# What is the 'essence' of EIS?



## requiem_aeternam7 (Mar 19, 2010)

I'll be honest EIS creeps me out. It has much the same feel as Scientology. A very exclusive sort of mystical type creepy thing. I'm not sure I even want to know what their 'rules' are.


----------



## midphase (Mar 19, 2010)

1st RULE: You do not talk about EIS
.
2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about EIS.

3rd RULE: If someone says "stop" or goes limp, taps out...the composition is over.

4th RULE: Only two guys to a composition.

5th RULE: One composition at a time.

6th RULE: No pens, no markers.

7th RULE: Compositions will go on as long asò¦e   ÉÎ§¦e   ÉÎ¨¦e   ÉÎ©¦e   ÉÎª¦e   ÉÎ«¦e   ÉÎ¬¦e   ÉÎ­¦e   ÉÎ®¦e   ÉÎ¯


----------



## Udo (Mar 19, 2010)

gsilbers @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> damn, i almost fainted from laughing



I'm not laughing, I really want to find out what EIS is all about.
(I do know several secret handshakes, just in case that gets me quicker to the truth). :wink: 

Hey, midphase, half a dozen = 6. I don't think you'd have done any good on the course, since you can't even count


----------



## midphase (Mar 19, 2010)

There are in all actuality 14 rules AFAIK...so I'm actually a bit short.


----------



## Udo (Mar 19, 2010)

Do you know where I can find those rules, without buying the course?


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 19, 2010)

Joking aside, EIS isn't a mystical cult. Basically EIS was developed by Lyle Spud Murphy "to satisfy the working musician's need for theory method to enable him to express freely his own musical ideas. It is a simplified and highly accurate method of counting or spacing all of the horizontal and vertical intervals used in modern music."

It is tied together by a series of root lines - horizontal in nature and based on Equal Intervals - where every root tone is a tonic. Although its been compared to Schoenberg's system in some respects, it does not rely upon serialization or tone rows. Your best to bet to really understand Equal Interval System is to try it for yourself. Then you can better decide if it works for you or not.

Regarding the rules and wanting to know them before trying out the course, its a bit like asking a mathematician to reveal aspects of his formula before understanding how he arrived at it. Not saying you have to be a genius to get EIS - but it was designed to be revealed lesson by lesson to understand it comprehensively. Understanding it is only the first part though - being able to apply it in your own music makes it your EIS. Two students of equal ability can carry it into two completely different directions entirely.


----------



## midphase (Mar 19, 2010)

Ok..here's the best way that I can describe EIS:

Most (make that about 99%) or composers have a severe limitation, they can only compose what they hear in their head.

Yuppers, whether it's influenced by the latest Zimmer track you heard, or by you doodling on the keyboard....that limitation is a bummer. Further, decades of training in traditional diatonic composition has programmed us to think in a certain way about how we structure harmonies, and even melodies.

EIS aims to address this issue by firstly establishing a set of universal (more or less) rules under which harmonies, voice leading, melodies, connecting notes, and bass lines behave. That's what the famous Book 2 is really all about....to drill into your head that pretty much all music as we know it functions basically the same way. The trick here is that apparently NOBODY had thought of it except for Spud (this one blows my mind actually, but I suppose someone had to do it).

After Book 2, you're essentially given a wider and wider palette of tonal options (quartal, quintal structures, polytonal structures, the works) while being reminded that no matter how crazy or complex this stuff gets...as long as you follow the same rules that apply to your basic triadic music...you'll be fine.

So essentially EIS addresses the topmost limiting issue by giving you an extremely wide range of harmonic and melodic choices, and giving you basic rules to use them, so that you're not really limited by what you hear in your head. You can literally pick a progression, pick a scale and pick an harmonic structure and fill in the blanks knowing full well that as long as you followed the rules, the resulting music will sound "good" (good is of course subjective....but you'll be surprised how often good and well structured are essentially the same thing).

I personally tend not to use EIS when I'm writing "commercially" although some of the rules are always floating in my mind and I'm always aware of certain things to do and things to avoid. I mostly tend to really leverage what I learned when I'm trying to compose something more unique and "artsy" for lack of a better term. EIS really lends itself to that type of thing IMHO (although I know that it really truly lends itself to anything and everything).

I recently composed the music for a play called BAAL and leveraged EIS extensively during the writing process. If you want, you can download the soundtrack of the play here:

http://www.musicbykays.com/clients/BAAL/

The 1st and last track in particular are very EIS-ish.


----------



## Udo (Mar 19, 2010)

Thank you both very much for the explanations and thanks for the link, Kays. Will it remain accessable till next Thursday or Friday (will probably not be able to download it till then)?


----------



## midphase (Mar 19, 2010)

It should still be up.


----------



## nikolas (Mar 20, 2010)

midphase @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> Most (make that about 99%) or composers have a severe limitation, they can only compose what they hear in their head.
> 
> Yuppers, whether it's influenced by the latest Zimmer track you heard, or by you doodling on the keyboard....that limitation is a bummer. Further, decades of training in traditional diatonic composition has programmed us to think in a certain way about how we structure harmonies, and even melodies.


For the shake of me I can't even begin to understand why composing what you have IN YOUR HEAD is a severe limitation!

Our minds, our own filters, our own selves is the only thing that can be left uninfluenced, as opposed to our hands and fingers (improvising on the piano, for example), and our ears (trying out stuff on the keyboard/guitar/whatever). 

I will agree that decades of training in traditional diatonic composition has programmed some people, but it does provide a better reason on why in postgraduate classes (and undergrad) in composition you are taught 20th century compositional techniques, etc. 

Isn't EIS, another technique, like "so many" created over the 20th and 21st century? Just curious here and I do apologize for my somewhat offensive post...


----------



## mf (Mar 20, 2010)

midphase @ Fri Mar 19 said:


> Most (make that about 99%) or composers have a severe limitation, they can only compose what they hear in their head. ....that limitation is a bummer.


Composing _only_ what you hear in your head is indeed a limitation, and, like thinking with your head, is a good limitation. Why do you see that limitation as "severe" and as a "bummer"? Apparently that "severe limitation" has facilitated the creation of a very long list of masterpieces (in fact, all of them).



midphase @ Fri Mar 19 said:


> EIS aims to address this issue by firstly establishing a set of universal (more or less) rules under which harmonies, voice leading, melodies, connecting notes, and bass lines behave.


And that set of rules has facilitated the creation of what masterpieces?

Apparently, composing what one does NOT hear in his head is not as widely appreciated.



edit -
Nikolas: o-[][]-o


----------



## nikolas (Mar 20, 2010)

midphase @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> You guys are not really getting the gist.
> 
> With all due respect, most of us are simply not geniuses at the level of the true masters (Bach, Mozart, Debussy, and for film Herrmann, Copeland and a handful of others).


By all means (and without wanting to get into a fight without anyone) I wouldn't like to be them. I prefer being myself! :D Geniuses or what, I acknoledge it for them and many others, but other than that... Works and practices show!



> We are limited by the fact that most of us can only grasp a small fraction of what some of these heavy weights of musical history were able to grasp.


This I dissagree. We are limited, indeed, but I'd like to think that we are limited to what our mind can/cannot grasp. And this CAN be trained! Grasp what and to what extent? 



> So what do we do?
> 
> If you're like the majority of new composers out there...sorry to say...you sound just like everybody else (or at the very least highly derivative of someone else). This is because most composers have a limited harmonic/melodic palette from which to grab inspiration.


The composers that sound like everyone else do so, because they are either ignorant, or are forced to that. Plus it's not exactly a bad thing in my book (especially since I've gone through the 'find your own voice/style/etc' part).

Isn't this a bit... reducing of the majority of new composers? In the way you put it.



> Of course you can start composing in avant-garde styles and modernist methods...but let's be honest--most composers who dwell in that realm are for the most part doing so in a somewhat random and unordered fashion. The ones who do follow a more stringent structure, tend to levy self imposed restrictions on themselves like 12-tone rows with no real world explanation for those rules other than "because they're there."


Whoops here. Big whoops.

This part shows that you are probably not into contemporary music... :-/ I'll let it be, but most of the "rules" and methods of the 20th/21st century were created exactly for a reason. Even avant garde, which takes a lot of reading to grasp it and of course is not meant as "music for supermarket". 



> EIS's rules are actually based on the overtone series, so at least there is a physical-world reason as to why they function within our harmonic world.
> 
> I'm not saying that some people are not able to dig into their noggins and come up with some amazing creations...but for those who have trouble doing so...and are honest enough with themselves to admit it...EIS can provide some musical options which traditional harmony has a hard time with.
> 
> ...


Now you're replying! I will look into EIS, but I will stand by the very simple idea that EIS is "just" (<-with all due respect) another method of organising pitches, intervals and the such. Exactly like micropolyphony, poly-tonality, serialism and whatever else is there. And the cool thing is that if you do start with consonant ideas (for example a 12 pitch row with very consonant intervals), you end up with pretty 'nice' results.


----------



## midphase (Mar 20, 2010)

"I will stand by the very simple idea that EIS is "just" (<-with all due respect) another method of organising pitches, intervals and the such. Exactly like micropolyphony, poly-tonality, serialism and whatever else is there. And the cool thing is that if you do start with consonant ideas (for example a 12 pitch row with very consonant intervals), you end up with pretty 'nice' results."

I don't think anyone ever implied that EIS was some sort of miracle cure or godsend. Of course it is a method...it just happens to be one which is not only relatively simple, but highly effective.

Trying to explain EIS is a bit like trying to explain a foreign language. If you know how to speak it, you get it...but try to explain it to someone in plain terms over a paragraph or two and it's really hard.


"By all means (and without wanting to get into a fight without anyone) I wouldn't like to be them. I prefer being myself!"

You're unfortunately kind of unique in that respect. Also, you're (from what I understand) an academic who actively studies music and are probably aware of modern compositional techniques and styles that most people are simply not up to speed with. Keep in mind that you're the exception and not the rule, particularly if we're talking about composers who work and operate within the world of entertainment and commercial applications of music. I'll be the first one to say that if I'm doing a track in the style of Zimmer...EIS is total overkill and unnecessary (I'm sure other EIS scholars will disagree with that).


----------



## mf (Mar 20, 2010)

midphase @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> "And that set of rules has facilitated the creation of what masterpieces? "
> 
> Pretty much all of them. Whether you're utilizing the rules because they are instinctual to you, or because you learned them, the results are the same. If you analyze most of what are generally considered musical masterpieces, you'll find that they generally obey EIS rules precisely.


Facilitating implies causing, forward in time, not backwards. So, my question was: The conscious application of EIS rules, as they are written in the EIS books, has facilitated (caused) the creation of what masterpieces?

You said that the old paradigm of _writing what one hears in his head_ is a "severe limitation" and a "bummer" - and yet didn't explain why you think so. My point was that the "old" paradigm has facilitated the creation of many many masterpieces. Here lies the contradiction. You have presented the EIS method as an alternative, as a new method, different from the "writing what one mentally hears" method. But an old method is not necessarily obsolete, and a new method is not necessarily effective. Hence my question: what are the results of the conscious application of EIS, and how do they compare to the results of the "old" paradigm? 

Apparently, the comparison doesn't favor the EIS method. If "writing what they hear in their head" ensures the success of a Williams, Zimmer, Thomas Newmann, Elliot Goldenthal, James Newton Howard, Danny Elfmann, Michael Giacchino, etc. etc. - then the "writing what you hear in your head" method is not obsolete, which makes its change unnecessary. So, why EIS then?


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (Mar 20, 2010)

I think the reason Midphase is saying the old "limited" paradigm of writing what one hears in his head is in fact LIMITING is due to the fact that it's limiting for 90% of people who quite plainly speaking, don't have much in their head to hear. 

I.E. sure Bach, Beethoven, Mozart had plenty in their head and could rely on that but what 90% of people hear in their head is in fact not anywhere up to those standards and is in essence, pure crap. So I think that's where he's coming from and on that point I'll have to agree. 
So in essence as I understand it, EIS is mostly for the non-genius. I.E. for the average working class composer who needs a boost in his creativity. If that's you then EIS is perfect. 
For the rest of us geniuses however, it's unnecessary. :wink: o-[][]-o


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 20, 2010)

nikolas @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> For the shake of me I can't even begin to understand why composing what you have IN YOUR HEAD is a severe limitation!



Composing in your head imo will never take a back seat to any method. If you've been well versed in the 20th century eclectic styles, you may already hear some very complex stuff in your head anyway. There is absolutely no downside to doing all of this diatonically. In fact I think its rare to apply EIS completely in any piece although its possible. Like other methods, EIS is a tool that you can use sparingly or more overtly. 

One perk of EIS is being able to become engaged in and begin to deeply understand complex pieces from the standpoint of EIS - to me it makes it easier to get what's happening number one and number two how better to replicate the gist of the example and apply it to my own compositions. Knowing what's happening from two schools of thought is helpful - with the third school being the music that is running in your head. It gives alternative ways to approach a single piece or style - re-harmonizing for an example coupled with interesting voice-leading principles applied to the new structures created. Or using the ideas of progression and voice leading to create new tunes where you fill in the blanks with the melodies you hear. It simply gives more choices that you can either act upon or avoid.


----------



## Tariqh Akoni (Mar 20, 2010)

Hello,

I'm a relatively new member here and very new to EIS. I'm only in the "boot camp" of Book II, so I need to qualify my response as being somewhat less informed than others. However, I'd like to chime in about EIS and the current discussion.

I think one thing that is trying for many is that EIS is approached with such zealotry by it's practitioners. It seems as though people with no experience with EIS or who have gone through more traditional systems feel threatened about a new system that people are purporting to be superior. I don't think it's the intent of the EIS graduates to detract from other methods. More so I think it's a desire to share the benefits of a system which feels truly liberating and is not style dependent. Every style and methodology is valid. Schoenberg, Schillinger, the "Berklee" system (which originated in the Schillinger system) and each can cultivate remarkable results. I think the point is that EIS is equally valid. 

The other issue is the difficulty in explaining EIS to others. Beyond a simple system, it is a harmonic universe, and as so is as difficult to explain as the color blue, or the taste of ice cream. It would be similar to trying to explain the diatonic system to someone who's never encountered it. There are "rules" etc, but fundamentally it's a new way to look at music.

To the comment about "masterpieces". I think that this is a subjective argument. Does a "masterpiece" have to be recognized by the Grammy association or win a Peabody? I think that many EIS compositions are stunning in originality and beauty and whether they will be considered masterpieces is up to history. Also, the EIS technique hasn't been around long enough to compare to Mozart, Bach, Beethoven etc. I personally love the sound and find most EIS composers more compelling than others. Look at it this way, genius composers would have written genius pieces regardless of which "system" they studied. Just because one studies at Berklee or Eastman or the New School will not make them a genius. Similarly, EIS is dependent on the imagination of the composer. I simply feel that the means to the end is much more liberatating to that imagination and compositional process.

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for your patience.

Tariqh


----------



## midphase (Mar 20, 2010)

"I think the reason Midphase is saying the old "limited" paradigm of writing what one hears in his head is in fact LIMITING is due to the fact that it's limiting for 90% of people who quite plainly speaking, don't have much in their head to hear. "

Precisely!


----------



## midphase (Mar 20, 2010)

"EIS rules??? Which rules??? I´m on book XI and I haven´t heard about any rule so far. I think I´m not learning EIS than!!!"

Back page of Book 2.


----------



## midphase (Mar 20, 2010)

"For the shake of me I can't even begin to understand why composing what you have IN YOUR HEAD is a severe limitation!

Composing in your head imo will never take a back seat to any method. If you've been well versed in the 20th century eclectic styles, you may already hear some very complex stuff in your head anyway."

Perhaps my terminology is causing some unintended confusion.

My main point is that "most" composers generally don't "hear" a min7(#11, b13) chord or a chord built on 6ths intervals using a scale which doesn't exist in traditional harmony in their heads....much less really know how to correctly voice such a chord or how to correctly spread it across an orchestra through the various sections. Most of us (including myself) reach for diatonic triadic harmonies most of the time....every once in a while we'll pull out a 7th chord and feel all cool and stuff. Whenever I want to compose something that I know I'm not going to pull out of my own conscious except through trial and error....but I'd prefer to do it in a more structured way and not through trial and error...I reach for EIS.


----------



## mf (Mar 20, 2010)

Tariqh Akoni @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> It seems as though people with no experience with EIS or who have gone through more traditional systems feel threatened about a new system that people are purporting to be superior.


How can it be superior in the absence of successful results? Threatened?!? That's ridiculous. Threatened by something that has produced no successful results??



Tariqh Akoni @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> fundamentally it's a new way to look at music.


And why should I look at music in this new way? What are the advantages of this new way that has produced no successful results?



Tariqh Akoni @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> To the comment about "masterpieces" ... the EIS technique hasn't been around long enough


It's not a problem of long/short. Give me a reason EIS should be here in the first place, never mind "long enough." Has a method failed and needs to be replaced by this new method? A method is only validated by its results. If a method of creating music is effective, then some successful music should result from it. No results looks very much like no effectiveness.



Tariqh Akoni @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> I personally love the sound and find most EIS composers more compelling than others.


Not very convincing arguments for EIS, are they?

And on the secrecy surrounding a method that has shown no successful results - that doesn't work in EIS's favor either, it's even counterproductive. Send you some money and then you'll mail me The Secret Method of your success? What success? Excuse me, but this secrecy looks to me very much like The Secret scam: "The Law of Universal Attraction will make the Money flow into your Pocket. Learn The Secret to unlock its Power. Buy it online at wwwthesecretdotcom. We take PayPal."

The secret is very simple, here it is, for free: There is no secret. The emperor is naked. And he's not even the emperor, just some bum craving for attention.


----------



## midphase (Mar 20, 2010)

"I think one thing that is trying for many is that EIS is approached with such zealotry by it's practitioners. It seems as though people with no experience with EIS or who have gone through more traditional systems feel threatened about a new system that people are purporting to be superior."

I agree with Tariqh and for what it's worth I personally have never bought into the zealotry aspect of it not the idolatry towards Spud or even some of the teachers. I simply think EIS is a well designed method which happens to be pretty simple and flexible once one masters the basics. I also think that Spud was a pretty smart cookie and he managed to put down in course form and method what him and many others had been doing instinctually for many many years. I don't think Spud invented the wheel, but I he figured out a better way how to teach people how to build it.


----------



## Tariqh Akoni (Mar 20, 2010)

mf @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> Tariqh Akoni @ Sat Mar 20 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems as though people with no experience with EIS or who have gone through more traditional systems feel threatened about a new system that people are purporting to be superior.
> ...



Hi MF, 

We haven't met in person, and this is our first interaction online. I know that tone is difficult to impart in text, but please let me say that I feel your opinions are incredibly valid. If you choose not to study EIS, that's absolutely fine. If you want to argue it's import that's fine too. I love it, it works for me and many others (including Emmy award winning and nominated composers, Annie award winning composers and works featured on productions for Wayne Shorter, Stevie Wonder and Maxwell). I'm not sure what empirical "success" stories you're looking for, but that's your own quest. No one can "make you" believe in a system nor convince you of it's relevance . For me, I'm interested in elevating the conversation to explain the course and hopefully inspire others who are interested in studying. I'm not interested in "justifying" the system or carrying the banner into battle. Good luck on your quest.

T


----------



## mf (Mar 20, 2010)

My "quest?" Thanks for your sarcasm and condescending tone, T. I am not in a quest "looking for success stories," I just want to hear the successful musical pieces made possible by EIS.

The issue is quite simple, someone said the method of making music by hearing it in your head is "severely limited" and a "bummer," further suggesting that EIS is the solution to that "problem." So I asked how come that method is a problem when so many successful results indicate the opposite, and how come EIS is "the solution" when the successful results are not there?

Btw, name-dropping and award-mentioning are not very convincing arguments. What are the successful pieces you are talking about and how do you know they are made by using anything EIS?


----------



## Tariqh Akoni (Mar 20, 2010)

mf @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> My "quest?" Thanks for your sarcasm, T. I am not in a quest "looking for empirical success stories," I just want to hear the successful musical pieces made possible by EIS.
> 
> The issue is quite simple, someone said the method of making music by hearing it in your head is "severely limited" and a "bummer," further suggesting that EIS is the solution for that "problem." So I asked how come that method is a problem when so many successful results vouch for it, and how come EIS is "the solution" when the successful results are not there?
> 
> Btw, name-dropping ans award-mentioning are not very convincing arguments. What are the pieces you are talking about and how do you know they are made by using anything EIS?



Hi MF,

Once again, tone is lost in text. I'm not a sarcastic individual. I try to be honest and earnest.

It was not my intention to name drop, only to address your concern about "results". 

I think that the original author addressed what was meant by composing from "what's in your head". However, and not to put word in his mouth, I think part of his point was this: most composers write from some part inspiration, and some part craft. EIS is simply another way of organizing that craft. For many that have studied the system (even some who've graduated from other systems like Berklee) they find it more useful and advantageous, some even finding it less confusing than other systems and easier to learn. 

Regarding my "arguments" (I'm not using quotations to be sarcastic, only to illustrate comments from other contributors), as I said, I'm not trying to provide arguments for or against the system. It truly is a choice. If you're interested in more empirical evidence, I suggest you go to the website and research the graduates. These posts don't offer enough space to provide a thorough biography of each, and their accomplishments. 

Lastly, it seems that some people believe that EIS students and graduates receive some sort of commission for bring in students. I think all the comments are from real musicians who are excited to share a new procedure or system or discovery. It always saddens me when these discussions of higher learning degenerate (in my opinion) to arguments based on conjecture. If EIS interests you, then I'd suggest trying to go through the first books of the series. My guess is that you'll be amazed. If not.... just stop studying. That should answer all your questions as to its validity and innovation

Although I've enjoyed discussing this, I'm going to sign off from this thread. I didn't mean to enter into a debate, but when something is directed to me I feel it's rude not to respond. I truly hope that everyone reading this or involved in the discussion find their path to create the best music they can. No one cares when listening to a product whether it's intuitive or created from craft or designed by committee. Music is art and as such is about communication and expression. Most is subjective, so I suggest humbly that we all find our path and all find our bliss.

Thanks for your time.

T


----------



## Tariqh Akoni (Mar 20, 2010)

mf @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> My "quest?" Thanks for your sarcasm and condescending tone, T. I am not in a quest "looking for success stories," I just want to hear the successful musical pieces made possible by EIS.
> 
> The issue is quite simple, someone said the method of making music by hearing it in your head is "severely limited" and a "bummer," further suggesting that EIS is the solution to that "problem." So I asked how come that method is a problem when so many successful results indicate the opposite, and how come EIS is "the solution" when the successful results are not there?
> 
> Btw, name-dropping and award-mentioning are not very convincing arguments. What are the successful pieces you are talking about and how do you know they are made by using anything EIS?



Sorry MF,

Last post. I reread yours and wanted to simply say that I was not referring to your "quest" to find success stories, but your quest for your music. I'm one of those people that believes we're always on the journey to create the best music possible. 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

T


----------



## mf (Mar 20, 2010)

You overcomplicate it. What I want is simple: the titles of some successful pieces made possible by EIS. Just want to hear them and to know what EIS has to do with them.

Look, the list of the successful pieces made possible by the mental hearing method can be VERY long, which is the ONLY problem for writing it. Why is it so hard to make a list of say 20 successful pieces made possible by the EIS method, and briefly show what EIS has to do with their success?

edit - 
Re your post on quest - forget me and my music. What we're talking here is "the EIS method" vs. "the severely limited bummer method of making the music the composer is hearing in his head." Just wanted to compare results, that's all. Apparently, that seems to be problematic - unfortunately for the EIS method.


----------



## bryla (Mar 20, 2010)

Hey mf.... since you've spent so much time in the EIS, Notation & Orchestration, EIS Discussion forum, why not take a listen to the pieces members post? Sure they are beginners in EIS and none of the composers are as famous as Mozart - sorry no offence to any of you, but you are not  - It will give you an idea of the techniques and what they sound like.


----------



## nikolas (Mar 20, 2010)

Kays & Fred & T.

I'm cool. I do realise. The few comments from Kays which made me ticked off, were the ones about generalizing everything on contemporary music, and the thing about the head, etc, which got mistranslated I guess... 

You are right, I'm in academia, which means I'm also in touch with various techniques. And I can't deny the fact that they've all helped me open my mind, my ears, my eyes... So this is pretty much what EIS is doing, and by all means from the few things I've heard I have to say that it's impressive! No doubt there for me!

mf: The "issue" with what you're asking (20, or 10 successful pieces made with EIS (like it's some kind of herb :D)) is that EIS is very very new. It's not a technique like any diatonic issue, which has been around for 300 or so years now... :-/ I'm not saying this as an excuse, since I don't know what EIS is really about (and this is quite bizzare, to be posting here in the first place, but anyhow), but it does seem reasonable to reserve a little the asking...


----------



## mf (Mar 20, 2010)

I suspect you deliberately refuse to get it. It should be simple. It all boils down to this:

_"Most (make that about 99%) or composers have a severe limitation, they can only compose what they hear in their head. ....that limitation is a bummer."_
- WHY? That limitation has resulted and continues to result in tones of successful pieces. WHAT makes it "a severe limitation" and "a bummer"?

_"EIS aims to address this issue by firstly establishing a set of universal (more or less) rules under which harmonies, voice leading, melodies, connecting notes, and bass lines behave."_
- WHAT are the successful pieces resulted out of the conscious application of those EIS rules?


----------



## bryla (Mar 20, 2010)

mf @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> - WHAT are the successful pieces resulted out of the conscious application of those EIS rules?


Again: Listen to what members post


----------



## mf (Mar 20, 2010)

But listening to members' pieces won't address the contradiction I'm talking about: 
(1) considering the number of successful pieces, why is the other method "a severe limitation" and "a bummer," and 
(2) considering the (apparent) lack of successful pieces, what makes EIS superior? 
In essence, why putting down other methods? - does that make EIS look any superior? Hardly, imo.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 20, 2010)

A few things to clear up.

EIS works different for each student just as any other system would. It is how you decide to apply it.

EIS covers most if not all other methods in one succinct course. In other words you will get your jazz, 20th century harmony, Voice Leading, counterpoint etc in one method and language as opposed to studying a jazz method, a method on tone rows etc.
It also has the basis to go off in a direction no other course can. whether one likes those results is subjective but it is there.

While I liked a lot of Kays points i also had an issue with the same
"Most (make that about 99%) or composers have a severe limitation, they can only compose what they hear in their head. ....that limitation is a bummer." 

I do not always look at EIS as my inspiration for melodies, i generally want to use what I hear in my head. I would hope and believe many composers feel the same way, otherwise we probably would have more robotic sounding music. What EIS effectively does is allows me to deliver those ideas more effectively and emotionally. More interesting harmonies and movements to support my melodies (the ones in my head and heart) are one of EIS's benefits.

As far as a list of 20 pieces, go look up the graduates as mentioned on the site. I will admit I do not always love all the examples but some are great. When the website was made , the creator of the site wanted equal representation of the students. He did not determine what pieces were good or not good, he let the student make the choice. Again it is what you do with the info.

Why does EIS seem like a sect?
Because it starts off with a language dealing in equal intervals rather than minor or major intervals like most systems. This immediately isolates it and does not allow its students to share many of its techniques with non EIS people. It is however not EIS's responsibility to conform, it is what it is.


----------



## midphase (Mar 20, 2010)

" What I want is simple: the titles of some successful pieces made possible by EIS. Just want to hear them and to know what EIS has to do with them"

MF, have you ever heard the "rule of thirds"?

Here's a refresher if you haven't:

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


You want successful examples of the applications of rule of thirds...looks at the works of DaVinci, Renoir, Picasso, Adams, Arbus and on and on...they all used it.

EIS is pretty much like rule of thirds. You listen to the works of Mozart, Bach, Debussy, Stravisky, Michael Jackson...they all have applied those same techniques. The only difference is that they didn't call it EIS, they simply did it instinctually. 

The problem is that when someone would ask those guys how did do what they do...they wouldn't be able to explain it, they would say stuff like it "sounded right." 

Spud simply figured out a way to explain it and created EIS.

You understand now?


----------



## bryla (Mar 20, 2010)

- This immediately isolates it and does not allow its students to share many of its techniques with non EIS people.

why?


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 20, 2010)

bryla @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> - This immediately isolates it and does not allow its students to share many of its techniques with non EIS people.
> 
> why?



because the course from lesson one starts with its own language for organizing tones. A person not familiar with the language will not be able to understand it w/o a lengthy explanation. It still relates to the real world of music but has a different way of getting there.


----------



## midphase (Mar 20, 2010)

"While I liked a lot of Kays points i also had an issue with the same 
"Most (make that about 99%) or composers have a severe limitation, they can only compose what they hear in their head. ....that limitation is a bummer." 
I do not always look at EIS as my inspiration for melodies, i generally want to use what I hear in my head."

Agreed, and that's why I specified that most of the time when I'm composing in more "commercial" applications for lack of a better term I don't go digging through my EIS books for inspiration.

However, I still maintain that most composers don't hear complex harmonic structures in their heads (there are exceptions of course), and if they use them, it's because they end up stumbling upon them through random trial and error and not because they think "hmmm....if I write a quartal structure using scale #10 with a 4+ I bet it'll sound really interesting"


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 20, 2010)

mf @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> But listening to members' pieces won't address the contradiction I'm talking about:
> (1) considering the number of successful pieces, why is the other method "a severe limitation" and "a bummer," and
> (2) considering the (apparent) lack of successful pieces, what makes EIS superior?
> In essence, why putting down other methods? - does that make EIS look any superior? Hardly, imo.



those are just statements that seem to evoke fact instead of what they are; a feel. 

ill take a shot at the limitation aspect. 
EIS doesnt deal with key signatures. why would that be a limitation? filmscoring; do film scores stay in a key? maybe for a bar  
so imo its an easier way of not relying on key signatures which would act as a "crutch" in 
in EIS every stack of notes/chords is the tonic and moving to next set of notes have a different set of "rules' (not unbreakable of course) , well, not rules but a different approach to getting to the same place. through that different approach you see see things differently. doesnt mean they'll better or sound great nor the opposite. 

dunno about the "superior" comment. good or bad, better or worst are a subjective thing. its just different. 
berklee has its own methods based on jazz and classical music thoery and rely more on other rules or ways of doing things . but they still have a lot of the same scales. 
its just different. 
EIS also has its own scales which have different names in classical/jazz theory but they are used differently, well youll approach them differently. 
and thats all it is, a different approach for the same thing. 

for me, it gave me a power shot in re learning stuff i do automatically or i just forgot or wasnt aware of.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 20, 2010)

Friends:

This thread is one of the best I have read here at VI-Control!


----------



## Aquatone (Mar 20, 2010)

Udo,

I hope the turbulence hasn't turned you off.

To get the brochure, click on _"Download the EIS Brochure now (Acrobat PDF)"_ located on the front page. For me, the essence on the EIS is accurate organization and expanded possibilities. It has enhanced my speed, workflow and imagination. I take the course and it's study very seriously. I remember spending 40 hours one week working out all the possibilities from a lesson in Book II. Not easy but it paid off. If you go for it, stock up on pencils and notation paper. :lol: 

When I first looked into the course, I googled every teacher and found their work. Checking out David Blumberg's work, you'll discover great arrangements for pop and R&B hit maker's. Google Craig Sharmat and you'll find great TV scoring work as well as his own CD's. If that's not enough, listen to Lyle Murphy's two albums or dig up any of his arrangements. Those three composers go even deeper in versatility than I can outline here. There are many more working composers and arrangers out there using what they learned from EIS. But it's like anything else, even if you like what you find, you still have to take a chance and try it out. If you go for it, I hope it gives you as much satisfaction as it does me.

One thing to ponder…I've never heard any EIS graduate complain about or trash the course.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 20, 2010)

I can not talk authoratively about EIS but here are some observations from somebody that has been a watcher from the side since a few years and probably knows more about it than he should because of some analyzing skills:

- I think that EIS can be like a fresh breeze for anybody that already knows music theory and wonders into which direction composition could head to in the future. It also seems that it gives the chance to re-think many things from scratch even if you thought you already knew much.

- I have observed that for many members here EIS has triggered their productivity. They have become better composers than before, period.

- It definetely opens the possibilities, pallete, freedom.

- It costs time. And money. And time. And money.

- It does not teach how to compose. Somebody that can write will learn to write better but if he had no ideas before he will hardly have more after.

- There are some artefacts that I observe and do not like too much. I guess they are not really necessarily intrinsic to EIS but happen to happen. One of it is the preference of b accidentals over #, the other is the disregard of global accidentials. I think both are quirks (I can only guess that the b thing comes from the jazz descent that uses many instruments tuned in Bb) and have essentially nothing to do with the mathematical understanding behind EIS itself.

- If I had the money and the time I would pick up systematical EIS studies better sooner than later because I think it is one of the doors into the music of the 21th and 22th century.

- YMMV


----------



## rJames (Mar 20, 2010)

For me, EIS enables me to more efficiently get what I hear in my head onto paper (or into the computer).

It helps me to analyze music to more quickly to "get" what modus the composer was using.

It helps me keep my arrangements cleaner than they would have been without EIS.

Our human subconscious hears what is around us, scrambles then regurgitates it. (my personal opinion, not guided by EIS principles) This is why music evolution has a smooth curve to it and not a radical break. Although radical breaks have been attempted.

I think you are more likely to create a hit song if it just comes to you one morning. Cause it is a regurgitation of previous hits. Right? Some people can do it better than others. When I come up with a song in the morning, its nothing, when Mc Cartney does it, it is the beginning of a new (hit) album. It resonates because it is part of the resonance.

BTW the tune that just comes from in your head is absolutely essential as far as I am concerned. And it is something the EIS is not trying to teach.

But if you want to write cues like the old Twilight Zone episodes or cues from some Alan North I've heard that reminded me of EIS; you are better off with an EIS-like approach than one that relies on a tune in your head. 

What would Mozart have written if Spud had been a mentor?

SPud wanted to come up with a new approach to music. Why study a 300 year old system to write music in a new millennium?

I've heard that Frank Gehry could not do the kind of structures he designs without computers. (I think he said that)


----------



## mf (Mar 21, 2010)

You may call trolling whatever you disagree with. Glad to be of help with the visibility. Moving on...

Of course EIS gives results, what I was asking for is: successful result. Successful, as in, you know, lots of people actually buying records that are obviously based on the EIS rules.

Btw, what "equal intervals" are we talking about? Can't possibly make music with equal intervals, can you?


----------



## jsaras (Mar 21, 2010)

[quote="mf @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:02 pm
And another debatable thing: is there such a thing as equal intervals? Music can't be made of equal intervals but only of unequal ones. An interval can only be equal with itself - which is self evident so useless to mention. Two different intervals can't be equal, can they? You may duplicate an interval, transpose it and superimpose it over itself, but then you get different intervals, unequal to the original one. Since the musical intervals are unequal, then what "equal intervals" is this all about?[/quote]

Unfortunately you are operating under a complete misconception of what EIS is, so it makes it difficult to comminicate meaningfully. Some of this is because of your preconceived ideas and some of it is because of the terms that Spud chose to use to communicate his system of harmony.

On the most basic level, the term "equal interval" refers to root movements. The root movements in "tonal" harmony basically come from major and minor scales, which by definition are varying combinations of half-steps and whole steps, i.e., "unequal". 

The EIS course dispenses with consideration at the very outset. A student learns to write progressions using "equal interval" root movements (half steps only, whole steps only, minor thirds only, etc.). I think of those exercises as a series of "controlled experiments". By learning to master all possible root movements, you automatically have encompassed the root movements that would also occur in an "unequal" system. In this sense, EIS encompasses all harmonic systems. 

I think of it as working a Rubiks cube in every possible permutatation. All doors are open and you are taught a technique that allows you to manipulate any harmonic material to its fullest.


----------



## Stephen Navoyosky (Mar 21, 2010)

With much interest I have been reading this thread and surprised that EIS students haven’t yet caught on to the motive of mf in keeping this thread alive. One look at the mf profile reveals covertness. 

Without delving into the particulars, let’s categorize the various types of members on boards, forums, or discussion groups.

1) Actual participants; people who not only believe in the purpose of the forum but who also strive to contribute and step outside their comfort zone. 

2) Users. They want free information and if one allows them to, they will suck a person dry. As soon as the free information is gone, so is their loyalty. It goes with the nature of message boards.

3) Information gatherers - They come to a board, post argumentatively to extract responses, criticize the responses for further explanations, and.... After arguing with what is taught to them, may take the same message to other groups and present it as if it was their own…or write a book, DVD, folio, etc. 

5) Flamers - These are people who come to try and upset the group.


----------



## nikolas (Mar 21, 2010)

Stephen: where is No. 4? :D

Everyone: It does seem that the discussion started from a couple of things that Midphase mentioned, that I also had a "problem" with. Fortunately he was around to explain himself, very ellegantly and thus my "problem" was solved, but my interest in EIS grew further.

mf appears to have switched from a quote of Kays to the whole of EIS (I'm talking like it was some kind of place, a person, etc, but it still remains a method!).

Very nice to see a thread in the 2nd page over here, but other than that, there is, actually nothing more to see. I am quite happy with the replies I got over my questions and satisfied at the overall discussion of this thread (sadly not the harsh feelings that seem to have arised...)

Let's make some music, EIS or non EIS and be happy to share it with others, as well as keep helping musicians, since we are musicians! Long live VI!


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 21, 2010)

mf @ Sun Mar 21 said:


> Of course EIS gives results, what I was asking for is: successful result. Successful, as in, you know, lots of people actually buying records that are obviously based on the EIS rules.


Isn't Herbie Hancock an EIS graduate? If EIS theory played any part contributing to his reharmonizations of the songs on the album "Possibilities" I would want to study EIS as well. Listen to his version of "I just called to say I love you" on this album.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 21, 2010)

mf @ Sun Mar 21 said:


> You may call trolling whatever you disagree with. Glad to be of help with the visibility. Moving on...
> 
> Of course EIS gives results, what I was asking for is: successful result. Successful, as in, you know, lots of people actually buying records that are obviously based on the EIS rules.
> 
> Btw, what "equal intervals" are we talking about? Can't possibly make music with equal intervals, can you?



I am not here to explain how this works, you are on your own.

Herbie Hancock,Oscar Peterson,Jimmy Haskell (one of the all time great pop string arrangers), David Blumberg (grammy for Ray Charles, American Idol) Quncy Jones. all have used EIS. del hake the arranger for the Simpsons, Danny Pelfry on Felicity. there are many many more. do you really need me to go on?


----------



## bigdog (Mar 21, 2010)

Hey Craig, I've got an idea. Let's keep the course and our cultish ways to ourselves and then we'll get ALL the gigs, and do them with one hand tied behind our backs! 

Then they'll BEG us to tell them how we do it!

just a thought...

Danny P


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 21, 2010)

Hans Adamson @ Sun Mar 21 said:


> ....
> Isn't Herbie Hancock an EIS graduate? If EIS theory played any part contributing to his reharmonizations of the songs on the album "Possibilities" I would want to study EIS as well. Listen to his version of "I just called to say I love you" on this album.



+1


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (Mar 21, 2010)

ok but my point about EIS being sort of like Scientology is that it seems a lot like a closed cult system where people are very guarded of everything. 3 pages here so far and countless pages elsewhere and on other forums and I have yet to EVER EVER EVER see an EIS "DISCIPLE" ever divulge a single morsel of information, like a rule or anything. I mean come on there's a dozen books or more, why can't you people give us something, just a few rules from EIS or anything like that to whet our appetite so we can decide if it's something for us? I understand the course costs money ($300 or so?) but hey as I type this I currently have a bookshelf behind me with over 500$ worth of music theory books and scores. I have everything from Fux to Jeppesen to Alfred Mann to more obscure things and if anyone wanted to know a rule of counterpoint I would gladly open a book up and give it to you despite the fact that I spent hundreds of dollars over the years on composition material...so what's the big secret about EIS then? Do you have to sign a waiver of some sorts prior to obtaining instruction in the EIS system that confines you to secrecy forever? Come on, give us a few rules or tell us the basis of the system, explain it to us so we can decide whether it's worth pursuing. I can't believe how many pages of fluff are devoted to EIS where not a single shred of information about the system is ever given. Tell us the basic concept, why the cabalistic Scientology-esque secrecy? It really is disturbing and reeks of one of those scams.


----------



## midphase (Mar 21, 2010)

I'll give you rule #1 for free!

"Write like mad."


I'm not kidding either!


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 21, 2010)

requiem_aeternam7 @ Sun Mar 21 said:


> ok but my point about EIS being sort of like Scientology is that it seems a lot like a closed cult system where people are very guarded of everything. 3 pages here so far and countless pages elsewhere and on other forums and I have yet to EVER EVER EVER see an EIS "DISCIPLE" ever divulge a single morsel of information, like a rule or anything. I mean come on there's a dozen books or more, why can't you people give us something, just a few rules from EIS or anything like that to whet our appetite so we can decide if it's something for us? I understand the course costs money ($300 or so?) but hey as I type this I currently have a bookshelf behind me with over 500$ worth of music theory books and scores. I have everything from Fux to Jeppesen to Alfred Mann to more obscure things and if anyone wanted to know a rule of counterpoint I would gladly open a book up and give it to you despite the fact that I spent hundreds of dollars over the years on composition material...so what's the big secret about EIS then? Do you have to sign a waiver of some sorts prior to obtaining instruction in the EIS system that confines you to secrecy forever? Come on, give us a few rules or tell us the basis of the system, explain it to us so we can decide whether it's worth pursuing. I can't believe how many pages of fluff are devoted to EIS where not a single shred of information about the system is ever given. Tell us the basic concept, why the cabalistic Scientology-esque secrecy? It really is disturbing and reeks of one of those scams.



why would Herbie Hancock need to scam you? He makes nothing btw on EIS
why would any of these working composers need to scam you? they also make nothing for promoting it
Most are unwilling to teach due to time restraints. it is just that the course works.

Here is a simple VLeading rule for you. If the Bass goes down anywhere between a major 3rd to a minor 2nd the treble goes up. By up that means a 3rd to a 5th or a 5th to the root, or root to a 3rd if we are dealing in simple triads.. Now we can move parralell if it is major or minor 2nd, but generally we like movements contrary to the bass. we also get extra movement while VL ing by moving tones like a 5 to 5+ or 6 or 3 for 2 or 4 for 3 or you make lines with all of these and have them available at all times as long as you do not create a cluster. It continues to build from there but my guess it quickly gets too deep for most people unless they have the background. these are not hard and fast rules but basics to build on. also we do our VLing in horizontal terms meaning we write for one instrument at a time and not use an entire vertical structure and go to the next. this way we are writing for single players and not pianists.

By the way there is no real tangible concept, just a way to organize thoughts musically and give avenues to create things. it is a full and deep composition course.

if you were in LA any of the EIS people would have no trouble showing you the course in person. All of it, it just can't be done over the internet as the books need to be purchased and the EIS teachers have no jurisdiction over the books. they are owned by the Murphy estate.


----------



## bigdog (Mar 21, 2010)

this is hilarious!
it's a cult - off with their heads!
sorry, I find this very entertaining - please continue!


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 21, 2010)

yeah don't drink the red juice.


----------



## midphase (Mar 21, 2010)

There should be a contact e-mail for David Blumberg who is the guy who you would need to connect with in order to get the gears rolling.

Usually you start with Book 1/2 (two books rolled into one)...you can use it as a "trial" and see if it intrigues you or not. Usually Book 1 will take 1 or 2 lessons, and Book 2 close to a year! Actually it all depends on how quickly you move, how often you schedule your 1 hour lesson, and how quickly you grasp the essence of each lesson. Some of the guys here can probably make it through each book in 1 month....but I wouldn't recommend it since there really is a lot to explore in each lesson and trying to rush through it will probably result into what I experienced which was too much information too fast without having a good grasp on how to use it.


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (Mar 21, 2010)

so you HAVE to schedule a lesson(s) with someone to get a hold of the study material? What if I want to just get the books for my own enjoyment and don't want to pay extra for any lessons with anyone?


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 22, 2010)

requiem_aeternam7 @ Sun Mar 21 said:


> thank you mr. sharmat. that is all I was asking for. Seems like elementary counterpoint rules to me..i.e. always go for contrary motion with oblique being 2nd best and parallel being the worst, etc, etc...I must admit, this thread HAS in fact intrigued me about EIS, for instance I have come to know that sharmat is one of the best composers on this site and did not know he was involved in EIS, if I could be 1/3 as good as him I would take the plunge
> Only problem is it seems EIS course "purchase" page is down on their site and from the cursory investigation I did, has been down for apparently 'years'. What is up with that and how would someone be able to get their hands on an EIS book?



You are correct in this is elemental which is why i posted it. If i tried to explain something more complicated it would most likely be lost in translation and I would have to type for a long time. The books do that better than I. BTW Parallel is generally worse and anyone can do it but there are times when it is great and especially if you can move parallel against the bass movement. Bigger structures often work good like this, 9th chords etc.

The EIS site is in need of major repair but at least it is something to look at. any of the teachers on the list can get the books, David, myself etc. 

Spud who created the course said he did not want the books out w/o a teacher, these were his demands. some students have received books,raced ahead complained about the course and when the assignments were looked at had it wrong. Spud did not want the material misunderstood. For this reason he said only graduates can teach the course, and occasionally under special circumstances advanced students can teach up to where they have achieved.

The course is expensive for most, time consuming for all and usually totally worth it.


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 22, 2010)

requiem_aeternam7 @ Sun Mar 21 said:


> so you HAVE to schedule a lesson(s) with someone to get a hold of the study material? What if I want to just get the books for my own enjoyment and don't want to pay extra for any lessons with anyone?


I, like you and many others, asked this same question before starting studing EIS. Believe me, it´s not a self study course. You really need to have a teacher to properly get all the materials of each lesson!!!


----------



## Tariqh Akoni (Mar 22, 2010)

requiem_aeternam7 @ Sun Mar 21 said:


> thank you mr. sharmat. that is all I was asking for. Seems like elementary counterpoint rules to me..i.e. always go for contrary motion with oblique being 2nd best and parallel being the worst, etc, etc...I must admit, this thread HAS in fact intrigued me about EIS, for instance I have come to know that sharmat is one of the best composers on this site and did not know he was involved in EIS, if I could be 1/3 as good as him I would take the plunge
> Only problem is it seems EIS course "purchase" page is down on their site and from the cursory investigation I did, has been down for apparently 'years'. What is up with that and how would someone be able to get their hands on an EIS book?



Hello...

I agree that the proof is in the pudding. There are so many great working composers who espouse the EIS system it's quite compelling. I think your revelation about the counterpoint is correct. EIS has some revelatory elements, but it really covers a lot of fundamental information in a really organized way. The Book II material is intense in that it almost goes through every permutation of voicing and all the possible leading tones (i.e. thinking horizontally). Even the chapters on triads will have you thinking in a new and different way. One of the most compelling arguments for the system was from friends who were former Berklee students (as I am) who felt their writing had improved by leaps and bounds through the system. 

If you haven't already, I'd suggest downloading the EIS brochure and looking at some of the examples for further illustration. 

I'm loving the course, and I find myself thinking about it constantly. I'll wake up in the middle of the night wanting to work on my homework, and I find myself seeking out other EIS students to converse. This might lead to the feeling of secrecy because we use a different verbage sometimes to describe things. For instance, I may call a friend and say "when I use 'Bass in motion II' and COP with my E4 progression in Scale #1, I like to use 4 to an NCT of 4+ or a DPT of 5 to 6". This is the kind of thing that takes a lot of explanation, but is common in EIS analysis (and once again, I'm a neophyte). 

Anyway, hope I didn't confuse matters (I'm sure I did, and I apologize) :lol: Good luck. I would enthusiastically encourage you to find out more.

T


----------



## mducharme (Mar 23, 2010)

I must say, EIS does make me think of scientology. There are free music theory resources available anywhere. You can learn harmony and voice leading with free online resources, or 12 tone technique. Where are these for EIS?

I am well versed in classical theory, including the theories of Hugo Riemann, which, with his dualistic treatment of major vs. minor, explains the bVI-bVII-I progression so often seen in film scores and pop music in a major key, as a IV-V-I substitute, which is exactly how it acts to the ear and how it functions in the piece. There is also the axis system of Lendvai, based on study of Bartok's work, which explains the tritone relationship to bV as a tonic substitute (or dominant substitute as others contend).

If you are talking movement by equal intervals, where major or minor intervals doesn't matter, it is breaking down the boundaries of key. Thus, I would assume, you are incorporating the diatonic chords, borrowed chords from parallel major/minor, and chromatic mediants and tritone progressions in a single system. Thus, root movement by a 3rd is always root movement by a 3rd, major or minor, doesn't necessarily have to be within the scale you are dealing with.

The problem comes in, when you start introducing borrowed chords and chromatic mediants willy-nilly, so to speak, you end up breaking down the sense of key a bit too much. They are like salt, if you use them too much, it ruins things, and you lose your sense of key. If you don't know what normally happens in a key, you don't know what is unusual and disturbs the sense of key.

Therefore, EIS strikes me, if I am surmising correctly as to what it is about, as too much of a shortcut, and a costly one at that. Often people only go through theory training so basic they believe they are limited to the chords provided by a given scale - not including secondary dominants, borrowed chords from parallel keys, augmented 6th and neapolitan harmony, chromatic mediants, etc. Such individuals would think you would not find Ab major or Db major or D major in a section in C major. To such people, EIS is a godsend obviously, showing them that they are not limited to the scale of the major or minor key they are in. Classical theory teaches exactly the same thing, though, if it's adhered to long enough, and people get to an advanced enough level. And it doesn't require specialized teachers, there are plenty of online resources and books that cover it.

But do I really know for sure about EIS? No, because all the materials are very secretive. All I have to go by is the vague information provided online and the music itself, and what I hear often is borrowed chords and chromatic mediants heavily used, disturbing the sense of key sometimes so much that the music ends up getting this weird feel.

Is it really worth taking this shortcut?

P.S. I am not meaning to upset pro-EIS people in here who have spent a lot of time with it. I could be wrong with my ideas of what EIS is about. I just want to be a bit of a devil's advocate.


----------



## stonzthro (Mar 23, 2010)

I don't know that secretive is the right word. I'm not an EIS-er, but if it WAS secretive, we wouldn't be able to buy it (at least not out in the open). 

Maybe we'd be better served actually starting the course - at least then we could actually make an informed judgement? I don't think it costs all that much to start - maybe $4-500 for the first books and a few lessons? Take a look at Berklee online's theory course (which I'm pretty sure I COULD find all the content from that course online for free) and it will run something like $1200 per course!

On that note, I haven't heard anyone who has started the course, bad-mouth it (unlike dubious Perfect Pitch courses). Anyone here start and become disenchanted with the approach? Now's the time to speak up.

As for me, I'm interested but too busy right now...


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 23, 2010)

mducharme @ Tue Mar 23 said:


> I must say, EIS does make me think of scientology. There are free music theory resources available anywhere. You can learn harmony and voice leading with free online resources, or 12 tone technique. Where are these for EIS?
> 
> I am well versed in classical theory, including the theories of Hugo Riemann, which, with his dualistic treatment of major vs. minor, explains the bVI-bVII-I progression so often seen in film scores and pop music in a major key, as a IV-V-I substitute, which is exactly how it acts to the ear and how it functions in the piece. There is also the axis system of Lendvai, based on study of Bartok's work, which explains the tritone relationship to bV as a tonic substitute (or dominant substitute as others contend).
> 
> ...



Its great you know what you know but being an EIS person I could care less about other methods (no offense meant). I have a system that works which I have only tapped the surface of. i also believe I still need to study more to be the composer I want to be. I was a music major at college btw (4 yrs). 

As far as secretive material the course is out of our hands (the EIS community). It is owned by the Murphy estate and Spud (the creator) wanted the course only let out so it could be taught correctly. There is no choice there. If you lived in LA you could visit anyone with the course and they would happily show it to you. I believe the course is much deeper than what you think it is as it encompasses so many different styles and techniques, from Jazz to tone rows to voice leading to traditional harmony to polytonality etc in one language, not a bunch of non related courses.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 24, 2010)

mducharme @ Wed Mar 24 said:


> Often people only go through theory training so basic they believe they are limited to the chords provided by a given scale - not including secondary dominants, borrowed chords from parallel keys, augmented 6th and neapolitan harmony, chromatic mediants, etc.



Hi there,

I understand where you are coming from. I have studied four years of classical harmony with several teachers, so still today if necessary I could probably analyze virtually anything that comes along, and even in different nomenclatures. If I wanted (most times I prefer not to).

However to be honest I personally always felt that it is somehow cumbersome to recruit the concept of borrowed chords etc. in order to explain something that today sounds and feels very natural ... and is only one accidental away. Sometimes it occured me as if in classical harmony theory you nearly need an excuse for doing something else that sounds good to you, so you construct secondary, tertiary and quarternary dominants (well I am exaggerating here, haha) until it fits into the old scheme.

Harmony systems are like different people sitting around a table full of food. The subject they look at is the same but everybody has his own point of view. A point of view means a perspective, means preferences, means standards, means dislikes, means blind spots.

Times have changed in regards to what sounds natural, so I believe at least. I personally came to the conclusion that everything works after everything - at least one can find a way to make it work (YMMV here). 

There is one basic question to be answered by any (western) harmonic theory system: How do we deal with the fact that we have 12 notes but prefer 7? This is a puzzle and every system solves it in a different way ... including those that use other numbers.

EIS is a very fresh and relatively undogmatic approach as far as I can see, originally based on mathematic principles. And mathematics are hard to beat


----------



## Lex (Mar 24, 2010)

midphase @ Sat Mar 20 said:


> "I think the reason Midphase is saying the old "limited" paradigm of writing what one hears in his head is in fact LIMITING is due to the fact that it's limiting for 90% of people who quite plainly speaking, don't have much in their head to hear. "
> 
> Precisely!



.....but shouldn't these people simply stop trying to be composers and do something else, more rewarding....and not simply finish EIS course to fill the void and have set of rules which will help you pretend you hear music?

...just...weird..

aLex


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 24, 2010)

personally if you can't hear anything in your head you probably should not be a composer. What is interesting with EIS is i can hear a melody and EIS helps me reharm or embellish in ways that often are unexpected and turn out way better than if i was just using my ears for everything. It says here is a large canvas, now which way would you like to go with this idea.

there are times also when one has to score 30 mins of music or so in a short period of time. I know it could 11:00 at night and I still have 5 minutes to go to be delivered the next morning and the brain goes "I got nuthin for you". the course gives me countless jumping off points to approach a new cue. those spur creativity and the job gets done. there can also be the times i want to approach something in a totally different way than how my brain normally thinks as a jumping off point, and EIS provides me with infinite choices.


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 24, 2010)

Craig Sharmat @ Wed Mar 24 said:


> personally if you can't hear anything in your head you probably should not be a composer.


I should have known that before :D !!!


----------



## Lex (Mar 24, 2010)

Craig Sharmat @ Wed Mar 24 said:


> personally if you can't hear anything in your head you probably should not be a composer. What is interesting with EIS is i can hear a melody and EIS helps me reharm or embellish in ways that often are unexpected and turn out way better than if i was just using my ears for everything. It says here is a large canvas, now which way would you like to go with this idea.
> 
> there are times also when one has to score 30 mins of music or so in a short period of time. I know it could 11:00 at night and I still have 5 minutes to go to be delivered the next morning and the brain goes "I got nuthin for you". the course gives me countless jumping off points to approach a new cue. those spur creativity and the job gets done. there can also be the times i want to approach something in a totally different way than how my brain normally thinks as a jumping off point, and EIS provides me with infinite choices.



..now this, to me , makes sense and makes EIS sound like a very attractive tehnique to have under your belt...

aLex


----------



## bryla (Mar 24, 2010)

What do teacher charge genereally per hour?

Do you have weekly lessons or do you approach a teacher, when you are ready for evaluation/more lessons?


----------



## midphase (Mar 24, 2010)

"What is interesting with EIS is i can hear a melody and EIS helps me reharm or embellish in ways that often are unexpected and turn out way better than if i was just using my ears for everything. "


I think you just confirmed my original point. Thank you.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 24, 2010)

I am here for you...


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (Mar 24, 2010)

actually I just realized that I just said exactly the same thing that mducharme has said with Riemann's theory was it? Yes basically all the modern progressions with their complicated names can be broken down to simplified functions of I IV V. I bVI, bVII etc truly is the I IV V function the same way that I IV VII would be or I ii6 V/vii etc


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 24, 2010)

requiem_aeternam7 @ Wed Mar 24 said:


> Yes basically all the modern progressions with their complicated names can be broken down to simplified functions of I IV V. I bVI, bVII etc truly is the I IV V function the same way that I IV VII would be or I ii6 V/vii etc



Yes, that is true.

It fascinated me for some weeks when I realized that. Afterwards I found it to be a very boring way of looking on harmony (sorry, hehe). Are we that dominant dependant?

It reminds me a little to the story of a guy that only learned for exam that cucumbers consist of water to 98 % ... and basically answers that to every question. You know what I mean?


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 26, 2010)

Mf in trolling asked for 20 famous songs from EIS composers.

I think songs are generally made for public tastes but of course there are often very good ones.

Here is an EIS guy who can probably cover all 20 by himself

Jimmie Haskell

http://www.jimmiehaskell.com/


----------



## stonzthro (Mar 26, 2010)

Wow - not many people have Elvis AND The Matrix on their resume!


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 26, 2010)

he has been around a while as has the course.


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 26, 2010)

It seems that for Mf successful music is only the one that is famous. You gave him tons of exemples, now let´s see what else he needs to be convinced about the course!!!


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 26, 2010)

we may have to wait a few days to find out.


----------



## mducharme (Mar 27, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Wed Mar 24 said:


> However to be honest I personally always felt that it is somehow cumbersome to recruit the concept of borrowed chords etc. in order to explain something that today sounds and feels very natural ... and is only one accidental away.



I agree with this. When I deal with harmony when I am composing I usually think of whatever key I am in as an aggregate scale, with major and minor keys based on the same keynote, with potentially other modal alterations (phrygian and lydian, etc). Keys and scales are thus somewhat independent from one another, as harmony is somewhat independent from counterpoint.



> Sometimes it occured me as if in classical harmony theory you nearly need an excuse for doing something else that sounds good to you, so you construct secondary, tertiary and quarternary dominants (well I am exaggerating here, haha) until it fits into the old scheme.



That is really only true insofar as you are working with Baroque/Classical harmony. Romantic harmony is a lot more extended, and the composers stretched the rules a lot more. However, they still knew the underlying rules, and realized when they were stretching them. Sometimes stretching them works, sometimes it doesn't. If EIS is a system where you learn these extended techniques without having a grounding in what came before, you won't realize why something sounds peculiar.



> Times have changed in regards to what sounds natural, so I believe at least. I personally came to the conclusion that everything works after everything - at least one can find a way to make it work (YMMV here).



I would say when you are exposed to something often enough that it starts to sound fine. However, this can be a dangerous approach, as a first time listener to that style will not hear it that way.



> EIS is a very fresh and relatively undogmatic approach as far as I can see, originally based on mathematic principles. And mathematics are hard to beat



Most systems of harmony are based somewhat on mathematic principles, but they are always altered. What is suggested by the mathematics is not always what we hear as good music. There are, thus, almost always exceptions made to these mathematic principles, to make them musical.

Consider the interval of the perfect fourth, a mathematically simple ratio of 4:3. Based on this simple ratio, it used to be considered a perfect consonance, but eventually it was treated as a dissonance unless it was between two upper voices. Why is this? The mathematics does not explain this at all. It took a long time for this exception to be recognized by theorists as composers had to treat the 4th as dissonant for a while in their music before it became an exception to the mathematical rule in the theoretical treatises.

The theories of Hugo Riemann are likewise heavily grounded in mathematics, using the overtone series plus a theoretical and mathematical undertone series, the undertone series a mirror image of the harmonic series of overtones, to explain minor triads. However, in a somewhat direct conflict with this rule is Riemann's rule to always use the root as the first choice to double in a root position triad, even with minor triads. If a minor triad is a major flipped upside down, the undertone series would suggest a preferred doubling of the chordal 5th, not the root. This is again, an exception made where the mathematical idea does not match the musical usage.



Hannes_F @ Wed Mar 24 said:


> requiem_aeternam7 @ Wed Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes basically all the modern progressions with their complicated names can be broken down to simplified functions of I IV V. I bVI, bVII etc truly is the I IV V function the same way that I IV VII would be or I ii6 V/vii etc
> ...



I do not see a problem with being dominant dependent. It is not like there is only one choice for a dominant chord. You always need something to counterbalance the tonic. Home and relaxation versus contrast and tension is the basis for tonic vs. dominant. You do not need to use a V chord of course. There are many many possibilities, depending on how far you stray from the common practice rules.

Even if you look at common practice rules, considering the huge amount of brilliant works written by composers who could be classified as "dominant dependent", can you really say that it is a fault rather than a positive attribute of the music?


----------



## mducharme (Mar 27, 2010)

OK, so I've just looked through the PDF brochure on the site, and like my ears were telling me, the first progression I see in the brochure is a series of 11th chords with an underlying series of chromatic mediants moving downwards in minor 3rds. I see this often in the brochure in various guises.

I use this type of progression all the time in my own music when I'm doing a big buildup or something, but it does tend to break down tonality when overused.

Is this root movement downwards in minor 3rds (always minor) considered to be one of the basic progressions of EIS, or does it start off teaching, say, root movement that follows a defined scale, which would be root movement down in 3rds in a major scale, where the 3rds would of course be sometimes minor, sometimes major in quality (i.e. the way regular harmony training starts)?


----------



## mducharme (Mar 27, 2010)

Craig Sharmat @ Sat Mar 27 said:


> Your first comment is based totally on assumption. how can you know anything on what EIS is based with out knowing EIS.



Yes, it is based totally on assumption. That's the quandary. It's a chicken and egg scenario. There is no information as to what it is about, other than the musical examples in that brochure and MP3 samples. I already understand the stuff covered in the brochure, but with different names. Thus, the only way to find out whether I would learn anything new from the course, or decide whether the approach and method is solid or not, is to spend the time and money taking it. Where is the logic in that? It is like spending money and going through a lot of effort to purchase a mysterious box that you do not know the contents of.



> The course has a lot of basis on the overtone series. Spud says it is not a course based on math but when doing EIS often it feels like certain things are very mathematical.



OK, that approach makes sense.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 27, 2010)

i am not looking at the first example but i assume the bass movement in minor 3rds is because it is an exercise with that as the demand. there are no forced progressions in EIS but initially the exercises start with root movements which are all constant...all minor 2nds...all minor 3rds, all perfect 5ths etc.

edit-looked and it is what i assumed

the best way to determine if the course is good for you, and what was demanded of me when i first was looking at it, was to find 3 students or graduates whose opinion i respected, and see if the course was something i really wanted (It was expensive also back in the day). i had a strong jazz background and was doing some TV composing but did not have a good handle on how to compose for orchestra. I decided after talking with others here in LA that it was something for me to pursue. It may not be right for you. If what you have studied gives you all the info you need why look elsewhere?


----------



## mducharme (Mar 27, 2010)

Craig Sharmat @ Sat Mar 27 said:


> i am not looking at the first example but i assume the bass movement in minor 3rds is because it is an exercise with that as the demand. there are no forced progressions in EIS but initially the exercises start with root movements which are all constant...all minor 2nds...all minor 3rds, all perfect 5ths etc.



Root movement by minor 3rds results in chromatic mediants.. perfect 5ths in a modulating sequence.. minor 2nds in chromatic motion.. major 2nds as a way of harmonizing a whole tone scale.. all of these do not give a sense of key, but instead act to change keys or blur the sense of key, highly dependent on context. What is used to give the key center its focus in EIS? There must be some kind of organizing principle here...


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 27, 2010)

I think its an important quality of modern composers to keep an open mind regarding the use of techniques that may stray outside of the norm of their own education and experience. If they truly don't want to go there that's yet another choice - because the core of EIS is all about presenting choices. EIS simply represents another opportunity to get a different and unique look at composition and arranging with a very effective applicable means of helping in the process. It doesn't ever mean you trash what you know because the whole point is to build upon that so in the end you can integrate all the different techniques you have at your disposal.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 27, 2010)

mducharme @ Sat Mar 27 said:


> Craig Sharmat @ Sat Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > i am not looking at the first example but i assume the bass movement in minor 3rds is because it is an exercise with that as the demand. there are no forced progressions in EIS but initially the exercises start with root movements which are all constant...all minor 2nds...all minor 3rds, all perfect 5ths etc.
> ...




not at this stage of the course, these are the initial exercises just to teach students voice leading. Once one has mastered all the movements of the various root movements, and they do change according to the structure and root movement, the student moves on to mixed progressions where he has full freedom to compose. The whole idea of these movements is not to teach a style, just show how one accomplishes VLing. that said some progressions can be quite useful though mostly transitional.

BTW thank you for taking a thoughtful approach to your questioning.


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 27, 2010)

What I feel sometimes is that Equal Interval System name mislead some people. They tend to think we are supposed to write only in equal interval horizontaly and/or vertically. Maybe a clear explanation (here in the FAQ and on the website) of why this name would avoid wrong assumptions!!!


----------



## Stephen Navoyosky (Mar 27, 2010)

It's true title is the "System of Horizontal Composition based on Equal Intervals"

We write in lines and use the equal interval concepts as a basis in furthering line development.


----------



## Udo (Mar 28, 2010)

Aquatone @ Sun Mar 21 said:


> Udo,
> ... To get the brochure, click on _"Download the EIS Brochure now (Acrobat PDF)"_ located on the front page .....





Dr.Quest @ Mon Mar 22 said:


> ..... And isn't the PDF on this first page - http://equalinterval.com/material/CompleteEISBrochure.pdf (http://equalinterval.com/material/Compl ... ochure.pdf)



The link to the EIS brochure was put there after I mentioned it was missing when I started this thread.


----------



## Udo (Mar 28, 2010)

After starting this thread, I didn't have the opportunity to follow it in detail until this weekend.

Several useful posts, in particular (but not only) by Craig Sharmat (triggered by interesting questions/speculation from Mike Ducharme - mducharme). However,.... there are still many holes .... looks like deliberate obfuscation at times. Why are those 14 rules still not mentioned (I know, 'they can't be understood without elaborate explanations', but why not list them anyway, to satisfy the curious?)

BASED ON THE INFO SO FAR, it looks like EIS is a tool for people who find themselves in a self-imposed 'music theory straight-jacket' (while puting them into another one, although possibly less rigid  )

PLAYING DEVILS ADVOCATE NOW; assuming you have 'an ear for music', don't bother too much with conventional music theory beyond the basics. Free your mind and use your ears to select, regardless of whether it complies with any rules, but make sure it fits the context you established for the composition. Apart from your imagination, many approaches can assist with the creative development of new ideas, incl. aleatorics.

Lets face it, music theory is generally formed retrospectively, e.g. the concept of the secondary dominant was not recognized until about 70 years ago, although it had been used for centuries.

Theorists will (over)analyze things and attempt to try and 'explain' it within existing rules. If they can't, new 'rules' are made up.

BACK TO EIS - it should be developed into a semi-automated composition aid.

BTW, is timbre considered in EIS? It can have a significant impact on the quality of complex harmonic structures.

Udo the heretic :wink:


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 28, 2010)

Actually good post and i agree with most of it.

First off the link to the brochure was there. i know this because no one can get on the #%@& site to fix anything...

14 rules...well there are not really 14 rules, there may be 14 rules at that part of the course and those are somewhat placed to remind students of the more important ones. I would not try to read too far into that one.

On playing devils advocate...of course, one just needs motivation to follow through.

timbre is highly considered in EIS, the overtone series plays a major factor here.


----------



## rJames (Mar 28, 2010)

Udo @ Sun Mar 28 said:


> BACK TO EIS - it should be developed into a semi-automated composition aid.



Please don't tell anyone, but I am currently in development of an EIS composing program that will automatically compose music for you according to the rules of EIS.

The software will be available almost simultaneously with the Hollywood Strings. I am negotiating with EW now to add a button on the interface for autoEIStrings.

this news is only for the VI community OK?


----------



## jonathanparham (Mar 28, 2010)

Ron, 
I think April Fools is next week


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 29, 2010)

it actually says not do get into futile debates because one does not know the course well enough at that point. As a graduate i know the course well enough now to engage into futile debates!


----------



## rJames (Mar 29, 2010)

Udo @ Mon Mar 29 said:


> BTW, there's apparently a warning in EIS book 1 against "GETTING INTO FUTILE DEBATES" with those who aren't familiar with the materials ...... Why do you bother? :wink:


While I note that both Udo and Craig are tongue-in-cheek, here's my serious answer.
The entire course is a view into the philosophy, and lessons learned, of a thinker, tinkerer, and explorer of musical ideas. The books do share personal philosophy like, "write like mad," does he mean to write a lot or to write crazy shit (experiment), and debate with people who have been nurtured in the status quo might be futile (any Republicans or Democrats out there?).

The course is for professional musicians, composers and arrangers. It assumes your fluency in the status quo.

IMHO the first books are retraining. The interval of the fifth loses its importance and becomes equal with all other intervals. A progression in the circle of fifths is no more important than a progression in the circle of chromatic steps, or of whole tones. (for the sake of the exercises)

When you hear those very simple exercises, you begin to hear possibilities beyond the tune in your head. For me personally, I began to hear some Danny Elfman and other film music. Ah ha!!

There was a documentary with Herbie Hancock recording with a variety of artists. In one of the sessions Herbie said something like, "hey, let's do everything without a third." I think Craig alluded to something like that earlier. 

I have had conversations with other EIS students or graduates about how much of the music is strange. The compositions you create and study are not always pleasant. What they are is stimulating. For me EIS is about learning the extremes. Then you are supposed to go home and use it to leverage your creativity.

I think I'm up to adding at least 4¢ by now. And probably quite over my head, which is where I like to play...


----------



## Kevin Fortin (Jun 23, 2010)

Thank you for this topic. It has answered some questions I had a few years ago re: the conveyance of the teaching.

So, I suppose we hobbyists and dilettantes shouldn't expect some kind of "EIS for Dummies"


----------



## careyford (Jul 5, 2010)

I think there is a pitfall here in getting really caught up in Kays' (or anyone else's) specific comments. The essence of EIS is that wherever you are as a composer, it is a structured and fun way to take your composing to another level. It is an organized exploration of composing music. It may not be for everyone but it is also based on developing compositional technique rather than as a basis for analyzing already created work. (Although it can certainly be used for analysis if you wish.)

While I want every composer to have access to EIS, you can be very successful compositionally without it (obviously). +1 on Frederick's suggestion to listen to member's compositions.

- Richard


----------

