Proposal for new composition rules

Joking aside, I have always wondered how on earth one gets an idea of the whole thing, just by reading it. Perhaps it's not possible. What is this thing?

The new rules of the old days could be:

- no more black notes (shaken by the chromatic madrigal)

- in every madrigal at least one rhythmic pattern of a quarter (anapest)

- Only one change of tone in a semitone per piece (shaken by musica ficta)

- recommendation for prolations

- etc.

I only have a doubt about how many time signatures to allow, I wouldn't want to weigh down the score

You haven't even said what it is or who the score you attached belongs to. Your respect for the work of others amazes me every time.

And, for the record, it is said "AD" nonsense, not "AB" nonsense. Even your dog Latin leaves much to be desired...

Still, to avoid being off-topic, I will express my views on the idea of "new rules for composition". They are the offspring of a frustrated mind. And I am not referring to Shark—as obvious as the irony behind my words may be—I am referring specifically to the nature of the rules. The mania for regulation is the child of a frustrated need for control. Everyone, to varying degrees, has the desire to keep their own perceptions under control; the unknown and the unknowable cause anxiety to anyone. Dealing with events in which one recognizes clear regulation calms us; it calms us even more to deal with events that respond to OUR regulation.

The mania for control and the breaking of all control are two of the preferred developmental paths of artistic movements of all times. And I am speaking of art in general, not just music. Perhaps Shark doesn't know it, but establishing an inapplicable rule is an absurd "ironic" act that lies at the very base of even the umbrella composition we jokingly discussed elsewhere. Conceptual art, in fact, is the final stage both of the line of breaking control (I don't need rules, so I go beyond the material) and of the line of control (I have imposed so many rules on myself that I can only do things wrong). The "game of rules" is at the base of almost all human works of art, but it is always a dangerous game that can give birth to deformed children.

thallo wrote:

And, for the sake of reporting, they say "AD" minchiam, not "AB" minchiam. Even your dog Latin leaves something to be desired...

Aside from the fact that the dog Latin had its points of interest, you didn't grasp the modernity of the matter... incredibly, everyone remembers the rules when it suits them. Music also has its own...

I forgot:

> Conceptual art

Conceptual art dates back to around 1910 ...think about how, instead, I am interested in musical art

Something serious was born from a joking post

thallo wrote:

The urge to regulate is the offspring of a frustrated mania for control. Everyone has, in varying degrees, the desire to keep their own perceptions under control; the unknown and the unknowable cause anxiety to anyone. Dealing with events in which one recognizes clear regulation calms us, and it calms us even more to deal with events that respond to OUR regulation.
The urge for control and the breaking of all control are two of the preferred developmental paths of artistic movements of all times. And I am speaking of art in general, not just music.

The "game of rules" is at the base of almost all human works of art, but it is always a dangerous game that can give birth to deformed children.

It's true, but it is human despite the fact that it can give birth to deformed children. But if we were outside the human realm, don't you think music could result in being "Alien"?

Oh my god, I made a strange mental association with the track Alien by GA

Interesting discourse Thallo, questions are open:

> Conceptual art, in fact, is the final stage of both the line of breaking control

Isn't the concept a child of a grid of rules? It probably works precisely because of this

> as well as the line of control (I have imposed so many rules on myself that I can only do things wrong).

It's absurd, but many rules achieve the same thing as just a concept

Music becomes such precisely when it manages to elevate itself from the schema ... what do you say?

Shark wrote:

irregular groups over the little week

Povero Chopin

thallo wrote:

And, for the sake of reporting, they say "AD" minchiam, not "AB" minchiam. Even your dog Latin leaves something to be desired...

well, even "ab minchia" (ablative) could work

Bianca wrote:

well, even "ab minchia" (ablative) could work

However, one would need to know the ablative of "minchia"; anyway, I find "ab" more correct than "ad". Besides, the "b" is only used in the case that the ablative begins with a vowel, if we really want to be refined.

Xenakis wrote:

However, one would need to know the
ablative of "minchia"

one should ask Frank Zappa ...

Shark wrote:

Aside from the fact that the hack had his points of interest, you didn't grasp the modernity of it... incredibly, everyone remembers the rules when it suits them. Even music has its...

Did I forget:

> Conceptual art

Conceptual art dates back to around 1910 ...think about how, instead, I am interested in musical art

And so I wonder why you insist on talking about something else. That is the problem: there are people who are not just interested in musical art. There are artists who are not just interested in musical art. In reality, the 1900s are full of artists, performers, and creators who deliberately sought to do things that were music and also something else, or were something else and also music, or were nothing in particular.

Conceptual art is not a single point in time... saying it dates back to 1910, implying that it is old, would be like saying that pasta with sauce dates back to the 1800s and therefore no one should cook it anymore...

Kappa wrote:

It's true, but it is human despite being able to give birth to deformed children. But if we were outside the human field, don't you think that music could result in being "Alien"?

Oh my god, I made a strange mental association with the track Alien by GA

With "deformed children," I specifically wanted to bring into play a kind of absurd, something that is simultaneously a product of rules but outside of the rules.

The rules, especially in a formalized art like music, tend to maintain the status quo, to ensure an equilibrium, whether it be formal, euphonic, conceptual, or whatever. I decide that the piece follows tonal logic, imposing rules, and I do so because it sounds good that way, or because I want to make a piece in style. But if I obstinately follow the game of rules, the equilibrium can transform into constraint. I can decide to follow tonal logic "in style," and make a piece from the 1700s, or I can decide to obsessively follow certain tonal rules, making a circular piece, I don't know, with an infinite cadential progression; I can take obsession to the other extreme, a piece made of parallel fifths. This obsession with tonalism was typical of early minimalism but it was, in its own way, a means to break the tonal system from within, by saturating it, obsessively following some of its rules.

And it is absolutely human, I would say almost instinctive.

I am very much for the postmodern, the overcoming of the rule as a pre-established factor. But imposing rules on oneself is normal, even completely senseless, excessive, inapplicable rules. Children often do it; they try to speak with only one vowel, they try for half an hour to pretend to be blind, or to hold an umbrella open with the same hand they use to play.

Frank wrote:

> Conceptual art, in fact, is the final stage of both the line of breaking control

Is the concept not the child of a grid of rules? It probably works precisely because of this

> and the line of control (I have imposed so many rules on myself that I can only do things wrong).

It's an absurdity, but many rules result in only one concept

Music becomes such precisely when it manages to rise above the pattern... what do you say?

1) Yes, and that is why I consider conceptual art as a child of rules. In my opinion, it is postmodernity that goes beyond the rules, precisely because it uses them somewhat yes and somewhat no, without considering them foundational. But it remains a complex and improbable discussion. There are dozens of different types of conceptual art, thousands of artists who have followed their own "style" by elaborating concepts, aesthetic experiences, and objects that are more or less connected. There is a difference between the concerto for left hand and umbrella and a verbal composition, in which you have written on the score "draw a straight line and follow it" (one of the Composition 1960s by La Monte Young) or a body art performance by Marina Abramovich.

2) Many rules make only one concept... I don't fully understand what you mean. I am telling you that establishing rules does not mean predicting a result. Conceptual art, or anyway many of the currents of contemporary art, live off the artistic process, the creative and experiential union. It is an aleatoricness born of rules, where, I don't know, I can play melodic cells of 7 sounds followed by chords of 6 sounds, followed in turn by other cells of 5 and then chords of 4 and then cells of 3 and then dyads and then long sounds. I invented stringent rules at random, but even when the rule is so well-designed that it seems "mathematical," one must remember that in music and in art in general, the formula does not correspond to the result.

3) "Music becomes such only when it manages to rise above the pattern"... as above, I think no music can be confused with its own pattern. The performance is always different. Here I say it somewhat dogmatically, but trust me,"},

even in the most minimal compositions, performance always holds surprises. For the rest, I still think your sentence is too vague to make me say "ok, I agree" :-) and at the same time, I can't help but agree with you! But, I'll reveal to you, when I was listening to Glass for my thesis, I would often sit at the piano playing a C major scale followed by a C minor scale. I felt many things inside it, even if I would never dare say that it was a beautiful composition "in itself". Here lies all the conceptual art, I believe. If the person consuming it is stupid enough to believe the nonsense of the creator, then it is wonderful. I am stupid enough to like almost everything.

Bianca wrote:

well, even "ab minchia" (ablative) could work

but "ad minchiam" is an adverb of manner, "a minchia" would be of motion from place, it makes no sense...

Besides being a complement of motion from place, it could also be an agent complement; however, as Zedef says, 'a + ablative' is used if the ablative begins with a consonant and 'ad + ablative' if it begins with a vowel.