Incoherent music for pentagons and little monkeys

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

Gorino wrote:

Bianca, will you marry me?

i don't know if it's in your best interest, I am a terrible cook

I really like this incoherent music.

Why is it incoherent?

I feel as though I managed to glimpse both the pentagons and the little monkeys.

Why this combination? Influences? (it reminds me of music I listened to in my youth)

How did you record everything?

I am very curious, because I loved this short piece immediately.

Bye, and please, don't stop

It seems to me that the coherence is given by the pentagon

What little monkeys did you use?

Gorino wrote:

I really like this incoherent music.

Why is it incoherent?

It seems to me that I managed to glimpse both the pentagons and the little monkeys.

Why this combination? Influences? (it reminds me of music I listened to in my youth)

How did you record everything?

I am very curious, because I loved this short piece immediately.

Bye, and please, don't stop

Thank you. I believe that the greatest satisfaction for an author is knowing that their music can mean something to those who listen to it, even if they cannot know precisely what. Knowing that communication has opened up, even if it were nothing more than a vague correspondence, but precisely because of this, a broader one.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

What little monkeys did you use?

AbateFaria wrote:

It seems to me that consistency is given by the pentagon

Yes, but also the inconsistency

Bianca wrote:

Yes, but also the
inconsistency

... it could be, but if you vary the "sides" of the pentagon used in the first section (then we can talk about how)... it's easily done

AbateFaria wrote:

... it could be, but if you vary the "sides" of the pentagon used in the first section (then one can talk about how)... it's easily done

Right. But the inconsistency lies in the fact that by applying such "transformations" or "functions" to the pentagons, what results is "extra-pentagonal". For this reason, from the point of view of the pentagons, the result becomes "inconsistent". Obviously for the little monkey (the one that screeches in the central section) this does not happen

I'm not crazy about the piece, but I agree with the Abbot....the compositional principle is quite evident.

Oracolo wrote:

I'm not crazy about the piece, but I agree with the Abbot....the compositional principle is quite evident.

so the inconsistency should be evident to you as well.

Bianca wrote:

Right. But the inconsistency lies in the fact that by applying such "transformations" or "functions" to the pentagons, what results is "extra-pentagonal". For this reason, from the point of view of the pentagons, the result becomes "inconsistent". Obviously for the little monkey (the one that screeches in the central section) this does not happen

From my point of view, I would say: "what results is 'extra-pentagonal'" doesn't matter much in the sense that it is a piece of music and not a treatise on geometry; at a musical level, you have simply developed the starting material (which you then derived by taking 5 long sounds based on I don't know what your logic was to create the pentagon... it doesn't change much)

Therefore, musically it has a perceptible coherence... as was being said, it doesn't necessarily mean that this automatically makes the piece a masterpiece.

AbateFaria wrote:

From my point of view, I would say: "what results from it is 'extra-pentagonal' doesn't matter much in the sense that it is a piece of music and not a geometry treatise; musically speaking, you have trivially developed the starting material (which you obtained by taking 5 long sounds based on I don't know what your logic was to create the pentagon... it doesn't change much)"

Therefore, musically it has a perceptible coherence... as was being said, this does not automatically mean that the piece is a masterpiece.

Maybe it doesn't interest you, but it certainly interests the pentagons.

It might also seem trivially developed to you, but banality, in my view, is another category used just like coherence.

The musical coherence, even if one could say it is an objective fact, would still always be a category employed subjectively. The thing I think is most negative is that this word is often used to make generic and unconstructive criticisms that claim authority and competence, whereas often it would be better to remain silent or at least express a simple "I don't like it," to which everyone, unfortunately or fortunately, has an equal right.

Furthermore, saying that a work must be coherent to be a masterpiece is at the very least ambiguous. Consider that even in places where coherence can truly be objectified, the most wonderful works, to demonstrate their own coherence, must become incoherent. On the other hand, you yourself pointed out that coherence is not even a sufficient condition.

Obviously, I also believe that coherence is a guide that anyone attempting to produce or express something seeks to follow, whether consciously or not. In some way, it is an indispensable aspiration of the human intellect.

This is just my opinion, naturally, which perhaps I am expressing only because, having noticed a hint of annoyance in what you wrote, I believe it is right that each of us finds the spark that allows them to question their own certainties, sometimes.

Watch out, the 'banal' was not intended regarding the procedure but rather the situation of fact....which composer does not develop the presented material? Let's just say it is self-evident...

... when the piece becomes descriptive music or rather program music, you will see that many might be more interested in the eventual geometric inconsistency...but let's see the program and the supporting images

Bianca wrote:

to demonstrate their own consistency, they must become inconsistent.

More than being inconsistent, it is how the journey allows one to arrive at consistency. If you take a tonal work, it is obvious that the foundation and consistency are provided by the tonal pillars... but the way each composer uses to make one desire consistency (to understand the exceptions) is the interesting part.

Exactly Oracle, I meant that consistency is the bare minimum .... if there isn't even that, it's a potpourri

AbateFaria wrote:

Watch out, the 'banal' part wasn't intended regarding the procedure but rather the situation of fact....which composer doesn't develop the presented material? Let's just say it's self-evident...

... when the piece becomes descriptive music or rather program music, you will see that many might be more interested in the eventual geometric inconsistency...but let's look at the program and the supporting images

ok, I understand what you mean; I was afraid you had taken offense at something, since it didn't seem to me that I had been offensive. In fact, the piece (which is moreover an excerpt) is apparently linear (or banal) and, if one wants to use the term, coherent. But from the point of view of the "code" it is not, in the sense that it is constructed so that it isn't (logically it isn't, if you take the point of view of the code). These are what I previously defined ironically as the pentagon point of view and that of the little monkeys. In other words, it is an attempt to warn against an easy use of the concept of coherence. It would also be possible to construct pieces that are structurally totally coherent, but which from the point of view of perception result in being completely wacky. Here I have obviously chosen the other path for obvious reasons. It is certainly not easy to do something like this (at least it isn't for me), namely to produce something that "rigorously" follows a logical procedure (let's call it that) and at the same time results in being musically significant.

AbateFaria wrote:

Exactly Oracolo, I meant that coherence is the bare minimum .... if there isn't even that, it's a potpourri

a propos, even a potpourri can become coherent