At 2/1/2006 11:09 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
>On Jan 31, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
>
>> a definition of "contemporary" which is close to the one you use
>> describe, that is the sense of "contemporary classical" composer. I
>> consider Hovhaness to be in that category, but you do not.
>
>Not quite. He is clearly identifiable as a late-20th-c. (wh. can count
>as "contemporary" for the present purpose) composer because of his
>occasional use of indeterminacy (as for example at rehearsal 60 in the
>Fourth Symphony); but his basic style, conjunctly melodious and highly
>triadic, is way out of sync with most of his, um, contemporaries, so
>that he is certainly not a *characteristic* contemporary composer. So
>your reference to him as an exemplar was somewhat confusing.
>
>Furthermore, if you want to use "contemporary" in its strictest sense,
>meaning only the absolute latest, au-courant, up-to-the-minute musical
>style (as of, say, Daugherty or Salonen--highly atmostpheric, often
>turbulent, historically self-conscious) then Hovhaness doesn't fit at
>all--but what would you expect from a composer born in, what, 1911?
In it's "strictest" sense:
con·tem·po·rar·y
adj. Belonging to the same period of time: a fact documented by two
contemporary sources. Of about the same age. Current; modern: contemporary
trends in design.
Your ideas of what "contemporary" means are undocumented.
Phil Daley < AutoDesk >
http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
