GeNiaLiTy = BacH?

[reith]

Not so sure I agree with all you say. I think the mathematics lie in the harmonic series coupled with some sort of anticipatory sense humans develop within their culture about how events should evolve. I recall just a few pieces I composed knowing they would work at the outset - which is as good as saying I'd already written like that or borrowed them because they worked. I could run something up for a particular occasion and to that extent I'd be working to a formula.

As for Debussy, I think he worked intuitively - a composer of great vision whom I admire enormously. No doubt analysts will find maths in his music if they look hard enough but I donubt he gave it much thought while he was sipping his absinthe and smoking opium as he penned Iberia or La Mer. In fact, his early life is revealing, determined not to follow formula as taught by Cesar Franck and almost losing the Prix de Rome over La Damoiselle...

Interesting thoughts. However, in my somewhat lowly, less accomplished work I rest on what I hear to be 'about right' rather than ever think of the maths. Maybe that's why Debussy leaves me at the starting line!

[LethalBunny]

Originally Posted by reith

Not so sure I agree with all you say. I think the mathematics lie in the harmonic series coupled with some sort of anticipatory sense humans develop within their culture about how events should evolve. I recall just a few pieces I composed knowing they would work at the outset - which is as good as saying I'd already written like that or borrowed them because they worked. I could run something up for a particular occasion and to that extent I'd be working to a formula.

As for Debussy, I think he worked intuitively - a composer of great vision whom I admire enormously. No doubt analysts will find maths in his music if they look hard enough but I donubt he gave it much thought while he was sipping his absinthe and smoking opium as he penned Iberia or La Mer. In fact, his early life is revealing, determined not to follow formula as taught by Cesar Franck and almost losing the Prix de Rome over La Damoiselle...

Interesting thoughts. However, in my somewhat lowly, less accomplished work I rest on what I hear to be 'about right' rather than ever think of the maths. Maybe that's why Debussy leaves me at the starting line!

Lol, oh, I think I either explained wrong or you understood me wrong, yes, I was saying that Debussy works intuitively, but also that his intuition follows a pattern that is based around a 'golden ratio'. Basically I'm saying that he would compose with NO maths in mind, but, unwittingly he would create music that followed a general pattern.

It's hard to explain.. what I'm saying is that Debussy may have been listening to his music, and then changing the notes until it FELT right... so there was no maths involved CONSCIOUSLY.. but.. UNKNOWINGLY, the conditions for the music to 'feel' right, those conditions would follow a mathematical pattern. And what I'm saying is that Debussy would have not even known that his music followed maths, but simply that his instinct follow patterns... not consciously =)

You follow what you hear to be about right, so you would say that you follow an inner feeling of completeness? Now, ask yourself, where does that feeling come from? =) It is not a conscious feeling.. I know that. It is just.. a feeling of.. it sounding.. right. I think the question we need to look for is what makes it sound 'right'.

My beliefs are that in the subconscious mind we have a checklist, for example, maybe we prefer loud music to soft etc. Now, when you hear music, without you knowing, your subconscious mind is completing the checklist. If the music satisfies that checklist, then the subconscious mind would agree with the music. And when the subconscious mind agrees with something, the result is that you FEEL that the music is how you want it to sound =)

[reith]

Originally Posted by LethalBunny

You follow what you hear to be about right, so you would say that you follow an inner feeling of completeness? Now, ask yourself, where does that feeling come from? =) It is not a conscious feeling.. I know that. It is just.. a feeling of.. it sounding.. right. I think the question we need to look for is what makes it sound 'right'.

My beliefs are that in the subconscious mind we have a checklist, for example, maybe we prefer loud music to soft etc. Now, when you hear music, without you knowing, your subconscious mind is completing the checklist. If the music satisfies that checklist, then the subconscious mind would agree with the music. And when the subconscious mind agrees with something, the result is that you FEEL that the music is how you want it to sound =)

I agree to some extent but I'm not sure how much a "satisfaction decision" is based on the subconscious alone. I don't think I've ever been 100% satisfied with a composition - I've never heard an idealised performance (though I've been ready to accept a professional performance on the lucky occasion!)...but I wonder how much of the ideal is me conditioning myself to accept what I've done rather than something resonating from my subconscious. What pushes me to say "right, that's enough, I'll have to move on"? What makes me choose a particular version against another and sometimes return to an earlier version? What makes me say that so-and-so's recorded performance of an established work is the very pinnacle, only to find later down the line that something better comes up?

But I have to agree that the subconscious (assuming for the moment that it IS entirely subconscious) guides one through some kind of translation medium (music in this case) to compose in a certain style. I hope that doesn't sound abstruse - as an example, if I compose in a symbolist fashion - translating a spiritual experience of something, let's say Nature, it requires some mechanism to translate a subconscious Will to express into the real world of sound organisation. This is what Debussy and his mates were so good at. Delius was another one.

However, I'm not entirely convinced that the subconscious is quite as firewalled as is traditionally made out.

Well, you've made me think, at least!
cheers,
reith.

[LethalBunny]

Originally Posted by reith

I agree to some extent but I'm not sure how much a "satisfaction decision" is based on the subconscious alone. I don't think I've ever been 100% satisfied with a composition - I've never heard an idealised performance (though I've been ready to accept a professional performance on the lucky occasion!)...but I wonder how much of the ideal is me conditioning myself to accept what I've done rather than something resonating from my subconscious. What pushes me to say "right, that's enough, I'll have to move on"? What makes me choose a particular version against another and sometimes return to an earlier version? What makes me say that so-and-so's recorded performance of an established work is the very pinnacle, only to find later down the line that something better comes up?

But I have to agree that the subconscious (assuming for the moment that it IS entirely subconscious) guides one through some kind of translation medium (music in this case) to compose in a certain style. I hope that doesn't sound abstruse - as an example, if I compose in a symbolist fashion - translating a spiritual experience of something, let's say Nature, it requires some mechanism to translate a subconscious Will to express into the real world of sound organisation. This is what Debussy and his mates were so good at. Delius was another one.

However, I'm not entirely convinced that the subconscious is quite as firewalled as is traditionally made out.

Well, you've made me think, at least!
cheers,
reith.

Well then I must have missed out some factors
Of course..
okay,
well here goes

There are three determining factors in the creation of a musical success

Heart
Mind
Soul

And so music can satisfy these all at once or one at a time.
The best music satisfies them all
For example, if you look towards Beethovens 'Moonlight Sonata' the first movement SCREAMS with agony, and it is full of such.. powerful.. energy.. and at the same time it makes us feel like we are looking upon existance as if it were a chessboard.. that is what makes it such a moving, powerful energetic piece of music.. =)

now, yes, you are right, the subconscious isn't so simple etc.. and well.. the thing is that it is more than that... there is also the unconscious mind.. which we can only notice in our dreams and.. times of dreadful insomnia..

EDIT:
also another way to make an amazing piece of music is to satisfy the BODY, read the message below for an explanation. Moonlight Sonata satisfies the body by relaxing us. It is slow and dreamy and all of our tensions seem to mellow out when we listen to that song =)

[LethalBunny]

Originally Posted by reith

I agree to some extent but I'm not sure how much a "satisfaction decision" is based on the subconscious alone. I don't think I've ever been 100% satisfied with a composition - I've never heard an idealised performance (though I've been ready to accept a professional performance on the lucky occasion!)...but I wonder how much of the ideal is me conditioning myself to accept what I've done rather than something resonating from my subconscious. What pushes me to say "right, that's enough, I'll have to move on"? What makes me choose a particular version against another and sometimes return to an earlier version? What makes me say that so-and-so's recorded performance of an established work is the very pinnacle, only to find later down the line that something better comes up?

But I have to agree that the subconscious (assuming for the moment that it IS entirely subconscious) guides one through some kind of translation medium (music in this case) to compose in a certain style. I hope that doesn't sound abstruse - as an example, if I compose in a symbolist fashion - translating a spiritual experience of something, let's say Nature, it requires some mechanism to translate a subconscious Will to express into the real world of sound organisation. This is what Debussy and his mates were so good at. Delius was another one.

However, I'm not entirely convinced that the subconscious is quite as firewalled as is traditionally made out.

Well, you've made me think, at least!
cheers,
reith.

Well, it depends on what you consider the satisfaction to stem from. I believe that there is one deep source of all our intelligence, and that all of our other processes (thoughts feelings and emotions) are all a consequence of that intelligence. Now, if you satisfy the deep intelligence then you satisfy every other process that you make.
On the other hand, if you simply satisfy one of the consequential processes then you will only ever truly satisfy that process. To create truly amazing music you must simultaneously satisfy all of the processes. So, this allows for the way in which you also consciously decide on what sounds good and what does not. Consciously, you can satisfy conscious things. You can satisfy opinion, purpose and goals this way. So perhaps an intellectual piece of music can be satisfied consciously because you know what you are setting out to do, you know that you want it to convey some sort of idea based on a mathematically based (i.e anything that functions via a basis of rules) approach or whatever you would consider to be intellectual. The subconscious would extend to satisfy peace of mind. The unconscious would satisfy dreams. Then, the heart would satisfy emotions. The soul would satisfy feeling. The body would satisfy ACTIVITY i.e a way of satisfying activity is to have a song with a rhythm that makes the body feel like it wants to move, and example of this would be jazz bebop music =)

[reith]

This gets more interesting. I've worked with dreams - not just trying to compose music on that plane (which never worked entirely well - some result tho, accidentally I've gone lucid and not woken myself doing so! - you have to know how to bring music/poetry back) but one can capture a few sequences in the raw at the instant of awakening; can sometimes look back into the dream to extract a bit more ; and the act of making notes somehow cements fragments that can be meditated on further. Sometimes the process is a waste of time, others, valuable creative inspiration. Naturally it's mainly visual and emotional but this is where symbolism comes in - translating this or similar stuff into music, depending heavily on experience within our culture.

If dreams are the work of the unconscious it is in fact pouring its imagery and expressive advice into the conscious in a way the conscious mind can hold and use it. So it's yielded a few of its secrets. I can only assume the traffic is two way therefore, and I'm wondering if what we call "personal experience" is in fact a bidirectional layer between the two. A sort of Asynchronous Communication Interface Adapter. Like I say, I assume.

Your use of Heart, Mind and Soul are pleasing to read - ideas I understand and to hell with scientists "who will oneday explain all" so say those tied to the material plane. I am happy with the magic of the creative process and damned sure I don't want scientists destroying that. My last comment is that Heart, Mind, Soul and Body are integrated. Like religious leaders, popular spiritual self-help writers still try to segregate them but artistic creators integrate them. Your using the words separately is fine though because all will know what you mean.

Soul is the root power - works very closely with the Venus qualities of the heart, then confers with the mind over outward objectives and practice. Though it is through the body that perceptions are experienced, so that comes into it too.

Anyway, this post is getting a bit long. I'll go on talking about it though if you wish to expand - or any other members for that matter!

reith

[reith]

Originally Posted by LethalBunny

Well, it depends on what you consider the satisfaction to stem from. I believe that there is one deep source of all our intelligence, and that all of our other processes (thoughts feelings and emotions) are all a consequence of that intelligence. Now, if you satisfy the deep intelligence then you satisfy every other process that you make.

One problem here: unless you're 100% happy writing music to be heard by no one but yourself, you (composer) are part of a communication process. If your music is to communicate at any level (maybe not 100% your intentions but partially at least) then you have to tame your creation to "speak (enough of) the same language" as the receiver for the communication to be possible. This is where so many experimental composers fall flat - sure, they make noises (though I've met plenty of student composers who do not correspond to your theory - simply, they really don't know what they've written, satisfied at the aesthetic level that it looks good on paper - the more complicated the better, sometimes you'd think. They turn up to rehearse a work, are invited to comment on the rehearsal and clearly know little about what the thing is to sound like. So their checklisting was in a different area where music happens just to be a medium).
Main point is, in communication terms, what they "send" isn't in a language their audence understands. So the communication fails.

Things get more complicated when writing music for someone else.

cheers,
reith

[LethalBunny]

Yeah, well, writing music for someone else hmm well that isn't so hard for me, because my personality is such that I like to satisfy others so when I write music I'm constantly thinking of how others would think of it anyway =)

And about the scientists, yeah, hell to them, they act as if what they know is truth, I hate that. They act as if they have some supreme authority over knowledge. To be honest I think a lot of what they say is rubbish and like they seem to think that cleverness is genius, it's not, simplicity is genius. When things make sense and are simple, it really is amazing =) But well, I think that's only a few scientists anyway. Because I've known scientists and well the ones I knew were actually quite down to earth =)

I think the soul is basically just energy. like.... good or bad energy. Like, if something makes you happy it's probably because it gave your soul 'good energy' or something like that.

Well, I have a pretty odd way of composing, I stay up as late as I can until like 4 am or something like that and make sure that I am as tired as I can possibly be, until I'm actually so tired I can't keep my eyes open, then I go to my keyboard and record whatever comes to my hands. Then when I wake up I listen to it and it sounds awesome, like, the creativity in me is just unleashed and since I was so tired I would not get tired of listening to what I heard because I would not be bothered about what I was playing, I would just play it and not care much about anything else =)

I think those student composers aren't really composers, they are just making music to get a good grade they don't really understand what composing is all about. I've been down the long route of discovering how to compose, I remember when I couldn't really compose anything at all, and like.. it was hard was really hard to get started off, it took a lot of endurance, but was well worth it. basically to compose well you just have to trust in your deep feelings, don't compare yourself to others. that was my problem at least, I would hear others music and suddenly my music would seem foolish.

Thing is that my mind heart body soul etc they all feel separate but also they feel connected. it's like my mind is in my head, my heart is the gut feelings and the feelings in my chest, my soul usually is my feeling of inner peace/joy, like, when you get that tingling feeling all over, that's what I consider my soul to be, and then my body well that's the physical feeling that I have so they are separate in that way but they are also linked because they all kinda affect each other.

[Thorolf]

[Scientist stepping in]

My main interrest outside music is science. Indeed, people who call themselves musicologists never are close to envisioning a scientific “know-all” to music. So I frankly don’t understand where and when the evil killjoy scientists enter the picture?

I suggest they are an urban myth, alongside with the mad scientists of B-movie thrillers, and the untidy, distrait professor, brilliant in one field, but useless everywhere else. (To be able to do proper science, you need extreme tidiness most of the time, not to spoil experiments, observations and calculations.)

Originally Posted by LethalBunny

I've known scientists and well the ones I knew were actually quite down to earth

I’m afraid they’re quite representative…

And, indeed, most posters on this forum indulge in Music Theory from time to time, and these rules are only the resulting formulas of studying certain periods of music in a scientific way…

It’s only lately that the theories preceed the actual music. And a lot of the music conceived in this way indeed suxx0rz…



Regards

[LethalBunny]

lol, oh it was in response to something to do with mind body soul or whatever I don't know, read the last 3 messages and it will make sense, basically the scientists are to do with people being more ignorant and trying to be clever rather than going by how they feel etc. and that some scientists are like that. at least, the overall general picture of it is like that, that's the impression that I get from the major sources of science in my life.

oh no trust me there are mad scientists I had work experience at pfizers and met some really crazy mad scientists, the urban myth is true to some extent!! =) they are cool though, not unsociable like the myth would imply.

yeah, but like.. I don't know, for example mozarts piano stuff it seems like he just used rules it really does, because loads of his stuff just seems to follow the same.. pattern. it all seems samey. and that's what I mean by maths, maths in composing would just refer to how composers tend to do stuff a certain way, that is their.. pattern that's all =) and yeah you are also right, music theory traditionally should come after the music, that's how it should be and that's how I use it anyway. music is for listening to. it's about more than the mind.