Wow, lots of posts since I was last able to check in! Sorry guys, but I am in the very busiest part of my season right now and simply don't have time to listen to all these links. In a couple of weeks, I could go back and do so, but right now I just can't.
Rok, I pretty much agree with everything Frogman has said. I actually had a music theory major in my undergrad as well as my horn major, so I am qualified to teach it, and have privately. Triads are the basic building blocks of pretty much all Western music, until you get into the 20th century avant garde composers. Triads continue to be the basis of all popular music, including even most jazz, though it is much more experimental. Frogman's suggestion of buying a keyboard is a good one, however I would also suggest a set of books written by a guy named Paul Harder. They are "programmed" courses - meant to be taken at your own pace. You cover up half the page that has the answers as you work through. There is an accompanying CD. He has one for Fundamentals of Music that would be great for you, and then there are others that reach the equivalence of freshman and sophomore college music theory, much more than you would probably want to know, unless you really got into it.
Now for the abstract art stuff. Basically, yes, I agree with the author of your book. As to your questions - yes, music is more abstract than painting. As the author says, painting is two dimensional - you can see and even touch it, and can look at it over and over again. Music is only heard, and then it doesn't exist anymore, at least that particular performance, unless it was recorded (Richard Strauss and other composers and conductors and performers were horrified at the very idea of recorded music when the possibility first arose, by the way - recordings have fundamentally altered the way people think about music compared to even just 100 years ago). This is much more abstract.
if someone had never heard Don't Cry For Me Argentina before and did not know that it had words, it would be purely abstract for that person.
The other questions are more interesting - you are getting into aesthetics now. Someone putting words to an established tune definitely gives a meaning to the result that is not abstract anymore. However, you could also make up a completely different set of words and seemingly (or really) giving the music a totally different meaning. Which one would be correct? Would either be at all close to what the composer may have been thinking/feeling? He/she may be completely horrified. These questions do not have a simple answer.
Another fantastic performance of the Water Music, by the way, is the English Baroque Soloists, conducted by John Eliot Gardiner, who is my favorite period instrument group conductor. The natural horn playing is superb, far better than any other I have ever heard, including the one Frogman mentioned, which is a good one indeed.
Didn't see the video in question, but Frogman is probably correct that they were coached. Video has also fundamentally altered the way people think about music, especially performing, in mostly negative ways. Now there are huge numbers of people that think if you aren't wildly moving around or making funny faces, you can't possibly be emotionally involved. That's a load of crap.
Hope that decently answers your questions. Need to get to bed now. I promise I will go back and listen to some of these clips you guys have posted when I get time.
Rok, I pretty much agree with everything Frogman has said. I actually had a music theory major in my undergrad as well as my horn major, so I am qualified to teach it, and have privately. Triads are the basic building blocks of pretty much all Western music, until you get into the 20th century avant garde composers. Triads continue to be the basis of all popular music, including even most jazz, though it is much more experimental. Frogman's suggestion of buying a keyboard is a good one, however I would also suggest a set of books written by a guy named Paul Harder. They are "programmed" courses - meant to be taken at your own pace. You cover up half the page that has the answers as you work through. There is an accompanying CD. He has one for Fundamentals of Music that would be great for you, and then there are others that reach the equivalence of freshman and sophomore college music theory, much more than you would probably want to know, unless you really got into it.
Now for the abstract art stuff. Basically, yes, I agree with the author of your book. As to your questions - yes, music is more abstract than painting. As the author says, painting is two dimensional - you can see and even touch it, and can look at it over and over again. Music is only heard, and then it doesn't exist anymore, at least that particular performance, unless it was recorded (Richard Strauss and other composers and conductors and performers were horrified at the very idea of recorded music when the possibility first arose, by the way - recordings have fundamentally altered the way people think about music compared to even just 100 years ago). This is much more abstract.
if someone had never heard Don't Cry For Me Argentina before and did not know that it had words, it would be purely abstract for that person.
The other questions are more interesting - you are getting into aesthetics now. Someone putting words to an established tune definitely gives a meaning to the result that is not abstract anymore. However, you could also make up a completely different set of words and seemingly (or really) giving the music a totally different meaning. Which one would be correct? Would either be at all close to what the composer may have been thinking/feeling? He/she may be completely horrified. These questions do not have a simple answer.
Another fantastic performance of the Water Music, by the way, is the English Baroque Soloists, conducted by John Eliot Gardiner, who is my favorite period instrument group conductor. The natural horn playing is superb, far better than any other I have ever heard, including the one Frogman mentioned, which is a good one indeed.
Didn't see the video in question, but Frogman is probably correct that they were coached. Video has also fundamentally altered the way people think about music, especially performing, in mostly negative ways. Now there are huge numbers of people that think if you aren't wildly moving around or making funny faces, you can't possibly be emotionally involved. That's a load of crap.
Hope that decently answers your questions. Need to get to bed now. I promise I will go back and listen to some of these clips you guys have posted when I get time.