Nathaniel Near

Exactly. In other words, when people talk about their favourite key, it will NOT just be treated in terms of its purest sound phenomena. Factually, different keys do lead to different writing for instruments and different qualities of timbres, it justifies having 'favourite' keys. However, if this thread wasn't specifically about somebody's favourite key which will inevitably be influenced by these aspects, but instead was more about the natural phenomena of sound in its purest cerebral form, then my response would have been entirely different. These aspects are simply unescapable given the circumstantial nature that will surround and influence peoples perspective on key. To try and compartmentalize it so specifically while hypothetically removing external factors is utterly pointless in this thread, and should be discussed as a separate issue in another thread, which could then be allied with a thread like this in due course after productive discourse on the matter has passed. EDIT. On the first point in your post: The way in which pitch is manipulated (and other aspects) in many instruments will be influenced in different ways by the key it is being written in. Keys will encourage tendencies that relate to very specific technical caveats for a multitude of instruments. Seeing as when many composers write in keys, they truly do write in the key in a strict way, then how chords are spread through different instruments may change, and the actual bottom and top frequencies of those chords would change and likely produce a timbre that is in the very least not identical. A really basic example would just be taking x piece and transposing the entire thing up a perfect 5th. The timbre will obviously change, but then obviously the writing would most likely be poor, so notes will have to be rearranged, resulting in a different configuration of the music altogether which would again have different sound qualities to the original. This specific aspect though should also probably be discussed in a separate thread. The main point of talking about it briefly here is that it is nigh on impossible to not attach key to other elements that are processed holistically in deciding on an answer to such a question. In short then, with regard to the question asked in this thread, practice can't be separated from the theory (unless you could successfully radically alter the way this question is perceived and what it alludes to for the vast majority).

Obviously regardless of temperament the key matters because at least in varied ensembles the key you choose will like influence the timbre in varying ways. Also the pure waveforms will be in a different spectrum even if the temperament is absolutely equal. It isn't as simple as saying this question doesn't matter or is pointless. People will apply their thoughts in tandem with pieces they have heard that already exist in the keys they stated. But this point is very obvious and clear, of course. Or is it.

It's somewhere near the end of the book, he addresses his own compositional technique which can be related to a specific song from his Song Offerings, but by extension many other pieces. I don't have my own analysis of his work on this computer right now so you'll have to wait till around about next Sunday. Essentially, himself and George Benjamin wanted to move away from the bass so often governing the harmony by creating harmony through stacked singular intervals or sometimes duos of intervals, sometimes independently or in conjunction with a central pitch axis. Either way, systems of great symmetry were built. If you are patient then I can provide you also with an extensive article on George Benjamin's music (I can only obtain this when logged into the university computers, of which I won't see again till next Sunday and I will have to print it off and then scan it) as well as some of my analysis, both of which I would probably issue to you privately. Seeing as you are interested, I'm willing to go to that great effort, though you will have to be patient. Later.

Same here.

Because I find the idea exasperating and the quoted material from post 1 to be utterly traumatic, why'd you want to know?

I wish I had the power to delete this thread.

I can guide you to the book 'In Quest of Spirit' by Harvey himself. I could also share my own research and analysis but i'm not going to right now. So yeah, check out what he says about his own compositional methods in that book. Essentially it's what you have talked about and taken some stages further, and with the addition of central pitch axis' (though not as a necessary part of the equation). As for the second point, well 'for a whole new theory of harmony', then.

The idea has already been more or less explored by Jonathan Harvey for at least the last 25 years... EDIT: ..Except taken way further than just the ludicrously basic premise (for a whole new compositional theory) stated in post number 1.

Heh, strange. The piece is absolutely worth listening to, for sure. :toothygrin:

Trolling?

I have done and will continue to evade, and completely naturally (not with effort) this quasi rule. It's because I have the philosophy of a Homo Superion...

...Was fine with the whole piece including the final chord. The supposedly slightly jarring triplets would be cured with tenuto marks on the two preceding crotchets or merely a small ritenuto for the bar, which would be followed by an 'a tempo' marking. EDIT: Or maybe extend the bar to 5/4.

Yeah, the OP. heh heh.

The dude's a girl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory_(music) You may find some pitch classes. Maybe at some point for example only 4 particularly notes are heard in a group of instruments for 12 bars while another 6 are heard elsewhere. At the same time much less tightly controlled atonal writing may be occurring. I don't know the piece well but read that wiki article. Natetron