Bill Pirkle writes:

>Yes, there probably is such a thing [as the CM community] and I'm sure
>that there are a list of things that they could agree on.  I have searched
>in vain for those things in the time that I have been on the list.

Mailing lists don't work that way.  Anything people agree on gets tacitly
dropped.  To find out what people agree about, you have to look for what
they're NOT saying.

>To continue in that effort, let me snip from my website section on
>"Philosophy" [of my computer generated music] and see if we can agree on
>music at this very high level.

and asks:

>Can we agree on any of these?

Fortunately, no.

>- Music must not create boredom and must be pleasurable to listen to.

There's a fairly well-known composer who still bores me (check the
archives).  I'll give him another try soon, to see if I can find what it
is other people hear in him, but I'm not all that optimistic about the
prospects.  The mythical committee of a hundred would still rate him
highly.

However, it's "pleasurable to listen to" that is really missing the point
IMO.  Bomtempo and Raff are pleasurable to listen to.  There's something
more in Schubert and Tchaikovsky.  When you hear Tchaikovsky's 6th
symphony, do you think at the end, "that was pleasant"?

>- Musical compositions are built upon musical themes (melodies if you
>prefer) which must be more than a series of random pitches and durations.
>The themes must have some musical interest or merit.

No, no and no.

Most musical compositions are built on recognisable themes, but it's
possible to do without.  There are plenty of examples in 20th-century CM,
and not all of them are awful.  I'm not sure that there are recognisable
themes in all Tallis motets, either.

Themes can be a random series of pitches and durations.  Think of
Scarlatti's "Cat Fugue".

Themes don't have to have musical interest of their own.  It's what the
composer does with them which matters.  Can you think of a less interesting
theme than the 1st subject of Schubert's Great C Major symphony? (If you
can't, try Grieg's "Cowkeeper's Tune", which is fun precisely because of
the banality of the main tune.)

>- Boredom normally results if the composition is the mere playing of these
>themes over and over.

I should imagine so, but do you have any examples to support this
assertion? The only piece I can think of where anyone does this (Ravel's
Bolero) is a counter-example.

>- This boredom can be prevented if these themes are varied by having them
>played by different voices (instruments), in different keys, at different
>speeds, with different rhythms, and in different tonalities.

OTOMH, the only example of this I can think of is in Shostakovich's
Leningrad Symphony, and that's as controversial as the Ravel.

>- This boredom can be further prevented and interest aroused if these
>themes are "developed" by breaking them down into their constitutes parts
>and playing these parts by themselves.

That's the way they did it in the classical period (1750-1800).  Sometimes
it worked, sometimes it didn't.  It's not an automatic recipe for success.

Neither is it the only way.  Do you consider Bach's C minor passacaglia
boring?

>- The mind of the listener finds pleasure in the act of recognition, that
>is, recognizing something as having been heard before, especially if this
>recognition results in the mental picturing of a form whose structure can
>be discerned through analysis and concentration.  In short, nothing is more
>pleasurable to the mind than successfully solving a problem, i.e.  putting
>pieces together into a whole.

Enjoyment of music has nothing to do with the pleasures of problem-solving
(finding the key concept in a complex middlegame, or nailing a bug, for
example).

>- The art of composition is in the arranging of the themes, their
>variations, and their developments into a structure that is discernible
>as a whole to the listener.  This structure is called form.  This structure
>must be complex enough to require some analysis but not so complex as to be
>frustrating in its analysis.

As a definition of form, that's reasonable.  What's wrong are the
implications that the listener is listening out for the form, and that "bad
form" will sound wrong.

As to the first of these, when you listen to Rachmaninov's 2nd symphony, do
you hear the form, or do you hear gorgeous tunes? The structure is there,
but it's not so immediately apparent, and it's perfectly possible to enjoy
the piece without noting the structure consciously.  That may even be what
Rachmaninov intended.

As to the second, what is your opinion of the end of Mendelssohn's Scottish
symphony? IMO it's particularly apt, but if it's judged purely as "form"
then it's a mistake.

It occurs to me that you've made no mention of counterpoint.  This suggests
that the examples from which you're generalising are all post-1750.  I also
get the impression that they're also all pre-1900 and include no vocal
music.  Might I suggest that this would not form a representative sample of
the CM tradition as a whole?

Peter Varley
[log in to unmask]