The topic arises from an interesting comparison with Micrologos regarding coherence in a musical piece; if I understood correctly, for him it makes no sense as it is a "convention"... I do not have a score, from back in the day, where the score lacks its own coherence.
And I am not referring to anachronistic scores, for example when Bach was writing he was the first to do it that way, so it is not a matter of expectation that someone might more or less have while listening to that particular unpublished piece. Obviously, in my discussion, I include the great masters of today and certainly not just those of the past.
I wasn't there when Bach was performed for the first time, but harmonic counterpoint was certainly not a novelty.
Anyway, the Topic does not arise from the fact that coherence may or may not be a social convention (and for me it is),
but rather because, according to my view on art, if a composer creates a musical piece, and for him everything results balanced and in line with his poetics and anything else he wishes to convey, and above all that was the intent, I would feel truly uncomfortable labeling it as incoherent.
This is where the problem arises.
Perhaps I expected something else? (in this case the problem is mine, not the composer's)
Probably they wanted to experiment, or perhaps they considered all of this an original idea
In short, without going into examples, no one doubts the music of the masters of the past, but I do not feel like
crucifying a person because they have a different sensitivity compared to what I would have expected :-)
Art is free, and I hope it continues to be so for a long time
In principle, I share Micrologus's ideal; however, the fact remains that music is based on systems that normally have their own coherence. Whether it be Bach, Messiaen, or Bedrossian... but also the avant-garde experiments post-World War II, the coherence is intrinsic and well-described precisely by the composers' theoretical texts describing their own techniques/aesthetics. When can the new be interesting, exactly? In my opinion, it is not a matter of adhering to established aesthetics/syntax; it is also the fact that the piece is able to convey a clear message... if it were not so, it would be a piece written for the only one the composer can see in the mirror, himself... and in that case, let him stay in his ivory tower.
In effect, you say
>From here arises the problem.
>Perhaps I expected something else? (in this case the problem is mine, not the composer's)
In reality, I expect a "message," a communication between 2 (Me the listener and Him the composer); if a communication does not work, perhaps it is not just one person having problems... this is also true in life and in all social relationships
>no one doubts the music of the masters of the past
Honestly, if you go to the section dedicated to the 21st century, you can listen to music by today's masters... it's not as if one has to die first to be a master
It seems to me that every piece refers to a system with its own geometries... but no one is "competing" here and there...
I am very sorry for stepping out of this discussion, I will leave it to continue with you all; these things are not for me, they are a waste of time and lead to nothing, I think differently.
I would be very curious to know how you would manage to make a composition coherent that, according to you, is not coherent.
I imagine that if we take 10 people, each one would have a personal solution, therefore coherent only with their own idea of coherence
D
Dante
Member
Reply 7 by Dante
Posts
275
As I was saying in other topics, I do not like the term contamination; it has a very negative connotation. There are more specialized terms to define the act of synthesizing multiple "origins.".
K
Kappa
Member
Reply 8 by Kappa
Posts
146
In my opinion, if the composer manages to impose a new way of listening, they have hit the mark and their criteria can be labeled as coherent rather than just self-referential (I think this is what Valchiria means)... otherwise, the composer has failed and their works remain experiments destined to stay in books... if lucky...
K
Kappa
Member
Reply 9 by Kappa
Posts
146
Micrologus wrote:
I would be very curious to know how you would manage to make a composition coherent that, in your opinion, is not coherent.
I imagine that if we take 10 people, each of them would have a personal solution, and therefore coherent only with their own idea of coherence.
... I wouldn't know how to answer this question; I know that history has a flow that, on average, sweeps away the tradesmen... then this flow deviates in front of rocks that are too large even for it... Monteverdi, Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Stravinsky, etc. ...
These masters imposed new modes of listening, their aesthetics and their system... and the tradesmen adapt accordingly.
If we then want to label these logics as adherence to a coherence, or whatever... let's go ahead, but for me, this is the essence.
I don't understand what it means that they are a waste of time; if one does not think the same way, is a discussion not useful?
Within the context of the discussion about Yannick's piece, in my opinion Croma has inserted them into a context where, whether due to a matter of taste or a matter of recognizing a certain type of structure-form, he deemed it appropriate to point out some minor thirds and fifths. That being said, Croma likes rock (as we well know) and aren't power chords just successions of perfect fifths? I doubt that he doesn't like those either.... it is evident that, however, in this other context (the proposed piece), he does not find them suitable.
Furthermore, saying that it is enough for the composer to find what they have done coherent renders any possibility of criticism (even and especially constructive) of anything futile
Fortunately, you know what a pain it would be if we all thought the same way... but an artist cannot think they are communicating only with themselves, so they must deal with the audience....even here, it has happened and will happen to everyone. In fact, nowadays, one also has to deal with performers, who decide what to perform...referring to unpublished pieces.
I don't have much time to dwell, but I would reflect on the following terms: language, connotation, sense ... aesthetics. In my opinion, all discussions in this should come to an end
Anyway, I find interesting insights in the topic; I think everyone should be free to have their own belief, and time will always provide the reasons... we can only have visibility into one part of the reasons, where history has already "pronounced" itself; regarding the very recent trends, one will only be able to truly speak with expert knowledge in a little while.
I find this discussion useless because we are obsessing over a single word, and for everyone it has a different meaning...
So first, define Coherence for me.
What is it?
What are the parameters of coherence?
Who decided them?
Doesn't it change with the evolution and culture of a people?
Do you accept the fact that if a piece is coherent to me, it might not be to you?
Must I necessarily satisfy a presumed listener?
Perhaps I write because I have chosen music as a means of expression, and for me creating music is a need to express myself, and I don't worry about whether someone will understand it.
perhaps it is only a matter of time before a person can enter into my way of expressing myself.
> Perhaps I write because I have chosen music as a means of expression, and for me creating music is
> a need to express myself, and I don't worry if someone will understand it.
> perhaps it is just a matter of time before a person can enter into my way of expressing myself.
We overlapped; in effect, I was saying exactly that time will prove all right... there are pieces that are still "unresolved" and highly avant-garde. One of the pieces that even today must be fully understood is Beethoven's great fugue; one has to be willing to wait... sooner or later it will either be understood or forgotten...
Of course Micrologus, if one is not a genius and cannot change the course of history and above all refers to well-known "mainstreaming", they are caught immediately ... perhaps the "classic" 10' are enough, but it would need to be seen on a case-by-case basis
Certainly, however the fundamental point remains that if I do not understand something, I do not label it with parameters
that depend solely on my own biases.
I ask myself questions.
What could have possibly led a person to write in this way?
What experiences have they lived or are they living?
It seems like a more intelligent approach to me; if I do not understand something, I do not judge others, but curiosity is triggered, and in any case, I do not try to bring it onto my own tracks, I do not make it become a copy of myself.
You wrote a musical piece, you are fully aware of it, who am I ever to come and tell you that you were being inconsistent?
