In light of some recent......uh, debate about it, I thought we might have a discussion about what it is that each thinks makes a good composition and completed tune.

I'll start with this thought:

So that we may not get bogged down in the mire of semantics, we perhaps should define our terms. The dictionary defines perfect as "being without fault or defect."

So, going with that definition, to my way of thinking, there isn't any "perfection" in music. If there was, I would think there would only be one genre of music composed only one way.

If one asked a classical composer of say the 18th century what their thoughts were about rap or perhaps eastern music and the stuctures and harmonies used they would most likely poo poo it.

I recall in one of my early college theory classes in college having written a somewhat Avante Gard jazz piece for a recital, the prof. said "We call that Chinese harmony." He was a traditionalist trumpet player.

So, do we have to temper what constitutes a "good composition" by:

1. The baggage we bring to the table?

2. Our understanding of the genre we are listening to?

3. Our receptiveness to other than what we like or expect to hear?

Being a fan of the fine arts (paintings) I recall the impressionists Degas, Monet, Van Gough were not allowed to show in the salons of their day, because their new style of painting was unacceptable. Purple in the shadows? Pointillism? Blasphomy! This is not painting.

Salvador Dali or Picasso....what planet are they visiting from anyway?

So the point is, are we open enough to new compositions or a different way of composing, or are they just wrong or incomplete?

OK, someone else's turn.
jam on,
Terry


------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

[This message has been edited by trtjazz (edited 06-27-2003).]