Essay on Composition at the Moment

I just wrote a little essay...would love to get some comments & suggestions

Broad Street Review: So you want to compose serious music?

Beeri

I can sum it up with:

Electronic sampling still can’t imitate the artistry of a human playing an instrument.

I LOL'd at the whole thing. Good job.

Much of your 'essay' tends to be based solely on opinions, with no citations provided at all. This isn't a problem if you make it very clear at the beginning that this is a strongly biased essay with basis mostly on the author's opinion.

Much of your 'essay' tends to be based solely on opinions, with no citations provided at all. This isn't a problem if you make it very clear at the beginning that this is a strongly biased essay with basis mostly on the author's opinion.

I think the point is that it was mostly an opinion piece. A lot of what he says is VERY biased and outright absurd, so why would anyone take it any other way?

Much of your 'essay' tends to be based solely on opinions, with no citations provided at all. This isn't a problem if you make it very clear at the beginning that this is a strongly biased essay with basis mostly on the author's opinion.

:iffy:

A quote from the essay:

(3rd paragraph)

"here

I think there's a different between having personal opinions and stating absolutes as 'fact'.

I saw that sentence, but I don't think it was exclusive to opinions only. I could try to make sense of some stuff and easily back up my findings with solid examples or sources.

I thought I made it clear... maybe you didnt read that part.

There's also the title "A guide for modern composers" (if that is your idea or the editor's I don't know, though), which I think might misrepresent your intentions a bit.

Anyway, fine, you thought you made it clear--evidently not everyone thinks so. You asked for comments and suggestions, and that's what you're getting. Please be grateful for them and take them in--then feel free to ignore them if you think they're stupid, or discuss or ask for clarifications in a civil manner. People might not be too keen on helping you if they think you'll respond to criticism merely by suggesting that they didn't read carefully enough. Unless you want positive comments only, I guess, which is fine by me...

My biggest reservation is the obvious error that amteur composers do not have readily available resources to understand music after 1810. Ah, any halfway decent music school will offer theory and practicum in chromatic harmony. And there are plenty of courses in 20th century methods. The only difference is what you do in private study.

And even if this is "a struggle" to understand the numerous currents in modern composition, doesn't seem like you struggled much to offer an informed opinion of thus subject.

As for Granny music - we have people who enjoy writing in an old style and do it well. It also serves a great purpose for film and theatre music.

"Astonishingly, this obligation tends to stop there, in the mid 1810s"

[...]

" The 20th Century is hardly even discussed in conservatory music theory classes— not even established repertoire masters such as Stravinsky, Bartok and Schoenberg."

I'm sure that school-educated musicians don't stop their studies at some arbitrary point. I know my school didn't, and I didn't go to anything special.

"...seas of white hair and walkers that prop up classical music organizations..."

Damn, talk about biting the hand that feeds. Also becoming less and less true, I think.

Peter Schickele’s fictitious P.DQ Bach exploits this idiom hilariously, and it can even be done well seriously.

PDQ? REALLY? No, don't talk about/find out who's doing effective "neoclassical" music right now, just bring up a comedy artist from the 60s.

re: the jass section

Please see our threads regarding this split, paying attention to an internal split in jass and merging of techniques of (instant) composition. Compare Braxton and Stockhausen while you're at it.

just to namedrop

Minimalist composers such as Philip Glass and Steve Reich have successfully taken this simplicity and reduced it to absurdity.

Yup, folk music was the only influence on minimalists. You ever notice how much changes melodically in the Bolero? What about timbre in harpsichord music?

" Indian ragas, Indonesian gamelan and Arab maqams are just a few examples."

None of these three things are musical styles. Two are modal concepts, one is equivalent to the word "orchestra." I'm getting nitpicky, but this error is indicative of the rest of the essay. You basically are repeating either a) things that you experienced or b) adages that are no more true now then they were when they were first repeated or c) stuff that you saw in passing and wanted to mention.

re: Babbitt

He didn't want the title. The magazine changed it to drum up sales; it changes the tone of the article significantly. Think about the dynamics at play there.

I think the most odd thing about your writing is the tone... You swing wildly from condemning something outright, then give an example of someone who does right, without explaining the difference between the two. Therefore, the purpose of your piece is muddled. Is it a quick primer on the history of music? Or is it a guide to current strains in music? Or is it a manifesto to prompt others to create their own?

I have to agree with most the things already mentioned. It's of course perfectly ok to write an essay (a word which already implies that it's more a personal point of view than a scientific paper), but the problem is that the actual content looks much more like an "introductive guide" than a personal essay that focuses on one topic. And from such an "introductive guide", one naturally expects to get some fundamental, generally accepted facts, even if you do say it's just a personal "attempt to make some sense of it all".

And from this perspective, it just sticks out a bit that many of the listed ideas seem to be unfounded. A true essay doesn't need citations. But neither does this really look like an essay in this sense, nor does that mean that essays don't need to substantiate their claims to some level, even if in a very personal way.

Composerorganist already mentioned the part about music theory not being taught after 1810 - which to my experience is just flat out wrong. Actually, in my school we focused almost exclusively on 20th century music (with some ventures to older music now and then), even music from the past 50 years after the first two years or so. And I find it hard to believe there are many schools out there that regard Schubert as "borderline" or Wagner as "too complex". It all sounds a bit like you made a certain experience with one school and accepted it as a general case.

But most of all, you approach a really large topic with all those different styles and schools and try to summarize them extremely quickly. That's probably fine if you stay on a purely descriptive and general level, but you almost always add some "advice" at the end ("avoid that.", "a composer shouldn't stop there", "it would be wise to learn from…") or derogatory terms like "ivory tower", "cheesy" etc. without founding any of them, neither by other sources, nor by explaining your personal point of view.

In the end it gives a bit the impression of someone wanting to put a comment on everything that's out there, without really having studied it. If you -do- want to write a purely personal essay, why don't you focus on one thing and lay out your ideas in detail, allowing the reader to follow your train of thoughts, instead of just giving a short conclusion. Especially if you're so openly dismissive regarding certain concepts, which usually requires an especially thorough foundation.

(In other words: Nobody's going to be mad at you for writing an "essay" that consists of "Bach is a great composer. I love Bach." - people just won't think it's particularly informative. But if you write "Bach is a bad composer." and put the title "guide" above it, you'll run into a heavy opposition if you don't substantiate your claim really well.)

I think you should reevaluate your definitions of a lot of things... I feel obliged to go through each section and tell you what you did wrong, but I'll just hit the big, obnoxious things that I feel you did wrong.

First: You made a lot of mistakes when you assumed things based on your opinions.

~You assumed that most well-trained musicians aren't taught about mid to late-Romanicism, which is absurd. Why, this past year I played viola in Shostakovich's Quartet No. 8, a few of Brahms' Hungarian Dances, Introduction to Act III of Wagner's Lohengrin, and I've been trying to teach myself Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 on piano (without much luck I might add). Romantic and 20th Century music isn't ignored by the classical music community and is taught in schools, contrary to your assumption.

~You assumed that most amateur composers write Baroque, Classical and Early-Romantic period music. I believe that that is not the case. I could consider myself an amateur composer and I happen to write more Late-Romantic and 20th Century music than Baroque and Classical. I absolutely LOVE Shostakovich and Stravinsky and find myself very influenced by their music, again contrary to your assumption.

~You assumed that most octogenarians sit and listen to "18th Century" music all the time and scrunch their faces at Late-Romantic and 20th Century music (as well as atonality). I know a lady who is elderly who enjoys 1940's big band music (she also listens to Gershwin, Sousa and Liszt). I know another elderly couple that enjoys modern gospel music. You can't take a whole generation and say what music they like. People are individuals and enjoy music that they can relate to the most. This stereotype you produced is false and thus, contrary to your assumption.

Second: You frowned down upon some (if not most) forms of music.

~You frowned down upon most Baroque, Classical, and Early-Romantic music, describing it

as "Grandma Music."

~You frowned down upon Neo-baroque, Neoclassical, and Neoromantic music saying that most of it sounds like cheesy imitation and has very little use outside of mastering the form. I assure you that neo-whatever music can be very entertaining.

~You frowned down upon Minimalism, calling two very well-known minimalist composers' works "absurdity."

~You frowned down upon Atonality stating that it sound insane and casting it in a not-so-good light (I didn't buy your 'this shouldn't be taken as a curse' apology).

Third: Whilst stating your opinions, you did nothing to back them up other than name-dropping. You didn't cite anything. Most of this is opinion.

Fourth: You have a bad, misleading title. I thought you were going to teach about "serious music," but you didn't (instead you gave your history of music). You also labeled this an essay when really it is just a few opinionated paragraphs glued together.

Sorry for being honest, but you should look again at your 'essay.'

I thought it was a pretty accurate (pretty sarcastic) overview of the world of music in the US, honestly. Sure, there are the subtle details anyone taking a look through the window from the outside aren't really going to need to know. For instance...

Babbitt's article, The Composer as Specialist, being renamed as, Who Cares If You Listen?

No one on the outside looking "in to" the world of music is really going to make the connection, and it's not important that the connection be made if the author's intent was to express, generally, the attitudes of the time period.

Could there be citations? Sure. Could we have seen some musical examples that support the material? Sure. Does the audience for this piece really care? No.

Will anyone really benefit from this writing? Maybe... it's a frustration piece more than anything else, and I've shared many of these frustrations myself throughout my education. Many others haven't, and they wouldn't even begin to understand just how tedious it is to find the school offering that "magic concoction" of musical education best suited to their interests and aspirations.

In short, a brief opinion paper on some areas of music (not all-inclusive, by the way) may actually give those of us frustrated with the state of affairs in music education a bit of a breather... to at least know we're not the only ones feeling the pinch of landing in the wrong institution for your interests in spite of your best efforts.

Take that to the bank before you start taking this opinion piece and trashing it. If you're arguing that the author failed to research his subject matter or used biased language, you COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT. Congratulations.

But who exactly is the intended audience for this, in your opinion?

People "taking a look through the window from the outside", as you seem to be stating first (and which it sounds like to me too)? In that case I don't think the personal opinions and biased advice are very helpful and the audience might very well care for examples and further explanations. Or is the target audience "those of us frustrated with the state of affairs in music education"? In that case, you won't need to be tell any definitions or technical information on the different styles at all - you can just rant away. So, what is the target audience?

If it's just a frustration piece, then it's in disguise of a helpful guide, which I find the problematic part. To someone "on the outside looking 'in to' the world of music" I don't think the fact that it may be a frustration piece would be apparent, with the very optimistically phrased introduction etc.

I think one should decide whether you want to write a helpful guide, or if you want to rant about things you're frustrated about. Those are entirely different things and should be made clearly apparent in the text, IMO.

I have experienced some of these 'frustrations' in the past as well.

Eventually I learned that it was I who needed to change, and not the music.

Upon opening one's mind, it is apparent that there are reasons that people like or study certain kinds of music. There is merit in all music, even if it is hard to find.

Now when I see essays such as this, I hope that it will be the start of that same journey.

This was kind of off-topic, in the sense of 'did I find this essay useful?'. But I feel it was on topic in the broader sense of this subject.

When you're a young composer trying to learn about the world of music, you're really on the outside. The target audience is there. Obviously, more information is always helpful, but there is something to also be said for the undertones expressed (I found many of them humorous actually). The "Ivory Tower" and other such simple descriptions of the general state of affairs in music is pretty accurate. Obviously, an educated musician who has not experienced these frustrations in his/her education will not get it.

That's really the point. It's an opinion, a perspective or point of view on music today, and it does what it sets out to do from the author's vantage point. That's why if you were to write an opinion piece on how you view the world of music, your opinion is obviously going to vary. You can use as many or as few facts to support your opinions as you wish, but in the end, if you're targeting teenage composers who have little to no idea what to expect, these opinions are just as valuable for providing perspective and challenging the standard in the undertoned bias of the essay/article.

I'd encourage others to actually write their own opinion piece on the world of music if you're so unhappy with this author's work. Fight fire with fire instead of trying to pick it apart like some music faculty at a university.

I think it's fine as is.

I wouldn't want to write my own opinion piece on the world of music because frankly, I don't feel qualified enough. There are just too many aspects of the "world of music" I just have almost no experience with altogether, so I don't think what I'd come up with as an opinion piece would be very interesting to anyone. And I'm not really that unhappy about this text. But we were asked for comments, and so we gave them.

If the target audience, as Antiatonality said, is young, teenage composers, then I am the most qualified to judge it's worthiness being a teenage composer myself. I do not see the "frustrations" that Antiatonality claims are being represented in the essay; I see a brief overview of the genres of classical music that are heavily slanted to the writer's opinions. As Gardener avoided saying outright, I'm not sure the writer is qualified enough to submit his opinions (especially when he is stating things that aren't correct as fact [i.e. that most grandmas listen to 18th century music, new composers usually write neoclassical crap, etc.]), especially to young, confused, teenage composers.

I am not discouraging the writer, I am merely entreating the writer to review some of the things he is passing for facts and to make sure things that aren't facts are displayed as opinion clearly.

Eventually I learned that it was I who needed to change, and not the music.

Actually, it's not you or the music that needs to change. It's the institutions that need to change because many of them cater more to their own interest in art than they do to the interest of students. That's been my experience at SEVERAL institutions, both where I have attended as a student or merely as a guest. There's something to be said for having an open mind, but overwhelmingly so, the effort institutions make to encourage that should not supercede the skills necessary to be a composer. I think that's my beef more than anything else, at least where this stigma applies.

Actually, it's not you or the music that needs to change. It's the institutions that need to change because many of them cater more to their own interest in art than they do to the interest of students. That's been my experience at SEVERAL institutions, both where I have attended as a student or merely as a guest. There's something to be said for having an open mind, but overwhelmingly so, the effort institutions make to encourage that should not supercede the skills necessary to be a composer. I think that's my beef more than anything else, at least where this stigma applies.

Actually no. When I had a problem with Schoenberg, I wondered how anyone could dig that music. Then I studied it in Theory IV and realized what all was happening that I wasn't actually aware of, aurally. After I opened myself to appreciation for what we were studying, I was good to go.

The 'institutions' had nothing to do with it, in this case.

Ideally, EVERYONE should promote an open mind and acceptance of whatever music anyone decides to write. I can't control what others think, only myself. Perhaps I can influence others to be open, but if not, then I'm doing all I can do.

I am not discouraging the writer, I am merely entreating the writer to review some of the things he is passing for facts and to make sure things that aren't facts are displayed as opinion clearly.

Yeah, unfortunately, you missed the part where the writer clearly stated it was an opinion paper. He not only provided a "disclaimer", he clearly stated that it was, indeed, a "disclaimer".

Now, categorization is always a risky business. Stereotyping, judging and fitting the endless variety of personalities into labeled drawers is never clean or easy work and inevitably futile. Trend spotting may be useful, but the best works are those that don’t fit into any genre.

With that disclaimer out of the way, here’s one struggling young composer’s attempt to make some sense of it all.

See? The author is saying, "Hey, I'm going to categorize, stereotype, judge, and label music... and it's going to be dirty and inevitably futile. I'm just trying to make sense of it all."

Read. Comprehend. Repeat.

Actually no. When I had a problem with Schoernberg, I wondered how anyone could dig that music. Then I studied it in Theory IV and realized what all was happening that I wasn't actually aware of, aurally. After I opened myself to appreciation for what we were studying, I was good to go.

The 'institutions' had nothing to do with it, in this case.

Ideally, EVERYONE should promote an open mind and acceptance of whatever music anyone decides to write. I can't control what others think, only myself. Perhaps I can influence others to be open, but if not, then I'm doing all I can do.

Let me put it this way...

I decide I'm going to write a bunch of music that's never "existed" before... completely new styles (c'mon, it's a hypothetical since there's no such thing as a completely 'new' idea) and invite a whole lot of people out to hear it performed. If I say, "Come with an OPEN MIND," no one comes because they're not interested in hearing a bunch of sound they've never heard before... well, assume fewer than the latter approach, which is, "Come on out, you'll LOVE IT."

See, if the point is falling on deaf ears, let me be more bold. Sometimes it's about more than just writing something 'new'. Sometimes, on occasion, it's about writing something skillfully, even if it's not 'new' or ingenious. I'm so sick of hearing about these little 'stories' where someone says, "Well, I didn't hear it or understand it or appreciate it, but now that I do I'm totally for it!" That's great, but let's not forget about the actual 'SKILL' involved in crafting a composition. Let's be real. It's not JUST about exploring sound. It's about crafting that sound into something interesting and unique unto itself. If all it took were some really nifty atonal harmonies, 12-tone rows, and just utterly absurd dissonances, well, it wouldn't really be an artform now would it?

There's a very thin line that separates truly incredible intellect from the mundane panderings of useless, thoughtless, completely uninspired work. Schoenberg at least gave it a true effort based on his own SKILL at composing, not just trying to be original. Let's keep our eye on the ball here. It's not about having an "open mind," it's about writing with QUALITY in mind. Today, I think we lose sight of the most important necessity in composition - the intelligence behind the sound. That's what makes a composition into a masterpiece.

And I'm drunk, by the way. Nothing new there, either.

And I'm drunk, by the way. Nothing new there, either.

It shows.

UGH - Erroneous info is erroneous info no matter how you dress it.

And Anti - why don't you offer more constructive comments on the works posted here? I learn much more about your talent and knowledge from that than these tangential rants.

To clear up what my advice to the writer is (because Antiatonality misinterpreted it)...

Yeah, unfortunately, you missed the part where the writer clearly stated it was an opinion paper. He not only provided a "disclaimer", he clearly stated that it was, indeed, a "disclaimer".

One can put a disclaimer in front of something, but that leaves it up to interpretation what parts of the essay are opinion and which aren't. If I were to put a disclaimer in front of a work (which is a very informal practice by-the-way) that said that some of the work was opinion and in that work I said quite bluntly "no one listens to classical music anymore" (stated like a fact), would that be fact or opinion? Because essays are expected to be well-researched and cited, it is assumed that things stated as facts are indeed facts. Thus, "no one listens to classical music anymore" would be a fact because it wasn't preceded by "in my opinion," "I believe that" or anything that would hint that my statement is an opinion. It is a risky business to assume that this is covered by the disclaimer (which I would discourage the writer from employing).

When the writer said that most octogenarians listen to 18th Century music, it sounded very much like a blunt fact (as if he had pulled it from some statistics), when in actuality it is merely opinion.

I encourage the writer to make it very clear in the essay what parts are opinion (by saying "in my opinion," etc.) and what parts are fact (by citing them). Again, I would discourage the writer from using a disclaimer because it is informal and confusing to determine which things the disclaimer covers. :D

Let me put it this way...

I decide I'm going to write a bunch of music that's never "existed" before... completely new styles (c'mon, it's a hypothetical since there's no such thing as a completely 'new' idea) and invite a whole lot of people out to hear it performed. If I say, "Come with an OPEN MIND," no one comes because they're not interested in hearing a bunch of sound they've never heard before... well, assume fewer than the latter approach, which is, "Come on out, you'll LOVE IT."

See, if the point is falling on deaf ears, let me be more bold. Sometimes it's about more than just writing something 'new'. Sometimes, on occasion, it's about writing something skillfully, even if it's not 'new' or ingenious. I'm so sick of hearing about these little 'stories' where someone says, "Well, I didn't hear it or understand it or appreciate it, but now that I do I'm totally for it!" That's great, but let's not forget about the actual 'SKILL' involved in crafting a composition. Let's be real. It's not JUST about exploring sound. It's about crafting that sound into something interesting and unique unto itself. If all it took were some really nifty atonal harmonies, 12-tone rows, and just utterly absurd dissonances, well, it wouldn't really be an artform now would it?

There's a very thin line that separates truly incredible intellect from the mundane panderings of useless, thoughtless, completely uninspired work. Schoenberg at least gave it a true effort based on his own SKILL at composing, not just trying to be original. Let's keep our eye on the ball here. It's not about having an "open mind," it's about writing with QUALITY in mind. Today, I think we lose sight of the most important necessity in composition - the intelligence behind the sound. That's what makes a composition into a masterpiece.

And I'm drunk, by the way. Nothing new there, either.

At no point, in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. I award you no points.

I'm not sure you actually...understood what I was saying. I certainly don't understand what you said.

To me, it would be ideal if everyone were open to all kinds of music. That probably won't ever happen, so all I can do is keep myself open and encourage others to do the same.

I'm not sure what your response had to do with that.

I agree entirely with Jamie; your ramble isn't at all relevant to the discussion. If you have a point, Antiatonality, make it and don't ramble.