New music should be innovative!

The entire thread is summed up and quickly resolved in one post!

Great!

Now we can all go back to actually writing music, yes?

Did I disallow you from composing?

Yes...childish bickering time is over. We CAN still salvage some intelligent conversation here...

Look at the post above this. It answers all of your questions.

You didn't answer any of my questions...

WHY do you feel this way? What's wrong with using past techniques? Is it impossible to be innovative and original whilst using them?

Now...use your words!

this thread is tl;dr for me, but just let people do what they want. Everyone has a unique growth path, and if they decide to stop, that's their loss.

Did I disallow you from composing?

... When did that ever come up?

Actually, what he meant was simply that, if you're so worried about the current state of new music, how about you show us (BY VIRTUE OF EXAMPLE) how it is that you'd rather do it. Yes?

Cuz, really, otherwise this is just all hot air since words are cheap.

But well you already said right at the start that this was mostly flamebait, so I don't expect much to result of it, contrary to Rob's optimism there.

...I don't expect much to result of it, contrary to Rob's optimism there.

I don't expect much else than more flamebait (I like yr wurd)...but, a boy can dream, no?!

I don't expect much else than more flamebait (I like yr wurd)...but, a boy can dream, no?!

NEVER!

:<

Is this discussion over yet? Good. Let's keep it that way. Qc beat me to it ... this *is* a site for composers that are still learning. Have patience. Help, don't complain.

when a thread is 50% posts from the OP you know what this thread is called right, kids?

LAME!

(ok, enough kidding around).

ELS, I understand what you mean, but like QCC said, most composers here are just starting out, they've not reached a level of composing ability to be able to show of an original voice. Heck most composers in all their life time are not able to show off an original voice, or a unique voice. Not to mention that there isn't such a thing as original. Especially in music! ;) (while in art, each painting is by default the original, the others are copies, signed or not, legal or not, easy to spot or not)

In general I can't see a valid reason to push the limits, in order to... push the limits. If a composers' aesthstic view has outgrown the limits imposed by the society, the listeners, the publishers, or his/her manager, then by all means rebel. If a composer feels locked or framed, then by all means. If (s)he feels that exploring new means is the way to go forward and compose (as many have done in the past), then by all means. If (s)he feels that it would be 'cheating' to use existing forms, existin harmonies, instead of trying to create new ones, new ideas, new systems, new forms, new mathematical procuders, etc... then... why not?

I'm, on a personal level, right in the middle ground (as always in my rhetorics either way :p), and I can confidently say that I've covered new ground, as well as following others. I don't have a problem with I - IV - V - V7, not at all, but I do tend to use something more advanced, if only because my personal aesthetics want me to. I can jugle to more standard stuff, or 'uglier' ones...

________________

Just check works by Gadener, Robin, SSC, QCC, me (yes! ME! :D I'm self advertising myself), thatguy (a wonderful string work, even if following the steps of Dmitri), and others which I can't recall right now :(, to find some more contemporary works.

In the end, YC, is exactly like real life. You get a taste of chicky pop, hard core death metal, porn music, film music, contemporary. It's up to you to make a choice. Same here. Spend some time, meet some people and make some choices! :)

In the end, YC, is exactly like real life. You get a taste of chicky pop, hard core death metal, porn music, film music, contemporary. It's up to you to make a choice. Same here. Spend some time, meet some people and make some choices! :)

YAY! Nikolas mentionned my music!

:w00t:

Hey!

I'm a HUGE FAN of such music an such films! :D:D:D

I think if people would stop looking so hard for this 'new music,' and simply create, they'd probably find something along those lines. I'm pretty sure the musical innovators of previous cenuries didn't have this stupid consideration of what they should be sounding like according to thier place in history.

Well, if there were a way to delete this thread, then I would do it, but it is too late. I've already ruined any reputation I could possibly have on this website, but I can't figure out how to delete my account.

Dude don't worry about it. People forget and move on soon enough.

I don't know. I did insult a lot of people.

I just can't help but feel I HAVE to delete my account, or just continue with my tail between my legs.

I don't see much to be ashamed of, let alone worth leaving over. You've shown some class by stepping up and taking it in stride. Deal with it and move on...perhaps make few less confrontational posts. ;)

Well, if there were a way to delete this thread, then I would do it, but it is too late. I've already ruined any reputation I could possibly have on this website, but I can't figure out how to delete my account.

Music talks louder than, well, discussion threads. So don't worry too much about it and participate in the other forum activities.

Yes...childish bickering time is over. We CAN still salvage some intelligent conversation here...

You didn't answer any of my questions...

WHY do you feel this way? What's wrong with using past techniques? Is it impossible to be innovative and original whilst using them?

Now...use your words!

No. I don't think its impossible to be innovative using past techniques. In fact, I think the early neo-classical movement of the 20th century gave birth to some really amazing work, as did the works of Brahms and many other composers that may be considered classicists, but the whole basis of those movements was to take something old and integrate it with newer harmonic and rhythmic schemes. I guess what really got me going was when I noticed users were labeling some of their pieces as being atonal, as if it were a rarity, or some sort of esoteric, incomprehensible exoticism. All this bickering has made me realize one thing- that I don't have to like everyone's music. Now, of course I knew that beforehand, but as a new member of this website, I was just shocked at the amount of strictly diatonic music was being composed and at the time felt a need to express my opinion. Well, I may have expressed my opinion, but I did so in a way which offended other people. So, I apologize to anyone I have offended, but I do maintain my position (perhaps not to a 14 year old without any formal training). Another reason I began this rant is the sheer imitation of previous time periods- some composers on this site compose music which they directly associate with previous musical eras. As I said earlier though, I have no problem with revisiting these forms, but in an age where so much freedom is allowed, I have trouble understanding why people would strictly hold on to one musical tradition. If there's anything I admire, it is the ability to bring the new and the old together, as many great American composers such as Leonard Bernstein, Samuel Adler, George Crumb, and Jennifer Higdon can teach us.

...some composers on this site compose music which they directly associate with previous musical eras. As I said earlier though, I have no problem with revisiting these forms, but in an age where so much freedom is allowed, I have trouble understanding why people would strictly hold on to one musical tradition.

Fair enough. Even I was playing devil's advocate - I tend to agree with you. It's one thing to utilize and incorporate past techniques and styles into your own; another thing entirely to use ONLY one historical style - an exercise in nostalgia. Anachronistic authenticity is a concept that eludes me.

However - if someone is familiar with the old and the new, and simply chooses to work solely in more traditional style, then so be it! The opposite: to be ignorant and dismissive of current trends is a dangerous thing, and wont get you far

That said, I don't expect anyone on this site thinks like this. They are (for the most part) younger and untrained. The ONLY place to start is at the beginning.

;)

This thread is stupid.

The word "should" is stupid.

I'm stupid.

Let it die, folks.

Let it die, folks.

Why? There's so much potential for a decent discussion.

What's your position Matty? Is working solely in historical styles redundant; or is there still life in them even at the expense of modern techniques?

:hmmm:

Dang, 6 pages in 2 days....my threads are so much better and never get that much attention....maybe I'll title my next number "Classical Music is Worthless" or something....

~Kal

Why?

Well the threadstarter has already expressed that he'd rather this thread fade into obscurity rather than continuously be bumped as a reminder of his hostile mistake as a new member. :P

Nonetheless, since you ask:

What's your position Matty? Is working solely in historical styles redundant; or is there still life in them even at the expense of modern techniques?

:hmmm:

For me, there are three types of composers: those who write for themselves; those who write for others; and those who write for music. For the former two, the advancement of music isn't an issue; they're concerned with the more personal urgency of fulfilling musical desires, and because nostalgia is often the backbone of desire, their music tends to stay within limits of what's already been done and loved. However, those who write with the priority of music for music's sake will recognize the static nature of their contemporary music scene and subsequently make a conscious effort to something new.

Of course, most composers dabble in each of the three categories, but the main point is that different people have different priorities in music. One fellow may just write music because it makes him happy; one fellow may write music to please those who commission him; and another (like the threadstarter, and myself in the past) may have a goal to progress music as if it were a science in need of innovation, lest it become outdated.

:hmmm:

Why? There's so much potential for a decent discussion.

What's your position Matty? Is working solely in historical styles redundant; or is there still life in them even at the expense of modern techniques?

:hmmm:

FINE, your optimism has motivated me to actually add something to this that isn't an attempt to shut it down. NEVERMIND that the above was not directed at me.

I always cite Mozart and Bach as the obvious examples of composers who, in their struggle with finding what to write, end up taking things that are out of fashion/historical/!? and mixing it with tendencies that would only manifest many years later. It's basically the same thing no matter where you look. The idea to take old things and make new things out of them isn't modern at all, but the greatest consequence it has had IS indeed during the 20th century.

Everyone from Cage to Messiaen to Berio to Schittke(duh), not even mentioning Bartok, Hindemith, Durufle, Strauss and Britten. They all have taken bits and pieces from all over the place and used them in very different ways. Look at Penderecki or Xenakis' relationship with philosophical concepts vs musical tradition, and allusions to older forms and etc. It's very easy to find examples of all sorts of mixing and matching.

But, wait a moment. Look at the people I'm mentioning! These are all very very well known dudes, and most of them, if not all, were amazingly well versed in everything from counterpoint to 12 tone music and, well, all over the place. Some were into all sorts of things (like Cage or Xenakis) and that certainly helped open even more windows, doors, and so on.

The modern composer who can't extract tools from history and make them work in his favor is a fool, plain and simple. And to do this, of course, requires actually knowing quite a bit of history.

So, it's hard to expect people who are just starting out with the whole composition thing to be amazing at everything necessary to really make history research work FOR you. But! The first step is there.

Creatively speaking, people first start off trying to imitate what motivated them to actually create anything at all. It's not a bad thing, and it's instinctively "the right thing to do" as it one learns by imitation much better than just simply reading and intellectualizing (though these are important of course in the later development.)

I'd say, after seeing a whole lot of pieces here on the forum, that from young people there's a lot of good potential and I'm surprised at the lot of good ideas that just need time to properly bloom into all they really can be.

There's also a different thing. Like I've said, the amount of people I know that have become composers due to modern compositions (think Cage, Crumb, Ligeti) is very small. There's a cultural "pull" to traditional music and tradition in general that can't be ignored as it's what gets the most exposure.

But, alas, given a proper education and time to let all the possibilities really sink in, it's amazing how people start finding things they never thought they'd like simply great. Like I always say or at least try to, taste should never get in the way of education, or you end up with scenarios of ignorance based on sheer lack of exposure/experience/etc where that can be entirely avoided.

I think something that is also very dangerous to talk about is "personal style" or "voice", or other such terms. Certainly, composition like any other creative art is nothing but a mirror of the person, and it will be certainly different and unique in the details to someone else. But, the real catch is, until one is experienced enough, has lived enough, and has seen enough, the actual details of what makes something "yours" are only present in concept as there's not enough there to make a real distinction.

It can lead into a scenario of "I only write this type of music and that's "my thing." It becomes an excuse to brush off criticism of any kind or suggestions. Surely, that a composer has the right to claim whatever reason he wants for writing what he wants to write. However! That doesn't mean it should be abused in favor of clear laziness, ignorance or lack of exposure and education.

In the actual case that someone has gone all the way and back, and still chooses to write in X or Y style, they usually know pretty well WHY they're doing it and they're also probably very aware of what they're doing with it. Then, it's not about excuses, but simply about preference.

Preference can only really come from knowledge, otherwise it's simply a wild guess. "I prefer this style, yet I know no other."

So, bad habits aside, I think that for the average the people in the forum who are starting out or aren't very experienced yet are doing pretty much what they're supposed to be doing: Writing music.

And that's what counts above all of the scraggy I just said, which has a solution. Bad habits can be broken and certainly a good education paves the well for a good balance between intellectual and sentimental input during the creative process. But, all of that only works if people keep writing music, otherwise it's pretty hopeless.

Let it die, folks.

I'm fine with the forum continuing at this point. Discussion is improving drastically because I'm not quite as angry as I was yesterday!