Day: October 3, 2011

I linked this in my previous post, but thought to myself, “Self, this ought to be brought back out into a more prominent place,” and so here it is.

---

Bear with me for a bit. This is all about why I’m a fan of classical (though especially Classical–the small “c” is different) music. It’s not (exactly) what you may think. At least, not entirely.

In music, the term Classic Period refers to a period from roughly the middle of the 18th Century into (and perhaps a little beyond) the first decade of the 19th Century during which certain “givens” of musical expression were practiced and the major forms of most of what is viewed as “classical” music were developed. Do note: in architecture, the graphic arts and the like, the period is more likely to be called Neoclassicism.

(That darned small–or uncial–c”. *heh* So “Classical Music” is NOT what most folks think of when “classical music” is said… )

One of the primary reasons I am a fan of Classical (and even much classical) music is not just because the music is complex, beautiful and compelling but because it is the expression of a particular ethos which our society sorely lacks.

Aside from technical matters of form, the principles of Classicism as found in Classical Music were

• balance
• clarity
• accessibility
• expressiveness
• edification

Although two of these principles are still found in abundance in contemporary music (though not in contemporary “serious” or “academic” music, IMO) it is the lack of the others, especially the last, that has seriously harmful effects upon our society. Continue reading “Re-Post: The Principles of Classicism”

So, David Cope, a retired professor, composer of 20th Century “modern music” in the “serious composition” vein that musically mirrors Holly Lisle’s prescription for writing literary trash has written a computer program to “create original, modern music” that some musical dullards call “beautiful”.

Yeh, yeh. I’ve heard some of David Cope’s “serious” compositions. Hate ’em. Meaningless UNbeauty, for the most part. His computer program “composes” similar stuff: OK for Muzak, in limited doses perhaps, but what I’ve heard simply goes nowhere. It’s music in a less real sense than the manufactured Top 40 crap that dominates the music industry nowadays, IMO. Here’s a sample:

[audio:emily_howell_1.mp3]

Not ugly, but boring. It goes nowhere, has no sense of direction or teleos, and that’s a killer for me. It has no implicit “why” but just meanders along, like most mind-numbed sheeple nowadays (which, I suppose, makes it fitting “music” for that audience). The only feeling it inspires is an urge to yawn. Glurge. It seems to me that those with a purely intellectual, detached (musically lobotomized by Academia Nut Fruitcake Bakeries as opposed to musically lobotomized by the recording industry) grasp of “music” would be the ones something like this vapid, sugar free cotton candy would most appeal to: pseudo-intellectuals with pretensions of good taste. (Hmmm, that would also seem to make a good fit for most congresscritter who are “pseudo-smart with delusions of grandeur”… )

“No musical calories! Yipee!”

*feh*

Here’s another:

[audio:Emily_Howell_Track2.mp3]

*gak*

Compare and contrast on your own:

[audio:fanfare%20common%20man.mp3]

Now THAT was from one of the few “serious” 20th Century composers who could write worth a dam*. Even at volume levels seriously lower than performance levels and with just my lil 2+1 computer speakers, that raised the hairs on my arms and neck. Good stuff, Maynard, not the kind of crap that speaks to the David Copes of the world.

*sigh*

Oh, well.

Continue reading “I Demur”