27 Oct
2015
27 Oct
'15
4:57 p.m.
On 10/27/2015 11:02 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:34 AM, David Santamauro
<david.santamauro(a)gmail.com <mailto:david.santamauro@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 10/27/2015 09:51 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 08:15:52 -0400, David Santamauro wrote:
On 10/27/2015 06:23 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Resume: If you want to play hobby music in the style of
other
artists some software tools make it easy to do so, but
you never
will find your individual style. If you want to make
art, you have
to find your own sound, this is time consuming and comes
with a long
learning curve, you can't do it as easy as playing hobby
music.
Simply amazing that the likes of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven,
Berlioz,
Chopin, Rosini, Paganini, Liszt, Brahms and numerous others
(including
myself) spanning 2 centuries used the same counterpoint "tool"
To bad that you didn't quote me correctly.
I quoted the statement I wanted to respond to -- in its entirety,
please re-read it. I didn't and don't want to comment on any other
points you made. If you would like to respond to my metaphor
concerning tools, mimicry and artistry, please do. If you want to
question my use of the metaphor, contact me off list. There's no
sense polluting this thread more than I already have ... my
off-topic quota is almost full for this year :D
sympathetic as i am to your point, i'd also point out that on many
levels, the music of the composers you point to is notably non-diverse.
The constraints of easily available instruments, limited concepts of
rhythm, and a very narrow model of modes/keys means that when viewed
against a backdrop of all the world's music, the western classical
period (which is a convenient shorthand for the 2 century period you're
referring to, i think) is a fairly narrow palette. they didn't explore
melody or rhythm as deeply as other cultures (they explored rhythm
barely at all). they did manage an impressive dive into harmony that
substantially expanded the possibilities there in ways that weren't to
be repeated until jazz blew the doors off.
Fair enough. but I think that our impression that the music from Haydn
through Brahms (even beyond) seems constrained and non-diverse (and to a
large degree I agree), has everything to do with the fact that we are
viewing it from an entirely different historical perspective. Macro
views hide micro changes. So even within the western classical
tradition, the diversity as observed by contemporaries is not something
so easily dismissed.
the limits of their creative range doesn't matter
in any absolute sense,
but it does actually indicate something close to the opposite of your
main point: these composers (and performers) were indeed constrained by
(and inspired) their tools in ways that had a huge impact on the music
they created. these constraints are a good thing, of course: creativity
without constraints is generally just pointless dithering.
shorthand: the tools ARE limits, but the limits are the wellspring of
real creativity, as imagination collides with the possible.
Nicely put ... but my comment was a response to: "If you want to play
hobby music in the style of other artists some software tools make it
easy to do so, but you never will find your individual style."
So although I agree wholeheartedly with your statement above concerning
the constraints of the tools, my point is/was, those constraints didn't
hamper their ability to develop an individual style but, as you say
above, were indeed their wellspring -- irrelevant how narrow we, in the
21st century view those individual styles.