Composition today

What is your view on composition today? Where do you think classical music (or other genres) is headed, and what do you think about our inspiration? Do we need more of what we had before, or should we keep moving ahead with our ideas?

I think that the Baroque period and the 20th century were the greatest eras in terms of composition, and I draw influence from composers of those periods especially. I also think that music should continue to progress, though, (and it inevitably will,) because that's what makes music change over the ages.
Composition isn't in such a great place right now, though. Art music (not just classical) has fallen out of the public eye, for the most part. I think that that a lot of people only think about Mozart and Beethoven, etc. when they think of composers and their music. (Don't get me wrong, Mozart and Beethoven were both incredible composers.) Music that is being composed now should be put back on the public radar, though, and more attention should be paid to artists in the present day.
Thoughts?

I agree with almost everything you say. The only question is: "How?"

The answer is wait.

If you're not an amazing composer, then you probably can't do much about it. Just wait and wait. Then if that doesn't work, wait some more.

Wait until people start realizing.

I think it's because of commercial music that a) exists in much larger numbers than classical, b) is unashamedly promoted to the public that you may assume that classical music has fallen off the eye of the public.

However, I must tell you that in most concerts and recitals I've been to, the halls are almost full, and even in a concert where they played Penderecki's 8th Symphony, the halls were extraordinarily full. People have been listening to more classical music nowadays than they used to 100 years ago, because 100 years ago there weren't any CDs, DVDs, film soundtracks, tapes, or LPs, so people had to actually go to concerts to listen to music, while now people listen music through all of the above, and go to concerts.

Yeah, recording techniques (and distribution of printed scores etc.) have a lot to do with the fact that people listen more to Beethoven than to Kurtag. In contrast to 1800, there simply is a lot more truly great music available to all of us, so new music has a hard stance, since people can easily stick to their preferred style for their whole life without ever trying out anything else. Composers hadn't to compete with Bach in 1800, because there was almost no opportunity to hear a Bach piece, whereas today we compare every new piece with so many masterpieces we already know. So actually, the best way to make people listen to new music would be to destroy every score and recording that is older than 10 years

But jujimufu is right: There -is- an audience for new music. It's smaller than pop music audience, but it's significant enough. And we may often also be overestimating the size of the audiences the "great composers of the past" used to have. Even the "stars" of those times, even Handel or Rossini never had an audience comparable to the famous pop artists of today.

It's really interesting to see what's going on in Germany, where they have the classical music, "E", and entertainment music, "U", and they tax them differently, so radio stations actually benefit from playing classical music, which is very good in terms of promotion of classical music. Of course, many people have complained (from the "U" scene, mostly) and have demanded that music is treated equally, but I guess it's a kind of counter-balance to the over-commercialised societies we live in, just like hiring more black people to counter-balance the racism against black people, for example.

Music is obviously listened to more. Commercial music is great. Classical music is great. Music is music and needs to be respected no matter what form it comes in. I think, if anything, we need to quit thinking in terms of "haha hiphop is a two measure ostinato for the entire song so it's not music" and more in terms of the expression, message and (most importantly) the presentation of sound in addition to composition itself. That's a very critical flaw that I see in classical music "elitists". I'd like to see more experimentation with the sonic side of things, instead of the paper side of things.

Music is a craft. Music can be treated equally, but music will never be equal. You can't compare a Mahler symphony to a hiphop song written by an 11 year old boy, just like you can't compare a factory-made plastic cup to the Taj Mahal, and if you do say that the plastic, manufactured cup is equally artistic to the Taj Mahal, I am sorry, we obviously have diametrically different opinions about art and I am not willing to discuss with anyone about Art, because we'll never end anywhere, and it's not to say that my opinion is correct and I refuse to talk about it with anyone else because everyone is wrong, but it's just that Art is perceived differently by different people, and if you are one of the people who think of it differently than me, then there isn't much to say about that.

There should be a distinction between things which are made to sell and things which are made to tell (not that all Art "tells" things, but it's just that I liked the pun ).

I said this in an earlier thread. Without going into too much detail, I think classical music today has become too unfollowable to the casual listener. The genius of Penderecki and such composers is only discernible to a highly competent musical ear, or...with a score, and even then, you would need to be able to read music, let alone the complex music of some of the contemporary stuff. Some compositional techniques these days are not extraordinarily apparent in sound form as they are on paper. "Good on the page, not on the stage" as I like to say.

Originally Posted by Nicola Canzano

I said this in an earlier thread. Without going into too much detail, I think classical music today has become too unfollowable to the casual listener. The genius of Penderecki and such composers is only discernible to a highly competent musical ear, or...with a score, and even then, you would need to be able to read music, let alone the complex music of some of the contemporary stuff. Some compositional techniques these days are not extraordinarily apparent in sound form as they are on paper. "Good on the page, not on the stage" as I like to say.

Nico, you're talking about music that is now nearly 50 years old.

Do you actually KNOW any "new" music?

Even Corigliano, who is FAR from being an "avant garde" composer is either hitting 60 soon, or has done so already (the earliest published works of his that I have date from the early 70's, so he's obviously a bit older than I am).

I wish people would stop referencing Penderecki and Ligeti as "new music". It's not! Neither is Boulez. Nor Stockhausen. These are all composers who had their heyday in the 1950's for god's sake. Many of them continued to compose until now, but still, their entire aesthetic is mid-20th century.

It's like saying that Schoenberg is "contemporary". He died more than 50 years ago.

Listen to new music (and hell, my own age is showing now... I'm naming composers who are only a few years older than myself) by Adams, Del Tredici, Goldenthall... it's all lyrical and beautifully communicative music.

Anyone who tells you tonality and lyricism are "dead" probably already has one foot in the grave himself.

"New Music" ensembles have a need to feel relevant, and have built up this wall of defence around themselves, trying to convince everyone that music needs to be "modern" or else it isn't new enough. And the only way they've found to do this is to systematically denounce everything that came before them. However, most "new music" ensembles are playing either music from the 1950's or music so heavily influenced by that period that it makes you wonder just how relevant they really are.

The REAL new music has nothing to do with Boulez, Penderecki, Ligeti, Xenakis, et compagnie...

As a matter of fact, some of the most "rabid" avant-garde proponants of the 1950's have turned their backs on what they were doing before and made a slow about-face with a return to lyricism and some form of tonal root.