Composition today

Yes QcC, it think you missunderstod what i mean in my comments, like i said, there is much beautiful new music realy, its the atonal music i dont like, there is sure some good atonal music to! But art in genreal is walking away from the traditional art/music, as in paiting, you dont have to be very skilled with the pen, im many studies you dont even need to know much about how you use a pen, the most difficult ting to paint is landscape, humans, with shaddows and in 3d, if you paint a red line right across a white background that is the modern art, i was last week and looked at modern art, well some of the art was 15 buckets filled with water plased afer eachother forming a line.

And its this form of art and music i talk about, and that is what i dont like. I not criticizeing you QcC, you seem to know much about music and composition, and i realy want ot learn from you. I hope you understand what im talking about :)

ps i dont belive all modern music is atonal and nosie, you the music in the atonal genere.

but that is a subjective oppinion, i just say what i like, an other people may like it and i respect that. as in composition there is good to compose different music. like i said earlier all music is important!

the most difficult ting to paint is landscape, humans, with shaddows and in 3d, if you paint a red line right across a white background that is the modern art

Are you saying that the quality of a piece is determined by how hard it was to do? But honestly, we have photography to depict a landscape realistically today and I want more of a piece of art than admire some amazing mastery of technique. If a red line across a white background is all the material you need for your art, go for it!

I'd also like to mention that "abstract atonal music" is quite a nonsensical statement, as almost every music we know is abstract. A Beethoven sonata quite as much as Stockhausen's "Gruppen". Actually some of the music that is the least abstract (such as Messiaens bird calls) is clearly not classically tonal, as tonality is pretty much a guarantee for abstract music. (As you can't imitate natural phenomenons well when you're too bound by rules.)

Similarly "modern music" isn't a very good term, as modernism generally refers to a period at the beginning of the 20th century. Of course the word "modern" has several meanings, but things can easily get confusing if you use it too arbitrarily.

Also, you referred to the "normal ear". You use that term, while ignoring most ears that have existed so far. Not only the ears of the past, but also the ears of other cultures, or the ears of people who aren't interested in classical music at all. If you like baroque music, I'm sure you must be glad that there is not just the music that most people like best. I'm not a large audience, but I'm an audience, and I like listening to Lachenmann more than listening to Britney Spears, so I'm quite glad that not everyone has the "normal ear" as their top priority.

One final thing I must object to is calling atonal music "intellectual". It's a common misconception that atonal music has to be "understood" in order to appreciate it. Maybe this is also one of the reasons so many people simply reject it. Atonal music can be experienced like any other music, you just often can't use your normal vocabulary to describe it. I find it funny how many people can find bird calls beautiful but reject atonal music right away as "intellectual". The only difference is that the latter was made (in general) more consciously. It may even have been composed with a very "intellectual" system, but so are Bach fugues and you can enjoy them without understanding everything about them.

In our conservatory we had a nice example that demonstrates this. A couple of months ago Brian Ferneyhough came to our school and talked about his work, and some of it was played. Now, if you don't know Ferneyhough: If the term "intellectual music" could be applied to anything, then to his music. It's extremely complex and hard to analyse. In a seminar (Ferneyhough wasn't there) we discussed what would be a good approach to listening to his music, as when you look at his scores you are so overwhelmed with information that you simply don't know where to start, what to listen for. Our teacher however showed us that all it really takes is listening to "gestures" and how they develop. You can actually leave the rhythm, harmonies etc. aside first and simply listen to it as a series of sounds that are chained together, gestures that slowly change their forms. It suddenly becomes very easy to listen to the music once you realise this, and then you see that in the end, the complex rhythms and tone relationships are merely a construction tool upon which these gestic developments are built, much like the many rules of counterpoint and tonal harmony are simply tools to help to support the "actual music".

Music is only "intellectual" if you approach it intellectually. (Which can certainly also be great.)

a true ear is a thing to build, not to use it as "natural" phenomenon.

build you ears for imaginative soundstructures, soundscapes, soundsounds and you'll be free as a bird. messiaen knew that.i'm learning to do that. i build my ears.

a true ear is to become.

unless you deeply think man is not capable of being not just an animal species.

Should there be a conventional nomenclature for music from 20th century onwards that satisfies common sensibilities? Seeing as to how the 'new' qualifier appears to have been applied inaccurately, should we do away with it altogether?

I think 'contemporary' could be useful to differentiate living vs. deceased composers, but I suppose some people would also object to strict adoption of this descriptor.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I thought I could throw in a different spin. As 'contemporary composers' (as we all are), what should we do if our music is not appreciated?

I think Qccowboy's replies and the single, lengthy reply by Gardener are to be read very carefully. They've both made some really good points, and I think people should think twice before replying hastily to their comments.

Tip: taking me seriously often leads to misconceptions and arguments.

(and don't make a quip about obvious exceptions like when I'm reviewing pieces)

Nico, you seem to have a skill in ignoring what other people say and stick to the things you can actually reply to. It's as if you can't read anything that confronts what you think/believe in. However, I'll just let you know that that skill impresses me much less than a good reply, which I have yet to witness.

About people taking other people seriously, welcome to the real world. There are good and bad things about both wittiness and seriousness, but you can't just do one thing; as the ancient greeks said, "(πάν) μέτρον άριστον", which basically means that there should be a balance in everything. You can't only be serious, and you can't only funny and take things lightly either, simply because other people won't. You need to do both, because that's the way things are. If you are commissioned to write a piece for the LSO, you can't just turn up the day before the deadline and tell them "heh, I was having a laugh with some friends and I couldn't finish it, could I have another month, it's just a month guys, God made earth in 6 days HAHAHA".

You also have to differentiate between wit/non-seriousness and disrespect, because by showing an inability to reply seriously, it's a kind of disrespect towards someone who is trying to have a serious conversation about something, no matter who that is. Showing that you have the ability to be both funny and serious will help people distinguish between wit and disrespect, but if you only show a frivolous you, you will be thought of as being incapable of having a serious conversation (even if that's not what you personally prefer), and thus show disrespect towards other people who can and do take things seriously.

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

That's the unfortunate thing. Apparently composers today are supposed to reform to the weird and overtly experimental sounds as opposed to the more simplified, more commercial sounds of the musical industry. I don't buy it, either. I think in this day and age, with so many genres and many different things to do with music, composers should be free to do as they wish.

I'm not a fan of atonality either, and unless I'm asked to compose a completely atonal piece for an assignment, I'm going to avoid it altogether. I think it's certainly interesting, and you can get some really cool ideas by listening to that (I particularly like Peter Maxwell Davies, and the manner in which he incorporates bits and pieces of plainchant into his music), but other than that, there's definitely a lot of freedom that composers don't believe there is.

Anyone who says that composers who write in a tonal structures are not with the times, or lack sufficient knowledge is a load of nonsense (which is a sentiment already stated several times, I know). If you want your music to reach a broader listening audience, you're not going to do it with atonality. As already mentioned, it's up to the composer.

It is incredibly difficult that today

Do you honestly believe people had more freedom 300 years ago? :huh:

Certainly! 300 years ago composers could do whatever they wanted, and the public would love and support it! They all were incredibly rich bastards too.

I don't know if it would be wise to say anything has been "balanced out". In fact, I'd say that there's just a lot more people doing a lot more things than there were 50 years ago.

And no, there is no neo-neo-romanticism or such nonsense. It all falls under the big stupid label of post-modernism, because really what else are you gonna call what comes after the modern?

What comes after modern is really hard to say, since we can't look at the times we're in as we can the times that passed. In that sense, it's very hard to judge in which direction things are leaning towards. However, it can be said that there's all sorts of people writing all sorts of music, where before it wasn't so varied due to exposure.

Anyways, I would never say there was a "peak of crap" moment in history. Also, why call any of the techniques ridiculous? That you don't like them is one thing, but saying they are ridiculous is as arguable as calling 18th century counterpoint ridiculous. Plus, I bet that as you actually learn more about all there really is out there, and actually try it yourself, it's going to be a lot different.

And, you know what? The sound that chair makes when its thrown across the room is (in the composer's opinion) beautiful, and that's what the composer wants you to hear. Just like he may want you to hear a c major triad or a cluster. That's the whole idea, sound, no matter how's made or where it comes from.

That's one of the ideas behind process music. Music that emerges from a process, like Reich's Pendulum music, or many other such pieces. You're given an instruction, and carrying it out results in the "piece". Poeme Symphonique from Ligeti is the same way. So, if the score says "throw chair across a room 10 meters wide" and then proceeds to give instructions on how to throw it, what type of chair, etc. That's just as valid as any other notation.

Me and a friend once tried throwing different objects (including a toy that played weird traditional-sounding Chinese music and it was REALLY UGLY) 9 floors down out the window, in attempts to see if it sounded cool.

Yeah, it did.

I can't say I've ever gotten to literally throw chairs across the room, but I remember when some fellow students and I prepared a room for our computer music concert and dragged some chairs across the room we were so fascinated by the sound of it that we did an instantaneous improvisation :P I think as composers we should try to keep our ears open at every time, not just when we listen to actual "music". If you actually listen to creaking doors and bird song you might discover much beauty, which most people don't even consider. After my first experiments with electronic music I really started to hear things differently, and the sound of a plane passing by suddenly became really fascinating, when I started to actually listen to the richness of that sound with all its nuances.

But anyways, I can to some degree understand the sentiment about there being a "neo-romantic" thing going on. A lot of contemporary music (especially from the US) does have this "round and pleasing" sound going, with quite romantic gestures and colour, even if it's entirely atonal. (Not unlike Sch

I don't think many musical instruments or sounds were "invented" because of their "emotional content", but rather because it "sounded cool". The first log people hit with a stick, as much as the invention of the clarinet, or the first usage of playing sul ponticello. Maybe that sound was used afterwards in emotional ways, but it generally wasn't created for a specific emotion. I really don't think someone just thought "I'm angry, but I can't express that feeling musically! I'm inventing a trombone now so I can!".

Of course emotions play their part in deciding whether we like a certain sound, but I don't see how that excludes creaking doors. By itself, an oboe isn't any more emotional than a door.

but since duschamps , ''what'' seems of relevance and now "where" generally for arts :)

You have no clue what you're missing out on! Ah, well, I guess I'll just go back to play with my lovingly creaking door on my own.

plus, there's whole new artists group emerging, who play "found objects". ah, i did it some time ago with transistor radio, rice, bucket of water and a cocktail mixer flying across microphone. well, i remember i started my artist career by banging pots and digeridooing a tube of vaccum cleaner :)

Hmm...well, fine, people can like what they want to like but I doubt many people have been emotionally touched by the sound of dragging chairs and creaking doors. Since I believe music's purpose is emotional, it really makes me appreciate these kind of things less. If the reaction is "that sounds cool omg lolz" then in my opinion, it's pointless. But thats just my opinion.

There's an underlying logical and reasonable point to be made as to why use chairs (thrown or otherwise) and such other non-traditional sounds to produce musical products. This point is quite simply really.

You have to consider each single sound as a potential musical element, for the simple reason that it may be a tool to express something in a way which otherwise would be complicated, not preferred or simply "Not cool enough." What better way to describe a chair being thrown across the room than actually throwing a chair across the room?

Surely, you can try to adapt the concept to traditional parameters and of course you would be saving precious chairs in doing so. However, these are two ways of capturing the idea. There is nothing wrong or un-emotional about throwing a chair across the room, simply because it's another method of expression. It's a different color, like you'd pick an Oboe to play certain notes, you can pick to throw a chair across the room.

Strictly speaking, a composer who shuts himself out of possible tools they can use when making music is acting foolishly if they deny these tools on the assumption they are inferior, ridiculous, or un-emotional, etc. The only real reason to choose not to use certain tools and techniques is simply that you don't need them, or don't want to use them because you don't find them adequate for the effect/outcome you want.

Anything can have an emotional impact, from chairs thrown across rooms to pianos (Thrown across rooms) and even silence. These are all tools, and if a composer believes they can get the sound they want by throwing sofas (HA!) across rooms they might as well.

But it's understandable that it takes a little while to get the ear used to music that sounds like toasters being thrown through windows(!), or such other noises and things. But like anything, once you get used to it, it becomes much easier to lose the bias and actually listen to what the sounds actually do to you.

If throwing a chair across the room causes a reaction of disgust, outrage, or just dislike, you can use the chair-throwing-composition-technique(!) when you want a composition of yours to perhaps carry the same meaning, or part of it where it applies. Why not, after all? Writing music is always risking mis-interpretation, it seems as a good reason as any to use the technique if it had an effect on you at all.

In fact, one of my teachers generally said that music has to cause something. It doesn't matter what, but it has to cause a reaction. If you're listening to something and you react to it, it means that on some level it reached you. If you hear something and it sounds like it's raining and you could as well not notice, then it's not having much effect is it?

And, really, it's much easier to just forget all the bias, elitism, and whatever other academic bullshit that gets in the way and just listen to the sounds and see if they do anything to you. I think there isn't really any better way to really know what works for you, though of course interest on behalf of the things that aren't working is also nice (always nice to study) but otherwise it gives you an idea of what's the stuff that may be interesting to do. Try not to discard stuff unless you actually had experience in it, even if it means sacrificing a chair or two.

But yous gotta listen, not think. From what I've seen, for a composer, that's VERY difficult. To just sit and forget you know anything about music and just check out the sounds for sake of the sounds. Be it Mozart or Cowell, and see if you get something out of it all that you can later intellectualize all you want (or not, as may be the case.)

PS:

Though I feel, sadly, that even today after all the years of avant-garde chair-throwing, it's still something viewed as unorthodox, weird, etc. In the end, taking such freedoms really involves a risk, as any with any artistic freedom. But at the same time, there comes a time to make decisions. Is chair-throwing OK even if it means possibly alienating people who don't understand where you're coming from? Or is it better to limit one's expression, shut it up so to speak, so to write music that is more statistically probable to be "Likable" by others?

Though the freedom to throw chairs across the room is still risky now, I hope that in the future this risk will continue to decrease as it has for all these years. ... Of course, this is all assuming you're not hitting anyone with all the junk you're throwing around!

The next big thing: Concerto for Chair & Fractured Rib.

i've just scanned these last few pages and from what i've read it all goes back to the "is XXX style of music really music" blah blah bull crap. Im really surprised that nobody has even mentioned Leonard Bernstein, who many consider to be the best of the "modern" (im using that word lightly, please dont discuss what "moderism" is...) composers.

It just seems to me that Cage and his fellows are all hype and are only good for debate situations, when other composers are still following many of the rules and creating great music. Seriously people, look at composers TODAY:

Eric Whitacre

Leonard Bernstein

Stephen Sondheim

Jim Brickman (the man has good piano music)

Mel Brooks

Andrew Lloyd Webber

John Williams

Hans Zimmer

Aaron Copeland

Z. Randall Stroope

(all of these in no particular order)

There are a few that you can place together in that group that have very similar sounds, for example Stroope and Whitacre have similar themes in their choral music, while Copeland, Webber, Bernstein and Sondheim can be placed in their own categories. We're all so worried about the serialism/atonalism/whateverthehellitscallisms...

music is in good hands guys.

/Rant.

i've just scanned these last few pages and from what i've read it all goes back to the "is XXX style of music really music" blah blah bull crap. Im really surprised that nobody has even mentioned Leonard Bernstein, who many consider to be the best of the "modern" (im using that word lightly, please dont discuss what "moderism" is...) composers.

...

music is in good hands guys.

... No comment, really~

Andrew Lloyd Webber

if music is in andrew webber's hands, then, hopefully, there'll be (and are) some people creating Not Music :D

if music is in andrew webber's hands, then, hopefully, there'll be (and are) some people creating Not Music :D

oh it may be horrifically simplistic and cliche, every other word to describe "cheesy," however people like it and it is widely excepted to the mass public of what classical music is today. hmm...for this site i should just edited my list to: Stroope, Whitacre, Copeland and Bernstein.

that's better, but not good enough, at least get some phil glass in there, he does it simply, transparingly and reaches wide public, because of his film music. plus he's less of a cliche among these high profile composers 8-)

that's better, but not good enough, at least get some phil glass in there, he does it simply, transparingly and reaches wide public, because of his film music. plus he's less of a cliche among these high profile composers 8-)

havnt really investigated him..ill pick up on your suggestion though. But seriously, the point of my little rant was to say: CURRENT composition and music is not in bad shape and is still music. Not 4 min and 33 seconds of "experience" or somebody throwing a chair across a room..

:w00t:

Younger composers seem to be very concerned with so-called emotion on this site, yet how soon they forget about technique. The less control you have over what you are doing, the less you will be able to convey any sort of coherent thought. Of course, when people put Bernstein and Lloyd-Weber on a pedestal I can't say I'm surprised. "Oh man listen to that, listen to how EMOTIONAL it is!!!!" What does that even mean? Bach's music conveys plenty of emotion, but it also has a calculated nature to it. Hell, pretty much all at least decently constructed Western art music does. Technique and control of one's musical universe is what makes a person stand out and really tugs at people's heart strings, not a sappy cliche sounding oboe solo.

Sincerely,

A huge Bernstein (as a conductor) and Phantom of the Opera fan

So, I take it that you don't consider James Tenney's compositions "music"? Like his "Having Never Written A Note For Percussion"

http://fuwatom.hp.infoseek.co.jp/top/tenney-percussion.gif

If not, then please do download the version by Sonic Youth on their album "Goodbye 20th Century" from iStore: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=42066438&id=42066452&s=143441 and listen to it (it's just 99c/song) :)

To qms5287: Adorno said he despised of people who sought "emotion" in pieces, in that they listened to pieces so they could cry, "filled with emotion" :P

This is a little off topic, but it's about Andrew Lloyd Weber.

My composition teacher has a friend from college would knows Andrew Lloyd Weber. And every once in a while, he gets a memo that says "please orchestrate this:" with what is essentially a melody. Sometimes it's just a snippit, and he has to not only orchestrate it, but develop it, and actually make it music. According to him, there's a LOT of people who do this for Andrew LLoyd Weber.

That, in combination with the fact that every musical of his besides Phantom sucks nardballs, makes it impossible for me like/respect Andrew Lloyd Weber.

Oh, and the fact that one of the songs in Evita starts out with the lyrics "The lady's got poten-ti-al" with the accent on the "al."