 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: csmith
Date: 2008-08-07 13:40
Before my question, I must first give a little background info....
As a music major, I had to attend a certain number of concert performances each semester. One style of music I tried listening to a number of times was contemporary/modern - composers like John Cage and Arnold Schoenberg. I just could not understand how anyone could enjoy listening to that "music"!
Now fast forward 10 years. I was asked to play with Voices of Change, the same group I'd dreaded listening to in college! I of course accepted the offer as the opportunity of a lifetime. The piece was Life Story by Thomas Ades. So I bought a CD and listened it. Yikes! I knew my work was cut out for me because at the surface level, at the level of someone listening for the first time, I didn't "get it". It was more noise than music!
Well, I worked my tail off and dove deeply into the piece. My eyes gradually opened so that I could see and understand how the parts intertwined - how each of the instruments complimented one another to create the overall product. After many hours of study, I finally "got it". And that same piece I'd listened to at first that was "noise" suddenly became beautiful music!
Now to the point.
I once worked with a guy who had a PhD in mathematics, and he absolutely loved the kind of music performed by groups like Voices of Change. In order for me to really love and develop a great appreciation for that music, I had to study my tail off for hours on end. But after several discussions with him, it was clear that he "got it" without having to study it.
I have often wondered if there were some sort of correlation between high-level mathematics and modern music, or at least having an immediate grasp and/or appreciation of modern music. As a software engineer, I certainly understand the similarity between music and math, but I've wondered if there are higher "levels" of complexity in music you can't really understand/appreciate unless you are (1) a math genius or (2) study it for yourself.
Any thoughts or additional insights?
Thanks,
Chad Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-08-07 15:58
Nerd music for nerds?
Actually my wife is a statistician
:)
I really like the chamber Sym. , don't like anything by Cage.
There are plenty of way out pieces I do like, but more that I don't at all.
I most likely just "don't get them"
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
Post Edited (2008-08-07 17:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2008-08-07 17:22
Hi csmith, you bring up a little-explored [by we {and me} mediocre mathematicians] relationship which many of us believe exists. I hope that Dan Oberlin, fine cl'ist and an FSU math professor [are there others among us?] may respond, and have "words of wisdom" to contribute here. Having several younger [assistant] conductors for our comm band, gives us at times some of this ?new music?, which at first acquaintance is much as you describe. Perhaps this is today's version of the "grudgeing" , slow acceptance of the Firebird and Rites of Spring and other "modern" compositions of the past. PM thoughts, Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2008-08-07 17:40
I'm terrible at math--those two trains traveling in opposite directions at different speeds, times & whatever, questions always "got" me. But I always excelled at music and like most forms. My good friend who was our combo's leader, is a "whiz" at math--can multiply five digit numbers in his head and always gets the train thing--but has a Van Gogh ear for music and is generally terrible at playing the trumpet (and getting enough gigs). I personally do not think there is much credable relation between I.Q. or advanced mathmatical skills and the creative arts. Some people just seem to "have it all" and others "have nothing at all". What we like and can do well is all just a result of ones genetic inheritance and how a persons brain develops.
Post Edited (2008-08-07 22:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2008-08-07 21:04
I'm too busy trying to prove Fermat's Last Theorem to think about this.
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2008-08-07 21:30
Too Shay, Hans, still trying to solve the Bynomic theory. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2008-08-07 22:57
Update...........
I've completed the proof... if there was enough space, I would post it ;-)
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-08-08 00:05
Jack Kissinger wrote:
> Avoid duels, Hans.
Or you could end up like Galois, non?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BflatNH
Date: 2008-08-08 00:32
In the early 70's I (a EE) audited a counterpoint class for a while at CMU. A Physics and a Math major took it for credit. I heard that the sole music major in the class had to struggle to keep up at the end.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: csmith
Date: 2008-08-08 02:59
After I got my CS degree I interviewed for a job at Rockwell Collins. My resume indicated my earlier music studies, which prompted my interviewer to tell me a pretty cool story. He said that Mr. Collins, the company founder, used to only hire computer science majors and music majors. I have always found that quite interesting, if indeed true, because I've always thought there was a very close relationship between the two.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark G Simon
Date: 2008-08-08 12:27
People who listen to a lot of modern music get it quite quickly. For people who are new to it, it takes some time. Experience, not mathematics, is the key.
Clarinetist, composer, arranger of music for clarinet ensemble
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2008-08-08 12:52
If a composer's music really does require a Ph.D. in mathematics and several hours of study to "get" then maybe it's music worth learning. But, in my experience, when a composer *claims* to have written some new music that requires in-depth analysis beyond the capability of all but the educationally elite, then we're looking at (all of) a composer who shops for new clothes in the same store where the Emperor shops.
I keep falling back on that famous quotation from Duke Ellington: "If it sounds good, it is good."
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NHClarinetLady23
Date: 2008-08-08 13:48
I think its important to remember that, with modern music, sometimes there is something to "get" and sometimes, like with the music of John Cage for example it is music constructed for people to glean what they will from it. In other words Cage wrote music in which "the notes could be themselves." He didn't write music with one emotional affect in mind; he wrote many different kinds of music that could be listened to and thought about and talked about in many different ways. I would encourage you to listen to some early Cage--his Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano. It isn't the music people today perceive as Cage i.e., 4'33". In fact for those of us who love his music and other "modern" musics, his silent piece is as much of an irritation as it is to others because it offers a significantly skewed view of the beauty of his music.
Much "modern" music seems not to be clearly expressing any perceivable affect so many think they don't get it. With Schoenberg, yes, he was working from precompsitional material and the music is much more interesting if you understand his principles but with Cage particularly he didn't want to force people to feel anything. His music allows us a moment in time to acknowledge the simplest beauty in the most simple sounds; sounds we hear everyday as musicians. Don't feel discouraged! Just try it out. Maybe have a cocktail before listening and relax. I'm sure you "get" more than you think you do ;-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2008-08-08 15:45
NHClarinetLady23
Re: "Maybe have a cocktail before listening and relax. I'm sure you "get" more than you think you do ;-)"... It might take a lot more than one cocktail. Chacun a son gout.
If it takes that much effort to appreciate a composition, the Wisdom of Crowds Principle will apply and it is likely to have a small audience of people who can't really distinguish good music from cacophony.
If the royal families who sponsored some of the great classical composers had been subjected to some of this "modern music", there would probably have been executions.
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger Aldridge
Date: 2008-08-09 01:34
Chad,
I'm a composer and I get great enjoyment from listening, performing, and studying contemporary compositions. Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone has yet used the word "FUN" regarding contemporary music. For me, there is a great amount of fun and sense of discovery & excitement to be found in contemporary works. There are times when I'm listening to a new piece and I'll think to my self "Man, that's brilliant" and sometimes laugh out loud from the sheer joy of discovery. Of course, this happens all the time when I'm listening to the jazz greats. Such music stretches how I think of life and opens doors to new possibilities. Of course, it always comes down to personal taste. Some contemporary composers and works really do it for me and others not as much.
Roger
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2008-08-09 23:36
Of course there's a tie between music and mathematics - the process of looking at a score and hearing the music is the same as looking at a page full of equations and visualizing the relationship to, say, a physical phenomenon.
It's about seeing patterns and relating them to other concepts. For example, if you look at a score and see a basic C-E-G harmonic structure followed in the next bar by a C-Eb-G harmonic structure, you recognize it as a shift from major to minor. If you look at a second order differential equation and see the damping term change from positive to negative, you recognize it as a shift from energy removal to energy addition. Same sort of idea: see a pattern, see a change, visualize an effect.
Another example would be counting rhythms: sometimes it's easier to count a rhythm backward from the end of a measure. Similarly, when multiplying two numbers in your head, sometimes it's easier to work backwards from the product of two larger numbers. Same idea.
Whether it's music or mathematics, the underlying mental gymnastics that we use to do the pattern recognition, manipulation, and interpretation are the same.
Now, having said that, it can also be the case that the patterns are not related to anything at all; we just like the patterns (or not, as the case may be). That's "pure math" vs. "applied math"; the musical equivalent is harder to define but suffice it to say that it's probably well represented by the "avant garde" or (possibly) "atonal" music of the last 50 years or so. For this type of music, the direct relationship between the music and a concept like "major" or "minor" is not well-defined. Similarly, there's a lot of math out there that hasn't found practical application yet!
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2008-08-18 15:56
Personally, I find understanding comes from playing. The more I play, the more I like - stuff I never would have touched in a record store.
I've mentioned it here before, but it was a turning point in my musical education when our choirmaster presented us with William Walton's 'Belshazzar's Feast' - and proceded to lead us gently to the top of that mountain. The view from the top was awesome - though it was a bewildering concept from the bottom.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark G Simon
Date: 2008-08-18 16:26
Just remember, we clarinetists need modern music. There's not that much of the old stuff. There are as many types of modern music as there are composers, and there's sure to be something to please anyone's taste. Do you enjoy playing the Copland Concerto, the Poulenc Sonata, the Arnold Sonatina? That's modern music. Do you Enjoy Joan Tower's "Wings"? That's contemporary music.
People still seem to find Schoenberg problematic, but remember, he was a romantic composer at heart. He proved this in "Verklärte Nacht" and "Gurrelieder", and if you listen to Hillary Hahn's recent recording of the Violin Concerto, you'll see that the same romantic spirit pervades his 12-tone music.
Clarinetist, composer, arranger of music for clarinet ensemble
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
