Quote:
Originally posted by AnotherGagaFan
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.
|
Yeah, there is not even much here that contradicts what I'm saying.
People take comfort in the familiar and react based on that, the artist exploits and manipulates that reaction, and yet the gradual development of that system over time reflects what people like or dislike. It's only natural that this parallels scientific disciplines because the structure(s) that exists in nature form a large part what our conception of the familiar is lol.
I'm well aware there is a deliberate process at work and our reactions are almost never arbitrary and based on some pre-existing source, but that elicited reaction still functions on a base level and does not necessitate a conscious familiarity with the technicalities at work.
Like, the idea that you can't enjoy one of Bach's Cello Suites because you lack formal knowledge of the structure at work is kind of depressing and totally out of sync with how the vast majority of humanity approaches and consumes art (whether they are even conscious of that reality or not).