Imho it always have been both 1) ingenius ideas of the musical moment (which are always Ideas of what might sound just in the way the composers wants to express) and 2) any kind of relation/context which is likly to unfold something like an in any way plausible reasonable sequence/ development of the musical ideas in time. Our tradition has had in the last 1000 years very different answers how to achieve both. The difference between meaningles "bad Freedom" (anything goes but means nothing at all) and good music is in my humble opinion the simple fact that good musicians are able to imaginge convincing soundideas and convincing musical context in which they make sense as part of the whole. And ths is simply the fact that they are able to think in music no matter which kind of musical language, they choose and which kind of musical syntax they develop.

And yes Boulez and his in parts very high determined musical order is nothing for those who do not feel invited to explore the musical syntax he unfolds but that does not mean, that his music is "meaningless". And yes already contemporaries of Boulez achieved (at least at the first glance) very similar sounding results with the complete contrary approach of denying nearly every kind of structural order and if they still have had anything to comunicate they hav found their audience and have been able to convince them.

But deniying Structure and restricition in the conception of the music does not mean that it has no concept at all, it has had its reason in relation to other being the counterpart of more or less limited traditional music. So even what Cecil Taylor or Ornet Coleman etc. have done relate to music and make (perhaps only) sens in this relation.

If you ask now "where is music going". I would think the dispute between concepts of tonal and atonal music is much less interesting than the question what exactly we are trying to comunicate today.

My answer would be "very simple": just do what ever might make music reasonable and meaningful today and of course feel free to do so. No one will be offended if a good piece of music is tonal or atonal today as long as it is good 😃.

I absolutely agree Fahl. The amount of control the composer has over his material, irrespective of the language will surely be the measure of how inevitable the music will feel.

I should perhaps say that I am a fan of Boulez, but you got me thinking and I hope this is relevant to the OP. Becuase the syntax of modern music is open to such aping even by people who are not really trained as such, what does that say about how we listen to and write  music?  Does it matter if the piece we are investing time in is sincere or not? (I am talking about modern concert music). Is there an in-built response to sound that will naturally invest or even invent meaning whilst listening? Do we even need a composer if there is inherent meaning in combinations of notes? OK, probably gone off the beaten track....

"So what are you looking for?

You dont want to have Freedom in music?

OK and who should do the job of the musiical-police who puts in Jail all who do not follow the strict musical law?"

- fahl

Are you a composer?  You put a lot of stuff up that is other composer's work, but I never heard anything you did.  I was talking about something an actual composer deals with.   That total freedom can lead to paralysis and meaninglessness.   Also I was obviously talking about the past being less free than now,  not trying to "police" people.   That is an insulting suggestion. 

I am through with this kind of conversation.  It is really worthless and irritating.    

Allow me some reflections and thoughts:

• All music is noise. All noise is music (?)
• Music is communication (it conveys emotion, ambience, content...).
• Music has to contain four elements: melody (or whatever thematic material), rhythm, structure, harmony (how free this may be).
• Music is the result of an honest intellectual process, even if it is pure improvisation.
• The essence of all music is the ear of the listener.
• Music is the most free expression of the most individual emotion (as all forms of art are).
• Music is everywhere. Discovering it is an everlasting challenge.
• Animals don't produce music, we make their sounds music (and often try to imitate them in a musical way).
• Instruments have been designed to produce music, not just (un)controled noises.
• Musical compositions (and other forms of art) need an audience (to enjoy, judge, (dis)approve...) Without it its pointless.

...

These are not my personal thoughts and reflections and I'm not convinced of their correctness either, but they somehow show the way people look at the art we call music. And art it is, as long as we consider it thus.

One small consideration of mine: many former experimental styles and forms have disappeared a long time ago (serial music, dodecaphony...), probably because of the lack of public interest, which raises the question of the place/power of the audience in the whole process. A couple of the above statements refer to it. Communication always works in two directions...

Jos

Hi William

Sorry I did not intend to insult you in any way. It was simply question about the opposite of Freedom I would like to bring up with that words.

Am I a composer? As much as I am interested. Of course You can find very few things I''ve done on my site (for instance a littie stringquartett on all musical letters of my name or a short Jazz-Ensemblepiece I've done for Fable Sounds Broadway Bigband some years ago) which both are perhaps not so bad examples for what I said is my conception of responsible use of the compositional freedom in establishing each on its own internal musical relations and logic. You will see that the most music I composed have been mostly experiments to explore digital musicmaking and its instruments. What actually is often still a reason for me to produce recordings of classical standard repertoire with digital means, since this field (classical repertoire produces seriously with the latest digital means) seems to me still widly unexplored.

But since (perhaps being very european or even very "deutsch") I do feel a strong commitment to our long and rich musical tradition which in my eyes still sets the best benchmark for what is good music I am currently simply not that much interested in composing, since in my eyes there is very much other already composed music which seem to me worth to discover and to make it audible with the digital means of our time, yes that is beside the exploration of digital musicmaking currently an important part of my personal answer for the question what music might be worth to listen and working with it reasonable and meaningful.

And it is a musical as rich as demanding challenge to do so. Sure I will compose as soon I do have the impression it would make in any way sense and I just will not, as long other things seem to me more important to do.

However it seem to my a pitty that while being upset about the policewording you seem to ignore completely everything else I have said about my understanding of Freedom and the musical resaonable way to make use of it. You are right this kind of ignorance is not what I expect of being a constructive part in a discussion.

So just try to read more than the first lines of my posting and I am sure we are able to discuss more substantial.

Very interesting that you mention the influence of an audience Jos.

The late Jonathan Harvey touched on this in his book Music and Inspiration, which I would highly recommend. He talks about having an audience in mind whilst actually composing. This is not in the practical sense, you know, like how many players have I got, line-up, what does the client like/want etc. - although that last scenario is probably valid too -  but is instead a deeper awareness of the role and influence an idealised audience can have on the creative process. If music is indeed a communication, he says, then the person(s) taking part in this act apart from the composer, will bear decisively on the choices made. Perhaps some of us recognise that within ourselves.

The term audience can also be much more subtle than a group of people sitting in a concert hall and could mean anything from a single person (one whom you perhaps admire and/ or respect),  to a worldwide broadcast concert, or from a fictional character or a deceased love through to a virtuoso player....oh and of course a paying client.

In an attempt to get to the OP's question from here, perhaps musics' future direction will be decided by how much composers want to re-establish or strengthen communication with the broader populous given the developments in the 20thC. There will always be the mavericks, individuals and  geniuses who are needed to keep the art alive and show the way, but it does seem to me that a compromise or a curtailing of artistic freedom is necessary for lesser mortals these days, especially if they want to their music to be understood and appreciated.

@mh-7635 said:

"But beyond that its hard to see how classical music evolved to where it is now. Not even today, but even going back to 1913 music changed so much...when Charles Ives' finished his fourth of July "

 

hi Anand,

One thing not mentioned in the evolution of concert music that has led to its demise is rhythm. The famous 'emancipation of notes' was inevitably follwed by the emancipation of the beat - a paradigm first exemplified in works like the Rite of Spring.  I agree with John Adams when he says that pulse is a great unifier in music. It is something for a listener to hang their hat on as they perhaps listen to an unfamiliar harmonic language and it undoubtedly helps them steer an aural  course through a piece.

The development of rhythm beyond regular pulse is I believe, one of the strong alienating factors in modern classical concert music - and yet - it is also one of the most exciting to me as a composer. The freedom to explore the linearity of time subjectively and without a need for a functional metrical role  is a heady mix as I see it, even though in my own work  I do not exploit it as much as I might imply here.

Rhythm is the one aspect in music that is deeply connected to the body, the physical world, and to time.  Rhythm has its roots in dance and movement.  It is possible to intellectualize harmony and melody, as common-practice theory, serialism and set-theory has done, but I don't believe it's possible in regard to rhythm.  Stravinsky understood this, which is why he could write ballets.  Other composers, such as Boulez and Babbit do not understand this.

The 20th century has given us a rich pallet of resources from which to draw upon.   Composers such as Barber, Nielsen, Britten, Copland, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofieff and Mahler, to my mind, found the right balance between tradition and innovation.  Pure innovation utterly disconnected from tradition usually does not produce worthy music, and music that is so utterly tied to tradition, other than folk music, is usually not much more than blatant plagiarism.   I think music that expresses absolutely nothing about the time and place in which the composer is living is insincere music.  I am not saying the composer is an insincere person, I am saying the music is insincere because it could have been written, say, 200 years earlier and nobody would notice.  Obviously I am not speaking of film music, which is an entirely different matter.

In my music, I attempt to write music that is sophisticated and challenging, but also accessible and listenable.  There's a comment made by a musician about Mozart's music that went something like, "Mozart's music is so simple a child can delight in it and so profound and subtle that the most learned musician can appreciate it".  I cannot think of a higher ideal to strive for.  The trick is to do it honestly, in other words, the music should have three levels of expression, not necessarily in this order, but a blend of these three components:

1.  The time and place the composer is living

2.  The unique personality of the composer

3.  The underlying reality of harmony and order that governs the cosmos  (Good taste?) 

Where music is going?  Unless we embrace an entirely new tuning system and adopt scales that utlize 1/4 tones and smaller, I don't think music will change all that much.   It will change, and certainly new timbres will always be coming on the scene, but since we humans, meaning our brains and our hearing capabilities, do not change from one generation to another, but only through evolutionary and biologic changes that take 10s or 100s of thousands of years, the real changes will be in whether human consciousness can become more sensitive to all the various musical elements we already employ.

One of the evolutions occuring since the end of the common-practice period (around 1900) has been the increasing use, both melodically and harmonically, of 12 tones rather than 7.  I don't mean necessarily dodecaphonic, but rather the usage of all 12 tones of the western chromatic scale, which is more complex (and harder to hear and sing) than diatonic melodies.   I think this trend will probably continue.

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

The 3rd level of expression sounds very Platonic - is that what you meant?

Spot on, especially about Britten in particular steering a course between the antagonistic polarities of modern language. His desire was to communicate and be of use to society as was evidenced in his Aspen award speech - it is a sentiment that resonates with you and me both.

@mh-7635 said:

Hi Jerry,

The 3rd level of expression sounds very Platonic - is that what you meant?

Spot on, especially about Britten in particular steering a course between the antagonistic polarities of modern language. His desire was to communicate and be of use to society as was evidenced in his Aspen award speech - it is a sentiment that resonates with you and me both.

Hello Mike! 

Glad you asked, it helps me to clarify what I meant.  I think music, like much on earth, is a microcosm of pattern and order on multiple levels.  For example, a spiral is a pattern common to both a seashell and a galaxy.  I believe the universe is governed by many laws, a few of those we know about (gravity, electromagnatism, thermodynamics, etc.). My sense is that there are many laws we know nothing about that govern how reality works.  Perhaps musical harmony is one of those things, that which is harmonious to the mind is also expressing a harmony on levels beyond our consciousness.   Yes, I suppose some would call me Platonic, as I believe that the truth we can discern through mind, the beauty we can perceive with our senses and the rightousness we know through our emotional and moral intelligence are emanations of the same ultimate energy.  Truth, beauty and goodness are somehow connected.  I don't fully understand this of course, but until evidence proves me wrong I'll keep believing it.  I think the universe itself is inherently musical, as vibration is at the core of pretty much everything, from subatomic particles to our bodies, to electrical and acoustic energy and of course music. 

Jerry

Music of course has physical laws and depends on them (vibrations). But there's much more...

A simple statement, a semantic etymological truth: muse, music, musical, amuse(ment)... All tied together in meaning. But as I read the current topic, I somehow have the impressing that the basic entry 'muse' (or source of inspiration) has ondergone a total twist during the last 150 years. Nothing abnormal or strange, just an observation. Maybe it has already been mentioned, but during all the centuries of musical evolution the aim was (not speaking about styles or fashion) to improve the musical performance in composition and instrumental (orchestral) rendition. Now I sometimes have the impression that we are returning to a kind of decomposing/decomposition and exploration of new (and by definition strange) sensations such as e.g. a whole asenal of violin sounds that are not inherent to (traditional) violin playing which may sound in the ears of many like some sort of 'abuse' of the instrument. More or less like the destruction on stage of electric guitares during a metal concert.

Of course discovering new possibilities is a good evolution, as long as the goal is more than just experiment for experiment's sake. (An impression that many listeners have...) We could call this phenomenon alienation (from the composer's side to his apossible audience). I suppose that's what Jerry explained. Intellectual challenge calls for emotional adaption. That would be a lot easier when beauty (depending on time, place, personality) is experienced.

Jos

@Jos Wylin said:

Music of course has physical laws and depends on them (vibrations). But there's much more...

A simple statement, a semantic etymological truth: muse, music, musical, amuse(ment)... All tied together in meaning. But as I read the current topic, I somehow have the impressing that the basic entry 'muse' (or source of inspiration) has ondergone a total twist during the last 150 years. Nothing abnormal or strange, just an observation. Maybe it has already been mentioned, but during all the centuries of musical evolution the aim was (not speaking about styles or fashion) to improve the musical performance in composition and instrumental (orchestral) rendition. Now I sometimes have the impression that we are returning to a kind of decomposing/decomposition and exploration of new (and by definition strange) sensations such as e.g. a whole asenal of violin sounds that are not inherent to (traditional) violin playing which may sound in the ears of many like some sort of 'abuse' of the instrument. More or less like the destruction on stage of electric guitares during a metal concert.

Of course discovering new possibilities is a good evolution, as long as the goal is more than just experiment for experiment's sake. (An impression that many listeners have...) We could call this phenomenon alienation (from the composer's side to his apossible audience). I suppose that's what Jerry explained. Intellectual challenge calls for emotional adaption. That would be a lot easier when beauty (depending on time, place, personality) is experienced.

Jos

Of course there is much more to music than laws governing vibration, I would think that goes without saying.  It is the love of music that sustains and nourishes musicians as much as music itself.   Almost every generation believes that music is getting worse and worse, nothing new there.  It's best to try not to write or speak in too much generality, the intellectual/moral/spiritual/artistic/social development of human civilization and individual people is always on many levels at once. Though we are all human and share much, very much, in common, there are also vast differences in the quality of thinking, ideals, values, living habits, ways of perceiving reality and the world, etc. that makes large sweeping generalities not too useful.  I do it too, we all do it, and sometimes generalities are useful because sometimes, something can be generally true.  But I really think in 200 years from now, when we are all dead and gone, there will be new composers, some will be writing fantastic music and many who will be writing crap and other nonsense, and everything in between crappy and great.  Just like today, yesterday and the day before.

Comparing the destruction of an electric guitar as part of a performance to using an musical instrument to make sound in ways that it was not intended for, i.e. playing the piano from the inside rather than striking the keys doesn't strike me as meaningful.  The former is a childish act of rage, frustration and attention-craving spectacle, the latter is genuine musical experimentation. What is interesting is that just around the time when composers were experimenting with acoustic instruments and seeking new ways to make sounds out of violins, pianos, flutes, etc, along comes the synthesizer, then digital synths, then sample libraries and soft synths.   Our timbral resources have expanded exponentially, which is a good thing to my mind. 

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

I didn't want to compair destructive behaviour with 'unusal' playing of classical instruments. It was only an example of aberrant behaviour. Moreover, these musicians or whatever they call themselves do not act with rage or frustration, but it's more part of the shocking act (they do it every time again - they obviously earn too much money...).

A second phrasing is rather out of context as well: folk music, is usually not much more than blatant plagiarism.

I don't agree with that statement at all. So many great composers have used (and inspired) folk music during all the centuries of music history. (To name a few: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Liszt, Kodaly, Bartock...). They also nourished the people's fantasy with their own sticky tunes (Mozart's opera melodies, but also Aubert's en many other's lived on for a long time in the streets with the poor people who couldn't even afford an entrance ticket.) I guess you mean another genre of folk music, the commercial sort that has no soul at all.

Further, I do agree with you on the use of more contemporary instruments in combination with traditional ones. They can complete each other and enrich the sonic orchestral world. The use of prepared pianos and the-likes don't do any harm to the instrument. But sawing a double bass in two is another matter, or playing the clarinet with a reed that must sqeak as much as possible over a hardly audible resonating open concert piano is not my taste. Using the bass bow on a vibraphone on the other hand was a smart addition to the existing possibilities.

What I actually wanted to say is this: sonic experiments are as such a very good idea, but they belong in a 'sound laboratory', in the composer's studio, not in the concert hall. Effects that work well and that have proven to be a welcome extension to the present day instrumental sounds must have their place in an auditorium. I've attended so many concerts with hardly any audience lately where experimental music was executed. As I said earlier, people want to have a pleasant evening, they don't want to be irritated and have to pay for it.

To close this topic, I like to add this: Where is music going? Where has music gone to? Good composers like yourself are prudent and wise enough to find a decent way to please the needs of the audience and yet to take the next step towards the evolving sonic world without disturbing the average concert visitor.

Jos

@Jos Wylin said:

Hi Jerry,

I didn't want to compair destructive behaviour with 'unusal' playing of classical instruments. It was only an example of aberrant behaviour. Moreover, these musicians or whatever they call themselves do not act with rage or frustration, but it's more part of the shocking act (they do it every time again - they obviously earn too much money...).

A second phrasing is rather out of context as well: folk music, is usually not much more than blatant plagiarism.

I don't agree with that statement at all. So many great composers have used (and inspired) folk music during all the centuries of music history. (To name a few: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Liszt, Kodaly, Bartock...). They also nourished the people's fantasy with their own sticky tunes (Mozart's opera melodies, but also Aubert's en many other's lived on for a long time in the streets with the poor people who couldn't even afford an entrance ticket.) I guess you mean another genre of folk music, the commercial sort that has no soul at all.

Further, I do agree with you on the use of more contemporary instruments in combination with traditional ones. They can complete each other and enrich the sonic orchestral world. The use of prepared pianos and the-likes don't do any harm to the instrument. But sawing a double bass in two is another matter, or playing the clarinet with a reed that must sqeak as much as possible over a hardly audible resonating open concert piano is not my taste. Using the bass bow on a vibraphone on the other hand was a smart addition to the existing possibilities.

What I actually wanted to say is this: sonic experiments are as such a very good idea, but they belong in a 'sound laboratory', in the composer's studio, not in the concert hall. Effects that work well and that have proven to be a welcome extension to the present day instrumental sounds must have their place in an auditorium. I've attended so many concerts with hardly any audience lately where experimental music was executed. As I said earlier, people want to have a pleasant evening, they don't want to be irritated and have to pay for it.

To close this topic, I like to add this: Where is music going? Where has music gone to? Good composers like yourself are prudent and wise enough to find a decent way to pliease the needs of the audience and yet to take the next step towards the evolving sonic world without disturbing the average concert visitor.

Jos

If you're going to quote someone (this time, me) be sure to include the entire quote in context, here is what I actually wrote: 

Pure innovation utterly disconnected from tradition usually does not produce worthy music, and music that is so utterly tied to tradition, other than folk music, is usually not much more than blatant plagiarism.

Your argument about composers taking folk tunes and making variations on them is NOT what I was writing about.  When composers do this, they generally 1) use tunes that are indigenous to their own time and place, i.e. Mozart drew upon Austrian folk hymns, Stravinsky, Russian folk tunes, Bartok, Hungarian folk music and Copland, Appalachian folk tunes, and 2) create music that is in the style of music of their own time and place, albeit more sophisticated and complex than the original folk music. 

That's not what I am saying is plagiarism, not at all.  Plagiarism in music is more about inauthenticity, it's about writing a piece of music that is not an expression of the composer's own personality and not an expression of the time and place in which the composer lives and works.  This does NOT include film music which, by it's nature, often requires music from another time or place.

If I write a piece of music that down to the last detail, sounds like it could have been written 300 years ago, and it's not for film, or TV, that is plagiarism and inauthentic, no matter how well it is done.

It's not about quoting another work, that is not plagiarism.  It's not about using pre-existing melodies, that is not plagiarism either, although it can sometimes get the composer sued in a court of law for copyright infringment as the law might consider it plagiarism although artistically it may not be.

Most composers find meaning and pleasure out of writing music that has at least some degree of originality in it, the composer is employing creative expression because that composer has something to say in music.  The plagiarist does not operate this way - there is craft, but no art, the plagiarist has nothing to say.  There is detail, but no sense of time or place, other than the personality and time and place of the composer whose work is being plagiarized. 

Luckily, most composers are not interested in plagiarizing as it provides no creative satisfaction or meaning so they don't do it.  Every one of us is a unique individual, non-duplicatable throughout the entire cosmos and, each one of us is influenced by, and reacting to, the culture and time in which we live.  Music should reflect that reality, no matter the style or genre.  If it cannot do that, it is plagiarism. 

Jerry

www.jerrygerber.com

The statement about folk music being mere copying is utterly wrong.  Folkmusic, as every composer knows, is a treasure trove of vast value.  Vaughn Williams who was the greatest symphonist of the 20th century spent a huge amount of time transcribing folk tunes.  So many composers who are the real innovators were deeply inspired by folk music and spent years studying it.  In fact I would go farther - the greatest music of all is the great folk tunes.  Just try to write a melody like Greensleeves, or Shenandoah, or Lowlands.  

Secondly, that is very irritating to dismiss Pierre Boulez.  I don't believe anyone here is his superior to casually dismiss his work. 

@William said:

Music is now in a state of fragmentation.  Anything, including pure noise, is considered as meaningful as anything else.  Now, any sound is potentially music.  So total freedom has been achieved. But the problem with total freedom is chaos.  If everything is meaningful, the state of "nothing means anything" can also exist.

William, please forgive me for editing your post. I did so in admiration, because I think your comments express my feeling on this matter exactly. If intelligent people can no longer discern good from bad, then a child hitting random keys on a toy piano is just as worthy of merit as a Mozart concerto. . . .  Except . . . that is obviously a false statment. Therefor the idea that all musical art is worthy is false. And that is why new classical music sends audience running for the exits. Perhaps audiences are wiser in discerning artistic merit than academics would credit. 

Here is an orginal quote by myself that I believe is worthy of consideration; "We stand on the shoulders of giants, and if we leap off, we will not fly, but vainly crash to earth."

I agree with that, it can easily happen.  

One other thing - the statement previously made by jsb - that music using past styles is hopelessly repeating the past.  I absolutely detest this attitude, because I have encountered it in many situations.  By this reckoning, Wayne Peppercorn is hopelessly repeating past styles?  I don't think so !  His music is wonderful and shows that pure classical style can still be used to create new and valuable music today.  Likewise, I have always thought that any style of the past - even medieval plainchant - could be used today: with the slightest change, perhaps nothing more than instrumentation - it becomes modern.  Even its mere appearance today involves a certain historical and ironic perspective which changes its significance profoundly from mere repetition. The idea that only the most radical atonalism is valid is something that is taught at universities, and is ridiculous.  Schoenberg himself stated : there are plenty more compositions to written the key of C major.  At the same time, many modernist composers - Ligeti, Varese, Penderecki, Messeain etc. - are among the greatest, so I would never make  a statement against modernism in general.  It is the negative rejection of whole bodies of work that is truly disturbing.

So many Interesting posts that it will take me a while to digest.

But as for the recent discussion regarding classical vs modernism and plagiarism etc., I am trying to understand where Jerry is coming from. Afterall isnt all music plagiarism in somse sense (Didnt Stravinsky say I dont copy but steal)? The cleverness lies in how well the composer hides it.

Does one have invent new styles to be a legitimate composer? That way wouldnt the great Mahler be a plagiarist? No every composer has the ability or is born at the right place and time to take music into entirely new directions.

I am sure Jerry knows all this that but I am just trying to understand his point.

This discussion for me is not really about philosophy but the practical question of how the technical aspects of classical music evolved to where it is now, and this is simply astounding to me. There is a structure and framework I understand up until even Prokofiev, and that it is built on form, harmony, counterpoint and orchestral color. Being an engineer and scientist, this appeals to me so much since here is a beautiful, almost logical framework upon which generations of music developed over 400 years from Bach to Boulez and Messiaen. What I enjoy is known that there is a craft behind this that is so well structured starting from Johannes Fux's gradus parnassum. They all seem to be speaking the same language to me...which makes sense from the fact that compoers like Boulez or Salonen know classical music better than most of us. Their level of musicianship is something to strive for. But how do I understand Boulez? I am SURE there is structure and deep meaning behind their works.

To keep this closer to sound than philosophy Id like to share one of my favorite pieces that truly reflects that being an avant garde/revolutionary composer doesnt mean one has to forget the past:

Ives Symphony NO 2

I just love how it starts (once you get through Hans Zimmer "master class" ad!!!) like a piece by Brahms and ends up in a completely different place....just listen to how it ends...just crazy!! This truly captures everything in music till then and has rigorous foundations on the craft. I like the idea that one should be able to demonstrate flexibility in composing in every classical genre before qualifying as a modern composer (and I am sure every famous modern composer like Boulez or Penderecki knew more rules than I can learn in a lifetime). You cant break rules without learning them. Rules need to be learnt so we can break them and create structure. That way I would say Wayne Peppercorn is much better prepared than I am for modern music;)

Sorry for rambling...I need to stop here and continue later.

Anand

Just give me as "old european traditionalist" another try to make it short:

Music always works based on the principle of repetition and alteration.Each note anyone composes/produces/improvses get its individual "meaning"only in relation to those we have heard before.

Imho, good music can not be anything else than a convincing answer to the already existing music.Being part of this deep stream of cultural communication To find a good answer is never "easy".

But since it is never more or less than what we understand/think/believe/want it can not and must not be in any way an ultimative/ perfect answer. It is good, as far it is really given honest. 

@William said:

The statement about folk music being mere copying is utterly wrong.  Folkmusic, as every composer knows, is a treasure trove of vast value.  Vaughn Williams who was the greatest symphonist of the 20th century spent a huge amount of time transcribing folk tunes.  So many composers who are the real innovators were deeply inspired by folk music and spent years studying it.  In fact I would go farther - the greatest music of all is the great folk tunes.  Just try to write a melody like Greensleeves, or Shenandoah, or Lowlands.  

Secondly, that is very irritating to dismiss Pierre Boulez.  I don't believe anyone here is his superior to casually dismiss his work. 

William, there's a reason why you habitually and so easily feel insulted, irritated and outraged by others on this forum, you're like a rebel without a cause.  You take my words and you twist them around to create an argument that doesn't exist except in your own mind.  I did not write or imply that "folk music is mere copying".  Try to detach yourself from your chronic outrage and anger.  It might improve your reading comprehension.

I like the idea that one should be able to demonstrate flexibility in composing in every classical genre before qualifying as a modern composer ............You cant break rules without learning them. Rules need to be learnt so we can break them and create structure.

Hi Anand,

I tend to agree with this. Any young composer reading this thread might want to consider what putting themselves through a rigorous technical training will do for them. Well I can tell you with certainty that it will help you find your voice and the more you learn, the more discerning you will be in defining said voice and the more powerful your expression will be. I say this as it was for me, obviously we are all different, but if self expression is your goal, learning comes highly recommended. Even if film scoring is your goal, learn what you can as it'll be to your advantage in so many ways.

I am more inclined to listen to atonality when I know the composer has technical prowess for the reasons stated above. Incredibly though, when I was studying at a well known institution, I met fellow student composers who did not know how to write fugues or even textbook counterpoint. Or had no real concept of competent 4 part harmonic writing, let alone any extended harmony. These very same composers where writing atonaly and being encouraged to do so.  It seems as though the paradigm in institutions was (and perhaps still is) to encourage free thinking and divorce from common practice. I can understand this from a creative and contemporary perspective, but without technique, without some sort of practiced instinct from rigour, especially an instinct that gives you a footing on how music works as a language,  a lesser expression is inevitable - unless of course there is genius!

The rejoinder here might be  that rigour can be practised in dodecaphony and other contemporary procedures without prior knowledge of common practice, to which I might cede a point. However, right there will be the difference in aesthetic between me and others because I know that an intimate knowledge of the past has helped me create in ever expanding fields of sound with confidence.