Is conventional harmony dead?
Sleeper
Cathie Hutchinson wrote in message <3498A3...@deakin.edu.au>...
>Hi, my name is Dale and I am 16yrs old. I was wondering how other
>composers feel about the use of conventional harmony in present day
>music. I have been going to a composition teacher for about a year now,
>and at just about every lesson he says that I should 'move away from key'
>because conventional harmony has been 'composed out'. I just don't feel
>the same way 'though. I still like the sound of conventional harmony. I
>was wondering if anyone had any comments. Maybe someone can point me in
>the right direction
The music I write comes out how it darn well pleases. Sometimes the
harmonies are conventional and sometimes they are not. In my way of
thinking, there are no new notes and no new chords, and blah blah blah... I
am probably not putting this very well, but I think that if your instructor
doesn't want to write in key, then maybe he shouldn't write in key.
Spelling a word incorrectly, and trying to invent a new word for "snowshoes"
are two different things..... But now I am just getting downright silly.
:) In other words, write what the music tells you to write. Music isn't
something that gets used up, and is usually very clear about which way it
wants to go. :)
David Young
Cathie Hutchinson wrote:
>
> Hi, my name is Dale and I am 16yrs old. I was wondering how other
> composers feel about the use of conventional harmony in present day
> music. I have been going to a composition teacher for about a year now,
> and at just about every lesson he says that I should 'move away from key'
> because conventional harmony has been 'composed out'. I just don't feel
> the same way 'though. I still like the sound of conventional harmony. I
> was wondering if anyone had any comments. Maybe someone can point me in
I, for one, am sick an tired of composition teachers telling their
students that tonal harmony is no longer appropriate. There is a
good deal of excellent music waiting to be written in traditional tonal
styles. I am very pleased with what little music (actually not so
little) that I have composed over the years, and all of this music is
composed using the harmonic styles of the romantic period, particularly
that of Antonin Dvorak. It is my hunch that many composition professors
have denounced the writing of tonal music because they have failed to
grasp it. In sort of a sour grapes attitute they now take the easier
route and write music that is the equivalent to an artists spilling
paint on a canvas and calling it art. You just see, they can't compose
good music.
Don't think for a moment that you can't write good, pleasing and
original tonal music. You can. Writing very good music does take some
learning however. There are many posters to this newsgroup who suggest,
"just write what you like." That may be true to a degree, but one can
sure compose better music by learning. Unfortunately, there are no good
texts out there that teach how to compose romantic music (for instance)
and the best way to learn is to study to scores of composers such as
Dvorak, Tchiakovsky, Rimsky Korsakof, Mendelsohn, Weber, Beethoven, etc,
etc or whoever you particularly admire. Now there are several good
books on harmony, rhythm, counterpoint and orchestration that are
helpful. Unfortunately, there only touch to surface of what can be
learned about how the masters composed.
Good luck.
If you have any interest in joining some of us in composing, there is
an excellent web site to become associated with some very serious minded
amateur composers. Set your browser to:
http://www.europa.com/~dearmad/
and click on La Musique Petite.
I have found Peter Shafer's web page and monthly challenges very
motivating.
Sincerely,
David Young
DYo...@fcs.net
Cathie Hutchinson
Samuel Vriezen
Cathie Hutchinson <hutc...@deakin.edu.au>:
[Variants of] traditional tonality can be used, as long as you do make
sure that by using it you are not just imitating Beethoven or Brahms.
We have enough of Beethoven and Brahms already, so please make your
music sound different. (Although style imitation can of course be seen
as a useful excercise). Just don't think that because an augmented
sixth chord sounds nice using it properly will make for a good
composition.
These days, the distinction between tonal and atonal music has
altogether become quite unclear, many many composers use diatonic,
tonal or modal elements without writing strict tonal music. Listen to
Claude Vivier, or to the music played by the Bang on a Can All-stars,
or more recent Kagel, or why not listen to Arvo Part, or listen to
some of Wolfgang Rihm's music, for some quite different approaches to
present-day tonality. This list is of course far from exhaustive.
Samuel
Listen to the Incense
Look, it's more like this. We also have enough Arvo Paert to last us...
What we really need is some well-rounded people with character.
Slavish immitation is slavish, whether it's of Paul McCartney or
Anton Webern.
If you're a relative beginner, it doesn't hurt to get your feet wet
at doing whatever things you've never done before, whether it's
tonality, atonality, writing for horn, unpitched percussion, choral
writing, fugue, fauxbourdon, or computer sound. One fun challenge is to
take all these things and twist and turn them and make them yours.
This expands your toolbox. When you're a student, that's a great time to
combine the expanding of your portfolio with the expanding of your
toolbox.
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. Surf to TwelveToneToyBox! It's my first Java
Applet, and it won Jars Top 1%! http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
Featured addresses: postm...@array.ca ME...@HOME.NET
j...@pornlord.com johnyc...@HOTMAIL.COM Postm...@worldOnline.nl
t.r.mcloughlin
Cathie Hutchinson wrote:
> Hi, my name is Dale and I am 16yrs old. I was wondering how other
> composers feel about the use of conventional harmony in present day
> music. I have been going to a composition teacher for about a year now,
> and at just about every lesson he says that I should 'move away from key'
> because conventional harmony has been 'composed out'. I just don't feel
> the same way 'though. I still like the sound of conventional harmony.
In addition to other comments already posted I'd add...
One thing useful to learn about learning is this: why are you
taking lessons from someone, anyway? If you just want to do
your own thing, you can do it yourself. Once you are past the
basics, taking lessons really means you are learning what that
specific teacher knows. No one knows everything (usenet
notwithstanding).
I've always found it useful to approach the teacher:student
relationship with an attitude of "I'm here to *take* from the
teacher as much of your experiences as possible." Then
I can decide if your experiences are useful for me, and work
them into my set of experiences.
If your current teacher is "composed out" on conventional
harmony, then there's not much chance of you learning a whole
lot about extending conventional harmony from him/her. But
what *does* this teacher have to offer? You can learn that
from him/her. And when you've done that, or you decide that
there's something else you want to learn instead, move on.
There's a lot more power in taking other people's knowledge
than in giving away your own.
trm
Listen to the Incense
As a teacher I always consider my prime responsiblity to empower
the student with my ideas in addition to their own. Sometimes this involves
asking them, in addition to their own projects, to try a little side
exercise just to concentrate on one particular aspect.
DannyMuse
In article <349f456d...@news.gtn.net>, bdon...@execulinkz.com (Bill
Donovan) writes:
> How can you properly "move away from key" before achieving a good
> understanding of what "key" is? <
Good point! Although most teenagers don't truly appreciate "home" until they
move away from it! <grin>
Daniel O'Brien,
Composer
Jeff Harrington
DannyMuse <dann...@aol.com> wrote:
: In article <349f456d...@news.gtn.net>, bdon...@execulinkz.com (Bill
: Donovan) writes:
: > How can you properly "move away from key" before achieving a good
: > understanding of what "key" is? <
A couple of comments...
First, I would urge anyone interested in becoming a better composer to try
and write in as many styles as possible.
Second, I would warn anyone attempting to do anything new with
conventional harmony to ponder the inevitable problem. Music written
using "conventional" harmony will inavoidably be read in certain
conventional ways.
I know, I spent the better part of the 80's trying to write a new kind of
music using classical tonality with funk rhythms. After one premiere I
heard this, "Boy, I sure wish composers of today would write music like
that."
I was dumbfounded. I discovered that, conventional tonal pieces may be
read as if they were written by dead composers. That is just how
audiences may react to them.
This caused me to reasses my compositional priorities. My new priorities
are that first it has to sound new, really new. If it doesn't sound new,
it'll never be signficant, it'll never get people's attention, the best it
will be is pastiche and there is a lot of pastiche. Do the research.
Academics for years have tried to revive old tonal practices for the
purpose of producing more pastiche. There are a zillion guys that have
tried to be the next Beethoven. A zillion and one, actually... Nobody
remembers them. Nobody will ever remember them.
For an art music composer like myself, that wasn't enough. I've still got
one of my tonal pieces on my WWW site, if anyone's curious. A violin
sonata...
Just my $.02...
Jeff Harrington [ "Art does not make peace...that is not its business...]
je...@parnasse.com [ Art is peace." --Robert Lowell]
http://www.parnasse.com/jeff.htm --------->>[[ My Music ]]<<--------------]
http://www.parnasse.com/vrml.shtml ------->>[[ My Worlds ]]<<-------------]
David Cleary
Cathie Hutchinson (hutc...@deakin.edu.au) wrote:
: Hi, my name is Dale and I am 16yrs old. I was wondering how other
: composers feel about the use of conventional harmony in present day
: music.
No problem as far as I'm concerned. There are a number of fine composers
this century who did and do write functional-harmony-oriented music of
significance and greatness. I say write what works for you. Some
composers, in fact, write tonal, atonal, and in-between music depending on
what works for the particular piece they want to compose.
I would recommend that you listen to as much music--of all styles,
cultures, and approaches--as you can all along the spectrum of tonal
language. Experiment. Try different things and see how you like them. Use
or discard as you see fit in your own pieces. There's a huge world of
music out there. Dive in and experience as much of it as possible. :)
Hope this is helpful.
Dave
Larisa Migachyov
Cathie Hutchinson (hutc...@deakin.edu.au) wrote:
: Hi, my name is Dale and I am 16yrs old. I was wondering how other
: composers feel about the use of conventional harmony in present day
: because conventional harmony has been 'composed out'. I just don't feel
: the right direction.
I think you should write what you feel you need to write. I, too, am
reluctant to abandon conventional harmony - when I tried writing atonal
stuff, I felt I was being untrue to myself and to the kind of music that I
wanted to write. I think you need to change teachers. :)
The creation of music is a very personal matter. If your personal style,
at this point in time (and styles do evolve), does not include atonality,
you should not be forced to abandon it. The composition teacher may
*suggest* that you listen to some atonal music to broaden your horizons,
or encourage greater freedom in experimentation, but he/she may not force
you to write in someone else's style.
Larisa
evan johnson
In article <3498B1...@fcs.net>, David Young <DYo...@fcs.net> wrote:
:Cathie Hutchinson wrote:
:>
:> Hi, my name is Dale and I am 16yrs old. I was wondering how other
:> composers feel about the use of conventional harmony in present day
:> music. I have been going to a composition teacher for about a year now,
:> and at just about every lesson he says that I should 'move away from key'
:> because conventional harmony has been 'composed out'. I just don't feel
:> the same way 'though. I still like the sound of conventional harmony. I
:> was wondering if anyone had any comments. Maybe someone can point me in
:> the right direction.
First, I'm going to interject here. I'm 17 years old, have been writing
music as long as I can remember, and have just been accepted to Yale
(yay!) where I plan to study composition. My composition teacher himself
has a rather conservative style, kind of Prokofievan, but I have been a
little adventurous recently... I started flirting with atonality at around
age 10 and now I use it freely. The point is that your teacher shouldn't
be giving you edicts. You should be bringing him stuff and he should be
telling you how to make the piece more effective, while still being in
accord with your original ideas. All my teacher tells me is "the double
bass might not sound here" or "i think the resolution to the fifth is
getting redundant." He's not telling me what style to write in. And
neither should yours - it's stifling.
: I, for one, am sick an tired of composition teachers telling their
:students that tonal harmony is no longer appropriate. There is a
:good deal of excellent music waiting to be written in traditional tonal
:styles. I am very pleased with what little music (actually not so
:little) that I have composed over the years, and all of this music is
:composed using the harmonic styles of the romantic period, particularly
:that of Antonin Dvorak. It is my hunch that many composition professors
This is fine. More power to you, and I wish you success in your artistic
endeavors.
:have denounced the writing of tonal music because they have failed to
:grasp it. In sort of a sour grapes attitute they now take the easier
:route and write music that is the equivalent to an artists spilling
:paint on a canvas and calling it art. You just see, they can't compose
:good music.
This is not fine. Equating tonal with good and atonal with bad betrays
ignorance about music history and a lack of exposure to recent music.
Have you ever tried to write atonal music? It is, in many ways, more
difficult than writing tonally. It is a challenge to maintain a
tension-release pattern, to maintain differentiation between sections of a
piece, to maintain interest. These problems are more easily solved in the
tonal idiom just by playing with dominants and superficial dissonances -
it's easier to make music that *sounds* pleasing for a while, and it's
easier to induce tension in the listener. Having said this, let me point
out that I agree that tonal composition is by no means outdated - but
please keep an open mind and try to listen to more modern music. You may
be surprised by what you hear. A case in point: my father, just last
night, was amazed to learn that a Schoenberg piano concerto we had
listened to, and both had enjoyed greatly, was an example of twelve-tone
composition.
: Don't think for a moment that you can't write good, pleasing and
:original tonal music. You can. Writing very good music does take some
:learning however. There are many posters to this newsgroup who suggest,
:"just write what you like." That may be true to a degree, but one can
:sure compose better music by learning. Unfortunately, there are no good
True enough. And, as above, don't let your teachers tell you WHAT to
write - their job is to tell you HOW to make what you write more
effective.
:texts out there that teach how to compose romantic music (for instance)
:and the best way to learn is to study to scores of composers such as
:Dvorak, Tchiakovsky, Rimsky Korsakof, Mendelsohn, Weber, Beethoven, etc,
:etc or whoever you particularly admire. Now there are several good
Sure, go ahead. But while you're at the music store, also pick up some
Stravinsky and Bartok. Even if you don't decide to incorporate their
ideas, there is plenty to be learned from them as well.
evan
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
evan johnson - joh...@digex.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ejoh...@sidwell.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Larry Solomon
Jeff Harrington wrote (excerpted):
> Second, I would warn anyone attempting to do anything new with
> conventional harmony to ponder the inevitable problem. Music written
> using "conventional" harmony will inavoidably be read in certain
> conventional ways.
>
> are that first it has to sound new, really new. If it doesn't sound new,
> it'll never be signficant, it'll never get people's attention, the best it
> will be is pastiche and there is a lot of pastiche. Do the research.
> Academics for years have tried to revive old tonal practices for the
> purpose of producing more pastiche. There are a zillion guys that have
> tried to be the next Beethoven. A zillion and one, actually... Nobody
> remembers them. Nobody will ever remember them.
Amen.
--
Best!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Larry Solomon, PhD Music Theory & Composition
The Center for the Arts
Tucson, AZ http://www.AzStarNet.com/~solo
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
John Ladasky
In article <67b3bd$9ud$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
Listen to the Incense <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>Slavish immitation is slavish, whether it's of Paul McCartney or
>Anton Webern.
And Slavic imitation is Slavic, whether it's of Maria Szymanowska
or Alexander Scriabin. :^)
--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw. - John Ladasky
jaq...@en.spam-die.com
In article <3498A3...@deakin.edu.au>, Cathie Hutchinson
<hutc...@deakin.edu.au> wrote:
> Hi, my name is Dale and I am 16yrs old. I was wondering how other
> composers feel about the use of conventional harmony in present day
> music. I have been going to a composition teacher for about a year now,
> and at just about every lesson he says that I should 'move away from key'
> because conventional harmony has been 'composed out'. I just don't feel
> the same way 'though. I still like the sound of conventional harmony. I
> was wondering if anyone had any comments. Maybe someone can point me in
> the right direction.
What sort of harmony background do you have? Are you studying harmony with
this teacher? (I almost wrote "man", and I'm not sure that's kneejerk
sexism....control seems to be a guy thing). I find it amazing that so
often, you'll get through secondary dominants and if your're lucky,
augmented 6ths, and then they whip atonality on you. The "death of
tonality" (assuming it actually happened) was a long drawn-out affair that
took most of the nineteenth century, and there are a lot of harmonic
phenomena, governed by voice-leading, that don't get talked about much. You
need to know about that, because it sounds like you'll eventually be
putting together your own tonal language, and there are a lot of ideas
there.
Here's what you need to do: Go back to basics. Figure out what
"conventional harmony" means to you, and what you like about it. Is it the
vibrational simplicity (a.k.a "consonance") that appeals? Maybe your sense
of adventure will take you into justly-tuned tetrads. Is it the strength of
a V-I cadence? What makes that strong, and how has the same thing been done
otherwise? You will need to know music well enough to consciously or
unconsciously tear it all apart and reassemble it in your own image.
Which brings us to the teacher/student relationship. It's part of a
teacher's job to introduce the student to the techniques that are out
there, because you can't fairly reject what you don't know. A good teacher
won't do direct battle with a student's Muse, but instead will assign
exercizes in new techniques while you write "your" music on the side,
hoping that the "exercise" ideas will inform the "music". And a teacher
needs to respond on an aesthetic basis, saying things like "4 measures is
too long to sit on a tonic chord without doing anything." Maybe your tonal
pieces ARE simple-minded...I can't say. The important thing is: think and
play, and be patient. Not even Mozart had his toolkit packed at 16
(Mendelssohn maybe, but IMHO he carried a smaller toolkit). I didn't really
learn to compose until my 30s. I assume you're with this guy because he
knows something you don't; so learn it....THEN you can tell him to go to
Hell.
t.r.mcloughlin
Listen to the Incense wrote:
>
> As a teacher I always consider my prime responsiblity to empower
> the student with my ideas in addition to their own. Sometimes this involves
> asking them, in addition to their own projects, to try a little side
> exercise just to concentrate on one particular aspect.
I think we're saying the same thing.
The "why do I have to learn this just because the
professor says so" is on the rather immature end of
the spectrum. Transforming that attitude into "I am
taking knowledge from this teacher" is a powerful tool.
There are various roles a teacher can play for a student.
As one matures, one seeks practice partners, coaches, teachers,
mentors, gurus, idols. Each plays a different role, and is
appropriate for a different need of the student.
My coming-of-age with this was with a tuba teacher.
I was having difficulty playing across a "break" in the
instrument. He had ideas about what was best to do; I had
ideas about why his ideas wouldn't work for me. After a few
weeks of the same problem he basically said, "well, it looks
I've taught you all that I can. I must be wrong. Your horn
will always have that flaw." Then he picked up the horn
and played it right.
The next week I did, too.
trm
jouv...@cri.ensmp.fr
"t.r.mcloughlin" <tmcl...@erols.com> writes:
>
> Cathie Hutchinson wrote:
>
> One thing useful to learn about learning is this: why are you
> taking lessons from someone, anyway? If you just want to do
> your own thing, you can do it yourself. Once you are past the
> basics, taking lessons really means you are learning what that
> specific teacher knows. No one knows everything (usenet
> notwithstanding).
Those of you interested in learning tonal/classical harmony are
welcome to try my Music Composer's Workbench at
which provides a Java applet that helps you learn the rules. This is
somewhat limited system that goes up to dealing with dominant 7th.
BTW, this is only a prototype and I'm looking for people interested in
this kind of project to extend it to a larger scale.
Happy composing,
Pierre
slidge
>It is my hunch that many composition professors
>have denounced the writing of tonal music because they have failed to
>grasp it. In sort of a sour grapes attitute they now take the easier
>route and write music that is the equivalent to an artists spilling
>paint on a canvas and calling it art. You just see, they can't compose
>good music.
>
I can tell you that your hunch is a leeeeeeetle off base. This "sour grapes"
mentality that you are referring too is the "sour grapes" mentality that led
from Bach to Beethoven, Beethoven to Wagner, Wagner to Schoenberg, and on and
on.
Your claim that it is "the easier route" and the equivalent to "an artists
spilling paint on a canvas" prove, are wrong. Just plain wrong.
To me, the "easiest" route would be to ignore everything that music has stood
for, and compose meaningless music that sounds like it was written a hundred
years before.
And your claim that "they can't compose good music" proves beyond a doubt that
you really don't understand music.
My humble opinion, my two cents, I don't deign to speak for the rest of the
world (like some people).
David Young
slidge wrote:
>
> In article <3498B1...@fcs.net>, DYo...@fcs.net wrote:
>
> >It is my hunch that many composition professors
> >have denounced the writing of tonal music because they have failed to
> >grasp it. In sort of a sour grapes attitute they now take the easier
> >route and write music that is the equivalent to an artists spilling
> >paint on a canvas and calling it art. You just see, they can't compose
> >good music.
> >
>
> I can tell you that your hunch is a leeeeeeetle off base. This "sour grapes"
> mentality
I am not at a position to object to composers who write avant gard
atonal music. But if an atonal composer argues that tonal music is old
and outdated, I am willing to counter that that composer cannot write
creative tonal music, and therefore in "sour grapes" dismisses it as
outdated.
>
> Your claim that it is "the easier route" and the equivalent to "an artists
> spilling paint on a canvas" prove, are wrong. Just plain wrong.
I am willing to beleive that there is creative atonal modern music.
But good deal of what I hear is distinctive in the fact that if you
played the score upside down it wouldn't sound any worse. That is, if
you randomly assigned every 4th note to another note it wouldn't make
the music bad. Believe you me, if you assigned every fourth note of my
music randomly to a different pitch my music would sound considerably
different and a lot less satisfying.
>
> To me, the "easiest" route would be to ignore everything that music has stood
> for, and compose meaningless music that sounds like it was written a hundred
> years before.
Frankly, it is not easy to compose masterful romantic music and the
fact is, I am arguing that a good deal of modern composers don't have
the talent to do so. They may think they have, but in fact they don't
understand it.
>
> And your claim that "they can't compose good music" proves beyond a doubt that you really don't understand music.
Whether or not I understand it or not is an unsolved question. I don't
have a lot of successes in music at this time because my profession and
family responsibilities leave me little time to compose. I can't prove
that I can and you can't prove that I can't. I do have a few pieces
completed and they are getting better and better.
>
David Young
Alan Taylor
Cathie Hutchinson
> harmony in present day music.
You seem to mean diatonic harmony used according to conventional classical
rule - or am I wrong to assume that? If I'm right, then you need to think
about how to use that musical language very carefully. Like any musical
language, it comes loaded with assumptions, values, and constraints which
belong to the age in which it originated, and who do not really belong in
our age. Its fine to write deliberate pastiche, or even to write in a
deliberately nostalgic way, but it seems to me that a composer today cannot
write in a diatonic style unless they are being intentionally nostalgic,
sarcastic, wanting to refer to those ideas of a past age in order to point
them up in some way, or whatever.
Of course, lots of contemporary music uses ideas of tonality, but that is a
different question from taking on board the whole diatonic musical language
and value system.
To me, composing art music should properly be about expressing how it feels
to be alive in our own age. IMHO you can't do that if you use the musical
language of a previous age which had a very different value system.
--
Alan Taylor
Listen to the Incense
Okay, I'll jump into the fray.
Legion are the hacks trying to immitate Beethoven. Uncreative immitation of
the finest artists of past generations remains uncreative.
At my web site there's evidence that I have indeed grasped tonality.
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. Surf to TwelveToneToyBox! It's my first Java
Applet, and it won Jars Top 1%! http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
Featured addresses: bdr...@PONYEXPRESS.NET ni...@cyberxpress.net,
ro...@clever.net postm...@array.ca ME...@HOME.NET j...@pornlord.com johnyc...@HOTMAIL.COM Postm...@worldOnline.nl
PGrant
I didn't even know it was sick!
PG
NYC
Samuel Vriezen
David Young <DYo...@fcs.net>:
> I am willing to beleive that there is creative atonal modern music.
>But good deal of what I hear is distinctive in the fact that if you
>played the score upside down it wouldn't sound any worse. That is, if
>you randomly assigned every 4th note to another note it wouldn't make
>the music bad.
Perhaps an example might be in order?
> Frankly, it is not easy to compose masterful romantic music and the
>fact is, I am arguing that a good deal of modern composers don't have
>the talent to do so. They may think they have, but in fact they don't
>understand it.
Like who? Boulez?
Samuel
Listen to the Incense
Uh, I'll stick my neck out as a minority view here. What sounds good
is good, whether it's up to date or not.
The danger in writing in past styles is that you might end up merely
immitating, rather than stealing. If your craft is secure enough and
your personality is interesting enough, anything you touch will become
uniquely yours in your hands.
David Young
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
> David Young <DYo...@fcs.net>:
>
> That is, if
> >you randomly assigned every 4th note to another note it wouldn't make
> >the music bad.
>
> Perhaps an example might be in order?
>
All the music that I have heard attending meetings of NACUSA (National
association of composers, USA). But I guess that isn't saying much.
David Young
David Young
Listen to the Incense wrote:
>
> the finest artists of past generations remains uncreative.
Ah, but Matt.... creative works written in a 19th century style are in
fact creative.
David
Brian Newhouse
In article <349B5A...@fcs.net>, DYo...@fcs.net wrote:
[snip]
>
> >
> > To me, the "easiest" route would be to ignore everything that music
has stood
> > for, and compose meaningless music that sounds like it was written a hundred
> > years before.
>
> Frankly, it is not easy to compose masterful romantic music and the
> fact is, I am arguing that a good deal of modern composers don't have
> the talent to do so. They may think they have, but in fact they don't
> understand it.
>
>
Why is the only conceivable alternative to atonal modern music romantic
music? (Even on the level of stylistic pastiche, there are a good five or
six centuries of fully notated polyphonic more or less tonal music created
before 1800 to imitate.)
Why is it not possible that one can understand masterful romantic music
and go on to create something quite different?
Why is it necessary to create and evaluate music chiefly if not solely
according to the dictates of one or another "style"? Is there no more to
a piece of music than its stylistic label?
Really, this sort of controversy is enough to make one rush to the nearest
Oasis in search of a better time...
--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@mail.crisp.net
Samuel Vriezen
David Young <DYo...@fcs.net>:
Also, most of them are created in the 19th century.
My, my. It's the 20th century, almost the 21st century. Compose a
piece now that could have been composed in the 19th century? You can
only do so by imitation. By definition. Think about it, this is a
logical necessity, not just 'modernist' polemics. And what's so
creative about imitation?
The picture becomes different entirely if you take elements from
tradition and turn them into something unique again. But then you're
no longer writing in a style that belongs to the past; if you were it
wouldn't be something unique. In fact, I think this is exactly what
most 20th century composers I know of have been doing. Take Boulez:
his understanding of past music is enormous.
Now, my friend, go thou and write Beethoven's 9th. At least you'll
compose some good music...
Samuel
Samuel Vriezen
David Young <DYo...@fcs.net>:
> All the music that I have heard attending meetings of NACUSA (National
>association of composers, USA). But I guess that isn't saying much.
You haven't much to say, and you are saying it? Is that poetry? :-)
You are right indeed. It is not saying much, if only for the fact that
I never went to the USA. Like, I say all music in a tonality written
after Schoenberg is bad, because this is what my experience tells me.
So I wouldn't say such things. You'd better come up with a more
concrete example. We still don't know whether it's the music or your
ears that are in error.
Samuel
Listen to the Incense
I think the question is not quite on the money. *Conventional* anything is
dead. But, like Georgia O'keefe with her ram's skulls, you can make your
own very lively art out of dead things.
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
Featured addresses: gru...@NETROX.NET mra...@MAGG.NET bdr...@PONYEXPRESS.NET
David Young
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
> David Young <DYo...@fcs.net>:
>
> >Listen to the Incense wrote:
> >>
> >. Uncreative immitation of
> >> the finest artists of past generations remains uncreative.
> >
> > Ah, but Matt.... creative works written in a 19th century style are in
> >fact creative.
>
> Also, most of them are created in the 19th century.
>
> My, my. It's the 20th century, almost the 21st century. Compose a
> piece now that could have been composed in the 19th century? You can
> only do so by imitation.
Do you feel the same way about painting? Go to Carmel, Mendocino or
Los Olivos (all California) and visit the several dozen art galleries
and you will see a considerable number of artworks painted in a very
realistic manner.... that is, what I would consider the artists'
equivalent to romantic (or classical music). Yes, there are some
impressionistic paintings (equating to impressionistic art) and some
very modern works (equated to atonal music). But there are a large
number of realistic paintings. That is (of course) paintings that look
much like the real object.
Now most painters have decided to paint in a particular variation of
the style.. for instance, some paint desert scenes, others paint
Northern California hillsides, another paints gardens, and still another
paints Hawaiian coastal sea life (or is this latter the artists
equivalent of Yanni?). Featheroff, for example, paints extremely
realistic paintings of the Northern California foothills and I believe
they are very beautiful. (Slaughter paints Texas hillsides.) It seems
that others think so as well, since his paintings go for 20 grand and
up. And so on and so on...
Do you believe that these painters should be criticized because they
are imitating a style of 150 years ago? Or are they not original (or at
least a little original) in so much that they are painting in a slightly
different style as the painter of 150 years ago? (That is to say that
150 years ago there were few painters of Hawaiian coastal sea life, or
Mojave desert scenes). It looks to me that each of these artists have
made a niche by painting in a particular style and subject matter and
have become very successful at it. And the paintings sell (very well).
I don't anticipate or try to write exactly like Beethoven, Mozart,
Schubert or even my admired Dvorak. But I write in a very similar
style. I don't think that this is imitation at all. (Any more than
these successful artists are imitating a century+ old style).
> Now, my friend, go thou and write Beethoven's 9th. At least you'll
> compose some good music...
>
> Samuel
No, I'm not fond enough of Beethoven to copy Beethoven, but would be
very happy if my music was compared to Dvorak. Alas, maybe someday.
All the same, I can see that I am developing enough of my own sub-style
to not be directly compared to any 19th century composer. And yet, my
music is definitely 19th century in spirit.
If you are so sure of your statements, then you must discard a good
portion of the art of contemporary artists. That's fine. But do
realize that these artists are very well respected and sell high.
David Young
DYo...@fcs.net
David Cleary
David Young (DYo...@fcs.net) wrote:: >
: > That is, if
: > >you randomly assigned every 4th note to another note it wouldn't make
: > >the music bad.
: >
: > Perhaps an example might be in order?
: All the music that I have heard attending meetings of NACUSA (National
: association of composers, USA). But I guess that isn't saying much.
There's plenty of lousy music out there, tonal, atonal, and in-between.
The problem IMHO is with the composer, not the style they choose to write
in.
Dave
Samuel Vriezen
dcl...@fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary):
>: > That is, if
>: > >you randomly assigned every 4th note to another note it wouldn't make
>: > >the music bad.
>: >
>: > Perhaps an example might be in order?
>
>: All the music that I have heard attending meetings of NACUSA (National
>: association of composers, USA). But I guess that isn't saying much.
>
>There's plenty of lousy music out there, tonal, atonal, and in-between.
>The problem IMHO is with the composer, not the style they choose to write
>in.
The most interesting composers do not have to worry about style _at
all_. They do not go and choose a readily-available style in which to
write: the works they write turn out to be stylistically interesting.
Whether you change every fourth note or not.
Samuel
Samuel Vriezen
David Young <DYo...@fcs.net>:
> If you are so sure of your statements, then you must discard a good
>portion of the art of contemporary artists. That's fine. But do
>realize that these artists are very well respected and sell high.
Reputation and money are the last two things I am interested in when
it comes to appreciation of art.
A reputation is nice for drawing attention. Sales are nice to improve
your lifestyle.
Samuel
Samuel Vriezen
The fact that painting 'realistically' has ever been the quintessence
of art (especially romantic art - might be nice to check out what
Hegel, just to grab a philosopher, was writing on this), and the fact
that figurative art is the style of 150 years ago, are both new to me.
David Young <DYo...@fcs.net>:
Listen to the Incense
I'm sorry, if you're writing creative music today, you are in fact
composing in your own manner, whether you metabolize 19th-century materials
into it or not. If you're making ersatz music, you're making ersatz music,
and a sensitive listener will know the difference. Same with visual
art: lots of folks with nothing to say and a lot of pomposity paint pictures
of an apple on a table or the city pond, but folks with something special
to say take the same materials and make a viewer experience a new sense of
wonder at them.
Stale art is stale whether you make it by recycling misunderstood
gestures from Vivaldi into a TV advert or you make it by recycling
misunderstood gestures from Webern into a horror filmscore. Vibrant
music is vibrant without regards to that stuff, too.
slidge
>>
>
> I am not at a position to object to composers who write avant gard
>atonal music. But if an atonal composer argues that tonal music is old
>and outdated, I am willing to counter that that composer cannot write
>creative tonal music, and therefore in "sour grapes" dismisses it as
>outdated.
>
I'm not quite sure that you understand the difference between "avant garde
atonal music" and the music that is being written today. You are probably
referring to the total serialism that came out of the late 1940's and was
abandoned by pretty much everybody except academia. To make the claim that
Boulez, Stockhausen, Crumb, and Berio cannot write "creative" tonal music is
extremely weak. They write extremely "creative" music. It's not tonal,
because the direction that their music has gone is hampered by 'tonality'.
I write music that is not atonal. However, you cannot analyze it like you
would a Brahms piece. Everything I write is centered around a tonal idea, in
the sense that it has a beginning and an end, and the tones at the beginning
and the end are somehow related to each other. It is the relation of the
tones that matters, isn't it.
Listen to Varese's Density 21.5. Think about the opening gesture as being
tonal, and listen to the development of the piece throughout.
>>
>> Your claim that it is "the easier route" and the equivalent to "an artists
>> spilling paint on a canvas" prove, are wrong. Just plain wrong.
>
> I am willing to beleive that there is creative atonal modern music.
>But good deal of what I hear is distinctive in the fact that if you
>played the score upside down it wouldn't sound any worse. That is, if
>you randomly assigned every 4th note to another note it wouldn't make
>the music bad. Believe you me, if you assigned every fourth note of my
>music randomly to a different pitch my music would sound considerably
>different and a lot less satisfying.
>
And a good deal of what I hear from the 19th century is overblown imitation of
Beethoven. The reason it sounds random to you is because you are refusing to
accept the fact that it is not random. People who speak French to me are
mindlessly blabbing gibberish - however, if I look a their body language and
hand gestures, I realize that they are trying to say something.
>>
>> To me, the "easiest" route would be to ignore everything that music has stood
>> for, and compose meaningless music that sounds like it was written a hundred
>> years before.
>
> Frankly, it is not easy to compose masterful romantic music and the
>fact is, I am arguing that a good deal of modern composers don't have
>the talent to do so. They may think they have, but in fact they don't
>understand it.
>
>
I'm not saying that it is easy to write a masterful Romantic piece. Many
people did it, over a hundred years ago.
It is also not easy to write a masterful modern piece.
And I'm sure if you told Brahms that "Oh, yeah, your music is nice, but you
couldn't write a masterful cantata if your life depended on it" old Johannes
would have looked at you and said, "Why in the name of God would I want to
write a Bach-like cantata?"
Would you feel comfortable saying, to Brahms, "Well, maybe you just know that
you couldn't write one."?
>
>>
>> And your claim that "they can't compose good music" proves beyond a doubt
> that you really don't understand music.
>
> Whether or not I understand it or not is an unsolved question. I don't
>have a lot of successes in music at this time because my profession and
>family responsibilities leave me little time to compose. I can't prove
>that I can and you can't prove that I can't. I do have a few pieces
>completed and they are getting better and better.
>
>>
Okay, I was a little out of line there. As Joseph Campbell was fond of
saying, "Follow your bliss". As long as new music is being written, I really
can't complain.
I just personally feel that everyone should strive to go ahead with music -
but I suppose a few of us can look back.
>David Young
DannyMuse
In article <349e3b6...@news.xs4all.nl>, s...@xs4all.nl (Samuel Vriezen)
writes:
> A reputation is nice for drawing attention. Sales are nice to improve
> your lifestyle. <
Or: "Flattery feeds my ego. Commissions feed my children!"
Daniel O'Brien,
Composer & Producer
Matt
In article <19971223164...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
DannyMuse <dann...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <349e3b6...@news.xs4all.nl>, s...@xs4all.nl (Samuel Vriezen)
>writes:
>
>> A reputation is nice for drawing attention. Sales are nice to improve
>> your lifestyle. <
>
>Or: "Flattery feeds my ego. Commissions feed my children!"
>
contrasted with: "Nifty sounds --- feed back on the learning process
I started just 'cuz I like nifty sounds. It's quite circular, you know."
BHeneg8560
In article <na.d726b647fb...@argonet.co.uk>, Alan Taylor
<ata...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> it seems to me that a composer today cannot
>write in a diatonic style unless they are being intentionally nostalgic,
>sarcastic, wanting to refer to those ideas of a past age in order to point
>them up in some way, or whatever.
This isn't true. A composer can write anyway he wants. It may be interpreted in
a number of different ways, but that's not the composer's fault. Diatonicism
doesn't HAVE to be in a glass case - it can have a living connection to any
other musical discourse.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
"What! No gwavy?!?"
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
BHeneg8560 wrote:
>
> In article <na.d726b647fb...@argonet.co.uk>, Alan Taylor
> <ata...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>
> > it seems to me that a composer today cannot
> >write in a diatonic style unless they are being intentionally nostalgic,
> >sarcastic, wanting to refer to those ideas of a past age in order to point
> >them up in some way, or whatever.
>
> This isn't true. A composer can write anyway he
-- or she? --
> wants. It may be interpreted in
> a number of different ways, but that's not the composer's fault. Diatonicism
> doesn't HAVE to be in a glass case - it can have a living connection to any
> other musical discourse.
Excerpt from the Kalvos & Damian show with Kaija Saariaho:
Kalvos: You are very harsh in your rejection of traditional shapes and
melodies and harmonies. You call them obsolete. Why do you feel that
way?
Kaija Saariaho: I think that the time we're living in right now, it's an
unbelievable time. Look all what is happening around us -- the natural
catastrophes and all the big problems that we all are conscious of. This
we cannot avoid. It's unfortunate. But then, when we think about the
cultural world, there is also this enormous pollution, and this idea of
money power and meaning of measuring everything in money and measuring
your value and value of your music in terms of money and how many people
listen to it and how many people bought your CDs and all this. I think
it's horrible. How can anybody stay creative in this kind of
environment? And what are the things that young composers today, for
example, ask themselves? ... In this world that they are living, they
are asking themselves, will this sell?, and all these kinds of questions
which really should not be. It really should not be our problem if we
want to create personal music. All kinds of postmodern attitudes --
taking historical elements and gluing them as if by us being the ones
who glue it would make it contemporary -- this I find most hateful.
The full interviews (shows #65 and 67) are available at
http://www.audionet.com/shows/kalvos/
Dennis
Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar
http://www.maltedmedia.com/kalvos/
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
BHeneg8560 wrote:
>
> In article <34A6DE...@maltedmedia.com>, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
> <bat...@maltedmedia.com> writes:
>
> >Excerpt from the Kalvos & Damian show with Kaija Saariaho:
>
> >Kalvos: You are very harsh in your rejection of traditional shapes and
> >melodies and harmonies. You call them obsolete. Why do you feel that
> >way?
> >
> >Kaija Saariaho: I think that the time we're living in right now, it's an
> >unbelievable time. Look all what is happening around us -- the natural
> >catastrophes and all the big problems that we all are conscious of. This
> >we cannot avoid. It's unfortunate. But then, when we think about the
> >cultural world, there is also this enormous pollution, and this idea of
> >money power and meaning of measuring everything in money and measuring
> >your value and value of your music in terms of money and how many people
> >listen to it and how many people bought your CDs and all this. I think
> >it's horrible. How can anybody stay creative in this kind of
> >environment? And what are the things that young composers today, for
> >example, ask themselves? ... In this world that they are living, they
> >are asking themselves, will this sell?, and all these kinds of questions
> >which really should not be. It really should not be our problem if we
> >want to create personal music. All kinds of postmodern attitudes --
> >taking historical elements and gluing them as if by us being the ones
> >who glue it would make it contemporary -- this I find most hateful.
>
> in. Anyway, it's worth remembering that before one accepts the testimony of any
> artist, one must decide how much one likes that artist's work - if you think
> it's crap, the chances are you won't pay much attention to anything the artist
> says, unless it makes sense by itself. Here's a tip - pick a dauntingly foreign
> sounding artist, and not many people will have the nerve to say he's talking
> shite.
Henegan's entry in Baker's Dictionary: __________
Saariaho's ("she") entry in Baker's Dictionary: p1568-9.
BHeneg8560
>BHeneg8560 wrote:
>> This isn't true. A composer can write anyway he
>-- or she? --
>> wants. It may be interpreted in
>> a number of different ways, but that's not the composer's fault.
>Diatonicism
>> doesn't HAVE to be in a glass case - it can have a living connection to any
>> other musical discourse.
>Excerpt from the Kalvos & Damian show with Kaija Saariaho:
best wishes
BHeneg8560
In article <34A72A...@maltedmedia.com>, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
<bat...@maltedmedia.com> writes:
>Henegan's entry in Baker's Dictionary: __________
>Saariaho's ("she") entry in Baker's Dictionary: p1568-9.
What's Baker's Dictionary?
This is what I originally wrote:
A composer can write anyway he
wants. It may be interpreted in
a number of different ways, but that's not the composer's fault.
Diatonicism doesn't HAVE to be in a glass case - it can have a living
connection to any
other musical discourse.
This is the one part (of what Dennis quoted at me) that seems relevant:
>Kaija Saariaho: [snip...]
>All kinds of postmodern attitudes --
>taking historical elements and gluing them as if by us being the ones
>who glue it would make it contemporary -- this I find most hateful.
Saariaho is merely stating what *she* finds hateful. Nobody's forced to agree
with her - it's a matter of opinion. But if I knew her music and liked it, had
an affinity with it, there's more chance that my opinion on this subject might
coincide with hers. Since I know nothing of her music, all I can say in
response to Dennis's choice of quotation is this:
What Saariaho's talking about here ("taking historical elements and glueing
them as if by us being the ones who glue it would make it contemporary") is not
the same thing at all as what I'm talking about.
For a start, it's literally impossible for the output of a living composer NOT
to be contemporary. If that's your only aim, well, relax, you've achieved it.
Of course, if by "contemporary" you also mean: containing elements that you've
decided are "contemporary", as opposed to other elements that you've decided
*aren't* contemporary, well that's different, and once again, only a matter of
opinion.
But more importantly, however you interpret Saariaho's use of the word
"contemporary", *I'm* not talking about gluing anything together. I used the
term "living connection", by which I mean a continuum. One attitude that helps
here is to understand that all music listened to and prized/valued/loved by
contemporary people IS, in fact, contemporary music, no matter what century it
was written in - it's alive, not dead. It can become part of you, if that's
what you want. And then moving back, forth, or sideways through this continuum
becomes a natural process. It probably doesn't do anything for your
marketability, however - probably the reverse.
Incidentally, Dennis, it's "Heneghan", not "Henegan". Although there's a very
faint chance you were looking in the wrong place, it's far more likely that
through some outrageous concatenation of events I've been completely
overlooked.
David Cleary
BHeneg8560 (bhene...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <34A72A...@maltedmedia.com>, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
: <bat...@maltedmedia.com> writes:
: >Henegan's entry in Baker's Dictionary: __________
: >Saariaho's ("she") entry in Baker's Dictionary: p1568-9.
: What's Baker's Dictionary?
Unless my memory is faulty, this would be "Baker's Biographical Dictionary
of Musicians," a standard reference work in the field. Any good music
library should have one.
Dave
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
That's the one. Eighth edition, ISBN 0-02-872415-1, one of Slonimsky's
last triumphs. About US$90.
Samuel Vriezen
bhene...@aol.com (BHeneg8560):
>For a start, it's literally impossible for the output of a living composer NOT
>to be contemporary. If that's your only aim, well, relax, you've achieved it.
>Of course, if by "contemporary" you also mean: containing elements that you've
>decided are "contemporary", as opposed to other elements that you've decided
>*aren't* contemporary, well that's different, and once again, only a matter of
>opinion.
Oh well, this is just the way people have of confusing words. However
you take it, there really should be a sense in which you can use the
word contemporary, so as not to have it be applicable to someone
writing Beethoven's eleventh symphony, but to have it be applicable to
someone who is doing something interesting and not fully reducable to
the historical examples.
The word feels like the word 'dated'... today people are always
commenting on sixties music that it sounds 'dated', they never say
this about Bach, could it be that 'contemporary' really means
'excitingly new' and 'dated' really means 'bad', that all this has
nothing much to do with the progress of music history and all that
crap?
Samuel
Matt
In article <34abe5f...@news.xs4all.nl>,
Samuel Vriezen <s...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>The word feels like the word 'dated'... today people are always
>commenting on sixties music that it sounds 'dated', they never say
>this about Bach, could it be that 'contemporary' really means
>'excitingly new' and 'dated' really means 'bad', that all this has
>nothing much to do with the progress of music history and all that
>crap?
If, by music of the 1960's, you mean popular music, may I recommend
the opening essay in College Music Symposium, volume 37, Misoulla,
Montana: College Music Society (1997). It compares Petulia Clark's
"Downtown" with Dolly Parton's remake of it and argues that radio
distribution is not based on core musical values but rather on the
economics of delivering a specific target audience to advertisers.
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
Featured addresses: birth...@INAME.COM us...@REPLAY.COM trav...@XS4ALL.NL gru...@NETROX.NET mra...@MAGG.NET bdr...@PONYEXPRESS.NET
Samuel Vriezen
fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matt):
>In article <34abe5f...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>Samuel Vriezen <s...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>The word feels like the word 'dated'... today people are always
>>commenting on sixties music that it sounds 'dated', they never say
>>this about Bach, could it be that 'contemporary' really means
>>'excitingly new' and 'dated' really means 'bad', that all this has
>>nothing much to do with the progress of music history and all that
>>crap?
>
>If, by music of the 1960's, you mean popular music, may I recommend
>the opening essay in College Music Symposium, volume 37, Misoulla,
>Montana: College Music Society (1997). It compares Petulia Clark's
>"Downtown" with Dolly Parton's remake of it and argues that radio
>distribution is not based on core musical values but rather on the
>economics of delivering a specific target audience to advertisers.
No, I meant avantgarde music.
Samuel
Herb Levy
In article <34abe5f...@news.xs4all.nl>, s...@xs4all.nl (Samuel Vriezen)
wrote:
> bhene...@aol.com (BHeneg8560):
>
> >For a start, it's literally impossible for the output of a living
composer NOT
> >to be contemporary. If that's your only aim, well, relax, you've achieved it.
> >Of course, if by "contemporary" you also mean: containing elements that
you've
> >decided are "contemporary", as opposed to other elements that you've decided
> >*aren't* contemporary, well that's different, and once again, only a
matter of
> >opinion.
>
> Oh well, this is just the way people have of confusing words. However
> you take it, there really should be a sense in which you can use the
> word contemporary, so as not to have it be applicable to someone
> writing Beethoven's eleventh symphony, but to have it be applicable to
> someone who is doing something interesting and not fully reducable to
> the historical examples.
You're quibbling here, but "contemporary" IS correct in either of the two
senses used above. I sometimes use the word "recent" when I have to
describe music that been created lately in an older style. Maybe that'll
work for you too.
> The word feels like the word 'dated'... today people are always
> commenting on sixties music that it sounds 'dated', they never say
> this about Bach, could it be that 'contemporary' really means
> 'excitingly new' and 'dated' really means 'bad', that all this has
> nothing much to do with the progress of music history and all that
> crap?
People don't say a lot of negative things about Bach, so your example may
be a bit skewed. There ARE works from the Baroque period (perhaps some by
Bach, depending on your point of view) that do seem "dated", that is,
idiomatically appropriate for the style of the period, but not making much
of an impression otherwise.
This is true for most any period or style you can think ofd. just as there
are some works from the sixties (which would again depend on your point of
view) which are decidedly NOT "dated".
--
Herb Levy
he...@eskimo.com
Samuel Vriezen
he...@eskimo.com (Herb Levy):
>> Oh well, this is just the way people have of confusing words. However
>> you take it, there really should be a sense in which you can use the
>> word contemporary, so as not to have it be applicable to someone
>> writing Beethoven's eleventh symphony, but to have it be applicable to
>> someone who is doing something interesting and not fully reducable to
>> the historical examples.
>
>You're quibbling here, but "contemporary" IS correct in either of the two
>senses used above. I sometimes use the word "recent" when I have to
>describe music that been created lately in an older style. Maybe that'll
>work for you too.
That would be a nice idea. The issue was of course not about what use
of 'contemporary' is correct, but whether we can try to use it to
communicate something about 'style' belonging to 'our time' or
something, denoting (aspects of) works that could not have been
conceived before the time of its composition. (You could then say that
the most important works would be those that provide the foundations
for the possibility of their coming into existence themselves, making
a tautology out of the statement that they 'could not have been
conceived before the time of their composition'). But perhaps another
word than 'contemporary' would be needed for this restricted meaning
as well.
>> The word feels like the word 'dated'... today people are always
>> commenting on sixties music that it sounds 'dated', they never say
>> this about Bach, could it be that 'contemporary' really means
>> 'excitingly new' and 'dated' really means 'bad', that all this has
>> nothing much to do with the progress of music history and all that
>> crap?
>
>People don't say a lot of negative things about Bach, so your example may
>be a bit skewed. There ARE works from the Baroque period (perhaps some by
>Bach, depending on your point of view) that do seem "dated", that is,
>idiomatically appropriate for the style of the period, but not making much
>of an impression otherwise.
Bach on the other hand is often idiomatically appropriate for the
style of the period, but does make a lot of an impression... but still
he is firmly rooted in his time. The question is whether the date of
the composition thus has much to do with the quality of the music... I
know, the good Bach stuff is so brilliant that it appears as though it
was composed yesterday... this property of the music would probably
rely on the possibility of hearing it in a new way all the time, the
possibility of the work transforming itself over and over again in the
mind of the listener, thus turning the listener into the composer's
assistent. And the 'dated' music would be that music that does not
change its appearance, remaining solely 'Baroque'. Still, to describe
such musics, I would prefer the term 'mediocre' to 'dated'.
>This is true for most any period or style you can think ofd. just as there
>are some works from the sixties (which would again depend on your point of
>view) which are decidedly NOT "dated".
Indeed, depending on your point of view... there is a lot of people
out there that do not enjoy listening to Stockhausen's Gruppen (poor
souls!). They'll tend to call such a work 'dated', and it would be
hard to argue them, as the work is very much a child of its time and
it is not really thinkable that it would be written today, the work is
fatally 50's/60's. But should they ever call it 'mediocre' I would
have to disagree.
Samuel