Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!lewislazarus.es@XEROX.ARPA
From: lewislazarus.es@XEROX.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Music Kritics
Message-ID: <10753@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 16-May-85 21:44:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.10753
Posted: Thu May 16 21:44:24 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 19-May-85 04:24:12 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 54

Some critics have gone so far as to base music analysis on information
theory.I believe Leonard Meyer (if I remember the name correctly) was
one of the more prominent among these. According to this line of
reasoning, there are a lot of contributing factors which constitute the
information content of music. These include obvious things like pitch,
rhythm, and dynamics, but other things like timbre, texture, line,
structure, the overtone contents of chord voicings, and repetition also
affect us psychologically. The quantity of information and the rate at
which it changes are also factors. Supposedly, by considering the
information content of a peice of music we can gain some insight into
why it affects us in a particular way. 

Personally I think that, while we may all share some common reactions to
the perception of sound, reactions to music are very personal and
frequently change both for individuals and for groups. Repetition
changes information. A simple drum beat, or the clacking of rocks which
someone in the net spoke of recently, does not really sound the same all
the way through if you listen to it closely for a long time. Some
composers actually do write drone pieces which extend a single sound for
long periods to exploit this psychological effect. Whether you like
this, or any particular kind of music probably has a lot to do with your
own cultural conditioning. Music is not an absolute. It is created
within the bounds of a cultural context, and directed toward an audience
whose perceptions are at least similar. Six hundred years ago the third
was considered an ugly dissonance. Now it is one of the most common
forms of harmony. Craftsmanship in music has a lot to do with the
understanding and control a composer or performer has both of the
musical vocabulary he has inherited from a cultural tradition and of the
perceptions and emotions of the intended audience. This, I think, is why
it is pointless to try to compare Beethoven to AC/DC. They come from
different traditions and are intended to reach different audiences. Even
so mere popularity and ease in the use of convention are no more a
criteria for musical achievement than mere complexity. If a musician has
something to say or to communicate, even if it's just a feeling, and is
able to express it effectively with music, then that is a musical
success. If music says something to you that you enjoy hearing, then
that is good music for you to listen to. The more you find in it that is
meaningful to you, probably the more you will like it.
 
Beethoven's music has had a great deal to say to a large number of
people for a long time, and this is why his music is still popular and
he is considered a great composer, but even Beethoven wrote many works
which caused the critics of his time to condemn him and label him insane
as well as deaf. Some like Wellington's Victory truly were shallow, and
can by now be safely considered really not to have been very good.
Others like the late string quartets are still difficult for many
moderns, but will reward those with a taste for them. I think the main
criteria for quality in music has to be how effectively it communicates
to those who are willing and able to hear what's in it regardless of the
style and culture from which it originates.

Lewis Lazarus
Xerox
El Segundo