HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: james@astro.as.utexas.edu (James McCartney)
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Subject: Re: How does one compose?
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:39:26 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Dec21.135542.2877@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> xxrich@alliant1.lerc.nasa.gov (Rich Rinehart) writes:
> How many pieces will be written
>according to a *innovated* mathematical pattern or fomula?  How many to a
>reocuuring bit-pattern of semi-tonal hogwash?  Or maybe something composed 
>under a perceived relationship or influence of the lunar gravitational pull
>on Iowa?  (graduate students take note).  Yes, they may be interesting
>theoretically.  But who cares?  Does it SOUND GOOD???

   Yet sometimes these processes can show you new textural possibilities
which you might later wish to incorprate for your own expression. I have
recently been struck by the beauty resulting from a musical fractal program
I wrote in MAX. All notes in the piece result from transposed and delayed
echoes of the first note. It was constructed to be locally tonal, though
many things can result such as poly chords and less consonant interval
complexes. It has given me a new perspective on the possibilities of tonal
evolution. 

David V Feldman writes:
        1) From the vantage point of the late twentieth century, it is perhaps
        unclear what distinguishes orthodox 12-tone composition from a multitude

        of equally plausible systems, and in particular
        2) it is not clear what musical problem is solved by the method of
        composition with 12-tones.
------
   When I said a few months ago that I thought that the 12-tone system
was an arbitrary one which explained nothing about how we hear music
I was flamed. I still believe that it is an arbitrary system, esp. since
Forte's book seemed to present a much more open system for 12-tone
conceptualization. My critique of Forte's book is that it gets too much
into the numerology of it all and fails deal enough with harmony. It 
also takes the 12-equal temperament as a given on which to base all
analysis, and since I deal only in just or 72-equal temp. these days,
much of his stuff is useless to me. Though I have been influenced by this
book in that I prefer to think of inverval complexes than chords.
   
   I think the question is whether a new compositional device is used
out of expressive need or just because it can be done. I think both are
valid. Though if someone continually produces pieces of the second type
I would say they are a compositional geek. The Schoenberg 12-tone system
was useful as a hammer. It did open new territory. But I think that once
the wall is broken, the hammer should be thrown away.

   --- james mccartney

Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Subject: Re: Charter for r.m.compose?
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:08:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.185011.5547@odin.corp.sgi.com> labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com (Joel Labson) writes:
>I agree with Garry, Please clean this newsgroup...Is there a moderator
>to this group?? maybe he can help re-routing Postings that does not
>belong here...
>
>At least you make two people happy & satisfied...THANKS

I'm not sure, but it looks to me like this begs the question of
whether composition can be talked about, and if so, whether talk about it
should be limited to talk about composing within a particular style.
Mr. Roth appeared to be saying that composing can't be talked about, and
if enough people believed that, then this newsgroup would have a very short
life.
What recent postings (other than my dialog with Mr. Roth, which, after all,
had the very justification for the newsgroup at stake) were not about
composing?  I missed them.
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: joe@dogface.austin.tx.us (Joe Zitt)
Subject: Re: Carping and Per Diem
Organization: The Fortress of Ultimate Dorkiness
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:30:18 GMT

In article <P9mLwB3w165w@dorsai.com> idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
>Take a song by Metallica - take the notes and the rhythms - play it on a 
>piano - what do you have? - You're basic Scottish/Irish folk song with 
>rhythms of African derivation.  Do the composers know that they are 
>employing these devices?  Of course not, they just know it sounds good to 
>their ears and that their fans will enjoy it.  This is a self-imposed 
>limitation which is fundamentally market-based.  Do you know why you like 
>pop music?  Why you still feel addicted to its sentiments?  Hey, 
>practically every generation since the WWII generation is addicted to 
>rock music and I do mean - "addicted."  
> 

*Sigh* Yeah, someone always brings up this argument when attempting to show
rock's supposed inferiority. Rock has always been more about >sounds< than
about harmonies and structures and rhythms. Read anything by Brian Eno on
the subject.

Do you similarly scoff at gamelan music because it doesn't do much with
harmonic progressions? Do you deride Gregorian chants because it doesn't
do much with rhythm?

And, for that matter, do you know anything at all about Metallica other than
their top 40 hits? What attracted me to them when I heard the "Master of
Puppets" album (I think that's its name -- I don't have it at work with me)
whas the rhythmic intricasies (sp?) and timbral clashes.

And I would doubt I listen to it due to "addiction" -- I was a strict
classical/folk snob until I got to college. Right now my listening
varies; if memory serves, the CD Changer in my study is filled with
Eno, John Cage, Madonna, Guns 'n' Roses, Ornette Coleman, and "Voices of
the Rainforest". To which would you say I'm "addicted"?

By the way, those issues aside, do you compose? What kind of music? Has
any of it been performed or recorded? This info might make it a little
easier to figure out where you're coming from.

Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Subject: Re: // 5ths & 8ves
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:35:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.142923.8042@zip.eecs.umich.edu> fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields) writes:
...
>are moving along more or less independently, but suddenly in the middle
>they just slip into one isolated instance of parallel octaves, you might
>consider adjusting one of them so this doesn't happen.  In the case of the

The general compositional lesson from this: subtlety is very tricky to
use.  Consider being assertive and clear, rather than wishy-washy.
-Matt
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Subject: Re: Carping and Per Diem
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:57:52 GMT

In article <8XVawB1w165w@dorsai.com> idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
>a professor by the way, not a student...  To repeat, I know a lot of 
>people who write dull, complex, grey music but who get off on Beethoven.  
>This is tragic.  I'm not saying go write like Beethoven, I'm just saying 
>bang out a piece that gets you off.  Not a piece which pleases your 
>mentors.  

Or if you prefer, when a mentor can no longer help you work out the ideas
you want to work out, fire them and get another mentor.  You are the consumer;
the professors are the service-providers.  Grades and degrees just confuse the
matter (I tend to think of them as compressed shorthand versions of letters
of recommendation, timesavers both for the author and the reader, things which
can easily be abused).


Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Subject: Re: academia, power, priveledge...
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:09:09 GMT

In article <gXecwB1w165w@dorsai.com> idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
>No thanks, I'm too busy writing music.  Funny, most of my friends who are 
>employed by the _academy_ (this is laughable btw, universities are more 
>like factories for composers then academies) say they don't have enough
>time to compose.  Too many meetings.  Matt, wake up man, you really want 
>a one year contract to teach beginning theory at Podunk University?  
>Floating around with one year contracts is not the life for me.  I want 
>to live in NY and luckily :-) there's no teaching jobs here or I might be 
>tempted - NOT!!!


>BTW, Bach and Mozart (as you stated in a previous post) did make a living 
>writing music.  BUT!!! when you teach at a university you're getting paid 
>to _teach_ not write.  

Hmm.  Ever heard of "Publish or perish"?  I always thought that teaching
was the one thing most UNDERvalued in academia.  I'm explicitly looking
for 3-year tenure-track appointments, btw.  My impression is that in
academia you're explicitly getting paid to bring fame and glory to the
particular academy of which you're a part.

>Then, (here it gets good) your teaching and your writing are judged by
>thieves who pray nightly that a real musician would never come their way 
>and spot  their ruse.

I've spotted such ruses before, and taken my business to a different
academy.

>  Bach and Mozart wrote music which was judged by 
>intelligent, cultured music lovers.  I'm sorry, this ain't the case no 
>more.  

Intelligent, cultured music lovers don't grow on trees! Hence modern
academia.

>Matt, sorry to get personal, but, I've heard your music and you're a good 
>composer!  You don't have a f*cking chance in academia....

:-7  Well, that's nice of you to say, I guess, but where'd the folks who've
inspired me over the years come from, like Schoenberg (UCLA, '37-'50), George
Crumb (at U-Penn/Philly since about '58), Leslie Bassett (U-Mich '50's-'91),
etc.?

Matt



Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: tak@core.rose.hp.com (Tom Keaveny)
Subject: FINALE questions
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:21:00 GMT
Organization: A division to be named later
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]


Hi!

	I'm looking for insight regarding FINALE with the following:

	1) A number of lead sheet scores use the following nomenclature
	   to deal with capo'd chord positions for the guitar:

	
			(D)
			 F
		---------------------
		----------|----------
		----------|----------
		---------*-----------
		---------------------

			lyrics


	   The closest that I have come with FINALE is to create a seperate
	   staff, copy the music, and play with the various staff transposition
	   and blank-notation features.  It's pretty kludgy, however, and
	   I only end up with the following:

		---------------------
			 D 
			 F
		---------------------
		----------|----------
		----------|----------
		---------*-----------
		---------------------

			lyrics

	   Any ideas?


	2) How do you enter verse numbers into lyric lines?  I've received
	   one suggestion to link both the verse number and first lyric
	   symbol with the same note.  I would prefer to have the verse
	   numbers left justified (in a stack) and the syllabi centered under
	   the note.

	3) Are there are any special tricks when it comes to editing staves
	   that have had lyrics assigned.  In particular, are there proper
	   ways to add/delete notes and measures from a score without leaving
	   the lyric assignment beyond repair?

	4) Is there a way to have the MIDI-THRU be the default upon 
	   initialization?


	Thanks!

----
tom keaveny
Hewlett Packard IND/SystemsIntefaceLab
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Subject: Re: Carping and Per Diem
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:26:07 GMT

Tim Fullterton...

In article <1992Dec28.193503.15082@cis.ohio-state.edu> you write:
...
>	From my own experience, I once noticed that the stuff that I wrote 
>when I knew no music theory and was just creating arrangements with a 
>guitar, a four track, and the right side of my brain, sounded better 
>than the left brained contrivances that came out of my music theory 
>training. It was a simple matter, though, of suspending that training 
>and writing right brained again, only with a larger vocabulary of 
>strategies to fall back on.

Theory ain't composition.  But composers can gain from mastering theory.
Right on.

>	I, myself, have also been prejudiced against academia because of 
>Serialism and 12 tone practices. What I have found though, is that 
>NOBODY that I have run across really likes serialsm by itself. If it was 
>hip fifteen years ago, it is given minimal attention now IN MY ACADEMIC 
>EXPERIENCE. Certainly it might still be emphasized someplace. 

Two things happened: the folks who hated pseudointellectual pseudoserialism
became the next bunch of faculty, and Pierre Boulez led a move away from
theory back to sensual sound from within the "serialists".
Another case of THEORY AIN'T COMPOSITION.  I was very surprised to
meet Chris Rolfe when r.m.c. started up: I thought I was the only person
in my generation doing serial work.

I like your wording: "nobody likes serialism by itself." No, for instance
I like specific serial compositions by imaginative composers. Serialism
by itself is sort of like formula-driven 4-part harmony: it brings to
mind the famous question, "So what?"  But, say, the Schoenberg piano
concerto, or, say, the Brahms D-minor piano concerto---now, we're talking
compositions, not technique.  Schoenberg writes: "There's altogether too much
talk about methods of composition with twelve tones.  I want my compositions
to be received as living, breathing beings, with sinews and pounding veins,
which come to us with something urgent to eloquently express." (I'll look
for a source if needed, but I bet it's buried somewhere in 'Style and Idea')

Good luck!

-Matt



Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Subject: Re: academia, power, priveledge...
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:43:07 GMT

In article <0105009A.mb6f53@david.roth-music.com> david@roth-music.com (David A. Roth) writes:
>
>In article <9DyHwB2w165w@dorsai.com> (rec.music.compose), idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
>> 
>> david@roth-music.com (David A. Roth) writes:
>> 
>> > I don't think anybody should be teaching composition period because
>> > it can't be taught to begin with, imho. 
>> > 
>> > David
>> > david@roth-music.com
>> 
>> This is an argument you hear often which has absolutely no evidence to 
>> support it.
>
>You say this and then change the subject in the next line?  If you

The LACK of supporting evidence requires no further comment.

>could teach someone how to write a great melody then everyone would
>be able to do it.  

Just like everybody can do a perfect cardiac catheterization.

>>  All of the great composers of the past presented their music 
>> to other composers for analysis/comment. 
>
>This is review not teaching.  You don't need a teacher to listen to music
>and read a score.  

This is linguistic gobbletygook.  Review that leads to improvement that
the composer originally wanted to make anyhow, and that eventually
leads the composer to be able to judge such possible improvements for
themselves and eventually even make them mentally before the notes
hit the page---this is the stuff of this "review, not teaching."  IN
EVERY OTHER FIELD OF STUDY, THIS IS CALLED TEACHING.  WHY SHOULD
COMPOSITION BE ANY DIFFERENT?


Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Subject: Re: Brother, Can You Spare a Tone
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:51:17 GMT

In article <63106@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>In these parts we have discovered a new horror: the tonal piece driven by a
>tone row.  A passage slides into a beautiful and very complex, somewhat
>dissonant harmony, but then something "goes wrong" and it winds up in a
>tooth-jarring crash of noise.  Several of these things have shown up on
>National Symphony subscription series.

My guess is there's no tone row in this piece. The composer may have just
put the irrelevent material (tooth-jarring is great if the piece leads
you to it naturally) there just as a stylish thing to do or as a way to
pacify somebody or pretend that they're not writing tonal music.  To hear
a much better solution to this kind of trick, listen to the Schoenberg
Concerto for String Quartet and Orchestra, which is a tonal piece throughout.
In some of the passages for the quartet, he takes tonality gradually to
its most distant realms and back.  All over, though, it's a delightfully
cheerful piece in a style based on G.F. Handel (but GFH never wrote for
xylophone!).

My only comment on the state of choral music is that madrigal groups
and Canadian professonal choirs have always been more adventurous than
US amateur religious choirs.  The works of Jacques Desjardins come to mind
(Hi, Jacques, you out there?)

Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: joe@dogface.austin.tx.us (Joe Zitt)
Subject: Re: How does one compose?
Organization: The Fortress of Ultimate Dorkiness
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:12:11 GMT

In article <85767@ut-emx.uucp> james@astro.as.utexas.edu (James McCartney) writes:
>   I think the question is whether a new compositional device is used
>out of expressive need or just because it can be done. I think both are
>valid. Though if someone continually produces pieces of the second type
>I would say they are a compositional geek. The Schoenberg 12-tone system
>was useful as a hammer. It did open new territory. But I think that once
>the wall is broken, the hammer should be thrown away.

But remember that a lot of good music can come from a continual quest
for new hammers. I find that a lot of my best stuff comes from coming
across new compositional procedures (and , pace idealord, I find that
a lot of the most interesting challenges come from the need to create
music from available materials). For example, the music for my show
<Shekhinah The Presence> (about which I've been nattering endlessly
elsewhere) came from the challenge of creating an entire score
exclusively through manipulations of live and recorded voices, Each of
the pieces had, in a sense, a compositional problem and an algorithm
that solved it.

One of these days I'd love to do a piece for a large orchestra... but
if I don't have a shot at access to an orchestra, I'd be wasting my
time.
From: whare@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Subject: music theory text
Date: 23 Dec 92 11:21:22 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Combinatorial hexachords. Cells. Serialism. Set theory.

Could some of you out there *please* tell me the name 
of a textbook or two that would explain what these 
things are? That is: what is your favorite tough good
modern music theory text.
Email me if you prefer.

Thanks!
Andrew
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Subject: Brother, Can You Spare a Tone
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:20:06 GMT

Jeff Harrington writes:


>My analysis/criticism of contemporary academia was based on my experience as
>a student.  The pressure to use the 12 tone technique was intense as a
>composer studying in the 70's and 80's.  I even had a teacher tell me (in
>graduate school, no less) that no student of mine will be allowed to 
>use tonality.  

In these parts we have discovered a new horror: the tonal piece driven by a
tone row.  A passage slides into a beautiful and very complex, somewhat
dissonant harmony, but then something "goes wrong" and it winds up in a
tooth-jarring crash of noise.  Several of these things have shown up on
National Symphony subscription series.

Interestingly, the situation in choral music improved much more quickly,
simply because the patron for most works (namely, the church) for the most
part had and has little use for stuff that is "too wierd".  On the other
hand, we are beset with John Rutter on one side and "praise songs" on the
other.  Oh, and text bowdlerizers.  But at least the situation is not
terminal (at least outside the RC church).
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: david@roth-music.com (David A. Roth)
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Subject: Re: academia, power, priveledge...
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 06:03:53 EST
Organization: DAVID A. ROTH MUSIC
Reply-To: david@roth-music.com (David A. Roth)
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <1992Dec28.175609.27404@zip.eecs.umich.edu> (rec.music.compose), fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields) writes:
> 
> In article <9DyHwB2w165w@dorsai.com> idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
> >david@roth-music.com (David A. Roth) writes:
> >> I don't think anybody should be teaching composition period because
> >> it can't be taught to begin with, imho. 
> 
> >This is an argument you hear often which has absolutely no evidence to 
> >support it.  All of the great composers of the past presented their music 
> >to other composers for analysis/comment.
> 
> And to reopen a flamefest from months ago, outside of Mr. Roth, the only other
> individuals I've ever heard say that composition can't be taught were all
> tenured professors of composition who were trying to weasle out of teaching

...because all the teaching positions for music theory and EE were
filled.

David
david@roth-music.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington)
Subject: Re: // 5ths & 8ves
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy, New York's Computer Consulate. +1.718.729.5018
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:13:06 GMT

bmtong@cs.cuhk.hk (Tong Bo-Ming) writes:

> idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
> 
> >Wait a minute, you're talking orchestration, whether by the use of 
> >octaves in the piano or in the orchestra.  That's a totally different 
> >thing from voice leading.  
> > 
> >Matt's got some good points.  Ultimately, anyone who thinks an Alberti 
> >bass never bends with the melody doesn't know the literature :-).  
> > 
> 
> >Jeff Harrington      
> >IdEAL ORDER               
> >idealord@dorsai.com
> 
> How do we distinguish between doubling and orchestration ?
> 
> My usual practice is this: if I have more than 4 parts, I allow myself
> to have some octaves (and sometimes fifths as well).  However, for n
> parts I only allow n-4 parallel octaves.  (What do you think about this
> ?)  It is clear that the piece in my original posting does not obey this
> rule, and my ear tells me that it is not too pleasing to hear.  I
> would seek some 'justification' from you.
> 
> Once I read the score of a piano piece by Schumann.  There are only two
> parts, but still consecutive octaves.
> 
> 							Tong Bo-Ming

 
O.K. when you want to "strengthen" a part by doubling it at the octave 
that is a kind of "orchestration."  The voice-leading problems remain the 
same as long as the phrase is orchestrated in toto with octaves.  Look at 
the orchestrations in some of the Mozart piano concertos.  There are 
doublings in the winds of parts at the two octave distance.  This is for 
the production of a new color as is doubling at the octave in general.  
When octaves are produced as a result of bad voice leading they are 
coincidental and sound coincidental - not as part of a colorizing 
process.  
 
Please, if it doesn't sound good - fix it so it does - come on - the ear 
of the composer is the ultimate rule.  If you're paying too close 
attention to rules without being aware of the reasons and contexts for 
the rules (as you appear to be doing) you should look at more scores. The
theory texts are written by hacks (as are the rules) the music is written 
by composers.  
 

Jeff Harrington      
IdEAL ORDER               
idealord@dorsai.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose,rec.music.makers