I don't intend to beat the horse until it bleeds, but perhaps the following
observations will bring my point of view in better relief.
"The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous,
unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm,
and timbre" is the definition the American Heritage Dictionary gives for
"music." I think this definition "fits" most people's conceptual scheme
of what makes music "music" and which distinguishes music from noise.
Duodecaphonic compositions do not always have melody, harmony, or both, and
therefore do not always fit the shared conceptual understanding of music.
Simply ordering all twelve chromatic pitches, or the sharing of the use of
similar instruments, aren't sufficient to merit duodecaphonic compositions
with the appellation of "music."
Duodecaphonic compositions that do not fit may still be interesting
in their own right, independent of what is music, qua music. It is
not inappropriate to identify duodecaphonic compositions by the name of
"duodecaphonic compositions." And, of course, not all, perhaps even most,
duodecaphonic compositions are not necessarily atonal. But certainly a
fairer number of duodecaphonic compositions are atonal, and missing one
or more criteria that would otherwise make them bona fide "music."
Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
[log in to unmask]
|