chriswilke
Thu, 01 May 2008 11:50:08 -0700
Mark,
--- On Thu, 5/1/08, Mark Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My problem was with the following passage...
>
> "Music was even more important 500 years ago, only it was played by real
> people as a part of daily life."
>
> I am not sure how we can say music was more important 500 years ago.
But art music - music that enjoyed a high degree of subtlety and sophistication
in its composition and execution - was much more important, at least among the
cultured. Nowadays, even the so-called "cultured" know very little about
music's structural basis (I use this in the broadest sense as it applies to all
of the aspects of music including melody, harmonic movement, form, etc.) and
mainly rely on what their peer group tells them is good music in order for them
to know what they like.
Many people with a great deal of money prefer the Classics, but this to
them mostly means the Great 19th-Century Composers. This is because its
fashionable to been seen at Symphony Hall on Saturday nights, not because
they're discerning. Those with a bit less money than the Old Rich will prefer
a Pops concert, believing that because what they heard is played on flutes and
violins, it is Classy High Art. So on down the monetary ladder.
This is why we have philosophers and other great minds of our day listening
to the Rolling Stones. And today's artists? Visual artists are often the
worst offenders, zealously believing in whatever horridly effete rock-like
claptrap their fellow non-conformist (read: "ultra-conformist") colleagues tell
them expresses the true meaning of their tortured and pathetically
misunderstood poetic souls.
There are many exceptions, of course, but this is unfortunately true for
the majority of people.
> As far as I know rock music is played by real people and thousands of >
> people
> go and see rock musicians perform as part of their daily life.
Yes, but rock music is really folk music, learned by aping a handful of
strung-together cliches passed down in much the same comfortable form from one
generation to the next. Most rock guitarists learn their craft by memorizing
finger patterns and shapes. Rock music is on it way out, though, currently
being in its last unimaginative stage. ("Wow, another song based on a
pentatonic minor lick in 2008! That's mindblowingly creative.")
> As far as musical education goes, the modern conservatory system
> (invented in the 19th century) was certainly very different to the
> musical
> education in the 16th century. The nature of the modern system is by its >
> very name their to conserve, it can make nice jam, but it often doesn't >
> taste the real fruit :)
I agree mostly with what you say about the conservatories. But who's fault is
it that conservatory students are unimaginative - the training or the students?
Just because you learned in school that the only "proper" way to end a piece
was with a V7-I cadence doesn't mean you have to do it in your own music. And
just because you never had a class in improvisation doesn't mean you don't
already know how to do it. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Chris
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 19:00
An: Lute Net
Betreff: [LUTE] Re: gnu piece of the month
On May 1, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Mark Wheeler wrote:
> To play the devil's advocate..
>
> I doubt if music for the average 21st century teenager is any less
> important
> than it was in 15??. I don't think they would see it as merely an
> "extra".
Ron's point is that everyone in some levels of renaissance European
society was trained to produce music, rather than merely consume it.
Big difference.
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ