"D. Stephen Heersink" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I cannot answer Mr. Breiling's question put to Mrs. Wang.  And I confess
>I am not certain of the question, but at the core, it asks, What I expect
>contemporary composers to compose? The simple answer is "music." But even
>I admit that such an obvious...

The first time that I was ever actually asked the question "What is music?"
was in my high school music theory class.  No one managed to come up with
a definition that really seemed to work--and I still can't think of one.
I think it might be a relevant question to ask though.

>My view is that all composers should set out to compose wonderful music.
>And equally important, unless someone really wants to live in a "vat," the
>composition must be more than mere noise (or the absence of it, as in the
>case of Cage),

I agree that music should be more than mere noise, but I'm not sure how to
tell whether or not it is more than noise.  Music has an orderly structure
to it, but so does Morse code.  Is morse code music? Music has expressive
characteristics but so does screaming.  Is a person screaming at the top of
their lungs music? Music is designed human conscious design, but if I told
someone to sit and bang on a trash can for a half hour then would I have
just composed my first symphony?

I do agree that 'noise' or the absence of it is not music, but I don't know
how to tell whether something is noise or not.  There is much atonal music
that I do not consider to be very musical. . .  but there is very little
that I have ever heard or heard of that I would say is not music.

>...it seems to me that it isn't difficult to distinguish readily between
>those composers who earnestly incorporate melody, lyricism, color, harmony,
>dynamics, resolution, and the like from an ensemble that is merely banging
>away, or blows hard on metal or plastic, or screeches contraptions that
>screech and holler.

Is it the use of certain constructions or techniques that characterizes
music then? And if so, then who determines what constructions or techniques
are acceptable as musical?

>Where the atonalists fail, in my opinion, is in the misunderstanding
>that music can be, or even should be, a cerebral, intellectual enterprise
>constructed with the confines of abstract theorectical definitions.
>There's a place for such things, if and only if they dvance the enjoyment
>of the enterprise, namely music.  One may have valid premises that lead to
>a sound conclusion and still be wrong.  Atonal music, however, doesn't even
>have sound premises.

I wonder if you could elaborate on what you consider the premises of atonal
music to be and why they do not lead to a sound conclusion?

>Music, qua music, as tested over time, requires a certain emotional "fit"
>to be interesting, much less pleasurable.

On the other hand, not all music is meant to be pleasurable.  Daniel
Buckvich's symphony in C, 'in Memoriam Dresden' is one such example.  It
is tremendously powerful.  I've sat through several performances of it and
never heard anyone in the audience make a sound.  I've seen performers and
audience members (myself being one of them) walk out crying.  Is it music?
Absolutely.  Is it interesting? Very.  Is it pleasurable? Not in the least.

>Calculated sounds alone don't satisfy this requirement.  Harmonies,
>melodies, counterpoint, dissonance, and everything else work only if they
>"fit" our emotional yearning.  Music must be able to transcend that species
>known as "noise" or it is just noise -- tonal or atonal.  But atonal sounds
>are most obviously the greater offender to the public ear.

Some of them definitely do offend but I question whether they offend
because they are atonal or because of something else.  I think that it is
the experimentalism of some of these compositions that offends.  It often
seems as though some of these composers are experimenting simply for the
sake of doing something as bizarre as they possibly can.  Is this art?
Perhaps.  Is it music? Maybe.  Do I want to listen to it? Usually not.

Female