A New Theory of Harmony? – Isocords & Palindromes

In a way, you're right. With my "Isocord Explorations" I do not create 'music'

In a way, you're right. With my "Isocord Explorations" I do not create 'music' – I'm just doing 'composition exercises' in a systematic way, starting with minor seconds isocords and going on with all the rest of intervals within an octave (or even above). Whether these exercises sound 'good' or 'bad', 'traditional' or 'modern', 'unique' or 'experimental', that's not the prime point – I'm doing nothing but exploring the material in a first step. Afterwards I hope to have gathered as much experience as possible to generate genuine ideas for creating my music in the first place – 'Isocord Music' and 'Palindrome Music'. And I'm optimistic that it will sound nothing like traditional or modern music, but, notwithstanding, will bridge traditional and modern music in an idiosyncratic way.

On this onerous path, patience as well as criticism will find a ready welcome.

There's no sense in wasting time with 'exercises' when you can be doing what folks like Bach did... and write music using your theory. If you came up with pieces that highlighted and built upon each of the intervals, the more complex sonorities of Palindrome harmony, and so on, you'll have done much of what you're trying to accomplish with these 'exercises'.

Don't spin your wheels. That's all I'm saying.

There's no sense in wasting time with 'exercises' when you can be doing what folks like Bach did... and write music using your theory. If you came up with pieces that highlighted and built upon each of the intervals, the more complex sonorities of Palindrome harmony, and so on, you'll have done much of what you're trying to accomplish with these 'exercises'.

Don't spin your wheels. That's all I'm saying.

Well, I'm not J.S.B., that's for sure. But anyhow, thank you for your advice. Unfortunately, it's not my nature to step on the gas.

And so the wait continues, will there actually be any music in this thread, ever?

As a sidenote, why do so many pseudo-musicologist composers try to do the Schoenberg thing? It all reeks of self-glorifying wank to serve as padding when someone maybe doesn't give a poo about the actual music being produced. "But it has all this SUPER INTERESTING THEORY behind it!" They always end up thinking that because the music is just a by-product of the theory they have LESS of the blame for actually composing the damn thing.

And if I had a buck for each time I've heard that excuse...

And so the wait continues, will there actually be any music in this thread, ever?

There will be, if this thread takes long enough (right now we have 160 posts with 4616 views since June 11).

There will be, if this thread takes long enough (right now we have 160 posts with 4616 views since June 11).

And still no music? Since June?!??!

There's 'not wanting to step on the gas...' and there's also sitting in your car in your driveway pretending you're in the Knight Industries Two Thousand (KITT) talking to a computer with artificial intelligence that helps you fight imaginary crime bosses from the 80's because you watch too much Retro Television shows like Knight Rider.

I'm leaning more toward the latter... not writing 'Isocord Music' before structuring a full-blown theory about it is more like 'playing pretend' than 'developing theory'. Unless you have a clearer understanding of what Isocord Music sounds like, what is 'unique' to that sound in contrast to other kinds of music, you have NOTHING to theorize about because there is no context. All you're doing is rewriting traditional music and calling it something else... when it's still traditional music.

I'm bored.

If you're interested to listen to a piece of music which is completely based on the concepts of palindrome and isocord harmony, you may visit my "Pentatonic Blues" at Piano Music, Solo Keyboard.

It's a theoretical exercise... not music. Seriously. 24 measures of a Blues chord progression (probably about all I could listen to) in the pseudo-harmonic language of some style other than 'Isochord Music' neither supports nor validates your theory. If anything, you're convincing me more and more that Isochord Theory is nothing more than an attempt to rewrite historical music (or supplant existing terminology with your own).

Now, I've probably been one of the only people here who have advocated for giving your theory anything more than a passing glance... and scathing review. I've really, REALLY tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please don't make me regret it. Go write something that could not be mistaken for a theoretical exercise. Write music...

This means something that incorporates elements of your theory... and not exclusively. If your ideas have any chance of being given a second glance, it won't be due to how exclusively you use components of your theory, the 'bridging' of tonal and atonal systems, or the number of theoretical exercises you create.

Music. Please.

Well at least he tried, but I said it a long time ago, the whole thing produces nothing other than regular chords and forms but just names them differently.

And the examples given so far just prove exactly that. Hopefully now we can stop bumping this thread and move on.

It's a theoretical exercise... not music.

Contrary to your view, this "Pentatonic Blues" is a true piece of music which flowed out of improvising on the respective pentatonic scale.

Basically, I wonder how it's possible to get the impression of typical blues changes

Contrary to your view, this "Pentatonic Blues" is a true piece of music which flowed out of improvising on the respective pentatonic scale.

Basically, I wonder how it's possible to get the impression of typical blues changes – like I, IV, V – although there are no real I, IV, V harmonies at all within this pentatonic scale.

Do you have an idea how this can be understood?

"Blues" is not characterized solely by I, IV, V harmonic progression. If you're going to emulate a style, there's more than just considerations of harmony. There was no improvisation to be heard of... all you did was change the rhythm of the harmonic progression.

And what's the point of this? I understand what your approach has been. Everyone seems to stand resolute on this matter... your approach doesn't work. Your objective to 'unite' styles under one banner, as though one structure should exist and should be praised instead of rejected, is only a weakness of your theory.

The whole point of theory is to follow music, to explain what the music is doing. We all know what "Blues" music does (or should know). We know what tonal music does. We know what atonal music does. There is 'no need' for a theory that explains it again with another batch of terms and structures. This is why your theory is weak. You're not 'creating music' that needs further explanation beyond, "Yeah, this is Blues harmony using Isochords." So what?! Who cares? Why should anyone care? They don't have any reason to care, and that's evident in the fact that as of yet, I and SSC are the only ones responding. You are not listening or comprehending what it is we're trying to do to help you.

And really, if you're just THAT stubborn, if you really think you're gaining any ground with this doppelganger theory of yours that seeks to emulate existing styles instead of broadening its own syntax with distinction FROM these idioms of tonal, atonal, etc., then there's no point in you posting about this any further. No one here is interested in that kind of work, and you have classical, modern, and postmodern styles that are quite well-established already absolutely working against you. Principles of Natural Selection are most likely going to doom your theory and all the work you've put into it unless you do SOMETHING with your theory that is truly unique and distinctive from other methods of writing music.

The next post I expect from you should say something to the effect of, "This is what Isochord Music sounds like. I believe this sound is distinct from many other styles because of X,Y,&Z." Then we'll all sit around and discuss whether or not it's a different sound from existing musical languages. Once you have 'musically defined' what Isochord Music sounds like, then your application to other styles might... 'might' be worthwhile. But you have a long way to go to 'prove' that learning about your theory is important... right now, it's not important until we see music that defines the sound of what YOU think Isochord Music sounds like without ANY consideration or concern for other styles and systems of music.

I really appreciate your endeavor to convince me that I'm on the wrong way with my "symmetry theory of sound" (BTW, let's take this term instead of "icochord theory" or something like that). However, in my understanding we both have only different approaches to meet "what music is about". Let me explain my approach a bit more.

Basically, I'm a classical composer, predominantly in the style of Mozart. Nevertheless, I've also studied modern composition to a certain extent [i'm an old "Darmst

"How is it possible to hear blues changes in a piece composed of symmetric sounds only?"

Context. You hear the changes because you associate them with a particular sonority or syntax. And you really only hear that because your intent is clearly stated and your example is purely a theoretical exercise. You don't have to have asymmetric sonorities to imitate asymmetric sounds. The ear is going to pick this up whether you use symmetry or asymmetry to build your harmonies. A refined ear will probably pick up the difference, but a lot of Blues and Jazz is built on using sonorities that shift between symmetric and asymmetric intervals. We often hear things like B+ with an extension added for color. It happens quite frequently. Similarly, fully diminished chords happen all the time. Thus, there's very little difference in what you're doing and what already exists within the style or styles.

You can have a pentatonic blues or a whole tone blues or any number of blues sonorities that you imitate with your symmetrical language. I didn't actually hear any 'blues changes' in your example. All I heard were symmetric harmonies imitating blues harmonies without incorporating ANY other components of blues, like melody, swing, or actual 'improvisation' of a tune. Like I said, you're entirely too focused on harmonic content that you're missing so many other elements of music.

What's the point of this posturing? You post this stuff every time for feedback, you don't like the result, so you go come up with the same stuff in a different style, post, ask for feedback, and so forth. The answer's the same. Write music.

Well, AA, I think you're expecting way too much of this guy. After all, he's the one that did stuff like: http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/433-experiment-thread-19223.html#post287300, eh?

Honestly guys, this is already quite childish. That example was a joke, regardless if it's a piece or not and to be honest I might as well think of it as trolling at this point in the narrative. It's been months and if he simply doesn't get it, well damn.

Hello Hansen!

I, too, fail to see what is new in these sounds. A symmetrical construction of chords based on frequencies and not intervals would sound in my opinion more "exotic", but still perhaps not something totally foreign...

"How is it possible to hear blues changes in a piece composed of symmetric sounds only?"

Context. You hear the changes because you associate them with a particular sonority or syntax. And you really only hear that because your intent is clearly stated

Well, AA, I think you're expecting way too much of this guy. After all, he's the one that did stuff like: http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/433-experiment-thread-19223.html#post287300, eh?

At least you will concede that my 'experiment on Cage's 4'33" piece' has been an imaginative one!

Hello Hansen!

I, too, fail to see what is new in these sounds. A symmetrical construction of chords based on frequencies and not intervals would sound in my opinion more "exotic", but still perhaps not something totally foreign...

Hi Alexander, thanks for your comment.

Whether a "symmetrical construction of chords based on frequencies" really sounds more "exotic" is nothing but a question of tuning. All intervals include frequencies, and if they are tuned in Equal Temperament or in Just Intonation

At least you will concede that my 'experiment on Cage's 4'33" piece' has been an imaginative one!

No it wasn't. It was very childish, but then again so is this entire thing.

At least you will concede that my 'experiment on Cage's 4'33" piece' has been an imaginative one!

No it wasn't. It was very childish, but then again so is this entire thing.

No? Wasn't?

Nevertheless, it showed, with your help, the childish character of Cage's 4'33".

No? Wasn't?

Nevertheless, it showed, with your help, the childish character of Cage's 4'33".

Yeah, if you have no education I guess that's what it may look like eh? And yeah, I deliberately left in that line in my experiment thread so people who have NO clue would grab onto that instead of doing the actual experiment. I'm really sneaky like that and we all had some laughs on your expense, I'm sure you don't mind.

But you go on right ahead calling one of the most important music philosophical questions in the 20th century childish, after all everyone is entitled to their opinion regardless of how hilarious it may be.

Yeah, if you have no education I guess that's what it may look like eh? And yeah, I deliberately left in that line in my experiment thread so people who have NO clue would grab onto that instead of doing the actual experiment. I'm really sneaky like that and we all had some laughs on your expense, I'm sure you don't mind.

But you go on right ahead calling one of the most important music philosophical questions in the 20th century childish, after all everyone is entitled to their opinion regardless of how hilarious it may be.

It's not so bad a thing to give you an extra laugh (even with "no education" as you presume).

4'33" as "one of the most important music philosophical questions in the 20th century"??? (OK, "no education" as you presume

Honestly, I wouldn't trust a "new" music theory from anyone who writes predominantly "in the style of Mozart". Actually, not sure I'd trust a "new" theory from anyone who defines their compositional output solely from the work of another composer.

How far does it matter whom a theoretician likes - or dislikes - as a composer?

How far does it matter whom a theoretician likes - or dislikes - as a composer?

In as much as what you've been doing this ENTIRE TIME with this thread is a joke because you're only looking at things from your own tastes. But well beating the dead horse aside, even AA is getting tired of it and that's already saying much more than I ever could.

Even AA is getting tired of it and that's already saying much more than I ever could.

I think Hansen should refer to this post for more insight on music 'unification'. I happened upon this thought process after reading about 6 chapters of Bruno Nettl.

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/post-modernism-questions-should-answered-22447-4.html#post326178

The second to last paragraph illustrates what I mean by 'unification'.