I Miss the Gold Ole Days...

How bout this, we agree to disagree? I'll even go as far as deleting everything I've said even though at this point I agree with it! Tbh we have such conflicting views, that we probably won't reach a shared conclusion. Personally I think it would be in everybody's interest if we stopped and infact wiped the slate clean. Thankfully I've been able to discuss this with you while you've been here and we have not subsequently each gone off at ridiculous tangeants and havnt hopefully got to the level where we are insulting people personally! So I just think we should call this off! We wont agree... yet! Maybe I will come around to your way of thinking and then I'll look back and think what an idiot I was all along.

No that's not the case at all! Lets face it if we had this conversation in real life it would be completely different! Secondly, people wouldn't read our comments and potentially think we're both naive idiots. It's upto you, and I know I've been having this discussion with you and I'm partly at fault, but I would personally be happier if we just deleted everything that transpired and forgot the whole thing. I don't think I personally went too far, but I can see how I have upset you and I don't really want to upset anybody else.

Thing is, this is a music forum so we should discuss music and so forth, but if I've honestly upset or angered you then I don't really want to continue.

It's not backpedalling, I could keep going really, but despite the fact that I desperately need something to keep me occupied right at this specific moment (hopefully you read the bit about my current sleep problem), I would rather stop this alltogether!

Junkie, while I do appreciate you cleaning up that last post, you're still not making a good first impression here. Lighten up.

ALSO, I tend to agree with Al. I find serialist techniques a bit sterile and inorganic.

No, I'm not going to elaborate.

Will you bloody result with the insults in here?

So what if Alex doesn't enjoy some stuff. Ok, is Mr. Junkie any better than those religion zelots trying enormously to "save our souls"?

Come on now!

Robin: How could you? :(

Well I probably shouldn't have bothered to elaborate. All the same he did ask for my opinion, and I needed something to do in my time of sleep deprivation!

Robin: How could you? :(

What...the serialist thing? :whistling:

FINE...I'll elaborate.

I feel entrusting your base melodic/harmonic content to a row/grid leaves some aspects of the approach to be sterile and clinical.

I like to think music has a more human and soulful connection with the composer than him going... "A E Bb F G Gb Ab C D C# Eb B ... cool, let's write s song!" ...

I KNOW there's more to it, hell, I've used it myself - it's often interesting to find creativity within self-imposed confines...but some minute flicker of something gets lost.

I guess.

Take this as someone with a very different perspective just wanting to play too... :thumbsup:

I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for facts, and you didn't have them so you back pedaled. I recommend reading a biography on Schoenberg.

Just curious...what sort of facts are hoping for?

Robin: NOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo I was kidding!

Junkie: relax x 2 please! Really.

Well if Bach inverts a melody it could be said he is using a mathematical process. However, in many circumstances a melodic inversion simply will not sound correct within the laws of Bachian harmony.

Very correct. That's because in the music of Bach's time horizontal and vertical harmony were quite strictly separate and is strongly directed in one specific timeline. (However, Bach of course -did- use inversions or retrogrades, if he managed to devise his themes in a way that they would allow such handling.)

With serialism however, there is no right or wrong, an inversion would not be a result of a composers calculations and his ear. It is a huge leap of faith to even begin to accept any of the resulting harmonies as being aurally intentional.

Now this is where you are wrong. First of all, one fundamental idea of this epoch was to melt horizontal and vertical harmony and this doesn't just apply to the second Viennese school, but as well to Satie, Debussy and many more. But the fact that there isn't a clear harmonic direction doesn't mean the harmonies are arbitrary. Guess why Webern wrote so little his whole life and never managed to write a long piece (which he desperately wanted to be able to)? Because he brooded over every note, over every chord for hours, days, or longer and wanted to be absolutely sure they were the "correct" ones. If using the inversion of a tone row at a certain point just "didn't fit" for his ears, he would have either not used the inversion there, changed the tone row and started the piece again, arranged the inversion horizontally and vertically in ways that it would fit again (by means of rhythm, voice-leading, density, registers, etc.) and so on. I think Webern is the -least- composer who could be accused of "not writing by ear", even if he used very strict systems. The same of course applies to Sch

Robin: NOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo I was kidding!

:blush: Oh...