From: mjferzig@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Subject: Re: ROCK AND ROLL
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:26:49 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>On Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:50:52 -0500 <mjferzig@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU> said:
>>. . . . The only reason we have some decent objective standards to
>>rate older classical music is that all the composers are dead, their trends
>>and development can be noticed, we understand the conditions they worked
>>under much more fully than we understand today's society, and everyone we
>>can compare them to is dead too! Only time shows brilliance, through
>
>Actually, we don't.  Have decent objective standards, that is.  Consensual
>reality is still subjective reality.  Furthermore, quite a few classical
>composers were recognized as hot-shit music-makers long before they shuffled
>off this mortal coil.  But then fell back into oblivion--for many centuries
>if it was more than 30 years old, it was passe, old-hat, not with it,
>uninteresting.  It is only in the last, oh, 150 years or so that we have truly
>developed a musical canon of all the ages.
>
>>durability. I believe that music is alive and well and getting better all
>>the time. The world is omly starting to recognize the a cappella music that
>>I love so much with compilation albums, and therefore commercial success,
>>but a cappella music existed before any other kind...
>
>A nit.  Instrumental music, so far as we know, is as old as vocal music; at
>least the instruments themselves are, and one presumes they played *something*.
>For quite a long time, music simply *was*--one didn't particularly care if it
>was sung or played.  The distinctions develop with good effect in the late
>1500s.
>
Actually, I was referring to the cave-folk. My music prof for "History of
Music: ancient to 1640" was the one who told me music with the voice came
first. If you think about it, it's real logical. I can imagine thta people
would fashion instruments before they could sing...

>>never liked troubador songs...but I learned about them in music class 600
>>years or so after they'd been composed. Even though I gritted my teeth all
>>the way through the record, I have a healthy respect for music that can
>>endure that long.
>>
>I have a healthy respect for your *endurance*, if you were listening to 600
>year old troubador music--that would make you 100+ years old, by my reckoning!

OK, Ken - I screwed up. Somehow I had the year 1400 in my head....i
realized later that I was a bit too early...I think you got my point
though...

>:-)   Anyways, medieval & renaissance music is an acquired taste for most of
>us.  I don't know as making you grit your teeth is an especially good way to
>get you to acquire it, though :-)  Still, as you like vocals, I'd suggest a
>massive dose of Elizabethan or Italian madrigals (all right, French chansons
>too).  IMHO, the vocal art at its all-time best.

I love madrigals. I sang in a 28 voice (not true to history, I know)
madrigal choir in cllege and miss it terribly! Each December, we did a
"Madrigal Dinner" which involved all of us dressing up in silly "period"
costume, speaking with silly accents, pretening to be lords and ladies and
doing skits and madrigals. There's a duel each year, a jester, wenches,
damsels in distress and great music!!! If anyone will be in the Southern
tier of NY the weekend after thanksgiving, let me know and I'll send you
ticket info. I agree that madrigals are great - although I don't like
French Chanson as much, they are a close second. I tie the Italian and
English for first! Which are your favorites?

Sorry if this is incoherent...it's early....

Marsha
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU