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