Message from discussion Not really composing
Subject: Re: Not really composing
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Organization: University of Michigan
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999)
From: fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt)
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:56:39 GMT
X-Trace: news.itd.umich.edu 1067975799 126.96.36.199 (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:
>>>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/