Difficult question

There is one question which disturbs me (in fact, I think not only me) for a long time and it's not an easy question - whether the modern composer can write music, as old composers used to do it, I mean using their olden musical language, forms and some ideas? Wouldn't it be just a simple recurrence of something, that has already been many years ago? Or it is possible to achieve something new and original? What do you think?

You probably can't really do something fundamentally "new" if all you are doing is sticking to the "rules" (notably the rules of tonality and common practice harmony) of music that was composed 200 years ago.

Those who have gone back for inspiration to music of earlier times, have generally incorporated various advances in harmony and counterpoint.

For example, certain dissonances under common practice rules MUST be approached and resolved in certain ways. If a contemporary composer chooses to write something inspired by common practice harmony, the chances are strong that many of those rules will be either relaxed or completely ignored.

A few examples would be Prokoviev's "Classical Symphony", Schostakowitch's 2nd piano concerto, Strawinski's various neo-baroque pieces, as well as his neo-classical ones.

There are many fine examples of compsoers going back to prevous eras for inspiration, but when it is honest music, it cannot help but reflect the time in which the composer lives. If the contemporary composer does nothing but parrot the technique of the past, without incorporating ANY sign of the actual era of composition, then there is an implicit dishonesty.

Composers of, let us say, Mozart's time were composing music the way they were because it was, at that time, NEW to them. They were expanding upon the musical vocabulary of their predecessors. They used pre-existing forms, but often gave them a twist that was indicitive of the era in which they lived. A Mozart fugue does not sound like one by Bach. And a Beethoven one does not sound like one by Mozart.

So why should a piece of music written nearly 200 years later be mistaken for something from a bygone era? Is it not important that the composer express SOMEthing from his own life?

I am the LAST person who will preach about only composing "avant-garde" music. However, I am also the last to say that the past must be abandonned and forgotten.

The present ALWAYS contains elements of the past with hints of the future.

It seems that our current era of music leaves us without many of the conventions that previous eras worked with and that leaves me, and I suspect others, spending time trying to understand how composition today fits into the musical tradition of the last 500 years or so. In a way it may have been easier, philosophically speaking, to compose in an era where there was a more structured expectation of music. Many of today

Do you want to make something good and familiar, something near flawless to what the standards of camaraderie come to? or do you want to make something new and unfriendly, repulsive and underrated?

Or do you want to slowly and gently precede to your own doctrine of wonderment "for the people." By this you can incorporate the new with the familiar under no rule and formulate a generation.

A supreme generation of musicality, which is defined as 50/50, is always a masterpiece. The 50/50 factor of new and old is simply why most masterpieces are generally underrated, because the people of the time are stubborn.

So of course anything is possible in music. But that that is creative is "transfused" with much.

A supreme generation of musicality, which is defined as 50/50, is always a masterpiece. The 50/50 factor of new and old is simply why most masterpieces are generally underrated, because the people of the time are stubborn.

How did you come up with this number? I mean, I'd glad if I knew this was the proven recipe for a masterpiece! It would make composing so much easier. But somehow I seriously doubt that the percentage of "old" and "new" has anything to do with the quality of a piece.

It's all a matter what you need in order to say what you want to say. If your musical ideas ask for new methods and environments to be accurately represented, develop them. If traditional tonal language is exactly what you need to make your best music, then use it.

Neither developing new techniques just for the novelty of the techniques nor writing in an old style just because it's the easiest both for you and the audience seem very interesting to me.

It makes a lot of sense to me to develop your techniques in order to achieve the musical result you have in mind. Basing your composition on new techniques only works if your techniques make sense musically and are derived from musical ideas.

Compositional techniques are, to me, an integral part of a composition and not just a tool. This means that the use of a certain technique or stylistic element has a meaning and should be decided on consciously. This may have been less important before the 20th century, but today, with so much musical history and a diversity of styles known to us, I believe a composer should be able to give account on why he uses a certain way of composing. I.e. if you write in minor and major keys you should try to answer why this is the best for your music, the same as if you wrote serialistically.

(I don't count "it's more beautiful" as a sufficient explanation, unless you can say what exactly makes it more beautiful ;))

It cannot be expected from a composer to be able to give an absolute finite answer to this question, but you should at least ask yourself the question.

I have absolutely no problem with people using musical ideas that have been around for a long time and proven a great fundament for good music. I only question it when it becomes a "self-service shop", where you grab everything (or just one thing) that sounds cool and make your piece out of it without reflecting on the material you are using.

Gardener, as usual, nailed it. I can't say it better. :D

I believe a composer should be able to give account on why he uses a certain way of composing. I.e. if you write in minor and major keys you should try to answer why this is the best for your music, the same as if you wrote serialistically.

Is "because it sounds good" a valid enough reason?

Is "because it sounds good" a valid enough reason?

"Because it sounds good" belongs to the same category as "it's more beautiful" ;) It -is- a good reason, but you should try to explain why.

If someone tells you that your music sounds good that's certainly nice to hear, but it doesn't really help you much. You would learn way more from a more detailed review. The same applies to deciding on your own music. Simply liking one type of sounds more than others may work to some degree for composing, but in order to develop your language, to improve, you should give more thought to what you like about one type of sound, a style, a technique.

The problem with statements such as "it just sounds good/bad" is that it makes communication impossible, both between the composer and the audience, and "inside" the composer. It's a dead end.

I believe that as a composer you should try to approach your own work as a good critic would.

If someone tells you that your music sounds good that's certainly nice to hear, but it doesn't really help you much. You would learn way more from a more detailed review. The same applies to deciding on your own music. Simply liking one type of sounds more than others may work to some degree for composing, but in order to develop your language, to improve, you should give more thought to what you like about one type of sound, a style, a technique.

I agree with that. That's fair enough. Knowing what works where and what doesn't is obviously vital otherwise composers would never get past the trial and error stage.

The problem with statements such as "it just sounds good/bad" is that it makes communication impossible, both between the composer and the audience...It's a dead end.

I'm not so sure about that. Would an audience really care about techinicalities if they understood and enjoyed ther piece as a whole? A listener might say "that's a fantastic chord" but they're unlikely to like it any less if the composer didn't have a reason for using it other that "it sounded good".

So long as what you write enhances the intended effect, it doesn't matter what technique is used. The best way to see if you have achieved a given effect is to ask a non-musician.

A composer should not do something without thinking about it. Trial and error is a good way to start and continue to write until you 'know' through experience what will and won't work. Beethoven sketched out the first four notes of the 5th symphony dozens of times to get it right. Despite what the movie Amadeus says, Mozart crossed off stuff in his scores as well in order to get it right. (Dover publishes a volume of one of the piano concerti as an autograph score that proves this and is rather inexpensive.)

An audience will know when music is out of place...or goes on too long. The best people to judge music are the non-classicaly trained, because they don't get hung up on the technical side of things. Just the same as non-authors don't get hung up about the grammar used in a novel. (Well, Ralph, the whole book was pretty good but I can't stand your repeated use of the adjective 'dark'. Plus, your adverbs need revision and your nouns are horrible.) Someone who is a trained musician may be able to appreciate very strange techniques and the resulting sounds. In the broad scope of things (ie. the world) Trained musicians are a pretty small market to be writing for...especially if you want to make a buck at it. If you don't, write what ever you want.

People (non-musicians) have a tendancy to describe music using phrases like, "This made me feel ..." "I didn't like this part because it sounded too ..." Often times, these blanks are filled with some kind of emotional response; happy, sad, angry, irritated, uncomfortable, joyful etc. Then, as composers, we need to check if that is what we were going for or not. If it is, congrats. If not, change it. When I tell my composition students to 'change it', they give me that dagger look that says, "How dare you tell me to change my work." I always tell them that the point of composition is to communicate. If you didn't communicate, you were unsuccessful and need to try again. The fact that they didn't meet the goal isn't a reflection on their mental capacity, just on that particular work. If a student got a math equation wrong, they must do it again right? No hard feelings.

When a work is performed, the audience should be treated to a work so effortless to listen to, that they are transported to another place. If you use old techniques, new techniques, invent your own techniques, or steal techniques...that isn't finally the point. What the finished work is able to express is the final point.

I'm not so sure about that. Would an audience really care about techinicalities if they understood and enjoyed ther piece as a whole? A listener might say "that's a fantastic chord" but they're unlikely to like it any less if the composer didn't have a reason for using it other that "it sounded good".

I agree. It's possible to write music that an audience enjoys totally intuitively, without thinking about it. But it's a dead end of communication when neither the composer nor the audience can say anything more about a piece than "I just like it". Even more so when it's "I just hate it". As I said, this both applies to communication between a composer and an audience and interior reflection and self-criticism of the composer. With these elements completely missing, I don't think you can properly develop as a composer. You may be able to create a number of quite nice pieces by just writing "what your heart tells you to write", but how far that will get you is probably limited, if there's no conscious thought involved.

People (non-musicians) have a tendancy to describe music using phrases like' date=' "This made me feel ..." "I didn't like this part because it sounded too ..." Often times, these blanks are filled with some kind of emotional response; happy, sad, angry, irritated, uncomfortable, joyful etc. Then, as composers, we need to check if that is what we were going for or not. If it is, congrats. If not, change it. When I tell my composition students to 'change it', they give me that dagger look that says, "How dare you tell me to change my work." I always tell them that the point of composition is to communicate. If you didn't communicate, you were unsuccessful and need to try again. The fact that they didn't meet the goal isn't a reflection on their mental capacity, just on that particular work. If a student got a math equation wrong, they must do it again right? No hard feelings.[/quote']

I generally agree with your post, but I don't think the emotional response of a listener must exactly match what you had in mind, unless it was important for you to "produce" a certain, very specific emotional response. Emotion is something highly subjective, and while music is indeed a form of communication, it's not a direct, clear form of communicating emotion. Some of the best music is highly ambivalent and doesn't convey a clear, single emotion, but can be heared in many different ways, which is something that I enjoy much more as a listener, than a piece where I can say after a minute "ahh, the purpose of this piece is to evoke happiness".

But of course I agree that one should take the reactions of your audience seriously, and consider whether you can draw something out of it to improve your piece.

Well, eliciting an emotional response, other than "nausea", from your audience is generally a good thing.

Regardless of what you actual "emotional" intention might have been.

Although, technically, nausea is more of a physiological response than an emotional one..........

Oh, I very much agree with that. I was referring to asking for a very specific emotional response. Eliciting emotional response in general is a good thing.

I definitely want the audience to feel something when they hear my music, just what exactly they feel is not something I'm interested in controlling.

I might even a have a very specific emotional idea in mind when I compose a piece, but I don't expect the audience to "receive" exactly the same idea.

Well, eliciting an emotional response, other than "nausea", from your audience is generally a good thing.

Regardless of what you actual "emotional" intention might have been.

Although, technically, nausea is more of a physiological response than an emotional one..........

And there are even composers who write music intending to elicit nausea... :glare:

But somehow I seriously doubt that the percentage of "old" and "new" has anything to do with the quality of a piece.

Uhh... this isn't a number, it's half, just a mix, and I never said it had anything to do with the quality of the piece. You write very silly. It's not as easy as it sounds if you don't even know what the people want to hear in the first place. There would be no way you can get your music heard or loved, and so it takes a lot of effort to find a neutral point in music, but it can have extreme affects. I doubt if you already knew what you were doing, you could create a masterpiece all by yourself. I wouldn't use film music as a starting point. Scoring music for a film is something totally different. And it's not mastered by these Hans Zimmer or James Horner people, but rather these Gabriel Yared and John Williams people. I don't see why you had to bring it up in the first place. Something that I bet not many of us can understand shouldn't be taken so seriously. It is just dead air. All you have to do is string your viola and you get your masterpiece? Bah... where have you gotten such words? I am starting to loose faith in a lot of people on here...

Music is not noise and will never be noise. Noise is music.

Sorry for picking on the 50/50 thing. I just don't believe the amount of old and new material matters much, but rather its suitability for your musical ideas. You are of course right that either way, writing good music is never easy.

But what about "bringing up film music"? I don't remember myself or anyone else having mentioned it. And I'm certainly not of the opinion that "stringing my viola" is enough to make a masterpiece. I don't know where you got this from. Besides, I don't even have a viola!

And who said that music is noise?

And there are even composers who write music intending to elicit nausea... :glare:

Reminds me of some stuff I've written.

Sometimes you just need to punch your audience in the face, not for the sake of punching them but for the sake of pointing out problems with the world/system/etc. There are things that you sometimes want to say in a direct blunt manner, regardless of consequence.

...for the sake of pointing out problems with the world/system/etc. There are things that you sometimes want to say in a direct blunt manner...

What point could you possibly hope to make by writing music intended to cause pain/suffering or general disdain for your performance? The easiest and quickest conclusion the audience will come to is that you're a problem with the world/system/etc. :whistling:

What point could you possibly hope to make by writing music intended to cause pain/suffering or general disdain for your performance? The easiest and quickest conclusion the audience will come to is that you're a problem with the world/system/etc. :whistling:

People can think whatever they like.

People can think whatever they like.

This is very true, but it doesn't say much for your name if nobody likes your music, now does it?

This is very true, but it doesn't say much for your name if nobody likes your music, now does it?

Does it matter if anyone likes it or not? That's not up to me. If I wanted people to "Like" my music I could as well write sonatas and other such formulaic junk that people think sounds pretty. Or just rock and roll or pop music, or whatever. I can follow all the trends and synthesize everything that sells. Like a lot of other people!

And for all I care, it doesn't matter to me if nobody likes what I wrote. That's not why I write. I don't plan on building a reputation or making a "career", I aim to be an artist and write music that I want to write.

And for all I care, it doesn't matter to me if nobody likes what I wrote. That's not why I write. I don't plan on building a reputation or making a "career", I aim to be an artist and write music that I want to write.

On this, I must object a bit.

Depends, of course, on why you write music, but if it's only for yourself, then you really don't need to get it performed do you? Or to get people to listen to it. If you write it for yourself you don't have anything to say, so it's best to be quiet, or be autistic of shorts (no offense meant here).

By all means, I'm not the one who will write music to please the audience, at least in some cases, as certainly in computer games I do exactly that (but I also like it, I'm not pressuring myself), but I also want to communicate with my music, to transfer something whatever it may be. If 1 person "understands" it, then I'm successful, if 10000 people understand it, then I'm also rich! :D

Robin,

What point could you possibly hope to make by writing music intended to cause pain/suffering or general disdain for your performance? The easiest and quickest conclusion the audience will come to is that you're a problem with the world/system/etc. :whistling:

In my website there is a track named "adnauseam" :D hahaha! Exactly to offer a bit of discomfort to the audience, as an interesting idea. Like when you are a child and you LOVE spining 'till you drop? Which brings on nausea? That kind of feeling... ;)

I guess the concept of writing for oneself is too foreign to some. About communication?

Think about someone talking to themselves, if people hear in on what the person is saying, they will be on the receiving end of an exchange despite not having an active part. It's a "casual listener" thing, people who feel I communicate this or that with my music aren't talking about what I wanted to say, but what they got from what I wrote.

In such sense, I view music altogether (not just mine) as the crazy man in the corner shouting, and people either watching, not watching or passing by. Some stop to hear it, some don't.

The only difference is that nobody can agree on what the man is saying.

if it sounds good to you, gives you a feeling of satisfaction from writing it, etc. then you have achieved your goal. If, then, somewhere along the way you discover some sort of musical element that will pioneer a new generation of music then that is a bonus. In my opinion we write music to what appeals to us and our ear, does it really matter if it takes us hundreds of years to change from the musical ways set by Bach and the other classical guru's? I'm sure to some people it is frustrating that many compose classical and only classical, but does it really matter? i say everybody is overanalysing it all (but interesting conversation anyway :) ) we will grow in our own time, our ears need to slowly adapt. If bach heard todays pop music what would he think?

I guess the concept of writing for oneself is too foreign to some. About communication?

Think about someone talking to themselves, if people hear in on what the person is saying, they will be on the receiving end of an exchange despite not having an active part. It's a "casual listener" thing, people who feel I communicate this or that with my music aren't talking about what I wanted to say, but what they got from what I wrote.

In such sense, I view music altogether (not just mine) as the crazy man in the corner shouting, and people either watching, not watching or passing by. Some stop to hear it, some don't.

The only difference is that nobody can agree on what the man is saying.

I won't even comment on this one. It's obvious to me that you want the best of both worlds; to write music, but not put the effort into it. And if that's the way you are, then that's fine.

May I mention something- My composition teacher is all about writing for an audience. He doesn't do it for a living either; while he may release CDs of his work (and is currently working on writing a musical) he has a day job, and he puts just as much effort into his music as he does into his job (and he's a really good composer). This goes to show that you don't have to necessarily be serious about something in order to care about how much work you put into music. If you ask me, it's a waste to be a composer of any merit unless you put the time into trying.