nemesis wrote:
> yes, it worked well for Lygeti in 2001.  Out of it, it just sound like lots of
> violins or voices moaning senselessly... atonal music is a dead-end...

I don't this is the case at all.  While I do agree that there is a lot 
done in modern music that seems to be "strange for the sake of being 
strange" (Cage springs to mind), I don't think that by any means all 
atonal music is like this.  In particular, Ligeti's handling of 
orchestral and choral texture seems quite adept to me, and it doesn't 
sound like a bunch of voices senselessly moaning, but rather a piece 
with definite carefully wrought structure.

I think that the biggest complaints that might be made about atonal 
music is that it's easy to get carried away with all the freedom, and 
that it is difficult to listen to until you get used to it.  I found my 
experience with atonal music to be somewhat similar to my experience 
with the taste of beer in this respect.  For a long time I thought "eww, 
that's not good at all", but after I'd tried each enough times I began 
to think "ahh, now I begin to get what other people see in this"

Post a reply to this message

This is not, of course, to say that you should like it too, but rather 
that I think there are sufficient artistic possibilities within the genre.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler <wampler+pov### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> In particular, Ligeti's handling of
> orchestral and choral texture seems quite adept to me, and it doesn't
> sound like a bunch of voices senselessly moaning, but rather a piece
> with definite carefully wrought structure.

structure, texture, rhythm and color alone don't make good music.  There should
be harmonic progression.  Coherent harmonic progression.  atonal music fails
here...

> after I'd tried each enough times I began
> to think "ahh, now I begin to get what other people see in this"

to get drunk? ;)

yes, everything in life can become familiar once we deal with it everyday.  If
you're a beggar, eating junk is not weird at all.  Seemingly, you could just
say:  "you know, that Cage guy was right.  Those guys at the construction site
near office make some wonderful music!"

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> to get drunk? ;)

heh.

> yes, everything in life can become familiar once we deal with it everyday.  If
> you're a beggar, eating junk is not weird at all.  Seemingly, you could just
> say:  "you know, that Cage guy was right.  Those guys at the construction site
> near office make some wonderful music!"

I agree with you here, I'm much more defending composers like Ligeti 
than Cage.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> structure, texture, rhythm and color alone don't make good music.  There should
> be harmonic progression.  Coherent harmonic progression.  atonal music fails
> here...

I'll admit that I'm rather surprised that you a consider coherent 
harmonic progression to be a necessary criteria for music to be good. 
That seems to be far too restrictive to me, and I don't understand why a 
harmonic progression would be so important at a fundamental level.  That 
seems rather to me like saying that good poetry should have a coherent 
rhyme pattern.

Where do you place something like the prelude to Das Rheingold, which 
while tonal has essentially no harmonic progression and is essentially a 
work dealing with orchestral texture?  On the other end, what about 
something like Rite of Spring which has a tonal structure, but one which 
takes many more liberties than in traditional classical music?

Post a reply to this message

I followed the link and listened. I found it moderately amusing-- even 
considered forwarding the link to some other people. But I decided the time 
would be better spent going out and finding some food to eat. The funny 
thing is-- and I am not making this up, is that when I stepped out of the 
door I could hear my neighbor practicing on her slightly out of tune piano. 
What was it she was practicing, you ask? I'll tell you: Pachebel's Canon in 
D major. Synchronicity, indeed.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler <wampler+pov### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> I'll admit that I'm rather surprised that you a consider coherent
> harmonic progression to be a necessary criteria for music to be good.

it's been the main drive behind the works of composers since Bach... it's what
permitted music to hold high status and for Beethoven's sonatas and symphonies
to be compared to Shakespeare's plays.  Because the sequence of
tension-resolution chords of tonal music is drama condensed...

> That
> seems rather to me like saying that good poetry should have a coherent
> rhyme pattern.

actually, that's structure.

> Where do you place something like the prelude to Das Rheingold, which
> while tonal has essentially no harmonic progression and is essentially a
> work dealing with orchestral texture?

I don't know.  Never heard the prelude.  I only know best-known tunes from
operas.

> On the other end, what about
> something like Rite of Spring which has a tonal structure, but one which
> takes many more liberties than in traditional classical music?


generated at the time.  You know, tonal is good so double tonal can only be
great! ;)

I think the work wouldn't be as successful if it went the Schoenberg route...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> you know, that title seems to say absolutely nothing.  Nobody listen/reacts to
> music in the same way.  In particular, someone who digs rap is not likely to
> take a kick out of Mozart.  People in general have a real hard time trying to
> follow or understand the complicated developments, multiple voices and harmony
> of western classical music tradition.  Anything with more than an easy melody,
> no percusion and no videoclip is best avoided...

This is why I regards non-fans of Yes as lesser forms of life.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> This is why I regards non-fans of Yes as lesser forms of life.

It was a nice little revelation when I discovered prog rock -- just nice 
to finally hear some rock music with a bit of complexity to it.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71hNl_skTZQ

Good God - it's Ross's "Sound"!

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message