Klarinet Archive - Posting 000891.txt from 1998/01

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausman@-----.com>
Subj: Re: Music: Modern vs. 'Old'
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:12:18 -0500

In response to the many requests, here is my answer to your questions
regarding my definition of "modern" music. Sorry, I thought it went out to
the whole list before.

>Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 05:53:55 -0500
>To: cegc@-----.net
>From: Bill Hausmann <bhausman@-----.com>
>Subject: Re: Music: Modern vs. 'Old'
>In-Reply-To: <34C578CB.3765@-----.net>
>References: <01bd2619$4093ae20$8da2accf@-----.us>
>
>At 10:25 PM 1/20/98 -0600, Craig 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.
>>
>>Correct me if I'm mistaken (I'm sure you will anway :)
>>
>Well, you are mistaken, but only a tiny bit. Rachmaninov and Gershwin
were 20th century composers, but followed an earlier tradition. Stravinsky
and Copland moved farther toward "modern" but are still far short of what I
was complaining about. What I can't handle is non-rhythmic, unmelodic,
atonal music. If it has neither rhythm, melody, nor harmony, can it still
be music???

Bill Hausmann bhausman@-----.com
451 Old Orchard Drive http://www.concentric.net/~bhausman
Essexville, MI 48732 http://members.wbs.net/homepages/z/o/o/zoot14.html
ICQ UIN 4862265

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is too loud.