So you think you're a good sight reader?

[CooolJazzz]

Give this a whirl...:twisted:

http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/2007/01/note/John_Stump_-_FaeriesAireandDeathWaltz.jpg

[NissanVintageSax]

I was in High School the first time I saw that one! It was funny then, and its funny now :) .

[spartacus]

I happen to know the son of the guy it was dedicated to.

[SaxPlayer1004]

Saw that for the first time my junior year in high school I think. Still laugh about it.

[littlewailer]

Release the Penguins!

[NissanVintageSax]

Its my new screen background :)

[Face Ache Mike]

Going to print out and pin up for when Im practicing. One glance at that and everything else looks easy :) Thanks for posting!

[BOPITY FUNK]

Love it! I bet there is someone who'd have a go!Very Monty Python-esque, like a coupla bands i honk 'n' snort in!
BF

[NissanVintageSax]

Feed that into a computer it'll reply : "WTF!??" just before crashing :D .

[hakukani]

I think I played that piece when I was at university....;)

[BOPITY FUNK]

I think I played that piece when I was at university....;)

Yeah pigs can fly bro!!

[CraigH]

We show that to our middle school band students every year. They love it!

[Dr G]

Give this a whirl...:twisted:

I read it down at lunchtime and didn't care much for it. 8-)

[davevillajr]

Does anybody have the SECOND page?

I lost my copy


dv

[Jazz House]

Is there a recording of this?

[warp x]

Do you also have pics of the whole bigband arrangement?

[HornForHire]

Great! :D

[Enviroguy]

Since we still have Cro-magnons in Arkansas, this is a common tune that I learned as a child from my uncle, Ugg, while we were hunting for Faulk Monsters* in the Green River basin.

To do this ditty justice, you really need to play two saxes at the same time; preferably a bass and a sopranino. I find it works best if you use your right foot to play the lower stack on the bass.

* The Faulk Monster is a reportedly smaller and more odorous version of the North American Big Foot (Sasquatch) that commonly lives in the river bottoms near the town of Faulk, AR which is home of a local religious cult run by the infamous lounge singer, Tony Alamo. "Truth is stranger than fact".

[BOPITY FUNK]

I still think it would "flow" better in Csharp major around 150bpm? over to the panel
BF

[Martin Williams]

page two. I play thisin my daily warmup, its a piece of cake!

[BOPITY FUNK]

page two. I play thisin my daily warmup, its a piece of cake!



Good boy Martin, have a cookie out the jar on your way out!

[barisaxbeast]

Whats the the problem? Played every note, not necessarily in the right order...........!!!!!

Looks to me like a serious attack of bluebottle with bowl problems!

[bongop57]

This one, we can listen to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjUiN4zrRf8

[barisaxbeast]

This one, we can listen to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjUiN4zrRf8

Take it that was the Adagio?
Sure I heard a B instead of Bb in there somewhere?:shock:;):?

[BOPITY FUNK]

This one, we can listen to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjUiN4zrRf8

Take it that was the Adagio?
Sure I heard a B instead of Bb in there somewhere?:shock:;):?

Yeah i thought it a little on the slow side too! I was waiting for the piano to explode at the end and finally put this thread to rest! I think it was a Cflat you heard BTW but it could have been an Adouble sharp--new thread??
BF

[porbem]

Unfortunately I'm still a poor (:evil:) sight reader. I find this almost offensive (:D).

[gary]

Yeah, that thing is priceless.


Is there a recording of this?


Actually, there was something similarly outrageous floating around several years ago but it actually was playable (for the seriously-super-chop-monster) and there was a recording floating around. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I saw/heard it.

[AntonVonWebern]

The last time this was posted here I think I replied with scores like this (they are real, by Brian Ferneyhough)..

[melvinsax]

Hehe!
I love where it says "Have a nice day"

[gary]

The last time this was posted here I think I replied with scores like this (they are real, by Brian Ferneyhough)..





Every composer who writes stuff like that, before they are allowed to expect someone else to play it, should be required first play it, sing it, and tap out the rhythms themselves.

[AntonVonWebern]

Every composer who writes stuff like that, before they are allowed to expect someone else to play it, should be required first play it, sing it, and tap out the rhythms themselves.

Perhaps a reasonable request, I wonder if he could do it?. In Ferneyhough's case he doesn't expect the peformer to get all of it, just attempt it (more or less, he has a pretty detailed and complex philosophy behind it which I have only encountered briefly)

I actually think it's fair enough, I have no desire to write like that but I don't see why others shouldn't (I try to get the audible results as easily as possible, leaving the performer free to make it sound good/relaxed.)

Peformers have to practice for a long time to get close to these pieces, some of them are up for it and seem to gain something from the process so I see no problem with it (I don't think Ferneyhough gets many performances though, not surprising, one reason he writes a lot of chamber music, same goes for most of the 'new complexity' school for want of a less cheesy catch-all term)

Others say you can get the same effect with much simpler notation, or by ad lib sections, perhaps true, but the audible result is not the only thing for many of these 'complex' composers (not for Ferneyhough anyway.)

[gary]

In Ferneyhough's case he doesn't expect the peformer to get all of it, just attempt it (more or less, he has a pretty detailed and complex philosophy behind it which I have only encountered briefly))

I'll bet he does. How convenient.

Pierre Boulez wrote incredibly complicated music and yet he could sing every part. That's what I would call musical and compositional integrity.

[AntonVonWebern]

In Ferneyhough's case he doesn't expect the peformer to get all of it, just attempt it (more or less, he has a pretty detailed and complex philosophy behind it which I have only encountered briefly))

I'll bet he does. How convenient.

Pierre Boulez wrote incredibly complicated music and yet he could sing every part. That's what I would call musical and compositional integrity.

Well, Boulez has perfect pitch apparently, and his scores are not as complex as Ferneyhough's, also he doesn't write at the piano he just does it from his head, so I presume he can sing every part (being a great conductor helps too.)

'Compositional integrity' doesn't really mean anything objectively, it's a normative concept. I agree that as per traditional or prevailing ideology Boulez is the 'better' composer, I certainly prefer his music to Ferneyhough's and so do most performers (Boulez's music can be difficult, but it's playable.)

However, Vive la différence, composition is not a pi**ing contest or a sport. Ferneyhough asks questions of us as listeners and of performers, so did Xenakis and John Cage amongst others (both in very different ways). It's a perfectly reasonable approach, regardless of whether you or I like the results or think the music could be produced by simpler means.

The joke score which began this thread is mocking the more complex and idiosyncratic or conceptual scores of the post-war era, there is some justification for it, fair point etc, it's worth keeping people's feet on the ground, but also I don't believe we should go too far down the road of pragmatism or populism if it excludes more esoteric work, diversity is ideal (and often we mock what we do not understand, generally because we can't be bothered to try, or fear we are incapable.)

[hakukani]

All well and good, but I really think that the 'questions' that Cage and Xenakis asked have been answered, and that it's time to move beyond them, like the new tonalists have in the past thirty or so years.

Compositional integrity is a normative concept. I don't have a problem with normative concepts. It's difficult to have concepts based solely on criterion.

[AntonVonWebern]

All well and good, but I really think that the 'questions' that Cage and Xenakis asked have been answered, and that it's time to move beyond them, like the new tonalists have in the past thirty or so years.

Compositional integrity is a normative concept. I don't have a problem with normative concepts. It's difficult to have concepts based solely on criterion.

I think they are only beginning to be understood, or rather they only beginning to be absorbed into the repertoire (Xenakis anyway, reception of his work is much more positive than it was a few years ago, read the reviews of the recent performances and events at the Barbican in London.)

I think the fact that the 20th century is over has helped bracket this sort of work (Alex Ross's book is a good example), it isn't as frightening or challenging as it once was, still, it isn't a 'lapsed sign' in semiotic terms, it still sounds fresh to many listeners as it hasn't been overplayed or heard that much outside of the academy or the occasional performance or periods of being in or out of fashion perhaps (like Glock's time at the BBC hiring Boulez etc)

Regards the 'new tonalists', who do you mean?, and what is new about their use of harmony?. Also, when you say they have moved 'beyond' Xenakis et al where have they moved to?, where does this spatial metaphor come from? (this idea doesn't mean anything to me without these definitions.)

Same problem of definition with 'compositional integrity', I referred to it as a normative concept to highlight it's conditional and subjective nature, without defining what it is I can't respond to it as a point of view, if it were a more objective statement like 'it's 2.59pm' or 'its 1000km to Moscow' I wouldn't require more information.

[hakukani]

Then why do you refer to it as a normative concept? A norm reference is not completely subjective, but rather based on repeated measures, which is a perfectly good statistical technique for measurement. Again, you're attempting to quibble on definitions.

By new tonalists, I mean those misnamed 'minimalist' composers, starting with Riley, and including Addams, Glass, and Reich. There are many others, the these four are the most 'famous'.

Why does their use of a natural order of things have to be 'new'?--be that as it may, their use of repeated structures is novel. Harmonically, the use of temperments (for example Riley is a proponent of just intonation) iare used in novel ways.

Even Penderecki went back to writing tonal music.

It's my opinion that the 'experimental' composers of the mid 20th century will be relegated to the same place that the late renaissance composers occupy. Historical curiosities.

[Carl H.]

As a musician who did an entire season of this stuff in the late 80's I can appreciate the technical nature of performing that stuff. It is a nice change of pace once in a while to read, but this stuff drives away 95% of the people who still bother to support live music as it exists these days. There is much available which is technically challenging AND musically satisfying. I don't see the need to keep most of this nonsense around other than perhaps as a warning to young egocentric composers who are above the masses and in it for "arts" sake. (I always thought Art was a bit of a jerk anyway.)

[AntonVonWebern]

Then why do you refer to it as a normative concept? A norm reference is not completely subjective, but rather based on repeated measures, which is a perfectly good statistical technique for measurement. Again, you're attempting to quibble on definitions.

By new tonalists, I mean those misnamed 'minimalist' composers, starting with Riley, and including Addams, Glass, and Reich. There are many others, the these four are the most 'famous'.

Even Penderecki went back to writing tonal music.

It's my opinion that the 'experimental' composers of the mid 20th century will be relegated to the same place that the late renaissance composers occupy. Historical curiosities.

I don't mean to quibble on definitions, just to make sure we are speaking the same language and not confusing matters with concepts that are not required (in my view, like the implied spatial metaphor of 'moving beyond', moving back would be more accurate but I wouldn't be happy with that either, suggests art is a historically linear process, too neat by half.)

I disagree about the 'minimalists' vs the rest, in my opinion the American minimalists are not classical composers at all, they are crossover artists, a mix of jazz, non-western musics and European classical music. It's too simple and repetitive, 'poppy' even (nothing wrong with that, but it's not really in the tradition of European classical composition). It doesn't resemble 'art' music enough to qualify really. Whereas I think Morton Feldman's sometimes 'minimal' compositions do more or less.

Composers like Xenakis, or Ferneyhough or Ligeti or even more reactionary figures like Henze or Ades have inherited the European tradition (Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy, Stravinsky, etc, etc, etc.)

The minimalists are off on their own somewhere, intentionally so in Reich's case (he was glad that Music For 18 Musicians confused record shops, they didn't know where to put it.)

Adams is more in the tradition/category, he isn't a minimalist really (I don't think anyone really likes that term applied to their music.)

Re Penderecki, I don't think much of his later work though I am not that familiar with it so i'll reserve judgement (what I have heard doesn't inspire me to listen to more.) His well regarded Polish comrade Witold Lutoslawski went in the other direction, further away from the old methods as he got older. One or two composer's moving towards and away from traditional harmony tells us little about the bigger picture, it's not really an argument for or against anything, just anecdote.

Re the renaissance composers, who said they were historical curiosities?, you refer to this as fact, can you prove it?.

I disagree and can provide evidence, they are very current to 20th and 21st century composition, Ockeghem, Gesualdo being two of the most popular. And the idea that composers of 20th century you erroneously refer to 'experimental' will be regarded also as curiosities is yet more needless speculation, wishful thinking infact (some composers were experimental at times, Cage being one, others were no more or less experimental than any composer, Beethoven for instance, read the contemporary reports about his music.)

I really don't see the point in extrapolating your tastes and biases in this fashion, we ought to stick to the facts wherever possible. I am simply arguing for a diverse culture, in one sense it's inevitable, in another, it's a good thing in my opinion, plenty of choice. Scores like Ferneyhough's are valid, try and predict a future where they are not if it pleases you, but I don't see any evidence which suggests anyone else ought to believe you.

[bluesaxgirl]

I remember seeing this one for the first time a couple of years ago.
I thought it was the coolest thing in the world, and thought about how it would go in my head. :D

[gary]

It's my opinion that the 'experimental' composers of the mid 20th century will be relegated to the same place that the late renaissance composers occupy. Historical curiosities.

(First, please indulge my use of ten-cent words. I'd rather not have many readers running, screaming to a dictionary before they can understand me. :D)

Hakukani, that would be too bad, IMO, because there is a lot of human expression coming from many of these composers, as well as masterful orchestration and warmth in how they use musical elements. But many serialists have created real problems and a very unfortunate backlash. There is a lot of intellectual fun in writing in complex, serialised forms but the pseudo-intellectual rationalisations and justifications just can't change the musical mediocrity of many of the results of such musical mind games. It's really too bad because the backlash has dumped the non-tonal baby down the drain with the serialist wash.

There are many complex reasons why contemporary listeners don't love Webern, for example, just as most Americans couldn't care less about highly artistic and evolved jazz music or other similarly deserving art forms, but I believe one of the greatest reasons is simply the self-indulgence of many composers to justify and intellectualise their experiments and the negative reaction this arrogance evoked.

I love guys like Penderecki, Webern, Schuller and many other atonalists because of the humanity in their music. IMO this is really good music and it's a shame that it's ignored and rejected; even more so when you consider what simple-minded music had replaced it.

[hakukani]

By late Renaissance composers I meant the 'shaped' compositions by Baude Cordier, which in my opinion are mere curiosities, not Gesualdo, Orlando di Lassus, or Ockegam.

What can you say of time, except that it moves beyond, moves forward, goes to the future. These are all the same things. There's not a reverse gear for time. There is a pendulum in musical thought and philosophies, that reverts to a similar postion, except that it is forward in time.

What you think of as crossover artists, I think of as synthesists and integrators. That's their gift.

Gary, I agree that there are some composers that are considered 'atonal'. My thesis has always been that when composers are released from the constraints of algorithms (read: serialist), there music has a natural tonality---it may shift rapidly, but unless you're writing music with non-pitched, non harmonically related sounds (read as: non-pitched percussion instruments), there IS a tonality. It's there, just as there is a relationship between whole number ratios. It's a matter of physics.

My prediction re what I call 'experimental' composers. (What term do YOU fancy-aleatoric, conceptual, whatever) is speculation. It's happening. I hadn't even heard Babbit mentioned in a quarter century, until coming upon it here last week--and I spent fully two thirds of that time associated with academic institutions where a few years earlier I would have encountered the music at least every couple of years.

I do know that many classical musicians (friends and acquaitances) breathed a collective sigh of relief when much of this music was shelved, and some of the composers that wrote it passed away.

[AntonVonWebern]

My prediction re what I call 'experimental' composers. (What term do YOU fancy-aleatoric, conceptual, whatever) is speculation.
I do know that many classical musicians (friends and acquaitances) breathed a collective sigh of relief when much of this music was shelved, and some of the composers that wrote it passed away.

Experimental and Aleatoric and Conceptual are certainly not synonymous terms, I am not going to waste time explaining this as you probably are not interested or you would have learned the differences already (look it up if you are, plenty of information on the web about this stuff).

Re the idea that much of this music was shelved, I think you and your friends are living in a dream world, perhaps it's called Hawaii?.

The music of 20th century is just getting going in some respects as I detailed earlier (see previous post). At least this is the case in the UK anyway with continental Europe being somewhat more diverse anyway I think, I presume the more built up areas of the US are similar to the UK but i'm not sure as I don't live there. Also Japan and China are not unfriendly to 20th century music. I think you are seeing what you want to see.

[hakukani]

My prediction re what I call 'experimental' composers. (What term do YOU fancy-aleatoric, conceptual, whatever) is speculation.
I do know that many classical musicians (friends and acquaitances) breathed a collective sigh of relief when much of this music was shelved, and some of the composers that wrote it passed away.

Experimental and Aleatoric and Conceptual are certainly not synonymous terms, I am not going to waste time explaining this as you probably are not interested or you would have learned the differences already (look it up if you are, plenty of information on the web about this stuff).

Re the idea that much of this music was shelved, I think you and your friends are living in a dream world, perhaps it's called Hawaii?.

The music of 20th century is just getting going in some respects as I detailed earlier (see previous post). At least this is the case in the UK anyway with continental Europe being somewhat more diverse anyway I think, I presume the more built up areas of the US are similar to the UK but i'm not sure as I don't live there. Also Japan and China are not unfriendly to 20th century music. I think you are seeing what you want to see.

Is there a Babbitt, Cage, or Feldman, or Xenakis festival going on somewhere in Europe?

I was truly hoping that the world was moving away from what my friends term 'bleet flot' music. Music that,could be a bunch of skilled musicians just getting together and improvising. Much of it is music

[AntonVonWebern]

Recent stuff which comes to mind....

Stockhausen Total Immersion Day at London's Barbican
http://www.barbican.org.uk/film/series.asp?id=557

Same for Xenakis very recently (a nearly 2 hour concert was broadcast on the BBC also)
http://www.barbican.org.uk/music/event-detail.asp?ID=7448

Both events got lots of mainstream music national press (most favourable)

Elliott Carter at Tanglewood...
http://www.bso.org/bso/mods/c_01_gen_images.jsp?id=30400051

The 2008 Festival of Contemporary Music (FCM) will celebrate the centenary of legendary composer Elliott Carter. Born in 1908, Mr. Carter – who is expected to attend the Festival – is internationally recognized as one of the leading American voices in the classical music tradition. There will be three orchestral programs, one performed by the TMCO and, for the first time in the Festival’s history, a complete FCM program performed by the BSO.

Also, Ligeti was BBC composer of the week last week, a one hour programme every day on him on Radio 3, also in the last Proms season there was quite a lot of Carter and lots of Messiaen and some Varese amongst other 'difficult' things.

Thats just the UK and US off the top of my head. It's not a question of people moving towards or away from 20th century music as if it's some political power struggle or a monotheistic fashion thing, it's about realising the diversity of the tradition and maintaining and adding to the repertoire, singular, linear notions of 'progress' or 'regression' don't apply, there is no line back and forward, the post-modern condition if you will.

Also consider that Alex Ross's book about 20th century music is a best seller I think, sold over 100,000 in the US alone and it won lots of mainstream awards and got lots of press, 20th century music is alive and well in all its forms.

You'll just have to accept the fact that people like music you don't and music you don't like is considered important and worthwhile, that's life. Fatuous reductionist remarks about it being 'bleep flot' music or something people could improvise only underline the redundant nature of your opinion on this issue. it's not really worth discussing it.

[hakukani]

You misunderstand me. I was speaking mostly of ultra-serialist composers. I loathe the whole idea of composing by strict algorithm. There will always be those around that like Xenakis. I don't. I understand that it's a matter of taste. I just find his music too full of anger.

Of the 'stochastic' (not my word) composers, I quite enjoy Lutoslowski, Penderecki, and Ligeti.

Stockhausen---especially his work with voice like Sirius and Stimmung.

I particularly enjoy Carter, Berio, Ligeti, and George Crumb's work. I like Walter Mays's work, most of the time. My favorite 20th century composer is Messiean.

Feldman I can do without, but it's not a violent rejection, just don't care for it. At least Cage had a sense of humor.

There were a more people writing the music at the time that was just as good or better than other serialists, that don't get any press.

But you're right. I can't show you what I mean. It's quite complicated and difficult to explain without writing a book about my personal experiences over the years with the music.

BTW, Alex Ross's book may have been a best seller, but hooboy, there were a ton of problems with it. He talks about tritones as if they were invented in the 20th century, and not in every dominant 7 chord, waiting to be resolved. Plus I really hate that 'gosh, if only you'd study and listen, you, too, might become part of the elite appreciators of 20th century music' attitude.

[Joey the Saint]

"Rests are Imaginary" would be a good name for an album title.

So would "Release the Penguins."

[saxjd]

Finale and LSD. A bad combination.

[AntonVonWebern]

You misunderstand me. I was speaking mostly of ultra-serialist composers. I loathe the whole idea of composing by strict algorithm. There will always be those around that like Xenakis. I don't. I understand that it's a matter of taste. I just find his music too full of anger.

Of the 'stochastic' (not my word) composers, I quite enjoy Lutoslowski, Penderecki, and Ligeti.

Stockhausen---especially his work with voice like Sirius and Stimmung.

I particularly enjoy Carter, Berio, Ligeti, and George Crumb's work. I like Walter Mays's work, most of the time. My favorite 20th century composer is Messiean.

Feldman I can do without, but it's not a violent rejection, just don't care for it. At least Cage had a sense of humor.

There were a more people writing the music at the time that was just as good or better than other serialists, that don't get any press.

But you're right. I can't show you what I mean. It's quite complicated and difficult to explain without writing a book about my personal experiences over the years with the music.

BTW, Alex Ross's book may have been a best seller, but hooboy, there were a ton of problems with it. He talks about tritones as if they were invented in the 20th century, and not in every dominant 7 chord, waiting to be resolved. Plus I really hate that 'gosh, if only you'd study and listen, you, too, might become part of the elite appreciators of 20th century music' attitude.

Penderecki, Ligeti and Lutoslawski are not stochastic composers. It was Xenakis's technique, it means he composed using probability and statistics in some of his compositions (put in very basic terms.)

The other composers you mentioned, Penderecki in some of his earlier work, e.g. Threnody used a graphic scoring method more or less (on the way toward it anyway), he didn't use probability or statistics.

Ligeti in his similarish sounding compositions from the late 50s to early 70s (ish) used 'micropolyphony', it was precisely scored (lots of instruments playing contrasting rhythms, often layering tuplets of various sizes) and was not composed using statistical methods or with probablility.

Lutoslawski used a technique he called 'ad libitum' (later referred to by analysts and musicologists as 'limited'/'controlled aletoricism.) Sections of the music or layers of it were not conducted, the perfomers play in their own time and the conductor cues them in and out or in some cases like his string quartet, other musical cues are used, he started doing this from 1961 onwards (started with Jeux Venitiens.) Again, not stochastic (read up on what the aleatoric, indeterminacy, and stochastic mean, all different things, unsurprisingly)

There is and was no such school or group known as the 'stochastic composers' and if there were it would certainly not refer to Lutoslawski, Penderecki and Ligeti.

You claim that all along you were referring to ultra-serialist composers, that isn't the case looking at your previous posts (and mine in response)

However, lets pretend you were, Xenakis was certainly not a serialist and should not be mentioned in the same context as Milton Babbitt for instance, he was against or outside that school entirely and wrote some 'classic' texts on the subject (later to be included in Formalized Music).

Ironically, your 'favourite' composer of the 20th century did compose 'serialist' music, or rather a significant pre-cursor, a piece called 'Mode de valeurs et d'intensités', one of the first pieces to serialise parameters other than just pitch, he didn't intend to create some sort of school of composition based on that technique and he didn't think of it as 'total serialism' but it was influential, amongst his students for instance (Boulez and Stockhausen most notably perhaps.)

Another composer you like also composed serial music and was one of it's most ardent propagandists for a time, Stockhausen. Some of his most famous works are serial in design, Gruppen, Kontakte, and Gesang der Jünglinge to name three. Stimmung is also a serial piece btw.

It seems, in generous terms, you are somewhat confused about the history, theory and technique, to put it more bluntly, you are ignorant of it yet seem keen to blather on about it anyway.

Also, your assertion about 'atonality' is not a thesis, or rather you haven't presented it, can you do so? (for instance, how is Ligeti's post-Hungary music tonal?, his most famous compositions for instance, where is the tonic?, where are the tonal functions?, where are the cadences?)

[Carl H.]

It seems, in generous terms, you are somewhat confused about the history, theory and technique, to put it more bluntly, you are ignorant of it yet seem keen to blather on about it anyway.


Yup, this is why I don't care for the stuff.:evil:

[hakukani]

Any composer that uses non-determinate techniques, regardless of their basis in probability theory, statistical techniques, chaos theory, or plain chance can be said to be stochastic. The definition of a stochastic process is that it is non-deterministic. The word is derived from the Greek word for Random. It's associated with Xenakis because that is the word he used to describe his compositional technique. Once again, you have defined a term especially for your 'argument'.

I am not against using any technique for composition, whether throwing bones or generating random numbers. What I'm against (and I think you'll find most composers are clear about this) is when a composer lets the process, or the technique become the composition.

You are obviously deeper into the compositional techniques used by the composer in a piece. I'm not. The sound of the piece is important to me, not the compositional technique, or how it looks on the page. It's a purposeful ignorance. I'd rather play or write music than discuss the minutiae. I'm also not into the musicologists habit of putting composers in pigeon holes.

Concerning tonality: if you think that a composition must have classic cadences, and a 'tonic', then that's a very limited concept of tonality, and wouldn't even work with Wagner or early Schoenberg. Every time you play a note on an instrument that has harmonically related overtones. If the fundamental is not present, your ear will 'hear' it. That's been proven by experiment. (The most common example is timpani. The fundamental is not present).

Messiaen was very much affected by what he heard in his environment. His harmony is often dense, but he heard the higher harmonics (11 and above), and often orchestrated them so that they were brought out, or even transposed down octaves. I don't have any 'proof' 'yet, other than my own ear. But then, I'm not worried about writing a dissertation, either.

Now I didn't learn that in a class, or by reading about him in a journal article or textbook, or analyzing a score. I learned that by listening to his music.

I strongly believe that if a person has to have the music explained to him before he can begin to appreciate the music, then the composition has failed. That's not to say that music cannot be appreciated more fully by study, or knowledge of form and analysis techniques, but still, if an explanation is necessary, the composition has failed.

[AntonVonWebern]

Any composer that uses non-determinate techniques, regardless of their basis in probability theory, statistical techniques, chaos theory, or plain chance can be said to be stochastic. The definition of a stochastic process is that it is non-deterministic. The word is derived from the Greek word for Random. It's associated with Xenakis because that is the word he used to describe his compositional technique. Once again, you have defined a term especially for your 'argument'.

I am not against using any technique for composition, whether throwing bones or generating random numbers. What I'm against (and I think you'll find most composers are clear about this) is when a composer lets the process, or the technique become the composition.

You are obviously deeper into the compositional techniques used by the composer in a piece. I'm not. The sound of the piece is important to me, not the compositional technique, or how it looks on the page. It's a purposeful ignorance. I'd rather play or write music than discuss the minutiae. I'm also not into the musicologists habit of putting composers in pigeon holes.

Concerning tonality: if you think that a composition must have classic cadences, and a 'tonic', then that's a very limited concept of tonality, and wouldn't even work with Wagner or early Schoenberg. Every time you play a note on an instrument that has harmonically related overtones. If the fundamental is not present, your ear will 'hear' it. That's been proven by experiment. (The most common example is timpani. The fundamental is not present).

Messiaen was very much affected by what he heard in his environment. His harmony is often dense, but he heard the higher harmonics (11 and above), and often orchestrated them so that they were brought out, or even transposed down octaves. I don't have any 'proof' 'yet, other than my own ear. But then, I'm not worried about writing a dissertation, either.

Now I didn't learn that in a class, or by reading about him in a journal article or textbook, or analyzing a score. I learned that by listening to his music.

I strongly believe that if a person has to have the music explained to him before he can begin to appreciate the music, then the composition has failed. That's not to say that music cannot be appreciated more fully by study, or knowledge of form and analysis techniques, but still, if an explanation is necessary, the composition has failed.

Re Stochastic music, no, not 'plain' or 'pure' chance or 'random' (regardless of the Greek origin or root).

Read a definition...


A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic in that a system's subsequent state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. Stochastic crafts are complex systems whose practitioners, even if complete experts, acknowledge that outcomes result from both known and unknown causes. (my bold and italics)

In music (the topic of this discussion), the terms I presented in my previous post refer to different things and different schools of thought (stochastic, indeterminate, aleatoric.)

Xenakis was the only real 'stochastic' composer (who used that description), he brought the term into music from mathematics, with a specific meaning. See the Wiki about stochastic music (and don't give me any spiel about Wiki being unreliable, if you don't agree with the definition, edit it and argue your case with the person who wrote it, see how far you get, not very would be a reasonable prediction, and/or provide me with a link to another accepted definition you agree with)


In music, stochastic elements are randomly generated elements created by strict mathematical processes (my bold).

Stochastic processes can be used in music to compose a fixed piece or can be produced in performance. Stochastic music was pioneered by Iannis Xenakis, who used probability, game theory, group theory, set theory, and Boolean algebra, and frequently used computers to produce his scores. Earlier, John Cage and others had composed aleatoric or indeterminate music, which is created by chance processes but does not have the strict mathematical basis (Cage's Music of Changes, for example, uses a system of charts based on the I-Ching).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic

None of the composers you mentioned are 'stochastic' composers, those who used some chance elements or aleatoric structures did not plan them using mathematical processes (and Ligeti didn't even use any sort of chance in his main works at all, only some compromises like saying that some of the pitches in some of his vocal works could be 'approximate', because the singers found it too difficult to perform any other way. His piece for 100 metronomes uses chance also I suppose but that is something of a unique and ironic/conceptual piece in his catalogue, not representative of the his real compositional technique in terms of the control applied)

So 'once again you have defined a term specifically for my argument' is also demonstrably false (a projection infact, it's you who is trying to shoehorn music into a category to which it does not belong, to try and cover over your previous gaffe, not smart)

I have no problem with you not knowing or understanding contemporary composition and still liking it anyway (or not), that's fine (obviously, I never claimed otherwise), in future try to discuss the subject in that spirit (i.e. don't talk about the subject as if you know what you are talking about, you end up making lots of mistakes and you misrepresent the music to readers and you waste the time of people who do understand it, just like arguing with a metals or acoustics expert about the influence of lacquer on tone, or that attaching a pair of underpants to your crook does wonders for your tone, etc etc)

Regards your strange ideas about tonality, you are right that I have a specific idea about it, look it up (you'll see my definition accords with the one in any musical dictionary.) You are talking about the harmonic structure of tones, in which case the term aharmonic would be the analogue of atonal I suppose (or more correctly, in would be, 'inharmonic', the word already exists.)

I have not studied acoustics much but I know this, all music would be tonal in that case, except for that made by instruments with an inharmonic spectrum (like a bell or a drum), however, confusingly in your 'world' music could be atonal (lacking a normal harmonic spectrum) and still be tonal (it could be bell ringing for instance in a major key).

Are you suggesting we replace the term 'tonal' for something else to avoid further confusion? (so tonal becomes a reference to harmonic structure, and what used to be tonal becomes what exactly?.)

It's a bizarre idea, we already have terms to discuss the spectral content of music, it doesn't need redefining (suggest why).

Another term is used in post-war music theory to discuss music which is atonal or non-tonal (lacks a tonic, cadences and diatonic harmonic functions) but does have a sort of hiararchy of pitches, or rather, a pitch of central importance, is the term is 'centricity' (or variations on that theme), some of Bartok's music is analysed like this, as is some of Ligeti's (Bartok sometimes used symmetrical pitch structures, around an axis which functioned a bit like a traditional tonic.)

Strictly speaking, modal music is not tonal, nor is any harmony not using the major/minor diatonic system. However, any music which uses triad chords and has resolutions or cadences of some sort is normally described as 'tonal' (even it it's modal, or uses the whole tone scale or penatonic scale etc). It's not an entirely clear concept around the edges as with many things. Again, read the definition of tonality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonality


Tonality is a system of music in which specific hierarchical pitch relationships are based on a key "center" or tonic. The term tonalité originated with Alexandre-Étienne Choron (1810) and was borrowed by François-Joseph Fétis in 1840 (Reti, 1958; Simms 1975, 119; Judd, 1998; Dahlhaus 1990). Although Fétis used it as a general term for a system of musical organization and spoke of types de tonalités rather than a single system, today the term is most often used to refer to Major-Minor tonality (also called diatonic tonality, common practice tonality, or functional tonality), the system of musical organization of the common practice period, and of Western-influenced popular music throughout much of the world today.

And atonality while you are brushing up on this stuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonality

So, as per the dictionary definitions (and those used by most musicians who have studied the matter). There is 'atonal' or 'non-tonal' music, and it has nothing to do with the harmonic spectrum, that is a (related) different issue.

(re the stuff about what makes a 'good' composition and the guff about 'explanation', I have no idea why you think that relevant here, not to mention why you think anyone should care about your personal criteria for a 'good' piece)

[hakukani]

"A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic in that a system's subsequent state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. Stochastic crafts are complex systems whose practitioners, even if complete experts, acknowledge that outcomes result from both known and unknown causes

OK, I'll take your definition here, even though I don't quite agree with it.

All music has the same 'predictable action', and that is to move forward through time. It's the only absolute in music. The random element can be supplied several ways. The only part needed to make it a stochastic process is the random element.

and yes, in my world all music is tonal. You explained it perfectly. Thank you.

The last part of your post was merely pedantic. I would certainly consider modal music tonal. In your model, monophonic music would not be tonal.

[G Sharp]

Remove cattle from stage? Hehe, wow.