Quote:
Originally posted by MrPeanut
Yes ofc there is structure, the point is that the aesthetic/visceral value of a certain structure in art will be in large part the result of what the people at large (or those in charge) want because it appeals to them for whatever reason. Familiarity with the technical aspects of a structure is not a necessary condition for the end result to be appreciated (or not).
You mean it appealed to them so they wanted to make it happen? Hmm... and you are basically saying culture is fluid, which goes with out saying. What appealed to people of a certain time may not appeal to those of another just the same as it is across various cultures today (which have historically employed different musical scale systems obv). Lol and yes we are drawn to what *feels* comfortable and that with which we're familiar? Yes, I agree.
|
Equal temperament did not develop because it was pleasurable to the ear, the intervals were not pure which was disliked by composers too, but the new system provided more material to put on the page because it allowed more modulation (key changes).
Familiarity of the technical aspects are there whether one is aware or not. Never been a change that was not gradual. And if so, people reject it. Take Schoenberg, unfamiliar and deliberate.
(At this point im agreeing to disagree and just blabbing. For me, the core of music is based on developed theory and formats. And until something completely new arises and can touch many people instantly, that is my opinion. Visceral feeling in music is stemmed in the feeling of being home OR the manipulation of the system [which still requires the system], which is beautiful to me)
Again, not minimizing it. I'm just saying that it is not arbitrary, it is deliberative and intellectual! It parallels with science in that regard.
