I also included as a point of reference a nod to Dave Conner's untrained fiddle comment, stating that knowledge of the technique will facilitate faster creation.
Knowledge CAN be a dangerous thing. People can confuse technique with artistry. It happens to me. I believe it happens to everyone. However, this is the reason that many people who are ignorant (not you, R.K.) have a false pride in their "Noble Savage" approach.
Music theory is just that: Theory.
The true brilliance of a master composer allows for these theoretical models while understanding that the art might bend these things and still maintain beauty in an architectural sense. It is in fact necessary (to paraphrase Martin's Schillinger reference) to maintain structure as much as possible. Consequently the real genius lies in reinventing the rules, much the same way a scientist might discover something that revolutionizes the way we all see the world.
To say that Mozart confused an improvised piece of Beethoven with something prepared also underscores my sentiment exactly. As far as compositional style is concerned, Beethoven merely chose to agonize over notes after the fact. This doesn't mean he wasn't capable of composing "fast." Mozart agonized over the notes before the fact. This was the way he chose to work.
Sometimes I choose to agonize over a melody or the choice of timbres for any given piece I'm working on for days on end instead of racing through at the "speed of thought." Does it mean that the music is better? Usually not. It usually means that I have a fear of commitment concerning whatever artistic decision I have to make. Or I'm procrastinating! I am the laziest person I know.
So please accept my apology, R.K. I realize that my wording was a bit slanted. I did not mean to make it look like I was making you a target. Rather I think we mostly agree on the main points (after reading your responses) so it would be silly for us to argue.
Peace,
Clark
Knowledge CAN be a dangerous thing. People can confuse technique with artistry. It happens to me. I believe it happens to everyone. However, this is the reason that many people who are ignorant (not you, R.K.) have a false pride in their "Noble Savage" approach.
Music theory is just that: Theory.
The true brilliance of a master composer allows for these theoretical models while understanding that the art might bend these things and still maintain beauty in an architectural sense. It is in fact necessary (to paraphrase Martin's Schillinger reference) to maintain structure as much as possible. Consequently the real genius lies in reinventing the rules, much the same way a scientist might discover something that revolutionizes the way we all see the world.
To say that Mozart confused an improvised piece of Beethoven with something prepared also underscores my sentiment exactly. As far as compositional style is concerned, Beethoven merely chose to agonize over notes after the fact. This doesn't mean he wasn't capable of composing "fast." Mozart agonized over the notes before the fact. This was the way he chose to work.
Sometimes I choose to agonize over a melody or the choice of timbres for any given piece I'm working on for days on end instead of racing through at the "speed of thought." Does it mean that the music is better? Usually not. It usually means that I have a fear of commitment concerning whatever artistic decision I have to make. Or I'm procrastinating! I am the laziest person I know.
So please accept my apology, R.K. I realize that my wording was a bit slanted. I did not mean to make it look like I was making you a target. Rather I think we mostly agree on the main points (after reading your responses) so it would be silly for us to argue.
Peace,
Clark