Re: Musical languistics - Mass Reply

I am mostly snipping out all but some of Jan's replies
here:

--- Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@...>
wrote:
> Have you ever listened to polyphonic vocal music
> from Georgia? In my opinion,
> this belongs to the most to the most beautiful
> things that ever meet the ear.
I personally have not. But my interest has been
piqued! Anything in particular that you would
recommend?

> Really? And I was under the assumption that you
> write 21st century "serious"
> classical music! ;))                        ^^
Of course! ;)))

> But seriously, James: what is the music you write
> like?
My website has some one-minute MP3 samples of a few
works. Unfortunately it has not been substantially
updated for quite some time:
http://www.geocities.com/jamesworlton

> I really can't imagine that a
> person who loves classical music would like at least
> one of those, unless he
> just wants Beethoven, Beethoven, and more Beethoven.
> In general, people who claim that that they don't
> like contemporary music
> simply haven't listened well enough.
Amen, brother! We all need to keep open minds. That is
the only way to effectively weed out the chaff. Also
applies to the following:

> Well, of course I belong to the former group too.
> But I also believe that
> music, that can be appreciated only after an
> extensive musical training, is a
> failure. The only thing that may be required from
> the listener is IMO his
> preparedness to listen with an open ear.
>
>
> Music that
> might be interesting but does
> not communicate with the listener is nothing but an
> intellectual exercise.
> Music that sounds nice without there being anything
> interesting in it, is cheap
> crap.
Amen!

> Purely consonant music is as boring to me
> as purely dissonant music,
> and music that is one continuous orgasm as boring as
> music that has no
> development at all.
The really effective composer will define in the
musical context of a particular piece what
"consonance" and "dissonance" means to the piece, and
then compose with those definitions informing all
compositional decisions. Before this generates a
flurry of disagreement, *grin*, I do feel that there
are universal consonances and dissonances in
acoustics. However, I am not convinced that the same
exists in music.

> Stravinsky is absolutely favourite composer!
> Structured yes, intense yes, but
> dark? If you ask me, Stravinsky wrote about the
> brightest music ever written in
> the 20th century!
Stravinsky rocks! (Figuratively speaking, of course!)
His music is definitely among the
brightest/optimistic/etc. of the last century.

> For me, music that
> doesn't have "bit" is not
> worth listening to.
I think you meant "bite" :). This is what I meant by
"interest".

> Well, the basic idea of electronic music is
> two-fold: you can make sounds that
> no acoustic instrument can produce, and the composer
> has full control over the
> performance.
> Now, with the latter idea is disagree, because it
> represents utter disrespect
> for the performer. But I can't deny that the
> computer allows us to create
> sounds that were never heard before - which can be
> interesting, really.
As an active practictioner of the electronic music
described above, that appears to be a good summation.
I don't agree with your disagreement, however. :)
Certainly I have had those thoughts, that why bother
with performers who are likely to mess up when a
computer/tape is "perfect." That is not the reason I
write the music though.

> Nowadays, most tape music consists rarely of
> electronic sounds only: spoken
> text, Bulgarian womens' choirs (modified or not),
> bird song, ambient sounds,
> you mention it: it can all occur on a tape. Not many
> composers write pure tape
> music anymore, though. In general, it gives the
> audience a bad feeling when
> they pay their money only to sit down and listen to
> a bunch of loudspeakers.
Well, I'm in a minority then! Actually, in the US it
appears that the split between pure tape and tape + is
about even.

> I still cannot stand Chopin, probably because I
> spend too much time at the
> Chopin Academy in Warsaw; pianists who study there
> are spoonfed with Chopin
> till they throw up. Musical history, they are
> taught, can be subdivided in two
> categories: 1. Chopin; 2. all the other stuff.
>
> What I particularly don't like in Chopin's music,
> apart from the terrible
> mannerism, is the fact the 80 % of the notes are
> nothing but linking material.
I like Chopin (in small doses).

--- James Worlton skrzypszy:
>
> > Certainly artists draw on the past. It is a waste
> of
> > time to continually re-invent the wheel. :))
>
> I have heard this complaint very often, James, and I
> must say that I disagree.
> To use the same parallel: why would it be forbidden,
> after the wheel has been
> invented, to create more wheels?
> If a composer (or any artist, for that matter)
> simply copies the musical
> language of another composer, contemporary or not,
> it means that he sucks
> creatively. But if a composer has a musical language
> that *could* also have
> existed in the past, does that automatically
> disqualify him? In my opinion, as
> long as he develops his own recognisable style of
> writing, he can be as a great
> as composer as anyone else.
> Does a great composer necessarily need to be a
> revolutionary?
I don't disagree with anything you have said. So I
should clarify what I meant. What I meant was that if
a composer always tries to break new territory they
are likely to produce little. Certainly composers
should always try new things. And most do, but within
their own "language." Composers should always try to
improve their craft (yes, craft). Thereby their art
becomes more "artistic."


=====
James Worlton
-----------------
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
                 -Unknown

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

Replies