Novel or Slovenly? Post Novel Ideas.

I can't be sure whether a thread like this has been made or not, but what say you to a thread (this one) where composers post novel ideas, techniques, processes, etc. in the interest of spurring other composers to take said ideas into action?

Now, I understand that you wouldn't want to part with your more novel and valuable ideas; I can see that you'd want to keep them to yourself for "innovative composer of the century" purposes. But am I really the only one here to offer my ideas? Am I possibly quite stupid in giving my ideas out? We'll see.

Also, the ideas can of course be quite stupid or ridiculous, like the following idea:

What would you say to a compositional technique where you had say, several (up to twelve, I suppose) different instruments (or instrument groups), and each instrument was assigned a letter note value. Example:

Strings = 'C', Clarinets = 'D', Brass = 'E', Etc.

BTW, I know nothing of orchestration, so I may seem like quite the idiot.

A more versatile alternative to your idea would be to allow all strings to play the pitch C, all woodwinds the pitch D and all brass the pitch E, but then divide it up furtehr, so Violin I can play C#, Violin II can play G, Viola can play G#, Violincello can play B and Double Bass can play C#. Therefor all strings can play two notes, giving more depth.

Just a thought.

Novel ideas?

Well I have this great one where the protagonist must over throw an evil God and thus restore humanity to it's original purpose...

I'm not going to tell you the purpose, you'll have to buy the book.

Sorry. Couldn't resist!

The only issue with what you've described is keeping it interesting. Hearing the same timbre for each note would get a bit tiring, I feel. Do it. Post it.

Make an orchestra of 81 people and have them play each individual note of a piano. And have a pianist not playing anything for the whole piece.

Also, you can cook the piano, eat the piano, serve the piano to the audience, you can dismiss the piano, fire the piano, freeze the piano, make the piano into a violin, play the piano like a fisherman, straddle the piano, strangle the piano, interrogate the piano, and the most obvious: have sexual intercourse with a piano.

I saw something very novel at Tate Modern the other day. It was a room with a video projection, where in one side of the room was a guy on a white background, naked, with a mask on his fase, bouncing up and down and turning around himself for about 15 minutes. On the other side, there was a guy on a bed full of faeces (scraggy), also wearing a mask, and with a dildo shoving the faeces back into his anus.

If I saw the guy in front of me I'd probably sue him for murdering brutally quite a large number of braincells for the duration I sat there and watched those films.

I am not a big fan of novelty, and as robin says, "everything's been done". Make whatever you want out of it :)

As robin says, "everything has been done." That's interesting.

By that I'd say I would disagree. Everything known has been done, however never in the best sequence. If you can time it right, you can discover new truths that were once possibilities. There is still much to be done, and anyone can do it. You have to know where to look. I can't really help you with that. You either know it or you don't, and you can know it at one time, yet never have known it at a different time, even if you previously knew it. Time is everywhere including nowhere. The mind is loving you because it has a silent mouth.

As robin says, "everything has been done." That's interesting.

By that I'd say I would disagree. Everything known has been done, however never in the best sequence. If you can time it right, you can discover new truths that were once possibilities. There is still much to be done, and anyone can do it. You have to know where to look. I can't really help you with that. You either know it or you don't, and you can know it at one time, yet never have known it at a different time, even if you previously knew it. Time is everywhere including nowhere. The mind is loving you because it has a silent mouth.

Woah, dude.

Deep.

(!?)

By that I'd say I would disagree. Everything known has been done, however never in the best sequence. If you can time it right, you can discover new truths that were once possibilities.

Am I misunderstanding, or that means that everything is predetermined? Also, who determines what the best sequence of events is (always regarding our topic)?

Time is everywhere including nowhere

I'd say that time is "nowhere" else, but now which if you come to think about it, it is "everywhere".

Alexandros

yield the power between 1 and 2, and you get 3, yield the power of this set on another one and you can get 1 in a degree n+1, 2 in a degree n+1, 3 in a degree n+1 and so on.

ok, i have no clue what is it, but the sets are infinite (and infinite sets are infinite), so there's no possibility that everything's been done or will ever be done.

celebrate!

Pliorius, are you referring to the Fibonacci sequence (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34 etc.)? The Fibonacci sequence is interesting because it approximates the golden section when it is depicted as a spiral (Fibonacci spiral) and it is found a lot in nature (I have a little book called "The Golden Section" and talks about that stuff).

By the way, I am using the golden section in the piece I am composing right now. I know it's not novel or anything (who cares anyway?), but it's interesting...

Alexandros

i'm reffering to the set theory introduced/created by cantor and axiomized by zermelo and fraenkel, known as ZFC set theory.

actually it's pretty much easy to demonstrate that in music not everything has been done.

Oh, I see! I am not familiar with that and it sounds interesting. I am going to google it. :)

Edit: Just visited the wikipedia article on set theory. I was taught about that in 12th grade, but didn't know it was called like that in English. In regards to it being applied in music composition, it reminds me of Stockhausen's "group" technique...

you'd better start with something more 'popular', the language of set theory might be perplexing. there's a classic by paolo zellini 'a brief history of infinity' that deals with introduction of set theory and generally discusses concept of 'infinity' and its history in human mind. when you'll come to the part speaking of sizes of infinities and their actuality, man, i wish i studied math :D

but, nonetheless, it's very interesting, if you like getting into paradoxes, indefiniteness and antinomies and such things that seems to defy (normal every day)empiricism.

if you wish to read how someone constructs whole philosophical logic and stance from intuitions and demonstrations of set theory, you should read alain badiou. the last great philosopher i've read.

I have been quite acquainted with the concept of infinity, but mostly from a cosmological/theosophical point of view. I would be very interested in reading how mathematics "view" infinity, although I can't say I am a math expert.

Pliorius, you seem to be knowledgeable in the field of philosophy. I am the very opposite, completely ignorant. Could you point me to a few philosophers I should definitely read, books etc ? Send me a pm, if there's no problem.

Thanks!

Alexandros

I don't think anybody is arguing that there is no sequence of notes that hasn't already been written by somebody. "Everything has been done" generally more refers to the range of general musical concepts that have been applied, in the sense of "it's no longer possible to push the boundaries of music beyond the established" (considering that there are no universal boundaries anymore in the first place).

Personally I'm not entirely sure of this though. I think there are quite some artistic perspectives that are still unexplored, or somewhat overlooked, which offer quite some potential of "discovery". Just that those aspects are less blatant and going into them may not have the same revolutionary power as the advancements of the modernists of the 20th century. The way we see music, we see us as composers, we treat time, form, structure, space, the way we connect music to other shools of thought etc. has still a lot of room for "newness", or "novelty", even if it's somewhat hidden. I realize that this is a very dangerous term to use these days. "Novelty" has (maybe since the begin of postmodern thought) gained quite some infamy as a relict of modernism and is not seldomly used in a very derogatory sense, implying that it's just a "trick" to sell a piece without any real "content" or "purpose".

I -do- somewhat understand it when it's coming from people out of a generation that was taught in the postwar period under the strict doctrines in the 50s and 60s, where modernism was strictly demanded and anybody who wrote a major chord would be shot. They had to fight against this doctrine and naturally, "newness" as a goal per se was something they wanted to get away from. I don't quite understand it as much coming from the younger generation though.

Personally, I do enjoy hearing something in a way I've never heard it before "for its own sake". For me that's a form of beauty, so to speak. And even though many composers who are looking for "something new" may end up copying something that has already been done of some sort, I don't think that's reason enough to discourage them. I think the drive to gain new approaches to music, to explore, or simply to enjoy playing with sounds that are new to -you- is valid and worthwhile enough. Sure, it may not be a "revolutionary discovery that pushes music into a new era" (which is a somewhat silly idea), but I don't see many people claiming that.

It may not be a new thing to have sex with a piano indeed (even if no one has actually done that particular thing), because it falls under the same basic idea as many other compositions that have been created (i.e.: Do random stuff that doesn't make sense). But this depends on the context of how you use it in a piece. Depending on other aspects of the composition the idea of "having sex with a piano" may gain quite a different meaning than just "doing random stuff" and actually open up connections that indeed -are- new in some sense. Or at least new to you and a certain environment. (I would hope so personally. Without any good inner-musical "justification" of making someone have sex with a piano, I'd find it quite boring and musty, and very likely wouldn't like the piece at all.)

So personally, I see nothing wrong with striving for some novelty. It is just one of many things one may look out for in music, and not necessarily a worse one than many others.

I don't think anybody is arguing that there is no sequence of notes that hasn't already been written by somebody.

It may not be a new thing to have sex with a piano indeed (even if no one has actually done that particular thing), because it falls under the same basic idea as many other compositions that have been created (i.e.: Do random stuff that doesn't make sense). But this depends on the context of how you use it in a piece. Depending on other aspects of the composition the idea of "having sex with a piano" may gain quite a different meaning than just "doing random stuff" and actually open up connections that indeed -are- new in some sense. Or at least new to you and a certain environment. (I would hope so personally. Without any good inner-musical "justification" of making someone have sex with a piano, I'd find it quite boring and musty, and very likely wouldn't like the piece at all.)

for sure, the set theory doesn't say just that we can get an infinite sequences of the same sort. it's rather about the difference between the sequences as themselves. the two notes, depending on the integer between them will/can be drastically different. and farther you go, bigger chunks of music with different relations/powers can be consructed. the point is that the amount of different powers between sequences or sets cannot be measured. and, if you take just music, the possibility of loose/free connected (we mostly agree that music doen't have to follow certain axioms that are universal) logics is infinite. yes, it might not be as shocking and as world changing as certain others, but ,speaking clinically, they are no less different and new. what shocks the world and changes it in a global picture is usually just certain cultural thing, rather than 'more' new in ontological sense.

p.s. see it as this - the western(well, any preglobal) world has been culturally ascetic and close, 'traditionalist', that something that defied (well, just gave a kick) tradition was considered as something extremely new. so, it's hard to see something as not so donkey kicking as 'new', but it is 'new' nonetheless. we sure shouldn't fall in the trap of thinking 'new' only in a culturally presupossed way.

of course there are different 'news' out there, some have more impact, others less, some are culturally impregnated, others are rather like a blow of wind, so it's normal that not everything 'new' will change much and have much publicity. in time, some little things will grow big, and, bingo, you'll have a huge event. it's maybe not so frequent. the big news.

The only issue with what you've described is keeping it interesting. Hearing the same timbre for each note would get a bit tiring, I feel. Do it. Post it.

The idea was to use the 'novelty' in a novel way - not to create old things using the said 'novelty'. Besides, that was easily one of my less creative ideas.

jujimufu: I myself dislike novelty for its own sake. Novelty ought to be introduced in order to make something explicitly good, in a new way, and not just to make something new.

Here's another idea: you all must be familiar with the 'beat' caused by "conflicting" tones, right? Well, what if a composer were to use those 'beats' as either part of his or her rhythm, or something else. This would probably sound like a very large, choppy, and slow vibrato (actually, I never paid much attention to exactly what it sounded like).

Here's another idea: you all must be familiar with the 'beat' caused by "conflicting" tones, right? Well, what if a composer were to use those 'beats' as either part of his or her rhythm, or something else. This would probably sound like a very large, choppy, and slow vibrato (actually, I never paid much attention to exactly what it sounded like).

works best with saw waves, i feel.

I had this idea that used hard blowing of saxes and brass into microphones, and then broadcast the noise-canceling pitch through speakers into the audience, revealing a clarinet or flute melody. I just don't know how best to instruct it...

How's this: make a theme, motif, melody, or whatever you want to call it, and create a composition that 'tours' through as many eras of music as possible; that is to say, you might start with your melody harmonized and stylized in Baroque, and end up with it harmonized and stylized in '20th Century'.

If for nothing else, this would be good composition practice.

How's this: make a theme, motif, melody, or whatever you want to call it, and create a composition that 'tours' through as many eras of music as possible; that is to say, you might start with your melody harmonized and stylized in Baroque, and end up with it harmonized and stylized in '20th Century'.

If for nothing else, this would be good composition practice.

I actually thought of doing this once before! It's one of my 'possibilitie' on the future horizon :)

I actually thought of doing this once before! It's one of my 'possibilitie' on the future horizon :)

Zorn is the man.

I don't think anybody is arguing that there is no sequence of notes that hasn't already been written by somebody. "Everything has been done" generally more refers to the range of general musical concepts that have been applied, in the sense of "it's no longer possible to push the boundaries of music beyond the established" (considering that there are no universal boundaries anymore in the first place).

Personally I'm not entirely sure of this though. I think there are quite some artistic perspectives that are still unexplored, or somewhat overlooked, which offer quite some potential of "discovery". Just that those aspects are less blatant and going into them may not have the same revolutionary power as the advancements of the modernists of the 20th century. The way we see music, we see us as composers, we treat time, form, structure, space, the way we connect music to other shools of thought etc. has still a lot of room for "newness", or "novelty", even if it's somewhat hidden. I realize that this is a very dangerous term to use these days. "Novelty" has (maybe since the begin of postmodern thought) gained quite some infamy as a relict of modernism and is not seldomly used in a very derogatory sense, implying that it's just a "trick" to sell a piece without any real "content" or "purpose".

I -do- somewhat understand it when it's coming from people out of a generation that was taught in the postwar period under the strict doctrines in the 50s and 60s, where modernism was strictly demanded and anybody who wrote a major chord would be shot. They had to fight against this doctrine and naturally, "newness" as a goal per se was something they wanted to get away from. I don't quite understand it as much coming from the younger generation though.

Personally, I do enjoy hearing something in a way I've never heard it before "for its own sake". For me that's a form of beauty, so to speak. And even though many composers who are looking for "something new" may end up copying something that has already been done of some sort, I don't think that's reason enough to discourage them. I think the drive to gain new approaches to music, to explore, or simply to enjoy playing with sounds that are new to -you- is valid and worthwhile enough. Sure, it may not be a "revolutionary discovery that pushes music into a new era" (which is a somewhat silly idea), but I don't see many people claiming that.

It may not be a new thing to have sex with a piano indeed (even if no one has actually done that particular thing), because it falls under the same basic idea as many other compositions that have been created (i.e.: Do random stuff that doesn't make sense). But this depends on the context of how you use it in a piece. Depending on other aspects of the composition the idea of "having sex with a piano" may gain quite a different meaning than just "doing random stuff" and actually open up connections that indeed -are- new in some sense. Or at least new to you and a certain environment. (I would hope so personally. Without any good inner-musical "justification" of making someone have sex with a piano, I'd find it quite boring and musty, and very likely wouldn't like the piece at all.)

So personally, I see nothing wrong with striving for some novelty. It is just one of many things one may look out for in music, and not necessarily a worse one than many others.

Gardener, I love you.

But in the, like, friend way. No touching. Dig?

It may not be a new thing to have sex with a piano indeed (even if no one has actually done that particular thing)

Some people have come pretty close though...

Finnissy has played the piano with his penis at a live concert.

And of course,

:whistling:

Some people have come pretty close though...

Finnissy has played the piano with his penis at a live concert.

And of course,

...

:whistling:

I would imagine that if he looks like that while making love that pretty much any female would just get up and leave.