Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Entertainment => Topic started by: motorollin on October 20, 2007, 11:20:23 AM
-
Presumably there is a finite number of unique combinations of notes which could be created before repetition started occurring (IOW "new" compositions had in fact been composed previously). Given that in the system of music we currently understand there are only 12 unique notes in each octave, I am surprised we haven't run out of music yet. Maybe we have, and we are actually repeating compositions which are long forgotten. Of course I'm not saying a whole piece of music is identical to another composed long ago, just that melodies may be re-composed at a later date when the same combination of notes is re-discovered.
Assuming this could happen in such a way that we are aware of it (so that nobody is able to compose music any more without it sounding like something else, because there are no more unused combinations of notes) what would we do? Create a new system of music not based on 12 semitones? Create some new notes starting from "h"? Augment semitones additional half-semitones in between the existing notes (e.g. between C and C# would be some other note). It's hard to imaging how music composed using such a system would sound. And I think it would be impossible to use such a system without automatically striving to produce something resembling the harmonic, melodic and tonal constructs that we understand as music.
Discuss!!!! :-)
--
moto
-
I don't concur. It is akin to suggesting that we can run out of (english language) poetry since there are only 26 letters in the alphabet to construct it out of.
I chose poetry over normal writing since it (usually) requires some structure beyond basic language rules. Otherwise, you'd have to allow any arbitrary sequence of notes to be classed as music which I'm assuming you don't.
You also need to consider that the very definition of what is music varies massively even within the defined constraints of melody, harmony and rhythm. The 12 semitone scale is just one of several. A lot of middle eastern and asian music have quartertone scales which allow for much greater diversity than the one to which we are accustom.
The reason a lot of modern music sound so alike is that it is generally quite formulaic and tailored to suit popular tastes. Trends change. Consider even the basic timing signatures used in music. Most mainstream music uses 4/4 and wouldn't dream of deviating. Yet, if you look at other genres, you find many much more interesting things around.
And people wonder why I like a bit of Richard D James...
-
Karlos wrote:
I don't concur. It is akin to suggesting that we can run out of (english language) poetry since there are only 26 letters in the alphabet to construct it out of.
Yes but with language new words and linguistic forms can be created to provide new material for poetry. Can you say the same for music? How can notes combine to create new material for music once every possible permutation of notes has already been played?
Karlos wrote:
I chose poetry over normal writing since it (usually) requires some structure beyond basic language rules. Otherwise, you'd have to allow any arbitrary sequence of notes to be classed as music which I'm assuming you don't.
Well, most modern music sounds pretty arbitrary to me :roll: But seriously, I'm guessing that as composers get more desperate for something new to compose, music will become more and more "arbitrary" sounding.
Karlos wrote:
You also need to consider that the very definition of what is music varies massively even within the defined constraints of melody, harmony and rhythm. The 12 semitone scale is just one of several. A lot of middle eastern and asian music have quartertone scales which allow for much greater diversity than the one to which we are accustom.
Interesting. I wonder whether Western composers will start to adopt other scale types in search of something new?
Karlos wrote:
The reason a lot of modern music sound so alike is that it is generally quite formulaic and tailored to suit popular tastes. Trends change.
Yes of course, but that's intentional. I'm talking about the mathematical fact that there is a finite number of combinations of notes.
Karlos wrote:
Consider even the basic timing signatures used in music. Most mainstream music uses 4/4 and wouldn't dream of deviating.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm writing in 5/4 at the moment, and have some stuff written in 7/8 ;-)
--
moto
-
Yes of course, but that's intentional. I'm talking about the mathematical fact that there is a finite number of combinations of notes.
I disagree, especially when considered from the purely mathematical point of view, since there is no upper limit on how many notes may be used in a sequence, there is no limit to the possible number of permutations of those notes.
Mathematically, one can say that my adding or removing just one note from any piece of music produces another. Whether or not it sounds like the original is irrelevant.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm writing in 5/4 at the moment, and have some stuff written in 7/8
Good. Try alternating signatures too, that's always fun :-)
-
Karlos wrote:
I disagree, especially when considered from the purely mathematical point of view, since there is no upper limit on how many notes may be used in a sequence, there is no limit to the possible number of permutations of those notes.
Mathematically, one can say that my adding or removing just one note from any piece of music produces another. Whether or not it sounds like the original is irrelevant.
I don't think adding a note to the end of a previously composed melody is sufficient to consider it a new composition. What I perhaps should have said is that there is a finite number of permutations of notes which can be played before repetition starts occurring.
Karlos wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, I'm writing in 5/4 at the moment, and have some stuff written in 7/8
Good. Try alternating signatures too, that's always fun :-)
Well I did write one track in 10/4, but the rhythm made it sound more like alternative 4/4 and 6/4. Does that count? :-)
--
moto
-
I don't think adding a note to the end of a previously composed melody is sufficient to consider it a new composition. What I perhaps should have said is that there is a finite number of permutations of notes which can be played before repetition starts occurring.
Again I disagree. If you can have completely irrational numbers with just the digits 0-9 (ie fractional numbers without any cyclic repetition), then with even just one octave of 12 semitones you can achieve the same thing yet you typically have 7 octaves of useful range for some instruments. Also, since the note lengths and spaces between them are musically significant you get even more permutation possible. Since there are no limits to the number of notes you are allowed in your sequence, no limits on the length and spacing between them, the number of permutations is infinite already.
If that doesn't convince you, consider that so far this is all with just single note melodies. Add to that the idea of layering these sequences to produce chords and harmonies. Then multiply this by all the possible arrangements for a vast number of real and synthetic instrument sources.
-
Well I did write one track in 10/4, but the rhythm made it sound more like alternative 4/4 and 6/4. Does that count?
Sure. I'm of the opinion that it's easier to characterise the signature timing in these terms if the music tends to alternate rather than picking an excessively long bar length to make it "evenly" spaced purely for notational purposes ;-)
-
I think you miss something here. music is not just the number or combination of notes. spacing between the notes is also as important as the notes themselves. a different scale can give a totally different feel to a composition, also the velocity ? (the push ? not sure what it's called in english ...) of the notes. both of them which make the total combination of composable music nearly infinite ... also as karlos said, modern music is somewhat limited in scales and possible combinations (I mean the western scale). that's why it sounds like it's repeating itself I guess ...
-
Variation in velocity and length of notes will only do so much. They won't transform one melody in to another one.
--
moto
-
motorollin wrote:
Variation in velocity and length of notes will only do so much. They won't transform one melody in to another one.
--
moto
Mathematically they do, which is what your original assertion was based on. Going back to your FT question, they will have 2 different spectra, ergo they are not congruent.
Wether two melodies sound alike is an entirely different question.
-
Yes but with language new words and linguistic forms can be created to provide new material for poetry. Can you say the same for music? How can notes combine to create new material for music once every possible permutation of notes has already been played?
You are making a mistake here in assuming that notes are the "words" of music...they are not. Notes are more akin to letters, but they have the additional modifier of rhythms within them as well.
Words in Western Tonal music are akin to motives. The reason why we aren't recreating pieces from the past is because the language itself (the way motives are used, the way consonance and dissonance is treated, harmonic structure or lack thereof, and the basic compositional methodologies) changes quite regularly.
Composers are constantly experimenting with new shapes and sounds as well.
I'm talking about the mathematical fact that there is a finite number of combinations of notes.
You're neglecting rhythm, tempo, and form, all of which have infinite possible varieties...also, there is only a finite combination of notes when the piece has a specific length, and the notes have a rhythmic limit (no such thing as a rhythmic limit, there are pieces with 2048th notes in them).
Not even bothering to get into the fact that detuning is quite common, or having clarinets and violins playing quarter tones and the like.
Multiphonics, extended orchestral techniques, and most importantly SILENCE suggest that there are an infinite variety of sounds that are used in western music...we are not in any way limited to the pitches of the 12-tone equal temperament scale. Then there's the whole instrumental timbral shifting issue to deal with as well.
As far as other scales and tuning systems go, we use them all the time.
Well, most modern music sounds pretty arbitrary to me
If you're talking about modern orchestral works than it's likely because your ear is uneducated to its types of nuance and concept. If you're talking about pop music, well you're about dead on there for the most part, but once again, just because nearly every song uses some I-IV-V-I harmonic structure does it make it the same song? no, absolutely not.
To be clear, what you've essentially said is something akin to 'Because we can accurately produce all of the discernible colors in our visual spectrum painters will run out of new things to paint.'
There's a LOT more to it than that.
-
Variation in velocity and length of notes will only do so much. They won't transform one melody in to another one.
this is flat out wrong...try looking up some Webern.
unless you're suggesting theme and variation is an unacceptable method of developing a new melody...if that's the case than you need to clearly define melody for us because you're implying that ALL melodies in western tonal music are the same regardless of content.
-
Karlos wrote:
motorollin wrote:
Variation in velocity and length of notes will only do so much. They won't transform one melody in to another one.
Mathematically they do, which is what your original assertion was based on. Going back to your FT question, they will have 2 different spectra, ergo they are not congruent.
Wether two melodies sound alike is an entirely different question.
Well perhaps I overstated the mathematics. The point I was really making was that as more combinations of notes get "used", they will either have to be repeated or music will start to sound similar to previous compositions. Of course I realise that there is more to music than just sequences of notes, but I still maintain that two pieces of music which contain the same sequence of notes in the same order are bound to sound similar.
--
moto
-
Wain wrote:
You're neglecting rhythm, tempo, and form, all of which have infinite possible varieties...
So if you heard Bach's IVth played with a varied rythm, tempo or form, would you consider it a different piece of music? Or someone attempting to use someone else's work to make something new?
Wain wrote:
If you're talking about modern orchestral works than it's likely because your ear is uneducated to its types of nuance and concept.
I beg your pardon?
--
moto
-
motorollin wrote:
Of course I realise that there is more to music than just sequences of notes, but I still maintain that two pieces of music which contain the same sequence of notes in the same order are bound to sound similar.
Try listening to some of Hybrid's "Additional Remix and Production By" to see how different a melody can sound even when unmodified, just by changing the harmony that goes with it. If you listen to their remix of Filter's "Take A Picture", where the vocals (transposed up about a semitone) are used against a somewhat melancholic backdrop it sounds nothing like the original uptempo song...
-
So if you heard Bach's IVth played with a varied rythm, tempo or form, would you consider it a different piece of music? Or someone attempting to use someone else's work to make something new?
Bach's fourth what?
What I'm saying is that I can take a piece by a previous composer and make it completely unidentifiable by altering its rhythm, tempo, and form...it's really quite easy to do. Pitch material has nothing to do with what makes a piece of music familiar to the ear. This is evidenced by the fact that most of us do not have perfect pitch, yet can identify Beethoven's 5th.
Most importantly...changing the form would completely alter the piece into something remarkably different, the changing of form requires that the material be drastically altered (including the necessary deletion, addition, or restructuring of new material)...remember form determines underlying harmonic structure, shape, development, and process of a motive or melody. Just so we don't get sidetracked, remember my point is that there are infinite varieties of form, which provides us with another of many reasons why we aren't "repeating" music from the past.
More specifically, yes, it is quite possible to change ANY piece of music into a completely different sounding piece by altering the rhythmic properties of said piece. There are an awful LOT of serial pieces that use the same row and are not identifiably similar.
I beg your pardon?
What I was saying here is that if you were talking about 20th century orchestral works than it's likely that the reason you feel that way is because you don't know how to "hear" them...I'm not saying whether this is the case or not, but the general public doesn't tend to enjoy a lot of pitch-collection based music purely because their ears are attuned to the standard tonal V-I idiom, and they don't know what to listen for...which in turn makes it seem kind of rambling and pointless...if not horribly noisy.
-
Wain wrote:
Bach's fourth what?
Symphony.
Wain wrote:
What I'm saying is that I can take a piece by a previous composer and make it completely unidentifiable by altering its rhythm, tempo, and form
Interesting...
Wain wrote:
Beethoven's 5th.
Beethoven's 5th what?
Wain wrote:
What I was saying here is that if you were talking about 20th century orchestral works than it's likely that the reason you feel that way is because you don't know how to "hear" them...I'm not saying whether this is the case or not,
Oh ok then :-) Rest assured my musical education is sufficient for me to understand what I'm hearing!
Wain wrote:
but the general public doesn't tend to enjoy a lot of pitch-collection based music purely because their ears are attuned to the standard tonal V-I idiom, and they don't know what to listen for...which in turn makes it seem kind of rambling and pointless...if not horribly noisy.
I can understand that. I remember when I was studying for my A Level in music one of our set pieces was The Rite of Spring. At first it sounded horribly dissonant. It does take time for your ear to tune in to it and realise that music doesn't have to be "nice" to be beautiful.
I am struggling with this very concept with my other half. I'm trying to educate him to the beauty of Radiohead, but he can't see past the melancholy melodies and Thom's often harrowing voice. He'll take I-IV-V-I any day :lol:
--
moto
-
Quote:
Wain wrote:
Bach's fourth what?
Symphony.
Quote:
Wain wrote:
Beethoven's 5th.
Beethoven's 5th what?
I'm picking on you. JS Bach didn't write any symphonies. Symphonies are more relegated to the classical period. If you're talking about sinfonia as Bach used the term, those are a different thing. Regardless, musicologists don't use nomenclature like this in regards to Bach. Whereas in Beethoven it is, while colloquial, assumed to mean the symphony. I did want to make sure you weren't talking about one of the Brandenburg concertos or a Tocatta or the like however.
I can understand that. I remember when I was studying for my A Level in music one of our set pieces was The Rite of Spring. At first it sounded horribly dissonant. It does take time for your ear to tune in to it and realize that music doesn't have to be "nice" to be beautiful.
and the Rite of Spring is still essentially tonal...it's got nothing on Webern or Ligeti or Penderecki in terms of being listen-able to the average layperson.
:-D
Interesting...
Think about it like this...I can write a piece that begins with [10|8|6] (which many pieces do), I can take p10, place it at a low octave and hold it at a grave tempo for 6 bars of 4/4, then rest 1 measure and a 64th of a beat, play p8 at octave 6 as a grace note to p6 at octave 3.
This will absolutely not sound ANYTHING like three blind mice, even if I repeat it.
:-)
-
Wain wrote:
I'm picking on you.
Oops, just spotted my error. I meant Brahms :oops: I'm glad you mentioned Bach Toccatas actually. I forgot I've got a book of all of them somewhere - think I'll dig it out and see if I can still play them :-)
Wain wrote:
JS Bach didn't write any symphonies. Symphonies are more relegated to the classical period.
Eugh, nothing ruins symphonies like being forced to pick the structure to pieces for an exam!
Wain wrote:
and the Rite of Spring is still essentially tonal...it's got nothing on Webern or Ligeti or Penderecki in terms of being listen-able to the average layperson.
I have never listened to those composers. Must look them up - thanks. I had never heard anything like the Rite Of Spring until I studied for my A level. Up until that point all of my musical training had been focussed on classical and baroque niceties. Imagine my shock when I heard Stravinsky for the first time! It was quite an eye-opener.
Wain wrote:
Think about it like this...I can write a piece that begins with [10|8|6] (which many pieces do), I can take p10, place it at a low octave and hold it at a grave tempo for 6 bars of 4/4, then rest 1 measure and a 64th of a beat, play p8 at octave 6 as a grace note to p6 at octave 3.
This will absolutely not sound ANYTHING like three blind mice, even if I repeat it.
:-)
Actually you have just convinced me with that very example. Those same notes are the same ones which appear in, for example "Let It Be" by The Beatles (although with a different rhythm and stress). Yet that also sounds nothing like Three Blind Mice :-)
--
moto
-
Eugh, nothing ruins symphonies like being forced to pick the structure to pieces for an exam!
AGREED!!!! :-P
Music history and analysis classes drive me absolutely insane.
I will warn you that Ligeti and Penderecki typically composed in a style usually referred to as "form and process" music, there are other terms as well, but it's really messed up stuff. They tend to work with clouds of sound as a texture. (Ligeti is one of my favorite composers of all time, he's influenced a LOT of my orchestral work)
Ligeti's most famous work Atmospheres has over 70 staves in the score. The 50-something strings are all individually divisi...and playing different things simultaneously. It's used in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. He also wrote a piece for 112 metronomes...it's utterly hilarious to listen to.
Penderecki's most famous work is Threnody for victims of Hiroshima...it's pretty amazing, he manages to create things that sound like helicopters and air-raid sirens orchestrally.
Webern was a student of Schoenberg, part of the second Viennese school, and is the quintessential king of serialism. There's not much more to be said there, in my experience ppl tend to either like serialism or not for the most part. He's the first real genuine master of post-tonal composition...Schoenberg and Berg both tended to have tonal elements(or echoes thereof) in their work.
Cheers!
:-D