Marcus Maroney asks me about "music as a language":
>I fail to see why this same process can't be used for music you can't
>immediately understand.
It certainly can, but that doesn't require that music be a language. The
process of extrapolation applies pretty broadly.
>The gestures, sounds, textures of a piece of music in a new
>language can have a personal meaning unique to each listener.
Any language with this property is useless for sharing ideas, to me one of
the primary goals of a language.
>I've listened to tons of new music and on I still hear pieces that cause
>me to rethink what the 'grammar' of music, as I understand it, is.
And I'd suggest that's precisely because music doesn't have a grammar as
such.
>I would recommend asking friends (or the list) who have a very thorough
>knowledge of new music to give you a starting point based on a turn of
>the century (or earlier) composer that you enjoy very much.
I assume you're not talking to me specifically...
>If you like Ravel or Debussy, try starting with Dutilleux or Takemitsu.
>If you like Shostakovich, try Schnittke or Gubaidulina. If you like
>Copland, try Rouse or Torke.
Been there, done that. These composers have not changed my thoughts on
serialism in the least.
>I am a firm believer that if you find the right portal into contemporary
>music, you will appreciate it all the more.
You're preaching to the choir. I already appreciate a great deal of
contemporary music. I just think music is not a language, serialism is not
a different language, and serialism is not the inevitable destiny of modern
music.
Stever Schwartz suggests:
>See Deryck Cooke's The Language of Music.
I have. Catchy title. Doesn't make music a language.
>...we tend to hear minor mode as more emotionally complex than a major
>mode. This is solely a matter of convention.
Indeed.
>We learn the emotional meaning of music by associating rhythms, modes, and
>so on with non-musical things. For example, the rhythm, mode, and color of
>Beethoven's Eroica funeral march probably comes from other funeral marches
>and in turn influences the music of other funeral music.
This emotional vocabulary is pretty limited. As a "language", music leaves
a great deal to be desired.
>If this were not the general case, movie music wouldn't work at all.
And movie music mostly doesn't "work" absent the visuals.
Steve Schwartz replies to me:
>I've closed my mind to lots of music, to the extent that I feel I will
>waste my time if I hear another example. On the other hand, I admit that
>I have closed my mind.
It's one thing to admit that you have closed your mind to a particular
instance of some general category. It's quite another for someone else
to extrapolate that to the conclusion that you are a closeminded person.
Peter Varley replies to Deryk Barker:
>>How about "someone whose opinions/tastes I usually respect likes it"?
>
>"Someone whose opinions/tastes I usually share" would probably do,
That is to me a prescription for the "same old same old". I'll give a shot
at anything someone, indeed anyone, recommends enthusiastically.
len.
|