Actual Possibilities

Music Theory: Actualities vs. Possibilities

“What is musical reality? What is a musical actuality?” I’ve come to ask myself these questions in light of student concerns, interests and presentations specifically stemming from this year’s Pedagogy of Theory class.

Theory itself is too abstract, non-relevant—the primary concern is that which will achieve immediate results in classroom and lesson settings, with Performance ultimately the main locus focus of attention.  Indeed, we, as the members of the Theory Department, say in our collective syllabi…

“Coursework should be thought of as not only classroom activity, but also as small-scale, highly-focused versions of musical reality.”  

In all honesty, this is meant to encourage students to prepare solfege and part-writing homework with the utmost attention to detail and musicality.  Thoughts of similar ilk seem to be an over-riding concern among those who teach theory these days: not Theory itself, but rather its practical application.   If preparing homework is akin to preparing for a lesson or a performance, is that an end in its own right?

This is a minor third, and you play/sing/hear it this way.  This is an eighth-note, and you feel it this way.  These types of approaches are undoubtedly well-intentioned but ultimately self-defeating, opening several different cans-of-worms. Will performances and hearings of these things be the same in all contexts and styles on all instruments and voices?

This train of thought is actually contrary to historical evidence (which mostly suggests the reverse…) and perhaps may ultimately harm music by stunting creativity from within the field… (has it already?)

I suggest that folks are too performance-biased, unwilling slaves to the literature—RE-creationists!  Is that actually a useful result?  There are useful aspects of that kind of thinking, but performance cannot be THE result, instead is has to be the beginning!  The equation needs to be revisited, or re-calibrated so that Performance rather marks the entry point of the Theory cycle…

…ultimately raising and addressing the following questions:

What was that?  Did that work?  How did it work?  Why did it work?  Is it duplicable?    Is it comparable?  Is there a model?  Has is developed from some previous form?  Can I make it work in the same way?  Can I improve upon that?  Can I further develop that?  WHAT’S NEXT?!?!

Theory is not solely preparation for musical actualities, but also it is there to introduce and explore musical possibilities!  Not just re-creation, because then the art form is dead, but rather….

Distillation/Reduction:

  • Guido d’Arezzo     —   compose with only one pitch per vowel
  • J.J. Fux           —         think/hear/teach in whole-note species
  • J.S. Bach Chorales — quarter-note reductions of harmonic-phrase units
  • Heinrich Scheker   —  think/hear/teach with unending variations and prolongations of cadential templates
  • Nicholas Slonimsky — propose over 1,000 new kinds of scales

Note that thes above list includes methods and techniques that are often SEVERAL SCALES OF MAGNIFICATION REMOVED FROM MUSICAL ACTUALITIES MANY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN RIGOROUSLY TESTED VIA
Experimentation—Assumptions that get tested, Questions that get asked:

  • How far can you stretch a minor third?  On a piano, clarinet, or natural horn?  In the blues?  As the combination of two sine tones?
  • How far can you push and pull an eighth-note? In the style of Bach or Wagner?  In Dixieland, Sing, Bop or Funk? In different tempos? As a discrete unit of time?  As a pulsation of Acoustic Beats?

COMPOSITIONS that push forward instead of regurgitating.
PERFORMANCES that address issues or ask questions.
IMPROVISATIONS that allow real-time explorations.
ANALYSES that  inspire better listening/hearing/imagining.
TEACHING that explains actualities, yet opens the door for further possibilities…

Evidence suggests that teaching is one of the most important things that separates humans from apes, the ability to deliberately (not just imitatively) pass on a skill.  Beyond that basic definition, “part of teaching is being able to coordinate your attention with another person’s attention” and that, I think, is also a pretty fair definition of music.  The highest aim of any art is to express & share a viewpoint, that is… to teach!

All in all, the point of Theory is to not to restrict one goal’s along a unidirectional path, but rather to provide students the means to traverse the self-aware feedback loop that is MUSIC.

© 2013 Peter J. Evans, theorist

ZAPPA’S LUMPIEST

FIRST: What is gravy? Generally, it’s a sauce for meat made from it’s own juices with flavors and thickeners added to taste…  
Lumpy Gravy is the result of mis-mixture, or perhaps the abundance of flour, or the addition of cool water instead of warm water—
Typically, Lumpy Gravy is not a desired result, though some do crave it for nostalgia “Just like Mom’s!” or for the heterogeneous ‘pearls of flavor’…

SECOND: Zappa was initially commissioned to compose/conduct a work for Capitol Records, and as such Lumpy Gravy was actually recorded, printed, and briefly released ready early in 1967…

Shortly after MGM/Verve, the label for the Mothers of Invention, filled suit prohibiting its release on Capitol.  Zappa then re-edited the material for its subsequent official release in May 1968…

Though one can here many orchestral similarities, the original material has been re-cut and reordered, and there is now a vocal element, that is spoken bits of dialogue. Though basically random snippets of friends, family and hangers-on talking into a well-reverberating piano, the listener grows used to such voices and types of dialogue, perhaps creating a narrative where none was intended…
(BTW: Lumpy Gravy there is actually a third version, this one is also pre-1968, similar, yet different, with much more improvisation and generally jazziness:
)

THIRD: ANALYSIS, part 1: James Borders in his article “Form and the Concept Album: Aspects of Modernism in Frank Zappa’s Early Releases (Perspectives of New Music Vol.39nO.1 (Winter, 2011), pp. 118-160) analyzes the first side of Lumpy Gravy as a Rondo form, largely due to the recurrences of “Oh, No” throughout the album…

According to Borders this tune returns twice, though it has been sped up, retrograde, etc. (Ex.3, pp. 130-133).  Intermixed with this tune are tidbits of what Borders calls ‘Varesiana,’ ‘Weberniana’ and ‘Stravinksiana’ in hommage to Zappa’s three favorite classical composers, Edgard Varese, Anton Webern and Igor Stravinsky. There are also found samples of non-Zappa pre-recorded music and eletronic treaments of various sorts

FOURTH: ANALYSIS, part 1: Borders’s rondo-form analysis is tantalizing, especially given similar structures found in Charles Ives’ “General William Booth Enters unto Heaven.”  A drawback to this might make us think Zappa was using classical forms as such, but I  instead encouraging folks to think collage or montage, more like film or a plastic art OR remind folks the Rondo form was initially a popular vocal form before it was a serious classical form…

As a MAM—dude 4eva, I hear many influences beyond, the three mentioned above—Varese of course being the most important, as he was the premier sonic collage collagist par excellence…. For (some of) those influences, see the ‘map’ below, and no more need be said…
…except of course to note that however ‘serious’ we perceive Zappa to be, he was always at least equal measure ‘silly’…
…and Lumpy Gravy is perhaps the best example of… that…

 

© 2013 Peter J. Evans, theorist