From: "Hartwin Alfred Gebhardt" <hag-AT-iafrica.com>
Date:          Fri, 10 Nov 1995 04:28:58 +0200
Subject:       Re: Music, Nietzsche, Rhythm


Steven writes:

>                          But, are not both opera and
> classical music "dead languages," not because no one is listening any
> more, but rather because no one is speaking?  Isn't its appeal
> primarily that it is fixed, unchanging, no longer evolving?  Dead?  Is
> this not what "classical" means?  Wasn't it in its own day simply
> music?  Is it anymore?

Oh it's still evolving, alright. Somebody wrote an opera in Zulu a 
few years ago, apparently also fiddling with the more technical 
conventions. And many still 'speak' it elsewhere, though they don't 
often get onto hitparades. You're right that it was "simply music", 
but it still is "simply music" today, too. But I agree that the 
existing compositions are fixed, although interpretations are not, 
and so classical music performed by a large orchestra is a little 
'dead'. Not that all evolution leads somewhere interesting, eh?
In a sense, the TV sitcom is an evolutionary adaptation of  
Shakespearean drama, which in itself was an adaptation of earlier 
theatric conventions. 
Many today do not see any difference between various forms of
fiction, a learned essay on blablabla, E=mc square, or an e-mail message 
like this - it is simply _all_ fiction, even creative, it is all just 
noise, (inter)text. The trick is, I suppose, filtering out the kind of noise 
one is interested in. (This is something stevilbollweevil with his quaint 
19th Century notions on 'going out there' and 'doing/writing something' 
seems not to have noticed.)

hg
hag-AT-iafrica.com


	--- from list nietzsche-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------