[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: conceptual art and improvisation/Abstract vs. concrete



Title: RE: conceptual art and improvisation/Abstract vs. concrete
>have you checked out webern's string quartet music?
 
i'm not too familiar with webern.
i know most of these guys only from studying music theory in college.
i kind of got it backwards, studying it first, then listening.
i come from the rock and roll side of things.
this led to some interesting clashes with "jazzers" and "classical" types.
 
 
>btw, i'd say that, even though scheonberg was "demolishing tonality," he was really just extending the late romantic tradition to one logical extreme.
 
totally agree.
i think that it is easier to study it than to hear it, if you know what i mean...
 
> i believe that bartok also had a tonality system, though i don't know much about it and it seems like too much for my little brain
 
love bartok.
listen to the string quartets regularly.
i think his system is somewhat geometric as well.
a very bartokian sonority is to superimpose major and
minor triads with the same tonic in a way that results in a vertically (pitch)
symetrical shape (ex. E3 G3 C4 Eb4: minor third, perfect fourth, minor third). 
very cool...
 
he also used hungarian folk melodies as source
material to manipulate in sonically new ways.
so he was quite the "remixer," too.
i'd love to hear what he would have done with modern electronics.
 
 
i have a friend who has looped bartok...
(there, i snuck looping in!)