is there a point to compositions in a style that is not your own?

this is a little vague, but what i am trying to say is that is there any point in continuing a musical style that came about ages ago and which has now 'progressed'. this idea came to my mind after i had conceived a small orchestral idea to find that it bore a strong relation with the music of Tchaikovsky. i found myself thinking: what is the point in writing it down if it already exists in a form that is FFFFFFfffaaaaaaaaarrrrr greater than my own????????:blink:

Of course, composing in a different style can help you get an idea of the many different possibilities of music, sticking to one style is fine, but if you really want to dive in then I say try as many musical styles as you like and see which ones you're best at

There are many reasons to write in a style of the past. Now, the question that should be ask is is there any point for you to write in that style? I personally find no purpose in it besides musical training, but besides that I cannot find a point; however, there are those who find enjoyment in recreating the past. To them, I feel that the point is self-fullment.

That's a good question, why spend time composing a pastiche of your favorite styles, when there's an almost endless amount of music already in that style. Is it more enjoyable to create a unorginal copy or to listen to pieces you think are greater than your own?

Bitterduck has it right. Self-fulfillment. That's why I've composed in an authentic late 18th-Century classical style for some 35 years now. It may be hard for some to believe, but I don't really have a modern voice. I figure if I have to fight to develop something like that, when what I'm doing now comes naturally to me, there is something wrong, something artificial.

Sure, Mozart wrote better music in the Classical idiom than I do. Does that mean I should quit writing music? Some may think so. But I won't. I can't. It's who I am.

You guys should think of that EMI (Experiments in Musical Intelligence) by David Cope. It's that computer that composed.

If a computer can produce 5,000 chorales in the style of bach in 5 minutes, why bother spending hours in writing one?

The real challenge is not to write what was written; all the past compositions were subject to the society -with respect to the date and place- of the composer. Do you belong in that society? Then why compose like that? Bach composed like he did because if he composed more freely, he wouldn't be accepted by the society, maybe called a wizard, and we would still be searching for his ashes... But now, there are no rules. Anyone can do anything. And that's the real challenge.

If you took that EMI computer, and told it to compose something, out of thin air (i.e., without giving it any compositions from any other composers) or you gave it all the compositions of all composers, it wouldn't be able to produce absolutely anything, and I can say that for sure.

Why is that? Because computers don't have free will. Because computers can't make a choice out of infinite possibilities. For them, in these two cases, there's infinite possibilities, infinite permutations, and they have absolutely no guidelines on which one to choose. So, they won't be able to choose any. However, a human being WOULD be able to choose, and this is what makes use different from EMI: the ability to create something unique, something original, something that's never been heard before.

And this is what each composer should do, create something that will express him in a unique way ;) Maybe it is just a combination of quartal and pentatonic harmony, or a combination of microtones and minimalistic music, maybe it's a technique/style the composer himself invents, I don't know. But it has to be unique :)

You guys should think of that EMI (Experiments in Musical Intelligence) by David Cope. It's that computer that composed.

If a computer can produce 5,000 chorales in the style of bach in 5 minutes, why bother spending hours in writing one?

The real challenge is not to write what was written; all the past compositions were subject to the society -with respect to the date and place- of the composer. Do you belong in that society? Then why compose like that? Bach composed like he did because if he composed more freely, he wouldn't be accepted by the society, maybe called a wizard, and we would still be searching for his ashes... But now, there are no rules. Anyone can do anything. And that's the real challenge.

QUOTE]

That's a flawed argument, someone still has to listen to the music the computer makes and decide if its any good. So the listener by making selections of what is good or not is really the composer.

Actually, Bach did compose rather freely. There are records listed where church members would complain about stange notes in his organ playing. Also, after Bach died Telemann mentioned that the world lost a great composer who had a special ablilty to use chromaticism freely with his strange yet beauiful tunrs of melody and harmony. There was also a time during Bach's life where an argument arose as to whether or not Bach was old fashioned in his compositional style.

OK, Juji, because you say a computer could do what I've been doing all my life, I'll just quit.

Thanks for setting me on the right path.

If a computer can produce 5,000 chorales in the style of bach in 5 minutes, why bother spending hours in writing one?

Because human can do it better. A human is not limited in creativity, but a computer program's creativity is limited to the program itself. Midi generations from these programs may sound harmonically pleasing, but they lack character. Besides, how easy is it for a computer to create a catchy melody? This is nearly impossible because a computer can't think for itself. Bach may have created some boring works, but alot of his works have character. Just think of Bach's famous Toccata in A minor. There is no way a computer program could program something like that, I am sorry.

There's every reason to compose in a style that isn't your own....

commissions....

money...

or invites that look good in your portfolio.

(but composing for yourself, compose in whatever style is yours for the day...)

Because human can do it better. A human is not limited in creativity, but a computer program's creativity is limited to the program itself. Midi generations from these programs may sound harmonically pleasing, but they lack character. Besides, how easy is it for a computer to create a catchy melody? This is nearly impossible because a computer can't think for itself. Bach may have created some boring works, but alot of his works have character. Just think of Bach's famous Toccata in A minor. There is no way a computer program could program something like that, I am sorry.

I agree wholeheartedly, this machine can only do what it's been programmed to do, so any great compositions that come out of it are ultimately the work of the programmer.

You guys should think of that EMI (Experiments in Musical Intelligence) by David Cope. It's that computer that composed.

If a computer can produce 5,000 chorales in the style of bach in 5 minutes, why bother spending hours in writing one?

The real challenge is not to write what was written; all the past compositions were subject to the society -with respect to the date and place- of the composer. Do you belong in that society? Then why compose like that? Bach composed like he did because if he composed more freely, he wouldn't be accepted by the society, maybe called a wizard, and we would still be searching for his ashes... But now, there are no rules. Anyone can do anything. And that's the real challenge.

If you took that EMI computer, and told it to compose something, out of thin air (i.e., without giving it any compositions from any other composers) or you gave it all the compositions of all composers, it wouldn't be able to produce absolutely anything, and I can say that for sure.

Why is that? Because computers don't have free will. Because computers can't make a choice out of infinite possibilities. For them, in these two cases, there's infinite possibilities, infinite permutations, and they have absolutely no guidelines on which one to choose. So, they won't be able to choose any. However, a human being WOULD be able to choose, and this is what makes use different from EMI: the ability to create something unique, something original, something that's never been heard before.

And this is what each composer should do, create something that will express him in a unique way :) Maybe it is just a combination of quartal and pentatonic harmony, or a combination of microtones and minimalistic music, maybe it's a technique/style the composer himself invents, I don't know. But it has to be unique :)

You pose that a composer should express themself in a unique way. Let us look at this for a second. If composers, as a whole, begin to write in new styles and keep on coming up with new and original ideas, then would it not be unique if a composer wrote in an old style? Isn't unique doing something different than the norm? How norm is writing in an older style among professional composers? I would consider it to be abnormal.

As on a second point, what has never been heard before? If I wrote a piece containg 16th note only and rest that are quarter in length, i'm sure that has never been heard of, so if I do the same thing and replace the quarter with rest that are half in length, that would have never been heard before also. So let us say Lee writes a piece of musical in the classical idiom. I know I have never heard what he is going to write, because it isn't written yet, so in essence, most music has not been heard before.

I agree with bitter.....kind of.

I respect and love listening to new music in an old style, because though there is a lot of music in each style, it has not ALL been done...it may be harder to come up with original material (at least partly original) but it certainly isn't impossible. On the other hand, the more original I can be, while still not going into that "originality for originality's sake", the better :).

Without passing any sort of judgement on any style of music, I believe that for a student composer it is important to try his (or her) hand at all styles of composition. There is a natural progression through the various styles that leads one to explore new material, new techniques, and new approaches.

Only by going through these various techniques and styles does one eventually come to a point where one's own voice comes through more clearly.

The point is not to imitate another style or another technique, but to come to understand its application.

If as you mature musically you choose to espouse a more tonal approach then at least you've covered most contemporary techniques enough to understand them, and your take on tonality cannot help but be tinted by that knowledge. This is what differentiates the very tonal music of someone like Corigliano or Del Tredici from Beeethoven or Mozart.

Besides, as students of composition it is not yet your duty to "compose in a style that is your own". You should be exploring and trying out things. Most composers do not truly discover their own unique voice until they are well into their 20's or 30's.

I think cowboy makes an excellent point. I feel that many people here try to force their own unique voice to come out. I feel that a nature progression learning would assist young composers more than an agressive push for something new and flashy.

Maybe you guys should read this: The Ensemble Sospeso - Wolfgang Rihm

And interview with Wolfgang Rihm, whom I really admire both for his music and his thinking on music.

Writing in a past style could be very useful in movies, for example. If you wanted to have a movie set in the 1750's, you'd ask someone to write music similar to that style.

Also, writing in an older style is very useful so you can assimilate knowledge concerning musical techniques used in that style better, because as a Chinese adage goes: "Tell me, I'll forget. Show me, I'll remember. Involve me, I'll understand". And the best involvement is writing your own piece in that style.

And why bother learning about previous styles? So you can understand about the development of music throughout the years and see how it came to be what it is today, and therefore see how you can contribute yourself in that development.

What's more, consider how little time-span "tonality" occupies: from, say, 1600 to 1900 (very roughly). That's about 300 years. Before that and after that it's not "tonal" as we know it today, and think that music has existed for thousands of years.

Also, consider music of other traditions and how it is not tonal, but have completely other harmonical and structural bases.

Plato had said: "In order for something to be beautiful, it has to be original".

Lastly, I believe that you are a good composer when people can go "This is Juji Mufu", if they've listened to other pieces by Juji, just as you'd go "this is Bach" or "this is Bartok" if you've listened to some of their pieces. When you create your own, unique way of expression, whether that consists of just combining techniques of the past and inventing your own, or doing something completely wild that nobody else has done before.

I never said don't use tonality. Saying that "everything tonal sucks, use only avant-garde techniques such as scratching the violin" is just a stubborn as saying "everything avant-garde such as scratching the violin sucks, only tonal music is music".

You should just use whatever you feel like using, but you should keep in mind that you should not avoid writing in/with a specific style/technique (e.g. atonal, musique concrete) because you don't know how to write in/with it, but because you do, you have and you don't believe it can express you the way some other technique can.

The bottom line is: learn as much as you can, about as many things as possible, and then, after you've assimilated all of this, you should just let yourself express in the way it believes is best for that particular piece.

Just like the quote: "An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less, and ends up knowing everything about nothing".

KTANXBAI!

Just to add a little coda onto this discussion, I've been nosing around, and among other things, I found this:

click here

Nicholas Wilton - a contemporary English composer, if you can believe that. From what I can gather he seems genuinely unconcerned as to whether his work is "relevant" or not, and his stuff is good enough that he's convinced no less an organisation than Magnificat to record it. He reminds me of Rheinberger, yet he has is own voice, to be sure.

The more rocks I turn over, the more of these guys I find.

I'm starting not to feel so lonely. Now if I could only stop feeling so defensive.

What about Ockeghem, or Gesualdo? They're older even than Bach, and their music is just about as chromatic as Stravinsky.