Edson Tadeu Ortolan wrote:

>Debussy researched new sonorities and he is a pioneer at
>end-19th/begin-20th centuries.  His music is significative in the
>History of Western Music.

Easy to write, easy to believe, harder to prove.

>The New Age Music is a mix of:

Which new age music? All of it? Does all of it have these characteristics?
Does simply having these characteristics automatically make it non-music?

>a) folk/pop/renaissance-type melody

Huh.  You mean like Bartok, Kodaly, Dvorak, ....

>b) non-tensioned, tenuous harmony (modal scales, non-conclusive candences,
>repetitions etc.)

Seems to apply to 80% of the music written this century.

>c) minimalist repetitions

You mean like Reich, Glass, Young, Riley, Adams, Monk, Nyman, Andriessen,
Part, ....

>d) subtle rhythm from folk/pop/classical dances

Subtle rhythm is a bad thing?  In what way?

>d) rare, regional, traditional, and orchestral instruments

Once again, a bad thing? The history of "classical music" is chock full
of experimental instruments, like the saxophone.  Whole families of
instruments have come and gone.  Know many arpeggionne players?

>d) elletronical effects (wind, water, vocal and other sounds)

What about new age music that uses only acoustic instruments - violin,
piano, cello, etc.? What about avant garde classical music that's been
using electronic effects for decades, long before any of the current pop
styles even existed?

>This music is a NOTHING MUSICAL because it is a dilution of the avant-gard
>conquests.

Now we've hit on the root of this description.  One could just as easily
make the counter claim that new age composers elevated the music above
the artifice, methods, and techniques that so infatuate the avant garde.

But does such political slogan-slinging really raise the level of discourse?

Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/