Klarinet Archive - Posting 000869.txt from 1998/01

From: Shouryu Nohe <jnohe@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: Music: Modern vs. 'Old'
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 01:32:50 -0500

On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Craig E. G. Countryman wrote:

> Since the original post contrasted Classical and Romantic music with
> Modern I am taking Modern music to be defined as 20th century. Is this
> too broad? Perhaps Stravinsky presents a better example of the trend
> toward dissonance then does Copland. Nonetheless, both are composers
> who have different styles then Classical and Romantic music.

Sort of...both Copland and Stravinsky can be called Neoclassicists who
later turned to serialism. When I use the term 'Modern' music, it
generally refers to serialized music, or any music where tonality is
waaaay too vague due to lack of stable key and rhythmic dysfunction.
(Impressionist is sort of modern, but retains a tonality and an
identifiable melody, so it's sort of excluded. I know a lot of 'average
joes who adore Debussy and Ravel...)

Basically, modern is music that thrives on nothing but dissonance,
believing that over the course of history, what was once dissonant has
become consonant and therefore, we must seek out more dissonance in
stronger form, abandoning all previous forms of consonance, because what
was previously dissonant is now consonant...which to me is stupid. I
still feel the same dissonance in an unresolved V7 chord that Bach and
Vivaldi felt in the Baroque era...

Shouryu Nohe
http://web.nmsu.edu/~jnohe
ICQ: 6771552
New Mexico State Univ.
REMEMBER: Four out of five cats blink when hit on the head with a ball
peen hammer.