[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
 
 
i'm not too familiar with webern. 
 
** might work for you . . . also, alban berg might work for you as he wrote rows that had major chords in them, etc. somehow his stuff sounds more tonal than either schoenberg or webern (at least to my ears).
 
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. 
 
** yeah. i came it through rock and jazz. though i heard a lot of classical stuff in my household and heard some early-ish middle-period schoenberg in high school and liked quite a bit.
 
totally agree.
i think that it is easier to study it than to hear it, if you know what i mean... 
 
** yeah. i like a lot of schoenberg's stuff, though the more rigid 12-tone stuff is not always to my liking (same with webern) 
 
> 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...
 
 
**'kay, there ya go.
 
stig