Leaderboard

Hello guys, I am totally new here and I am really impressed by discovering such an active forum with so many talents! I am really surprised, didn't know there was such a place on the web! Anyway, I am a youngish composer (31yo), I started composing around 2 years a go (but play the piano since many years). I have composed a good amount of stuff but my favourite is probably Math Piano Rock. This is inspired by Math Rock, a fast paced genre with frequent change of rythm and no lyrics (I hate lyrics!), but also Prokofiev and Bartok. The piece is *difficult*! The video below is performed by a software - but I have actually played it live a couple of times (you can see in my channel some videos where I do that, if you are interested). I am always looking to opinion, suggestions and ideas!

Hello everyone! It's great to see this topic being welcomed by you all, and I'm glad it you all got hold of it. I don't want to "moderate" this conversation, and for this reason I won't answer everyone, unless I feel I have something to add. Please, feel free to take this conversation wherever you please, and don't feel the need to make every comment a direct answer to my initial question. I'm only saying this because many of the posts here relate it all directly to me. Thank you all for posting. Best regards, Jean. @Tónskáld @Quinn @Luis Hernández @Ken320 @Markus Boyd

I think it is true that when we subscribe to a particular school (i.e. romanticism), we naturally narrow our perspective. Despite this, we will still form conceptions about other schools, as well as the philosophies that underpinned them. Such conceptions can be misconstrued, often affected by cognitive bias. As a result, taste is entirely subjective; one must also appreciate that people from different eras had different ideas as to what constituted a "great" work, or composer. In fact, a great number of "great" composers (assessed by one's relative success) of the 18th century are now utterly neglected. Why? I think it is has something to do with modern concepts of artistry and individualism. The limitation that composers were subject to during this period was not so much to do with "rules". Rather, it had more to do with the employment model they had to operate in. Most successful composers either worked under the patronage of the church or an aristocrat. Either way, the composer was an employer, and good employees go what is asked of them. There is not a great deal of autonomy within this environment, although there were exceptions such as in the case of Haydn. Rules were often broken by competent composers, which was encouraged under reasonable justification. The sheer amount of music composed during the common practice period at least demonstrates the flexibility of the concepts and training that underpinned it.

I think Jean is irritated that he is forced to build the damn road before he can drive on it. We are composers, right? Not Civic Engineers. I think that this demand upon us is overblown in our minds. And perhaps we are too focused on tonality as being the one thing that we use to define ourselves as artists. But there are so many other ways. I hear great music all the time from artists who are not bound by this neurotic demand. It's in good pop music, good jazz, good multi media work, and good so called serious work.. But the key word is good. I cannot tell you what good means. You already know what good means. These artists use a broad spectrum of aesthetics: rhythm, rhyme, emotion, new instrumentation, electronics, new combinations of established forms and many other manner of the elements of music to entice the public. But an unrealistic focus on the necessity a new tonality at all costs can be seen as building the road instead of driving on it. In other words, a diversion and a hindrance. Something that is holding you back as a composer because it represents that big, loud irritating voice in the back of your head. Be original! Be original! (just shut up and let me compose) I agree with Luis that eclecticism is the way forward. Leonard Bernstein said as much before he died. I mean, if you were a chef would you be satisfied with cooking only pasta, or would you rather cook everything?

@Jean Szulc @Tónskáld I share and understand your concern about this issue. Many factors affect the answer (if there is one). what is your (our) goal when composing? how have you studied, how have you arrived to composition? how restless are you about expanding your composition tools? Perhaps, professional composers would try to define his/her own language? Which I assume, it is quite difficult nowadays. But notice that the vas majority of the great composers of our days have or had not focused only in one language. Richard Strauss, John Cage, ...... Gorécki, Párt, Vasks, etc., etc... Some of them experienced phases but also many others can be defined by a word: eclecticism. I am amateur composer. I mean, I study music (a lot) and write music because I love it, it's almos a vital need. It's been a very long and satisfying journey to learn all the things I know. When you study new languages, new systems, it's normal you focus your composition on them. I understand this as exercises, but it doesn't mean you can do beautiful things. But my final vision of this question is I have lots of TOOLS to use at my convenience, and when I want to. Starting on classic tonal harmony and counterpoint, but going to atonality, polytonality, impressionism, PC sets, polychords, Messiaen, mirrored harmonies, new forms, jazz harmony, and a long etc... I believe everything can be combined. The difficulty is to make something expressive with the tools you pick up for a composition. So, eclecticism is the answer, for me. I'm also convinced that a composer with aspiration to evolve has to study and know as many tools as possible. No matter you hate atonalism, you need to know what it is and how it works. We see atonalism mixed with tonal music in many great works (The Rosenkavalier, Cabaret, Psycho.....). If you don't know this tools, you are limited. I respect people who write music imitating Mozart or Bach or whatever. What's the point? I understand to do it as exercises, to learn those styles. Nobody (of us) can make music 50% as good as theirs, in their strict style. They are happy with it, writing music like that. But I don't understand to be stuck in that period and nothing more, with all there is. Even if you hate atonal music, you can enrich your tonal music with many tools from the 20th century. So, it also depends on "how restless you are". I always value the hard work of composing in any style, but I think many people loose opportunities denying anything further than romanticism. I usually write music based in contemporary tools, but I don't mind mixing with tonal music if I need it.