I am aware that what will speak it is radical

[denison rosario]

I am aware that what will speak it is radical, however, a lot of times, a radical observation always wakes up the reader for a not very observed aspect. We will make a parallel one between the music and the literature. <BR>We know that the literature possesses several forms; among which we see the Comics, policeman, solemnity-help, romance, epic, etc. <BR>When I listen popular music I always have the impression of being reading " a history comics; we know that Comics Picture can Have good quality or not, it can be adult or infantile, but we also know that the limit of the " form " pictures doesn't ALLOW an deeper on the part of the artist. The same happens with the music; The popular music is NEVER going at least superficially to enter in the depth world in that meets the learned orchestrated music! <BR>Verify a public of Jazz; they have dinner, they talk, they drink, they scream, they beat the feet, hands, laugh at random, the musicians make choreographies, they use colored illumination, they play drunks, they improvise the whole time ...them, it is,have the Rock, Reggae, Dances the samba, Funk and Country, just music of entertainment. <BR>The learned, same orchestrated music when it intends to entertain, it is always Larger Art. <BR>I am still going far away... inside of the learned gender, I believe that the Concert for instruments, the Opera, the Ballet, the Mass, Oratorical ...has an extra aspect - musical and an impure intention that don't please me. <BR>I prefer the music purely instrumental, without text, without choreographies, without theater, without film... <BR>In this aspect I consider the symphony and, until plus, the music of camera larger forms of expression purely musical; the high point that the Man reached of artistic development, getting rid of the primitive intentions of " using " the music as form of dominating, to count a history, to hypnotize or to dance. <BR>The advantage of the instrumental music on the music tune, for me, is the text lack in human language; that makes difference, because in the music without voice there is not competition with the poetry or the literature when being digested! <BR>The own composer one sees forced to give more wealth to the language and emblems, when it is not had what to say in human language and the listener wins in concentration of the emblem and of the orchestra. <BR>Own Beethoven, instrumental par excellence, in the Ninth Symphony it used the human voice for a subject of humanism and the text of Schiller to become more comprehensible before a " public of symphonies with questionable " gabarit, meantime for its last quartets they were only invited half dozen of expert in music to analyze the work and not " to enjoy " just. <BR>Who invented the instrumental music they were the Venetian ones. Mainly the experiences of master Gabrielli with instruments imitating and SUBSTITUTING the human voice led off the search of the pure instrumentation of the music, because before she had always gone support to the voices. <BR>Starting from there they appear the first thick concerts, Corelli and all the other ones that explored this gender. <BR>Antonio Vivaldi gave form to the concert for An instrument and everybody liked the idea that never again it was abandoned! <BR>I am not denying the vocal music, just saying what find purely of the relationship between the music tune and the music instrumental. <BR>Nevertheless I adore Messias(Haendel), Missa Solemne(Beethoven), Réquiem Deutche(Brahms), Parsifal(Wagner) and the lieder of Mahler, Hanns Eisler and Schubert. <BR> <P>

[shostakovich]

Hi Denison. You have some interesting thoughts. I don't know enough about non-classical to comment on it, but that thing called "Jazz" (which means many things to many people) has been around in one form or another for over 100 years. That's older than I am, and it get's my respect if not my heart. <P>Each person has his own value system, and I think ours are quite similar regarding the classics. I, too, would put Absolute Music (that which deals only with melody, harmony, rhythm, etc.), preferably using the instruments available in Haydn's time, as the "truest" music. There would also be a hierarchy within that based on length, difficulty, seriousness of purpose, etc. The second echelon would be music that conveys a story with instruments alone (symphonic poems, etc). This already compromises the music with story. Story-telling music, by the way, is my favorite area for listening pleasure.<P>After that would come music with words or body movement (or both), where part of the message comes NOT from the instruments. A survey of the 19th C shows German composers favoring absolute (except Liszt and Wagner of course), Italian composers favoring opera, and French composers opera and ballet. This alone explains why serious music critics find the "great composers" of the 19th C. to be German. Again Wagner is an exception. He had no use for absolute, but brought opera to such a degree of complexity that it could no longer be called opera, but "music drama". <P>My own preference for 19th C. listening is the Russian music. It doesn't have the depth of German or the polish of French. There's a gutsy, earthy, unsophistocated use of strong melody and rhythm. Since Russian music only began in the 19th C. it still had honest soul in it. Freud's studies in psychology were refined in the late 19th C. They can be FELT, unrefined, in the Slavic soul at the same time. I'm personally not emotional or demonstrative. The emotional music of Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, and a multitude of others is like medecine to me.<P>You obviously know your history of the origins of "classical" music (Gabrielli, Corelli, et al). Yes, it all started around 1600 in Italy with opera (1597 in Forence according to one lecture I heard). Everything we think of as classical, except for the concerto, seems to have been spawned from opera. (Maybe that's too sweeping a statement. I may have to retract.) How far forward does your interest go? Mine goes to about 1950. There may be something new to get excited about beyond that date, but it doesn't come from the classical tradition. I think film music is my favorite beyond 1950, but it's hardly new. It was recycled 19th C music in 1930, and it still is. Yet, this recycled "romantic" music makes very enjoyable listening.<BR>This is overly long, and it's very late. <BR>Shos signing off.

[Nicole Marie]

Denison-<P>I'm a little confused on your interp. of jazz. You make it seem to be a very animal, base form of music. It's expression as is classical.<P>I'd have to disagree with you. I do play jazz (not as well as classical) but I find you may have missed the expression. Can you go into further detail. It's not as "drunk" as you say it is.

[denison rosario]

I will answer at the two: <BR>1 - the concert also owes to the opera; Gabrielli invented the instrumental music melting elements of the sacred music and of the opera - the idea of I confront between soil and tutti you/he/she comes from the aria against the orchestra. <BR>2 - the Jazz is not an animal phenomenon, but it is a manifestation of the free spirit, without commitment, without rules, without measures; characteristics of something non erudite, not classic. <BR>3 - the fact of the Jazz to be a hundred years of age old he/she doesn't want to say anything! The movies is a language of the Art that is 100 years old and it is a failure, infantile and without exit! <BR>Anything he/she/it compares with the plastic arts, the Sculpture and the Serious Music. <BR>Hugs