On 02/14/2013 07:50 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
Bach, like more or less everyone who is a part of the "western tradition", did some incredible things with harmony, and had some modest accomplishments in the melodic area (*), but did essentially nothing with rhythm.
"Essentially nothing" ?! With all respect, I think you might change your mind if you played a a lot more Bach. :)
Rhythm in Western music is not only the moment-to-moment movement of durational units and aggregations, it includes a macroformal component not often studied or understood by most listeners. Large-scale rhythm is a major formal factor in the design of large-form works.
I note you refer to harmony and not counterpoint, yet surely Bach's genius shines most brightly in that domain. And anyone who's gone through species counterpoint knows the deep importance of rhythm in the practice.
It's a commonplace to disparage the apparent lack of rhythmic innovation in the works of the 19th century orchestral masters, but considerably more goes on at higher levels than is typically understood. The surface rhythmic activity of early Stravinsky and Bartok tends to be very attractive after the apparent blandness of Ze Germans, but I'm learning (via some articles by Roger Sessions, if you're interested) that those old guys had some pretty subtle ideas about rhythm too.
It is entirely possible to fully respect the incredible work of western composers while also acknowledging that "music" begins and ends in places far outside anywhere that they (or any other single musical culture) have ever explored.
True that. I'm spending a fair amount of these days listening to qawwali by Nusrat Khan and other singers in that tradition. Extraordinary stuff. Of course, it can be logically argued that it does essentially nothing with harmony, but that's not what I'm listening for in that music.
Best, dp _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
