Harmony: Overcome

... that doesn't seem right to me at all

Elfo wrote:

Nowadays, thinking in harmonic terms is outdated; one writes based on other elements, so it is a completely obsolete concept.

Why not truly start teaching composition by basing pedagogy on other aspects of music, such as timbre or electronics... especially since the latter has strong correlations with timbre itself?

Your argument, taken to its paradox, would be equivalent to saying that, since everyone uses a computer to write emails today, there is no point in teaching how to write with pen and paper...

PS: while maintaining that it is not at all true that thinking in harmonic terms is outdated: it is never outdated to THINK about something; if anything, a certain use of harmony may be outdated, but I would like to remind you that pop music, at least 99% of it, is written "thinking in harmonic terms". So? What do we do?

Elfo wrote:

Nowadays, thinking in harmonic terms is outdated; one writes based on other elements, making it a completely obsolete concept.

I propose a point for reflection taken from an interview by Rossana Dalmonte with Luciano Berio. It seems to me a rather current discussion and, from my point of view, widely shareable.

RD: What do you mean by "harmonic characters"? At the beginning of the seventies, it was problematic to speak of "harmony." Was this a topic of discussion with Bruno [Maderna]?

LB: No, it has never been problematic to speak of harmony, since harmony is the essence of music: one must always speak of it, and especially today. Both Bruno and I have always been very attentive to all harmonic dimensions. [...] We used to agree on the harmonic progression of a piece to such an extent that we were able to write music "four-hands style," that is, simultaneously. [...] Harmony is precisely the relationship between everything that happens in the piece; it is the "code" of music, not only regarding pitches and durations. Obviously, I do not mean harmony in the scholastic sense, the harmony of triads, but harmony in the sense of the internal breath of the music. Webern is the great "scientist" of harmony.

Luciano BERIO, «Calmo (1974, 1989)», interview by R. Dalmonte, in Bruno Maderna. Studi e testimonianze, edited by R. Dalmonte and M. Russo, Quaderni di Musica/Realtà n°53, LIM, Lucca 2004, pp. 380-390: 387.

Ok everything, but Jazz, film music, pop music (like Carlos Riccard) etc. all have clear references to harmony...

The RedScharlach problem is that Elfo speaks of "thinking in harmonic terms"; the result of a sound superposition is a vertical dimension, but I think he means precisely that it isn't its engine... harmony can mean a lot of things (certainly not just the triad, also ... but it's a drop in the ocean)

Videoclip wrote:

The RedScharlach problem is that Elfo speaks of "thinking in harmonic terms"; the result of a sound superposition is a vertical dimension, but I think he means precisely that it is not its driving force... harmony can mean many things (certainly not just the triad, also ... but that's a drop in the ocean)

In reality, if I interpret Elfo's intentions correctly, and making all the necessary distinctions proposed in the other interventions, I would say I agree. But the concept seems poorly expressed to me: didn't Grisey think about harmony? Of course, he thought about timbre, but he certainly also thought about harmony; in fact, I would go further: his music, for example the beginning of Partiels, demonstrates the intimate connection between timbre and harmony, so much so as to make the distinction between timbre/harmony more terminological than real.

Berio too, as I said, thought about harmony, and also Donatoni (though he didn't say it!), and also many other currently active composers (Sciarrino's discourse can also be interpreted in harmonic terms, but harmony is not the basis of his thought): it's just that harmony, like many other compositional parameters, can no longer be standardized and reduced to a common language, but must be analyzed differently from composer to composer, and sometimes from piece to piece.

A thought analogous to the one proposed by Elfo, I would formulate by saying: "I compose thinking about sound, and not thinking about notes". Even here, with much bias and imprecision.

Spectralists have existed for 30 years....

micamahler wrote:

Always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

Certainly! If we want to talk about more recent currents, for example saturationism, talking about harmony in effect can be misleading. However, I am not sure that Cendo's In Vivo is totally disharmonious (if you'll excuse the term), even if it certainly plays on other aspects: gestures first and foremost, the way I see it.

Even here some distinctions are necessary: a piece like Bedrossian's La conspiration du silence also has a harmonic aspect, although not a preponderant one (I imagine you will tell me: it is a pre-saturationist piece!).

Interesting topic, sooner or later I will give my point of view

RedScharlach wrote:

Didn't Grisey think about harmony? Of course, he thought about timbre, but he also certainly thought about harmony,

If I'm not mistaken, in one of his works Grisey uses a C major chord to create a "fracture" in the musical discourse. Somewhat contrary to a strong dissonance in a tonal context. Therefore, he had a long-term view of harmony ...

in absolute terms, inharmonic sounds do not exist... anyway, I share the idea (if this is indeed the idea being discussed) that from a pedagogical point of view, LIMITING oneself to the Harmonielehren (I say it in German so it's understood that I mean it as a technical term), i.e., the rules of harmony, is now outdated. And this regardless of the aesthetics one decides to follow.

Actually, I was referring to music constructed according to a classical approach, so I would exclude pop or the avant-garde. RedScharlach has framed the issue well.

@Thallo

In my opinion, nowadays, perhaps it is truly limiting even to move from classical harmony... it positions the individual on a road that is now blocked... and then one must struggle to "free oneself" from the burden.

Elfo wrote:

In my opinion, nowadays, perhaps it is truly limiting even to go through classical harmony... it positions the individual on a road that is now blocked... and then they must struggle to "free themselves" from the burden.

It seems like an absurd argument to me. Setting aside other evaluations, a composer who does not know classical harmony will not be able to study music at least up to Wagner (to be conservative...). So? Far from being a "burden": it would be one of colossal ignorance!

regarding the burden I disagree, obviously... music and ancient compositional techniques are essential for me, at least in a standard educational path

So here we are, badly OT.

Carlos wrote:

I am only saying that Elfo postulates the uselessness of studying things that he himself has studied and therefore cannot know if they are truly useless. Or rather: one can know if something is useless - or to what extent it is more or less useful - only when one knows it, as I have maintained for some time... Whether he speaks as a musicologist or as a composer makes little difference: the composer draws upon the knowledge of the musicologist even when claiming that this knowledge is not needed.

If someone were unaware, yes, but since that is not the case, persevering in counterpoint and harmony (in a nineteenth-century manner) contributes to nothing except knowing the repertoire better.

But that is not the primary goal of the composer, who must liberate fantasy into a modern syntax.

thallo wrote:

... ancient music and compositional techniques are essential to me

Well, then let's delve deeper into what is needed, instead of spending 7 years on counterpoint...

Elfo wrote:

... persevering in counterpoint and harmony (in a nineteenth-century manner) contributes to nothing except knowing the repertoire better.

But it is not the primary goal of the composer, who must liberate fantasy into a modern syntax.

look, I don't believe that the primary goal of the composer (in a standard educational path) is to liberate fantasy into a modern syntax.

I think that a composer must create their own fantasy, also and especially by studying what happened before their arrival. Possibly not only in the musical world...

If you know the modern "languages" of composition well and say banal things, your compositions will remain banal. Discovering how even with banal languages the "ancients" managed to say non-banal things is an excellent way to train oneself.

That being said, I think that no composer can compose seriously before having finished a course of study. If we are talking about courses of study here, we must adapt the meaning of terms like "fantasy" or "expression."

But let me explain myself better. In my opinion, the utility of adding more attention to modern languages in a teaching setting is primarily practical. It allows those undertaking studies to use their knowledge in a practical and professional way. As if to say, when after your diploma someone asks you to create a sound installation, you will know how to open the little program and how to tinker with it, without picking up paper and pencil.

In the same way that with current teaching methodology, if someone asks you to compose a romance, you know where to start.

But let's not mythologize the matter excessively... composing seriously is always a personal and subjective journey (at least in my opinion, as I am not a composer). Teaching teaches techniques, not "content." Music, understood as music history or as analysis or as simple listening, teaches primarily content, however difficult this content may be to verbalize and comment upon.

But it is a complex discussion. At least in my mind. If you have caught the point or are not interested, we'll leave it there; if you haven't caught it but are interested, we will unravel it bit by bit.

In reality Thallo, people like Xenakis, Cage, Boulez... did a few years of academy and that's it. Let's say 3 if we exaggerate? ... they consider themselves substantially self-taught and in my opinion, precisely because of this condition, that they did what they did.

And then, starting from the assumption that no one today can know or understand everything in depth, who says that person X needs in-depth study Y. If I am not interested in double choir, why spend 3 years on the subject?

I will never express myself with that aesthetic, I will never know everything, so during the years of study it would be nice to delve into what is most congenial to us... 7 years of romance are too many, especially because the 20th century is a nursery of techniques (and you really make it a matter of technique)... 7 years for 2 techniques (Romance and practically fugue) and 3 years for everything else... are we joking?! We are no longer in the early 1900s!!!

Enough with this story. And besides, all the musicians mentioned knew their previous century very well, we are not in the 1700s... study time is always the same but the things to study are exponentially greater. A composer is required to know perfectly what happened in the previous century and, as one goes backward (and moves away from contemporaneity) the notions should thin out... especially because a composer must write and does not have to play.

The story of performers is different.

Elfo wrote:

And besides, starting from the assumption that no one today can know or understand everything in depth, who says that person X benefits from in-depth study Y? If I am not interested in the double choir, why spend 3 years on the subject?

I understand your ideas, sometimes I have thought about it too, but I still have many doubts regarding it.

Anyway, it is a typical "problem" of the old system... Have you evaluated the possibility of switching to a three-year/two-year program?

thallo wrote:

in absolute terms, inharmonic sounds do not exist...

What do you mean? In spectralism, a cluster becomes increasingly disharmonious (a synonym for inharmonic?) the more its components deviate from the harmonic series.