Leaderboard

Whenever I click any link from this site that prompts a new window to be automatically openned, IE9 opens a new tab (good) AND takes the current tab to the link (bad). Please fix. And if anyone says "Switch to Firefox/Chrome/BrowseWitch/TahitiTimerBrowser/Safarareeee," I'm not changing browsers to use one freakin' website. A browser as common as IE should work on any site.

Something very interesting happened just a few minutes ago. After my last comment in this thread, I sat down and tried to write something modern. I can occasionally coax modern ideas, and tonight I was actually inspired. I wrote 10 measures of a Berceuse for woodwind quintet (ostensibly as a companion piece to my 'Secondi'), and it was going very well, when suddenly, the power went out - something that doesn't happen every day in Los Angeles. I hadn't saved the file yet, nor had I committed what I'd written reliably to memory; so that little idea is probably lost forever. I find the irony of this a little too palpable to ignore. Maybe God is trying to tell me something - like "keep doing what you do best, kid, and leave the rest to others. That's why I put you on this planet."

It's less WWII as a war, but what happened in the Third Reich of course. Just take Adorno's famous: "To write a poem after Auschwitz is barbarical." I'm not an expert on Adorno, so I won't go into an interpretation of this, but in general there are several aspects of why many (particularly European) artists felt unable to "just continue making art as if nothing had happened". Art had always stood in a certain relationship to society, maybe reflecting aspects of it, maybe putting forward certain visions, etc. It did this in a stylised, aesthetic form that was, in some form or another, intended to be "enjoyed". What happened in the Third Reich was, by those who witnessed it, often not just recognized as a "tragic incident", but seen as a failure of society, even humanity itself. Art, as an aspect and manifestation of society, was thus seen as irrevocably corrupted - and even more so in its practice of "reflecting reality in a beautiful way". Any "art created after Auschwitz" would, in this sense, either have to ignore this aspect of history and humanity and would be untruthful and false, or would have to reflect on said happenings in the only way possible for art: In a stylised, abstract way, that would never be able to do the horrors that happened justice and would actually desecrate those who suffered during that time, by the attempt of doing so. If you held these views (and quite a few did, while others quite as vehemently opposed them), it was clear that the only way to continue creating art in some form was to sever art from its corrupted traditions, from the expectations of society, from the claim of "representing humanity" in any emotional form., and from the intention of "pleasing" aesthetically, but to draw back to a more abstract level where more "objective" processes (structures, numbers, techniques) that weren't so "laden with guilt" ruled. As weird as it may sound today, but some of those structural tendencies of that time had quite ethical reasons. To even try to "express the degree of hopelessness and despair" as you mentioned would have seemed criminal (or, as mentioned, barbarical, for Adorno) for quite a few intellectuals and artists back then. This was certainly much less the case in some countries that were a bit more distanced to this, such as the U.S. and was, as mentioned, definitely not shared amongst all Europeans - but it may serve to explain why some went in the directions they did and were very polemical about this. Many people today, ignoring this general atmosphere in central Europe at that time, can not understand things like Boulez saying "Before me there was no music". But such phrases have to be read in a certain historical context. And while I do of course now live in a different time and have quite different views on art, society, the value of beauty etc., I -do- definitely share the scepticism about works of art that seem to (often not even deliberately) exploit happenings such as the Third Reich/WWII to gain greater public effect. Penderecki's "Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima" first didn't have this title and Penderecki sent in his piece to several competitions without any success. After he had then given it that title, it immediately won a competition and was a quick success in public. Similar things can be said about Nono's "Ricorda cosa ti hanno fatto ad Auschwitz". And I'm in no way attacking Penderecki or Nono with that - just pointing out the implications such charged associations can have on a piece of art and its reception. And from this point of view I can definitely comprehend Adorno's criticism. P.S. I'm of course in -no- way saying the 1950s serialism was a direct and only result from political and philosophical considerations. I just wanted to mention this aspect because it often seems to be lost amongst the more obvious technical considerations, i.e. the general modernist drive for exploration, for doing things in a new way. It would definitely be wrong to reduce the bloom of serialist composition to the discovery of techniques that made it possible however. Algorithmic composition is almost as old as composition itself. It always existed either as a structural aid, as a way of reflecting a "divine" non-human aspect in a piece of music as in many renaissance and baroque pieces, as an enjoyable "game", such as in experiments by Mozart and others, and so on. But it needed certain changes in society to really break through and become a value in itself, without the help of "nice c-minor triads". So sure, in reply to your last question: A little of both (and more), as almost always. Oh, and Tokkemon: I don't think the fact that serialism has receded has anything to do with computers and new possibilities in algorithmic composition. Serialism by itself doesn't have to be complex at all (it's actually often very simple) and it certainly doesn't need to have anything to do with mathematics (just using numbers and structures doesn't really constitute a "mathematical" process). And obviously computers haven't lessened the impact of -algorithmic- or highly structural processes at all. Why should it matter how easy it is to do with or without computers? The only question we today have that we didn't have in the 50s is whether we want to use a computer in our compositions (algorithmic or otherwise). Both is done widely - but that's merely a question of work practices and efficiency, not really of compositorial aim.

Re: the term "historicist/modernist" -- semantics of the lowest caliber. i hate the term composer. so what? Re: warhorses-- What matters more? Who wrote the piece or what the piece sounds like? Re: originality -- fart. Every note has been played together since god-knows-when. Nothin is new. Nothing ever was new. Raga is serialism etc. Re: modernism/historicism is easier -- fart. style doesn't dictate skill. come on -- there's scrafty music in all styles, let's not throw up silly strawmen. Or do. Either way,

It's not about innovation. I hate it when people think all I mean is "be original!" I don't care if you're ORIGINAL, I care that what you're doing is what you want to do and also that you're trying to expand your means of expression. If you can seriously say that a copying other people's styles is for you 100% enough to say what you want musically then fine. The point being, there's nothing wrong with applying multiple styles to the same piece, or extending the classical styles, etc and sometimes people ought to remember this is also part of the whole neoclassical deal. After all, that's what Mozart would've said considering his attempted "baroque" copies that were extremely modern. He COULD have settled for just doing it "in style," but no, he went and totally ran off in a different direction with the style. In fact the whole "write exactly like the past" deal is a late 20th century thing altogether, since before this was only considered exercises if done at all. I mean, that Schubert learned harmony by studying figured bass didn't mean at all that his compositions used figured bass or had anything to do with baroque aesthetics or styles. You miss the fact that there is no such a thing as "completely free." Regardless of how much freedom a composer thinks they have, they eventually settle for only a handful of parameters and effectively narrowly restrict the scope of what they're writing. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to write anything. What to cut out and what to leave in is what makes writing "freely" extremely difficult. It shows you haven't really tried this much since you're used to having the parameters all drawn out for you in advance. The more you know in advance about how a composition "has to be" then by default the less freedom you can take, regardless of style. It's pretty simple really. I do find that it's much, much easier for someone else to tell you what the limits are than for the composer himself to figure out entirely from scratch where the limits should be (or if they change, when they change, etc. After all multiple limits for different segments of the music is a typical thing.) I don't owe any of them anything at all, nor does anyone. I mean it's nice they wrote stuff and that's all great. I don't have anything against dead composers, they're too dead to care. My problem is with the worshiping, as you've done above. I don't want anyone to force themselves to do anything. If you don't have the natural impulse to explore other avenues of expression on your own, why bother asking you to force yourself to do it? Likewise, I've said before, new and groundbreaking is irrelevant. That's the 60s, not 2011. The point is music that reflects the composer above all, beyond who they think is awesome enough to imitate. Sure there may be the lone guy out there who genuinely is only happy writing music according to X and never straying from it, but for everyone else I suspect is laziness and comfort. You yourself just demonstrated how you doomed your own attempts from the get-go by framing it as "doing something else" rather than expanding what you're already doing. Building up on what you like to write rather than trying to replace it with something else entirely. Whatever, though, since in the end everyone will play Beethoven over any of our pieces any day without a second thought or even looking at the scores. It's not called bitterness, it's called realism. Once you manage to out-perform Mozart, then we'll talk.

Just a few thoughts gathered from reading the last few posts. 1) @Tokke: I don't think one can truly say that because a piece is played regularly over another (such as the Warhorses) means the piece is any better/accessible than those not being played regularly. Also, I've taken a gander at 10 random orchestra programs across the country (NY Phil included.) Each of these programs had at least 1 modern work on each concert. So much for NOT playing new music, eh? Btw, kudos to the NY Phil for programming Gubaidulina!! :wub: 2) @J. Lee: Can you do me a favor and NOT use the term historicist? I cringed each and every time I saw it. To me, a historicist is someone who tries to 'recreate as close as possible' a historical work or ethic. Saying historicist, thus, would mean that you are recreating or reinventing the wheel (at least to me.) I think a better term would be revivalist. Reviving a historical style doesn't quite equate to copying a historical work or ethic - thus making me less cringe! :) 3) ALL: I think SSC makes some really good points. For example: AND To address the first quote: Yes, they did write new music AND many of them, albeit the vast majority, weren't even appreciated by contemporary audiences till well AFTER they passed away. A large part of Beethoven's later works, for instance, was highly viewed as being questionably mad -which at the time, was not a good thing. Only a small handful of composers were lucky to have their works (and subsequent reputation based on those works) be recognized during their lifetime. One good example, as we all are aware, was Salieri. We also HAVE to come to terms with the simple fact, as well, that the vast majority of those living during the time periods never even heard the works of these 'great' composers. We often forget that our art, as much as we love it, was originally heard by solely the noble aristocratic families of Europe. Peasants, who comprised 99% of these societies, largely listened to folk music. That is of course, until the revolutions of the 19th century changed the social order and allowed the middle class to further expand and prosper into cultural patrons - even that though, didn't really come to it's peak until the very end of the 19th century. I digress though. TO address the second point: This entire statement by SSC, I think was taken horribly wrong. SSC is NOT saying that one is directly 'copying' x composer. Instead, he is saying that the idea of 'copying' or 'writing in' a historical style (be it Serialism, Romanticism, Impressionism, Classicism, Baroque, Renaissance, Early Music) limits the artistic creativity of the artist BECAUSE inevitably that artist's work will be compared to the work of the x composers who comprised the historical period itself. In other words, if you write in a Baroque style, then your work will not be judged on its own merits but INSTEAD will be compared and judged to the work of Bach, Handel, Buxtehude, etc. If you write in the style of early Serialism, then your work will be judged not on its own merits but INSTEAD will be compared and judged to the work of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, etc. Thus, if you write in a historical style, you will live in the shadow of the greats of that style - and compete directly with the warhorses themselves. There, I've said all I can....

I think he's bitter because organizations would rather play the warhorses than his music. Darned contemporary composers who write stuff that wasn't as good/accessible to the listener as the warhorses were. "Its all the player's fault!!!" they say. Spot on! :thumbsup:

Well, I don't even really believe 'bitonality' exists. At least, in any sense that it would be justified being called under that label. And if even the superimposition of two keys isn't possible, then I don't see how it'd be possible to superimpose anymore than that and do anything that could be justified having the label 'tonality' in it. Given the context in which he is talking, I think it's a fairly safe definition (if somewhat ambiguous in practice) to define tonality as a system of pitch hierarchies whereby the full chromatic is all related functionally to a central tone. It's been my experience that a superimposition of any two keys (even in very simple functional contexts) does not work at all at producing the effect of tonality. One of two things tends to happen: Either one key is allowed to dominate and that is heard as the fundamental tonic ultimate (i.e. the Rite of Spring where even blatant juxtapositions of keys do still yield a prevailing tonal center) or, by the own complexity of the material and saturation of the full chromatic, essentially comes out sounding without any prominent center whatsoever; a lot of Ligeti comes to mind. Not to mention that, in most famous cases of 'polytonality' that I'm aware of, all of the harmonic materials tend to be controlled by an external mode that allows for implications of multiple keys; the octatonic mode being the most popular example which helped to control a lot of Bartok's and Stravinsky's 'bitonality' Plus, because of the complexity of a lot of the harmonic aggregates as a result of the juxtaposition of multiple keys, there tends to be an obligation to keep the contrapuntal layers restricted entirely to the diatonic notes of that key. In effect, I think this really should be called 'polymodality' since I think it gives a more accurate description of the effect and processes involved. I've yet to hear a single, convincingly function 'bitonal' piece of music. And I know the term's relevance whatsoever has been contested by more than a few musicologists.

Writing in bitonality is kind of tough given it doesn't exist and all.

Short answer: No. Long answer: depends on how you use the pillars, how the context causes one to be more prominent over another or if they're equal, etc.

Well the criticism, discouragement and ridicule is somewhat deserved as well since writing style copies as a life-long goal is pretty much like saying you'll only eat cheeseburgers for the rest of your life. Sure, you and everyone is free to do whatever they want, but I wouldn't expect it to be free of criticism or ridicule. If anything, is because it's not really creative at all when all you can say is "Well X wouldn't do it this way," it's just writing what others did. All your work amounts to simply building replicas that will forever live in the shadow of the warhorses. I think that's kind of a sad life goal, but w/e I'm not these people. I've written works in all sorts of styles, but never 100% style copy since that's boring as hell, it'd be just an exercise since there's nothing from me in there. But I also think that Gianluca guy is a complete retard given my previous exchanges with him, so I think that he can't take criticism has less to do with anything academics have to say and rather with him just being an donkey.

Quality eh? I don't know, to me it all seems some kind of bizarre worship relationship where it doesn't really matter what anyone writes, but only that it be according to that one style, ensuring that whatever comes out is only just a copy which will, again, live in the shadow of the preferred warhorse. I can hardly call composing something that is explicitly void of creativity and only aims to copy. It's a good theory exercise I suppose. It's also a way to just remain comfortable and cozy, since despite whatever comparisons you can always say "like X! See?" to justify anything you did, taking away any kind of responsibility the composer may have had for the piece. In fact, that's why this bothers me so much: if composition is making decisions then this is simply a large single decision to auto-pilot as all decisions have been made for you ahead of time. And really that's not how any of the warhorses worked at all, they broke things and bent rules accordingly, they are known for their decisions and not just blatant copying. It's kind of a disservice to their creativity as composers to do only recreations, because none of them did this. In fact, all those warhorses? They wrote "new music" and were rather modern for their time, haha. The irony.

One of my prime directives as an historicist is specifically to AVOID copying anything. How can you call my work a copy? A copy of what? A style? There ain't nothin' new under the sun. You may genuinely be unaware of this, but historicists make as many decisions as any composer, and more difficult ones at that. We choose willingly to hem ourselves into rather rigid stylistic and theoretical rules, characteristics and guidelines, and then we have to decide how to create something new so as NOT to re-invent the wheel or copy what someone else has done; it may sound to you like a copy, but it's the same as painter who chooses to paint portraits of living people in a renaissance style. Having done both, I'd say that it's a lot easier to be completely free than to work within narrow parameters. My most popular piece on YC, bar none, is my "experimental" work, "Secondi," but it only took me a couple of hours to throw together, and it neither expressed anything of who I am as a person nor stimulated me in any way beyond being an amusement, a curiosity. And what's with the disrespect for "the warhorses?" You and I and everyone here owe them a debt of gratitude for all they've taught us. We don't have to worship at their collective altar, but don't we owe them a bit more respect than to dismiss them with a pejorative like "warhorse"? What has made you so bitter? The thing I most resent about your attitude as that you would have me force myself to be someone I'm not to stay artificially fresh and inventive. I don't think like that, and never have; when I do, it's always a mental exercise in which my creativity and individuality are only peripherally engaged. Would it be better that I didn't compose at all? I fail to see how that furthers the cause of art, to silence a creatively gifted person because his ideas don't happen to be new and groundbreaking. Some people think that's what art is; I don't agree.

Hi, I was wondering if anyone knowledgeable on the subject, could answer the following: When composing polytonal music, do both keys have to be established in the same way? I understand the ultimate goal, is the V pillar to the I pillar, however leading up to that point, say one key is established through a iii-vi-ii-V-I progression, would the other key have to progress in the same way, at the same time? In other words: do one of the pillars have to be present, at all time? Thank you