5 things I hate about you

Oh God... if only I'd known you were going to do that, I might have saved you the trouble. Gianluca is, well, volatile. He's one of those who can't take any form of criticism. There have been a few of those here, too, who go off volcanically when anyone dares question or critique them; though I won't name any names, I'm sure you know whom I might be talking about. The only critique I ever saw fit to make of Gianluca's work was a piano quartet he wrote in a ca. 1790 Classical style; I merely pointed out that he'd written several high-Gs in, and most fortepianos didn't yet have a high-G in the time period he was emulating (one has only to look at Beethoven's first 15 sonatas and first 2 piano concerti to know this, and Gianluca prides himself on score-study). His response was was very high-strung, though he did admit he was grateful. I never made the mistake again, though.

Oh God... if only I'd known you were going to do that, I might have saved you the trouble. Gianluca is, well, volatile. He's one of those who can't take any form of criticism. There have been a few of those here, too, who go off volcanically when anyone dares question or critique them; though I won't name any names, I'm sure you know whom I might be talking about. The only critique I ever saw fit to make of Gianluca's work was a piano quartet he wrote in a ca. 1790 Classical style; I merely pointed out that he'd written several high-Gs in, and most fortepianos didn't yet have a high-G in the time period he was emulating (one has only to look at Beethoven's first 15 sonatas and first 2 piano concerti to know this, and Gianluca prides himself on score-study). His response was was very high-strung, though he did admit he was grateful. I never made the mistake again, though.

It's comical now, especially the 'orchestration' errors in my solo piano works! I just lol'd really. I know I'm not the best composer BUT I'm grateful that I have a mind on my shoulders and am able to learn the things I'm lacking on. It's just comical really.

In Gianluca's defense, I would only add that it's likely his hypersensitivity - and that of many historicists - is born of years, even decades, of discouragement and even outright ridicule at the hands of the academic community. We're making inroads, but it's been a long time coming. I quit college because my professors told me that not only could I not do what I was doing as a composer under their tutelage, but I couldn't do it EVER. Where does anyone, especially a teacher, get off saying something like that?

Thankfully I've learnt how to take a little criticism, but if Gianluca can't yet, we might consider the possible reason for that.

In Gianluca's defense, I would only add that it's likely his hypersensitivity - and that of many historicists - is born of years, even decades, of discouragement and even outright ridicule at the hands of the academic community.

Well the criticism, discouragement and ridicule is somewhat deserved as well since writing style copies as a life-long goal is pretty much like saying you'll only eat cheeseburgers for the rest of your life. Sure, you and everyone is free to do whatever they want, but I wouldn't expect it to be free of criticism or ridicule. If anything, is because it's not really creative at all when all you can say is "Well X wouldn't do it this way," it's just writing what others did. All your work amounts to simply building replicas that will forever live in the shadow of the warhorses. I think that's kind of a sad life goal, but w/e I'm not these people. I've written works in all sorts of styles, but never 100% style copy since that's boring as hell, it'd be just an exercise since there's nothing from me in there.

But I also think that Gianluca guy is a complete retard given my previous exchanges with him, so I think that he can't take criticism has less to do with anything academics have to say and rather with him just being an donkey.

Well the criticism, discouragement and ridicule is somewhat deserved as well since writing style copies as a life-long goal is pretty much like saying you'll only eat cheeseburgers for the rest of your life. Sure, you and everyone is free to do whatever they want, but I wouldn't expect it to be free of criticism or ridicule. If anything, is because it's not really creative at all when all you can say is "Well X wouldn't do it this way," it's just writing what others did. All your work amounts to simply building replicas that will forever live in the shadow of the warhorses. I think that's kind of a sad life goal, but w/e I'm not these people. I've written works in all sorts of styles, but never 100% style copy since that's boring as hell, it'd be just an exercise since there's nothing from me in there.

Woah, woah, woah. Double standard much? You say people who write in a "modern" or w.e style are awesome and the cutting edge of musical progress and you rail against anyone who disproves this. And yet, you do the same to the classicists who do not want to write in a modern style but in a new version of an older style. Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Practice what you preach, brah.

You say people who write in a "modern" or w.e style are awesome and the cutting edge of musical progress and you rail against anyone who disproves this.

Where the gently caress have I done that? I've said that there is no loving cutting edge of anything, I've maintained this position for practically years now. The avantgarde is dead and all that you're saying is just bullshit projection of what you imagine my position is, but not at all what I've kept constantly saying because your reading disability prevents you from remembering scraggy like this.

Practice what you preach, brah.

No, that'd be practice what you say I'm preaching, which I'm not. At all.

What makes you think that what I'm saying doesn't apply to modern writing as well? There's plenty of people out there who make the effort to sound like X or Y current popular composer for contests, etc, out of fashion or trendiness. It's just as stupid.

I don't think writing in any given style automatically makes you amazing, that's idiotic. I don't think that people have to only limit themselves to writing "modern" (whatever that may be) since this is also idiotic. I'm against people limiting themselves to any single style (as a lifelong thing) and I don't care WHICH style this is.

As for "new version" of an old style, that's neoclassicism and is, ho ho ho, "modern." I'm all for THAT. What I'm against is attempted 100% "accurate" replicas as a lifelong goal, I don't care of what.

What I don't understand is why it's OK for academics - or anyone else, really - to make the kind of pronouncements you're making SSC. I hear a lot of judgments. So what if, as you say, doing what we historicists do is like only eating cheeseburgers for the rest of our lives? If the music is quality, and a lot of it is, then what difference does that make? Setting one's feet in and vowing derision, sight unseen, merely on principle, of anything that doesn't happen to fit one's own values - that sounds like the kind of thing this thread is arguing against. It seems to me that we all need to set aside our prejudices a bit more. It's true we can't judge the value of a work of art without some kind of standard to hold it against, and that's part of why we're all here; but to automatically dismiss as worthless anything that doesn't happen to match our values is short-sighted. A person like that can have all kinds of letters after his name, but that doesn't make him any less a bigot.

So what if, as you say, doing what we historicists do is like only eating cheeseburgers for the rest of our lives? If the music is quality, and a lot of it is, then what difference does that make?

Quality eh? I don't know, to me it all seems some kind of bizarre worship relationship where it doesn't really matter what anyone writes, but only that it be according to that one style, ensuring that whatever comes out is only just a copy which will, again, live in the shadow of the preferred warhorse. I can hardly call composing something that is explicitly void of creativity and only aims to copy. It's a good theory exercise I suppose.

It's also a way to just remain comfortable and cozy, since despite whatever comparisons you can always say "like X! See?" to justify anything you did, taking away any kind of responsibility the composer may have had for the piece. In fact, that's why this bothers me so much: if composition is making decisions then this is simply a large single decision to auto-pilot as all decisions have been made for you ahead of time.

And really that's not how any of the warhorses worked at all, they broke things and bent rules accordingly, they are known for their decisions and not just blatant copying. It's kind of a disservice to their creativity as composers to do only recreations, because none of them did this. In fact, all those warhorses? They wrote "new music" and were rather modern for their time, haha. The irony.

Quality eh? I don't know, to me it all seems some kind of bizarre worship relationship where it doesn't really matter what anyone writes, but only that it be according to that one style, ensuring that whatever comes out is only just a copy which will, again, live in the shadow of the preferred warhorse. I can hardly call composing something that is explicitly void of creativity and only aims to copy. It's a good theory exercise I suppose.

One of my prime directives as an historicist is specifically to AVOID copying anything. How can you call my work a copy? A copy of what? A style? There ain't nothin' new under the sun.

It's also a way to just remain comfortable and cozy, since despite whatever comparisons you can always say "like X! See?" to justify anything you did, taking away any kind of responsibility the composer may have had for the piece. In fact, that's why this bothers me so much: if composition is making decisions then this is simply a large single decision to auto-pilot as all decisions have been made for you ahead of time.

You may genuinely be unaware of this, but historicists make as many decisions as any composer, and more difficult ones at that. We choose willingly to hem ourselves into rather rigid stylistic and theoretical rules, characteristics and guidelines, and then we have to decide how to create something new so as NOT to re-invent the wheel or copy what someone else has done; it may sound to you like a copy, but it's the same as painter who chooses to paint portraits of living people in a renaissance style. Having done both, I'd say that it's a lot easier to be completely free than to work within narrow parameters. My most popular piece on YC, bar none, is my "experimental" work, "Secondi," but it only took me a couple of hours to throw together, and it neither expressed anything of who I am as a person nor stimulated me in any way beyond being an amusement, a curiosity.

And really that's not how any of the warhorses worked at all, they broke things and bent rules accordingly, they are known for their decisions and not just blatant copying. It's kind of a disservice to their creativity as composers to do only recreations, because none of them did this. In fact, all those warhorses? They wrote "new music" and were rather modern for their time, haha. The irony.

And what's with the disrespect for "the warhorses?" You and I and everyone here owe them a debt of gratitude for all they've taught us. We don't have to worship at their collective altar, but don't we owe them a bit more respect than to dismiss them with a pejorative like "warhorse"? What has made you so bitter?

The thing I most resent about your attitude as that you would have me force myself to be someone I'm not to stay artificially fresh and inventive. I don't think like that, and never have; when I do, it's always a mental exercise in which my creativity and individuality are only peripherally engaged. Would it be better that I didn't compose at all? I fail to see how that furthers the cause of art, to silence a creatively gifted person because his ideas don't happen to be new and groundbreaking. Some people think that's what art is; I don't agree.

And what's with the disrespect for "the warhorses?" You and I and everyone here owe them a debt of gratitude for all they've taught us. We don't have to worship at their collective altar, but don't we owe them a bit more respect than to dismiss them with a pejorative like "warhorse"? What has made you so bitter?

I think he's bitter because organizations would rather play the warhorses than his music. Darned contemporary composers who write stuff that wasn't as good/accessible to the listener as the warhorses were. "Its all the player's fault!!!" they say.

The thing I most resent about your attitude as that you would have me force myself to be someone I'm not to stay artificially fresh and inventive. I don't think like that, and never have; when I do, it's always a mental exercise in which my creativity and individuality are only peripherally engaged. Would it be better that I didn't compose at all? I fail to see how that furthers the cause of art, to silence a creatively gifted person because his ideas don't happen to be new and groundbreaking. Some people think that's what art is; I don't agree.

Spot on! :thumbsup:

Something very interesting happened just a few minutes ago. After my last comment in this thread, I sat down and tried to write something modern. I can occasionally coax modern ideas, and tonight I was actually inspired. I wrote 10 measures of a Berceuse for woodwind quintet (ostensibly as a companion piece to my 'Secondi'), and it was going very well, when suddenly, the power went out - something that doesn't happen every day in Los Angeles. I hadn't saved the file yet, nor had I committed what I'd written reliably to memory; so that little idea is probably lost forever.

I find the irony of this a little too palpable to ignore. Maybe God is trying to tell me something - like "keep doing what you do best, kid, and leave the rest to others. That's why I put you on this planet."

Just a few thoughts gathered from reading the last few posts.

1) @Tokke: I don't think one can truly say that because a piece is played regularly over another (such as the Warhorses) means the piece is any better/accessible than those not being played regularly. Also, I've taken a gander at 10 random orchestra programs across the country (NY Phil included.) Each of these programs had at least 1 modern work on each concert. So much for NOT playing new music, eh? Btw, kudos to the NY Phil for programming Gubaidulina!! :wub:

2) @J. Lee: Can you do me a favor and NOT use the term historicist? I cringed each and every time I saw it. To me, a historicist is someone who tries to 'recreate as close as possible' a historical work or ethic. Saying historicist, thus, would mean that you are recreating or reinventing the wheel (at least to me.) I think a better term would be revivalist. Reviving a historical style doesn't quite equate to copying a historical work or ethic - thus making me less cringe! :)

3) ALL: I think SSC makes some really good points. For example:

In fact, all those warhorses? They wrote "new music" and were rather modern for their time, haha. The irony.

AND

to me it all seems some kind of bizarre worship relationship where it doesn't really matter what anyone writes, but only that it be according to that one style, ensuring that whatever comes out is only just a copy which will, again, live in the shadow of the preferred warhorse.

To address the first quote:

Yes, they did write new music AND many of them, albeit the vast majority, weren't even appreciated by contemporary audiences till well AFTER they passed away. A large part of Beethoven's later works, for instance, was highly viewed as being questionably mad -which at the time, was not a good thing. Only a small handful of composers were lucky to have their works (and subsequent reputation based on those works) be recognized during their lifetime. One good example, as we all are aware, was Salieri. We also HAVE to come to terms with the simple fact, as well, that the vast majority of those living during the time periods never even heard the works of these 'great' composers. We often forget that our art, as much as we love it, was originally heard by solely the noble aristocratic families of Europe. Peasants, who comprised 99% of these societies, largely listened to folk music. That is of course, until the revolutions of the 19th century changed the social order and allowed the middle class to further expand and prosper into cultural patrons - even that though, didn't really come to it's peak until the very end of the 19th century. I digress though.

TO address the second point:

This entire statement by SSC, I think was taken horribly wrong. SSC is NOT saying that one is directly 'copying' x composer. Instead, he is saying that the idea of 'copying' or 'writing in' a historical style (be it Serialism, Romanticism, Impressionism, Classicism, Baroque, Renaissance, Early Music) limits the artistic creativity of the artist BECAUSE inevitably that artist's work will be compared to the work of the x composers who comprised the historical period itself. In other words, if you write in a Baroque style, then your work will not be judged on its own merits but INSTEAD will be compared and judged to the work of Bach, Handel, Buxtehude, etc. If you write in the style of early Serialism, then your work will be judged not on its own merits but INSTEAD will be compared and judged to the work of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, etc. Thus, if you write in a historical style, you will live in the shadow of the greats of that style - and compete directly with the warhorses themselves.

There, I've said all I can....

One of my prime directives as an historicist is specifically to AVOID copying anything. How can you call my work a copy? A copy of what? A style? There ain't nothin' new under the sun.

It's not about innovation. I hate it when people think all I mean is "be original!" I don't care if you're ORIGINAL, I care that what you're doing is what you want to do and also that you're trying to expand your means of expression. If you can seriously say that a copying other people's styles is for you 100% enough to say what you want musically then fine. The point being, there's nothing wrong with applying multiple styles to the same piece, or extending the classical styles, etc and sometimes people ought to remember this is also part of the whole neoclassical deal.

After all, that's what Mozart would've said considering his attempted "baroque" copies that were extremely modern. He COULD have settled for just doing it "in style," but no, he went and totally ran off in a different direction with the style. In fact the whole "write exactly like the past" deal is a late 20th century thing altogether, since before this was only considered exercises if done at all. I mean, that Schubert learned harmony by studying figured bass didn't mean at all that his compositions used figured bass or had anything to do with baroque aesthetics or styles.

You may genuinely be unaware of this, but historicists make as many decisions as any composer, and more difficult ones at that. We choose willingly to hem ourselves into rather rigid stylistic and theoretical rules, characteristics and guidelines, and then we have to decide how to create something new so as NOT to re-invent the wheel or copy what someone else has done; it may sound to you like a copy, but it's the same as painter who chooses to paint portraits of living people in a renaissance style. Having done both, I'd say that it's a lot easier to be completely free than to work within narrow parameters. My most popular piece on YC, bar none, is my "experimental" work, "Secondi," but it only took me a couple of hours to throw together, and it neither expressed anything of who I am as a person nor stimulated me in any way beyond being an amusement, a curiosity.

You miss the fact that there is no such a thing as "completely free." Regardless of how much freedom a composer thinks they have, they eventually settle for only a handful of parameters and effectively narrowly restrict the scope of what they're writing. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to write anything. What to cut out and what to leave in is what makes writing "freely" extremely difficult. It shows you haven't really tried this much since you're used to having the parameters all drawn out for you in advance.

The more you know in advance about how a composition "has to be" then by default the less freedom you can take, regardless of style. It's pretty simple really. I do find that it's much, much easier for someone else to tell you what the limits are than for the composer himself to figure out entirely from scratch where the limits should be (or if they change, when they change, etc. After all multiple limits for different segments of the music is a typical thing.)

And what's with the disrespect for "the warhorses?" You and I and everyone here owe them a debt of gratitude for all they've taught us. We don't have to worship at their collective altar, but don't we owe them a bit more respect than to dismiss them with a pejorative like "warhorse"? What has made you so bitter?

I don't owe any of them anything at all, nor does anyone. I mean it's nice they wrote stuff and that's all great. I don't have anything against dead composers, they're too dead to care. My problem is with the worshiping, as you've done above.

The thing I most resent about your attitude as that you would have me force myself to be someone I'm not to stay artificially fresh and inventive. I don't think like that, and never have; when I do, it's always a mental exercise in which my creativity and individuality are only peripherally engaged. Would it be better that I didn't compose at all? I fail to see how that furthers the cause of art, to silence a creatively gifted person because his ideas don't happen to be new and groundbreaking. Some people think that's what art is; I don't agree.

I don't want anyone to force themselves to do anything. If you don't have the natural impulse to explore other avenues of expression on your own, why bother asking you to force yourself to do it?

Likewise, I've said before, new and groundbreaking is irrelevant. That's the 60s, not 2011. The point is music that reflects the composer above all, beyond who they think is awesome enough to imitate. Sure there may be the lone guy out there who genuinely is only happy writing music according to X and never straying from it, but for everyone else I suspect is laziness and comfort. You yourself just demonstrated how you doomed your own attempts from the get-go by framing it as "doing something else" rather than expanding what you're already doing. Building up on what you like to write rather than trying to replace it with something else entirely.

Whatever, though, since in the end everyone will play Beethoven over any of our pieces any day without a second thought or even looking at the scores. It's not called bitterness, it's called realism. Once you manage to out-perform Mozart, then we'll talk.

Re: the term "historicist/modernist" -- semantics of the lowest caliber. i hate the term composer. so what?

Re: warhorses-- What matters more? Who wrote the piece or what the piece sounds like?

Re: originality -- fart. Every note has been played together since god-knows-when. Nothin is new. Nothing ever was new. Raga is serialism etc.

Re: modernism/historicism is easier -- fart. style doesn't dictate skill. come on -- there's scrafty music in all styles, let's not throw up silly strawmen. Or do. Either way,

Re: originality -- fart. Every note has been played together since god-knows-when. Nothin is new. Nothing ever was new. Raga is serialism etc.

Not claiming to be an expert on Indian music or anything, but since when were ragas serial?

Besides that, I also disagree with your point. Even if we limit ourselves to 12 notes, (which is by no means the limit) the possibilites are mind boggling. Jazz since "god-knows-when"? really?

I understood, maybe incorrectly, the building of the melody to be note by note of the rag, to a degree. Additionally the rag and the ... crap memory failing ... the characteristic melody associated with the rag are intricately linked. No it's not a 1:1 relationship. But the point remains, i feel, replacing incorrect facts with correct ones.

I understood, maybe incorrectly, the building of the melody to be note by note of the rag, to a degree. Additionally the rag and the ... crap memory failing ... the characteristic melody associated with the rag are intricately linked. No it's not a 1:1 relationship. But the point remains, i feel, replacing incorrect facts with correct ones.

I don't think it does. Give me a recording of a raga that sound like Schoenberg and I'll accept your point. Plus, you failed to mention my point on jazz.

Serialism doesn't mean dodecaphony specifically.

As for you point, which I didn't get at first. I guess you meant asking for examples of aspects of jazz that are significantly older? Let's limit it to Parker-style bebop, because saying "Jazz" is like saying "rock" or "classical" - its so broad that it's meaningless. Come on, ABA form is so common its not worth mentioning, solo over accompaniment - sonata? , improvisation especially within musical norms - lets just leave it at minstrels (and not the blackface kind...). For a parallel, relatively unrelated development, compare jazz and klezmer (though you hit the postwar era and europe becomes way-fascinated by jazz, so you have to check earlier stuff).

No, the music isn't the same. But i can tell you that Bach had to have played, whether in error or not, every combination of notes while messing around on a piano. Ravel had to have heard a wide variety of possibilities in their heads, if not in reality, while woking on his orchestration book.

i don't hate composers

Well considering this has over 2,000 views there must be a ton of lazy ignorant composers who prefer whining and ranting over what notes to write or not write rather than actually doing it and allow people (and animals) to hate, love or be indifferent to what sounds.

The stakes are very low here --- why don't ya'll watch the movie Ratatouille and watch/listen for the critic's speech.

PS. It is raining today and I am in the mood to be the scallopy armchair critic. Yes I am a sloth at this moment.

1. This thread.

2. People posting in this thread.

3. Me, for posting in this thread.

4. Anyone who posts in this thread

5. Coming up with 5 things to hate.