tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post8106595650468194961..comments2024-03-27T23:06:03.736-05:00Comments on The Music Salon: Taste and CreativityBryan Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482696991279345516noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post-51795699155825097382015-01-31T09:08:01.140-06:002015-01-31T09:08:01.140-06:00I would be a bit leery of that video as it seems t...I would be a bit leery of that video as it seems to be a kind of reductionist version of Nietzsche's dichotomy between Apollonian and Dionysian. I think that it can be misleading to map two categories like classical and romantic onto music history without looking at the details. For example, there was an awful lot of 18th century music that was very stormy and passionate indeed. And I would also argue that Romantic composers took a much more rule-based approach to musical form than did Haydn and Mozart.<br /><br />But I agree completely that however you divide it up and characterize it, musical creativity demands all sides of our selves!Bryan Townsendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09482696991279345516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post-92037110055899898612015-01-30T13:40:06.996-06:002015-01-30T13:40:06.996-06:00Interesting post. I guess some of the best creativ...Interesting post. I guess some of the best creativity comes from when you take something that works and add your own approach to instead of doing something completely different. This is why for instance Satie, Debussy or even Ives sounds good most of the time but Cage or Stockhausen doesn't. Satie, Debussy, Ives etc. added their own approaches to musical elements such as harmony, melody, counterpoint, rhythm but they never tried to break things apart completely and do things purely for the sake of novelty. Cage and Stockhausen on the other hand relied on throwing away almost everything for the sake of novelty.<br /><br />Anyways, I found this interesting video:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QmJofRAB9M<br /><br />It covers romantic ideals vs classical ideals. I've been thinking about how that might apply to music. Classical in this context is more rigid and based on knowledge while romantic is more fluid and based on emotions/intuition. But as the speaker in this video points out each person usually has a mix of both classical and romantic ideals. Either way, I've been thinking and came to the conclusion that music requires both approaches in most cases, at least good music does. Sure Haydn and Mozart were more rigid in their composing but it's plainly wrong to say that they didn't rely on their intuition. They did write music that did sound witty and intuitive. And Beethoven was indeed intuitive/emotional in his music composition but to say he didn't have rigidity is also wrong. In summary music requires both a fair amount of intuition (finding parts that sound good, that flow well etc.) and a fair amount of logical thinking (expanding ideas, creating a coherent structure etc.). Well, it's a pretty obvious point.Rickardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08084578675339015204noreply@blogger.com