Yikes. Sorry if it sounded like I was trying to knock you down or something.
I've studied works of Stockhausen, Berlioz, Shoenburg and Webern as part of my A2 syllabus. It seems to me however that fairly often the avant-garde neglects structure, tonality, development or harmony in such a way that makes it difficult to appreciate - it can be done well, but it needs one of those things mentioned before, otherwise I don't think it can be called music. A keyboard may be great fun to bash, but without some sense of appreciable structure and development - nobody's going to rush out and buy a CD of it.
This on the other hand, demonstrates little melody or harmony, but since it has structure and development, i think its very enjoyable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZazYFchLRI&eurl=
Even serialist compositions, rooted in mathematics and with structures more rigorous than that of the Bachian fugue, have never appealed to a wide audience. Maybe eventually the general public will find tritones consonant (it took 'till the 1300s for European to find 3rds consonant!), but the likelihood is that serialism, the use of largely arbitrarily rules to generate a piece of music, or random key bashing will not allow for this.
I agree that we need to work to move on the harmonic and melodic zeitgeist. I don't want to force anyone to write Mozartian music ad infinitum. I simply feel that the most succesful attempts to reach 'musical' atonality have been via further construction upon the thousand years of musical evolution that have come before, rather than chucking almost all the rules out the window and trying to devise a whole new system of musical theory. In my opinion Shostakovitch and Wagner are two musicians for whom these attempts proved brilliantly succesful.
Call me a spoilsport, but I don't think art needs to be fun. I think that art should demonstrate the technical ability of the artist (and in music's case the performer), express emotions, ideas or feelings and demonstrate harmony and beauty. Above all it needs to be enjoyable in some way - even if it's through the unusual enjoyment of being scared or disconcerted (as in a horror film or something). I'm not sure you can't hope to push the boundaries unless the stuff you're using exhibits some of these traits.
I think Lydia Kavina has had the most success in pushing the theremin into more esoteric composition. I love (some) of the recordings she's made of modern compositions.
Don't get me wrong - I loved Pamelia's set. I didn't like the guitar guy's one, but the very first keyboardist had some nice ideas. My only complaint was that his piece lasted slightly too long - I reckon it would have been better if either it had been shorter, or been slightly more varied.
I've studied works of Stockhausen, Berlioz, Shoenburg and Webern as part of my A2 syllabus. It seems to me however that fairly often the avant-garde neglects structure, tonality, development or harmony in such a way that makes it difficult to appreciate - it can be done well, but it needs one of those things mentioned before, otherwise I don't think it can be called music. A keyboard may be great fun to bash, but without some sense of appreciable structure and development - nobody's going to rush out and buy a CD of it.
This on the other hand, demonstrates little melody or harmony, but since it has structure and development, i think its very enjoyable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZazYFchLRI&eurl=
Even serialist compositions, rooted in mathematics and with structures more rigorous than that of the Bachian fugue, have never appealed to a wide audience. Maybe eventually the general public will find tritones consonant (it took 'till the 1300s for European to find 3rds consonant!), but the likelihood is that serialism, the use of largely arbitrarily rules to generate a piece of music, or random key bashing will not allow for this.
I agree that we need to work to move on the harmonic and melodic zeitgeist. I don't want to force anyone to write Mozartian music ad infinitum. I simply feel that the most succesful attempts to reach 'musical' atonality have been via further construction upon the thousand years of musical evolution that have come before, rather than chucking almost all the rules out the window and trying to devise a whole new system of musical theory. In my opinion Shostakovitch and Wagner are two musicians for whom these attempts proved brilliantly succesful.
Call me a spoilsport, but I don't think art needs to be fun. I think that art should demonstrate the technical ability of the artist (and in music's case the performer), express emotions, ideas or feelings and demonstrate harmony and beauty. Above all it needs to be enjoyable in some way - even if it's through the unusual enjoyment of being scared or disconcerted (as in a horror film or something). I'm not sure you can't hope to push the boundaries unless the stuff you're using exhibits some of these traits.
I think Lydia Kavina has had the most success in pushing the theremin into more esoteric composition. I love (some) of the recordings she's made of modern compositions.
Don't get me wrong - I loved Pamelia's set. I didn't like the guitar guy's one, but the very first keyboardist had some nice ideas. My only complaint was that his piece lasted slightly too long - I reckon it would have been better if either it had been shorter, or been slightly more varied.