On some strange Tuesday

[ted]

About time I posted something.

[georgey]

There is a lot going on here!  I can imagine the enjoyment to spontaneously create music like this.  Some of the sections are quite inventive.  I listened to the first 1:05 several times.  Also 7:03 – 8:20 caught my ear.  Have you ever written a composition that you are particularly fond of, or do you just enjoy “spontaneous creation”?

[ted]

Thanks for listening georgy, pleased some of it appeals to you. Yes, I composed dozens of pieces in earlier years, mostly in romantic, stride or ragtime idioms, for example https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=8852.msg89775#msg89775 but, at around fifty-five, settled on recorded improvisation as my main creative medium. I have discussed the reasons at length elsewhere on the forum, but briefly some of them are:

In the time taken to write out even a halfway decent approximation to ten minutes of what I play I could have recorded three or four improvisations.

Only a very small  number of the rhythms which excite me can be notated at all.

The advent of relatively cheap digital devices which are easy to use and provide very high quality sound.

To compose you must be able to reject ideas. I get thousands of ideas and don't want to reject any of them.

Many of my ideas are generated by spontaneous tactile and haptic components.

In general, structure in the precalculated or imitative sense I find a negative musical property. Form is deeper than structure and I am naturally attracted to a musical stream of consciousness as a generator of working form.

Pieces I have composed tend to end up sounding like those of composers of the past.

 

[georgey]

Thanks for listening georgy, pleased some of it appeals to you. Yes, I composed dozens of pieces in earlier years, mostly in romantic, stride or ragtime idioms, for example https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=8852.msg89775#msg89775 but, at around fifty-five, settled on recorded improvisation as my main creative medium. I have discussed the reasons at length elsewhere on the forum, but briefly some of them are:

In the time taken to write out even a halfway decent approximation to ten minutes of what I play I could have recorded three or four improvisations.

Only a very small  number of the rhythms which excite me can be notated at all.

The advent of relatively cheap digital devices which are easy to use and provide very high quality sound.

To compose you must be able to reject ideas. I get thousands of ideas and don't want to reject any of them.

Many of my ideas are generated by spontaneous tactile and haptic components.

In general, structure in the precalculated or imitative sense I find a negative musical property. Form is deeper than structure and I am naturally attracted to a musical stream of consciousness as a generator of working form.

Pieces I have composed tend to end up sounding like those of composers of the past.

Ted, this is a delightful composition!!    I am thoroughly enjoying listening to this!  I think the question is: Are you trying to entertain yourself or others.  For me personally, I much prefer the composition.  I am a “form” kind of guy.  Without some kind of solid formal structure, I am unable to fully enjoy.  Sounding like composers of the past – in this day, it is impossible not to unless you are trying for some crazy sound.  But I understand your points.  Thanks for sharing this composition!

Edit: Although I may prefer the composition, many or even most others may prefer your improvisations. I wonder how others feel.

Edit2: "To compose you must be able to reject ideas. I get thousands of ideas and don't want to reject any of them." - This is correct!  I think Brahms threw out 20 completed string quartets before keeping the 1st.  He ended up only keeping 2 others.  Brahms had absolutely no regrets for tossing out so much. In the end - ALL gets tossed out unless you are a composer that will be listened to for eternity - Ex Beethoven and Bach will always be listened to.

[georgey]

Ted,  Just so you know - I've listened to this maybe 20 times in a row and I am still smiling ear to ear!    I can't remember the last time I listened to something 20 times in a row!  Maybe 2 years ago when I heard a Brahms piece that was new to me. - A song for Alto, viola and piano, I forget the name.

[ted]

I think the question is: Are you trying to entertain yourself or others. 

I have honestly never thought about that, I don't think I have ever tried to "entertain" anybody.

Without some kind of solid formal structure, I am unable to fully enjoy. 

That is just a valid personal artistic preference. 

Although I may prefer the composition, many or even most others may prefer your improvisations. I wonder how others feel.

A bit of a mixture, probably about 50-50. I usually find that hardly anybody can tell exactly which they are listening to anyway, a fact which was demonstrated by a post somebody made on Pianoworld several years ago. It generated so much antagonism, mainly from the composers, that I think the moderators must have deleted it. A number of recordings were posted, some of which were serious compositions and some were either skilfully improvised imitations or completely free playing. No one had the faintest clue which were which.

"To compose you must be able to reject ideas. I get thousands of ideas and don't want to reject any of them." - This is correct!  I think Brahms threw out 20 completed string quartets before keeping the 1st.  He ended up only keeping 2 others.  Brahms had absolutely no regrets for tossing out so much. In the end - ALL gets tossed out unless you are a composer that will be listened to for eternity - Ex Beethoven and Bach will always be listened to.

I have zero interest in those people or their music, and even less interest in perpetuity. I played a surfeit of classical and jazz in my youth but just grew tired of the usual musical modes of thought and expression. I dare say after I peg out my son will throw most of my music in a jumbo bin; it doesn't bother me.

Curiously, my infatuation with ragtime has persisted over the years, it's the one exception.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35742.msg411461#msg411461

The Blue Boncus Drag is another of my old compositions in a completely different idiom to the other one, but possibly you might like it as it has strict structure. 

[ted]

Ted,  Just so you know - I've listened to this maybe 20 times in a row and I am still smiling ear to ear!    I can't remember the last time I listened to something 20 times in a row!  Maybe 2 years ago when I heard a Brahms piece that was new to me. - A song for Alto, viola and piano, I forget the name.

Good grief, I think you hold the record for that one ! It has been played as an encore by two or three concert pianists who took a fancy to it, can't remember who they were now.  Glad you enjoy it though.

[georgey]

Good grief, I think you hold the record for that one ! It has been played as an encore by two or three concert pianists who took a fancy to it, can't remember who they were now.  Glad you enjoy it though.

I'm glad this piece had an opportunity to be heard by many.  It is a WINNER!

[georgey]

I have zero interest in those people or their music, and even less interest in perpetuity. I played a surfeit of classical and jazz in my youth but just grew tired of the usual musical modes of thought and expression. I dare say after I peg out my son will throw most of my music in a jumbo bin; it doesn't bother me.

Curiously, my infatuation with ragtime has persisted over the years, it's the one exception.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35742.msg411461#msg411461

The Blue Boncus Drag is another of my old compositions in a completely different idiom to the other one, but possibly you might like it as it has strict structure.

You have zero interest in a great Bach fugue or a great Beethoven piano sonata?  The day this happens to me, something major is going on with me like deafness or death.

Sorry, these other 2 compositions are a 1 time listener for me.  Music is a personal experience.  My son might love Jimmy Hendrix and I find this music does nothing for me.  So who is right, me or my son?  Answer: There is no right answer.

I will say this: From the other composition that I listened to 20 times, there is no doubt that you have a great ear for music.  But then you don't like Bach or Beethoven?  I am having a little trouble reconciling this.  Do you like Debussy Image #1?

[ted]

The Debussy's all right I suppose, I could certainly sit through it, put it that way, unlike all that old German stuff, which has done absolutely nothing for me for decades. I see nothing to reconcile, georgey, a given individual likes some sounds and not others, it has no universal significance and any attempt to find reasons is probably pointless. If pushed on the matter I think I had an overdose of classical and jazz as a child and teenager, but it's just conjecture. My experience on the two forums for the last seventeen years has confirmed in my own mind that I am neither musician nor pianist in most accepted senses of those words. As long as I keep out of arguments and just post the occasional recording I'll be safe !

Here you are, it's a lot easier than it looks:

[ted]

And the last page:

[georgey]

The Debussy's all right I suppose, I could certainly sit through it, put it that way, unlike all that old German stuff, which has done absolutely nothing for me for decades. I see nothing to reconcile, georgey, a given individual likes some sounds and not others, it has no universal significance and any attempt to find reasons is probably pointless. If pushed on the matter I think I had an overdose of classical and jazz as a child and teenager, but it's just conjecture. My experience on the two forums for the last seventeen years has confirmed in my own mind that I am neither musician nor pianist in most accepted senses of those words. As long as I keep out of arguments and just post the occasional recording I'll be safe !

Here you are, it's a lot easier than it looks:

Thanks Ted!  I wasn't sure what the time signature was while listening - I see it has none!  EDIT: Mostly 4 [8]  beats per measure.

This is a CHARMING COMPOSITION and your performance is PERFECT and ADDS to the CHARM! 

I have a little hard time following the jumps in the score, but the form from listening appeared to be ABAB' with coda.  THANKS FOR SHARING THIS GEM!!!

[ted]

My shorthand rule is:

Start at the beginning.
Play until 1. with an arrow and jump to 1. without an arrow
Play until 2. with an arrow and jump to 2. without an arrow
.
.
.
And so on until the end.

I am lazy, I hate writing things out even once, let alone twice or more !

[aclaussen]

If you had to teach someone how to do this what would you tell them? What are you thinking about? Specifically in terms of harmony? If you had to just break down the first minute of what you did... sounds like Scriabin. Do you have a picked out chord progression or something or are you picking them out as you go? Is there something you're looking at while doing, perhaps an existing score?

Call of The Hundred Islands is great, would benefit hugely from a nicer recording set up imo. Love the composition but the recording setup kind of reminded me of those Art Tatum records, the recording quality leaves something to be desired. But the recording quality is part of what makes those recordings great, maybe something similar is going on with your recording, however definitely curious what it'd sound like mic'ed by a pro. I haven't been able to figure that out either.

[ted]

If you had to teach someone how to do this what would you tell them? What are you thinking about? Specifically in terms of harmony? If you had to just break down the first minute of what you did... sounds like Scriabin. Do you have a picked out chord progression or something or are you picking them out as you go? Is there something you're looking at while doing, perhaps an existing score?

Call of The Hundred Islands is great, would benefit hugely from a nicer recording set up imo. Love the composition but the recording setup kind of reminded me of those Art Tatum records, the recording quality leaves something to be desired. But the recording quality is part of what makes those recordings great, maybe something similar is going on with your recording, however definitely curious what it'd sound like mic'ed by a pro. I haven't been able to figure that out either.

The second paragraph is the easier to answer. The recording was made with a tape recorder twenty years ago then written to a CD, so no, the quality is not optimal. I suppose I should really make better recordings of all my old compositions but so far I have been too lazy.

If you had to teach someone how to do this what would you tell them?

That is highly dependent on the individual. I have only attempted it twice, the first being surprisingly successful but the second less so. It isn't like learning and playing pieces, where a task is clearly defined over a short time period. It is a lifelong creative habit which takes a long time, sometimes decades, to acquire and which never stops developing and changing. It is easier to say what I would not do, and that is to tell somebody what notes to play. That is the fatal mistake in all the tutorials on the internet. The first objective would be to get a flow going, exactly what idiom and what notes don't matter. There are numerous ways of approaching this, depending on the individual's taste in music, what sounds he or she likes, lots of possibilities. You are dealing with complete artistic freedom and an infinity of choices. Many people trained in orthodox fashion, even to a brilliant level, perhaps more so the accomplished ones, find complete freedom impossibly daunting. Therefore I would probably place some sort of arbitrary restriction to get them going until a flow became second nature. Exactly what that would be depends on the person. No use forcing someone to play imitation baroque on three scales if it isn't to their taste.

What are you thinking about?

The seemingly flippant but true answer is "not a lot", at least not in the sense of completely conscious, logical volition. I usually answer this question with a mathematical analogy. It's a bit like chaotic processes such as pendulums and other algorithmic pattern generators and functions. The idea is to reach that rather special state wherein an endless stream of unpredictable yet interesting events occurs. Too few mental feedback loops result in fully determined, stable, clever improvisation which mostly lacks life and interest. Too much feedback results in instability and apparent randomness. These extremes are equally dull but in different ways. I hasten to add that these thoughts, as far as I know, are original and might make little sense to musicians.

Specifically in terms of harmony?

That is difficult to answer because harmony is just one of a number of musical properties, each of which provides feedback to all the others. Of course, over the years I have assimilated a large number of note combinations, just like I have found very many physical techniques and haptic associations. I was no different to anybody learning music in terms of these components of playing, it's what everyone does. Hearing music as a series of chords is an option, and like all creative options can be indulged or restricted depending on the music.

Is there something you're looking at while doing, perhaps an existing score?

No, never, I can be definite about that one.

Do you have a picked out chord progression or something or are you picking them out as you go?

I hardly ever think in terms of either chords or chord progressions for the reason that I have never understood why any particular chord should imply the following one. My poor old teacher did his best with me but gave up in the end. I simply do not understand theory at all, put it that way.

I am sorry if all this offers little practical explanation. I rarely know what I am doing at the best of times. Had I been any good at classical or jazz I probably wouldn't be playing this sort of stuff at all.
     

[ranjit]

It's a bit like chaotic processes such as pendulums and other algorithmic pattern generators and functions. The idea is to reach that rather special state wherein an endless stream of unpredictable yet interesting events occurs. Too few mental feedback loops result in fully determined, stable, clever improvisation which mostly lacks life and interest. Too much feedback results in instability and apparent randomness. These extremes are equally dull but in different ways. I hasten to add that these thoughts, as far as I know, are original and might make little sense to musicians.

Just wanted to say that the way I think of improvising is quite similar! I think it is a very computer science-y way of thinking about it. If I recall correctly, you worked as a programmer at some point? You mentioned as a response to one of my comments a while ago that the Turing test was irrelevant to one's enjoyment of music. I think that the idea of having some kind of "controlled randomness" akin to algorithmic pattern generators seems like a very "CS" way of approaching music. It's a bit hard to express; I hope I'm making sense here!

[ted]

Yes, quite clear. I have had this private notion for decades that spontaneous creation is actually chaotic (in the mathematical sense of that word) brain activity. Things appear to take on a life of their own once the process gets under way. It's all rather like Douglas Hofstadter's idea that self-reference might lie at the heart of consciousness. Of course this would not be romantic enough for most musicians, many of whom assert that something outside, such as a supernatural being, is using them as a channel, for example Jarrett maintains that this is so. However, I have seen no good argument that this sensation itself cannot be generated within the mind.

To take a simple analogy, the sensation of extreme familiarity in dreams and deja-vu in waking hours is often accorded a mystical explanation of one sort or another. It does not seem to occur to people that the actual sensation itself might be a creation of the brain, which is more than capable of imposing it onto any sensory data. For me, this conjecture in no way detracts from the magic of music or anything else. 

[ranjit]

As I see it, there is a particular function of the brain where it "connects the dots". I think this state of mind (which is often referred to as 'flow') is behind most kinds of creative activity, and learning in general to an extent. It is the aha moment you get when you suddenly understand a concept, or suddenly make a leap of reasoning to find an unexpected solution. However, I do not believe it is chaotic in the true sense of the word (neurons firing randomly). That would be an epileptic seizure!

Godel Escher Bach is one of my favorite books! I read it about the time I started college. Douglas Hofstader is brilliant!

[ted]

No, quite right, "chaos" was a very unfortunate choice of name for the science. Mathematical chaos  is fully determined but unpredictable, randomness is a different thing altogether. Yes, Hofstadter is always very entertaining. Mind you, I found his analogous explanation of Godel more difficult to wade through than the actual idea, which is rather simple. I found Turing's paper much clearer, but of course not as entertaining as Hofstadter's book. Along with people like Feynman, he has the rare gift of being able to explain difficult ideas to untrained audiences.