Leaderboard

Of course they'll never actively claim they are doing it. But didn't Boulez say that anyone who didn't feel the need of composing atonally or serially was worthless and un-original as a composer? Is avant-gardism a prerrequisite for originality, at least for him? Do I really need to compose this way to prove my worth - even if I hate my own work? I'd rather be true to myself, and I respect composers who are true to themselves as well, regardless of their works being in a style I'm not passionate about (actually including the single work by you I have heard here). That's why I think Lutoslawski's and Messiaen's works will most likely survive the test of time. I really doubt Boulez's or Cage's will. Alright. 'Modern' music. A fallacious generalization. Non-atonal music composed today is not 'modern' but 'outdated'? The bulk of Schoenberg's works are 90-100 years old - but still classed as 'modern'? Now you can tell me I misuse words. There are valuable modern works, and also works by crackpots pretending to be highly-intellectual and sophisticated musicians who can call the rest of us 'ignorants'. But I don't think I have to feign liking a certain music style to appear 'educated', 'intelligent' or 'in fashion'. If I actually have to, there's something very rotten.

I can't stand: a) avant-gardism done just for the sake of being "original" (aka uninteligible). b) over-pretentious jazz-pop. c) the worthless Puerto Rican-Dominican deformation of hip-hop. EDIT: d) anything 'sung' by Shakira, Ricky Martin, Enrique Iglesias, Janet Jackson, Justin Bieber or others of their kind. All of the above are surefire ways for me to detonate a headache or nausea.