Do You Have A Style As A Composer?

Noah, you bring up a good point in that labels of style or originality are usually pinned on artists by "the audience," and most composers, myself included, do not feel so defined by an identifiable style. I have propensities and weaknesses, and I put in a lot of effort to keep them hidden. 😉

It's difficult to answer. To have a style at an early stage probably means the composer is in a rut. (I feel like this myself in "personal" mode with favoured harmonies, progressions and stuff) even supposing it matters which it probably doesn't. But in the longer term perhaps persistent composers develop a style rut or not that makes them recognisable. I can scent a few composers a mile off (unless they're tribute acts, sort of. I mean, it's rare that a youngish composer isn't influenced by one or more earlier ones). As for labels, as you say, they're invented/attached by musical hangers-on who do love to categorise. It can help, though. If a category become established and one's looking to explore, signposts can be useful. 

On 1/20/2019 at 3:53 PM, Quinn said:

Point is, how it guides a composer moving beyond the conventional with the hope of a degree of acceptance.  The vague "language" of music does seem to work for most people if it can provide various anchors on which listeners can latch. I could be wildly out but without too much contrivance it's possible. It could always be that it reflects the preferences of composers when it works. 

An interesting subject and one that will engage academia more than composers I reckon. Too much tinkering with magic spells can break creativity. I'm ill-qualified to discuss psychoacoustics. Am happier with semiotics and meanings production but appreciate at least some applications of psychoacoustics.

One of the things found in all the research is that, since you can get emotional responses out, well, basically any kind of communication (languages you don't understand, noises, whatever,) you can argue that the degree of "understanding" you have of a language just allows it to trigger finer and more nuanced responses (expectation breaks, comedy, etc, all that.) The "problem" of something like serial music or any kind of music that is "random" sounding enough that it makes you default to basic responses is that it can't immediately engage you on the level of stuff that you're familiar with. This obviously changes drastically the more you expose yourself and familiarize yourself with different kinds of musical languages.

One thing that happens when you ARE familiar with the musical language, enough to have actual expectations, is that a curious things starts to happen which is that music that constantly breaks expectation is more "interesting," or "pleasurable" to listen to, but the break has to be just right. Too tame and it doesn't excite the brain centers enough, too harsh and it pulls you out of it. This kind of expectancy "curve" is what drives a lot of music composition from all sorts of people, Beethoven, Bach, you name it. They did it, obviously, purely on intuition, but we know now that they were "guided" by how the brain actually perceives those breaks in expectation. There's a lot to unpack in this theory, but I've been investigating this subject for the last 10 years, I think it's amazing how much we have discovered. Additionally, this can apply to any musical language, all it takes is enough consistency and familiarity to develop expectancy.

Here are two papers you can read that back up my statements:

http://www.stefan-koelsch.de/papers/Fritz_2009_CurrBiol.pdf

and

http://www.stefan-koelsch.de/papers/Koelsch_2008_ERAN_EDA_music_meaning_syntax_emotion.pdf

There are a bunch of other papers that go in depth into both things, usually with new studies and some new insight, but these are good starting points. You need to brush up on some neurology to really understand what's going on in the brain itself, but you can get a pretty good idea of what's going on even if you just look at the graphs.

Well, here's an interesting discussion.  Would that they were not so rare these days!   

To answer the original question, most (but not all) of my music falls within an immediately identifiable historical style.  Within the fairly narrow confines of that style, I invariably try to do certain things differently and uniquely according to my own sensibilities, while remaining as faithful to the style as possible - creating something new with old tools, as it were.  I've been told this gives much of my historicist music a flavour that is uniquely my own, and I would like to believe this is true.  It is certainly something I continually strive for on some level as I compose.  There would be little value to my self-expression in this manner were there nothing about it that is mine, and mine alone.  That said, it is not of paramount importance to me that my personal expression is as unmistakable as that of Beethoven, for example, only that I have been at once true to the historical style in which I am writing, and to my own artistic sensibilities.    

Likewise, in my "modern" voice, I follow the dictates of my own sensibilities in hopes that what results is something that is my own unique expression.       

20 hours ago, SSC said:

One thing that happens when you ARE familiar with the musical language, enough to have actual expectations, is that a curious things starts to happen which is that music that constantly breaks expectation is more "interesting," or "pleasurable" to listen to, but the break has to be just right. Too tame and it doesn't excite the brain centers enough, too harsh and it pulls you out of it. This kind of expectancy "curve" is what drives a lot of music composition from all sorts of people, Beethoven, Bach, you name it. They did it, obviously, purely on intuition, but we know now that they were "guided" by how the brain actually perceives those breaks in expectation. There's a lot to unpack in this theory, but I've been investigating this subject for the last 10 years, I think it's amazing how much we have discovered. Additionally, this can apply to any musical language, all it takes is enough consistency and familiarity to develop expectancy.

 

Here are two papers you can read that back up my statements:

http://www.stefan-koelsch.de/papers/Fritz_2009_CurrBiol.pdf

and

http://www.stefan-koelsch.de/papers/Koelsch_2008_ERAN_EDA_music_meaning_syntax_emotion.pdf

There are a bunch of other papers that go in depth into both things, usually with new studies and some new insight, but these are good starting points. You need to brush up on some neurology to really understand what's going on in the brain itself, but you can get a pretty good idea of what's going on even if you just look at the graphs.

 

Interesting. I'm often sceptical of such studies as my first question is what they seek to achieve in practical terms. Some application is fairly obvious but trying to understand the perception of music is always going to be fraught with problems. Whether you attempt analysis with scientific method or the softer approach of semiotics you hit problems straight away as you're dealing with individuals. And if there's one thing that psychology can't get at it's an individual's raw data, having to rely on anecdote and social norms and things. Even phsyiological psychology still has to treat the individual as a "black box". 

I did read the papers and had comments on both which would take rather a lot of space to list. #1 raised more questions than answers: narrow, relying on music attempting to communicate emotions (and fairly basic emotions at that) - not all music aims to communicate emotion. It speaks of universality but I think we already knew of that. An aficionado of Far Eastern or African music will be well aware of these regions incorporating western styles particularly in popular music. It probably appeared in the Far East thanks to interest in "classical music" (particularly Japan but also Hong Kong) brought in a century ago when these countries opened up to the west. In Africa probably through colonisation. Japan created westernised orchestras across the last century, sent its music students to Germany, France, the UK and the States. [Edit]My far and away favourite Bruckner conductor was Japanese (alas now deceased).

The second paper interested me in that it extended questions raised in Die Reihe, a series of periodicals from the 1950s but addressed more by musicians than scientists but who were nonetheless engaged in all aspects of the avant garde. Even so, Eimert did an excellent piece in Vol 6 Sprache und Musik, about information theory and communication - bordering on what became semiotics. It's the source of my interest in semiotics. However, semiotic research re music is probably wasted effort. Although music does contain quasi-linguistic elements they're too vague and the cultural/philosophical pressures external to the music itself are in themselves  complex. So trying to relate sign to signified will never be more than hypothesis. More in the line of philosophy and what reality is about? 

I noticed both papers emanated from Germany. What we need now is research into whether and how symbolist music communicates a mood/picture. Does that have universality? 

An interesting topic.

13 hours ago, J. Lee Graham said:

Well, here's an interesting discussion.  Would that they were not so rare these days!   

To answer the original question, most (but not all) of my music falls within an immediately identifiable historical style.  Within the fairly narrow confines of that style, I invariably try to do certain things differently and uniquely according to my own sensibilities, while remaining as faithful to the style as possible - creating something new with old tools, as it were.  I've been told this gives my much of my historicist music a flavour that is uniquely my own, and I would like to believe this is true.  It is certainly something I continually strive for on some level as I compose.  There would be little value to my self-expression in this manner were there nothing about it that is mine, and mine alone.  That said, it is not of paramount importance to me that my personal expression is as unmistakable as that of Beethoven, for example, only that I have been at once true to the historical style in which I am writing, and to my own artistic sensibilities.    

Likewise, in my "modern" voice, I follow the dictates of my own sensibilities in hopes that what results is something that is my own unique expression.    

  

 

I'm not as fortunate, probably because I was ready to prostitute developing style (if that isn't self-flattery) for any commission that exposed my music to the public, paid for or not. I love the classical style more from a listening perspective and if I can partially manage it in shortish pieces it's because my early days involved a conventional route through theory and counterpoint. (All thanks to a choirmaster who taught me 4-part harmony etc.) Unfortunately it was dashed by later education that branded classical techniques and tonality heretic you'd think. I remember almost being thrown out when asked to write an essay on what Webern contributed to contemporary music. I wrote just one line; "He closed blind alleys."  For that I got zero. The push to write "contemporary music" caused harm from which I still haven't recovered. But if I prefer a style for personal expression it's symbolism (impressionism) and occasionally turn to formal classical styles. Too often my smaller efforts turn into light music but that isn't a problem to me. 

You are absolutely right in that it still allows scope to develop an unique flavour. Whatever contemporary artists may claim it is still more pleasantly received than the mish-mash of sound that passes for their efforts - in general at least.

32 minutes ago, Quinn said:

Interesting. I'm often sceptical of such studies as my first question is what they seek to achieve in practical terms. Some application is fairly obvious but trying to understand the perception of music is always going to be fraught with problems. Whether you attempt analysis with scientific method or the softer approach of semiotics you hit problems straight away as you're dealing with individuals. And if there's one thing that psychology can't get at it's an individual's raw data, having to rely on anecdote and social norms and things. Even phsyiological psychology still has to treat the individual as a "black box". 

I did read the papers and had comments on both which would take rather a lot of space to list. #1 raised more questions than answers: narrow, relying on music attempting to communicate emotions (and fairly basic emotions at that) - not all music aims to communicate emotion. It speaks of universality but I think we already knew of that.

The purpose of research is to further our knowledge of the world/universe. Secondly, these studies are all neurology studies (under the bigger umbrella of cognitive science.) The point is, then, that it's not so much the individual that matters at this point since we're talking about brain functions and things that we all share. This research is valuable, to me, precisely because it doesn't have a layer of mushy psychology or sociology to it, instead it looks out through pure empiricism. The sociological factors are also tackled through empiricism when adequate, such as comparing the brains of musicians vs non musicians, and so on.

As for emotion, the major breakthrough of the studies published in 2009-2010 was that we finally had a tangible physical basis for music causing any sort of emotion. Amazing as it may sound, that was a mystery up until that point. The point here is not that music "communicates" anything, but rather that you react to musical stimuli with the activation of the emotional centers. This doesn't need to be the case either, seeing as you don't react emotionally to all sound all the time. This is where culture and familiarity play a role in deciding what things you should interpret emotionally and which you shouldn't bother with.

http://www.stefan-koelsch.de/papers/Koelsch_2010_TICS_music_emotion.pdf

As for this being a German thing, well I happened to meet Mr Koelsch in person back in 2009 just when this stuff was happening as he gave a lecture on it during a conference in the Music Conservatory in Leipzig, which I was visiting at the time. We talked quite a bit about the research and music, specially modern music, and I was also surprised (but not that much) to find out he was also a musician himself. The research wasn't purely done in Germany though, if you see the credits listed there are contributions from many other universities around the world.

I think I have to leave it there. Sincerely appreciating your views as a scientist and reseacher, I venture only a musician's opinion and perhaps that of a systems analyst hence my interest in neuroscience and (baiscally) process. We seem to be approaching from different directions.  I appreciate what research aims to do and my concern is for its value and priority. Whether generalisations help -EDIT [regarding the Arts and their reception], I don't know but somehow doubt. Will these studies lead to a better understanding of music reception. As I reckon it, music isn't there to be understood any more than a piece of cake is meant to be understood.

Just my opinion however. 

On 1/22/2019 at 7:53 AM, Quinn said:

I love the classical style more from a listening perspective and if I can partially manage it in shortish pieces it's because my early days involved a conventional route through theory and counterpoint. (All thanks to a choirmaster who taught me 4-part harmony etc.) Unfortunately it was dashed by later education that branded classical techniques and tonality heretic you'd think.

So your later education spoiled your affinity as a composer for an historical style?  That's tragic.  I never finished my degree because I perceived that my professors were not going to let me be the composer I wanted to be, but I have always regretted not sticking it out.  I usually advise young composers to go ahead and study composition, learn what they teach you as a body of knowledge, write what they tell you to write, but do your best to remain true to who you really are as a composer, whatever that may be.  If the system brainwashes the student to the point that that's not possible, even in a few cases, perhaps I should reassess that advice.  I'm sorry for your experience - from your tone, I can tell it has embittered you somewhat, and I can't say as I blame you.       

1 hour ago, J. Lee Graham said:

I usually advise young composers to go ahead and study composition, learn what they teach you as a body of knowledge, write what they tell you to write, but do your best to remain true to who you really are as a composer, whatever that may be.  If the system brainwashes the student to the point that that's not possible, even in a few cases, perhaps I should reassess that advice.

Yes, I agree that people should stick to their studies and just do what they're told if it comes to that, because honestly nobody can stop you from writing whatever you want to write on your free time and after you finish studying. Nobody can really brainwash you to write stuff you think is horrible, you can of course just lie to yourself, but that's 100% on you. Hell, I've been writing neoclassical stuff in the last five years or so, despite most of my output (MOST, I actually wrote my first neoclassical sonata for piano DURING my composition study, along with other stuff that was way more "out there") during my study time being very modern and crazy (and fun!) You need to be smart about things, be good at all styles, learn all techniques, learn all you can and use all you can use as often as you can and get stuff performed, no matter what it is, as often as you can. That's why you study somewhere, that's why you go through all that effort.

If you're just going to hide and be like "I don't like modern music boo hoo D:" then studying composition at a conservatory is really not something for you. I'd rather have that space saved for people who actually can appreciate an education that goes into all sorts of styles and pushes them to do things that may make them uncomfortable or force them to think outside of their comfort zones. In other words, people who actually want to grow and improve.

On 1/23/2019 at 5:30 PM, SSC said:

 

If you're just going to hide and be like "I don't like modern music boo hoo D:" then studying composition at a conservatory is really not something for you. I'd rather have that space saved for people who actually can appreciate an education that goes into all sorts of styles and pushes them to do things that may make them uncomfortable or force them to think outside of their comfort zones. In other words, people who actually want to grow and improve.

 

What the heck? Getting a bit hoity-toity aren't we? LOL. You aren't an Aries perchance are you? I find that when you get to level of talking down to people, your arguments are lost.

For that matter many of us do prostitute our styles to get our work before the public. Studying CPP gives a creator a lot more control over what she/he#s doing, be assured (because most recipients are happier with music more widely acceptable) and most of us know how to get our bread buttered whether musically or otherwise. The most important lesson I learned while at the RA was "grab any commission you can get."

13 minutes ago, Quinn said:

What the heck?

It's the truth though, isn't it? Lots of people quit for that reason and I like to make fun of them for rejecting an education in favor of staying inside a bubble. I guess I should applaud them instead for making room for people who want to actually learn something.

Quote

For that matter many of us do prostitute our styles to get our work before the public. Studying CPP gives a creator a lot more control over what she/he#s doing, be assured (because most recipients are happier with music more widely acceptable) and most of us know how to get our bread buttered whether musically or otherwise. The most important lesson I learned while at the RA was "grab any commission you can get."

"Prostitute," lol. A job's a job, there's nothing dishonorable or shameful about work. Either way, I do think that some people coming out of composition studies at university (that I've met at least) are pretty trash at writing style copies, but it's nothing they can't just remedy with all the stuff they had to study either way, if they really had to.

I think you're going to have to accept that you aren't the only person who's had a formal musical education. We don't reject the education when it IS education - but the basic question still arises: how can you teach someone to create? Answer is: you can't. You can inspire them, given them tools, drop hints about how they might better use those tools, tell them whether you like what they've done or not which is of course a personal opinion. You can suggest outcomes and ideas - and a student may take them in; may feel obliged to take them in. I'm not even sure that university is the right place to "teach" creative subjects. There were once Arts Colleges and Academies that awarded diplomas. Universities trying to academise hands-on subjects are con merchants to me, crashing in on a nice earner so they can pay their deans £half a million in salaries. 

However if there is a composer in me it bears no relation to what attempts were made to "teach" me to create. 

Look up the word education. Its roots are e-ducere, Latin - to lead out.  

33 minutes ago, Quinn said:

I think you're going to have to accept that you aren't the only person who's had a formal musical education. We don't reject the education when it IS education - but the basic question still arises: how can you teach someone to create? Answer is: you can't.

Move the goal-posts and argue semantics all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that in life you gotta put up with stuff you sometimes may not enjoy, and some people just can't stomach that. I get it, but I don't really need to be sympathetic.

I'm also not nearly as arrogant as to make such categorical claim. I think you can teach anything, so long as the person is willing to learn. If that's "how to create," then so be it, but honestly that's such a vague thing that I can't really know until I see an actual example. As far as I've been able to "teach composition," I've had a lot of experience doing exactly what you're saying can't be done.

Hell, I've taught people who had never composed a thing in their life or done anything remotely creative. It's a skill, like any other. Composers (and artists) always run the risk of thinking what they do is somehow "special" and "can't be taught," that's ridiculous. It all depends on what the person wants to do, and if they really want to endure the work to get what they want.

1 hour ago, SSC said:

 

Well, I don't want to turn this into an argument so I'll leave it there. I move no goal posts. I was giving a view. I am WELL aware than an amount can be taught. That's what species counterpoint was about after all. But it doesn't make someone artist or creator.

1 hour ago, Quinn said:

But it doesn't make someone artist or creator.

Why not? Who decides when someone is an artist or creator? Anyone who creates is a creator and anyone who does anything artistic is an artist. You may not like what they do, and so on, but that doesn't change the fact they are creating and doing artistic things all the same.

Like I said I'm sitting out now. If you can't get your head around the common-sense, consensus view (and it is just a view, it'll never be a definition) of what an artist or creator is then I've nothing more to add. 

:)

2 hours ago, Quinn said:

Like I said I'm sitting out now. If you can't get your head around the common-sense, consensus view (and it is just a view, it'll never be a definition) of what an artist or creator is then I've nothing more to add. 

🙂

 

Yeah, dunno dude but your "common-sense, consensus view" (whatever that may be) means absolutely jack to me. But hey, you do you.

I'm of the controversial opinion — and I'll die on this hill — that the arts, western music included, have long since reached their highest possible standards.

I will argue that paintings by the likes of Michelangelo and Da Vinci, sculptures such as David or The Rape of Persephone, western classical, baroque, romantic, folk, etc. music, and so on were and remain the best examples of their respective mediums. They exemplify the mastery over their respective crafts that one ought to aspire to.

And this is obvious in the fact that these works continue to stand the test of time as being considered the all-time greats. They still have this appeal to people, hundreds of years later.

Here's the thing about reaching a high standard: The only way to truly be "original" from there is to do something that defies this standard, and the inevitable result of abandoning that paradigm is a lower standard.

In the contemporary sense regarding film music, John Williams, Goldsmith, Silvestri, Korngold, etc. are still seen as the gold standard. Their music for Star Wars, Back To The Future, whatever...they're the most popular orchestral pieces of the 20th and so far 21st centuries. Why? Because they are reminiscent of, and in many cases directly lift from the standards established in the romantic era and before. 

"Batman Begins" or the scores to most of the Marvel movies, are absolutely NOT of that standard. They work for what they are, but what they are is vapid, empty pieces of music to accompany vapid, empty films. The only piece most people can recall any melody from in the entire franchise, is the "Avenger's Theme"...composed by Alan Silvestri.

These kinds of works, will — and I'll argue already have — fallen by the wayside if not be forgotten entirely in time. The MCU, much like the band KISS, will be remembered more for their record-breaking sales and furthering of unabashed consumerism of the day than any actual artistic or cultural worth.

So what to do about originality?

Concern yourself with living up the high standards of yore rather than being unique. 

The obsession with being "unique" is actually a lie anyway, one which is symptomatic of society's post-enlightenment shift away from seeking to cultivate virtue and wisdom by understanding what we ought to love. It's fine to love trailer music, but you ought to love the works of Mozart or John Williams more. Otherwise, what you wind up doing is trying to convince everyone else to conform to the idea that your music of a lower standard, is actually just as good as any of the greats because you feel there is no inherent meaning in anything other than that which we choose to impart on it.

So I agree with Coleridge about the waterfall: The waterfall is, and has to be sublime — not just "pretty".

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

I'm of the controversial opinion — and I'll die on this hill — that the arts, western music included, have long since reached their highest possible standards.

At least this dude is outright honest about his opinion. I mean, I think it's a worthless opinion to have, but he's totally free to have it.

I think it'd be terribly depressing if all you could ever hope to achieve is some discount version of some "great" thing everyone worships. Thankfully that's not my world view so w/e.

2 hours ago, SSC said:

At least this dude is outright honest about his opinion. I mean, I think it's a worthless opinion to have, but he's totally free to have it.

 

I think it'd be terribly depressing if all you could ever hope to achieve is some discount version of some "great" thing everyone worships. Thankfully that's not my world view so w/e.

 

You embody the exact kind of neurosis, materialism and projection that I, Monarcheon, and the OP have all referred to. Just because you cannot recognize or do not want to put in the effort to live up to a standard of quality does not make whatever you want to substitute it with just as good. "Different" doesn't matter when different sucks compared to the standard.

This

Is not simply a "discount version" of this

Rather, they are both works of a similarly high standard. And while this

May be "different", it is definitely not as good, and the sculptor nowhere near as skilled as the previous examples.

13 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

You embody the exact kind of neurosis, materialism and projection that I, Monarcheon, and the OP have all referred to. Just because you cannot recognize or do not want to put in the effort to live up to a standard of quality does not make whatever you want to substitute it with just as good. "Different" doesn't matter when different sucks compared to the standard.

Nah, you don't want to argue with me about this anymore than I want to have staring contest with a brick wall. I think your opinion is quite worthless already, what do you want me to say? You don't seem to grasp that people have different tastes and that your value judgement on art is just applicable to yourself and nobody else. AND, you also decided that your opinion on this is not up for debate, hence why should I bother?

2 hours ago, SSC said:

You don't seem to grasp that people have different tastes and that your value judgement on art is just applicable to yourself and nobody else

Before this degenerated into rancor, there were many good points made on a subject that is difficult to unravel, especially in cyber space. But there was already agreement in some areas, the finer points a which got lost in cross talk. Thanks for your efforts!

I think anyone who works at music long enough develops a style, even if it does change and they are sometimes not consciously aware of it.   I often record parts into my DAW (Logic Pro).  Then edit, fine tune, or do 'processes' on them..  Referring to the piano roll editor, and score editor.  I've developed some techniques over the years to get a part into shape, faster than I used to.  Although I've done a decently wide range of music styles over the years, some of my long time friends say, 'oh yes, it has that Mark Styles style (my real name Mark Styles)..  

37 years ago, I was in a short lived 3 piece all synthesizer band.. Recently we got in touch with each other.  One of the guys still makes music, posts it on Soundcloud.  This guy is completely self taught.. and it is fascinating, because I can see where he has evolved his style of composition and performance, since the we worked together.  He has developed his own 'mannerisms, or vocabulary to create parts'.  Not that his music is outside of what is normal these days. But it definitely has a few unique twists to it.  

I remember back in the late 60's listening to The Beatles, and The Beachboys.  I realized by their 4-5th albums, they were beginning to 'influence themselves'.  That is they built and expanded on a technique or style they recorded a year earlier. So although The Beatles tackled every genre of rock/pop music there was. There was usually something in it, which made it identifiable to them. (the Leslie guitar) throwing in bars of I/V/IV chords as a filler, changing vocal harmony intervals for different parts of song. .  After they split up, I noticed George Harrison was the best, and at writing a new song, that could sound exactly like The Beatles had done it, even with the passage of time..