Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 01:08:22 -0500
From: Violet <violet-AT-westol.com>
Subject: Re: Music, Nietzsche, Rhythm



--part_ACD03F8500092B6C00000002

> Violet and all, Mozart didn't change opera?  

Mozart's operas were exceptional and in his comic operas (The Marriage of 
Figaro, Don Giovanni, and The Magic Flute), he introduced a humanity and depth 
of feeling (as Shakespeare did in his comedies) that was not present before, 
but Mozart didn't fundamentally change the nature of opera as Wagner did. 
Mozart ingeniosly expanded the musical make-up of opera (in orchestration, 
melodic lines, suggestive harmony, and in how these relate to and propell the 
plot forward), but did this in a way that was very in tune with his time. 

> I never wrote that Wagner, 
> was the logical step, I thought that was the issue at hand?  BUT

Yes, I was agreeing that to see Wagner as just a step is myopic.

> tonality is not just "a feeling of gravity", perhaps it is a cute 
> metaphor, but for rendering the "graphic" distribution of tones, one 
> can assume for example that in the key of G Major, g, will have 
> a consistent quantitative sound waves, that is, one can determine that 
> the frequencies of tones in the musical scale correspond 
> logarithmically to integers, in short, another set of signs.  
> "Complexity", if we are striving for logical accuracy here, could 
> be measured in terms of the distribution of these integers, 
> synchronically, and diachronically - I guess I want to demonstrate 
> here that there are a number of ways to signify what one might mean by 
> the logical consistency of composer to composer and piece to piece. 
> But for conventional sake, as someone mentioned on an earlier post, 
> saying the Viennese tradition exemplified certain characteristics, 
> could be like saying that Dali was a surrealist;  the latter of 
> course would be "acceptable" but it diminishes the effects of the 
> artist's growth as well.  we all know what it's like when someone 
> casually says, "oh yeah, that Nietzsche guy, god is dead, or 
> something, right?"  Perhaps fine in passing, but why do spend so much 
> time babbling on and on endlessly about it.  It's like trying to 
> find "genius within a context", both in its deviation from tradition 
> and it's rupture of the strength of an era. 
>  
> now what what it mean to say wagner changed music "itself"?  what 
> about that guy who records silence, how would he be placed?  People 
> take this man seriously.  I can't recall his name, anyone? 
> claims like "changing music itself" make no sense to me, it is empty 
> and remember that big winds come from empty caves. 

Wagner was at first derided for his strange song, which broke many of the 
known rules, but ultimately he triumphed. Wagner's genius expanded the laws of 
music and changed 'music itself' by the effect it had on all those that 
followed. See Strauss, Debussy, Bruckner, for the most obvious impact. A 
silent concert, however, has as much influence as a blank canvas. None.

This total effect is the analogue with Nietzsche's work that was pointed to. 
Wagners impact on the art of music was such that no one could ignore him, 
similar to Nietzsche's impact when it finally came later. Nietzsche sensed his 
own importance but seriously underestimated the importance that Wagner would 
have to music.

Study enough traditional harmony and analysis, composition, and the 
revolutionary effect of Wagner's work will become less inaudible.




--part_ACD03F8500092B6C00000002

Violet
--part_ACD03F8500092B6C00000002--



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

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