Coherence in a musical piece: when? Why? Does it make sense to talk about it?

The musical piece is in the section 'I wrote this myself', it is called END and I believe the user's name is Yanick, now I don't remember correctly

The more I reread the interventions, the more it seems to me that we are all saying the same thing, even Micrologus, who wants to flaunt a more philosophical rather than pragmatic approach. The crux of the matter is that Yanick clearly does not seem like a genius to me; his music does not contain a message that will need to be understood in 100 or 200 years, so since he essentially refers back to well-known musical genres, I see no ethical problem (or various issues of closed-mindedness) in giving him some suggestions. This automatically does not mean that the suggestion is: "write like me," but rather suggestions oriented toward helping him achieve that credibility that he is probably chasing, given his search for validation...

How that happens may be different for each of us, but if he himself does not feel credible, he must necessarily lean on a more prepared and trusted craftsman in whom he believes, to learn the trade... credibility can be obtained in many ways, and there are certainly paths that work... especially since his search is not one of unrestrained experimentation...

Micrologus wrote:

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 conditioning.

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 to come and tell you that you were inconsistent?

I respond starting from the "prompt" that someone gave me, or rather provided, some years ago, which I have certainly reflected upon, so much so that this latter "event" (we are talking about 2005/6 if I remember correctly) along with others I have experienced, led me to adopt a perception of myself as an ignorant person and to try to resolve at least in part this gap, which makes me, for me, a weak person, and it certainly benefits them.

The fact is that no matter how much (even if in a rather aggressive way, because when you have difficulties and cannot express them, it doesn't mean you can be as diplomatic as others, who perhaps every now and then, by putting themselves—provided they are capable in this case, because putting oneself in the shoes of someone who is not well is not automatic—and making an effort, into the shoes of others) I tried to explain my reasons, which came from and still come from a not-so-pleasant life experience, I was told that precisely the music I was making was not coherent, had no structural reference points, that it made no sense; I repeat, I recognize there could have been a certain confusion (which strangely, however, other people did not perceive), but having tried to explain, the final response was still that it made no sense.

This is why I say that certainly, for me too, coherence lies in the fact that a piece must and should reflect the intentions of the composer, and I have always reiterated that one cannot disregard their extra-musical experiences or otherwise,

dari their life experiences, because it is always about a person and they cannot be split apart, otherwise there would be perfection in everything; however, it is equally true (for me) that the coherence of a piece is perceptible even to someone with a minimum of musical sensitivity, regardless of the genre they know or not—though it is doubtless that influences exist based on what one knows, has listened to, and where one comes from.

Expectations are also an integral part of the listener; can we totally separate the latter (which are also and above all linked to one's own way of conceiving music and writing) from a "detached" listening? I, more than most, cannot.

just to refresh the memory

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2725-integrazione-accostamento-contaminazione-inflenza

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2504-elaborazione-narrativita-e-conseguenzialita-nella-musica/

Micrologus wrote:

The musical piece is in the section 'I wrote this myself', it is called END and I believe the user's name is Yanick, I don't remember correctly right now

Ok

Kappa wrote:

In my opinion, if the composer succeeds in imposing a new way of listening, they have hit the mark and their criteria can be labeled as coherent rather than just self-referential ...

I subscribe to this word for word...

micamahler wrote:

Within the context of Yannick's piece, in my opinion Croma inserted it 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 perfect fifths. That being said, Croma likes rock (as we well know ) and aren't power chords perhaps successions of direct fifths? I doubt that he doesn't like those either.... it is evident that, in this other context (the proposed piece), he does not find them suitable.

But of course...! And what about jazz...?

Truly, I was not the one who said that Yannick's piece was not coherent (on the contrary); I only suggested to Yannick to better care for the harmonic aspect; it surprises me greatly that this triggered a discussion, because I believe I did so in a simple and polite way, I certainly encouraged him and I hope he appreciated my comment, perhaps even finding it useful. Although it is true that there are people, instead, who first declare themselves dissatisfied with their own work but then, if you do them the favor of giving them some advice, strangely they get offended and get worked up... But that won't be the case for Yannick, whom I imagine to be intelligent and sensitive.

Micrologus wrote:

I find this discussion useless because we are fixating on 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.

From my point of view, talking about coherence means talking about form. Even if in a very "broad" sense.

A piece is coherent if its sections have justifiable links. And, for the sake of fairness, I might put quotation marks around the words "sections," "links," and "justifiable," since this definition is too generic to say anything true...

Leaving the definition aside and approaching the matter from a historical point of view: in music history, pieces have often had the "presumption" of having a logical thread, i.e., creating logical links between their sections (by sections, one can mean anything: notes, passages, phrases; it is a term that adapts differently to different pieces). If before this thread was ensured mainly by the text, and linguistic logical links were the basis for the logic of a musical piece (with exceptions), over time specific musical forms and typical articulations were created.

Articulations function as logical links. If we wanted to define these logical links, we could borrow—and adapt it exactly—the definition of "logical connective," a mathematical definition: a logical connective is an element that connects two elements, according to different modes, and creates a third. In tonal logic, cadences are typical logical connectives because they create links, segment the discourse, and direct it in a sort of sense.

And these articulations operate within "surface" formal structures, i.e., the forms that order the sections. For example, the rondo form, which tells us in what order we must place the elements, what relationships we must establish (tonal, length, or "hierarchical" relationships).

Regardless of the specifics, which are VERY COMPLEX (and therefore I would be grateful if the smart-aleck of the moment didn't come along to tell me that Mozart or Beethoven did not respect forms, because I know so myself ;-) ), we must admit that from the 1600s until at least the mid-1800s, the search for logical coherence was present and was one of the fundamental parts of the study of FORM. Therefore, a highly formally structured piece = a coherent piece.

From the mid-1800s, things change (and in a certain sense they were different even before the 1600s) and other formal principles are re-evaluated—principles external to those within tonal logic and different from the "surface" principles I defined, which were those of fixed forms. The best way, in my opinion, to define these new formal principles is precisely to call them "formal principles" rather than "forms." The concept of a formal principle is Plotinian, and considers form not as a surface (which is an Aristotelian definition) but as a model of development, *forma formans*. It is easier to approach it in reverse: some pieces can be "reduced" to a generating principle. This generating principle is what gives these pieces form and coherence.

The most immediate example is that of isorhythmic motets, which are anyway pieces rarely frequented by me or other users. Another immediate example is the etude. If I write an etude "on arpeggios," I can say that the form of that piece is a bipartite form, but this definition actually says very little about the coherence and the TRUE FORM of the piece. Instead, I could speak of its generating principle, which is the subject of the study: the arpeggio. This "object-subject" has been declined in various ways: we have pieces built on fixed ideas (a note, a chord, a technical problem), on colors, on texts (like the madrigals of old). This desire to find the coherence of a piece on a deeper plane led to what is often defined as the dissolution of form, but which was actually, historically, a reformulation of formal criteria.

From here, formal discourse becomes increasingly complex, but it has never stopped. And along with it, the search for coherence. The problem is that sometimes this coherence is not audible; it is only a compositional principle, and there one must have the discernment to adapt the judgment... there are pieces that are compositionally very coherent that seem to have no head or tail when listening, and easy-to-listen-to pieces that are so coherent as to be entirely"}

privi of interest (like a tautology).

..in reality, by going to the Micrologus mill, one gets covered in flour ...and anyone studying the 20th century gets smeared with flour

Today a composer cannot ignore a century of history; if they do ... they are probably a half-composer. More than mere elaborations, it is a synthesis, very simplified, of some of the things to take into account when writing ... unless one wants to limit oneself to the garbage I read about in the other topic, which one can listen to around...

Kappa wrote:

In my opinion, if the composer succeeds in imposing a new mode 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 ...

maybe yes, maybe no...

or rather, I don't quite understand the boundaries of the statement; I don't understand if by 'new mode of listening' one means a style, a genre, or something else.

Bianca wrote:

maybe yes, maybe no...

or rather I don't quite understand the outlines of the statement; I don't understand if by "new mode of listening" one means a style, a genre, or something else.

When Messiaen presented the Quatuor pour la fin du temps, the composer "imposed" his language (we mean his style), his aesthetics... even today we enjoy it and no one dares to say that it is inconsistent because there are dozens of his texts and thousands of his pages of score that demonstrate that the language, the style, etc., is coherent.

I could say the same thing to you about Stravinsky when he presented Le Sacre du printemps; when was the management of rhythm ever like that before him? And yet, who doesn't listen to it again today? Who would say that it isn't coherent... no one. There are analyses by Boulez, Messiaen, and other illustrious composers and musicologists that demonstrate its coherence down to the last detail... therefore, these new things have become "law," "rule," "coherence."

These are only 2 examples; before Schoenberg, dodecaphony did not exist, yet S. imposed a new mode of listening... who doesn't enjoy it even today? And there is nothing more coherent than a dodecaphonic system, especially that of the Second Viennese School.

If you want, we can go further; even when Monteverdi made the "seconda pratica" heard for the first time... then it became a new mode of listening... and who doesn't enjoy it even today and, among other things, who doesn't look at his scores to learn something and try to take home some professional tools? Ah, he was coherent too.

Frank wrote:

I will only add one thing, from my point of view, regardless of the spark that gave birth to the topic, the subject can live a life of its own... coherence is an important aspect still sought after by composers (I am not saying everyone, but it is also an intrinsic aspect in the music of the great masters; one can talk about it and one can even disagree, of course), ...so "End" or not "End".... one can quite easily discourse on the matter. I hope the concept is clearer.

But it continues to be an abstract word.

If I look for the car keys that I have lost, I am searching for a real, evident object.

But if a composer seeks coherence, does he not do so solely with his sense of balance, with his musical sensitivity?

Do you admit that his solutions can be in discordance with your idea of coherence?

So what else is there to add if not the fact that everyone has their own sensitivity, their own inner journey.

And how do you criticize my being?

What tools do you use?

What parameters?

Why should I ever follow you?

Why do you ever need clones?

To reinforce your Ego?

I hate to be repetitive, but do you agree with the fact that if we choose a small musical fragment, 10 different composers

will find 10 different solutions according to their sense of coherence?

So what is coherence in music?

Kappa wrote:

When Messiaen presented the Quatuor pour la fin du temps, the composer "imposed" his language (we mean his style), his aesthetics... even today we enjoy it and no one dares to say that it is inconsistent because there are dozens of his texts and thousands of his pages of score that demonstrate that the language, the style, etc. is coherent.

I could say the same thing to you about Stravinsky when he presented Le Sacre du printemps; when had the management of rhythm ever been like that before him? And yet, who doesn't listen to it again today? Who would say that it is not coherent... no one. There are analyses by Boulez, Messiaen, and other illustrious composers and musicologists that demonstrate its coherence down to the last detail... therefore, these new things have become "law," "rule," "coherence."

These are only 2 examples; before Schoenberg, dodecaphony did not exist, yet S. imposed a new mode of listening... who doesn't enjoy it even today? And there is nothing more coherent than a dodecaphonic system, especially that of the Second Viennese School.

If you want, we can go further; even when Monteverdi made the seconda pratica heard for the first time... then it became a new mode of listening... and who doesn't enjoy it even today and, among other things, who doesn't look at his scores to learn something and try to take home some professional tools? Ah, he was coherent too.

so you mean to say that coherence exists where a style is "accepted" by the community? I mean, if a composer manages to assert their own style, then their music is "coherent"? Why not? It could also be a definition of coherence in music...

Micrologus wrote:

But it continues to be an abstract word.

If I look for the car keys that I lost, I am searching for a real, evident object.

But if a composer searches for coherence, doesn't he do so only with his sense of balance, with his musical sensitivity?

Admit that his solutions can be in discordance with your idea of coherence?

so you agree with Kappa?

Kappa wrote:

When Messiaen presented the Quatuor pour la fin du temps, the composer "imposed" his language (we mean his style), his aesthetics... even today we enjoy it and no one dares to say that it is inconsistent because there are dozens of his texts and thousands of his pages of score that demonstrate that the language, the style, etc. is coherent.

I could say the same thing to you about Stravinsky when he presented Le Sacre du printemps; when had the management of rhythm ever been like that before him? And yet, who doesn't listen to it again today? Who would say that it is not coherent... no one. There are analyses by Boulez, Messiaen, and other illustrious composers and musicologists that demonstrate its coherence down to the last detail... therefore, these new things have become "law," "rule," "coherence."

These are only 2 examples; before Schoenberg, dodecaphony did not exist, yet S. imposed a new mode of listening... who doesn't enjoy it even today? And there is nothing more coherent than a dodecaphonic system, especially that of the Second Viennese School.

If you want, we can go further; even when Monteverdi made the "seconda pratica" heard for the first time... then it became a new mode of listening... and who doesn't enjoy it even today and, among other things, who doesn't look at his scores to learn something and try to take home some professional tools? Ah, he was coherent too.

But you are probably mistaking mathematics for art,

Mathematics needs proofs,

But art does NOT....

If you then like reducing art to mathematical formulas, you are free to perform your calculations, and to reduce Beethoven's fifth to a series of equations and demonstrate that it is a symphony that has achieved the maximum score in your tests...

Bianca wrote:

so you agree with Kappa?

Perhaps we are saying the same thing in a different way; in any case, I do not accept demonstrations of art in general, 4 C and an F do not make a piece more coherent or even better compared to another

Micrologus wrote:

But it continues to be an abstract word.

So what is coherence in music?

I would like to start from an example, make a concrete proposal, and let's try to understand each other (I say both, I am putting myself out there first) regarding the content... regardless of the term, which anyway has a meaning.

Otherwise, it will inevitably remain an abstract discussion.

To not seem passive, I propose some artists who are still alive (so we exclude the masters of the past, okay?):

- Arvo Pärt

- Frank Bedrossian

- Lady Gaga

- Hans Zimmer

- Sofia Gubaidulina

- Chick Corea

I'll include a few Italians

- Danilo Lorenzini

- Alessandro Solbiati

- Azio Corghi

- Ennio Morricone

- Stefano Bollani

- Laura Pausini

The important thing is that the scores are available, otherwise we'll end up talking about the sex of angels

Micrologus wrote:

Mathematics needs proofs,

I always say that art shows but does not prove, I don't know if we mean the same thing

Micrologus wrote:

do you agree with the fact that if we choose a small musical fragment, 10 different composers

will find 10 different solutions according to their sense of coherence?

In short, we have conducted several experiments on this site; various composers (from different backgrounds: self-taught, students, masters, etc.) started from the same idea to create something.

Different works, obviously, but it would be nice to look for any consistencies/inconsistencies. It happened that someone was heavily discussed due to technical problems that are always traceable to something... setting aside experimentation, why might technical problems exist?

So, I propose this question: what causes the technical problem?

Micrologus wrote:

But you are probably mistaking mathematics for art,

Mathematics needs proofs,

But art does NOT....

If you then like to reduce art to mathematical formulas, you are free to perform your calculations, and to reduce Beethoven's fifth
to a series of equations and prove that it is a symphony that has achieved the maximum score in your tests...

... you should probably turn the question to Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Messiaen. History has already proven its point... unfortunately they are not my tests.