File: 97 KB, 882x600, ferenc fricsay.jpg [
Show reposts] Image reverse search: [
iqdb] [
google]
No.51357598 [
Reply] [
Original]
Is there a thing this man can't do? Also, reminder that Karajan is a talentless hack
| >> | No.51363140
File: 35 KB, 193x260, le cultural critic face.jpg [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]
 >>51362929
>simplicity, beauty and purity are very important to him, and I can understand why. Its a breath of fresh air compared to most modern composers.
It's not. Instead of reviving tonality it worships its dead material, from which all Geist imparted on it throughout the centuries has been expunged. It is aesthetically sterile, and masks this sterility not by appealing to reason and historical considerations, but by a mysticism that demands a submission to what is considered natural.
At its core is the same regressive impulse, the same germ that makes everything from Nazism to New Age so appealing in the face of the instrumental ratio of late-capitalism, it's music that refuses to critically engage with history and instead clouds itself in naturalized fiction.
If you want purity that is note wasteful, there's Webern, if you want tonality, there's a long line of sophisticated tonal composers, from Korngold to Eröd.
|
| >> | No.51370348
>>51370086
That's not a scholarly definition.
Here's a better, more neutral one:
>A term, first used in the 14th century, to describe the combination of simultaneously sounding musical lines according to a system of rules. It has also been used to designate a voice or even an entire composition (e.g. Vincenzo Galilei's Contrapunti a due voci, 1584, or the contrapuncti of J.S. Bach's Art of Fugue) devised according to the principles of counterpoint.
That's more neutral, and does not mingle the terms "counterpoint" and "polyphony". (Grove Music Online: Counterpoint)
Also, "linear individuality" should not be understood as "independence" but rather has to be seen from the ideal of "varietas". Which, among other things, entailed that two voices should not be solmized with the same syllables, because that would mean their intervallic environments would be very similar - hence the ban on parallel fifths and octaves, as voices in such parallel intervals carry the same solmization syllables (since the three hexachords of solmization are a fifth apart each). Traditionally, counterpoint was taught as interval succession, and primarily in undiminuted two-voice textures.
|