FUTURE MUSIC

Greetings:

I am an 18/m composer living in Rockford, IL, who is searching for other composers/musicians who wish to experiment with innovative musical concepts, ideas, and inspirations. I am looking for those who are dissatisfied with the majority of the music system in the past and present. I do not want to pursue any genre or style; I want to remain free to experiment melodically, harmonically, rhythmically, and structurally. I only seek composers and idealists who have a specific musical vision for the future that is one which captures the quality, depth, pureness, and sincerity of composition. Music has been degraded and disregarded as if it is only another triviality of one's life. This was not meant to be so. Music is independent, powerful, dynamic, and alluring if it is given the right environment.

I am not looking for anyone who was trained how to compose or how to perform. I am not looking for anyone who thinks of music as being allotted to a particular "career path" or "traditional role." I am not looking to compose to impress society, earn money, or achieve any superficial nonsense. I am not interested in those who read by sheet music, who follow the syntax of what they have been told, who are limited to the constructs of the past. Anything of a commercial sort, I despise.

I am also not looking for anyone who lacks motivation or who is part of the degraded filth of "music" that has infested everything. There are basically two extremes: the completely programmed composer and the completely limited/primitive composer. I do not wish for either of those two to contact me. I am interested only in those who create music for themselves and their own visions, not to appease an audience which is indifferent inherently. If you have read this message and can identify with what I am talking about please contact me. I have not yet found anyone who even remotely has any individual musical and philosophical character at all. It is to be expected. I search for what is rare, and I do not even know where to begin. Contact me at PageWizard17@aol.com.

Sincerely,

PageWizard (Wizard of Innovation)

You are very optimistic... you can't get rid of the past, you just can't! Music evolves slowly. I'm sorry, but your attempt is almost sure to be a failure...

Well that is fairly interesting. I am like this in some ways (except read sheet music, and I think I can do this better than by Suzuki and its also easier to write music down in a language everyone can understand ... isn't it? I'm not sure what you meant by this anyway ...). But I am not sure what the purpose would be of this, because if you aren't going to allow it to be exhibited/performed/sold to the public, then its not going to get much of a look by anybody, you would not be able to promote it properly if no-one ever knew what it was! :-) Obviously I see that you want to make music with no restrictions for the satisfaction of the composer rather than of the audience, this reminds me A LOT of the Die Brucke movement, who had the same ideas about breaking free of convention in art. Although I am interested in this 'movement' that you are beginning I could not take part because I do not support your views on other music; sure I write for myself but the way music is heading now is all part of innovation too. i.e. I find all music to have its purpose and I think that if people prefer certain styles of composing thats fine and if I have my own style than that is fine too.

In response to your comments:

The first response is one I hear quite frequently. It is the all too common limitation that music takes time and that the past cannot be erased. Music does not have to follow the past. It only follows it because the past gives us our security and foundation. But this foundation is a false one which does not have to be there. I have already broken many past traditions that are present throughout the "music system." These traditions are not necessary at all. They are only remnants of the time period in which that addition of music was developed. The reason music moves slowly is because no one has the vision to move it faster. Everyone is complacent with the way music is so they do not have any need to see the possibilities that music can become in the future.

The second response posed some good questions which I would like to address here. Yes it is important to have a written language in which musical concepts, ideas, and compositions can be trasferred. I was not referring to this though. I was referring to a composer or musician who is limited to technical training which causes them to literally repeat the same works over and over. There were many of these back in the classical time period, or any "time period." Every composer during that period has a VERY similar composition and performance style. This was due to the limitations of their environment so it was echoed in their works. If anyone says that any of their works possess "genius," I would have to disagree. When one person is either taught the musical techniques around them or replicates the musical techniques around them, that is not genius. Genius is someone who can see beyond the limitations of the present and expand music to places it has never been before. Genius is also not limited to a select few; anyone can achieve it only if they look for it. It is not about practice, theories, or any of that nonsense. It is about awareness of the possibilities of music and the vision to achieve them. I also do not have anything against showing musical ideas and concepts to the public. I only object when the sole purpose of creating a work is to fulfill some "deadline" or to appease a certain "crowd." The music should not be "tailored" due to a "profession" or for someone else's "wants." Everyone has a certain individual style; I know that. The difference is involved when one composes to a certain "genre" that already exists like, "I will compose a jazz piece," or "I will compose a classical piece." Already, right there, that person is limiting him or herself to a huge number of possibilities. Categorizations are lethal. They cause all music to become stagnant, unchanging, and predictable. That is what has happened to most music both of the past and especially in the present.

Failures only come to those who expect them.

Music is freedom and exists unlimited.

Sincerely,

PageWizard (Wizard of Revolution)

So, are you saying that there is no need for the fundamentals of composition which all composers to date have needed to know, or are you saying that we need to be more open minded about the possibilities of what we can do?

If it the latter of the two I mentioned, then I am with you on that thought, but the individual voice is just that -it can't be developed by other people, so I'm afraid your post is a little ambiguous in saying "I am interested only in those who create music for themselves and their own visions". With respect, if people have that view, they will not contact you.

I think I can see what you are getting at, but a little clarification would be helpful to us.

Thanks.

Ash: I agree to some of the things you have said to some degree. I would still like to know what exactly you are proposing in relation to the actual composing process. According to your ideas, would cadences, pieces based on the modes or harmonic/melodic scales etc. be allowed? If you look back a few threads somewhere a rather I wrote about my idea about composing music which was (my thoughts may have changed a bit since then) when you had an experience or inspiration and wrote down as honestly as you could your reaction (I think this is different to what I wrote, but this is my idea now changed after some experimentation) as music so like self-expression. I think this may be similar to what you are getting at ... except p'raps not as extreme. Maybe I am already doing what you are doing? I would be very interested to hear some of your compositions, if you feel like sending me some the email address is nzmaestro@hotmail.com

How far are you going/are planning to go? Are you chucking out tones and going into quarter tones, chucking out time/key signatures, going into prepared instruments if necessary ... ?

'who is searching for other composers/musicians who wish to experiment with innovative musical concepts, ideas, and inspirations'

P.S what would you have musicians do?

Do you know this guy, Justin? :-)

"Anything of a commercial sort, I despise". Yet you're trying to set up a musical syndicate..... and music is definitely *not* treated as "a triviality". Maybe some music is trivial, yes, but other music can be and is very heartfelt and sincere. As for your theory of "extremes" and "extremists"... well, I think the proverb applying to sooty kitchen implements can be of much use in this situation :-) And what's this with you calling all modern music "degraded filth" - you insult us, and then you want us to join your movement?

Rach's point is quite salient - music is, at the bottom of it, an art. Art must be exposed to *someone* to be appreciated. Overexposure maybe be bad, but your overcompensations strike me as exactly the same dillema.

OK, now you're saying Mozart was not a genius (let's use him as an example). Well, as you put so eloquently, "Genius is someone who can

see beyond the limitations of the present and expand music to places it has never been before." That's Mozart to a tee - using classical *forms* and classical *styles* doesn't automatically turn his music to junk - in fact part of the beauty of Mozart's music is watching how he uses styles and forms (which in other hands might produce boring, trite music) and still manages to express deep and heartfelt emotions - and as for "expanding music to places it has never been before", under those terms you must acknowledge Beethoven, the late Romanticists, Debussy, Vivaldi, Corelli, in fact almost all the composers as genii, since all of them not only wrote music but developed music in a *new direction* - for example, Corelli and Vivaldi basically single-handedly created the Trio Sonata and Concerto, respectively.... as for Beethoven, he is the epitome of this "revolutionizing" composer ideal which you seem to look up to. But IMHO new forms, new styles are not really necessary. True genius is being able to express your feelings - through whatever art, sculpture, music, or so on... that is true Genius.

I think you may have come onto this board with a few preconceived ideas. We make our music mainly for ourselves and for the joy of its creation - not for a "crowd".. In fact the only piece I purposefully created for any one purpose was for my girlfriend, at her request. I don't think that's very crass, if you ask me....

I really like the motivational quotes which you add at the end of your posts :-) No, seriously.

But a parting shot - what if I want to parody a certain style? For example, I'll sit down and write a ballet and a scene takes place in a carnival so I say, All right, I'll write a little Waltz for the Ferris Wheel, in the fluffy tinkly mechanical music box style, parodizing it (you know, bum da da bum da da and so on...). Is that OK, according to your dogma (Not sure if right word....)?

I think prepared instruments would a be a bit demodee, pardon my French, for Ash's style..... :-) CRM? Picture music? Random piano thunking?

Please, send it my way too: gnome1217@yahoo.com

oh so you have a yahoo account now Al ... why not get a hotmail one too so you can go on MSN messenger?

I will respond to each message consecutively:

To David Hately:

I believe there is no need for these "fundamentals" of composition which composers have needed to know. The reason being is that these "fundamentals" were invented by composers to begin with. They were only known as fundamentals after some time passed and composers needed to rely on them in order to develop any sort of their own structure. No fundamental is absolute. We make our own absolutes. Absolutes can be anything we want them to be. We do need to be more open minded about possibilities. You also misinterpreted what I meant by individual creativity. I was referring to a composer's motive for creation as one based on his own inspirations and not for the benefit of an outside entity. I never implied that those who create music for themselves will not look for others who create. Why then am I searching for others? I hope this clarification helped.

To Rach:

As far as your question on cadences goes, I believe they are allowed as well as anything else. I am not proposing to confine my composing to a discrete methodology or process. Basically, it depends on how broad your perspectives are. If you want to stay in the harmonic or melodic scales that is fine with me. You, yourself, govern where your limitations are set because those limitations are not present around you. They are only present in your mind. You can choose where to expand your boundaries, not me. I am not sure how far I am willing to go yet. I have begun to look into the quarter tone idea, but it seems that tones begin to lose crucial individuality and distinguishment if they are brought too close together. I do not want to have musicians "do" anything. What I search for is natural; it is not something false. If I told musicians what to do, they would not feel it, and neither I nor them would be real in that situation. It would all be one big game for nothing. Musicians must understand themselves and their instruments in their own unique and personal way. That is important. Individual creativity is essential. You either have it or you do not; it cannot be "taught."

To alethea:

The ending of my last messages serves as a good point to begin my discussion of what a genius is. I would have to disagree about Mozart being one albeit about everyone reveres him as some god or something. As you state, "part of the beauty of Mozart's music is watching how he uses styles and forms." Yes, but does he really use his own styles and his own forms? Actually, Mozart was another "child prodigy" that was so typical of his time period. There were multitudes of them being turned out at that time as though it was easy. It also turns out that, as I have read, that Mozart, like every other prodigy, was instucted either by his parents or by professional musicians. There are only two ways that he could have known the harmonic and compositional theories of his time which he used constantly in his pieces. The first would be through a professional teacher. The second would be through some extraordinary gift to pick them out by ear and then apply them. There are many myths that Mozart has the second such gift, but that is what they are, myths. Actually, there have been written scores of Mozart as there are of Beethoven, with erasings, corrections, augmentations, several things.

These composers were not brilliant. They were using the same musical devices available during their time period. I do not believe that one can be truly emotional and heartfelt while knowing that he is using specific harmonic and structural devices employed by countless composers in his time period. How also could he been heartfelt while performing and composing the music almost identical to that which he was taught. "Composers" back then are only a scaled up version of what they are today, basically imitators. This is why everyone fits neatly into a time period. If any one of them was tru

additions which were cut off:These composers were not brilliant. They were using the same musical devices available during their time period. I do not believe that one can be truly emotional and heartfelt while knowing that he is using specific harmonic and structural devices employed by countless composers in his time period. How also could he been heartfelt while performing and composing the music almost identical to that which he was taught. "Composers" back then are only a scaled up version of what they are today, basically imitators. This is why everyone fits neatly into a time period. If any one of them was truly a revolutionary genius their music would not be considered "classical." Either that, or "classical" would have begun with them originally. Neither of these is the case. Those composers you mentioned in no way resemble what I referred to by expanding music. Beethoven uses almost identical classical structures like any other classical composer: the same structure forms of repeats, the same technical devices. Classical compositions are engineered almost no differently than modern pop songs. AABA nonsense is present in both of them, repeating "chorus" and adding in "verses" and an occasional "bridge." If each one of those composers were truly different from each other, how can they be classified as they have been, as being "Late Romanticists." That classification refutes originality or genius. Genius is in a world all of its own, and these so called "geniuses" of the past were not in a world all of their own. They took the musical world around them and merely replicated it only because they had the available instructors to show them how. Do you think Mozart learned to magically play the harpsichord or piano when he was three years old? No. I read that his father wanted to make him into a prodigy similarly to the way Beethoven was made into a prodigy. You can see the same thing these days. I'll see fathers forcing their little kids to hit tennis balls a certain way on the court. Look at programs like "star search." The kids' parents are like their own personal trainers. You call that genius? No. Genius is not something where you are taught exactly what everyone wants to hear. This is only the manufacturing of children into what some adult wants them to be. You can parody what you want, but you will have to lose the sarcasm in order for someone to refrain from laughing at you.

I hope that all of the questions have been answered.

Sincerely,

PageWizard

I had a similar ordeal with some guy trying to get me to mess around with some gay innovative music. The man turned out to be a former child molester and I had to get the law involved(no joke). What ever you all do, stay a way from mister Page, he may be dangerous.

Firstly- I would be interested in hearing some of your compositions. Just to get everything in perspective. Music free within the realms of pitch? Harmony? Rhythm? Structure? Sorry, but been there, done that. Yawn. Just look at almost any electroacoustic music. Ambient music. Drone music. Lots and lots and lots of stuff.

Ok, I might sound like I'm being a bit mean, but your first message does seem to have a slightly snobbish attitude- as Al said- you insult us and then expect us to join you? And throughout this board I have been on a bit of a communist anti-snobbery pro-knowledge streak.

And Mr Page... Wizard of Innovation?! Perrrrlease... :o)

I'm with Stefan: Is there anyway you could send us some of your music? I'm very interested in hearing it.

Very funny alethea, I didn't know him before he posted the thread. I bet that you didn't know there was more than one person with these views.

Without surprise I agree with 99.9% of what Ash said. His views are well thought-out and stated and in my opinion, logical.

"Firstly- I would be interested in hearing some of your compositions. Just to get everything in perspective. Music free within the realms of pitch? Harmony? Rhythm? Structure? Sorry, but been there, done that. Yawn. Just look at almost any electroacoustic music. Ambient music. Drone music. Lots and lots and lots of stuff."

Exactly, Stefan! Hon, if you say you don't need to learn these "fundamentals of music" which are, apparently, keeping us from being truly personally expressive, then you can never move your music to another level! If you haven't learned about it, you don't know it exists; so, your music sounds like everyone else's, or at least, every other idealest untrained young composers' (you are not necessarily one of those, but there is a sort of idealism in your tone, dear) and you don't even know it!

It's akin to the guy on drugs thinking he's being social, free and witty when he's really down in his parent's basement by himself with his drugs. Composers think they're being very creative, but really, they don't know how confined they are making themselves. Learn to identify the box you are burying yourself in! You're all about being musically free, but you are limiting your musical palate.

You don't have to compose in other's styles. In fact, if you do, it would be very boring. But you have to learn about them to become truly knowledgeable about music. In fact, if you are passionate about your music, why wouldn't you want to soak up every little detail you can get your hands on, and hear every piece from every style that you can cram into a day? Doesn't it excite you? Don't you jump up and down when you hear works from all styles and all periods? Doesn't it make you excited and thirst for more? Don't you want to learn simply everything you can and the more you learn the more you know how much more there is out there to learn and the more you want to experience all of it? Isn't it SUPERFUN???

For me, a person like this would not be considering music trivial or a passtime. That sounds like a full-blown lifetime obsession. If you don't have that, then composing may not be for you.

On the other hand, perhaps you do have this sort of obsession and you just have an idea and are really bad at expressing it in writing. You can never tell on the computer and I don't want to have misjudged you. I think that your ideas have merit--you just wanted to say that we should write our own music! Which is true! And we shouldn't copy styles of the past! Which is true! But we should learn about them. We don't run on the feudal system anymore, but we should still learn about history, shouldn't we? Hmmm? It's the same thing, isn't it?

So a word of advice: shy away from stating absolutes and complete ideals. They can only trap you.

Funny how people can differ. I DISagree with 99.9% of what Ash said. Ok, maybe a slightly smaller percentage. I guess I just don't like this "I-must-be-innovative-and-using-things-of-the-past-is-bad" attitude. So, Mr Page, you want to write music which is completely independent of the past and the present? Good luck, but I don't think you will succeed in it. Apart from that, what's the use of such music? your musical preferences have been shaped by the musical traditions you have been exposed to. therefore, what you like to hear is always based on tradition in one way or another. so there's a great chance that no one, not even yourself, will like music that's

i completely

free from any traditions. then, WHY, WHY, WHY would you want to write such music? do you think such music will be better or more original?

"I have not yet found anyone who even remotely has any individual musical and philosophical character at all." do you mean anyone on this board or anyone in music history? If the latter, I suspect you have not heard a lot of music throughout your life and then I would suggest you listen to more music. then you will notice that there are thousands of composers who have a unique, individual musical character.

"Music does not have to follow the past". So we are

i limited

by the constructs of the past, aren't we? all composers use constructs of the past, even the most revolutionary ones. these constructs also happen to be the basis of most masterpieces in music history. oh wait a minute, there are no true masterpieces in music history, are there? music can't be completely independent of the past and the present. you simply can't write music that is not based on constructs of the past. Innovation is combining things from past and present traditions in such a way that it becomes something new. Therefore, innovation isn't possible without first imitating/replicating older styles or techniques. think of two of the greatest innovators of the 20th century, stravinsky and schoenberg. stravinsky was a master of imitation (especially in his neo-classical period), yet he was a great innovator; schoenberg's early works are written in a standard romantic style. All composers "imitate" others to some extent. however, this is what eventually leads to innovation.

"The reason music moves slowly is because no one has the vision to move it faster." Could it also be possible that no one has felt the need to develop such a vision?

"When one person is either taught the musical techniques around them or replicates the musical techniques around them, that is not genius." Hmmm...ok, let me see, how many composers who are generally considered "genius" were taught the musical techniques around them and how many of them used (or as you like to say: "replicated") those techniques? maybe all of them? if you go to a conservatory or music school, you'll be taught a great deal about the composition techniques of the 20th century. and you know why? Because in order to "expand music to places it has never been before" one must know something about the past and present musical techniques. otherwise you wouldn't even know the places music has gone before. Another thing, bach, mozart, beethoven, debussy, etc. all weren't geniuses, but "genius" isn't limited to a small group and anyone can achieve it. a bit of a contradiction, eh?

i To be continued....

"I do not believe that one can be truly emotional and heartfelt while knowing that he is using specific harmonic and structural devices employed by countless composers in his time period". So, that means, you cannot be emotional and heartfelt if you hear anything by, for instance, all baroque composers, all classical composers, all romantic composers, all impressionist composers, all serialist composers, all jazz composers, all pop composers. well, then there isn't much music left for you that can make you truly emotional or heartfelt. do you like music at all?

"They were using the same musical devices available during their time period." So? if I get what you're saying, a composer can't be brilliant if he uses the same musical devices as other composers? You can only be truly emotional and heartfelt if you know that the composer uses musical devices that aren't used by

i any

other composers? yeah, right, beethoven was not only not a genius, he wasn't even any revolutionary and he didn't expand music, because other composers made use of the same classical structures. I hate to tell you, but this is some of the greatest nonsense I have read on the board. No further comments on this.

"Categorizations are lethal". Then why do people categorize? Maybe because it works? Categorizations can also be very, very useful. we need to organize our knowledge of the world to make sense of the world. besides, it's part of human nature to categorize. it's an automatic process, it just happens. It's overoptimistic to say "I don't wanna pursue any style or genre" you'll be categorized anyway. you have already categorized the music you want to write yourself: future music. you seem to think that if your music is categorized, you can't be original anymore. so it's impossible to be innovative and have a highly original, personal style if you pursue a certain style or genre, right? PLEASE! think about the many distinctions that are possible within one genre (pop, classical) or one label (romantic, impressionist). For instance, debussy and ravel are both labelled "impressionist" but don't you think their music differs enough to consider them unique, distinct musical personalities as well?

Sorry for being a little sarcastic, but it seems to me that YOU are limiting yourself by ignoring the rich musical heritage from the past that's available to you.You regard the fact that you can't erase the past as a limitation, but it's not a limitation, it's an advantage. we don't limit ourselves if we know the "fundaments" of composition and if we make use of them. we don't limit ourselves if we make use of styles and techniques of the past. This is the way that leads to innovation, after all. Therefore, it's good to gain knowledge about and expose yourself to the many existing musical traditions, so that each composer can stand - so to speak - on the shoulders of his predecessors to reach greater heights.

phew... I think I've written a novel this morning. and don't get me wrong, I have nothing against experimental or progressive music at all. I do have something against this attitude of "we

i must

be innovative and we need to do away with all traditions, techniques, styles and concepts of the past" and this attitude of disrespect for the genius composers of the past.

I agree with 99.9% of what X has said. One thing that I can't stand is people trying to be inovative for the sake of being inovative. I don't hold any specific boundaries on my music. I make them up as I go along for each individual piece and occasionally, I use classical forms because I want to use them and they suit what i'm writing, but that doesn't mean i'm being unoriginal and that there is no emotion in my music. I think you should listen to some Shostakovich (I tell everyone that :) ). Try symphony no. 10, first movement or the first cello concerto, then listen to some Mozart. Both composers use similar forms, but create different emotions through their music and if you try and tell me Shostakovich creates no emotions because he uses classical forms, then i'm sorry, but you've missed something in the whole concept of music.

Also, try telling me Shostakovich isn't a genius, simply because he uses classical forms. Also, good luck trying to find people who understand your point of view, seriously.

All right, Ash, I finally reread this whole page.....

Well, some minor quibbles that I missed on the first salvo: I think it's a bit paradoxical that you're looking for musicians who "haven't been trained how to perform".... how then are they musicians? I also think it's wierd that you are urging us to join a movement which, by its own rules, renders itself nonexistent (remember, no boxing in.)... I think you were mainly trying to "pep-talk" us into being innovative and anti-commercial..... ask humnab to lend you his oboe sonata. I think it's very innovative... and as far as I know, only a few people on this site have ever got their works performed, and then before small audiences... as I said earlier, you may have come here with some preconceived ideas about what we do.. (although you are partly right about many of us not seeking composition as a life-long official vocation; but you can hardly blame us for that - the music industry, not pop but "art" or what is snobbily called "real" music is not very lucrative.)

I also take offense at your labelling Mozart as a "trained monkey", so to speak. I think Mozart had that spark of genius that would have made him as great a Modern or Baroque or Romantic composer as a Classical one. Mozart took his *training* - passed down, as you say, from Padre Martini and Leopold Mozart - and *worked within the framework* of his classical training to produce beautiful music. He would as easily have composed in any other style - in fact the style just plain doesn't matter.

George, please.

Justin, I was just being facetious... I know you don't know him :-)

Michelle is exactly right and put it more eloquently than I ever could - except: "those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it". Let's learn the cartography of musical styles - this will aid us in our search to "go where no one else has" to paraphrase Mr. Wizard.

I like what someone said in an earlier discussion - I think Lee, in defense of his anachronism [:-)] : "we can use the styles of the past as tools to make music of the future".... ie, we don't need to suddenly break away from tradition. Music made for the sole need to be innovative is usually (only usually) crap. Some is quite refreshing, interesting, even beautiful; but music shouldn't focus on what style you use, it should focus on what it's trying to get across. This is why I disagree so much with serial music.....

I'll repeat X's question: do you like *any* music, if you look down on all music of the past? Music for centuries has been climbing in a steady, though slow, path. If we adopted your rules, the music of the immediate past would be totally worthless, the music of the present fast becoming so, and the music of the future the only "real music". In other words, according to your philosophy a composer would have to disregard ALL music as junk every time a new composer came along. This strikes me as a singularily ludicrous situation.... :-)

I as well put no conscious bounds on my music.. I must admit, however, atonal is not my style. I like dissonances, I like clashes, but music that's atonal all the way thru just strikes me as - wierd (hey, I was raised on Verdi and Mozart).... I only use serial music to parodize it. I can't write jazz. But I've never used Sonata Form either! I rarely use Mozarty and Beethoveny cadences! My music isn't repeating the past, it's using the past's tools to create new styles....

Sir,

"Mozart was another "child prodigy" that was so typical of his time period". Who are they, and why do we not remember them as we do Mozart?

Also, to me you said "I believe there is no need for these "fundamentals"", but to Rach you said "As far as your question on cadences goes, I believe they are allowed as well as anything else." So, you are saying that you find fundamentals a waste of time, yet you are making room for cadences (which is one of the basic fundamentals).

Also, as with Stefan's message No.s 12, please send us some of your music, to see 'where the land lies', so to speak.

"I think you should listen to some Shostakovich (I tell everyone that :) ). Try symphony no. 10, first movement or the first cello concerto, then listen to some Mozart" "Also, try telling me Shostakovich isn't a genius" Couldn't put it better myself.

Everything I wanted to say has been said already, so I shan't say it again. I think you know my stance in the discussion.

:--)

I really dont care. Good luck in your quest. I am going to write the music I want. Why is it that the modern, pergressive composers are always right and the rest of us are just dummies living in the past?

Good question.

Addressing many of your questions and misinterpretations--

I have noticed that I have had many responses and many questions. I have noticed several of my quotes being posted with responses that misinterpreted what I was actually saying. There was one about me abolishing fundamentals yet supporting cadences. This was incorrect. All I said was that fundamentals are not necessary; they are only necessary if we make them so. The same goes with cadences. They are not necessary, but they can be if you want them to be.

I have seen many of you comment on my quotes about child prodigies and the limitations of the past. Many of you disbelieve about my views on the past, claiming the past is rich with "good stuff." I never said the past was bad. It can be good, yet it can be bad. It all depends how you use it. Influences are inevitable. Everyone is influenced by what they hear around them. Imitation is choice. Someone chooses to imitate directly using methods already invented. I am not talking about "hearing" some music. This is different. This is where a composer uses all of these techniques he has been taught deliberately. By doing this, his works will sound not much different than those around him at the time. This is what I have noticed. Categorizations are lethal. They limit a composer to the constructs around him. "I will compose a jazz piece," or "I will compose a classical piece." This is nonsense. Why must you already limit what you are doing before you even do it? Everyone does this. That is why I have not found any truly great composer that has done something of genuinely of his own.

I listened to some of those "composers" you mentioned. I stopped listening after the first few seconds. It is everything I have heard everywhere before. It is predictable, monotonous, and uninteresting. There is no emotion there, just another copy of anything else. Nothing stands out to me because no one has any vision to create something with a deep and dynamic structure. Anything categorized is not original. Originality is unique and cannot be grouped. How do you think you can group so many composers neatly together in one time period that can be characterized? You can only do this for one reason. None of them were original. I can know this by simply listening to any of them for a few seconds. I have heard the same nonsense countless times before. Until you show me someone that cannot be classified and that is truly creative, I will continue to disagree with your notions of what is great. I have already proved why all of your composers are not original. It makes perfect sense.

Sincerely,

Ash