On personal style.

When it comes to personal style, as a composer, it is hard to describe what that style would be. Yes, I compose ensemble pieces (rather solo or chamber) or full orchestra, too. However, period style is not going to be same. The term best fits me is "polystylist". This means I could possibly write in different styles. For instance, my Halloween piece was written for string quartet but the style 20th century. (note; I could have written a serialism written for that competition...). Currently, I working piece that sounds neo classical for the next competition. Joe Hirashi was the inspiration for the piece.

My personal taste is open book. Heck. George Leigti works are always fun to listen to. And who does not want to listen a post tonal composition that has clusters and other modern jazz. :) The problem is...midi can not play back alerotical boxes and clusters. Only live musicians can. Thus, that is what trying figure out, next. How to have play back in score. (maybe use a daw?)

An interesting question.

I think that, nowadays (or for the past few decades or so), even as a professional composer, it is almost impossible to develop a unique, new and personal style.

I believe very few in history were like that. Bach, Wagner, Debussy, Schönberg… in the 20th century there are perhaps more: John Cage, Messiaen, Bartók…

But there are other composers of equal or greater calibre who did not introduce ‘revolutionary’ new ideas, yet who took the music that was developing at the time and made it evolve and grow. These composers also have highly recognisable personal styles (Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, Puccini, Brahms, Chopin, and many more).

We currently face a ‘problem’: we are familiar with a vast number of musical languages and systems that emerged in the 20th century, and there are many of them.

I believe that, nowadays, a composer must be eclectic and must be familiar with as many musical languages as possible, drawing from each the elements that suit them at any given moment. The ability to combine all of this is a sign of a composer’s maturity.

Very often, we stick very closely to a particular style, or even a particular composer, and write pieces by imitating them as best we can. That’s fine, but I don’t think that amounts to developing one’s own style. I see it as absolutely necessary, especially for learning purposes.

Regarding the second point you raise.

It’s true, there are a great many widely used techniques and other things that software programmes cannot do. Although they are gradually incorporating them.

Of course, I can’t see a DAW or an editor handling random elements. The notation for this has been sorted out, but the software-based performance cannot be random.

Even Film composers draw from influences different styles. John Willams drew from Shoenberg's use the tonal when he wrote the night bus scene in Harry potter. Aliev vs Predator extensively used Aleortical writing. However, it has seems new composers want less orchestral and synth base music. I can see how this works (sort of). But it would not work in every film. Nor will the audience like it. Audiences who attend operas, ballets, and musicals desire the traditional sound: a rich orchestral score. Synths will only work to those who never listen to that.

HI @Kvothe !

It's an interesting topic! To me style follows when you have unique things to express as you can never fake a new style if you don't have unique things to talk about in a unique way. I agree with @Luis Hernández that it's easiest to achieve a personal style by eclecticism, maybe that's my approach towards composing too. There's no one absolutely best style, but only the most suitable style to present your very own thoughts in a most unique way.

Henry

Hi guys!
I think there are different levels to "personal style."
There’s the kind often seen in pop music—a style defined by the individual artist or the band itself—and then there’s the kind @Luis Hernández is referring to: a personal style that carries significant influence.
In the 21st century, we see plenty of that first type—original, personal styles—and I personally enjoy listening to them.
Artists like Nils Frahm, Boards of Canada, and GoGo Penguin come to mind.
Perhaps the reason we aren't seeing the kind of unprecedented, revolutionary shifts that occurred in the 20th century is simply because music has fragmented into so many different genres.
That said, I believe new and innovative works are still being created within each of those genres.
We have such an incredible array of equipment and techniques available today that, depending on how you combine them, it’s certainly possible to create fresh, novel music.
Though, I have to admit, I show absolutely no signs of doing that myself, haha.

The topic of "random elements" is also fascinating.
You could probably incorporate randomness into a piece by using a DAW that utilizes mathematical formulas for randomization.
If you used that to establish rules for sound placement, for instance, you might be able to generate a different piece of music every time using just a single formula.

Since the turn of the 21st century, we haven't really seen anyone who represents a paradigm shift in music, but I’m sure someone will emerge eventuallyーand I certainly hope to live long enough to see it happen!

Best,

Lithl.

On 8/2/2026 at 10:41 PM, Kvothe said:

The problem is...midi can not play back alerotical boxes and clusters. Only live musicians can.

On 8/3/2026 at 5:48 AM, Luis Hernández said:

We currently face a ‘problem’: we are familiar with a vast number of musical languages and systems that emerged in the 20th century, and there are many of them.

I believe that, nowadays, a composer must be eclectic and must be familiar with as many musical languages as possible, drawing from each the elements that suit them at any given moment. The ability to combine all of this is a sign of a composer’s maturity.

Very often, we stick very closely to a particular style, or even a particular composer, and write pieces by imitating them as best we can. That’s fine, but I don’t think that amounts to developing one’s own style. I see it as absolutely necessary, especially for learning purposes.

I personally think in developing a personal language, composers need to strike a balance between indiscriminate absorption of everything they find, and limiting themselves to an overly narrow range of influences. I know the process varies from composer to composer, but I think it's important to find that balance. It's different today, where we have more control into what feeds our composer's mind--we kind of need to carve a personal ecosystem out of today's chaotic musical world. I've found it helpful to have a diverse cluster of a few core influences as a reference point (Sibelius, Messiaen, Britten), and then kind of expanding outside that.

On 8/3/2026 at 1:41 AM, Kvothe said:

The term best fits me is "polystylist". This means I could possibly write in different styles.

Polystylism is a fascinating approach, though it's not one that works well for my own process. If I composed in whatever style interested me at the moment, I don't think I would find the motivation to complete any full pieces. Again, it really depends on the composer, but as for me, my music is usually an expression of a philosophical vision, or a way of life. I can't really separate the styles and systems from the musical vision that bred them.

35 minutes ago, CrystalCanon said:

I personally think in developing a personal language, composers need to strike a balance between indiscriminate absorption of everything they find, and limiting themselves to an overly narrow range of influences. I know the process varies from composer to composer, but I think it's important to find that balance. It's different today, where we have more control into what feeds our composer's mind--we kind of need to carve a personal ecosystem out of today's chaotic musical world. I've found it helpful to have a diverse cluster of a few core influences as a reference point (Sibelius, Messiaen, Britten), and then kind of expanding outside that.

Polystylism is a fascinating approach, though it's not one that works well for my own process. If I composed in whatever style interested me at the moment, I don't think I would find the motivation to complete any full pieces. Again, it really depends on the composer, but as for me, my music is usually an expression of a philosophical vision, or a way of life. I can't really separate the styles and systems from the musical vision that bred them.

I completely agree with this.

The thing is, when you’re learning, I think it’s good to explore and delve into a wide range of styles, given that we now have the resources to do so.

Of course, it’s a process that, depending on each person’s circumstances, may never end.

I think the level of commitment plays a big part here. A professional composer is not in the same boat as people who compose as a hobby (and do so whenever they can).

Honestly, as I’m in that second group, I don’t think I’ll ever have time in my life to define a narrow circle of influence. That doesn’t mean, however, that when I set out to write something, I do so within a framework I’ve defined beforehand.

If you limit yourself to one style, you might restrict yourself, and make it harder for modern audiences to enjoy your work.

The modern audience today still attends orchestral concerts. But the programs that orchestras schedule are mix from classical, romantic, and 20th century composers...and some times music from other media.

21 hours ago, Kvothe said:

If you limit yourself to one style, you might restrict yourself, and make it harder for modern audiences to enjoy your work.

The modern audience today still attends orchestral concerts. But the programs that orchestras schedule are mix from classical, romantic, and 20th century composers...and some times music from other media.

But you're not implying that composers should imitate all the classical, romantic, and 20th century composers that are getting into programs, right? I don't know--I'm not discouraging eclecticism in any way, but I'm a bit wary of composers imitating other composers simply because they are the ones currently being programmed. Popularity is often a good signal to dig into examine someone's work more closely, examine it's "why". But I think it also pays off to be honest about the music you really like, what inspires you on an intuitive and visceral level. Sometimes it just isn't worth compromising.

23 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

The thing is, when you’re learning, I think it’s good to explore and delve into a wide range of styles, given that we now have the resources to do so.

Of course, it’s a process that, depending on each person’s circumstances, may never end.

Agreed--you often don't know what works for you and what doesn't unless you try. The music one listens to can be different from the composers that actually influence your creative processes. You can't develop any kind of original style without all the practical work of trying out many different things (and accumulating many failed sketches in the process!)

23 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

Honestly, as I’m in that second group, I don’t think I’ll ever have time in my life to define a narrow circle of influence.

I think the personality of the composer also has a lot to do with that, besides just the professional/amateur divide. Or maybe those who feel the need to define their singular "personal voice" are also those more likely to commit to a head-on, professional career. But I think both approaches can be quite respectable.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by CrystalCanon

@CrystalCanon

I think the current landscape of academic music is complicated.

On the one hand, the few major venues that remain play it safe and, yes, every now and then, they programme something from the 20th century.

Contemporary composers are rarely programmed, and often these are commissions that result in a premiere and little else, with a few exceptions.

Ideally, more opportunities should be given to this contemporary music.

Another issue concerns composers who build their careers within a closed environment such as music academies or conservatoires, where they have access to musicians to perform their works.

As for the idea of learning from all sources and styles, that’s only logical. But it strikes me that many people have little or no interest in listening to, let alone learning how, other styles work.

What strikes me even more are those who, when writing music, limit themselves to imitating very specific periods, whilst showing no interest in anything else.

And I also agree with your final point. Each person’s preferences influence their objective compositional style. I, for example, thoroughly enjoy the Baroque, the style galant and Romanticism, though I’m less keen on Classicism. And I’ve studied everything from the Renaissance right through to rotational matrices… Yet my preference is for the modern language of music, from Impressionism onwards. In order to start doing something in that vein, I’ve had to spend a long time learning (with great pleasure) about tonal music, and I still enjoy it to this day.

Edited 37 minutes ago37 min by Luis Hernández