treyhunneddollas

A lot of dense passages in new music is probably conceived as a 'big picture'. Precisely identifying how musical lines interact with each from a rhythmic and harmonic standpoint becomes less important than how everything comes together as a whole.

The cartoon robin posted actually describes my experience with a lot of new music concerts. There is a lot of cheap music out there and I happen to live in a city where the 'scene' often praises this kind of stuff. I just wanted to emphasize that there is a lot of good stuff to be found, if willing. There is nothing to gain from a 'tonal vs atonal' debate because these labels don't really serve to define camps anymore.

I'm still a little uncertain as to how the proposed description of 'academic' music might actually manifest itself? I mean, it's extremely subjective and based on how much experience you have with contemporary/experimental music. A lot of this 'anti-academic' attitude seems to be propelled by a number of suppositions, that composers write music through certain means and they're somehow self-aware of being allegedly uninspired and have the intentions of bewildering listeners for praise. As well as this, the persistent caricature of a mad scientist composer punching numbers into equations with the intention of bewildering the masses is a portrayal of what composers stopped doing for at least 30-40 years. Personally, I'm just as skeptical of many of those composers highly regarded in academic circles, but perhaps being an 'academic' composer (though I guess whether I am or not depends on if you're prejudiced against improvised music that isn't triadic and whether or not you're willing to listen to my music more than once before speaking with conviction on whether it's 'meaningful') means that I am a bit more perceptive of what much of this music is about.

What is 'academic' music to you? Music that is very detailed? Music written by someone affiliated with a university? If either is the case, I believe you're holding a very close minded perspective. Unrelated to my response to robin: I think it's important to understand that there are other driving forces for music today. Personally, I like to choose the word 'energy'. A vague sound from a cello furiously playing a tremolo on double stop harmonics has a certain energy to it, even though you can't really analyze that sound by practices that are hundreds of years old. A quick, articulated burst of flute multiphonics has a different energy, yet similarly lacks traditional clarity. These kinds of things can be written without 'hearing' the exact resulting pitches, because an experienced composer will know what kind of energy will result from these actions.

After a year hiatus, it's nice to see people here arguing about the same scraggy.

In my own experience, people are more open -minded towards the music of their colleagues, acquaintances, etc. rather than that of some stranger. There is definitely an intellectual superiority complex, but I think it (for the most part), exists in the perception of whoever is doing the criticizing. For example: 'oh this music is abstract, whoever wrote it must think they're a smartypants'. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of terrible music written today, there is honest music to be found though and this gets easier to hear with experience.

In this day and age, standardizing anything would be a step backwards. Composers just need to come up with new stuff based on the needs of each individual piece.

Composing without meters (for now) would help, I think. Writing around strong and weak beats kind of locks you in. Try to avoid ties and instead, use dotted values. Think of things durations as 'short' and 'long'.

I think in this day and age, you have to go with what you think is most logical and clear (rather than trying to figure out what is 'traditionally correct'). I actually do this a lot in my own music and create rhythmic continuation between different voices by vertical alignment and ties, among other things. I've attached a short score for reference. Hope this helps. https://app.box.com/s/rmntlk3j5luftiloyas8

That's where the conditioning comes in. For example, I don't get the sense that music in 3 would immediately have the same effect on a member of a remote tribe in Papua New Guinea.

That's the thing....it doesn't. It's all about your environment.

Using math to describe human bias :huh:

Hmm, I wasn't able to follow your blank canvass scenario, it seems that it would better exemplify views having to do with a different matter. Relating music to something so functional as language is problematic, I mean, if you have something very specific you know you want to say, why not just say it? Write a book, blog, open-letter, etc. There is a difference between knowing what you want to say and knowing that you have something to say (while what this is exactly remains elusive, even to yourself). Art is the result of the latter.

I'd have to disagree with the idea that 'impressing' listeners (or being a well-known composer) makes what one composer does any more justified than another, nor do I feel a composer has wasted their time by default if neither of these traits is applicable to them.

I guess a proper justification would probably have to do with saving starving kids from hunger, or creating world peace. or something.