Negative Rhythms?

Hey Mr.Coleman,
Thank you very much for the class yesterday at SIM. It was very intense, and the most engaging masterclass we have had so far. I thought it was very well organized as far as playing vs. explaining, and I had a great time clapping and singing through everything. I am writing because you told us outside the SIM building to email you with any questions we might have. I have one: what did you mean by negative rhythm? Did you mean taking a certain pattern and playing it backwards? or some sort of palindrome cycle? What are some examples of negative rhythm?

The term negative is just a polarity term for positive, and it may not be the best word since it has ‘bad’ connotations for most people. What I am really into could be best described as correlative thought (associative thinking) and polarity.

The negative rhythm thing is a matter of balancing. The temporal things that I talked about in the workshop, (3 2 2 3, etc.) these are forms, not rhythms. Forms are the imaginary structures that the actual rhythms can reside in. Just because you have a 3 2 2 3 form (which is just a kind of 10, or 5 in cut time, but with the weights distributed in another way than the 5 you normally hear) does not say anything about the actual rhythms involved.

A discussion about 4/4, 5/5, etc, is not a discussion about rhythm really, no more than a discussion about scales or modes is a discussion about melody. However in former times (ancient Greece, Middle Ages) discussing modes was closer to talking about melody because a mode was not just the assemblage of pitches in the structure but mostly a ‘way’ of playing a particular group of pitches and the relationship these pitches had to each other. This way of thinking still holds in the raga system on the Indian subcontinent. In ancient times a tetrachord was not just a group of four pitches, these pitches has dynamic functional relationships to each other, that is there was a system of movement tendencies associated with the group of pitches also. And since tetrachords (and in the Middle Ages pentachords also) were the cellular structures that formed the modes, then these dynamic pitch relationships got transferred to the modes also.

On to rhythm. What I call rhythmic modes (i.e. 3 2 2 3, 3 2 3 3 2 2, etc.) are kinds of forms that you can use as a way or organizing time. Using one analogy you could think of the rhythmic modes as the body and the rhythms as the soul. Or we could say that the rhythms are the meat, the actual sounded musical material, whereas the rhythmic modes are simply imaginary structures in your mind that are used as organizational devices used to help keep your place, tools that you use to negotiate time in the same way that we use a watch as a tool to negotiate time.

You see, the human sense of time is based on reality, that time is relative. So our sense of time is relative and the musician relies mostly on a relative time base which is flexible. Not much of an attempt is made, especially in spontaneously composed music, to use absolute time in music. In composed music you see absolute markings that relate to seconds or minutes, but unless you are using a computer, the human relative sense of time takes over once the music starts and the time is variable from that point onward. Of course even so-called absolute time is based ultimately on cycles in Nature. The most obvious of these cycles are the rotation of the earth about its axis (the day), the lunar phases resulting from a combination of the revolution of the moon around the earth and the revolution of the earth around the sun, all creating the angular relationship of the earth-moon-sun system (the month) and the revolution of the earth around the sun (the year). You can see that the day and year are simple relationships that are basically one cycle each, but the month is a more complex relationship resulting from the combination of two cycles.

Our own sense of time is relative, based on how long we have been alive and other factors. Children have not been living so long so that everything is relative to their current lifespan. So one month in the life of a child is a relatively longer period of time than one month in the life of an adult (you frequently hear older people talking about how ‘time flies’)

However we use internal references also such as the beating of our heart, which generally beats slower as we get older. One of the reasons an older person, for example saxophonist Von Freeman, are better at playing ballades is that

In all of my teaching one of the main things I notice is that young people (who make up most of the class when you are teaching) tend to rush when playing music. Young people have less patience, and the tendency to want to push the beat is greater. So you have to make a conscious effort to relax and lay back. This tendency is counteracted in some cultures, especially in the African Diaspora. This may be because initially in these cultures it is frequent for much older people to play alongside younger people and the ‘way’ of playing may more easily be transferred to the younger musicians, but I’m just speculating here. My own experience is that I picked this up from playing with much older musicians. I remember when I first joined the Thad Jones-Mel Lewis Orchestra that I was always ahead of Thad in terms of where I felt the time (this was true when I played alongside Von Freeman also), so I had to consciously slow down – and after some time this became a habit.

What I was referring to when I mentioned negative rhythm was motion in the actual rhythms (not the rhythmic mode forms), that is the manner in which the rhythm figures move. For example take this rhythm where the lower pitch is a bass drum and the higher is a snare…



In my opinion the rhythm goes negative in motion for a brief moment in the second measure, because of the forward motion that was set up in the first measure. In the beginning all of the sounds drive towards (or get pulled towards) the downbeat, in terms of feeling. However in the middle of the second measure this feeling shifts to getting pulled ‘away’ from the downbeat (or towards the upbeat). Now this is a very simple example, but from this kind of directional thinking, toward and away from a particular nodal point (not necessarily forwards and backwards because we don’t move backwards in time, in this dimension anyway) and also another balancing idea that deals with masculine and feminine rhythms (another subject for another day) you can get a kind a analogous feeling towards a rhythmic symbolism that accomplishes the same kind of functions as its tonal counterparts, or even universal counterparts.

Now for a more complex example, take the bass and drum part to a composition of mine called ‘Black Hole’ recorded on the Dave Holland CD called ‘Extensions’…



You can hear a little of the composition here.

This is just one of many possible ways to approximately notate this. There are several things happening with this composition symbolically, but I will just discuss the rhythmic elements that pertain to this conversation now. The musical effect that I was going for here was that of energy being pulled back into a ‘Black Hole’, so I was trying to generate a perpetual forward and backward motion. The backwards motion starts because of the shift in the relationship of the drums and the bass at the end of the first measure. Now without the help of a first class drummer (in this case the incomparable Marvin “Smitty” Smith) this effect would not come of as sounding very natural. “Smitty” gives the drum chant a very natural feel enabling it to breathe and flow. I just want to stress that for me it is the relationship between the two parts that gives the feeling of the backward or negative rhythm here. You could say that the drums ‘sit’ on the opposite side of the pulse in relation to the bass. However this effect is complicated in ‘Black Hole’ because the pulse gets flipped because of the odd number of elements in the S S S L S S rhythmic mode (i.e. 2 2 2 3 2 2). So we are talking about a rhythm sitting on the other side of a group of pulses (expressed in the drum part), where the thrust (forward motion) of the pulses themselves (expressed in the bass part) could be perceived as changing in polarity. Now I developed a theoretical language to speak about this kind of motion but it is too much to go into this here. However I can say that it is a kind of rhythmic counterpoint that I developed from years of listening to mostly West African drum music.

Another question: the cycles i have heard from your cd’s and the one we did in class dealt with combinations of 2 and 3 note groupings. i know that those two groupings can be used to express all other subdivisions, but there is definitely a change in feeling when one is playing over a beat subdivided in 5 equal notes, as opposed to 3+2, or 2+3 (for example). Do you deal with larger beat subdivisions which are not broken down into arrangements of 2 or 3? I’d like to go in that direction, and have cycles made up of sparser, farther apart beats than 2 and 3 can allow. Any thoughts?

Sure, you could do anything that you want to do, whatever you feel like doing, go for it. I have reasons for using 3 and 2 that are symbolic of something else, and its just expressed as music. Of course I have thought about using other divisions and it does pop up occasionally. There are a few things we do that use 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc., but I guess you can see that what makes a beat 2, 3, 5, etc. is the proportion of it to something else. In other words if all your beats were 5 then you could just as well call the beats 2. And of course any beat can be subdivided any way you want it to be. So in the end all of this is just illusion, its just the way you organize the time in your mind. Because in the end these things don’t really exist, they are figments of our imaginations. But if they help you to get close to whatever it is you are trying to express then its all good.

Now when I say “these things don’t really exist” I am referring to these organizational tools, the time signatures, rhythmic modes, etc. The actual sounded material (which could be interpreted in any number of ways) was what I was referring to in the class at SIM. For me there is a big difference between the sounded material and the mental constructs that we use to organize this material. I keep repeating this because I feel that the actual sound is not stressed enough and we get hung up in things like the various means to organize the music (which changes based on training, culture, etc.) and even more secondary concepts like transcription and notation. Basically I choose various musical tools because these are the tools that I need to develop and express certain principles. I try to focus on the principles, then I select the appropriate tools, so that the principles are guiding which tools I use.

In conclusion, I have always had a fascination with temporal matters and for me this cannot be divorced from tonal concerns. There is a very interesting article somewhat related to this where the different kinds of metaphors used to address time are discussed.

Anyway, thank you again for your class. It really gave me a lot to think about and excited me to see I am on the right track (as far as rhythm is concerned) in my playing of rhythms like yours.

Well, I cannot say that I am on the ‘right track’, and I certainly cannot say if you are or not. I’m not sure there is a right track, but I try to follow that voice from within as much as possible.

Peace,

Steve

The ‘nexus’ of a Musical Language and Jazz

WordPress.com

I have a personal/musical question for you. Something I am really struggling with is the nexus between my own personal musical language and that of jazz. What helped you focus on your own vocabulary most, especially when collaborating with other musicians? How did you escape the expectations so many other players seem to have that if you don’t play like so-and-so” you’re not a real alto player? I welcome any advice you have.

Well, an interesting question. One part of your question I can answer easily. I NEVER think about ‘Jazz’ and I NEVER worry about what others expect me to play or expect my style to be.

As to the first part of your question, if you think about any labels at all this will restrict your creativity. For the most part the pioneers of any kind of music were not thinking in terms of labels or style names. You can think about a particular ‘form’ (say a particular kind of cycle or whatever) but I never think in terms of what are called styles, not even what people think is supposed to my style. I don’t think in terms of styles and I don’t consider myself as having a style. Creating with no style in mind, playing without playing, composing without composing. I only concentrate on what I am trying to say (more on this below). So as far as I am concerned, there is no ‘nexus’ between the dynamic language (meaning always changing) that I am currently involved with and so-called ‘Jazz’, because I refuse to accept that ‘Jazz’ exists. ‘Jazz’ for me is the not-so-creative part that most people relate to when they hear some forms from the past. I don’t know if I am being clear, but I have never considered the music of people like Duke Ellington, Don Byas, Charlie Parker, Art Tatum, John Coltrane, Muhal Richard Abrams, Henry Threadgill – I have never considered this creative tradition ‘Jazz’. I don’t care what others call it and I don’t even pay much attention to what these people themselves (i.e. the musicians) call it. I’m just giving you my honest opinion about this. So there is no ‘nexus’ for me, I don’t need to worry about any kind of consistency as I only deal with trying to be as truthful and consistent within myself as possible – in all areas of life. I think that if I can stay in that space, live with that vibration, then the other things take care of themselves.

Ultimately I believe that humans are the living embodiment of creativity, we don’t need to ‘try’ to be creative, we just need to have knowledge of what we are – and the creativity naturally comes from us being in harmony with our true nature.

This is the simplest way I can say this.

As to the second part, I NEVER worry about what others expect me to play (except for the people that are in the group at that moment we are trying to create something). This for me is one of the biggest traps a musician can fall into. If you have a story (and everyone does) then I believe you should tell this story. I actually believe that the most important story to tell is being told over and over throughout the centuries (the story about the principle of CREATION), but this is a different point than the one I want to make now.

Generally speaking, doing what others expect you to do is a big trap that can never lead you to be and express who you are. All of the greats have followed the beat of their own drummer. Once you start worrying about the opinions of others, then your creativity is doomed. This is my opinion anyway.

Now as far as collaborating with other musicians, you will find that when you are creative, then you tend to be attracted to and attract other like-minded creative individuals. Then forming collaborations is no problem because, for the most part, these creative individuals would not expect you to sound like someone else. But the only problem with this is that you need to be very strong with your convictions and ideas, because these creative people – although very strong – are in the minority. Most people tend to imitate with pay very little attention to their own creativity. Now this may seem strange in that music itself is a creative activity on one level, but as you may well know, just because you play music does not mean you are a creative person.

In my case my focus has always been on what I am trying to say (using music as a sonic symbolic language) and how do I want to say it. When I was coming up learning how to play on the South Side of Chicago the older cats were always stressing “get your own sound”, “find out what you want to say”, “what’s your story” and stuff like that. Since they all sounded pretty much unique from each other I interpreted this to mean that I needed to find my own way musically to say what I wanted to say. In other words, I need to find my own musical language to tell my story in my own way. So then began the search, even before I could play anything even a little well. This meant that I was learning the basics of music and at the same time figuring out what I want to say and how do I want to say it using music as my language.

The funny thing is, I STILL feel like that is exactly where I am now! I am still very much trying to learn the BASICS of music, or I should say that now I am trying to learn the BASIS of music even more than before. And I am definitely still trying to work out the what, why and how through the language of music.

You know, what really clarified things for me was when I got some kind of handle on ‘what am I trying to say with my music’. In other words it is one thing to play music with emotional feeling and expressiveness. It is quite another to try to express very specific ideas through your music. All humans are born with emotion as a basic language, even babies have this, for the most part it is the only language we possess initially. But there is more to us than emotion, feeling and emotion are not the same thing. Feeling actually encompasses emotion but other forms of sensation as well, physical and mental sensation and impressions and even spiritual sensations and impressions.

We often hear of people talking about ‘tell a story’ with your music, or even with a solo, but what does this really mean? Well, it is much too complex to go into detail in one email (I may attempt to write a small book on this one day) but I think that it simply means the same thing as ‘telling a story’ normally would mean to a person. But what I found out is that I needed to look at what ‘telling a story’ meant in ancient times to people a long time ago. Because ‘telling a story’ then was not exactly the same thing as ‘telling a story’ is today. Back then ‘telling a story’ meant to talk about something using symbols that revealed principle(s) on multiple levels. Today ‘telling a story’ may mean, for some people, to talk about something specific, like for example a relationship you have with a woman, or something like this. So I started to look at the kinds of stories that people like Bach, Beethoven, Bartok, Parker, Coltrane, etc. were telling along with other kinds of music from Africa, Asia etc. I wanted to find out what these stories were and how were they being told musically.

This helped me a lot because at this point I began to focus on the ‘why’ and the ‘what’ of what I was trying to say musically, and the ‘how’ part took care of itself. In my very early years I was focusing more rhythms, melodies, harmonies, forms, phrasing, and things like that. But even so I eventually found that there was a connection between when I was intuitively figuring out what and how to play and this later period when I was more into the message part of what I was trying to say. And the connection was me! I mean, the story I was trying to tell was within me, and this same ‘me’ was what was attracted to the various rhythms, melodies, etc., when I was expressing myself creatively, so the common denominator was that of me being honest with myself, as honest as possible at all times. This is not small feat because fear is what normally keeps us from being honest with ourselves.

Regarding compositions, I always wrote songs about something, so there was always a subject matter at hand. Ultimately there is no difference between composition and improvisation for me. I consider improvisation ‘spontaneous composition’, it is just a matter of the method of creation. Spontaneous Composition requires that you develop the ability to create things in real time, in the moment. So you need to develop skills that address these problems. But the things that I want to create spontaneous are no different than the things I want to create with preconceived compositions. Many of my so-called preconceived compositions start off as spontaneous compositions, and I may notate them later (or maybe not). What I work on a lot is the kinds of sonic forms (rhythmic, melodic, harmonic, tonal, shapes, etc.) that will form the symbols in my symbolic library, and this is the basis of my musical language. Then I work on internalizing these forms so that I can create these forms and others similar to them spontaneously by feeling. But I am not just choosing forms randomly or just according to what I want to hear or like to hear. The forms are a big part of what I want to say, as they themselves are the sonic symbols that carry these multiple level messages. Finally, since I work in a group setting, its important that the people in my group have some internalized understanding of how to create this structures spontaneously, so that we can all create a composition spontaneously. For me its not about just my solo, its about composing the sonic forms that tell the story. Since the instrument I play, saxophone, is a monophonic instrument, then to create with multiple colors I need to work with other instruments. So these other players have to have the sensibilities necessary to accomplish this, and there is no other way than that of training ourselves to be able to do this spontaneously. Since the details of the story are always changing, then I am talking about a mutable concept here, one that needs constant adjustment as the ideas grow. It takes time, but we humans are a very adaptable species.

Peace,

Steve

Symmetric Questions

WordPress.com

Many times people send me email asking various questions about my music. If I have the time (many times I don’t) I respond in detail. I have decided to post a few of these responses as some may find the discussions interesting. I will keep these posts pretty much in the same informal style as in the original email message.

—–
I am also very much interested in the different melodic approaches that you ‘programmed’ in ‘RAMESES’ (the logic in their own architecture) and how it reacts to what the musicians play.

Another big question! I’ll try to answer. Rameses 2000 is the name I gave to the interactive computer program that I developed as a result of a commission from IRCAM in Paris. I cannot really say the entire program was developed as a result of this commission because I had been working on various parts of it for years, and what I presented at IRCAM was a further development of it, using IRCAM’s resources to add to what I had been doing. In the initial stages of the program I worked on a Commodore 64 computer (back in the mid 1980s) using BASIC and 6502 machine language (really using assembly language). At this time I worked either alone or with the help of musician/programmer Joe Ravo, a guitarist still living and teaching in the New York City area. Later, at the end of the 1980s, I ported the program over to the Atari ST computer (following the advise of trombonist/composer/programmer George Lewis) and started using 68000 assembler and a programming language called FORTH. I had a residency at the Banff Center for Fine Arts where I worked out a lot of the initial real time routines, due to the Atari ST’s faster microprocessor. Finally with the help of Takahiko Suzuki and Sukandar Kartadinata, I ported the majority of the program over to the Macintosh Power PC environment and the Max/MSP programming environment. It was also in this form that I worked on the commission at IRCAM. Its really too much too explain the entire operation of this program in words as it is an ongoing (when I have the time) project that covers a period of 20+ years and it keeps changing form. However I basically see the computer as a tool, a laboratory of sorts, to help to work out various conceptual ideas. There have been a few times where I have used it in performance and this concert in 1999 at IRCAM was one of those times. Normally the computer is a behind the scenes tool for me.

——————
Regarding symmetry, I can speak on this a little. The idea of symmetry is pretty deep as basically I believe that the structure of man’s ideas is symmetrical by nature. Certainly all of the musical systems that I have seen from the various cultures around the world and the examples from ancient times are symmetrical in principle (the basic idea behind them) even if not in actual execution.

As you may know many musicians use symmetrical ideas from Bach to Bartok, from Palestrina to Bartok, from Charlie Parker to John Coltrane, so I just have my way of using this stuff and I’ve gotten my ideas from meditation on principles (inside yourself is always a good source). The external sources are the following:

Von Freeman, Art Tatum, Johann Sabastian Bach, Bela Bartok,

Ancient and Medieval musicians and writers
Plato
Aristoxenus of
Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus)
Aristides Quintilianus

The entire ancient Greek Harmonia system (similar to what we call modes today) is symmetrical if looked at as a whole. There are several Genera of these Harmonia but I will only deal with the Diatonic Genus here. The Harmonia in the Diatonic Genus are formed from what the ancient Greeks called Tetrachords (meaning four strings).

Lydian Tetrachord	C D E F	(semitone on the top)
Phrygian Tetrachord	C D Eb F	(semitone in the middle)
Dorian Tetrachord	C Db Eb F	(semitone on the bottom)

Although all of these structures are physically possible it was the Dorian Tetrachord that the Greeks used when thinking functionally in their music. I am very much into this Tetrachord thing as well as various rhythmic modes but I don’t want to go to deeply into it here.

From what I can figure out the ancient Greeks thought of this tetrachord as the main structure, combining two of them with an interval of separation (called a disjunction) between them. This interval was called ‘Mese’ (meaning ‘middle’) and the note at the bottom of this interval was also called ‘Mese’. So there are two ways to look at these Harmoniai (plural for Harmonia), from a structural point view as Lydian, Phrygian or Dorian Tetrachords separated by a tone…

Dorian Harmonia	C Db Eb F G Ab Bb C	(two disjunct Dorian Tetrachords separated by a tone)
Phrygian Harmonia	C D Eb F G A Bb C	(two disjunct Phrygian Tetrachords separated by a tone)
Lydian Harmonia	C D E F G A B C	(two disjunct Lydian Tetrachords separated by a tone)

or from a functional point view as only Dorian Tetrachords separated by
‘Mese’…

Dorian Harmonia	C Db Eb F G Ab Bb C	(two disjunct Dorian Tetrachords separated by a tone, i.e. [C Db Eb F] and [ G Ab Bb C], F = Mese = 4th degree)
Phrygian Harmonia	C D Eb F G A Bb C	(two disjunct Dorian Tetrachords separated by a tone, i.e. [D Eb F G] and [A Bb D D], G = Mese = 5th degree)
Lydian Harmonia	C D E F G A B C	(two disjunct Dorian Tetrachords separated by a tone), i.e. [E F G A] and [ B C D E], A = Mese = 6th degree)

Notice that ‘Mese’ is successively higher in each of the above Harmonia, and this was very important to the Ethos (character) that the Harmonia was supposed to help express. This subject is too much to go into here but it is enough to say that the Dorian Harmonia was considered the most manly and noble position as it’s mean or middle position contained Mese. The Harmonia with Mesai (plural for Mese) higher than the 4th degree were considered more effeminate and pathetic while the Harmonia with Mesai lower than the 4th degree were considered to be of a gregarious, happy, relaxed and fun loving nature (like drinking songs for example). The ones with Mese near the mean or middle were considered noble and heroic (in other words the ideal or mean).

So these modes are formed by combining the relevant tetrachords with a disjunction of a tone between them (called disjunct tetrachords). More Harmonia could be formed by forming conjunct tetrachords with the tone either at the bottom or the top of the two tetrachords. The terms Hypo (below) or Relaxed and Hyper (above) or Tense were generally used with these other Harmonia.

Hypodorian Harmonia	C D Eb F G Ab Bb C	(a tone followed by two conjunct Dorian Tetrachords)
Hypophrygian Harmonia	C D E F G A Bb C	(a tone followed by two conjunct Phrygian Tetrachords)
Hypolydian Harmonia	C D E F# G A B C	(a tone followed by two conjunct Lydian Tetrachords)

Hyperdorian Harmonia	C Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb C	(two conjunct Dorian Tetrachords followed by a tone)
Hyperphrygian Harmonia	C D Eb F G Ab Bb C	(two conjunct Phrygian Tetrachords followed by a tone)
Hyperlydian Harmonia	C D E F G A Bb C	(two conjunct Lydian Tetrachords followed by a tone)

It appears to me that the ‘Hyper’ terms were not used that much. As you can see there is some duplication here - Hyperphrygian is the same as Hypodorian, Hyperlydian is the same as Hypophrygian. However the Hyperdorian Harmonia is unique from the others. The Hyperdorian Harmonia was normally called the ‘Mixed Lydian’ Harmonia by the Greeks, what we call Mixolydian. Looking at the structure of the remaining unique Harmonia (i.e. Mixolydian, Hypolydian Hypophrygian and Hypodorian) from the functional point of view we have…

Mixolydian Harmonia	C Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb C	(two disjunct Dorian Tetrachords separated by a tone), i.e. [F Gb Ab Bb] and [C Db Eb F], Bb = Mese = 7th degree)
Hypolydian Harmonia	C D E F# G A B C	(two disjunct Dorian Tetrachords separated by a tone), i.e. [B C D E] and [F# G A B], E = Mese = 3rd degree)
Hypophrygian Harmonia	C D E F G A Bb C	(two disjunct Dorian Tetrachords separated by a tone), i.e. [A Bb C D] and [E F G A], D = Mese = 2nd degree)
Hypodorian Harmonia	C D Eb F G Ab Bb C	(two disjunct Dorian Tetrachords separated by a tone), i.e. [G Ab Bb C] and [D Eb F G], C = Mese = 1st degree)

I believe that the Hypolydian was also called ‘Slack Lydian’ by Plato
and ‘Relaxed Lydian’ by Plutarch.  This mode was considered the
‘opposite’ of Mixolydian and using symmetry we can see why by this
demonstration where ‘1’ = semitone and ‘2’ = tone…

Ascending Mixolydian structure	1 2 2 1 2 2 2
Descending Hypolydian  structure	1 2 2 1 2 2 2

Plato called the Lydian Harmonia ‘Tense Lydian’ because of its high pitch.

This concept of the ‘Mean’ continued into the middle ages and later and eventually got transformed into the modern triad concept. The ancients thought in Geometric terms. For example the ancient Egyptians were great Geometers (people skilled in Geometry) and the Greeks received a lot of their education from the Egyptians. Proportion was very important to these older traditions with even the concept of the major and minor triad being developed out of this. However this concept of proportion was not only geometrical but also philosophical, metaphysical and theological, dealing with such concepts as the Father Son and Holy Spirit. For example in the major triad C-E-G, the pitch ‘E’ was seen as the Harmonic Mean between ‘C’ and ‘G’ (from the perspective of string proportions). In the minor triad C-Eb-G ‘Eb’ was seen as the Arithmetic Mean (or reverse Harmonic Mean musically speaking) between ‘C’ and ‘G’. The Harmonic Mean is the reciprocal of the Arithmetic Mean of the reciprocals of a finite set of numbers.

For example the Arithmetic Mean of 6 and 12 is 9 (i.e. (6+12)/2 = 18/2 = 9).
The reciprocals of 6 and 12 are 1/6 and 1/12.
The Arithmetic Mean of 1/6 and 1/12 is 1/8
The reciprocal of 1/8 is 8.

So…
The Arithmetic Mean of 6 and 12 is 9
The Harmonic Mean of 6 and 12 is 8

All of the above is using whole numbers as in representing pitches in the language of hertz (i.e. vibrations per second – or the measure of frequencies). But if we are thinking of things like the ancients then we have to do our proportion calculations using parts of the lengths of string (for example using the monochord). This produces what at first sight looks like the reverse of the results we get above.

The Harmonic Mean of 1/6 and 1/12 is 1/9
The Arithmetic Mean of 1/6 and 1/12 is 1/8

So using this way of thinking we take a string that is equal to length 1 (that is 1 anything, for example 1 Meter (almost the same as 1 American Yard, 1.09 Yards to be more precise or a little more than 3 Feet). If we take the tone produced by vibrating the entire length of the string as the pitch C4 then the pitch produced by vibrating 1/2 the length of the same string (that is by vibrating 1 out of two parts of the same string) will be C5, i.e. the pitch an octave above C4. So we have…

1 = C4
1/2 = C5

Now we use pitches of the Octave as our extremes between which we find the Harmonic and Arithmetic Means.

The Harmonic Mean of 1 and 1/2 is 2/3
The Arithmetic Mean of 1 and 1/2 is 3/4

So if 2 out of 3 parts of our string is vibrating then the pitch produced will be G4, and if 3 out of 4 parts of the string is vibrating then the pitch produced will be F4. So now we have…

1 = C4	Generator
3/4 = F4	Perfect 4th	Arithmetic Mean (AM)
2/3 = G4	Perfect 5th	Harmonic Mean (HM)
1/2 = C5	Octave

We can take this even further by finding the HM and AM inside of the
interval of a perfect 5th, so now our extremes are 1 and 2/3.

1 = C4	Generator
5/6 = Eb4	Minor 3rd	Arithmetic Mean (AM)
4/5 = E4	Major 3rd	Harmonic Mean (HM)
1/2 = C5	Octave

We could continue and find the HM and the AM between every new interval that results. For example the HM between 1/2 and 2/3 (that is between the fifth and the octave) is 4/7

2/3 = G4 Perfect 5th
4/7 = Bb4 Flat Seventh (HM)
1/2 = C5 Octave

I would call 4/7 the Natural Seventh as it occurs naturally with these small number proportions and also it is the ratio that occurs in the Harmonic Series. In other words 4/7 is the octave reduced form of 1/7).

1/1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9 etc…

This series, when representing the lengths of strings, is the same as what we call today the Overtone Series (some still say the Harmonic Series). However by representing the Natural Seventh as 4/7 I am reducing it to within an octave, that is to a ratio between 1 and 1/2.

Harmonic Series Interval	Octave Reduced Interval
1/1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9	1/1 1/2 2/3 1/2 4/5 2/3 4/7 1/2 8/9

So this concept of the Mean is very old and it is in fact the basis of our present day music systems. The ancient musician/philosophers such as Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aristoxenus, Ptolemy, Aristides etc. knew this. The composers and music theorists of the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Classical periods continue in this same tradition, I am speaking of people such Guido of Arezzo, Marchetto of Padua, Gioseffo Zarlino, Glareanus, Giovanni Pierluigi of Palestrina, Claudio Monteverdi, Nicola Vicentino, Johannes Lippius, Johann Sebastian Bach, Rameau, Chopin etc., and also the more modern composers such as Arnold Schoenberg, Bela Bartok, Paul Hindemith, Ernst Levy and Olivier Messiaen.

All of this symmetry is still working in the music of Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Von Freeman, John Coltrane, etc., right up to what we are doing today. There is a page on my website where I explain the basic principles behind some of my symmetrical ideas.

This is not something new, as I state in this email these ideas go back to ancient times. Many thinkers in more modern times like Moritz Hauptmann, Hugo Riemann, Heiner Ruland, Ernst Levy and Ernest McClain talked about Polarity Theory in harmony in more direct terms. Levy especially talks about these ideas in functional terms, but this is only the modern expression of an entire proportionate musical system that existed before among the ancients (in the structures of tones and rhythms) and in the tonal modes of the Middle Ages and Renaissance (Authentic and Plagal modes for example) and the rhythmic modes from the Middle Ages and early Renaissance.

In particular I am interested in the people who take these musical concerns connected with physical and metaphysical ideas. All of the earlier composers follow this way of thinking to various degrees, and also people like Guido, Lippius, Bach, Levy, Ellington, Messiaen, Coltrane, McClain, Ruland, and Charles Muses (he also called himself Musaios). These people were concerned with using music to expand consciousness. Of course the musicians who were not writers simply created their expression though the actual music. Others who were writers expressed some of their ideas in the books they produced. Lippius, Ruland and Musaios in particular, using slightly different approaches, wrote some very interesting things.

Ruland wrote a book called ‘Expanding Tonal Awareness’ where he expands on the ideas of Hans Lauer, who comes out of a Germanic school of musical mystics. Ruland describes cycles of intervals formed from the prime numbers. He uses the ratios series 8:8 (unity) 9:8 (maj2nd - extended prime 3) 10:8 (maj3rd - prime 5) 11:8 (tritone - prime 11) 12:8 (P5th - prime 3) 13:8 (min6th - prime 13) 14:8 (minor or natural 7th - prime 7)

According to Ruland Human Consciousness has been making a steady progression towards the outer planets of our solar system with the Sun acting as a mediator which facilitates the harmonization of the inner and outer expressions of consciousness. The tunings dealing with the primes 7 (i.e. 14: and 13 (13: belong to a time when civilizations generally looked outward, experiencing the world through the Cosmos, Universe and Nature. Their inner experience was molded by their contact with this ‘outer’ world. Beginning with the experience of the 5th (cycle of prime 3) there was a mixture, a bridge and the beginnings of a look inward as well as outward.

In order to deal with these concepts practically Ruland proposes using a 24tEQ system in which the quarter tones are treated in a ‘flexible’ manner, in order to simulate the intervals of what Paul Hindemith calls ‘The Holy Domain’, i.e. 14:8, 13:8, 11:8 (primes 7, 13 and 11). So Ruland says that you should start with a quarter tone and then adjust it according to which of these primes you are dealing with.

14:8 (7:4) = 969 cents, tempered to 960 cents
13:8 = 840.5 cents, tempered to 840 cents
11:8 = = 551 cents, tempered to 550 cents

Here are the eras in history and the corresponding consciousness that Ruland associated with each of the prime numbers and their respective ratios:

14:8 Cycle of 7 Movement/Spirit	Outward	Egypt	Prime 7
13:8 Cycle of 13 Dimension	Outward	Egypt/Mesopotamia/India	Prime 13
12:8 Cycle of 3 Spirit	Outward	above + China/Greece	Prime 3
11:8 Radial/Cycle of 11 Mind	Inward/Outward	Egypt/India (not sure)	Prime 11
10:8 Radiality of 5 Soul	Inward	above + Modern times	Prime 5
9:8 Radiality of 3 Movement/Soul	Inward	near Future	Prime 3 (extended)
8:8 Prime Consciousness (1)	Inward	Future	Prime 1

These ideas are interesting to me because I link this kind of consciousness expansion with the spontaneous compositions of people like Von Freeman (and the tradition that he comes out of). I am thinking of these things in terms of more specifics musically (i.e. in terms of musical movement and functions) but the basic idea is the same. Also most of these modern philosophers ignore rhythm completely, for this kind of information I find only the writings of some African philosophers (such as Professor Willie Anku) and ancient writers (i.e. Aristoxenus, Aristides, etc.) where they suggest some specific poetics involved with the movement of rhythmic forms (the writings of Messiaen and Schillinger would be some examples of some of the exceptions, and there are others).

Similar to Musaios, Ruland suggests some planetary correspondences to his ratios. Ruland also suggest some planetary correspondences to these ratios but his considerations only seem slightly Astrological (these considerations are explained on page 172 through 176 in ‘Expanding Tonal Awareness’). Here are Ruland’s correspondences.

Saturn = 8:8
Jupiter = 9:8
Mars = 10:8
Sun = 11:8
Venus = 12:8
Mercury = 13:8
Moon = 14:8

Musaios is similar to Schwaller de Lubicz in that he directly studied ancient Egyptian texts, but Musaios was a scientist and mathematician who is able to go deeper. He developed some ideas pertaining to using sound to help in the raising of consciousness which he expresses in a book called The Lion Path. Musaios created tapes with musical progressions on them to help open up the pathways to expand consciousness. His tapes contain a 5-Limit Just Intonation tonal system based on 22 tones to the octave. Musaios system is not constructed from 22 equal intervals, they are based on small interval ratios that do not use any prime number greater than 5. However his system is completely symmetrical! The symmetry does not require that the intervals between pitches or durations between rhythmic onset times are equal, just that there is some kind of system of balances at work where elements are equal around a particular axis. In the case of Musaios’ tonal ratios these distances are proportionately equal around a tritone base. Since the tritone is really the Geometric Mean within the Octave (for the mathematical definition of the Geometric Mean see below under my discussion of the Golden Mean) then these 22 intervals fall on either side of the Geometric Mean, 11 intervals on each side.

And here are Musaios’ planetary correspondences.

Planet(?)	Scale position	Ratio	Frequency	% of people drawn to this world	absolute pitch
Plu	1	1:1	151.70		Eb
Pan	2	25:24	158.02		E
Vulcan	3	16:15	161.81		E
Horus	4	10:9	168.56		F
Ven-Sothic	5	9:8	170.66	0.33	F
Sat-Sothic	6	75:64	177.77	0.20	Gb
Sun-Sothic	7	6:5	182.04	0.13	Gb
Moon-Sothic	8	5:4	189.63	0.07	G
Mar-Sothic	9	32:25	194.18		G
Mer-Sothic	10	4:3	202.27	0.07	Ab
Jup-Sothic	11	27:20	204.80	0.07	Ab
Ura-Sothic	12	45:32	213.33 (64:45 215.75)	0.07	A
Nep-Sothic	13	40:27	224.74		B
Plu-Sothic	14	3:2	227.55		Bb
Pan-Sothic	15	25:16	237.03		B
Vulcan-Sothic	16	8:5	242.72		B
Horus-Sothic	17	5:3	252.83		C
Sothis-Sothis	18	128:75	258.90		C
Pre-Pleromic Moon	19	16:9	269.69		Db
Pre-Pleromic Sun	20	9:5	273.06		Db
Pre-Pleromic Sat	21	15:8	284.44		D
Pre-Pleromic Ven	22	48:25	291.26		D
Pre-Pleromic Jup		2:1	303.40		Eb

I consider both of these approaches philosophical, although both Ruland (in his book) and Musaios (cryptically explained in his book and practically applied on his Lion Path tapes) try to express these ideas musically. In particular the Lion Path tapes sound more like sonic mantras than music.

It is interesting to me that the philosopher’s approach to this almost always involves working with tonality through manipulating the structures of tuning systems, whereas the musician’s approach is mostly to manipulate the accepted musical sounds of the then current era through the actual movements (i.e. rhythms) of rhythmic/melodic/harmonic structures. Therefore the ideas behind placement, duration and combinations of pitches and what they symbolize seem to be important to the musician and much of the time the form that the sonic symbols take are various kinds of musical motion.

This is the approach that I favor also. Movement is at the basis of everything that we know, and so if we are to express concepts of balance, it is to the movements of these balances that we must look for our symbols – in other words Dynamic Balance is possibly the key. Although there is no doubt that the structures of tuning systems plays a role in all of this, I would say that this role is much less important than the movements. Humans and other living creatures, as with all things created by Nature, have a tolerance that allows us to recognize principles as they approach the ideal mean. For example a perfect 5th does not have to be ‘perfect’ for us to recognize the quality of the fifth and respond to it psychologically. It is the idea of the 5th that we respond to, not its perfection. In fact every fifth that we hear in a piece of music is different if it is performed by humans. Just like in Astrology there is an orb of influence, an area which when approached triggers certain reactions within us. That area varies in size from person to person, depending on their personality, genetics, background, training, etc., but these orbs are remarkably consistent across the human spectrum. We must look for evidence across the human spectrum, in all cultures and all eras, if we are to find clues to what are the musical Universals, the primal musical elements that we all possibly respond to. And for this we must go back in time and help to define and clarify our most basic musical concepts…

What is…

music
musical rhythm
musical tone
musical melody
musical harmony (by harmony I mean agreement, which is harmony in its broad sense, not the major-minor tonal system which is harmony in its narrow sense)
musical form
musical poetry (also called musical rhetoric, i.e. expression of ideas, feelings, beauty and emotions by use of the elements of music)

For the ancients proportion played a major role in all of these areas.

About symmetry: you say you are interested in the ‘function’ of the musical idea: how would you define the function of ‘symmetry’ then? What is the ‘Harmonic Mean’ and the ‘Arithmetic Mean’ ?

The Harmonic Mean and the Arithmetic Mean (along with the Geometric Mean and the Golden Mean) I explain a little above, and anyway a lot of this information is available on the Internet or in books, it is not that complicated to figure out.

By Function I mean how something works in relation to the things around it. Since Music can be considered a science of movement then Function in music generally means how something moves in relationship to other things around it. So I could use symmetry in the following way and say that these two things are symmetrical around an axis of ‘C’…

G C
E Ab
C F

because C to E to G are the same intervals ascending as C to Ab to F are descending. But there is not really any obvious function implied here, it is just a statement that the structure of these two triads are symmetrical around ‘C’. Now if I say that the second triad is ‘moving’ or progressing to the first triad, now I am talking about Function because I am stating that the Fmin triad progresses to the Cmaj triad and I can talk about the movement between these two sounds as one entity, as well as refer to the relationship of these two triads. So I can speak of how the Fmin triad Functions in relation to the Cmaj triad, I can talk about how the Cmaj triad functions in relation to the Fmin, or I can talk about the function of the movement itself - a third and invisible relationship that involves the ‘sound of the movement’ itself. I can speak of this particular function and movement as being centripetal motion, of the Fmin being ‘pulled’ toward the Cmaj, and of the symbolism that this motion expresses.

In the above case Fmin functions as the negative dominant of Cmaj (but more naturally of Cmin). First let us imagine two parallel keys, Cmaj and Cmin. These two root triads are symmetrical around and axis of Eb/E. That is the relationship of Cmaj to Eb is the same as the relationship of Cmin to E in the opposite direction. And the axis of Eb/E could be described as a Sum 7 axis, because Eb (3) and E (4) sum to 7 (3+4=7). This I discuss elsewhere on my website and maybe on my blog.

G G
E Eb
C C

If you meditate on this and you will find that it is true but you need to be able to think in a descending as well as ascending mode.

C up to Eb (min3rd)	G down to E (min3rd)
E down to Eb (semitone)	Eb up to E (semitone)
G down to Eb (maj3rd)	C up to E(maj3rd)

But the tonic of both these triad is C, even though the systems are being generated in opposite directions symmetrically. Now if you extend these two triad in the direction of tonal relationships, we say that traditionally Gmaj is seen as the dominant of Cmaj. This is because the Gmaj triad is constructed upwards from the dominant degree of Cmaj. When in the key of Cmaj we are thinking as if C is the tone that is generating this particular tonality.

The triads of Cmaj - in the diagram below the red triad (Gmaj) is the dominant in the key of Cmaj and the blue triad (Fmaj) is the subdominant in the key of Cmaj. Here I am thinking in a positive and ascending manner and I am thinking about how the triads Gmaj and Fmaj Function within the gravitational sphere of Cmaj.

G A B C D E F
E F G A B C D
C D E F G A B

So the following are dominant and subdominant progressions respectively.

D E C C
B C A G
G G F E

The triads of -Gmaj - when in the key of -Gmaj we are thinking as if G
is the tone that is generating this particular tonality negatively
(that is to say thinking in a descending manner). In the diagram
below the blue triad (-Cmaj or Fmin) is the dominant in the key of
-Gmaj (Cmin) and the blue triad (-Dmaj or Gmin) is the subdominant in
the key of -Gmaj. Here I am thinking in a negative and descending
manner and I am thinking about how the triads -Cmaj and -Gmaj Function
within the gravitational sphere of -Gmaj (or Cmin).

G F Eb D C Bb Ab
Eb D C Bb Ab G F
C Bb Ab G F Eb D

So the following are negative dominant and negative subdominant
progressions respectively.

C C D Eb
Ab G Bb C
F Eb G G

However since Gmaj is also considered the dominant of Cmin (or -Gmaj)
then -Cmaj (or Fmin) can be considered the negative dominant of Cmaj.

D Eb C C
B C Ab G
G G F E

If you look at these progression you will see that they are all symmetrical in movement (i.e. in function) and in terms of the relationships of the intervals (not just symmetrical in structure around a particular axis). What I have described here with Cmaj and -Gmaj are two tonal systems that are symmetrical around the Eb/E and A/Bb axes. The A/Bb axis is a Sum 7 interval as well, because A (9) + Bb (10) = 19 – 12 = 7 (minus 12 because our musical system is really a mod 12 or base 12 system).

So this is what I mean by function, and usually I give names for functions just so that I and the people who I communicate with know what I am talking about. But the name is fluid, and the functions can change, however the principles are immutable.

It is true that Messiaen’s ideas and theory is not new if you see it as part of the whole. Messiaen himself usually refers to the Nature when he explains the use of symmetry (non-retrogradable rhythms and their harmonic equivalent, the modes of limited transpositions ), he actually only refers to his religious belief when he explains how he used the ‘theory’ in his music. What appeals to me is the musical consistence he has reached by the extreme use of a few basic ideas and by the potential of their combinations and additions.

Yes, I like this about Messiaen’s ideas also. They are great ideas - even if I feel that the principles are the same as have been expressed many many times in the past (similar to my own ideas which are also not new) but with Messiaen’s own particular language and insights.

But so I would like very much to know about the way you define ‘function’ of a musical idea, and what it refers to in the globality of your musical thoughts. What are the paths from ‘function’ to their structural and (sonic)-symbolical applications?

I gave some examples of function above. Perhaps what I should say is that function is for me ultimately defined by Nature. Nature is the final arbiter of what works and what does not work, and this is the Global or Universal aspect of what I am dealing with. The path from function to structure is really only based on experience and trial and error. Not only your own trial and error but also the experience of those contemporary, older or past musicians whom you may respect or trust. Still I feel that a musician must base their own work on what they themselves have experienced. So if I get a certain feeling or experience from the concept of a circle or triangle this can give me more confidence when I use this symbol or shape in my work, as a means of projecting a certain feeling, emotion or vibration. Then I must meditate on the idea behind this function to arrive at the musical method or musical tool that I can use that will best (for the moment) express this function through sound. So I would say that the real path is experience and contemplation and meditation on that experience. The experience is outsight (that which is brought in by the senses) but the meditation is insight (that which is contemplated by the mind).

Regarding the example of symmetry you gave in the last mail, the ‘chord of resonance’ being the conjunction of the C Maj ascending partials and D Maj descending partials: from a theoretical point of view the conjunction of both overtone ( C ) and undertone ( D ) series gives the 3rd of the modes of limited transpositions ( in its 1st transposition : mode 3 of C : C D Eb E F# G G# A# B ). And actually in each sum of the partials ( C or D ), there is only one note missing to obtain the entire mode 3 : in the sum of the C overtone series it is Eb that is ‘missing’ and in the sum of the D undertone series it is F#. I find this very interesting because it probably means that the other modes of limited transpositions could also be seen as the conjunctions of partials. I’ll try to find out!

Hey, let me know what you find out, I would be very interested to know. I noticed as soon as I looked as Messiaen’s modes that he was really dealing with the tempered overtone and undertone series in his own way. There is a great tradition going all the way back to the Egyptians and Babylonians of this idea, called by very different names in different eras. I just call it Musical Reciprocity.

Sorry but I don’t understand when you say that D negative is Gmin and that G is the root of negative D maj

As I explain above, negative Dmaj is the same as Gmin. For example a Gmaj chord is composed of an ascending major third (G to B) and an ascending minor third (B to D). Well negative Dmaj is the same concept but starting on D and descending. We begin with a descending major third (D to Bb) and then a descending minor third (Bb to G). However we all know that when this triad is sounded we will hear this as Gmin (this part is learned) and we will hear the root as G (this part is as the result of our structure as humans). This is because the strongest interval here is the fifth (D down to G) and with any fifth the initiated musician hears the bottom note as the tonic or main supporting note. So here are the two situations with a positive and negative major triad:

G B D (positive ascending major triad, tonic = G, which is the generator of this overtone series, i.e. 1st partial = G, 3rd partial = D, 5th partial = B, these partials are positive partials of an overtone or positive series)

D Bb G (negative descending major triad, tonic = G, however D is the generator of this undertone series, i.e 1st partial = D, 3rd partial = G, 5th partial = Bb, these partials are negative partials of an undertone or negative series)

You MUST be able to adapt your thinking to understand this! You must be able to imagine in the opposite direction of what you are used to. Most musicians think only in ascending form, you must learn to think in a descending manner, first structurally - then functionally.

Peace,

Steve

Timbral Improvisation

WordPress.com

Music is one of the various sonic projections of who we are as humans (language being another one). Although all sonic projections are symbolic, music represents the more emotive side of human experience. The basic emotions of happiness/sadness, attraction/repulsion, courage/fear, love/hate, anticipation/despair, affection/anger, pleasure/pain (and any of these can be combined with surprise) can all be expressed using music. There are also emotions that serve as a subset of these, for example:

Love (affection, longing, lust)
Joy (cheerfulness, contentment, pride, optimism, relief, anticipation, hope)
Anger (irritation, rage, hate, dislike, frustration, disgust, envy, torment)
Sadness (disappointment, shame, neglect, sympathy, hopelessness)
Fear (horror, nervousness)

The systematized expression of these emotions are what can be called the beginnings of a language. Obviously the symbols in language can go further than these basic expressions.

It has been said that language is related to the word tongue. “Strategic interactions of the tongue with other components of the vocal tract, particularly the teeth and the palate, lead to the living synthesis of human speech.” I believe that initially languages and music developed out of the same root, patterns of gestures and sounds, and eventually the intonation and articulation of the sounds were more specifically described and developed. Eventually various methods of transcription of these sounds and gestures resulted in written notation systems, including phonetic transcription for spoken languages and pitch and rhythmic transcription for music.

However, whereas the guiding principle behind the development of spoken languages seems to have been the communication of ideas, and followed the available physical options available to the human voice, the development of music seemed to be linked to both the need to communicate ideas and also acoustic considerations. We need to keep in mind that much instrumental music has traditionally be performed as an accompaniment to vocal music. Therefore, the spoken word and the musical sounds are present, and there is a greater chance of the listener associating the musical sounds with the ideas being expressed.

Early in the history of the spontaneously composed music in the United States (the Armstrong-Parker-Coltrane continuum, and probably in most music) there seemed to be more emphasis on expression, therefore things like timbre and phrasing were the most important elements. However, rhythm and pitch (when and how high/low) are the basic elements of any music system.

I have spent most of my career concentrating more on the rhythm/pitch/form aspects of music versus timbral considerations. I have certainly not ignored timbre, but I have not really delved into a systematized study of it either. And the musicians that I favor tend to be those that have highly developed and specific rhythmic and tonality languages. With these musicians I feel that the timbral elements are aids for expressing the sophisticated rhythmelodies. Of course there would be those who completely disagree with me and that is why their music would tend to run in directions that stress timbral qualities. For myself I prefer a more subtle expression of timbre.

I feel strongly that the younger generation that is involved in creative music today are foregoing the detailed rhythmic and melodic developments demonstrated by the older masters (which take an incredible amount of concentration to develop) in favor of more ‘effects’. These trends tend to pendulum back and forth, as each generation reacts to the excesses of the previous generation by moving in the opposite direction. However, the concept of Orchestration (as distinct from composition) is largely concerned with the timbral combination of instrumental (and sometimes vocal) sounds. The preeminent Danish composer Per Nørgård once told me that the composition of a piece takes him a short amount of time, but the orchestration and arranging can take years. He thus distinguished timbral concerns from composition proper, using timbre more as a means to ‘amplify’ his expression.

Peace,

Steve Coleman