Hindemith versus Schönberg: tonality and gravity

In my opinion, tonality over time has become a new nature, even if the cause may be a healthy "habit"...

Gerardo wrote:

In my opinion, tonality over time has become a new nature, even if the cause may be a healthy "habit"...

in what sense? do you mean that there exists a sort of genetic memory that makes tonality a natural predisposition?

As I always say, we all know that despite relativity having existed for more than a century, the classic apple continues to fall; musically speaking, reading between the lines, the seventh continues to descend and the leading tone continues to ascend... despite extreme simplification and many little things that have happened and that we should know.

It is a way of saying that we are immersed in tonality; the vast majority of music played on the radio, on television, in cinema, etc. (and which therefore we listen to continuously, even "involuntarily") is fundamentally tonal, and in this world, we feel at home.

And if we think about it carefully, there is nothing more artificial than musical instruments or equal temperament, yet even for a "deaf" person, they have become a new nature (an expression that, like Gerardo, I also use).

All this talk obviously does not prevent us from appreciating so much other things, on the contrary...

Bianca wrote:

do you mean that there exists a sort of genetic memory that makes tonality a natural predisposition?

In my opinion, yes; in the end, if you take any layperson and play any tonal piece for them... in the end, if something "sounds out of tune" ... it is immediately highlighted.

Because how can someone who knows nothing about harmony or theory detect any error in a performance? Precisely because of this... and staying with Frank's apple metaphor, if an apple starts heading towards the sky... everyone notices it.

The apple that rises goes against gravity and gravity is a physical force: that is an objective argument. The third that sounds out of tune because it falls or rises goes against a cultural argument; obviously, within the reference system of the tonal world, the third must not sound out of tune. I agree with the fact that the vast majority of the world uses equal temperament as a reference system, but before inserting it into a genetic context, I believe it is necessary to wait another few thousand years.

For Einstein everything is relative, so this blessed apple might even rise... but obviously it was a hyperbole....

But it's a bit like Schoenberg... that all tones are equal, but then what happens at the listening level?

For Einstein, everything is relative to the frames of reference! And besides, in another way, but also the tonal system is A frame of reference. I don't understand the question: What happens at the listening level?

In my opinion, this is one of the crucial problems in the development of musical knowledge.

To say that there exists a genetic memory in which the brain's predilection for tonality is "encoded" is quite difficult. Firstly, because, as micamahler says, the time elapsed is too little (even thousands of years, evolutionarily speaking, are still too little); secondly, because it is not so obvious that a genetic memory can be formed in this way. Individual adaptations to a certain environment that produce genetic modifications exist and are called somations, but somations are not germinal, in the sense that they are not transmitted to descendants (although it seems to me there is someone who has even questioned this...). However, I find there is a problem especially from another point of view, even assuming that this genetic memory exists (or could one day exist). After all, to what environment should Mr. Zarlino have ever had to adapt? In other words, is tonality an invention or a discovery? Personally, I believe it is neither one nor the other, but simply a description, i.e., an attempt to encode and organize a series of phenomena. And like all descriptions, it results (and will always result) in being imperfect and incomplete.

However, still in my opinion obviously, as a description it is "appropriate," or more appropriate compared to others. If we continue to be immersed in tonality, as Frank says, I do not believe it is by pure chance or by the arbitrary choice of someone a few centuries ago. It must also be kept in mind that what does not fall into (the theory of) tonality should not simply be branded as an error, but often also as a deficiency of the theory itself, possibly to be integrated. What has happened in the development of musical theory (and what happens many times in human affairs) is that to remedy the theoretical deficiencies of tonalism, everything was erased and a theory was reinvented that somehow invalidated the previous one. But such theories, probably, did not prove to be as "appropriate." Pantonality and even less so serialism, as much as they may prove useful and functional, do not implement a description of a phenomenon with the aim of understanding its functioning, but rather an artificial "regulation" a priori, because they start from quite different premises.

Here is a brief example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tG9TAqBZa4

This piece by Messiaen probably inspires the theories of serialism, but it does not start from the premises of serialism; on the contrary. It starts from purely musical concepts (rhythm and scales) and not from the concepts of groups.

Perhaps the example is a bit on the edge, but I hope I have explained myself.

A similar comparison can be made starting from the analysis of the relationship between music and mathematics (I spoke about this some time ago with a friend from the forum), but the road is arduous and fraught with dangers

Open content (youtube)

micamahler wrote:

What happens on a listening level?

Little and nothing. And in fact, many professionals listen to something else ... You know that stuff that many "modern" composers consider dead or outdated? Yes, music ... that thing you can actually listen to with your ears ...

you know that those are your tastes.....

Bianca wrote:

This piece by Messiaen probably inspires the theories of serialism

Thank you for remembering it, brother Webern, integral serialism, Darmstadt and so on and so forth... when will we start talking about music again? Unfortunately, composers of a traditional approach are fewer and fewer and increasingly marginalized by the academic world; many young people end up trapped in a cage without either sense or musical flavor ...

micamahler wrote:

you know that those are your tastes.....

They are not my tastes; the composition criteria of integral serialism are governed not by the ears but by matrices ... try listening to the little piece posted by Bianca, is there something to listen to?

micamahler wrote:

you know that those are your tastes.....

Most performers are not interested in the avant-garde; it is not a matter of taste... it is almost a matter of fact. After all, without performers there is no music, and the avant-garde might perhaps need great performers... who (un)fortunately dedicate themselves to something else, ....to the tradition which seems to me very much alive and well even in these periods that seem a bit dark.

Personally, they only ask me for musical pieces that are interesting and enjoyable. These are inviolable premises, otherwise, I lose the commission which will go to some other musician, probably musically more gifted...

1) Total serialism is ONE way, not THE way.

2) Avant-garde, what does that mean? Who is the avant-garde, is Messiaen the avant-garde?

3) Interesting and enjoyable musical pieces, what does that mean? But then, who objectively establishes which pieces these are?

4) the phrase "most performers are not interested in the avant-garde, it is not a matter of taste" can be transformed into:

"Most human beings are interested in Lady Gaga, it is not a matter of taste... it is almost a matter of fact"

I am interested in music in its various forms; I don't care if it is tonal, if it is modal, if it is made of an analog saturation of the noise an ant makes while eating; if I like it and find that it has something to say, I like it. I do not understand this obsession with music that is not liked and does not interest, nor what seems to me to be the need to criticize and point it out as if it were the wrong music that leads nowhere. For me, a piece in C major, if well written, creates no problem; it is a pity to note that the reverse situation is not received in the same way

micamahler wrote:

2) Avant-garde, what does it mean? Who is the avant-garde, is Messiaen the avant-garde?

One must recognize that the good Messiaen somehow "authorized" experimentation with integral serialism; the piece proposed by Bianca is a clear example... even if he himself said he had written it as a joke. Let's just say he changed course afterwards....if integral serialism wasn't avant-garde, what would be? Obviously, we are talking about half a century ago... today there are other realms.

micamahler wrote:

1) Total serialism is ONE way, not THE way.

...certainly it is ONE and it is also blind, as well as deaf

micamahler wrote:

2) Avant-garde, what does it mean? Who is the avant-garde, is Messiaen the avant-garde now?

The piece indicated by Bianca was avant-garde, Xenakis explained well

micamahler wrote:

3) Interesting and enjoyable musical pieces, what does that mean? But then who is it that objectively establishes which pieces these are?

From my point of view, they are all the pieces that respect tradition ...

micamahler wrote:

4) the phrase "most performers are not interested in the avant-garde, it is not a matter of taste" can be transformed into:

"Most human beings are interested in Lady Gaga, it is not a matter of taste... it is almost a fact"

If music only pleases ONE person, it is written only for the one who sees themselves in the mirror ... look at it this way, Gigi D'Alessio on one side (Lady Gaga is much more than you can imagine, as were the Beatles, for that matter) and Xenakis's Herma on the other (for a change, poor Messiaen, pointed out for anti-musicality because of a single experiment that he himself disavowed... who knows why?).

micamahler wrote:

I don't understand this persistence towards music that is not liked

More than anything, music that does not follow musical instinct

micamahler wrote:

e it is not interesting and what seems to me to be the necessity of having to criticize it and point it out as if it were the wrong music that leads nowhere.

Everyone does exercises or experiments, precisely experiments and exercises... then compositions will come, right?

micamahler wrote:

For me, a piece in C major, if it is well written, creates no problem; it is a pity to note that the reversed situation is not received in the same way

Who cares about C major, I don't know, Bartok or Prokofiev did not feed history with scientist experiments, laboratory products, experiments, trials, etc..... they proposed music.

Stravinsky writes in C major?

So then, what does that have to do with it... I am talking about musical instinct and not a reference system... some systems are ANTI-MUSICAL, one must come to terms with it..."

Of course Messiaen was avant-garde, he certainly was. That Lady Gaga is much more than I can imagine, let me establish that myself since I know myself, not you who do not know me.

And as if Bartok hadn't experimented with anything!

C major was a banal and exaggerated example, I thought it was evident

Xenakis wrote:

One must recognize that the great Messiaen somehow "authorized" experimentation with integral serialism; the piece proposed by Bianca is a clear example... even if he himself said he had written it as a joke. Let's just say he immediately changed course afterwards....

"I was very upset by the absolutely disproportionate importance that has been accorded to a small work, which is only three pages long and is called “Modes de valeurs et d’intensités”, under the pretext that it was at the origin of serial fragmentation in the domain of attacks, durations, intensities, timbres, in short, of all musical parameters.

This music may have been prophetic, historically important, but, musically, it is nothing at all..."

http://blogs.qobuz.c...-s-o-szymanovs/

...even the author says so... but come on....