Processing, narrativity and consequentiality in music

micamahler wrote:

Whereas instead, who knows why, the leading tone one day, instead of resolving, will prefer to stay there and not resolve by rising a semitone, it won't be acceptable to some, but yes to others; anyway, that is what it will do, and then the rule "the leading tone must resolve to the tonic" will be replaced by "often the leading tone resolves to the tonic"! And then one will have to, as you were saying, find small theories that work for every example, or find a general one that contains quite a few exceptions.

Reflection. Let's take a piece of music that from the very first bars begins to characterize itself in an aesthetic where the leading tone doesn't "stay there" but descends... can you continue the example?

What do I mean? That on a single element the reasoning is very clear, but it implies the evolutionary variable of a language which today, in its rules, provides that the leading tone descends (or sometimes even rises), then its descent is delayed, and finally it stays there... but the context is made of many things and is "frozen" in that moment of life of a certain language... made of harmony, flourish, orchestration, instrumentation, motion of parts, etc.

Let's pretend that all the elements used in a piece are extremely classical (I mean classicism)... because then at a certain point something must arrive that doesn't quite fit with the initial syntactic premises? (I mean linguistically speaking, because the descending leading tone is a grammatical rule.... a set of rules can frame a style/an aesthetic. In the general framework, in how a composition becomes characterized). Clearly, an incongruity is found: of taste and aesthetics.

Now, this always holds when the language is shared and it always works when we speak of traditional works and particularly tonal ones.

Today the codes are open; it becomes difficult to apply this approach... essentially since everyone has their own code, everyone can do as they please, everyone plays their own language (let's hope someone understands them) and at most one can say I like it/I don't like it.

Even technical criticism in "ad personam" contexts is inapplicable, because someone will always respond that in their own language that technical behavior is provided for.

But there is always a "but"; assuming that this belief can be more or less shared (though many truly believe it), the problem I generally encounter is that if one starts making stylistic references, such a number of incongruities are created to the point that it becomes inevitable to assert one's own stylistic signature and therefore fall into the "ad personam" where everything is "permissible."

Thus, those who have a signature (see Xenakis, Tetras? Stockhausen Mantra? Do we want to talk about Varese's techniques?) can afford to overturn everything and change the rules... those who do not have a signature risk becoming incoherent.

The most difficult thing from my point of view, which is perhaps what triggered the initial discussion, is decontextualizing the starting material. The limit between stylistic reference and decontextualization is very thin. Who can establish this? The answer can also be simple: scores are always very clear about this. If one stays too much within a stylization (the time necessary to characterize a piece in a certain aesthetic)... automatically what follows is subject to a certain type of technical criticism... because it is outside the "ad personam," outside the experiment... outside the attempt to demonstrate anything musical/extramusical (unless these same elements fall within the very aesthetics declared... but then there would be no decontextualization).

(U)nfortunately in music, what arrives is what shows itself and not what is demonstrated, because eventually the demonstration itself is a "what" of music."}

I'll try to give my two cents; this topic is very interesting also because it concerns a crucial point of composing linked, as already stated, to the "tempo" parameter.

I will try to give an opinion on the matter from a composer's perspective, referring to the pragmatism of the creative activity itself without bringing in purely musicological issues (Thallo is a seasoned musicologist, which is naturally evident from his writings on the Forum. I believe he is much more prepared than me in this sense; if he wishes, he can enlighten me on matters that perhaps are not clear to me or that I know little about).

Therefore, "narrativity" (which I prefer to call "dramatization") cannot fail to exist in any musical piece independent of elements such as text, scenes, etc.

Narrative progression exists in Mozart's Symphonies, Haydn's Symphonies, Beethoven's, in Bach's concertos, and in Debussy's Preludes. It is represented by the formal structure of the piece, in which every section has a precise expressive function (managed by rhetoric).

Since the climax is an indispensable formal-rhetorical element for any piece, it already allows us to trace a narrative arc, because there is a "before" (the preparation of tension and its accumulation) and an "after" (explosion and dispersion of tension, liquidation of the thematic elements used).

Every composer has then managed this elementary narrative archetype in a constantly different way, using different starting schemes and precise rhetorical figures codified in Baroque compositional practice (Quintilian in Bach, chromaticism, duriusculus, etc.), recodified by the authors themselves based on their own symbolic-expressive choices and wills (this is what happens from Haydn onwards).

In an interview, Steve Reich says that narrativity disappeared with the collapse of Romanticism and the revolution of the avant-garde... in my opinion, he meant a certain type of narration conditioned by tonality and form as they were managed in the past; this is why the period of the four main aesthetics of the second half of the 1900s (structuralism, aleatoric, spectralism, minimalism) was useful for reordering things. Today, in 2013, the concept of narrativity can be transferred to formal, structural, and expressive systems with a totally new connotation.

As early as Franco Donatoni, in the '80s, based his pieces on static panel forms in which each section contained multiple points of tension and rest, calibrated differently depending on the situation (naturally, I was using climax as a generic element, given that there are main climaxes, micro-climaxes, accumulations, etc.).

To realize how narrativity was already considered a fundamental element of formal construction in the '70s, I propose this listening:

what do you think of this dramatization? Is there or is there not a clear rhetorical strategy behind it?

Open content (youtube)

Feldman wrote:

Even Franco Donatoni, in the '80s, based his pieces on static panel forms in which each section contained multiple points of tension and rest, calibrated differently depending on the situation (naturally I used 'climax' as a generic element, given that there are main climaxes, micro-climaxes, accumulations, etc.)

To realize how narrativity was already considered a fundamental element of formal construction in the '70s, I propose this listening to you:

what do you think of this dramatization? Is there or is there not a clear rhetorical strategy behind it?

Povero Donatoni, he must be turning in his grave!

Open content (youtube)

RedScharlach wrote:

Povero Donatoni, si starà rivoltando nella tomba!

He's certainly turning in his grave, because of individuals like you for sure, ahahahahahah!!!

Excuse me, but I am used to receiving constructive criticism based on objective logical reasoning. A comment like yours is worth zero (not even less, negative integers are not worthy of such comments). Good luck, I wish you improvement. You can do it!

... wasn't Red referring to the execution? He seems like a calm guy, never made a outburst like this towards a user... strange. In my opinion, it wasn't directed at your comment but an allusion to something that I am missing

Be good boys, I am sure that Red will give his due reasons...

Xenakis wrote:

... wasn't Red referring to the performance?

No no, don't worry, I was referring to Feldman's post! Of course, I understand the premise: a composer's approach, where musicological issues are not brought into play. This does not mean that one can claim everything and its opposite, and that a minimum of objectivity is not possible.

Associating Donatoni with narrativity is truly disheartening. I cannot recall a single place where he mentions it (and he has written quite a bit). He has spoken about the theater of composing, certainly, and if we want to discuss that, it makes sense: dramaturgy could be an interesting topic. But let's not confuse dramaturgy with narrativity, please. In this way, literal distortions are created in the interpretation of the authors' compositional thought and the historical significance of the compositions. The image of the spiral, which illustrates the concept of the sequence of "static panels," stands at the opposite pole of the idea of narrativity.

I won't dwell too much on the climax as an "indispensable formal-rhetorical element for any piece": it seems to me a rhetorical approach in the most trivial sense of the term... but these are precisely the choices that every composer makes, and therefore as a choice by Feldman/a composer, I am perfectly fine with it (even if all in all, I don't see good old J.S. Bach constantly hunting for climaxes at every turn).

RedScharlach wrote:

No no, don't worry, I was referring to the Feldman post! Of course, I understand the premise: a composer's approach, musicological issues are not brought into play. This does not mean that one can claim everything and its opposite, and that a minimum of objectivity is not possible.

No comment.

RedScharlach wrote:

Associating Donatoni with narrativity is truly disheartening. I don't recall a single place where he mentions it (and he has written quite a bit). He spoke of the theater of composing, certainly, and if we want to discuss that, it makes sense: dramaturgy could be an interesting topic. But let's not confuse dramaturgy with narrativity, please. In this way, literal distortions are created in the interpretation of the authors' compositional thought and the historical significance of the compositions. The image of the spiral, which illustrates the concept of the "static panels" sequence, stands at the opposite pole of the idea of narrativity.

It makes them fall for you, perhaps. Donatoni never spoke of narrativity. He spoke of dramaturgy... and so? Explain to me the difference between narrativity and dramaturgy, excuse me? I'm curious.... then, if you want, we can also talk about spirals and static panels. Explain to me why it stands at the opposite pole of narrativity? It is too easy to say without explaining it. The point is something else: any form (and I repeat, any) has its own narrative structure, by necessity. I have already told you why; I spoke to you about the basic narrative archetype of any formal structure. Now it's your turn, please explain your thought to me, I would like to understand the reasoning that you haven't made yet.

RedScharlach wrote:

I won't go on too long about the climax as an "indispensable formal-rhetorical element for any piece": it seems like a rhetorical approach in the most trivial sense of the term... but these are precisely choices that every composer makes, and therefore as a choice of Feldman/a composer, I am perfectly fine with it (even if all in all I don't see good old J.S. Bach hunting for climaxes at every turn).

try to find me a single composition WITHOUT a buildup of tension. Find it for me and I can reconsider my statement. Naturally, a musical composition... surely it exists just as surely as flying mountains that talk exist.

Then, if you have the time and inclination, please try to explain to me how a composition can result in being pleasant on a perceptual level without a minimum of accumulated tension... explain it to me because I can't figure it out.

If, then, according to you, a composition MUST NOT be pleasant on a perceptual level... I respect your personal consideration. Just as I respect Piero Manzoni as the creator of something that provoked certain reactions in a certain historical period (very negative reactions from my side, but that is my thought).

I forgot Bach: he wasn't hunting for climaxes, he simply realized culminating points at a formal level following Quintilian's rhetorical scheme and applying the rhetorical figures of his time to build a narrative arc.

Please guys, express your thoughts strongly but without resorting to personal attacks. Argumentation is the best way.

Frank wrote:

Please guys, express your thoughts forcefully but without resorting to personal attacks. Argumentation is the best means.

It is clear that everyone has subjective considerations to make; this is how a debate is created. But, forgive me, when making a criticism, one must do so by explaining why, with complete reasoning. Personally, I have identified two types of criticism:

1) contrasting reasoning based on objective analysis and comparison of elements

2) hot air

i believe this is a useful scheme to understand who really has something to say and who is just talking for the sake of talking, right?

First of all, I apologize to Feldman and the other users for the 12:36 post. Next time, when I don't have the time to write, I will avoid intervening!

As far as narrativity is concerned, if I remember correctly, Thallo wrote a nice post in which they explained in detail that it is a metaphor, and provided some useful interpretations for this concept.

I read above instead that narrativity is linked to the climax, to tension-release, and so on. But this, in itself, is not an argument: it is an assertion that transforms the concept of narrativity into a convenient passepartout applicable indiscriminately to Bach Haydn Mozart Beethoven Debussy... and lastly, even to Donatoni. Now, it is one thing to use the concept of narrativity for the Viennese classics: after all, the narrative paradigm has from the beginning been exemplified in sonata form. It is another thing to extend it to Bach (you rightly cite Quintilian: but oratory is not in itself a type of narration, but rather of argumentation, and argumentation is not necessarily narrative!), and to Debussy (which might even hold up, despite the crisis of narration described by Benjamin in 1936 being long since at hand). But Donatoni, at least him, doesn't fit at all! Donatoni read constantly, and reading was for him a "school of thought" as much as the study of composers; but in his ideal library (it is not difficult to reconstruct it, based on his writings), where do you find narrative archetypes? His models were Beckett, Kafka, Musil, Saint John of the Cross, Wu Ch’êng-ên, Blanchot - and let's even leave out Wittgenstein and Adorno. So much for narrativity! Let's just add Borges to the list... Do you hear climaxes or micro-climaxes in Lumen? Very well, I gladly grant them to you (in fact, I too sense a sort of paroxysm - quite astonishing, given the scarcity of means), but these do not automatically imply a form of narration.

I repeat, if a composer misinterprets, that's perfectly fine with me. What matters, in the end, is their music. But here we are not presenting ourselves with our music, but with words!

As far as I am concerned, I have already intervened more than once in this discussion to explain how I felt about narrativity, etc... Therefore, I will avoid copy-pasting.

RedScharlach wrote:

First of all, I apologize to Feldman and the other users for the post at 12:36.

These are things that are good to read

I suspected it Red, well done... this is one of the most beautiful parts of our forum

RedScharlach wrote:

First of all, I apologize to Feldman and the other users for the post at 12:36. Next time, when I don't have the time to write, I will avoid intervening!

I am satisfied with this response of yours and I thank you; now I better understand your thinking and your criticism.

RedScharlach wrote:

As far as narrativity is concerned, if I remember correctly, Thallo wrote a nice post in which they explained in detail that it is a metaphor, and provided some useful interpretations for this concept.

Yes, I was reading. And all of this is interesting, even if everyone can have their own personal way of seeing the same thing, right?

In the sense that: for you, narrativity and dramaturgy exist. For me, narrativities and narrative archetypes exist... same thing, different terms.

Without looking into what a metaphor is and isn't, the psychology department of the University of Trento states quite clearly "narrativity: phenomena of narrative formulation... paradigms, paradigms, figures, topoi generated by the narrative-interpretative process". In this sense, there are well-defined archetypes that vary in literature depending on authors, eras, and aesthetics. I wanted to say that, at the base of any narrative archetype, there exists a "base archetype" which proves to be the narrative foundation of any piece, of any era, of any aesthetic (except for precise parentheses, such as cases of the avant-garde; reference was made to Webern's aphorism in this sense). The fact is that, starting from the base archetype, narrativity (a term that, moreover, isn't even found in dictionaries) is nothing more than the set of interaction processes between the thematic elements of a musical composition. This interaction gives the elements an "in becoming" connotation (therefore diachronic) and highlights their formal "vectoriality," i.e., the "tending towards" a certain point in an always irregular manner. Then, every composer has a preference for a specific narrative archetype (as you were saying, Donatoni had literary points of reference in this sense, which he used, adapting them, in a musical context). An inverse example of this process that denotes the capacity of Donatoni we are talking about is his first book, "Questo", where the transfer of a syntax applied musically into a literary context occurs.

RedScharlach wrote:

I read instead above that narrativity is linked to climax, tension-relaxation, and so on. But this, in itself, is not an argument: it is an assertion that transforms the concept of narrativity into a convenient passepartout applicable indiscriminately to Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy... and lastly, even Donatoni. Now, it's one thing to use the concept of narrativity for the Viennese classics: after all, the narrative paradigm has been exemplified from the beginning in sonata form. It is another thing to extend it to Bach (you rightly cite Quintilian: but oratory is not in itself a type of narration, but rather of argumentation, and argumentation is not necessarily narrative!), and to Debussy (which could also work, despite the crisis of narration described by Benjamin in 1936 being already at the doorstep). But Donatoni, at least he, doesn't get it right at all!

I do not believe the complementarity between narration and argumentation needs analysis given the obviousness of the matter. If I use a narrative archetype, the interaction automatically occurs through narrative strategies proper to what you call argumentation. When the strategies "crystallize" into an archetype... do you want to separate things? It is difficult to divide Siamese twins....

RedScharlach wrote:

Donatoni read continuously, and reading was for him a "school of thought" as much as the study of composers; but in his ideal library (it's not hard to reconstruct it, based on his writings), where do you find narrative archetypes? His models were Beckett, Kafka, Musil, Saint John of the Cross, Wu Ch’êng-ên, Blanchot—and let's even leave out Wittgenstein and Adorno. To hell with narrativity! Let's put Borges in the list too... Do you hear any climaxes or micro-climaxes in Lumen? Very well, I gladly grant them to you (in fact, I also sense a sort of paroxysm—quite astonishing, given the scarcity of means), but these do not automatically imply a form of narration.

Oh, it certainly implies a form of narration! Already the differentiation between climax and micro-climax creates a hierarchy in narrative events and underlines their strategy. Otherwise, I don't understand why make such large distinctions between aspects that live by the same logic. Perhaps, in form, they present the due differences... and that is how archetypes are differentiated.

RedScharlach wrote:

I repeat, if a composer misinterprets, I am perfectly fine with it. What matters, ultimately, is their music. However, here"}

we are not presenting ourselves with our music, but with words!

As far as I am concerned, I have already intervened more than once in this discussion to explain how I felt about narrativity, etc... Therefore, I avoid copying and pasting.

I understand what you mean, the problem is that we have two different visions of the same thing. Anyway, if we were to abandon terminologies, double meanings, coincidences, etc., in essence I am TOTALLY in agreement with you.

hmm.... But is Indian classical music narrative?

... come, I was joking 🙂

Anyway, I wanted to clarify that I have nothing against climax and anticlimax, but only with how mechanical it tends to be associated with them. For example, Mauro Lanza is capable of building incredible climaxes, which in a certain sense are themselves a parody of the classic idea of climax: a sort of paradoxical climaxes, which I find at the same time irresistible and unsettling. See, for example, Der Kampf zwischen Karneval und Fasten or the conclusion of Aschenblume!

I am sorry that I cannot participate in the discussion very often, I am in Sicily and have little time...

But regarding the possible difference between narrativity and dramatization, there would be much to say. Everyone has the right to choose and formulate the terms they want, obviously; what would be important is to clarify their implications thoroughly. The simplest question to clarify any differences between narrativity and dramatization would be: can dramatization exist without narrativity? And narrativity without dramatization? If it makes sense to take the two terms as elaborations of "storytelling" on one hand and "staging something" on the other, there is evidence in favor of the fact that stories can be told without being staged and that events can be staged without necessarily being told. These are subtle differences, perhaps, but I suspect we can discuss them profitably, especially when talking about music.

Two questions, then:

Does narrativity exist without thematicism? I think so. I had also alluded to this.

Does musical dramaticity exist without musical rhetoric? Practically every performative act presupposes dramaticity, i.e., someone on the stage, but not necessarily a rhetoric related to the composition. This is a fairly recent field of study. Let us remember that performers do not only narrate the story of the score; they narrate their own story, the story of the performer who plays. It sounds like wordplay, but in a world where the same repertoire is constantly repeated, whose narrative strength diminishes each time, the performance takes the place of the score.

I'll add one more thing, a small nod to the discussion on the climax.

Premising that many of the terms we use are "flexible," let's not confuse narrativity with what is often called "gesturality." A musical "gesture" is an element to which listeners and experts consciously or unconsciously assign musical meaning. These musical meanings can also be narrative archetypes, but they are often so "basic" that they are something less. The cadence is a gesture, the chord is a gesture, parallel motion is a gesture. The concept of gesture and gesturality was developed precisely with contemporary music, which, while not being precisely narrative, takes up "structural" elements of narrative music—elements that are, in a sense, rhetorical. When you have a composition so messy that it communicates nothing clearly, then you start looking for gestures, such as harmonic, rhythmic, or syntactic clusters. The analysis of Webern by Lachenmann that we were mentioning is actually a calculation of a series of "gestures" that can also be interpreted in a rhetorical sense, i.e., narrative.

The climax can be a rhetorical figure, but it can also be a gesture. What is the difference between the two? Well, assuming there is a difference (in the sense that every musicologist has an opinion on the matter), in my opinion, everything depends on the situation. I believe that narrativity, and the rhetoric upon which it is based, must presuppose an audience capable of understanding it. Gesturality can even be almost incomprehensible; its role, its effect on listening, is sometimes almost unconscious. If I decide that that augmented sixth chord evokes the London fog for me (...), then as a composer, I will try to make sure that thing is understood. It is a rhetorical element serving the narrativity of my composition. If I only want to give "texture" to the composition, if at a certain point I want to "cluster" what was previously an incomprehensible mess, then I can insert 5 notes played simultaneously, which will have the appearance of a chord and, in a sense, the role of a chord. That will be a gesture, rather than a true narrative element (or a true chord).

Climaxes are gestures that are quite easy to create and recognize. But the structuring value of a Rossinian crescendo is different from the structuring value of, I don't know, the addition of sound planes in Steve Reich's Music for 18 Musicians.

I must make an official request to "tidibits" in their capacity as administrator, to stop publishing links that incite forum members to connect to their own site, as this contravenes the netiquette rule on SPAM. Next time I will have to proceed with a ban.

Regards

I find it simpler to consider narrativity and dramatization as synonyms. It is clear that the term "dramatization" can also be used to describe external processes (as you say, considering the performers and the staging of something).

I believe that using the term dramatization when talking about composition means talking about the narrative strategies internal to the piece in question.

Furthermore, I believe it is impossible for narrativity to exist without tematism; I cannot conceive of it. I have read several pages of musicology discussing conferences on the concept of figure, musical gesture, tematism, athematism, tonality, atonality.... mental masturbation in my opinion. In one article, it was said that Donatoni used "thematism" only in certain works and not in others, when it is enough to analyze his works—but above all, to write music—to understand that tematism is a constant always present in the practice of every composer (except for specific cases related to modernist aesthetics which have obviously retired today and rightly left a beautiful legacy to those writing today).

Every composition has thematic objects; if we were to schematize it in a mathematical sense, we could describe it with a set... of elements (certainly not an empty set, given that it is impossible to have one: even John Cage's 4'33" is apparently not empty, since perception nonetheless concerns elements external to the performance, aleatory ones, which demonstrated to us that "silence" effectively does not exist). In what way does tematism develop? Very simple: an element (note, timbre, effect, etc.) just needs to be part of a vector, having a directionality that materializes in transformative processes, in what is traditionally defined as development (although we could argue about the entirely Schoenbergian difference between elaboration and development, which does not concern me since the constant in this case is the evolution of the material). That said, it is precisely the material that represents the tematism of a piece. The way in which the elements constituting this material interact at a narrative level is called dramatization, narrativity, or who knows what other strange term.

Regarding the definition of Gesture, I am in absolute agreement with that genius Lachenmann, but also with Donatoni, Berio, Solbiati, and Fedele if necessary. The gesture is nothing more than the thematic element I was talking about before, only defined based on its dynamic condition. The same element in an "inertial" condition (and here I am playing the Marco De Natale of the situation) is traditionally defined as a "figure." The gesture is nothing more than the "figure" in becoming, i.e., placed on a diachronic plane and therefore linked to a narrative, dramatic itinerary.

On climax, I agree with you. Of course, they are not easy to create; there can be precise archetypes. On a general level, I prefer to speak of "tensile accumulation" to define an increase in agitation. The ways in which this occurs are based on the typology of the archetype. It can be a heterogeneous accumulation, a dense multiplication, a crescendo, an ascending vector with progressive narrowing of phraseological structures, etc.; it can be a climax or micro-climax; it can be placed at the end of a section, in its center, or at the beginning (if intended as a tension "bang").

RedScharlach wrote:

hmm.... But is Indian classical music narrative?

... come, I was joking

Anyway, I wanted to clarify that I have nothing against climax and anticlimax, but only with how mechanical it tends to be associated with them. For example, Mauro Lanza is capable of building incredible climaxes, which in a certain sense are themselves a parody of the classic idea of climax: a sort of paradoxical climaxes, which I find at the same time irresistible and unsettling. See for example Der Kampf zwischen Karneval und Fasten or the conclusion of Aschenblume!

Goodness, he is a composer I don't know. I will try to listen to the pieces you indicated