Re: neutralizing pivot tones


"Abstract Dissonance" <Abstract.Dissonance@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:12dvt8jkvlou2b7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[snip]

And I guess that if you do things like this then it can sound like your a
lunatic if you don't know what your doing? i.e., in my music I might think
I'm sounding sophistocated but I just end up sounding crazy(or amateurish)

I think amateurish is not the best word, but it's one commonly used. A
parallel is - you've seen this in movies where someone starts to tell the
joke, and then they go, "wait, I meant..." or they screw up the punchline.
It's like they start something but don't have the skill to finish it, so in
a sense, music written like that (to me) sounds like a bunch of started
ideas, without any real conclusion.

[snip]


yeah. I see what you are saying. I that its ok to do that except that the
possibilities are much greater and there is much more of an ambiguity.
i.e., 100 people could have 100 different interpretations of that moment
but everyone should have very similar interpretation after they know where
they have been. So if I just here C D7 and I'm suppose to give my feeling
on what might happen then it might not match many others... Most will say
G but in a more complex event then we could get more results... but the
analysis should be consistant.

Let's say that given a consistent audience, the results will probably be
largely consistent.


Is that basically the idea? i.e., the point is for everyone to get a
consistent analysis instead of something that might differ drastically for
each person.

I'm not sure what you're asking here? The point of what?


[snip]


yeah.. but each of those steps are basically small tugs that eventually
lead to Bb instead of one abrupt tub to Bb. Unexpected seems to equal to
the "size" of the tug. If I tug to much then it throughs things off
balance.

No. These things tug away from C, but not to Bb because we know we're in
C, but we have no idea of where we're going until we get there. Yes, the
unexpected might have the effect of tugging "farther" from C.


Right, but I'm looking ahead. If I know we will end up as Bb then I will
say there are tugs towards Bb?

Unless the tugs are to other keys before you get to the Bb.


It sounds is if you kinda mix the two "methods"
of analysis sometimes. Sometimes you say we either know where were going
but other times you can imply that we don't.

To a degree. But when you're analyzing on paper you always have the ability
to look ahead. If you view any one chord or bit in isolation ou don't know
what's happening on a scale outside of that bit, and you may not even know
what's happening with that bit until you see the larger scale.


I guess here I'm using the term unexpected in the wrong way though. I'm
still associating it with "immediate analysis"(the way I seem to want to
analyze). But here unexpected should refer to something that is something
that is not "standard" or not "common".

Let's say that while we can look ahead an the surprise is "spoiled", we
still analyze it in many ways as if we were hearing it. But think of this -
we simply put V-vi. We don't write "deceptive" in. But, we know what musical
felleing we've expereinced in other V-vi situations an that "unexpected"
resolution is something we understood would happen if we were listening to
the music without the ability to see the future. So there is some overlap in
that sense.

[snip]


And is this something that everyones hear does but "uneducated" ears just
can't describe what is happening but they still hear the same thing(in
some subconscious way)?

Let's not say everyone - only those who've grown up with an understanding of
tonal music and its patterns. Even a rock listener might not notice anything
unusual about a V/V-V other than it sounds a little different than your
standard I vi IV V fare. But yes for those that might notice as something
out of the ordinary (they're common of course, but I mean in relation to
key) might not be able to put it in words (because it's conceptual) or they
don't know the definitions others use for that thing.

and really ear training is just about learning to put
words to what you hear? For the most part... I'm sure it also has to do
with learning to pay attention to the details too.

Good point. And I think it's a point people miss. Students who take
ear-training don't realize they need to THINK these things! You shouldn't
just hear two notes and go, oh, that's Major 6th. BFD. You should also be
able to say, and these two are So and Mi in the key.

[snip]

Schoenberg says that in one of Brahms
pieces that the reason he modulations later on was because of necessity
from the theme.

Crock of ***. He modulated because he felt the piece should.


Well, I guess you'll have to take that up with Schoenberg ;) Here though
your kinda being general with the "felt". Because Maybe he felt that way
because of the theme?

This is something academic types say a lot when they write: "The theme
guided the music this a way and that a way" (well they don't actually write
that!). What they really mean is, the them lends itself so well to the
direction the composer guided it in that it seems no other way would work,
or other ways would be less effective, etc. It's a way of strengthening the
wording making it seem like the composer's solution is pre-ordained, when
really it was post-ordained - the composer's choice makes it the right
choice - but there were plenty of others available likely.

[snip]


Yeah, but I just never really payed much attention to much in that way.

In my personal opinion, this music is not designed to just "hear" as one
might hear the sounds of a foreign language speaker. The sounds might be
pleasant or evoke imagery, etc. but you don't understand it. And don't you
think there can be a deeper understanding of the work as a whole if we
understand the content. You might find a chinese poem about a snake that you
don't know that because you don't understand the language, and you notice a
lot of sssss sounds in it (I don't know that the Chinese word for snake even
has an "ess" sound). You might notice there are a lot of ssss sounds, and
you might like it, and it might even remind you of a snake. But, when you
understand the poem is:
A sleek snake slithers through grass like glass
suddenly strikes
silence
(copyright Steve Latham 2006 - I kind of like this one :-).

If the word strikes was spoken with a "biting" attack, then it has even more
of an impact on your understanding, and hopefully enjoyment of the piece.

Now that's not to say music shouldn't contain the simple things, or must
contain these deeper meanings, but it is my belief that the works that
endure the longest do so because they do appeal on these multiple levels.
Beethoven "sounds nice" on the surface and appeals to those who don't
understand so much about music and just like the sound. For people like me,
I hear all of the games, and "just right", and "sublime" moments in the
music. For literary people they might enjoy the Romantic extra-musical
aspectsa tied in with musical associations, and so on. I think that's where
a lof of pieces like Fugues don't gain the public appeal because they tend
not to just "sound nice" on the surface, nor or they really inteded to. I
think you're sort of expected to understand a little about the form (like
reading a novel with a lot of symbolism - if you don't get the symbolism you
can't enjoy it at the level the author intended (becuase they obviously
stuck in the symbolism).

I
always kinda "lived" in the moment and never though to much about what I
was hearing. I'm trying to force myself to pay more attention. Sometimes
its easy and sometimes its hard(It was real easy at one point for about a
month then everything went to *** and its much harder now ;/

Because you're probably sub-consciously already figureing out the stuff you
already know, and now you're starting to notice the more complex things and
starting to digest them - whereas before they were so far above as to be
un-noticeable. And it should be easy and hard - that's what keeps the music
interesting. Again, music I really love I tend to always find something new.
Each time I have listened to Beethoven's Waldstein Sonata I've discovered
something new. That keeps me coming back for more.


I'm starting to recognize phrases and such repetitions(even from different
sections) and how things are modified or sequenced. Its not easy but I've
made a little progress in it.

And the more you learn, the easier it will be.

[snip]



For example, I love the progression vi V IV III(or iii) vi. This doesn't
seeme to be a CPP progression but its very natural to me for some reason
;/

Oddly enough, nothing about CPP really seems "natural" to me. Gregorian
Chant seems very natural to me. Debussy seems very inevitable to me (like it
was the only logical choice for him to do that). Beethoven actually seems a
little "forced" to me. But it's like, in Gregorian chant, you take a picture
of a still life. In Debussy, you put that still life with the sun at a
certain angle, becuase that's when you noticed it was cool, and in
Beethoven, the still life consists of objects that weren't actually there
already, but assembled specifically to make a still life. I think one is
"capturing" one is "capturing at a precise instant" and one is "creating". I
don't know if that makes sense, but I like each for their own reasons.

[snip]

This seems to be the problem though. What if you don't have another
chance?

Too bad so sad. You can only go on what you remember.

What if you were back in Beethoven's day where there wasn't recordings and
you went to a live performance... are you saying that analysis here is not
really possible(in the sense we are talking about)?

O, I mentioned this one, but haven't mentioned it enough: This analysis also
includes "established patterns" - things you hear from hearing other similar
works. You've heard people joke about how similar all Vivaldi is, or even
how Mozart is a "paint by numbers" composer in many respects. I agree (but
for different reasons) and after you listen to a bunch of things, you begin
to predict things in other pieces. Sequences are a good example - after the
opening bars of most Baroque works and even Classical pieces you can expect
a Sequence. And they typically do it. So it's like data compression: instead
of worrying about whether X chord is part of Y or Z, we expect X to be part
of a modulation and can just hear "N" as representing X, Y and Z. It's
surprising (and makes you take note of it) when it doesn't go through a
sequence. So there are certain familiar patterns that let you accept broader
strokes rather than beat by beat strokes.


I guess back then maybe
they were able to use there brain as a recording device though and hence
then analyze it after the fact?

No, but I bet a persons' musical memory was much more attuned in a time
period when there weren't as many other distractions in the world. Look up
the story about Mozart and Allegri's "Miserere". Today, our ears are
"corrupted" by other styles. It of course also depends on the complexity of
the music. There's a lot of difference in being able to comprehend an early
Haydn Minuet and a late Beethoven String Quartet movement on the fly. I
doubt many people truly can "hear" what's going on in the Beethoven. You
almost have to listen to it multiple times (which is of course good for
airplay!!!).

Steve


.

Loading