Contemporary Composition

I can't imagine anyone not having at least one thing they hold dear to them that is part of his/her culture that would be insulted if it were misused or misrepresented.

Hi, just thought I'd say that I have absolutely no attachment to any culture on earth for any reason beyond my strict choice. In other words, no, I don't have any traditions, I can't have any either since I never grew up in one place really.

And for the same reason, your argument falls flat in the face of modern travel. If you never stood still and never formed the concept of nationality as other people know it, it's going to prevent you forever from relating to any culture or tradition rooted in regional significance and presence. As a simple example, I was born in Brazil, and later I moved around my entire childhood, so as a result I have absolutely no attachment to Brazil nor any of the places I visited/lived in afterwards. Why? Because if you don't have a "home" in terms of culture, you can't magically invent one because others won't allow you. They will constantly remind you that you're "Not from around here."

That's what pride and "cultural identity" does. In my opinion, it's one of the worst things there could possibly be unless you're participating in it. Once you're outside? Forget about it, it will ONLY work against you. Myself? I'm never going to be Brazilian enough or at all to someone from Brazil, for example. Despite the fact I was born and I lived there a considerable time, that's not important once you're "out of the loop." That's how fragile culture is in reality, and that's why I take it all with a grain of salt.

I also don't understand how culture and tradition in music should be considered counter productive when they both help to give self worth, pride and cultural identity.

I don't think one should consider it counter-productive simply becasue there are some restrictions to respect. Not everthing can be taken part of or be shared. Yes, mixing and borrowing is a most wonderous and beautiful thing but then so is diversit in its context.

For the above arguments I provided, I'm entirely against this on many levels. Everything CAN be shared and guess what, eventually? It will all be taken and shared. That's the result of globalization, easier traveling to places and from places. Nevermind the whole communication thing already mentioned. Culture only works if you can isolate people on a physical region for long enough, once that starts to fail so will all these wonderful concepts of culture and tradition.

Please forgive me as I know this is going to get a bit off topic...

You are so very wrong!!!

No, I'm not. Go to Brazil and get'em experience and talk to people there and then come back and tell me. I'm not going to bother with this any further if you can make such sweeping statements which are entirely ridiculous had you actually been there. Also, I don't see what the hell the Caribbean has to do with Brazil. ENTIRELY different places. Nevermind "The Caribbean" is an entire region full of countries on their own.

Brazil is a rather big country, and if you live in the South (Porto Alegre, Florianopolis, etc) chances are you aren't going to know jack scraggy about samba at all, since the south is filled with european immigrants who don't care for those things (In fact in the south the so famous brazilian Carnaval isn't a holiday, it's not even celebrated.) and I saw more "black people" on TV than when I lived down there.

The opposite for going further north, but it REALLY depends on where you are. In the South there were entire regions that celebrated the OktoberFest, and other such entirely european things as their traditions. Does this mean they're therefore Brazilian traditions too, then? I don't know, and I don't honestly care. But in a place like this, any concept of culture and tradition, as it happens for South America in general, is out the window. These places are too new, too mixed and varied. If your country's entire "Tradition" can be summed up in five words, then how do you expect to have any sense of tradition and culture at all? It's all imported, in this case.

"Tradition" in Chile, for example if you were growing up in the 80s was watching Kotetsu Jeeg. A japanese show. Why is this tradition? Because it was popular, a lot of people did it. It's also real culture, in some amazing sense of the word. Why not, after all? It's imported pop/folk culture, like mostly everything in South America. The only time it's not is when you're trying to work with whatever was there before the Europeans came in and did their colonialist thing.

Otherwise? It's all a copy and imported, messed with, regurgitated out again. It's extremely hard to have any sort of "respect" for something so seemingly random and by-chance. In fact, it's a lot more in line with reality to go and take stuff from this and do whatever you want with it. Since that's what really has happened up to now after all...

I didn't read everything in this thread, but would like to comment on a few points.

Firstly, world music. Wow, there are some examples of a broad style that aren't very good. Freakin' incredible, and a perfect reason to disregard an extremely large and undefinable "genre". At least that's what I'm hearing from some of you. "World" music is just the result of our general global unification via our new fandagled means of communication (amongst other things). It isn't really any more a genre or style than anything else, if not even less so.

Someone mentioned that they wouldn't exactly consider jazz ethnical or cultural. Ummmm, so what exactly was everyone referring to when they used to say "the cultural music of the american negro"? Typically, if you don't consider something ethnical, it's because you are a part of that culture. Jazz has become a part of culture the world around, is this wrong? Are jazz players in cuba less musicians because they aren't black or born in the south of America? Of course not.

And of course one should always take great pains in accurately reproducing anything they reproduce, to do otherwise in any context would be bad and disrespecful. But some of you seem to think the instrument implies the tradition. It may, for you, but that's very relative, even for people within the culture (as has been mentioned). So if you want to write faux traditional chinese music, certainly you should incorporate a type of huquin; but if you want to play an erhu, certainly it needn't be in the style of it's era of conception. Similarly, many a chinese style melody has been played on instruments as far removed from tradtion as an electrical guitar, and to good effect. They are instruments, which creates notes. Everything else is subjective and relative.

As for tradition and culture, I personally despise these two things. At their best they preserve things in a semi incoherent mish-mashed form decided by fate, and at their worst they are very very powerful agents of counter-productivity. Some here seem to think that a culture is something once decided upon by a group of sagely scholars living in a mountain cave, and thus should be untampered. CULTURE IS TAMPERING. It's the result of a bunch of people doing what they know how to do by observing those who came before them. Culture isn't decided upon and regulated, it's free and cancerous; practically unstoppable, really. Jazz isn't a part of european culture because one day, some master cuture maker wrote "let it be" in some giant book; it's there because enough people went "hey, that's cool, I wanna do it". And they did, case closed.

And European "common-practice"? Ughhh... talk about path of incoherent tradition. You wanna know what PP is? It's something that comes out of my god-damn wang.

So in the end, it doesn't matter if your piano sonata emulates Bach, Mozart, or Chopin. Nor does it matter if your scherzo is in a "proper scherzo" form or not. History should make this apparent to any who care to look for themselves. Isn't the Mozart example (with his use of "turkish" idioms) one for careless incorporation of other styles? Seriously, anyone who hasn't heard the Akira soundtrack by now should already; it'll learn you a thing or two about the future.

Secondly, over predictions for the future of music. Nothing stated that I read hasn't been done before in recently recorded history. Short lengths, music no one else hears, blah blah blah. In the old chinese days, the sage played only for himself, for meditative purposes. Playing music, for him, was an purely transcendental excercise. That music could be used for mass entertainment was not a familliar notion to him. I'm willing to bet many have done like this throughout history, and many more will continue to do so (I'm reminded of a story from Lovecraft's "Necronomicron"). As for music getting shorter, we're forgetting that those 2-hour operas we've come to associate with the people of old were made for one class: the extremely wealthy. These people would spend hours on a letter, ie not a good representation of the common class. Some even suggest that people of old had an even shorter attention span than most today, and this is evidenced by numerous composers of varying times. The thing is, they never maintain their popularity because, one day, someone looks at Bach and goes "holy scraggy, a 10-minute fugue!", and now Pachelbels over 100 short fugues on popular church themes have nothing, and duely become forgotten along with their composer.

Finally, all anyone really needs to remember is this, and it was briefly touched upon by another poster: fun and profit. This is the ultimate goal, which is funny because of how objective it is. Whether it's Bach spending the last of his money on beer at Zimmerman's, or a lone guitarist travelling around with a backpack and living off of the charity he recieves, fun and profit has been acheived, and happiness will abound because of it.

Totally. To (almost) everything. Also? Hell yes.

Sweeping statements?

So let me tell you how wrong you are again. If you knew anyhing at all about Samba roots you would know what it shared has to do with the Caribbean. Don't tell me you don't know about the explores making their way to the new world that included the Caribbean and parts of South America. Like I said, the culture, the music and the people share a similar story.

There is a reason you can go to some places and not know about Samba is exactly the point of my giving you the history. Its sad that you would call historical fact sweeping statements. Notice I gave you a specific place, Bahia. I also gave you the information of Slaves from Angola. I dind't say blacks in Brazil. "Blacks" is gerneral and doesn't give specific informtaion.

Notice, I gave you were the word and its music came from and then what happend to it. When Samba spread the history was muddled and so was its original form. You obviously didn't know that and were around a people who were dealing the the muddled version of Samba. But again, call them sweeping if you must. I know what I'm talking aobut. I didn't live there but I know enough Brazilians and my Caribbean history (eventhough you think they have nothing in common).

My argument does not fall flat on travel. You may have been born in Brazil and traveled around the world but there is a speficic ethnic culture is yours to be had whether or no subscribe or cherish anything about it.

People probably remind you that you are not of a certain culture because there is also and ethnic attachment that they have that makes them and their culture who they are and they feel that you may never understand it fully no matter how you take part. I'm not saying it was right to be constantly reminded and made to feel as an outsider but I'm sure that's why. Americans and Europeans will come to live and start families in Trinidad and call themselves Trini. The people there don't make a big deal about as far as making them feel like outsides but amongst ourselves the discussion is there that there is an ethnic history of the culture and the people that they just don't have any association with and can not fully grasp. But, again they are not made to feel as outsiders. So, it is unfortunate that you had the "outsider" experience. I've known it as a Caribbean-American.

But, at the same time. If I move to Italy and have a family there with someone not if Italian blood I may enjoy the culture and take part (if the let me :P) but I certainly wouldn't feel or identify myself and my children as "Italian" in terms of culture and ethnicity.

If you've had these experiences where people around the world are so attached to their culture then you know what the point of respecting sacred aspects of a culture are all about. Globilzation and the taking and misrepresenting of cultural aspects does help to strenghtne ehtnic and cultural pride and anger individuals over cultural disrespect or even make others feel like outsiders.

I guess some things require experience to know, that's all I'm going to say at this point.

Let's agree on totally equal rights for all people and the right to be different. Or not?

I'm ready to bet that most of us can tell apart 1 British, 1 Greek, 1 Indian and 1 Carribean. Most chances are that people will also "place the slots" in the right place.

If you can tell people together like that (and NOT only because of the colour of the skin), then I'm pretty sure that their tendencies to some things are not limited to how the dress, or how they talk, but how they eat, how they think, and how... they compose or play music, or dance.

Sounds good.

This is my final reply on this topic. This debate can go on forever with either side holding on to what they feel, know and have experiencec. However, my final issue in regards to the Hisotry of Samba. I have given enough info for anyone to do research and find out the truth for themselves. Its like talking about Jazz now and its different categorys "depending on who you talk to and where you are" but it doesn negate the fact that it started with a specific people before spreading. The same is with Samba and that is why there are those "discussions" and the discussions are only by those who don't know the real truth behind its roots. One can ignore it, call the truth a sweeping statement, be embarassed that they thought they knew the truth or whatever. Its a similar story why American rock and roll is often called the "forgotten" child of African-American people in regards to where it really came from how it spread and the discussions of what it is now "depending on where you are and who you talk to".

Either way, I'm pleased to have been in this debate....

And now I'm all done (as far as the whole culture and ethnic part of this thread is concerned) :P :)

I think more composers will use computer software programs as a compositional tool and as a final medium of expression,thus eliminating performers as an intermediary.

I think more composers will use computer software programs as a compositional tool and as a final medium of expression,thus eliminating performers as an intermediary.

I think you're right, which is a shame. A good composition needs a good performer to bring it to life. No matter how good of a composer you are, you have to have that, or you're not writing music, you're just writing music.

I think you're right, which is a shame. A good composition needs a good performer to bring it to life. No matter how good of a composer you are, you have to have that, or you're not writing music, you're just writing music.

Is that some prejudice thar?

Technology enables a composer now to define every single aspect of sound (and therefore, music) and having this control enables a composer to execute his vision in a much more precise way. It's a great thing, and it won't displace the use of musicians and actual people, live performances, and such since those are things which bring other factors into the composition and performance.

It depends greatly on what the composer wants. I'm quite happy personally writing 100% electronic, or 100% live music, or mixes of both to different degrees.

Is that some prejudice thar?

Technology enables a composer now to define every single aspect of sound (and therefore, music) and having this control enables a composer to execute his vision in a much more precise way. It's a great thing, and it won't displace the use of musicians and actual people, live performances, and such since those are things which bring other factors into the composition and performance.

It depends greatly on what the composer wants. I'm quite happy personally writing 100% electronic, or 100% live music, or mixes of both to different degrees.

I disagree. There's a human aspect to music that you lack from using electronics. There's always that necessary ingredient which only a performance can give. A composer needs performances.

In the end, however you may consider that 98% ofthe music that you, and me, and everybody listens to is not live performances, but CDs and even worst mp3s (lame quality). Want it or not, only the live performance is something to be proud that you saw/heard. Everything else is digitised information on way or another. And if one persists enough, he should be good to make something of high quality with electronic means alone. ;)

There's a human aspect to music that you lack from using electronics.

There's always that necessary ingredient which only a performance can give.

Yes, electronic music that seeks to imitate music performed by musicians will be short of the "real thing". It won't ever be the same. It can, however, be something equally as valueable, beautiful, musical. Electronic music can also create things that would be impossible with living musicians. I'm not just talking about technical boundaries here, but also about a certain form of clarity, directness, and roughness that a living musican can never successfully imitate.

Nicolas has already mentioned that when we're listening to a recording, we're already not hearing live human music anymore. One could even go a step further, and ask whether there even is a strict boundary between "human" and "synthetic" sound. What about live-electronics? What is a piece of music played on a synthesizer? Or an organ for that matter (which is, apart from technical differences, almost the same)? And even on a piano, the sound production is something very indirect. In all these cases, strictly electronic music included, it's a human who has a musical idea (which may even be algorithmic), and a "machine" that produces the soundwaves. It's merely the amount of live control that varies (without ever being 100%).

-Gardener

I suppose then this means the only 'true performance' is of one we have complete control over: Our Voices?

-Gardener

I suppose then this means the only 'true performance' is of one we have complete control over: Our Voices?

But do we have complete control over our voices? Wouldn't that mean we could do every sound we can imagine with our voices? In fact, we're just as bound to the "technical restrictions" of our vocal chords as of any other instrument. They add their "own sound" to our musical ideas, whether we're happy with it or not.

Of course, I may be nitpicking here. My point however is that there is no way of conveying pure musical ideas which only come from ourselves, but that there are always other elements involved. No sounding music does directly come from our imagination. There's always a "technical medium".

(I agree however that the human voice may be the closest we can get to "directly human" music. And well, practically speaking, it is.)

But do we have complete control over our voices? Wouldn't that mean we could do every sound we can imagine with our voices? In fact, we're just as bound to the "technical restrictions" of our vocal chords as of any other instrument. They add their "own sound" to our musical ideas, whether we're happy with it or not.

Of course, I may be nitpicking here. My point however is that there is no way of conveying pure musical ideas which only come from ourselves, but that there are always other elements involved. No sounding music does directly come from our imagination. There's always a "technical medium".

(I agree however that the human voice may be the closest we can get to "directly human" music. And well, practically speaking, it is.)

Dunno dude, but depends on what you imagine. I don't think it's very easy to imagine music, composition-wise outside of the realm of sounds you actually know and have heard yourself.

Therefore, it's not like imagination isn't linked to actual reality of sounds. When process of producing those sounds is also in imagination, maybe, but that's something else.

You can surely write a c major chord on a score, and that's already very abstract unless you start to fill in the details. I guess ultimately it never comes into question since composers most of the time(?) imagine stuff already sounding in instruments and such that they already know.

I dunno how it'd be otherwise too. I can't start to imagine writing for Xrpfob, which is an instrument I just made up. I have to start imagining also how it sounds, and to do that it's more likely than not that it's going to be a variation of something I already know.

I wanna write for Xrpfob now, damnit...

Good points. Musical imagination is certainly limited by what you already know, even if sometimes you may be able to go a bit beyond that. Anyways, even if you imagine a c major chord played by violins in forte, it's still something much more abstract than the actual physical experience of the sound. No matter how good our "inner ear" is, there is always a huge difference to physically hearing music. (Sorry, Beethoven :()

The "technical medium" that produces the soundwaves we composed, be that vocal chords, a violin, or a computer, will always add something to the abstract idea we have of our music on its own. At the very least a physical form.