One of the music theorists participating in a discussion about harmonics remarked that our era is "more democratic, less hierarchical and more ambiguous" than previous times in European history.
This raises a critical point to which I replied:
"The idea is to be alive in one's time.
The era in which
we live calls for flexibility in every department, not least in our
ability to listen. All the more reason to make clear that our visual
responses are different from our auditory responses and to keep the
auditory choices open to the fullest possible extent.
Most
of the comments on this thread are posted by advanced scholars: But the
skills to which such scholarship applies are open to all beginners in
the study of music, and especially music theory, and would seem to call
for cultivation of auditory diversity.
I
cannot resist an anecdote: Seated next to a prominent avant-garde
pianist, I was subjected to the whacking to bits of a Haydn minuet by a
dutifully trained youngster. Incredulous, I asked my colleague: 'Can
you believe that people are still teaching children to play like that?'
Reply: 'It's my student.' "
P.S. The real problem is that notation did not change to reflect the gradual changed in temperament. Therefore, what you see ain't necessarily what you will hear. Composers were to different extents aware of this and experimented with notation as best they could, beginning with Clementi, going on to Schumann, and, of course, Bartok.
P.S. The real problem is that notation did not change to reflect the gradual changed in temperament. Therefore, what you see ain't necessarily what you will hear. Composers were to different extents aware of this and experimented with notation as best they could, beginning with Clementi, going on to Schumann, and, of course, Bartok.
