Contemporary Composition

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

this may seem out of place.. but i thought it might be relevant to the conversation about the audience

interesting excpert from some emails from scicomposers

Forwarded Message:

Subj: Re: [scimembers] Can't teach composition? "Academic" what??

Date: 12/17/2007 7:51:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

From: angelrho@hotmail.com

To: scimembers@societyofcomposers.org

Sent from the Internet (Details)

I've been trying to stay out of this one, but I can't help myself anymore. This has been in my drafts folder for a while, and I think it will echo much of what has already been said. Hopefully it will add a different perspective as well.

> Very well put, Kyle. I apologize for not controlling my anti-academic

> bias.

No problem. To a degree this is understandable. I've noticed that "academics" in universities tend to be biased towards one way of making music or another, especially in the case of serialism. I felt pressured to write serial/atonal music (although this IS the music I enjoy writing the most) and explore a wide variety of timbres and textures (concr

There were some good points in that post, but there are some I couldn't disagree more with.

Composers are generally unsuccessful if they ignore certain guiding principles in composition, e.g. dynamic contrast, timbre/texture, tension/release, phrasing, total duration, motivic/thematic development, and others. I think there may be some reactionary composers who completely disregard aesthetics and deliberately compose weak music, seemingly thrilled at the prospect of abusing audiences. Those composers have given us a bad reputation and make it difficult to write what we feel.

Huh, one is a reactionary composer if one ignores those "guiding principles in composition"? I rather think this is quite a reactionary stance. Saying that the elements he mentioned are indispensable for a good composition doesn't only ignore a lot of great compositions of the 20th/21st century but also most early music where you'll find neither dynamic contrast nor motivic development, nor, in may cases timbral variation. Composers such as Webern and Feldman went beyond "balanced" durations (in opposite directions) which was an important part of making their music the great music it is, and before them many classical composers (such as Beethoven) had extended what was commonly regarded as balanced proportions. Listing any number of "basic principles of music" that -must- be obeyed to make a music good always makes me cringe. "Organising sound" is perhaps the only "basic principle" I can accept for music (which does even apply to Cage, yes, even to 4'33''. But I suppose Cage would even reject this definition).

But I don't know any well-known artists who weren't taught by a master artist.

That's just ridiculous. I'm not saying a good teacher can be very important, but saying that without one success is absolutely impossible is clearly wrong. Even more so is saying that teachers of great artists must have been "master artists" themselves. A good artist doesn't equal a good teacher.

If I were teaching composition, I'd start with the fundamentals of music notation. Then I'd teach ways of making meaningful musical phrases based on pentatonic, major and minor scales (easy). Then I'd introduce motivic development (not so easy). Beyond that I'd go into chordal harmonies accompanying melodic lines. A good composition project here would be to write a commercial-style song. Then we'd get into some elementary counterpoint procedures and classical forms. I'd move quickly to atonality/serialism, other avant-garde/extended techniques, and contemporary techniques (strong emphasis as contemporary music is much more diverse than it used to be).

I really dislike this approach. This is all good in a course about learning music history or analysis, which should definitely be part of a complete musical education. But it's not what I think teaching composition should be about. Compositional technique today, does not mean counterpoint, traditional harmony, scales, classical forms etc. This is musical knowledge, but not compositional technique. Compositional technique today is largely individual. It means being able to translate your ideas into music, and is therefore dependant on these ideas. If these ideas have nothing to do with motivic development, why should the teacher focus on teaching how to develop motives, rather than trying to find out what their student is actually interested in and developing -that-?

The most important job of a composition teacher is trying to understand the student, and helping to expose and bring forward the student's own musical thoughts, not teaching a standard set of accepted musical guidelines. If teachers only does the latter, I tend to think of them as just lazy.

great point Gardener! Remember I didn't write the above post, just thought i'd put that in their cuz it seemed interesting, but I completely agree with you on pretty much everything you just said!

Membership in SCI is pointless

im in it because im going to try one of their compeitions :toothygrin:...they require ur membership.. yeah i know its dumb but thats why..

If you can stand the text, which is very thick, here's another article I found interesting about the disconnect between the realization of music in sound, and the notation/abstraction of it.

Symbolic Extension and It's Corruption of Music

great point Gardener! Remember I didn't write the above post, just thought i'd put that in their cuz it seemed interesting, but I completely agree with you on pretty much everything you just said!

No worries, I was aware of that :)

Wow, if that is true, you obviously have some sort of intrapersonal ability that is developed far beyond anyone I can think of! What do you mean by the US being "void"? Also, are you from a family of psychics or something? We have alot to talk about :D

I'm just as surprized as you are. :D

I'm a member of SCI as well. It's nice for the resume, but the organization is really pretty much pointless. I LOVE the SCION though, that's pretty much it. Composers serving other composers? What good can come of that?

I totally and completely agree with what gardener says there, with the methods and stuff. Just thought I'd say it.

Speaking on poorly constructed world music or "mixing ethnic music" i kind of feel the same way about Mozart's music with his Turkish influences. Its seems so far from the real deal but to him and the people of his time the "Turkish sound" seemed as authentic to them as the original.

Because I tend to compose from a Caribbean perspective I'm sure there are those who feel that I'm taking an ethnic approah purely for its own sake or as an easy excuse to trying to be "different".

It does bother me to hear specific kinds of instruments used terribly out of context...like Steel Drums! lol

My goodness! People think if you've added some steel drums in a bit of jazzy arrangement you have Caribbean/latin flavored music.

Also, I am quite disguested how musicians who get gigs to write ethnic specific music don't do their homework. For example I heard someone using Mexican music used to represent Brazil or making piece called Samba that sounds like bad Salsa or even the ever popular Reggae with Steel drums labeld as Calypso and finally using caribbean and latin caribbean music and instruments to represent the music of Spain.

I'm all for admiring and drqwing inspiration from the music of other cultures but please have some respect for the historicity/sanctity of the music and instruments when making the representations. lol

And to be honest the first time I've heard the terms "ethnic music" or "world music"/"world percussion" I thought " that sounds kind of silly".

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?

I can't read past here because I have to get some sleep before kickboxing tomorrow morning, but as both a percussionist and a composer I strongly disagree with this. As a percussionist, I have participated in several African drum ensembles, and will participate in many more in the future. While I have lived in central part of the US most of my life, I still can garner a lot from these ensembles.

Likewise, as a composer, I often employ the steel drum in my music. If one knows the history of the steel drum, one knows that they originally started out (essentially) as ways for rival gangs to compete with each other. Even today, the steel drum is used in large festivals in Trinidad, and is, I believe, a fairly large part of the culture there. That does not in any way exclude me from either playing it or writing for it. I enjoy the timbre of the steel drum, and it's my favorite instrument to play. Your opinion makes it seem like I would be some tool who just wants to look like he knows what he's doing. Having read some other posts of yours on here, I'm more inclined to believe that perhaps what you are saying is that you find the composers, who are pretentious enough to believe that bring an instrument from another culture makes them somehow different and their music better, are the ridiculous ones, but not to be confused with those of us who are generally interested in the instruments and are not trying to use them to cheaply imitate other cultures.

EDIT: And THEN I read the post above mine...hahaha

Majesty, I totally agree with what you are saying. While sometimes there can be some ambiguity (especially with the clave, that seems more like a personal preference sometimes, at least in my experience) often people can't tell the difference between ANYTHING, which is fine if you're an audience member, but not if you're a composer. I think that hearing Steel Drums helps give the impression of the Caribbean, but that's like saying hearing Brass gives an impression of a military, when in fact Brass can do almost anything.

But I don't know any well-known artists who weren't taught by a master artist.

The most important living composer (non considering Kurtag and Penderecki of course), Salvatore Sciarrino, is a selftaught composer, another great 21th century composer, Giacinto Scelsi, was a selftaught composers. Both are well, well, well known all around the world.

To say something on "fake" usage of music: contemporary instrumental and composing tecniques in Film-music are a clear example of that. Just because they sound so "strange" (for a musical-untrained, let's say "musical-uneducated" ear) they are used in thrillers and horror movies forgetting the structural, aestethic and so on thought taking only the surface: "that strange sound you can do whistling in the flute without making a sound", for example. I think this is more serious than using a gamelan orchestra just because it's exotic...In this way the gap between contemporary music and audience (started after the II WW) will never be filled: it will always be connected with something bad, thrilling, horrorific. And it's really not the case.

Coming back yo the main argument, I will give you some names besides Sciarrino and Scelsi (listen to his quartets LIVE! They are astounding beautiful...):

I. Xenakis

G. Ligeti (of course)

G. Kurtag

F. Donatoni

S. Gubaidulina

K. Penderecki

W. Rihm

L. Berio

to say just the ones I love...

EDIT: And THEN I read the post above mine...hahaha

Majesty, I totally agree with what you are saying. While sometimes there can be some ambiguity (especially with the clave, that seems more like a personal preference sometimes, at least in my experience) often people can't tell the difference between ANYTHING, which is fine if you're an audience member, but not if you're a composer. I think that hearing Steel Drums helps give the impression of the Caribbean, but that's like saying hearing Brass gives an impression of a military, when in fact Brass can do almost anything.

Hem... Jamie,

did you notice that Jamie is mainly agreeing with me that the idea of "world music" is rather... silly?

As for what you dissagree completely with, I really really can't tell, since it's a personal opinion, but it seems that you should've quoted another post of mine in here.

Let's repeat after 5-6 months:

World music is a big trend.

World music, ethnic music is fashion right now.

A lot of film music and computer game music, and all kinds of ignorant people are filled with various sounds from around the world. Various ideas and various plagiarisms.

All is ok, I repeat that. Go ahead do whatever you want. But I DO have to feel weird when an American, living in South Africa, asks me for a chinesse instrument in her game!

Everyone is into having "a little bit" of world/ethnic in their music, only this can't be done! (sure it can, just take a sampler and do it, nor it is wrong, but I hope you realise what I mean). It's not that easy exactly and it could be insulting slightly, as it feels like this:

It does bother me to hear specific kinds of instruments used terribly out of context...like Steel Drums! lol

It exactly sounds HORRIBLE from the aesthetic point of view, as well as the shallow point of view and the disturbing point of view to those who know!

To say something on "fake" usage of music: contemporary instrumental and composing tecniques in Film-music are a clear example of that. Just because they sound so "strange" (for a musical-untrained, let's say "musical-uneducated" ear) they are used in thrillers and horror movies forgetting the structural, aestethic and so on thought taking only the surface: "that strange sound you can do whistling in the flute without making a sound", for example. I think this is more serious than using a gamelan orchestra just because it's exotic...In this way the gap between contemporary music and audience (started after the II WW) will never be filled: it will always be connected with something bad, thrilling, horrorific. And it's really not the case.

I do agree, I think, but it mainly depends on why you're using something. Any artist is entitled to use whatever they want! Sure to those who "know", or are educated will sound out of context, strange or even insultingly funny. The gap between contemporary music and audience will never be filled, indeed (sadly). And it's the fault of the scene, the people involved, etc.

anyways, about the ethnic thing. As a greek I do have rather "ethnic flavoured" roots and have to say that I always find it rather funny to see other nations trying to act more... ethnic. I mean take it, make it yours and YAY! (For example Madness taking ska, but making it brittish! I'm all for that), but don't give me blond slim brittish playing caribbean ska, or regea and speaking like they're Jamaican or something. It just won't work (again, sure go ahead do it, I just won't like it, at least chance are I won't like it).

There are many sample libraries doing exactly that (putting ethnic flavours in your plate) and while the producers have the extra care to be nice and DO KNOW what they're doing, the end user most of the times uses this library, these sounds, these ideas, etc in a less than satisfactory way.

_______________

YC THE BOARD THAT WILL NEVER STOP BUMPING THREADS TO THE DEATH! :D

I agree. It's full of experiments out there using sounds from all over the world. Well, OK, I can accept certain things - it's a new way to use instruments and I encourage experiments, but out of context, as you say, to a person who knows his folk music, they may sound pretty weird and funny. It's like to go in the park, cut off a small tree and put it in the chimney of your house. Now, for those who know that houses usually don't have trees in the chimney, the idea would seem stupid and maybe some of them would laugh their asses out.

I am from Bulgaria and most of you probably know about our folk music. It is fashionable for many guys here to put folk "spice" in pop, rock and even metal music; they use pipes, kaval... Sometimes (when it is not used to just sound fashionable, but is well thought-out and put with clear intentions) it is acceptable, but more often than not, it sounds unfitting.

This topic reminds me of the so-called pop-folk music here which is so popular to the public and at the same time so idiotic that if for some reason I must listen to it more than 20 - 30 minutes, it leads me to bad psychological distortions. It's cheap crap made by unknowledgable or half-knowledgable people.

Hem... Jamie,

did you notice that Jamie is mainly agreeing with me that the idea of "world music" is rather... silly?

As for what you dissagree completely with, I really really can't tell, since it's a personal opinion, but it seems that you should've quoted another post of mine in here.

Let's repeat after 5-6 months:

World music is a big trend.

World music, ethnic music is fashion right now.

A lot of film music and computer game music, and all kinds of ignorant people are filled with various sounds from around the world. Various ideas and various plagiarisms.

All is ok, I repeat that. Go ahead do whatever you want. But I DO have to feel weird when an American, living in South Africa, asks me for a chinesse instrument in her game!

Everyone is into having "a little bit" of world/ethnic in their music, only this can't be done! (sure it can, just take a sampler and do it, nor it is wrong, but I hope you realise what I mean). It's not that easy exactly and it could be insulting slightly, as it feels like this:

It exactly sounds HORRIBLE from the aesthetic point of view, as well as the shallow point of view and the disturbing point of view to those who know!

I do agree, I think, but it mainly depends on why you're using something. Any artist is entitled to use whatever they want! Sure to those who "know", or are educated will sound out of context, strange or even insultingly funny. The gap between contemporary music and audience will never be filled, indeed (sadly). And it's the fault of the scene, the people involved, etc.

anyways, about the ethnic thing. As a greek I do have rather "ethnic flavoured" roots and have to say that I always find it rather funny to see other nations trying to act more... ethnic. I mean take it, make it yours and YAY! (For example Madness taking ska, but making it brittish! I'm all for that), but don't give me blond slim brittish playing caribbean ska, or regea and speaking like they're Jamaican or something. It just won't work (again, sure go ahead do it, I just won't like it, at least chance are I won't like it).

There are many sample libraries doing exactly that (putting ethnic flavours in your plate) and while the producers have the extra care to be nice and DO KNOW what they're doing, the end user most of the times uses this library, these sounds, these ideas, etc in a less than satisfactory way.

_______________

YC THE BOARD THAT WILL NEVER STOP BUMPING THREADS TO THE DEATH! :D

As I said, I didn't read past the post I quoted, so you may have clarified your viewpoint later and I just didn't catch it. I think perhaps we believe the same thing but our way of expressing it might be different. I agree that it is cheap when people get "world music" instruments and try to pass it off as authentic. However, I don't see anything wrong with people who study another culture and attempt to replicate that music style. Yeah, it wont sound right, but it is ultimately furthering one's musical paradigm. Regarding film music, a lot of film music is cheap anyway, so using world instruments doesn't make it any more so in my opinion. That is, if you are scoring a Hollywood movie about Africa, you're going to have djembe, even if you don't understand how it works or from where it came. You have to bring it in to the American movie-goer's mind as sounding "African", so you're going to use African timbres.

I think perhaps I am biased towards world music, because as a percussionist, I work with a lot of world instruments and I've learned so much from it already.

I can't read past here because I have to get some sleep before kickboxing tomorrow morning, but as both a percussionist and a composer I strongly disagree with this. As a percussionist, I have participated in several African drum ensembles, and will participate in many more in the future. While I have lived in central part of the US most of my life, I still can garner a lot from these ensembles.

Likewise, as a composer, I often employ the steel drum in my music. If one knows the history of the steel drum, one knows that they originally started out (essentially) as ways for rival gangs to compete with each other. Even today, the steel drum is used in large festivals in Trinidad, and is, I believe, a fairly large part of the culture there. That does not in any way exclude me from either playing it or writing for it. I enjoy the timbre of the steel drum, and it's my favorite instrument to play. Your opinion makes it seem like I would be some tool who just wants to look like he knows what he's doing. Having read some other posts of yours on here, I'm more inclined to believe that perhaps what you are saying is that you find the composers, who are pretentious enough to believe that bring an instrument from another culture makes them somehow different and their music better, are the ridiculous ones, but not to be confused with those of us who are generally interested in the instruments and are not trying to use them to cheaply imitate other cultures.

EDIT: And THEN I read the post above mine...hahaha

Majesty, I totally agree with what you are saying. While sometimes there can be some ambiguity (especially with the clave, that seems more like a personal preference sometimes, at least in my experience) often people can't tell the difference between ANYTHING, which is fine if you're an audience member, but not if you're a composer. I think that hearing Steel Drums helps give the impression of the Caribbean, but that's like saying hearing Brass gives an impression of a military, when in fact Brass can do almost anything.

Hem... Jamie,

Hopefully, you don't take this the wrong way...

Just want to clear something up for you. I am a Trini (What Trinidadians are called and the originators of Carnival by the way, :P) and the history of the steel drum is not quiet as you say. The Birth of the Steel Drum comes from after Trinidad was passed from French to Spanish and then Finally British hands. The Brits in the early 20th century tried to supress carnival and the drumming and the merry making of the culture. They banned drumming and so with the opression came a need of expression. At the time Trinidad was a place to throw discarded oil drums during the World War. Eventually the drummers figured out that one could hammer tones into the drum for pitches and eventually a more refined technique for making steel drums came about. The rivals and contests you speak about came after and were a result of something different. Today the contests are professional but are meant to reflect how pain and opression gave birth the a marvelous musical instrument.

I'm not against learning or borrowing from other cultures but it should be done properly and in context. And yes, steel drum does give the impression of the Caribbean but its often done so poorly. Often you hear things like African music with steel drum music being passed of as Caribbean and sometimes African. Although all Caribbean music have roots in Afirca and the timbre of the instrument gives the impression of the Caribbean but the overall context is so very wrong.

Another exmaple that almost killed me was when I saw a rap/hip-hop video with girls wearing carnival type head pieces and bikinis. The song had nothing had to do with carnival, dancing or the Caribbean. I was so disgusted. I said to myself "what does this have to to with what he's singing?"

did you notice that Jamie is mainly agreeing with me that the idea of "world music" is rather... silly?

I was also taking about when I first came across the term "world music". I thought what a silly label. You throw a mix of things together and create a pastiche of various cultures and give it a label? :angry: :P

As for what you dissagree completely with, I really really can't tell, since it's a personal opinion, but it seems that you should've quoted another post of mine in here.

Let's repeat after 5-6 months:

World music is a big trend.

World music, ethnic music is fashion right now.

A lot of film music and computer game music, and all kinds of ignorant people are filled with various sounds from around the world. Various ideas and various plagiarisms.

All is ok, I repeat that. Go ahead do whatever you want. But I DO have to feel weird when an American, living in South Africa, asks me for a chinesse instrument in her game!

Everyone is into having "a little bit" of world/ethnic in their music, only this can't be done! (sure it can, just take a sampler and do it, nor it is wrong, but I hope you realise what I mean). It's not that easy exactly and it could be insulting slightly, as it feels like this:

It exactly sounds HORRIBLE from the aesthetic point of view, as well as the shallow point of view and the disturbing point of view to those who know!

I do agree, I think, but it mainly depends on why you're using something. Any artist is entitled to use whatever they want! Sure to those who "know", or are educated will sound out of context, strange or even insultingly funny. The gap between contemporary music and audience will never be filled, indeed (sadly). And it's the fault of the scene, the people involved, etc.

anyways, about the ethnic thing. As a greek I do have rather "ethnic flavoured" roots and have to say that I always find it rather funny to see other nations trying to act more... ethnic. I mean take it, make it yours and YAY! (For example Madness taking ska, but making it brittish! I'm all for that), but don't give me blond slim brittish playing caribbean ska, or regea and speaking like they're Jamaican or something. It just won't work (again, sure go ahead do it, I just won't like it, at least chance are I won't like it).

There are many sample libraries doing exactly that (putting ethnic flavours in your plate) and while the producers have the extra care to be nice and DO KNOW what they're doing, the end user most of the times uses this library, these sounds, these ideas, etc in a less than satisfactory way.

So very true.

As I said, I didn't read past the post I quoted, so you may have clarified your viewpoint later and I just didn't catch it. I think perhaps we believe the same thing but our way of expressing it might be different. I agree that it is cheap when people get "world music" instruments and try to pass it off as authentic. However, I don't see anything wrong with people who study another culture and attempt to replicate that music style. Yeah, it wont sound right, but it is ultimately furthering one's musical paradigm. Regarding film music, a lot of film music is cheap anyway, so using world instruments doesn't make it any more so in my opinion. That is, if you are scoring a Hollywood movie about Africa, you're going to have djembe, even if you don't understand how it works or from where it came. You have to bring it in to the American movie-goer's mind as sounding "African", so you're going to use African timbres.

I understand what you are saying but then again but having the Djembe alone does not make African music. It just gives a shallow stylistic reference. I saw a vid on youtube of some guys who fnacy themeselves as expert Djembe players (their techniques were ok and nothing to talk about). They then decided to talk about creating African polyrythms on the drums. But the demonstration they gave was all about just having two separate rythms making sure that there is space between the beats every so often so thay you can hear the two rhythms. Not only were the rhythms anything but African. They demonstrated their lack of knowledge on the subject. I know they were trying to be helpful but now you will have others learning from the vid and carrying on with the misinformed information.

I think perhaps I am biased towards world music, because as a percussionist, I work with a lot of world instruments and I've learned so much from it already.

I think its great that you are leraning and being inspired from the percussion of other cultures and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not trying to knock you or anyone for that. I just think if you had something that belonged to your culture and its was often misused you might feel just as hurt or insulted. Yes, you would appreciate that others are taking an interest but if the cultural dignity is stripped then there is no power.

Its like watching a documentary on New Zealand and seeing the natives of the island and all of a sudden you hear the Djembe,Timbales and Didgeridoo!

I just think if you had something that belonged to your culture and its was often misused you might feel just as hurt or insulted. Yes, you would appreciate that others are taking an interest but if the cultural dignity is stripped then there is no power.

Commence ranting!

About all this "world music" etc etc? Culture is relative, but people like to pretend it isn't. End of story~

It's impossible to write Samba like a guy in a favela in Brazil. Blah Blah Blah, let's not try it. Culture context and blah blah blah?

I draw no distinction between Bach or Mozart (or Bartok), or that guy in Brazil. Culture is also a time dependent thing, just because you think you hear western historical music doesn't mean you can just up and recreate it for the same reason you can't just up and write Samba or Tango like people who "belong" to that culture. Also, of course, the impossibility to actually know how western historical music even SOUNDS with proper accuracy starts becoming a problem, like all historical music.

So it is entirely funny that there's this "OH THEY WRITE MUSIC WITHOUT RESEARCH!!!!!!!", when honestly? All this retarded nonsense about "western common practice harmony" (a term which I am most unfriendly towards) and other such idiocies is exactly the same and perhaps even worse. Making up junk isn't research.

Let's try to reduce the entire Zeitgeist of centuries into tiny little vague patterns we can sell in books! Yay! It SOUNDS like old music, so therefore it MUST be! So next time you hear a "terrible" Samba or Tango or whatever other "region specific/culture specific music", remember that harmony exercises, all this so called "common practice" (ugh) and all bunching together of centuries of music and composers into idiotic formulas is probably a travesty just as huge as the worst "world music" and just as insulting really.

But I guess then it isn't "wrong" or insulting, for some unknown reason. Honestly a crap-samba written by someone outside of that culture is a breath of fresh air compared to all the thousands of "practice fugues" or sonatas or whatever the hell I've had to put up with. No distinction really, in my eyes.

Sure, practice is nice and good, and all, but I think one must draw a huge distinction between style practice (be it SAMBA or Palestrina vocal counterpoint!) and someone who just set out to write music. If the person composing doesn't do it themselves, someone has to do it for them.

You're not going to be very popular if you tell people their exercise there isn't really a proper piece of music. However, a lot of people need to get the hell away from such theoretical nonsense, and stop hiding behind cute little systems made for them so everything can be easy and painless (and they can be well-liked and popular!)

And this of course includes any sort of "world music" or cultural specific music, etc etc. Again, I draw no distinction between Tango and Palestrina on this level.

There is of course such a thing as creative merit when someone sets out to write music and picks this or that stylistic parameter, such as "I'm going to write a fugue!", and write something which isn't just an exercise. How do you tell the difference? You got to have an EYE for it, hah! No, there's no method, no formula and no surefire way to know or judge something like this.

But there is a definite point at which style parameters and aesthetic values stop ruling the composer and the composer begins ruling them instead. Sure, that Bossa there isn't going to be "LIKE THE BEST OF THEM!" but it may have plenty of merit on its own as a piece of music, likewise that Fugue or whatever.

And it has nothing to do with "research" or any of that junk. It's just a matter of applied creativity in the end.

In reality, and when it comes down to it, a REAL COMPOSER should as well write them world musics like the best of them (but isn't that IMPOSSIBLE?!?!?!), no matter where in the world the music is from (europe is also in the world, last I checked.) But not because it's just what "comes out" but because it's what tickles them fancy, creatively, for whichever reason.

And about CULTURAL DIGNITY? When I start hearing stuff like that I get all sorts of propaganda-vibes. Maybe it's just me, but for all I care let's trample through every single world culture and turn it inside out until it's nothing but a travesty of itself! Why? Because it's FUN and it's a great way to learn by dissection and deconstruction. If X culture is so hermetic that it's impossible to borrow and take stuff from it even if you haves no idea, then that X culture is pointless to me.

I may be the worst person in the world, but for example, if I'm seeing some show on TV or internets about this or that culture, and I'm like "Hey I don't know what any of that symbolism or crap means, I like the patterns on their clothing." and that inspires me to do this or that artistic thing, then that's fantastic. No, I don't really care if someone may be offended I just used their sacred ancient symbol for (!!!) or (???), I just care that something inspired me and I did something about it.

Yeah I'm sort of no-prisoners/no-mercy like that when it comes to ART. Ooh.

RANT RANT RANT RANT. Ok I'm done.

Reply to ranting!

SSC. I don't know where you're from but you probably just don't get it.

Use whatever you want. Get whataver artistic license you want. The fact for me remains that (from what I've seen) Brittish blokes trying to play gamelan, etc, is rather funny, cause it simply does not work. Not visually, not culture wise, nor anything. An experience? Sure thing. Wrong? Certainly not, by all means! Funny? Well... YES!

When people perform western music, they do so with rather serious gusto. When someone does it otherwise, the results are rather funny, and are used as such as a matter of fact! Nobody says that in a concerto the pianist, or the solist should be serious as hell, and the conductor should have a straight face, etc, but the problem is that it's difficult to perform this music otherwise. How can you play Rach no.3 while laughing and drinking a beer? The oposite applies as well. How can you dance zeibekiko (Greek trad. dance) without being drunk, or heartbroken, or have it in your blood (because zeibekiko is in 9/8!). Simmilarly with any Jamaican music, or other "world music" music. Taking it out of context results in rather funny performances.

Have there been successful crossovers? WOW yes! 1000s! Is world music interesting? HELL YES! Is it a tiresome trend at the same time? Sadly yes.

Commence ranting!

About all this "world music" etc etc? Culture is relative, but people like to pretend it isn't. End of story~

It's impossible to write Samba like a guy in a favela in Brazil. Blah Blah Blah, let's not try it. Culture context and blah blah blah?

I draw no distinction between Bach or Mozart (or Bartok), or that guy in Brazil. Culture is also a time dependent thing, just because you think you hear western historical music doesn't mean you can just up and recreate it for the same reason you can't just up and write Samba or Tango like people who "belong" to that culture. Also, of course, the impossibility to actually know how western historical music even SOUNDS with proper accuracy starts becoming a problem, like all historical music.

So it is entirely funny that there's this "OH THEY WRITE MUSIC WITHOUT RESEARCH!!!!!!!", when honestly? All this retarded nonsense about "western common practice harmony" (a term which I am most unfriendly towards) and other such idiocies is exactly the same and perhaps even worse. Making up junk isn't research.

Let's try to reduce the entire Zeitgeist of centuries into tiny little vague patterns we can sell in books! Yay! It SOUNDS like old music, so therefore it MUST be! So next time you hear a "terrible" Samba or Tango or whatever other "region specific/culture specific music", remember that harmony exercises, all this so called "common practice" (ugh) and all bunching together of centuries of music and composers into idiotic formulas is probably a travesty just as huge as the worst "world music" and just as insulting really.

But I guess then it isn't "wrong" or insulting, for some unknown reason. Honestly a crap-samba written by someone outside of that culture is a breath of fresh air compared to all the thousands of "practice fugues" or sonatas or whatever the hell I've had to put up with. No distinction really, in my eyes.

Sure, practice is nice and good, and all, but I think one must draw a huge distinction between style practice (be it SAMBA or Palestrina vocal counterpoint!) and someone who just set out to write music. If the person composing doesn't do it themselves, someone has to do it for them.

You're not going to be very popular if you tell people their exercise there isn't really a proper piece of music. However, a lot of people need to get the hell away from such theoretical nonsense, and stop hiding behind cute little systems made for them so everything can be easy and painless (and they can be well-liked and popular!)

And this of course includes any sort of "world music" or cultural specific music, etc etc. Again, I draw no distinction between Tango and Palestrina on this level.

There is of course such a thing as creative merit when someone sets out to write music and picks this or that stylistic parameter, such as "I'm going to write a fugue!", and write something which isn't just an exercise. How do you tell the difference? You got to have an EYE for it, hah! No, there's no method, no formula and no surefire way to know or judge something like this.

But there is a definite point at which style parameters and aesthetic values stop ruling the composer and the composer begins ruling them instead. Sure, that Bossa there isn't going to be "LIKE THE BEST OF THEM!" but it may have plenty of merit on its own as a piece of music, likewise that Fugue or whatever.

And it has nothing to do with "research" or any of that junk. It's just a matter of applied creativity in the end.

In reality, and when it comes down to it, a REAL COMPOSER should as well write them world musics like the best of them (but isn't that IMPOSSIBLE?!?!?!), no matter where in the world the music is from (europe is also in the world, last I checked.) But not because it's just what "comes out" but because it's what tickles them fancy, creatively, for whichever reason.

And about CULTURAL DIGNITY? When I start hearing stuff like that I get all sorts of propaganda-vibes. Maybe it's just me, but for all I care let's trample through every single world culture and turn it inside out until it's nothing but a travesty of itself! Why? Because it's FUN and it's a great way to learn by dissection and deconstruction. If X culture is so hermetic that it's impossible to borrow and take stuff from it even if you haves no idea, then that X culture is pointless to me.

I may be the worst person in the world, but for example, if I'm seeing some show on TV or internets about this or that culture, and I'm like "Hey I don't know what any of that symbolism or crap means, I like the patterns on their clothing." and that inspires me to do this or that artistic thing, then that's fantastic. No, I don't really care if someone may be offended I just used their sacred ancient symbol for (!!!) or (???), I just care that something inspired me and I did something about it.

Yeah I'm sort of no-prisoners/no-mercy like that when it comes to ART. Ooh.

RANT RANT RANT RANT. Ok I'm done.

Sorry to burst your bubble but its not about just drawing disctinctions between styles like Sambe, Tango and Palestringa counterpoint. As Nikolas mentioned its about the proper context.

I'll give you a classical example. A while back a member here wrote a "Scherzo" but it was in a quaduple meter. Sure you can call it a "Scherzo" if you want but a the context of a Scherzo traditionally is in a triple meter usually 3/4. The Scherzo came out of something cultural and those cultural specifics are what make it a scherzo. So, no matter if I a Caribbean or Nikolas who is Greek or anyother who writes a Scherzo it should be done properly in context. The same should be done with other cultural musics. That is what we are talking about.

And since you think a crap samba is a breath of fresh air why don't you take yourself to Brazil and produce a carp Samba see what happens to you and your crap Samba.

And as far as your argument on common practice theory. It is a "common practice" of musical ideals that make cultural music what it is. In case you didn't know, music theory/common pracitce books have been around since Rameau's time to help further develop the cultrue of European classical music. Its not about selling books to make money. Bach's Well tempered Clavier is a theory and common practice book as well.

And the same goes for other culture specific music. It is a "common practice" and understanding that makes the music what it is. Sure, if I write traditional Greek music in its proper context it will be missing the intimate relationship that only comes with being Greek, but that doesn't mean I should ignore the common practices and context of how the music should be written. If I adhere to the context then it will be acceptable.

And your whole attitude of trampling through a culture's music untnil there is nothing left is all about you being ignorant. No one said not to borrow from the culture but do it properly in context and with respect.

If you understand and respect cultural diversity then you won't have this lame attitude about trampling what is sacred to others.

No one is counting out European classical music. As you see I already gave the Scherzo example. Don't write European dance music like a Bouree and use the wrong key signature and stress patterns or else it is not a Bouree.

I don't know about anywhere else in the world but in the Caribbean if you mess with the music and try to pass it off as authentic it is over for you :w00t: :P

Commence ranting!

About all this "world music" etc etc? Culture is relative, but people like to pretend it isn't. End of story~

It's impossible to write Samba like a guy in a favela in Brazil. Blah Blah Blah, let's not try it. Culture context and blah blah blah?

I draw no distinction between Bach or Mozart (or Bartok), or that guy in Brazil. Culture is also a time dependent thing, just because you think you hear western historical music doesn't mean you can just up and recreate it for the same reason you can't just up and write Samba or Tango like people who "belong" to that culture. Also, of course, the impossibility to actually know how western historical music even SOUNDS with proper accuracy starts becoming a problem, like all historical music.

So it is entirely funny that there's this "OH THEY WRITE MUSIC WITHOUT RESEARCH!!!!!!!", when honestly? All this retarded nonsense about "western common practice harmony" (a term which I am most unfriendly towards) and other such idiocies is exactly the same and perhaps even worse. Making up junk isn't research.

Let's try to reduce the entire Zeitgeist of centuries into tiny little vague patterns we can sell in books! Yay! It SOUNDS like old music, so therefore it MUST be! So next time you hear a "terrible" Samba or Tango or whatever other "region specific/culture specific music", remember that harmony exercises, all this so called "common practice" (ugh) and all bunching together of centuries of music and composers into idiotic formulas is probably a travesty just as huge as the worst "world music" and just as insulting really.

But I guess then it isn't "wrong" or insulting, for some unknown reason. Honestly a crap-samba written by someone outside of that culture is a breath of fresh air compared to all the thousands of "practice fugues" or sonatas or whatever the hell I've had to put up with. No distinction really, in my eyes.

Sure, practice is nice and good, and all, but I think one must draw a huge distinction between style practice (be it SAMBA or Palestrina vocal counterpoint!) and someone who just set out to write music. If the person composing doesn't do it themselves, someone has to do it for them.

You're not going to be very popular if you tell people their exercise there isn't really a proper piece of music. However, a lot of people need to get the hell away from such theoretical nonsense, and stop hiding behind cute little systems made for them so everything can be easy and painless (and they can be well-liked and popular!)

And this of course includes any sort of "world music" or cultural specific music, etc etc. Again, I draw no distinction between Tango and Palestrina on this level.

There is of course such a thing as creative merit when someone sets out to write music and picks this or that stylistic parameter, such as "I'm going to write a fugue!", and write something which isn't just an exercise. How do you tell the difference? You got to have an EYE for it, hah! No, there's no method, no formula and no surefire way to know or judge something like this.

But there is a definite point at which style parameters and aesthetic values stop ruling the composer and the composer begins ruling them instead. Sure, that Bossa there isn't going to be "LIKE THE BEST OF THEM!" but it may have plenty of merit on its own as a piece of music, likewise that Fugue or whatever.

And it has nothing to do with "research" or any of that junk. It's just a matter of applied creativity in the end.

In reality, and when it comes down to it, a REAL COMPOSER should as well write them world musics like the best of them (but isn't that IMPOSSIBLE?!?!?!), no matter where in the world the music is from (europe is also in the world, last I checked.) But not because it's just what "comes out" but because it's what tickles them fancy, creatively, for whichever reason.

And about CULTURAL DIGNITY? When I start hearing stuff like that I get all sorts of propaganda-vibes. Maybe it's just me, but for all I care let's trample through every single world culture and turn it inside out until it's nothing but a travesty of itself! Why? Because it's FUN and it's a great way to learn by dissection and deconstruction. If X culture is so hermetic that it's impossible to borrow and take stuff from it even if you haves no idea, then that X culture is pointless to me.

I may be the worst person in the world, but for example, if I'm seeing some show on TV or internets about this or that culture, and I'm like "Hey I don't know what any of that symbolism or crap means, I like the patterns on their clothing." and that inspires me to do this or that artistic thing, then that's fantastic. No, I don't really care if someone may be offended I just used their sacred ancient symbol for (!!!) or (???), I just care that something inspired me and I did something about it.

Yeah I'm sort of no-prisoners/no-mercy like that when it comes to ART. Ooh.

RANT RANT RANT RANT. Ok I'm done.

In fact, your whole argument about packaging common practice rules into a book to make money is exactly what is happening with "world music". You have people who "cut and pasting" cultural music and ideals as a way to make a buck on the whole trendy appeal. And that's how it started. It wasn't about creating a music that respected the dignity of a people. It was about lets creating a demand for something fresh to make money.

Poorly created cultural is only accecpted by those who don't know better.

Key phrase is "trying to pass it off as authentic", which is something I'm not interested in at all. I don't think anyone can be authentic enough, ever. Sorry, even the Greek most Greek of all Greece can't be authentically Greek enough. Why? Because since it's a subjective standard of judgment I decide to simply make it unreasonable altogether. It's better for everyone.

So a bunch of Germans decide to write Tango. You know what? Awesome! It's not authentic, but since it's impossible to BE authentic there's no silly assumption or pretension. However, that's just my end of the deal. If people decide to go claiming things, they're going and claiming things and there's nothing I can do about it.

Another reason it's impossible to be authentic is that it's all a copy of a copy of a copy.

Just some copies are more popular than others!

As far as my PERSONAL experience is concerned, I've been to Rachmaninov's 3rd played by both someone DRUNK and doing giggling fits during the orchestral passages (played by someone on piano, not-so-drunk) and it was the best thing in the world. Not going into more detail, let's just say I've seen just about every trampling of cultural signatures, by people both FROM said cultures and not.

Then again I may just have weird friends like that.

About Bach, I'm going to ignore this with the WTK altogether, it's just a collection of songs. Where they intended to be pedagogic by Bach? Probably, surely. But his educational approach of "I just write music" is both to me amazingly brilliant and also arguably anti-pedagogic.

So, absolutely not, it's no "theory" or "common practice (AAGH)" book at all. It may be a doorstop, a paperweight, or otherwise two books, but I'm not going to associate it with super-theory nonsense terms.

In fact I don't really like that term. "Common practice" is a retarded generalization, and it only exists in English to boot (according to english wikipedia out of a book by some guy I've never heard about.) The German version of the article for some amazing reason doesn't have anything to do with neither the term nor what it's talking about. Go wikinonsense!

But I digress.

As far as the dealie with the Scherzo is concerned, or such other types of names, you can either be "traditional" (that is to say, familiar with the latest musicological trends!) or not give a damn. And even if you go the trend way, there's thousands of different sources and ways of analyze the same piece or use this or that terminology. In fact, I'm usually not on great terms with musicologists precisely because either they are driven into tiny little viewpoints they can't stray from or risk being entirely "wrong", or nothing means anything, ever.

I mean, let's not forget how amazing a breakthrough it was when people started to think pieces had more than two parts because they suddenly were taking other things into consideration in form analysis! If the older view had won, we'd have to rewrite tons of theory books. Wait, aren't they fighting over it STILL?

I mean, I can make a piece of music that is just a laugh track and garbage truck noises and call it "Scherzo & Samba for Orchestra." I'm not wrong at all, it's a Scherzo (AND Samba!) as long as I'm saying it is.

In fact ignore all I just said, this such a better idea, I'll go do this right now instead.

PS: What I'm getting at in the end is that, LOL, music should be fun and I agree on some level with what Nikolas responded. I'm not a fan of "culture" in general, and I tend to be very hostile to (in my opinion) idiotic concepts of respect and pride when it comes to culture. It kills any practical value any culture can have if people are going to start fighting and being jerks to each other because of it. And no, writing crap-samba in Brazil results in absolutely nothing. Maybe someone'll laugh, maybe you'll get FANS. There's a huge discussion as to what proper Samba even is, within Brazil itself.

No, I guess the problem is what if I went in and insulted people's moms. With my crap-samba. About their moms. WHAT THEN? They'd be angry, but I suspect it'd have less to do with samba then.

The sad thing is that all the people I know who play "cultural specific music" the only thought they have is to do it as similar to the original as they can. They consider themself arrived when their music is indistinguishable from the true one. They call that "their own style". Funny. Just think (if you are outside america) to all the Hip-hop bands around you or reggae or soul or irish-folk and so on...Obvioulsy the same concept applies to the ones who are happy when someone says to them that their music is like William's or Elfman's one. That means: Your music is good beacuse it sounds like another composer music. Paradoxal.

I'm not against the usage of cultural-musical clich

We will be seeing a lot of Neo-compositions. A lot of tonal compositions also. Students are defying their teachers and writing music that is liked by the average person (Which Schoenberg, Glass, Cage, Ligeti etc. are not - the general populace likes Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky (Keeping it within the classical genre)).