Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Posts 101 to 103 of 103
  1. #101

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jsaras
    I think that tuning temperaments are cultural, but dissonance is an objective physical reality generated by the overtone series.
    Physics describes it from point of view of physics - it operates within the frames of objectivity.. it describes waves, mechanics etc.
    Biology or neurology may describe nerves and brain processes...

    But neither describes what it means.... and dissonant/consonant is about meaning. And meanings exist only within culture (even if it is personal culture of obe single man)

    music is culture, it is not objective, at best it is conventional.

    It is like colors... there are cultures where red is not associated with danger.

    Same thing with dissonances... there are plenty of examples how dissonant becomes consonant and vice versa in various cultures or periods.

    Temperament is a practical adjustment to that cultural hearing.

    By the way in which temperament the conception yoh describe sounds best?

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #102

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by supersoul
    what is the Equal Interval System? is it related to equal temperment vs just temperment/harmonic series/ratios?
    Music consists of vertical and horizontal intervals (unless you’re playing endless polyphonic pitch-bends). EIS is a completely original theory that approaches music using intervals as its basis, and it’s organized around the logic found in the overtone series. It is not based on key centers (though it can be used for that purpose), nor is it based on any musical style. The goal is to explore and use intervals in every conceivable combination. The rote assignments in the course are there for the student to “rotate the Rubik’s cube” so as to gain the skill of using every possibe combination. Then, a composer can make free choices because every possibility has already been explored.

    For example, traditional theory makes a big deal about the circle of fifths (or fourths) and key centers, and there are complex voiceleading rules that are associated with it. At the very outset, EIS breaks out of this prison. It begins with a single voiceleading rule, and you learn to voicelead triads, one line at a time, through all the possible “equal” root cycles (split octaves, fourths, major thirds, minor thirds, major seconds, minor seconds—in descending and ascending motion). When you’ve done that, you’ve covered every possible root movement (there are only six possible choices up or down from a given root) and you then have automatically gained the facility to move randomly from any root to any other root, with correct voiceleading in the treble.

    Mick Goodrick’s books come into similar territory that’s found in Book 4 of the course (tonal harmony), but his system is “stuck” as he limits his root movements and his vertical structures to conform to a single scale. EIS allows changing the roots freely as well as changing the scale of the underlying vertical structures at any time.

    And these are just some of the things covered in EIS.

    I’ll also mention that Ted Greene only made it through the first two books of the course, and look at what he was able to work that into.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #103

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jsaras
    Music consists of vertical and horizontal intervals (unless you’re playing endless polyphonic pitch-bends). EIS is a completely original theory that approaches music using intervals as its basis, and it’s organized around the logic found in the overtone series. It is not based on key centers (though it can be used for that purpose), nor is it based on any musical style. The goal is to explore and use intervals in every conceivable combination. The rote assignments in the course are there for the student to “rotate the Rubik’s cube” so as to gain the skill of using every possibe combination. Then, a composer can make free choices because every possibility has already been explored.

    For example, traditional theory makes a big deal about the circle of fifths (or fourths) and key centers, and there are complex voiceleading rules that are associated with it. At the very outset, EIS breaks out of this prison. It begins with a single voiceleading rule, and you learn to voicelead triads, one line at a time, through all the possible “equal” root cycles (split octaves, fourths, major thirds, minor thirds, major seconds, minor seconds—in descending and ascending motion). When you’ve done that, you’ve covered every possible root movement (there are only six possible choices up or down from a given root) and you then have automatically gained the facility to move randomly from any root to any other root, with correct voiceleading in the treble.

    Mick Goodrick’s books come into similar territory that’s found in Book 4 of the course (tonal harmony), but his system is “stuck” as he limits his root movements and his vertical structures to conform to a single scale. EIS allows changing the roots freely as well as changing the scale of the underlying vertical structures at any time.

    And these are just some of the things covered in EIS.

    I’ll also mention that Ted Greene only made it through the first two books of the course, and look at what he was able to work that into.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I read also a bit on the net.
    I see generally what is meant and I do not deny possible application of this tool but not for real composition, rather for arranging method

    You see my understanding of composition as process is different (actually it is totally opposite).
    But even without consideration of it being a compositional language.
    I do not really accept 'compositional tools', real composer speaks with language, he does not need to be liberated. I never understood that approach when someone wants to compose music but is somehow restriceted by some system.
    I do not like when 'outside tools' are being implied to estimate relations - though I realize for jazz it is very typical.
    Jazz has a great deal of experementation in its aesthetics, it is a part of its nature even. 'First we try then we hear'

    The fact that it is determined by overtone system does not make it more reliable or provable than if it were realted just by my will.
    Scientific objectivity of some facts does not make a system more right, more logical, more correct from point of view of artistic result.

    Artistry defines the sytems not vice versa.

    Again in 20th centuray there were lots of examples of experimental composition involving outside-ish non-musical methods, often scintific by its nature - it is (or rather already was) the aesthetics of those times.

    Nevertheless, three short questions maybe

    1) I still do not totally get the references to overtone system without being referred to temperament. For me music is living practical experience, if you begin to stack intervals in Equal Temperament and use at a sort of 'universal approach' you have to adjust temperament, and once you begin to adjust temperament you create modal or tonal centers (even if they are not obvious).
    Is that system a sort of theoretic reference? Is actual pure overtone pitch taken in consideration or it is mathematical formulas (whic is also possible of course as a method)?

    2) Music is languge... langugae should have internal realtions. What are those relations in that system?

    From descrition I see in the net it seems to be rather a theoretical tool for random chords/intervals generation and etimation of realtions from outside, that is something becomes relative not because I hear that but because it should be theoretically (quite typical approach for various jazz reharms tools).
    If so - this is rather a tool than real compositional language.

    3) Can you point out an actual composition written in this technique?


    PS
    ’ll also mention that Ted Greene only made it through the first two books of the course, and look at what he was able to work that into.
    And what was able to get that into?
    His methods are very conventional, they are just elaborated to - possibly - every single solution.