classical compositions

is classical composition dying as we speak? i mean classical in the most straightforward sense: baroque, classical, romantic, etc (basically, most of the works around here). if all the philharmonics and the orchestras, etc, keep playing the historical classics, what market is there for new composers? the biggest, and as far as i see it, the sole market for a composer who makes a living off music by itself (a working composer) is films, games, and tv. there's just no market for classical works anymore, UNLESS it's for school band, school orchestra, school wind ensemble, or it breaks 239487 conventions and does something truly innovational.

just my thoughts...

Very true indeed. It's a hard market to be in. People now want to hear something "new" or "fresh". They don't necessarily want to hear someone's interpretition of classical music...because simply...the classical music has mainly already been created. I may be wrong on that...but we are in the modern time and composers want to established there own style. There is also a demand for movie and game music.

Now, as for make a living off of composing classsical. Professional symphonies are going to play Beethoven's 5th before they will some unknown composer's music. It's hard to get new music played at those types of places because those people want to stick with the original classics such as Beethoven, Mozart, Hayden, etc...

There are good books on the bureacracy of orchestras and how the music of Beethoven and Mozart is overplayed... Not sure it is true, but when you live in a market that values popular music by far over classical music, you have to perform the small group of classical pieces that are guarenteed to make you $. If the market for classical music ever increases, you'll find that contemporary composers will get more chances with major orchestras. Of course, the opposite trend is occurring, so either learn to rap or purchase GPO.

It's not dying, it's just in recession, and has to be "re-marketed". Music back then wasn't as much of a business, as it is today. Music companies are targeting young teens these days, and using "image" instead of "music" to capture their interest because arranging big orchestras are expensive. It's all politics, thats all. It is much cheaper to hire one person who will influence millions of teens, have him or her sing a generic song, and hire low paying band members or even use midi to play the music. Unfortunatly, as time moves on, we find cheaper ways to make more money, and since this business model works for now, music companies make big bucks for the time being. They will continue to do this as long as they continue making big bucks. I really doubt this business model will last forever though. It is possible that people will be looking for "music" instead of "image" after awhile. Perhaps the cycle will just repeat through the eras again.

However, classical music can very easily come back with intervention, we just need the right people to "re-market" the music to the world, while being efficient enough to keep costs low. There is a market for it, and it is those who appreciate "real" music, not just "image". Technically, anyone can "re-market" this music, as long as they have the money and knowledge.

I certainly don't want to get anyone's hopes up, but YC pretty much hosts the most active and enthusiastic classical composers on the internet. If this site grows way bigger, things can happen.

Although classical music (including baroque, romantic, 20th century) is less popular as a percentage, I would not be surprised if more or a comparable number of people prefer classical music now as in the past. Of people in the past, only the upper and upper-middle classes would habitually have gone to classical concerts, most working class people used mainly to folk music, unable to afford to patronise classical music. Nowadays, I get the feeling that largely classical music is still largely appreciated by the more academic upper-middle and upper classes, as well as now some proportions of lower classes, while perhaps a majority of people who would have been classified 'working class' or lower-middle a century ago now listen predominantly to 'popular' music.

Tbh, as a guitarist who has played in rock bands, jazz music, and classical, as well as a composer and (very much infant) conductor, I do not see popular music as completely distinct and alien from 'classical', and certainly reject the 'image' hypothesis as a generalisation of all popular music, although some, and indeed much undoubtedely is.

I am in INTENSE, PASSIONATE ardor with classical music and I do agree. If you write classical music, there are those who won't even bother to listen to it because it IS classical. I think that the reason for classical music in your word "dying" is because the works of Beethoven, Mozart (who happens to be my musical idol), and any other classical composers have become obscured and if there are people who haven't heard the things that already exist, then why bother playing anything new?

And here you'be gotten me started on the subject of modern music and its negative effects on society... Whooo boy! here we go!

Consider this, percussion was the first type of musical instrument... The primordial rythms that were expelled by cavemen is not unlike the things that are forced down our ears today. Just chew on that...

But aside from that, don't let the existence or lack thereof of a market for classical music keep you from writing it if thats what you enjoy. The way I see it, music is a gift first, a hobby second, and least of all a career.

-Jon

... Nowadays, I get the feeling that largely classical music is still largely appreciated by the more academic upper-middle and upper classes, as well as now some proportions of lower classes...

Ha! Not in my town. I can only think of 5 people, including myself, who like classical music. One day, I was writing, and I tried to show my dad something I did. Halfway through the piece, he gave a tremulous yawn and walked off... MY DAD!!!! GEEZ.

I also think that another reason people don't listen to classical music is that they don't appreciate how difficult it is to write. They honestly believe that we sit down, write a symphony or two, and go to bed...

I also think that another reason people don't listen to classical music is that they don't appreciate how difficult it is to write.

Listening, and truly appreciating this type of music is a learned skill. And I mean, truly appreciating. Many people simply don't have the ear it, nor will they give it a chance. If these people were to give this type of music a chance, they would realize what they have been missing.

If good classical music is boring to people, it doesn't mean the piece is boring, its quite the opposite. It means the person's taste is boring, and they just have no ear for real music whatsoever.

is classical composition dying as we speak? i mean classical in the most straightforward sense: baroque, classical, romantic, etc (basically, most of the works around here). if all the philharmonics and the orchestras, etc, keep playing the historical classics, what market is there for new composers? the biggest, and as far as i see it, the sole market for a composer who makes a living off music by itself (a working composer) is films, games, and tv.

if by classical you mean "music that sounds like it was composed 150-250 years ago", then yes, there is no market for that sort of thing in professional circles.

As far as I know, there is a vibrant "new music" life out there. I am part of it, with concerts and commissions, new pieces being premiered every week. "Concert" music is still alive and doing quite well.

You will not hear a symphony orchestra perform a "new" work that sounds like Chopin, or Mozart. There is a good reason for this. The same reason that there are no books of "new" poetry that sound like Shakespeare. Music has evolved, and expectations have evolved along with it. The techniques, the theory, have all grown beyond the music of the past and now it is expected that a composer can go beyond that as well and create something that speaks from today's experience.

Before anyone jumps in here to flame me about how "unlistenable" new music is, I'd like to point out that most professionals also consider serial music and the experimentation of the 1950's to be "passé". Serious composers have been freed from the obligation to perpetually experiment and can now create music that connects - Adams, Belkin, Corigliano, Paart, Schnittke, me!

It IS, however, each composer's responsibility to strive to create something new for himself, to push his own limits, to advance beyond his present limitations. If you compose music that sounds like Mozart, then you have lots of pushing left. You can LIKE composing like that all you want, but you haven't come near to reaching those limits yet. Living in the past is far from being noble. It is simply anachronistic.

if by classical you mean "music that sounds like it was composed 150-250 years ago", then yes, there is no market for that sort of thing in professional circles.

As far as I know, there is a vibrant "new music" life out there. I am part of it, with concerts and commissions, new pieces being premiered every week. "Concert" music is still alive and doing quite well.

You will not hear a symphony orchestra perform a "new" work that sounds like Chopin, or Mozart. There is a good reason for this. The same reason that there are no books of "new" poetry that sound like Shakespeare. Music has evolved, and expectations have evolved along with it. The techniques, the theory, have all grown beyond the music of the past and now it is expected that a composer can go beyond that as well and create something that speaks from today's experience.

Before anyone jumps in here to flame me about how "unlistenable" new music is, I'd like to point out that most professionals also consider serial music and the experimentation of the 1950's to be "passé". Serious composers have been freed from the obligation to perpetually experiment and can now create music that connects - Adams, Belkin, Corigliano, Paart, Schnittke, me!

It IS, however, each composer's responsibility to strive to create something new for himself, to push his own limits, to advance beyond his present limitations. If you compose music that sounds like Mozart, then you have lots of pushing left. You can LIKE composing like that all you want, but you haven't come near to reaching those limits yet. Living in the past is far from being noble. It is simply anachronistic.

I would have taken this post of yours more seriously if you haven't mencioned new ORCHESTRAL music sounding like CHOPIN :D only the piano concertos, and that is soloist/orchestra music :D

I would have taken this post of yours more seriously if you haven't mencioned new ORCHESTRAL music sounding like CHOPIN :) only the piano concertos, and that is soloist/orchestra music ;)

you may take my post as you wish, sir.

I can only tell you what I know from professional experience as a composer and performer.

I am fully aware of Chopin's dearth of orchestral music, however, stylistically, he appears to please many young composers. I don't think that to refer to his harmonic style, or to use his name as an example among so many other possible names, reduces the impact or the import of what I have to say.

I don't think there's very much you could teach me about orchestral music or Chopin's music, and I find the tone of your response disrespectful. I don't know if this is the general ambience of this particular forum.

you may take my post as you wish, sir.

I can only tell you what I know from professional experience as a composer and performer.

I am fully aware of Chopin's dearth of orchestral music, however, stylistically, he appears to please many young composers. I don't think that to refer to his harmonic style, or to use his name as an example among so many other possible names, reduces the impact or the import of what I have to say.

I don't think there's very much you could teach me about orchestral music or Chopin's music, and I find the tone of your response disrespectful. I don't know if this is the general ambience of this particular forum.

Before I say anyhting. Let me say that I agree with what you have said.

Now:

Who are you? You make yourself seem like a figure in contemporary music, yet I have no earhtly idea who you are. You host your music on a site owned by pastor. If that is you then you are by no means the greatest professional here at all. I have listened to your music and have found nothing special about it. In fact, I do dare call it oridnary. I use your sub par writing for a professional composer and your lack of fame as the bases to be a jackass. Also, I don't have to fear you leaving because you have already made signs that you plan to anyways, so therefore I need not to fear any punishment again.

First off, Which orchestra do you conduct? Which orchestra have you had your music performed by? Who are composers do you talk to regular? Which orchestra do you play for? Where did you study music? Who was your teacher? Can you prove any of these answers?

I look foward to your answer.

Before I say anyhting. Let me say that I agree with what you have said.

Now:

Who are you? You make yourself seem like a figure in contemporary music, yet I have no earhtly idea who you are. You host your music on a site owned by pastor. If that is you then you are by no means the greatest professional here at all. I have listened to your music and have found nothing special about it. In fact, I do dare call it oridnary. I use your sub par writing for a professional composer and your lack of fame as the bases to be a jackass. Also, I don't have to fear you leaving because you have already made signs that you plan to anyways, so therefore I need not to fear any punishment again.

First off, Which orchestra do you conduct? Which orchestra have you had your music performed by? Who are composers do you talk to regular? Which orchestra do you play for? Where did you study music? Who was your teacher? Can you prove any of these answers?

I look foward to your answer.

I have no idea why you think I make myself out to be a "figure in contemporary music", possibly other than that I admit to being a professional composer, one who actually lives from making music.

No, the site that hosts my music is a favour from an online friend (and an excellent composer, in passing). I'm sorry you find my music "ordinary", or sub par, I guess that is your right. So far I haven't heard very much from you that impressed me either. So I guess we're even?

I have a Bfa in composition, and a Master's in composition from Concordia and Université de Montréal respectively. Let's see, I'm writing a book on polyharmony, I've worked in film for the past 15 years in Canada. I've been performed by Camerata Ars nova, the Montreal Symphony, Choeurs Classiques de Montreal, recorded on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Swedish Broadcasting (Sverige Radio), have a CD coming out this summer, to name only a few. Are you happy? Is the pissing contest over? It's not like I'm out to impress you. But then, I could name a bunch of people who are professionals and quite well-known, and you would probably still say "I've never heard of them".

I'm sorry you find nothing of interest in my music, and I'm quite sure there are many others who feel the same way you do. I can assure you, however, that it is well crafted. So "ordinary" I guess I can accept as an opinion. "Sub par" is a little more problematic, but then who are you to judge the worth of my music?

I find a lot of the pronouncements on the forum (and this is not unique to this forum alone) are simply borne from lack of experience or musical training. I read lots of grand pronouncements about music from people with little or no training. It can be amusing at times, yet it can also be frustrating. The owner of this forum states categorically that certain notation programs have inferior output, yet posts samples that in no way support that thesis. There is a forum for "major works" with a proviso that the works will be judged as to their worthiness, yet I haven't seen any indication that the judges are any better placed than anyone else on this forum to do so.

I guess a large part of my problem with this forum is that I came into it with no knowledge of the community, what sort of community it was, what calibre of musician, etc... And that the very first thing I read on the main page is that this is "possibly the best music website on the web". And then the first post I read trashes Finale and Sibelius and proposes as examples of "superior" engraving a score that is of questionable quality from an engraving standpoint.

So guess what? I apologize for stomping in here with my big professional jackboots and acting all high and mighty. I was wrong. And I AM being sincere. the only thing I can offer as proof of my sincerity is that my participation in other threads here has been tame and helpful. if you really think I should leave the forum, then I shall do so. Our mutual loss.

First off, I don't wish you to leave this forum. You have stated many times that you do wish to leave because this forum isn't for you. In the end, the choice is yours.

It was very arrogant of you to list composers and then state "me" at the end. Including yourself with the great works of the modern time! I look at your music and yawn. You said, you haven't heard much from me that impresses you. Yet, there is some! (humor).

Also, please do not think your musical training is so great. I've studied at Julliard School of Music and am currently studying at Uni of Texas. I've guitar prodigy but not much so a composer prodigy. My understand of music theory from the early ages to present time is well arounded. I Simply rather not bog down the reader with heavy terms that they will not understand. Therefor, I dumb down the review to a language in which the composer can understand.

I must admit your performance list is somewhat impressive. It does allow you to be called a professional at the very least. I'm aware you are not out there to impress me but yet here you are. I do call your music ordinary. I have no doubt that it is well crafted. Yet, it sounds like every other composition that any another grad student composes. It is like you followed a well set blue print. I say your writing is sub par because it does sound like a grad student. You are suppose to be a level higher than them. Yet you stay at their level.

I really don't care for your qualms with this site. If you like it stay. If you hate it leave. It isn't a hard choice. Therefore, I won't try to make you believe that this site is great. It is all personal opinion. Which leads me to the end of this. This is all personal opinion. Your music is sub par to me.

Hm... I like your compositions, Qccowboy. They seem to tread a nice middle ground between tonality and atonality, and consonance and dissonance. My only misgiving (again, it's opinion) is that the orchestration seems rather formulaic, and some timbral differences or dissonances would be nice.

Qccowboy, I appreciate your opinion, but it's predictable and academic. As a classical revivalist, I have to counter some of your points.

You will not hear a symphony orchestra perform a "new" work that sounds like Chopin, or Mozart.

Too true, too often, and it's a pity. I, for one, hope to change it.

There is a good reason for this.

No there isn't.

The same reason that there are no books of "new" poetry that sound like Shakespeare.

If that were entirely true, then the world would be worse for it. But about 20 years ago Erica Jong wrote a perfectly wonderful novel in 18th Century vernacular that became a best-seller, to name just one such notable exception.

Music has evolved, and expectations have evolved along with it.

Perhaps from an academic point of view, yes. If this conclusion could be drawn on the part of the ticket-buying audience, I wouldn't be singing a performance of Beethoven's 9th every summer. I believe that if given half a chance, revival of older styles and idioms in contemporary music will have an enthusiastic following. This will take some doing, because it's a threat to the academic establishment in music whose sacred cow is modernism for its own sake.

The techniques, the theory, have all grown beyond the music of the past and now it is expected that a composer can go beyond that as well and create something that speaks from today's experience.

Whose expectations are these, anyway? Does the academic establishment really believe it can speak for music-lovers at large? Since when?

To relate this personally:

Today's experience says nothing whatever to me. While I'm glad for some of what living in this day and age affords me, I only live here because I have to. I see nothing today that inspires me to reflect it in an artistic expression. Writing something new with old tools is my particular specialty, and it works for me artistically. It's been a long and lonely road, but it's beginning to pay off here and there. I'm starting to get performances and commissions for works that are in an idiom supposedly dead for 200 years.

If modernism in its various forms is exciting to some, they may have it. If have anything to say about it, though, it won't be the only acceptable, respectable way for a contemporary composer to express himself.

I'm sorry you find nothing of interest in my music, and I'm quite sure there are many others who feel the same way you do. I can assure you, however, that it is well crafted. So "ordinary" I guess I can accept as an opinion. "Sub par" is a little more problematic, but then who are you to judge the worth of my music?

Indeed, but who are you to judge the worth of your music, or any music for that matter? Music is produced for one reason: to be listened to. I don't know about you, but I hope that people enjoy listening to my music. If they don't enjoy a certain piece, I see little value in it. I never understand people who write a piece of music that sounds, to me, absurd (this doesn't necessarily include you; I haven't yet listened to your music) and when confronted about it merely state "well, I only wrote it for myself, anyway." Since music is a form of communication, writing only for yourself is like never displaying a painting, or never writing down a poem.

Consider this, percussion was the first type of musical instrument... The primordial rythms that were expelled by cavemen is not unlike the things that are forced down our ears today. Just chew on that...

So? Modern music has percussion instruments...and your point? It doesn't decrease its validity. I personally love world music and the music of "primal" cultures. To many, it doesn't hold up against classical music, but consider this: the musical feeling/emotion of any song is always more important than technical ability needed to play/compose/appreciate the piece. Always. The music of primal culture can very easily invoke feeling/emotion/images, where it falls short of other music in the technical area.

Hello!

As I'm new here [a starving musician!!] I may as well make a soft start by commenting on:

Now, as for make a living off of composing classsical. Professional symphonies are going to play Beethoven's 5th before they will some unknown composer's music. It's hard to get new music played at those types of places because those people want to stick with the original classics such as Beethoven, Mozart, Hayden, etc...

Very true, an unfamiliar name is taboo to the box office in the UK, and why I've tended to concentrate on ensemble works, especially for a few of us who have been able to get gigs here and there. Our BBC is about the only chance to get orchestral works played professionally and then only rarely.

Cheers,

M

can anyone cite any essays or statistics about the popularity of classical music? not necessary, but i'm just not sure whether it really is on a decline or the opposite. there's a lot in classical music's favor in modern times, i think. some people say that classical music is "hard music". it's more difficult to understand and appreciate. i think with modern media we have a stronger accessibility to popular music (people can listen to music when going to work, for example). we have more opportunities to listen to it more often. after listening to it, i think it's inevitable that some people will be interested in paying closer attention to music, and then in turn pursuing "harder" music. also, we have larger communities, like the internet. someone will tell you about an interesting group, or if you're interested in writing music, you can learn a new technique. heh . . i just remember that when i was younger, i learned about tritones from reading the dictionary . . i'd skim through it looking for pictures notes . . imagine what i could have been looking up then if i had internet access.

i can't think it's a bad thing that people want to listen to mozart in concert. although of course the money-mindedness can be a bad thing. (and, really, i can tell that a lot of people at those concerts aren't really *that* interested. they get free tickets or something? :( )