DO PARALLEL FIFTHS (and octaves) SOUND BAD?

Let’s cut to the chase.

No they don’t.

Parallel fifths are a reflection of a very specific set of musical values. Specifically the value of melody over all. If we have this musical value, then even are harmonic and rhythmic forces become subservient to this idea. Which means, even our harmonies need to portray a sense of melodic flow. Therefore we avoid parallel fifths and octaves not to disrupt our melodic value system.

So that leads us to question one: what if you don’t share that set of musical values, and you value rhythmic or harmonic ideas more than melodic?

Question two: Can you decided to not adopt all of classical musics value set, or is it like a political party?

Question three: Is any one listening to your music going to hear your music and notice parallel fifths and think your music is bad because of it?

Answer to question one: Then you don’t need to worry about it parallel fifths

Answer to question two: You can adopt what values you want and leave the ones you don’t care about

Answer to question three: No one, other than a collage composition teacher who probably won’t listen to your music any way.

The best example I know of of ignoring the parallel rule is Debussy. If you listen to his music it doesn’t take long to realize melody is not the driving force behind what is happening. His music is atmospheric, textured and richly harmonic. There are times the melody almost feels like an after thought. And that is why he didn’t worry about. Just listen to la cathedral engloutie (the sunken cathedral) to hear parallel (every thing) used to make immensely beautiful and moving music.

Seggested listening

La cathédrale engloutie - Debussy

ANDREW HILL

Here is a poem that didn’t make the cut for my upcoming book. It just felt a little too obscure, but I still love it… and thats what blogs are for, the things that are not good enough for books.

The poem is based on this excerpt from the liner notes to Andrew Hill’s album point of departure.

“For the past year or so, Hill has not listend to jazz on the radio and he has retired his record player for the time being. “in listening to other people” Hill explains, “you absorb their thoughts, however unconsciously, and as I said, right now I have to concentrate on finding my own way””

I thought this was a really interesting, both for its musical implications, but even more so for every thing else in life. Its this idea that we are influenced by all the things we surround our selfs with, wether we want it to or not. This awareness brings a greater level of intentionality to what we let in our world.

Andrew Hill said

His record player is sleeping for now

Because he is building

his own world

And he knew

What you let in

Will change you

And start to build its own world

Inside of you

He didn’t trust his ability

To control a constricted sponge

In water

He didn’t trust his ability

To control an ocean storm

So he did his best

To navigate it

Every thing you let in

Will change you

Every thing has a cost

Every thing will take something from you

So he stayed home

With his books

with his piano and tape recorder

Alone

Suggested listening (Andrew Hill Albums)

Point of Departure

Dance With Death

Black Fire

Passing Ships

THOUGHTS ON THE POETS I HAVE BEEN READING

Billy Collins - He is currently one of the most famous and most read living American poets. He poetry is highly accessible and easy to read. Its often filled with humor and he writes lots of poems about writing poems (which can get a little old). His poetry is extremely conversational and even challenges the definition of what a poem means.

Mary Oliver - Is one of the other most read American poets. All of her works focus on nature and it is rare for a human (other than the observer) to be in her poetry, and is fairly accessible. American Primitive won a Pulitzer which is a book I found to be a little stronger than a lot of her other books but also darker in tone. She had a lot of years of writing poetry and I found little change in her topic or style from book to book, but I would recommend dream work and thirst.

Luci Shaw - Slightly less transparent than collins or Oliver but still not so coded as to lose its meaning. Topics of her poetry generally include God, and nature. Normally I can’t stand the endorsements on books by other authors (it feels like advertising) but she does have one from Annie Dillard so…. theres that. Angels of light is my favorite book of hers.

Denise Levertov - I find the balance between between poetry and clarity to my taste in her books. Her style and topics have a nice variety which I can find lacking on other poets. I am reading her collected works and her early poetry is defiantly more challenging than her later works. I would recommend her book evening train.

T.S. Elliot - When I read four quartets or waste land I feel like I am beholding the work of a master (not an experience I have very often (its like listening to Bach)). It feels so well crafted every sound and word feel like they were meticulously and painstakingly knit together. Its so well done we can all forgive him if the meaning is not always super clear. And we can all be forgiven for googling “what is four quartets about"? Another thing that really stands out about his work is the dramatic nature of his poems (dramatic has in drama, not dramatic as in overly emotional). Its like he creates these slices of stories in poetic form, and his poems are filled with characters he created, not him self. This stands in stark contrast to the works of all the other poets I have talked about, which feel predominately like autobiographic works.

WAYNE SHORTER HAS DIED

Wayne Shorter is one of my favorite musicians of all time, and last week at the age of 89 he passed away. For me his genius resides in the compositions he wrote, and I would put him up as one of Americas greatest composers. He seemed to have had an uncanny ability to blend a variety of elements, and musical influences in and out of jazz, to create something totally new and fresh. He had assimilated the language of bebop, hard bop, modal, and avant-garde, then added a delicious spice of classical technics. He loved the music of Stravinsky, which he had throughly studied while getting his music degree. I hear the influence of this in the way he crafted melodies that expanded and contracted (like in the songs etc. and pinocchio). All this went together to make an extremely rich and fresh musical experience.

Personally I have been hugely influenced by his harmonic language. He seemed to create this non-tonal string of chords that sound amazing and totally logical. Which if you start to study them you realize they are logical, just not the normal, all in the same key, type of logic. On top of his albums as a leader for blue (which I discuss below) he was also apart of Miles Davis’ seconded great quintet. Many people hold the opinion (myself included) this is one of the greatest jazz groups of all time. His compositional strengths really shine though on the albums miles smiles, sorcerer, and Nefertiti.

His blue note albums of the mid 60’s are generally agreed to be some of the most important albums of the era. Here are some of my thoughts on those records.

Night Dreamer, Ju Ju - His first two records feel pretty interchangeable, so much so it almost feels like a double album. On both he is joined by Mccoy Tyner and Elvin Jones. These records are great and they are the first ones I would recommend, but there are several songs (to my subjective ears) that feel a little melodically weak. The harmonies are very colorful but sometimes it feels like just a ditty was put on top. All the same these are great records.

Speak No Evil - For many people this is Wayne Shorter’s best album. To be honest this record took me a while to warm up to, not exactly sure why, but it took repeated listenings for it really started to click. I would say the emotional tone of this record is hard to explain. This is the first record with Herbie Hancock on piano (he was on all the rest of his blue note albums) which is an amazing pairing.

Etc. - I can not believe this music sat unreleased for 13 years. I love this record, and its probably in my top ten albums of all time. Theres defiantly a stronger avant-garde influence here, especially on the opening and closing numbers. The tune Barracudas is beyond amazing. The way they play the six eight time is so buoyant. I based a piece of music off the rhythmic feel of this piece.

Soothsayer, All seeing eye, Schizophrenia - All three of this albums have a larger front line with three or four horns. Over all solid records, but each has a track or two I don’t love. All seeing eye is the most out there (as in more elements of free jazz) of these records but also the most classical. Which creates a really interesting juxtaposition.

Adam’s Apple - This record feels a little more focused being striped back down back to a quartet. It has the song, footprints which is one of his most famous compositions. Its also a good example of his eclecticism. The opening number is funky and dancey, then it moves on to the latin flavored el gaucho (which by the way is the same melody as the piece Penelope) then to the impressionistic Teru.

TRIBUNAL RESEARCH PART 2

In addition to books I read in preparation for tribunal (see tribunal research part 1) I also conducted interviews. I ask participants a series of questions regarding the themes of emotions/logic/faith. The answers I received were vulnerable, insightful, and had a large impact on how I thought about these topics, thus effected the lyrics that became tribunal. Here are some selected excerpts from those interviews.

Is your commitment to faith (or worldview) more a logical or emotional decision. Please explain?

I am an emotional person, so I am going to say it is more emotional, BUT I also think it is in line with logic. It makes no logical sense to me that the world with all its complexity and intricate details came into being from something randomly exploding and logically it makes no sense to me that throwing millions of years into a mix would in any way help make intricate detailed things. Order produces order. Chaos does not produce order. 

However, I was raised religious and by people with a strong faith and so I do realize my faith was installed mostly through emotion (or heart and soul). 

I tend to feel things very strongly which would be emotion, but intertwines with faith. Faith does not mean anything to me without emotions though, I guess. Like, I could still logically believe and have faith, but without feeling you cannot really have hope. 

When your faith (or worldview) feels tested, does the testing come from a logical or emotional place? How do you respond to this?

When it is challenged from a logical perspective it tends not to bother me much because I assume the answer will become later on because the faith part of me knows the answer will align properly later on.

When it is challenged emotionally, then it is harder because even though I logically can still think the same the emotion can cloud my mind or feel overwhelming. The arguments that would most affect me would be emotional ones. (why God allows children to be molested or brutally murdered would affect me more then some new scientific find or discovery). However, I do feel like I am a tiny any bug with a minuscule brain and there is no possible way for me to comprehend or reason anything out properly from an all powerful God. So, I assume that when things don't make as much sense or feel confusing to me that it is because my logic is inferior and then I use faith to trust God and that He knows all the things I am incapable of knowing. 

Have you had an experience where all of these elements where in harmony? Please explain?

In general I feel like logic, emotions and faith fit perfectly together and that that is how they were intended. I think maybe the faith part is strongest and can pull the other things on line better. Also, you must take into consideration that I am on antidepressants and have been for probably fifteen years off and on? Mostly on. And that when I am not on them my emotion part is too overwhelming and messes with the other things too much and that I cannot see and think logically good without them. So that is going to affect things. Also, when I am on too high a dose of antidepressants then the logic part becomes too muffled or something in the other direction. So, it is a delicate balance and when I am not on them I do not feel like 'me' or normal. I feel very extreme with wildly crashing emotions and although my faith may still be intact the logic part is not intact hardly at all unless I am on these meds. 

 But, the way things are currently, I usually feel all three elements are working together and are harmonious. I do realize that some things emotional (death and other things like that) feel as if they don't fit in properly but the faith part covers and fixes that for me. 

Thoughts on Faith

Faith or worldviews are the chosen beliefs or theories one has about the world that extend beyond one's own certainty and knowing. If one has "faith" one is also acknowledging there is uncertainty and have chosen a response to that uncertainty with a decision of faith.

One cannot be in full certainty. Life is uncertain. Everyone exercises levels of faith to handle the inherent discomfort of a human experience of uncertainty in their own way. What they have faith "in" changes. Some have faith in others, themselves, God, ideas. Some try to deny their attempts to create certainty in the face of uncertainty, trying to embrace uncertainty completely...yet, by doing so, are still driven in the desire to create certainty even in that. Others also dive into complete meaningless and attempt to live with that - often at the cost of hope, purpose and meaning. 

Is your commitment to faith (or worldview) more a logical or emotional decision. Please explain? 

Any attempt to answer this is trying to conceptualize something that is deeper than concept. All decisions are both logical and emotional, and ideas that either can be measured or controlled are self delusion. For example, in one circumstance if one were to say "logical" as an answer, one could be fashioning an idea as a reaction to the concept that emotion is a threat to one's survival. They may believe themselves to be unemotional to be safe. Because to their mind/ego, emotionality would be death. But that FEAR of emotion, and the death they believe emotion brings to the ego/mind, is itself emotion. And is, itself, the biggest driver of this person's self concept of identity. Their fear is doing them. They are not doing their fear. The ones who claim logic are often the most emotional of us all - however stoic they seem on the surface. Because they do not know how to relate or feel their emotions - yet carry around the weight of the pressure of these emotions constantly and try to diffuse it with their mind.

Is your commitment to faith (or worldview) more a logical or emotional decision. Please explain?

Somewhere in-between. If you asked a devout religious person they’d probably tell you I’m logical. If you asked a committed atheist they’d probably tell you I’m more emotional. I thought I was very logical for a long time, most surprisingly enough when i was religious. I really wanted to back up my presupposition that there was a god. As of right now, with where science and religion are, I don’t think there’s anyway to really prove definitively where we came from, or what happens after we die. So I think most people base their ideas on a presupposition. And I think in a lot of ways those ideas are based on emotions. 

Can you talk about a time in your life where these elements were out of balance in your life? 

Yeah losing my faith was extremely scary, I didn’t feel like christianity was moral but i felt really guilty about that, I didn’t know what i believed in. So for a while i was a zombie follower not being super happy about it but feeling like i just needed to be more faithful or trusting, but feeling really bad about it. it was very destabilizing when i decided i felt more ethical deciding not to be christian, cause my whole worldview was anchored in it since birth.

Is your commitment to faith (or worldview) more a logical or emotional decision. Please explain?

Both. Logically you can't look at the intricacy of the natural world and think that it was random. Logically because every other religion requires some kind of good works to make to heaven and Christ offers himself as a free gift. Emotionally because I've experienced the presence of God and there is nothing better.

When your faith (or worldview) feels tested, does the testing come from a logical or emotional place? How do you respond to this?

Emotional first. It usually comes when your exhausted or life's circumstances aren't going the way you want. Then its easy to make a logical argument against faith.

Can you talk about a time in your life where these elements were out of balance in your life?

There have been times that God felt distant usually from an emotional standpoint. Faith is what holds it together. I know in my personal history that God has met me and no amount of negative emotional or logical argument can change that fact.

A POEM FOR THE FIRST DAY OF WINTER

The secret

Is to learn to love

All kinds of weather

Because they say there is no bad weather

Just bad perspective

And my perspectives have been poor

On this broken world

With its broken inhabitants

And I was the worst

And I was the offended

And I was the one

Who dreamed of living my days

In climate controlled environments

Of isolating my self

From any days

Who weren’t a mirror

To my perceptions

To my opinions

To my dry sense of humor

But this year

For the first year

I celebrate the bone cold

Of winter

And the secret is

I am not really talking about

the weather

TRIBUNAL RESEARCH PART 1

Here are some of the books I read in preparation for writing tribunal and some of my thoughts on them

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins - This book clearly advocates a rationality/logical approach to creating our beliefs about the world. I was surprised how clear the author was in making the point that emotions and faith should not be apart of answering these type of questions. At one point in the book he makes the statement that he believes that every thing that there is to know, can and with enough time, will be knowable. Which makes sense as a prerequisite for a logic only built belief system. If not it means there would be things you would never have access to and would need a different kind of tool to get there. Reading this made me happy. I felt like a lawyer who had just found all the evidence I need.

Also reading this book with an emotional/logic/faith lens made for a very interesting experience. Every argument some one makes in a book can be put in one of these categories. I was shocked how much of what he was saying came from an emotional argument, not logical.

Making sense of God, The reason for God by Tim Keller - Tim Keller is a person of faith (he is a pastor) but most of his content comes from a logical perspective. You hear a lot of repackaged C. S. Lewis in his writings. One concept that really stood out to me was him talking about what the post modern belief system means. This idea rejects any meta narrative, any all encompassing story that explains everything (Albert Einstein was not a post modernist) The irony is the rejection of a meta narrative becomes the new meta narrative. This influenced part 2 “there is a new story there is a new mono explanation”

The Abolition of Man, Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis - Lewis is another person of faith commitments, who mostly talks and writes in the realm of logic. In reading his books I sense Lewis perceives logic as a purer substance than I personally do. What ever is most logical is the truth kind of idea. I see logic as more fluid and even subjective. All that said, I love his books. The first half of Mere Christianity is this amazing point my point, if a is true, then b must also be then you get to c ect. In part two there is a section of axioms being built on one another in like manner. “number one I exist, number two I am myself, number three I know what I feel….

Fear and Trembling by Søren Kierkegaard - To be honest I did not finish this book. I don’t know if I had a wonky translation or it is just hard to follow. Probably some of both. The one bit I remember is it talked about Abrahams faith transcending ethical reasoning. Which to be honest, feels really uncomfortable.

DAILY RITUALS

I love Mason Curry’s book daily rituals. If I was in it this is what it would say.

7:00-8:00 wake up

8:00-9:00 breakfast and coffee

9:00-9:30 time with kids

9:30-10:00 prayer

10:00-12:00 compose/write

12:00-1:00 lunch

1:00-3:00 time with kids/practical/clean

3:00-4:00 Feka

4:00-8:00 teach piano lessons

8:00-10:00 eat/family time/read/tea/listen to music