Bob K. replies to me:
>>What I don't believe can legitimately be said, however, is that a
>>classical Lied per se is better than an American pop song.
>
>I would -never- say that. I love pop music. I have long argued that pop
>music is art. There are some pop composers who I would put up against the
>more tedious lieder composers (I won't expose myself naming names).
Sorry. I didn't mean to include you under the blanket.
>I had/have no intent to diminish Cage and his ilk, or remove them from CM.
>He did of course have formal training, and I take nothing from him. I
>just think that, however clever, using randomness and indeterminacy to
>compose is diametrically opposite to the perfect mathematical precision
>and trancendence of a Bach or a Telemann achieved by careful note placement
>and consideration of overall effect.
Well, of course, Cage isn't entirely random. In fact, I can't think of
an aleatoric composer who is. The "chance" composer, after all, builds
a frame, specifies a set of generative rules from which the music flows.
It's just that the aleatoric composer doesn't limit himself to notes. If
you accept this account of their procedure, you must allow the possibility
that "chance" composers do indeed consider overall effect. I don't know
what "perfect mathematical precision" is in music, other than the aleatoric
composer Xennakis, who generates music through formula (and a composer I
can't stand, incidentally). I don't know why it's something to be desired
even, though I'm probably misreading you. Do you mean that you prefer the
explicitly specified working out of predetermined, preset patterns of
notes? As a matter of fact, so do I. Generally speaking, I would much
prefer to hear about an aleatoric piece (or even to perform one) than to
actually listen to one.
However, I certainly wouldn't say that Cage is the "opposite" of Bach or
any traditional classical composer you might mention. I think both look
on their material in much the same way. It's the material itself that
differs.
Steve Schwartz
|
