Discussion in 'Education' started by foster911, May 13, 2018.
Sorry for any inconvenience.
Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2018
The required tertiary phenolgical deduction is reactive. Contiguous notation suggests a positive reduction inherently suggestive of your presupposition. Accordingly, in opposition, Felix Mengelberg's 1909 "Statement Within Reason" reflects his own leanings and most assuredly is in accordance.
Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2018
Slonimsky has one of the most influential scale methods in history. Ultimately it's all a set of labels.
People use whatever tools they have available to them at the time and write whatever they feel like writing.
The "how" is an interesting debate.
The "why" is possibly more important. Some of the most famous tunes in history had inspiration from something other than music whether a person, a place or an event etc....
Diatonics are a guideline set of rules. They have been broken perpetually, some for the better.
It comes down to what the composer's end goal is and how open-minded they are within their goals. Some people hear something simple and other people hear complex. Those roles in two totally different composers can go to the polar opposite, depending on their mood and motivation.
Categorising anyone into a square box tends to limit not just our own perception but the people around who are affected by the categorising.
Composing is a beautiful thing if people just let that happen for the right reasons.
Composing for a film is different, because the Director and producers have a defined set of goals that they want and they are paying you to achieve their goals., but your own composing is not restricted by other people's wishes.
not right and not wrong
the right side of you have said is those music must played using western tonality based instruments, but music which in some non western instruments country and culture probably based pentatonics and just some percussions, or drone sound fx with not pitched vocal
I really have to take issue with this blatant supposition..to whit..Mengelborg's assertion ( you spelled his name wrong, and I believe
it was actually 1908, but I'll let you have a mulligan on that one) that precisely 79.125% of all composers.. use 3.π compositional
techniques ( nothwithstanding now.. that π is an irrational number BUT we supersede this difficulty by truncating this number
to 5 decimal places.. and that should be sufficient to describe and settle this epistemological conundrum ). In fact.. Bertrand Russell
was known to quip that "Composers these days.. barely know shit from shine-ola." Though without much surprise.. various
and sundry in the musical intelligentsia have taken him to task for his crude reductio ad absurdum of this profound controversy
in 20th and early 21st century composition..(nevermind that he died before the 21st century commenced, stop trifling )
Which again as stated with great prejudice.. this neglects the long history aforehand of various lower life forms
also using these techniques since.. time immemorial... e.g. Serengeti hyena choirs.. Giraffe bongo festivals.. and
the oft noted big cat symphonies.. Cheetahs on bamboo kazoos.. Serval sections with a primitive form of the didgeridoo,
and sand cats blasting away on tubas fashioned from the husk of the baobab tree....with admittedly a Lion usually serving as
with regret I have to recount that the panthers seemingly were unable or (more likely) unwilling to play any instruments whatsoever..
Last edited by a moderator: May 14, 2018
It is but an example of Licence Artistique Panchromatique Tecnique. It is my way of saying I have absolutely no understanding of what is being discussed even after I read all the material.
I second that emotion...
Dear Foster, I strongly oppose your claims about "Without this technique, most people could not make music. This technique musically doesn't need anything" for 2 reasons First being logic: a claim needs explanations - you don't give any...
2nd reason: Just because something appears to be simple and generic as the Pan-Diantonic scale, doesn't mean it's simple and intuitive.
Although the Pan-Diatonic Scale is not based around a tonal center (it's generic within a scale of 8 notes still, so it does not mean, just play anything you pleased with - that would be chromatic). And although it has no functional harmony of some sort, it's a pretty "unusual/unfamiliar" and unintuitively sounding scale, based somewhere between Tonality and Modalitiy.
And I bet no one who starts fiddling around with a keyboard for the very first time, will use that mode intuitively. Because it sounds anthing but intuitive! And anything generic means it's more complex and therefore less intuitive and that's NOT how anybody starts making music.
So to give a finite answer: you're wrong. :D
Another claim of yours: "Before Pandiatonicism, using dissonance intervals (Chromaticism) was the composer's goal to approach out of diatonism but today Chromaticism has been totally disregarded and diminished to Pandiatonicism."
Sinply and utterly wrong :D You will find many examples of modal and chromatic bits in current film scoring which is basically just stuck in neo-romantism, because it's the most refined/advanced of the tradional tonal composition techniques. So your claim is as true as saing the world is flat.
... completely wrong and the article is pretty bad. Did you hear any of the pandiatonic pieces listed on the page you linked - some of them are based on completely different techniques like quartal/quintal harmony, polytonality, non-diatonic modes/scales etc. Compare to a typical pop song or current film music, or whatever.
You are obsessed with techniques and rules; just try to compose some music, man. Theory is not your strong side (and the world won't end, if you don't compose using some arbitrary rules). You are free to make any kind of music, using any technique.
Time again for a bit of praise and love for our poor lonely pink kitten:
Article nicely picked out of Wikipedia, yes, sounds educated, yes, has something to do with music - how great!
Quickly added a few controversial, unproven claims and ready is the bait for a few clueless, who seriously engage in the "topic" (although barely understand it) - really cool!
A proven recipe, re-cooked, immediately posted, voilà - well done again!
What's a scale?
Foster911's post are always so one-sided and blatantly disregarding a lot of things, I think we're reaching some kind of paroxysm with this one.
Separate names with a comma.