Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer.eecs.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Subject: Re: Not really composing
References: <3fa7494e@andromeda.5sc.net> <20031104133827.03622.00000234@mb-m06.aol.com> <3fa7ff0f$0$58712$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
Organization: University of Michigan
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999)
From: fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt)
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <XvTpb.4678$H91.97859@news.itd.umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:56:39 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.211.2.204
X-Trace: news.itd.umich.edu 1067975799 141.211.2.204 (Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:56:39 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:56:39 EST

In article <3fa7ff0f$0$58712$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl>,
Samuel Vriezen  <sqv.doesnt.want.s...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>knud wrote:
>>>It seems hard to be "original,"
>> 
>> 
>>      Original and good are not neccesarily synonymous. Brahms wrote some good
>> stuff even if he didn't practice flagrant originality. Not everything
>has to be
>> radical and "new".
>
>But new works do have to be new.
>
>> At this point in music history, the reliance on "sound
>> effects" and novelty has lost it's appeal for many. Now the meat seems to take
>> center stage again. Novelty is only good in a meaty context. Novelty for it's
>> own sake has spawned endless orchestral works with xylophone obbligato. Excuse
>> me while I yawn.
>
>Any value can serve as an excuse for bad music. But I can't see how one 
>can tire of newness. It seems almost logically impossible. Unless the 
>definition of new would be having a xylophone, but that's not the case.

Since xylophones have been around for something like a thousand
years, I don't see how it could be the case.

-- 
       Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
                        Music: Splendor in Sound
  Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/