An argument for parallel fifths

Sketch_No._149.mp3

So I know some of you think piece is garbage and that's okay.
I quite like it. Congrats if you make it to the end and understand it.

I'm waiting for Luis Hernandez to say something.

I'm not sure I get it. The parallel fifth pattern with pedal basically makes a G major 7th chord, while the rhythm slows down gradually. Each iteration is played for the same length of time, six measures.

It was relaxing and somewhat entrancing to listen to for a few minutes, but I'll admit I got a bit fidgety toward the end. 

I'm curious to know how this one came about. Your introduction makes me think I'm missing something. 

I don't know why but I've listened to it three times (the whole piece). So, I like it indeed.

The first time I thought there was something missing. I mean, I was "waiting" for a change, apart from the rhythmic changes. But the other times I went over it, I really enjoyed what (for me) is one of the nice things here: the resonation that the fifths create with their harmonics.

I imagine this piece in a real piano, live. Perhaps it's a very good piece to experiment in some parts with "silent" chords activated with a sustain pedal. This is an extended technique I like (almost impossible to make with software).

The music going slower and slower is also beautiful and calm.

Not garbage, indeed, in my modest opinion. I understand your words saying some people will thing it's not good... But I don't agree.

In fact, I got an mp3 copy (with your permission, please)  to add it to some pieces I love that bring to me this peculiar mood, which I listen very often, for example: In a landscape, Dreams (Cage), or for Alina (Pärt).

OK, well I wasn't sure if it was a joke or not. (This is the Internet, after all). I can't say that I liked it. But in all honesty I can't say that I didn't like it either. There isn't enough happening here to sway me in either direction. And basically I'm not a fan of conceptual, ego-less music, nor puzzles, games, riddles, brain twisters and whatnot. so there you go. For me, I didn't get it. Luis makes a good point about tempo ...

I understand...

But taste is unique (for every one of us). Even if this is intended as a joke, I don't mind. I like it.

I like the concept of the title, but I think I have to agree with Ken that for me there wasn't enough done with the concept to make me say I liked it.  There again, I didn't dislike it, but there is a huge number of variations of parallel 5th's to play with (and as I said I like the idea of it and might take it to play with, if you don't mind).  I did listen till the end and I don't think I got what you meant when you said there is something to understand about it.  I do hope that you'll explain your concept for those of us who are a litte slow on the uptake lol!  Does it have something to do with the vary last arpeggio?

It is interesting that you like this, Luis, but consider that you might be projecting how you think you would feel if it had a real piano, which it doesn’t. You are giving praise to a mere thought which exists only in your mind and not yet manifest. What if I told you I have a new symphony? But instead of notes I gave you a description in English such as, “It will start out slowly, build here, and then here, and then build and build to a big climax, and then finally, in two different keys! it will crash like thunder, and then it will calm down like a gentle rain, and then it will end.” Is that music? Questions.

The silence of @Monarcheon is deafening. 

39 minutes ago, Noah Brode said:

The silence of @Monarcheon is deafening. 

I'm appreciating the conversation for a bit longer before I respond. 

Ok, I wanted to mean some potential in my imagination. It happens to me with many pieces.

But I like it the way it is, too.

1 hour ago, Ken320 said:

It is interesting that you like this, Luis, but consider that you might be projecting how you think you would feel if it had a real piano, which it doesn’t. You are giving praise to a mere thought which exists only in your mind and not yet manifest. What if I told you I have a new symphony? But instead of notes I gave you a description in English such as, “It will start out slowly, build here, and then here, and then build and build to a big climax, and then finally, in two different keys! it will crash like thunder, and then it will calm down like a gentle rain, and then it will end.” Is that music? Questions.

 

I'm not sure the describing of music that doesn't yet exist, can really be compared to the reimagining of a better instrument playing music that already exists.  On most of the forums where it's possible to post music, the majority is posted having been reproduced using electronic instrumentation, and so you have to use a bit of imagination to suppose how it will sound if reproduced live.  (That is to say, its something we all have to do in nearly every post we listen to).

Sorry, not sure what the point of this was.  If the OP weren't such a respected member of the community, I would have just chalked this up to an attempt at trolling.

7 hours ago, Mark101 said:

 

I'm not sure the describing of music that doesn't yet exist, can really be compared to the reimagining of a better instrument playing music that already exists.  On most of the forums where it's possible to post music, the majority is posted having been reproduced using electronic instrumentation, and so you have to use a bit of imagination to suppose how it will sound if reproduced live.  (That is to say, its something we all have to do in nearly every post we listen to).

 

Well, that's a good point. Consider this. There is a youtube video consisting entirely of a single camera shot of an empty hallway, which is dim and featureless. The camera never moves. There is no action. No one comes or goes. People commented on how scary it was. And literally nothing happened!  It is necessary for us to fill our minds, even to provide data that doesn't exist. Men, and women, in solitary confinement will do almost anything to keep something, anything, in their tortured heads. They count things over and over. They attribute life to paint specs. They see a piece of rice on the floor. After a while it moves. She is going crazy because rice can't move. She gives it a name, a past, a personality. She thinks she knows the very next moment it will move. Time stops. She's going insane. She bangs on the wall for the guard, who laughs and tells her to shut up, it's only a maggot.

To be honest, I was afraid of being driven crazy, so I stopped the music after one minute.
I love repetition, but this is too much for my brain for now!

Maybe it's because I just woke up.

*Nice soundfont.

I echo Maarten's opinion. Twice I tried to listen and twice, I couldn't go beyond about half a minute. I certainly don't enjoy so much repetition! It feels like an insult to the audience's intelligence. And just the fact that you acknowledge that some might think it garbage doesn't necessarily prevent that from being so. And likewise, I wouldn't think that presenting it as a challenge to the audience would save the piece! To be fair, I think that a human performance might of course help the piece by introducing subtle differences where none exist in a computer performance. If you explained your rationale for the piece - what you have set out to accomplish in it - that might have encouraged a bigger audience to invest in the piece by listening to the end. 

15 hours ago, luderart said:

just the fact that you acknowledge that some might think it garbage doesn't necessarily prevent that from being so.

Mm... conceptual music is a different beast.

15 hours ago, luderart said:

I wouldn't think that presenting it as a challenge to the audience would save the piece!

Not necessarily a challenge. Sorry if it came off that way. I know it's not a popular genre.

Frankly, it's okay if you didn't like it, since it's so out there in terms of music. It's a piece of process music, as they call it.
What I was taught with this kind of music (along with Musique Concrete and Elektronike Musiche) requires listening beyond simply the notes, and to begin listening to the sound. And that's kind of what I was going for here.
You're not really supposed to hear a bunch of parallel fifths after a while. As the piece slows down, it's an exercise as to how your brain hears and processes it at a slower "tempo". The notes, in that sense don't really matter, it's an exploration of the resonance of the specific kind of chordal structure as it dissipates into its core components. 
Listening to the full thing, in that way, can become a chore, if you listen for the notes, but instead I tried to make an exploration as to what sounds make up musical structure as a whole. My other "thought experiment pieces" aren't much better. 

@Luis Hernández You're welcome to have the piece on audio. :) I put it up there.

Yes, this is challenging..  I find I'm trying to find more because of Monarcheon writing it..  It reminds me;  I first got into synthesizers in the late 60's when they were in their infancy..

I listened to and met one or two of the late 50's and 60's 'electronic music composers'  It was very experimental, and many of the 'composers' were engineers, not musicians per say.  so it just sounded like random blips and beeps.  But because of prestige of Bell Labs, in New Jersey, and the status of these electronic music pioneers, one had to listen to it in context of what it was.

I did listen all the way thru, and while on the surface it doesn't hold my attention for very long.  I feel obliged to listen because of what the composer was expressing.. And YES, the ending was extremely rewarding.. That put a big smile on my face. 

I do like this piece more than John Cages 'Silence'  which is exactly that -  a record with a 4 1/2 minute piece of silence.. 

On 6/11/2017 at 8:05 AM, markstyles said:

I did listen all the way thru, and while on the surface it doesn't hold my attention for very long.  I feel obliged to listen because of what the composer was expressing.. And YES, the ending was extremely rewarding.. That put a big smile on my face. 

Yes, it's not for everyone (my explanation for the piece is above yours), but the argument between sound, noise, and music is always an interesting one...