Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site stolaf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!stolaf!twiss
From: twiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss)
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: In regards to: Artists vs. Humans
Message-ID: <1705@stolaf.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 12-May-84 21:19:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: stolaf.1705
Posted: Sat May 12 21:19:53 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 14-May-84 01:12:57 EDT
Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield MN
Lines: 74

>I feel that it is a fundamental error to try to listen
>to music in terms of a chronological development or in
>the context of the general artistic and political developments
>of a time.  

Oh?!?  I wonder why it is you say that.  Is there any reason for your
rejecting the very thoery of music history that has stood for a very very
long time?  Not to mention the fact that music DOES progress
chronologically for the simple fact that it has to (have you figured out
how to alter time??).  Music of various composers ALWAYS follows music of
other composers, so it is silly to look at music any other way.

>There are times when [this approach] may apply to an
>extent, but in more cases I think it leads one to "reading into
>the work" things that aren't there and missing things that are.

Hmm... like what?  Can you give an example?  How about a conceptual
model?  You seem to be striking down the current paradigm in musicology,
but you don't say why or with what you will replace it.

>There may be some justification to saying that Beethoven further
>developed musical language where Haydn left off, or that
>Stan Getz continued along paths started by Charlie Parker, but
>I think this is more wrong than right.  The success of the
>Beatles may have opened a few publicity doors for the Stones,
>but I see no logical connection or progression in the relation
>of their music to each other.

If you see no logical connection, you've got troubles.  Styles of course
vary, but influence is an unavoidable thing.  True, it is difficult to
identify and impossible to quantify, but it is nonetheless a factor.  I
would disagree with your term "further development".  This implies that
Haydn's music was more simplistic than Beethoven's.  This is not true.
It may be more complex tonally and rhythmically, etc. but not musically.
It is not a "further" development, but rather a development in a slightly
different direction based largely on the work laid down by Haydn.

>Trying to hear Debussy as an outgrowth of a tradition that runs through
>Gounod, Faure, Duparc and others is to hear something that
>exists only in musicology books.

Did you ever stop to think WHY that stuff is written in musicology books?
Because musicologists (which I will tell you I'm not and can tell YOU
certainly aren't) have spent a lot of time figuring out that there is a
tradition.  Can you give any reasons why you believe this?  You have only
asserted opinionated statements that have no significance.

>I get further annoyed with the gall exhibited by music writers
>who proclaim that a certain composer was "heavily influenced"
>by another composer.  Who knows what actually influenced 
>anybody else?  In order to know that you'd have had to read
>their minds. 

Wrong.  1) Writings of composers usually spell things out very clearly as
to who were their influences.  2) Just listen to the music!  For anyone
who has studied music (have you studied music?) it is (usually) obvious
as hell to see a progression and an influence in (almost) any given work.

>Even if they left diaries, how do we know they
>wrote down every significant "artistic" thought or that they
>even wrote the truth at all?
>	- Greg Paley

C'mon!  You don't really think that composers intentionally lied to
confuse the musicians of the future!!!  Please!  Until you study music a
bit more, or can back up your pretty wild assertions, be careful.  You
are shooting in the dark.  BTW, if you could support your arguement that
music is not a chronological or influential progression, it would be very
interesting.  Unfortunately, you have merely succeeded in spouting off at
the mouth.

				Tom Twiss
			...{decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!twiss