# Interesting Bartok analysis



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 23, 2008)

I personally find detailed analysis of contrived forms (Fibonacci series or whatever the frick) really tedious. On the other hand Music for Strings, Celeste, and Percussion is seat belt music.

So whether or not Bartok was using that as a way of stimulating himself, it's not something you hear in the music and therefore it's only of passing interest to me. What you do hear and see on that page is the basic egg shape - a gradual build up to a climax and then a fairly quick release.

You can get ethereal and say that the egg is the most perfect shape in nature, bla bla bla. Or you can just understand that the egg shape is pretty standard for music, that it works very well because it builds tension gradually, after which you want to release it fairly quickly but not all at once.

There's a lot more interesting stuff going on in that piece as far as I'm concerned. The counterpoint, for example.


----------



## Thonex (Feb 23, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> I personally find detailed analysis of contrived forms (Fibonacci series or whatever the frick) really tedious.



Yet Fibonacci Retracements are used every day in the charting and technical analysis of stocks on Wall St. 

Observing nature, and even public trading trends and distilling the data into a formula can be a helpful tool. It's a help full tool, but will not guarantee success... and just like in music...knowing all the theory will not guarantee a great composition. 

Analysis can also be a useful tool in understanding music and in composing. But, again, it will not guarantee success. 

Ok... it's late and I'm just meandering here.... never mind...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 23, 2008)

Andrew, you'll have to explain that to me. Maybe my Apple stock will go back up if you do.


----------



## re-peat (Feb 23, 2008)

There's a very, very interesting book on Bartok's music, written by Elliot Antokoletz and published by The University Of California Press. The book's called _"The Music Of Béla Bartok / A Study Of Tonality and Progression in Twentieth-Century Music"_. Not the easiest of reads perhaps, but highly recommended nonetheless.
Another famous piece of Bartok that's entirely built on symetry is the 2nd movement of his 'Concerto For Orchestra': the 'Giuoco Delle Coppie' ('Game Of The Pairs').

And the composer most associated with numbers and numerical relationships as a foundation for composition - apart from Iannis Xenakis perhaps - is Johann Sebastian Bach.

_


----------



## Nickie Fønshauge (Feb 23, 2008)

Another book about Bartók, that is a must, is

Ernö Lendvai: 
Béla Bartók
An Analysis of his Music
Kahn & Averill, London

Despite it being only 115 pages, it brings a thorough analysis of form and tonality in Bartók's music with an emphasis on Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion & Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta.


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 23, 2008)

I find Bartok's music amazingly intricate and interesting. His Miraculous Mandarin is a fabulous coloristic piece while his Concerto For Orchestra continues to fascinate me.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 23, 2008)

Another worthy book:

Concerto for Orchestra: Understanding Bartok's world

I don't think that there is anything wrong with exploring new possibilities or new concepts when composing. 
Yes, music needs an audience (some great composers thought we'd be better off without one) but unless the composer challenges the boundaries of what's acceptable to the public's taste, there is no moving forward...


----------



## nikolas (Feb 23, 2008)

aeneas: I would suggest that you save everyone the trouble and just copy paste the word "I dissagree" in every post you make. Either way it will be true.

Listening the Bartoks music for strings, percussion and celesta and knowing that he *obviously* went to all the trouble with all the things explained in this thread, means (for me at least) that there is a connection between the trouble he went and how good it sounds. 

But then again it's my opinion against yours, and your opinion is not bound to change.

To the OP: Thanks for the links. Muchos useful.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 23, 2008)

If you read (!) the second link, he starts out by showing how the first movement is a fugue that uses every chromatic note from A to E, then the other voices come in above and below that. The egg shape is not only dynamic, but harmonic as well. It's an interesting analysis.


----------



## re-peat (Feb 23, 2008)

It's not the analysis that's interesting, it's the piece.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 23, 2008)

Exactly.

"I don't think that there is anything wrong with exploring new possibilities or new concepts when composing."

I don't either; I'm just saying that I have enough trouble writing good music without having a fricking advanced maths lesson to make it far more difficult.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 23, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> "I don't think that there is anything wrong with exploring new possibilities or new concepts when composing."
> 
> I don't either; I'm just saying that I have enough trouble writing good music without having a fricking advanced maths lesson to make it far more difficult.



My argument wasn't directed at you Nick.
When you say that you don't care for in-depth analysis but care about the music as a priority, there really isn't much of an argument to be made: it's all good.

My response was pointing at Aeneas' argument (and we all know he loves to argue...)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 23, 2008)

AENEAS DOES NOT LIKE TO ARGUE! I NEVER SAID HE DID! YOU'RE TOTALLY MISREPRESENTING EVERYTHING I'VE SAID IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS!

ARGUMENT IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER! I NEVER TAKE SIDES, AND I DON'T ARGUE!

GOT THAT?


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 23, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> AENEAS DOES NOT LIKE TO ARGUE! I NEVER SAID HE DID! YOU'RE TOTALLY MISREPRESENTING EVERYTHING I'VE SAID IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS!
> 
> ARGUMENT IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER! I NEVER TAKE SIDES, AND I DON'T ARGUE!
> 
> GOT THAT?



You mean that you and I have been in this wonderful relationship for five years already!?


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 23, 2008)

Synthetic, thanks for those links!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 23, 2008)

It seems to pass as a common knowledge that geometrically preconceived proportions among durations, frequencies, dynamics, and timbres - that those proportions do say anything about a piece except: "the piece is structured over this and that ratios, silver ratio, platinum ratio, fibonacci, e=mc2 (superscript?), etc." OK, so the piece is structured over those ratios. Good to know. So what about it? Is THAT what makes the piece sound good? I like thousands of pieces that probably have nothing to do with numerical/geometric deliberately pre-thought proportions. 

That's my point: there is no use of using mathematical charts for making music. When making music for ballet, you structure your music for dance, when you do music for film, you structure your music for the drama, for the moods, for the actions, etc. But structuring your music over polygons?? What's the point in doing that? I can take a Petrarch sonnet and translate all its letters to pitches, dynamics, timbres, etc. - would that make my piece "intellectual"? That would be only highbrowish, which is the surrogate of intellectual. Would that "technique" make my piece to sound good? Hardly, IMO.

Yet, I agree - those maps look nice to me, too. Also, that piece sounds good to me, too. But, I can make no connection whatsoever between: 
a) that piece sounding good to me, and 
b) the diagram of that piece. 
I second (third) what a couple of people seem to imply above - it's not diagrams that make good sounding pieces. So - don't waste your time to build your pieces over diagrams. Build them on ballet, instead. Build them on film sequences. Build them on lyrics and make songs. You wanna base them on polygons? Sure you can, if you want. But - who needs 'fibnacciously constructed polygonal music'?

edit: 
Preconceived form in concert music is a much debated topic. I am on Eric Satie's side, when he was mocking this topic with his "Morceaux en forme de poire" :lol:


----------



## Frederick Russ (Feb 23, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> "I don't think that there is anything wrong with exploring new possibilities or new concepts when composing."
> 
> I don't either; I'm just saying that I have enough trouble writing good music without having a fricking advanced maths lesson to make it far more difficult.



While I try to keep an open mind, I do know that math helps me when balancing the checkbook and paying bills. Math in music _might_ help - then again it may be just a cool past time. I still like cool new approaches (if they help me find a unique voice in the composing process). 

If one thing out of twenty new ideas presented can personally help me compose better, great. If someone other than me can get something out of this, great. Too early to tell if this will help though - interesting study though. Sometimes I'll have a new idea presented one day then won't revisit it for ten months - then all of sudden all the pieces fit - so I'm not quite ready to shoot it down yet.


----------



## nikolas (Feb 23, 2008)

In all honesty, I have plenty of examples where I use math in writing (actually precomposing) my music. 100% for my PhD of course. Computer game music does not require such tedious work.

Aeneas, let's take a step back.

Let's just say that the golden ratio, in a form (a first part at 5/8 and the second part the rest 3/8) is too much for you. Something even more complicated than that is obvious too much for you. Meaning that you don't see the connection.

So let's take a step back and try something else.

Do you see any reason why most music phrases are in multiples of 8 (or 16) bars? Do you feel that a... Sonata form is rubbish? That a fugue is rubbish?

Let's take something else then. The simplest of things. A... chromatic fugue maybe... Or maybe 24 preludes and fugues. It did take some planning, didn't it? Or maybe a simple C maj chord which sounds OH SO GOOD! 

If someone decides to go about and create something based on other ratios than the ones that YOU like aò0=   pÙ¨0=   pÙ©0=   pÙª0=   pÙ«0=   pÙ¬0=   pÙ­0=   pÙ®0=   pÙ¯0=   pÙ°0=   pÙ±0=   pÙ²0=   pÙ³0=   pÙ´0=   pÙµ0=   pÙ¶0=   pÙ·0=   pÙ¸0=   pÙ¹0=   pÙº0=   pÙ»0=   pÙ¼0=   pÙ½0=   pÙ¾0=   pÙ¿0=   pÙÀ0=   pÙÁ0=   pÙÂ0=   pÙÃ0=   pÙÄ0=   pÙÅ0=   pÙÆ0=   pÙÇ0=   pÙÈ0=   pÙÉ0=   pÙÊ0=   pÙË0=   pÙÌ0=   pÙÍ0=   pÙÎ0=   pÙÏ0=   pÙÐ0=   pÙÑ0=   pÙÒ0=   pÙÓ0=   pÙÔ0=   pÙÕ0=   pÙÖ0=   pÙ×0=   pÙØ0=   pÙÙ0=   pÙÚ0=   pÙÛ0=   pÙÜ0=   pÙÝ0=   pÙÞ0=   pÙß0=   pÙà0=   pÙá0=   pÙâ0=   pÙã0=   pÙä0=   pÙå0=   pÙæ0=   pÙç0=   pÙè0>   pÙé0>   pÙê0>   pÙë0>   pÙì0>   pÙí0>   pÙî0>   pÙï0>   pÙð0>   pÙñ0>   pÙò0>   pÙó0>   pÙô0>   pÙõ0>   pÙö0>   pÙ÷0>   pÙø0>   pÙù0>   pÙú0>   pÙû0>   pÙü0>   pÙý0>   pÙþ0>   pÙÿ0>   pÚ 0>   pÚ0>   pÚ0>   pÚ0>   pÚ0>   pÚ0>   pÚ0>   pÚ0>   pÚ0>   pÚ	0>   pÚ
0>   pÚ0>   pÚ0>   pÚ


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 23, 2008)

nikolas @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> I shouldn't have posted really! Patrick said what I said (and was thinking) but very much better than me! Damn! :D



Well... I had to edit this post four times and attempt to make it sound smart :wink:


----------



## synthetic (Feb 23, 2008)

Math might come in handy when writing 12-tone music, which is essentially what we're talking about. It's all essentially math, coming up with a formula to create music that is dissonant yet with some form of order. To me, the discussion of the fugue is much more interesting than the Phi analysis, but they're both interesting. Yet as a photographer, I've learned that Phi just "looks right," so perhaps it sounds right too. 

Thanks for the book recommendations. I've already spent my allowance for this month but they're going on my to-buy list.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 23, 2008)

The difference is that you're using your ear to construct a tone row that sounds good to you. But maybe not - Bartok's ears and brain obviously weren't divorced.

[edit: I meant but maybe that's not a difference, not that maybe Bartok didn't use his ears but did even though I said he didn't but maybe or maybe not...]

Whatever works. I personally don't need to create a puzzle to write music; for me having decided upon the form in advance is more than enough structure.


----------



## nikolas (Feb 23, 2008)

Fair enough Nick, and I agree (partly).

But just as an idea. What if the form was more... ellaborate? More... complicated. Forms don't need to be "simple" (by no means simple but anyhow) fugues, or sonatas, or ABCA, or whatever. They could involve higher math, or ideas, or whatever really.


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 23, 2008)

nikolas @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> aeneas: I would suggest that you save everyone the trouble and just copy paste the word "I dissagree" in every post you make. Either way it will be true.
> 
> Listening the Bartoks music for strings, percussion and celesta and knowing that he *obviously* went to all the trouble with all the things explained in this thread, means (for me at least) that there is a connection between the trouble he went and how good it sounds.



Yes exactly! Nikolas, I was wondering if you ever approach a new piece with some kind of outside structural ideology? I know when I've been a little dry in the inspiration dept. I try to approach music either from older forms, i.e. rondo, passacaglia, fugue etc. or else apply a totally non-musical system like formal logic equations. 

I almost own every piece that Bartok wrote and studying his music allows me some insights into non-traditional harmonic procedures and tonalities. I also studied some Xenakis scores when I was in university. The conductor's scores were MASSIVE. Mind you the guy started out as an architect so what did I expect? 

Incidentally, I do find constructing some kind of form to an orchestral piece is almost mandatory. this allows me to build towards something in my pieces rather than meander along. Not having some kind of structural skeleton for an orchestral work is like Tolstoy just sitting down and writing whatever came to his head for War and Peace as opposed to plotting out things. 

sometimes the construction of a piece will be innate, especially for those who have studied existing forms like the sonata form used in symphonies. It isn't the be all end all of course but it does help I think.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 23, 2008)

nikolas @ Sat 23 Feb said:


> In all honesty, I have plenty of examples where I use math in writing (actually precomposing) my music. 100% for my PhD of course. Computer game music does not require such tedious work.
> 
> Aeneas, let's take a step back.
> 
> ...



1) The golden ratio form is not "too much" for me. It is rather too low, like playing kindergarten lego.
2) Something "more" complicated is not "obviously too much" for me. Understanding musical structures, however sophisticated might them be, is fairly easy for anyone who has the tools. I do have the tools. But that's not the point here.
3) The reasons why many Western pieces are poured into multiples of eight measures recipients is worth a discussion.
4) I never said and I do not feel that Sonata form is rubbish. Yet sonata form doesn't say anything about the quality of a piece written in that form. I was only questioning WHAT diagrams would assure to a piece of music.
5) Same about fugue, and any other form.
6) You seem to imply that "a simple C maj chord which sounds OH SO GOOD!" is my level of understanding music. That was a very low blow, even for a PhD.
7) I have no problems with any technique composers might use, that's their own business. However, I have the right to question WHAT would make their approach important for others. WHAT would make fibonacci series useful for writing successful music?
8 ) I never said that that procedure is "too intellectual". On the contrary - I said that it is highbrowish, which is the surrogate of intellectual.
9) I said I like this particular piece by Bartok, and that me liking it does not have nothing to do with its polygonal look on paper.
10) I am not patronizing anyone. You do. You do patronize me. That's bad. Instead of doing that, try and see how easy is to focus on the points rather than on the person. 
11) My thoughts and ideas are not "rubbish", thank you though.
12) A piece is good if it sounds good to your ears. Now, can you rationally support the relation between: a) you liking the piece, and b) its form? If you can, then do it - I will be the first to acknowledge that there IS a relation between a) and b). 
13) I do not "exhibit absolutism", that is only your own perception. I could easily say that you exhibit highbrowism, and that would be only my own perception of what you do exhibit.
14) Yes you have not heard any of my musical pieces, and (perhaps to your big surprise), that is completely irrelevant to the points made in this discussion.
15) I will stay out of this, or other, discussion when I will want to, and not when YOU want.
16) Thanks for the link http://www.ILOVETODEBATE.com (www.ILOVETODEBATE.com) - I could myself come up with a number of similar links and point them to you. Yet I won't, because I firmly believe that you have the right to post whatever your want, on whatever site you want. However, I will question your right to get personal, tho'. BTW, that link was another low blow, very low, even for a PhD. And here is yet another low blow: _"aeneas: I would suggest that you save everyone the trouble and just copy paste the word "I dissagree" in every post you make."_ nikolas: would you please stop addressing me, and address the points instead? Thank you. If you can't do that, please just skip my posts. Thanks.
17) I was not referring to Satie's humor, but to his attitude towards musical straightjackets. There are two paradigms clashing here. You have seen the 'form' of Satie's attitude (humorous), while I have seen the 'content' of it (liberation from academic straighjacket forms). 

To me, content is far more important than form. If the content is good, then it can be expressed in a multitude of forms. Pouring bad content into scholarly, polygonal forms, that won't improve the content. IMHO, there is little use, if any, in focusing on form. In filmscoring, the form is given by the medium, anyways. If you want to compose highbrow concert music, then of course, stick with forms, and make your musical content formal as well. From what I've seen, scholars display the tendency to politely applaud each other. So, your success is guaranteed. No sarcasm.


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 23, 2008)

aeneas, it's clear that you do have some knowledge in music. And you do like to engage in intellectual debates (c'mon, face it you do- and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that either BTW). 

I will address the point of liking something or ascribing some value to a piece of music I like because of its construction. Fact is, as a person who has always sought to find out the mechanics of how things work, I'm interested in why I like the sound of a minor7th chord or a half diminished chord to I chord cadence. I grew up listening to music of all sorts- jazz, classical, R&B because my dad was a musician. Early on I wanted to know why I liked some chords while other ones didn't do anything for me. 

I think a form or principle that stems from a system of music is a starting point or guideline, even if it's unconscious, to most composers. Did Beethoven say "I want to use a sequence here to get me to that next section?" Well, actually, given the fact that he revised and revised, probably yeah, he did. But many current composers go with their instincts first and rely on their formal grounding to get the music in their heads out better. Are they constrained by pre-conceived patterns or practices because of this? Well, perhaps. I would like to think it allows them to move around and adjust the music system to what stems from their own musical voice. 

I would like to ask one thing though to aeneas- is there any place I can hear your own music? Not that it would negate or invalidate your posts if I did not care for it but I'm curious as to what kind of music you compose.

Edit- I would also like to know why academic perspectives on music are such a bad thing these days. It seems like whenever a group of people would like to engage in discourse in a musical vernacular that they are slammed with the elitist or snob title? I don't think that's fair. After all, this is a music forum that is populated by many guys and gals who have spent large portions of their lives studying music.


----------



## StrangeCat (Feb 23, 2008)

it's pretty interesting I'll give you that but I would never sit there and mathematically put together a piece of music other then time signitures.
maybe I would map out a form. I have to feel the music and mathematically constructing something would be dead in the water to me.
Cool websites though thanks!


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 23, 2008)

A different ideological precept may only serve to break a composer out of creative stagnation but it will ultimately be to their discretion and music taste how their music piece evolves.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 23, 2008)

For a completely different analysis (than Fibonacci numbers) of Bartok's "musical meaning", subscribe to the iTunes Naxos Classical Music Spotlight Podcast and listen to the 2007.11.19 broadcast on Bela Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle opera...

WARNING...guaranteed to be truly creepy!

Or read the plot here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard%27s_Castle

What's creepier is he dedicated it to his wife! 

Composers are a strange lot...


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 23, 2008)

Bartok's choice of subject matter was often very dark. The Miraculous Mandarin basically plays out like the very first Friday the 13th slasher film. A prostitute and her friends rob and beat up those gents who the whore courts. When a strange Mandarin fancies her, her friends attempt to kill him by stabbing him, suffocating him, and he keeps coming for the girl. Only when she gives into his advances does his wounds open up and he dies. 

Nice story huh? Bartok entered this in a composer competition but the judges found it too macabre and morbid.

Gee, I wonder why?


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 23, 2008)

Yet he wrote such nice little piano pieces for the children.
He he he...little did they know.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 23, 2008)

synergy543 @ Sun 24 Feb said:


> Yet he wrote such nice little piano pieces for children.


If you are talking about Mikrokosmos, that is a collection of gems, also a great manual of composition craft. That collection is what I love most from Bartok: those miniatures are condensed, polished, straightforward, clear, sound, effective, powerful. Priceless bijoux! To me, Bartok was more a master jeweler than a grandiose architect. Brilliant composer! Yes, he was playing with geometries in his music, once or twice, but that's not what makes him big, IMHO. It is his incredible capacity to squeeze a lot of music from a few elements. A very 'intense' composer. 

Also, what I love about him is that he never lost the common touch, never went high-brow, like many other composers of that period did. Bartok was very found of popular music, of folk music. When Stravinsky departed from his Russian vein after his first three ballets, he got lost in 'highbrowish' mind games for the rest of his carrier. That never happened with Bartok, in spite of his (few) polygonal musings...

Bottom line: IMO, in concert music, Form should serve the Content, and not vice-versa. Form should not have mathematical rigidity, it should be flexible, it should mold to the Content. Better, Form should come naturally out of the Content, and not precede the Content. Form shouldn't be a purpose, an end in itself, nor should it constrain the Content into stiff geometrical figures that look good graphically. Form should be more like a shadowy shape of the already evasive perception of time, rather than a strict diagram on tracing paper.

my two 'formal' pence


----------



## nikolas (Feb 24, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> 1) The golden ratio form is not "too much" for me. It is rather too low, like playing kindergarten lego.


But you seem to find no connection between more advanced uses of φ (haha! I'm greek! :D), but I did *assume* that you didn't mind simpler forms. This is what I said.



> 2) Something "more" complicated is not "obviously too much" for me. Understanding musical structures, however sophisticated might them be, is fairly easy for anyone who has the tools. I do have the tools. But that's not the point here.


Too much, not like "you won't understand it", but too much as in "this doesn't make sense musically. This amazing form and usage of mathematics has NO connection with the actual music.



> 3) The reasons why many Western pieces are poured into multiples of eight measures recipients is worth a discussion.


I agree. 



> 4) I never said and I do not feel that Sonata form is rubbish. Yet sonata form doesn't say anything about the quality of a piece written in that form. I was only questioning WHAT diagrams would assure to a piece of music.


Nothing, but you tried (and still do, I think) to disconnect this type of precompositional process from the music itself. And I dissagree to that. So if a Sonata sounds different from... a prelude, this is partly because it's a sonata. The qualities of a sonata are mirrored somewhat in the music. At least in the Classical and romantic era. I support that the same can happen with much more advanced forms, and heck harmonic language etc, and music, while you dissagree. You say that the use of φ would suite better a music store rather than "designing" music around it.

So we dissagree and the Sonata was *obviously* an example!



> 5) Same about fugue, and any other form.


Alread answered that, right above!



> 6) You seem to imply that "a simple C maj chord which sounds OH SO GOOD!" is my level of understanding music. That was a very low blow, even for a PhD.


I think that you are too used in defending yourself that you see enemies wherever you go.

I didn't imply ANYTHING about you. Only about your points and ideas! Think about it. 

The C maj, was, yes another example of basic stuff, same as the sonata and fugue. My ideas was to try and put things to such a basic level that they ARE common knowledge that they work and then question you on WHY do these amazingly common things work, and not... phi in music. Or architectural ideas in Xenakis music.



> 7) I have no problems with any technique composers might use, that's their own business. However, I have the right to question WHAT would make their approach important for others. WHAT would make fibonacci series useful for writing successful music?


Of course and good for you! But going about "Don't waste your time..." and some other things, is NOT questioning, or trying to learn, but patronising other : "I know better, just don't do it. It doesn't work". You don't debate, you don't question, you don't ask, you provide "FACTS" (which are far from facts if you ask me)



> 8 ) I never said that that procedure is "too intellectual". On the contrary - I said that it is highbrowish, which is the surrogate of intellectual.



Probably wrong on this one (me, I mean). I took the idea from this quote:


aeneas on an earlier post said:


> I can take a Petrarch sonnet and translate all its letters to pitches, dynamics, timbres, etc. - would that make my piece "intellectual"? That would be only highbrowish, which is the surrogate of intellectual. Would that "technique" make my piece to sound good? Hardly, IMO.


Do techniques make a piece more intelectual? If so, and you do dissregard the usage of φ in Bartoks music, then wouldn't that piece be an attempt to be intellectual as well?

That's what I mean, at least.



> 9) I said I like this particular piece by Bartok, and that me liking it does not have nothing to do with its polygonal look on paper.


And I'm saying that if the polygonal look on paper, did not exist, and my guess is that he did design the piece towards that (with the φ idea) then would the piece sound the same? would you like it? Hardly, IMO.



> 10) I am not patronizing anyone. You do. You do patronize me. That's bad. Instead of doing that, try and see how easy is to focus on the points rather than on the person.



Oh but I am! :D

Everything I say about rubbish is about your points and ideas, not about you.

You love debating, or you will deny that? The link was an attempt to a joke (but obviously failed). The same with the "I dissagree" comment in my previous post. I was simply stating that you seem to work like the salmon, contrary to the flow, each and every time, which is rather characteristic of your posts. That's all! Take it as you will!



> 11) My thoughts and ideas are not "rubbish", thank you though.



But they can be! The ideas that you present in this thread that is. 

Maybe too much and I agree that it was too much, so sorry about that.



> 12) A piece is good if it sounds good to your ears. Now, can you rationally support the relation between: a) you liking the piece, and b) its form? If you can, then do it - I will be the first to acknowledge that there IS a relation between a) and b).


So why not in this instance? Why not with φ?



> 13) I do not "exhibit absolutism", that is only your own perception. I could easily say that you exhibit highbrowism, and that would be only my own perception of what you do exhibit.


LOL! I love the word highbrowism!

I was, again, based to the commens "don't do that...", "There is no connection..." etc... There wasn't even a imHo. 



> 14) Yes you have not heard any of my musical pieces, and (perhaps to your big surprise), that is completely irrelevant to the points made in this discussion.



Oh by all means! I'd love to listen to some music of yours! why not? 

I did want to provide an analysis (if I would find the time) and prove that there are things going on underneath YOUR music as well! :D but never mind now. :'(
boo hoo hoo



> 15) I will stay out of this, or other, discussion when I will want to, and not when YOU want.
> 16) Thanks for the link http://www.ILOVETODEBATE.com (www.ILOVETODEBATE.com) - I could myself come up with a number of similar links and point them to you. Yet I won't, because I firmly believe that you have the right to post whatever your want, on whatever site you want. However, I will question your right to get personal, tho'. BTW, that link was another low blow, very low, even for a PhD. And here is yet another low blow: _"aeneas: I would suggest that you save everyone the trouble and just copy paste the word "I dissagree" in every post you make."_ nikolas: would you please stop addressing me, and address the points instead? Thank you. If you can't do that, please just skip my posts. Thanks.


And yet again, an attempt to providing links and saying something that otherwise would hurt slightly. In the end of things, is it not true that you like debating? Is it not true that you come off almost always dissagreeing? You minded the link? Sorry, I've seen it and done it in other forums, so I hoped it WOULD pass for what it.

Yes it was personal, but it was a harmless comment, I find. 

Maybe wrong, if you were too bothered I will apologise once more.

But I will not stop addressing anyone's post, or ideas, or etc...




> 17) I was not referring to Satie's humor, but to his attitude towards musical straightjackets. There are two paradigms clashing here. You have seen the 'form' of Satie's attitude (humorous), while I have seen the 'content' of it (liberation from academic straighjacket forms).


Yes and the two "humour" and "attitude" go together. I was pointing out that.



> To me, content is far more important than form. If the content is good, then it can be expressed in a multitude of forms. Pouring bad content into scholarly, polygonal forms, that won't improve the content. IMHO, there is little use, if any, in focusing on form. In filmscoring, the form is given by the medium, anyways. If you want to compose highbrow concert music, then of course, stick with forms, and make your musical content formal as well. From what I've seen, scholars display the tendency to politely applaud each other. So, your success is guaranteed. No sarcasm.


Isn't this low as well mate?

don't bash ALL academic music and everything in your way, just because someone dissagreed with you. 

Nobody said that content is less important than form. But there is a connection and I state that I find that the design of some pieces is wonderous and maybe, just maybe, there is a connection between how amazing the music sounds and the amazing form used (or other ideas, extro-musical).

Now you take down the word "maybe" in most cases and this is the more irritating thing! (I hope this is not too personal. If so I do apologise in advance).

I hope the above are clear now.



EDIT: To your last post. This is SO MUCH BETTER of putting things! I love your last post, becasue it leaves room to say that there are other ways to compose and other ideas and people do do so with various amounts of success, etc. 

After all, if film music, provides you with the form, ALWAYS (or at least in 95%) and the composers (some composers) have managed to write masterpieces with the given form, why is it not the same to make up your own "advanced" form and then work to that, to serve the content and limit yourself? Isn't it the same?


----------



## aeneas (Feb 24, 2008)

nikolas @ Sun 24 Feb said:


> After all, if film music, provides you with the form, ALWAYS (or at least in 95%) and the composers (some composers) have managed to write masterpieces with the given form, why is it not the same to make up your own "advanced" form and then work to that, to serve the content and limit yourself? Isn't it the same?


That is a good observation. No, I don't think it is the same, and I will try to explain why. Shortly: because music serving a diagram is different from music serving a film sequence. When music serves a film sequence, a clear, positive, aesthetic upwards leap does occur. When music serves a rigid diagram, an unclear, negative, unaesthetic downwards leap does occur. That is why I don't think it's the same. Now, my rationale, in detail:

When I said that, in filmscoring, the Form is already given by the medium, my point was that Form does not improve the Content, but just contains it. So, the Form is already there, in the film sequence, nothing to change, nothing to do about it. Therefore, the filmscorer only has to fill it in with the Content of his music. That was precisely my point: *No use to think about Form in filmscoring.* Is that correct?

As I see it, we have reached here an important border between filmscoring and concert music. In concert music, the composer is concerned with both the Content and its Form. The composer can decide WHEN Form should develop seamlessly out of the natural unfolding of the Content, and WHEN Form should take precedence and constrain the Content to the Form. OTOH, precisely because the Form is already there, in filmscoring all the energy is focused on creating a musical Content that would serve the film sequence. So, in filmscoring, the musical Content never addresses directly the musical Form. *The musical Content only addresses the film sequence.*

My point is: it makes good sense to me that a Musical Content would address, would serve, would be subdued to a pre-constructed film sequence (because of the aesthetic leap resulted from that marriage). But this makes no sense to me: WHY should a Musical Content address, serve, be subdued to a pre-constructed mathematical equation? :shock: Why should a Musical Content address, serve, be subdued to a ratio? Why should a Musical Content address, serve, be subdued to a polygon, or to diagram? Tell me, what's the purpose of this type of servitude? Is that diagram superior to the Musical Content? Is that polygon superior to the Musical Content? How about that ratio? Or that mathematical equation? Are them, any of them, superior to the Musical Content? *Why should Music serve those lifeless, frozen things?* Picture the baby that would result from the marriage between a gazelle and a logarithm! :D This was my point, in a previous post, about extra-musical Forms enforced to musical Content: I see no justification and no point in mathematically determined music. 

And now you can look for flaws in the rationale above.


----------



## StrangeCat (Feb 24, 2008)

there is a lot of music composed using math. think 12tone.
As for the discussion let's look at it as one way of doing a style of orchestration or composition. 

think of motifs and cues as little themes and you have your form in Film music. 
what came first the diagram or the music^_-


Wow you aeneas you just showed me the huge flaw in directors and use of music in films! The underscore, the idea there isn't enough silence! There is no form in the music it's just supporting something for the film. Silence would be like a cadence and make the music more dramatic when it appears again. 

Form is a balanced structure no matter the form you create or you listeners are going to be like WTF was that! Your music will sound like your wandering and losing it.

As for form and film here do this Write a huge Classical piece, now take that piece and use it for the film just that music. Every little part could support the film then when the film ends play that piece. Done.

Afterwards ton people will come and discuss your Masterpiece and how it mathematically maches the timing of the film and how each cue is a little gem from this Full Form that creates the film....LOL
Later Gents


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 24, 2008)

I'm not sure I agree with the claim that film scoring does not require the same forms as found in concert music. I'll tell you why-

Because, like that 8 bar theory someone had earlier, humans unconsciously look for symmetry. It's been a proven fact that "attractive" people are so because they have symmetrical features that are pleasing to the eye. Likewise, most people like listening to music that is pattern-based as it is something they can retain. I haven't heard too many Boulez or Frank Zappa pieces on the Top40 Classical Hits because they wrote incredibly complex, ever-evolving music. 

Through-composed music is certainly a viable method to take but even in film scoring, having an overall structure helps the filmmakers impart their story arc. It can even help scenes out.

For instance- Williams' Superman. In that score he employs a number of motives and themes. You have the Main Theme. You have the Krypton theme. The Smallville Theme. The March of the Villains. The Love Theme. So Williams goes along developing these themes throughout the score until the final cue where Supes in a rage over Lois' death flies at superspeed to turn back time. Before doing so, you get a collision of the Krypton theme as well as a tortured version of the Love Theme. There's even subtle version of the Smallville theme which represents Pa Kent and his philosophy of superman's reason for being their that is contrary to Jor-El's. Musically Williams is supporting the onscreen conflict in Superman with a helluva visceral wallop. Had he not been the craftsman composer he was, a good deal of films like Superman or even Star Wars would have fallen flat on their a$$ (even Jaws to an extent) because his music propped up the narrative and added an extra dimension.

Another prime example of inner structural logic for a scene is Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Since we're speaking about Bartok, I will mention that Kubrick's use of Music For Strings Percussion and Celeste, 1st mvmtm where Bartok has that wonderful 4 part fugue going on, to underscore Jack's descend into madness is inspired. A fugue is the perfect form with which to suggest collision or conflict in a character or narrative plot point. The dense contrapuntal texture compounded with a subject that is recapped in the answers create a perfect musical portrait of something complex happening in the film.

Gabriel Yared employed the use of Fugue in his TROY score where Priam is looking over the sacking of his beloved Troy and the conflict within the inner lines of the fugue underscore the decimation of all that he held dear. Having pounding percussion and ethnic instruments going about would not have captured the sub-text of the scene. Remember that almost anyone can literally transcribe in music what is happening on screen. It's called Mickey-Mousing. Th real challenge is to get under the skin of the story and bring out what's not apparent to the viewer who is watching the film for the first (and possibly only) time.

John Williams' JAWS uses fugue in the preparation of the shark cage. Another great moment in cinematic scoring history.

I myself was asked by a director to adapt a passacaglia for 2 violins, cello, and electronics for a short film. It was fun to go back and adapt that form to fit his narrative. there was barely any dialogue in the film so the music had to tell much of the story along with the visuals. A composer's dream!

By imbuing an over structural ideology towards a film score, the composer gainò0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó0’   pó 0’   pó!0’   pó"0’   pó#0’   pó$0’   pó%0’   pó&0’   pó'0’   pó(0’   pó)0’   pó*0’   pó+0’   pó


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 24, 2008)

This is my new piece. Do you like it?


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 24, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> This is my new piece. Do you like it?



Damn that's catchy. I think you're going to win a Pulitzer for that piece Nick!


----------



## StrangeCat (Feb 24, 2008)

Nick you have Awesome Form in that piece :mrgreen:


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 24, 2008)

Hmmm. It depends. 

What tempo is theta?


----------



## ComposerDude (Feb 25, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> What tempo is theta?



Yes, yes, we _must_ know the angular velocity!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 25, 2008)

"Music applied to mathmatical form is no less artistically valid than words applied to Haiku"

That's right.

All I'm wanking - expressing, sorry, expressing - is that *for me* life is too short to turn writing music into a mathematical puzzle. I didn't enjoy maths in high school, and puzzles never really held much fascination for me.

The farthest I'll go is to come up with an almost-harmony line based on the melody backwards. But for me the only reason I do it is that it's less than harmony but more than random.

I also find microscopic analysis of what's going on far more useful in reverse than as a writing tool. In other words, if the second phrase isn't working, then you look at it in detail to see where the tension is releasing in the wrong place, or whatever.

But I don't pretend not to be a wanker, and what works or doesn't work for me is not required to be applicable to anyone else.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 25, 2008)

I agree that music generated from math is not the most interesting art form. However, I'm trying to learn to write some 20th century type music to expand my ability. Listen to the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark ("South America, 1936") or most horror scores from Christopher Young for an example on how 20th Century music can creep you out.


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 25, 2008)

Everything under the Sun has mathematical properties with music showing it far more on the surface. However I don't think most music written in the last thousand years was 'approached' from that perspective nearly as much as form and structure. The very strict rules of 16th century counterpoint were analysis after the fact based upon sound. So a consistant mathematical procedure perhaps can be seen but is was all about the construction of sound that remained solid in the listeners ear. It did not start from math but from sound.

Beethoven was a form freak and actually accounts for every note, phrase, period, extension, coda etc., as a master furniture builder could account for every nail, peg, slice etc. His genius is dominating the form so thoroughly that it just sounds like brilliant inevitable music. To analyze his work is to be equally astonished by what seems to be another world of creativity. Viewing a Cathedral from the deep unseen area's where without, would not exist.


----------



## John DeBorde (Feb 25, 2008)

Wish I had been around earlier to jump in on this thread, as we did this Bartok analysis when I was in grad school, and it was one of my favorites. It's interesting to note that he was not a complete slave to the form, as while the fibonacci series is applicable on many levels, it is not always so when you get to the note level, so he was clearly employing it but as I said not enslaved by it. This stuff is all over his music and was fodder for me for several papers, as it is well documented and easily referenced. I should add that any composer whose music is easily quantifiable/classifiable (Brahms) has the academics all over their a$$, while others not so much, butt of course that doesn't mean their music is any less relevant or good for that matter.

And in regards to mathematics based composition, I once confronted a well known composer in that style (can't remember his name now- I don't think it was Batzdorf) at a composer conference about the danger of basing an inherently emotional art form on mathematics, and his response to me was that if I was composing by emotion, that I was in danger of my music being controlled by whatever mood I happened to be in at the moment (silly me). That mathematical crap never really floated my boat, but as long as they keep it out of my back yard and don't try to marry it what do i care?

But I REALLY dig Bartok. He's kinda like olives were for me. At first I didn't really get what they were about, but now that I do, I LOVE olives.

peace- out,

john


----------



## synthetic (Feb 25, 2008)

My nominee for Post of the Week. ^^


----------

