Processing, narrativity and consequentiality in music

Bianca wrote:

You see then that even context is not enough, but there must be a characteristic of the musical object.

... I fear that with your Fugue you have not succeeded in changing my (not just mine, as I was not the only one to notice some problems with "cohesion") way of listening to Fugues.

Believe me, a paradigm shift is one of the most difficult things a composer can manage to do. In fact, only the "greats" succeed, those who make music history: their ideas (aesthetics, musical thought, call them what you will) are so strong that they end up imposing themselves. And there is no little formula to achieve this result.

RedScharlach wrote:

In fact, only the "greats" succeed, those who make music history: their ideas (aesthetics, musical thought, call them what you will) are so strong that they end up imposing themselves. And there is no little formula to achieve this result.

Let's say that even a seasoned composer has the means and good odds of succeeding... the last competition in memory of Gesualdo proposed creating a piece by taking from 3 pieces specifically by Gesualdo. I doubt they were expecting Renaissance counterpoint.

Then it depends on the material, not everything can be decontextualized... skill also lies in choosing when and where to venture.

Eagle wrote:

Regarding

> only a few notes are needed to evoke a multitude of stylistic and aesthetic references, which then go on to outline a listening context

There is also a matter of language and syntax, which perhaps is the core of the issue. You cannot start with a tonal context, only to occasionally insert spectralism and structuralism.

Aesthetically and stylistically it could potentially exist, but it will lack coherence. No?

I don't know. Just imagine if one day the local "genius" arrives and convinces you otherwise. To the vast majority of people, even serial music still seems absurd today. Unless, by definition, we mean that musical coherence requires that if you start with a system, you must carry it through to the end, which could also be true—I'm not saying no.

It doesn't talk about music, but just as an example ...

http://books.google.it/books?id=dyPusXZQ6YIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Complexity+and+Contradiction+in+Architecture&hl=it&sa=X&ei=rHM4Uou1H4mQ4gSt2oCQCg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Complexity%20and%20Contradiction%20in%20Architecture&f=false

And anyway, why preclude a path a priori? Why can't there be a work whose very goal is to research the ways of coexistence between two different systems, such as tonal and serial, and that shows its coherence precisely in this? Are we not in the era of total integration? What I think needs to be considered is the ability of this eventual music to be pleasing to an audience. From here on, the problem of aesthetic evaluation begins...

Bianca wrote:

I don't know. Just think if one day the local "genius" arrives and convinces you otherwise.

Sure, but none of the greats ever did it... I read a post among many others that made the classic parallelism: if you give a lecture and speak in English (let's say tonal) and then at a certain point you change and start speaking Spanish (spectralism), rest assured that you have lost the audience; whoever came to hear you and stayed based their choice on the premise.... it's too convenient (for whom?) to change paths later. It is a deception; let's just say that instead of the classic stroke of genius, to me it seems like a "moment of brilliance" [in a sarcastic sense]. Ultimately, without bringing in the greats, anyone when they started writing put a bit of everything in their first pieces... but as they say, without being credible...

Afterward, one flips through a library of scores and realizes that all the greats do something else

RedScharlach wrote:

... I fear that with your Fugue you haven't managed to change my (not just mine, as I wasn't the only one to notice some issues with "cohesion") way of listening to Fugues.

I don't know, it doesn't seem to me that it has anything to do with the discussion we are having.

The fact is that even if that were the case,

RedScharlach wrote:

i cannot imagine any hypothetical composition, however heterogeneous and disconnected, that cannot be listened to as a coherent whole

is a statement that leads to contradictions.

Furthermore, context is a very fluid thing; for example, you cite one of my fugues, but there were actually 2 fugues, one with and one without countersubject, written with the same "pattern". I believe no one noticed this fact, simply because it was not (and will not be) explained or highlighted contextually.

What I mean is that context is fundamental to understanding a musical object, as for any other object for that matter, but it is not sufficient while the characteristics of the object are binding and reasonably fixed.

This obviously, regardless of the mentioned workshop, applies to anyone's music.

Anyway, for the sake of the record:

....

Organista94

I must say that I liked both RStrauss's fugue and Bianca's improvisation. Besides, I find Bianca's to be very unique but it maintains its pleasantness.

Zaccaria

I am asking Bianca if it is possible to release the score... I am struggling to do an analysis by ear.

Thank you and compliments, on a first listen I find it pleasant.

Piccinesco

I like Bianca's, especially for the very fast part shortly after the beginning; afterwards it becomes "sick" (usually I mean pieces that go where you don't expect them to),

it would need a real performance with a certain agogics to highlight the various strategic passages; taking care of this aspect would also improve the perception of details, whereas

totally it seems both regular and confusing, but I am used to these things

AbateFaria

Pleasant piece Bianca, a bit crazy though... score?

raffaeleb

Modern writing in Bianca's. I like it very much, compliments. In fact, the fugue form is not very clear; it seems very free indeed. Indeed, the premise of "Improvisation" is appropriate.

Frank

Regarding Bianca's fugue, for now I can only say that the starting material is always recognizable and more often than not revisited; I listened to 3 others on the pieces and I find myself in what could be her stylistic goals. Recognizability is always important in my opinion...

Aspirante

@Bianca.

Do you happen to have an mp3 of your latest fugue?

Margherita1

Very unique, Bianca's; I hope she publishes the mp3 for the second proposal as well...

Aspirante

Deep down, Bianca's fire attracts me, but I must say that indeed sometimes it is "degenerative"...

geppino12575

I like it too; if I hadn't found anything in it, I wouldn't have even replied..."

However, Bianca is a synthesis (the first line) of the comments... I have pointed out quite a few things to her, going by memory: someone wrote: "Establish a rule and follow it", someone else gave you a list of various things to fix and then told you that once these are fixed, others will pop up. I myself didn't just write a bit of "crazy talk" [pazzerello]... after all, I am not one to trample on the work of others, so I guarantee you that in the "crazy talk" there was much of the discussion that I am re-reading in this topic...

Still going by memory... someone even wrote about boredom and you replied something like: my goal was not to bore myself

Now, I haven't re-read everything, but in my opinion, the overall set of comments says that you have ideas, you want to pursue your goals, but you lack the craft (also made up of rules) that would allow you to make your work credible (...so imposing an aesthetic? Imposing a way of listening? ... I don't know).

Then, from memory, you posted two works; the comments are certainly not referring to the same 2 fugues, for example, the inconsistencies increased if you look at the work that inherits the CS [Continuo/Continuo Style] of Corelli, precisely because the constraints on tonality have increased. 2 voices, more references regarding verticality.

Having said that, very amicably and without any pretension of convincing or being polemical

Bianca wrote:

I don't know. Just think if one day the "genius" of the hour arrives and convinces you otherwise. To the vast majority of people, even serial music still seems absurd today.

I think I can sense where the problem lies. That "genius" in quotes says quite clearly what is eating at you... The fear of confusing a genius with a charlatan... But don't worry! In my opinion, history takes its course.

Furthermore, I repeat, you are not taking the context into due account. The "vast majority of people" do not listen to serial music. In reality, the "vast majority of people" do not even listen to classical music. But that is not the point. The point is that serial music succeeded, in its time, in creating a context for itself: narrow, specialized, elitist, evidently, but still a context that cannot be ignored because it had its role in the history of music.

Bianca wrote:

Why can't there be a work whose very objective is to research the ways of coexistence between two different systems, such as tonal and serial, and which shows its coherence precisely in this? Are we not in the era of total integration?

I am curious: is this search for coexistence between tonality and serialism an aesthetic project of yours? Because it seems to me a truly daunting task, and certainly worthy of admiration. I wonder, however, what its meaning could be today, when serialism itself is nothing more than a historicized style from almost a century ago.

Forgive me anyway for insisting on your Fugue; I thought it would be useful to explain what I meant, but evidently I was wrong. Anyway, good luck with your composition work!

AbateFaria wrote:

Having said that, very lightheartedly and without any intention of convincing or being polemical

Of course, the fact is that we weren't talking about me here (at least I thought). Bringing something personal into an abstract discussion is never a good sign. Usually, it can be interpreted as a lack of arguments.

Bianca wrote:

Of course, the fact is that we weren't talking about me here (at least I thought). Bringing something personal into an abstract discussion is never a good sign. Usually, it can be interpreted as a lack of arguments.

Ah, I see... sorry for the intrusion

From my point of view, integrating two different languages requires the birth of a third language; I don't know with how much effort or what results in the case of tonality and serialism (integral ?).

Clearly, integrating is different from juxtaposing… it can be interesting to listen to and observe in Britten (Duets) the clear references to tonality, but also to dodecaphony at certain points.

The point is to understand which elements are taken from one system and the other, and how they are used or how they are fused.

Regarding historicization, I am not certain that serialism is a style, probably a language. At this point, I don't think a language can be historicized, and Stravinsky taught us that with dodecaphony. In reality, even today, dodecaphony is a genre that comes and goes; pieces are requested that evoke certain atmospheres (especially in film music it can find a good placement), clearly if someone wants to use dodecaphony today they must at least start from Stravinsky, so the style belongs to the composer who, "more than historicized," will be "of a composer" (whether living or deceased)... the language is there ready to be used and eventually evolved.

I hope I have explained myself "well"... well?!