Processing, narrativity and consequentiality in music

As I was saying, today people have stopped eliminating narrativity from a musical composition. In the past they have already tried it and have justly "paid" for this.

In my opinion, coherence is fundamental in a piece... I don't think narrativity interferes in the sense that one can tell nothing and still be coherent.

One thing is perceived immediately: mixing languages is not the way to go because it undermines coherence... if one of the forces at play were tonality, coherence would suffer even more because tonality itself includes narrativity; it is congenital in the resulting "aesthetics"...

As I was saying, interesting discussion

Perhaps a useless question, what is meant by narrativity?

Ludovica wrote:

if one of the forces at play were tonality, coherence would suffer even more because tonality itself includes narrativity, it is congenital in the resulting \"aesthetics\"...

If you repeat a tonal sequence of 12 notes a thousand times, where do you find the narrativity?

Ludovica wrote:

In my opinion, coherence is fundamental in a piece... I don't think narrativity interferes in the sense that one can tell nothing and still be coherent.

i am quoting what was said in the other topic:

"There are more systems on earth that respect 'consequence' and are not coherent than there are stars in the sky. Aside from this, even interpreting your response at its best, it is not an answer. The concept of consequence is not built upon that of coherence."

rstrauss, on July 03, 2013 - 09:07, said:

they are linked by something, a repetition of notes, a rhythmic fragment, tonality, a modulation etc. ... just to quote Frank (in one of the analyses of one of my pieces) the 2 themes should somehow be "related".

This already makes more sense and seems to allow me to proceed with the reasoning.

Quote

Multi-quote

Edit

Report

Bianca wrote:

If you repeat a tonal sequence of 12 notes a thousand times, where do you find the narrativity?

Several clarifications: diatonicism is one thing, tonality is another. Tonality is something very precise:

- harmony by thirds

- bipolarity between tonic and dominant

- functionality/hierarchy among the scale degrees

- precisely a 7-note scale (hence what sequence of 12 tonal notes)

- A piece is tonal if it remains within the scope of the circle of fifths; beyond that, one can already speak of expanded tonality.

Tonal aesthetics are based on bipolarity, which is the basis of narrativity... which obviously can also be achieved with other languages, but in tonality they are one and the same (hierarchy/bipolarity).

There would be many things to write and I don't have much time right now... so, off the cuff....

First of all, I would meditate on the initial context of a piece (many naively neglect it). The first bars, the first seconds of music declare a connotation made up of many aspects, not least language, and therefore its grammar and rules; I write this because that is where one starts. Everyone can have their own rules, as Bianca rightly pointed out, but these must be declared (so it is difficult to cheat).

From my point of view, the composer cannot disregard them; it is as if they do not keep their word (whether this happens consciously or unconsciously).

Example: in a typical lecture, I start speaking in Italian, give a lovely introduction, capture the attention of passersby and spectators, and then deliver a sermon that jumps here and there from Russian to Chinese to ancient Aramaic. I lose everyone for several obvious reasons...

RStrauss spoke of kinship constraints; here, in my opinion, we are in another sphere, that of elaboration. Language has its own dynamics, and within these dynamics, development must move, which can present elements of novelty but in respect of the declared/chosen/etc. context.

That is to say, language cannot be the element of novelty, otherwise one ends up with the lecture example.

Taking any work by a great master, one will always find many related ideas that are told (presented and developed) masterfully within a context.

The topic also mentions narrativity. Narrativity is that capacity of music to be remembered; if it does not possess this capacity, narrativity decays. There are many ways to achieve this; before the 1900s, it was done in tonality using, precisely, the overused bipolarity. It is not the only way, and increasingly personal codes in the 1900s have provided many examples.

The point is that in music, the code is not always dissociated from aesthetics; on the contrary, there is often such a close link that it frequently happens to fall back into the game of stylistic references. If done in a unified way, then there is connotation, meaning, etc. ... if done without criteria or with an apparent criterion (though if the appearance doesn't come through, it matters little), the results are disappointing or otherwise not up to the expectation, which, I repeat, arises from the context itself.

Personally speaking, there are many professionals who find Beethoven boring, others Mozart, others Chopin, each with their own sacrosanct reasons... but that is not the point; the point is to write a coherent, unified piece that does not fail expectations, that keeps the promises made, and that becomes interesting. And this does not happen through linguistic schizophrenia, but through great work of choice and renunciation regarding the possibilities that the material itself provides and can provide... and obviously one's own elaborative capacity, at the service of one's own aesthetics... telling or not telling something.

An interesting and complex topic, on which many have reflected. Discussing it exhaustively is almost impossible...

However, I would like to focus for a moment on the terms, to make some distinctions that seem right to me.

1) SYNTAX, namely the rule of articulation of harmonic or melodic units, exists in almost all compositional systems. In modality, in counterpoint, and in tonality, there are rules that dictate which chords might sound good after each chord or that, in any case, study the different effects of different successions. Let us remember, however, that almost no syntax is truly normative. That is, there are no obligations that have never been disregarded.

2) The syntax of many compositional systems is TELEOLOGICAL; it identifies, that is, tensions that lead the musical discourse toward a goal. Tensions toward the tonic or toward the finalis are an example of teleology. But there are different ways to approach this teleology. We can use the usual triadic logic of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, typical of sonata form. The "negation," consisting of modulation to the dominant, is nothing more than a "tension" that leads us more strongly to the tonic. But not all teleologies are so clear-cut. The various cadences that precede the cadence to the finalis in a chorale, for example, do not create "tension" in the pure sense; they are not tense toward the finalis. They are merely distractions, from the point of view of teleology...

3) As a consequence of the previous point, one must strive to distinguish between TELEOLOGY and NARRATIVITY. A composition can be narrative even if it has no destination. And vice versa. In the history of harmony, the greatest blow to teleology, and to tonal syntax, is the defunctionalization of tension chords, especially sevenths. That is, a chord that should lead to the tonic, at a certain point goes mad and leads somewhere else. Paradoxically, these defunctionalizations have gifted us some of the most narrative compositions in history, given that life, as we know well, is certainly not a straight road with a beautiful, clear, and gigantic pre-established goal. Excluding death, obviously. If teleology identifies a goal, narrativity should identify and make sense of a path.

4) From the previous point comes another consequence, also outlined by Frank. Narrativity is not only harmonic; it is not made only of tensions and harmonic functions, but is more complex. The role of REPETITION, for example, is fundamental. And it is in a discourse "between" teleology and narrativity that the concept of ELABORATION is situated. Because, let us remember, elaborating a musical element does not serve to reach the goal, but to delay reaching it, to create a path. In fact, paradoxically, if we consider the repetitive factor of elaboration—reformulating—we could say that variation is explicitly a method for forcing the temporal direction of music.

5) This is a point that greatly interests me and is somewhat fashionable. Music is the art of time, it is often said. But composers have always sought to vary the temporal flow, to force it, almost abolishing it or turning it around. Inverted canons, rondo forms, extremely long cycles of variations, ostinato basses, are all musical means that can easily be interpreted as forcings of the natural temporality of a piece. TEMPORALITY should be the temporal dimension suggested by a musical piece, and it is different from TIME, which is chronometric. Playing with syntax, with rhythm (especially harmonic rhythm), and with teleology serves to influence our temporal perceptions, and it is a game that has been played very often by composers, especially in the 1900s.

6) There are compositions that criticize teleology, compositions that criticize narrativity, and compositions that criticize both, or neither. In a general sense, it is always good to remember that there are also dodecaphonic operas (not serial, as far as I know...) and that things like thematicism, elaboration, and variation are widely usable in non-tonal systems.

thallo wrote:

An interesting and complex topic, on which many have reflected. Discussing it exhaustively is almost impossible...

However, I would like to focus for a moment on the terms, to make some distinctions that seem right to me.

1) SYNTAX, namely the rule of articulation of harmonic or melodic units, exists in almost all compositional systems. In modality, in counterpoint, in tonality, there are rules that dictate which chords might sound good after each chord or that, in any case, study the different effects of different successions. Let us remember, however, that almost no syntax is truly normative. That is to say, there are no obligations that have never been disregarded.

Rules are made to be broken ... you can shape a sonata form and make it different, change the elements, move them ... but in my opinion, coherence and measure must always be present.

thallo wrote:

3) As a consequence of the previous point, one must strive to distinguish between TELEOLOGY and NARRATIVITY. A composition can be narrative even if it has no destination. And vice versa. In the history of harmony, the greatest blow to teleology, and to tonal syntax, is the defunctionalization of tension chords, especially sevenths. That is, a chord that should lead to the tonic, at a certain point goes crazy and leads somewhere else. Paradoxically, these defunctionalizations have given us some of the most narrative compositions in history, since life, as we know well, is certainly not a straight road with a beautiful, clear, and gigantic pre-established goal. Excluding death, obviously. If teleology identifies a goal, narrativity should identify and make sense of a path.

this teases me ... it is the aspiration of all composers ... to create something unexpected that arouses interest/surprise etc. while remaining within one's own style.

thallo wrote:

4) from the previous point, another consequence arises, also outlined by Frank. Narrativity is not only harmonic; it is not made only of tensions and harmonic functions, but is more complex. The role of REPETITION, for example, is fundamental. And it is in a discourse "between" teleology and narrativity that the concept of DEVELOPMENT is situated. Because, let us remember, developing a musical element does not serve to reach the goal, but to delay reaching it, to create a path. In fact, paradoxically, if we consider the repetitive, reformulating factor of development, we could say that variation is explicitly a method for forcing the temporal direction of music.

ave encountered this aspect while studying Chopin's Nocturne Op. 55 in F minor. Measures 2-3 are repeated 5 times on one page, especially at the beginning, 4 times one after another.

The teacher told me: you cannot play them all the same, it would be boring ... the notes are always the same.

In this case, everything is left to the performer ... Chopin wrote the same notes except for a small appoggiatura ... how do we deal with that?

Either Chopin was too far ahead of his time or the Romantics had already thought of what Thallo said.

thallo wrote:

Because, let us remember, processing a musical element does not serve to reach the goal, but to delay its achievement, to create a path.

Those who know Webern how he enters into this discourse with his aphoristic style... that is why he has become extinct

Why, Mahler hasn't... died out?

to say that Webern has died out, then... he is one of the composers who has most influenced the generations after him!

@RStrauss, I am not a great connoisseur of Chopin, but since time immemorial, what is written is never written by chance. Fixed ideas, ostinatos, cantus firmi have been present in our music for centuries, and if you want to emphasize their presence, you must inevitably approach repetition with... respect. As a listener, I like repetition, and sometimes I like hearing it exactly the same. I like minimalism, not by chance.

Astronomical speech for me, I read in amazement. Thank you!

I read this discussion with great interest. But sometimes, when 'big words' start flying around, I often tend to misunderstand the concepts. I found thallo's intervention very illuminating, to which I am now referring. Speaking of the concepts of TELEOLOGY and NARRATIVITY... just to see if I have understood the concepts correctly:

TELEOLOGY = 'vital' concept that characterizes the language used (e.g., bimodal tonic-dominant opposition for the tonal system; de-hierarchization of sounds for serial dodecaphony; etc.)

NARRATIVITY = coherent path identified within the form (fugue, sonata, improvisation, variation, etc.)

is this essentially how things stand?

ScalaQuaranta

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

NARRATIVITÀ = coherent path that is identified in the form (fugue, sonata, improvisation, variation, etc.)

Not necessarily... I was writing exactly that narrativity is that capacity of music to be remembered. It is not the form that decides this, or rather, it can be used as an ingredient to pursue the goal of narrating... or not.

Not exactly, at least not in my discourse.

Teleology literally means discourse oriented toward an end, toward a goal. It is often said that the historical vision of Christianity is teleological because they believe history is oriented toward the apocalypse and the resurrection. In theory, teleology speaks of "an" end (purpose), not "an" end (termination).

The classical tonal system is teleological because its syntax should have a final goal. The goal is the resolution of all tensions onto the tonic. It is not teleological because there are tensions, but because it is felt or taken for granted that those tensions will resolve. From this comes an entire series of compositional, analytical, and listening theories that bring in anticipation, the construction of anticipation, and forward-directed discourse. In the final years of the 1900s, a US musicological movement generically called "New Musicology" began to speak of teleology by criticizing it. And comparing it, in a structuralist vein, to the male orgasm :-) i.e., a progressive construction of tension (harmonic, melodic, expressive) that leads to a final climax. The point is that this is NOT the only way to write music. A rondo, with its repetitive construction, is teleological only up to a certain point; the very long duet in the second act of Tristan und Isolde is not teleological at all, at least not in a macro-formal sense; much dance music is not teleological, much ancient music is not; modal music is only partially so, precisely because some tensions are experienced in a less structuring way than in the tonal system—that is, for example (as I was saying), the sequence of cadences is not regulated by tension functions according to the ascending circle of fifths, in short.

Narrativity, on the other hand, is a less technical and more metaphorical characteristic. You defined it as a coherent path that identifies itself within form. Traditionally, this may be a correct definition, but micro-forms should also be included among forms. It is not just the "that's it" sonata form that makes a composition narrative (as much as sonata form is very narrative), it is the use of thematicism, development, organicism, and processuality. The use of Leitmotifs in Wagner, for example, is not tied to specific forms. But his works are narrative in a very profound way precisely because, regardless of form, there is a continuous development of musical ideas. The narrative charge of a piece also develops through timbre, characterizing an instrument or a group of instruments. Perhaps if I looked somewhere I would find a good definition, but perhaps I could define narrativity as the ability of a musical piece to drag the listener into a forced journey.

I forgot, for this reason

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

TELEOLOGY = 'vital' concept that characterizes the language used (e.g., bimodal tonic-dominant opposition, for the tonal system; de-hierarchization of sounds for serial dodecaphony; etc.)

The de-hierarchization was performed on the scale degrees, because that is where it occurred... but in the end, the bipolarity shifted to pitches... so in works where dodecaphony has become more mature, you find the same two opposing poles, represented precisely by certain pitches.

thallo wrote:

It is not the "that's it" sonata form that makes a composition narrative (as much as sonata form is very narrative), it is the use of tematism, development, organicism, and processuality.

Exactly, according to Scala, you can use a sonata form but in the recapitulation use a technique of developing the material (specifically material and not theme) that makes it unrecognizable to you... even though it maintains all its internal coherence.

Aurally, you probably wouldn't even recognize the recapitulation, but conceptually, that form has organized your material. Therefore, it remains a sonata form... non-narrative

thanks thallo and thanks frank

for your clarifications!