It's not evil, what authority have you to ban it, and why would you?
Faulty parallelism: you should use a semicolon after "evil". "Evil" was an instance of hyperbole. I have as much authority as anyone else; here one needs to investigate the context. By itself, the phrase is meaningless; were I contextualizing within the entire world, I would have no authority; if I meant it in regard to gigs that I partake in, I have full authority. I would ban it because it is overplayed.
That single repeated line and the textures masterfully painted over top it's brilliant, stimulating, and excellently structured progression are so sublimely simple, pure, balanced, and beautiful that the work has remained successful, and deeply moving (in a good way) for millions of people for hundreds of years.
"It's" should be spelled "its". Also, there shouldn't be a comma after "successful". Nothing I wrote contradicted what you wrote in this sentence.
I have the impression that two of my comments would still have been applicable, even had you proofread your post: 1) Faulty parallelism: you tend to write these on a regular (even if still relatively infrequent) basis. 2) "It's" vs. "its". That is not a typo, it's the result of not knowing how to use apostrophes properly.
That single repeated line lacks interest. The entire bassline could be set to a single D Major chord and still sound "right". There is no melodic beauty, no chromatic pull, no direction, no convincing cadence, no harmonic interest. And yet, being such a dull line, it never changes once through the piece.
There are perhaps four textures painted over that bassline: Two of which are strictly augmentative embellishments of the first, and the (near) final one(s) which provide(s) some rhythmic interest. Yet there are a total of what, fifty-four iterations?
The progression is only excellently structured because it is exactly the same every single time. It is not brilliant or stimulating--it is
( ... )
I find that hard to believe, but feel free to indulge me: what is the difference between "it's" and "its"?
I don't consider it "pleasing interplay" when it's all the same. Yes, it cadences IV-V-I, but it's not a good one. For one, the bass moves up a perfect fourth, which constitutes a weak cadence. The direction isn't strong because it could be made to go to any point in the phrase--it lacks a strong pull to the end. I already gave my explanations for the inconclusive canons in Musical Offering.
Those active lines: they're freakin' scales! That's one of the reasons I dislike Joy to the World! Of course they swell; it's pretty hard not to have scales swell. Show me an example of tension/resolution in that piece, and I will show you that it doesn't exist (except in one or two of the iterations near the end). I never said Saskatchewan was pretty; I implied it was boring. Yes, it's quite a sight to see. Once. Or once in a while. But to live there? No. To hear Pachelbel's Canon in D over and over? No.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Yes, that is the subject line.
It's not evil, what authority have you to ban it, and why would you?
Faulty parallelism: you should use a semicolon after "evil".
"Evil" was an instance of hyperbole.
I have as much authority as anyone else; here one needs to investigate the context. By itself, the phrase is meaningless; were I contextualizing within the entire world, I would have no authority; if I meant it in regard to gigs that I partake in, I have full authority.
I would ban it because it is overplayed.
That single repeated line and the textures masterfully painted over top it's brilliant, stimulating, and excellently structured progression are so sublimely simple, pure, balanced, and beautiful that the work has remained successful, and deeply moving (in a good way) for millions of people for hundreds of years.
"It's" should be spelled "its". Also, there shouldn't be a comma after "successful".
Nothing I wrote contradicted what you wrote in this sentence.
It's so pretty, like a kitten ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I have the impression that two of my comments would still have been applicable, even had you proofread your post:
1) Faulty parallelism: you tend to write these on a regular (even if still relatively infrequent) basis.
2) "It's" vs. "its". That is not a typo, it's the result of not knowing how to use apostrophes properly.
That single repeated line lacks interest. The entire bassline could be set to a single D Major chord and still sound "right". There is no melodic beauty, no chromatic pull, no direction, no convincing cadence, no harmonic interest. And yet, being such a dull line, it never changes once through the piece.
There are perhaps four textures painted over that bassline: Two of which are strictly augmentative embellishments of the first, and the (near) final one(s) which provide(s) some rhythmic interest. Yet there are a total of what, fifty-four iterations?
The progression is only excellently structured because it is exactly the same every single time. It is not brilliant or stimulating--it is ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I don't consider it "pleasing interplay" when it's all the same. Yes, it cadences IV-V-I, but it's not a good one. For one, the bass moves up a perfect fourth, which constitutes a weak cadence. The direction isn't strong because it could be made to go to any point in the phrase--it lacks a strong pull to the end. I already gave my explanations for the inconclusive canons in Musical Offering.
Those active lines: they're freakin' scales! That's one of the reasons I dislike Joy to the World! Of course they swell; it's pretty hard not to have scales swell. Show me an example of tension/resolution in that piece, and I will show you that it doesn't exist (except in one or two of the iterations near the end). I never said Saskatchewan was pretty; I implied it was boring. Yes, it's quite a sight to see. Once. Or once in a while. But to live there? No. To hear Pachelbel's Canon in D over and over? No.
Reply
Leave a comment