Is atonal music dead?

Originally Posted by almacg

So, you don't care about what people think? You will because it's people who decide what music rises the ranks and gets played. You can't actually tell me that you don't mind if all your work stays on your computer with nobody but your immediate friends and family hearing it, as opposed to being critically acclaimed by a world-wide audience.

If you want to make MONEY, you aren't going to try to make ART, you'll try to make MONEY.

MONEY lies in trends, popular stuff, etc etc. Then it doesn't matter what the composer wants, it matters what the target demographic wants.

I for one don't mind if all my work isn't performed (despite the fact it has been) if it means doing crap I don't want to do, or write what I don't want to write. I have the final say on how my music sounds like, screw what anyone else thinks or says, period.

So what if I don't become "famous" so what if I don't get loads of moneys? That's not why I write music at all, and I feel sorry for anyone who has this as their ultimate goal since chances are, it's mighty difficult to "get anywhere" unless you do the typical show business dance & game, and even then usually getting off the ground may as well take years or may never happen.

If your emphasis is on making money or pleasing audiences, you have your work cut out for you. Watch popular movies, see what the demographics consume, and just recycle and sell it back to them. It's pretty simple.

PS: To further push the point home, there is no middle ground between "what the audience wants" and the composer wants. If there is, it's by chance or the composer is specifically shooting to please the audience. But, really now, isn't this all obvious?

Originally Posted by SSC

If your emphasis is on making money or pleasing audiences, you have your work cut out for you. Watch popular movies, see what the demographics consume, and just recycle and sell it back to them. It's pretty simple.

No thanks. I'd rather change how music is listened to.

Originally Posted by SSC

I for one don't mind if all my work isn't performed (despite the fact it has been)...

I admire the sentiment but I would say for myself that I do want my works performed, and I work very hard to make that happen. I do not, however, do it for fame, money, et al., but for personal and professional satisfaction and growth.

Originally Posted by SSC

...if it means doing crap I don't want to do, or write what I don't want to write.

I have, on very rare occasion, been asked to compose something (for money or gratis)... and they were things that I did not particularly want to write. You can write something that is still your work and for the audience, but I believe it's a balance. That's a personal choice, of course. If you choose not to do so, I support that as well.


I would caution y'all about being satisfied with your works not being played.
Music that isn't played isn't music... it's just paper.

Originally Posted by flint-wwrr

I have, on very rare occasion, been asked to compose something (for money or gratis)... and they were things that I did not particularly want to write. You can write something that is still your work and for the audience, but I believe it's a balance. That's a personal choice, of course. If you choose not to do so, I support that as well.

But this is the best trick! To manage to find a way to please your client, as well as yourself. This is the best trick in the world!

I'm right now, writing a "song" for a choir about "summer"! The lyrics are fine, romantic, etc, nothing like me. The song is tonal, and needs to be tonal all the way.

It's up to me to take the challenge to the next level and make something that I enjoy making.

Originally Posted by flint-wwrr

I would caution y'all about being satisfied with your works not being played.
Music that isn't played isn't music... it's just paper.

And electronic music? And so on? There's also experimental stuff that don't necessarily need to be done to see what would happen.

Nevermind that shooting for a performance is fine, but I'd not stress that too much. Look at Ives' Symphonies nobody wanted to play. I mean, he didn't stop writing despite the fact nobody would play his music.

Cage also comes to mind, there's a lot of stuff you just have to "Do it yourself". Know a cellist? Write for cello. Know a singer? Write for that singer. Keep pieces "performable" just by actually knowing those who can or want to perform it. If you don't know anyone to play something, it's still OK to write it.

In fact, I'd say that writing stuff down is the single most important thing a composer can do. Hearing it back by real performers is always super fine and shit, but chances are that double symphony for 4 organs and 100 people choir isn't going to get performed ever, but it shouldn't stop you from writing such thing.

So, I'd be careful saying that whatever isn't played isn't music. Sure, if it's on paper it's not actual SOUND, but it's like plans for a building, just because the building hasn't been built, doesn't mean it never will be. Nevermind that once you have the plans you can build a thousand of the buildings with them. Same for a score.

I'd also be careful stressing so much on performance, since I'd rather people write what they want to write. You never know how it's going to roll, and having pieces finished is always a strong point even if you can not get a performance immediately or later it still means repertoire, experience, and so on.

So yeah, I don't agree with what you said there at the end.

Originally Posted by SSC

So, I'd be careful saying that whatever isn't played isn't music. Sure, if it's on paper it's not actual SOUND, but it's like plans for a building, just because the building hasn't been built, doesn't mean it never will be. Nevermind that once you have the plans you can build a thousand of the buildings with them. Same for an score.

I think that's what he's saying. Notes on paper isn't music any more than lines on paper is a building. Blueprints don't do shit unless someone actually builds your buildings. I could design the most elaborate, amazing building (also elaborately impractical) on paper, but that doesn't mean I'm a good architect.

Originally Posted by nikolas

But this is the best trick! To manage to find a way to please your client, as well as yourself. This is the best trick in the world!

I'm right now, writing a "song" for a choir about "summer"! The lyrics are fine, romantic, etc, nothing like me. The song is tonal, and needs to be tonal all the way.

It's up to me to take the challenge to the next level and make something that I enjoy making.

I agree... I think that some people here do not realize that not every work is written as a "masterpiece". Some works, like it or not, are only "etudes".

For example, my work in the Major Works forum started off as an experiment that was prompted when someone asked me (off-handedly) why I never wrote anything with a harp part.

Not every work one writes is a gem, but every work written functions as an etude for the composer in some form.

Originally Posted by Jamie Whitmarsh

I think that's what he's saying. Notes on paper isn't music any more than lines on paper is a building. Blueprints don't do shit unless someone actually builds your buildings. I could design the most elaborate, amazing building (also elaborately impractical) on paper, but that doesn't mean I'm a good architect.

...???????????

Blueprints do a whole fucking lot, without them building the damn thing is impossible. Nevermind being a good architect has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Having your music performed doesn't ensure you'll be a "good composer" or any of that, in fact it can end up being the opposite depending on the experience.

Srsly.

PS: Think of it like, Having score = possible to perform something (regardless of probability). Having nothing = Impossible to perform it, since what is there to perform? I'd rather have SOMETHING than NOTHING. You never know when having a piece for 2 Violas you wrote on a whim is going to come handy, or that thing for Orchestra you wrote and put on the shelf. I've known people to quit writing something after they were told "haha lolz nobody will play this" more or less, which is very shitty. One thing is not playing it because it's impossible (contra F on oboe...) but another is just because the right set of circumstances haven't come around. If the score is properly written, at least you can start TRYING to find performers if you want in the first place.

Originally Posted by SSC

Having your music performed doesn't ensure you'll be a "good composer" or any of that, in fact it can end up being the opposite depending on the experience.

That was my point. I think the point of truth is when one comes to that realization. (In fact, there are several composers on this forum who are laboring under the delusion that their work is above reproach, suggestions, or commentary because, in their words, "I've had it performed".)

The whole theory vs. practice argument.

Originally Posted by SSC

Nevermind that shooting for a performance is fine, but I'd not stress that too much. Look at Ives' Symphonies nobody wanted to play. I mean, he didn't stop writing despite the fact nobody would play his music.

That's a difficult topic, as there are basically two "types" of composers (which of course overlap): One, like Ives, or the Russian "Mighy Five" earns their money with entirely non-musical jobs and only composes in their spare time. The other tries to earn their living with composing. Both, in most cases, want to create art, but both have their ways of earning the money they need to live. Ives didn't need his symphonies to be played, as he earned money well enough in the insurance business. Composers like Haydn on the other hand wrote because it was "their job" and a certain compositorial output was expected from them.

I don't think such considerations necessarily make a composition less valuable, or less artistic and composers such as Bach were extremely good at "doing their duty" (and writing cantata after cantata because he had to) while still doing entirely his own thing and not bending to what the audience would have loved most to hear.

I'm not saying that "doing one's duty" is a necessity as a composer, not in the least. But I don't think it makes your compositions less personal and valid, as long as you know precicely what you want and don't make concessions where you feel it would corrupt your music.

I also find that "writing because you have to" has certain artistic advantages: If you only do what you want all the time, you might after a while notice that you begin repeating yourself in your musical articulations, as you keep writing in ways where you feel comfortable.

If you're happy with that, that's fine, but personally I also write music to discover areas that are new to me, to explore, to expand my musical experience. And this can sometimes be easier if there's something from the outside "forcing" you into something where you might not feel totally comfortable and at home first, but which may lead to musical insights that you couldn't have got otherwise. I don't really like it when in my own music every note feels totally natural and logical. I much prefer it when I find elements in it that are somewhat strange to me, that I don't really understand myself, but which invite me to explore them more.

I've quite often written for instruments which I didn't pick myself, but for which I was given the opportunity of a performance. Actually, it's already been quite a while since I wrote my last piece that was entirely "my own idea" (even though I really want to do such a piece again now). In any case, this fact has often forced me to think about musical questions I had avoided until then and the pieces which have resulted out of this have generally been great experiences I wouldn't have wanted to miss.

I don't think you have to write for a performance. You can write whatever you want for whatever reason, really. But a life performance is always something entirely different to just looking at a score and the actual, physical experience of listening to your music is one of the main reasons I write. And while the act of writing music is a musical act independantly of whether it is actually performed, I think I got to agree with the sentiment that ultimately something is only music when it reaches its intended goal, i.e. usually a performance. Leaving aside very conceptual things, music is about sound in the end, no matter if it's a piano sonata, an electronic piece, written as a very free graphical score to be turned into music in whatever way one likes, or even three movements of ”tacet".

Of course it's a highly difficult topic, as you can hardly say that the later life of Beethoven was without music, despite the lack of anything audible for his ears. But maybe we have to be consistent and say that Beethoven's later life was in fact without music, as strange as this must feel to us (and despite the fact that Beethoven probably didn't feel as if his life was without music). But I think in the end it's probably just a question of terminology.