Klarinet Archive - Posting 000096.txt from 2001/12

From: "Tony Wakefield" <tony-wakefield@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Chromatic FUNCTIONAL Modality System
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:47:17 -0500

Neil Leupold writes:

>"Functional" is indeed a signi-
> ficant term - snip - It is not merely used to embellish the English
language.

To me, 'functional' doesn`t stand up as a true explanation of what chordal
progression is, or of how one uses progressions within the rules of any
confined 'systems'. We have all learnt to use the V1, 11, V, 1 progressions,
with their respective chromaticisms, of which with respect Bear does not
need to continue to remind us that the world`s composer`s are now a little
bored with this kind of composing, and they are now fully experimenting with
whole 'newish' concepts of music writing techniques since the death of 12
tone music. We understand this much. But the term 'functional' to me means
nothing more than that the system 'works'. That is what the word means. Why
use it? 12 tone music works - we might not like it - but it works. All well
thought out systems <have> to 'work' for them to mean anything. All well
'engineered' chromatic modality works, we all do wish to compose music which
is well engineered, or well 'chromatically modalised'. So why clutter the
definition with unnecessary language. 'Chromatic Modality' is perfect.
But generally my understanding is that modern writing techniques have
diversified in so many different directions, that I think it a little
pointless to try to categorise any of them. There, lies the dilemma tho` in
the
music colleges. They <have to> teach 'systems' in order to set examinations,
in turn to award an end result, i.e. a pass or fail. That much I <do>
understand. But 'systems' or no 'systems', whatever we call or name it/them,
has to be <seen> to be attractive in the first place in order for the study
to be commenced and followed thru`. I think this is important.

Tony W.

---------------------------------------------------------------------