Composing too Competitive?

I'd like to get people's input on this...it's a question I posed for my tiny Rep & Ped class in college right before graduating, and it was an interesting discussion. I look at the composing world and sometimes fear that we can get wrapped up in this need to compete in our compositions. So many people (including laypeople) see big, hour-long massive works for full orchestra as being somehow "better" than a simple two-and-a-half-minute chamber work. Some folks even develop prejudices to anything mainstream, claiming that any music that's unpopular is better than any music that IS popular based solely on the popularity of the music. Or the opposite occurs--composers entering competitions might alter their own truly unique voice to compose and submit a work that they feel will be more "popularly accepted."

So why this need to compete? Why must we write for the biggest ensemble (Mahler wins this one, I think), or compose the longest piece (Rodgers' Victory at Sea, right?), or even be the most prolific composer (I'd say Mozart has a good head start)? Why can't we be content with simply bettering our own music, refining our own unique voices so that our individually-crafted music speaks the way WE want it to speak, without worrying about how popular it will be or the awards it might receive?

Now, don't get me wrong--I'm not accusing everyone of behaving this way. I easily recognize that there are plenty of composers that are concentrating more on producing the music that individual composer wants to hear for him-/herself, which is very fine. I just can't help but feel that sometimes composers aren't taken as seriously if their works aren't such-and-such length or written for such-and-such ensemble. And this leads me to question the very nature of what we consider to be "good" music. Does anyone else ever feel this way?

I'd like to get people's input on this...it's a question I posed for my tiny Rep & Ped class in college right before graduating, and it was an interesting discussion. I look at the composing world and sometimes fear that we can get wrapped up in this need to compete in our compositions. So many people (including laypeople) see big, hour-long massive works for full orchestra as being somehow "better" than a simple two-and-a-half-minute chamber work. Some folks even develop prejudices to anything mainstream, claiming that any music that's unpopular is better than any music that IS popular based solely on the popularity of the music. Or the opposite occurs--composers entering competitions might alter their own truly unique voice to compose and submit a work that they feel will be more "popularly accepted."

So why this need to compete? Why must we write for the biggest ensemble (Mahler wins this one, I think), or compose the longest piece (Rodgers' Victory at Sea, right?), or even be the most prolific composer (I'd say Mozart has a good head start)? Why can't we be content with simply bettering our own music, refining our own unique voices so that our individually-crafted music speaks the way WE want it to speak, without worrying about how popular it will be or the awards it might receive?

Now, don't get me wrong--I'm not accusing everyone of behaving this way. I easily recognize that there are plenty of composers that are concentrating more on producing the music that individual composer wants to hear for him-/herself, which is very fine. I just can't help but feel that sometimes composers aren't taken as seriously if their works aren't such-and-such length or written for such-and-such ensemble. And this leads me to question the very nature of what we consider to be "good" music. Does anyone else ever feel this way?

Long works have more chances of great music than small works.

Mozart was extremely prolific because it was his job and greatest pleasure. Also, he composed in his head so it was all very quick.

Classical composers didn't ever care about awards. Only modern guys do.

Yup, changing styles for competition is dumb because today's style is dumb.

Also, all the people you mentioned in the larges, longest etc. composed the way they felt too. They just felt like the way you mentioned. That's it.

More notably, a lot of the old composers got payed by composition length, so the goal was to write lots and lots of music, throw it into a piece, and get money. I think people today don't realize the long pieces were usually comissioned in that way, and not written just to be good music.

"Beethoven's 9th is over an hour long! My symphony is only at 24 minutes. Therefor, I should write 40 more minutes of stuff to be great."

Dear PianoMangidley,

I am glad that someone posted this topic. I have noticed this phenomena for a fact, moslty because of myself. I grew up in Serbia in the real ghetto and 2Pac, Ice Cube were like Gods to me, due to their rebelation spirit. As a teenager i used to go through different phases. I started listening to Backstreet Boys(my sister hooked me up), than i foound out about Metallica and i was going crazy and my little brothers friend showed me a tape of eminem and ofcourse i started listening.

I was so called underground and i despised Mainstream, i hated those rappers that lyrically were the bottom of a pitt. But, if you actually look at the words and the ability to pronounce them, give enough pause between bars, and just make it interesting is actually better than writing deep lyrics to look smart and that noone can understand you.

Also, it is very true that ill rather listen to the whole orchestra than a quartet, trio or maybe a solo instrument. why is that?

Again, todays music, which basically is 10 seconds of music streched over five minutes in looping. That is why i look for a great melody, and a hit sound. Lately i have been training my ear to stay further away from that hearing factor so i can enjoy in different aspects of music.

I have started to pay attention to the combiantion of instruments, timbre, rhytm, diffrent melody lines(counterpoint) and many other things.

OH YEA!!! the most important thing. Today, everything is about money. But i think forced music is not really good music. I would not like to be forced to make a beat on a spot in front of the artist. (HIPHOP)...But i would like to look at the movie, get inspired and sit down and write some music.

The whole idea of that kind of competition in music reminds me of the cargo cults of the South Pacific... let's take a look.

During World War II, in the course of military operations by both the Americans and Japanese, soldiers built airstrips on islands all over the South Pacific, and aircraft started bringing in manufactured goods, canned food, weapons, and other cargo in large quantities to equip soldiers... and also the islanders who were their guides.

But after the war the airstrips were all abandoned, and the cargo stopped arriving. Some of the natives started imitating the "rituals" performed by the soldiers who had been there, in hopes of bringing back the cargo. They cleared runways, built control towers and sat in them wearing "headsets" carved from wood, stood on the runways waving landing signals, lit torches lining the runways, and built life-size "airplanes", believing that such rituals would cause the planes to start landing again. Of course, the planes bearing cargo never came.

That's where music seems to be going these days. In academia, revolution for the sake of revolution, ignoring the fact that Beethoven wasn't great because he was revolutionary, he was great because he wrote great music that happened to also be revolutionary! Where's the cause and effect here? Just like the cargo cults - while the soldiers of World War II built airstrips in order to bring in supplies, the airstrips were not the reason for the supplies being flown in. And writing for bigger and bigger orchestras because so many of the greats expanded the orchestra to fit their vision - except that when you don't have a vision that demands a huge orchestra, all you're doing is going through the motions.

There seem to be 2 cases - 'competitive' in that any musician, even the busker in the street, faces competition to get a pitch (=place to operate) - a job, getting works performed, getting to a position where the only competition is remaining as "good" as you are and keeping up with demand;

and, organised "competitions" that turn music into a combative sport. Fine if you like that and it can be full of surprises like a modernist winning in a predominantly classical bout.

But I've never found a definition for "good" in music except 'music that fits its intended purpose'. In a competition, its the music that most pleases the judges - highly subjective so it's useless striving for it unless you can divine the judges' tastes. One doesn't have to compete at this level. If you run or play in an ensemble you can hear your works performed, can stage them, etc. You build contacts over time. Advertising can become the area of competition - how you get yourself noticed better than others.

M

Competition doesn't belong in music. Anyway, evaluation of the quality of a musical work is almost entirely subjective. Some people say they hate mozart and love Xenkais, others the other way around. Competition doesn't mean anything in music. In composition, I suppose "bigger" and "longer" and "more notes" are objective, but they have very little to do, it seems to me, with musicality. Similarly, in musical performance, there is "fewer mistakes" but that's the only objective measure I can think of in that regard.

Basically, competition doesn't belong in music...and if you feel the need to compete with others, you're a fool and need to focus on the internal reward and joy of creating your own music---you'll be VASTLY happier.

In the rare examples where a composer is able to support himself through music, it is too competitive. So, having another job is advised. Composers, after all, are some of the most bitter, most evil people I have ever come across. My preference is for less jaded people, so I avoid composers. They will try and block you.

I like for there to be a little competition in music, it keeps me going. But NOT in the sense of "I have to be better than you!" Rather, like "Wow, that was incredible...I'm going to work harder to achieve the same impact with my own music."

I am fueled by others' success, I'm sure many of you agree - I mean, isn't that what inspired us to compose to begin with? I guess it depends on the KIND of competition. If it keeps you on your toes, great. If it causes you to be arrogant, not so great.

We need competition in music to keep pushing the limits of creativity, but we don't need it where it causes people to abandon what they LIKE just to be different and well-recognized, or to please others.

edit: I didn't address some of the initial points.

okay, as for defining pieces as "better" for being X or Y ensemble, i dunno. However, I can say for myself that I am working up to writing pieces for larger ensembles since I'm not ready to yet. I am however ready to write solos and small chamber works, so I'm doing that now. Maybe people just see the larger works as a sign of experience and mastery and therefore pay attention to them more, warranted or not. I'm not sure. however, I LOVE chamber music and agree that a given chamber work can be 1000 times better than a given orchestral work.

Also, the larger ensembles have more to work with, and therefore can achieve more layers.

*sigh* I wish I was ready to write them.

But basically I was agreeing with the initial post in that respect. All hail smaller works! :)

Very true, Giselle!

But today is so hard to find a person who would compete with you just for fun and for better music. now music is business. I always like to point out a movie line for everything. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs at the moment when Steve finds out that bill stole their stuff while working under them.(movie : Pirattes of the Silicon Valley")

Steve Jobs:.....But we are better!

Bill Gates:(cynical laugh) It does not matter!

The better businessman you are the more of your music will be on air.

I love hearing a CD, specially soundtrack, and then going to ACID PRO, or Adobe Audition, or Sound Forge, muting the sound and saving a version of the movie without any music. Like a battle scene for lord of the rings. I was making myself do something better. And maybe i did, probably not, but i was satisfied with myself, an except my girl and me noone has sen it. And i bet with that music a high budget movie could be scored. But no. I am a poor salesman, and unfortunaly my music will suffer because of that. I do music because music makes me feel better.

I do music because music makes me feel better.

I suppose that's at the heart of it all, anyway!

It's my coping mechanism...

which I discovered after I abandoned it for a while. suddenly I was melting down left and right! Never again!