Jump to content

Nirvana69

Old Members
  • Content Count

    2,254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Nirvana69

  1. Who is Barihunk?

  2. that awkward moment when someone implies there are 'rules' in sonata-allegro form.
  3. Yeah, here's hoping that in the four and a half years since you first made this thread, you've managed to figure out basic transposition instruments. Good luck!
  4. Uh, why has no one here said the blatantly obvious in this thread? This question is basically unanswerable without knowing what exactly you're writing. Four chords is more than enough in your average pop song or quasi-minimalist piece but probably nowhere near enough in a Romantic symphony. More than that, it also depends how often there are harmonic changes. It should be fairly obvious to say that piece with a harmonic rhythm so slow that four chords take four minutes is probably going to need less total chords than a piece with a harmonic rhythm so fast that four chords happen in 5 seconds. Hell, I tend to write whole sections of pieces where it's not even appropriate to really talk about 'chords' so much as it is macroharmony and if you want to reduce that to chords, then I write pieces with only three-four chords. Without a stylistic context, this whole thread just become irrelevant.
  5. There's a difference between having an opinion and making demonstrably false claims to support an opinion especially when one uses vaguely defined terms in the guise of a reason. He can think however he wants about Berg. But there's quite a difference between saying 'I prefer Schoenberg and Webern's music to Berg's' to 'Berg wasn't as innovative/was more traditional' since these things can be argued on a more empirical level. And it's my opinion that his claims are demonstrably false; something that I've backed up with way more evidence then he has yet to provide me with. Any reason I gave can be argued on an empirical level and I feel this gives more support to my position. yes, he ultimately can have whatever opinion he wants for whatever reason he wants. But if all he has is vaguely-defined rhetoric then there's no reason anyone else should take his opinion seriously besides him. Not all opinions/beliefs are 'equal.' And music being an 'abstract art form' does not make it exempt from rational discussion.
  6. You'd have to define 'the very roots' of the 'approach to composition in Western music' then because it was my point that Schoenberg didn't do that either. Schoenberg still employed traditional forms. Schoenberg still made us of standard motivic development practices. Schoenberg still approached orchestration largely traditionally (the third piece of the Five Piece for Orchestra being a notable exception.) And really, Schoenberg's twelve-tone system as he described it is just a different manifestation of the Fugue Principle which has been around for hundreds of years. There's hardly anything 'entirely new' about Schoenberg's system at all honestly. About the most radical departure was the full rejection of voice-leading tendencies and the consistent saturation of the full chromatic in the macroharmony. You haven't provided any empirical data to support any of your claims. All you do is hide behind vague, arbitrary criteria that you can just shift at a moment's notice. You accused Berg of not being an innovator and 'not doing anything new with Schoenberg's system' or something to that effect. I provided more than enough provable information (as in things that can be argued over on an empirical level) to prove that statement wrong. Berg was just as 'innovative' as Schoenberg or Webern. And unless you can better define your terms and make claims on an empirical level, then there's no reason I, or anyone else, should take them seriously.
  7. I can't tell if you're talking about me or Composer Phil.
  8. Because all invention isn't essentially the result of combining two things that 'already exist.' Because Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique in the first place isn't really more than combining the Fugue Mentality (a compositional principle which has pervaded Western art music's thought for hundreds of years) with Late Romanticism's increased emphasis on chromaticism and tonality that no longer functions as such. Because all Berg ever did was 'combine' serialism with a late-romantic style. It's not as if he both composed the single most late-Wagnerian opera of all time (Wozzeck) as well the complete antithesis which is arguably one of the earliest harbingers of post-modernism (Lulu.) It's not as if Berg was actually the first to tackle the idea of large-scale instrumental form whereas Schoenberg and Webern were cat-footing around with directionless miniatures and explicitly programmatic texts in their 'free atonal' periods. It's not as if Berg demonstrates several post-modern tendencies such as the 'atonal' quartal chord which appears in the piano sonata; a three note triad that eventually builds up to a six note, functionless chord using traditional voice leading techniques (subverting a system by exploiting the flaws and corrupting it from the inside out; a technique that predated neoclassical Stravinsky by about 20 years.) It's not as if Berg was developed rigid numerical structures based on abstract numerology which predates most attempts by any other composer (Messiaen and Bartok being two of the most notorious) which actually became a gigantic fetish in Euroean high Modernism. It's not as if Berg frequently exploited loopholes in 'classical' molds which ultimately end up corrupting the very integrity of the form from the inside out. It's not as if Berg didn't have his own idiosyncratic twelve-tone technique which involved the use of free rotations, welding multiple row permutations together, an almost strict avoidance of any retrograde forms, and the technique of using several interrelated tone rows rather than a single row (techniques which Schoenberg and Webern almost never made use of) nor did he ever have any other innovations such as 'character rhythms' (a rhythmic leitmotif technique which is notable for privileging rhythmic contour rather than pitch as the motive was often treated previously in Western art music which, while rudimentary, predates part of Messiaen's rhythmic techique) Anyway, you obviously know what you're talking about in dismissing Berg as inferior because he 'only combined two things' rather than actually 'invented' anything. You most certainly aren't full of scraggy.
  9. I dunno. Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Schoenberg, a great majority of composers once the 20th century started and tonality dissolved as a primary (and convenient) means of structural articulation and cohesion(though that arguably happened in the late 19th century but w/e.) Perhaps you've heard of some of them? They wrote some cool stuff.
  10. A good rule of thumb is generally the *less* ideas you have in a composition, the longer you can sustain interest and creativity.
  11. Don't listen to all the haters, Mercurious209 . I love your idea and I'm with you 100%. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help! :)
  12. I had a longer message typed but it ended up going out on a tangent regarding general philosophy of music and how I think there will be a fundamental tension between us because of it. In the interest of not wanting to derail this thread, I'll try to keep things as concise and on-topic as possible. I'll concede that there are some pieces in which 'polytonality' is justified. Many of the stereotypical 'polytonal' pieces that I know of, however, do not justify this label at all and, to the best of my knowledge, I've never encountered a piece where the label was justified. Of course, this could be my own ignorance and I can still respect the theoretical possibility of what you're saying. That being said, I still feel there's a flaw in the term. That is, it privileges only horizontal relations without any regards global vertical structuring (between the various axises.) This gets to be a problem for various reasons. I had a whole list of them typed out but I feel the most pervasive is one of perception. If you're going to write a piece with independent, tonally governed axises, you're likely going to have to resort to some mean of vertical structuring which will govern the relations between them. Otherwise, the term allows for so much ambiguity that, even while writing under completely sound horizontal logic, the result could be a incomprehensible, incoherent mess. It is very likely the composer (even if not entirely consciously) will still resort to some global structuring between the various layers. And while this isn't a big enough flaw in itself to discount the use the term 'polytonality,' I think it should largely be qualified with references to how the global harmony between layers is structured. But again, there is also the question: If the harmonic materials reach such a complexity that any impression of a tonal center in the individual layers becomes lost, then what exactly is the point of writing with functional tonality whatsoever? Functional tonality is written under the assumption that a tonic is the 'goal' (ideally) and when you reach such density of information that the tonic no longer becomes perceptible, then really, you may as well not be writing functionally anyway since, obviously, whatever is controlling the harmony isn't traditional function. It's the same problem Schoenberg ran into with writing his late tonal pieces. Writing in layers of even perfectly defined, simple functional harmony is going to guarantee no consistency of sound in terms of larger structure and if the result remains consistent or logical at all, it's likely going to adhere to different means of structuring with the 'polytonality' being merely a means to the end (but far from the only.) Unless, of course, you believe in the absolute integrity of purely horizontal listening.
  13. Well, I don't even really believe 'bitonality' exists. At least, in any sense that it would be justified being called under that label. And if even the superimposition of two keys isn't possible, then I don't see how it'd be possible to superimpose anymore than that and do anything that could be justified having the label 'tonality' in it. Given the context in which he is talking, I think it's a fairly safe definition (if somewhat ambiguous in practice) to define tonality as a system of pitch hierarchies whereby the full chromatic is all related functionally to a central tone. It's been my experience that a superimposition of any two keys (even in very simple functional contexts) does not work at all at producing the effect of tonality. One of two things tends to happen: Either one key is allowed to dominate and that is heard as the fundamental tonic ultimate (i.e. the Rite of Spring where even blatant juxtapositions of keys do still yield a prevailing tonal center) or, by the own complexity of the material and saturation of the full chromatic, essentially comes out sounding without any prominent center whatsoever; a lot of Ligeti comes to mind. Not to mention that, in most famous cases of 'polytonality' that I'm aware of, all of the harmonic materials tend to be controlled by an external mode that allows for implications of multiple keys; the octatonic mode being the most popular example which helped to control a lot of Bartok's and Stravinsky's 'bitonality' Plus, because of the complexity of a lot of the harmonic aggregates as a result of the juxtaposition of multiple keys, there tends to be an obligation to keep the contrapuntal layers restricted entirely to the diatonic notes of that key. In effect, I think this really should be called 'polymodality' since I think it gives a more accurate description of the effect and processes involved. I've yet to hear a single, convincingly function 'bitonal' piece of music. And I know the term's relevance whatsoever has been contested by more than a few musicologists.
  14. Writing in bitonality is kind of tough given it doesn't exist and all.
  15. Reminder: I'm pretty hot

    1. Magna Carta

      Magna Carta

      gently caress you!

  16. A pwn to literally every single piece posted by every single person here:
  17. To echo what SSC said, there is really nothing that is intrinsically 'good' or intrinsically 'bad.' To be so black and white about anything shows a severe lack of thinking and rather naive approach to the world. This applies to music as well it does anything else. And when you keep in mind that all value judgments are subjective anyway, it becomes even harder to speak on whether music is 'good' or 'bad' because it'll vary with every individual. In short, there's really nothing to discuss here. Now, if this were a thread about the role music has played through various cultures in the world and their views on its ethic and aesthetic values, then that might be interesting. In most cultures dominated by Islam, music has kind of an ambivalent role due to a disagreement over the few vague verses in the Quaran that mention music. Some Muslims believe it is evil, some Muslims believe that it's fine so long as it stays separate from their sacred music, and some embrace it wholeheartedly. Then, of course, it's played a significant role to many philosophers throughout the ages. Plato considered music to be a mirror of society and that it could influence the moral character of its citizens. Thus, he opposed change in music as this would mean a reform in government would be soon to follow. Then, you have someone like Schopenhauer who basically said that there was no point in living life if music wasn't part of it. Going further in time, you have someone like Baudrilliard who contends that music (along with art in general) has basically become useless since the post-modernism of the 50s. If anything and everything can be accepted as art, then where's left to go? What's the point in still having it around? Anthropologically speaking, there is no point. And of course, you can look to the status its played in theology and other mystical circles, etc. But of course, this thread isn't about that.
  18. Yeah, you're clearly missing the point. But it'd be a waste of time to try and explain it again since at least three people have explained it in as about plain English as possible. But you're totally right. ligeti is way over-used. I know I get so tired of hearing this in every romantic comedy Or this in every damn Hollywood action blockbuster http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1Xj6ULZcHA And how many tearjerkers have we hear this in? ligeti was such a loving sell-out, man. On an unrelated note, this has become so cliche for movies that I can't even stand to listen to it anymore. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rTCRPSh6Gc&feature=related
  19. Coincidentally, I have a few friends with perfect pitch who can discern the pitch of 'indeterminately pitched' instruments. I've ever gone so far as to knock on various surfaces and objects and asked the pitch. Granted, I don't have perfect pitch so I'd have no idea if they were telling the truth but given the certainty and speed they can give me when I play notes on the keyboard, I'm guessing they're probably right. So, even 'indeterminate pitch' is a bit of a misnomer.
  20. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=QWF3mBdWvyQ I think this would work very well transcribed for a brass ensemble. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=6KD39Vt7VFk This too.
  21. Yes, I know that there is plenty of 'rule breaking' even in 'common practice.' That's why I added 'with common practice *maybe*' To be honest, I was just trying to give him a bit of a break since I've had a few critical replies to him in the past and I feel bad that I may be bullying a 10 (11?) year old. He said something that is sorta right-ish so I over-generalized. Of course, common practice music isn't based on 'one note' I mean, I can't think of too many pieces from even the Classical era that don't at least modulate to the dominant at some point. And of course, sonata-form is largely based around contrasting key areas and harmonic polarity. And of course, while you did have many composers who used the major and minor modes of a single note interchangably, you also have people like Schumann who wrote music where the major and relative minor interchangably. Same collection of notes but different centers. Hard to say that's based on 'one note' at all so much as a harmonic field. EDIT And though I can't speak for SSC, I think what his problem with 'tonal centers' are is not whether or not they exist but how difficult the term really is to define. I gave plenty of examples in one of my previous posts about music that uses a single pitch as a point of structural reference but really can't be considered 'tonal.' At least, not unless you broaden 'tonality' to such a broad sense that the term basically becomes useless anyway. I mean, sure, I guess 'tonality' and 'atonality' exist but each define such a broad spectrum of music that really doesn't tell you much about the actual music at all that... what's the point? You can't be told that a piece is 'atonal' and have any idea of what to expect about what it is going to be. It also becomes a dangerous term precisely because kids will hear a few 20th century pieces they don't understand, hear that it's 'atonal', and develop a bias against the term 'atonal' itself rather than any specific music. Then, of course, you get kids who don't even have any idea about what 'atonality' even is and it becomes even more of a problem.
  22. Okay, so Tokke was even too nice on you. I'm going to say this clearly and as directly as I can because apparently, people have been way too nice to you on this forum and while I'm in full support of a constructive learning environment, sometimes harsh criticism is necessary. Every single word of what you've just typed is wrong and/or misguided. Stop trying to sound like you know what you're talking about because you don't. At all. A few point by points 'Atonal is something in which a piece does not "lean" twords or based on a note (editing my first comment) and also, atonal has no real basis of what chords you should or should not use, or any form needed or any order, ect.' Uh, nope. Atonality generally is charged with the task of remaining harmonically consistent just as tonality is. Granted, the pitch materials atonal pieces may be based on are generally less 'stable' and more 'dissonant' (in the common practice stance) but it's rare to find atonal pieces that do not maintain consistency in harmonic procedures. Hell, by how you word this, are you even familiar with serialism? 'Tonal music has a form, rules, and leans to or is based on one note.' Common-practice tonality maybe but, even in such hierarchies, there is plenty of room for freedom. Once again, compare Bach to Haydn to Schumann to early to mid Scriabin and you won't find a whole lot in common with any of them. There are some underlying principles (the V - I relationship which itself became more implicit than explicit as tonality progressed) but this is so vague and quite honestly, many atonal pieces follow much more strict 'forms' and 'rules' Again, see serialism. 'If you were to say something about composers that are "tonal" or "atonal" or somewhat in the middle, here are a few: Tonal: Mozart Bach' As Tokke said, these are pretty dubious examples. Bach wrote some of the most dissonant music of the entire common-practice period (his Musical Offering uses a subject that is practically a tone row) and Mozart was one of the first to experiment with whole tone scales and bi-tonality (granted, it was meant to be in a humorous context but that's besides the point). Not to mention, the famous Dissonance Quartet opening which, while I believe still remains 'tonal', only loosely so. 'Atonal: Messian Stravinsky' Uh, no. Of all the possible 20th century composers you chose, you chose two of the absolute worst examples. Seriously, this proves you have no idea what 'atonality' even is. Stravinsky didn't write 'atonal' music until very late in his career and given that it's not very popular (for good reason in my opinion), I'm guessing you're referring to the early Russian period with stuff like The Rite of Spring and Petrushka. And dear god... I don't even know where to begin if you think The Rite of Spring is 'atonal.' As for Messiaen, again, no. For one thing, he's one of the few 20th century composers I know to still write (some) pieces in key signatures. Messiaen never completely rejected tonality. He used a lot of 'colorful' dissonance, sure that was largely derived from the modes of limited transposition (which, of course, were scales far removed from the diatonic modes). But he managed to implement their usages into tonal contexts for the most part. There's very little by Messiaen that I think you can really call 'atonal' Honestly, I can't think of anything off the top of my head but I'm not overly familiar with his music. Seriously, how do you manage to choose these two composers over say... Webern, Berio, Varese, Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Ferneyhough, ligeti, Cage, or Feldman to name a few. Though, to be fair, I'm not sure if Berio or ligeti can even really be counted as 'atonal' composers but they'd still be better examples for your case. Just... please. Stop pretending to have some sort of authority on concepts you seem to have very little of a grasp on.
  23. Double dotted quarter note in a quintuplet. EDIT I had to write that in because that's not one of the options on the poll. What kind of poll is this?!
×
×
  • Create New...