Date: |
Sat, 8 Jul 2000 13:24:25 +0200 |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Bill Pirkle replies to me:
>I agree with music development, and your remarks, with the caveat that if
>music develops to the same extent that art has (modern art) it might cease
>to be music at all - no harmonic center, incomprehensible melodies (themes),
>obscure form, etc.
Well this depends a lot on your personal definition of what is music!
Atonal composition fits very well with mine, maybe not with Bills (or with
many other music-lovers). As usual, as there is not a kind of law-book we
could refer to, its a question of opinion and taste.
>My only complaint is that it is somehow obliged to evolve, especially
>past the point of becoming music in a traditional sense, and somehow that
>writing in traditional styles is forbidden as if the composer is taking a
>step backwards.
I never claimed that! I am perfectly happy with *modern* compositions in
a traditional style! I do not think we need development for the sake of it
and all art that draws back to traditional forms is per se dated. Not at
all! I greatly enjoy this music and as the example of Paert, Tavener and
Bryars shows one can create even something new going back to traditional
forms. I just tried to explain why people like Schoenberg started to
compose atonal music, because they wanted to try a new approach. If you
have some good arguments against this approach, fine, lets discuss. But
I do not see a reason to start such generalising hostile attacks.
The Adinsell (spelling?) Warsaw concerto was on one of the first LPs I got
from my father (it was coupled with the Grieg piano concerto). I must have
been 10 years old. Its truely a fine piece!
Achim Breiling
|
|
|