Contemporary Composition

As I look at the world of composition now, it seems that things are so diverse and scattered even that it

I expect to hear more elements of improvisation and 'in-the-moment' performances. Composing with more emphasis on colour and texture (not unlike Reich/Glass et al), and less on melodic/harmonic content. Modular compositions, spontaneous compositions, interaction/reaction, leaving things open to interpretation, controlling/shaping improvisation, allowing the performers to be free while maintaining a structured composition.

...

I think that this is a good thing. I would hate to have thousands of composers all composing "romantic" or "21st century" music, as it seems rather limited. With so many tools now, one can express himself successfully and without any problem in fitting in really. Maybe academically I chime about contemporary music, etc, but who cares if you like C maj in the end?

Certain Reich and Glass are not creating any momentum in the music of today, btw. Minimalism is simply not enough and seems a bit... overated (<-totally personal opinion, which I won't back up really. Just how I feel. Don't hate me).

As to what trends I see (and REALLY HATE!): World music. Mixing of genres. GOD! Everyone wants to write for a gamelan, even if there are only 2 in the uk! :( Everyone goes crazy when listening to Cuban,African,Greek,whatever ethnic music. Christ! It's out of context! It's hillariou to see blonde british cold hearted, blooded and mannered people trying to play the gammelan! Honestly hillarious! And unseccussful of course!

Now, what I would like to see at some point? The realisation that recorded music (CD, DVD, mp3, etc) can only take you a little further, so that concerts can return to their former glory as well as developing new tools (interactive software etc) to make the personal listening experience (through an mp3 player for example), completely different for anyone, new, and fit to their personalities.

I mean, don't you get tired of listening to the bloody SAME solo, Robin? I get tired of listening the SAME performance of any work!

As to what trends I see (and REALLY HATE!): World music.

Seconded. Every person I've dealt with personally who writes "world music" does it badly, to disguise a lack of knowledge about "western music". Because when you look at the actual notes/rhythms/etc., the music is simply pedestrian. They think that by throwing in instruments that people aren't used to hearing they've suddenly created a "masterpiece that captures the spirit of whatever country the instrument is from".

To which I say, No, you've created a poor pastiche of musical material with unusual instruments without actually understanding the musical language, culture, or syntax of your chosen instruments.

My opinion. Deal with it.

My opinion. Deal with it.

I would have a strong urge to start swearing here, cause this is what happens in YC, but I'm sure someone else will show up to do this.

But yes, nowadays with all the samples, and the film music influences (where you get the ignorant director saying "I want... this new instrument (<-traditional chinesse instrument from BC) in the score of my new movie (<-sci-fi), because I want the new sound (<-bullshit)", everyone gets to have a few "ethnic" instruments. Funny thing is that they all play the same style, and have the same rifs and styles and ornaments. hehe... Thus far I've stayed away from such things (even if I'm Greek and thus entitled to be ethnic in my own right)

I'll just throw in a countering opinion (with respect to the world music) here to keep the discussion going: I'm not sure that "authenticity" is necessarily the goal.

Yes, a lot of composers these days, especially for film and game scores, are using ethnic instruments completely out of context and in a manner that seems to mock the original usage. But then isn't that the seed of all innovation?

Consider a soundtrack such as Klaus Badelt's work for The Time Machine. It makes rather extensive use of some ethnic instruments within the loose framework of the Media Ventures sound. However, he injects a lot of personality into the composition so that a) it sounds less like a traditional Media Ventures score and more like a completely original work, and b) the ethnic instruments, while not playing in any semblance of an authentic style, give such a gorgeous and lyrical quality to the music that it's hard to criticize it simply on the grounds that it's not the context in which one would usually find the instruments used.

Also listen to the amazing effect John Debney achieved by having an Erhu solo come in out of nowhere in his main theme for the recent game Lair - out of context in an otherwise-traditional orchestra, out-of-place in a fantasy game with no real Asian connotations, and out-of-place according to your argument...and yet it sounds absolutely stunning and gives the piece a flavour that a viola or violin would not be able to replicate.

Being a game music composer myself, I like to use the occasional world instrument to add some flavour to my piece. So what's really wrong with doing this? Why are the ethnic boundaries suddenly more rigid than all the others when it comes to musical innovation? We can experiment with rhythm, chords, modes, scales...but all of a sudden when we want to use a gamelan in a classical piece playing in a classical style we can't do it? There's something of a contradiction involved there, I think...

Either way, I think that the main reason that we continue to see that kind of "fake" usage of world instruments in modern music is that the public has now been conditioned to respond to that kind of stereotypical sound. In essence, most modern score composers end up doing little more than manipulating stereotypes to achieve a given mood through their music. While it can be argued that they're just being lazy, you also have to consider how difficult it can be to try to break through stereotypes for every single thing you write - how much of it is really their choice if they're just responding to industry trends?

I also think there's going to be more freedom for musicians (as it is the general tendency).

I'm really surprised of your opinion, Nikolas (and flint-wwrr)... I thought you were more open minded than that. Even myself, who would NEVER listen to a serial piece for the sake of listening to it, I respect this style and would enjoy it in a horror movie. From my (new) point of view there's no "bad" music, even if it's only a clich

Christian, instead of "Oh, I'm canadian, I shouldn't be interested in other cultures!" what I get from world music would be rephrased, "Oh, I'm canadian, here's a bad, semi-coherent reproduction of another cultures' accepted musical norms, ground up and barfed out by someone who has no clue how to write for the instrument, but it using it as a clich

I'm really surprised of your opinion, Nikolas (and flint-wwrr)... I thought you were more open minded than that. Even myself, who would NEVER listen to a serial piece for the sake of listening to it, I respect this style and would enjoy it in a horror movie. From my (new) point of view there's no "bad" music, even if it's only a clich

Tradition is also linked directly with the society and the culture. If you take these 3 apart you no longer function each element "correctly".

Beautifully phrased.

Well I really don't understand you!

You said: "Everyone is free to enjoy anything they want. I don't care."

and "Call it whatever you want and compose whatever you want!"

So what is music for? "Academic point of view" "cultural or whatever"?

I wouldn't care too much about academic, since they always study what have been done before... In a few years we'll teach how composers mixed up a little bit of this and a little bit of that. This mixing is going really fast with all those communications ways we have, but even in the past, was there ever a true pure musical tradition? I don't really think so! I'm for the share of music styles!

It's not going to be gray, music is not black and white.

It's going to be a rainbow of music colors :)

Even traditional music is deeply influenced (what is American folk music if not an imitation of European music or of African music?). I don't see the point to stop traditional music at where it is now, or at where it was x years ago. Just like classical music, let's continue to enjoy it and let's build some new interesting things on it.

I said that tradition should be alive, and I'm only expressing an opinion that taking the music alone from an area, to another area, seems a bit retarded to me, because you miss the rest of the elements that surround that music.

American folk music, is not really ethnic music, same as british or French music, if you think about it. Sure you can call jazz "ethnic" music but noone does.

I admit that I'm failing to see what is so hard to understand. If you have, for example, a dance song that is played in marriages in some village in an island in Grece and you take that song and you turn it into a hit, or take it and people dance randomnly you are effectively removing the meaning of that song. Sure it's music, sure it can work, sure whatever, but it doesn't serve the same purpose it did in tradition. It is... out of context. Same as taking a gamelan, placing it into a boring room and have students toy with it. I doubt that it's the meaning that was initially for that.

Certainly I can see that things can change and so on, but this bastardazation that is happening, is what bothers me on a personal level. Remember I'm not trying to back up with any real arguments, just trying to explain how I feel and nothing more. I don't think I'm right, or you're right, or flint is right. It's just the way I feel about world/ethnic music.

Another example, in case I can find a way to help you understand:

Imagine a tribal track, with drums and cries from Africans. Whatever weird zooloo(k) language you want. (reminded myself of Jean Michel Jarre, thus the spelling). Now place that picture with a green scenery and a small stream with white dressed ladies are smiling and filling some kind of backet. Wouldn't that feel... hillarious and bizzare at the same time? (and interesting as well). Now if you found out that that tribal tune was used by the Africans to celebrate the death of someone close (for example), wouldn't that feel almost insulting to them? And everyone who knew about it? Completely out of place?

Ok, I understand what you mean...

I don't think "Africans" would be insulted, but rather proud that their music is also touching us. It would be a bizarre scene sure, though :P

"I said that tradition should be alive, and I'm only expressing an opinion that taking the music alone from an area, to another area, seems a bit retarded to me, because you miss the rest of the elements that surround that music."

Aren't we doing this with classical music all the time? It's not everyone that know the historical context of the pieces they play (but I agree that they should!). Even if music can sometimes be associated with some historical or ritualistic context, let's not forget that it's not a language in itself (unless there are lyrics of course!)

I can't help thinking about jazz while reading what you wrote... I think it's really a nice parallel to do. Should white American jazzmen be seen as "bastards" because they began playing blues and jazz? Although we can't say the black people was pleased (they created bebop against that...), I don't think white guys - who knew nothing about being treated as slaves - ruined the music. Swing and Cool jazz were also interesting and wouldn't have been possible without the blues and the African rhythms.

Well I

I’m curious if anyone is noticing an emerging trend or direction that they might feel music will take in the coming years.

I think one trend that will happen is that compositions will become shorter, on the whole, as a result of an entire generation unable to sit quietly without audio/visual/tactile stimuli. If your audience can't mentally sit still for 5 minutes to listen, what's the point of writing something long and involved? Or, as a counterpoint to that, music could become even more commoditized than it is now... and in effect becoming background noise, and therefore, deprecated.

In practice, both of these things are already happening. Depressing, no?

EDIT: To clarify, I don't support tailoring music to fit shorter compositions, nor do I support deprecating music to mere background noise. I brought it up for the sake of argument as Devil's advocate.

Is it even possible to have a 21st century style now with so many different influences and avenues available?

No, not really. Once composers were freed from the yoke of tonality, there was no way to grossly categorize them. That's actually a good thing, in my book.

I more or less agree with you flint for the shortening of pieces (there were short pieces before too...)

But you bring an interesting point: medias converge!

A LOT of people like soundtracks (and this contradicts the shortening things)... Same goes with videoclips. Some might view it as bad, some as good. I have no clear opinion myself... I find this to be a cheap easy way to express what you lack to do with music only (in videoclips) and that music gets too much a secondary role (in the movies). But, just like we enjoy seeing live performances, if it helps "receiving the message" or "getting very wet (read: emotive)", it's not so bad!

Very interesting discussion here and nice comment JStone. I don't know exactly where the violin was first created, but it sure had a very big influence on a lot of people!

flint-wwrr, I think your comment on shorter pieces is very astute. I'm guessing that you also mean that the pacing on pieces in general will become quicker. Even though I write what I'd like to hear, I think my expectations of pacing have changed over the years. While it's not impossible to get into the state of mind to listen to a Mahler symphony, but it's much harder that it was earlier in life. I think many of us have been influenced by the pacing of movies and TV and our expectations have changed.

That is a pity too because there are many ideas that can only be expressed though a slower pace and development over time. I hope I can fight this expectation in myself and allow myself to experience those things.

I would just like to see major symphony orchestras be more open to new works by new composers instead of trying to persuade the gray haired to come out and listen to Beethoven's 5th for the 10th time. But I understand the financial reasons - its just unfortunate. Thank God for GPO and the likes ... ;)

Michael

Throughout time, music has constantly been changing and revolving back to where it came from and changing again. One thing I have noticed is that some of the best composers of all times have found folk tunes and orchestrated them. Saturday night I went and saw Dvoraks 7th symphony. The 3rd and 4th movements are full of folktunes. Look at Aaron Copeland and the work he did. In time the "new" orchestras will be playing the folk music of today. Be that rock and roll/ rap and maybe even the teeny bopper crap that kids listen to today.

Can you imagine an symphony full of Madonna riffs? Or stuff from 50 cent or Ludicris?

If history repeats itself (and it almost always does), that is what we can expect.

The same concert had a new piece by a guy around 26 years old. This was the first minimalistic piece I have seen with a full orchestra. No one seemed to enjoy it much. The full sound that was available was not used and people were bored. The members of the orchestra (the Annapolis Symphony Orchestra) that I talked to were also not satisfied with the minimalism shown.

Ron

I agree with flint-wwrr that pieces are both getting shorter and becoming commodities. I suppose it is part of the general trend to satisfy the lowest common denominator and not offend people with short attention spans. Serious listening when all you are doing is listening seems to be an oddball behaviour these days - not that I ever minded being considered odd :).

rolifer: your comment that the musicians didn't like the minimalist piece is interesting. I recall an old saying about using a sledge hammer to drive a thumbtack - that is, minimalism doesn't seem to need a full orchestra. Well, here I am on thin ice as I am not well versed in minimalist music - maybe some of it is good and does need an orchestra - in any genre there will be poorly written examples.

As for pop or rock becoming the thematic material of symphomies I imagine that can't happen until the copyright expires.

...pop or rock becoming the thematic material of symphomies I imagine that can't happen until the copyright expires.

A trend we're already seeing in jazz:

[off the top of my head]

Amazon.com: New Standard: Music: Herbie Hancock

Amazon.com: The Rolling Stones Project: Music: Tim Ries

Amazon.com: The Odyssey Of Funk & Popular Music: Music: Lester Bowie

[watchin's]

Charlie Hunter Trio - Nirvana's 'Come As You Are'

Mike Brecker et al (serious band here: Herbie, Sco, DeJohnette, Dave Holland :w00t:) - Prince's 'Thieves in the Temple'

...anyway. I probably got a little too in-depth into this. Perhaps should start a new thread. Alls I'm tryin' to say is, it's already begun - some endeavors are more successful than others...

...

As for pop or rock becoming the thematic material of symphomies I imagine that can't happen until the copyright expires.

All you have to wait for is for the performer to be to tired or old to tour anymore.

Or for the money to run out. Then, suddenly they are interested in adapting their music for 'classical' instruments.

Good comments robinjessome and flint-wwrr - but these works are presumably done with an arrangement with the copyright holders whereas I could take an old folk song and use it without worries.

I might agree with the pop music idea.

It makes sense, because it follows part of the social aspects of music. I'm not talking about Christina Aguilera or... I don't even know who's "famous" right now.

I think you might see "pop" artists like Final Fantasy or bands like Grizzly Bear or something like that working more closely with trained musicians -- a marriage of sorts.

Like... unschooling for the educated (As far as learning new ideas -- and not taking things so rigidly) and schooling for those who didn't choose to be schooled (so that they sound PROPER enough, following the very basic rules) and then within that framework things could develop.

We have progressed too quickly, I don't think we're facing anything dramatic for at least a decade.

I talked a lot with musicologists and other composers about the future of music and art, and we came to the conclusion that pretty much we exhausted the possibilities by making total freedom acceptable.

You can pee off the stage and call it a piece of music, and that's perfectly OK.

If you believe in the anti-doctrine of postmodernism which nobody can really define precisely, the future is not going to have any more trends than we have now.

However, as things are right now, there is a huge urge by many composers to either turn back to more european-centric old styled music, neoclassical or somesuch. But at this point, having a whole centuries of other possibilities, it seems that rather the direction that the whole is pointing to is things like Schnittke, where everything is synthesized and used.

No epoch or type of music is saved from postmodernism, recycle and build up from the corpses of old ideas to make new ones. Grab everything that the 20th century has done and start mixing it with baroque "affects", or maybe Jazz or Bossa. The composer is only limited by their imagination.

On the other hand, precisely because of this freedom, composition right now is becoming something extremely complex. Some schools require encyclopedic knowledge of music history, others couldn't care less.

No longer do we have a formula, there is no longer a system, and the systems that were attempted ended up with poor reception. With even Schoenberg himself retreating back to free atonality despite having spent years developing 12 tone technique.

Another view is that the future is the integration of arts one into another, and how that would move everything along into unknown territory. We're seeing some of this with movies and games and the like, however I think the true future is technology and music working to make music that adapts to the individual's taste and experience in a dynamic fashion.

Interactive music, like interactive art, is something relatively new and also relatively difficult to explore as most people's conception of art makes them receivers rather than themselves creators of something.

This was explored somewhat in the 60s and even before, with such things like the Fluxus movement and John cage and the like, happenings which involved the audience.

We can now take this a step further. Both this genre-idea blender of postmodernism, and the interactivity of technology+music may bring us closer, I hope, to figuring out more about what music really is and broadening our views of what humanity has really done with its time when it comes down to it.