Why are "accepted" standards taken so seriously?

Why do we see so many composers writing works in sonata, rondo, bourr

Interesting points. I honestly can't think of anything, but I know what you mean about original names. Whenever I try to come up with something "original" or "modern" it usually ends up sounding silly to me.

To me, it's not about the title, it's the actual music. If something sounds great, does it matter what it is called?

Why do we see so many composers writing works in sonata, rondo, bourr

I understand it's about the content, but it actually matters a lot to me what it's called. For emotional pieces anyway. That is to say, for works that intend to convey a feeling, sensation, image or even a story, if I understand what the composer intended me to feel or see (by reading the title before listening) then I can appreciate it more. If there isn't an emotion involved and it's just another march or minuet then it doesn't at all matter what it's called, and it would sound silly to name it anything dynamic if the piece isn't dynamic itself.

That makes me think of something else I wanted to say... music should involve more than the ear. The capacity of sound is incredible (if you've ever felt like dancing while listening to an up-tempo jazzy piece, you know what I'm saying) and composers should more often attempt to fulfill that capacity. But what can you do, people are stuck in the past where the audience didn't go to a concert to see or feel things through the music.

Is this about 'modern' use of traditional forms/techniques? OR Labelling modern works with traditional titles?

...

Ah, program music, that's the word I was looking for :D

It's not about modern versus traditional, but moreover the usage of traditional naming when it's no longer necessary (i.e. there was no need for fancy names centuries ago because the titles would never be heard!).

Anders, the "tried and tested" part is what I don't understand. What's so good about sonata allegro form, other than it being used a lot? What makes it better than any random form if both are equally well composed? And about the ensembles... that's true, and unfortunate because it limits what composers can write for, but it shouldn't be too hard to find a classical guitarist, pianist and flautist (to further my ensemble example) and get them together to perform something. Really.

No, I think you have the wrong idea. The titles aren't 'traditional', they're abstract. They're necessary when writing abstract music. Abstract and program music are different things. And yes, when composers write program music they almost always issue a program, or at least a title, with the work.

I do kinda wish more people would go off and try some new things every once in a while. It would just diversify an already diverse language. I would personally love some trumpet-oboe duets or a accordian-bassoon-Cello trio. However, as long as the music is good, I will never care.

And also, some traditional ensembles such as the string quartet are very well balanced, while a random combination of instruments may be more difficult to write for and so most people turn to the easier path.

Well thats my little take...

Well traditional forms and structures and ensembles are proven to work well for the past 200 years now. Take a string quartet for example. It just sounds fantastic...

I don't think that it's bad bassing things on an existant something. Then again, I'm personally obsessed with form, so I have abandoned classical forms (sonata, inventions, fugue, etc) long long ago. My form are mathematical, complicated, and devilish :D

I really believe that a strong form, brings the music forward to the listener and makes the goal of the composer more obvious...

On the ensembles, it all comes down to what you want, and acoustics as well a bit... Piano a guitar, let's face it, is a weird combination, with the piano overpowering most of the time the guitar. not that it can't be done, but I, somehow, can't see the interest. Other ideas are much better...

On naming, it depends on if the music is abstract or not. For the past 2-3 pieces, that you've seen here (obscene obsession, int. music I and exeliksis) all titles denote what's happening to the piece, or why I wrote it, or combination of both. On what I'm working now, I've already decided on the title: "Pier 6". Google it if you want, but add "gatwick" next to it, and you'll find out what I'm refering to. After that on how I use it, let's just say that pier 6 provides all the infromation regarding form and aesthetics. Which is plenty for me to work on... :laugh:

Why do we see so many composers writing works in sonata, rondo, bourr

Anders, the "tried and tested" part is what I don't understand. What's so good about sonata allegro form, other than it being used a lot? What makes it better than any random form if both are equally well composed?

For inexperienced composers, sonata form is invaluable. One needs, when he's starting out, some sort of ''template'' to hang his musical ideas on - the inexperienced composer often doesen't know where to go with his material, and sonata form kind of shows him the way; it stakes out a course for the music. When I say ''tried and tested'' I simply mean that this form has been proven the most effective over time (hundreds of years!!).

Have your written music in sonata form? No, I guess you haven't, or else you wouldn't be asking this question.. In fact, I bet you haven't even tried your hand at large forms.. Trust me, it all becomes clear when you try to organize a large piece of music.

To be sure, sonata form isn't all that specific - the "development" all depends on what you do with it.

And when you really consider them, the standard forms are not really used that strictly at all. Composers often use sonata form or rondo form as a jumping-off point, but from Beethoven onward, composers have often modified the standard forms to a great degree.

Some people just happen to like and prefer to use those forms, and may actually hate free form. Just because it's in an old form doesn't mean the music isn't original. I love the classical sound and I like very little modern music, so that just happens to be why I like it. It's not because they're there, but I like them and happen to prefer them. Whenever I've tried something free-form or modern, I haven't liked it (in fact, the only free-form piece I started...I never finished, because I didn't like how it seemed to be going nowhere). But that's just me.

You guys italicize alot. It's like you're criticizing a child about some religious issue. or slapping the wrist with a ruler. Hail Mary.

Okay, lots to say...

I'm challenging the usefulness of abstract music entirely. Surely not all music has to convey an emotion. But (to me, of course) music that does not have ANY feeling (read: emotion) whatsoever often pales in comparison. Why have tea when you can have tea and crumpets? Only if you don't feel like having crumpets, and I like my crumpets.

Well traditional forms and structures and ensembles are proven to work well for the past 200 years now. Take a string quartet for example. It just sounds fantastic...

I don't think that it's bad bassing things on an existant something. Then again' date=' I'm personally obsessed with form, so I have abandoned classical forms (sonata, inventions, fugue, etc) long long ago. My form are mathematical, complicated, and devilish :P

I really believe that a strong form, brings the music forward to the listener and makes the goal of the composer more obvious...

On the ensembles, it all comes down to what you want, and acoustics as well a bit... Piano a guitar, let's face it, is a weird combination, with the piano overpowering most of the time the guitar. not that it can't be done, but I, somehow, can't see the interest. Other ideas are much better...

On naming, it depends on if the music is abstract or not. For the past 2-3 pieces, that you've seen here (obscene obsession, int. music I and exeliksis) all titles denote what's happening to the piece, or why I wrote it, or combination of both. On what I'm working now, I've already decided on the title: "Pier 6". Google it if you want, but add "gatwick" next to it, and you'll find out what I'm refering to. After that on how I use it, let's just say that pier 6 provides all the infromation regarding form and aesthetics. Which is plenty for me to work on... [/quote']

More like, let's face it, that's an opinionated comment. Have you ever heard that particular trio...? Also, instrumental differences can be accommodated. Soft pedals are useful :) And so is correct writing: composers write thinly around solo bass because it's so quiet. The most important thing is the mixture of timbres and how they flow together (also opinionated, but, does anyone disagree?).

Are you wondering what people's motives are for using these types of ensambles and naming, or is it something else?

I'm wondering what people's motives are for not using other ensembles, forms and nomenclature. I know they "work well", but that's not at all to say nothing else will. Like I mention, half the fun of writing music should be finding new ways to express oneself through it. It just seems to me that restricting oneself to writing in a predetermined form, for a predetermined ensemble, takes away so much of the creative potential.

For inexperienced composers' date=' sonata form is invaluable. One needs, when he's starting out, some sort of ''template'' to hang his musical ideas on - the inexperienced composer often doesen't know where to go with his material, and sonata form kind of shows him the way; it stakes out a course for the music. When I say ''tried and tested'' I simply mean that this form has been proven the most effective over time (hundreds of years!!).

Have your written music in sonata form? No, I guess you haven't, or else you wouldn't be asking this question.. In fact, I bet you haven't even tried your hand at large forms.. Trust me, it all becomes clear when you try to organize a large piece of music.

[/quote']

You seem to believe I support things with no form whatsoever, which differs completely from forms that plainly aren't standard (what I will call, based on semantics, "free form"). I think an inexperienced composer could turn to a set form if he was uncomfortable making his own, but I don't think it makes much of any difference if he formulated his own. As a matter of fact, I find ideas flow more freely in a free form (that would make sense, wouldn't it?) and quite frankly if forms aren't set in stone to begin with, and great composers can modify the definition of a form just by writing one differently, well, the idea just keeps losing credibility to me.

Some people just happen to like and prefer to use those forms, and may actually hate free form. Just because it's in an old form doesn't mean the music isn't original.

What, you mean the musical content itself? Sure, of course it can still be original... but moreso if you let the form move how it wants to and not limit yourself to ABACADA... :whistling:

I'll leave you with this tidbit... I don't know about other composers, but when I hear a piece of music for the first time, I hear it in its entirety. I hear the flow, the expression, the shifting harmonies and melody, I hear all of that as one figure. I don't sit there and think "Hm, here's the prelude, here's the exposition. There's the A, there's the B. I sure do like B sections in the relative minor. And here comes the development... wait, I'm not sure if it's started yet. We're still flirting with C major." I certainly could, but it rather mars the experience. To use another analogy, I don't take apart my sandwiches and eat the layers separately... I could look at the layers to see why it tastes so good, but I'm still going to enjoy it as a whole sandwich whether there are two layers of ham or one, and whether there is lettuce or not.

Well, I hope that all made sense anyway.

More like, let's face it, that's an opinionated comment. Have you ever heard that particular trio...? Also, instrumental differences can be accommodated. Soft pedals are useful :) And so is correct writing: composers write thinly around solo bass because it's so quiet. The most important thing is the mixture of timbres and how they flow together (also opinionated, but, does anyone disagree?).

(in a light feeling): how about learning to count? Guitar+piano=duet, not trio :whistling: hehehehe!

Of course it's opiniated! I didn't say otherwise, I just said I find other ensembles better for me. I don't find challenging making things difficult for myself only for making it difficult. Which gives away my motives...

What I also dislike severly is quoting somone halfway. Did you miss the part about forms? I love forms and write a new form everyday. (Someone reading your post alone will think something about me that doesn't exist)

Everyone will find different ways to express themselves. Some may do it with lyrics, and have clich

You seem to believe I support things with no form whatsoever, which differs completely from forms that plainly aren't standard (what I will call, based on semantics, "free form"). I think an inexperienced composer could turn to a set form if he was uncomfortable making his own, but I don't think it makes much of any difference if he formulated his own. As a matter of fact, I find ideas flow more freely in a free form (that would make sense, wouldn't it?) and quite frankly if forms aren't set in stone to begin with, and great composers can modify the definition of a form just by writing one differently, well, the idea just keeps losing credibility to me.

No, I wasn't implying you supported things with no form. It's just that sonata form really teaches you how to efficiently organize a larger work, period. When you know the form itself, it's very easy to make variations on it or diverge from it entirely. It just makes things easier. Again, have you tried teaching yourself the form?

Nikolas:

Haha, I thought you were referring to my ensemble example of the flute, guitar and piano trio.

I quote people halfway for brevity, not to short-change you, sorry. I've edited the quote in my post but haven't added anything new to my reply. And of course I don't mean to put down anyone who prefers to use traditional (or abstract, or authentic) methods of naming a piece, or who solely writes for orchestra... I think that's just great... but in general I feel there should be more of the opposite direction. That's why I made this topic.

As for diversity, orchestra is indeed fairly diverse in instruments, but (me and my culinary analogies!) if you have an ice cream sundae with vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, pecan and mint ice cream, with a banana and cherries and whipped cream and chopped walnuts with nutmeg and caramel and chocolate sauce... every day for dessert, for years on end... I wager you might get bored of it after a while. And wonder what it might be like to have just vanilla and chocolate ice cream with cherries. Or blueberry pie or apple turnover or lemon tarts. The point is, I need more diversity than the orchestra. It doesn't encompass every instrument there is, and even if there weren't any others, sometimes less is more.

And I get that not everyone is like me. However, I am frustrated that nearly everyone in contemporary art music is like you. :whistling:

Anders: I have a passing acquaintance with sonata form; among all other things it is lower on my priority list to master, and I have not composed in sonata form for the same reasons I'm outlining here (and I outline these reasons partially to inquire if there is any reason I should give a care about sonata form!). And if I am shown to be in error, and forms have any significant value to my well-being as a musician, I will no doubt start writing with them.

And I get that not everyone is like me. However, I am frustrated that nearly everyone in contemporary art music is like you. :whistling:

Like what then? I fail to see how I am... I really don't understand this comment.

Other than that, yes, haha!

Something for you to consider: I've been through trying to find new sounds, etc, but now with a computer and a synth, or Csound, or Reaktor 5 I'm pretty in love and make new productions and sounds every day. Thus I fullfil my need for new in the part of sounds!

Do explain the above quote though, please... What is my characteristic that everyone in the contemporary music has? (Because I think there is a huge misunderstanding here, that's why I ask) (furthermore you have not posted in any of my musics around here, so I could suspect that you have not heard any of my music. If you have IO do appologise... But if you haven't how do you judge someone :P)

Interesting conversation! :P

Even though I don't have the time to participate fully, I sympathize with both parts. My own personal opinion is that a composer should;

a) learn whatever he can, whenever he can! Knowledge is always useful!

b) adopt an ad hoc approach, utilizing what he wants to utilize and discarding the rest.

Thus, my point is that I don't care about what's considered as 'standard' and what is not, but rather a matter of what I want to achieve and through what means. If a classical, tested form or instrument combination achieves the end...why not? If it doesn't why shouldn't I consider alternatives?

:whistling:

Why do we see so many composers writing works in sonata, rondo, bourr

Okay, lots to say...

I'm challenging the usefulness of abstract music entirely. Surely not all music has to convey an emotion. But (to me, of course) music that does not have ANY feeling (read: emotion) whatsoever often pales in comparison. Why have tea when you can have tea and crumpets? Only if you don't feel like having crumpets, and I like my crumpets.

Why should music be useful? Not everyone wants to turn that natural forest into a golf course.

The comparison is bad, because no music contains emotions, it does not have any feelings. People react with emotions when listening to a piece, and this reaction depends on biological makeup and psychological training. Therefore, the most simple minuet, might evoke the most powerful emotion, depending on who listens. If I'm trained to react in a specific way towards a minor chord, then I will most likely react that way. Now, everyone's training regime is diffirent, and there is no training whatever of how to react to specific, neverbeforeheard passages. Therefore, the communicative aspect of music is currently, at best, limited. The analogy between language and music works only if we consider music to be a very primitive type of language. It's as communicative as a lions roar (and yet, whatever the purpouse of the lion is, we cannot know if our reaction is right or wrong), or the moon of the night sky. To say that the purpouse of music is to communicate emotions, is like saying that the purpouse of the moon is to make us happy, give us light in the night.

The ideal, in many composer's minds seems to be: minor chord (feel sad!) -> listener feels sad. If you want to reduce music to a primitive communicating system of ordering the person to feel emotions, or have specific associations, then you'll have to do ALOT of work outside of music. You'd have to teach your audience a new language. And if you think that this is a noble pursuit, then do it (I believe it to be impossible).

More like, let's face it, that's an opinionated comment. Have you ever heard that particular trio...? Also, instrumental differences can be accommodated. Soft pedals are useful :) And so is correct writing: composers write thinly around solo bass because it's so quiet. The most important thing is the mixture of timbres and how they flow together (also opinionated, but, does anyone disagree?).

Yes, it's bad having opinions, unless everyone agrees with them.

I'm wondering what people's motives are for not using other ensembles, forms and nomenclature. I know they "work well", but that's not at all to say nothing else will. Like I mention, half the fun of writing music should be finding new ways to express oneself through it. It just seems to me that restricting oneself to writing in a predetermined form, for a predetermined ensemble, takes away so much of the creative potential.

Moralizing about music is always ugly. Thou shall not have fun writing a sonata! Thou shall always have fun, writing music! Thou shall not break the rule of the perfect fifths! When "should" and "music" go together in the same sentance, the results are often disasterous. Why should "half the fun" be trying to find new ways to express oneself?

If one doesn't restrict oneself, there is no right and wrong. If I want to write an authentic piece of baroque music, I have to discipline myself, because if the piece ends up sounding like The Rite of Spring, I have done something wrong. I like to challange myself this way because it is an entirely diffirent intellectual experience. When I write freely, anything will do, there is nothing stopping me. Why shouldn't I restrict myself? The argument, that it takes away from my creative potential is bad, because you couldn't possibly know, there is no measurement of creative potential. Also: it's like saying that I am less creative if I don't always use all the colors, if I paint in black and white.

As a matter of fact, I find ideas flow more freely in a free form (that would make sense, wouldn't it?) and quite frankly if forms aren't set in stone to begin with, and great composers can modify the definition of a form just by writing one differently, well, the idea just keeps losing credibility to me.

Yes, ideas flow more freely in a free form, because there is nothing restricting them: you could keep any idea, and it would be right. Don't go brawling about this though, coming up with ideas is easy, throwing them away is hard. I respect Brahms more than a Jazz improviser (and yet, I improvise almost 2 hours daily.)

What, you mean the musical content itself? Sure, of course it can still be original... but moreso if you let the form move how it wants to and not limit yourself to ABACADA... :)

Why obsess about originality? What you seem to be saying: a structured, planned-out novel is less original than one that is not.

I'll leave you with this tidbit... I don't know about other composers, but when I hear a piece of music for the first time, I hear it in its entirety. I hear the flow, the expression, the shifting harmonies and melody, I hear all of that as one figure. I don't sit there and think "Hm, here's the prelude, here's the exposition. There's the A, there's the B. I sure do like B sections in the relative minor. And here comes the development... wait, I'm not sure if it's started yet. We're still flirting with C major." I certainly could, but it rather mars the experience. To use another analogy, I don't take apart my sandwiches and eat the layers separately... I could look at the layers to see why it tastes so good, but I'm still going to enjoy it as a whole sandwich whether there are two layers of ham or one, and whether there is lettuce or not.

Yes, but if you are interested in sandwitches, or the making of sandwitches, then it might be a good idea to analyse them. I do what you described automatically, and it certainly doesn't mar the experience. Like: "Knowing that the next chapter begins, of a novel, mars the experience." You are, with all your current posts, making the common philosophical error of mistaking I for we.

The ideal, in many composer's minds seems to be: minor chord (feel sad!) -> listener feels sad.

I've always been puzzled by that dichotomy. I prefer to think of major chords as bright, and minor chords as dark. In my opinion, some of the most desperately sad pieces I've ever heard were in major key (2nd movement of beethoven's pathetique sonata). Some of the happiest, in minor (Take 5). It has a lot more to do with rhythm and phrasing than it has to do with harmony, in my opinion. To me, just hearing a minor chord doesn't instantly make me sad. Nor does hearing a major chord instantly make me happy. One does sound "brighter" than the other, however. I think that is objective. It is almost like color. Brightness and darkness is objective. Harmony is the most objective part of music. Emotional reaction to harmony, and every other part of music, is LARGELY subjective. There is still a bit of objectivity in the mix, because I doubt anyone would hear Night on Bald Mountain and instantly think of glowing sun filled meadows with fluffy bunnies bouncing all over the place (for an extreme case of a hypothetical subjective reaction). So if music can communicate anything, it is very very vague. Violence versus peace, for example. Violence doesn't necessarily mean war or rape, it can simply be an active volcano. Peace doesn't necessarily mean Mother theresa, it can mean fluffy bunnies in a meadow. Music cannot communicate discrete meanings, but certain meanings are "closer" and "better fits" for certain pieces of music than others. This is why programmatic music can be an "aid" to the imagination, for some. It helps elicit particular subjective reactions. In the absence of programmes however, the listener is free to have whatever reaction occurs to him. For me personally, my reaction to music is almost purely abstract. I rarely think of real world things. If my brain conjures up any imagery it is usually lights and patterns and things like that, kind of like in Fantasia when they play Bach.

Just to point out, I've never actually gotten bored with songs of traditional form and stuff like that. I have, however, gotten bored of modern free-form music and can't understand why some people like it so much (and I'm not exactly saying just free-form...just whatever you prefer over traditional things). I guess our musical tastes are just complete opposites, then.

Also, I do use other ensembles. I had never experienced writing a string quartet until not too long ago. ^_^

I don't think I've ever heard a piece which was truly freeform. Then you would have to repeat absolutely nothing, and have absolutely zero homogenaiety in your piece whatsoever. I think this is nearly impossible. Even the fact that from one moment to the next you may still be playing on the same instrument is repeating something: timbre. The instant a composer writes a truly freeform piece, it seems to me he will have created a parallel universe with different laws. Haha ...hmm. Scriabin, anyone? :)