Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Not really composing
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Samuel Vriezen  
View profile  
 More options Nov 4 2003, 2:33 pm
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: Samuel Vriezen <sqv.doesnt.want.s...@xs4all.nl>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:32:31 +0100
Local: Tues, Nov 4 2003 2:32 pm
Subject: Re: Not really composing

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.

--
samuel
free.concerten.fr


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.