[net.music] People who talk about outgrowing rock and roll should grow up

robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (04/07/84)

Arguing about whether Rock or Classical music is "more creative" can
be really stupid.  Each artform has dimensions in which there is
great emphasis on creativity, and dimensions in which no one cares
for variation or precision.  We listeners develop sensitivities
appropriate to the style.  It's completely unfair to criticize one
style of music for failing to conform to the sensitivities of another.
If I were to do this unfair thing, my favorite example is:

	- Rock piano players are incredibly hamhanded in their sense
	of touch.  There is more creativity in the variation a
	classical pianist can give to the sound of the piano than there
	is in all the improvisation of rock music.  Jazz pianists have
	this sensitivity too!  Why not rock pianists?

By the way, Rock is also remarkably simpleminded in its choice of rhythms.
I am waiting patiently for rock composers to start using rock rhythms
that have been explored a great deal in 20th century classical music.
Where is Bulgarian rock?? Give me some of that driving 7/8, and 13/8
meter (See Bartok)!  It's not much different from many common rock rhythms, just
fresh and exciting.
					- Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
					allegra!eosp1!robison
					decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
					princeton!eosp1!robison

norskog@fortune.UUCP (Lance Norskog) (04/08/84)

But people are using new rhythms!  Go get any of the recent King Crimson
albums, you can listen to 4/4 mixed with 21/4 & 7/8!

cak@CS-Arthur (Christopher A Kent) (04/09/84)

I think that Yes of the late 70s did a lot of rhythmic explorations 
(I remember being dazed by "Gates of Delirium" from Relayer), but very
few other groups have. Zappa is another exception.

I agree, we should hear more of this.

Cheers,
chris

gulley@stolaf.UUCP (William T. Gulley) (04/12/84)

> To quote D. Blickstein:

> To be honest, my opinion of classical musicians is that they are typically
> not creative.   Their sole area for expression and creativity is in the
> limited area of interpretation.  

	True, but it looks like the general consensus is that we've
	come too far in musical development to go back to the basics
	of Baroque and Early Romanticism now, unfortunately. The 
	modern ear has to get more and more of it's fill of the 
	NEW!!!! and CREATIVE!!!! until it gets tired of even that
	and moves on to bigger and better things.  
	
	It's very unfortunate that, for the most part, the creative
	force is going more towards the complex and unusual, and the
	regard for simplicity and sublimity is all but forgotten. 
	While it's true that a few intrepid composers such as Steve
	Reich are keeping this tradition alive somewhat, it will
	continue to be that until a musical movement comes along, if
	it ever does, that re-discovers the joys of real basic
	simplicity in music,  and the old forms will continue to be 
	admired and glossed over like antiques, while nothing really
	new and creative ever comes out in that area.

	I'm not advocating a return to writing two-part inventions,
	just an attempt to explain why a lot of classical music
	is being limited to interpretation rather than actual com-
	position these days.  If any of you punkers or heavy-metal
	fans feel like lambasting my tastes just because they don't
	agree with yours, don't even think about it- take it out
	on a Van Halen solo or something.


 ____

    UM YA YAAA!!
    Man, that felt great. .

    William Gulley - St. Olaf College - Northfield, Minnesota
    . .!inhp4!stolaf!gulley