LDunn

Sorry. I did try to be specific. A curved line, not a slur. In other words, a slur that has constant thickness.

Is it possible to draw curved lines in Sibelius (V. 5)? Of course, not slurs, and not a graphic. For example, curved glissandos and pitch bends on guitar/string instruments/trombone/voices. Cheers. L.

Classical music has changed in perception since the dissolution of 'stylism' - by that, I mean the overall social/cultural landscape that gives rise to musical language (conventions of style). It is the 'style' in which composers work, for example Mozart and Haydn, that makes their work similar; but it also, crucially, enables individual expression - for how can individuality be expressed if it is not relative to something (a kind of amorphous anonymous stylistic backdrop)? However, stylism has been dismantled by modernism, in the sense that composers must forge their own language. By way of analogy, one can write in English because one has the necessary words, phrases, and idiomatic games that one inherits. Individuality is expressed through 're-arrangement' (or perhaps more accurately 're-articulation') of the socio-linguistic constructs of years of collective development. But Modernism, in music, created a whole new set of languages that were built out of old ones; and a whole new set of 'meta-languages' - ways to create new languages. Suddenly, not only do we have to reshape the music, we have to reshape the style in which the music is written; in some cases, create a whole new conception of music. This transition has partly been to do with the development of the notion of musical 'works' (see Lydia Goehr, The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works, Oxford 1994). In essence, since late Beethoven (or perhaps Berlioz), works become individualised, and not part of some overall fabric of style. It might be fair to say (although I don't know whether it's true) that in the past music might well have been like an expensive fabric; certainly these were the aristocratic (and perhaps liturgical, in Catholicism) functions of music. In this way, pieces of music might have individual character, but they are not 'individualised' as part of some 'repertory'. This is the problem that faces most young composers who verge toward modernism. First it is a sin to compose in the style of another; but second, and more importantly, there is extreme emphasis placed on the notion of originality. Pieces must be absolutely original, unique, inspired. Perhaps this is the problem the first poster is facing; perhaps, although it may be more deep running. Noticably, composers who have solid stylistic boundaries (a compositional 'language' or vocabulary) often compose in a certain way for a while: Messiaen, Stravinsky's neoclassicism, Webern, Ligeti (in both his middle and late periods), and topically, Elliott Carter (who seems to have, once he found his style, sped up!), are but a few. L.

I am a bit hesitant putting this in 'avant-garde', since part of me doesn't really want to have all the baggage that term brings attached to the piece. Still, I doubt it belongs anywhere else. It is dedicated to Antony Pay (my uncle), who used to be first clarinet in the LPO, was a member of the London Sinfonietta, and lots of other orchestras. Now he plays with the OAE, often does self directed clarinet concertos. Also attached is the fingering chart for the multiphonics for any clarinettists out there wanting to have a go. [Midi file - figure 2 is far too fast, figure 8 is too slow] L. forTP.pdf table.pdf forTP.mid

It's mearly that we percieve vibrations of sufficient speed as pitch. Snakes can "hear" other animals' movements - the extremely low frequency vibrations in the are that are created by a mouse moving are "heard" in a similar way to the way we hear normal sound. Rhythms of constant or repetitious variety can be compared to pitch relationships. A 2 over 3 polyrhythm is much like a perfect fifth; a 4 over 3 polyrhythm is much like a perfect fourth. (These are Pythagorean ratios.) But as far as the greater complexities of decoration and variation against a pulse (and in modern music, even that pulse isn't constant), these types of comparisons go out the window. Such a non-constant rhythmic surrounding it is as good as noise when translated into the language of pitch. I'd say its a pretty sweeping statement. Rhythm, and more specifically, pulse, is generally seen as being useful to humans for three reasons - the pulse of the human heart, the varied expressiveness of the fluctuating human voice through language, and the way our brains sort out the world into a stable, linear temporal stream. Pitch, is completely distinct from this, and can't really be compared to rhythm very much. And as far as compositional sensibilities go, they remain to be separate entities.

Right. I dont what to hijack the thread, but surely even music supposedly composed in the mind, as it were, is done using a set of strategies, unconscious, intuitive or not. They have developed from your experience of various musics. Serial technique is, much like fugue, a way of externalising intuition, so that the composer can focus more on the pure aspects of structure and logic in the music, and not be attracted to, or distracted by a momentary idea. I am not suggesting this is a "better" way, it is just "a" way; but to emphasise, all music is composed using strategies (or more accurately, conventions) at one level or another. L.

Berg's music is a good example of "mentally percieved atonal music". Wozzeck continues to be an emormous success, despite its difficulty, with most opera companies and audiences. And, by the way, isn't all music "mentally percieved"?

Wow, that ending is extraordinary! Great piece. I feel that's all I can say. L.

It's a difficult one, this. I didn't enjoy it, and I think it was because, modally, it never moved from its ground: the sort of major-minor stuff around F. Always was there. And you did interesting things, rhythmical shifting and what have you, but ultimately I was left rather uninspired, the piece having tried to take me somewhere, but in doing so smothered me a little bit. I'm talking in extremes, but its the kind of piece that is so homogeneous that it makes you want to cough and get a drink of water afterwards. I'm not against homogeneity, Messiaen (apart maybe from Turangalila, which is far more conventional) does it wonderfully, but he does it with a kind of colourful finesse and conviction. With your piece, I got the feeling you had chosen to stick to some notes, and stuck to them. You had forced all of your ideas to fit this mould of your notes, resulting in a tiger in an F major-minor cage. Messiaen is stuck in the cage of his style, and what a beautiful style that is, that infinitely detailed, ever expanding vision. Perhaps its an Obscene Obsession with this pitch world. Who knows? But ultimately, as I've said, the piece itself is tedious to me, and I'm reminded of Schumann (paraphrased): A good title will not save a poor piece. I'm sorry if I've been harsh, but you've put so much effort in, I feel I should give a valid comment. L.

I think it would be fair to say that Serialism is dead. That avenue has been explored to great extent by Stockhausen, Boulez, Nono, Babbitt and others, and has been proved to be a rather dead end. That is not to say that good music has not been created along this journey: Boulez's 3rd sonata and Structures are two of my favourites. Atonality, on the other hand, has such a loose definition that it might be fair to say it has never been alive. It is difficult to really address where functional harmony ends, and "non-functional" harmony begins. It was a gradual phasing process - most people cite Wagner as the biggest exponent of this, but even with Schubert, the utilisation of major and minor tonality as interchangable, and remote key relationships differs wildly from the rigours of Bach. The difficulty with all of this is trying to find a definition of tonality itself. How far does the concept extend? Most of the music of Stravinsky does not have conventional functional relationships (if it does he is making a point, usually), but major and minor chords are all there. If tonality is merely the perception of major and minor, then traces of it can be found in the swirling textures of Schoenberg. If it is more specific, the idea of a key center/heirachy, with tonic and dominant homing points, then this scores Schoenberg off the list. But where does Hindemith's Ludus Tonalis fall? Ultimately, we are stuck putting composers into boxes. With the vibrancy of expression in the 20th century, most of the time it is difficult to generalise, even within one era of a composer's career, or even a single piece. So if the basis of tonality is causing us problems of definition, then maybe we should be looking to rid ourselves of its very foundation - the perfect fifth. This was the sound that Pythagoras saw as being most perfect, and from it constructed the first true chromatic scale. But why divide the octave into 12? Why not some other number? And once this is done, once a piece can be written and performed for an instrument that divides the octave into some other number, we will no longer be able to call it tonal or atonal - it will be neither: a middleground, or perhaps orthoganal to conventional tonality itself. But nothing can be orthogonal to tonality: it is so ingrained into us as listeners to western music that we cannot but relate back what we hear to something that we have heard before, which sounded "nice". We are faced with the paradox: if music is just sound events organised in time, how is it that there are some "nice" musics, and some "not so nice" musics? How is it that we can be so steeped in a tradition that forces us to walk forwards looking backwards? Ultimately, composers will write music that expresses the things they wish to express. This will occur in any number of ways, and I hope some new ways will be formulated, but, and this is a significant but, I feel it is crucial to embrace the expressive premises and stanpoints of each individual composer on his or her own terms. Humans are complex things; we make complex art. Surely the only way to view it is in terms of its own complexity, its own idiosyncracity. Each piece of art exists within a context, yes, but it also exists for itself, as a unique kind of experience and formulation. And over simplifying will not solve anything (and I think creates more problems in the long run). Rather than worrying about the "future", maybe go and find out what's actually happening now. Composers now write some amazing stuff and a lot of crap as well. With sufficient interest in current composition, maybe the "future" of music will be obvious. Maybe it will be not. Personally, I hope it won't be. L.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: "the constraints of tonality died at least 100 years ago". I also object to the idea (that wasn't stated, perhaps implied; this isn't directed at anyone in particular) that there are two distinct categories for music - tonal and atonal. Sure, many musics fall into these groups, but many musics do not. Gamelan tradition follows rules that could be argued to be tonal and could also be argued to be atonal from a western standpoint. Music for percussion is neither tonal nor atonal, but does involve organisation of relative pitch. Music is merely this: the organisation of sound (most of the time, relatively pitched sound) events in time. Most musics involve a set of rules for the organisation of sounds that have a discernable fundemental frequency. In the western art music tradition, this set of rules is called tonality. In the past, this set of rules was key for music of this tradition - if music stepped outside of these rules it was frowned upon (and also seen as interesting by some), as if it were outside social norms. Now, we have the freedom to not have to abide by any set of rules put on us by music society. We may do what we like, or as many composers do, create our own set of rules. As far as I can see, if you choose to work inside the rules of tonality, your works will not be unoriginal (that is a completely different concept, one that I hastily avoid). The only thing that they will be is tonal. That is it. The difference I see is that composers now have a choice: they can choose to work outside of tonality, in different scales or pitch structures or anything. In the past, composers didn't have this choice.* L. *The creation of tempered scales created the opportunity for a composer to choose to work in a just scale or a meantone scale, but arguably the rules of tonality applied to each.

My line of reasoning involved some large jumps that would require some justification. It could perhaps be seen as more of a thought experiment or sketch. With regards to "everything is art" vs. "everything can be seen as art", I would hope this would be cleared up by my boundary of "art as expression". If something is created with the intent of expressing something, or produced in a way so that things may be expressed to others, it is art. Everything else that does not fall into this category could be argued not to be art. This is, possibly, a harsh, rather contrived boundary, but it does apply largely I would argue. Just like Tracey Emin's bed - your own un-made bed in the morning is not a piece of art, but hers is, because it was expressing a set of ideas to others through being placed in a certain context. This idea presents an interesting problem for spiritual/religious people who believe in a creator of this world. I am not one of these people, but I imagine one could argue that if the world were created, it could have been made expressly for the purpose of communicating certain feelings/ideas to us, and would therefore be a piece of art. I would prefer to think of art as being a human construct*, but be that as it may, this does present an interesting line of thought. If it seems that one can clear up the question of "what is art", albeit rather obtusely, with a bit of armchair thought, consider the more interesting question which I think this conversation has actually been about: "What is good art?" L. *I suppose anything that is a human construct is indirectly a construct of God. I don't particularly enjoy thinking like this, however.

I'm confused precisely what the value of 17th and 18th century counterpoint is, and what people are suggesting. I absolutely for an appreciation of these styles, and this entails practical dabbling and doodling and working out ways you can make something sound good (I enjoy writing fugues, chorales, dance pieces in the style of Bach). More importantly, I enjoy playing his fugues, chorales, dance pieces etc. It is the appreciation and understanding of these things that is good. But tonality died 100 years ago. We have an unlimited pallete of colours and an unlimited range of expression to explore it with. If anything, I would want any young composer to do as much listening to as much music as possible, perhaps read some books, certainly look at as many scores as one can and figure out how they work at the piano, have a go at conducting along to recordings, and most importantly: figure out what they want to say, musically. This process, for me, will take a long time. But I'm getting there. And instead of knowledge of renaissance and baroque counterpoint, I might suggest these things that would help: Knowledge of instrumental capability: talk to musicians, look at the instrument, get them to play for you, understand the different ranges and timbres, understand extended techniques, look at any given instrument as a dynamic and vibrant force for rendering notes on a page - it will never do the same thing twice. Knowledge of interplay between different instruments: how the string section in an orchestra works, the woodwinds and percussion, small ensembles etc. Talk to conductors, go to concerts and watch, listen and follow along the score to pieces to understand how the different instruments and groups of instruments can work together. Knowledge of the practical nature of performance: pieces should always, always be written to be played by real people, understanding of the limitations of most performers, and average rehearsal time. Understanding the limitations of instruments: a marimba is not a piano, and cannot play the same things (they can, however, play wonderfully different things). Knowledge of a range of expressive purposes and standpoints: understanding what the spirit of the piece you have composed is, why it is here, what it is trying to say, why it should be played, why the audience should listen, what the various parties involved should gain from a performance. This last one is particularly difficult, and probably the one that would take the longest to realise. I think someone said: "I've never learnt anything from a performance of my work". There is no way, no way that anyone can fully understand the dynamics of music without having their music performed. It is crucial that one sees how notes on the page are translated into physical processes, and what this means for your black marks. This is my opinion, but I hold it fervently. I'm a practical person - the goal for any music is a practical performance. It is not this abstract notion on a page, it is a living, breathing, mass of energy and life and human vibrancy. The only way any budding composer can understand this is to have his or her music performed. L. Edit: Most of this is of course excluding electronic compostion. Knowledge of a range of expressive purposes and standpoints should still be there however.

"Art is whatever the hell you want it to be." Although on the face of this I agree, it would be interesting to follow the line of reasoning through, perhaps as follows. 1. Art is whatever I want it to be. 2. Art can be anything. 3. Art can be everything: it is all embracing. 4. Art is everything: everything can be viewed as being a kind of art and seen from an artistic stanpoint. 5. Art is nothing: if everything is art, what is left that can be called art? And this has become, in some ways, quite true. Because of the events of the 20th century, we have formulated a way of looking at the world that can turn whatever we see into art; hence Stockhausen's comments about 9/11 (before anyone gets into that, I think we can fairly say Stockhausen was a crackpot, and a mystic, but anyway). I would not say however this line of reasoning is entirely true. Here's why: art is an industry, less so than the other industries (it has a large government and independant financial backing), but it is still a force on which many people's livelihoods depend. Money has to be made, somewhere. Therefore, if art is really everything, and therefore nothing, nothing can be sold as art. Instead, art has become whatever that is placed in the context of being art. I think this is what 4'33" really taps into: silence is an impossible thing for people who can hear; even in a perfectly soundproof room, we can hear the sound of our hearts and our bones and the nerves firing in our bodies. Sound surrounds us all the time. The way John Cage illustrates this is by creating a moment of silence, and therefore sound, at the point at which our ears are most carefully atuned to noticing sound, a concert. This sound becomes art because it is placed in the context of being art. But more importantly, it is expressing this idea. The people have bought their tickets, found their seats, read their programmes, talked with their neighbours, only to be shown what they should have been noticing their entire lives. People going away complaining from such an experience seem to me to have missed the point. For me, art does need to have boundaries. But the only boundary I can see, so far, is this one: Art is expression. The expression of an idea, as with Cage; a kinaesthesic feeling; beauty (or un-beauty); the power of systems and rules and structures; a narrative or scene; emotion; relationships; spacial, sonic, and/or visual balence/clarity for their own sake. The list can be extrapolated. But art is not anything and everything - if it were it would lose its meaning. Instead, Art is a powerful reminder of what things human beings have come to value, whether aesthetic, or more general in life as a whole, presented through expression. For me, this expression works best when I leave the theatre or art gallery or concert hall feeling enriched - a different person than the one that walked in. Art, at its most powerful, is the eternal transference of this expression. L.

Thanks for the comments. Yeah the midi file is a bit crap, I just listened to it now (didn't listen to it before putting it up). Re: ending - Oh I think the whole thing is a bit excessive, don't you? Not just the ending. The ending comes too late because of the excessive recapitulation, which to me suits the spirit of the piece. I mean, it's not a head on pastiche, but it's not serious. Although it's nice to be compared to Debussy, he had far more finesse, the phrasing here is instead deliberately clumsy and sometimes lopsided. Whether that comes out I dont know. The three staves problem bugged my composition teacher as well. Basically the way I thought of it was a way of separating out the decorative figure and the main figure. The top line would always be decorating a melody, but slowly the two figures become merged and come together for the wall of sound at the end of the middle section. The three staves remain to show where both things have come from. The other reason was a bit of a dig at Debussy's second book of Etudes, which are all written on three staves, when most could quite comfortably fit onto two. The cautionary accidentals aren't my decision, they're there to clear up false relation, and I think they're obvious, but this piece is for A-level and you have to show knowledge of false relation and all that, so they're there anyway. I don't think there are any "wrong ones", I just put, in D major, a C(#) when there's a C-natural in the LH, for example. But anyway, I'm glad you liked it. "I thought it was far too interesting to be a merely "mock" romanticism." -- Can't it be both? The spirit of the piece is the latter, but it doesn't require the piece to be boring! Cheers. L.