This NTT has me *desperately* wishing to go back over the past 10 Tone Prose editions, but I must not, for Young Joseph has forbidden it!!
A string serenade (or string orchestra piece) that much is clear. It sounds quite Tchaikovskian, and he's definitely in my bucket, but gosh, did we use Tchaikovsky in the past 10?
I would have to guess that it's Russian or some other Slavic composer. Could it be Dvorak? Could it be Suk? Did we use Suk? We've been trying to do normies. But then there was — famously — Jean Cras. Could it be Jean Cras? That would be bang out of order!
And then... there was Janacek. I suppose that's my best guess, but this would certainly be early, unrepresentative Janacek.
I think I must lie down for a few minutes... my head is schpinning!
As a classical musician (percussionist) in the trenches, I love this: "It seems to me that this [New] music isn’t good because its practitioners don’t follow their ears and don’t follow their hearts. They have been inculcated into a society (the university music establishment) that prioritizes creating music of coolness and sonic “interest” over music that uses the powerful, vast vocabulary at its disposal to move human emotion."
Bluch, as a lover of atonal/dissonant music in both classical and jazz genres, I have too many thoughts and poorly-informed opinions on this topic.
I may have a biased perspective, but I don't think think of "too much atonalism" as being a particular problem in the classical music world today. I suspect Joey is responding to slower change in academia since serialism's bizarre intellectual dominance in the mid-late 20th century.
As far as definitions are concerned, I'm not sure what is to be gained by dividing a very broad macro genre (classical music) in two, as opposed to distinguishing more specific sub-genres and movements. For example, are we really sorting modernists such as Schoenberg and Bartok into completely separate genres, where only Bartok belongs with Bach?
I remember when Wynton Marsalis and cohorts were really pushing hard to eject anything that didn't meet certain criteria (such as "swing") from the genre of jazz. Primarily this meant rejecting both the most popular (fusion) and least popular (avant-garde) sub-genres of the time. It didn't work, at least as far as broad categorization by the industry and public are concerned.
This NTT has me *desperately* wishing to go back over the past 10 Tone Prose editions, but I must not, for Young Joseph has forbidden it!!
A string serenade (or string orchestra piece) that much is clear. It sounds quite Tchaikovskian, and he's definitely in my bucket, but gosh, did we use Tchaikovsky in the past 10?
I would have to guess that it's Russian or some other Slavic composer. Could it be Dvorak? Could it be Suk? Did we use Suk? We've been trying to do normies. But then there was — famously — Jean Cras. Could it be Jean Cras? That would be bang out of order!
And then... there was Janacek. I suppose that's my best guess, but this would certainly be early, unrepresentative Janacek.
I think I must lie down for a few minutes... my head is schpinning!
As a classical musician (percussionist) in the trenches, I love this: "It seems to me that this [New] music isn’t good because its practitioners don’t follow their ears and don’t follow their hearts. They have been inculcated into a society (the university music establishment) that prioritizes creating music of coolness and sonic “interest” over music that uses the powerful, vast vocabulary at its disposal to move human emotion."
Bluch, as a lover of atonal/dissonant music in both classical and jazz genres, I have too many thoughts and poorly-informed opinions on this topic.
I may have a biased perspective, but I don't think think of "too much atonalism" as being a particular problem in the classical music world today. I suspect Joey is responding to slower change in academia since serialism's bizarre intellectual dominance in the mid-late 20th century.
As far as definitions are concerned, I'm not sure what is to be gained by dividing a very broad macro genre (classical music) in two, as opposed to distinguishing more specific sub-genres and movements. For example, are we really sorting modernists such as Schoenberg and Bartok into completely separate genres, where only Bartok belongs with Bach?
I remember when Wynton Marsalis and cohorts were really pushing hard to eject anything that didn't meet certain criteria (such as "swing") from the genre of jazz. Primarily this meant rejecting both the most popular (fusion) and least popular (avant-garde) sub-genres of the time. It didn't work, at least as far as broad categorization by the industry and public are concerned.