What

I'm commenting on this just to make the statement that for the first time in my life, I don't feel any particular need to comment!

Those of you who know me and my work realise this is indeed something new.

It actually feels pretty good.

I'd argue these three points:

1. We ought to cherish and celebrate creative freedom.

2. One's musical output can (and should) be considered solely on the musical content.

3. Inspiration is divine (e.g. muses). When one strikes, hopefully you have the skills to bring it to life in the best possible form.

I'm commenting on this just to make the statement that for the first time in my life, I don't feel any particular need to comment!

Those of you who know me and my work realise this is indeed something new.

It actually feels pretty good.

Is this some kind of sarcasm? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my response? Responding with, "I choose not to respond, and this is something new... I feel good," seems a bit redundant if you don't have an opinion on the matter. :P

AA, I'm a lifelong Classical-Revivalist. My music sounds more-or-less authentically as if it had been written before 1800. I'm surprised you don't know this. Believe me, I have an opinion. I've fought this fight for 30 years. It's nice not to feel like I have to fight it quite so much anymore. That's all I meant.

My music is my music. I'm getting to the point - slowly - where I don't give a crap whether people deride me for being an historicist or not. I know I'm a capable composer, and other people's opinions aren't going to stop me from writing what is in my heart and mind. They never have and never will. The difference now is that their opinions don't hurt my feelings quite as much as they once did. What's more, not only do I know that being "relevant" is the last thing I care about, but that it's possibly the least important thing about being an artist - ANY artist - contrary to common belief. The calm and security of this knowledge is new to me, and it's wonderfully liberating.

Graham -

Congrats on your newfound attitude. I wrote somewhere the worst audience a composer can have is their own unforgiving, overly critical, insecure, tyrannical self. Glad to hear you saved yourself from that trap.

Oh, by the way you do not write entirely 18th century, I have heard intimations of early Romanticism. Question though - have you thought of doing just as an exercise some 20th century techniques? Something as I am doing now with my Baroque fugue exercise (I plan to finish it end of this month). If interested in seeing what I have done so far look in the lessons thread (lessons with composerorganist) toward the very last posts. For me this is an exercise and not something I would devote my compositional focus upon. So I'd love to see how you would approach 20th century style with such a mindset, especially as our situations are reversed.

AA, I'm a lifelong Classical-Revivalist. My music sounds more-or-less authentically as if it had been written before 1800. I'm surprised you don't know this. Believe me, I have an opinion. I've fought this fight for 30 years. It's nice not to feel like I have to fight it quite so much anymore. That's all I meant.

Cool. I didn't know where you were coming from, because I must admit, I haven't known you as long as some here might.

Personally, I think you never should have been told or otherwise led to believe anything different than what you are coming to realize now. I could point fingers, but it really comes down to the fact that we're moving into a different worldview as we grow as artists. So, what really seems to be happening for you is that elitist conditioning you were most likely educated with is becoming unacceptable to you. You're free because you actively tell yourself that academic mentality is unrealistic and unfullfilling for you.

My music is my music. I'm getting to the point - slowly - where I don't give a crap whether people deride me for being an historicist or not. I know I'm a capable composer, and other people's opinions aren't going to stop me from writing what is in my heart and mind. They never have and never will. The difference now is that their opinions don't hurt my feelings quite as much as they once did. What's more, not only do I know that being "relevant" is the last thing I care about, but that it's possibly the least important thing about being an artist - ANY artist - contrary to common belief. The calm and security of this knowledge is new to me, and it's wonderfully liberating.

There's no greater epiphany to be had today. Good for you! :)

AA, I'm a lifelong Classical-Revivalist. My music sounds more-or-less authentically as if it had been written before 1800. I'm surprised you don't know this. Believe me, I have an opinion. I've fought this fight for 30 years. It's nice not to feel like I have to fight it quite so much anymore. That's all I meant.

I imagine it must be pretty hard to be taken seriously if all you do(?) is write "historical copies", so to speak. I think this is also pretty sad since I do enjoy writing lots of stuff which is baroque/? as some may already know, and I get also some criticism for it.

I think the problem is that if you write "in style of" you always get compared to them old warhorses and that's a comparison none of us will ever win, despite what our music may actually be. In fact, the whole "in style of" is itself a curse, the fact that you have to point out that you are a "classical-revivalist" is sad! You are a MODERN composer that CHOSE to write what you want to write, period. If you chose to write picking and choosing from Vienna classic ideas (and I'm sure your work is NOT simple copy-pasting from classical composers) that should be 100% OK just like it would be to write in 12 tone technique or in sound-mass composition style.

I also want to add that I think that talking about revivalism like it's a plague or a bad thing is absurd, though I can't agree it's "the thing to do" right now or that it's better or worse than anything else in particular, it's a choice like any other that we should all respect.

As a personal anecdote; when I started composing, I wrote only pieces in baroque style, to be perfectly honest. That was what I liked and I hated modern music altogether (though I loved rock/pop music.) I was told that what I was doing wasn't really "up to date" or "representative of living in today's world" or somesuch, that what I did wasn't composition exactly but just copies. Well, I did dive into the whole modern music deal and loved the hell out of it, but even so I still don't think that what I was told was right. It did however motivate me to seek out other options and to expand my horizons (which did me plenty of good.) However, every now and again I'll write something "old style," I don't think anyone needs justification for this.

I think what Babbitt said hilariously applies also backwards sometimes, that people who really do feel and choose to write in "old style" despite all their attempts also get bad rep and have to fight (usually against even worse odds than composers who write otherwise more modern music.) The best one can do is just write for oneself, I guess, or a circle of people who appreciate this type of stuff.

Another thing I should probably mention is that I don't really enjoy that historical recreations have to be placed in a strict "PRACTICE ONLY!" jar and left in a shelf. That's absurd. I mean, sure, maybe if what you're doing IS only copying as an exercise, but even then things are meant to be used somehow, otherwise what's the point? You can go all polystylistic, neobaroque/classical/? or do straight "recreations" so to speak, but whatever you do shouldn't be just dismissed because it has X or Y label, it's all music produced by a composer and it CAN be interesting and/or unique and personal, even if it's written in well known styles or what have you.

So yeah, I'm all for modern music but let's not forget part of being (post)modern and living in the (post)modern world is to acknowledge everything as equal. We're past the point where writing something like a Mozart-esque sonata should be only left in a drawer and forgotten, but at the same time we're past the point where that's the ONLY thing that matters.

Cool. I didn't know where you were coming from, because I must admit, I haven't known you as long as some here might.

Ah, sorry...I thought everybody knew my bag by now.

Personally, I think you never should have been told or otherwise led to believe anything different than what you are coming to realize now.

I completely agree. In college I was prepared to learn contemporary compositional techniques for the sake of edification, but my teachers told me that wasn't enough, that I had to adopt those practices in my creative work, and they would not be accepting anything historicist from me in the course of my studies. I did not complete my degree, needless to say.

So, what really seems to be happening for you is that elitist conditioning you were most likely educated with is becoming unacceptable to you. You're free because you actively tell yourself that academic mentality is unrealistic and unfullfilling for you.

It was always unacceptable, unrealistic and unfulfilling to me. What's different now is that where I used to care very much whether academics and my colleagues took me seriously or not, I hardly do at all now. No one likes to be dismissed out of hand, but it stings a lot less than it used to.

Oh, by the way you do not write entirely 18th century, I have heard intimations of early Romanticism.

Very astute of you. That is definitely happening gradually. I'm growing, and it's a natural process, not something I'm trying to make happen.

Question though - have you thought of doing just as an exercise some 20th century techniques? Something as I am doing now with my Baroque fugue exercise (I plan to finish it end of this month). If interested in seeing what I have done so far look in the lessons thread (lessons with composerorganist) toward the very last posts. For me this is an exercise and not something I would devote my compositional focus upon. So I'd love to see how you would approach 20th century style with such a mindset, especially as our situations are reversed.

I've done more than just exercises. Here is a link to a more contemporary-sounding choral work I wrote about 12 years ago: Motet: Simile est regnum caelorum

Ideas like this don't come to me easily or often, though.

I'm curious to see what you've been working on and I'll give them a look.

Cygnusdei & SSC: Such sensibility is heartening. You really get it.

I completely agree. In college I was prepared to learn contemporary compositional techniques for the sake of edification, but my teachers told me that wasn't enough, that I had to adopt those practices in my creative work, and they would not be accepting anything historicist from me in the course of my studies. I did not complete my degree, needless to say.

Well though you couldn't have used the historical stuff for your courses/study, nobody really stopped you from writing it anyways. What I mean is, education should ensure variety, if anything, so what they asked you was right in principle and you said so yourself that you were prepared to learn modern techniques, etc, for the sake of education.

I obviously don't know the entire story but obviously one of the parties was very inflexible. Though, really, if you go to an university just to do the same thing you already know how to do, why go? If they didn't ask different stuff then there really wouldn't be much to do.

That they asked the techniques to be part of your creative output is not only understandable but logical, like I said, if you're doing exercises you might as well use them for something rather than put them in a shelf and forget about it. If you don't want to, then obviously why bother doing the exercises to begin with?

As for the academic thing, yeah that's a term that I'm starting to hate now since it means nothing. I'm quite an "academic," if we go by that and so what? I think some people on both sides play the hurt feelings card when they're forced to consider that there IS no actual division. People who are "modernists" to the point they want people to avoid having chords divided in thirds or repeat "old ideas" and scraggy like that shouldn't really be pushing that, and people who believe modern music is scraggy, well, aren't being very intelligent either. All these extreme positions make no sense and in the end they just hurt the students.

I usually say it time and time again, taste doesn't really have a place in education. That you should as well (try to) learn everything from Macheut to Berio isn't the question, it's what you do afterwords with all that you amassed. Here variety is key, I think, and generally it's what is expected from someone who actually studied all of this stuff. After all, writing in style of X old composer isn't really so bad (in the eyes of "academics") if you are moving in all other sorts of styles at the same time. Likewise, a good composition teacher can always suggest ways to bridge all the different styles, or how to use all the learned stuff in ways which aren't necessarily "OMG MODERN" but actually are a representation of the knowledge acquired without bluntly going into any direction.

Obviously, taste plays the biggest role in writing music overall and that's everywhere regardless of where you're writing. Mostly what I talk about that isn't up to taste is everything BUT the direct act of composing, everything that can/may come can be interesting to learn, useful, whatever. Of course, that too must also be carefully observed so that whatever it is that is added to the curriculum actually brings the student ahead in what they actually want.

For example, when I started studying I had come from strictly baroque-historical stuff and I was told to quit that scraggy since I already did it pretty well, I should try to move on to other stuff (but I was never told to stop writing the stuff at all, just to do other things as well.) That was a nice thing to do in my case and I'm rather thankful for it. I know other people who basically are the entire opposite, they came in ultra-modern-avant-garde and were told to sit the hell down and learn history/write style copies/etc as well. At no time it was said to stop writing whatever we wanted, we just needed to show that we were, well, making use of the stuff we were learning in whatever way we thought was useful.

But all that purely in an academic environment (in the ideal case at least), otherwise I really shouldn't need to repeat that people are free to do whatever they want and that's fine.

Well though you couldn't have used the historical stuff for your courses/study, nobody really stopped you from writing it anyways. What I mean is, education should ensure variety, if anything, so what they asked you was right in principle and you said so yourself that you were prepared to learn modern techniques, etc, for the sake of education.

Depending on the intensity of study and the lack of being allowed to do anything that interested him, he might say there wasn't a lot of time to be writing what he wanted to write, though. At least, this was the case for me. I worked while going to school, and the time I had to spend on composing was dedicated to works I wasn't interested in writing. The only thing I think I picked up from this is how to write that type of music faster, because in the end, I felt all I was doing was slopping it all together, putting very little thought into it at all.

Then my professor would say, "Oh, this is great!" I was speechless every time.

I usually say it time and time again, taste doesn't really have a place in education. That you should as well (try to) learn everything from Macheut to Berio isn't the question, it's what you do afterwords with all that you amassed. Here variety is key, I think, and generally it's what is expected from someone who actually studied all of this stuff. After all, writing in style of X old composer isn't really so bad (in the eyes of "academics") if you are moving in all other sorts of styles at the same time. Likewise, a good composition teacher can always suggest ways to bridge all the different styles, or how to use all the learned stuff in ways which aren't necessarily "OMG MODERN" but actually are a representation of the knowledge acquired without bluntly going into any direction.

I'm of the opposite opinion. I think the music of a composer that is well-niched in their particular area of interest stands the greatest chance of living on in his/her work after death. Look at Stravinsky, for example. He may have dabbled in various other things along the way, sure, but he has a very distinct sound that you can recognize when listening to him. Leonard Bernstein is a good example as well. I've never heard a piece of his I can't immediately pinpoint to him. George Crumb, Ligeti, Cage, Penderecki, they all have a very individualized sound when you understand what they're doing. I think this grows from their intense interest in the sounds they want to create. How else does one get there but by truly becoming passionate about the sounds they create.

I think it's more about the niche the composer creates for him/herself when following their tastes that can lead to real success. And not just in a career, but also in how it's personally rewarding and ultimately more fulfilling. It doesn't matter if it's been done before when you can always do it better. J. Lee Graham, you have the gift of knowledge those composers don't have, and that's just by pure dumb luck because you were born after them. If you can write Baroque/Classical better than it's already been written, or bring in other elements that weren't available to the warhorses, either way you have the advantage and the will to do it. That's the makings of a fine artisan of music, and you should go "get 'er done!" as Larry the Cable Guy would say.

But then you have people like John Zorn, who's written for god know how many groups in even more styles. I think he makes the cut for "sucessful," which is a very questionable word to begin with.

And the other problem is that time matters. It mean something that one writes in a certain codification of techniques. I would argue that, at least to a point, writing purely stylistically does not reflect the writing style of the originators, since you're working backwards.

But then you have people like John Zorn, who's written for god know how many groups in even more styles. I think he makes the cut for "successful," which is a very questionable word to begin with.

There are certainly going to be exceptions, and I'll acknowledge that. By and large, the composers I've found to be most influential to me are consistent. I don't just hear one piece of George Crumb and think, "Oh, I really like that piece." Every piece of his I hear, I enjoy. To each their own, I'm just pointing out an observation that applies to a variety of composers. I don't see the same applying for all the multi-stylistic composers of the world out there, but feel free to correct me with evidence to the contrary.

And the other problem is that time matters. It means something that one writes in a certain codification of techniques. I would argue that, at least to a point, writing purely stylistically does not reflect the writing style of the originators, since you're working backwards.

It may not reflect the same creative process (obviously), but purely stylistic works tend to carry the same, core characteristics of the original composer or original work of influence to the contemporary composer. I really only apply this to the avant garde period more than any other period because of how specific the individual elements are. For instance, if you are writing "in the style of Webern," you're generally referring to an impressionist work with characteristics of minimalism. It's THAT precise. You're really not going to be able to write a piece like that, given the germane elements of Webern's music, to create your own, original work. In effect, you will compose "Webern" if you do it well, but beyond that, all you're doing is copying the style because of how precise it is.

This is not as much likely with the old warhorses. It's not that difficult to compose "in the style of Beethoven," or "in the style of Wagner" and maintain your own uniqueness. Of course, I'd point to an example of this, but there really isn't one as most people today are mixing and matching styles and creating their own unique sound in the process. But look to film scores and popular culture for more examples of how the language of Wagner or Beethoven or hundreds more have translated into new musical languages.

I won't say much apart that I (always) agree with Robin and Gardener.

My offer to this thread is done (until page 15 where I'll start posting again! :D)

I won't say much apart that I (always) agree with Robin and Gardener.

My offer to this thread is done (until page 15 where I'll start posting again! :D)

I look forward to it :)

It may not reflect the same creative process (obviously), but purely stylistic works tend to carry the same, core characteristics of the original composer or original work of influence to the contemporary composer. I really only apply this to the avant garde period more than any other period because of how specific the individual elements are. For instance, if you are writing "in the style of Webern," you're generally referring to an impressionist work with characteristics of minimalism. It's THAT precise. You're really not going to be able to write a piece like that, given the germane elements of Webern's music, to create your own, original work. In effect, you will compose "Webern" if you do it well, but beyond that, all you're doing is copying the style because of how precise it is.

This is not as much likely with the old warhorses. It's not that difficult to compose "in the style of Beethoven," or "in the style of Wagner" and maintain your own uniqueness. Of course, I'd point to an example of this, but there really isn't one as most people today are mixing and matching styles and creating their own unique sound in the process. But look to film scores and popular culture for more examples of how the language of Wagner or Beethoven or hundreds more have translated into new musical languages.

Beware of essentialization.

For instance, if you are writing "in the style of Webern," you're generally referring to an impressionist work with characteristics of minimalism.

Before someone else kills you: I believe you mean expressionist.

Before someone else kills you: I believe you mean expressionist.

But one has to wonder, what the hell is up with "characteristics of minimalism" there? Maybe it wasn't an error considering he's seeing "minimalism" in Webern's work, of all people, who knows what his definition of impressionism is.

Nevermind having to explain the anachronism there, too.

Big M/small m?

I'd say that there are certain characteristics of webern that could be minimalist (small m). At any rate, one (many? I don't know.) factual error does not change his argument. And his argument is alright as personal philosophy, even as prescriptive as it is.

But his argument is totally based on genre-based understandings. It's not enough to write a piece that has many, or even most, of the stylistic features of an established style (if you're writing a period piece); you have to create a true piece in that style, not something that picks and chooses what the "essential" parts are.

Of course, if you're just using those essential parts for a non-recreation, then whatever.

Bleh, I meant Expressionism, not Impressionism.

Regarding my argument, I'm confining it to the context of this discussion, hence the "genre-based" discussion.

And another thing... what exactly is a "period piece," anyway? I can only assume you mean a piece that one might create that is self-contained within a given time period of music... like a Classical Sonata that is meant to be written as though we were in a concert hall being performed alongside Mozart.

Why people are stuck on this idea that the best application of the past is in "historical recreations" is beyond absurdity to me. The whole gamut of musical development occurred over time because composers were using a developing formula for creating music. That formula still exists in all its various forms, and it continues growing, even now when the majority of contemporary composers out there all but ignore it entirely. And that's fine if they're developing something else, but I'm arguing that this isn't happening at all.

No one is really developing anything formulaic or even applicable to other composers. It's all about individuality and distinction from everyone else, and it's to the point that no one really cares if you're individual or unique, that your music is "new" or has "never been done before." In the past, this would be a wild achievement, it would even draw criticism and become very controversial. Today, no one cares about it because it's all too common. So go ahead and make something else that's unique and innovative, be an explorer, take music in yet another new direction for the billionth time. It's been done already. That's the real obsession I see for most contemporary composers, and I only point it out being the realist that I've always been - not to discourage anyone.

For my part, I use the essential elements from all the different styles that influence me to create my music. That's all I can really do to be "contemporary" and still maintain my sanity. From where I sit, it shouldn't matter what I write as long as I do it well. That's all I ever really wanted to know when I went to get a degree, but that's the question everyone dodged, because the real truth of the matter is, none of them know apart from their own subjective opinion. If they did, then we'd have a handle on what it means to be a strong, solid contemporary composer today.

As this thread and the forum as a whole proves, no one has the slightest idea what it all means or where to go from here. Awards and Degrees are about the only things that really seem to give a composer any credibility (you don't really have to write anything particularly trendsetting or ingenious - everyone does that now, remember?), and even those are a dime a dozen if you submit enough works to enough contests and play the numbers game. You can't lose, no matter what you write.

It's all a bunch of rhetoric to me, and applications like "period piece" and such to modern compositions are just as troublesome as any "-ism" you can gripe about. To me, "period piece" is an avant garde term that should be done away with, just as the whole movement itself is all but dissolved. Good riddance!

The way the OP was talking was doing there "period pieces," which you defined perfectly.

As I said, if you're intentionally grabbing ideas to mold, then it doesn't matter, and I think most of this forum would agree.

I think some *kids* are just too lazy to study everything that they can.

It basically works like this

"If I don't understand something, it isn't good"

I think some *kids* are just too lazy to study everything that they can.

Personally, and I may be late on this post!, I feel that as composers we have to continuously merge all the styles together and forge our art forward. Many of our predecessors (not just the masters) have done this. As inheritors of well over 900 years of musical rise and fall in our art it is inherent that we strive to do our best. I think the question I'd ask is: How does one reconcile the newer language with that of the past? DO we ignore what came before? Do we hide from what is current?

I think some *kids* are just too lazy to study everything that they can.

It basically works like this

"If I don't understand something, it isn't good"

You know, the sheer amount of undeserved condescension and arrogance in that post makes me want to outright disagree with you... but I don't. You make some truesay. :hmmm:

Why does music have to always be placed side by side with language?