Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cornell.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!cornell!gtaylor
From: gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (Greg Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: Re: Modern Classical Music
Message-ID: <255@cornell.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-May-84 14:09:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: cornell.255
Posted: Thu May 31 14:09:26 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Jun-84 11:11:52 EDT
References: <386@ihu1g.UUCP>, <50@mouton.UUCP>
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept.
Lines: 80

Alright. This is much more like it! Before I do
anything else, I'd like to anticipate the flames
somewhat on all you net.music.classical folks
who think that the minimalists are all swill
(you know who you are, and so does my still
smoking mailbox) by virtue of being too simple.
Rather than stooping to a philosophical defense
of what is a "musical" question, I would like
to recommend 2 pieces of pleasant and consonant
minimalist work to you. I suspect that it may
either provide you with either something you
might like, or give you a *really* good example
of the form to lambaste on the net:

Steve Reich: "Tehilleem" (ECM) a setting of
four sections of the Hebrew psalms which is
the most recent version of Reich's growing
modification of the Minimalist aesthetic. There
is actually more straight canon here than Reich's
trademark slow-roll hocketing (at least until
"This Desert Music"-his setting of William Carlos
Williams' poetry is released). You can even hum
along to it.

David Borden: "Music for Amplified Keyboard Instruments"
(Red Records) specifically, I'd recommend the pieces
from the "comtinuing story of counterpoint" series
here. David is, in my opinion, one of the real lights
of the minimalist school, ignored because he doesn't
reside in NYC largely. His approach involves the adaptation
of Renaissance species counterpoint to the minimalist
enterprise. There's enough "real theory in action" to
keep even the stuffiest baroqueophile tuned in.

NOW: back to the discussion in action....It's certainly
clear from our little "Berg and the Bulb" posting that
there's some strong feelings here. I have even gotten
a few (thank you, one and all) quite seriously worded
responses to my question about living in the 20th century.
A good deal of the argument seems to center around these ideas:

a)20th century music does not have the collection of attributes
that I expect music to have. This line of reasoning embraces
everything from the structural features of melody and motif to
the larger perceptions of the composer's intent (20th century
composers are dishonest charlatans) and a collision of the
writers view of what music SHOULD do (entertain, relax,
stimulate) and what it does.

b)20th Century music is not music. THis often appears alongside
a), but not necessarily.

c)THis is not music, but a theoretical system (to be fair, I
think that the amplified version of this is "a theoretical
system which does not engage me on the level that I expect
given a)").

d)Yes, I'm quite comfortable with the other aesthetic paradigms
of the modern world, but I don't like the music because music
is not like other art (there's GOT to be someone better to quote
than Leonard Bernstein here......).

e) Sure, I accept that all the music I profess to like is in
fact a constructed system with rules often as rigourous as
the stuff I profess to hate. It's just that I don't like the idea
that the system is so explicit.

f) Music has nothing to do with these theoretical structures. It
is something you hear.


As you can guess, I am enjoying all this quite a bit. This is an attempt
to spit back some of the results of the responses from my last posting.
As this continues I think I'm beginning to see a sense of how some
netters think about art (or do not think, but rather "experience")

keep talking(you listening, Twiss?).

gtaylor