Leaderboard

I definitely see what you mean, luderart. To go back to the visual arts example, in order to master the techniques of throwing pottery, you practice the same basic forms over and over, generally in a master/apprentice relationship of some sort. Which means you don't get to make "your" pots for the first 7 years of your career. You make your master's pots, to their specifications, and any that don't look enough like their pots, or don't meet their quality control are smashed. Any that do meet their quality standards are signed, not with your name, but with the studio name. That's how you learn the basic techniques. By making teacup after teacup that is indistinguishable from someone else's teacups. When you can copy exactly, you know, and your master knows, that you have complete control. That any manifestations of "style" in your work, are the result of control and decision, not just accident. And therefor, that you have mastered the technical aspects of working. But if that was all you ever did, you would never be anything other than an apprentice in the master's workshop. So after a 7 year apprenticeship, you are considered ready to make your own name. And you are lovingly kicked out the door to discover how to make your own style of work. That's often the hardest part. Now you have the technical skill, and some connections, because you studied under the great master so-and-so, but you have to find your own voice, after years of working the motions to replicate someone else's voice into your hands. You have to find something unique to say, or your coffee cups are no more valuable than the ones made on a conveyor belt in a factory. In the music world... why do we pay to go to a live performance? It will inevitably be imperfect in some way. Either because notes are wrong, or because you are in the $5 seats and can't see or hear well. Why do we pay to do this when we could listen to a retouched and perfected recording at home? Because there is the possibility to see a performer's individual voice. Every live concert is a little different, and every concert is a chance to watch the performers express themselves, while reacting to each other and the audience. There's a chance that today, the pianist will really have something transcendent to say. So composers can work in the style of someone, as an exercise, to learn technical skills. To discover what made Beethoven Beethoven. It is a good way to get a conscious control of your techniques. But the point is to be able to say at some point, "ah ha! THIS is what made Beethoven Beethoven. And THIS is what I will do differently, that will make me me." It's possible to develop a distinct style just by fumbling in the dark, but I think it is unlikely that someone would make a consistently good body of work that also made consistent and effective use of a well-developed style without having put some thought into it along the way. The sheer amount of time and work that it takes to get to that point means that, to me, it seems like one would have spared a few idle moments to ponder it over the years.

Major LOL.

As I'm the judge I cannot enter in any partty, but I must say at least three things: 1- Luderart, dont fear my judgment, it wont be affected in any way by Sarastro, Sojar, yours, or Stravisnky, or even Mozart comments on your pieces. And this is applicable to all the competitors. 2- It is my duty to say that music is not purely subjective, pure subjectivism didnt exist, because you only have relative terms, when you have an absolute one in order to compare the others. Relativism is wrong, in music it is simply stupid, but in morality dangerous. Please do not confuse taste with quality. Technique with feeling. Mystery with arbitrariness. 3- Sojar, as I said before, it will be for me a honour your participation in this competition, and Mr. Sarastro, if you are here participating in the debate, why not participate also with a piece? Please accept this challenge. Thank you all, and I'm still always looking for more uploads!

Eh, scientists know that they/we don't know what energy is, and we can only relate to it's many forms mathematically. Furthermore, we don't know all of the types of energy. "Modern physics has discovered one of the greatest things ever discovered, and that is: matter is energy". And theoretically, matter is a projection of our consciousness, which is also energy. Do your own research, as I'm sure your skeptical blood is boiling. To say "show me on a diagram of the human body" is silly, given that we don't even know what energy is, putting so much faith into something that is meant to disprove itself, especially when you're referring to a part of the study that they have yet to understand. Loosely speaking, the point is that consciousness is unlikely to arise from classical properties of matter (the more we understand the structure and the fabric of the brain, the less we understand how consciousness can occur at all), which are well known and well testable. But Quantum Theory allows for a new concept of matter altogether, which may well leave cracks for consciousness, for something that is not purely material or purely extra-material. Of course, the danger in this way of thinking is to relate consciousness and Quantum only because they are both poorly understood: what they certainly have in common is a degree of "magic" that makes both mysterious and unattainable... On the other hand, it is certainly true that all current neurobiological descriptions of the brain are based on Newton's Physics, even if it is well known that Newton's Physics has its limitations. First of all, Newton's Physics is an offshoot of Descartes division of the universe in matter and spirit, and it deals only with matter. Secondly, neurobiologists assume that the brain and its parts behave like classical objects, and that quantum effects are negligible, even while the "objects" they are studying get smaller and smaller. What neurobiologists are doing when they study the microstructure of the brain from a Newtonian perspective is equivalent to organizing a trip to the Moon on the basis of Aristotle's Physics, neglecting Newton's theory of gravitation. No wonder most neurobiologists reach the conclusion that Physics cannot explain consciousness, since they are using a Physics that 1. was designed to study matter and leave out consciousness and that 2. does not work in the microworld. Not surprisingly, it has been claimed that all current neurobiological models are computationally equivalent to a Turing machine. Well, this is not entirely off-topic. Many artists describe trancelike states when creating something -> this is especially true for those who wish to represent the divine, and surrender to it, while at work. Sacred Art. They admit these things; many of the great masters, and masters you've never heard of. I don't want to get into a derailed debate...I'm simply stating that it doesn't have to be entirely conscious as seems to be the prevailing presumption here. Someone who keeps an open mind and open ear to all things, has a greater chance of knowing the 'truth', whereas those who are dismissive, and without respect to others, are willingly boxing themselves inside a box that it utterly beyond their understanding. The answers to your life just might not always be on that diagram :-\ *shrugs*

I do play organ a bit (although I suck on pedals :p) and the Šmartno organ is a pneumatic one. So all fast notes are late or barely audiable. Your piece would work rather OK at the electric organ.

Prior to Beethoven, originality was no-where near as big a worry among (art music) composers as it is now. They simply had to worry about being as competent at composing as possible, in a position more akin to servants. Bach and Mozart's recognisable styles were simply arrived at because of how their genius interpreted the existing musical practices. As time went on, and art music turned into a field so congested with great composers from the past, it became important to be original; after all, why would someone commission someone to write a piece that sounds like Bach, regardless of quality, when they can play Bach's music for free? So now in art music, one must work as hard as possible to achieve an original voice as well as a finely honed one. In the world of commercial composition on the other hand, i'd say things are a lot more similar to the pre-Beethoven days; film directors don't care if you've managed to blend serialism and tibetan throat singing into a gloriously original new art form, they would much rather someone who can sound exactly like Hans Zimmer, without having to pay a Hans Zimmer sized fee.

Austenite thank you for your participation. And for all the others I want to say that in these last five days I'm still expeting more participations.

Again, Pateceramics put it pretty clearly. Each human being might be exposed to the same kind of experiences, influences and values, yet react to them in a very personal, unique way. This way can (and must) be consciously nurtured and polished to develop an individual voice. The keyword here is develop - since it implies a deliberate attempt to grow and improve. In the same way you're more likely to get stronger and healthier by consciously working out and doing enough exercise, you're also more likely to develop an individual voice by studying and learning what others developed before you, and by deducing exactly what did they do to imprint their individuality into their works.

If you peak through the window of an elementary school classroom, all the kids are being taught by the same teacher, they are all receiving the same instructions, but if you look at their drawings displayed on the bulletin board, each child has a distinct style from the very beginning. Each child's work has certain identifying elements that are always there, in every drawing, in every painting, that are as unique and recognizable as a fingerprint. The colors a child uses follow a pattern, the way they lay-out their drawing follows a consistent set of rules, maybe only consciously known only to some deep part of that child's brain, but recognizable to our pattern-seeking eyes as unique rules, even if we can't quite put our finger on what those rules are... But are the drawings good... Taking that style, and adding technical ability over the years is the key. Mastering the techniques that will allow each person's particular style to be used in the most expressive way possible, so that everything supports that style, rather than detracts from it, and so that that style can be used in the service of all the things that one person needs to say, that is the difficult part. One must boldly set aside the fear of being too changed, and embrace every tool that may be of help. Rush at education with open arms, trusting that the good and valid parts of you will always be there, impervious to new thoughts and new habits, and that only the chaff will burn away, leaving you, ultimately, a purer and truer version of yourself. So, in short, I think it's some of both... innate identity, there from the very beginning, encoded in our genes, and the conscious polishing of that identity that makes it something of value to other people. Some people die before they can get polished (or published.) Some people don't have something to say that speaks to their particular time. Some people get stuck with the wrong teachers. But for the lucky few, the stars align and we all go "Ooooooh!"