Re: [microsound] Re:autechre/richard devine//techniques

[Alexandra Hettergott <a.hettergott@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, me latecomer (re Jonah Dempcy in answer to Michal Seta) :
>> No!  The study of theory (not basic but advanced) gives you the skill
>> to objectively look at a piece of music and FIND OUT the logic within
>> it (if there is one).
>and what is this logic?
>this logic has been placed there by the theory itself. it does not
>exist outside of the music theory, or rather inside of the music.
Well, the theory provides the (external) reference system with regard to
this very inherent "logic" (i.e. also : similarities, repetition of
motive( cell)s, etc.) ; btw the fact that you can (theoretically)
discuss about "Edim7" vs. "C# dim" chords is already an indication for
some usefulness of this (some) concept ...

>> To the degree that is necessary.  And necessity come with usage.
>so something is useful because it is used?
Absolutely not, there are lots of examples of things _not_ being
auto-justifying with respect to just their mere existence/usage ; take
just some rule/law, for instance (or the American constitution...) that
does exist by _convention_ only finding so _some_ justification with
relation to its formerly being established (and sort of historically
proven), but the fact that it does exist alone is yet no justification
for its existence ... (any convention is necessary ?) ...

>> Bartok wrote his music, then he went back to look at it and derived
>> his logic.
>> Schoenberg did the opposite with the serial theory.
Well, he did invent a theory that did well serve his very
(compositional) purpose ...

In general I'd state that being aware of music basics can be useful yet
isn't vital to composers while it is indispensable to musicologists ...

:ah

ps -- as to (literary) leitmotifs (> R Wagner) which can also be found
in Thomas Mann, for instance (having himself been Wagnerian).