Harmony: Overcome

Elfo wrote:

In reality Thallo, people like Xenakis, Cage, Boulez... spent a few years in academia 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, they did what they did.

Let's take one at random, Xenakis.

3 years of his head in the hands of Messiaen on one hand could be equivalent to 10 years done by "whoever" guided by "who knows who" (I hope the point is clear), on the other hand unfortunately only 3 years might be too few.

I can already hear those shouting "burn him, heretic"... and yet try going to listen to Xenakis live with the score in hand. Without the corrections made during the recording phase, many things cannot be heard because they are poorly orchestrated... and I wouldn't want any faithful follower to be disappointed. Many of Xenakis' works are fine if listened to sitting on the sofa with our Hi-fi system, but live, it depends on the work.

This certainly does not argue in favor of superficial knowledge, although I understand and partly understand Elfo's position. In fact, the old programs were (note the verb conjugation) from 1930... the reform may have many flaws, but as far as composition is concerned, it gave a real boost to the 20th century. To be clear, we are always talking about the languages and techniques of a bygone era, so reconstructing a Bachian chorale, a dodecaphonic piece, Webernian pointillism, a Xenakis-style glissando, etc. .. it is always a matter of exercise and "reconstruction."

Studying and knowing has never killed anyone; the more things one knows, the more varied and rich our approach to the world of composition will be.

So, okay for a deep dive into 20th-century compositional techniques, but with the awareness that many of the greats drew from tradition, including Xenakis, who in some works is influenced by certain very ancient rhythmic and melodic procedures. Shall we talk about Ligeti? Or Schoenberg himself, etc.

Elfo wrote:

In reality Thallo, people like Xenakis, Cage, Boulez... just 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 thanks to this condition, that they did what they did.

Scattered considerations:

Neither Xenakis, nor Cage, nor Boulez were musical self-taught individuals. On the contrary, all three had training that today would be considered elite, especially Boulez. All three had extraordinary personal abilities; taking them as an example of a hypothetical teaching system would be, in my opinion, madness, just like taking Goku's training in Dragon Ball as an example. Cage's compositional results are frankly disappointing until he develops a revolutionary poetics. And he gets there by studying, studying things other than music. Xenakis invents a new compositional technique from scratch, re-interpreting his own mathematical knowledge which, allow me, was a tad above average. Boulez lived the Parisian cultural life in an active and disruptive way; at 20 years old he already hated everyone and over time (little time) he proved to be one of the greatest musical theorists of the 1900s.

And here comes the trick question: in your opinion, if electronic music had been studied in the conservatory back then, would anything have changed for Cage, Xenakis, and Boulez??

No! Their story does not teach us that being self-taught leads to being geniuses. It tells us the opposite, namely that geniuses at a certain point get fed up with traditional teaching and, thanks also to other parts of their own training, give birth to works of genius.

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

You used the adjective "useful". And it's interesting. I believe in a teaching method partially adapted to the student's needs. I am happy that things are changing in the Italian educational system, at many levels. But every time in my life I thought it would be useful to deepen something different from what I was being taught at school, I went home and studied it myself.

Enough with this story. And besides, all the mentioned musicians 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), knowledge should thin out... especially because a composer must write and does not have to play.

On this, I can only be in disagreement. The more you study, the more you remember. In an educational path (and I continue to repeat it, because our discussion only makes sense if we think of an educational path, not the "freelance profession" of a composer) the number of topics should always increase. In such a way as to give everyone access to everything and allow anyone to choose what is most congenial to them. Once YOU have decided that you want to do, I don't know, noise, then you can do it, but there is no aesthetic superiority of the contemporary avant-garde over strict counterpoint. And if you want a diploma certified by the state, you must also know strict counterpoint.

RedScharlach wrote:

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

I messed up the term. I meant to say that practically all sounds project overtones and therefore there is no music that does not have a harmonic dimension."},

Not even by doing it on purpose.

http://lariscossadellacivetta.com/2012/12/21/creativismo-cretinismo/

Favorite points:

2) attend repressive schools :-) in other words, the best way to become atheists is to go to school run by priests;

8) seek objects not subject to [abstraction] :-) this phrase stirs many things in me, among various others my personal hatred towards those who love to cook but do not eat a thousand different things... practicing the objects, however, is a tad more useful than abstracting them in one's own mind.

Elfo wrote:

Nowadays, thinking in harmonic terms is outdated; one writes based on other elements, making it 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?

don't speak for me, I prefer studying Beethoven to John Cage. Who said that thinking in harmonic terms is 'outdated', the doctor?

I'll ask you a question..... do you know everything about 'outdated' harmony? Because when it comes to innovation, I think like this: if someone is like Schoenberg, who exploited what was already there first, knows how to use it well, and then 'surpasses' it and does something new, then I respect him.

but otherwise.... it's like a dog that barks but doesn't bite; they aren't even taken seriously.

Outdated my foot, on the contrary, you can spend your whole life on it; you can make a lot of music even with a simple ternary structure, two tonalities, and a couple of periods.

All things that have been taught for years.

pianistamaggiorenneDi38 wrote:

don't speak for me, I prefer studying Beethoven to John Cage.

No one was talking about their own preferences... does studying referring to Beethoven refer to interpretation? If that were the case, I have already said my piece regarding the performer... please reread, thank you.

pianistamaggiorenneDi38 wrote:

Who said that thinking in harmonic terms is 'outdated', doctor?

... probably history ...?...

pianistamaggiorenneDi38 wrote:

I'll ask you a question..... do you know everything about 'outdated' harmony? Because regarding innovation, I think like this: if it is someone like Schoenberg, who first exploited what was already there, knows how to use it well, and then 'surpasses' it and does something new, then I respect him.

... I didn't understand

pianistamaggiorenneDi38 wrote:

sone can make a lot of music even with a simple ternary structure, two tonalities and a couple of periods.

Tall things that have been taught for years.

In fact, a lot of music has already been made. Are you familiar with the Second Viennese School? Webern? A century ago... I dare you to say they have been teaching it for years....

thallo wrote:

neither Xenakis, nor Cage, nor Boulez were musical self-taught individuals.

... perhaps I wrote it differently. Reread.

thallo wrote:

And here comes the trick question: in your opinion, if electronic music had been studied in a conservatory back then, would anything have changed for Cage, Xenakis and Boulez??

No! Their history does not teach us that being self-taught leads to being geniuses. It tells us the opposite, namely that geniuses at a certain point get fed up with traditional teaching and, thanks also to other parts of their own training, give birth to works of genius.

But look, I am talking about different teaching methods and not about "self-teaching", reread that too, thanks.

thallo wrote:

I used the adjective "useful". And it's interesting. I believe in a teaching method partially adapted to the needs of the student. I am glad that things are changing in the Italian educational system, at many levels. But every time in my life I thought it was useful to delve deeper into something different from what I was being taught at school, I would go home and study it on my own.

So you are for "self-teaching"... I mean, you have to do the interesting things yourself and you learn the useless things at school... oh well.

thallo wrote:

on this I can only be in disagreement.

You decide, I think you are disagreeing with yourself ... reread everything in a row