rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/14/84)
[YAEONMCANSTNM] Tom Twiss (stolaf!twiss) has made some pretty rambunctious statements about another submitter's article on "why bother with musicology". (And they call me excessive!) Though I agree with him on the importance of musicology as a field of study, Tom Twiss makes a number of comments that merit a response: > >There may be some justification to saying that Beethoven further > >developed musical language where Haydn left off, or that > >Stan Getz continued along paths started by Charlie Parker, but > >I think this is more wrong than right. The success of the > >Beatles may have opened a few publicity doors for the Stones, > >but I see no logical connection or progression in the relation > >of their music to each other. > > If you see no logical connection, you've got troubles. Styles of course > vary, but influence is an unavoidable thing. True, it is difficult to > identify and impossible to quantify, but it is nonetheless a factor. I > would disagree with your term "further development". This implies that > Haydn's music was more simplistic than Beethoven's. This is not true. > It may be more complex tonally and rhythmically, etc. but not musically. > It is not a "further" development, but rather a development in a slightly > different direction based largely on the work laid down by Haydn. Is historical analysis of "who influenced whom" is the all-important thing here? What if someone proved that JSBach himself had a time machine that allowed him to hear all the music of Debussy and that this was his major influence? (It was so different from the music of his day that he could only try to simulate it in a style he understood.) Would it make a difference in the way the music sounds? > >Trying to hear Debussy as an outgrowth of a tradition that runs through > >Gounod, Faure, Duparc and others is to hear something that > >exists only in musicology books. > > Did you ever stop to think WHY that stuff is written in musicology books? > Because musicologists (which I will tell you I'm not and can tell YOU > certainly aren't) have spent a lot of time figuring out that there is a > tradition. Can you give any reasons why you believe this? You have only > asserted opinionated statements that have no significance. It's just like scientists figuring out what the chemical composition of a flower is, or how a particular life form evolved. Such study is extremely valuable, but is irrelevant to appreciating the beauty of a flower or a hummingbird or a butterfly. It's not a crime NOT to be a musicologist or a student of any art or science. Though such study may provide additional insight into "why" and "how", it doesn't change the beauty of the way the music is. > >I get further annoyed with the gall exhibited by music writers > >who proclaim that a certain composer was "heavily influenced" > >by another composer. Who knows what actually influenced > >anybody else? In order to know that you'd have had to read > >their minds. > > Wrong. 1) Writings of composers usually spell things out very clearly as > to who were their influences. 2) Just listen to the music! For anyone > who has studied music (have you studied music?) it is (usually) obvious > as hell to see a progression and an influence in (almost) any given work. As I already mentioned, it's nice to have studied an art or science, but it's not a criterion for being allowed the pleasure of listening to music OR expressing an opinion about it. Asking "have you studied music?" is irrelevant. Musicology is a fascinating topic (Have you studied the musicology in popular music? Does that disqualify you from listening to it?), but I can't help but think that putting more emphasis on the musicological study than on the music itself is analogous to the behavior of the audiophile who tweaks his/her equipment to get just the right sound but never gets to really listen to the sound that comes out. {WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT I'D BE TRYING TO BE THE PEACEMAKER HERE?} {PLEASE SUBMIT FUTURE ARTICLES ON THIS TOPIC TO NET.MUSIC AS WELL} -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr