5 things I hate about you

Why must you pontificate?

Enough with the puns in titles. We get it.

"Electronic" and "classical" are not separate: cf Morricone, Macero, Albini

Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Read a book, for once.

...?

Elaborate.

Stop with the "what isn't music?" question. You write a "piece" where a man is just destroying a guitar, and you think you're being deep or creative or something?

Artistic freedom doesn't mean whatever you write is GOOD. It just means you can write whatever you want. So stop using it as an excuse for why your latest work is a masterpiece.

I second the puns thing. Not clever.

Why is tonality so bad, boring, restrictive etc etc?

What is with your obsession on writing something that's completely new? What's with the preoccupation on being at the forefront of a "new era" or whatever.

Edit: You were making this out to be a rant thread.....right?

Stop with the "what isn't music?" question. You write a "piece" where a man is just destroying a guitar, and you think you're being deep or creative or something?

Artistic freedom doesn't mean whatever you write is GOOD. It just means you can write whatever you want. So stop using it as an excuse for why your latest work is a masterpiece.

The problem is people often, very often, forget they even have any freedom. They need to be reminded that they can do whatever they want. Honestly more power to the people who think they are brilliant geniuses, at least they have ambition.

Why is tonality so bad, boring, restrictive etc etc?

What is with your obsession on writing something that's completely new? What's with the preoccupation on being at the forefront of a "new era" or whatever.

Nobody who has any idea of the current state of things is even in the slightest bit worried about being in any kind of "avant garde" as the term itself is pretty much dead and all "major" composers are already either dead or really really old. We're not likely to have new Stockhausens, Schoenbergs, Debussys, Bachs, etc etc, as genre barriers break and there are simply so many composers out there who do many many things. Does it stop a lot of people from playing pretend that they're doing "truly modern!" stuff, and whatever? No, but they'll just be forgotten along with the rest of'em.

As for tonality being boring or restrictive, any style can be boring and restrictive. Problem is, there's so much of it already written it undermines every other style of music. This "majority" appeal is dangerous because of the overlap with people understanding artistic freedom. All of this is done for the purpose of educating people that music isn't just whatever is on the radio or whatever is popular and they should go out and seek other possibilities.

...?

Elaborate.

Edit: You were making this out to be a rant thread.....right?

Sort of. And then I realized I do all these all the time. Oops.

Also kind of a "reminders" thread to myself.

Enough with the puns in titles. We get it.

Not sure what you are refering to, lol.

"Electronic" and "classical" are not separate: cf Morricone, Macero, Albini

Sure, they are not seperate per se. There are styles of music that one could call electronic, (E.A, techno, dubstep, etc...) but classical music can have electronic elements as well, as well as vise versa.

Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.

In a way, yes. In another, broader way, no.

Read a book, for once.

Well, right now I'm reading The History of Musical Instruments by Curt Sachs, and On the Musical Scales of Various Nations by Alexander John Ellis... :innocent:

Stop it with the puns

LOOK at performers who play the instruments you write for!

Stupid titles that you desperately try to form a composition around; cling to straws to do it. Makes you look cheap.

Tonality != evil

Just because people who like aesthetically pleasing music don't like your music doesn't mean your music is good/high art. Commercial music is music too.

I agree with most of the one said so far, but here goes...

Just because it doesn't have a melody people can sing to, or a melody at all, doesn't always mean it's more complicated or intellectual. It could be that it just sucks.

Understand your players. Just because it's theoretically possible for the players to do something doesn't always mean they should.

Once in awhile, it's ok to do the expected thing. Sure, making your music go somewhere unexpected can be interesting and very cool, but doing it all the time and never doing *anything* expected not only takes away interest from all the unexpected things, it gets frustrating and annoying.

Along the same lines, know when to resolve your chords. I won't name any compositions in particular, but I've had to play pieces where it was going along fine and (relatively) enjoyable, when it ends on a dissonant chord, which completely ruined the strong 40 measure long build-up. Really?

Know when you've reached the end of your idea. It doesn't always have to be 15-30 minutes long. If you've got 5 minutes worth of ideas in your head, write 5 minutes, not 20.

Stop it with the puns

I don't get this, what puns?

LOOK at performers who play the instruments you write for!

I also don't get this. Look at performers? ... Uh? Because at performances people tend to stare at the walls instead, of course.

Stupid titles that you desperately try to form a composition around; cling to straws to do it. Makes you look cheap.

I suppose it's "sonata in G major" for you or it's "stupid?" This sounds extremely short-sighted.

Tonality != evil

Good'ol stereotypes. I bet we'll be seeing more people say the same damn thing over and over in this thread (as there's already 3 posts that have this so far!) I don't even know what the gently caress anyone is referring to specifically when they say "tonality" because it's 400+ years of very different music to begin with.

Just because people who like aesthetically pleasing music don't like your music doesn't mean your music is good/high art. Commercial music is music too.

The typical "I hate modern music (for no reason)" attacks are always very classy. Let's see more of this please since there isn't enough of it in this forum already.

Just because it doesn't have a melody people can sing to, or a melody at all, doesn't always mean it's more complicated or intellectual. It could be that it just sucks.

Good to see we're continuing the above trend with the attacks.

Guys? You're not doing anyone any favors by "defending" music that is almost already 99% of what gets played. Nobody plays modern music practically save for select few ensembles, it makes composing in any style (or composing at all really) pointless in most cases since you can't compete with The Greats, etc etc.

So let up the attacks.

Understand your players. Just because it's theoretically possible for the players to do something doesn't always mean they should.

I think it's uncool to tell people how they should write their music.

Guys? You're not doing anyone any favors by "defending" music that is almost already 99% of what gets played. Nobody plays modern music practically save for select few ensembles, it makes composing in any style (or composing at all really) pointless in most cases since you can't compete with The Greats, etc

this

I also don't get this. Look at performers? ... Uh? Because at performances people tend to stare at the walls instead, of course.

I laughed so much after reading this. Could you just imagine? You walk into a concert hall and EVERYONE is looking at the wall. :lol:

this

Thank You.

I also don't like how a lot of composers (and artists in general) have this idea that they need to be these spaced out, introverts who do drugs or something. Why can't artists be normal people too? Why do we have to be outcasts all the time, and why is it fashionable?

The typical "I hate modern music (for no reason)" attacks are always very classy.

I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I wasn't "attacking" modern music. I won't deny I hate what I've heard of modern music, but I also won't deny that I probably know very little. I'm just speaking from my experience, which is this; it's alright if I want to abandon the tradition syntax in favor of more modern techniques, but the moment I try to do the opposite I'm being close minded? That seems a little biased to me. And your making me out to be more hateful than I am. I don't like modern music, but I don't wish it dead or anything. And I do hate it for reasons; personally when I listen to a modern piece, it either sounds like endless nothingness, random notes that make no sense to me, or it isn't music at all (i.e. 4'33", "I'm Sitting in a Room", and that guitar piece I mentioned earlier. Yes it was a real piece.). I've tried composing modern music when I took composition lessons. I felt like I was writing random notes. I told my teacher as such, but he didn't seem to care, so I quit. I also hate the fact that every "modernist" I've met has the predisposition that I need to be "enlightened" or something. I came across this especially when I visited college professors...we rarely discussed MY interests, and when we did, it was only briefly.

My point is that I haven't been scheming on how best to take down modern music. Quite the opposite, I feel very afraid and frustrated that my interests and tastes lie in a period way before my time. No one aspires to be a little known composer-neither do I. But I'm also not going to start composing in a different style just so I can please everyone who says I'm "closed-minded", or to remain "current" or relevant. I'm going to write in a language that I like, and that I feel represent me; just like you. And just like everyone else.

Edited April 16, 2011 by MariusChamberlin

I also don't like how a lot of composers (and artists in general) have this idea that they need to be these spaced out, introverts who do drugs or something. Why can't artists be normal people too? Why do we have to be outcasts all the time, and why is it fashionable?

It's a pretty stupid stereotype, but whatever if they want to buy into it they can. I'm most interested in the actual stuff they do, not who they are.

Since post was edited, I'll post again rather than edit my previous post.

...but I also won't deny that I probably know very little.

...I've tried composing modern music when I took composition lessons. I felt like I was writing random notes. I told my teacher as such, but he didn't seem to care, so I quit.

"Modern" music is as general a label as "tonal" music. It's more than 100 years we're talking about here, there's a -LOT- of things here to reference. There's people like Samuel Barber, Bartok, Hindemith, Stravinsky, Martinu, etc who are all "Modern," as well, just like there's Boulez, Ligeti, and so on. There are dozens and dozens of composers, each with their individual style.

It's not the "Mozart sounds similar to Beethoven who sounds similar to Bach" tradition thing anymore, from one composer to the next there could be literally an abyss of difference. There's not even a general trend anymore at all, academic or not.

I also hate the fact that every "modernist" I've met has the predisposition that I need to be "enlightened" or something. I came across this especially when I visited college professors...we rarely discussed MY interests, and when we did, it was only briefly.

See, when you say you know very little and THEN you hate the fact people point this out negatively, it makes you sound like a jackass. So really, which is it? If you don't know, then you could educate yourself (go google up the names I mentioned, start listening to lots of music, studying scores, etc.) If you don't WANT to, then fine but don't bring up that you know little as you're the only one to blame for that. Nobody can "sell you" modern music, you need to actually go out and experience different things with an open mind (NOT "Oh this sounds pointless, this seems like random notes!" because this is already your opinion before any sound reached your ears, isn't it? Don't lie.)

Also, the reason it's kind of irrelevant to discuss interests with someone who is still doesn't know anything about the past century is because the answers are all the typical checklist "Love Beethoven, Brahms' beautiful melodies!" etc, nobody wants to hear it. If your MUSIC however has anything interesting to it, that's something else. But to hear the same typical 99% majority drone on which of the warhorses is your favourite, I can empathize with the professors.

My musicology teacher said it once really well, when a student made the mistake during an analysis to start saying how pretty they found this or that, the teacher sternly said "That's fine, but we're not here to hear about your tastes. That's not interesting, stick to the technical." In the inverse is also true, it doesn't matter how much you can hate something, when you're up to analyzing it you have to put all that aside and actually consider actual content and technical matters.

For composers, the technical side of music is very, VERY important. More so probably than whatever content there is. After all, that's all that separates a C major chord in a piece from Bach from a C major chord in a piece from Schnittke. Same sound, but the technical side is very different. The techniques are different, even if the content is the same. Or how about Hindemith or Schostakovich's fugues, same content as you'd expect from a regular fugue, but the technical side is on a totally different world.

But don't take it from me, here's some guy saying it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG43hjICE2U

I should have clarified. When I said "enlightened", I didn't mean in an intellectual sense; what I was getting at is that it seems they wanted to "rescue" me from my interest in older techniques/styles.

All music with tones is tonal music.

The phenomenon of tonal gravity can't be avoided. This is why schoenberg wrote pantonal, not atonal music.

What is the point in this thread really? I mean, we just going to whine over what another composer does? Why not just write your music the way you want to and I'll write mine the way that I want to? Seems ignorant to just sit and harp on each other all the time...

What is the point in this thread really? I mean, we just going to whine over what another composer does? Why not just write your music the way you want to and I'll write mine the way that I want to? Seems ignorant to just sit and harp on each other all the time...

Indeed.

I wasn't trying to be overly mean in my post. I did post what I do not like about some music I hear, though I also tried to not use over-generalizations. As in, I tried to avoid saying things like it should *always* this way, *never* this way, etc.

I've heard some music "without melodies" that have sounded pretty cool, but I've also heard a lot that sounded really bad. In the drum and bugle corps world today, for example, there's a lot of corps that play "intellectual" music, music that's not immediately catchy or anything like that. And I personally hate it. Sure, it's technically clean, and all that, but the audience doesn't get it, and I would bet the ensemble doesn't always get it either. In some situations, this can be ok, but in other settings, like this one for example, it's not the point.

As for instrumentation. What my point was, is that sometimes what might seem like a cool idea, because it's theoretically possible, can turn out to be a horrible idea because players cannot handle it with any proficiency. Sometimes, sure, try it. You just don't always have to push that part just because you can. I've written music that pushes instruments, plenty of times. But I've also learned that sometimes, it can result in a disaster, after seeing musicians take the music I had written and actually tried to play it.

Some brilliant masterpieces push the limits of what an instrument can do. So, my point is, know what your players can do, then decide if you want push that or not. It's just like most anything in composition, you should know the "rules" first, even if you decide to break all of them anyway.

I've heard some "weird" music that I like, that steps outside the box. Holsinger and Bernstein are two that come to mind for wacky, yet amazing music. Then there's other music that's wacky, and that's it, and for the most part, I'm not interested in it.

So what I said is not an end-all statement. I've heard exceptions to everything I said that I legitimately enjoyed. As per topic, I mentioned things I've heard from composers that personally really bothered me. It was not meant to hateful or spiteful, and I apologize if you got that intention.

What is the point in this thread really? I mean, we just going to whine over what another composer does? Why not just write your music the way you want to and I'll write mine the way that I want to? Seems ignorant to just sit and harp on each other all the time...

Agreed. And that goes double for above post.

I mean, we just going to whine over what another composer does?

Yep. :phones:

Nothing new.

To get back to the OP:

1. Composers who add a quasi-programmatic title just to avoid a title like "Symphony No. 1" or "String Quartet No. 67" which has nothing to do with the piece's conception; its just there because those above titles are "old fashioned."

2. Composers who's scores are not meticulous for every detail necessary in their scores. Missing dynamics, articulations, transpositions, rehearsal marks, etc. are unacceptable. This applies to layouts too.

3. Composers who don't know how to orchestrate properly, especially when it comes down to fundamental things like range, register, and brining out the main idea.

4. Composers who write music in a particular style because it is "hip" and "cool" to do so in their close circle of composer-friends. This does not mean they actually like the style, mind you. Extra hate points if they do a poor job of copying the style.

5. Composers who don't put their passion into their art.

Okay, here are 5 things that I hate:

1) Confusing admiration and 'passion' for music by utilizing older styles that one today has no connection with socially, for example: admiring classical style works but stating it's PASSION FOR MUSIC and writing in that style to demonstrate it.

2) Irrationally hating a style of music just because you listen once and develop a lack of interest on it based on that 'one-time' listen.

3) Placing one genre of music over another INSTEAD OF weighing a composer more on the merits of his/her individual work - this is a big one that most people do that just irks me.

4) Long-Winded Works: Just because you REALLY like 300 ideas doesn't mean that I enjoy listening to them over and over again for 9000 hours.

5) Assuming everyone utilizes a tonal framework in their music. Sometimes, tonal progressions may appear to be present on listening BUT aren't actually there when one looks at the score. It's just random pattern recognition by your brain, nothing more!

Woot, I got my own hates too. Haters gonna hate.

1. I hate music that bores me.

2. I hate composers that don't understand the concept of audience attention, and how to retain it. What pisses me off more than anything else is listening to a piece, enjoying it, and then suddenly, the music goes off on a tangent that makes no sense whatsoever. That's when I die a little inside.

3. I hate music with words, it's just my thing. I get super annoyed when there's a nice song that comes up, like, a fantastic, melodic orchestral beginning, and then suddenly the voice comes in, the orchestra gets cut out or begins playing only chords, and then the song just becomes another borefest.

4. I hate performers who don't realize that 99% of what they're playing is utter crap. Next time just skip those parts and move on to the entertaining bits. If you're playing something and I'm looking bored, you're doing something wrong.

5. I hate the fact that the industry is so unstructured. This means a lot of people are writing music, yet, there's no market for it. This causes people who actually write GOOD music, to not even get any hits/buys. (I'm not talking about my own music) but rather some other people that I think are REALLY good, yet cannot get their word out and end up playing on the subway).

Woot, I got my own hates too. Haters gonna hate.

1. I hate music that bores me.

2. I hate composers that don't understand the concept of audience attention, and how to retain it. What pisses me off more than anything else is listening to a piece, enjoying it, and then suddenly, the music goes off on a tangent that makes no sense whatsoever. That's when I die a little inside.

3. I hate music with words, it's just my thing. I get super annoyed when there's a nice song that comes up, like, a fantastic, melodic orchestral beginning, and then suddenly the voice comes in, the orchestra gets cut out or begins playing only chords, and then the song just becomes another borefest.

4. I hate performers who don't realize that 99% of what they're playing is utter crap. Next time just skip those parts and move on to the entertaining bits. If you're playing something and I'm looking bored, you're doing something wrong.

5. I hate the fact that the industry is so unstructured. This means a lot of people are writing music, yet, there's no market for it. This causes people who actually write GOOD music, to not even get any hits/buys. (I'm not talking about my own music) but rather some other people that I think are REALLY good, yet cannot get their word out and end up playing on the subway).

So what the bork do you listen to?

Also, industry isn't unstructured. It's just very hard to break in to. The problem are the masses outside the industry: the fact that I could call myself a composer (and do on my website! lol). My job title is the same as John Zorn's, Eric Whitacre's.

Sure, they are not seperate per se. There are styles of music that one could call electronic, (E.A, techno, dubstep, etc...) but classical music can have electronic elements as well, as well as vise versa.

Dude that's exactly what I meant. You're missing the stuff that influenced Aphex Twin, Throbbing Gristle; the stuff going on in Poland in the 50s and 60s. I dunno... I feel there's a lot of bias against electronic music, when most films aren't orchestras. And think thinking about music more scientifically -- instead of A, it's 443hz; instead of "deep, piercing tone" you say such and such a harmonic sequence.

5 things I hate about composers:

1. Believing that the patterns we use in music are completely abstract.

2. Believing that the patterns we use in music are universal.

3. Believing that music theory is a set of rules that restrains creativity.

4. Composing in a style just because it is what all the academics are doing, not because you find it interesting, or you actually like it.

5. Closing yourself off to styles other than classical music.

3. I hate music with words, it's just my thing. I get super annoyed when there's a nice song that comes up, like, a fantastic, melodic orchestral beginning, and then suddenly the voice comes in, the orchestra gets cut out or begins playing only chords, and then the song just becomes another borefest.

As far as classical music goes, I tend to agree usually. And I also just hate opera singers, yuck! Choral and pop/rock singers are great, but opera... :thumbsdown:

What about an opera with a pop singer?... In Polish... Lubię to! :toothygrin: