Leaderboard

I think you're overcomplicating things a bit. Music can easily be divided into three broad categories—emotional, kinetic, spiritual. For composers in the first category music is primarily about expressing and exploring emotional states. It has found its greatest success, in the present day, in film music, but also retains a foothold in classical music (figures such as Austenite and Lowell Liebermann), metal and some forms of country. For composers in the second category—the oldest of the three, by far—music is intimately connected to the dance. Currently this genre is dominated by rock, pop, hip-hop and similar phenomena, though some classical music belongs here as well (Glass, Max Richter, John Adams). For composers in the third category music is an expression of the ineffable, an object of worship—thus spiritual music is not religious, as it would displace the deity in question. This genre is most successful in classical music where the reverential atmosphere can be enforced by concert hall traditions. Classical music—most of which is spiritual in nature—can thus in turn be divided into four categories, with some overlap with other forms of music: I think of these as constructivism, deconstructivism, non- or anticonstructivism and reconstructivism. Constructivists are trying to build something new, in the Marxist sort of way; something that synthesizes its antecedents to build something greater. These are composers like Brian Ferneyhough and Francis Dhomont and Masami Akita. Deconstructivists take a more conservationist approach, recycling material in order to change existing traditions rather than turn them into new ones; think of Gabriel Prokofiev or Peter Ablinger or Laurence Crane. Anticonstructivists don't believe newness is desirable or even possible; pessimistically, the language of music has been exhausted, or optimistically, a sublime experience must be presented in a familiar way. Bent Sørensen, Valentin Silvestrov, Georg Friedrich Haas might all be examples. Reconstructivists' approach is ultimately about the extinguishment of the self. An ascetic approach to musical spirituality, they typically devote themselves to a single composer or style of the past; there are few of these, but they have found some success—see Brian Newbould's compositions in the style of Schubert, or Deryck Cooke's symphony in the style of Mahler. The severe restrictions of the reconstructivist approach mean it will never be as widespread as the others, but it has nevertheless had a degree of influence, particularly on the HIP movement (historically informed performance practice).

Hey guys, I made a post on Reddit recently, and it did not receive a great reception, most people were spouting some nonsense about how they liked "tonality", or how I was full of myself. Trying to put contemporary music in a nutshell or something. Interested in your responses to what I wrote (revised for you guys): Still trying to get a sense of the scene. I've been reading a lot of websites, listening to podcasts and reading perspectives of new music, still don't feel I quite get it. As far as I can tell, the major categories of composers active today fall under one of the below categories: Approaches with some validity: * Lachenmann clones * Ferneyhough clones * French school (including "electronic" or computer assisted) * "Avant-garde" (i.e. improvisation, conceptual art, and offshoots of popular traditions) * Postmoderns (recontextualize/deconstruct old styles) * Reactionary Consonance (lamonte young, part, ben johnston) <- a cohesive trend even if they're not all coming from the same place ideologically Dead ends: Then there are the people who are eternally trying to bring back tonality, which essentially entails appropriating a Romantic aesthetic infused with one or more of: * "ethnic" flavour on top of something old * "pop" topoi (including american style "minimalism" a la reich or adams) * narcissistic philistinism (creating what's intended to be a grand opus, which is actually just a string of tired cliches) everyone else out there who has a name seems to be primarily commercially oriented.

I find these subdivisions quite interesting to read, although I can well imagine the way the Reddit-populus responsed; the derogatory terms "dead end" and even "clones" in the list you deem valid, sound quite 'Wagnerian' (ie full of yourself, which I think is a dead end ;) ) kidding aside, I was glad to see this topic. I'd love to see whether the lists of prv and shadowwolf can be harmonised. But its always hard to refelct on your own time. It requirers you to stand above it al, which implies an objectivity (or at least a solely descriptive role), something I believe to be impossible. To p7rv I'd like to ask, why do you want to map this time? Why do you want to get a sense of the scene? (to be clear: I want it too, and I find your (or shadowwolfs) categories helpful. Not that I think that it is the definitive reflection on the scene, but in the sense that it is how you perceive it. )

You should compose in whatever manner you want with out the vain notion that it will gain recognition. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can't fake inspiration and good music knows no era. I only have one rule when I compose, the music needs to inspire me and light a fire within me. If it achieves that than everything else is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

I definitely agree that there were many paths left untaken that are worthy of revisiting. There is a question of relevance to contemporary audiences, however. If someone writes something today in (for instance) the classical style, fat chance anyone will take him seriously, even if he really put his heart into it.