Composition today

What is your view on composition today? Where do you think classical music (or other genres) is headed, and what do you think about our inspiration? Do we need more of what we had before, or should we keep moving ahead with our ideas?

I think that the Baroque period and the 20th century were the greatest eras in terms of composition, and I draw influence from composers of those periods especially. I also think that music should continue to progress, though, (and it inevitably will,) because that's what makes music change over the ages.

Composition isn't in such a great place right now, though. Art music (not just classical) has fallen out of the public eye, for the most part. I think that that a lot of people only think about Mozart and Beethoven, etc. when they think of composers and their music. (Don't get me wrong, Mozart and Beethoven were both incredible composers.) Music that is being composed now should be put back on the public radar, though, and more attention should be paid to artists in the present day.

Thoughts?

I agree with almost everything you say. The only question is: "How?"

;)

The answer is wait.

If you're not an amazing composer, then you probably can't do much about it. Just wait and wait. Then if that doesn't work, wait some more.

Wait until people start realizing.

I think it's because of commercial music that a) exists in much larger numbers than classical, b) is unashamedly promoted to the public that you may assume that classical music has fallen off the eye of the public.

However, I must tell you that in most concerts and recitals I've been to, the halls are almost full, and even in a concert where they played Penderecki's 8th Symphony, the halls were extraordinarily full. People have been listening to more classical music nowadays than they used to 100 years ago, because 100 years ago there weren't any CDs, DVDs, film soundtracks, tapes, or LPs, so people had to actually go to concerts to listen to music, while now people listen music through all of the above, and go to concerts.

Yeah, recording techniques (and distribution of printed scores etc.) have a lot to do with the fact that people listen more to Beethoven than to Kurtag. In contrast to 1800, there simply is a lot more truly great music available to all of us, so new music has a hard stance, since people can easily stick to their preferred style for their whole life without ever trying out anything else. Composers hadn't to compete with Bach in 1800, because there was almost no opportunity to hear a Bach piece, whereas today we compare every new piece with so many masterpieces we already know. So actually, the best way to make people listen to new music would be to destroy every score and recording that is older than 10 years ;)

But jujimufu is right: There -is- an audience for new music. It's smaller than pop music audience, but it's significant enough. And we may often also be overestimating the size of the audiences the "great composers of the past" used to have. Even the "stars" of those times, even Handel or Rossini never had an audience comparable to the famous pop artists of today.

It's really interesting to see what's going on in Germany, where they have the classical music, "E", and entertainment music, "U", and they tax them differently, so radio stations actually benefit from playing classical music, which is very good in terms of promotion of classical music. Of course, many people have complained (from the "U" scene, mostly) and have demanded that music is treated equally, but I guess it's a kind of counter-balance to the over-commercialised societies we live in, just like hiring more black people to counter-balance the racism against black people, for example.

Music is obviously listened to more. Commercial music is great. Classical music is great. Music is music and needs to be respected no matter what form it comes in. I think, if anything, we need to quit thinking in terms of "haha hiphop is a two measure ostinato for the entire song so it's not music" and more in terms of the expression, message and (most importantly) the presentation of sound in addition to composition itself. That's a very critical flaw that I see in classical music "elitists". I'd like to see more experimentation with the sonic side of things, instead of the paper side of things.

Music is a craft. Music can be treated equally, but music will never be equal. You can't compare a Mahler symphony to a hiphop song written by an 11 year old boy, just like you can't compare a factory-made plastic cup to the Taj Mahal, and if you do say that the plastic, manufactured cup is equally artistic to the Taj Mahal, I am sorry, we obviously have diametrically different opinions about art and I am not willing to discuss with anyone about Art, because we'll never end anywhere, and it's not to say that my opinion is correct and I refuse to talk about it with anyone else because everyone is wrong, but it's just that Art is perceived differently by different people, and if you are one of the people who think of it differently than me, then there isn't much to say about that.

There should be a distinction between things which are made to sell and things which are made to tell (not that all Art "tells" things, but it's just that I liked the pun :P ).

I said this in an earlier thread. Without going into too much detail, I think classical music today has become too unfollowable to the casual listener. The genius of Penderecki and such composers is only discernible to a highly competent musical ear, or...with a score, and even then, you would need to be able to read music, let alone the complex music of some of the contemporary stuff. Some compositional techniques these days are not extraordinarily apparent in sound form as they are on paper. "Good on the page, not on the stage" as I like to say.

Nico, you're talking about music that is now nearly 50 years old.

Do you actually KNOW any "new" music?

Even Corigliano, who is FAR from being an "avant garde" composer is either hitting 60 soon, or has done so already (the earliest published works of his that I have date from the early 70's, so he's obviously a bit older than I am).

I wish people would stop referencing Penderecki and Ligeti as "new music". It's not! Neither is Boulez. Nor Stockhausen. These are all composers who had their heyday in the 1950's for god's sake. Many of them continued to compose until now, but still, their entire aesthetic is mid-20th century.

It's like saying that Schoenberg is "contemporary". He died more than 50 years ago.

Listen to new music (and hell, my own age is showing now... I'm naming composers who are only a few years older than myself) by Adams, Del Tredici, Goldenthall... it's all lyrical and beautifully communicative music.

Anyone who tells you tonality and lyricism are "dead" probably already has one foot in the grave himself.

"New Music" ensembles have a need to feel relevant, and have built up this wall of defence around themselves, trying to convince everyone that music needs to be "modern" or else it isn't new enough. And the only way they've found to do this is to systematically denounce everything that came before them. However, most "new music" ensembles are playing either music from the 1950's or music so heavily influenced by that period that it makes you wonder just how relevant they really are.

The REAL new music has nothing to do with Boulez, Penderecki, Ligeti, Xenakis, et compagnie...

As a matter of fact, some of the most "rabid" avant-garde proponants of the 1950's have turned their backs on what they were doing before and made a slow about-face with a return to lyricism and some form of tonal root.

Nico, you're talking about music that is now nearly 50 years old.

Do you actually KNOW any "new" music?

Even Corigliano, who is FAR from being an "avant garde" composer is either hitting 60 soon, or has done so already (the earliest published works of his that I have date from the early 70's, so he's obviously a bit older than I am).

I wish people would stop referencing Penderecki and Ligeti as "new music". It's not! Neither is Boulez. Nor Stockhausen. These are all composers who had their heyday in the 1950's for god's sake. Many of them continued to compose until now, but still, their entire aesthetic is mid-20th century.

It's like saying that Schoenberg is "contemporary". He died more than 50 years ago.

Listen to new music (and hell, my own age is showing now... I'm naming composers who are only a few years older than myself) by Adams, Del Tredici, Goldenthall... it's all lyrical and beautifully communicative music.

Anyone who tells you tonality and lyricism are "dead" probably already has one foot in the grave himself.

"New Music" ensembles have a need to feel relevant, and have built up this wall of defence around themselves, trying to convince everyone that music needs to be "modern" or else it isn't new enough. And the only way they've found to do this is to systematically denounce everything that came before them. However, most "new music" ensembles are playing either music from the 1950's or music so heavily influenced by that period that it makes you wonder just how relevant they really are.

The REAL new music has nothing to do with Boulez, Penderecki, Ligeti, Xenakis, et compagnie...

As a matter of fact, some of the most "rabid" avant-garde proponants of the 1950's have turned their backs on what they were doing before and made a slow about-face with a return to lyricism and some form of tonal root.

20th century aesthetics in music aren't totally dead, but music is making a return to more conventional, tonal roots, like you said. Still, a lot the innovations from former periods in music don't just go away. Look at the influence the baroque and classical periods still have.

I agree with QcCowboy that the music of the 50s shouldn't be treated as contemporary music as much as it often is. But I find it a bit arbitrary to say Adams is "new" but Boulez is "old". Where exactly do you draw the line? Both are living composers.

Fact is, that in today's world of composition, hardly anyone gets famous before their thirties, or even forties. But of course I'd love if more pieces by actually young composers were played.

I also have to defend "New Music" ensembles. Yes, it's true that they often play things that are fifty years old, but if they didn't nobody would, as the world of "classical" philharmonies and chamber ensembles happily continues to play their Beethovens, and ignores anything that has been composed in the second half of the 20th century, and even lots of the first half. There are very influencial, important works of the 20th century where you have troubles finding recordings of, so I'm glad for any "New Music" ensemble that plays some Xenakis now and then. And many of them -do- promote actual new music too and play things by contemporary and sometimes relatively unknown composers.

"New Music" ensembles that "denounce what was before them" aren't a major problem, as "what was before them" gets played enough as it is. I feel that "classical" ensembles reject "what was after them" much more than the other way round.

"New music" means, ironically, the stuff from the 20th century. However, properly said in context, new music is something that is already dead. These days, postmodernism is all the rage. ... If of course it had an actual definition.

But either way, I couldn't care less about what "modern composers" are doing, as I'm not a trendy guy. I'm gonna write whatever I want to, and if that's aleatory process music or fugues in Bach style, so be it.

And, for the record, tonality, atonality, all the past trends? All dead. Today we can reanimate the corpse of all these things and make it bend to our will, but the Zeitgeist, the inspiration and the flow of ideas that led to these musics, that's all gone.

Part of what fascinates me about postmodernism is simply the fact that you can mix things up in any way, and with a lot more options. Schnittke's Concerto Grosso for example, or his first symphony with the jazz section. Of course mixing things up has never been a new thing, but postmodernism isn't about new, it's about simply what comes after the modern. The old? The old, but new... but old again?

It's hard to say.

Oh, and another thing, saying that to appreciate or otherwise understand Penderecki requires a score and a sharp musical ear is nonsense. The product being made is always music, and music has to stand by itself. I like Penderecki not because I have scores or I have a "competent music ear", but because I simply love how it sounds. A lot of modern music I like entirely because I love how it sounds first and foremost, regardless of whatever technique or whatever is being used.

On those same grounds, any formula repeated ad nauseum is simply going to start getting on my nerves. Plus, there are some retarded things altogether if we're talking about traditional music. I'm thinking here that is very likely that someone during Bach's time sat down and played clusters on a Harpsichord, and that sounded great to them.

Or during Mozart, Beethoven, or any of the tonal period of music, someone just played and wrote dissonances for the sake of hearing how it sounds. I don't think experimental things are a thing of the 20th century, instead I think that the 20th century actually paid attention to these people.

What has survived in terms of experiments from the traditional periods are almost always disguised as some sort of mockery, or simply "entertainment music", but we'll never know if it was just that or the composer simply used that as a front to work with things that would otherwise make them "unpopular."

I'm glad I don't live in those times, and I will do what I can so that they never come back. If anyone wants to get creative and experiment with music, they should as well. If they want to write tonal music and copy Mozart, they should as well. There are no better or worse systems, there are no better or worse aesthetic parameters, and there is no better or worse music.

In the end, it's all the same, it's only we that are different.

PS: Gardener points out something of crucial importance, I totally agree of course. It's not like if everyone stops playing Beethoven sonatas, we'd all never hear them again. But I'm not so sure about a lot of 20th century music, and hunting down recordings of a lot of modern pieces is a difficult thing to do. It shouldn't be.

Nico, I've replied to you in many other threads about describing contemporary music like you do, so I won't bother doing so again, because you only seem to disregard my replies and keep saying what you said before without keeping in mind any of the points I make.

And Qccowboy, I do agree that contemporary music is not the music of the 50s and 60s, simply because it isn't... Contemporary music is a lot different than it was back then, and it is so diverse it's very hard to give a representative sample. Another very lyrical composer (although he belongs more to the experimental generation of the 50s and 60s) is Gavin Bryars, and if you want to see examples of really recent music, check criticalnotice.com , a site which features works by 30 British young composers (you can listen to samples of all the pieces).

I win .

Kidding.

You fail (to make me laugh, that is).

Still you don't seem to have taken into account anything that I've said in the previous posts. What's more, you seem to ignore both Gardener's and Qccowboy's replies (in this and other threads), both of whom have made some excellent points.

But continuing to debate seriously about things...

But not replying at all and then having the nerve to make fun of it gives out a very stubborn, childish and immature behaviour.

In any case, you didn't seem to debate at all in terms of my replies to your irrelevant comments on contemporary music, so what debate are you talking about?

...only furthers the stereotype that people care.

Maybe you don't, but here in the UK (and also in Germany for sure) I know that loads of people care for new music. There are many bands and ensembles, some formed by new composers themselves, to play new music, everyone supports new composers and there are a lot of opportunities through competitions and stuff like that to get exposed. What's more, I have yet to be at a new music concert which wasn't as full as a classical concert, and I must tell you that on watching a performance of Brahms' 4th Symphony and Penderecki's 8th, they called the conductor more times back on stage after the ending of the latter one than they did after the Brahms. As far as I am concerned, these people cared. I care. And if you don't care, then I don't care about you not caring :)

I just think that music today can be defined in any way anyone the hell wants.

Yeah, that's what I've been trying to tell you through all these posts, that music today can't be defined as tonal, atonal or whatever. There is no such thing as a "movement" or "trend" or like a "tendency" in music. You may find groups of composers which are associated with one another whose music may sound similar and/or influenced from one another, but I don't think you'll find a kind of "movement" anywhere. Even within such "movements", like the New Simplicity movement, composers have so diverse styles that you can't categorise them. It just doesn't work like that anymore. Maybe in the future people will be able to put all of today's music under one label, but I don't think we can do this now, just like Mozart didn't know he was writing in a "classical" style, or Bach didn't know he was writing in a "baroque" style.

Composition isn't in such a great place right now, though. Art music (not just classical) has fallen out of the public eye, for the most part.

yes true, and why? do you think the modern compositions is what the public wants to hear? the adstract atonal music ? no not at all, and that is why composition is going badly! The normal ear wants to hear some melody, they dont understand and dont care about this modern "interlectual" music. The sad thing is: composition should be very free at this point, we have many peridoes do choose form, but that is not accepted by schools or other composers. we "have" to compose modern music. But i belive the barqoue/classical influenced music will come back and be popular among composers, that is what the mojority of the public want to hear. No dissrespect to modern composers, all music is important, but music influenced by the old styles should be accepted :)

Composition isn't in such a great place right now' date=' though. Art music (not just classical) has fallen out of the public eye, for the most part.

yes true, and why? do you think the modern compositions is what the public wants to hear? the adstract atonal music ? no not at all, and that is why composition is going badly! The normal ear wants to hear some melody, they dont understand and dont care about this modern "interlectual" music. The sad thing is: composition should be very free at this point, we have many peridoes do choose form, but that is not accepted by schools or other composers. we "have" to compose modern music. But i belive the barqoue/classical influenced music will come back and be popular among composers, that is what the mojority of the public want to hear. No dissrespect to modern composers, all music is important, but music influenced by the old styles should be accepted :)[/quote']

You should READ POSTS before responding to a thread.

This has all been discussed already in this very thread. You are wrong. Period.

You are just repeating all the "false assertions", which have been demonstrated to be false, numerous times.

You know so little about contemporary music that it's not funny! Don't assume that your little "atonal" piano exercises were actually "modern music".

The vast majority of new music I've been hearing in concert is NOT atonal. It's highly lyrical, motif-driven, tonal-centered, and DEFINATELY audience-appreciated.

Sure, an audience of blue-haired old ladies won't want to hear anything more modern than brahms... hell, they'll balk at Debussy. But who cares? Little old ladies and people who want background music are not the "real" audience for concert music.

The proof? We have a music festival that started out as a tiny little festival, out in the boondocks ("in the country"), which grew to MASSIVE international stature... and it has the most varied audience you could imagine.

And they play premieres of new music, and the audience errupts into standing ovations.

So, no, music will NOT "go back to mozart and bach". That would be the worst possible thing to happen to music.

However, before you comment on music and where it's going, it's always good to actually KNOW something about where it's going. Before responding to this thread, please, find some new music. Demonstrate you've at least made an effort.

Look up Lowell Liebermann.

Yes QcC is was refering to the atonal music, the modern atonal music if you read my text you will see, and i was ferering to norwegian professors at the conservatory in oslo.

if you listen to hes music, you will understand what im talkin about : hes music:

Amazon.com: Ivar Frounberg: Orchestral Works: Ivar Frounberg,Frans Rasmussen,

another example is Arne Nordheim, international composer :

Amazon.com: Arne Nordheim: Complete Violin Music: Arne Nordheim,Eivind Aadland,Stavanger Symphony Orchestra,Peter Herresthal: Music

Arne Nordheim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if you call that music lyrical its you view, not mine, an we have different remeber when you talk about music, everything is subjective. and the majority will rather listen to mozart influenced music then arne nordheim that is my point!

and refering to my atonal piece is not good, that piece? the whole piece is bullshit.

ok, here goes:

Amazon.com: James Galway plays Lowell Liebermann: Lowell Liebermann,Lowell Liebermann,James Galway,London Mozart Players: Music

Amazon.com: Liebermann: Piano Concertos: Lowell Liebermann,Lowell Liebermann,Glasgow BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra,Stephen Hough: Music

here's a CD with a couple of composers on it:

Amazon.com: Great Artists From Canada: Alexander Brott,Jacques Hetu,Simon Streatfeild,Maureen Forrester,Joseph Rouleau,Louise Charbonneau: Music

not ALL new music is like the examples you posted. Stop thinking your limited experience is the ONLY thing that exists.

Is my clarinet sonata "noise"? Ok, it's not published yet, but it's a new work, getting its premiere in November, then being performed again in August and next october by different clarinetists. (much Canadian music is not "published")

no QcC, i wonder if you are reading what i said to quote myself: i talk about the atonal modern music, NOT NOT NOT other music, like i said im talking about music like Ivar and Arne Nordheim. And i did not say that any of you work is noise, please let me hear you clarinet sonata. Dont take this as critic to yourself. like i said, and i will repeat : I talk about atonal modern music, and the music lowell was lyrical and nice, yes!

Its the atonal i dont get.

And you dont need to be rude, i was not rude to you "Stop thinking your limited experience is the ONLY thing that exists", i dont think everyone does music like that, but its popular. well my limted experience yes, i have that thanks for pointing it out

dillinger escape plan, converge, the red chord.. these bands are 'daring', this is new.

stockhausen is soooo half-a-century ago..

Simen, the problem may be in the way you express yourself.

I read you posts and get the impression that you think that all new music is like those examples you posted. And you come back to that and then refer to mozart and bach.

But new music is so much MORE than just that. New music is as wide in stylistic variety as all of the music of the last 100 years.

So, I understand that you don't like the "experimental" and "atonal" music. But that doesn't mean it's the only thing being created by new composers. And audiences are quite aware that there is beautiful lyrical new music being written and performed.

You said:

Composition isn't in such a great place right now, though. Art music (not just classical) has fallen out of the public eye, for the most part.

I'm just showing you that it hasn't "fallen out of the public eye, nor is it in a bad place at all! New music is as vibrant as ever. And as varied as ever.

yes true, and why? do you think the modern compositions is what the public wants to hear? the adstract atonal music ? no not at all, and that is why composition is going badly! The normal ear wants to hear some melody, they dont understand and dont care about this modern "interlectual" music. The sad thing is: composition should be very free at this point, we have many peridoes do choose form, but that is not accepted by schools or other composers. we "have" to compose modern music.

And I said that new music is NOT necessarily "abstract atonal" music.

As for what they teach in schools, that's a completely different matter.

They SHOULD be showing you the latest techniques, even if you will not use them later, after you leave school.

You cannot decide you will not use something if you don't understand it first. Who knows, maybe you will be able to make something truly lyrical and beautiful even within the strictures of some very avant-garde technique. THAT is where the true art of a composer shows itself.

Atonal music is not the only valid new music.

But then, new tonal music is not invalid, either.

What IS questionable, is when someone simply parrots a style of music, without imprinting his own identity on it. But that is a considerably more difficult thing to identify correctly.

I don't write atonal music, or very little of it when I do. My music is mainly tonal-centered. However, I still try and incorporate elements of "modernism" into my music in some form or other. I believe it is the creative artist's duty to try and reflect at least a part of the period in which they live.

Someone might criticize me for not being "modern enough", but they can't criticize me for not trying.

I'm just showing you that it hasn't "fallen out of the public eye, nor is it in a bad place at all! New music is as vibrant as ever. And as varied as ever.

Variation means little in terms of how popular it is. If you seriously take a look at the popularity of classical music compared to other genres, then yes, it has fallen out of the public eye. When I say "public eye", I don't mean just the current classical audience, as you seem to be referring to. I mean the entirety of music listeners, whether they be listening to rap, rock, jazz, classical, reggae, whatever. I'm not saying that more popular genres are bad, I'm just presenting my opinion.

Variation means little in terms of how popular it is. If you seriously take a look at the popularity of classical music compared to other genres, then yes, it has fallen out of the public eye. When I say "public eye", I don't mean just the current classical audience, as you seem to be referring to. I mean the entirety of music listeners, whether they be listening to rap, rock, jazz, classical, reggae, whatever. I'm not saying that more popular genres are bad, I'm just presenting my opinion.

the audience for classical/art music is as large as it ever was.

it has barely changed. unfortunately, not growing exponentially.

however, if you compare it to the "audience" for rap, hiphop and dance music, then you are comparing apples and oranges. rap, hiphop and dance did not HAVE an audience 100 years ago which could be compared to the audience at that time for concert music.

Popular music as a mass-media commodity is a relatively modern invention. To compare the rapid growth of CDs, MP3 downloads, use in television, etc.. of pop music versus classical is an unfair comparison.

Any music audience has a considerably wider range of choices now than 100 years ago. The reality of music dissemination is considerably different now than it was in the previous centuries (19th, 18th, etc...), even when compared to the early 20th century.