who are the baroque composers on this forum?

[Bradley_Strong]

i compose mostly in contrapuntual style with canons and fugues and things integrated into sonatas also stand alone ones as well. BUT IT seems to have a much diffrent mood then baroqque

but im obessed with the baroque era the most probably out of all the eras. LOLz

[Gavin Gorrick]

Because writing the same thing over and over again is definitely badass.

That's a very immature way to approach any music

For the record, there are no Baroque composers on this forum, they've all been dead for about 250 years or so.

[cygnusdei]

Too bad, many of you have fell to the dark side, but i belive in redemption, you can all be saved.

Libera me, Domine.

[johnsamuelpike]

Have you ever wondered why modern music written in the romantic style is usually widely accepted as valid without any eyebrows raised, while music in the baroque or classical styles is often harshly written off as pastiche? Is it because classical and baroque music is more "threatening" (i.e. powerful), or is it simply because much stylized romantic music is less scandalous and more unremarkable? What are your thoughts?

My support naturally defaults to the underdogs. My heart holds with the classical and baroque, and I am always very encouraged by composers willing to ignore the scathing of narrow-minded modernists and follow their hearts. I feel very strongly that any composer who writes a classical piano sonata or baroque fugue in a week could write an atonal modernist composition in a tiny fraction of that alloted time. I also feel that modernist compositional devices are often the result of a lacking of a true understanding of more scientific musical function and craftsmanship disguised as a more broad and free limitless expression (in other words, inaccessible and inept disguised as prodigious). I do not discourage revolution, but rather, encourage it. The most revolutionary composers always emulated their predecessors to the best of their abilities before arriving at their creative zeniths, but most people know this. I am not saying that experimentation and original ideas are poison at all, but I'd sooner embrace a modern composer for mastering the science of more traditional harmonies before (or after, maybe) embarking on harmonically innovative endeavors, and I am certain not to be unique in this sense. Embrace the ancient divine spark and pass it on.

Side note: Did anyone catch the marvelous use of remixed Handel in Charlie Wilson's War? It gave me chills! To me, most modernist music couldn't possibly achieve that poignant effect, if any could at all.

Counterpoint is the way forward.

[cygnusdei]

Side note, did anyone catch the marvelous use of Handel in Charlie Parker's War?

No, but I did in Charlie Wilson's war ...... :evil:

[johnsamuelpike]

No, but I did in Charlie Wilson's war ...... :evil:

Oops! That's what I meant! :thumbsup:

Edited.

[cygnusdei]

Well, not only that. I also noticed Julia Roberts in drag, and breasts (not Julia's).

[johnsamuelpike]

Well, not only that. I also noticed Julia Roberts in drag, and breasts (not Julia's).

Any thoughts on-topic?

[SimenN]

i agree with you john samuel!

[Gavin Gorrick]

Have you ever wondered why modern music written in the romantic style is usually widely accepted as valid without any eyebrows raised, while music in the baroque or classical styles is often harshly written off as pastiche? Is it because classical and baroque music is more "threatening" (i.e. powerful), or is it simply because much stylized romantic music is less scandalous and more unremarkable? What are your thoughts?

My support naturally defaults to the underdogs. My heart holds with the classical and baroque, and I am always very encouraged by composers willing to ignore the scathing of narrow-minded modernists and follow their hearts. I feel very strongly that any composer who writes a classical piano sonata or baroque fugue in a week could write an atonal modernist composition in a tiny fraction of that alloted time. I also feel that modernist compositional devices are often the result of a lacking of a true understanding of more scientific musical function and craftsmanship disguised as a more broad and free limitless expression (in other words, inaccessible and inept disguised as prodigious). I do not discourage revolution, but rather, encourage it. The most revolutionary composers always emulated their predecessors to the best of their abilities before arriving at their creative zeniths, but most people know this. I am not saying that experimentation and original ideas are poison at all, but I'd sooner embrace a modern composer for mastering the science of more traditional harmonies before (or after, maybe) embarking on harmonically innovative endeavors, and I am certain not to be unique in this sense. Embrace the ancient divine spark and pass it on.

Side note: Did anyone catch the marvelous use of remixed Handel in Charlie Wilson's War? It gave me chills! To me, most modernist music couldn't possibly achieve that poignant effect, if any could at all.

Counterpoint is the way forward.

Umm....we've had plenty of "modernist" composers who wrote what would be deemed Neo-Baroque/Classical/Romantic music. Honegger, Stravinsky, hell could Brahms even be considered Neo-Classical to a degree?

The way you talk about music, one would thing that there is nothing between Handel and Milton Babbitt, which is absolutely ridiculous, there are so many different kinds of composers and different kinds of music out there now that creating such blanket statements only makes you look foolish.

[SSC]

...creating such blanket statements only makes you look foolish.

That's the least of his problems if he starts talking about SCIENCE in between.

You can't just loving throw "Science!" in between sentences and expect it to mean anything. For the 1000th time, scraggy based on taste isn't scientific. For something to be scientific it has to abide by a scientific method of SOME SORTS, not just claiming something is science or scientific makes it so.

Acoustics? That's science, sure. Psychology? It's a social science. Those are all fine. But ...uh.

"I also feel that modernist compositional devices are often the result of a lacking of a true understanding of more scientific musical function and craftsmanship disguised as a more broad and free limitless expression (in other words, inaccessible and inept disguised as prodigious.)"

Then you feel wrong. There's no "justification" for any given style or aesthetic that puts it above any other, or below any other. Give up, it's a dead end. Plus, if you want to attack the music you don't like, why not just be direct? Just say "I think modern music is doo doo" and be done with it. All this pseudo-musicologist bullshit is starting to get to on my nerves, you won't convince anyone to rethink their views on modern music or to change their mind on anything since all you're saying is that you don't like modern music and you don't know why but you THINK you know why.

Clearly, instead of saying all this embarrassing gibberish go study modern music first, and THEN maybe it'll be worthwhile hearing what you think on it. If you HAVE studied, then please state WHAT you studied, since I really can't believe anyone who put time into modern music can come out with such ridiculous opinions.

Sorry to be harsh, but this applies to everyone who disses modern music or composition techniques with pseudo-musicology crap like this based sorely on the fact they don't like it and don't care to find out anything about it.

Here's a list of things to remember:

1: No system of composition is BETTER or WORSE than any other.

2: No MUSIC is BETTER or WORSE than any other music.

3: No COMPOSER is SUPERIOR or INFERIOR than any other. It's taste, it's preference, it's feeling, it's ANYTHING but something remotely scientific at all what so ever. It doesn't matter WHAT argument you can give that Bach or Mozart or X or Y composers are superior or X and Y styles are "better" or were popular so they're better, it's all POINTLESS in the face of TASTE.

4: There is no OBJECTIVITY in this sort of thing, let's not pretend there is.

5: It's impossible to judge if a composition tool is inadequate if there's no knowledge of how it WORKS, or how it was USED. This applies to ALL techniques, modern, baroque, Indian folklore or Jimi Hendrix!

6: A composer MUST QUESTION their own taste and FIND OUT ***WHY*** something causes a reaction, no matter what the reaction is. It's VERY IMPORTANT to scrutinize reactions and find out how things cause different effects.

7: TASTE is only important in the process of composition, NOT STUDYING. The main IDEA of studying what you "don't like" is to find out WHY you don't like it! So you can AVOID IT, or you can find other ways to use it!

8: EVERYTHING that is learned can be used, no matter the technique or aesthetic, a composer can find a way to use everything available to them even if they may not like the uses OTHERS have given techniques or aesthetic.

9: Do not hold prejudice based on uses other people have given techniques or aesthetics, as things change entirely when you're on the composer's POV. This includes badmouthing styles or composers, aesthetics or ENTIRE EPOCHS. Don't do this, it's not smart, it's not helpful.

10: Limiting your possibilities and ways of expression only takes you further away from realizing what it is you're really hearing in the end, or what it is your composer's instinct tells you. This means that if you want to write Bach-style fugues with interludes filled with clusters and violin-smashing effects, GO FOR IT. If you don't do it, who will? If you feel you have to write a Mozart style sonata with 100% historical accuracy, then GO FOR IT. Know however that there are always a million options just around the corner, and a million possibilities if you only bother to look.

So long as a composer fails to accept and acknowledge the above, they'll be tripping on their own feet over, and over, and over.

[Nik Mikas]

Now you wait a second there, son. Music has PROGRESSED, as in, IMPROVED since Bach's time. This is evidenced by the fact I can write a concerto for doorknob and spoon and be taken seriously.

Errr... ok.... I guess that makes sense.....

I don't think Bach was a master of anything

Ok, that's far enough.

SSC, I typically enjoy your posts, and even find myself agreeing with the flavour of your philosophy, but common. If "master" is a possible title, Bach acheived it. While it's certainly as fun as it is impractible to throw out the old "everything's equal" arguement, I feel that kind of thinking ceases in the light of rigerous modes of grading and theory (and I don't just mean western theory). So while there is no real way to say that a man drumming on a jar is a worst musician than Bach, theory can tell us that what that man is doing is but a fraction of any given Bach work. In fact, this is typically the case with most composers, and their compositions merely touch upon Bach's greatest works. At least once theory is applied. But of course, theory is just theory, and technique is just technique, and of course, at the end of the day all things are equal.

Without getting into too big a debate (I really only wanted to comment on these two quotes), I'd just like to say that music can be as objective as anything. In fact, everything can ether be objective or not, depending on how deep you look. The fact is we do know why many compositional techniques work, and there are reasons for things like the fact that, anthropologically, cultures start with rhythm, discover tones, then octaves, and then fifths. It's also the reason that any "natural" theory (i.e. theory that evolved over time and wasn't just conceived one day) all contain at least these basic building blocks.

Another fact is that sound is rareified air; music is matter. All matter and processes therin are subject to laws. Some are fundamental and just are; they cause the thing to exist and cannot be changed. Others pertain to the postulation of said constituent; if disobeyed, with yeild unfavourable results, at least on some level. For example, a tree is bound by the same laws as everything else, and it's fundamental elements cannot be destroyed. So if it is somehow destroyed, its matter still exists. In this sense, it is universal and cannot be changed or opinionated over. Yet, we can also observe the more immediate rules, which could be generalized by saying: water-good, fire-bad. If we give it water, the matter progresses in its tree state. If given fire, it ceases to be a tree (assuming it's burnt to ash). This is where we have to draw a line. Music is no different. A good Bach or Mozart is like a being, crafted and sculpted within the bounds of the materials. Some compositions and composers (Berg or Schoenberg) are more like a sculpture made out of the parts that make that being, if that makes sense. In other words, Bach's music is like a tree, Berg's is like a chair; the materials are the same, but the life has left the latter long ago. As stated above, this is due to disregarding the laws (perhaps "guidelines" will make more sense) inherent in the materials. But it is true, all are composed of the same materials.

Indeed, you can impose extra-musical things on music just as easily as you can draw a picture out of mathematical symbols, yet it goes without saying that whatever you have drawn ceases to be a mathematical formulae (unless you are exceptionally talented).

Well, I failed at my intent and done said too many words. My bong's getting lonely, so I should attend to it.

[cygnusdei]

SSC, I'm interested in your opinion on the concept of training, skills, and improvement. It seems to me that erasing objectivity from the picture pretty much makes improvement unnecessary. If what a student produces is as valid ('errors' not withstanding) as what a master does, why go through the trouble of going to school?

[Nirvana69]

Have you ever wondered why modern music written in the romantic style is usually widely accepted as valid without any eyebrows raised, while music in the baroque or classical styles is often harshly written off as pastiche? Is it because classical and baroque music is more "threatening" (i.e. powerful), or is it simply because much stylized romantic music is less scandalous and more unremarkable? What are your thoughts?

This is completly subjective and biased. I find Romantic music much more "powerful" than Baroque music. Baroque music seldom speaks to me whereas Romantic and Impressionist music, I find greatly appealing and emotional. I think the real reason Baroque/classical is consider pastiche is becuase...there really isn't a whole lot of room to explore or be innovate in it anymore. Baroque/classical follow very strict rules and people like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven explored the outter limits of these rules.

Romantic music on the other hand had a sense of apathy toward the rules. Composers started not caring so much about form and counterpoint. They just wanted to express something and would do so even if it mean not adhereing to the rules. And honestly, I think that is the best system.

Writing music that you think sounds good regardless of what is considered "acceptable". If you love Baroque music then that's great, but don't just mindlessly obey the guidelines because that's what composers did 300 years ago. Open yourself up to other influences and explore new territory. Baroque will never make it back to the mainstream if you insist on writing music that sounds exactly like it did 300 years ago. What's the point when people like Bach and Handel were already doing it better and their work is now in public domain? Ignoring the last 200 years of music is just as ignorant as the people who you condemn that don't seem to care much for Baroque/classical yet love Romantic. A bit of a double standard, eh? :thumbsup:

[SSC]

SSC, I'm interested in your opinion on the concept of training, skills, and improvement. It seems to me that erasing objectivity from the picture pretty much makes improvement unnecessary. If what a student produces is as valid ('errors' not withstanding) as what a master does, why go through the trouble of going to school?

It's a good point certainly. I've given the topic a lot of thought and honestly I don't have a "right" answer for this. It's really dependent on what sort of skills the composer wants to develop, and thinks they'll be able to use. To know any of this however they need to probe around and actually be exposed to not only a lot of different music but actually analysis of it. In this respect, going to "school" helps, since it's a good place to find people who can show you a lot of literature and help analysis of it.

Otherwise, I'd say that no, there's no distinction between what a "student" does and what a "master" does, considering these are not objective labels or based on anything other than opinion of the output produced. In reality, a composer's output is as valuable as the value anyone attaches to it. If my girlfriend wrote a song with 0 knowledge of music theory or anything I'd find it great because of other things (non directly musical), maybe not so if the same song was written by someone with a PHD and celebrity status.

It's not easy to say under what conditions what becomes what but certainly I would never underestimate students' ability to write things I like (or are interesting otherwise, etc.) Sure, limited knowledge does mean limited possibilities, but it's just a matter of time if the person keeps on searching and researching even if on their own before they'll gather enough info to produce what they really want to produce.

Then, there's the other thing, if a composer wants to learn counterpoint and write like Bach, they by all means should be encouraged to do so. There's nothing wrong with this, exactly the same if someone wants to write like Schoenberg or Mahler. It's normal to try to copy what one "likes", that's what I mean with trying to understand (by doing) what makes something "likable", it's something that comes up intuitively. So, if going to an academy, school or uni or whatever where they teach music will make a composer's handwork closer to what they want (and allow them to do what they want to do), then they should considering attending it.

But I don't feel any composition system, modern or old, nor any composer or aesthetic should be force-fed by anyone to anyone. A composer is nothing but his decisions, if we take away their ability to make them according to what they truly desire, then what is left?

For example, peer pressure plays an enormous role of course and many times subconsciously. Even in modern "circles" some people are afraid to write in older styles, for no real reason other than "It's not trendy, it's what others do." this is just as damaging for someone as someone who believes an entire epoch is void of anything worthwhile learning.

I'm of the opinion that a composer should try his hand at everything possible when it comes to music. Composition techniques, playing instruments, etc etc. Everything accounts for experience and enhances the world inside the composer's creative scope. All of that I consider improvement and progress.

For me it has less to do with the composition output and more to do with the composer as a person and an artist overall. It's more important to me that someone is happy that they wrote what they wanted, and not what just "came out" (be it because of either ignorance, peer or academic pressure, inertia and repetition, etc.) than what it was that was written.

It's also important to me that they realize when something is intuitive, when it's intellectualized, etc. When it's just what "came out", when it's an experiment, and recognize the value and importance of all these things. Even if a composer throws down a couple of random notes, or writes an entire symphony, they have to be aware of why they're writing. What they want to do with what they're doing, where do they want to go with it, etc etc.

This self-awareness and analysis is what makes a composer a real well-rounded musician, which I think is something to strive for. That is what I consider improvement.

[Gavin Gorrick]

This is completly subjective and biased. I find Romantic music much more "powerful" than Baroque music. Baroque music seldom speaks to me whereas Romantic and Impressionist music, I find greatly appealing and emotional. I think the real reason Baroque/classical is consider pastiche is becuase...there really isn't a whole lot of room to explore or be innovate in it anymore. Baroque/classical follow very strict rules and people like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven explored the outter limits of these rules.

Romantic music on the other hand had a sense of apathy toward the rules. Composers started not caring so much about form and counterpoint. They just wanted to express something and would do so even if it mean not adhereing to the rules. And honestly, I think that is the best system.

Writing music that you think sounds good regardless of what is considered "acceptable". If you love Baroque music then that's great, but don't just mindlessly obey the guidelines because that's what composers did 300 years ago. Open yourself up to other influences and explore new territory. Baroque will never make it back to the mainstream if you insist on writing music that sounds exactly like it did 300 years ago. What's the point when people like Bach and Handel were already doing it better and their work is now in public domain? Ignoring the last 200 years of music is just as ignorant as the people who you condemn that don't seem to care much for Baroque/classical yet love Romantic. A bit of a double standard, eh? :thumbsup:

This kid is wise beyond his years. Bravo

[SimenN]

That's the least of his problems if he starts talking about SCIENCE in between.

You can't just loving throw "Science!" in between sentences and expect it to mean anything. For the 1000th time, scraggy based on taste isn't scientific. For something to be scientific it has to abide by a scientific method of SOME SORTS, not just claiming something is science or scientific makes it so.

Acoustics? That's science, sure. Psychology? It's a social science. Those are all fine. But ...uh.

"I also feel that modernist compositional devices are often the result of a lacking of a true understanding of more scientific musical function and craftsmanship disguised as a more broad and free limitless expression (in other words, inaccessible and inept disguised as prodigious.)"

Then you feel wrong. There's no "justification" for any given style or aesthetic that puts it above any other, or below any other. Give up, it's a dead end. Plus, if you want to attack the music you don't like, why not just be direct? Just say "I think modern music is doo doo" and be done with it. All this pseudo-musicologist bullshit is starting to get to on my nerves, you won't convince anyone to rethink their views on modern music or to change their mind on anything since all you're saying is that you don't like modern music and you don't know why but you THINK you know why.

Clearly, instead of saying all this embarrassing gibberish go study modern music first, and THEN maybe it'll be worthwhile hearing what you think on it. If you HAVE studied, then please state WHAT you studied, since I really can't believe anyone who put time into modern music can come out with such ridiculous opinions.

Sorry to be harsh, but this applies to everyone who disses modern music or composition techniques with pseudo-musicology crap like this based sorely on the fact they don't like it and don't care to find out anything about it.

Here's a list of things to remember:

1: No system of composition is BETTER or WORSE than any other.

2: No MUSIC is BETTER or WORSE than any other music.

3: No COMPOSER is SUPERIOR or INFERIOR than any other. It's taste, it's preference, it's feeling, it's ANYTHING but something remotely scientific at all what so ever. It doesn't matter WHAT argument you can give that Bach or Mozart or X or Y composers are superior or X and Y styles are "better" or were popular so they're better, it's all POINTLESS in the face of TASTE.

4: There is no OBJECTIVITY in this sort of thing, let's not pretend there is.

5: It's impossible to judge if a composition tool is inadequate if there's no knowledge of how it WORKS, or how it was USED. This applies to ALL techniques, modern, baroque, Indian folklore or Jimi Hendrix!

6: A composer MUST QUESTION their own taste and FIND OUT ***WHY*** something causes a reaction, no matter what the reaction is. It's VERY IMPORTANT to scrutinize reactions and find out how things cause different effects.

7: TASTE is only important in the process of composition, NOT STUDYING. The main IDEA of studying what you "don't like" is to find out WHY you don't like it! So you can AVOID IT, or you can find other ways to use it!

8: EVERYTHING that is learned can be used, no matter the technique or aesthetic, a composer can find a way to use everything available to them even if they may not like the uses OTHERS have given techniques or aesthetic.

9: Do not hold prejudice based on uses other people have given techniques or aesthetics, as things change entirely when you're on the composer's POV. This includes badmouthing styles or composers, aesthetics or ENTIRE EPOCHS. Don't do this, it's not smart, it's not helpful.

10: Limiting your possibilities and ways of expression only takes you further away from realizing what it is you're really hearing in the end, or what it is your composer's instinct tells you. This means that if you want to write Bach-style fugues with interludes filled with clusters and violin-smashing effects, GO FOR IT. If you don't do it, who will? If you feel you have to write a Mozart style sonata with 100% historical accuracy, then GO FOR IT. Know however that there are always a million options just around the corner, and a million possibilities if you only bother to look.

So long as a composer fails to accept and acknowledge the above, they'll be tripping on their own feet over, and over, and over.

Yes that is the truth! It is a matter of taste! Realy good reply SSC

[johnsamuelpike]

Umm....we've had plenty of "modernist" composers who wrote what would be deemed Neo-Baroque/Classical/Romantic music. Honegger, Stravinsky, hell could Brahms even be considered Neo-Classical to a degree?

Yes! This is certainly a supporting device for my previous post. They embraced their predcessors' discoveries and emulated them into their own taste achieving success, whereas they may not have if their vanity insisted on appearing to be beyond the influence of anyone else's discoveries. It's always a shame to dance to the tune of a closed-minded modernist who stifles himself by snubbing the more illustrious past and its energies by using the same predictable arguments over and over: it's not enough freedom. It cultivates MORE freedom! Have you ever noticed which classical composers draw interest from the public and sell concert tickets? Though pleasing an audience should be a relatively less significant part of one's creative process compared to conveying your own insight and musical powers, one should not ignore these cultural observations by blinding themselves with obstinance.

Do people think one would encounter less freedom from mastering an "antiquated" style? Quite the contrary. One would become more fluent in all styles for doing so, should one decide to do so.

[cygnusdei]

Say, this thread has produced as much flame (or more) as the other, locked thread. What gives?

[Nirvana69]

Say, this thread has produced as much flame (or more) as the other, locked thread. What gives?

No one's mentioned 4'33" yet. :thumbsup:

Oh scraggy...

[Zetetic]

I agreed with many elements of your last post, SSC. The only aspect I cannot fathom is that which says that no composer is superior or inferior to another. To my mind, compositional ability is tied inexorably to musical ability, and there seem to me quantitive means by which such an ability may be measured. For example, I have met someone capable of improvising music in a given style on a given theme with no difficulty whatsoever. That their 'compositions' may be no better than a child banging a saucepan seems irrelevant to this argument; that they can realise music in the style of another appears to demonstrate (to my mind) an ability that the child lacks.

This is rather rambly, but I think compositional 'ability' eludes the prevailing zeitgeist of fluffy relativism. There are some violinists who are clearly better than others. To my mind, composition should be no different.

[Gavin Gorrick]

I agreed with many elements of your last post, SSC. The only aspect I cannot fathom is that which says that no composer is superior or inferior to another. To my mind, compositional ability is tied inexorably to musical ability, and there seem to me quantitive means by which such an ability may be measured. For example, I have met someone capable of improvising music in a given style on a given theme with no difficulty whatsoever. That their 'compositions' may be no better than a child banging a saucepan seems irrelevant to this argument; that they can realise music in the style of another appears to demonstrate (to my mind) an ability that the child lacks.

This is rather rambly, but I think compositional 'ability' eludes the prevailing zeitgeist of fluffy relativism. There are some violinists who are clearly better than others. To my mind, composition should be no different.

Yeah, but when you get into saying things like "Bach is better than Boulez" just for the sake of argument, the questions Why and How pop up. I mean honestly, a lot of this is relative anyway. You know, when I was 13 and just starting up on the trumpet, I'd hear my [middle school] band director play something on the trumpet and just be like, "Wow he's great!" A few years later, I got better, and I realized he was actually pretty terrible. All of this is relative. Who am I really to say that Samuel Barber is better than Ligeti? What am I basing this on? What is my argument? WHAT exactly is he better at than the other? Are any of these things objective in anyway, or are they just adolescent opinions of a young adult who thinks he/she is king of all knowledge because they have access to the internet and just happened to figure out how to pull their donkey out of bed?

Honestly, saying "X is better than Y because X makes me feel warm and fuzzy when I hear X(a)" only makes you look like an idiot, to be brutally honest. There ARE objective ways to approach debating about these things, but you have to check your opinions and bias at the door before you do so! Unfortunately, we all are guilty keeping a little bit of it on once we start arguing.

[SSC]

I agreed with many elements of your last post, SSC. The only aspect I cannot fathom is that which says that no composer is superior or inferior to another. To my mind, compositional ability is tied inexorably to musical ability, and there seem to me quantitive means by which such an ability may be measured. For example, I have met someone capable of improvising music in a given style on a given theme with no difficulty whatsoever. That their 'compositions' may be no better than a child banging a saucepan seems irrelevant to this argument; that they can realise music in the style of another appears to demonstrate (to my mind) an ability that the child lacks.

This is rather rambly, but I think compositional 'ability' eludes the prevailing zeitgeist of fluffy relativism. There are some violinists who are clearly better than others. To my mind, composition should be no different.

It's really a matter of art altogether. Someone who has gained the ability to do what you said, improvise in whichever style, etc has worked to train that aspect because they thought was a good idea. However, that doesn't mean it's better or worse than not training and just banging a saucepan.

You may like the saucepan-music outcome LESS than the baroque counterpoint improvisation on a theme, but otherwise both things are just the same. For that matter, all the effort in the world can be dismissed with "Eh, not my thing" when it comes to art. A person could've studied his entire life to write style X, and it matters little if what he's writing isn't to my liking. Work, effort, "skill" don't matter when the ultimate decision on something is based on nothing but taste.

I mean, you can appreciate OTHER THINGS about the guy who spent his entire life learning X style, such as the effort he put into it, etc. You can take into consideration a lot of things outside of the actual musical output, but doing so isn't really being fair with the music, eh?

So, no, directly related to pure "sound" of what we're calling music, a kid banging on a saucepan or Bach are on the same level. Both produce an output which can be considered musical given a context. Both cause a reaction to what they're doing, and both are working with sound.

Objectively, there's no difference at all (other than the actual sound being produced!) Subjectively, there CAN be a lot of differences, depending on how many you want to count or find.

Comparing composers to anything is really complicated, a composer has no "craft", they can't compose "good" or "bad." A violinist can fail in playing the notes he's reading, he can play with false fingering, or otherwise have performance errors. Though, for the sake of argument, it's also entirely relative if we want to define the purpose of a violinist as just someone who uses a violin to produce sounds. Context, tradition, taste, ETC all factor into a violinist being "Good" or "scraggy". Objectively, someone smashing a violin on the ground is as good as someone playing Paganini studies. Both use the violin to generate sound.

So, it's all subjective like I said. Look at Bach interpretation. Today playing Bach's organ music like Helmut Walcha is "scraggy" in a LOT of circles, despite them being my favorite recordings of the work (except for Gabor Lehotka's.) I find Ton Koopman's versions atrocious, yet he's winning contests and getting awards left and right.

So, am I wrong? Is anyone really "wrong" here? No. People have different tastes.

[SimenN]

There is still war?

[SSC]

Can love blossom in the battlefield?!