Announcement

**Sorrano** · 07-01-2004, 07:34 PM

There are other considerations, too, that need to be made. Keep the famous four notes but displace them an octave apart. Change the rhythm, the dynamics, and even the timbre or instrument. Space the notes from one instrument to another. Even with those four notes (three repeated) there are a lot of ways to present them without coming close to what Beethoven did. Then take the 12 note chromatic scale and see what you can do with it. While all the results of this sort of experimentation will not produce a whistleable melody there will be variety and there is no seeming end to the possibilities even within the octave itself.

**Peter** · 07-01-2004, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
I have a question, which has been bothering me for some time. Perhaps some posters here, with better knowledge of music theory than I, can enlighten me.

Since (Western) music consists of only 12 notes, is there a limited number of melodies possible? Does a composer 'invent' a piece of music, or does he 'discover' it? Let's take a very obvious example to simplify my point: the four note motive of movement 1, Symphony 5. Did Beethoven invent it, or did he rather discover it? If he had died just after writing the 4th Symphony, could someone else have 'discovered' this catchy, memorable motive? Would the symphony have been written anyway, by someone else? And if musical themes/ideas are in fact discovered rather than invented, then does this not mean they are finite?; that we may reach a point at which tonal music becomes exhausted? Would this explain why there have been for some time few great composers, because the old masters came first, and used up all the musical themes possible? Perhaps all the great musical themes have been 'discovered', and there is none left?

I am not sure if my query makes sense - I suspect the answer to the question, 'discovered or invented?' will be, 'it doesn't matter' - but it is a problem that has been nagging at me, which I can't quite put out of my mind. I actually would rather the answer be, that music is invented. For if it is merely discovered, that seems to take the gloss off it somewhat. It diminishes the magic and greatest of the masters, as they are revealed not to have 'created' musical masterpieces as much as just happened to stumble across them.

No I don't think a piece of music is 'discovered' - it is created. You could apply that argument to literature and to art as well (chuck paint around on a canvass for long enough and end up with Botticelli or spend millions of years typing and produce Shakespeare!) and in my view it would be equally wrong.

Aside from the melody there is the use of rhythm, counterpoint, harmony, orchestration. Take your example of the opening motive of Beethoven's 5th, the same 4 notes occur (in different rhythms and keys) in Cherubini's overture Medea 2nd theme, Haydn's f minor piano variations and the opening of Mendelssohn's Violin concerto. The rhythmic pattern ...- occurs in Mozart's concerto K.503.

Even when a theme is virtually the same (rythmically and melodically) as Mozart's overture to Bastien and Beethoven's Eroica, the greatness lies in what is done with the material rather than the material itself. Another example is the slow movement of Mozart's Jupiter symphony and the horn theme in the finale of the 5th.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

**Rutradelusasa** · 07-02-2004, 12:27 AM

There was a research done in the last years (I don't remember when, but it was recent) of someone who discovered that tunes couldn't be created after a certain year (a close one, if not 2004) because all the combinations would be exausted. I agree with him, but on non-classical music only. And I guess he forgot classical music as well. Indeed tunes in pop music aren't very original, take some notes (4 or 5) to sing (??) "love, yoou, me-ee, hm-mm, shake, rock, etc." and you eventually run out of tunes.
As for classical music, I think there are endless possiblities for tunes, because they involve too many things, and the slightest change on one makes a new one who only resembles the former, take variations for example, Bach and Beethoven could find 30, 40 ways of writing one tune, maybe if they tweeked them a bit further, they would end up with 30, 40 different - one resembling the other, but different - tunes.

------------------
"Aaaaagnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi... PAM, PAM PA RAM PAM PAM..." (Missa Solemnis)

[This message has been edited by Rutradelusasa (edited 07-01-2004).]

**Gregorian** · 07-02-2004, 10:08 AM

It's also a question I've asked myself, Steppenwolf. But I think a good approach to this is to compare music to literature. In the English language we only have 26 letters, but we are able to fill up an entire dictionary of words made from these letters (or even many volumes if we consider Oxford's). Then we can think about how big a library it would take to hold all literature written in the English language. It may not be such a good comparison because there are more letters than notes, and languages always change.

Still, the important thing to remember is that "classical" (real) music is full of many styles and forms. A poem by Milton is on a completely different level than a chapter from Harry Potter. I think certainly there is mathematically a limit to all the possibilities for music. However, this number must be huge enough to fill up several thoudand pages. The many forms and styles that have developed and that could develop are absolutely overwhelming.

If you want more reassurance I'd recommend listening to several different styles of music compared to each other. For example, the Gregorian Requiem Mass compared to Verdi's. Or one of J.S. Bach's violin concertos compared to one of Mozart's. You'll be surprised of the diversity just in one genre.

In short, I'd have to agree with Sorrano. The possibilities are infinite.

**Beyond Within** · 07-02-2004, 10:35 AM

"Does a composer 'invent' a piece of music, or does he 'discover' it?"

I think 'discovery" in a sense is whats going on. It seems to me that a lot of "profound" ideas that I may have concerning anything seem to spring out of nothing. I will observe something, then intuition will manifest whatever thought it is into my mind. Nothing objective leads to the core ideas that I have. This is in general, from music to philosophy to language to anything. You can learn techniques, learn how to apply them, gain a sense of history in a field - but the seed of whatever is being created springs from nothing. This is why I believe in Platos Nepenthe. Its like, why is it that some people after learning basic algebra can solve really difficult algebraic problems in a flash? When Isaak Newton was asked where he came up with all his math, and all his ideas he responded "I just ponder the subject for a moment and the solution appears". The nurture based knowledge will hone this intuition, but the intuition itself is mysterious.

**Amalie** · 07-02-2004, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Amalie:

These really are esoteric areas and I have always been unsure myself just exactly what music is and what is exactly going on when we listen to a piece of music.
Schopenhauer thought it was a case of possession i.e. great artists were somehow possessed by or had higher powers and that their creativity was ignited by something of timeless energy.
The meaning of genius in Latin I think suggests possession by a spirit is it not, so it is a very old idea. The German romantics had a word for it, 'Einfuhlung', meaning the artist is merged in the work and is a pure medium for it. It is true I think that great artists like Beethoven, and Shakespeare in their later works particularly achieved what Brendel called, a moving towards profound stillness and merging with something greater than the human. These are just my random thoughts and these are ultimate questions and I am not sure that I have got it entirely in focus.
The odd thing is how these semiotic symbols on a page get translated into audible and beautiful sounds, and it is very wonderful and mysterious how Beethoven can convert that into hypothetical sounds in his own head when he was deaf. In many ways music is the most puzzling of all the arts in a philosophical sense.

------------------
~ Unsterbliche Geliebte ~

**Steppenwolf** · 07-02-2004, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Amalie:

Schopenhauer thought it was a case of possession i.e. great artists were somehow possessed by or had higher powers and that their creativity was ignited by something of timeless energy.

To be more specific, Schopenhauer taught that a great artist is able to see beyond the confines of his subjective individuality, and percieve universality. This is the difference between an inferior artist and a great artist. An inferior artist expresses his own feelings, feelings unique and peculiar to him, but feelings without any real significance to anyone else. But a great artist will express ideas and feelings that are universal. Let's take an example - if Beethoven was only only able to express, in the transition from 3rd to 4th movement in Symphony number 5, the triumph over his own personal adversity, over his own deafness, then the work would not be great art. Who would care about the trifles of some man who lived centuries ago? What does it matter to me? But he was able to do far more than that. He expressed not only his own spiritual-triumph-over-adversity, but spiritual-triumph-over-adversity as a universal. It is something to which we can all therefore relate. Likewise, a painting by a great master, depicting, for example, the Virgin Mary and baby Christ, will depict not only Mary's maternal love for her child, but maternal love ITSELF. As Schopenhauer taught, the contemplation of great art, will lead to a state of transcendental bliss, for we are able to rise above the confines of lonely and subjective individuality, and to merge with universality, where we are no longer alone.

**Amalie** · 07-03-2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
To be more specific, Schopenhauer taught that a great artist is able to see beyond the confines of his subjective individuality, and percieve universality. This is the difference between an inferior artist and a great artist. An inferior artist expresses his own feelings, feelings unique and peculiar to him, but feelings without any real significance to anyone else. But a great artist will express ideas and feelings that are universal. Let's take an example - if Beethoven was only only able to express, in the transition from 3rd to 4th movement in Symphony number 5, the triumph over his own personal adversity, over his own deafness, then the work would not be great art. Who would care about the trifles of some man who lived centuries ago? What does it matter to me? But he was able to do far more than that. He expressed not only his own spiritual-triumph-over-adversity, but spiritual-triumph-over-adversity as a universal. It is something to which we can all therefore relate. Likewise, a painting by a great master, depicting, for example, the Virgin Mary and baby Christ, will depict not only Mary's maternal love for her child, but maternal love ITSELF. As Schopenhauer taught, the contemplation of great art, will lead to a state of transcendental bliss, for we are able to rise above the confines of lonely and subjective individuality, and to merge with universality, where we are no longer alone.

Yes, I particularly like the idea that Schopenhauer propounded that everything was an aspect or manifestation of the will. That is clouds were an aspect of the will to impermanence, gender differences were an aspect of the will to generation, everything was an individual manifestiion of the universal will. Schopenhauer thought that music was a copy of the will itself because it so deeply expressed emotion which is at the core of human beings, all other art gives us ideas which manifest the will, but only music bypasses these ideas and is an immediate objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself is.
Music does not express this or that particular emotion or pleasure, sorrow, etc. but joy, pain, sorrow themselves in the abstract and in their essential nature, as it were.
This links up with Steppenwolf's earlier comment about art representing ie. love in itself the essential thing, albeit through individual expression.
Schopenhauer said that the progression of musical notes through time is understood by us as an analogy of the progress of our own inner strivings.
He said 'slow melodies strike painful discords and wind back to the key note only through many bars, are sad, on the analogy of delayed and hard won statisfaction. The Adagio speaks of the suffering of a great and noble endeavour that disdains all trifling happiness'.
What a marvellous comment, and how well we could apply this to Beethoven's music!.

When we experience joy or sorrow we usually have, according to Schopenhauer some representation of the way things are that give rise to the emotion. Emotions are usually about something. But he says that in music we grasp directly the essential shape of joy or sorrow and without any representation of what the emotion is about.
I do like his idea about the orchestra, which is at the bass is the lowest grade of the will and the violins the highest, which relates to the intellectual life and endeavour of man.
I don't think any other philosopher has come anywhere near such a profound analysis of music, whatever one thinks about the correctness or otherwise of his views.

------------------
~ Unsterbliche Geliebte ~

**v russo** · 07-04-2004, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
I have a question, which has been bothering me for some time. Perhaps some posters here, with better knowledge of music theory than I, can enlighten me.

Since (Western) music consists of only 12 notes, is there a limited number of melodies possible? Does a composer 'invent' a piece of music, or does he 'discover' it? Let's take a very obvious example to simplify my point: the four note motive of movement 1, Symphony 5. Did Beethoven invent it, or did he rather discover it? If he had died just after writing the 4th Symphony, could someone else have 'discovered' this catchy, memorable motive? Would the symphony have been written anyway, by someone else? And if musical themes/ideas are in fact discovered rather than invented, then does this not mean they are finite?; that we may reach a point at which tonal music becomes exhausted? Would this explain why there have been for some time few great composers, because the old masters came first, and used up all the musical themes possible? Perhaps all the great musical themes have been 'discovered', and there is none left?

I am not sure if my query makes sense - I suspect the answer to the question, 'discovered or invented?' will be, 'it doesn't matter' - but it is a problem that has been nagging at me, which I can't quite put out of my mind. I actually would rather the answer be, that music is invented. For if it is merely discovered, that seems to take the gloss off it somewhat. It diminishes the magic and greatest of the masters, as they are revealed not to have 'created' musical masterpieces as much as just happened to stumble across them.

Personality goes a long way in making art. Does everyone make love the same way?

**v russo** · 07-04-2004, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
I have a question, which has been bothering me for some time. Perhaps some posters here, with better knowledge of music theory than I, can enlighten me.

Since (Western) music consists of only 12 notes, is there a limited number of melodies possible? Does a composer 'invent' a piece of music, or does he 'discover' it? Let's take a very obvious example to simplify my point: the four note motive of movement 1, Symphony 5. Did Beethoven invent it, or did he rather discover it? If he had died just after writing the 4th Symphony, could someone else have 'discovered' this catchy, memorable motive? Would the symphony have been written anyway, by someone else? And if musical themes/ideas are in fact discovered rather than invented, then does this not mean they are finite?; that we may reach a point at which tonal music becomes exhausted? Would this explain why there have been for some time few great composers, because the old masters came first, and used up all the musical themes possible? Perhaps all the great musical themes have been 'discovered', and there is none left?

I am not sure if my query makes sense - I suspect the answer to the question, 'discovered or invented?' will be, 'it doesn't matter' - but it is a problem that has been nagging at me, which I can't quite put out of my mind. I actually would rather the answer be, that music is invented. For if it is merely discovered, that seems to take the gloss off it somewhat. It diminishes the magic and greatest of the masters, as they are revealed not to have 'created' musical masterpieces as much as just happened to stumble across them.

nothing in life is FINITE!

------------------
v russo

**Steppenwolf** · 07-04-2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Amalie:

The Adagio speaks of the suffering of a great and noble endeavour that disdains all trifling happiness'.
What a marvellous comment, and how well we could apply this to Beethoven's music!.

Of course, Wagner's Tristan und Isolde illustrates Schopenhauer's philosophy most deliberately and vividly (although, interestingly, Wagner's music was too avant-guarde for the very conservative Schopenhauer's taste). But if you want to hear Schopenhauer in Beethoven's music, then I think you can't go better than the theme of the second movement of the 7th Symphony. Although I have heard this adagio described as blissful and serene, to me it has always seemed intensely tragic. It seems to match the mood of the fourth section of the Volume I of Schopenhauer's great work, 'The World as Will and Representation' ('Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung').

**urtextmeister** · 07-04-2004, 07:36 PM

All of this philosophical stuff sounds quite interesting. I should really look into it.

I am trying to make my way through some of Adorno's writings on Beethoven. He seems to refer a lot to Hegel. Reading this is kind of like putting your brains through a blender.

Anyway, getting back to the original topic:
I think we have a greater ability to perceive subtlety than we give ourselves credit for.
Take the human face, for instance. It is basically two eyes, a nose and a mouth. You can space them apart differently, make larger or smaller, but it is actually quite limited. And yet, how many people do you see who look exactly the same?
Dogs take this a step further and can identify everyone by their smell. You would think they run across two people who smell pretty much the same, but, no, they can always tell...
I almost feel like this idea of running out of note combinations is a myth. Maybe it is nearly infinite?
Can you imagine, after all of the billions of people who have existed, running out of faces?

**Amalie** · 07-04-2004, 08:09 PM

a

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
Of course, Wagner's Tristan und Isolde illustrates Schopenhauer's philosophy most deliberately and vividly (although, interestingly, Wagner's music was too avant-guarde for the very conservative Schopenhauer's taste). But if you want to hear Schopenhauer in Beethoven's music, then I think you can't go better than the theme of the second movement of the 7th Symphony. Although I have heard this adagio described as blissful and serene, to me it has always seemed intensely tragic. It seems to match the mood of the fourth section of the Volume I of Schopenhauer's great work, 'The World as Will and Representation' ('Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung').

I do agree with that it is very interesting.
Surely, to take a well know example, Beethoven's 5th symphony is the purest and most direct representation of fate or necessity, destiny, call it what you will in the whole of music. Of course Beethoven's increasing deafness and his heroic and ultimately transforming resignation may have been the immediate subject or theme of the symphony or even events in the turbulent war torn Europe, but we cannot fail to be impressed surely by the overwhelming sense we have when listening to it of fate or destiny as a force in the universe which goes way beyond man and his circumstances.
Mahler we know, in several of his symphonies has a tragic sense of fate or destiny, but it has to be said, Beethoven's 5th is uquestionably far superior in this respect in my view.
I will look into getting the fascinating book you quoted, 'The World as Will and Representation' by, Schopenhauer. The philosophy of music is indeed a fascinating subject
and in fact more interesting and
instructive than appears on first reading when it can seem a bit daunting.

------------------
~ Unsterbliche Geliebte ~

[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited 07-04-2004).]

**william jesset** · 07-08-2004, 03:11 AM

Hello everyone -
as I am new to this forum I would like to
say I would not have registered had I not
stumbled upon this site and the
topic of "is music finite"
first I would like to say I am
impressed with the level of intelligence
that is demonstrated - as one becomes
accustomed to much less when dealing
with internet 'forums' per se
that being said in regards to the
question of 12 tones being finite I
remember something being stated to the
effect of 500,000 + /-
permutations(?) -the'Slominsky "Thesaurus
of Melodic Patterns" being the source of
my statement and I may be wrong as I
lent my copy out -(see introduction
if you have access to a copy)
That aside lets discuss Western
Harmony - is it not built from the
overtone series? which then came
the intervals of 3rds? then evolved
"chords' which have a tendency to
'move' in a cyclic cadence of perfect
4ths? Granted a very simplistic view
of Music but my point is that
Music (western) subscibes to a law
of physics as well as to a law of
"spirit"
All of the previous posts touch upon
this aspect and that I find that most
intriguing-
Pythagoras wasn't he the mystic that
the adage "music sooths the savage
beast (breast)" is attributed to?
I do believe he also was adamant
about how the wrong "modes' at the
wrong time would bring about dire
consequences for the Republic (read
humanity) one only needs to review
music(today) as part of (a) larger
scheme for corporations to sell product
or elicit a certain response from
the consumer -as an example of art
gone astray
and perhaps I also have strayed from
the topic, but what I find most
inspiring in addition to his body of
work-
his legacy - is the fact that even
when his body failed him -
Beethoven DID not fail Music -
from what information that is
available it seems "MUSIC for Music's
sake' was the ephemeral brass ring
he sought to grasp with what time
he had to create -
I believe yes music is created/
with what nature provides via limits/
the laws of physic's via the
creator via the human vessel/soul
so in effect it is INFINITE in its
power to heal to soothe to uplift
to give courage to live life and
to marvel in the mysteries of it all-
and yes everytime a note is created/
played with joy I believe that is
also a creation - in effect to balance/
to put in check the negative aspects of
the world- which once you begin to
experience more you will agree that
one cannot exist without the
other - one cannot be happy had they
not experienced sorrow etc etc -
Most certainly I've disregarded
the original question ...so
"is music finite' Yes and No
it has it's parameters but is not what
was forgotten seem new upon its
rediscovery?

I thank you for the stimulation
and for the opportunity to learn more
William Jesset

Announcement

Are Musical Ideas Finite?

Are Musical Ideas Finite?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment