To What Extent Do You Think Your Compositions Reflect You As A Person?

I mean to what extent do you think there is a one-to-one correspondence between you as a person and your compositions? Thus, if you are a boring person, then your pieces would be boring. If you are immature and undeveloped as a person, then your pieces would be immature and undeveloped. And if you are a person who's exciting and bubbling with ideas, then your pieces would be exciting and bubbling with ideas. Do you think there is such a close (near one-to-one) correspondence between how one is as a person and how one's compositions sound, between how one is perceived as a person and how one's compositions are perceived by an audience? Or do you think, on the other hand, that there is no such close correspondence? That a composer of exciting pieces bubbling with novel ideas might well prove to be living a dull life and be a dull person in a personal encounter with them? That a socially or psychologically immature person could well produce mature masterpieces?

Rephrased in another way, do you think one's life and experience are reflected in one's music? What is the raw material of music? Is it one's life and one's experiences or is it purely musical ideas on the abstract level that might not have anything to do with one's life and oneself as a person? An example of the former (one's life and experiences being the raw material of music) that comes to my mind is Beethoven. An example of the latter (music not being related to one's life but being purely mental musical ideas on the abstract level) that comes to my mind is, roughly speaking, all music before Beethoven, especially Bach.

Rephrased in still another way, do you think you can write greater music than your greatness as a person? Or write music that is inferior to you as a person? Or do you feel that your music's greatness is necessarily a reflection of your greatness as a person and cannot be either greater or lesser than it?

I think the answers to this question are of paramount importance because it is depending on them that we will decide whether composition constitutes truly an action - in the sense of having a clear and distinct subject and object - or whether its nature transcends the clear division into subject and object. If the latter be the case, then composition would be more than a simple action or activity, but something in which the division between subject and object is blurred and an activity in which the person as a subject may be changed and transformed in the very act of composition.

One-to-one correspondence? Really? Are you forcing math terms to make yourself look smart or do you seriously think that makes sense?

And no, I don't think you can tell much about a composer looking at his or her compositions.

...I don't think you can tell much about a composer looking at his or her compositions.

I agree.

There is obviously a degree of personal self-expression in any composition. Only that music, as enigmatic and disguising as it is, can be understood by a listener in a totally different way. Therefore I couldn't describe a composer's personality out of his music alone.

Could anyone, for example, tell how notoriously untidy Beethoven was from his energetic, yet well-structured pieces? Or could anyone tell how shy or insecure Tchaikovsky was, when listening to The Sleeping Beauty? Is the chaotic Rite of Spring an accurate description of the methodic and neat Stravinsky? Does Percy Graigner's obsession with sex show up openly in his music? Knowing these personality traits might (or might not) help to a better understanding of their works - but it's almost impossible the other way around.

There is an obvious correlation between the music and its composer but there are severe limits. First of all, the quality of the music depends almost entirely on how much the composer has thought about his work and how experienced he is or is not. And a person's personality does determine what style he enjoys, how easily satisfied he becomes with his work etc etc.. but I don't believe it happens the way you put it, as in: an exciting person writes exciting music, a boring person writes boring music. Excitement and boredom in music depends on the composer's intention, yes, but also on his ability to follow through that intention (which takes years to nurture). The other problem with this is that there is no absolute of what exciting music is or should be. Aesthetics varies by time, place, and person.

What I'm also implying is that I don't believe in the romantic notion of the composer - the musician who lets his feelings run wild and these produce art. I think that's bs. The composer is both an artist and a craftsman and the division between the two is really superficial and academic.

Actually, whenever I write my songs, I usually just take inspirations from my day or what just happened that makes me think "Hey, this needs a song". but my songs always usually end up as random and as colorful as my personality, i'm not saying I'm that creative lol. it's just that the way I make the melody stick with the rhythm and the words fits my bizzare imaginations in magical, enchanted things.

In one of newer pieces (which I'll fix one day to put on here), I don't see a correlation between my personality and the music. However, I think you can tell I take the scriptures seriously.

Romanticism in music inextricably ties the music to its creator. Other periods not so much, but 19th Century (and modern) Romantic music clearly show this correlation.

Awh man, does that mean that your piece for the June competition will think far too highly of itself and annoy the crap out of everyone?

I'm pretty comfortable with saying that my music is a direct result of me personally. The things that you gravitate towards certainly show up, if abstractly; maybe not so much on the interests/personality side.