From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Classical Music for modern instrument (was Re: The shortest distance between two chords is...)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:51:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.183529.8470@colorado.edu> judd@wilkinson.cs.colorado.edu (Stephen Judd) writes:
>Boy, what a popular thread. :-)  But, I asked this as part of a larger
>question, which will be described below.

>In article <1993Jan16.065206.4130@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan16.055732.3158@colorado.edu> judd@wilkinson.cs.colorado.edu (Stephen Judd) writes:

>I blew it at least a little.

>>>Start:	G# B  E
>>>	F# B  D#
>>>	E  B  C#
>>>	E  A  C#
>>>	E  G# B
>>>	D  G  B
>>>	D  F# A

>I think the above should be D F# B.  Maybe not.  It doesn't matter much.

>>>	C  F# A
>>>	C  F  A
>>>	B  F  G#
>>>	B  E  G#

>>>Ta-da.  First question: Where did I find this?  Second question: What century
>>>was this technique common?  Third question: Do other people have strange and
>>>interesting ways of doing simple things.  (As in, if you do, I would like to
>>>see them!)

>>Well, to question 3, I'm not sure that it's a "simple thing" that's being
>>done.  What we have here is basically a progression in parallel sixths,
>> varied a bit in the middle.  The chromatic shift to G is a little 
>>odd, as is the shift to 6-4 chords; are you sure there's no left 
>>hand?  

>>Finally, *why* is the chord being inverted/the interval being
>>composed out?  What happens before and after?

Indeed -- the ending is somewhat tentative, if it *is* an ending.  
Do we go on to A minor, or what?  

>>So what's the piece?  It's too diatonic to be the MAgic Fire.

>I have another question.  Isn't this sort of thing, using a common note to
>shift between chords and keys, the bread and butter of people like Wagner?

Common-tone modulations are quite frequent in Mozart, Beethoven,
and Schubert, too.  But, this (slightly) chromatic descent you describe
(not rich enough to be what Mark DeVoto calls "creeping chromaticism")
reminds me of a deracinated version of the Magic Fire Msuic from _Walkuere._

>Now on to the larger issue.  I am curious about, for lack of a better
>term, classical music for modern instruments.  As I listen to the awful
>music that over the years has constituted popular music, I have to wonder
>why exactly it is so abysmally trivial.  I see no real reason that a form
>such as, say, rock and roll, needs to limit itself to three chords.

a) It doesn't limit itself to three chords.

b) Some types of music, e.g., blues, often *do* use only three chords;
that's what makes them what they are, the way waltzes have to be in
3/4.  

c) Much popular music is not abysmally trivial.  Do you consider the
best Tin Pan Alley composers to be trivial -- Kern, Rodgers, Gershwin,
Berlin, Porter, Arlen, Mercer, etc.?  Do you consider jazz to be trivial?

d) Lots of trivial music uses many chords; some wonderful pieces use only
a few.  

e) Good popular music isn't "classical" music, and the "classics" weren't
written to be popular music, either.  Dance music is generally quite 
simple; look at Mozart's dance minuets and contradanses and German 
dances.  Symphonies aren't meant for dancing, and never were.  Most 
rock and roll wasn't meant for serious, concert-style listening.

>I suppose what I am looking for is a musical group that has read Piston's
>book, and understands it, which also has a creative and inventive mind
>working on the music.  I want to hear music that has had a lot of thought
>put into it; creative, intellectual thought.

Make up your mind -- do you want creative, or do you want people who
have read Piston?  (Speaking of Mark DeVoto, btw.)  

Lots of great musicians have never worked through a harmony text;
I own a copy of Piston (Ed Cone's old copy, for that matter!), but 
have never gone through all of it.  One can be a fine composer
without.

That said, why look under rock and roll for the things you want?
Rock, if it is to sell, needs to be popular, and most people don't 
*want* lots of fancy chords cluttering up their listening.  Moreover,
much of Piston is quite simply out of place in rock, especially when 
you take the African sources of popular melody (And rhythm) into
account.  It's a different kind of harmony, that's all.

>The Beatles were certainly creative and inventive.  

And they certainly never read Piston -- especially Paul, who knows a fair
amount of harmony.

>Pink Floyd at one
>time demonstrated clever music from time to time.  Compared to any
>'real' composer, the music is simply not as good (clever, intelligent,
>creative, whatever).  

Whom are you talking about here?  Beatles?  Pink Floyd?  Or others?
I can't tell.

>Compared to what I hear today, they are centuries ahead.

Perhaps you're not listening to the right composers then.
Have you tried Paul Simon or Billy Joel?  They have good 
chords, if that's what you want.  

And it doesn't take fancy chords to be clever, intelligent, and
creative.  Perhaps you just on't get the points that some of
the musicians you don't like are making.  

How many chordsare there in Schubert's "Heidenroeslein"?  Isn't it 
one of the greatest songs ever written?  There is nothing new 
about the harmony, melody, rhythm, etc. in that song.  

>So I am curious if there are any bands who demonstrate an ability to write
>real music for modern instruments.

Yes.  They don't share your definition of "real", however.  Neither,
I might add, do most composers, including the "real" ones.

>As to the chord progression above, it comes off of an album called Intuition,
>from a band called TNT.  It is rock and roll.  It is the sole example I am
>able to find of a band which has a clue as to what it is doing, and they are,
>of course, not very popular at all.  

Frankly, I think Michael Jackson knows *exactly* what he's doing.  Are
you going to tell him otherwise?  

Seriously, are you going to tell Paul Simon how to compose?   Keep in
mind that popular music, because it *is* popular music, is *not*
meant for serious, "classical" style listening.  

As for major-minor shifts, there was a girl-group song in about 1963
called "Tell him," which takes care of that very nicely.  As for the 
above progression, the fact that it exists deosn't tell me that any
of TNT's music is any good; on the other hand, the sound of "She Loves
You" -- and the few deviations from common-practice, Pistonesque
harmony in that song, which are used to great effect -- tells me
it's great.

>This album, circa 1990 or so, contains
>many things of interest.  It often seems to me like an excercise in major/
>minor shifts.  Many of the songs are in E flat, the worst key for playing on
>a guitar.  There are examples of some clever sequencing.  Finally, the very
>last song uses quarter-tones, using a guitar fretted in quarter steps.

Well, those are nice components -- are the songs any good?

>It brings rock and roll into the nineteenth century.  

Quarter-tones do that?  8-)

Seriously, why would we *want* to bring rock into the 19thC?  Popular
 music in the 19th C was generally much more boring than rock or jazz.

>The singer, incidentally, has an excellent voice.

First thing you've said that makes me want to listen to it!

Roger