Subject:
|
Re: New space building standard and submission to www.classic-space.com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:48:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1514 times
|
| |
|
|
> I kind of agree here. This reminds me of music theory: while it's all • true
> and makes sense if you study it long enough, does John Williams really • think
> "I should change keys 12 bars into the second phrase using a regressive
> cadence ending in a napoleonic 6th chord? an augmented 5th away from the
> original key?"
I agree that sometimes theory can go interfere with visceral enjoyment.
However, as an aspiring music theorist, I'd like to extend your analogy:
John Williams probably DOES think about cadences and key transitions. His
musical ideas and themes are no doubt original and mostly unfettered with
such theoretical complications but the actual filling out and detailing of a
composition (which is where most of the genius of a composer is realized)
DOES require quite a bit of understanding of theory. He has an idea that he
wants to go from the tonic to some sort of a distant key. He will most
likely use some sort of theory to achieve that. To take your example: If I
wanted to go to an augmented fifth away from the tonic, and to use a
Neapolitan (not napoleonic..that's a bit militaristic ;) ) in the process, I
could do so by using theory... an augmented 5th is enharmonically a flat
sixth. A Neapolitan is in essence a flat two (usually in first inversion),
so therefore one could modulate from the original key:
I-IV-V-VI-+6(foreshadowing)-V-IV-N6(as four of flat sixth)-bIII(five of flat
6)-bVI(enhamronically #5). Sorry about getting carried away here but the
point is that theory does play a giant role in creation. I'm not a
professional composer but I know I think in such theoretical terms when I
compose. I also know composer who do think like this often. Bach is one of
them (he HAD to change keys all the time...the style dictated it...so he had
harmonic progressions going through his head all the time.
> I could see this as a way of defining a standardized "language" to • describe
> model construction if no pictures were available, but other than that...
> When I build, I follow the extremely simple (albeit, harder to do than to
> say) "draw a picture in my head (or on paper, if I can manage to get past • my
> complete lack of drawing skills), build that picture" model.
Definitely I agree here. Although I think a formal language to describe any
sort of an organized system has benefits. It would indeed be powerful at an
abstract and practical level.
> I mean no offense, I really am just asking you what made you think of this
> and what is its purpose? Now that I think about it, it might be handy to
> sort my pieces into your constructors categories. Currently, I have a • "Lego
> Bin" and a "Larger Pieces Lego Bin." It would be nice to have decorative
> elements in another place, regardless of size, so that they wouldn't get • in
> my way when I'm plowing through the bin looking for a plain old 1x2 brick • to
> allow me to finish the structural design. Except so many pieces could
> qualify for several categories. Either way, you've given me much to think
> about. ;)
>
> -- Tom
>
>
I guess a lot of theory is really quite academic in and of itself...not
necessarily useful but fun to think about. Still, I think for those who can
manipulate thoughts in such a formal way, it can be quite useful. And for
others, it present an alternative form of organization...one which may or
may not be beneficial.
Luke
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
