Music in the future

How will the music in the future sound?

How do you try to make 'new' kind of style in your music?

I believe that electronic music will become more and more important during the next decades - especially in films.

However, I rarely try to compose something that is completely new. :)

Electronic music is already important. It's the majority of music today.

I wouldn't worry so much about tomorrow's music. There's more than enough today to get through.

As for whether I try to do new things? Nah. People have said what I've said and better.

Does one really set out to write music that is new and innovative? Did Beethoven really think of this? I think it's hard to state what the musical innovations of the future will be - or what style will predominate to become the musical style of the future. I think it's more important (as others have said so far) to just write in the present - and let those in the future enjoy your work.

Based on what I'm hearing, I don't have very high hopes for the future of music. I think it will continue to get more electronic, pret-a-porter and instantaneous. It doesn't take much in the way of skill or talent to make music anymore, nor are such qualities to be valued or sought after. Art music in particular has a bleak future from where I'm standing.

I don't try to do anything new in my own composition. The newest thing I do is purposely look backward for inspiration, using old tools to create new music that sounds old. That's relatively unique, but I don't know how much future there is in it.

Well we don't have prophetic gift to look in the future but I'm afraid that it will be like J. Lee Graham thinks. But on the other hand I've got hope that it will turn good again. I really hope there will be invented new acoustic instruments. That will open new ways to different styles in music.

I hope that in popularmusic the band will get the new invented instruments involved and will replace the guitar, bass, etc.

On the other hand, in the avant-garde and modern Classical music, I hope they will write more understandable music. Composers like Penderecki (his 7th Symphony, song of the cherubim etc.), Peteris Vasks, Arvo Pärt, Urmas Sisask, some pieces of Gorecki(think of his Totus Tuus), write more understandable music. That is, in my opinion, a good thing. You write music in your own time, for your own people. To discover old thruths in a new way.

(I'm sorry for my bad english, hope you understand it...)

Based on what I'm hearing, I don't have very high hopes for the future of music. I think it will continue to get more electronic, pret-a-porter and instantaneous. It doesn't take much in the way of skill or talent to make music anymore, nor are such qualities to be valued or sought after. Art music in particular has a bleak future from where I'm standing.

I don't try to do anything new in my own composition. The newest thing I do is purposely look backward for inspiration, using old tools to create new music that sounds old. That's relatively unique, but I don't know how much future there is in it.

So electronic music is automatically less artistic than acoustic music?

I personally am very hopeful about the future of music, specificaly in the development of microtonal and poly-stylistic music. Sure, both microtonal and poly-stylistic music have been explored before, but I have yet to see either of them be taken to the level that I have envisioned them in my own personal artistic vision, and I'm sure there are others whose artistic visions have not yet been satisfied in the aforementioned areas. Welcome to the 21st century, WE are the future, go out and do something about it instead of whining.

Based on what I'm hearing, I don't have very high hopes for the future of music. I think it will continue to get more electronic, pret-a-porter and instantaneous. It doesn't take much in the way of skill or talent to make music anymore, nor are such qualities to be valued or sought after. Art music in particular has a bleak future from where I'm standing.

There are three things here that I don't really understand.

1) resistance to electronics - Not that they're appropriate for every piece, but simply by virtue of recording, things like mixing, mastering -- those should be standard things learned for art or commercial music not to mention the legitimacy of using electronics in art music.

2) pret-a-porter - I can kind of see this, especially as a longer and richer history of music grows that we can draw from. But then again, that's always been the case. I would think that nativist/punk/anti-academic/anti-learning arguments would actually work against this problem, even if the music is essentially the same; simply by approach things would be different.

3) instantaneous - I point to Attali, but I also read into that the Euro love of jazz and his socialist ideals leaning towards to more "collective" part of improvisation. But then again, how instantaneous is, say, an algorithmic piece? Sure, the piece [allegedly] writes itself, but there's a lot more forethought there than that cursory discription gives. Also,

I think some of my music is exactly what you're talking about though.

I hope that in popular music the band will get the new invented instruments involved and will replace the guitar, bass, etc.

I'd be very happy to see this. Really for about the last ten years or more, popular music has been in crisis; the vast majority of mainstream artists have been churning out derivative landfill which cynically copies the past, lacking anything new to say. The public are getting increasingly fed up with paying over the odds for this, and the traditional scheme of having producers and big recording labels is starting to crumble, so I hope this will lead to sounds and styles in the future that are actually innovative and have a high level of craft and personal input.

I don't try to do anything new in my own composition. The newest thing I do is purposely look backward for inspiration, using old tools to create new music that sounds old. That's relatively unique, but I don't know how much future there is in it.

I think setting out only to sound 'new' is a futile exercise that diminishes the overall effectiveness of a piece. What is new at one time will eventually become commonplace or outdated. The perception of 'newness' is more to do with the music being associated with a particular time period, so that today there are many contemporary composers who imitate music of the medieval period yet still sound contemporary because this music is so old and unknown we associate it with today.

One thing that will not change is the purposes of having music: to entertain and intellectually stimulate us. I am always cautious of those who decry the decline of 'serious' art music; there is considerable evidence to the contrary (ten million piano students in China, the success of Naxos Music Library and the Berlin Philharmonic's Digital Concert Hall, record sales of classical albums). In particular I think technologies such as the internet and mass media have widened the audiences, not diminished them, and allowed greater collaboration and cultural exchange between artists. We live at a time when it is easier than ever to compose in a particular niche, and I believe this is a trend that will continue, so that there is no longer a single broad style that defines a time period but rather the simultaneous exploration of different paths amongst different figures. If anything, the music that is under threat is traditional folk styles as the world's populations become urbanised - but already we see attempts at folk revival in response to this, indicating that this type of culture may play a more significant role in music of all kinds.

So electronic music is automatically less artistic than acoustic music?...Welcome to the 21st century, WE are the future, go out and do something about it instead of whining.

I don't care much for electronic music, no, and I don't care how artistic it may be. I don't even like my own electronic music, much less anyone else's, and I only use the medium because I have no choice - hence, perhaps, part of my resentment.

As for my "doing something about it instead of whining": I've been composing for 40 years; I'll be 50 my next birthday, and I've been here at YC since day one. I write more in an average week than most of my colleagues do in a month or more, so I'm not sitting on my hands. I'm doing my best to further my own vision of what music should be, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon you seem to be proposing. I whine because I'm only one man, and I see the rest of the world of music heading off in a direction I don't approve of, and there's little I can do but make my own music and hope it sticks. And what century it is has nothing to do with it.

I think some of my music is exactly what you're talking about though

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I didn't mean to single anyone out or offend anyone. I just see music becoming more of a technological process than an art.

One thing that will not change is the purposes of having music: to entertain and intellectually stimulate us. I am always cautious of those who decry the decline of 'serious' art music; there is considerable evidence to the contrary (ten million piano students in China, the success of Naxos Music Library and the Berlin Philharmonic's Digital Concert Hall, record sales of classical albums). In particular I think technologies such as the internet and mass media have widened the audiences, not diminished them, and allowed greater collaboration and cultural exchange between artists. We live at a time when it is easier than ever to compose in a particular niche, and I believe this is a trend that will continue, so that there is no longer a single broad style that defines a time period but rather the simultaneous exploration of different paths amongst different figures. If anything, the music that is under threat is traditional folk styles as the world's populations become urbanised - but already we see attempts at folk revival in response to this, indicating that this type of culture may play a more significant role in music of all kinds.

These, I admit, are hopeful developments. I'll keep my eyes open for them and try to temper my curmudgeon side. I do not see it happening much here, however. Sure, there is some art music about, but most of what gets posted and commented on here is game music - something we used to sideline as incidental music here, but which someone convinced the powers that be was misleading or in some way disenfranchising. Unless it's really exceptional, such as Marius or Jeff Ball, I'm not interested in musical wallpaper for some electronic game, and I don't much care how current and cutting-edge it is. An authentic artistic purpose, and some skill or at least raw talent in executing it, are what impress me; so to see so much effort go into something so ephemeral frustrates me.

There are a couple of composers wich compose electronic music that I like. One of them is Kristoffer Zegers: http://www.kristofferzegers.nl/

He connects the old with the new.

The other composers of electronic music that I like are minimal composers.

For me there are two things wich electronic music makes not that good as acoustic music.

1. The sound of the electronic instruments. They or not human except for the Ondes Martenot and the Theremin. There is nothing more beautiful than the human voice and the Ondes Martenot and the Theremin got something more human in their sound then a lot of the electronic instruments wich are made today.

2. Every (famous) composer who writes electronic music has done the 'tape-thing'. Music for violin and tape, Orchestra and tape, Concerto for violin and tape. I get a little bored if their is on the radio music for ... and tape. :shifty:

I really hope that the Ondes Martenot etc. will become popular by the crowd, that would stimulate to make more of these kind of instruments wich are electronic but has also a great humanity in the sound.

I don't want to hurt anyones feelings but I like a good conversation/discussion about (electronic) music.

I'm a newbie as composer but I do try to avoid chordprogressions like '1,4,5' or '1,5,4' and so on. I'm trying to make logical melody on chordprogressions like C, Esm, B. I try to make it as logical as '1,4,5' but its for me pretty hard and I'm just started to do so. But you composers who knows much more about other composers and their compositions, do you know which composer could inspirate me?

BTW: While I typed this I listened to Stockhausen-Momente. Their are some electronic instruments involved, and I love it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZdtGa7PosM

Forgot something, have tried to find pop wich has micrtonality in the music and found this:

SYZYGYS - Fauna Grotesque:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrA-QzjkEPs&feature=player_embedded

As for my "doing something about it instead of whining": I've been composing for 40 years; I'll be 50 my next birthday, and I've been here at YC since day one. I write more in an average week than most of my colleagues do in a month or more, so I'm not sitting on my hands. I'm doing my best to further my own vision of what music should be, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon you seem to be proposing. I whine because I'm only one man, and I see the rest of the world of music heading off in a direction I don't approve of, and there's little I can do but make my own music and hope it sticks. And what century it is has nothing to do with it.

Oh, give it 20 years or so. The world is changing. It's surprising how many lay people (the younger ones mostly) I've talked to actually are very open to microtonality, and either immediately like it, or learn to enjoy it. Its the ones that have been listening to only equal temperament for 30+ years that are adverse to it.

Q: Is any musical element still susceptible to radical exploitation and development?

A: "Yes: pitch. I even risk a prediction that pitch will comprise the main difference between the 'music of the future' and our music"

— Igor Stravinsky

Oh, give it 20 years or so. The world is changing. It's surprising how many lay people (the younger ones mostly) I've talked to actually are very open to microtonality, and either immediately like it, or learn to enjoy it. Its the ones that have been listening to only equal temperament for 30+ years that are adverse to it.

Q: Is any musical element still susceptible to radical exploitation and development?

A: "Yes: pitch. I even risk a prediction that pitch will comprise the main difference between the 'music of the future' and our music"

— Igor Stravinsky

I would say that the element of space hasn't been explored too much either.

Based on what I'm hearing, I don't have very high hopes for the future of music. I think it will continue to get more electronic, pret-a-porter and instantaneous. It doesn't take much in the way of skill or talent to make music anymore, nor are such qualities to be valued or sought after. Art music in particular has a bleak future from where I'm standing.

I disagree really. I think a bit of misinformation exists on this forum a bit. Art music (classical, instrumental, etc.) has never been the popular idiom. There has always been a much more widely listened to folk music. We tend to forget that Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Beethoven, and many other composers probably weren't widely known by Joe Blow living in a rural hamlet in Sweden. Today, in contrast, many people know who John Adams is. Philip Glass is another who is well known amongst many diverse people. Both of these composers have achieved far more publicity in their own lifetime than virtually any composer pre-1920. Mozart, to make a comparison, was widely heard in courts throughout Europe (Prague, Vienna, Belfast, Italy, Paris, etc.) However, aside from public concerts held in parks and other public venues, most -if not all- his music was completely inaccessible to the lower class peasants who comprised 99% of the population. While the Kings and Queens of Europe, along with their nobility, were busy listening to Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, etc. the peasants were busy making their own kind of music. This music, largely lost today, did in turn influence the music of these composers (and later composers like Bartok). Do I think that the future of art music is in peril? Absolutely not. There will always be an audience and a venue for it - just as there has always been. There will always be people who will worry about the survivability of art music - just as there has always been. I think what matters most, is that we write music and leave the speculation up to future pundits who will look back at our work.

...many people know who John Adams is.

Well duh! He was the second president of the United States!

Jason, if you think you know history so well, then why don't you teach it? Lord knows you think you know it all! But alas, you chose composing. :(

Well duh! He was the second president of the United States!

lol

Jason, if you think you know history so well, then why don't you teach it? Lord knows you think you know it all! But alas, you chose composing. :(

I love history but I love composing a LOT more. I'm just pointing out things that are pretty simple to research oneself.

Mozart, to make a comparison, was widely heard in courts throughout Europe (Prague, Vienna, Belfast, Italy, Paris, etc.)

Belfast?

Belfast?

I was waiting for someone to notice that ;)

There are a couple of composers wich compose electronic music that I like. One of them is Kristoffer Zegers: http://www.kristofferzegers.nl/

He connects the old with the new.

The other composers of electronic music that I like are minimal composers.

For me there are two things wich electronic music makes not that good as acoustic music.

1. The sound of the electronic instruments. They or not human except for the Ondes Martenot and the Theremin. There is nothing more beautiful than the human voice and the Ondes Martenot and the Theremin got something more human in their sound then a lot of the electronic instruments wich are made today.

2. Every (famous) composer who writes electronic music has done the 'tape-thing'. Music for violin and tape, Orchestra and tape, Concerto for violin and tape. I get a little bored if their is on the radio music for ... and tape. :shifty:

I really hope that the Ondes Martenot etc. will become popular by the crowd, that would stimulate to make more of these kind of instruments wich are electronic but has also a great humanity in the sound.

I don't want to hurt anyones feelings but I like a good conversation/discussion about (electronic) music.

I'm a newbie as composer but I do try to avoid chordprogressions like '1,4,5' or '1,5,4' and so on. I'm trying to make logical melody on chordprogressions like C, Esm, B. I try to make it as logical as '1,4,5' but its for me pretty hard and I'm just started to do so. But you composers who knows much more about other composers and their compositions, do you know which composer could inspirate me?

BTW: While I typed this I listened to Stockhausen-Momente. Their are some electronic instruments involved, and I love it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZdtGa7PosM

C major, E subminor, B major?

2. Every (famous) composer who writes electronic music has done the 'tape-thing'. Music for violin and tape, Orchestra and tape, Concerto for violin and tape. I get a little bored if their is on the radio music for ... and tape. :shifty:

Well this goes in a few ways. Tape makes a lot of sense to me, especially for pre-digital electronic music, as it was the only way to effectively record sound. In addition, there's something good -- very tactile -- about tape. You can do things with it that, while much easier on digital, is -- i dunno, more physical.

It's also kind of like controlling the piece more rather than having the same thing happen, but simply sequenced when playing, if you extend "tape" to any prerecorded musical elements.

Music of the future?

I predict in 5 billion years after the sun destroys the earth, there won't be much music to speak of lest we escape this planet!!!! Then it'll be western music, IN SPACE.

This is assuming, rather extremely optimistically, that we LAST 5 billion years.

I really hope that the Ondes Martenot etc. will become popular by the crowd, that would stimulate to make more of these kind of instruments wich are electronic but has also a great humanity in the sound.

I don't want to hurt anyones feelings but I like a good conversation/discussion about (electronic) music.

If you want to have a great humanity in the sound you should play with passion. Here's a counter-example: give violin to anyone who don't know how to play it and it will sound, well, bad. So it's a performer not an instrument. In the world of synthesizers there are ones that are very flexible - depending on velocity and sustain they will sound absolutely different. Instrument thus isn't supposed to have a 'humanity', it is supposed not to limit the performer. Using synths you can express yourself no worse than using acoustic instruments, and in several cases, electronic instruments just work better (which is called propensity and determines what someone is up to). If a piece doesn't sound human (unintentionally), then it has something to do with personality of its author and if he blames instruments for which he composed, he is missing the point and is beating the dead horse.

I think in the future music will incorperate other sences beside the hearing. Since the television video has found a steady place in our enjoyment of music. In the near future virtual reality will (hopefully) be a part of our daily lives and this will be incorperated in our music aswell. Wouldn't it be amazing if you can combine smell with you composition. Besides smell their might be the possibility of psysical sensations like stimulation of toes and or hands.

Wouldn't it be great if we could be pluged in with our sences to a computer. During the a-section the 'listener' hears a beautiful sentimental melody and this is paired with the smell of wet wood and on his virtual reality glasses he sees and old english forest. During the B-section he is being approached by a old farmer and his horse. He smells the horse and when the B-section reaches it's highpoint the farmer gently touches the hands of the 'listener'.

You may fill in the rest of the piece.

As always, I take the technological standpoint on how the future of music will change.

I think with the advent of incredibly powerful tools, as well as a super-fast Internet, it will breed into new subcultures that largely create their own music from home, with either free, or very cheap tools. A lot of this musical software that will be created will use very natural, intuitive concepts that the average human can understand (body movements, gestures, singing, dialogue, touch, and even thought processes), and essentially shape the music in the way they want it. This will be, in essence, a supercharged remix culture, whereupon anyone can remix any music, at any time, at their own will. Musical collaborations will appear all over the world, where people can work on music with people across the globe (in different countries, continents, cultures, and even speak different languages), real-time.

Computers will be embedded in every wall, on every device that you can possibly think of. They will be as small as a speck of dust, and literally be cheaper than water (this is called Ubiquitous Computing, for those playing at home). Every surface will be controlled by computers, especially on your musical devices. Simply by going up to a grand piano and playing will mean it starts recording the audio, in higher quality audio than we've ever seen before, with completely invisible microphones. You won't ever have to tell it to record, because it will know you wanted to record. Creating and recording music will be as simple as just playing music. All the parameters will be able to be changed later (as well as the audio waves itself, much like auto-tune, Melodyne and VariAudio can currently do, but with anything).

Music will become personalized, and there will be algorithms to determine what you prefer in music. Each song will be able to dynamically alter (that is, remix) itself based on the listener's feedback loop, changing itself until the listener prefers it. No longer will it be that songs are a linear form, but will instead be dynamic, and constantly changing. As such, every time we listen to music, rather than listening to the artist's exact vision of the music, we will be listening to an implementation of that music. Every implementation of said music will be different, depending on the context of the listener, and the listener themselves.

I see music as being largely electronic, yes. Largely algorithmic, yes. Largely generative, yes.

I see your music following you around wherever you go. The idea of a personalized soundtrack, that algorithmically figures out what you want to listen to, and plays it.

I also see music largely being free, paid for by advertising, done on your phone. Your phone (or personal device of the future, whatever that may be) will be the central repository of this. When you look at your phone, the ads will be based on local musical events, or even premium music that you can pay for. Live music demand will skyrocket, as music fans will be constantly reminded that seeing live music is better than algorithmic music.

As such, there will still be an overwhelming desire to play acoustic instruments (even though they will be able to be perfectly synthesized electronically), and vinyl records will still sell. This is largely based on our primitive, cave-man behaviour where we only inherently trust the tangible parts of our lives.

***

So there you go. That's my vision for the future of music production and consumption. I'm doing my part on algorithmic, generative music.