Classical Music: Why Bother?

I keep this article on my desk and read it on occasion. It's pretty funny, but also has a lot of truth in it.

It's an archived article, but still a good read.

It has applications to young composers.

Check it out and offer any thoughts you have on it!

Classical Music: Why bother?

[edit: oh and it's four pages long - careful you don't miss the whole gist]

Here's what I mean: A great work is still great even if fashion or society or the cultural institutions of the time reject it entirely. There are essential qualities in the form, shape, phrasing, ideas and a million other harder-to-isolate elements of the piece that, when combined, will ultimately determine the worth of the art object -- its greatness or lack thereof.

That's why I compose. I don't care if other people like it as long as I do. I compose for myself. Not for money or fame.

I will get money from being a professional musician. I have skills to offer outside the limited venue of composing, such as being a church organist, a part-time accompanist, a director in a community theater, teaching, etc. I have never looked at composition like it would give me fame or money. Truth is, I don't like money. It is the root of all evil, in one way or another.

I sound like a hippy. Oh well.

Hey Nick, you don't sound like a hippy, The LOVE of money is the root of all evil

and I can see where your coming at this from, I compose for almost the same reason, becuase I love it. :happy

I would be perfectly happy writing music for symphony orchestra for the rest of my life just to enjoy it myself and send it to those I love - I too write music because I must, because there's music in my blood.

I compose entirely for myself...I don't care about greatness or anything like that. If someone digs up my recordings after I am dead and is like WHOA THIS IS GOOD and then a whole lot more people also go WHOA THIS IS GOOD then, great, I'll watch with glee from heaven. Otherwise, I'll just sit in the Halls of God and listen to Bach play the organ.

I'm not selfish about my music however---I have a modest internet presence and try to reach out to aspiring composers (specifically those interested in learning spontaneous piano improvisation) whenever I can....as we all seem to do on this website.

Yep I agree, I got interested into composition cause I thought music was interesting and fun to play around with, and there were songs I've heard that blew me away. Eventually I kind of developed better at it and occasionally scronged for peices of knowledge of the art (cause I am not a music student lol, but I have taken music classes). However I really think one of the neat things in art is when you make something and you get an impression for it, and you have the abilitiy to share that with another person. This is really neat, because music is great at convey just the raw vibe of something, were as with language it would be difficult to impress the same kind of ideas. Anyways, ultimately I think people should compose for themselves, but its always nice when a person can get your message across from your peice, however its so odd that sometimes people are on completely different 'wavelengths' and get a completely different message than intended.

There were some other points in the article that I was glad he addressed - for example, a composer's relationship with the audience. Sometimes it goes too far - either trying too hard to please and audience or going too far and alienating everyone in existance (lol, maybe not that much, but ya know) Meaning that music doesn't have to be happy and "accessible" but there's something that everyone wants to portray and it would be nice if it could be communicated to the audience, and if the audience would make an effort to understand (!).

I also liked this paragraph:

Most art is crap. This may be a shocking idea to many people. We think of art as the great masterworks we know, and it's very easy to forget the mountains of mediocrity that were sifted to lift Bach or Dante or Emily Dickinson to their Olympian heights. I have heard people suggest that somehow the gene pool has been diluted to the point that no more Beethovens are possible (this suggestion actually came from a composer). What they forget is that Gioacchino Rossini was arguably more famous than Beethoven in the early 19th century and that a French opera composer named Giacomo Meyerbeer was much more popular than his rival, Richard Wagner.[/b]

as well as:

Imagine having to go through a collection of the10 million paintings -- probably a low estimate -- done last year by everyone from famous artists to unknown talents to my grandmother (who recently started painting as a retirement hobby). Even if you knew there was a new Picasso in there somewhere, which of course you wouldn't, how would you keep your eyes fresh enough to see it? And once you stopped believing that there was anything all that special to be found, why would you bother?[/b]

We were talking about this the other night in the shoutbox - new music and the lack of interest people have in wading through the piles of it, at least compared to the past. What is the future of classical music?

Personally I think the vast majority of really good, new music isn't being created in the art-music world anymore---most of it is in Jazz, Rock, Metal, etc. I think some of the Jazz, Rock, and Metal artists of the 20th century will eventually be remembered with as great immortality as we now remember the great composers of the past. I'm not supposed to have that opinion, am I? =)

Personally I think the vast majority of really good, new music isn't being created in the art-music world anymore---most of it is in Jazz, Rock, Metal, etc. I think some of the Jazz, Rock, and Metal artists of the 20th century will eventually be remembered with as great immortality as we now remember the great composers of the past. I'm not supposed to have that opinion, am I? =)

I don't know that any new music is really that merited, but I'd have to agree that, at the very least, modern "art-music" shows far less musicianship than these other genres.

I don't know that any new music is really that merited, but I'd have to agree that, at the very least, modern "art-music" shows far less musicianship than these other genres.

Sigh..... I have a recording for you to listen to. It's called "Berlin Mass", and it's by Arvo Part. Listen to it and tell me that modern "art-music" as you call it has less musicianship than those other genres.

Here's another of his works that might do some good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vkQnyBpzcY...rch=Arvo%20Part

It's his Te Deum..... if you think all modern music is crap after listening to that while smoking a joint then I rest my case.

I just compose because it's the only thing I do. It's not as if it's a choice. I do it because it's the first thing I think about in the morning and the last at night. I am incapable of contributing anything else worthwhile to society.

I just listened to Te Deum again under the influence of my own advice.... loving gorgeous.

I just compose because it's the only thing I do. It's not as if it's a choice. I do it because it's the first thing I think about in the morning and the last at night. I am incapable of contributing anything else worthwhile to society.

wow, I feel the same way...I tried endlessly in my life to be anything BUT a musician but all my desperate attempts ended up in total depressing failure. The only thing I'd contribute to society outside of music is a crappy anything else. At least with music I have a fleeting, minute chance (or so any composer would like to think :D )

you wanna hear art music? listen to Opeth. Sure, they're a death metal band, and sure, they probably don't call themselves art-music, but as far as I am concerned, their music is equally virtuosic, equally harmonically rich, equally (actually much more so!) rhythmically rich, and are absolutely stunning melodists as the great western composers. I know that holding such an opinion is tantamount to blasphemy, though... just because they don't use sonata allegro form doesn't mean they aren't towering musical geniuses (which they, and Mike Akerfeldt, the main songwriter/guitarist/vocalist, without a shadow of a doubt are /is)

but there's really a way in which I find the elitism of art music to be irritating. so what its all in highly acclaimed academic institutions? nobody cares, the vast majority of music that such institutions make is total scraggy compared to opeth and many other modern bands of various genres.. and that isn't elitism thats just me saying i think some music is better and having thousands upon thousands of people agree with me hahahahaha. basically the attitude of art music I WILL FORCE MY MUSIC UPON THE WORLD WHETHER IT IS scraggy OR NOT is what irritates me

I remember going to a seminar called "piano music new and old" given by my piano teacher. he played excerpts from a number of 20th century composers who write scrambled fart music, and then played Ravel. Why he thought Ravel belonged with the other composers made absolutely no sense to me. I asked why are there so few composers trying to write melodic, accessible music, and he said because everything that can be said with normal sounds has been said. A member of the composer faculty piped in and said BECAUSE WE WOULD SUFFER DIRECT COMPARISON. what a bloody effing coward. At least people on this site have courage to try to write beautiful music....heck if I even get COMPARED to chopin or scriabin or whoever, that is a HUGE compliment...I don't care that I'm not as good as them just to know I"m on the right TRACK towards beauty is immensely gratifying....

forgive the horrible grammar above...I stayed up all night...sick, and my sister was in the hospital hundreds of miles away and I didn't know if she was okay for hours.

Most art is crap. This may be a shocking idea to many people. We think of art as the great masterworks we know, and it's very easy to forget the mountains of mediocrity that were sifted to lift Bach or Dante or Emily Dickinson to their Olympian heights.[/b]

[/b]

It's a commodity view that speaks only for the product, not the process behind it.

Hah, most creative acts are crap in as much as they help bigger organic things to grow. But I think this guy means "rubbish". However, the trillions of creative processes engaged in by however-many are intrinsically valued by their creators otherwise presumably they would stop.

Besides, fame is rarely related to the quality of art/music/ etc. You only need to look at the current "music industry" to confirm that.

Someone had to make judgements to elevate the Dantes and Bachs. For all we know they may have got it wrong. Kylie Minigog, Elward Pretsel and Madonna will be remembered far more than Elizabeth Lutyens, Elliot Carter or Nigel Westlake because the publicity machine backed the former. Who's right?

We were talking about this the other night in the shoutbox - new music and the lack of interest people have in wading through the piles of it, at least compared to the past. What is the future of classical music?

I reckon it's always been the same. There are droves of forgotten composers. Look at the dozens of operatic writers overshadowed by Rossini (with good reason most times).

Like with art, the future of (real) classical music lies with money. I'm convinced that the invention of recording* allows us to hear more classics than at any other era - the music moguls will keep them coming as long as there's money to be made. Smaller companies deal with lower budget performers (that might be just as good as the biggies but their fees are lower!) and smaller markets.

As long as people buy art-music CDs/DVDs, there's some kind of future to classical music.

*The UK has at least two radio stations devoted to art music. One is publicly owned and commissions new works occasionally (or plays them if presented by artists on their lists). The other is commercial, plays mainly classical chart hits, thus blostering and narrowing what's already there, since they contribute to the charts and from their requests and polls. But it's thought of as a "cool" (ugh!) station so most classically aspiring kids only get to hear the pops.

M

you wanna hear art music? listen to Opeth. Sure, they're a death metal band, and sure, they probably don't call themselves art-music, but as far as I am concerned, their music is equally virtuosic, equally harmonically rich, equally (actually much more so!) rhythmically rich, and are absolutely stunning melodists as the great western composers. I know that holding such an opinion is tantamount to blasphemy, though... just because they don't use sonata allegro form doesn't mean they aren't towering musical geniuses (which they, and Mike Akerfeldt, the main songwriter/guitarist/vocalist, without a shadow of a doubt are /is)

but there's really a way in which I find the elitism of art music to be irritating. so what its all in highly acclaimed academic institutions? nobody cares, the vast majority of music that such institutions make is total scraggy compared to opeth and many other modern bands of various genres.. and that isn't elitism thats just me saying i think some music is better and having thousands upon thousands of people agree with me hahahahaha. basically the attitude of art music I WILL FORCE MY MUSIC UPON THE WORLD WHETHER IT IS scraggy OR NOT is what irritates me

I remember going to a seminar called "piano music new and old" given by my piano teacher. he played excerpts from a number of 20th century composers who write scrambled fart music, and then played Ravel. Why he thought Ravel belonged with the other composers made absolutely no sense to me. I asked why are there so few composers trying to write melodic, accessible music, and he said because everything that can be said with normal sounds has been said. A member of the composer faculty piped in and said BECAUSE WE WOULD SUFFER DIRECT COMPARISON. what a bloody effing coward. At least people on this site have courage to try to write beautiful music....heck if I even get COMPARED to chopin or scriabin or whoever, that is a HUGE compliment...I don't care that I'm not as good as them just to know I"m on the right TRACK towards beauty is immensely gratifying....

forgive the horrible grammar above...I stayed up all night...sick, and my sister was in the hospital hundreds of miles away and I didn't know if she was okay for hours.

Totally in agreement with you. But please... please... PLEASE realize are a lot of us who strive to write gorgeous music.

Arvo Part is one.... Corigliano is another..... Armanini is another goodie.

It sounds like you are right about those guys. "Because we would suffer direct comparison"... give me a loving break.

Composers like those are a dying breed. All that serial stuff from the fifties is long dead. The only people who do it are six feet under.

Remember,

WE are the next generation of composers. Not the faculty at your local college. As a composer, new music is what you make of it.

I asked why are there so few composers trying to write melodic, accessible music, and he said because everything that can be said with normal sounds has been said.

Horse manure. I know a number of people on this forum, hopefully including myself, that are proof against this. Anyone who thinks melodic music is exhausted is making excuses to avoid having to follow tonal rules. It's a lot easier to write "scrambled fart music" (as you so aptly put it) - I mean, how much effort do you think it took Cage to write 4'33"?! I don't give a care if it's never been done before, if it doesn't show some skill and please someone's ears at least a little, it's worthless. I suggest that everything that has been said with SCRAMBLED FARTS has been said.

*gets off soap box*

We are indeed the next generation of composers, everyone on this forum. Let's make the future of art music something for our world to be proud of!

Anyone who thinks melodic music is exhausted is making excuses to avoid having to follow tonal rules.

Man, I feel like people are going to flame you for that for whatever reason, but I could have written the same thing!

I agree - melodic music hasn't been exhausted, we just don't realize what the next revolution in it is. I think Fineberg even pointed to that exact point in the article, actually, if I recall correctly - he said something about how we should seek to create something (for the audience) that they don't KNOW they want. Pretty interesting thought. It's like this mysterious music floating out there, yet to be created. Pretty cool, and I bet a lot of people compose hoping to discover it during their life. Even if it's not really appreciated until way, way after :huh: if at all. Bizarre.

Again, yadda yadda yadda to all the "I create music for myself" because we all do, probably. I'm not rolling my eyes, I'm just trying to avoid that comeback. I'm simply pointing out that no matter what our intentions are in composing, wouldn't it just be darned neat to write something that somebody takes notice of for being new and different? We all (or many of us) strive to be just that! :mellow:

There are lots of different types of composers alive today, and composition is more thriving than ever. I'm willing to bet that there were more pieces of music written in the past 10 years than in the entire 19th century.

As the article points out though, it takes a long time for the good pieces to be remembered. New works by Liszt, Mahler, and even Beethoven were often met with harsh criticism, while lesser composers were praised.

There are composers who write popular music and film music. They have the largest audience and make the most money. But popular music and film music fade extremely fast - who can name a film score or a popular tune from the 1920s off of thier head (just a rhetorical question, as I'm sure many of you can or are willing to look it up)?

Then there are composers who write tonal concert music - Lowell Liebermann, Arvo Part, John Adams, Steve Reich.... they have a much smaller audience than the above composers. Yet there is still some demand for thier music and they generally make good money off of it. Many works by these composers have already achieved a classical cult status.

And then there are composers who write atonal - 'out-there' music. Believe it or not, there is even an audience for this, however small it may be. Some people enjoy this music and are willing to pay for it - don't criticize them or call them stupid, just because thier taste is different from yours. An intelligent, mature person will realize that different people look for different things in music.

Horse manure. I know a number of people on this forum, hopefully including myself, that are proof against this. Anyone who thinks melodic music is exhausted is making excuses to avoid having to follow tonal rules. It's a lot easier to write "scrambled fart music" (as you so aptly put it) - I mean, how much effort do you think it took Cage to write 4'33"?! I don't give a care if it's never been done before, if it doesn't show some skill and please someone's ears at least a little, it's worthless. I suggest that everything that has been said with SCRAMBLED FARTS has been said.

*gets off soap box*

We are indeed the next generation of composers, everyone on this forum. Let's make the future of art music something for our world to be proud of!

Obviously I'm a tonal composer. But, as for Cage... can we quit harping on 4'33"? It may be his most famous work, but he probably spent far more time working on his pieces for prepared piano. And he wasn't always avant-garde, he also wrote some pretty decent tonal string quartets. 4'33" is not so much music, as it is philosophical commentary on what defines music. Stop holding it up as an example of "modern music requiring no skill".

if it doesn't show some skill and please someone's ears at least a little, it's worthless.

Careful about where you're treading here. The so called scrambled fart composers used to say things like that about us, only backwards.

What, they said that unless you have no compositional skill and you bore all your listeners, your music isn't worth anything? I highly doubt that.

They didn't say that.... but they did scraggy all over tonal music. I got my backwards and my forwards mixed up.

Heh, too bad for them... publicly trashing tonal music is kinda burning your bridges!

I asked why are there so few composers trying to write melodic, accessible music, and he said because everything that can be said with normal sounds has been said.

...because we would suffer direct comparison.

*sigh*

The academic community really needs to get some new lines. They've been regurgitating stuff like this mindlessly for decades now.

It's ok. Since when do the top brass of the academic community become historic composers? ;)