Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-delphi!malik From: malik@delphi.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440) Newsgroups: net.music.classical Subject: music and time Message-ID: <1721@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 19-Jun-84 14:13:56 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.1721 Posted: Tue Jun 19 14:13:56 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Jun-84 05:28:57 EDT Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 28 Subj; music and time We just went through a discussion of 'serialism'. From what I read, it seems to me that most of the objections have more to do with the lack of a tonal-center/key, than with serialism per se. Am I incorrect? Are there non-serial, atonal works that you enjoy? The reason I ask, is that I've never felt that the tonal-center or harmonic language was all that important in a piece of music. Whether we're talking about Beethoven or Stockhausen, it seems to me that the articulation of time is what makes the piece work. What I mean is contrast, surprize, variation, tension/resolution, etc. The means by which this is achieved is (relatively) unimportant. Consider a work for percussion ensemble (sans melodic instruments). It's entirely possible (perhaps you disagree) to write a work, which is wholly musically satisfying, which contains no significant harmonic relations at all. It works because of the drama (whether subtle or extreem) - how it changes over time. So, for me, tonality/atonality is not an issue - because they both do the same thing - they articulate time in surprizing and delightful ways. - Karl