On the Modern Condition of Music

hehe... it sounds to me as if someone got there panties in a bunch.

hehe... it sounds to me as if someone got there panties in a bunch.

Ya think? ;P

Take someone with no music education. Have them listen to a work from Romanticism and a work by Varese (Hyperprism, for example) or Carter (Sym. for 3 Orchestra's, since I already brought it up). Ask them if it sounds like one came from the other. It's not a bullshit question either...

Cute. And no. I'm not asking the lay person for any kind of theoretically supported analysis of two works from two different periods of music history. Obviously, to reach the conclusion one with an education in music would be expected to make, obviously, you need to be "literate" in music. But I also addressed this in my response.

Um, actually, you are asking the lay person for a theoretically supported CONCLUSION, which they are ill-equipped to do.

You actually didn't "address" anything. You just skirted the issue.

Anyways, since you are obviously ill-equipped yourself to handle this discussion, I will let others continue.

And just to clarify on my inclusion of Hegel...

It seems incredibly unlikely that the publications of Hegel's Dialectic and the construct of the Sonata form is so haphazard. Sure, leaps of logic they may be to say the Hegelian Dialectic inspired the Sonata form or vice versa. In fact, it would be a false statement to claim as much. The truth is, neither influenced the other. That they follow the same thought pattern along the same time period, each completely independent of the other, speaks volumes. It is my understanding that Beethoven had one of Hegel's first publications in his study where he composed. I didn't bring this up as I've yet to confirm it, so you don't need to hold me to it.

So you're essentially saying that you're only basing your entire point on what may as well be a coincidence and just an interpretation?

I'd like to know what about this "speaks volumes" since you specially point out that one did not influence the other. Surely, if this is to make any sense, there must be some sort of real tangible connection that isn't simply speculation otherwise why even bring Hegel's opinion up in the first place?

I'm not holding you to the Beethoven example since the fact (if it really is a fact) that Hegel's book was in his possession means only that it would be a possibility that he was influenced by it, but do we really know this if that's the case? Can we know if that's the case?

So you're essentially saying that you're only basing your entire point on what may as well be a coincidence and just an interpretation?

I'd like to know what about this "speaks volumes" since you specially point out that one did not influence the other. Surely, if this is to make any sense, there must be some sort of real tangible connection that isn't simply speculation otherwise why even bring Hegel's opinion up in the first place?

I'm saying that the general census in debates of the time among the majority of intellectuals (in several different fields) was whether or not perfection could be achieved. In music, it was a simplification of the complexities of the Baroque style and the perception that elegance was a form of perfection. Whether one made a "statement" per se is not the question to be asking yourself. A statement, regardless of the time period, isn't going to mean much. What underpins the mentality of the culture is what is relevant. Hegel was not alone in his perceptions, but he was one of the first to justify it with historical examples. Read about it on Wiki to get an overall impression of Hegel and his work.

I'm not holding you to the Beethoven example since the fact (if it really is a fact) that Hegel's book was in his possession means only that it would be a possibility that he was influenced by it, but do we really know this if that's the case? Can we know if that's the case?

It's not important. A composer could say, "Hey, I'm trying to pay homage to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not God." Simply put, the composer is composing for a sacred reason, regardless of whether he's making the distinction between religions. Such hyper-analysis is not only unnecessary, it's misleading in the sense that it makes a distinction in fact on something immaterial to the objective at hand.

So, whether Beethoven had one of Hegel's four publications or those of his colleage, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, the same overall impression is present. If we based our knowledge on the statements of composers alone, then we might mistake Beethoven for a Napoleanite, Wagner for an Anti-Semite, and on and on...

Oh, wait. Many still believe Wagner was an Anti-Semite, don't they? Look how far that little debate has gotten us... because now everyone understands Wagner as a composer because of his coerced political views.

Not really. Immaterial nonsense.

I'm saying that the general census of the time among the majority of people (in several different fields) was whether or not perfection could be achieved. In music, it was a simplification of the complexities of the Baroque style. Whether one made a "statement" per se is not the question to be asking yourself. A statement, regardless of the time period, isn't going to mean much. What underpins the mentality of the culture is what is relevant. Hegel was not alone in his perceptions, but he was one of the first to justify it with historical examples. Read about it on Wiki to get an overall impression of Hegel and his work.

It's not important. A composer could say, "Hey, I'm trying to pay homage to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not God." Simply put, the composer is composing for a sacred reason, regardless of whether he's making the distinction between religions. Such hyper-analysis is not only unnecessary, it's misleading in the sense that it makes a distinction in fact on something immaterial to the objective at hand.

So, whether Beethoven had one of Hegel's four publications or those of his colleage, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, the same overall impression is present.

The first point, you're forgetting this thing here: Galante music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That the Vienna classic was influenced by the Galante Style is an understatement, but it not the only influence. Not by far. I hope you're not saying that simplification tendencies came up in the Vienna Classic school, because they sure as hell did not. In fact, we can as well dump H

The first point, you're forgetting this thing here: Galante music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That the Vienna classic was influenced by the Galante Style is an understatement, but it not the only influence. Not by far. I hope you're not saying that simplification tendencies came up in the Vienna Classic school, because they sure as hell did not. In fact, we can as well dump H

Your inclusion of the Vienna Classic, at least as I have understood it, was the transition from the Baroque to the Classical and not an overall representation of the Classical Era. Sure, there are going to be numerous styles in music, but I'm not going to give much credence to an early Classical style when Classicism, by and large, wasn't in full force until the tail end of the Vienna Classical. This, to me, is like saying we can determine the winner of the Super Bowl by watching the first quarter of the game. There are three more quarters, and a lot happens in that time.

So, as far as coincidence is concerned, it's highly unlikely that such late Classicism resulted from exploration through the Vienna Classical styles. In any change, a catalyst must exist that moves for change. This understanding of the philosophical discourse along with the Elitist social order are all indicators that make it safe to reach this conclusion.

Now, if you want direct evidence, one statement, one composer saying, "This influenced me," have fun reading their journal entries. For my part, I'll rest on the overall picture.

I'm not really sure of what classicism you're talking about since "Vienna Classic" is called such because it IS the classical period. What comes after is romanticism, and what comes before is late baroque/galante style. Of course, that it's also important to consider that the Vienna Classic phenomenon was actually pretty self-contained. At the very same time, you had other composers writing very different music.

I'm beginning to question your actual understanding of music history what so ever. But before this goes on for much longer, I'll just stop here. It seems this doesn't have much purpose since you're only basing your assumptions about music entirely on non-musical philosophies or aesthetics.

Kind of ironic, if you're also saying that:

"Simply put, the composer is composing for a sacred reason, regardless of whether he's making the distinction between religions. Such hyper-analysis is not only unnecessary, it's misleading in the sense that it makes a distinction in fact on something immaterial to the objective at hand."

But you're doing exactly that! The assumption you're making is largely immaterial in how you're making it. That sonata form analysis couldn't be called anything but a hyper-analysis.

Like QcC said, you're not equipped to handle this properly, so I'm not going to bother any further.

I'm not really sure of what classicism you're talking about since "Vienna Classic" is called such because it IS the classical period. What comes after is romanticism, and what comes before is late baroque/galante style. Of course, that it's also important to consider that the Vienna Classic phenomenon was actually pretty self-contained. At the very same time, you had other composers writing very different music.

I'm beginning to question your actual understanding of music history what so ever. But before this goes on for much longer, I'll just stop here. It seems this doesn't have much purpose since you're only basing your assumptions about music entirely on non-musical philosophies or aesthetics.

Kind of ironic, if you're also saying that:

"Simply put, the composer is composing for a sacred reason, regardless of whether he's making the distinction between religions. Such hyper-analysis is not only unnecessary, it's misleading in the sense that it makes a distinction in fact on something immaterial to the objective at hand."

But you're doing exactly that! The assumption you're making is largely immaterial in how you're making it. That sonata form analysis couldn't be called anything but a hyper-analysis.

Like QcC said, you're not equipped to handle this properly, so I'm not going to bother any further.

So, your claim is basically that the Vienna Classic period is pretty much "self-contained" but everything going on around it was...? Not... Classical...?

See, here's my impression of your narrow-minded views. You are so immersed in your text books on music and art that you have generally no realistic impression of the period in which you are discussing. Your snide little remarks about "Viennese Classicism WAS the Classical Era" is hogwash in a great many respects. How do you account for Beethoven's early period? It surely wasn't ROMANTIC. It CERTAINLY wasn't VIENNESE CLASSICISM.

Look, Bookworm, I wouldn't expect you to contribute further with your sour attitude about this discussion and your continued attacks based on YOUR perception of music history. You have a handful of music art sources backing you. I'll give you that. But you utterly fail at stepping outside of your confined, narrowly constructed view to provide any genuinely original thought on this topic.

Combined with your inabilities to intelligently debate on this very basic, general level without cowering in your corner with your 1984 music history texts and your mind-numbing panderings about "what really happened," I'm surprised you've even made it this far. You can pedal your encyclopedic nonsense until your face turns blue all you want, but you've veered this discussion so far off point I'd be amazed that you even remember anything about my initial points.

You've been a distraction, not a resource or an authority on anything.

AND NOT ONCE have I claimed any authoritative position on ONE DAMN THING IN THIS THREAD. I state my case, I provide examples, I restate my points (that you still haven't even acknowledged or addressed with any intelligent insight), and you accuse me of misleading you (and others) in this whole discussion.

...

..

.

And some people wonder why I view the University establishment with such condemnation. You have all this useful, valuable, and informative knowledge and you do absolutely NOTHING with it but pander on about it like YOU are some member of the enlightened, privileged few. Thanks for nothing.

And some people wonder why I view the University establishment with such condemnation. You have all this useful, valuable, and informative knowledge and you do absolutely NOTHING with it but pander on about it like YOU are some member of the enlightened, privileged few. Thanks for nothing.

Woah!

Hold on here! I don't think that the values/experience/attitude of a single person should turn you away from univesity, or anything. YC is a community for young people and such quotes as the above should not be left unanswered, due to the ill nature of their cause (to turn away people from the university, or ill-inform younger generations, since you're old enough to understand that).

YC is a community, and nothing else. And as a community, it's filled with members, persons. And each person is a zealot, a self centered bastard, someone who likes debating, a composer maybe, a performer, a scientist, you name it!

The fact that you are on page 9 and still debating could mean that you cannot get your point across, or that everyone do not understand you. It's the sender or the receiver. 99.9% of the times it's both! ;) But when you get 10 receivers failing to understand, or dissagreeing, it could be that the sender could be... misleaded maybe?

______________________________

I find that most famous composers have also been very good at more 'traditional' theory and music. Boulez is a brilliant conductor, of anything, even Beethoven and has deep knowledge of classical music. Messiaen has always been an excellent analyst who (I think) created his own school of analysis in the Conservatoire Superioure de Musique et de Danse de Paris! Ligeti? Tons of research before entering the studios with Stockhausen. Schoemberg? He's writen a BOOK (rather good I might ad) on classical harmony! Persicetti has evolved harmony teaching in his book, about 20th century, etc...

Not that there aren't others who appear completely out of the blue. But Cage, for example, which you did mention has writen LOTS (not 1 or 2) of interludes and SONATAS for... prepared piano. And actually his forms follow the forms of the Scarlatti Sonatas rather than the classica/romantic exxagerated form. Stravisnky has also been a neo classical composer, before entering the serialism towards the end of his life, etc...

Not sure about Babbitt, or Carter really. I've not researched deep enough into these people.

but it still remains that most, if not all institutions recognise the need for a solid base (as you can check at any university student in here). It's not that you take a person, teach him that C4=40 and then get him to play crosswords with notes, in case he creates something serialistic.

Other than that, I stand to what I said in my first post, I've not had time to reply to that, but since the thread evolved so much, I replied now. :)

Understand that I'm not arguing some "Hitler Extermination" for this kind of music. What I'm advocating is to not lose sight of the fact that it, alone, does not account for the vast tradition of music in history. And if the university establishment is going to endorse contemporary music at the level I've experienced it, not as a follow-up but as a "primary study" for a composition student (not reinforcing the 500 year tradition of music by teaching them how to put it into practice today), then things are getting pretty bad.

The point of studying composition is learning to be a composer of contemporary music. Knowing history, traditional harmony, counterpoint, form, etc. all make a valuable part of this, but ultimately they are background knowledge to what you're actually doing as a composer. It is not the point of studying composition to learn to compose in the style of Brahms and then maybe study contemporary composition as a "follow-up". We live in the 21st century and thats where we position ourselves as composers, regardless of how our music sounds. Yes, it doesn't have to mean "atonal" composition, but neither does it have to be "tonal" composition. Yes, classical tonality is an important thing to be familiar with because of its historical relevance. But not something that you need to apply when composing new pieces. It's important theory, it's important background, but nothing more, unless you for some reason feel it is still relevant enough to you to base your compositions on after it has been questioned for more than 100 years.

See, there are other things I think should have at least as much relevance to a contemporary composer as these traditional aspects, such as awareness of acoustics at a contemporary level, especially when it comes to instrumentation. Does that mean I want everybody to first learn to compose spectral music as a "primary study" before doing anything else as a follow-up? No. I think it should be taught in theory and young composers going for an academic education should be expected to understand its fundamentals. And they should analyse Grisey, Murail et al. in instrumentation courses. But whether to base their pieces on it or not should be their own decision.

Nikolas has very correctly pointed out that the majority of so-called "avant-garde composers" of the 20th century had and have an excellent working knowledge of traditional music. They weren't interested in directly using it in their own music, but that's the whole point of being an artist - deciding what you want to create. (And as I said before, you still find traces of tradition in all of their music, sometimes more sometimes less.)

Judging from the way our society's education has changed over the past 50 years, can you imagine how much worse it could get in the next 100 years?

But I hope you do realize that there has never been so much awareness of history (musical and otherwise) as in the 20th/21st centuries? "Learning traditional music" in 1800 meant learning what was written 50 years ago at most and even that was less important than it is now. If we still had the same music education as then, I guess all you'd learn about would be composers like Stockhausen, Xenakis or Schnittke. Musical tradition is as present as almost never before in the conservatories. We're surrounded by music that is hundreds of years old, with people playing Mozart string quartets and Bach fugues wherever we listen. If anything, music education has become terribly conservative.

(Yes, I realize you didn't say "how it changed in the last 200 years" but "50 years", so agreed, that's something different. But if you studied composition 50 years ago - at least in Europe - you'd be studying in the wake of Boulez, Stockhausen, Nono and the whole Darmstadt mafia. I'm not sure how much you'd like that.)

The point of studying composition is learning to be a composer of contemporary music. Knowing history, traditional harmony, counterpoint, form, etc. all make a valuable part of this, but ultimately they are background knowledge to what you're actually doing as a composer.

And well put.

Nikolas has very correctly pointed out that the majority of so-called "avant-garde composers" of the 20th century had and have an excellent working knowledge of traditional music. They weren't interested in directly using it in their own music, but that's the whole point of being an artist - deciding what you want to create. (And as I said before, you still find traces of tradition in all of their music, sometimes more sometimes less.)

And if this were true, when a student were to come to a composer with a desire to learn more about how to compose in the tonal aesthetic (be it contemporary or traditional), the composer should be expected by the institution to be capable of demonstrating how it is done. Yes? No?

Why, then, do so many professors who teach composition have difficulty teaching this very basic knowledge? Or worse, why do they farm this desire out to theorists instead of teaching the techniques? Many times, and I've had professors admit as much, they DON'T know because they've spent several years composing in a style where tonality is not an issue. This is the standard set for today in the avant garde universities, whether it was true or not for the Boulez's, the Carter's, the Stravinsky's or whatnot is no longer valid by and large today.

But I hope you do realize that there has never been so much awareness of history (musical and otherwise) as in the 20th/21st centuries? "Learning traditional music" in 1800 meant learning what was written 50 years ago at most and even that was less important than it is now. If we still had the same music education as then, I guess all you'd learn about would be composers like Stockhausen, Xenakis or Schnittke. Musical tradition is as present as almost never before in the conservatories. We're surrounded by music that is hundreds of years old, with people playing Mozart string quartets and Bach fugues wherever we listen. If anything, music education has become terribly conservative.

(Yes, I realize you didn't say "how it changed in the last 200 years" but "50 years", so agreed, that's something different. But if you studied composition 50 years ago - at least in Europe - you'd be studying in the wake of Boulez, Stockhausen, Nono and the whole Darmstadt mafia. I'm not sure how much you'd like that.)

No, I'm well aware of this, and you're right to a certain degree. It just appears to still be a point of contention among academics, just not as outspoken as in the mid 20th Century but rather muffled utterances of disapproval. And I will also say that composers of the Avant Garde faced many adversaries during its development and should be commended for their efforts. I have respect and admiration for them as artists. Today, however, there is a decline in the level of attention to the tonal compositions of this period largely dependent upon where you go, and that needs to end quickly.

And if this were true, when a student were to come to a composer with a desire to learn more about how to compose in the tonal aesthetic (be it contemporary or traditional), the composer should be expected by the institution to be capable of demonstrating how it is done. Yes? No?

Why, then, do so many professors who teach composition have difficulty teaching this very basic knowledge? Or worse, why do they farm this desire out to theorists instead of teaching the techniques? Many times, and I've had professors admit as much, they DON'T know because they've spent several years composing in a style where tonality is not an issue. This is the standard set for today in the avant garde universities, whether it was true or not for the Boulez's, the Carter's, the Stravinsky's or whatnot is no longer valid by and large today.

Here, we return to your limited experience with institutions of higher learning. I think it important that you realize that your experiences are NOT the norm.

However, I must say that I would not expect a composition teacher to waste time trying to "teach" me about writing "

Here, we return to your limited experience with institutions of higher learning. I think it important that you realize that your experiences are NOT the norm.

However, I must say that I would not expect a composition teacher to waste time trying to "teach" me about writing "

...Far be it from me to be the one to speak out against the fact that these institutions I've visited in this region of the U.S. are NOT DOING what you claim they should be doing. Then, you chastise me for my "limited experience with institutions of higher learning."

Are you basing your lament for the sorry state of academia on visits? Perhaps with extended lessons and interaction, the professor(s) might possibly learn your expectations from your higher learning, and tailor their approach to satisfy your lofty requirements? I hardly expect any professor worth working with will force a student to write avant-garde electroacoustic music when the student really wants to write tonal film scores...

I agree 100% with QCC - the teacher's job is to help develop and expand on the learnings of theory class - basics and tools to be understood, and used, or ignored.

When learning to cook, the master chef need not instruct the pupils on how to work a food processor...so why would you expect a composition teacher to explain the workings of basic four-part counterpoint (for example) :huh:

Sorry to disappoint you QcC with my inability to pay for the education you apparently had. Far be it from me to be the one to speak out against the fact that these institutions I've visited in this region of the U.S. are NOT DOING what you claim they should be doing. Then, you chastise me for my "limited experience with institutions of higher learning."

And again with the misunderstanding.. oy!

I can imagine what you were like as a student!

I chasticed you for making gross generalizations borne from your limited experience with institutions of higher learning. Jeeze.

And I'm sorry you insisted on going to a school that was so obviously ill-equipped to deal with you. THAT is solely YOUR fault. Not the institution's.

As I said, the school you went to erred in accepting you. They should have refused you right from the start. And if anything, you should NOT have graduated. That's not an indictment of your talent or ability as a musician. It's my criticism of that school for giving you a diploma despite you not fulfilling the requirements that THEY established.

If they are an "avant garde" school, well, they shouldn't take traditionalists as students. And they should have the honesty of standing by their principles and not graduating you.

As for how much my school cost, well, it was probably a lot less than yours cost. Come to think of it, for what you paid, I could probably have flown across the country and tried out every single school in my country before settling on the one I did. Of course, that's not really necessary, is it.... all you have to do is CONTACT some of those teachers. A simple telephone call is often enough to get a good grasp of where they're coming from. Which was what I did. To quote Homer: "D'oh!"

Mind you, it's just so much easier to scallop and moan about the state of composition than to make a phone call.

And funny, I don't remember pulling anything out of anywhere.. hmmm.. must have missed that part of the convo.

This year I attended, and subsequently left Sussex University. I was taking a music degree, which cost me

And again with the misunderstanding.. oy!

I can imagine what you were like as a student!

I chasticed you for making gross generalizations borne from your limited experience with institutions of higher learning. Jeeze.

And I'm sorry you insisted on going to a school that was so obviously ill-equipped to deal with you. THAT is solely YOUR fault. Not the institution's.

As I said, the school you went to erred in accepting you. They should have refused you right from the start. And if anything, you should NOT have graduated. That's not an indictment of your talent or ability as a musician. It's my criticism of that school for giving you a diploma despite you not fulfilling the requirements that THEY established.

If they are an "avant garde" school, well, they shouldn't take traditionalists as students. And they should have the honesty of standing by their principles and not graduating you.

As for how much my school cost, well, it was probably a lot less than yours cost. Come to think of it, for what you paid, I could probably have flown across the country and tried out every single school in my country before settling on the one I did. Of course, that's not really necessary, is it.... all you have to do is CONTACT some of those teachers. A simple telephone call is often enough to get a good grasp of where they're coming from. Which was what I did. To quote Homer: "D'oh!"

Mind you, it's just so much easier to scallop and moan about the state of composition than to make a phone call.

And funny, I don't remember pulling anything out of anywhere.. hmmm.. must have missed that part of the convo.

The reason I went to the institution I did was so that I could move on to a Doctorate at a well-known University, that and the established groundwork that I would be able to compose with a professor who would help to strengthen ALL of my abilities.

I can bang out a contemporary piece in an hour, maybe two. It's not difficult, and it never was. But I never wanted to write like that, EVER! Every person I ever approached, the first thing out of my mouth was that I want to improve my contemporary tonal language. You can't even begin to imagine the amount of "lectures" I received over and over again.

Phone calls. E-mails. Letters. Personal interviews. I'm TELLING YOU, I didn't find what you apparently found. Count yourself fortunate that you came across a satisfactory and sufficient education in the area of your interest. Thousands of universities exist, and I looked at the ones I could realistically attend due to my constraints and what I wanted to accomplish. Too bad it's not going to work out that way.

You can blame me all you like, but our circumstances and results at the respective times we looked were obviously very different. We live and learn, but I stand by my argument that a problem is on the horizon. We'll only know in time.

Sorry you couldn't find the right place for you...

(Warning I have not read much of this thread for a few obvious reasons)

Have you tried a conservatoire specialising in composition instead of a university/college?

Sorry you couldn't find the right place for you...

(Warning I have not read much of this thread for a few obvious reasons)

Have you tried a conservatoire specialising in composition instead of a university/college?

No, I have not found an institution I would feel either comfortable studying in or one which I can afford. That will have to wait for quite some time, unfortunately. I already have enough debt, I don't need any more.

I can bang out a contemporary piece in an hour, maybe two. It's not difficult, and it never was. But I never wanted to write like that, EVER! Every person I ever approached, the first thing out of my mouth was that I want to improve my contemporary tonal language. You can't even begin to imagine the amount of "lectures" I received over and over again.

Heh...

Really? You can "Bang out" a contemporary piece in an hour maybe two?

Thank you for not stating that the quality will be tops as well, cause I would dare to argue to that.

Do you realise that with that attitude you just stated in the above post, it makes absolute sense that you have been "lectured" to improve your language... (tonal or non tonal).

Phone calls. E-mails. Letters. Personal interviews. I'm TELLING YOU, I didn't find what you apparently found. Count yourself fortunate that you came across a satisfactory and sufficient education in the area of your interest. Thousands of universities exist, and I looked at the ones I could realistically attend due to my constraints and what I wanted to accomplish. Too bad it's not going to work out that way.

no, it's not easy to find what you're looking for and I personally (I know this was not aimed to me), consider my self lucky. In fact I made at some point a thread about people who helped me in my life somewhere in the general discussions. Dig it up if you want, nobody replied...

Still could it be that you were looking for the wrong thing? (a flying elephant, for a silly example). Could it be that you actually didn't search hard enough?

To give you an example.

I was 15 years old studying piano. Stoped, started, etc. Wanted to do composition in the age of 18, but was in a town in Greece. At the age of 20 I DROPED OUT OF university, where I was studying physics!! (This is big deal in Greece, there aren't many unis around). I went in Athens, following a composition teacher, and had my diploma in piano as well. I left home to do that.

Then I got a scholarship, plainly with my balls and my ability to compose (as well as HUGE chunks of luck), and I took myself, MY WIFE, and MY 9 month old kid and came to the uk to study! Can you imagine that? No work, no job, no money, yet I did it.

As you can imagine the above are just examples, but I think they do show some dedication and some effort to accomplish some things. To get a PhD finally, to learn about composition as much as possible...

You can blame me all you like, but our circumstances and results at the respective times we looked were obviously very different. We live and learn, but I stand by my argument that a problem is on the horizon. We'll only know in time.

A problem as you see it, from your point of view and your unfortunate circumstances maybe...

But, while I was hoping this would be a nice discussion, it has turned into a fight against contemporary music and composers, as it usually happens, and I'm sorry to see this happening all the time... :(

Heh...

Really? You can "Bang out" a contemporary piece in an hour maybe two?

Thank you for not stating that the quality will be tops as well, cause I would dare to argue to that.

Do you realize that with that attitude you just stated in the above post, it makes absolute sense that you have been "lectured" to improve your language... (tonal or non tonal).

Ok, that wasn't to impune your work, Nik, or contemporary music in general. And it would probably take a little more time than I stated. Settle and simmer.

You misinterpret my statement. I corresponded with several who made it a point to mention that it is pointless to try to improve upon that language when a whole world of other music was out there to explore. That was the gist. That's ALWAYS been the gist of these discussions.

No, it's not easy to find what you're looking for and I personally (I know this was not aimed to me), consider my self lucky. In fact I made at some point a thread about people who helped me in my life somewhere in the general discussions. Dig it up if you want, nobody replied...

Still could it be that you were looking for the wrong thing? (a flying elephant, for a silly example). Could it be that you actually didn't search hard enough?

To give you an example.

I was 15 years old studying piano. Stoped, started, etc. Wanted to do composition in the age of 18, but was in a town in Greece. At the age of 20 I DROPED OUT OF university, where I was studying physics!! (This is big deal in Greece, there aren't many unis around). I went in Athens, following a composition teacher, and had my diploma in piano as well. I left home to do that.

Then I got a scholarship, plainly with my balls and my ability to compose (as well as HUGE chunks of luck), and I took myself, MY WIFE, and MY 9 month old kid and came to the uk to study! Can you imagine that? No work, no job, no money, yet I did it.

As you can imagine the above are just examples, but I think they do show some dedication and some effort to accomplish some things. To get a PhD finally, to learn about composition as much as possible...

A problem as you see it, from your point of view and your unfortunate circumstances maybe...

But, while I was hoping this would be a nice discussion, it has turned into a fight against contemporary music and composers, as it usually happens, and I'm sorry to see this happening all the time... :(

Yeah, that did take balls.

And no, this doesn't have to seem like a fight with contemporary composers. It's a discussion about the current trends in music education, specifically concerning the contemporary tonal language.

There is definitely a need to be filled in my case, and from whispers around here and input from PMs I am apparently not alone in my experiences. So, let's just leave it at that, shall we?

Ok, that wasn't to impune your work, Nik, or contemporary music in general. And it would probably take a little more time than I stated. Settle and simmer.

Fair enough! :)

You misinterpret my statement. I corresponded with several who made it a point to mention that it is pointless to try to improve upon that language when a whole world of other music was out there to explore. That was the gist. That's ALWAYS been the gist of these discussions.

Okie... Just that the 9-10 pages are going back and fourth with almost too little to understand in the end...

No, I don't think it's pointless to improve on that language, but there is the idea that his has been done to a big extend really.

The idea of education, (especially at university level) is to make the student able to study alone, learn alone, work alone, and research alone. The idea is not to give them a set of skills ad only that (though it is a part of the education process as far as I'm concerned). This would be the job of a book!

In that process, of course everything 'advances' (through time, not getting better, mind you), and in history harmony, tonal language (which is what we're talking about, right? not form, etc, which also plays a GREAT part imho), also 'evolves'. But tonality goes up to a part. The 'limitation' (sorry for the word), of triadic forms of chords is to great for me, although I can't hide my love for minor chords! :D

There isn't anything else to evolve in tonal music. Or is there?

While there are myriads other techniques, ideas to create chords, melodic movements, etc. Why not pick on all of them, learn how to create new and leave yourself free later on? That's the idea.

Yeah, that did take balls.

And no, this doesn't have to seem like a fight with contemporary composers. It's a discussion about the current trends in music education, specifically concerning the contemporary tonal language.

Sorry.

Just reading through these 9-10 pages, I found pretty strong sentiments against contemporary music, etc... (and no I didn't take it personally really!) :)

There is definitely a need to be filled in my case, and from whispers around here and input from PMs I am apparently not alone in my experiences. So, let's just leave it at that, shall we?

That would be most interesting to see and hear. I, personally, find YC to be pretty balanced and have no problem in posting 'tonal' or anything really.Not sure what whispers and PMs you're talking about, but I'd be most curious to see and read what you mean. Even through PMs...

In these 9 or so pages, a LOT has been said, much of it off topic and most of that quite heated to the point of boiling over in a controlled demolition (that was mainly my own - from which I was reprimanded). Ah, the foolishness.

It's not really an issue what people have sent me. Some agree. Some want to help. Some want to complain about my position on things. That's fine.

I should not call it a whisper but rather a shoutcast... just discussions about the topic in general over the past couple of days. I don't think my initial post was all that inaccurate from the general scope it covered. People just like to discuss things at different levels, and I tried to accommodate everyone. Then it just got all off topic and into completely irrelevant areas of the discussion. That's when I just got tired of hearing, "You can't handle this discussion."

I can totally see what causes your head to spin. I think I went cross-eyed on more than one occasion during all of this. As far as tonal music is concerned, I think there is a GREAT DEAL left to be developed from where Schoenberg and Stravinsky left off, not to mention Britten, Mahler, Debussy, Adams, and a handful of other composers of the transition into the 20th Century. I have more reading to do on it, but it's beginning to look very promising.