Incoherent music for pentagons and little monkeys

Oracolo wrote:

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

i didn't understand what you mean (in relation to my previous statement, in itself I understand the sentence....)

These days there is a lot of talk about coherence, a term that comes up very often; it seems like a coincidence, but not all users agree.

I listened to the piece, and I perceived something regarding coherence, even if "taken by the hair" [loosely interpreted], as said by me, someone who writes nonsensical pieces, so you understand.

The last sentence is a "compliment" that I received years ago.

I must say that I also understood what Micrologus meant in the other post; regardless of how it went, he did not offer examples, nor did he argue sufficiently

what he wanted to say, however, even (let's assume this was the case) if it was a user trying to cause a stir, I don't think he was entirely wrong

to cast at least a little doubt on this term, "analyzed" in a context that is not isolated, but also based on other factors that everyone knows but does not bring into play.

I was talking about this just today with a friend (we were talking about both music and cinema), and what emerged is that certainly when a person listens, sees, or reads, if they do not perceive

a certain coherence with the development of what they have undertaken, they may not have good feelings; conversely (as has already been said), it can happen to deal with works

that seem totally incoherent, but upon consumption, they return a feeling of a well-completed work that we would not have had upon first approach.

I continue to maintain that one cannot separate (I am biased) the work from the history of the creator, for better or worse, in an absolutely perfect or imperfect way; I don't like at all

the resolutive approach for which the person who creates must be split from the person who "breathes"; they are always the same person, and if not to justify a possible or probable

incompetence, a lack of means, or ability, it should be done at least to fully understand, or rather better understand, why that person has a certain type of approach toward

a certain type of creative activity, how they carry it forward, what they expect from this way of expressing themselves, and what their difficulties are.

There are biographies (essential, beautiful, and certainly interesting ones, I like them) of great composers (merited), which allow for a better understanding of their work; why not try to understand (at least a little, since many get tired too quickly when faced with these themes) those (even if they are not at the same level, and will never even come close to the level

of the best) who are currently alive?

To me, it would not be an act of narcissism, but of pure pursuit of understanding, if only because if behind almost every thought, word, or gesture there is a reason that goes back years

and years ago, I don't see why the thought, the word, or the gesture in music should be split (at all costs).

It is a bit like what happens in the place where (one) works: "do not bring your problems to the workplace"; it is not possible, it is schizophrenic, and practically everyone is, more or less—those who feel the suffering and those who don't—but it is a (driven) behavior that is partly supported and partly suffered by some, precisely because it consists of very often splitting one's own personality from duty, which presupposes detachment from one's own being, which does not necessarily correspond to the role we hold.

To be clear, by schizophrenia I do not mean a pathological and therefore serious level, but a stage in which a split is nonetheless established between a person's true being and what they are forced not to express, or at least to express in a way that does not feel like their own.

That said, which is just a brief spark of personal opinion, I will then proceed to tell Bianca the impressions I had on the piece; right now I cannot listen to it again.

Piccinesco wrote:

These days there is a lot of talk about coherence, a term that comes up very often; it seems like a coincidence, but not all users agree.

I listened to the piece, and I perceived something regarding coherence, even if "taken by the hair" [stretched], as said by me, someone who writes nonsensical pieces, you'll understand.

The last sentence is a "compliment" that I received years ago.

I must say that I also understood what Micrologus meant in the other post; regardless of how it went, he did not offer examples, nor did he argue sufficiently

about what he wanted to say, but even (let's assume this was the case) if it was a user trying to cause a stir, I don't think he was entirely wrong

to cast at least a little doubt on this term, "analyzed" not in isolation, but also based on other factors that everyone knows but does not bring into play.

I was talking about this just today with a friend (we were talking about both music and cinema), and what came out is that certainly when a person listens, watches, or reads, if they do not perceive

a certain coherence with the development of what they have undertaken, they may not have good feelings; conversely (as has already been said) it can happen to deal with works

that seem totally incoherent, but upon consumption, they return a feeling of a well-completed work that we would not have had upon first approach.

I continue to maintain that one cannot separate (I am biased) the work from the history of the creator, good or bad, in an absolutely perfect way or otherwise; I don't like at all

the resolutive approach for which the person who creates must be split from the person who "breathes"; they are always the same person, and if not to justify a possible or probable

incompetence, a lack of means, or ability, it should be done at least to fully understand, or rather better, why that person has a certain type of approach toward

a certain type of creative activity, how they carry it forward, what they expect from this way of expressing themselves, and what their difficulties are.

There are biographies (essential, beautiful, and certainly interesting, I like them) of the great composers (with merit), which allow for a better understanding of their work; why not try to understand (at least a little, since many get tired too quickly when faced with these themes) those (even if they are not at the same level, and will never even come close to the level

of the best) who are currently alive?

To me, it would not be an act of narcissism, but of pure pursuit of understanding, if only because if behind almost every thought, word, or gesture there is a reason that goes back years

and years, I don't see why the thought, the word, or the gesture in music should be split (at all costs).

It's a bit like what happens in the place where (one) works: "do not bring your problems to the workplace"; it is not possible, it is for schizophrenics, and practically everyone is, more or less—those who feel the suffering and those who don't—but it is a behavior (induced) that is partly supported and partly suffered by some, precisely because it consists of very often splitting one's own personality from duty, which presupposes detachment from one's own being, which does not necessarily correspond to the role we hold.

To be clear, by schizophrenia I do not mean a pathological and therefore serious level, but a stage in which a split is nonetheless established between a person's true being and what they are forced not to express, or at least to express in a way that does not feel like their own.

That said, this is just a brief spark of personal opinion; I will later tell Bianca the impressions I had on the piece, as I cannot listen to it again right now.

i still had to have dinner but I already feel drunk from your post

i'll reread it better when the hangover passes"}

Piccinesco wrote:

I was just talking about this today with a friend (we were talking about both music and cinema), and what came out of it is that certainly when a person listens, sees, reads, or if they do not perceive

a certain coherence with the development of what they have undertaken, they may not have good sensations, and conversely (as has already been said) it can happen to deal with works

that seem totally incoherent, but upon consumption, they restore a sensation of a well-completed work that we would not have had at first approach.

On the margin of this (beautiful) post by Piccinesco, since it brings cinema into play...

It comes to mind ... but is Mulholland Drive incoherent? Or better yet, is Inland Empire incoherent? My answer is very clear: no! Inland Empire is "non-narrative" (or perhaps "differently narrative", so as not to offend anyone!!) but in my opinion it has an impressive coherence, because from the first to the last frame it is faithful to the very particular nightmare world that it manages to create.

Great Lynch! w the little bunnies from Inland

Frankly, I brought up the issue of music for images in the first post...

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/3092-end/

Videoclip wrote:

I relatively agree Micrologus, your argument works if there are images to justify radical changes in language... in all other cases, the piece results in being incoherent.

If in a happy scene of a film at a certain point the cat were to die... then okay, if it is a musical piece with a beginning and an end... well, then things change and it's not just me saying it, one only needs to take any piece written by great masters (and I am also referring to those of today).

Coherence is directly proportional to the composer's ability.

.

..little has changed, I even had to open a dedicated topic...

Red wasn't referring to film scores but to Lynch films. And anyway, great Badalamenti providing the soundtracks!

I am OT but when I think of Lynch I get excited so I'm linking from youtube:

Open content (youtube)

micamahler wrote:

Red was not referring to film scores but to Lynch films.

In fact ... now I understand why Thallo was talking about "return illiteracy""}{

Piccinesco wrote:

These days there is a lot of talk about coherence, a term that comes up very often; it seems like a coincidence, but not all users agree.

I re-read the post and, if I have not misinterpreted your intentions, I believe I am in full agreement.

In essence, you are saying that regardless of whether coherence or incoherence is perceived in a (generic) work, the resulting feeling is independent—meaning it can be either positive or negative, or in other words, one can judge a work as beautiful or ugly (liked or disliked) regardless of the judgment on its coherence. And I believe this is indeed what happens to the majority of subjects who consume a work. A typical common listener generally does not ask themselves a priori, "is what I am listening to/watching/reading coherent or incoherent?" and then decide whether they like it or not based on the answer. Rather, quite the opposite. In some way, any eventual judgment of coherence or lack thereof derives from having judged the work as positive or not for oneself. To be completely honest, this is probably what also happened in this forum regarding the "incriminated" piece. So much so that it did not seem incoherent to everyone, even to those who may not have liked it equally.

In essence, what I have tried to warn against several times, and most recently with the provocative use of the piece I proposed, is not the validity of the concept of coherence, but the "easy" use that is sometimes made of it. The concept of coherence, in fact, if it were not so important, I believe would not raise so many questions. But instead it is, and whoever feels like "using it against" someone is a bit like seeing themselves subjected to a superior, unappealable judgment. Unfortunately, in my view, this habit derives from a certain musical culture that we know well and which, moreover, has great merits, but is sometimes used improperly even if, generally, in good faith. The fact is that the human brain is very confident in the concepts it has appropriated, which have indeed become habits, and very distrustful of what it does not know.

As far as I am concerned, the concept of coherence has an extension that goes even beyond the common sense of the word, which is nothing more than "sticking together" (by the way, has anyone ever heard of coherence in sculpture?), an extension, I was saying, that is probably not immediately clear to those who do not have scientific expertise or culture (and there is nothing wrong with that), which is why perhaps what I wrote previously in this post and elsewhere did not turn out to be evident. Therefore, I certainly do not think—and I reiterate this in case it was not understood—that coherence is not a fundamental reference category; quite the contrary (at least for me). But I am saying that sometimes it would be better to strip oneself of one's habits and try to use one's judgment in a more critical way.

And for this reason, I believe it is useful and fundamental to also know the exegesis of a work, as you say. The reason, in my opinion, is not direct, but related to what was said before. When we listen to a known work, in fact, a work that has already passed into, let's say, culture, we might even assume that knowledge of the author is not so fundamental: I listen to something that may or may not please me regardless of the evaluation of its author. But by doing this, in reality, we are only "skipping," or forgetting, a step already taken in the past by someone else on our behalf. In effect, a work can be rightfully split from its producer (aside from the literature regarding it, what comes to mind is the joke "every time I listen to Wagner, I feel like invading Poland!"), but only if it has somehow already been understood. If a work is not immediately understandable, it does not automatically mean that it should never be in the future (with all the necessary caveats, of course), and knowledge of the motivations (another open discussion elsewhere) and its history can certainly open new and sometimes perhaps even interesting perspectives. On the other hand, it is also true that the ways in which a work is known are manifold, and its own characteristics (least of all those easily perceived) are certainly not enough to spread it.

I quite agree with you (Bianca), but also with Videoclip who used some phrases that I find very apt.

What I like, however, is the detachment from what is known and given as an indispensable means, and striving a bit to understand exactly what lies behind it, which can be nothingness or a profound unease (as happens to me, for example).

If I start from my "historical" path—it's true that I am certainly not someone who studied 300 hours a day for years (I would say an hour every few months, and before anyone starts turning up their nose thinking these are the usual statements implying some kind of grandiosity, which absolutely does not exist; on the contrary, I am so critical that I am almost never satisfied, and those who believe too much in what they do, even if they don't produce masterpieces, say it constantly and are convinced despite various opinions they should take into account)—or has had the opportunity to follow lessons consistently for a reasonable period; on the contrary, it has always been fragmented and continues to be so, and if heavy problems from long ago are added to this, it is not just a matter of ability or lack thereof (which probably, seeing as I am 37, I will never know how much I could have developed or not, since I don't have all this mental flexibility), but a matter of peace, serenity, factors that significantly condition the approach to study and its "derivatives."

With this friend yesterday we were also talking about possible cognitive problems: until a certain age (he is now about 40, and he was telling me about when he was in high school, and up to a few years later) he had incredible mnemonic support; he had such a fine capacity to memorize what he heard that he understood lessons without any problem, and he was often encouraged to help those who fell behind (it could have very well been me, but we didn't go to school together); now he has had a sort of switch and his memory has gone, and I am like him, except I have been this way since I was little.

I remember that I couldn't memorize what I studied, and it is still the same thing today.

Try reading a text (for example, on counterpoint, as I did some time ago—reading, not exactly studying, because studying means dwelling on every specific point that hasn't been well understood, and doing exercises to put into practice what has been read or studied) and forgetting after a few seconds, not minutes, what you have read, even if it is half a page; it's absurd, isn't it?

This is why I speak of cognitive problems, which go beyond issues related to unease and other factors.

What saddens me is noticing (in every context) a lot of coldness from this point of view; the only ones (for example) who didn't face the guillotine and said "I don't give a C***" (said literally, but obviously terms are used to avoid it) were Frank and CromaDiBrera, with whom I also communicate via email. In short, if one is not yet aware of something, and at the same time has certain difficulties, I don't think one can speak of a person living serenely for whom everything they think, say, and do must be absolutely dissociated from their personality; it doesn't work like that (for me, and I specify that this is not an excuse, because I myself know well that I am currently limited; this doesn't mean I don't want to improve—maybe I will never succeed because I am deficient, I just can't get there—but it is hard to know when starting a bit late, and not serenely, so my being sometimes "aggressive," for those who have asked (only for a few seconds, I can understand this), depends on very serious reasons, and not from arrogance and confidence; I leave that to those who, indeed, have had a different path without too many hitches, perhaps facilitated and stimulated, and there one can certainly speak of true arrogance, moreover unjustified (if we really want to use that term), because it is a bit paradoxical to see a person doing what (perhaps) they like, which is moreover their job, getting angry and responding with extreme confidence; even there, one needs a sense of limits.

I'll give you one last example regarding consistency: a few days ago I sent some scores for harpsichord/piano to two harpsichordists; the first is an interpreter, the second has also studied composition:

something strange happened (not because of what didn't happen, but because of the manner in which it occurred, which I won't explain now); in short, the first would record them with pleasure, the second flatly refused, giving an excuse that (I understood) seemed to me very, too rigorous, and concerns her specifically as a person, and not "solely" consistency.

Regarding Bianca's piece, for me it is not inconsistent; everyone feels things in their own way; I hypothesize that the central part, performed at that speed, without control over the agogics, on the"}

dynamics, "worst" the perception of those who "heard" the piece that way; however, it didn't have this effect on me, and I see a design in it that is at least minimally reasoned; I am saying this today but I thought it yesterday, so I am not flattering you or getting confused. In fact, the way you did it, I would even see it as more "stretched out," by elaborating it further, because it gives the sensation that it ends too soon.

Piccinesco wrote:

Regarding Bianca's piece, for me it is not inconsistent; everyone perceives things in their own way. I hypothesize that the central part, performed at that speed, without control over the agogics or the "worst" dynamics, worsens the perception of those who "heard" the piece that way; however, it didn't have that effect on me, and I see even a minimally reasoned design in it. I am saying this today, but I thought it the day before yesterday, so I am not being evasive or getting defensive. In fact, based on how you did it, I would even see it as more "stretched out" by elaborating it further, because it gives the sensation that it ends too soon.

Thank you for what you wrote. I am relatively "new" to this forum, so unfortunately I have no knowledge of the things you mentioned regarding yourself. However, I believe I understand what you are saying and what you "feel." I also believe, from my experience, that the arrogance of some does not always stem from confidence in their own talents, but on the contrary, often from the awareness of not deserving what they have obtained. All the more reason why I said what I said.

Regarding my piece, as you noticed, it should also be "stretched out," and indeed this is a small excerpt of a more extensive work, an excerpt that I simply needed as a pretext.