Now, I haven't heard much Schönberg et. al., so this post won't have much of an empirical foundation. This is just a quick reflection on twelve-tone technique in theory.
(--- WARNING: The following content may repeat ideas used by many a newcomer and may annoy the heck out of veterans tired of newcomers' baloney. ;) ---)
So, TTT abandoned one "formula" (tonality) and went for another. My predictable question: Isn't this idea (of having no note repeated within a row of the chromatic scale) unnecessarily limiting emotionally?
I imagine a composer using TTT and he's on the brink of writing a profound melody if only he were allowed to use C# again. But no, C# was already used, say, nine notes before, so he'll have to do something else.
Also, doesn't TTT make it very difficult to maintain a mood and develop the same? Atonality is one thing, but to force music to stay this "free" even if it makes no "emotional sense" (take me away from all these quotation marks!) seems to approach the territory of different for different's sake, no?
I appreciate any comments/ideas/comfort/rebuttals. :)
As Arnold Schoenberg developed it, twelve-tone serialism limits only the "named" notes. The rhythmic, dynamic and "orchestrational" (to coin a term) elements of music are not limited, and thus serialism allows considerable freedom in emotional expressiveness.
Have you come across Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra? There's a good example of the twelve-tone method resulting in dynamic, expressive music.
(Milton Babbitt and Pierre Boulez are among the practitioners of "total serialism," in which series, or "rows," govern not only the notes but the rhythms, dynamics and many other musical elements. I myself, despite my love of the avant-garde, am not particularly comfortable with this method, but I'm not about to dismiss it out of hand.)
Cheers,
Linus! I appreciate the open-minded tone of your query!
Quote from: Linus on September 25, 2014, 08:13:54 AM
So, TTT abandoned one "formula" (tonality) and went for another. My predictable question: Isn't this idea (of having no note repeated within a row of the chromatic scale) unnecessarily limiting emotionally?
I think it a good question; only I question the adverb
unnecessarily. Probably any method has its emotional limitations, and in fact I see that as part of the artistic drive behind the development of the new method: to express emotions for which tonality is perhaps limited.
"Limitations" must be understood with a grain of salt, I think: no one yet has found the emotional limitations of either method. And famously (perhaps you've already heard or read this)
Schoenberg opined that there is still "plenty of good music to be written in C major." And since throughout his career he continued to write in both methods, it wasn't just talk!
Quote from: LinusI imagine a composer using TTT and he's on the brink of writing a profound melody if only he were allowed to use C# again. But no, C# was already used, say, nine notes before, so he'll have to do something else.
Schoenberg, the inventor (!), would have been the first to say "throw out the method if the music requires something else."
Quote from: LinusAlso, doesn't TTT make it very difficult to maintain a mood and develop the same? Atonality is one thing, but to force music to stay this "free" even if it makes no "emotional sense" (take me away from all these quotation marks!) seems to approach the territory of different for different's sake, no?
Writing good music by what method soever is a challenge for anyone. When one has mastered the tools, the tools do not determine the range of possible work. And, however one chooses to write music, the method and content must come from unshakeable conviction. In
Schoenberg's work, it is no matter of doing something merely for the sake of being different.
Webern probably offers a more immediate and persuasive entry into 12 note music than Schoenberg. A work like the Concerto for 9 instruments op 24 is crystalline and based quite clearly on the kind of limitations which the discipline can offer: a particularly individual solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS-52m1Najw
Another entry may be via jazz (in the widest sense), although I suspect not many others would agree. Leaving aside the bass part, David Shire's theme music for The taking of Pelham 123 (the original film) uses a note row almost identical to that of Webern's Concerto. It's worth asking yourself why he made that particular choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kYR3lxQti4
Thank you all for your input!
Quote from: jochanaan on September 25, 2014, 08:43:04 AM
As Arnold Schoenberg developed it, twelve-tone serialism limits only the "named" notes. The rhythmic, dynamic and "orchestrational" (to coin a term) elements of music are not limited, and thus serialism allows considerable freedom in emotional expressiveness.
Have you come across Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra? There's a good example of the twelve-tone method resulting in dynamic, expressive music.
(Milton Babbitt and Pierre Boulez are among the practitioners of "total serialism," in which series, or "rows," govern not only the notes but the rhythms, dynamics and many other musical elements. I myself, despite my love of the avant-garde, am not particularly comfortable with this method, but I'm not about to dismiss it out of hand.)
But considering that non-serialist music is not very limited in terms of rhythm, dynamics or orchestration either (right?), it seems to me that we don't really "gain" anything from serialism as method (except originality).
I will check out the
Variations for Orchestra, thanks for the tip. :)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 25, 2014, 09:03:56 AM
Cheers, Linus! I appreciate the open-minded tone of your query!
Thanks, I'm trying. :)
Quote
I think it a good question; only I question the adverb unnecessarily. Probably any method has its emotional limitations, and in fact I see that as part of the artistic drive behind the development of the new method: to express emotions for which tonality is perhaps limited.
A good point, I think.
This is something that appeals to me very much when discussing music: different emotional landscapes.
If, as you say, this new method wishes to express emotions which tonality may be insufficient of doing, how do these emotions differ from those of traditional tonality? What does the "emotional landscape" of the new method look like? Are they possible to conceptualise?
Quote
"Limitations" must be understood with a grain of salt, I think: no one yet has found the emotional limitations of either method. And famously (perhaps you've already heard or read this) Schoenberg opined that there is still "plenty of good music to be written in C major." And since throughout his career he continued to write in both methods, it wasn't just talk!
I suspect that, theoretically, there must be close to an infinite amount of good music still to be written using
any method. The trouble, it seems to me, is that the practical
probability of actually producing good music (as
I see good music at this time) using TTT seems less likely than when using traditional methods. I suppose what I'm asking is whether we/I can really
expect TTT composers to produce something artistically equal of, say, a Beethoven sonata. And this would also go for Beethoven himself if he were to travel forwards in time and compose serialist music.
Quote
Schoenberg, the inventor (!), would have been the first to say "throw out the method if the music requires something else."
Ah, that demolishes one of my prejudices altogether. :) I had (unconsciously) assumed that the TTT was something its adherents thought should be followed at all costs, rather than as a sort of guiding principle.
Quote from: James on September 25, 2014, 09:13:16 AM
Correct. We can't really have a sound discussion if you haven't heard much 2nd Viennese School. (Schoenberg/Berg/Webern) .. even explore late Stravinsky. All of this music so incredibly rich, and it renovated harmonic thinking ..
Well, saying that this music renovated harmonic thinking is a good theoretical point, in my opinion. :)
In any case, if one is to discuss the theory of TTT I suspect any hints at the actual production of TTT might risk justifying its theory on the basis of subjective impressions of the music, which takes us even further away from the question of how we to evaluate TTT as method.
Quote
As Pierre Boulez also said (or very similar) ... you have to have passed through "the threshold" to hear Schoenberg / 2nd Viennese School Music ... by which he meant you must be harmonically evolved / sophisticated enough to appreciate the continuum of constant modulation - note by note vertically & horizontally - that is the article of faith built into the Serial technique ... a technique that is nothing like as predetermined or mechanical as many assume it to be. It seeks to halt HARMONIC TIME ... to defy tonal gravity. It's a strange thing the "threshold' ... and passing through it is more about not letting all previous experience of 'harmonic narrative' blot out this other way of hearing ... a way that could only have evolved and get it's meaning out of what went before anyway.
Again, very good theoretical points, this works splendidly, I think. ;)
I should probably point out that predetermination is not one of my worries with TTT. If anything, I'm worried that it is too random.
I had suspected that there was a threshold of sorts. To be pedantic, I believe we pass through thresholds every time we manage to adjust our mind to the logic of something new, when it suddenly "clicks". It wouldn't surprise me, however, if the threshold of TTT is rather thicker to get through than most other musical thresholds.
To me personally, it helps getting theoretical "hints" like these, they help me adjust.
Quote
Always remember : Rules are for the guidance of wise men, but the obedience of fools.
Agreed.
Quote
Ironically it was Webern - his pupil - who is thought to have better applied & impemented the theories ... I love Webern ... if you want to experience, and pass through that "threshold" ... he will show you that portal ... and - if you have ears to hear - take you through. Bear in mind that Webern's output is so compressed & concise that it fits on 3 cds. Get the Sony complete Webern, very well priced - from the 1970's - but great performances & recordings. There's also the newer DG Boulez integral version. I'd say go for the Sony though ... cheaper and less ambient sounding, unless you're into that. If you end up buying this i hope you like it (in fact you can get things from the Sony set here for free >> http://www.antonwebern.com/ )... you might not "hear it" at first ... you have to remember that the specific aim is to subvert the functional gravity / narrative of western modal & diatonic tonal systems ... so it's like trying to stop time (musically speaking) ... to redefine harmonic narrative with a focus on the now ... but with forensic detail and restraint.[/font]
I very much appreciate this recommendation, Webern is now on my "to hear" list.
So, what distinguishes the new method from the old in your opinion is (primarily) that the new method does not focus on narrative and context, but on evoking in the listener a sensuous immediacy of sorts and have him/her "lose" him/herself in the music?
Quote from: Dax on September 25, 2014, 11:11:36 AM
Webern probably offers a more immediate and persuasive entry into 12 note music than Schoenberg. A work like the Concerto for 9 instruments op 24 is crystalline and based quite clearly on the kind of limitations which the discipline can offer: a particularly individual solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS-52m1Najw
Another entry may be via jazz (in the widest sense), although I suspect not many others would agree. Leaving aside the bass part, David Shire's theme music for The taking of Pelham 123 (the original film) uses a note row almost identical to that of Webern's Concerto. It's worth asking yourself why he made that particular choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kYR3lxQti4
Thanks, Dax, I'll check these out!
I just wanted to take a moment to thank every single contributor to this thread for providing such thoughtful and eloquent posts. I've seen this topic in other forums devolve into sneering condescension from both "sides," and also seen discussion hinge on highly technical descriptions. The questions and answers here, on the other hand, seem to illuminate, rather than obfuscate.
For what it's worth, when I was younger I strongly preferred atonal and dodecaphonic/serialist music (which to me sounded pretty indistinguishable from "free" atonality in practice, if not in theory) to more conventional classical music. I sought the exhilaration of having little sense of how the music would move forward, yet also seeking to make a kind of intuitive "whole" of the seeming unpredictability (or, perhaps, to find the "invisible connections" between the notes). I also appreciated the gloomy, edgy, Kafkaesque atmosphere that such music (often) evoked. I was approaching it from an avant-rock direction, having listened to a lot of music like King Crimson's early '70s improvisations. It took me a bit longer to learn to really appreciate more conventional, tonal classical traditions, and I still struggle somewhat with 18th century musical conventions in particular (so perhaps Linus and I are trying to achieve the same goal, though from somewhat opposite directions). :)
Greetings
Linus,
NorthNYMark, and other newer members!
Schoenberg's method allowed all sorts of creativity, and not all of it of the "darker" kind: check the works of
Nikos Skalkottas and the later piano concerti of
Alexander Tcherepnin for a different taste.
My favorite example:
Charles Wuorinen's Grand Bamboula !
QuoteWuorinen said of this extroverted work that "the notes of the Bamboulaare my own, and the work is composed in a variant of my characteristic manner. The locations of events in it, and thus the larger pace by which the work proceeds, are all determined by translating the pitch-intervals of the composition's twelve-tone set into time-intervals -- lengths that separate events from each other. Normally in my practice, I would consider these 'events' to be single notes and the time-intervals the distances among them. But here, the 'events' are actually motivic in themselves: they are short musical gestures, phrases, textures, juxtaposed to make the composition's tonality."
The piece contains one movement of six minutes and is considered one of the composer's "lighter" works. Wuorinen also explained that his Grand Bamboula demonstrates his attitude toward the organizing powers of the twelve-tone system as a musical formula that could merge with the tradition of tonal music. The basic tenets of the twelve-tone system, such as aggregate formation and clear presentation of sets or segments of them in the foreground are not of greatest importance in the Grand Bamboula; instead, Wuorinen allows the set to be "shape defining, harmony-determining, and gesture-unleashing."
See:
http://www.allmusic.com/composition/grand-bamboula-for-string-orchestra-mc0002448849 (http://www.allmusic.com/composition/grand-bamboula-for-string-orchestra-mc0002448849)
Quote from: Linus on September 25, 2014, 12:41:01 PM
I should probably point out that predetermination is not one of my worries with TTT. If anything, I'm worried that it is too random.
I share this similar concern with you, even though I do enjoy some 12-tone works. I think of it as sorting m&ms according to color in some really elaborate and mathematically brilliant way. They probably would look random to those who didn't know the pattern.
Quote from: Linus on September 25, 2014, 12:41:01 PM
I very much appreciate this recommendation, Webern is now on my "to hear" list.
I highly recommend Webern, too. In a way, he is the most difficult and enigmatic composer of the three, but his music has the greatest emotional impact on me. While not twelve-tone, his
Six Pieces for Orchestra are a good starting point (no one does it like Rattle with the CBSO!). Then maybe the
Symphony or the
Concerto for Nine Instruments.
My entryway into this kind of "organized" music was Boulez's
Derive I. It is a short work (about 7 minutes) for an ensemble of six instruments. It has a very "bubbly" feel to it and it helped me realize that twelve-tone (in this case, six-tone, actually) music can create different kinds of "feels" or "aesthetics".
http://www.youtube.com/v/nu1u5uBe9So
I suggest you google what George Rochberg, at one time one of America's most acclaimed serialists, said after the death of his son. Then seek out some of his later music, such as Black Sounds or the Violin Concerto.
Quote from: Linus on September 25, 2014, 08:13:54 AMSo, TTT abandoned one "formula" (tonality) and went for another. My predictable question: Isn't this idea (of having no note repeated within a row of the chromatic scale) unnecessarily limiting emotionally?
No, I don't look at as emotionally limiting. I look at it as emotionality via a different soundscape that's in a
slightly different musical world altogether. It's almost like you've entered into another dimension when you listen to Schoenberg or Berg and that, in my opinion, is a good thing.
Quote from: Linus on September 25, 2014, 08:13:54 AMAlso, doesn't TTT make it very difficult to maintain a mood and develop the same? Atonality is one thing, but to force music to stay this "free" even if it makes no "emotional sense" (take me away from all these quotation marks!) seems to approach the territory of different for different's sake, no?
Twelve-tone music develops in its own way just like tonal music would. Listen, for example, to the development in Schoenberg's
Violin Concerto or the
Variations for Orchestra. These works are perfect examples of the twelve-tone technique having a strong narrative, expression, and sense of purpose.
I do not know enough about harmony and compositional technique.
But the 12-Tone-Method was not just conjured up out of thin air. Neither was atonality. Wagner, Debussy and others had "weakened" tonal/tonical harmony in such a fashion that atonality was for man musicians a "logical" next step.
(the dogmatism comes in when some claim that it was the *only* logical step.)
But then some apparently had the problem of "too much freedom" and wanted a method to unify pieces in a stronger fashion. Someone once tried to explain to me how the 12 tone idea and "forbidding" repetition was a rather natural outcome of the kind of chords and chord progressions the atonal composers had used anyway, but this was too technical for me, so I do not really remember the details.
You may not know that the 12-Tone-Method was developed independently (as far as I know actually a little earlier than Schoenberg) by Josef Mathias Hauer. His music is very different from the highly emotional, expressionist Schoenberg (and followers), so he used the method apparently in a different way. There are other works supposedly based on 12 tone series that sound rather "tonal" (it all depends on the series I guess), e.g. Martin's petite symphonie concertante and some pieces of Rolf Liebermann from the 1950s.
Quote from: Linus on September 25, 2014, 08:13:54 AM
I imagine a composer using TTT and he's on the brink of writing a profound melody if only he were allowed to use C# again. But no, C# was already used, say, nine notes before, so he'll have to do something else.
This
repetition thing is something I have never understood. Notes
have to be repeated sooner or later, otherwise we have very short compositions! So, is there some kind of temporal structure within which you should not repeate any note? What are these temporal structures? How are tone rows related to this? Tone rows obviously tell which tones are available, but how do they dictate how you can combine these notes (into chords)? I rarely get answers to my music theory questions in forms my acoustics engineer head can understand.
I don't set myself any limitations when I make my music with computer. The limitations I face are these:
1) lack of talent.
2) difficulties in producing the sounds on computer I hear in my mind (crappy sound problem).
There are several dimensions to the avoidance of repetition. One is pre-12-tone based on Brahms' constant "developing variation". Do not literally repeat themes/phrases (that's lame and boring ;))
In 12-Tone-composition the principle is that every tone of the row should appear once before the first one is repeated. But there are some exceptions available, AFAIR, and I don't know about vertical (in different voices) vs. horizontal (in one voice/part) repetitions.
Quote from: Linus on September 25, 2014, 12:41:01 PM
Ah, that demolishes one of my prejudices altogether. :) I had (unconsciously) assumed that the TTT was something its adherents thought should be followed at all costs, rather than as a sort of guiding principle.
Well, that absurd idea was (quite possibly remains) a big piece of propaganda for
Boulez & al., so it is not a matter of prejudice on your part, only the understandable mistake of taking the loud remark of an over-confident boor as The Fact ;)
Schoenberg (and others) are altogether artistic; but some composers (and their groupies) have been eager distributors of dogma. Personally, I am suspicious of artists who feel an urgent need for their own artistic opinions to be Universal Truths. And the non-artists who are their lackeys? Oh, you don't want my opinion of
them 8)
Quote from: 71 dB on September 26, 2014, 03:11:11 AM
This repetition thing is something I have never understood.
The idea is to avoid any kind of musical attraction to a tonal center: when a note is repeated, it is emphasized, and therefore the ear can begin to perceive a central tonality. So to keep the equality of the notes equal, no repetition is allowed until all notes have had their turn.
To be sure, 12-tone composers do not always follow this! $:)
Quote from: 71 dB on September 26, 2014, 03:11:11 AM
1. So, is there some kind of temporal structure within which you should not repeat any note?
2. What are these temporal structures? How are tone rows related to this? Tone rows obviously tell which tones are available, but how do they dictate how you can combine these notes (into chords)?
1. I would think that is entirely up to the composer, if s/he wants to play with that kind of restriction
2. Harmony is a function of the polyphony...or not! Chords can be "dictated" by the row e.g. Let's say you have a row of C-D-F#-Bb-B-A-G#-Eb-C#-F-E-G.
You could have a chord of C-D-F# with a theme above it of Bb-B-A: the chord moves to G#-Eb-C# while the theme moves on to use F-E-G. All twelve notes are therefore used, and one moves on to the next sequence. Perhaps the theme now uses the notes used in the chords and the harmony uses the theme-notes from the first sequence.
Or not! ;)
Study
Schoenberg's Third and Fourth String Quartets and other such things.
Quote from: Linus on September 25, 2014, 12:41:01 PM
...But considering that non-serialist music is not very limited in terms of rhythm, dynamics or orchestration either (right?), it seems to me that we don't really "gain" anything from serialism as method (except originality)....
What we gain is freedom from the need for a tonal center. Instead of being organized around a certain scale and chord structure, think of serial music as being organized around the note sequence. It may seem artificial at first, but in practice it's no more artificial than tonality as tonality is practiced now. 8)
Quote from: Cato on September 26, 2014, 04:08:31 AM
The idea is to avoid any kind of musical attraction to a tonal center: when a note is repeated, it is emphasized, and therefore the ear can begin to perceive a central tonality. So to keep the equality of the notes equal, no repetition is allowed until all notes have had their turn.
That makes sense even to me. :D However, if I repeat note C a lot, doesn't it mean the center of tonality could be
any (tonal) scale including note C?
Quote from: Cato on September 26, 2014, 04:08:31 AM
1. I would think that is entirely up to the composer, if s/he wants to play with that kind of restriction
2. Harmony is a function of the polyphony...or not! Chords can be "dictated" by the row e.g. Let's say you have a row of C-D-F#-Bb-B-A-G#-Eb-C#-F-E-G.
You could have a chord of C-D-F# with a theme above it of Bb-B-A: the chord moves to G#-Eb-C# while the theme moves on to use F-E-G. All twelve notes are therefore used, and one moves on to the next sequence. Perhaps the theme now uses the notes used in the chords and the harmony uses the theme-notes from the first sequence.
Okay, this explains it somehow. However, this kind of thinking is quate alien to me. Are all the notes of a chord equally long? I think it's often rhytmically more interesting to have notes in a chord change at different times. So, chord C-D-F# would turn into chord C-D-G, for example, violating the tone row. Also, a "theme" of 3 notes sounds mininal. Why can't the theme share some notes with the chord under it? Perceived central tonality?
I understand why composers want to set limits and guidelines, but these limits are weird. It's as if an architects would deside that any building he/she designs can have only 10, 20, 30, 40, ... windows.
Thanks for trying to explaing these things. ;)
Quote from: 71 dB on September 26, 2014, 10:30:42 AM
That makes sense even to me. :D However, if I repeat note C a lot, doesn't it mean the center of tonality could be any (tonal) scale including note C?
Well, as we know from the minimalists, just repeating a C is not quite the same as "establishing a tonality in C," any more than constantly repeating the phrase
Thomas Kinkade is a great artist establishes the case 8)
Quote from: jochanaan on September 26, 2014, 08:48:07 AM
What we gain is freedom from the need for a tonal center. Instead of being organized around a certain scale and chord structure, think of serial music as being organized around the note sequence. It may seem artificial at first, but in practice it's no more artificial than tonality as tonality is practiced now. 8)
Why organize music around anything? Is all art organized around something? Okay, art may become noise if it's not organized around something, but this something can be on higher level, something much more sophisticated than scales, chord structures and note rows. How about note matrixes = a set of note rows? That would be 12 x 12 note technique.
Quote from: 71 dB on September 26, 2014, 10:30:42 AM
Okay, this explains it somehow. However, this kind of thinking is quite alien to me. Are all the notes of a chord equally long? I think it's often rhythmically more interesting to have notes in a chord change at different times. So, chord C-D-F# would turn into chord C-D-G, for example, violating the tone row. Also, a "theme" of 3 notes sounds minimal. Why can't the theme share some notes with the chord under it? Perceived central tonality?
I understand why composers want to set limits and guidelines, but these limits are weird. It's as if an architects would decide that any building he/she designs can have only 10, 20, 30, 40, ... windows.
Thanks for trying to explaining these things. ;)
1. The chord could be created any way the composer likes: arpeggiated or motivic or just as a chord of whole notes.
2. The theme could share a note: the composer would need to follow the musical logic in his/her imagination! The theme would not necessarily be perceived as 3-notes: check e.g.
Tchaikovsky's opening "theme" in the last movement of the
Sixth Symphony. Depending on the composer, the entire sequence with the harmony and the two 3-note sections could be perceived as a melody.
3. If you use these limits, and have success, I suspect they will not be weird at all! ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on September 26, 2014, 10:40:23 AM
Why organize music around anything? Is all art organized around something? Okay, art may become noise if it's not organized around something, but this something can be on higher level, something much more sophisticated than scales, chord structures and note rows. How about note matrixes = a set of note rows? That would be 12 x 12 note technique.
You need to check out
Tibor Serly's Modus Lascivus idea!
QuoteSerly developed what he referred to as an enharmonicist musical language. In his book Modus Lacscivus (1975) he explored a set of 82 basic tertian chords. Serly titled several of his later works as being "in modus lascivus," including sonatas for violin, viola, and piano.... His Concertino 3 X 3 uses this compositional system, but is most memorable for its formal structure: it consists of nine movements, the first three for piano solo, the second set of three movements for orchestra without piano, and the final set combining the previous sets, played simultaneously
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibor_Serly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibor_Serly)
Quote from: Cato on September 26, 2014, 11:07:56 AM
You need to check out Tibor Serly's Modus Lascivus idea!
Serly developed what he referred to as an enharmonicist musical language. In his book Modus Lacscivus (1975) he explored a set of 82 basic tertian chords. Serly titled several of his later works as being "in modus lascivus," including sonatas for violin, viola, and piano.... His Concertino 3 X 3 uses this compositional system, but is most memorable for its formal structure: it consists of nine movements, the first three for piano solo, the second set of three movements for orchestra without piano, and the final set combining the previous sets, played simultaneously
Ah yes, the music-minus-one school of composition.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 25, 2014, 03:29:21 PM
For what it's worth, when I was younger I strongly preferred atonal and dodecaphonic/serialist music (which to me sounded pretty indistinguishable from "free" atonality in practice, if not in theory) to more conventional classical music. I sought the exhilaration of having little sense of how the music would move forward, yet also seeking to make a kind of intuitive "whole" of the seeming unpredictability (or, perhaps, to find the "invisible connections" between the notes). I also appreciated the gloomy, edgy, Kafkaesque atmosphere that such music (often) evoked. I was approaching it from an avant-rock direction, having listened to a lot of music like King Crimson's early '70s improvisations. It took me a bit longer to learn to really appreciate more conventional, tonal classical traditions, and I still struggle somewhat with 18th century musical conventions in particular (so perhaps Linus and I are trying to achieve the same goal, though from somewhat opposite directions).
Some more or less atonal music is what I liked the most when I was younger and I also had initial trouble with enjoying 18th century Classical, but I really love that now. So I can't say tonality nor atonality is a huge problem for me nowadays. My slight aversion to some modern music probably has more to do with overall structure, I think.
Quote from: Cato on September 25, 2014, 03:56:14 PM
Greetings Linus, NorthNYMark, and other newer members!
Greetings, and thanks for the tips!
Quote from: EigenUser on September 25, 2014, 05:41:05 PM
I share this similar concern with you, even though I do enjoy some 12-tone works. I think of it as sorting m&ms according to color in some really elaborate and mathematically brilliant way. They probably would look random to those who didn't know the pattern.
Would you recommend to actually "think" my way to understanding those patterns, or should I just listen until my brain adjusts?
Quote from: Ken B on September 25, 2014, 06:18:42 PM
I suggest you google what George Rochberg, at one time one of America's most acclaimed serialists, said after the death of his son. Then seek out some of his later music, such as Black Sounds or the Violin Concerto.
Ah, interesting how he says that "he was unable to adequately express his profound grief and loss through serialism". Perhaps grief is simply not serialism's forte.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 25, 2014, 06:38:13 PM
No, I don't look at as emotionally limiting. I look at it as emotionality via a different soundscape that's in a slightly different musical world altogether. It's almost like you've entered into another dimension when you listen to Schoenberg or Berg and that, in my opinion, is a good thing.
I think my apprehension comes from a worry that it will be impossible to relate human emotions to this other dimension. When I listen to, say, Beethoven, both my feet are still on the ground, but his music stretches my soul towards the heavens. I fear that metaphorically letting go of the ground (if that is what the twelve-tone technique does) would make the experiences from that alternative dimension... "existentially irrelevant", for lack of a better term.
Quote
These works are perfect examples of the twelve-tone technique having a strong narrative, expression, and sense of purpose.
Ah, I suppose that could dispel the worries I just wrote about above. ;D
Quote from: Jo498 on September 26, 2014, 01:12:29 AM
I do not know enough about harmony and compositional technique.
But the 12-Tone-Method was not just conjured up out of thin air. Neither was atonality. Wagner, Debussy and others had "weakened" tonal/tonical harmony in such a fashion that atonality was for man musicians a "logical" next step.
(the dogmatism comes in when some claim that it was the *only* logical step.)
But then some apparently had the problem of "too much freedom" and wanted a method to unify pieces in a stronger fashion. Someone once tried to explain to me how the 12 tone idea and "forbidding" repetition was a rather natural outcome of the kind of chords and chord progressions the atonal composers had used anyway, but this was too technical for me, so I do not really remember the details.
I wonder if a similar progression had taken place before, one where one strain of development has to be "patched up" afterwards by another one.
Quote
You may not know that the 12-Tone-Method was developed independently (as far as I know actually a little earlier than Schoenberg) by Josef Mathias Hauer. His music is very different from the highly emotional, expressionist Schoenberg (and followers), so he used the method apparently in a different way. There are other works supposedly based on 12 tone series that sound rather "tonal" (it all depends on the series I guess), e.g. Martin's petite symphonie concertante and some pieces of Rolf Liebermann from the 1950s.
I had no idea, I'll check those fellows out. Thanks!
Quote from: Linus on September 26, 2014, 02:54:11 PM
Would you recommend to actually "think" my way to understanding those patterns, or should I just listen until my brain adjusts?
Well, it's hard to say. When I first started listening to Boulez's
Derive I I was concerning myself with trying to "find" the patterns and structure. I no longer do.
When I first heard Webern's
Six Pieces I was under the incorrect impression that it was a twelve-tone work. However, this didn't concern me at the time. What drew me to the piece was a very sad four-note violin solo in the sixth piece. I found it incredibly touching. I've written this before on here, but it was a familiar romantic sound in an alien world -- something that didn't seem to be wanted anymore. In fact, there are others of the
Six Pieces that do similar things. The funeral march, of course, is a familiar sound in the fourth piece. Also, the the third piece has an eerie music-box melody -- another familiar sound to most people. But, they are all presented in a totally foreign landscape which seems indifferent.
The
Symphony is also very good and worth checking out (he calls it a symphony, but it is really only about 10 minutes long!). The first movement contains a few little things that make me feel similar.
Maybe it sounds lame to say that something so short had such an impression on me, but when dealing with Webern everything gets scaled down length :D.
The reference to Josef Hauer might not lead to much of interest: he had a parallel idea, but the musical results are not even close to anything by Schoenberg or other major and even minor composers who tried the "12-tone method."
I have seen some of Hauer's scores: perhaps the ones recorded are better and than the scores I have seen.
One reviewer has a rave for this:
http://www.amazon.com/Josef-Matthias-Hauer-Symphonic-Works/dp/B000NOIWP8/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1411775120&sr=1-2-fkmr1&keywords=josek+hauer (http://www.amazon.com/Josef-Matthias-Hauer-Symphonic-Works/dp/B000NOIWP8/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1411775120&sr=1-2-fkmr1&keywords=josek+hauer)
I have the Hauer disc linked to, but maybe listened once or twice. As I said the music is very different from Schoenberg and other expressionists. I do not really have an opinion on Hauer, the point was just to show that the "method" can yield very different results. The perceived similarity among pieces by Schoenberg and his circle may have to do more with their expressionism than with the 12-tone-method.
Quote from: Jo498 on September 26, 2014, 11:57:14 PM
I have the Hauer disc linked to, but maybe listened once or twice. As I said the music is very different from Schoenberg and other expressionists. I do not really have an opinion on Hauer, the point was just to show that the "method" can yield very different results.
Or, from another angle, there was a general motivation among composers of that day to enlarge the musical palette (it was not just
Schoenberg being "quirky" or contrarian), and there is by no means only
one way to achieve coherence with the supposedly "chaotic" sound world of
Chromaticism Unchained!
Quote from: karlhenning on September 27, 2014, 04:47:19 AM
Or, from another angle, there was a general motivation among composers of that day to enlarge the musical palette (it was not just Schoenberg being "quirky" or contrarian), and there is by no means only one way to achieve coherence with the supposedly "chaotic" sound world of Chromaticism Unchained![/i]
Two examples beginning with "Karl":
Karl Amadeus Hartmann !!! Karl Henning!!!
Quote from: Cato on September 26, 2014, 10:59:22 AM
1. The chord could be created any way the composer likes: arpeggiated or motivic or just as a chord of whole notes.
2. The theme could share a note: the composer would need to follow the musical logic in his/her imagination! The theme would not necessarily be perceived as 3-notes: check e.g. Tchaikovsky's opening "theme" in the last movement of the Sixth Symphony. Depending on the composer, the entire sequence with the harmony and the two 3-note sections could be perceived as a melody.
3. If you use these limits, and have success, I suspect they will not be weird at all! ;D
1. What is the difference of an arpeggiated chord and a fast short melody of the same notes? Especially played with instruments having a fast attack and decay times, arpeggiated chords sound like melodies rather than chords.
2. I don't think I understand fully what you say. Are you saying it's the way the music is orchestrated that dictates how different notes are "grouped" in the listener's ears into chords and melodies? If there is a simple pieces of music for piano and flute and there is a long chord C-E-G on the piano while flute plays melody A-G-A-D-... on top of the chord, the melody and the chord are clearly separated "musical objects" because piano and flute sound very different. If the melody was played on another piano instead, god knows what chords the listener would hear.
3. Yeah, of course ;)
Quote from: 71 dB on September 27, 2014, 11:48:39 PM
1. What is the difference of an arpeggiated chord and a fast short melody of the same notes? Especially played with instruments having a fast attack and decay times, arpeggiated chords sound like melodies rather than chords.
2. I don't think I understand fully what you say. Are you saying it's the way the music is orchestrated that dictates how different notes are "grouped" in the listener's ears into chords and melodies? If there is a simple pieces of music for piano and flute and there is a long chord C-E-G on the piano while flute plays melody A-G-A-D-... on top of the chord, the melody and the chord are clearly separated "musical objects" because piano and flute sound very different. If the melody was played on another piano instead, God knows what chords the listener would hear.
1. Well, perhaps you do not understand what an arpeggiated chord is? Most people would not pick it up as a "melody" at all, but as a chord whose individual notes happened to be quickly separated for a split second.
2. No, a piano would be able to separate the two parts, if we assume the music is even halfway competently composed! :D Did you check the
Tchaikovsky score?
If you are really interested, get some classic works in the genre and listen to them, study them, with the scores! Your questions will be answered thereby!
Check this: while not a "12-tone" method work, it shows
Schoenberg working his way along such a path instinctively. Note how the chords do not make the "melody" impossible to follow.
https://www.youtube.com/v/xrjg3jzP2uI
And the
Fourth String Quartet shows
Schoenberg using his "composition with 12-notes" ideas.
https://www.youtube.com/v/aYiHRpmT6D4
Although I have been watching this thread with interest I have refrained from posting in it --- until now.
Quote from: Cato on September 28, 2014, 03:54:17 AM
1. Well, perhaps you do not understand what an arpeggiated chord is?
My dear friend, is it absolutely necessary for us, simple music lovers as we are, to
understand what an arpeggiated chord is in order to appreciate its beauty?
I have just listened to
Haydn's op. 76 / 2. I can deliver you a whole lecture about what it inspired me to feel and think of; but I guess it would amount to nothing, zero and nil, because I really don't understand what a fifth is... ;D
Music does not have to be understood. It has to be listened to. -
Hermann ScherchenQuote
2. No, a piano would be able to separate the two parts, if we assume the music is even halfway competently composed! :D Did you check the Tchaikovsky score?
I just loooooove Tchaikosvky. His music gives me goosebumps every single time I hear it --- but since I haven't checked one single score of his, I cannot tell whether his music is halfway, thirdway or anyway competently composed at all.
Quote
If you are really interested, get some classic works in the genre and listen to them, study them, with the scores! Your questions will be answered thereby!
Study them with the scores???
Music should humbly seek to please; within these limits great beauty may perhaps be found. Extreme complication is contrary to art. Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part. ---
Claude Debussy(this coming from the father of modern music speaks volumes in itself)
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2014, 07:32:46 AM
Although I have been watching this thread with interest I have refrained from posting in it --- until now.
My dear friend, is it absolutely necessary for us, simple music lovers as we are, to understand what an arpeggiated chord is in order to appreciate its beauty?
I have just listened to Haydn's op. 76 / 2. I can deliver you a whole lecture about what it inspired me to feel and think of; but I guess it would amount to nothing, zero and nil, because I really don't understand what a fifth is... ;D
Music does not have to be understood. It has to be listened to. - Hermann Scherchen
I just loooooove Tchaikosvky. His music gives me goosebumps every single time I hear it --- but since I haven't checked one single score of his, I cannot tell whether his music is halfway, thirdway or anyway competently composed at all.
Study them with the scores???
Music should humbly seek to please; within these limits great beauty may perhaps be found. Extreme complication is contrary to art. Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part. --- Claude Debussy
(this coming from the father of modern music speaks volumes in itself)
Hi Florestan!
I understand your concern! :D
And of course, no, one does not need to understand music theory or what an arpeggiated chord is to love a work. Our Finnish member, however, seems interested in understanding the theory, of knowing "how is that placed on paper," and so studying the score is a good way to do that!
Quote from: Cato on September 28, 2014, 03:54:17 AM
1. Well, perhaps you do not understand what an arpeggiated chord is? Most people would not pick it up as a "melody" at all, but as a chord whose individual notes happened to be quickly separated for a split second.
I know the basic idea of arpeggiated chords, but I'm afraid I don't know the
exact definition. So, if the notes are separated say 1/8th of a whole note in time, it's not an arpeggiated chord? Even if the notes decay off very slowly and are heard simultaneously for seconds?
Quote from: Cato on September 28, 2014, 03:54:17 AM2. No, a piano would be able to separate the two parts, if we assume the music is even halfway competently composed! :D Did you check the Tchaikovsky score?
Sorry, I don't have the score of Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony. I don't even have a recording of the piece! :D
My ability to read scores is of course very poor. If I get myself scores someday, they will be Elgar's scores. 0:)
Quote from: Cato on September 28, 2014, 03:54:17 AMIf you are really interested, get some classic works in the genre and listen to them, study them, with the scores! Your questions will be answered thereby!
I'm interested of 20 times more things than I have time to study in my lifetime and I get interested of new things almost every day. I end up scratching the surfice of nearly everything. :D Maybe someday I will try to read Elgar's score of Enigma Variations.
Anyway, I have learned something new about 12 note technique and tone rows. Baby steps... ...thanks!
Quote from: 71 dB on September 28, 2014, 08:21:43 AM
I know the basic idea of arpeggiated chords,...
My ability to read scores is of course very poor. If I get myself scores someday, they will be Elgar's scores. 0:)
I'm interested of 20 times more things than I have time to study in my lifetime and I get interested of new things almost every day. I end up scratching the surface of nearly everything. :D Maybe someday I will try to read Elgar's score of Enigma Variations.
Anyway, I have learned something new about 12 note technique and tone rows. Baby steps... ...thanks!
Try this:
https://www.youtube.com/v/_TD8gjZ46gw
If you really cannot read music or scores, then you will need some training on simpler scores, like trios or string quartets, before graduating to an orchestral score by
Elgar! ;)
Many scores are available at the Petrucci Music Library on-line.
And here is a piano score and performance of the first and last movements of
Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony!
Skip to 18:53 or so for the
Adagio, and you will see that the "theme" is very harmonic, in 4 and 5 voices: try playing just one of the voices on a keyboard, and you will see how polyphony creates harmony, e.g. play just one of the bass voices, and see how different it is from the whole!
https://www.youtube.com/v/o5IiJZOhRk4
Quote from: Cato on September 28, 2014, 11:36:26 AM
Try this:
https://www.youtube.com/v/_TD8gjZ46gw
Thanks! Some of these videos can be educational.
Quote from: Cato on September 28, 2014, 11:36:26 AMIf you really cannot read music or scores, then you will need some training on simpler scores, like trios or string quartets, before graduating to an orchestral score by Elgar! ;)
Many scores are available at the Petrucci Music Library on-line.
Well, I was able to download the score of Handel's 'Largo' for piano a year or so ago. I 'programmed' about half of it on Garage Band. The idea is I try to add new sounds to the piece. Give me a minute and I'll tell you what the next note is. :D
Quote from: Cato on September 28, 2014, 11:36:26 AM
And here is a piano score and performance of the first and last movements of Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony! Skip to 18:53 or so for the Adagio, and you will see that the "theme" is very harmonic, in 4 and 5 voices: try playing just one of the voices on a keyboard, and you will see how polyphony creates harmony, e.g. play just one of the bass voices, and see how different it is from the whole!
https://www.youtube.com/v/o5IiJZOhRk4
Thanks. I'll check that out...
Quote from: Linus on September 26, 2014, 02:54:11 PM
Ah, I suppose that could dispel the worries I just wrote about above. ;D
Welcome to a twelve-tone
Ländler (http://youtu.be/NrtmTu1PxY0?t=9m50s)
In response to the OP, I'd suggest:
1. Rules are made to be broken.
2. All music (by definition really) has rules. Even randomly-generated music operates according to rules.
The rules governing the music of (for example) CPE Bach were potentially** far more restrictive than those that (for example) Schonberg adopted.
** except when he broke them.