Re: Musical languistics - Mass Reply

 --- John Cowan skrzypszy:

> ObDigression: In 1892, Dvorak moved into a house a little more than a
> kilometer from where I live when he was appointed music director of the
> National Conservatory of Music.  He wrote the New World Symphony there.
> A statue of him stands in a nearby park.  Unfortunately, the house was
> demolished in 1992 despite a last-ditch attempt to have it declared a
> cultural landmark.
What a shame! Unfortunately, the demolition of monuments is something that
happens here, too :(( .

> In his sf novels of the 60s and 70s, the English novelist John Brunner
> foresaw a 21st century music based heavily on polyrhythms too complex
> to be accurately performed by human beings (11 against 13, e.g.), and
> only possible through computer performance.  AFAIK this has not happened,
> but I think it would be interesting to listen to!
Nor do I think it will happen. As a matter of fact, this kind of things were
done in the 1960s and 1970s; not surprisingly in the same period when he wrote
his novels. I suppose he followed the logic that today's avant-garde will be
tomorrow's common property. Anton Webern, who expected that after fifty years
the average worker would whistle his tunes, obviously was wrong for the same
reason.
It is of course possible to listen to this kind of polyrhythms simply by
programming a computer. I did that and listened. Personally, I don't find it
very interesting. Such things are terribly difficult to perform, and definitely
no fun for the performer. With my experience in performing contemporary music I
can easily handle 3:4, 4:3, 5:6, 7:4, etc., but almost nobody can place 11:13
properly. Besides, there are much easier ways to achieve a similar effect.
Ligeti writes such things in order to achieve "sound clouds", but don't believe
that everyone who takes part in such a performance plays exactly what is
written.

> As an occasional writer of sonnets (as opposed to a writer of occasional
> sonnets), I sympathize greatly with this viewpoint.
Exactly.

> > Does a great composer necessarily need to be a revolutionary?
>
> No, but that's the way to get the grant money.  :-)
Unfortunate but true.

> Raymond Smullyan tells the story of Schoenberg saying in an interview,
> "Music, to be great, must be cold and unemotional."  The next day, a
> friend of Stravinsky's said to him, "Can you believe Schoenberg saying
> that great music must be cold and unemotional?"  Stravinsky immediately
> became furious, shouting "I said that first!"
LOL. Well, I don't think Schönberg's music is cold and unemotional, just very
complicated and difficult to listen to. Personally I prefer Stravinsky, whose
music is quite unemotional but definitely not cold.

Jan

=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html