FUTURE MUSIC

No, it doesn't make sense at all. First, I don't agree with your definition of "original". Is Stravinsky "unoriginal"? Nobody has written music before like he did. But he uses an orchestra (an ensemble of the past). Does this make him "unoriginal"? If so, just producing sound would be "unoriginal". It would be "unoriginal" to even write music at all.

Second, just because it's "unoriginal", it doesn't mean it's boring or unemotional. And you can't judge a piece by just listening to it for a few seconds. Even "unoriginal" music can have its twists and turns. That's what makes it interesting. Being "original" doesn't guarantee you an interesting piece. In fact, there's a lot of pointless and boring music that desperately tries to be "original".

Third, you say "influences are inevitable", yet you want to write "original" music which is like nothing that has ever been written before. That's a contradiction.

Fourth, you are not showing any interest in a serious and interesting discussion at all. You are rather trying to force your opinion on us. I certainly won't post in this thread anymore. You're a hopeless case.

i'm not sure whether I should take your views seriously anymore. I hope it's one big joke, if not, well, good luck then mister. your views are absurd. Instead of coming up with some new, intelligent arguments, you are merely restating your original point.

"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?" So, when you compose (if you compose at all), you just say to yourself: "I will compose something, but I don't know what, I don't know for what instruments and I don't know in what style the piece will be written." Now THAT is nonsense. You must specify some things, otherwise you cannot even create anything. You must set out the "direction" of the piece, that is, you must decide things like: is it going to be a short song or a large-scale orchestral piece or a word score or a piece for tables and chairs? what techniques am I going to use? will it be a short piece or a long piece? etc.You cannot just write without even knowing WHAT you want to write. that's why some people say: "I will write a large-scale classical symphony for large orchestra". That is not limiting what you are doing, that is specifying the direction of the compositional process, so that you can write anything at all.

"Anything categorized is not original. Originality is unique and cannot be grouped." Oh man, can you believe it? If this is your definition of "originality", then you will never find any music you can consider original, nor will ANYONE EVER write ANY original music. like I said, it is human nature to categorize, categorization is inevitable. we give a certain label to a group of composers sharing certain similarities. and there will always be similarities between all different kinds of music. all music will be categorized, and if you happen to write music that doesn't fit into any existing category, you'll surely get followers who will more or less imitate your style (think of Cage and his followers, feldman, wolff, brown) and then people will label your new style and voila, a new category is born. music that is completely unlike all other music does not exist, nor will it ever exist.

"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". Maybe you should listen to more than just the first few seconds. if you are any musical at all, you'll notice how terribly wrong you are when stating something like this. AND how terribly arrogant.

"I have already proved why all of your composers are not original. It makes perfect sense." yeah right, did everyone hear that, can ya feel the sarcasm? y'know, mister, you haven't proved a damn thing.

gee, I think I'm wasting my time....

"You must set out the "direction" of the piece, that is, you must decide things like: is it going to be a short song or a large-scale orchestral piece or a word score or a piece for tables and chairs? what techniques am I going to use? will it be a short piece or a long piece?"

I see that in order for you, anyone like you, or for the composers of the past to create anything, you have to set out this "direction." You know what is interesting though. All of these choices you have made have already been done before. That is why your music will sound no different. All of those techniques, ensembles, and whatever are simply limiting your music to a specific thing that has already been done. Your music will sound just like the musical traditions of the past you want to imitate.

"Now THAT is nonsense. You must specify some things, otherwise you cannot even create anything."

That is not true. Why must you always set all of these meaningless rules around music? All you must do is sit down with the instrument and just duplicate what is going on in your head. It is not difficult. Why must you spend a half of an hour going through a little method which means nothing? If everyone goes through this method like you do, you will sound no different from them. You are only copying each other. The composition is in the mind. That is all you need.

"Second, just because it's "unoriginal", it doesn't mean it's boring or unemotional. And you can't judge a piece by just listening to it for a few seconds."

You are right that unoriginal works can be emotional. But whose emotions are they? The original emotions are the ones that the true inventor has. Anyone who copies these emotions are only borrowing the original composer's emotions.

"Third, you say "influences are inevitable", yet you want to write "original" music which is like nothing that has ever been written before. That's a contradiction."

That is not a contradiction. Influences are different than imitations. Of course there will be some similaries because it is music like any other music. Originality never states that you cannot have influences. You will be effected by what is around you. The difference is when you deliberately limit yourself by what is around you.

"If this is your definition of "originality", then you will never find any music you can consider original, nor will ANYONE EVER write ANY original music."

Yes, that is my definition of originality, and I have not yet found any music that I would consider original. And yes, original music is capable of being written, but no one has apparently had the vision to produce it. The majority of what I have heard is very similar and not original.

If you don't mind me asking, (and it is not in anyway interrogating/demeaning your integrity of [your] composition!), but what books etc. have you read? We would just like to know where you are coming from, your background etc., so that we can understand more what you are saying. Also, as a few people have metioned, could you send us some of your music? MIDI files, JPEG if it is a scan of paperwork, or any other format you like. Don't worry about copyright -we are all trustworthy!

Thanks. My email address is dah@breathe.com

You know, Ash, what I really dislike is when you're debating with someone and he keeps changing his position. In fact, every time we prove you wrong, you change your opinion..... You said everybody was "trained to produce crap" and then when we prove you wrong you say "the past wasn't bad at all". Same with several other topics.

I don't get why you're posting these beliefs. In fact, as I've said many many times, you came on here expecting people who just do not exist. We are us, we compose original things, we can look to the future without your absurd theories.

Now you say "Imitation is choice", which is obviously against the post where you "disproved" Mozart's genius...Categorizations are lethal. Is this the 4th or 5th time you said this? But everything else you say directly contradicts it. You categorize the past, you categorize us.

For Pete's sake (and I'm Jewish!) since when did we give you the slightest idea that we sit down and say "I'm going to compose a classical/jazz/baroque piece?" *Before* you start pigeonholing me you might want to listen to some of my music. "Everyone does this". Apparently, not us. :-)

Deep and dynamic structure lacking in the music you hear: unoriginality everywhere, no emotion: man, are you deaf, or have you never heard: Mozart, Vivaldi, Beethoven, Pachalbel, Wagner, Strauss, Bach, the list goes on forever. Just sit down and listen to Bach's "Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring". It's from a style I'm quite inclined to label trite: but the music, oh the music, is so emotional, so heartfelt, and quite often so well played that I can't see that this is the music you are referring to in your quite unnaturally stubborn posts.

"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?" I think you're doing quite a bit more categorizing than the rest of us. Perhaps this is why you hate most if not all music - for where have you given us evidence that you like music at all? Seriously.

"In fact, there's a lot of pointless and boring music that desperately tries to be "original". " Yes! You said it better than I ever could.

All of these choices have already been done before? I would be very interested to hear this chair-and-table piece which X described..... :-) "All you must do is sit down with the instrument and just duplicate what is going on in your head". Listen, mister, you may be a genius and hear a full piece in your head, but the rest of us just make a melody and then develop it on the way... or everyone has their different way to compose, just like everyone has a different religion, etc. Don't impose yours on us, please. We'll compose the way we like.

I'd like to hear/feel these emotions no one's ever had before. It must be very interesting.

"There's no original music" is your basic philosophy. Any idiot, thru a little logic, can prove this is fallacy. Surely there is one or more "original" pieces everyone else copied off from? Guess what. This is Cro Magnon chant, which, while original, is surely not very interesting.

Quite honestly (I'm that sort of person) you strike me as being extremely over-idealistic. You want musicians who can't musick, composers who have never heard music before. You have some vague theories, some of which are very original but most of which are full of holes. You're trying to get us to join a movement that would destroy itself, and have attacked us with a series of preconceived ideas that I find quite frightening. I hope this isn't how all the world views us. You view all previous composers as nincompoops, and you (I think avante-gardely extremistly is a good adjective here) try to get us to compose "original" music. You haven't specified how we are to do this, or why we should join you instead of composing in our own ways, which (though you couldn't possibly know) are very original already. In fact you have b

ombarded us with a set of "ideals" and "philosophies" that I find quite meaningless. I already compose music, I already compose original music! I know I'm not a genius, I know others who were, and I know that you "haven't proved a damn thing" (Thank you, whoever said that!). I may be being a little harsh, but next time, don't "advertise" and not expect for the applicants not to test your theories around a little..

I'm sorry, but I'll compose my own way. I don't want to join any movement, and I'm pretty sure everyone else here wants to "compose their own way" as well.

Thank you anyway, however, for you have given us much food for thought about originality, the past, and the "Music" of the Future.

[This message was deleted]

Sorry, I posted it twice I was so wound up! hehe....

Ash, I wish I could hear what you hear in your head when you sit down to write a piece of music. That is, of course, if you even write it....(it seems too unoriginal to write music). How do you notate your music? By conventional means, or with elfish runes? I don't know who said it, but I am tired of modern thinkers putting down those who are just happy to compose the music of the past. If you think it's unoriginal and boring and monotonous, then feel free to not listen to it and compose a work that would bring all of us to our knees in humiliation.

Of course, I get the strong impression that you're some kid who hasn't taken a harmony lesson a day in his/her life and is just training to cover up the inadequacy that he/she is feeling. I've been there, and this is sort of how I sounded.

the proposition sort of thing as I see it:

1 I might write a piece and do something a certain way just to make sure it goes in a certain style or because this is the sort of thing a style has to have.

2 I might write a piece and do something a certain way because thats what my heart tells me.

although these ways are different 2 can still sound like the same sort of piece as 1

Is this what it is?

I am going to write a classical piece today... How do you like that you no talent gently caress?

Jeff, don't be insulting please. This is a debate....

I would like to hear your music, Ash. Who knows, we might all be wrong. Send (if it sinks to the level of unoriginality in which it can be sent in midi) to gnome1217@yahoo.com

PS. I haven't taken theory either, Chris! All right one day. That is how I learned about secondary dominants. I also have a book which taught me all about dominants, the regular kind, and triads, which is kinda dumb since I just experimented in my early compositions until I figured out that 1 3 and 5 sound nice together....... took me a while to learn about inversions and dominants though, as I said....

Ash, to an extent I agree with you. To an extent. I agree completely with the fact that when people sit and decide to write "a jazz piece" then it is rather limiting. I disagree with X that you have to lay down this amount of ground rules first. I think that it's far more positive to go out with the vision of writing some music- rather than any style. It's possible- even probable that you'll end up writing a violin concerto (I never have, and hopefully never will), but you may end up using a kitchen utensil in there, and that can't be a bad thing. If you had gone out with the intension of writing a Violin Concerto with such and such an orchestra, the utensil would never have been seen. If you had specifically gone out to write for that utensil, then it's possible it'll sound a little contrived. I hope you can all see where I'm coming from. I can't see any problems with people writing Classical, Baroque, Romantic, whatever music- as it makes them happy to do it. I do not think it is at all the future of music, and I think that in many ways it is for the progression of music "backwards"- BUT. They're having fun, you're having fun "innovating" ;o), where's the problem?

I do think you're wrong when you say there is no original music. You seem to have it in your mind that there are two parties- the ones writing neo-classical malarky and the other writing that boring worthlessly "original" music you mentioned. This is just plain false. I don't know how many fecking times I need to say it, but really. I will put good money on you never having heard (or heard of) Autechre's LP5, or Confield works. The Future Sound of London's LifeForms. Atari Teenage Riot. Aphex Twin. Current Value. Photek. Scanner. Each of the artists I have just listed hardly fit into a classification. They are in HMV (music store) as "Dance"- but it's only because it is innovative and isn't bubblegumpop, or rock. I would enjoy watching people dance to Autechre's Confield. V. amusing. You are dissatified with the state of current music, but you don't know everything that is there. I may be assuming, but I have a fear that you have already made your mind up about this music. If you drop me an email, I can sort something out so you can hear these peeps.

This is the quest that we're all on- to hear everything that's been written. Only once you have, then you can complain that there's nothing new. I remind you that we don't have that dissimilar views of music.

Hey man, I said I USED to be like that. I have independently taken numerous theory and harmony lessons/tets/exams.

I don't think I made myself clear when I said that you have to specify things before you start to write a piece. Composing is a process of making choices: am I going to write an E or a D, will I give this melody to the violin or the viola, am I going to use melody X or melody Y? Making certain choices is necessary even in the very first stage of the compositional process. Even before you start to write anything at all, you have to decide things, for instance: am I going to write it in traditional staff notation or in some kind of graphic notation? both kinds of notation have their limitations, so whatever you choose, your choice will always limit what you're doing to some extent, but that is not a bad thing at all. I think you have to limit yourself to some extent, cos you can't do all. Eventually, you you will be limited in a lot of things: you have to limit your writing to a certain instrumentation, you have to limit your writing to a certain amount of musical material, etc. What I'm trying to say is that you always make choices that will, to some extent, limit what you're doing and you make such choices even before you start to write anything at all. But some composers make more such choices than others. this is because all composers are different and all have different needs and different preferences. Now suppose there's a jazz pianist who really enjoys jazz but nothing else. he will probably feel the NEED to write a jazz piece, because that is what he wants to hear and that is what he hears in his head. at this moment he simply doesn't want to write anything else than a jazz piece, so he says: "I'm gonna write a jazz piece." Is he limiting himself by making this decision? Perhaps, but it's a very logical and rational decision. He wouldn't be able to create what he wants to create if he didn't limit himself to the jazz genre.

And of course it's silly to say that if you make choices that have been made before, your music will inevitably be unoriginal and very similar to other music. why do you think people make the same choices over and over again? Perhaps because they work? just an idea... so if I decide to write a symphony for orchestra, this will inevitably lead to unoriginal music, since people have written symphonies for orchestra before, right? oh man, give me a break...

"...just like the musical traditions of the past you want to imitate." Did I say I deliberately want to imitate traditions of the past? you like to jump to conclusions, don't ya?

"the majority of what I have heard is very similar and not original". Isn't it weird that you're the only one with this opinion? why do you think other people do think that a lot of music is interesting and original? is it because we are all too stupid to see that all music is very similar and unoriginal?

I've said too much again. As for the rest of your blah blah blah, mr page, instead of whining that no one has had the "vision to produce truly original music" why don't

i you

develop such a brilliant vision? And if you think you have already developed this vision, tell us in detail about its content: how can we compose "truly original" music and how does such music sound? Btw, who are your influences (except yourself) and do you play an instrument? like someone said earlier, we would all really like to know more about your background and we would all really like to hear your music.

I have decided that this theory defeats itself. If you don't want to use standard notation or any of that stuff then what kind of instruments would you use? By your theory you can't use instruments found in the symphony orchestra. Even computers wont fit your needs because computers are being used to create unorginal music. Your opinion that no original music is being created is wrong. Have you heard something of mine or Stefan's or humnab? Guess what... until we composed that piece of music it didnt exist. It is orginal. And I would like ask the question that I have asked before. Why do these progressive composers tell the rest of the world that they are always right. That their music is smart and orginal and everyone before them was wrong? Can they never be wrong because they are thinking differently? A problem I see in getting people to enjoy modern music is that they cant be made to feel like the music they enjoy listening to now, whether it be mozart or mahler, is wrong because it was composed in the past. People dont like being told their opinions are wrong. I think I would have discovered some of the music I listen to now earlier if others like Jared Montague werent telling me that my tastes were wrong and that the music I enjoy is below them. You want to gain support for you music then you have to be open to other peoples.

I too would like to hear your music. The more I read, the more interested I become in your "background" as someone said it earlier. I have a few questions, some of which other people have also asked.

1: Do you play an instrument (which I personally feel is necessary for a composer) and if yes, what instrument(s)?

2: What kind of music do you play on your instrument? Do you just play your own music, since all other music bores you and if yes, how did you learn to play, cos the only way I know of learning to play is by playing music, and you have to learn to play music before you can write it.

3: Do you listen to any music that is in your mind original, and if so, what is it?

4: Have you composed anything yet and if so, could you please send it to us?

5: Have you ever listened to some complete pieces of music instead of giving uo after a few seconds because of its monotony, as with all due respect you can't seriously claim that a prelude from Bach's Well Tempered Klavier sounds like a Shostakovich prelude or a Scheonberg piano piece, which is written in a similar form.

Don't feel obliged to answer these questions, but I feel it will clear up alot of things in all of our minds if you did.

Thank you.

Good questions, however I can answer one in advance...

"3: Do you listen to any music that is in your mind original, and if so, what is it?"

Original music doesn't exist, does it? It has been written :)

At last an interesting thread on this board again. It's good to have people like Ash Page to keep this discussion board alive. I think it was brave to start a discussion such as this one. I agree with Ash that modern music is not what it used to be. Nowadays most composers are looking back at the past, but they don't look forward. People make use of older styles and techniques again, tonality is coming back again, but instead of integrating old and new styles so that a new, innovative style can be created, we are only reusing the old styles without integrating the new styles. Just listen to Arvo P

I have a very relavent Lenin quote to throw in to this discussion regarding the direction of art in Russia after the 1914 revolutions:

'We must preserve the beautiful, take it as a starting point, even if it is "old"....why must we bow low in front of the new, as if it were God, only because it is "new"?????????????

I feel it is true of any "revolution" or really change in style/outlook in art.

And also, I don't like the phrase "post-modernistic crap" Jared. I propose for a different movement in Music: the Free Art Movement. We are free to express ourselves in any way we choose, be it the old "unorginal" "crap" or the "new" as they are all relavant and equally important and worthy IF they are expressing something or IF they have a reason for being except for the sake of simply trying to be "new" and "original".

"modern music is not what it used to be". That's one point in question on this thread, although a slightly different slant. Modern Music, say, 50 years ago -Shostakovich, for instance, was the 'cutting edge' of modern music. Nowadays, it is not modern, because times change. It is the past. However, that is where we are divided. It is now, as it seems, two against the rest of us!

"People make use of older styles and techniques again, tonality is coming back again, ....., we are only reusing the old styles without integrating the new styles" Sweeping generalsations AGAIN!!!!! Note the WE. I, for one, am not.

"When I heard it I thought: This could have been written 80 years ago! ! I do NOT agree with Ash's statement that the majority of all music is unoriginal and uninteresting." So, what is wrong with it if it isn't un-interesting?

Mitya, if I may be on such terms with you(!), 14 marks out of 10 for that quote :-)

"post-modernistic crap" is often used by people to identify composers such as Part, but as Jared used Part as an example of good music, I smell a contradiction lurking somewhere in message #43.

I appreciate your comments, questions, and refutations:

Firstly, I would like to address a message that wondered about my musical situation. My main instrument is guitar (electric preferably). I also play drums, bass, and keyboards not as frequently. I have enjoyed using keyboards recently to develop some ideas. I took guitar lessons since I was thirteen, and then I quit earlier this year since I was not benefiting very much from them. Right now, I find the guitar quite useless to be honest with you. Yes, of course, I would go one practicing constantly until I die, and I will still have not "mastered" even simple techniques. I have realized that physical ability is futile while ideas and concepts are eternal. Usually when I play guitar, I practice standard scales and arpeggios to work on some quality or some speed or something different. At one point in the past, I knew it all, and I became uninterested. I started to look deeper. I began writing out uncommon chords and scales to learn about their relationships and memorize them for guitar. After a while, I forgot all of those patterns both arpeggios and scales. For a while I had hundreds of these positions memorized, but then I did not need them anymore. I realized that I was doing nothing new, and I needed to look deeper. I ended up beginning a life-time project. The first step I finished a short time ago; that step took at least three months or so. This next step, I have calculated, will take years. Further steps will take longer because complexities increase. This project is for the future, and I hope that I can find someone reliable to pass it down to after I finish what I can with it.

I have created several things, and I have ideas in my head about what I want to create. I have never created fully what I have visualized. I have only become closer at times. It is all by chance though. The guides are poor too. The key system is limited. No one knows why something works and why something else does not. This is why I have found little music which has any magnetism to it. The only composer that I have found who has captured what I have visualized the closest is Jimmy Page from Led Zeppelin. There are many of Zeppelin's works that I do not like. But a few of them possessed something that I have seen no where. Even Plant said it himself that Led Zeppelin cannot be categorized into anything else, it is a category of its own. He knew exactly what I knew beforehand. And anyone who truly listens to some of their pieces like, "Stairway to Heaven," and "Kasmir" for instance, will understand what they were trying to capture. It is the essence of an idea, a feeling at a specific time. I never said that they found what I am looking for perfectly, there are several flaws in those above two works. Despite flaws or imitations, they were as close as I have found to original. Originality is power and diversity. It is something that is magical and special. People will say that Led Zeppelin is heavy metal. It is not. It is in a place all of its own, a diverse place with many different influences and a collage of inspiration. Most people look at Page and see nothing but a 60's guitar drug addict, but he is more than that. His quotations are very similar to my own, and I can see that my attraction to Led Zeppelin was no coincidence. I believe that no one before or since them has captured what they were close to. Even Page's or Plant's solo careers did not capture it. It was, it seems, a fluke or something of chance. Anyways, that is what I admire and look up to. I am not trying to attack any of you at all. I was only defensive since there were many skeptics that replied after I posted my first message. My first message was not designed at all to insult any of you. I simply wanted to find anyone at all I could possibly relate with. I also do not have any method that I want any of you to go by. I do not at all want people to imitate or copy m

I simply wanted to find anyone at all I could possibly relate with. I also do not have any method that I want any of you to go by. I do not at all want people to imitate or copy me. I only, at least, want others to learn from me and learn what their potential is. There are so many possibilities which are left undiscovered. I have not yet succeeded in what I wish to do. This is mainly due to the fact that I have found no one like myself who wishes to create out of his mind. I agree that decisions have to be made such as the instruments and things like that, but everywhere I have gone all the musicians label their music as being this exact thing. For me, that is horrible. Why have in mind the fact that you are going to do this or do that from some tradition? I am looking for musicians who only have ideas that are pure, ideas with which they want to create amazing musical entities. I will realize who they are when I see them. I already know what I am looking for. I just have not found it. I do not know if I ever will. I am over idealistic. I search for what is rare, and I will not be content with something that is confined or predictable in my mind. I want something strong, captivating, hypnotic, powerful, diverse, unique, clear, and essential. If anyone here cannot yet see that Zeppelin was close to these, they must look deeper to see some of their power. There are flaws; it is not perfection. It is as close as I have seen anyone get to what I wish to find. I have not done it fully either. I have come close.

Thank you,

sincerely

PageWizard