COMPOSITION, MUSIC, AND ART: Problems and Solutions

Hello everyone,

This is my second post, and I've registered because I've seen almost as much political discussion here about music as discussion about music itself.

This bothers me, as this is a Younger Composers forum, these following questions are what I feel should be the guiding principles:

1) What is music?

2) Why am I composing music?

3) What is the best kind of music I can compose?

4) If I am composing the best music, am I being honest in my creations, or am I hiding something/making up for some ideology/trying to please someone else/impress them/appeal to a large audience?

5) If I am not doing any of the above, does my honest creation sound more like I am unconsciously imitating my idol or trying to find my own voice?

6) If I think I've found my own voice, is this voice leading me to compose better music than before?

The above are some things I've learned across my experiences and readings having to do with music and composition. There have also been some improper questions and questions posed by many students which I will attempt to answer.

1) Should I compose atonal (now known as 'anti-tonal') or tonal music, and which is better? Isn't all serial music/anti-tonal bad? Is tonality better? (Or the reverse)

This is a popular concern brought up by many composition students, and rightly so. With all the input from numerous sources, teachers, fellow students, professional composers, books, articles, criticism, it's easy to get lost in the musical politics about particular superiority over any given style.

The best answer is this: The style is not the problem, bad music is. Good music can be written in any medium, any style, and even though it is true that it may be harder/less practical to try to write a good atonal/serial/etc work, it doesn't mean it is impossible. There are many examples everywhere of masterful tonal and anti-tonal music, and, unfortunately, there are probably many times more disasters than these few successes.

2) Lets say there is a composer who says, "I have this long, drawn out work that only uses one tone and has no rhythm. I wanted to make the listener bored, and that was my intention. Since you have become quite bored, my intention has been successful and the piece of music is 'good'"

The point here is that just because a person has an idea, it doesn't mean that merely carrying out that idea will be successful outside of itself. The idea itself can be flawed, and if that is the case, it doesn't matter how well executed the idea was, the execution is finally not the problem, the actual idea is. Intentions CAN be wrong and they should never be used as a crutch to justify mediocrity.

3) My professors/friends don't want me to compose tonal music, and they say I am not being 'new' or am merely trying to imitate my favorite composer. But I love tonal music and I can't stand anti-tonal/serial/etc.

First, there are two solutions here. The first solution is that the composer hasn't heard enough music to make such a preference or that the music she/he has heard hasn't been very good. If the composer in question only heard mediocre tonal works and excellent anti-tonal works, the converse would be true. Sadly, tonal masterpieces are played much more commonly than modern ones. This is mirrored in the fact that both James Joyce and William Shakespeare are literary geniuses, but that because of the additional complexity conferred to finnegans Wake (there is no apostrophe) by reason of its non-linearity and atypical literary nature (as well as the fact that he makes up words), even though both Hamlet and finnegans wake are masterpieces, the latter may be harder to enjoy because it forces us to make new categories in our brain which didn't exist. Once a familiarity is established, appreciation/interest in the work will come more easily.

4) But I can't listen to this music because I don't have access to CD's of works by Stravinsky/Bartok/Ligeti/etc, and the radio only plays music generally from before 1900.

Go to a music library, find recordings/scores and LISTEN. The best thing any composer can do, both experienced and inexperienced, is listen. Listening is essential. Knowing what has come before you is extremely important.

5) How do I know to which pieces I should listen? I don't have much time to be looking.

Then you may not have enough time to be a composer. To be successful a music one must devote a lot of time to maintaining/developing one's musicality, as well as listening/reading and listening (in ones head)/composing. If you have time, but have no idea where to start, ask us on the forums here. Ask your professor, fellow colleagues, go to concerts. Get out there! See all 6 of Bartok String Quartets available? LISTEN TO ALL OF THEM!

6) Okay, I've found my own voice and I want to systematically compose music using this system which does this to the pitch classes... etc etc.

Well, to this I ask the question: Is music notes on a page, numbers to be manipulated, notes on a keyboard to be organized, or is music based on sound, the perception of which is based in human perception and cognition? Obviously the answer is the latter. Serialism, despite its potential for success, can be a dangerous approach to composing, since it is rooted more in math/set theory/ordering than in acoustics. Will a person hear the retrograde inversion, as well as the fact that this dynamic shift 10 minutes ago which was exactly 1/16th louder? Or will they hear the simple fact that a very tense chord resolved two measures later or that a texture change occurred because another instrument was introduced? Thinking about how human beings perceive music and using that as a guide for one's intentions is key. Like Schoenberg once said to a student who remarked that Schoenberg had repeated a G before all 12 tones were played, "It is not math! It is music!"

7) Well, I love whatever I am composing, but I am not sure I am comfortable with the audience/performers/anyone else hearing it. It is very dissonant and is very different to what they are accustomed. OR the question is rephrased somewhat like this: I care about my audience liking my music and I want it to be popular. I want to be a famous composer with people who love my music immediately.

I suggest that this composer is being dishonest in her/his artistic creation. Whereas it is important to consider how an audience perceives a musical gesture/sound/etc worrying whether or not an audience will like it is not composing honestly. One must write music which, taking human perception of sound into account, is honest and exactly the artistic vision one has in her/his mind. Listening to musical art is the idea that for a few minutes, we are, as the audience, immersing ourselves within the personal artistic view of the composer.

To the composer who wants to be popular and have her/his music loved and places this over individual honesty, I ask whether or not she/he believes popularity to be the arbiter of aesthetic value. If this was the case, wouldn't the billboard 100 list the best pieces available? (This is not to say that the billboard 100 lacks works of aesthetic value, I am not concerning myself with this topic here)

8) I want to be a rich composer and write music that sells!

Tough luck, even the best and most well-known composers today like Elliot Carter and John Adams cannot make a living off their music. The bigger the work, the more money is needed to not only to set-up the work, which includes getting performers, instruments, seating, venue, advertising, etc, but also record the work. This is why that on average, for every concert ticket sold at a major orchestra, only 40 percent of the original cost for setting up the performance is paid for by every ticket. So that means if a concert costs 100 dollars per ticket to set up, in order to be financially viable for prospective audiences, each ticket would only earn 40 dollars.

On the other hand, if you want to be a film composer, that is a whole different business. While more lucrative, personal aims of composers are usually subordinated to successfully scoring for a film and a large audience who will hear the music as an accompaniment, whereas in concert music the focus is wholly on the music at hand (or performers).

Much of what I have said here is taken from my experiences with reading an essential book called Classical Music: Why Bother? Hearing the World of Contemporary Culture through a Composer's Ears by Joshua Fineberg. You can find it on Amazon:

Amazon.com: Classical Music, Why Bother?: Hearing the World of Contemporary Culture Through a Composer's Ears: Joshua Fineberg: Books

I recommend this book 100 percent to everyone interested in art, primarily musical art (and everyone should be to some extent). And especially composers. If you a composer, you must read this. Go to your local library and take it out, buy it, whatever, read this book!

Anyways, I look forward to hearing responses, and I've been having fun listening to all your pieces :)

Keep writing GOOD, HONEST, music!

-Alex

Hello everyone,

This is my second post, and I've registered because I've seen almost as much political discussion here about music as discussion about music itself.

This bothers me, as this is a Younger Composers forum, these following questions are what I feel should be the guiding principles:

-Alex

I am going to be brutally honest with you - the impression I have gained from that essay is that you've signed up to a website solely to arrogantly discredit this forum. What a reason to join.

I, like most people on here, joined to share and enjoy music. Learning is a big aspect of this site from the composer's headquarters with is ever lasting tonal vs atonality debate to the lesson system where other composers spare their free time to help others with no reimbursement. But you look at any and all forums and you will find some off topic conversation - hence why the section of that forum is called "Off Topic."

We do not need some new member to come in and superciliously presume to tell us that the pripcles of this site are misguided. Probably more than 50% of our membership are people under 20, probably will go on to other career not in music. One member, in fact the person who introduce me to this site, is currently a law student and yet he enjoys composition as a hobby!

Therefore, while they have the chance to explore their music, we as a community should be inspiring them not forcing them into music debates of equally stature as religious debate. Encouraging them to think about music is, of course, welcome but making music a serious business which needs to be discussed like its the House of Commons (or the Senate for my American counterparts) is never going to breath fresh life into an art which is slowly going the way of the dinosaur.

Personally, the next time you join a forum, be a member for several months and then bring up friendly debate. Don't join solely to cause a fight - hardly going to make a good impression ;)

I disagree with raining_hall; I don't think time spent registered on a forum correlates with significance of thought. I didn't really get anything controversial or condescending in that post. What I got out of it was "I've been reading these forums, and this is my response to what I've seen so far".

Sure, in some ways you're right about how new I am, but as we all know judging the worth of something based on its mere novelty is hardly appropriate.

Secondly, what I said applies to all musicians, and if you read what I said, which I hope you did, you will see I am not forcing anyone to compose in a certain style, form, genre, etc. Nor am I telling them to think about composition in a certain way. The furthest I'll concede is that I am trying to bring the reality of sound (the basis of music) to my post, and to disagree with me and say that sound has nothing to do with cognition of perception is beyond what I am trying to do here. I'm taking it for granted that this is true, and just restating it here.

I can see why it may have seemed condescending, but I will sacrifice personal goals such as what you have suggested (arrogance?) for clarity of what I know is only helpful and constructive. What I have said in this post should be self-evidently true and, even though it's a type of ideology (the type that basically says, be honest to yourself and at the same time explore, I don't see how this type of "commanding" language suggests an ideology which is stifling), it not a forceful one based in politics, but rather good sense.

Giving advice will always have a degree of command to it, it is inevitable. I cannot say "Take care of your body" without seeming even a bit commanding.

I disagree with raining_hall; I don't think time spent registered on a forum correlates with significance of thought. I didn't really get anything controversial or condescending in that post. What I got out of it was "I've been reading these forums, and this is my response to what I've seen so far".

But what I have also seen is talent, and hence why I decided to speak here rather than somewhere else. But, and I am sure many of you can agree, the debates of which I speak in my post ARE quite evident, not just in this particular forum, but all over the world, in universities, on the street, in concert halls, in schools, etc.

I think there are some very good points brought up there (even if most of them have already been discussed at length on these forums). I just want to address a few of them.

2) Lets say there is a composer who says, "I have this long, drawn out work that only uses one tone and has no rhythm. I wanted to make the listener bored, and that was my intention. Since you have become quite bored, my intention has been successful and the piece of music is 'good'"

The point here is that just because a person has an idea, it doesn't mean that merely carrying out that idea will be successful outside of itself. The idea itself can be flawed, and if that is the case, it doesn't matter how well executed the idea was, the execution is finally not the problem, the actual idea is.

(I'll leave out the notion of the existence of "wrong ideas" for now.)

You raise an important point. In our composition class we discussed the concept of music criticism for quite some while, and the general consensus was that the only thing we can judge music by today is its own aims. (Finding out these "aims" is of course another difficulty.)

But I have to agree with you that "meeting its own aims" isn't really the only thing that matters. We must look at the aims themselves too.

But to come back to your specific example: I don't see any problem with the aim to "make boring music" per se, but rather with the apparent mindlessness of the musical approach to this idea in this example. There is quite some music that could be called "boring" at times, from Feldman, over some Minimalists, to some extremely conceptual pieces. But the subject of "boredom" is much too interesting to just be done with it by writing one long unchanging note, in my opinion. It brings up terms such as "time", "duration", "proportion", "contrast and similarity", "attention", "purpose", "randomness" which have all to do with it and which all play an important part in a lot of music. Just ignoring the versatility and implications of the term "boredom" and writing a "boring piece", without actually thinking what boredom means, how it has been used by others, how it could be treated etc. just seems sloppy and a bit simple-minded to me. That would be my personal criticism of such a piece, and not the subject of "writing a boring piece" in itself. In the case of Feldman, to get back to it, it's certainly a very differentiated and conscious handling of phenomenons like "boredom", where you as a listener are actually confronted with the idea of boredom, and aren't "just bored". (That's just by personal assessment, mind you. I'm not saying everyone hears Feldman's music the same way.)

3) My professors/friends don't want me to compose tonal music, and they say I am not being 'new' or am merely trying to imitate my favorite composer. But I love tonal music and I can't stand anti-tonal/serial/etc.

First of all: I think it should be made clear to this person that "anti-tonality" (i.e. a conscious avoidance of tonal implications) or "serialism" are themselves historical concepts and not "new" by far. Anyone who composes a 12-tone piece today is using a historical technique, same as someone who writes a fugue in d minor.

Anyone who simply says "you can't write tonal music" or "you can't write serial music" makes it much too simple. I agree with them however that the usage of such techniques should be done consciously and with a certain awareness of the historical context. It's an illusion to think writing symphony in E major is the same thing today as it was 200 years ago. It now carries a history, connotations, and is no longer unchallenged and self-evident. And I think as a composer one should try to think a bit more into it than just "I like it so I write it". Why do you like it? Why do the counter-currents that happened against it not matter to you? What does it mean to you? Etc. The very same applies to the use of any other historical idea, like serialism. You should be prepared to be questioned on why you're using it, the same as Beethoven would have had to be prepared to be questioned if he had written random sequences of pitches.

7) Well, I love whatever I am composing, but I am not sure I am comfortable with the audience/performers/anyone else hearing it. It is very dissonant and is very different to what they are accustomed. OR the question is rephrased somewhat like this: I care about my audience liking my music and I want it to be popular. I want to be a famous composer with people who love my music immediately.

I suggest that this composer is being dishonest in her/his artistic creation.[...]

I generally agree with you, but I still think it's a very difficult thing. We're never totally independant. Whether we like it or not, we're always to some degree influenced by the tastes of people around us and by whether they like what we write or don't. And honestly, don't we all like it when people like what we've written? I definitely don't try to "please a large audience", or to write specifically towards the tastes of certain people. But I can't deny that there are some people whose opinions matter quite a lot to me, and that if they say they either dislike or like a piece by me, it may affect me and the music I write in some way.

Then there's also the question of where the boundaries of "personal artistic freedom" are. Most of us would probably agree that when it touches certain moral grounds, "artistic freedom" should be limited. For example when art involves physically harming people. The question is how soon we arrive at that point. Just two days ago I "performed" an electronic piece by myself in a concert, and this question became quite crucial: The piece got loud towards the end. Really loud. So that in the final 5-10 seconds about a third of the audience covered their ears. And while this loudness was certainly of "artistic importance" for me in that piece, I still had scruples afterwards and thought I should have played back the piece a bit more quietly. But how loud exactly should I have played it? What can you still expect your audience to deal with and where's the limit? Sure, there are legal dezibel thresholds etc., but it seems a bit weird to define the boundaries of art as "everything that's legal".

I am going to be brutally honest with you - the impression I have gained from that essay is that you've signed up to a website solely to arrogantly discredit this forum. What a reason to join.

By the way, I see how could this could happen, but I rather not, to be brutally honest with you, throw around crap and avoid getting to the real issue which is on my mind. I rather say something immediately which is more meaningful than 100 posts which may just be filler.

Also, If you check the chamber music section, you'll find my string quartet. You should listen, as should I to your (and everyone's) work. Link?

And while this loudness was certainly of "artistic importance" for me in that piece, I still had scruples afterwards and thought I should have played back the piece a bit more quietly. But how loud exactly should I have played it? What can you still expect your audience to deal with and where's the limit? Sure, there are legal dezibel thresholds etc., but it seems a bit weird to define the boundaries of art as "everything that's legal".

Two things: Maybe your idea of having the piece be loud here was a bad idea (which without hearing the piece, I cannot say either way) or perhaps you tried to do something which other composers have done, i.e, certain composers trying to make dissonant intervals sound consonant, such as treating minor 2nds and tritones as the "consonant" intervals, and perfect fifths and 3rds as the "dissonant" ones. No matter what you do, you cannot change the basic human perception of notes "beating" against one another. Dissonance is dissonance and consonance consonance. We can't change that, we can just manipulate them in a context that makes musical sense.

Similarly, perhaps your loudness was too loud for human perception, and you didn't take into account the average loudness the average person can take before the intensity of the vibration becomes uncomfortable.

And about that part "everything that's legal." It's more problematic to say that EVERYTHING is legal, because obviously this is untrue and leads to relativism. I think lowering the volume to a place that the audience wouldn't cringe, but would get the ARTISTIC IDEA of loudness would have been just as effective. If you wanted to cause pain, we go back to the "is the idea itself appropriate?"

Oh, I certainly agree with you, but the difficulty is that human perception is not universal. I, for one, liked it at that loudness. I didn't want to cause pain, and it didn't cause pain to me. But I might just be more insensitive than others. That's the problem.

Xenakis for example also tended to play back his electronic music almost unbearably loudly in his later years, due to his almost complete deafness on one ear. For him it was right. For others (like Boulez who attended one of these concerts) it was painful.

P.S. I do agree that I played my piece too loudly, and I wouldn't do it the same another time. But it would still be a "compromise" for me, one that I would be willing to accept, but still not quite the force and intensity I wanted.

Oh, I certainly agree with you, but the difficulty is that human perception is not universal. I, for one, liked it at that loudness. I didn't want to cause pain, and it didn't cause pain to me. But I might just be more insensitive than others. That's the problem.

Xenakis' for example also tended to play back his electronic music almost unbearably loudly in his later years, due to his almost complete deafness on one ear. For him it was right. For others (like Boulez who attended one of these concerts) it was painful.

Human perception, according to a few studies mentioned in the book which I referred to before and from I have read about it and discussed with many others, is generally universal. Taste isn't, but basic functions, everyone breathes, everyone feels fire, pain, etc. Everyone hears certain tones are "dissonant" and "consonant" it's that 99 percent similarity that scientists keep talking about in our genes.

And about Xenakis, but he was deaf, that's incredibly different perspective, because for him sound was not entering both ears, but one.

P.S. I do agree that I played my piece too loudly, and I wouldn't do it the same another time. I just wanted to raise the point that there are some very difficult limits here.

I would like to continue this more quickly in real time, do you have AIM or MSN?

Until then, there are difficult limits, but the fact that the MAJORITY of the audience covered their ears at pretty much the same time is pretty indicative of general sameness.

Furthermore, loudness is different than dissonance, because the degree of loudness changes more per person (because of circumstances leading to reduced hearing).

I disagree with raining_hall; I don't think time spent registered on a forum correlates with significance of thought. I didn't really get anything controversial or condescending in that post. What I got out of it was "I've been reading these forums, and this is my response to what I've seen so far".

I didn't mean it as in that I thought his post didn't have any significance but generally, a hi, I'm so and so is generally how people normally introduce themselves.

Half of what the orginally poster posted mentioned his experience but because I (or we) don't know him because this is his second post so in my opinion is sounds a tad arrogant. I just think it would have sounded better coming from a member who I knew better.

Exanimous, Yes I did see your string quartet because it was actually discussed in Shoutbox and I tried to download. But after 11 mins of waiting, the file still refused to open.

Ex: I found your comments to be extremely beneficial - though I have to agree with Raining, there is a sense of arrogance.

I have to disagree with Gardener on two things he stated in his post(s):

Oh, I certainly agree with you, but the difficulty is that human perception is not universal.

First of all: I think it should be made clear to this person that "anti-tonality" (i.e. a conscious avoidance of tonal implications) or "serialism" are themselves historical concepts and not "new" by far. Anyone who composes a 12-tone piece today is using a historical technique, same as someone who writes a fugue in d minor.

Human perception is, indeed, universal. The area you are referring to is learned taste - which is quite a different entity from perception. Most of our wired perceptions are there from birth - much like other species. A person listening to overly dissonant noise combinations, however, can become accustomed to them - which I think is what you were trying to say.

I disagree with your perception of history on the basis of tonality/anti-tonality. Prior to the advent of atonal technique, there was very little in the lines of music sans tonal center - of any kind. Sure Liszt had a few piano works - BUT, overall, the idea of atonality was not there. Why? Because there was no reason to do so. So the idea that avoidance of tonal implications is at all historic - its purely modern (1900 onwards is classifiable as modern). And one could argue a date after the impressionist era as the start of modern musical idea. Mind you - my dates are inclusive of the era itself. We are still in the modern era of music - until we either see a reaction against atonal technique become more popular or atonal technique expands past its very few stages of development (if any.)

I want to do composition professionally - hence why I take the criticisms offered on this site to heart (particularly when they are well given). A composer only improves his art if his work is heard - even in midi rendering! This site has been very helpful to me in that regard. At 28, I'm sort of middle aged on this site - LOL... while I was in college, we did not have forums of this nature nor anywhere but academic circles to turn for critique. That method was rather arbitrary to me - what academic ears hear is far different from what others hear.

I don't want to talk much more about my piece, as that's not the topic of this thread, so just two things: The point is that there were people who found the loudness justified, including myself. It was "only" about 1/3 of the audience that covered their ears. So no, it wasn't universal. Just going to a Rock concert will show you how much some people are willing to accept in contrast to others.

And jawoodruff: Yes, you're right, "perception" isn't the best term here. I wasn't very precise in my wording.

But I think you quite misunderstood me when it came to atonality being historical. Do you think something that is "modern" or from the 20th century can't be historical? It's the past, same as 1800 or 1500, no matter whether it belongs to the modern era or not. Strict serialism of all parameters for instance was an incredibly short phenomenon in the early 1950s. If you use it again today, you're using a technique that was dominant during some time in the past and has then given up by most composers who used it, in its strictest form. That, for me, makes it a historical technique. The same goes for "anti-tonality" as a conscious avoidance of tonality. It is a historical phenomenon from the early 20th century when it was still necessary to "fight" for the emancipation of equal treatment of all intervals. This is no longer necessary. You can write non-tonal without writing "anti-tonal", you don't have to enter a "rebellious stance". If you still see writing without a clear tonal center as an "anti-" action, that means you don't treat non-tonality with a naturality that would, IMO, be expected after a century. You're doing an old thing. (Which I don't judge qualitiatively, mind you.)

I also don't want to get into the naming of eras. You say we're still in the modern era. Others say we're in the postmodern era. Others say the postmodern era was in the 1970s and 1980s and we're now in yet another era, which again is called different things. That's all besides the point though. Even if we were in the "same period", that still doesn't make something that happened 50 or 100 years ago "new", in my book, at least not more significantly new than something that happened 150 years ago.

I think Exanimous brought up valid questions. If he (or she) used the word honest, I would use the word sincere. I think we all would benefit from sincere, transparent exploration of the philosophy of music composition.

Perhaps I can start the ball rolling:

Do composers enjoy creative freedom in their craft?

But I think you quite misunderstood me when it came to atonality being historical. Do you think something that is "modern" or from the 20th century can't be historical? It's the past, same as 1800 or 1500, no matter whether it belongs to the modern era or not. Strict serialism of all parameters for instance was an incredibly short phenomenon in the early 1950s. If you use it again today, you're using a technique that was dominant during some time in the past and has then given up by most composers who used it, in its strictest form. That, for me, makes it a historical technique. The same goes for "anti-tonality" as a conscious avoidance of tonality. It is a historical phenomenon from the early 20th century when it was still necessary to "fight" for the emancipation of equal treatment of all intervals. This is no longer necessary. You can write non-tonal without writing "anti-tonal", you don't have to enter a "rebellious stance". If you still see writing without a clear tonal center as an "anti-" action, that means you don't treat non-tonality with a naturality that would, IMO, be expected after a century. You're doing an old thing. (Which I don't judge qualitiatively, mind you.)

I think its like an argument over apples and oranges. You view that era as historic - since there are still composers from that time period still alive today, I consider it current.

However, in regards to 'emancipation of equal treatment of all intervals'. This is one concept that has baffled me. I look at much of the music from the baroque period onwards and I see the use of all 12 tones throughout. Granted, with tonal center - but nonetheless it is and was quite evident that they were all used to wide degree of individual preference by the composer. Where in the past 500 years do we get the idea that the 12 tones were not equal and were enslaved? That's not so much a reference to your comment but more of a general question - so don't take any offense to it... I'm just very curious on it - particularly after having studied many compositions.

A very good example of the use of all 12 twelve tones is many of the later Mozart Piano Concerti - I mention these, because they are what I've been analyzing more so of late.

However, in regards to 'emancipation of equal treatment of all intervals'. This is one concept that has baffled me. I look at much of the music from the baroque period onwards and I see the use of all 12 tones throughout. Granted, with tonal center - but nonetheless it is and was quite evident that they were all used to wide degree of individual preference by the composer. Where in the past 500 years do we get the idea that the 12 tones were not equal and were enslaved? That's not so much a reference to your comment but more of a general question - so don't take any offense to it... I'm just very curious on it - particularly after having studied many compositions.

The point is not so much equal occurence, but equal treatment. An F# might appear as often as a C in a piece in C-major, but 200 years ago it would be unthinkable to end the piece on an F#. Optimistically, it would have counted as "very weird". Likewise a chord consisting of a fourth and a tritone on top of each other could only exist in a few specific contexts, without which it would stand out as a "foreign particle", whereas certain other chords could appear in many more context without sounding "suspicious". The thing is that while it was always possible to do something unexpected or unorthodox, the fact remained that in a certain harmonical context there -were- expected notes and an avoidance of those would stand out, while writing the expected ones would pass by more unnoticed. Calling this "enslavement" may be exaggerated rhethoric, but they're definitely not equal.

Those Mozart Piano concerti are an excellent example of this. Yes, he tried to incorporate all 12 tones in themes, possibly as a compositorial challenge, but he had to specifically search for ways to do this while still keeping his tonal foundation. He couldn't just do it in any way. The same goes for many chromatic Bach fugues, such as the famous "King's theme" of the musical offering. It was a challenge that stood out as one, because the 12 tones weren't "equal" and came with certain implications.

So then, it's not really an emancipation of the twelve tones.. but rather wanting to do away with the entire idea of harmony structuring a composition in the way that it was done during the common practice era - an 'emancipation from tonal organization'?

Well, it's more about intervals than tones anyways. The idea of an "emancipation of dissonance" for example, is more or less just the removal of the concept of dissonance in contrast to consonance. It is an emancipation of the independence of sounds, which don't need to be "justified" or "supported" by other sounds in order to be valid anymore. But yes "emancipation from tonal organisation" is pretty much the same thing.

And about Xenakis, but he was deaf, that's incredibly different perspective, because for him sound was not entering both ears, but one.

1) Should I compose atonal (now known as 'anti-tonal') or tonal music, and which is better? Isn't all serial music/anti-tonal bad? Is tonality better? (Or the reverse)

This is a popular concern brought up by many composition students, and rightly so. With all the input from numerous sources, teachers, fellow students, professional composers, books, articles, criticism, it's easy to get lost in the musical politics about particular superiority over any given style.

The best answer is this: The style is not the problem, bad music is. Good music can be written in any medium, any style, and even though it is true that it may be harder/less practical to try to write a good atonal/serial/etc work, it doesn't mean it is impossible. There are many examples everywhere of masterful tonal and anti-tonal music, and, unfortunately, there are probably many times more disasters than these few successes.

Ah, let's see. "Bad music" is the problem, eh? What/who/? decides what "bad music" is? Why can't the choice of style be a measure of "badness?" I'm not making the case towards that assumption, but it shouldn't be left unchecked. After all, it's not really an answer, it's simply replacing one subjective standard with another.

As to why it's "less practical" to try to write "good" atonal/serial/etc(what is ETC anyway?), I really don't know what you mean. Plus, I wouldn't call atonal music anti-tonal any more that I'd call tonal music anti-atonal music. This agency (pro or against) in style doesn't exist except by select few examples or composers.

2) Lets say there is a composer who says, "I have this long, drawn out work that only uses one tone and has no rhythm. I wanted to make the listener bored, and that was my intention. Since you have become quite bored, my intention has been successful and the piece of music is 'good'"

The point here is that just because a person has an idea, it doesn't mean that merely carrying out that idea will be successful outside of itself. The idea itself can be flawed, and if that is the case, it doesn't matter how well executed the idea was, the execution is finally not the problem, the actual idea is. Intentions CAN be wrong and they should never be used as a crutch to justify mediocrity.

Again, who makes you the king of the truth concerning artistic intention or success? One can sure as well set goals and if these goals are accomplished, they were indeed successful. They can also be good or bad depending on who you ask or which history books you read (as they case may be.)

Also, once more, who decides what is "wrong" in terms of intention? What is "mediocrity" here? Who decides what that is to begin with? If you go to say intentions "can be wrong," please do provide examples where they are really wrong and it's not simply your opinion. If it IS simply your opinion, then this point is moot to begin with as everyone's opinions are different and all this can vary.

3) My professors/friends don't want me to compose tonal music, and they say I am not being 'new' or am merely trying to imitate my favorite composer. But I love tonal music and I can't stand anti-tonal/serial/etc.

First, there are two solutions here. The first solution is that the composer hasn't heard enough music to make such a preference or that the music she/he has heard hasn't been very good. If the composer in question only heard mediocre tonal works and excellent anti-tonal works, the converse would be true. Sadly, tonal masterpieces are played much more commonly than modern ones. This is mirrored in the fact that both James Joyce and William Shakespeare are literary geniuses, but that because of the additional complexity conferred to finnegans Wake (there is no apostrophe) by reason of its non-linearity and atypical literary nature (as well as the fact that he makes up words), even though both Hamlet and finnegans wake are masterpieces, the latter may be harder to enjoy because it forces us to make new categories in our brain which didn't exist. Once a familiarity is established, appreciation/interest in the work will come more easily.

The point of familiarity is the only thing that can be really rescued and used as real advice. Remember that arts are not interchangeable; comparing literature to music can only go so far before you run into problems. There are many different reasons why someone may like one literary work over another which are simply inapplicable to music and vice-versa. Clearly, here there's also the problem of what is a "good" atonal/tonal work, what is a "mediocre" atonal/tonal work and if the distinction is made entirely by the student (and is by definition subject as a matter of opinion) then if they think a particular atonal work is "good" it simply might as well mean they like it more.

Furthermore, this is all assuming that "masterpieces" mean anything more than pieces which just happen to be popular.

4) But I can't listen to this music because I don't have access to CD's of works by Stravinsky/Bartok/Ligeti/etc, and the radio only plays music generally from before 1900.

Go to a music library, find recordings/scores and LISTEN. The best thing any composer can do, both experienced and inexperienced, is listen. Listening is essential. Knowing what has come before you is extremely important.

Yeah, there's also youtube and as much as some people will hate me for it, piracy. Education is more important than (on occasion ABSURD) copyright laws sometimes.

5) How do I know to which pieces I should listen? I don't have much time to be looking.

Then you may not have enough time to be a composer. To be successful a music one must devote a lot of time to maintaining/developing one's musicality, as well as listening/reading and listening (in ones head)/composing. If you have time, but have no idea where to start, ask us on the forums here. Ask your professor, fellow colleagues, go to concerts. Get out there! See all 6 of Bartok String Quartets available? LISTEN TO ALL OF THEM!

Nothing to add here.

6) Okay, I've found my own voice and I want to systematically compose music using this system which does this to the pitch classes... etc etc.

Well, to this I ask the question: Is music notes on a page, numbers to be manipulated, notes on a keyboard to be organized, or is music based on sound, the perception of which is based in human perception and cognition? Obviously the answer is the latter. Serialism, despite its potential for success, can be a dangerous approach to composing, since it is rooted more in math/set theory/ordering than in acoustics. Will a person hear the retrograde inversion, as well as the fact that this dynamic shift 10 minutes ago which was exactly 1/16th louder? Or will they hear the simple fact that a very tense chord resolved two measures later or that a texture change occurred because another instrument was introduced? Thinking about how human beings perceive music and using that as a guide for one's intentions is key. Like Schoenberg once said to a student who remarked that Schoenberg had repeated a G before all 12 tones were played, "It is not math! It is music!"

I don't get this. Are you disqualifying approaches to composition because you happen to think they're "doing it wrong"? Serialism as a technique can lend itself to coming up with material that the person wouldn't sometimes have thought of (but arrived at them through math/formulas/etc.) Again, music can as well be math in approach, who is there to prevent it? Is this one of those "flawed" intentions from earlier?

Sometimes thinking exactly the opposite of how people perceive music can also be beneficial. Sometimes thinking that music is indeed just math can be beneficial. Sometimes forgetting that you're writing music at all is beneficial. Who can really say what's right or wrong here, when we really have no absolute definition for music to begin with?

I wouldn't say the distinction is "obvious" at all (or that it even exists), specially considering a lot of art which is designed to hit exactly that point to which there is no absolute "right or wrong" answer. Moreover, you can link symbols to music as to make those symbols analogous TO music and thus actually "become" music by extension. Such degree of symbolic interaction is why you don't need to hear, say, a C major chord every time you write it down. You manipulate the sound through this symbol and you already know what you're manipulating. For all intents and purposes, it can as well be called music in this context.

Not to mention "finding your own voice" is as vague as it can possibly get, but I won't address that now.

7) Well, I love whatever I am composing, but I am not sure I am comfortable with the audience/performers/anyone else hearing it. It is very dissonant and is very different to what they are accustomed. OR the question is rephrased somewhat like this: I care about my audience liking my music and I want it to be popular. I want to be a famous composer with people who love my music immediately.

I suggest that this composer is being dishonest in her/his artistic creation. Whereas it is important to consider how an audience perceives a musical gesture/sound/etc worrying whether or not an audience will like it is not composing honestly. One must write music which, taking human perception of sound into account, is honest and exactly the artistic vision one has in her/his mind. Listening to musical art is the idea that for a few minutes, we are, as the audience, immersing ourselves within the personal artistic view of the composer.

To the composer who wants to be popular and have her/his music loved and places this over individual honesty, I ask whether or not she/he believes popularity to be the arbiter of aesthetic value. If this was the case, wouldn't the billboard 100 list the best pieces available? (This is not to say that the billboard 100 lacks works of aesthetic value, I am not concerning myself with this topic here)

"...taking human perception of sound into account..."? What does that mean? And I'd really think twice before narrowing down artistic experience (either active or passive) to something so simplistic. After all, it's all relative.

As for the popularity thing, well the billboard 100 is a good example of what you want to copy if you're going for the market research approach to writing music (for money, I presume.) Who cares if they're "good" or not, who cares if you "like" them or not, they sell and that's what counts. They're popular and that's what counts. Priority here isn't really art but money.

As for not wanting your art to be heard, well, it can also happen. There's tons of things I've written that only a couple of people have ever heard (and ever will hear.) I don't see a problem with being reserved with what you put out in the public and what you keep to yourself (whichever the reasons.)

I skipped point 8 for brevity's sake, as well as the book recommendation.

As for the tone of the OP, well, uh, whatever. I'm rather interested in what it's saying, not how he's saying it.

PS:

Human perception, according to a few studies mentioned in the book which I referred to before and from I have read about it and discussed with many others, is generally universal. Taste isn't, but basic functions, everyone breathes, everyone feels fire, pain, etc. Everyone hears certain tones are "dissonant" and "consonant" it's that 99 percent similarity that scientists keep talking about in our genes.

I don't know what you mean here. That people hear intervals the same way because of the shared hearing organs and so on is a given. What Gardener is getting at is that the interpretation of this input can be drastically different and varying between individuals. It's a function of the social capacities of our brains to even assign symbols (dissonant, consonant) to these things, but ask if the sound of rain falling is "dissonant" and that'll show how absurdly narrow these symbol definitions really are.

So much so that they can easily be bypassed (and it's something we do quite often.) We hear millions of sounds throughout a single day, yet I doubt anyone is reasoning them out each time as "consonant" or "dissonant" because the social construct doesn't apply that far, and if you try you get mixed answers at best.

Hell, wasn't Schoenberg the one to start talking about simply "sonance?" Pshaw.

To SSC. Art is not all relative. And I (and many others) believe there are absolute aesthetic values. And if there were not, then there is no reason for the classical music tradition to go any further. People could simply have these music boxes which create music on demand for them. Since intrinsic worth doesn't exist, every artwork is essentially equal and the quality of which is dictated by taste. I believe however there are intrinsic aesthetic values which exist. Again, I strongly urge you to read at least the first 3 chapters in the book I mentioned. I absolutely urge you to read it. I could either paraphrase what he said, or just have you read it. If I must, I will paraphrase, because I feel the idea that all art and all artistic value is relative to be a HUGE problem with implications you haven't yet considered (but many of which have been made clear in the book and many of which I will spend the time to paraphrase here because of the absolute essential importance.)

Again, some may argue that it is 'elitist' to say one aim/idea/concept is worse than another, but it is true. Not all ideas are good ones. And just because someone has an idea and executes it doesn't make the overall result any better. Who decides this? Well, if the creator himself says my intent was to bore the audience, why would anyone listen to this piece to be bored when they could do something else that will be just as boring which is easier and less of a hassle than coming to a music concert and at the same time paying money? Clearly, that idea is flawed, especially since the creator HIMSELF said that essentially his idea was to create BAD music. Now, there are sometimes other ideas which aren't so clearly flawed, and this is where I will concede to you partially, but, when it is possible to see the idea as flawed, we should not hesitate to make note of it.

If popularity were the arbiter of value, if it was to completely dictate what is good art from what is bad, as I mentioned before the billboard 100 would contain all the best artworks, and the most popular one, the one which appealed to everyone's taste being the best. I am not saying it isn't the best because it is popular, I am just saying popularity is not enough of a criterion to judge aesthetic value.

Furthermore, on your comments about math and serialism, music, again, is not math. Sure, you can create interesting patterns which are in a way, random and not what was originally intended (and of course can be beautiful). But as much I believe that deliberate creation of art is essential, I think it is more essential to realize that musical art is NOT pushing around numbers. It is manipulating the sound world in a way that makes sense to human perception, since ultimately music is heard by us. We will hear the changes which our perception is accustomed or has the potential to be accustomed to hearing. If we have no potential to hear such obscure and merely mathematical procedures, then what point are the procedures besides getting in they of clarity and acoustic directionality?

SSC, PLEASE. Read the book, I STRONGLY urge you to, get it from a library, just the first few chapters, less than 50 pages. That is all I ask of you. I will read anything of the same amount you recommend. I am not saying you should agree immediately drop your thoughts, but at least became aware of it.

I don't know what you mean here. That people hear intervals the same way because of the shared hearing organs and so on is a given. What Gardener is getting at is that the interpretation of this input can be drastically different and varying between individuals. It's a function of the social capacities of our brains to even assign symbols (dissonant, consonant) to these things, but ask if the sound of rain falling is "dissonant" and that'll show how absurdly narrow these symbol definitions really are.

So much so that they can easily be bypassed (and it's something we do quite often.) We hear millions of sounds throughout a single day, yet I doubt anyone is reasoning them out each time as "consonant" or "dissonant" because the social construct doesn't apply that far, and if you try you get mixed answers at best.

Hell, wasn't Schoenberg the one to start talking about simply "sonance?" Pshaw.

Rain cannot be dissonant or consonant because it lacks the focused energy contributing to pitch. When acoustic energy is focused, we then perceive pitch. This is why white noise is not really consonant nor dissonant, because it lacks pitch. When there are two pitches (two focused energies) which are slightly out of phase, we perceive this as 'beating' which we have termed dissonant. The stronger the beating, the more dissonant. Perception of such beating is universal.

Social constructs should not be the criterion for dissonance/consonance. Human perception should.

As to why it's "less practical" to try to write "good" atonal/serial/etc(what is ETC anyway?), I really don't know what you mean. Plus, I wouldn't call atonal music anti-tonal any more that I'd call tonal music anti-atonal music. This agency (pro or against) in style doesn't exist except by select few examples or composers.

By the way, anti-tonal is a term I recently became aware of in my studies. Apparently it has been in professional musicological use since the 80's.

Rain cannot be dissonant or consonant because it lacks the focused energy contributing to pitch. When acoustic energy is focused, we then perceive pitch. This is why white noise is not really consonant nor dissonant, because it lacks pitch. When there are two pitches (two focused energies) which are slightly out of phase, we perceive this as 'beating' which we have termed dissonant. The stronger the beating, the more dissonant. Perception of such beating is universal.

Social constructs should not be the criterion for dissonance/consonance. Human perception should.

The concepts of consonance and dissonance have been discussed at length on these forums. Defining them isn't as easy as you make it out to be. Every tone that has overtones will beat slightly with another tone, even if they are a "perfectly consonant interval" from each other, say an octave. Beating occurs when the frequency difference between two (partial) tones enters the critical band, which again is dependant on the base frequency of the tones. If you go up the harmonic series of the two tones an octave apart, you'll soon come to two pitches that are inside the critical band, and the lower you play this octave, the sooner you'll get those pitches and the more pronounced will the beating be. And this is still just when dealing with just intervals. If you're doing the same in, say, equal temperament, it's even so strong that piano tuners count beatings to tune the fifths. If you take perfectly pure sine tones in contrast (yes, I know they only exist theoretically), you can play a tritone or major seventh in most of the human hearing range without producing any beating whatsoever, since there are no partials to fall inside critical bands. Yet still, strangly many people will consider a fifth in equal temperament played on a piano as "consonant" and a major seventh of sine tones as "dissonant". And let's not even start about instruments with inharmonic overtones.

And it's also not true that we all hear beating equally. Our ears might receive it, but our minds won't register it in many cases. Some people, like piano tuners, are much more accustomed to listening for them than others, and thus will also hear them more quickly. Fact is, the clear separation of "consonance" and "dissonance" has always been a cultural construct. There certainly are acoustic discriminations, but they are gradual, many-sided, and not very useful for a strict classification into two distinct groups.

P.S. Your definition of pitch as focused acoustic energy is quite imprecise too. It's periodic oscillation that matters. But yes, the phenomenon of beating only occurs between periodic vibrations.