PokeVideoPlayer v0.9-rev1 - licensed under gpl3-or-later
Views : 3,462
Genre: Music
Uploaded At Oct 15, 2023 ^^
warning: returnyoutubedislikes may not be accurate, this is just an estiment ehe :3
Rating : 4.969 (1/130 LTDR)
99.24% of the users lieked the video!!
0.76% of the users dislieked the video!!
User score: 98.86- Masterpiece Video
RYD date created : 2024-01-07T23:39:35.391421Z
See in json
Top Comments of this video!! :3
It's everyone for themself today. Once upon a time one's personal work was also part of a wider body of work; that is, one could contribute to an ongoing tradition that was larger than their own oeuvre. This is no longer possible. We live in a world of "personal languages," which is of course an oxymoron: a language that's not shared isn't a language at all. We're building a Tower of Babel, and the best we can do is build the best Tower of Babel we can. It's also not in anyone's power to change this situation.
8 |
Wonderful little part of a great conversation- thanks toward your guest, too. The present composer is climbing up the shoulder over so many giant shoulders, and at that elevation there must be something useable in the foundation, and something inspiring in the view, so I think you can do it (teach now music). Why is such a great position, as we have at present, overwhelming? Lack of common language to teach is paradoxically true and false- such a target language will be (perhaps has always cyclically been) emergent from the complexity of the moment, practically unfoundable, so lacking; yet even without a discrete foundation a language could be put into practice and become common (if flawed), and for a moment at least, true. Maybe the common teaching of all modern principles well-thought-out and/or practiced by someone, as elementary (I mean literally to small children), or background, could free an inspired educator to take steps in a present field language to lay a foundation, as Schoenberg tried, "which can be imaginatively applied far beyond its limits" (conclusion in FOMC). Prejudices and practiceability aside. I'd like to hear that teacher speak, and read their book.
|
I don't really accept the (implicit) claim that because we can't find a schema that describes 100% of harmony in satisfying detail, that there is no way to teach it. Notions of continuity, consistency, differentiation, density, progression, cadence, tension and release are all quite prevalent in Western music, even if it can't be all boiled down to functional numeral analysis or whatever.
You can see these concerns in a Beethoven piano sonata just as well as a dodecaphonic Webern work or a Ligeti micropolyphonic piece. And I believe most of it can be boiled to questions of progression and speed. How and where can one go with it (and remain coherent), or inversely, how can one prevent it (and remain interesting?)
I believe this was the crux of the post-tonal debate in the 20th century, and there is very little music that seems completely indifferent to the question.
1 |
I don't agree regarding Techniques of my musical language by Messiaen. Giving clear technical information on a style (here his own) eases imitation so much that it helps reaching further in the same move. And that's what we saw with Boulez, Xenakis, Stockhausen just to name a few. Besides, a book is not a teaching. The teaching happens in the relationship between a true master and a true pupil - beyond all textbooks.
|
@DrewFlieder
9 months ago
This issue can be addressed by cultivating the ability to think at a more abstract level. To overcome this limitation one needs to foster a meta understanding of harmony that transcends specific harmonic frameworks. Instead of focusing on harmonic frameworks on a case by case basis, one should strive to comprehend the overarching principles that categorize them in general. Regrettably, contemporary composers often lack interest in or awareness of the possibility of such ambitious endeavors.
3 |