Dave,
I have few more.

1. When you get asked at the last minute to fill in, and you turn up to find the drummer has the world's biggest drum kit, and a 'Dante' gleam in his eye.

2. When you look closer, and see the Bass player has pencilled in 11 and 12 on his amplifier.

3. The singer wears more makeup than Barbara Cartland, and smells stongly of Lavender.

4. The drummer is skillful enough to play three rhythms at once, none of which have any relation to the tune you're currently playing.

5. You're told at the end of the gig, that the money will be less, because the publican wasn't totally satisfied.

6. You turn up to an orchestral rehearsal to play new music, only to find you have three notes in the first bar and tacet for the remaining 4 movements.

7. The part you're playing consists of ten minutes of noodling, and no rests.

8. That nice rastifarian Bob Marley fan next door buys a new stereo, and gets a new job which means he'll be at home at the same time you're writing that sweet tender 2nd movement.

9. The new conductor turns up with Serge, his partner, and you discover the season's programme has been changed to one long tribute to Fay Wray, and Marlene Detirich. (Serge is wearing a pink t shirt inscribed with the logo, 'Village People for President')

10. The chamber orchestra is 'in the way' so you get moved to the car park, out of sight of the guests.

11. The wedding couple, in a last minute change, want to perform their waltz to the elegant melody of 'Slam that muvver down', and you have no idea how it goes.


Regards,

Alex!


[H]

Brilliant funny stuff Alex and God bless you for busting bass players on inhuman volume levels. They have really given guitar players a run for the crown.

DC

I have to conclude from all this a new definition:

Music is masochism.

@lgrohn said:

Let me put down some provocative theses:

1) There is nothing that could called "music theory". What is called "music theory" is just a set of conventions and rules. So Music theory" in not a THEORY. It is just a useful set of rules. And there are hundreds of sets of rules in different cultures. The word has historical background. The was "practice" and "theory" (rules). The word "theory" is used in the sense that a man on the street used that word. In sciences that word has another meaning.

2) There is nothing that could called "music analysis". What is called "music analysis" is just analysis of the score but not analysis of experience. The latter chould be called as "music analysis". If one can detect the tonal mode or find Schenker level based on the score etc. that doesn't not have much to do with listeners's experience.

Lauri Gröhn
metacomposer
http://www.synestesia.com">http://www.synestesia.com

(1) I think it's important to realize that music theory doesn't seek to impose rules upon music, but rather try to explain the rules that composers do follow. Obviously, it is not a science, but most of what can be learned from it holds true in the music of the baroque and classical masters like Bach and Mozart. For example, Music theory (or music as theory states) is built around dissonances and thier resolution. It is the fundamental rule. And I, as many others I suspect, believe that for whatever reason, we want these resolutions. Therefore with music theory, one can learn how to make his audience want to hear something and either provide it to them or deny it, thus controlling how the listener feels.

(2) I think that music analysis is less analysis of what we experience than it is analysis of why we experience what we do. For example, in the final movement of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique symphony, the listener likely hears the music as unsettling, longing, depressing, etc. Music analysis shows the this is due, in part, to long sharp dissonances with few and very short resolutions. Surely, one would not experience or be moved the music if he or she were to simply analyze the piece without ever hearing it. However, analysis could be used as a tool to teach young composers how Tchaikovsky was able to get his point across so that these students may learn to be able to do the same.

I would have to agree with Williams when he says, "Music is the organization of sound for artistic purposes" for the fact that it is concise and as close to a definition as is possible. However, I think that definitions of such things as music and art in general are useless. The only way to understand music,and art is to experience them because the purpose of these things is to express that which cannot be expressed in words. No matter how well written, a definition canot begin to explain the inexplicable experience of music.

I agree to some extent with your previous post, but have to admit that lgrohn's total denial of theory is what I believe more basically. For example, the Pathetique symphony is mentioned, and it is a good point that you can intellectually determine something is going on with certain harmonies, orchestration, contrapuntal practices, etc. that seem to correspond to emotional states. But the problem is that you could have another piece of music that was a piece of junk imitating the Pathetique and it could have these exact same musical devices in a similar context. So where does that leave your analysis? Something else created the real musical effect and it cannot be analyzed. So in that sense analysis is a game of conventional knowledge that is played, usually by professors and music students. But what a composer who creates a great lasting work does is something else entirely. It reminds me of all the attempts to explain consciousness, including those by the most prominent scientists. They never explain it - they only describe it in more or less detail.

I agree; there is something intangible there that makes it what it is. However, I was just saying that theory and analysis can be valuable tools in helping to understand music, not that they provide us with the entire picture.

@DanimalSnacks said:

However, I think that definitions of such things as music and art in general are useless.

And a lot of the time, I do not understand why people even bother. One thing that never ceases to amaze me, is the scientific explanations that are offered up over art in general. There is always someone who wishes to find a way to give all this a scientific route - almost a get-out clause for narrow thought.

Art and music shouldn't need any written or spoken explanation - it either works or it doesn't. Techniques and ergo, the study of them are mere details in my view. They suddenly turn into trickery - and then you get plagiarism a plenty and ' I've seen or heard this before' quotes.

Scientific explanations do not allow for magic - magic is is not a word this type of thought recognizes. Art effects different sensory areas of the brain where logical scientific thought processes are impostors.

There is an important place for science - but not in music or art.

or golf.

[H]

@hermitage59 said:

or golf.

[H]

Oh bugger! Now you've made me come back! [:D]

I should have said - 'the effect of music or art'.

Good game yesterday - got in before the rain hit. Had a great talk afterwards about property development with my local Yank friend. Now, not even that is scientific - all to do with wants, needs and desire - bit like art! [:P]

I'm with Paul on this one.

The study of technique has one purpose. To improve our own standard, and provide the tools to achieve what we perceive as our potential. This is not to be confused with scientific analysis, because we write to invoke emotion.

Film music is designed to complete an emotional picture, and whether it's successful or not, that is its intention. And we only have to consider the blockbusters, good or not, for which a particular 'type' of music is employed. We had a discussion elsewhere a while ago about themes, and how audience acceptability was important, with many types of film generated with 'similar' types of music, and pictures to convey a 'genre'. Science Fiction, suspense, thrillers, adventure, patriotic, and romance all have generally common themes and melodies, because they're deliberately written to complliment that genre. and successful films from recent past are the reason.

Movies like ET, Alien, Star Wars, Star Trek, all have identifiable melodies, but the bulk of harmonic and instrumentation choices in a genre, sound remarkable similar. This is a specific decision based on appealling to a certain demographic group. There are exceptions, and we remember these because they ARE exceptions. (2001, Terry Gillam's Brazil, Clockwork Orange)

And then there's classical music. Why do we listen, and why does a piece we enjoy depend on whether we're in the mood to listen that particular piece?
I strongly advocate study of form, harmony, melody, part writing, etc, but not for a cold analytical assessment, rather an opportunity to attempt to write into my music the emotion i'm trying to invoke in the listener. Some will feel one thing, some another, but this has little to do with cold objective assumption, and everything to do with the almost indefineable, emotions.

And even then, i'm working in 'genres'. The genres of happiness, amusement, anger, despair, sorrow, determination, pride, etc.

To study is, IMHO, important, and that takes by neccessity, analysis. But to examine scientifically, as one would examine a motor, or other mechanical device, and write with that mindset misses the indefineable that some have you have already spoken of. That difference between ordinary and great What is the difference? The ordinary fails to invoke emotion (alright maybe irritation) and the great give us an emotional experience. Our 'scientific tools' as composers are emotions, and there's no complete scientific explanation for those, whatever the musicologists or scientists may tell you.


Regards to you all,

Alex.

Paul,
So what was the score and who won?

You made a good point though, about your conversation with your american associate.
Needs, wants, desires. About as close to analysis as music and art should get.

Regards,

Alex.

When I make statements against the efficacy of analysis and theory I am not talking about studying music per se. Because studying allows a person to have engrained into his brain whatever is in another's music whether it is technical or artistic and this is always a good thing. In other words, you might believe yourself to be studying very intelligently and fastidiously the developmental techniques of a Beethoven symphony, but what you are really getting out of it is simply prolonged exposure to great melodies. Or perhaps absorbing unconsciously the way he breaks up motifs to develop them. So studying may ultimately be more unconscious a process than is generally believed. The fact is (as has been recently determined by actual quantitative neurological studies) the human mind is around 99.9% subconscious with a tiny little bandwidth of consciousness pretending it understands, knows and directs everything.

Bill,
I couldn't agree more.
Study is a conscious effort to imprint information into subconscious.
And when i write (i will speak only for myself), more often than not, when i'm not consciously thinking of something to write, and let the subconscious do it's thing, the result is far better.

Regards,

Alex.

The three states of mind. Conscious, subconscious, and unconscious!

[*-)]

@William said:

In other words, you might believe yourself to be studying very intelligently and fastidiously the developmental techniques of a Beethoven symphony, but what you are really getting out of it is simply prolonged exposure to great melodies. .

Music analysis is based on a score. Every conductor/orchestra gives a different interpretation of the score. So analyses based on score are always wrong. I guess the whole idea of music analysis is wrong.

@William said:

But what a composer who creates a great lasting work does is something else entirely. It reminds me of all the attempts to explain consciousness, including those by the most prominent scientists. They never explain it - they only describe it in more or less detail.

Actually one can't do more than that even in physics. That's what all the models ONLY do. LG

No that is not true. There are many causal relationships in physics that are actually explanatory. In psychology there are NONE.

@William said:

No that is not true. There are many causal relationships in physics that are actually explanatory. In psychology there are NONE.

Causal descriptions are stilL ONLY descrriptions. The only difference between physics and other sciences is that the models in physics are more basic having more description power. But there are never any explanations behind those models (or theories). LG

That is untrue according to classical physics which functions highly accurately on a macroscopic level. You are attempting to use quantum mechanics in the wrong context.

Also, you do not understand what the word "description" means. I am referring to a re-statement in different terms, not a causal explanation. To deny causality on a macroscopic level is nonsense. And to compare physics, with its precise models of celestial mechanics for example, to the neurobiology of consciousness studies is ludicrous. These are separate universes of thought with almost no comparison possible. If you do not see the differences, you are ignoring them deliberately, perhaps because you are attempting a deconstructionist reductionism. Which is fine, if that particular form of nonsense turns you on.

Well. You can't explain the behavior of humans but only describe and you can't explain anything by using models (theories) of physic but only describe. Of course the describtions are different if you have an organic system having billions of billions of structured molecule systems or on the other hand a single particle or particle system.

Physics is based on empiricism and music analysis is not. Without any proof there is no reason to deny that computer can compose. One could only disproof the hypothesis empirically.