Notes in music?

Started by some guy, May 30, 2019, 11:22:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

premont

#180
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 05, 2019, 07:59:40 AM
I agree: I affix titles to my music because I am a failure as a composer.

Maybe you were ironic, but:

Is it a failure to compose music without a specific meaning??

Is it possible to compose music with a specific meaning at all??

I think music, which can be interpreted in different ways, is much more interesting and enriching.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Pat B

Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on June 07, 2019, 01:12:25 PM
This was old-school. Probably 1960 vintage.

Looked like this:



Unlike the set shown, I think the snare was matching silver sparkle (i.e., wood construction).

Well, that was a nice choice. :)

premont

#182
Quote from: Clever Hans on June 06, 2019, 08:53:35 AM
Right, and when a composer puts something to score or in film scoring these days to a piano roll midi notation, they are often trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, because all musical notation is insufficient in capturing an individual interpretation as played or thought by the composer (often not the same thing if the composer is not a good piano player), or it is a bit of a bad and rigid influence, like mensural notation or a modern midi sequencer that requires bandaid solutions like tempo automation.

Composers more often than performers constantly change the way their music should be played in more fundamental ways, like changing the meter, because they are not sure which is best for lines they have written, like once they add percussion and so on. Composers always have the license to do this, but sometimes performers do this very successfully if they are covering or transcribing a piece of music.

The problem of notation is why the expression maps in Cubase and articulation marks are so popular for vst sampled instruments. The composer there is pulled in two ways away from direct communication with the listener of the musical piece from the mind. You have to get the software to get an approximation of human performers so it doesn't sound flat when played back, but then if budget allows you have to adjust the score so it can actually be played by hired human musicians (French horn is a good example), and you are still not really capturing the music as it sounded in your head, you are working within limitations and constantly reminded of them.

Btw hope you are doing well :)

Hello, Joe, a nice surprise to meet you again here. :) Yes, considering the circumstances I am still doing well, and I hope that you are doing well too.

My post above was most about traditional musical notation, and it is obvious, that the shortcoming of this as to more precise indications invites to a large number of  individual interpretations. But I think this is a strength, - because if we knew in microdetails, what the composer wanted, the performers role would vanish, and interpretations would be repetitive and monotone and in the end boring.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Ghost of Baron Scarpia

Quote from: Pat B on June 07, 2019, 01:34:41 PM
Well, that was a nice choice. :)

Pure luck. My father bought it off a business associate, Seth Alpert, who was Herb Alpert's cousin (the Tijuana Brass guy). I think I've told this story a dozen times here. :)

DaveF

This is a great thread, even better for straying into pictures of vintage Ludwig drum kits.  But reading the original post carefully, I don't think the OP is denying that music has emotional content (he says "without getting into the merits of that view", i.e. it's not the question he's currently discussing), nor that it has the power to cause emotional reactions (in fact "that power must surely go without saying").  He seems to be asking whether it's possibly to hear music without adding anything of our own, merely to experience the tones as pure sound.  To which I can only add: I don't experience music like that, but my dog does (although he's a big Classic FM fan, while I incline towards BBC Radio 3, which indicates a huge gulf in taste between us).
"All the world is birthday cake" - George Harrison

San Antone

Quote from: DaveF on June 07, 2019, 02:07:33 PM
This is a great thread, even better for straying into pictures of vintage Ludwig drum kits.  But reading the original post carefully, I don't think the OP is denying that music has emotional content (he says "without getting into the merits of that view", i.e. it's not the question he's currently discussing), nor that it has the power to cause emotional reactions (in fact "that power must surely go without saying").  He seems to be asking whether it's possibly to hear music without adding anything of our own, merely to experience the tones as pure sound.  To which I can only add: I don't experience music like that, but my dog does (although he's a big Classic FM fan, while I incline towards BBC Radio 3, which indicates a huge gulf in taste between us).

I've asked some guy twice to explain how that is done, i.e. listen to music as musical information only, sans any emotional or expressive associations.  He has chosen to ignore my question.

Karl Henning

Quote from: (: premont :) on June 07, 2019, 01:21:25 PM
Maybe you were ironic, but:

Is it a failure to compose music without a specific meaning??

Is it possible to compose music with a specific meaning at all??

I think music, which can be interpreted in different ways, is much more interesting and enriching.

Thank you, you tuned me in crystal clear!
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Ghost of Baron Scarpia

Quote from: San Antone on June 07, 2019, 03:00:15 PM
I've asked some guy twice to explain how that is done, i.e. listen to music as musical information only, sans any emotional or expressive associations.  He has chosen to ignore my question.

I will presume to quote some guy.

QuoteBut one thing seems pretty standard here at GMG (and almost everywhere else, for that matter), and that is that music has emotional content. Without getting into the merits of that view, though if that happens it happens, I'm more interested in the moment in finding out if anyone at GMG listens to music itself, without having to turn it into something else. Sure, music sets all sorts of different feelings and ideas going in all sorts of listeners, but that power must surely go without saying. What it seems to have no power to do is convince anyone that it's good and fine and strong just being its own sweet self, not causing emotional reactions, not expressing emotional states, not telling complicated little stories, just sounding.

My emphasis. It seems to me that some guy (at least in the OP) has no interested in condemning or denying emotional associations with music. I think he is asking if they are necessary, if they are inseparable from the music, and if people can enjoy music while ignoring those associations.

To some extent I can. I can think of an example. I really like Bartok's concerto for orchestra, especially the final movement. It begins with a furious fugato for strings and later these are infiltrated by some material reminiscent of folk tunes. When I first came to know the piece I had an emotional association, that it was somehow a representation of the dehumanizing pace of modern industrial/militaristic life, contrasted with the life of a more innocent age. Then I read somewhere that Bartok intended it as an expression of pure joy. Okay, I can hear it that way too. But I can also not think about those ideas and just be astonished by the unfolding of that incredibly intense contrapuntal music and how it relates to the simpler musical themes that develops out of it. And whether I think of it as grim or joyful, it is the incredible intense contrapuntal music that makes it a moving piece.

I will not deny that there are some pieces which have an emotional subtext that is pretty inescapable. Take the second movement of Beethoven's 7th. There is a generally somber mood that seems to pervade it, established by the chord that opens it (which also closes it). But is somberness really the essence of it? For me it is about a melody which starts out as a single note obsessively repeated over a shifting harmony, then a counter-melody heard below the surface of the music, then the counter-melody seems to grow in importance until it is at the apex of a towering climax, then it breaks and the melody is the center of a gentle fugato. It is a masterful sequence of musical transformations. Is it great because it is the somberest thing ever created, or is it great because of the stunning originality of the treatment of such a simple theme? Sometimes I might like to lean in to the mood but it is the stunning musical invention that makes it a transcendent experience.

Ghost of Baron Scarpia

That reminds me, I've been meaning to listen to Antal Dorati's recording of the Beethoven 7th...

San Antone

Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on June 07, 2019, 03:57:11 PM
I will presume to quote some guy.

My emphasis. It seems to me that some guy (at least in the OP) has no interested in condemning or denying emotional associations with music. I think he is asking if they are necessary, if they are inseparable from the music, and if people can enjoy music while ignoring those associations.

To some extent I can. I can think of an example. I really like Bartok's concerto for orchestra, especially the final movement. It begins with a furious fugato for strings and later these are infiltrated by some material reminiscent of folk tunes. When I first came to know the piece I had an emotional association, that it was somehow a representation of the dehumanizing pace of modern industrial/militaristic life, contrasted with the life of a more innocent age. Then I read somewhere that Bartok intended it as an expression of pure joy. Okay, I can hear it that way too. But I can also not think about those ideas and just be astonished by the unfolding of that incredibly intense contrapuntal music and how it relates to the simpler musical themes that develops out of it. And whether I think of it as grim or joyful, it is the incredible intense contrapuntal music that makes it a moving piece.

I will not deny that there are some pieces which have an emotional subtext that is pretty inescapable. Take the second movement of Beethoven's 7th. There is a generally somber mood that seems to pervade it, established by the chord that opens it (which also closes it). But is somberness really the essence of it? For me it is about a melody which starts out as a single note obsessively repeated over a shifting harmony, then a counter-melody heard below the surface of the music, then the counter-melody seems to grow in importance until it is at the apex of a towering climax, then it breaks and the melody is the center of a gentle fugato. It is a masterful sequence of musical transformations. Is it great because it is the somberest thing ever created, or is it great because of the stunning originality of the treatment of such a simple theme? Sometimes I might like to lean in to the mood but it is the stunning musical invention that makes it a transcendent experience.

Okay, I can get with that.  In fact, now that I think about it I listen to a lot of music without making any kind of emotional association: most of Bach's instrumental music is a cornucopia of invention, stacking subjects in a contrapuntal maze that is amazing.  Also, most modern music is devoid (for me) of any emotional content and I listen to the textures and atmospheric sections.  Feldman, for example is a composer for whose music I have expressed much love.  It is a kind of Zen exercise listening to music which is not using traditional tonal harmonic movement.

So, I retract my question, since I can say that I do understand some guy's proposition.

Thanks, Scarp.

Ken B

Quote from: San Antone on June 07, 2019, 04:06:30 PM
Okay, I can get with that.  In fact, now that I think about it I listen to a lot of music without making any kind of emotional association: most of Bach's instrumental music is a cornucopia of invention, stacking subjects in a contrapuntal maze that is amazing.  Also, most modern music is devoid (for me) of any emotional content and I listen to the textures and atmospheric sections.  Feldman, for example is a composer for whose music I have expressed much love.  It is a kind of Zen exercise listening to music which is not using traditional tonal harmonic movement.

So, I retract my question, since I can say that I do understand some guy's proposition.

Thanks, Scarp.

Bzzzt. Curiosity is an emotion. So is Zen calmness. Can you perceive much less describe anything "atmospheric" without reference to emotion?

Madiel

Quote from: Ken B on June 07, 2019, 04:43:34 PM
Bzzzt. Curiosity is an emotion. So is Zen calmness. Can you perceive much less describe anything "atmospheric" without reference to emotion?

I do rather think that half this conversation is driven by people not identifying what they even think counts as "emotion".
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Madiel

#192
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on June 07, 2019, 03:57:11 PM
My emphasis. It seems to me that some guy (at least in the OP) has no interested in condemning or denying emotional associations with music. I think he is asking if they are necessary, if they are inseparable from the music, and if people can enjoy music while ignoring those associations.

Let's try a different emphasis. Before the part that you quoted in bold, this appears (which you also quoted but didn't emphasise).

QuoteBut one thing seems pretty standard here at GMG (and almost everywhere else, for that matter), and that is that music has emotional content. Without getting into the merits of that view, though if that happens it happens, I'm more interested in the moment in finding out if anyone at GMG listens to music itself, without having to turn it into something else.

I don't buy the "without getting into the merits of that view" bit. I really don't. The whole structure is built around saying that the view that music has emotional content is not accepted.  And the idea that music has emotional content is linked with the idea that people are turning music into "something else".

And then of course, after the bit that you put in bold, "listening to music itself" is expanded into "not causing emotional reactions, not expressing emotional states".

This is why I don't buy the denials as to what some guy's argument actually is. Or at the very least, I think some guy is doing a bloody awful job of explaining any kind of argument about the value of focusing on the structure and creation of music without simultaneously discounting the emotional expression.

I'm a highly analytical person. I love a beautifully constructed sonata form as much as anyone. But I'm able to say that without throwing in remarks about emotional content or emotional reactions or emotional states that suggest this isn't an intrinsic part of music, that it's an add-on that a music listener really ought to be capable of doing without. That it isn't actually PART of "listening to music itself".

There continues to be, in my view, some kind of determination to talk only about what music "is" and divorce it entirely about what music is "for". As if the two aren't intrinsically linked. As if it's fine to treat music as some kind of abstract object without any kind of function at all (beyond the function of causing admiration at the beauty of its construction).

To me they are intrinsically linked. How music "is" is inevitably tangled with what music is "for". Sorry, but if someone creates music as a purely intellectual exercise along the lines of "let's see how many parallel diminished 7ths I can string together in the second subject of a sonata exposition" without any thought about the effect this has on a listener, it's just a kind of intellectual wankery. It's also ahistorical in that it completely ignores the reality of how any working musician actually operated in order to make a living. Music is designed with a goal in mind, and that goal is to engage with listeners. It's supposed to elicit reactions.

It's perfectly possible to utterly admire the aesthetic beauty of an architect's design and the ingenuity of that and the builder's construction methods, and I haven't got the slightest problem with studying that and recognising that and admiring how people at the top of that field create masterpieces. But an architect who just creates beautiful building designs for the sake of it is going to go out of business, and anyone who solely admires buildings from that perspective is actually missing the point of why the building was created in the first place. Its function is to engage with people. People are supposed to live in it, or work in it, or be patients in it, or hold meetings in it, or whatever. With a few possible exceptions like the Taj Mahal, the great majority of buildings are designed and built with consideration of how people are going to interact with the building.

Noting that not everyone will interact with the building in the same way, or exactly as the architect originally intended. Wait, does that sound at all familiar? Does anyone think that if people interact with the building in different ways, this means that the architect had no plan at all as to how people were going to interact with it?

And different music is "for" different things, just as different buildings are "for" different things. Aspects of the design change precisely because the goal or purpose is different. The way people are intended to engage with the music is different. This is why, for example, we can identify some music as dance music.

All this talk of listening to "music itself" continues to strike me as a call not to stop adding to music, but as a call to take away one part of the musical experience and treat it as if it wasn't important. Again, I don't have any problem with looking at and hearing the notes and the structure. And for a performer understanding how a piece is built is vital. What I have a problem with is treating the actual effect on listeners, the elicited reactions, as some kind of add-on when for most composers that kind of engagement with listeners was the whole point of the exercise, and for most performers too. Their tools and the skill with which they wielded them is what makes the master composers into masters, but their goals were often to make listeners laugh, or surprise them, or make them cry or feel heroic. The same goals that a rank amateur might have but fail to achieve because they don't have the tools and knowledge at their disposal. Alternatively, a lesser composer might ape the forms of the master but not achieve the same effect because they didn't actually have any specific goal in mind beyond imitating the form.

Does anyone ever just admire the tools and the handiwork and the craftsmanship? Sure. Do I do this sometimes? Definitely (especially when I was a pianist trying to come to grips with a piece, but I also sometimes do it with pieces when I'm trying to understand them better).

What I don't do is treat this as the sum total of listening to music, with the rest being some kind of add-on. I treat it as a technique to actually enhance my experience when I go back to embracing the whole experience.

I don't listen to the "music itself" so as to avoid adding emotion on to the music. I do it to understand how the emotion in the music was achieved.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Florestan

Quote from: Madiel on June 07, 2019, 07:21:32 PM
There continues to be, in my view, some kind of determination to talk only about what music "is" and divorce it entirely about what music is "for". As if the two aren't intrinsically linked. As if it's fine to treat music as some kind of abstract object without any kind of function at all (beyond the function of causing admiration at the beauty of its construction).

To me they are intrinsically linked. How music "is" is inevitably tangled with what music is "for". Sorry, but if someone creates music as a purely intellectual exercise along the lines of "let's see how many parallel diminished 7ths I can string together in the second subject of a sonata exposition" without any thought about the effect this has on a listener, it's just a kind of intellectual wankery.

Many thanks for expressing my thoughts exactly.  "Intellectual wankery" is a most felicitous (and polite) expression. I would have employed a more blunt term (starting with "mas..." and ending with "...bation")

Quote
It's also ahistorical in that it completely ignores the reality of how any working musician actually operated in order to make a living. Music is designed with a goal in mind, and that goal is to engage with listeners. It's supposed to elicit reactions.

Honestly, it's beyond my power of comprehension how anyone can ignore the simple truths you stated above. How anyone, in fact, can in earnest claim that Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 8 or Tchaikovsky's Fifth Symphony are mere combination of sounds for their own sake, without any implicit emotional content, and that whatever emotional reaction they might ellicit from listeners are nothing else than unintended by-products of the said combinations. And be it noted I chose only examples of "absolute" music. Bring in Schumann's Papillons or Liszt's Annees de pelerinage --- the preposterousness of the claim is made even more evident.


QuoteIt's perfectly possible to utterly admire the aesthetic beauty of an architect's design and the ingenuity of that and the builder's construction methods, and I haven't got the slightest problem with studying that and recognising that and admiring how people at the top of that field create masterpieces. But an architect who just creates beautiful building designs for the sake of it is going to go out of business, and anyone who solely admires buildings from that perspective is actually missing the point of why the building was created in the first place. Its function is to engage with people. People are supposed to live in it, or work in it, or be patients in it, or hold meetings in it, or whatever. With a few possible exceptions like the Taj Mahal, the great majority of buildings are designed and built with consideration of how people are going to interact with the building.

Noting that not everyone will interact with the building in the same way, or exactly as the architect originally intended. Wait, does that sound at all familiar? Does anyone think that if people interact with the building in different ways, this means that the architect had no plan at all as to how people were going to interact with it?

There are some people who apparently think exactly that.

QuoteAnd different music is "for" different things, just as different buildings are "for" different things. Aspects of the design change precisely because the goal or purpose is different. The way people are intended to engage with the music is different. This is why, for example, we can identify some music as dance music.

Again, I'm baffled how this simple truth could ever be denied or circumvented.

Quotethis talk of listening to "music itself" continues to strike me as a call not to stop adding to music, but as a call to take away one part of the musical experience and treat it as if it wasn't important. Again, I don't have any problem with looking at and hearing the notes and the structure. And for a performer understanding how a piece is built is vital. What I have a problem with is treating the actual effect on listeners, the elicited reactions, as some kind of add-on when for most composers that kind of engagement with listeners was the whole point of the exercise, and for most performers too. Their tools and the skill with which they wielded them is what makes the master composers into masters, but their goals were often to make listeners laugh, or surprise them, or make them cry or feel heroic. The same goals that a rank amateur might have but fail to achieve because they don't have the tools and knowledge at their disposal. Alternatively, a lesser composer might ape the forms of the master but not achieve the same effect because they didn't actually have any specific goal in mind beyond imitating the form.

Ditto, and excellently put.

Oh, btw, there is a post of mine which apparently got buried by the flurry of the discussion and I would very much like to know what you, and anybody else, especially some guy, make of it.

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,29005.msg1220015.html#msg1220015

Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

Ken B


Florestan

Here is a quote from Franz Liszt.

I    have    latterly    traveled    through    many    new    countries,    have    seen    many different    places,    and    visited    many    a    spot    hallowed    by    history    and    poetry;    I    have felt    that    the    varied    aspects    of    nature,    and    the    different    incidents    associated    with them,    did    not    pass    before    my    eyes    like    meaningless    pictures,    but    that    they evoked    profound    emotions    within    my    soul;    that    a    vague    but    direct    affinity    was established    betwixt    them    and    myself,    a    real,    though    indefinable    understanding,    a sure    but    inexplicable    means    of    communication,    and    I    have    tried    to    give    musical utterance    to    some    of    my    strongest    sensations,    some    of    my    liveliest    impressions. (emphasis mine).

Well, according to some guy (and Stravinsky, for that matter), Liszt was merely deluding himself, and us listeners, big time --- because  there was no way whatsoever for him to  give  musical utterance    to    some    of    his    strongest    sensations,    some    of    his    liveliest    impressions for the simple reason that "music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc ... ."

Now, pick your choice: either Liszt was right and Stravinsky wrong, or viceversa. Tertium non datur.

My choice:












Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

Florestan

Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2019, 09:39:31 AM
Gebrauchsmusik.

You mean, such as The Rite of Spring, or Petrushka, or The Firebird;D

Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

Ken B

Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2019, 09:47:28 AM
You mean, such as The Rite of Spring, or Petrushka, or The Firebird;D
It is commonly believed those were written as ballets, with stories. But not so.  They were really written to win acrostic contests, and Stravinsky never intended them to be heard.

premont

Yes, and one may wonder, why Stravinsky composed that much, declaring himself - and anyone else - unable to express anything with music at all. :P
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Mirror Image

Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2019, 09:44:05 AM
Here is a quote from Franz Liszt.

I    have    latterly    traveled    through    many    new    countries,    have    seen    many different    places,    and    visited    many    a    spot    hallowed    by    history    and    poetry;    I    have felt    that    the    varied    aspects    of    nature,    and    the    different    incidents    associated    with them,    did    not    pass    before    my    eyes    like    meaningless    pictures,    but    that    they evoked    profound    emotions    within    my    soul;    that    a    vague    but    direct    affinity    was established    betwixt    them    and    myself,    a    real,    though    indefinable    understanding,    a sure    but    inexplicable    means    of    communication,    and    I    have    tried    to    give    musical utterance    to    some    of    my    strongest    sensations,    some    of    my    liveliest    impressions. (emphasis mine).

Well, according to some guy (and Stravinsky, for that matter), Liszt was merely deluding himself, and us listeners, big time --- because  there was no way whatsoever for him to  give  musical utterance    to    some    of    his    strongest    sensations,    some    of    his    liveliest    impressions for the simple reason that "music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc ... ."

Now, pick your choice: either Liszt was right and Stravinsky wrong, or viceversa. Tertium non datur.

My choice:



I can't choose either side because sometimes music can evoke strong emotions within me and shake my very core, but, on other occasions, I'm only sweep away by the sheer sound of the music. This is why I don't subscribe to either ideologies --- not that Liszt or Stravinsky are wrong, but I simply can't confine something as complex as a reaction to the music to someone else's opinion or feeling towards music.