Traditionalism?

I'm wondering, considering musicologists like to throw around terms such as neoclassicism, neoromanticism and a bunch of other made-up words, I'm wondering if there's a little bit less complex term composers could use. What I mean is, for those of us who like to compose in a more traditional, tonal structure. Would calling ourselves "musical traditionalists" be too vague, or too broad?

Does traditionalism imply something else, or would using this term be a possibility?

Just a note: don't feel you have to label yourself. ;)

I take pleasure in not being able to describe my music to someone else in a couple of words.

I'm wondering, considering musicologists like to throw around terms such as neoclassicism, neoromanticism and a bunch of other made-up words, I'm wondering if there's a little bit less complex term composers could use. What I mean is, for those of us who like to compose in a more traditional, tonal structure. Would calling ourselves "musical traditionalists" be too vague, or too broad?

Does traditionalism imply something else, or would using this term be a possibility?

It's not a matter of category, it's a matter of trying to get a label which somewhat describes the musical content. The more exact the label is, the better.

You can say your piece uses traditional harmony/etc, but that'd make it neo-classical/baroque/romantic, because those were the times which used "traditional things". This is a much more accurate label than "tradition" as we don't know what we'll consider as "tradition" in 200 years. But in 200 years, surely we'll still know that something neo-romantic takes stuff from the romantic period, etc etc.

So, no, traditionalism isn't really a real term, no. But you can use it anyways if you want to generalize, but when properly addressing modern music which uses romantic/classical/etc stylistic parameters you should refer to the actual period you're taking the parameters from rather than using a blanket term.

I would put myself somewhere in the 1800's, as I'm not as strict as before that period, and not as modern as the 1900's. So I compose somewhere in the Romantic thick of things, but that's not my main influence. I also write band-style music, stuff in the form of contemporary music for concert band and brass and things like that, with a touch and hint of jazz or blues in the occasional composition. But if I were to describe my composing self in one word, I might say "consonant." I would like to think myself as a traditionalist, but I do like to try new things on my own, especially when it comes to instrument use.

I think "traditionalist" would be a poor word to use, since the word "tradition" has a negative connotation.

Considering we've been in the 20th century for, say, 100 years, and the 21st century for nearly 10, the "tradition" we've adopted is not a completely tonal musical language. Even before the turn of the century, music was approaching the breaking point of post-tonality (just look at the chromatic melodic gestures in Symphony Fantastique, or Wagner, Humperdink, and Chausson in their extensions of chromatic harmony).

Neoclassical and neo-romantic are not fake words, by the way.

Neoclassical music is NOT music written with the harmonic style of the Classical period. Neoclassical music is music written using classical form and structure, generally with a modern harmonic language. This can be very effective, as the formal structure gives a sense of unification that may not otherwise be found in post/non-tonal music.

Neoromantic music is modern "Romantic" music. This generally employs the harmonic and formal language of music reminiscent of the 19th century.

Personally, I don't see the point of limiting oneself solely music written in the tradition of the 17th, 18th, or 19th century. The "great masters" already pretty well exhausted this music, and, while it may be fun to listen to Mozart, it sounds considerably dated, as does pastiche writings of Mozart. The instruments Mozart and Beethoven wrote for are not the instruments we currently play. The audiences Mozart and Beethoven wrote for are not the concert audiences of today. Saying "I'm going to write only strictly tonal music" is like saying "I'm going to ignore the artistic advances of the last 200 years." How can you write a piece that reflects society when you're trying to mimic the sociological icons of the 1700 or 1800's? That's just silly.

To flint; Tradition does not have to be a negative word. Look at Bartok and Kodaly. They took a rich folk music tradition (which is exactly what they called it as well) and continued this tradition into the concert hall. Look at Charles Ives. He took the musical tradition of the early 20th century revivals and found a way to capture this snapshot of American society in his own music. I think tradition, when used correctly, can be very powerful. The problem comes from those who blindly follow tradition.

Well, it depends how you define "traditionalism". Bartok could be said to have been a "traditionalist" in that he created music based in his own country's music tradition, and also the musical traditions of the many countries he visited and whose music he analysed and wrote down.

In the same sense, Vaughn-Williams, Stravinsky, Skalkottas and Grieg can all be called "traditionalists".

Also, what if I chose to follow the "tradition" of the Second Viennese school? The second viennese school started about 100 years ago, so it could as well belong to the domain of "tradition". Would you therefore call me a traditionalist?

Matt... why confine oneself to a certain period? Because what if a composer can't or doesn't like to write in more modern styles? You can always create something new with old styles of composition. I happen to almost despise most modern and/or post-tonal music. I just don't like it. So why should I write modern music if I don't like it? The wonderful thing is that there are endless possibilities in music, no matter how many people have already written a given style. And by the way, I find your observations on your one statement quite false. "The audiences Mozart and Beethoven wrote for are not the concert audiences of today." This is not true. If it were, we wouldn't even recognise Mozart and Beethoven as much as we do. My youth orchestra is playing Beethoven 5 this semester, and last semester we played Brandenburg 3 and Beethoven 2, the latter of which was played by our local professional orchestra as well. Would we play it if it wasn't for our audience? No. Plenty of people enjoy the more "traditional" music if you'll forgive me for putting it that way. It appears what you are saying is that their music is outdated and pointless, or of little or no interest to today society, when in fact it is of extreme interest. Have you noticed how popular recordings of the "old" greats are in today's society? Ask people if they are familiar with John Adams or Cage, or Berg. Many won't have even heard the names. Can I ask you why this would be the case when almost EVERYBODY recognises the names of Bach, Wagner, Vivaldi, Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy, and Strauss?

A few things, because I think you completely missed my point.

All the names you mentioned are wonderful, wonderful composers, and their work is a treasure. However, the music they wrote is a reflection of their society. The formalism the Classical era is directly linked to the philosophical thought at the time, along with the structure and harmonic language. In the same way, the dodecaphonic and serial music is the output of 20th century society. As we entered WWI and led up to WWII, music became more and more openly "dissonant" and less reliant on tonal structure. Look at Schoenberg, for example. Early Schoenberg is, as my composition teacher puts it, some of the best Brahms you'll ever listen to. As Schoenberg studied and studied and created, he found less reliance on the tonal structure, then he abandoned it, and after that created a system for organizing music by pitch series (or rows), which functions in a way similar to tonality. Guess what? Just about EVERY composer of the late 19th and early 20th century were moving in this direction. Given 5 more years, Mahler probably would have written truly non-tonal music (and it's a shame he didn't live to, because it would have been GLORIOUS!). Strauss was definitely moving in the direction of non-tonal structure, as did Bartok, Hindemith, Aaron Copeland, and even Debussy.

It's actually funny that you mention Debussy, since he was only a selectively tonal composer. Debussy was one of the pioneers of using things like the whole tone scale, the octatonic scale, and bitonal chords in his music.

Anyway, I got off topic, but that needed to be said. I don't think that we should only play music that was written in the last 100 years. That would be boring, and expensive. However, to write ONLY in the style of Classical and early Romantic composers is writing out of context with society. Music should be indicative of culture, and our culture is not Mozart or Beethoven. Even modern "tonal" composers writing serious music (as opposed to music specifically for youth ensembles) use many modern and expressionist techniques. Look at our own Mr. Edward (Qccowboy). He writes music that could arguably be called tonal, but he also uses many modern compositional techniques. Arguably, he has a very mature, distinctly individual voice. My own music is written similarly (using similar techniques), but the harmonic language differs, possibly because I'm younger, possibly because I have a stronger influence from composers like Ives and Stockhausen, but possibly because as an American, I'm in a tenser political climate than Michael is.

I'll stop ranting now and try to make a semi-concise point. I don't think that every person writing music should just drop their key signatures, drop triads, and start writing in poly-rhythm. I do, however, think that you need to DESPERATELY understand the music, artistic, and cultural advances of the 20th century. Saying you simply "don't like 20th century music" is limiting and ignorant (especially when you list composers like Strauss that were definitely still actively composing post-Romantic music in the 20th century). I can understand not liking aspects, or schools of 20th century composition. However, there are MANY, MANY, MANY different compositional styles that have been employed quite successfully in the last 110 years, and many of these compositional styles and techniques can be adopted very well to "tonal" music. In fact, I would say modern composition demands this, because otherwise the music written is going to be irrelevant. Mozart is wonderful, but there is a time and place for writing in the style of Mozart, and that's either A) If you are currently living in the 18th century or B) you're trying to get a better understanding of Mozart's compositional techniques and harmonic language choices.

Sorry this is so long, but every sentence I finish gives me a final point. If you're going to write tonal music, at least write exciting tonal music. Bach constantly modulated. Mozart used chromatic harmony. Beethoven used chromatic mediant key and chord relationships, as did Schubert. Wagner used fully chromatic harmony, as did Mahler (to a degree). Every tonal composer pushed the envelope further and expanded our understanding of music theory. Don't turn away from this. Most composers who say they want to write in a "traditional" style are usually just saying "I'm too afraid to take risks harmonically", and it shows in the music. Don't be afraid to try new things with your writing, and reap the benefits that come from taking those risks.

(As a composer in another forum would say, in my NEVER humble opinion)

Matt

I agree with the "Ignoring the 20th century is idiotic" sentiment, but what I don't agree is the conditions you name for writing in Vienna Classic (or any other old school, Bach, Buxtehude, etc.)

If you find that the idiom of Mozart actually identifies you and you like it and you feel you can express through it things you otherwise can't, why the hell not use it? Being modern for the sake of being modern or out of duty is just as retarded as ignoring modern music altogether. It should be a CHOICE, first and foremost. It has to be an ARTISTIC choice, and the composer is therefore free to write in any style he/she likes and thinks its best, regardless of how anyone thinks that's relevant or not to "Modern society", etc.

Similarly, society affects pieces' reception to fit its own context along with the times. Bach, Mozart, and co. are still quite relevant and the context which surrounds them now is a creation of modern society. That people talk of them are "great masters" etc is a creation of modern society. They are therefore pretty actual and relevant. The notion that they are old only comes from an illusion of "musical progress". Music isn't better or worse than at Bach's time, or Mozart's. Their styles are only "dated" if you think of them as outdated as the music itself is timeless by the very virtue of being music.

All else is attached to it by musicologists and people with too much time in their hands. Imagine that all historical context is lost, and you see a piece by John Cage and one by Vivaldi. If you have no historical context, what's preventing you from thinking "Hey two very different things" and leaving it at that? Can you TELL one is older than the other? Just by the music? Take history away, and all notions of modern, old, traditional, etc vanish along with all the bullshit that comes with these labels.

This is one aspect that shouldn't be forgotten. Music is one thing, history is another.

Another clarification, something neo-classical is neo-classical by using elements from the classical period, such as harmonic conception, form, etc. Any of these elements can also be absent. You can write polyrhythmic junk over classical harmony and you'd still have a neo-classical piece in theory. But today, I'd say all of that'd fall squarely under post-modernism rather than neo-anything as those were periods already past and defined by certain composers (Stravinsky, Hindemith, etc.)

Also, what the hell does exciting mean in context from music, like you put it? At least write exciting music? You go on to cite examples of composers using things that were a-typical for the mainstream of their time (arguably) but today what does this mean? Interrupting a cadence with clusters? Again with the being modern for the sake of being modern rather than respecting the composers' intuition.

I honestly would much rather have someone write a Mozart sonata wannabe because that's what they feel they have to do than have them write serial music out of duty for the 20th century. Maybe in an academic sense I can justify forcing someone to do exercises in modern techniques, but pieces should not be a reflection of technique studies, but the composer's inner thoughts, feelings, and above all artistic conception.

I defend the composer's freedom to write, for example, in Bach's idiom if they feel that's what they have to do as composers and artists. It doesn't matter it's been done a million times before, it doesn't matter if it's old. It doesn't matter if it may sound "dated" to some, it doesn't matter if it's unexciting. It only matters that the composer is doing what they want with the music they create. Period.

This is one aspect that shouldn't be forgotten. Music is one thing, history is another.

No, because irregardless of whether you just take everything aside and compare the two pieces you mentioned, the Cage piece would most likely not exist if it wasn't for the Vivaldi piece.

History is

And thing is, most people say they "despise" or don't like modern/contemporary music while they are actually biased in that they've grown up listening to tonal music, and then deny listening to anything else. I think we're all used to listening to tonal music, and one should just try and get out of his own tastes and see something in as much as a "tabula rasa" mind as possible, in terms of music taste. Only then we'll be able to equally appreciate a piece by Holt, a gregorian chant, an indian rag, sacred music of ghana and japanese court music, Of course, to fully appreciate each of these things you'd have to have an at least basic knowledge of its historical and cultural context, otherwise Cage's 4'33" has little meaning, and so does japanese court music (it's like drinking powdered green tea without the ceremony that precedes drinking it - you can still taste the tea, and of course you *can* drink it without the ceremony and even enjoy it, but it loses much of its value if you do it without the ceremony).

Music is an Art, and all the Arts are in a way directly linked to societies, and societies are subjects to geographical and historical differences (i.e. western societies were different 200 years ago, and also eastern societies today are different than western societies). It would thus be ethically and philosophically speaking wrong to take something like that out of context, unless that is its intention.

Of course, to fully appreciate each of these things you'd have to have an at least basic knowledge of its historical and cultural context, otherwise Cage's 4'33" has little meaning, and so does japanese court music

well, japanese (or did you mean javanese?) court music sounds are heavily into something which is tradition, while this particular piece of john cage music is more of a question what is music and sound in general - which is questioning the tradition. so they do not stand on the same grounds. one is sound/music as it is understood in some tradition, the other one is a total break from the tradition. taking it more abstractly, gamelan sounds, while 4.33 opens up a space for sound. so, one can and usually do like real things (sounds, textures), rather than ideas behind those things (what is sound, what is performance?).cagean gesture, as was his all enterprise into music, is more of a philosophical value than a purely practical one. it's not to sound, it's to ask what is sound/music? so cage's case is entirely different one.

No, because irregardless of whether you just take everything aside and compare the two pieces you mentioned, the Cage piece would most likely not exist if it wasn't for the Vivaldi piece.

Really? Doesn't seem like there's any real logical ground that dictates the course of art history. It could've as well been that Cage was before Vivaldi. There's no concrete and objective parameters which point to Cage's music in this example having anything to do with Vivaldi in a sense that one can draw a conclusion of succession.

And, how do you even know if Cage's piece wouldn't exist without Vivaldi? We can't test that theory and it requires a really huge leap of logic in assuming Vivaldi's piece had as a direct consequence Cage's, considering there's a lot of time in between and they're entirely different. Moreover, one can argue that Cage could have come up with the piece from an entirely non-artistic source, where Vivaldi would have no ground or influence.

Either way, that's a moot argument and it seems that my point got lost along the way, once again.

But one thing is pretty sure, saying art can be linked to society is one thing, but saying art DEPENDS on society is another entirely different. Art doesn't depend on anything other than someone saying "Hey, this is art", and that's it. Screw context, history, society, any of that. It just takes some guy calling something art for it to be it.

And, how is it ethnically and philosophically wrong to take art out of context, as well as history, culture, etc? What's the damage? You could insult someone, I suppose, if you add Dr Dre lyrics to the sacred music of Ghana. But you know what? Sometimes art is like that, so too bad.

Moreover, you can appreciate anything without having a read a book on the topic, specially when it comes to music. Surely, if you know more about it you can get a different perspective, but it doesn't mean that you HAVE to be a walking encyclopedia of sociological and historical context to listen to anything at all. In fact, I'm much more fond of not knowing anything about what I'm experiencing, artistically, so that what I know doesn't interfere with the experience. Just because you have the info doesn't mean you'll get a better or worse experience. It'll just be different.

Not very "academic" I suppose, but precisely because of that a lot of people hold these insane opinions that you need all these knowledge/etc requirements to just experience art (or other things of the like.)

But I still stand by what I said. Music is one thing, it's sound, it's a physical reaction. It's sound waves, and it's your ears working them into your brain. History is trying to find out who did what, in what order. The two things couldn't be further apart, objectively speaking.

I tend to see a lot of music history as interesting and fun and such, but it can really mud up a person's concept of the music it attempts to organize.

And there's also a fundamental difference, history attempts to immortalize things, and music is precisely the total opposite. It's the moment, and then it is as if never existed. In this sense, you can look at Mozart's pieces as if someone had written them yesterday, because for all you care, they exist here and now. What history hasn't "recorded" is, as far as you know, gone and you never even knew about it.

Also, there's the problem of, what if history is all wrong? What if Vivaldi came after Cage? Then what? Surely, the argument depends on contradicting a fact based on material evidence, and of course the traces of that and all that entails. But really, the only reason we know about Vivaldi at all is because all the stuff exists here and now, so to be really objective, there IS no objective difference in the content of his works that says anything other than that it exists today.

It's not a musical argument, it's an argument based on the simple concept that if you objectively look at all art, modern and old, the only difference between these things is the fact they're different as works of art. History can be built, it can be distorted, it can be faked, but what exists as art stands on its own and even if the history behind a piece of art turns out to be entirely false, the piece of art is still the same regardless. Nothing changed except to those who took the history's importance as a factor beyond the piece of art on its own.

PS:

Plus, the reality of art is such, that when it comes down to it, can you REALLY claim to understand Mozart's intentions, or Bach's, or Cage's? Even if they explained it, wrote books, you are never going to know what went through their heads the moment they wrote the piece, etc etc. All that is lost, and even if the composer is alive, the language barrier is such that communicating these things only gives you information, not a real representation of what they felt when they composed.

And even then, it's all open to interpretation, specially the older music where a lot of composers didn't write books on their techniques and thoughts about art, etc etc.

I love how your replies are so long :)

But I still stand by what I said.

But of course you do :)

Music is one thing, it's sound, it's a physical reaction. It's sound waves, and it's your ears working them into your brain.

Well, it kinda is and is not. Feldman's music is all about sounds. Mozart's music is more about harmonies and melodies.

History is trying to find out who did what, in what order.

Bah, History doesn't do anything; History is the accounting of what has happened. History helps in trying to find out who did what and in what order, if that's what you mean.

Sorry if I got too heated or incoherent in my many rants. I tend to think very fragmented, and my points often get lost or self-contradicted because I try (unsuccessfully) to approach an argument from several angles.

When I say "write exciting music" that doesn't mean that you should start using tone clusters in otherwise tonal music. What I'm saying is that all the "old masters" made their mark by taking the "rules" and bending or breaking them in ways that make their music exciting and stand out against other people. Mozart, as a classical composer, did this though his use of counterpoint, which (at the time) was seen by many people as overly intellectual and against the basic tenants of music that they had adopted. Beethoven re-invented the classical orchestra and the concept of form by using all parts of the symphonic form as grounds for development and introduction of new ideas. If you're going to write music, don't settle for simply writing as others have already written. What is the point of simply emulating others? Instead, one should strive within their own music to find a way to make themselves individual and to develop their voice.

In most undergrad and graduate composition courses, you will spend around a year (or more) writing music that is unlike what you would normally write. You will have to learn how to write serial music. You will need to learn how to write quartal harmony. You will need to write pastiche pieces. Why? The goal is to A) develop an understanding and working knowledge of different compositional techniques B) find a way to individualize the music you write within these settings and C) absorb many different styles and techniques in hopes of finding your own voice. After this experience, you'll find that the music you write is different. "modern" compositional techniques can be applied very successfully to tonal music.

For an example, I'll use my current chamber music partner, who is a starting composition student. After being forced to write dodecaphonic music for a few weeks, he found that the pieces he was writing for himself were much more interesting. Does this mean he started writing serial music instead of tonal music? No. He found that he could take the techniques he learned writing serial music (organization of pitches, layering music, using motives in augmentation and diminution, inverting ideas) and started applying them to his tonal music with great success. He even "takes risks" with his harmonies, using mixed modes, borrowed chords, and quick, semi-distant modulation.

THAT is why I urge people to not limit themselves to simply writing in one style or language until they've taken the time to truly study and appreciate others. You will be given many more tools that can be used in your own writing and find ways to leave the beaten path and make something truly individual. What better way to honor the "old masters" than to follow the tradition of innovation? After all, that is why we remember Mozart instead of Stamitz, Beethoven instead of Czerny, and Bach instead of Buxtehude. None of them simply settled and wrote as others had already done.

Think about it.

In most undergrad and graduate composition courses, you will spend around a year (or more) writing music that is unlike what you would normally write. You will have to learn how to write serial music. You will need to learn how to write quartal harmony. You will need to write pastiche pieces. Why? The goal is to A) develop an understanding and working knowledge of different compositional techniques B) find a way to individualize the music you write within these settings and C) absorb many different styles and techniques in hopes of finding your own voice. After this experience, you'll find that the music you write is different. "modern" compositional techniques can be applied very successfully to tonal music.

This sounds like an odd curriculum set up, I've never heard of a program doing this, and my program certainly doesn't do it. It doesn't seem like a good idea to put a student in a box and force him into a certain direction or technique. I was given free reign to do what I wanted artistically, but I was still guided carefully by my professor.

Yeah, same for me. And I love Buxtehude :( (And Czerny and Stamitz aren't too bad either.)

I love how your replies are so long :)

...

Well, it kinda is and is not. Feldman's music is all about sounds. Mozart's music is more about harmonies and melodies.

Last I checked Mozart's music was still made out of soundwaves, and any sound taken out of cultural and historical context is just plain sound, even if we call them melodies and harmonies now, it's just type of noise/vibration.

And I like answering with walls of text. But not now.

Last I checked Mozart's music was still made out of soundwaves, and any sound taken out of cultural and historical context is just plain sound, even if we call them melodies and harmonies now, it's just type of noise/vibration.

And I like answering with walls of text. But not now.

He'll probably tell you that "sounds" aren't "emotional", but melodies and harmonies are. This is just another instance of someone trying to put music in a box.

Music has never (at least since Monteverdi) been just about "melodies and harmony". To simplify Mozart to that as actually almost insulting on his behalf. From broader perspective, the different "eras" were concerned with different things, and it was never as simple as "hey I'm gonna write a melody then I'm gonna throw some other notes in their, ALRIGHT I GOT A SYMPHONY". I mean honestly. Form, timbre, texture, programmatic intent, so many different things come into play.

This sounds like an odd curriculum set up, I've never heard of a program doing this, and my program certainly doesn't do it. It doesn't seem like a good idea to put a student in a box and force him into a certain direction or technique. I was given free reign to do what I wanted artistically, but I was still guided carefully by my professor.

As explained in the following paragraph, it has its benefits. Maybe it's because I'm not attending a conservatory or because a semester of composition is also required by recording tech majors at my school, but it benefited me, and I saw the benefit to other students, as well.

When I say "write exciting music" that doesn't mean that you should start using tone clusters in otherwise tonal music. What I'm saying is that all the "old masters" made their mark by taking the "rules" and bending or breaking them in ways that make their music exciting and stand out against other people. Mozart, as a classical composer, did this though his use of counterpoint, which (at the time) was seen by many people as overly intellectual and against the basic tenants of music that they had adopted. Beethoven re-invented the classical orchestra and the concept of form by using all parts of the symphonic form as grounds for development and introduction of new ideas. If you're going to write music, don't settle for simply writing as others have already written. What is the point of simply emulating others? Instead, one should strive within their own music to find a way to make themselves individual and to develop their voice.

In most undergrad and graduate composition courses, you will spend around a year (or more) writing music that is unlike what you would normally write. You will have to learn how to write serial music. You will need to learn how to write quartal harmony. You will need to write pastiche pieces. Why? The goal is to A) develop an understanding and working knowledge of different compositional techniques B) find a way to individualize the music you write within these settings and C) absorb many different styles and techniques in hopes of finding your own voice. After this experience, you'll find that the music you write is different. "modern" compositional techniques can be applied very successfully to tonal music.

THAT is why I urge people to not limit themselves to simply writing in one style or language until they've taken the time to truly study and appreciate others. You will be given many more tools that can be used in your own writing and find ways to leave the beaten path and make something truly individual. What better way to honor the "old masters" than to follow the tradition of innovation? After all, that is why we remember Mozart instead of Stamitz, Beethoven instead of Czerny, and Bach instead of Buxtehude. None of them simply settled and wrote as others had already done.

Uff, where to start.

First off, saying that composers have survived and are remembered (and otherwise made their mark) because they "broke rules" set by "old masters" is pretty erroneous. Simply put, they survived because evidence of their existence wasn't destroyed, and they were moderately popular at their time. Like I said in another argument, you talk of "bending the rules" etc, but someone who wrote clusters in the 18th century probably didn't get many fans and so it's pretty hard to know if someone like that existed because he wasn't written into history.

Composition technique has nothing to do with this at all what so ever. In fact, I find the work of CPE Bach MUCH more interesting than anything Mozart did, trying to combine counterpoint with the galant style, and this was at the same time as Mozart and co. However, he doesn't nearly as much attention because a lot of people just have no idea and he wasn't so popular/isn't so popular.

Nevermind that it's entirely arguable that Mozart was remarkable for his use of counterpoint, considering he pretty much went against it for the majority of his works. He wrote a fantasia and fugue for clock organ, and such oddities because he probably liked this too, but it didn't "sell" as his other works did so it wasn't the idiom he used most often. After all, he had to eat.

Second, as I said before in another thread I think, it is impossible to create un-original art. Be it imitation of style, or taking a piece by Couperin and declaring it your own. (here is the argument http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/my-second-atonal-piece-13424-3.html ) So instead of striving to "take risks" as you put it, why not just focus on doing what you want to do? And moreover, why should anyone be forced to write things they don't like?

I already said it, on academic grounds it may be justifiable to have someone do exercises in serial music, etc, but all with a pedagogic reason. I've had people do serial exercises because I wanted them to get a view of how rhythmic can be interesting if it isn't defined by traditional parameters. But that's one simple thing, like homework, but forcing them to write entire pieces like this is to me absurd unless that's what they want to do.

For that matter, I have no idea where are you getting that statistical info of "most composition courses" because as far as I know, that's entirely variable. My studies were never like this, and if they had been I would've quit.

This talk about "Individualizing" your compositional idiom by way of doing exercises and the regimen you've cited is entirely absurd. I think it's dangerous to talk of personal idiom and otherwise "style", etc etc. It gives people the idea that they're unique and special, when everything single thing you've written has been written before and nothing is but a copy of a copy in the end. And, also, it may be alright to talk of a personal style once you've written enough music so that others can start seeing trends and a certain "handwork" which is then characteristic.

Personally, this is narrowing the potential scope of musical expression. What if you have no particular "style"? No "individual" voice? I mean, like I said already, it's impossible to be un-original, but if others' judgment affects your creative output, it would be a bad thing if people declared you don't have a personal style when it could be argued that having a personal style is relative to what you consider a personal style.

All these academic terms and doctrines are asphyxiating and moreover dare I say anti-pedagogic. It doesn't help a composer write the music they want to write if you are forcing them to do things they may not want to do, you can in fact create an aversion to the things they were forced to do. The example you gave of someone using what they learned in modern techniques to write tonal music could also be a case of salvaging whatever possible out of what would otherwise be a huge waste of time for them.

This dogmatic "FIRST YOU MUST WRITE 10 STRING QUARTETS IN MOZART STYLE!" approach to composition teaching should die, and the academic pressure it carries with it. It can seriously create prejudice by virtue of using authority to force someone to do something they don't want to do, artistically. However, like I said numerous times, I find that if there's a good pedagogic ground, one can "force" someone to do exercises, and practice things as a learning tool. But a good teacher isn't going to force it, they'll simply logically argument that learning more tools gives a composer more freedom, and that's good. It has nothing to do with preference, and they're short exercises which the student can take with a grain of salt if the style interests them little.

Though, when it comes to "teaching composition" it's best to remember that it's a very personal process and there is no formula that works for everyone. If you know someone hates Mozart, requiring them to do anything but give Mozart a chance is risky. Moreover, forcing that idiom will create a possible tension. How many times have I heard things like "They're making me write 12 tone music, ugh." and these people go on to witness their pieces performed by other students and I honestly want to punch the teacher that allows this bullshit to go on. If you get a performance it should be of something you are PROUD of as a composer, not some exercise someone forced you to do.

But I digress.

Third: Bach was a FAN of Buxtehude, and you can argue that Bach was LESS extreme than Buxtehude when it came to a lot of things. Saying that people remember Bach over Buxtehude is not any measure of Buxtehude's value as a composer nor quality of his music. How about Buxtehude's student Bruhns? Does anyone remember HIM? He was loving wild, however.

As for the "None of them simply settled and wrote as others had already done." statement? If Bach had written clusters, maybe I could see the sense in that. But until the 20th century not a lot of things survived that were really experimental or "out there." So, they wrote a LOT like eachother, and just starting from the fact they all used the same tone-organization systems and etc etc means that their music WILL sound similar. The margin of difference between Nono and Pierre Henry is HUGE compared to Mozart to Beethoven, Bach to Brahms, etc.

That someone wrote using chromatics here and there isn't "wow scraggy that's so fresh", it's just using other elements which were fully accepted anyways. And, really, like I said there is no way to know if someone did venture out of what everyone was doing and wrote atonal music back in the 1800s. But since it wasn't popular, they maybe were afraid to be so out-there, and whatever, it just didn't survive.

There were a lot more factors back then that would prevent someone from venturing out the musical canon, which today are almost irrelevant. It's safe to say there is no real musical canon today, and there shouldn't be if it means restrictions and castrating a composer's creativity in the name of ridiculous aesthetic parameters.

once i wrote a letter to mozart (yeah, i know:) , and asked - common, great master, how come you never hit two keys that would make you think of atonal music, or jazz music? could it be that you never thought of music being so much different than the thing you do? is it that social and cultural part of your life destined the musical one? were you not free enough to kick some donkey with minimalism? or - is it that you might have done it, but had none the desire to share it publically? (imagine mozart going beserk at his keyboard while it's dark night and he has to do some lia lia lia for court).

of course, he never did answer, that bastard. leaving too much doubts to ponder around for a several hundred years older fellow. ah, how can you not hate him then? :)

Anachronism aside, that's pretty much correct. The musical canon was so strict that if someone started playing clusters at a church they'd get kicked out and his reputation would go out the window. So most experiments, even Mozart's, were disguised as "jokes" and "mockeries." Look at Mozart's Ein Musikalisches Spa

The canon is irrelevant to playing clusters in a church... irregardless of whether the canon is strict, if someone played clusters in a church they'd probably be hanged :P

And Haydn was quite experimental at the time, much more than Mozart I may say.

Also, even contemporary composers write "canons", so how does that reflect a society's strictness on what is accepted and what is not, in terms of music?

The canon is irrelevant to playing clusters in a church... irregardless of whether the canon is strict, if someone played clusters in a church they'd probably be hanged :P

And Haydn was quite experimental at the time, much more than Mozart I may say.

Also, even contemporary composers write "canons", so how does that reflect a society's strictness on what is accepted and what is not, in terms of music?

Messiaen was an organist at a church, and he didn't get hanged for all the stuff he composed which goes way beyond clusters. So, it surely matters, as well as what type of church it is, etc etc. But things have changed a lot since then.

And the idea of musical canon is based on the concept of social/cultural "acceptable" aesthetic parameters that if you go against them people don't like you. There are a lot of factors that contribute to past times having stricter canons and more intolerance for anything outside of it, such as the lack of diversity, and just in general lack of population compared as now. Feeding these ideas was everyone who complied with the canons because they had to make a living, etc etc. In a small scale system it's a lot easier to be strict, so the less people, the easier it was to have one single dominating canon as what is acceptable.

As far as contemporary composers writing "canons" I don't understand what you mean as "canon" in this sense so I can't really see what you're asking. There's a lot of musicologists and such people that talk about canonizing a lot of the 20th century, and doing a lot of such junk that would put it in line with, say, older techniques and styles. I think all that is nonsense, since we're way past institutionalizing music techniques since ANYTHING can be music. Do you make EVERYTHING canon? If so, it wouldn't mean anything to call it a musical canon of any sort.

So, really, I have no idea what you mean by contemporary musical canon. There are trends, sure, there are styles and there's everything in between, but a "canon" stopped existing with the 20th century because of what some people call the "emancipation of sound." No restrictions, no limits, no aesthetics to be concerned with, no historical baggage to worry about, no context to try to fit in. Doesn't mean everyone who composed modern music moved in this direction, much less accepted it absolutely. It became an option, a choice left to the composer to chose what to listen to and what to ignore. Today we benefit from such a varied sonic panorama because of it.