I don't like the way people came to use
the words music and song. I prefer to distinguish song, that is
words (for some reason called "lyrics") sung with or without melody, from
"music proper", which is basically tones produced by musical instruments.
In modern practice, especially in the "pop" part of the
culture, the words "music" and "song" have virtually become synonyms. Most of
the production of the "music industry" is actually songs, and most of "academic" (or "classical") music is music without
words. When I say "music", I always refer primarily to those genres of music
which have no lyrics.
One could further distinguish song from choral music. Choral
music (sung by a choir with or without accompaniment) usually has lyrics, but it
is different from song in that it does not contain emphasis primarily on lyrics
and makes generally as profound an impression on a listener as when sung
altogether without words. In effect, choral music makes use of a human voice as
if it were a musical instrument equal to other instruments. An obvious example
is a traditional mass sung in Latin; the listeners frequently don't follow the
text but it doesn't prevent them from fully enjoying the music. One can perhaps
say that lyrics are not essential in choral music but essential in a song.
MIDI
MIDI stands for Musical Instrument Digital Interface. It is a way of
storing and transmitting music as a set of musical notes rather than a
sampled wave. This information is interpreted and played by a MIDI
module (an electronic synthesizer) or by a computer with MIDI
capability, such as a MIDI-supporting sound card. The MIDI information is
stored in MIDI files. To listen to music stored in MIDI, one has to
download the files and feed them into a MIDI module (external or internal)
through a MIDI player application configured for a specific system.
"Academic" music vs. "popular" music
"Academic music" is a misnomer for the kind of music people would also call
"serious", "classical", or "traditional". Most people have a feeling that
anything written before 1900 is definitely "academic", while in the 20th century
a new genre, that of popular (or "pop") music, came into existence. I
disagree with that view. In particular, I think that some of the the "popular"
music of 18th and 19th centuries would now perceived as "serious" (by some
adherents of this dichotomy).
In terms of development of the harmonic and the melodic language, "popular"
styles are roughly a century behind the "academic" styles. This is, I think,
because the more complicated musical language of the "serious" styles is not
well-suited for becoming widely popular.
However, I would rather not draw a sharp line between "serious" and "light"
music. Music has been composed in different circumstances and for different
audiences, such as music for some local king's dinner, or for a wedding, or for
a church service; one could also think about a piece written for some soloist's
public recital, a mass commissioned by a radio program, or an opera composed by
several people as a birthday present to a common friend. In each case, there are
specific intentions for creating a piece and specific audiences to listen to it.
It would be impossible to categorize this variety of contexts into a
"serious"-"light" dichotomy.
Copyright on music and on MIDI files
A piece of music can be copyrighted in three ways: first, the music
itself is copyrighted, with all rights to public performance and printing;
second, printed scores are copyrighted as books; third, recordings of
performances are copyrighted as "forms of expression".
MIDI files are recordings of performance of music not essentially
different from the standard audio recordings (although implemented in a new
form). Then, two forms of copyright apply: the copyright on the particular
performance (i.e. the copyright on a particular MIDI file) and the copyright on
all performances (usually held by a publishing house or agency or by the
composer). The latter (at least in the USA) is only effective for 75
years since first publication. Some countries (such as Russia) didn't allow composers to reserve
copyright and this means that the second form of copyright shouldn't apply to
Russian music created in the Soviet Union during the Communist times. The situation with
contemporary Russian music is of course different.
20th Century Music
By that I mean music which
transcends the tonal and harmonic standards of 19th century. Some composers,
although they lived and worked after 1900, never stepped out of the magic circle
of tonic-dominant triads; their music is then not quite a "20th century music
proper". Here's how I imagine the history of music around 1900: The harmonic and
melodic development started by late romanticism (for example, Reger, Ysaye, and
Scriabin, from the composers I know) led to "impressionists" (Debussy, Satie,
Ravel), then to "avant-guarde" (Stravinsky, Prokofiev). From this point on (c.
1920), there was no return to the "ear candy" of the 19th century classical
style.
Music I like
It tends to be harmonically complicated; melody seems to be of somewhat less
importance to me than harmony. Music I like definitely should not
have a drum beat and should not contain many repetitions of one and the
same material. I tend to like most of certain composers' output rather than
individual pieces. Composers I like include: Bach, Reger, Scriabin, Prokofiev,
Shostakovich, Dupré, Duruflé, Messiaen.
Recently I learned about the existence of Nikolai Roslavec, a Russian
composer completely suppressed by the Communist regime. His music seems rather
interesting to me.
