Running out of music

[motorollin]

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

[motorollin]

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

[motorollin]

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

[motorollin]

Variation in velocity and length of notes will only do so much. They won't transform one melody in to another one.

--
moto

[motorollin]

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

[motorollin]

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]

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

[motorollin]

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