Threatened to be thrown out for writing like Bach?

Hey guys,

I was at a music seminar last week and during a discussion about imitation vs. originality and whether it's possible to really write like Bach without plagiarizing, a DMA student there (phD) in composition told us the story of a friend of his who, if continuing to write (or trying to write) in the style of J.S. Bach, would have to leave the university.

I find it impossible to write like Bach and not plagiarize, mainly because if you DO write like Bach, it means what you're writing can be analyzed and basically found in a real Bach piece. If what you write cannot be found in an already composed Bach piece, then you are not writing like Bach, and rather failing to imitate or being original within your OWN voice, which in itself is being constrained by elements which can be taken directly from Bach's music and not your own ideas which you've tried hard to craft independently from influence (regardless of how ultimately unsuccessful that endeavor may be).

Likewise, writing music in any previous style and attempting to claim it as your own original work is similarly absurd, since if you are truly writing in that idiom, then what you write can already be found to exist in some form, whereas if you break from that idiom, you are not writing in that form. So what often results is pastiche or simply plagiarism.

Writing music inspired by Bach but which clearly is not like Bach is wholly different and is not what I am discussing, as is writing or trying to write like Bach for reasons of training technique.

Eh. This is the same'ol recreation of style argument. The idea is that people learn how to use the methods and techniques, not that they copy other composers verbatim. Though of course, it's inevitable to do it in some occasions because of the so called rules of the style.

Then again, I write the occasional fugue and all sorts of other things and if someone told ME to leave because of it they would need surgery to remove my shoe from their rectums.

I don't think there's anything wrong with people writing in whatever style they want. You can still be creative while using whatever restrictions or style emulation. Hell, who's going to be idiotic enough to claim that the only way to "be original" is to write non-tonal music? Original like Ligeti? Oops done already. Original like Cage? Done already.

Original like Ives? Done already. Original like Penderecki? Done already. Original like Henry? Done already. Original like--

So whoever says anything like that has failed to realize that nothing is new under the sun anymore, and the nuances of composing rest beyond whatever choice of idiom you have, since that's personal. So what, if what I want to write is in style of 18th century northern protestant counterpoint, what are you going to do? Cry?

...writing music in any previous style and attempting to claim it as your own original work is similarly absurd, since if you are truly writing in that idiom, then what you write can already be found to exist in some form, whereas if you break from that idiom, you are not writing in that form....

Ummm...what?

I was at a music seminar last week and during a discussion about imitation vs. originality and whether it's possible to really write like Bach without plagiarizing, a DMA student there (phD) in composition told us the story of a friend of his who, if continuing to write (or trying to write) in the style of J.S. Bach, would have to leave the university.

At the risk of generalizing, this is PRECISELY why I view 'academia'* as a dogmatic subculture of elitists who shove their twisted little version of Postmodernist Idealism down the throats of every single paying student that walks through their door. Not only that, they keep the loving tuition money, too. Talk about a racket... that's about as dirty as it gets in the liberal arts, IMO.

*Note: Let me be sure to distinguish this from legitimate university programs that allow for the classicist writers who just love writing what they write.

Be grateful not to be in that position. It sucks being the one with the minority opinion in the 'Postmodern' culture of academia, which is nothing like what Postmodernism apparently is in philosophy or in life outside of the Ivory Tower. Pliorius seems to define this as a 'Totality of Subject', which appears to be precisely what has happened at some institutions.

I have strong opinions about this... my apologies if I offended anyone. If you're in one of these programs and enjoy learning what you learn... good. It won't change my opinion of your institution, though. The professor that argues for the removal of a student from a university because of their stylistic interests should be fired on the f*^king spot, no matter how great you think they are... that professor can go f*^k himself... in the butt... with a baseball bat.

So you're saying that someone studying composition should just be allowed to do whatever they feel like and at the end get a diploma for it?

Yes, that -is- what composition is about, to a degree. You really can pretty much do whatever you want. But it is -not- what academic education is about. Academic education is about setting certain (maybe arbitrary) standards of what is considered important for a certain field, setting certain requirements and a curriculum and then sticking to it and asking for the students to fulfill exactly that if they want to get their degree at the end. And yes, that's maybe not a very "artistic" approach since it is obviously quite prohibitive to a lot of alternative approaches - but it's the only way an academic institution can work as such. If you don't want to put up with that, then be a composer without studying composition at an institution, which works fine enough.

So you're saying that someone studying composition should just be allowed to do whatever they feel like and at the end get a diploma for it?

Yes, that -is- what composition is about, to a degree. You really can pretty much do whatever you want. But it is -not- what academic education is about. Academic education is about setting certain (maybe arbitrary) standards of what is considered important for a certain field, setting certain requirements and a curriculum and then sticking to it and asking for the students to fulfill exactly that if they want to get their degree at the end. And yes, that's maybe not a very "artistic" approach since it is obviously quite prohibitive to a lot of alternative approaches - but it's the only way an academic institution can work as such. If you don't want to put up with that, then be a composer without studying composition at an institution, which works fine enough.

Eh, you know as well as anyone that the question of what constitutes composition curriculum has plagued academic institutions for a good while now. The point is, you don't get a diploma for composing, you get a diploma for studying music history, theory, bla bla. Learning repertoire, literature, analysis.

"Studying composition" isn't so much actually studying composition, but actually studying music in a depth beyond what someone who only plays would. That's why I also think that a reform is in order in a lot of programs, specially because "music theory" is often extremely outdated in reach and so on.

Therefore, I don't see a problem with someone who studies composition academically and writes in an old style or in any way. The point isn't what they write, it's what they are as musicians and what they know so that they can then best do whatever they want to do. Education must NEVER dictate what you must write for yourself and whatever exercises should always be privately focused on whatever would better help the individual strengths of the student.

But you know all that already.

Well, I think there -is- a difference between studying music theory and studying composition, so when you're studying composition (in contrast to theory), WHAT you compose and in what manner is as much subject of your academic training as analysis and thus necessarily not quite free (even though probably a lot more free than other things). But sure, I generally agree with you. My only point is: You are forced to learn things like music history, even if you aren't interested in it and don't think it will help your own compositions. And in order to get your degree, you will probably have to prove said acquired knowledge of music history. That's just a standard the institution has agreed upon and you'll have to live with that. And if you study composition with an academic composition teacher, pretty much the same -does- apply. The teacher is paid to review/discuss/help your works and she or he does that according to certain standards, even if vague ones. Sure, a composition teacher is expected to be able to adapt to a variety of different students' needs, but that can only go so far. You can't be expected to teach something that simply lies completely outside the scope of what you're ready to teach and expected to teach (by your institution). You can't (nor should you, of course) FORBID the student to compose in a certain way, but you can't be expected to teach them ANYTHING they like, nor at the end give them a composition diploma for ANYTHING they feel like producing - next to the theory courses.

If you just want that theoretical knowledge about music, then your best deal would be studying music theory and simply composing on the side (and maybe finding a teacher that is willing to assist you with that). But if you study composition in an academic context, you'll have to live with the fact that you'll never be completely free to do whatever you like - at least not as soon as you present your music to a team of experts who have to decide whether you get your degree or not.

It's not a thing I find great. I -do- find that one of the fundamental problems with studying something art related at an academic institution. For me, it just happens to work, but I know it doesn't for many others. I don't have a perfect solution for it (nor do I think it exists), but simply saying "feel free to compose whatever you feel like and in the end you'll get a diploma based exclusively on theory exams" seems kind of weird to me - especially since theoretical knowledge requirements are almost as arbitrary as composition. Who decides that Schenker Analysis or knowledge of the Sonata Form are important, but knowledge of Japanese pop music or advanced acoustics aren't? There is no necessary craft or knowledge canon for composition anymore, so all an institution can do is just to decide on something that is perceived more or less "meaningful" and make that the standard of judgement.

I think what's being -forgotten- is that composition is a learning process. This involves a teacher. Educators from K-12 on to the academic arena have certain 'responsibilities' to the transfer of their knowledge. It's not enough to be good or 'the best' or practically 'the God' of music composition - it doesn't mean DICK if you don't take your role as an educator with the seriousness that such a position entails - it's not like the student was being guided in the process. Nothing from this example seems to indicate that the professor did anything more than shove 20th Century music S/HE liked down the student's throat! It's an Archam's Razor generalization, sure, but it fits with the common trend in education that preference of music occurs before subjectivization, especially in consideration of composition in the education setting.

The student preferred writing in the Baroque style. Fine. What is the educator to do - remember that this is not the same role as a 'composer'? THAT'S the question to ask of this example. Threatening a student with expulsion because the teacher is unable to work through the student's interests in music is a cop-out. You're earning a salary by telling a student, "Learn MY way or GET OUT!" That's not in the best interests of ANYONE, not the student, not the teacher (in the valid, legitimate sense), and certainly not the institution. The objective seems to have the student, through the curriculum of the program, move beyond the restrictions of style (pull the student 'out of the box', so to speak) and pull from a variety of influential spheres. It's what we do as composers every time we create a 'new' work.

This is problematic in its own right, as the unit of measure in academic composition curricula often limits those influential spheres to timestamped styles. If it's not from this century, it's often not considered to be 'a valid influence' unless one pulls from another influence of this time period. THEN it's measurable... THEN it counts.

But we don't even get to that point. The TEACHER is in a fundamentally flawed state of thought on this, not because of the time period of the student's influence but because the TEACHER failed to bring the student to something measurable. Either through compromise or through offering alternative styles from the ENORMOUS ARRAY of works from the Pedagogy of World Music, the TEACHER failed to acknowledge the problem and find a solution to bring the student closer to the objective.

Teaching is an art, it's a science, but what transcends all of this is trust... trust that a mentor will know what is needed for the student, and if not, will dig to FIND IT. Now, that's just the breaks of being a teacher. Ultimately, someone will eventually argue, "Oh NOW, WAIT JUST A MINUTE, the STUDENT HAS RESPONSIBILITIES TOO!" Maybe. But the student is doing work for the professor. The student is exerting the effort. The Professor appears to not be exerting ENOUGH effort to dig deeper into the student's interests, find what it is about the style that really influences him, and bring the student closer to a breakthrough.

Otherwise, what will the student ever learn from the teacher? Nada. That's a HELL of a waste of money for the student, a HELL of a waste of time, energy, knowledge, and a learning experience opportunity for the instructor, and an EMBARRASSMENT for the institution. The instructor should be ashamed... and the institution should remove that person immediately!

I think the problem is obviously that we're talking about academic institutions. So long as we're doing that, gardener is unfortunately right that there'll be arbitrary and subjective "expectations" of what is necessary to get a diploma in composition. But because of this, you can have WILDLY different experiences depending on who's judging anything, so I think overall that sort of system simply doesn't work reliably.

In actual reality, it doesn't MATTER what anyone writes or what type of music it is, people are free to do whatever they want and a teacher teaching composition should help within their area of knowledge if possible to assist the student so they can do whatever they want without flying blind. Of course, this can't happen in an "academic" environment where you have a strict time limit and completely arbitrary and subjective restrictions on what gets "composed." I mean, again, each teacher is different and each experience can be totally different.

I had a teacher that had as a method simply "Do what you're not good at," but he never criticized choice of idiom or style to the point of "you can't write this." Others have had different experiences and my same teacher didn't make me do the same things as the other students either.

Then I had another teacher who just let me literally do whatever I wanted. But of course, this was after I already had a bunch of performances and so on, so nobody was about to question me at that point. Nevermind I sailed through whatever composition examinations I had.

So, well. It's really impossible to generalize but I think that something like art, regardless of which, can't be taught alongside, say, physics or astronomy or any of that in the same fashion. Maybe that was realistic back in the 1800s, but now the artistic landscape is so vast that it's impossible to cover even 1% of it in whatever time it takes to get a diploma, and even if you have a group of people who agree on what a curriculum can look like that means absolutely nothing since it's all arbitrary and subjective to begin with.

My issue is what is 'arbitrary' within the context of education, and how much is assessed in the process as well as the degree to which it is measured. We can say, "Oh, sure, it's all arbitrary, do your research, find a 'good' composition teacher..." even that is 'arbitrarily' guided by one's interest influencing someone without the experience to make the determination on their own. That's why the student needs a composition TEACHER, not merely a mentoring composer.

It comes down to what you're paid to do... knowledge and dogma MUST have separation or at the very least the instructor is obligated to teach with a knowledge-based level of assessment. Maybe the student didn't have the knowledge to accomplish whatever objective was set forth. The teacher is obligated to assess based on knowledge, NOT dogma... NOT imposing on the student's interests but instead taking the student's perspective and pressing forward toward the objective.

It's not rocket science, really. The obvious solution to the problem rests in the student's knowledge of the pedagogy. In whatever way the Baroque aesthetic appeals to the student is not a limiting factor. There are works in the 20th Century where a variety of elements of the Baroque period still manifest themselves.

---------------------------

What was the name of the DMA student who told you this story, Exanimous? Do you remember, because I'm mildly curious now.

If you'd like to make a comparison (aimed not to AA, but to everyone) between music and... say physics you'd notice that if a student wanting to study mechanics in physics, using the rules of Neuton, or something would pretty much be laughed at and thrown out of any academic institution. What once was taught in a university is now a laughing matter for todays academics. Not so much because it's a bad theory, or whatever, but because simply science has moved forward immensly and there's nothing else to talk about in relation to those old theories, regardless of how clever, witty, incredibly accurate for the time they were.

One of the roles of any academic institution is to push bounderies further. Whether be language, ethics, science, art or sports.

Examinous friend probably got threatened (and actually rightfully so (I'll explain shortly), because he wasn't offering anything new and the academics found plagiarism as an excuse, while trying to explain to him what's wrong.

A student of counterpoint can 'create' a fugue like Bach. Is it composition? Yes, it sure is. It's a piece of music that was composed. Is it suitable for academic writing? Not really... IF however, you can make an argument on why you prefer this kind of writting and why this IS useful to the world of contemporary music, then by all means... But the simple excuse "That's what I want to write" is a piss to the heads of academics. Do what you want but don't expect a degree for it.

As a part of an educational system you are forced to do what you are told, even in composition. You don't get to write essays about your favorite subject, you don't get to do research on your favorite bouncing ball, you don't get to compose your favorite idiom. UNLESS you can back it up theoritically. And as it happens backing up an aesthetic belonging to the late 20th century/21st century seems much easier to explain rather than one that is part of the 17th...

Once a composer (who they can very well be, outside academia and WITHOUT formal education, don't get me wrong) you do whatever you like! Simple as that. And nobody dictates what you work on (except your clients maybe? ;))

One of the roles of any academic institution is to push bounderies further. Whether be language, ethics, science, art or sports.

Examinous friend probably got threatened (and actually rightfully so (I'll explain shortly), because he wasn't offering anything new and the academics found plagiarism as an excuse, while trying to explain to him what's wrong.

A student of counterpoint can 'create' a fugue like Bach. Is it composition? Yes, it sure is. It's a piece of music that was composed. Is it suitable for academic writing? Not really... IF however, you can make an argument on why you prefer this kind of writting and why this IS useful to the world of contemporary music, then by all means... But the simple excuse "That's what I want to write" is a piss to the heads of academics. Do what you want but don't expect a degree for it.

Hah, I've done analysis on the stuff I wanted, written essays on topics I wanted and written pretty much whatever I wanted to write. I'm not too great of an example either since I used to get into arguments with my teachers all the time... and I still walk away with a diploma, eh?

But the fact remains, that "offering anything new" is bullshit. There IS nothing new, I hear other students get ideas turned down because "Cage did them before," or "Schoenberg did them before." The "academic" world is sadly run by people outside of the generation that has to grow up with all the possibilities exhausted, they don't understand. Most of the people in these institutions come from a time where things were still considered "new," but that has all changed now.

And, I don't see why the gently caress anyone has to excuse themselves for writing what they want to write, academics or not, as I can turn the same argument around. Why do the academics write the music they so write? Because it's "new?" OF COURSE NOT. Why do they discriminate then?

Thankfully, I don't have to deal with "academics" like those that would say such stupid things, but I do know a bunch of them and I do get into fights over scraggy like this. I think it's time for these "academics" that hold the opinion that what you compose "academically" has to "be useful to the world of contemporary music" to explain exactly what is the proper foundation for such an opinion. I expect nothing short of a complete analysis and theory of contemporary aesthetics and musicology based on evolutionary musicology, neurology and cognitive science! That's the reason I've spent nearly two years doing nothing but studying that in as much depth as I can (and consulting doctors, scientists, etc.)

And you know what? When it comes to THAT, I've seen composers and musicologists with PhDs (that hold important positions) fail miserably at providing even a SINGLE argument. As a matter of fact, I'm going to participate in a seminar/discussion on modern aesthetics in november and I expect to see the same damn thing again.

But you know me, I like everything. I can't honestly tell someone that writing a fugue is "not academic composition," because if I do they'll turn around and copy whatever OTHER modern composer. To me it's the same damn thing if they're copying Cage and Ligeti or Bach and Mozart.

This scraggy mentality has to end, and I'm doing what I can to do it.

PS: The academic world SHOULD NOT teach people lies. This is what a lot of positions are, basically. "Useful for contemporary composition" my donkey, what use is a student copying modern composers out of obligation instead of any other? This scraggy disgusts me to no end.

If you'd like to make a comparison (aimed not to AA, but to everyone) between music and... say physics you'd notice that if a student wanting to study mechanics in physics, using the rules of Neuton, or something would pretty much be laughed at and thrown out of any academic institution. What once was taught in a university is now a laughing matter for today's academics. Not so much because it's a bad theory, or whatever, but because simply science has moved forward immensely and there's nothing else to talk about in relation to those old theories, regardless of how clever, witty, incredibly accurate for the time they were.

One of the roles of any academic institution is to push boundaries further. Whether be language, ethics, science, art or sports.

Wait, so if I understand the parallel correctly, pushing boundaries in art is the same as pushing boundaries in science? Your example of Neuton serving as the basis for research on quantum mechanics in physics is somehow true of the influence of techniques and styles that appear still in the Music of the 20th Century?

See, that's the problem. Art does not similarly operate in any way to Science, especially where it concerns theoretical discourse. I'd like to think Art transcends barriers (structuralism) inherent in the modern scientific worldview... which is how Postmodernism is gaining momentum in some ways, I suspect.

This is more of a Modernist perspective than anything else... this contrived notion that music 'progresses' or 'evolves' when in actuality the body of theoretical knowledge is just as open to interpretation. You can't even describe this 'progress' of music without applying scientific terminology like 'evolution.' I mean, not to poop on your parade, but nothing about the 'progress' of music can be easily summed up with such a simple, contrived conceptualization of music history.

Such an idea only developed AFTER studying music following the onset of the Enlightenment... where such ideas like Darwin's Theory of Evolution were not even born but were later applied to music of that period. Suddenly, as if by some magical epiphany, composers were trying to 'evolve' music? Please. Ethnomusicologists have offered countless explanations that defy this rationale for music. There is no 'progress' except what you arbitrarily define as progress.

You can just as easily say music progressed from Tonal to Serial writing as I could say it regressed... and what unit of measurement would we use to reach an answer? The abandonment of functional harmony? The liberation of tone to different mediums? The reiteration of what is and is not music? Are these truly 'new' concepts at all? No, they are phenomena that are observable where cultures have implemented them over a span of time that exponentially exceeds the period of the Western Classical tradition up to today.

How crass of us to call what we do in the Western tradition "progress" at all. We're just as lost as we are 'enlightened' where cultural identity may be concerned. That's no indication of musical 'progress' in a culture that cannot even define its own musical heritage anymore. At this stage, at least where art is concerned, there is no 'cultural heritage' to speak about... hell, we live in a Global Economy now. America and Europe are no different from one another anymore than Europe is different than China.

All of these nations are slaves to a monetary system that are only socially organized to the degree that music within the culture still carries strong nationalist ties in more totalitarian systems. Even one of the best examples, China, still cannot escape the influence of the music of other cultures. An Ethno study I was just informed about a few weeks ago on the Dong Society shows how the music of cultures outside of nationalist ties in China could become a part of China's cultural heritage. There is strong support for integration of music and culture of societies in China that shares no link to China's 'nationalist' heritage. It's all just this big friggin' blend of style and tradition. It's no different than throwing cow, pig, and horse meat in a blender and calling it ground beef... progress.

Progress and evolution say about as much in music as 'good' and 'bad' do... which is really nothing at all. Just as SSC might argue, it's all a matter of perception of the culture in the time period music was written and performed. To base the education of music on the education of science compares apples to trains... really, it's about that much of a leap in generalizing what happens when music 'changes'. Progress and Change are not nearly one in the same.

This scraggy mentality has to end, and I'm doing what I can to do it.

By 'shitting' all over the place? Well done, mate! ;)

Would you like to calm down?

Hah, I've done analysis on the stuff I wanted, written essays on topics I wanted and written pretty much whatever I wanted to write. I'm not too great of an example either since I used to get into arguments with my teachers all the time... and I still walk away with a diploma, eh?

Did you by any chance BACKED UP what you said and why you did it? Cause this is what I said.

But the fact remains, that "offering anything new" is bullshit. There IS nothing new, I hear other students get ideas turned down because "Cage did them before," or "Schoenberg did them before." The "academic" world is sadly run by people outside of the generation that has to grow up with all the possibilities exhausted, they don't understand. Most of the people in these institutions come from a time where things were still considered "new," but that has all changed now.

By all means. But if you consider that every PERSON is an individual, then the 'newness' should come from yourself. If you want to copy anyone then whoops... If you'd like to offer a different/new/whatever you want to call it perspective, then maybe, just maybe there's something new in there. But do define new before we get on...

And, I don't see why the gently caress anyone has to excuse themselves for writing what they want to write, academics or not, as I can turn the same argument around. Why do the academics write the music they so write? Because it's "new?" OF COURSE NOT. Why do they discriminate then?

Why the "gently caress" should anyone enter the academia anyways? One of the main ideas behind degrees is that you offer your perspective on things, apart from just writing music like a machine.

Thankfully, I don't have to deal with "academics" like those that would say such stupid things, but I do know a bunch of them and I do get into fights over scraggy like this. I think it's time for these "academics" that hold the opinion that what you compose "academically" has to "be useful to the world of contemporary music" to explain exactly what is the proper foundation for such an opinion. I expect nothing short of a complete analysis and theory of contemporary aesthetics and musicology based on evolutionary musicology, neurology and cognitive science! That's the reason I've spent nearly two years doing nothing but studying that in as much depth as I can (and consulting doctors, scientists, etc.)

In which case you did exactly as you were told (I assume) and also followed the same reasoning I mention above.

And you know what? When it comes to THAT, I've seen composers and musicologists with PhDs (that hold important positions) fail miserably at providing even a SINGLE argument. As a matter of fact, I'm going to participate in a seminar/discussion on modern aesthetics in november and I expect to see the same damn thing again.

But you know what? I would expect such a strong opiniated and worded person like you to "loving" do something instead of complaining in an Internet forum. I do hope that you will spring the discussing onto the things that trouble you in that seminar, and would hope to get a 'report' afterwards, cause it would interest me.

But you know me, I like everything. I can't honestly tell someone that writing a fugue is "not academic composition," because if I do they'll turn around and copy whatever OTHER modern composer. To me it's the same damn thing if they're copying Cage and Ligeti or Bach and Mozart.

Yup. There is a difference between copying, plagiarising, following, admiring, being inspired, etc, but you already know that, right?

PS: The academic world SHOULD NOT teach people lies. This is what a lot of positions are, basically. "Useful for contemporary composition" my donkey, what use is a student copying modern composers out of obligation instead of any other? This scraggy disgusts me to no end.

I largely agree to that. But I find that there are tacticts to get what you want, and do what you want. Just bashing your head on a wall is not stellar strategy really...

Everyone's an expert.

AA (And SSC, sorry I accidently brought your post back to life, before deleting it again):

Maybe it's a language barrier, maybe I'm not communicating well enough... I don't see where I implied anything about progress, linear or whatever in my initial post here. In fact the words "progress" "evolution" "parallel", etc did NOT appear in my post.

Let me try again.

I use AN EXAMPLE. No it's not simmilar, it's pretty much apples to trains, as you mention it AA (then again I could be blind and confusion both... ;)). It is however an indication of MAYBE why academia acts as it does.

I was aiming to explain what I think went on in that particular situation (and, yes offer my perspective if what I assumed was right) and I got all this... Geez...

Did you by any chance BACKED UP what you said and why you did it? Cause this is what I said.

By all means. But if you consider that every PERSON is an individual, then the 'newness' should come from yourself. If you want to copy anyone then whoops... If you'd like to offer a different/new/whatever you want to call it perspective, then maybe, just maybe there's something new in there. But do define new before we get on...

1) I think that regardless of what you write, you should know why you're writing it. This has nothing to do with style choice or anything like that. You have to be able to explain why you wrote that baroque-style fugue, just as you have to be able to explain why you wrote that piece for oboe and garbage truck. Modern/contemporary music should NOT get a free pass when it comes to that, but it's what often happens. People will gang up on you when you use an older idiom, but not otherwise. I'm almost certain this has to do with that bias and pressure rather than anything legitimate.

2) Indeed, originality can be found anywhere so long as the student has moved beyond copying. Again, regardless of what style. The difference to me is that "copying" is what you do to study, but it's hard to distinguish between a "copy" and something that isn't intended as such. This happens in all sorts of music, Bach to Cage. Therefore, I wouldn't really put too much emphasis on whether or not a piece is a copy of anything and thus I would assume originality within an idiom as a given (in good faith, of course.)

Why the "gently caress" should anyone enter the academia anyways? One of the main ideas behind degrees is that you offer your perspective on things, apart from just writing music like a machine.

In which case you did exactly as you were told (I assume) and also followed the same reasoning I mention above.

That's the problem. Yes, I would want to "enter" the academia so I can fix this type of problems from the inside. However, it's not that simple. As for my research, I did it on my own (assisted of course by professionals I happen to know here and there, but they're not my teachers in any way, after all I'm not an expert in the fields I mentioned.)

But you know what? I would expect such a strong opiniated and worded person like you to "loving" do something instead of complaining in an Internet forum. I do hope that you will spring the discussing onto the things that trouble you in that seminar, and would hope to get a 'report' afterwards, cause it would interest me.

The reason I got invited was to "raise some hell," funnily enough. I'll tell you what happens if you really want to know. But yes, do you think what I do only shows up here on YC? That'd be a complete waste of time and you know it, I'm rather active outside of the interwebs.

Yup. There is a difference between copying, plagiarising, following, admiring, being inspired, etc, but you already know that, right?

I largely agree to that. But I find that there are tacticts to get what you want, and do what you want. Just bashing your head on a wall is not stellar strategy really...

Well differences between copying, plagiarizing, following, admiring etc are all very subjective to begin with unless you know outright the specific case and motivation. Sometimes not even the composer themselves know, they may think they're doing something new but it may look from the outside to be a copy. This is not an easy issue.

As for my tactics, eh. I have my plans alright.

Thanks for your post SSC! I hope we're clearer (both of us now).

I would seriously hope that contemporary/modernists/whatever don't get free passes (although I do see this happening). The sheer amount of bullshit I've heard and seen in the academia is staggering (and maybe I'm not out of it either)...

I got the impression, from the OP, that the person threatened was pretty much being 'unoriginal' (notice the ") and plagiarising heavily Bach, which is something I do object. There are slim chances of having a solid argument behind that in academia. I could very well expect something from you (assuming I "know" you as a person, SSC), and expect very solid arguments, but the way the OP was worded gave me no reasons to believe that, thus my initial post.

And, yes, I believe you are generally active, and my post was provocative, as well as provoced. Sorry 'bout that! :)

AA (And SSC, sorry I accidently brought your post back to life, before deleting it again):

Maybe it's a language barrier, maybe I'm not communicating well enough... I don't see where I implied anything about progress, linear or whatever in my initial post here. In fact the words "progress" "evolution" "parallel", etc did NOT appear in my post.

Let me try again.

I use AN EXAMPLE. No it's not similar, it's pretty much apples to trains, as you mention it AA (then again I could be blind and confusion both... ;)). It is however an indication of MAYBE why academia acts as it does.

I was aiming to explain what I think went on in that particular situation (and, yes offer my perspective if what I assumed was right) and I got all this... Geez...

Aw, man. Nik, I'm totally not trying to dig into you. I think the point I'm trying to make is that the objective of this situation, as you look at it as pushing boundaries (which you do use, which I associate with science and 'progressivism' in general), is being applied in an entirely unjustified and debilitating way.

I can't really tell whether you agree with how it was treated or not. The way I look at it though is to maybe take your example and reverse it.

Suppose the student using one of Neuton's laws to justify his theoretical approach could have used something more up to date. Instead of being guided on some areas where he could find more up to date information for what he was attempting to prove, he was given an ultimatum... quit trying to use Neuton to justify your theory or you're out. There's a BIG difference between the kind of guidance I advocate and the guidance offered in the example.

The teacher failed as an instructor. The teacher either lacked the pedagogical knowledge and failed to research the situation further, or s/he lacked the perspective to even understand the problem at hand. EITHER WAY, the teacher should not be teaching composition if s/he cannot troubleshoot the issue with any competence. You can be a great composer and still suck at teaching composition. I have no interest in paying someone's salary when that person cannot competently do what they're paid to do.

AA, if you use a Neuton theory to apply... particle science and a breakthrough discovery... by all means. If you use Neuton theory to discover why oranges fall down (excuse the silly simplisity), then... probably not.

I can't say in truth, whether I agree on how he was treated or not, because I simply have no facts to say anything. I've actually written a few fugues for my PhD and masters (2) and they were both very nicely accepted. So, from a practical point of view, I hardly see a point if that person was using Bach ideas in a 'creative manner' (up for discussion as well). But if someone came to me with a 18th century fugue and offered it, I would attempt to get a solid explanation from the composer, if it was the case I'd attempt to get him out of the corner or "I do what I like and that's about it" and I would offer alternatives and ideas to open the mind further. After all education is about learning "new" stuff and learning how to apply them, etc...

Thanks for your post SSC! I hope we're clearer (both of us now).

I would seriously hope that contemporary/modernists/whatever don't get free passes (although I do see this happening). The sheer amount of bullshit I've heard and seen in the academia is staggering (and maybe I'm not out of it either)...

I got the impression, from the OP, that the person threatened was pretty much being 'unoriginal' (notice the ") and plagiarising heavily Bach, which is something I do object. There are slim chances of having a solid argument behind that in academia. I could very well expect something from you (assuming I "know" you as a person, SSC), and expect very solid arguments, but the way the OP was worded gave me no reasons to believe that, thus my initial post.

And, yes, I believe you are generally active, and my post was provocative, as well as provoced. Sorry 'bout that! :)

Nothing to be sorry about.

Well you're not the only one who has heard stupid amounts of garbage in the academia. Let's not even get into a lot musicologists which is yet another group of retards I want to tear up real bad... but I digress. The point is, even IF the person was heavily plagiarizing Bach and was unoriginal (assuming for a second that we agree on the photocopy dilemma of originality,) if he failed to provide reasons as to why he was doing it I could see him failing his study.

Yes the OP was vague, but I've gotten away with writing buxtehude-like fugues as well in my super-avant-garde composition studies. My teacher would comment on what I was doing as if I had written it in any other style. Of course, the bias was there in that it would never go to concert but at least in the case of a finite concert space having something like that may be seen as detrimental to the "expose people to new music" thing and a lot of the audience for modern music simply isn't going to understand a complex argument on modern recreation of style aesthetics off the bat.

Because that's what it is. The problem of originality taken to its logical conclusion ends up making two assertions: 1) Nothing is original, 2) everything is original. A photocopy of Bach is original in that it's a new work. It's a new composition, even. Yet it's using Bach's work as the material. The difference between using a motive or a chord and using an entire score is simply scale, nothing else. What then decides what scale is "copy" and what scale is not?

Who decides that a chord isn't copying, but an entire piece is? If you think it's common sense, think carefully at the prospect that much like Duchamp's readymades, there are a thousand different things that can make a work of art have its own character and nuance beyond what the actual work is. Much like hype art, in a sense, the photocopy may be important precisely because it's just that, a photocopy. A photocopy that is posing a question we have yet to really be able to answer, and that in itself is something that can be called a completely different work than what actually is written on that photocopy.

And it goes much deeper than that, if you look at the consequence of that reasoning you end up with an inescapable layer of "originality" to absolutely everything you do. Again, what measure is then "unoriginal?"

But well, anyway. It's complicated and I think I got my point across.

So, from a practical point of view, I hardly see a point if that person was using Bach ideas in a 'creative manner' (up for discussion as well). But if someone came to me with a 18th century fugue and offered it, I would attempt to get a solid explanation from the composer, if it was the case I'd attempt to get him out of the corner or "I do what I like and that's about it" and I would offer alternatives and ideas to open the mind further. After all education is about learning "new" stuff and learning how to apply them, etc...

Meh, I think this revolves around two vantage points, the Student's and the Instructor's. The student wants to pursue what 'interests' him. The instructor wants the student to pursue what 'interests' him in an informed manner. So, assuming the kid is writing fugues for kicks just doesn't cut it. Digging for an explanation for the fugue is just the tip of the iceberg. Let me borrow some ideas from Benjamin Bloom and his cognitive taxonomy.

What does the student know about writing fugues?

How does the student's understanding of fugues help him express his ideas?

What works could the student study that would help him express his ideas in similar ways as fugue writing?

What does analysis of these works reveal about the student's interest in writing fugues (is it just that it's a fugue, is it more generally counterpoint, does contrapuntal texture interest the student more than the fugue itself?)

Just a note about this: This is called 'Concept Discovery', it's a learning model where a student identifies the concept by relating it to what the concept is and what it is not to actually 'arrive' at the concept. In other words, the student 'knows' what he wants, he just doesn't know how to conceptually explain it. Patience is the key. It involves listening to various 20th Century works based on what the student knows he wants to create.

Can the student create a work based solely on the concept discovered through analysis (can the student write something that doesn't sound like a traditional fugue but rather hones in on the concept you discovered)?

Then, evaluate the student's performance as a composition student based on this work...

That's how cognition could apply in this case... one of many ways an instructor can guide a student through uncharted territory as they explore sound and their interest in creating it in ways that are fulfilling to the student and the teacher.

Those are some excellent examples, AA, and that's exactly what I mean with "if you'll write fugues, treat it as you would any other serious composition." No free passes, nothing.

Those are some excellent examples, AA, and that's exactly what I mean with "if you'll write fugues, treat it as you would any other serious composition." No free passes, nothing.

I'm totally a fan of Bloom. I was :headwall: until I understood why I found composition to be so frustrating... especially in instances where the instructor cared enough to know what it was I wanted to accomplish with my work but had no process for getting me where I wanted to be.

I love this smilie.

I'm totally a fan of Bloom. I was :headwall: until I understood why I found composition to be so frustrating... especially in instances where the instructor cared enough to know what it was I wanted to accomplish with my work but had no process for getting me where I wanted to be.

The problem is usually that pedagogy when it comes to composition isn't so clear since, even if you have guidelines, each student is different and you can't apply methods evenly to all and expect the same results...yet this is what I see some people doing.

In fact, a lot of'em. And it makes me want to punch babies.