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

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.

but that was the entire point of MY post.

there IS an "in between" between baroque revival and Stockhausen/Schoenberg...

Why is it that as soon as someone says that a composer should strive to get beyond any of the "revival" styles (not a bad term for it, really) they automatically assume we mean to go write music like Stockhausen?

There is MUCH gorgeous new music that has absolutely NOTHING in common with Stockhausen, and finds its roots considerably closer in the classical and romantic periods, without BEING "revival" music. The music of Corigliano, Del Tredici, Dello Joio, and SO many others. There is a whole SCHOOL of neo-tonal composers out there who are expressing thoroughly modern ideas, with thoroughly modern tools AND making music from it without rejecting tonality. But they don't feel the need to parrot the same old harmonic and melodic formulae that were used 200 years ago!

Daniel, no one said anything about "using all the tools" at their disposal at one time... but being a classical or baroque revivalist completely ignores the existance of ANY of the tools that were discovered in the subsequant 200 years!!!

And thank-you Nikolas :thumbsup:

Daniel, no one said anything about "using all the tools" at their disposal at one time... but being a classical or baroque revivalist completely ignores the existance of ANY of the tools that were discovered in the subsequant 200 years!!!

Ok, I take your point from this, but I clearly was not making the jump from Boccherini to Stockhausen here - I listen mainly to the neo-tonalist composers, and I know full well that all modern composers aren't avant-garde, and noise-makers (to be... either polite, or impolite!)

there IS an "in between" between baroque revival and Stockhausen/Schoenberg...

I know.. but I was using the example that Schoenberg is already long past being relevant, although I don't claim that any serious composers write in the style of him or his school...

And he should not be placed beside Stockhausen :thumbsup:

it saddens me terribly to see someone like J.Lee decide to leave rather than take a few steps towards the 21st century. He obviously has tremendous control over the materials he uses. I think it would be wonderful to hear him incorporate a BIT of the 21st century into that. He has a wonderful ear, and deep musical sense. To me, he is wasting his great talent by insisting on composing music in a purely "classical-era" style. I hear his music and think "yes, that could be one of the Mozart or Haydn symphonies I don't know" instead of thinking "ah yes! that's a piece of J.lee". That, right there, tells me two things: he has tremendous talent, and he is not showing a distinctive voice of his own.

Why has he closed himself off to so much music that has happened in the last 200 years? Why does he show no interest what so ever in exploring that music? To me, that is the antithesis of the creative soul. Exploration and discovery should be inate parts of that entity.

I hear his music and think "yes, that could be one of the Mozart or Haydn symphonies I don't know" instead of thinking "ah yes! that's a piece of J.lee".

I find that one's musical voice comes through in whatever idiom they choose to write in.

By the way, I'm almost certain there were some modern pieces of his on here... or mention of them... a while back. From what I know, he tried writing in a modern style, or did write in a modern style, but his natural voice lay in the more classical idiom.

I'm sure there's a post of his somewhere that mentions that.

Edit: here's one relevant post.

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/93428-post35.html

but there is a healthy difference between what I was advocating (the rejection of "new for new's sake", avant-garde-ism purely for the sake of saying "I have done something new") and burying oneself in the musical language of a long-gone society.

I believe that J.Lee's Mozart pastiche's, while attractive musically, are a dead end. I don't believe him when he says he tried to express himself in a more modern idiom but couldn't find his own voice in it. I think he was either too scared to, or too lazy to do so. Seeking out your own voice among the myriad tools available to the contemporary composer is a daunting task, and one that usually takes years. No one just wakes up suddenly, without any effort, and suddenly is writing music that is theirs and theirs alone. You have to learn, you have to read, you have to TRY things, you have to distill from what you have tried, you have to manipulate material, keep some, reject more. You don't just take a few counterpoint lessons and a few harmony classes, and *poof* you have your own distinctive voice.

All the great composers have gone through that. Who could deny that Bartok had his own unique voice? Yet listen to his early

but that was the entire point of MY post.

there IS an "in between" between baroque revival and Stockhausen/Schoenberg...

....There is MUCH gorgeous new music that has absolutely NOTHING in common with Stockhausen, and finds its roots considerably closer in the classical and romantic periods, without BEING "revival" music.

Yes, Beethoven wrote some great stuff. I like some of Dvorak's work too. And Liszt. Saint Sans and others....yes..but...

I can listen to numerous Mozart piano concertos over and over, and finally I tire of them..move on for a while..then return - and still enjoy it as if I'd never heard it before.

Anyway - as you say, there might not be any point in writing music in rococo classical/baroque or any other "aged" style in this day - unless you enjoy doing so. Unless you're happy with the output of that work. Unless people like what you do. To me, that's what it is about, as a person who doesn't make my living from music. I write what I like to hear, what I want to express, what I think will be enjoyed - not for purely academic reasons. Academia plays a large part, but it is not the goal for me. Pure Academia (when it refers to creativeness) must be tempered by higher ideals - lest I cease to think of music creation as an enjoyable pastime.

Yes, Beethoven wrote some great stuff. I like some of Dvorak's work too. And Liszt. Saint Sans and others....yes..but...

I can listen to numerous Mozart piano concertos over and over, and finally I tire of them..move on for a while..then return - and still enjoy it as if I'd never heard it before.

Anyway - as you say, there might not be any point in writing music in rococo classical/baroque or any other "aged" style in this day - unless you enjoy doing so. Unless you're happy with the output of that work. Unless people like what you do. To me, that's what it is about, as a person who doesn't make my living from music. I write what I like to hear, what I want to express, what I think will be enjoyed - not for purely academic reasons. Academia plays a large part, but it is not the goal for me. Pure Academia (when it refers to creativeness) must be tempered by higher ideals - lest I cease to think of music creation as an enjoyable pastime.

important differences.

without meaning to sound condescending, the impact of these philosophical questions is quite different for someone who DOES mean to make music as a living and as more than a pastime. And these questions SHOULD be important for someone in that situation.

let me make something very clear here: I am not writing these responses with the intent of reaching people for whom music is but a pastime. I don't reject those readers, who can certainly have perfectly valid points to make. However, their particular take on the issue does not have the same relevance.

For someone to whom music is the be-all and end-all, who intends on releasing music to a greater public, music that is to be performed by professionals, published, hopefully recorded for posterity, these issues are part of the very core of their existance. They cannot permit themselves to gloss over them simply because they are too difficult.

Therin lies a major difference between a hobbyist and a professional (or someone on track to become a professional).

important differences.

without meaning to sound condescending, the impact of these philosophical questions is quite different for someone who DOES mean to make music as a living and as more than a pastime. And these questions SHOULD be important for someone in that situation.

let me make something very clear here: I am not writing these responses with the intent of reaching people for whom music is but a pastime. I don't reject those readers, who can certainly have perfectly valid points to make. However, their particular take on the issue does not have the same relevance.

For someone to whom music is the be-all and end-all, who intends on releasing music to a greater public, music that is to be performed by professionals, published, hopefully recorded for posterity, these issues are part of the very core of their existance. They cannot permit themselves to gloss over them simply because they are too difficult.

Therin lies a major difference between a hobbyist and a professional (or someone on track to become a professional).

*shrug*

Which sells better:

A) Polytonality, serialism, atonality, extreme dissonance, formless, floating music

B) Tonality/modality, reasonably pleasing harmony, form that is recognised

?

About being condescending - I'm not offended. I've seen people make money pushing music that I wouldn't be caught dead putting my name to, no matter how much it makes.

And another thing: Just because someone doesn't have the goal in mind to make a living from music doesn't mean that they don't have a professional attitude towards it. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the field is too competative for me, given my *tastes* in music. I'd rather be true composing how I like rather than prostitute myself out to whatever I think may sell.

methinks you are misreading my comments.

I have, at no point, advocated "...serialism, atonality, extreme dissonance, formless, floating music".

As for "polytonality", it can be most melodious and pleasing to the ear.

I also didn't talk about having a "professional attitude" towards ones work.

I am speaking of the philosophical questions related to new/old, as we've been discussing them in this thread. The eternal internal struggle of the artist with seeking personal advancement and evolution.

*shrug*

Which sells better:

A) Polytonality, serialism, atonality, extreme dissonance, formless, floating music

B) Tonality/modality, reasonably pleasing harmony, form that is recognised

?

About being condescending - I'm not offended. I've seen people make money pushing music that I wouldn't be caught dead putting my name to, no matter how much it makes.

And another thing: Just because someone doesn't have the goal in mind to make a living from music doesn't mean that they don't have a professional attitude towards it. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the field is too competative for me, given my *tastes* in music. I'd rather be true composing how I like rather than prostitute myself out to whatever I think may sell.

As for "polytonality", it can be most melodious and pleasing to the ear.

A matter of opinion and taste. I'd seperate "melodius" with polytonality, though, the latter being a description of the harmonic relations only, neither inclusive or exclusive of a work being melodic.

I also didn't talk about having a "professional attitude" towards ones work.

I am speaking of the philosophical questions related to new/old, as we've been discussing them in this thread. The eternal internal struggle of the artist with seeking personal advancement and evolution.

How would you define "advancement"?

I'd be interested in hearing your response. Specifically, because some time ago I posted some off the cuff works, my 'hmm's' which you disparaged with a few of your condesending comments. What I remember specifically was your referrence to harmonic mistakes(mistakes I acknowledged in the opening post). Excuse me - but if mistakes are made, they must be in reference to rules - rules that have been defined *say it's not so!* over 200 years ago.

So then, "personal advancement" and "evolution" of one's art is "ok" as long as it sticks to rules that are aged.

Sorry, mate. I respect your knowledge and I even like some of the work you have posted, but a cohesive ideology based on your critisisms and ideals somewhat escapes me.

A matter of opinion and taste. I'd seperate "melodius" with polytonality, though, the latter being a description of the harmonic relations only, neither inclusive or exclusive of a work being melodic.

You made reference to polytonality in the same groups as "...serialism, atonality, extreme dissonance, formless, floating music". To use your own words, serialism, atonality, extreme dissonance are also "neither inclusive (n)or exclusive of a work being" melodious.

And again, I think you have misconstrued my words. I said "melodious" and not "melodic". I am fully aware that polytonality is a harmonic procedure.

me

This whole topic is laughable. If anyone here thinks it pointless to compose in Beethoven's style, and that there's nothing to be gained from such an easy exercise - then I challenge you. Write something that sounds as good as Beethoven. What this discussion fails to address is the fact that regardless of whether Beethoven's been 'done' before, the man's genius didn't lie in innovation (most of the time, innovation isn't something that happens deliberately). It lies in how he actually *used* the tools at his disposal. I don't listen to Beethoven and think "what a genius he was to have a minute of V-I at the end of this movement!" . . . the harmonic language and theory isn't what comes across in the music. It's the emotion, the talent, the vision and the skill for arranging ideas into something coherent and beautiful.

You can't copy that; you can't 'imitate' skill. Saying to a ballerina, "Oh please! I've seen someone else do that double backflip move before! You just copied them!" is hardly a valid put-down.

Actually, you err.

Beethoven DID innovate. Massively.

His genius lies in how he used the tools at his disposal and went one step further than all those who had preceded him.

This whole topic is laughable. If anyone here thinks it pointless to compose in Beethoven's style, and that there's nothing to be gained from such an easy exercise - then I challenge you. Write something that sounds as good as Beethoven. What this discussion fails to address is the fact that regardless of whether Beethoven's been 'done' before, the man's genius didn't lie in innovation (most of the time, innovation isn't something that happens deliberately). It lies in how he actually *used* the tools at his disposal. I don't listen to Beethoven and think "what a genius he was to have a minute of V-I at the end of this movement!" . . . the harmonic language and theory isn't what comes across in the music. It's the emotion, the talent, the vision and the skill for arranging ideas into something coherent and beautiful.

You can't copy that; you can't 'imitate' skill. Saying to a ballerina, "Oh please! I've seen someone else do that double backflip move before! You just copied them!" is hardly a valid put-down.

This whole topic is laughable. If anyone here thinks it pointless to compose in Beethoven's style, and that there's nothing to be gained from such an easy exercise - then I challenge you. Write something that sounds as good as Beethoven. What this discussion fails to address is the fact that regardless of whether Beethoven's been 'done' before, the man's genius didn't lie in innovation (most of the time, innovation isn't something that happens deliberately). It lies in how he actually *used* the tools at his disposal. I don't listen to Beethoven and think "what a genius he was to have a minute of V-I at the end of this movement!" . . . the harmonic language and theory isn't what comes across in the music. It's the emotion, the talent, the vision and the skill for arranging ideas into something coherent and beautiful.

You can't copy that; you can't 'imitate' skill. Saying to a ballerina, "Oh please! I've seen someone else do that double backflip move before! You just copied them!" is hardly a valid put-down.

Ok, as I suspect that this is aimed at me as well:

Please read (or read more carefully) the posts before you before posting. nobody said anything about pointless or whatever!

As for making or not making a living and whatever, if you do use this as an excuse, Paul, then allow me to say that you shouldn't be discussing in the first place. If your comment is basically "I do what I want, I'm not a pro, I don't make any money and only do that to please myself, and maybe my wife/partner/friends/family", then it appears that we are not discsussing anything in common really! Cause we are talking about two different things alltogether!

you can do whatever you want! You are entitled to! Even if it involved S&M for all I care. I'm discussing someone who cares about music, who wants to create, who feels that he should express himself in any way possible, not limited only to the past!

Both me and QCcowboy are simply saying that it's a pity, that so many new ideas are out there, which DO sound good and nice, and yet people refuse even to see them, without really any excuse... That all!

I'm late to my reply here :@

As for which sells best: Who cares? I don't write music to sell best, nor to please the audience only! I do all of this together, along with pleasing myself, advancing everytime little by little, casue I beleive there is something to be learned every single day, and balance all of these, along with my fees... Doesn't it seem healthy?

If I referenced any "rules" you had "broken", then it was because you were writing in an idiom that was within the constraints of those rules.

Er, yes - but it could be argued that I was *exploring* and engaging in musical *evolution* or whatever by simply breaking them.

I wasn't, but perhaps you get the point. Why harp on how this or that section doesn't fit some predefined norm then complain that it's not *new* enough when it does fit that norm?

As for comments I passed on your works :

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/hmm-19-hmm-26-a-6002.html

I'm sorry you now think my comments were condescending. You thanked me at the time. I don't see anything condescending about the comments I made. As a matter of fact, I've given people considerably more "curt" comments than those without complaint.

Yes, but in hindsight I found your comments about the harmony annoying. I already knew that the harmony was lacking in places, and that is why I acknowledged it in the title post.

I believe you are jumping to a false conclusion about my musical ideals. Please help me to understand how what I wrote leads you to this conclusion.

I don't see consistancy.

On the one hand, "forward thinking" with regards to harmony, melody etc is prized when it "moves on" (deviates from) norms created decades/centuries ago.

On the other hand - when it does do this - it's frowned on because it doesn't fit those accepted norms.

Yet...

I might point out that many of the basic concepts of those rules (voice leading, preparation and resolution of dissonance, etc...), while altered to fit advancements in harmony, have remained largely applicable to any music that is tonality-oriented.

Agreed. Would it not stand to reason, then, that if someone obeyed those rules - then from a harmonic standpoint - their music would resemble those of previous masters? Again, isn't it *this* that is looked on as a lack of forward thinking and "individual expression"?

I don't see consistancy.

On the one hand, "forward thinking" with regards to harmony, melody etc is prized when it "moves on" (deviates from) norms created decades/centuries ago.

On the other hand - when it does do this - it's frowned on because it doesn't fit those accepted norms.

Agreed. Would it not stand to reason, then, that if someone obeyed those rules - then from a harmonic standpoint - their music would resemble those of previous masters? Again, isn't it *this* that is looked on as a lack of forward thinking and "individual expression"?

Let's make one thing perfectly clear: breaking rules without understanding them is not "forward thinking" nor is it demonstration of an ability to think beyond the confines of those rules.

as Debussy says "toute audace engendr

I moved (somehow) the discussion here: http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/more-contemporary-music-7982.html#post108063

anyone care to join? :blink: