 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.161.182.178
In Reply to: RE: Stanford -- Stabat Mater posted by Newey on October 24, 2015 at 20:49:07
by composers to suggest a state of uncertainty, transmutation, or a sense of infinity.
Follow Ups:
The OP has been here before over the years, using other monikers, though perhaps some of those old posts have been deleted. I think you get my drift, so I won't bother resolving this post on the tonic. ;-)
I'd like to express my delight at the level of discussion found here today. This is what I'd hoped to have found when I was participating here back some 10-15 years ago.
Back then, what I found instead was a vast ocean of musical ignorance, and stubbornly entrenched adherence to opinions formed out of that ignorance. Things deteriorated from there, which led the rancor to which Rob Law and others have referred.
I hasten to add that I wasn't the bad guy. I merely couldn't tolerate ignorance about music and opinions blasted out into cyberspace based on that ignorance as if they were fact. Also, at times, I also wasn't exactly pleased when someone disagreed with me [but only when I knew that I was 100% correct].
OTOH, there were several characters who simply attacked others with no cause. I sure as hell wasn't going to back down from some rage-a-holic looking to take out his BS frustration and aggression on the internet.
So far, only JDaniels has shown a predisposition towards attacking me without cause. I've held back from responding as the situation deserves to avoid being banned right away, but also because he's recently shown some fluency in harmonic analysis, which is generally a rare thing these days.
Unfortunately, he's also shown a regretful tendency to be wrong, either slightly off-center wrong or way-the-hell-out-in-left-field wrong, about everything else, so I'll have to apply corrective measures as needed.
I'm hoping that, given the possibly higher level of discussion now possible, we may avoid any repetition of past unpleasantness.
*****
N. Thelman, SSI
For my part, I'll cheerfully apologize for any hostility in my comments in this thread, my intent was not to "attack" you, and I don't think I have attacked you in previous years either. In fact, this thread reminded me of an interesting passage in a Charles Rosen book that I have now dug out:
"The history of progress in music runs from the composer who thinks wrong notes are funny, as in the polytonal cadences and the whole-tone scale in Mozart's Musical Joke, to composers like Debussy who employ them seriously."
The evolution of harmony in Western music is a fascinating topic. However, one's perception of harmony, or music generally, is a deeply personal and sensitive thing (Rosen, for one, well understands this). Labeling people ignorant or wrong not only is not useful, when applied in topics like this it is more often than not itself wrong, and, more importantly, insensitive.
I am not a moderator or Bored member (and don't worry, you won't receive any more lectures from me), but I think if you keep this in mind, you won't find yourself banned and your posts deleted.
psychological point.... ; )
No question about it - you're a giant in you own mind.
Funny thing though. I've barely noticed your annoying fruit fly posts; but, now I've and read them, and they're such a sad - but aforementioned, flying pest annoying - bid for attention; like that of a dumb little kid continually interrupting the adults engaged in conversation with irritating antics.
One could feel sorry for you - but---hmmmm-----I don't.
N. Thelman, SSI
Classic ad hominem.
Not the behaviour of someone who is confident in his claims/arguments.
> > "Fruit fly posts" Effeminization of discretion and good taste; < <
> > Classic ad hominem. Not the behaviour of someone who is confident in his claims/arguments. < <
WHAT AD HOMINEM attack?????????????
Listen, homeboy. If I want to attack you, I'll come at you with full force. You'll know it; no question about it, no secret codey weasel words.
Das how I roll -- you feel me -- Homes?
What part of my post was some feminized ad hominem attack? Fly? Insect? The image of an flying insect - the common fly being the most common type - harrassing a human, or any large animal further up the food chain - has been used as a metaphor for trivial irritants since the DAWN OF HUMANITY!!!
Fruit flies, and all flies, as with most animals on the planet, come in male and female pairs. How is using a flying insect analogy "effeminization"??????? Are insects now considered to be all females???
If so, I've got a rude awakening for you, Jiminy. Cockroaches reproduce in the billions. They can only do that with male and female pairs.
Is this all news to you? Is basic biology something unknown to you? Are you even aware of the addage "...the birds and the bees..."?
Jeez, this place sure attracts a lot of abberant types. Insects = feminization. Unbelievable.
Apparently, to YOU, a fruit fly means something else. If so, whatever the **k it means, it's local to your little circle of whomever you call your associates. I can assure you that I used the analogy to indicate a flying, buzzing, trivial irritant -----NOT SOMETHING ELSE -- whatever YOU may think it may be.
********************BUT*******************
That's not the end of the story. We're not done yet.
YOU - the apparent innocent, pure-as-driven-snow victum of insect insults, actually fired the first shot of a REAL ad hominem attack, and you did it in a greasy loser kind of way, when you weakly tried to deflect away the attention from your lack of grasp of Beethoven's cannon by alleging that I collect boxed sets, and as such, I was a neophite.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/messages/21/217375.html
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or - does that also have some other weird ad hominem meaning for you?
N. Thelman, SSI
Jeez. I used to run into EXACTLY this sort of this 10 years ago, when this place was filled with music dummies. Yes - dummies. There's no better word for them. Those folks just weren't educated musically. But, each and every one of them had stubbornly held opinions. They'd read a crap load of liner notes, jumped to conclusions on the basis of that, and filled in the yawning gaps in their knowledge with crap they made up.
I'd post something, such as what I've posted above, and I'd get exactly JDaniels's sort of loud, raging response - 100% missing my point or just being 100% wrong.
After I'd explain the whole error to them, they'd respond with even MORE rage and stubborn insistence on their untenable and erroneous positions. There was one enormously lengthy thread where I'd corrected a rock n roller about his erroneous attempts at harmonic analysis. I gave him the correct answer. For weeks, he shot back post after increasingly hysterical, angry post desperately trying to assert his erroneous ideas and save face.
One particular handful was called Rob. He was from Amsterdam. You couldn't convince him of anything, no matter how wrong he was [which he was most of the time]. I understand that he eventually killed himself. No - I didn't lead him to it.
N. Thelman, SSI
Is Beethoven's 4th more popular or recognizable than his 5th? No.
Is his 8th more popular than his 5th? No.
Is his 2nd? No.
Do composers sometimes defer the tonic or weaken the final cadence in order to make a psychological point? Yes.
Are there Academics who are supportive of the Romantic/post-Romantic era? Yes.
Have there always been? Yes.
Are my retorts indicative of a vast and knowledge of--and comfort with--the genre? Yes.
Any disagreement?
> > Is Beethoven's 4th more popular or recognizable than his 5th? No.
Is his 8th more popular than his 5th? No.
Is his 2nd? No. < <
Reply: Less popular? Arguably. Less well known to the classical listener? NO. You're equating popularity with familiarity. And, even then, really, the whole Nine are so popular - TO CLASSICAL LISTENERS, not motorcycle driving Jesse James - that's it's absurd to make much distinction. They're not "less well known" to the classical music listening audience. It's less well known, if known at all, to the typical Red Bull guzzling millenial. But, they're outside the focus of your thread, as they should be.
You could've saved yourself a world of trouble if you said "Let's listen to the slightly less popular members of the Beethoven Nine". That'd have shown that you knew what you were talking about, and had something interesting to add to our appreciation.
See the difference?
> > Do composers sometimes defer the tonic or weaken the final cadence in order to make a psychological point? Yes. < <
Reply: no argument there. Spot on, and a very good point. Of course [and yet again], that wasn't the point I was making. My point was that a conservative such as Stanford would be unlikely not to resolve to the tonic chord, as it was the last and final chord and note of a huge composition. And, he didn't use some other, more typical method of avoiding the tonic, had he been so inclined. BTW, even the late Romantics who did avoid a V-I cadences [or any approach to tonic resolution] might steadfastly did so through out a given work, but then provided the final tonic close. Either listen to the Sibelius 5th, or have a look at the score. He assiduously avoided any tonic cadences - until that genius last chord. Genius.
With clarification from all of the other participants in the thread, I now have a better understanding of Stanfords ending, but it still sounds to me like one chord to go to get to the tonic kind of ending.
> > Are there Academics who are supportive of the Romantic/post-Romantic era? Yes. < <
Reply: Today, maybe a few more, especially among the critics. Sure, they're writing in Fanfare and ARG. But, I'm not referring to them at all.
> > Have there always been? Yes. < <
Reply: very few, but the more powerful and published [same thing in the academe] - NO. Just take a look at the old editions of Groves. Or, pick up Aaron Copland's book about music for the general reader. There's tons and tons of material. You're not familiar with it and really out of your depth with this particular topic. There's nothing to be gained in continued retorts with me, since you just don't have knowlegde in this area. You can't hide it from me - I'm very well versed in it. It's OK. You don't have to know everything - and no one expects you to. I suggest that you use my posts as a springboard to learning more about the issues if you're at all interested, rather than wasting my time and yours in endless and unconstructive retorts. At some point, those grow tiresome, and totally unproductive.
> Are my retorts indicative of a vast and knowledge of--and comfort with--the genre? Yes. < <
Reply: some are and some aren't, but they sure are indicative that my ego's way, way larger than yours.
> > Any disagreement? < <
Reply: those could continue for hours. Tired of typing right now. Blinking out for the night.
N. Thelman, SSI
,
d
N. Thelman, SSI
That's what I mean when I say that you're trying too hard impress.
I doing what comes naturally to me. I think about music all the time. Tons of ideas. I should write a book.
N. Thelman, SSI
. . . POOF! - This whole thread will become just a distant memory. (And I'd be sorry to lose some of the contributions in it.)
As an official from the Thought Police here, I'm willing to let a number of things slide, but these attacks are just too frequent and heavy handed - so lay off the ad hominem posts please.
I really regret that you've been placed in this position, and that I've played a role in it. Let me assure you at the outset that I had no idea that my use of an insect analogy had any meaning other than trivial irritation, for which the same analogy has been used for countless millennia. Apparently, it's acquired some other code meaning for JDaniels.
But, that code meaning isn't universally known. Nor do I think that anyone participating here must be automatically knowledgeable of every local slang expression. If that were the case, then nothing could be posted without fear of offending someone, and we'd all be communicating in some incomprehensibly crude subculture patios.
The contributions in this thread have been by and large informative, interesting, and they've enlarged our knowledge and appreciation of music. At least that's been my experience. I find discussions of this type to be very appealing and satisfying.
Let me also point out that Mr. Daniels has also contributed at least one positive, informative post. However, most of his contributions have either been some juvenile attempt to irritate me, or far far worse, they've been sad attempts to grab some attention. Note the childish use of screaming head masts:
> > Well, that explains the sexual anxiety. nt < <
> > Coitus Interruptus Dammitus! I forgot about Tristan, the most famous tonic-tease of all time < <
> > "The old school scholars and critics (sic) - all of them, to a man - with out a SINGLE EXCEPTION < <
> > It's cool; I've been riding him a bit hard. And he's right, no composer has ever delayed a tonic to make a < <
and, of course:
> > "Fruit fly posts" Effeminization of discretion and good taste; let it stand. < <
One can't help but form an image of some poor kid jumping up and down, feverishly waving his arms, shouting "ME ME ME". To no small degree, he's been disruptive, rather than constructive.
I don't see why I should be held accountable for someone else's attempts to provoke me, and someone else's bad behavior. However, as the grown up in the room so to speak, I'll attempt to curtail some of my impulses to respond in kind in the future. I'll take your warning and I hope that we won't have future discussions of this sort. Let me thank you for being patient and putting up with all of this childishness emanating from grown men.
N. Thelman, SSI
I thought I recognized that tone of voice. Perhaps the initials "SSI" should have been a clue.
Happy listening,
Jim
"The passage of my life is measured out in shirts."
- Brian Eno
g
N. Thelman, SSI
Let's start by never telling anyone "You Have NO Idea What You're Talking About". Ok?
Happy listening,
Jim
"The passage of my life is measured out in shirts."
- Brian Eno
Stick to crap you understand, such as "lesser known" whatever.
With that post, you've demonstrated that you're not worth my time or attention.
N. Thelman, SSI
Newey said "With that post, you've demonstrated that you're not worth my time or attention"
He sounds like a nice friendly guy!!!???
I am, actually.
But Jiminy Daniels drew first blood, after I corrected his errors concerning Beethoven symphonies. He kept shooting off his mouth like a little kid, even after I warned him, and pointed out some more of his music errors.
Now, he's lurking around and taking shots at anything that I post - again, like some bad little boy, trying to get some attention.
N. Thelman, SSI
the tonic G, which can be disorienting to diatonically-oriented ears. Perhaps that's why you didn't think the piece ended very decisively. In Mixolydian and other modes BTW, the "leading tone" (or 7th note) is best called the subtonic.
The final alternating chords are F/Bb/D (connected by E, F) and landing on G/B natural/D. So your claim that the piece ends on the leading tone simply is incorrect. It ends on the tonic "G".
Something of substance, rather that the hitting slump of errors you were posting, day after day.
As I've mentioned under Chris Lafayette's post, I going through and seeing if your analysis works out.
However it goes, the outstanding fact is that Stanford did something such as this, even [and I said initially], in 1909. It tells us a lot about the musical climate of the day.
N. Thelman, SSI
Exactly two people bothered to take the time to help you out.
Do wonder why that is?
. . . in which case, the B-natural in the final (G-major) chord sounds like the leading tone to him? Speaking for myself, I hear it modally (with that aforementioned B-flat in the earlier measure giving it a touch of chromatic complexity) just as you do.
I can sing what I hear should actually be the final tonic note, one which the tonic chord would be built. I'm not sure if I'm experiencing C, although that's one explaination.
But, the point is that:
1. Stanford has masterfully succeeded in creating an ending that really does end on the tonic, but sounds as if it's away from the tonic. Not lost blundering in a far away key, in the home key, just not on the first note and chord of the scale.
The way he prepares all of that's genius. Not to take a sophomoric swipe at another work, but it makes Strauss's ending to Zarathustra seem simplistic.
Thanks to Chris -and- grudgingly but with confirmation - to JDaniels; both for revealing and helping to unveil the harmonic structure of this marvelous musical experience.
N. Thelman, SSI
.
If the OP wants to check it out, my link to the vocal score is further below.
Actually, as I look at the final chords (starting 10 bars before the end), I'm seeing G maj - B-flat major (8 before the end) - E-dim (maybe you could say C 4/3, but without the root!) - F major (second half of the bar, seven before the end) - G major (last six bars). It certainly has a mixolydian cast to it, but that B-flat IMHO gives it more complexity than pure mixolydian.
As we both suggest, it's a very vulnerable, beautiful effect - Stanford certainly had his moments!
I agree that it doens't really sound mixolydian. I'm going through the thing, following your analysis, to see if I can connect it up that way.
N. Thelman, SSI
Yes, the Bb adds a nice flavour. Too bad Stanford didn't dabble in modes more often. But VW certainly took up the slack.
Was listening to Boult's first mono performance of VW's Sea Symphony and man, does the music take off. Incredible mono sound as well.
I recorded the Chorus of Westerly's rehearsal of it in the RC Cathedral in Providence, before 2001.
Scott Markwell said it was one of the best orchestral recordings he had ever heard.
Dunno 'bout "best," but the scoring of the Prelude sure is grandiose!
The spirit of Wagner hovers over it, methinks...
OK, Class: Discuss and or refute!
JM
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
