> Another thing I find is lacking is any discussion of what *is* a
> style. And for example, did Bach compose in one style, or in many (or
> dozens)? Is there such a thing as 'historical style' divorced from the
> works of specific composers?
>
Well for starters, wouldn't a common cultural understanding of ornaments and their context be on of the defining elements? Also a common cultural understanding of the variety of instruments and voice production methods that would be unstated but understood with respect to a score?

 
> The problem is that a style can be thought of as a set of things that
> are commonly expected in a composition; however, a composition that
> does nothing except what is commonly expected is boring (absent a
> particularly imaginative performer).
> 
> Another way might be to point to a group of historical pieces and
> declare that 'they constitute a style'. But this doesn't seem to allow
> anyone to compose in it, unless they are imitating those pieces.
> 
> Another way to formulate style might be by what is forbidden. This
> opens the way to a composer to exploit the space between what is usual
> and what is forbidden, inside which lives what is interesting but not
> 'wrong'.
> 
> Etc.
> 
> ~~~T~~~

>



Rodney Myrvaagnes

Please send emails to 
rodneym (AT) alumni (DOT) tufts (DOT) edu
with obvious corrections.