possibly more than serial music - just think about all the voice leading rules, e.g. for treatment of non-chord-tones!).
> 
> Also, there are tons of "technical options" in tonal music as well, e.g. which chord progressions to choose, which keys to modulate to, which melody/motives and how to develop them. As you said yourself, developing motives in serial music isn't that different from tonal.
> 
> Yet there were plenty of great CPT/Jazz/Impressionist/Rock - Improvisers and no serial ones. Your answer still didn't explain this dichotomy.


CPT does indeed have its parameters, although when I studied CPT, then serialism and atonality, I found the latter two to be much harder nuts to crack given the sudden overload of musical possibilities afforded by them.

As you'll know, CPT has a gravitational, functional foundation which is immensely flexible and fruitful and can be a guarantee of homogeneity and inevitability. CPT also employs vertical structures (tertian/compound), that enable said function. Even high chromaticism is controllable within CPT due to enharmonic thinking and resolution - there's always a way out and a way back home. This type of functionality and certainty is not immediately present in serialism and atonality, neither is an easily perceived inevitability for the composer unless restrictions are imposed.

Music that democratises the 12 notes loses aurally gravitational function and it becomes much harder to decide literally what comes next on the ms and how one might achieve some semblance of line, tension and resolution (flow) over time. Obviously CPT techniques are not wholly relevant here and to write with integrity and with artistry requires a different paradigm from the composer. The techniques developed allow for confident and competent navigable exploration of the vast soundworld opened up by equality in the notes. I used the word 'justification' in my earlier post in relation to composing and that defence and guarantee against total randomness for the composer is also achieved (note that although this comes across as dry, none of it precludes 'fantasy', going 'off-grid' and inspiration).

Improvising with CPT has instant guarantees and options built in that are missing in serialism. Now unless someone who is attempting to improvise serially can remember an order of 12 notes forwards and backwards and upside down, then consider all the permutations, transpositions and possibilities available from a row and associated techniques and can then cherry pick accurately in the moment to ensure a 'legitimate' choice (no-one can btw), then integrity and cohesion is impossible as regards _strict serialism_ and one might as well go random - not that good results can't come from doing so. In fact improvising in a random, atonal manner will often lead to a find but in order to flesh it out and make it intelligible, the composer will need to dig below the find and that requires thought and application on the ms.

The fact that to many, any resulting random music might sound just like serialism/atonality is not the point for me. What matters ultimately imo is the sincerity of the composer on the page and the integrity with which they have explored their relationship with the material, it's musical implications and how they have found expression by doing so. Fortunately with the big names in the business, there is no doubting them.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> What matters ultimately imo is the sincerity of the composer on the page and the integrity with which they have explored their relationship with the material, it's musical implications and how they have found expression by doing so. Fortunately with the big names in the business, there is no doubting them.


That would require some examples to demonstrate. Personally I have made several experiences to the contrary.

One example is Boulez - Le Marteau sans Maitre (which is often considered one of the greatest avantgarde works). There is already an article by Kyle Gann that describes the composition method that echoes my sentiments.

Basically Boulez creates Pitch sets by taking a twelve tone row, partitioning it according to a rotating number series, and multiplying the resulting partitions with each other. The order in which these pitch sets are used is determined by drawing diagonal lines in the resulting matrix.

What is this supposed to express? How is this musically meaningful? What kind of specific expression is this method supposed to create? Why diagonal lines of all things? And why this particular number order? Did boulez had a particular sonic effect in mind that required this very specific method or was he just like "I'm just gonna apply some random composition method and see what happens"? I feel that it's closer to the latter.

Apparently, even one of the leading researchers on Le Marteau admits that most of the pitch sets created by this method can't be meaningfully perceived, which means that the method is indeed musically meaningless and only relevant as concept art.

That being said, I think Marteau is still an interesting listening experience, but that's due to the purposefully created rhythmic gestures and timbres. The pitch choices on the other hand seem arbitrary. I feel that if the pitch sets were chosen simply by throwing dice, the expression of the music would not have changed much.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

chipia said:


> Apparently, even one of the leading researchers on Le Marteau admits that most of the pitch sets created by this method can't be meaningfully perceived, which means that the method is indeed musically meaningless and only relevant as concept art.


No, it doesn't mean that. What is underneath the music is a construction that supported the "message" (I mean this metaphorically - I don't suppose it is a literal message) inherent in the music. It may have been essential to the creation of the piece and yet no longer detectable. To take an example from a different art form, Jackson Pollock, before his drip paintings, often started with a more or less figurative image - horses galloping, for example - but went on to arrive at a wholly abstract painting. You won't detect the horses but they are beneath the abstraction.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

chipia said:


> That would require some examples to demonstrate. Personally I have made several experiences to the contrary.
> 
> One example is Boulez - Le Marteau sans Maitre (which is often considered one of the greatest avantgarde works). There is already an article by Kyle Gann that describes the composition method that echoes my sentiments.
> 
> ...


Well ask yourself this. Why would a composer put themselves through many years of hard study and practice, becoming fluent with atonality only to just say "ah sod it, any note'll do"? It just doesn't happen but there will undoubtedly be the occassional serendipity that breaks through and beyond any parameters in play, perhaps even taking the progress in a work down a new path.

With the likes of Boulez, one should obviously not listen with ears that have CPT expectations but there is music there, it's pure music. Expecting to be moved as one might be by say Bach is not possible but that does not mean that atonality is expressionless or lacks profundity because it does, you just have to listen for a longer time to appreciate it, become familiar with the new sound. The fact that you can't perceive the mechanics is a good thing, besides as you suggest, the surface features are what matters to the listener most and the modern emphasis on timbre and rhythm as being equal partners in the syntax and timeline is just as important to get to appreciate and be led by. I doubt Boulez with his wonderful ears (he was known as the French Correction by UK musos), would take kindly to your suggestion that any notes would do.

One has to go along on trust initially with atonality, but familiarity with it opens up a whole new world of sound that is as seductive as CPT and with the masters the listener is in good hands.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> No, it doesn't mean that. What is underneath the music is a construction that supported the "message" (I mean this metaphorically - I don't suppose it is a literal message) inherent in the music. It may have been essential to the creation of the piece and yet no longer detectable. To take an example from a different art form, Jackson Pollock, before his drip paintings, often started with a more or less figurative image - horses galloping, for example - but went on to arrive at a wholly abstract painting. You won't detect the horses but they are beneath the abstraction.


But "galloping horses" is a very tangible, non-abstract concept. I can see how someone can evoke the "feel" of galloping horses without explicitly drawing horses. That "feel" could be e.g. related to the speed of the horses, or the elegance of their movements, etc.

On the other hand I don't see what is the expression evoked by an abstract concept like "tone rows partitioned and multiplied according to a number row and ordered based on diagonal lines ". What kind of image/emotion does this concept evoke? How do you express it musically? Can it even be expressed? What is the point of this?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

chipia said:


> On the other hand I don't see what is the expression evoked by an abstract concept like "tone rows partitioned and multiplied according to a number row and ordered based on diagonal lines ". What kind of image/emotion does this concept evoke? How do you express it musically? Can it even be expressed? What is the point of this?


Why is that an abstract concept? It is a discipline upon which to construct a work. Other than that, let me give you some good advice - don't look for concrete meaning in music (unless it sets or tells a story). If it could be summed up in words it wouldn't need to be expressed as music. That is not what music is.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

chipia said:


> On the other hand I don't see what is the expression evoked by an abstract concept like "tone rows partitioned and multiplied according to a number row and ordered based on diagonal lines ". What kind of image/emotion does this concept evoke?


Its funny, there was some talk in the Bubbles thread about whether happiness in atonal music is possible and what autistic music and mental hospital music could mean. This piece "Le Marteau sans maître" actually evokes for me the image of happiness in a mental hospital. It sounds so uncontrolled but nonetheless happy, doesn't it?


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Well ask yourself this. Why would a composer put themselves through many years of hard study and practice, becoming fluent with atonality only to just say "ah sod it, any note'll do"? It just doesn't happen


Of course it happens. John Cage actually studied composition with Schoenberg, yet went full-on aleatoric later on, so why shouldn't boulez do the same? The difference is just that John Cage was more honest about it, whereas Boulez pretends that his method gives his music a sense of unification or organicity, which is however musically meaningless.

If the article I linked to is anything to go by, there are many professionals who agree with my sentiment (Kyle Gann even attended a seminar to learn how to conduct Le Marteau!). But apparently not many have the courage to voice their criticism, because questioning the methods of the famous atonal composers seems to be unacceptable in many academic circles. It's funny, because I think there isn't as much black/white thinking when it comes to tonal music.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

chipia said:


> Of course it happens. John Cage actually studied composition with Schoenberg, yet went full-on aleatoric later on, so why shouldn't boulez do the same? The difference is just that John Cage was more honest about it, whereas Boulez pretends that his method gives his music a sense of unification or organicity, which is however musically meaningless.
> 
> If the article I linked to is anything to go by, there are many professionals who agree with my sentiment (Kyle Gann even attended a seminar to learn how to conduct Le Marteau!). But apparently not many have the courage to voice their criticism, because questioning the methods of the famous atonal composers seems to be unacceptable in many academic circles. It's funny, because I think there isn't as much black/white thinking when it comes to tonal music.


Well Boulez is Boulez (who had one of the most fantastic set of ears in the business - think about that), and Cage is Cage. Regardless of Cage and his changes (ha), what I said about a composers training stands.

Unification is a product of organisation, both are vital and yield music, perhaps not the sort you enjoy but there it is. Given your seeming aversion to the technical side of atonality I can't help thinking that you are under a misunderstanding as to how techniques are employed and more importantly, why.

Re the many professionals who agree with you, this professional has worked with many fine players who have devoted their talent to contemporary music and atonality, so my perspective is a little different to yours but undoubtedly both viewpoints exist, I'll grant you that.
Composers are more than happy these days to turn their back on serialism, I don't know why you think otherwise. One things for certain though, some comparisons you are trying to draw with CPT are difficult to sustain because the two paradigms and resulting music are very different.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

chipia said:


> If the article I linked to is anything to go by, there are many professionals who agree with my sentiment (Kyle Gann even attended a seminar to learn how to conduct Le Marteau!). But apparently not many have the courage to voice their criticism, because questioning the methods of the famous atonal composers seems to be unacceptable in many academic circles. It's funny, because I think there isn't as much black/white thinking when it comes to tonal music.


This really isn't true at all- the 60s and 70s were infamous for ideological battles and fights between the Boulez crew and others (frequently Americans, though this might be biased by me reading American sources frequently). It's possibly less acceptable nowadays but this may be more that current philosophies make it less acceptable to dismiss entire schools of composing as invalid generally.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

chipia said:


> Of course it happens. John Cage actually studied composition with Schoenberg, yet went full-on aleatoric later on, so why shouldn't boulez do the same? The difference is just that John Cage was more honest about it, whereas Boulez pretends that his method gives his music a sense of unification or organicity, which is however musically meaningless.


I'm lost. Why on earth should a willingness to compose music involving improvisation be a higher aim? So you think Boulez was less honest than Cage but somehow I cannot come close to imagining that you have any reliable way of assessing his honesty. The man was a giant, one of the greatest of his generation.



chipia said:


> If the article I linked to is anything to go by, there are many professionals who agree with my sentiment (Kyle Gann even attended a seminar to learn how to conduct Le Marteau!). But apparently not many have the courage to voice their criticism, because questioning the methods of the famous atonal composers seems to be unacceptable in many academic circles. It's funny, because I think there isn't as much black/white thinking when it comes to tonal music.


This time it is courage! If you don't criticise Boulez you must be a coward, you say. And you know this because some professional musicians (if not especially distinguished ones) - among a great many others - have criticised Boulez. Please, please just accept that you can't join the many of us who love Boulez's music and do stop trying to tell us that we would all feel the same way if only we were more courageous. Get back to the music you enjoy.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

mikeh375 said:


> Given your seeming aversion to the technical side of atonality I can't help thinking that you are under a misunderstanding as to how techniques are employed and more importantly, why.


Why are the techniques employed?


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm lost. Why on earth should a willingness to compose music involving improvisation be a higher aim? So you think Boulez was less honest than Cage but somehow I cannot come close to imagining that you have any reliable way of assessing his honesty.


Less honest in the sense that Boulez didn't admit that his music was aleatoric in the sense that it used a method of pitch generation whose sonic results couldn't be meaningfully anticipated.



Enthusiast said:


> The man was a giant, one of the greatest of his generation.


What makes him so great? Not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious.



Enthusiast said:


> This time it is courage! If you don't criticise Boulez you must be a coward, you say. And you know this because some professional musicians (if not especially distinguished ones) - among a great many others - have criticised Boulez. Please, please just accept that you can't join the many of us who love Boulez's music and do stop trying to tell us that we would all feel the same way if only we were more courageous. Get back to the music you enjoy.


I think the context of my comment got a bit lost. mike implied earlier that Boulez' composition method must make sense, simply because Boulez studied composition for several years, which would mean that literally every composer ever who studied for years makes only good decisions.

This obviously can't be right, I emphasized this by showing that many other professional composers (who have studied for _decades_) agree that the pitch generation in Marteau seems arbitrary and not meaningfully different from randomness / aleatoricism. Even researchers specialized in this music don't seem to offer a satisfying explanation.

Also, having great ears doesn't automatically make Boulez a great composer, I knew people with perfect pitch who had no talent for composition whatsoever.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

chipia said:


> Less honest in the sense that Boulez didn't admit that his music was aleatoric in the sense that it used a method of pitch generation whose sonic results couldn't be meaningfully anticipated.


Sorry, but I don't understand this. It could be my ignorance and lack of interest (you can't identify great music by simply looking at what the composers does technically) in the technical side of composition. But, anyway, what an artist says about his work may be interesting but is never a good guide to anything about his or her art. The art speaks for itself and is what it is.



chipia said:


> What makes him so great? Not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious.


I am not sure I could answer that for any composer. What makes Mozart great, or Beethoven or Monteverdi? For me it is what the music does to (or for) me and how strongly I treasure that result and how long it lasts (does the music bore me after a few hearings). I can also be very negative about music that is new to me but doesn't stimulate, inspire or even challenge me in some way ... and can be very positive about music that passes that test.

So, why do I say Boulez was a great composer? Because I love his music and because I have seen many others get great pleasure from it, too. Some 15 or so years ago I found his music rather challenging and not so enjoyable. But these days it lives in my mind as being just as easy to relate to as, say, Bartok. I think I am not alone in that.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Aries said:


> Why are the techniques employed?


I touched on it in post 61. They are used in order to avoid randomness and to be able to justify artistically, choices made during the course of writing in a language that lacks traditional function and hierarchical relationships. The composer has an option to work out and maybe define parameters and then use technical procedures to probe and search for material within the parameters. Limiting choice in such a way is a spur to invention and imagination and the ensuing imposition of will on the music is what sometimes distinguishes music as art as opposed to unordered randomness. 
It's not as strict as it sounds because any composer will tell you that there are moments, serendipitous finds, perhaps accidental or through improvisation (not to mention inspiration), that can also affect the outcome of a piece. A strict adherence to rules is never a good thing imv and a composer will always be open to the unpredictable, unforeseen, yet perhaps defining moments that may crop up.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

chipia said:


> On the other hand I don't see what is the expression evoked by an abstract concept like "tone rows partitioned and multiplied according to a number row and ordered based on diagonal lines ". What kind of image/emotion does this concept evoke? How do you express it musically? Can it even be expressed? What is the point of this?


What expression is evoked by abstract procedures like stretto on an inverted subject, chains of alternating 9-8 and 4-3 suspensions, or modulation through the use of hexatonic systems, all of which were employed by tonal composers? Your argument is empty and toothless. Abstract procedures are used by all composers in all eras and in all eras their relationship to the expression of the works they inhabit is complex and distant from the aesthetic object of the sounding work. It doesn't matter one iota how Boulez derived the materials with which he constructed a musical work.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

mikeh375 said:


> They are used in order to avoid randomness and to be able to justify artistically, choices made during the course of writing in a language that lacks traditional function and hierarchical relationships.


Well, that raises the question, why someone wants to avoid traditional function and hierarchical relationships in the first place.

If it is about avoiding randomness, I can't really retrace why the following may not be the point:



mikeh375 said:


> The fact that to many, any resulting random music might sound just like serialism/atonality is not the point for me.


For me the sounding result is, well, the point of music.

If randomness can be avoided by tonal music and it also doesn't just sound random, why not just use tonality?

But important are not only the pitches, but also the note lengths. Maybe they are even more important. What is a serial method to determine note lenths and bar lenths, and why is it good? Why is avoiding rhythm good?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Aries said:


> Well, that raises the question, why someone wants to avoid traditional function and hierarchical relationships in the first place.
> 
> If it is about avoiding randomness, I can't really retrace why the following may not be the point:
> 
> ...


Well, it's the 21stC right? Things have moved on and many more options have been opened up. Composers like to explore, especially exciting untapped vistas. It's part of the human spirit and I'm surprised you had to ask the several why questions you did. The whole point about imposition of will is to create an expression so yes it's all about the music, always has been, I'd have thought that'd be obvious too.

Total serialism (to also include rhythm, dynamics etc.) is not my bag at all but the avoidance of rhythm? Well I agree with John Adams in that rhythm is a great unifier in music, but its development away from regularity is largely responsible for the schism between modernity and the lay listener. Fortunately for a composer today rhythm can be as exciting to explore as any other aspect opening as it does more expressive possibilities. Regular rhythm is more appropriate to functional harmony and CPT, as in supporting cadences and so on, but no so much in some atonal fields because it can just sound wrong once the notes are free from functional/gravitational duties. It needs to be emancipated from the barline the way notes themselves have been liberated to open up an immense resource with which to explore time. The horizontal and the vertical are now free and I'm sorry you seem to be in mourning over it.....many good and great composers aint'....

(edited to correct a mis-reading of Aries quoted post...apologies if you read the first draft Aries)


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

mikeh375 said:


> Well, it's the 21stC right? Things have moved on and many more options have been opened up, composers like to explore, especially exciting untapped vistas. It's part of the human spirit and I'm surprised you had to ask the several why questions. The whole point about imposition of will is to create an expression so yes it's all about the music, always has been, I'd have thought that'd be obvious too.


Well first of all I like the music before the invention of atonalism. If you have a system which produces good music, its logical for me to try to improve the system even further instead of destroying it. Never change a winning horse. From a listening point of view I don't like atonalism. So I try to approach it theoretically. But you are kinda telling me that serial methods are made to avoid randomness and to be able to "justify" artistical choices. But these two problems didn't even exist in the first place before atonality. So I really don't understand it. I guess some people just like the atonal sounds. But I can't retrace it.



mikeh375 said:


> Total serialism (to also include rhythm, dynamics etc.) is not my bag at all but the avoidance of rhythm????? You are aware of not only the emancipation of notes but that of rhythm too right, during the last 100 years or so?


I don't mean strict rhythms like in some pop music, just any rhythm. If the bar length changes with every bar like in Le Marteau sans maître then there is no rhythm at all.

I'm aware of that specific things happend in music in the last 100 years, but I am questioning exactly these.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Aries said:


> Well first of all I like the music before the invention of atonalism. If you have a system which produces good music, its logical for me to try to improve the system even further instead of destroying it. Never change a winning horse. From a listening point of view I don't like atonalism. So I try to approach it theoretically. But you are kinda telling me that serial methods are made to avoid randomness and to be able to "justify" artistical choices. But these two problems didn't even exist in the first place before atonality. So I really don't understand it. I guess some people just like the atonal sounds. But I can't retrace it.
> 
> I don't mean strict rhythms like in some pop music, just any rhythm. If the bar length changes with every bar like in Le Marteau sans maître then there is no rhythm at all.
> 
> I'm aware of that specific things happend in music in the last 100 years, but I am questioning exactly these.


read my corrected post (with apology to you as I mis-read your ? on rhythm)


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Aries said:


> What is a serial method to determine note lenths and bar lenths, and why is it good? Why is avoiding rhythm good?


Milton Babbitt invented a method of serializing time intervals, which matches pitch intervals. "Good" is a subjective concept, and we all find goodness in different music. Rhythm is unavoidable, but I suppose you mean "pulse" which establishes a regular "beat". How composers have treated time is an interesting subject, needless to say, but the composers of C20/21 are not the first. Going all the way back to Gregorian Chant, meter, pulse, time, has been a more or less fluid aspect of the music.

I am confused why any of this is such a problem for you and others.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Software glitch produced a duplicate post.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

mikeh375 said:


> Regular rhythm is more appropriate to functional harmony and CPT, as in supporting cadences and so on, but no so much in some atonal fields because it can just sound wrong once the notes are free from functional/gravitational duties.


That seems consequent. But I think it also shows a gap between atonalism and dissonant, but tonal expressionism.

Note how important the pulse is in Prokofievs Symphony No. 2 and how dissonant it is at the same time:





The expression of dissonance doesn't require these things like the abolition of horizontal (tonical center) and vertical (pulse) gravity points in music.

General question: What is the right length for a note? What are criteria for composers to decide this? I think it is (usually) also about a function. A function for the pulse of the bar, and for the other notes of the bar. Questions are: How much pitches should appear until the next pulse or subpulse? How much room is there for a note? Questions like these. If there is no pulse, there will be no "right" note lengths anymore too. Note lengths will be random without function for other notes. Couldn't any note in serial music just be twice or half as long without anyone feeling that something is wrong? In CPT music/popular music/jazz you *feel* which note lengths end up to a bar and which not.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I would just like to clarify a bit what I meant by conceivableness.

Basically, it means you start with a melody or motif that you already have in your head. You generated it through purely musical imagination / cognition in your mind, like some rudimentary improvisation, but where you start from zero, instead of starting with a theme. Basically you invent the basic melody, theme, motive, etc... in your head, and when you have in your mind something that feels like music, some musical idea, only then you start writing it down.

I'm not saying that further musical development of this first idea is not allowed. Nor am I saying that following certain rules in such developement is not allowed. It's all fine. But you have to start with something, and that something should be product of your purely musical mind, musical imagination, and not the result of any kind of system, rules, etc...

In other words, you need to create the main musical idea organically and spontaneously. It has to be result of some kind of inspiration. Its logic and inner workings should be somehow mysterious and inaccessible even to the composer.

But once you have this starting idea, then you can develop it according to rules, no problem with that.

Why am I insisting on purely mental creation (or conception) of such initial idea?

Well, I guess almost all folk music and a good chunk of popular music songs started in this way... Through spontaneous inspiration... And many of such songs stood test of the time and entered the collective unconscious.

I think there simply is something about unrestrained mind and inspiration. I've read that the main idea for many now famous songs came in a dream to the composers / songwriters...

Or to put the whole idea in another way... I think good music is typically a product of unconscious creativity, unconscious creative process that is holistic, integral, and spontaneous, product of the unconscious mind. Unconscious mind is in certain ways more powerful than conscious mind, because it deals with countless hidden connections between concepts that we can't consciously recall... but the unconscious mind can combine them and create something beautiful.

So good music is created, but _*not constructed.*_ Only after your unconscious mind has given you the finished product... that is the main musical idea, melody, etc... only at that point you can start using your conscious mind and logic for further development and construction of larger compositions...

That's the main point of this whole thread.

If the music didn't start with some kind of inspiration, if it's purely constructed, then it's typically low quality, feels artificial, etc. And doesn't communicate well with other minds.

Also, if the music can't possibly come to you in a dream, or can't be a product of unrestrained unconscious imagination, if an illiterate peasant wouldn't be able to think of such a melody, even if he had a genius of Mozart and Beethoven combined, then such a music is not naturally conceivable to humans, which, IMO, puts a question mark on its quality.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

mikeh375 said:


> Well, it's the 21stC right? Things have moved on and many more options have been opened up. Composers like to explore, especially exciting untapped vistas. It's part of the human spirit and I'm surprised you had to ask the several why questions you did. The whole point about imposition of will is to create an expression so yes it's all about the music, always has been, I'd have thought that'd be obvious too.
> 
> Total serialism (to also include rhythm, dynamics etc.) is not my bag at all but the avoidance of rhythm? Well I agree with John Adams in that rhythm is a great unifier in music, but its development away from regularity is largely responsible for the schism between modernity and the lay listener. Fortunately for a composer today rhythm can be as exciting to explore as any other aspect opening as it does more expressive possibilities. Regular rhythm is more appropriate to functional harmony and CPT, as in supporting cadences and so on, but no so much in some atonal fields because it can just sound wrong once the notes are free from functional/gravitational duties. It needs to be emancipated from the barline the way notes themselves have been liberated to open up an immense resource with which to explore time. The horizontal and the vertical are now free and I'm sorry you seem to be in mourning over it.....many good and great composers aint'....
> 
> (edited to correct a mis-reading of Aries quoted post...apologies if you read the first draft Aries)


IMO total serialism and even regular serialism, but especially total serialism which includes rhythm is nothing but a premediated attempt to kill the music...

First you kill the melody, then you kill the rhythm, what is left?

I am all for emancipation from the restrictions of common practice period... like you gotta compose in such and such way, stick to a key, etc... No need for that. Abolish the rules of common practice period.

But don't substitute them with a different set of rules, auto-destructive ones, that don't allow you to have anything that feels like melody or rhythm.

IMO, the desire for atonality, serialism, etc... came from belief that tonal music has been exhausted... All its creative potential already explored, and there's nothing left to explore. There isn't left anything new to say. Whatever you compose, you're bound to repeat what someone already did in the past. That's the belief that could be the motivation for atonality, serialism, etc...

But guess what? I do NOT subscribe to this belief. I think it can't be further from truth. I think that there's immense ocean of unexplored possibilities still remaining in music that's both rhythmical, tonal and melodic. Instead of trying to kill the melody and rhythm by the way of serialism and total serialism, IMO much more desirable avenues for exploration (and I guess probably many of these possibilities have already been explored) would be some of the following:

1) do the musical equivalent of free verse poetry... in other words, to hell with rules, no need to stick to the key, no need to be necessarily tonal, but also NO NEED TO INTENTIONALLY AVOID TONALITY... which would allow the composer to compose the music that he feels works best for what he wants to express... if it calls for tonality... do it like that... if it calls for touch of atonality, do it like that... it's like writing a poem in free verse... you don't need much rhyme or rhythm, but you naturally and instinctively create something that becomes rhythmical, and that resembles some basic rhymes... the point is, you don't avoid rhymes and rhythm like a plague... and in a similar way, you don't need to avoid melody, tonality and rhythm like a plague in music either

2) exploration of more precise scales (microtonality)

3) exploration of modes and rhythms not common in Western music (there's so much material in other tradition that could inform and inspire new composers)

4) exploration of different sound textures, different instruments, etc... from theremin, to electric guitar, to rhythm machine, computers, etc...

5) different types of development... beyond sonata form

6) exploration of unusual rhythms and time signatures...

7) use of continuous scales (where instead of clearly defined pitches, which are "digital" in a way, you go analogue, so you can have a note with pitch defined as 107 Hz, then next one 135 Hz, then 293 Hz, etc...)

8) use of smooth transition between tones... instead of having swift jumps in pitch from one note to another, there could be gradual increase or decrease in frequency... like a siren sound

9) team approach to composition, and especially using other people's input, especially from those who aren't musically educated... because those not musically educated are in a way natural, innocent, not brainwashed by musical academy, and their musical ideas might be more raw and organic... So the process would be something like this... a well known composer, visits the farmers market or a nearby village, finds some peasants, and asks them to invent some melody on the spot... then he records it and later uses it as a starting point for the composition (of course, he'd need to compensate the peasant i for such a favor)

etc...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> So good music is created, but _*not constructed.*_ Only after your unconscious mind has given you the finished product... that is the main musical idea, melody, etc... only at that point you can start using your conscious mind and logic for further development and construction of larger compositions...
> 
> *That's the main point of this whole thread.
> *
> ...


Yes, and as I've noted before, Beethoven's major works and the conscious construction required to produce some of their principal themes entirely refutes your argument! This is well documented. We have his sketch books. He created new kinds of themes that no one had conceived before unconsciously or consciously. It required conscious struggle and constructive effort.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, and as I've noted before, Beethoven's major works and the conscious construction required to produce some of their principal themes entirely refutes your argument! This is well documented. We have his sketch books. He created new kinds of themes that no one had conceived before unconsciously or consciously. It required conscious struggle and constructive effort.


Well, yeah, you offer a good attempt of refutation of my point and I in fact agree with you technically, but I still think that what I wanted to say holds true, I only need to refine my point.

The very important question here is *how Beethoven composed*?

Indeed it was a conscious effort and struggle, I agree with it. So on a superficial level you're right.

But, what is really very important is HOW EXACTLY this process unfolded?

And I guess it unfolded in exactly the way that supports my theory, rather than contradicting it.

He didn't have any kind of artificial system or algorithm that he needed to obey. Instead, he would simply think of short musical motives or improvise them on piano, and then think of how he might develop them, how they might combine with other ideas that he gets, etc... Yes it was a struggle and conscious effort, and there were some rules at play too, but he was always helped by the input that's coming from his imagination, his unconscious mind, and improvisation on piano...

It's just like the process I described, but repeated many many times over the course of composing one piece. He would always be able to imagine how it would sound etc... He combined small chunks, developed them and tried to unify the whole thing according to his artistic vision.

It wouldn't be possible without active imagination, improvisation, and spontaneous unconscious creation of musical ideas.

Yes he used thought, but he thought musically, in a musical way, in terms of how it feels musically, how it sounds... and not in a mathematical way...


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

ZJovicic said:


> And I guess it unfolded in exactly the way that supports my theory, rather than contradicting it.


Wow, that is a compelling argument



> He didn't have any kind of artificial system or algorithm that he needed to obey. Instead, he would simply think of short musical motives or improvise them on piano, and then think of how he might develop them, how they might combine with other ideas that he gets, etc... Yes it was a struggle and conscious effort, and there were some rules at play too, but he was always helped by the input that's coming from his imagination, his unconscious mind, and improvisation on piano...
> 
> It's just like the process I described, but repeated many many times over the course of composing one piece. He would always be able to imagine how it would sound etc... He combined small chunks, developed them and tried to unify the whole thing according to his artistic vision.
> 
> ...


So all the rules of counterpoint he was trained on and generally followed were not 'artificial'? What about all the stock schema he used?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Wow, that is a compelling argument
> 
> So all the rules of counterpoint he was trained on and generally followed were not 'artificial'? What about all the stock schema he used?


But the rules he followed allow for much more creative expression, namely because they are just a formal way of describing "what sounds good", so even when a pop musician who doesn't even read music, creates a song, it will typically obey most of the rules of common practice period, even without him consciously trying to do it. (though on a much simpler levels, so without counterpoint etc)...

So I guess, when pop musicians create music, they end up creating tonal music without even trying... In fact, you can create atonal music in only 2 ways:
a) if you have no talent and you make so many mistakes, to the point of the song becoming atonal (singing out of key)
b) you consciously decide to make atonal music

Otherwise, if you have a talent, and you improvise naturally, you'll end up making tonal music without conscious effort to do it.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Bwv 1080 said:


> So all the rules of counterpoint he was trained on and generally followed were not 'artificial'? What about all the stock schema he used?


Did he start with the counterpoint? He rather added it to his main musical ideas.

What is better? To start with musical inspirations, and use proven rules to accomplish a long work? Or to start with a tight corset of rules and try to add some inspiration later in weird ways?

What is the sense of rules? To help the real thing, or to be the real thing?


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Aries said:


> Did he start with the counterpoint? He rather added it to his main musical ideas.
> 
> What is better? To start with musical inspirations, and use proven rules to accomplish a long work? Or to start with a tight corset of rules and try to add some inspiration later in weird ways?
> 
> What is the sense of rules? To help the real thing, or to be the real thing?


Yes, Beethoven started with counterpoint as a child - all musical training in the 18th century was counterpoint, harmony was not viewed as separable


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

ZJovicic said:


> But the rules he followed allow for much more creative expression, namely because they are just a formal way of describing "what sounds good", so even when a pop musician who doesn't even read music, creates a song, it will typically obey most of the rules of common practice period, even without him consciously trying to do it. (though on a much simpler levels, so without counterpoint etc)...
> 
> So I guess, when pop musicians create music, they end up creating tonal music without even trying... In fact, you can create atonal music in only 2 ways:
> a) if you have no talent and you make so many mistakes, to the point of the song becoming atonal (singing out of key)
> ...


You wont write counterpoint naturally (and per above, no separation between counterpoint and harmony)

No such thing as natural music anyway, that is just romantic claptrap


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Folk music is natural.
Jimi Hendrix is natural.

All the rules they (folk and pop musicians) follow they internalized them subconsciously, they didn't take classes in counterpoint and harmony...

Guitar solo in this song is also natural:


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

ZJovicic said:


> Folk music is natural.
> Jimi Hendrix is natural.
> 
> All the rules they (folk and pop musicians) follow they internalized them subconsciously, they didn't take classes in counterpoint and harmony...


Give you slack for not being a native english speaker, but none of this is natural - innate, coming from nature, it is all learned musical culture, no different in principle from Beethoven. One may be more complex and notated, but that is the only difference. What would be 'natural' to, say, a 16th century court musician in India or China or a Baka pygmy would be quite different


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Yes, Beethoven started with counterpoint as a child - all musical training in the 18th century was counterpoint, harmony was not viewed as separable


During composition, not in life. How much counterpoint is there even in Beethoven music? Many of Beethovens single line motifs and themes are so distinct, characteristic and exposed, that I can't believe that they were affected by contrapunctical lines somewhere. Its much more plausible for Baroque music.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Give you slack for not being a native english speaker, but none of this is natural - innate, coming from nature, it is all learned musical culture, no different in principle from Beethoven. One may be more complex and notated, but that is the only difference. What would be 'natural' to, say, a 16th century court musician in India or China or a Baka pygmy would be quite different


I think the OP means "natural" in the sense of coming about instinctively without the conscious application of abstract mathematical concepts like "scales" or "intervals".


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Aries said:


> During composition, not in life. How much counterpoint is there even in Beethoven music? Many of Beethovens single line motifs and themes are so distinct, characteristic and exposed, that I can't believe that they were affected by contrapunctical lines somewhere. Its much more plausible for Baroque music.


All Beethoven's music is contrapuntal


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Sometimes threads get a bit heated. That's understandable. But please argue ideas and don't make personal comments. I've removed some posts.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

I see, some comments got deleted.

But for the further discussion I want to note that I don't agree to this opinion:



Bwv 1080 said:


> All Beethoven's music is contrapuntal


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I've noticed a syndrome on TC which seems to assume that the only music which exhibits training, skill, and high degree of sophistication, is Classical music. 

However, any competent musician, no matter what genre they perform, has undergone years of training, and developed skills often of a virtuosic level. There is sophistication in any artistic musical expression, but most often the kind of sophistication will be different across different genres. Also, the skill required to write a three minute song is no less developed than that which is required to write a symphony. Some commentators have made an analogy to short stories and novels, which is acceptable. 

In fact, most authors who do both say that writing a short story is harder than writing novels since the character development and story arc are compressed meaning that each sentence, each paragraph, become scenes and chapters in a novel.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> ... Also, the skill required to write a three minute song is no less developed than that which is required to write a symphony. ..


I don't know how you can make that kind of dogmatic statement. Unless you're an expert at doing both, how could you possibly know?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I've noticed a syndrome on TC which seems to assume that the only music which exhibits training, skill, and high degree of sophistication, is Classical music.
> 
> However, any competent musician, no matter what genre they perform, has undergone years of training, and developed skills often of a virtuosic level. There is sophistication in any artistic musical expression, but most often the kind of sophistication will be different across different genres. *Also, the skill required to write a three minute song is no less developed than that which is required to write a symphony. * Some commentators have made an analogy to short stories and novels, which is acceptable.
> 
> In fact, most authors who do both say that writing a short story is harder than writing novels since the character development and story arc are compressed meaning that each sentence, each paragraph, become scenes and chapters in a novel.


If you mean a classical song with piano accompaniment or a standard pop/rock song - or any other three minute song, this statement is absurd. Thousands of people who have written songs could not write a decent symphony if their lives depended on it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> If you mean a classical song with piano accompaniment or a standard pop/rock song - or any other three minute song, this statement is absurd. Thousands of people who have written songs could not write a decent symphony if their lives depended on it.


I never implied that they could, or would care to.

I was making a point that the unique skill required to write a good three minute non-Classical song (lyrics and music) is highly specialized and I think no less of an achievement than writing a symphony, or any Classical work.

And I used the analogy of a short story calling on a refined kind of skill that is different (but not cheaper) than the skills required to write a novel.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

> I was making a point that the unique skill required to write a good three minute non-Classical song (lyrics and music) is highly specialized and I think no less of an achievement than writing a symphony, or any Classical work.


How do you know?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

The problem with writing a symphony is that it's simply too technical. First of all, you need to know how to read music in order to be able to write music.

Not just knowing the meaning of the symbols of music notation (I know this, this is the easy part), but being able to know how it will sound when you encounter notes for example GCGB... I recognize the notes, I know what it means, but I don't know how it will sound before I play it on some instrument. Therefore I don't read music. So in the same manner, I can think of a new melody, but I don't know how to write it down, that is, which notes I need to use to get it to sound like what it sounds in my head.

Since developing this skill requires a lot of specialized training it's too technical and inaccessible for most people.

But it doesn't mean, if these same people just learned this technical skill, that they wouldn't be able to write good music.
Perhaps they would, and it would democratize composing... if just the barrier for entry was lower.

Perhaps some software could help that transforms your whistling for example into a score...

Once you know how to write it down... everything else suddenly becomes way easier.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> . Also, the skill required to write a three minute song is no less developed than that which is required to write a symphony. Some commentators have made an analogy to short stories and novels, which is acceptable.


SA I've done both popular song writing and written 2 symphonies. I can honestly and truly say that for me at least, writing a song although not easy to do well (we actually got into the UK charts), does not compare at all to what is required mentally, musically and technically when attempting to write a long-form orchestral piece. 
I agree with your general sentiments posted recently about popular music, but not this unless you mean development as it pertains to individual ability.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> SA I've done both popular song writing and written 2 symphonies. I can honestly and truly say that for me at least, writing a song although not easy to do well (we actually got into the UK charts), does not compare at all to what is required mentally, musically and technically when attempting to write a long-form orchestral piece.
> I agree with your general sentiments posted recently about popular music, but not this.


We must agree to disagree.

Having been a professional songwriter in Nashville for 30 years I know first hand what it takes to write a truly exceptional song - mostly not only from my own experience but having come in contact with truly gifted songwriters whose work was undeniably at the highest level. It is my belief that the skill required to master any style, any genre, any kind of art, is of a high level that transcends the general categories of Classical or Country or Pop.

Excellence is a quality which can be found in every genre.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

^^ok I agree with that sort of. Not sure about the transcending bit, but hey.(see my amended post above at the end)


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I never implied that they could, or would care to.
> 
> I was making a point that the unique skill required to write a good three minute non-Classical song (lyrics and music) *is highly specialized and I think no less of an achievement than writing a symphony, or any Classical work*.
> 
> And I used the analogy of a short story calling on a refined kind of skill that is different (but not cheaper) than the skills required to write a novel.


I'm assuming you've never written a song, symphony, short story, or novel then?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> I'm assuming you've never written a song, symphony, short story, or novel then?


You would assume wrong; it is precisely my personal experience (both through my own work and interaction with other songwriters, composers, and authors) that informs my opinion in this matter.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> Well, yeah, you offer a good attempt of refutation of my point and I in fact agree with you technically, but I still think that what I wanted to say holds true, I only need to refine my point.
> 
> The very important question here is *how Beethoven composed*?
> 
> ...


So you've abandoned your now refuted argument about conceivableness, which is the main concept in your thread title, and are now arguing something else: that you think some kinds of inconceivableness are more worthy than others. Sounds like moving the goal posts and bad faith argumentation to me.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> You would assume wrong; it is precisely my personal experience (both through my own work and interaction with other songwriters, composers, and authors) that informs my opinion in this matter.


Most major composers who wrote a few symphonies wrote something like ten times as many songs. QED


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> You would assume wrong; it is precisely my personal experience (both through my own work and interaction with other songwriters, composers, and authors) that informs my opinion in this matter.


Show your work, as they used to say in math class.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

dissident said:


> Show your work, as they used to say in math class.


I am not in math class and you are not my teacher. EdwardBast made an assumption which was inaccurate, which I corrected.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> Most major composers who wrote a few symphonies wrote something like ten times as many songs. QED


And Hemingway wrote far more short stories than novels.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> Most major composers who wrote a few symphonies wrote something like ten times as many songs. QED


But they did not write the lyrics, which is a huge part of songwriting, IMO. Even so, are you arguing that Schubert invested less skill/craft in his songs than his symphonies?

My point is not about Classical lieder but about songwriters in the non-Classical fields where they do not write symphonies or any Classical works, but their skill in songwriting is exquisite.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I am not in math class and you are not my teacher. EdwardBast made an assumption which was inaccurate, which I corrected.


Which you corrected on just your say-so, without evidence.


> But they did not write the lyrics, which is a huge part of songwriting, IMO. Even so, are you arguing that Schubert invested less skill/craft in his songs than his symphonies?


It probably required less work and sustained effort to compose "Der Leiermann" than the 8th symphony, just as it probably required more sustained effort and work to compose Beethoven's 9th than to compose the exquisite "Georgia on My Mind".


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

dissident said:


> Which you corrected on just your say-so, without evidence.


I interact with the members of TC, and am grateful for those whose experience has afforded them insights with certain kinds of music, opera for example, which is greater than my own. I trust that they are not lying about their experience, since that is a pointless assumption, which would void the benefit of their insights.

I consider it basic that we all come here voluntarily in order to exchange ideas and experience with Classical music, as well as other genres. I do not assume most members or even any member has such psychological flaws as to come here and lie about their experience or personal knowledge.

I guess we are different in that regard.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I interact with the members of TC, and am grateful for those whose experience has afforded them insights with certain kinds of music, opera for example, which is greater than my own. I trust that they are not lying about their experience, since that is a pointless assumption, which would void the benefit of their insights.
> 
> I consider it basic that we all come here voluntarily in order to exchange ideas and experience with Classical music, as well as other genres. I do not assume most members or even any member has such psychological flaws as to come here and lie about their experience or personal knowledge.
> 
> I guess we are different in that regard.


No, if you state dogmatically that it takes just as much skill and knowledge to write a good 3 minute song as it does to write a symphony, I want to know exactly how you can determine this. Unless it's a subforum, we come here to discuss classical music, not constantly beat the "classical is no better than anything else" drum.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

dissident said:


> No, if you state dogmatically that it takes just as much skill and knowledge to write a good 3 minute song as it does to write a symphony, I want to know exactly how you can determine this. Unless it's a subforum, we come here to discuss classical music, not constantly beat the "classical is no better than anything else" drum.


We all come here for our own reasons and have various backgrounds. One thing we all share an interest in is Classical music, but some of us also have a fairly deep experience in other genres. I will admit that it is a "pet peeve" (a phrase my favorite aunt used to say) of mine, which is, the assumption that Classical music is the greatest music humans have ever made, requires the greatest skill and talent, etc. So, I will confront that myth, at least it is my belief it is a myth since my experience has proven it false, on this forum.

But I spend a lot of time on other threads, maybe a majority of my time, talking about the Classical music I'm listening to, or recordings I like, opera, and other kinds, playing the games, offering lists of my favorite composers.

My only suggestion to you is if you find my posts bothersome, why not ignore them? But I am not going away and will continue posting the kind of things I want to share.

I think the purpose of this forum is to talk about music, not the other members.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> We all come here for our own reasons and have various backgrounds. One thing we all share an interest in is Classical music, but some of us also have a fairly deep experience in other genres. I will admit that it is a "pet peeve" (a phrase my favorite aunt used to say) of mine, which is, the assumption that Classical music is the greatest music humans have ever made, requires the greatest skill and talent, etc. So, I will confront that myth, at least it is my belief it is a myth since my experience has proven it false, on this forum....


No, you haven't proven anything false. You've simply offered a counter-opinion. If someone thinks hip hop is the greatest thing ever invented by humanity, it's no skin off my nose. I'm not going to hang out at a hip hop forum to tell the assembled that they are woefully limited in their outlook.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

dissident said:


> No, you haven't proven anything false. You've simply offered a counter-opinion. If someone thinks hip hop is the greatest thing ever invented by humanity, it's no skin off my nose. I'm not going to hang out at a hip hop forum to tell the assembled that they are woefully limited in their outlook.


Nor do I do that here, I post my opinions, which is what this forum is for. But I am not out to "prove something false", I said that my experience has proven it false to me. And I won't change my opinion because you think I'm wrong, I've been around too long and worked and had too much interaction with musicians and composers to deny what I've learned. If your experience has taught you something else, that is simply different from what I have learned.

But this is the last time I will discuss my activity on this forum with you.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

What is maybe true is that composers work as hard on symphonies as they work hard on songs, unless they don't care for one of the forms. But songs are usually finished much earlier, so symphonies are usually overall more difficult to write. That is just some common sense. And a composer has confirmed this here. But I think SanAntone just wants to spread a message and he really believes it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Aries said:


> What is maybe true is that composers work as hard on symphonies as they work hard on songs, unless they don't care for one of the forms. But songs are usually finished much earlier, so symphonies are usually overall more difficult to write. That is just some common sense. And a composer has confirmed this here. But I think SanAntone just wants to spread a message and he really believes it.


There are a couple if issues at work -

1) *Are miniature works of art less of an achievement than large scale works?* There are Indian painters whose miniatures are incredibly detailed; Joseph Cornell's boxes, are two examples. There are tiny sculptures, miniature compositions by Satie, Stravinsky, Chopin, and many other composers. It is my claim that the same amount of care and attention to the art occurs with these small works as goes into the larger scale works.

2) *Some songs have taken months, sometimes years to write.* Alan Jay Lerner was very careful with his lyrics often taking months to complete them, much to the frustration of his collaborators. Bruce Springsteen took six months to write Born to Run; Bob Seger took six months to write Night Moves; Bob Dylan took two years to complete Tangled Up in Blue, Leonard Cohen took five years to write Hallelujah; Freddy Mercury took six years to complete Bohemian Rhapsody; Noel Gallagher took over 8 years to write Let There Be Love; Don Henley took an amazing 42 years to complete The Heart of the Matter.

There seems to be an assumption that Pop or Rock songs are easy to write or that songwriters don't demand of themselves what amounts to perfection about their work. Good songwriters care about their work to an amazing degree. Stephen Sondheim will refine a lyric and music over months before including it is a score, and then he often goes back to it for revivals and continues to hone it. I've personally known Nashville songwriters to labor over a song for years.

I don't want to belabor this point, but I'd like to get it across that there are musicians and writers in other musical genres who care about their work no less than Classical composers - and the skill they develop is also commensurate with turning out the same kind of quality.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> *Are miniature works of art less of an achievement than large scale works?* There are tiny sculptures, miniature compositions by Satie, Stravinsky, Chopin, and many other composers.






*"There is more music in Chopin's tiny C-minor Prélude than in the four hours of the trumpeting in Les Huguenots."​-G. Sand​*


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

^ Well she would say that, wouldn't she?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Aries said:


> songs are usually finished much earlier, so symphonies are usually overall more difficult to write. That is just some common sense.


Only if you think that length=difficulty. It doesn't. Take any published list of the top 20 symphonies.

https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time/

Rearrange them according to length. (How do you determine length? Number of bars? Length of performance?)

You would have to conclude that the new number one was the most "difficult", regardless of its quality (or who wrote it - Mozart fares poorly!)

I'm not seeing 'common sense' here.

PS - How about this list of long (therefore most difficult pieces?)

https://www.theguardian.com/music/t.../top-ten-time-stretching-musical-masterpieces


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> What expression is evoked by abstract procedures like stretto on an inverted subject, chains of alternating 9-8 and 4-3 suspensions, or modulation through the use of hexatonic systems, all of which were employed by tonal composers? Your argument is empty and toothless. Abstract procedures are used by all composers in all eras and in all eras their relationship to the expression of the works they inhabit is complex and distant from the aesthetic object of the sounding work. It doesn't matter one iota how Boulez derived the materials with which he constructed a musical work.


I can easily explain that, and I think my usage of the term "abstract" was unclear.

Just looking at the chains of suspensions, this has a multitude of tangible effects on the music, in the sense that they imbue the music with _concrete audible characteristics the ear can pick up_.

For example: It creates an audible(!) sense of harmonic unity, because in a chain the same chord types keep reappearing. Possibly this is even meant to create a sense of repetition. 
Additionaly, suspensions are more dissonant than triads so another effect is a certain degree of dissonance. However, the suspensions are also resolved, so the overall effect is better described as an ebb and flow between dissonance and consonance (again distinct characteristics the ear recognizes).

Furthermore the suspension requires a voice to move down a second after each chord. This creates melodic unity, as you have a characteristic interval of of a downwards second reappearing that can also function like a motive. Again, distinct features that we can pick up in the final music.

I could mention many more things, but it's obvious the concept you provided will give the music very distinct audible characteristics.

On the other hand, nobody was able to explain how the method of Boulez affects the perceived music in a meaningful way, including several professionals.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

chipia said:


> I can easily explain that, and I think my usage of the term "abstract" was unclear.
> 
> Just looking at the chains of suspensions, this has a multitude of tangible effects on the music, in the sense that they imbue the music with _concrete audible characteristics the ear can pick up_.
> 
> ...


Melodic unity and movement is acquired differently with serialism. Apart from the unification inherent in the row and its variants, the same melodic principles of relaxation, tension, climax and so on are also present in serialism and exploited as such by the composer. But because there is no overt vertical or gravitational function in the 12 equal tones, the melodic traits are derived more from intervallic characteristics, relationships and rhythm. Rhythm in particular is a big contributor to impetus, dynamism and expression in serialism and atonality. Its role could be seen as being more dynamic than in CPT and its offshoots where rhythm is in the main, regular and generally repetitive or similar with slight variations.

The asymmetrical nature of rhythm as it has been developed has proven to be a highly expressive contributor to atonal fields but admittedly also very alienating and bewildering unless one acquaints oneself with the style.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Melodic unity and movement is acquired differently with serialism. Apart from the unification inherent in the row and its variants, the same melodic principles of relaxation, tension, climax and so on are also present in serialism and exploited as such by the composer.


Apparently the context of my post wasn't clear.

My point is the following: 
*I demonstrated that the concept "chains of alternating 4-3 and 9-8 suspensions" imbues the music with distinct audible characteristics.

Can you do the same for the composition method of "Le Marteau sans maitre", which I linked to earlier?*


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

...apparently the implications in my post 129 were not clear neither...

Serialism has distinct audible characteristics too and these are inherent within the row via intervallic tension and release that is controlled by the composer musically and not just by the math, which is a means to an end (as is all technique). I might as well ask you to demonstrate how CPT can create progressions of 7 note chords based on unusual (non-compound) intervals with asymmetric rhythms and convincingly contain them within the gravitational fields of the maj/min system. In other words, comparing the two styles is pointless as they are different in technical and aesthetic approach and result. Serialism requires different composing and listening ears plus more effort from the listener. The rewards are there if the ears are willing. 

As I've just implied above (post129), the technique of serialism is conceptually different to CPT. Serialisms technique developed to control the 12 equal notes and distribute them equally, regularly and consistently without the functions available in tonality. You'll understand that concepts such as suspensions do not therefore audibly work as a result, but other "chains" of aural logic are in evidence such as the row itself and all derivatives that ensure homogeneity and a foundation. Distinct audible characteristics of rhetoric are found in combinations of timbre, rhythm, vertical manipulations, horizontal flow, row combinations and transformations etc. - all the things in fact that any music needs to keep in flux to maintain interest and be expressive. 
The Boulez is pretty distinct, just not in the way you'd like it to be. I've mentioned before that Boulez's ear was one of the finest of the 20thC so we can trust it and his musicality. The techniques of serialism and atonality in general are now well absorbed by composers but if you want analysis, google the piece. (it's not my favourite piece of his btw).

Chipia, it'd be a lot simpler if you just said you don't like serialism or atonality because no matter how you try to denigrate or undermine serialism by then comparing it to CPT, it just tells me that although you clearly have some technical knowledge, you do not appreciate what serialism and especially its legacy, has done for creativity. Given your display of knowledge, I'm going to assume you compose (do you?). If you do, you should try a few basic exercises in row formulation and see what you can find by applying your imagination to it....you never know, you might just glimpse the creative possibilities that lie beyond serialism...there is much to explore, adapt, manipulate and discover.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Forster said:


> Only if you think that length=difficulty. It doesn't. Take any published list of the top 20 symphonies.
> 
> https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time/
> 
> Rearrange them according to length. (How do you determine length? Number of bars? Length of performance?)


I talked about composing time.

But its interessting:

Brahms 1 - 14 years
Beethoven 9 - 9 years
Sibelius 7 - 6-10 years
Mahler 2 - 6 years
Beethoven 5 - 5 years
Mahler 3 - 4 years
Bruckner 8 - 3 years + work on further versions
Bruckner 7 - 2 years
Beethoven 3 - 1 year
Beethoven 7 - 1 year
Beethoven 6 - 1 year
Mahler 9 - 1 year
Brahms 4 - 1 year
Berlioz fantasique - 0.5 years?
Brahms 3 - 0.5 years?
Shostakovich 5 - 4 months
Brahms 2 - 3 months
Tchaikovsky 6 - 4 weeks?
Mozart 41 - 3-5 weeks?
Mozart 40 - 3 weeks

These numbers are influenced by other things too, of course. Did the composer work on other works at the same time? How healthy and motivated was the composer? Etc.

And some works are maybe more difficult for specific composers than for others. So it is not an objective difficulty. Brahms for example needed really long for his first symphonies. Really surprising is how fast Tchaikovsky wrote his 6th symphony.

And difficulty doesn't mean quality necessarily.

But overall a medium composing time for a great symphony seems to be 1 year. I doubt that it takes so long for a great song regarding the median time.

Schubert wrote hundreds of songs in his 31 year long life, but just 7 finished symphonies and 5 unfinished. It obviously didn't take him as long to write songs.

I assume that a composer who cares for a work, works just as hard as he does no matter what the form is. But if a form takes him more time, it means that it was overall more difficult. What else? Or do song composers work 12 hours a day and symphony composers just chill the whole day?

I agree that lyrics are an additional difficulty for songs, which usually don't occur in symphonies. But lets instead compare operas with songs. Operas have lyrics too. Operas probably take even longer to write than symphonies. And operas can include songs. Its logical that a song+rest of an opera is more difficult than just a song. Wagner needed 25 years for Der Ring des Nibelungen. It is also obvious that its more difficult on average to write 4 operas than just 1 opera.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> Improvising with CPT has instant guarantees and options built in that are missing in serialism. Now unless someone who is attempting to improvise serially can remember an order of 12 notes forwards and backwards and upside down, then consider all the permutations, transpositions and possibilities available from a row and associated techniques and can then cherry pick accurately in the moment to ensure a 'legitimate' choice (no-one can btw), then integrity and cohesion is impossible as regards _strict serialism_ and one might as well go random - not that good results can't come from doing so. In fact improvising in a random, atonal manner will often lead to a find but in order to flesh it out and make it intelligible, the composer will need to dig below the find and that requires thought and application on the ms.


But pretty much everything, fugues, variations, jazz can be improvised, why not serial music?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

On the other hand Mozart composed his 36th symphony in just 3 or 4 days.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> But pretty much everything, fugues, variations, jazz can be improvised, why not serial music?


I don't know if this is true but if it is perhaps it is because improvisers have not taken any interest in serialism. There is certainly quite a lot of atonal improvisation in jazz.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Aries said:


> Brahms 1 - 14 years
> Beethoven 9 - 9 years
> Sibelius 7 - 6-10 years
> Mozart 41 - 3-5 weeks?
> ...


"professional" composers before the Romantic period generally wrote very fast (as a requirement of their duty to their employers), and even when some of them became "freelancers", they still retained their habit.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> But pretty much everything, fugues, variations, jazz can be improvised, why not serial music?


Because serial music is not technically random. I suppose one could write out the various row forms and transpositions etc and use them as one might chord symbols. But for strict serialism, note repetition has to be carefully watched whilst the 12 notes are kept in constant circulation and keeping track of what you have played vertically and horizontally would require prodigious memory recall, beat after beat. I'm only scratching the surface of why not here.
As Enthusiast says, atonality is more amenable to improvising but even that ideally should have some parameters to justify not being called random imv.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> Because serial music is not technically random. I suppose one could write out the various row forms and transpositions etc and use them as one might chord symbols. But for strict serialism, note repetition has to be carefully watched whilst the 12 notes are kept in constant circulation and keeping track of what you have played vertically and horizontally would require prodigious memory recall, beat after beat. I'm only scratching the surface of why not here.
> As Enthusiast says, atonality is more amenable to improvising but even that ideally should have some parameters to justify not being called random imv.


Bill Evans had a tune T.T.T. (Twelve Tone Tune) which had a 12-tone theme, but the improvisations were loosely based on it, and certainly not the chordal accompaniment.

I believe Lenny Tristano may have experimented with improvising with 12-tones, but I could be wrong, I was never a fan.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Aries said:


> I talked about composing time.


Fair enough. My mistake.

However, the apparent length of time taken to "compose" may be misleading. We know some composers wrote using material they've had knocking around for years, and/or revised it even after it was "finished". It's surely true that some popular music artists work for relatively short periods; others do the same as some of their classical counterparts and take several years to get to a finished version. And of course, not all popular music is just the 3 minute pop song. Many pop artists also work to deadlines for release because of the need to book recording time - not something that Beethoven had to worry about.

Even so, length doesn't necessarily mean "difficult".


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> "A piece of music can be a true work of art if and only if its main musical ideas can be conceived in the mind of the composer, *before *they write them down. By "main musical ideas" I think explicit melodies, rhythms, harmonies... not abstract concepts. So serialism is also a conceivable concept, but it doesn't count, as it's just an abstract idea... not a formed _musical_ idea. Only actual melodies, rhythms, harmonies, etc... count... Only things you can sing or hum BEFORE you write down. In other words, true music is composed in the head and not on the paper/sheet music software. Only when they have complete ideas in their mind, they should write them down... and not compose while writing." ... Your thoughts?


Well, I have A Modest Proposal! There are some composers who still participate in TalkClassical and I'm one of them. In all of my years of learning, composing, teaching, commission-seeking, composition-premiering, prize-applying and so forth, I've never been required to take a Conceivability Test. That is definitely something we need now. Then I could actually become a card-carrying Board Certified Composer: Conceivability-Status Approved, permitted to have my compositions performed, recorded, published, and even reviewed! No more of this skulking around trying to avoid being accused of defrauding the public with unconceived music. I'll just flash that gold-plated card and presto, doors will open!!!

Or, as an alternative to A Modest Proposal, one could simply ask composers what they do.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I don't want to go ahead and dismiss this all with a one sentence argument, but any test which fundamentally depends on reading the composer's mind seems doomed to fail for obvious reasons.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

fbjim said:


> I don't want to go ahead and dismiss this all with a one sentence argument, but any test which fundamentally depends on reading the composer's mind seems doomed to fail for obvious reasons.


I agree, and like you don't want to dismiss it all either. But my sharp reply to Zlovicic was because of some experiences with the stereotype of The Composer Who Doesn't Know His Own Music. Even my own choir conductor challenged me aggressively at rehearsal to see if I knew one note of my piece correctly; fortunately I could snap right back. Another time a few years ago a more complex piece of mine was given an excellent performance by one of Canada's best chamber groups. It was in another city and I was only able to get to the performance, with which I was very happy because this piece was carefully notated and came off perfectly. But it was reviewed in the organization's newsletter as though I didn't know what I was doing at all, and dismissed with the usual slighting comment: "interesting."

Zlovovic, "Conceivableness" may refer to whether the composer can _hear inwardly_ the elements of the composition, a phenomenon sometimes called "audiation" (though the term means more than inward hearing.) This is an important topic and I'm glad you brought it up, even though the thread went off track. I posted on that topic some time ago, mentioning that the American music education researcher Edwin Gordon developed this idea. Anyway, for me, yes I do hear the musical ideas inwardly.

As for serialism, I can hear a twelve-tone row inwardly, but working it out in more than one part has to be done on paper. As Mikeh 375 notes above, you can't improvise serial music. Also, it depends what kind of serialism you are talking about: for example the integral (multi-parameter) serialism of Boulez and others is way too complicated for the kind of music I do. It is well known that as integral serial serialism gets more rigorous it sounds random rather than structured, leading to aleatory (chance) music. All this was worked out in the 1950's which is a hell of a long time ago now. And why are we on about serialism now, in 2021, when it's not a big deal? I use it sometimes to reach places in music (growly, "wingy") that are unapproachable for me otherwise.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Roger Knox said:


> Also, it depends what kind of serialism you are talking about: for example the integral (multi-parameter) serialism of Boulez and others is way too complicated for the kind of music I do. It is well known that as integral serial serialism gets more rigorous it sounds random rather than structured, leading to aleatory (chance) music. All this was worked out in the 1950's which is a hell of a long time ago now. And why are we on about serialism now, in 2021, when it's not a big deal?


Is the integral serialism now seen as a misdevelopment in musical history? Or as (necessary) historic experiments in musical science without artistic value?

It is this random music I have the biggest problems with. Conceivableness of melodies and rhythms sound like a good concept, but there are probably intermediate stages between romantically conceived music and pure math based random music.

A good example is maybe Brian Ferneyhough:



Wikipedia said:


> Ferneyhough's actual compositional approach, however, rejects serialism and other "generative" methods of composing; he prefers instead to use systems only to create material and formal constraints, while their realisation appears to be more spontaneous.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Ferneyhough

Here is an Analysis of Brian Ferneyhoughs music:






So he basically conceives mathematical procedures to create material and decides by taste how to use it.

I would describe the result as some kind of alien music that is at least more interessting than the randomness of total serialism. The expression is something like standing on an alien planet with alien ants digging in the ground, and you don't know whether they are working on nuclear weapons or whether they are already inside you eating you.

Its a really different type of music, but has more value than total serialism imo. However I would not restrict myself to this kind of expression as a composer and I' m concerned that these kind of approach will always lead to very dissonant music.

So imo this can be a complementation of romantic music, but not a replacement of romantic music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> It is well known that as integral serial serialism gets more rigorous it sounds random rather than structured, leading to aleatory (chance) music.


True. I once posted clips of John Cage's _Music of Changes_ and Boulez's _Structures_ and commented on how similar the works sounded although they were produced by very different procedures.



> All this was worked out in the 1950's which is a hell of a long time ago now. And why are we on about serialism now, in 2021, when it's not a big deal?


I suppose the anti-moderns are addicted to it.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> We must agree to disagree.
> 
> Having been a professional songwriter in Nashville for 30 years I know first hand what it takes to write a truly exceptional song - mostly not only from my own experience but having come in contact with truly gifted songwriters whose work was undeniably at the highest level. It is my belief that the skill required to master any style, any genre, any kind of art, is of a high level that transcends the general categories of Classical or Country or Pop.
> 
> Excellence is a quality which can be found in every genre.


I can well believe what you say about Nashville songwriters, and agree with you about different genres.

In a world of nine billion people it's likely we'll encounter music, even whole genres of music, that we don't like. Rather than assuming that the creators are incompetent, misguided, crazy, and so on, it is better to take the opportunity to reflect on our own reactions, what it is that we are hearing and experiencing. I'm still far from always doing this myself, but still believe it's the way to grow.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Roger Knox said:


> ...
> In a world of nine billion people it's likely we'll encounter music, even whole genres of music, that we don't like. Rather than assuming that the creators are incompetent, misguided, crazy, and so on, it is better to take the opportunity to reflect on our own reactions, what it is that we are hearing and experiencing. I'm still far from always doing this myself, but still believe it's the way to grow.


I think ultimately though the onus is on the artist to justify my spending my time to consider his/her work.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

dissident said:


> What that's saying though essentially is that there's no such thing as bad art, just bad listeners or observers. I don't agree.


I don't agree. What it's saying is...(Wait a minute. I've been here before with some of your interpretations of others' posts (including mine)).

I think it is _better _to reflect on one's own response to music one dislikes _instead of _assuming the composers' stupidity etc. That doesn't entail making any firm observation about the quality of the art, or the capacity/capability of the listeners or observers. Since the success of any piece of music - assuming it was written for consumption by others - depends on the relationship between the composer and listener, why not think about both parties before concluding that one is "wrong"?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> I think ultimately though the onus is on the artist to justify my spending my time to consider his/her work.


I think any onus from the artist should be to him/herself first and foremost.Then perhaps their work will be worth the listening effort.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

dissident said:


> I think ultimately though the onus is on the artist to justify my spending my time to consider his/her work.


Oh. That's a substantial revision. I guess you reflected on your post...etc. In response, I would say that what I choose to do with my time is my responsibility alone, and nothing to do with the artist.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Forster said:


> ...
> Oh. That's a substantial revision. I guess you reflected on your post...etc.


Yeah, I don't want to get into another objective-subjective thing.


mikeh375 said:


> I think any onus from the artist is to him/herself first and foremost.


That's a little egocentric. There's no reason to publish at all.


Forster said:


> Oh. That's a substantial revision. I guess you reflected on your post...etc. In response, I would say that what I choose to do with my time is my responsibility alone, and nothing to do with the artist.


So if you waste money to hear a concert pianist who can't make his way through a C major scale, that's on you. "Sucker!"


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

mikeh375 said:


> I think any onus from the artist should be to him/herself first and foremost.





dissident said:


> That's a little egocentric. There's no reason to publish at all.


"First and foremost" is not the same as "exclusively."


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

amfortas said:


> "First and foremost" is not the same as "exclusively."


So the listener is an afterthought.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> ..................
> That's a little egocentric. There's no reason to publish at all.


I disagree completely. Artists need to have some self belief and self-absorption before they even create. Besides, who the f*** are you to tell me there's "no reason to publish" btw and what's with the implication? Perhaps you should just re-read your post no146 again for a smattering of the egocentric.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> I disagree completely. Artists need to have some self belief and self-absorption before they even create. Besides, who the f*** are you to tell me there's "no reason to publish" btw and what's with the implication? Perhaps you should just re-read your post no146 again for a smattering of the egocentric.


I'm just an afterthought. Never mind me.


> Perhaps you should just re-read your post no146 again for a smattering of the egocentric.


Yes, it's probably a bit egocentric of me to expect an architect to design a house that's habitable.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

dissident said:


> So the listener is an afterthought.


Perhaps, in a sense. I suspect mikeh375's point is that composers need to develop their ideas as fully as possible, staying true to their convictions without catering to some supposed audience expectations. Only that way are they likely to come up with vital music that has a chance of being worth hearing.

But I imagine he can speak for himself on that.

EDIT: Looks like he has.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> I'm just an afterthought. Never mind me.
> Yes, it's probably a bit egocentric of me to expect an architect to design a house that's habitable.


no one has said or implied that the listener is not considered. Thanks for no apology I knew you didn't have it in you.
Thnx Alan for seeing things as they where meant to be seen.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

amfortas said:


> Perhaps, in a sense. I suspect mikeh375's point is that composers need to develop their ideas as fully as possible, staying true to their convictions without catering to some supposed audience expectations. Only that way are they likely to come up with music that has a chance of being worth hearing.
> 
> But I imagine he can speak for himself on that.


It sounds to me like holdover 19th century attitudes. Everybody still wants to be Beethoven or Baudelaire.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> no one has said or implied that the listener is not considered. Thanks for no apology I knew you didn't have it in you.
> Thnx Amfortas for seeing things as they where meant to be seen.


Apology for having a different opinion? 


> Besides, who the f*** are you...?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

dissident said:


> It sounds to me like holdover 19th century attitudes. Everybody still wants to be Beethoven or Baudelaire.


Not the worst models to follow. 

What 21st-century attitudes would you advocate?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> It sounds to me like holdover 19th century attitudes. Everybody still wants to be Beethoven or Baudelaire.


No absolutely not. you'd have to know a bit about composing to appreciate the comments by Alan and me.
..and no. Any apology was simply a matter of decency, seeing that you might have upset a fellow member. It's nothing to do with opinions.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> I disagree completely. Artists need to have some self belief and self-absorption before they even create. Besides, who the f*** are you to tell me there's "no reason to publish" btw and what's with the implication? Perhaps you should just re-read your post no146 again for a smattering of the egocentric.


I agree. Composers wish to have their work out in the world, ideally to be acknowledged and appreciated by as wide an audience as possible. But, composers are also artists with strong aesthetic standards and have a need to express their ideas in as pure a form as possible.

While these two drives can be seen in conflict, most composers who stick to their path eventually achieve a balance, and find an audience, even if relatively small. Those composers who both satisfy their aesthetic standard as well as enjoy a large audience are rare and, to a certain degree, lucky in that their style happened to coincide with the larger zeitgeist.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

amfortas said:


> Not the worst models to follow.
> ...


No, if you're Beethoven or Baudelaire.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> No absolutely not. you'd have to know a bit about it to appreciate the comments by Alan and me.


Ooooh the elitist argument.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> Ooooh the elitist argument.


Ahh the yappy snappy little dog comeback.
If you are referring to me being a trained composer...well I'll make no apologies there.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

dissident said:


> So if you waste money to hear a concert pianist who can't make his way through a C major scale, that's on you. "Sucker!"


A strange response. Why should I blame other people for my bad luck if I go to a performance of something I end up not liking?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Forster said:


> A strange response. Why should I blame other people for my bad luck if I go to a performance of something I end up not liking?


And if someone sells me worthless bonds I guess it's just...my bad luck. *shrug*


mikeh375 said:


> Ahh the yappy snappy little dog comeback.
> If you are referring to me being a trained composer...well I'll make no apologies there.


No I'm just referring to the fact that mere mortals from the Great Unwashed should aspire to your more rarified knowledge.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

dissident said:


> Yes, it's probably a bit egocentric of me to expect an architect to design a house that's habitable.


An entirely different kind of contract between "artist" and "customer". If I pay for a house to be designed and built for me, it's reasonable for me to get my money back if the architect and builder make a mess of it.

If I pay to see a performance of a piece of music, and that piece is delivered according to the "contract", then I have no comeback, even if the contract was to deliver something that subsequently turns out to be some 12 tone serialist junk that I can't stand. More fool me for not having checked what I was going to see.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> And if someone sells me worthless bonds I guess it's just...my bad luck. *shrug*
> No I'm just referring to the fact that mere mortals from the Great Unwashed should aspire to your more rarified knowledge.


sigh....go bite some other undeserving persons leg.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

dissident said:


> No I'm just referring to the fact that mere mortals from the Great Unwashed should aspire to your more rarified knowledge.


No, you're just argumentative and a wind-up artist.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Forster said:


> An entirely different kind of contract between "artist" and "customer". If I pay for a house to be designed and built for me, it's reasonable for me to get my money back if the architect and builder make a mess of it.
> 
> If I pay to see a performance of a piece of music, and that piece is delivered according to the "contract", then I have no comeback, even if the contract was to deliver something that subsequently turns out to be some 12 tone serialist junk that I can't stand. More fool me for not having checked what I was going to see.


From Boswell's Life of Johnson:


> I mentioned Mallet's tragedy of 'Elvira,' which had been
> acted the preceding winter at Drury-lane, and that the Honourable
> Andrew Erskine, Mr. Dempster, and myself, had joined in writing a
> pamphlet, entitled 'Critical Strictures' against it. That the
> ...


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Forster said:


> No, you're just argumentative and a wind-up artist.


Amen. The tone and posting style is very familiar, spookily so, to some of us.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Amen. The tone and posting style is very familiar, spookily so, to some of us.


Not part of the herd, I agree. If my comments about art or music arouse such hatred or anger at someone you don't even know, maybe you're in for a little self-examination.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

dissident said:


> From Boswell's Life of Johnson:


So what ?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Forster said:


> So what ?


Think about it. Anyway,


> even if the contract was to deliver something that subsequently turns out to be some 12 tone serialist junk that I can't stand.


What gives you the right to call that "junk"? Educate yourself.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> Not part of the herd, I agree. If my comments about art or music arouse such hatred or anger at someone you don't even know, maybe you're in for a little self-examination.


You of course know nothing about me. If someone you don't know is upset by a comment from you and you don't see what ensues for what it is, then perhaps you might be in need of a little self-examination.

For the record, I don't hate you but your comment in post 146 clearly upset me and seemed totally unjustified given what I said and meant. I'd have the decency to apologise if I became aware that I had upset a member unprovoked, so I can only conclude you meant to be nasty and Forster is correct. That or you need to grow a pair.

At least now I know for sure. I suggest you also retire this current membership of yours and try again with a new name. You never know, 3rd time lucky eh.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

dissident said:


> Think about it. Anyway,
> What gives you the right to call that "junk"? Educate yourself.


What gives me the right to call Beethoven's 9th sublime? I may abuse a composition, though I cannot write one.

As for my referring to "some 12 tone serialist junk that I can't stand" I could just as easily have said "some sloppy Romantic/Classical junk" to the same purpose.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> You of course know nothing about me. If someone you don't know is upset by a comment from you and you don't see what ensues for what it is, then perhaps you might be in need of a little self-examination.


No, I don't, but you seem like a good knowledgeable guy who's a little too quick to take things personally and fly off the handle.



> For the record, I don't hate you but your comment in post 146 clearly upset me and seemed totally unjustified given what I said and meant. I'd have had the decency to apologise if I became aware that I had upset a member unprovoked, so I can only conclude you meant to be nasty and Forster is correct.


Only if you call disagreement "nasty".


Forster said:


> What gives me the right to call Beethoven's 9th sublime? I may abuse a composition, though I cannot write one.
> 
> As for my referring to "some 12 tone serialist junk that I can't stand" I could just as easily have said "some sloppy Romantic/Classical junk" to the same purpose.


Now you're getting it.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> No, I don't, but you seem like a good knowledgeable guy who's a little too quick to take things personally and fly off the handle.
> 
> Only if you call disagreement "nasty".
> 
> .


You should re-read your post and try to see how it looks to someone you don't know. You said nothing to alleviate the situation, in fact you knuckled down. It's nothing to do with opinions and everything to do with decency. I'm done with you consu...er Dissident.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> You should re-read your post and try to see how it looks to someone you don't know. You said nothing to alleviate the situation, in fact you knuckled down. It's nothing to do with opinions and everything to do with decency. I'm done with you consu...er Dissident.


*Shrug* okey-dokey...

PS...you're not *quite* as on target as you may think.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

dissident said:


> Now you're getting it.


Getting what ?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

A listener is free to hate a performance but the relationship between artist and listener, at least since the dawn of romanticism, is not strictly transactional. This is an attitude that sometimes seems at risk in modern capital-L Liberal life where _everything_ is becoming transactional, but if an artist makes art and you hate it, you aren't being defrauded- you're getting art that you hate (this is setting aside edge cases like "no condition to perform" level live shows)

Audiences aren't entitled to art that they like, and artists aren't entitled to applause.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> A listener is free to hate a performance but the relationship between artist and listener, at least since the dawn of romanticism, is not strictly transactional. This is an attitude that sometimes seems at risk in modern capital-L Liberal life where _everything_ is becoming transactional, but if an artist makes art and you hate it, you aren't being defrauded- you're getting art that you hate (this is setting aside edge cases like "no condition to perform" level live shows)


If an artist is selling his/her work and makes a living from it I don't know how it wouldn't be transactional. Now if I hear it for free and form an opinion of it, or I take a look at and play over some friend's newly-composed piano pieces, no, that isn't "transactional". But money value or the "cash nexus" isn't all I had in mind.


> Audiences aren't entitled to art that they like, and artists aren't entitled to applause.


Are they entitled to government or NGO support? Is that also "transactional"?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Public funding tends not to be transactional by nature.

This is once again something that has changed in the last half-century (vis. "running government like a business") but public funding represents an ideal that art (and- in some cases, art which exists _apart_ from market pressures) scenes are a societal good. It is not a payment for services rendered.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> *Shrug* okey-dokey...
> 
> PS...you're not *quite* as on target as you may think.


oh I am, but you can pretend otherwise.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> oh I am, but you can pretend otherwise.


Mmmm...not quite. But you can pretend otherwise.
By the way,


Forster said:


> No, you're just argumentative and a wind-up artist.


No, not for its own sake. I just challenge things that are offered up as dogmatic truisms without evidence.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> If an artist is selling his/her work and makes a living from it I don't know how it wouldn't be transactional. Now if I hear it for free and form an opinion of it, or I take a look at and play over some friend's newly-composed piano pieces, no, that isn't "transactional". But money value or the "cash nexus" isn't all I had in mind.


This is also just begging the question. The idea that paying to see a performance, or for music specifically creates a transactional relationship which entitles the listener to be pleased is precisely what I disagree with.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

There is a transactional component to the relationship; if I pay to see a performance, I am entitled to expect delivery of that performance. Assuming it is not materially defective in some way, I can have no other expectation of a transactional nature. Beyond that, the relationship is voluntary on my part in the sense that I can engage to whatever degree I wish, but I can have no expectation that the performance must meet my needs.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

fbjim said:


> I don't want to go ahead and dismiss this all with a one sentence argument, but any test which fundamentally depends on reading the composer's mind seems doomed to fail for obvious reasons.


I agree, that's why I suggested in #25 that _improvisability_ may be an equivalent test that is easier to demonstrate objectively. That means, if it is possible to improvise in the style of a composition, then it also can be conceived, because improvisation is spontaneously conceived music that is immediately played.

E.g. Common-Practice-Tonal music can be improvised, so it also can be conceived. 
On the other hand serialism cannot be improvised and thus cannot be conceived, or only to a limited degree as Roger Knox acknowledged.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

chipia said:


> I agree, that's why I suggested in #25 that _improvisability_ may be an equivalent test that is easier to demonstrate objectively. That means, if it is possible to improvise in the style of a composition, then it also can be conceived, because improvisation is spontaneously conceived music that is immediately played.
> 
> E.g. Common-Practice-Tonal music can be improvised, so it also can be conceived.
> On the other hand serialism cannot be improvised and thus cannot be conceived, or only to a limited degree as Roger Knox acknowledged.


Hang on, conception can take place on the ms too. A fundamental attribute of technical procedure is the ability to search out ideas and as it happens, that is also a fundamental part of composition. Composers can be led by technical exploration too. Would it help if serialists (are there any alive?), or atonalists could wear silk dressing gowns, hand on forehead in a scented room with candles?....just joking chipia...btw you didn't answer my query, not that you have to, but I am curious as to whether or not you compose.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> ...apparently the implications in my post 129 were not clear neither...
> 
> Serialism has distinct audible characteristics too and these are inherent within the row via intervallic tension and release that is controlled by the composer musically and not just by the math, which is a means to an end (as is all technique). I might as well ask you to demonstrate how CPT can create progressions of 7 note chords based on unusual (non-compound) intervals with asymmetric rhythms and convincingly contain them within the gravitational fields of the maj/min system. In other words, comparing the two styles is pointless as they are different in technical and aesthetic approach and result. Serialism requires different composing and listening ears plus more effort from the listener. The rewards are there if the ears are willing.


But I don't compare Boulez specifically to CPT but to any music with _distinct audible characteristics_, because that is what sets music ultimately apart from randomness.

I only talked about the "chained suspensions" because that was the "counterexample" provided by EdwardBast. I could just as well compare the Boulez to Webern's "Concerto for nine Instruments" and come to the same conclusion.



mikeh375 said:


> The Boulez is pretty distinct, just not in the way you'd like it to be. I've mentioned before that Boulez's ear was one of the finest of the 20thC so we can trust it and his musicality. The techniques of serialism and atonality in general are now well absorbed by composers but if you want analysis, google the piece. (it's not my favourite piece of his btw).


To simply trust him based on his "great ears" is argument from authority. There are many people with perfect pitch who aren't great composers. When several professional composers raise doubts over the musical meaningfulness of his techniques (SanAntone also acknowledged here that "Structures" doesn't sound much different from Cage's aleatoric music) than a more substantial argument is needed.



mikeh375 said:


> Chipia, it'd be a lot simpler if you just said you don't like serialism or atonality because no matter how you try to denigrate or undermine serialism by then comparing it to CPT, it just tells me that although you clearly have some technical knowledge, you do not appreciate what serialism and especially its legacy, has done for creativity.


If I just said that I don't like it than that would be besides the point of this discussion and wrong as well. What I "like" isn't even the topic of this debate. I was questioning if many serial pieces (my example was Marteau) use techniques that are musically meaningful, in the sense that they give the _heard result_ distinct audible characteristics that set it apart from randomness.

E.g. I'm not that fond of the Webern Concerto, but I'm not going to deny that the theoretical structures upon which it is based are musically meaningful, i.e. audibly distinct. Not going to write an entire analysis here, but one obvious aspect is for example that most chords are built from major sevenths or major thirds, the two most prominent intervals of the tone row.



mikeh375 said:


> Given your display of knowledge, I'm going to assume you compose (do you?). If you do, you should try a few basic exercises in row formulation and see what you can find by applying your imagination to it....you never know, you might just glimpse the creative possibilities that lie beyond serialism...there is much to explore, adapt, manipulate and discover.


I'm not much of a composer yet, I'm busy. But I am interested to get more into composing in the future.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

chipia said:


> To simply trust him based on his "great ears" is argument from authority. There are many people with perfect pitch who aren't great composers. When several professional composers raise doubts over the musical meaningfulness of his techniques (SanAntone also acknowledged here that "Structures" doesn't sound much different from Cage's aleatoric music) than a more substantial argument is needed.


Boulez _was_ an authority and a genius, with a catalogue to prove it. My opinion of him comes from his work, not from some sort of tipping of the cap on bent knee. When I mentioned his ears, I was kicking back at implications that serial music per se sounds random and consequently lacking artistry and musicality in some instances. I clearly have to retort to what you say above with the obvious fact that there are many composers with perfect pitch who are excellent and many without, who are also excellent.

I do get the arguments against integral serialism, I personally think that kind of order would be too restrictive for me if I totally adhered to it, but I'm not Boulez, nor do I wish to remove myself from my music. Boulez abandoned it anyway, however integral serialism clearly has the potential to find musical material with which to work but there are better alternatives imv. Moving on, serialism doesn't have to be as rigid as some might think. Often a series will be 'manipulated' in order to achieve the desired musical result. This might mean changing the order or missing out a step or two. Breaking the rules is a tradition that keeps the art alive. What serialism does is give a conceptual, technical framework for the composer to work with when exploring and composing with 12 equal tones and their combinations in the absence of CPT function.



chipia said:


> ............. I was questioning if many serial pieces (my example was Marteau) use techniques that are musically meaningful, in the sense that they give the _heard result_ distinct audible characteristics that set it apart from randomness.
> E.g. I'm not that fond of the Webern Concerto, but I'm not going to deny that the theoretical structures upon which it is based are musically meaningful, i.e. audibly distinct. Not going to write an entire analysis here, but one obvious aspect is for example that most chords are built from major sevenths or major thirds, the two most prominent intervals of the tone row.


Well the thing about any technique in composing is that it functions as a search tool too. It's also a way of probing ideas to see what else can be gleaned from them. Music well written with heart and head in good balance - inspiration, feeling and control - will often have a sense of inevitability about it. The composer as always will decide to what extent he wants to bring the listener along with him by leaving some familiar musical signposts along the way, or not. - perhaps something like the decision to write music based on motifs or to write in an athematic way (like Webern). Whatever the musical intent, one as a listener might or might not not hear the foundational and unifying value of a technique but to the composer it will have been a secure framework to support their imagination and fantasy.
Re technique, someone one once said there is no point in having a great tune if you can't dress it up properly and present it in its best light.
And someone else said words to the effect of diligent technical work is like opening the door for inspiration to come right in and make itself comfortable.



chipia said:


> I'm not much of a composer yet, I'm busy. But I am interested to get more into composing in the future.


Excellent, keep open ears and practice. practice, practice....

I'll read your response if any chipia, but I've said all I can about serialism and have no wish to repeat any of it, all of which is somewhat ironic as I don't use the techniques much myself anymore. So I'm bowing out of this fascinating but time consuming thread.


----------

