Klarinet Archive - Posting 000498.txt from 2001/11

From: Bear Woodson <bearwoodson@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] CFM is still evolving and there is still no written text.
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:34:22 -0500

Hello, Klarinet List.

I did my undergraduate work as a composer at ASU,
Arizona State University, in the Mid-1970's, from the
teachings, mostly of Mr. Ronald Lo Presti, and some-
what by Dr. Grant Fletcher. Mr. Lo Presti had learned
it by word-of-mouth teachings from his teacher, Howard
Hanson. Mr. Lo Presti had always intended to write a
Text on Chromatic Functional Modality, but he was for-
ever refining the teachings, trying to make it even more
simple and clear. Whereas the Principles are concise, the
Analysis is complicated: it doesn't anything as simple as
a set of 7 Roman Numerals, like Tonality does, which
also took centuries to develop.

I came back to Arizona State University for my
Master's in the Mid-1990's. In 30 years, I have only
met a handful of people who have ever even heard of
the Chromatic Functional Modality System, and all of
them were students of Mr. Lo Presti, although most of
them were at ASU after I left in the 1970's. Mr. Lo
Presti died of a heart attack in 1986, and never got to
write his Text on Chromatic Functional Modality.

It took centuries of Tonality being in use, and many
failed attempts by other theorists, before Rameau finally
succeeded, as much as he did, in explaining it. Rameau's
Roman Numeral System is still the basis of Tonal Analysis
today, even though many Theorists have modified his
teachings. Tonal Music Theory has become progressively
more concise and easier to understand. Many fields of
study require centuries to refine the teachings. So what
else is new?

Tonal Functions, specifically the 4 Primary Chord,
began to appear around 1500. Did the Early Tonal Com-
posers, from 1500 to 1650 think of it as "Tonality"?
Nope. Did they think if the Rapidly Modulating Modes
in the Seconda Prattica Madrigals from 1550 to 1650
as "Chromatic Functional Modality"? Nope. They all
had different ways of thinking of it. Often in those cen-
turies they called it the "Hard Hexachord" Concept. But
their music yields the same results as in the Hanson / Lo
Presti teachings.

Only in the Late 19th Century, with Debussy, Bartok,
Stravinsky, and others, using Rapidly Modulating Modes
again, do we see Chromatic Functional Modality in use
again. Did these composers think of it as "Chromatic
Functional Modality"? I seriously doubt it, but that does
not mean that their music might be best explained by
some brilliant theorist in our future. Personally I agree
with Mr. Lo Presti, that the Chromatic Functional Mo-
dality System will be polished and improved for a long
time, and someday a much simpler system to explain
these harmonies will evolve.

I've talked to Jazzers who, in the last 20 years, are
talking more often in terms of Modes, rather than more
exclusively as "Bent Major Scales" in earlier decades.
Because they have to write "Charts" quickly, they just
might be the ones to develop a Shorthand Analysis
System, akin to Rameau's Roman Numerals.

> I'm still waiting for the facts about the "Chromatic
> Functional Modality System". Looking it up on
> Google brought a self-referential link back to a quote
> from you, Bear, and looking it up with Howard
> Hanson as a modifier (where I really wanted to start)
> brought up nothing.

I keep telling people that the Chromatic Functional
Modality System is RARE, and that there has NEVER
been a text written that I know of. Other composers,
including a few Pulitzer Prize Winners, and a few other
Lo Presti Students, keep asking me to write the first
text on it, but I am so pressed for time. Frankly I'm
expecting some other theorist to find a simpler method
of writing the Analysis other than, examples like this:

4b Mix / 7b Lyd

"Four Flats Mixolydian crossed against Seven Flats
Lydian". This is the "Dance of the Adolescents" Chord
from the Rite of Spring by Stravinsky.) Whereas I feel
this is an accurate analysis, I find it more cumbersome
than writing Roman Numerals in Tonal Theory. But
Tonal Theory doesn't work well in the Rite of Spring.
I avoid "Set Theory" because it tends to be Pro-12-Tone
and Anti-Scalar and Anti-Functional Harmony. I think
many people now consider Set Theory to be as dead as
12-Tone Matrices.

No, a newer system is needed, and I think that Chro-
matic Functional Modality leans in that direction, and
whereas I find it more complete than any other Theory
System that I know, I think it needs more improvements.

> "I am likely one of the few people on this list with a
> lot of experience with 20th Century Music Theory."

Yes, I had to endure tons of 12-Tone and Aleatoric
Music forced on me at Cal Arts. They insisted that the
US Constitution was irrelevant, and that they COULD
legally FORCE me to LOVE 12-Tone over ALL other
types of music! I left music for many years because of
the 12-Tone Nazis. Probably few, if any of you, have
had SO much 12-Tone Music FORCED on you, as I
did. I certainly hope not. I still stick my those words,
and fail to find anything offensive in what I have written.

When I have tutored Rock and Country/Western
friends in Music Theory, I have insisted that just because
Popular Music doesn't suit ME, doesn't mean they should
not be the BEST musician that THEY want to be, in
THEIR favorite style of music. I've also told that to a few
young students, who DO want to be 12-Tone Composers.
My objection is NOT to 12-Tone Music. I object to being
Forced and Insulted for NO Valid Reason. I want every-
one to follow THEIR chosen path in music. (Now it looks
like I'm again being Insulted for promoting Freedom of
Thought, by a few who have twisted words that I've
never said.)

> I would venture to say that there are a few more than
> just me that also teach theory as another part of their
> teaching load, not out of obligation, but out of love
> and knowledge of theory.
>
> So, having said all that, my point is that you made
> quite an ignorant, somewhat pompous statement,
> without REALLY knowing who's out there listening
> or what they know or don't know. Just because some-
> one doesn't post something every other second on this
> list doesn't mean they aren't a part of it, reading the
> messages everyday. I personally feel insulted by your
> comment, even if it wasn't pointed particularly at me.

In the Late 1970's Cal Arts had them drawing Colored
Charts, with each chart designated to ONLY one Para-
meter of a 20th Century work. One would be just for
Density, or Orchestration (Pointillism), Range, Dynamics,
etc., which I think tend to miss the point in many other
styles of music. But too many Cal Arts Students could
NOT read a Key Signature in Bach! I don't find that
"Arty", I find that incompetent. Too many of them were
clearly using 12-Tone and Random Methods because they
could not master Tonal Music Theory, and had NO talent
for Inspired Composition. I call that a cop-out!

Never at any time, have I said that other members of
this list didn't love or teach theory, only that the Chro-
matic Functional Modality system is RARE, and that I
had been drowned in a LOT of 20th Century Music
Theory Systems at Cal Arts in the Late 1970's, that are
now obsolete with the death of 12-Tone Music and its
many Related Styles. Yet a few of you have twisted that
into an insult. I find that hard to justify. I can't find a
reason for your anger.

Each of you gets to play a Clarinet, of which there are
maybe 30 sizes and Keys of Models, plus many parallel
instruments from other cultures. I would be *delighted* if
I had that kind of talent, but I don't. You get to "breathe"
some of the most gorgeous music in history, and "live"
in the middle of live performances, which I think is a re-
markable privilege! Instead, some of you twist my words
into an insult, that clearly was never intended. As I see it,
ALL of you get to have FAR more privileges in a world
of Live Music Performances, than I will never know first
hand! If anything, I should be envious of each of you. But
a few here wish to find fault with words I never said. It
doesn't make sense to me.

Bear Woodson
Composer, Tucson, Arizona, USA

---------------------------------------------------------------------