Major and Minor Scales

[Sorrano]

Sticking with one's comfort zone, at least to me, implies a refusal to experiment outside the realm of one's normal experience. It isn't simply a matter of trying something that one knows that he or she dislikes, but rather pushing the envelope of what is comfortable and going beyond what has been experienced before. We may not like everything or anything that we experience, but is it because we are so attuned to that level of comfort and do not wish to leave it? Some of my favorite pieces of music once resided in that area of discomfort, pieces that I did not like at all. Consider where music was 2,000 years ago and where it is today. There have been a lot of changes and evolution that have resulted by people pushing the envelope and going beyond the comfort zones. Would people of that era find Beethoven's 3rd Symphony within their realm of human experience, or would it be pure cacophony to their tastes? (Even people in Beethoven's day were shocked when they first heard it.)

[The Dude]

I don't think we need to be patronized by somebody "explaining" what a comfort zone is, with respect. My comfort zone is having lots of money and being able to live as I want - many people wouldn't have a problem with that. I don't. 'Comfort zones' can be excellent and are, really, a privileged position.

This argument reminds me of painting the house. I can't paint the house before the rooms are painted, and I can't paint them because the carpet is too old. But I can't replace the carpet because the windows are old-fashioned and this would be too expensive, so I'd better forget painting the house!!

If we have to keep explaining what music is and how it has evolved to JUSTIFY modern trends then we might as well give up. I believe in the singular beauty of all music from the past - not its journey into something more sophisticated: I'm sure this sentiment has been eloquently expressed before on these boards, and I concur. I think it is a philosophical argument about the relationship between what people hear, how they understand it and how they feel as a result of it. That inextricable link with the past also creates the "meaning" for audiences. Strip music of all of those contexts and you have no experience - ergo, no 'music'.

And now, The Dude is bored with this discussion...

[Sorrano]

The music that you enjoy today came about because of what was then "modern trends". They did not come about because people were not willing to explore. Modern trends do not need to be justified. They are what they are.

[Ed C]

Have any composers explored altered tuning systems, scales, etc., that are not octave based? That would go against the natural harmonics, but it could provide some interesting music.

Sure. Allan Holdsworth for one. He's actually a jazz guitarist (maybe more like fusion, but in a good way). IMHO he is by far the most advanced guitarist on the planet. He learned to play guitar using his ear rather than some method book and because of this he came up with multi-octave scales - up to 3 octaves I believe. The way to do this is to have intervals greater than major seconds all over the place. If there's a Beethoven for guitar - Holdsworth is it. Sadly Allan is mainly interested in improvisation, though his songs are actually quite unconventional - lots of key-independent parallel harmonies.

Pretty sure Harry Partch used multi-octave scales as well - but I haven't really studied his music in depth to be sure.

Frankly the article leaves me a bit skeptical without at least some kind of layman's explanation of this mapping algorithm. 97 % of contemporary scales have a star pattern? I would like to know more about what made the 3 % stand out...

PS - Holdsworths multi-octave scales don't need any special tuning, he plays a normally tuned guitar generally. It's the scale shape that exceeds an octave's interval. Now if you mean stretching an octave beyond the pitch interval of an octave and subdividing it into non-equal-temperament intervals to make a scale - that's Harry Partch territory.

4/1 Squeezed, Stretched and Webernized Beethoven

[Ed C]

Whoa.

OK here's my 2 ducats. Music is a word. A word has meaning. That meaning comes from how people use it. In other words, common-usage. The common usage of the word "music" (or ongaku/la musique/musik) for 99 percent of the world is basically classical/rock/pop/rap/jazz/folk. 12-tone music is music because probably more than 50 percent of people asked would identify that as music. However Stockhausen's "Mikrophonie I" - a tiny, tiny percent would call that music. Same with the notorious Cage 4'33". If a hundred thousand people call that music, but 3 billion call it something else, well it's not music, it's something else...

My name for all this other stuff is "sound design". Consider Ligeti's "Artikulation" from 1958:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71hNl_skTZQ
Lots of electronic music books claim that's music - but outside of the academic world and the minds of some hipsters - that's NOT music. That's "funny sounds played in a sequence". Just because many avantgardists want to call that "music" in order to find some kind of legitimacy in the music establishment - doesn't make them the experts on what is or isn't music.

Actually I personally don't feel any need to expunge "funny noises" from my existence. If you saw "Transformers 2" - then you heard over 2 hours of "modern music" - in other words the sounds of giant robots bashing each other to pieces is pretty much the cutting edge of modern music in my opinion as a performer and composer. Totally serious. And I think they add quite alot to the film action. A composer friend of mine wants to buy this modular synth that costs $70,000. Who can afford that? Hollywood.

But I've come to the realization that I don't really enjoy putting on a "sound effects" record and relaxing with a cup of tea at home. I'd much rather hear Beethoven or at least something that sounds like human articulation.

Finally, the definition really comes down to posterity. In Beethoven's time his music was actually much more accepted than most people seem to think. Napoleon's brother wanted him as a personal court composer. He had 20,000 people at his funeral. What composer in the last 50 years can claim the equivalent to that? Michael Jackson I suppose... Elliot Carter is largely considered by many living composers to be the greatest 20th Century composer of the last 70 years. Will he have the fame of Meyerbeer - or Beethoven? Only time will tell.

However I'm pretty skeptical that "funny sounds" will ever really be considered music. 12-tone is over 80 years old and most people HATE it. The reason is because when you go non-diatonic, you toss out the consonant relationships created from the harmonic series - especially major triads. Major chords sound good because they vibrate together in a way that is the closest stacking of harmonic overtones possible. Stacking minor seconds on top of each other sounds like crap because there are harmonic "interference patterns" bouncing all over the place. And then once you get into sound synthesis....that's a whole 'nother ball of wax...

And the irony of it all is that today's Daily Beethoven theme is an "avantgarde" one....


4/1 Squeezed, Stretched and Webernized Beethoven

[Euan Mackinnon]

Sorrano 31-03-11 06:05 PM

And what is the "realm of the truly human"? And what is music? Any "traditional" [musical?] composition can be reduced to mathematics. Does that, then, remove it from that realm? Music is all about possibilities and sounds. Without that there would be no music. The idea of creating music that is beyond the realm of human experience does not appeal to people who are confined within their comfort zones. Those who are willing and can escape those confines have a limitless approach to music and what it is.

(My emphasis and addition.)

Sorrano

I should be grateful if you could expand on "Any "traditional composition can be reduced to mathematics". (Perhaps another thread?)

Thank you

Euan

[Peter]

Sticking with one's comfort zone, at least to me, implies a refusal to experiment outside the realm of one's normal experience. It isn't simply a matter of trying something that one knows that he or she dislikes, but rather pushing the envelope of what is comfortable and going beyond what has been experienced before. We may not like everything or anything that we experience, but is it because we are so attuned to that level of comfort and do not wish to leave it? Some of my favorite pieces of music once resided in that area of discomfort, pieces that I did not like at all. Consider where music was 2,000 years ago and where it is today. There have been a lot of changes and evolution that have resulted by people pushing the envelope and going beyond the comfort zones. Would people of that era find Beethoven's 3rd Symphony within their realm of human experience, or would it be pure cacophony to their tastes? (Even people in Beethoven's day were shocked when they first heard it.)

First of all I think you have two false premises - 1) We actually have a more limited knowledge of the music of ancient civilisations than you imply and following on from this 2) you imply an improvement in music with each generation which isn't necessarily so. I can't recall who said it now (it may have been Charles Rosen) but had Mozart been able to hear the music of Mahler he may not have liked it but he would have understood it because it used the same basic language of tonality that had been in use since before Bach. What we had in the 20th century was a sudden abandonment of that language - it was though we suddenly stopped speaking English and were forced to speak Chinese - does that mean evolution or revolution? Many who went down that path such as the pioneer of 'concrete music' Pierre Schaeffer actually later renounced their former work and stated that it wasn't music.

Do I enjoy listening to jet engines, cars and all the ghastly modern sounds that the World Health Organistaion rightly recognise as damaging to human health - no and thankfully I live in the beautiful countryside away from it all and if that means I'm in a comfort zone, well I'd rather be there than in a morgue!

[Sorrano]

There are some apparent misconceptions with my intentions and some is undoubtedly my own fault for lack of clarity. My intent is that we look beyond our comfort zones (not necessarily escape them altogether) in order to expand them. We do that by experimenting with new things, accepting that which appeals to us (sometimes it takes repeated efforts, i.e., cultivating a taste) and rejecting that which does not.

With respect to the 12-tone system, that is an area, as Ed has mentioned, that really did not do well. There are some composers who were able to utilize the system effectively, such as Webern, Berg, and Schoenberg, but it does not lend itself well to traditional ears. But this is a facet of the avant-garde, exploring new things with the knowledge that not everything will work. But if we do not explore we will not find.

Also, I do understand that Beethoven was very much accepted by his peers and his music much respected and admired. However, there were those that felt that his music was too modern. Where would we be, musically, if Beethoven hadn't experimented with new things?

Euan, (good to see you again) the mathematics part isn't really such a big deal; that music can be converted to numbers can be easily seen with transcribing music to midi. I can play something on the piano, expressively, etc., and through the conversion process replay almost exactly what I played through the computer or any other midi device. There isn't anything really mystical about it.

Ed, I appreciate the names you mentioned; I will have to examine some of their works.

TheDude, the music of the past is a result of journeys into the future. That you can enjoy the "singular beauty of all music from the past" says much for you, not everyone can say that. Your listening lists on the other thread show depth into your choices.

[Peter]

There are some apparent misconceptions with my intentions and some is undoubtedly my own fault for lack of clarity. My intent is that we look beyond our comfort zones (not necessarily escape them altogether) in order to expand them. We do that by experimenting with new things, accepting that which appeals to us (sometimes it takes repeated efforts, i.e., cultivating a taste) and rejecting that which does not.

Absolutely I agree we must try new things and approaches constantly but gradually we learn what we like and what we don't - I don't think it right to suggest those who don't like avant-garde music have a limited outlook - unfortunately that is very much the rather patronising position taken by many of its adherents. You are quite right as well that tastes do change and what doesn't appeal at first may do so later.

With respect to the 12-tone system, that is an area, as Ed has mentioned, that really did not do well. There are some composers who were able to utilize the system effectively, such as Webern, Berg, and Schoenberg, but it does not lend itself well to traditional ears. But this is a facet of the avant-garde, exploring new things with the knowledge that not everything will work. But if we do not explore we will not find.

Also, I do understand that Beethoven was very much accepted by his peers and his music much respected and admired. However, there were those that felt that his music was too modern. Where would we be, musically, if Beethoven hadn't experimented with new things?

Well I'm not sure that Beethoven experimented with new things in the sense you mean - he developed further what was already there and often looked further back for inspiration. I don't think it comparable to Schoenberg coming up with a completely new language and breaking entirely with the past; Beethoven's ingredients were still those of Haydn and were based on a deep respect for the past not a reaction against it.

[Ed C]

I think the whole problem with the terminology of "comfort zones" which started this whole nastiness is its use as a broad description of another person's musical tastes. "Confined within one's comfort zones" in the original context is like saying - "you have a small brain that cannot grow". Frankly it may not have been the intent but I can see that it can be perceived that way. Maybe that phrase should just be dropped from the conversation.

I think exploration is great, on that I agree with you Sorrano. Without outside-the-box thinking there would be no progress. However there should be no criticism of people who don't like it. Therein lies the path to elitism....

One more addendum to what I wrote last night - I think music MUST have a discernible beat or pulse for it to be embraced by the public and posterity. If one cannot dance to it - well let's just say 99% all recordings that 99% of the world would call "music" is something that can be danced to. Tho I would welcome some exceptions to this rule if offered by anybody.

Edit: Ah, I see Peter and I were both typing away at the same point at the same time lol..

4/1 Squeezed, Stretched and Webernized Beethoven

[Sorrano]

I think immediately of Ligeti's Lontano with respect to discernible beats, etc., as maybe an exception. Frankly, I find attempting to define music as quite difficult because there are so many who vary from one concept to another.

As for the term comfort zone, I can see, now, how that could easily have been misinterpreted. It certainly wasn't my intention to refer to anyone here as having limited cranial capacity, but rather that if we wish to grow we should experiment and examine that which is outside the box, as you have put it, Ed.

Beethoven's experimentations outside the norms was sheer genius in the way that he combined traditional forms and harmonies to expand the current trends.

[Ed C]

I think immediately of Ligeti's Lontano with respect to discernible beats, etc., as maybe an exception.

Oh right - yes - I agree. Any kind of ambient/drone music is largely accepted as music - though it's still quite danceable in a "Goth" kind of way I suppose. When I say Goth I mean the "catching flies" style of dancing. That's kind of a visual joke....

[Euan Mackinnon]

Sorrano 01-04-11 15:23 (UK time)

[...] the mathematics part isn't really such a big deal; that music can be converted to numbers can be easily seen with transcribing music to midi. I can play something on the piano, expressively, etc., and through the conversion process replay almost exactly what I played through the computer or any other midi device. There isn't anything really mystical about it.

I hope you will forgive me if I push you a little.

One of the main things that interests me about music and mathematics concerns the question of attribution.

I imagine many here will feel that they can hear a piece of music that they do not know yet be able to say with a degree of confidence that 'that is by Beethoven' or Mozart or etc.

Of course there are many pieces where scholars argue about whether a piece is or is not by (say) Mozart.

So, supposed we mapped the music into some mathematical form (e.g MIDI as Sorrano quotes) then, surely(?), we can apply some mathematical pattern-recognition-like process to produce a probability that the said piece is (say) 95% likely to be by Mozart.

After all, I would argue, there aren't many variables to consider: note and note length, harmony, tempo, dynamic, etc.

Personally I would see this as a (geometrical) pattern in n-dimensions (where n is the number of variables we choose to consider). But, I guess, MIDI is just a transformation on that space akin, perhaps, to comparing DNA by comparing sequences of bases.

Anyone (Sorrano?) got any thoughts on that? I find it hard to imagine that this approach has not already been tried somewhere.

Euan

[Euan Mackinnon]

And as a postscript, such a mathematical approach could well go a long way to settling the question of whether a particular sound (sequence of sounds) was or was not music, or noise, or something else completely.

Euan

[Quijote]

Well, for a thread originally about Major & Minor Scales we have certainly covered a lot of "collateral issues", so to speak, haven't we? May I add my 5 centimes worth? I'll take each posting chronologically (that is, the ones that interest me ...).