Xenakis

I am merely of the opinion that the presence or absence of those rules cannot be detected easily by ear, and do not affect the quality of the music. How good a piece of music is, I personally believe, has very little to do with adherance to rules

I disagree. I believe these things are very detectable by the ear. How do you think they became rules in the first place? Our forebears didn't arbitrarily get together and say "this will be illegal and that won't." It was based upon their experience of what sounded good (as well as other non-musical considerations here and there). My experience has been that I'll be listening to something and thinking "something's wrong with that" or "something sounds shabby there," and when I listen more closely, sure enough, illegal parallels, bad voice leading, etc. have been employed as an obvious error or oversight, as distinguished from purposeful deviation, which sounds very different to me.

Maybe that's what it comes down to: individual experience. But there must be a commonality to these rules we speak of, else they wouldn't have become rules in the first place.

One must consider a composition as a whole, and from an intuitive perspective, to judge how good it is (subjectively).

Yes indeed. My point is, though, that one's intuition will be informed by knowledge, and that really does make a difference.

I already mentioned this in another post Lee, but if you were to insert violations of rules into your own music, I am willing to bet that neither I, nor most people, could detect that you were suddenly violating those rules. Your composition would stll be good. Your experience with composition and knowledge of what makes good melodies, good progressions, and good form, transcends traditional harmonic rules.

I'm sorry if I missed that other post, I don't recall it. And thanks for your generous words. At any rate, I may try that, just as an experiment to see if there is as noticeable a difference as I believe there is. My ear picks out stuff like that right away - it just doesn't sound "right." The problem might be that because I know and understand theory to a fair degree, I might not make mistakes as an uninformed composer would, and the result would be inconclusive. It might be worth it, though. I'll give it some thought.

Whether or not you know them, it seems to me, does not necessarily indicate whether a composer's effort is that of an amateur.

You and I might have to agree to disagree on this. I believe that education changes the mind in fundamental ways, analogous to carnal knowledge destroying innocence, for good or ill.

After all, many of the post Classical great composers violated rules all the time and we do not refer to them as amateurs.

Yes, but virtually all of them did it on purpose. That's what I'm trying to say: there is a difference between doing it accidentally and doing it with intention and purpose.

I actually appreciate you challenging me on this, Derek, and I admire your intellect. It can be good to be made to defend one's positions and thoughts on things. It affords the opportunity to rethink things that have become sacrosanct in one's values and belief systems, and that may or may not result in the reaffirmation of the belief - but what ever the outcome, it's a healthy exercise.

I disagree. I believe these things are very detectable by the ear. How do you think they became rules in the first place? Our forebears didn't arbitrarily get together and say "this will be illegal and that won't." It was based upon their experience of what sounded good (as well as other non-musical considerations here and there). My experience has been that I'll be listening to something and thinking "something's wrong with that" or "something sounds shabby there," and when I listen more closely, sure enough, illegal parallels, bad voice leading, etc. have been employed as an obvious error or oversight, as distinguished from purposeful deviation, which sounds very different to me.

Maybe that's what it comes down to: individual experience. But there must be a commonality to these rules we speak of, else they wouldn't have become rules in the first place.

Yes indeed. My point is, though, that one's intuition will be informed by knowledge, and that really does make a difference.

I'm sorry if I missed that other post, I don't recall it. And thanks for your generous words. At any rate, I may try that, just as an experiment to see if there is as noticeable a difference as I believe there is. My ear picks out stuff like that right away - it just doesn't sound "right." The problem might be that because I know and understand theory to a fair degree, I might not make mistakes as an uninformed composer would, and the result would be inconclusive. It might be worth it, though. I'll give it some thought.

You and I might have to agree to disagree on this. I believe that education changes the mind in fundamental ways, analogous to carnal knowledge destroying innocence, for good or ill.

Yes, but virtually all of them did it on purpose. That's what I'm trying to say: there is a difference between doing it accidentally and doing it with intention and purpose.

I actually appreciate you challenging me on this, Derek, and I admire your intellect. It can be good to be made to defend one's positions and thoughts on things. It affords the opportunity to rethink things that have become sacrosanct in one's values and belief systems, and that may or may not result in the reaffirmation of the belief - but what ever the outcome, it's a healthy exercise.

Here's an interesting point---part writing rules it seems to me were originally developed for 4 part chorale harmony of voices. However, my piano teacher often points out that even in classical and early romantic pieces, much piano music violates all sorts of part writing rules and still sounds just as great. It seems for 4 part chorale writing, it makes sense to want to preserve the independence of the voices, especially in a baroque, imitative context. There is no question but that bare fifths sounds more like "the same note" and bare octaves also sound like (even more so) "the same note" so moving in the same direction will make it sound like a voice has suddenly disappeared.

That makes perfect sense, so you are right, it did originate in the way sounds actually work.

HOWEVER--- if you're not shooting for pure, tonal, 4 part, baroque imitative writing---it seems to me that strict adherance to these rules is not necessary. And the absence of them does not indicate an amateurish effort.

Perhaps in MOST cases, amateurs who haven't bothered to develop their craft NOT ONLY don't know harmonic part writing rules, but they ALSO have not bothered to learn all their chords, inversions, and other devices and rudiments. Then,a composer's work will simply lack variety. A lack of variety, I would submit to you, is a better indication of an amateurish effort than simply ignoring rules which may be entirely contrary to the purpose of the composer to begin with.

In conclusion, those who are not bothering to strictly imitate 4 part baroque imitative writing can safely ignore these rules altogether and not be worried about being taken less seriously.

Obviously, if I compose a fugue and I say: I am imitating Bach, and I have not followed any rules, then of course that would be an amteurish effort. But if I then say, here is a large improvised tapestry of music that is an amalgam of styles and idioms, I don't see why pointing out errors as compared to the practice of composers dead 200 years should indicate that the work is amateurish. How about just listening to the sound? Does it bore you or move you? (not speaking of my own music necessarily here though...heck why not use it as an example)

So, since you personally Lee are probably trying to consciously imitate the old styles, then of course following rules will probably indicate a better effort. But to then say to a composer whose purpose is not imitation but simply writing his own music and finding his own voice: "your music is amateurish and riddled with errors" seems to me to project, perhaps, your own aesthetic onto a work which never intended to imitate music from the past to begin with? Not saying you have done this, of course

One additional point. So you actually believe Stravinsky consciously thought, as he composed Rite of Spring, "ah, yes, I shall violate the parallel fifths rule in this part! It'll sound EXTRA rebellious that way!" Somehow I doubt this ever entered his mind. He most likely messed around on the piano with weird chords that sounded wicked and then wrote it out on manuscript paper, without thinking for a half second about any set of rules.

So you actually believe Stravinsky consciously thought, as he composed Rite of Spring, "ah, yes, I shall violate the parallel fifths rule in this part! It'll sound EXTRA rebellious that way!" Somehow I doubt this ever entered his mind.

His conscious mind? Most probably not, as you say. But his knowledge I believe informed his decision making - subconsciously, or just by knowing what he was doing. That's all I'm saying. Informed thought is different from uninformed thought.

In conclusion, those who are not bothering to strictly imitate 4 part baroque imitative writing can safely ignore these rules altogether and not be worried about being taken less seriously.

Ignore them, sure. But being ignorant of them is a slippery slope.

But if I then say, here is a large improvised tapestry of music that is an amalgam of styles and idioms, I don't see why pointing out errors as compared to the practice of composers dead 200 years should indicate that the work is amateurish. How about just listening to the sound? Does it bore you or move you? (not speaking of my own music necessarily here though...heck why not use it as an example)

I believe you may be misunderstanding my motives, Derek. I'm not sure I do this with compositions that are obviously as you describe. I wouldn't go through a work by Christopher Dunn-Rankin, for example, who is a knowledgeable and capable composer of music employing modern techniques and whose work I have heard and reviewed, and call him onto the carpet for poor voice leading and illegal parallels. However, Evan recently posted a fine symphonic movement in B-minor (forgive me, Evan for singling you out, if you're reading this!) that I felt was marred by various errors I noticed, and in that movement he was clearly emulating a late Classical/early Romantic style, whether he was trying to or not. But I'd been on the theory bandwagon a lot lately, and the movement was otherwise so good that I decided not to castigate him about it, saying instead that there was nothing wrong in his work that more experience wouldn't correct. I wouldn't call you out either, Derek, for such things, because it's clear to me that your goals as a musician are different and rather unique, and that kind of criticism would be impertinent. I also qualified my observation of some illegal parallels in Marius' masterful Piano Variations recently, because it was clear he knew what he was doing otherwise, and it was equally clear he was not trying to emulate anyone or anything. I believe I'm careful and selective about these observations.

Informed thought is different from uninformed thought.

What is informed thought, then? It seems to me the only information a composer needs is how his music sounds. If it sounds good, it can't be wrong. It seems to me if you are shooting for the IDEAL of independence of voices, then for YOUR composition, perhaps applying those rules would be in order.

But there are other ways to get voices to sound independent in music. Western music has long been constrained to notated rhythm. Complex polyrhythms, cross rhythms, hemiola, and other techniques, notated or intuitive (perhaps especially intuitive) can also create a stark impression of independence of voices. There it is difficult to analyze vertical harmony strictly anyway.

What is informed thought, then?

Informed thought is backed up by applicable information gleaned from education. I'm not sure I understand why this is not clear. Most of us don't use many of the particulars of our formal education, but the aggregate of what we learn promotes critical thinking skills that benefit is in everything we do and inform the way we think for the rest of our lives.

It seems to me the only information a composer needs is how his music sounds. If it sounds good, it can't be wrong.

This is true. But it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Someone who is clearly trying to emulate traditional Western music (and again, many here are) would do better to educate himself than to stab away in the dark.

We're all still free to go about our compositional processes however we like. People are free to ignore my admonitions, and many choose to do just that because they don't want to be fettered in that way. However, I believe I would be remiss if I failed to point out something I believe to be a characteristic flaw in a piece of music - something that keeps it from being its best, or what the composer obviously or apparently is trying to accomplish - even if in the end all my criticism comes down to is an opinion based on my own knowledge, experience, sensibilites and values, as you implied earlier. That's all any criticism is, after all.

Someone who is clearly trying to emulate traditional Western music (and again, many here are) would do better to educate himself than to stab away in the dark.

It seems to me an equally valid musical goal to emulate a style without paying heed to rules. Furthermore, I really can't agree with this idea of stabbing in the dark. A composer chooses some notes in his Finale program, or plays them on his piano, and the composer likes these notes. Then he commits to them and uses them in a composition (or later on in an improvisation). That isn't stabbing the dark, that is making a decision that a certain passage sounds good.

A great example is Keith Jarrett. He has several piano and clavichord improvisations which are GORGEOUS and sound almost exactly like Baroque era music. However, I'm willing to bet he violates all sorts of rules in his music. Of course, it would require transcription to discover if this were truly the case, but the thing is I hear nothing in these baroque improvisations which sound "wrong." They are expressive, harmonically strong, contrapuntal, ...in short, brilliant, moving, and beautiful. Whether or not he occassionally doubles a leading tone or moves some voices in parallel fifths I really think has very little to do with why it sounds Baroque, and good.

I'm actually reminded of a passage from Jarrett's biography where it described a music theory class he took. The teacher couldn't stand him because Jarrett would bring in these piano pieces he wrote which had all kinds of errors. The teacher would say "you can't go there from there!" and the other students would say "we heard him play it last night and it sounded fine." Later, the teacher found Jarrett plucking on the strings of a piano and he yelled "GET OUT!" and Jarrett dropped out of the music school.

Later, when Jarrett was famous, the teacher found Jarrett and apologized to Jarrett. Jarrett did not accept the apology and said he built his reputation partly on having been kicked out of that guy's school. Hahahah

Now, if a piece were to consist ENTIRELY of parallel fifths and octaves, such that that "bare" color overwhelmed the character of a piece, THEN of course the music would not sound Baroque at all. Baroque is obsessed with parallel motion of thirds, sixths, and tenths, with only occasional intersections that land on more consonant intervals (usually in contrary motion of course).

So perhaps I'm not really arguing here. I personally have taught myself the rules and am still learning some of them, but I honestly don't feel any more informed because of these rules. They have not appeared to influence the quality of my improvisation/composition for the better or worse.

Perhaps the perspective of an improviser will be significantly different from a composer who typically writes his music out, I'm not sure.

OK, it appears we've arrived at a place where I understand you and you understand me. We agree on some points and disagree on others, and that's cool.

Let me ask you this: knowing that I'm selective about how I do it (I don't do it across the board), do you believe it is harmful for me to point out things like that in a critique? If so, why - and in what way is pointing out such "errors" any worse or better than anything else one might say in a critique?

The only thing I would still take issue with is critiquing a piece which is "obviously" trying to imitate an old style. That may be the case but I think critique is really only in order if the composer says: "I want this piece to sound like an exact clone of the old masters" if that is not the composer's purpose, then perhaps he likes the sound of paralells.

I'm sure I've heard a piano concerto by someone on this site (not sure if they would appreciate me singling them out) which definitely had root position chords one after the other. However, their sense of melody, melodic progression, etc, were all quite well honed and the piece was very attractive. I REALLY DONT THINK that changing it so it is a clone of ancient common practice would "improve" the piece. Those things just dont affect overall quality.

In fact, consider modern rock and metal music such as Opeth. This music is absolutely littered with power chords, i..e. bare fifths and octaves, which constantly move in parallel. independence of voices is far from the composer's purpose here, because indeed each note in each power chord is considered part of a whole. Independence doesn't matter.

It seems to me perfectly valid to apply this sort of aesthetic in a purely classical instrumental setting as well.

To emulate the way the old masters did things is completely optional, even when imitating their overall style (melodically, rhythmically, harmonically, etc.)

I get what you're saying. I just don't agree...not entirely, and it depends on the situation. I'm not talking about bare fifths that sound cool in a rock song, or something done for effect. I'm not trying to beat every square peg here into the round hole of conformity to a standard that in your opinion is irrelevant in this day and age. What I am trying to do - and I'm one of the only ones who has the guts to do it - is to show people (who may or may not realise it) that there is another way - albeit traditional, but maybe even a better way - to do some of what they're doing. They are free to take my advice or not as they choose.

By the way, I don't believe that it necessarily follows that following theory rules in traditionally constructed music makes that music a clone of something else. I follow those rules as I understand them to the letter and employ authentic period compositional techniques into the bargain. I even write for natural brass (without valves), though I don't necessary expect others to be that fanatical. As strict as I am, I still manage to be creative and compose with a distinctly personal voice.

I get what you're saying. I just don't agree...not entirely, and it depends on the situation. I'm not talking about bare fifths that sound cool in a rock song, or something done for effect. I'm not trying to beat every square peg here into the round hole of conformity to a standard that in your opinion is irrelevant in this day and age. What I am trying to do - and I'm one of the only ones who has the guts to do it - is to show people (who may or may not realise it) that there is another way - albeit traditional, but maybe even a better way - to do some of what they're doing. They are free to take my advice or not as they choose.

By the way, I don't believe that it necessarily follows that following theory rules in traditionally constructed music makes that music a clone of something else. I follow those rules as I understand them to the letter and employ authentic period compositional techniques into the bargain. I even write for natural brass (without valves), though I don't necessary expect others to be that fanatical. As strict as I am, I still manage to be creative and compose with a distinctly personal voice.

Clearly mere adherance to those rules is not going to produce an absolute clone. I applaud the fact that you are aware that music is so combinatorially vast that we cannot possibly have composed every possible classical symphony, etc. I wish more people thought the way you do, in fact.

Here's an interesting question however. How far do you think it is appropriate to take adherance to rules and/or common practice? I often use progressions and chord changes which probably were not common in the Romantic era, yet my idiom is decidedly primarily a Romantic one. Am I committing "errors?"

You think it is a slippery slope to not consider rules at all? See I'm really not so sure this is the case. I haven't ever bothered with rules, in that I've never felt overly compelled to use them, but that hasn't caused my music to remain lacking in variety or boring.

Here's an interesting question however. How far do you think it is appropriate to take adherance to rules and/or common practice? I often use progressions and chord changes which probably were not common in the Romantic era, yet my idiom is decidedly primarily a Romantic one. Am I committing "errors?"

Certainly not. That's a stylistic consideration, not theoretical, and more power to you. I am the sum total of everything I've ever heard, and I interpolate things in my expression of Classicism that would never have appeared in a period Classicist's work. They're subtle, but they're a small part of what makes my style individual and personal.

I think I see where you're going, and it's a good point. I tend to be more lenient when someone is innovating a traditional idiom stylistically.

Certainly not. That's a stylistic consideration, not theoretical, and more power to you. I am the sum total of everything I've ever heard, and I interpolate things in my expression of Classicism that would never have appeared in a period Classicist's work. They're subtle, but they're a small part of what makes my style individual and personal.

I think I see where you're going, and it's a good point. I tend to be more lenient when someone is innovating a traditional idiom stylistically.

See, I agree that the subtle differences are what matter. So many people seem to give up or say "its all been done before" but has it? I bet lots of people were saying that before Rachmaninov came around, and then boom, a whole new sound in the Romantic style. There were familiar things in it like major and minor chords, but the overall "thumbprint" of Rachmaninov, as distinct as we are able to recognize someone's face, has a very individual quality to it.

I personally think that mainly has to do with timing of all aspects of music: melody, harmony and rhythm all at once. Now imagine a composition mapped out through time. How all those aspects are timed throughout their piece, and their potential sum total aesthetic effect....has such a MIND BOGGLINGLY HUGE array of possibilites that I would say it that the musical landscape, even in the context of tonal or at least mostly tonal music is quite literally INFINITE.

So...why this vain, conceited attempt by various moderns to "revolutionize" music? Are they afraid they can't come up with a really good tonal melody? Maybe they're just talentless hacks looking for a way to feel good about themselves.

So...why this vain, conceited attempt by various moderns to "revolutionize" music? Are they afraid they can't come up with a really good tonal melody? Maybe they're just talentless hacks looking for a way to feel good about themselves.

I'm pretty sure it's not that they can't come up with a good tonal melody. Some people, maybe. My feeling is that when you listen to common practice music for a long time, especially in a setting where such music operates as background, instead of active listening material, it becomes ignorable. I mean, think of how many times you've heard Vivaldi's concerti in elevators. Atonal music is removed from common practice so that it forces an audience to listen either actively or not at all.

I'm pretty sure it's not that they can't come up with a good tonal melody. Some people, maybe. My feeling is that when you listen to common practice music for a long time, especially in a setting where such music operates as background, instead of active listening material, it becomes ignorable. I mean, think of how many times you've heard Vivaldi's concerti in elevators. Atonal music is removed from common practice so that it forces an audience to listen either actively or not at all.

Haha...anyone who gets bored with Vivaldi is to be pitied.

To get bored with any sort of music, one has to take the defeatist viewpoint: "Ah, that's a circle of fifths progression, which I have heard many times before, so therefore I am bored.", or "Ah, that's a 12 tone row, I know how those work, so therefore I am bored" Isn't that sad? This is why I think it is not good to think so much about theory, it tends to take the focus away from the sound

And, as you can see, modern composers in the 20th century did in fact get on a slippery slope. They focused SO much on theory, that eventually they concluded that music doesn't have to have sound in it at all!

Isn't there something about that that smacks of mis-guided thinking?

I don't mean it's BORING, per se. It's just that it's a familiar sound, so it can easily be dealt with by the brain without undue attention. With an atonal piece, there's much less telealogical content, so in order to absorb it, it requires much more active listening. It's a double-edged sword that way: if you have an audience who will pay attention, they will get a lot from the piece (possibly more than from common practice works), but if the audience doesn't pay attention, it's like the piece never existed.

I don't mean it's BORING, per se. It's just that it's a familiar sound, so it can easily be dealt with by the brain without undue attention. With an atonal piece, there's much less telealogical content, so in order to absorb it, it requires much more active listening. It's a double-edged sword that way: if you have an audience who will pay attention, they will get a lot from the piece (possibly more than from common practice works), but if the audience doesn't pay attention, it's like the piece never existed.

I agree that atonal music is more of an acquired taste, but I don't agree that it necessarily takes more active listening than Vivaldi. It seems to me both styles, old baroque and recent modern, all use very similar devices (among themselves, not between them obviously) and have a high degree of homogeneity. Since that is the case, one cannot say that each modern piece or each baroque piece exhibits a high degree of originality. Instead, we listen just for the overall impression of the sound and how it makes us feel. The day you stop finding a major chord, standing on its own, to be a pleasant sound, is the day you have forgotten what music is all about (not saying you specifically have reached this point). Music just takes these pleasant sounds and makes them more interesting. In a way, I might add, that is representative of human intuition.

I heard a concert recently of one of my professors' pieces. It was a mass of dissonant sounds running in intensely polyphonic lines over each other. Then, all of a sudden, right in the middle, the horns outlined and played a perfect major triad, which just popped out of the music. However, I don't think the sound would have popped out so much if the piece had not set itself so firmly against that sonority from the beginning. This is what I mean by active listening - things that suddenly make you sit up and go "WOAH!" unless you're not paying attention and then the whole thing washes over you without anything sticking.

I heard a concert recently of one of my professors' pieces. It was a mass of dissonant sounds running in intensely polyphonic lines over each other. Then, all of a sudden, right in the middle, the horns outlined and played a perfect major triad, which just popped out of the music. However, I don't think the sound would have popped out so much if the piece had not set itself so firmly against that sonority from the beginning. This is what I mean by active listening - things that suddenly make you sit up and go "WOAH!" unless you're not paying attention and then the whole thing washes over you without anything sticking.

What you just mentioned is contrast, which is precisely the thing I am interested in in music. What I don't understand are those composers who seem to constrain themselves entirely to just one way of doing things. Or even those who MOSTLY constrain themselves to one way of doing things.

Jarrett does an atonal improvisation on Vienna concert after which he takes the same patterns he was playing atonally and frames them in a major scale, this has a very, very striking effect on the listener. It is like one has emerged from the deepest, darkest abyss into a glorious sun filled valley.

Certainly not. That's a stylistic consideration, not theoretical, and more power to you. I am the sum total of everything I've ever heard, and I interpolate things in my expression of Classicism that would never have appeared in a period Classicist's work. They're subtle, but they're a small part of what makes my style individual and personal.

I think I see where you're going, and it's a good point. I tend to be more lenient when someone is innovating a traditional idiom stylistically. [/b]

On that note - when you modulate to the sharpened key to that which is expected in the first minute or so of the exposition of your Symphony in G Major, is that one of these interpolations?

I don't listen to many classical composers - they're overshadowed by the big three, but even then, I haven't heard all of their works. So would something like this ever occur in a classical piece?

How did you come up with that particular idea?

Sorry, I'm off topic, but I've nothing to add. Just that the things which were deemed illegal were done so for a reason. Even in a lot of romantic piano writing etc, these rules are adhered to because if they aren't, it does usually sound bad. And it sounds especially bad when done accidentally as Lee says.

I should hang my head in shame, for I've only recently realised how important these things are.

On that note - when you modulate to the sharpened key to that which is expected in the first minute or so of the exposition of your Symphony in G Major, is that one of these interpolations?

I hadn't thought of it that way, but I guess so. I think I know exactly the place you're talking about, and that's what they'd call a mediant relationship, though I didn't prepare it at all - instead of going from an A7 chord to a D chord, I land on an unexpected F chord, which is the mediant of D major, the dominant and the key of the secondary theme. I don't think I broke any new ground here - Schubert was famous for this sort of relationship - but I may have handled it differently than a "period" composer would have.