Is Music So Bad Now?

In my view, if you were truly passionate about music you would want to explore as many idioms as possible to know the subject inside out.

But like I said, many composers aren't passionate about music in general, or about writing music in general.

Well, intellectual curiosity in itself (which is what you are calling "learning") is not worth anything in my view, in spite of being valued by our society for reasons that I do not believe have been meditated on seriously.

Your society sounds interesting; I must look it up sometime and be intellectually curious about its various facets.

But like I said, many composers aren't passionate about music in general, or about writing music in general.

How do you know this?

Your society sounds interesting; I must look it up sometime and be intellectually curious about its various facets.

Well, it's largely because of intellectual curiosity that people are able to get degrees in the sciences and many of the humanities, whereas in something such as music, passion is often more of a motivation than anything intellectual.

How do you know this?

Just from the fact that most people have musical likes and dislikes, and that composers choose to write in certain ways and not others. Debussy would not have been happy writing like Grieg, Boulez would not be content to write as Stockhausen did (based on their comments). If they just liked writing music in general, they would be perfectly happy to compose in any style.

Secondly, composers, more so than performers, are people who make choices. Choices are decided based on preferences, and preferences amount to finding one thing more worthy than another. I think the emphasis on preference and decisions inherent in the craft of composition, makes it difficult to coincide with liking music as a general phenomenon - which, in the literal sense, would entail liking all music by virtue of being music.

But that's just my viewpoint, as my name implies I'm just a tadpole in the musical universe.

Just from the fact that most people have musical likes and dislikes, and that composers choose to write in certain ways and not others. Debussy would not have been happy writing like Grieg, Boulez would not be content to write as Stockhausen did (based on their comments). If they just liked writing music in general, they would be perfectly happy to compose in any style.

Secondly, composers, more so than performers, are people who make choices. Choices are decided based on preferences, and preferences amount to finding one thing more worthy than another. I think the emphasis on preference and decisions inherent in the craft of composition, makes it difficult to coincide with liking music as a general phenomenon - which, in the literal sense, would entail liking all music by virtue of being music.

But that's just my viewpoint, as my name implies I'm just a tadpole in the musical universe.

I think the reasons composers only write in their own style are more to do with artistic integrity than any lack of passion for other music. For example, I'm very passionate about Arcangelo Corelli's music. I could write in his style and I have done in the past, but the reason I don't is because I don't feel like it would be MY music. I wouldn't be being true to myself as an artist. I think Schoenberg said something similar once when asked why he no longer writes tonal music. He felt like it would be Brahms' music rather than his own. I'm fairly sure that the composers you mention understood the workings of all types of music being written around them and could have wrote like each other if they wished, but didn't because it wouldn't have been their voice.

I think the reasons composers only write in their own style are more to do with artistic integrity than any lack of passion for other music. For example, I'm very passionate about Arcangelo Corelli's music. I could write in his style and I have done in the past, but the reason I don't is because I don't feel like it would be MY music. I wouldn't be being true to myself as an artist. I think Schoenberg said something similar once when asked why he no longer writes tonal music. He felt like it would be Brahms' music rather than his own. I'm fairly sure that the composers you mention understood the workings of all types of music being written around them and could have wrote like each other if they wished, but didn't because it wouldn't have been their voice.

Well, a fair point, but there's also the fact that the composers I mentioned were critical of their respective comparisons - clearly they chose not to write in those idioms because of something resembling an active dislike. And I also think that, even though one might be an inspired and skilled composer, does not mean one has reached some maximum level of technical ability which grants comprehension of every style......I have doubts, for example, that Tchaikovsky could have composed like Franck if he had wanted to.

All this is to add to my point that I don't believe having an intellectual understanding of, and ability to use, as many different styles as possible, including those far outside what one is inspired by, is a necessity for a skilled composer. I think such a path entails a sacrifice of depth for breadth, and personally, I would rather go with depth. I would rather be really good at writing in two or so styles, than mediocre at writing in a lot of different ones.

If I'm passionate about, say, European history, it's not like I have to become an expert on pre-Columbus America or the Chinese civilization to have any credibility when writing or speaking about European history. But if I happen to learn about them as a side-effect of my investigations on Europe, all the better.

Guess that should apply to art forms (which by definition aren't scientific knowledge)...

That's the thing though: composers should be passionate about music (in general), not 'music in the 19th century style' etc.

And what if they're not? What if they are just into mid-20th century music and find anything else lame and trite? Or what if one composer is just passionate about Tchaikovksy or Mahler and thinks that jazz, pop or experimental music are a waste of time? It's his loss if he's not into anything else to "expand his musical horizons" - but does it really detract from his composition's quality if he knows his thing and knows how to do it? Is Tchaikovsky less of a major composer just because he disliked both Brahms and Wagner?

As usual, just wondering...

'enthusiast' might be a more relevant description than 'composer'.

I had this strange idea that a composer was defined by composing music rather than for whatever he listened or exposed himself to :P ...

There are certain compositional lessons to be learnt that transcend style and era. There are things I learnt from Mozart's music that I apply to my contemporary pieces. The influence might not be obvious but it is definitely there. If I were to write some Romantic music I'm sure I would take some aspects of my knowledge of 20th century music and apply it to that. Again, it probably wouldn't be obvious to the listener but some of my choices would've been influenced by it.

I'm sure some genius such as Tchaikovsky can get away with being narrow minded (but I doubt he really was anyway). The thing is, none of us are geniuses as it is. To limit your understanding even more seems like a fairly stupid thing to do if you ask me.

If I'm passionate about, say, European history, it's not like I have to become an expert on pre-Columbus America or the Chinese civilization to have any credibility when writing or speaking about European history. But if I happen to learn about them as a side-effect of my investigations on Europe, all the better.

Guess that should apply to art forms (which by definition aren't scientific knowledge)...

What if you claimed to be an expert in European history but completely ignored anything that ever happened in Germany because you didn't like Germany? Would I still be expected to take you seriously when talking about European history?

That's the thing though: composers should be passionate about music (in general), not 'music in the 19th century style' etc.

I don't think this really applies to composing, or anything about which one can be passionate.

A passion, to me, refers to something specifically specialised and important to you. You can easily appreciate / understand / revere / study "music in general" (whatever that means) without having to be passionate about every single genre, style, instrument, etc.

Writers don't need to be passionate about poetry AND prose.

Sculptors don't need to be passionate about marble AND metal.

Painters don't need to be passionate about watercolours AND oils.

My PASSION lies in a very specific niche; however, that doesn't mean I don't love other musics, or that I don't appreciate creativity and artistry in any/all musics.

If you prefer, we can abandon the micro-view of passion in lieu of a macro-view. Skipping your awkward "generalised specifics" (i.e. need passion for Rap and Bebop and Fado and so on) let's have a more appropriate all-encompassing view.

Composers are passionate about sounds. (regardless of style)

Writers are passionate about words.

Sculptors; shapes.

Artists; colour.

...or something.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with Phil. I wouldn't go as far to say it's a necessity that a composer should learn all styles, but I generally don't care about what style the music is, Classical? Romantic? Minimalism? I've learned to ignore all that, and focus only on good, that's the only music I want to write. Write now, I'm attempting to write a waltz and it SUCKS! The entire time I'm trying to contain myself, and keep me from adding random odd meters, and 5 bar-phrases, and resist the urge to put yet another tritone in the bass. But I did learn a lot from this experience, and the more music you write stylistically, the wider your audience range could be. You'd be appealing to post-minimalists, neo-classicists, and neo-romantics. And learning to write this waltz really helps me to write the music I'm more comfortable writing. And I have a cousin who made me promise to be her own personal songwriter should she become famous (then I'm really screwed), and that way, it's helping to reach my goal of only writing good music.

Now, if your only passion is, say, post-minimalist jazz (does that exist?) and nothing else, then you certainly have the choice of only sticking to that, who's stopping you? I would just advice against it.

That's the thing though: composers should be passionate about music (in general), not 'music in the 19th century style' etc.

But why not? Being passionate about music in general, in the literal sense, would entail liking all music. If you look at some of the well-known composers of the past, and sometimes the present, very often they were scathingly critical of styles outside their own (even though, compared to the variety that exists today, they might not seem so disparate - e.g. Schumann vs. Liszt/ Wagner). Clearly they were not, or are not, passionate about music in general.

I suppose we don't have to take "being passionate about music in general" so literally - but still, I believe that many of the great creative types are more passionate about their inner vision, about the contents of their own imagination that they find worthy enough of manifesting, than anything else that pertains to their craft. Since there is too much music out there for a single person to imbibe, one must pick and choose what to immerse one's self in, and if you have a specific creative vision, you are likely to choose (and be passionate) about that which has a similarity to, or can most effectively contribute to, that inner vision.

If you look at some of the well-known composers of the past, and sometimes the present, very often they were scathingly critical of styles outside their own (even though, compared to the variety that exists today, they might not seem so disparate - e.g. Schumann vs. Liszt/ Wagner). Clearly they were not, or are not, passionate about music in general.

Yes, but I bet that they understood the inner workings of the music they didn't like and would therefore be entitled to make an educated decision to dislike that music. To go back to Boulez, if you read Orientations you'll find that he discusses pretty much every important composer to come before him from 1800 onwards: Beethoven, Berlioz, Wagner, Mahler, Debussy, Satie, Schoenberg, Bartok, Stravinsky, Varese, Berg, Messiaen and others. He demonstrates a clear understanding of the workings and aesthetics of the music of all of these composers but is also rather critical of many of them. He clearly wasn't passionate about their music but he was passionate enough about music in general to recognise that he could learn something from examining these other styles that he could then apply to his own music.

Hey: one could say I make art in my toilet every morning!

That would be if these are included in your passion about "sounds"...

Have fun being ignorant, mediocre, and ignored for the rest of your life.

Thank you for the warm wishes - though, I'll admit, it's kind of hard to achieve the last one when you keep responding to my posts.

Composers and artists alike are responsible in making the music socially responsible especially to young ones. Their music can either help or not help in building a person's character. as for me, I feel that most songs nowadays are not helping. Most of them are about sex, crime and drugs.

___________________________________________

These blogs keep the fire of music burning in me:

http://www.scarysquids.com/

http://www.audiomasteringman.com/

Facepalming because he's right?

Or, its up to the parents to filter their kid's listening habits.

Though I agree that musicians have a moral responsibility to write things that are not abhorrent and/or damaging to the human psyche. (Whatever that means.) But, alas, that's surely a religious argument.

Parents can't scapegoat musicians or the society for their own lack of integrity. But if parents are truly doing their best, it's pretty obvious that they get no help from the environment their kids are growing. You try teaching them morals, then they go out to the world who says these morals are outdated or unfashionable, and interact with friends from families who aren't giving their best for their kids as you do, or that believe that they are entitled to do whatever they deem pleasant. Guess who's gonna have more influence...

But this goes beyond music, so I could be subject for yet another thread.

Musicians don't have any responsibilities inherent to the 'function' of their craft. Their work doesn't have to be a service to humanity. If I write something that people would find damaging to their psyche, they don't need to listen to it. If kids find my music riddled with messages advocating drug use and crime sprees, they shouldn't be listening to it (or taking it for face value). Regardless of the case: it's the parents responsibility to either raise their kids with something reminiscent of sensibility, or shelter them from the world.

How will they know until they listen to it?

How will they know until they listen to it?

In that case, let's never write anything ever again seeing as we can't tell if we're doing good or harm.

In that case, let's never write anything ever again seeing as we can't tell if we're doing good or harm.

When I think about the consequences of this statement: are you proposing mass suicide?

When I think about the consequences of this statement: are you proposing mass suicide?

I wouldn't want to answer for fear of doing harm rather than good!