Re: OT: Musical languistics

--- Adam Walker <carrajena@...> wrote:
> --- James Worlton <jamesworlton@...> wrote:
> > --- Adam Walker <carrajena@...> wrote:
> > > I'd
> > > rather listen to 20th century "serious"
> classical.
> > > Yes even to THAT!
> > >
> > > Adam
> >
> > Glad to hear it! (Since that is what I write ;)))
> .)
> >
>
> Well, there has been *some* decent classical written
> in the last 100 years.  Copeland was good.  Dvorak
> wrote this c., didn't he? And there are others.  But
> since the 60's about the only decent stuff was
> written
> for movie scores.  Not surprising, much of the best
> classical was written as overtures to operas before
> the movies.  To my ears the "experimental" music is
> vile noise.  I prefer almost anything but that
> Zairean
> stuff.
Obviously, this is not the place for an extended
discussion on musical aesthetics. But I can't avoid
the need to comment. There seem to be two schools of
thought about what 'decent' music is. The first (held
by a lot of people in the world of 'contemporary
classical music') proposes that music can be good or
bad based on how internally consistent it is, how
skillfully the composer treats/develops the musical
materials, regardless of the musical language (read:
set of notes/tonality/atonality/etc.). The other camp
(which includes most non-musicians, i.e., those
without 'extensive musical training') think that if
music doesn't sound like what they think it should,
then it is bad.

I happen to belong to the former group. And yes, I
write 'dissonant noise' because to me it is more
interesting than listening to/writing what I term
'warmed-over sentimentality'.

=====
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