Relevancy of tonal compositions in the 21st century.

QFT = Quote for Truth. Lurk moar.

( QFT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia LOL!)

I love how what you linked to has QFT on its disambiguation page. That's my university's cinema, and is literally about 20 feet from where I study music. Rather fitting. :laugh:

QFT = Quote for Truth. Lurk moar.

( QFT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia LOL!)

QFT - What does QFT stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by the Free Online Dictionary.

Allow me to highlight the "usual suspects":

Acronym Definition

QFT Quantum Field Theory

QFT Quoted For Truth (website; slang)

QFT Quantitative Feedback Theory

QFT Quantum Fourier Transform

QFT Qualified Funeral Trust

QFT Quantitative Fluorescence Technique

QFT Quest For Tech, Inc.

QFT Quit Freaking Talking (polite form)

QFT Quite Freaking True (polite form)

QFT Quality Face Time

So, my bad. I've always seen it used for the "not-so-polite" form of "Quit Talking." It's a non-issue, so whatever.

Also, what the hell? If someone says tonal music isn't relevant today (I don't mean style copies, of course) they should be punched in the mouth. That's it. It's very simple. It's like ignoring Ligeti, P

Antiatonality, if it's any help, I have wanted for a long time to master several historic styles from the Renaissance and Baroque, and I've invested considerable time studying the music and practicing the techniques. For me it is not really enough to sound "Baroque-ish," but to sound as close to possible to my favorites like Froberger, Buxtehude, Gesualdo and many others. But that sort of skill takes long hours of studying scores and research. I cannot say I am very good at it (or that I will ever be), but I continue because, like you, I feel total mastery offers innumerable small skills that really make the difference between good and great.

But I have never expected to get this in the classroom. It is one thing to teach how to voice lead chords or make a progression, quite another to understand the subtle nuances and idiosyncrasies of, say, Bach or Mozart. That takes study alone - though some of the subtleties have been written about.

Also I do have an interest in a few modern ideas. I have been working to use my experiments with microtonality and experience in the Baroque to create something entirely new. And I am not the only one... by coincidence there was another harpsichordist-composer at my university who was a great success, combining just intonation, polytonality and the Baroque. So old styles can be the foundation, even the major component of new styles. It is entirely acceptable to make Bach 50% of your style... or 80%... or 90%. Admittedly the extra 10% modern is necessary today - but I, for one, am glad to have so many fascinating 20th century ideas to choose from.

To be fairer, in order to even get a shot at a job at a University within 10 years of graduating, you have to go to schools like NYC, Cornell, Eastman, or Michigan. 10 years may seem like an exaggeration, but it's not so much today as the trend continues to postpone work for Doctoral Graduates.

What exactly is it that you're trying to advocate? I have no problem with this kind of framework being created or developed in a theory curriculum. What I have a problem with is it being taken beyond the theory classroom into the actual composition curriculum where it demonstrably influences who gets taught what and how they are expected to explore their voice in music. It seems to me you're blending a line between theory and method where one SHOULD exist. It creates a double standard:

Explore your compositional voice, be "unorthodox," challenge yourself... but don't write tonal.

And then someone like me speaks up and says, "Well, you want me to explore my voice, so LET ME EXPLORE IT and HELP ME EXPLORE IT."

And then you get responses like...

"You need to write more 'contemporary', 'relevant' music. Tonality is not relevant. It is meant to be studied in Theory and in context, but in the 'real' music world, no one uses it today."

OR

"You learned all that in Theory."

And the conversation enters this state where the quintessential argument rests on how tonality is relevant to Composers today. So, I don't really know what you're trying to point out in this discussion.

See, now I'm told by all of my professors that I need to use more theory, be more tonal, be less "contemporary," in part because my concept of contemporary is more like a 1950s or 60s style of contemporary. I'll fully admit that. I like the bleep-bloop of highly serialized music or of early computer/tape music (i blend the two because of their equivalence today). So, my point is that not every school is like you describe and that the focus on theory over deep knowledge is, for composition, an attempt to be able to take these tonal concepts into a modern world.

QFT = Quote for Truth. Lurk moar.

( QFT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia LOL!)

Also, what the hell? If someone says tonal music isn't relevant today (I don't mean style copies, of course) they should be punched in the mouth. That's it. It's very simple. It's like ignoring Ligeti, P

The whole frickin' point is that these composers ARE NOT the only composers. God forbid someone that wants to copy the styles of Wagner and Schoenberg to create... what was it... Nostalgia?... be encouraged to do so.

Where have I said the opposite?

Where did I say they are the only composers?

Where did I say looking further back is impossible/not encouraged/etc?

I think it's just paranoia at this point on your behalf specially because I actually agree with half of your argument despite all the bias and anger contained in it.

Furthermore, "crawl before walk" is ENTIRELY relative and SUBJECTIVE and it changes by each and every artist. THERE IS NO GUIDELINE for deciding if teaching X before Y is better in an objective way.

THERE IS NONE. Here's why:

You can tackle musical education in a reverse way, present all the modern stuff first and work your way backwards! Or jump around all over the place depending on the students' interests! Can you honestly say these approaches are OBJECTIVELY wrong or flawed? IF so, on what grounds, exactly?

This is precisely the point I don't and will never agree with you if you believe that X MUST come before Y no matter who the student/teacher/era/etc is. If you don't believe it, it destroys your "crawl before walk" because walking REQUIRES crawling (even if this is arguable, let's say it does because that's what you mean by this analogy.)

The fact you can take many many different approaches to getting the same product means that no single way can be favored over any other way absolutely and objectively. For example, you can write like Bach without having studied scraggy from any books or anything so long as you actually have access to his pieces (scores), you can also get the same result without ever having looked at one of his scores so long as you have all the formulas and rules accessible.

Even if you claim "quality" would be higher or lower depending on method, there's no way to really know or prove this objectively. What can be proved objectively is that X conforms to rules set out by Y, and for this there are millions upon millions of methods. Everything else is subjective.

Because of all of this, there cannot be a general "crawl before walk" so to speak in composition because "crawl" is one from millions of possible ways to get to "walk" if "walk" is really the intended purpose. It's no better to "crawl" in this respect than it is to "fly" or "eat" in order to "walk" when it comes to teaching composition.

This is the tricky part when didactic methods are applied to something which is entirely subjective. If the product of the method is entirely subjective, then the method must account for it, otherwise it is simply working with something that isn't there. Accounting for the entirely subjective entails a much more complex relationship between the student and teacher so that the teaching is directed by both the will and objectives of the student and the capacities and insight of the teacher.

Since X is not ABSOLUTELY necessary for Y, then X is open for debate and questioning. With X being flexible, Y can be approached time and time again from different perspectives for different results, this is VERY important as it lays down the foundations for the student himself/herself to "learn how to learn."

echurchill there said something very important. Composition as a class in an institution can only do so much, most of the work WILL and MUST be done by the composer himself, and it's also the job of the teacher to arm him with the ability to approach and understand how to tackle anything and enable them to get ahead in their own goals as a composer/artist. This obviously means presenting rather clearly that no musical subject is untouchable and sacred, that all can be and should be questioned and examined. Questions about the very nature of art itself have to be laid open and made clear, as this is the core of what composers do.

If teaching composition is not a reflection of the openness which art entails, then it is doing disservice to the student. To reflect the open-ended nature of composition itself, the teaching of composition must be flexible, yet effective at the same time and it must be a voluntary process fueled by the student's urges, uncertainties, etc, all of which the teacher will do his(her) best to remedy.

By enforcing a curriculum that assumes that X is REQUIRED for Y, thus X must come always before Y, it simply forces the mindset into the student, which leaves them unable to defend themselves when the reality of art as an entirely subjective platform for expression* becomes an issue and they must then learn that what they were taught was not really "the only way" to do things. Why waste time like this?

So, haha, "crawl before walk." If I had a penny for each time I've heard such bullshit...

PS:

Why should they sample? What value distinction allows you to say that they SHOULD do anything? I'm confused...

If you don't understand why people who go to an institution to get a balanced and thorough musical education (theoretically at least!) should be (if not required) highly encouraged to try and sample all sorts of styles, ideas, etc, then you should not be talking about this topic. Seriously. It should be self-evident by now, I won't address it as I've already said enough and I'm tired of repeating the same things over and over.

PS2:

So yes. Yes I did use it right. Learn to notice when someone agrees with you.

I... wasn't saying that to YOU, actually. I was saying it to AA. Isn't that obvious?

PS3:

Your position seems to be that it's okay for people to pay large sums of money to become educated to appreciate music that has little to no audience otherwise so that composers like yourself are ensured that such an audience for this music will exist.

How advantageous for you! I'd like to let my audience enjoy my music for the skills I learned in my education. Too bad I don't get to do that, because the University would rather make your life easier by helping you develop an audience for your music.

Oh jesus, just go gently caress yourself, I'm ignoring you from now on. (I got trolled. :/)

---

* Let's just assume for the sake of argument that it's a platform for expression, since it can be a lot of things and this isn't the point I'm trying to make so it doesn't matter which particular definition I use.

If you don't understand why people who go to an institution to get a balanced and thorough musical education (theoretically at least!) should be (if not required) highly encouraged to try and sample all sorts of styles, ideas, etc, then you should not be talking about this topic. Seriously. It should be self-evident by now, I won't address it as I've already said enough and I'm tired of repeating the same things over and over.

But it's an opinion at its core. There's no reason to do any of that if it doesn't speak to the composer, right? That's all I'm saying.

I agree with you, but that doesn't mean that a "study everything" music education is the only acceptable type. You can just study one thing (in context, for argument's sake - there's a difference between an illiberal education and an education based on untruths) and still be as good a composer as anyone else.

But it's an opinion at its core. There's no reason to do any of that if it doesn't speak to the composer, right? That's all I'm saying.

I agree with you, but that doesn't mean that a "study everything" music education is the only acceptable type. You can just study one thing (in context, for argument's sake - there's a difference between an illiberal education and an education based on untruths) and still be as good a composer as anyone else.

Well, the idea is to give the student/composer the information needed for them to make informed decisions about what they want to do as an artist/composer. For THAT you need to give them info, and info in this case is sampling, trying stuff out, experiencing, ETC ETC ETC.

I think it's hard to disagree that this is a good approach all-round, specially if you're under a time constraint in an institution which is supposed to provide exactly this.

Furthermore, "crawl before walk" is ENTIRELY relative and SUBJECTIVE and it changes by each and every artist. THERE IS NO GUIDELINE for deciding if teaching X before Y is better in an objective way.

THERE IS NONE. Here's why:

A very well-articulated argument follows. Then...

By enforcing a curriculum that assumes that X is REQUIRED for Y, thus X must come always before Y, it simply forces the mindset into the student, which leaves them unable to defend themselves when the reality of art as an entirely subjective platform for expression* becomes an issue and they must then learn that what they were taught was not really "the only way" to do things. Why waste time like this?

So, haha, "crawl before walk." If I had a penny for each time I've heard such bullshit...

Why does such a curriculum mandate that X is "the only way to do things?" That's not the point. The point is to truly create an exercise that strengthens the student's understanding and comprehension of the various styles of music, particularly tonal music where theory only provides conceptual knowledge as opposed to applicable information.

An example of this is four-part harmony. I've seen example after example here on this site of people having problems creating tonal harmony in a contrapuntal setting. I imagine some feel quite unfulfilled and frustrated by this... that there is some disconnect occurring of a cerebral nature between the method of composition and the results they want. This cannot be learned in a theory class. This cerebral connection is formed in practice, in writing tonal music and, if necessary (which is often the case) mimicking the style of other composers of the previous centuries.

I suppose the mandate to be able to write in such ways appears to contradict your derived hypothesis (at the end of your post) that such requirements would stunt a student's expressiveness, or their creativity. I just cannot concede that position with at least 200 years of tradition showing otherwise.

But your original question was: Why waste time like this?

Since this really applies to those students with an interest in incorporating the tonal principles of music into their own works, my question is how does this waste time? Remember, I'm not saying students who want to write serial, spectral, or other forms of music should be expected to write Wagner's Tristan or Britten's War Requiem.

But across the board, those students who want to write in such ways should be given the opportunity to enhance their skills through such exercises, just as students that write in the more abstract contemporary styles already mimic the styles of Stockhausen, Varese, and Carter (or whatever "contemporary" composer(s) they adore) in the music they write.

I'm not even a huge advocate of creating a large, extensive portfolio of music, either. I think one, well-written work is better than a lot of half-realized incomprehensible works... and that's not to impune the work of anyone here (so no offense intended, folks!). I find all too often (actually knew a guy who did this) that someone can sit down and randomly draw contour lines, roll dice to create pitch and rhythmic content, slap it all onto a piece of paper, pick out a motif or gesture, repeat it in some transposed form (or not, it doesn't really matter anymore because people just hear what they want to hear or what they're told to hear), and then create some brilliant explanation for what it all means or what was behind it after it was done.

I think there's always a point where someone needs to have a solid knowledge-base to be able to represent their mastery of the skill of composition through reproduction before we all start believing they have truly mastered the art form/craft. If such individuals have such abilities, then I will truly bow in awe to their mastery of the compositional form. Samuel Adler is a good example. I don't really enjoy listening to his music, but I have a great deal of respect for him because of his broader abilities as a composer to do just what I have described. But then again, he and I disagree on some things as well, so I'm not packing my bags to go study with him.

Forgive me if that's just too crass, but that's just MY subjective opinion.

PS3:

Oh jesus, just go gently caress yourself, I'm ignoring you from now on. (I got trolled. :/)

---

* Let's just assume for the sake of argument that it's a platform for expression, since it can be a lot of things and this isn't the point I'm trying to make, so it doesn't matter which particular definition I use.

I find it hard to believe it was a point you WEREN'T trying to make. It reads fairly loud and clear...

How many people got into composition by listening to Ligeti? Stockhausen? ETC? Just a hunch' date=' but I don't think a whole lot. How many got into composition because they liked Mozart? Beethoven? Brahms? Schubert? ETC ETC ETC? Oh, well, just about everyone else?

So, the fact composition education is bias against what is so well known has also a pretty simple reason, [b']it needs to fight an uphill battle of teaching people that music doesn't end after the 19th century[/b], and that there are many, many, many possibilities which don't imply either throwing the past away or being radical or whatever.

Composition education is not a forum that should ever play a role in fighting the battles for composers outside of the academic setting. This is a Babbitt argument, plain and simple:

Granting to music the position accorded other arts and sciences promises the sole substantial means of survival for the music I have been describing. Admittedly, if this music is not supported, the whistling repertory of the man in the street will be little affected, the concert-going activity of the conspicuous consumer of musical culture will be little disturbed. But music will cease to evolve, and, in that important sense, will cease to live.

Since when was academia ever responsible for the "sole substantial means of survival" of any type of music prior to the 20th Century?

"We don't have an audience! Our music won't survive! Grant our music the same level of respect you grant Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, and so many others because we're composers and we work hard to create NEW MUSIC!! All those other works, they had to hold up to all kinds of scrutiny and stand the test of time to get in, but you should let ours in anyway!"

Only in the 20th Century could this happen, for better or worse. I know it's extreme and it's an over-exaggeration to some degree, but it illustrates my point.

"...and that there are many, many, many possibilities which don't imply either throwing the past away or being radical or whatever."

I look at the vast amount of emphasis placed on "being contemporary", the amount of emphasis (or lack thereof) placed on tonal music composition methods, and the interests of most, if not all of the composition professors and lecturers I've had over the past 10 years. I think you are quite mistaken on what role the university is really playing and what kind of environment is created by it. I'm quite sure the expectations of many are being extinguished and replaced with a mentality that "New" is encouraged and "Old" is not (I've seen it quite frequently here). Like my above example shows, the cerebral dissociation between tonal harmonic theory and tonal harmonic method illustrates the circumstance just as well as I can explain it to you.

I think it's just paranoia at this point on your behalf specially because I actually agree with half of your argument despite all the bias and anger contained in it.

From a business/economic standpoint, it's a bait and switch. If such huge sums of money weren't involved in all of this, I might be more inclined to agree with you that this is all just scalloping and moaning, SSC.

"This message is hidden because Antiatonality is on your ignore list."

LOL, why reply? Troll harder. Enjoy your aids and don't reply to what I post because I'm not reading the scraggy you write, thx!

PS: If someone else is feeling like wasting some time they can rip whatever he said apart, it shouldn't be so hard considering the level here is so abysmally low. But, honestly, I'd rather everyone just stop replying to him, since his position is impossible reason with, he's absolutely 100% convinced that "everyone is out to get him" basically, that the entire academia produces drones that, GASP OH MY GOD, appreciate music he doesn't LIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH NOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Honestly, lol.

Irony is that the argument can be applied backwards just fine too, why should any institution teach about ANY composer whatsoever? Isn't that creating audience for those composers!??!?!?!? Why teach about Bach, that's teaching appreciation for Bach! NOOOOO!

Retarded argument is retarded.

This message is hidden because Antiatonality is on your ignore list.

Aw, and we were getting along so well. What a shame... :)

Honestly' date=' lol.

Irony is that the argument can be applied backwards just fine too, why should any institution teach about ANY composer whatsoever? Isn't that creating audience for those composers!??!?!?!? Why teach about Bach, that's teaching appreciation for Bach! NOOOOO!

Retarded argument is retarded.[/quote']

Problem being... most composers you're referencing had an audience before you or I ever began studying their music. Stravinsky (whose ballet, "The Rite of Spring" ended in a Riot) developed an audience without Universities to help "educate" his audience.

Bach didn't have the luxury of a university system as far reaching as ours to help him develop an audience for him. Furthermore, most of the music Bach is well known for is also sacred, which has an audience still today (many Catholics). Beethoven would be a better example, but he also had to cope with the development of an audience and the negative commentary of critics. They all did. But their music didn't require an education to create that interest either.

Music in Europe, from what I'm told, is immensely different in terms of concert attendance for new music. Some places in the US are hot spots for new music, mostly on the East Coast and West Coast. I'm hard pressed to find anyone that isn't either an educated musician, composer, or a family member of either who attends these concerts. By and large, understanding such works requires a music education today. Some may like them, but where is the audience for this music coming from? Who is listening to these works and what are their backgrounds?

I was never turned on to such "contemporary" works before college. I was told I should appreciate them (even if I didn't like them) when I attended college. And sure, some of them I liked even though it wasn't music I was interested in writing. But would I really seek these kinds of works out without my understanding of music? Would your friends that know nothing about music actively participate and involve themselves in the culture without any music education if they weren't friends of yours?

Don't get me wrong, the university IS a place where such music should have an opportunity to be performed. It's a place for students who really love it to be free to explore it and keep learning more about it. It's also a place where students should have guidance in that exploration. All of these things are good, great even. But this is also an environment where students are required to learn the principles and develop a solid grasp of the language of music and the methods, tonal or not. If students can't get this kind of education in their composition degree, there are very few alternatives for students to get it elsewhere.

I'll say it again, don't reply. You're wasting time because you've already lost 100% credibility and I'm thinking you're at this point just trolling. Give up, you're not going to convince anyone here and your arguments are indefensible and nonsensical. Just, stop.

I'll say it again, don't reply. You're wasting time because you've already lost 100% credibility and I'm thinking you're at this point just trolling. Give up, you're not going to convince anyone here and your arguments are indefensible and nonsensical. Just, stop.

Trolling? LOL!

someone can sit down and randomly draw contour lines, roll dice to create pitch and rhythmic content, slap it all onto a piece of paper, pick out a motif or gesture, repeat it in some transposed form (or not, it doesn't really matter anymore because people just hear what they want to hear or what they're told to hear), and then create some brilliant explanation for what it all means or what was behind it after it was done.

Yah...umm those are called the Freeman Eeudes for Violin, John Cage wrote them. Sans explanation, of course, but I still think they're awesome pieces. :x

I would like to request, within this thread and without to a mod (I'm sure I'll find one), to have this thread locked, or closed. Whatever it is you wacky, helpful moderators do, please close this thread. Walls of texts were fine, but when responses begin to degenerate to "Lol I'm a troll? NO WAI", there's just no point. My queries have been answered, and I am satisfied with the outcome, but others just want to drag this on into a perpetual FIST FIGHT.

Please lock.

Edit: Completely mixed up Nordreise and Anti-atonality there.