The Rule: What Is That?

[Fabio]

As usual the discussion about composition "deviate" to rules, in a kind of war "classical rules" vs. "freedom".

My personal opinion is that every mature composer has solved this issue and understood the real nature of rules and study.

I'm very sorry, because a lot of young intelligent and talented potential composers still find the matter a source of polemics, doubts, critics to the method and so on.

I would like to help with the contribution of my colleagues, to fix some little concept issues:

- everybody is more or less confident with the concept of "style", because the recognition of caracteristic elements, it's quite instinctive.

- to recognize a "style" everybody, conscious or instinctively separate little elements of the musical language: the basics and most recognized are rythm, melody and "sound"

- rythm is made by accent and durations, it's possible analyzing it with mathematic and timeline tools. But if you make a mathematic and timeline description of a rythm, you make a "rythmic rule". What follow the rule is inside your style, what doesn't is something different.

- harmony and melody are based on contemporary or sequencial tunes, they have a relative position measured in intervals. Again it's possible to describe a "harmony and melody" rule, selecting chords and sequences of your style.

- "sound" is created by the instruments and the playing technic. Again you may describe the set of instruments, and the playing technic to use for obtaining your desired effect. It's the Orchestration rule of your style.

Doesn't matter if you are analyzing Afro music, or Mozart, Heavy Rock or Jazz, Cuban or Fusion or Chinese folk music: the way to describe, select and recognize one music is always the same.

The study of composition is based on learning the technics and the tools to organize and analyze the musical elements.

The reason to start with the late romantic european style, with citation of renaissance, baroque and classical music (the evil parallel fifth and octave, the evil II-V-I rules etc. etc.) is just because we live in occidental countries, where the music has centuries of history based on it, and after the approach to the great masterpiece of the past, the young composer may quickly move to atonal, modal, stocastic music, with a fine and deep understanding of all aesthetic rules.

But you may study only Jazz or only Rock, or only ancient music if you want: you will develop a more "vertical" or specific knowledge, and you will be only focused on YOUR style of music, but maybe you save time and avoid frustrating long study of styles you are not intersted in.

Please people, reconciliate with "rules". They are your tools, not your enemies! A good mechanic technician can't hate the screwdriver. It's just easier to screw up with it, than without...:D

Contributions and comments are wellcome!

[folk prophet]

Fabio,

Apparently you aren't in touch with your inner hippie. :D (Meaning a hippie would never accept any 'rules', right?) :D

I suppose you began this thread reacting to our banter in the other one. I debated posting here in response because I don't want this to be a personal conflict between the two of us and nothing more. But then I decided that any information we share, even in conflict (as long as we remain civil) is potentially beneficial to others who are reading.

I might be a bit defensive about the 'rules.' True.

Seems to me, however, that your reaction is just as much a polemic on behalf of rules as you percieved mine to be against them. (polemic, for those who may not know, refers to an aggressive attack. I had to look it up.) :)

Still, if one defines rules broadly than there can be no argument againt them. Any pattern one chooses to follow can be considered a 'rule'.

Nonetheless, to criticize the method is only combatative if you take offense to that criticism. I don't mean to be combative. But I don't wholly agree. If that bothers you I apologize. I'm certainly not offended that you believe in the 'rules'.

I do have to wonder at your implications that those who don't see it your way must not be 'mature' and are filled with 'doubt'.

I'm truly sorry but I will never entirely reconciliate with "rules". I despise some of them. Others I love. If that makes me immature as a composer, so be it. I don't believe it does. But if it does, I can live at peace with that.

No hard feelings though. I don't want you to think I'm mad at you or anything. I am just sharing my opinion, for what it's worth. That may not be much.

So here's the theory from my mind:

Music is one of two things. It's either an artistic endeavor or a commercial one.

Additionally, to study based on Occidental tradition is a bias. Pure and simple.

If you are trying to be an 'artist', then you are fettering yourself with occidental bias that way. It may not be a human rights bias or anything that important. But it's still bias. It is NOT fact. It's opinion. It may be a widely shared opinion based on thousands of years of tradition. But it's still an opinion. So calling it a rule is inaccurate.

I don't see how opening one's mind to that reality is immature. But, well, apparently I'm immature as a composer, so what do I know.

Commercialism, on the other hand, would certainly lead you to need to study western tradition, but if you think writing like Mozart is gonna sell much in todays world you might be a bit let down. Oh, I know there are mediums for that sort of stuff. But, generally, musical intent has changed with globalization and technology. You aren't just writing for the king and his court anymore. You're writing for the masses. And the masses could care less if you follow the rules. They care about how it sounds and that's it.

I don't believe that every advanced composer has to (or should) share the same idea of what makes good music. How boring a world it would be. I don't think that to be versitile and mature as a composer you have to accept conventional thinking. I think the implication is arrogant and supercilious.

I don't doubt you have a ton of knowledge to share here Fabio, but there are other schools of thought that may even be 'way' outside traditional thinking that may be very valid. And I don't even disagree with you entirely. Just in principle. In practice, I accept almost everything you said. I just think that spouting it as doctrine is closed minded thinking.

Once again, I must reiterate, I'm not just trying to be combative or come across as offended or, how did you put it? ...thowing down a polemic. :D But I think it is healthy for people to have a broader view of what music is and can be than what is shoved down their throats in theory classes.

The next 'great' composer will not be someone just writing a bunch of occidentally based works after all.

[RichR]

folk_prophet said:
But I think it is healthy for people to have a broader view of what music is and can be than what is shoved down their throats in theory classes.

The next 'great' composer will not be someone just writing a bunch of occidentally based works after all.

I always thought (when I studied music theory a long time ago) that the rules were a starting point. If you didn't understand what has gone before, how could you move forward to something new and original? Even in the universe there are rules (or else chaos would ensue - no stars, no planets, no water, no living beings). Also, in the universe there is a prevailing harmonic structure which is notdesigned by man. The overtone series was not invented, it is natural and from that overtone series music has developed from the consciousness of man (at least on this tiny fragment of the universe). Everything vibrates in the universe - from the tiniest of particles (string theory) to the largest of planets and stars (pulsars and quasars). They to have a harmonic structure. Man has merely used this overtone series to devise musical sounds.

There is rhythm in nature. (Listen to the sound of a woodpecker seeking its next meal.) Listen to the wind moving the branches of a tree. Listen to the heart beat of every living animal. But, it is man who organizes these rhythms and presents them for others to hear.

Music is an extension of man's desire to communicate and derive pleasure in that communication. Structure is devised and organized by man. Consequently, that structure and organization is analyzed by others and rules are developed to try and understand what makes music (that is pleasurable and emotional) work. By the way, without rules in communication, I couldn't organize my thoughts and write what is being read here!

My college teacher once said: "Learn the rules, follow the rules, understand the rules. Now go out and BREAK the rules knowing full well what the rules are." (That is paraphrased - after all it's been 40 years since I heard him say them:D )

I don't think there will ever be a concise answer to whether one should follow the rules or be completely against them. I think the proof of the matter is:

1. Did you as a composer accomplish what you were after (did you have a plan or were you just rambling on).

2. Did others appreciate what you produced and get some meaning from it. (No one is writing in a vacuum music is a form of communication after all.)

3. Will others be inspired to imitate what you have done and base rules upon your composition. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. (And I don't mean plagiarism.)

I ramble, I'm sorry. I enjoy this forum and am glad to be part of it!

[folk prophet]

1. Did you as a composer accomplish what you were after (did you have a plan or were you just rambling on).

Mostly I was just rambling on. :D

Thanks for that reply. I totally agree. I'm not really against the rules. (Well, except those stinkin' parallels!!) :( (j/k) I'm just for open mindedness concerning them. I'm also for blabbing a lot, apparently. :)

I don't like some traditional pedagogical language though. Like the whole concept of harmonic and melodic minor. I think it's a bunch of bologna. I also don't care for some of the voice leading stuff. I REALLY think that some of the 'rules' are just intellectuals stretching for something to sound smart about when they teach their classes. I don't feel that 'no parallel 5ths' are invalid though. I DO feel that there's math behind why they weaken a sound. And chord progressions (to an extent) are very logical. Tonic/dominant stuff and circle of 5ths are logical and mathmatical. Once again though, there are some chord progressions that technically break the rules, and that's just academic bologna. Some chord progressions that break the rules are valid though.

This is all my perception. But that's half my argument. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And that's my (theoretical) problem with it all. I start to feel when someone else tries to tell me what's beautiful that I'm being bamboozled. That's what the rules are, after all. Such 'n' such sounds better than such 'n' such.

It's not just theory either. You get it in composition and orchestration. "This trumpet doesn't work here. You should use a flute." Well, bologna. I like the blasted trumpet. :D "This modulation is too abrupt." Well I WANT it abrupt. That's what I was going for! Etc., etc...

It's funny though, because as a commercial composer I have had to, very much, accept that whoever's paying gets their way...even if I think it's dumb. And since I am primarilly interested in being a commercial composer I have had to swallow a lot of pride in that regard over the years, and I think that's healthy. But as an artist, deep inside me, I still scream in fury when someone tells me that they think my unconventional artistry needs to be more conventional to be good. :) (Which is funny, because what's conventional sometimes is the unconventional and I'm not really that unconventional when it comes right down to it.)

*sigh* I've gone and blabbed on again forever. Sorry.

[joaz]

A good composer will use the rules, whether he acquired them by means of theory, or by aural analysis.
When I say "use", I mean work both inside and outside the rules.

If in an "Atonal" piece the contrapuntal lines happen to accidently land on a dominant 7th of G, with say 8 horns blaring out a B, and the trombones on an F, The composer can go 2 ways, bye fulfilling our expectations, via the rule( B up to C, F down to E), or dramatically thwart our expectations, by resolving it to an Atonal harmony.

Whichever way he decides to go, he is "using" the rule.

In most (but not all) cases these rules can be learned quicker by studying theory.
Anyone who believes that studying the rules of Music, makes the Composer become a rule-follower for the rest of his career, evidently doesnt understand how to "use" rules.

There are conservative composers ( I am one) and radical composers, but all talented composers "play" with the rules.

regards Joe

[newmewzikboy]

Geez guys how did i MISS this thread. Im laughing so hard I fell off my art stool!!

[RichR]

Joaz said:
There are conservative composers ( I am one) and radical composers, but all talented composers "play" with the rules.


:) That in a nutshell is the point of RULES. Joe, great insight!:)

[joaz]

Geez guys how did i MISS this thread. Im laughing so hard I fell off my art stool!!

Was it the 8 french Horns blaring out a B that did it.

Very subtle point, I thought. ;)

regards joe

[SeanHannifin]

Prophet, I think you're simply implying a meaning on the word "rules" that Fabio is not suggesting. Perhaps it is just a case of semantics...

No matter what music you compose, it will follow rules, whether you recognize them or not.

If you like occidental music and hope to compose in its tradition and style, you will use its rules.

A "rule" is not an element that is "always good" or "always bad" for all composers. Of course everyone will have their different opinions. But if you like Mozart's music, for example, you will agree with his "rules". If you hate Mozart and his "rules", that is fine; there's nothing bad about that at all.

[folk prophet]

Yes, it is a semantic issue. But not entirely. It is a perception issue, certainly. But the semantic side of it is an important distinction to make I think. Semantic issues are very related to communication. I would daresay that 'mature' composers do not have a problem with the semantics of 'rules'. But beginning composers might. Understanding this is an important part of sharing knowledge.

In other words, just because a person understands that 'rules' aren't really 'rules' doesn't mean that the students he or she might influence have the same understanding. To ignore that as just "a semantic issue" and not deal with those semantics clearly inhibits communication severely.

We can easilly say that we're just using the word 'rules' without really meaning 'rules'. But if I were a beginning composer and heard from a master that there are 'rules' I would take it seriously. It would freak me out and inhibit my creativity...which, in fact, it did when I was first starting to compose oh so long ago.

It is easy to look at things from a perspective of already understanding them. I'm trying to look at things from the perspective of those who aren't yet mature as composers. If the understanding were really that clear, there would not be thread after thread on forum after forum asking about the 'rules'.

I came into composition with my own clearly defined ideas of what was important -- my own set of 'rules' if you will. I immediately clashed with teachers, other students and other composers and it hurt and it set me back. I went through the process (truly believing that I was somehow deficient because of my lack of understanding) of learning the rules and excelling at them...and then, came to the conclusion that they really did not, in the end, offer me that much.

I do not regret learning theory. Not at all. All knowledge is valuable. I just think that too much emphasis is placed on the wrong things. That's all.

And the idea that you can't be a good composer without mastering ever nuance of theory and history is, in my oh so controversial opinion, bunk.

Thanks for the thoughts. Hope I'm not offending anyone. :)

[SeanHannifin]

I came into composition with my own clearly defined ideas of what was important -- my own set of 'rules' if you will. I immediately clashed with teachers, other students and other composers and it hurt and it set me back. I went through the process (truly believing that I was somehow deficient because of my lack of understanding) of learning the rules and excelling at them...and then, came to the conclusion that they really did not, in the end, offer me that much.
You're thinking of the 'rules' as an authoritative set of principles that you must follow and on which your own compositions must be based.

This does not have to be the case. Simply because you may be taught the rules of Bach's harmony or counterpoint doesn't imply you must follow them in your own creative aspirations. They are rules because they are what Bach followed.

When you compose, you will use rules, whether Bach's or your own.

In this way, you seem to be using the term 'rules' to imply that they must be followed by you. But this notion itself implies that you are attempting to compose in the style of someone else (which may be a desired thing or not). They are still rules even if they do not dictate the composition of your work, and it may be worthwhile to know them.

[folk prophet]

You're thinking of the 'rules' as an authoritative set of principles that you must follow and on which your own compositions must be based.

Well, yes. That is my general definition of a rule. 'An authoritative set of principles' is a great wording.

Here's m-w.com on it:

Main Entry: 1rule
Pronunciation: 'rül
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English reule, from Old French, from Latin regula straightedge, rule, from regere to direct -- more at RIGHT
1 a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action b : the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit d (1) : a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2) : a legal precept or doctrine e : a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct
2 a (1) : a usually valid generalization (2) : a generally prevailing quality, state, or mode <fair weather was the rule yesterday -- N.Y. Times> b : a standard of judgment : CRITERION c : a regulating principle d : a determinate method for performing a mathematical operation and obtaining a certain result
3 a : the exercise of authority or control : DOMINION b : a period during which a specified ruler or government exercises control
4 a : a strip of material marked off in units used especially for measuring : RULER 3, TAPE MEASURE b : a metal strip with a type-high face that prints a linear design; also : a linear design produced by or as if by such a strip
synonym see LAW
- as a rule : for the most part : GENERALLY

Obviously, the definition is broad enough to include all our thinking.

Okay, well, so what we're talking about here is the ends and the means, yes? A rule by definition, must be 'in order that' something something.

You have to eat or you die.
You have to drive the speed limit or you get a ticket.
You have to shower or you stink.
Etc.,
Etc.,
You have to avoid parallel fifths or you'll be laughed at by all your musical peers. :D j/k

Your point is well taken.

Once again, I must reiterate however. I do not misuderstand the rules per se. Rather, I worry that OTHER PEOPLE, particularly beginners and intermediate composers, do.

[newmewzikboy]

My thoughts on these diatribes and lectures...

"rule" implies punishment...
"principle" has a more relaxed meaning as there are no repercussions.
If you follow principals or rules as set forth by the gods, you will create nothing but derivitive horse excrement...

which brings up chess...

In chess, as of late, there is a theoretical observation called "rule independence"...which means, there seems to be so many exceptions to the "rules" (knights before bishops; castle early; knights on the rim are grim etc...) as to make them almost useless...

and this could be applied to music...

As I see it, the principles are important, especially in a learning situation where one needs some grounded posts so that one can get acclimated to the discipline and habit of the daily activity of writing, control and instilling musical meaning into ones work. However, as one moves up the evolution tree of music, one appreciates other ways that composers solved the "control" or "musical meaning" issue in their writing either in deriving new systems based on old ( Debussy's intervalic transitions ) or creating their own new systems (forte, babbitt), or not using any "scientifically logical" system but using their own instincts to make choices (Cages I Ching, Takemitsu dreams)...

So, where does this leave us? Back in school where the top of the food chain want us to be?

or as one composer/teacher said to me:

"A good composer can make music out of anything..."

it's your choice...

P.S. Mozart really really sucks...I can't stand his ~~~~...

[RichR]

folk_prophet said:
Once again, I must reiterate however. I do not misunderstand the rules per se. Rather, I worry that OTHER PEOPLE, particularly beginners and intermediate composers, do.

What difference does it make to what or how other people (beginners, intermediate or advanced composers for that matter) write music. They can communicate their ideas in whatever manner they choose. You can listen or not, you can enjoy or not to what they have written. It's your choice.

By the way, a definition (as you cited for the term: rule) doesn't imply that all meanings of a word are used in juxtaposition. The first definition (1a) is usually the most common meaning of the word. The rest of the definition includes other usages of the word and includes (if known) the arcane usage of a word. I prefer to think of rules in music composition as the first cited definition:


1 a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action

Rules are guides and nothing more. You may choose to follow them or not. Rules are not laws. Human laws (as opposed to natural law i.e. gravity) are a system of ethics to keep order and stop chaos, in other words, to control the masses. Music rules are guides to help you solve a problem in compositional direction or to give you a starting point to communicate your own ideas.

Semantics, Semantics, Semantics (they are rules too) and every culture views their system of semantics through a different mind set. We are having a world wide discussion here with many multilingual members. I get the feeling that this whole conversation is like comparing apples to oranges, i.e. Laws to Rules.

[newmewzikboy]

Roads to piety...

If you follow the rules like a good boy and grrl, stay between the lines, daddy and mommy will be nice to you this time, and you will go to heaven...promise...

on the other hand...

If you don't follow the rules and make your own potions, see your own spirits and ghosts, and try and turn lead into gold...you'll look and sound like an bumbling idiot...and everyone will hate your music or fall asleep...while you live in your dream world of nakid emporers...

Its a win-win situation... Socrates Choice...

[Styxx]

What a thread. Rules, Ha! ;)

[folk prophet]

What difference does it make to what or how other people (beginners, intermediate or advanced composers for that matter) write music. They can communicate their ideas in whatever manner they choose. You can listen or not, you can enjoy or not to what they have written. It's your choice.

I thought that was part of the point of this forum. Learning. Sharing. Helping. Discussing. If it really makes no difference then why does this forum even exist?

[RichR]

prophet said:
I thought that was part of the point of this forum. Learning. Sharing. Helping. Discussing. If it really makes no difference then why does this forum even exist?

You read too much into the words. I said

What difference does it make to what or how other people (beginners, intermediate or advanced composers for that matter) write music. They can communicate their ideas in whatever manner they choose. You can listen or not, you can enjoy or not to what they have written. It's your choice.


I thought you were talking about what others think of YOUR music not theirs. The important person to please in writing music is first and foremost the writer. Use what ever rules or lack thereof to present your piece. Accept what others offer as constructive criticism or friendly comments. Grow from your experience each time in the way you see fit. This is what I thought this forum was about i.e. A place to share music and exchange ideas and not a place to get lost in semantics of what are and are not rules.

Some where along the way of this discussion, I have lost my way. I'm here to listen to criticism (embarassing as it can be at times (many times :D )), discuss the ways to use GPO better, share ideas even if OT, and generally meet new people from around the world.

[folk prophet]

RichR, I hope I didn't come across as angry or something. I may have read too much into what you were saying.

I think that this thread is incoorperating a lot of assumption. People keep responding to me as if I am talking about my own music, though I feel I've been clear that I'm not. I, actually, am a conservative, commercially minded composer. I don't really think my projects push the boundaries of anything in particular. Maybe overuse of timpani or something -- wait...no, that's been done too. I dunno.

But I'm debating a philisophical theory that I do believe is important to furthuring the cause of music. I have no delusions that students will study the work I'm doing right now at some later date for its innovation and forward thinking. What I am deluded about is being rich and famous someday. :D

I am sharing a philisophical idea that I believe a composer needs to get his/her mind around if they want to move the art of music forward.

Conversely, I'm discussing a philisophical idea that is relative to commercialism and 'selling' music.

Meaning...if you want to move the art forward the rules are a shackle. No one is going to give you historical kudos for doing the same stuff that's already been done a thousand ways. Tonality has been covered. Atonality has been covered. We need some fresh thought in the art. (Before you beligerently reply that the 'rules' are a jumping off point (which has been said many times now, read on. Then you can beligerently reply.) :)

On the other hand, if you're trying to sell to the public and you're stuck in 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th or even 20th century thinking then you might have a hard time of it. You need to have a finger on the pulse of 21st century entertainment and social value. I don't believe tonal or atonal rules really work there either.

Once again, to reiterate and be very clear...I am not arguing in any degree that a composer should NOT study or know the rules of tonality and atonality. Not at all. I am arguing for open-mindedness, free thinking and forward thought instead of stagnant, stale, set-in-their-ways, I'm-educated-so-I-am-better (EDIT: I meant I-have-a-degree-so-I-am-better. Being more educated IS probably better.), I-can't-think-past-my-own-arrogance thought.

To use another analogy. (Yes, this analogy is extreme.) If one were to study politics one might study ~~~~sm as a political, historical philosophy that drew in a remarkable mass of followers. But if one were to use that political philosophy as a jumping-off base for broad political development, one might be a tad philisophicaly shackled. Why? Because ~~~~sm is based in predjudice, bias and untruth. The imagined superiority of something that is not superior.

Thus it is with tonal theory. It's an implied superiority of something that is not factually superior. (Yeah, yeah, I know. It's not really fair to compare tonal theory to ~~~~sm. But stick in something less harmful, like...oh...say rice tasting superior to potatoes, or something else instead if you'd like. The point remains. It's an OPINION.)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an opinion. There IS something wrong with implying that the opinion is fact. That, basically, is my point.

This thread began with the basic idea that rules are your friend. I heartily agree. Structure is what music is all about. I simply wanted to discuss how we as a western musical culture view structure - and maybe how we might reconsider that view to further the art.

Sorry if I'm upsetting anyone. I don't mean to sound like I disrespect your opinions or think mine are somehow more valid.

I could be wrong. (Could be? What am I saying? More than likely I AM wrong.) :)

Thanks for listening...er...reading that is.

EDIT: Apparently using the proper word for a certain discriminatory organiztion that caused WWII and killed off millions within a certain culture is a 'no-no' word to use since it replaced it with a bunch of squiggly lines. How interesting.

[SeanHannifin]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an opinion. There IS something wrong with implying that the opinion is fact. That, basically, is my point.
I don't think anybody is arguing (or had argued) against that point.

[folk prophet]

I don't think anybody is arguing (or had argued) against that point.

Oh, I know. The key word to that statement was 'implying'. There's an inherent implication of fact in the world of theory, in my opinion. :) I could be wrong. I'm not just trying to be argumentative. That statement wasn't meant to argue against what anyone had said. Just a point to a philosophy, that's all. :)

[SeanHannifin]

There's an inherent implication of fact in the world of theory, in my opinion. :)
Maybe it's not implied, but rather inferred... :D

I know there are some stingy composers who believe all music should be their way and everyone should like their music or they are dumb and inferior, etc, etc ... but I don't believe the world of music theory in general implies anything meant to stifle creativity. :)

[joaz]

Its a win-win situation... Socrates Choice...

I was just wondering if anyone ever came up with lose-lose theory.
It might be helpful in explaining my life in music, thus far. ;)

regards Joe

[SeanHannifin]

I was just wondering if anyone ever came up with lose-lose theory.
Well, there's always school work... either :

a) do your homework and study
b) don't get a job

lose-lose :(

[RichR]

prophet said:
I hope I didn't come across as angry or something. I may have read too much into what you were saying.


My comments were not meant or said in anger either. I was just trying to get a handle on what the focus of this thread is and what are the problems associated with rules. Western music is not stagnant. I feel there is a lot of room to learn what has gone before. I also do believe we need to get a grasp on all types of music from every part of this shrinking globe. I for one would like to understand tonalities that use 1/4 tones. I would like to get a feel for Australian aboriginal music. But, how does one study that without finding a tutor or an instruction manual that gives one a sense of clarification on the structure and meaning of different forms of music throughout the world. (Remember, I am 33 years out of college and retired, so academia is far far away from me!:) )

:D Be Happy:D

[folk prophet]

I was just trying to get a handle on what the focus of this thread is and what are the problems associated with rules.

This thread may be nothing more than expressions of those who liked school and those who hated it. :D


Western music is not stagnant. I feel there is a lot of room to learn what has gone before. I also do believe we need to get a grasp on all types of music from every part of this shrinking globe.

Need might be too strong. A person could theoretically live a very rich life without any grasp of any kind of music. :)


(Remember, I am 33 years out of college and retired, so academia is far far away from me!:) )

I'm not sure I knew that (had you posted that previously?) so it would be hard for me to remember. ;)

Sometimes it's hard to get the full flavor of what someone is trying to say. I suppose that's what these >>> :) <<< are for. Though I suppose the wink would be best for tongue-in-cheek comments or teasing. But I have a hard time sending a wink to other guys...and my wife might have a problem with me sending a wink to other girls. So I rarely wink. ;)

[RichR]

Originally posted by Prophet: Need might be too strong. A person could theoretically live a very rich life without any grasp of any kind of music.

I can't imagine anyone going through life without some semblance of knowledge about music even if it were whether they like what they heard or didn't like it. Rhythm and sound are around us everywhere. From the pumping of our hearts; to the sound of a woodpecker seeking food; to the sound of rain and thunder; all this must have an influence on our perception.

Many of my friends, who are not musicians, have very well defined conceptions of what they like musically and what they do not like. Untrained as it maybe, they still have strong likes and maybe even stronger dislikes.

By the way, I think I've have gotten far afield of the topic here: "The Rule: What Is That?" Must be old age setting in:) :rolleyes: ;) (oops, I winked!):)

[jesshmusic]

Hmm. Since I am in such a posting mood, I can't resist another theoretical debate. I think a large number of composers restrict themselves in thinking the rules are unbreakable (Can't name one strict 18th-style tonal composer today that has a prayer of getting published). On the flip side, I stand mby my statement that one must know the rules to break them.

IMHO, Wynton Marsalis is perhaps one of the greatest players of all time in the jazz field. He first studied classical music intensely and until he focused entirely on jazz was widely known as one of the best classical musicians too. He has said in every master's class he taught that one must learn the classics first. To learn the classics and understand them, one MUST have a means to analyze them. To learn the different means is to study Music Theory. ie, Roman Numeral Analysis, Schenker, pitch set, etc. That is why every music school has intense Music Theory classes in their first two years.

For instance, say you are writing an atonal piece and in your attempt to create a piece devoid of tonal center, you accidentally write in a dominant 7 chord. It would destroy the structure and feel of the piece, because it's sound is soooo distinct that the ear will pick up on it and assign it that function every time. On the flip side, if you are writing something that you want to sound like common practice harmony and write an augmented 6 chord, if you don't immediatly go to whatever chord is supposed to follow (depending on whether it is a French, German, or Italian A6), it will sound wrong. If you don't know what these things are, how can you avoid them?

[garymosse]

Hi to all....
Anyone writing music is writing from their personal experiences with
all musical/non musical vocabulary. You can't write something you don't have in your head. What comes out to others is based upon the ability
of the composer to express what they hear inwardly through their knowledge of musical language of notes;
note values; correct range of instrument(s); etc., including all of the
ways we express musical ideas.
I began to write music after 30 years of teaching music. I had abundent knowledge about wind instrument sounds and ranges, etc. When I started writing, the music was really strange. Now it's moderately strange....
As you look for a way to express yourself thru composition, you identify rules which make intervals, melodies, and such, sound better.
You can't write music in a vacume unless you're deaf like Beethoven,
although he had ample time to know what his music would sound like as he wrote from his head.
Learn rules; use the ones appropriate to what you're doing.
Expect at some future date to change your mind.

[Fabio]

Hi to all....

Learn rules; use the ones appropriate to what you're doing.
Expect at some future date to change your mind.

Excellent summary. I can't say it better!

(Yes, I agree...:D )

[newmewzikboy]

For instance, say you are writing an atonal piece and in your attempt to create a piece devoid of tonal center, you accidentally write in a dominant 7 chord. It would destroy the structure and feel of the piece, because it's sound is soooo distinct that the ear will pick up on it and assign it that function every time....

huh? why would i "accidently" do that? Whether I was writing theoretically or by ear, I made a choice...there is no accident about it!
And an isolated chord is irrelevant when it stands alone outside of the context of the harmony and rhythm around it. On that fact alone, i can hear at least 12 pitch centers it could resolve to...maybe I want the association...maybe the title of my piece is RIDE OF THE VUGARITIES

[joaz]

"A good composer can make music out of anything..."

I believe that.
That has become my method recently.

regards Joe

[Jibrish]

For a bunch of composers who by definition seem to think it should be their place to tell every other musician just exactly how and when to play every feakin' little note... I find this thread fairly agreeable.

It would be more substantive, to me, however, if the same debate were made with examples of compositions. Most especially ones that were written by the the contributors.

In my experience the music comes to me... and then I try to figure out what to do with. Applying whatever system that seems to fit the piece... but only if a system is needed. And actually, it is almost always, even, far more intuitive and less technical than any of that. At least for me it is.

[newmewzikboy]

Firsly, I would absolutely NEVER divulge my dirty laundry in public.

Secondly, if I ever did, you might steal it...

Thirdly, it scarcely matters, and quite franky, a waste of time...this thread is a waste of time...shouldn't we be composing instead of just tawking about it?

[SeanHannifin]

It would be more substantive, to me, however, if the same debate were made with examples of compositions. Most especially ones that were written by the the contributors.
What arguments are being made that would be supported by a musical example? :confused: I didn't see any arguments about how a piece of music should be composed or what would be better... it seems this is more of a discussion about the nature of 'rules' (hence the title "The Rule: What Is That?" instead of "The Rule: You Better Abide By It!"). :D

[Fabio]

Firsly, I would absolutely NEVER divulge my dirty laundry in public.

Secondly, if I ever did, you might steal it...

Thirdly, it scarcely matters, and quite franky, a waste of time...this thread is a waste of time...shouldn't we be composing instead of just tawking about it?

About dirty, well sometime I wash up someting, and I expose it...:D

About waste of time I disagree, it's intersting, or funny at least, chatting with musicians of very different age, experience and school.

About COMPOSING, yeah! I absolutely agree! NMB, you are right, as usual...;)

[qccowboy]

Once again, I must reiterate however. I do not misuderstand the rules per se. Rather, I worry that OTHER PEOPLE, particularly beginners and intermediate composers, do.

I think the problem here is that you should worry about yourself. and when you become a teacher and have the tutelage of others under your wing, you can start worrying about those beginners and intermediate composers.

As a teacher, I can assure you that I have the utmost care to assure my students that "the rules" apply to certain situations. Your parallel 5th phobia, for example, falls under that category. No cold softdrink cans on the piano is one of MY rules.

When I studied fugue, I found lots of exceptions to the "rules" in Bach. And my teacher was quite clear that "to get to the point where you can consciously break those rules, you must first understand them completely".

I might give a more immediate example:
if a student does not understand why parallel 5ths are anathema in common-practice 4-part harmony (with one very very rare exception, btw), then he is a t a certain point in his musical development. He more than likely can not yet grasp more complex technical information.

the same way a child might not understand why he has to practice his scales and arpeggios. he has not attained a level of technical proficiency to attack more difficult works at the piano, because he has not assimilated the basic technical elements of the instrument.

I think of "the rules" as a sort of "scales and arpeggios" for composers. You can be an incredibly adept pianist when it's time to play your scales and arpeggios, but if that is the limit of yor skill, then you will probably not make much of a career. Likewise, if you are incapable of basic scales and arpeggios, then chances are when more complex structures BASED UPON those basic functions are presented to you, you will stutter and fail.

Why stop at a dictionary definition of "the rules"?
The rules of a game are not meant to be broken - they are static.
The rules of harmony are, contextually, meant to be stretched and broken, explored and exploded, expanded and evolved. That is their very nature. Yet that growth can not take place if the seedling of understanding is not present at conception.

A composer does not strive to compose 4-part common practice chorals as the be-all and end-all of his musical career.

if you cannot identify a rule and where and why it is broken, then you do not do so consciously, you do so out of clumsiness.

[newmewzikboy]

...
When I studied fugue, I found lots of exceptions to the "rules" in Bach. And my teacher was quite clear that "to get to the point where you can consciously break those rules, you must first understand them completely".
.

I can guarantee that Bach didn't consciously "break" any "rules"...or follow any ditate course where he had rules to break, since really there were no single penult schools on Fugue writing. What Bach did though was "invent" new rules for himself to follow...which if you had a really good teacher, who didn't just spout regurgitated nonsense that was handed down to him in his education, and knew a bit about both musical and non musical history, would have been able to show you very deliberately...

[dpc]

A pleasent distraction is this sort of discussion but of course one should be suspicious of artists that mainly talk and don't work - actors excepted I suppose (but they all talk too much.)

All agree that the end result or actual music whatever musical tenents are held sacred or not is the final abiter as to the value of any composer's approach or thinking. The rules freak of all time is also considered by many the greatest of all composers - Beethoven. He dominated those principles so thoroughly that what rules in his case is his personality and the music itself. He's the only composer that when studied, astonishes almost equally as the musical sound so infused and replete with myriad laws is every bar. He broke rules constantly but actually justified and showed he was in perfect compliance and only made it appear as if he had. For example he begins a piece with a signature of E major in C major! A collossal breach of the most basic rule you could think of: Write music in the key it's written. This breach was shocking to people then and most radical. But just in time shows the C major to be the Neopolitan of the dominant B and lands in E major for announcement of the principal theme. So he used the rules and peoples expectation of their fulfillment in order to shock them and hold them in suspense - brilliant! But he did this with every note he ever wrote. It was his nature.

I'm still not saying one must take this or that approach, only that to dismiss study and understanding established musical laws is pure nonsense since we have the glorious heritage of the greatest practitioner of them.

[Jibrish]

What arguments are being made that would be supported by a musical example? :confused: I didn't see any arguments about how a piece of music should be composed or what would be better... it seems this is more of a discussion about the nature of 'rules' (hence the title "The Rule: What Is That?" instead of "The Rule: You Better Abide By It!"). :DA more telling question to my way of thinking would be: What argument is being made here that can't be supported by music.
When you talk about building airplanes, the questions is always going to come up (like it or not) -- Will it fly?

[Fabio]

I can guarantee that Bach didn't consciously "break" any "rules"...or follow any ditate course where he had rules to break, since really there were no single penult schools on Fugue writing. What Bach did though was "invent" new rules for himself to follow...which if you had a really good teacher, who didn't just spout regurgitated nonsense that was handed down to him in his education, and knew a bit about both musical and non musical history, would have been able to show you very deliberately...

Yes, history is a big teacher.

To have a wide knowledge about "...both musical and not musical history..." can help to find the more intimate nature of events: and the evolution of compostion technic, school and style (then the set of "rules" used to describe it in the past as today) it is one of the events that can be approached in that way.

I have anyway a little of respect for people who try digesting results of research for the other. But everytime a teacher does a summary or a standardization, should tell the pupil about that:
- It's just a helpful summary, not an unbreakable holy law.
-it's just the beginning: if you want more, start studying details and sources, and you will find out your own deep vision.

Almost all my teachers did it. I'm happy, and I did go on studying history. Here I found some unvaluable source of musical knowledge, as stimulating ideas for the future.:)

[Fabio]

Now I try to contradict my self, but just to enforce my vision...:D

IMHO:

the world is devided in who "understand the history" and who "makes the history".
Do you want to stop to knowledge? Do you want to be just a dirty savant?

Or do you want TO MAKE the history, don't you?

Who makes the history can be devided by:
- "simple minded" they don't care about any rule and just make something new. They can only be or very lucky, or genius. They are quite a few.

-"educated" they know everithing has been done before, and they go on from a solid starting point, doing someting new, creating new rules. They can be quite a lot.

For statistic reason, I consider the second way to MAKE the history, quite the easiest!:D

[newmewzikboy]

...
-"educated" they know everithing has been done before, and they go on from a solid starting point, doing someting new, creating new rules. They can be quite a lot.

For statistic reason, I consider the second way to MAKE the history, quite the easiest!:D

Unfortunately, my esteemed and well respected friend, you can never ever know "everything" about history or about anything really, since you did not live in those times, and you will always tend to inject your own prejudices and anacronistic bias and fantasy into that interpretation. It is very very easy to become trapped in the machinations of technical research, where you never end up actually writing or creating, but remain fascinated and excited by the research and the analysis work. And when you go to your pen, your music is burdened by this homework where it ends up sooooo controlled that it is predictable and lacking in flow and genius...

Although we can admire the dissertations, and the theory books, and all the geekish doodles...just like the tech industry...there is no guarantee that graph paper and musical designswil get you there...only courage will...

[SeanHannifin]

A more telling question to my way of thinking would be: What argument is being made here that can't be supported by music.
When you talk about building airplanes, the questions is always going to come up (like it or not) -- Will it fly?
The argument that a musical example won't support certain arguments made here. :D

Music is not like airplanes or cars that either work or don't. People can (and usually will) respond to the same music differently.

[newmewzikboy]

Music is not like airplanes or cars that either work or don't. People can (and usually will) respond to the same music differently.

PROVE IT!!!

[Jibrish]

The argument that a musical example won't support certain arguments made here. :D

Music is not like airplanes or cars that either work or don't. People can (and usually will) respond to the same music differently.I really just offered that as a metaphor on the relationship of theory and practice in general... which of course, being a metaphor, would by definition come from outside of the current subject and therefore not carry over as a fully transmutable analogy.

Perhaps I could have found a better device, but isn't this whole line of inquiry a bit of a digression on a digression anyway?

More to the point:

I really had no idea that the suggestion of using examples in a discussion about the use of principles and/or rules in musical composition could prove to be in any way provocative. And I will, at any rate, keep my opinion that the proof of good musical theory is (quite simply) -- good music.

On the question of: Is the definition of good music a subjective thing? Well of coarse it is. But, nonetheless, good theory for you would produce the sort of music you prefer, and then of course for me it might target other music, but the theory would, for the most part, be the same.

Just my 2 cents good fellow, and it really is quite alright if you don't agree.

[Tom_Davis]

One thing we tend to forget is that most "rules" are often no more than the result of music analysis; an analysis often done years, perhaps centuries, after the composer created his music and, for that reason, based on contemporary rather than original concepts and methods. The danger in that lies in the error of presumption.

While there is validity to the idea that rules should only be broken after the student composer knows all the rules - rules that the original composer may or may not have known himself - the idea presumes that the student composer is at all interested in worrying about the past, about tonal invention or about contrapuntal cohesion.

To those of us whose experience is rooted in traditional academia, such a notion is without merit. While composers such as John Cage and Arnold Schoenberg stepped out of the conventional arena only after establishing their mastery of conventional methods, many contempory composers feel no need for such validation.

It will be for future music analysts to determine who were the genius innovators and who were mere copycats of established rhetoric.

Tom
Seattle, April 2006

[Fabio]

Hey people, you did it again!...(...unbelievable, it must be a kind of invisible gravity, actracting discussion everytime in the same direction...;-))

My post started talking about "deviation"...you all deviated again...:D

My post was about the nature of rules in composition: the need of organizing the material following a logic, and an artistic will. And about elements, close to the nature of human perception, that are the little bricks of every musical building, primitive or advanced, spontaneous or sophisticated.

Round it, we all agree:
doesn't matter if you accept or not the training role of rules, and how correctly you understand the past, or how genially you invent the future.

Being a human you will use your brain and your senses to make a human art.
No art is possible without our brain, and our brain follows rules to know the universe.
A short way for the man to create, has been, and will be, discover and collect creative rules to drive the flow of expressions.

It can be the way to take a pencil in the hand and hit the paper, or the way to organize tunes in the time...you make pictures because you know about the light and the shadows, instinctively and using the brain.
I think we all make music in the similar way...instinct and intelligence.

All the rest is...academy.:)

[Fabio]

Unfortunately, my esteemed and well respected friend, you can never ever know "everything" about history or about anything really, since you did not live in those times, and you will always tend to inject your own prejudices and anacronistic bias and fantasy into that interpretation. It is very very easy to become trapped in the machinations of technical research, where you never end up actually writing or creating, but remain fascinated and excited by the research and the analysis work. And when you go to your pen, your music is burdened by this homework where it ends up sooooo controlled that it is predictable and lacking in flow and genius...

Although we can admire the dissertations, and the theory books, and all the geekish doodles...just like the tech industry...there is no guarantee that graph paper and musical designswil get you there...only courage will...

I know you wont be surprised if I tell you that I absolutely agree.:D (I like the agreement more or less as you like disagree...)

"Everything" is a quite big word, just used for rethoric purpose, nobody seriously think to know "all about..."

Good point also on the risk of contamination...but the good side is that it can produce continuity, and continuity helps communication.

The un-communicative genius, is IMO a myth of our time. We like believing that we are genius but people can't understand it, or that a lot of genius are all around, but we are not yet aware of it just because they are too much advanced to be understood...no, about that sorry but I DON'T agree;)

The history is full of samples of big men more apreciated after than during his life. But they were almost all already close to excellence in his work, for the contemporary also. they are frequently expression of continuity. Continuity is a walk, it's not staticity.

Somebody like the genius that doesn't go on, he simply jump, to accelerate progression...
but the jump in the black of creativity is sometime like a lottery, and the risk is we will never know the winner...:(

[qccowboy]

One thing we tend to forget is that most "rules" are often no more than the result of music analysis; an analysis often done years, perhaps centuries, after the composer created his music and, for that reason, based on contemporary rather than original concepts and methods.

and I might point out that this in turn can be an erroneous statement. "rules" often existed considerably before many people are aware. for example the rules of counterpoint and fugue were quite firmly entrenched considerably before Bach's time: read Sweelink, Rameau, and Fux. I'm reading comments by a few people here who are under the mistaken impression that the rules of fugue and counterpoint were somehow established in considerably more modern times. this is a historical error. There are a number of treatese from pre-Bach times on the concepts and practice (aye, and the "rules") of counterpoint and fugue.

[newmewzikboy]

...While composers such as John Cage ...after establishing their mastery of conventional methods...

Sorry Tom...Cage didn't master it. In fact, thats why he went where he did...because he couldn't...it was alien to his way of thinking about life...

[newmewzikboy]

...the rules of counterpoint and fugue were quite firmly entrenched considerably before Bach's time: read Sweelink, Rameau, and Fux....

Mistake...Rameau and Fux were AFTER his time...And Fux is totally anacronistic garbage...thats NOT how palestrina wrote....

[newmewzikboy]

Fabio rules...

[jesshmusic]

and I might point out that this in turn can be an erroneous statement. "rules" often existed considerably before many people are aware. for example the rules of counterpoint and fugue were quite firmly entrenched considerably before Bach's time: read Sweelink, Rameau, and Fux. I'm reading comments by a few people here who are under the mistaken impression that the rules of fugue and counterpoint were somehow established in considerably more modern times. this is a historical error. There are a number of treatese from pre-Bach times on the concepts and practice (aye, and the "rules") of counterpoint and fugue.

And even further on this point, Bach himself was a huge fan of Fux and his Gradus un Parnassum, the book he wrote on the rules of counterpoint and fugue. In turn heinrich Schenker in the early 19th century used this as a guide for his books on Theory including his rather unique way of graphing music. A lot of modern theory texts are derived from older theorists in the time of Beethoven and earlier. Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, and most 19th century composers studied Fux's book as well and had firm foundations in harmony and counterpoint that has some pretty strict rules. Their trick was to find ways to bend these rules to their means, but they could definately tell if a piece shied to far from these rules and in turn would consider it bad music. There are far fewer restrictions in modern composition, although they may not be specific. Mostly the rules are amorphous and simply define the genre. If you are, for instance, writing a piece in a Neo-classical style (which most here do), and you right a bunch of parallel fifths, it is not going to sound how you want it to. It is going to sound like a different genre... maybe New Age or even impressionist (which is not bad, but most won't stumble on that accidentally).
I don't know why so many get all sensitive whenever rules are mentioned, because composition is as much a craft as it is an art. Even jazz composers have rules and, if anything, their harmony is way harder to learn than standard tonal harmony. If a composer writes something they want to call jazz and they use triads instead of nicely voiced 9th and 7th chords, it won't be jazz.. it will be something else. And people who know and enjoy listening to jazz will not like it. Even if they don't know why. My advice is learn the rules, then study the scores to see how they are applied. Study Fux's study on counterpoint and fugue.

And remember, Music Theory is for analysis. Performers and conductors learn what makes a piece tick musically by analyzing. Music Theory is not instruction on composition.

If one wants books on composition, then check out Hindemith, Schillinger, or Messiaen. Read articles on composers and see what they say. You might be surprised how into rules some are and some are not. Some created their own styles, but that was mainly in the 20th century and beyond. And when they established their own rules, they usually followed them quite well once they had them refined.

Best to be able to walk before one run's in composition. Learn the rules before breaking them.

[jesshmusic]

Mistake...Rameau and Fux were AFTER his time...And Fux is totally anacronistic garbage...thats NOT how palestrina wrote....

Actually Fux was during Bach's time and Bach was a big supporter of his writings.


Grove Music Online: "FUX THEORY": Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum was published at imperial expense in 1725. The Latin original (fig.3) was followed by German, Italian, English and French translations in whole or in part between 1742 and 1773. The long history of influence exerted by the Gradus as a manual of composition (and not merely as a primer of strict counterpoint) has been documented by Alfred Mann (see Mann, D1987, and White, C1992, pp.57–71). It was used extensively by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven for pedagogical purposes, and it was cited and adapted in formal composition treatises by Marpurg, Albrechtsberger, Cherubini, Bellerman, Haller, Schenker, Roth and Tittel (Der neue Gradus, 1959), among others. In brief, it is no exaggeration to state that Fux has played a decisive role in the formation of Western musical thought in so far as tonal practice and technique are concerned. Fux's Singfundament (c1705) is a vocal primer whose solmization exercises anticipate the studies in imitation in the Gradus itself. It, too, has had a place in the afterlife of Viennese composition (see Mann, in White, C1992).

[Tom_Davis]

[quote=qccowboy]the rules of counterpoint and fugue were quite firmly entrenched considerably before Bach's time: read Sweelink, Rameau, and Fux. I'm reading comments by a few people here who are under the mistaken impression that the rules of fugue and counterpoint were somehow established in considerably more modern times.

Ageed - to a point. Certainly Fux's treatise "Gradus ad Parnassum" helped centuries of student composers understand the principles of the fugue by itemizing accepted theory and technique. Yet, beyond teaching "species counterpoint" the Fux missive can only be appreciated in light of Palestrinaand what later followed the Baroque period.

The elements of the fugue and counterpoint and voice leading, etc., etc., were indeed established; but not as rules - rather a matter of what worked and could be reproduced. And, we may add, were acceptable deviations by the grace of the Holy Father in Rome; an example of how music can be restrained into antiquity by an over-exuberant dedication to rules.

Consider, too, that Fux as one of the last adherents of strict contrapuntal writing tried to adapt Palestrinian music to Baroque harmony, but had to use the Roman-Venetian-Neopolitan amalgamation and wrote accompanied masses on the model of his Viennese predeccessors Schmelzer and Kerll. Further, Fux's adherance to established form made his oratorios barely distinguishable from his operas, a problem shared by Draghi and Caldara. They too came to realize there were limitations in even the finest rule.

To understand the progression of "rules" is an extremely helpful thing and assists in developing new methods and theories. But it is the creative mind willing to step beyond the constraints of the establishment that continues to keep formal music alive.

[Tom_Davis]

I took it in and showed my music teacher at school. She laughed at it and said you can't do that. It wasn't till years later that I discovered that Bartok had been doing that decades before.

Tom

A very valid example. Having writen a number of pieces wherein the left and right hand were in different keys and in different time signatures, I have received similarly disperaging comments. I recall Dr. Wescott telling me that there was simply no sense in changing time signatures all the time - just a waste of time. Although he never said it, I can only suspect his displeasure with Stravinsky.

In your particular example it was more a matter of your music teacher not knowing her subject matter.

Tom
Seattle April 2006

[Jibrish]

I wonder if a certain amount of the "twisting" that comes with this topic isn't just different ways of attempting to gain a sense of ownership on ones own musical output.

And as far as new approaches are concerned: New approaches seem to begin when the viable options from previous methods appear to be exhausted (like the origin of the use of the 12 tone scale and all that) or when there is some technological advancement (like the invention of the organ). It isn't because the past was proved mistaken or inadequate really (or I don’t see where it has been anyway).

After awhile people just run out of interesting "takes" on it. So then, we go looking for modes of expression that will make our creations novel, and which will more accurately express that which is unique about our particular time (kind of a “Killroy was here” element).

It's no secret that with all the effort, the music from the past still hangs luminous, and the attempts to defy tradition altogether, or to totally reinvent music have been more notorious than enjoyed or admired.

Now... why the rhetoric seems to whirl down into dogmatic bickering and a somewhat anxious defense of Dada art... Well, I wonder if some of that isn't just… people trying to break new ground… "on the cheap”.

Peace.

[qccowboy]

actually, whether Fux was pre-Bach or contemporary is irrelevant to the point I was making. Some people here are under the impression that "rules of harmony" (and counterpoint by association) were somehow only brought into existance hundreds of years later by pedagogues who analyzed the works of the masters... this is obviously untrue. Excuse the fact that I could only come up with a few contemporary examples to Bach, but there were MANY more. The point is that harmonic and contrapuntal rules are not a contemporary invention and that the great composers of the past did NOT work in a vacuum, purely from ideas that popped into their heads, without some sort of theoretical background.

[newmewzikboy]

Actually Fux was during Bach's time and Bach was a big supporter of his writings.

AFTER most of his life went by and most of his greatest works. Bach died in 1750. Fuxs comic book was published in 1725 for the first time. And Bach's fugal writing has absolutely nothing to do with FUX CP.

[newmewzikboy]

...It wasn't till years later that I discovered that Bartok had been doing that decades before....
You mean you STOLE from Bartok and got caught by your teacher?? Was Bartok in your class??

[newmewzikboy]

...The point is that harmonic and contrapuntal rules are not a contemporary invention and that the great composers of the past did NOT work in a vacuum, purely from ideas that popped into their heads, without some sort of theoretical background.

The mind is always in need of something to grasp and to build on...

[folk prophet]

Let me tell a story <and no comments from NMB about being too sensitive>. When I was in elementary school I wrote a piece of music for piano where the two hands had two different key signatures. It was on of the first times I had tried to write music. I took it in and showed my music teacher at school. She laughed at it and said you can do that. It wasn't till years later that I discovered that Bartok had been doing that decades before. I'm now in my 40s and JUST beginning to start writing music again. Now I know not everyone is as insecure as I am, but I know that some young composers are probably discouraged by people spouting "rules".

That being said, I do think that the best way to write music is to study the music that came before you. Like to be a good abstract painter, you should first master the classic techniques. But then, that ISN'T to say that someone who is totally untrained can't create a great work of art. Think of Grandma Moses and the folk art school.

Tom

My similar experiences with teachers, instead of stopping me from composing, just made me bitter about rules I guess. :)

I agree that this was your teacher just not really knowing her music history very thoroughly, (and who would expect her to teaching elementry school?) Still, did she have to laugh? Even if she felt it was wrong, couldn't she have encouraged the uniqueness and the creativity? Plays to some of my points. Right or wrong, the rules aren't always taught very well.

Musical pedagogy, in my opinion, is not very well developed. :)


I think the problem here is that you should worry about yourself. and when you become a teacher and have the tutelage of others under your wing, you can start worrying about those beginners and intermediate composers.

I, like many here, have been a teacher for many years now. Additionally, everyone who expresses an opinion to another is potentially a teacher. This forum is a teacher. I come here to read and learn, as well as chat and find entertainment. The primary reason I come here is to learn. So everyone who expresses an opinion here is a potential teacher.


. . . Your parallel 5th phobia, . . .

I would like to think that the phobia lays with those who feel they must be avoided at all costs. :D I like to think of my view as a healthy protestation against the established paradigm. ;)

[Jibrish]

I also read recently that some 'musicians' seem to think the genres within 'classical music' as it were are pretty well mined out, in terms of originality, or the opportunity to develop new directions within the 'historical snapshot' of the time. I find this, well frankly, nonsense... ...unworthy of inclusion in any discussion.

But of course we should... strike all of that unworthy babble from the record forthwith... and off with the heads of those fiendish little scoundrels who dare to utter such things... those fools... infidels...



We repeat history.

Alex.

Yes we do... and in more than only words. And isn’t that the gist of the observations you promote to be banished?

I am in complete support of the continuation of... and the practice of... a learned and classical approach to all of the arts. Can't imagine the arts will be sustained, however, by an effort to squelch all dissenting and forward-reaching views.

Whether it's baroque and early music/renaissance, classical, romantic era or what have you, it is all wonderful stuff, and I am always glad to hear its value defended and it's precepts used. Not so glad, though, to see people try and discount other's opinions.

Hope you find continued interest and success in your studies abroad, Alex, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who enjoys your occasional comment on the likes of Shostakovitch, but why the flames? Or, as the old expression goes: Who pissed in your Post Toasties?

One more note in defense of mine and other’s views:
Leonard Bernstein was famous for saying something like- it’s time to bring classical music out of the museum- and yet, he did much to promote the cannon.


Then, as far as the rest of the thread:
All in all... a pretty good exercise in my view.

Peace.

[dpc]

The point is that harmonic and contrapuntal rules are not a contemporary invention and that the great composers of the past did NOT work in a vacuum, purely from ideas that popped into their heads, without some sort of theoretical background.

This is exactly right.

[Fabio]

It's intersting reading your posts, friends.
Mine should be not, if nobody answer to my proposals, and all go on in the same way...:D

My last 2cents:
HISTORY:

Nobody really can say when and how much the previously written theory has influenced the creation of new rules, but two things are certain:

- from egyptians or ancient chineses, to greek philosophs and scientists, the ancient world is studying music and writing theory. After the first historical evidences, musicians never stop writing theory, and we can find tracks of medieval, arsnova, flemming and italian renaissance, early and mature baroque, rococo classical romantic impressionistic expressionistic dada futuristic stocastic minimalistic newage newromantic "theory" etc etc etc (yes I forgot a lot of intermediate steps...doesn't matter, it's not the challenge:D ).

- but if theory had been absolute, after the first manual, no further evolution had been possible. Somebody sometime then alterate, add, complete the theory of his time, and give to posterity a new theory, a new style. And the history go on.

To believe that theory is a recent or artificial way of theaching/learning should be just a denial of the human history.
The point is who and how modify the theory to create something new?

To make his own work survive, an innovative artist must be successful. Doesn't matter if during life or later, but successful. When the style of a man or a school has been successful, posterity study it, and it is the new starting point, the new set of rules is the way to make that music.

THE WAY TO MAKE (or whatever you say in English) = the rule.

Composition is as I try to say in the beginning of the thread, based on musical elements organization.
Everybody can start composing without any previous training, but composing he will operate selection and organization of musical material. Because a human been has a logic brain, his selection and organization is following a method. Finally results are under aesthetics judgment, and what is nice keeps, what isn't nice is rejected.

I think that every composer is able of understanding the "rule" to follow for the selection of "nice" elements and rejecting the "not-working" elements, disregarding the style or the aim of his music.

When the student understand that, he will no longer "discriminate" between rules and freedom, but he just develop the tools he need to make music.

If he want to make ancient music, he must learn ancient music theory.
If he want to make atonal modern music, he can avoid tonal rules, and create new effective link and set between elements, creating his own style.

The space between tonal and atonal music is so wide, that a lot of nice intermediate style still exist, and are possible to find.

Professional composers are skilled in contamination and hybridation of styles, composing for movies or television for instance.

A wonderful palette of different styles is a rainbow of expressive options.

Mastering styles is a matter of logic, analysis...rules.

[Jibrish]

A fitting epilogue to an interesting thread.

[newmewzikboy]

so.....hows the thread working out for you and your genuis...are you there yet?

[SeanHannifin]

And I will, at any rate, keep my opinion that the proof of good musical theory is (quite simply) -- good music.

On the question of: Is the definition of good music a subjective thing? Well of coarse it is. But, nonetheless, good theory for you would produce the sort of music you prefer, and then of course for me it might target other music, but the theory would, for the most part, be the same.

Just my 2 cents good fellow, and it really is quite alright if you don't agree.
Exactly. I agree... I just don't think you need a musical example for this. :D

[Jibrish]

Exactly. I agree... I just don't think you need a musical example for this. :DFair enough Sean.

Peace.

[newmewzikboy]

yes, I am sorry to say this has become the most pedestrian, pretentious, regurgitated, self serving thread I have ever seen on NS...but thats just my theory...

[Jibrish]

yes, I am sorry to say this has become the most pedestrian, pretentious, regurgitated, self serving thread I have ever seen on NS...but thats just my theory...
And lo, the great Newmuzikboy came down from the summit,
And yea there was a meeting with the great diviner of musical mores,
(yes I do mean) The high priestly Alexis Zhor,
And verily verily they said unto the pedestrian masses,
You are small, and foolish, and trite
Your ideas are stupid, and crippled, and slight.

And yea their voices did ring out in the spirit of self-grandness!
Hark! We are the chosen to bore!
If ever there be time to bore!
And you my little sieges, Is it not obvious once more?
Are hopeless, misguided, and well… uninformed.

And yea the gods of all Music and Virtual-ness are angry!
Yes! Yes! Very angry! he said,
And we have been christened, said he,
Christened unto the masses this day, as it were,
To bring back all knowing-ness unto thee.

Not worthy! Not worthy! They then did espouse,
O my Lord they're not worthy!
These vile little utterances, and twisted titty thorns,
From these pedestrian, trite, little slovenly whores.

And yea the peasants did bow in the sand…
O, Humanity! Humanity! They wailed unto themselves,
How small, and how foolish we are!


Peace.

[newmewzikboy]

And lo, the great Newmuzikboy came down from the summit,
And yea there was a meeting with the great diviner of musical mores,
(yes I do mean) The high priestly Alexis Zhor,
And verily verily they said unto the pedestrian masses,
You are small, and foolish, and trite
Your ideas are stupid, and crippled, and slight.

And yea their voices did ring out in the spirit of self-grandness!
Hark! We are the chosen to bore!
If ever be there be time to bore!
And you my little sieges, Is it not obvious once more?
Are hopeless, misguided, and well… uninformed.

And yea the gods of all Music and Virtual-ness are angry!
Yes! Yes! Very angry! he said,
And we have been christened, said he,
Christened unto the masses this day, as it were,
To bring back all knowing-ness unto thee.

Not worthy! Not worthy! They then did espouse,
O my Lord they're not worthy!
These vile little utterances, and twisted titty thorns,
From these pedestrian, trite, little slovenly whores.

And yea the peasants did bow in the sand…
O, Humanity! Humanity! They wailed unto themselves,
How small, and how foolish we are!


Peace.

ROFLLLLLLL!! AGHAHAHAHAAHAAA!!!~@~@~

[joaz]

That is a lovely poem, Jibrish.
The only problem I have with it, is, you make being a pedestrian, trite, little slovenly whore...... sound like a bad thing. :)

regards Joe

[Jibrish]

That is a lovely poem, Jibrish.
The only problem I have with it, is, you make being a pedestrian, trite, little slovenly whore...... sound like a bad thing. :)

regards Joehahaha That's a point well taken Joe. Probably a grammatical thing.

[Fabio]

yes, I am sorry to say this has become the most pedestrian, pretentious, regurgitated, self serving thread I have ever seen on NS...but thats just my theory...

The problem is: professors would like to talk with experts, in an educated way, as students would like to exchange "trasgressiv" opinions against "the system", as free opinionist and amateurs feel free of adding his un-documented and un-educated ("pedestrian..."? :D ) opinion, and mind-cracker saboteurs like NMB to fight against all...and I use non-existent words and misused and mis-spelled expressions to translate my fine Italian thinking...

But HEY, It's unusual, at least for me. It's network democracy, nearly anarchy, anyway freedom. I've fun!

ISN'T IT A WONDERFUL WORLD....:eek:

...nice sociologic experience...:p ;) :D

Ops, I forgot: it's just my theory of course, not a rule. Not at all...!

[newmewzikboy]

i just have one retort left...

ITS FABIO'S FAULT!!!! GET 'im!!

[Fabio]

i just have one retort left...

ITS FABIO'S FAULT!!!! GET 'im!!

YEAH, IT IIIIIIS!

NMB, I really love you. I like your humor, even if somewhat caustic sometime...

I like the feeling that you know a lot about music, even if you are a computer-science expert...(no, not to say that it's unconciliable...;-)

The only thing I regret is you just touch the top of the Iceberg. I would like to see exposed sometime more of your thinking, I believe it should be really nice and useful.

Would you like to start a little lecture about your view on composing in the 21st centuries? Some technical suggestion to build an alternative musical structure...finally would you like to tell us more about YOUR Newmewzik?

It is not a challenge, it is a respectful invitation to a smart friend. I believe that you have something to tell.

[newmewzikboy]

Mr. Fabio:

I have been through the ringer...being an old compozer...I have been composting since the age of oh...8. I have graduated from many schools...attended the top conservatory in this country as a composition major...composed in everything from concrete tape to sonata form...learned many strange systems...from Takemitsu to Robert Morris to Levin...from Debussy's earliest conservatory development to whatever...from African rhythms to bang on a can...studied FS in LA with a couple of acad winners...did the rounds and small budget films which i detested wholly....had pieces played all over this USA and travelled here and thither to have wine and discuss them in pre concert compozer garbage audience interactions...

At one time I would express deep satisfaction for unfying all of you around set theory...or maybe that was neo-dadaism...i cannot recall...

Even Unkle Miltie loved my suff..

I am not making this up...

I have learned over time, there is absolutely nothing I can ever contribute to leading a composer down that road....you need to find your own way. I could start expounding my knowledge of set theoretics and iterval saturation and ladedaaa but quite frankly I would bore myself and loose interest. I need to listen quietly to the theoretics instead of just tawking about them and pulling attention to my love for dissertations and eureka ideas...


Listen really really closely...

The human mind is capable of finding patterns and form where none exist. Try writing a piece without it if you want to experiment...it will be the hardest thing you ever do...if you survive...

As for my own music, I will never share any samples of my work from GPO on this forum. I cannot stand samples in any form whatsoever and think they should be banned from the universe and people who use them should be imprisoned in a university to pursue a liberal arts degree starting with latin 101, art history, and the like. They are pollution to my ears. You will, someday ifieverfinishthis~~~~~~~~~piece, hear a REAL live orchestra recording next year when I get back from either the UK or from Prague.

Yes, computers pays me megabucks so I can afford 90 players for 2 days...

And my music is where i want it to be...which is above all great and integrated!

My advice...find a comfortable chair and a .7mm pencil...

[dpc]

Whoever said self serving got it right...just read the above post.

[newmewzikboy]

Yup DAAAAAVE ...hows it going DAAAAAVE...got your genuis star yet?

serving serving and keeping your mouth shut is better than borish, leadedaaaa whopieee love feasting nonense...

Not one profound creative argument of any applicable use here...not

one...nada ziltch...ptui...bla...zlug...

except for that very entertaining poemz...which bytes me I could not have written...

star-bellied sheechs all...

keep tawling...see you in prague

$zing $zing...3333.4331.T3.PaHp.str hahahaha....whopieee

for ( NSBorishPosters: poster) {
return_code = poster.delete();
loginfo("One more borish yawning idiot deleted");
}

heheee...computors are veyr fun

[joaz]

Oh come on NMB, why do you have to spoil the fun.

There is nothing I enjoy more, than going into a talking shop, and talking about, how talking is pointless.

You too evidently.

regards Joe

[Fabio]

a .7 pencil? I've it, and still frequently use it.

mouse and MIDI keyboard are sometime more quickly driving my music to a fine printed copy for (unfortunately not professional) human performers, like my church choir. (I suppose you also do it...)

...about samples I agree.
But because I know latin and all the rest, I'm authorized using it to make rendering, being not so happy, but finding it quite better than old MIDI synth and piano difficoult reading.:D

...about mind structures....is what I try to say from the beginning;)

[dpc]

Not one profound creative argument of any applicable use here...not


I referred to this thread as a pleasant distraction and that one should perhaps be suspicious of too much music talk. So we are not too far apart on that. (Some of the more interesting post were your own btw.) The fact remains that there are a slew of untrained writing for a medium where every other participant is thoroughly trained (orchestral players.) If one shall judge a tree by it's fruit as the good ole' Bible says than this trend is a nasty one resulting in really bad music. So if some young guy reads a little of this and is tilted towards study than why not?

Surely your not coming to NS in search of the profound? Not that you won't find it but hardly disappointing that you wouldn't.

[newmewzikboy]

Surely your not coming to NS in search of the profound?

what a profound argument...i must ponder this with my .7mm pencil thank you for this insight...I name you as my one and only pessime et nequamque

p.s. Fabio is king

[Stephanie Pray]

more Latin/Roman insults can be found here:

http://www.ou.edu/ludilatini/insultshandoutFall2003.htm (http://www.ou.edu/ludilatini/insultshandoutFall2003.htm)

:D

[newmewzikboy]

more Latin/Roman insults can be found here:

http://www.ou.edu/ludilatini/insultshandoutFall2003.htm (http://www.ou.edu/ludilatini/insultshandoutFall2003.htm)

:D
COOL!!!!!!

[Stephanie Pray]

thought that you'd like it :D

[joaz]

more Latin/Roman insults can be found here:

http://www.ou.edu/ludilatini/insultshandoutFall2003.htm (http://www.ou.edu/ludilatini/insultshandoutFall2003.htm)

:D
Love that Site, Steph.

regards Joe

[LouisD]

more Latin/Roman insults can be found here:

http://www.ou.edu/ludilatini/insultshandoutFall2003.htm (http://www.ou.edu/ludilatini/insultshandoutFall2003.htm)

:D

This is brilliant, Steph!

One listed there is particularly appropriate here:D :

quis est haec simia?

[Stephanie Pray]

he he he :D

[dpc]

what a profound argument...i must ponder this with my .7mm pencil thank you for this insight...I name you as my one and only pessime et nequamque.

Are your aware that you opened in this thread laughing at it and then shortly after began very earnest posts? Then after a fair while returned to your orginal disdain? At this later point you complained that you found nothing profound, to which I repiled you might be in the wrong neighborhood for that kind of thing? Then you dismiss this confirmation of your own position?

Dude, pick a position and stay with for it for a day or two. Consider it an excercise in mental health.

[newmewzikboy]

Dude, pick a position and stay with for it for a day or two. Consider it an excercise in mental health.

Firstly, please call me Mr. NMB. I am not a dude, nor do I serf with your so-cal types. I am, by nature, a no-cal person and respectfully I wish to remain so...

Secondly, my viewpoiints in this thread, if you were more aware and enlightened, are mirroring and presenting a Rondo form - to act in the capacity of a model for your learning experience, which you may find a bit more profound than the mundane chase ques people in hollywood regurgitate and pass off as structure...

Long live the empire...the empire never died...

Fabio for emporer!!!

[dpc]

Well that was almost good. My perception is that you go to MacDonald's and eat and then complain the food tastes like MacDonalds.

[boomerlu]

Hi guys

I'm relatively new here and have not read through the whole thread (aye 10 pages is a lot), but I'd just like to add my own insight for now.

To me, the "rules" are what people perceive when they hear something. Almost everything that we use (and many of the things we take for granted) are rules.

For example, if you've ever used a chromatic scale, that's a rule. It's a mathematical one based on the division of frequencies within an octave.

Same with any type of meter, 4/4, 5/4 anything. It's mathematical rule.

Chord identification is based on a set of rules for what constitutes a chord for not.

Rules are for convenience. The chromatic scale is VERY convenient since who in hell wants to specify particular frequencies for every note? Tempo and meter are convenient, since who wants to specify everything in seconds? Chord identification is too. These are man-made constructs created for convenience because we use these ideas over and over and over. Don't re-invent the wheel!

The reason we use these constructs over and over is because they have a certain effect upon most of us. In fact, these rules assume that humans as a species have some kind of universal experience. You may not like what I like, but you still experience it similarly. A major chord sounds like a major chord whether you like it or you hate it because you're depressed.

In mathematical language, they describe the transformation from a domain of real world "analog" information into the range of human perception.

Many of these "rules" are set forth or taught very rigidly and without reference to perception. Eg, you should never use parallel fifths/octaves when writing counterpoint.
My response to that would be to reframe it: they do not provide the listener with the desired effect of a second melody going on (the reasoning should be obvious: parallel fifths and octaves do NOT create a counter-melody at all as they simply follow the original melody).

Another rephrasing:
"The V chord should always be resolved to the I chord."
My version "When most people hear the V chord, they expect it to be resolved to the I chord."

When you consider things this way, you are getting to the heart of the matter, what people think when they hear these things.

THEN it should all be very clear if you have very specific intentions as a composer.

What chord you use at a certain point is dictated by what kind of EFFECT you would like to produce, and these "rules" conveniently show you what you want to use to produce that effect.

Again, you don't need to reinvent the wheel! (However, it actually is very instructive to sometimes reinvent the wheel by trying these things out for yourself, but with enough experience, one can sometimes simply pick out what he needs by analysis).

Another very simple example:

Suppose you need to express something generically "evil". Well pretty much everybody who has learned theory knows that the diminished fifth and second atonal intervals sound "evil" (and if you haven't learned it formally, you have likely "learned it" by experience by playing these intervals), so you can immediately insert one of those.

I hope this was informative.

[LouisD]

boomerlu

This is a great post, very informative. Simple and to the point.:)

BTW, welcome to the forum!

[newmewzikboy]

Well that was almost good. My perception is that you go to MacDonald's and eat and then complain the food tastes like MacDonalds.

I believe you meant nutritional value and high caloric content, because the food doesnt taste too bad, but your point is taken...

[Fabio]

Moderate tonos, omnes gentes, neque de arte Musica haec loquendum est.

Vos omnes amici exstimo, et bona omnia auguro vobis. Bona latina verba praefero, magis quam mala.

Simia quoque creatura Dei est, perdonate eam, et si quidquam utile dicit investigate...

;)

[newmewzikboy]

"...Chord identification is based on a set of rules for what constitutes a chord for not....

"...A major chord sounds like a major chord whether you like it or you hate it because you're depressed..."

"...In mathematical language, they describe the transformation from a domain of real world "analog" information into the range of human perception.

"...Many of these "rules" are set forth or taught very rigidly and without reference to perception. Eg, you should never use parallel fifths/octaves when writing counterpoint...."

"...parallel fifths and octaves do NOT create a counter-melody at all as they simply follow the original melody..."

"...When most people hear the V chord, they expect it to be resolved to the I chord."

"...what people think when they hear these things..."

"...THEN it should all be very clear if you have very specific intentions as a composer..."

"...What chord you use at a certain point is dictated by what kind of EFFECT you would like to produce..."

"...Well pretty much everybody who has learned theory knows that the diminished fifth and second atonal intervals sound "evil" (and if you haven't learned it formally, you have likely "learned it" by experience by playing these intervals), so you can immediately insert one of those...."



Even though I should back off and perhaps welcome this new poster (I'll leave that up to you guys), I am sooo outraged and choked up in my butterbeer by this post and by such obvious musical and historic ignorance/disrespect, and most twisted propaganda, that all I can say is:

"Welcome to MacDonalds"

[newmewzikboy]

Moderate tonos, omnes gentes, neque de arte Musica haec loquendum est.

Vos omnes amici exstimo, et bona omnia auguro vobis. Bona latina verba praefero, magis quam mala.

Simia quoque creatura Dei est, perdonate eam, et si quidquam utile dicit investigate...

;)

I got it...too late for such warnings...but eloquently said...

[PaulR]

Ahhh - NMB. I wondered if I'd find you here. I challenge you to.... a harpsichord duel.....at the same time beating your ~~~~~ at chess..... and watching stinking Arsenal come 5th behind Tottenham (where they belong) in this year's Premiere League.

How'd you like that?

Buxtehude.

:D

[Jibrish]

For my part I’ll have to say I’m a little embarrassed Fabio.

I (mistakenly) thought this was more of a post-education muse on the current use of inherited rules in the methodology of a contemporary composer. But in the new light of day (and after re-reading your initial post) I see that I was more likely just one of the raiders in your class at the Academy.

Forgive the intrusion.

Peace.

(Could somebody please point me toward the playroom?)

[newmewzikboy]

Ahhh - NMB. I wondered if I'd find you here. I challenge you to.... a harpsichord duel.....at the same time beating your ~~~~~ at chess..... and watching stinking Arsenal come 5th behind Tottenham (where they belong) in this year's Premiere League.

How'd you like that?

Buxtehude.

:D

G*D I feel soo homesick for England...I really miss you muggles...I do!

A nice animal loving country:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,,1766541,00.html

[SeanHannifin]

Howdy, boomerlu, welcome to the forum! I agree with your post. :)

One thing I've learned on this forum is... don't mind the monkeys... :D

[southportJim]

more Latin/Roman insults can be found here:

http://www.ou.edu/ludilatini/insultshandoutFall2003.htm (http://www.ou.edu/ludilatini/insultshandoutFall2003.htm)

:D

Too cool, Steph!

Excuse me for being a little late in getting this far in the thread. Great site... I wonder how some of these insults would sound in medieval-style choral settings with long, slow melismas?

"fu...u...u...gi.te in ma...a...a...la...a...a...am cru..u...u....u...cem".

(Not directed at anyone, of course, it's just that the "u" in "crucem" reminded me of an "Adoramus Te").

Now if I could only get Wordbuilder to say it without a Southern accent!

;-)

EDIT: Okay...back to reading - I just love reading threads where NMB is in a cheerful mood!

[newmewzikboy]

EDIT: Okay...back to reading - I just love reading threads where NMB is in a cheerful mood!

grumble grumble...dang guvment

[Mitch Manthe]

This entire thread reminds me about why I left college and a possible music degree and went into computers. Rules? What rules? :confused: sorry for intruding in on the conversation. I'll just keep quiet from now on. :p

[newmewzikboy]

This entire thread reminds me about why I left college and a possible music degree and went into computers. Rules? What rules? :confused: sorry for intruding in on the conversation. I'll just keep quiet from now on. :p

welp, for a guy who went into computers, you seem very proud of your music configuration:

Finale06, Dell 8250, XP, M-Audio 2496, Audigy 2 ZS Pro, GPO, JABB, GS/3, Sonar Home Studio 4

heh..

[Mitch Manthe]

Hey, now we're getting personal (or is the personnel :confused: , where's the English class, anyway?). :(

[Fabio]

For my part I’ll have to say I’m a little embarrassed Fabio.

I (mistakenly) thought this was more of a post-education muse on the current use of inherited rules in the methodology of a contemporary composer. But in the new light of day (and after re-reading your initial post) I see that I was more likely just one of the raiders in your class at the Academy.

Forgive the intrusion.

Peace.

(Could somebody please point me toward the playroom?)

Sorry, I don't understand: can you elaborate the concept?:confused:

[Fabio]

Too cool, Steph!

Excuse me for being a little late in getting this far in the thread. Great site... I wonder how some of these insults would sound in medieval-style choral settings with long, slow melismas?

"fu...u...u...gi.te in ma...a...a...la...a...a...am cru..u...u....u...cem".

(Not directed at anyone, of course, it's just that the "u" in "crucem" reminded me of an "Adoramus Te").

Now if I could only get Wordbuilder to say it without a Southern accent!

;-)

EDIT: Okay...back to reading - I just love reading threads where NMB is in a cheerful mood!

fu u u u u gi te fu gi te, cae di te cae di te em pii....(G. Carissimi, Jaephte):)

[Jibrish]

Sorry, I don't understand: can you elaborate the concept?:confused:And I'm sure this will make it even worse but still:
For la mia parte dovrò dirlo sono un Fabio.

I confuso poco (erroneamente) ho pensato che questo sia più di un muse di alberino-formazione sull'uso corrente delle regole ereditate nella metodologia di un compositore contemporaneo. Ma alla nuova luce del giorno (e dopo avere riletto il vostro alberino iniziale) vedo che ero appena quello più probabile dei raiders nel vostro codice categoria al Academy.

Forgive il intrusion.

Peace.

(Could che qualcuno soddisfa lo indica verso il playroom?)


I have no idea what that says (it's gibberish to me) I used a translator, but the point of the original post was just to say: I came into your thread about half way through, and thought it was more of an open-ended discussion on the philosophy of music (i.e. bullsh*t session) before I went back and read your original post. Then I thought, "Oh, now I see, he's trying to share his knowledge with people who are working on the more rudimentary concepts of music theory. And here I am goofing off and adding to the chaos.

So... I hope you have good luck on getting something started. I think it is a really good thing to do, and especially admirable in this setting.

Cheers.

[Fabio]

OK don't worry, fun is the engine of our work.

We all are here to spend time, for leisure, to have fun.

A nice mixture of joke, bull..ts, and serious statements is probably less educational, but more intersting or stimulating.

Flames are certain everytime, but we usually are able of laughing on it, and restore peace...;)


P.S. ...the playroom is....here! NMB didn't tell you?:D

[newmewzikboy]

I would rather talk about italian food...I have a good feeling that Fabio is a First class chef!!!

[Jibrish]

You can't talk to that guy.

[Jibrish]

He's crazy!

[Jibrish]

Truth be... readin Hermitage, NMB, PaulR and Joaz... most fun i've had on the web... keep the smug down as well they do

Peace.

[Fabio]

I would rather talk about italian food...I have a good feeling that Fabio is a First class chef!!!

Well, ...yes I am!

(...is it so evident?...:o )

[Jibrish]

Such a stange and awkward place this internet group conversation thing… or maybe that's just me... me I’m mostly over the flu, so it’s back to the mines... and the occasional post…

Caio Fabio, NMB, Alex, Joaz, Sean...et all

[joaz]

Bye Jibrish. I quite enjoy these knockabout threads myself. Internet forums seem better suited to a few learned jokes, rather than an earnest discussion.
But it is usually worth it, just to read Fabio.!! ;)

regards Joe

[SeanHannifin]

Such a stange and awkward place this internet group conversation thing… or maybe that's just me... me I’m mostly over the flu, so it’s back to the mines... and the occasional post…

Caio Fabio, NMB, Alex, Joaz, Sean...et all

It was nice meeting you! Hope you come by again some time. :) Sometimes threads of this nature can get a little heated, but in general I think this is probably the best forum on the web. :D

[Styxx]

I think out of all the time I've spent on this forum I have never heard anyone discuss "voice crossing" the rules pertaining. Is this the type of rule that CAN be broken or MUST be adhered to? ;)

[Skysaw]

I think out of all the time I've spent on this forum I have never heard anyone discuss "voice crossing" the rules pertaining. Is this the type of rule that CAN be broken or MUST be adhered to? ;)
You forgot "MUST be broken.":p

[southportJim]

I think out of all the time I've spent on this forum I have never heard anyone discuss "voice crossing" the rules pertaining. Is this the type of rule that CAN be broken or MUST be adhered to? ;)

Take your pick of rules...Jeppesen practically requires it, Guadlin discourages it, and I don't remember what position Fux took. All very confusing to an old, cynical student like me.

My own (not very well thought-out) idea is this:

1) If the two voices have a different color then it can be interesting.
2) If the two voices are the same color then it probably goes unnoticed.

;-)

Maybe we can get a good flame war going on the subject (just kidding).

[folk prophet]

2) If the two voices are the same color then it probably goes unnoticed.


...but can be a lot of fun for the voices/players. :)

[Fabio]

Take your pick of rules...Jeppesen practically requires it, Guadlin discourages it, and I don't remember what position Fux took. All very confusing to an old, cynical student like me.

My own (not very well thought-out) idea is this:

1) If the two voices have a different color then it can be interesting.
2) If the two voices are the same color then it probably goes unnoticed.

;-)

Maybe we can get a good flame war going on the subject (just kidding).

To make something you need a reason:

- voice crossing is fine everytime you need it :D (it seems a joke, but look at Palestrina or Bach: ipsi docent). It's "cleaning" counterpoint. So....
- you need it for melodic reasons, e.g. everytime a voice need space to finish a thematic entrance, or to avoid long and boring note repetitions.
- you need it to improve the sound tension (the high register of a bass/D.bass is more dramatic, than the same note in the middle of tenor/cello: vocalist or strings, doesn't matter).

Because it's a matter of artistic taste and skill, usually rules about voice crossing are more or less "suggestions". Generally you avoid it when it's not necessary.
- it's not necessary when all voices have enough space to move, and are well balanced.
- it's not necessary when all voices are singing his own "role" in a coherent way (similar register or similar tension distribution from the beginning of the phrase to the end)
- it's not necessary when everything is moving in "blocks": all up, all down, etc.

Oh gosh, did I write some rules:confused: ....oh no, again...:p

[Styxx]

Voice crossing tends to blur the distinction between the parts. Maybe we should talk more on
Voice overlap, when a line crosses above or below a pitch recently sounded by another voice.

[southportJim]

- you need it to improve the sound tension (the high register of a bass/D.bass is more dramatic, than the same note in the middle of tenor/cello: vocalist or strings, doesn't matter).



Good point, and one I tend to forget since I always work only with samples, and usually only with piano in the beginning stages. Thank you!



Voice crossing tends to blur the distinction between the parts. Maybe we should talk more on Voice overlap, when a line crosses above or below a pitch recently sounded by another voice.

Styxx,
We must both be studying from the same set of books. I came across some statement on overlap a few days ago and my initial reaction was "who cares?"...maybe that was a hasty conclusion.

I truly don't see why it would matter (except when talking about comfortable vocal ranges, and of course, the tension aspect that Fabio mentioned), but I do stand ready to learn why it would matter...

;-)

[newmewzikboy]

There is a specific psychological reason behind these guidelines:

Voice crossing tends to confuse the ears/minds natural tendency to list the timbre of these voices in descending order: SATB (top to bottom). The moment you present something like TABS, the ear and the brain gets confused and implodes.

Voice crossing can be ok when some of the voices are pedal tones for example T melody over S=====>, where inner voices move A===> S lalala T ===> ( encapsulated) or interlocking situations etc etc.

The basic premise or guideline when crossing parts is to reduce confusion as much as possible by suspension...that throttle depends on the musical situation and the composers intent, and may include other throttles such as register, dynamics...

The questions you might ask are:

How much confusion is there here, really?
Is it tension or suspense?
How much do I want to reduce?
How should I do this compositionally with tools at hand...

[Skysaw]

- you need it to improve the sound tension (the high register of a bass/D.bass is more dramatic, than the same note in the middle of tenor/cello: vocalist or strings, doesn't matter).
This is a very good point. I quite often put the cello above the viola in some writing. It very much changes the characteristic of both parts.

[Fabio]

There is a specific psychological reason behind these guidelines:
...

The questions you might ask are:

How much confusion is there here, really?
Is it tension or suspense?
How much do I want to reduce?
How should I do this compositionally with tools at hand...


Quite intersting approach:
- psyco-approach, more or less the link between habits, perception, and the sound tension I mentioned.

- the list-approach, I suggest the list method for several processes to my pupils (form design, material collection, development planning, etc.). The Q/A list is a good base for compositional planning exercise.:cool:

[newmewzikboy]

Quite intersting approach:
- psyco-approach, more or less the link between habits, perception, and the sound tension I mentioned.

- the list-approach, I suggest the list method for several processes to my pupils (form design, material collection, development planning, etc.). The Q/A list is a good base for compositional planning exercise.:cool:

I think one of the hardest things to learn and to do is to create some sort of overall tonal plan for a work. It doesnt necessarily need to be a tonal piece, but if you are working with tonal centers or pitch centers (not textural or objective), it can be extremely hard to do and more importantly - pull off - where it doesnt sound utterly controlled, predictable, and without any good suspense and novelty.

Tension, suspense whatever, cannot be taken out of context to the larger elements. They are all one and whole to a larger process.

The important thing to do as a composer is to continually ask yourself questions and make choices both subjective and objective given the circumstances. Do you plan or do you discover? it's always a mix and this is why composing is hard...at least for me at times...

But, I AM NMB!!!

[Fabio]

NMB, it's quite intersting what you say about balance between planning and discovery.

To close the circle, my method was based exactly on that:
- plan a whole architectural structure, including pitch and chordal as formal or timbric structures.
- collect your planning in a list of "rules" and finally....
- break all the rules you made, everytime you discover casually or instinctively something better during your previously "guided" way...

The planning drive you forward, the discovery make your work a pleasure, and the composition brighting.:cool:

:eek: The long recall of method and rules is inflating in my tired soul again the will, the need of writing something new...maybe this thread has not been so useless...;)

[newmewzikboy]

...
- break all the rules you made, everytime you discover casually or instinctively something better during your previously "guided" way...

Why wait..just get to the point!!! :D :D :D