I quote myself: Is Beethoven better than a student work?

Hi

I would like to move the discussion i had with Qccowboy in another thread that i was hijacking....

you can find it here

Your example about helium discovery is interesting, because in this case the object of your interest is not helium but the discovery. However in beethoven music, the object of interest is helium and discovery (the music and the technic). Same for the fire discovery.

If you tell me what Beethoven "discovered", you will find it is difficult to tell. because it is not that much. As Ravel said "Some people think that I am a genius, but if they work as i work, they would be as genial as me" (my translation...). He told that to write his second mvt of is "concerto en sol", he was reading all the time the clarinet concerto of Mozart. And added that he did not reach the level of beauty (to me he's wrong...)

To me you can separe the content of the music and the technic used (harmony, conterpoint, etc...), both are valuable, but to me the most important is content not technics... Xwerces of Haendel is just simplicity. I can hardly think that any student (me included) can write as good as Haendel....

Opinion?

Nice thread!

Nice discussiong between you and QC.

On the subject now:

I will be blunty honest with you.

No one in this age will be able to top up the works of previous composers. I have studies the fugue and can write wonderful fugues, but they are certainly rubbish in front of Bach. I have written a sonata as well (nobody will ever see that!), it's rubbishin front of Beethoven.

The thing is that when you write in a past idiom (more or less), you have along with you 1000s of additionaly tools, and are lacking the "filter" which made Beethoven who he is and Bach who he is, etc.

you may very well follow all the "rules" (1/2 of these were "created" more or less by Beethoven, as for example the intro in a Sonata. The first intro to ever appear (and reappear inthe middle of a movement), isthe Pathetique! ), but then you are not doing anything new.

does the world need more works like Bach? The guy wrote more than 1000. Should the world listen to more works by Mozart? 400 works are already around? Does one needs more works like Prokofiev maybe? Nope again!

Everything IS good for excersize, but the idea of composition (for me) is communication. Why communicate in an idiom which is around for 250 years, and communicate a message (since technique and form and language and aesthetic will form the message) that exists from the age of Beethoven?

The "correct" question, for you to answer mostly is this: Why are you composing?

In the ideal world I compose because I need to give the world something of me, and somethin gthat cannot be given via words, or forums. for the same reason, pretty much I'm here. communication. I work and put architectural forms and mathematics in my music, in an attempt to "borrow" ready made ideas, that simply work in the real world (cause in architecture the building... stands. :o) that apply in nature and real life (simplest example the golden ratio) and so on. That's what I do in my PhD.

In the real world, I also compose because I am paid to do it! It is as much valid reason as anything, though I know people will dissagree here. :blush: But in the end I have 2 kids to feed and a wife, and if I wasn't doing what I've been trained to do for the most of my life, I wouldn't be true to myself? What should I do instead? Work in TESCOS? :)

I also write because I want to listen to something Idon't have with me. If I come up with a theme that is already there then I don't need to write it anymore. If I hear something on a movie, or a song, and try to play it on the piano, it is because I don't have the CD/DVD. Once I get that I no longer need to play it anymore. :P Same goes with composition and pastiche.

Hi

...... However in beethoven music, the object of interest is helium and discovery (the music and the technic).

I know Beethoven wrote some light music but that's a bit extreme....

If you tell me what Beethoven "discovered", you will find it is difficult to tell.

:)

Didn't he once break a piano during a concert?

First of all, I'd like to point out that Beethoven started or at least helped begin the romantic era. By changing and extending already existing musical forms, and allowing himself more freedom of musical expression in terms of the melodies he used (which are comparitively much different than those say from Mozart - I read that Beethoven only wanted to use "pure" melodies.), and the general way he wrote his music especially during the middle and late periods.

If this isn't innovation, I don't know what is. Besides, I haven't heard any sonata on this website that even comes close to Beethoven. The man was a master and nobody will be able to write piano sonatas as well as Beethoven in that idiom (I like his far more than Mozart and other eraly romantics).

As a student, even if you are not terribly fond of Beethoven, you should be revering him. He is perhaps one of the most well-known, famous and best composers. There's a lot to learn in his harmonies in his late period, his fantastic use of counterpoint (the Hammerklavier fugue offers a (I'm exaggerating a bit) lifetime of study because of the way its put together and it sounds so great too), his use of form, orchestration, Sturm and Drang (spelt right?) and musical sense. Oh, and genius.

Furthermore, I don't think that people are expected to write in this way anymore, unless of course you're a student (in which case there's much to learn). I also totally disagree with whoever said that no one will be able to write music as well as Beethoven. I think that has already been achieved in the modern days. It's just that the music is different and deserves a different type of listening and study. I always say this but for some reason people don't believe me, Music hasn't gotten any worse, it's just become different. Most people can't cope with the differences made from Wagner until now. But music written nowadays is still emotional, musical, cool, deep, intricate and widely-performed.

So, in essence, Beethoven is a master. He writes much, much, much, much better than most students.

the POINT was NOT to compare Beethoven and a student!!!

gawd, I love when the point gets lost in pointless argument.

The point was that the harmonic language used by Beethoven was new at that time. Beethoven deserves credit for using the tools at his disposal and going one step further.

A student learning harmony and analysis NOW, will learn the same harmony as what Beethoven was using, exxept that NOW it is 200 years old. Which means that the student is using something that is tried and true. Something that has been done by all SORTS of people over that period.

There is no "one step further" for a student learning about Beethoven's harmony now. It is nothing more than "one step further" in learning what came next, but it isn't innovation as it was for Beethoven, or those who immediately followed him.

In other words, the musical formulae did not exist yet when Beethoven was writing.

On the other hand, the musical formulae are well established and part of the entire learning process for most university students.

Notice that Beethoven did NOT write like Mozart. And likewise, in the time of Mozart, many of the things Beethoven was taking for granted did not exist yet either.

If we push this just a little further, Debussy used non-functional 9th chords (no resolution of the dissonant chordal elements). Would Beethoven have thought of doing this? No. It would have been completely unthinkable. However, it was new when Debussy did it. On the other hand, there is nothing earth-shattering about it now.

A lot of music is "formulae". There are sorts of progressions, sorts of resolutions to particular harmonic situations, that are "period related". They are what distinguishes, for example, the use of a dominant 7th chord in Mozart, from the use of the same chord in Beethoven, or Brahms, or Wagner.

So, to get back to my own defence: I did not say that Beethoven was no better than a student work. I HATE being misquoted. Please find a new title for your thread and post it here so that I may change the name of this thread.

Hi,

First sorry Qccowboy, i did not think about putting any etiquette on you when I used this title. I used it because it was eye catching...

Anyway, thanks a lot for the interesting contributions.

I would like to add something again.

from nikolas:

"The thing is that when you write in a past idiom (more or less), you have along with you 1000s of additionaly tools, and are lacking the "filter" which made Beethoven who he is and Bach who he is, etc."

You hit the point. It is fairly impossible to write like beethoven, because your "environment" is different. And many nice technics have come up since then.

My point is that i don't like some people judging a music telling: "well, it is not new". I am not sure that what debussy, elgar, whoever have created has been "finished" or complete. In trying to write "debussy", you will hopefully ( i would say surely) add from yourself, your deep inside.

To me saying "it is not new" is just you are too lazy to listen to it carefully. If you listen to music of Morricone, all the materials (harmony, conterpoint) is here since the two last centuries. However, there is still something to tell with this material.

No attacks to Qccowboy of course.... Well i like your music. I prefer Symphomy in C to the canadese... the last one is too academic (you did not hide this anyway, it is your portfolio somehow. I'd like to have such a nice one!!!). I can say that there is nothing really new. However, you still have something to say...

cheers

don't misunderstand where I stand on the issue.

I don't think it's a question of needing to be new.

It's rather a question of reflecting the time in which we live.

To write mozartian music in this day and age is anachronistic.

I'm certain there are people writing some FINE music in that style, but does it really in any way reflect the reality of 2007?

I'm certain there are people writing some FINE music in that style, but does it really in any way reflect the reality of 2007?

Well, rendez-vous in 3007....

Well, rendez-vous in 3007....

What?

What?

do bother, we transform this forum into a H2G2 forum :P

Whenever I try to write music in a historical style it always ends up having modern influences anyway. It might just be me, but I've always thought that this was inevitable to some extent and that this feature could make for an interesting/enjoyable composition.

well, to hear how one contemporary composer dealt with writing "in the style of" one need look no further than the Schostakowitch 2nd piano concerto. The slow middle movement is an obvious "

Interesting how whenever I come back from an absence, there is always at least one debate going on this subject. I immediately get my feelings hurt, and immediately regret darkening the door.

As an avowed Classical Revivalist these 35 years now, I submit, respectfully, that there is nothing particularly artistically valid about reflecting the current reality in one's art. Though the academic community may believe it to be of paramount importance, I do not, and I'm not going live my artistic life that way because a cabal of academics with their own axes to grind tells me what I'm doing has no validity. I prove my work has validity with every stroke of my pen and beat of my heart, even if only to myself. It is up to the listener to find that validity, and if he can't, that's his problem, and loss.

The idiom I employ best expresses what goes on in my mind and spirit. I'm not trying to copy Mozart or Beethoven - I simply use the same tools they used to accomplish my own ends. The idea that Classicism or any idiom has been "overexplored" is nothing but an opinion that too many assume is fact. I resent being dismissed because I won't follow academia's arbitrary rules, and I maintain that what is truly invalid is the artificial notion that art must reflect its own times and be in some way innovative in order to be taken seriously. Who decides all this anyway? Who makes these damned rules? What possible purpose can they serve? Rhetorical questions all.

I also resent the assumption that because insist upon being true to my artistic sensibilities in this way, I must be nothing but a common hack. What a horrendous insult.

I'm taking this very personally - again - because I feel I have no choice.

J.

It's not about dismissal or anything like that. For me academics should remain in the academies where they belong. Academic ideas as well. Nowhere esle. Academia has to do with teaching and education. :w00t:

Other than that, I find that dismissing all modern tools, after 1827 (isn't it then that Beethoven died?) kinda weird as well as striving to be only new and modern and contemporary and all that.

It's not an insult and please do not say that towards me, as I'm insulted as well. We have never spoken before!

You can write whatever you want in the end and nobody will make you change your mind, this is obvious from the first post I read from you! But note something: If you indend to express what Beethoven and his contemporaries wanted to express, then indeed you are in the wrong time. If you want to express something new (your artistic sensibilieis, unless you live locked up with no communication whatsoever which is not true!), then by insiting to use only "old" tools, you are not true to your self!

Let's start again (I think I will keep asking the same question over and over again):

Why do you compose? I composer for

A. money (computer games and comissions)

B. To express my self in ways no other way I could've done so

C. To fill a gap in what I hear and what I want to hear.

D. To communicate

Apart from A, all other 3 need to have something contemporary in them, since they deal with me (D also deals with the audience, which I always keep in mind as well).

By all means, come back to discuss, I'd love that. :D

J. Lee, is your account deleted or something?!

He asked for it to be removed..

He asked for it to be removed..

What?

*shuffles off in search of an explanation*

He asked for it to be removed..

! :w00t:

Should the world listen to more works by Mozart? 400 works are already around?

I, for one, would love to hear more works in the classical style of the caliber that are some of Mozart's piano concertos. Stuff "forward" musical thinking for it's own sake, give me music I enjoy!

Edit: And heartily agree with J. Lee here, on his points about academia and validity. There is only so much one can do pushing the envelope with aspects of music before, imo - it becomes noise. Not that classical music is the pinnacle, end, and standard for "good art" by any means. But in the end music is meant to be enjoyed by others. If the only thing one can say about a piece of music after hearing it is "that was interesting" or "that was new", with only intellectual acknowledgement - I think the music is missing something.

That said, I'm a hypocrite - I've hardly shared any of my music. Perhaps I might know J. Lee's pain if I had - but if that were the case, I'd simply not surround myself with stuffy academics that compose music I'm not fond of!

What I find strange is how so many people have this tendency to skip right over so much music...

They go from hyper-tonal classicism to the opposite extreme of noisy avant-garde. It's as if there's nothing in between.

There's no need to compose music in the style of Mozart.. that was 200 years ago. But then, there's also no absolute need to write music that's entirely made up of noise and dissonance. There IS a middle ground! There ARE many composers who write music that reflects the world they live in and STILL maintains its grip firmly on melody and harmony.

Why does saying that not limiting oneself to the harmony of 200 years ago necessarily implies that we should be making noise instead? I've certainly never advocated that.

What I find strange is how so many people have this tendency to skip right over so much music...

They go from hyper-tonal classicism to the opposite extreme of noisy avant-garde. It's as if there's nothing in between.

There's no need to compose music in the style of Mozart.. that was 200 years ago. But then, there's also no absolute need to write music that's entirely made up of noise and dissonance. There IS a middle ground! There ARE many composers who write music that reflects the world they live in and STILL maintains its grip firmly on melody and harmony.

Why does saying that not limiting oneself to the harmony of 200 years ago necessarily implies that we should be making noise instead? I've certainly never advocated that.

I think we see much of the same in the tendencies of composers on this website. I think I'm one of the few members here with major influences in that giant gap between Beethoven and Debussy. One thing that frustrates me, when I listen to music here, is that the music that is posted tends to be either straight Baroque or Classical, or very modern, as if everything in between never happened.

Ahem...

1. QC writes beautiful music with the full meaning of the sense! Go listen to it!

2. There isn't THAT much huge a gap between Beethovan and Debussy really Andrew... sorry, but it's just Romantism between (more or less, ok?) and this is all around us, with ballades, rapsodies, etc :thumbsup:

3. Paul: I never mentioned noise, but I will repeat once more that listeners can also be trained to broaden their horizons. so what you don't like today, may appeal to you tomorrow. why should I limit myself because of you? You have 23+ concertos to enjoy by Mozart and another 100s by other composers around you! Do you REALLY need more? Listen to all of these, and come back to me, and I promise to work on a concerto in the classical meaning of the works! Not to mention that I wasn't talking about pushing the envelope or whatever. Read ahead please.

4. I write plenty of styles of music, from calm romantic music, to weird stuff, to contemporary. I find that my music has beauty!

The idea is about being open minded! If you limit yourself in any way, either by sticking to Classicism, or to avant garde noise production (who, I personally, don't fancy, btw), is... limiting!

BTW, I had a small PM exchange with J, and I understand him and completely respect him in every way possible! But what he IS doing (and he did admit it), is that he is born in the wrong period of time. Additionally, no matter how right/wrong I find it to be, and how much a respect it, I wouldn't go anywhere to suggest that this is a good idea.

What is a good idea: Study, learn, listen, reach the age of 20+ and then speak up and say to all of us "gently caress off! I want to write Romantic music for the rest of my life!". Nobody will say anything! But if you have not researched/hearded/decided then how can you choose in the first place? This is what I'M talking about!

I had this SAME discussion with students from Royal holloway, where I did some tutorials. Everybody was dissapointed because they "forced" them to learn contemporary techniques and listen to stuff they didn't want to. What I told them is to hang on and relax. Another year and it would be over. The idea to learn, is exactly that: learn, not marry it, not get on with it, just learn! Then, being educated you can make your own choices! Not before! Doesn't this make sense? And of course what the unis will project are works of the biggest names in history of music (penderavsky, Lutoslawski, Ligeti, Boulez, etc) and the most extreme music styles, to provide with an insight of what could be out there! But go check with all your professors here and ask them. Nobody is really listening to this music (the quartet for 4 helicopters for example :(). (Nobody is a generalisation, right?)

Revivalist music has merit, in that it expresses the composer, in the style most congenial to them.

What's wrong with that? There not no validity in it. The only problem is that you won't get many jobs with it, but it has as much validity as composing serial music (and basically writing revivalist Schoenberg!) - the only difference is that Schoenberg was 100 years ago, and Haydn was 200. Many more I feel would get away with the serial writing.... and don't say about the relevancy of the tools....

If we had to not ignore every influence, and "be true to ourselves" by using all the tools at the modern composer's disposal (as many have said against revivalist composers), then surely every composer must have random noise avant-garde entirely-dissonant music, somewhere in their work?

I'm going to stay with choosing with what I want to write music... no Stockhausen for me, thanks.

Expressing the composer alone has a tendency to be autistic, or masturbation if you will :thumbsup: (once again the same question: Why do you compose? I don't think I'll ever stop asking that).

Everybody can include or ignore any influences, but at least let there be influences! You are having lessons with QCC and learning about polychords atm, right? Is this interesting? Can there be ways to express yourself as a composer, in a meaningful and beautiful (even if it's only for you, although it shouldn't be for you, then why are you here in the forum?) way? If so, then why not include that tool in your pallete? What about a series, then? Not strictly speaking, on the contrary? would you say that you could potentially use it? what about clusters? The music of Schnittke is full of these (and plenty of other things), but yet it is beautiful! Would you include these tools when you want to?

Doesn't it feel a pity to write what you "want" to write out of ignorance, and not write what you WANT to write out of choice? That is the idea (once more!)

NOTE: This is not addressed to Daniel, but in general, although I do speak straight to Daniel, I've seen the lessons he's having with QCC and I can see that he wants more, which is more than enough for me. Then let him write baroque music all he wants (for example).