# Jjay berthume part writing book



## ed buller

Hi JJAY has added a video to his youtube page that you might find interesting. Really looking forward to his book:



best

ed


----------



## Maximvs

ed buller said:


> Hi JJAY has added a video to his youtube page that you might find interesting. Really looking forward to his book:
> 
> 
> 
> best
> 
> ed



Thanks Ed for posting this... Cheers,

Max T.


----------



## Tamburavadak

Just checking in: Has anyone received the book yet? I've seen this kickstarter link for a while now, but I'd love to hear from someone who's got it. Thanks.


----------



## David The Goliath

Gene Pool said:


> I hope I don't irritate anyone by mentioning a few things—and I only watched the first couple of minutes, so my context could be skewed—but, there is no such thing as "21st Century Part Writing." That sounds like a marketing title.



I get your point, but to be fair Vincent Persichetti's 20th Century Harmony was released in 1961


----------



## Matt Damon

Gene Pool said:


> and I only watched the first couple of minutes, so my context could be skewed



No offense, man — but you can't openly admit that and then continue on because you risk attacking a strawman, and I'm afraid that's what you've done.

As per the kickstarter and his explanation of why the book is called this, he says (and he recently graduated from a music conservatory in composition) is because he feels that the teaching of part-writing is rife with "outdated practices, unjustified principles, and lack of pragmatic application" and wishes to explain it in a way that he feels is more relevant to modern composers of all styles. Thus, to present it in a "21st-Century" i.e., modern context.

The real argument is to whether or not the methodology of teaching it is outdated or not — not about an analysis of supposedly new developments over a century because such a claim was not made.


----------



## gamma-ut

Tamburavadak said:


> Just checking in: Has anyone received the book yet? I've seen this kickstarter link for a while now, but I'd love to hear from someone who's got it. Thanks.



It's not finished yet. He mailed out a short piece on thematic development a couple of months but the book itself is going through editing. One of the editors died in a car crash recently and another has had to deal with some of the consequences of Covid. There's no fixed release date as of yet.


----------



## Maximvs

gamma-ut said:


> It's not finished yet. He mailed out a short piece on thematic development a couple of months but the book itself is going through editing. One of the editors died in a car crash recently and another has had to deal with some of the consequences of Covid. There's no fixed release date as of yet.


Really sorry to hear this sad events to the people involved in the production of this book...

Many blessings to all,
Max


----------



## Matt Damon

Gene Pool said:


> Not at all what I did even by half, since straw-men never made an appearance in my post.



Arguing a point that was not made by the supposed "opponent" is a strawman.

You have not investigated _why _the book is titled as it is, but still you went on a long rant (and yet another as well I see) about why there's nothing revolutionary about part-writing today and critiquing his work. A true point? Yes. Relevant? No.



Gene Pool said:


> Well, again, the claim is abundantly made in the book’s title



No, you interpreted a large claim from a mere four-word title void of any context.



Gene Pool said:


> All that said (_whew!), _such matters are 1st World problems only. No one will be prevented from buying anyone's book, and no one wants to. How people choose to spend their money is none of anyone else's business. _Yay Freedom!_


----------



## gamma-ut

I think we have a winner in the “fastest time a member has hit the ignore lists” competition.


----------



## JPComposer

What a lot of pointless pedantic waffle. If you're not interested in this book move on. Those of us that are are quite capable of thinking for ourselves thank you very much.


----------



## gyprock

So when is the "Approximately 20.25% of the 21st Century Part Writing" book coming out? It better be quick otherwise a title change will be in order.


----------



## borisb2

I dont have a problem with that title.. like.. at all.

Next thread.


----------



## Uiroo

Now you're literally talking to yourself...


----------



## Dave Connor

A rather curious thread. Would it be fair to point out that a large percentage of music in the _20th Century _(that which did not deliberately make use of earlier harmonic language and conventions) was indeed the practice of _part-writing _and _voice-leading _as taught traditionally? Albeit with shifting tonal centers such as with Shostakovich or through the linear approach of Hindemith? Isn’t John Williams a model practitioner of traditional writing in that sense?

My point is, that you can hardly name a composer of the last century or even now - that is more _tonal _than not (not = not remotely thinking of the _circle of 5ths_) - that didn’t employ countless ancient music-laws. Even while departing from others in order to sound _modern. _That departure inevitably including the jettisoning of the _traditional _use of the (tyrannical) aspects of the Diatonic system. So, you may get a V-I cadence but only in the same way you get eyes and ears in a Picasso - non-traditionally or as abstraction etc.

This may be at the heart of Gene Pool’s observation: that a _new _or _modern _approach to part-writing/voice-leading by necessity will have to retain the use of as many traditional principles as it abandons. Indeed the abandoning of certain fundamentals may introduce the very faults they were designed to prevent.

I don’t find it prissy or snobbish to take these historic principles and facts into consideration when labeling or even advertising _any _new method. Too many people (as with any subject) will look at it in historic context to see if it really is what it claims to be.


----------



## Terry93D

Did - did he just literally pat himself on the back? On the Internet? For nothing more then insubstantial, meaningless virtue signalling?


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

f


----------



## Michael Antrum

Dr. Shagwell said:


> Maybe this book will revolutionize all music theory.



What an interesting first post on the forum .

It kind of reminds me of a story about a working composer who told me a little story about his early days. He won a competition for composition and the prize was to have the piece performed a live orchestra with a reasonably well known conductor. It was to be a very big night indeed for him.

On one of the biggest occasions of his early years he met the conductor before the performance, and made his way to introduce himself, and to thank the conductor, perhaps to receive some encouraging words from someone further along in their career.

What he got, however, was an air of disdain and the comment 'I am not here to be embarrassed by you,' and then was promptly ignored for the rest of the evening.

Yes, your post kind of reminds me of that.


----------



## gamma-ut

Dr. Shagwell said:


> 1. Drop the unfounded shots at professional composers teaching at Universities or Conservatories. It is impossible for any single person to know what goes on in each and every class / private lesson. Those of us who have worked for Universities will tell you most go *far*, *far *beyond our job descriptions out of a passion to share knowledge.



I honestly can’t work out where these “unfounded shots” are. As far as I can tell the author is proud of having attended these institutions as they feature prominently on his webpage.



> 2. The very first page we see in the youtube video is on mediant harmony. It is generally acknowledged the earliest and most influential unified theory of mediants was by Gottfried Weber in 1822.



I zoomed in and saw that he’s using “mediant” with a subtly different meaning to the normal - one I imagine he feels is appropriate for non-tonal, neo-Riemannian work - and this is what he is referring to. As with Christopher Doll’s book on rock harmony, I’m not sure overloading an old term developed for common-practice tonal is the best idea here but it’s the author’s choice. I can’t find any evidence for a claim of inventing mediant harmony, which is the thing that seems to have upset you.



> 3. Self - Referential examples:



As far as I can tell, he’s explaining the thought processes he had when writing it. I’m sure you’d blow a fuse if he deigned to explain another composer’s thought processes.

The rest of your comment pretty much falls into the “too many notes” school of criticism. Or maybe “not enough notes” in this instance.


----------



## borisb2

JJay Berthume gave this community in the past tons of free tips and tricks on harmony, part writing and other aspects of music theory in his youtube videos. Dizzing any effort to make some money with his knowledge by hypocritizising about the book title (WTF?) shows me that person has taken the social distancing a bit too personal in these days.

And what has a doctor-title to do with any of this? I'm an engineer .. hooray!


----------



## Uiroo

Well, after having like 30 lessons with him, I'm dying to finally get the book and start working with it.
The amount of knowledge he has is so vast, and he is so talented at structuring topics on the fly in lessons, I really think his book will be great.

I think he really teaches 21st Century Part Writing, since his teaching is descriptive and not prescriptive.
Given that he's an experienced composer in many, many different genres, I can totally see that he manages to write a book that is more universal and taking modern practices into account.

In the end people tend to write books like these because they wish the would've had them when they learned this stuff. And I think that's a good motivation.


----------



## Michael Antrum

I wasn't aware a book was on the horizon, and I'm a sucker for interesting music books. Anyone got a link to the kickstarter ?

edit: found it ! A shame but it is closed so I'll have to wait until it is released.


----------



## gamma-ut

Dr. Shagwell said:


> Well, can you at least imagine that two people might have two different viewpoints?
> What you call "unfounded shots", I would call "trying to be helpful".



I see you are good at misunderstanding everything. You used the phrase "unfounded shots" in the first place. All I said is I couldn't see them. For some reason, you then went off on one about it, before proceeding to misunderstand the other two points with much the same approach. 

It's almost as though you and Gene are the same person. But that can't be right, surely? Who'd be childish enough to create not just one fake persona but several to go and stir up an argument?


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

borisb2 said:


> Dizzing any effort to make some money with his knowledge by hypocritizising about the book title (WTF?)



I am trying to actually be helpful. Read my post after yours. 
You are an engineer. If you saw "bad math" within a book by a colleague before it was published
would you say anything, or remain silent. Would offering a contrary solution to an example mean that you only looking to cut them down?

I assert not. 

Do you know the golden rule? If I had a book in pre-publishing, and someone flagged specific criticisms
I would be grateful. I would want that. 

Upon considering the points the author can make the adjustments, or not. 

Putting myself in the same situation, I know I would prefer to have the choice, then 
a blind-spot.




borisb2 said:


> And what has a doctor-title to do with any of this?



Perhaps English is not your native language. Or, you may have lost your sense of humor.

If you say it out loud repeatedly at some point I think a lightbulb will go off, and you will be enlightened.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

gamma-ut said:


> I see you are good at misunderstanding everything. You used the phrase "unfounded shots" in the first place. All I said is I couldn't see them. For some reason, you then went off on one about it, before proceeding to misunderstand the other two points with much the same approach.
> 
> It's almost as though you and Gene are the same person. But that can't be right, surely? Who'd be childish enough to create not just one fake persona but several to go and stir up an argument?



Well, Gamma-ut let's just agree to disagree.

The "unfounded shot" I referred to are by the Author



Matt Damon said:


> he feels that the teaching of part-writing is rife with "outdated practices, unjustified principles, and lack of pragmatic application" and wishes to explain it in a way that he feels is more relevant to modern composers of all styles.



Secondly, if Matt Damon is JJ, (Now Matt Damon may, in fact, be passionate about this topic.)



Matt Damon said:


> *The real argument is to whether or not the methodology of teaching it is outdated or not* — not about an analysis of supposedly new developments over a century because such a claim was not made.



I added in the bold. 


Let's agree to disagree:


----------



## gamma-ut

Dr. Shagwell said:


> The "unfounded shot" I referred to are by the Author



So why write the following in your previous reply? 



> What you call "unfounded shots", I would call "trying to be helpful".



Or did you think Berthume is trying to help those professors who you seem to feel were unfairly maligned? If so, why all the grandstanding? If he's being helpful, surely you should welcome it.

You seem a little confused.


----------



## Uiroo

I you really want to be helpful you may contact him personally about your concerns instead of criticising his (unreleased) book in public where he doesn't seem to be around. Your helpfulness-meter is somewhere at -10 I'd imagine.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

Uiroo said:


> I you really want to be helpful you may contact him personally about your concerns instead of criticising his (unreleased) book in public where he doesn't seem to be around. Your helpfulness-meter is somewhere at -10 I'd imagine.



Oh. So *a forum* is not a place where one should voice their opinions? 

I was just browsing through this site. I found a thread on Junkie XL brass.





__





Junkie XL Brass?


Hey guys, thinking of trying out some of the low brass by buying some instruments individually. Probably going to try out the Tuba, Cimbassi, Bass Trombones and Trombones, but not sure whether to get the a6 or a3, really like the sound of both, probably the a6 more for long notes but a3 for...




vi-control.net







One of the commentators posted 

_"Loads of split sounding notes on the legato and the upper register legato is still broken.

I would strongly recommend not investing in the a6 horns at the moment."_


Is that ok for him to do? Are you going to go over to that thread and scold him?


----------



## Michael Antrum




----------



## Montisquirrel

Michael Antrum said:


> I wasn't aware a book was on the horizon, and I'm a sucker for interesting music books. Anyone got a link to the kickstarter ?
> 
> edit: found it ! A shame but it is closed so I'll have to wait until it is released.



Check out his YouTube Channel. You can still pledge money via PayPal (4:03min in this video:  )


----------



## borisb2

Never seen so much unnecessary academic waffle about a book title. The content should matter, who cares about the title.

Ignoring the thread now (top left button).. stay safe.


----------



## Gingerbread

Wow Gene, for someone who started out flinging accusations that _others_ have their delicate feelings triggered too easily, you certainly come across as quite triggered and unable to handle simple back-and-forth exchanges without getting upset and a persecution complex.

I don't have a dog in the issue, just casually observing.


----------



## Michael Antrum

You know, both of you two guys (Dr Shagwell and Gene Pool) remind me so much of a guy called William who was briefly round these parts. He posted a symphony, and when everyone failed to fall over in absolute adulation, he got really shirty and and started insulting everone. I kind of got the impression he was sightly Bi-Polar in the way his moods seemed to swing from one extreme to the other. I actually was very impressed with his work - and its a shame that he seemed to upset everyone so much as I know I for one, could have learned much from his work.

Both of you two seem very similar, both in the way you use language and the general unpleasantness and self aggrandisement that seems to follow your posts. You just turn up here, contribute nothing except to deride and abuse members of this forum who have contributed here for many years.

It's a shame really, as I very much get the impression you know a lot about music, and easily could be valued and respected contributors to this forum. However, despite how much you may or may not have in musical knowledge, it seems clear to me that you are both socially completely tone deaf.

(Either that or you are just trolling or trying to get a seat in the Drama Zone.)

I have never blocked anyone on a forum before, never felt the need, but I think in you case(s) I'll make an exception.


----------



## gamma-ut

Gene Pool said:


> Translation: Knowledge-man-bad! He inserted facts and reason into an internet thread, and since everyone else is as mentally weak as I am, “we” shall click the devastating IGNORE button. _That’ll teach him!_



Here is a fact. That post appears after post #12 in this thread.

Here is a reason. It was an observation following a classic internet tough guy post (namely post #12) that didn't appear to contain any facts or reason at all, just bluster as part of what seems to have been a unusually rapid descent from pedantic to bizarre obsessions over the course of a month.

It was also more a prediction of likely actions rather than a statement of my own actions. I don't tend to use the ignore button all that much expect on posters who are pure timewasters. I'd say you count more as entertainment.


----------



## d.healey

Dr. Shagwell said:


> My advice would be: Instead of "railing against the academics" have an editor to offer a critical eye.
> 
> I think it would only make the final work stronger.


He had two editors (both academics I think). One of them died. Did you not read this thread before you posted?


----------



## Terry93D

Gene Pool said:


> Translation: Inserting facts and reason into an internet forum = meaningless virtue signaling. And—OMG(!) Wow(!) I can’t even(!)—he just patted himself on the back by showing us that he had perfectly assessed our mentality before we even entered this thread—_Literally!_ I saw his literal arm literally pat his literal back! How did he not sprain a muscle doing that?


Here, let me point out the sentences that fit what I was talking about: 

"But since we live in the age of the entitled delicate person who demands unwarranted coddling, deference, and affirmation" 
"These were merely observations. Critique. Like adults used to do before humanity became such an intellectually uncurious basket case of fecklessness." 
Neither holds up as fact, they are obvious opinions; neither holds up as reason, either, for they are conclusions based on false premises. They are virtue-signalling: it's you saying I'm a tough guy, I'm a dissenter, I'm bucking "the man," I'm criticizing and other people just can't take it 'cause they're weak.

We can add to the prior list some more: 

"everyone else is as mentally weak as I am" 
"Me and my internet clique of Golden-eared geniuses require affirmation and nothing less"
"This forum belongs to us and all who *AGREE* with us" 
and the constant recitations of "Knowledge-man-bad" as well.
What does any of that mean? What is the purpose of all of that? If I am discussing something with someone, and we disagree, and the other person begins stating, be it by implication or explicitly, that I am an entitled (refer to prior quotation) child ("Not a good look for boys who hope one day to become men") am I likely to continue caring about the other person's argument? 

I hope, Gene Pool, that this makes my point - I will not be responding further to your posts.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

d.healey said:


> He had two editors (both academics I think). One of them died. Did you not read this thread before you posted?




I am very sorry for all those close to this person. I don't (and I never spoke a word about this) in any way trivialize the loss of human life. Especially given what we are dealing with today.


Let me ask you, and the others posting negative comments towards me.


Have I in any way violated the terms of this forum? 
I am new here. 

Is there a moderator who can clarify?

See, I don't understand why when I even casually scroll through the various other topics I find literally hundreds of posts towards sample libraries that offer criticism.

If I understand correctly: Only in the commercial announcements which are paid for shall be free of criticism in post. 

My understanding was that this is NOT that. 

If indeed I am well within the terms of use for this place, why the open hostility?

I am not Gene, nor do I know who he is. 

I have not made a single "personal" attack towards the author. (Whom I have never met) 

I gave very clear and precise points about the material itself. 


What is the distinction as to why people can post highly technical and critical posts of sample libraries, but if someone does something similar for a book the pitchforks come out? 

Can you please clarify this for me?


----------



## Matt Damon

This type of circus is why I've historically avoided forums.


----------



## Virtual Virgin

Gene Pool said:


> I had hoped to move on from this silly and unnecessary drama queen zone, but post after post just kept inviting me back. For all of the out-of-hand dismissals I have seen, I’ve yet to see any of my betters address the abundantly obvious problems beginning at 1:36 on the downbeat of bar 5 and 6—problems that any arrogant cocksure internet composer who can’t be told nuthin’ should have been able to hear from a mile away. That is, if he thinks he’s going to be a big-boy composer someday.
> 
> The only thing I have to say with respect to all of the teenaged emotionalism here is that all your pain was caused by your infantile reactions to my simple first post. Not a good look for boys who hope one day to become men.
> 
> To any adults who may be reading this thread, you may be a little confused by what some people here are saying, so I thought I could at least help out a little by providing translations of some of the glittering jewels of internet discourse that run through this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: Knowledge-man-bad! He inserted facts and reason into an internet thread, and since everyone else is as mentally weak as I am, “we” shall click the devastating IGNORE button. _That’ll teach him!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: Me and my internet clique of Golden-eared geniuses require affirmation and nothing less. It’s pointless to write things that we don’t want to hear or can’t understand. Go away, Knowledge-man-bad, so we can throw low-IQ sophistry in your direction without having to endure your response! We members of the “21st Century” “Part Writing” cult are quite capable of thinking for ourselves, which is evident in our inability to learn “part writing” when lots of other composers around us seem to have no trouble doing that at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: There is obviously a new “part writing” paradigm in the 21st Century, examples of which can be found in the following works, just to name a few:
> 
> 1) ……
> 2) ……
> 3) ……
> 
> _So there!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: I don’t have a problem with that title…like…at all, which means that…like...unlike what any dumb old 20th Century book publisher will tell you, the title of the book…like...doesn’t matter…like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: Quoting one of your previous posts to make a point that shames me = talking to yourself. _Literally!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: Inserting facts and reason into an internet forum = meaningless virtue signaling. And—OMG(!) Wow(!) I can’t even(!)—he just patted himself on the back by showing us that he had perfectly assessed our mentality before we even entered this thread—_Literally!_ I saw his literal arm literally pat his literal back! How did he not sprain a muscle doing that?
> 
> ====================
> 
> Knowledge-man-bad’s Editor’s Excursus: For those who may be the victims of a moronic “Everyone is Special” education, please go here:
> 
> https://www.boston.com/culture/lifestyle/2011/07/19/literally-the-most-misused-word
> 
> (Forgive Knowledge-man-bad’s “pedantry” in thinking that misusing simple words makes you sound like an airhead.)
> 
> ====================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (N.B., “This community” = The "21st Century" “Part Writing” Composers Clubhouse.)
> 
> Translation: Oh no! Knowledge-man-bad dissed my homie by merely pointing out that there are two obvious problems with the book’s title, and to make matters worse, I’m incapable of processing facts and logic. Such things are oh-so 20th Century; how anti-social can a person get?! This may mark the first time that a book author has had to endure the slightest bit of criticism, and my homie is above such indignities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: I have no earthly idea that that identical claim has been made many times prior to this, because my musical life began in the 21st Century. Also, motivation is the issue here and not facts and logic.
> 
> ====================
> 
> Summary Translation: Just leave us alone, Knowledge-man-bad, or we will shout you down with an asinine pile-on you shall never forget. And just because you began with just one simple post and we chose to throw all sorts organic fertilizer in your direction doesn’t mean you have any right or reason to respond. This forum belongs to us and all who *AGREE* with us. This is a private club, and you have no right to trigger our delicate insecurities with…like…stuff…_literally!_ And by the way, none of this makes you correct when you called us entitled, coddled, and intellectually uncurious. Everyone on this planet has a moral obligation to acquiesce to our latest ill-advised emotional investments, and that’s cuz we say so. You will discomfit us at your peril, sir. _So there!_



Damn! Someone jelly!


----------



## VinRice

I like JJ very much and his stuff has been useful to me, though its hard sometimes to keep up with the speed at which he thinks. I'll be buying the book.

The pedantic and academic (in every sense of the word) dick-waving competition was hilarious, verging on parody.


----------



## Matt Damon

Gene Pool said:


> This stopped being about a pretentious book when “Matt JJ Damon” got cocky and decided to play "_Tough Guy Gonna Shut it Down_” in post no. 11, followed by his merry band of tin-eared sycophants.


----------



## gamma-ut

Gene Pool said:


> And the Dunning-Kruger Hall of Famers are still obsessing. Shocker!



I see Officer Facts and Logic is back with the Bad Cop act. 

I know, don't feed the troll(s) and all that, but that "problematic" section you mentioned. If you really wanted to wow us with Facts and Logic rather than the usual chimp turd-flinging you've decided is your favourite mode of discourse, maybe you could identify the problem. I can see one on the downbeat of bar 6 but I believe that gets dealt with around minute 12 in the video. To tell you the truth, I'm not a fan of rambly videos so there may be more later that I've missed. And there are artistic choices made that might not seem ideal - however, the thrust of the video as I heard it is that the point of the piece is to see whether it's followed some internal rules according to the system that Berthume proposes rather than as some kind of exemplar how to do part-writing or voice-leading.

But, to cut to the chase, is your beef unexpected dissonance on a downbeat or is there some voice-motion rule you consider has been contravened?

Or do we get a spell of Officer Tweedledee in the meantime?


----------



## MauroPantin

I really like JJ's videos and his enthusiasm. I did not know he had a book in the works but I am looking forward to it.


----------



## ghandizilla

JJ's videos are informative and entertaining at the same time. Love them. Moreover, JJ doesn't despise people on such poor basis as the academic background. Be like JJ.


----------



## ism

No question that JJ's book has an air of youtube populism in its tone and marketing rhetoric.

But then, someone like Ed (the OP) posts that he's excited about it. And Ed's posts on music theory include lots of interesting and deeply intellectually engaged papers. And his posts of pedagogical resources are diverse and helpful also.

So against this air of youtube populism, if Ed is genuinely excited about it, it's really worth paying attention to what JJ's book is all about. 

I don't expect it's going to be replacing college texts any time soon, but it's a mistake to view it as an authoritative treatises on "21st century part writing" functioning in the same genre as famous treatises with names like "20th century harmony".

It's going to be idiosyncratic insight on writing music from someone on both the musical and pedagogical (ie youtube tutorial) coal face. 

I have lots of critiques about the populism (and indeed narcissism) in popular youtube pedagogy myself. But it doesn't mean that there are lots of hugely valuable pedagogical innovations emerging. 

Hopefully Ed will review it when it comes out.

ps. Can I also suggest that a certain type of "herd mentality" du jour is accusing everyone who disagrees with you of "herd mentality".


----------



## Nova

There's some weird stuff in this thread. I'm looking forward to the book release. I'm a novice that is short on time and long on money so I bought the book on kickstarter and kicked in a sizable donation because of the value I have gotten out of his youtube channel. I guess I'll need to tear off the cover of the book or my compositions won't be respected?


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

I must say the number of personal attacks devoid of any talk of craft has shown me this is not the place for me. 



borisb2 said:


> (WTF?) shows me that person has taken the social distancing a bit too personal in these days.





gamma-ut said:


> I see you are good at misunderstanding everything.






Michael Antrum said:


> I have never blocked anyone on a forum before, never felt the need, but I think in you case(s) I'll make an exception.





borisb2 said:


> Ignoring the thread now (top left button)





ghandizilla said:


> JJ doesn't despise people on such poor basis as the academic background.





VinRice said:


> The pedantic and academic (in every sense of the word) dick-waving competition was hilarious, verging on parody.



And finally, a pirate says "you need to get yourself a girl mate". 
______________________________________________________________________________


----------



## gamma-ut

Dr. Shagwell said:


> I stand by my opinion of taking other people's research and omitting to give them their credit and go further to refer to their work as "My system" is easy, but a critical mistake to fix. (It's called plagiarism in the academic world)



As I pointed out before, the "my system" clearly refers to a non-standard use of the term mediant and nothing else. It's plain as day but you either misunderstand the point or deliberately and wilfully misrepresent it.


----------



## Nova

Dr. Shagwell said:


> By all means, buy his book, and learn from it. Throw away hundreds of years of literature and experience from other master composers.



I don't understand the mutual exclusivity. I'll buy his book and learn from it. I'll also complete Dr. B's music theory class on Youtube. I'll also finish Butterworth's 'Harmony in Practice'. I'll also continue playing and learning classical piano to learn from the greats. This site is 'musicians helping musicians' and I bet you would find there's a lot of sponges lurking around here looking to better themselves. But when you come in and start chest-beating about why something is crap that those sponges find value in, then you have backed yourself in a corner.


----------



## Gingerbread

Dr. Shagwell, I'd encourage you to stay. You have something valuable to offer this community, and vice versa.

I think things went a bit sideways in this thread for a few different reasons. Speaking only for myself, my perception was skewed by the fact that both you and another poster, "Gene Pool" were making similar points, but he was acting in a particularly trollish fashion. And so perceptually (and unfairly), I lumped you in with him, even thinking that maybe you and he were the same person commenting under different accounts. Maybe your choice of user name fed into that wrong perception.

It's clear now that you are not him, and I don't think any of your comments were trollish; I find them constructive, informed, and fair. I'd encourage you to engage some more, perhaps with some introductary comments in the "Introduction" forum. This helps everyone understand where everyone is coming from.

I won't deny that there may be a (generational?) trend lately of being resistant to critique, but I think it's cyclical, and always there to some extent. My professional field is animation. In many of the books written in the 60's and 70's by the old masters of the animation craft, they lament how the new generation ("these young baby-boomer hippies!") isn't interested in learning the rigors and discipline of the fundamentals of the craft, instead looking for easy shortcuts, or an "anything goes" attitude with no respect for learning what does and doesn't work, or why.

Anyway, 99% of the interaction at VI-Control is positive. We're (mostly) all friends here. You just got "lucky" in the threadcrap lottery. But try again, and don't pull the trigger on leaving yet.


----------



## Terry93D

Gingerbread said:


> Dr. Shagwell, I'd encourage you to stay. You have something valuable to offer this community, and vice versa.
> 
> ~snip


I second all of this.


----------



## Dave Connor

@Dr. Shagwell What is obvious (and you pointed out by quoting them) is that the responses to your predominantly objective observations were personal attacks. A non-music issue which shoves aside the topic and derails any honest discourse. Apologies on behalf of a myself and a considerable number of members of the forum.

What many here don’t seem to understand is that they are not really arguing against _personalities _but instead, _centuries-old agreed upon principles in music writing and it’s teaching._

Folks, Dr. Shagwell is like an MD visiting a DR.’s Forum; making observations on principles that, _every single one of those MD’s would have _(by law) _been taught -_ then attacked for it. Attacked for bringing up the most rudimentary and basic things learned by millions - for centuries.

Here is what I don’t understand: JJ is conservatory trained - yes? Then why is everyone under his tutelage having such a hard time with comments from other teachers, students and practitioners from the same _school of teaching? _

It’s hardly a crime to have a particular fondness for a teacher. I adore those I studied with and carry them around with me daily. But wouldn’t you best acquit both him and yourselves by arguing objectively on the facts rather then avoiding them completely - in your responses?

Why hasn’t anyone argued about the piece itself? Dr. Shagwell has pointed out what 12 million other composition teachers would with the relentless parallelisms with the root tone in the melody. Same with the cello’s range staying out of its normal bass function - what’s that all about? If you haven’t quite learned some of these things that‘s totally fine! These aren’t criminal charges. They’re topics for discussion, so relax and make your case and be a little humble when those who may know a little more weigh in.

Same with responses to Gene Pool. Take him up on the topic. He isn’t going to be any more perfect in his attitude and presentation than you are. Again though, his observations are everywhere in music understanding, history, practice and education. That‘s important to understand because you are going to come across this way of thinking over and over. Defensiveness is a poor response in _any _discussion.


----------



## gamma-ut

Dave Connor said:


> What many here don’t seem to understand is that they are not really arguing against _personalities _but instead, _centuries-old agreed upon principles in music writing and it’s teaching._
> 
> Folks, Dr. Shagwell is like an MD visiting a DR.’s Forum; making observations on principles that, _every single one of those MD’s would have _(by law) _been taught -_ then attacked for it. Attacked for bringing up the most rudimentary and basic things learned by millions - for centuries.
> 
> ...
> 
> Why hasn’t anyone argued about the piece itself? Dr. Shagwell has pointed out what 12 million other composition teachers would with the relentless parallelisms with the root tone in the melody. Same with the cello’s range staying out of its normal bass function - what’s that all about? If you haven’t quite learned some of these things that‘s totally fine! These aren’t criminal charges. They’re topics for discussion, so relax and make your case and be a little humble when those who may know a little more weigh in.
> 
> Same with responses to Gene Pool. Take him up on the topic. He isn’t going to be any more perfect in his attitude and presentation than you are. Again though, his observations are everywhere in music understanding, history, practice and education. That‘s important to understand because you are going to come across this way of thinking over and over. Defensiveness is a poor response in _any _discussion.



Re: "Why hasn’t anyone argued about the piece itself?" 

I asked "Gene" about his issues with bars 5 and 6. "Gene" appears to have left the building too.

As for the good "Doctor". I believe the function of a doctor is to make diagnoses based on the presented evidence and to do no harm.

The sum of the "Doctor's" arguments were: jabs against conservatoire training, an accusation of plagiarism and a criticism of elements of the presented passage. I asked the good "Doctor" for his source of those jabs. He chose to accuse me of making them rather than addressing the point. An odd deflection, do you not think? But no matter.

On to point two. I've pointed out twice now that the good "Doctor" has clearly misunderstood the context in which "my system" was used in that footnote. I happen to think Berthume's choice of the term "mediant" for his usage is not the greatest choice in the world because of the potential confusion with regular tonal usage. Once more, for the record, Christopher Doll does something similar in his book on rock harmony that I think makes life a bit more confusing. But it's his choice.

OK, on to the third substantive point (if you can call the good "Doctor's" other two property substantive given that both are, at best, confused and a little pointless). The passage. One has to assume the good "Doctor" didn't watch the video or more than the first couple of minutes. From your comments, I wonder if that is also the case for you. "Gene" I think pointed out he watched no more than the first few minutes IIRC.

Let's quote Berthume from the transcript (hoorah for Google's machine learning - I've added some punctuations so it's a bit less stream of consciousness):



> _00:08 in video_ I've been thinking about a lot of different things as I'm writing the part-writing book. I've been thinking about part writing and some of the part-writing structures that I've created in my music and whether or not I'm kind of following or breaking the rules that I'm setting out to to delineate in the book.
> 
> I came across this passage that I wrote from the fourth movement of my first symphony and it's one of my personal favourite passages I'm allowed to say that for something that I wrote because it has some interesting harmony and decorations. It really is just simple four-part writing so in the spirit of part writing I think it's something that might be interesting to look at and kind of explain my thought processes.
> 
> Not always do I know exactly what I was thinking specifically for what I composed especially a piece of effort in a while back but for whatever reason when I looked at this passage I kind of remembered exactly what I was thinking when I wrote it. So I'm just gonna kind of go through it and explain what my thinking was both melodically and harmonically.



First takeaway. The video does not seems to be presenting, other than the sample pages shown at the beginning, material in the book, though the most critical voices here seem to be making the assumption that it is. This is probably one reason why most people aren't really here to discuss the passage in terms of what it "right" and what isn't. 

Second takeaway. This does involve actually watching a solid chunk of the video. It quickly becomes apparent that the inexact parallelism is deliberate. I don't recall if Berthume mentions impressionism - I don't think he does. It doesn't appear in a search but Google's transcriptions aren't perfect. However, it becomes pretty apparent by the time you hit minute 15 or so that you can regard the piece as being written with those kinds of structures in mind though with a tad more embellishment and with a lot of voices dropping out at regular intervals – apparently to make way for a denser texture later on. Interestingly, the keen critics don't point out the voice crossing in bar 2. Berthume does call this out BTW, though some way after the initial treatment of bar 2.

With those two things in mind, you have to ask yourself: why am I getting bent out of shape arguing over these notes when the point of the video is simply a composer thinking aloud about the choices they made some years back? You don't like the piece? Well, that's OK. I'm not wild about it or some of the justifications made. However, if you, "Gene" or the good "Doctor" want to argue about those choices, at least take on the choices as presented in context. I find Berthume's ideas of modal exchange to be interesting but I'm not convinced. I'm also no expert. But I did at least take the video for what it was rather than introducing a load of side issues that don't have a great deal of bearing on its actual content in order to rail at the kids on my lawn.

One thing that did strike me and which may go to the heart of some of the criticisms is that I think it would have been interesting to see whether Berthume 2020 thought better choices might be made in the part writing given the original melody. He may have been better off with an earlier piece of his that isn't a favourite as it would make the process somewhat easier (and it's worth bearing in mind Orwell's advice on writing and taking the scissors to things you really like).


----------



## Dave Connor

I almost singled you out for actually taking up Gene Pool on the music itself (which I appreciated) but you are sort of the Lone Ranger here in that regard. You just confirmed my essential point many times over by _actually making an argument. _In fact you argued very well since you repeatedly referred to the topic; broke it down into different parts and demonstrated a real grasp of the subject matter. You also demonstrated objectivity by agreeing with some of the prior criticism and also stating where you may not agree with the terminology (or some other aspect) of the _system_ being discussed.

I’m not patronizing you, I am saying that not only is your approach far more effective than dissing people on personal grounds while not even mentioning the topic at all (which I don’t say you did) but that it also maintains civility and encourages dialogue rather than driving qualified opinion away from the forum. I’m essentially asking people to please do the same as you have and we’ll all be better off.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

Dave Connor said:


> @Dr. Shagwell What is obvious (and you pointed out by quoting them) is that the responses to your predominantly objective observations were personal attacks. A non-music issue which shoves aside the topic and derails any honest discourse. Apologies on behalf of a myself and a considerable number of members of the forum.
> 
> What many here don’t seem to understand is that they are not really arguing against _personalities _but instead, _centuries-old agreed upon principles in music writing and it’s teaching._
> 
> Folks, Dr. Shagwell is like an MD visiting a DR.’s Forum; making observations on principles that, _every single one of those MD’s would have _(by law) _been taught -_ then attacked for it. Attacked for bringing up the most rudimentary and basic things learned by millions - for centuries.
> 
> Here is what I don’t understand: JJ is conservatory trained - yes? Then why is everyone under his tutelage having such a hard time with comments from other teachers, students and practitioners from the same _school of teaching? _
> 
> It’s hardly a crime to have a particular fondness for a teacher. I adore those I studied with and carry them around with me daily. But wouldn’t you best acquit both him and yourselves by arguing objectively on the facts rather then avoiding them completely - in your responses?
> 
> Why hasn’t anyone argued about the piece itself? Dr. Shagwell has pointed out what 12 million other composition teachers would with the relentless parallelisms with the root tone in the melody. Same with the cello’s range staying out of its normal bass function - what’s that all about? If you haven’t quite learned some of these things that‘s totally fine! These aren’t criminal charges. They’re topics for discussion, so relax and make your case and be a little humble when those who may know a little more weigh in.
> 
> Same with responses to Gene Pool. Take him up on the topic. He isn’t going to be any more perfect in his attitude and presentation than you are. Again though, his observations are everywhere in music understanding, history, practice and education. That‘s important to understand because you are going to come across this way of thinking over and over. Defensiveness is a poor response in _any _discussion.




Dear Dave

Thank you very much for your words. I honestly did not anticipate such a well thought out and measured reply. 

I tip my hat to you.
That was a very kind thing to do, and again you have my gratitude.


Wishing you all the best


----------



## gamma-ut

It's already been pointed out: the maker of the video isn't here. By all means post your reasoning though I'm curious as to why it's taken so long after I've mentioned (twice) the issue you didn't quote. But if you honestly want to inform Berthume of your views, try email or post a comment on YouTube, where the video is actually hosted.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

P


----------



## gamma-ut

Dr. Shagwell said:


> What you call "unfounded shots", I would call "trying to be helpful".


----------



## Dr. Shagwell




----------



## gamma-ut

My point about Doll has nothing to do with the "My system" but the overloading of a tonal term in a non-tonal context (it's things like subdominant). I thought I had made that abundantly clear in an earlier post. 

Now, to the "My system" bit. I can't see in your a reference to an earlier paper that uses mediant in the same manner as Berthume in your post, which I would see as necessary for a claim of plagiarism to even have a chance of standing. 

Instead, you point to one of many undergraduate text books on, wait for it, tonal harmony. OK. I had expected something a little more, shall we say, in depth on mediant usage. I had maybe expected after your request for some extra time a reference to Kevin Swinden who has written on chromatic harmony, or someone like that, but hey ho.

But all that's even before we get to the semantics of "My system" being taken to mean "a system of my invention" rather than "the system I am applying here". Now I can understand that the latter is maybe less contentious and possibly advisable. But let's not forget that Berthume explicitly notes the standard usage of "mediant" from other theory texts in the preceding sentences. So, it's not as if he's claiming to have invented mediants, which let's not forget was your original claim with your reference to Gottfried Weber.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

gamma-ut said:


> But let's not forget that Berthume explicitly notes the standard usage of "mediant" from other theory texts.




Where. Can you show me?


----------



## gamma-ut

I've dug out one passage at random from Doll's Hearing Harmony: "There is no _the_ tonic in the current theory, there are only individual chords that project tonic function."

The "current theory" is Doll's proposal in this context not current theory. On the one hand, maybe he could use an editor. On the other, is anyone who reads it in context actually confused?

In general, as someone who spends a reasonable amount of time reading academic papers, linguistic precision is a lot rarer than some claim.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

gamma-ut said:


> I've dug out one passage at random from Doll's Hearing Harmony: "There is no _the[/] tonic in the current theory, there are only individual chords that project tonic function."
> 
> The "current theory" is Doll's proposal in this context not current theory. On the one hand, maybe he could use an editor. On the other, is anyone who reads it in context actually confused?
> 
> In general, as someone who spends a reasonable amount of time reading academic papers, linguistic precision is a lot rarer than some claim._



What does this have to do at all with Berthume?


----------



## gamma-ut

Dr. Shagwell said:


> Where. Can you show me?



In the words of the inventor of the Piano Tie, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Seriously? It's in the screencap you posted. 

Here's a transcript I just typed in in case the text was a bit too small to read: "I am using these chord scale degree labels in a slightly different manner from other theory text - the mediant, for example, is the chord above whichever chord came before, relative to that chord. This is in contrast to the standard definition of the mediant as always being a third above the _tonic_."


----------



## Mike Greene

I've deleted the last few posts here, which were particularly unfriendly, and perhaps should have deleted more, but it looks like there was some good stuff buried in there, so lets leave it.

But ... from here, please try to be civil. Thanks.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

Mike Greene said:


> I've deleted the last few posts here, which were particularly unfriendly, and perhaps should have deleted more, but it looks like there was some good stuff buried in there, so lets leave it.
> 
> But ... from here, please try to be civil. Thanks.




Dear Sir

This was my first encounter with your forum. As I posted the numerous personal attacks have been appalling. 

As you would have read above, I intended to leave, and after the nice message from Dave Connor and two other members asking me not to go, I tried to add clarity to my original posts. As you see, I have tried to clear up any personal misunderstandings.

This clearly is a waste of time. One member is simply hanging out waiting for a new post to write more personally insulting attacks. 


Please delete my account, and all posts. This place is not for me. 

With best wishes to you


----------



## Mike Greene

I've asked that the personal attacks stop, so that should solve the problem. Seems to me that after I did that, this would be when you would decide _not_ to leave.  

We don't delete accounts until after a 7 day cooling off period, since people often change their minds. If you still want to then, let me know.


----------



## DivingInSpace

Wasn't aware of this guy. While people seemed to be disagreeing about the title, at least it seemed like they mostly could agree that he has a wealth of knowledge to share, so i look forward to watching some of his videos and maybe get the book if i find him helpful.


----------



## Michael Antrum

@Dr. Shagwell, 

Having read you other posts, it is clear to me that I have made an error of judgement, and would like to sincerely apologise for my intemperate words in an earlier post. Upon reflection I can see that you have had a pretty rough introduction to this forum, and I certainly played my part in this, which I regret.

I do hope that you will remain an active member here, and should you feel able to do so, I will look forward your contributions with interest. As an enthusiastic amateur, whose career leaves little time for the pursuit of music, I have learned much here both from other experts and other amateurs alike. It is actually a pretty great place...

Wishing you all the best.


Michael Antrum.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

Michael Antrum said:


> @Dr. Shagwell,
> 
> Having read you other posts, it is clear to me that I have made an error of judgement, and would like to sincerely apologise for my intemperate words in an earlier post. Upon reflection I can see that you have had a pretty rough introduction to this forum, and I certainly played my part in this, which I regret.
> 
> I do hope that you will remain an active member here, and should you feel able to do so, I will look forward your contributions with interest. As an enthusiastic amateur, whose career leaves little time for the pursuit of music, I have learned much here both from other experts and other amateurs alike. It is actually a pretty great place...
> 
> Wishing you all the best.
> 
> 
> Michael Antrum.



Dear Michael

Thank you very much for your kind words, and I too wish you all the very best.




Michael Antrum said:


> I do hope that you will remain an active member here



Not a chance. I guess I need to wait a week.

What is has not been acknowledged is one member "*gamma-ut" *behavior.

*There was a clear and deliberate attempt to bully, harass and distort.*

It is one thing to have a differing opinion. Look at the timeline above. (I have deleted a few posts too.)

This member deliberately remained lurking on this board for the sole purpose of intentionally posting distorted and personally offensive messages.

Within 20 minutes of my posts showing errors in the musical example, gamma-ut would post
intentionally distorted replies. Full of personal insults, and professional slander.

*Gaslighting and bullying.*



gamma-ut said:


> In the words of the inventor of the Piano Tie, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.





gamma-ut said:


> It's plain as day but you either misunderstand the point or deliberately and wilfully misrepresent it.





gamma-ut said:


> Or do we get a spell of Officer Tweedledee in the meantime?




This has been an intentional attack. No meaningful exchange of ideas can occur and it is useless to remain here. Anything I write will intentionally be distorted, misquoted, and receive personal attacks, invalidating any comment solely for gamma-ut's own motivation ending discourse on the topic.


I would like to add that Dave Connor has said



Dave Connor said:


> Dr. Shagwell has pointed out what 12 million other composition teachers would with the relentless parallelisms with the root tone in the melody.



He then further points out



Dave Connor said:


> Same with the cello’s range staying out of its normal bass function - what’s that all about?


__________________________________________________________________




Michael Antrum said:


> As an enthusiastic amateur, whose career leaves little time for the pursuit of music,



My only reason for posting at all, Michael, was similar to an instrumental teacher being weary of a student learning bad technique.

The voice-leading example in this book goes against every single book on the subject.
If you happen to begin to self-study with other books, for example, Walter Piston's, you are going to be confused for sure.

As was pointed out (This was not by me, and Gene's words are not mine) measures 5&6 are
extremely "un-elegant"

Here is a sloppy illustration. Parallel 5th's in red, and orange show the parallel octaves.






But it does not happen just once. Look at the tenor and upper voice on the very next beat.











That strange triangle is trying to highlight the A leaping up to F# and then onto G

As for measure 5








Measure 4 has an "implied bass" - akin to the way jazz piano players omit the bass. However, without the bass the "function" of the chord is mistakenly labeled B minor. Play it yourself on the piano








Without the "implied B" F# becomes the root. You will feel the "gravity" of the upper voices wanting to move down a half step.

Traditionally perfect 4ths were considered dissonant and needed to resolve by step.
Thus the F# to B between the tenor and soprano creates one 4th. The other is by the "Hidden 5th"
from the C#. Due to the overtone series, a projection of G# is lurking in the background, making the D extra tense.

What you are not hearing due to both the speed and the sad reality of midi playback are the harsh minor 9ths.

*** It appears I can only upload 5 images. In a post.


There are plenty more issues to raise. The thing with "mistakes" is it's like seeing a mouse run across the floor of your house. If there is one, there is going to more.

Everyone makes them of course.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

If we look at the orchestration issue Dave Connor pointed out with the opening:







First the "rub" of 2nd created by the viola crossing under the tenor. There is no other voice-leading
manual that would encourage this. 







Next look at the registers of Bar 2.


When we put the viola and cello in the Alto and Bass clefs notice the register issue






Do you see how the Cello, Viola and Violin 1 is in the same register? It's easy to observe as each are
above the stave.

Now the 2nd violin is on the lowest line of the stave. This creates problems with balance, and blend (stings are the most forgiving, however) 


Again, just know there is not a single text on voice-leading that would ever use this as an ideal.


I created a far more traditional voice-leading solution to the musical example. Notice in the original how static the bass line was. I tried to remain as true to the author's example.








I'll have to leave it here. It has been about 20 minutes since my last post, so I am sure the distortion of my comment and insults are about to roll in.


----------



## Gingerbread

Dr. Shagwell,

In my various self-studies regarding voice-leading, I've heard some differing opinions about parallel fifths, which was one of the things you highlighted as an error in the examples above. Some say that, post-Impressionism, that parallel 5ths are "no longer a big deal." Some even suggest they can be a desirable sound. What is your opinion on the matter?


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

Gingerbread said:


> Dr. Shagwell,
> 
> In my various self-studies regarding voice-leading, I've heard some differing opinions about parallel fifths, which was one of the things you highlighted as an error in the examples above. Some say that, post-Impressionism, that parallel 5ths are "no longer a big deal." Some even suggest they can be a desirable sound. What is your opinion on the matter?



Thank you Gingerbread. That is a very thoughtful question!

My opinion: 

The best way at the moment I can convey it would be to imagine an onion. 
You know how you can peel away different layers. All are apart of the onion. 

I rarely think in binary terms on matters like this. After all, great art allows for multiple interpretations, and isn't the role of an artist as much about asking questions as opposed to having all the answers?


My first point would be to define "Rule".

Rule = a guaranteed, certain result. If you do __ you get __. 

These are not "laws". 

These are not really aesthetic arguments either. It's about how much attention, how aware you are, of your craft. There are a countless number of songs, from rock to folk, too far back as the 12th Century that uses parallel 5ths and absolutely sublime to listen to.

(I grew up wanting to be a "guitar hero" so I recall years of moving power chords up and down the neck.)

If you don't know the work, Philip Glass wrote a piece that is apt to our discussion:

It's called music in 5ths, and in response to his famous falling out with Nadia Boulangerie. 
He became so fed up with these "rules" he left her school. 



We still have the counterpoint examples from Nadia Boulanger's school. Ravel was a friend of hers. 
This is the 2nd time "impressionism" has come up as validation. 

Ravel, Debussy, and almost every other French composer went through years and years of extensive counterpoint. They all had to write fugues, and keyboard realizations of figured bass, read in 7 clefs and on and on. The Paris Conservatoire by all accounts was a pretty rigorous place. 


All of this is to say in this day and age anything goes really. 

Parallel 5ths are not, by themselves, problematic. (As an aside: Quintal harmony is gorgeous!) 

An aesthetic war is not the point. It's about your craft and control and attention to detail as a composer. 

I encourage everyone to write what they hear. I work hard with my students to push them towards their own 'minds-ear', not mine. 
_________________________________________________________________________

I imagine then if I read the words above, I would ask myself "Well why the issue with the material you posted."

Too many blind spots. Imagine you are about to fly on an airplane. You notice one bolt, out of many, on the wing is missing. Will you still fly? 99.5% success rate.

Now imagine 10 bolts missing from each wing. 60% success rate.


I had to learn the hard way 'There is no SIZE to mistakes" I used to always say to myself "it's just a small mistake, it won't matter"

Boy, I sure have learned not to listen to that voice. 
_______________________________________________________________________________


To answer technically on how one measures if it is an artistic choice or bad craft.

*Lack of consistency:* More often than not, pieces that focus on a single (or few ideas) are most successful (aka Beethoven 5). This one measure is an outlier to both came before or after.

*Compound interest: *The parallel 5ths also contain parallel Octaves (the much more serious offense)
and contain a large leap error. Additionally, note the other items I have already marked.

*Overtone series: *The pure physics of music. I wrote about the hidden 5th above. Have a look at the overtone series to understand. Often a lower voicing of Root - 5th - to 3rd gives the most harmonic resonance. Think of Strauss and 2001. Pure overtone series. This is why Dave flagged the register issue.


The overall judgment is about control of the craft. I understand what you mean, and you have asked a very good question.

It is a contradiction on the surface.

When I hear this french horn passage from "Empire Strikes Back", full of parallel 5ths I know for a certainty this is an artistic choice, and of course done by a composer with masterful techique




It's wonderful and so effective. Blindspots are another thing. 

Does that help answer your question? Today with so many genre's you are not bound by "rules". 
However, in developing one's craft many great composers have spoken about the paradox of "freedom thru limitation"

Which is why voice-leading classes still harp on the "old rules."


----------



## Gingerbread

Dr. Shagwell said:


> Thank you Gingerbread. That is a very thoughtful question!
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> The best way at the moment I can convey it would be to imagine an onion.
> You know how you can peel away different layers. All are apart of the onion.
> 
> I rarely think in binary terms on matters like this. After all, great art allows for multiple interpretations, and isn't the role of an artist as much about asking questions as opposed to having all the answers?
> 
> 
> My first point would be to define "Rule".
> 
> Rule = a guaranteed, certain result. If you do __ you get __.
> 
> These are not "laws".
> 
> These are not really aesthetic arguments either. It's about how much attention, how aware you are, of your craft. There are a countless number of songs, from rock to folk, too far back as the 12th Century that uses parallel 5ths and absolutely sublime to listen to.
> 
> (I grew up wanting to be a "guitar hero" so I recall years of moving power chords up and down the neck.)
> 
> If you don't know the work, Philip Glass wrote a piece that is apt to our discussion:
> 
> It's called music in 5ths, and in response to his famous falling out with Nadia Boulangerie.
> He became so fed up with these "rules" he left her school.
> 
> 
> 
> We still have the counterpoint examples from Nadia Boulanger's school. Ravel was a friend of hers.
> This is the 2nd time "impressionism" has come up as validation.
> 
> Ravel, Debussy, and almost every other French composer went through years and years of extensive counterpoint. They all had to write fugues, and keyboard realizations of figured bass, read in 7 clefs and on and on. The Paris Conservatoire by all accounts was a pretty rigorous place.
> 
> 
> All of this is to say in this day and age anything goes really.
> 
> Parallel 5ths are not, by themselves, problematic. (As an aside: Quintal harmony is gorgeous!)
> 
> An aesthetic war is not the point. It's about your craft and control and attention to detail as a composer.
> 
> I encourage everyone to write what they hear. I work hard with my students to push them towards their own 'minds-ear', not mine.
> _________________________________________________________________________
> 
> I imagine then if I read the words above, I would ask myself "Well why the issue with the material you posted."
> 
> Too many blind spots. Imagine you are about to fly on an airplane. You notice one bolt, out of many, on the wing is missing. Will you still fly? 99.5% success rate.
> 
> Now imagine 10 bolts missing from each wing. 60% success rate.
> 
> 
> I had to learn the hard way 'There is no SIZE to mistakes" I used to always say to myself "it's just a small mistake, it won't matter"
> 
> Boy, I sure have learned not to listen to that voice.
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> To answer technically on how one measures if it is an artistic choice or bad craft.
> 
> *Lack of consistency:* More often than not, pieces that focus on a single (or few ideas) are most successful (aka Beethoven 5). This one measure is an outlier to both came before or after.
> 
> *Compound interest: *The parallel 5ths also contain parallel Octaves (the much more serious offense)
> and contain a large leap error. Additionally, note the other items I have already marked.
> 
> *Overtone series: *The pure physics of music. I wrote about the hidden 5th above. Have a look at the overtone series to understand. Often a lower voicing of Root - 5th - to 3rd gives the most harmonic resonance. Think of Strauss and 2001. Pure overtone series. This is why Dave flagged the register issue.
> 
> 
> The overall judgment is about control of the craft. I understand what you mean, and you have asked a very good question.
> 
> It is a contradiction on the surface.
> 
> When I hear this french horn passage from "Empire Strikes Back", full of parallel 5ths I know for a certainty this is an artistic choice, and of course done by a composer with masterful techique
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's wonderful and so effective. Blindspots are another thing.
> 
> Does that help answer your question? Today with so many genre's you are not bound by "rules".
> However, in developing one's craft many great composers have spoken about the paradox of "freedom thru limitation"
> 
> Which is why voice-leading classes still harp on the "old rules."



Thank you for your answer, and I understand completely what you're saying. It makes sense to learn the best practices when learning, so that you have maximum control and a complete palette to choose from, based on total understanding of the craft. Like Picasso who could paint in the traditional style if he wished, but _chose_ to "break the rules" that he'd mastered to achieve a specific result and style.

I think, based on what you've written, that I'm going to do my best to master writing "proper" voice leading, without the crutch of saying "it doesn't matter anymore," so that I'll always be able to make the choice for myself in my future writing. Better to have the superpower of complete knowledge, than having to make choices due to limitations in my skill. Thanks for clarifying this, it was helpful to me.


----------



## Dave Connor

I imagine everyone can see that the good doctor (in the clearest manner) pointed out some fundamental issues which have been the bedrock of composition for a very long time. Not just a harmless exercise but a helpful one. I thought his answer on _rule breaking _was model as was his stated goal of bringing out the voice of the individual composer. Although he is obviously a gifted teacher with an agreeable and easy going manner, I’m sure he won’t be offended by my reiteration of the fact that countless composition teachers would make similar if not identical observations and corrections.

I think the expert viewpoint is to be highly valued in a forum such as this and it would be great to have him here - and that he feel most welcome.


----------



## DivingInSpace

While i do see the points of all your examples, and you are absolutely right about them when it comes to traditional voice leading, isn't that the point of the book though? As i've understood it, it is to take a look at these things and discuss how he feels they belong in a modern context.

I watched a 4 years old video of him orchestrating an 8 bar melody yesterday, and these were things he were very aware of. He made sure that there were no parallel fifths with few exceptions where he explained why it, in this situation didn't matter, he explained why he in this situation could justify a bit of voice crossing etc.

I am not trying to challenge anybodies knowledge on theory as the knowledge of the people who have been posting in this thread most certainly exceeds mine, even though i am currently finishing up my masters in musicology (they have been greatly reducing the amount of theory we learn, the newer students don't even learn choral voice harmony anymore. It's all a shame really). 

I haven't looked into where these examples you posted comes from, haven't had a chance to play them or listen to them, but the amount of awareness he had about these things in a 4 years old video makes me wonder if all these probably are deliberate choices and not "mistakes".

Another thing is that i really hate the use of the words mistake or rule when it comes to music theory. Music theory is not rules set in stone, every time something new has been added to theory it is because someone "broke" the old rules. It is merely descriptions of conventions, guidelines and a language to communicate music, not "rules" as i see it.


----------



## DivingInSpace

Oh, and btw. i agree with the others, i'd love to see you posting more on this forum. It is always nice to have people willing to share their knowledge.


----------



## gamma-ut

In the video, Berthume mentions the close voicing at the start and broadening out quite early on - which may not be a direct answer to the cello register "issue" but it does seem to have been a deliberate choice.

Some minutes later he deals with the leap in bar 2 that is an apparent voice crossing. The upshot is, though it may be better explained in the video than by me is that the voice it's crossing isn't active at that point (it's a pretty sparse arrangements except for short periods) and so doesn't or shouldn't confuse the ear.

Around minutes 10 to 15 or, IIRC, he talks about the parallelism in the passage. I pointed out that these were addressed in the video a day or two ago. Also in bar 6, there's a deliberate very strong dissonance or tension that then gets relaxed which AIUI is one reason for the choice of voice movements seen. I may have misremembered the details as I didn't take written notes from the video other than what appears in my comments in this thread.


----------



## DivingInSpace

In that case i find it problematic to point these out as mistakes, as they are in reality choices.

I do agree that the title of the book is less fortunate though, it is hard to say anything that goes enough in depth about what has yet to be established. We still have 80 years left of this century.


----------



## gamma-ut

I suppose if you take that it's implying a full survey of techniques from a period (like Persichetti's on 20C composition - though that was published with 40-odd years left to run) it might be a problem. I find the argument over the title a bit weird personally – especially when in one breath one or two decry the title and then cite rules that haven't been strictly enforced since the Baroque period as gotchas. 

I suppose "Part Writing in the 21st Century" might be seen as less controversial and still be in keeping with the spirit of the original title. But it's not something that irks me personally. Plenty of music books aren't quite what they say on the cover.


----------



## gyprock

This thread started to inform others of JJs book. Then comes a comment from a pedant that results in 5 pages of commentary on a book that nobody has read, that is still in draft form, perhaps even the title. Can’t we at least wait to review the final work?


----------



## DivingInSpace

gyprock said:


> This thread started to inform others of JJs book. Then comes a comment from a pedant that results in 5 pages of commentary on a book that nobody has read, that is still in draft form, perhaps even the title. Can’t we at least wait to review the final work?


I agree that there is no reason to judge the book from its... Title? But i mostly think what was argued wasn't that this specific book shouldn't bear that title, more that no book can yet do that.

The problem isn't really people who stated this opinion as much as those seeing the need to argue about it as if it was a personal attack on them, and the whole back and forth that came from it.

Anyways, i just wanted to chip in with my perspective, not start another discussion but i look forward to reading the finished book.


----------



## gamma-ut

Dr. Shagwell said:


> That strange triangle is trying to highlight the A leaping up to F# and then onto G



Wrt to the rule large leaps should be followed by a step in the opposite direction.

David Huron and Paul von Hippel did a big statistical study of this rule across a variety of genres in 2000: https://mp.ucpress.edu/content/18/1/59

The upshot of their work is that rather than being a hard-and-fast rule about skip-step shape it often has more to do with effective ranges and a tendency to follow melodic lines. In a piece that's using parallelism, the line chosen here does not seem to me an unusual choice though it might look odd in a condensed score. YMMV

Furthermore, though the immediate skip is not lengthened, the overall arc seems to follow the informal leap-lengthening rule that Huron writes about in his voice-leading book (2016) and which seems to have a correlation to Fitt's Law - basically big moves taking more time to settle on a target. To my mind, the line in the passage noted seems to operate like a pitch bend into a higher sustained note before finally descending. YMMV.

Also, Dmitri Tymoczko: "Testing these theories against fourteen corpora of vocal and instrumental music, I find strong support for the cultural explanation: in Renaissance, baroque, and classical music, there is a strong tendency for leaps to reverse melodic direction, while in other genres this tendency is weaker." - Revisiting Post-Skip Reversals (2016) [https://dmitri.mycpanel.princeton.edu/postskipreversals.pdf]

One other thing that might be helpful to people. While looking for an electronic version of Huron's Voice Leading - largely because the index in the print edition is a bit ropey - I found JHU's Project Muse is offering free chapter-by-chapter downloads of it while the lockdown is on: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/47915

It deals with the perceptual aspects of voice leading, comparing them with the more rigid rules for baroque or common-practice era you find in conventional music-theory textbooks.


----------



## ism

Dr. Shagwell said:


> Thank you Gingerbread. That is a very thoughtful question!
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> The best way at the moment I can convey it would be to imagine an onion.
> You know how you can peel away different layers. All are apart of the onion.
> 
> I rarely think in binary terms on matters like this. After all, great art allows for multiple interpretations, and isn't the role of an artist as much about asking questions as opposed to having all the answers?
> 
> 
> My first point would be to define "Rule".
> 
> Rule = a guaranteed, certain result. If you do __ you get __.
> 
> These are not "laws".
> 
> These are not really aesthetic arguments either. It's about how much attention, how aware you are, of your craft. There are a countless number of songs, from rock to folk, too far back as the 12th Century that uses parallel 5ths and absolutely sublime to listen to.
> 
> (I grew up wanting to be a "guitar hero" so I recall years of moving power chords up and down the neck.)
> 
> If you don't know the work, Philip Glass wrote a piece that is apt to our discussion:
> 
> It's called music in 5ths, and in response to his famous falling out with Nadia Boulangerie.
> He became so fed up with these "rules" he left her school.
> 
> 
> 
> We still have the counterpoint examples from Nadia Boulanger's school. Ravel was a friend of hers.
> This is the 2nd time "impressionism" has come up as validation.
> 
> Ravel, Debussy, and almost every other French composer went through years and years of extensive counterpoint. They all had to write fugues, and keyboard realizations of figured bass, read in 7 clefs and on and on. The Paris Conservatoire by all accounts was a pretty rigorous place.
> 
> 
> All of this is to say in this day and age anything goes really.
> 
> Parallel 5ths are not, by themselves, problematic. (As an aside: Quintal harmony is gorgeous!)
> 
> An aesthetic war is not the point. It's about your craft and control and attention to detail as a composer.
> 
> I encourage everyone to write what they hear. I work hard with my students to push them towards their own 'minds-ear', not mine.
> _________________________________________________________________________
> 
> I imagine then if I read the words above, I would ask myself "Well why the issue with the material you posted."
> 
> Too many blind spots. Imagine you are about to fly on an airplane. You notice one bolt, out of many, on the wing is missing. Will you still fly? 99.5% success rate.
> 
> Now imagine 10 bolts missing from each wing. 60% success rate.
> 
> 
> I had to learn the hard way 'There is no SIZE to mistakes" I used to always say to myself "it's just a small mistake, it won't matter"
> 
> Boy, I sure have learned not to listen to that voice.
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> To answer technically on how one measures if it is an artistic choice or bad craft.
> 
> *Lack of consistency:* More often than not, pieces that focus on a single (or few ideas) are most successful (aka Beethoven 5). This one measure is an outlier to both came before or after.
> 
> *Compound interest: *The parallel 5ths also contain parallel Octaves (the much more serious offense)
> and contain a large leap error. Additionally, note the other items I have already marked.
> 
> *Overtone series: *The pure physics of music. I wrote about the hidden 5th above. Have a look at the overtone series to understand. Often a lower voicing of Root - 5th - to 3rd gives the most harmonic resonance. Think of Strauss and 2001. Pure overtone series. This is why Dave flagged the register issue.
> 
> 
> The overall judgment is about control of the craft. I understand what you mean, and you have asked a very good question.
> 
> It is a contradiction on the surface.
> 
> When I hear this french horn passage from "Empire Strikes Back", full of parallel 5ths I know for a certainty this is an artistic choice, and of course done by a composer with masterful techique
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's wonderful and so effective. Blindspots are another thing.
> 
> Does that help answer your question? Today with so many genre's you are not bound by "rules".
> However, in developing one's craft many great composers have spoken about the paradox of "freedom thru limitation"
> 
> Which is why voice-leading classes still harp on the "old rules."




That’s a very interesting answer. When I studied music as an undergrad the sheer dogmatism of the forbidding of parallel 5th drove me a bit crazy. I understood why in 4 part voice leading the undermined the independence of the lines was significant. But once I showed a composition to a prof that was 2-part counterpoint for classical guitar, and he did nothing but criticize the parallel fifths - which I was aware of, but I felt served the melody/countermelody without any undue distuption of the (two) independent the lines. 

Huron’s (superb) book:




Has given me a new perspective on this, going into great depth on the overtone series and the various anatomical, perceptual, cognitive and (what I would call) textual layers to what voice leading is all about. It’s a really proper theory of why parallel 5th are bad - for a certain musical effect. And more broadly, why Bach was right about everything all along.

In some sense, it’s a book length treatment of some of the technical aspects you discuss above. But what’s particularly interesting is how you bring the aesthetic elements to bear on to of the technical (I’d love to find a book length treatment on that too, incidentally).


But Huron also argues at the end (and he has a paper that presents empirical data to support this), that its a bad idea to actually teach the underlying ‘why’ of voice leading to students. Arguing that students need to have the rules bashed into them by rote first, and its bad for their souls to understand the deeper neuroscience of perception because it’s... I don’t know, distracting or some kind of a moral hazard or something (I paraphrase).

Admittedly, I was a physicist taking music theory and so I suppose, arguably I might have appreciated deeper insight into underlying musical and perceptual motivations for the ‘rules’ differently from, say, a performance flute major. But I also came away from all those courses on voice leading feeling like I’d learned yet another algebra (and there is a very rigorous sense that the ‘rules’ form can be said to form an algebraic structure, and perhaps even a variational calculus), but struggled to connect it to actual music.

It’s not quite so simple of course. My biggest struggle at the moment in learning to write music is bringing some of the deeper structures of voice leading and counterpoint to bear on my intuitive, improvised noodling, in the context of the vastly expanded palette of sheer orchestral sonority that has opened up, even in the last few years.

And yet, I do sometimes feel that, when on rare occasions, I do write something that is actually good, I have a sense of a kind of ‘muscle memory’ of voice leading at work .. a sense that some of the formal algebraic structure has been assimilated as something *felt* as I play notes, and feel for what notes go together. (This is resonant with Tymoczko’s articulations of how the structure he makes manifest via the algebra of orbinfolds in ‘A Geometry of Music’ have long been felt, bodily, and passed from teacher to student sitting at a piano, but never quite captured formally. Orbinfolds having perviously been seldom though useful outside of obscure quantum field theories. ).

I’d argue that some of the tensions you’ve (most lamentably) stumbled onto on this thread arise from some of these issues of the various alienations between theory and practice. Though, if its any consolation, its a broad phenomenon - most threads here that in any way impinge on a question like ‘should I learn music theory’ turn shockingly, if predictably, acrimonious. There’s a thesis be written on the underlying anxieties and identity politics. (And the monetization of personal identity branding via youtube populism).

Anyway, my question is - do you have any thoughts of how voice leading *should* be taught, vis-a-vis Huron’s ‘bash the rules into students first’ approach?


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

ism said:


> My biggest struggle at the moment in learning to write music is bringing some of the deeper structures of voice leading and counterpoint to bear on my intuitive, improvised noodling, in the context of the vastly expanded palette of sheer orchestral sonority that has opened up, even in the last few years.



Speaking personally: Schenkerian analysis, combined with regular improvisation practice, was a tremendous help for me in this area. As was regular site reading. I feel site reading should be mentioned much more in discussions of improvisation. 




ism said:


> But Huron also argues at the end (and he has a paper that presents empirical data to support this), that its a bad idea to actually teach the underlying ‘why’ of voice leading to students.



Yes, I know this story. Twice I have completed David's summer post-graduate
seminar at Ohio State University on empirical research. He brings this story up often. 
Basically, within the 10-week the constraint of a semester his class became (my word here) a "clusterfuck".

It happens. 




ism said:


> and its bad for their souls



Ha! I don't think he could do any empirical research on that. Perhaps for dramatic effect.

David Huron is really the godfather of empirical musical research. I am grateful for the many hours of conversation we have had, and he is a very nice man.

(His former student Robert Gjerdingen has published a very influential book called
Music in the Galant Style which you might find very interesting)



ism said:


> Anyway, my question is - do you have any thoughts of how voice leading *should* be taught, vis-a-vis Huron’s ‘bash the rules into students first’ approach?




_(I assume the question is also implying both the common practice period and also put aside any theory or philosophic bullshit)_


No. His method would not be my first choice. Dr. Huron is a scholar and researcher. That is his passion.
I believe - I could be mistaken - he had to teach that class as a substitute. 
It was one of many subjects he taught.

Assuming you mean "common practice" I find Dr. Peter Schubert's (McGill University) and Dr.Noam Sivan's approaches the innovative and interesting. Just my opinion. I'll put links below

Schubert for the vocal approach, and Sivan for the keyboard application.

Michael Callahan of Michigan St. also has written many interesting papers.
(https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.15.21.3/mto.15.21.3.callahan.html)

Personally I never want to teach a counterpoint class again, and certainly never one as a
stadium lecture.

I think improvisation and performance (including sight-reading) are essential. 
The "fragmented" approach to learning as driven me mad for years. 
As much as possible - integrate. And sing.

"rules" are talked about, but one has to "jump in the pool" so to speak.

Since you asked me directly "what would I do" that is my answer.
It's just my opinion. Subjective of course.

Links to both below. Be well, and best wishes








______________________________________________________________________


----------



## agarner32

Wow! What a thread this is. After reading most of the posts, I immediately thought of Schoenberg's opening chapter "Theory or System of Presentation." I think it's relevant in the context of this conversation. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## ism

Dr. Shagwell said:


> Speaking personally: Schenkerian analysis, combined with regular improvisation practice, was a tremendous help for me in this area. As was regular site reading. I feel site reading should be mentioned much more in discussions of improvisation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know this story. Twice I have completed David's summer post-graduate
> seminar at Ohio State University on empirical research. He brings this story up often.
> Basically, within the 10-week the constraint of a semester his class became (my word here) a "clusterfuck".
> 
> It happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! I don't think he could do any empirical research on that. Perhaps for dramatic effect.
> 
> David Huron is really the godfather of empirical musical research. I am grateful for the many hours of conversation we have had, and he is a very nice man.
> 
> (His former student Robert Gjerdingen has published a very influential book called
> Music in the Galant Style which you might find very interesting)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _(I assume the question is also implying both the common practice period and also put aside any theory or philosophic bullshit)_
> 
> 
> No. His method would not be my first choice. Dr. Huron is a scholar and researcher. That is his passion.
> I believe - I could be mistaken - he had to teach that class as a substitute.
> It was one of many subjects he taught.
> 
> Assuming you mean "common practice" I find Dr. Peter Schubert's (McGill University) and Dr.Noam Sivan's approaches the innovative and interesting. Just my opinion. I'll put links below
> 
> Schubert for the vocal approach, and Sivan for the keyboard application.
> 
> Michael Callahan of Michigan St. also has written many interesting papers.
> (https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.15.21.3/mto.15.21.3.callahan.html)
> 
> Personally I never want to teach a counterpoint class again, and certainly never one as a
> stadium lecture.
> 
> I think improvisation and performance (including sight-reading) are essential.
> The "fragmented" approach to learning as driven me mad for years.
> As much as possible - integrate. And sing.
> 
> "rules" are talked about, but one has to "jump in the pool" so to speak.
> 
> Since you asked me directly "what would I do" that is my answer.
> It's just my opinion. Subjective of course.
> 
> Links to both below. Be well, and best wishes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________



Wow - fabulous reply! Working through the references now. 

There’s also something here that speaks to my angst about trying to fund the right synthesis between all the books on composition and theory that sit on my desk, and the various online course that are emerging , none of which actually provide “all you need” to learn composition as the marketing typically promises but which do provide an element of something practical, visual, aural and ‘over the shoulder’ which is sorely missing from my experience of trying to learn from books in the absence of a formal classroom context. (And indeed was missing from my experience in a formal classroom experience).

Any objections if I copy some of this to another thread, so as to leave this one for JJ’s book?


----------



## jbuhler

Dr. Shagwell said:


> (His former student Robert Gjerdingen has published a very influential book called
> Music in the Galant Style which you might find very interesting)


 I agree with Dr Shagwell that Huron is a very nice man. Gjerdingen is a student of Leonard Meyer and Eugene Narmour. (He was also my undergraduate theory prof.) His schema book is great and it will change the way you think about the structures of classical era music.

The fact that voiceleading rules need to be bashed into students speaks to the ways that the tonality they model and enforce do not conform to natural intuitions even of relatively well trained musicians. (And most students taking college level music theory have had at least 5 years of extensive practical musical training, the vast majority considerably more.)

Then, too, getting students to knowledge of the “rules” is trivial. But the students generally need to believe in the efficacy of the rules before they can display mastery, and inculcating such belief is the work of this bashing: forging tonal intuitions, “body Bildung” in the amusing turn of phrase of Daniel Chua.


----------



## Dave Connor

agarner32 said:


> Wow! What a thread this is. After reading most of the posts, I immediately thought of Schoenberg's opening chapter "Theory or System of Presentation." I think it's relevant in the context of this conversation. I'll leave it at that.


Would like to hear more about this; the book and what he said. (I assume his harmony book.)


----------



## ism

jbuhler said:


> His schema book is great and it will change the way you think about the structures of classical era music.



Just looking at this. As well as this:



Which is a) an explicitly pedagogical application (with mp3s and a workbook) of whatever it is Gjerdingen is doing, and b) way cheaper.

My thinking is that perhaps it will augment the "practical counterpoint" 1 & 2 courses of scoreclub. @Dr. Shagwell (and the references above) make a compelling point about integrating harmony, counterpoint and some kind of practice, which I think @alainmayrand does really well in his scoreclub courses (far better that any other online/ new media offering I know of). But which I think could be augmented further (and it's not like I need an excuse to buy more books in any event)



Could I trouble you for an elevator pitch version of how Gjerdingen will change the way I think about the structure of classical music?





jbuhler said:


> The fact that voiceleading rules need to be bashed into students speaks to the ways that the tonality they model and enforce do not conform to natural intuitions even of relatively well trained musicians.



Also curious as to what intuition this is. Huron's argument is that traditional counterpoint is "natural" in the sense that that "rules" followed by Bach (as empirically measured) are essentially optimal in working with what recent science of perception tells us about the nature of our innate perceptive capacity of slitting sound into distinct perceptual streams of audition. Do you mean students who arrive in Voice Leading 101 immersed in, for instance, jazz as opposed to Bach (Huron notes that jazz typically achieves separation of perceptual streams by having distinct timbres, so the "rules" are difference for a jazz quartet than a string quartet, even if the underlying perception of independent auditory streams is the same)?

Admittedly, at the time I first sat down in Voice Leading 101, I had been playing quite a lot of Bach for quite a few years. And would not have been at all surprised to learn that Bach was writing about everything all along, which the textbook kind of hinted at, insofar as it tried to justify anything at all.

In any event, I do believe Huron that a certain type of music student, in a certain context, isn't going to benefit from absorbing the theory of auditory perception before just sitting down and having the rules bashed into them (and presumably connecting them to music later).


But I also can't let go of the idea that such illuminating insight as Huron's has to be important pedagogically. Maybe even extremely important. Even if precisely how to integrate in into a curriculum isn't completely obvious. But there's an underlying insight that feels extremely important. (I call it the "Particle Physics of Bach" principle. Which is how I would teach "counterpoint for physicists" were I ever tasked to do so. )


----------



## mikeh-375

I'll just throw this into the mix...free here...did me all the good in the world..

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.166045/page/n5/mode/2up


----------



## Nova

Dr. Shagwell you are a great resource that many people like myself would greatly benefit from having on these forums. I hope by the recent interactions you have decided to continue posting. Feel free to use the 'Ignore' feature liberally when someone forgets how to be civil and respectful.


----------



## jbuhler

ism said:


> Also curious as to what intuition this is. Huron's argument is that traditional counterpoint is "natural" in the sense that that "rules" followed by Bach (as empirically measured) are essentially optimal in working with what recent science of perception tells us about the nature of our innate perceptive capacity of slitting sound into distinct perceptual streams of audition. Do you mean students who arrive in Voice Leading 101 immersed in, for instance, jazz as opposed to Bach (Huron notes that jazz typically achieves separation of perceptual streams by having distinct timbres, so the "rules" are difference for a jazz quartet than a string quartet, even if the underlying perception of independent auditory streams is the same)?


No, I mean that students who arrive in first year theory having learned an instrument to a degree that they are relatively proficient at it—proficient enough that they can gain entrance to a school of music—still need to have the rules "bashed" into them, by Huron's own admission, meaning they have not yet internalized them despite the years of training on an instrument. The students who on the whole need the least amount of "bashing" are keyboard players, presumably because some form of keyboard harmony is usually included in the pedagogy for the instrument. But the underlying violence of the metaphor of bashing—and what it tells us about the tonal system as expressed through the rules of voice leading—is what I find interesting in this context.


----------



## youngpokie

There is something I don't understand about the discussion on parallel 5th and octaves, and I really put in the hours into trying to get it. My logic is as follows -

From IX to XIII century, parallel 4th, 5th and octaves were the norm because they are perfect consonants - the intervals that were aesthetically considered to be most pleasing. And the 3rds and the 6ths were actually "prohibited" intervals because they were considered dissonant at that time. 

By XV-XVI century, the 3rds and 6ths finally win acceptance and parallel 5th and octaves are forbidden. The reasons usually given for that are independence of voices, overtone series and so on. Although what's most obvious is that it's a group of consonant intervals that's now forbidden.

Then at end of XIX- start of XXI century, chords and tonality become really complex - here we get into dissonant chords with 4, 5 and more tones and the boundaries of tonality expand. 

And so I wonder - from this perspective, don't we actually _benefit_ from parallel 5th and octaves once we get into "modern" multi-interval chords? I mean - these are no longer the triads that the traditional voice leading rules govern. There's no more "sounds empty" argument here, or the overtone series. Don't these parallelisms actually help us better feel what may be the tonal center of the chord and how these chords relate to each other (especially the 5th and 4th)?


----------



## Dave Connor

youngpokie said:


> There is something I don't understand about the discussion on parallel 5th and octaves, and I really put in the hours into trying to get it. My logic is as follows -
> 
> From IX to XIII century, parallel 4th, 5th and octaves were the norm because they are perfect consonants - the intervals that were aesthetically considered to be most pleasing. And the 3rds and the 6ths were actually "prohibited" intervals because they were considered dissonant at that time.
> 
> By XV-XVI century, the 3rds and 6ths finally win acceptance and parallel 5th and octaves are forbidden. The reasons usually given for that are independence of voices, overtone series and so on. Although what's most obvious is that it's a group of consonant intervals that's now forbidden.
> 
> Then at end of XIX- start of XXI century, chords and tonality become really complex - here we get into dissonant chords with 4, 5 and more tones and the boundaries of tonality expand.
> 
> And so I wonder - from this perspective, don't we actually _benefit_ from parallel 5th and octaves once we get into "modern" multi-interval chords? I mean - these are no longer the triads that the traditional voice leading rules govern. There's no more "sounds empty" argument here, or the overtone series. Don't these parallelisms actually help us better feel what may be the tonal center of the chord and how these chords relate to each other (especially the 5th and 4th)?


Parallel 5th considerations are very contextual, which is to say they either have a deleterious effect on resonance or they don’t. In certain 4 part textures where the independent voice movement is heard quite clearly they can cause aural problems (loss of resonance vertically or linearly or both.) In numerous other contexts they can go from innocuous to glorious - depending.


----------



## ism

It is one of my great adult pleasures to be able to write parallel fifths any time I want.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

youngpokie said:


> There is something I don't understand about the discussion on parallel 5th and octaves, and I really put in the hours into trying to get it. My logic is as follows -
> 
> From IX to XIII century, parallel 4th, 5th and octaves were the norm because they are perfect consonants - the intervals that were aesthetically considered to be most pleasing. And the 3rds and the 6ths were actually "prohibited" intervals because they were considered dissonant at that time.
> 
> By XV-XVI century, the 3rds and 6ths finally win acceptance and parallel 5th and octaves are forbidden. The reasons usually given for that are independence of voices, overtone series and so on. Although what's most obvious is that it's a group of consonant intervals that's now forbidden.
> 
> Then at end of XIX- start of XXI century, chords and tonality become really complex - here we get into dissonant chords with 4, 5 and more tones and the boundaries of tonality expand.
> 
> And so I wonder - from this perspective, don't we actually _benefit_ from parallel 5th and octaves once we get into "modern" multi-interval chords? I mean - these are no longer the triads that the traditional voice leading rules govern. There's no more "sounds empty" argument here, or the overtone series. Don't these parallelisms actually help us better feel what may be the tonal center of the chord and how these chords relate to each other (especially the 5th and 4th)?




Look up from a reputable source the term Pythagorean Comma. There was a perceived imperfection to the twelfth 5th, which was deemed to have a "gap". 

Pythagoras discovered that musical pitches could be expressed as numerical ratios of small whole numbers, such as 2:1 (octave) and 3:2 (perfect fifth).

However, when he tried to stack all 12 pitch intervals in a repeating perfect 5th proportion, it did not reconnect with itself at the higher octave as he had expected.



Thus 2,500 years of students getting PTSD from music theory class was born.


----------



## Dave Connor

@Dr. Shagwell,

Do you have an easily available copy of your syllabus or outline of the courses you teach and could post? Starting from freshman level or even a third year declared composition major? Someone who hasn’t been that route will be able to see just how systematic things are laid out. Then they could consider what gaps they may have and whether they would like to address and shore them up somehow.

Or, even just the territory covered prior to Fugue which is usually a healthy stretch of simpler contrapuntal forms such as two and three part inventions (which themselves will be preceded by other studies etc.)

It would be nice to see that laid out even in the simplest way. Please don’t bother though if it isn’t at your fingertips.

DC


----------



## mikeh-375

Perhaps the most important advantage to learning and especially essential _practising_ of technique is the fact that by doing so, one is also learning about one's own aesthetic proclivities. The composer will find he/she has natural affinities with certain ways of doing things as they practice and assimilate new theoretical procedures and techniques. These preferences for certain procedures and approaches will be arrived at quite naturally (instinctively) over time and can be interpreted as being indicative of the more profound artistry within the composer.

Pursuing the potential of the techniques one feels drawn to (i.e. an adventurous approach to pushing the boundaries), is potentially a road map to originality if it is present within. It is for this reason I'd always encourage prolonged study of composition and theory over any other method of learning, but of course YYMV as it is not the only way and it wont suit everyone....but it's pretty much what @Gene Pool says in his last paragraph ^^^^^


----------



## Oliver

ism said:


> It is one of my great adult pleasures to be able to write parallel fifths any time I want.



best quote on this post thread. well i stopped reading anyway on page 2, because this is all silly... 

I am just thinking Stephen King announces new book titled "The black House" and there are 2000 threads about the title of his new book (maybe should title it "The red house"), without knowing whats the content.
Guys, behave...

and BTW my teacher at music university told me ... parallel fifths are a no-go... (this was 30 years ago)
you know what?
I don't care, if it fits the music piece!


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

ism said:


> Any objections if I copy some of this to another thread, so as to leave this one for JJ’s book?



That sounds like a wonderful idea. Please do. 

I would very much like to leave this thread alone.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell

Dave Connor said:


> @Dr. Shagwell,
> 
> Do you have an easily available copy of your syllabus or outline of the courses you teach and could post? Starting from freshman level or even a third year declared composition major? Someone who hasn’t been that route will be able to see just how systematic things are laid out. Then they could consider what gaps they may have and whether they would like to address and shore them up somehow.
> 
> Or, even just the territory covered prior to Fugue which is usually a healthy stretch of simpler contrapuntal forms such as two and three part inventions (which themselves will be preceded by other studies etc.)
> 
> It would be nice to see that laid out even in the simplest way. Please don’t bother though if it isn’t at your fingertips.
> 
> DC




Dear Dave,

Would it be alright with you if I gave a more proper answer in the new thread - Ism- is creating? 

The short and direct answer, for now, is that almost every major university has its curriculum available on their web site for all prospective students to see. 

As a reference here are the links to Indiana University degree requirements. 
(*I am not in any way, now or in the past, associated with IU.)

https://music.indiana.edu/degrees/undergraduate/requirements/BM-Comp.2018.pdf








Composition: Areas of Study: Degrees & Programs: Jacobs School of Music: Indiana University Bloomington


Learn about the composition programs available at the Jacobs School of Music.




music.indiana.edu


----------



## youngpokie

Dave Connor said:


> Parallel 5th considerations are very contextual..



I agree with this bit - it captures what I was trying to say earlier perhaps better than I was able to.

Speaking strictly for myself, I am not a fan of a lot of music written after about 1915-7 and some earlier works too. For me personally, traditional voice leading with its certain combination of consonance and mild dissonance sounds inherently more beautiful than what came after (and, perhaps, what was before).

But having said that, I feel there should be perhaps a more clear recognition that voice leading that avoids parallel 5th is part of an aesthetic system of harmony that covers roughly Baroque/Classical and a very large chunk of Romantic era. This treatment of parallel 5th here is a component of a fully coherent system with other voice leading rules of that era, such as voice crossing, doubling in a triad, and others. In other words, it's part of the very essence of that system.

At the same time, the system is situated sort of in-between an earlier framework of total consonance and a later one of full embrace of dissonance.

Of course these boundaries are not set so rigidly as to happen from one day to another, but once we leave the triads and really get into dissonant multi-interval chords, we are in a different aesthetic once again, where parallel 5ths seem to play a different role and may be even beneficial.

And that's why I sometimes feel that the parallel 5ths discussion can feel like a dogma - like studying ancient Greek in Oxford was, until fairly recently - and it's only once it's presented in the context of various harmonic systems replacing one another and the path from consonance to dissonance in the course of the evolution of music that a composer can discover where his or her aesthetic preference is and proceed accordingly.

This is not at all to say that teaching of triad-based voice leading should be abandoned, but rather to make it more clear where it's a must by definition and where it's optional or _even useless_, i.e. - clearly defining the context.


----------



## Michael Antrum

Funnily enough @Gene Pool, a certain Mr. Walter Piston seems to agree with you. I was having a read though my copy of his book on Harmony, and I quote him below from the introduction.

_"Historically, the period in which this common practice may be detected includes roughly the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. During that time there is surprisingly little change in the harmonic materials used and in the manner of their use. The experimental period of the early twentieth century will appear far less revolutionary when the lines of development from the practice of older composers become clearer by familiarity with the music. As yet, however, once cannot define a twentieth century common practice."_

My copy is from 1959.

I have been travelling for much of the last day or so, and have only been able to make a superficial reading of the posts, but so far my take away from the postings above is that one should learn to write within the formal rules (or should that be guidelines ?). In that way you have control over your work. If, after you have achieved this you then decide to diverge from those 'rules' you at least have knowledge of why they are there and the possible consequences of breaking them. 

Have I grasped that correctly ?


----------



## Dave Connor

Michael Antrum said:


> _"Historically, the period in which this common practice may be detected includes roughly the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. During that time there is surprisingly little change in the harmonic materials used and in the manner of their use.* The experimental period of the early twentieth century will appear far less revolutionary when the lines of development from the practice of older composers become clearer by familiarity with the music*. As yet, however, once cannot define a twentieth century common practice.”_


Good catch Michael.

This (in bold) was precisely what I referred to in stating that here, _in the 21st century, _one of the most admired composers in the world - John Williams - is in fact a model of traditional part-writing/voice-leading. Which begs Piston’s statement anew (and fueled most of this thread): _How revolutionary can a new approach be if in fact even the 20th century masters only modestly departed from earlier centuries - if at all. _In Williams’ case, he is rock solidly in the last century and earlier. This essentially is the very fair question that for some strange reason became controversial - since it’s an historically based, harmless, academic question.


----------



## Michael Antrum

Dr. Shagwell said:


> If we look at the orchestration issue Dave Connor pointed out with the opening:
> 
> ............
> 
> I'll have to leave it here.



@Dr. Shagwell 

I just wanted to thank you for your detailed response. I have only been able to have a cursory look over what you have posted so far (I have been travelling and will have to do so again tomorrow so will need to get some sleep). But your explanation is very clear.

I will have some time this weekend when I will be able to go through it in more thoroughly, and have some more practice with voice leading. But I do thank for for taking the trouble to explain it more thoroughly.


Best, Michael.


----------



## dadadave

Has anyone who backed this on kickstarter received this yet? I got an email that it was released, followed the instructions, but all that was downloadable was a png of the books cover. There's been no response to the two emails I've written so far and I can't find any further info on the kickstarter page. It seems like a simple mix-up of the files, but I would certainly appreciate knowing what the situation is....


----------



## Uiroo

He has send an e-mail to everyone pre-ordering or backing him on kickstarter, explaining the situation. 
Maybe overlooked it? I can PM it to you.


----------



## d.healey

J Jay Berthume 21st Century part writing Update


I ordered a few days ago and also could only download the png file. Emails send about this issue, but no answer yet. People have posted this problem also on his youtube video about this course.




vi-control.net


----------



## dadadave

Uiroo said:


> He has send an e-mail to everyone pre-ordering or backing him on kickstarter, explaining the situation.
> Maybe overlooked it? I can PM it to you.



Ah, I see, thank you. It appears I did not get that email (it's not in my spam folder either). All the best to him, in that case.


----------



## wst3

Has anyone received the actual, complete book? I haven't heard "boo" since that email about what happened. This is starting to look like a very poor investment


----------



## Maximvs

wst3 said:


> Has anyone received the actual, complete book? I haven't heard "boo" since that email about what happened. This is starting to look like a very poor investment


As far as I know the full book is not yet available... He is still in the writing process and will release chapters at different times in the next few months. At least this is what I understood from his late email... Unfortunately I am not sure how to get hold of the partially finished book that I already paid in full a while back, the guy disappeared and I think I must write to him to find out how things are going.

Cheers, Max T.


----------



## Uiroo

Massimo said:


> As far as I know the full book is not yet available... He is still in the writing process and will release chapters at different times in the next few months. At least this is what I understood from his late email... Unfortunately I am not sure how to get hold of the partially finished book that I already paid in full a while back, the guy disappeared and I think I must write to him to find out how things are going.
> 
> Cheers, Max T.


If you write him you should get a copy of the partially finished version.


----------



## synergy543

Jay sent me his current 152-page draft plus 33 pages on thematic development. There is quite a lot of interesting and thoughtful material as it stands but he's still working on it. I bought his pre-release after hearing about the delay as I want to support his efforts in tackling such a difficult subject and see what he's doing. It's a lot to bite into. I'm sure when he completes the entire book it will be well worth the wait.

btw, short story is that his editing partner died in a car crash mid-project. Too many of my good friends have died too and the reality can hit hard. Have patience, Jay is working hard on this I'm sure.


----------



## Anders Wall

The book is out.
We should all have received a link, if not contact JJjay.

Tjohoo! as we Swedes say.

Best,
Anders


----------



## Uiroo

And what a book it is, can't wait to get started studying it!


----------



## wst3

received the email late last night, downloaded it, but won't be able to dig in until later today.

Congrats to JJ on what must have been a real marathon effort!


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Who's the audience for this book in terms of level of previous knowledge? Beginners? Conservatory graduates?


----------



## Uiroo

Personally, I'd say if you're familiar with terms as subdominant, dominant, intervals, know a bit about scales, modes and know how to read notation, you're fine.


----------



## Paul Jelfs

Good Effort. Looks useful. Is there a way to buy the book now it is out - directly ?


----------



## Uiroo

Here:
https://sellfy.com/jjb-music-education-resources/


----------

