Dynamic Music Theory

 

Imagine an orchestra.  The instruments of the musicians in the orchestra are pebbles, bamboo sticks, a bucket of water, strings attached to a wood, jug, glass glasses, hammer, nail, saw, grater, wind chime and birds flying in the hall.  Now you are asked to write an essay for this orchestra.  How will you write?  How can you create a notation for this orchestra that is not chorded to the 440 Hz standard even though you have spent all of our training to learn the standard music theory and make music for standard orchestras?  Your entire career and years of accumulation on the 440 Hz standard A sound does not help you write a composition for these simple instruments.  Or let's say they came to you with an offer like this.  There is a forest.  There are trees, birds, flying insects, the river in it.  You were asked to note the sounds of the forest on a rainy day and were offered $ 10 million in return.  Can you note the forest?  The number offered is quite large.  Alluring.  But how will you do it?

OK.  Today's music is like abstract painting.  Maybe a math pattern can be created at the end.  So would this pattern work in the first place?  If it worked, wouldn't all musical works be nearly identical?  So what makes the difference in abstract painting?  Is it enough to say the painter's life experience, feelings and thoughts?  What makes the painting abstract?

Could it be that what makes the painting abstract is that it is not possible to explain the subject that the painter wants to tell in terms of object origin?  Could it be that he also needed to discover undertones that had never been used before?  A similar situation is like it cannot be explained with the methods, melodies and rhythms known in modern music.  The composer describes the subject with previously unused articulations and sounds.

Some anthropomorphic and zoomorphic instruments of pre-Columbian America

Ocarina from the North Pacific and flute from the Caribbean, both 500 BC - 300 AD

Bells and rattle, both 300 BC to 300 AD


These were important musical instruments for the Pre-Columbian culture. Music is a form of communication. It is actually the origin of the language. Each language contains a musical form in itself. It has its own rhythm. However, the tuning of these instruments is different from the 440 Hz we know today. Of course, the people who produced music with these instruments did not hear the voices differently than we do. However, the methods of expression were different. From this point of view, there are different instruments and different notation methods in all main cultures of the world. In Turkish music, for example, there are 9 intermediate voices between two sounds (F and G). They call this "koma".

Since the subject is dynamic music theory, it should include all known music genres and notations, as well as abstract music or music in a style and method that has never been done before, or provide them with a vision. Otherwise, the scope of dynamic music theory would not have covered all of human music again. But what is needed is to include all the music. It should even be able to go beyond this and have the flexibility to express natural sounds.

Although the notation I mentioned resembles the notation structure of Chinese music, it is clear that it does not include contemporary abstract music and/or natural sounds.
#1 Chinese music

#2 Chinese musicology

What I meant by Dynamic Music Theory was not a purely mathematical expression of music. However, it is clear that some regulations are necessary. Music theorists have tried to adapt music entirely to series, geometry, and differential geometry. As a result, it is of course possible to explain the pattern of a work with a mathematical structure. But the formation phase from start to finish may not be mathematics. Music cannot be expressed as mathematics throughout. This is mainly because thoughts and emotions do not always move according to a math sequence. The point I try to emphasize is that all sounds are music and / or any object can be used as a musical instrument. Therefore, while the current music theory cannot cover these, it is not possible for it to lead to the music of the future and to form a vision.

While we do not advocate that the new music theory we will develop will be entirely mathematical; I argue that it must be parallel with science. Sounds are the subject of physics. In physics, all sound patterns can be expressed and calculated. Therefore, I tried to express that a musical theory can be developed parallel to physics by including semiology. I look at the subject from this point of view.

I think I've written enough explanation about why Dynamic Music Theory is necessary. No one can stand alone under the new music theory with such wide scope. (No one can handle such a comprehensive new music theory alone.)

Let's go back to the rainforest project and try to examine the sounds here. According to the music theory we have, we have 12 tones (sounds). It is not possible to score the sounds we hear in such a narrow space of theory of music. If we use the Turkish music system; There are 9 intermediate sounds between the two sounds. Unfortunately this is not enough in the system. Because there is actually an infinite number of frequencies between the two sounds. In other words, there is an infinite amount of intermediate tones between the two sounds. The number of frequencies between F and G is infinite when there is contemporary abstract music or when there are natural sounds.

The way to overcome this problem would be to use frequencies. We cannot solve this with familiar symbols that point to a very limited range of sounds. At this point, I am not saying let's use the wave equations. Of course, with a complete analysis, it is theoretically possible to calculate all sounds, frequencies, decibels and the reflected sound waves in the forest to which object they generate sound waves. However, even if we know that we can achieve a perfect result when we turn music into a complete theory of physics, we lose the practice of using it. For this reason, it should be the first step to increase the number of sounds in the two sound ranges to a level that will not lose its practicality, while reserving the power of physics in some projects when necessary. Indeed, the purpose of the discussion here is not to give a complete theory of music. On the contrary, it is to give clues about the scope of dynamic music theory and to emphasize new visions and horizons that it will open to the understanding of music. The issue of how sign language will be and how it can be adapted more easily is an area that should be discussed extensively. 

If we leave aside the issue of how those instruments with fixed and limited frequency range can develop over time and reach intermediate tones; I question how we should focus on the frequency range of natural objects or the violin reaching infinite intermediate tones between 196 Hz and 659.3 Hz. The failure of graphic notation comes from the weakness of the information transmission capacity depending on the usage pattern. It did not bring much flexibility to the notation (for example it is not possible to indicate 441.108 Hz in graphic notation which means it is impossible to show 24 semitones in graphic. If semitones reach to 72TET than again it is fully impossible to draw it in graphic notation. Graphic notation is a kind of |×| Gestalt effect on 24 or more semitones in abstract contemporary. it is impossible to indicate 440.17 Hz for example.). In terms of richness of expression, very little did go beyond classical notation. Individual ones could not provide a clear statement. It closed the wide door that it could open as a result of combining it with standard notation. What kind of benefit did it bring to notation for instance between the sounds (frequencies) C & D? I don't know what kind of symbol language should be for Dynamic Music Theory. However, it is clear that the symbol language must be compatible with the frequencies. I think that the features of sound waves other than the frequency such as decibel, pitch, wavelength, pressure, velocity, distribution area, density, aeroacoustics, bioacoustics and psychophysics qualities will be very useful in some cases.

* Personally I solve notation problem with spectogram notation. I use freq.and decibels. If needed than I add Penderecki graphic notation signs.

Links may help for traditional articulation : 

Audible frequency range of musical instruments and the human voice.

Piano key frequencies

It is clear that in order to give a vision to the music of today and the future, it is necessary to have a dynamic, plasticity, non-rigid, non-solid and compatible theory.

A brief evaluation:

While all genres of music in the classical understanding give people an unreal aesthetics, peace and joy, and accelerate the separation of people from nature and reality, contemporary abstract music criticizes and emphasizes the separation of the human being with the atonal sounds it offers, and also criticizes reverse evolution of human being into wild  conformism; High-level works produced with natural sounds emphasize the importance of the way humans return to nature and reality.

"If the letters of the alphabet were sufficient, the language of mathematics would not be born" Avni Erbey

Discussion:

For notation, we can draw a scale between 20Hz and 20KHz frequency horizontal lines, mark the partitions including decimal notation and write symbols on it. But the question is, what are the counterparts of these frequencies in instruments? Have musicians been trained for this technique? Also, how are decimal frequencies obtained by using the instrument? What is the detail articulation and its corresponding frequency range? It is a huge project to analyze all of these on instruments and to train musicians. It may not be sufficient to write the notation on the frequency scale and add accent symbols.

Link : HERTZ, CENT AND DECIBEL
Link : Equal temperament

First step of Dynamic Music Theory : Vortex Music Theory

What is the role of art?  : What is the role of art?

Vortex Music Theory

While expressing this theory, the point I take as basis is against tonality, chromatic structures, dominant voices and chords; it was not to flatter the atonal understanding. On the contrary, my point is; It was to emphasize that music is not different from spoken language or sounds we hear in nature, deep space sounds, or inner voices of planets and stars. When I tried to express this, the first step in Vortex Music Theory, regardless of the main pattern, was to enrich the effect of expressing it together with its retrograde both in terms of polyphony and at the same time to reflect the expression "a timelessness" to the language of music as in nature and the universe.

If I will explain the main idea a little more; nature and the universe are not concerned with tonality or atonality. It expresses its own feature and structure in a timeless process. For example, when you listen to a river, you hear that the sounds do not differ as forward or backward. Or, when you listen to the inner sounds of the sun from Nasa recordings, you find a similar sound structure. However, what happens is that voices in every situation describe their inner structure, themselves, and what is happening in them. For this, by making long and detailed studies; It is understood that the sounds caused by the molecular activity tell what they say. In short, they tell their stories in a timeless process. The listener hears a hum and strangely enjoys it. When you listen to the sounds of the forest, you will hear full polyphony. It is an average hum. This hum, while describing the forest itself; we enjoy it again. In Vortex Music Theory, sound waves overlapping each other create a similar sub-humming sound. But they also hear opposing melodies in a dual "process of timelessness".

Language is unidirectional phenomenon. Points only a time in the past OR Now OR a time in the future. Art and music use the same philosophy. What if we can talk past, now and future in the same sentence? Vortex Music Theory solves that phenomenon.

Where did man reach in the language of art from multi gods religious days to modern days?

Vortex Music Theory indicates multidimensional polyphony. Polyphony is a type of musical texture consisting of two or more simultaneous lines of independent melody, as opposed to a musical texture with just one voice, monophony, or a texture with one dominant melodic voice accompanied by chords, homophony. Vortex Music Theory carries polyphony to advanced polyphonic level which means simultaneous multidimensional "timeless note at a point in universe".

For example, musical language of universe and earth itself has timeless texture. If we get musical language of deep space or sun or a river, wind on earth than we hear multidimensional sound. However human musical language is unidirectional which shows monodimensional understanding. 12 tones, atonal and even abstract textures can not solve that main issue in musical language.

The abstract art language is a combination of primitive, plain language and psychedelic expression made in the early ages.
He copied what he saw first. Then he conveyed his sense of what he saw. Then he expressed both together. Then he expressed it again with the color spree. Then he removed the object; color left. And finally reached the painting technique of the caveman.
He took the hippies out of the LSD effect and expressed them together. That's all the history of art. So he decided to go back to where he first started. The musical language was no different from this line. Because to go beyond what art philosophy can offer, to go outside could not be different for composers. There was no other way he could see...

However the reality is different. The pattern has all details in the moment. From universe to solar system; from earth life to individual. Earth life contains all species and inanimate particules such as air, water, earth, wind. Because we know no species can live without them which means all is one!

Where can we reach? A timeless moment all in one!

In addition; If you have the most super computer but you know fortran computer language. what can you program? A calculator. But if you know an object oriented language than you can program VR Box scenes which cause to question the reality.

What does it mean?
Computer is same but language is different!
Vortex Music Theory contains 2 different direction sounds.

1. Normal play. From the first note to end which means from the beginning to end. Main possible series.

2. Backward playing (Retrograde). I have re-organized the notes of the partition from end to beginning which means the last note in normal play became the first note in backward play.

2i. Corresponding wavelengths. Forward & Backward playing causes corresponding wavelength. 

a - first piano sound

b - second piano sound (Retrograde)

When a and b overlap they form the "c" sound pattern. Those in the same direction strengthen each other. Those in the opposite direction cause damping. hence the "d" sound model emerges. That is where I express sound "hum". However, since "d" is not dominant, it is not heard in the foreground. Our ears hear and our brains notice, of course, it can only be "a" or "b" with a focused "c" state at the conscious level or selective hearing.

3. If you would like to use Vortex techique than the problematic part is synchronization of the notes and timing of playing the instrument.

This technique gives us vortex language or bidirectional in language without time! If you hear the beginning and the end at the same time (in a moment) than time is meaningless. If you can talk (today in musical language) bidirectional than you can express both ways in a moment now & future OR past and future. Future is becoming past and past is becoming future.

Vortex Play
Example ii:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yracPeNUi0U

Example 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJlsUPxMoQ

One of the examples I used while trying to explain Vortex Music Theory. Here the expression is bilateral and voiced simultaneously. The hum you hear in the background is a sampled form of overlapping sound waves. Since I do not have devices to separate these sound waves, I have expressed them as an example.

Example 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDbd3iMzCb8
Example 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHp69Iewv_Q

Vortex Music Theory effect on scores with complex sentences.

Example 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMny0fyVD08

Example 7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdDm5k3-hWU&t=7s

Question : Can we use only 1 instrument while following vortex theory?

Answer : You can use any number of instrument for vortex music theory. However you  have two partitions for each instrument so there should be two different recording OR if it is live performance than there should be two similar instrument on the stage. One plays forward and the other plays backward. 

if you want to play both partitions at the same instrument at the same time than you need to transpose one of those partitions.

Example : I have transposed the backward partition and played together at the same piano at the same time.

Result : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOYGTe00Hc

If you would like to use vortex music theory for smyphonic orhestra than there are two possibilities.

#1 Make double the orchestra
#2 Divide instruments for forward and backward partitions.

In both cases perfect unison is a must.

Example 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0HTeptyAIU
Example 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dswFCoTIP8
(Some pencil touches may be required in the symphonic orchestra. I didn't touch any note but used Vortex Theory directly to the composition.)
* Orchestra is not playing Vortex at the same time in this example. I have recorded both plays and merged the records. A deep concentration is required for live performance and perhaps two maestro.

For rock bands the technique may create a mass, a full noise. I don't think hard rock bands can use vortex music theory if it is not a ballad song. On the other hand rock, pop etc bands have a singer. If they want to use vortex tech than there will be 2 singers; one sing the lyrics from beginning to end and the other from end to beginning. Again this may create a full noise. May be they can try...

Notation and Instruments

We have traditional local instruments and classical instruments to make music. However instruments create the limits of our musical language. Further more any physical object can be musical instrument such as table, chain. Beyond that all species have musical language such as birds, trees, cactus, wind, sea, planets, stars etc.

All those describe to us that music is much wider than we understand. 7 notes or 12 tones are not enough to write down the musical language and transfer to others. We can not write down the notation of stones or cactus or walking or rain or wind etc. How can we write down all sounds into notation and transfer to others. Graphical notation is not enough also. 

Because in physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid. It has frequency, pitch, duration, impedance, loudness, tibre, pressure, velocity. We need to use correct definitions of each sound which is numbers. All those numbers easily can be calculated and used as notation. If we can not find the correct object to use than we have electronic equipments "synthesizers" to create the same sound with formulated numbers "freq+pitch+velocity+duration+impedance+pressure......." for example "20+12+50+1sec+....." or a symbol + required numbers. Notation technique should be discussed and come to a consensus point.

The only requirement is to accept those numbers and use altogether. 

The reference book will not be problem to create once all of us accepted as new notation! 

Maybe I can give the example of the large hadron collider at CERN for a better understanding of Vortex Music Theory or technique. Two particles collide and the resulting decays are examined at those experiments. These studies allow us to better understand and analyze the internal structure of nature. In Vortex Music Theory, the same sounds (composition) come from different directions and collide & decay. It is just like two protons coming from different directions and colliding & decaying. While CERN experiments open the doors of the quantum world to us, the vortex music theory opens the door to the world of quantum music.

Conclusion

We have all assumed only particles have spin direction in quantum mechanics and we can not use that principle in our daily lives. However I think we can use it in music then perhaps in our daily language in the future. "Vortex Music Theory" is a kind of chemical bond technique like Pauli principle on chemical bonding. Each electron has a different direction spinning to able to bond;  otherwise impossible. New chemical bonds gives us different possibilities so I called Vortex Music Theory because this technique gives us more colorful and rich possibilities rather than static music theories. I have also added some philosophy on it and re-interpretten into time understanding. Because we all believe (but no scieintific evidence rather than swiss made clock) time flows in one direction. Now we can hear definitely time flows in two direction; from past to future and from future to past which causes "time" meaningless, useless, nonsense while listening more colorful & full rich music. Vortex Music Theory allows to reinterpret all the musical works ever made.

As a last word : enjoy :)

"nobody has said avant-garde is easy but different and colorful" Avni Erbey