I agree about this. I have a higher education in music and where I studied, I never let myself be contaminated by the dictates of postmodernity and new musical complexity. My teachers, 90% of them, were all more interested in the tortuous compositional processes than in the audible result (taking into account, of course, the genres and styles of their preference, the sets of rules they set out to follow and cheating). And when I listened to your compositions, with few exceptions, I found them absolutely disappointing (from the point of view of fruition, obviously).

And I don't agree with the idea of music as disembodied. It seems to me that it is conceptualized precisely by the body and mind (embodied cognition) in a complex relationship with the surrounding environment: from image schema (perceptual gestaltts), going to compositional schemata (observation and assimilation of rule sets relevant to genres and styles) to conceptualization (high level processing, association, symbolization, music as systems - music as culture and music in culture, along with its subsequent transformations and reframings).

 

Last edited: Jan 20, 2020

And so the obvious question, which I was clearly too slow to ask, is...
"Why don't we just use a different notation system that more easily accommodates all 12 chromatic pitches?"

And given that the world has asked and answered that question plenty of times already (of course)
here's a great place to look at next to explore the idea of a 'Chromatic Staff'
http://musicnotation.org/tutorials/chromatic-staves-example/
http://musicnotation.org/tutorials/6-6-and-7-5-pitch-patterns/

and this page http://musicnotation.org/tutorials/enharmonic-equivalents/
is contributing to my search for that elusive essay by discussing...
"Is there a need to differentiate between enharmonic equivalents?
What are the reasons for doing so? How compelling are they?"

I couldn't resist posting this (nice) screenshot extract from that page as an example of why someone might want to use the different labels for the same notes. An example that serves a musical purpose rather than being an example based on limitations of the notation system.
The notes refer to it as "using different enharmonic equivalents in order to communicate different types of relationships between notes"

 

Last edited: Jan 21, 2020

Your use of the word 'ignorantly' is ignorant, and your posturing with your phoney wisdom is alarmingly pathetic.

To quote the classic response... "I do have an open mind, just not open enough to let my brains fall out!"

Try this...
"I know for a fact that Elvis is not dead, he was abducted by aliens and is playing live every night at a cosmic casino in the Andromeda galaxy. I DEMAND that my ideas are taught in schools. To instantly reject my wisdom would be ignorant."

How long did it take you to dismiss my alleged wisdom in the above garbage, 1 second? 2 seconds?

How about if I borrow your phrase.. "To ignorantly dismiss things without further investigation is not very wise."

How astonishingly ignorant would you have to be to follow your own advice and spend the next few months further investigating my claims about Elvis.

When garbage is crystal clear garbage, you dismiss it instantly.
That is how I effortlessly reacted to your woo-woo-new-age-pseudo-science drivel.

If I had evaluated it in any way other than garbage - that would have been ignorant!

And that is definitely my last response to anything that I see from you.
I would have to be thoroughly stupid to waste any time at all chasing Elvis to Andromeda or you to cloud cuckoo land.
(actually the Elvis theory might be the saner option of the two )

 

Posturing? Really? And im a phoney? I point out a truth and because of it im pathetic? Simply because it clashes with the lies you have been taught? There is nothing woowooo about anything i said. Pure science. Care to know what i find pathetic? The fact that you are attacking me on a personal level instead of addressing the info at hand like adults in a grown up manner. Its very immature behaviour and speaks volumes about you and your current mindset / level of consciousness. I confronted you with a truth by pointing your ignorance out to you and it triggered you to go berserk.

The real question is why do you feel the need to either accept or dismiss a particular matter in the first place, let alone that quick without further investigation, without giving it any thought whatsoever? Why do you feel the need to put everything in a box and label it? Despite the fact that your claim is ridiculous and made up and in stark contrast to mine, i can not dismiss your claim about Elvis (neither can you), for there is no possible way for me to know this for sure. Never seen the corpse of Elvis, i have no DNA to confirm that the burried corpse is really him. I have to blindly believe the media in this case, i can not verify it myself, neither can you. Your claim is highly unlikely but still there is no way for me to know this for certain or to verify your claim, hence why the most sane thing to do is to not ignorantly dismiss, nor accept your claim and to leave that door open. You might want to watch the video below from start to finish. VERY GOOD points being made around the middle. You may learn something about yourself. We all can learn from that video. Click on it and watch in full.

Except that my claim is based on pure science and mathematics.

How exactly do you know its garbage? Please elaborate? And how would you even be able to evaluate my claim that quick in a matter of seconds? Which means you rejected it merely because it sounded crazy to you or because it didnt quite fit your current limited paradigm / understanding of music theory. The fact remains, you ignorantly dismissed it without further contemplation or investigation and that is the highest form of ignorance one can engage in and i merely confronted you with this truth and it triggered you which speaks volumes about your psyche. Are you denying that there is only one whole? And if you falsely break up the whole into individual parts, should the individual parts be treated as independent wholes? Yes or no? And why didnt you address my previous question to you? Here it is again.

"Scales and chords for instance, are they really two seperate things? Chords can be looked at as "scales in which you play the notes together", and scales can be looked at as "chords in which you play the notes one after another", then the scale and chord formula are one and the same thing. But it is taught to you as if they were two seperate things. The chord formulas are also the scale formulas, and the scale formulas are also the chord formulas. Is that not so?"

Would you please be so kind and address the above with a quick yes or no? And if your answer should be yes, how do you explain that? Because if the two were truly two seperate things (seperate wholes), then what i described above should not be the case at all that both (chords and scales) follow the exact same formula, meaning they are one and the same thing, no? Please enlighten me? In music theory, aren't we taught that chords and scales are two seperate things? But i already proved to you that they are not seperate which you can verify for yourself, no blind belief required. Is that just a coincidence? Both follow the exact same formula, hence why they are one and the same thing and the same goes for scales. There is only one scale. And there is a lot more i could bring up and point out. So far i only hinted at it.

If you know so much, please enlighten me and actually address my questions. Should be easy for you to refute what i said with actual evidence or at least an explanation? Can you? If you call something BS, you should be able to provide an explanation which you have not done thus far. Why not? Are you egoistical? Dont care to enlighten a brother? If im in the dark here, please show me the light and help me out instead of leaving me in the dark. I will listen to you with an open mind, without preconceived notions or resistence of any kind. Maybe you can do the same and lets see where it leads and what truth will present itself here? We could all learn from it and gain new insights and understanding. After all, this is not about who is right and who is wrong (winner and loser). Its all about discovering and learning TOGETHER but sadly most people dont even really care for truth to begin with, they care more about coming out of a debate or discussion as some sort of winner which stems from ego, quite sad. You made all these false and nasty accusations towards me without actually providing an explanation or anything of value for that matter like i have done. You ignorantly dismissed it merely because it didnt fit your current paradigm, and that behaviour, by definition, reflects the highest form of ignorance. Food for thought.

- Gatekeeper432

 

Last edited: Jan 21, 2020

You seem to have misunderstood my point, and so both agree with your wonderful explanation of a living music. My thought is that music in it's written form conveys almost nothing of the undercurrent of emotion and passion that hearing the music, especially when played by musicians, can sway. Walk up to a person on the street and show them the sheet music for Perr Gynt's Suite Number 1 and ask them how to explain in which way the music influences their mood, if it brings up memories of their past or influences the next 10 minutes of their day after looking at it. They will look at you in bewilderment. Can someone who has never enjoyed the taste of a strawberry, by looking at it's chemical constituent or seeing a photograph taste the sweetness or feel the juice drip down their skin? That's my point.

 

It seems like there was just a trivial interpretation hiccup and you guys are really in agreement.

Given what you've both been saying (an enjoyable read), you guys seem like the right people to put this question to.
So, I'd like to squeeze some opinions out of you.

When you talk about music being emotion-driven (and I'm certainly not contesting that)
Do you think the emotion has to be the composer's own emotion?

An analogy: A fiction writer may wish to describe the emotional turmoil of someone experiencing a major tragedy, and they might succeed in portraying that emotion without ever experiencing that tragedy themselves. A fiction writer can convey what it's like to be in the head of a murderer without ever committing the crime.

In Leonard Bernstein's lecture series, The Unanswered Question, there's a section where he's talking about Stravinsky.
Here's an extract..
"What the great Igor did, over that forty-some-year period, was to keep tonality "fresh", by one means or another Again, Adorno would say that he kept it fresh by refrigeration, thus freezing the life out of it. That would be a hostile way of describing what was actually true; namely, a new objectivity, a cleaner, cooler, slightly refrigerated kind of expression, which was the result of placing the creative self at a respectful distance from the created object, of taking a more removed perspective on music."

Stravinsky's work sounds far from emotionless to me, but maybe he wasn't always giving us his own personal emotions.

Any comments?

 

Last edited: Jan 21, 2020

Sad, but oh well, kind of what i expected from an immature ignoramus. Best wishes and nothing but love. Im out.

 

That said, it's helpful to be able to predict what's going to happen when you do such and such thing and it does certainly help when you know what sort of an emotional response you're going to induce in the listener. Having a palette of emotions and feelings available to you at a moment's notice doesn't hurt.

 

Totally agree @Lois Lane : one thing is the visual representation of music, another the psycho-physiological effect it causes. What is the impact of this image on those who cannot hear what is written on it?



But for those that do, there's almost a general consensus that it's a true demonstration of textural mastery and skill. And it's okay that many don't have the slightest interest in knowing where does this come from or who wrote this. There are many musics, almost as many as there are ways to enjoy them.

So I actually had an almost visceral response to this incredible idea you expressed:

‟-They are the words and punctuation disembodied from the life that music takes on in the flesh and throes of passion.”

This sentence is amazing pal!

 

Last edited: Nov 9, 2022

Hi dear @Ad Heesive an friends. Sorry for not commenting sooner (We're finishing a little construction work on our new residence and getting ready for a move), but you punctuated your observations about my comment about that Lois post very well.

In response to your question, I think some composers just manage to evoke emotional states in listeners. So, in some cases yes, but I wouldn't say this is a general rule, 'cos not all composers have the same ability (to evoke the exact type of emotion, or even its nuance, because that emotion is also constructed by the listener himself) or even have the interest to perform this, (many composers of so-called new music find it really vulgar to evoke emotions such as joy, anger, sadness, etc in general listeners, whoever they may be).

I really like Adorno's critical stance, but it bothers me to realize that, basically, he advocates innovation and weirdness all the time. It just doesn't work, only for whom is activated in the condition of model reader, or (just in case) a group of model listeners (as in the case of the academic circle of new music aficionados).

And I'm absolutely suspicious on denying the emotion in Stravisnky's music, since I'm completely fanatical about his work (including his different phases). I don't think anyone has managed to synthesize and blend new and old styles so well (through vigorous rhythmic manipulation), and that's why Stravinsky had and continues to have such a huge impact on modernity/post-modernity. And when the old fox said that his own music evoked nothing, he was aiming to promote himself through shock, surprise... clearly!

 

Last edited: Nov 9, 2022

I'll get back at you soon. The short answer is yes and no simultaneously