What If They Went Deaf?

x

Huh…  I bet it's in there for most people.  It's in there for me anyway.  A tune is bugging me and the software helps me write it down quickly and accurately.  It's not that I futz with the software until something interesting comes out, it's that there is a tune in my head that needs to get out and the software helps me get it out onto the page accurately, more quickly than I could do with pencil and paper.  In my head, it's already a complete, finished thing.  But the software helps me double check that I'm writing rhythms correctly if they are complex, etc.  The software is just a translator.  But yes, without it, and with earplugs, I would still hear the tune in my head, and (with more effort) I could still write it down accurately.  Granted, my music isn't that complex, but then, I haven't been doing this for years and years, either.  I bet they all hear it.  If they don't, I bet their music isn't too good.  (: 

Two points of clarification:

1-Beethoven retained some hearing throughout his life (at his deathbed, he was awoken by a thunderclap), and it declined gradually, so he was able to prepare for what was coming

2- A lot of composers today don't pay much attention to how things sound (the musical surface), in preference to other factors such as the process of composing. There are also a lot of people who really have no idea what they wrote (or they wouldn't without notation software). At the other end would be composers who focus deeply on timbre; they would not be able to do the same thing without good hearing. So they would have to change direction if they went deaf.

Todays "complicated" languages are based on very mechanical/mathematical systems and techniques, which you can control without the need of your ear, even so, how it "sounds" is less and less important for modern composers. Is music based on feelings and esthetics which is more difficult to compose without hearing, but that music is dying...

A lot of composers today don't pay much attention to how things sound (the musical surface), in preference to other factors such as the process of composing. There are also a lot of people who really have no idea what they wrote (or they wouldn't without notation software). At the other end would be composers who focus deeply on timbre; they would not be able to do the same thing without good hearing. So they would have to change direction if they went deaf.

No

Todays "complicated" languages are based on very mechanical/mathematical systems and techniques, which you can control without the need of your ear, even so, how it "sounds" is less and less important for modern composers. Is music based on feelings and esthetics which is more difficult to compose without hearing, but that music is dying...

Even more no.

In fact, it's difficult to express no enough. So much so it arises a desire to be rude and hurtful towards someone who could be so wrong.

It's more frustrating when such broad implications and vague generalizations and value judgements are stated as plain fact.

In fact, it's difficult to express no enough. So much so it arises a desire to be rude and hurtful towards someone who could be so wrong.

 

It's more frustrating when such broad implications and vague generalizations and value judgements are stated as plain fact.

Good thing you weren't hateful then. 

No

 

 

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate

Good thing you weren't hateful then. 

It saddens me to see people be ignorant.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate

I don't see the point. Personal perception of beauty can not be genuinely transmitted, so once you've said you think something sounds pretty and people ignore it or refute it there isn't anything effective left to be said. I don't want to argue with anyone who isn't interested in understanding.

It saddens me to see people be ignorant.

 

 

Why do YOU even care if other people are ignorant? I mean, really. That sounds like a personal issue that YOU need to get over if you have a problem with other people even though they haven't provoked you. And no, don't use their 'ignorance' as an excuse for provocation. 

 A lot of composers today don't pay much attention to how things sound

HA!

Sure, there are folks who use alternate foundations (mathematical, graphical, chance happenings) for music, but I really hope that, even for them, the ONLY thing any musical composer is paying attention to is "how things sound".

I M 2deep4U, git on muh lebel, plebs

Step 1.  math

Step 2.  ?

Step 3.  profit from the sheep-like masses!!!

HA!

 

Sure, there are folks who use alternate foundations (mathematical, graphical, chance happenings) for music, but I really hope that, even for them, the ONLY thing any musical composer is paying attention to is "how things sound".

The impression I get is that it is not "cool" to care about "how it sounds", at least in the academic/ avant-garde scene.

The impression I get is that it is not "cool" to care about "how it sounds", at least in the academic/ avant-garde scene.

Anyone who cares more about how "cool" they seem than their actual musical output shouldn't get very much attention.

Music characterized as "Academic" will be devoid of any creativity as far as I'm concerned. If it's "weird" for the sake of "academia" or "because it's cool", then it's nonsense; and I hope the serious MUSIC composers can sense a charlatan when the "hear" one....

:dunno:

Why do YOU even care if other people are ignorant? I mean, really. That sounds like a personal issue that YOU need to get over if you have a problem with other people even though they haven't provoked you. And no, don't use their 'ignorance' as an excuse for provocation. 

The insinuation that modern composers in the avant garde academic world aren't concerned with how their music sounds is incredibly offensive. As a member of that group, I have every right to be offended. And it has repeatedly been offensive every time someone makes the same tired old argument that has been shut down in every way possible already hundreds of times.

Don't presume to know what I might find offensive, and don't attack me for voicing said offense clearly and calmly. I stated my visceral emotional reaction so as to make the point known, but refrained from allowing that reaction to otherwise direct my behavior.

The impression I get is that it is not "cool" to care about "how it sounds", at least in the academic/ avant-garde scene.

The only people I seem to have ever heard express such sentiments are outsiders looking in who have no idea what they are saying.

The only people I seem to have ever heard express such sentiments are outsiders looking in who have no idea what they are saying.

Maybe you're just not one of the cool ones, then (;

Anyone who cares more about how "cool" they seem than their actual musical output shouldn't get very much attention.

 

Music characterized as "Academic" will be devoid of any creativity as far as I'm concerned. If it's "weird" for the sake of "academia" or "because it's cool", then it's nonsense; and I hope the serious MUSIC composers can sense a charlatan when the "hear" one....

 

:dunno:

What is 'academic' music to you? Music that is very detailed? Music written by someone affiliated with a university? If either is the case, I believe you're holding a very close minded perspective.

Unrelated to my response to robin: I think it's important to understand that there are other driving forces for music today. Personally, I like to choose the word 'energy'. A vague sound from a cello furiously playing a tremolo on double stop harmonics has a certain energy to it, even though you can't really analyze that sound by practices that are hundreds of years old. A quick, articulated burst of flute multiphonics has a different energy, yet similarly lacks traditional clarity. These kinds of things can be written without 'hearing' the exact resulting pitches, because an experienced composer will know what kind of energy will result from these actions. 

What is 'academic' music to you? Music that is very detailed? Music written by someone affiliated with a university? If either is the case, I believe you're holding a very close minded perspective.

 

I believe he meant "academic" in the sense of "having little practical relevance, a dry theoretical exercise."  Composers who are exploring an idea, just so they can document what the extension of the idea looks like, and maybe write an article about the results, but without actually expecting great music to result.  Kind of a scientific exploration of advanced music theory, rather than composing an actually piece.  Like writing out an exercise from a harmony textbook.  You may use what you learn to write something awesome later, but you don't expect the exercise itself to be great music.  

The problem, of course, is that some people confuse the exercise, which may have some interesting notions in it for future use, with actual good music.  Of course it's worth doing the exploration!  That's the only way we discover interesting new ideas.  Of course it's worth sharing the results of the exploration!  That's the only way anyone else ever finds out what you discovered.  But getting your head all puffed up with the idea that a systematic scientific theory exploration is a work of genius?  Um… maybe not.  If the only people clapping are people who don't trust their own intelligence, and figure if they don't like or understand it, that must mean it's brilliant?  Um…  

(Gauntlet thrown, avant-guard-ists!)  

What is 'academic' music to you? Music that is very detailed? Music written by someone affiliated with a university? If either is the case, I believe you're holding a very close minded perspective.

@pateceramics explains it pretty well.

"Acadamic" being "not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest." (source). 

Some people confuse the exercise, which may have some interesting notions in it for future use, with actual good music.  Of course it's worth doing the exploration!  That's the only way we discover interesting new ideas.  Of course it's worth sharing the results of the exploration!  That's the only way anyone else ever finds out what you discovered.  But getting your head all puffed up with the idea that a systematic scientific theory exploration is a work of genius?  If the only people clapping are people who don't trust their own intelligence, and figure if they don't like or understand it, that must mean it's brilliant?  Um…  

it's great to see exploration and experimentation - the only way to progress as a creative person is through pushing yourself out of your comfort zone, pushing your boundaries. These things should be relegated to rehearsals, open mic nights, or reading sessions. Having a group of musicians with whom to bounce/test ideas without fear or expectation was extremely liberating for me. 

The problem you're noting arises when a half-baked "concept" is passed off as a "composition" on a M.Mus Recital. And when people are too quick to give standing ovations and say "great work on that new piece", it only inflates the "academicness" of a vicious cycle...

Just my thoughts on what I've come across too often, working in an improvisational setting, is that people who feel that "Further Out = Better" .

I believe he meant "academic" in the sense of "having little practical relevance, a dry theoretical exercise." 

No, I mean people affiliated with the better universities or music institutes, people who participate in festivals like Darmstadt or Donaueschingen, and people who get written about in academic circles.

People these days who focus on choir music or just intonation or even writing for conventional ensembles or using standard notation or whatever are generally considered to be behind the curve, or 'reactionary'

No, I mean people affiliated with the better universities or music institutes, people who participate in festivals like Darmstadt or Donaueschingen, and people who get written about in academic circles.

 

People these days who focus on choir music or just intonation or even writing for conventional ensembles or using standard notation or whatever are generally considered to be behind the curve, or 'reactionary'

I don't care one iota about most of those people, and I think we're still kinda talking about the same "Academic"; it just seems to mean more to you than it does to me. ;)

I'm interested in people affiliated with making meaningful MUSIC, people who participate in making music I like, and people who don't get written about in academic circles.