How Committed Are You To Your Compositional Style?

How committed are you to your compositional style? How much do you feel you should stick to the style that you have so far usually composed in?

 

Do you feel diverging from it is a strength, or a weakness? Do you think writing in multiple styles is a strength, or a weakness?

 

Do you think the management of your compositional style - whether you stick to your extant style of diverge from it - and even the very creation of a style to begin with, is a conscious and deliberate process? Or is it rather an unconsciously, naturally occurring matter over which you have little or no control?

Before I answer, what are your goals, or what are you trying to achieve with your music? Do you want to make a career with it, just a hobby, or you want to make the music history books?

Before I answer, what are your goals, or what are you trying to achieve with your music? Do you want to make a career with it, just a hobby, or you want to make the music history books?

 

I would be interested to hear your answers for both cases!

I am fully committed to my style. 

Y'all are going to learn real quick here that I am very much to the point whenever I answer music questions. Some people will love it, and some people will incorrectly label me as arrogent. If you want to make a living as a composer you need to learn every style there is and not limit yourself or your will limit your clientele also. My last paying gigs have been a marching band show, latin style, a school song or alma mater, hymn style, a jazz piece, a trumpet concerto, 12 tone and set theory mixed with melodic, and ballet which was a mixture of electronic, cinematic, and modern dance. You need to have the tools also such as notation software and a DAW such as Cubase. Education and learning new styles is never an inhibitor to creativity. It only makes it stronger. That's as stupid as saying more practice makes a performer worse in their quest of being a virtuoso. A composer should be a virtuoso of composition. Composers spend too much time thinking too much philosophically where they should be homing their technique as an orchestrator instead. If you just want to be a hobbiest, then none of this matters. Just have fun like you are playing and never stress about the beauty of making music. If you want to make the history books you must do one of two things: become a total master of the current style like Bach or Mozart or invent something totally new and get others to follow you and copy your style like Beethoven, Shoenberg, Cage, Debussy, or Stravinsky.

In the old days composers had major patrons.  Composing came along with the job of running the music program at a cathedral, or what have you.  You wrote for the players you had there, in a style that worked well for them, while trying to keep your patron interested.  Means the development of a fairly closed style was in your best interest.  If you had one awesome flute player, and everyone else was only mediocre, I bet you wrote a lot of pieces with easy orchestra parts and lovely flute solos.  And any abrupt change in style was probably a good way to get fired by your sponsor.  If he hated it, you'd be replaced, so you probably gradually developed new musical ideas, pushing your boundaries a little more each time, and then checking to see how he liked it.  

 

Now, there are very few princes or counts who want to sponsor your entire career.  (Thank goodness.  Our society is perhaps a little less stratified than it was.)  That means you have to scramble to find lots of different people to pay you.  That means appealing to a wide variety of needs for instrument groupings and to different tastes as you court sponsors from all over.  A less unified style seems wise.  You're still going to sound like you, because you ARE you.  But you need to be flexible about the details.  Put together as many skills as you can.  Since you aren't personally responsible for debuting all your own pieces, there is nothing to stop you from writing something really new and different and putting it out there to see if anyone picks it up.  At worst, you're just wasting a little time.  Learn everything you can and write the best music you possibly can.  The downside to our time is you're competing with me, but also everyone who came before us for space on the program.  If the orchestra has a choice between playing you or Mozart, your piece has to be spectacular to get played.  

If you want to make a living as a composer you need to learn every style there is and not limit yourself

 

I don't think anyone is saying to limit yourself with regards to genres.

 

I feel like the original question was about YOUR style. 

 

If you have truly explored your musical voice, it's irrelevant if you're writing a symphony, or a string quartet, or a 5-horn jazz piece. It has to be you. If it's not, than it's one of a thousand robotically useless pieces of musical garbage.

 

Unless I read too deeply into the original post.

I wouldn't say that I am. I would be foolish of me to think that I will stick to one style for the rest of my compositional career. I have seen my style change even as recent as a few years ago. Some of the best composers also go through the same change throughout their life times. The Beethoven of Bonn sounds nothing like the mature Beethoven of Vienna. If you say you are committed to a particular style, its more like you are saying you are unwilling to change and grow as a composer. That you feel that you are a master, at such a young age, and that all your music from now on will the same; and thats not a good thing. 

I wouldn't say that I am. I would be foolish of me to think that I will stick to one style for the rest of my compositional career. I have seen my style change even as recent as a few years ago. Some of the best composers also go through the same change throughout their life times. The Beethoven of Bonn sounds nothing like the mature Beethoven of Vienna. If you say you are committed to a particular style, its more like you are saying you are unwilling to change and grow as a composer. That you feel that you are a master, at such a young age, and that all your music from now on will the same; and thats not a good thing. 

 

I think being committed to your personal compositional style would allow for the evolution of that style, since such evolution in style occurs gradually and over many years, not abruptly and usually not in response to a deliberate decision by the composer.

The only thing in life I am fully committed to is God, my wife, and my child. Louderart, you haven't answered my question yet, I agree with Plutokat, and Robinjessome, for you to be fully committed to something you must know what it is. So let's say you had to write a marching band show, a ballet, and a piece for 3rd graders for boomwhackers to be performed in front of the governor's mansion, what is your personal composition style, and how would it reflect in all of those three examples?

I think being committed to your personal compositional style would allow for the evolution of that style, since such evolution in style occurs gradually and over many years, not abruptly and usually not in response to a deliberate decision by the composer.

Sorry, my pea-sized brain cannot fully grasp this deep concept of being fully committed to something but letting it evolve also subjecting it to change. How can I be fully committed to my faith, then let it evolve over the years to suit my needs showing that I never truly believed in my faith to start with? It is the decision of the composer also, he's the one writing his darn music, and style can and does abruptly change. I see it with my private students everyday and I've expeirenced it also. My style completely changed my first semester in music school, thank the Lord, as I learned new compositional techniques. If I was fully committed to the style of my youth my music would still sound like cheesy contempary Christian music, and my student's pieces would all sound like Katie Perry. These are all deliberate decision also. I am working on two large projects right now, and all my brain keeps telling me is, "Make it compositionally mature to be appreciated by academia but musical enough to be loved by the everyday listener."

I think being committed to your personal compositional style would allow for the evolution of that style, since such evolution in style occurs gradually and over many years, not abruptly and usually not in response to a deliberate decision by the composer.

If you are fully committed to your style, in which you are now hinting that you are, what is it? To be committed at something, such as a relationship, you better know what it is.

Ooh!  Ooh!  Everybody define your style!  I'm curious to how you would all define yourselves.  I feel like I know most of your musical inclinations a bit by now…  

 

Pateceramics:  A strong emphasis on vocal music, leaning heavily on the traditions of early music and Southern Appalachian folk songs and spirituals, characterized by frequent use of modal lines and counterpoint with preference given to the melodic strength of individual lines over strict common practice era rules of harmony. Singable parts for all voices and cross rhythms for interest.  The "melody" is frequently in a voice other than the soprano.  

Ooh! Ooh! Everybody define your style! I'm curious to how you would all define yourselves. I feel like I know most of your musical inclinations a bit by now…

Pateceramics: A strong emphasis on vocal music, leaning heavily on the traditions of early music and Southern Appalachian folk songs and spirituals, characterized by frequent use of modal lines and counterpoint with preference given to the melodic strength of individual lines over strict common practice era rules of harmony. Singable parts for all voices and cross rhythms for interest. The "melody" is frequently in a voice other than the soprano.

Great job! Now I want you to compose a tuba concerto with piano accompaniment for $5000, and make the finale in a Yiddish dance. How are you going to commit to your style and abide my wishes also. Go... Edited May 4, 2015 by Rodney Money

Just gotta say, Rodney's brusque personality is quite refreshing! Welcome to YC! 

Happy to be here, my friend!

Great job! Now I want you to compose a tuba concerto with piano accompaniment for $5000, and make the finale in a Yiddish dance. How are you going to commit to your style and abide my wishes also. Go...

The use of modes can stay, the counterpoint can stay, melody in a lower voice can stay, cross-rhythms can stay.  I see no conflict, frankly.  And happy World Tuba Day to any who were celebrating this weekend.  (:

Great job! But you said this can stay and that can stay... if you are committed to your style as I am with my family, you can't pick and choose. In the words of a wise Asian, "It's all or nothing." I can't say to my family concerning vacation, "Wife, you can go to the beach, but baby will stay." Or I will be the one who will stay at home. :) Maybe your definition of your style is too descriptive and needs to be condensed?

Well I'm not sure how to define my own style since I'm really just fiddling around with different things at this point in an attempt to test the waters and get a feel for different ways of composing. I don't think I really have one yet, if I ever will. I think what's more important than sticking to one style or another is making sure that no matter what style you're composing in, that you realize your own artistic vision to the best of your ability without sacrificing the practicality of the circumstances under which you're composing.

 

Translation: Do what you need to do, in a way that you're happy to do it.

 

Maybe that's what it means to be committed to your own style. Who says a personal style is a style in the same sense as how we define musical styles academically? It could be that it just means being able to envision the music the way you would best like to realize it and then doing that. If that's the case, then you can be committed to your style despite the fact that it may not always be exactly the same in every scenario. Just like faith in God and a relationship with your family may develop and grow for better or worse, so can your way of perceiving, imagining, and composing music.

 

But what do I know? I'm just some 20 year old from Texas who done went and starting making' music and ain't yet finished school. Perhaps the more enlightened on this site are better prepared to debate these topics.

Great job! But you said this can stay and that can stay... if you are committed to your style as I am with my family, you can't pick and choose. In the words of a wise Asian, "It's all or nothing." I can't say to my family concerning vacation, "Wife, you can go to the beach, but baby will stay." Or I will be the one who will stay at home. :) Maybe your definition of your style is too descriptive and needs to be condensed?

You forget, I was one of the people arguing for flexibility.  What I was describing was my "style" as it exists so far.  If I mentioned to somebody that I like composing, and they asked what kind of stuff I write, that's what I'd tell them.  Doesn't mean I can't or won't write anything else, but that description would give someone a good idea of what to expect, if they decided to look my work up later. Every moment is the starting point for the rest of your life.  That description is where I reside currently.  

 

(And you can absolutely leave the baby home and go to the beach with your wife.  That's what grandparents are for:  saving your sanity in the early years of child-rearing.)

(And you can absolutely leave the baby home and go to the beach with your wife.  That's what grandparents are for:  saving your sanity in the early years of child-rearing.)

 

 

BAM!  Sometimes, one of a composer's stylistic characteristics is doing things that are uncharacteristic of them!  A "stylistic-side-stepping" if you will ... 

 

 

I almost missed this nugget: 

 

How can I be fully committed to my faith, then let it evolve over the years to suit my needs showing that I never truly believed in my faith to start with? 

 

Is this what you actually believe?

 

Maybe I'm taking this out of context or something, but being "fully committed" to something doesn't mean ignoring outside influences and not allowing for progress or growth. I wonder what our musical landscape would be like if we couldn't change our style as we went along! 

 

You can't let your style "harden" - we have to be constantly exploring and moving forward to be making any meaningful or creative music.

Robin, you are a lot of fun. Great to meet you. Concerning your "Bam!" statement, when composers such as Stravinsky start doing things that are uncharacteristic of them, those pieces are either forgotten or considered lesser than their other works. Take for example his 12 tone technique fanfare "Fanfare for a New Theatre." The only people who like that piece are trumpet players for the technical challenge, music theorists to find all the different rows and their variants, and people in the audience who think they should like it just because Stravinsky wrote it, but the piece sounds like total garbage to the ears and especially compared to his other works. I do, however, love it when composers do something uncharacteristic of themselves, but it is more impressive when they can tie that new technique back into their own style. Now when Beethoven in his 3rd symphony started doing things differently that was a very good thing, because he was still developing his style breaking away from the musical influences that surrounded him.

 

Being fully committed, as in my wife, means I WILL ignore outside influences. Being fully committed to God means I WILL ignore the outside influences of this world. I will not be shaken from those. That's fully committed. I'm not fully committed into my "style of music." I love learning and expanding even writing pieces that didn't sound like me from one piece to the next. You said you are fully committed to your style, and when I hear that I hear unchanging or your words, "harden" no matter what a client tries to commission you to write. I don't understand your definition of being fully committed... but will change if needed. Sounds like a politician.             

When composers such as Stravinsky start doing things that are uncharacteristic of them, those pieces are either forgotten or considered lesser than their other works. Take for example his 12 tone technique fanfare "Fanfare for a New Theatre." The only people who like that piece are trumpet players for the technical challenge, music theorists to find all the different rows and their variants, and people in the audience who think they should like it just because Stravinsky wrote it, but the piece sounds like total garbage to the ears and especially compared to his other works. .

             

Ah, but what about the crappy pieces he wrote when he was 8, that history is, thankfully, blissfully unaware of.  We only know about what happened after he started getting good.  We don't know about everything that came before, perhaps with many changes of style, that laid the groundwork for his mature compositions.  History sorts, ultimately.  I'm not sure it's really something we should worry over very much.  Write as much as you can.  Learn as much as you can.  Change if you discover an interesting new direction. History will decide what was good and what was trivial long after you are dead.  Was it Newton who spent years and years trying to find secret codes in the Bible and pursuing alchemy?  Do those dead ends lessen his more valuable accomplishments?  You don't know a path is a dead end until you've tried it.  But it takes courage to admit you've made a mistake and turn around.  And ultimately, the one thing that determines whether you make a contribution to society or not is whether you get out of bed and try some stuff.  So many people are just too afraid to take that first step.  

I also said this though, and I wished Stravinsky did it also, it is great when they can tie the new technique they learned back into their own style. The only pieces that get recognize are works that are worth publication.

Nice to meet you also.

 

I don't understand your definition of being fully committed... but will change if needed. Sounds like a politician.             

 

Here's the main problem ;)

 

I'm committed - but clearly not in the way you're taking it.

 

I've committed myself fully to something that puts great emphasis on freedom, looseness and coaxing compelling music from the musicians; I lay a framework and structure with generally dark and lugubrious textures.

 

I'm committed to openness and chance.

 

I'm committed fully to not committing to your definition of "commitment" ... I guess.

 

I think, essentially we hold the same musical values; however, I really do feel that you have to fuilly embrace your style before it can even become your style. You also have to be prepared to completely abandon anything/everything if you find that what you're committed to no longer applies.  (this works for music, careers, religion...whatever).