In Reply to: OK - but I don't agree on either point posted by Chris from Lafayette on May 9, 2016 at 22:31:22:
I only have 100 questions regarding this.Exactly what defines "easy listening? Popularity? Whistling melodies after attending the 18th revival of Oklahoma? Using harmonic concepts that are hundreds of years old? Lack of dissonance defines "easy listening", or is dissonance ok as long as its not derived from a 12 tone concept? Serialism is horrific but atonal is ok? "Intellectual" concepts employed in composition are ok as long as it ain't 12 tone serialism? Mirror harmony/lines is fine but all 12 tone music bites a hot one?
Are all of Beethoven's quartets "easy listening" because they're tonal? How about Bartok's quartets? Or can those guys be excused for writing "hard listening" pieces because they'd already written music more palatable for the masses? Varese sucks due to lack of "easy listening" pieces? Where's Ligetti fit in? Walk around the house whistling melodies by Takemitsu? Guess his stuff sucks. Schnittke's ok because he showed he could write Bach-like sections?
I don't care for most 12 tone pieces I've heard, but I do enjoy some Webern, Berg and Schoenberg pieces that if not completely serial sure as hell were heavily influenced by the concept. There are also a helluva lot of tonal pieces that I find either boring as hell or worse, including some that you may love.
I don't judge music by popularity, simplicity/complexity, tonality/melodic content or lack thereof. My ears listen to *one piece at a time*, and I enjoy or dislike *individual* pieces. I may like one serial piece very much and never wanna hear another particular serial piece again. I can be bored stiff by the trite tonal harmony and lackluster orchestration of many pieces one could describe as "easy listening", and yet love Vaughn Williams' Fantasia On Greensleeves.
Ya know, only a truly tiny percentage of the world's population digs jazz. An even smaller percentage of that tiny slice enjoy MY music. Jeez, I can only dream of being as popular as Schoenberg :-)
BTW -- Learsfool did NOT say serialism was THE music of its time, he simply said it was music of its time. What else was it, music NOT of its time? He did NOT say "....the horrors of WWI can *only* be expressed through serialism." He said "Much of Berg's music in particular is unimaginable without the context of WWI."
Edits: 05/10/16 05/10/16
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- WTF? Since when is not writing "easy listening" music a defect? - Rick W 13:58:08 05/10/16 (14)
- OK - Time for me to define my terms again - Chris from Lafayette 00:19:54 05/11/16 (1)
- Aha! Now I understand where you're comin' from. - Rick W 08:33:46 05/11/16 (0)
- Right on. And as good a definition of "easy listening" as any - - rbolaw 15:35:59 05/10/16 (11)
- Yeah - well, that's not what I mean by "easy listening" - See above - Chris from Lafayette 00:33:01 05/11/16 (10)
- Now, that's just nuts. - rbolaw 12:50:56 05/11/16 (9)
- I think you're grasping - Chris from Lafayette 22:22:06 05/11/16 (8)
- I'm not grasping -- you're wringing. ;-) - rbolaw 07:51:52 05/12/16 (7)
- That's a heartfelt response, and I do respect your personal musical journey - Chris from Lafayette 09:46:10 05/12/16 (6)
- RE: That's a heartfelt response, and I do respect your personal musical journey - learsfool 18:12:12 05/12/16 (0)
- "A temporary dip" - rbolaw 10:56:58 05/12/16 (3)
- What got cut out of my attempted edit - Chris from Lafayette 16:52:39 05/12/16 (2)
- Oh man, I am so done with this thread. That's just nasty. nt - rbolaw 18:24:02 05/12/16 (1)
- But I've got more! - Chris from Lafayette 23:16:46 05/12/16 (0)
- Our server chokes again with diacritical marks - click on the date of my post just above {nt] - Chris from Lafayette 10:06:35 05/12/16 (0)