Double Bass truly odd time sigs

[Jeff Michael]

basically, a composition graduate is a composer.

That seems like a rather tenuous leap of logic. Frank Zappa had no composition degree whatsoever, let alone a graduate degree, so not all composers have graduate-level composition degrees. And while I have no discrete example to proffer, I bet there are a lot of composition graduates who don't compose. Troll that I am, I would go so far as to bet that most of them become graduate-level composition professors, thus perpetuating the...uh, well, let's be polite and just say "cycle".

getting the degree is just process of studying methods of composition to allow the composer to express themselves in their music, just as an instrumentalist studies long and hard so they can express themselves through THEIR music.

Again, I may be naive, but are there really aspiring composers whose ideas are so sophisticated that they require graduate level study? I mean, don't undergraduate composition curricula get the tools into the students' hands fairly comprehensively?

Call me a philistine, but I think there is a point where pedagogy does more harm than good. To wit:

as for novelty; i think its not so much about novelty as innovation (i'm not implying any innovativeness, or lack of, on anyones part here btw! ). if no composer innovated, we'd still be listening to... well, i was going to say medieval music, but it would be more like whatever the very first musical sound was. banging of rocks? rock music? oh dear....

Calling innovation an absolute good is about as bad as calling it an absolute evil. To reverse your point, if every composer innovated, we'd be listening to pure meaninglessness--pieces referring to and referred to by nothing other than themselves.

Ultimately all this is pure pedantry. Another poster nailed it by pointing out that X/12 time is no more than overabstraction which, by making one's innovative compositional idea MORE difficult to interpret rather than LESS, transcends annoyance and achieves downright counterproductivity in its supreme missing of the point.

Or maybe not.

 

[jallenbass]

Again, I may be naive, but are there really aspiring composers whose ideas are so sophisticated that they require graduate level study? I mean, don't undergraduate composition curricula get the tools into the students' hands fairly comprehensively?

Studying composition is no different than studying your instrument. Some go on to grad school because they see that there is more to learn.

 

[JimmyM]

People like this guy with his 4/12 crap is why nobody likes modern classical music. It's a completely insular approach to music, designed to make the composer look like some kind of genius while making everyone else look like rubes for not getting it.

Did anyone read that interview? Did anyone understand it? I sure didn't. Lots of big words, lots of condescending. Shakespeare said it best..."...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Why don't more modern composers concentrate on making music that sounds good instead of making music that makes them feel good about themselves at the expense of others? I'm sure there are some of you actually understand these concepts and like the music it produces. I have no problem with that. But show me where using a time signature like 4/12 or 3/10 (which Ferneyhough actually mentions as a legit TS) makes it possible to write music that sounds different than using more traditional methods of notation. It's nothing more than the game of "I'm a genius and you're not." To which I reply with a big, "So what?"

 

[velvetkevorkian]

That seems like a rather tenuous leap of logic. Frank Zappa had no composition degree whatsoever, let alone a graduate degree, so not all composers have graduate-level composition degrees. And while I have no discrete example to proffer, I bet there are a lot of composition graduates who don't compose. Troll that I am, I would go so far as to bet that most of them become graduate-level composition professors, thus perpetuating the...uh, well, let's be polite and just say "cycle".



Again, I may be naive, but are there really aspiring composers whose ideas are so sophisticated that they require graduate level study? I mean, don't undergraduate composition curricula get the tools into the students' hands fairly comprehensively?

Call me a philistine, but I think there is a point where pedagogy does more harm than good. To wit:



Calling innovation an absolute good is about as bad as calling it an absolute evil. To reverse your point, if every composer innovated, we'd be listening to pure meaninglessness--pieces referring to and referred to by nothing other than themselves.

Ultimately all this is pure pedantry. Another poster nailed it by pointing out that X/12 time is no more than overabstraction which, by making one's innovative compositional idea MORE difficult to interpret rather than LESS, transcends annoyance and achieves downright counterproductivity in its supreme missing of the point.

Or maybe not.

first off, on a terminological note, i'm not quite sure what is meant by a graduate degree- is that a post graduate degree, i.e a second degree, a phd, etc? i think there is a difference in terminology between the us and britain (where i'm doing an undergraduate degree including a bit on composition).

i never suggested that you had to have a composition to degree to be a composer. ultimately, all you have to do is compose- which i think is what you were getting at.

why do you suggest that composition professors don't compose? just because you couldn't name any who do (i doubt many people not associated in some way with a uni or would be able to) and just because their music is not well known or widely perforemed does not mean they don't compose.

i think the undergraduate comp. courses are more about giving the student the tools they need, whereas a postgrad comp course (which is what i assume is meant by "graduate degree") is more about putting you're ideas into action- they're less strict as to what forms you have to write in, you can basically do you're own thing in an enviroment where you can get any support you may need, and have your pieces performed without worrying about commercial pressures.

i see where you're coming from on the innovation point; however i never said "everyone has to innovate"- just that without innovation, there is no progression, thus nothing changes- so we are now where we started? i don't think anyone could say that.

ultimately, though, yes it is all pedantry.

 

[velvetkevorkian]

People like this guy with his 4/12 crap is why nobody likes modern classical music. It's a completely insular approach to music, designed to make the composer look like some kind of genius while making everyone else look like rubes for not getting it.

Did anyone read that interview? Did anyone understand it? I sure didn't. Lots of big words, lots of condescending. Shakespeare said it best..."...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Why don't more modern composers concentrate on making music that sounds good instead of making music that makes them feel good about themselves at the expense of others? I'm sure there are some of you actually understand these concepts and like the music it produces. I have no problem with that. But show me where using a time signature like 4/12 or 3/10 (which Ferneyhough actually mentions as a legit TS) makes it possible to write music that sounds different than using more traditional methods of notation. It's nothing more than the game of "I'm a genius and you're not." To which I reply with a big, "So what?"

do you really think he writes music just to prove a point? i would suggest that, although it may not be to your personal taste, the composer probably does think it does sound good. and the listener would never actually have to know there was 4/12 involved (or 4/4, or any other musical concept) to like the piece. lets not forget music is written for the listener, not the performer or the analyst.

 

[fraublugher]

What would 12th notes be called in countries that don't refer to rhythmic subdivisions based on the (often as not untrue) assumption that a measure is four beats?

da-digga da-da-digga da-digga da {dah!}

{*}as Zakir Hussein might say

no notation , but an oral tradition {rare}

 

[WalterBush]

Again, I may be naive, but are there really aspiring composers whose ideas are so sophisticated that they require graduate level study? I mean, don't undergraduate composition curricula get the tools into the students' hands fairly comprehensively?

Yes, and yes. Post-graduate study mostly involves translating an abstract concept or feeling into actual sound, i.e. going from thinking,"I am inspired to compose a piece about my morbid fascination with death" to writing something that makes the audience's skin crawl. Many people who graduate with a high-level degree go on to apprentice under an established composer, and later become artists who get paid (er, commisioned with) huge sums to compose music, whether for film, a major symphony or chamber orchestra, whatever.

Personally, I think most post-grads end up teaching, though

 

[WalterBush]

People like this guy with his 4/12 crap is why nobody likes modern classical music. It's a completely insular approach to music, designed to make the composer look like some kind of genius while making everyone else look like rubes for not getting it.

Tell this to George Crumb, or numerous other composers who specialize in sounding bizarre. Tell it to the Kronos Quartet, who play music like this, and sell out shows with ticket prices higher than the Rolling Stones. While you're at it, go ahead and tell them to turn down the amplified feeds, kill the tape machines, and get rid of the light show, because all those elements were written into the piece, along with notes, harmonics, and squawks.

Just saying, people, myself included, like some music that sounds so strange there's no existing cultural reference, and that the music is not just designed to make people who don't get it feel like rubes. A lot of it modern classical doesn't make sense to me, but that just makes me all the more curious as to what other people see in it. Other pieces stir me immensely, while my wife plugs her ears and tells me not to play it when she's home

A lot of it, of course, just plain sucks in my mind, but I'm not willing to write off a genre because I don't get it, or I'd be telling people things like rap is just noise, pop music and mariachi need to die, and no one should ever, ever again write a ballad to accompany a movie, ever, especially if Celine Dion is singing it. 'Cause I don't understand, comprehend, or enjoy any of the forms I just mentioned.

 

[JimmyM]

do you really think he writes music just to prove a point? i would suggest that, although it may not be to your personal taste, the composer probably does think it does sound good. and the listener would never actually have to know there was 4/12 involved (or 4/4, or any other musical concept) to like the piece. lets not forget music is written for the listener, not the performer or the analyst.

I would argue that composers like Ferneyhough don't really care if other people like his work or not as long as he gets his big grants for being "innovative." It's all about academia, it has nothing to do with making music or providing entertainment to people. It's all about collecting grant money, and what better way to do it than come up with some cockamamie time signature. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

So no, I don't think he's doing it to prove a point. I think he's doing it to get grant money.

 

[jazzbassnerd]

I would argue that composers like Ferneyhough don't really care if other people like his work or not as long as he gets his big grants for being "innovative." It's all about academia, it has nothing to do with making music or providing entertainment to people. It's all about collecting grant money, and what better way to do it than come up with some cockamamie time signature. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

So no, I don't think he's doing it to prove a point. I think he's doing it to get grant money.

I think that's kinda harsh. I mean, we started with how to interpret 4/12, then moved to question its validity, and now we're calling the composer a money hungry guy who doesn't give half a darn about music?

I don't buy that.

I think to disagree with his means and to not like his music or his choice of notation is fine; but when you start making moral judgements against a guy because he wrote 4/12, that's a little to far in my book.

 

[JimmyM]

Maybe you're right. Maybe that is a little harsh. But I do know that professors, espcially professors at large colleges like Stanford, live by the rule "publish or perish." And what better way to publish and get known about it than invent new time signatures?

However, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and let's say money doesn't even enter into it. It's still, IMHO, a cockamamie way of making simple things complex and serves no musical purpose other than to show off what a "higher plane" of thinking he operates on.

 

[jazzbassnerd]

I can totally understand the viewpoint that it isn't valid (although I personally disagree).

 

[JimmyM]

Tell this to George Crumb, or numerous other composers who specialize in sounding bizarre. Tell it to the Kronos Quartet, who play music like this, and sell out shows with ticket prices higher than the Rolling Stones. While you're at it, go ahead and tell them to turn down the amplified feeds, kill the tape machines, and get rid of the light show, because all those elements were written into the piece, along with notes, harmonics, and squawks.

Just saying, people, myself included, like some music that sounds so strange there's no existing cultural reference, and that the music is not just designed to make people who don't get it feel like rubes. A lot of it modern classical doesn't make sense to me, but that just makes me all the more curious as to what other people see in it. Other pieces stir me immensely, while my wife plugs her ears and tells me not to play it when she's home

A lot of it, of course, just plain sucks in my mind, but I'm not willing to write off a genre because I don't get it, or I'd be telling people things like rap is just noise, pop music and mariachi need to die, and no one should ever, ever again write a ballad to accompany a movie, ever, especially if Celine Dion is singing it. 'Cause I don't understand, comprehend, or enjoy any of the forms I just mentioned.

A couple months ago, someone posted a link to a video of a bassist whose "performance" consisted of scratching indiscriminately with the bow, then banging it loudly into the strings, then more scratching and more banging for about 10 minutes. This was performed by another highbrow "artiste" who was also a highly esteemed professor of music, and while I was watching it, I was thinking about how I had been playing bass for about 6 months and could play that piece no problem. Yet nobody has highbrow discussions about my caterwauling because I'm a beginner and he was a tenured professor.

It all seems like a big practical joke to me, where these professors are treated like they're geniuses by the people who are afraid to say they're just playing crap for fear of being considered a rube by the cognoscenti, even though if you held a gun to their heads, they'd probably admit it sounded like noise to them. I'll take Celine Dion and Kanye West any day over that crap.

 

[oliebrice]

sometimes it amazes me how judgemental and narrow minded people can be about composition who are open to free improvisation

I want to see a single "12th note". If you can't write one, bereft of ANY OTHER referential data, then there ain't one.

so something only exists if you know how to write it? as bruce pointed out, composers throughout the 20th century have been experimenting with different forms of notation. we could just throw away the works of stockhausen, feldman, cage, xenakis etc and say "its hard to read so it doesn't exist", but that seems a bit reactionary to me. Maybe you could assume that they have some valid ideas, and then if you are interested try to understand those ideas, if not then fine, leave it alone. In the same way that if a trad player isn't interested in ornette, fine, don't listen but don't assume that ornette couldn't play.

A couple months ago, someone posted a link to a video of a bassist whose "performance" consisted of scratching indiscriminately with the bow, then banging it loudly into the strings, then more scratching and more banging for about 10 minutes. This was performed by another highbrow "artiste" who was also a highly esteemed professor of music, and while I was watching it, I was thinking about how I had been playing bass for about 6 months and could play that piece no problem.

this illustrates my point nicely. I presume you're talking about Mark Dresser? I've not seen the video you're talking about but I can assure you that you couldn't play what Mark Dresser can play. Hes a great musician who advances certain areas of music further than other people have in that particular direction. He isn't as important in the history of swinging walking lines as say peter washington, and fair enough some people might not be interested in the direction he is focusing on, but that doesn't mean he is only after the grant money.

"I don't understand/like" doesn't mean "Its crap/its a joke"

 

[oliebrice]

Jazz musicians also sometimes use apparently 'more complex than neccesary' notation on purpose, with the intent of provoking new ways of looking at familiar material. Dave Liebman discusses different ways of notating the same chord in his book on chromatic harmony.

 

[velvetkevorkian]

Tell this to George Crumb, or numerous other composers who specialize in sounding bizarre. Tell it to the Kronos Quartet, who play music like this, and sell out shows with ticket prices higher than the Rolling Stones. While you're at it, go ahead and tell them to turn down the amplified feeds, kill the tape machines, and get rid of the light show, because all those elements were written into the piece, along with notes, harmonics, and squawks.

Just saying, people, myself included, like some music that sounds so strange there's no existing cultural reference, and that the music is not just designed to make people who don't get it feel like rubes. A lot of it modern classical doesn't make sense to me, but that just makes me all the more curious as to what other people see in it. Other pieces stir me immensely, while my wife plugs her ears and tells me not to play it when she's home

A lot of it, of course, just plain sucks in my mind, but I'm not willing to write off a genre because I don't get it, or I'd be telling people things like rap is just noise, pop music and mariachi need to die, and no one should ever, ever again write a ballad to accompany a movie, ever, especially if Celine Dion is singing it. 'Cause I don't understand, comprehend, or enjoy any of the forms I just mentioned.

put far better than i could have.

 

[velvetkevorkian]

sometimes it amazes me how judgemental and narrow minded people can be about composition who are open to free improvisation



so something only exists if you know how to write it? as bruce pointed out, composers throughout the 20th century have been experimenting with different forms of notation. we could just throw away the works of stockhausen, feldman, cage, xenakis etc and say "its hard to read so it doesn't exist", but that seems a bit reactionary to me. Maybe you could assume that they have some valid ideas, and then if you are interested try to understand those ideas, if not then fine, leave it alone. In the same way that if a trad player isn't interested in ornette, fine, don't listen but don't assume that ornette couldn't play.



this illustrates my point nicely. I presume you're talking about Mark Dresser? I've not seen the video you're talking about but I can assure you that you couldn't play what Mark Dresser can play. Hes a great musician who advances certain areas of music further than other people have in that particular direction. He isn't as important in the history of swinging walking lines as say peter washington, and fair enough some people might not be interested in the direction he is focusing on, but that doesn't mean he is only after the grant money.

"I don't understand/like" doesn't mean "Its crap/its a joke"

likewise, well put sir.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

so something only exists if you know how to write it?

Don't miss the point. If you are telling me that you can NOTATE something in 4/12, you are telling me that you can NOTATE a measure that contains 4 beats (the top number in a time signature) and that a 12th note ( the bottom number in a time signature) gets 1 beat.

So, once again, show me a single 12th note.

 

[oliebrice]

I'm not telling you I can notate it, but ferneyhough is. Have a look at his score if you want to see his notation.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

I did. He's using 8th notes and telling me they aren't eighth notes.

"You" in the editorial sense. You (in a specific sense) were taking my request for a specific and trying to apply it to a general point. That may be fun, but it doesn't address the point.