# What a hell are these techniques!!!



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 18, 2007)

Hey people, I may not get any conclusive reply here but I´m sure some of you will help me...I usually make reductions of full scores so that I can analyse the texture I´m exploring...I´ve never had problems doing that and even with the most complex textures I´ve been very successful fiding the technique used, but now there are two scores that are driving me crazy...
...the first one and the one witch I´m really getting trouble is Schindler´s List by JW and the other one witch I´m almost there is Five Variants of Dive and Lazarus by Vaugham Williams...I´ve made a package with some mp3, full score and my reduction scanned...since I don´t get the technique used I come here to ask you, what a hell are these techniques???I can see some voice leading in Vaugham Williams score (I´ve put differet collours there) but only for the soprano and bass, I´m not sure about the rest...maybe the tenor voice is the upper part of "celli II"?!?!but the thing is, there are to many notes not being real voices witch I suppose are harmonic fillers, or maybe more than the common four voices standard...in the Schindler score it´s even worse, this one I don´t get it...as far as I could undestand there´s no voice leading, but it sounds perfect even with the many strange doublings...and worse, he used this technique in almost all the score and I could not get it in any part...there are a few part I can clearly see the voices in a standard way of writing but most of it are this unknown way of writing...please can someone help me analysing them???Please I don´t want navy replys like "there no real technique, it´s talent"...of course they have, and I may get a conclusing with your help!!!

Here is http://www.pacificocean.com.br/downloads/Pack.rar (www.pacificocean.com.br/downloads/Pack.rar)

Some explanations:file0030 is the Shcindle´s List reductions, part 2 first than part 1 follows and end in file0031!!!
In the file Parte2 from Schindler my analyse beging when it´s writen "Tenderly"!!!


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 18, 2007)

I have to say that the mp3 called Track 13 is the most compelling to me personally. Vaughan Williams' writing is exemplery in this particular example. 

It strikes me that John Williams may have borrowed these same techniques for use in his Phantom Menace score. From an EIS perspective, tt seems to me that voice leading was utilized here to glue together similar chord progressions belonging to different key roots resolving into those different keys seamlessly through the common notes and chord tones found in voice leading - and then back again to the original key (rather than trying to decipher it instead by building very complex chord structures based on a single root key).


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 18, 2007)

Frederick, I didn´t understand much about what you said, but you mention voice leading...did you realise any voice leading there???The only conclusion I got in my reductions is that there´s no voice leading...some times it seems to be four voice part, than it becomes 3 and than 6... :? ...if you saw any voice leading please tell me, It´s been a puzzle for me that maybe the EIS point of view can clarify!!!


----------



## rJames (Mar 19, 2007)

Leo, I'm not that great at analysing scores...but I think what you are questioning is the "free" tonality.

What I see (and I only looked at a few bars on the piece that has "tenderly" written on it) is that he is leaving the tonality, the key, the chord, open by not stating the bass clearly.

And I see that the lower notes are moving as a melody sometimes creating the idea that there are chords but I think what is happening is that the composer is using substitution for notes. meaning, I am going to put the 5 in the bass but I will put one note before the 5 as a leading tone. I will put the 6 there. so, for a fleeting second there is a free-er tonality. But it is a scale tone and so it is OK to move through it.

If it creates a melody then it is heard as correct. Look closer and these fleeting leading tones create a chord above them anyway. Again, I don't study scores much but I think you will find many more vertical structures in sweeping, romantic kinds of things.

These are just passing tones in EIS. You can throw in almost any note that moves one to the next in a step wise fashion and it will still sound good. (not always, use your ears).

Also, if you use a passing tone, it is better if it forms a chord or a pleasing vertical structure than if not. (duh)

But I think what is mainly going on here is that the composer is creating a complex harmony of 5 or 6 tones and is leaving some of the bass tones out, adding them back in using melody in the lower registers.

on a separate note; it is always interesting to me to use the 3 and -7 from a dominant structure in the middle registers and then you can play almost anything in the higher registers and it works because dominant structures are so pliable.


----------



## sbkp (Mar 19, 2007)

I'm just looking at the track 13 one. (And man, that's gorgeous... Even Sibelius sounds good playing it on the dinky built-in piano.)



leogardini @ Sun Mar 18 said:


> The only conclusion I got in my reductions is that there´s no voice leading.



Um... Maybe this is a silly way of looking at it, but isn't there _always_ voice leading? It can be done better or worse, but voices are always moving (or, you know, staying put) to create new vertical structures.



> some times it seems to be four voice part, than it becomes 3 and than 6.



Sure. And that's fine. If that weren't fine, then if you started a piece on a triad, you'd have to keep the whole piece in triads. (Or if you started on a fully voiced 13th chord, you'd have to keep 7 separate voices through the whole piece?)

I think he doubles things when he needs to change balance of parts (for example, when the violas get their triplets in the sixth bar of your reduction).

Anyway, seems pretty good to me! 

From an EIS perspective, by the way, you could some of this harmony in thirds. At least, 12-tonality is the last book I finished, and it describes this pretty well.


----------



## sbkp (Mar 19, 2007)

Oh, and Frederick, I think Track 13 is _John_ Williams, not _Vaughn_-Williams. At least that's what I thought based on what Leo said about file0030 being his reduction of Schindler's List.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 19, 2007)

Schindlers (0030): Hasn't he modulated to G minor here?


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 19, 2007)

rJames @ Mon Mar 19 said:


> Leo, I'm not that great at analysing scores...but I think what you are questioning is the "free" tonality.
> 
> What I see (and I only looked at a few bars on the piece that has "tenderly" written on it) is that he is leaving the tonality, the key, the chord, open by not stating the bass clearly.
> 
> ...


James, I understood what you meant...yes, you are rigth, there´s a lot of passing notes, this is clear and the bass some times become counter melodies...but, what I don´t understand exactly is how to use this skill in a secure way???Of course John Williams haven´t spent his time trying until it sounds good...there´s a technique in there on how to make it sounds good without a help of a computer or whatever!!!
If you look at my reductions you are going to see that I put the harmony analyse in it witch btw is very simple, but the extructure of the notes are not!!!


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 19, 2007)

sbkp @ Mon Mar 19 said:


> I'm just looking at the track 13 one. (And man, that's gorgeous... Even Sibelius sounds good playing it on the dinky built-in piano.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sbkp, as far as I know, in texture like this of Schindler yes, there´s always voice leading...some times several of them and sometimes only the soprano and bass are the concern, but always!!!
Sorry, but I think you haven´t understood what I meant by "3 and than 6 voices"...if you start a music with triads it doesn not necessarilly mean it´s 3 voices in there...it can be only one plus two "fake ones" called colateral (sorry, I don´t know if it´s the same word for english)...also, if a music start with triads and than if becomes 20 notes playing at the same time in a tutti it doesn not mean there´s 20 voices working together...I may present for you many reductions scores of big tuttis I´ve made and you are going to see that the huge majoty of big sounds or small are contructed with four real voices only and all the rest can be boublings, figurations or harmonic fillers!!!


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 19, 2007)

synthetic @ Mon Mar 19 said:


> Schindlers (0030): Hasn't he modulated to G minor here?


Actually the piece is in G minor, but curiously he wrote all the tracks without previouly saing the key!!!


----------



## rJames (Mar 19, 2007)

I just listened to "Track 13". The harmony is very fluid. It is not in one key.

Your analysis has roman numerals on it, signifying to me that you are analysing the score based on a key. So, you can have the I chord or the III7 chord or whatever.

You need to leave that behind with this score.

Think of starting with a melody. You have nothing else.

If you tie those notes together and put them vertically they might define a tonality. (maybe, I don't know). 

But horizontally, they are just individual parts of a moving vertical structure; as if a ruler is moving along in time with them...at every moment defining a new tonality.

If you use the tonality that you defined by placing them vertical, then you have a key.

But if you add another melody then you have a two part harmony, that again, starts to define keys. But if you choose notes in the second melody that are not in your original key, then you have trouble. But not necessarly.

Add a third melody and you have defined a set of triads that move in time. If they behave well and voice lead correcctly, then you have beautiful music, if they do not, you have bad music.

So, here he is not confined by a key. He stays around Gm.

The background string arangement is not confined.

This is why EIS is not concerned with keys. They are confining.

As a general rule, if you do not create a bad dissonance with your passing notes, they will add color.


----------



## sbkp (Mar 19, 2007)

I guess maybe you could give your definition (or expectation) of what kind of voice leading you think should be there. It all seems very natural to me, with an occasional cross when the cello melody gets higher.

And it's quite common to write without a key signature.


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 19, 2007)

James, I can see you are giving your input based on the EIS point of view...actually I don´t undestand this way of thinking and I see you don´t undestand the way traditional harmony makes analyses...I´m sure what you are saing is very valuable but we are not talking in the same language...maybe someone with a bit of knowledge of both can translate what we are trying to say to each other :wink: !!!


rJames @ Mon Mar 19 said:


> I just listened to "Track 13". The harmony is very fluid. It is not in one key.


In the traditional way of seing it´s clearly in one key - G minor!!!



rJames @ Mon Mar 19 said:


> Your analysis has roman numerals on it, signifying to me that you are analysing the score based on a key. So, you can have the I chord or the III7 chord or whatever.
> 
> You need to leave that behind with this score.
> 
> ...


Definitivelly not...one chord never define a key in traditional harmony!!! 



rJames @ Mon Mar 19 said:


> But horizontally, they are just individual parts of a moving vertical structure; as if a ruler is moving along in time with them...at every moment defining a new tonality.
> 
> If you use the tonality that you defined by placing them vertical, then you have a key.


Yes I undestand this point of view...this is counterpoint AND ALSO harmony point of view...but I´m not sure what you mean "new tonality"...you mean new harmony???



rJames @ Mon Mar 19 said:


> But if you add another melody then you have a two part harmony, that again, starts to define keys. But if you choose notes in the second melody that are not in your original key, then you have trouble. But not necessarly.
> 
> Add a third melody and you have defined a set of triads that move in time. If they behave well and voice lead correcctly, then you have beautiful music, if they do not, you have bad music.
> 
> ...


Yes I undestood what you meant here...but I´m going to say again, looking at the score I can clearly see it´s a technique there...it´s not based on "what sounds good I leave and what sounds bad a change"...and this is the point I want to get, can someone see anything that "rules" this unusual way of voice leading besides of what I got so far???


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 19, 2007)

sbkp, no, I don´t see normal voice leading as always going to the nearest note...this is true only in beging in the study of harmony...adavanced harmony and instrumental counterpoint don´t work in this way...but but they also don´t work in the Schindler´s List way...thgat why I´m asking about what´s ruling the notes JW wrote...again, someone may say that there´s not technique, but I don´t believe a composer like JW would write something based on only personal taste...and also, looking at the full score, the many other pages shows that there´s a technique ruling the way he put the notes, but I just don´t get it :? !!!


----------



## sbkp (Mar 19, 2007)

Okay, cool. Then I'm still curious why you say there is NO voice leading. What rule of voice leading is being broken here?

As an aside, if I had written it, I'd be super great!

Oh, I mean... If I had written it, let's say I start with the melody. Then I write a basic bass line, then liven it up with that cello bit because I think it sounds cool. Then I'm going to fill in middle voices, using some of the same motives that appear in the melody and bass line. Sometimes I go with parallel motion, other times with contrary motion, and BINGO.


----------



## rJames (Mar 19, 2007)

leogardini @ Mon Mar 19 said:


> James, I can see you are giving your input based on the EIS point of view...actually I don´t undestand this way of thinking and I see you don´t undestand the way traditional harmony makes analyses...I´m sure what you are saing is very valuable but we are not talking in the same language...maybe someone with a bit of knowledge of both can translate what we are trying to say to each other :wink: !!!
> 
> 
> rJames @ Mon Mar 19 said:
> ...



But JW didn't write in the key. Why is that? The score looks like its writeen in C (if you don't start reading)

The reason EIS students don't write in a key is because as sson as you do that, you have to start writing accidentals anyway...to suspend the key.

You have misinterpreted much of what I've said regarding tonallity and keys.

I'm sure that it is our language barriers (both English and EIS). Thank God your English is so much better than my Portugese (is that what they speak in Brazil?)

I don't man that the piece is not in Gm. Just that as the harmony proceeds, it does not stay true to that key.

And tonality (loosely speaking) means key.

In EIS we can change key every 16th note if we want to. So we talk about tonality because no matter where you are, you need to know what tonality in order to add voices.

When you get to multiple tonalities simulataneously, what good is a key?

But I think you are right, we are speaking different musical languages.


----------



## sbkp (Mar 19, 2007)

Just because I think EIS is cool, I gotta say that the Schindler's List reduction really does seem like an exercise in an EIS lesson (specifically the kind of stuff described starting on page 169). And I mean that in a good way for both JW and EIS


----------



## mathis (Mar 19, 2007)

Could that answer your question?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faux_bourdon

All voices going to the same direction. Great sound.


----------



## rJames (Mar 19, 2007)

Leo, FYI, I never intended this exchange to be about EIS vs traditional.

Just thought I would try to respond. Sorry I wasn't helpful.


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 20, 2007)

Mathis, thanks for the link...maybe there´s a relation with both of this techniques!!!

James, I think you were helpful and in any way I see EIS vs traditional...we are just trying to understand each other witch is not something easy with two so different point of view o-[][]-o ...the only thing I´m afraid is to turn it to unuseful discussions like the usage of rules or techniques!!!
Frederick, I´m really clearly seing only one tonality in track 13, G minor...to me it´s very strange the way EIS has its own perpective...I know it´s not strange, but the way I´m used to it seems a language of another world (o) !!!
I´ve edited my conclusions!!!


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Mar 20, 2007)

Leo,

I'm sure you realize composers often write intuitively, without reference to any theoretical structure while writing. I expect that John Williams, in that seemingly ineffable process of human creativity, simply looked at or thought about the scene, heard what he heard, and wrote it down. I seriously doubt he thought anything along the lines of "lets see, I'm thinking a retrograde progression here in three parts and a minor key - lets see what that sound like...sounds pretty good but, oh wait here's the problem - a parallel fifth!"

Theory is a set of generalized observations made after the fact about previously written music. Quite useful for learning about music, learning how to compose, and - sometimes - composing itself.

Every note ever written can be made to fit one theory or the other at some level, but at some point this becomes like the interpretation of a dream. A parlor trick. The music doesn't care (or shouldn't).  

Cheers.


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Mar 20, 2007)

Hey Leo, I've re-read my post above and see that it comes off rather didactic, and I don't like that tone. It's just that I was rather taken aback by your seeming panic at not finding the theory in these passages - like it had to be there. My point is: it doesn't.


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 21, 2007)

Hi Johnny, thanks for your input...actually I strongly desagree with you, but as I said above more than once, I don´t want to turn this thread to "inspiration and talent vs technique and knowlegde"...everybody have their own way of thinking and the meaning here is not changing any mind...I still looking for the technique used as I always found in all other JW, VW and any other great composer´s scores!!!


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 21, 2007)

I´ve just found out the technique :D ...wow, that´s great...it took me sometime to figure out but I furtunatelly could understand it...the more horizontal you think the better...now I must go to the VW one!!!

:D :D :D


----------



## sbkp (Mar 21, 2007)

Leo,

I'd love to hear what you came to. I still never understood why you said there was no voice leading. And if suddenly you found it, I'd be very interested to find out what realization or new definition you came up with. (Or at least, what you call it, versus what EIS, for example, calls it.)

Best,
Stefan


----------



## D.J. (Mar 22, 2007)

leogardini @ Wed Mar 21 said:


> I´ve just found out the technique :D ...wow, that´s great...it took me sometime to figure out but I furtunatelly could understand it...the more horizontal you think the better...now I must go to the VW one!!!
> 
> :D :D :D



You're doing this on purpose, right?
Stop teasing and share with the class....


Pretty please :mrgreen:


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 22, 2007)

Here is an mp3 using this technique...the melody is not mine, it´s an exercice of harmony that I aplyed this technique...
...no programing in it, I just put the notes, I know I know, it sounds fake, but the technique worked...sounds very moving with an slow medoly and harmony...

...here http://www.pacificocean.com.br/downloads/jwtechnique.mp3 (www.pacificocean.com.br/downloads/jwtechnique.mp3)


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 23, 2007)

..........


----------



## rJames (Mar 23, 2007)

Scott Rogers @ Fri Mar 23 said:


> Leo, I'm not sure what the main issues were for you on these Schindler's excerpts, but I'm glad if you've come into some sort of understanding. It might also help if you were to do a reduction of Elgar's _Nimrod_. After that, orchestrate Ravel's piano piece, _Le Gibet_, for strings, harp, and winds. As you well know, this is the kind of stuff that composers who are truly serious about composing have always done to make themselves better at their craft.
> ____________________
> 
> And while I'm here, I wonder if someone would please define "traditional harmony" for me. That's a term I've only heard on the internet. It seems a sort of vague catch-all and imprecise term, and it has come up a number of times in this and other threads. It's almost as if there's some sort of monolithic global mindset of harmony or something like that, and no one told me. I'm familiar with harmonic styles, approaches, techniques, principles, concepts, schools of thought, so on and so forth, but this recurring "traditional harmony" thing remains a mystery for me.
> ...



A perfect example to illustrate my theory of how people are just ready to jump down one another's throats in these forums.

Scott, you're just not reading these threads thoroughly. 

First, a "traditional" understanding of harmony comes from studying in a university. It is a concept that everyone in this thread so far has understood excepting you. It utilizes the concepts that have been developed over time and gathers them together into a "course work" that enables a person to obtain a degree in music. (I'm sure there are many varieties and specialties)

Google it, Scott traditional harmony

I would consider a non-traditional study of harmony comes from private study with anyone who either did not study in a university or, if they did, branched off and created a different way to study than the university method. 

Spud Murphy describes intervals by numbers E4 is a major 3 interval. Do you see the difference in the way "traditional" harmony describes these things?

One book, out of 11 or 14, (not actually sure) talks about a I chord or a ii or iii or IV. The nomenclature is totally different. Can you not see that it is easily described as "non-traditional?"

Second, I suggested the Leo send you a PM because I thought you and he would communicate using similar terms.

Third, I said that I thought you would explain it in a more convoluted way than my expanation because that is what I believe. I am stilll free to express my beliefs, as I understand it.

Forth, I am also free to conjecture, postulate, theorize and presume that you might be able to rationalize a "free" structure by associating it through relationships based on "traditional harmony" (whatever that is).

Why is it that you are always seem so incensed when we talk about various musical structures and devices?

Scott, you know I respect you and your knowledge, why do you always respond to me like this?

I would love to hear your take on Leo's question.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 23, 2007)

..........


----------



## sbkp (Mar 23, 2007)

Well, I for one am always interested in new ways of understanding music, so I'd love to see what happens between Scott and Leo.

Thanks!


----------



## rJames (Mar 23, 2007)

Where is that darn smiley face thingy for "exasperated"?


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 29, 2007)

Hey people, sorry for the long silence...I had problems in my system and didn´t have my internet for some days!!!
Scott, thank in advance for your help...I´ve got the scores you told me as well as the reductions of them, but actually now I don´t see much relation in these techniques...I´m looking forward for your words...talk to you!!!


----------

