[Smt-talk] Fwd: : The Ubiquitous Triad - The Ubiquitous Note

[nancygarniez at tonalrefraction.com]

Reply to Isaac Malitz:


Dear Isaac:
A propos your remark: "People hear music in very complex ways, a mixture of experiences, some of which are quite primitive. A somewhat-organized delirium of experience (ref: Boulez). 


Legitimatizing this complexity can involve admitting all manner of variables into what is usually thought of as a note. My work, Tonal Refraction, enables a person to give visual form to various aspects of her perception of a tone, tone relatedness, spatial aspects of tone, among other variables; it encourages attention to the specific treatment of tones in particular compositions.
Visual expression invites dialogue of a different sort than that of any isolated discipline as it is personal in origin. In that sense the work is truly inter-disciplinary.
Nancy Garniez
www.tonalrefraction.com
New York City


Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 20, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Isaac Malitz <imalitz at omsmodel.com> wrote:


I realize that composers and performers often have to think about music in terms of "notes", this can't be avoided.

 However, let's take the point-of-view of the listener, the analyst, the scientist (the scientist of music) [these are not identical points of view, but they have a certain amount in common]
 From that point of view: Why the focus on "notes"? 
 I.e., let's rewrite Carson Farley as follows:

 "Just as physics moved in modernity into the new realms, so must music. A NOTE is in many ways a relic of the past no longer relevant to contemporary science/practice unless of course the desired result is traditional sound/music."

 Here's an example to consider: Renee Fleming singing O Mio Babbino Caro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU3bJ5JJhlw

 An analysis of the notes in the score will not reveal very much about this performance.
 One could of course try to say that "it is what she does with the notes" that explains the performance.
 But a more direct explanation would use terms such as: Voice, breath, words, color, phrase, emotion, ambiance, space, time, communication, warmth, ...
 (Those terms could be broken down into more analytical detail, but might as well start with the obvious)
 The harmony, orchestration, melody (factors that can be discerned in the score) have some role in the overall effect. 20% ? 30% ?


 The idea of a "note" is an abstraction, a simplification about music. 
 This simplification has value, but it misses a lot.

 I think there is an unspoken assumption that "People hear music as notes. And then mentally, inside their big-brain-computer, they construct 'music' from the note-sequences that they hear"

 Here's an alternative view "People hear music in very complex ways, a mixture of experiences, some of which are quite primitive. A somewhat-organized delirium of experience (ref: Boulez). At times, *some* people will hear *individual notes* within this delirium, or they will abstract some notes from the immediate experience. These notes are often somewhat different from what was actually performed."

 In summary, I like Carson Farley's comment as far as it goes, but it is not radical enough. 

 -- Isaac Malitz
imalitz at omsmodel.com
 818-231-3965


 On 7/18/2014 3:16 PM, CARSON FARLEY wrote:

... Just as physics moved in modernity into the realm of microcosm, so must music. A triad is in many ways a relic of the past no longer relevant to contemporary science/practice unless of course the desired result is traditional sound/music. 


_______________________________________________
Smt-talk mailing list
Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140721/c27213f8/attachment.htm>