From: judd@wilkinson.cs.colorado.edu (Stephen Judd)
Subject: Re: Classical Music for modern instrument (was Re: The shortest distance between two chords is...)
Organization: Universtiy of Coloardo, Boulder
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:54:42 GMT

I kinda figgered this would happen. ;-)

In article <1jn31c$k3h@agate.berkeley.edu> maverick@mahogany.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.183529.8470@colorado.edu>, judd@wilkinson.cs.colorado.edu (Stephen Judd) writes:
>I see no reason that a limitation to three chords means music must be
>trivial.  One weakness in your comparison of rock to classical music
>is that there is a very different distribution in the two musics of
>the musicality of the event between (for shorthand) "the music" and
>"how it is played".  Nobody would claim that the very evident
>musicality of Skip James (to reach for an example into one of the
>source traditions of rock) resided in his compositions.
>
>In my experience, the rock bands which have tried to get complex in
>the way you suggest usually fall down terribly on "how it is played"
>-- no swing, bad taste in guitar sound, etc.  And as another
>counterthrust to your suggestion that this music would be improved by
>a reading of Piston's _Harmony_, consider jazz, which developed
>considerable tonal-harmonic complexities in different directions from
>classical music: no German sixths in Lennie Tristano....
>
>	Vance

Allow me to expand and clarify my original idea.

First point: I am not saying that 'simple' is inherently bad.  Keep in mind
that I grew up listening to rock and roll of the 50's and 60's, and I
certainly find some of them quite entertaining.  (It's not that I'm that
old, I just had a somewhat different childhood than most people :-).

Second point: I am aware of how to appreciate different kinds of music.  This
is partly due to the fact that I have (perhaps unfortunately) never had any
formal music training, so I just listen to music and think about it.

I think I agree with you on the above, for the most part anyways.  Yes,
technical skill is one facet of music.  Yes, I agree that just being
complex for the sake of complexity usually leads to dull results (ELP was
mentioned by someone else).  (In addition to technical skill of course
interpretation plays an important role - Beatles played by anyone but The
Beatles is quite inferior).

As to jazz, jazz certainly owes much to classical music, but simply moved
it, as you say, in a different direction.

However, you seem to imply above that reading Piston would degrade the
music.  Why?  Is jazz so distinct from the more classical forms that the
two are incompatible?  I don't think so.  And the same is true for rock and
roll.  So I stand by my original statement: I see no reason why rock and
roll, for example, must remain trivial harmonically and (usually) musically.
As an example, the album I mentioned earlier, _Intuition_ by TNT, is very
musical, has a beat, etc., and yet manages to use far more sophisticated
construction than others.

Although I have never studied jazz, it seems to me to be a music that
developed considerable sophistication.  Why?  My theory is that a
musician with a (first) an excellent ear and (second) a creative, intelligent
mind will begin to become bored with the old form, and create something new.
This is what pushes the music forwards.  This certainly is why classical
has developed.  I would guess the same is true for jazz.  It happens for
film scores, etc.  Curiously, though, the opposite seems to be true in the
popular world, for the most part.

The Beatles were an exception, certainly.  It seems clear that they became
bored with the older forms, of others and of themselves, and so they
expanded the medium.  I want to know why nobody in the pop world wants to
expand the medium, or if anyone has (TNT for instance).

As I am sure you have guessed, I could pontificate for hours on this
subject.  Luckily, though, I have a class now. ;^)

					-Steve
--
judd@colorado.edu
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical