Over the centuries, western music has been roughly of one style.
the Baroque, the Classical, the Romantic, etc... But since the evolution
of many new styles in the twentieth century, music has not been as
clean cut as it was in the nineteenth century and before. We have
now what I will call:
The Ecumenical Music Philosophy
This philosophy incorporates every last style, and as a result, many
hybrid styles are formed (isn't the twentieth century all about
hybridization?). The result can be quite messy, but also quite beautiful
in the rare gifted hands.
So is this a good philosophy? I myself have partially fallen into it
(although there are many "musical" styles I will never incorporate
into my music [or even listen to]), but is it a good philosophy? Was
music better when there was only one dominate style? If there was
only one style, then it could be enriched by all composers and
continue to be enriched in the future. On the other hand, couldn't
all of these new styles enrich music as a whole? Could it be boiled
down until each style is interchangeable with the others? I won't
answer this, since I do not have the answer. But there must be
benefits to both sides.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I can see why you would never listen to certain types of music. What I cannot see is why you would never use parts of them. (Paradox!)
But anyway, I think that there is a small problem with your approach to this question. It is obvious that there are advantages and disadvantages to this position. From here, you have two choices:
1. Explore the advantages and disadvantages and the situations in which this knowledge can be applied.
2. Explore the question of whether the advantages make the disadvantages negligible or the disadvantages make the advantages negligible (i.e. whether the advantages make the non-ecumenical style completely useless).
It is obvious that it is impractical to answer #2 in the first manner and still ask #1. Yet you do so. You say "I won't answer this because I do not have the answer," and because you use it as the ending sentence (your period before the "But" is grammatically incorrect so I do not consider it) I assume you mean the question "Is it a good philosophy?" because the ending sentence ought to refer to the paragraph as a whole (see how useful grammar is!). This implies that you are asking #2. At the same time, you say "There must be benefits to both sides," implying question #1. Because it is impractical to ask #1 before you have answered #2 in the affirmative, you seem to assume an affirmative answer to #2 yet say that you will not answer it.
Of course it is possible to ask both questions independent of each other, but it is not practical for the composer. Of course, in knowing the answer to #2, you have to explore #1 to some degree, but you need not say that there are benefits to both sides unless you have already determined that these benefits are more than negligible.
Wow!!!! You're questions are quite
in-depth!!!! Quite melancholic
the way you ask about every
detail. So, what is your answer?!!?
My answer is, as usual, a qualified yes. For those who can be ecumenical without losing the consciousness of individual styles, musical stylistic ecumenism can be very useful. Those who cannot will lose the styles in the ecumenism, and then there will be nothing to be ecumenical about and you will have nothing: neither styles nor ecumenism.
Post a Comment