Leaderboard

Well this is sadly what passes for discussion lately. Why don't others participate and we can get different opinions? Anything is better than the same 4 people going in circles. That'd also be nice, otherwise might as well not even have this section of the site.

Haven't you thought about why there are only four people? Who on earth would want to subject themselves to this kind of masochism?! It must be simply exhausting to have to constantly write essay-length passages in order to defend (or try to tear apart) others', or your own, beliefs. [it would absolutely drive me up a wall, and I really don't think I'm the only one.] And don't get me started on the low blows and cheap shots these discussions always seem to degenerate into. ***Example -- the long post above.*** Another unfortunate thing is, these kind of discussions can be terribly misleading. For example, they can make people sound far more elitist and arrogant, in theory, than they truly are in practice. So I think I'll pass up that simply delightful-sounding offer.

*sighs* :( If only you all would channel this much energy and passion into constructively reviewing peoples' works on this site :veryunsure: Because seriously, what good is this doing anyone?

Makes two of us. Thread closed.

YES! This is what people are tryin' to say here! I think we're just differing on the *details*. But in principle, we're all agreeing here.

Hahaha I can't take this anymore. You all know where I stand. This argument isn't going to change much. And the other guy's right, there are more effective things we could be doing with all this energy. I've said what I needed to say, and I stand by my statements.

I totally agree with this statement 100,000,000%. However, the tone with which it was written could do with a little humility. Still, this is the number 1 thing that I look for from reviewers as a composer. The technical stuff helps a lot, too though. This is just #1. I hope more reviewers can review pieces with this statement in mind (disregarding its tone). That would be very helpful! :)

For Shaun, because he is being a ............ Yes, obviously Shaun... I know nothing. As I said, I will never accept Education as being an art form. I'm very much of the idea that it should be considered a science. For a good book on the topic... see this. First problem, stop jumping between my paragraphs and trying to put together different trains of thought! With the first paragraph, which I broke down in the last post to you, I think it was very clear I was commenting on the individual paragraphs that I broke into a separate quotes. I don't think I need to sit here and break down my comments any more further - especially considering I took the time out to break your long donkey posts into shorter quotes on which I commented paragraph by paragraph - yes, I reiterated the same sentence, so you can see it twice. If the train of thought was meant to be read in relation to ALL of your paragraphs as a distinct whole... then why would I waste my damn time breaking it down for you? My god, your a masters student... and your acting like a High School freshmen! I know your smarter than this. I could care less what the musical language of the day is. I'm not a teacher.. nor do I construct lesson plans or curriculum for anyone. I will say though, something in use a mere 50 years ago is a lot more current then something used 200 years ago. Just saying. Well, let's look at studies. Pull up one study that states that out of a group of 100 participants... all 100 found the exact same thing memorable in a piece of music? 75? 50? What's the number? Also, again... I'm not buying - until you can back it up - that Education is a form of art. Sure, it may include some aspects of artistic expression (speech, creative writing, etc.) but overall, I would say it is greatly flawed to claim education is an art. Simplicity, I think that is a give or take - some respond to simple things... some don't. I'm not saying these things aren't what bring out the crowds.. I am saying though that they most likely aren't the only things - to go in depth, I think your try to oversimplify for the sake of argument. Really, again... I'll say this clearly... I'm really not disagreeing with you at all. I'm just questioning here and there and offering my own comments. Go back and read my threads - I've reread them many times trying to see where I 'miscomprehended' anything you've said. Hell, I even broke a paragraph down for you to bring the point home - to no avail, sadly. My only comment, really... was that a student looking at studying at a composition program should research his/her options in depth and come to an educated decision about which institution is the perfect fit. All that said, this entire conversation has really made me lose a lot of respect for you. I'm not a retard. I also am realizing the fact that you consider yourself to be far more intelligent then most on this forum and you attempt to intimidate other members with your choice of words. I've heard from others that you do this - but never really thought that it was true, until now. I find that to be a big flaw in your personality - and think it's something you should really work on. I also don't think your as intelligent as you let on. For example, you claim I wasn't comprehending what you were saying. I made it quite clear in my last post, that I wasn't misinterpreting what you said - instead, I was going on whims of thought and thinking on what you said while typing... a clear sign, or it should be, that I was taking what you said in and letting it digest - not misinterpreting OR criticizing OR failing to comprehend. You also, again, failed to answer my question - it's alright, I'm done with this conversation. I tire of arguing to dense walls of brick.

Yeah, the Comp HQ has that propensity. So, it's a choice of balancing the curriculum for the benefit of those who struggle the most to achieve their artistic freedom by accepting that this freedom is not the only component of education in composition, or... not balancing the curriculum, perpetuating high-modernist ideology as the primary method in developing a composer's skill set, and accepting the hypocrisy of your rhetoric, then. Got it. You side with hypocrisy for the sake of your ideological views. You express belief in an ideal for the mutual benefit of everyone, yet you deny that benefit to anyone that wants to pursue a form of expression that IS NOT to your standard of "modern," which ultimately boils down to one and only one thing - YOUR TASTE IN MUSIC. Some people get their money's worth while others get taken to the bank. Way to stand behind your beliefs... lol... well done! Edited for specificity.

Sure, grow some balls. What's the difference? Oh yeah, the instructor has (or should have) the knowledge. The student should have access to the knowledge they need but don't because it's either not offered or entirely absent. However indirectly it may be, the student's pursuit of complete artistic freedom is significantly debilitated. THAT'S the difference. And no, rhetoric has no place in a composition curriculum. As personal as art may be, there are objective abstractions in music that can and should be relied upon in teaching composition. The pursuit of artistic freedom is always going to be up to the student, but without balance, it becomes immediately evident that some students will have little if any problem pursuing it while others will struggle against everything balanced against them. Voice your opinion all you want, just balance your method and curriculum if you're going to teach composition. Check your ideology at the door and focus on balancing the information such that the student's artistic freedom is realized. This means that, yes, if your tastes are different, you still need specialized knowledge in those areas. My post has low blows and cheap shots? Sure, I'm an easy target and all because I've been known to be passionate with my views, but really, I've done my best to convey my point of view in a compelling way without resorting to low blows and cheap shots. I don't suppose you're referring to another post? Please clarify with a quote so I know what you're referring to.

No, not really. If it does, they should grow some balls, seriously. That's like saying saying you don't like someone's music MAY provoke them to not write what they want to write. OH NO! We should never voice our opinions about music ever again, it's too dangerous!

Because you need to be taught something if you go to an institution and the easiest thing is to draw from the millions of books on analysis of old music. Plus since it has to do with music that's very popular and the reason most people go to study music, it's an obvious choice. The choice here is politically motivated much more than it has any merit artistically or pedagogically since anything can be taught as theory. There'll be people who benefit from it, and people who are only doing it for the degree and would rather forget it as soon as possible. CAPS IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. Never been successfully implemented? Consequences emerging in this thread? Let's be clear: The only people scalloping in this thread are guys like you and tokke (and that other guy) who hate modern music in the first place and want it to die in a fire. It's VERY easy to see who stands where and why, here. It has nothing to do with ideology, it has to do with you guys being so afraid of getting bad reactions for your music that you attempt to make arguments that cripple everyone as well. ("Oh but you need to take the audience into consideration thus change the music, we need to get more people listening to music so it has to be memorable so stop writing like that!" Bla Bla Bla.) You want to play it safe? Good! I don't, and nobody should if they don't want to. That's what this all means.

I personally disagree with what I bolded above. It is extremely easy to copy the style or stylistic traits of another composer. The goal of learning composition is to avoid 'reinventing the wheel' (as several of my teachers have put it.) You can easily reinvent the wheel in ANY genre or aesthetic of music.... it just so happens that on this forum, most people here style their music on the late Romantic. One has to ask as well, what is there to learn writing in the style of Mahler, Verdi, Puccini, et. al.? Are you going to learn how to solve problems in a unique way that is only witnessed in your work? No. Are you going to learn how to combine forces together in unique ways that showcase your own understanding and mastery of composition? Highly doubtful. Also, if you fall into the regular or routine copying of X composers' style... how will you LEARN different techniques and styles of music? I think these questions are all logical questions that really shoot a rather gaping hole in your entire paragraph above. Try again, please. No, you are paying the institution and NOT the instructor/prof/teacher. Paying for education, it should be mentioned, doesn't give you the right to confront your prof if they aren't teaching you things that only you want to learn. If that were the case, then it would seriously degrade the entire concept of 'higher' education. If you don't want to learn what the prof is teaching you... then chose another prof/school/or drop the course... it's that simple. Actually, this is quite wrong and really is something I'm just going to ignore you even said and think of the snow on the ground... just to show how WRONG it actually it is... let's just ignore that sentence.... At one time, the concept that composition is not an extension of theory would've been a true thing to state. However, since we do 'now' have an instructional method (and have for what... 200 years?) for music theory, one must now state quite confidently that composition IS an extension of theory. There is theory involved in virtually every type of music creation. Personally, I think a person needs to have a very good and concise knowledge of music theory in order to even consider writing music. Furthermore, why are you sitting in this same sentence and trying to justify and define something that you state you don't believe exists? If you don't think X exists... then it's illogical to state taht X = a composition that uses several 'theoretical' parallels with certain compositions from years past. Finally, on this same paragraph, I would rather hear a work that incorporates something *new* - regardless of aesthetic - than something that borrows 100% from any period of music. Again, Music Theory is the supreme foundation upon which a composer must rely on to write his compositions. Showing here, as you do several other places in this illogical diatribe of a post you have wrote, clearly that you don't feel Music Theory is an important thing to have knowledge in - you also don't seem to share the opinion that Music Theory is an integral part of your art at all. I think an analogy is in order.... Music Theory is similar to the paint and technique used by a painter..... without it, the painter can not paint.