Intimidation

In any case, I don't think Sollis is trying to say that is scares him. Rather, I think he is trying to say that he wants to hear more modern music, perhaps post-Beethoven or post-Mahler. I'm not sure, but I do agree. Everyone is trying to emulate Mozart.

Who's "everyone"? There are numerous examples of music not written in the classical idiom on this site.

When I am just starting out as a composer, there's nothing wrong with this.

There's still nothing "wrong" with it, if you enjoy this type of music and wish to create more of it.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that I should be trying to emulate a composer's style as there is a lot to learn in it.

However, if I feel or say that I have attained your own style and I don't need to copy or learn anymore, it would be best for I to compose in a more contemporary style.

Why best? What factor determines such a decision? Oh wait, you answered below:

Neo-Classism and Neo-Romanticism are possibilities if I really like a certain period of music. However, the fact of the matter is that each period has gone and each period has had its masters who I can never surpass. Therefore, I have to use newer musical ideas.

Surpass? Music isn't a competative sport. As far as "newer musical ideas go" - have a look here:

C

Surpass? Music isn't a competative sport. As far as "newer musical ideas go" - have a look here:

C

Who's "everyone"? There are numerous examples of music not written in the classical idiom on this site.

There's still nothing "wrong" with it, if you enjoy this type of music and wish to create more of it.

Why best? What factor determines such a decision? Oh wait, you answered below:

Surpass? Music isn't a competative sport. As far as "newer musical ideas go" - have a look here:

C

And it was only in the last years that I have been able to come to some sort of decision about where I want to be, musically speaking. Composition "as a full-time job" is a VERY difficult endeavour. I am luckier than most in that I am in a position where I CAN devote my entire time to composition. And even then, composing in a style that is not avant-garde, I find many doors are still closed to me.

Well, that's great that you make a living composing. I don't personally, have never really tried, although most of my life decisions have been based around having time for music. Most of my friends and a few people who have heard some of my stuff have encouraged me to do so. That says something, I think.

In any case, if I cannot compose music that *I* like, be it reminisent of any style - I wouldn't compose. Composition is about love of art for me, expression of passion and intellect and communication. Not about being some revolutionary just for the sake of it. That seems like a pointless masturbation of ego.

I personally wouldn't compose music I didn't enjoy for money.

Do not think you will make a career of composing "in the style of" any single composer but yourself. If all of your compositional output is an imitation of someone else, people will hear it, and most performers would probably rather perform the "original" than an imitator.

Even John Williams has HIS style when it's time for him to compose a "concert" work.

Well, I disagree. Most popular music today is "in the style of" other musicians, composers, or an amalgamation of them. It shows that you can use the same compositional tools, create new music, and have it received well.

And as a side note, I have shared very little of my work on this site, mostly fuges, a progressive rock tune, and an orchestral piece. So it's beyond presumptous to assume my compositional "style". Thanks.

I'm afraid music is a competitive sport. Beethoven had many rivals in his day. Who do we listen to today, primarily? Beethoven.

Besides: if you can never match the music of Beethoven's, why try to write in that style? No one will play your music.

I think it's sad when music is competative. It's not what it is about to me at all.

If all you care about is "being remembered" for your music as the ages pass, I think that's sad as well. Not alot different to the amateur guitar player who takes up the instrument to get chicks. An excersise in vanity, not love of music.

As far as matching Beethoven, Mozart or whoever - I have heard some contemporary composers who compose in the relative styles who I would definately go and see and listen to their music - because I enjoy it - not because it has "X" name on the program.

And as a side note, I have shared very little of my work on this site, mostly fuges, a progressive rock tune, and an orchestral piece. So it's beyond presumptous to assume my compositional "style". Thanks.

I'm sorry, I wasn't refering to you in particular with the comment about style.

This thread IS getting long and there are a number of people involved in it.

Listen, here's the last I'm going to say on this subject in this thread (hopefully) :

Most people want to hear new kinds of music because music is something that evolves. If they want to hear music in an older style without any touches of modernism such as different harmonies, dissonance and strange noises they could listen to someone new composing in almost exactly the same style of Beethoven. But why not listen to the Master himself? Wouldn't the Master be better? Most likely. After all, it is genuine Beethoven.

If you want other people to hear your music. If you want to be appreciated as a composer. If you want any recognition for your efforts, due something new. Study the masters, learn their styles, but move on. Because music evolves and maybe if you don't like the way it's being written now, you can adapt it. Make it evolve! Don't revert back to the 1800's and before. With the times there comes a-changin'

If you want other people to hear your music. If you want to be appreciated as a composer. If you want any recognition for your efforts, due something new.

New? What hasn't been done as far as harmony is concerned?

You want to write overly, unresolved atonal/dissonant music and forget consonance/ tonality/modality because you think it is "dated" or "too 1800's", well, that's your perogative.

Some musicians and intellectuals aside, most people will not like your music. Of course, the general hurt pride attitude is "well, you don't understand what a revolutionary I am being (not)", or " you don't have the intellect to understand my music. "

Consonance, tonality and modality, peppered with a little dissonance reigns in so far as the public majority is concerned. It is that way now, and it was that way 300 years ago.

Actually Paul,

Many musicians are playing modern works for a number of reasons: they like the music, it's something new, they can never play famous Beethoven sonatas or famous Brahms Intermezzos as well as the great piano players so they revert to something that no one else has recorded before. Mary Kenedi is an example.

New? What hasn't been done as far as harmony is concerned?

Consonance, tonality and modality, peppered with a little dissonance reigns in so far as the public majority is concerned. It is that way now, and it was that way 300 years ago.

Is the earth still flat Paul?

Listen, here's the last I'm going to say on this subject in this thread (hopefully) :

Most people want to hear new kinds of music because music is something that evolves. If they want to hear music in an older style without any touches of modernism such as different harmonies, dissonance and strange noises they could listen to someone new composing in almost exactly the same style of Beethoven. But why not listen to the Master himself? Wouldn't the Master be better? Most likely. After all, it is genuine Beethoven.

If you want other people to hear your music. If you want to be appreciated as a composer. If you want any recognition for your efforts, due something new. Study the masters, learn their styles, but move on. Because music evolves and maybe if you don't like the way it's being written now, you can adapt it. Make it evolve! Don't revert back to the 1800's and before. With the times there comes a-changin'

The major flaw here: you're making the assumption that everyone who wants to compose in a non-modern style is trying to imitate a composer of the past. Few people actually attempt to imitate someone! The fact that we recognize so many composers from any given era, and can tell their individual styles apart in an instant even if they were contemporaries, suggests that there is more that can be said in an older genre.

In fact, some of the best-known masters proved that it is very possible to carve out a strong reputation in the face of direct comparison with an older master. Brahms - after whom you've so conveniently taken your username - all but explicitly set up his first symphony for direct comparison with Beethoven, and that symphony caused him to be instantly recognized as Beethoven's equal.

Is the earth still flat Paul?

Still? Yes, of course it is, at least, the parts that I walk on. Most other people walk on flat parts of the earth too. So I think that there is something to be said for it. Like flat feet.

Still? Yes, of course it is, at least, the parts that I walk on. Most other people walk on flat parts of the earth too. So I think that there is something to be said for it. Like flat feet.

now you're just being stupid, that wasn't even funny :)

the earth only feels flat paul, in reality, it's curved only slightly enough so that you don't notice.

now you're just being stupid, that wasn't even funny :)

the earth only feels flat paul, in reality, it's curved only slightly enough so that you don't notice.

Will, my response was "in kind" to Sollis's analogy. If you need it explained, just say so.

Will, my response was "in kind" to Sollis's analogy. If you need it explained, just say so.

:)

You honestly think I didn't know that?

And yeah, great idea, do what they want you to and they'll roll all over you