How can you possibly be musically original?

It is a tempting idea to think that technique and aestethics are not intertwined, but as both are cultural constructions, and more precisely, microcultural constructions, i'd say that they create one another in interaction with one another, inside a certain audience, and can not be separated. (Techniques are what people write about composers, not what composers spend their lives doing.)

In relation to the rather uninspired comment on serialism above, i happened to remembered, that some living composers have mentioned a need to "analyse their own style to the detail" -- to see whether or not they can formalize their own voice, ie. create algorithms out of their own composing strategies. I think that is an interesting challenge for those interested in the rationale behind composing, and could help in finding an unique voice (regardless of possible success, or lack thereof, in the exercise mentioned above).

(motto for the post: i believe lutoslawski was quoted saying: "there is no such thing as a pre-established musical logic -- it must be crafted from the beginning every time.")

I like that lutoslawski quote. It sort of justifies the hard time composers have these days finding a voice. We have SO MUCH more varied material to wade through, as opposed to Mozart who had Buxtehude, Bach, Pachabel and the gang.

I think I have a problem with the idea that all the "techniques", if you can call them that, are there and there's nothing else new for us to discover. Doesn't anyone here believe that they have something new to offer? I can't believe that I'm the only one.

It is a tempting idea to think that technique and aestethics are not intertwined, but as both are cultural constructions, and more precisely, microcultural constructions, i'd say that they create one another in interaction with one another, inside a certain audience, and can not be separated. (Techniques are what people write about composers, not what composers spend their lives doing.)

In relation to the rather uninspired comment on serialism above, i happened to remembered, that some living composers have mentioned a need to "analyse their own style to the detail" -- to see whether or not they can formalize their own voice, ie. create algorithms out of their own composing strategies. I think that is an interesting challenge for those interested in the rationale behind composing, and could help in finding an unique voice (regardless of possible success, or lack thereof, in the exercise mentioned above).

(motto for the post: i believe lutoslawski was quoted saying: "there is no such thing as a pre-established musical logic -- it must be crafted from the beginning every time.")

I guess that you are reffering to me so.

I don't think that aesthetics and techniques are "the same" are are interleaved in such manner that they cannot be seperated. On the contrary, I think that a great composer should master both aspects. Of course it goes without saying that they are connected, but not completely; that's all I'm saying about this.

About the comment on "unispered" I did mention a further 2 techniques (As examples all 3) which I use all three actually in my works, and I did also mention that it's a huge generalasation that shouldn't be taken for granted or for anything. It was more or less like a "pub talk", where you say some kind of bullshit to pass your point.

As far as analysing your own works, it's most challenging, most fun (for me) and a great aid to understanding what you're doing and thus expand upon yourself.

Tumababa: I do think that there is more than all techniques out there, in fact I do think that I have come up with various ideas which do seem unique (to me). Two problems though:

1. It's impossible to know if they are unique or not.

2. Ideas on technique or not, can still lead to pastiche. So... no good.

All I'm saying is that being unique or new, does not depend (alone) on techniques, but on other things as well, which are semi-independant and so you can have old techniques with old material and still sound unique, with your own voice, and NEW!

Ah. Yes. You are right.

Hm. I suppose it IS impossible to tell if something you are doing is unique as there's no way you can possibly know if someone else on the planet hasn't already "been there dont that".

To be continued.

What the Fux is going on in this fropic?

Realizing that life is an indisputable shoot towards oblivion so while you're in transit you might as well impregnate as many willing participants as you can 'cause it's your last night alive and you might as well enjoy yourself 'cause that's what people do and it brings not only peace of mind but you don't have hairy sharma-ka-zams when things don't go your way. And also, you may find good fortune arises more often.

Rkmajora? Is that you in the nick of Tumababa?

:D:D:D:D

I think composing original music in century old musical language or style can be difficult as a lot has already been done. I mean, not that it's bad that you sound like someone now, no not at all. As a young student, I think it is extremely important that you are deeply influenced by other composers because you'll learn from them and eventually their ideas may contribute to your own ideas down the line. All the greats started off sounding like someone else - Beethoven like Haydn, Scriabin like Chopin, Schoenberg like Brahms. Eventually, as you grow musically, your ideas will, and if you have a lot of talent, your own voice will form and you'll be you. For now you should still be reveling in the works of others like me. The first thing I wrote a couple of years ago was a short rhapsody (at the time I didn't give it a name, I just called op. 1) that sounded like Brahms. At the time I had been listening to a lot of Brahms and had been playing the G minor Rhapsody op. 79 and some late intermezzi. There's no harm in that. It's really a good thing.

Whoa... I don't know what came over me there.

I think there is no reason to assume that the amount of unused possible "techniques" would be significantly smaller than it was a hundred years ago. :) And more importantly, many of the innovations of 1900-century are not being used.

Most music is still "well-tempered", for one thing, which is a dogma i'd like to see questioned more often. There is nothing "natural" in the division of octave in to 12 semitones, and yet anything else seems to get an awkward reception or even gets labeled as deliberate attention seeking.

Musicians and music-lovers seem a rather conservative lot. Most music still is being composed with major and minor triads, which in my opinion is like sticking to prime colors in painting.

Now that i think of it, it'd be real fun to compose a piece that used many different tuning systems (paradigmatically and syntagmatically).

And sorry, if my comment on the serialism-metaphor was a bit harsh. It bore no malice towards anyone. I for one simply think that serialism still has a lot to offer -- for me, at least, and i still like to listen to many "serialists" -- and yet it gets more rubbish thrown at it than your average junkyard. :)

I could argue, maittamaitta, that the reason we have the pitch system we have now is that said system is an approximation of the harmonic series. I could also argue that as the harmonic series is about as old as time itself, it is the most fundamental component of music. I must admit I'm ignorant in the area of world music, but I would be willing to bet that even cultures that have 41 notes per octave still have the harmonic series embedded in there somewhere.

Originally posed by Qccowboy

Honestly?

Who cares.

There.

I agree. If you want to be completely original, don't compose music.

by nikolas

Rkmajora? Is that you in the nick of Tumababa?

Ahahaha, I live again!

Nobody likes you.

I agree. If you want to be completely original, don't compose music.

Actually, that was not the purpose of my post.

Do not compose for originality's sake.

I agree. If you want to be completely original, don't compose music.

too late, John Cage did not write 4min33

Most music still is being composed with major and minor triads, which in my opinion is like sticking to prime colors in painting.

disclaimer: not trying to contradict you here, this is purely my personal viewpoint. And, I'm an amateur, so take everything I say with a grain of salt:

So you think that just by vertically combining harmonic tones, this is how we achieve new color in music? (by inserting microtones, etc.) Personally, I think the analogy is something like painting. We have a set of colors, and we can mix those colors. The more of those colors you mix, the "browner" you get. In music, the "browner" is more dissonant. Therefore, where does actual variety come from? (not to imply that harmony isn't important of course.. my point is going to be that it is not AS important) Rhythm and phrasing. To me, this is how you arrange and mix colors in music. You can make an elaborate painting out of just three colors. And, you can make an elaborate painting out of color combinations, and darker "browner" or blacker colors. It is how it is arranged in a dimension...in painting, space, in music, time, that really produces new colors I believe.

Put it a different way, say we did use some new tuning system and played a mozart piece in it using the new scale system. It would sound weird harmonically, but you'd still hear the same rhythmic and melodic interest present in the mozart piece.

And to put it a final way (from my personal perspective) often I have listened to some piece or other (usually something that uses our same old 12 tone system with major and minor triads throughout the piece) and thought "wow, this part has such a fresh and new atmosphere to it!" Then I picked it out on the piano and found it was exactly the same harmonic progression X that I'd seen many times before. Therefore, what was producing the new atmosphere? The "when." So, in sum, I think that viewing music from a purely harmonic perspective when searching for something original may not be the most productive approach. Instead we should look into rhythm and melody, where the possibilities have been and always will be infinite.

Music appeals to the sense of audition, and painting appeals to the sense of vision (olfaction too, if you went to my high school). Neurologically, audition and vision are completely different. Music and painting aren't really analogous. Unless you have synesthesia.

He was referring to painting as a metaphor for microtonal music :rolleyes:....

In that case. . .

Actually painting as a metaphor for all kinds of tuning systems, where we might say that well tempered system consists of the colors of the rainbow perhaps. Let's see... ROYGBIV whoa, 7 letters just like our scale! ......just kidding

Actually painting as a metaphor for all kinds of tuning systems, where we might say that well tempered system consists of the colors of the rainbow perhaps. Let's see... ROYGBIV whoa, 7 letters just like our scale! ......just kidding

So, this is kind of like a sharp green....or is it a flat blue? :shifty:

This conversation also reminds me of the John Hollenbeck album 'No Images' (complete liner notes here) - the tune BLUEGREENYELLOW features three saxophonists - each assigned to play a colour.

Ellery Eskelin represents the color "green," and also demonstrates the element of chance inherent in writing music for improvisers; according to Hollenbeck, the shade of green he’d had in mind ("kelly green") was not the shade that Eskelin actually played ("kind of olive green")...

Sorry to interrupt. Continue.

Do not compose for originality's sake.

That's basically what I said.

We know. Would you like a prize?

Been following this for a while and...

I always say that if you take a look back in time at the "masters", eventhough there was a more or less general approach regarding techniques, orchestrations and whatnot, each composer had a unique voice. For example, Handel, Bach, Vivaldi, Rameau all a unique fingerprint in composition during the Baroque era. One never really sounded like the other.

As was said before by others, composition should not be done purely for the sake of originality, and much depends on the presentation/approach/arrangement of style and technique. Basically, you given tools and understanding, now what you do with it, how you allow your uniqueness of your personality and point of view come across helps to shape and form original music.

I feel that growing as a composer and finding a "voice" or "identity" is no different than growing as a person. We all have certain tendencies that we own as part of our personality, but then there are the parts of us that come from imidating people in our lives. As we continue to grow we let go of some traits while holding on to others, certain aspects become stronger some weaker. Some behaviors/attitudes grow into something all their own.

I believe this same process happens while acquiring of the tools of composition. That's why you have some individuals that seem like a carbon copy of other people or a pastiche of favorite personalities. I've met people that had no sense of identity as a person. They seem content taking on the personality of the most current Hollywood/Hip-hop personality. And I've met individuals that are the same way in composition. Instead of learning from past composers and others around and acquiring various techniques and tools of composition, they become possesed with the love of a stylistic approach or composer almost becoming a "poor man's mozart/bach" or what have you.

I think part of the whole problem of sounding unique as a composer is that we often feel our music has sound a certain way, or shouldn't sound a certain way.

Maybe other will not agree with me, but either way I think I've said enough :P

Hey, when you go atonal you'll write something that is very different of anything out there.