Answering Further Objections to "The Semantolkino'hara and It's Applications"

   The content of my book The Semantolkino'hara and Its Applications has being wrongly criticized by people lately on just a couple points (I tend to have rabbit ears- that's a foible of mine I guess). The points comprising the flawed criticism are 1) the voice-leading of the examples in chapter one are not "airtight"  2) the choice of a specific harmonic progression as the main "template" (over other readjustments of the rows) seems too arbitrary or subjective. The next edition will answer these objections, and since I've already written out those answers to include in that edition, I will just provide those sections publicly right here. (for those who want it before the third edition, the second is available here .

"A NEW WAY TO THINK ABOUT PART-WRITING/ VOICE LEADING

   The examples at the beginning of the book in Chapter One do not reflect perfect four part voice leading, because this whole book started as a small experiment to combine the rows in question and see if they worked together. I initially just intended to write an article or short paragraph about my discovery and leave at that. What happened was, the more that I wrote, the more I realized about the extraordinary nature of the materials I was working with. The first efforts were experiments, not finished products. So therefore, the first chapter has an exploratory nature, and the examples just intend to show how close the experiments got to perfect products at the outset from having just combined the lines, performed some voice exchanges, and fleshed out the fourth line. Because the harmonies are being approached from a linear technique, we would not expect them to reflect the most excellent harmonic part-writing.

   After reflecting upon the ethos of what I was doing in producing the examples, and in having to explain it to others, I realized that a new way of thinking about part writing could be brought about from this effort as well. The procedure I was using to produce the examples was striking a balance between keeping the integrity of the original lines and between obeying tradition. The result is something that has a rock and roll quality to it.

   This new way of thinking about part writing could involve symbolism as a pedagogical tool. Traditional part writing rules can be thought of as "legalities of society" and the harmony can be thought of as morals and decency or ethics (perhaps "convention, tradition, ettiquite and normalcy are better to say than "legalities." I would advocate obeying the law). Keeping to the original rows is "integrity." (To keep it simple, the three categories are convention, ethics, and integrity). So basically (to use this symbolism to describe how the examples were written) when decency or ethics called for it, the legalities [or conventions] were broken. To give an example of a traditionally unacceptable contravention which would be acceptable under these new guidelines, the first parallel octave B -  C in the first example outlines part of one of the God's name spellings as if to give it emphasis. Keeping the integrity of the line there takes higher priority than kowtowing to conventional practice.

   The book Great Composer as Teacher and Student: Theory and Practice of Composition by Alfred Mann (published by Dover, 1987) has much to say about theory vs. practice in this capacity. When practice becomes theorized it becomes abstracted from the realm of practice. The author talks about how music theory didn't come about until the late 18th century. Before that, the equivalent thing was called "speculation.” The extent of how much things have changed through time is demonstrated by the fact that the Fux examples in the book look nothing to me like what we think of as fugues today, yet they were considered as fine examples of contrapuntal style in the Baroque era (were considered as examples of "fugal writing" for real). Suffice to say, the new approach or way of thinking that I am talking about here (above) might be a very old way brought to light again. Then again the templates here do not sound at all like Fux.

ANSWERING THE CHALLENGE THAT THE CHOICE OF A SPECIFIC COMBINATION AS THE HARMONY FOR THE MAIN TEMPLATE IS ARBITRARY (the re-adjustable nature of the rows makes other combinations feasible as well, so why that one?)

   "To give an analogy as the answer, imagine a master chef who wants to develop his best special blend of herbs and spices for his Louisiana Chicken- a blend so revolutionary that he could patent it. Once he stumbles upon one specific good combination, he realizes that the spice blend as a substance has more than one use or function, and those functions extend outside the realm of the culinary industry. The substance can aid in fixing carburetors, aids in cold fusion, is a more excellent sanding agent for surfboards, and neutralizes the side effects of ingested alcohol. (now all of this is a hypothetical analogy, people.Think before you criticize) There would be no need to justify the subjectivity level of the method used to bring about such a discovery (given that the chef acted only ethically), since the end result compound has so many practical uses in reality. Those practical uses can always be solidified, verified, and justified objectively and according industry standards for each and every field involved. So, what I'm advocating for is utilitarian sensibility with ethical good sense. The potential of the combination for the template (diagram 1) was originally just recognized for its potential, by me subjectively."  [endquote]

   All right, people. If you want to keep criticizing, you will just cause me to further refine and refine the material until it is pristine, immaculate, and beyond reproach.