Caleb Ballad

Yea I think that makes more sense

:D yep, I still think its a good definition though...

Well to be more clear, I mean that is it right that composers can just plunk some numbers in a computer program and then call it their own? Perhaps "socially accepted" was a poor phrase to use

I was talking about this with a friend today. And we were going back and forth saying can serialism in its purest form truly be socially accepted as music? Just to be clear I don't just mean atonal, I mean like rhythm and everything. They have programs now so that you can just say how many measures you want and it will spit out completely random rhythm and a completely stochastic melody. Lasting for however long you want. So can this be accepted as music? If so, then should people be allowed to gain profit off of these "compositions"?

That makes sense, however, for the sake of my entertainment, I learned that music is the organization of sounds. But if there is no sound to start with (unless you wanna argue the sound of the clock or coughes in the audience) how is it music? Of course upon typing this I realize there IS sound going on but it is certainly not organized.... So music? Or a bunch of people crowded around a silent pianist? EDIT: here is a good definition of music. a : the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity

This was a very controversial piece of "music" when it was written in the mid 1900's. If you havent heard it, it is a piece that doesn't have a single note or sound in it. The conductor and orchestra get on the stage, they sit down and a single person brings a clock and notifies the conductor when the allotted time for that movement is up. The piece is split into 3 movements, all which are completely silent and the total time for the piece is 4 minutes and 33 seconds. I've talked to music directors about this piece but I'm curious from a composers perspective. What do you all think of the piece? If it is a piece at all? I think this is more of a statement than a composition. A statement about how silence and introspection should be treasured more. I think he is also pointing out how we all percieve things differently.

I love Ives' music. I don't really like his piano compositions honestly, his choral and symphonic stuff is absolutely chilling though.

I agree with a lot at has been said. I think it is kind of Impossible to not plagiarize yourself even just a little. It's why we composers can hear a piece of music and be like, oh that's Mahler, or vaughan Williams etc. of course doing it too much and it's likely people will just not find it very interesting. Honestly that's why I don't like Whitacre that much anymore, i mean his music is absolutely genius but it just seems to lose my attention after awhile. He s just SO distinctive from other composers in that aspect. That's my view on it anyway

Whitacre is definitely a good one, while I have kind of been burned out from hearing his music SO MUCH he still Is definetly revolutionizing the "next era of classical music" with his unique composing. I don't listen to ALOT of contempory classical, honestly I just like everything before 1950s classical music. Although it is all great music. Some of my favorite today composers may be Randall Z. Stroope. Who in my opinion is a bit more known for his bombastic works. And maybe Morten Lauridsen, a very influential character on Whitacre actually. Any other examples are more closer to the early 20th century, ya know serialism and stuff.