[ Post a Response | Music Theory Forum ]
Posted by caleb My overall point was that *all* the theory texts I was finding some fault with have some *ideas*. Including _Simple Composition_. So, while each one I mentioned has something to criticize, it's stimulating, and useful. I definitely got something out of _Simple Composition_. I would add: The Schillinger System. and _Contemporary Harmony_ by Ulehl. Tons of ideas. Much to criticize. Both of these can be mined for ideas, if you're a composer. So can Wuorinen. My criticism is that he simplifies things to such an extent that he doesn't talk about the aesthetics of rows or the time-point system, or the way the time-point system *sounds*. But this is from memory. I don't have a copy on hand and I could be wrong. (I lent it out and never got it back...) Oddly enough, this relates to the theme of the composer (or creator's) perspective versus the listener's (or theorists) perspective. For Schopenhauer, aesthetic contemplation was "disinterested"; For Nietzsche the better perspective was the creator's passionately involved one. Schopenhauer writes a lot of metaphysical "bollocks" about music. An outsider's perspective. Nietzsche writes as someone with experience as a maker of art--even if he wasn't a great composer. I think people who *make* music--as opposed to analyzing it--have an instinct for what is important. (To them, anyway.) So again, my overall point is that Wuorinen's book is limited, one-sided, and too simplistic--and stimulating. That's good. Somehow, the Straus book is professional, complete, and boring. No new ideas. That's bad.
on 10/19/2006, 1:15 pm, in reply to "Re: Straus: Intro to P.T. Theory"
68.166.233.235
Glad you're responding.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread