Contemporary Composition

The future of music history will take care of itself. The most important thing is that composers take care of themselves and take care of their audience, whether that audience is in the concert hall, listening at home, or listening to the music as an accompaniment to something else.

If the audience is even a part in music at all. This is one of the problems of music, either you write for yourself, or you write for others. I write for myself, for example, and I know people who write for others.

But in the end, I would write music even if I were the last person on the planet and nobody else would hear it. It's an exercise in creativity and an insight into my own soul and everything I feel and know in my opinion, so the audience is just to me a nice bonus.

There is no right answer to this, as it depends on what you want to accomplish.

And I don't know what you mean by taking care of themselves. ... I guess eating healthy and exercising regularly? :D

(if I'm fat and slow I won't be able to run away from the anti-music cops OF THE FUTURE!!!!!!!!!!1) ;P

That's true.

But if we're talking about what musicologists of the future will think of the early 21st century, it isn't going to include music that won't be heard.

OR WILL IT?

Seriously, that's just out-there, man.

I was talking to someone the other day, and we were talking about the future and past and all these other things related to music.

And I told him, it's not in the baroque era people played like perfect machines, and that nobody sat down and just improvised. This is a typical organ practice even to this day, in fact.

However, what happens is that nobody that ended up in history books thought of the errors in playing as anything more than errors, or noise as anything more than noise for that matter.

John Cage already put into action the whole music we can't hear, with that really famous piece with no notes. And also how about a piece that lasts 600 years? It's an event when they change notes as it happens every couple of years or so!

When you start poking at these questions, in the end, we may as well have musicologists that talk about "music that won't be heard" in a lot of senses.

Improvisatory, aleatory and such techniques mean that once the time of the piece has gone by, it's lost forever unless we have a recording. And even so, would we then consider the recording more important than the composer's intentions?

How paradoxical, like having a recording of Imaginary landscapes 4 for the radios, by john cage. The point of the piece is that it's always different, as depending on when and where you perform it what's on the radio is always different!

Such is the interesting effect of technology on music, and would be cool to look more into it.

OR WILL IT?

Seriously, that's just out-there, man.

I was talking to someone the other day, and we were talking about the future and past and all these other things related to music.

And I told him, it's not in the baroque era people played like perfect machines, and that nobody sat down and just improvised. This is a typical organ practice even to this day, in fact.

However, what happens is that nobody that ended up in history books thought of the errors in playing as anything more than errors, or noise as anything more than noise for that matter.

John Cage already put into action the whole music we can't hear, with that really famous piece with no notes. And also how about a piece that lasts 600 years? It's an event when they change notes as it happens every couple of years or so!

When you start poking at these questions, in the end, we may as well have musicologists that talk about "music that won't be heard" in a lot of senses.

Improvisatory, aleatory and such techniques mean that once the time of the piece has gone by, it's lost forever unless we have a recording. And even so, would we then consider the recording more important than the composer's intentions?

How paradoxical, like having a recording of Imaginary landscapes 4 for the radios, by john cage. The point of the piece is that it's always different, as depending on when and where you perform it what's on the radio is always different!

Such is the interesting effect of technology on music, and would be cool to look more into it.

Listen, I love John Cage, but I don't think it's fair to use him has a general example of all styles of current 21st century "art" music, especially considering how many composers of the Neo-Romantic school have emerged in the past 20 or so years.

I wasn't talking about that at all. But even so, I'm more for the people who try to push and question everything culture tries to impose. Even if John Cage or Satie or these people aren't "the future" they certainly are an important part of the past and nobody should forget about it.

And as far as I know, I have no idea what Neo-Romantic school means. Right now it's either post-modern if they're using old things in new ways or recreations of style if they're not adding anything. Of course I'm not a fan of labels but neo-romantic was around the whole Hindemith-Stravinsky phase in the 30s-40s if I'm not mistaken.

Personally, seeing composers dominated by systems and doctrines just makes me want to shake'em up some. ;P

But I suppose it's a hell of a lot easier doing stuff in tired and true formulas, and when you're on a deadline to earn a buck, then this isn't such a bad idea! It's a terrible idea and everyone who thinks otherwise is paying for it.

Can't put a concert with modern music unless you shove a beethoven or mozart thing in between the pieces so people will go. Everyone is so afraid of modern music that the neo-whatever "schools" are just capitalizing on that. "Let's have a little bit of freedom, and it SOUNDS sorta like mozart or beethoven or at least stravinsky! People will surely like it!"

But yeah, that's all just my opinion. :D

Edit: I just remembered something a friend used to say: "Do you know how HARD it is to compete with Beethoven, Mozart or Brahms? I can't kill a dead guy!" ;P

Putting modern music in the context of a well chosen programme that includes classics has always been done. And good modern music will withstand that treatment.

Anyway, what's wrong with catering for what an audience wants or indeed what society needs? In my opinion, that's the most important thing a composer can do. A composer that has a good audience, whether they're writing tonally, serially or whatever, and who creates a work that captures the zeigeist precisley is often more exciting than one who is pushing technical boundaries to their absolute limits.

Putting modern music in the context of a well chosen programme that includes classics has always been done. And good modern music will withstand that treatment.

Anyway, what's wrong with catering for what an audience wants or indeed what society needs? In my opinion, that's the most important thing a composer can do. A composer that has a good audience, whether they're writing tonally, serially or whatever, and who creates a work that captures the zeigeist precisley is often more exciting than one who is pushing technical boundaries to their absolute limits.

I don't know. I find Johann Sebastian Bach more exciting than his sons.

But anyways, it's not about pushing technical boundaries for the sake of pushing them. It's about striving for a greater artistic/esthetic value, for greater "beauty" if you want so. If to accurately put your ideas to music means having to find your own technique, even if not all of the audience understands it, then it comes to a point where you have to decide between sincereness to yourself and pleasing the "public".

I put quotation marks around public, because there's no such thing as "the public". All music I've heard has had -some- public (obviously), and no music I've heard has pleased -everyone-. The question therefore is not whether you write for the public or not, but how big you need your audience to be. If everybody just wrote to get the -maximum- of possible listeners, we'd be stuck with loads of music copying the current hit parade.

As for "capturing the Zeitgeist": I'm not sure that will work when your intention is to "please a large audience by capturing the zeitgeist". Either you capture it naturally, or you don't, but it's pretty hard to force yourself to capture it.

As for programs: Actually, it's not true at all that combining old and new music always has been done to the same degree as today. Before the 20th century you'd hear a lot more contemporary music than in the classical world of today. Most people in the 19th century probably never heard of Bach.

I find nothing wrong per se in combining old classical music and contemporary compositions. If programmed well, it works out marvellously. The only problem I see is when the concert managers try to "sneak some new music" into a program, baiting the audience with classics. This only reinforces the common prejudice that new music is hard to hear, not actually enjoyable, and has to be balanced by "beautiful music". It's just treated as a part of the program that is a necessary evil. I'd love if event managers were a bit more self-confident in presenting contemporary music, treating it as something that can actually be -enjoyed-. Sometimes they simply underestimate their own public by thinking "they won't like it anyways".

I wasn't talking about that at all. But even so, I'm more for the people who try to push and question everything culture tries to impose. Even if John Cage or Satie or these people aren't "the future" they certainly are an important part of the past and nobody should forget about it.

And as far as I know, I have no idea what Neo-Romantic school means. Right now it's either post-modern if they're using old things in new ways or recreations of style if they're not adding anything. Of course I'm not a fan of labels but neo-romantic was around the whole Hindemith-Stravinsky phase in the 30s-40s if I'm not mistaken.

Personally, seeing composers dominated by systems and doctrines just makes me want to shake'em up some. ;P

But I suppose it's a hell of a lot easier doing stuff in tired and true formulas, and when you're on a deadline to earn a buck, then this isn't such a bad idea! It's a terrible idea and everyone who thinks otherwise is paying for it.

Can't put a concert with modern music unless you shove a beethoven or mozart thing in between the pieces so people will go. Everyone is so afraid of modern music that the neo-whatever "schools" are just capitalizing on that. "Let's have a little bit of freedom, and it SOUNDS sorta like mozart or beethoven or at least stravinsky! People will surely like it!"

But yeah, that's all just my opinion. :D

Edit: I just remembered something a friend used to say: "Do you know how HARD it is to compete with Beethoven, Mozart or Brahms? I can't kill a dead guy!" ;P

Jennifer Higdon, John Corigliano, and Steve Reich sound nothing like Beethoven or Mozart.

I don't know. I find Johann Sebastian Bach more exciting than his sons.

But anyways, it's not about pushing technical boundaries for the sake of pushing them. It's about striving for a greater artistic/esthetic value, for greater "beauty" if you want so. If to accurately put your ideas to music means having to find your own technique, even if not all of the audience understands it, then it comes to a point where you have to decide between sincereness to yourself and pleasing the "public".

If only your first two sentences were always true. I'm not a luddite, I have nothing against people pushing boundaries and moving music into new places whatsoever. But this seems to have been an overriding priority for too many composers. Of course there comes a point where you have to decide between sincereness to yourself and pleasing your audience, but I do get the impression at times that the latter isn't even given a moment's thought by some.

I put quotation marks around public, because there's no such thing as "the public". All music I've heard has had -some- public (obviously), and no music I've heard has pleased -everyone-. The question therefore is not whether you write for the public or not, but how big you need your audience to be. If everybody just wrote to get the -maximum- of possible listeners, we'd be stuck with loads of music copying the current hit parade.

Well that's indicative of the current state of classical music in many places unfortunately. A bottom-up approach is needed. Musical education in schools needs complete reform (many British kids can't name more than two composers) so we have a musically literate society. That means getting kids excited about good music at an early age; something which, in my experience, isn't happening in state schools at the moment. This is by far the most important change that is needed in our muscial landscape.

When you have a musically literate society hungry for good music, you're halfway there. But composers will have to meet people in the middle. If, as I'd dearly love, a situation arises where many people are excited by classical music, it'd be a shame if the best composers stay in their ivory towers composing "boundary pushing" music.

As for "capturing the Zeitgeist": I'm not sure that will work when your intention is to "please a large audience by capturing the zeitgeist". Either you capture it naturally, or you don't, but it's pretty hard to force yourself to capture it.

Is that any more unnatural than innovation for innovation's sake? I'd say a lot of what's been going on in music in the last 100 years is about as unnatural as you can get.

Britten's War Requiem wasn't a coincidence, nor was Vaughan Williams' Sixth Symphony or Malcom Arnold's 4th, nor indeed Beethoven's 6th or 9th symphonies. And then you have Verdi! They all intentionally captured something of their times, and and audiences understood this intention and lapped it up.

When was the last time, seriously, that a piece of classical music completely caught the feeling of the times?

I think the difference is composers in the past had a captive audience. They could be heard. It is also of course true that war and popular revolution mean there is a clearer cause for composers to get hold of.

----

Anyway, the crux of my argument: society needs to become more musically literate and if this does happen composers should not all huddle in one corner for fear of writing something popular. The demand needs to increase, that's by far the most important thing. But once it does, the supply needs to be met.

Putting modern music in the context of a well chosen programme that includes classics has always been done. And good modern music will withstand that treatment.

Anyway, what's wrong with catering for what an audience wants or indeed what society needs? In my opinion, that's the most important thing a composer can do. A composer that has a good audience, whether they're writing tonally, serially or whatever, and who creates a work that captures the zeigeist precisley is often more exciting than one who is pushing technical boundaries to their absolute limits.

What the hell is "Good modern music"? Well chosen programme? Who decides this? You? The audience? Trends?

Really now.

Nevermind that, like Gardener pointed out it's not about doing it for the sake of doing it. It's searching for the most accurate ways to put what you have in your head into paper.

Though, I'm against aesthetics or any of that. I really don't care for what people think is pretty or beautiful. I just care about being accurate with the transition between imagination and music in practice.

Everything else is something better left to musicologists to argue over.

About what is unnatural and "Zeitgeist", well. Like I say, it's about your intention. You can try to base your music on a lot of things, and inspiration can come from a whole lot of places. But the last thing I would do is call music natural in the first place.

Music is just a label for something we have no real description of, no parameters for, and no guide to. It's simply sound which is labeled different than other sounds depending on your tastes.

So really, the moment anyone defines anything as music, it's a purely human phenomenon and it's not natural, as in, "From nature." Then let's get complicated with semantics (but what is nature?), again!

Another thing, what is society hungry for "good music"? What is "bad music"?

Labeling art as "good" and "bad" is impossible to work with in the first place. Music, and art as well exist on the principle of being there because someone wanted, REGARDLESS of any qualification from anyone. I don't write something because I think it's "good", I write it because I think I have no choice but to write it.

The public or audience will survive anyways, there's thousands of people writing music just for them for massive consumption!

I'm a lot more for just writing music because A: it's fun and B: there's a need to express things you can't otherwise.

Like John Cage said, "I'm for the birds, not the cages." :D

...I'm against aesthetics or any of that. I really don't care for what people think is pretty or beautiful. I just care about being accurate with the transition between imagination and music in practice.

Are you planning on pursuing a career as a composer/performer? :whistling:

I write music first, and where that takes me is not as interesting. ;D

I'm not sure I completely understand what it is SSC is saying. I think I am getting the drift of most of it.

However, I think (and it's my opinion, not a statement of fact) that composers compose for different reasons.

SSC has said he composes for himself, basically.

I compose to express and communicate.

So two different points of view.

I can't communicate "with myself". I can express myself and communicate what I am feeling or thinking, but that's pretty much it. The way I see it, without an audience, there's not much point in composing. Communication is not a one-way street. Talking to yourself is, generally, not a good sign.

I DO differentiate between writing for an audience and trying to communicate WITH that audience. The former is a form of commercialism, whereby you allow the audience to dictate the message and the medium. The latter is, depending on your skill, a form of honest communication between an artist and his audience.

I happen to not believe in the "artist who creates only for himself". If that truly existed, then no audience would ever hear any of his music, as he would have no urge to put his music out there FOR the audience. There would be no need for any performance.. the artist is his own audience.

Every artist wants to be heard. Regardless of the lies they might tell themselves.

I write music first, and where that takes me is not as interesting. ;D

Riiight... :whistling:

Good luck with that.

Another thing, what is society hungry for "good music"? What is "bad music"?

You can subscribe to relativism all you want but that's not really relevent to my point. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "good" if I knew it'd lead to an argument over semantics.

My point, and this has more to do with the audience than composers so don't feel put out, is that levels of musical literacy are very low. Most of Britain's children cannot name a single classical composer (BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Music | UK children 'can't name a composer') and that's a big problem.

Attempting to get all kids excited about classical music is vital. Many won't care but at least an attempt will have been made to show them what's out there: the national curriculum really up to and including GCSE music doesn't do this anywhere near well enough in my experience and I'm not in the least bit surprised about the results of the survey.

Show kids what's out there. Many will love what they hear (probably more than some would predict). Create an audience from the bottom-up.

That's what I meant by creating a society hungry for good music.

Thanks, but this requires no luck ;P

And, well. Putting music for others to hear is plain fun. I may write for myself first, but I love seeing people's reactions and I like feedback they provide. It's fun, and I learn from it occasionally stuff faster than if I did it by myself.

However, I would never let audience/anyone/anything come before my intuition as a composer. That is, unless that's what my intuition said!

But depending on the audience and other people also never gets you far. Only you know how close what you wrote was to what you had in mind, and only you really know what it should sound like.

I've said it before perhaps, but for me music and art is a form of mirror where I can see my ideas closer to my reality than in my abstract thought or just in my head so to speak. It's also a nice bonus that people may hear it. However I know many who write music and nobody has ever heard any of it.

This is not unlike communication with other people through my art however. If I write something for myself which to me means this or that, and other people happen to hear it, they may or may not get what I meant. If they were to ask, I would tell them what I meant with the piece. But I never expect them to understand, and I only really hope that they had a good time and they enjoyed listening to it.

If they didn't, I'm just happy that it caused some sort of reaction. When it comes to audience and people hearing my stuff, as well as me hearing people's music and looking at art, I have to say that having no reaction is one of the worst things that can happen.

Asking someone what they think and getting a "I don't know/care" as an answer is just not encouraging. I much rather someone say they hate it, or dodging a punch, than watching people walk away indifferent.

But to me that's just not my primary concern, that's all~

Thanks, but this requires no luck ;P

...I'm just happy that it caused some sort of reaction. When it comes to audience and people hearing my stuff, as well as me hearing people's music and looking at art, I have to say that having no reaction is one of the worst things that can happen.

Asking someone what they think and getting a "I don't know/care" as an answer is just not encouraging. I much rather someone say they hate it, or dodging a punch, than watching people walk away indifferent.

A valiant stance, and I applaud that. But....you will require a good deal of luck. Your way of thinking resides only in the halls of academia, and doesn't survive long outside the womb.

My way of thinking is the only I way I can think about it. Hence my way of thinking. It has survived living in a third world country with absolutely no money for culture and where every single resource counted when it came to modern or even classical music.

It just takes some nuts and not giving up in the face of adversity. Always nice if you're willing to work other junk for cash too, when it comes down to it. One of my friends spent three years washing dishes before he got any job in a musical environment.

I'll sell out as long as I don't have to write for movies B-)

Seriously, Hans Zimmer sucks

I'll sell out as long as I don't have to write for movies B-)

Seriously, Hans Zimmer sucks

Well, yes, obviously Zimmer sucks... :P

But writing for movies doesn't necessarily mean that one is selling out.

There are some great filmscores that truly demonstrate a unique musical vision.

When I wrote for film, I never wrote anything that I wouldn't have put in a symphony or a sonata. But I was lucky enough to work with independant film producers, so this was not so much an issue. however, this is the composer's responsibility to select WHICH films he wants to work on, which films will allow him to express himself in an honest and original fashion.

Thats said.. I hate writing for films.

Alright, don't believe a word I say (You justifiably never do) but here's what I have to say.

But, about 10-15 years into the future, I think education is going to become much more systemized and they will take kids with "talent" and give them a very specialized education (in public schools)...one of the areas it will be most apparent is music. Music scouts will be just as prevalent as they are in baseball, scoping out the young talent and all. It's unlikely that anyone who is not identified by the education system as musical has any sort of chance at being a musician, since education otherwise will be rigorous and there will be little chance for them to develop such abilities.

Also, after this gets going you're going to see a distinct attraction to music as sheer beauty, as opposed to experimental stuff. It will sort of go hand in hand with the explosive discoveries in science, and a general appreciation for pattern-like phenomena.

I've been to the future. Most of the popular music there is utterly smooth and richly melodic. It's the most beautiful music I've ever heard! Composers Jacques Bellec and Jacques Thierry are amazing. Norwegian composer Jens Helges gains great feedback in film arts. Probably one of the greatest pianists is a Russian man named Boris Fedorov who only lives to be 55 years old. Well there aren't any more great American composers, besides Karsten Emerson, because "The United States of America" is void. Emerson's fiddle music is spectacularly original (I'll have to post some soon.) And this is all about 112 years from now. Then war finally breaks loose and music dies for centuries.

The funny thing is posting this didn't change the future and it won't...

:)

Long Live Bellec and Feu de For

Who would've thought the future is Lounge music. Oh well!

I agree with robinjessome on what he said in leaving more options to the performer and have some space for interpretation on the part of the performer.

Concerning world music, I think there are ways to combine music of different people in very successful ways. A very good example of this, in my opinion, is Fanshaw's "African Sanctus". Fanshaw didn't just "write for the gamelan", he spent years travelling around Africa, recording, learning and playing African music. And in his pieces he uses those very recordings, so it's not just "someone dancing zeibekiko in a funny way", but it's the real people playing their real music.

Takemitsu included traditional Japanese instruments such as the Biwa and the Shakuhachi in orchestral pieces, and he did that in a very organic, natural and successful way (in my opinion, again).

Messiaen used the music of nature (birdsongs) and Medieval isorhythmic principles, as well as plainchants, in his music, and he also included indian rhythms and rhythmic concepts, again very successfully. Those are diametrically opposite things, because even if medieval music is western music, it was the music played 500 years ago, which is quite a long time.

Stravinsky, Kurtag, Ligeti, Bartok, Skalkottas, Grieg, they all wrote music based on the musical traditions of their own country, again very successfully. So if it's alright to blend Hungarian modes and rhythms with a string quartet, why is it wrong to blend music from other cultures, such as Africa, India, China or South America, with "western" classical music?