Finding your voice

improvisation lets your personal subconscious thoughts come to life

Improvisation lets your past experiences with music come to life unprepared.

Contrary to all of the above posts, I think that it's really uninteresting and unimportant to consciously try or have at all a "personal" voice.

Dear god, we agree with each other. How'd me mange that?

As if there's such a thing~

A composer is built on the will to listen to their imagination made reality. There's no "talent" involved and I think it's pretty shitty even involving talent in something like this, because really. What if someone thinks they have no "talent"? They could be really brilliant or produce some really nice things, but are discouraged by a shit-word nobody knows how to properly use.

Happens all the time, too.

jeez, again....

Originally Posted by jujimufu

Well, what if one doesn't want to express anything with their music? What if music just.. is?

Then it isn't music, it's just noise .

It still can be consciously created, no?

One could even argue that a person who writes music to express something isn't truly creative, since they're not actually creating something new, just translating something that's already there into music. Of course that's an exaggeration (and I do realize that even a translation is a form of creation), but I just wonder why so often the very basic concept of creation is so often ignored when it comes to arts, treating art as a mere medium in service to other aims.

But to get back to the original question: I agree with everyone who said that there's little point in actively trying to "get your own voice". Aside from the fact that everyone always has their own voice, which may be more or less clear to others and develops with time, I don't even see the necessity to "have a voice". Of course, if you mean with it finding a way to write music that "suits you" then I see what is meant, but if a "personal style" is meant, I really see no need for it. I really don't mind if every piece of me sounds totally different and has no discernible "common style". I'd much prefer that to repeating myself all the time, personally.

I'll be original here and say...don't worry about it. As your understanding of music grows, you will learn to communicate more and more of what you want in your own music. Not to mention, do you honestly think your current taste in music is going to last you the rest of your lifetime? I highly doubt it. People's taste changes all the time. If people enjoy listening to different types of music at different times in their live, they will enjoy writing different types of music at different times in their lives. "Originality" and "talent" are two concepts you often hear thrown around here. I think both are overrated and indefinite. Just write what *you* want to hear.

Originally Posted by Gardener

It still can be consciously created, no?

One could even argue that a person who writes music to express something isn't truly creative, since they're not actually creating something new, just translating something that's already there into music. Of course that's an exaggeration (and I do realize that even a translation is a form of creation), but I just wonder why so often the very basic concept of creation is so often ignored when it comes to arts, treating art as a mere medium in service to other aims.

Well, in that case, art just becomes craft, in my opinion. If there's no point to making the art, if it's just colors or shapes or sounds, then why bother? Again, you could do it, but it's just not art any more, at least as far as the "standard" definition goes (well, what I think is the standard definition ).

Then it isn't music, it's just noise .

Bull. Not everything has to be some oh so artsy work. Some things CAN be appreciated just because they sound good. I hate it when composers are pretentious.

I hate it when composers aren't pretentious ...well, not really. But you get my point (I hope).

Anyway, for example, a piece could be mathematically constructed, and interesting, but it is less about music than math. One could connect with it musically, but the intent and nature of the piece is mathematical. Something can sound interesting, like a bunch of beetles being crunched, or something ridiculous like that, and we can enjoy it for its qualities, but as far as music and art go, it doesn't really fit into those categories. Well, unless the composer is trying to express something with these sounds/constructs, but of course you're saying that he isn't.

That music might fit into the definition of music as simply "organized sounds", but for most I think the definition of music delves deeper than that. It doesn't have to, but I think it should, and so do most people, I believe. I'm assuming here, of course, but you seem to think that it shouldn't or doesn't have to, at least...and, well, that's sounds a bit pretentious to me, as well

I'm talking about simply what makes defines music, and what actually is music. If we disagree on the basic understanding of that, then this discussion is moot.

I dunno, it just seems....not human to not have music or art reach deeper than simply physical perceptions. A bit soulless, I think, to just wander outside our minds or on the surface of them, when all the fun stuff, and actual perceptions of outside our minds, is inside *shrug*. Otherwise we're just simple machines, which we certainly aren't (especially the brain, which again is why I strive to connect to a deeper meaning).

Now I must politely say "f**k you" for instigating me enough into a response at 4:21AM ....

So, you just discard all of Feldman's output? *sigh* so much beautiful music gone wasted, then...

Well, in that case, art just becomes craft, in my opinion. If there's no point to making the art, if it's just colors or shapes or sounds, then why bother?

Well, what is it that makes you believe that Art is something so elitist that should only be done by the very selected, talented few? Why can't Art be something that everyone can do? Art began as something that everyone did back in the Stone Age, everyone. It started from the people, yet it seems it doesn't belong to the people anymore.

And also, what if a piece is 100% mathematically calculated, yet no one tells you that? And you find it beautiful? David Cope talks about a concert they had with pieces written by the EMI (Experiments in Musical Intelligence), and an old lady sitting next to a friend of his apparently hadn't read properly the leaflet, yet after a piece in the style of Bach (written by the computer), she said "oh, such beautiful music! I love Bach" or something. So, what about that? Is it art for her, but not art for anyone else who knows what it is?

Furthermore, not all music ever tried to "express" something - the music of Machaut was highly calculated and the use of mathematics (and especially the "golden ratio") in music was highly esteemed back then. In his motets he sometimes uses up to three different texts, sung in three different languages simultaneously. Obviously, there is nothing to be expressed here, since not many people spoke all English, French and Latin, and even if they did, trying to comprehend three simultaneously unfolded stories/texts in three different languages at the same time while listening to the music is an almost impossible task.

And music *is* mathematically calculated anyway, whether you agree or not. Ratios of frequencies, lengths of instruments, durations, metronome markings, rhythmic divisions, harmonic relationships, acoustics, they all involve a LOT of mathematics and physics. Even these simple Mozart chords in a sonata, even the form of a sonata, they can all be analysed in terms of mathematics. Bach, even, wrote very mechanically. Basically, some of his stuff that are very highly regarded today are nothing more than technical written exercises, such as his Well-Temped Clavier, which is basically a set of Preludes and Fugues written in each one of the keys of the new keyboard instruments which were tuned according to the equal temperament scale, or the Goldberg Variations, which is basically a set of variations with every 3rd variation being a canon (canon in the unison, canon in the second, canon in the third, going through many possible canons). Or pieces like Bartok's "Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta", whose form is based on the golden ratio - isn't this a great piece of art?

What about the music of Debussy? He didn't try to "express" anything.. Or the music of Satie? Varese? Cage? Birtwistle?

I'm talking about simply what makes defines music, and what actually is music. If we disagree on the basic understanding of that, then this discussion is moot.

I am afraid you have misunderstood the concept of "discussion" here. In order for discussion to exist, we simply have to disagree on something, even if it is the basic understanding of it. So, there *is* no absolute definition of Art, just as there isn't a definition of Life or Everything (42 is the answer, I know I know... ).

Some things CAN be appreciated just because they sound good.

(by Yagan Kiely)

Well, what if ALL things can be appreciated just because they sound good or they look good?

I agree with absolutely everything Juji just said - besides the bit about John Cage writing music

Originally Posted by Yagan Kiely

Dear god, we agree with each other. How'd me mange that?

Well you may have your crazy-ass theories but it doesn't mean we can't agree on other things. Apparently.

Nonsense reply eliminated, sorry it was stupid, and I don't want to argue today.