What Do You Think Is Involved In The Creation Of A Personal Style In Composition?

Where do you think does a personal style come from? What are the important factors that determine the emergence of an original personal style? Does it happen by itself, or does one consciously nurture and develop a personal style? Ideally speaking, would it be an unconscious or a conscious process/action? What about in practice?

101% of the time it's conscious

source: science 

If you peak through the window of an elementary school classroom, all the kids are being taught by the same teacher, they are all receiving the same instructions, but if you look at their drawings displayed on the bulletin board, each child has a distinct style from the very beginning.  Each child's work has certain identifying elements that are always there, in every drawing, in every painting, that are as unique and recognizable as a fingerprint.  The colors a child uses follow a pattern, the way they lay-out their drawing follows a consistent set of rules, maybe only consciously known only to some deep part of that child's brain, but recognizable to our pattern-seeking eyes as unique rules, even if we can't quite put our finger on what those rules are...  

But are the drawings good...  

Taking that style, and adding technical ability over the years is the key.  Mastering the techniques that will allow each person's particular style to be used in the most expressive way possible, so that everything supports that style, rather than detracts from it, and so that that style can be used in the service of all the things that one person needs to say, that is the difficult part.  One must boldly set aside the fear of being too changed, and embrace every tool that may be of help.  Rush at education with open arms, trusting that the good and valid parts of you will always be there, impervious to new thoughts and new habits, and that only the chaff will burn away, leaving you, ultimately, a purer and truer version of yourself.  

So, in short, I think it's some of both... innate identity, there from the very beginning, encoded in our genes, and the conscious polishing of that identity that makes it something of value to other people.  Some people die before they can get polished (or published.)  Some people don't have something to say that speaks to their particular time.  Some people get stuck with the wrong teachers.  But for the lucky few, the stars align and we all go "Ooooooh!"

Again, Pateceramics put it pretty clearly. Each human being might be exposed to the same kind of experiences, influences and values, yet react to them in a very personal, unique way. This way can (and must) be consciously nurtured and polished to develop an individual voice. The keyword here is develop - since it implies a deliberate attempt to grow and improve. In the same way you're more likely to get stronger and healthier by consciously working out and doing enough exercise, you're also more likely to develop an individual voice by studying and learning what others developed before you, and by deducing exactly what did they do to imprint their individuality into their works.

In my opinion, personal style is influenced by your memories, experiences and observations of the world.  I think everyone's personal style starts newborn, like a baby; and throughout his or her musical career, the person slowly develops his or her style into something unique.  But he or she must spend years playing music or composing before it is realized.  Before that happens, people's music and playing would be similar to other's, but not always intentionally.  Therefore, personal style is absolutely conscious.

Personal style is when you try to copy someone else, mess it up, and like your mistakes better than the original. And then you repeat. Continuously.

Where do you think does a personal style come from? What are the important factors that determine the emergence of an original personal style? Does it happen by itself, or does one consciously nurture and develop a personal style? Ideally speaking, would it be an unconscious or a conscious process/action? What about in practice?

as far as i'm aware writing music is an entirely conscious act, so choosing to write or not write in a "personal style" would obviously be conscious

"personal style" is a red herring anyway. obviously your piece is personal because you wrote it. whether a composition can be ascribed to a "personal style" is irrelevant to its honesty, quality and meaning

as far as i'm aware writing music is an entirely conscious act, so choosing to write or not write in a "personal style" would obviously be conscious

 

"personal style" is a red herring anyway. obviously your piece is personal because you wrote it. whether a composition can be ascribed to a "personal style" is irrelevant to its honesty, quality and meaning

What I mean in "personal style" is an easily identifiable style that is more or less present and can be readily identified across all your pieces. This is the case with Beethoven, Mozart and Bach for example. Their music has a clearly identifiable style. Do you think this (their style across their whole oeuvre) was something deliberate or intentional (something consciously created, nurtured and developed) or something that was just accidental, something that they had no conscious intent to produce and develop but was unconsciously created?

You said: "personal style" is a red herring anyway. obviously your piece is personal because you wrote it. whether a composition can be ascribed to a "personal style" is irrelevant to its honesty, quality and meaning"

I think that is not so and it is proven in the very fact that there are many composers, many on this site too, who compose in other composers' styles (like in Mozart's style for example), or even in the style of musical periods such as Baroque style.

Prior to Beethoven, originality was no-where near as big a worry among (art music) composers as it is now. They simply had to worry about being as competent at composing as possible, in a position more akin to servants. Bach and Mozart's recognisable styles were simply arrived at because of how their genius interpreted the existing musical practices. As time went on, and art music turned into a field so congested with great composers from the past, it became important to be original; after all, why would someone commission someone to write a piece that sounds like Bach, regardless of quality, when they can play Bach's music for free? So now in art music, one must work as hard as possible to achieve an original voice as well as a finely honed one. In the world of commercial composition on the other hand, i'd say things are a lot more similar to the pre-Beethoven days; film directors don't care if you've managed to blend serialism and tibetan throat singing into a gloriously original new art form, they would much rather someone who can sound exactly like Hans Zimmer, without having to pay a Hans Zimmer sized fee.

What I mean in "personal style" is an easily identifiable style that is more or less present and can be readily identified across all your pieces. This is the case with Beethoven, Mozart and Bach for example. Their music has a clearly identifiable style. Do you think this (their style across their whole oeuvre) was something deliberate or intentional (something consciously created, nurtured and developed) or something that was just accidental, something that they had no conscious intent to produce and develop but was unconsciously created?

beethoven, mozart and bach didn't write automatically; any note they put on paper was one they consciously decided to put there. as such, i don't see how any "personal style" they may have developed (btw all of those composers wrote music in tune with & basically derived from the trends of their time, as have all great composers) could have possibly been unconscious. they knew what they were writing right?

I think that is not so and it is proven in the very fact that there are many composers, many on this site too, who compose in other composers' styles (like in Mozart's style for example), or even in the style of musical periods such as Baroque style.

i don't see how that is relevant to what i said at all. just because you're speaking another language doesn't mean you're not using your own vocal cords

beethoven, mozart and bach didn't write automatically; any note they put on paper was one they consciously decided to put there. as such, i don't see how any "personal style" they may have developed (btw all of those composers wrote music in tune with & basically derived from the trends of their time, as have all great composers) could have possibly been unconscious. they knew what they were writing right?

Yes, of course they knew what they were writing. But style, I believe, is something transcending an individual work or an individual moment of consciousness. And I believe some essential part of style is - and must remain - unconscious. When you say "all of those composers wrote music in tune with & basically derived from the trends of their time, as have all great composers" you simply prove that style transcends the individual and therefore the conscious.

   i don't see how that is relevant to what i said at all. just because you're speaking another language doesn't mean you're not using your own vocal cords

You said "your piece is personal because you wrote it. whether a composition can be ascribed to a "personal style" is irrelevant to its honesty, quality and meaning". What I am saying is that you can write in a style that is not yours. And that proves that a piece does not become totally personal just because you wrote it. It is mimicking another's style. And a style cannot be compared to "vocal cords". A more apt analogy would be impersonating someone. Now the question would be: just because it is you who are impersonating, does that make what you are doing totally personal? I don't think so. I think there are impersonal and foreign elements that have entered into your act. And so an act free of such elements (as would be the act of composing using an original personal style) must be more personal than your act. And that proves that what one composes and the style one uses while composing it are indeed relevant to a piece's "honesty, quality and meaning".

Put in another way, the question here would be: Does the work of a mimicker or one who composes in another composer's or period's style have the same truth, meaning and value as the work of someone who composes in their own style? (In this question I am testing your assertion that "whether a composition can be ascribed to a "personal style" is irrelevant to its honesty, quality and meaning"). My answer: Absolutely not!

What I am saying is that you can write in a style that is not yours. And that proves that a piece does not become totally personal just because you wrote it. It is mimicking another's style. And a style cannot be compared to "vocal cords". A more apt analogy would be impersonating someone. Now the question would be: just because it is you who are impersonating, does that make what you are doing totally personal? I don't think so. I think there are impersonal and foreign elements that have entered into your act. And so an act free of such elements (as would be the act of composing using an original personal style) must be more personal than your act. And that proves that what one composes and the style one uses while composing it are indeed relevant to a piece's "honesty, quality and meaning".

Put in another way, the question here would be: Does the work of a mimicker or one who composes in another composer's or period's style have the same truth, meaning and value as the work of someone who composes in their own style? (In this question I am testing your assertion that "whether a composition can be ascribed to a "personal style" is irrelevant to its honesty, quality and meaning"). My answer: Absolutely not!

I definitely see what you mean, luderart.  To go back to the visual arts example, in order to master the techniques of throwing pottery, you practice the same basic forms over and over, generally in a master/apprentice relationship of some sort.  Which means you don't get to make "your" pots for the first 7 years of your career.  You make your master's pots, to their specifications, and any that don't look enough like their pots, or don't meet their quality control are smashed.  Any that do meet their quality standards are signed, not with your name, but with the studio name.  That's how you learn the basic techniques.  By making teacup after teacup that is indistinguishable from someone else's teacups.  When you can copy exactly, you know, and your master knows, that you have complete control.  That any manifestations of "style" in your work, are the result of control and decision, not just accident.  And therefor, that you have mastered the technical aspects of working.  

But if that was all you ever did, you would never be anything other than an apprentice in the master's workshop.  So after a 7 year apprenticeship, you are considered ready to make your own name.  And you are lovingly kicked out the door to discover how to make your own style of work.  That's often the hardest part.  Now you have the technical skill, and some connections, because you studied under the great master so-and-so, but you have to find your own voice, after years of working the motions to replicate someone else's voice into your hands.  

You have to find something unique to say, or your coffee cups are no more valuable than the ones made on a conveyor belt in a factory.  

In the music world... why do we pay to go to a live performance?  It will inevitably be imperfect in some way.  Either because notes are wrong, or because you are in the $5 seats and can't see or hear well.  Why do we pay to do this when we could listen to a retouched and perfected recording at home?  Because there is the possibility to see a performer's individual voice.  Every live concert is a little different, and every concert is a chance to watch the performers express themselves, while reacting to each other and the audience.  There's a chance that today, the pianist will really have something transcendent to say.  

So composers can work in the style of someone, as an exercise, to learn technical skills.  To discover what made Beethoven Beethoven.  It is a good way to get a conscious control of your techniques.  But the point is to be able to say at some point, "ah ha!  THIS is what made Beethoven Beethoven.  And THIS is what I will do differently, that will make me me."  It's possible to develop a distinct style just by fumbling in the dark, but I think it is unlikely that someone would make a consistently good body of work that also made consistent and effective use of a well-developed style without having put some thought into it along the way.  The sheer amount of time and work that it takes to get to that point means that, to me, it seems like one would have spared a few idle moments to ponder it over the years.  

Yes, of course they knew what they were writing. But style, I believe, is something transcending an individual work or an individual moment of consciousness. And I believe some essential part of style is - and must remain - unconscious.

style may transcend an individual work or even an individual composer, but style is still something people do intentionally. composers imitate one another, intentionally. ideas and features of a given time period and place are propagated, intentionally. it doesn't just randomly happen.

Incidentally, please show me on a diagram of the human body where "the conscious" and "the unconscious" are located thanks.

When you say "all of those composers wrote music in tune with & basically derived from the trends of their time, as have all great composers" you simply prove that style transcends the individual and therefore the conscious.

lol

You said "your piece is personal because you wrote it. whether a composition can be ascribed to a "personal style" is irrelevant to its honesty, quality and meaning". What I am saying is that you can write in a style that is not yours. And that proves that a piece does not become totally personal just because you wrote it. It is mimicking another's style. And a style cannot be compared to "vocal cords". A more apt analogy would be impersonating someone. Now the question would be: just because it is you who are impersonating, does that make what you are doing totally personal? I don't think so. I think there are impersonal and foreign elements that have entered into your act. And so an act free of such elements (as would be the act of composing using an original personal style) must be more personal than your act. And that proves that what one composes and the style one uses while composing it are indeed relevant to a piece's "honesty, quality and meaning".

Put in another way, the question here would be: Does the work of a mimicker or one who composes in another composer's or period's style have the same truth, meaning and value as the work of someone who composes in their own style? (In this question I am testing your assertion that "whether a composition can be ascribed to a "personal style" is irrelevant to its honesty, quality and meaning"). My answer: Absolutely not!

It's not possible to compose in "another composer's style". You are not that composer, and the decisions you make in the course of composing are not necessarily the decisions the composer you are "imitating" would have made. Most of the time, you have no way of knowing what the other composer would have done in your situation. You are only guessing. Yes there is usually a foreign element to "impersonating" another composer, since it's typically done as an exercise, but something being written as an exercise does not preclude it from being a high quality composition. The Chopin Études are pretty popular for instance.

Put in another way, if you think e.g. the Anthony Payne version of Elgar 3, the Deryck Cooke completion of Mahler 10, the Brian Newbould completions of various Schubert works, etc, represent worse and more dishonest compositions than those of composers whose work does not specifically refer to others, you need to listen again and more closely.

Eh, scientists know that they/we don't know what energy is, and we can only relate to it's many forms mathematically.  Furthermore, we don't know all of the types of energy.  "Modern physics has discovered one of the greatest things ever discovered, and that is: matter is energy".  And theoretically, matter is a projection of our consciousness, which is also energy.  Do your own research, as I'm sure your skeptical blood is boiling.

To say "show me on a diagram of the human body" is silly, given that we don't even know what energy is, putting so much faith into something that is meant to disprove itself, especially when you're referring to a part of the study that they have yet to understand.

Loosely speaking, the point is that consciousness is unlikely to
arise from classical properties of matter (the more we understand the
structure and the fabric of the brain, the less we understand how
consciousness can occur at all), which are well known and well testable.
But Quantum Theory allows for a new concept of matter altogether, which
may well leave cracks for consciousness, for something that is not
purely material or purely extra-material. Of course, the danger in this
way of thinking is to relate consciousness and Quantum only because they
are both poorly understood: what they certainly have in common is a
degree of "magic" that makes both mysterious and unattainable...

On the other hand, it is certainly true that all current
neurobiological descriptions of the brain are based on Newton's Physics,
even if it is well known that Newton's Physics has its limitations.
First of all, Newton's Physics is an offshoot of Descartes division of
the universe in matter and spirit, and it deals only with matter.
Secondly, neurobiologists assume that the brain and its parts behave
like classical objects, and that quantum effects are negligible, even
while the "objects" they are studying get smaller and smaller. What
neurobiologists are doing when they study the microstructure of the
brain from a Newtonian perspective is equivalent to organizing a trip to
the Moon on the basis of Aristotle's Physics, neglecting Newton's
theory of gravitation.

No wonder most neurobiologists reach the conclusion that Physics
cannot explain consciousness, since they are using a Physics that 1. was
designed to study matter and leave out consciousness and that 2. does
not work in the microworld. Not surprisingly, it has been claimed that
all current neurobiological models are computationally equivalent to a
Turing machine.

Well, this is not entirely off-topic.  Many artists describe trancelike states when creating something -> this is especially true for those who wish to represent the divine, and surrender to it, while at work.  Sacred Art.  They admit these things; many of the great masters, and masters you've never heard of. 

I don't want to get into a derailed debate...I'm simply stating that it doesn't have to be entirely conscious as seems to be the prevailing presumption here. 

Someone who keeps an open mind and open ear to all things, has a greater chance of knowing the 'truth', whereas those who are dismissive, and without respect to others, are willingly boxing themselves inside a box that it utterly beyond their understanding.  The answers to your life just might not always be on that diagram :-\ *shrugs*

Nah.

People have said that I have a recognizable style. I don't get it. All my children are unique, I say. I suppose being a Modernest, I work in two minds: originality and technique. I try to let the originality come from the technique, and never from some abstract idea of who I am, a thing that eludes me at all turns.

Like the Velveteen Rabbit:

“Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that
happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just
to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real.'

'Does it hurt?' asked the Rabbit.

'Sometimes,' said the Skin Horse, for he was always truthful. 'When you are Real you don't mind being hurt.'

'Does it happen all at once, like being wound up,' he asked, 'or bit by bit?'

'It doesn't happen all at once,' said the Skin Horse. 'You become. It takes
a long time. That's why it doesn't happen often to people who break
easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept.
Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved
off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very
shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real
you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand.”

Prior to Beethoven, originality was no-where near as big a worry among (art music) composers as it is now. They simply had to worry about being as competent at composing as possible, in a position more akin to servants. Bach and Mozart's recognisable styles were simply arrived at because of how their genius interpreted the existing musical practices. As time went on, and art music turned into a field so congested with great composers from the past, it became important to be original; after all, why would someone commission someone to write a piece that sounds like Bach, regardless of quality, when they can play Bach's music for free? So now in art music, one must work as hard as possible to achieve an original voice as well as a finely honed one. In the world of commercial composition on the other hand, i'd say things are a lot more similar to the pre-Beethoven days; film directors don't care if you've managed to blend serialism and tibetan throat singing into a gloriously original new art form, they would much rather someone who can sound exactly like Hans Zimmer, without having to pay a Hans Zimmer sized fee.

I agree with you Robin. But what does Hans Zimmer really sound like? Does he have a style? I think not. If a director asked me to write something in his "style" I would need to pin it down. "Which film?" I would ask. Inception sounds different than The Thin Blue Line. And in each of these cases, HIS director might have given him temp music from which to base his own. But in any case, whether you work from a model of vague or precise definition, the work will have a mark of originality to it. It cannot not! So to work TOWARD originality in this case is not the main goal, as you say.

But to answer the OP's question of "can style be cultivated?" Yes, it can. Using another film composer as an example, consider Thomas Newman, who scored The Shawshank Redemption, The Horse Whisperer and The Road to Perdition. Listening to these you immediately notice that it's the same composer. In short, he repeats himself. Simple as that. Composers develop a bag of tricks for dealing with musical problems that come up all the time, if only for expediency. Success builds on success.

Stravinsky repeated himself all the time, cleverly, of course. I read somewhere that he had written something, whose performance got the attention of a musical critic "in the know," who telegraphed Stravinsky to congratulate him: "your music great success. stop. could be SENSATIONAL success if you let Mr. SoandSo (I'm paraphrasing) take a look at it. stop. Mr SoandSo has arranged works for other Hollywood composers and is very well known ..."

With his usual flair, he replied by telegraph saying only: "Satisfied by great success."

Does it happen by itself, or does one consciously nurture and develop a personal style? Ideally speaking, would it be an unconscious or a conscious process/action?

The answer is "yes."

In music (as in developmental psychology), the nurture vs. nature question is kind of moot. I think that, in the end, individual style is (like most deeply personal things) in itself unconscious--after all, you can't consciously, concretely work toward a particular individual style unless you already know what it sounds like, which is a bit of a paradox. However, a composer's unconscious musical identity is largely a product of the conscious choices they make along the way: the music they listen to and study and play (and, yes, imitate); the effort and awareness they put into developing their technique, and so forth.

I'm a little surprised that the role of musical culture hasn't come up more in this discussion because (in my limited and anecdotal experience as a composition student) the single best thing a composer can do to develop his or her own style is to listen. Whether or not you agree with Ives that there's "a place in the soul all made of tunes, of tunes of long ago," it's hard to deny that the music we're exposed to (whether by choice or not) plays a huge role in shaping our identity--our musical "grammars" and sets of expectations--as both composers and listeners. For me, at least, composition (and whatever "originality" that results) is very much a process of my intuition digesting my influences. Moreover, I might argue that the success and relevance of most enduring music is due in part to its honesty about its influences--it says something original by using musical symbols whose significance is already familiar to the audience (for some extremely unsubtle examples, think of funeral marches or folk idioms in Mahler, or even "power chords" in John Adams) in new ways.

And by that token, I don't think "originality" should be any more of a concern for composers of "art music" today than it was in Mozart's time. It's not the 1960s anymore (and, indeed, it could be argued that much of the quintessential "modern" music of the 1960s--Cage, Boulez, etc.--has aged so quickly precisely because it attempted to deny its cultural context, but I digress): like Mozart, we listen to the music of our own culture, and it comes out in our writing. If anything, it might be easier to be "original" today because of the diversity of our musical culture(s) and the wealth of recorded music we have access to via the internet. If we listen with awareness to a variety of styles and make a conscious effort to discern what is striking, surprising, or just "good" about all of them, their influence will inevitably start to come out in our own music--though maybe not subtly or convincingly at first--and the process of these influences being filtered by your training, your imagination, and your innate preferences is, I would argue, what produces originality.

An example from my own experience that comes to mind (and ties into the discussion about Hans Zimmer and film music) is the following: when I used to compose scores to student films, I would try very hard to consciously write in the style the director prescribed. These were fairly easy styles to write in (it's not exactly difficult to imitate, for instance, the Zimmer/Badelt "style" from the Disney pirate movies, for instance) so technique was not an issue; however, I found it impossible not to let other influences creep in--so, for instance, you might get something like Hans Zimmer made more colorful by Adams-esque harmonic shifts or ostinati reminiscent of Bernard Herrmann which, integrated consistently enough, added up to a completely different style. In other words, it was difficult not to be original... and I imagine this kind of thing is the case for most composers with eclectic listening preferences. The directors were not happy. :)

Eh, scientists know that they/we don't know what energy is, and we can only relate to it's many forms mathematically.  Furthermore, we don't know all of the types of energy.  "Modern physics has discovered one of the greatest things ever discovered, and that is: matter is energy".  And theoretically, matter is a projection of our consciousness, which is also energy.

[...]

Someone who keeps an open mind and open ear to all things, has a greater chance of knowing the 'truth', whereas those who are dismissive, and without respect to others, are willingly boxing themselves inside a box that it utterly beyond their understanding.  The answers to your life just might not always be on that diagram :-\

this is so amazingly ill-informed it's hard to believe you're not trolling

Oh, you can tell me what energy is 'made of', can you?  Not just it's tendencies?

And, my last statement is true, depending on the context.  The context is that of a universal unknown, something that can not be agreed upon.  Listening should be a neccesity.

The brain incorporates 3 main functions when learning something.. First it analyzes it, and tries to repeat it like 'rote' (nursery rhymes).. After that it is moved to another intermediate buffer, later it is moved to a third section for permanent storage, this is where 'muscle memory' comes in.  You don't need to think about scales, and keys, cause you have memorized and used them so often..

The benefit of the 3rd brain function, is it runs the activity like a computer sub-routine, so in realtime it can gather input data and manipulate the output, (finger motions) without having to slow down and re-calculate it.

We do this with modalities, developments and all aspects of music.. Then on top of that we are taking in data, thoughts, emotions, and resynthesize what is coming out in real time. This is one's personal style. Naturally if a person most of his life listening to one composer, his style will be similar, he may even go on to discover new techniques or ideas, the original composer didn't have the lifespan to develop that. 

I'm pleased to anounce that this last year, I can now look at a music staff, and correct notes I played into my sequencer by hand.  I can also write some parts, just by visual reference, I need not hear it. This after years and years of playing.. I've always played 'pop music' which of course carries a different weight than what others do here.. I'm fine with 3 - 5 minutes. but after that I'm lost. But this is also what I like, and what I pursue.. I truly admire those here who can tackle 20 minutes, 60 minutes etc.. It is another whole world than the one I'm from.. But the underlying functions are the same, regardless of what kind of music one is doing.. True some takes a whole lot less 'brainpower'. Now in my old age, I'm writing middle of the road, light quazzy jazz, along with some George Martin orchestrations, to put on top of my pop songs.. That's my goal, that's my challenge, that's my style. 

I believe somewhere here there was a discussion of 10,000 hours.  After we have spent over 10,000 hours doing a particular activity, the brain, can remap and re-distribute how it does it,  it need not spend precious ' present moment point of view consciousness' on it..

So our own personal  style is a culmination of many things, things we learned in school, things we discovered ourself, things we analyzed by hearing or seeing others perform, even the emotional content of our life is mixed in.. I started writing songs when I was ten,  my mother was always reprimanding me, not to use so many 'minor' chords in my compositions.. 

Being aware of that I very rarely write a sad piece, but I have come to realize there have been a significant amount of 'sadness' in my life, because of events that have taken place.. Although I usually purposely avoid that.. As there is a limited demand for 'sad' music.

Donovan Leitch (Scottish folksinger from 60's) wrote a few sad songs, "Ballad of a girl child Linda", and more importantly "Lalena".. I would play "Lalena" for hours at a time, because it so intrigued and drew me in.