Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
Turning to a very different historical period, "great genius but limited harmonic complexity" is exactly how I think of Steve Riech. I was so excited by what he was doing with his non-harmonic work (audio loops and drumming), but when I finally got around to "Music for 18 Musicians", I was deeply disappointed by the 80's-movie-montage simplicity of the harmonic progressions he used.
I was surprised when Reich moved from the tape stuff to the harmonic language he took up when writing for traditional instruments, once he got out of his "experimental" stage. But it didn't take more than a few seconds for me to completely buy in to what he was doing. To me, the harmonic process in "Music for 18 Musicians" is perfect for the music. I can't imagine that a more complicated harmonic scheme would improve it in any way. Besides that, I just love the way it sounds, and that's sufficient justification.
What made the 'Great Composers' great is that they stretched the muscial language of the day. It's not that they did so much with so little, it's that they did more with what they had than anyone before them and that we had more after them than we had before.
Harmonic progression changed with the introduction of equal temperament somewhere around 1590 and the new found ability to change key and establish it with cadences changed the way music is written and how long a piece of music lasted.
In the baroque period music moved by one accidental at a time and the pieces were short. By the Romantic period it was moving three accidentals at a time (Beethoven's Eroica) and the pieces were long.
Liszt and Wagner were adding chromaticisms at a rate of knots and finally we reached atonality with Berg and Schoenberg (and the pieces just seemed long. lol!).
But here we are now. Tonal music is done and dusted. Time to move on. Let's just enjoy the heritage we've been left.
I'm glad someone acknowledged temperament as a factor related to the OP! And, Richard, while I would argue with you about some of your contentions , still, THANK YOU for acknowledging the importance of temperament.
From what I've learned by following and digging into some of the Tuner/Tech discussions, "equal temperament" was definitely a kind of "Holy Grail" at the time it was conceived, but could not be realized very closely until the instruments changed, much, much later. Composers of the Baroque era (and before) were hemmed in to some degree by the limitations of their instruments and what they could do with their tunings, which is why you see so many things in the keys of C, D, F and G, etc. That's one of the reasons Bach's Well Tempered Clavier is such a milestone.
I know, that was a simplistic paragraph, limited in its harmonic complexity, but you get the idea. It also does not account for the kinds of harmonic nuances available and at play even in the simplest of keys with the use of the various Unequal Temperaments, which were as varied as the composers and musicians who tuned their own instruments, nor does it account for sensibilities that took ideas about consonance and dissonance to theological extremes.
Here is a really neat webpage that explains temperaments, and defines some of the known "well temperamens" at about the time Bach was geniusing:
I also think composers such as Scarlatti did more interesting things harmonically than many of his contemporaries, including someone I dare not name!
An example, my favorite Scarlatti sonata. It starts off very pedestrian, but the modulations it undergoes are simply stunning.
Now I have an ear bug!!
This reminded me of a "piano puzzler" podcast that I listened to recently.(Scroll down to the Feb. 22 show-- left click on the mp3 link to avoid the commercial.) They talk some about what makes Scarlatti's harmonies sound like Scarlatti. It's just a few remarks in the midst of a 6-minute show, but enough to get me interested enough to find out more.
Turning to a very different historical period, "great genius but limited harmonic complexity" is exactly how I think of Steve Riech. I was so excited by what he was doing with his non-harmonic work (audio loops and drumming), but when I finally got around to "Music for 18 Musicians", I was deeply disappointed by the 80's-movie-montage simplicity of the harmonic progressions he used.
I was surprised when Reich moved from the tape stuff to the harmonic language he took up when writing for traditional instruments, once he got out of his "experimental" stage. But it didn't take more than a few seconds for me to completely buy in to what he was doing. To me, the harmonic process in "Music for 18 Musicians" is perfect for the music. I can't imagine that a more complicated harmonic scheme would improve it in any way. Besides that, I just love the way it sounds, and that's sufficient justification.
I'll give it another listen. I'm probably not being fair: I can't help picturing a montage of Tom Cruise preparing a law case or something.
I also think composers such as Scarlatti did more interesting things harmonically than many of his contemporaries, including someone I dare not name!
An example, my favorite Scarlatti sonata. It starts off very pedestrian, but the modulations it undergoes are simply stunning.
Now I have an ear bug!!
This reminded me of a "piano puzzler" podcast that I listened to recently.(Scroll down to the Feb. 22 show-- left click on the mp3 link to avoid the commercial.) They talk some about what makes Scarlatti's harmonies sound like Scarlatti. It's just a few remarks in the midst of a 6-minute show, but enough to get me interested enough to find out more.
Thanks for the link! Haven't listened yet, but I definitely will. From what I understand, Scarlatti used a lot of "Spanish" tinge such as the Phrygian mode in his music, which set him apart from some of his contemporaries. Seeing as how I love Spanish music, it's no wonder I'm drawn to Scarlatti!
Turning to a very different historical period, "great genius but limited harmonic complexity" is exactly how I think of Steve Riech. I was so excited by what he was doing with his non-harmonic work (audio loops and drumming), but when I finally got around to "Music for 18 Musicians", I was deeply disappointed by the 80's-movie-montage simplicity of the harmonic progressions he used.
I was surprised when Reich moved from the tape stuff to the harmonic language he took up when writing for traditional instruments, once he got out of his "experimental" stage. But it didn't take more than a few seconds for me to completely buy in to what he was doing. To me, the harmonic process in "Music for 18 Musicians" is perfect for the music. I can't imagine that a more complicated harmonic scheme would improve it in any way. Besides that, I just love the way it sounds, and that's sufficient justification.
I'll give it another listen. I'm probably not being fair: I can't help picturing a montage of Tom Cruise preparing a law case or something.
I guess I am lucky then - the only visuals I get from the music are beautiful shimmery abstractions. But there's no particular reason you should change you mind about it - we are all different as listeners. I'm so out of step with popular culture that I can't even bring an image of Tom Cruise to mind.
Turning to a very different historical period, "great genius but limited harmonic complexity" is exactly how I think of Steve Riech. I was so excited by what he was doing with his non-harmonic work (audio loops and drumming), but when I finally got around to "Music for 18 Musicians", I was deeply disappointed by the 80's-movie-montage simplicity of the harmonic progressions he used.
I purchased that album when it first came out and still have it. I really enjoyed this composition at that time, played it often and found it quite unique. Later purchased a Meredith Monk album, "Do you Be" which was also a very 'charged' and unique sound, in a different vein than Steve Reich, though possibly some of the same vocalists/musicians. I'd have to go back and check on that.
, still, THANK YOU for acknowledging the importance of temperament.
