Yes, Arto, I agree absolutely that all music is "modern" music. If I
play a piece "by Dowland" it is actually also a piece by me, because I'm
playing it and making all sorts of choices about how I want it to
sound. The result may bear little resemblance to any music anyone heard
four centuries ago.
Thanks for making this point!
Best wishes,
Martin
On 05/05/2011 20:46, wikla wrote:
Hi Martin (and all),
thanks for your interesting posting! Mainly I agree, but still a couple
modest comments (in my limited English):
On Thu, 05 May 2011 17:26:13 +0100, Martin Shepherd<[email protected]>
wrote:
In historical lute music, there are already several different
"harmonic
languages", or at least compositional styles, though they are all what
we might call "tonal" music of one kind or another. "Atonal" music
may
not be so suitable - see under question 2.
Actually music up to the beginnings of the 17th century was mainly modal,
not tonal; it was based on modes, not on the I-IV-V-I style tonal harmony
progressions. That "Shcenkerial" idiom could perhaps be called "amodal", as
later the escape from the tonal harmony was called "atonal"...;-)
People who play the lute typically do so because they are interested
in
music of the past, but people who listen may be just as interested in
the lute per se, as an instrument with a particular voice.
The only music there is, is the music of this moment. In this sense all
music is "modern music". Music "in the past" was heard by persons long time
ago passed. One can even claim that music exists only when it happens -
when you hear it. When a piece ends, its "music" is gone...
Best wishes,
Arto
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
