Skip Navigational Links
LISTSERV email list manager
LISTSERV - COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM
LISTSERV Menu
Log In
Log In
LISTSERV 17.5 Help - CLASSICAL Archives
LISTSERV Archives
LISTSERV Archives
Search Archives
Search Archives
Register
Register
Log In
Log In

CLASSICAL Archives

Moderated Classical Music List

CLASSICAL@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Menu
LISTSERV Archives LISTSERV Archives
CLASSICAL Home CLASSICAL Home

Log In Log In
Register Register

Subscribe or Unsubscribe Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Search Archives Search Archives
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Date:
Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:30:51 -0400
Subject:
Re: "Atonal" Music
From:
Len Fehskens <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
Karl Miller writes:

>Consider historically, say in the time of Palestrina, when much of the art
>music was written for the church, and the church had such control over the
>very harmony and intervals considered appropriate.  Not using those rules
>could be considered "sinful."

This argument from historical precedent bothers me.  It assumes that a
transformation can be applied indefinitely and remain valid.  It seems
to me to assume something like "progress" or "evolution" of music from a
primitive to a more "advanced" state.  But if this "progress" is toward
ever less constraint ("rules") on expression, the inevitable "final state"
must be noise, where entropy is maximized and structure ("rules") is
nonexistent.  And if this is indeed the case, as music approaches this
ideal, most advanced form, it will sound more and more like noise.  Now,
I'm not one to dismiss all noise as uninteresting; some forms of noise
I rather enjoy (e.g., rain, wind, thunder, birdsong, cricket chirping,
waterfalls, i.e., most "natural" sounds), but most noise is in fact
unenjoyable and not expressive of anything other than chaos.

Alternatively, one can argue that there is no notion of progress, there
are just "new rules", that are different from the old rules, and perhaps in
some way more "appropriate" to our time.  Are there an unbounded number of
artistically valid rules? I suspect not, but I can imagine that one could
argue that "artistically valid" is defined by the rules, not vice versa, in
which case anything goes and art becomes an intellectual exercise divorced
from human sensibility.

Or perhaps we are just doomed to cycle around some sequence of rules as
time passes and we forget the past?

len.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV