David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
>> David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:
>>> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>>>
>>>> erilar wrote:
>>>>> In article ,
>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...And how would YOU determine the "accurate parts" unless you already
>>>>>>> know the subject thoroughly?
>>>>>> If you already know the subject thoroughly, you don't need to do
>>>>> research. There speaks the non-scholar. If you're really interested,
>>>>> you know you can never know everything about your subject and keep
>>>>> looking, because the more you know, the more you know there is more out
>>>>> there.
>>>>>
>>>> I seem to remember that then contemporary composers declared that the
>>>> diatonic scale was obsolete. True, they contributed a great deal to
>>>> serious music by experimenting with other scale systems, but there has
>>>> also been a great deal of worthwhile music written diatonically, since
>>>> that pronouncement was made.
>>> Diatonic scales and diatonic functions are not inextricably linked.
>> My point, exactly!
>
> I'm not sure about that. There are plenty of pieces that you might
> 'like', but don't function diatonically. A lot of Debussy for example.
He was one of those I had in mind - I didn't really meant imply there
was any FORMAL "declaration". (Although Schoenberg sort of did, didn't he?)
>
>> Even when the rules of composition were much
>> stricter than they later became, there seemed no limit on the production
>> of fresh and original works.
>
> The rules never "became" less strict Composers developed and changed the
> language, that's all.
Same difference! |