I pefer music that is very structurally free, but thats not the case always lol. I write ambient music, influenced by dreams and sounds, so its more of a soundscape. I pefer to capture the feel of the moment when I write my music. I love this piece though
This is the first time I've commented on somebody else's video. It's your video, NewMusicXX; thank you for this emotional music!
Interesting form of serialism; instead of retrograding, inverting and transposing a row, you pick two-note bichords from it. I should discuss employing a similar techinque in some of my music with my teacher, Ken J.Ecury.
@MINORSECONDXXI Thanks! If you Google this work you'll find some good analytical studies with notation demonstrating what I tried to explain in the annotations.
@MINORSECONDXXI I don't understand. Why even bother with such? I think you are limiting your writing to somthing akin to a formula, in the end that's what you'll end up with--something that sounds like formula music (contribed and theoretic). Now, if those bichords, whatever, become a springboard from which you can willfully change and generate the sounds YOU and the music desires (not the formula), you might be on to something. Serialism NEVER writes the music . . . you do.
@callmeBe That was actually a really interesting comment! Your way of thinking reminds me of expressionistic freely atonal music. This is music that's written freely and also atonally. However, even this music contains structures too, although it's not based on a universal scheme of rules.
If music didn't use structures at all, it would be random notes. Some people might like that, and they have the right to do so, but it would be easy on the composer.
@MINORSECONDXXI (Continuation.) Free atonality was used by the Second Viennese School (but don't confuse their expressionistic works with their tonal and twelve-tone ones).
Anyway, callmeBe's train of thought also reminds me of John Cage and the New York Downtown School. Cage tried to make music more liberalistic by making it less structured à la Darmastadt serialism, but he didn't use his own head either. He asked questions to a devination system, the I-Ching. (Continued.)
@MINORSECONDXXI (Continuation.) I will conclude this "three-comment" by saying that:
1. Cage wanted people to understand single sounds without an overall noticeable pattern. (I think however that musical emotion is still always based on intervals or combinations of them.)
2. Actually, SOME "easy on the composer" works are also necessary. Everything is necessary. You need a musical diversity.
3. I haven't yet composed anything based on Ernst Krenek's twelve-tone system.
@MINORSECONDXXI Oh, don't include my name in the same sentence as Cage's. I think I write music. I think he helped destroy music. (But you can mention my name in the same sentence as Krenek)! Anyway, getting back on task, Minorsecond, take a list of bichords and generate your motifs and harmonies. Great; you are using something to hold the music together in the probable absence of tonality. However, the mind keys in on repetitive rhythm far faster than ever repeating notes!
@MINORSECONDXXI You are very right in that my bias has always been towards the freely atonal, but there are very few works around that are truely serial; I mean that keep towards fairly strict useage. What the tone row is best for I would argue is helping the composer fabricate linear or horizonal lines that are motivic--that help unify the music. Because the chords and lines become harder for the ear to follow, anything that can unify the music becomes advantageous. Thanks!
One nicety in writing for string orchestra is that, like the piano, quite a bit of dissonance can be absorbed into the overall sound without becoming too strident. Not so for the brass or winds--especially when you keep within the same family of instruments (even more so with the same instrument type). This is strong orchestral writing, and precursor to the way Roger Sessions and Andrew Imbrie wrote for strings later on. Nice post!
To @Aiden057 : Interesting to read that for you Bartok's music seems to be cold/detached. I've just the same feeling but always thought that I'm wrong.. Some years ago I heard in a same concert (by the Arditi Quartet) music of Bartok and of Ferneyhough. This last one is known as very difficult. For the interpreters he is. For the listener (me) it's music full of spontaneity. This was a very contrasting and happy experience after the quartet of Bartok.
This is terrific writing. Krenek is underrated. Atonal music needs this kind of vivacious rhythm and deft counterpoint. Too often we are distracted by the pitch class systems and forget to boogie.
@clarktowne Regardless of which systems or theories any composes may employ, the music that moves me most is that which sounds as if it is an expression of what the composer heard and felt at the most personal and profound level. One of the reasons I like Bartok so much is that, to my ear, he's always writing what he's really hearing and feeling. I think in this piece, Krenek is writing that way, and that's what makes this composition really work.
@Aiden057 Since you can't know if this is the expression "of what the composer heard and felt at the most personal and profound level" than you're guessing... In general, I prefer Krenek to Bartok, mainly because Bartok's music seems "cold/detached" to me, just the opposite of Krenek, Messien, Schoenberg, Vasks, Schnittke, Ligeti, and many others. But I don't have a clue about what they felt when they wrote it! Does it matters!? ;)
I pefer music that is very structurally free, but thats not the case always lol. I write ambient music, influenced by dreams and sounds, so its more of a soundscape. I pefer to capture the feel of the moment when I write my music. I love this piece though
SoulGiantKurin 1 week ago
This is the first time I've commented on somebody else's video. It's your video, NewMusicXX; thank you for this emotional music!
Interesting form of serialism; instead of retrograding, inverting and transposing a row, you pick two-note bichords from it. I should discuss employing a similar techinque in some of my music with my teacher, Ken J.Ecury.
MINORSECONDXXI 2 months ago
@MINORSECONDXXI Thanks! If you Google this work you'll find some good analytical studies with notation demonstrating what I tried to explain in the annotations.
NewMusicXX 2 months ago
@MINORSECONDXXI I don't understand. Why even bother with such? I think you are limiting your writing to somthing akin to a formula, in the end that's what you'll end up with--something that sounds like formula music (contribed and theoretic). Now, if those bichords, whatever, become a springboard from which you can willfully change and generate the sounds YOU and the music desires (not the formula), you might be on to something. Serialism NEVER writes the music . . . you do.
callmeBe 1 month ago
@callmeBe That was actually a really interesting comment! Your way of thinking reminds me of expressionistic freely atonal music. This is music that's written freely and also atonally. However, even this music contains structures too, although it's not based on a universal scheme of rules.
If music didn't use structures at all, it would be random notes. Some people might like that, and they have the right to do so, but it would be easy on the composer.
(Continued.)
MINORSECONDXXI 1 month ago
@MINORSECONDXXI (Continuation.) Free atonality was used by the Second Viennese School (but don't confuse their expressionistic works with their tonal and twelve-tone ones).
Anyway, callmeBe's train of thought also reminds me of John Cage and the New York Downtown School. Cage tried to make music more liberalistic by making it less structured à la Darmastadt serialism, but he didn't use his own head either. He asked questions to a devination system, the I-Ching. (Continued.)
MINORSECONDXXI 1 month ago
@MINORSECONDXXI (Continuation.) I will conclude this "three-comment" by saying that:
1. Cage wanted people to understand single sounds without an overall noticeable pattern. (I think however that musical emotion is still always based on intervals or combinations of them.)
2. Actually, SOME "easy on the composer" works are also necessary. Everything is necessary. You need a musical diversity.
3. I haven't yet composed anything based on Ernst Krenek's twelve-tone system.
MINORSECONDXXI 1 month ago
@MINORSECONDXXI Oh, don't include my name in the same sentence as Cage's. I think I write music. I think he helped destroy music. (But you can mention my name in the same sentence as Krenek)! Anyway, getting back on task, Minorsecond, take a list of bichords and generate your motifs and harmonies. Great; you are using something to hold the music together in the probable absence of tonality. However, the mind keys in on repetitive rhythm far faster than ever repeating notes!
callmeBe 1 month ago
@MINORSECONDXXI You are very right in that my bias has always been towards the freely atonal, but there are very few works around that are truely serial; I mean that keep towards fairly strict useage. What the tone row is best for I would argue is helping the composer fabricate linear or horizonal lines that are motivic--that help unify the music. Because the chords and lines become harder for the ear to follow, anything that can unify the music becomes advantageous. Thanks!
callmeBe 1 month ago
One of my favorite channels. Thank you for sharing this.
TomasMikaX 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheRealLordRama 3 months ago
Comment removed
TheRealLordRama 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One nicety in writing for string orchestra is that, like the piano, quite a bit of dissonance can be absorbed into the overall sound without becoming too strident. Not so for the brass or winds--especially when you keep within the same family of instruments (even more so with the same instrument type). This is strong orchestral writing, and precursor to the way Roger Sessions and Andrew Imbrie wrote for strings later on. Nice post!
callmeBe 3 months ago
New Music XX rules and stuff....thank you for doing what you do! this is lovely...
ADURG1 3 months ago
@ADURG1 Thanks - I like this piece too.
NewMusicXX 3 months ago
To @Aiden057 : Interesting to read that for you Bartok's music seems to be cold/detached. I've just the same feeling but always thought that I'm wrong.. Some years ago I heard in a same concert (by the Arditi Quartet) music of Bartok and of Ferneyhough. This last one is known as very difficult. For the interpreters he is. For the listener (me) it's music full of spontaneity. This was a very contrasting and happy experience after the quartet of Bartok.
And this piece of Krenek? Strong and good!
WimDaeleman 3 months ago
Piena di vuoti, vuota di pieni. Funziona in modo egregio, è un masterpiece
mirrors1 3 months ago
Atonal music? This is one? I don't believe
mirrors1 3 months ago
beautiful work.
13Orcun 3 months ago
This is terrific writing. Krenek is underrated. Atonal music needs this kind of vivacious rhythm and deft counterpoint. Too often we are distracted by the pitch class systems and forget to boogie.
clarktowne 3 months ago 3
@clarktowne Regardless of which systems or theories any composes may employ, the music that moves me most is that which sounds as if it is an expression of what the composer heard and felt at the most personal and profound level. One of the reasons I like Bartok so much is that, to my ear, he's always writing what he's really hearing and feeling. I think in this piece, Krenek is writing that way, and that's what makes this composition really work.
Aiden057 3 months ago 3
@Aiden057 Since you can't know if this is the expression "of what the composer heard and felt at the most personal and profound level" than you're guessing... In general, I prefer Krenek to Bartok, mainly because Bartok's music seems "cold/detached" to me, just the opposite of Krenek, Messien, Schoenberg, Vasks, Schnittke, Ligeti, and many others. But I don't have a clue about what they felt when they wrote it! Does it matters!? ;)
bafdias 3 months ago
@Aiden057 Aye. Melody comes directly from genuine feeling. Craft is pointless without it.
clarktowne 3 months ago