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

A SCATTERING OF MUSIC THOUGHTS

-When jazz musicians get finished with their gig they get together to jam. When classical musicians get finished with their gig they go home.

-Classical music was born in the church because that is where music notation originated.

-Bach regularly had his music performed in a coffee shop and at home concerts.

-Classical music has never learned to balance the budget, and is only surviving because of donations from people who think classical music is “good for us”.

-What unifies almost all American music (jazz, rap, pop, rock country ect.) is a rhythmic feel where beats two and four are accented. For some reason classical music has completely avoided this idea.

-Spotify gets over 100,000 songs uploaded to it every day.

-The church is one of the few establishments that has clung to regular live music.

-The average age of a classical music fan is 55 and up.

-After Bach’s death, his scores were being used as paper to wrap up meat.

-Since 2000 most art has gone through a process of decentralization of power (the indie movement). Classical music has been almost completely untouched by this movement and is still regulated by contest, grants, committees, and commissions.

-Spotify pays artist .003 per a song stream.

-Most of my favorite music was improvised.

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

DUKE ELLINGTON VS. AARON COPLAND

I’ll just let you know now, Duke Ellington wins, and here is why

America was and continues to have an identity crisis when it comes to classical music. The tension is between mimicking European practices and creating something that is authentically American and different. For a long time most of Americas out put was the first option. Composers went to Europe for training (or we brought the European teacher over here) creating a steady stream of music that was essentially European in its DNA.

Enter Aaron Copland.

Our first world class composer, who is created with creating our first American sound in classical music.

The problem is Copland made his American sound the European way. The way any European could have if they had chosen his particular American topic.

step 1:Pick an American theme (in this case cowboys)

step 2: Go get a book of cowboy melodies

step 3: Insert them into your symphonic work.

Though I love Copland I feel like his music is a bit costume-y. It dosent feel like it is a music that bubbles out of the ground of our continent. Its like he created this mythic American sound which he, nor many Americans (especially the ones listening to his music) really had experienced.

Enter Duke Ellington.

Though not strictly classical it is symphonic, highly organized, and harmonically advanced. This sounds like us. This is music that could not have be written in any other place in the world. This is American finding its musical identity. Here are several of the things that sets his music apart, and gives it that American sheen. Firstly he did not receive a classical European education, secondly he created a completely novel blend of written and improvised music, Third he created a new orchestral sound with his heavy use of brass and brilliant orchestration, and lastly a new rhythmic feel of syncopation and propulsion which are simply irresistible.

Duke Ellington Suggested Listening

Masterworks

Live at Newport

Blues in Orbit

Mood Indigos

Aaron Copland Suggested Listening

Appalachian Spring

Short Symphony

El Salon Mexico

VIKINGUR OLAFSSON’S GOLDBERG VARATIONS

I’ve been listening to this almost non stop and wanted to share some thoughts.

-The first thing that struck me when I started to listen was the sound of the piano it self. I have been listening to Glenn Gould’s 1955 version for years which I would define (sound/recording wise) as extremely dry. There is no sound room or space in the the recording its almost as if the microphones are in the piano it self. This on the other hand has a much broader and open sound. Which gives every thing a little more sweetness.

-Secondly (again in contrast to 1955 GG) I found the delivery a bit more smooth and legato, Though I always liked Gleen Goulds delivery (dry and unromantic) I found this recording again, to be a little bit richer and sweeter keeping the notes more connected. If you listen closely though the recording you can hear Olafsson use a really short and sharp left hand delivery which I think is a nice touch and can help create a little more contrast between the melodic lines.

-Over all I found the tempos to be a bit more relaxed than what I was use to. Even looking at the running time of these two records Olafsson’s is close to twice as long (I’m not sure if difference in repeats makes any difference in this). To my surprise I found I liked his tempos better than Gould’s. A number of the pieces are not super long to begin with, and then if you take them at break neck speed that makes them even shorter. For me this can make some of the transition for piece to piece feel a little abrupt in Goulds version.

-Probably my biggest complaint about Olafsson’s recording is in the aria (which is my favorite piece). The piece is broken in to two sections an, A and a B, and both of these sections are repeated twice (so it looks like this: AABB). I find repeat going into the second B section to be super clunky.

EIGHT BILLION/ONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

As I did for my work tribunal, in preparation in writing the lyrics for eight billion/one I created a list of questions on the topic and had participants send me there responses. Here is a sample of those interviews.

Define objective reality

-Something that is true, regardless if it is known or people even believe it is true. It lives Totally independent from interaction or observation and is not defined by any one or any thing else. 

-Absolute truth

-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

-Truths that supercede people's perceptions of them

Define subjective reality

  -A way that they world is view through your particular perspective. Because we all have our own 

Unique lives we see the same things and experience the same things with drastically different reactions. 

Subjective reality leaves the plain of truth and right and wrong and enters the dominion of opinions, taste 

and perspectives

-An individual or group’s experience of reality.

-A state of existence that is at the mercy of personal perception and experience

-I would guess that's everything relating to opinions, feelings and everything we can't prove which is everything

Please list things that you believe fall in each of these categories? 

Objective: God, Morals, human worth, love temperature, measurement, laws of nature, Harms, needs, concretely observable truths, the experience of emotions

-God and his character setting the moral "way" of the universe

Subjective: art, the flavor of food, being drawn or repelled by certain personalities, at times the application of a moral truth, hot/cold, short/tall, high/low, clean/dirty

-my experience of almost every aspect of the world around me, relationships, emotions, preferences, opinions

-Can really list anything in objective as I can't prove anything. I could list my belief and the things I trust to be objective but in all honesty it could all be fake. 

-Everything would fall into subjective. But I think these are honestly very unhelpful definitions and terms really

-Language, personal preferences, cultural judgements, the truth claims made by emotions"

What is an area (or areas) of your life where you feel confused wither it is objective or subjective reality?

How we individually live out “truth” or even the clarity on what truth is. The moral line whether or not theirs a right way to live when

Its not written out or clearly immoral. 

-Beauty

-I’m coming to understand that many aspects of my childhood faith, and the faith of much of American Christianity is cultural rather than Biblical. I am trying to separate the two and it can be challenging

-I don't know if I feel confused about whether things are subjective or objective reality very much

-Religion

Are you open to the possibility that ultimately there is no objective reality, Please explain?

-I do not think I am open to this possibility (does that make me close minded?) I don’t think the world would be the

Way it is with out objective reality. If all that is left is subjective all we are left with is every ones option which is the 

Same as saying there is no truth, and that feels the same as no meaning. Firstly I don’t think the beings in that world 

Could have a capabilities to discover there own meaninglessness, and if they did even care. I find in the human heart,

We all ache for meaning and truth. I think that hunger exists because we have all experiences glimps of things that 

Were transcendet. Also if you actually applied and lived out the idea of no objective reality, I believe every thing would 

Totally fall apart. You could not longer teach your children not to do something or how to share, the court system would

Become irrelevant and the distinction between sane and insane would have to go away.

-Actually what is presently "observed" by human on earth in time and referred to as reality are but shadows of what is real and "objective", and those realities may themselves be shadows of what might be even more real. For what we know as human will need to be totally transformed from a shadow land to have a presence in the real

-I’m open to it but it would probably make me feel like nothing is worthwhile/significant. You'd have to question the credibility of humans' ability to reason, and of our five senses, and that would make nothing make sense anymore. Also, what would that mean, on a practical level? It's hard to imagine

-I would say no, because that would be a postmodern view of the world meaning truth, is what you make it, and I reject that view. I believe that there is objective truth certainly through the lens of God’s word through Scripture

What is something in your life you know is subjective reality, but it is still hard to believe, act, interpret like it is?

-For me the area of aesthetics I find very hard to remember is not objective. This includes interior design, visual art, and music. 

I find my self judging other people like there is an objective truth and they are on the wrong side. I know what is true I know what 

Is good and they do not and they are blind for it. I know this is wrong but it is really hard for me to stop.

-The love that someone has for me

-Anything that I strongly prefer in my pursuit of the "best" could fall into this category

-I don't think there are any. I've been thinking about this since childhood and I'm pretty at peace about it

Do you believe an objective reality could be  possible in a world that is only material (not spiritual) please explain?

No I do not. I feel like for objective truth to be possible there has to be something over all the exist, there has to be something

That is beyond the limits of perspective (you could call it a super perspective) that can really see something for what it truly is. 

So ultamitly what is objective reality is what this something (the thing that is over creation) how it views it, is its true reality

-I can’t even imagine an “only material” world! I guess there would be no humans and no imagination so there would probably ONLY be objective reality in such a world

-No. The nature of objective reality is contingent upon a spiritual state. I don't believe something strictly material is capable of being unchanging and independent of all other things

-Ehhhh I think the world is designed to always have a way in which you can say things aren't true and it's better that way

-I think that would make it more likely to exist. The material world is harder to play definition games with, and it's more objectively verifiable because all beings have it in common. The spiritual world, because we understand it so poorly, can often end up in definition games, which are subjective because language is subjective. AKA: "My negative circumstances are the work of demons." That claim can be understood to be objectively true or false only if you clearly define the term "demons." OR, if the circumstance was objectively the speaker's fault, the claim could still subjectively be true for one person, who simply defines "demons" as "the personification of the spiritual consequences of sin," while being subjectively false for another person, who defines "demons" in a hyper-specific way.

What reinforces your current beliefs (experiences, ideas, etc) on the existence (or non existence) of the objective reality?

-My Christan faith reinforces my belief of an objective reality. Ultimity being a Christian means I believe in God, I believe

He see the truth and I recognize that I don’t. I just see a tiny fraction of reality from my perspective. So it makes sense to

Listen to the person who you believe has the answers when it becomes clear to you that you don’t and never will.

-Existence, experience, faith

-I am in a physical body and so things that are also physically observed easily feel like they would fall into objective reality. If we were living in something similar to the matrix then everything that we can physically see and touch would not exist and not be real objects, but I think they would still fall under objective reality to us, since to all of us we can see and feel them and would not be aware that it was not real

-The way you can't disprove very vague and ethereal theories that would suggest you are already in them

-I think, probably, at the core of my belief in objective reality is my belief that if a person is measurably harmed by someone's behavior, that person has an objective responsibility to cease, make right, and prevent that behavior, regardless of how that person perceives their harm.

-The beauty, variety, and intricacy of creation leads me to believe in the objective reality of a creator God.

-A Tesla car has thousands of parts that were designed by creators on purpose to work together for this thing (the car) to work. Humans are a million times more complicated and it is unfathomable to me that we aren’t designed by a Creator

Do you believe our five sense are experiencing objective or subjective reality, Please explain?

-Yes and no. I do believe the physical reality is real. When we touch the table we really are touching something that exist. But

I believe we can’t help superimpose over the objective reality our personal subjective reality. The other filter that we experience

Life through is the limitations of our senses. Other animals experience color sights sounds differently because there sense

Can be more devoloped. So that takes you back to the question who is right, If I see the flower as red and some one else 

(A person or animal) sees it as blue, who as the authority to judge between the two.

-Both. Life can only be experienced as one whole, which is too integrated to differentiate one type of reality from the other

-Yes, but we experience subjective feeling about reality. Clearly apples are eatable, that’s objective reality, but they may not taste delicious to everyone. A person may say “apples are not eatable” because that person hates the taste or texture, but that is not reality, it is the person’s opinion

-Subjective. Not everyone maybe feelings the same things or at the same level

-I guess on a technical level, they subjectively interpret an objective reality. Because theoretically, we all have acess to the same sensory data, but it seems unlikely to me that we all interpret it the same (eg. I have aphantasia, so I imagine I don't experience visual input as objectively as others do).

-Largely subjective though They can totally come into alignment with a piece of truth but not entirely

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 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