Re: Chord Function?

LJS wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:10 am, "Steve Latham" <llat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>> news:DoWdnV9Akf1jCRbVnZ2dnUVZ_j-
>>
>>
>>
>>> LOL--this analogy sounds totally apt to me.  Do you think most modern
>>> composers agree?
>>> Steve
>> I don't think most modern composers agree. I think there are those who
feel
>> they must work in this style in order to be considered "serious"
composers,
>> or whatever. But think about the amount of post-Star Wars film scores
that
>> have totally gone the opposite way - if anything, music of late -
especially
>> in video games with music written with a lot of influence from the pop
-
>> especially metal - has become "more tonal" rather than less. We live in
a
>> time now where the diversity amongst composers' styles is more
widespread
>> than ever.
>>
>> Steve
> 
> Wouldn't this feeling that they had to write a certain way to be
> considered "serious composers" in itself suggest that they are indeed
> NOT "serious composers"?  Although some composers in various periods
> have flourished in the style of the day and they took gigs that were
> of a particular style, they became great composers in spite of the
> fact that they did it in the style of the day. In their particular
> cases, they were serious composers and they did not really care if
> they deviated from the norm of the day anyway. Most of the composers
> that we respect and remember may have written in the overall style of
> the day, but the truly great ones usually took that norm and expanded
> on it.
> 
> Bach for example, redefined and set the style of his day rather than
> following it. The same can be said of Beethoven. Even the traditional
> Mozart pushed the envelope. Most of us forget the other composers of
> their time, but there were many composers that were concerned with
> writing in the accepted style of their time. I can't name very many of
> them, and I certainly have little interest in sorting through all of
> their works to see if there is something worth studying. By
> comparison, the composers that we remember were not concerned with
> breaking the norms of their times and this coupled with their genius
> is what sets them apart.
> 
> Better the statement should read that there are many composers that
> need to make a living and they will write any style that they can
> sell.


	That's most--unless you have a patron or a day job (such as Ives).
	Most would agree that Bach was the apotheosis of baroque, not the 
founder.  He certainly wasn't a revolutionary in the way Berlioz, 
Wagner--or Schoenberg were.
	Certainly revolutionizing the way we think about art is one measure of 
im****tance--but not the only one!
	And, for those of us not independently wealthy--it's no sin to make a 
living!

Steve



  A true artist, especially with the variety of styles available
> to a composer today, should not have to limit himself to hacking out
> product in a particular market. So, to give in to your statement a
> little bit, I would go as far as to say that there are many composers
> that may write what they can get paid for, but I certainly hope that
> they realize what they are doing and that this is not their aim in
> life to "fit in" with the style just because they want to be
> considered "serious".  Those that do may make a living, but will
> probably not be come a composer that time will judge as "serious". A
> gifted composer will most likely fly through any style and come up
> with something that sets him apart from the norm and will be
> successful in ALL of the "styles" of the day. Anything less may
> produce a one time hit, but certainly is not likely to produce a true
> "serious" composer.
> 
> Just some opinion on standards in art.
> 
> LJS


-- 
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001