Re: [LAU] Some new Bach

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Rustom Mody <rustompmody@...>
Cc: linux-audio-user <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013 - 12:50 pm

--f46d040168b36aa04504d5aeb410
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:

>

as much of a lover of Bach's non-vocal works as I am, I'd like to point out
that most definitions of music involve at least 3 components:

rhythm
melody
harmony

one might also timbre if you were in the right mood. Bach, like more or
less everyone who is a part of the "western tradition", did some incredible
things with harmony, and had some modest accomplishments in the melodic
area (*), but did essentially nothing with rhythm.

It is entirely possible to fully respect the incredible work of western
composers while also acknowledging that "music" begins and ends in places
far outside anywhere that they (or any other single musical culture) have
ever explored.

(*) contrast western notions of melody with that found in carnatic music,
for example. one could argue that this is a matter of listener
interpretation rather than compositional form, but since in practice these
two are tightly bound together, it doesn't make a lot of difference when it
comes to actual music.

--f46d040168b36aa04504d5aeb410
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Rustom =
Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
Personally, Ive for years belonged to the class of people who consider =
that music starts with Bach and ends with Beethoven. Bach because he is God=
and Beethoven because He is a man.as much of a l=
over of Bach's non-vocal works as I am, I'd like to point out that =
most definitions of music involve at least 3 components:
=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 rhythm=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 melo=
dy=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 harmonyone might also timbre if you =
were in the right mood. Bach, like more or less everyone who is a part of t=
he "western tradition", did some incredible things with harmony, =
and had some modest accomplishments in the melodic area (*), but did essent=
ially nothing with rhythm.
It is entirely possible to fully respect the incredible work of western=
composers while also acknowledging that "music" begins and ends =
in places far outside anywhere that they (or any other single musical cultu=
re) have ever explored.
(*) contrast western notions of melody with that found in carnatic =
music, for example. one could argue that this is a matter of listener inter=
pretation rather than compositional form, but since in practice these two a=
re tightly bound together, it doesn't make a lot of difference when it =
comes to actual music.

--f46d040168b36aa04504d5aeb410--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Tue Feb 12, 10:14 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Rustom Mody, (Thu Feb 14, 12:40 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Thu Feb 14, 1:03 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Feb 14, 1:57 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Feb 14, 1:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Chris Bannister, (Sat Feb 16, 12:33 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Sat Feb 16, 12:39 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Rustom Mody, (Sat Feb 16, 4:24 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Paul Davis, (Thu Feb 14, 12:50 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Lorenzo Sutton, (Thu Feb 14, 3:32 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Fons Adriaensen, (Thu Feb 14, 3:52 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Folderol, (Thu Feb 14, 4:45 pm)
[LAU] OT: do you like this kind of looseness?, drew Roberts, (Thu Feb 14, 6:44 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: do you like this kind of looseness?, Folderol, (Thu Feb 14, 8:35 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: do you like this kind of looseness?, drew Roberts, (Fri Feb 15, 2:07 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Rustom Mody, (Thu Feb 14, 5:47 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Tim Goetze, (Thu Feb 14, 9:40 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Thu Feb 14, 9:43 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Fons Adriaensen, (Thu Feb 14, 6:37 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Lorenzo Sutton, (Fri Feb 15, 9:19 am)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Dave Phillips, (Thu Feb 14, 2:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Paul Davis, (Thu Feb 14, 2:32 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Jörn Nettingsmeier, (Thu Feb 14, 9:41 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Dave Phillips, (Thu Feb 14, 3:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Paul Davis, (Thu Feb 14, 3:31 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Dave Phillips, (Thu Feb 14, 3:39 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Feb 14, 4:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Paul Davis, (Thu Feb 14, 3:42 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Folderol, (Thu Feb 14, 3:12 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Feb 14, 4:14 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Dave Phillips, (Thu Feb 14, 3:31 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Folderol, (Thu Feb 14, 4:44 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Thu Feb 14, 2:42 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Folderol, (Wed Feb 13, 11:41 am)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Carlos sanchiavedraz, (Wed Apr 10, 2:52 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Wed Apr 10, 4:18 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Daniel Worth, (Wed Feb 13, 12:55 am)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Wed Feb 13, 8:09 am)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Al Thompson, (Wed Feb 13, 4:35 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Ralf Mardorf, (Wed Feb 13, 6:23 pm)