limits of music ideas?

I was just wondering the following, yet interesting, problem:

At some point of life (if not now or soon), no matter what a composer

composes, it will be already composed by some other composer before OR

contain VERY similar style/composition elements.

So, what do you think? Is there such a time that that will happen?

I, logically, think so.

Who's to say it hasn't happened already?

Methinks this was my first thread topic.

Anyway, it has happened already, it had happened already a long time ago. Every note has been played after every other etc.

Don't worry about it -- just write.

At some point of life (if not now or soon), no matter what a composer

composes, it will be already composed by some other composer before ≈

It's theoretically impossible that every composition can already have been composed, since there's no maximum amount of information a composition can hold, nor any inherent "resolution" of this information. In other words: You can always make the same stuff longer, repeat it once more, have it play in another (of infinitely many) tempi, in another (of infinitely many) possible dynamics, make a note higher to infinitely many possible micro- or macrotonal degrees etc. And those are just the really "primitive" approaches. The point is, there's no real limit to the theoretically possible compositions.

OR contain VERY similar style/composition elements.

Well, that all depends on how you define "similar". All music is already EXTREMELY similar in that it all deals with wobbling air. Sometimes the air wobbles slightly differently, but that's about it. But of course we all know that when we get more into this stuff, we still find that there are VAST differences between different pieces of music in our perception. And the more we "zoom into" specific lines of musical thought, more kinds of differences will matter to us. To someone not used to this kind of music, Webern and Xenakis might sound "very similar" - to someone with more personal experience with this music they might be completely different worlds. And to someone who is interested in the sounds alone, an aleatoric Cage piece might sound the same as a strictly serial piece - yet to someone who's interested in the artistic approach behind a composition they are fundamentally different (on a specific level).

So in the end, the question of how large the differences between music can be and whether it's possible to write something "new" is all just a matter of focus. You can set your focus in a way that it's apparent to you that "everything has been done before" - and you'd be right. Or you can set your focus to entirely different musical considerations and see a vast range of things that are still left open to explore and you'd be right as well.

Let's not limit ourselves. As long as science continues to evolve and musical knowledge to accumulate there can be no limit. We have come to a point where we can produce sounds that are not found in nature. This by itself is enough, I believe. New instruments are also bound to be invented/constructed and I am sure that technology will always provide new mediums and perhaps at some point expand our senses. Evolution of philosophy and the world in general is also a source of inspiration and of new musical ideas...

I don't see it as a problem. Like Gardener said, there's really no way we can run out of things to write. And there are so many colors yet unexplored... think out of the box!

Just write what you want. The only reason you should be worried that you're copying people is if lawyers come knocking on your door...

Yes, I understand your point of views, you are correct. As long as technology evolves and as long as it`s possible to alter at least one element of music, then the possibilities of music ideas are basically endless.

I thought I was the only one crazy enough to ponder on thoughts such as this. Good to see im not alone. :P