Is melody anything worth in modern art music?

Oh really? Algorithms to decide which music is superior? Where are they? How do they work?

I said...

and yes, there are actual algorithms out there that do the sort of thing I am discussing (and upon more complex variables than musical style), though they have not been applied specifically to the field of music composition contests

If you actually quote in context, which I know really hinders your argumentative abilities since we all know you take partial statements in order to bolster your position, you'll see I never actually stated that algorithms decide which music is superior. What I did say is that in theory an algorithm could assess the style(s) that most likely inspired a work given any number of parameters as well as approximate to some degree how similar or different from the style(s) a given work of music is... and to the best of my knowledge, these kinds of algorithms are already being used for analyzing data, statistics, and general information that involves much more complexity than examining musical style. This doesn't remove musical expertise from the equation, but it certainly helps to remove 'personal taste', at least in part, from the judging process.

Like I said, I'm not interested in discussing it with you and could really care less whether you agree or not.

Like I said, I'm not interested in discussing it with you and could really care less whether you agree or not.

For someone who doesn't care, you sure seem to post a lot, eh?

For someone who doesn't care, you sure seem to post a lot, eh?

Meh. I post a lot because I'm interested in open discussion about music... but when we get to this point in discussion, I know there's really no point in 'debating' things neither of us will agree on simply because our interests, attitudes, and opinions are so decisively different on these matters.

For instance, you and I both agree composition competitions are crap. All we disagree on is whether or not they could be better. I'm agreeing to disagree with you, that's all. I'm not interested in rehashing discussions that we've already had because it's a waste of my time (and probably yours, too). We already know what each of us will say, so what's the point?

OK. I agree and I'll leave it at that, then.

I think the question is much simpler than this incredibly long thread has made it.

Is melody (in the definition of the original poster) worth anything in modern art music? It's a yes or no question.

The deciding factor, I feel, must be an examination of recent composition as a whole, which is quite a pluralistic collection. So - are there contemporary art composers who write melody in its traditional sense?

Yes, there are - and therefore, melody is worth something in modern art music - just not all modern art music.

just not all modern art music.

Wrong.

No, Chris is right. There are pieces that have no melody. We already discussed this... What about if you had a piece that says: "Don't play anything for 4 minutes and 30 seconds"...

Where is the melody. Don't give me crap about the "melody in nature"... What these composers work toward is a SOUNDSCAPE. They just want a general emotion evoked. What about a musical piece that has 15 violins screeching randomly on the E string for 4 minutes... It's got no discernable melody.

How can you prove that ALL modern music has melody? How?

...There pieces that no melody. ... Don't give me crap about the "melody in nature"...

...

How can you prove that ALL modern music has melody? How?

It still hinges on YOUR definition of "melody" ...

BLAH BLAH BLAH...

He doesn't have to prove that ALL modern music has melody...he merely needs to believe it ;)

...

[that said, I agree, Chris' post is certainly apt]

No, Chris is right. There pieces that no melody. We already discussed this... What about if you had a piece that says: "Don't play anything for 4 minutes and 30 seconds"...

Where is the melody. Don't give me crap about the "melody in nature"... What these composers work toward is a SOUNDSCAPE. They just want a general emotion evoked. What about a musical piece that has 15 violins screeching randomly on the E string for 4 minutes... It's got no discernable melody.

How can you prove that ALL modern music has melody? How?

If the composer intended it to be a melody then its a melody. Sure, there is some music where the composer intended no melody. But if they did it is.

So this whole "oh man it's not a 'traditional' melody" BS is just ridiculous.

It still hinges on YOUR definition of "melody" ...

BLAH BLAH BLAH...

He doesn't have to prove that ALL modern music has melody...he merely needs to believe it ;)

...

[that said, I agree, Chris' post is certainly apt]

Well, alright, I will go with you there. :whistling:

As a general principle, I've come to accept that there is no individual style that does not come from or otherwise 'germinate' from an existing style or more than one style meshed together.

I sincerely doubt that is the case for a lot of music written today (at least I hope so). It comes to a great degree from existing music that influences you as a composer and not the abstracted stylistical characteristics some people may have derived from it. The music you are influenced by is itself rarely an "expression of an existing style", but rather, the style is a description of a few picked-out aspects of said music. Any personal approach to said music would probably pick out slightly different aspects that keep you interested, than the one used to define that "style", which means that the set of parameters which influences you can often be something quite different than the "style" that is applied to the music as a whole by musicologists or the "broad public". If really the "official" parameters of existing styles were your only influence, I'd pity you for having such a meagre set of influences - in contrast to all the other aspects and side-effects you may draw from when looking at other music (or even completely non-musical things).

There are probably hundreds, maybe thousands of different ways musical taste can shape into a truly unique sound, but a contest in composition should take into consideration the 'execution' of one's personal sound in consideration of the styles which influence it.

Can you honestly mean what you're saying there? If you do that really slightly shocks me…

Styles are in general so totally irrelevant. They are simply terms used to make descriptions of music somewhat easier (i.e. require less thinking about), possibly help to establish connections between different pieces of music, composers, and non-musical fields (useful, but mostly just in a musicological application), possibly a worthwhile topic for composing, if you really think about the style as a phenomenon, but sadly often just a cheap justification to compose things in a certain way without having to think much about it.

It doesn't matter how your composition "is executed in consideration of its stylistical influences" - the only thing that probably does matter (IMHO), is how it's executed in consideration of the standards the composer has set for it (and possibly the nature of said standards themselves). If you look at a piece of music and first of all try to establish the "styles" it draws from and then proceed to judge it based on that, all you're doing is dumbing the piece down to some arbitrary parameters which may have nothing to do with what's actually important for that piece. Just because a piece does contain some chords that may be typical for Jazz doesn't mean the category "Jazz" is of any actual relevance for that piece, and looking how the piece relates to some other aspects of Jazz and judging how well it "executes them" may be just missing the point completely.

Of course it may be totally natural for a member of such a jury to think of "Jazz" when they hear those chords, and of course it's is entirely valid to go one step further from there and see whether "Jazz" plays a role in that piece in other respects too and take that into account in ones "judgment" (in whatever way). But a fixation on "existing styles" as the musical relevant parameters of a composition is just completely silly - and will likely hurt the pieces the most that have the most intricate and abstract set of influences, where things like styles really don't matter that much.

This certainly isn't meant to put music in boxes with labels, but if there is clearly a style or styles are apparent in the work, the execution of the work should be considered based on some basis of pre-existing material. The creative aspect, what the composer does as an exception to the style(s) or extraordinarily well within it/them, should also be taken into consideration.

Come on, we live in 2009. A composer who really only thinks about writing well within a style and doing some things as an "exception to the style" has, IMO, a rather constricted view about what it means to write music. Styles aren't musical fundamentals. They are just artificial constructs that are often quite awkwardly put over groups of pieces, often in retrospect.

And really, if there's a qualitative difference between writing "well" or "creatively" in a style or not doing so, I don't see why every style on the other hand should be quite as valid as the next one. If there are qualitative differences between pieces of music, then there are also qualitative differences between styles, and saying "you can write in any style but write well in it", just seems like a cop-out to keep your trust in an objective qualitative judgement in music, without having to go out and say "Jazz sucks" or "Impressionism sucks" and offer yourself up to criticism. Because as I said: You can call any aspect of any music a style if you want.

I'd like to point out that "styles" as a way to group formulas for composing or methods is not completely useless, even if it's not a central point at all in today's composition. But then, it's only a vague and sketchy concept and if it's only being used to kickstart something, or to give ideas, I don't mind.

I'd like to point out that "styles" as a way to group formulas for composing or methods is not completely useless, even if it's not a central point at all in today's composition. But then, it's only a vague and sketchy concept and if it's only being used to kickstart something, or to give ideas, I don't mind.

SSC more or less describes how I'm using the term "style" as it relates to the discussion. I think, Gardener, you are taking my use to a semantic extreme, something far beyond what I would ever argue.

I sincerely doubt that is the case for a lot of music written today (at least I hope so). It comes to a great degree from existing music that influences you as a composer and not the abstracted stylistical characteristics some people may have derived from it. The music you are influenced by is itself rarely an "expression of an existing style", but rather, the style is a description of a few picked-out aspects of said music. Any personal approach to said music would probably pick out slightly different aspects that keep you interested, than the one used to define that "style", which means that the set of parameters which influences you can often be something quite different than the "style" that is applied to the music as a whole by musicologists or the "broad public". If really the "official" parameters of existing styles were your only influence, I'd pity you for having such a meager set of influences - in contrast to all the other aspects and side-effects you may draw from when looking at other music (or even completely non-musical things).

First, I think that you're tremendously overestimating how different one work of music is from the next...

Can you honestly mean what you're saying there? If you do that really slightly shocks me…

Styles are in general so totally irrelevant. They are simply terms used to make descriptions of music somewhat easier (i.e. require less thinking about), possibly help to establish connections between different pieces of music, composers, and non-musical fields (useful, but mostly just in a musicological application), possibly a worthwhile topic for composing, if you really think about the style as a phenomenon, but sadly often just a cheap justification to compose things in a certain way without having to think much about it.

It doesn't matter how your composition "is executed in consideration of its stylistic influences" - the only thing that probably does matter (IMHO), is how it's executed in consideration of the standards the composer has set for it (and possibly the nature of said standards themselves). If you look at a piece of music and first of all try to establish the "styles" it draws from and then proceed to judge it based on that, all you're doing is dumbing the piece down to some arbitrary parameters which may have nothing to do with what's actually important for that piece. Just because a piece does contain some chords that may be typical for Jazz doesn't mean the category "Jazz" is of any actual relevance for that piece, and looking how the piece relates to some other aspects of Jazz and judging how well it "executes them" may be just missing the point completely.

Of course it may be totally natural for a member of such a jury to think of "Jazz" when they hear those chords, and of course it's is entirely valid to go one step further from there and see whether "Jazz" plays a role in that piece in other respects too and take that into account in ones "judgment" (in whatever way). But a fixation on "existing styles" as the musical relevant parameters of a composition is just completely silly - and will likely hurt the pieces the most that have the most intricate and abstract set of influences, where things like styles really don't matter that much.

Second, I fail to see how this whole business of "how it's executed in consideration of the standards the composer has set for it" is even a qualitative view... you can't have standards if no standards exist except as some intangible, psycho-serrated quality... essentially the whole view is serving its own purpose, which is exactly what I come back to when someone says, "Well, I'm the artist, I'm the specialist, that's what I intended, that's what I did... if you don't understand it, you just don't understand MY STANDARDS!!!" It's just another artistic defense mechanism to hide from reality... the reality that sometimes it just doesn't work and it can be done better.

But (and not to drift off point here, but really..) if all we're doing is creating 'our own standard', then we're really not benefiting from the reciprocal relationship of creator AND some objective/subjective phenomenon... be it an audience, a peer, a mentor, or a whole collection of literature that precedes what we're doing as artists. If your claim is that we should not allow that to influence our judgment in anyway when looking at works which compete for awards... where a qualitative judgment is rendered... AND when such works have been inspired by preceding literature... that you prefer judges to ignore the latter to perform the former?? You would have judges offer a qualitative judgment without considering the objective, preceding collection of literature that, at least in a qualitative decision, could shed more light on which work(s) is/are more or less creative, more progressive, more (insert random quality of music you're looking for in such a contest)?

I don't know, I'm a bit baffled that you think a composer can set their own standards when we all agree no standards in music actually exist at all. If music is this much of a philosophical clusterf^*k of inferior logic, no wonder the contests are so laughable. Stylistic tendencies do exist from one piece to the next, and if that's so threatening to the status quo, because a standard could emerge that threatens one's ability to make the "...it's my art, if you don't understand it that's your problem..." excuse (and yes, I call it an excuse, not a rationale), then so be it. I'm NOT looking for one standard, I'm just looking for a little sanity... which may be too much to ask for, but hey, at least I'm setting MY STANDARD.

Come on, we live in 2009. A composer who really only thinks about writing well within a style and doing some things as an "exception to the style" has, IMO, a rather constricted view about what it means to write music. Styles aren't musical fundamentals. They are just artificial constructs that are often quite awkwardly put over groups of pieces, often in retrospect.

And really, if there's a qualitative difference between writing "well" or "creatively" in a style or not doing so, I don't see why every style on the other hand should be quite as valid as the next one. If there are qualitative differences between pieces of music, then there are also qualitative differences between styles, and saying "you can write in any style but write well in it", just seems like a cop-out to keep your trust in an objective qualitative judgment in music, without having to go out and say "Jazz sucks" or "Impressionism sucks" and offer yourself up to criticism. Because as I said: You can call any aspect of any music a style if you want.

ARGH! I think it's insane to leave all judgment to individual taste in music composition contests. If you think there's a better solution to that, then by all means explain. If you disagree, if you think it's not insane to leave all judgment to individual taste, then come up with a better rationalization than the "It's Art/My Standards" excuse. It's not a valid justification, never has been, and it never will be.

It's just another artistic defense mechanism to hide from reality... the reality that sometimes it just doesn't work and it can be done better.

For this to be true, we have to all agree on things like what "just doesn't work," and since we can't and won't agree on it, that whole premise is stupid. Which is what gardener and I've been saying the entire time. It doesn't matter if YOU think X "just doesn't work," you're not the boss of anyone and the world will keep spinning with or without you. If you think X can be done better, that's you, and again, unless we ALL agree that X can be done better, it still remains only your opinion (and even if we ALL agree, it still remains a collective opinion, someone can still come along and disagree and that'll be totally fine.)

I don't know, I'm a bit baffled that you think a composer can set their own standards when we all agree no standards in music actually exist at all.

You're missing the point. Standards are individual and personal. They don't exist in a collective sense as, say, the laws of physics, but they do exist for every composer. This is why your music doesn't sound like Boulez or Cage, you have different individual standards. This should be obvious by now.

For this to be true, we have to all agree on things like what "just doesn't work," and since we can't and won't agree on it, that whole premise is stupid. Which is what gardener and I've been saying the entire time. It doesn't matter if YOU think X "just doesn't work," you're not the boss of anyone and the world will keep spinning with or without you. If you think X can be done better, that's you, and again, unless we ALL agree that X can be done better, it still remains only your opinion (and even if we ALL agree, it still remains a collective opinion, someone can still come along and disagree and that'll be totally fine.)

I'm not trying to be the boss of anyone, but I'm not doing anyone justice by sitting on my donkey and not 'objectively' discussing why something does or does not work, and if the collective opinion is that something doesn't work, then that's an even more compelling reason to go back and reconsider how to execute your idea in a better way, be it through orchestration, revoicing, reharmonizing, etc.

Objectivity can be applied to music in that sense. If it couldn't, composition lessons would serve no purpose at all. Furthermore, basing what is a 'better piece' in competition on 'personal taste' instead of qualifying it on a combination of objectivity and subjectivity only stifles the progress of music. We rest on our lorals instead of trying to be better composers. Especially as young composers, it's counterproductive to fully adopt the "...you just don't understand me or my standards..." argument without objective consideration.

You're missing the point. Standards are individual and personal. They don't exist in a collective sense as, say, the laws of physics, but they do exist for every composer. This is why your music doesn't sound like Boulez or Cage, you have different individual standards. This should be obvious by now.

WRONG. Taste in music is individual and personal. Standards, criterion, or whatever you want to call it, are OBJECTIVE PRINCIPLES, personal or otherwise. And since we don't have an actual 'standard' since we all seem to agree that music composition is broadly 'subjective', to say that each composer adopts their own 'Standard' minces words. Each composer adopts their own Taste... these so-called 'Standards' composers adopt aren't standards at all.

Without getting into a semantic debate over terminology, we at least have to agree on what a 'Standard' is, and I don't think what composers adopt as 'Standards' in their works are anything different than their personal 'Taste' in music. Let's at least keep the terminology straight or sort it out before we continue. Agreed?

Objectivity can be applied to music in that sense. If it couldn't, composition lessons would serve no purpose at all. Furthermore, basing what is a 'better piece' in competition on 'personal taste' instead of qualifying it on a combination of objectivity and subjectivity only stifles our abilities. We rest on our lorals instead of trying to be better composers. Especially as young composers, it's counterproductive to fully adopt the "...you just don't understand me or my standards..." argument.

Well to be perfectly honest composition lessons are only of a limited use, 99% of the work is the student actually composing and gathering information, and less actual "how to compose" instruction. After all, who the hell wants to be told "how to compose?"

Also, composing doesn't work that way. Being a "better composer" means whatever you want it to mean. I bet for you it means something totally different than it does for me, or for many many other people and among them there's probably also a wealth of different opinions on what they think being a "better composer" would mean. None of them are necessarily wrong or right about it either, it's different for everyone.

WRONG. Taste in music is individual and personal. Standards, criterion, or whatever you want to call it, are OBJECTIVE PRINCIPLES, personal or otherwise. And since we don't have an actual 'standard' since we all seem to agree that music composition is broadly 'subjective', to say that each composer adopts their own 'Standard' minces words. Each composer adopts their own Taste... these so-called 'Standards' composers adopt aren't standards at all.

Without getting into a semantic debate over terminology, we at least have to agree on what a 'Standard' is, and I don't think what composers adopt as 'Standards' in their works are anything different than their personal 'Taste' in music. Let's at least keep the terminology straight or sort it out before we continue. Agreed?

Um, and I'm saying that there's absolutely nothing ELSE but taste. If you can demonstrate there is, go ahead. For me there is really no point in making a difference between "my standards" and "my tastes." They mean the same exact thing.

What you're talking about is an UNIVERSAL standard, again, like the law of physics. It's easy to show how this doesn't exist considering the very thread we're posting in. People will do whatever they want guided by their taste, and that's fine. Everyone wins.

Now my question is, why do you hate that idea? I mean, you're allowed to write whatever you want precisely because of it. Without it, you'd be writing the music you MUST write, not the music you WANT to write. That's the entire problem with "objectivity" arguments like that, they turn into obligations.

The laws of physics don't give a scraggy if you don't enjoy them, they'll apply to you just like they apply to everyone. Thankfully, art isn't this way and it shouldn't BE this way, again, otherwise we'll be writing the music we MUST write rather than the music we WANT to write. Objectivity in this sense leaves you no choice, no options, nothing. Why do you want that?

Well to be perfectly honest composition lessons are only of a limited use, 99% of the work is the student actually composing and gathering information, and less actual "how to compose" instruction. After all, who the hell wants to be told "how to compose?"

Also, composing doesn't work that way. Being a "better composer" means whatever you want it to mean. I bet for you it means something totally different than it does for me, or for many many other people and among them there's probably also a wealth of different opinions on what they think being a "better composer" would mean. None of them are necessarily wrong or right about it either, it's different for everyone.

Quite true, there are different interpretations of what it means to be a better composer, and these are all subjective. In consideration of the topic at hand though, when a qualitative judgment is being made without any qualitative consideration, there are three options.

Either we 1) accept personal taste as a measure of which composer is 'better', 2) we refer to some objective criteria for consideration (like we do in music theory, in musicology... objectivity is used in creating subjective valuation ALL THE TIME in music academia, I don't see why we're even debating this point in the context of music composition contests...), or 3) we just eliminate competitions entirely and accept that no such objectivity exists.

You're resolute on option 3. Fine. I'm not. If some objectivity can be applied to assessing music compositions submitted for review for some financial reward, then at least there's some basis beyond personal taste making the judgment that one composition is better than all others submitted. That's not limiting to music. It just makes such decisions quite a bit more rational and less biased.

Um, and I'm saying that there's absolutely nothing ELSE but taste. If you can demonstrate there is, go ahead. For me there is really no point in making a difference between "my standards" and "my tastes." They mean the same exact thing.

I'm saying that unless you have an agreeable, rational set of criterion for what makes your music better or worse, worthy or unworthy of award in a contest, then all you have is taste... you don't have a standard if all you base your musical decisions on is what you like. There's no sense in kidding yourself or anyone else. The difference I'm making between standards and tastes is clearly based on pre-existing literature.

Just like this melody discussion, there are certain 'agreeable' standards by which many of us would agree what constitutes a melody and what is not a melody. You might still argue that you hear a melody even though no one else agrees with you and the composer actually writes that s/he did not write a melody in bars x,y,&z. Your TASTE guides your decision on whether or not it's a melody, whereas an objective standard that transcends your taste would contradict you.

What you're talking about is a UNIVERSAL standard, again, like the law of physics. It's easy to show how this doesn't exist considering the very thread we're posting in. People will do whatever they want guided by their taste, and that's fine. Everyone wins.

How does everyone win, exactly? Because they get to write whatever they want? Great. That didn't stop Berg from writing a brilliant masterpiece in Wozzeck or Stravinsky from writing the Rite of Spring... yet they had, at some point in time, some objective criteria in addition to their personal taste in music to guide them in their endeavors. The flip side is that if everyone writes what they want and justify that it magically works "because it's their art, it's their 'standard', and others just don't understand," then all we have is a bunch of people not willing to consider the possibility that they could execute their idea more clearly, more efficiently, or more creatively. If composers just aren't willing to accept criticism or learn from objective reasoning, then we don't improve. We isolate ourselves from the rest of the world of music... more on this in a moment...

Now my question is, why do you hate that idea? I mean, you're allowed to write whatever you want precisely because of it. Without it, you'd be writing the music you MUST write, not the music you WANT to write. That's the entire problem with "objectivity" arguments like that, they turn into obligations.

The laws of physics don't give a scraggy if you don't enjoy them, they'll apply to you just like they apply to everyone. Thankfully, art isn't this way and it shouldn't BE this way, again, otherwise we'll be writing the music we MUST write rather than the music we WANT to write. Objectivity in this sense leaves you no choice, no options, nothing. Why do you want that?

I don't HATE that idea. But if composers are being encouraged to examine themselves and their music objectively, even if they apply their taste in music in the process, they're better off than becoming mediocre because they refuse to try to improve... justifying this unwillingness to even consider improvement with some variation of the argument, "You just don't understand me as an artist."

I think it's fine that everyone can write anything they want, and quite frankly, 'anything' has already been done over and over again - in my opinion it's a little overrated. But regardless, that doesn't excuse a composer from having a bit of humility and accepting that there are better ways to execute an idea if they truly want that idea to be communicated clearly through their music.

And thus, I believe composition competitions should encourage improving on one's abilities as a composer... which naturally involves some (not exclusive) objectivity combined with subjectivity. And that's why I think it's not only possible but an overall better approach. The real challenge in composition, at least the joy I find in what I do, is accepting that each piece will be better than the last because I'll do something better than I did previously. I may communicate an idea more clearly, I may find some innovative way to orchestrate a passage, or any number of other things I could do differently.

I have this joy in music because I accept that objectivity has a place in music. Without it, I'm floating in a vast sea without an anchor... and eventually I'll just end up being a shipwreck on an island shore or sink to the bottom in terms of creativity and inspiration... either way, I think it's a drive we all should have as composers that we lose when we start making excuses for our Art instead of having a rational explanation for why it is what it is... which only comes after we constantly try to better ourselves as artists by accepting various sources of objective insight, be it the pedagogy, audience reviews, peer reviews, or professional guidance.

You may view objectivity as a threat. I embrace it as a guide that steadies me and focuses my creativity toward a goal of constant personal improvement. No matter what anyone thinks about my music, it's a complete win/win for me because I've critically considered, both subjectively and objectively, how to gauge my work and my progress as a composer. I don't know how you do it, SSC, but if it's a different approach that works for you, then great. In the context of a contest, I think my approach is more comprehensive than personal taste judgments. But hey, that's just me I guess.

I don't think objectivity in this type of thing exists, so I sort of can't view it as anything. I was just proposing a hypothetical scenario, but I don't think there's anything objective telling you you have to compose X or Y.

Let me simplify. Subjectivity is the creativity in music composition. Objectivity is the challenge in execution, when creativity in music composition culminates in the writing of a new piece. That's where I think objectivity exists in music, when pen touches manuscript, because decisions are made based on some external, objective source material in this process, whether it's theory, performance, prior literature, the audience, a peer, a mentor, etc.

For both SSC and Gardener:

How do you challenge yourself as a composer? What is it that you seek to accomplish when you write? If you don't consider the audience, a fellow composer, a composition professor/mentor, the performer, theory, or previous literature, what else is it that you refer to when you write?

Then I might add, how is that information you use in creating music not 'objective' by design, as in 'outside source material' you use in making decisions in your works? Really, I'm curious what either of you think is subjective about the information you use when you write. I have my doubts that either of you compose entirely subjectively without any consideration of 'objective' sources of information/insight, like theory, performance, or any thousand other possibilities.

If we agree on this point, then there should be no reason why a contest that judges one piece above others could not involve some form of objective consideration in the process, using any or all of the above-mentioned 'objective' considerations I've already listed and more. Whether or not these should be considered is not relevant at this point. I'm simply trying to work through the first issue, that being whether or not it's possible to apply objectivity in evaluating a work of music for consideration of an award.

First of all, I never said I had a better solution for criteria to judge music. But I'm pretty sure that no "algorithm" you could come up with right now would come anywhere close to doing the variety of music out there any justice. This actually is to some degree a problem for me. While on one side it's cool that you can do everything you like, on the other hand I'm a bit afraid of this total arbitrariness and indifference that may come from it.

But at the same time I'm convinced that, at least currently, there really -are- no standards than the ones we set for ourselves. And yes, this gets pretty close to taste, but is in my opinion still something slightly different in its practical usage: Taste is something principally unreasoned (which of course doesn't mean unfounded), you "just like something" or dislike it, and this is often applied to very concrete musical cases. As soon as you begin to "justify" this taste by abstracting it, by explaining why you like or dislike something with more global terms that may go far from the actual music into philosophy and the like, it becomes more like what I called "personal standards", which are probably no longer applied to concrete sounds and can be (more or less) explained in words or similar. These are the things you can communicate with your composition teacher for instance, or write a work commentary with, or even -try- to base an outside criticism on. I know, this is an extremely vague thing, and I'm not too happy about it, but it's as close as I can get right now.

Ultimately, yes, it's still just taste, but it's a verbalised taste that is connected to a network of other practices and thus examinable, both in its inner coherency, in its relationship to the music it describes, and in its relation to the cultural context it refers to (which certainly also contains what you called styles). This still doesn't allow for a qualitative judgement of a piece of music, but at least it allows us to discuss it on some vaguely common ground.

And in practice, I think this process of abstraction to broader, verbalised descriptions is what most juries in competitions use: They first try to analyse and summarize a piece of music to some clear characteristics, to describe it in a more abstract form and then review said abstracted description both as an artistic property itself, and in relation to the actual music. Of course this is still a perfectly subjective and biased approach, since first of all the form of abstraction may be a totally different one than what the composer started out with and what other jury members might come up with, and second, the qualitative judgement of this description and the execution of the piece based on that still entirely come down to taste in the end. The only difference is that the jury members may actually judge some music as "good" they don't immediately "enjoy" like this, since they still can relate to some abstracted aspects of it, and the other way round, and they have more grounds of discussion with the other jury members, which can often lead to a more thought-through and communicated judgement - even if it's still entirely personal.

This is also why I think art criticism is still a very important and valid aspect of art, as long as it concentrates on reflecting the artwork verbally and debating aspects of it, instead of making quick judgements between good and bad (but even that I find OK to some degree - art critics should be allowed to be humans too). But of course that doesn't solve the problem of competitions.

In an academic setting, i.e. studying composition, it's again a much more fortunate thing, since the composer can actually discuss with the teacher. And most composition teachers I know would primarily base their assessment on the standards the student has set for her- or himself (if, of course, said standards are deemed "acceptable" by the university in the first place) and try to help the student to write the music he is looking for, instead of just applying some "global objective criteria".

I never said "It's my standards!" should be an "excuse" for anything. There's no excuse for whatever you write. You are responsible for all of it and must be able to stand up to it and have to deal with it when other people hate it. But in the end, it's the only thing you can really count on. No teacher, no audience, no established practice can fully justify what you do - in the end it's you who has to be able to stand up for it, so yes, "It's my standards" -is- a valid approach. I'd just not recommend anyone to be stubborn about it and hide behind it. By all means -do- listen to what other people say about your pieces, do consider other music, other opinions, your environment and history, do keep an open mind and be ready to change your opinion. But if -you- can't in the end justify it with your own arguments, why bother at all?

Personally, I just don't feel I can lean back on an easy global solution so easily, be that a trust in a specific "objective principle" that decides whether my compositions are good or bad, or just a careless "everything's as good as the next thing" attitude which makes everything I feel like writing right now "OK". For me it is an unsolved (and somewhat uncomfortable) question, but I don't think we can have a definite answer on hand just now.

All I can say that for myself, I do have standards that I find incredibly hard to fulfill and have definitely not done so until now. Every piece I write is just an attempt to fulfill some of the (often relatively abstract) ideas I carry around with me, and every one is -to some degree- a failure. I tend to look more forward to the next piece(s) I'm writing than to enjoy the ones I have already written, but actually I'm quite fine with that. I could imagine nothing more horrible than the awareness of already having written a "perfect piece". And if someone criticises a piece of me, it really falls into three categories for me: Either it's a critique that aims exactly at such a "standard" I had set for myself and failed to meet (usually coming from people who understand me very well or with whom I've discussed the piece much), or it's a critique of an unclear aspect of the piece, which generally comes from the fact that I didn't manage to focus my piece enough on the parameters that actually mattered for me, or then it's a critique of something that I consciously wanted like that, as a fundamental aspect of the piece and the critic simply "failed" to understand where I was coming from. In the first two cases I can learn a lot from the critiques, in the third, it still may be totally "valid", but I can feel free to disregard it, or I discuss it indepth with the critic after which it usually changes to fall under point two (unclarity), or even dissolves completely. But almost always, when a critique is actually thought-through and doesn't just consist of some standard vocabulary to describe a quick first impression it indeed manages to hit some aspects that mattered for me in the composition and thus be a critique that helps me and that (to some degree) judges my music in a way I can at least understand. And as long as the critique makes sense to me and I can understand where it's coming from, I can live much better with it, be it good or bad, than if it's just a bunch of random keywords that I can't connect to my piece at all (even if favourable ones).

So while the only ultimate standard for me is still "this is my art!", it is in no way just a simple excuse and doesn't mean I'm immunised from criticism. (I'd definitely not like that. I like to be part of a critical exchange with other people.)

I agree with what Gardener said there, but obviously we differ in approaches.

To me, my motives to write something can come from something as concrete as "someone asked me to do this in X style" to a simple whim "I just felt like it." However, once I do write something and put it out there for others to see, I stand behind my art and I really don't give a scraggy if others like it or not.

HOWEVER, I AM interested in what others will say or what they think. Specially if it's something elaborate or they're trying to offer constructive criticism. This is mostly my problem with "art critics," but not exactly with people commenting on art altogether. Someone who is just judging for the sake of it is not interesting to me, but someone who wants to offer their opinion even if it's not necessarily a judgment, that's fine.

In the end though, I do reserve the right to listen or just walk away and likewise, I can as well not be bothered to "justify" any of my art as I have nothing to prove to anyone.

With all that said though, it's the flexibility of people's worldviews and opinions on stuff like this which is interesting, specially how it affects the musical product. Someone like AA may have very rigid standards for their own music that they follow themselves and also to criticize others, but that's only one way to be and everyone's standards, tastes and opinions change.

That sort of freedom is what allows, ultimately, the "do whatever you want, it's fine" mindset AS WELL AS any other mindset. The fact they're both valid doesn't mean the former is SUPERIOR and both can coexist. Case to point, I don't have to think the same was as AA does to write stuff, and neither does he have to think like me to write anything.

And there's really no reason we should, when it comes to taste and personal standards.

Where I'm concerned, I try to put myself in the hypothetical situation of judging such a competition. I think my first course of action, after listening and reviewing the works, would be to separate each piece into separate categories. If it's a Serial work, I'll place it in a stack. I'd do the same for contemporary tonal works, Alleatoric pieces (if applicable), mixed styles, and so on. Of course there would likely be an unknown stack where I would discuss with colleagues if I'm unsure of where the inspiration comes from...

I guess, after careful consideration of the top 1-2 works in each style using a simple process of elimination based on general effect, notation, scoring, etc., my next step would be to analyze the top 5-10 works to see what is going on in each piece to a higher degree of detail than my general elimination process. My final assessment would be based on 1) the objective of the contest, 2) the creativity/ingenuity of the work as it relates to the objectives of the competition, and 3) the execution of the creativity in writing the work.

And I actually had this discussion with a couple of professors who have served on judging panels for composition contests. One of them use this method, the other just picks his favorite piece out of the batch. Obviously, speaking from experience in discussing this stuff, contests are different from one to the next... and while there's not much I can say or do about the guy who just picks his favorite piece out of the batch, I have a lot more respect for the judge who actually applies some limited form of objectivity to his decision.

That's my view on things where contests are concerned. As far as composition is concerned, I really appreciate the way you've laid out your thought process on music, Gardener. I have a great deal more respect for you after reading that, honestly.

Where I'm concerned, I try to put myself in the hypothetical situation of judging such a competition. I think my first course of action, after listening and reviewing the works, would be to separate each piece into separate categories. If it's a Serial work, I'll place it in a stack. I'd do the same for contemporary tonal works, Alleatoric pieces (if applicable), mixed styles, and so on. Of course there would likely be an unknown stack where I would discuss with colleagues if I'm unsure of where the inspiration comes from...

But didn't you say before: "This certainly isn't meant to put music in boxes with labels"?

See, my whole (well, not whole, one amongst others) problem about this is that you take some keywords like "serial work" and "contemporary tonal" as fixed parameters to orient yourself by, while you could as well have taken any other set of keywords (such as "music written in a low register" and "music using extended instrumental techniques" and "music for flute" and "music built on traditional dance rhythms" and "music with a focus on spatial movement") and it would be a just as "valid" classification as the one you are using there. And in any case, your classification would fail to do a great number of pieces justice, where these things actually don't matter at all. A piece may be built out of 12-tone rows, but that may be just an irrelevant method of "note generation" for a piece where rhythm and register is actually the thing the composer focused on, and the composer might have just as well used aleatoric means to get his pitches for essentially the "same" piece. And another piece may "sound tonal" because, say, one pitch appears so often that it appears as a tonal centre, but "tonality" as an idea is still no category that matters to the composer for that piece at all. And while one piece might be a "piece for flute" in a sense that it really focuses on this particular instrument with its acoustics, its techniques, on air and breathing, its history etc., another one might just use the flute to reproduce the pitches the composer has carefully devised according to a sophisticated harmonical system which is the actual core of the composition for the composer, and it really might be played by an oboe as well.

Just putting pieces together in groups according to such arbitrary characteristics will at most do those pieces justice for which these categories matter in the first place. But if you don't even have the category "music with a focus on spatial movement" and are presented with a piece featuring only a single tone, which moves through the room in fascinating loops that are very thought-through, maybe with a great focus on room acoustics and maybe even containing links to spatial visual art - then you're simply shooting -way- past the "essence" of the piece if you try to classify it between your categories. And this isn't just an example meant to invalidate your method that would just rarely come up in actual competitions, allowing to find a special case for it: It is a "focused example" of the fundamental problem your method will have for any piece.

Not even to mention that the things you mentioned are mostly just techniques (aleatoric composition, serialism, etc.) which say pretty much nothing about what the music sounds like or focuses on.

Sure, I perfectly understand your desire to come up with an "objective algorithm" to get away from "blind" judgement according to taste. But I think there's one thing that is much worse than consciously using a subjective judgement method: Using an ultimately still perfectly subjective judgement method, while convincing yourself that it is objective and thus trusting it without doubt. I'd much rather someone was aware of the subjectivity of her or his judgement, but tried to stay quite open and be willing to try to "understand" even some music that doesn't speak directly to her or him - and (which is very important to me): Come up with a detailed verbal explanation why she or he judged a piece better than another, which is coherent within itself and discussable with other people (such as the other jury members).

But of course, composition competitions are still an extremely dodgy thing and in -no- case above personal bias and opinion. But I think it's better to be aware of this than just trust any "system" as a solution to this problem and thus create even more bias that acts as something much more absolute and "just" than it ever can be.

P.S. I realize we've drifted off topic for quite a while now. If someone wants to extend this conversation on music criticism/judgment I'm willing to start another thread about it and move the last couple of posts there. Personally, I'm pretty much done on this topic though, but since I don't want to seem like I want to have the last word, I won't close this topic :P So feel free to say some final things on this and post replies to whatever I or someone else wrote, but if you want to continue in depth, I'd rather move it to another thread.

Sorry, I just read up to the fourth page and am now out of date because I don't want to read the last nine. So I won't add to the discussion at hand. But I just want to give a shout out to Flint. Flint, please stop being a presumptuous elitist. That's really how you were coming off.

Morivou, I think you have the right idea on your post on page 4. Thank you.

Edit: I'd love to chat about this topic, however. If someone who's been active would post a very quick synopsis of the last nine pages, I'll hop in.

Sorry, I just read up to the fourth page and am now out of date because I don't want to read the last nine. So I won't add to the discussion at hand. But I just want to give a shout out to Flint. Flint, please stop being a presumptuous elitist. That's really how you were coming off.

Morivou, I think you have the right idea on your post on page 4. Thank you.

Edit: I'd love to chat about this topic, however. If someone who's been active would post a very quick synopsis of the last nine pages, I'll hop in.

In all honesty, this particular thread, as many at this wonderful site, has reduced itself to pointless argumentation of the elitists trying to educate the actually learned... while the people that actually know something are "smart" and stay out of the kitchen when the fire sets off. Right now, the last nine pages have been a collection of idealistic opinions that add up to NOTHING.

Melody is all about perception, we have discovered, and since we cannot even agree on a singular definition, the conversation is futile. I suggest staying out of it...

As to the people purposefully trying to argue it out... continue. :whistling: