In article <slrndba0p7.iv4.slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Albert Silverman <slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 2005-06-17, Adam Golding <adamgolding@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> on the contrary, Schoenberg's book rules! it might be good to combine
>> it with something more orthodox, like aldwell and schacter, but the
>> Schoenberg is really good at stimulating *thought* about theory...
>>
>> (and i'm surprised Al doesn't adore it, scathingly as it does speak of
>> traditional musical education and its dogmatic answers)
>
>You are missing the point. While both Schoenberg and I speak scathingly
of
>traditional musical eduction, it is for quite different reason.
Schoenberg
>disparages the compositional product of traditional rules, regulations,
>dogma, etc. In particular, he does not believe in the "tonality" that is
>implicit in traditional compositional style.
In other words you have not the slightest clue what's in Schoenberg's
books.
>In contrast, it is not the *music* itself which I disparage, but rather
>the traditional *explanation* of this music; an explanation which is
based
>upon its compositional *style*, rather than upon its *principles*.
>Traditional composition is indeed chord-based, whereas the theoretical
>principles which Schoenberg later came to embrace are *not* chord-based.
>
>So my battle is an attempt to get these chord-based principles out there
>in a different manner than the obfuscated and absurd manner that they are
>traditionally "explained."
>
>
>Albert Silverman
>(Al is in Wonderland!)
>where relevance is irrelevant
>along with understanding
>
The real contrast, Al, is that Arnold Schoenberg knew what he was
talking about. Alas, you don't, not even when describing Schoenberg's
writings.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
|
