"I do not believe...

One might argue that postmodernism is again being stuck in the 80s :P

It's always incredibly hard to have a clear view of the current trends on a larger scale. There are many composers who after the postmodern rage again strive for a more binding and less "indifferent" cultural environment. Certainly not all of course.

... What academia?

Last I heard, postmodern was all the rage, which implied precisely a mix of elements of all styles and generally the whole "everything goes" character. The only people who aren't keen on this are those stuck in the 60s or so.

What isn't very interesting are style recreations, which is something entirely different than neo-romantic/classical/baroque. The "neo" tag usually meant that the style incorporated also new, modern elements and the whole thing was blended.

As far as I know, trend at least here in Europe isn't rejecting neo-romantic or so music, since it fits under the banner of postmodern anyways. But, then, there's a point to make saying writing like in the 60s or Hindemith can be considered a style recreation. Which isn't too surprising to hear, you'll probably get criticized for it no matter where you go if your music sounds as if someone else wrote it.

I really hate it when the term "academia" gets thrown around like that. Big world is big.

A question:

My (future) composition teacher believes electro-acoustic music to be the only meaningful genre to write in nowadays, and claims everything else is outdated/meaningless. (stress on the word everything.)

How smart or stupid is it to believe that?

Stupid enough to be considered smart in a planet containing only granite (because quartz would be smarter).

A question:

My (future) composition teacher believes electro-acoustic music to be the only meaningful genre to write in nowadays, and claims everything else is outdated/meaningless. (stress on the word everything.)

How smart or stupid is it to believe that?

That's pretty insane. I would never advise tending to such absolutist views, plus the electro-acoustic thing was done way back already. I don't know why anyone would say that unless they just happened to like it so much it made them silly.

I mean, despite what I generally say I do accept compositions in all shapes and sizes, as should any good composition teacher. The trick is working the personal/individual aspects and not forcing a particular aesthetic out taste or ... uh, prophetic-almost conviction that it's "the only way" (An OK reason would be based on on pedagogic and didactic reasons, for example.)

So, uh. It'd be a little worried if someone like that was supposed to "teach" me anything. I mean you can probably learn stuff anyways, but if we're going to that extreme we can as well say you can learn more about composition from a plumber.

But then again I don't know this person, so dunno.

That's pretty insane. I would never advise tending to such absolutist views, plus the electro-acoustic thing was done way back already. I don't know why anyone would say that unless they just happened to like it so much it made them silly.

I mean, despite what I generally say I do accept compositions in all shapes and sizes, as should any good composition teacher. The trick is working the personal/individual aspects and not forcing a particular aesthetic out taste or ... uh, prophetic-almost conviction that it's "the only way" (An OK reason would be based on on pedagogic and didactic reasons, for example.)

So, uh. It'd be a little worried if someone like that was supposed to "teach" me anything. I mean you can probably learn stuff anyways, but if we're going to that extreme we can as well say you can learn more about composition from a plumber.

But then again I don't know this person, so dunno.

She doesn't mix that particular opinion with the way she teaches, it's just a personal belief of hers. When I told her that electroacoustic music wasn't exactly new, she says modern electroacoustic stuff is quite different from the one of the 60's, for instance. I dunno.

Run, far away, screaming into the hills.

She doesn't mix that particular opinion with the way she teaches, it's just a personal belief of hers. When I told her that electroacoustic music wasn't exactly new, she says modern electroacoustic stuff is quite different from the one of the 60's, for instance. I dunno.

In such a case, when you're not saying such things in your function as a teacher, but as a composer/individual I can even accept such blunt, provocative statements. While being open-minded is certainly generally a good thing for an artist, taking a strong artistic stance may sometimes be necessary, even if you're aware that you're exaggerating. I prefer somebody who takes a clear position but isn't fixed on it forever and able to change her or his mind (and admit that she or he might have been wrong before) to somebody who can't ever make her or his mind up, never takes a stance and never makes any distinction.

It's something quite different when it's a teacher speaking as a teacher of course, but even then it mainly depends to which students one speaks like this. Some (particularly young or unsure) students will be easily "crushed" by a teacher who makes such strong statements, whereas more headstrong students will readily oppose the opinions of a teacher and counter with their own arguments, which may actually create a much more fruitful atmosphere than one where everyone always just agrees with each other. It all depends on the context.

Regarding this particular opinion: I don't share it, but she certainly has a point that electroacoustic music has changed a lot since it was first used, and probably more so than other areas of music, simply because of technological advancement, plus the fact that we're only slowly starting to get familiar to this new artform and only just starting to come out of a very experimental stage that was (until not long ago) strongly defined by what was possible and not only by what we want to do. Personally, I think most electroacoustic music we hear today is still in an extremely primitive stage however. Lots of it seems to be "hey lets just throw some cool sounds together randomly, and maybe we'll even add lights or a jitter-movie as a bonus!", especially in live-electronics, even more so in improvisations with live-electronics. Some of the most terrible music I hear these days is electroacoustic music. But that's actually what fascinates me about it, because it's exactly the discrepancy between absolutely amazing electronic music and scrafty electronic music that shows the huge potential and range of this medium.

In such a case, when you're not saying such things in your function as a teacher, but as a composer/individual I can even accept such blunt, provocative statements. While being open-minded is certainly generally a good thing for an artist, taking a strong artistic stance may sometimes be necessary, even if you're aware that you're exaggerating. I prefer somebody who takes a clear position but isn't fixed on it forever and able to change her or his mind (and admit that she or he might have been wrong before) to somebody who can't ever make her or his mind up, never takes a stance and never makes any distinction.

It's something quite different when it's a teacher speaking as a teacher of course, but even then it mainly depends to which students one speaks like this. Some (particularly young or unsure) students will be easily "crushed" by a teacher who makes such strong statements, whereas more headstrong students will readily oppose the opinions of a teacher and counter with their own arguments, which may actually create a much more fruitful atmosphere than one where everyone always just agrees with each other. It all depends on the context.

Regarding this particular opinion: I don't share it, but she certainly has a point that electroacoustic music has changed a lot since it was first used, and probably more so than other areas of music, simply because of technological advancement, plus the fact that we're only slowly starting to get familiar to this new artform and only just starting to come out of a very experimental stage that was (until not long ago) strongly defined by what was possible and not only by what we want to do. Personally, I think most electroacoustic music we hear today is still in an extremely primitive stage however. Lots of it seems to be "hey lets just throw some cool sounds together randomly, and maybe we'll even add lights or a jitter-movie as a bonus!", especially in live-electronics, even more so in improvisations with live-electronics. Some of the most terrible music I hear these days is electroacoustic music. But that's actually what fascinates me about it, because it's exactly the discrepancy between absolutely amazing electronic music and scrafty electronic music that shows the huge potential and range of this medium.

You bring up a good point. My "Trends in Contemporary Music" teacher says, in his syllabus:

"We do not (and perhaps should not) agree in order to have a thoughtful and meaningful debate. Compare this to casual conversation where we have to (basically) agree on something, at least."

He writes with a lot of parentheses.

But his point is valid. In an environment where creativity is constantly being examined from multiple vantage points, such creativity develops a certainty that goes beyond the arbitrary preferences of a composer.