Good or bad? Searching for objectivity in composition.

[Michael Tauben]

Is it possible to be judge a piece of music objectively?

There is a school of thought which says " If I like it it's good, if I dislike it it's bad"

Whereas I believe that a judgement based solely on a subjective response is not a judgment at all, at least not one worth considering.

As a composer, even when writing for 'oneself' as opposed to writing 'applied' music to order, is it not the case that one must strive for objectivity? 

It is my belief that whatever choices one makes in a composition, it is the musical logic, language and unity of any particular piece that should inform those choices. At least to some extent. Anything which appears as arbitrary can only weaken the piece.

 

( This is a topic some of us were discussing in another thread but was deemed 'off topic' so perhaps we can carry on here.)

[Ondib Olmnilnlolm]

That's fascinating, Frederick.   I didn't know that.  

If that is the case, then it could mean Schoenberg's music is tonal, even according to the definition Michael has given us.

Olivier Messiaen said something to the effect that every piece of music inevitably established a "mode," though the mode might not be traditional.  Purely "atonal" pieces, he said were virtually impossible, though one could strive to disestablish the tonal center.   Ultimately, he did not think that was desirable, though he strongly believed in (and explored) alternative modes, following Debussy's lead, and the work of some Indian authors of musicological treatises.

Perhaps Messaien has given us another way of describing the sound world of Schoenberg, which impinges on Hindemith's way of thinking.   I am not sure. 

Fredrick zinos said:

RE: Tonality. Paul Hindemith used to analyze Schoenberg and other 2nd Vienna school scores using the standard tonal methods and could show, he said, that the momentary suspension of traditional tonality was simply a matter of anticipations and suspensions.

 

 

[Ondib Olmnilnlolm]

Tombo asked,

"I wonder if a baby is exposed to nothing but Stockhausen from the time of their birth if they will end up killing everyone?"

Statistical studies have been done on something related to this, I am told, as regards the effect of music on development in the womb.

Some of the more publicized evidence, however, is only anecdotal.

One child, who was exposed only to Stockhausen in the womb, killed both his parents as soon as he was born.

However, a child who was exposed only to Von Suppe in the womb, ending up killing not only his own parents, but all his brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins, and devouring their brains.

One infant, exposed only to Chopin and Liszt, did actually "end up killing everyone."

Systematic studies showed that the likelihood of becoming a murderer, depending on the music listened to in the womb, broke down as follows.

Stockhausen -- chance of becoming a murderer, raised by 23.1%

Von Suppe  -- chance raised by 37.2 %

Chopin -- 25.2%

Liszt -- 24.1%

Liszt and Chopin together -- 36.5%

These studies were based on samples of between 1, 012 and 1, 024 newborn infants, and a control group, and have a margin of error of approximately plus or minus three percent.

The fact that the test subjects were children born on other planets should lead us to treat the results with some skepticism; but these were humanoid infants, so the results can be extrapolated to include most sentient humanoid species in this local sector of our galaxy. Results are believed to be most accurate for children born on planets in the systems of Sol, Epsilon Indi,Tau Ceti, and Alpha Proxima.

Tombo Rombo said:

When I think of tonality, the Schenkerian notion of large scale prolongation of "the chord of nature" comes to mind.  A heirarchical relation of chords with the tonic as the center of gravity, every chord in the hierarchy having certain tendencies -how these tendencies arose is a chicken and egg situation: do we expect V to go to I because of some natural pull, or because of statistical learning (ie. that's the way it goes 75% of the time so that is what our minds expect)?  Nonetheless, the tendencies exist and work to create expectations in any listener grounded in the music of common Western practice, which as Michael noted, we have heard all around us since we were born.

(To imagine common western music as a big field might be problematic though.  Classical, Romantic, Baroque, Heavy Metal, Jazz, Celine Dion, these are all subgenres of Western music that have their own tendencies:  In Heavy Metal for example, VII-I is a lot more common than V-I.  Are there stylistic firewalls in our brains that help us in this game?)

When somebody creates their own system, using chords that do not follow these tendencies, the common listener will not  know what to expect, harmonically in any case, so a composer cannot play with these expectations.  If they want to create a piece that will play on a listener's anticipations they will need to focus on another area, or set up clear harmonic expectations from the start by lots of simple repetition or something of that nature.  Note, I am not saying that music has to play with expectations in such a manner, there may be other ways to write satisfying music.  But tonality provides a built in, rich field of patterns for a composer to use.  That being said, I do believe this is all very much culturally conditioned, and people are highly adaptable.  For example, I actually do kind of know what to expect when listening to Schoenberg for instance, as I have become familiar with that style:  I expect a sort of negative image of tonality.  I wonder if a baby is exposed to nothing but Stockhausen from the time of their birth if they will end up killing everyone? That wasn't how that sentence was supposed to turn out, you can fill in the blanks though. Concerning expectation in general, John Cage wants us to turn off our pattern seeking minds all together and surrender to the void.  That doesn't quite work for me, maybe it does for other people, especially if they take lots of mushrooms.

[Fredrick zinos]

Then of course, there was the child who was exposed to nothing but Mahler, who, as soon as he could speak announced  that he was dying..

And the youngster who listened only to Schoneberg became quite a problem when he decided that before he would use any given word twice, he had so say all of the other words he knew.

[Ondib Olmnilnlolm]

 

 

About the concept of tonality, Michael wrote:

 

"It is what happens in the vertical dimension of a piece. Harmonically. It need not be diatonic, or make use of 'key'. Organum could hardly be called tonal but modal polyphony can because what happens in the vertical dimension is of utmost importance. There is harmonic resolution, there is dissonance and consonance. And yes, before you say it, they are relative terms not absolute. This ingredient, this sense of a hierarchy of chords, of harmonic movement from one moment to the next is the cornerstone of 'art' music from the Middle Ages until Schoenberg. It is the basis for all folk music, popular music and nearly all jazz. It is a very, very expressive tool. I don't know enough about the music of Japan and China but I've never  heard any that makes use of this concept. Indian music certainly doesn't."

 

It's that last sentence, I have a question about now.

 

"Indian music certainly doesn't."

 

Indian music certainly doesn't do what?

 

Indian music doesn't have polyphony?  Doesn't have harmony, consonance dissonance and resolution?  Has no sense of harmonic movement?  No hierarchy of chords or key relationships?

 

Random House dictionary, under the musical part of the definition for "tonality," writes,

 

a.  the sum of relations, melodic and harmonic, existing between the tones of a scale or musical system.

b.  a particular scale or system of tones; a key.  

 

-

 

Are you saying Indian music does not even have "tonality," in either of those senses?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ondib Olmnilnlolm]

Thanks for Roaratorio, Tombo.

I've heard OF IT, but I never actually have heard it.

I listened to a bit of it, and it seems a bit difficult.  I'll have to study it.

Here's an easier piece by Cage, one that's very accessible.

I think the full orchestral version of this, with the BBC commentary, before and after, makes it very pleasant (and humorous).  

The commentary at the end is particularly trenchant.

It's an excellent video, as well.  This is largely a "visual experience," in addition to being an aural experience.

The audience reaction and participation in the performance and thunderous applause testify to the popularity of this particular work (in the UK, especially.

One commentator calls this "a massive musical event."

It was originally scored for solo piano.

4' 33"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY7UK-6aaNA&feature=results_main...

Tombo Rombo said:

^^There is a piece by John Cage that involves an Irish tenor reading Finnegan's Wake and a bunch of other things going on, let's see if I can find that.  Ah, here it is, I misremembered a bit, it's based on Finnegan though.  It's called "Roaratorio: An Irish Circus on Finnegan's Wake".  Here are a couple of links for you to explore about that; the concept sounds similar to your idea of the random convergence of Stockhausen and Joyce so I think you might find it interesting.  I haven't listened to any rendition of it, just remember reading about it once.

http://www.themodernword.com/joyce/music/cage_roaratorio.html

http://www.johncage.info/workscage/roaratorio.html

ahh, and here's a youtube video of it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdHe4c10smY

The concept sounds interesting indeed, the music kind of scares me.  Not the most intelligent evaluation I could put forth, but oh well.  I guess maybe it imagines that humans are capable of understanding much more than we actually are, in one sense, but some interesting textures occur in there the way I hear it (I've only made it 4 minutes in), and it is quite dull the rest of the time.  

As a side note, many people classify Cage as a postmodern composer, but I tend to disagree.  Cage seems more like modernism pushed to a ridiculous extreme, I can't quite articulate why, I'll think about that a bit more.

[Michael Tauben]

 Ondib - With regard to a definition of tonality, I'm not a scholar or a theoretician so my definitions may be a little idiosyncratic. For me it is a matter of perception.

I have no in depth knowledge of Indian classical music but have attended seminars ( a long time ago) by sitar and table players.  i think I'm right that the sitar usually employs drone strings which keep the music anchored in a particular 'scale' or root pitch. I suppose that is a single tonality which encompasses the whole piece. I believe the musical interest is created by the interplay of rhythms and of melodic shapes which are complex and intricate. The important distinction for me is the fact that 'root' pitch or, if you prefer, the harmony the vertical dimension of the music doesn't change. 

I don't know if the way I perceive music puts me in a minority of one but that's what I hear. 

As for 4' 33", I, like Stravinsky would look forward to similar works of Nibelugian length! :)

[Ondib Olmnilnlolm]

Hello Michael,

Without going deeply into technicalities, this is my understanding of what you are saying so far about "tonality," or at least one aspect of it.

An Indian piece of music is not "tonal," in your sense, because it is rooted in one key, and that key does not actually change.   (We don't need to debate whether or not that particular statement about Indian music is true, at this point.  Let's just assume it is, for the sake of the discussion).

If an Indian piece of music is not "tonal" because it remains in one key, without any key shifts, does that mean pop pieces that stay in one key are not tonal, or  that "row, row, row your boat" is not tonal, for the same reason?

I am asking this question, not in order "catch you up," but in order to get the basic definition of tonality established on reasonably consistent grounds.   You raised a number of very interesting points in your longer post, but it is difficult to go forward and examine those points before a definition of tonality is put forward that we can both agree on.

It seems to me fairly reasonable to say that Indian music, written in a heptatonic scale (like most Western music) is tonal in virtually the same way that Western music is usually tonal.   Key changes, harmonies, and evolving chromaticism (of the type we hear in Wagner's Tristan) occur within a tonal framework; but in Indian music also extensive pitch bending, glides (glissandi) and deep resonance must also exist within a tonal framework (defined by a tonic, dominant and sub-dominant, and characterized by the use of a heptatonic scale, or key signature, based on the octave).

Each classical tradition has it's own way of enlivening and varying the sound experience of the listener.   We are leaving aside Schoenberg's innovations, for the time being. We can also deal later with the issue of the extent to which Indian music makes use alternatively of both the "vertical" and the "horizontal," in music.

(I might be tempted to ask whether you think Stravinsky's Rite of Spring is tonal, but maybe we are not at all ready to discuss that yet).

Incidentally, I thought your description of the one minute piece, which I provided a link for, a few posts back (called, "Is this tonal?") was quite apt.   In your description, you spoke about, and perceived the piece, exactly as I do.   So I can see that we do have a great deal of common ground.

Just in case you wanted to know:   That piece was a synthesis of obscure melodic lines, from musical pieces written in the Rennaissance, the Baroque, and Classical eras, supplemented by some material from Romantic and modern composers.  Some listeners might have recognized a few notes from one of Beethoven's bagatelles, and bits from a short piano work by Milton Babbitt.  Otherwise, the material was very obscure.   I threw it together rather quickly, though not in an entirely haphazard way, using a few midi's, in order to gauge perceptions.

I think "polytonal" is perhaps the most appropriate word to describe it.  You did use that word, I recall.

That will raise another question we can explore later, which is whether you consider "polytonal" music to be "tonal" or not.  (If by polytonal we mean, characterized by having two or more melodic lines playing simultaneously which are in tradiitonally unrelated keys).

But I would very much welcome an answer the question about an Indian classical piece, and "Row, row, row your boat," and whether you think those works are tonal.

Perhaps we are hamstrung because a lack of specifics.

Here is a performance by Ravi Shankar.

I'm particularly interested in whether you think the passage between time index 2:00 and 4:00 is tonal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0OWmUyhBR0

I also wonder what others think.

Michael Tauben said:

 Ondib - With regard to a definition of tonality, I'm not a scholar or a theoretician so my definitions may be a little idiosyncratic. For me it is a matter of perception.

I have no in depth knowledge of Indian classical music but have attended seminars ( a long time ago) by sitar and table players.  i think I'm right that the sitar usually employs drone strings which keep the music anchored in a particular 'scale' or root pitch. I suppose that is a single tonality which encompasses the whole piece. I believe the musical interest is created by the interplay of rhythms and of melodic shapes which are complex and intricate. The important distinction for me is the fact that 'root' pitch or, if you prefer, the harmony the vertical dimension of the music doesn't change. 

I don't know if the way I perceive music puts me in a minority of one but that's what I hear. 

As for 4' 33", I, like Stravinsky would look forward to similar works of Nibelugian length! :)

[Michael Tauben]

I'll get back to you Ondib, when I've thought about it and listened to your link. In the mean time I will just say something about Row Row. Although it is, in your imagined rendition, monophonic, it has an implied harmony. It is a diatonic melody which moves I-V-I. The Rite has passages of polytonality and tonality I suppose.

More later.... 

[Michael Tauben]

Ondib, I've now listened to the link. Firstly, I suppose you could call it tonal if you wish. I don't think it is important to get hung up on a word. What I'm trying to express is that element or characteristic in music which is most important to me. In my definition of tonality the crux is  "harmonic movement from one moment to the next". The Ravi Shankar concerto remains harmonically static throughout which is what I said. Not many pop tunes are written on one chord although 90% of them do not modulate to a different key. Various electronic dance styles may indeed remain on one chord or even no chord throughout. The main interest there is rhythmic and most importantly, not just rhythm per se, but syncopation against a metronomically regular beat. Ie. it's for dancing to.

You said,

 "Key changes, harmonies, and evolving chromaticism (of the type we hear in Wagner's Tristan) occur within a tonal framework; but in Indian music also extensive pitch bending, glides (glissandi) and deep resonance must also exist within a tonal framework (defined by a tonic, dominant and sub-dominant, and characterized by the use of a heptatonic scale, or key signature, based on the octave)."

I'm not sure of the point you are making there. I still do not hear key changes, harmonic or chordal progressions in Indian music. 

[Ondib Olmnilnlolm]

Michael said,

“Ondib, I've now listened to the link. Firstly, I suppose you could call it tonal if you wish.”

 

It’s not what “I wish” that is important here.

 

I wondered if you considered it tonal.  Don’t let me draw any unwarranted conclusions, but I believe you do not consider it tonal.

 

“I don't think it is important to get hung up on a word.”

 

That’s fine.  But I believe you are putting forward a distinction between what you call “tonal” music and non-tonal, or atonal music.  I think all music is tonal, in a certain sense.  So I am having a bit of difficulty with your assertion that Indian musicians-- or Schoenberg (who called his music pantonal), or any of the modern composers-- are creating music that is not tonal.  In any case, I don’t see how you can say music is not tonal (are you really saying that?), simply because it does not make use of modulations or because it does not have a chord structure analogous to Western chord structure. Maybe we can just abandon the term “tonal” all together.  I would have no problem with doing that, at least for the moment.

You said,

 

‘What I'm trying to express is that element or characteristic in music which is most important to me. In my definition of tonality the crux is  "harmonic movement from one moment to the next.”’

 

Okay, “harmonic movement.”  Let’s explore that phrase a bit, and hope we don’t run into the same problems we did with the term “tonal.”

 

I might say that all music, whether Indian or Western, or Chinese, contains some “harmonic movement.”   If by harmonic movement, you mean progression from one set of chords to the next, or counterpoint, or modulations with specific reference only to Western musical traditions, then you are simply defining certain types of musical sound out of existence, or out of the meaningful field of existence. 

 

Of course, you are well aware that there is seldom such a thing in music as a pure tone, which does not create overtones, and undertones, which are well understood by the science of “Harmonics.”   Attack, decay, duration of sound, in addition to the accompaniment even of a base tone, by such an instrument as a tanpura, will interact with other tones, and create a very complex harmonic flow, which will affect the listener. 

 

You said,

“The Ravi Shankar concerto remains harmonically static throughout which is what I said.”

 

That assumes you actually believe in such a thing as a harmonically static world of sound.  I don’t believe there is, certainly not in Indian music, unless you define harmonically static in the narrowest sense of the word, ignoring all the variables mentioned above.

 

And of course, there are many, many more variables.

 

 I previously said,

 

 "Key changes, harmonies, and evolving chromaticism (of the type we hear in Wagner's Tristan) occur within a tonal framework; but in Indian music also extensive pitch bending, glides (glissandi) and deep resonance must also exist within a tonal framework (defined by a tonic, dominant and sub-dominant, and characterized by the use of a heptatonic scale, or key signature, based on the octave)."

 

You observed,

 

 

“I'm not sure of the point you are making there. I still do not hear key changes, harmonic or chordal progressions in Indian music.”

 

Well, this is the main point I am trying to make, with regard to Indian music.

 

You may not hear key changes, as such, or harmonic, or chordal progressions in Indian music, I agree.   Nevertheless, I think you must hear “harmonic movement,” if by harmony you simply mean an interaction between two or more tones.  

 

But I suppose I should ask you if you hear “harmonic movement” even if it is not analogous to Western chordal progression.   I should not assume that you do, or that you do not.

 

What do you hear when you listen to Indian classical music?   Perhaps it is better to consider what we DO HEAR, as opposed to what we do not hear.

 

I mentioned extensive pitch bending, glissandi and deep resonance as features of Indian music which are less emphasized or neglected in most Western music.

 

It’s more complicated than that, though.  Serious Indian classical music, played on the sitar, or for voice, contains “shrutis,” or microtones, about 22 to the octave, as opposed to 12 in the Western tradition.   What we call glissandi they call “gamakas,” which are very complex means of moving from one note to another, much richer than a mere “slide” or “portamento.”   They can constitute or characterize major portions of the melody, to give it a certain mood, and they will certainly result not merely in melodic movement, but in “harmonic movement,” since the relationship between the base note (sustained by the accompanying tanpura, or by the sitar itself, or by both) and the decaying harmonics of any given note are in constant interaction.  

 

So while you say, “I do not hear chord progression,” I am not asking so much what you do not hear, but what you DO hear.  Do you hear any of these “shrutis” (microtones) or these “gamakas” (glissandi), now that we have defined them?

 

Do they seem to convey any kind of dynamic movement, any kind of harmonic movement, which could be described (not as a chordal progression) but as a harmonious whole of sound, which imparts a feeling? 

 

What is the feeling?  Is it a feeling that changes, or a series of changes that attempts to reflect an unchanging reality, that of the divine?  Is it time marching in step with eternity?  I believe that is what a great deal of the best Indian classical music is attempting to evoke.

 

Ravi Shankar describes the most basic precepts of Indian music, this way,

 

“The system of Indian music known as Raga Sangeet can be traced back nearly two thousand years to its origin in the Vedic hymns of the Hindu temples, the fundamental source of all Indian music. Thus, as in Western music, the roots of Indian classical music are religious. To us, music can be a spiritual discipline on the path to self-realisation, for we follow the traditional teaching that sound is God - Nada Brahma: By this process individual consciousness can be elevated to a realm of awareness where the revelation of the true meaning of the universe - its eternal and unchanging essence - can be joyfully experienced. Our ragas are the vehicles by which this essence can be perceived.”

 

Is it the “eternal and unchanging” essence that is expressed by truly great music?   Is that the source, or touchstone for determining what is “objectively” “good” or “bad” in music?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ondib Olmnilnlolm]

An example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xfUe92Pvig

A player of the Indian sarod, evoking an aspect of Divine Love, in a morning raga.

(The Love of Radha for Krishna).

[Michael Tauben]

Ondib,  I have absolutely no idea if there is anything "eternal and unchanging" I listen to and write music for the deep pleasure I get from doing so.

I respect Ravi Shankar as a musician. I find his Concerto for Sitar to be rather unconvincing as composition that attempts to fuse the music of two great traditions. Whether it can be done successfully I don't know but I will when I hear it.

I may not be very good at verbalising how I respond to or conceive music and I'm not going to be able to define terms satisfactorily as I am not enough of a scholar. 

You said

I might say that all music, whether Indian or Western, or Chinese, contains some “harmonic movement.”   If by harmonic movement, you mean progression from one set of chords to the next, or counterpoint, or modulations with specific reference only to Western musical traditions, then you are simply defining certain types of musical sound out of existence, or out of the meaningful field of existence. 

Yes that is what mean but I'm not defining anything out of existence and I don't really know what you mean by that. I deal in Western musical tradition, it's what I love. It's why I 'do' music. Western musical tradition is a GOOD THING and it is still capable of producing new, original, innovative and be beautiful/thrilling music of high artistic integrity. 

It's good to explore all kinds of music and take from it what we will. But I can honestly say that if I was born into a world that only had what is commonly labelled, (rightly or wrongly), atonal music, I would be a painter.

We seem to have come a long way from the original discussion and I'm not sure I have stamina for coming up with definitions we agree on.

It's been a fascinating discussion and I thank you.